Scientist Raps Findings on Impact of Radioactivity From San Onofre Plant

A 15-year, $46-million study of the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station’s environmental impact failed to adequately examine the effects of radioactivity on the area, one of the study’s authors told the California Coastal Commission on Tuesday.

Rimmon C. Fay, one of three biologists appointed by the commission to study the plant, said he does not agree with the other authors’ conclusion that low levels of radioactivity released into the ocean near the plant do not significantly harm sea life.

“I don’t believe that point was adequately examined,” said Fay, who was appointed to the three-man Marine Review Committee to represent environmental groups. As the lone member of the committee to question a number of the conclusions of the August, 1989, report, he urged the Coastal Commission to retain a private consultant to review the marine committee’s findings before the commissioners decide how to mitigate the problems brought out.

“Never before in the history of this state, I believe, has as much money been spent with as little external review by an administrative agency,” Fay said. “It’s incumbent upon this commission to make sure that you’re getting a reliable, useful product from the MRC.”

Fay’s comments came during a three-hour workshop held to give the Coastal Commission a chance to question the marine committee’s scientists about the report’s findings, which were released in September.

It is up to the Coastal Commission to decide how to mitigate the substantial adverse effects of the San Onofre plant, and the commission’s staff said they would make formal recommendations in April.

Among the adverse effects, the report found, is a 60%, or 200-acre, reduction in the area covered by the San Onofre kelp bed. In addition, the report found that the plant’s cooling system sucks up and kills 21 to 57 tons of fish yearly, then discharges debris-filled water into the ocean, reducing natural light levels on the ocean floor by as much as 16%.

The report also found that these effects constitute a violation of San Onofre’s federal pollutant-discharge permit, a matter that will be discussed next week by the State Regional Water Quality Control Board in San Diego.

Byron J. Mechalas, the Marine Review Committee member appointed to represent Southern California Edison, the plant’s owner, simply downplayed the impact, telling the commission that he believes San Onofre has not had a substantial adverse effect on the surrounding environment.

“If you were a diver swimming along the California coast and you swam by (the plant) you would not detect any difference,” he said. “When one puts the MRC findings in proper perspective, one sees none are overwhelming.”

A plan to build cooling towers, which would reduce by 90% the 200 million gallons of sea water now sucked into the plant each minute, was one of several mitigation options discussed Tuesday. Most commission members seemed to agree, however, that the towers’ $2-billion price tag is prohibitively high.

Other options in the marine committee’s report include building a 300-acre artificial reef to help restore the kelp bed, reducing the flow of water into the plant’s cooling system or shutting the plant off altogether during months when fish larvae are most likely to be disturbed--usually February, March and April.

Scientists who completed the studies that led to the report said a combination of these and other methods could mitigate all of the adverse effects for about $40 million--much lower than the cost of cooling towers.

But some commission members questioned whether they should make their decision based on what mitigation will cost Southern California Edison. The utility paid for the report.

Chula Vista City Councilman David Malcolm, who represents San Diego County on the Coastal Commission, said that Edison officials had brought the added costs upon themselves.

“That utility company chose to take a permit prior to doing all the studies for their mitigation,” he said. “Now, because it costs so much to retrofit, they want to use that as a reason not to retrofit. I think that’s garbage.