CBP/TRS 8593
February 4,1993
1985 Baseline Point Source
Load Inventory
1991 Reevaluation
Report No. 2
-------
1985 Baseline Point Source
Load Inventory
February 1993
1991 Reevaluation
Report No. 2
Produced under contract to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Contract No. 68-WO-0043
Printed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program
-------
19 85 Baseline Point Source Load Inventory
Table of Contents
Page
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iii
I. Background 1
II. Purpose 1
III. Estimation of Municipal and Industrial Point Source Loads
by State 1
A. Maryland 1
B. Virginia 5
C. Pennsylvania 7
D. District of Columbia 8
IV. Point Sources Not Covered in the 1985 Baseline 9
A. Bypasses 9
B. Combined Sewer Overflows 11
C. Stormwater 14
V. References 18
VI. Appendix I 1985 Plant Loadings 19
ii
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is one in a series of reports produced as part of
the 1987 Bay Agreement Commitment to re-evaluate the 40% nutrient
reduction goal.
It finalizes and documents the Chesapeake Bay Agreement
states' 1985 point source nutrient load estimates initially
presented in the "Baywide Nutrient Reduction Strategy" (BNRS). The
Bay Agreement states include Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and
the District of Columbia.
It also documents progress towards the point source nutrient
reduction goal and includes 1985 point source nutrient load
estimates for non-Chesapeake Bay Agreement states including New
York, West Virginia and Delaware.
Each of the states' final, annual, discharged, 19 85 point
source total phosphorus and total nitrogen nutrient load estimates
are presented in Table 1. These estimates are to serve as the
point source baseline for the year 2000 40% nutrient reduction
goal. Facility by facility flows, nutrient concentrations and
nutrient loads for 1985 from above the fall line (AFL) and from
below the fall line (BFL) are presented in Appendix I.
Table 2 presents the percent change in the 1985 baseline loads
for each of the Bay agreement states relative to 1991. Estimates
of 1991 nutrient loads are not available for non-agreement states
at this time.
Both Maryland and Virginia have achieved a 40% reduction in
their total phosphorus loads and have made some progress towards
reducing total nitrogen loads. Pennsylvania and the District of
Columbia have made very significant progress towards the 40% total
phosphorus reduction goal, but have not yet achieved it. The
District of Columbia had a slight decrease in its total nitrogen
load, while the Pennsylvania total nitrogen load has increased.
There are significant differences between the estimates
presented in Table 1 and the initial estimates presented in the
BNRS. These differences are due to:
o using discharged or "end-of-pipe" loads for above the fall line
dischargers in Virginia and Pennsylvania;
o re-allocating a portion of the Blue Plains STP nutrient load
from the District of Columbia to Maryland; and
o refining estimates of point source effluent concentrations for
several Maryland municipal and industrial dischargers.
iii
-------
TABLE 1. DISCHARGED STATE 1985 POINT SOURCE NUTRIENT BASELINE
LOADS {LBS/YEAR}
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
STATE AFL BFL TOTAL
Bay Agreement states
Maryland 861,158 1,851,581 2,712,739
Virginia 1,162,559 4,015,479 5,178,038
Pennsylvania 3,548,497 -0- 3,548,497
District of Col. -o- 107.735 107.735
SUBTOTAL 5,572,214 5,974,795 11,547,009
Non-Bav Agreement-, states
New York
West Virginia
Delaware
1,212,065
93,845
-o-
1,305,910
-0-
-0-
3$,94Q
36,840
1,212,065
93,845
36.840
1,342,750
TOTAL
6,878,124
6,011,635
12,889,759
Bav Agreement states
Maryland
Virginia
Pennsylvania
District of Col.
SUBTOTAL
TOTAL NITROGEN
AFL BFL
3,609,579
5,218,586
14,339,441
23,167,606
28,920,053
31,290,989
6,56Q,43P
68,771,472
TOTAL
32,529,632
36,509,575
14,339,441
8-560.430
91,939,078
Non-Bav Agreement States
New York 4,343,080 - 4,343,080
West Virginia 231,433 - 231,433
Delaware - 86.759 86.759
SUBTOTAL 4,574,513 86,759 4,661,272
TOTAL 27,742,119 68,858,231 96,600,350
XV
-------
TABLE 2,
STATE
ESTIMATED PERCENT REDUCTIONS IN DISCHARGED STATE 1985
POINT SOURCE NUTRIENT BASELINE LOADS, RELATIVE TO 1991
Maryland
Virginia
Pennsylvania (1)
District of Col.
New York (2)
West Virginia (2)
Delaware (2)
STATE
Maryland
Virginia
Pennsylvania (1)
District of Col.
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS
TOTAL
-50
-44
-29
-37
N/A
N/A
N/A
TOTAL NITROGEN
TOTAL
-19
- 7
+ 22
- 4
New York (2) N/A
West Virginia (2) N/A
Delaware (2) N/A
(1) Based on 1990 data
(2) Data not available
NA = Not Available
The load estimates presented in the BNRS are loads delivered
to the fall line and represent discharged loads that have been
reduced through chemical and physical transformations as they are
transported from the "end-of-pipe" to the fall line. The final AFL
nutrient load estimates presented here for Virginia and
Pennsylvania point sources appear greater than those in the BNRS
because they represent discharged or "end-of-pipe" loads. This
significantly increases the load estimates from Pennsylvania which
is located above the fall line. Specifically, phosphorus and
nitrogen benchmark loads increase 22 7% and 104% respectively.
There is no change in the District of Columbia's point source
nutrient load estimates from confirmed sewer overflows (CSOs). The
total nitrogen load from Blue Plains increases 0.4% and the total
phosphorus load increases 3.9% due to the slightly increased
nutrient effluent concentrations.
v
-------
Another factor for the differences in the state loads presented
in Table 1 and those in the BNRS is re-allocation of the nutrient
load from the District of Columbia's Blue Plains STP. The Blue
Plains STP is a regional wastewater treatment plant located in the
District of Columbia that treats and discharges municipal waste
generated in the District and surrounding Maryland and Virginia
suburbs. The revised estimates presented in Table l re-assigns
5,640,900 pounds of nitrogen and 47,423 pounds of phosphorus from
the District of Columbia's annual nutrient load to Maryland's to
reflect that state's contribution of 119 MGD of wastewater to Blue
Plains for treatment. The contribution from Virginia is much
smaller and not re-assigned.
Distinct from the increased loads resulting from re-allocation of
the Blue Plains nutrient load, Maryland nitrogen and phosphorus
load estimates presented in Table 1 are 3% greater and 14% less,
respectively, than the estimates presented in the BNRS. The
increase in Maryland's baseline nitrogen load estimate results from
revised estimates of industrial nitrogen loads. The decrease in
the phosphorus load estimate results from reduced effluent
concentrations at three municipal plants and one industrial plant.
The report examines sources not included in the BNRS such as
combined sewer overflows (CSOs), bypasses and stormwater. The
report concludes that, with the exception of the District of
Columbia, inadequate data is available to characterize 1985 CSO
nutrient loads and recommends that municipalities with CSOs
characterize their nutrient loads and report progress in
controlling them through the annual BNRS progress reports. A
similar conclusion and recommendation is reached regarding bypasses
but without the District of Columbia exclusion. Estimates of
stormwater nutrient loads, as developed for urban land use by the
watershed model are not included here but presented in Report #1 of
the 1991 Re-evaluation, "Nonpoint Source Nutrient Load Inventory."
The report summarizes the Clean Water Act of 1987 requirements for
stormwater control and identifies the jurisdictions subject to the
requirements.
The report documents each state's methodology to estimate
nutrient loads from industrial and municipal sources and recommends
continued development and implementation of nutrient monitoring and
centralized reporting.
vi
-------
1985 Baseline
Point Source Load Inventory
I. Background
This report is one in a series of reports produced as part of the
1991 Reevaluation of the 40% nutrient reduction goal established by
the Chesapeake Bay Agreement of 1987. It finalizes the states'
1985 point source nutrient load estimates initially presented in
the "Baywide Nutrient Reduction Strategy" (BNRS) and used as the
baseline for the 40% reduction.
The BNRS (Chesapeake Executive Council, 1988) establishes 1985
baseline nutrient loading estimates for point and nonpoint sources
for Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and the District of Columbia.
Estimates of point source nutrient loads for New York, West Vir-
ginia, and Delaware were not included in the BNRS but are included
here to provide a total accounting of point source loads basinwide.
II. Purpose
The major purpose of this report is to revisit the 1985 municipal
and industrial point source loadings used in the BNRS and to con-
firm or modify these loadings based on more recent and more accu-
rate estimates. In addition, this report documents each state's
methodologies for estimating 1985 point source loads, documents
progress towards the nutrient reduction goal through 1991 and
considers point sources not covered in 1985 point source load
estimates including: combined sewer overflows (CSOs), stormwater,
and bypasses at municipal plants. Appendix I presents the individ-
ual facility annual flows and nutrient loads that serve as the 1985
point source baseline. Assignment of discharges to model segment,
the actual loading by segment input to the watershed and time
variable 3-D water quality models and delivery ratios for each
model segment are included in the model documentation (Donigian, et
al 1992) .
III. Estimation of Municipal and Industrial Point Source Loads
by State
A. MARYLAND. The 1985 Maryland nutrient load estimates provided
in this report were extracted from a comprehensive data set of
Maryland point source dischargers covering the time period 1984 to
1989 (Legg 1991) .
-------
1. Scope. The total average daily flows incorporated in
Maryland's point source load estimate for 1985 are majors 357 MGD;
minors 19 MGD; and industrials 191 MGD. Maryland municipal plants
are divided into "major" and "minor" categories. A major municipal
plant is defined as one having a discharge flow of 0.5 million
gallons per day (MGD) or greater.
The number of municipal and industrial discharges included in the
analysis for 1985 are majors 43; minors 239; and industrials 19.
a. Municipal. Maryland municipal point source load
estimates include all sewage treatment plants (STPs) afl or BFL
discharging more than 1,000 gallons per day (0.001 MGD). Maryland
also includes in the 1985 baseline 120 MGD of wastewater discharged
by the Blue Plains STP, located in the District of Columbia, which
treats and discharges waste generated in Maryland and Virginia
suburbs surrounding the District. In Maryland, this amounts to 130
pounds of total phosphorus and 15,455 pounds of total nitrogen dis-
charged daily. In this report, the Blue Plains nutrient loads will
be allocated between Maryland and the District of Columbia based on
their contribution of wastewater; nutrient loads from Virginia
suburbs are relatively minor and are not allocated to the Virginia
1985 baseline.
The municipal flows from major and minor municipal facilities
included in this load estimate represent greater than 99% of the
total municipal flow entering the Chesapeake Bay from Maryland
municipal STPs. Thus, by excluding municipal STPs which discharge
less than 0.001 MGD, the estimation of total point source nutrient
loads was not significantly affected.
b. Industrial. Maryland industrial point source load esti-
mates include industries identified by the Industrial Discharge
Program, Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) , that dis-
charge significant amounts of phosphorus and/or nitrogen to the
Chesapeake Bay.
2. Methodology. In 1988, the Permits Division, Water Man-
agement Administration, MDE, adopted a policy that any new or
renewed permits for STPs discharging more than 0.5 MGD require the
reporting of ammonia, total Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrate, orthophos-
phate and total phosphorus on discharge monitoring reports (DMRs).
Most "major" wastewater treatment plants now have monitoring re-
quirements for nutrients. Secondary data sources and methods used
to generate the loading estimates in the absence of DMR data are
discussed in the next section.
2
-------
a. Municipal:
1) Flow. Monthly average flow values were obtained
from the DMRs for the major STPs. For the minor STPs, flow values
were obtained from either the DMRs or flow allocation tables.
Plants discharging an average of 0.001 MGD or greater were includ-
ed. If some values were missing, the monthly operating report
(MOR) was used. The MOR provides a daily record of a plant's
performance. Its purpose is to allow the inspectors in the Divi-
sion of Municipal Compliance, MDE, to verify the values listed in
the DMR. When a monthly value was not available on either the DMR
or the MOR, an annual average was used. If an entire year was
missing, the average flow from the previous year was used.
2) Nutrient Concentrations. Nutrient concentrations were
taken from DMRs of major STPs whenever possible. However, many of
these plants only have seasonal permit limits (i.e., 4/1 to 10/31)
for total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP). While the DMR
would only have TN and TP concentrations for those months, the MOR
often had data for the entire year. Others had no permit limits
and no DMR data; however, the MOR did contain nutrient data. If
some monthly values were missing, the annual average was used.
The Compliance Monitoring Report (CMR) was used if there was not
enough data on the DMR or the MOR. The CMR is a listing of
laboratory results generated by periodic grab samples taken at STPs
throughout the state. The number of plants sampled and the fre-
quency of sampling varies greatly. Some plants have a considerable
amount of nutrient data reported on the CMRs while others have
none. As with DMR data, the annual average of CMR values was used
to fill in missing monthly values. Combining DMR and CMR data
values was avoided.
If nutrient information was not available from any data source,
default values for TN and TP were used. The default value for TN
was 18 mg/1. The default value for phosphorus was 7 mg/1 for the
years 1984 and 1985 (prior to the phosphate ban in Maryland), and
3 mg/1 for all remaining years (following enactment oif the phos-
phate ban) .
b. Industrial:
1) Flow. The Industrial Discharge Program, MDE, provided
a listing of the major industrial discharges contributing nutrients
to the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. For these industries,
monthly average flow values were taken from the DMRs. If monthly
values were missing, annual averages were used. If the entire year
was missing, the average flow from the previous year was used.
2) Nutrient Concentrations. Most NPDES permits for
industries do not include limits on the amount of nutrients they
may discharge and consequently they are not required to report TN
3
-------
and TP on the DMRs. Because of this, the main sources of 1985
nutrient data were the permit applications. Permits are renewed
every five years and each time an industry applies for a new permit
it must perform a sample analysis of its effluent. Like DMRs,
testing is done with grab samples. They are not as representative
of effluent quality as composite samples but they are the best data
available. Many industries now have nutrient monitoring and re-
porting requirements.
3. Comparison to Initial Nutrient Estimates Included in the
Baywide Nutrient Reduction Strategy (BNRS)
a. Nitrogen The revised estimate of Maryland's 1985 point
source TN loading (89,122 lbs/day) is 1% less than the initial
estimate (90,000 lbs/day) included in the BNRS. The difference
between the revised and initial nitrogen load estimates for the
major and minor municipal plants, is very small (54,890 vs. 54,870
lbs/day respectively). The revised nitrogen load from industrial
plants is approximately 4% lower (35,560 vs. 34,250 lbs/day respec-
tively) than the initial estimate and accounts for nearly all of
the difference between the revised and initial estimates.
Table A specifically accounts for the differences in industrial
nitrogen load estimates:
TABLE A - DIFFERENCES IN INDUSTRIAL TN ESTIMATES
Initial Estimates Included in
Revised Estimates Developed
TN Load
TN Load
Piant
(lbs/day)
Plant
(lba/Gay)
Bethlehem Steel
20,780
Bethlehem Steel
21,970
W.R. Grace
10,000
W.R. Grace
9,050
W.D. Byron
1,120
W.D. Byron
310
Eastern Stainless
1,000
Eastern Stainless
190
Chemetals
800
Chemetals
880
Indian Head NOS
690
Indian Head NOS
700
Mineral Pigments
420
Mineral Pigments
520
Up. Pot. Riv. Com.
60
Up. Pot. Riv. Com.
570
Westvaco
60
Westvaco
60
Others
630
TOTAL
35,560
TOTAL
34,250
b. Phosphorus. The revised estimate of Maryland's 1985
point source TP loading (7430 lbs/day) is 17% less than the origi-
nal estimate (9000 lbs/day) included in the BNRS. Three major
municipal plants and one industrial facility account for 94% of the
difference in the revised and initial phosphorus load estimates.
4
-------
The three major municipal plants account for approximately 350 lbs/
day of the difference in the TP load estimates and the one indus-
trial facility, Bethlehem Steel, accounts for about 1120 lbs/day
difference.
Table B presents the effluent concentrations and resultant
phosphorus loadings for these four plants.
TABLE B - INITIAL AND REVISED TP EFFLUENT
CONCENTRATION AND LOADINGS
Concentration (mg/1) Loading (lbs/day)
Plant Initial Revised Initial Rgrissfl
Annapolis 6.0 2.7 310 140
Cox Creek 3.0 1.8 230 140
Hagerstown 6.3 4.4 310 220
Bethlehem Steel 1.8 0.3 1500 380
Total 2350 880
The different effluent phosphorus concentrations used in the
initial and revised estimates for Bethlehem Steel account for the
more than half of the difference between the initial and revised
estimates. The revised effluent phosphorus concentrations were
determined from a thorough examination of all available data and,
therefore, form a better estimate of the actual loadings.
B. VIRGINIA
1. Scope:
a. Municipal. Virginia includes in its 1985 base-line,
municipal discharges AFL with a design flow > 0.5 MGD and all
publicly owned treatment works BFL, regardless of design capacity.
The remaining plants account for a relatively small percentage of
the total volume of municipal wastewater discharged and are not
included in the 1985 baseline.
b. Industrial. Virginia industrial point source load esti-
mates include industries with "significant" nutrient loads (equiva-
lent to, or greater than, the load from a 0.5 MGD POTW for either
nitrogen or phosphorus).
The number of municipal and industrial discharges included in the
analysis for 1985 are majors 50, minors 24, and industrial 23.
5
-------
2. Methodology
a. Municipal:
1) Flow. Municipal flows are the average of the 12
monthly averages during 1985, submitted in discharge monitoring
reports (DMRs).
2) Nutrient Concentrations. Municipal nutrient concen-
trations are either the average of reported values or flow-weighted
default values computed using data from the Hampton Roads Sanita-
tion District (HRSD) and the upper James River plants. Sources of
reported values include discharge monitoring reports (DMRs), owner-
generated data, compliance monitoring, or special studies. The
municipal nutrient default values based on the data for HRSD and
upper James plants are 6.4 mg/1 for phosphorus and 18.7 mg/1 for
nitrogen.
b. Industrial:
1) Flow. Industrial flows are the average of the 12
monthly averages during 1985, submitted in DMRs.
2) Nutrient Concentrations. Industrial nutrient concen-
trations are from a variety of sources, including Voluntary Nutri-
ent Monitoring Program (VNMP), DMRs, Virginia Water Control Board
(VWCB) or owner-generated data (wasteload allocation, compliance
monitoring), and permit applications. No default values were
assigned for industrial nutrient concentrations.
The VNMP was started to assess the effectiveness of the Virginia
Phosphate Detergent Ban effective January, 1988. Both municipal
and industrial plants in the Bay drainage area were asked to report
the effluent phosphorus and nitrogen data (broken down by ammonia,
TKN, nitrites, and nitrates if possible). Once per month, 24-hour
composite samples were requested, with use of an EPA approved
analytical procedure to measure concentrations. The response from
the owners was very encouraging, with 31 municipal and 17 in-
dustrial plants participating in the VNMP by summer 19 88.
The VNMP is currently being phased out and replaced by mandatory
effluent monitoring requirements. Since adopting the Point Source
Policy for Nutrient Enriched Waters in March 1988, the VWCB has
been modifying the permits of affected plants to include a 2 mg/1
limit on phosphorus along with a nitrogen monitoring provision.
This data will be submitted by the owners as part of their monthly
DMR.
3. Comparison to Initial Nutrient Estimates Included in the
Baywide Nutrient Reduction Strategy (BNRS)
The revised AFL load estimates included in this report are dis-
charged "end-of-pipe" loads and are not comparable to the original
6
-------
AFL estimates. AFL point source load estimates initially included
in the BNRS for Virginia were based on delivery to the fall line.
The delivery ratios used to account for reductions in the dischar-
ged load as it was transported to the fall line were those cited in
the Chesapeake Bay Program 19 83 report, Framework for Action. It
is possible, however, to compare the BFL nutrient load estimates
because no delivery ratios were applied and the initial and revised
estimates are for "end of pipe" or discharged loads.
a. Phosphorus. The net change in the BFL municipal and
industrial TP load is about one-quarter of 1%. There is no change
between the initial and revised BFL municipal TP load, it remains
at 3.42 million pounds/year. The revised BFL industrial TP load
increased about 2% from 0.59 to .60 million pounds/year.
b. Nitrogen. The net change in the municipal and industrial
BFL TN load is about one quarter of 1%. There is no change between
the initial and revised municipal TN load, it remains at 24.8
million pounds/year. The industrial TN load BFL increases 1% from
6.48 to 6.56 million pounds/year.
C. PENNSYLVANIA
1. Scope
a. Municipal. Pennsylvania municipal point source load
estimates include all AFL STPs with design capacity >0.5 MGD. No
municipal discharges in Pennsylvania are located BFL.
b. Industrial. Pennsylvania industrial point source load
estimates include industries with "significant" nutrient loads
(equivalent to or greater than the load from a 0.5 MGD municipal
treatment plant for either nitrogen or phosphorus).
The number of municipal and industrial discharges included in the
analysis for 1985 are majors 80, minors 34, and industrials 17.
2. Methodology
a. Municipal. The point source baseline loads included in
the BNRS for Pennsylvania were developed using 1985 NPDES permit
and discharge monitoring report data (DMRs). Where no actual data
existed, default values for municipal effluent were assigned. For
nitrogen, the default value used was 20.9 mg/1; for phosphorus,
default values of 6.5, 8.0 and 9.5 mg/1 were used based on level of
treatment and best engineering judgement of Pennsylvania Department
of Environmental Resources (PA DER) staff.
b. Industrial. Pennsylvania industrial point source nutri-
ent load estimates were developed using 1985 NPDES permit and DMR
data.
7
-------
3. Comparison to Initial Nutrient Estimates Included in the
Baywide Nutrient Reduction Strategy (BNRS)
The revised AFL load estimates included in this report are dis-
charged "end-of-pipe" loads and are not comparable to the original
AFL estimates. AFL point source load estimates initially included
in the BNRS for Pennsylvania discharges were based on delivery to
the fall line. The delivery ratios that were used were those cited
in the 19 83 Chesapeake Bay Program report, Framework for Action.
D. DISTRICT OF COLOMBIA
1. Scope. Nutrient load estimates cited in the BNRS for the
District of Columbia include municipal point sources, urban storm-
water runoff and combined sewer overflows. No industrial point
sources are included.
District of Columbia municipal nutrient load estimates are
represented totally by the Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant.
The Blue Plains STP treats and discharges wastewater generated in
the District of Columbia and surrounding suburbs located in Mary-
land and Virginia. Maryland includes the nutrient load of 120 MGD
of wastewater generated by Maryland suburbs and treated and dis-
charged by Blue Plains in its 1985 baseline nutrient load esti-
mates. The contribution from Virginia suburbs is relatively minor
and is accounted for in the District of Columbia 1985 baseline
nutrient load estimates.
a. Phosphorus. The net change in the Blue Plains municipal
total phosphorus load is 0.4% due to the slightly increased TP
effluent concentration estimates {0.13 vs. 0.12 mg/1).
b. Nitrogen. The net change in the Blue Plains municipal
total nitrogen load is 3.9% due to slightly increased TN effluent
concentration estimates (15.46 vs. 15.39 mg/1).
Although stormwater runoff and CSOs are dependent upon rainfall
and are more closely aligned with nonpoint sources, the Clean Water
Act of 1987 defines them as point sources requiring NPDES permits.
In defining the 1985 baseline, however, the stormwater nutrient
load estimates are included in the nonpoint source contribution and
cited in Report #1 of the 1991 Reevaluation entitled, "Nonpoint
Source Load Inventory." These stormwater nutrient load estimates
are based on the watershed model estimates of nutrient runoff from
urban lands.
2. Methodology:
a. Municipal Point Sources. The loadings for Blue Plains
were calculated from the discharge monitoring reports for 1985.
8
-------
They represent a flow of 298.469 MGD at 15.46 mg/1 nitrogen and
0.13 mg/1 phosphorus. Blue Plains is a regional treatment facility-
serving the District of Columbia and portions of Maryland and
Virginia.
Approximately 44% of the volume of wastewater treated and dis-
charged by Blue Plains is contributed by surrounding jurisdictions
in Maryland (40%) and Virginia (4%). Maryland's 1985 baseline
includes its contribution to the Blue Plains loading. Virginia's
baseline, however, does not.
b. Combined Sewer Overflows. In the District, 12,716 acres
are served by combined sewer systems and 27,430 acres are served by
separate sewer systems. CSO loadings were calculated from overflow
volumes (2,525 mg/y) and average nutrient concentrations (TP=1.75
mg/1 and TN=7.94 mg/1). No attempt was made to account for the
first flush concentrations. Significant remedial measures are
being implemented to address the CSO problem in the District of
Columbia.
c. Stormwater Runoff. Estimates of urban nutrient loads are
included in Report #1 of the 1991 Reevaluation, "Nonpoint Source
Load Estimates." The specific algorithms used to calculate urban
nutrient loads are available in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model
documentat ion.
IV. Point Sources Not covered in the 19 85 Baseline
The 1985 baseline point source load estimates primarily address
industrial and municipal wastewater treatment plants. The point
source category, however, does include other types of discharges;
these include bypasses, combined sewer overflows, and stormwater
runoff. Only the District of Columbia included the nutrient load
estimates for CSOs and stormwater. No jurisdictions included
bypasses.
This section provides an overview of each of these nontraditional
point sources, compiles existing information, and makes recommenda-
tions on how existing data bases on nutrient loads from these
sources may be better quantified. In keeping with the partnership
approach of the Chesapeake Bay Program, it is the option of each
jurisdiction whether or not to include nutrient load estimates from
nontraditional point sources in its 19 85 baseline estimate.
A. BYPASSES:
1. Occurrence. Bypasses generally occur at the treatment
facilities or pump stations and are intentional diversions of waste
streams from any portion of these facilities (40 CFR 122.41 (m)).
Bypasses occur due to power failure, equipment failure, hydraulic
overload (I&I), or blockage in all or part of the sewage facili-
ties .
9
-------
2. Regulation. Bypasses are prohibited unless: they are
unavoidable to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe
property damage; no feasible alternative exists; and the permittee
notifies the regulatory agency regarding cause, frequency, duration
and quantity of flow, generally as an attachment to its DMR.
3. Impact. Bypasses can have a dramatic impact on water
quality and the aesthetics of receiving streams as a result of the
discharge of raw or partially treated wastewater and floatables.
Bypasses, due to their sanitary sewage content, can result in
violations of water contact recreation standards for fecal bacteria
and present a serious public health threat.
4. Loading Data Assessment. The Maryland data base was
chosen to illustrate bypass data availability. Major Maryland STPs
which frequently have bypasses were identified (Cambridge, Cumberl-
and, Thurmont and Grantsville) . DMR data was reviewed. For two of
these plants (Cumberland and Cambridge), no flow data was avail-
able. Data for Thurmont and Grantsville indicated that the bypass
flows accounted for 3.3% and 0.6% of the total annual flow. No
data on nutrient concentrations were reported to allow calculation
of a load. It is assumed that the availability of data and the
relative magnitude of bypass events are similar in Pennsylvania,
the District of Columbia, and Virginia.
5. Conclusion. Although it is not possible to accurately
quantify bypasses, all available evidence suggests that their loads
are relatively minor. Furthermore, the resources needed to further
quantify bypasses is considerable and not justified in light of
current demands on state program staff and the relatively low
impact of bypasses on nutrient loads.
There are, however, some basic data reporting and compilation
steps that can be taken at little or no cost to build a data base.
These steps are presented as recommendations for state consider-
ation.
6. Recommendations:
a. Enforce regulations that require estimates of the total
flow bypassed for each event be reported.
b. Establish a bypass data file that includes all bypass
data submitted with each jurisdiction.
c. Encourage nutrient monitoring of significant or represen-
tative bypass events and development of default values for applica-
tion elsewhere.
d. Implement consistent reporting requirements between the
states.
10
-------
B. COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS. A number of older cities in the Bay
watershed are served by a combination of sanitary sewers, storm
sewers, and combined sewers carrying both domestic wastewater and
storm water. Combined sewers can result in discharges of domestic
wastewater and storm water which have not been treated at a munici-
pal wastewater treatment plant. Such discharges are particularly
common during storms when flow may exceed the capacity of the sewer
system or treatment plant. These untreated discharges of sanitary
and storm water to receiving waters are called combined sewer
overflows (CSOs).
With the exception of the District of Columbia, nutrient loadings
from CSOs are not included in the 1985 baseline. The rationale for
not including them is as follows:
(1) CSOs are Minor Contribution to Nutrient Loads. The
limited data available indicate that the contribution of nutrient
loads from CSOs is relatively minor. Although the volume of CSOs
can be quite large, nutrient concentrations are low. The city of
Richmond, for example, is one of the major metropolitan areas BFL
in the Bay basin. Almost one third of the city's land area is
served by combined sewers. A study of Richmond CSOs estimated CSO
volume as ranging from 2.5 to 6 billion gallons per year and con-
taining an annual average nutrient load of 84,600 lbs/yr TP and
310,000 lbs/yr TKN. Compared to 1985 loads, the estimates of
phosphorus are equivalent to only 2% of the total point source
phosphorus loads to the James River.
(2) Data Are Not Available to Develop Reasonable Loading
Estimates, with the exception of the District of Columbia, exist-
ing data bases are inadequate to quantify nutrient loads from CSOs.
The District began a major CSO study in 1978. As a result, suffi-
cient data were available on flow and average pollutant concentra-
tions to develop a nutrient loading from CSOs for the 1985 base-
line. For most communities, however, CSO data are either lacking
or limited to estimates of volume. For the few communities which
have characterized their CSO water quality, the parameters of most
concern are fecal coliform, suspended solids, and biochemical
oxygen demand (BOD) . Nutrients may or may not be included in
characterization, modeling, and tracking progress.
Data are not available to estimate nutrient loads for CSOs. In
Virginia, some water quality data are available for Richmond, one
of four communities with combined sewers. However, the available
data for Richmond is not sufficient to estimate a 1985 baseline
load.
(3) CSO Loads Are Difficult to Include as Inputs in 3-D
Model. One of the principal reasons for quantifying nutrient loads
is for input into the Chesapeake Bay 3-D model for reevaluation of
the Nutrient Reduction Strategy. There are two options to consid-
er.
11
-------
First, a CSO load could be input into the model as a point source
with its annual load equally distributed. Unlike the other point
source inputs, however, CSOs are highly dependent on storm events.
CSO discharges are intermittent, varying in volume and pollutant
concentration depending on the rainfall pattern. This variability
and dependence on rainfall would not be accounted for if CSO dis-
charges were a point source input to the model.
Second, CSOs could be considered as a nonpoint source for purpos-
es of the model. The watershed model estimates urban nonpoint
source stormwater loads. Since the urban component is based on
total urban acreage, the stormwater component of CSOs may be cap-
tured by the urban load estimate and there is potential for double
counting. Presently, the level of precision for the urban compo-
nent does not warrant small adjustments to account for the domestic
wastewater component of CSOs. In some cases, such as with Richmon-
d's retention basin, CSO discharges will occur less frequently than
stormwater discharges, compensating for the somewhat greater con-
centration of nutrients in CSOs relative to stormwater.
(4) Bay States Are Addressing CSOs, But Corrections Will Take
Years. A national strategy has been developed by EPA to control
CSOs. The objectives of the Strategy are to: (l) eliminate dry
weather CSO discharges; (2) bring all wet weather CSO discharge
points into compliance with technology-based and water quality-
based requirements; and (3) minimize adverse impacts from wet
weather discharges. States are required to identify all CSOs and
develop statewide CSO permitting strategies by January 1990, set-
ting priorities for permitting and control activities.
Implementation of the control strategies in the Bay states will
lead to reduced loadings of pollutants, including nutrients, from
combined sewers. The high cost of control measures, however, will
limit the rate at which implementation can occur. Jurisdictions in
Pennsylvania, Maryland and Virginia identified as having CSOs are
listed in Table C. It should be noted that Pennsylvania's inven-
tory is detailed and includes small wildcat sewer systems in eco-
nomically depressed rural areas. These dischargers, for the most
part, have little regional environmental significance but are
important because of local public health concerns.
12
-------
TABLE C - INVENTORY OF CSOs
STATE FACILITY NAME
Pennsylvania
Moosic Boro SS
Old Forge SS
Clarks Green Boro SS
Taylor Boro SS
West Hazelton Boro SS
Hazelton Boro SS
Susquehanna SS
Oakland Boro SS
Galeton Boro STP
Centralia Mun Coll SS
Canton Boro Auth STP
Eagles Mere STP
Berwick Boro
Williamsport West STP
Sunbury STP
Mount Carmel Boro STP
Altoona East STP
Altoona West STP
Harrisburg STP
Lancaster South WPCC STP
Marysville STP
Newport STP
Huntingdon
Holidaysburg Boro Auth
Burnham Boro Auth
Vintondale STP
N Cambria Co Auth STP
Scranton Sew Auth STP
Freeland WWTP STP
Montrose MA STP
Tunkhannock Bor Mun Auth
Tri-Boro Mun Auth
Wyoming Valley San Auth
Lackawanna R Basin Sew Auth
Lackawanna R Basin Sew Auth
Lackawanna R Basin Sew Auth
Lackawanna R Basin Sew Auth
Lackawanna Valley San Auth
Greater Hazelton Joint Sewer
Williamsport Central
Mid-Cameron Auth
Clearfield Mun Auth
Houtzdale Mun Auth
Mansfield Boro Auth
Moshannen Valley Auth
Wilkes-Barre City
COUNTY
Lackawanna
Lackawanna
Lackawanna
Lackawanna
Luzerne
Luzerne
Susquehanna
Susquehanna
Potter
Columbia
Bradford
Sullivan
Columbia
Lycoming
Northumberland
Northumberland
Blair
Blair
Dauphin
Lancaster
Perry
Perry
Huntingdon
Blair
Blair
Cambria
Cambria
Lackawanna
Luzerne
Susquehanna
Wyoming Creek
Susquehanna
Luzerne
Wayne
Lackawanna
Lackawanna
Lackawanna
Lackawanna
Luzerne
Lycoming
Cameron
Clearfield
Clearfield
Tioga
Centre
Luzerne
13
-------
Table C. Continued
STATE
FACILITY NAME
COUNTY
Virginia
Richmond
Alexandria
Lynchburg
Covington
Henrico
Fairfax
Bedford
Alleghany
Maryland
Patapsco
Cambridge
Cumberland
Baltimore
Dorchester
Federalsburg
Salisbury
Allegany
Caroline
Wicomico
Conclusion. CSOs are not presently included in the urban nonpoint
source component of the watershed model. The magnitude and varia-
bility of nutrient loads from CSOs make it very difficult to quan-
tify an annual load, particularly for a specific year, such as
1985. Implementation of the National CSO strategy will result in
annual nutrient load estimates for future years. Including CSO
loads in the point source inventory at this time without consider-
ing the stormwater component could result in duplicating a portion
of the urban nutrient nonpoint source load.
Recommendations
o Where quantitative data are available, such as in the District
of Columbia, progress should be reported in terms of reduced
o Where quantifiable data does not exist, progress at implement-
ing CSO monitoring and control plans to eliminate or treat CSO
discharges should be reported as part of the nutrient strategy
progress reporting. Monitoring data on nutrient loads, if
available, should also be incorporated in this reporting.
o The jurisdictions should be encouraged to conduct nutrient
sampling and to make CSO volume estimates for significant or
representative CSO events to enable estimation of nutrient
loads and development of default values.
o The states should encourage and support local jurisdictions in
characterizing nutrient loads from CSOs.
C. STORMWATER
Introduction
The issue of regulating point source storm water discharges under
the NPDES permit program has had a lengthy and controversial
loads.
14
-------
history dating back to the 1972 Amendments to the Federal Water
Pollution and Control Act which established the NPDES permit pro-
gram. To date, the primary focus of the NPDES permit program has
been to control municipal sewage and industrial process wastewater,
not storm water. In 1987, the Clean Water Act Amendments required
the EPA to develop a phased approach for controlling storm water
discharges through the NPDES permit program. In response, EPA in
1990 proposed regulations to establish a two phase program for
storm water control (FR 4799 0) . In Phase I, EPA established storm
water permit application requirements for 11 categories of indus-
trial storm water discharges and for municipal separate storm sewer
systems. In Phase II, EPA will establish permit application
requirements for storm water discharges not covered in Phase I and
define storm water control measures to be implemented.
The phased approach also redirects previous emphasis from exten-
sive sampling to limited sampling of representative outfalls and
calls for screening analysis to provide data for developing more
comprehensive programs to detect illicit connections and illegal
dumping. The proposed regulations apply only to separate storm
sewers and do not apply to combined sewers.
Who is Covered Under Phase I
1. Storm water discharge associated with industrial activity -
includes any point source stormwater discharge that is located at
an industrial plant, directly related to manufacturing, or located
at raw material processing/storage areas. Runoff from lands
separate from these areas is excluded from the definition (i.e.,
employee parking areas and office buildings).
2. Discharge from a municipal separate storm sewer systems -
publicly owned or operated separate storm water sewers in munici-
palities having the required population. The jurisdictions in the
Bay watershed required to submit NPDES stormwater permit applica-
tions are:
Alexandria
Anne Arundel Co.
Arlington
Baltimore City
Chesapeake
District of Columbia *
Fairfax
Hampton
Montgomery Co.
Newport News
Norfolk *
Portsmouth
Prince George's Co.
Prince William County*
Richmond
* Populations greater than 250,000
3. A stormwater discharge designated as contributing to a viola-
tion of a water quality standard or as a significant contributor of
pollutants is required to submit an NPDES stormwater permit appli-
cation.
15
-------
Permit Application P«>qn< -reman*-a
1. Municipal - There is a two-part permit application:
Part I - requires municipalities to describe their existing
stormwater management program, begin to identify sources of pollu-
tion, provide initial estimates of the amounts of pollutants dis-
charged and to conduct a screening analysis for illicit discharges
to municipal separate storm sewers.
Part II - fills information gaps found in Part I and provides
municipalities with the opportunity to propose a comprehensive
program of structural and non-structural control measures. These
program controls are primarily intended to be based on best manage-
ment practices instead of constructing new treatment works.
2. Industrial - stormwater permit applications from industrial
stormwater dischargers are required to provide limited sampling
data, a description of material management practices, and certifi-
cation that the discharge does not contain process wastes or sani-
tary sewage. Industrial storm water dischargers to municipal storm
sewers will not have to submit permit applications. However,
dischargers to municipal storm sewers located in cities of 100,000
or more must notify the municipality of their discharge.
Phase I Storm Water Application Deadlines
1. Storm water discharge associated with industrial activity.
a. Individual application
b. Group application
c. Notice of Intent to be
covered by a General Permit
DEADLINES
October 1, 1992
Part l, September 30, 1991
Part 2, October 1, 1992
EPA has proposed 180-day
after the General Permit is
available or October 1,
1992, whichever comes first
2. Storm water discharge from a municipal separate storm sewer
system.
a. Large municipalities
(Population > 250,000)
b. Medium municipalities
(250,000 > Population
>100,000)
DEADLINES
Part 1, November 18, 1991
Part 2, November 16, 1992
Part 1, May 18, 1992
Part 2, May 17, 1993
16
-------
Phase II Deadlines
1. EPA to promulgate regulations October 1, 1993
2. Phase II storm water discharge October 1, 1994
applications
[JOE.REPORTS]85BASE.023
17
-------
V. References
Donigian, Anthony S.# Jr., Brian R. Bicknell, Avinash S.
Patwardhan, Lewis C. Linker, Diana Y. Alegre, Chao-Hsi Chang,
Robert Reynolds, Robert Carsel. 1991.
Chesapeake Bay Program Watershed Model Application to Calculate
Bay Nutrient Loadings: Findings and Recommendations.
Chesapeake Bay Program Office, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region III, Annapolis, MD.
Legg, Peter. 1991. Summary of 1990 Maryland Point Source Nutrient
Loadings to the Chesapeake Bay with Projections for 1991-2000.
Maryland Department of the Environment, Chesapeake Bay and Spe-
cial Projects Program, Baltimore, MD.
United States Environmental Protection Agency. 1983. Chesaopeake
Bay: A Framework for Action. United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Region III, Philadelphia, PA.
18
-------
APPENDIX I 1985 Plant Loadings
19
-------
APPENDIX 1. 1985 BASELINE POINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS BY FACILITY (FACNAME) SORTED BY BASIN, STATE, FALLINE AND DISTYPE
OBS
BASIN
FALLINE STATE DISTYPE FACNAME
NPDES
FLOW85
TP8 5 TN8 5 TPL85
TNL8 5
1
BAY, E SHORE
BFL
VA
IND
HOLLY FARMS - TEMP'VILLE
4049
0. 80
1.15
113.91
2802.25
277403.00
2
BAY, E SHORE
BFL
VA
MUN
KILMARNOCK STP
20788
0. 17
6 .40
18 .70
3294.00
9677.19
3
BAY, E SHORE
BFL
VA
MUN
ONANCOCK STP
21253
0.11
6 .40
18 .70
2143.05
6261.71
4
BAY, E SHORE
BFL
VA
MUN
CAPE CHARLES STP
21288
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
0.00
5
BAY, E SHORE
BFL
VA
MUN
MATHEWS COURTHOUSE STP
28819
0.03
6 .40
18 .70
555.00
1707.74
6
BAY, E SHORE
BFL
VA
MUN
GLOUCESTER STP
60381
0.12
6 .40
18 .70
2337.87
6830.96
7
BAY, E SHORE
BFL
VA
HUN
REEDVILLE STP
60712
0.03
6 .40
18 .70
584.47
1707.74
8
BAY , E SHORE
BFL
VA
MUN
TANGIER ISLAND STP
67423
0 .06
6 .40
18.70
1168.93
3415.48
9
BAY, E SHORE
BFL
VA
MUN
HRSD—CHESAPEAKE/ELIZ. STP (VA0025275)
81264
14.36
6.50
22.78
284136.29
995788.00
10
CHOPTANK
BFL
MD
MUN
MARYLAND MINORS (10), SUM
.
1.20
6.91
18.16
25367.10
66670.50
11
CHOPTANK
BFL
MD
MUN
EASTON
20273
1.40
5.43
13.77
23228.00
58866.00
12
CHOPTANK
BFL
MD
NUN
CAMBRIDGE
21636
2.15
7.00
18 . 00
45767.40
117687.70
13
E
SHORE
BFL
DE
IND
PURDUE
469
1.15
1.50
0.45
5254.22
1576.27
14
E
SHORE
BFL
DE
MUN
BRIDGEVILLE STP
20249
0.80
7.20
20 .70
17574.68
50527.21
15
E
SHORE
BFL
DE
MUN
SEAFORD WASTE TREATMENT PLANT,
20265
0 .72
6.40
15 .83
14011.26
34655.96
16
E
SHORE
BFL
MD
MUN
MARYLAND MINORS (52), SUM
4.49
5.62
18 .70
76916.40
256068.10
17
E
SHORE
BFL
MD
NUN
CRISFIELD
20001
0.69
2.76
9 .70
5835.90
20501.00
18
E
SHORE
BFL
MD
MUN
CHESTERTOWN
20010
.
.
.
.
19
E
SHORE
BFL
MD
MUN
DELMAR
20532
.
.
.
.
20
E
SHORE
BFL
MD
MUN
PERRYVILLE
20613
0.56
0.63
8 .97
1060.60
15210.80
21
E
SHORE
BFL
MD
MUN
PRINCESS ANNE
20656
.
.
..
22
E
SHORE
BFL
MD
MUN
ELKTON
20681
0. 77
2 .53
22 . 76
5911.10
53198.50
23
E
SHORE
BFL
MD
MUN
SALISBURY
21571
4.61
7.00
18.00
98324.30
252834.00
24
E
SHORE
BFL
MD
MUN
POCOMOKE CITY
22551
.
.
.
.
25
E
SHORE
BFL
MD
MUN
HURLOCK
22730
0.54
7.00
18.00
11534.50
29660.10
26
E
SHORE
BFL
MD
MUN
KENT ISLAND
23485
0.62
5.16
20.09
9690.50
37758.70
27
JAMES
AFL
VA
IND
OWENS-ILLINOIS (BIG ISL.)
3026
304
3.46
5.92
32019 .00
54784.00
28
JAMES
AFL
VA
IND
WESTVACO
3646
22 . 78
0.29
8.00
20110.00
554757.00
29
JAMES
AFL
VA
IND
BABCOCK & WILCOX-HUKE FUEL
3697
0.28
0.48
854.40
409.37
728246.00
30
JAMES
AFL
VA
IND
BURLINGTON IND.-GLASGOW
4677
0.71
17.52
11.28
37866.00
24380.00
31
JAMES
AFL
VA
HUH
LEXINGTON STP
20567
0.47
6.40
18 . 70
16949.55
49524.46
32
JAMES
AFL
VA
HUH
BUENA VISTA STP
20991
1.88
6.40
18.70
36626.61
107018.38
33
JAMES
AFL
VA
MUN
FABMVILLE STP
21351
0.31
6.40
18.70
6039.49
17646.65
34
JAMES
AFL
VA
MUN
CLIFTON FORGE STP
22772
1.14
6.40
18.70
22209.75
64894..12
35
JAMES
AFL
VA
MUN
LYNCHBURG STP
24970
13.75
4.70
11.01
196306.00
460839.00
36
JAMES
AFL
VA
HUH
MOORES CREEK STP
25518
8 . 99
3.32
10 . 56
90857.00
288990.00
37
JAMES
AFL
VA
NUN
COVINGTON STP
25542
1.92
6.40
18.70
37405.90
109295.37
38
JAMES
BFL
VA
IHD
AMERICAN TOBACCO
2780
1.33
3.36
12.19
13603.00
49353.00
39
JAMES
BFL
VA
IND
VA CHEMICALS
3387
0.58
0.30
56.10
529.99
99049.00
40
JAMES
BFL
VA
IND
HOLLY FARMS - GLEH ALLEN
4031
0.59
0.08
73.76
143.77
132474.00
FALLINE AFL= ABOVE FALL LIKE; FALLINE BFL« BELOW FALL LINE
DISTYPE NUN = MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCE; DISTYPE IHD « INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCE
TPS5 - 19 8 5 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION IN MG/L; TN8 5 * 1985 TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATION IN MG/L
TPL85 * 1985 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD IN POUNDS/YEAR; TNL85 = 1985 TOTAL NITROGEN LOAD IN POUNDS/YEAR
-------
APPENDIX 1. 1985 BASELINE POINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS BY FACILITY (FACNAME) SORTED BY BASIN, STATE, FALLING AND DISTYPE
OBS BASIN FALLIHE STATS DISTYPE FACNAME NPDES FLOWS 5 TP85 TN85 TPL85 TNL85
41
JAMES
BFL
VA
IND DUPONT SPRUANCE - 02 AND 03
4669
2» .10
0.29
3 .
11 22228.
00 183888.00
42
JAMES
BFL
VA
IND ALLIED CHEMICAL - HOPEWELL
5291
137.59
0.07
10.
65 29319.
00 4460622.00
43
JAMES
BFL
VA
IND PHILLIP MORRIS-PARK 500
26557
1.44
13.82
34 .
79 60370.
00 151951.00
44
JAMES
BFL
VA
IHD SHITHFIELD FOODS (001)
59005
1 .26
23.36
37.
06 89599.
00 142146.00
45
JAMES
BFL
VA
IND SHITHFIELD—6WALTNEY (002)
59005
1 .20
32.23
60 .
38 117734.
00 220563.00
46
JAMES
BFL
VA 1
HUH SHITHFIELD STP
23809
0 .44
6 . 40
18 .
70 8572.
19 25046.85
47
JAMES
BFL
VA 1
NUN CHESTERFIELD CO-PALLING CRK STP
24996
10 .11
6.80
24 .
95 209275.
79 767857.00
48
JAMES
BFL
VA ]
NUN PORTSMOUTH STP
25003
9 .31
6 . 40
18 .
70 181379.
65 529968.68
49
JAMES !
BFL VA NUN 1
FORT EUSTIS
2S216
1 .65
6.40
18 .
70 32145.
70 93925.71
50
JAMES
BFL
VA
HUN
PETERSBURG STP
25437
8.48
5.60
19.88
144558.22
513182.00
51
JAMES
BFL
VA
HUN
CHESTERFIELD CO-PROCTORS CRK STP
60194
3.77
5.50
15.39
63119 .00
176620.00
52
JAMES
BFL
VA
HUN
RICHMOND STP
63177
66.10
4 .17
12.24
839067.00
2462872 .00
53
JAMES
BFL
VA
HUH
HEHKICO CO. STP
63690
0.00
0 .00
0 . 00
0 .00
0 .00
54
JAMES
BFL
VA
MUN
HOPEWELL STP
66630
30.(2
1.87
65.03
175442.00
6101060.00
55
JAMES
BFL
VA
HUN
HRSD—ARMY BASE STP (OLD VA0025208)
81230
12.99
4 .50
19.56
177942.87
773458.00
56
JAMES
BFL
VA
MUN
HRSD—BOAT HARBOR STP (OLD VA0025283)
81256
15.85
5.40
22.33
260544.52
1077400.00
57
JAMES
BFL
VA
MUN
HRSD—JAMES RIVE* STP (OLD VA0025241)
81272
10.34
7.20
20 .05
226627.16
631094.00
58
JAMES
BFL
VA
HUN
HRSD-LAMBERTS POINT STP (OLD VA0025259)
81281
19. 97
3 .30
21. 99
200609.23
1336787.00
59
JAMES
BFL
VA
HUN
HRSD—HAHSEMOHD STP (OLD VA0064459)
81299
6.25
7.00
26. 76
133179.38
509126.00
60
JAMES
BFL
VA
HUN
HRSD—WILLIAMSBURG STP (OLD VA0025267)
81302
9.72
3 .80
21.36
112436.88
632014.00
61
PATUXENT
AFL
MD
IND
HD £ VA MILK PRODUCERS
469
0.17
27.25
4 .05
14418.40
2143.90
62
PATUXENT
AFL
HD
MUN
MARYLAND MINORS (10), SUM
.
0.48
3 .69
18 .14
5373.70
26436.10
63
PATUZENT
AFL
MD
MUN
BOWIE
21628
1.99
5.15
15. 71
31196 .10
95149.20
64
PATUXENT
AFL
ND
MUN
PATUXENT
21652
3.67
6.67
21.12
74630.50
236308.60
65
PATUZENT
AFL
MD
MUN
FORT MEADE
21717
2.09
0 .85
15. 83
5416.30
100822.90
66
PATUZENT
AFL
MD
MUN
PARKWAY
21725
4.62
2.91
18.00
40883.40
253302.50
67
PATUZENT
AFL
MD
HUN
MARYLAND CITY
23132
0.62
5.02
18 .62
9561.90
35435.40
68
PATUZENT
AFL
MD
HUN
LITTLE PATUXENT
55174
8.91
0.43
19.33
11755.70
524861.00
69
PATUXENT
AFL
HD
HUN
MARYLAND CITY
62596
.
.
.
.
.
70
PATUZENT
AFL
HD
HUN
DORSEY RON
63207
1.32
1.63
5.39
6529.10
21620.80
71
PATUZENT
BFL
HD
HUN
MARYLAND MINORS (13), SUM
•
0.60
3 .99
11.79
7280.50
21517.70
72
PATUZENT
BFL
HD
HUN
WESTERS BRANCH
21741
10.79
2.95
14 . 58
96887.70
479353.70
73
POTOMAC
AFL
HD
IND
WESTVACO
1422
3. 89
0 .09
1.92
1065.40
22729.10
74
POTOMAC
AFL
HD
IND
UPPER POTOMAC RIVER COMMISSION
21687
18.99
0 .84
3.58
48297.40
206975.10
75
POTOMAC
AFL
HD
IND
W D BYRON
53431
0.34
0.05
109.54
51.20
112165.50
76
POTOMAC
AFL
HD
NUN
MARYLAND MINORS (63), SON
.
5.53
6 .81
18.31
114793.10
308471.40
77
POTOMAC
AFL
HD
MUN
HALFWAY
20214
1.12
7 .00
18. 00
23897.80
61451.40
78
POTOMAC
AFL
MD
NUN
TANEYTOWN
20672
.
.
.
.
79
POTOMAC
AFL
MD
HUN
FORT DCTRICK
20877
0.68
2.02
18.00
4198.30
37473.60
80
POTOMAC
AFL
HD
HUN
DAMASCUS
20982
-
.
.
•
FALLINE AFL» ABOVE FALL LINK; FALLINE BFL- BELOW PULL LIBS
DISTYPE NUN » MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCE; DISTTPE IND « INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCE
TP85 = 1985 TOTAL PHOSPHOHSS CONCENTRATION IN MG/L; TH85 - 1985 TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATION IN MG/L
TPL85 = 1985 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD IN POUNDS/YEAX; TNL8S » 1985 TOTAL NITROGEN LOAD IN POUNDS/YEAR
-------
APPENDIX 1. 1985 BASELINE POINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS BY FACILITY (FACNAME) SORTED BY BASIN, STATE, FALLIHE AND DISTYPE
OBS BASIN FALLINE STATE DISTYPE FACNAME NPDES FLOW8 5 TP85 TN85 TPL85 TNL8 5
81
POTOMAC
AFL
MD
MUN
THURMONT
21121
0.55
5.28
18.00
8791.20
29960.00
82
POTOMAC
AFL
MD
MUN
SENECA CREEK
21491
4.52
1.80
18.23
24791 .10
250820.00
83
POTOMAC
AFL
MD
MUN
CUMBERLAND
21598
9.94
7.00
18.00
211923.70
544946.60
84
POTOMAC
AFL
MD
MUN
FREDERICX
21610
4.87
6.11
24.40
90581.60
361873.10
85
POTOMAC
AFL
MD
MUN
HAGERSTOWN
21776
6.02
4.30
9.94
78817 .80
182349.10
86
POTOMAC
AFL
MD
MUN
BALLENGER CREEK
21822
.
.
.
.
87
POTOMAC
AFL
MD
MUN
WESTMINSTER
21831
2.28
3.92
18.00
27151.40
124770.90
88
POTOMAC
AFL
MD
MUN
POOLESVILLE
23001
0 .50
7.00
18.00
10692 .40
27494.70
89
POTOMAC
AFL
MD
MUN
MCI
23957
0.77
7.00
18.00
16340 .40
42018.20
90
POTOMAC
AFL
MD
MUN
CELABESE
63878
.
.
.
.
.
91
POTOMAC
AFL
PA
IND
LOWEBGART & CO.
9521
.
.
.
.
92
POTOMAC
AFL
PA
IND
LETTERKENNY ARMY DEPOT/IW
10502
.
.
.
.
_
93
POTOMAC
AFL
PA
MUN
WAYNESBORO BOROUGH
20621
0.97
8.00
22.56
23660.75
66723.30
94
POTOMAC
AFL
PA
MUN
GETTYSBURG MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY
21563
1.50
1.00
24.87
4568.89
113628.23
95
POTOMAC
AFL
PA
MUN
CHAMBERSBURG BOROUGH MAYOR & T
26051
3.98
1.30
11.26
15759.62
136502.52
96
POTOMAC
AFL
PA
MUN
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL
80225
0.47
6.50
23.90
9226.11
33923.69
97
POTOMAC
AFL
T*
IND
ROCCO FURTHER PROC .
1791
0.08
60.00
51.30
14612.00
12493.00
98
POTOMAC
AFL
VA
IND
AILEEN, INC.
1864
0.60
7.13
8 .74
13023.00
15963.00
99
POTOMAC
AFL
VA
IND
DUPOHT - WAYNESBORO
2160
4 . 34
4.33
22 .68
57205.00
299634.00
100
POTOMAC
AFL
VA
IND
MERCK - ELKTON
2178
6.44
3.09
11.93
60576.00
233876.00
101
POTOMAC
AFL
VA
IND
AVTEX FIBERS
2208
10.99
0.11
15.40
3680.00
515202.00
102
POTOMAC
AFL
VA
IND
ROCCO FARM FOODS (001) (OLD VA0001902)
77402
0.57
11.00
84 .90
19087.00
147313.00
103
POTOMAC
AFL
VA
NUN
STRASBURG STP
20311
0.74
6.40
18 .70
14416.86
42124.26
104
POTOMAC
AFL
VA
MUN
LEESBURG STP
21377
1.26
0.67
18 .70
2569.83
71725.08
105
POTOMAC
AFL
VA
MUN
PURCE LLVILLE STP
22802
0.27
6.40
18 .70
5260.20
15369.66
106
POTOMAC
AFL
VA
MUR
WINCHESTER STP
25135
3.64
6. 40
18 .70
70915.35
207205.80
107
POTOMAC
AFL
VA
MUN
WAYNESBORO STP
25151
3.20
4.96
19 .60
48315.96
190925.95
108
POTOMAC
AFL
VA
HUB
FISHERSVILLE STP
25291
0 . 78
6. 40
18.70
15196.15
44401.24
109
POTOMAC
AFL
VA
MUN
ABRAMS CREEK STP
31780
0.34
6.40
18 .70
6623.96
19354.3»
110
POTOMAC
AFL
VA
MUN
HARRISONBURG/ROCKINGHAM STP
60640
6.45
6.40
18.70
125660.45
367164.12
111
POTOMAC
AFL
VA
NUN
LURAY STP
62642
0.74
6.40
18.70
14416.86
42124.26
112
POTOMAC
AFL
VA
MUB
FRONT ROYAL STP
62812
1.97
6.40
18.70
38380.01
112141.60
113
POTOMAC
AFL
VA
MUB
VERONA STP
64637
0 . 28
6.40
18.70
5455.03
15938 .91
114
POTOMAC
AFL
VA
NUN
STAUNTON STP
64793
2.58
6.40
18.70
50264 .18
146865 . 65
115
POTOMAC
AFL
VA
MUB
FWSA QPEQUOB STP
65552
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
116
POTOMAC
AFL
VA
MUB
STUARTS DRAFT STP
66877
0.50
6.40
18.70
9741.12
28462.34
117
POTOMAC
AFL
wv
HUB
ROMBEY, CITY OF
20699
0.50
6.50
17.12
9899.26
26073.12
118
POTOMAC
AFL
WV
MUB
CHARLES TOWH SEWER DEPARTMENT,
22349
0.53
6.50
20 .90
10493.21
33739.71
119
POTOMAC
AFL
wv
MUB
MARTIBSBURG, CITY OF
23167
3 .00
6.50
14.77
59395.54
134964.94
120
POTOMAC
AFL
WV
MUB
KEYSER, CITY OF
24392
0 .71
6.50
16.95
14056.94
36656.18
FALLINE AFL= ABOVE FALL LIBE ; FALLINE BFL= BELOW FALL LINE
DISTYPE HUN = MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCE; DISTYPE IBD = INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCE
TP85 * 1985 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION IN HG/L; TN85 = 1985 TOTAL NITROGEN CONCERTRATION IN MG/L
TPL85 = 1985 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD IN POUNDS/YEAR; TBL85 a 1985 TOTAL NITROGEN LOAD IN POUNDS/YEAR
-------
APPENDIX 1. 1985 BASELINE POINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS BT FACILITY (FACHAME> SORTED BY BASIN, STATE, FALLIKE ARD DISTYPE
OBS BASIN FALLIHE STATE DISTYPE FACHAME HPDES FLOWS 5 TP85 TH85 TPL8 5 THL85
121
POTOMAC
BFL
DC
MUN
COMBINED
SEWER 0.
36800.00
148400.00
122
POTOMAC
BFL
DC
HUN
DC-BLUE PLAINS
21199
178.68
0.13
15.46
70935.00
8412030 .00
123
POTOMAC
BFL
MD
IND
INDIAN HEAD SOS
3158
0.27
6.35
313.47
5143.50
254036 .10
124
POTOMAC
BFL
MD
IND
MINERAL PIGMENTS
3425
0 .04
4 .60
1723.80
510.30
191238.30
125
POTOMAC
BFL
MD
MUN
MARYLAND
MINORS (41), SUM
.
2.70
4 .18
10.73
34351.70
88265.90
126
POTOMAC
BFL
MD
MUN
LA PLATA
20524
0.80
2.54
18 . 00
6204.30
43906 .90
127
POTOMAC
BFL
MD
MUN
PIS CAT AWAY
21539
12.90
0.17
14 . 07
6559.30
553224.60
128
POTOMAC
BFL
MD
HUN
MATTAWOMAN
21865
4.54
3.95
12 . 50
54634 .10
173037.00
129
POTOMAC
BFL
MD
MUN
BLUE PLAINS, MD CONTRIBUTION
211990
119.79
0 .13
15.46
47422.80
5640900 .20
130
POTOMAC
BFL
VA
MUN
DALE CITY
• I STP
24678
0.84
0.33
15. 00
843.82
38355.66
131
POTOMAC
BFL
VA
MUN
DALE CITY
«1 STP
24724
2.00
0.18
15.00
1095.88
91323.00
132
POTOMAC
BFL
VA
MUN
UPPER OCCOQOAN SAN. AUTN. STP
24988
9.41
0.03
20 . 86
859.35
597534.00
133
POTOMAC
BFL
VA
MUN
PRINCE WH
. CO.—NOONEY STP
25101
7.58
0 .16
26 . 40
3691.88
609160 . 94
134
POTOMAC
BFL
VA
MUN
ARLINGTON
STP
25143
26.56
0 .58
20.30
46893 .75
1641281.31
135
POTOMAC
BFL
VA
MUN
ALEXANDRIA STP
25160
35.60
0 .15
18 . 40
16255 .49
1994007.26
136
POTOMAC
BFL
VA
MUN
FAIRFAX CO.-LOWER POTOMAC STP
25364
32.96
0 .14
19.00
14046.70
1906337.18
137
POTOMAC
BFL
VA
MUN
FAIRFAX CO.—L. HUNTING CREEK STP
25372
3 .82
0 .19
24 . 00
2209.41
279083.09
138
POTOMAC
BFL
VA
MUN
COLONIAL
BEACH STP
26409
0 .40
6 .40
18 . 70
7793.00
22769.87
139
POTOMAC
BFL
VA
MUN
KING GEORGE - DAHLGREN
26514
0 .08
6 .40
18 .70
1510.00
4553.97
140
POTOMAC
BFL
VA
MUN
QUANTICO-
MAINSZDS STP
28363
1.45
0 .20
18 . 70
883.00
82540 . 77
141
POTOMAC
BFL
VA
MUN
KING GEORGE - BAYBERRY
28517
0.02
6 .40
18 . 70
390.00
1138 .49
142
POTOMAC
BFL
VA
MUN
STAFFORD
CO.—AQUXA STP
60968
1.14
0 .59
18 . 70
2047.00
64894 .12
143
RAPPAHANNOCK
AFL
VA
HUN
WARRENTON
STP
21172
1.05
6 .40
18 . 70
20456.00
59770.90
144
RAPPAHANNOCK
AFL
VA
MUN
ORANGE STP
21385
0.61
6 .40
18.70
11884.00
34724.05
145 :
RAPPAHANNOCK
AFL
VA
MUN
CULPEPER STP
61590
1.21
8.81
14.27
32450.
00
52562.00
146 RAPPAHANNOCK
AFL
VA
MUN
REMINGTON REGIONAL STP
76S0S
0
0
0
0
0
147 ]
RAPPAHANNOCK
BFL
VA
IND
BARNNARDT FARMS
3123
0 . 42
9 . 60
20.13
12277.
00
25737.00
148 1
RAPPAHANNOCK
BFL
VA
MUN
FREDERICKSBURG STP
25127
2.57
6.40
18.70
50069.
36
146296.40
149 RAPPAHANNOCK
BFL
VA
mm
SPOTSYLVANIA CO.-MASSAPONAX
STP 25658
1.55
6.27
18.70
29584.
00
88233.24
150 RAPPAHANNOCK
BFL
VA
MUN
URBANNA STP
26263
0.05
6 . 40
18.70
974.
11
2846.23
1S1 RAPPAHANNOCK
BFL
VA
NUN
WARSAW STP
26891
0.0S
6.40
18.70
1559.
00
4553.97
152 RAPPAHANNOCK
BFL
VA
HON
STAFFORD CO. —CLAIBORNE
RUN STP 28096
0 . 88
6 . 40
18.70
17144.
00
50093.71
153 RAPPAHANNOCK
BFL
VA
Mm
SPOTSYLVANIA CO.-FMC STP
68110
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.
00
0 .00
154 RAPPAHANNOCK
BFL
VA
MUN
TAniUIWCK STP
75395
0.22
6.40
18.70
4286.
00
12523.43
1S5 RAPPAHANNOCK
BFL
VA
mm
LITTLE FALLS RUN STP
76392
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.
00
O.OO
156 SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
NY
mm
NORWICH WASTE DISPOSAL
PLANT 21423
2.60
6.50
30.04
51476.
13
237898.93
157 SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
NY
MUM
BATH (~> NWTP
21431
0 . 77
6.50
16.97
15244.
85
39800.80
158 SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
NY
MUN
HORNELL (C) WATER POLLUTION
CO 23647
1.89
6.50
15.74
37419.
19
90612.00
159 !
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
NY
MUN
BINGHAMTON—JOHNSON CITY JNT
BO 24414
27.70
6.50
25.97
548418.
80
2191144.02
160 :
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
NY
MUN
CORNING (C) WASTEWATER
TREATME 2S721
0.96
6.50
19.77
19006.
57
57809.22
FALLINE AFL- ABOVE FALL LINE; FALLINE BFL" BELOW PALL LINE
DISTYPE HUN - MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCE; DISTYPE IND - INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCE
TP85 « 1985 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION IN NG/I.; TNIS - 1985 TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATION IN MG/L
TPL85 - 1985 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD IN POUNDS/YEAR; TNL83 - 1985 TOTAL NITROGEN LOAD IN POUNDS/YEAR
-------
APPENDIX 1. 1985 BASELINE POINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS BY FACILITY (FACNAME) SORTED BY BASIN, STATE, FALLINE AND DISTYPE
OBS BASIN
FALLINE
STATE
DISTYPE FACNAME
NPDES
FLOWS 5
TPS 5
TN85
TPL85
TNL85
161
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
NY
NUN
OWEGO WATER POLL CTRL PLT 12
25798
0
63
6
50
15
83
12473.06
30376 .71
162
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
NY
MUN
CORTLAND (C) WWTP
27561
4
86
6
50
17
38
96220.77
257279.54
163
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
NY
MUN
ENDICOTT (V) WATER POLLUTION C
27669
6
80
6
50
21
06
134629.89
436200 .83
164
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
NY
MUN
OWEGO (V) STP
29262
0
69
6
50
15
42
13660.97
32408 .03
165
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
NY
MUN
SIDNEY (V) WWTP
29271
0
60
6
50
16
54
11879.11
30227.76
166
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
NY
MUN
WAVERLY (7) WWTP
31089
0
61
6
50
27
70
12077.09
51466.99
167
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
NY
MUN
ONEONTA (C) WWTP
31151
2
62
6
50
16
88
51872.10
134707.86
168
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
NY
MUN
RICHFIELD SPRINGS (V) SEWAGE T
31411
0
59
6
50
16
58
11681.12
29795 .85
169
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
NY
MUN
MILTON STREET STP
35742
5
00
6
50
28
21
98992.56
429627.72
170
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
NY
MUN
CHEMUNG COUNTY S D 11
36986
4
90
6
50
19
68
97012.71
293724.64
171
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
WESTOVER LEATHER CO
7439
.
308279 .91
172
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
EMPIRE KOSHER POULTRY/MIFFLINT
7552
13783.72
78371.35
173
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
HARLEY DA7IDS0N MOTOR CO.
7765
.
.
174
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
ELECTRO-PLATERS OF YORK, IRC.
7773
.
.
175
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
GOLD MILLS DYEHOUSE
8231
.
.
176
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
APPLETON PAPER SPRINGMILL
8265
.
.
177
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
PPfcL BRUNNER ISLAND
8 281
.
.
178
SUSQUEHANNA
ArL
PA
IND
BETHLEHEM STEEL-STEELTON
8303
.
97674.00
179
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
MERCK & CO.
8419
.
.
180
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
BURLE INDUSTRIES
8508
.
.
181
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
WESTFIELD TANNING COMPANY
8800
.
47148.69
182
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
P-H GLATFELTER CO-WASTE TREAT
8869
.
.
183
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
PROCTOR & GAMBLE PAPER PRODUCT
888S
.
.
184
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
CORNING ASASHI VIDEO PRODUCTS
8923
.
.
185
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
GTE PRODUCTS CORP.
9024
.
.
186
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
STANDARD STEEL DIV OF FREEDOM
9164
.
35697.00
187
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
CHLOE TEXTILES INC
9172
.
.
188
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORP- ENOLA
9229
.
.
189
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
HOWES LEATHER CO.
9300
.
.
190
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
MANDATA POULTRY CO-HERNDON
9474
10746.63
61103.08
191
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC CO.
9733
.
.
192
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
ALLEN CLARK, INC
10596
12183.70
5238.99
193
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
WYETH-AYERST LABORATORIES
13862
.
.
194
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
VICTOR F WEAVER, INC
35092
32707.14
185965.90
195
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
HOLLY MILK DIVISION OF ATLAHT
44911
.
196
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
IND
GRINELL CORP
80195
.
.
197
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
MOUNT UNION BOROUGH
20214
0
40
8
00
17
73
9649.49
21385.68
198
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
HON
MILTON MUN AUTH
20273
1
54
8
00
31
.60
37525.80
148226.89
199 SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
HUN
LITITZ SEWAGE AUTHORITY
20320
2 .
20
1 .
45
39.
54
9716.50
264958.92
200 SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
BELLEFONTE BOROUGH
20486
1.
34
8 .
00
20.
90
32652.32
85304.18
FALLINE AFL= ABOVE FALL LINE; FALLIHE BFL= BELOW FALL LINE
DISTYPE HUH > MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCE; DISTYPE IND » INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCE
TP85 - 1985 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION IN HG/L; TH85 «¦ 1985 TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATION IN HG/L
TPL85 = 1985 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD IN POUNDS/YEAR; THL85 - 1985 TOTAL NITROGEN LOAD IN POUNDS/YEAR
-------
APPENDIX 1. 1985 BASELINE POINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS BY FACILITY (FACNAME) SORTED BY BASIN, STATE, FALLINE AND DISTYPE
OBS BASIN FALLINE STATE DISTYPE FACNAME NPDES FLOW85 TP8 5 TN85 TPL8 5 TNL85
201
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
NUN
MIDDLETOWN WASTEWATER TREATMEN
20664
0.96
1.20
24.56
3494.29
71516.37
202
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
NUN
MONTGOMERY BOROUGH
20699
0.44
8.00
27. 69
10721.66
37110.33
203
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
HUH
DOVER TOWNSHIP SEWER AUTHORITY
20826
1.60
7.50
23 .95
36551.10
116719.85
204
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
MECHANICSBURG BOROUGH MUNICIPA
20885
0.84
1.22
26.20
3110.32
66795.31
205
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
MANHEIM BOROUGH AUTH
20893
0.42
7. 50
23 .09
9594.66
29538.77
206
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
PINE GROVE BOROUGH AUTHORITY
20915
0.49
0.60
14.30
897.33
21386.35
207
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
NEW OXFORD MUNICIPAL FACILITY
20923
0.61
3.40
15.64
6327.60
29106.98
208
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
MOUNT JOY SEWAGE TREATMENT PLA
21067
0.77
1.90
22.80
4479.34
53752.05
209
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
MYERSTOWN BOROUGH
21075
0.61
0.58
20.90
1084 .71
39087.14
210
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
MARYSVILLE MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY
21571
0.46
0.29
17.73
403 .68
24679.94
211
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
WELLSBORO MUN AUTH
21687
0.95
9.50
33 .03
2748 9.47
95576.56
212
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
MARIETTA DONEGAL JOINT AUTHORI
21717
0.33
7.50
17.73
7424.44
17551.38
213
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
ABHVILLE TOWNSHIP
21806
0.45
1.38
20 .90
1874.71
28392.29
214
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
MANSFIELD BOROUGH STP
21814
0 . 40
8 .0 0
15.87
9746.96
19335 .53
215
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
NEW HOLLAND BOROUGH AUTHORITY
21890
0.52
7.50
27.64
11879.11
43778.47
216
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
BEDFORD BOROUGH MUNICIPAL AUTH
22209
0.66
2.00
32.48
4032.80
65492.75
217
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
MILLERSBURG BOROUGH AUTHORITY
22535
0.30
8.00
14.58
7358.95
13411.70
218
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
ELIZABETHTOWN BOROUGH STP
23108
1.63
2.82
30 .02
13957.95
148587.84
219
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
MT. HOLLY SPRINGS BOROUGH AUTH
23183
0.22
0.81
20 . 90
552.65
14259.80
220
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
BERWICK MUB AUTH
23248
1.80
9.50
13 .31
52085.32
72974.27
221
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
HUH
TWIN BOROUGHS SANITARY AUTHORI
23264
0 .20
8 . 0 0
17. 73
4751.64
10530.83
222
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
NUN
HOLLIDAYSBURG BOROUGH
23493
1.19
8.00
12 .76
28875.37
46056.21
223
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
DANVILLE MUN AUTH
23531
2.25
8.00
15. 75
54826.65
107939.97
224
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
ASHLABD MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY
23558
0.63
2.08
13.76
3991.38
26404.51
225
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
TRI BORO MUNICIPAL AUTHORITY
23736
0.37
2.51
19 . 39
2813.46
21734.26
226
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
NORTHEASTERN YORK COUNTRY SEW.
23744
.
.
.
.
227
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
HIGHSPIRE STP
24040
0.85
1.56
17 .20
4053.15
44688.59
228
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
NUN
PALMYRA BOROUGH AUTHORITY
24287
0.61
2.90
28.04
5405.91
52269.54
229
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
HUB
MUNCY BOROUGH MUNICIPAL AUTHOR
24325
1.18
6.50
18 .76
23362.24
67427.03
230
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
HUB
CARLISLE SUBURBAN AUTHORITY
24384
0.53
2.00
20 .90
3246.96
33930 .69
231
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
MT CARMEL MUB SEW AUTH
24406
1.14
6.50
26.25
22570.30
91149 .31
232
SUSQUEHAHBA
AFL
PA
MUN
CURWENSVILLE MUNICIPAL AUTHORI
24759
0 .60
9.50
20.90
17361.77
38195.90
233
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
HUN
SELIBSGROVE BOROUGH
24791
1 .50
8.00
20 .90
36551.10
95489.75
234
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP
24902
.
.
.
.
235
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
HUB
LOCK HAVEB CITY OF
25933
2.18
8.00
22 .35
53120.93
148406.60
236
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
HUB
CARLISLE BOROUGH SEWER SYSTEM
26077
2.57
0.85
15.25
6653.82
119377.42
237
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
HUB
WYOHIBG VALLEY SANITARY AUTHOR
26107
22 .60
5.43
14.91
373789.82
1026373 .16
238
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUB
COLUMBIA WASTEWATER TREATMENT
26123
0.62
5.30
33.63
9928.19
62997.19
239
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
HUB
HUNTIHGDON, BOROUGH OF
26191
1.76
6.20
11.17
33237.13
59880.45
240
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUB
DALLAS AREA MUNICIPAL AUTH.
26221
1.79
3.25
16.83
17719.67
91760.62
FALLINE AFL— ABOVE PALL LIBB; FALLINE BFL" BELOW FALL LINE
DISTYPE MUN = MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCE; DISTYPE IND = INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCE
TP85 = 1985 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION IB MG/L; TN85 = 1985 TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATION IN MG/L
TPL8 5 3 1985 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD IN POUNDS/YEAR; TNL8 5 = 198 5 TOTAL NITROGEN LOAD IB POUBDS/YEAR
-------
APPENDIX 1. 1985 BASELINE POINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS BY FACILITY (FACNAME) SORTED BY BASIN, STATE, PALLINE AND DISTYPE
OBS BASIN FALLINE STATE DISTYPE FACNAME NPDES FLOW85 TP85 TN85 TPL85 TNL85
241
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
HUN
UNIVERSITY AREA JT AUTH
26239
3 .23
0 . 50
13.40
4919.17
131833 .73
242
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
YORK SEWAGE WASTEWATER TRMT PL
26263
9.44
1. 80
18.07
51761.84
519631.36
243
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
LEWISTOWN, BOROUGH OF
26280
1.62
8 . 00
20.47
39475.19
101007.14
244
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
CLEARFIELD MUN AUTH
26310
3.43
8 . 00
7.77
83580.18
81177.25
245
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
LOWER LACKAWANNA VALLEY SAN. A
26361
2.29
1. 80
12.64
12555.30
88166.13
246
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
LEMOYNE BOROUGH MUNICIPAL AUTH
26441
1.31
2 . 00
25.12
7980.32
100232.86
247
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
DESRY TOWNSHIP MUN. AUTH.
26484
2.48
1 . 30
13 . 71
9820.06
103563.89
248
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
SCRANTON SEWER AUTH.
26492
13 .50
4 . 28
11.70
175993.55
481103.85
249
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
SUNBURY CITY MUN AUTH
26557
3 .50
8.00
17.73
85285.90
189014.88
250
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
MILLERSVILLE BORO OF
26620
0 .59
7.50
28.62
13409.68
51171.36
251
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
NEW CUMBERLAND BORO AUTH-STP
26654
0 .42
1. 82
24 . 68
2333.85
31648.01
252
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
LANCASTER SEW. AUTH. NORTH STP
26719
8 .70
2.92
11.50
77378.68
304744.80
253
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
TYRONE BOROUGH SEWER AUTH-STP
26727
5 .00
0 . 50
3 . 53
7614.81
53760.58
254
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
SWATARA TOWNSHIP
26735
2.61
7.50
23.17
59578.29
184057.21
255
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
LANCASTER SEW AUTH SOUTH STP
26743
9 .80
6 . 25
19 . 55
186562.91
583568.77
256
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
SPRINGETTSBURG
26808
9 .25
3 . 30
16.57
92976.86
466856.54
257
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
HANOVER STP, BOROUGH OF
26875
2 .66
8 .70
19.98
70568.29
162063.74
258
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
GREATER HAZELTON SEWAGE TREATM
26921
6 .27
4 . 28
13 .10
81739.22
250183.14
259
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY-
26999
3 .05
1 .50
20 . 90
13935.11
194162.49
260
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
ALTOONA CITY AUTHORITY-EASTERL
27014
4 .97
5 . 00
14.06
75691.24
212843.76
261
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
ALTOONA CITY AUTHORITY-WESTERL
27022
6 .67
5.00
20.90
101S81.60
424611.08
262
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
WILLIAMSPORT SAN AUTH(WEST)
27049
2 .67
8 .00
17.27
65060.96
140450.34
263
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
WILLIAMSPORT SAN AUTH(CENTRAL)
27057
7 .76
8 . 00
21.57
189091.02
509836.67
264
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
LACKAWANNA RIVER BASIN SEWER A
27065
2 .59
3 . 42
10 .30
27001.03
81318.89
265
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
LACKAWANNA RIVER BASIN SEWER A
27073
0 .60
3 . 04
11.00
5527.99
20002.59
266
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
LACKAWANNA RIVER BASIN SEWER A
27081
0 .40
2.68
15.79
3265.23
19238.06
267
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
LACKAWANNA RIVER BASIN SEWER A
27090
2 .74
4 .16
16 .51
34718.67
137789.73
268
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
HUN
BLOOMSBURG MUN AUTH
27171
4 .29
8 .00
17.73
104536.15
231678.23
269
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
HUN
LOWER ALLEN TOWHSHIP AUTHORITY
27189
2.02
1. 95
9.45
11997.90
58143.66
270
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
HARRISBURG SEWERAGE AUTHORITY-
27197
27.70
1. 51
15.59
127401.90
1315361.39
271
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
HUN
LEBANON CITY AUTHORITY-SEWAGE
27316
3.98
1. 40
24.23
16971.89
293735.00
272
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
SHAMOKIN—COAL TWP JT SAN AUTH
27324
3 .32
6 . 50
17.50
65731.06
176968.24
273
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
EPHRATA BOROUGH WASTEWATER TRE
27405
2.49
1.45
22.82
10997.31
173074.94
274
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
HUN
PINE CREEK MA—STP
27553
1.01
6 . 50
14 .65
19996.50
45069.03
275
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
BROWN TWP HUN AUTH-STP
28088
0 .22
8 .00
20 .90
5458.30
14259.80
276
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
HUN
BELLWOOD BOROUGH (AUTHORITY)
28240
0 .26
8.00
14 .47
6408.63
11591.60
277
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
HUN
MARTINSBURG SEWAGE DISPOSAL PL
28347
0.62
6.50
13 .16
12195.88
24691.97
278
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
HIFFLINBURG BOROUGH MUNICIPAL
28461
0 .73
8.00
10.49
17788.20
23324.78
279
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
NUN
CLARKS SUMMIT-SOUTH ABINGTON J
28576
1 .61
5.95
21.80
29178.44
106905.88
280
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
JERSEY SHORE, BOROUGH OF
28665
0.65
8 .00
17.40
15838.81
34449.41
FALLINE AFL= ABOVE PALL LIRE; FALLINE BFL= BELOW PALL LINE
DISTYPE MUN = MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCE; DISTYPE IND = INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCE
TP8 5 = 1985 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION IN MG/L; TH8 5 = 1985 TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATION IN NG/L
TPL85 = 1985 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD IN POUNDS/YEAR; TNL85 = 198S TOTAL NITROGEN LOAD IN POUNDS/YEAR
-------
APPENDIX 1. 1985 BASELINE POINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS BY FACILITY (FACNAME) SORTED BY BASIN, STATE, FALLINE AND DISTYPE
OBS BASIN
FALLINE
STATE
DISTYPE FACNAME
NPDES
FLOW8 5
TP85
TN85 TPL85
TNL85
281
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
HUN
KELLY TWP MUN MJTH
28681
2.15
8 . 00
18.
11
52389.91
118597.66
282
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP SEWAGE TREATM
28746
1.03
2 . 04
12.
67
6381.46
39633.85
283
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
SHIPPENSBURG BOROUGH AUTHORITY
30643
1 .55
1.00
24.
56
4721.18
115952.27
284
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
LOGAN TWP. (GREENWOOD AREA) S.T
32557
0 .44
6 . 50
20.
90
8612.35
27692.03
285
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
TOWANDA MUN AUTH
34576
0.66
8 . 00
19.
40
16082.48
39000.02
286
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
PENN TOWNSHIP SEWAGE TREATMENT
37150
1.29
0 .83
2.
33
3253.69
9133.85
287
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
MOSHANNON VALLEY JT SAN AUTH
37966
1.37
8.00
12.
75
33383.34
53204.69
288
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
EAST PENNSBORO SOUTH TREATMENT
38415
1.79
1 . 46
25.
56
7964.67
139436.23
289
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
LANCASTER AREA SEWER AUTHORITY
42269
4.90
7 . 50
15.
10
111937.74
225367.99
290
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
NEW FREEDOM WTP
43257
0 .79
7.50
20.
90
17955.73
50036.63
291
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
HOLLIDAYSBURG REGIONAL WWTP
43273
1.20
8.00
17.
73
29240.88
64805.10
292
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
NUN
SAYRE
43681
1.09
9 . 50
40.
98
31540.55
136055.99
293
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
WESTERN CLINTON CO MUN AUTH
43893
0 . 40
8 . 00
23.
98
9746.96
29216.51
294
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
S MIDDLETON TWP MUNICIPAL AUTH
44113
0 .27
0.98
24 .
56
802.97
20123.33
295
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
LEWIS BURG AREA JT SA/COLLEGE P
44661
1 . 00
8 .00
20.
90
24367.40
63659.83
296
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
MOUNTAINTOP AREA WSTWTR TMT FA
45985
1.79
2 . 90
20.
90
15811.40
113951.10
297
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
ST. JOHNS SEWES TREATMENT PLAN
46388
0.12
3 .35
20.
90
1173.44
7320 . 88
298
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUM
SHENANDOAH MUNICIPAL SEWAGE AU
70386
1 .44
3 .34
13 .
28
14649.68
58247.83
299
SUSQUEHANNA
AFL
PA
MUN
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP SEWER AUTHORI
80314
1.16
2 . 00
14 .
41
7066.55
50914.46
300
w
CHE SAP
BFL
MD
IND
W R GRACE
311
2.35
0 .30
460.
69
2150.60
3302521.50
301
w
CHE SAP
BFL
MD
IND
EASTERN STAINLESS
981
0.69
0.10
33.
66
209.20
70440.10
302
w
CHESAP
BFL
ND
IND
BETHLEHEM STEEL
1201
163.67
0 . 28
16 .
08
138106.50
8018228 . 50
303
w
CHESAP
BFL
MD
IND
CONGOLEUM
1384
0 .28
0.18
0 .
50
155.50
431.80
304
w
CHESAP
BFL
MD
IND
CHEMETALS
1775
0 .66
0.02
158.
66
40.40
320763.20
305
w
CHESAP
BFL
MD
MUN
MARYLAND MINORS (50), SUM
3 .61
5.47
17.
11
60077.10
187897.90
306
w
CHESAP
BFL
MD
MUN
APG - EDGEWOOD
21229
1.25
0 .87
7.
28
3310 . 00
27835.60
307
W CHESAP
BFL
HD
MUN
APG - ABERDEEN 21237
1.12
2.39
16
.94
8137.90
57609.70
308
W CHESAP
BFL
HD
MUN
FREEDOM DISTRICT 21512
1.30
5.14
4
.62
20324.30
18259.10
309
W CHESAP
BFL
HO
MUN
BACK RIVER 215S5
67.69
1 .81
22
.22
372513.20 4581865.80
310
W CHESAP
BFL
MD
MUN
ABERDEEN 21563
1.09
0 .35
18
.00
1151.00
59535.00
311
W CHESAP
BFL
MD
MUN
PATAPSCO 21601
41 ;36
3.43
17
.58
432404.30 2215242.00
312
W CHESAP
BFL
MD
MUN
BROADNECX 2164 4
3.18
5.81
24
.28
56297.50
235146.50
313
W CHESAP
BFL
MD
MUN
COX CREEK 21661
9.26
1.75
19
.48
49383.50 549838.70
314
W CHESAP
BFL
MD
MUN
PINE HILL RUN 21679
1.88
6.01
15
.18
34506.50
87154 .80
315
W CHESAP
BFL
HD
MUN
HAVRE DE GRACE 21750
1.48
4 .77
22
.39
21517.20
100924 .10
316
W CHESAP
BFL
MD
MUN
ANNAPOLIS 21814
6 .23
2.70
11
.55
51169.30
219230 .50
317
W CHESAP
BFL
MD
HUN
JOPPATOWNE 22535
0.72
6 . 60
18
. 00
14391.00
39274 .30
31
8
W CHESAP
BFL
MD
MUN
BROADWATER 24350
.
.
.
319
W CHESAP
BFL
MD
MUN
SOD RUN 56 545
5.74
1.32
27
.09
23106.30 473918.20
320
YORK
AFL
VA
MUN
GOSDONSVILLE STP 21105
0.55
6 . 40
18
. 70
10715.23
31308.57
FALLINE AFL= ABOVE FALL LIRE; FALLINE BFL= BELOW FALL LIVE
DISTYPE HUH =* MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCE; DISTYPE IND - INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCE
TP65 = 1985 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION IN MG/L; TN85 - 1985 TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATION IN MG/L
TPL85 = 1985 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD IN POUNDS/YEAR; TNL85 ¦ 1985 TOTAL NITROGEN LOAD IN POUNDS/YEAR
-------
APPENDIX 1. 1985 BASELINE POINT SOURCE NUTRIENT LOADS BY FACILITY (FACNAME) SORTED BY BASIN, STATE, FALLINE AND DISTYPE
OBS
BASIN
FALLINE
STATE
DISTYPE FACNAME
NPDES
FLOW8 5
TP85 TN85 TPLJ
321 YORK
AFL
VA
MUN
ASHLAND STP
24899
0 .86
4 .70
13 .39
12304.25
322 YORK
AFL
VA
MUN
DOSWELL STP
29521
0.29
2.89
18 .70
2551.00
323 YORK
AFL
VA
MUN
CAROLINE CO. REGIONAL STP
73504
0.00
0.00
0 .00
0.00
324 YORK
BFL
VA
IND
AMOCO - YORKTOWN
3018
1.43
0 .51
36 .24
2220.00
325 YORK
BFL
VA
IND
CHESAPEAKE CORP.-WEST PT.
3115
13 .68
5.80
14.08
241531.00
326 YORK
BFL
VA
MUN
WEST POINT STP
22195
0 .50
6 . 40
18 .70
9741.12
327 YORK
BFL
VA
MUN
HRSD-YORK STP (OLD VA0064238)
81311
7.36
6 . 79
21.51
152127.00
5 TNL85
35054.00
16508.15
0.00
157755.00
586337.00
28462.34
481922.00
FALLINE AFL= ABOVE FALL LINE; FALLINE BFL= BELOW FALL LINE
DISTYPE MUN = MUNICIPAL POINT SOURCE; DISTYPE IND = INDUSTRIAL POINT SOURCE
TP85 = 1985 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS CONCENTRATION IN HG/L; TN85 = 1985 TOTAL NITROGEN CONCENTRATION IN HG/L
TPL85 = 1985 TOTAL PHOSPHORUS LOAD IN POUNDS/YEAR; TNLS5 = 1985 TOTAL NITROGEN LOAD IN POUNDS/YEAR
userdisk:(joe.tables]report2.app
------- |