Symposium Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines - - PDF document
RPI Engineering Symposium Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch, Energy Consultant Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines 12/15/16 1 Paul Blanch Energy Consultant Indian Point the most
12/15/16 1 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
Paul Blanch, Energy Consultant
12/15/16 2 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
pipeline at Indian Point nuclear plant
(ALOHA) that is prohibited for a rupture in this configuration.
engineers calculate greater than 4000 foot blast radius using NRC-approved equations.
(Fukushima)
Entergy, PHMSA, or NYS of neither the existing pipelines nor Spectra ¡Energy’s ¡Algonquin ¡Incremental ¡Market ¡(AIM) ¡pipeline ¡ at Indian Point
impact radius
12/15/16 3 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
12/15/16 4
Aerial Photo taken by Paul Blanch June 2010 Width about 3000 feet
Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
12/15/16 5 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
12/15/16 6 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
20 million people impacted
12/15/16 7
Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
376,000Kg/minute
pounds of TNT per minute or about 5 kilotons per minute
12/15/16 8 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
12/15/16 9
radius of about 1100 feet
(Results were Redacted)
Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
to calculate blast without any justification but:
– It apparently provided the answer they desired
not in accordance with any QA requirements
minute release
12/15/16 10 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
used prohibited EPA program, ALOHA, and calculated 1100 feet blast radius from 42-inch line (850 psi)
with more than 120 years of nuclear experience using data from the NRC/Entergy, independently calculate a blast radius of more than 4000 feet
– Calculations performed in accordance with the intent
(10 CFR 50 Appendix B)
calculation to US Congresswoman Lowey (3/24/2015)
miscalculation
12/15/16 11 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
NRC that a gas event may cause major damage extending ¡for ¡“several ¡thousand ¡meters”
minute of TNT equivalent although its impact will be much less than 3 kilotons detonating
facility to be 7-10 km
gas lines
damage radius
containing ¡Entergy’s ¡analysis
12/15/16 12 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
12/15/16 13
Blast Radius of 4200 feet for 3 minute release
Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
12/15/16 14
Blast radius of 4300 feet
Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
Rmin=Z*W 1/3
12/15/16 15
Blast radius of 4185 feet
Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
12/15/16 16
Blast radius 3000-4000 feet
Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
hydraulic fracturing
12/15/16 17 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
by the NRC by a factor of 100-1000 without any supporting documentation
Fukushima due to population density and radioactive spent fuel on site
many NYS and US Congressional representatives and the Governor
– None have been produced to date
mentioning Indian Point
– Final product required by October 5, 2016
12/15/16 18 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
12/15/16 19 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
defined however the NRC appears to accept an accident (core damage and release) frequency
Regulatory Guide 1.91
failure rate of the gas lines is in the range of 1 in 10,000/year to 1 in 100,000/year (terrorism excluded)
1 in 20,000,000/flight and includes terrorism
are trivial when compared to Indian Point gas line event
greater than a commercial flight and is a continuous risk, 365/24/7
12/15/16 20 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
– Including much of NYC, NJ and CT
approaching $1 trillion
– Wall Street, Trump Tower, Water Supplies, Transportation, etc.
12/15/16 21 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
miscalculation and other inaccuracies, FERC, PHMSA and NRC have not required a valid risk assessment even though it has been requested by Congressional and NY State representatives
transparent
– “Compliance ¡Guidelines ¡and ¡Recommendations ¡for ¡ Process Safety Management”
12/15/16 22 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
the responsibility to identify and report violations
new pipeline. Does not even include possible collateral damage to Indian Point
– Contract required to be completed by October 5, 2016
– Response: Not our responsibility!
that was never conducted
assessment information
12/15/16 23 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
concerns
any issues
before US Congresswoman Lowey (3/24/2015)
discrepancies (Regulatory Infallibility)
program for blast radius
– But it did provide desired results
time in confirmatory analysis
– NTSB reports nominal isolation times range from 30 to 90 minutes
gallon fuel tanks
resulting in final approval of project
12/15/16 24 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
response
actions by Entergy
lines located 380 feet from control room
EPA ALOHA computer code
violation of NRC procedures
General (Case #16-024)
12/15/16 25 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
with all requirements of 49 CFR 192
first responders, public education and awareness and hundreds of others
seeing ¡any ¡“risk ¡assessment” ¡from ¡the ¡NRC ¡
12/15/16 26 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
may ¡cause ¡major ¡damage ¡for ¡“several ¡ thousand ¡meters”
program to miscalculate damage
calculated in the Trillions of $$
engulf entire Indian Point site
uninhabitable for generations
CFR 192 and ASME B31.8(s)
12/15/16 27 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
the NRC
– NRC Office of Investigation refused to investigate
established engineering principals such as blast radius and valve isolation times
vapor clouds
explosion or notification to Spectra
has no detection, isolation or emergency
differences and discrepancies
12/15/16 28 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
to his office
with PHMSA to identify noncompliances
while never mentioning impact on Indian Point
nuclear plants
12/15/16 29 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
– Increased CO2 – US Economy could be destroyed – 20 Million inhabitants relocated – Trillions $$$ – Uninsured property
– Decreased CO2 – Energy Independence – Lower natural gas prices for New England
– $$$ to Spectra Energy
12/15/16 30 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
– Reduces but does not eliminate risks
removing one terrorist threat
– Airborne, Oklahoma City attack, drones, cyber security, insiders, etc.
12/15/16 31 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
challenged even in a court of law and only after the fact
differences and discrepancies.
safety of 20 million people do not need to be licensed, be a PE, or any nuclear background
– (One would need a license to cut hair in Connecticut)
agencies
requirements for Quality Assurance
look for regulatory non-compliance
12/15/16 32 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
tombstones are counted or after a major accident
– Fukushima – Three Mile Island – Exxon Valdez – BP Gulf oil spill – San Bruno – Bridge Failures – Dam Failures – Transportation accidents Examples can be found in numerous NTSB accident reports
12/15/16 33 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
12/15/16 34 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
– Responsible ¡for ¡protecting ¡the ¡“People ¡and ¡Environment”
– Responsible for investigating licensee wrongdoing and can refer cases to Department of Justice
– Responsible for siting of major energy projects and compliance with Federal Regulations
Administration
– Responsible for regulatory compliance and inspection of pipelines (49 CFR 192)
– Specifies minimum requirements for all Federal Agencies
Safety
– Advises Commission on major safety issues facing the nuclear industry
12/15/16 35 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
– Algonquin Incremental Market pipeline
– Owner and operator of Indian Point Units 1, 2, 3.
– Indian Point Energy Center- A Limited Liability Corporation
– New York State Attorney General
– New York State
– International Atomic Energy Agency
– Licensed Professional Engineer
– National Transportation Board
– Freedom Of Information Act
– Memorandum Of Understanding between NYS and PHMSA
12/15/16 36 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
12/15/16 37 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
§ 50.59 Changes, tests, and experiments.
(C)(2) A licensee shall obtain a license amendment pursuant to § 50.90 prior to implementing a proposed change, test, or experiment if the change, test, or experiment would: (i) Result in more than a minimal increase in the frequency of occurrence of an accident previously evaluated in the final safety analysis report (as updated); (ii) Result in more than a minimal increase in the likelihood of occurrence of a malfunction
final safety analysis report (as updated); (iii) Result in more than a minimal increase in the consequences of an accident previously evaluated in the final safety analysis report (as updated); (iv) Result in more than a minimal increase in the consequences of a malfunction of an SSC important to safety previously evaluated in the final safety analysis report (as updated); (v) Create a possibility for an accident of a different type than any previously evaluated in the final safety analysis report (as updated); (vi) Create a possibility for a malfunction of an SSC important to safety with a different result than any previously evaluated in the final safety analysis report (as updated); (vii) Result in a design basis limit for a fission product barrier as described in the FSAR (as updated) being exceeded or altered; or (viii) Result in a departure from a method of evaluation described in the FSAR (as updated) used in establishing the design bases or in the safety analyses. 12/15/16 38 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
12/15/16 39
Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
12/15/16 40 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant
and Entergy personnel providing insights and information
hours and dollars to this effort
– even getting arrested for protesting this insanity
12/15/16 41 Co-locating Nuclear Plants with Natural Gas Pipelines Paul Blanch Energy Consultant