October 1, 2010 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 structur es reflect the best technology available (BTA) for minimizing adv erse environmental impact. Section 316(b) is implemented through National Pollutant Dis charge Elimination System (NPDES) permits, issued pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 402, which authorize the point source discharge of pollutants to navigable waters.

B. The State Water Resources Control Boar d (State Water Board) is designated as the state water pollution control agency for all purposes stated in the Clean Water

Act.

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

D. Currently, there are no applicable nationwide standar ds 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 professional judgment.

E. The State Water Board is responsible for adopting state policy for water quality control, which may consist of water qua lity principles, guidelines, and objectives deemed essential for water quality control.

F. This Policy establishes requirements for the implementati on of Section 316(b), using best professional judgment in det ermining BTA for cooling water intake structures at existing coasta l and estuarine power plants that must be implemented in NPDES permits.

G. The intent of this Policy is to ensure t hat the beneficial uses of the State’s coastal and estuarine waters are protected while al so ensuring that t he electrical power

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

federal law.

1 An asterisk indicates that the term is defined in Section 5 of the Policy.October 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 2 H. During the development of this Policy, State Water Board staff has met regularly with representatives from the California Energy Commission (CEC), California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC), California Coastal Commission (CCC), California State Lands Commission (SLC), Ca lifornia Air Resources Board (ARB), and California Independent System Oper ator (CAISO) to develop realistic implementation plans and schedules for this Policy that will not cause disruption in the State’s electrical power supply. T he compliance dates fo r this Policy were developed considering a report produced by the energy agencies (CEC, CPUC, and CAISO), titled “Implementation of OTC Mitigation Through Energy Infrastructure Planning and Procurement Changes”, and the accompanying table,

titled “Draft Infrastructu re Replacement Milestones and Compliance Dates for Existing Power Plants in California Using Once Through Cooling”, included in the

Substitute Environmental Document fo r this Policy. The energy agencies’ approach seeks to address the replacement, repowering, or reti rement 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 fo r transmission, generation and demand resources. The energy agencies have stated t hat the dates specified in their report may require periodic updates.

I. To prevent disruption in the State’s el ectrical power supply when the Policy is implemented, the State Water Board will co nvene a Statewide Advisory Committee on Cooling Water Intake Structures (SA CCWIS), which will include representatives from the CEC, CPUC, CAISO, CCC, SL C, ARB, and State Water Board. SACCWIS will review implementation plans and schedules submitted by dischargers pursuant to this Policy, and advise the State Water Board on the implementation of this Policy to ensure t hat the implementation schedule takes into account local area and grid reliability, in cluding permitting constraints. The State Water Board recognizes the compliance dates in this Policy may require amendment based on, among other factors, the need to maintain reliability of the electric system as determined by the energy agencies included in the SACCWIS, acting according to their indivi dual or shared responsibilities

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

J. While the CEC, CPUC and CAISO each have various planning or permitting responsibilities important to this effort , the approach relies upon use of competitive procurement and forward contracting me chanisms 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 utilit ies (IOUs) to proc ure new or repowered fossil-fueled generation for system and/or local reliability in the Long-Term Procurement Plan (LTPP) proceeding. In response to the Policy, the CPUC anticipates modifying its LTPP proceeding and procurement processes to require the IOUs to assess replacement infras tructure needs and conduct targeted requests for offers (RFOs) to acquire replacement, repowered or otherwise compliant generation capacity. LTPP proceedings are c onducted on a biennial cycle and plans are normally approved in od d-numbered years. The next cycle,October 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 3 the 2010 LTPP, is estimated to result in a decision by 2011. The subsequent cycle, the 2012 LTPP, would in turn result in a decision by 2013. Once authorized to procure by a CPUC LTPP decision, t he IOUs need approximately 18 months to issue an RFO, sign contracts, and submit applications to the CPUC for approval. Approval by the CPUC takes approximately ni ne months. If the contract involves a facility already licensed through the CE C generation permitting process, then financing and construction can begin. A typi cal generation permitting timeline is 12 months, but specific issues such as abi lity to obtain air pe rmits can delay the process. IOUs often give preference to RFO bids with permits already (or nearly) in place. From contract approval, cons truction usually takes three years, if generation permits are approved, or approximately five years, if generation 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 are expected to elapse, before replacement infrastructure is operational. D ue to the number of plants affected, efforts to replace or repower OTC power plants would need to be phased.

K. Because the Los Angeles region presents a more comp lex and challenging set of issues, it is anticipated that more time would be needed to study and implement replacement infrastructure solutions. Ther efore, total elapsed ti me is expected to begin in 2010 and end in 2017 for the Great er Bay Area and Sa n Diego regions, which would be addressed beginning in the 2010 LTPP. For the Los Angeles region, which would be addressed beginning in the 2012 LTPP, total elapsed time is expected to begin in 2012 and end in 2020. A transmission solution is expected to have approximately the same timefr ame, 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 t he State Water Board in evaluating schedules for power plants not under the ju risdiction of the CPUC or operating

within the CAISO Balanc ing Authority Area.

L. The Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 requires 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 electricity and do not emit greenhouse gases during energy generation. Energy gener ation by facilities that do not emit greenhouse gases will be critical to meet ing 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 Commission (Commi ssion) license renewal proceedings unique to the nuclear power industry and relicensing may extend the plants operating lives to approximately 2045. Unlike older era fossil-fueled plants, if the nuclear-fueled power plants* undergo modernization as part of relicensing or cooling structure upgrades, that modernization will not reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and in fact, extended downtime during modernization may result in short-term increases in greenhouse gas es as other greenhouse gas emittingOctober 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 4 facilities provide makeup power. In recogni tion of these considerations and others, this Policy requires special studies for the nuclear-fueled power plants* to address their unique issues, and to evaluate appropr iate requirements for those plants.

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

or fresh water.

N. In order to ensure a high level of statewide c onsistency in implementing Section 316(b), the State Water Board will assume re sponsibility for all NPDES permit actions for existing power plants* subject to this Poli cy, including without limitation actions to issue, modify, re issue, revoke, and terminate NPDES permits after October 1, 2010.

O. Nothing in this Policy precludes the aut hority of the State Wa ter Board to regulate discharges from existing power plants * through NPDES permi ts, consistent with water quality standards.

2. Requirements for Existing Power Plants*

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

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

flow rate* at each unit, at a minimum, to a level commensurate 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 intent 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 compliance with Track 1 is not
feasible *, the owner or operator of an existing power plant * must reduce impingement mortality and entrainment of marine life for the facility, on a unitby-unit basis, to a comparable level to that which would be achieved under Track 1, using operational or st ructural controls, or both.

(a) Compliance for impingement mort ality shall be determined either:

(i) For plants relying solely on r eductions in velocity, by monthly verification of through-screen intake ve locity not to exceed 0.5 foot per second, orOctober 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 5 (ii) By monitoring required in Secti on 4.A, below. For measured reductions determined by monitoring, the owner or operator must reduce impingement mortality to a comparabl e level to that which would be achieved under Track 1. A “comparable level” is a level that achieves at least 90 percent of the reduction in impingement 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 mont hly flow, in which case a minimum of 93% reduction in flow, as comp ared to the average actual flow for the corresponding months from 2000 – 2005, must be met, or

(ii) For plants relying in whole or in part on other control technologies (e.g., including but not limited to screens or re-location of intake structures), by measured reducti ons in entrainment determined by monitoring required in Section 4.B, below. The owner or operator must reduce entrainment to a comparable level to that which would be achieved under Track 1. A “comparable level” is a level that achieves at least 90 percent of the reducti on in entrainment required under Track 1. If screens are employed to reduce entrainment, compliance

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

(c) Technology-based improvem ents that are specifica lly designed to reduce impingement mortality and/or entrainment and were implemented prior to October 1, 2010 may be counted toward s meeting Track 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 fr om the replacement of steam turbine power-generating units with combined-cycle power-generating units*

, towards meeting Track 2 requirement s. Reductions shall be based on reductions in intake flows, calc ulated as the difference between:

(i) the maximum permitted discharge (expressed as million gallons per day (MGD)) for the entire power plant as identified in the plant’s prior NPDES permit that aut horized the steam turb ine power-generating units which were subsequently replaced with the combined-cycle power-generating units* andOctober 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 6 (ii) the maximum permitted discharge (e xpressed as MGD) for the entire power plant, including the combined cycl e 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 Table 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 electr ic system, a final compliance date may be suspended under the following circumstances:

(a) Suspension of Final Compliance Date for Less Than 90 Days for Existing Power Plants * Within CAISO Jurisdiction. If CAISO

determines that cont inued operation of an existing power plant * is necessary to maintain the reliability of the electric system in the shortterm, CAISO shall provide written notif ication to the State Water Board, the Regional Water Board with jurisdiction over the existing power plant*

, and the SACCWIS. If t he Executive Directors of the CEC and CPUC do not object in writing within 10 days to CAISO’s written notification, the notification provided pursuant to th is paragraph will suspend the final compliance date for the shorter of 90 days or the time CAISO determines necessary to maintain reliability. In the event either CEC or CPUC objects as provided in this paragraph, then the State Water Board shall hold a hearing as expeditiously as possible to determine whether to suspend the compliance date in accordance with paragraph (d).

(b) Suspension of Final Compliance Da te 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 provide written notification to the State Water Board, the Regional Wa ter Board with jurisdiction over the existing power plant* , and the SACCWIS. If the Ex ecutive Directors of the CEC and CPUC do not object in writing within 10 days to CAISO’s determination, the notific ation provided pursuant to this paragraph will suspend the final compliance date for 90 days. During the 90-day time suspension or within 90 days of rece iving a written not ification from CAISO, the State Water Board shall conduct a hearing in accordance with paragraph (d) to determine whether to suspend the final compliance date for more than the original 90 days pendi ng, if necessary, full evaluation of amendments to final compliance dates contained in the policy.October 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 7 (c) Suspension of Final Compliance Date for Existing Power Plants* Within Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP)

Service Area. If the LADWP Commission determines, through a public process, that continued operation of an existing power plant* operated by LADWP is necessary to maintain the re liability of the elec tric system in the short-term, LADWP shall provide written notification to the State Water Board, the Regional Water Boar d with jurisdiction over the existing power plant* , and the SACCWIS. Within 45 days of receiving a written notice from LADWP, the State Water Board shall conduct a hearing in accordance with paragraph (d) to dete rmine whether to suspend the final compliance date. In considering w hether to suspend or amend the final compliance dates the State Boar d shall consult with the CAISO.

(d) State Water Board Hearings on Suspension of Final Compliance

Dates. In considering whether to sus pend or amend the final compliance dates, the State Water Board shall a fford significant weight to the

recommendations of the CAISO.

C. Immediate and Interim Requirements

(1) No later than October 1, 2011, the owner or operator of an existing power plant* with an offshore intake * shall install large or ganism exclusion devices having a distance between exclusion bars of no greater than nine inches, or install other exclusion devices, deemed equi valent by the State Water Board.

(2) No later than October 1, 2011, the owner or operator 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 t he 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 structur e(s), commencing October 1, 2015 and continuing up to and until the owner or oper ator achieves final compliance. The owner or operator must include in the implementation plan, described in Section 3.A below, the specific measur es that will be undertaken to comply with this requirement. An owner or operator may comply with this requirement by:

(a) Demonstrating to the State Water B oard’s satisfaction that the owner or operator is compensating for the in terim impingement and entrainment impacts through existing mitigation effort s, including any projects that are required by state or federal permi ts as of October 1, 2010; orOctober 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 8 (b) Demonstrating to the State Water Board’s satisfaction that the interim impacts are compensated for by the ow ner or operator providing funding

to the California Coastal Conservan cy which will work 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, wh ich will compensate for the interim impingement and entrainment impacts. Such a project must be overseen by an advisory panel of experts c onvened by the State 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 replacem ent of the annual entrainment, for funding a mitigation project*

.
(e) It is the preference of the State Water Board t hat funding be provided to the California Coastal Conservancy, working with the California Ocean Protection Council, for mitigation proj ects directed toward increases in

marine life associated wit h the State’s Marine Pr otected Areas in the geographic region of the facility

.

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 with any safety requirement established by the Commission, with appropriate documentation or other substantiation from the Commission, t he State Water Board will make a sitespecific determination of best technolog y available for minimizing adverse environmental impact that would not resu lt in a conflict with the Commission’s safety requirements. The St ate Water Board may also establish alternative, sitespecific requirements in acco rdance 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 operator of an existing power plant* shall submit an implementation pl an to the State Water Board.

(1) The implementation plan sh all identify the compliance alternative selected by the owner or operator, describe the general design, construction, or operational measures that will be undertaken to implement the alternative, and propose a realistic schedule for implem enting these measur es that is as short as possible. If the owner or operator chooses to repower the facility to

reduce or eliminate reliance upon OTC, or to retrofit th e facility to implement

either Track 1 or Track 2 alternatives , the implementation plan shall identify the time period when generating power is infeasible and describe measuresOctober 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 9 taken to coordinate this activity th rough the appropriate electrical system balancing authority’s maintenance scheduling process.

(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 qual ity is available for use as makeup

water.

B. The SACCWIS shall be impaneled no late r than January 1, 2011, by the Executive Director of the State Water Board, to advise the State Water Board on the implementation of this Policy to ensure t hat the 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 and 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 available to the public.

(2) The SACCWIS shall review the owner or operator’s pro posed implementation schedule and report to the State Water Board with recommendations 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 review ing implementation schedules and providing recommendations to the State Water Board.

(3) The CAISO and the LADWP shall each submit to the SACCWIS by December 31, each year a grid relia bility study, for their respective jurisdictions, that has been developed pursuant to a public process and approved by their governing bodies. In order to assure that SACCWIS can provide annual reports to the State Water Board by March 31, the SACCWIS shall promptly meet to consider the re liability studies submitted by CAISO and

the LADWP.

(4) The SACCWIS will report to the Stat e Water Board with recommendations on modifications to the implementation schedu le every year starting in 2012. If

members of SACCWIS do not believe the full committee recommendations reflect their concerns they may issue minority recommendations that the State Water Board shall consider as part of the SACCWIS recommendations.

(5) The State Water Board shall consider the SACCWIS’ recommendations and

direct staff to make modi fications, if appropriate, fo r the State Water Board’s

consideration. In the event that the SACCWIS energy agencies (CAISO, CPUC, and CEC) make a unanimous recommendation for implementation schedule modification based on grid reli ability, the State Water Board shall afford significant weight to the recommendation..October 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 10 C. The State Water Board shall reissue or, as appropriate, 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 provisions of this Policy.

(1) The permits shall incorporate a final compliance 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 determines that a longer compliance schedule is necessary to maintain reliability of the electric system per SACCWIS recommendations while other OTC power plants are retrofitted, repowered, or retired or transmission upgrades take place, this delay shall be incorporated into the compliance schedule and stated in the permit findings.

(2) The State Water Board shall reopen, if necessary, the relevant permits and modify the final compliance schedules , if appropriate, based on modifications to the policy approved by the State Wate r Board or the suspension of final compliance dates pursuant to this policy.

(3) If an owner or operator selects Track 2 as the compliance alternative, the NPDES permit shall include a monito ring program that complies with Section 4 of this Policy.

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

D. No later than January 1, 2011 the Execut ive Director of the State Water Board, using the authority under section 13267(f) of the Water Code, shall request that Southern California Edison (SCE) and Paci fic Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) conduct special studies for submission to the State Water Board.

(1) The special studies shall in vestigate alternatives for the nuclear-fueled power plants* to meet the requirement s of this Policy, includi ng the costs for these

alternatives.

(2) The special studies shall be conduc ted by an independent third party with engineering experience with nuclear power plants, selected by the Executive

Director of the State Water Board.

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

the Executive Director of the State Water Board no later than January 1, 2011, which shall include, at a minimu m, representatives of SCE, PG&E, SACCWIS, the environmental community, and staffs of the State WaterOctober 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 11 Board, Central Coast Regional Wate r Board, and the San Diego Regional

Water Board.

(4) No later than October 1, 2011, the Re view Committee, described above, shall provide a report for public comment deta iling the scope of the special studies, including the degree to which existing, completed studies can be relied upon.

(5) No later than October 1, 2013 the Re view Committee shall provide the final report and the Review Committee’s comm ents for public comment detailing the results of the special studies and shall present 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 public.

(7) The State Water Board shall consider the results of t he 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, the State Water 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 and dollars per megawatt hour of electrical energy produced over an amortization period of 20

years;

(b) Ability to achieve compliance with Tr ack 1 considering factors including, but not limited to, engineering constraint s, space constraints, permitting constraints, and public safety considerations;

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

(8) If the State Water Board finds that for a specific nuclear-fueled power plant* to implement Track 1, eit her (1) the costs are wholly out of proportion to the costs identified in Tetra Tech, Inc ., California’s Coastal Power Plants: Alternative Cooling System Anal ysis, 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 Nu clear Generating Station]) and considered by the State Water Board in establishing Track 1, or (2) that compliance is wholly unreasonable based on the factors in paragraphs 7(b) and (c), then the State Wate r Board shall establish alternate requirements for

that nuclear-fueled power plant* . The State Water Board shall establish alternative requirements no less stringent than justified by the wholly out of proportion (i) cost and (ii) factor(s) of paragraph (7). The burden is on theOctober 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 12 person requesting the alternative requirem ent to demonstrate 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 resulting from any alternative, less stringent r equirements shall be fully mitigated. Mitigation required pursuant to this paragraph shall be a mitigation project*

directed toward the increase in marine life associated with t he State’s Marine Protected Areas in the geographic region of the facility. Funding for the mitigation project* shall be provided to the Calif ornia Coastal Conservancy, working with the Ocean Protection Council to fund an appropriate mitigation project*

.

E. Table 1. Impl ementation 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 im plementation 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 t he 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 schedul es and report to the

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

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

and LADWP.October 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 13 Milestone Responsible Entity/Party Due Date 2

7 Humboldt Bay Power Plant in co mpliance Owner/oper ator 12/31/2010

8 Potrero Power Plant in comp liance 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

10 Cease intake flows for units not directly engaging in power-generating activities * or critical system maintenance* , or demonstrate to the Stat e 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 Wate r Board on status of implementation of Policy [Section 3.B(3)] SACCWIS 03/31/2012

12 South Bay Power Plant in comp liance 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 Wate r Board on status of implementation of Policy [Section 3.B(3)] SACCWIS 03/31/2013

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

16 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

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

18 El Segundo, Harbor , and Morro Bay power plants in compliance Owner/operator 12/31/2015

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

20 Report to State Wate r Board on status of implementation of Policy [Section 3.B(3)] SACCWIS 03/31/2017October 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 14 Milestone Responsible Entity/Party Due Date 2

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

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

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

24 Haynes generating station in co mpliance Owner/oper ator 12/31/2019

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

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

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

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

29 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

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

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

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

studies from Section 3.D Owner/operator 12/31/2024

4. Track 2 Monitoring Provisions

A. Impingement Impacts: The following impinge ment studies are required to comply with Section 2.A.(2)(a)(ii):October 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 15 (1) A baseline impingement study sha ll be performed, unless the discharger demonstrates, to the State Water Board’s satisfacti on, that prior studies accurately reflect current impacts. Baseline impingement shall be measured on-site and shall include sampling for a ll species impinged. The impingement study shall be designed to accurately characterize the species currently impinged and their seasonal abundance to the satisfaction of the State Water

Board.

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

(b) Impingement shall be measured during different seasons when the cooling system is in operation and ov er 24-hour sampling periods.

(c) When applicable, impingement s hall be sampled under differing representative operational conditions (e.g., differing levels of power production, heat treatments, etc.).

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

(2) After the Track 2 controls are im plemented, to confirm the level of impingement controls, another impi ngement study, consistent with Section 4.A(1)(a) to (d), above, sha ll be performed and reported to the State

Water Board.

(3) The need for additional impingement st udies shall be eval uated at the end of each permit period. Impingement studi es shall be required when changing operational or environmental conditions in dicate that new studies are needed,

at the discretion of t he State Water Board.

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

(1) A baseline entrainment study sha ll be performed, unless the discharger demonstrates, to the State Water Board’s satisfacti on, that prior studies accurately reflect current impacts. Prio r studies that may have used a mesh size of 333 or 335 microns for sampli ng are acceptable for compliance with the review and approval of the State Wa ter Board. If the State Water Board

determines that a new baseline entrain ment study shall be performed to determine larval composition and abundance in the source water, representative of water that is being entrained, then samples must be collected using a mesh size no larger than 335 microns. 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 condit ions reasonably expected afterOctober 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 16 Track 2 controls are implemented. Baseline entrainment sampling shall provide an unbiased estimate of larvae ent rained 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 le vel practicable. When practicable, genetic identification through molecular biological techniques may be used to assist in compliance with this requi rement. Samples shall be preserved and archived such that genetic identific ation is possible at a later date.

(b) The study period shall be at least 36 consecutive months, and shall occur during different seasons, including per iods of peak use when the cooling system is in operation (such as the summer months when energy is in high demand). Sampling shall be des igned to account for variation in oceanographic conditions and larval abun dance and behavior such that abundance estimates are reasonably accurate.

(2) After the Track 2 controls are im plemented, to confirm the level of entrainment controls, another entrainment study (with a study design to the State Water Board’s satisfaction, with sa mples collected using a mesh size no larger than 335 microns, and with additio nal samples also collected using a 200 micron mesh) shall be performed and r eported to the State Water Board.

(3) The need for additional entrainment st udies shall be evaluated at the end of each permit period. Entrainment st udies shall be required when changing operational or environmental conditions in dicate that new studies are needed,

at the discretion of t he 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 through the evaporation of water, thus enabling the reuse of a smaller amount of water seve ral times to achieve the desired cooling effect. The only dischar ge of wastewater is from periodic blowdown for the purpose of limiting the bui ldup of concentrations of materials in excess of desirable limits established by best engineering practice.

Combined-cycle power-generating units - Refers to units within a power plant which combined generate electricity through a tw o-stage process involving combustion and steam. Hot exhaust gas from combus tion turbines is passed through a heat recovery steam generator to produce steam for a steam turbine. The turbine

exhaust steam is condensed in the c ooling system and may or may not be returned to the power cycle. Comb ined cycle power-generating units are generally more fuel-efficient and use less cooling water than steam boiler units with the same generating capacity.October 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 17 Critical system maintenance – are activities that are critical for maintenance of a plant’s physical machinery and absolutely cannot be postponed 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 fish (i.e., the pelagic eggs and larval forms of fishes).

Intake flow rate – Refers to the instantaneous rate at which water is withdrawn through the intake structure, expressed as gallons per minute.

Meroplankton – For purposes of this Policy, re fers to that component of the zooplankton* community composed of squid paralarvae and the pelagic larvae of

benthic invertebrates.

Mitigation project – Projects to restore marine life lost through impingement mortality

and entrainment. Restoration of marine life may include proj ects to restore and/or enhance coastal marine or estuarine habitat, and may also include protection of marine life in existing marine habitat, for example through the funding of implementation and/or management of Marine 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 spac e constraints or the inability to obtain necessary permits due to public safety considerations, unacceptable environmental impacts, local ordinances, regulat ions, etc. Cost is not a factor to be considered when determining feasibility under Track 1.

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

Onofre Nuclear G enerating Station.

Offshore intake –refers to any submerged intake stru cture that is not located at the shoreline, and includes such intakes that are located in ocean, bay and estuary

environments.October 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 18 Power-generating activities – Refers to activities directly related the generation 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 Co mmission. Activities that are not considered directly relat ed to the generation of electr icity include (but are not limited to) dilution for in-plant wastes, maintenance of source-and receiving water quality strictly for monitoring purposes, and running pumps strictly to prevent fouling of condensers and ot her power plant equipment.

Proportional mortality – the proportion of larvae killed from entrainment to the larvae in the source population, as determi ned by an Empirical Transport Model.

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

.