Pipeline Past Indian Point Topic of NRC Petition Review Board July 15 in Montrose

Editor’s Note: The date of the presentation, July 15, was wrong in the original version of this article. Patch regrets the error.

According to the NRC, any member of the public may raise potential health and safety issues in a petition.

Nuclear expert Paul Blanch did so to object to Spectra Energy‘s go-ahead from the Federal Energy Regulation Commission for the first of several projects to expand its existing pipeline under the Hudson River and past the nuclear power plants at Indian Point.

On July 15, Blanch and will pipeline expert Richard Kuprewicz will make the second presentation to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Petition Review Board on the petition filed in 2014.

It will be in the form of a teleconference, preceded by a press conference with Blanch and Assemblywoman Sandra Galef at 2 p.m. July 15 at the Hendrick Hudson Library in Montrose.

Galef said in a previous statement that she believes “the NRC needs to require a full and complete independent analysis of the safety of the AIM project in relation to Indian Point, in which assumptions are properly validated.”

According to a press release, Blanch and Kuprewicz are expected to reveal “that the risk assessment used as the basis for approval of the AIM project must be negated because the Nuclear Regulatory Commission knowingly used erroneous information, not based on sound science, to improperly evaluate the plant’s ability to achieve failsafe shutdown in the event of a pipeline rupture.”

According to the NRC Blanch:

...requested enforcement action against Entergy regarding their 10 CFR 50.59 site hazards analysis associated with the proposed Spectra Energy 42-inch diameter natural gas pipeline that will traverse a portion of the owner controlled property at the Indian Point site. The petitioner requests violations against the licensee because he contends that: (1) the 10 CFR 50.59 analysis is inaccurate and incomplete, (2) the analysis includes inaccurate information, and, (3) the licensee’s contractor was not qualified to perform the supporting analysis concerning Appendix B to Part 50. The petitioner also requests that multiple demands for information be issued and an independent analysis of the impact of the proposed natural gas pipeline be performed.

RELATED:

• Spectra Files Next Stage of Algonquin Pipeline Expansion
• DEC Issues Water Permits for 1st Algonquin Pipeline Expansion Project
• Spectra OK to Start Prep Work in Montrose on Algonquin Pipeline Expansion
• Feds Consider Pipeline Expansion Foes’ Requests for a Rehearing

Blanch made his first presentation to the Petition Review Board via teleconference Jan. 28.

Spectra Energy uses its Algonquin pipeline to send natural gas through Rockland, Westchester and Putnam counties into New England and then to export terminals in Canada.