IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Delaware Riverkeeper : Network and Maya van Rossum, : The Delaware Riverkeeper, :

Petitioners :

:
v. : No. 1571 C.D. 2017

: ARGUED: June 4, 2018 Department of Environmental : Protection, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER , Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE CEISLER FILED: August 1, 2018

Petitioners
, The Delaware Riverkeeper Network and Maya van Rossum , The Delaware Riverkeeper (Riverkeeper, collectively)
, petition for review of the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board ’s (EHB) October 24, 2017 Order denying Riverkeeper’s Petition for L eave to File Appeal Nunc Pro Tunc ( Nunc Pro

Tunc Petition). 1 Through this Nunc Pro Tunc Petition, Riverkeeper requested

1 The Delaware Riverkeeper Network is a non

- profit organization established in 1988 to protect and restore the Delaware River, its associated watershed, tributaries and habitats. The . . . Network is a membership organization headquartered in Bristol, Pe nnsylvania, with more than 16,000 members. . . . Maya van Rossum is the Delaware Riverkeeper, a full

- time, privately funded ombudsman who is responsible for the protection of the waterways in the Delaware River Watershed. Nunc Pro Tunc Petition at 1.2

permission to file what otherwise would have been an untimely challenge to Respondent Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of Environmental Protection’s (DEP) February 7, 2017 approval of Intervenor PennEast Pipeline Company , LLC ’s (PPC) Water Quality Certification application. This application pertained to PPC’s PennEast Pipeline Proj ect (PennEast Project), a natural gas pipeline that is slated to traverse portions of Bucks, Carbon, Luzerne, and Northampton Counties. Riverkeeper’s Brief at 2

- 3; Reproduced Record (R.R.) at

18a

. After careful review
, we affirm the EHB

. I.

T o place this matter in the proper context, we must first examine the interplay between state and federal environmental regulatory schemes governing such pipelines. By virtue of the Natural Gas Act of 1938 (NGA), 2 “ Congress [has] occupied the field of matters relating to wholesale sales and transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce ,” thereby almost completely preempting state laws and regulations in this area. Schneidewind v. ANR Pipeline Co. , 485 U.S. 293, 305 (1988). Consequently, “the Federal Energy Regula tory Commission (‘FERC’) is the ‘lead agency’ for evaluating interstate [natural gas] pipeline projects. 15 U.S.C. § 717n(b).” Del

. Riverkeeper Network v. Sec’y of P a. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. (Orion)
, 870 F.3d 171, 174 (3d Cir. 2017). The NGA’s preemptive powers are not absolute, however, as the statute includes explicit preemption carve

- outs declaring that

[e]xcept as specifically provided in [the NGA], nothing in [the NGA] affects the rights of Stat es under

-- (1) the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451 et seq. ); (2) the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. ); or (3) the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [(Clean Water Act)] (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq. ).

2 15 U.S.C. § § 717

- 717z.3

15 U.S.C. § 717b; see Del

. Riverke eper Network v. Sec’y P a. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. (Leidy Line) , 833 F.3d 360, 372 (3d Cir. 2016) (“ In other words, the only state action over interstate natural gas pipeline facilities that [can] be taken pursuant to federal
law is state action taken under [ these] statutes. ”). T his exception thus preserves a limited regulatory role for state environmental agencies with regard to such pipelines, including a permit process necessitated by the Clean Water Act and known

as a “Water Quality Certification. ”
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires [a]ny applicant for a Federal license or permit to conduct any activity including, but not limited to, the construction or operation of facilities, which may result in any discharge into the navigable waters, [to] provi de the licensing or permitting agency a [Water Quality C]ertification from the State in which the discharge originates or will originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the navigable waters a t the point where the discharge originates or will originate, that any such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of sections 1311, 1312, 1313, 1316, and 1317 of [the Clean Water Act, which address effluent discharge and water quality levels ]. 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1).

A Water Quality Certification confirms that a given facility will comply with federal discharge limitations and state water quality standards. . . . [T] he Water Quality Certification is by default a state permit, and the issuance and review of a Water Quality Certification i s typically left to the states. Leidy Line , 833 F.3d at 368

- 69. Once an applicant files a Water Quality Certification application, the Clean Water Act gives the relevant state agency ( here, the DEP ) o ne year from the filing date of the application to return a decision ; a failure to do so
result s in waiver of the certification requirement. 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1) ; Leidy Line
,4

833 F.3d at 369. If an individual or entity disagrees with the DEP’s decision the
NGA affords the individual or entity the right to petition the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (Third Circuit) for review. See 15 U.S.C. § 717r (d)(1) ; Leidy Line , 833 F.3d at 372 (“[A] state action taken pursuant to the Clean Water Act

. . . is subject to review exclusively in the Courts of Appeals. ”). Significantly , the question of when exactly that right attaches has not been completely settled, at least in the context of Pennsylvania’s environmental regulatory scheme . This is due to the existence of the EHB, which is “ an independent quasi

- judicial agency ” that has the “ power and duty to hold hearings and issue adjudications

. . . on orders, permits, licenses or decisions o f the [DEP]

. ” Sections 3(a) and 4(a) of the Environmental Hearing Board Act, Act of July 13, 1988, P.L. 530, 35 P.S. § § 7513 (a), 7514(a); Orion , 870 F.3d at 177

- 78.

When an appeal is taken from DEP to the EHB, the EHB is required to conduct a hearing de n ovo . The EHB is not an appellate body with a limited scope of review attempting to determine if DEP’s action can be supported by the evidence received at DEP’s fact finding hearing. Rather, the EHB’s duty is to determine if DEP’s action can be sustained or supported by the evidence taken by the EHB. Leatherwood, Inc. v. Dep’t of Envtl. Prot. , 819 A.2d 604, 611 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (internal citations omitted). The Third Circuit has yet to decide whether it may exercise jurisdiction over

a DEP Water Quality Certification

- related petition for review where an EHB appeal addressing the same matter is still pending; however, it has concluded that a party’s failure to file a timely appeal with the EHB renders the DEP’ s action final and, thus, rip e for review by the Third Circuit. See Orion , 870 F.3d at 177

- 78.5

In Orion , Riverkeeper had petitioned for review of the DEP’s approval of a Water Quality Certification application from Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee) for a 12.9

- mile

- long natur al gas pipeline running through Pike and Wayne Counties, but did not also challenge that approval via a timely appeal to the

EHB. Id. at 173

- 78 . Riverkeeper argued, in part, that the NGA prevented the Third Circuit from exercising jurisdiction over the pet ition, because the underlying DEP
decision was not reviewable until the state

- level administrative process had been completed, which would not occur until the EHB had issued its own assessment.
Thus
, Riverkeeper sought to have the matter transferred to EHB on this basis

. Id. at
175. The Orion court sidestepped the question of whether the NGA required administrative finality, noting that there were other pending cases on the Third Circuit’s docket in which that question could be “better resolved.” Id. at 176

- 78. 3 Still, the Third Circuit found that it had jurisdiction over the Orion petition, explaining that Riverkeeper’s failure to appeal the DEP’s decision to the EHB
rendered that decision final and, thus, review able by the Third Circuit. Id. at 177

- 78.
II.
With all of this in mind, we now turn to the current matter

. On February 9, 2016, PPC filed a Water Quality Certification application with the DEP for the PennEast Project, which the DEP approved on February 7, 2017. 47 Pa. B. 1218

- 1220 (2017) ; R.R. at 5a, 18a

- 19a, 25a

- 27a. DEP published n otice of this approval in the Pennsylvania Bulletin on February 25, 2017, and included the following
instruction: Any person aggrieved by this action may file a petition for

review pursuant to Section 19(d) of the [NGA], 15

3 The parties’ briefs do not address whether the Third Circuit has since answered this question.6 U.S.C.A. § 717r(d), with the Office of the Clerk, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 21400 U.S. Courthouse, 601 Market Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106

- 1790 within 30 days of publication of this notice, or within 30 days o f receipt of written notice of this action, whichever occurs first.
47 Pa. B. 1220 (2017) ; R.R. at 27a. In response, Riverkeeper petitioned the Third Circuit on February 28, 2017 for review of the DEP’s approval of PPC’s Water Quality Certification applica tion, but , as in Orion
, did not elect to appeal this approval to the EHB at that time. PPC’s Brief at 5. To date , the Third Circuit has not
rendered a decision on Riverkeeper’s petition. Id. On September 19, 2017, more than 6 months after the administrat ive appeal
window had closed
, Riverkeeper filed its Nunc Pro Tunc P etition with the EHB. Therein, Riverkeeper mentioned the Orion decision, without explaining that
decision’s relevance , and argued that it should be allowed to appeal the DEP’s

decision nunc pro tunc to the EHB, claiming “good cause” for granting such relief

existed for two reasons. First, it w as misled about its appeal options by the DEP’s February 25, 2017 notice, which , in contrast to notices issued in other, similar

matters, explicitly st ated that the proper way to challenge the DEP’s decision regarding PPC’s Water Quality Certification application was by petitioning the
Third Circuit , rather than through an appeal to the EHB

. Memorandum of Law in Support of Nunc Pro Tunc Petition at 1

- 4. Second, in petitioning the Third Circuit for review, Riverkeeper claim ed it w as acting “with cognizance of the [ United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania ’s ] decision in Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co. v. Delaware Riverkeeper Network [ ( Northeast Upgrade Project ) ] , 9217

F. Supp. 2d 381 (M.D. Pa. 2013). ” Id. at 6

. 4 Riverkeeper anal ogized the putatively
deficient DEP notice to those at issue in California University of Pennsylvania v. Zoning Hearing Board , 107 A.3d 24 1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014)
, 5 and Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Moore , 554 A.2d 130 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1988 )

. 6 In these cases , our Court held that the appellants were permitted to file

4 In Northeast Upgrade Project , the District Court found that Section 19 (d)(1) of the NGA
, 15 U.S.C. § 717r(d)(1) , barred the EHB from re viewing DEP decisions regarding pipeline

- related permit applications made pursuant or closely related to requirements set forth by the Clean Water Act, and opined that, under the NGA, that role was reserved exclusively for the Third Circuit. 921 F. Supp. 2 d at 387

- 96. On that basis, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction barring the EHB from reviewing challenges filed by a number of private environmental protection organizations (including Riverkeeper) regarding several permits the DEP had appro ved for the Northeast Upgrade natural gas pipeline p roject

. Id. This decision did not enjoin the EHB from entertaining such challenges in other matters and, according to PPC, the District Court dismissed the Northeast Upgrade Project case on April 23, 2013 . PPC’s Brief at 15

- 16.

5 In California University of Pennsylvania v. Zoning Hearing Board
, we vacated the trial court’s dismissal of a statutory appeal filed by California University. We held that there had been a breakdown in the judicial process, because the Zoning Hearing Board (ZHB) had erroneously informed the University, via the ZHB’s cov er letter attached to the copy of the decision that was mailed to the University, that the appeal window was open for thirty days after the University’s receipt of the decision, rather than from the date of the decision’s mailing. Accordingly, we remanded the matter to the trial court, with instructions to hold an evidentiary hearing to determine when exactly the University had received the decision and whether, based upon that date and the ZHB’s incorrect instructions, the University should be allowed to f ile a nunc pro tunc appeal. 107 A.3d at 242

- 46.

6 In Department of Transportation, Bureau of Traffic Safety v. Moore : [Moore] received a citation on April 20, 1983 for an invalid registration sticker and was fined $44.00. Effective November 15, 1983, his [vehicle] operating privilege was suspended for failure to respond to that citation. He contend[ed] that he never received notice of this suspension and did not learn of it until he was cited on March 3, 1986 for failure to stop at a red light. At that tim e, he was also cited for driving while his operating privilege was suspended, in violation of Section 1543 of the Vehicle Code, as amended , 75 Pa.C.S. § 1543. 554 A.2d at 131.8

appeals nunc pro tunc because they had received erroneous information from th e relevant governmental entit ies , which prevented the appellants from appropriately
exercis ing their appellate rights. Memorandum of Law in Support of Nunc Pro Tunc
Petition at 5

- 6. In addition, Riverkeeper argued that neither the DEP nor PPC would
be prej udice d by a nunc pro tunc appeal because, even if the appeal had been timely filed, the EHB would likely have stayed it until the Third Circuit entered a “ruling on its jurisdiction [over] these [kinds of] matters

. ” Id. at 7. PPC responded to Riverkeeper’ s request on October 3, 2017, opin ing that
nunc pro tunc relief was not warranted under the circumstances. According to PPC,

[a]lthough not cited in its [Nunc Pro Tunc Petition], Riverkeeper has made clear in multiple filings in various court proceedings that its argument that appeal to the EHB is proper is based upon the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit’s d ecision in Berkshire Environmental Action Team, Inc. v. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, LLC , 851 F.3d 105 (1 st Cir. 2017). [ 7 ] The Berkshire decision was

Subsequently, Moore appeared before a magisterial district judge, who told hi m that his operating privileges would be restored if he paid the citation fines, and did not discover that the judge had led him astray until the appeal window pertaining to the March 3, 1986 citations had closed, when the Department of Transportation noti fied him that it was suspending his operating privileges for six months. Id. On appeal, “[w]e agree[d] with the trial court that incorrect information given to the appellee by the district justice [was] sufficient reason to permit [Moore to appeal the Marc h 3, 1986 citations] nunc pro tunc.” Id. at 132.

7 In Berkshire , the First Circuit dismissed a petition for review regarding the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection’s (MassDEP) approval of a pipeline

- related Water Quality Certification application for lack of jurisdiction. 851 F.3d at 113. The Berkshire court reviewed Massachusetts’ administrative process pertaining to such applications, noting that an entity or individual may appeal a MassDEP decision regarding such an application, whi ch will then result in a de novo hearing in which MassDEP must again review the application. Id. at 111

- 13. Because the Berkshire petitioners had filed a timely administrative appeal of MassDEP’s application approval, and that appeal was still pending, the First Circuit concluded that there was no final agency determination, which thereby deprived it of subject matter jurisdiction. Id.9 issued on March 15, 2017. At that time, 12 days remained in the 30 day period for appeal of the [DEP’s approval of PPC’s Water Quality Certification application] to the EHB. See 25 Pa. Code § 1021.52(a)(2)(i). Riverkeeper was well aware of Berkshire as soon as [that] decision was issued, as evidenced by the fact that Riverkeeper and its counsel have been ci ting to and making arguments based [up]on it ever since. Yet, Riverkeeper did not appeal . . . to the EHB before the deadline and [instead] waited an additional six months after Berkshire before seeking leave to file an appeal nunc pro tunc

. PPC’s Memorand um of Law in Opposition to Nunc Pro Tunc Petition at 2. PPC further highlight ed a number of filings by Riverkeeper in other litigation
, including:

 A March 21, 2017 response by Riverkeeper to a Third Circuit order issued in

Orion , in which Riverkeeper bri efly discussed Berkshire in a footnote;

 Riverkeeper ’s letter brief submitted to the Third Circuit in Delaware Riverkeeper Network, v. Department of Environmental Protection (Atlantic Sunrise)
, Case No. 16

- 2211
, on April 18, 2017, in which Riverkeeper agai n
referenced Berkshire and argued that a DEP Water Quality Certification decision was not final until either the EHB administrative process has finished or a party failed to file a timely appeal with the EHB;

 Riverkeeper’s July 11, 2017 principal brief in Atlantic Sunrise , in which Riverkeeper p resented the same arguments as in its earlier submissions ;

In Orion , “Riverkeeper argue[d] that [the Third Circuit] should follow Berkshire ’ s holding and re ad a finality requirement into [section 19 (d)(1) of the NGA, 15 U.S.C. § 717r (d)(1)]

. . . [and] further argue[d] that PA DEP’s order [approving Tennessee’s Water Quality Certification application for the Orion natural gas pipeline project was] not final because Pennsylvania’ s admin istrative schem e is analogous to Massachusetts’s

. ” 870 F.3d at 176.10

 Riverkeeper’s April 21, 2017 principal brief in Orion , in which it again cited
Berkshire and argued that the matter was not ripe for Third Circuit review until the EHB had weighed in; and

 Riverkeeper’s May 18, 2017 reply brief in support of its request for a stay of proceedings regarding the Third Circuit’s review of the DEP’s PennEast Project decision

. 8

See PPC’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Nunc Pro Tunc Petition at 5

- 8,

Exs. A

- E. In addition, PPC argued that the amount of time that passed between publication of both Berkshire and Orion and Riverkeeper’s filing of its Nunc Pro

T unc Petition showed that Riverkeeper w ere not reasonably diligent in seeking
relief. Id. at 11. Finally, PPC claimed that allowing Riverkeeper to appeal to the EHB
nunc pro tunc would unfair ly prejudice both the DEP and PPC because it would
further delay p rogress on the PennEast P roject , as both entities h ad rel ied on Riverkeeper’s decision to only petition the Third Circuit for review

. Id. at 11

- 12. According to PPC, the parties had fully briefed the Third Circuit petition and the

matter wa s ripe for review
, but “[n]ow, Riverkeeper seeks to change the rules of the game in the ninth inning, as Riverkeeper suddenly realized that [their] failure to file an appeal here [with the EHB] could be dispositive on the issue of whether the Third
Circuit exercises jurisdiction over the [Water Quality Certification approval].” Id. at
12. In essence , PPC asserted that prejudice w ould result from allowing a nunc pro

8 Therein, Riverkeeper mentioned the EHB’s ruling, in a separate matter, that DEP’s approval of a pipeline

- related Water Quality Certification application did not constitute a final agency action under the circumstances, argued that “[t]he parallels between the Massachusetts and Pennsylvania regulatory regimes are too similar to ignore,” and reiterated its belief that the Third Circuit did not have jurisdiction to entertain a petition for r eview until the EHB has reviewed the DEP’s approval of an application and issued its own ruling. PPC’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Nunc Pro Tunc Petition, Ex. D.11

tunc appeal, as it would create another regulatory hurdle to the completion of the PennEast Project

. Id. at 11

- 12. On October 6, 2017, Riverkeeper re sponded to PPC’s filing by sending a letter
to the administrative law judge assigned to the matter, arguing that PPC failed to paint a complete and accurate picture of the jurisdictional arguments Riverkeeper had made to the Third Circuit in the aforementioned cases. Riverkeeper Letter,
10/6/17
, at 1. Riverkeeper attached copies of two briefs they had filed with the Third Circuit regarding their PennEast Project

- related petition for review , to ensure that
the E HB ha d a “more complete record.” See id. at 1, Exs. A

- B.
The DEP filed a response to the Nunc Pro Tunc Petition on October 18, 2017.
The DEP disagreed with Riverkeeper’s contention that the February 25, 2017 notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin “ directed ” a ggrieved p arties to petition the Third Circuit
for review, as the notice only said that such p art ies “may file ” a petition. DEP’s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Nunc Pro Tunc Petition at 5

- 6. In addition, DEP maintained that Riverkeeper failed to show that this notice was “contrary to law[,]” noted the jurisdictional import of the Leidy Line
, Northeast Upgrade Project
, and Orion decisions, distinguished this matter from the California University and

Moore decisions , and claimed that the notice was “fact ually accurate and consistent
with the law.” Id. at 7

- 8 . Finally, the DEP asserted that Riverkeeper’s request for

relief was untimely
, because Riverkeeper did not seek leave to file a nunc pro tunc appeal until nearly three months after they had argued to the Third Circuit that that

Court could not exer cise jurisdiction over their challenge to the PennEast Project until the EHB had weighed in , and more than seven months after the DEP’s approval
of PPC’s Water Quality Certification application. Id. at 8

- 9

.12

O n October 24, 2017, the EHB denied Riverkeeper’s Nunc Pro Tunc Petition

. T he EHB noted that our case law allow s for nunc pro tunc appeals where “a would

be appellant reasonably relies to its detriment upon incorrect information from a governmental authorit y regarding the need or manner to appeal[,]” and acknowledged that the language of the February 25, 2017 DEP notice “was misleading or, at best, incomplete

. ” EHB Opinion, 10/24/17, at 3. Nonetheless
, t he EHB held that Riverkeeper w as not entitled to nunc p ro tunc relief. EHB Opinion,

10/24/17
, at 1

- 4. The EHB had

difficulty accepting the Riverkeeper’s representation that [they] actually relied on the [ Pennsylvania ] Bulletin notice because extremely able counsel for the Riverkeeper has filed simultaneous appeals with this Board and the Third Circuit in at least one other pipeline case, Lancaster Against Pipelines, et al. v. DEP , EHB Docket No. 2016

- 075

- L.
Id. at 3. In additio n, even assuming such reliance, the EHB

question[ed] whether that reliance was reasonable given the uncertainty in the law about the appropriate forum for an appeal of a [ S ection] 401 [of the Clean Water Act] certification, an uncertainty about which the Riverkeeper

was fully aware given [their] filings in the Third Circuit matter. The Riverkeeper [have] actually argued for months in the Third Circuit case that jurisdiction lies with this Board, yet [they] did not until this late date take the relatively s imple step of filing an EHB appeal to preserve [their] rights. The Riverkeeper could very easily have filed simultaneous appeals before the Third Circuit and this Board. There was certainly no downside to doing so, given the minimal expense and effort asso ciated with filing an EHB appeal.
Id. Finally, the EHB found that Riverkeeper had “quite clearly failed to act with due diligence to preserve [their] rights” by waiting until 205 days after the DEP’s application approval, and until 20 days after Orion was published, to file its Nunc13

Pro Tunc Petition, noting that Riverkeeper failed to explain these delays or why the

Orion decision suddenly prompted them to seek such relief. Id. at 4. This Petition
for Review followed.

III.
Our review of an EHB decision is limited to determining whether the EHB
committed errors of law or constitutional violations and whether its decision is supported by substantial evidence. Eureka Stone Quarry, Inc. v. Dep’t of Envtl.

Prot. , 957 A.2d 337, 344 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).

Substan tial evidence is defined as “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Department of Environmental Resources v. Borough of Carlisle , 16 Pa. Cmwlth. 341, 330 A.2d 293, 298 (1974). An administrative agency has broad discretion in the performance of its administrative duties and functions and . . . an agency’s exercise of its discretion [cannot be invalidated] absent proof of fraud, bad faith, or blatant abuse of [that] discretion. Herzog v. Department of En vironmental Resources , 166 Pa. Cmwlth. 114, 645 A.2d 1381 (1994). In addition . . . the resolution of conflicts in testimony, the credibility of witnesses, and the weight given the evidence are within the province of the Board. Pawk v. Department of Enviro nmental Resources , 39 Pa. Cmwlth. 457, 395 A.2d 692 (1978).
Id. The EHB may permit a party to file an appeal nunc pro tunc “for good cause shown.” 25 Pa. Code § 1021.53a. A nunc pro tunc appeal will be allowed only in situations where “(1) the appellant’s notice of appeal was filed late as a result of non

negligent circumstances, either as they relate to the appellant or the appellant’s counsel; (2) the appellant filed the notice of appeal shortly af ter the expiration date [of the appeal window]; and (3) the appellee was not prejudiced by the delay.” Criss

v. Wise , 781 A.2d 1156, 1159 (Pa. 2001); see also Falcon Oil Co. v. Dep’t of Envtl.14

Res. , 609 A.2d 876, 878 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (“A nunc pro tunc ap peal of an administrative action will be allowed only where there is a showing of fraud, breakdown in the administrative process or unique and compelling factual circumstances establishing a non

- negligent failure to file a timely appeal.”). “The exception for allowance of an appeal nunc pro tunc in non

- negligent circumstances is meant to apply only in unique and compelling cases in which the appellant has clearly established that she attempted to file an appeal, but unforeseeable and unavoidable events prec luded her from actually doing so.” Criss , 781 A.2d at 1160

. I V

. Riverkeeper put forth a single question for our consideration:
Whether a would

- be appellant [ i.e. Riverkeeper] that was directed by [the DEP] to challenge a DEP approval for a natural gas pipeline with the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and which was previously enjoined by the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania [in Northeast Upgrade Project ] from pursuing an appeal of a DEP approval for a natural gas pipeline before the . . . [EHB], has shown good cause to file an appeal nunc pro tunc with the EHB. Riverkeeper’s Brief at 2. In its brief, Riverkee per rehash the central argument they
made to the EHB

- that they should have been allowed to appeal nunc pro tunc
because the February 25, 2017 DEP notice’s misleading language, combined with

the injunctive effect of Northeast Upgrade Project
, constituted “a breakdown in the administrative process and/or unique and compelling factual circumstances establish[ing] a non

- negligent failure by [Riverkeeper] to [file a timely appeal with the EHB].” Id. at 12. 9

9 Curiously, and despite the express language of Northeast Upgrade Project , Riverkeeper claim in their brief that the District Court’s ruling enjoined Riverkee per from moving forward with their EHB appeal in that matter. Riverkeeper’s Brief at 8 ; see Northeast Upgrade Project
, 921 F.15

In addition, Riverkeeper note that the EHB properly found the February 25,
2017 DEP notice to be “mislead ing or incomplete,” but dispute the rest of the EHB’s

conclusions for several reasons. Id

. at 13

- 14. First, in at least one other matter involving DEP approval of a Water Quality Certificat ion application, the parties challenging the DEP’s decision had never been “the subject of an injunction issued by [a] Federal District Court” impacting their ability to have an appeal heard by the

EHB. Id. at 14. Second
,

contrary to the EHB’s contention, there certainly was a “downside” for [Riverkeeper] to file an appeal with the EHB. Given that [Riverkeeper] had already been subject to an [injunctive] order from the Federal District Court [in Northeast Upgrade Project ], [Riverkeeper were] reasonably con cerned that an appeal to the EHB could result in a claim that [their] appeal would be challenged as frivolous. In fact, opposing counsel in another natural gas pipeline matter threatened [Riverkeeper ] with just such an action if [they] filed an appeal with the EHB. . . . [U]ntil the Third Circuit ruled in Orion that the failure to appeal to the EHB could result in prejudice, [Riverkeeper] had no basis for acting contrary to the ruling of the Federal District Court [in Northeast Upgrade Project ].
Id. at 15. Third
, Riverkeeper claim that they acted with reasonable diligence by filing
the Nunc Pro Tunc Petition 20 days after the Third Circuit issued the Orion decision. Riverkeeper argue s that there is no firm guidance or fixed standard regarding how much time a party has to file a Nunc Pro Tunc Petition, other than by implication through the 30

- day appeal window in the EHB ’s regulations, and that “[r]equiring [Riverkeeper] to guess as to what shorter time frame will or will not preclude [their

Supp. 2d at 382 (“ Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company LLC ( ‘ TGP C ’ ) file d an Amended Complaint

. . . and Amended Motion for Em ergency Preliminary Injunction . . . on January 8, 2013 seeking, inter alia , a declaratory judgment that the [NGA] preempted [the EHB] from reviewing permits that the [DEP] had issued to TGPC as required by the Feder al Energy Regulatory Commission’ s ( ‘ FERC ’ ) Order date d May 29, 2012. . . . [T]he Court will grant TGPC’ s Motion for Preliminary Injunction. ”).16

request for relief] would be arbitrary, capricious and a violation of their due process rights.” Id. at 16. Finally, Riverkeeper assert that neither the DEP nor PPC would be prejudiced by allowing a nun c pro tunc appeal , because the EHB would likely have stayed any appeal “pending the Third Circuit Court[’s] ruling on its jurisdiction

in this matter

. ” Id. at 17. Unsurprisingly, PPC opposes Riverkeeper’s Petition for Review. PPC points
out that North east Upgrade Project was an entirely separate matter involving a completely different pipeli ne project , as well as a completely separate pipeline

company , and that the preliminary injunction issued in that action enjoined the EHB
, not Riverkeeper, and thus had no injunctive effect upon either the EHB or Riverkeeper in this case. PPC’s Brief at 14

- 16. In addition, PPC argues that the
EHB’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence. Id. at 16

- 22. Finally, PPC again claims that both it and the DEP would be prejudiced by a nunc pro tunc appeal to the EHB because it would result in additional delays to the PennEast Project. Id. at 23

- 24.
The DEP ’s arguments on appeal are substantially simil ar to those advanced by PPC, with two significant additi ons. First, the DEP reiterates that the phrase “may
file” in the February 25, 2017 DEP notice was not a directive to seek relief
exclusive ly in the Third Circuit. DEP’s Brief at 10

- 11. Second, the DEP discusses more fully the import of Orion . According to the DEP,

Riverkeeper’s characterization of the Third Circuit’s ruling in Orion is wrong[,] in that the Riverkeeper can point to no language in the decision where the [Third Circuit] “ruled that a par ty could prosecute a challenge of the DEP action related to a natural gas pipeline before the EHB.” [Riverkeeper’s Brief at 7]. Orion did recognize that “finality remains unresolved in this circuit”; however, Orion concluded that “finality and how such a r equirement would interact with Pennsylvania’s administrative scheme17 are issues better resolved in [other] cases” [then] pending before the [Third Circuit]. Orion , 870 F.3d at 177

- 17 8. As recognized by the EHB . . . Riverkeeper [have] not shown how the Orio n decision . . . justifies [Riverkeeper’s] failure to file a timely appeal [with the EHB].
Id. at 14.

In their reply brief , Riverkeeper clarif y the perceived impact of the Northeast Upgrade Project preliminary injunction, stating that “[o]bviously, [Riverk eeper were] not free to ignore the precedent of a federal court decision to which [they were]
a party

. ” Riverkeeper’s Reply Brief at 4. Riverkeeper also opin e s that the fact that
the EHB was enjoined in that action , rather than Riverkeeper, “is a distinction without a difference. The EHB appeal was instituted by [Riverkeeper]. [Riverkeeper were] sued as . . . defendant [s] in the federal district court. The result of the Tennessee Gas Pipeline prohibit ed [Riverkeeper] from pursuing [their] cl aims
before the EHB.” Id. Riverkeeper further expand s on the preliminary injunction issue in a footnote, stating

[the] DEP and [PPC] also erroneously argue that [Riverkeeper claim they are] presently subject to a federal court injunction. [PPC] goes so fa r as to claim that [Riverkeeper’s] argument “makes it appear” as though the Middle District decision was an order in a proceeding involving the [PPC] Water Quality Certification. [PPC] Brief [at] 14. Neither of these arguments [is ] accurate . As [Riverkeepe r] clearly stated, the injunction had been issued by the federal court in a prior action

- i.e. the [ Northeast Upgrade Project ] matter. The point of [Riverkeeper’s] argument is not that [they are] presently subject to the injunction but that [they] reasona bly relied on the ruling of the federal district court and DEP’s clear instructions to file [their] appeal only in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, until the Third Circuit issued its Orion decision.
Id. at 4 n.2.18 V.
After careful review
, 10 we conclude that the EHB did not err or abuse its
discretion in denying River keeper’s Nunc Pro Tunc Petition

. R iverkeeper w ere never enjoined, in this case or any other, from appealing DEP’s approval of a Water Quality Certification application to the EHB

. Thus
, Riverkeeper’s argument that they acted “with cognizance” of the Northeast Upgrade Project decision, Riverkeeper’s Brief at 12, which imposed a subsequently dissolved preliminary injunction against the EHB regarding an entirely separate pipeline matte r , is unpersuasive

. In addition, the Third Circuit has not, thus far
, ruled that it has
exclusive authority to entertain such challenges or that the NGA preempts the EHB from playing a role in the review process

. Th erefore
, Riverkeepe r w ere not precluded
from filing an EHB appeal within the standard 30

- day appeal window following the DEP’s approval of PPC’s application

. Moreover, as t he EHB noted in its opinion, Riverkeeper possess considerable knowledge and experience regarding challenges to DEP approval s of such applications, by virtue of Riverkeeper’s conduct and involvement in other , similar

matters , thereby diminishing the likelihood that Riverkeeper w ere actually misled by the allegedly incomplete information in the DEP’s February 25, 2017 notice

. Th us , this case is distinguishable from both California University and Moore , due to
the uncontroverted evidence in those cases that the parties seeking nunc pro tunc

10 We note that Riverkeeper has waived one of its proffered claims by failing to raise it before the EHB

— namely
, that it was entitled to nunc pro tunc relief because it was justifiably concerned that an EHB appeal would be deemed frivolous and result in the imposition of sanctions

. See Pa. R.A.P. 1551(a); Arnold v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd. (Lacour Painting, Inc.) , 110 A.3d 1063, 1071 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (citations omitted) (“Our courts permit a litigant to make new arguments on appeal in support of a preserved issue . . . but do not permit a party to advance an entirely new a nd different theory of relief for the first time on appeal.”); Wert v. Dep’t of Transp.
, 821 A.2d 182, 186 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).19

relief had received inaccurate guidance from governmental entit ies regarding their appellate rights and had relied on that information to their detriment

. Finally, Riverkeeper never explained to the EHB precisely why , nearly seven months after
the DEP’s approval of PPC’s application
, Orion suddenly prompted it to decide that

a nunc pro tunc administrative appeal was the correct course of action.

Th erefore , we agree with the EHB that Riverkeeper had no legal justification for failing to file a timely appeal with the EHB . We conclude that the EHB did not abuse its discretion in finding that Riverkeeper had shown neither that they relied on the misleading February 25, 2017 DEP notice nor that they acted diligently to

preserve their appellate rights. Consequently
, because Riverkeeper fa iled to establish “good cause” to permit the filing of an appeal nunc pro tunc with the EHB
, we affirm the EHB’s October 24, 2017 Order

.

__________________________________ ELLEN CEISLER , Judge
Judge Fizzano Cannon did not participate in the decision of this case.IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

The Delaware Riverkeeper : Network and Maya van Rossum, : The Delaware Riverkeeper, :

Petitioners :

:
v. : No. 1571 C.D. 2017

: Department of Environmental : Protection, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 1 st day of August, 201 8
, the O rder of the Pennsylvania
Environmental Hearing Board, dated October 24, 2017, is hereby AFFIRMED.

__________________________________ ELLEN CEISLER , Judge