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 structures reflect the best technology available 

(BTA) for minimizing adverse environmental impact. Section 316(b) is 

implemented through National Pollutant Discharge 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 Board (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 Water 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 standards 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 quality principles, guidelines, and objectives 

deemed essential for water quality control. 

F. This Policy establishes requirements for the implementation 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 ensuring 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 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), 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 compliance dates for 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 Infrastructure Replacement Milestones and Compliance Dates for 

Existing Power Plants in California Using Once Through Cooling”, included in the 

Substitute Environmental Document for this Policy. The energy agencies’ 

approach seeks to address the replacement, repowering, or retirement of power 

plants currently using OTC that (1) maintains reliability of the electric system; (2) 

meets California’s environmental policy goals; and (3) achieves these goals 

through effective long-term planning for transmission, 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 Statewide Advisory Committee 

on Cooling Water Intake Structures (SACCWIS), which will include representatives 

from the CEC, CPUC, CAISO, CCC, SLC, 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 that the implementation schedule takes into 

account local area and grid reliability, including 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 individual 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 mechanisms implemented by the CPUC in 

order to identify low cost solutions for most OTC power plants. The CPUC has 

authority to order the investor-owned utilities (IOUs) to procure 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 infrastructure needs and conduct targeted 

requests for offers (RFOs) to acquire replacement, repowered or otherwise 

compliant generation capacity. LTPP proceedings are conducted on a biennial 

cycle and plans are normally approved in odd-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, the 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 nine months. If the contract involves a 

facility already licensed through the CEC generation permitting process, then 

financing and construction can begin. A typical generation permitting timeline is 12 

months, but specific issues such as ability to obtain air permits can delay the 

process. IOUs often give preference to RFO bids with permits already (or nearly) 

in place. From contract approval, construction 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. Due 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 complex and challenging set of 

issues, it is anticipated that more time would be needed to study and implement 

replacement infrastructure solutions. Therefore, total elapsed time is expected to 

begin in 2010 and end in 2017 for the Greater Bay Area 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 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 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 plants not under the jurisdiction of the CPUC or operating 

within the CAISO Balancing 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 generation by facilities that do not emit 

greenhouse gases will be critical to meeting 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 (Commission) 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 gases as other greenhouse gas emitting 
October 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1 

Page 4 

facilities provide makeup power. In recognition of these considerations and others, 

this Policy requires special studies for the nuclear-fueled power plants* to address 

their unique issues, and to evaluate appropriate requirements for those plants. 

M. To conserve the State’s scarce water resources, the State Water Board 

encourages the use of recycled water for cooling water in lieu of marine, estuarine 

or fresh water. 

N. In order to ensure a high level of statewide consistency in implementing 

Section 316(b), the State Water Board will assume responsibility for all NPDES 

permit actions for existing power plants* subject to this Policy, including without 

limitation actions to issue, modify, reissue, revoke, and terminate NPDES permits 

after October 1, 2010. 

O. Nothing in this Policy precludes the authority of 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 of 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 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 structural controls, or both. 

(a) Compliance for impingement mortality shall be determined either: 

(i) For plants relying solely on reductions in velocity, by monthly 

verification of through-screen intake velocity not to exceed 0.5 foot per 

second, or 
October 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1 

Page 5 

(ii) By monitoring required in Section 4.A, below. For measured reductions 

determined by monitoring, the owner or operator must reduce 

impingement mortality 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 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 monthly flow, in which case a minimum 

of 93% reduction in flow, as compared 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 reductions 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 reduction 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 improvements that are specifically designed to reduce 

impingement mortality and/or entrainment and were implemented prior to 

October 1, 2010 may be counted towards 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 from the replacement of steam turbine 

power-generating units with combined-cycle power-generating units*, 

towards meeting Track 2 requirements. Reductions shall be based on 

reductions in intake flows, calculated 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 authorized the steam turbine power-generating 

units which were subsequently replaced with the combined-cycle 

power-generating units* and 
October 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1 

Page 6 

(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 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 electric 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 continued operation of an existing power plant* is 

necessary to maintain the reliability of the electric system in the shortterm, CAISO shall provide written notification to the 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 written notification, the 

notification provided pursuant to this 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 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 provide written notification to 

the 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 

determination, the notification 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 receiving a written notification 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 pending, 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 reliability of the electric system in the 

short-term, LADWP shall provide written notification to the State Water 

Board, the Regional Water Board 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 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 Compliance 

Dates. In considering whether to suspend or amend the final compliance 

dates, the State Water Board shall afford 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 organism exclusion devices 

having a distance between exclusion bars of no greater 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 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 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 October 1, 2015 and 

continuing up to and until the owner or operator achieves final compliance. 

The owner or operator must include in the implementation plan, described in 

Section 3.A below, the specific measures 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 Board’s satisfaction that the owner or 

operator is compensating for the interim impingement and entrainment 

impacts through existing mitigation efforts, including any projects that are 

required by state or federal permits as of October 1, 2010; or 
October 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1 

Page 8 

(b) Demonstrating to the State Water Board’s satisfaction that the interim 

impacts are compensated for by the owner or operator providing funding 

to the California Coastal Conservancy 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, which will compensate for the interim 

impingement and entrainment impacts. Such a project must be overseen 

by an advisory panel of experts convened 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 replacement of the annual entrainment, for 

funding a mitigation project*. 

(e) It is the preference of the State Water Board that funding be provided to 

the California Coastal Conservancy, working with the California Ocean 

Protection Council, for mitigation projects directed toward increases in 

marine life associated with the State’s Marine Protected 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, the State Water Board will make a sitespecific determination of best technology available for minimizing adverse 

environmental impact that would not result in a conflict with the Commission’s 

safety requirements. The State Water Board may also 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 operator of an existing power plant*

shall submit an implementation plan to the State Water Board. 

(1) The implementation plan shall 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 implementing these measures 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 the 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 measures 
October 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1 

Page 9 

taken to coordinate this activity through 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 quality is available for use as makeup 

water. 

B. The SACCWIS shall be impaneled no later 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 that 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 proposed 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 reviewing 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 reliability 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 reliability studies submitted by CAISO and 

the LADWP. 

(4) The SACCWIS will report to the State Water Board with recommendations on 

modifications to the implementation schedule 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 modifications, if appropriate, for 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 reliability, 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 Water 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 monitoring 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 suspensions 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 Executive 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 Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) 

conduct special studies for submission to the State Water Board. 

(1) The special studies shall investigate alternatives 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 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 minimum, representatives of SCE, PG&E, 

SACCWIS, the environmental community, and staffs of the State Water 
October 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1 

Page 11 

Board, Central Coast Regional Water Board, and the San Diego Regional 

Water Board. 

(4) No later than October 1, 2011, the Review Committee, described above, shall 

provide a report for public comment detailing 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 Review Committee shall provide the final 

report and the Review Committee’s comments 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 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, 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 Track 1 considering factors including, 

but not limited to, engineering constraints, 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, either (1) the costs are wholly 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 factors 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 justified by the wholly out of 

proportion (i) cost and (ii) factor(s) of paragraph (7). The burden is on the 
October 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1 

Page 12 

person requesting the alternative requirement 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 requirements shall be fully mitigated. 

Mitigation required pursuant to this paragraph shall be a mitigation project*

directed toward the increase in marine life associated with the State’s Marine 

Protected Areas in the geographic region of the facility. Funding for the 

mitigation project* shall be provided to the California Coastal Conservancy, 

working with the Ocean Protection Council to fund an appropriate mitigation 

project*. 

E. Table 1. Implementation Schedule 

Milestone Responsible 

Entity/Party Due Date2

 

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/operators 

of 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 

 

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 Date2

 

7 Humboldt Bay Power Plant in compliance Owner/operator 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 

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/operator 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 Report to State Water 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 Water 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 Water Board on status of 

implementation of Policy [Section 3.B(3)] 

SACCWIS 03/31/2016 

20 Report to State Water Board on status of 

implementation of Policy [Section 3.B(3)] 

SACCWIS 03/31/2017 
October 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1 

Page 14 

Milestone Responsible 

Entity/Party Due Date2

 

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 Water Board on status of 

implementation of Policy [Section 3.B(3)] 

SACCWIS 03/31/2018 

23 Report to State Water Board on status of 

implementation of Policy [Section 3.B(3)] 

SACCWIS 03/31/2019 

24 Haynes generating station in compliance Owner/operator 12/31/2019 

25 Report to State Water 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 Water Board on status of 

implementation of Policy [Section 3.B(3)] 

SACCWIS 03/31/2021 

28 Report to State Water 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 Water Board on status of 

implementation of Policy [Section 3.B(3)] 

SACCWIS 03/31/2023 

31 Report to State Water 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 impingement studies are required to comply 

with Section 2.A.(2)(a)(ii): 
October 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1 

Page 15 

(1) A baseline impingement study shall be performed, unless the discharger 

demonstrates, to the State Water Board’s satisfaction, that prior studies 

accurately reflect current impacts. Baseline impingement 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 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 over 24-hour sampling periods. 

(c) When applicable, impingement shall 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 implemented, to confirm the level of 

impingement controls, another impingement study, consistent 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 shall be evaluated at the end of 

each permit period. Impingement studies shall be required when changing 

operational or environmental conditions indicate that new studies are needed, 

at the discretion of the 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 shall be performed, unless the discharger 

demonstrates, to the State Water Board’s satisfaction, that prior studies 

accurately reflect current impacts. Prior studies that may have used a mesh 

size of 333 or 335 microns for sampling are acceptable for compliance with 

the review and approval of the State Water Board. If the State Water Board 

determines that a new baseline entrainment 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 conditions reasonably expected after 
October 1, 2010 ATTACHMENT 1 

Page 16 

Track 2 controls are implemented. Baseline entrainment 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 practicable. When practicable, 

genetic identification through molecular biological techniques may be used 

to assist in compliance with this requirement. Samples shall be preserved 

and archived such that genetic identification is possible at a later date. 

(b) The study period shall be at least 36 consecutive months, and shall occur 

during different seasons, including periods of peak use when the cooling 

system is in operation (such as the summer months when energy is in 

high demand). Sampling shall be designed to account for variation in 

oceanographic conditions and larval abundance and behavior 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 (with a study design to the 

State Water Board’s satisfaction, with samples collected using a mesh size no 

larger than 335 microns, and with additional samples also collected using a 

200 micron mesh) shall be performed and reported to the State Water Board. 

(3) The need for additional entrainment studies shall be evaluated at the end of 

each permit period. Entrainment studies shall be required when changing 

operational or environmental conditions indicate that 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 through the evaporation of water, 

thus enabling the reuse of a smaller amount of water several times to achieve the 

desired cooling effect. The only discharge of wastewater is from periodic 

blowdown for the purpose of limiting the buildup 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 two-stage process involving combustion 

and steam. Hot exhaust gas from combustion turbines is passed through a heat 

recovery steam generator to produce steam for a steam turbine. The turbine 

exhaust steam is condensed in the cooling system and 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. 
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, refers 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 projects 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 space constraints or the inability to 

obtain necessary permits due to public safety considerations, unacceptable 

environmental impacts, local ordinances, regulations, 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 Generating Station. 

Offshore intake –refers to any submerged intake structure 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 Commission. Activities that are not 

considered directly related to the generation of electricity 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 other power plant equipment. 

Proportional mortality – the proportion of larvae killed from entrainment to the larvae in 

the source population, as determined by an Empirical Transport Model. 

Zooplankton – For purposes of this Policy, refers to those planktonic invertebrates 

larger than 200 microns.