eComment of Nicholas J. Seier - Flash Fire, Vapor Cloud, Jet Fire, and Thermal Radiation Risks of PennEast's proposed pipeline under PF15-1.

April 14, 2015 The Honorable Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 888 First Street, NE Washington, DC 20426 RE: Docket PF15-1-000 eComment Flash Fire, Vapor Cloud, Jet Fire, and Thermal Radiation Risks of PennEast Pipeline Company, LLCs Proposed Natural Gas Distribution Network Secretary Bose, I am sending you this letter unpaid and of my own free will. I am a citizen of the United States of America. Please consider this letter a formal request for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to request the PennEast Pipeline Company, LLC (PennEast) to publicly address this question below about Docket PF15-1-000. 1) Quantify and explain these risks and impacts radiuses in detailed-plain-English terms based on the formulas identified in the attached article titled Quantitative Risk Assessment in Irans Natural Gas Distribution Network, which appeared in the Open Journal of Safety Science and Technology (2014, 4, pages 59-72): i. Individual Risk (include graphical charts); ii. Societal Risk (include graphical charts); iii. Maximum Flash Fire impact radius (in feet) of PennEasts large scale (high pressure), 36 inch transmission pipeline; iv. Maximum Confined Vapor Cloud Explosion impact radius (in feet) of PennEasts large scale (high pressure), 36 inch transmisinsion pipeline; v. Maximum Jet Fire impact radius (in feet) of PennEasts large scale (high pressure), 36 inch transmission pipeline; and vi. Maximum Thermal Radiation impact radius (in feet) of PennEasts large scale (high pressure), 36 inch transmission pipeline. For readers of this letter are concerned that the proposed PennEast pipeline project is moving too quickly without adequate public debate and/or well-balanced, factual information, the attached document titled Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines: Process and Timing of FERC Permit Application Review might interest fellow citizens of the United States of America, especially those who actively vote in the ongoing election cycles. Congressional Research Service states the following, amongst other points: Notwithstanding the EPAct [Energy Policy Act of 2005] provisions, there is continuing concern by some in the gas industry and in Congress that FERC review of pipeline certificate applications can still take too long. The Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act (H.R. 161) seeks to expedite the federal review of certificate applications by imposing deadlines on the agencies involved. H.R. 161 would impose an explicit 12-month deadline on FERC certificate reviews for projects using FERCs pre-filing procedures and would codify the commissions 90-day regulatory deadline for any certificate-related agency decisions. Any agency decision not meeting the 90-day deadline would be approved by default. I ...