Limerick nuclear plant accused of dodging safety study

The Limerick nuclear power plant is seeking approval to extend its operation until midcentury without doing a standard safety study, a national environmental group has contended.

The Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), which late Tuesday filed a petition to intervene in the plant's license renewal process, said Limerick was seeking to rely on a similar study from 1989.

Exelon Generation Co. L.L.C., which owns the plant, has filed papers with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission arguing that no further study "is required as a matter of law" because one was done for the plant previously and nothing substantive had changed since then.

The NRDC disputes that position. "The Limerick nuclear power plant's safety analysis is decades out of date" and a new one is necessary, said Christopher Paine, director of the council's nuclear program.

"After Fukushima, it seems just plain nutty," he said. "Even if you were completely convinced of the safety of your unit . . . just as a concession to public concern, wouldn't you want to do that?"

Exelon spokeswoman April Schilpp said she was unable to discuss details because the company is reviewing the petition. However, she said, "as we always have, we'll honor the well-defined guidelines and the thorough Nuclear Regulatory Commission relicensing process. In the meantime, we're just going to operate Limerick safely and reliably."

Limerick's two reactor units, which are along the Schuylkill in Montgomery County, began operation in 1986 and 1990. Together, they constitute a large baseload source of power for the regional electrical grid, generating enough electricity to power two million homes.

Their operating licenses expire in 2024 and 2029. Exelon applied for a license renewal in June, seeking to extend the operation of the units to 2044 and 2049.

More than eight million people live within a 50-mile radius, the NRDC said.

Studies like the one in question - called a severe accident mitigation alternatives analysis - are intended to look not at the likelihood of a severe accident, but to assess the environmental, economic and other consequences should one occur.

Possible safety improvements would then be identified and evaluated on a cost-benefits basis. So, the higher the cost of a potential accident, the more rationale there would be for safety upgrades.