Ramapo Energy, LP - Ruling 4, October 29, 2001
Ruling 4, October 29, 2001
STATE OF NEW YORK:DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION
In the Matter of the Application of Ramapo Energy Limited Partnership for
Permits from the Department of Environmental Conservation
RULING
October 29, 2001
DEC Application No. 3-3926-00377/00001
On October 23, 2001, Rockland County requested the opportunity to respond to information submitted by Ramapo Energy Limited Partnership (the "Applicant") on September 28 and October 12, 2001 regarding stormwater, erosion and stream disturbance issues. Without prejudice to this request, Rockland County also moved to strike the September 28 and October 12 submissions as late filed direct or rebuttal testimony. The Applicant responded to this motion on October 26, 2001.
On October 24, 2001, several parties including both Rockland County and the Applicant agreed to a schedule for responses to the additional information on these issues, without prejudice to Rockland County's motion.
Rockland County's motion to strike the September 28 and October 12 information from the record is denied. Rockland County will have an opportunity to respond to these submissions in its revised or supplemental testimony scheduled for November 5, 2001.
Although the Applicant's October 26, 2001 letter stated that there was no objection to the Applicant's proposal to submit the additional information on September 28, Rockland County did indeed object to the Applicant supplementing its case after the dates for prefiled testimony. This objection was stated in a letter dated September 6, 2001. Notwithstanding Rockland County's objection to postponing the testimony on various issues including the ones in the September 28 and October 12 submissions, this testimony was postponed and was not heard when the hearing was in session in September. The Applicant has now provided information which may narrow the issues or at least clarify what it is proposing, and the other parties will have an opportunity to revise or supplement their own testimony in response to this information and to cross-examine the Applicant's witnesses on this information. There is no reason to strike the September 28 and October 12 submissions and proceed with the hearing on the more limited information that was available earlier.
The schedule as agreed in the October 24, 2001 conference phone call is as follows:
- November 5, 2001: agency and intervenor parties will submit revised or supplemental testimony in response to the September 28, 2001 and October 12, 2001 submissions by the Applicant.
- November 20, 2001: Applicant will submit rebuttal testimony.
- November 27 or 29, 2001: Adjudicatory hearing on the State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permits.
The parties identified both November 27 and 29 as possible dates for this testimony. The hearing is not scheduled to be in session on November 27, however, so this testimony would take place on November 29, 2001.
The schedule provided for the Applicant to submit rebuttal on November 20. I do not know whether it was the intention of the parties to preclude agency or intervenor parties from rebutting the November 5 testimony of other agency or intervenor parties, or whether the parties just expected that the Applicant was the only party likely to submit rebuttal. I would consider a request by an intervenor or agency party to submit rebuttal on November 20, unless there was an agreement that this would not occur.
On October 29, 2001, Mr. Murphy sent an e-mail message requesting clarification of whether the above schedule applies both to the SPDES general permits issue and to the stream disturbance issue. Since both issues were discussed in the September 28, 2001 submission, the schedule would apply to both issues.
/s/
Susan J. DuBois
Administrative Law Judge
Albany, New York
October 29, 2001
TO: DEC Service List
Article X Exhibit Exchange List
