IV. CEQA Issues
A. Meaningful Environmental Assessment
TURN and CEC claim that the EIR for this project was prepared "too early" and does not provide "meaningful" review. (Application, at p. 20.) This claim does not demonstrate error. The EIR was prepared in time for the Commission's decision on the SGRP, consistent with CEQA's requirements on the timing of an EIR. (See, Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15004. (Further citations to Title 14 of Cal. Code Regs. will refer to the "CEQA Guidelines".) That section contains one of CEQA's primary requirements: an EIR must be prepared before a project is approved, and the EIR must be considered as part of the decision to approve the project or not. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15004, subd. (a), Pub. Resources Code, § 21061.) We exercised our authority to prepare the EIR so it was available prior to the issuance of the Decision. There is simply nothing erroneous or improper about this timing. It would have been manifestly improper had we approved the SGRP in 2005 and waited until a later time, e.g. 2008, too conduct the EIR, as the Application suggests.
In addition, the EIR does not exhibit the flaws of a document that is "too early." An EIR is too early when it "engage[s] in sheer speculation as to future environmental consequences." (Lake Co. Energy Council v. Co. of Lake (1977) 70 Cal.App.3d 851, 854-855.) An EIR should not be prepared so far in advance of a project that its analysis is "meaningless and financially wasteful." (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 395-396.) Here, the EIR identified the "potentially significant environmental effects" of the SGRP. The document proposed mitigation measures and alternatives that would minimize those environmental consequences. Edison was required to use the environmentally superior alternatives identified in the EIR for two phases of the project (Decision, at Ordering Paragraph 20) and required to perform mitigation and subject itself to a mitigation monitoring plan. (Decision, at Ordering Paragraphs 19, 21.) These specific requirements demonstrate that the EIR contained meaningful analysis.
B. Slope Stability
More specifically, the Application asserts that the EIR is inadequate because it does not present decisionmakers with geotechnical studies on slope stability "so that the feasibility of the various [transportation] routes can be evaluated." (Application, at p. 20.) The Application claims this applies to "various routes" without identifying any. Review of the EIR identifies only one area of concern: an approximately 1,000 yard portion of the replacement generator transportation route running along the coastline in the San Onofre Bluff area. An aerial photograph of this area is provided in the EIR as Figure D.5-2. The EIR identifies slope stability issues in this area as potential significant effects. At page D.5-14, the EIR points out that the potential effects of transportation could include landslides, road settling and ground cracks. To mitigate these effects, Edison must, ten months before transportation of the replacement generators, obtain and review up-to-date geotechnical studies. If necessary, Edison must make road improvements. (Ibid.)
This approach presented us with the information we needed to perform the required "meaningful evaluation" of the proposed project. The problem is identified, and a specific mitigation measure is proposed. CEQA Guidelines section 15151 requires only that an EIR contain "a sufficient degree of analysis to provide decisionmakers with information which enables them to make a decision which intelligently takes account of environmental consequences."
Specifically, the EIR's study of environmental consequences, "need not be exhaustive[.]" The Application appears to be seeking "exhaustive" information as opposed to "sufficient" information, and should be denied. This is made clear by the response to comments from the Coastal Commission. The EIR points out that the project will not start until 2008, at the earliest. Thus, current slope conditions could be quite different from the conditions Edison will face when the project begins. (See Final EIR, Response to Comments E-3, at p. 52, Response to Comments CC 5-33, at p. 133.) Information that will be stale in 2008 would not allow us to "intelligently take account of environmental consequences." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15151.)
Finally, the EIR correctly notes that this approach is consistent with Oceanview Estates Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Montecito Water District (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396, 400-401. That case holds that mitigation measures, "need not specify the precise details of a design. Having recognized a significant environmental impact and having determined the mitigation measures necessary to reduce the impact" the environmental document may, "leave the details to the engineers." (Ibid.) While the Application claims this case is not on point, the EIR's approach follows this language. The EIR "recognizes" that slope stability issues are a significant impact and determines the "mitigation measures necessary" to address them, namely road improvements based on current geotechnical information.7
C. Location of Original Generator Disposal Site
The Application asserts we were unable to make an "adequately informed decision" on the SGRP because the EIR does not identify the locations where the Original Steam Generators (OSGs) will be stored or disposed. This claim appears to be redundant. The storage and disposal locations for the OSGs will be the same. (The OSGs will be prepared for transportation and disposal at a location "within the Owner Controlled Area, west of I-5...." [Final EIR, at p. B-34].)
The EIR describes how the OSGs will be removed to a portion of the SONGS facility, dismantled, and shipped to a disposal site. The most likely disposal site is in Utah. (Final EIR, Response to Comments CC4-5, at p. 96.) In response to the Coastal Commission's similar comment on the Draft EIR, the Final EIR points out: "The CPUC does not have jurisdiction over low level radioactive waste management regulations and responsibilities, and evaluation of those issues is beyond the scope of this CEQA document." (Final EIR, Response to Comments E-2, at p. 51.) Nevertheless, the EIR did evaluate potential radiation exposure impacts that could occur as a result of transporting the original generators away from the SONGS site. That evaluation "determined that compliance with existing applicable regulations would be adequate to reduce the ... impacts to a less than significant level." (Ibid.)
The Application makes no attempt to explain why this level of disclosure is legally insufficient, and should be denied on this point. As explained above, and EIR must provide "sufficient" information, not "exhaustive" information. (CEQA Guidelines, § 15151.) In addition, the Application does not claim that the NRC will fail to ensure that the disposal of the original steam generators will take place without a significant adverse environmental consequence. As a result, adding more information to the EIR would not change the analysis, and would not improve the quality of our decisionmaking. The Application's unsupported claim of error should be denied.
D. Operation and Safety of SONGS
Finally, TURN/CEC assert the EIR is inadequate because engineering studies on the effect of the SGRP on the containment building will be prepared as part of the NRC's review of the project, but were not available as part of the EIR's environ-mental review. (Application, at p. 21, citing Final EIR, at p. B-36.) The EIR concluded that potential environmental impacts from this portion of the project would be less than significant, in large part because the NRC would ensure that changes to the containment facility would not compromise safety. (Final EIR, at pp. D.12-19 to D.12-21.)
This aspect of the project, too, is covered by federal regulation. Authority for both "construction and operation of any nuclear power plant" lies with the NRC. (42 U.S.C., § 2021, subd(c).) In Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. State Energy Resources and Development Com. (1983) 461 U.S. 190, 212-213, the Supreme Court definitively found that federal regulation had occupied the field on matters of nuclear safety. The court specifically stated that it "would be clearly impermissible for California to attempt" to regulate, "the operation of nuclear power plants." (Id., at pp. 214-215.) The Application makes no attempt to disagree with the information disclosed in the EIR-that this aspect of the project will have no significant adverse environmental consequences because of NRC's oversight. Rather, the Application simply seeks additional, background information on the construction and operation of the plant. As a result, the Application does not demonstrate any error in the Decision, and should be denied.
7 Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. Co. of Stanislaus (1996) 48 Cal. App.46th 182, cited by the Application, does not require a different result. That case found that an EIR was inadequate because it did not completely identify all of a project's impacts. The Stanislaus Natural Heritage EIR only discussed the water use impacts of a development project for the first 5 years of its life, leaving 20 years of water use issues unanalyzed. As a result, the County approved the project without knowing either where the water would come from or "what significant environmental effected might be expected when the as yet unknown water source (or sources) is ultimately used." Stanislaus Natural Heritage Project v. Co. of Stanislaus, supra, 48 Cal. App. 4th, at p. 195. Here, rather than ignoring or deferring analysis of the impact, the EIR discussed the potential problems in the area, and "provided decisionmakers with the information they needed to make an informed decision about the entire project." Riverwatch v. Co. of San Diego (1999) 76 Cal. App. 4th 1428, 1451.
