&EPA
Fact Sheet
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Proposes to Reissue a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) Permit to Discharge Pollutants Pursuant to the Provisions of the Clean
Water Act (CWA) to:
United States Department of the Navy
Naval Base Kitsap Bangor
Public Comment Start Date: February 14, 2023
Public Comment Expiration Date: March 16, 2023
Technical Contact: Brian Nickel
(206) 553-6251
800-424-4372, ext. 6251 (within Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington)
Nickel.Brian@epa.gov
EPA Proposes to Reissue the NPDES Permit
EPA proposes to reissue the NPDES permit for the facility referenced above. The draft permit
places conditions on the discharge of pollutants from the wastewater treatment plant to waters
of the United States. In order to ensure protection of water quality and human health, the
permit places limits on the types and amounts of pollutants that can be discharged from the
facility.
This Fact Sheet (FS) includes:
¦ information on public comment, public hearing, and appeal procedures
¦ a listing of proposed effluent limitations and other conditions for the facility
¦ a map and description of the discharge location
¦ technical material supporting the conditions in the permit
CWA § 401 Certification
EPA is requesting that the Washington State Department of Ecology provide a CWA
Certification of the permit for this facility under CWA § 401. Comments regarding Ecology's
intent to certify the permit should be directed to Angela Zeigenfuse at
azei461@ECY.WA.GOV.
CWA § 401(a)(2) Review
Section 401 (a)(2) of the CWA requires that, upon receipt of an application and state
certification pursuant to Section 401(a)(1), EPA as the permitting authority, shall notify a
neighboring State or Tribe with Treatment as a State (TAS) when EPA determines that the
discharge may affect the quality of the neighboring State/tribe's waters (33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(2)).
-------
Once EPA obtains the final certification from Ecology, EPA will determine whether the
discharge may affect a neighboring jurisdiction's waters. 33 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(2).
Public Comment
We request that all comments on EPA's draft permits or requests for a public hearing be
submitted via email to Brian Nickel (Nickel.Brian@epa.gov). If you are unable to submit
comments via email, please call (206) 553-6251.
Persons wishing to comment on or request a Public Hearing for the draft permit for this facility
may do so in writing by the expiration date of the Public Comment period. A request for a
Public Hearing must state the nature of the issues to be raised as well as the requester's
name, address, and telephone number. All comments and requests for Public Hearings must
be in writing and should be submitted to the EPA as described in the Public Comments Section
of the attached Public Notice.
After the Public Notice expires, and all comments have been considered, EPA's regional
Director for the Water Division will make a final decision regarding permit issuance. If no
substantive comments are received, the tentative conditions in the draft permit will become
final, and the permit will become effective upon issuance. If substantive comments are
received, EPA will address the comments and issue the permit. The permit will become
effective no less than 30 days after the issuance date, unless an appeal is submitted to the
Environmental Appeals Board within 30 days pursuant to 40 CFR 124.19.
Documents are Available for Review
The draft NPDES permit and related documents can be reviewed or obtained by visiting or
contacting EPA's Regional Office in Seattle between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday at the address below. The draft permits, fact sheet, and other information can also be
found by visiting the Region 10 NPDES website at:
https://www.epa.gov/npdes-permits/about-region-10s-npdes-permit-program
US EPA Region 10
1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 155
Mail Code: 19-C04
Seattle, Washington 98101
(206) 553-0523 or
Toll Free 1-800-424-4372 (within Alaska, Idaho, Oregon and Washington)
The draft Administrative Record for this action contains any documents listed in the
References section. The Administrative Record or documents from it are available
electronically upon request by contacting Brian Nickel.
For technical questions regarding the Fact Sheet, contact Brian Nickel at (206) 553-6251 or
Nickel.Brian@epa.gov. Services can be made available to persons with disabilities by
contacting Audrey Washington at (206) 553-0523.
The fact sheet and draft permits are also available at:
Kitsap Regional Library, Silverdale
3650 NW Anderson Hill Rd
Silverdale, WA 98383
(360) 447-5470
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 2 of 50
-------
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy Page 3 of 50
-------
Kitsap Regional Library, Poulsbo
700 NE Lincoln Rd
Poulsbo, WA 98370
(360) 447-5450
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 4 of 50
-------
Table of Contents
Acronyms 7
I. Background Information 9
A. General Information 9
B. Permit History 9
C. Tribal Consultation 9
II. Facility Information 9
A. General Facility Information 9
B. Outfall Description 11
C. Effluent Characterization 12
D. Compliance History 13
III. Receiving Water 13
A. Water Quality Standards (WQS) 13
1. Designated Beneficial Uses 13
B. Receiving Water Quality 13
1. Water Quality Limited Waters 14
IV. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring 15
A. Basis for Effluent Limits 16
1. Pollutants of Concern 16
2. Technology-Based Effluent Limits (TBELs) 17
3. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs) 18
B. Monitoring Requirements 22
1. Effluent Monitoring 23
V. Other Permit Conditions 24
A. Quality Assurance Plan 24
B. Best Management Practices 24
C. Environmental Justice 24
D. Standard Permit Provisions 25
VI. Other Legal Requirements 25
A. Endangered Species Act 25
B. Essential Fish Habitat 26
C. CWA § 401 Certification 26
D. Antidegradation 26
E. Permit Expiration 28
VII. References 28
Appendix A. Facility Maps 29
Appendix B. Water Quality Data 32
Treatment Plant Effluent Data 32
Receiving Water Data 39
Appendix C. Reasonable Potential and WQBEL Formulae 41
Appendix D. Reasonable Potential and WQBEL Calculations 46
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy Page 5 of 50
-------
Appendix E. Effluent Limit Calculations for pH 47
Appendix F. Technology-based Effluent Limit for Temperature 48
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 6 of 50
-------
Acronyms
AML Average Monthly Limit
BAT Best Available Technology economically achievable
BCT Best Conventional pollutant control Technology
BMP Best Management Practices
BPT Best Practicable
°C Degrees Celsius
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CV Coefficient of Variation
CWA Clean Water Act
DMR Discharge Monitoring Report
DO Dissolved oxygen
ECHO Enforcement and Compliance History Online
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EIM Environmental Information Management
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Endangered Species Act
FR Federal Register
gpd Gallons per day
mg/L Milligrams per liter
ml_ Milliliters
ML Minimum Level
|jg/L Micrograms per liter
MDL Maximum Daily Limit or Method Detection Limit
N Nitrogen
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
QAP Quality assurance plan
RP Reasonable Potential
RPM Reasonable Potential Multiplier
SPCC Spill Prevention and Control and Countermeasure
s.u. Standard Units
TKN Total Kjeldahl Nitrogen
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
TOC Total Organic Carbon
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control
(EPA/505/2-90-001)
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 7 of 50
-------
WD Water Division
WLA Wasteload allocation
WQBEL Water quality-based effluent limit
WQS Water Quality Standards
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 8 of 50
-------
I. Background Information
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
This fact sheet provides information on the draft NPDES permit for the following entity:
Table 1: General Facility Information
NPDES Permit #:
WA0025577
Applicant:
United States Department of the Navy
Naval Base Kitsap Bangor
Type of Ownership
Federal
Physical Address:
7001 Finback Circle
Silverdale, WA 98315
Mailing Address:
7001 Finback Circle, Room E300
Silverdale, WA 98315
Facility Contact:
Carol MacKenzie
Facility Location:
47.722104° N 122.736846°W
Receiving Water
Hood Canal
Outfall 001
47.743333°N 122.730833°W
Outfall 002
47.743333°N 122.730833°W
B. PERMIT HISTORY
The most recent NPDES permit for Naval Base Kitsap Bangor (NBK Bangor) was
issued on July 22, 2010, became effective on September 1, 2010, and expired on
August 31, 2015. An NPDES application for permit issuance was submitted by the
permittee on March 2, 2015. EPA determined that the application was timely and
complete. Therefore, pursuant to Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 122.6,
the permit has been administratively continued and remains fully effective and
enforceable.
C. TRIBAL CONSULTATION
EPA is offering government-to-government consultation with the Jamestown
S'Klallam, Port Gamble S'Klallam, and Skokomish Tribes. EPA has also shared
preliminary drafts of the permit and fact sheet with these tribes for their review and
comment on July 12, 2022 and again on December 19, 2022. EPA held a staff-level
meeting with the Jamestown S'Klallam and Port Gamble S'Klallam tribes on
September 20, 2022. EPA has considered the tribes' feedback in developing the draft
permit.
II. Facility Information
A. GENERAL FACILITY INFORMATION
The United States Department of the Navy (Navy) owns and operates NBK Bangor
located in Silverdale, WA. The draft permit proposes to authorize the discharge of
pollutants from the Intermediate Maintenance Facility at NBK Bangor. NBK Bangor is
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 9 of 50
-------
located on the western side of the Kitsap Peninsula, on Hood Canal, north of
Silverdale, WA (west of Seattle). This facility's mission is to support the TRIDENT
missile system. As part of this support, the facility performs repairs and renovations on
Navy submarines. These operations are the subject of this NPDES permit. The focus
of the permit is on the drydock (or graving dock) area and wastewater generated
during such operations.
The drydock, properly known as a graving dock, is a narrow concrete basin, closed by
gates or by a caisson, into which a vessel may be floated and the water pumped out,
leaving the vessel supported on blocks. The keel blocks as well as the bilge block are
placed on the floor of the dock in accordance with the "docking plan" of the ship.
Vessels are in drydock at Bangor for approximately one month at a time and there are
typically only a few days between taking a vessel out of drydock and putting another
one in drydock. The drydock is 90 feet wide x 690 feet long x 63 feet deep and is
situated 43 feet below MLLW (Mean Lower Low Water). Repairs in the graving dock
take place below the surface level of Hood Canal. Submarines are floated into the
dock, then the tide gates are shut and the water is pumped out to create a dry work
environment.
When maintenance of a submarine is complete, and Hood Canal water is allowed to
enter the drydock to float the vessel, the water which flows over the vessel and
drydock surfaces is referred to as drydock floodwater. The discharge of drydock
floodwater via the caisson opening (Outfall 002) is specifically authorized and
regulated by the proposed NPDES permit.
Non-contact cooling water is discharged through outfall 001 and dry dock flood water
is discharged through the caisson opening, which is outfall 002. Nuclear reactor
coolant is not discharged to surface water; it is treated and reused on ships or
evaporated (Navy, 2022). A schematic of the wastewater treatment process and a
map showing the location of the treatment facility and discharge are included in
Appendix A. This is an NPDES minor facility.
1. Discharges Not Covered by this Permit
a. Upland Stormwater
Coverage under the NPDES Multi-Sector General Permit for Stormwater
Discharges Associated with Industrial Activity (MSGP), WAR05F004,
authorizes discharges of industrial stormwater from upland areas.
b. Caisson Ballast Water and Drydock Dewatering Water
The caisson is a rectangular shaped structure used as a gate to prevent
Hood Canal water from entering the drydock. Starting with an empty
drydock, Hood Canal water is allowed to enter in a controlled manner.
When the water level in the drydock is equivalent to that in Hood Canal,
and a vessel is in place in the drydock, the caisson is closed to block
Hood Canal water from entering and large dewatering pumps remove the
water and discharge it back to Hood Canal. Discharges of ballast water
from the caisson and drydock dewatering water are returning ambient
water uncontaminated back to Hood Canal. These discharges do not
need to be covered under a NPDES permit because they do not add
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 10 of 50
-------
pollutants to waters of the U.S. If the Navy were to change their
operations such that pollutants are added to this discharge, then NPDES
permit coverage might be required.
c. Saltwater Separation Discharge
Once the drydock caisson is seated and the drydock is dewatered, some
Hood Canal water may leak at the interface between the caisson and
drydock. There is a curb on the drydock floor near the caisson that keeps
the leakage separate from other waters in the drydock. The leakage is
pumped back into Hood Canal and does not come into contact with any of
the industrial activity of ship repair. Since there is not an addition of
pollutants from this discharge, coverage under a NPDES permit is not
required. If the Navy were to change operations such that pollutants are
added to the discharge, then the Navy should reassess whether the
discharge requires an NPDES permit.
d. Hydrostatic Relief (Groundwater)
By design, the drydock incorporates a system to lower the groundwater
table adjacent to the drydock. This reduces hydrostatic pressure on the
floors and walls to maintain structural integrity. The groundwater is
uncontaminated and authorization to discharge is not required. If the
Navy were to change operations such that pollutants are added to the
discharge, then the Navy should reassess whether the discharge requires
an NPDES permit.
e. Vessel Discharges during Dewatering
When a vessel is brought into drydock it may discharge ballast or sonar
dome water. The permit prohibits the discharge of ballast water from
contacting the drydock floor where it is possible to pick up debris from ship
repair.
f. Drydock Operations Water
Ship repair services include electrical and machine work, carpentry, steel
fabrication, pipe-fitting, painting, sand blasting, and pressure washing.
During normal drydock operation, all water from the drydock floor is
directed to the Industrial Wastewater Pretreatment Facility (Building 7030).
After treatment, the water is discharged into the sanitary sewer which
discharges to the Central Kitsap Wastewater Treatment Plant per State
Waste Discharge Permit ST-7363. Drydock floor drainage may consist of
stormwater, pressure washer wastewater, hydroblast wastewater, potable
water, rinse water, and steam condensate. Since this discharge is sent to
the Central Kitsap Wastewater Treatment Plant and is not discharged
directly to waters of the U.S., it is not covered under this permit.
B. OUTFALL DESCRIPTION
Outfall 001 is an 8-inch diameter single-port discharge, located 18.5 feet above the
mudline at a depth of 30 feet below mean lower low water. See Figure 2 and Figure 3.
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 11 of 50
-------
Dry dock floodwater is discharged through the caisson (Outfall 002), which is a steel
structure situated at the north end of the drydock in an East/West orientation. It is
approximately 109 feet long and 65 feet deep, with a sill at approximately 43 MLLW.
C. EFFLUENT CHARACTERIZATION
To characterize the effluent, EPA evaluated the facility's application form, discharge
monitoring report (DMR) data, and additional data provided by Naval Base Kitsap
Bangor. The effluent quality for outfall 001 is summarized in Table 2. In addition to the
parameters listed in Table 2, the permittee was required to perform visual monitoring
for oil and grease; no visible oil and grease was observed. Data are provided in
Appendix B.
Outfall 002 only had a visual monitoring requirement in the prior permit, and there are
no data in the Integrated Compliance Information System (ICIS) database for outfall
002.
Table 2: Effluent Characterization for Outfall 001
Parameter
Units
Minimum
Average
Maximum
Standard
Deviation
Count
Ammonia
hq/l
150
150
150
N/A
1
Copper
hq/l
0.697
4.387
19.1
3.982
33
Flow (daily average)
gpd
174,096
1,214,079
1,838,799
287,849
124
Flow (daily maximum)
gpd
206,784
1,480,291
2,614,120
307,716
124
Oil and Grease
mg/L
<5
<5
<5
N/A
1
PH
s.u.
6.86
7.30
7.74
0.62
2
Temperature, monthly 7-DADMax,
January
°c
10.2
13.0
14.2
1.13
11
Temperature, monthly 7-DADMax,
February
°c
11.6
12.7
13.7
0.62
10
Temperature, monthly 7-DADMax,
March
°c
11.2
13.5
14.6
0.97
10
Temperature, monthly 7-DADMax,
April
°c
13.1
15.4
19.2
1.77
10
Temperature, monthly 7-DADMax,
May
°c
15.7
17.3
19.6
1.28
10
Temperature, monthly 7-DADMax,
June
°c
17.2
18.7
21.2
1.17
10
Temperature, monthly 7-DADMax,
July
°c
17.2
19.7
21.2
1.15
10
Temperature, monthly 7-DADMax,
August
°c
18.3
19.9
21.4
0.94
10
Temperature, monthly 7-DADMax,
September
°c
16.5
18.4
20.5
1.22
11
Temperature, monthly 7-DADMax,
October
°c
15.5
16.7
19.0
1.08
11
Temperature, monthly 7-DADMax,
November
°c
11.5
14.8
17.1
1.51
10
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 12 of 50
-------
Parameter
Units
Minimum
Average
Maximum
Standard
Deviation
Count
Ammonia
hq/l
150
150
150
N/A
1
Temperature, monthly 7-DADMax,
December
°c
12.9
14.1
15.3
0.81
11
Total organic carbon (TOC)
mg/L
3.88
3.88
3.88
N/A
1
Sources: DMRs, application form.
D. COMPLIANCE HISTORY
The facility violated the 7-day average of the daily maximum (7-DADMax) temperature
limits 27 times between September 2010 and September 2021.
Additional compliance information for this facility, including compliance with other
environmental statutes, is available on Enforcement and Compliance History Online
(ECHO). The ECHO web address for this facility is: https://echo.epa.gov/detailed-
facilitv-report?fid=WA0025577&svs=ICP
III. Receiving Water
In drafting permit conditions, EPA must analyze the effect of the facility's discharge on the
receiving water. The details of that analysis are provided in the Water Quality-Based
Effluent Limits (WQBEL) section below. This section summarizes characteristics of the
receiving water that impact that analysis.
This facility discharges to Hood Canal near Bangor, WA.
A. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS (WQS)
CWA § 301(b)(1)(C) requires the development of limitations in permits necessary to
meet WQS. 40 CFR 122.4(d) requires that the conditions in NPDES permits ensure
compliance with the WQS of all affected States. A State's WQS are composed of use
classifications, numeric and/or narrative water quality criteria and an anti-degradation
policy. The use classification system designates the beneficial uses that each water
body is expected to achieve, such as drinking water supply, contact recreation, and
aquatic life. The numeric and narrative water quality criteria are the criteria deemed
necessary to support the beneficial use classification of each water body. The anti-
degradation policy represents a three-tiered approach to maintain and protect various
levels of water quality and uses.
1. Designated Beneficial Uses
This facility discharges to Hood Canal. The State of Washington has designated
the following uses for Hood Canal (WAC 173-201A-612):
• Extraordinary quality aquatic life use
• Primary contact recreation
• All harvest uses
B. RECEIVING WATER QUALITY
The water quality for the receiving water is summarized in Table 3. Data for pH,
salinity, and temperature (except for the facility intake temperatures) are from
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 13 of 50
-------
Ecology's long-term marine water column monitoring station ID number HCB006. Data
for ammonia were obtained from the Water Quality Portal and are from stations in
Hood Canal, specifically monitoring location identifiers EMAP_CS_WQX-WA00-0024
and EMAP_CS_WQX-WA04-0045, and were collected in 2000 and 2004. Data for
copper were provided by the Navy with the application and are from the influent to the
cooling water system, which is also called "auxiliary salt water" by the Navy.
Table 3: Receiving Water Quality Data
Parameter
Units
Minimum
Average
Maximum
Standard
Deviation
Count
Ammonia
mg/L
0.00028
0.02447
0.0518
0.01796
6
Copper (dissolved)
mq/l
0.243
0.431
0.722
0.158
6
pH (profile maximum)
s.u.
7.89012
8.20479
8.55974
0.17568
12
pH (profile median)
s.u.
7.63506
7.84193
8.16407
0.14058
12
pH (profile minimum)
s.u.
7.58600
7.77370
8.14862
0.16354
12
Salinity (profile maximum)
PSU
29.4179
30.2174
30.9208
0.4412
42
Salinity (profile median)
PSU
28.7266
30.0390
30.7585
0.4831
41
Salinity (profile minimum)
PSU
22.9541
28.3600
30.2273
1.7957
42
Temperature (profile
maximum)
°C
8.0171
11.6395
16.3092
2.4064
42
Temperature (profile
median)
°C
7.9281
9.9102
11.7939
1.1931
41
Temperature (profile
minimum)
°C
7.3908
9.6431
11.7753
1.2436
42
Temperature, facility
intake, May - September,
7-DADMax
°C
11.54
15.55
19.57
1.53
1110
Temperature, facility
intake, October - April, 7-
DADMax
°C
8.80
11.14
14.50
1.32
1339
1. Water Quality Limited Waters
The State of Washington's 2012 Integrated Report lists the beneficial uses of
Hood Canal as impaired and needing a total maximum daily load (TMDL) (i.e., in
"Category 5" or on the "303(d) list") due the constituents listed in Table 4,
observed in water and animal tissue.
In addition to the listings in Table 4, there are listings for 15 parameters in
sediment in Hood Canal, including copper, which is a pollutant of concern for this
discharge. However, all of the sediment category 5 listings in Hood Canal are
from grid cells adjacent to the former Pope and Talbot, Inc. sawmill near Port
Gamble. Sediment quality at that location would not be affected by the discharges
authorized in this permit.
There are a total of 38 category 4B listings for 24 parameters in sediment in Hood
Canal. Waters in category 4B have one or more impaired or threatened beneficial
uses, but a TMDL is not required because other pollution control requirements are
expected to address the water quality impairments (USEPA, 2003b).
There are no TMDLs that address impairments in Hood Canal.
Table 4: Category 5 Listings in Hood Canal
Parameter
Number of Listings
Tissue
6
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 14 of 50
-------
Benzo(a)anthracene
1
Benzo(a)pyrene
1
Benzo(b)fluoranthene
1
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
1
Chrysene
1
lndeno(l,2,3-c,d)pyrene
1
Water
27
Bacteria
1
Dissolved Oxygen
26
Bacteria is not a pollutant of concern for this discharge. Dissolved oxygen
impairments in Puget Sound are caused primarily by nitrogen discharged by
municipal wastewater treatment plants. There are no known sources of nitrogen in
the discharge, and the only form of nitrogen for which effluent data are available
for this facility is ammonia. As shown in Table 2, the effluent concentration of
ammonia is low. There are no effluent data for biochemical oxygen demand
(BOD), however, BOD is related to total organic carbon (TOC), and the effluent
TOC is low (Table 2). Thus, there is no reason to expect that nitrogen or oxygen
demand in the discharges authorized by this permit will cause or contribute to
violations of dissolved oxygen criteria. The draft permit, however, proposes
continuous monitoring of influent and effluent dissolved oxygen to determine if
near-field DO concentrations are affected by discharges of relatively warm water.
None of the constituents causing impairments in animal tissue are pollutants of
concern for this discharge.
IV. Effluent Limitations and Monitoring
Table 5 and Table 6, below, present the existing effluent limits and monitoring
requirements in the current Permit. Table 7 and Table 8, below, present the effluent limits
and monitoring requirements proposed in the draft permit.
Table 5: Existing Permit - Effluent Limits and Monitoring Requirements for Outfall 001
Parameter
Units
Effluent Limits
Monitoring
Requirements
Average
Monthly
Maximum
Daily
Sample
Type
Sample
Frequency
Flow
gpd
Report
Report
Meter
Continuous
Temperature
°c
19 (7-DADMax)
Continuous
Continuous
Copper, total
recoverable
mq/l
—
Report
Grab
Once every 2
months
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 15 of 50
-------
Table 6: Existing Permit - Effluent Limits and Monitoring Requirements for Outfall 002
Parameter
Effluent
Limitation
Sample
Type
Sample Frequency
Visible sheen
No visible sheen
Visual
Each Docking/Undocking Evolution
The following effluent limitations are proposed in the draft permit:
Table 7: Draft Permit - Effluent Limits and Monitoring Requirements for Outfall 001
Parameter
Units
Effluent Limits
Monitoring Requirements
Average
Monthly
Maximum
Daily
Sample
Location
Sample
Type
Sample
Frequency
Flow
gpd
Report
Report
Effluent
Meter
Continuous
Temperature, effluent
gross, winter (October -
April)
°c
19 (7-DADMax)
Intake and
effluent
Continuous
Continuous
Temperature, effluent
net, summer (May -
September)
°c
5.9 (7-DADMax)
Intake and
effluent
Continuous
Continuous
Ammonia, total as N
mg/L
—
Report
Effluent
Grab
1/quarter
Copper, total
recoverable
mq/l
—
Report
Effluent
Grab
1/quarter
PH
s.u.
Report minimum and
maximum
Effluent
Grab
1 /quarter
Dissolved oxygen
mg/L
Report average and
minimum
Intake and
effluent
Continuous
Continuous
Table 8: Draft Permit - Effluent Limits and Monitoring Requirements for Outfall 002
Parameter
Effluent
Limitation
Sample
Type
Sample Frequency
Visible sheen
No visible sheen
Visual
Each Docking/Undocking Evolution
A. BASIS FOR EFFLUENT LIMITS
In general, the CWA requires that the effluent limits for a particular pollutant be the
more stringent of either technology-based effluent limits (TBELs) or water quality-
based effluent limits (WQBELs). TBELs are set according to the level of treatment that
is achievable using available technology. A WQBEL is designed to ensure that the
WQSs applicable to a waterbody are being met and may be more stringent than
TBELs.
1. Pollutants of Concern
Pollutants of concern are those that either have TBELs or may need WQBELs.
EPA identifies pollutants of concern for the discharge based on those which:
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 16 of 50
-------
• Have a TBEL
• Have an assigned wasteload allocation (WLA) from a TMDL
• Had an effluent limit in the previous permit
• Are present in the effluent monitoring. Monitoring data are reported in the
application and DMR and any special studies
• Are expected to be in the discharge based on the nature of the discharge
Based on this analysis, pollutants of concern are as follows:
• Ammonia
• Copper
• pH
• Temperature
• Visible sheen
2. Technology-Based Effluent Limits (TBELs)
Technology-based limitations are established by EPA for many industries and are
based on available pollution control technology.
a. General
In 1979, EPA published the Draft Development Document for Proposed
Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Shipbuilding and
Repair Point Source Category (USEPA, 1979). In the draft development
document, EPA determined that it was impracticable to impose national
numerical limitations and standards for the shipbuilding and repair
industry, in part because the nature of the discharges from dry docks are
not conducive to numeric monitoring and limits. Since establishing limits is
impracticable, the draft development document identified best
management practices (BMPs) for the industry.
Because the Intermediate Maintenance Facility does not fit into an
industrial category for which EPA has developed technology-based
requirements, EPA may use best professional judgment (BPJ) to establish
technology-based permit requirements, pursuant to authority established
by CWA §402 (a)(1)(B), and in accordance with requirements established
at 40 CFR 125.3. Consistent with the draft development document, the
permit requires development and implementation of a BMP Plan to control
the discharge of pollutants, including heat, to Hood Canal. The BMP Plan
is the method of technology-based control of discharges from outfall 002.
b. Temperature (Outfall 001)
As explained on Page 12 of the fact sheet for the revised draft permit,
dated October 23, 2009, "AKART and Best Available Technology
economically achievable (BAT) is minimizing the thermal load to Hood
Canal at the existing performance...." Therefore, in the prior permit, EPA
established a performance-based effluent limit of 19 °C. The limit is
expressed as a 7-DADMax.
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 17 of 50
-------
As stated in Compliance History, above, the facility has not consistently
complied with the 19 °C 7-DADMax temperature limit. In its application for
reissuance of this permit, the Navy requested an increased temperature
limit of 25 °C.
EPA believes the primary reason the technology-based temperature limit
that was established in the prior permit was not achievable was that it was
based on year-round data. The temperature of a cooling water discharge
is influenced by the temperature of the intake water, which will be warmer
in the summer. As shown in Table 2, violations of the 19 °C 7-DADMax
temperature limit in the prior permit have only occurred between April and
September (inclusive). Only one such violation has occurred in April.
EPA recalculated the technology-based effluent limits on a monthly basis,
using the same 7-DADMax statistic as the prior permit and determined
that the 19°C temperature limit is achievable (with no more than a 1%
exceedance probability) from October - April.
EPA has chosen to recalculate the May - September temperature effluent
limit as a net effluent limit, i.e., difference between the intake and effluent
temperature, as opposed to a gross effluent temperature limit. Similar to
the limit in the prior permit, the revised May - September temperature limit
is a technology-based limit that is based on observed performance. The
difference is that the temperature performance is now quantified as the
temperature difference between the intake and effluent water, as opposed
to the effluent temperature. This will ensure that the Navy will be able to
comply with the limits even if ambient temperatures in Hood Canal
increase due to climate change or other nonpoint heat sources, while still
ensuring that the temperature increase at the edge of the mixing zone is
de minimis. Based on the May - September maximum 7-DADMax intake
temperature in Table 3, the proposed net effluent limit of 5.9 °C would
allow 7-DADMax effluent temperatures between 17.44 and 25.47 °C.
Details of the calculation of the May - September effluent net temperature
limit and its impact upon water quality are provided in Appendix F.
3. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limits (WQBELs)
a. Statutory and Regulatory Basis
CWA § 301(b)(1)(C) requires the development of limitations in permits
necessary to meet WQSs. Discharges to State or Tribal waters must also
comply with conditions imposed by the State or Tribe as part of its
certification of NPDES permits under CWA§ 401. 40 CFR 122.44(d)(1)
implementing CWA§ 301(b)(1)(C) requires that permits include limits for
all pollutants or parameters which are or may be discharged at a level
which will cause, have the reasonable potential to cause, or contribute to
an excursion above any State or Tribal WQSs, including narrative criteria
for water quality.
The regulations require the permitting authority to make this evaluation
using procedures which account for existing controls on point and
nonpoint sources of pollution, the variability of the pollutant in the effluent,
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 18 of 50
-------
species sensitivity (for toxicity), and where appropriate, dilution in the
receiving water. The limits must be stringent enough to ensure that WQSs
are met and must be consistent with any available wasteload allocation for
the discharge in an approved TMDL. If there are no approved TMDLs that
specify wasteload allocations for this discharge; all of the WQBELs are
calculated directly from the applicable WQSs.
b. Reasonable Potential Analysis and Need for WQBELs
EPA uses the process described in the Technical Support Document for
Water Quality-based Toxics Control (TSD) to determine reasonable
potential. To determine if there is reasonable potential for the discharge to
cause or contribute to an exceedance of water quality criteria for a given
pollutant, EPA compares the maximum projected receiving water
concentration to the water quality criteria for that pollutant. If the projected
receiving water concentration exceeds the criteria, there is reasonable
potential, and a WQBEL must be included in the permit.
In some cases, a dilution allowance or mixing zone is permitted. A mixing
zone is a limited area or volume of water where initial dilution of a
discharge takes place and within which certain water quality criteria may
be exceeded (USEPA, 2014). While the criteria may be exceeded within
the mixing zone, the use and size of the mixing zone must be limited such
that the waterbody as a whole will not be impaired, all designated uses are
maintained, and acutely toxic conditions are prevented.
The Washington Water Quality Standards at WAC-173-201A-400 provide
Washington's mixing zone policy for point source discharges. EPA has
discussed mixing zones with Ecology and EPA anticipates that Ecology
will authorize mixing zones as summarized in Table 9 in its final CWA
§401 certification. If Ecology does not provide mixing zones or provides
different mixing zones, then EPA will determine whether the effluent limits
will change and whether an additional public notice period is required.
Table 9: Mixing Zones
Criteria Type
Dilution Factors
Outfall 001
Acute Aquatic Life
45.17
Chronic Aquatic Life
284.5
Human Health
284.5
Noncarcinogen
Human Health
284.5
Carcinogen
The equations used to conduct the reasonable potential analysis and
calculate the WQBELs are provided in Appendix D.
c. Reasonable Potential and WQBELs
The reasonable potential and WQBEL for specific parameters are
summarized below. The calculations are provided in Appendix D.
Ammonia
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 19 of 50
-------
Ammonia criteria are based on a formula which relies on the pH and
temperature of the receiving water, because the fraction of ammonia
present as the toxic, un-ionized form increases with increasing pH and
temperature. Therefore, the criteria for total ammonia become more
stringent as pH and temperature increase. The table below details the
equations used to determine water quality criteria for ammonia.
Table 10: Ammonia Criteria
Marine Un-ionized Ammonia Criteria Calculation
Calculation of seawater fraction of un-ionized ammonia from Hampson (1977). Un-
ionized ammonia criteria for salt water are from EPA 440/5-88-004. Revised 19-Oct-
INPUT
1. Receiving Water Temperature, deg C (90th percentile):
2. Receiving Water pH, (90th percentile):
3. Receiving Water Salinity, g/kg (10th percentile):
4. Pressure, atm (EPAcriteria assumes 1 atm):
5. Unionized ammonia criteria (mg un-ionized NH3 per liter)
from EPA440/5-88-004:
Acute:
Chronic:
r
15.2
8.4
r
26.8
1.0
0.233
0.035
OUTPUT
Using mixed temp and pH at mixing zone boundaries?
No
1. Molal Ionic Strength (notvalid if >0.85):
2. pKa8 at 25 deg C (Whitfield model "B"):
3. Percent of Total Ammonia Present as Unionized:
4. Total Ammonia Criteria (mg/L as Nhkl:
Acute:
Chronic:
0.549
9.309
5.3%
4.36
0.65
RESULTS
Total Ammonia Criteria (mg/L as N)
Acute:
Chronic:
3.58
0.54
A reasonable potential calculation showed that the NBK Bangor discharge
does not have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to a
violation of the water quality criteria for ammonia. Therefore, no effluent
limits are proposed for ammonia. See Appendix D for reasonable potential
calculations for ammonia.
Copper
A reasonable potential calculation showed that the NBK Bangor discharge
does not have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to a
violation of the water quality criteria for copper. Therefore, no effluent
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 20 of 50
-------
limits are proposed for copper. See Appendix D for reasonable potential
calculations for copper.
PH
Only two effluent measurements are available for pH (Table 2). The lower
of the two effluent pH values is below the lower bound of Washington's
water quality criteria for pH, which is 7.0 to 8.5 s.u. WAC 173-201A-
210(1)(e). However, a discharge at the minimum observed effluent pH will
not cause or contribute to excursions below the water quality criteria for
pH at the edge of the mixing zone, so no effluent limits are proposed for
pH. The draft permit proposes effluent monitoring for pH so that a
reasonable potential analysis for pH may be performed in the next permit
cycle.
Temperature
As explained under Technology-Based Effluent Limits (TBELs), above,
and in Appendix F, the proposed temperature limits are TBELs. These
limits ensure that water quality criteria for temperature are met from
October - April and that the temperature increase at the edge of the mixing
zone is de minimis year-round. Thus, the TBELs are adequate to protect
water quality and more stringent WQBELs are not necessary for
temperature.
Visible Sheen
The draft permit carries forward the prior permit's prohibition on floating
solids or oily wastes that produce a visible sheen on the surface of the
receiving water. This provision implements the narrative criterion stating
that "aesthetic values must not be impaired by the presence of materials
or their effects, excluding those of natural origin, which offend the senses
of sight, smell, touch, or taste" (WAC 173-201 A-260(2)(b). Outfall 002 has
the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to violations of this
narrative criterion because a failure to properly implement BMPs in the dry
dock could result in discharges of solids or oil. This is the only water
quality-based effluent limit applicable to outfall 002. Compliance with this
provision is verified using visual monitoring.
d. Antibacksliding
CWA § 402(o) and 40 CFR §122.44(1) generally prohibit the renewal,
reissuance or modification of an existing NPDES permit that contains
effluent limits, permit conditions or standards that are less stringent than
those established in the previous permit (i.e., anti-backsliding) but
provides limited exceptions. For explanation of the antibacksliding
exceptions refer to Chapter 7 of the Permit Writers Manual Final Effluent
Limitations and Anti-backsliding (USEPA, 2010).
An anti-backsliding analysis was done for temperature. The temperature
limits in the prior permit were not based on a state standard. Therefore,
EPA has applied the anti-backsliding regulatory provisions at 40 CFR
122.44(1). See EPA NPDES Permit Writers' Manual at Exhibit 7-2. 40
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 21 of 50
-------
CFR 122.44(l)(1) states that "effluent limitations, standards or conditions
must be at least as stringent as the final effluent limitations, standards, or
conditions in the previous permit (unless the circumstances on which the
previous permit was based have materially and substantially changed
since the time the permit was issued and would constitute cause for permit
modification or revocation and reissuance under § 122.62.)"
The applicable cause for allowing for a less stringent limit than the
previous permit for the summer temperature limits in this permit is that
EPA has received new information (CWA §402(o)(2)(B)(i); see also 40
CFR 122.62(a)(2)). The technology-based temperature limit in the prior
permit was based on only 134 temperature results; see the fact sheet
dated October 23, 2009 at Page 27. In recalculating the temperature
effluent limits, EPA has used 1,032 7-DADMax differences between the
intake and effluent temperature, which were calculated from 325,015
individual intake and effluent temperature measurements taken between
May 2013 and September 2021. EPA considers this much more robust
data set to be new information that was not available at the time the prior
permit was issued.
Because the circumstances on which the previous permit was based have
materially and substantially changed since the time the previous permit
was issued and would constitute cause for permit modification under 40
CFR 122.62, EPA may revise the temperature limits to be less stringent
than the previous permit.
4. Cooling Water Intake Structure
40 CFR Part 125 Subpart J establishes requirements for cooling water intake
structures for existing facilities, and implements Section 316(b) of the Clean
Water Act. These regulations were promulgated on August 14, 2014 and became
effective on October 14, 2014, after the prior permit was issued (79 FR 48299).
40 CFR Part 125 Subpart J regulations are applicable to NBK Bangor, because it
is an existing point source which uses a cooling water intake structure with a
design intake flow greater than 2 million gallons per day (see Table 2) and 25% or
more of the water the facility withdraws is used exclusively for cooling purposes.
The permit application and supplemental information report do not specify any
uses for the auxiliary salt water withdrawn from Hood Canal other than cooling.
See 40 CFR 125.91 and 125.92(g) and (k).
Requirements for the cooling water intake structure appear in Part II.C of the draft
permit.
B. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
CWA § 308 and 40 CFR 122.44(i) require monitoring in permits to determine
compliance with effluent limitations. Monitoring may also be required to gather effluent
and surface water data to determine if additional effluent limitations are required
and/or to monitor effluent impacts on receiving water quality.
The permittee is responsible for conducting the monitoring and for reporting results on
DMRs or on the application for renewal, as appropriate, to EPA.
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 22 of 50
-------
1. Effluent Monitoring
Monitoring frequencies are based on the nature and effect of the pollutant, as well
as a determination of the minimum sampling necessary to adequately monitor the
facility's performance. Permittees have the option of taking more frequent
samples than are required under the permit. These samples must be used for
averaging if they are conducted using EPA-approved test methods (generally
found in 40 CFR 136) or as specified in the permit.
Monitoring Changes from the Previous Permit
The draft permit proposes effluent monitoring requirements for pH at outfall 001,
since the pH data reported on the application indicated that the effluent pH does
not consistently meet water quality criteria for pH.
The draft permit proposes to reduce the effluent monitoring frequency for total
recoverable copper from once every 2 months to once per quarter. Effluent
monitoring for copper is necessary so that a reasonable potential analysis may be
performed when the permit is reissued. However, since monitoring to date shows
that the discharge does not have reasonable potential, the draft permit proposes
a reduction in monitoring frequency to reduce the burden on the permittee.
Although the single ammonia result reported on the application did not show that
there is a reasonable potential to cause or contribute to excursions above water
quality standards for ammonia, the effluent ammonia concentration (Table 2) is
higher than the ambient ammonia concentration (Table 3). Thus, the draft permit
proposes quarterly effluent monitoring of ammonia.
Because beneficial uses of Hood Canal are impaired by low dissolved oxygen
(Table 4), and because water has less capacity for dissolved oxygen at the higher
temperatures expected in the cooling water discharge, the draft permit proposes
continuous monitoring of the intake and effluent dissolved oxygen, beginning one
year after the effective date of the final permit.
Electronic Submission of Discharge Monitoring Reports
The draft permit requires that the permittee submit DMR data electronically using
NetDMR. NetDMR is a national web-based tool that allows DMR data to be
submitted electronically via a secure Internet application.
EPA currently conducts free training on the use of NetDMR. Further information
about NetDMR, including upcoming trainings and contacts, is provided on the
following website: https://netdmr.epa.gov. The permittee may use NetDMR after
requesting and receiving permission from EPA Region 10.
2. Immediate Noncompliance Reporting
Ecology has requested that EPA include requirements for immediate reporting of
certain instances of noncompliance to Ecology, the Central Kitsap Wastewater
Treatment Plant, the Washington State Department of Health Shellfish Program,
and the Kitsap Public Health District. These requirements appear in Part II.D of
the draft permit. EPA expects that Ecology will stipulate this as part of their CWA
§ 401 certification conditions.
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 23 of 50
-------
3. Sediment Monitoring
The State of Washington has sediment management standards, which are EPA-
approved water quality standards. The draft permit proposes sediment monitoring
because there are category 4B sediment listings for mercury and polychlorinated
biphenyls (PCBs) adjacent to the facility, but there are no recent sediment data
near the facility. The purpose of this monitoring is to characterize sediment (the
nature and extent of chemical contamination, biological toxicity, or both) quality in
the vicinity of the Permittee's discharge locations.
Specifically, the draft permit requires the permittee to develop and submit to EPA
and Ecology a sediment sampling and analysis plan based on Appendix A to
Ecology's Sediment Cleanup User's Manual. Following Ecology's approval of the
plan, the permittee must collect sediment data in accordance with the sampling
plan, prepare a data report and submit it to EPA and Ecology. The permittee is
also required to upload the sediment data to Ecology's Environmental Information
Management (EIM) database. Ecology has indicated that they will stipulate
sediment monitoring requirements in their CWA § 401 certification of this permit.
Other Permit Conditions
A. QUALITY ASSURANCE PLAN
The United States Department of the Navy is required to update the Quality
Assurance Plan (QAP) within 90 days of the effective date of the permit. The QAP
must consist of standard operating procedures the permittee must follow for collecting,
handling, storing and shipping samples, laboratory analysis, and data reporting. The
plan must be retained on site and made available to EPA upon request.
B. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
40 CFR 122.44(k) requires development of a Best Management Practices (BMP) Plan
to control or abate the discharge of pollutants to achieve effluent limitations and
standards or to carry out the purposes and intent of the Clean Water Act. The draft
permit requires the permittee to develop and implement a BMP plan within 90 days of
the effective date of the final permit, and it describes certain BMP conditions which
must be included in the BMP Plan. The Plan must be kept on site and made available
to EPA upon request. The BMP Plan is the method of technology-based control of
discharges from outfall 002.
In general, the BMP Plan requirements are the same as those in the prior permit.
However, in the draft permit, the requirements for cleaning the dry dock have been
made more specific, the draft permit includes requirements to minimize caisson
leakage, and the permit specifies that spill cleanups must use dry methods.
Additional BMPs addressing chemical storage and mixing of paints and solvents have
been added at Ecology's request.
C. ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE
As part of the permit development process, EPA Region 10 conducted a screening
analysis to determine whether this permit action could affect overburdened
communities. "Overburdened" communities can include minority, low-income, tribal,
and indigenous populations or communities that potentially experience
Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 24 of 50
-------
disproportionate environmental harms and risks. EPA used a nationally consistent
geospatial tool that contains demographic and environmental data for the United
States at the Census block group level. This tool is used to identify permits for which
enhanced outreach may be warranted.
NBK Bangor is located within or near a Census block group that is potentially
overburdened because of National Priorities List site proximity. In order to ensure that
individuals near the facility are able to participate meaningfully in the permit process,
EPA has made copies of the draft permit and fact sheet available at nearby public
libraries in Silverdale and Poulsbo.
Regardless of whether a facility is located near a potentially overburdened community,
EPA encourages permittees to review (and to consider adopting, where appropriate)
Promising Practices for Permit Applicants Seeking EPA-lssued Permits: Ways To
Engage Neighboring Communities (see https://www.federalregister.goV/d/2013-
10945). Examples of promising practices include: thinking ahead about community's
characteristics and the effects of the permit on the community, engaging the right
community leaders, providing progress or status reports, inviting members of the
community for tours of the facility, providing informational materials translated into
different languages, setting up a hotline for community members to voice concerns or
request information, follow up, etc.
For more information, please visit https://www.epa.gov/environmentaliustice and
Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low-income Populations.
D. STANDARD PERMIT PROVISIONS
Permit Parts III, IV, and V. contain standard regulatory language that must be included
in all NPDES permits. The standard regulatory language covers requirements such as
monitoring, recording, and reporting requirements, compliance responsibilities, and
other general requirements.
VI. Other Legal Requirements
A. ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT
The Endangered Species Act requires federal agencies to consult with National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Fisheries (NOAA Fisheries) and the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) if their actions could beneficially or adversely
affect any threatened or endangered species.
An official species list from USFWS identified the threatened bull trout, marbled
murrelet and streaked horned lark as being present near the facility. The facility is not
located within critical habitat for any USFWS species.
Threatened and endangered species under NOAA's jurisdiction which are present
near the facility are Puget Sound Chinook salmon, Hood Canal chum salmon, Puget
Sound steelhead, southern resident killer whales, bocaccio rockfish and yelloweye
rockfish.
As discussed under Pollutants of Concern, above, there are only four pollutants of
concern identified for this permit. Technology-based effluent limits have been
established for temperature, which will ensure that the temperature increase at the
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 25 of 50
-------
edge of the mixing zone is de minimis. As shown in Table 2, observed end-of-pipe
effluent temperatures are lower than those that cause thermal shock or lethality to fish.
The discharge does not have the reasonable potential to cause or contribute to
excursions above water quality standards for ammonia, copper or pH. As shown in
Table 9, the discharge from outfall 001 will dilute rapidly in the receiving water.
BMPs and visual monitoring requirements will ensure that dry dock floodwater
discharges from outfall 002 are free of pollutants.
Due to the benign nature of the authorized discharges and the rapid dilution at outfall
001, the issuance of this permit will have no effect on threatened or endangered
species or their critical habitat.
B. ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT
Essential fish habitat (EFH) is the waters and substrate (sediments, etc.) necessary
for fish to spawn, breed, feed, or grow to maturity. The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery
Conservation and Management Act (January 21, 1999) requires EPA to consult with
NOAA Fisheries when a proposed discharge has the potential to adversely affect EFH
(i.e., reduce quality and/or quantity of EFH). The receiving water is EFH forfinfish,
krill, coastal pelagic species, and groundfish.
The EFH regulations define an adverse effect as any impact which reduces quality
and/or quantity of EFH and may include direct (e.g., contamination or physical
disruption), indirect (e.g., loss of prey, reduction in species' fecundity), site specific, or
habitat-wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of
actions. EPA has prepared an EFH assessment which appears in Appendix F.
EPA concludes that authorization to discharge from NBK Bangor in accordance with
the terms and conditions of the proposed permit will have no effect on EFH in the
vicinity of the discharges for the same reasons stated above for the no effect
determination for listed species. EPA will provide NOAA Fisheries and the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service with copies of the draft permit and fact sheet during the public
notice period. Any recommendations received from NOAA Fisheries regarding EFH
will be considered prior to issuance of this permit.
C. CWA § 401 CERTIFICATION
CWA § 401 requires EPA to seek certification before issuing a final permit. As a result
of the certification, the Department of Ecology may require more stringent permit
conditions or additional monitoring requirements to ensure that the permit complies
with WQSs, or treatment standards established pursuant to any State law or
regulation.
EPA had preliminary discussions with the Department of Ecology regarding the CWA
§ 401 Certification during development of the draft permit and requested a pre-filing
meeting on May 9, 2022. EPA is sending a request for CWA § 401 Certification to the
Department of Ecology.
D. ANTIDEGRADATION
EPA is required under Section 301(b)(1)(C) of the CWA and implementing regulations
(40 CFR 122.4(d) and 122.44(d)) to establish conditions in NPDES permits that
ensure protection of state water quality standards, including antidegradation
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 26 of 50
-------
requirements. EPA has prepared an antidegradation analysis consistent with
Ecology's antidegradation implementation procedures. EPA referred to Washington's
antidegradation policy (WAC 173-201A-300) and Ecology's Water Quality Program
Guidance Manual: Supplemental Guidance on Implementing Tier II Antidegradation
("Washington Tier II Guidance") (Ecology, 2011).
There are three tiers of antidegradation protection, as described below:
• Tier I ensures existing and designated uses are maintained and protected and
applies to all waters and all sources of pollution.
• Tier II ensures that waters of a higher quality than the criteria assigned are not
degraded unless such lowering of water quality is necessary and in the
overriding public interest. Tier II applies only to a specific list of polluting
activities.
• Tier III prevents the degradation of waters formally listed as "outstanding
resource waters," and applies to all sources of pollution.
Tier I
The receiving water is Hood Canal; thus, the anti-degradation analysis was completed
for this receiving water body. Accordingly, EPA will use the designated criteria for this
water body in the draft permit. The discharges authorized by this draft permit will not
cause a loss of beneficial uses.
The effluent limits in the draft permit ensure compliance with applicable numeric and
narrative water quality criteria. The numeric and narrative water quality criteria are set
at levels that ensure protection of the designated uses. As there is no information
indicating the presence of existing beneficial uses other than those that are
designated, the draft permit ensures a level of water quality necessary to protect the
designated uses and, in compliance with WAC 173-201A-310 and 40 CFR
131.12(a)(1), also ensures that the level of water quality necessary to protect existing
uses is maintained and protected.
If EPA receives information during the public comment period demonstrating that there
are existing uses for which Hood Canal is not designated, EPA will consider this
information before issuing a final permit and will establish additional or more stringent
permit conditions if necessary to ensure protection of existing uses.
Tier II
Tier II antidegradation applies to expanded actions. The Washington Tier II Guidance
defines an "expanded action" as:
• A physical expansion of the facility (production or wastewater system
expansions with a potential to allow an increase the volume of wastewater or
the amount of pollution) or activity.
• An increase (either monthly average or annual average) to an existing
permitted concentration or permitted effluent mass limit (loading) to a water
body greater than 10%.
• The act of re-rating the capacity of an existing plant greater than 10%.
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 27 of 50
-------
Although EPA proposes a temperature effluent limit for May - September which is less
stringent than the corresponding limit in the prior permit, this does not constitute an
"expanded action" because the temperature limit is a 7-day average of the daily
maximum temperatures and not a monthly average or annual average.
Washington's antidegradation policy states that, whenever a water quality constituent
is of a higher quality than a criterion designated for that water under this chapter, new
or expanded actions that are expected to cause a measurable change in the quality of
the water may not be allowed unless the Department of Ecology determines that the
lowering of water quality is necessary and in the overriding public interest (WAC 173-
201A-320(1)). The policy further states that a measurable change includes a
temperature increase of 0.3 °C (WAC-201A-320(3)(a)).
The temperature change at the edge of the chronic mixing zone resulting from the
proposed increased temperature limit is 0.02 °C, which is not a measurable change in
water quality as defined in WAC-201 A-320(3)(a). Thus, even if the increased
temperature limit is an "expanded action," the increased temperature limit nonetheless
complies with Washington's antidegradation policy because the resulting change in
water quality is not measurable.
E. PERMIT EXPIRATION
The permit will expire five years from the effective date.
VII. References
Ecology, D. o. (2011). Water Quality Program Guidance Manual: Supplemental Guidance on Implementing Tier II
Antidegradation. (11-10-073).
Navy, U. (2022). Environmental Monitoring and Disposal of Radioactive Wastes From U.S. Naval Nuclear-
Powered Ships and Their Support Facilities. (NT-22-1).
USEPA. (1979). Draft Development Document for Proposed Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the
Shipbuilding and Repair Point Source Category. United States. Environmental Protection Agency.
Effluent Guidelines Division.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water and Hazardous Materials, Effluent Guidelines Division
Retrieved from
USEPA. (1991). Technical support document for water quality-based toxics control. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC. Office of the Assistant Administrator for Water.
Office of Water Enforcement and Permits : Office of Water Regulations and Standards, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency Retrieved from
USEPA. (2003a). EPA Region 10 Guidance for Pacific Northwest State and Tribal Temperature Water Quality
Standards. (EPA 910-B-03-002.). Seattle, WA.: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USEPA. (2003b). Guidance for 2004 Assessment, Listing and Reporting Requirements Pursuant to Sections
303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act.
USEPA. (2010). National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit writers' manual. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Office of Wastewater Management.
USEPA. (2014). Water Quality Standards Handbook Chapter 5: General Policies. (EPA 820-B-14-004).
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 28 of 50
-------
Appendix A. Facility Maps
Figure 1: Delta Pier Map
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 29 of 50
-------
ASV INTAKE
ASW CDDL1NG =UMPING STATION <7427)
- CAISSON BALLAST WATER
HDQD
CANAL
STDR1WATER <—
SYSTEM
AIR HANDLING UNITS
C DELING WATER (POTABLE?
PUM= HQTDR BEARING
C DELING WATER CPDTABLE>
PUM3 SEAL WATER
FLEDR DRAINAGE
• STPKMWATER
¦ HULL PRESSURE CLEANING WATER
• CLEAN—IN-PLACE WATER CPIPING SYSTEMS)
« HYDRO BLAST WATER
• STEAM CONDENSATE
INDUSTRIAL WASTEWATER
PRET3EATWENT FACILITY
<7030)
DRY DDCK PLAN VIEW SCHEMATIC
SJAVAI BASF KTTSAP RANCflR
NPDF^ PFRMTT APPI TCATfflN
FIGURE 8
JUNE £008
-> SANITARY SEWER (TD CENTRAL KITSAP PEITW)
PER STATE WASTE DISCHARGE PERMIT
ST-7363
NUTESi
• * HAY INCLUDE VESSEL BALLAST WATER
AND SDNAR DOME WATER, D~ DISCHARGED
DURING EE-WATERING.
• ASW - AUXILIARY SALT WATER
• PEITW - PUBLICLY DWNED TR:AT»ENT PLANT
• SECTICJN A—A PER ATTACHED SHEET
• N.T.S.
Figure 2: Dry Dock Plan View Schematic
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 30 of 50
-------
A A'
AUXILIARY SALT WATER COOLING PUMP STATION
-------
Appendix B. Water Quality Data
Treatment Plant Effluent Data
Monitoring
Period End
Date
Parameter Desc
DMR
Value
Limit Unit Desc
Statistical Base
Long Desc
10/31/2010
Copper, tota
recoverable
1.76
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
12/31/2010
Copper, tota
recoverable
3.39
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
02/28/2011
Copper, tota
recoverable
3.03
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
04/30/2011
Copper, tota
recoverable
3.43
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
06/30/2011
Copper, tota
recoverable
1.2
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
08/31/2011
Copper, tota
recoverable
1.55
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
10/31/2011
Copper, tota
recoverable
2.56
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
12/31/2011
Copper, tota
recoverable
5.2
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
02/29/2012
Copper, tota
recoverable
6.64
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
04/30/2012
Copper, tota
recoverable
3.28
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
06/30/2012
Copper, tota
recoverable
.697
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
08/31/2012
Copper, tota
recoverable
2.24
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
10/31/2012
Copper, tota
recoverable
2.33
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
12/31/2012
Copper, tota
recoverable
2.53
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
02/28/2013
Copper, tota
recoverable
1.65
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
04/30/2013
Copper, tota
recoverable
3.65
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
06/30/2013
Copper, tota
recoverable
2.14
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
08/31/2013
Copper, tota
recoverable
5.33
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
10/31/2013
Copper, tota
recoverable
4.87
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
12/31/2013
Copper, tota
recoverable
12.
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
02/28/2014
Copper, tota
recoverable
5.35
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
04/30/2014
Copper, tota
recoverable
2.39
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
06/30/2014
Copper, tota
recoverable
3.33
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
08/31/2014
Copper, tota
recoverable
1.91
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
10/31/2014
Copper, tota
recoverable
19.1
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
12/31/2014
Copper, tota
recoverable
7.05
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
02/28/2015
Copper, tota
recoverable
1.63
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
04/30/2015
Copper, tota
recoverable
1.33
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
06/30/2015
Copper, tota
recoverable
1.28
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
08/31/2015
Copper, tota
recoverable
7.26
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
09/30/2015
Copper, tota
recoverable
5.09
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
11/30/2015
Copper, tota
recoverable
14.3
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
01/31/2016
Copper, tota
recoverable
5.29
Micrograms per L
ter
Sing
e Reading
Monitoring
Period End
Date
Parameter Desc
DMR
Value
Limit Unit Desc
Statistical Base
Long Desc
09/30/2010
Temperature, water deg
cent
grade
17.1
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Maximum
10/31/2010
Temperature, water deg
cent
grade
18.96
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Maximum
11/30/2010
Temperature, water deg
cent
grade
14.76
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Maximum
12/31/2010
Temperature, water deg
cent
grade
12.94
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Maximum
01/31/2011
Temperature, water deg
cent
grade
12.48
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Maximum
02/28/2011
Temperature, water deg
cent
grade
12.38
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Maximum
03/31/2011
Temperature, water deg
cent
grade
11.19
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Maximum
04/30/2011
Temperature, water deg
cent
grade
13.46
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Maximum
05/31/2011
Temperature, water deg
cent
grade
15.7
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Maximum
06/30/2011
Temperature, water deg
cent
grade
18.7
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Maximum
07/31/2011
Temperature, water deg
cent
grade
17.2
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Maximum
08/31/2011
Temperature, water deg
cent
grade
18.28
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Maximum
09/30/2011
Temperature, water deg
cent
grade
18.61
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Maximum
10/31/2011
Temperature, water deg
cent
grade
15.54
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Maximum
11/30/2011
Temperature, water deg
cent
grade
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Maximum
12/31/2011
Temperature, water deg
cent
grade
14.02
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Maximum
-------
Monitoring
Period End
Date
Parameter Desc
DMR
Value
Limit Unit Desc
Statistical Base
Long Desc
01/31/2012
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
13.19
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
02/29/2012
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
12.89
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
03/31/2012
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
13.94
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
04/30/2012
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
19.24
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
05/31/2012
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
19.58
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
06/30/2012
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
17.51
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
07/31/2012
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
20.87
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
08/31/2012
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
19.19
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
09/30/2012
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
17.99
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
10/31/2012
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
16.92
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
11/30/2012
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
15.07
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
12/31/2012
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
13.83
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
01/31/2013
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
12.7
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
02/28/2013
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
12.12
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
03/31/2013
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
13.06
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
04/30/2013
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
14.53
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
05/31/2013
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
16.22
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
06/30/2013
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
17.16
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
07/31/2013
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
19.27
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
08/31/2013
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
21.04
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
09/30/2013
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
18.71
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
10/31/2013
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
16.09
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
11/30/2013
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
15.33
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
12/31/2013
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
15.3
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
01/31/2014
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
13.21
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
02/28/2014
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
11.6
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
03/31/2014
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
14.07
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
04/30/2014
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
15.37
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
05/31/2014
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
16.92
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
06/30/2014
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
07/31/2014
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
18.86
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
08/31/2014
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
21.41
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
09/30/2014
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
19.3
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
10/31/2014
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
16.6
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
11/30/2014
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
15.9
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
12/31/2014
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
13.5
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
01/31/2015
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
13.96
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
02/28/2015
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
13.55
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
03/31/2015
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
13.14
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
04/30/2015
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
14.97
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
05/31/2015
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
06/30/2015
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
19.84
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
07/31/2015
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
20.4
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
08/31/2015
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
19.73
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
09/30/2015
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
18.47
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
10/31/2015
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
17.75
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
11/30/2015
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
17.07
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
12/31/2015
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
15.23
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
01/31/2016
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
14.23
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
02/29/2016
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
12.57
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
03/31/2016
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
14.16
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
04/30/2016
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
17.06
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
05/31/2016
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
17.8
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
06/30/2016
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
19.06
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
07/31/2016
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
20.13
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
08/31/2016
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
19.9
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
09/30/2016
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
17.66
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
10/31/2016
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
16.48
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 33 of 50
-------
Monitoring
Period End
Date
Parameter Desc
DMR
Value
Limit Unit Desc
Statistical Base
Long Desc
11/30/2016
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
14.74
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
12/31/2016
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
13.9
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
01/31/2017
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
12.28
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
02/28/2017
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
03/31/2017
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
04/30/2017
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
13.06
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
05/31/2017
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
17.24
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
06/30/2017
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
18.17
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
07/31/2017
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
19.48
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
08/31/2017
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
20.
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
09/30/2017
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
20.14
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
10/31/2017
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
16.32
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
11/30/2017
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
15.7
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
12/31/2017
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
13.8
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
01/31/2018
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
13.2
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
02/28/2018
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
13.7
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
03/31/2018
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
14.21
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
04/30/2018
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
15.8
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
05/31/2018
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
19.1
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
06/30/2018
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
19.
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
07/31/2018
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
21.2
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
08/31/2018
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
20.6
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
09/30/2018
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
16.5
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
10/31/2018
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
15.53
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
11/30/2018
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
14.16
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
12/31/2018
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
14.7
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
01/31/2019
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
14.09
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
02/28/2019
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
12.95
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
03/31/2019
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
14.6
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
04/30/2019
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
15.8
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
05/31/2019
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
17.8
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
06/30/2019
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
18.
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
07/31/2019
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
20.
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
08/31/2019
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
20.
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
09/30/2019
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
20.45
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
10/31/2019
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
17.53
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
11/30/2019
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
11.47
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
12/31/2019
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
14.86
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
01/31/2020
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
13.38
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
02/29/2020
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
12.62
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
03/31/2020
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
13.77
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
04/30/2020
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
05/31/2020
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
16.34
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
06/30/2020
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
18.58
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
07/31/2020
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
19.16
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
08/31/2020
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
19.04
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
09/30/2020
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
17.55
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
10/31/2020
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
15.47
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
11/30/2020
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
13.62
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
12/31/2020
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
13.13
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
01/31/2021
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
10.16
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
02/28/2021
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
12.85
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
03/31/2021
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
13.32
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
04/30/2021
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
14.92
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
05/31/2021
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
16.29
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
06/30/2021
Temperature
water deg
cent
grade
21.2
Degrees Cent
grade
7 Day Max
mum
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 34 of 50
-------
Monitoring
Period End
Date
Parameter Desc
DMR Value
Limit Unit Desc
Statistical Base
Long Desc
9/30/2010
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1256544
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
10/31/2010
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1062878
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
11/30/2010
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1296230
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
12/31/2010
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1099094
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
1/31/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1228723
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
2/28/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1228838
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
3/31/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1233035
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
4/30/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1280923
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
5/31/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1168834
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
6/30/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
580743
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
7/31/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
431136
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
8/31/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
718128
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
9/30/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1242518
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
10/31/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1172405
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
11/30/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
12/31/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
742120
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
1/31/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
701280
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
2/29/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
918778
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
3/31/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
753789
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
4/30/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
580320
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
5/31/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1035332
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
6/30/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
318336
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
7/31/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1296528
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
8/31/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
371829
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
9/30/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
852117
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
10/31/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
826594
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
11/30/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
886165
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
12/31/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1062970
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
1/31/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
862245
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
2/28/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1264356
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
3/31/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
834066
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
4/30/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
827197
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
5/31/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
924417
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
6/30/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1838799
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
7/31/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1609479
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
8/31/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1063015
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
9/30/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1205612
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
10/31/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
877962
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
11/30/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
934804
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
12/31/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1216097
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
1/31/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1191470
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
2/28/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1352304
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
3/31/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1183824
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
4/30/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1201421
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
5/31/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1234080
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
6/30/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
7/31/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
174096
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
8/31/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1420474
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
9/30/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1158502
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
10/31/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1390651
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
11/30/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1219075
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
12/31/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1183522
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
1/31/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1468800
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
2/28/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1634083
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
3/31/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1689120
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
4/30/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1584000
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
5/31/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
6/30/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant | 1712160
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 35 of 50
-------
Monitoring
Period End
Date
Parameter Desc
DMR Value
Limit Unit Desc
Statistical Base
Long Desc
7/31/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1539360
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
8/31/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1436787
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
9/30/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1468719
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
10/31/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1266951
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
11/30/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1260420
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
12/31/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1298008
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
1/31/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1272286
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
2/29/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1413259
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
3/31/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1481097
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
4/30/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1489120
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
5/31/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1466440
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
6/30/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1498861
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
7/31/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1578950
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
8/31/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1541748
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
9/30/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1515890
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
10/31/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1631335
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
11/30/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1532828
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
12/31/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1429441
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
1/31/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1300962
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
2/28/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
3/31/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
4/30/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1616424
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
5/31/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1548784
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
6/30/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1564193
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
7/31/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1468918
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
8/31/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1419679
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
9/30/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1409403
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
10/31/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1207352
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
11/30/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1207726
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
12/31/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1125882
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
1/31/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1124486
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
2/28/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1187184
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
3/31/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1171967
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
4/30/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1142865
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
5/31/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1129005
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
6/30/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1244448
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
7/31/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1196143
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
8/31/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1139190
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
9/30/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1329425
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
10/31/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1476151
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
11/30/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1581936
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
12/31/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1348877
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
1/31/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1212907
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
2/28/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1158965
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
3/31/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1088250
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
4/30/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1261934
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
5/31/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1254773
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
6/30/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1343421
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
7/31/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1266089
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
8/31/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1135811
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
9/30/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
997463
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
10/31/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
954982.1
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
11/30/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1299541
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
12/31/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1466895
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
1/31/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1295098
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
2/29/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1256956.5
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
3/31/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1316502.8
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
4/30/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 36 of 50
-------
Monitoring
Period End
Date
Parameter Desc
DMR Value
Limit Unit Desc
Statistical Base
Long Desc
5/31/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1431200
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
6/30/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1294914
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
7/31/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1366504
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
8/31/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1118105.2
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
9/30/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1185467
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
10/31/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1254382
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
11/30/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1247446
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
12/31/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1267722.6
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
1/31/2021
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1149723.3
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
2/28/2021
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1227547
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
3/31/2021
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1207443.2
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
4/30/2021
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1386079
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
5/31/2021
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1285113
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
6/30/2021
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1150277.9
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Average
Monitoring
Period End
Date
Parameter Desc
DMR Value
Limit Unit Desc
Statistical Base
Long Desc
9/30/2010
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1683360
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
10/31/2010
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1335067
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
11/30/2010
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1627027
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
12/31/2010
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1251907
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
1/31/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1293120
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
2/28/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1320840
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
3/31/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1323259
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
4/30/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1858550
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
5/31/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1277208
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
6/30/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
796550
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
7/31/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
766498
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
8/31/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1153382
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
9/30/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1312661
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
10/31/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1281384
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
11/30/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
12/31/2011
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
953980
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
1/31/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
927360
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
2/29/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1136333
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
3/31/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1000285
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
4/30/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
663840
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
5/31/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1266235
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
6/30/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1449970
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
7/31/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1449970
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
8/31/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1429000
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
9/30/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1337365
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
10/31/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1387570
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
11/30/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1285595
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
12/31/2012
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1315945
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
1/31/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1042560
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
2/28/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
2068094
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
3/31/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1426040
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
4/30/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1454180
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
5/31/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1946890
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
6/30/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
2614120
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
7/31/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
2027055
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
8/31/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1451460
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
9/30/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1626070
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
10/31/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1256265
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
11/30/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1342425
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 37 of 50
-------
Monitoring
Period End
Date
Parameter Desc
DMR Value
Limit Unit Desc
Statistical Base
Long Desc
12/31/2013
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1284720
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
1/31/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1271146
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
2/28/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1487362
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
3/31/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1481875
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
4/30/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1312171
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
5/31/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1815840
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
6/30/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
7/31/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
206784
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
8/31/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1948896
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
9/30/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1518260
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
10/31/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1550837
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
11/30/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1419293
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
12/31/2014
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1394856
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
1/31/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1660320
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
2/28/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1765094
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
3/31/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1774080
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
4/30/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1856160
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
5/31/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
6/30/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1782101
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
7/31/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1630080
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
8/31/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1605600
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
9/30/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1529611
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
10/31/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1339560
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
11/30/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1464720
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
12/31/2015
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1320360
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
1/31/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1314055
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
2/29/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1655038
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
3/31/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1612955
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
4/30/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1630470
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
5/31/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1607175
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
6/30/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1748065
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
7/31/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1690485
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
8/31/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1872571
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
9/30/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1687850
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
10/31/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1762410
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
11/30/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1702980
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
12/31/2016
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1527715
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
1/31/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1422990
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
2/28/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
3/31/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
4/30/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1739120
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
5/31/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1778985
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
6/30/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
2459000
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
7/31/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1576440
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
8/31/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1530595
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
9/30/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1616165
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
10/31/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1613705
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
11/30/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1488295
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
12/31/2017
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1321240
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
1/31/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1337445
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
2/28/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1371710
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
3/31/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1371805
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
4/30/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1322080
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
5/31/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1504290
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
6/30/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1411730
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
7/31/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1394720
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
8/31/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1454425
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
9/30/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1453790
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 38 of 50
-------
Monitoring
Period End
Date
Parameter Desc
DMR Value
Limit Unit Desc
Statistical Base
Long Desc
10/31/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1687970
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
11/30/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1815950
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
12/31/2018
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1615260
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
1/31/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1359800
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
2/28/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1340850
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
3/31/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1355450
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
4/30/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1422445
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
5/31/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1649300
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
6/30/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1553760
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
7/31/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1515375
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
8/31/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1393575
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
9/30/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1200465
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
10/31/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1298795
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
11/30/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1655215
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
12/31/2019
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1068936
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
1/31/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1511035
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
2/29/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1652365
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
3/31/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1652060
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
4/30/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
5/31/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1563535
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
6/30/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1513660
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
7/31/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1547240
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
8/31/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1405505
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
9/30/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1254335
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
10/31/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1437650
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
11/30/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1437650
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
12/31/2020
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1461360
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
1/31/2021
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1300200
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
2/28/2021
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1387320
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
3/31/2021
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1411080
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
4/30/2021
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
2077185
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
5/31/2021
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
2077845
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
6/30/2021
Flow, in conduit or thru treatment plant
1393445
Gallons per Day
Da
ly Max
mum
Receiving Water Data
Activity
Start Date
Monitoring Location Identifier
Characteristic Name
Result
Sample
Fraction Text
Result
Measure
Value
Measure
Unit
Code
6/3/2004
EMAP CS WQX-WA04-0045
Ammonia-nitrogen
Dissolved
0.02247
mg/l
6/3/2004
EMAP CS WQX-WA04-0045
Ammonia-nitrogen
Dissolved
0.0106
mg/l
6/3/2004
EMAP CS WQX-WA04-0045
Ammonia-nitrogen
Dissolved
0.0518
mg/l
8/21/2000
EMAP CS WQX-WA00-0024
Ammonia-nitrogen
Dissolved
0.02956
mg/l
8/21/2000
EMAP CS WQX-WA00-0024
Ammonia-nitrogen
Dissolved
0.03208
mg/l
8/21/2000
EMAP CS WQX-WA00-0024
Ammonia-nitrogen
Dissolved
0.00028
mg/l
Parameter
Location
Date
Result
(Mg/L)
Duplicate
Result
(Mg/L)
Average
Result
(Mg/L)
Comment
Copper, Total Dissolved
Influent
10/18/2011
0.713
0.731
0.722
Copper, Total
Recoverable
Influent
12/20/2011
0.46
0.352
0.406
Values are for total recoverable Cu
because reported influent dissolved Cu
was higher than total Cu.
Copper, Total Dissolved
Influent
5/7/2012
0.44
0.441
0.4405
Copper, Total Dissolved
Influent
7/11/2012
0.056
0.43
0.243
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 39 of 50
-------
Parameter
Location
Date
Result
(Mg/L)
Duplicate
Result
(Mg/L)
Average
Result
(Mg/L)
Comment
Copper, Total Dissolved
Influent
9/19/2012
0.41
0.4
0.405
Copper, Total Dissolved
Influent
3/5/2013
0.38
0.36
0.37
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 40 of 50
-------
Appendix C. Reasonable Potential and WQBEL Formulae
A. Reasonable Potential Analysis
EPA uses the process described in the Technical Support Document for Water
Quality-based Toxics Control (USEPA, 1991) to determine reasonable potential. To
determine if there is reasonable potential for the discharge to cause or contribute to an
exceedance of water quality criteria for a given pollutant, EPA compares the maximum
projected receiving water concentration to the water quality criteria for that pollutant. If
the projected receiving water concentration exceeds the criteria, there is reasonable
potential, and a WQBEL must be included in the permit.
1. Mass Balance
For discharges to flowing water bodies, the maximum projected receiving water
concentration is determined using the following mass balance equation:
CdQd = CeQe + CuQu Equation 1
where,
Receiving water concentration downstream of the effluent
discharge (that is, the concentration at the edge of the
mixing zone)
Maximum projected effluent concentration
95th percentile measured receiving water upstream
concentration
Receiving water flow rate downstream of the effluent
discharge = Qe+Qu
Effluent flow rate
Receiving water low flow rate upstream of the discharge
(1Q10, 7Q10 or 30B3)
Cd
Ce
Cu
Qd =
Qe =
Qu =
When the mass balance equation is solved for Cd, it becomes:
Cd = Ce x Qe + Cu x Qu Equation 2
Qe + Qu
The above form of the equation assumes that the discharge is rapidly and
completely mixed with 100% of the receiving stream.
If the mixing zone is based on less than complete mixing with the receiving water,
the equation becomes:
Ce X Qe + Cu X (Qu X %MZ)
Cd = z Equation 3
Qe + (Qu x %MZ) 4
Where:
% MZ = the percentage of the receiving water flow available for mixing.
If a mixing zone is not allowed, dilution is not considered when projecting the
receiving water concentration and,
-------
Cd = Ce Equation 4
A dilution factor (D) can be introduced to describe the allowable mixing. Where
the dilution factor is expressed as:
n _ Qe + Qu x %MZ
u ~ n Equation 5
After the dilution factor simplification, the mass balance equation becomes:
^ Ce-Cu „
Cd —+CU Equation 6
If the criterion is expressed as dissolved metal, the effluent concentrations are
measured in total recoverable metal and must be converted to dissolved metal as
follows:
^ CFxCe-Cu ^
Cd= —-+CU Equation 7
D
Where Ce is expressed as total recoverable metal, Cu and Cd are expressed as
dissolved metal, and CF is a conversion factor used to convert between dissolved
and total recoverable metal.
The above equations for Cd are the forms of the mass balance equation which
were used to determine reasonable potential and calculate wasteload allocations.
2. Maximum Projected Effluent Concentration
When determining the projected receiving water concentration downstream of the
effluent discharge, EPA's Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based
Toxics Controls (TSD, 1991) recommends using the maximum projected effluent
concentration (Ce) in the mass balance calculation (see equation 3, page C-5). To
determine the maximum projected effluent concentration (Ce) EPA has developed
a statistical approach to better characterize the effects of effluent variability. The
approach combines knowledge of effluent variability as estimated by a coefficient
of variation (CV) with the uncertainty due to a limited number of data to project an
estimated maximum concentration for the effluent. Once the CV for each pollutant
parameter has been calculated, the reasonable potential multiplier (RPM) used to
derive the maximum projected effluent concentration (Ce) can be calculated using
the following equations:
First, the percentile represented by the highest reported concentration is
calculated.
pn = (1 - confidence level)1/n Equation 8
where,
pn = the percentile represented by the highest reported concentration
n = the number of samples
confidence level = 99% = 0.99
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 42 of 50
-------
and
Cpn eZPnxa-0.5xa'
Where,
Equation 9
a2 = ln(CV2 +1)
Z99 = 2.326 (z-score for the 99th percentile)
^ _ z-score for the Pn percentile (inverse of the normal
Pn cumulative distribution function at a given percentile)
CV = coefficient of variation (standard deviation mean)
The maximum projected effluent concentration is determined by simply multiplying
the maximum reported effluent concentration by the RPM:
where MRC = Maximum Reported Concentration
3. Maximum Projected Effluent Concentration at the Edge of the Mixing Zone
Once the maximum projected effluent concentration is calculated, the maximum
projected effluent concentration at the edge of the acute and chronic mixing
zones is calculated using the mass balance equations presented previously.
4. Reasonable Potential
The discharge has reasonable potential to cause or contribute to an exceedance
of water quality criteria if the maximum projected concentration of the pollutant at
the edge of the mixing zone exceeds the most stringent criterion for that pollutant.
B. WQBEL Calculations
1. Calculate the Wasteload Allocations (WLAs)
Wasteload allocations (WLAs) are calculated using the same mass balance
equations used to calculate the concentration of the pollutant at the edge of the
mixing zone in the reasonable potential analysis. To calculate the wasteload
allocations, Cd is set equal to the acute or chronic criterion and the equation is
solved for Ce. The calculated Ce is the acute or chronic WLA. Equation 6 is
rearranged to solve for the WLA, becoming:
Ce = WLA = D x (Cd - Cu) + Cu Equation 11
Washington's water quality criteria for some metals are expressed as the
dissolved fraction, but the Federal regulation at 40 CFR 122.45(c) requires that
effluent limits be expressed as total recoverable metal. Therefore, EPA must
calculate a wasteload allocation in total recoverable metal that will be protective of
the dissolved criterion. This is accomplished by dividing the WLA expressed as
dissolved by the criteria translator, as shown in equation 12. As discussed in
Appendix D the criteria translator (CT) is equal to the conversion factor, because
site-specific translators are not available for this discharge.
Ce = (RPM)(MRC)
Equation 10
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 43 of 50
-------
Equation 12
The next step is to compute the "long term average" concentrations which will be
protective of the WLAs. This is done using the following equations from EPA's
Technical Support Document for Water Quality-based Toxics Control (TSD):
where,
a2 = ln(CV2 +1)
Z99 = 2.326 (z-score for the 99th percentile probability basis)
CV = coefficient of variation (standard deviation mean)
o4 2 = ln(CV2/4 + 1)
For ammonia, because the chronic criterion is based on a 30-day averaging
period, the Chronic Long Term Average (LTAc) is calculated as follows:
LTAc=WLAcxe(a5f73°-zc730) Equation 15
0302 = ln(CV2/30 + 1)
The LTAs are compared and the more stringent is used to develop the daily
maximum and monthly average permit limits as shown below.
2. Derive the maximum daily and average monthly effluent limits
Using the TSD equations, the MDL and AML effluent limits are calculated as
follows:
MDL = LTA x e(z™a~a5(j2) Equation 16
where o, and o2 are defined as they are for the LTA equations above, and,
on2 = ln(CV2/n +1
za = 1.645 (z-score for the 95th percentile probability basis)
zm = 2.326 (z-score for the 99th percentile probability basis)
number of sampling events required per month. With
the exception of ammonia, if the AML is based on the
n = LTAc, i.e., LTAminimum = LTAc), the value of "n" should is
set at a minimum of 4. For ammonia, In the case of
ammonia, if the AML is based on the LTAc, i.e.,
LTAa=WLAaxe(°-5c72-zc7)
LTAc=WLAcxe(a5o4 -zc74)
Equation 13
Equation 14
where,
AML = LTA x e(z*a* " a5(T«
Equation 17
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 44 of 50
-------
LTAminimum = LTAc), the value of "n" should is set at a
minimum of 30.
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 45 of 50
-------
Appendix D. Reasonable Potential and WQBEL Calculations
Reasonable Potential Calculation
Facility
rNBK Bangor Cooling Water
Water Body Type
Marine
Dilution Factors:
Acute Chronic
Aquatic Life
r 45.2
r284.5
Human Health Carcinogenic
r284.5
Human Health Non-Carcinogenic
r284.5
1
Pollutant, CAS No. &
NPDES Application Ref. No.
AMMONIA, Criteria as Total NH3
COPPER-744058 6M Hardness
dependent
# of Sam pies (n)
1
33
Coeff of Variation (Cv)
0.6
0.908
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
Effluent Data
Effluent Concentration, ug/L 1
(Max. or 95th Percentile)
150
19.1
Calculated 50th percentile
Effluent Cone, (when n>10)
ill
¦
Receivina Water Data
90th Percentile Cone., ug/L
52
0.752
Geo Mean, ug/L
«gf
Aquatic Life Criteria^ Acute
3,58?
4.8
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
F
ug/L Chronic
3.1
r
w—.
¥
¥
-------
Appendix E. Effluent Limit Calculations for pH
Calculation of pH of a Mixture in Marine Water
Based on the C02SYS program (Lewis and Wallace, 1998),
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/oceans/co2rprt.html
INPUT
1. MIXING ZONE BOUNDARY CHARACTERISTICS
Dilution factor at mixing zone boundary
Depth at plume trapping level (m)
2. BACKGROUND RECEIVING WATER CHARACTERISTICS
Temperature (deg C):
pH:
Salinity (psu):
Total alkalinity (meq/L)
3. EFFLUENT CHARACTERISTICS
Temperature (deg C):
pH:
Salinity (psu)
Total alkalinity (meq/L):
284.5
26.330
15.21
7.59
26.79
208.00
21.41
6.86
26.79
208.00
4. CLICK THE 'Calculate" BUTTON TO UPDATE OUTPUT RESULTS ->
Calculate
OUTPUT
CONDITIONS AT THE MIXING ZONE BOUNDARY
Temperature (deg C):
Salinity (psu)
Density (kg/mA3)
Alkalinity (mmol/kg-SW):
Total Inorganic Carbon (mmol/kg-SW):
pH at Mixing Zone Boundary:
15.23
26.79
1020
203.98
204
7.59
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 47 of 50
-------
Appendix F. Technology-based Effluent Limit for Temperature
Overview
As explained on Page 12 of the fact sheet dated October 23, 2009, "AKART and Best
Available Technology economically achievable (BAT) is minimizing the thermal load to Hood
Canal at the existing performance...Therefore, in the prior permit, EPA established a
performance-based effluent limit of 19 °C. The limit was expressed as a 7-DADMax.
Minimizing the thermal load to Hood Canal at the existing performance continues to be AKART
and BAT for this facility. From October - April, the facility has generally been able to comply
with the 19 °C 7-DADMax temperature limit in the prior permit, thus it has been retained.
However, for the season of May - September, the facility has not been able to consistently
comply with the 19 °C limit in the prior permit. For May - September, EPA has updated the
calculation of the performance-based temperature limit based on recent effluent data and has
changed the limit from an effluent gross temperature limit to an effluent net temperature limit
(i.e., the maximum allowable difference between the temperatures of the intake and effluent
water).
Revised Summer Limit
The Navy provided EPA with temperature data for the intake and effluent, taken at 5-minute
intervals. Data were provided only for those times when a vessel was in the dry dock and the
cooling water system was in use. This results in 288 temperature measurements for a 24-hour
day in which the cooling water system is in continuous use.
For the purposes of calculating the 7-DADMax effluent net temperatures, EPA first used pivot
tables in Microsoft Excel to find the maximum intake and effluent temperatures for each day,
then EPA calculated the differences between these daily maximum intake and effluent
temperatures, and finally, whenever maximum temperature differences were available for 7
consecutive days, EPA calculated the 7-day rolling averages of these differences. Although the
maximum intake and effluent temperatures for a given day may not have occurred
simultaneously, EPA considers this a reasonable way to characterize the temperature
differences. The permit requires the calculation for compliance purposes to be performed the
same way, except that the permit states that the 7-DADMax temperature for any individual day
is calculated by averaging that day's daily maximum temperature with the daily maximum
temperatures of the three days prior and the three days after that date, which is consistent with
the definition of 7-DADMax in the Washington water quality standards (WAC 173-201A-020)
as well as the prior permit.
For May - September, from 2013-2021, this resulted in a total of 1,032 7-DADMax differences,
with summary statistics shown in Table 11.
Table 11: Summary Statistics for 7-DADMax Temperature Differences
Minimum
0.889
Average
2.534
Maximum
7.373
Standard Deviation
1.091
Average of Natural Logarithms
0.8489
Variance of Natural Logarithms
0.1584
The May - September 7-DADMax temperature differences calculated as described above
approximately fit a lognormal distribution, with a correlation coefficient of 0.992.
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 48 of 50
-------
Figure 4: Lognormal Probability Plot for 7-DADMax temperature differences for May -
September
Thus, to calculate a performance-based 7-DADMax temperature difference limit, EPA used the
"Perform. Limit" sheet in the PermitCalc Excel workbook developed by the Washington
Department of Ecology. This resulted in a performance-based 7-DADMax temperature
difference limit of 5.9 °C, as shown in Table 12.
Table 12: Performance-based 7-DADMax Difference Limit
Performance-based Effluent Limits
INPUT
LogNormal Transformed Mean:
0.8489
LogNormal Transformed Variance:
0.1584
OUTPUT
E W =
2.5296
VW =
1.099
VARn
0.1584
MEANn=
0.8489
VAR(Xn)=
1.099
RESULTS
7-DADMax Effluent Net Limit
5.9
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy Page 49 of 50
-------
Water Quality Evaluation
As shown in Table 13, from October - April, the 19 °C effluent gross 7-DADMax limit will
ensure compliance with water quality criteria for temperature at the edge of the mixing zone.
From May - September, EPA evaluated the facility's impact on receiving water temperature
and found the temperature increase to be 0.021 °C above the numeric criteria. See Table 13.
EPA's Region 10 Temperature Guidance For Pacific Northwest State and Tribal Temperature
Water Quality Standards (USEPA, 2003a) states that "an increase on the order of 0.25°C for
all sources cumulatively (at the point of maximum impact) above fully protective numeric
criteria or natural background temperatures would not impair the designated uses, and
therefore might be regarded as de minimis." Because the temperature increase resulting from
the summer effluent net temperature limit of 5.9 °C is less than one tenth of the cumulative
temperature increase that may be regarded as de minimis, EPA considers the water quality
impact of the proposed summer temperature TBEL to be de minimis. Therefore water quality-
based effluent limits are not required.
Table 13: Temperature Reasonable Potential Analysis
Marine Temperature Reasonable Potential and Limit Calculation
Based on WAC 173-201 A-200(1)(c)(i)-(ii) and Water Quality Program Guidance. All Data inputs must meet WQ
guidelines. The Water Qualitytemperature guidance document maybe found at:
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/biblio/0610100.html
INPUT
May-Sep
Oct-April
1. Chronic Dilution Factor at Mixing Zone Boundary
2. Annual max 1 DADMaxAmbient Temperature (Background 90th percentile)
3. IDADMax Effluent Temperature (95th percentile)
4. Aquatic Life Temperature WQ Criterion
r
284.5
13.0 °C
18.9 °C
13.0 °C
r
284.5
10.9 °C
19.0 °C
13.0 °C
OUTPUT
5. Temperature at Chronic Mixing Zone Boundary:
6. Incremental Temperature Increase or decrease:
7. Incremental Temperature Increase 12/(T-2) if T< crit:
8. Maximum Allowable Temperature at Mixing Zone Boundary:
13.021 °C
0.021 °C
13.25 °C
10.93 °C
0.028 °C
1.348 °C
12.25 °C
Fact Sheet: WA0025577 - United States Department of the Navy
Page 50 of 50
------- |