NY.gov Portal State Agency Listing Search all of NY.gov
D E C banner
D E C banner

Disclaimer

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation has added a link to a translation service developed by Microsoft Inc., entitled Bing Translator, as a convenience to visitors to the DEC website who speak languages other than English.

Additional information can be found at DEC's Language Assistance Page.

New York, City of (SPDES) - Ruling 2, July 17, 1996

Ruling 2, July 17, 1996

STATE OF NEW YORK : DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
50 Wolf Road
Albany, New York 12233-1550

In the Matter of the Application to Renew the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit for New York City's 14 publicly owned Sewage Treatment Plants

by

CITY OF NEW YORK
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION (NYCDEP)
APPLICANT
ISSUES RULING CONCERNING PROPOSED MODIFICATION DATED MARCH 1996

SUMMARY

This ruling addresses the topic of untreated discharges from combined sewer overflows (CSOs). The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) published a Notice of Proposed Modification to the June 1992 CSO Abatement Order (the March 1996 Modification). Consistent with the Commissioner's Third Interim Decision in this matter dated June 1, 1993, the Notice provided a public comment period until April 29, 1996 and an opportunity to request a hearing. During the comment period, the Office of Hearings and Mediation Services received comments concerning the proposed March 1996 Modification from the Region II Office of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), the Interstate Sanitation Commission (ISC), and the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF). They are Parties in this proceeding.

For the reasons discussed below, there are no issues for adjudication concerning the proposed March 1996 Modification to the June 1992 CSO Abatement Order. The June 1992 CSO Abatement Order and the March 1996 Modification, as currently proposed, resolve all issues in this proceeding associated with untreated discharges from combined sewer outfalls.

This proceeding has followed a course in which each major area of issues concerning discrete provisions in the permits is addressed in turn. After a resolution has been reached on any particular issue, the agreed upon conditions have been incorporated into the permits without awaiting resolution of other disputed issues. This occurred with issues concerning toxic effluent standards and pretreatment requirements. The remaining unresolved issues are: (1) whole effluent toxicity, (2) flow measurement, and (3) plant capacity.

PROCEEDINGS

This proceeding concerns modifications to the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permits for New York City's 14 sewage treatment plants. Pursuant to Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) Article 17 and Title 6 of the Official Compilation of Codes, Rules and Regulations of the State of New York (6 NYCRR) Parts 750-757, the Region 2 Staff of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (the Department Staff) renewed the City's 14 SPDES permits on September 27, 1988 without a hearing. However, in a decision dated April 17, 1989, the New York State Supreme Court, Queens County, directed the Department to hold a hearing, as provided by .757.2, for possible modification of the September 1988 permits (Interstate Sanitation Commission v. Jorling, et al, Index No. 16492/88, Justice Dunkin).

The SPDES permits issued by the Department Staff in September 1988 required NYCDEP to design and implement programs to abate discharges from combined sewer overflows. When NYCDEP did not meet the schedule in the September 1988 permits, the Department Staff initiated an enforcement action. An Order on Consent, referred to as the June 1992 CSO Abatement Order, modified the original schedule in the 1988 SPDES permits, and resolved the enforcement action. Attached to this ruling as Appendix A is a copy of the June 1992 CSO Abatement Order.

Subsequent to the commencement of the adjudicatory hearing in June 1994 concerning this issue, the Parties agreed that catch basins, if properly maintained, could control the discharge of floatable debris from CSOs. Catch basins are large basins with grates located along the curbs of city streets. Catch basins collect rain water, and everything else that washes into them. Pipes connect catch basins which eventually lead to sewers. When storm water flows exceed sewage treatment plant capacity the excess water is discharged from CSOs. The discharges include storm water, debris, and untreated sewage.

Hoods usually cover the end of the pipes that lead from the basins to the sewers. The hoods prevent objectionable gases from being released from the sewers. In addition, the hoods trap floatables in catch basins, and prevent their discharge into the sewers. For a number of reasons catch basin hoods can become dislodged. Without hoods, the debris in catch basins can wash into the sewer, and during overflow events be discharged directly into the receiving waters.

In July 1994, the Department issued a Notice of Violation which alleged that NYCDEP had violated the terms of the June 1992 CSO Abatement Order by not completing the catch basin survey and hood replacement program on time. In June 1995, NYCDEP and the Department agreed to settle the Notice of Violation by modifying the CSO Abatement Order (the June 1995 Modification). Although the Department Staff and NYCDEP asserted that the June 1995 Modification would resolve the July 1994 Notice of Violation, EDF and ISC objected to the terms of the June 1995 Modification.

Consequently, Administrative Law Judge Daniel P. O'Connell convened an Issues Conference on August 30, 1995 to consider the Intervenors' objections to the June 1995 Modification. The record of the Issues Conference closed on October 13, 1995, and ALJ O'Connell circulated an issues ruling on October 25, 1995. EDF and ISC appealed the ruling to the Commissioner.

During the pendency of appeals, the USEPA Region II Staff and NYCDEP negotiated revisions to the June 1995 Modification. With a cover letter dated March 5, 1996, NYCDEP subsequently circulated a Modification to Order on Consent (the March 1996 Modification). The March 1996 Modification supersedes the proposed June 1995 Modification. A copy of the proposed March 1996 Modification is attached to this ruling as Appendix B.

Pursuant to the Commissioner's Third Interim Decision in this matter dated June 1, 1993, NYCDEP published a Notice of Proposed Modification to the June 1992 CSO Abatement Order (the Notice) concerning the proposed Modification in the New York Times on March 25, 1996. The Notice appeared in the Department's Environmental Notice Bulletin on March 27, 1996. The Notice provided until April 29, 1996 for members of the public to comment about the March 1996 Modification, and to request a hearing.

USEPA Region II Staff, ISC, and EDF filed comments about the March 1996 Modification before the close of the comment period. ALJ O'Connell then provided NYCDEP and the Region 2 Department Staff with an opportunity to respond to the comments filed during the public comment period. Upon the timely receipt of replies, the record closed on June 14, 1996.

For the reasons discussed below, there are no issues for adjudication concerning the proposed March 1996 Modification to the June 1992 CSO Abatement Order. The June 1992 CSO Abatement Order and the March 1996 Modification, as drafted, resolve all issues in this proceeding associated with untreated discharges from combined sewer outfalls.

The CSO Abatement Order and the proposed March 1996 Modification are being considered within the context of this permit hearing because these two enforcement documents modify conditions in the September 1988 SPDES permits.

COMMENTS CONCERNING THE MARCH 1996 MODIFICATION

The US Environmental Protection Agency

In a letter dated April 18, 1996, Janice Whitney, Assistant Regional Counsel from the Region II Office of the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), filed comments about the proposed March 1996 Modification. The EPA did not propose any issues for adjudication.

According to the EPA, however, the language in the proposed March 1996 Modification is slightly different from the language originally presented in the January 1996 correspondence. Other than Paragraph XIV(a), Ms. Whitney stated that EPA is not completely comfortable with the reiteration of any paragraphs from the June 1992 CSO Abatement Order which delete some of the original language in the CSO Abatement Order. For example, Paragraph 5 of the Modification is a revision of Paragraph 6 of the Abatement Order, and deletes the original reference to "implementation," as well as the statement that "CSOs are point sources, subject to NYS water-quality based and technology-based standards."

Based on the January 1996 correspondence, the EPA recommended that the words, and Phase II, be added to Paragraph I on page 8 of the March 1996 Modification. The EPA recommended no other changes with the understanding that none of the other terms of the June 1992 CSO Abatement Order would be changed except for the terms of Paragraph XIV(a) of the Abatement Order. This paragraph is the subject of the March 1996 Modification.

By letter dated April 29, 1996, NYCDEP's attorney, Susan Kath, stated that all concerns between NYCDEP and EPA regarding the proposed March 1996 Modification have been resolved. Except for Paragraph XIV(a), NYCDEP emphasized that the Modification does not change any of the other terms of the June 1992 CSO Abatement Order. NYCDEP explained that the phrase, and Phase II, was inadvertently omitted from Paragraph I on Page 8. Enclosed with NYCDEP's April 29, 1996 letter was the corrected version of Paragraph I from page 8 of the Modification.

Discussion: The EPA did not propose any issues for adjudication concerning the March 1996 Modification. NYCDEP has corrected the inadvertent omission in Paragraph I of the proposed Modification. The EPA, who participated in the development of the March 1996 Modification, has accepted the Modification.

Interstate Sanitation Commission

Eileen Millett, General Counsel for the Interstate Sanitation Commission (ISC) filed letters dated February 23, 1996 and April 26, 1996. ISC praised the EPA's involvement in the development of the March 1996 Modification which, in ISC's view, is a distinct improvement over the June 1995 Modification. In addition, ISC did not propose any issues for adjudication.

ISC argued that many substantive areas of the March 1996 Modification lack, or substitute different language, from what originally appeared in the June 1992 CSO Abatement Order. According to ISC, the differences between the wording in the Modification and the Abatement Order could lead to confusion about NYCDEP's obligation to control the discharge of floatables from CSOs. ISC provided a detailed comparison of the wording in the June 1992 CSO Abatement Order and the March 1996 Modification. ISC recommended changes to the Modification which are addressed below.

NYCDEP objected to ISC's extensive critique of the proposed March 1996 Modification, and argued that ISC's comments are completely inaccurate and unsubstantiated. NYCDEP reiterated that the terms of the 1992 CSO Abatement Order remain in full force and effect, and the March 1996 Modification only changes Paragraph XIV(a) of the Abatement Order. NYCDEP contended that when read together, the two documents provide a full and accurate description of the City's CSO abatement program.

The Staff emphasized that any differences in the wording of the March 1996 Modification and the June 1992 CSO Abatement Order do not alter any portion of the Abatement Order. The Staff argued that the Modification affects only Paragraph XIV(a) of the Abatement Order which describes NYCDEP's obligation with respect to catch basin maintenance including hood replacement. The Staff noted that the limited scope of the Modification is specifically stated in Paragraph VII of the Modification. The Staff contended that the March 1996 Modification clearly explains how NYCDEP would implement a program to inspect and clean catch basins, as well as to replace hoods in catch basins.

Discussion and rulings: The March 1996 Modification resulted from EPA's review of the June 1995 Modification. All Parties to this proceeding, including ISC, had an opportunity to review and comment on the June 1995 Modification. In addition, the Modification proposed in June 1995 was the subject of an Issues Conference. Given this context, I find ISC's objections concerning the differences in the wording between the March 1996 Modification and the June 1992 CSO Abatement Order without merit.

First, ISC has focused on the differences between the March 1996 Modification and the Abatement Order. However, the wording of Paragraphs 1 - 15 inclusive of the June 1995 Modification and the March 1996 Modification is identical. In addition, the remainder of the wording in the March 1996 Modification is similar to the wording in the proposed June 1995 Modification except for the wording added as a result of the negotiations between NYCDEP and EPA. Yet, ISC did not raise any concern about how the proposed June 1995 Modification was worded relative to the June 1992 CSO Abatement Order.

Second, the language of Paragraph VII of the March 1996 Modification, which is identical to the wording in the proposed June 1995 Modification, expressly states that the terms of the June 1992 CSO Abatement Order are not changed except for Paragraph XIV(a) of the Abatement Order.

Finally, ISC questions the necessity of having to read the March 1996 Modification in conjunction with the June 1992 CSO Abatement Order to understand NYCDEP's CSO abatement program. The Modification, which affects only Paragraph XIV(a) of the Abatement Order, addresses one element of the interim (i.e., short-term) abatement measures originally outlined in the Abatement Order. The Abatement Order, however, describes the remaining short-term abatement measures, as well as the long-term elements of the NYCDEP's CSO abatement program. Given the narrow focus of the Modification, no one could appreciate the scope and details of NYCDEP's CSO abatement program without first reading the June 1992 CSO Abatement Order.

The following discussion addresses the comments and recommendations proposed in ISC's letter dated February 22, 1996. Paragraph 17 of the proposed March 1996 Modification states:

As part of the NYCDEP's inspection of Phase I and Phase II area catch basins, NYCDEP anticipates that some of these catch basins will require extensive repairs before hoods can be repaired or replaced on such catch basins. Extensive repairs may be required where, for example, a catch basin is in a state of collapse or the design of the catch basin prohibits the installation of a hood and therefore requires the redesign and reconstruction of such catch basin [emphasis added].

ISC recommended that the words, for example, be removed from Paragraph 17. ISC characterized this phrase as an escape clause because it leaves the question of whether a catch basin requires extensive repairs open ended. This, in turn, could further restrict the installation of catch basin hoods, ISC argued. By removing the words, for example, ISC contended that a catch basin requiring extensive repairs would only mean either one in a state of collapse or one designed is such as way as to prohibit the installation of a hood.

NYCDEP and the Department Staff disagreed with ISC's characterization. According to NYCDEP, EPA requested the addition of this paragraph in the March 1996 Modification to clarify the meaning of the phrase, extensive repairs, as that term is used in Paragraph I.

ISC wants to limit the number of catch basins that could be described as needing extensive repairs because those catch basins would be excluded from the program. ISC's characterization that the phrase, for example, in Paragraph 17 is an escape clause is misplaced, however.

ISC's concern about the meaning of the phrase, extensive repairs, is addressed in Paragraph II of the Modification. Paragraph II outlines the information that NYCDEP's consulting engineer must collect and maintain while inspecting and inventorying catch basins. This information includes recording, "the location of each catch basin, ... the presence of hoods and/or hangers, the basin dimensions, the characteristics of the outlet, the characteristics of the connection, the type of grate and inlet, the type of basin and the materials of construction, the depth of grit in the basin and the structural condition of the basin."

As a result, NYCDEP will have data about individual catch basins. This data would show whether a particular catch basin requires extensive repairs and would document what those repairs would actually be. ISC's concern about the open endedness of what is meant by a catch basin needing extensive repairs is, therefore, unfounded. Consequently, the phrase, for example, from Paragraph 17 of the March 1996 Modification does not need to be dropped from the Modification as proposed by ISC.

Paragraph 18 of the proposed March 1996 Modification states:

Certain catch basins in the City do not require hoods for floatables capture. For example, catch basins known as "inlets" lead to a manhole which goes to a well. The well, in turn, which has a hood, then discharges to a sewer.

ISC argued that NYCDEP has not provided adequate information about this type of catch basin. ISC requested information about how many inlet-type catch basins exist, how many wells -- to which the inlets drain -- are without hoods, how frequently the wells are cleaned, whether the wells are included in the cleaning schedule proposed in the Modification, and how frequently the hoods in the wells would be replaced or re-hung. ISC contended that this information would be necessary to determine the breath of coverage and the resulting effectiveness.

NYCDEP explained that EPA requested the addition of this paragraph in the March 1996 Modification to clarify the point that inlet basins do not require hoods. In addition, representatives from NYCDEP stated they would meet with representatives from ISC to discuss the inlets.

ISC's request for information about inlets is reasonable. Therefore, I direct NYCDEP to provide all the Parties and me with a copy of the available information that relates to ISC's inquiry. Given the requirements outlined in Paragraph II of the Modification, more information about inlets will become available as NYCDEP, through its consulting engineer, completes the inspections and inventories.

With respect to Paragraphs III and V of the March 1996 Modification, ISC argued that the 24-month inspection cycle to replace hoods that may become dislodged was arbitrary, and that it is necessary to establish a maximum achievable level of effectiveness before the Modification takes effect. In pertinent part, Paragraph III states:

Upon completion of the installation of the hoods required for Phase I, NYCDEP shall inspect each Phase I area catch basin which requires a hood every twenty- four months to determine whether each catch basin has a hood. If, upon inspection of a Phase I area catch basin, NYCDEP determines that the catch basin does not have a hood, then NYCDEP shall re-install a hood on such catch basin within ninety days.

Paragraph III of the March 1996 Modification continues by imposing the same 24-month inspection cycle and 90-day hood replacement requirement for catch basins in the Phase II area.

ISC contended there is no objective indicator to show why the 24-month inspection cycle was chosen. ISC suggested that hoods may be dislodged within 15 or 18 months. NYCDEP argued, however, that the 24-month inspection cycle was developed in consultation with the EPA. According to NYCDEP, the inspection cycle is achievable and reasonable.

Although ISC argued that inspecting catch basins for dislodged hoods every 24 months was arbitrary, ISC did not offer anything to show that the proposed inspection cycle should be something different. Absent some showing from ISC, there is no basis to change the proposed 24-month inspection cycle. [See In the Matter of the Town of Huntington,Interim Decision of the Commissioner, December 22, 1988, In the Matter of Bonded Concrete, Inc., Interim Decision of the Commissioner, June 4, 1990, and 6 NYCRR .624.4(c)(4), effective January 9, 1994.]

Furthermore, the proposed 24-month inspection cycle in Paragraph III was not included in the proposed June 1995 Modification. This inspection cycle and the requirement to re- install dislodged hoods within 90 days is an example of how the March 1996 Modification broadens the scope of the original proposal in the June 1995 Modification.

Paragraph V of the proposed March 1996 Modification requires NYCDEP to undertake a study to determine an appropriate and cost- effective catch basin cleaning program. NYCDEP must then submit a report that includes a program for cleaning catch basins. Paragraph V continues:

Based upon the findings of the study, NYCDEP may seek a modification, from DEC, of the twenty-four month inspection and hood replacement schedule set forth in Paragraph III. The proposed modification of the twenty-four month schedule shall provide an equivalent level of floatables capture than achieved by the twenty-four month schedule in Paragraph III.

According to ISC, the requirements in Paragraph V of the Modification are meaningless without first determining a maximum achievable level of abatement. ISC argued that NYCDEP is attempting to abandon the catch basin maintenance/hood replacement program as an interim abatement measure because NYCDEP will not set a level of floatable capture, and will not clean catch basins more frequently than every three years.

To establish a level of floatables capture, ISC proposed that the Parties agree to a percentage of catch basin hoods that must be in place at all times. In addition, ISC noted that any modification of the 24-month inspection cycle proposed in Paragraph III would be subject to the notice and hearing requirements provided in 6 NYCRR Part 753.

NYCDEP contended that EPA requested the study and the other new wording presented in Paragraph V. NYCDEP restated its commitment to the catch basin maintenance/hood replacement program as a cost effective interim abatement measure to control floatables. NYCDEP argued that any modification of the 24-month inspection cycle proposed in Paragraph III would be based on the results of the study required in Paragraph V, and would establish the baseline level of floatables capture.

The Parties agree that catch basin hoods must be in place to assure the capture of floatables. Cleaning also plays an important part by reducing the floatables that could accumulate in catch basins. Fewer floatables in catch basins reduces the amount of floatables that could be released into the sewer if hoods become dislodged.

After hoods have been installed in Phases I and II, the terms of the Modification recognize the need to inspect catch basins on a regular basis to re-install dislodged hoods, and to clean catch basins. How often these inspections need to occur is not known. Nevertheless, the data that the Modification would require NYCDEP to collect would serve as the basis for determining how often these inspections could occur in a way that balances costs, on the one hand, while maintaining an effective abatement level, on the other. This balancing cannot occur until the data is collected.

Consequently, I reject ISC's recommendation to maintain a certain percentage of hoods in place. This proposal would divert limited resources away from the inspection and hood replacement program proposed in Paragraph III, and the cleaning study proposed in Paragraph V.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF)

By letter dated April 26, 1996, Timothy Searchinger, Senior Attorney from the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), stated that EDF is in the process of working out an agreement with NYCDEP about establishing a technical review team for the CSO program. Presumably, a representative from EDF would be a member of the review team. According to Mr. Searchinger's letter, if EDF and NYCDEP reach an agreement, then EDF would withdraw its objections to the September 1988 SPDES permits. As of the date of this ruling, however, an agreement has not been finalized.

Since EDF and NYCDEP did not finalize an agreement about the technical review team before the close of the public comment period on April 29, 1996, EDF renewed its objections to NYCDEP's program to abate floatable discharges from CSOs to preserve its rights in this proceeding. By reference, EDF also incorporated its prior filings and arguments made at the August 30, 1995 Issues Conference with respect to the June 1995 Modification, and the arguments presented in EDF's appeal to the Commissioner concerning the October 25, 1995 issues ruling.

According to EDF, there is no dispute that the City's overflow outfalls discharge floatable debris in violation of federal and NYS water quality standards. EDF asserted that the September 1988 SPDES permits are defective because the permits do not include an effluent limit that bans the discharge of substantially all floatable debris.

Consequently, EDF contended that the September 1988 SPDES permits should be changed to comply with the applicable legal standards. To support this contention, EDF referred to the federal Clean Water Act which prohibits permits issued after 1977 from authorizing any discharges that violate water quality standards [33 USC .11311(b)(1)(c)]. EDF also referred to the EPA's guidance document entitled, Combined Sewer Overflows: Guidance for Permit Writers, dated August 1995 which states that if sufficient information is available to write a numerical effluent limit, then such a limit must be imposed (pp 3-36 and 3-37).

In addition, EDF cited a similar prohibition found at 6 NYCRR .754.1(a)(5)(i), and .754.1(b). Since New York State's water quality standards prohibit the discharge of all floatable solids, EDF contended that the September 1988 SPDES permits should reflect this prohibition.

According to NYCDEP, the September 1988 permits and the June 1992 CSO Abatement Order refer to the water quality standard found at 6 NYCRR .703.2. In addition, NYCDEP argued that the purpose of the CSO abatement program is to comply with the standard imposed by the applicable regulations. NYCDEP concluded, therefore, that the applicable water quality standards have not been waived.

NYCDEP contended that EDF's principal objection to the proposed March 1996 Modification is that NYCDEP should do more with its interim program to abate floatables, and implement the interim abatement program faster. NYCDEP argued that the proposed March 1996 Modification enhances the interim floatables program, and complies with the EPA's guidance documents: Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy, and Combined Sewer Overflows: Guidance for Nine Minimum Controls.

By following the guidance provided in these documents, NYCDEP argued that discharges from CSOs will meet water quality standards over the long run. NYCDEP contended that by issuing these guidance documents, EPA determined that a phased approach, as proposed in the 1992 CSO Abatement Order and the March 1996 Modification, is consistent with the Clean Water Act, the ECL, and the implementing regulations.

According to the Department Staff, EDF's comments are without merit because EDF does not differentiate between the NYCDEP's short-term and long-term CSO abatement programs. Although the proposed March 1996 Modification would change one element of NYCDEP's short-term abatement programs as originally provided for in the 1992 CSO Abatement Order, the Department Staff argued that NYCDEP's long-term floatable abatement programs which are also outlined in the 1992 CSO Abatement Order provide for the removal of substantially all floatable solids from CSO discharges.

The Staff contended there is no legal requirement that the September 1988 SPDES permits include language that bans the discharge of substantially all floatable debris. Nevertheless, the Staff argued that the permits expressly refer to the 1992 CSO Abatement Order and the proposed March 1996 Modification which in the long-term will remove substantially all floatable solids. Finally, the Staff reiterated arguments previously made about how the 1992 CSO Abatement Order and the proposed March 1996 Modification relate to the various EPA guidance documents.

Discussion and ruling: EDF disputes what the interim goal for reducing floatables should be, how NYCDEP should reach this goal, and whether NYCDEP should implement the interim floatable abatement programs sooner. These concerns were addressed fully in my previous issues rulings, dated October 25, 1995 [pp 5 - 9] concerning the proposed June 1995 Modification.

In the October 1995 rulings, I held that the June 1995 Modification would achieve compliance with water quality standards in a manner that would be consistent with the guidance provided in the Commissioner's Third Interim Decision in this matter, and the EPA policy documents identified above. Since the scope of the interim program proposed in the March 1996 Modification is broader than what was proposed in the June 1995 Modification, I find there is no reason to revisit EDF's concerns further. Therefore, EDF has not raised any substantive and significant issues for adjudication with respect to the proposed March 1996 Modification.

In addition, deference should be given to the EPA's acceptance of the March 1996 Modification because EPA negotiated the March 1996 Modification with NYCDEP. Since EPA has accepted the terms of the Modification, it can be reasonably inferred that the Modification is consistent with EPA guidance concerning combined sewer overflows.

APPEALS

Pursuant to 6 NYCRR .624.8(d) [formerly .624.6(d)], the Parties may appeal the ALJ's rulings on issues for adjudication. The Commissioner must receive any appeals by August 19, 1996. Appeals must be double-spaced and not longer than 15 pages. Replies are authorized, and the Commissioner must receive them by September 9, 1996. Replies must be double-spaced and not longer than 10 pages.

Any request for an adjustment to the appeal schedule must be made to the Chief Administrative Law Judge, Office of Hearings and Mediation Services, Room 423, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-1550.

Send one copy of any appeal and reply to the Commissioner, Room 608, NYS Department of Environmental Conservation, 50 Wolf Road, Albany, New York 12233-1010. Send three copies of any appeal and reply to the Administrative Law Judge. Also, send one copy of any appeal and reply to everyone named on the attached Service List at the same time and in the same manner as service is made to the Commissioner.

/s/
Daniel P. O'Connell
Administrative Law Judge
Dated: Albany, New York
July 17, 1996

To:
Attached Service List

Attachments:

Appendix A - CSO Abatement Order, dated June 26, 1992.
Appendix B - Modification to Order on Consent, March 1996.

  • PDF Help
  • For help with PDFs on this page, please call 518-402-9003.
  • Contact for this Page
  • Office of Hearings and Mediation Services
    NYS DEC
    625 Broadway, 1st Floor
    Albany, New York 12233-1550
    518-402-9003
    Send us an email
  • This Page Covers
  • Page applies to all NYS regions