Ramapo Energy, LP - Ruling 5, October 30, 2001
Ruling 5, October 30, 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
- by -
RULING
October 30, 2001
DEC Application No. 3-3926-00377/00001
By motion dated August 20, 2001, Ramapo Energy Limited Partnership (the Applicant) moved to strike certain rebuttal testimony submitted by several parties. Presiding Examiner Robert R. Garlin issued a procedural ruling on September 5, 2001 regarding this motion. A ruling was reserved regarding whether the August 16, 2001 rebuttal testimony of Rockland County's witness Robert C. LaFleur may be submitted without conditions. This testimony was on the subjects of stormwater runoff and pollution control.
The September 5, 2001 procedural ruling stated, with regard to Witness LaFleur's testimony, that Rockland's response to the motion "is inadequate, because the response merely recites Rockland's general, and erroneous, contention that testimony answering the application may properly be introduced for the first time at the rebuttal stage. However, the applicant's motion itself acknowledges that this witness's testimony addresses information in the August 3 submission."
Upon further review of the rebuttal testimony of Witness LaFleur and the dates on which certain information about the proposed project was changed, Rockland County will be permitted to submit the rebuttal testimony without conditions. As noted below, the testimony may need to be revised in response to recent information from the Applicant.
Although the general proposal for the alternative access road was known well before the date of the intervenors' direct testimony, a version of the detention basin details (Drawing C-8) that incorporates the alternative access road location was provided with Errata No. 5 on or about June 21, 2001. This drawing was further revised on July 23, 2001, after the date for agency and intervenor direct testimony.
The statements in the LaFleur rebuttal testimony made references to statements in the direct testimony of the applicant's witnesses, which statements were included in the testimony that accompanied the application. However, the LaFleur rebuttal testimony also clarified that the opinions provided by Witness LaFleur were in reference to what were then the most recent versions of the project drawings and application information, which were provided on or about August 3, 2001, after the date for direct testimony of the agency and intervenor parties.
Additional information on stormwater and erosion control was submitted by the Applicant on September 28 and October 12, 2001. Rockland County may revise or supplement Witness LaFleur's August 16, 2001 testimony, in response to the additional information from the Applicant, by November 5, 2001 which is the date for revision/supplementation of the other testimony on these issues.
_____________/s/_____________
Susan J. DuBois
Administrative Law Judge
Albany, New York
Dated: October 30, 2001
TO: DEC Service List
Article X Exhibit Exchange List
