j
\
i
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
-------
Report Contributors:
Martha Chang
Dave Cofer
Dan Engelberg
Linda Fuller
Julie Hamann
Gerry Snyder
Abbreviations
CBPO Chesapeake Bay Program Office
DCWASA District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority
EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
mg/1 Milligrams per liter
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OIG Office of Inspector General
TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load
Cover photo:
Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant, Washington DC.
(Photo courtesy District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority)
-------
,V16D Sr/|,
I
5
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
08-P-0049
January 8, 2008
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Why We Did This Review
This review is one of several
conducted by the Office of
Inspector General in response
to a congressional request. We
sought to determine how well
the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is
assisting its Chesapeake Bay
partners in cleaning up the Bay.
This report evaluates the
progress in controlling
discharges from wastewater
treatment facilities.
Background
Nutrient overload has been
identified as the primary cause
of water quality degradation
within the Chesapeake Bay.
Wastewater treatment facilities
are responsible for
approximately 20 percent of
nutrient discharges into the
Bay. Of this amount, the
483 largest or "significant"
facilities account for 95 percent
of the discharges. Wastewater
treatment facility operations are
governed by the Clean Water
Act's National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
Permitting Program.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional and Public
Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
www.epa.qov/oiq/reports/2008/
20080108-08-P-0049.pdf
Despite Progress, EPA Needs to Improve
Oversight of Wastewater Upgrades in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
What We Found
Chesapeake Bay wastewater treatment facilities risk not meeting the 2010 deadline
for nutrient reductions if key facilities are not upgraded in time. In the 7 years
since signing the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, EPA and its State partners have
taken a number of steps to lay the foundation for achieving the 2010 wastewater
nutrient reduction goals. Water quality standards have been set, nutrient loadings
have been allocated, and nutrient limits are beginning to be incorporated into
permits. However, States need to finish adding nutrient limits to the permits, and
the facilities will need to make significant reductions in the 3 years remaining
before the deadline. Crucially, these reductions will need to be maintained once
achieved. Significant challenges include generating sufficient funding and
addressing continuing population growth. EPA needs to better monitor progress to
ensure needed upgrades occur on time and loading reductions are achieved and
maintained. Otherwise, Bay waters will continue to be impaired, adversely
affecting living resources throughout the ecosystem that supports commercial and
recreational uses.
We also looked at the potential for obtaining additional reductions from wastewater
treatment facilities to compensate for goals not being met in other areas, but
determined that this would not be practical or cost effective.
What We Recommend
We recommend that the EPA Region 3 Regional Administrator work with the
States to establish interim construction milestones for priority facilities; monitor
milestone and financial funding progress for these facilities; and continue efforts in
developing effective and credible water quality trading programs. The Regional
Administrator should also have EPA and States continue to evaluate industrial
discharges and refine industrial nutrient cap loads where appropriate. In response to
our draft report, EPA concurred with all our recommendations and estimated that
wastewater facilities will come close to achieving the nutrient reduction goals in
2010. EPA's estimate was based on new information which had not been verified
by EPA and was received too late for the OIG to evaluate.
-------
s
I
z
w
c
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
OFFICE OF
INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
January 8, 2008
Despite Progress, EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of
Wastewater Upgrades in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Report No. 08-P-0049
Wade T. Najjum
Assistant Inspector General, Office otProgram Evaluation
Donald S. Welsh
Regional Administrator, Region 3
This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG)
of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe
the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report
represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position.
Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with
established resolution procedures.
The estimated cost of this report - calculated by multiplying the project's staff days by the
applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time - is $571,638.
Action Required
In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this
report within 90 calendar days. You should include a corrective actions plan for agreed upon
actions, including milestone dates. We have no objections to the further release of this report to
the public. This report will be available at http://www.epa.gov/oig.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at 202-566-0827
or najjum.wade@epa.gov: Dan Engelberg, Director, at 202-566-0830 or engelberg.dan@epa.gov:
or Linda Fuller, Project Manager, at 617-918-1485 or fuller.linda@epa.gov.
-------
Despite Progress, EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of Wastewater Upgrades
in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Table of Contents
Chapters
1 Introduction 1
Purpose 1
Background 1
Noteworthy Achievements 4
Scope and Methodology 5
2 Wastewater Treatment Facilities Risk Not Achieving 2010 Goals
if Various Challenges Are Not Overcome 6
More Nutrient Reductions Needed 6
Challenges Must Be Overcome to Achieve Nutrient Reduction Goals 9
Conclusions 14
Recommendations 14
Agency Response and OIG Comments 15
3 Obtaining Additional Nutrient Reductions from
Wastewater Facilities Not Cost Effective or Practical 16
Limited Additional Reductions 16
Potential Additional Wastewater Reductions
Cannot Compensate for Other Sectors' Missed Goals 18
Conclusions 18
Recommendation 18
Agency Response and OIG Comments 18
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits 19
Appendices
A Details on Scope and Methodology 20
B Tables on Reductions Needed 23
C Agency Response 25
D OIG Evaluation of Agency Response 30
E Calculation of Potential Additional Nutrient Reductions
Below Existing Cap Load Allocations 33
F Distribution 34
-------
Chapter 1
Introduction
Purpose
In 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its Chesapeake
Bay Program partners (Bay partners) agreed to improve the water quality of the
Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. They sought to improve the water
quality to the level needed to support aquatic life and to have the Bay removed
from EPA's impaired waters list by 2010. If the Bay partners do not achieve their
nutrient reduction goals by 2010, EPA plans to establish a total maximum daily
load (TMDL) for the watershed.
Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland requested the EPA Office of Inspector
General (OIG) to evaluate the progress being made toward achieving the 2010
goals. In 2006, after we had started this review, EPA acknowledged that the
nutrient goals will not be met by 2010 but did not set a new date. We previously
reported on progress in agriculture, air deposition, and land development. This
report focuses on progress in reducing contributions from wastewater treatment
facilities. We sought to answer the following questions:
Will the 2010 goals for reducing nutrient loads from wastewater treatment
facilities be achieved and sustained to restore the ecological health of the
Chesapeake Bay?
What challenges must be overcome to meet and sustain reduction goals for
nutrient loads from wastewater treatment facilities within the Chesapeake
Bay watershed?
What further reductions can be achieved from wastewater treatment
facilities if a future TMDL were to require point sources to compensate for
non-point discharges not meeting 2010 goals?
Background
The Chesapeake Bay is North America's largest and most biologically diverse
estuary and provides the region economic and recreational benefits. The
Chesapeake Bay watershed covers 64,000 square miles and includes parts of six
States - Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West
Virginia - and all of the District of Columbia. A watershed refers to a geographic
area in which water drains to a common outlet. As of 2005, more than 16 million
people lived within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
-------
Nutrients Primary Cause of Bay Water Quality Degradation
Nutrient overload has been identified as the primary cause of water quality
degradation within the Chesapeake Bay. Nitrogen and phosphorus, also known as
nutrients, are the basic building blocks for vegetation. However, in an aquatic
environment, excess nutrients fuel large algal blooms that block sunlight and
deplete oxygen as the algae decompose. Without sunlight, underwater bay
grasses cannot grow, and without sufficient oxygen blue crabs and fish cannot
live. Nutrients come from many sources, such as lawn fertilizer, wastewater
treatment plants, septic systems, cropland, livestock, and the air. Figures 1.1 and
1.2 illustrate the contributions of nitrogen and phosphorus from various sectors.
Figure 1.1: Nitrogen Loads-2005
Figure 1.2: Phosphorus Loads
Forest
Wastewa
22%
2005
Septic
5%
Mixed Open
7%
Atmospheric
Deposition to
Urban Runoff Non-Tidal
12o/0 Water
1%
Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Office data
In an effort to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay's ecosystem, State and
Federal agencies, academic institutions, and non-government organizations
formed a regional partnership in 1983. The State governments, District of
Columbia, and EPA signed various agreements in 1983, 1987, and 2000. The
latest agreement, Chesapeake 2000, was signed by the States of Maryland,
Pennsylvania, and Virginia (the "signatory States"); the District of Columbia; the
Chesapeake Bay Commission (a tri-state legislative advisory body); and EPA.
As the representative of the Federal Government, EPA and its Chesapeake Bay
Program Office (CBPO) coordinate partner activity and implementation of
strategies to meet the restoration goals of the Chesapeake Bay. CBPO,
headquartered in Annapolis, Maryland, is part of EPA's Region 3. Part of the
CBPO's charge is coordinating the actions of EPA with those of appropriate
officials of other Federal agencies and State and local authorities in developing
strategies to:
improve the water quality and living resources in the Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem, and
obtain the support of the appropriate officials of the agencies and
authorities in achieving the objectives of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement.
-------
In Chesapeake 2000, the Bay partners agreed to improve water quality in the Bay
and its tributaries so that these waters would be removed from EPA's impaired
waters list by 2010 and avoid the development of a TMDL. The non-signatory
Bay watershed States of Delaware, New York, and West Virginia also agreed to
nutrient goals by signing a six-State Memorandum of Understanding with EPA.
A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant a waterbody can
receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation (wasteload
allocation) of that amount to the pollutant's sources. These allocations would be
incorporated as new discharge limits in permits of wastewater treatments
facilities.
Wastewater Sector Governed by Clean Water Act Regulations
Wastewater treatment facility operations are governed by the Clean Water Act's
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permitting Program.
Facilities must obtain a permit from the State or EPA to discharge pollutants into
a waterbody. Permits are issued for a specific period of time not to exceed
5 years. Facilities are expected to monitor and report on their compliance with
permit limits. Region 3 administers the NPDES program for the District of
Columbia while the States administer their own programs.
In 2004, EPA, the six watershed States and District of Columbia agreed to the
NPDES Permitting Approach of Discharges of Nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed, with the purpose of issuing NPDES permits to "significant" municipal
and industrial wastewater treatment facilities to further the goals of the
Chesapeake 2000 agreement. "Significant" facilities were defined as a subset of
all municipal and industrial facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed that are
discharging or have potential to discharge significant amounts of nitrogen and
phosphorus.
EPA and its Bay partners expect most significant municipal wastewater treatment
facilities to upgrade plant technologies to meet the new NPDES permit limits.
Most limits have been set to require biological nutrient removal technology,
through which bacteria-enhanced treatment reduces effluent total nitrogen to an
average of 5 milligrams per liter (mg/1) and total phosphorus to an average of
0.5 mg/1. Maryland has required all of its significant facilities and Virginia half to
use state-of-the-art, or enhanced, nutrient removal technology. Such technology
can achieve total nitrogen levels as low as 3 mg/1 and total phosphorus levels as a
low as 0.03 mg/1.
To date, EPA and its Bay partners have identified 483 facilities (402 municipal
wastewater plants and 81 industrial wastewater plants) as "significant"
dischargers of nitrogen and phosphorus. Table 1.1 provides a breakdown by
jurisdiction. The total number of significant facilities will increase over time as
growth in population leads to increased flows at the smaller facilities.
-------
Table 1.1: Chesapeake Bay Significant Wastewater Treatment Facilities
Jurisdiction
District of Columbia
Delaware
Maryland
New York
Pennsylvania
Virginia
West Virginia
Total
Municipal
1
3
75
26
183
101
13
402
Industrial
0
1
10
2
30
23
15
81
Total
1
4
85
28
213
124
28
483
Design Flow
(million gallons
per day)
370
3
676
91
648
1,206
46
3.0401
Source: CBPO as of July 2007
The size of significant facilities, measured in terms of design flow - the quantity
of sewerage a plant is designed to discharge - typically starts with a minimum
design flow of 0.4 to 0.5 million gallons per day, depending on the State's
definition. These plants account for approximately 95 percent of the nitrogen and
phosphorus wastewater loads into the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Discharges
from wastewater treatment facilities are described in terms of "delivered" or
"discharged" loads. Loads express the amount of a particular pollutant discharged
to the receiving water. The discharged load is that discharged at the end-of-pipe.
The delivered load is an estimated load from the Bay watershed model that
represents the amount of nutrient that reaches the tidal waters of the Chesapeake
Bay or its tributaries.
Noteworthy Achievements
EPA and its Bay partners have taken considerable steps to lay the foundation for
achieving the 2010 wastewater point source nutrient reduction goals. EPA
worked with its Bay partners to establish the overall nutrient reduction goals so
that the Bay and its tributaries can be removed from the impaired waters list.
EPA assisted the States in revising their water quality standards by issuing its
April 2003 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity,
and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries, and its
October 2003 Technical Support Document for Identification of Chesapeake Bay
Designated Uses and Attainability.
In December 2004, EPA Regions 2 and 3 and the Chesapeake Bay jurisdictional
partners developed and agreed to the NPDES Permitting Approach for Discharges
of Nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed for municipal and industrial
wastewater NPDES discharge sources. With this approach, EPA and State
NPDES permitting authorities agreed to place annual total nitrogen and
phosphorus load limits (consistent with the individual State tributary strategies)
and monitoring requirements (consistent with Chesapeake Bay nutrient goals) in
1 For two high flow cooling water facilities, the CBPO tracks only the loadings and not the design flow; therefore,
the design flow represents 481 rather than 483 facilities.
-------
the permits of all significant dischargers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This
is particularly noteworthy considering some dischargers are hundreds of miles
upstream and may not directly benefit from improvements to the Bay.
Scope and Methodology
We conducted this evaluation in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the evaluation to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our evaluation
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our evaluation objectives.
We reviewed loadings data from 1985 to 2005 to determine the progress the
Chesapeake Bay Program partners have made in reducing nutrients, and the
activities the Bay partners had taken in meeting wastewater treatment nutrient
reduction goals resulting from the Chesapeake 2000 agreement. We performed
our work at EPA Region 3 and the Chesapeake Bay Program, and Chesapeake
Bay jurisdictions, from October 2006 through July 2007. For the purposes of this
evaluation, the only point sources reviewed were wastewater treatment facilities.
We did not review discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations or
stormwater point sources. Discharges from stormwater are discussed in another
report.2
Appendix A provides further details on our scope and methodology, including
prior reviews.
2 EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00031, Development Growth Outpacing Progress in Watershed Efforts to Restore
the Chesapeake Bay, September 10, 2007.
-------
Chapter 2
Wastewater Treatment Facilities Risk Not Achieving
2010 Goals if Various Challenges Are Not Overcome
Chesapeake Bay wastewater treatment facilities risk not achieving the 2010
deadline for nutrient reductions if key facilities are not upgraded in time. EPA
and its Bay partners agreed wastewater treatment facilities should discharge no
more than 43.6 million pounds of nitrogen and 3.3 million pounds of phosphorus
on an annual basis.3 EPA and its Bay partners have made progress in controlling
nutrient discharges from these facilities but challenges persist, including:
generating sufficient funding to upgrade technology,
developing viable trading programs, and
maintaining existing cap loads with increasing population.
If wastewater treatment facilities are not upgraded as expeditiously as possible,
Bay waters will continue to be impaired, adversely affecting the living resources
throughout the ecosystem that support commercial and recreational uses.
More Nutrient Reductions Needed
Although the wastewater treatment sector has made progress, more reductions are
needed to achieve the nutrient reduction goals. Based on CBPO data, nitrogen
loads delivered to the Bay declined from 88 million pounds per year in 1985 to
63 million pounds in 2000. These reductions can be attributed to industrial
reductions and installation of biological nutrient reduction technology at some
municipal facilities. Phosphorus loads delivered to the Bay declined from
9 million pounds per year in 1985 to 4 million pounds in 2000 as a result of
improved treatment capability and implementation of phosphate detergent bans.
Since 2000, when the 2010 nutrient goals were established, nitrogen and
phosphorus loadings have declined. Based on CBPO data, nitrogen loads
delivered to the Bay declined from 63 million pounds per year in 2000 to
54 million pounds in 2005. Phosphorus loads delivered to the Bay declined from
4.3 million pounds per year in 2000 to 4 million pounds in 2005. Despite this
progress, more reductions are needed to achieve the 2010 goals, which are
43.6 million pounds for nitrogen and 3.3 million pounds for phosphorus on an
annual basis. Achieving the goals on time is uncertain based on the existing rate
3 The wastewater treatment nutrient reductions goals were obtained from State-provided documents and may have
changed slightly from the tributary strategies. EPA and State officials both agreed that it is more accurate to present
current State nutrient reductions goals.
-------
of decline for both total nitrogen and phosphorus. EPA and its Bay partners are
relying on a number of significant wastewater treatment facilities to install or
upgrade nutrient removal technology during the remaining years before, as well as
after, the 2010 deadline.
A Few Facilities Responsible for Majority of Nutrient Reductions
A few States and facilities are responsible for the majority of nutrient reductions
needed. At the State level, Maryland and Virginia are responsible for
approximately 81 percent of the additional 10.4 million pounds per year of
nitrogen reductions needed to meet the wastewater treatment reduction goal.
West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland are responsible for approximately
73 percent of the additional 724,000 pounds per year needed in phosphorus
reductions. See Appendix B, Table B.I, for more details. At the facility level,
five municipal facilities account for approximately half of overall nitrogen
reductions required, and two facilities account for approximately a third of the
phosphorus reductions needed. See Appendix B, Tables B.2 and B.3, for more
information.
Limited Facility Progress Information
We cannot reasonably estimate when the wastewater facilities will achieve the
nutrient reduction goals because neither EPA nor all the States we reviewed were
able to provide up-to-date information on the status of facility upgrades. Much
progress remains to be made by EPA and the States in revising permits, and by
the wastewater treatment facilities in constructing and improving nutrient removal
technology at their plants. As of July 2007, only 32 percent of the 483 significant
facilities had received nitrogen and phosphorus permit limits. These 156 facilities
represent approximately 55 percent of the Chesapeake Bay design flow.
Revising NPDES permits represents an important step in achieving the reduction
goals. The nutrient discharge limits will provide the facilities with permit
requirements that are enforceable by EPA and the States. Therefore, EPA and the
States need to incorporate these new limits into the permits as quickly as possible
to allow sufficient time for construction and implementation.
EPA and States should also include interim construction milestones for the major
phases of design completion, construction start, construction completion, and
compliance with permit limits. Because the pace of nutrient reductions needs to
be accelerated, milestones should provide for an aggressive schedule to complete
construction as expeditiously as possible. EPA and the States should routinely
monitor progress and take appropriate action to get any facilities falling behind
schedule back on track. EPA and the States also need to monitor the construction
progress of facilities under a general permit and follow up to ensure these
facilities are upgraded on a timely basis.
-------
State managers said they expect well over 200 wastewater treatment facilities to
meet the 2010 nutrient reduction goals. However, as of the end of 2006, only
Maryland could provide a schedule of plant upgrades, and reported only two
facilities as construction completed. Pennsylvania and Virginia did not have
schedules. Based on the limited information provided to us, we believe these
projections may be optimistic given the long lead times necessary to complete
these projects, and the increased demand on limited construction companies and
rising construction costs. To meet the deadline, the State agencies will need to be
aggressive by issuing permits with enforceable milestones as soon as possible.
Based on November 2006 data, Maryland officials expect 54 municipal facilities to
be upgraded with state-of-the-art, or enhanced, nutrient removal technology by
2010. Nine additional municipal facilities are expected to be upgraded by 2011.4
Excluding the Maryland portion of the largest facility (Blue Plains) in the
watershed, Maryland officials estimate the next two largest Maryland facilities
(Back River and Patapsco) will be upgraded in 2012. Table 2.1 provides more
details for Maryland. As of July 2007, Maryland reported issuing six permits with
the stricter nutrient limits. Other wastewater treatment permits will include stricter
nutrient limits as they come up for renewal on their 5-year permitting cycles. Only
two facilities currently are operating with enhanced nutrient removal technology.
Table 2.1: Status of Maryland Municipal Facilities in Upgrading to
Enhanced Nutrient Removal Technology
Number of Facilities
Design Flow
(million gallons per day)
Enhanced Nutrient
Removal Technology
Installed
2
3.7
Construction
Phase
10
25.9
Design, Planning, or
Pre-planning
53
551.7
Source: Maryland Department of the Environment, November 2006 implementation data.
Note: The Blue Plains facility, specifically Maryland's portion of Blue Plains' design flow (169.6 million gallons
per day), is not included in this analysis.
According to Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's Section
Chief, Engineering and Construction Section, the State reopened the permits for its
63 largest facilities in January 2007 to include more stringent limits. Officials are
relying on the upgrade of these facilities and a successful nutrient trading program
to meet their wastewater treatment nutrient reduction goals. Of the three signatory
States, Pennsylvania is the one State that expects to meet these goals by 2010.
Virginia issued a general permit with more stringent nutrient limits in September
2006 covering all 124 of its significant wastewater treatment facilities. However,
compliance plans were not available at the time of the OIG review. As a result,
Virginia officials were unable to tell which facilities planned to upgrade in the
near future and which planned to utilize the State nutrient trading program.
4 Maryland Department of the Environment officials did not provide implementation data on the six Federal municipal
facilities and four small municipal facilities (Piney Orchard, Marlboro Meadows, Hampstead, and Rock Hall).
-------
Challenges Must Be Overcome to Achieve Nutrient Reduction Goals
Facilities will need to overcome challenges to achieve nutrient reduction goals.
These include obtaining sufficient funds for new technology, establishing viable
trading programs, and addressing population growth.
Additional Funds Needed to Implement Technology
Obtaining sufficient and timely funding to install nutrient removal technology
poses the greatest challenge faced by municipalities in achieving nutrient
reduction goals. Based on the jurisdiction and CBPO data, a minimum of
$3.36 to $3.96 billion is needed to upgrade wastewater treatment plants to meet
Tributary Strategies. See Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Estimated Nutrient Removal Technology Costs Compared to State Grant
Funds Provided
in
n ti Ann
i
t1 9DD
ti nnn
tsnn
$600
-------
Even though Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are providing municipalities
with grants to install nutrient upgrades, these grants will not fund all the costs.
EPA does not have a dedicated grant program to provide funding for the
construction or upgrade of wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore,
municipalities will need to determine how they will generate sufficient funding.
The jurisdictions have addressed the funding challenge in different ways.
Virginia and Maryland created Chesapeake Bay watershed-specific funding
sources to support plant upgrades. In contrast, the District of Columbia and
Pennsylvania do not have dedicated Chesapeake Bay watershed-specific funding
sources for nutrient removal technology. All jurisdictions, including Maryland
and Virginia, face funding gaps due to increasing construction costs. The
additional funds needed may be obtained from rate payers or loans from the State
revolving fund or other lending institutions.
District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DCWASA) officials have not
identified how they plan to fund the District's portion (approximately
$330 million) of the estimated $800 million for the Blue Plains facility upgrade.
The Blue Plains facility is the largest wastewater treatment facility in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed, and also serves communities in Maryland and
Virginia. Progress in reducing nutrients has been made at the Blue Plains facility.
The facility already is meeting its phosphorus wasteload cap allocation and has
achieved approximately 90 percent of the total nitrogen reductions needed.
However, because of its significant size and location on the Bay, achieving the
remaining 10 percent nitrogen reductions is vital to the ultimate protection of the
Bay. In April 2007, EPA modified DCWASA's NPDES permit to further reduce
Blue Plains facility's nitrogen limits. A timeline for installing the nutrient
removal technology needed to meet these new limits is expected to be outlined in
a forthcoming consent agreement with EPA. Similar to other facilities, the Blue
Plains facility has competing priorities, such as a court-ordered consent decree to
reduce combined sewer overflows at an estimated cost of $2 billion. DCWASA
officials estimate addressing both nutrient reduction goals and the combined
sewer overflow issue could result in double-digit rate increases for District of
Columbia rate payers.
Pennsylvania officials estimate it will cost approximately $260 to $360 million to
achieve its wastewater treatment tributary strategy goals. Pennsylvania does not
have a dedicated funding source to support nutrient removal technology upgrades
at wastewater treatment facilities within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
However, the State has provided approximately $28 million in grant funds to
wastewater treatment facilities within the Bay watershed. Pennsylvania municipal
wastewater treatment facilities are exploring various options to fund nutrient
removal technology upgrades. These options include securing loans from State
revolving funds, leveraging bonds, and increasing user fees.
10
-------
Virginia officials estimate it will cost approximately $1.5 to $2.0 billion to meet
wastewater treatment allocations. Virginia established the Water Quality
Improvement Fund to provide funding for nutrient removal technology upgrades.
Virginia officials estimate the cost to the State for providing grants to meet the
allocations is between $750 million and $1 billion. It has appropriated
$550 million to the Fund, and based on Virginia's information, the OIG calculated
that an additional $200 to $450 million in Fund commitments will be needed for
nutrient removal technology upgrades.
Maryland officials estimate it will cost approximately $1 billion to achieve its
wastewater nutrient allocations. In 2004, Maryland created the Bay Restoration
Fund to fully finance enhanced nutrient removal technology upgrades at all
municipal wastewater treatment plants. The Bay Restoration Fund, supported by
a monthly $2.50 household user fee, provides approximately $65 million a year.
Maryland officials estimate user fees will generate approximately $750 million
for enhanced nutrient removal projects. Despite this dedicated funding, Maryland
officials still expect a funding shortfall of approximately $250 million.
The issue of insufficient funding is magnified by the fact that construction costs
have rapidly increased in recent years. Revised cost estimates from Maryland's
wastewater treatment facilities demonstrate this trend. Maryland's estimate of the
cost of upgrades to enhanced nutrient removal technology increased by more than
35 percent, from $740 million to more than $1.02 billion, in the last 2 years.
Following the 20-City Average Construction Cost Index, a leading construction
industry indicator, the construction market inflation rate increased from an
historical 2 to 3 percent annual rate to 3.79 percent annually between 2000 and
2004 and 4.51 percent annually between 2004 and 2006. Within the Chesapeake
Bay watershed, these inflation rates may be even higher due to an increased
volume of construction activity.
Costs to implement nutrient removal technology differ widely for each
wastewater treatment plant. Costs depend on the plant's size, configuration,
existing nutrient removal processes, and treatment needs. We estimate "typical"
construction costs for nutrient removal technology to be approximately
$12.5 million for a 10-million-gallons-per-day plant serving 52,000 people
(approximately 20,000 households).5 Construction costs give smaller
communities or communities with lower median household incomes a larger
financial problem. States are exploring alternative ways to lessen the economic
burden, including nutrient trading.
5 OIG calculated costs using $1.25 per gallon for nutrient removal (obtained from Pennsylvania and Maryland cost
documents). A domestic treatment plant is expected to treat an average of 74 gallons per day per capita (source:
Water Environment Federation's Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants). The average number of
persons in a typical U.S. household is estimated to be 2.59 (source: 2000 U.S. Census). [10 million gallons per day /
(74 gallons per day*2.59 average number of person in a typical household) = 52,000 people, or 20,000 households.]
11
-------
As recognized by EPA and the State partners, funding is critical to the success of
the Chesapeake Bay wastewater nutrient reduction effort. The existing grant
money provided by the States will not address all of the costs. Municipalities will
need to consider other funding options. On its Website, EPA provides guidance
and software programs for analyzing the financing of clean water projects, which
municipalities may find useful. EPA's March 2007 Tools for Financing Water
Infrastructure refers readers to tools municipalities can use in financial analysis.
In June 2007, EPA announced the availability of the Financing Alternatives
Comparison Tool, which provides a side-by-side comparison of various financing
options. EPA needs to further promote the use of these tools to the Chesapeake
Bay wastewater community. EPA should also gather information from States and
report on the progress individual wastewater facilities are making in funding and
constructing nutrient removal technology as part of the CBPO's annual reporting
process. The CBPO recently started to issue health and restoration assessments
annually but these reports do not include financial data. Reporting facility
progress in obtaining funding will help publicize the need, as appropriate, for
greater public support for facility upgrades.
EPA Needs to Continue Working with States on Trading Programs
EPA needs to develop a formal plan to capture and disseminate lessons learned
from its oversight of the Chesapeake Bay States' development of water quality
trading programs. Water quality trading allows facilities facing higher pollution
control costs to meet regulatory obligations by purchasing equivalent (or superior)
pollution reductions from another source at lower cost. States are relying on
trading as a tool in achieving and maintaining the goals.
In August 2007, EPA issued the non-binding, Water Quality Trading Toolkit for
Permit Writers. The toolkit provides national guidance to States on developing
their water quality trading programs. The guidance recommends that EPA and its
Bay partners (a) ensure permits contain enforceable trading provisions, (b) review
monitoring data, and (c) ensure enforcement takes place if credits are not realized.
EPA and its partners need to ensure that the developing water quality programs
are consistent with the Clean Water Act and include the above recommended
provisions so that programs will be credible and successful across the watershed.
EPA has provided guidance to the Chesapeake Bay States in developing their
trading programs. Senior EPA officials stated that they do not want to stifle
creativity and have encouraged flexibility. Both Virginia and Pennsylvania
regard their trading programs as integral tools to achieving wastewater
commitments. Maryland plans to use the trading program as a tool for
maintaining its 2010 nutrient goal reductions. Because the States are testing
different approaches, it is important that EPA have a formal mechanism to track
water quality trading so that others can learn.
12
-------
Considering that the Bay partners will be using innovative trading techniques -
such as point to non-point source trading - Bay partners, traders, and other
stakeholders need to be assured the programs are credible. Otherwise, trades
could result in non-point sources receiving credit for more nutrient reductions
than actually available. To prevent this, EPA needs to continue to ensure State
programs establish baselines and enforceable agreements that allow for
inspections.
Another concern is the future viability of interstate trades when each State has the
flexibility to develop their own programs. EPA should continue working with the
States to address these concerns on a watershed basis. EPA and the States should
develop a "common currency" - equivalent and clearly defined units of trades -
which allows participants and regulators to evaluate and monitor potential trades.
This will also help ensure programs have sufficient safeguards.
EPA will need to develop a system to collect the information it needs to share
with States on lessons learned in developing trading programs. This will be an
important task considering that States are being allowed flexibility in developing
their programs and the partners are still addressing complex trades between point
and non-point sectors. When interstate trading starts, EPA should develop a
tracking system for these trades.
Rising Population Growth Can Impact Cap Loads
Maintaining existing cap loads amidst rapid population growth presents a major
challenge. If the wastewater treatment facilities cannot further upgrade or expand
their capacity to take on additional customers, new development may need to rely
on septic systems or build their own small treatment systems. The Bay partners
project population growth of greater than 20 percent in many watershed areas,
with some areas projected to grow by more than 60 percent by 2030. The
suburban and rural edges surrounding the District of Columbia, Baltimore, and
Richmond are expected to experience the greatest growth, putting stress on the
wastewater treatment capacity of local municipal systems.6
EPA and the States have not overlooked growth's effect on the wastewater
treatment sector. EPA and State officials maintain that existing cap load
allocations will not change in response to population growth, and that any
increases in load resulting from population growth at wastewater treatment
facilities will be offset by other means, such as water quality trading or advances
in technology. Even though non-significant facilities represent approximately
5 percent of the nutrient load to the Bay, States are planning to place controls on
limiting expansion of non-significant facilities, down to facilities as small as
40,000 gallons per day in Virginia. While this is a positive effort, it may have the
6 For example, independent analysts project Virginia basins could experience 2 to 6 percent average annual flow
increases between 2004-2010 (CH2MHUI, May 31, 2006 Technical Memorandum).
13
-------
unintended consequence of increasing reliance on less regulated septic systems or
small wastewater treatment facilities, or even illegal hookups.
We discussed land development issues in more detail in a prior report,
Development Growth Outpacing Progress in Watershed Efforts to Restore the
Chesapeake Bay. We recommended that EPA take the lead in addressing such
issues by developing a strategy to reverse the trend of increasing loads from
developing lands. In this strategy, EPA would develop a set of environmentally-
sensitive design practices that result in no-net increase in nutrient and sediment
loads in new development, and methods to work with States and communities to
adopt these practices.
Conclusions
Wastewater treatment plants have made progress in reducing nutrients, but
wastewater facilities risk not meeting the 2010 deadline if key facilities are not
upgraded in time. EPA and its Bay partners must address the challenges of
securing adequate funding, establishing a sound and viable trading program, and
controlling nutrient loading amidst rapid population growth. Construction costs
have been rising faster than dedicated funding sources. However, these
challenges are not insurmountable. Better management and tracking, and early
detection of shortfalls, can help achieve and sustain required wastewater
reductions. EPA and the States need to take a more active role in monitoring the
progress of municipalities in addressing these challenges and provide assistance
or other appropriate actions as necessary.
Recommendations
We recommend that the EPA Region 3 Regional Administrator instruct staff to:
2-1 Review and comment on State-drafted NPDES permits for significant
facilities to ensure that interim construction milestones are included in
compliance schedules longer than 1 year to meet the Chesapeake Bay
allocations. The milestones should include:
design completion
construction start
construction completion
compliance with permit limits
2-2 Obtain from NPDES-authorized States information on progress in
achieving the milestones above for "select priority facilities." Such
priority facilities include those that are identified as needing the largest
nutrient reductions and are identified by the States as missing the interim
milestones noted in Recommendation 2-1. If milestones are missed, EPA
14
-------
will work with the States to take appropriate followup action to ensure
compliance with the milestones.
2-3 Collect information and report on the amount and source of funding for
the aforementioned "select priority facilities" as part of the CBPO's
annual reporting process.
2-4 Promote awareness of and use of the "Financing Alternatives Comparison
Tool" and other financial analysis tools within the Chesapeake Bay
community.
2-5 Continue to assist States in their development of effective trading
programs by ensuring that: (a) States establish a common nutrient trading
currency, and (b) lessons learned are captured and disseminated. In
addition, if an interstate trading protocol or program is developed, EPA
should develop a formal mechanism to track water quality trading across
State lines.
Agency Response and OIG Comments
EPA concurred with all our recommendations. EPA also included an estimate
showing that the wastewater facilities will come close to meeting their nutrient
reduction goals in 2010. This information was received from State Agencies
when EPA was reviewing our draft report. The new information had not yet been
verified by EPA. Because our review had been completed, we could not evaluate
the new information and therefore do not express an opinion on the veracity or
accuracy of the data.
A complete copy of the Agency's response can be found in Appendix C and our
detailed comments in Appendix D.
15
-------
Chapter 3
Obtaining Additional Nutrient Reductions from
Wastewater Facilities Not Cost Effective or Practical
Although EPA and its Bay partners could obtain additional nutrient reductions
from significant municipal wastewater treatment facilities to compensate for other
sources not meeting 2010 goals, these additional reductions are not cost effective
or practical. Obtaining these additional reductions would require justifying
additional expenditures, recalculating wasteload allocations, and reopening and
modifying permits already being put in place. At this point, EPA has no plans to
require additional reductions from wastewater treatment facilities.
Limited Additional Reductions
Municipal Facilities - Additional Reductions Possible but Not
Cost Effective
Potential additional nutrient reductions from municipal wastewater treatment
facilities can be obtained beyond their cap load allocations if all significant
municipal facilities operated with state-of-the-art nutrient removal technology.
Facilities in the District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia could
reduce the nutrients delivered to the Bay by up to 9.9 million pounds per year for
nitrogen and 1 million pounds for phosphorus. This equates to approximately
14 and 20 percent, respectively, of the overall reductions needed by the non-point
nutrient sources to meet the Chesapeake Bay nutrient goals. Based on our
methodology (see Appendix E), our estimate represents the upper reaches.
However, these additional reductions may not be cost effective or practical.
Funding the estimated $3.4 billion needed to install the nutrient removal
technology to meet current goals still remains a challenge for most communities.
Installing enhanced nutrient removal technology will substantially increase costs
even further. The 2003 Chesapeake Futures report estimates that improving
technology to reduce total nitrogen from 6 to 3 mg/1 would increase costs 4-to-10-
fold. This incremental upgrade from regular to state-of-the-art technology is less
cost-effective than other measures to reduce additional nutrients. Certain
agricultural best management practices in particular may provide a more
justifiable means for nutrient reduction.
Seeking additional reductions would require resetting wasteload allocations. The
Bay partners have already begun to include nitrogen and phosphorus discharge
limits in significant facilities' NPDES permits, which are issued for a period of up
to 5 years. Some facilities have already begun the capital-intensive process of
16
-------
upgrading their plant technologies to meet these current limits. Amending current
permits because of the regulatory process would not be an easy task
Industrial Facilities - Ability to Reduce Nutrients Should Be Reviewed
EPA and its Bay partners may be able to obtain additional nutrient reductions
from industrial wastewater treatment facilities beyond current cap load
allocations. Most industries do not have technology-based limits for nitrogen and
phosphorous. Since the technology-based limits are developed on a national
basis, those permits with technology-based limits may not be as stringent as
permit limits driven by Chesapeake Bay water quality standards. EPA and its
State partners have the authority under the Clean Water Act to require stricter
nutrient limits than the technology-based limits. However, during the Chesapeake
2000 nutrient allocation process, most States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed
opted not to require stricter nutrient limits for industrial facilities, even though
many municipal facilities were given near state-of-the-art technology allocations
to meet the sector nutrient reduction quota.
The OIG did not estimate the additional nutrient reductions available from
industrial facilities. These facilities have different wastewater streams than
municipal systems. Therefore, additional reductions cannot be calculated in the
same manner. Also, industrial facilities operate on widely variant production and
nutrient removal processes, with no universal state-of-the-art nutrient discharge
concentration. For example, in 2005, average nutrient discharge concentrations of
significant industrial facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed ranged from
0.4 mg/1 to 210 mg/1 for nitrogen and 0.01 mg/1 to 14.6 mg/1 for phosphorus; one
outlier facility reported an average total nitrogen concentration of 2,754 mg/1.
Because some of these concentrations appear high, EPA and its Bay partners
should work with industrial facilities to gain additional nutrient reductions.
Equity with Other Sectors
The concept of "fair and equitable" nutrient allocations among the various
partners underlined the collaborative process used to derive the final 2010 nutrient
allocation commitments. It has been largely credited for the progress the
Chesapeake Bay program has made to date. Resetting nutrient wasteload
allocations for municipal or industrial wastewater facilities as a result of other
sectors not delivering on their commitments could undermine the agreement
achieved by the States amongst themselves and with their nutrient sources.
Maintaining the momentum gained thus far should be foremost in the goal of
improving the Chesapeake Bay water quality. This would involve building on the
effort and progress made by the Bay partners so far. If the wastewater treatment
community perceives that non-point source sectors have not followed through in
the partnership of "shared sacrifice," they may challenge any requirements for
additional reductions.
17
-------
Potential Additional Wastewater Reductions Cannot Compensate for
Other Sectors' Missed Goals
Additional reductions from the wastewater treatment community, both municipal
and industrial, are not large enough to compensate for shortfalls from the
agricultural and developed land sectors. As of 2005, the agricultural sector
needed to reduce nitrogen by more than 50 million pounds per year, nearly five
times the total additional reductions that could be gained by imposing an
Enhanced Nutrient Removal goal on all significant municipal wastewater
treatment facilities. Phosphorus needs to be reduced by 3.3 million pounds per
year, or over three times. Gains from industrial facilities are also limited. Based
on previous progress, the agricultural sector will have a significant shortfall in
meeting its nutrient reduction goals, but wastewater treatment facilities could
make up only a small portion of this gap.
Conclusions
Although the wastewater treatment community could achieve additional nutrient
reductions beyond existing cap load allocations, such an effort would not promote
equity or be the most cost-effective track. While EPA and its Bay partners should
review industrial facility operations for potential additional reductions, these
reductions will not compensate for shortfalls from other sectors. EPA and the
Bay partners' primary focus should be on overcoming the present challenges and
reaching the current nutrient reduction goals. The success of the Chesapeake Bay
program and the health of the bay depend on the efforts of all the partners sharing
the responsibility to reduce loads.
Recommendation
We recommend that the EPA Region 3 Regional Administrator:
3-1 Work with NPDES-delegated States to complete current efforts, related to
industrial discharges, to: (a) characterize current nutrient discharge levels;
(b) refine nutrient cap loads, where appropriate; and (c) issue permits
reflecting modified cap loads.
Agency Response and OIG Comments
EPA concurred with our recommendation. A complete copy of the Agency's
response can be found in Appendix C and our detailed comments in Appendix D.
18
-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL
MONETARY
BENEFITS (in $OOOs)
Rec. Page
No. No.
Subject
Status1
Planned
Completion
Action Official Date
Agreed
Claimed To
Amount Amount
2-1 14 Review and comment on State-drafted NPDES permits
for significant facilities to ensure that interim construction
milestones are included in compliance schedules longer
than 1 year to meet the Chesapeake Bay allocations.
The milestones should include:
design completion
construction start
construction completion
compliance with permit limits
2-2 14 Obtain from NPDES-authorized States information on
progress in achieving the milestones above for "select
priority facilities." Such priority facilities include those
that are identified as needing the largest nutrient
reductions and are identified by the States as missing
the interim milestones noted in Recommendation 2-1.
If milestones are missed, EPA will work with the States
to take appropriate followup action to ensure compliance
with the milestones.
2-3 15 Collect information and report on the amount and source
of funding for the aforementioned "select priority
facilities" as part of the CBPO's annual reporting
process.
2-4 15 Promote awareness of and use of the "Financing
Alternatives Comparison Tool" and other financial
analysis tools within the Chesapeake Bay community.
2-5 15 Continue to assist States in their development of
effective trading programs by ensuring that: (a) States
establish a common nutrient trading currency, and (b)
lessons learned are captured and disseminated. In
addition, if an interstate trading protocol or program is
developed, EPA should develop a formal mechanism to
track water quality trading across State lines.
3-1 18 Work with NPDES-delegated States to complete
current efforts, related to industrial discharges, to:
(a) characterize current nutrient discharge levels;
(b) refine nutrient cap loads, where appropriate; and
(c) issue permits reflecting modified cap loads.
EPA Region 3
Regional
Administrator
EPA Region 3
Regional
Administrator
EPA Region 3
Regional
Administrator
EPA Region 3
Regional
Administrator
EPA Region 3
Regional
Administrator
EPA Region 3
Regional
Administrator
0 = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending;
C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed;
U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress
19
-------
Appendix A
Details on Scope and Methodology
We reviewed loadings data from 1985 to 2005 to determine the progress the Chesapeake Bay
Program partners have made in reducing nutrients, and the activities the Bay partners have taken
in meeting the wastewater treatment nutrient reduction goals agreed upon in the Chesapeake
2000 agreement. We performed our work at EPA Region 3 and the Chesapeake Bay Program,
and Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions from October 2006 through July 2007 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.
The scope of this evaluation is limited to nutrient discharges from "significant" wastewater
treatment facilities as defined and identified by the partner States. These facilities account for
approximately 95 percent of the wastewater nutrient discharge into the Chesapeake Bay. We
limited our inquiry to the four signatory jurisdictions: Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the
District of Columbia. According to CBPO data, these jurisdictions accounted for more than
95 percent of nitrogen wastewater loads and 86 percent of phosphorus wastewater loads in 2005.
We interviewed EPA staff from Region 3, including in CBPO, and the Office of Water. We also
interviewed State and district staff working in the NPDES permits division and involved in
implementing the wastewater treatment aspect of the tributary strategies. Other relevant
interviewees included staff from the U.S. Geological Survey, wastewater treatment officials and
representatives, industry consultants, academic experts, and environmental advocacy groups.
We visited the largest wastewater treatment facility in the Chesapeake Bay watershed - Blue
Plains. We also reviewed numerous documents and publications, including the Clean Water Act,
the Chesapeake 2000 agreement, State and district tributary strategies and implementation plans,
State regulations and public notices, the Blue Plains wastewater treatment permit, and reports by
Chesapeake Bay Program-affiliated workgroups. We performed various quantitative analyses
using wastewater discharge data from the CBPO Nutrient Point Source Database and
jurisdictional cost and construction data obtained from State officials.
Management Controls
We reviewed CBPO's database management controls and operating procedures. We determined
that CBPO had adequate procedures for managing the Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Point Source
Database. However, we identified some improvements CBPO could make to strengthen its
procedures, including the development of a data dictionary, and made suggestions to CBPO.
The CBPO Data Manager responded positively by creating a data dictionary, which is under
review, and will consider incorporating the data dictionary and other suggestions into an updated
version of the program's standard operating procedures. We also conducted a limited data
reliability review of the wastewater treatment data from the Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Point
Source database. While we found some data missing from non-critical fields, critical fields had
relevant data and this did not impact our review. EPA officials plan to remove these non-critical
fields, which are no longer used, in an updated version of the database. Removing these fields
will not impact management controls.
20
-------
Limitations
We did not review discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations, stormwater, septic
systems, or "non-significant" wastewater treatment facilities. We did not address the combined
sewage overflow systems associated with some "significant" wastewater treatment facilities.
Prior Reviews
EPA's OIG has completed several reports evaluating progress occurring in the Chesapeake Bay.
These reports included the following:
EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00004, Saving the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Requires
Better Coordination of Environmental and Agriculture Resources, November 20, 2006
(conducted jointly with the U.S. Department of Agriculture).
We reported that Bay partners have committed the agricultural community to making the
largest nutrient reductions, but few of the practices in the tributary strategies have been
implemented. We recommended that EPA improve its coordination and collaboration
with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other agricultural community partners.
EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00009, EPA Relying on Existing Clean Air Act
Regulations to Reduce Atmospheric Deposition to the Chesapeake Bay and its
Watershed, February 28, 2007.
We reported that Federal clean air regulations for decreasing nitrous oxide emissions
should sufficiently reduce the amount of nitrogen that reaches the Bay to meet the
reduction goals set out by EPA for the air sector. We recommended that CBPO develop
actions and strategies to address nitrogen deposition from animal feeding operations.
EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00031, Development Growth Outpacing Progress in
Watershed Efforts to Restore the Chesapeake Bay, September 10, 2007.
We reported that the developed land sector goals under the Chesapeake 2000 agreement
will not be met by 2010. The ability to attain these goals diminishes as new development
increases nutrient and sediment loads at rates faster than they are reduced. We
recommended that the CBPO Director prepare and implement a strategy that
demonstrates leadership in reversing the trend of increasing nutrient and sediment loads
from developed and developing lands.
The following additional reviews by the EPA OIG and the Government Accountability Office
also addressed the Chesapeake Bay:
Government Accountability Office Report No. GAO-06-96, Chesapeake Bay
Program: Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better Assess, Report, and Manage
Restoration Progress, November 2005.
The Government Accountability Office recommended that the EPA Administrator
instruct CBPO to (1) complete its efforts to develop and implement an integrated
assessment approach; (2) revise its reporting approach to improve the effectiveness and
21
-------
credibility of its reports; and (3) develop a comprehensive, coordinated implementation
strategy that takes into account available resources.
EPA OIG Report No. 2006-P-00032, EPA Grants Supported Restoring the
Chesapeake Bay, September 6, 2006.
We reported that EPA awarded grants that contributed toward meeting the goals of the
Clean Water Act and the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement.
EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00032, Federal Facilities in Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Generally Comply with Major Clean Water Act Permits, September 5, 2007.
We reported that, overall, EPA and States are doing well managing how major Federal
facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed comply with their NPDES permits. In EPA's
last reporting period (2004), major Federal facilities in the watershed had a lower rate of
Significant Noncompliance than other Federal and non-Federal major-permit facilities
nationwide.
22
-------
Appendix B
Tables on Reductions Needed
Table B.1: Reductions Needed from 2005 Wastewater Delivered Loadings to 2010 Wastewater
Delivered Goals for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus (as of June 2007)
Jurisdiction
Maryland'
Pennsylvania
Virginia'
Washington, DC'9
Delaware
New York
West Virginia
Bay-wide
2000a
17,226,873
12,862,681
25,554,098
4,548,767
286,852
2,142,744
328,585
62,950,600
Total
(delivered
2005a
15,570,921
11,216,949
22,290,624
2,581 ,447
177,233
1 ,695,678
460,119
53,992,971
Nitrogen
pounds/year)
2010
Goalb'c'&d
9,960,249
10,358,618
19,507,426
2,114,528
154,772
1,105,569
390,666
43,591,828
Reductions
Needed6
5,610,672
858,331
2,783,198
466,919
22,461
590,109
69,453
10,401,143
Total Phosphorus
2000a
963,524
672,237
2,216,318
98,452
23,777
214,182
70,245
4,258,735
(delivered
2005a
719,861
689,254
1 ,962,062
80,248
8,956
223,941
308,988
3,993,310
pounds/year)
2010
Goalb'c'&d
593,919
608,223
1 ,782,759
86,941
6,167
123,084
67,977
3,269,070
Reductions
Needed6
125,942
81,031
179,303
-6,693
2,789
100,857
241,011
724,240
Sources: a. 2000 and 2005 loadings data provided by CBPO.
b. 2010 goals for Delaware, New York, and West Virginia provided by CBPO. The New York and
Delaware 2010 goals were estimated by CBPO and based on draft numbers provided by States.
c. 2010 goals for Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia from State environmental departments.
d. District of Columbia 2010 goals from NPDES permits.
e. OIG calculations using data provided by CBPO; Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia State
environmental departments; and NPDES permits.
f. Includes States' respective portion of the Blue Plains nutrient loads and allocations.
g. Includes only the District of Columbia's portion of the Blue Plains nutrient loads and allocations.
Table B.2: Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Needing the Most Total Nitrogen Reductions to
Meet Wasteload Allocation Goals (as of June 2007)
NPDES
Identification
Number
DC0021199
MD0021555
MD0021601
PA0027197
VA0063177
Plant Name
Blue Plains
Back River
Patapsco
Harrisburg
Richmond
Design
Flow
(million
gallons
per day)
370
180
73
38
45
706
2005 Total
Nitrogen
Discharged
Load
(lbs/yr)a
5,195,719
3,068,592
3,001 ,906
1 ,224,688
2,246,479
14,737,384
Total
Nitrogen
Delivery
Factor6
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Total Nitrogen
Wasteload
Allocation
Concentration
(mg/l)b
4.20
4.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
Total
Nitrogen
Delivered
Wasteload
Allocation
(lbs/yr)b&c
4,689,000
2,192,803
889,304
688,575
1 ,096,402
9,556,084
Total Nitrogen
Reductions
Needed to
Reach Goal
(lbs/yr)d
506,719
875,789
2,112,602
536,113
1,150,077
5,181,300
Sources: a. 2005 loadings data provided by CBPO.
b. 2010 goals for Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia from State environmental departments.
c. District of Columbia 2010 goals from NPDES permits.
d. OIG calculations using data provided by CBPO; Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia State
environmental departments; and NPDES permits.
23
-------
Table B.3: Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Needing the Most Total Phosphorus
Reductions to Meet Wasteload Allocation Goals (as of June 2007)
NPDES
Identification
Number
MD0021601
VA0063177
Plant
Name
Patapsco
Richmond
Design Flow
(million
gallons
per day)
73
45
118
2005 Total
Phosphorus
Discharged
Load (lb/yr)a
140,530
227,189
367,719
Total
Phosphorus
Delivery
Factor6
1.0
1.0
Total
Phosphorus
Wasteload
Allocation
Concentration
(mg/l)b
0.3
0.5
Total
Phosphorus
Delivered
Wasteload
Allocation
(lbs/yr)b
66,698
68,525
135,223
Total
Phosphorus
Reductions
Needed to
Reach Goal
(lbs/yr)c
73,832
158,664
232,496
Sources: a. 2005 loadings data provided by CBPO.
b. 2010 goals for Maryland and Virginia from State environmental departments.
c. OIG calculations using data provided by CBPO; Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia State
environmental departments; and NPDES permits.
24
-------
Appendix C
Agency Response
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION III
1650 Arch Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029
SUBJECT:
FROM:
TO:
Draft Evaluation Report: Despite Progress, EPA Needs to
Expand Oversight of Wastewater Upgrades in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
DonaldS. Welsh
Regional Administrator (3RAOO)
Dan Engelberg
Director of Program Evaluations, Water Issues
Office of the Inspector General (2460T)
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Evaluation Report: Despite
Progress, EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of Wastewater Upgrades in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed. The recommendations of the draft report are appropriately focused on EPA actions
to track, promote, and assist federal, state, and local efforts to reduce the discharge of nutrients
from wastewater facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Therefore, EPA concurs with all of
the recommendations in the draft report (see Attachment A).
EPA is proud of the enormous progress that has been made and is underway in the
upgrade of wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed for nutrient pollution
control. Through EPA's and our state partners' efforts, we are well on our way to achieving the
largest nutrient reduction technology upgrade of wastewater treatment facilities in the country
(estimated at nearly $4 billion in controls). EPA has played a leadership role with our state
partners in developing credible water quality criteria and agreeing to a comprehensive nutrient
budget to achieve those criteria. EPA has also led the development of the NPDES Permit
Approach for Discharges of Nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (Permitting Approach).
This Permitting Approach has guided all of our partner states in consistent and effective
permitting of nutrients in the Bay. EPA has also significantly increased our NPDES oversight of
nearly 500 significant point source facilities, including about 200 minor facilities, in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. EPA is closely tracking the drafting and issuance of permits for all
significant facilities, major and minor. This increased oversight has been, and continues to be, a
significant investment of EPA staff resources.
25
-------
Due to EPA's leadership and a committed watershed partnership, the latest information,
shared recently with the OIG, projects that the basin-wide aggregate phosphorus loading caps for
wastewater treatment facilities will be met by 2010 with Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and
the District of Columbia all meeting their jurisdiction-specific cap loads (see Attachment B).
Furthermore, by 2010, this same information suggests that the basin-wide aggregate nitrogen
loading caps for wastewater treatment facilities will be met in Pennsylvania and Virginia; and
95% of the reductions necessary to attain the aggregate basin-wide nitrogen loading cap will be
achieved. As recently as December 3, 2007, Virginia's Governor Kaine announced that
Virginia's largest wastewater treatment facilities and industries within the Chesapeake Bay
watershed expect to meet their nutrient reduction goals by the end of 2010. This most recent
information was provided to the OIG after the draft report was submitted to EPA for comment.
We understand that this timing does not allow the OIG to verify the validity of this most recent
data for inclusion in the final report.
While we are confident that the progress that has been realized is a remarkable example
of a strong and committed partnership, we are aware that more work needs to be done to ensure
that the job is fully accomplished. The partnership needs to complete plans to issue NPDES
permits with aggressive compliance schedules for the reduction of nutrients. We need to track
progress and develop contingencies if unforeseen delays occur. It is this tracking and response to
potential delays that are appropriately the focus of the recommendations of the draft OIG report.
If you or your staff have any questions related to our response to the draft report, please
contact Robert Koroncai, at 215-814-5730 or Richard Batiuk, at 410-267-5731.
cc: Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
Jon Capacasa, Director, Water Protection Division, Region III
Jeff Lape, Director, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Region III
Bob Koroncai, Associate Director, Water Protection Division, Region III
Richard Batiuk, Associate Director for Science, Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Lorraine Fleury, Audit Coordinator, Region III
Michael Mason, Office of Water
Attachments
26
-------
Attachment A
Recommendations- Draft Evaluation Report: Despite Progress, EPA Needs to
Improve Oversight of Wastewater Upgrades in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
We recommend that the EPA Region 3 Regional Administrator instruct staff to:
2-2 Review and comment on State-drafted NPDES permits for significant facilities to ensure that
interim milestones are included in compliance schedules longer than 1 year to meet the
Chesapeake Bay allocations. The milestones should include:
design completion
construction start
construction completion
compliance with permit limits
2-6 Obtain from NPDES-authorized States information on progress in achieving the
milestones above for "select priority facilities." Such priority facilities include those that
are identified as needing the largest nutrient reductions and are identified by the States as
missing the interim milestones noted in Recommendation 2-1. If milestones are missed,
EPA will work with the States to take appropriate follow-up action to ensure compliance
with the milestones.
2-7 Collect information and report on the amount and source of funding for the
aforementioned "select priority facilities" as part of the CBPO's annual reporting process.
2-8 Promote awareness and use of the "Financing Alternatives Comparison Tool" and other
financial analysis tools within the Chesapeake Bay community.
2-9 Continue to assist States in their development of effective trading programs by ensuring
that: (a) States establish a common nutrient trading currency, and (b) lessons learned are
captured and disseminated. In addition, if an interstate trading protocol or program is
developed, EPA should develop a formal mechanism to track water quality trading across
State lines.
3-2 Work with NPDES delegated-States to complete current efforts, related to industrial
discharges, to: (a) characterize current nutrient discharge levels; (b) refine nutrient cap
loads, where appropriate; and (c) issue permits reflecting modified cap loads.
27
-------
Attachment B
More Recent Documentation from Chesapeake Bay Watershed State Partners on
Scheduled Significant Wastewater Facility Upgrades and Estimated Delivered
Loadings
Through e-mail attachments transmitted on October 19, 2007, EPA provided the OIG
with the latest detailed documentation supporting the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership's
estimated delivered nitrogen and phosphorus loads from wastewater treatment facilities by 2010.
We estimate the basin-wide aggregate phosphorus cap loads for wastewater treatment facilities
will be met by 2010 with Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia each
achieving their jurisdiction-specific phosphorus cap load. Furthermore, based on available
information, by 2010 we anticipate that the nitrogen cap loads for wastewater treatment facilities
will be met in Pennsylvania and Virginia. Basin-wide, we expect to achieve 95 percent of the
reductions needed to attain the aggregate nitrogen cap load by 2010.
The information provided by the delegated NPDES regulatory agencies in Maryland,
Virginia, and Pennsylvania is credible data, to be supported by permit limits, compliance
schedules, and funding sources. Below is documentation on each set of data provided to the OIG
supporting the above stated 2010 projections.
"2010 Ches Bay Watershed WWTP Delivered Load Projections.xls" - This file contains the
summation of the Chesapeake Bay Program Office's calculations of the basin-wide and
jurisdiction specific estimates of projected wastewater treatment facility delivered loads by 2010
for total nitrogen and total phosphorus. These 2010 estimates for the Maryland, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania facilities were based directly on current treatment facility upgrade schedules
recently received from the three states. New York, Delaware, and West Virginia do not yet have
similar facility specific upgrade schedules. For the significant facilities in these three states, the
Chesapeake Bay Program Office assumed 2005 concentrations and 2010 flows in making the
2010 projections. In the case of the Blue Plains facility in the District of Columbia, EPA knows
the facility will not be upgraded for additional nitrogen reductions prior to 2010, so the
Chesapeake Bay Program Office again assumed 2005 concentrations and 2010 flows in making
the 2010 projections. Given there are likely to be wastewater treatment facilities in New York,
Delaware, and West Virginia, upgraded prior to 2010 (based on communications with agency
regulators in each jurisdiction) using a 2005 concentration and a 2010 flow across all facilities in
these three jurisdictions, at this time, just makes the current 2010 projections that much more
conservative.
"1985-2005 Watershed Model Estimated Loads.exl" - This file contains the 1985-2005 record
of Phase 4.3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model's estimated total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and
sediment loads delivered to the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters from all sources and all
jurisdictions. This spreadsheet provided the OIG with the official state-by-state nitrogen and
phosphorus cap load allocations for the wastewater sector.
"PA DEP Phase 1 Scheduled WWTP Upgrades and Estimated Loads.xls" - This file
contains the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's latest schedule for their
28
-------
Phase 1 wastewater treatment facilities upgrades. Pennsylvania DEP provided detailed facility -
by-facility information on the timing of facility upgrades and planned trades supporting the
state's projection for making its statewide nitrogen and phosphorus wastewater treatment facility
cap loads by 2010.
"MDE 2010 Estimate WWTP Delivered Load.xls" - This file contains the Maryland
Department of the Environment's latest estimates for which facilities will be upgraded by 2010,
and their estimates for total nitrogen and total phosphorus delivered loads from all their
significant facilities by 2010. Maryland's estimates are supported by a well-defined funding
source (Maryland's "Flush Fee") and a long record of tracking real wastewater facility
upgradesfrom secondary to BNR in the 1990s and from BNR to ENR in the 2000s.
"VA DEQ Jan 2011 Estimated WWTP Delivered Loads.xls" - This file contains the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality's latest estimates for their
January 1, 2011, delivered loads from all their significant facilities (hence the reference to 2011
and not 2010). This file is a concise summation of the wealth of data and information contained
in their recently released "Exchange Compliance Plan" also submitted by EPA to the OIG.
"Exchange Compliance Plan" - This set of 15 PDF files contains the entire set of
documentation on each of Virginia's 126 significant facilities' planned upgrades, planned trades
and estimated flows and loads out through 2030.
29
-------
Appendix D
OIG Evaluation of Agency Response
As noted in its response (Appendix C) to our draft report, EPA and its State partners have taken
several important steps that have resulted in wastewater facilities reducing their nutrient
discharges. However, to achieve the 2010 loading goal, all the Bay partners will need to fast-
track their respective responsibilities. Considering that only 3 years are left to meet the goal,
time does not allow for delays. Yet, as we reported, major challenges continue to threaten the
partners' progress. The new information provided by the State agencies identifies which
facilities are expected to either complete their plant upgrades or be participating in a trading
program by 2010. EPA correctly states in its response that its focus should now be on tracking
progress and developing contingencies in the event of unforeseen delays to ensure that the plans
are achieved.
EPA also provided several documents, which it describes in Attachment B to its December 14,
2007, response. The following provides our detailed comments on these documents.
No.
Region 3 Response
Attachment B
QIC Response
Through e-mail attachments transmitted on
October 19, 2007, EPA provided the OIG with the
latest detailed documentation supporting the
Chesapeake Bay Program partnership's
estimated delivered nitrogen and phosphorus
loads from wastewater treatment facilities by
2010. We estimate the basin-wide aggregate
phosphorus cap loads for wastewater treatment
facilities will be met by 2010 with Maryland,
Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District of
Columbia each achieving their jurisdiction-specific
phosphorus cap load. Furthermore, based on
available information, by 2010 we anticipate that
the nitrogen cap loads for wastewater treatment
facilities will be met in Pennsylvania and Virginia.
Basin-wide, we expect to achieve 95 percent of
the reductions needed to attain the aggregate
nitrogen cap load by 2010.
The information provided by the delegated
NPDES regulatory agencies in Maryland, Virginia,
and Pennsylvania is credible data, to be
supported by permit limits, compliance schedules,
and funding sources. Below is documentation on
each set of data provided to the OIG supporting
the above stated 2010 projections.
The OIG completed its field work in July 2007
and issued its draft report to EPA on
September 20, 2007. EPA received the new
information from the States when it was in the
process of responding to our draft report.
Because our review was completed, we could
not evaluate the new information and
therefore the OIG has no position on the
veracity or accuracy of EPA's projections.
30
-------
No.
Region 3 Response
Attachment B
QIC Response
The information provided by the delegated
NPDES regulatory agencies in Maryland, Virginia,
and Pennsylvania is credible data, to be
supported by permit limits, compliance schedules,
and funding sources. Below is documentation on
each set of data provided to the OIG supporting
the above stated 2010 projections.
Only about 32 percent of the NPDES permits
have been issued as final and few of the
facilities have completed construction
upgrades as of the fall of 2007. The Maryland
and Pennsylvania data did not contain
compliance schedules, only the estimated
dates of when the significant facilities were
expected to achieve their 2010 nutrient goals.
Additionally, very little financial data was
provided for these facilities. We do not know
if loans or grants have been secured or if user
rates have been increased. As discussed in
our report, funding has been identified as a
significant challenge that must be addressed
to achieve 2010 nutrient goals.
"2010 Ches Bay Watershed WWTP Delivered
Load Projections.xls" - This file contains the
summation of the CBPO's calculations of the
basin-wide and jurisdiction specific estimates of
projected wastewater treatment facility delivered
loads by 2010 for total nitrogen and total
phosphorus. These 2010 estimates for the
Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania facilities
were based directly on current treatment facility
upgrade schedules recently received from the
three States. New York, Delaware, and West
Virginia do not yet have similar facility specific
upgrade schedules. For the significant facilities in
these three States, the CBPO assumed 2005
concentrations and 2010 flows in making the 2010
projections. In the case of the Blue Plains facility
in the District of Columbia, EPA knows the facility
will not be upgraded for additional nitrogen
reductions prior to 2010, so the CBPO again
assumed 2005 concentrations and 2010 flows in
making the 2010 projections. Given there are
likely to be wastewater treatment facilities in New
York, Delaware, and West Virginia, upgraded prior
to 2010 (based on communications with Agency
regulators in each jurisdiction) using a 2005
concentration and a 2010 flow across all facilities
in these three jurisdictions, at this time, just makes
the current 2010 projections that much more
conservative.
State officials project that approximately 160
wastewater treatment facilities of the almost
500 facilities will meet the 2010 nutrient
reduction goals. The majority of these
facilities will need construction upgrades to
meet the new limits. Based on limited
information as of October 2007, little
construction has begun. Some facilities plan
to engage in water quality trading to meet the
limits. However, the trading programs are
presently evolving and are largely unproven.
Region 3 Water Division and CBPO managers
described these compliance schedules as
"aggressive." These schedules leave little
room for error. If one or two of the most
significant facilities expected to meet the 2010
goal date fails to meet their 2010 projected
wasteload allocation goals, the one facility
could seriously jeopardize the aggregate
achievement of the 2010 nutrient goals.
"1985-2005 Watershed Model Estimated
Loads.exl" - This file contains the 1985-2005
record of Phase 4.3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Model's estimated total nitrogen, total
phosphorus, and sediment loads delivered to the
Chesapeake Bay tidal waters from all sources and
all jurisdictions. This spreadsheet provided the
OIG with the official State-by-State nitrogen and
phosphorus cap load allocations for the
wastewater sector.
This information provides cap load allocations
but on its own does not provide evidence of
meeting future loadings.
31
-------
No.
Region 3 Response
Attachment B
QIC Response
"PA DEP Phase 1 Scheduled WWTP Upgrades
and Estimated Loads.xls" - This file contains the
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection's latest schedule for their Phase 1
wastewater treatment facilities upgrades.
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Protection provided detailed facility-by-facility
information on the timing of facility upgrades and
planned trades supporting the State's projection
for making its Statewide nitrogen and phosphorus
wastewater treatment facility cap loads by 2010.
Pennsylvania officials project 5 facilities are
presently meeting their wasteload allocation
limits and 20 of the 63 Phase I facilities will
need to upgraded by 2010. At the time of our
review, none of the 20 facilities had more
stringent nutrient wasteload allocation limits in
the permits. The data provided does not
contain construction start or construction
completion dates. The OIG believes these
dates are necessary to ensure facilities are on
schedule.
"MDE 2010 Estimate WWTP Delivered
Load.xls" - This file contains the Maryland
Department of the Environment's latest estimates
for which facilities will be upgraded by 2010, and
their estimates for total nitrogen and total
phosphorus delivered loads from all their
significant facilities by 2010. Maryland's
estimates are supported by a well-defined funding
source (Maryland's "Flush Fee") and a long record
of tracking real wastewater facility upgrades
from secondary to Biological Nutrient Removal in
the 1990s and from Biological Nutrient Removal to
Enhanced Nutrient Removal in the 2000s.
Even with the well-defined funding source,
Maryland is the only State not projecting to
meet the 2010 nutrient limits. It should be
pointed out that Maryland has required the
most significant reductions. As of October
2007, Maryland is now projecting that
39 facilities, rather than 54 facilities as
originally planned, will be upgraded by 2010.
In our opinion, this is an indication that
challenges are delaying plans. These 39
facilities represent approximately 12 percent
of estimated 2010 total nitrogen loads. Many
of these 39 facilities do not have more
stringent Enhanced Nutrient Removal
wasteload allocation limits in the permits.
"VA DEQ Jan 2011 Estimated WWTP Delivered
Loads.xls" - This file contains the Virginia
Department of Environmental Quality's latest
estimates for its January 1, 2011, delivered loads
from all its significant facilities (hence the
reference to 2011 and not 2010). This file is a
concise summation of the wealth of data and
information contained in its recently released
"Exchange Compliance Plan" also submitted by
EPA to the OIG.
"Exchange Compliance Plan" - This set of 15
PDF files contains the entire set of documentation
on each of Virginia's 126 significant facilities'
planned upgrades, planned trades and estimated
flows and loads out through 2030.
Virginia officials expect 96 of the 104 facilities
in the Exchange Compliance Plan to meet
nutrient limits by 2011. Only 8 are not
projected to meet the goals. Fifty-nine
facilities are planning upgrades, of which 46
are expected to be completed by 2011.
Twenty facilities will rely on water quality
trading to meet the 2011 goals. To date,
trading is still an unproven program in
Virginia, which further necessitates EPA
oversight. The Virginia data indicates the
Potomac-Shenandoah River Basin (perhaps
the most critical river basin in Virginia to the
Bay's health) will not be compliant by 2011 for
both total nitrogen and total phosphorus. The
Virginia Exchange Compliance Plan
discusses concerns with rising costs and the
large demand for construction services, which
could potentially present obstacles for
achieving nutrient reduction goals.
32
-------
Appendix E
Calculation of Potential Additional Nutrient
Reductions Below Existing Cap Load Allocations
We calculated the potential additional nutrient reductions, beyond current allocation goals, that
may be gained from significant municipal wastewater treatment facilities. For the purposes of
this analysis, we assume that all significant municipal wastewater treatment facilities have
reached their wasteload allocation goals, and that municipal facilities can achieve and maintain
state-of-the-art, or enhanced, technology limits of 4.0 mg/1 total nitrogen and 0.3 mg/1 total
phosphorus. The analysis also does not consider trading or compliance rates. This analysis
omits municipal wastewater treatment facilities in Delaware, New York, and West Virginia
because, at the time of the analysis, facility-specific wasteload allocations had not been
designated and the total design flow from these facilities accounted for less than 5 percent of the
total Chesapeake Bay design flow. We also excluded the more than 2,000 non-significant
facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed since they also represent less than 5 percent of the
nutrient wastewater load into the Chesapeake Bay.
We based our analysis on facilities operating at their permitted limit. However, facilities will
typically operate below their permitted pollutant limits as a safety measure, which will allow the
facility to stay within the bounds of their permit. We do not have a standard measure to factor
this practice into our calculations. To provide some accounting for this practice, we compared
the permitted level against 4.0 mg/1 for total nitrogen and 0.3 mg/1 for phosphorus rather than the
state-of-the-art levels of 3.0 mg/1 and 0.1 mg/1, respectively. We selected those levels because
Maryland, which is requiring facilities to upgrade to state-of-the-art enhanced nutrient removal
technology, is using those levels in permits. Therefore, our estimates represent the upper reaches
and actual reductions could be lower. This demonstrates an annual discharged reduction of
10.7 million pounds per year of total nitrogen and 1.4 million pounds of total phosphorus.
Natural attenuation of nutrients en route to the Bay from the original discharge point alters the
nutrient reductions actually delivered to the Bay. We estimated the delivered nutrient reductions
by multiplying the additional discharged reductions above with location-specific nutrient
delivery factors. Estimates show a 9.9 million nitrogen pound-per-year and 1 million
phosphorous pound-per-year reduction delivered to the Bay as a result of basin-wide state-of-the-
art technology implementation.
Industrial wastewater treatment facilities typically have different wastewater streams and nutrient
removal processes than municipal systems. Since enhanced nutrient removal technology
concentration limits vary by industry type, it is difficult to gauge their potential additional
nutrient reductions. As a result, we did not estimate the potential additional nutrient reductions
for significant industrial facilities. However, we did review their nutrient discharge
concentrations, many of which were substantially higher than concentrations for municipal
facilities. Because nutrient effluent guidelines for available industry types are based on best
available technology economically achievable, not state-of-the-art technology or Chesapeake
Bay watershed goals, we believe the potential for additional nutrient reductions exists for the
industrial facilities.
33
-------
Appendix F
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Regional Administrator, Region 3
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water
Director, Chesapeake Bay Program Office
Director, Water Protection Division, Region 3
Office of General Counsel
Agency Followup Official (the CFO)
Agency Followup Coordinator
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for Public Affairs
Audit Followup Coordinator, Region 3
Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Water
Deputy Inspector General
34
------- |