Plant Asks to Reduce Kelp Revival Plan

Arguing that damage to kelp beds is less than once feared, owners of the San Onofre nuclear power plant Monday proposed rolling back kelp restoration efforts near the plant while at the same time detailing plans to help restore wetlands in Ventura County.

The move to alter 1991 requirements to offset damage to fish and kelp promises to reignite the decades-old controversy over the plant’s effects on the marine environment.

“Full environmental mitigation at a reasonable cost” is how plant operator Southern California Edison described the package submitted Monday to the California Coastal Commission in San Francisco.

The package promises to provide a nettlesome test for the commission and its staff, which have been engulfed in controversy since a Republican majority took power for the first time this summer.

Some consumer groups already are complaining that changing mitigation requirements will mean a windfall for shareholders, not ratepayers.

And environmentalists instantly decried one of the biggest changes--building a 17-acre experimental reef instead of a required 300-acre reef--and some expressed fear that the effort would be approved because of the new makeup of the commission.

“They are ignoring the staff and trying to ram this through before the November election because they’re not sure whether the Assembly will remain Republican and they will still have the votes that they think they have wired,” said Warner Chabot, a spokesman for the Center for Marine Conservation in San Francisco.

Michael Hertel, Edison’s manager of environmental affairs, countered: “It’s not a political move. It’s based on the science we found, validated by independent people.”

Recent studies commissioned by Edison have indicated that the power plant has less impact on offshore kelp beds than scientists originally estimated, a conclusion endorsed this summer by a three-member review panel chosen by the company and the Coastal Commission.

The current debate stems from a long-term scientific study that in 1989 concluded the plant had caused a 60% shrinkage in a nearby kelp bed and that the plant’s cooling system was sucking up and killing 21 tons to 57 tons of fish and 4 billion eggs and larvae each year.

In response, the plant’s owners--Edison, San Diego Gas and Electric and the cities of Anaheim and Riverside--have been operating under 1991 requirements that they build the 300-acre kelp reef, restore wetlands and make technical changes at the plant to protect fish.

The original 1991 plan was to cost $30 million. Edison last year began asking for changes, warning that the price tag could soar to $160 million.

The proposal submitted Monday would cost about $70 million, Hertel said.

The new wetlands restoration plan includes what Edison describes as more than 365 acres of “environmentally valuable beach, dune and presently degraded wetlands.”

While earlier plans earmarked the San Dieguito River and Lagoon area in San Diego County for restoration, the scope of the program remained the source of dispute between Edison and the commission staff. To settle that dispute, Edison is proposing adding a conservation easement to about 150 acres of Edison-owned property in the Ormond Beach area in Ventura County, and Edison would set aside $3 million for restoration.

Meanwhile, plant owners would build a 17-acre experimental reef between Dana Point and Camp Pendleton, and they are proposing changes in how the entire San Onofre mitigation package is monitored.

Recent studies commissioned by Edison have indicated that the power plant has less of an impact on offshore kelp beds than scientists estimated in 1989, a conclusion endorsed this summer by a three-member review panel chosen by the company and the Coastal Commission.

Some environmentalists sharply criticized the new package and described the Edison research as flawed.

“This is very unwelcome and very disappointing,” said David Beckman, an attorney for the Natural Resources Defense Council. “We would strongly oppose any effort by Edison to roll back on the commitment they made.”

Opponents of the nuclear plant are also contending that reduced environmental costs will only mean bigger profits for shareholders, not rebates for ratepayers.

Consumer groups said the power plant’s owners negotiated higher electrical rates based on a forecast of more than $126 million in anticipated mitigation costs, but now are changing their tune.

If the Coastal Commission agrees to lower those costs, the utilities could reap a windfall in excess of $50 million for their investors, they argued.

“I believe there is a windfall for shareholders in this,” said Bill Marcus, an energy analyst doing work with Toward Utility Rate Normalization, a San Francisco-based consumer group.

The Coastal Commission is not expected to hear the proposal before October.

Although the commission deadlocked on a similar request from Edison last year, its makeup is now considered more conservative, which some environmentalists predict could change the outcome.

Last year, Commission Executive Director Peter Douglas maintained that Edison should have to abide by the 1991 requirements. He wrote then in a report to the commission: “A deal is a deal.” The San Onofre issue resurfaced last month when Douglas was nearly fired by the commission’s new GOP majority. State Resources Secretary Douglas Wheeler, who supported the firing, mentioned Douglas’ unwillingness to discuss Edison’s request for easing the 1991 requirements.

Patricia Randa, one of the new commissioners, said would make her decision based on scientific evidence presented by both sides.

“I want science,” she said. “Send me your experts, don’t send me your one-liners.”