Utility Takes Issue With County Over Emissions : Environment: Southern California Edison says if more studies are not conducted at its two power plants in Oxnard, it might sue before it makes any reduction in nitrogen oxide pollutants.

Southern California Edison is challenging Ventura County’s legal right to require a drastic reduction in Edison’s pollution-causing emissions without first performing more studies.

Depending on the results of such studies, Edison might also challenge the county’s plan to require the utility to reduce by 90% the emissions from its two power plants in Oxnard, a company official said.

And if the studies aren’t done, the company may sue before it makes any reductions, the company’s attorneys hint.

The demand for more studies, which came in a letter last week to Richard Baldwin, county air pollution control officer, might be a tactic to delay or weaken the proposed 90% reduction, which is called Rule 59, Baldwin said.

The regulation has been targeted for adoption in May, 1991, by county supervisors, but the study Edison wants could delay adoption by months, Baldwin said. If the issue resulted in a court battle--hinted at by Edison in its letter--resolution might take years, he said.

“If the district wishes to avoid possible litigation,” Edison attorneys said in the correspondence, the district must conduct a computer modeling study.

A computer model would study the effects of the 4,250 tons of nitrogen oxides emitted each year by Edison’s two county power plants.

Previous computer modeling studies in the county have looked at regionwide effects of all the pollutants emitted into the air, but Edison officials say those studies are not adequate in determining whether or how much Edison’s emissions should be reduced.

Baldwin said Edison’s request for computer modeling is unreasonable, since the Environmental Protection Agency has already performed overall computer model studies in the county. Because ozone air pollution is a regionwide problem and not a single-site phenomenon, a modeling study on the effects at a single location is not necessary, he said.

“It seems to be a way to delay the process,” Baldwin said.

Russ Baggerly, a board member of the Environmental Coalition, said Edison’s challenge citing legal opinion is a blatant attempt to intimidate the county.

“Edison talks about its good-corporate-neighbor policy, and all the while they are figuring out more ways to pollute the air,” Baggerly said. “Edison has demonstrated consistent opposition to the rule that would force them to clean up their power plants.”

But Edison said the power company merely wants the information to determine the best way to reduce ozone air pollution in Ventura County and help the county reach federal health standards for the pollutant.

“We are merely pointing out what we believe are necessary analyses to be performed in the environmental impact report,” said Nadar N. Mansour, Edison’s manager of environmental regulations. “We are not contesting the 90% rule; we are simply saying that before the air pollution agency can proceed with a rule of this nature, there are analyses they must do.”

He protested the suggestion that his company was practicing delay tactics. “Nothing could be farther from the truth,” he said. It is too early to even talk about court action if the district were to ignore Edison’s advice, he said.

Ventura County fails both federal and state health standards for ozone pollution. Ozone pollution is formed when nitrogen oxides emitted by the power plants and other smaller sources react in the presence of sunlight with hydrocarbons predominantly emitted by car tailpipes.

In a letter dated Sept. 11, Mansour told Baldwin and the Ventura County Air Pollution Control District that, in the opinion of Edison’s legal department, the proposed regulation could not be adopted until the district performs specific computer modeling. The legal opinion attached to Mansour’s letter cites the California Environmental Quality Act.

Mansour said Edison officials have not seen any studies proving that reducing nitrogen oxide emissions have reduced ozone pollution in Ventura County. He said the modeling, which would look specifically at the effects of the emissions of the Edison plants and not consider emissions from the rest of the county, is needed to determine whether Rule 59 is necessary.

The second question, Mansour said, is whether the rule, if necessary, should be as stringent as 90%. Edison knows of measures that would reduce emissions by as much as 60% at substantially less cost than the estimated $12,000 per ton it would cost to install the technology needed to reach 90% reductions.

But Baldwin said the $1 per month that may be added to consumers’ bills as a result will be worth the cost.

“The fact is that pollution cannot be cleaned up free of charge,” Baldwin said. “There is a price to pay, just like when you buy a car or paint or any product that had to use pollution control equipment to manufacture the product.”