LIMERICK >> With little fanfare and even less comment, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Monday announced the renewal of the operating license at the Limerick Generating Station for another 20 years.
The renewals come a full ten years before the first of the original 40-year licenses on the two nuclear reactors there expire.
The operating license for Unit One expires on Oct. 26, 2024 and on June 22, 2029 for Unit Two.
As a result, the new licenses will expire on Oct. 26, 2044 for Unit One and June 22, 2049 for Unit Two.
“Today’s announcement is great news for Limerick employees, our customers and the community,” Tom Dougherty, the site vice president, said in a prepared statement.
“We are committed to running the plant at world-class levels through 2049, providing clean, safe, reliable energy while powering the local economy,” he said.
The license renewal is the 75th issued by the NRC and 17 additional nuclear plant license renewal applications are currently under review, according to the NRC.
In fact, the NRC has never denied a license renewal application from a nuclear plant.
The news was less cheerfully greeted by Donna and Lewis Cuthbert from the Alliance for a Clean Environment, which has steadfastly fought Limerick’s licensing renewal.
Lewis Cuthbert said he still does not understand why its necessary to renew the license when there is still 10 more years of wear and tear from operations on the plant to analyze, before tacking on another 20 years, a decision based on 10-year-old data.
“It’s as if you bought a car in 1980 and expecting it to run without problems until 2049,” he said. “It’s regulatory malpractice by the NRC.”
Donna Cuthbert agreed.”It’s insanity to re-license a nuclear power plant for 20 years when it still has 10 years of operation on its original license,” she said. “There’s a lot that can go wrong in 10 years on a plant that’s already 30 years old.”
But not all of the components at the plant are original equipment.
Exelon’s statement noted that in the past five years, Exelon has invested more than $500 million in plant components and technology.
Exelon reported that collectively, its personnel spent 60,000 hours preparing the 2,000 page license renewal application that was submitted on June 22, 2011.
The process “involved review of thousands of documents, a detailed review of historical equipment and component performance, and a rigourous review of the existing maintenance and engineering programs to ensure that the station is capable of maintaining plant systems over the extended license period,” according to the company.
In the end, it’s about the rules.
“The NRC makes the decision to grant or deny the license renewal based on whether the applicant has demonstrated that the environmental and safety requirements in the agency’s regulations can be met during the period of extended operation,” according to the 12-page “record of decision” document made available to The Mercury Monday by the NRC.
NRC’s review also included consideration of 14 different energy alternatives to the nuclear power plant, including ocean wave and current energy, wood waste, geothermal, solar and wind.
In August, the NRC concluded that when compared to the alternatives, renewing Limerick’s license for another 20 years will have “small environmental impacts in all areas” and that those impacts will be “smaller than those of the feasible and commercially viable replacement power alternatives considered.”
The plant generates 2,345 megawatts of electricity, enough power for roughly two million homes, according to Exelon.
Perhaps the issues which dogged the renewal application most continuously was the question of the storage of spent fuel rods.
With the federal government’s failure to create a permanent storage facility for the nation’s spent fuel at Nevada’s Yucca Mountain, nuclear plants have begun storing their spent fuel rods, which will remain radioactive for hundreds of years, on-site.
Limerick is no exception.The spent fuel assemblies in the pools inside the reactor buildings have been re-arranged to make room for more fuel rods and the older, colder fuel has been removed from the pools and encased in steel and cement using a method called “dry cask storage.”
But on Aug. 26, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced the issuing of a final rule governing the on-site storage of spent nuclear fuel.
The rule marked the end of a two-year process made necessary by a June, 2012 U.S. Court of Appeals ruling which ordered the NRC to consider several potential developments that could result from the continued and expanded storage of spent nuclear fuel on-site at nuclear plants.
As the result of the final rule being issued, the suspension of final decisions on nuclear plant license renewals was lifted.
Two days later, on Aug. 28, the “final environmental impact statement” for the plant’s re-licensing application was issued and posted online, a crucial step forward for renewal application.
The spent fuel problem was also an issue for Limerick specifically given that the Natural Resources Defense Council had specifically challenged Limerick’s license renewal on the grounds that the spent fuel issue, and the new potential environmental impacts it created, had not been adequately explored in the application’s environmental impact statement.
But on Oct. 7, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, rejected the last of the NRDC’s contentions, clearing the way for Monday’s announcement.
However, the matter is not entirely resolved.
Oral arguments on the NRDC legal challenge are scheduled for Nov. 21 before the Washington, D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, according to NRC spokesman Neil Sheehan.
One local leader was pleased with the announcement.
East Coventry Township Supervisor Mariea Geho was quoted in Exelon’s press release saying “I am very happy that the NRC renewed Limerick’s operating license.”
She added, “the community has benefitted greatly from our partnership with Exelon. Limerick is a good neighbor and I am very pleased that the plant will be operating for future generations.”
According to Exelon, the Limerick plan contributes $113 million annually in direct economic impact in Pennsylvania, including $75 million in employee wages in salaries, $35 million in purchases of goods and services and $2.9 million in property tax payments.
