ML11200A052

Letter to B. Holian from J. Parker, Indian Point License Renewal State of New York Denial, Section 401 of Clean Water Act

ML11200A052
Person / Time
Site:	Indian Point
Issue date:	07/15/2011
From:	Parker J State of NY, Dept of Environmental Conservation
To:	Brian Holian Division of License Renewal
References
TAC MD5411, TAC MD5412
Download: ML11200A052 (15)

Text

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Office of General Counsel, Region 3 21 South Putt Corners Road W New Paltz, New.York 12561 - 1696 Joe Martens Phone: (845) 256-3036 FAX: (845) 255-3042 Commissioner Website: www.dec.ny.gov July 15, 2011 Mr. Brian E. Holian Director, License Renewal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 11555 Rockville Pike Mailstop 011F1 Rockville;MD 20852 Re: Indian Point License Renewal, Docket Nos. 50-247, 50-286 State of New York.Denial, Clean Water Act Section 401Water Quality Certification

Dear Mr. Holian:

I am writing on behalf of Commissioner Joe Martens in response to the June 30, 2011 letter to you from Fred Dacimo, Vice President, Entergy NuclearNortheast. Mr. Dacimo's letter again argues Entergy's position that the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation haswaived its right to act on Entergy's application for a Clean Water Act section 401 Water Quality Certification. As Commissioner Martens informed the Commission in his June 23, 2011 letter to you, the law and the facts do not support Entergy's newly proffered claim' The Clean Water Act requires Entergy to obtain a section 401 Water Quality Certification in the context of the license renewal of Indian Point Units 2 and 3, Buchanan, New York. The Department has denied that application. I am enclosing the July 1, 2011 letter from Department attorney Mark D. Sanza, Esq.,to the Administrative Law Judges presiding over the New York State administrative proceeding that was requested by Entergy to challenge the Department's denial of Entergy's application for a Clean Water Act section 401 Water Quality Certification.

As you will see, Mr. Sanza's letter rebuts Entergy's new position. Plainly stated, no waiver occurred: the Department acted on Entergy's application within the one year period proscribed by the Clean Water Act.

Please let me know if you have any questions about the State's denial of Entergy's application for a section 401 Water Quality Certification for the 20-year license renewal of Indian Point Units 2 and 3.

Very truly yours, John L. Parker Enclosure

cc: By U.S. Mail w/ enclosure William Dean, Regional Administrator, NRC Region 1 John Boska, NRR Senior Project Manager Paul Eddy, NYS Department of Public Service Andrew Stuyvenberg, NRC License Renewal Environmental Project Manager Sherwin Turk, NRC Office of General Counsel Fred R. Dacimo, Vice President Operations, Entergy Nuclear Northeast

New YorkState Department of Environmental Conservation Office of General Counsel, 1 4 th Floor 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-1500 Fax: (518) 402-9018 or (518) 402-9019 Website: www.dec.ny.gov CJoe Martens

.. Commissioner July 1, 2011 VIA HAND DELIVERY AND ELECTRONIC MAIL Hon. Maria E. Villa Hon. Daniel P. O'Connell Administrative Law Judges New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Office of Hearings and Mediation Services 625 Broadway, 1st Floor Albany, New'York 12233-1550 Re: Enterzv Indian PointNuclear Units 2 and 3 SPDES Perniit Renewal / §401 WQC Application Proceedings Status of §401 WQC Application

Dear Judges Villa and O'Connell:

As instructed in Your Honors' June 16, 2011 Memorandum in the: above-referenced proceedings, this'letter is submitted in order to "provide additional comments on the status of the application for a Section 401 Water Quality Certification filed by Entergy on April 6, 2009 and denied by Department Staff on April 2, 2010." As this letter and enclosures make clear, the April 2, 2010 denial of Entergy's April 6,' 2009 application for 'a federal Clean Water Act

("CWA") §401 water quality certificate ("WQC") was issued by "the Department" and not only by "Department Staff' as phrased in the June 16t Memorandum. Moreover, the Department's April 2, 2010 denial was not merely "draft," "preliminary" or "proposed." See infra.

On June 21, 2010, Entergy informed the Tribunal that it had adopted a new position regarding the current status of its previous CWA §401 WQC application to the Department. In that regard, Entergy provided this Tribunal with a June 21, 2010 letter from Fred R. Dacimo,.

Vice President of Operations, Entcrgy Nuclear Northeast, to Brian E. Holian, Director, License Renewal* at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission' ("NRC" - including the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board), claiming for the first time that the Department had "waived" its CWA §401 obligations within a -year (hereinafter "Dacimo letter").'

Copies of Mr. Dacirno's June 21, 2011 letter (with Exhibits) to the NRC were provided to this Tribunal and the parties in this proceeding as part of Ms. Zoli's letter to this Tribunal dated June 21, 2011. Mr.

Dacimo's and Ms. Zoli's June 211t letters each contend that the Department "waived" its §401 WQC obligations by failing or refusing to act on Entergy's April 6, 2009 request for certification within a reasonable time, not to exceed one year, after receipt of its request. See CWA §401(a)(1).

Entergy's June 2 1st submissions both to the NRC and this Tribunal either erroneously ignore or intentionally misconstrue the plain meaning and legal significance of the Department's April 2, 2010 denial of Entergy's April 6, 2009 §401 WQC application for the Indian Point nuclear facilities, and haveno basis in law or fact.

First, Commissioner Martens informed the NRC in a June 23, 2011 letter submitted in response to the Dacimo letter that the Department's April 2, 2010 denial of Entergy's §401 WQC application for Indian Point Units 2 and 3 was precisely that: a denial by the Department. A copy of Commissioner Martens's June 23, 2011 letter to the NRC ("Commissioner Martens's letter") is enclosed. With respect to the status of Entergy's April 6, 2009 §401 WQC application, Commissioner Martens's letter (at p. 2) is definite and unambiguous:

As Commissioner of Environmental Conservation of the State of New

!* York, I am informing you that the Department's Chief Permit Administrator acted on Entergy's application for the section 401 water quality certification within the one-year period proscribed by the Clean Water Act by denying that application. Therefore, not only has the State of New York not waived its .opportunity to determine' Entergy's

• application for a water quality certification, it has expressly denied that application. The Department's April 2, 2010, denial-was not a 'proposed' denial. Indeed, 'proposed' denials of water quality certificates do not exist, under the State's statutes and regulations."

Second, and also explicit in Commissioner Martens's letter (at pp. 1-2), is the fact that the April 2, 2010 denial of Entergy's April 6, 2009 §401 WQC application was appropriately issued by the Department's Chief Permit Administrator.

... The Chief Permit Administrator of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, William Adriance, denied Entergy's section 401 water quality certification on April 2, 2010 - within the one year period - on the grounds that Entergy's discharges fail to meet State water quality standards. Mr. Adriance is authorized to act on applications for section 401 water quality certifications."

Environmental Conservation Law ("ECL") §3-0107(2) expressly authorizes the Commissioner to delegate his or her statutory duties to other designated individuals in the Department. Pursuant to ECL §3-0107 and' Commissioner Delegation of Authority 06-05:

Permit Issuance Decision Makingfor Regulatory Programs Subject to the Uniform Procedures Act dated September 6, 2006, the Department's Chief Permit Administrator is specifically authorized to carry out the permit decision-making responsibilities and functions described in ECL Article 70 - Uniform Procedures on behalf of the Commissioner. 2 A copy of Delegation of

.2 Pursuant to ECL §70-0107(3)(d) "certifications under section 401 of the federal water pollution control act amendments of 1972 (public law 92-500)" [33 U.S.C. §1341] are subject to the Department's uniform procedures in ECL Article 70. See also 6 NYCRR Part 621, the Department's implementing regulations for ECL Article 70 - Uniform Procedures, particularly 6 NYCRR §621.1(e). The Department's adoption of implementing regulations for ECL Art. 70 were authorized by the provisions of ECL §70-0107(1) and (2).

2

Authority 06-05 is enclosed3 (accord 6 NYCRR §621.2[d], definition of Chief permit administrator). To date, Delegation of Authority 06-05 has not been superceded or revoked.

Third, Entergy's newly constructed position about thestatus of the Department's April 2, 2010 denial of the §401 WQC application for Indian Point, specifically, that the Department failed to "act on" Entergy's application within one year and, therefore, waived the obligations under CWA §401, is simply not borne out by the facts or record, and is entirely without merit. A brief description and timeline of key events associated with the receipt and review of materials submitted by Entergy to the Department in support of its §401 WQC application, and the actions taken by the Department on the application request, demonstrate the futility of Entergy's latest argument.

Entergy submitted a §401 WQC application for relicensing Indian Point Units 2 and 3 to the Department on April 6, 2009. On May 13, 2009 (within 60 calendar days after receipt of the application), the Department advised Entergy, in writing, that its §40.1 WQC application was incomplete, and provided Entergy with a description of the deficiencies and a comprehensive request for' additional information in order for the Department to make all of the necessary findings or determinations required by law on the application.

From mid-May 2009 through mid-February 2010, Entergy submitted additional information in further support of its original WQC application for review, as had been requested, to the Department for its analysis and consideration. During that 9-month time period, Entergy's initial §401 WQC application to the Department remained incomplete. On February 26, 2010 (within one year after receipt of the application), the Department determined that Entergy's §401 WQC application was, at last, complete, and notified Entergy,' in writing, of the completeness determination and prepared a notice of complete application for publication in the Environmental Notice Bulletin..

On March 3, 2010 (within one year after receipt of the application and within 10 calendar days of notice to Entergy of the completeness determination), the Department published a notice in the Environmental Notice Bulletin that Entergy's §401 WQC application was complete. On-April 2, 2010 (within one year after receipt of the application'and within 90 calendar days after the date the application was deemed complete),' the Department's Chief Permit Administrator notified Entergy, in wrting, that its April 6, 2009 §401 WQC application was denied.

On April 29, 2010, Entergy requested a hearing on the Department's denial of the §401 WQC application by writing to the Chief Permit Administrator within 30 calendar days.of the date of the Department's mailing of the denial. Entergy's request for a hearing was entirely voluntary; a hearing is neither mandatory nor.automatic. The hearing request was then referred to the Department's Office of Hearings and Mediation Services. On June 9, 2010 (within 45 calendar days of receiving the request for hearing), a notice announcing the public, comment period, legislative public hearings, and an issues conference on Entergy's hearing request was published in the Department's EnvironmentalNotice Bulletin.

On July 20, 2010 (within 120 calendar days of the Department's completeness determination and notice of denial), the Department's Office of Hearings and Mediation Services 3.

convened two separate legislative public hearing sessions on the Department's denial of

,Entergy's §401 WQC application and Entergy's subsequent hearing request in Cortlandt Manor, New York. On July 21, 2010, the Office of Hearings and Mediation Services conducted an issues conference on Entergy's hearing request and on five separately-submitted petitions for full party status and two separately-submitted petitions for amicus party status in New Paltz, New York.

Following receipt of the stenographic transcripts from the legislative public hearing sessions and issues conference, and as directed by the assigned Administrative Law Judges

("ALJs"), parties filed closing briefs on Entergy's hearing request on September 24, 2010. As further directed by the ALJs, parties filed reply briefs on Entergy's hearing request on October 29, 2010. On December 13, 2010 (within one year of the Department"s completeness determination and denial of the application), the ALJs issued a Ruling on ProposedIssues For Adjudication and PetitionsFor Party Status ("Issues Ruling") resulting from Entergy's hearing request. The Issues Ruling determined the issues that will be subject to adjudicatory hearings.

This recitation of events amply demonstrates that the Department acted on Entergy's

'April 6, 2009 §401 WQC application by thoroughly reviewing it and denying the request on April 2, 2010 within one year of its submission. Moreover, the timeline shows that the Department complied with the Uniform Procedures (ECL Art. 70) and its implementing regulations (6 NYCRR Part 621) on Entergy's §401 WQC application. Furthermore, the Department's subsequent action on Entergy's April 29, 2010 request for a hearing upon the §401 WQC application denial did not serve to miodify the conclusiveness' of the.denial.

As confirmed in Commissioner Martens's letter (at p. 2), the Department did not "waive" its opportunity to determine Entergy's §401 WQC application within a year, and this did not change as a result of Entergy's voluntary request for a hearing after its application was denied on April 2, 2010.

"Nor did the fact that Entergyavailed itself of an opportunity to challenge the denial, through the Department's adjudicatory process alter the Department's water quality certification denial. The applicant's action does not render the denial non-final or push the denial beyond the one year period proscribed by the :tClean Water Act. Additionally, the State's denial of the water quality certification did not automatically trigger an administrative hearing, in the State - Entergy affirmatively requested a hearing in April .2010 by' letter to Mr. Adriance, the Department's Chief Permit Administrator"' (emphasis added)

• On a similar set of facts and legal argument alleging a "waiver" beyond the one year period on a §401 WQC denial and request for hearing by a hy'droelectric facility applicant, the Oregon Court of Appeals determined that it wag the timing of the §401 WQC denial, and not the decision after a contested case proceeding on that denial, that was definitive for concluding whether the application had been acted on as proscribed by the CWA..

"Even assuming the correctness of its other premises, the [applicant's]

4

argument confuses a procedural mechanism that state law provides with the requirement of section 401 that action on a request take place within one year. The director is specifically assigned the responsibility for acting on certification requests, and he did so here in a timely manner. Had the city not invoked its right to a contested case proceeding, the director's' decision would have been final. Although the city had every right to pursue a review, we do not construe section 401 as contemplating that an applicant may benefit from the running of the one year period while review is taking place, at the applicant's instance, of the denial of certification by the entity that is statutorily designated to make that decision. We reject the [applicant's] first assignment." (emphasis added)

City of Klamath Falls v Environmental,Quality Commission, et al. 119 Or.App. 375, 851 P.2d 602 (1993) at 377-78, 604; affirmed City of Klamath Falls v'Environmental Quality Commission, et al. 318 Ore. 532, 870 P.2d 825 (1994).

Additionally, in a Maine case involving the §401 WQC application for 'the federal relicensing of adam and reservoir, the court faced a similar one-year "waiver" argument where a state review process was involved:

"We conclude that the [reviewing agency's] failure to decide the. appeal

[of a §401 WQC request] within a year of [the applicant's] initial request for certification does not waive certification or render its decision ineffective., Our analysis of the legislative history indicates a congressional intent that an agency take action on an application within one year. There is no, indication, however, that Congress intended for all in-state appeals to be completed within the same one-year deadline.

If Congress intended to impose such extreme time pressure, it would have used specific language to that effect. We, thus, agree with the reasoning of FERC and conclude that the [reviewing agency's] actions were timely."

FPL Energy Main Hydro LLC v Dept. of EnvtL Protection 2007 ME 97, 926 A.2d 1197, 1203 (Supreme Judicial Court of Maine, 2007), cert. denied 128 S.Ct. 911 (2008) (emphasis added).

Thus, an applicant whose §401 WQC application has been denied may not force a "waiver" of the agency's obligations under the CWA by virtue of its, unilateral, voluntary effort to seek further review of the State's denial decision.

As the timeline of the Department's action on Entergy's §401 WQC applicatiorf proves, and Commissioner Martens's letter attests, the Department unequivocally acted on Entergy's April 6, 2009 application within the one-year period proscribed by the CWA when it reviewed that application and expressly denied it on April 2, 2010. Entergy's subsequent request for an adjudicatory proceeding on the Department's denial by insisting, on a hearing did not, in turn, constitute a waiver of the State's original opportunity -to determine Entergy's application in a 5

timely fashion simply because the agency's hearing process has not concluded. Accord City of Klamath Falls v Environmental Quality Commission, et al., 119 Or.App. at 377-78, 851 P.2d at 604; 'and FPL Energy Main Hydro LLC v Dept. of Envtl. Protection 2007 ME 97, 926 A.2d at 1203.

Finally, with respect to the factual issues asserted in Entergy's April 29, 2010 hearing request following the Department's denial of the §401 WQC application, and Entergy's June 2 1st letter to the Tribunal concerning the scope of the inquiry on those issues at a hearing, the Issues Ruling framed and defined each of the factualissues as follows:

"[t]he issue to be adjudicated is whether Department Staff properly denied the WQC application based upon

... thermal considerations" [Issues Ruling, at 38];

radiological considerations" [Issues Ruling, at 40];

... non-compliance with Section 704.5 of 6 NYCRR"

[Issues Ruling, at 41 ]; and

... impacts to endangered species (shortnose sturgeon) and threatened species ý(Atlantic sturgeon), including impairment of best usages of the Hudson River for fish propagation and suitable fish habitat for these species" [Issues.Ruling, at 42-43].

(

Based upon the plain language of the Issues Ruling, Department staff has consistently maintained the position throughout the §401 .WQC denial proceeding that .the evidence and proof at that hearing is limited to Entergy's April 6, 2009 application and the supporting materials submitted to, and any information relating to the proposed operation 'of the Indian Point nuclear facilities (and its discharges into the Hudson River) that was considered by, the Department in rendering its April 2, 2010 denial. In other words, the scope of the adjudicatory hearing is necessarily restricted to the record of material that was before the Department at the time of the

§401 WQC denial.

We trust that if there are any questions about the Department's denial of Entergy's §401 WQC application for Indian Point, or the status!of that application, they can be addressed in the upcoming call with Your Honors and parties in these matters scheduled for Tuesday, July 5, 2011, at 1:00 PM. Thank you for your courtesies and attention to these matters.

Very truly yours, Mark D. Sanza Assistant Counsel Enclosures 6

II

VIA ORDINARY U.S.

AND ELECTRONIC MAIL:

Elise N. Zoli, Esq. ezoli@goodwinprocter.com Robert H. Fitzgerald, Esq. rfitzgerald@goodwinprocter.com Goodwin Procter LLP jenglander@goodwinprocter.com Exchange Place gwilliams@goodwinprocter.com Boston, Massachusetts 02,109 Rebecca Troutman, Esq. rtroutman@riverkeeper.org Riverkeeper, Inc.

20 Secor Road Ossining,. New, York 10562 Melissa-Jean Rotini, Esq. mjr I@westchestergov.com County of Westchester Room 600, 148 Martine Avenue

-White Plains, New York 10601 Daniel Riesel, Esq. driesel@sprlaw.com Sive, Paget & Riesel, P.C. vshiah@sprlaw.com 460 Park Avenue, 1 0 th Floor New York, New York 10022 Richard L. Brodsky, Esq. richardbrodsky@gmail.com 2121 Saw Mill River Road White Plains, New York 10607 Michael J. Delaney, Esq. mdelaney@dep.nyc.gov Director, Energy Regulatory Affairs NYC DEP 59-17 Junction Boulevard, 1 9 th Floor Flushing, New York 11373-5108 Sam M. Laniado, Esq. sml@readlaniado.com Read and Laniado, LLP dbj @readlaniado. corn 25 Eagle Street Albany, New York 12207-1901 Robert J. Glasser, Esq. bob.glasser@robertjglasserpc.com

.284 South Avenue Poughkeepsie, New York 12601 7

VIA E-MAIL ONLY:

Ned Sullivan nsullivan@scenichudson.org Hayley Mauskapf, Esq. hmauskapf@scenichudson.org Paul Schwartzberg schwartzberg@scenichudson.org Scenic Hudson, Inc.

Karl S. Coplan, Esq. kcoplan@law.pace.edu Daniel E. Estrin, Esq. destrin@law.pace.edu Pace Environmental Litigation. Clinic, Inc.

Deborah Brancato, Esq, dbrancato@riverkeeper.org Phillip H. Musegaas, Esq. phillip@riverkeeper.org Geoffrey H. Fettus, Esq. gfettus@nrdc.org Natural Resources Defense Council b

Steven Blow, Esq. steven_blow@dPs.state.ny.us NYS Department of Public Service Frank V. Bifera, Esq. fbifera@hblaw.com Hiscock-& Barclay, LLP KelliM. Dowell, Esq. kdowell@entergy.com Entergy Services, Inc.

EDMS#402862v1 8

ANDREW M. CuoMo 1 *,* .....

'. nJOE JM MARTENS GOVERNOR COMMISSIONER STATE OF NEVWYORK DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION ALBANY, NEW YORK 12233-1010 June 23, 2011 Mr. Brian E. Holian Director, License Renewal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission' 11555 Rockville Pike Mailstop,011 FI Rockville, MD 20852 Re: Indian Point License Renewal DocketNos. 50-247, 50-286 State of New York Denial, Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification

Dear Mr. Holian:

,

As you know, Entergy Nuclear is seeking from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) a 20-year renewal of its licenses for the operation oflndian Point Generating Units 2 and 3, located in Buchanan, New York. The State of New York is a party in the administrative proceeding pending before the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.

Entergy uses a once-through, cooling water system at Indian Point that withdraws and discharges 2.5 billion gallons of Hudson River water daily. Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. § 1341) requires Entergy, as an applicant for a federal license, to provide the NRC with a certification from the State of New York that its discharges into the Hudson River will meet all applicable State water quality standards. The Clean Water Act requires the State of New York-to act within one year of an applicant's request for the certification; otherwise, the-State will be deemed to have waived its opportunity to grant or deny the certification. 'See Clean Water Act § 401(a)(l); 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1).

Section 401 applications are reviewed pursuant to the State's Uniform Procedures Act. See New York Environmental Conservation Law (ECL), § 70-0107(3)(d); 6 NYCRR Part 621. In conjunction with its NRC license renewal application, Entergy applied to the State of New York for a section 401 water quality certification on April 6, 2009. The Chief Permit Administrator of the New York State bepartment of Environmental Conservation, William Adriance, denied wnmU - -

2.

Entergy's section 401 water quality certification on April 2, 2010 - within the one year peiriod -

on the grounds that Entergy's discharges fail to meet State water quality standards. Mr.

Adriance is authorized to act on applications for section 401 water quality certifications. A copy of the Department's denial of Entergy's request for a section 401 water quality certification is enclosed and can also be accessed at ,tp:'VwX dcc...t*Žy eqjl () html.

On April 29, 2010, Entergy requested an adjudicatory hearing on the State's denial of the water quality certification. That hearings process is ongoing and involves the applicant, Department staff, and intervenors. The Department's Office of Hearings and Mediation Services held a public hearing and an issues conference. The parties have beeh engaged in discovery, have submitted legal briefs on various issues, and have been drafting pre-filed expert testimony. The adjudicatory hearing itself will commence on September 12, 2011.

Entergy now claims that the State of New York "waived" its opportunityto issue or deny the section 401 water quality certification because the State did not act within one year. See Letter from Fred R. Dacimo, Vice President ofbOperations, Entergy Nuclear Northeast, to Brian E, Holian, Director, License Renewal, USNRC, dated June 21, 2011. Entergy maintains that the State's denial was only a "proposed" denial, whichý "triggered" a hearing that to date has not been concluded. Id.

Let me be clear: Entergy's gambit does not change the law or the facts. As Commissioner of Environmental Conservation of the State of New York, I am informing you that the Department's Chief Permit Administrator acted on Entergy's application for the section 401 water quality certification within the one-year period proscribed by the Clean Water Act by denying that application. Therefore, not only has the State of New York not waived its opportunity to determine Entergy's application :for a water quality certification, it has expressly denied that application. The Department's April 2, 2010, denial was not a "proposed" denial.

Indeed, "proposed" denials of water quality certificates do not exist under the State's statutes and regulations.

Nor did the fact that Entergy availed itself of an opportunity to'challenge the denial through the Department's adjudicatory process alter the Departient's water quality-certification denial. The applicant's action does not render the denial non-final or push the denial beyond the one year period proscribed by the Clean Water Act. Additi6nally, the State's denial of the water quality certification did not automatically trigger an administrative hearing in the State - Entergy affirmatively requested a hearing in April'2010 by letter 'to Mr. Adriance, the Department's Chief Permit Administrator.

In short, the Department denied Entergy's application for a section 401 water quality certification on April 2, 2010. As is its right, Entergy challenged that denial. However, untilf now, Entergy did not raise any issue of timeli aess of the denial. Entergy's newly manufactured assertion completely lacks any legal or factual basis, as a plain reading of section 401, the Department's denial, and Entergy's own action demonstrate.

3.

Please let me know if you have any questions about the State's denial of Entergy's application for a section 401 water quality certification for the 20-year license renewal of Indian Point Units 2,and 3.

Sincerely, SJ'o-,sh J. M'arens Enclosures cc: (without enclosure)

William Dean, Regional Administrator, NRC Region I John Boska, NRR Senior Project Manager Paul Eddy, NYS Departinent of Public Service Andrew Stuyvenberg, NRC License Renewal Environmental ProjectManager Sherwin Turk, NRC Office of General Counsel' Fred R. Dacimo, Vice President Operations, Entergy Nuclear Northeast

j' New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Office of the Commissioner, 1 4 th Floor 625 Broadway, Albany, New York 12233-1010 I

- Phone: (518) 402-85,40 , FAX: (518) 402-8541 Website: www.dec.state.ny.us Denise M.Sheeh an Commissioner DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

. 06-05 Permit Issuance Decision Making for Regulatory Programs Subject to the Uniform Procedures Act Section 3-0107 of the Environmental Conservation Law (ECL) authorizes the Commissioner to prescribe the powers and duties of deputies, assistants, directors, and other officers and employees of the Department. Pursuant to that authority, I hereby delegate to the Director of the Division of Environmental Permits, Regional Directors, and the Regional Supervisor of Division of Environmental Permits staff in each region (Regional Permit Administrator) the authority to issue permit decisions on applications for permit subject to the provisions of Article 70 of the Environmental Conservation Law (Uniform Procedures Act) and implementing regulation 6 NYCRRPart 621.

I also delegate permit decision-making responsibilities to the Department's Chief Permit Administrator in the central office of Environmental Permits, who will carry out functions on my behalf as described in the Uniform Procedures regulation; the Deputy Chief Permit Administrators for staff in the central office acting in place of the, Chief Permit Administrator; and Deputy Regional Permit Administrators acting alternatively to the Regional Permit Administrator.

I also delegate permit decision-making responsibilities to individuals I designate in other divisions administering regulatory programns subjectto Uniform Procedures. Nominations for such designations shall be provided'to me for consideration by the Chief Permit Administrator.

Designation letters to individuals may provide decision-making authority across all regulatory programs subject to Uniform Procedures or may prescribe the specific regulatory program or programs for which the individual may make permit issuance decisions. Any individual designation shall be maintained on the Permit Administrator List and maybe limited in time-or rescinded at my discretion.

Further, I hereby authorize Regional Directors to designate regional staff, not otherwise provided withpermit decision-making authority as described above, to issue permits under specified -

regulatory programs for emergency response and recovery operations in events where I have issued an Emergency Declaration and within the Emergency Declaration provided for such designation.

These designations shall only apply to such circumstances and only for the time frame required to expedite permitting for such activities.

Nothing contained herein shall limit my authority regarding decisions on permit issuance for regulatory programs subject to the requirements of Uniform Procedures.

This delegation supercedes Organization and Delegation Memorandum #95-12, dated April 20, 1995.

• 'DENISE... _________DATE...

DENISE M. SI-!EEHAN DATE I