ShareThis Page
Letters to the Editor

Letter to the editor: Ordinary people don't want mine

| Tuesday, Dec. 26, 2017, 9:00 p.m.

Americans should be outraged at President Trump's revoking of coal-mining regulations designed to protect our streams, air and health. In February, he revoked regulations against coal-mining debris being dumped into our streams, and now is reconsidering rules designed to protect miners from breathing coal dust and diesel exhaust.

The devastating effects go far beyond coal-fired power plants: Clairton residents have filed a class-action suit against U.S. Steel, claiming air pollution from the Clairton Coke Works has lowered property values and destroyed their health.

And where will the metallurgical coal for coking steel come from over the next 20 years? From a 2,900-acre underground mine in Donegal, gateway to the beautiful Laurel Highlands. Despite significant public protests and well-researched testimony against LCT/Robindale's proposed Rustic Ridge No. 1 mine, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection still approved the mining permit in the same area where $8 million has already been spent to clean up the environmental disasters of previous coal mining.

Once again, the voice of the ordinary citizen has been ignored by both government and industry. Residents in the footprint of this mine are outraged. We are fighting to stop it before one lump of coal is removed from our mountain.

We will be showing our support for the legal appeal filed by the Mountain Watershed Association by going by the busload Jan. 29 for our “day in court” at the Environmental Hearing Board's Pittsburgh office. Like-minded citizens are welcome to join us.

Barbara McMillan


The writer is on the board of directors for the Mountain Watershed Association and is an associate director of the Westmoreland Conservation District. This letter was submitted as her personal opinion.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me