In 2015, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission said it analyzed the effect of a pipeline rupture,including the jet flame, cloud fire, vapor cloud explosion and unconfined explosion that would result. The regulators concluded the power plant could be safely shut down if a pipeline accident occurred, and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission used that conclusion in its finding that the larger pipeline would not increase safety problems at the plant.
An opponent petitioned nuclear regulators, saying the company and the agency made false statements in their reports and used a scientifically flawed analysis to reach their conclusions.
 
It turns out Paul Blanch, the nuclear expert who filed the petition, was correct, the nuclear commission’s inspector general’s office said in a report issued Feb. 13.
The nuclear commission’s safety review and energy commission conclusions were deeply flawed, with flawed engineering analysis based on incorrect data and a clear and consistent violation of the process for responding to challenges of the analysis and the data, according to the report. The nuclear commission then conducted a flawed check of its findings and lied to the engineer who challenged them, the report found.
The report said:
  • The NRC’s inspection report contained inaccuracies suggesting additional analysis had been conducted, when this was not the case.
  • NRC’s underlying independent analysis was conducted using a computer program that the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which developed the program, said it was not designed for. Moreover, the NRC reported its results based on flawed data into the model and tweaked outcomes.
  • The NRC analyzed a non-existent hazard. Most of NRC’s independent analysis described the impact of a potential rupture on an above-ground point on IPEC property that NRC believed presented the most credible risk due to its exposure; however, the as-built 42-inch pipeline does not come above ground anywhere on IPEC property. And the NRC scientists knew that.
  • FERC incorrectly portrayed NRC’s independent analysis as significantly more conservative than it actually was.
When inspector general investigators briefed a deputy executive director at the nuclear agency about what they learned, they said he was concerned: “engineering judgment does not mean winging it.”
“I am appalled and furious to hear that a report by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Inspector General shows that the NRC failed to properly examine the safety impact of the placement of a natural gas pipeline near Indian Point during the pipeline’s approval process,” Westchester County Executive George Latimer said. “This is a gross failing on the part of the agency that is charged with keeping this community and the families that live here safe. It is particularly appalling when coupled with the fact that this is the same agency charged with overseeing the decommissioning of Indian Point – a process that is occurring right now.”
U.S. Rep. Nita Lowey called for an immediate briefing from Kristine Svinicki, the chairman of the nuclear commission.
“The IG findings show outrageous failings by an agency charged with the important responsibility of protecting the health and safety of our communities,” Lowey said in a news release. “This report indicates repeated failings to use proper analysis by the same commission that oversees the decommissioning of Indian Point. NRC must immediately explain to our communities the risks they face as a result of the agency’s faulty processes and take steps to protect the public from any dangers that have resulted from the pipeline’s approval and installation. That is why I have called for an immediate briefing on this critical matter from NRC Chairman Svinicki.”
The inspector general opened its inquiry because Blanch filed a petition with specific details about how the process was both factually wrong and procedurally incomplete.
Here’s one detail from the report just about Blanch’s assertion that Entergy, the owner of Indian Point, Spectra, then-owner of the pipeline, and the nuclear agency were making “material misstatements of fact.”
The report says:
In response to the stakeholder’s assertion that it would take longer than 3 minutes for the pipeline operators in Houston, Texas, to close the valves, thereby stopping the flow of gas, NRC misrepresented the assumptions used in the followup bounding analysis that was conducted to assess the impact of 60 minutes of gas released. While NRC’s response to the stakeholder described having conducted an assessment that assumed an infinite source of natural gas with the pipeline valves open for an hour, OIG’s investigation found that NRC assessed only 1 minute of gas released. Moreover, NRC never confirmed the validity of the licensee’s assumption that the valves could be closed in 3 minutes. OIG contacted the pipeline operator who estimated it would take at least 6 minutes after detection of a leak to close the valves.
Latimer said he wants the nuclear agency to come to Westchester for a public meeting.
“I want the NRC here to tell the people of Westchester County that they have failed them, and to explain what steps they are taking to protect the public from the pipeline that now crosses the Indian Point property as part of the Algonquin Incremental Market Project,” he said.
Meanwhile, in response to inspector general questions about whether the power plant was operating in an unanalyzed condition due to risks posed by the new 42-inch pipeline, the nuclear agency ‘s deputy executive director for reactor preparedness said: “The only reason I would hesitate…to just jump in and say we are in an unanalyzed condition is Entergy did analyze it. I have questions about how well we validated their analysis, so I think we have more work to do, but I don’t think I would say they are in an unanalyzed condition at this point.”