Enviromnental attorney Richard "Corky" Wharton said at a state Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) public hearing in Oceanside October 31 that Southern California Edison, operator and major owner Of the San Onofre nuclear plant, has a "history of broken promises and deception." Wharton represented Friends of the Earth and the Surfrider Foundation at the hearing. He is also a professor and director of the Environmental Law clinic at the University Of San Diego.
The RWQCB finally called the hearing on Hallowe'en after a delay Of more than two years, following the release in August Of 1980 of a 15-year, $46 million study on how the San Onofre nuclear facility is affecting the marine environment as it consumes and then spews out almost 2 million gallons of seawater per minute to cool its three nuclear reactors (ten times the amount of discharge by the City of San Diego at its sewage out-fall). The water is several degrees warmer when returned. and is laden with fine sediments and organic materials that are deposited on the ocean bottom, forming a crust which inhibits plant and invertebrate growth.
The long-term Marine Review Committee (MRC) analysis was ordered by the California Coastal (Commission in 1974 to determine whether there is "significant" impact on the ocean ecology at San Onofre. Edison was required to pay for the study (which means ratepayers paid for it). The three-member committee of biologists (representing the Coastal Commission, Bdison and environmentalists) concluded that San Onofre is in fact causing massive Idlls of fish and other marine organisms, causing a great deal of turbidity (cloudiness) in the water, which deleteriously affects the growth of kelp and other ocean life.
The report said there has been a 48 to 60 percent loss (about 200 acres) of Icelp beds. In fact. the operation of the nuclear plant is having 8 significant effect on the ocean and I indeed is violating the discharge permit granted by the Water Quality Board, according to the MRC study. Edison spokespersons claimed the water off San Onofre is naturally turbid. and showed a composite photo taken from the air to demonstrate the cloudiness of the ocean. They then admitted the photo had been taken one day after it had rained.
The Edison biologist on the MRC even signed the MRC report, which amounts to an endorsement of the study. The MRC study said that up to 70 percent of the fish in the ocean near the plant. and about 45 percent of the invertebrate life (fish eggs, larvae and other marine organisms) are being killed by the plant.
Dr. Rimmon C. Fay, a marine biologist was ther from - RWQCB on behalf of the federal Environmental Protection Agency). Edison speakers at the Water Board hearing replied by saying that the "Impacts are not very great."
Earth Island Institute attorney Stevc Crandall said the MRC study found that San Onofre does cause excessive turbidity in the seawater. "Sixty percent of the days that the plant is operating," said Crandall, "it is violating its light limitations (under the terms of its permit)." Loss of 16 to 25 percent of the light in the water offshore has meant that the giant kelp bed off San Onofre is only about half the size it used to be. Friends of the Earth. Earth Island Institute, Surfrider Foundation and other environmentalists insist that the Water Quality Board has only two options in dealing with San Onofre: shut the plant down entirely. or close it temporarily until cooling towers are built. Costing at least a billion dollars. cooling towers would result in very little marine or environmental impact.
Earth Island Institute has a lawsuit pending in the San Diego federal court of Judge Rudi M. Brewster, demanding that Edison comply with state and federal environmental laws, and 'cease and desist" from its illegal discharges and their deleterious impact on marine plants and animals. Crandall called on the Water Quality Board to intervene in the lawsuit so it can have access to the detailed testimony and participate in the cross-examination of witnesses.
Judge Brewster could decide this month whether the Earth Island lawsuit will go to trial next spring. Crandall presented to the water board a 1976 document from Edison's files which showed evidence of significant marine biology impacts from San Onofre's Unit One reactor before the company had obtained permits to discharge from Units Two and Three. According to Crandall, Edison purposely concealed that evidence from the RWQCB for four years, while Units Two and Thrcc were under construction, because they feared building of the new units might be halted if government agencies and the public knew of the extent of the marine environmental damage.