As last amended on July 19, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 1 STATEWIDE WATER QUALITY CONTROL POLICY ON THE USE OF COASTAL

AND ESTUARINE WATERS FOR POWER PLANT COOLING

1. Introduction

A. Clean Water Act Section 316(b) requires that the location, design, construction, and capacity of cooling water intake structures ref lect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adverse environmenta l impact. Section 316(b) is implemented through National Pollutant Discharge El imination System (NPDES) permits, issued pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 402, which authorize the point source discharge of pollutants to navigable w aters.

B. The State Water Resources Control Board (State W ater Board) is designated as the state water pollution control agency for all pu rposes stated in the Clean

Water Act.

C. The State Water Board and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (Regional Water Boards) (collectively Water Boards) are autho rized to issue NPDES permits to point source dischargers in California.

D. Currently, there are no applicable nationwide st andards implementing

Section 316(b) for existing power plants* 1

. Consequently, the Water Boards must implement Section 316(b) on a case-by-case basis, using best professi onal judgment.

E. The State Water Board is responsible for adoptin g state policy for water quality control, which may consist of water quality princip les, guidelines, and objectives deemed essential for water quality control.

F. This Policy establishes requirements for the imp lementation of Section 316(b), using best professional judgment in determining BTA for cooling water intake structures at existing coastal and estuarine power plants that must be implemented in NPDES permits.

G. The intent of this Policy is to ensure that the beneficial uses of the State’s coastal and estuarine waters are protected while also ensur ing that the electrical power

needs essential for the welfare of the citizens of the State are met. The State Water Board recognizes it is necessary to develop r eplacement infrastructure to maintain electric reliability in order to implement this Policy and in developing this policy considered costs, including costs of complia nce, consistent with state and

federal law.

1 An asterisk indicates that the term is defined in Section 5 of the Policy.As last amended on July 19, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 2 H. During the development of this Policy, State Wat er Board staff has met regularly with representatives from the California Energy Com mission (CEC), California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Coas tal Commission (CCC), California State Lands Commission (SLC), California Air Resources Board (ARB), and California Independent System Operator ( CAISO) to develop realistic implementation plans and schedules for this Policy that will not cause disruption in the State’s electrical power supply. The compli ance dates for this Policy were developed considering a report produced by the ener gy agencies (CEC, CPUC, and CAISO), titled “Implementation of OTC Mitigatio n Through Energy Infrastructure Planning and Procurement Changes”, a nd the accompanying table, titled “Draft Infrastructure Replacement Milestones and Compliance Dates for Existing Power Plants in California Using Once Thro ugh Cooling (OTC)”,

included in the Substitute Environmental Document f or this Policy. The energy agencies’ approach seeks to address the replacement , repowering, or retirement of power plants currently using OTC that (1) mainta ins reliability of the electric system; (2) meets California’s environmental policy goals; and (3) achieves these goals through effective long-term planning for tran smission, generation and demand resources. The energy agencies have stated that the dates specified in their report may require periodic updates.

I. To prevent disruption in the State’s electrical power supply when the Policy is implemented, the State Water Board will convene a S tatewide Advisory Committee on Cooling Water Intake Structures (SACCW IS), which will include representatives from the CEC, CPUC, CAISO, CCC, SLC , ARB, and State Water Board. SACCWIS will review implementation plans an d schedules submitted by dischargers pursuant to this Policy, and advise the State Water Board on the implementation of this Policy to ensure that the im plementation schedule takes into account local area and grid reliability, inclu ding permitting constraints. The State Water Board recognizes the compliance dates i n this Policy may require amendment based on, among other factors, the need t o maintain reliability of the electric system as determined by the energy agencie s included in the SACCWIS, acting according to their individual or shared resp onsibilities

. The State Water Board retains the final authority over changes to t he adopted policy.

J. While the CEC, CPUC and CAISO each have various planning or permitting responsibilities important to this effort, the appr oach relies upon use of competitive procurement and forward contracting mec hanisms implemented by the CPUC in order to identify low cost solutions fo r most OTC power plants. The CPUC has authority to order the investor-owned util ities (IOUs) to procure new or repowered fossil-fueled generation for system and/o r local reliability in the LongTerm Procurement Plan (LTPP) proceeding. In respon se to the Policy, the CPUC anticipates modifying its LTPP proceeding and procurement processes to require the IOUs to assess replacement infrastructu re needs and conduct targeted requests for offers (RFOs) to acquire repl acement, repowered or otherwise compliant generation capacity. LTPP proc eedings are conducted on a biennial cycle and plans are normally approved in o dd-numbered years. TheAs last amended on July 19, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 3 next cycle, the 2010 LTPP, is estimated to result i n a decision by 2011. The subsequent cycle, the 2012 LTPP, would in turn resu lt in a decision by 2013. Once authorized to procure by a CPUC LTPP decision, the IOUs need approximately 18 months to issue an RFO, sign contr acts, and submit applications to the CPUC for approval. Approval by the CPUC takes approximately nine months. If the contract involve s a facility already licensed through the CEC generation permitting process, then financing and construction can begin. A typical generation permitting timelin e is 12 months, but specific issues such as ability to obtain air permits can de lay the process. IOUs often give preference to RFO bids with permits already (o r nearly) in place. From contract approval, construction usually takes three years, if generation permits are approved, or approximately five years, if gener ation permits are pending or other barriers present delays. In total, starting from the initiation of an LTPP proceeding (2010 LTPP or 2012 LTPP), seven years ar e expected to elapse, before replacement infrastructure is operational. Due to the number of plants affected, efforts to replace or repower OTC power p lants would need to be phased.

K. Because the Los Angeles region presents a more c omplex and challenging set of issues, it is anticipated that more time would be n eeded to study and implement replacement infrastructure solutions. Therefore, t otal elapsed time is expected to begin in 2010 and end in 2017 for the Greater Bay A rea and San Diego regions, which would be addressed beginning in the 2010 LTPP . For the Los Angeles region, which would be addressed beginning in the 2 012 LTPP, total elapsed time is expected to begin in 2012 and end in 2020. A transmission solution is expected to have approximately the same timeframe, but could be delayed by greater potential for significant local opposition. In order to assure that repowering or new power plant* development in the Los Angeles basin addresses unique permitting challenges, the SACCWIS will assist the State Water Board in evaluating schedules for power plant s not under the jurisdiction of the CPUC or operating within the CAISO Balancing Au thority Area.

L. The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 require s California to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 and then to maintain those reductions. California presently has two nuclear-fueled power plants* that provide approximately 4,600 megawatts of baseload e lectricity and do not emit greenhouse gases during energy generation. Energy generation by facilities that do not emit greenhouse gases will be critical to me eting the mandates of the Global Warming Solutions Act and emerging national and international greenhouse gas reduction requirements. The nuclear-fueled power plants* are entering into United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm ission (Commission) license renewal proceedings unique to the nuclear p ower industry and relicensing may extend the plants operating lives t o approximately 2045. Unlike older era fossil-fueled plants, if the nuclear-fueled power plants* undergo modernization as part of relicensing or cooling str ucture upgrades, that modernization will not reduce greenhouse gas emissi ons, and in fact, extendedAs last amended on July 19, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 4 downtime during modernization may result in short-t erm increases in greenhouse gases as other greenhouse gas emitting facilities p rovide makeup power. In recognition of these considerations and others, thi s Policy requires special

studies for the nuclear-fueled power plants* to address their unique issues, and to evaluate appropriate requirements for those plan ts.

M. To conserve the State’s scarce water resources, the State Water Board encourages the use of recycled water for cooling wa ter in lieu of marine,

estuarine or fresh water.

N. In order to ensure a high level of statewide con sistency in implementing Section 316(b), the State Water Board will assume r esponsibility for all NPDES permit actions for existing power plants* subject to this Policy, including without limitation actions to issue, modify, reissue, revok e, and terminate NPDES permits after October 1, 2010.

O. Nothing in this Policy precludes the authority o f the State Water Board to regulate discharges from existing power plants * through NPDES permits, consistent with water quality standards.

2. Requirements for Existing Power Plants*

A. Compliance Alternatives. An owner or operator o f an existing power plant * must comply with either Track 1 or Track 2, below.

(1) Track 1. An owner or operator of an existing power plant * must reduce intake

flow rate*

at each unit, at a minimum, to a level commensurat e with that which can be attained by a closed-cycle wet cooling system *. A minimum 93 percent reduction in intake flow rate* for each unit is required for Track 1 compliance, compared to the unit’s design intake flow rate* . The throughscreen intake velocity must not exceed 0.5 foot per second. The installation of closed cycle dry cooling systems meets the inten t and minimum reduction requirements of this compliance alternative.

(2) Track 2. If an owner or operator of an existing power plant * demonstrates to the State Water Board’s satisfaction that complianc e with Track 1 is not

feasible *, the owner or operator of an existing power plant * must reduce impingement mortality and entrainment of marine lif e for the facility, on a unitby-unit basis, to a comparable level to that which would be achieved under Track 1, using operational or structural controls, or both.As last amended on July 19, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 5 (a) Compliance for impingement mortality shall be d etermined either:

(i) For plants relying solely on reductions in velo city, by monthly verification of through-screen intake velocity not to exceed 0.5 foot per second, or

(ii) By monitoring required in Section 4.A, below. For measured reductions determined by monitoring, the owner or o perator must reduce impingement mortality to a comparable level to that which would be achieved under Track 1. A “comparable lev el” is a level that achieves at least 90 percent of the reduction in im pingement mortality required under Track 1.

(b) Compliance for entrainment shall be determined either:

(i) For plants relying solely on reductions in flow , by recording and reporting reductions in terms of monthly flow, in w hich case a minimum of 93% reduction in flow, as compared to the averag e actual flow for the corresponding months from 2000 – 2005, must be met, or

(ii) For plants relying in whole or in part on othe r control technologies (e.g., including but not limited to screens or re-l ocation of intake structures), by measured reductions in entrainment determined by monitoring required in Section 4.B, below. The own er or operator must reduce entrainment to a comparable level to that wh ich would be achieved under Track 1. A “comparable level” is a level that achieves at least 90 percent of the reduction in entrainment required under Track 1. If screens are employed to reduce entrain ment, compliance

shall be determined based on ichthyoplankton* , and on the crustacean phyllosoma and megalops larvae, and squid paralarva e fractions of meroplankton *.

(c) Technology-based improvements that are specific ally designed to reduce impingement mortality and/or entrainment and were i mplemented prior to October 1, 2010 may be counted towards meeting Trac k 2 requirements.

(d) The owner or operator of an existing power plant * with combined-cycle power-generating units* installed prior to October 1, 2010 may achieve compliance in accordance with this paragraph.

The owner or operator may count prior reductions in impingement mortality and entrainment resulting from the replac ement of steam turbine power-generating units with combined-cycle power-generating units*

,As last amended on July 19, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 6 towards meeting Track 2 requirements. Reductions s hall be based on reductions in intake flows, calculated as the diffe rence between:

(i) the maximum permitted discharge (expressed as m illion gallons per day (MGD)) for the entire power plant as identified in the plant’s prior NPDES permit that authorized the steam turbine powe r-generating units which were subsequently replaced with the combined-cycle power-generating units* and

(ii) the maximum permitted discharge (expressed as MGD) for the entire power plant, including the combined cycle units, as identified in the plant’s NPDES permit authorizing the combined-cycle powergenerating units*

.

B. Final Compliance Dates

(1) Existing power plants* shall comply with Section 2.A, above, as soon as possible, but no later than, the dates shown in Tab le 1, contained in Section 3.E, below. (2) Based on the need for continued operation of an existing power plant * to maintain the reliability of the electric system, a final compliance date may be suspended under the following circumstances:

(a) Suspension of Final Compliance Date for Less Than 9 0 Days for Existing Power Plants * Within CAISO Jurisdiction. If CAISO determines that continued operation of an existing power plant * is necessary to maintain the reliability of the electr ic system in the shortterm, CAISO shall provide written notification to t he State Water Board, the Regional Water Board with jurisdiction over the existing power plant*

, and the SACCWIS. If the Executive Directors of the CEC and CPUC do not object in writing within 10 days to CAISO’s wri tten notification, the notification provided pursuant to this paragraph wi ll suspend the final compliance date for the shorter of 90 days or the t ime CAISO determines necessary to maintain reliability. In the event ei ther CEC or CPUC objects as provided in this paragraph, then the State Water Board shall hold a hearing as expeditiously as possible to determine w hether to suspend the compliance date in accordance with paragraph (d).

(b) Suspension of Final Compliance Date for Longer Than 90 Days, or consecutive less than 90 day suspensions, for Existing Power

Plants* Within CAISO Jurisdiction. If CAISO determines that continued operation of an existing power plant* is necessary to maintain the reliability of the electric system, CAISO shall pro vide written notification to the State Water Board, the Regional Water Board wit h jurisdiction over the existing power plant* , and the SACCWIS. If the Executive Directors of t he CEC and CPUC do not object in writing within 10 day s to CAISO’sAs last amended on July 19, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 7 determination, the notification provided pursuant t o this paragraph will suspend the final compliance date for 90 days. Dur ing the 90-day time suspension or within 90 days of receiving a written notification from CAISO, the State Water Board shall conduct a hearin g in accordance with paragraph (d) to determine whether to suspend the f inal compliance date for more than the original 90 days pending, if nece ssary, full evaluation of amendments to final compliance dates contained in t he policy.

(c) Suspension of Final Compliance Date for Existing Power Plants* Within Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (L ADWP)

Service Area. If the LADWP Commission determines, through a publi c process, that continued operation of an existing power plant* operated by LADWP is necessary to maintain the reliability of t he electric system in the short-term, LADWP shall provide written notificatio n to the State Water Board, the Regional Water Board with jurisdiction o ver the existing power plant* , and the SACCWIS. Within 45 days of receiving a w ritten notice from LADWP, the State Water Board shall conduct a h earing in accordance with paragraph (d) to determine whether to suspend the final compliance date. In considering whether to suspend or amend the final compliance dates the State Board shall consult with the CAISO.

(d) State Water Board Hearings on Suspension of Final C ompliance

Dates. In considering whether to suspend or amend the fina l compliance dates, the State Water Board shall afford significa nt weight to the

recommendations of the CAISO.

C. Immediate and Interim Requirements

(1) No later than October 1, 2011, the owner or ope rator of an existing power plant* with an offshore intake * shall install large organism exclusion devices having a distance between exclusion bars of no grea ter than nine inches, or install other exclusion devices, deemed equivalent by the State Water Board.

(2) No later than October 1, 2011, the owner or ope rator of an existing power plant* unit that is not directly engaging in power-generating activities *, or critical system maintenance* , shall cease intake flows, unless the owner or operator demonstrates to the State Water Board that a reduced minimum flow is necessary for operations.

(3) The owner or operator of an existing power plant* must implement measures to mitigate the interim impingement and entrainment impacts resulting from the cooling water intake structure(s), commencing O ctober 1, 2015 and continuing up to and until the owner or operator ac hieves final compliance. The owner or operator must include in the implement ation plan, described in Section 3.A below, the specific measures that will be undertaken to complyAs last amended on July 19, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 8 with this requirement. An owner or operator may co mply with this requirement by:

(a) Demonstrating to the State Water Board’s satisf action that the owner or operator is compensating for the interim impingemen t and entrainment impacts through existing mitigation efforts, includ ing any projects that are required by state or federal permits as of October 1, 2010; or

(b) Demonstrating to the State Water Board’s satisf action that the interim impacts are compensated for by the owner or operato r providing funding to the California Coastal Conservancy which will wo rk with the California Ocean Protection Council to fund an appropriate mitigation project* ; or

(c) Developing and implementing a mitigation project* for the facility, approved by the State Water Board, which will compe nsate for the interim impingement and entrainment impacts. Such a projec t must be overseen by an advisory panel of experts convened by the Sta te Water Board.

(d) The habitat production foregone * method, or a comparable alternate method approved by the State Water Board , shall be used to determine the habitat and area, based on replacement of the a nnual entrainment, for funding a mitigation project*

.
(e) It is the preference of the State Water Board t hat funding is provided to the California Coastal Conservancy, working with the Ca lifornia Ocean Protection Council, for mitigation projects directe d toward increases in

marine life associated with the State’s Marine Prot ected Areas in the geographic region of the facility

.

(4) Owners or operators of fossil fueled units that have submitted implementation plans to comply with this Policy under Section 2.A( 1) and have requested compliance dates after December 31, 2022 that are a pproved by the State Water Board as provided in Section 3.E shall:

(a) Commit to eliminate OTC and seawater use for co oling water purposes for all units at the facility.

(b) Conduct a study or studies, singularly or joint ly with other facilities, to evaluate new technologies or improve existing techn ologies to reduce impingement and entrainment.

(c) Submit the results of the study and a proposal to minimize entrainment and impingement to the Chief Deputy Director no lat er than December 31,

2015.

(d) Upon approval of the proposal by the Chief Depu ty Director, complete implementation of the proposal no later than Decemb er 31, 2020.As last amended on July 19, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 9 D. Nuclear-Fueled Power Plants*

If the owner or operator of an existing nuclear-fueled power plant * demonstrates that compliance with the requirements for existing power plants* in Section 2.A, above, of this Policy would result in a conflict wi th any safety requirement established by the Commission, with appropriate doc umentation or other substantiation from the Commission, the State Water Board will make a sitespecific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse environmental impact that would not result in a con flict with the Commission’s safety requirements. The State Water Board may als o establish alternative, sitespecific requirements in accordance with Section 3. D (8).

3. Implementation Provisions

A. With the exception of nuclear-fueled power plants* , which are covered under 3.D, below, no later than April 1, 2011, the owner or op erator of an existing power plant* shall submit an implementation plan to the State W ater Board.

(1) The implementation plan shall identify the comp liance alternative selected by the owner or operator, describe the general design, construction, or operational measures that will be undertaken to imp lement the alternative, and propose a realistic schedule for implementing t hese measures that is as short as possible. If the owner or operator choose s to repower the facility to reduce or eliminate reliance upon OTC, or to retrof it the facility to implement either Track 1 or Track 2 alternatives, the impleme ntation plan shall identify the time period when generating power is infeasible and describe measures taken to coordinate this activity through the appro priate electrical system balancing authority’s maintenance scheduling proces s.

(2) If the owner or operator selects closed-cycle wet cooling * as a compliance alternative, the owner or operator shall address in the implementation plan whether recycled water of suitable quality is avail able for use as makeup

water.

B. The SACCWIS shall be impaneled no later than Jan uary 1, 2011, by the Executive Director of the State Water Board, to adv ise the State Water Board on the implementation of this Policy to ensure that th e implementation schedule takes into account local area and grid reliability, including permitting constraints. SACCWIS shall include representatives from the CEC, CPUC, CAISO, CCC, SLC, ARB, and State Water Board.

(1) SACCWIS meetings shall be scheduled regularly a nd as needed. Meetings shall be open to the public and shall be noticed at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. All SACCWIS products shall be made av ailable to the public.As last amended on July 19, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 10 (2) The SACCWIS shall review the owner or operator’ s proposed implementation schedule and report to the State Water Board with r ecommendations no later than October 1, 2011. The SACCWIS may consult with other appropriate agencies, including but not limited to the Regional Water Boards, air quality districts, and the LADWP, in the process of reviewi ng implementation schedules and providing recommendations to the Stat e Water Board.

(3) The CAISO and the LADWP shall each submit to th e SACCWIS by December 31, each year a grid reliability study, fo r their respective jurisdictions, that has been developed pursuant to a public process and approved by their governing bodies. In order to as sure that SACCWIS can provide annual reports to the State Water Board by March 31, the SACCWIS shall promptly meet to consider the reliability stu dies submitted by CAISO and

the LADWP.

(4) The SACCWIS will report to the State Water Boar d with recommendations on modifications to the implementation schedule every year starting in 2012. If

members of SACCWIS do not believe the full committe e recommendations reflect their concerns they may issue minority reco mmendations that the State Water Board shall consider as part of the SACCWIS r ecommendations.

(5) The State Water Board shall consider the SACCWI S’ recommendations and direct staff to make modifications, if appropriate, for the State Water Board’s consideration. In the event that the SACCWIS energ y agencies (CAISO, CPUC, and CEC) make a unanimous recommendation for implementation schedule modification based on grid reliability, th e State Water Board shall afford significant weight to the recommendation.

C. The State Water Board shall reissue or, as appro priate, modify NPDES permits issued to owners or operators of existing power plants *

, after a hearing in the affected region, to ensure that the permits conform to the provision s of this Policy.

(1) The permits shall incorporate a final complianc e schedule that requires compliance no later than the due dates contained in Table 1, contained in Section 3.E, below. If the State Water Board deter mines that a longer compliance schedule is necessary to maintain reliab ility of the electric system per SACCWIS recommendations while other OTC power p lants are retrofitted, repowered, or retired or transmission upgrades take place, this delay shall be incorporated into the compliance sch edule and stated in the permit findings.

(2) The State Water Board shall reopen, if necessar y, the relevant permits and modify the final compliance schedules, if appropria te, based on modifications to the policy approved by the State Water Board or the suspension of final compliance dates pursuant to this policy.As last amended on July 19, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 11 (3) If an owner or operator selects Track 2 as the compliance alternative, the NPDES permit shall include a monitoring program tha t complies with Section 4 of this Policy.

(4) NPDES permits issued by the State Water Board s hall include appropriate permit provisions to implement suspensions of final compliance dates authorized in Section 2.B (2) and modifications to final compliance dates specified in this policy, without reopening the per mits.

D. No later than January 1, 2011 the Executive Dire ctor of the State Water Board, using the authority under section 13267(f) of the W ater Code, shall request that Southern California Edison (SCE) and Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) conduct special studies for submission to the State Water Board.

(1) The special studies shall investigate alternati ves for the nuclear-fueled power plants* to meet the requirements of this Policy, including the costs for these

alternatives.

(2) The special studies shall be conducted by an in dependent third party with engineering experience with nuclear power plants, s elected by the Executive

Director of the State Water Board.

(3) The special studies shall be overseen by a Revi ew Committee, established by

the Executive Director of the State Water Board no later than January 1, 2011, which shall include, at a minimum, representa tives of SCE, PG&E, SACCWIS, the environmental community, and staffs of the State Water Board, Central Coast Regional Water Board, and the San Diego Regional

Water Board.

(4) No later than October 1, 2011, the Review Commi ttee, described above, shall provide a report for public comment detailing the s cope of the special studies, including the degree to which existing, completed s tudies can be relied upon.

(5) No later than October 1, 2013 the Review Commit tee shall provide the final report and the Review Committee’s comments for publ ic comment detailing the results of the special studies and shall presen t the report to the State

Water Board.

(6) Meetings of the Review Committee shall be open to the public and shall be noticed at least 10 days in advance of the meeting. All products of the Review Committee shall be made available to the pub lic.

(7) The State Water Board shall consider the result s of the special studies, and shall evaluate the need to modify this Policy with respect to the nuclear-fueled power plants* . In evaluating the need to modify this Policy, th e State WaterAs last amended on July 19, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 12 Board shall base its decision to modify this Policy with respect to the nuclearfueled power plants * on the following factors:

(a) Costs of compliance in terms of total dollars a nd dollars per megawatt hour of electrical energy produced over an amortiza tion period of 20

years;

(b) Ability to achieve compliance with Track 1 cons idering factors including, but not limited to, engineering constraints, space constraints, permitting constraints, and public safety considerations;

(c) Potential environmental impacts of compliance w ith Track 1, including, but not limited to, air emissions.

(8) If the State Water Board finds that for a speci fic nuclear-fueled power plant* to implement Track 1, either (1) the costs are whol ly out of proportion to the costs identified in Tetra Tech, Inc., California’s Coastal Power Plants: Alternative Cooling System Analysis, February 2008 (see pages ES-10 [summary], C-1 - C-2 and C-23 - C-40 [Diablo Canyon Power Plant] and N-1 - N-2 and N-25 - N-42 [San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station]) and considered by the State Water Board in establishing Track 1, or (2) that compliance is wholly unreasonable based on the fact ors in paragraphs 7(b) and (c), then the State Water Board shall establish alternate requirements for

that nuclear-fueled power plant* . The State Water Board shall establish alternative requirements no less stringent than jus tified by the wholly out of proportion (i) cost and (ii) factor(s) of paragraph (7). The burden is on the person requesting the alternative requirement to de monstrate that alternative requirements should be authorized.

(9) In the event the State Water Board establishes alternate requirements for nuclear-fueled power plants* , the difference in impacts to marine life resultin g from any alternative, less stringent requirements s hall be fully mitigated. Mitigation required pursuant to this paragraph shal l be a mitigation project*

directed toward the increase in marine life associa ted with the State’s Marine Protected Areas in the geographic region of the fac ility. Funding for the mitigation project*

shall be provided to the California Coastal Conser vancy, working with the Ocean Protection Council to fund a n appropriate mitigation project*

.As last amended on July 19, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 13 E. Table 1. Implementation Schedule

Milestone Responsible Entity/Party Due Date 2

1 Request SCE and PG&E to conduct special studies to investigate compliance options for nuclear-fueled power plants* [Section 3.D] State Water

Board Executive

Director 01/01/2011

2 Establish Review Committee [Section 3.D(3)] State Water

Board Executive

Director 01/01/2011

3 Establish SACCWIS [Section 3.B] State Water

Board Executive

Director 01/01/2011

4 Submit a proposed implementation plan to the State and Regional Water Boards [Section 3.A] Owner/operatorsof existing fossilfueled power plants 04/01/2011

5 Provide a report for public comment, detailing the scope of the special studies on compliance options for nuclear-fueled power plants * [Section 3.D(4)] Review

Committee 10/01/2011

6 Review the owners or operators’ proposed implementation schedules and report to the

State Water Board with recommendations [Section 3.B(2)] SACCWIS 10/01/2011

7 Humboldt Bay Power Plant in compliance Owner/ope rator 12/31/2010

8 Potrero Power Plant in compliance Owner/operator 10/01/2011

9 Install large organism exclusion devices

with a distance between exclusion bars of no greater than nine inches, or equivalent device [Section 2.C(1)] Owner/operators

of existing power plants* with

offshore intakes* 10/01/2011

2 These compliance dates were developed considering information provided by the CEC, CPUC, CAISO,

and LADWP.As last amended on July 19, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 14 Milestone Responsible Entity/Party Due Date 2

10 Cease intake flows for units not directly engaging in power-generating activities * or critical system maintenance* , or demonstrate to the State Water Board that a reduced minimum flow is necessary for operations [Section 2.C(2)] Owner/operators

of existing power plants* 10/01/2011

11 Report to State Water Board on status of implementation of Policy [Section 3.B(3)] SACCWIS 03/31/2012

12 South Bay Power Plant in compliance Owner/operat or 12/31/2011

13 Report to State Water Board on results of special studies on compliance options for nuclear-fueled power plants * [Section 3.D(5)] Review

Committee 10/01/2013

14 Report to State Water Board on status of implementation of Policy [Section 3.B(3)] SACCWIS 03/31/2013

15 Haynes units 5 & 6 in compliance, repowered without OTC LADWP 12/31/2013

16 Report to State Water Board on status of implementation of Policy [Section 3.B(3)] SACCWIS 03/31/2014

17 Commence to implement measures to mitigate the interim impingement and entrainment impacts due to the cooling water intake structure(s) [Section 2.C(3)] Owners/operators

of existing power plants* 10/01/2015

18 Report to State Water Board on status of implementation of Policy [Section 3.B(3)] SACCWIS 03/31/2015

19 El Segundo and Morro Bay power plants in compliance Owner/operator 12/31/2015

20 Scattergood unit 3 in compliance, repowered without OTC LADWP 12/31/2015

21 Report to State Water Board on status of implementation of Policy [Section 3.B(3)] SACCWIS 03/31/2016

22 Report to State Water Board on status of implementation of Policy [Section 3.B(3)] SACCWIS 03/31/2017As last amended on July 19, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 15 Milestone Responsible Entity/Party Due Date 2

23 Power plants in CPUC 2010 LTPP Cycle in compliance: Encina, Contra Costa, Pittsburg, Moss Landing [Section 1.J] Owner/Operator 12/31/2017

24 Report to State Water Board on status of implementation of Policy [Section 3.B(3)] SACCWIS 03/31/2018

25 Report to State Water Board on status of implementation of Policy [Section 3.B(3)] SACCWIS 03/31/2019

26 Report to State Water Board on status of implementation of Policy [Section 3.B(3)] SACCWIS 03/31/2020

27 Power plants in CPUC 2012 LTPP Procurement Cycle in compliance: Huntington Beach, Redondo, Alamitos, Mandalay, Ormond Beach [Section 1.J] generating stations in compliance Owner/operator 12/31/2020

28 Report to State Water Board on status of implementation of Policy [Section 3.B(3)] SACCWIS 03/31/2021

29 Report to State Water Board on status of implementation of Policy [Section 3.B(3)] SACCWIS 03/31/2022

30 San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in compliance with implementation provisions resulting from State Water Board action on special studies from Section 3.D Owner/operator 12/31/2022

31 Report to State Water Board on status of implementation of Policy [Section 3.B(3)] SACCWIS 03/31/2023

32 Report to State Water Board on status of implementation of Policy [Section 3.B(3)] SACCWIS 03/31/2024

33 Diablo Canyon Power Plant in compliance with implementation provisions resulting from State Water Board action on special

studies from Section 3.D Owner/operator 12/31/2024As last amended on July 19, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 16 Milestone Responsible Entity/Party Due Date 2

34 Scattergood units 1 & 2 in compliance, repowered without OTC LADWP 12/31/2024

35 Haynes units 1 & 2 in compliance, repowered without OTC LADWP 12/31/2029 3

36 Harbor unit 5 in compliance, repowered

without OTC LADWP 12/31/2029 3

37 Haynes unit 8 in compliance, repowered

without OTC LADWP 12/31/2029 3

4. Track 2 Monitoring Provisions

A. Impingement Impacts: The following impingement s tudies are required to comply with Section 2.A.(2)(a)(ii):

(1) A baseline impingement study shall be performed , unless the discharger demonstrates, to the State Water Board’s satisfacti on, that prior studies accurately reflect current impacts. Baseline impin gement shall be measured on-site and shall include sampling for all species impinged. The impingement study shall be designed to accurately characterize the species currently impinged and their seasonal abundance to the satisf action of the State Water

Board.

(a) The study period shall be at least 36 consecuti ve months.

(b) Impingement shall be measured during different seasons when the cooling system is in operation and over 24-hour sampling pe riods.

(c) When applicable, impingement shall be sampled u nder differing representative operational conditions (e.g., differ ing levels of power production, heat treatments, etc.).

(d) The study shall not result in any additional mo rtality above typical operating conditions.

3 The State Water Board will consider further modifi cations to the compliance date for these units when LADWP submits information responsive to the SACCWIS resolved clauses in its July 5, 2011 resolution and any subsequent information requests SACCWIS mak es to LADWP by January 1, 2012. The State

Water Board will consider amendments for these unit s no later than December 31, 2013.As last amended on July 19, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 17 (2) After the Track 2 controls are implemented, to confirm the level of impingement controls, another impingement study, co nsistent with Section 4.A(1)(a) to (d), above, shall be performed and reported to the State

Water Board.

(3) The need for additional impingement studies sha ll be evaluated at the end of each permit period. Impingement studies shall be r equired when changing operational or environmental conditions indicate th at new studies are needed,

at the discretion of the State Water Board.

B. Entrainment Impacts: The following entrainment s tudies are required to comply with Section 2.A.(2)(b)(ii):

(1) A baseline entrainment study shall be performed , unless the discharger demonstrates, to the State Water Board’s satisfacti on, that prior studies accurately reflect current impacts. Prior studies that may have used a mesh size of 333 or 335 microns for sampling are accepta ble for compliance with the review and approval of the State Water Board. If the State Water Board determines that a new baseline entrainment study sh all be performed to determine larval composition and abundance in the s ource water, representative of water that is being entrained, th en samples must be collected using a mesh size no larger than 335 micr ons. Additional samples shall also be collected using a 200 micron mesh to provide a broader

characterization of other meroplankton* entrained. The source water shall be determined based on oceanographic conditions reason ably expected after Track 2 controls are implemented. Baseline entrain ment sampling shall provide an unbiased estimate of larvae entrained at the intake prior to the implementation of Track 2 controls.

(a) Entrainment impacts shall be based on sampling for all ichthyoplankton *

and invertebrate meroplankton * species. Individuals collected shall be identified to the lowest taxonomical level practica ble. When practicable, genetic identification through molecular biological techniques may be used to assist in compliance with this requirement. Sam ples shall be preserved and archived such that genetic identification is po ssible at a later date.

(b) The study period shall be at least 36 consecuti ve months, and shall occur during different seasons, including periods of peak use when the cooling system is in operation (such as the summer months w hen energy is in high demand). Sampling shall be designed to accoun t for variation in oceanographic conditions and larval abundance and b ehavior such that abundance estimates are reasonably accurate.

(2) After the Track 2 controls are implemented, to confirm the level of entrainment controls, another entrainment study (wi th a study design to the State Water Board’s satisfaction, with samples coll ected using a mesh size noAs last amended on July 19, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 18 larger than 335 microns, and with additional sample s also collected using a 200 micron mesh) shall be performed and reported to the State Water Board.

(3) The need for additional entrainment studies sha ll be evaluated at the end of each permit period. Entrainment studies shall be r equired when changing operational or environmental conditions indicate th at new studies are needed,

at the discretion of the State Water Board.

5. Definition of Terms

Closed-cycle wet cooling system – Refers to a cooling system, which functions by transferring waste heat to the surrounding air thro ugh the evaporation of water, thus enabling the reuse of a smaller amount of wate r several times to achieve the desired cooling effect. The only discharge of wast ewater is from periodic blowdown for the purpose of limiting the buildup of concentrations of materials in excess of desirable limits established by best engi neering practice.

Combined-cycle power-generating units - Refers to units within a power plant which combined generate electricity through a two-stage p rocess involving combustion and steam. Hot exhaust gas from combustion turbine s is passed through a heat recovery steam generator to produce steam for a ste am turbine. The turbine exhaust steam is condensed in the cooling system an d may or may not be returned to the power cycle. Combined cycle power- generating units are generally more fuel-efficient and use less cooling water than steam boiler units with the same generating capacity.

Critical system maintenance – are activities that are critical for maintenance of a plant’s physical machinery and absolutely cannot be postpon ed until the unit is operating to generate electricity.

Existing power plant(s) – Refers to any power plant that is not a new power plant *.

Habitat production foregone – Refers to the product of the average annual proportional mortality * and the estimated area of the water body that is habitat for the species’ source population. Habitat production foregone is an estimate of habitat area production that is lost to all entrained species on an annual basis.

Ichthyoplankton

– Refers to the planktonic early life stages of fi sh (i.e., the pelagic eggs and larval forms of fishes).

Intake flow rate – Refers to the instantaneous rate at which water i s withdrawn through the intake structure, expressed as gallons per minu te.

Meroplankton

– For purposes of this Policy, refers to that comp onent of the zooplankton*

community composed of squid paralarvae and the pel agic larvae of

benthic invertebrates.As last amended on July 19, 2011 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 19 Mitigation project

– Projects to restore marine life lost through imp ingement mortality and entrainment. Restoration of marine life may in clude projects to restore and/or enhance coastal marine or estuarine habitat, and may also include protection of marine life in existing marine habita t, for example through the funding of implementation and/or management of Mari ne Protected Areas.

New power plant

– Refers to any plant that is a “new facility”, as defined in 40 C.F.R. § 125.83 (revised as of July 1, 2007), and that is subject to Subpart I, Part 125 of the Code of Federal Regulations (revised as of July 1, 2007) (referred to as “Phase I regulations”).

Not Feasible – Cannot be accomplished because of space constrain ts or the inability to obtain necessary permits due to public safety consi derations, unacceptable environmental impacts, local ordinances, regulation s, etc. Cost is not a factor to be considered when determining feasibility under Tr ack 1.

Nuclear-fueled power plant(s) – Refers to Diablo Canyon Power Plant and/or San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station.

Offshore intake –refers to any submerged intake structure that is n ot located at the shoreline, and includes such intakes that are locat ed in ocean, bay and estuary

environments.

Power-generating activities – Refers to activities directly related the genera tion of electrical power, including start-up and shut-down procedures, contractual obligations (hot stand-by), hot bypasses, and critical system maintenance* regulated by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Ac tivities that are not considered directly related to the generation of el ectricity include (but are not limited to) dilution for in-plant wastes, maintenan ce of source-and receiving water quality strictly for monitoring purposes, and runni ng pumps strictly to prevent fouling of condensers and other power plant equipme nt.

Proportional mortality

– the proportion of larvae killed from entrainment to the larvae in the source population, as determined by an Empirica l Transport Model.

Zooplankton – For purposes of this Policy, refers to those plan ktonic invertebrates larger than 200 microns

.