By Dan McCue

CHARLESTON -- A state administrative law judge late Wednesday dismissed the S.C. Coastal Conservation League's challenges of state permits for the new port access road and marine cargo container terminal at the former Charleston Naval Base.

The favorable ruling means construction can begin on what will eventually be a three-berth terminal on the 280-acre site as soon as prep work is done and contracts are let.

Since the challenge of the permits was filed last spring, the only work on the site has been the kind that doesn't require a state or federal permit to undertake. A major building and structure demolition contract was awarded last month and sites to test consolidation were developed earlier this May.

"We're pleased that this has finally been resolved," said Bernard S. Groseclose Jr., S.C. State Ports Authority president and CEO. "Every state and federal permitting agency has signed off on the plan, recognizing that this project benefits our neighbors, the environment and the economy."

But Nancy Vinson, program director for the Coastal Conservation League is still angry. She said Wednesday the league is going to appeal the decision to the S.C. Court of Appeals.

"The SPA's attempt to shut us out of the state appeal makes an appeal of the federal permit, even more important," Vinson said.

According to Vinson, the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control issued its water quality permits for the terminal and road only after the deadline for appeal of those permits had passed.

That, she said, immediately opened the appeals up to questions about their timeliness from the SCSPA.

Despite that assertion by the SCSPA, the DHEC board did agree to hear the matter, although it ultimately upheld the staff decisions to issue the permits.

The Coastal Conservation League then filed contested cases with the Administrative Law Court, where the SCSPA again argued the league did not follow the law and filed its request for final review outside of the time period designated by the state code.

In his orders on the two cases, Judge John D. Geathers ruled in favor of the SPA's motion to dismiss based on the fact that the Coastal Conservation League did not timely file their requests with the DHEC Board.

"It is undisputed that the league failed to file a request for final review with the board within the statutory time frame," Geathers wrote. "The arguments offered by the league to excuse this failure to timely file are unavailing."

Vinson said they were unable to file earlier because DHEC did not send notification that it had issued the port permit until after the deadline to appeal had passed.

"It is wrong for an agency to withhold information like that, especially a permit for a project that will have huge air quality impacts on our region in terms of serious air pollution and gridlock along Interstate 26 and on other roads," she said. 

But Geathers noted that while the law gives affected persons the statutory right to request to be notified of a decision on the permit applications, the Coastal Conservation League did not ask DHEC to notify them of the decision.

"Notably, the record in this case is devoid of any evidence that the League filed a request to be notified of the decision…," he wrote.

Vinson responded that when the league's written comments were submitted, the state agency's policy was to notify anyone who had submitted comments.

"The policy was recently changed to require notification only when people specifically requested it in writing," she said. "DHEC and OCRM knew of our keen interest in this permit, but we were mailed the notice the day after the deadline had passed. That is simply wrong."  

Vinson said the Coastal Conservation League believes it will fare better before the Court of Appeals than it did before the administrative law judge.

"The S.C. Supreme Court and other courts have consistently ruled in favor of not shutting out public interest groups or individuals from the appeals process when controversies arose over timeliness or lack of notice issues," she said. "We feel we have a strong case and that our rights to due process would be violated if we are shut out of this appeal."