Group Files Suit Against SCE Over Fish, Kelp Losses : Environment: Earth Island Institute demands that the San Onofre nuclear plant either fix its cooling system or shut down.

Charging that the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station is violating federal law by killing off tons of fish and kelp, an environmental group filed suit Thursday against Southern California Edison Co. demanding a stop to the killing.

The suit was filed about a year after a 15-year, $46-million study found that the nuclear plant north of Oceanside is, indeed, killing tons of fish and kelp.

But since then, neither Edison nor state regulatory agencies have taken action on the findings, according to the suit, filed by Earth Island Institute, a San Francisco-based environmental group.

The suit, filed in federal court in San Diego, demands that Edison either fix the plant’s cooling system, which the study said is responsible for most of the fish and kelp kills, or shut the plant.

The suit also says Edison should be ordered to establish an environmental trust fund to restore fish and kelp levels, and asks for unspecified monetary damages.

“It’s pie-in-the-sky until we win, which we intend to do,” said one of Earth Island’s San Diego lawyers, Charles S. Crandall. “But we want the plant to comply and to make restoration for the damage it has done--and it has done damage, clearly.”

An Edison spokesman, David Barron, said the utility’s lawyers had not seen the suit. But he said the utility is in compliance with all federal environmental laws.

“The marine life offshore is thriving, despite some limited effects from operation of plant, as one would expect,” Barron said.

The San Onofre plant is on the beach about 12 miles northwest of Oceanside, within the Marine Corps’ base at Camp Pendleton.

Edison operates three nuclear-powered units at the plant. The first opened in 1968, while the second and third opened in 1984.

The suit alleges that Rosemead-based Edison, a subsidiary of SCECorp., has been violating the federal Clean Water Act simply by operating the plant.

According to the suit, fish are killed when massive amounts of water are taken in to the plant to cool the reactors. Kelp, according to the suit, dies from particles that return with the water and either land on the fronds or block sunlight.

Federal law requires Edison to obtain a permit to operate from the state Water Quality Board and from the California Coastal Commission. Operation of the plant (in such a way as to kill marine life) technically violates the water board’s permit, the suit contends.

The suit relies heavily on the study, which was ordered by the Coastal Commission and issued in August 1989.

It found that the nuclear plant had caused a 60%, or 200-acre, reduction in the area covered by the nearby kelp bed.

It also 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 study was issued by a panel created in 1974 by the Coastal Commission as a condition of its granting Edison a construction permit to expand from one reactor to three.

The study, completely financed by Edison, was intended to provide an independent scientific review of the plant’s impact by appointing one biologist for each special interest--Edison, the environmentalists and the Coastal Commission.

Edison spokesman Barron said the study was not designed to compel compliance. Besides, he said, it “did not find an ecological disaster.”