Opinion ID: 2207621
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Appeal to the EAB

Text: Pursuant to 7 Del.C. §§ 6008 [3] and 7210, [4] WSI and the Delaware Audubon Society (Audubon), appealed the issuance of the permits to the Delaware Environmental Appeals Board (EAB). Oceanport moved to dismiss the appeals principally on the grounds that WSI and Audubon lacked standing and that the EAB lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider certain issues related to the CZA. In an opinion dated November 1, 1991, the EAB dismissed the WSI appeal on the basis of lack of standing, and denied dismissal of the Audubon appeal. [5] With regard to standing, the EAB ruled that an appellant's interest should be distinguishable from those interests shared by the public in general. It stated: WSI has not alleged any facts which identify how a failure to appropriately regulate these environmental issues will affect its commercial or other interest. At oral argument, WSI did state that it had a mari-time interest in maintaining the navigability of the Delaware River in the event of a spill. The Board finds this interest more remote than that contemplated by the statute. With regard to WSI's claim that it sought to maintain a level competitive playing field by insuring Oceanport's compliance with the CZA and the status decision, the EAB stated that the entire thrust of the WSI complaint clearly indicates that the complaint belongs before the Coastal Zone Industrial Control Board and not the Board. [6]