Teri Sforza, Register staff writer
The $7 million sea lion?
True, far more sea mammals meet inglorious ends at San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station than at any other power plant in California, according to the state.
We’re talking 558 sea lions and seals entrapped over 15 years, of which 429 died. (See details on mortality charts below).
It’s not just a matter of cute sea mammals. Some 3.6 million fish wind up in San Onofre’s intake system each year, though most are caught by screens and returned to the ocean largely unharmed, SCE says. There are also some 6 billion fish larvae caught up in the works; those presumably perish. And don’t forget the two sea turtles that have died there since 1983.
How much are these lives worth? If new rules barring power plants from using ocean water to cool their systems take effect next year, the bill will be some $3 billion - just to retrofit San Onofre alone. Each of its two reactors would have to be shut down for almost two years to make the changes.
And the cost of all this will ultimately fall to the good customers of Southern California Edison (which runs the nuclear plant). The numbers are so big that no one wants to translate it into cost-per-average-household just yet.
The state’s no-ocean-water-to-cool-power-plants rule would apply to 18 other plants in California – including the one in Huntington Beach – and the total bill for retrofitting them is estimated to be well over $7.6 billion. (Note that these estimates come from the power companies; the state is calling for independent studies to determine compliance costs).
Does this meet the common-sense test? Many don’t think so. SCE officials say it would impact the state’s ability to provide reliable electrical power to a growing populace, as well as impact air quality.
The State Water Resources Control Board was to vote on the new rules this month, but that’s been put off until the new year as negotiation on the whens, hows, whys and whats of the new rules continues…
NOT SO FAST, SCE SAYS
SCE says the picture painted by the state of San Onofre’s impact on local marine life “omits several rather significant details.
“First, a one-of-a-kind fish protection technologies built into San Onofre’s ocean water intake system protects 94 percent of fish drawn into the plant’s intake system, and then SCE’s artificial reef project off San Clemente and its wetlands restoration project in Del Mar more than compensate for the rest as well as for fish eggs and larvae that are drawn into San Onofre’s cooling water system,” SCE spokesman Gil Alexander told us by email.
This, SCE says, raises a common sense question: Why would the state ask utility customers to pay billions more in the name of protecting coastal fish when San Onofre already has a net positive impact on local marine life?
“This common sense test is just the beginning of SCE’s concerns,” Alexander wrote. “The utility believes the new policy could not be implemented at San Onofre. The utility is telling regulators that engineering challenges and space needed to retrofit cooling towers at San Onofre make them infeasible. SCE also doubts it could obtain the necessary permits to retrofit the plant. One reason is that a preliminary analysis has found that cooling towers could be worse for the environment than ocean water cooling.”
That’s because cooling towers would impact on Southern California air quality.
Of further concern: The 19 coastal power plants in question represent 40 percent of the state’s entire generating capacity. “There are questions about whether the state could keep the lights on if the policy forces coastal plant shut-downs,” SCE says. Full story
