NC0063029_Fact Sheet_20200423

Page 1 of 15

Fact Sheet
NPDES Permit No. NC0063029

Permit Writer/Email Contact: Qais Banihani / Cassidy Kurtz; [e-mail]
Date: April 23, 2020
Division/Branch: NC Division of Water Resources/NPDES Complex Permitting
Fact Sheet Template: Version 09Jan2017

Permitting Action:
☒ Renewal
☐ Renewal with Expansion
☐ New Discharge
☐ Modification (Fact Sheet should be tailored to mod request)

Note: A complete application should include the following:
• For New Dischargers, EPA Form 2A or 2D requirements, Engineering Alternatives Analysis, Fee
• For Existing Dischargers (POTW), EPA Form 2A, 3 effluent pollutant scans, 4 2nd species WET
tests.
• For Existing Dischargers (Non-POTW), EPA Form 2C with correct analytical requirements based
on industry category.

Complete applicable sections below. If not applicable, enter NA.

1. Basic Facility Information

Facility Information
Applicant/Facility Name: Commanding General/ Camp Lejeune Advanced WWTP
Applicant Address: 12 Post lane, Camp Lejeune, NC 28547
Facility Address: Building FC440, Gonzalez Boulevard, Marine Camp Base, Camp
Lejeune
Permitted Flow: 15.0 MGD
Facility Type/Waste: Major Facility
Facility Class: Class IV
Treatment Units: Bar Screen, Grit Removal, Primary Clarifiers, Secondary Clarifiers, Sand
Filters, Post Aeration Basin, Ultraviolet (UV) Disinfection system,
Rotary Drum Sludge Thickeners, Aerobic Digester, sludge Holding Tank
and Sludge Drying Beds.
Pretreatment Program (Y/N) No
County: Onslow
Region Wilmington

Page 2 of 15

Briefly describe the proposed permitting action and facility background: United States Marine Corps Base,
Camp Lejeune (MCB CAMLEJ), herein called MCP CAMLEJ or Permittee, applied for an NPDES permit
renewal for Camp Lejeune Advanced Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The Permittee’s 5-year
NPDES permit expired on June 30, 2017. Camp Lejeune Advanced WWTP is a state-of-the-art facility that
began operation in 1998 and consolidated seven discharges. The facility serves Marine Corps Base Camp
Lejeune and Marine Corps Air Station New River with a total population of 148,000. The facility’s average
discharge for the period of January 2014 through June 2019 was 4.4 MGD which accounts for ~ 29% of
the plant’s capacity. In conjunction with the renewal request, MCP CAMLEJ is requesting a reduction in
monitoring frequency to twice per week for BOD5, TSS, NH3-N and Enterococci. Such request was
evaluated and approved in this permit renewal (see fact sheet section 10. Monitoring Requirements).

MCP CAMLEJ receives waste streams from Onslow Water and Sewer Authority (ONWASA), Naval
Medical Center (NMC), Oil Water Separators (OWS), Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Facility (MSWLF)
leachate, Solid Waste Compost Facility (SWCF) runoff, four Water Treatment plants (WTPs) filter
backwash and seven remedial treatment plants. The remediation systems include: Installation Restoration
(IR) Site 78 North, IR Site 78 South, AS -4141, HPFF South East Compound, New River PPV, TC-341
Pipeline and Rapid Refueler (attached the description of each site). RCRA Sites AS-4141 and Rapid
Refueler have been shut down since the discovery of Per - and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in their
effluent. No other sources of PFAS have been identified flowing to the facility. The Permittee i s requesting
to include both AS-4141 and Rapid Refueler sites in the permit and a special condition to be added which
requires the Permittee to notify the Division at least 60 days prior to either of these two sites beginning to
discharge to the WWTP. Upon notification to the Division, the Permittee will provide analytical results
which confirm the combined PFOS/PFOA detections are below 70 part per trillion (ppt) or any other
regulatory established level. See permit Special Conditions A. (8.) and A. (9.).
According to 2007 White Oak River Basin Plan, Nutrient enrichment has been a significant problem in the
estuarine portions of the New River, and periodic elevated fecal coliform bacteria levels also appear to be
a recurring problem in this subbasin (03-05-02). High nutrient levels were being discharged by the City of
Jacksonville as well as Camp Lejeune. In 1998, Jacksonville removed its discharge from the upper New
River estuary and Camp Lejeune consolidated its seven discharges into one tertiary treatment facility. These
discharges were considered a major source of nutrients into the upper estuarine portions of the New River.
As a result, a reduction of nitrogen and phosphorous, 57 and 71 percent respectively, has occurred.

Page 3 of 15

2. Receiving Waterbody Information:
Receiving Waterbody Information
Outfalls/Receiving Stream(s): Outfall 001 – New River
Stream Segment: 19-(15.5)
Stream Classification: SC; NSW
Drainage Area (mi2): 12a
Summer 7Q10 (cfs) Tidal
Winter 7Q10 (cfs): Tidal
30Q2 (cfs): Tidal
Average Flow (cfs): Tidal
IWC (% effluent): 5% (modeled)63029
303(d) listed/parameter: No
Subject to TMDL/parameter: Yes- Statewide Mercury TMDL implementation.
Subbasin/HUC: 03-05-02; 03020302
USGS Topo Quad: Camp Lejeune I 29 NE
a: Based on Stream-stats (streamstats.usgs.gov)

3. Effluent Data Summary
Effluent data for Outfall 001 is summarized below for the period of January 2014 through September
2019.
Table 3. Effluent Data Summary Outfall 001.
Parameter Units Average Max Min Permit
Limit
Flow MGD 4.45 17.0 1.00 MA 15.0
BOD summer mg/L 2.07 10.00 < 2.00 DM 7.5
MA 5.0
BOD winter mg/L 2.01 5.00 < 2.00 DM 15.0
MA 10.0
TSS mg/L 2.53 16.00 < 2.30 DM 45.0
MA 30.0
NH3N summer mg/L 1.01 3.40 < 1.00 DM 10.0
MA 2.0
Page 4 of 15

NH3N winter mg/L 1.08 17.06 < 1.00 DM 20.0
MA 4.0
DO mg/L 8.15 11.60 6.00 DA ≥ 6.0
pH SU 7.73 8.30 6.90 6.8 ≤ pH ≤
8.5
TRC µg/L No Data*
DM 13.0
(< 50
compliance)
Temperature ° C 21.98 29.00 10.4
Enterococci #/100 mL 3.16 542.00 < 1.00 (geometric)
WA 276.0
MA 35.0
Total Nitrogen mg/L 8.58 19.00 < 0.50
Total Nitrogen lb/month 9,842.48 22,039.0 1,463.0
Total Nitrogen** lb/year 113,347 132,411.07 88,194 251,356
Total Phosphorus summer mg/L 0.2 0.59 < 0.1 MA 0.5
Total Phosphorus winter mg/L 0.22 0.64 < 0.1 MA 1.0
Oil and Grease mg/L < 5.04 9.00 < 5.00 DM 60.0
MA 30.0
MA-Monthly Average, WA-Weekly Average, DM-Daily Maximum, DA=Daily Average
* Facility uses UV disinfection system
** Data for 2014 through 2018
4. Instream Data Summary
Instream monitoring may be required in certain situations, for example: 1) to verify model predictions when
model results for instream DO are within 1 mg/l of instream standard at full permitted flow; 2) to verify
model predictions for outfall diffuser; 3) to provide data for future TMDL; 4) based on other instream
concerns. Instream monitoring may be conducted by the Permittee, and there are also Monitoring
Coalitions established in several basins that conduct instream sampling for the Permittee (in which case
instream monitoring is waived in the permit as long as coalition membership is maintained).
If applicable, summarize any instream data and what instream monitoring will be proposed for this permit
action: The current permit requires twice-per-month instream sampling during summer season (April-
October) for physical (DO, Salinity, Temperature, Conductivity, pH, and Secchi Depth) and
chemical/biological parameters (Total Phosphorus, NH3-N, TKN, Nitrate and Nitrite, Chlorophyll-a and
Fecal Coliform). These parameters are collected at nine instream monitoring stations: three stations are
located upstream of the diffuser at Farnell Bay Transect (stations #4 - #6), three stations are located near
the diffuser at Spring Point Transect (stations #7 - #9) and three stations are downstream of the diffuser at
Grey Point Transect (stations #10 - #12).

Page 5 of 15

Physical Parameters:
A review of instream data from April 2017 through October 2018 shows few differences between upstream
and downstream sampling results. In 2017, the DO sampling results were generally above 5 mg/L except
in July where the DO concentrations at the far downstream (station # 12) were below 5 mg/L. Such low
DO concentrations were also observed at the upstream station # 6. In 2018, DO concentrations below 5
mg/L were noted for one day (June 26) at all downstream locations (stations #10 - #12) while DO
concentrations at the diffuser and upstream (stations #4 - #9) were above 5.0 mg/L; ranging from 4.49 –
4.8 mg/L for, 5.3 to 6.45 mg/L and 6.4 to 6.51 mg/L, respectively. The effluent DO at that day was 6.9
mg/L. Similarly, DO concentrations in August 8 at the far downstream locations (stations #11 - #12) were
below 5.0 mg/L while the DO concentrations at all other stations (#4 - #10) were above 5.0 mg/L. The
effluent DO at that day was 7.0 mg/L.
pH values were fairly close; however, the values were mainly below the normal range of 6.8-8.5 for SC
water. The average effluent pH was 8. Salinity values were fairly close among all locations. Conductivity
increased from upstream to downstream sampling sites. Conductivity ranged from 18,340 to 24,510
µmhos/cm.
15A NCAC 02B .0220(17) states that temperature of tidal salt water “shall not be increased above the
natural water temperature by more than 0.8 °C during the months of June, July, and August nor more than
2.2 °C during other months and in no cases to exceed 32 °C due to the discharge of heated liquids.”
Temperature values were nearly identical between upstream and downstream sites with a maximum
differential being 1.1 0C, more than the standard increase of 0.8 °C, during the months of June, July and
August and 1.6 0C, within the standard increase of 2.2 °C, during the rest of the year. Temperature maxima
were below the standard of 32 °C at all locations.
Chemical/Biological Parameters:
Fecal Coliform is a parameter of concern for the protection of aquatic life and human health. Downstream
coliform counts had a lower average than did the upstream (geometric means ranged from < 1 to 1000
cfu/100 mL for upstream stations (#4 - #6) and < 1 to 250 cfu/100 mL for downstream stations (#10 - #12)).
In 2017, the Chlorophyll-a results were mainly less than the standard of 40 g/L except in August 17 when
the concentrations were 44 µg/L at the upstream station #4 and 48 µg/L at downstream station #10.
Similarly, Chlorophyll-a concentrations of 49 µg/L, 54 µg/L and 42 µg/L were observed at downstream
station #10 and near the diffuser stations #7 and #8, respectively. In 2018, Chlorophyll-a in the 52-68 µg/L
range were noted for one day (June 26) at the upstream stations (#4 - #6) while the concentrations were in
the 19-23 µg/L range across all the diffuser and downstream sampling sta tions. Chlorophyll-a
concentrations above the standard of 40 µg/L was also noted for one day (August 7) at the downstream
stations #11 (45 µg/L) and #12 (41µg/L), upstream station #6 (41 µg/L) and near the diffuser station #7 (48
µg/L).
Most of TP, NH3-N and Nitrate and Nitrite were not detected among all sampling stations. TKN values
were fairly close ranging from < 0.5 to 7.6 mg/L for upstream locations (stations #4 - #6), < 0.5 – 7.5 mg/L
near the diffuser (stations #7 - #9) and < 0.5 – 5.6 mg/L for downstream locations (stations #10 - #12).
Instream data is summarized in table 4. Overall, no changes are proposed for instream monitoring.

Page 6 of 15

Table 4: Instream Data (April 2017 - October 2018)
Upstream Diffuser Downstream
Physical Parameter Station
# 4
Station
# 5
Station
# 6
Station
# 7
Station
# 8
Station
# 9
Station
# 10
Station
# 11
Station
# 12
DO (mg/L)
Ave 6.4 5.9 5.9 6.5 7.2 6.9 6.5 6.4 5.9
Max 8.7 8.3 8.8 8.7 20.9 21.5 8.4 8.2 8.4
Min 5.0 4.4 2.9 4.9 5.3 4.5 4.5 4.8 4.0
Salinity (ppt)
Ave 10.6 11.5 12.1 12.7 13.4 13.5 14.0 14.8 15.0
Max 18.9 19.2 19.0 20.1 20.9 21.5 21.1 21.7 22.9
Min 2.1 1.8 1.8 2.5 2.8 2.5 3.4 3.6 3.8
Temperature (0C)
Ave 25.1 24.3 25.3 25.2 24.3 25.7 25.0 25.1 25.0
Max 30.0 30.6 30.2 30.6 30.8 30.9 30.2 30.1 30.5
Min 13.7 6.1 13.5 13.4 7.5 17.6 13.4 13.4 14.0
Conductivity
(µmhos/cm)
Ave 18339.6 18995.2 20054.6 20997.8 22263.5 22396.1 23116.5 24268.7 24509.9
Max 30438.0 30984.0 30671.0 32177.0 33447.0 34268.0 33633.0 35135.0 35192.0
Min 3809.0 3348.0 3302.0 4518.0 5025.0 4526.0 6214.0 6499.0 6883.0
pH (S.U.)
Ave 6.61 6.5 6.5 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.7 6.6 6.5
Max 7.84 7.9 7.7 7.8 7.9 8.0 7.8 7.8 7.7
Min 5.70 5.5 5.7 5.9 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.8 6.0
Secchi Depth (m)
Ave 0.63 0.6 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Max 1.00 1.2 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.1 1.0 1.0 1.5
Min 0.30 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3
Chemical/Biological
Parameter

TP (mg/L)
Ave 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1
Max 0.20 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Min < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1 < 0.1
NH3-N (mg/L)
Ave
All results were < 1.0 Max
Min
TKN (mg/L)
Ave 1.04 1.0 1.2 1.0 1.1 0.9 1.0 0.9 0.9
Max 5.30 6.1 7.6 6.2 7.5 5.0 4.9 4.1 5.6
Min < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5 < 0.5
NO2+NO3 (mg/L)
Ave 0.02 0.03 < 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.1
Max 0.09 0.1 < 0.2 0.08 0.08 0.78 0.03 0.03 2.0
Min < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02 < 0.02
Chlorophyll-a
(mg/m3)
Ave 19.25 19.8 19.9 18.9 18.4 15.0 18.4 17.9 16.1
Max 52.00 61.0 68.0 54.0 42.0 34.0 49.0 48.0 41.0
Min 5.30 3.2 0.5 5.3 6.4 3.2 3.2 6.4 4.3
FC (#/100 mL)
Ave 63.33 40.7 42.3 18.0 18.2 97.0 17.1 27.0 11.0
Max 1000.00 500.0 460.0 290.0 230.0 1700.0 250.0 209.0 80.0
Min < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0 < 1.0

Is this facility a member of a Monitoring Coalition with waived instream monitoring (Y/N): NO
Name of Monitoring Coalition: NA

Page 7 of 15

5. Compliance Summary
Summarize the compliance record with permit effluent limits (past 5 years): The facility had one limit
violation for BOD daily maximum exceedance that resulted in an NOV in 2018.
Summarize the compliance record with aquatic toxicity test limits and any second species test results (past
5 years): The facility passed 20 of 20 quarterly chronic toxicity tests, as well as all 4 second species chronic
toxicity tests.
Summarize the results from the most recent compliance inspection: The last facility inspection conducted
in 2019 reported that the facility was operating properly.

6. Water Quality-Based Effluent Limitations (WQBELs)
Dilution and Mixing Zones
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0206, the following streamflows are used for dilution considerations
for development of WQBELs: 1Q10 streamflow (acute Aquatic Life); 7Q10 streamflow (chronic Aquatic
Life; non-carcinogen HH); 30Q2 streamflow (aesthetics); annual average flow (carcinogen, HH).
If applicable, describe any other dilution factors considered (e.g., based on CORMIX model results):
CORMIX model was performed in 1995, resulting in 20:1 dilution (5% IWC) at the outfall.
If applicable, describe any mixing zones established in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0204(b): No mixing
zone was established.

Oxygen-Consuming Waste Limitations
Limitations for oxygen-consuming waste (e.g., BOD) are generally based on water quality modeling to
ensure protection of the instream dissolved oxygen (DO) water quality standard. Secondary TBEL limits
(e.g., BOD= 30 mg/l for Municipals) may be appropriate if deemed more stringent based on dilution and
model results.
If permit limits are more stringent than TBELs, describe how limits were developed: Limitations for BOD
are based on 1992 Waste Load Allocation (WLA) using Georgia Estuary Model (GAEST) for instream DO
protection. No changes are proposed from the previous permit limits.

Ammonia and Total Residual Chlorine Limitations
Limitations for ammonia are based on protection of aquatic life utilizing an ammonia chronic criterion of
1.0 mg/l (summer) and 1.8 mg/l (winter). Acute ammonia limits are derived from chronic criteria, utilizing
a multiplication factor of 3 for Municipals and a multiplication factor of 5 for Non-Municipals.
Limitations for Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) are based on the NC water quality standard for protection
of aquatic life (17 ug/l) and capped at 28 ug/l (acute impacts). Due to analytical issues, all T RC values
reported below 50 ug/l are considered compliant with their permit limit.
Describe any proposed changes to ammonia and/or TRC limits for this permit renewal: The TRC limit set
at 13 µg/L per the EPA NRWQC for saltwater aquatic life protection.
Page 8 of 15

NH3-N limits are based on 1992 Waste Load Allocation (WLA) using Georgia Estuary Model (GAEST).
No changes for TRC and NH3-N are proposed from the previous permit limits. Table 5 summarizes the
NH3-N Limits.
Table 5. NH3-N Limit
Season Monthly Avg. (mg/L) Daily Max. (mg/L)
Summer 2.0 10.0
Winter 4.0 20.0

Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA) for Toxicants
If applicable, conduct RPA analysis and complete information below.
The need for toxicant limits is based upon a demonstration of reasonable potential to exceed water quality
standards, a statistical evaluation that is conducted during every permit renewal utilizing the most recent
effluent data for each outfall. The RPA is conducted in accordance with 40 CFR 122.44 (d) (i). The NC
RPA procedure utilizes the following: 1) 95% Confidence Level/95% Probability; 2) assumption of zero
background; 3) use of ½ detection limit for “less than” values ; and 4) streamflows used for dilution
consideration based on 15A NCAC 2B.0206. Effective April 6, 2016, NC began implementation of
dissolved metals criteria in the RPA process in accordance with guidance titled NPDES Implementation of
Instream Dissolved Metals Standards, dated June 10, 2016.
A reasonable potential analysis was conducted on effluent toxicant data collected between December 2013
and August 2016. Pollutants of concern included toxicants with positive detections and associated water
quality standards/criteria. Based on this analysis, the following permitting actions are proposed for this
permit:
• Effluent Limit with Monitoring. The following parameters will receive a water quality -based
effluent limit (WQBEL) since they demonstrated a reasonable potential to exceed applicable water
quality standards/criteria: NA
• Monitoring Only. The following parameters will receive a monitor-only requirement since they
did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria, but
the maximum predicted concentration was >50% of the allowable concentration: NA
• No Limit or Monitoring: The following parameters will not receive a limit or monitoring, since
they did not demonstrate reasonable potential to exceed applicable water quality standards/criteria
and the maximum predicted concentration was <50% of the allowable concentration: Total
Phenolic Compounds, Nickel, Zinc
• POTW Effluent Pollutant Scan Review: Three effluent pollutant scans were evaluated for
additional pollutants of concern.
o The following parameter(s) will receive a water quality-based effluent limit (WQBEL)
with monitoring, since as part of a limited data set, two samples exceeded the allowable
discharge concentration: NA
o The following parameter(s) will receive a monitor-only requirement, since as part of a
limited data set, one sample exceeded the allowable discharge c oncentration: NA

If applicable, attach a spreadsheet of the RPA results as well as a copy of the Dissolved Metals
Implementation Fact Sheet for freshwater/saltwater to this Fact Sheet. Include a printout of the RPA
Dissolved to Total Metal Calculator sheet if this is a Municipality with a Pretreatment Program.

Page 9 of 15

Toxicity Testing Limitations
Permit limits and monitoring requirements for Whole Effluent Toxicity (WET) have been established in
accordance with Division guidance (per WET Memo, 8/2/1999). Per WET guidance, all NPDES permits
issued to Major facilities or any facility discharging “complex” wastewater (contains anything other than
domestic waste) will contain appropriate WET limits and monitoring requirements, with several exceptions.
The State has received prior EPA approval to use an Alternative WET Test Procedure in NPDES permits,
using single concentration screening tests, with multiple dilution follow-up upon a test failure.
Describe proposed toxicity test requirement: This is a major Federally Owned Treatment Work (FOTW),
and a chronic WET limit at 5% effluent will continue on a quarterly frequency.

Mercury Statewide TMDL Evaluation
There is a statewide TMDL for mercury approved by EPA in 2012. The TMDL target was to comply with
EPA’s mercury fish tissue criteria (0.3 mg/kg) for human health protection. The TMDL established a
wasteload allocation for point sources of 37 kg/year (81 lb/year) and is applicable to municipals and
industrial facilities with known mercury discharges. Given the small contribution of mercury from point
sources (~2% of total load), the TMDL emphasizes mercury minimization plans (MMPs) for point source
control. Municipal facilities > 2 MGD and discharging quantifiable levels of mercury (>1 ng/l) will receive
an MMP requirement. Industrials are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, depending if mercury is a pollutant
of concern. Effluent limits may also be added if annual average effluent concentrations exceed the WQBEL
value (based on the NC WQS of 12 ng/l) and/or if any individual value exceeds a TBEL value of 47 ng/l

Table 6. Mercury Effluent Data Summary
2013 2014 2015 2016
# of Samples 1 1 1 1
Annual Average Conc. ng/L 0.9 0.5 0.6 0.5
Maximum Conc., ng/L 0.87 0.5 0.62 0.5
TBEL, ng/L 47
WQBEL, ng/L 500.3

Describe proposed permit actions based on mercury evaluation : Since no annual average mercury
concentration exceeded the WQBEL, and no individual mercury sample exceeded the TBEL, no mercury
limit is required.

Other TMDL/Nutrient Management Strategy Considerations
If applicable, describe any other TMDLs/Nutrient Management Strategies and their implementation within
this permit: “The New River was classified as a Nutrient Sensitive Water due to excessive growth of
microscopic and/or macroscopic vegetation. Based on results of water quality sampling from June 1986 to
September 1989, the NSW regulations were amended to include the New River above Grey Point. Per the
NSW regulations, 15 A NCAC 2B .0214, and the implementation plan for the New River basin, a Total
Phosphorus limit of 2 mg/L is required of all existing discharges with design flow rates of 0.05 MGD or
greater. All new and expanded discharges above Grey Point are required to meet a Total Phosphorus limit
of 0.5 mg/L regardless of design capacity. More stringent controls on nutrient inputs such as a Total
Page 10 of 15

Nitrogen effluent limit may be required in the future on a case-by-case basis” (Summary Report: Camp
Lejeune: Wasteload Allocation for the expansion of Hadnot Point WWTP to 15 MGD, December 1992).
Phosphorus: The Permittee’s 0.5 mg/L Total Phosphorus limit f or the summer season (April through
October) and 1.0 mg/L Total Phosphorus limit for winter season (November through March) are in
accordance with 1992 NSW strategy for expanding discharges in the New River.
Nitrogen: The Permittee’s 251,356 pounds/year Total Annual Nitrogen (TAN) Load, calculated based on
total nitrogen concentration of 5.5 mg/L at 15 MGD, is in accordance with G.S 143-215.1c1 for NSW and
HB515.

Other WQBEL Considerations
If applicable, describe any other parameters of concern evaluated for WQBELs: NA
If applicable, describe any special actions (HQW or ORW) this receiving stream and classification shall
comply with in order to protect the designated waterbody: Due to proximity of SA, HQW that are open to
shellfish harvesting and the concerns of Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF), instream monitoring of Fecal
Coliform was added to the current permit issued in 2013.
If applicable, describe any compliance schedules proposed for this permit renewal in accordance with 15A
NCAC 2H.0107( c)(2)(B), 40CFR 122.47, and EPA May 2007 Memo: NA
If applicable, describe any water quality standards variances proposed in accordance with NCGS 143-
215.3(e) and 15A NCAC 2B.0226 for this permit renewal: NA

7. Technology-Based Effluent Limitations (TBELs)
Industrial/Commercial
Describe what this facility produces: US Marine Corps Base
List the federal effluent limitations guideline (ELG) for this facility: NA
If the ELG is based on production or flow, document how the average production/flow value was
calculated: NA
For ELG limits, document the calculations used to develop TBEL limits: NA

8. Antidegradation Review (New/Expanding Discharge):
The objective of an antidegradation review is to ensure that a new or increased pollutant loading will not
degrade water quality. Permitting actions for new or expanding discharges require an antidegradation
review in accordance with 15A NCAC 2B.0201. Each applicant for a new/expanding NPDES permit must
document an effort to consider non-discharge alternatives per 15A NCAC 2H.0105(c)(2). In all cases,
existing instream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect the existing use is maintained
and protected.
Page 11 of 15

If applicable, describe the results of the antidegradation review, including the Engineering Alternatives
Analysis (EAA) and any water quality modeling results: NA

9. Antibacksliding Review:
Sections 402(o)(2) and 303(d)(4) of the CWA and federal regulations at 40 CFR 122.44(l) prohibit
backsliding of effluent limitations in NPDES permits. These provisions require effluent limitations in a
reissued permit to be as stringent as those in the previous permit, with some exceptions where limitations
may be relaxed (e.g., based on new information, increases in production may warrant less stringent TBEL
limits, or WQBELs may be less stringent based on updated RPA or dilution).
Are any effluent limitations less stringent than previous permit (YES/NO): No
If YES, confirm that antibacksliding provisions are not violated: NA

10. Monitoring Requirements
Monitoring frequencies for NPDES permitting are established in accordance with the following regulations
and guidance: 1) State Regulation for Surface Water Monitoring, 15A NCAC 2B.0500; 2) NPDES
Guidance, Monitoring Frequency for Toxic Substances (7/15/2010 Memo); 3) NPDES Guidance, Reduced
Monitoring Frequencies for Facilities with Superior Compliance (10/22/2012 Memo); 4) Best Professional
Judgement (BPJ). Per US EPA (Interim Guidance, 1996), monitoring requirements are not considered
effluent limitations under Section 402(o) of the Clean Water Act, and therefore anti-backsliding
prohibitions would not be triggered by reductions in monitoring frequencies.
For instream monitoring, refer to Section 4.
The Permittee has requested reduced monitoring frequencies for BOD5, TSS, Ammonia-N (NH3-N) and
Enterococci. Review of effluent data from June 2016 through June 2019 for the above parameters revealed
that the facility’s performance satisfies the criteria established in the “DWQ Guidance Regarding the
Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally Performing Facilities” and
justifies reduced monitoring for these parameters. Attached to the fact sheet is the Data Summary for
Reduced NPDES Permit Monitoring Frequency. Therefore, the reduced monitoring frequencies of 2/week
have been added to the permit for BOD5, TSS, NH3-N and Enterococci.

11. Electronic Reporting Requirements
The US EPA NPDES Electronic Reporting Rule was finalized on December 21, 2015. Effective December
21, 2016, NPDES regulated facilities are required to submit Discharge Monitoring Reports (DMRs)
electronically. Effective December 21, 2020, NPDES regulated facilities will be required to submit
additional NPDES reports electronically. Th is permit contains the requirements for electronic reporting,
consistent with Federal requirements.

Page 12 of 15

12.Summary of Proposed Permitting Actions:
A. Table. Current Permit Conditions and Proposed Changes 15.0 MGD
Parameter Current Permit Proposed Change Basis for Condition/Change
Flow MA 15.0 MGD No change 15A NCAC 2B .0505
Total Monthly
Flow
Monitor and Report Add monitoring and
reporting
Aid in calculating Total Nitrogen
loading.

BOD5 Summer:
MA 5.0 mg/L
DM 7.5 mg/L
Winter:
MA 10.0 mg/L
DM 15.0 mg/L

Monitor Daily
No change in limits.
Reduce monitoring to
2/week.
WQBEL. Based on 1992 Waste Load
Allocation (WLA) using Georgia
Estuary Model (GAEST) for
instream DO protection.
Monitoring Frequency Reduction
(MFR) criteria were met

TSS MA 30 mg/L
DM 45 mg/L

Monitor Daily
No change in limits.
Reduce monitoring to
2/week.
TBEL. Secondary treatment
standards/40 CFR 133 / 15A NCAC
2B .0406
MFR criteria were met
NH3-N Summer:
MA 2.0 mg/L
DM 10.0 mg/L
Winter:
MA 4.0 mg/L
DM 20.0 mg/L

Monitor Daily
No change in limits.
Reduce monitoring to
2/week.
WQBEL. Based on 1992 Waste Load
Allocation (WLA) using Georgia
Estuary Model (GAEST)
MFR criteria were met
DO ≥ 6 mg/L No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B
pH 6.8 – 8.5 SU No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0220
Total Residual
Chlorine
DM 13.0 µg/L No change WQBEL. EPA Nationally
Recommended Water Quality
Criteria for Salt Water, 2006.
Temperature Monitor Daily No change WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0200 and .0500
Enterococci MA 35 /100ml
WA 276 /100ml

Monitor Daily
No change in limits.
Reduce monitoring to
2/week.
WQBEL. State WQ standard, 15A
NCAC 2B .0220
MFR criteria were met
Total Nitrogen
(mg/L)
Monitor Weekly

No change For Total Nitrogen Load Calculation
and to comply with 15A NCAC 2B
Page 13 of 15

Total Nitrogen

Monitor monthly
251,356 (lbs/year)
No change WQBEL. in accordance with G.S
143-215.1c1 for NSW
Total Phosphorus Summer:
MA 0.5 mg/L
Winter:
MA 1.0 mg/L

No change in accordance with 1992 NSW
strategy for expanding discharges in
the New River
Oil and Grease MA 30.0 mg/l
DM 60.0 mg/l

No change Best Professional Judgment (BPJ)
Toxicity Test Chronic limit, 5%
effluent
No change WQBEL. No toxics in toxic
amounts. 15A NCAC 2B.0200 and
15A NCAC 2B.0500
Effluent Pollutant
Scan
3 times per permit cycle No change 40 CFR 122
Electronic
Reporting
No requirement Add Electronic
Reporting Special
Condition
In accordance with EPA Electronic
Reporting Rule 2015.
MGD – Million gallons per day, MA - Monthly Average, WA – Weekly Average, DM – Daily Max

13. Public Notice Schedule:

Permit to Public Notice: 01/19/2020

Per 15A NCAC 2H .0109 & .0111, The Division will receive comments for a period of 30 days following
the publication date of the public notice. Any request for a public hearing shall be submitted to the Director
within the 30 days comment period indicating the interest of the party filing such request and the reasons
why a hearing is warranted.

14. NPDES Division Contact:

If you have questions regarding any of the above information or on the attached permit, please contact
Cassidy Kurtz at (919) 707 - 3613 or via email at [e-mail].

15. Fact Sheet Addendum (if applicable):

Were there any changes made since the Draft Permit was public noticed (Yes/No): YES
If Yes, list changes and their basis below:

Page 14 of 15

Comment 1: Thank you for including the reduced monitoring frequency for effluent monitoring
(Condition A(1)), per the “Reduction of Monitoring Frequencies in NPDES Permits for Exceptionally
Performing Facilities” DWQ guidance. We would also like to respectfully request that the instream
monitoring frequency (Condition A(2)) be reduced to monthly.

Response: Per discussion with DWR Basin Planning, we are unable to complete this request at this time.

Comment 2: We respectfully request that Condition A(8) be amended/clarified to address other sources of
PFOS/PFOA-containing water, and not just be limited to remediation discharges. This would provide us
some flexibility to address future needs we are not yet aware of. Additionally, we request that the first
sentence of the Condition (“The Permittee shall not discharge groundwater remediation wastewaters
containing PFOS/PFOA compounds to their Wastewater Treatment Plant.”) be amended/clarified. As it is
currently written, it appears contradictory given that there ARE conditions when PFOS/PFOA-containing
water can be discharged to the WWTP (Condition A(9) for example). We have proposed some changes to
Condition A(8) below. Please note the proposed change to the title of Condition A(8) as well.

“A. (8.) GROUNDWATER DISCHARGES RESTRICITON
[G.S. 143-215.1(a)]
The Permittee shall not discharge groundwater remediation wastewaters or other wastewaters containing
PFOS/PFOA compounds to their Wastewater Treatment Plant unless the following condition is met: The
Permittee shall submit a revised application identifying such pollutants along with analytical results
which confirm the combined PFOS/PFOA detections are below 70 parts per trillion (ppt) or any other
Local, State, or Federal regulatory established level. If such pollutants have been detected in a
groundwater remediation waste stream or other waste stream, the Permittee shall submit a revised
application identifying such pollutants along with analytical results which confirm the combined
PFOS/PFOA detections are below 70 parts per trillion (ppt) or any other Local, State, or Federal
regulatory established level.”

Response: Special Condition A. (8.) has been updated per the permittee’s request.

Comment 3: Lastly, please note our current mailing address below:
COMMANDING GENERAL
ATTN: EMD
12 POST LANE
CAMP LEJEUNE NC 28547-2540

Page 15 of 15

16. Fact Sheet Attachments (if applicable):
• Data summary for reduced NPDES permit monitoring frequency
• Stream Stats Report
• Final 2016 Integrated Report for New River receiving stream
• RPA Spreadsheet summary/Saltwater
• Dissolved Metals Implementation/Saltwater
• NH3-N/TRC WLA
• Mercury evaluation
• Wet Testing summary results
• Monitoring Report Violations summary sheet
• History of WLA
• Description of CERCLA wastewater, RCRA remediation/corrective action wastewater
and other remedial activity wastewater.

Permit No. NC0063029
Page 1 of 3

NPDES Implementation of Instream Dissolved Metals Standards – Saltwater Standards
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC
Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US EPA subsequently
approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions. Therefore, metals limits in draft
permits out to public notice after April 6, 2016 must be calculated to protect the new standards - as
approved.
Table 1. NC Dissolved Metals Water Quality Standards/Aquatic Life Protection
Parameter Acute FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Chronic FW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Acute SW, µg/l
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, µg/l
(Dissolved)

Arsenic 340 150 69 36
Beryllium 65 6.5 --- ---
Cadmium Calculation Calculation 40 8.8
Chromium III Calculation Calculation --- ---
Chromium VI 16 11 1100 50
Copper Calculation Calculation 4.8 3.1
Lead Calculation Calculation 210 8.1
Nickel Calculation Calculation 74 8.2
Silver Calculation 0.06 1.9 0.1
Zinc Calculation Calculation 90 81
Table 1 Notes:
1. FW= Freshwater, SW= Saltwater
2. Calculation = Hardness dependent standard
3. Only the aquatic life standards listed above are expressed in dissolved form. Aquatic life
standards for Mercury and selenium are still expressed as Total Recoverable Metals due to
bioaccumulative concerns (as are all human health standards for all metals). It is still necessary
to evaluate total recoverable aquatic life and human health standards listed in 15A NCAC
2B.0200 (e.g., arsenic at 10 µg/l for human health protection; cyanide at 5 µg/L and fluoride at
1.8 mg/L for aquatic life protection).

General Information on the Reasonable Potential Analysis (RPA)
The RPA process itself did not change as the result of the new metals standards. However, application of
the dissolved metal standards requires additional consideration in order to establish the numeric standard
for each metal of concern of each individual discharge. Note that none of the saltwater standards are
hardness-dependent.
Metals limits must be expressed as ‘total recoverable’ metals in accordance with 40 CFR 122.45(c). The
discharge-specific standards must be converted to the equivalent total values for use in the RPA
calculations. We will generally rely on conversion factors determined by EPA (more on that below), but it
is also possible to consider case-specific translators developed in accordance with established
methodology.

RPA Permitting Guidance – Discharges to Saltwater (Tidal waters)
The RPA is designed to predict the maximum likely effluent concentrations for each metal of concern,
based on recent effluent data, and calculate the allowable effluent concentrations, based on applicable
standards and the stream dilution. For discharges to saltwater, no allowance for dilution is given unless a
dilution study, such as a CORMIX model, is performed.
If the maximum predicted value is greater than the maximum allowed value (chronic or acute), the
discharge has reasonable potential to exceed the standard, which warrants a permit limit in most cases. If
monitoring for a particular pollutant indicates that the pollutant is not present (i.e. consistently below
detection level), then the Division may remove the monitoring requirement in the reissued permit.
Permit No. NC0063029
Page 2 of 3

1. To perform a RPA using the saltwater dissolved metal standards, the Permit Writer compiles the
following information:
• Permitted flow
• Receiving stream classification
• Instream Wastewater Concentration, if a dilution model has been performed

2. The RPA spreadsheet converts the dissolved numeric standard (SW standards listed in Table 1.)
for each metal of concern to a total recoverable metal, using the EPA conversion factors
published in the June, 1996 EPA Translator Guidance Document. This method presumes that the
metal is dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA’s criteria development for metals.

3. The dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion
factor (or site-specific translator) to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions.

4. If a dilution study was performed on the receiving stream and an Instream Wastewater
Concentration (IWC) determined the RPA spreadsheet uses a mass balance equation to determine
the total allowable concentration (permit limits) for each pollutant using the following equation:

Ca = (s7Q10 + Qw) (Cwqs) – (s7Q10) (Cb)
Qw
Where: Ca = allowable effluent concentration (µg/L or mg/L)
Cwqs = NC Water Quality Standard or federal criteria (µg/L or mg/L)
Cb = background concentration: assume zero for all toxicants except NH3* (µg/L or mg/L)
Qw = permitted effluent flow (cfs, match 7Q10 units)
s7Q10 = summer, critical low flow (cfs)
* Discussions are on-going with EPA on how best to address background concentrations

Assuming no background concentration, this equation can be reduced to:

Ca = (s7Q10 + Qw) (Cwqs) or Ca = Cwqs
Qw IWC
Conversion Factors for Dissolved Metals
Metal Saltwater CMC
(Acute)
Saltwater CCC
(chronic)
Arsenic 1.000 1.000
Cadmium 0.994 0.994
Chromium VI 0.993 0.993
Copper 0.83 0.83
Lead 0.951 0.951
Mercury 0.85 0.85
Nickel 0.990 0.990
Selenium 0.998 0.998
Silver 0.85 —
Zinc 0.946 0.946

From: US EPA website, National Recommended Water Quality
Criteria - Aquatic Life Criteria Table
https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-
quality-criteria-aquatic-life-criteria-table#a

Permit No. NC0063029
Page 3 of 3

Where: IWC = Qw __ or __1__
Qw + s7Q10 D

and D = modelled dilution factor (unitless)

If no dilution study has been performed Ca, the allowable effluent concentration, is equal to the
Total Recoverable Metal determined at ambient conditions (ie. the dissolved numeric standard
divided by the EPA conversion factor (or site-specific translator) for the metal of concern). See
item # 3 above.

5. The permit writer enters the most recent 2-3 years of effluent data for each pollutant of concern.
Data entered must have been taken within four and one-half years prior to the date of the permit
application (40 CFR 122.21). The RPA spreadsheet estimates the 95th percentile upper
concentration of each pollutant. The Predicted Max concentrations are compared to the Total
allowable concentrations to determine if a permit limit is necessary. If the predicted max exceeds
the acute or chronic Total allowable concentrations, the discharge is considered to show
reasonable potential to violate the water quality standard, and a permit limit (Total allowable
concentration) is included in the permit in accordance with the U.S. EPA Technical Support
Document for Water Quality-Based Toxics Control published in 1991.

6. When appropriate, permit writers develop facility specific compliance schedules in accordance
with the EPA Headquarters Memo dated May 10, 2007 from James Hanlon to Alexis Strauss on
40 CFR 122.47 Compliance Schedule Requirements.

7. The Total Chromium NC WQS was removed and replaced with a hexavalent chromium standard.
As a cost savings measure, total chromium data results may be used as a conservative surrogate in
cases where there are no analytical results based on chromium VI. In these cases, the projected
maximum concentration (95th %) for total chromium will be compared against the water quality
standard chromium VI.
REQUIRED DATA ENTRY
Name WQS Type Chronic Modifier Acute PQL Units
Facility Name US Marine Corps Base - Camp Lejeune WWTP Par01 Arsenic Aquatic Life C 36 SW 69 ug/L
WWTP/WTP Class IV Par02 Arsenic Human Health C 10 HH ug/L
NPDES Permit NC0063029 Par03 Cadmium Aquatic Life NC 8.9 SW 40.2 ug/L
Outfall 001 Par04 Total Phenolic Compounds Aquatic Life NC 300 A 10 ug/L
Flow, Qw (MGD)15.000 Par05 Chromium VI Aquatic Life NC 50.4 SW 1107.8 ug/L
Receiving Stream New River Par06 Chromium, Total Aquatic Life NC N/A SW N/A ug/L
Stream Class SC Par07 Copper Aquatic Life NC 3.7 SW 5.8 ug/L
7Q10s (cfs)Modeled, Chronic Dilution Factor defined Par08 Cyanide Aquatic Life NC 1 SW 1 10 ug/L
7Q10w (cfs)Modeled, Chronic Dilution Factor defined Par09 Lead Aquatic Life NC 8.5 SW 220.8 ug/L
30Q2 (cfs)Modeled, Chronic Dilution Factor defined Par10 Mercury Aquatic Life NC 25 SW 0.5 ng/L
QA (cfs)Modeled, Chronic Dilution Factor defined Par11 Molybdenum Human Health NC 2.0 HH mg/L
1Q10s (cfs)Modeled, Chronic Dilution Factor defined Par12 Nickel Aquatic Life NC 8.3 SW 74.7 ug/L
CHRONIC IWC% = 5 Par13 Selenium Aquatic Life NC 71 SW ug/L
CHRONIC DILUITION FACTOR =20.0000 Par14 Silver Aquatic Life NC 0.1 SW 2.2 ug/L
Data Source(s)Par15 Zinc Aquatic Life NC 85.6 SW 95.1 ug/L
Par16
Par17
Par18
Par19
Par20
Par21
Par22
Saltwater RPA 95% Probablity/95% Confidence
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Saltwater streams are tidal resulting in all IWC % = 100%.
If an approved model is conducted then a chronic dilution
factor is determined and can be applied to a discharge to
calculate its IWC % . If a stream is classified as a SA or
ORW then its is also classified as a HQW. The appropriate
IWC % must be defined to properly calculate WQS-based
limits.
To apply a Model IWC%: Enter
the "Flow, Qw, (MGD)" and the
"CHRONIC DILUTION FACTOR
=" values and the CHRONIC
IWC% is calculated and
displayed. The CHRONIC IWC%
is automatically applied to
calculate the parameter's
Allowable Cw values both chronic
and acute.
Table 1. Project Information Table 2. Parameters of Concern
Data from 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 PPAs
NOTE: The aquatic life chronic and acute WQS for several metals are calculated based on EPA convers
see "Diss. SW stds. As TM" for more details and summary of calculated WQS..
CHECK IF HQW OR ORW WQS
SALTWATER RPA_63029_2019,input
1/3/2020
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - DATA
Total Phenolic Compounds Nickel
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 12/3/2013 5 5 Std Dev.4.5000 1 12/3/2013 14 14 Std Dev.4.3589
2 4/9/2014 14 14 Mean 7.2500 2 4/9/2014 10 10 Mean 8.5000
3 1/12/2015 <4 5 C.V. (default)0.6000 3 1/12/2015 <10 5 C.V. (default)0.6000
4 8/10/2016 6 5 n 4 4 8/19/2016 <10 5 n 4
5 5
6 Mult Factor =2.5900 6 Mult Factor =2.5900
7 Max. Value 14.0 ug/L 7 Max. Value 14.00 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 36.3 ug/L 8 Max. Pred Cw 36.26 ug/L

Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58

Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
SALTWATER RPA_63029_2019,data
Date}
REASONABLE POTENTIAL ANALYSIS - DATA
Zinc
Date Data BDL=1/2DL Results
1 12/3/2013 33 33 Std Dev.6.0759
2 4/9/2014 24 24 Mean 26.2500
3 1/12/2015 29 29 C.V. (default)0.6000
4 8/19/2016 19 19 n 4
5
6 Mult Factor =2.5900
7 Max. Value 33.0 ug/L
8 Max. Pred Cw 85.5 ug/L

Values" then "COPY"
. Maximum data
points = 58
SALTWATER RPA_63029_2019,data
Date}
US Marine Corps Base - Camp Lejeune WWTP Outfall 001
NC0063029 Saltwater RPA 95% Probablity/95% Confidence Qw = 15 MGD
MAXIMUM DATA POINTS = 58
Qw (MGD) = 15.00 WWTP/WTP Class:IV
1Q10S (cfs) = Modeled, Chronic Dilution Factor defined IWC% @ 1Q10S = 6.11678233
7Q10S (cfs) = Modeled, Chronic Dilution Factor defined IWC% @ 7Q10S = 5
7Q10W (cfs) = Modeled, Chronic Dilution Factor defined IWC% @ 7Q10W = 5
30Q2 (cfs) = Modeled, Chronic Dilution Factor defined IWC% @ 30Q2 = 5
Avg. Stream Flow, QA (cfs) = Modeled, Chronic Dilution Factor defined IWC% @ QA = 5
Receiving Stream:New River Stream Class:SC
PARAMETER
Chronic Applied
Standard Acute n # Det.Max Pred Cw
Acute:NO WQS
Total Phenolic Compounds NC 300 A(30Q2)10.0 ug/L 4 3 36.3
Note: n ≤ 9 Default C.V.Chronic:6,000.0
Limited data set No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:1221.23
Nickel NC 8.3 SW(7Q10s)74.7 ug/L 4 2 36.3
Note: n ≤ 9 Default C.V.Chronic:166.00
Limited data set No value > Allowable Cw
Acute:1554.7
Zinc NC 85.6 SW(7Q10s)95.1 ug/L 4 4 85.47
Note: n ≤ 9 Default C.V.Chronic:1712.0
Limited data set No value > Allowable Cw
CHRONIC TEST CONCENTRATION = DEFAULT %
= 90 %
RECOMMENDED ACTIONTYPE
(1)PQLUNITSNC STANDARDS OR EPA CRITERIA REASONABLE POTENTIAL RESULTS
Allowable Cw
No RPA
No RPA
No RPA
Page 4 of 5 SALTWATER RPA_63029_2019,rpa
1/3/2020
Saltwater - Total Recoverable Metal Standards for Aquatic Life Protection
Table 1. NC 2007-2015 Triennial Review Dissolved Metals Water Quality Standards converted to Total Recoverable Metals For Aquatic Life Protection
Saltwater CMC Saltwater CCC
(Acute)(chronic)
Arsenic 69 36 1 1 69 36
Cadmium 40 8.8 0.994 0.994 40.2 8.9
Chromium VI 1100 50 0.993 0.993 1107.8 50.4
Copper 4.8 3.1 0.83 0.83 5.8 3.7
Lead 210 8.1 0.951 0.951 220.8 8.5
Nickel 74 8.2 0.99 0.99 74.7 8.3
Silver 1.9 0.1 0.85 —2.2
Zinc 90 81 0.946 0.946 95.1 85.6
Table 1 Notes:
1. SW= Saltwater
2. EPA Conversion Factors from US EPA website, National Recommended Water Quality Criteria - Aquatic Life Criteria Table;
https://www.epa.gov/wqc/national-recommended-water-quality-criteria-aquatic-life-criteria-table#a
The NC 2007-2015 Water Quality Standard (WQS) Triennial Review was approved by the NC Environmental Management Commission (EMC) on November 13, 2014. The US
EPA subsequently approved the WQS revisions on April 6, 2016, with some exceptions.
The dissolved numeric standard for each metal of concern is divided by the EPA conversion factor to obtain a Total Recoverable Metal at ambient conditions. This method presumes that the metal
is dissolved to the same extent as it was during EPA’s criteria development for metals.
Acute SW, ug/l
(Dissolved)
Chronic SW, ug/l
(Dissolved)Parameter1
EPA Conversion Factors for
Dissolved Metals2 Acute SW, ug/l Chronic SW, ug/l
(Total Metal)(Total Metal)
2/28/2019 StreamStats
StreamStats Report
Region ID: NC
Workspace ID: NC20190228180827882000
Clicked Point (Latitude, Longitude): 34.63858,-77.34030
Time: 2019-02-28 13:08:43 -0500
.Verona
Basin Characteristics
Parameter Code
Parameter Description
Value
Unit
DRNAREA
Area that drains to a point on a stream
12
square miles
USGS Data Disclaimer: Unless otherwise stated, all data, metadata and related materials are considered to satisfy the quality
standards relative to the purpose for. which the data were collected. Although these data and associated metadata have
been reviewed for accuracy and completeness and approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), no warranty
expressed or implied is made regarding the display or utility of the data for other purposes, nor on all computer systems,
nor shall the act of distribution constitute any such warranty.
https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/ 1/2

2/28/2019
StreamStats
USGS Software Disclaimer: This software has been approved for release by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Although the
software has been subjected to rigorous review, the USGS reserves the right to update the software as needed pursuant to
further analysis and review. No warranty, expressed or implied, is made by the USGS or the U.S. Government as to the
functionality of the software and related material nor shall the fact of release constitute any such warranty. Furthermore,
the software is released on condition that neither the USGS nor the U.S. Government shall be held liable for any damages
resulting from its authorized or unauthorized use.
USGS Product Names Disclaimer: Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not
imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.
Application Version: 4.3.0
https://streamstats.usgs.gov/ss/ 2/2

Kc-. Final 2016 Integrated Report -All Assessed Waters
e (W New River Subbasin White Oak River Basin
Assessment Unit Name Assessment Unit Description
Assessment Unit Number Water Quality Classification Length/Area Units
New River
19-(15.5)
From Mumford Point to a line extending across the river from Grey
Point to point of land approximately 2200 yards downstream from
mouth of Duck Creek
SC;NSW
Criteria Status Reason for Rating Parameter of Interest
'Data Inconclusive
iData Inconclusive
Data Inconclusive
Meeting Criteria
Meeting Criteria
Meeting Criteria
Meeting Criteria
Meeting Criteria
_Meeting Criteria
Meeting Criteria
Meeting Criteria
Meeting Criteria
Meeting Criteria
Meeting Criteria
Meeting Criteria
Meeting Criteria
Meeting Criteria
Meeting Criteria
Meeting Criteria
data Inconclusive
6,580.6 S Acres
> 10% and < 90% conf
Nickel (8.3 µg/I, AL, SW)
> 10% and < 90% conf
Chromium (20 µg/l, AL, SW)
> 10% and < 90% conf
!Cadmium (5 µg/I, AL, SW)
.< 10%
:Lead (25 jig/I, AL, NC)
,< 10%
'Zinc (86 µg/I, AL, SW)
< 10%
:Mercury (0.012 µg/I, FC, FW)
< 10%
,Copper (3 µg/I, AL, SW)
< 10%
Chromium (20 µg/I, AL, SW)
< 10%
Arsenic (10 µg/I, HH, NC)
< 10%
:Nickel (8.3 µg/I, AL, SW)
< 10%
;Arsenic (50 µg/I, AL, NC)
< 10%
.-Chlorophyll a (40 µg/I, AL, NC)
< 10%
'Water Temperature (322C, AL, LP&CP)
< 10%
!'Dissolved Oxygen (5 mg/I, AL, SW)
< 10%
?pH (8.5, AL, SW)
< 10%
1pH (6.8 su, AL, SW)
< 10%
iTurbidity (25 NTU, AL, FW acres & SW)
< 10%
Pdmium (5 µg/I, AL, SW)
FCB AP GM<200 and <20%
Fecal Coliform (GM 200/400, REC, FW)
Not assessed
Iron (1000 µg/I, Natural, FW)
Category
3e
1b
1
3z1
4/11/2018 2016 Integrated Report -All Assessed Waters Page 1126 of 1306
Fish tissue assessments for mercury apply to all waters and are not individually listed

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Report Date:
12/18/19 Page:
1 of 4
Permit:
MRS Between
- -. -
Region:
Violation Category:
Program Category -
Facility Name:
Param Name
County:
Subbesin:
Violation Action:
Major Minor:
PERMIT:
FACILITY: Commanding officer Marine Corps ease Camp
COUNTY:
REGION: Wilmington
Lejeune -Frerichs Creek Advanced wwrP
MONITORING
REPORT
OUIVALL
LOCATION
PARAMETER
VIOLATION
FREQUENCY
UNIT OF
CALCULATED %
DATE
MEASURE
LIMIT VALUE Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
05-2018
001
Effluent
BOO, 5-Day (20 Deg. C)-
05114118
5 X weak
mgA
7.5 10 33.3
Daily Maximum
Procne¢ to NOV
Concentration
Exceeded
MonimdnD Violation
MONITORING
REPORT
OUTFALL
LOCATION
PARAMETER
VIOLATION
FREQUENCY
UNIT OF
CALCULATED %
DATE
MEASURE
LIMIT VALUE Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
12-2015
001
Effluent
Annual Pollutant Scan [126
12/31115
Annually
yes=1 no=0
Frequency Violation
No Action, Faclllty
parameters]
01 -2018
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-0ay (20 Deg. C) -
01/06/18
5 X week
mgA
Frequency Violation
Reporting Error
No Action, BPJ
Concentration
04 -2018
001
Effluent
BOO, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
04114/18
5 X week
mgA
Frequency Violation
Proceed to NOV
Concentration
09-2018
001
Effluent
SOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C)-
09/08/16
5 X week
m911
Frequency VIDILIUM
No Action, BPJ
Concentration
09 -2018
001
Effluent
SOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
09115/18
5 X week
mgA
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
Concentration
09-2018
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C)-
09=18
5 X weak
mgA
Frequency Vloletlon
No Action, BPJ
Concentration
09-2019
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C)-
09/07/19
5Xweek
mgA
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
Concentration
11 -2019
001
Effluent
BOD, 5-Day (20 Deg. C) -
11102/19
5 X week
mgA
Frequency Vlolatian
None
Concentration
01-2018
001
Effluent
Enlerococci
01116118
5 X week
clu1100ml
Frequency Vlolatlon
No Action, BPJ
01 -2018
001.
Effluent
Enlerococci
01/20118
5 X week
cful100ml
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
09_2018
001
Effluent
Enlera l
09115/18
5Xweek
fu/looml
Frequency
Vlolatlon
No Action, BPJ
09-2018
001
Effluent
Enlerococci
09/22/18
5Xweek
cfu110oml
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
09-2019
001
Effluent
Enlerococci
09/07119
5Xweek
cfu/100m1
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for
Report Date:
12/18119 Page:
2 of 4
Permit:
MRs Between
- and
Region:
Violation Cat
Facility Name:
Param Name
Program Category:
Major Minor:
County:
Subbain: sin:
Violation Action:
PERMIT:
FACILITY: Commanding officer Marine Corps Base Camp
LeJauna - Frerichs Creek Advanced WTP
COUNTY: Onslow
REGION: Wilmington
MONITORING
REPORT
OUTFALL
LOCATION
PARAMETER
VIOLATION
FREQUENCY
UNIT OF CALCULATED %
11 -2019
001
Effluent
—
DATE
LIMB
MEASURE VALUE Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
Enterocood
11102119
5 X week
UU/1001711
Frequency Violation
None
12-2016
001
Effluent
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
12/31116
5 X week
mg11
N)- Concentration
Frequency Violation
No Action, Facility
09-2018
001
Effluent
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
09/15/18
5 X week
mgn
Reporting Error
N) -Concentration
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
09-2018
001
Effluent
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
09122118
5Xvreek
mgll
- N) - Concentration
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
11-2019
Dot
Effluent
Nitrogen, Ammonia Total (as
11/02/19
5 X week
ng/f
N)- Concentration
Frequency Violation
None
09-2016
001
Effluent
Nitrogen, Total-
0922/18
Weekly
mgll
ConcentrationFrequency
Violallon
No Action, BPJ
11-2019
001
Effluent
Nitrogen, Total -
11/02/19
Weekly
mg8
Concentration
Frequency Violation
None
01-2018
001
Effluent
Oxygen, Disacived(Do)
01/06/18
5Xweek
mg8
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
01-2018
001
Effluent
Oxygen, Dissolved (DO)
0120118
5 X week
mgll
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
09-2018
(lot
Effluent
Oxygen, Dissolved (DO)
09115/18
5Xweek
mgll
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
09-2018
001
Effluent
Oxygen, Dissolved (DO)
09/22/18
5Xweak
mgll
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
09-2019
001
Effluent
Oxygen, Dissolved (DO)
09107/19
5Xweek
mgll
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
11-2019
001
Effluent
Oxygen, Dissolved (DO)
11102/19
5 X week
m g8
Frequency Violation
None
01_2018
001
Effluent
pH
01106118
5Xweek
su
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
01-2018
001
Effluent
pH
0120118
5Xweek
su
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
09-2018
001
Effluent
pH
09/15/18
5Xweek
su
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
09-2018
001
Effluent
PH
09/22/18
5Xweak
su
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
09-2019
001
Effluent
pH
09107/19
5Xweek
su
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Report Date:
12/18/19 Page:
3 of 4
Permit: VCO0630i
MRS Between
- and " • 2019
Region:
;:
Violation Category:
Program Category: .
Facility Name::.
Param Name
County:
Subbasin:
Violation Action:.
Major Minor..
PERMIT: .:0063029
FACILITY: Commanding Officer Marine Corps Base Cam
COUNTY: Onslow
REGION: Wilmington
Lejaune - Frerichs Creak AManeatl WWrP
Monitodn•1 Violation
MONITORING
REPORT OUTFALL
LOCATION
PARAMETER
VIOLATION
FREQUENCY
UNIT OF
CALCULATED %
LIMIT
DATE
MEASURE
VALUE Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
11.2019 001
Effluent
pH
11102119
5 X weak
sU
Frequency Violation
None
09-2018 001
Effluent
Phosphorus, Total (as P) -
09/22/18
Weekly
raga
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
Concentration
11 •2019 001
Effluent
Phosphorus, Total (as P) -
11102N9
Weekly
mg/I
Frequency Violation
None
Concentration
09-2018 001
Effluent
Solids, Total Suspended-
09/15118
SXweek
mg/I
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
Concentration
09-2018 001
Effluent
Solids, Total Suspended -
09/22/18
5 X week
mg/I
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
Concentration
09_2019 001
Effluent
Solids, Total Suspended -
09/07119
5 X week
mg/I
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
Concentration
11-2019 001
Effluent
Solids, Total Suspended-
11/02/19
5 X week
mgn
Frequency Violation
None
Concentration
01-2018 001
Effluent
Temperature, Water Deg.
01108118
5 X week
deg c
Frequency Violation
No Adlon, BPJ
Centigrade
01-2018 001
Effluent
Temperature, Water Deg.
01/20/18
5 X week
tleg c
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
Centigrade
09-2016 001
Effluent
Temperature, Water Deg.
09/15118
5 X week
deg c
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
Centigrade
09-2018 001
Effluent
Temperature, Water Deg.
09/22118
5 X week
deg c
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
Centigrade
09-2019 001
Effluent
Temperature, Water Deg.
09/07119
5 X wee,
deg c
Frequency Violation
No Action, BPJ
Centigrade
11-2019 001
Effluent
Temperature, Water Deg.
11102/19
5 X week
deg c
Frequency Violation
None
Centigrade
RQNging Violation
MONITORING
REPORT OUTFALL
LOCATION
PARAMETER
VIOLATION
FREQUENCY
UNIT OF
CALCULATED %
-
— —
DATE
MEASURE
LIMB
VALUE Ayer
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
03-2017 001A
05/01/17
Outfall Missing
No Action, Invalid
Penns

MONITORING REPORT(MR) VIOLATIONS for:
Report Date:
12/18/19 Page:
4 of 4
Permit: NCU083029
MRaBelween - and R^:n,;r�
Facility Name: -;
Param Name
Violation Category:
Program Category.
Major Minor: ��
County
Subbasin:
Violation Action:
PERMIT: NCDG63029
FACILITY: Commanding Orin— Marine Corps
Base Camp
Leeune-
1 Franchs Creek Advanced iNWfP
COUNTY: Onslow,
REGION: rMmington
Reporting Violation
MONITORING
REPORT OUTFALL
LOCATION PARAMETER VIOLATION
FREQUENCY
UNIT OF CALCULATED %
03-2017 0016
DATE
MEASURE LIMIT
VALUE Over
VIOLATION TYPE
VIOLATION ACTION
Dsrov17
03_2017 001C
Outfall Missing
NO Action, Invalid
05/01/17
Permit
Outfall Missing
No Action, Invalid
03-2017 001D
05/01/17
Permit
OuHall Missing
No Action, Invalid
03-2017 001E
05101117
Permit
03_2017 001E
Outfall Missing
No Action, Invalid
05I01/17
Permit
Outfall Missing
NOAction, Invalid
03-2017 001G
05101/17
Permit
03-2017 001H
Outfall Missing
NOActon, Invalid
06101/17
Permit
Oultall Missing
NO Action, Invalid
03 _2017 OD1J
05101/17
Permit
Outfall Missing
NOACHon, Invalid
Permit

Whole Effluent Toxicity Testing and Self Monitoring Summary
Unimin Corp. -Crystal Operation N00084620/001
County: Mitchell
Cer7dPF
Begin:
6/1/2012 chr lim: 2.OaA @ 0.55 NonComp: Single
2015
2016
2017
J
7.51
>8
>8
F M
A M
>8 -
>8
>a
2018 Pass
2019 Pass
Unimin-Schoolhouse(Mica)
NC0000361/001
Pass -
Pass -
County: Avery
Cer7dPF
Begin:
6/1/2012 chr lim: 10%
NonComp: Single
2015
2016
2017
J
28.3
F M
Pass -
Pass -
Pass -
A M
Pass Pass
- Pass
pass
2018 - Pass -
2019 - Pass -
Union County-12 Mile Creek WWTP NC00SS359/001
- Pass
- Pass
County: Union
Ceri7dPF
Begin:
1/1/2015 chr lim: 90%(for 6, 9, NonComp: Single
2015
J
-
F M
1—lid
A M
- Pass
2016
2017
Pass
Pass
- Pass >100IP)
Pass
2018
2019
>300(P)Pass -
Pass
-
- Pass
- Pass
United Chemi-Con
NC0000029/001
County: Ashe
Cer17dPF
Begin:
10/1/2016 chr lim: 0.75%, Episo NonComp: Single
2015
J
Pass
F M
- -
A M
Pass -
3016
2017
2018
Pass
Pass
Pass
- -
- -
- -
Pass -
Pass -
Pass
2019 Pass - -
USMC Camp Lejeune Hadnot Pt W WTP NCODS3029/001
Pass -
County: Onslow,
Mysd7dPF
Begin:
9/13/2013 chr lim: 5%
+ NonComp: Single
J
F M
A M
2015
2016
Pass"
Pass'
- -
Paw- -
Pase -
2017
2018
Pass/
Invalid
- -
Pass
Pass/' -
Pass" -
2019
20IP)
` 20(P) >201 PAY ,1
Pass- -
Region:
ARO
Basin: FRB06
Jan AprJul Oct
7010: 41
PF: 0.553 IWC: 1.3
Freq: Q
J
-
J
>8
>8
A
-
S
-
O
>8
>8 Pass
Region:
-
-
ARO
Pass
Pass
-
-
Basin: FRB06
-
-
Feb May Aug Nov
Pass
Pass
7Q10: 30
PF* 2.6 IWC: 10
Freq: Q
J
J
A
Pass
Pass
Pass
S
0
Region:
MRO
Pass
Pass
Basin: CTB38
Feb May Aug Nov
7Q10: 0.0
PF: 6.0 IWC: 100
Freq: Q
1
J
A
Pass
s
O
-
-
-
Pass
>100(P)Pass
Pass
-
-
Region:
WSRO
Pass
Basin: NEW02
Jan AprJul Oct
70,10: 41.0
PF: 0.2 IWC: 0.75
Freq: Q
J
J
Pass
Pass
Pass
A
-
-
S
-
-
O
Pass
Pass
Pass
•
Pass
Pass
-
-
Basin: WOK02
Pass
Jan AprJul Oct
Pass
Pass
Region:
WIRO
7Q10. TIDAL
PF: 15.0 IWC: 5
Freq: Q
I
J `/ A
s
0
- Invalid P�ass
-
Passim
Pass I
-
Pa.
-
Pass r-
-
Passim
-
Psas /
-
Pass
-
Pass !'
V
Legend: P= Fathead minnow (Pimphales promelas), H=No Flow (facility is active), s = Split test between Certified Labs
;z S,,sGG.leS
Page 113 of 121
SOC_JOC:
N D
soc JOC:
N D
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
SOC IOC;
N D
Pass
Pass
Pass
Pass
SOC_JOC;
N D
SOC IOC:
N D
- >zofPl Pass
1 .-

NH3/TRC WLA Calculations
Facility: Camp LeJeune Advanced W eune Advanced WWTP
PermitNo. NC0063029
Prepared By: Qais Banihani
Enter Design Flow (MGD):15
Enter s7Q10 (cfs):442
Enter w7Q10 (cfs):442
Total Residual Chlorine (TRC)Ammonia (Summer)
Daily Maximum Limit (ug/l)Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/l)
s7Q10 (CFS)442 s7Q10 (CFS)442
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)15 DESIGN FLOW (MGD)15
DESIGN FLOW (CFS)23.25 DESIGN FLOW (CFS)23.25
STREAM STD (UG/L)17.0 STREAM STD (MG/L)1.0
Upstream Bkgd (ug/l)0 Upstream Bkgd (mg/l)0.22
IWC (%)5.00 IWC (%)5.00
Allowable Conc. (ug/l)340 Allowable Conc. (mg/l)15.8
Ammonia (Winter)
Monthly Average Limit (mg NH3-N/l)
Fecal Coliform w7Q10 (CFS)442
Monthly Average Limit:200/100ml DESIGN FLOW (MGD)15
(If DF >331; Monitor)DESIGN FLOW (CFS)23.25
(If DF<331; Limit)STREAM STD (MG/L)1.8
Dilution Factor (DF)20.01 Upstream Bkgd (mg/l)0.22
IWC (%)5.00
Allowable Conc. (mg/l)31.8
Total Residual Chlorine
1. Cap Daily Max limit at 28 ug/l to protect for acute toxicity
Ammonia (as NH3-N)
1. If Allowable Conc > 35 mg/l, Monitor Only
2. Monthly Avg limit x 3 = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals)
3. Monthly Avg limit x 5 = Daily Max limit (Non-Munis)
If the allowable ammonia concentration is > 35 mg/L, no limit shall be imposed
Fecal Coliform
1. Monthly Avg limit x 2 = 400/100 ml = Weekly Avg limit (Municipals) = Daily Max limit (Non-Muni)

8/6/19 WQS = 25 ng/L
Facility Name
/Permit No. ;Camp Lejeune WWTP / NC0063029
Total Mercury 1631E PQL = 0.5 ng/L
Date Modifier Data Entry Value
17/Z/12
witKLUKY WQBEL/TBEL EVALUATION
V:2013-6
No Limit Required
No MMP Required
7Q10s = 442.000 cfs WQBEL = 500.27 ne/L
- WSb/ 0.867 4/ ng/L
4/9/14 < 0.5 0.5 0.9 ng/L -Annual Average for 2013
1/12/15 0.622 0.622 0.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2014
8/19/16 c 0.5 0.5 0•6 ng/L - Annual Average for 2015
0.5 ng/L - Annual Average for 2016

Camp Lejeune WWTp / NCO063029
Mercury Data Statistics (Method 1631 E)
it of Samples
2013 2014
2015 2016
Annual Average, ng/L
1 1
1 1
Maximum Value, ng/L
0.9 0.5
0.6 0.5
TBEL, ng/L
0.87 0.50
0.62 0.50
WC�BEL, ng/L
47
500.3

Data Summary for Reduced NPDES Permit Monitoring Fre uencN-
Facility name: Camp Lejeune Advanced WWTP
Permit number: NCO063029
Data review period: 6/2016 to 6/2019
Approval Criteria:
1. Facility has more than one civil penalty for permit limit violations?
NO
2. Currently under SOC?
NO
3. Facility or employees convicted of CWA violations?
NO
200%
# daily
#daily
Monthly
Daily
o
can
MA
samples
0
>200 /o
< 20? 200% samples
# of non -
Data Review
average
Maximum
50 /o
MA
(geometric
< 50%?
(BODs�
MA
<15?
WA >200%
(Enteroc
monthly
< 2?
(MA) limit
(DM) limit
mean for
TSS,
BOD
(Entero WA
occi)
limit
Enterococci)
NH3-
TSS, NH3-occi)
(Enteroc
violations
N)
occi)
N1
Total Suspended Solids
30
45
15
.3
OK
60
0
OK
0
OK
N113-N (summer)
2
10
1
0.5
OK
4
0
OK
0
OK
NH3-N (winter)
4
20
2
0.5
OK
8
0
OK
0
OK
NH3-N (combined)1
2.8 2
14.2 2
1.4
0.5
1 OK
5.6
1
OK
0
OK
BOD5 (summer)
5
7.5
2.5
1.20
OK
10
1
OK
1
OK
BOD5 (winter)
10
15
5.0
1.10
OK
20
U
OK
0
OK
BOD5 (combined) 1
7.1 2
10.6 2
3.6
1.00
OK
14.2
0
OK
1
UK
Enterococci
35/100
276/100 3
17.5
2.30
UK
0 OK
0
OK
1 Per DWQ Guidance Regarding the Reduction in Monitoring Frequencies (memo, 10/22/2012), data with seasonal limits must be compared against a weighted average annual limit
2 Weighted Average Annual Limit
3 Weekly Average (WA)
Approval Criteria Met:
1) this facility has not received a civil penalty for a permit violation of the target parameters in the last three years
2) Neither the permittee nor any of its employee have been convicted of criminal violation of the CWA within the previous five years

3) This facility is not under an SOC for target parameter effluent limit noncompliance
4) Three year arithmatic mean is less than fifty percent of the monthly average permit limit for BOI?, TSS and NH3-N
5) Three year geametric mean is less than fifty percent of the monthly average permit limit for Enterococci
6) Less than 15 daily sampling results over the three year review period are in excess of 200% of the monthly average for BOI?, TSS and NH3-N
7) Less than 20 daily sampling results over the three year review period are in excess of 200% of the daily maximum for enterococci
8) This facility has not received any non -monthly average limit violations in the past year for the four target parameters

Camp Lejeune WWTP
NC0063029
Qw=15.0 MGD
New River "SC"
03-05-02
AHM 8/21/97
History of WLA
Camp Lejeune operates seven facilities discharging into the New River or
adjacent waters. Four of them discharge into a NSW area, including outfalls in Northeast
Creek and in the New River just upstream of Wilson Bay. The seven WWTPs are being
consolidated into a single advanced treatment facility which will be constructed at the site
of the current Hadnot Point plant.
00% domestic effluent. The newPoint ant has a permit l5 MGD plantto
discharge 8.0 MGD of treated 1 `
is
scheduled for completion by December, 1998.
The USMC was issued a 15 MGD permit for the new plant which became
effective January 1, 1995. This WLA (#8528) is for a renewal of the 15 MGD permit and
will be issued as a five year permit on the White Oak Basin Plan schedule.
Betsy Johnson conducted the original WLA modeling using the Georgia Estuary
Model (GAEST). A summary report on the modeling analysis was completed in Dec. GOON! 1
1992 and recommended that summer limits of BOD5=5 mg/L and NH3-N=2 m5 would
protect water quality standards under certain reaeration conditions. The odeling wor
suggested nutrient limits which would be considerably less than what could be achieved
using current treatment technology. Therefore, a TP limit of 0.5 mg/L was recommended
in the report in accordance with the NSW strategy for expanding discharges in the New
River drainage. BPJ was used to recommend
the saltwatele r llimits
mo t c criteria of (o�5 ug 1
ug/L chlorine limit was recommended based
and a dilution factor of 2.5:1 calculated using CORMIX. This dilution factor was later
modified but the chlorine limit remained unchanged. An Oil and Grease limit was
recommended based on information
u�aceshaI Cthe
an findplant
no otherinform tion on thestorm water runoff
O&G limit.
presumably from impervious s
The Division of Marine Fisheries (DMF) expressed concerns about changes in
salinity in the vicinity of the discharge. DMF suggested that a salinity_change of <= 3
ppm would be desirable. In 1995 Jim Blose used CORMIX to evaluate diffuser designs
proposed by the USMC and determined that a diffuser providing a 20:1 dilution ratio
would satisfy the DMF's salinity criteria.
In light of the eutrophication problems in the New River, extensive instream
monitoring was recommended at numerous stations up and downstream of the discharge
for both the 8 and 15 MGD permits.

Attachment F
PART F. INDUSTRIAL USERS AND RCRA/CERCLA WASTES
F.13, F.14, and F.15 Data
OTHER WASTEWATER:
ONWASA:
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the "other" waste originates (or is expected to originate in the next five years).
ONWASA can •rovide untreated sanitary waste -generated from single and multiple; esidences. hotels mnteis. bunkhouses ranger stations crew uarters
cam rounds picnic grounds and day -use recreation areas or wastewater effluent from sources that enerate less than one hundred 100 kil rams of
hazardous waste mr month.
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if known.
(Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
See Attachment F 14C for ONWASA was —water anal tical results.
F.15. Waste Treatment.
b. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
Yes `c` No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
® Continuous Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
The flaw rate is aoaroximatel.
Naval Medical Center NMC :
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the "other" waste originates (or is expected to originate in the next five years).
The Naval Medical Center contains administrative areas Qrimary care and snecialta• taro clinics a laboratory and dirinn servicF-
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if known.
(Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Waste flows from the Naval Medical Center are not metered or routinel sampled -,ardous waste as well as reoulated medical waste. is stored
appropriately and transported offsite
F.15. Waste Treatment
a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
Yes .. No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
® Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
The flow rate is estimated at 0 15-0 2 MGD
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

Oil Water Separators (OWS)
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the "other" waste originates (or is expected to originate in the next five years).
There are aonroximateN 170 OWS at MCB CAMLEJ. OWS are typically used in concert with vehicle/aircraft washin • areas vehicle/aircraft maintenance
areas and fuel stor a/transfer areas. They are designed to separate petroleum, oil and lubricants POLsi and suspended solids Irom wastewater flows.
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if known.
(Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Waste flows from OWS are not routinely sampled.
F.15. Waste Treatment.
a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
Yes R: No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
0 Continuous 0 Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
F. stimated OWS flow rates range from 5-50(kwm, Waste flows vary siqni5�ntiv and are de ndent u on the mission and precicitation.
Landfill Leachate:
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the "other" waste originates (or is expected to originate in the next five years).
MCB CAMLEJ operates a Subtitle D Municipal Solid Waste Landfill Faciiit MSWLF . The MSWLF has a permitted caUacity of 4 089.000 cubic yards,
Samples are taken from collected leachate semiannual) and anal zed.
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if known.
(Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
e018 landfill leachate anal.tical result:
F.15. Waste Treatment.
a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
Yes ® No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
D Continuous L Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
The flow rate is estimated at 0.01-0.19 MGD. Waste flow is primarily dependent on precipitatio,
Compost Runoff:
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the "other" waste originates (or is expected to originate in the next five years).
MCB CAMLEJ operates aType 3 Solid Waste Compost Facility SWCF The SWCF is appruximately 2.5 acres and is permitted to compost combinations
of wood waste. foot waste yard waste horse manure got consumer paper. cardboard and wood ash. The compost pad i5 ayproximately 90.000 s uare
feet. Active compost ost windrows are sampled and analyzed every 20 000 tons or six months. whichever comes first.
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if known.
(Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
See Attachment F.14B for the most recent com ost windrow anal ui
F.15. Waste Treatment
a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

Yes 0 No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
Is the discharge (or will the discharge tie) continuous or intermittent?
Continuous El Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
The flow rate is estimated at 0.01 MGD. Waste flow is Eii rimarif de Ident on precipitatior.
Water Treatment Plant Backwash:
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the "other" waste originates (or is expected to originate in the next five years).
MC6 CAMLEJ o prates four water treatment plants W"i Ps - Filter backwash from each WTP discharges to holdi nds/ its then to the sanitary sewer.
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if known.
(Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Finished water is used to backwash the WTP filters. Backwash flows are not routinely,sam led.
F.15. Waste Treatment.
a. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
Yes No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
Continuous , Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
The flow rate is estimated at 0 13 MGD. WTP filters area icallr backwashed daily on an as -needed basis to maximize efficien . .
CERCLA (SUPERFUND) WASTEWATER, RCRA REMEDIATION/CORRECTIVE ACTION WASTEWATER, AND
OTHER REMEDIAL ACTIVITY WASTEWATER:
Treatment System Flow Diagrams and Discharge Standards/Remedial Goal Tables for Remedial Treatment
Plant Sites: 1) IR Site 78 North; 2) IR Site 78 South; 3) AS-4141; 4) HPFF South East Compound; 5) New River
PPV; 6) TC-341 Pipeline; and Rapid Refueler.
Installation Restoration Pro ram Site 78.
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is expected to originate in the next
five years).
u-umanon mesroraaon IRS Pr ram Site 78 covers much of the Hadnot Point Industrial Area. There are two roundwnter pli imps—th two ro ndwater
treatment s stems identified as the North and South Plants. Groundwater from each olume beingcollected throug h extraction wells and treated p nor to
discharge.
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if known.
(Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Benzene Dichloroethene total Eth (benzene Tetrachloroethene Toluene Tr,chloroethene V,n I Ghloride X lenes totah
F.15. Waste Treatment.
b. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
Yes -' No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

Oil water separation, yH adiustment flocculation clarification. sand filtration packed tower air strippinp and granular activated carbon adsorption.
?See Attached Flow Diagram and Dischame Standards/Remedial Goals Tables for IR Site 78 North and South Plants
Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
® Continuous ❑ Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
Flow rates from both the North and South IR Site 78 groundwater treatment planet typically ran_iu Prom 1-7 5 oom with a max of 12 oom.
RCRA Site AS-4141:
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is expected to originate. in the next
five years).
Buildin AS-4141 is located aboard MCAS New River in Jacksonville. North Carolina. Contamination at the site resulted from leaks in fuel transfer lines.
Groundwater is bein^ extracted by a network of 10 extraction wells and treated Prior to dischagr
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if known.
(Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Benzene Toluene, 1-Methvinaohthalene_ 2-Methyloaphthalene Naphthalene Lead Perfluorobutanesulfonicacid iPFBS1. Perfluorodecanoic Acid iPFDA
Perfluoroheptanoic acid l PFHoAI. Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid I I'FHxSi Perfluorohexanoic Add_ PFf HxA) Perfluorononanoic acid f PFNAI.
Perfluorwc-tane Suffonate P{ FOS). _ Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)
F.15. Waste Treatment
c. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
® Yes — No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
The waste i4 retr .ated via oil water se r t n. acked tower air stripping and bag filter units, to remove solids prior to dischar e. fSee Attached Flow
Diagram and Discharge Standards/Remedial Goals Table for AS-4141 Treatment System
Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ® Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
Flow rates from the AS-414' giroundwater treatment system IyQically range uum 1-7.5 qpm with a max of 12 gpm
RCRA Site HPFF South East Compound:
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is expected to originate in the next
five years).
This site is located in the vi-cinity of a former fuel farm c ration within the Hadnot Point Industrial Area of the Base where multiple petroleum releases
oecu•-Iq Groundwater is aumaed and treated from a network of 7 recovery wells.
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if known.
(Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Acetone. 2-Butanone r^-B1n. Ibenzene sec-60Ibenzene Benzene Toluene Eth the ,zene X Ienes Na hthaiene. Ethylene Dibromide Meth !
Ether 1 1 Dichloroethane. 1 2-Dic.hloroethane 1 1-Dicnloroeth lene Diisopropyl Ether Is r Ibenzene -Is r (toluene. n-Propylbenzene
Tetrachloroethvlene 1 4-Trimethylbenzene 1.3 5-Trimethylbenzene. Lead 1.2-Dibromoethane.
F 15. Waste Treatment
d. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
® Yes ❑ No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
Water is first treated with an oil water separator followed by a settlino tank air stripper diffusers. and then fl , nally an iron/solids removals stem i See
Attached Flow Diagram and Discha a Standards/Remedial Goals Table for the HPFF Treatment S stem
Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
0 Continuous ® Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

Flow rates from the HPFF roundwater treatments stem typically range from <1 m u to 30 m.
RCRA Site New River PPV:
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is expected to originate in the next
five years).
New River PPV iE located off Robert Wilson Boulevard aboard MCAS New River in Jacksonville. North Carolina. The sources of contamination were two
undo round stcra e tanks associated with former Buildi CG-1 cxntainiRjus2effdJQil and heating ail.
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if known.
(Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Acetone Benzene n-But (benzene sec -But (benzene Eth (benzene. lsoprcp-i (benzene p-isoprolp (toluene n-Pro (benzene 12 4-Trimeth (benzene
13 5-Trimeth (benzene Toluene X lenes. Acenanhthene Dihenzofuran Fluorene 1-Meth Ina hthalene. 2-Meth Ina hthalene Naphthalene.
Phenanthrene
F.15. Waste Treatment.
e. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
Yes No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
Oil water sk: aration air stri in Sri Arracnea Flow Diag ram and Discha e Standards/Remedial Goals Table for the New River PPV Treatment
System;
Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous — Intermittent if intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
Flow rates horn the PPV groundwater treatment s stem icall ra a from <1 m up to 32 Qprr
RCRA Site TC-341 Pipeline•
F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is expected to originate in the next
five years).
Site TC-341 is located north of Buildi G-480 aboard Camp Geiger in Jacksonville North Carolina. The source of contamination was a former MIQ, -1;
used to transfer No. 6 fuel oil and kerosene from the Camp Gei- er Fuel Farm to a former mess hall heatin last.
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if known.
(Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
4-Isopro • (toluene Benzene Eth (benzene Toluene Diiso r viEther Na hthalene Trichloroethene Vin I chloride cis- 1.2-Dichloroethene n-
Pro Ibenzene. Acena hthene. Anthracene, Fluorene Phenanthrene. 1-Meth In hthalene 2-Meth Ina hthalene
F.15. Waste Treatment
f. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
Yes No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
Oil water separation air stri in and b filtration. See Attached Flow Din— and Discharge Standards/Remedial Goals Table for the TC-341
Treatment System
Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
L, Continuous El Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
Flow rates from the TC-341 roundwater treatments stern t icall ran e from 10 to 15 m
RCRA Site Rapid Refueler:
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information

F.13. Waste Origin. Describe the site and type of facility at which the CERCLA/RCRA/or other remedial waste originates (or is expected to originate in the next
five years).
The Ra •id Refueler site is located aboard MCAS New River in Jacksonville North Carolina. Contamination at the site resulted from leaks in fuel transfer
lines. Groundwater is beinq extracted bv vacuum trucks (Agpressive FluidNapar Extraction from a network of groundwater extraction wells and then taken
to an oil/water (00) separator prior to discharge.
F.14. Pollutants. List the hazardous constituents that are received (or are expected to be received). Include data on volume and concentration, if known.
(Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
Acenaphthene_ Naphthalene_ Fluorene 1-Methylnaohthalene 2-Methvinaohthalene Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid tPFBSI Perfluorodecanoic Acid iPFDA;
Perfluoroheptanoic acid iPFHr.AI. Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid f PFHxSr Perfluorohexanoic Acid WFHxAh Perfiuorononanoic acid tPFNAI.
Perfluorooctane Suffonate tPFOSI Perfluorooctanoic acid tPF04
F.15. Waste Treatment.
g. Is this waste treated (or will be treated) prior to entering the treatment works?
-, Yes No
If yes, describe the treatment (provide information about the removal efficiency):
the waste wa- are pretreated via oil water separation, I See Attached Diagram and Discharge Standards/Remedial Goals Table for the Raid
Refueler Situ.
Is the discharge (or will the discharge be) continuous or intermittent?
❑ Continuous ® Intermittent If intermittent, describe discharge schedule.
Approximately 10,050 Gal/Month of wastewaters are discharged to on -Site OAN Separator attached to the Sanitary Sewer
NPDES FORM 2A Additional Information