December 30, 2014 

The Honorable Nita M. Lowey 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congresswoman Lowey: 

 On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am responding to your 

letter of November 17, 2014, requesting further evaluation of the proposed Spectra Energy 

Partners natural gas pipeline expansion near the Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC) in 

Westchester County, New York. The other recently announced pipeline expansion projects 

referenced in your letter are not within the NRC’s oversight as they do not involve an 

NRC-regulated site. 

 On February 28, 2014, Spectra Energy submitted an application to the Federal Energy 

Regulatory Commission (FERC) for a certificate to build a new natural gas pipeline about 

one-quarter mile from the IPEC Unit 2 and Unit 3 reactors. As a part of that process, a Spectra 

subsidiary, Algonquin Gas Transmission, submitted to FERC what your letter refers to as a 

“preliminary hazards analysis.” On August 6, 2014, FERC issued a draft Environmental Impact 

Statement in which it referred to certain preliminary statements by Entergy concerning the 

proposed pipeline’s impact at IPEC Units 2 and 3. 

Separately, because the proposed pipeline would intersect with a small portion of the 

licensee’s owner-controlled property, Entergy performed a site hazards analysis under NRC 

regulations in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Section 50.59, “Changes, 

tests, and experiments.” A 10 CFR 50.59 review is a technical evaluation performed by a 

licensee to determine if a proposed change to the facility, procedures, or evaluations represents 

a significant modification to the plant design and licensing bases as described in the licensee’s 

Final Safety Analysis Report and, consequently, would require NRC approval prior to 

implementation. Here, Entergy conducted a review of the proposed natural gas pipeline to 

determine if it would impact IPEC’s existing design basis external hazards analysis. On 

August 21, 2014, Entergy submitted its 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation and supporting hazard 

analysis to the NRC for information. In September 2014, Entergy submitted its evaluation to 

FERC as part of its comments on the draft Environmental Impact Statement. The Entergy 

review concluded that the change in the design basis external hazards analysis associated with 

the installation of the proposed new natural gas pipeline across a portion of the Indian Point site 

did not require prior NRC review and approval. 

In particular, Entergy’s evaluation analyzed the effects of a pipeline rupture with a 

subsequent jet flame, cloud fire, detonation of a vapor cloud, and/or missile generation to IPEC 

structures, systems, or components (SSCs) that are important to safety. Entergy’s analysis of 

potentially hazardous events precipitated by a pipeline rupture determined that the threshold for 

damage to safety-related or important-to-safety SSCs within the security owner controlled area 

will not be exceeded because of the distance between that area and the new pipeline. 
- 2 - 

However, a portion of the proposed pipeline would be located near important-to-safety SSCs 

outside the security owner controlled area. Due to the potential impact to these SSCs, they also 

were evaluated to determine if any further reductions in safety margins would occur should the 

pipeline rupture. The Entergy analysis concluded that there would be no additional reduction in 

safety margins for these SSCs and that the proposed pipeline poses minimal increased risk to 

the safe operation of IPEC Units 2 and 3. 

NRC inspectors and staff reviewed Entergy’s 10 CFR 50.59 evaluation and supporting 

hazard analysis, conducted a walk-down of the proposed pipeline routing, and performed an 

independent, confirmatory analysis of the potential hazards associated with a failure of the 

proposed pipeline. The NRC staff also reviewed the qualifications of Entergy’s subject matter 

expert who performed the licensee’s hazard analysis to ensure that the individual possessed the 

requisite knowledge, experience, and abilities to conduct that analysis. A detailed NRC 

inspection report addressing this and other matters was issued and made publicly available on 

November 7, 2014. 

Based on the NRC staff’s review of Entergy’s hazards analysis, the staff’s independent 

calculation using conservative assumptions, and the staff’s walk-down of the proposed pipeline 

route, the NRC staff concluded that safety-related SSCs inside the security owner controlled 

area would not be exposed to conditions exceeding the threshold for damage. In addition, the 

staff determined that important-to-safety SSCs outside the security owner controlled area could 

be adversely affected in the event of a pipeline rupture. The staff reached this conclusion 

because the calculated minimum safe distances from those SSCs to the impacts were not 

satisfied. However, the staff also concluded that the postulated impacts to those SSCs would 

be bounded by the impacts from extreme natural phenomena (including seismic activity, 

tornados, and hurricanes) that were previously assessed and addressed in the Indian Point 

Units 2 and 3 Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Therefore, Indian Point Units 2 and 3 

would still be able to achieve safe shutdown conditions in the event of a pipeline rupture event 

and the existing margin of safety is not expected to be reduced. Finally, the staff determined 

that Entergy’s conclusions that the potential rupture of the proposed pipeline near IPEC poses 

no threat to the safe operation of the plant or the ability to safely shutdown the plant, are 

reasonable and are consistent with the staff’s own conclusions. 

In summary, Entergy has completed, and submitted to the NRC, a detailed analysis of 

the hazards posed by the proposed pipeline. Based on the NRC staff’s review of Entergy’s 

analysis, as well as the staff’s inspection activities and independent analysis, the NRC 

determined that Entergy had appropriately concluded that the proposed pipeline does not 

introduce significant additional risk to safety-related SSCs and SSCs important to safety at 

Indian Point Units 2 and 3 in accordance with the criteria specified in 10 CFR 50.59. 

Accordingly, prior NRC review and approval to address this matter is not required. 

Regarding the claim of “false and inaccurate statements,” we note that the individual 

making that claim, based on the information provided by your staff, has made a similar claim to 

the NRC. This person has requested that the NRC take certain actions with regard to Entergy, 

and the NRC staff is currently evaluating that request under the agency’s 10 CFR 2.206 petition 

process. We expect to make a final determination on that request by mid-2015. 
- 3 - 

 I hope this response addresses your concerns. If you need additional information, 

please do not hesitate to contact me or Eugene Dacus, Director of the Office of Congressional 

Affairs, at (301) 415-1776. 

 Sincerely, 

 /RA/ 

 Allison M. Macfarlane