The Board has authority to reconsider its decisions arising under the ERA. See Macktal v. Brown and Root, Inc., ARB Nos. 98-112, 98-112A, ALJ No. 86-ERA-23, Order Granting Reconsideration (ARB Nov. 20, 1998). As we said in Macktal,

The ERA is directed generally to the development and safe utilization of energy resources and places. Nothing in the statutory text of the employee protection provision or elsewhere in the ERA addresses the issue of reconsideration of final orders . . . . Therefore, unless reconsideration by the Board would interfere with, delay or otherwise adversely affect accomplishment of the Act's safety purposes and goals, the Board has inherent authority to reconsider a final ERA order.

Macktal, slip op. at 3-5 (emphasis added) (citations and footnotes omitted). In the present case, reconsideration would not interfere with, delay, or otherwise affect the fulfillment of the ERA's safety purposes and goals. Id.

    Nevertheless, upon reconsideration, we must deny Kelly's request for reversal. The essence of Kelly's argument is that the ALJ erred in specifically finding Lambda's president, Paul Prevey, to be a credible witness. Kelly argues that this was error because, in his opinion, Prevey committed fraud on the court and repeatedly perjured himself. In support of his motion, Kelly, for the most part, repeated the mostly irrelevant charges and accusations he made in his original appeal briefs filed with the Board. Such accusations were not persuasive during our initial review, and they are not persuasive now. Accordingly, we deny Kelly's motion to reverse our March 31, 2004, dismissal of his case.

   SO ORDERED.

      OLIVER M. TRANSUE
      Administrative Appeals Judge

      WAYNE C. BEYER
      Administrative Appeals Judge