Nutrient Reduction Technology Cost Estimations for
Point Sources in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
Prepared by
The Nutrient Reduction Technology Cost Task Force
A Stakeholder Group of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Chesapeake Bay Program
A Watershed Partnership
November 2002
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this report is to provide costs estimates for treatment technologies
associated with varying concentration levels of nitrogen and phosphorus removal from
industrial and municipal wastewater plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The data
will be used by the Chesapeake Bay Program to estimate costs of nutrient removal
programs for all point-source categories across the Bay watershed during the nutrient and
sediment water quality criteria and use development process.
A multi-stakeholder Nutrient Reduction Technology Cost Task Force was assimilated by
the Chesapeake Bay Program in March of 2002 for the purpose of developing these costs.
The Task Force consisted of representatives of municipal wastewater associations, state
governments, EPA, local government organizations, and consultants with extensive
expertise in the Nutrient Reduction Technology (NRT) field.
Costs were derived according to specific effluent discharge levels defined across four
Tiers. These tiers were part of a larger effort intended to estimate varying levels of
nutrient removal from all sources (non-point as well as point sources) across the
watershed. The Task Force defined what would be logical Tiers (or different nutrient
reduction levels) for point sources and then estimated costs by Tier, specific to each
facility. Using flows estimated/projected for the year 2010, the tiers range from the
current (year 2000) treatment levels to the limit of technology (LOT).
The point sources analyzed in this effort include facilities located in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed (from PA, MD, VA, DE, WV, NY, and the District of Columbia), which the
Bay jurisdictions have determined discharge significant amounts of nitrogen and
phosphorus. These point sources are divided into several categories for purposes of this
exercise and include:
• Significant Municipal facilities (which generally are municipal wastewater
treatment plants that discharge flows of equal to or greater than 0.5 MGD);
• Significant Industrial facilities (which have been identified to discharge
equivalent or greater amounts of nutrient as compared to a municipal wastewater
treatment plant of 0.5 MGD);
• Non-significant municipal facilities (which are generally discharge flows smaller
than 0.5 MGD and limited to facilities in MD and VA due to availability of data);
and
• Combined Sewer Overflows (which for this exercise, includes the CSO for the
District of Colombia because this is the only CSO for which the Bay Program has
nutrient load data).
-------
Exhibit 1 below provides a summary description of the levels of nutrient reduction by
point source category for each tier.
EXHIBIT 1: DESCRIPTION OF TIERS FOR POINT SOURCES*
(concentrations given in terms of an annual average in mg/1)
Point Source
Category
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Significant
Municipals
TN = 8 for POTW's
operating (or planned)
NRT; TN for remainder
= 2000 concentrations.
TP =2000 concentrations,
except TP =1.5 at those
targeted by VA.
TN = 8;
TP = 1.0 or permit
limit if less
TN= 5.0;
TP = 0.5 or permit
limit if less
TN = 3.0;
TP = 0.1
Significant
Industrials
TN and TP =
2000 concentrations
or permit limit if less
Generally a 50%
reduction from Tier 1
(2000 concentrations)
or permit conditions if
less
Generally an 80%
reduction from Tier 1
(2000 concentrations)
or permit conditions if
less
TN = 3.0;
TP = 0.1 or permit
conditions if less
Non-
significant
Municipals
TN and TP = 2000
concentrations
TN and TP = 2000
concentrations
TN and TP = 2000
concentrations
TN = 8 & TP = 2.0
Or 2000 concentrations
if less
CSOs
See Appendix B for a complete description of the tiers for the DC CSO
* Note that all flows are in terms of those projected by 2010
Wherever costs were provided by a facility, their respective associations, or a state
agency, these direct costs were used. Where no other data was available, estimates were
calculated using different methodologies depending on the technology. Chapters III and
VI provide information on the estimating methods employed wherever costs were
otherwise unavailable.
Exhibit 2 below provides a summary on the numbers of significant municipal facilities
which provided cost data versus those for which cost estimates were calculated.
Exhibit 2: Summary on the Numbers of Significant Municipal Facilities
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
TN CC
TP CC
TN CC
TP CC
TN CC
TP CC
TN CC
TP CC
Provided
54
0
25
1
44
0
3
3
Calculated
9
0
132
111
251
0
252
295
Total
63
0
157
112
295
0
255
298
Note: CC = Capital Cost
ii
-------
For municipal facilities, the technologies priced for each tier varied depending on the
tiers' nutrient reduction levels. For Tier 2, the costs for technologies to achieve 8 mg/1
total nitrogen include extended aeration processes and denitrification zones, along with
chemical addition to achieve a phosphorus discharge of 1.0 mg/1 where facilities are not
already achieving these levels. For Tier 3, the costs for technologies to achieve 5.0mg/l
total nitrogen include additional aeration, a secondary anoxic zone plus methanol
addition, additional clarification tankage, and additional chemical costs to achieve a
phosphorus discharge of 0.5 mg/1. For Tier 4, the costs for technologies to achieve
3.0mg/l total nitrogen include deep bed denitrification filters and microfiltration to
achieve a phosphorus discharge of 0.1 mg/1. (Note: Costs for Tier 1 are generally equal
to zero because this tier represents actions already being taken or planned). Capital costs
and operation and maintenance costs were developed as well as annualized costs. Due to
seasonal fluctuation, the effluent/discharge levels for each tier were defined as an annual
average.
For industries, site specific information on costs and reductions by facility was obtained
via phone contacts or site visits. Where known costs were available for a like industry
(SIC code), those codes may have been applied to another like discharger. Where cost
information was otherwise unavailable, a methodology (similar to that developed for
POTWs) was applied to reflect cost estimates by facility by tier. There are no costs
associated with Tier 1 because it represents current conditions or plans for reductions that
are already in progress. Tier 2 and 3, in general, reflect levels of reduction of 50% and
80% from Tier 1, respectively, unless permit conditions are less than this or site specific
information provides alternate data. Tier 4 reflects TN and TP concentrations of 3.0 and
0.1 mg/1 respectively unless permit conditions or actual 2000 concentrations are less than
this. For tier 4, some industrial facilities would be incapable of achieving the discharge
concentration/level, so the cost/alternative reflects connecting to a POTW.
Costs for the Blue Plains CSO were provided by the District of Columbia Water and
Sewer Authority.
Overall, the costs derived from this effort represent order of magnitude estimates based
on applying a multi-stakeholder developed methodology uniformly to all facilities across
the watershed and will vary from actual costs incurred on a site-specific basis. This
report provides the cost information by facility. Exhibit 3 on next page provides a
summary of these costs both by jurisdiction and by point source category.
iii
-------
Exhibit 3: Cost Summary by State and by Point Source Category
DESIGN
TIER 1 COSTS ($MIL)
TIER 2 COST ($MIL)
TIER 3 COST ($MIL)
TIER 4 COST ($MIL)
# OF
FLOW
INCREMENTAL
INCREMENTAL
CUMULATIVE
INCREMENTAL
CUMULATIVE
INCREMENTAL
CUMULATIVE
PLANTS
(MGD)
TN CC
TP CC
TN CC
TP CC
TN CC
TP CC
TN CC
TP CC
TN CC
TP CC
TN CC
TP CC
TN CC
TP CC
WATERSHED TOTAL
SIGNIFICANT
NON-SIGNIFICANT
304
185
2,336.01
21.17
597.91
0.00
0
0
921.44
0.00
40.09
0.00
1,519.36
0.00
40.09
0.00
1,190.49
0.00
0
0
2,709.85
0.00
40.09
0.00
1,663.59
83.09
1,301.89
11.30
4,373.44
83.09
1,341.98
11.30
INDUSTRIAL
49
459.51
0.00
0
48.57
2.36
48.57
2.36
46.02
0.8
94.58
3.16
112.58
83.91
207.17
87.07
DC-CSO
1
7.61
130.00
0
0
0
130.00
0
0
0
130.00
0
3,500.00
0
3,630.00
0
TOTAL
539
2,824.30
727.91
0
970.01
42.45
1,697.92
42.45
1,236.51
0.8
2,934.43
43.25
5,359.27
1,397.11
8,293.70
1,440.35
TOTAL BY STATE
DC
SIGNIFICANT
CSO
1
1
169.40
7.61
0.00
130.00
0
0
15.11
0.00
9.16
0.00
15.11
130.00
9.16
0.00
103.01
0.00
0
0
118.12
130.00
9.16
0.00
167.11
3,500.00
11.45
0.00
285.23
3,630.00
20.60
0.00
DC TOTAL
2
177.01
130.00
0
15.11
9.16
145.11
9.16
103.01
0
248.12
9.16
3,667.11
11.45
3,915.23
20.60
DE
SIGNIFICANT
INDUSTRIAL
3
1
3.30
37.83
3.19
0.00
0
0
2.37
0.00
0.25
0.00
5.56
0.00
0.25
0.00
3.18
0.00
0
0
8.74
0.00
0.25
0.00
4.15
0.00
4.26
0.00
12.90
0.00
4.51
0.00
DE TOTAL
4
41.13
3.19
0
2.37
0.25
5.56
0.25
3.18
0
8.74
0.25
4.15
4.26
12.90
4.51
MD
SIGNIFICANT
NON-SIGNIFICANT
INDUSTRIAL
65
181
10
725.82
20.59
53.30
384.75
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
25.13
0.00
12.25
11.79
0.00
0.21
409.88
0.00
12.25
11.79
0.00
0.21
356.36
0.00
5.89
0
0
0
766.24
0.00
18.14
11.79
0.00
0.21
658.43
80.97
5.70
398.36
10.99
15.76
1,424.66
80.97
23.84
410.14
10.99
15.97
MD TOTAL
256
799.71
384.75
0
37.38
12.00
422.13
12.00
362.25
0
784.38
12.00
745.09
425.10
1,529.47
437.10
NY
SIGNIFICANT
18
82.57
0.00
0
61.87
3.29
61.87
3.29
40.60
0
102.47
3.29
71.58
65.43
174.05
68.71
NY TOTAL
18
82.57
0.00
0
61.87
3.29
61.87
3.29
40.60
0
102.47
3.29
71.58
65.43
174.05
68.71
PA
SIGNIFICANT
INDUSTRIAL
123
19
469.21
75.62
72.08
0.00
0
0
277.87
17.34
4.79
0.79
349.94
17.34
4.79
0.79
319.81
16.95
0
0
669.76
34.29
4.79
0.79
241.32
47.98
396.12
23.89
911.08
82.27
400.91
24.67
PA TOTAL
142
544.84
72.08
0
295.20
5.58
367.28
5.58
336.77
0
704.05
5.58
289.30
420.00
993.35
425.58
VA
SIGNIFICANT
NON-SIGNIFICANT
INDUSTRIAL
86
1
16
871.95
0.05
292.44
137.90
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
515.90
0.00
13.79
9.72
0.00
1.27
653.80
0.00
13.79
9.72
0.00
1.27
356.55
0.00
22.72
0
0
0.8
1,010.35
0.00
36.51
9.72
0.00
2.07
505.21
0.40
58.37
411.00
0.07
44.27
1,515.56
0.40
94.88
420.72
0.07
46.34
VA TOTAL
103
1,164.44
137.90
0
529.68
10.99
667.58
10.99
379.28
0.8
1,046.86
11.79
563.98
455.35
1,610.84
467.13
WV
SIGNIFICANT
NON-SIGNIFICANT
INDUSTRIAL
8
3
3
13.75
0.53
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
23.19
0.00
5.19
1.09
0.00
0.10
23.19
0.00
5.19
1.09
0.00
0.10
10.97
0.00
0.45
0
0
0
34.16
0.00
5.64
1.09
0.00
0.10
15.79
1.71
0.54
15.28
0.25
0.00
49.96
1.71
6.18
16.37
0.25
0.10
WV TOTAL
14
14.60
0.00
0
28.38
1.19
28.38
1.19
11.42
0
39.81
1.19
18.05
15.53
57.85
16.71
NOTE: Blue Plains costs are allocated among DC, MD and VA according to the Blue Plains cost allocation methodology by MWCOG.
Non-significant category covers only plants with existing data in the database, which are mainly MD facilities. Most VA non-significant plants are not yet included due to no loading data.
Many industrial facilities do not have design flow data available. 2010 flows were used for industrial design flows. Actual design flows were used for several MD plants that have the data.
TN CC = Total Nitrogen Capital Costs; TP CC = Total Phosphorus Capital Costs
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstalbe x-c_exh3 IV CBPO, 11/12/2002
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This document compiles the work of the Nutrient Reduction Technology Cost Task
Force which developed methodologies for estimating costs of nutrient removal at
Chesapeake Bay watershed point sources. This effort was performed by a multi
stakeholder group comprised of individuals that volunteered their time to support
this work The Chesapeake Bay Program would like to thank all the members of
the Task Force. Special thanks go out to Tom Sadick, of CH2M HILL and Thor
Young of Sterns and Wheler, two consultants who generously donated their
exceptional expertise in assisting the Cost Task Force in developing the cost
methodologies. Additionally, appreciation is extended to Lisa Bacon, Tara Ajello
andAlta Turner of CH2MHILL who volunteered their expertise in designing
statistically accurate cost curves as part of the estimation techniques described
herein. Special thanks also go to Ning Zhou, Point Source Data Manager under
grant with Virginia Tech, at the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, who took the
cost methodologies developed by the consultants and the Task Force and applied
them to all individual point sources in the watershed to develop facility specific
cost estimates. In addition, thanks go to representatives of many municipal and
industrial wastewater treatment plants around the watershed for providing cost
estimates on their own at the request of the Task Force for varying levels of
nutrient removal for their respective facilities. These individual facility estimates
were used where available instead of developing costs based on the Task Force
cost methodologies, and providedfor a more credible and accurate database
overall.
v
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
Acknowledgements
I. Purpose, Background, and General Methodology 1
II. Point Source Nutrient Reduction Technology Tiers Description 3
2.1 Tier 1 4
2.2 Tier 2 5
2.3 Tier 3 5
2.4 Tier 4 5
III. Cost Methodology for Significant Municipals for Tier 2 and 3 7
3.1 Purpose 7
3.2 B ackground and Approach 7
3.3 Tier 2 Nitrogen Removal System Upgrades 8
3.3.1 Capital Cost Estimating - Tier 2 Nitrogen Removal Upgrades 8
3.3.2 O&M Cost Estimating - Nitrogen Removal 9
3.4 Tier 2 Phosphorus Removal System Upgrades 10
3.4.1 Capital Cost Estimating - Phosphorus Removal 11
3.4.2 O&M Cost Estimating - Phosphorus Removal 13
3.5 Tier 3 Phosphorus Removal System Upgrades 14
IV. Cost Methodology for Significant Municipals for Tier 3 and 4 15
4.1 Tier 3 Results and Methodology 15
4.1.1 Costs for TN = 5 mg/L 16
4.1.2 Methodology for estimating TN = 5 mg/L costs 18
vi
-------
4.1.3 Methodology for fitting equations to TN = 5 mg/L data 20
4.1.4 Capital Costs for TP = 0.5 mg/L 20
4.1.5 Methodology for estimating operating costs for TP = 0.5 mg/L 21
4.2 Tier 4 Results and Methodology 22
4.2.1 Deep Bed Denitrifying Filters 22
4.2.2 Microfiltration 23
4.2.3 Costs for TN = 3 mg/L 23
4.2.4 Methodology for estimating TN = 3 mg/L costs 25
4.2.5 Methodology for fitting equations to TN = 3 mg/L data 26
4.2.6 Costs for I P 0.1 mg/L 27
4.2.7 Methodology for estimating TP = 0.1 mg/L costs and for fitting equations
to TP = 0.1 mg/L data 29
V. Cost Methodology for Industrials 30
5.1 Loads 32
5.2 Costs 33
5.2.1 Tier 1 33
5.2.2 Tier 2-3 33
5.2.3 Tier 4 37
VI. Cost Methodology for Non-significant Municipals 46
6.1 Assumption 46
6.2 Methodology 46
6.3 TN capital cost estimates for TN at 8 mg/1 for facilities with design flow < 0.5
MGD 47
vii
-------
6.4 TN capital cost estimates for TN at 8 mg/1 for facilities with design
flow > 0.5 MGD 49
6.5 TN O&M estimates for TN at 8 mg/1 for all non-significant facilities 50
6.6 TP capital cost and O&M estimates for TP at 2mg/l for all
non-significant facilities 50
VII. Cost Estimates for Combined Sewer Overflows 57
VIII. Cost Methodology Application for Significant Municipals for Tier 1-4 59
8.1 Allocating Blue Plains Costs to the Jurisdictions 59
8.2 Tier One Costs 59
8.3 Tier Two Costs 63
8.4 Tier 3 and Tier 4 TN Capital Costs 64
IX. Load Calculation Description and Summary 67
9.1 Load Calculation For Significant Municipal Facilities 67
9.1.1 Tier Definition for Point Sources 67
9.1.2 2010 Flow Projection 67
9.1.3 Load calculation 69
9.2 Load Calculation For non-significant Municipal Facilities 69
9.2.1 Tier definition for non-significant municipal facilities 69
9.2.2 Projected 2010 flow 69
9.2.3 Load calculation 69
9.3 Load Calculation for Industrial Plants and CSO 69
9.4 Blue Plains Load Allocation Among DC, MD and VA 70
9.5 Load Summary 70
X. Cost Result Summaries 97
viii
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table I-A Point Source Summary Profile 2
Table II-A Total Nitrogen Discharge Loads (lbs/yr) Summary 3
Table II-B Total Phosphorus Discharge Loads (lbs/yr) Summary 3
Table II-C Description Of Tiers For Point Sources 6
Table III-A Capital Cost Data Summary - Phosphorus Removal 12
Table IV-A Summary of Tiered Nitrogen and Phosphorus Levels 15
Table IV-B Summary of Capital and Operating Costs for Tier 3
Nitrogen Removal TN = 5 mg/L 16
Table IV-C Summary of Capital and Operating Costs for Tier 4
Nitrogen Removal TN = 3 mg/L 23
Table IV-D Summary of Capital and Operating Costs for Tier 4
Phosphorus Removal TP = 0.1 mg/L 27
Table V-A Total Incremental Capital Cost (For Nitrogen And
Phosphorus Reductions) Summary By Industry ($) 31
Table V-B Total Incremental Capital Cost (Nitrogen And Phosphorus
Reductions) Summary By Basin ($) For Industrial Facilities 31
Table V-C Industrial Facility Costing And Concentration Codes By Tier 38
Table V-D Flow and Concentration Codes and Data For Industrial
Facilities by Nutrient Parameter 40
Table V-E Industrial Facility Cost Data For All Four Tiers 42
Table V-F Industrial Facility Total Capital Cost And Concentration
Data For All Four Tiers 44
Table VI-A Source Data For The Cost Curve 47
Table VI-B Non-significant Facilities with Design Flow < 2010 Flow 49
Table VI-C NRT Cost for Non-significant Municipal Facilities 51
Table VII DC CSO & BLUE PLAINS WWTP COST ESTIMATES
- For Chesapeake Bay-wide UAA Cost Analysis 58
ix
-------
Table VIII-A Current BNR with T1 Cost 59
Table VIII-B Facilities with Tier 1 TN CC Calculated 50
Table VIII-C Tier 1 costs, 2000 and T1 TN discharged loads by state 60
Table VIII-D Facilities with Tier 1 TN Capital Costs 60
Table VIII-E Total Flow Increases Between 2010 and 2000 by State 62
Table VIII-F Top Ten Facilities With The Highest Flow Increases 63
Table VIII-G Facilities with Tier 2 TN Capital Costs from sources other than calculation 63
Table VIII-H Tier 2 TN capital costs and the load reduction by state 64
Table VIII-I Municipal Facilities with Design Flow >30 MGD 64
Table VIII-J Tier 3 TN capital costs and the load reduction by state 65
Table VIII-K Tier 4 TN capital costs and the load reduction by state 66
Table IX-A Projected 2010 Flows Provided by the State Agency or Facility 68
Table IX-A NRT Tier TN Load (Lbs/Yr) Summary By Basin 71
Table IX-B NRT Tier TN Load (Lbs/Yr) Summary By State 71
Table IX-C NRT Tier TN Load (Lbs/Yr) Summary By Facility Type 71
Table IX-D NRT Tier TP Load (Lbs/Yr) Summary By Basin 72
Table IX-E NRT Tier TP Load (Lbs/Yr) Summary By State 72
Table IX-F NRT Tier TP Load (Lbs/Yr) Summary By Facility Type 72
Table IX-G Discharged Nitrogen Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin 73
Table IX-H Discharged Phosphorus Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin... .85
Table X-A Nitrogen Incremental Cost For Significant Municipal Facilities
In The Bay Watershed 98
Table X-B Phosphorus Incremental Cost For Significant Municipal Facilities
In The Bay Watershed 107
Table X-C NRT Capital Cost Summary For Point Sources By State And Category 116
Table X-D NRT Incremental Cost Summary For Point Sources By Category And State.... 117
Table X-E NRT Incremental Cost Summary For Significant Municipal Facilities 118
Table X-F Total Design Flow and TN Capital Cost Summary for
Significant Municipals by State 119
Table X-G Total Design Flow and TP Capital Cost Summary for
Significant Municipals by State 119
X
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure III-A Cost Curve for TN=8mg/l 9
Figure III-A Cost Curve for TP= 1 mg/1 12
Figure IV-A Cost Curves for Total Capital Costs with TN=5mg/l 17
Figure IV-B Cost Curves for Total O&M Costs with TN=5mg/l 18
Figure IV-C Cost Curves for Total Capital Costs with TN=3mg/l 24
Figure IV-D Cost Curves for Total O&M Costs with TN=3mg/l 25
Figure IV-E Cost Curves for Total Capital Costs with TP=0. lmg/1 27
Figure IV-F Cost Curves for Allowance for Chemical/Instrumentation System
Improvements for TP = 0.1 mg/1 28
Figure IV-G Cost Curves for Annual O&M Costs for TP = 0. lmg/1 28
Figure VI-A TN Capital Cost Curve at 8 mg/1 for Non-significant Facilities 48
Figure VIII-A Cumulative TN Capital Costs by State by Tier 66
Figure VIII-B TN Discharged Load Reduction from 2000 Level by State by Tier 66
xi
-------
LIST OF APPENDIXES
Appendix A List of NRT Cost Task Force Members
Appendix B Point Source NRT Cost Survey
Part 1: Point Source Survey
Part 2: Point Source Survey Results
Appendix C Correspondences Used to Develop Costs for Municipalities
Appendix D Description of CSO Tiers for Blue Plains
Appendix E Capital Cost Data for Tier 1 for Nitrogen Removal
Appendix F Statistical Analyses of Tier 2 Cost Data
Appendix G Details of Cost Assumptions Used in the Tier 3 and 4 Methodology
Appendix H References and Data Contacts for Industrial Costs
Appendix I Communications, Decisions, and References for Cost and Load Data Compiling
Part 1: Communications and Decisions for Cost Methodology Applications
Part 2: Communications and Decisions for Load Calculations by Tier
Part 3: References for Section IX Summary Cost Tables
Xll
-------
I. PURPOSE, BACKGROUND AND GENERAL METHODOLOGY
The purpose of this report is to present costs estimated for technologies to achieve varying
effluent levels of nitrogen and phosphorus removal from industrial and municipal wastewater
treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The data will be used by the Chesapeake
Bay Program in estimating costs of nutrient removal programs for all source categories across
the Bay watershed during its nutrient and sediment water quality criteria and use development
process.
A multi-stakeholder Nutrient Removal Technology Cost Task (NRT) Force was assimilated by
the Chesapeake Bay Program in March of 2002 for the purpose of developing these costs. The
Task Force consisted of representatives of municipal wastewater associations, state governments,
EPA, local government organizations, and consultants with extensive expertise in the NRT field.
A list of the members of this Task Force can be found in Appendix A.
Costs were derived according to specific effluent discharge levels defined by Tiers. These Tiers
were part of a larger effort intended to estimate varying levels of nutrient removal from all
sources (non-point as well as point sources) across the watershed. The NRT Task Force defined
what would be logical Tiers (or different nutrient reduction levels) for point sources and then
estimated costs by Tier. Descriptions of the four tiers can be found in the subsequent section,
however, generally they range from current (year 2000) reduction levels extrapolated out to 2010
flows to limits of technology.
The point sources analyzed in this effort included facilities located in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed (from PA, MD, VA, DE, WV, NY, and the District of Columbia) that have been
identified by the State as significant discharge sources of nitrogen and phosphorus. These point
sources are divided into several categories for purposes of this exercise and include:
• Significant Municipal facilities, which generally are municipal wastewater treatment
plants that discharge flows of equal to or greater than 0.5 MGD. More specifically,
significant municipal facilities are defined slightly differently for each jurisdiction. For
Virginia, these facilities are those that 1) have a design flow of 0.5 MGD or greater, and
2) are located below the fall line, regardless of flow. For MD, significant facilities are
those having a current flow of 0.5 MGD or greater. For PA, significant facilities are
those having average annual 1985 flows of 0.4 MGD or greater. For DE, WV and NY
the Chesapeake Bay Program selected facilities in the EPA Permit Compliance System
database with current flows of 0.5 or greater.
• Significant Industrial facilities, which have been identified to discharge equivalent or
greater amounts of nutrient as compared to a municipal wastewater treatment of 0.5
MGD. These discharge loads would roughly be equivalent to those of municipalities
with flows of 0.5 MGD or greater, and a Total Nitrogen load of 75 lbs/day, and a
Phosphorus load of 25 lbs/day or greater (based on a municipal discharge of 6 mg/1 TP
and 18 mg/1 TN).
1
-------
• Non-significant municipal facilities are those, which are generally smaller than discharge
flows of 0.5 MGD. Only facilities permitted by MDE are included in this analysis due to
availability of data.
• Combine Sewer Overflows: only the CSO for the District of Colombia has been costed in
this exercise because this is the only CSO for which the Bay Program has nutrient load
data. Certainly there are other CSOs in the Bay watershed, but to date, these have not
been quantified in terms of nitrogen and phosphorus load discharges and thus, are not
included for analysis here.
Table I -A provides a summary profile of these facilities in the watershed.
TABLE I - A: Point Source Summary Profile
Point Source
Category
Description
Number of
Facilities
Total 2000
Flow (MGD)
Significant
Municipals*
Generally > 0.5 MGD
304
1554.4
Significant
Industrials
Discharge loads generally > 75
lb/day TN & 25 lb/day TP
49
524.7
Non-significant
Municipals
Generally < 0.5 MGD
185
10.8
CSOs
Only for Blue Plains
1
7.6
Total
-
540
2,097.5
* including the 6 VA plants to be built by 2010.
Costs for technologies to achieve various nutrient reduction levels are estimated in this report in
one of two ways:
1) Costs were obtained directly from individual facilities, or their respective state
agencies, or site visit reports and etc.
2) In cases where data was otherwise unavailable, costs were estimated by applying
methodologies described in this report.
Costs were obtained either through a survey of the point source facilities issued by the state
municipal authorities, or from individual contacts. Appendix B provides the point source survey
and a collection of the survey responses received. Appendix C provides other correspondences
from facilities. These cost data were used in the costing methodology development and costing
analysis.
Wherever costs were obtained directly from facility operators or their respective associations,
these costs were used. Then, if no other data was available, estimates were calculated using
different methodologies depending on the technology level of reduction. Chapters III - VI
provide information on the estimating methods employed wherever costs were otherwise
unavailable. Chapter VIII is a description of how the cost methodologies were actually applied
on a facility specific base. Chapter IX is a description of how the loads for each tier were
calculated. Both concentrations and flows, which are factors of the loads, are important elements
to applying the cost methodologies.
2
-------
II. TIER DESCRIPTIONS
The Chesapeake Bay Program, as part of an effort to estimate water quality responses as well as
costs of varying nutrient reduction measures for all sources across the watershed, developed a
series of technological reduction tiers. The four tiers spanned technological implementation
ranging from current practices to limits of technology. The NRT Cost Task Force developed
four tiers for point sources, which range from current (or planned) levels of technological
implementation and operation to limits of technology for nutrient and phosphorus removal at
wastewater treatment plants. Different levels of technological implementation are indicated by
the discharge concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus for each tier. The types of technologies
necessary to achieve these effluent levels were then matched to the concentrations and costs. All
concentrations, and calculations performed on them, are assumed on an annual average basis.
The discharge flows represented for each facility are those projected for the year 2010. It is
important to note however that capital cots for these technologies are calculated on design flows
by facilities, whereas the O&M costs as well as the discharge loads represented by each tier are
estimated assuming the 2010 projected flows. Table II-A and II-B summarize the nitrogen and
phosphorus loads respectively represented by each Tier for each point source category.
TABLE II - A: Total Nitrogen Discharge Loads (lbs/yr) Summary
Facility Type
2000
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL
61,113,341
54,675,431
42,510,365
26,894,197
16,136,518
INDUSTRIAL
9,099,737
7,633,234
6,858,729
5,892,916
3,534,150
NON-SIG MUNICIPAL
493,649
540,258
540,258
540,258
287,977
CSO
162,706
70,298
70,298
70,298
0
Total
70,869,434
62,919,222
49,979,650
33,397,669
19,958,644
TABLE II-B: Total Phosphorus
Discharge Loads (lbs/yr) Summary
Facility Type
2000
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL
4,387,008
5,252,012
3,685,449
2,046,441
537,884
INDUSTRIAL
1,121,750
1,074,316
623,023
398,245
154,120
NON-SIG MUNICIPAL
74,615
82,174
82,174
82,174
56,219
CSO
46,353
15,330
15,330
15,330
0
Total
5,629,728
6,423,832
4,405,976
2,542,189
748,223
For non-significant facilities, current conditions are assumed for Tiers 1-3, and then Tier 4
assumes a TN of 8 mg/1 and a TP of 2.0 mg/1.
CSO assumptions for all Tiers for the District of Columbia were provided by the Washington
Council of Governments with load estimates from the DC Washington Area Sanitary Authority
CSO study in 2001. A description of the tiers for this CSO can be found in Appendix D.
3
-------
Table II - C summarizes the Tier assumptions, which are described in more detail below.
2.1 Tier 1
Tier 1 assumes NRT implementation either current or planned extrapolated out to 2010 flows.
For example, as of the date of this writing, there exist 304 significant municipal facilities in the
Bay watershed, 84 of which currently operate NRT for nitrogen removal. This number will
increase to a total of 154 facilities operating NRT for nitrogen by the year 2010. Thus, for
significant municipalities, NRT is assumed for all 154 facilities, and the Tier 1 discharge level
relative to these is 8 mg/1 Total Nitrogen (TN) that is the generally accepted effluent
performance for the types of NRT operating in the watershed now. There are some exceptions to
this effluent concentration for nitrogen however depending on specific situations that exist at
certain facilities. Blue Plains for example has a goal of 7.5 mg/1 TN, and Back River has a goal
of 10 mg/1 (see Section IX).
Note that the concentrations for many facilities may actually be increased from one Tier to the
next due to an artifact in the Tier definitions and their applications to the point source database.
There exist many facilities in the watershed that are operating at TN concentrations actually less
than 8 mg/1 in 2000. In these cases, the Tier 1 concentrations for these facilities are actually
raised to 8 mg/1 (from the year 2000 to the year 2010). The NRT Cost Task Force believed that
at 2000 flows some facilities might be able to operate more efficiently than at 2010 flows, thus
the 2000 concentrations may not be realistic for 2010 conditions and that these concentrations
should be elevated to the Tier definition of 8 mg/1 TN.
For all other facilities (industrial and non-significant municipalities), Tier 1 for nitrogen equals
the total nitrogen annual average concentration that existed for them in 2000, which is accepted
as being representative of currant conditions.
Again, Tier 1 flows, as well as flows for Tiers 2-4, are equal to those projected out to the year
2010. These projections were either obtained directly from individual facilities, or derived from
related population projections performed by the Chesapeake Bay Program (see Section IX).
Phosphorus removal, whether it is by physical/chemical or biological means, is operating in
about half of the municipal facilities in the watershed (especially MD) due to state and local
water quality requirements. Generally, effluents range from 0.18 - 4.0 mg/1. Tier 1 therefore, for
phosphorus, assumes an effluent concentration equaling the facilities' annual average discharge
for this parameter that existed in the year 2000.
For industries, Tier 1 represents the industries' current discharge levels unless it is known that
NRT will be implemented at a given facility by 2010.
For non-significant facilities, current 2000 conditions are assumed for Tier 1.
4
-------
2.2 Tier 2
Total Nitrogen for ALL significant municipals is brought to 8 mg/1, which then carries over the
NRT for the 154 operating NRT and adds NRT for the remaining facilities. Total Phosphorus is
set equal to 1.0 mg/1 or a permit level if less than 1.0 mg/1.
Section VI more thoroughly describes the tiers for industrial facilities. In general, the tiers
reflect levels of reduction on the order of 50% from Tier 1 unless permit conditions are less that
this, in which case, permit conditions would apply.
For non-significant municipal facilities Tier 1 = Tier 2 = current conditions.
2.3 Tier 3
Tier 3 for significant municipals equals a TN of 5.0 mg/1 and a TP of 0.5 mg/1. Tier 3 for
industrial facilities generally reflects a reduction of 80% from Tier 1 unless permit conditions are
less than this. Tier 1 = Tier 2 = Tier 3 = current conditions for non-significant municipals.
2.4 Tier 4
Tier 4 for significant municipals equals a TN of 3.0mg/l and a TP of 0.1 mg/1. Tier 4 for
industrial facilities generally equals Tier 4 for significant municipals unless permit conditions are
less than that. Tier 4 for non-significant municipal facilities is equal to a TN of 8 mg/1 and a TP
of 2.0 mg/1. It was determined by the NRT Cost Task Force that it would not be feasible and in
most cases non-cost effective to consider a level of implementation greater than this for small
facilities.
Note that for TP, as in the case for TN previously described, loads for certain facilities may
actually increase depending on the tiers. For example, a facility may have an actual 2000 TP
effluent concentration of 0.87 mg/1 TP, but the concentration is raised to 1.0 mg/1 to match the
Tier 1 definition (assuming there is no permit limits requiring an effluent less than 1.0 mg/1).
The NRT Task Force believed that this is more appropriate than holding the effluent
concentration in 2000 constant throughout the Tiers because operations efficiency may decrease
at higher 2010 flows.
5
-------
TABLE II - C: Description Of Tiers For Point Sources*
(concentrations given in terms of an annual average in mg/1)
Point Source
Category
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Significant
Municipals
TN= 8 for those
with BNR operating
or planned;
TN and TP for rest of
facilities
= 2000 concentrations
TN = 8
TP =1.0
Or permit limit if less
TN= 5.0
TP = 0.5
Or permit limit if less
TN = 3.0
TP = 0.1
Significant
Industrials
TN and TP =
2000 concentrations
or permit limit if less
Generally a 50%
reduction from Tier 1
(or 2000 concentrations)
or permit conditions if
less
Generally an 80%
reduction from Tier 1
(or 2000 concentrations)
or permit conditions if
less
TN = 3.0 and TP = 0.1
or permit conditions if
less
Non-
significant
Municipals
TN and TP = 2000
concentrations
TN and TP = 2000
concentrations
TN and TP = 2000
concentrations
TN = 8 & TP = 2.0
Or 2000 concentrations
if less
CSOs
See Appendix B for a complete description of the tiers for the DC CSO
* Note that all flows are in terms of those projected by 2010
6
-------
III. COST METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING THE COSTS
FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPALS FOR TIER 2 & 3
Prepared by Thor Young, STEARNS & WHELER, LLC, Bowie, MD with assistance from
CH2MHILL, Herndon, VA
3.1 Purpose
The purpose of this report is to develop a methodology for estimating the capital and
operating costs of upgrading all significant municipal wastewater treatment plants in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed for:
• Tier 2 Nitrogen Goal of 8.0 mg/L effluent annual average total nitrogen (TN)
for all plants not included in Tier 1 nitrogen removal upgrades.
• Tier 2 Phosphorus Goal of 1.0 mg/L effluent monthly average total phosphorus
(TP) for all plants not currently capable of meeting this goal.
• Tier 3 Phosphorus Goal of 0.5 mg/L effluent monthly average TP for all plants
that were upgraded for Tier 2 Phosphorus Goals or were already operating with
less than 1.0 mg/L effluent TP.
These estimates may be used for scenario planning and cost/benefit analysis, especially
for plants that do not already have specific cost estimates developed.
3.2 Background and Approach
Actual and estimated capital cost data is available for nitrogen removal system upgrades
to 8.0 mg/L effluent TN for many plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These
estimates were tabulated by the EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office. Because the
actual data date from the late 1990s to 2002, for the purposes of this cost estimating
method, all costs were converted to 2000 dollars. The year 2000 was selected as the base
year for the cost estimates for two reasons. First, the data in the EPA's database was
collected in the year 2000. Secondly, 2000 is the approximate mid-point of the different
cost estimates in this database. The cost data was converted to 2000 dollars using
Engineering News-Record, Building Cost Index.
The EPA's Chesapeake Bay Program Office had no previously tabulated capital cost data
for phosphorus removal systems.
Nitrogen and phosphorus removal processes involve different associated operations and
maintenance costs. Therefore, separate approaches were taken for nitrogen and
phosphorus removal cost estimating. Both capital and operations and maintenance costs
are assumed to be in July 2000 dollars, and should be updated to the anticipated date of
construction.
7
-------
3.3 Tier 2 Nitrogen Removal System Upgrades
About half of the significant municipal treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed
have already been upgraded to meet Tier 1 nitrogen removal goals of 8.0 mg/L effluent
TN or less. The Tier 2 nitrogen removal goals are the same as the Tier 1 goals (8 mg/L
TN or less), therefore it was determined that the cost of upgrading non-BNR facilities for
Tier 2 nitrogen goals could be estimated from an extrapolation of the cost of upgrading
similar facilities for the Tier 1 nitrogen removal goals.
3.3.1 Capital Cost Estimating - Tier 2 Nitrogen Removal Upgrades
The available capital cost data for Tier 1 nitrogen removal upgrades at significant
municipal wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed are listed in
Appendix E. Only cost data produced from actual construction costs, engineering design
estimates, or preliminary engineering reports/facilities plans are included in Appendix E.
The list, provided by the EPA, includes accurate capital cost estimates for upgrading 67
facilities. A statistical analysis on the data was performed, and a best-fit line equation
was calculated. A summary of the statistical analysis is shown in Appendix F. The
calculated equation is representative of the capital cost associated with nitrogen removal
for any wastewater treatment facility in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. A graph of the
data is shown in Figure III -A. The equation can be used to extrapolate cost estimates for
all plants requiring upgrades that do not have current cost estimates available, based on
each plant's specific design flow.
As Appendix B shows, capital costs from facilities in VA, MD, and PA were used to
determine the average price for nitrogen removal upgrades and much of the cost
information was obtained from as-bid costs provided by the facility or State as part of
their state grant cost share programs. It should be noted that while cost estimates from all
states were collectively used to determine average values, capital costs may be somewhat
less for the Virginia facilities due to differences in state grant cost share eligibility
requirements. Because Virginia's existing grant program is considered "Voluntary
Cooperative", the Commonwealth has not funded nitrification process components and/or
tanks if the need to nitrify year round was based on a permitted requirement; only the
share/percentage of nitrification capacity lost/needed as a result of installing
denitrification has been considered grant eligible.
The equation for Tier 2 Nitrogen Capital Cost Estimating:
Cost = 2023829 + 704350.8039 x Q - 5986.733 x Q2
where Q = design flow rate (mgd) between 0.5 and 30.0 mgd
8
-------
Cost Curve @ 8 mg/L
Figure III- A: Graph showing capital cost to reduce total nitrogen effluent concentrations
to 8mg/L for plants Chesapeake Bay watershed.
For treatment plants larger than 30.0 mgd, specific cost data furnished by the facilities
themselves will be used instead of the cost curve shown in Figure III -A.
3.3.2 O&M Cost Estimating - Nitrogen Removal
The primary impact on operations costs associated with biological nitrogen removal is the
change in electrical requirements for aeration. The current effluent ammonia and nitrate
concentration for each facility can be used to determine the impacts on aeration
requirements. Plants with ammonia concentrations greater than 2 mg/L require
additional nitrification to convert ammonia-nitrogen to nitrate-nitrogen. The nitrification
process requires oxygen. Specifically, 4.57 lbs of oxygen are required per pound of
ammonia nitrogen removed. Thus, the oxygen requirement can be calculated given a
plant's effluent ammonia concentration. Once the oxygen requirement is known, the
brake horsepower can be determined using a simplified calculation method. This method
is based on the following assumptions that have been developed from typical aeration
systems:
• The typical actual oxygen requirement/standard oxygen requirement (AOR/SOR)
ratio for a fine bubble aeration system is 0.33.
• The typical fine bubble oxygen transfer efficiency (SOTE) is 2.0% per foot of
diffuser submergence. Assume 25% on average.
• 1 SCFM of air contains 0.0173 pounds of oxygen.
• 40 HP is required to adiabatically compress 1000 SCFM
9
-------
First, the airflow rate (SCFM) is calculated based on the oxygen requirement, AOR/SOR,
and SOTE. Then, the brake horsepower is calculated based on the airflow rate, blower
discharge pressure, and blower efficiency. Finally the cost is determined based on the
brake horsepower and the cost of electricity. $0.05 per kilowatt-hour of electricity was
assumed. An example spreadsheet utilizing this methodology has been provided. The
calculations are summarized below:
• O2reqyd = i{NH3\2000 - [NH3~\goa)y. 8.34 x Q2mo x 4.57 lbS°2/(bNnitrijy
• SCFMreq'd = 02 req'd / (AORISOR) / SOTE / 1440{mlday) / 0.0173(lbs02 /SCFM)
• RHP = SCFM x 40H/{000SCFM
Denitrification processes lower the biochemical oxygen demand of the wastewater
stream, thus lowering the overall oxygen requirement of the plant. Therefore,
denitrification processes provide an electrical cost savings to the operation of the plant.
To determine the electrical cost savings, the amount of oxygen saved is calculated using
the relationship: 2.86 pounds of oxygen saved per pound of nitrate denitrified. The
calculated amount of oxygen saved is converted to an electrical cost in the same
procedure used for nitrification processes. An example spreadsheet utilizing this
methodology has been provided. The calculation to determine the amount of oxygen
saved by denitrification is shown below:
02 saved = ([A'OJ, - [N03]goal)x 8.34 x Q2mo x 2.86 lbS°2/ibNdenitrijy
In both nitrification and denitrification process operation and maintenance cost
calculations, the anticipated plant flow rate for the year 2010 should be used. In terms of
additional operations and maintenance cost, there is a negligible change in solids
production, and there is no additional labor required. Capital replacement cost is not
included in the operations and maintenance cost. Maintenance cost can be estimated as
2% of capital costs per year.
3.4 Tier 2 Phosphorus Removal System Upgrades
Significant municipal wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed
should be divided into three categories: "TP2mg/L".
10
-------
For the purposes of this evaluation, it was assumed that all treatment plants will use
chemical precipitation to remove phosphorus. This is not intended as a recommendation
of chemical precipitation over biological phosphorus removal. On the contrary,
biological phosphorus removal is often the preferred alternative when feasible. However,
for the task of assigning cost for the Tier 2 phosphorus removal standards, it is easier to
generate capital and operating costs if the assumption is made that all systems use
chemical precipitation methods.
Plants with total phosphorus concentration less than 1 mg/L are already achieving Tier 2
nutrient levels and are not included in the evaluation. Plants with total phosphorus
concentrations greater than 1 mg/L and less than 2 mg/L are assumed to already have
chemical addition systems for phosphorus removal. There are no additional capital costs
associated with these plants; however, there are operations and maintenance costs
associated with increased chemical addition and sludge handling. The plants with total
phosphorus concentrations greater than 2 mg/L require new chemical addition facilities
and subsequent operations and maintenance costs.
3.4.1 Capital Cost Estimating - Phosphorus Removal
For all plants with total phosphorus greater than 2 mg/L, capital costs for a new chemical
addition facility including chemical feed pumps and chemical storage tanks will be
incurred. For this methodology, we selected alum as the chemical for phosphorus
removal. Alum is readily available, cost-effective, and precipitates phosphorus
efficiently. Since chemical feed facilities' design does not vary greatly between plants, it
was determined for this evaluation that capital costs for a 0.5, 1, 10, and 30 mgd plant
would be representative of the range of costs for all plants. Capital costs for plants with
flow capacities of 0.5 to 10 mgd were obtained from the EPA Handbook - Retrofitting
POTWs for Phosphorus Removal in the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin (Sept, 1987).
Capital cost for a plant with flow capacity of 30 mgd was obtained from the Innovative
and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual (Feb, 1980). Both sources of cost data
were converted to July 2000 dollars using the Engineering News-Record - Construction
Cost Index. The results are summarized in Table III - A. These typical cost estimates are
graphed versus plant design flow capacity. The graph is shown in Figure III-B. Cost
estimates for individual plants can be extrapolated from Figure III-B based on each
plant's specific design flow.
Capital costs can be extrapolated by determining the equations of the lines between the
data points on Figure III - B. The equations for Figure III-B are as follows:
For, 0.1
-------
From these equations, the facility capital cost based on design flow is given. Facility cost
for plants with flows outside the range of this graph can be approximated by using the
maximum and minimum cost.
Table III - A: Capital Cost Data Summary - Phosphorus Removal
Plant Flow
(mgd)
0.1
1
30
Cost ($)
$75,000
$160,000
$600,000
Capital Cost Curve, TP = 1 mg/L
Plant Size (mgd)
Figure III - B: Graph showing capital cost/mgd plant flow to reduce total
phosphorus concentrations to 1 mg/L
12
-------
3.4.2 O&M Cost Estimating - Phosphorus Removal
In chemical phosphorus precipitation, liquid alum, or aluminum sulfate, is added to the
wastewater stream. The aluminum sulfate reacts with soluble phosphorus to form
aluminum phosphate, which is insoluble and precipitates out of solution as sludge.
Competing reactions occur simultaneously and thus aluminum hydroxide sludge is also a
byproduct of phosphorus removal. For plants with total phosphorus concentrations
greater than 1 mg/L, operations and maintenance costs associated with chemical costs
and sludge handling costs were calculated.
To estimate the cost of liquid alum per facility, the amount of liquid alum required to
reduce the plant's total phosphorus concentration to 1 mg/L is calculated. For this
methodology, the aluminum dose required is calculated using the aluminum to
phosphorus molar ratio of 1.5:1 for Tier 2 nutrient levels. Therefore, 14.4 mg/L alum is
required per 1 mg/L total phosphorus removed. 50 % alum solution should be assumed
for all calculations with an alum bulk density of 11.09 lb/gal. For this methodology, use
a budget cost of $269/ton alum, per EPA Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet for
Chemical Precipitation (September, 2000). An example spreadsheet utilizing this
methodology has been provided. The calculation is summarized below:
• TP removed (wi§/L) TP2000 TPg oal
• Alum Mass Flow (lb/day) = TPremovecix MFRx WRx Q2010X 8.34
where: MFR = Al:P molar feed ratio (1.5:1, for Tier 2)
WR = Alum:P weight ratio (9.6:1)
Q2010 = Anticipated Flow for Year 2010, mgd
• Alum Cost = Alum (lb/day) x (365days/year) / (2000lbs/ton) x ($269/ton)
To estimate the sludge production from alum chemical addition, calculations detailed in
the EPA Design Manual for Phosphorus Removal (September, 1987) should be used.
The following stoichiometric equations govern the sludge producing reactions:
A1 + P04 = AIPO4 and A1 + 3 OH = Al(OH)3
Each plant's specific effluent phosphorus concentration should be used along with the
anticipated 2010 plant flow rate to calculate the sludge produced to reach a total
phosphorus concentration of 1 mg/L. For this methodology, sludge handling and disposal
costs should be assumed to be $300/dry ton sludge. No additional labor costs are
required for phosphorus precipitation and additional energy costs are negligible.
Maintenance cost can be estimated as 2% of capital costs per year. Capital replacement
costs should not be included in the operations and maintenance cost. An example
spreadsheet utilizing this methodology has been provided. The calculations are
summarized below:
13
-------
Al dose(mg/L) = MFR x TPremoved x A WR
where: MFR = ALP molar feed ratio (1.5:1, for Tier 2)
AWR = Al:P atomic weight ratio (27/31)
TP
• [AlP04] = —
P,.
(AlPOt\,
where: [AIPO4] = concentration of aluminum phosphate (mg/L)
Paw = atomic weight of phosphorus (31)
(AlPO 4) aw = atomic weight of aluminum phosphate (122)
[Al(OH3)]
'(
Al dose
\ f
V ^aw J
Tp
removed
p
V aw J
Ul(OH)-X
where: [Al(OH)s] = concentration of aluminum hydroxide (mg/L)
Alaw = atomic weight of aluminum (27)
(Al(OH)s)aw = atomic weight of aluminum hydroxide (78)
• Total Sludge (Ib/d) = ([AIPO4] + [Al(OH)s]) x Q2010 x 8.34
• Sludge Handling Cost = Total Sludge x (365d/yr) / (2000lbs/ton) x ($300/ton)
3.5 Tier 3 Phosphorus Removal System Upgrades
In formulating the cost of Tier 3 phosphorus removal system upgrades, it was again
assumed that all treatment plants will use chemical precipitation to remove phosphorus.
Furthermore, it was assumed that Tier 3 goals would be enacted after Tier 2 goals were
already in place, so that all of the significant wastewater treatment plants in the watershed
would already have chemical phosphorus removal systems in place. Thus, the capital
cost of implementing Tier 3 phosphorus removal system upgrades will be zero.
The operating cost of implementing Tier 3 phosphorus removal upgrades can be found
using the same methodology used to determine the operating cost of Tier 2 phosphorus
removal upgrades, with the following exceptions:
• All facilities are assumed to already be operating with an effluent TP of 1.0
mg/L or less.
• The goal molar feed ratio to achieve 0.5 mg/L effluent TP will be 2:1 instead of
1.5:1, as was used to achieve an effluent TP of 1.0 mg/L.
14
-------
IV. COST METHODOLOGY FOR TIER 3 AND TIER 4 NUTRIENT
REMOVAL FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES
By Tom Sadick, CH2M HILL, Herndon, VA
Cost estimates were developed to assist in the evaluation of the benefits and potential
costs of various levels of nutrient removal at wastewater treatment plants in the
Chesapeake Bay watershed. Four tiers or levels of treatment were analyzed. The first tier
represents the current (2002) level of treatment being achieved by plants within the
watershed (DC, Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania). Tier 1 is the baseline for
comparison. The second tier represents the incremental costs required to achieve total
nitrogen (TN) concentrations of 8 mg/L and total phosphorus (TP) concentrations of 1.0
mg/L for those plants without this level of treatment in operation or construction. Tier 3
provides incremental costs for TN of 5 mg/L and TP of 0.5 mg/L. The highest level of
treatment, Tier 4, represents incremental costs for going from Tier 3 to Tier 4 - the limit
of technology (LOT). LOT is generally considered to be 3 mg/L TN and 0.1 mg/L TP.
The tiers are summarized in Table IV- A. The purpose of this document is to present the
results of this work and to describe the methodology used to estimate costs.
Table IV - A Summary of Tiered Nitrogen and Phosphorus Levels
Tier
Total Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
1
Current limit
Current limit
2
8 mg/L
1 mg/L
3
5 mg/L
0.5 mg/L
4
3 mg/L
0.1 mg/L
Appendix G provides details of cost assumptions used in this methodology.
4.1 Tier 3 Results and Methodology
Cost information for achieving Tier 2 limits were available for approximately one half of
the treatment plants in the watershed. These data were analyzed statistically and used to
estimate costs for the plants without specific cost information. However, unlike Tier 2,
costs for achieving Tier 3 limits is very limited and unavailable within the time frame
needed for this evaluation. Therefore, a generic approach using was developed to
estimate approximate costs for this level of treatment.
Capital costs were estimated by assuming certain improvements were necessary to
achieve treatment levels to plants with capacities of 0.1, 1.0, 10 and 30 mgd. Operations
and maintenance (O&M) costs were also calculated for the plants of these sizes. Cost
15
-------
curves were then developed from this data and were used for estimating costs for plants
within these ranges that do not have actual costs available for this level of treatment.
The results from this type of analysis will provide an "order-of-magnitude" estimate on
the basis of design flow that will have value for estimating basin-wide costs, but not for
the development of budgets for individual facilities (an individual facility may cost more
or less, but the aggregate numbers should be reasonable). Site specific factors such as
wastewater characteristics, site constraints, geotechnical conditions, and the condition
and layout of the existing facility can have a dramatic impact on the ultimate cost of a
WWTP renovation project. Unfortunately, a detailed evaluation of each facility that
considers site specific factors requires considerable effort, and few facilities have done
the planning for Tier 3 and Tier 4 nutrient removal, thus this approach was used as an
approximation of costs.
4.1.1 Costs for TN = 5 mg/L
Capital and O&M costs for achieving Tier 3 nitrogen limits for the four generic plant
sizes are presented in Table IV- B.
Table IV- B
Summary of Capital and Operating Costs for Tier 3 Nitrogen Removal TN = 5 mg/L
Plant Design Capacity
0.1 MGD
1.0 MGD
10 MGD
30 MGD
Capital Cost
$241,000
$ 1,112,000
$ 4,927,000
$ 12,383,000
Annual O&M Cost
$ 7,046
$29,218
$ 157,469
$ 293,938
Figure IV-A presents the capital cost curves for TN = 5 and Figure IV-B shows the O&M
cost curves developed from the generic costs.
16
-------
83
TN=5, Cost Curve for Total Capital Costs
$14,000
$12,000
§ $10,000
o
$8,000
(/> $6,000
o $4,000
$2,000
$0
$1,200
$1,000 -
$800 -
$600 -
$400 -
$200 -
$0 -
0
0.4 0.6 0.8
Plant Size (mgd)
TN=5, Cost Curve for Total Capital Costs
0 5 10 15 20 25
Plant Size (mgd)
Figure IV- A: Cost Curves for Total Capital Costs with TN = 5 mg/L
17
-------
TN=5, Cost Curve for Annual O&M Costs
$35,000
$30,000
$25,000
i2 $20,000
O $15,000
$10,000
$5,000
$0
y = 24636x +4582.1
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Plant Size (mgd)
1.2
£
w
o
O
TN=5, Cost Curve for Annual O&M Costs
$450,000
$400,000
$350,000
$300,000
$250,000
$200,000
$150,000
$100,000
$50,000
$0
y= 13383x+ 19021
R = 0.9996
0
10 15 20 25
Plant Size (mgd)
30
35
Figure IV- B: Cost Curves for Total O&M Costs with TN = 5 mg/L
4.1.2 Methodology for estimating TN = 5 mg/L costs
The methodology for development for costs for TN = 5 consisted of assuming certain
improvements would be needed to bring a standard activated sludge plant to this level of
treatment. The following assumptions were made in order to develop the costs.
4.1.2.1. The plant is already capable of achieving an annual average TN of 8 mg/L
18
-------
4.1.2.2. In order to achieve 5 mg/L, improvements would be required to improve
nitrification, clarification, and to remove an additional 3 mg/L of TN
4.1.2.3. For increased nitrogen removal, it was further assumed that a secondary anoxic
zone (following aeration) would be used. The zone was sized for a one hour
hydraulic detention time at design flow. Methanol addition was also assumed to
be needed to achieve the additional denitrification in the secondary anoxic zone.
The costs for additional tankage for the secondary anoxic zone were estimated
at $2.50 per gallon installed. An allowance was also provided for mixing and
miscellaneous mechanical equipment not specifically identified. Estimates were
also made for methanol storage and feed facilities for each size plant.
4.1.2.4. Because the additional nitrogen removal requires more nitrification capacity and
reliability an allowance was provided for improvements such as improved flow
splitting, more tankage, or aeration improvements. These were based on an
allowance per gallon - $ 0.50/gal for the 0.1 mgd plant, $0.25/gal for the 1.0
mgd plant, and $ 0.10/gal for the 10 and 30 mgd plants.
4.1.2.5. It was further assumed that additional clarification capacity would be required
to handle the additional MLSS needed for more reliable nitrification as well as
improving overall clarification and TSS removal. Additional clarification
equivalent to 25% of the design flow was assumed. For example, the 1 mgd
plant would receive 250,000 gpd of additional capacity, 2.5 mgd of clarification
capacity was added for the 10 mgd plant and the 30 mgd plant would increase
clarifier capacity by 7.5 mgd. Costs for the additional clarification capacity was
estimated using EPA cost curves for clarifiers (EPA 430/9-78-009 Innovative
and Alternative Technology Assessment) and adjusted for inflation using the
Engineering News Record Construction Cost Indexes (ENR CCI).
4.1.2.6. The sum of the improvements was then added for each facility and then a 30%
program implementation cost was added for program costs associated with
engineering, construction management, legal, bonding and administrative fees.
The sum of the construction and the implementation cost is the capital cost.
4.1.2.7. O&M costs were developed using costs for methanol, increased solids
production, energy, and maintenance. Additional labor for operations was not
considered necessary for this alternative. The assumptions for each are as
follows:
• Methanol: 3.1 lbs of methanol per pound of nitrate reduced (3 mg/L nitrate in
this case) Methanol costs of $1.00 per gallon were used except for the 0.1 mgd
plant where $2.00 per gallon was used for 55 gallon drum feed instead of bulk
storage.
• Additional solids production: Yield of 0.12 lbs of solids per lb of methanol
applied. $300.00 per dry ton was used for solids handling, stabilization and
disposal or reuse.
19
-------
• Energy was estimated on the basis of mixing and other uses for each plant size
at $0.05/kW-hr.
• Maintenance costs were developed using two percent of the plants capital
cost.
Note: the O&M costs for all Tiers were developed using design flow for each facility.
When used to develop basin wide costs, the 2010 flows will be used to prorate the annual
O&M costs.
4.1.3 Methodology for fitting equations to TN = 5 mg/L data
Several different types of equation fits were tested with each data set: linear, power,
logarithmic, and polynomial. Linear, power, and polynomial (specifically quadratic)
were found to be the closest matches depending on the data set. One measure of the
success of the fit of an equation to the line is a high coefficient of determination (R2).
However, in the case of these data sets, frequently more than one type of equation fit the
line with an R2 value of over 0.99. The difference in R2 values between equation fits is
therefore meaningless. However, given the few data points available, it is most
appropriate to use a linear fit.
In addition to testing different types of equations, different data sets were also examined.
The first round involved determining the equation of both the total capital costs and
O&M costs of the entire upgrade. Then, the equation for the capital costs of each
component of the upgrade (i.e. secondary anoxic reactor, denite filters, etc.) was
determined. It was found that the equations for the total capital costs were a close
enough fit that there was no need to look at the equations for the data subsets.
The equation fits for the entire upgrade still had some inherent degree of error in them.
That is, they underestimated costs in some places and overestimated in others. In order to
minimize this error and refine the equations, the data set was split in two subsets (POTWs
0.1 to 1.0 mgd and POTWs greater than 1.0 mgd to 30 mgd) based on plant size. This
provided the most precise set of equations for both Total Capital Costs and Annual O&M
Costs. This same methodology was used to determine the equations associated with the
TN= 3 mg/L data.
4.1.4 Capital Costs for TP = 0.5 mg/L
In formulating the cost of Tier 3 phosphorus removal system upgrades, it was again
assumed that all treatment plants will use chemical precipitation to remove phosphorus.
Furthermore, it was assumed that Tier 3 goals would be enacted after Tier 2 goals were
already in place, so that all of the significant wastewater treatment plants in the watershed
would already have chemical phosphorus removal systems in place. Thus, the capital
cost of implementing Tier 3 phosphorus removal system upgrades will be zero.
20
-------
4.1.5 Methodology for estimating operating costs for TP = 0.5 mg/L
In chemical phosphorus precipitation, liquid alum, or aluminum sulfate, is added to the
wastewater stream. The aluminum sulfate reacts with soluble phosphorus to form
aluminum phosphate which is insoluble and precipitates out of solution as sludge.
Competing reactions occur simultaneously and thus aluminum hydroxide sludge is also a
byproduct of phosphorus removal. For plants with total phosphorus concentrations
greater than 0.5 mg/L, operations and maintenance costs associated with chemical costs
and sludge handling costs were calculated. All facilities are assumed to already be
operating with an effluent TP of 1.0 mg/L or less.
To estimate the cost of liquid alum per facility, the amount of liquid alum required to
reduce the plant's total phosphorus concentration to 0.5 mg/L is calculated. For this
methodology, the aluminum dose required is calculated using the aluminum to
phosphorus molar ratio of 2.0:1 for Tier 3 nutrient levels. Therefore, 19.2 mg/L alum is
required per 1 mg/L total phosphorus removed. 50 % alum solution should be assumed
for all calculations with an alum bulk density of 11.09 lb/gal. For this methodology, use
a budget cost of $269/ton alum, per EPA Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet for
Chemical Precipitation (September, 2000). The calculation is summarized below:
• TPremoveci (mg/L) TP2000 TPg0ai
• Alum Mass Flow (lb/day) = TPremovecix MFRx WRx Q2010X 8.34
where: MFR = Al:P molar feed ratio (2.0:1, for Tier 3)
WR = Alum:P weight ratio (9.6:1)
Q2010 = Anticipated Flow for Year 2010, mgd
• Alum Cost = Alum (lb/day) x (365days/year) / (2000lbs/ton) x ($269/ton)
To estimate the sludge production from alum chemical addition, calculations detailed in
the EPA Design Manual for Phosphorus Removal (September, 1987) should be used.
The following stoichiometric equations govern the sludge producing reactions:
A1 + P04 = AIPO4 and A1 + 3 OH = Al(OH)3
Each plant's specific effluent phosphorus concentration should be used along with the
anticipated 2010 plant flow rate to calculate the sludge produced to reach a total
phosphorus concentration of 1 mg/L. For this methodology, sludge handling and disposal
costs should be assumed to be $300/dry ton sludge. No additional labor costs are
required for phosphorus precipitation and additional energy costs are negligible.
Maintenance cost can be estimated as 2% of capital costs per year. Capital replacement
costs should not be included in the operations and maintenance cost. The calculations are
summarized below:
21
-------
Al dose(mg/L) = MFR x TPremoveci x A WR
where: MFR = ALP molar feed ratio (2.0:1, for Tier 3)
AWR = Al:P atomic weight ratio (27/31)
TP
• [AlP04] = —2222L
P..
(AtPO,l
where: [AIPO4] = concentration of aluminum phosphate (mg/L)
Paw = atomic weight of phosphorus (31)
(AlPO 4) aw = atomic weight of aluminum phosphate (122)
[Al(OH3)]
'(
Al dose
\ f
Al
aw J
TP
removed
p
v aw J
Ul(OH)-X
where: [Al(OH)s] = concentration of aluminum hydroxide (mg/L)
Alaw = atomic weight of aluminum (27)
(Al(OH)3)aw = atomic weight of aluminum hydroxide (78)
• Total Sludge (Ib/d) = ([AIPO4] + [Al(OH)s]) x Q2010 x 8.34
• Sludge Handling Cost = Total Sludge x (365d/yr) / (2000lbs/ton) x ($300/ton)
4.2 Tier 4 Results and Methodology
For Tier 4 generic plant cost development, it was assumed that the technology used to
achieve an effluent TN of 3 mg/L was deep bed denitrification filters. Metal salt addition
with microfiltration was assumed as the technology of choice for LOT for 0.1 mg/L TP.
4.2.1 Deep Bed Denitrifying Filters
A proven technology that can achieve this level of nitrogen removal and provide a
reasonable estimate of costs is deep bed denitrifying filters (DBDF). Another significant
advantage of DBDFs is the filtering action that can aid TSS and phosphorus removal.
Other technologies can achieve a TN level of 3 mg/L (e.g., fluidized beds, denitrifying
biological filters, suspended growth systems with multiple anoxic zones and
supplemental carbon addition), however, applying the simplifying assumption that DBDF
technology will be used at all facilities will provide reasonable capital and operating costs
that can be used for preliminary planning and cost benefit analysis.
Deep bed denitrifying filtration is a down-flow, packed-bed process performing both
suspended solids removal (as in a typical filter) and biological nitrogen removal.
Denitrifying bacteria grow on the media using an external source of carbon, such as
methanol, as a food source and nitrate in the effluent as a source of respiration (under
22
-------
anoxic conditions). The DBDFs are similar to water filters except the media is usually a
coarse, high density sand consisting of round hard particles. Bed depths are typically on
the order of 5 feet and have a gravel underdrain system. DBDFs use both air and water
during backwashing.
In operation, the denitrification process reduces nitrate-nitrogen to nitrogen gas, and
results in the formation of cell mass, water, and alkalinity. The beds are occasionally
removed from service and are "bumped" using washwater to remove trapped gas from
the bed. Conventional hydraulic loading rates of 1 to 2 gpm/sq ft are typical for
municipal wastewater. At these loading rates backwash intervals can range from 1 to 4
days. Nitrogen gas bumping cycles are typically between 4 and 8 hrs.
DBDFs are widely used for nitrogen removal, particularly in smaller plants in Florida
where TN limits of 3 mg/L are being achieved. Tampa, Florida and Munich, Germany
have large installations.
4.2.2 Microfiltration
Low pressure membrane treatment (micro or ultra filtration) is a suitable technology to
achieve very low effluent phosphorus concentrations if metal salts are used just upstream
to precipitate soluble phosphorus. Some existing plants in the region with tertiary
clarification and filtration can reliably achieve TP concentrations below 0.1 mg/L.
However, microfiltration is considerably less expensive than an additional clarification
and filtration process and was therefore selected for use in this exercise as a reasonable
add on process for plants without these facilities. Another factor in the selection of this
technology is its use with denitrification filters. The denitrification filters must have
sufficient phosphorus for cell synthesis of the denitrifiying organisms. Approximately
0.1 to 0.2 mg/L of soluble phosphorus must pass on to the filters to support growth and
therefore they cannot be relied upon as the final barrier for phosphorus. Adding a small
dose of metal salts and then processing the flow through microfilters can reduce effluent
TP to below 0.1 mg/L.
4.2.3 Costs for TN = 3 mg/L
Capital and O&M costs for achieving Tier 4 nitrogen limits for the four generic plant
sizes are presented in Table IV- C.
Table IV- C
Summary of Capital and Operating Costs for Tier 4 Nitrogen Removal TN = 3 mg/L
Plant Design Capacity
0.1 MGD
1.0 MGD
10 MGD
30 MGD
Capital Cost
$312,000
$ 1,268,000
$ 9,620,000
$ 26,520,000
Annual O&M Cost
$ 22,993
$ 69,925
$311,634
$ 841,120
Figure IV- C presents the capital cost curves for TN = 3 and Figure IV- D shows the
O&M cost curves developed from the generic costs.
23
-------
TN=3, Total Capital Cost Curve
$1,400
$1,200
o $1,000
x,
13
w
o
O
$800
$600
$400
$200
$0
y= 1061.7x +205.83
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Plant Size (mgd)
1.2
$30,000
_ $25,000
o"
0 $20,000
2 $15,000
(0
1 $10,000
° $5,000
$0
0
TN=3, Total Capital Cost Curve
y = 866.49x + 627.19
R = 0.9995
10 15 20 25 30
Plant Size (mgd)
35
Figure IV- C: Cost Curves for Total Capital Costs with TN = 3 mg/L
24
-------
(0
(0
o
o
$80,000
$70,000
$60,000
$50,000
$40,000
$30,000
$20,000
$10,000
$0
TN=3, Annual O&M Costs
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
Plant Size (mgd)
1.2
(0
(0
o
o
$900,000
$800,000
$700,000
$600,000
$500,000
$400,000
$300,000
$200,000
$100,000
$0
0
TN=3, Annual O&M Costs
10 15 20 25 30 35
Plant Size (mgd)
Figure IV- D: Cost Curves for Annual O&M Costs with TN = 3 mg/L
4.2.4 Methodology for estimating TN = 3 mg/L costs
As discussed above deep bed denitrification filters were assumed. Costs were developed
for plant sizes of 0.1, 1.0, 10 and 30 mgd. Capital costs consisted of the following:
4.2.4.1. A pumping station capable of providing 30 ft TDH to the denitrification filters
and three times the annual design flow to handle peak flows. The cost for the
25
-------
station was developed using two sets of EPA cost curves (EPA 430/9-78-009
Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment, and the EPA cost curves in
the Cost of Wastewater Conveyance Manual) with indexing of the cost to the
present using the ENR CCI.
4.2.4.2. Denitrification filter costs were developed using a design hydraulic loading of 2
gpm/sq ft and adding redundancy factors for filters being backwashed or out of
service for maintenance. (50% additional filters for the 0.1 mgd plant, 20% for
the 1 mgd plant, 15% for the 10 mgd plant and 10% for the 30 mgd plant). A
flat cost of $1,500 per square foot of filter surface was used. This cost is
typically used to cover the cost of the filters, building and appurtenances.
4.2.4.3. A 30 % program implementation factor was used to arrive at the final capital
cost for each generic plant.
4.2.4.4. NOTE: These capital costs are only valid for plants without filtration as a final
process. Plants with filtration and pumping stations in place will be
considerably less costly to retrofit for this level of nitrogen removal.
4.2.4.5. O&M costs were developed using costs for methanol, increased solids
production, energy, and maintenance, and additional labor on the basis of plant
size. The assumptions for each are as follows:
• Methanol: 3.1 lbs of methanol per pound of nitrate reduced (3 mg/L nitrate in
this case 5 mg/L to 2 mg/L - treatment target) Methanol costs of $1.00 per
gallon were used except for the 0.1 mgd plant where $2.00 per gallon was
used for 55 gallon drum feed instead of bulk storage.
• Additional solids production: Yield of 0.12 lbs of solids per lb of methanol
applied. $300.00 per dry ton was used for solids handling, stabilization and
disposal or reuse.
• Energy was estimated on the basis of pumping and other uses for each plant
size at $0.05/kW-hr.
• Labor was based on plant size 0.1 mgd = 2 hrs/day, 1.0 = 4 hrs/day, 10 mgd =
6 hrs/day and 30 mgd = 12 hrs/day. Labor was considered for a 5 day work
week. $30 was used per hour to cover salary and fringe benefits.
• Maintenance costs were developed using two percent of the plants capital
cost.
4.2.5 Methodology for fitting equations to TN = 3 mg/L data
The same methodology was used to determine the equations associated with the TN= 3
mg/L data as was used to determine the equations for TN = 5 mg/L. Please refer to that
section for more detailed information.
26
-------
4.2.6 Costs for TP= 0.1 mg/L
Capital and O&M costs for achieving Tier 4 phosphorus limits for the four generic plant
sizes are presented in Table IV- D.
Table IV- D
Summary of Capital and Operating Costs for Tier 4 Phosphorus Removal TP = 0.1 mg/L
Plant Design Capacity
0.1 MGD
1.0 MGD
10 MGD
30 MGD
Capital Cost
$ 388,000
$ 1,315,000
$ 6,969,000
$ 18,330,000
Annual O&M Cost
$ 54,385
$ 189,800
$ 1,095,000
$ 3,066,000
Figures IV-E and IV-F present the capital cost curves for TP=0.1 and Figure IV-G shows
the O&M cost curves developed from the generic costs. Figure IV- E was taken directly
from EPA 815-C-01-001 Low-Pressure Membrane Filtration for Pathogen Removal:
Application, Implementation and Regulatory Issues. Figure IV- F shows cost curves for
additional allowances made for chemical system and instrumentation improvements.
These costs are explained in more detail in the methodology section. Figure IV- G shows
the cost curves for O&M associated with a TP = 0.1 mg/L based on data from the EPA
source cited earlier.
Micro I Ultrafiltration Costs
Discharge to Sewer -10 Degrees C
Plant Capacity [mgd]
Figure IV- E: Cost Curves for Capital Costs for TP = 0.1 mg/L (Taken directly from EPA 815-C-
01-001 Low-Pressure Membrane Filtration for Pathogen Removal: Application,
Implementation and Regulatory Issues)
21
-------
TP=0.1, Cost Curves for Allowance for
Chemical/Instrumentation System Improvements
$600,000
$500,000
Co
sts $400,000
(x$
10 $300,000
00)
$200,000
$100,000
$0
Plant Size (mgd)
Figure IV- F: Cost Curves for Allowance for Chemical/Instrumentation System Improvements
for TP = 0.1 mg/L
TP = 0.1, Cost Curves for Annual O&M
Plant Size (mgd)
Figure IV- G: Cost Curves for Annual O&M Costs for TP = 0.1 mg/L
28
-------
4.2.7 Methodology for estimating TP = 0.1 mg/L costs and for fitting equations to
TP = 0.1 mg/L data
As discussed above, microfiltration was assumed as the technology of choice for LOT
phosphorus removal for the generic plants. Both capital and O&M costs were developed
using cost curves for low pressure membrane filtration for drinking water (EPA 815-C-
01-001 Low-Pressure Membrane Filtration for Pathogen Removal: Application,
Implementation and Regulatory Issues). This application will be reasonably similar to
water treatment in terms water quality and membrane flux at this point in the waste water
treatment process (highly treated denitrification filter effluent TSS < 3 mg/L) and thus, it
should be applicable. The curve used (shown above in Figure IV- E) was directly from
the "microfiltration/ultrafiltration costs with discharge to sewer (back to the plant) with a
minimum water temperature of 10 degrees C."
4.2.7.1. In addition to the construction cost of the facilities, an allowance was provided
for each for improvements to instrumentation and control systems to improve
chemical application prior to the membranes. The allowances were as follows:
O.lmgd = $50k, 1.0 mgd = $ 100, 10 mgd = $250k, 30 mgd = $ 500k. This data
was plotted in Figure IV- F. The same methodology was used to fit an equation
to the line as was used in analyzing the TN data. The data was split into three
subsets based on the way the EPA source data divided their equations.
4.2.7.2. Capital costs include non-construction costs such as engineering, legal and
permitting. Figure IV- E shows the capital cost curves. These curves and
equations were taken directly from the EPA document referenced earlier.
Therefore, to determine the total capital cost for a given design flow, the
equations in Figure IV- E and F need to be added together.
4.2.7.3. O&M costs were also taken directly from the EPA curves and include: power, 5
year membrane replacement, labor 2 hrs/week for very small systems < 1 mgd,
40 hrs for larger systems, and chemical cleaning once per month. The O&M
costs were based on the data in the EPA document referenced earlier. Costs per
1,000 gallons were taken from that source, multiplied by the number of
thousands of gallons in the design flow and multiplied by 365 days. This
provided O&M costs per year at design flow. This data was plotted in Figure
IV- G on a logarithmic scale. It was determined that the best fit for these curves
were power equations. The data was split into three subsets based on the way
the capital cost curves were split.
29
-------
V. METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING INDUSTRIAL LOADS and
COSTS BY TIER
Estimates of industrial nutrient load reductions by tier and related costs to achieve those
reductions are presented in this section. The tiers applied to industries conceptually mirror the
tiers for the significant municipal facilities in that Tier 1 reflects current implementation and
Tiers 2-4 reflect additional reduction measures ultimately leading up to limits of technology.
There are 49 industrial direct dischargers in the CBPO nutrient point source database that the
Bay jurisdictions have indicated are substantial sources of nutrients to the watershed. Site
specific information on many of these facilities was obtained via phone contacts or site visits
which provided individualized data on what appropriate load reductions and/or costs would be
by tier. A cost estimation methodology applied wherever site specific information was
unavailable. Certain assumptions were applied using the methodology described below. These
costs and reduction levels are to be used only as a means to estimate potential reduction and
resulting costs watershed wide according to Tiers. This is not information that should be used to
determine or verify actual site specific load reductions and costs by facility for actual
implementation measures.
Table V-A below provides a summary of the costs resulting from the theoretical implementation
of the tiers grouped by SIC code. Table V-B provides the same summary information grouped
by major Bay Basins. Tables V-C, V-D, V-D and V-F in this section provide costs and loads by
facility by Tier as described below.
Note that the source of some of the following information on loads or costs may come from
individual facility or state contacts. Reference numbers are placed after such information which
link the information to a hard copy describing the communication. Appendix H to this report
compiles all of these contacts and is available at the Chesapeake Bay Program Office by
contacting Ning Zhou at 410-267-5727.
30
-------
Table V-A: TOTAL INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COST (for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Reductions)
SUMMARY BY INDUSTRY ($)
INDUSTRY
TIER 1
TOTAL CC
TIER 2
TOTAL CC
TIER 3
TOTAL CC
TIER 4
TOTAL CC
CHEMICALS Total
0
448,884
800,000
20,850,184
FISH HATCHERIES Total
0
0
3,180,697
10,676,419
MEAT PROCESSING Total
0
13,337,166
3,433,441
8,684,998
METALS Total
0
0
0
9,149,406
MISC Total
0
24,984,572
15,256,703
28,127,595
PAPER MILLS Total
0
4,928,496
17,535,141
115,812,973
PETRO-CHEMICALS Total
0
0
398,764
1,124,068
TEXTILES Total
0
7,000,000
6,212,016
2,073,175
Grand Total
0
50,699,118
46,816,762
196,498,818
Table V-B: TOTAL INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COST (Nitrogen and Phosphorus Reductions)
SUMMARY BY BASIN ($) FOR INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES
INDUSTRY
TIER 1
TOTAL CC
TIER 2
TOTAL CC
TIER 3
TOTAL CC
TIER 4
TOTAL CC
JAMES RIVER Total
0
5,754,176
21,432,241
70,252,886
MD EASTERN SHORE Total
0
0
0
1,106,448
MD WESTERN SHORE Total
0
0
398,764
5,273,474
PATUXENT RIVER Total
0
7,350,910
489,332
1,325,353
POTOMAC RIVER Total
0
19,593,007
6,916,466
16,979,396
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER Total
0
17,994,525
16,954,959
71,866,171
VA EASTERN SHORE Total
0
6,500
625,000
1,250,000
YORK RIVER Total
0
0
0
28,445,090
Grand Total
0
50,699,118
46,816,762
196,498,818
31
-------
5.1 LOADS
Loads for industrial facilities were determined by a combination of facility contacts, estimates based
on an application of POTW technologies, or simply by applying increasing non-technology based
percentages of reductions by tier. In general, Tier 1 for industries reflects nutrient concentrations that
existed in 2000, or plans known to be in place by 2010, or permit limits if less than this. Tier 2 and 3
for industries generally reflects a 50 and 80% reduction respectively from Tier 1 or permit limits if
less than this. Tier 4 reflects the same concentrations as for significant municipal facilities at limits
of technology, or 3 mg/1 for TN and 0.1 mg/1 for TP. More site specific decisions for loads by facility
are described below. It should be noted that loads for Tier 4 are really an artifact of how the tiers
were constructed (which basically equaled LOT for municipals) rather than a reflection of the
capability of the individual industrial facilities to meet this level.
See Table V-C for a list of industry concentrations, flows, and codes by Tier for loads and
costing (see Section 5.2 below).
See Table V-D for a list of industry concentrations and flows as a result of applying the codes by
tier listed in Table V-C. The information is organized by nutrient parameter for easy reference.
Flows: Flows for the year 2010 are the same as those for 2000. This is because industrial flows
do not necessarily increase due to population, as in the case of municipal facilities, and there
exist no data for 2010 projections other than data we have for 2000.
The following methodology (code) was used to determine TN and TP concentrations for the
industrial facilities for the different tiers. However, in all cases, the permit concentrations will be
used if lower than those determined by applying the codes below.
5.1.1. Concentrations will be held constant from Tier 1 because significant reductions have
already been made (equal or greater than 85%). Code: R
5.1.2. Concentrations will be held constant from Tier 1 because they are already equal to or
below 3.0 and 0.1 mg/1 TN and TP respectively. Code: HC
5.1.3. The same tier levels are applied as are used for significant municipals where Tier 1
concentrations are equal or below 20.0 and 7.0 mg/1 TN and TP respectively. Code:
POTW
5.1.4. Tier 2 = 50% of 1985 concentration (or 2000 concentration, whichever is lower), Tier 3 =
80% reduction from 1985 concentration (or 2000 concentration, whichever is lower). But
in any case, do not go lower than 3.0 and 0.1 mg/1 for TN and TP respectively. Use in
cases where facilities have experienced an increase in 50% or less in load since 1985.
Code: AC1
5.1.5. Tier 2 = 50% of 2000 concentration (or 1985 concentration, whichever is lower), Tier 3 =
80% reduction from 2000 concentration (or 1985 concentration, whichever is lower). But
32
-------
in any case, do not go lower than 3.0 and 0.1 mg/1 TN and TP respectively. Use in cases
where facilities have experienced an increase in load of greater than 50%. Code: AC2
Note: used in only two facilities: Hienz Pet Foods in PA, and Lee's Commercial Carpet
in VA. Also note that 2010 concentrations are set equal to 2000 concentrations (as
presented in the following tables) unless it was known that reductions would occur
between 2000 and 2010.
5.1.6. Some loads are applied according to site specific information provided by either the
respective state, or facility. Such site specific information is available for Osram in PA,
Chemetals in MD, Rocco Farm Foods in VA, Tysons Foods in VA (4031) and others.
Loads for Wampler Foods - Timberville, VA, Wampler Longacre in WV, and Hester
Industries WV are all considered to be zero because spray irrigation technology has been
employed at these facilities. Note: if loads do appear in the final tiers for these facilities,
it is because the draft data set was finalized prior to input of this information. References
for load and cost information are cited specifically under Section 5.2: Costs.
5.1.7. Poultry Processing Plants: TP is set to 2.0 mg/1 or lower for all poultry processing plants
for Tier 2 and 3 because many facilities have this concentration as a permit limit. Tysons
Foods (4031) has a permit limit of 0.3 mg/1 TP. Tysons Foods (4049) has a permit limit
of 2.0 mg/1 TP.
A different category code may be applied to either TN or TP for a given facility depending on
the situation.
5.2 COSTS
It should be noted that costs were generated in this report assuming nutrient reduction was
implemented through construction of wastewater treatment or transportation to a POTW. There
may also exist methods to reduce nutrient levels through pollution prevention efforts industrial
facilities may employ but which were not costed.
See Table V-E for a list of capital and O&M costs by Tier for TN and TP reduction measures.
See Table V-F for a list of industrial flows, TN and TP concentrations, and TN and TP combined
capital costs by Tier.
5.2.1 Tier 1
All costs for industrial facilities are assumed to be zero for Tier 1 because this represents either
conditions existing in 2000 or incorporates plans for reductions that were already in process.
5.2.2 Tiers 2-3
Costs for many facilities in these tiers were assumed to be zero whenever their TN or TP
concentrations that existed in 2000 were equal to, fairly close to if higher, or less than, the
33
-------
concentrations defined in the tiers. Where concentrations of TN and/or TP were near POTW
influent concentrations, the POTW methodology was applied to obtain a reasonable estimate of
costs, even where it is known that some industrial wastewater is not treatable biologically. In
applying the POTW methodology, which is based, in part on knowing a facility s design flow,
industrial facility design flows were assumed to be equal to 2000 flow . For poultry processing
plants in general, it was agreed that the Tier 3 TN concentration should be 10.0 mg/1 or lower
because this is a performance level or permitted effluent concentration demonstrated by many
currently operating facilities. Costs for these facilities are based on a TN of 10 for tier 3 for the
Virginia plants. However, there may be a few cases where a level of 10 mg/1 TN is in fact not
reflected in the database for Tier 3 due to decision making after the database was completed.
Where additional considerations other than those above were applied to estimate costs, they are
explained below:
Allen Family Foods: TN is already low so no costs for TN reduction are assumed. No costs are
assumed in general for poultry facilities to meet an effluent TP of 2.0 mg/1 because this is a
standard permit requirement for this industry.
Bethlehem Steel: Costs are assumed to be zero for this facility as its influent comes from Back
River and any reductions will be implemented and paid for by Back River.
Chemetals: Based on correspondence with Chemetals and planned reductions via P2 - see
Chesapeake Bay Point Source 2005 and 2010 Scenario Nutrient Data Compiling, April, 2000,
CBPO.(Attachment 1, Appendix H) Chemetals planned on getting reductions via P2 since
1999. These reductions were estimated to result in a TN concentration of 223 mg/1 TN, or an
81% reduction from 2000 levels. Costs are assumed to be zero as they were already planned.
Costs are zero for TP because their effluent is less than Tier 3 concentrations.
Congoleum: TP and TN are already below Tier 2 levels so costs are zero. Costs for Tier 3 are
for TN only to go from TN of 6.6 to 5.0. POTW cost methodology is applied here.
Garden State Tanning: No costs for TP because it is already very low. During a 1999 facility
visit, Garden State Tanning stated that they were going to incorporate a recycle line in their
wastewater treatment system that would result in a 20% reduction of TN in the
effluent(Attachment 1, Appendix H). The Tier 1 TN concentration reflects this 20% reduction
from 2000 concentrations. Subsequent information from EPA Region 3 stated that an NPDES
permit is currently under review which will ask for a 40% reduction within 3 years. (Attachment
2, Appendix H) Current TN is 121 mg/1 based on a 4/18/02 email from Peter Weber from EPA
Region 3 which stated that the permit will have a load cap of 155,250 lbs TN per year. At their
current flow of 0.42 MGD, this equates to a TN of 121 mg/1 now. A 40% reduction would
equate to an effluent of 72.5 mg/1 TN. However this is not as low as the calculated Tier 2
concentration of 54.77 mg/1. MDE has requested costing information from this facility but at the
time of this writing, no information has been provided. Because the facility already has
nitrification and denitrification capability at its wastewater treatment plant, a Best Professional
Judgement estimate is approximately $5 million to reduce the TN concentration from 72.5 mg/1
to 54.77 mg/1. An additional $5 million is estimated to go to the Tier 3 calculated TN effluent of
21.9 mg/1. 8%> O&M is assumed in both tiers.
34
-------
MD & VA Milk Producers: Costs were determined by applying the POTW methodology because
TN and TP levels were in the range of municipal influents.
Indian Head: TN costs are assumed to be zero because TN concentrations are already low. Costs
for TP are determined using the POTW methodology.
Upper Potomac River Commission in MD: TN costs are assumed to be zero because TN
concentrations are already low. Costs for TP are determined using the POTW methodology. It
should be noted that this facility is a POTW yet it is primarily funded by an industry.
WR Grace: Concentrations for TN have been substantially reduced since 1985 thus no costs are
assumed for this facility. TP values are also already low and below Tier 2 and 3 definitions.
Appleton Paper: Costs are for TP only to go from 1.16 to 0.5 mg/1. The POTW methodology
was applied.
Georgia Pacific: 1985 TN and TP concentrations are based on a 3/18/02 email from Bob
Ehrhart.(Attachment 3, Appendix H) Zero costs are assumed for TN reductions based on an
3/20/02 email from John Moore, Georgia Pacific which states that the source of nitrogen in the
effluent should be removed by plans in place already to remove the sludge in the final settling
pond (which is the source of the nitrogen in the effluent).(Attachment 4, Appendix H) Costs for
TP are calculated using the POTW methodology.
Osram: Based on a 3/14/02 email from Carmen Venezia, OSRAM, this facility is incorporating
P2 into their process by reducing the amount of nitrate used which would result in approximately
a 20% reduction by end of 2001, a 30% reduction by mid 2002, and a 50% reduction by end of
2002.(Attachment 5, Appendix H) Hence, Tiers 2-3 reflect the 20 and 30% reductions, or 88
mg/1 and 77 mg/1 TN respectively.
Hoecht-Celanese: Based on an 4/11/02 email from Bob Ehrhart, TN has been significantly
reduced since 1985 and thus no costs are applied.(Attachment 6, Appendix H) TP levels are also
very low. Its direct discharge has been substantially reduced and thus it is no longer considered a
significant source of nutrients by VADEQ.
Lees Commercial Carpet: Based on a 4/4/02 email from Bob Ehrhart which states that achieving
reductions would only be achievable by jointly constructing a POTW w/ the Town of Glasgow
the estimate would be approximately $2 million and would apply unilaterally (not incrementally)
across the tiers. (Attachment 7, Appendix H) Thus, this cost is placed in Tier 2.
Merck in VA: No costs are assumed for TN as its concentration is already low. Costs are for TP
reduction only. Based on a 3/22/02 email from Stephen Klevickis at Merck, costs to get to a TP
of 1.0 would be zero because of source reduction. (Attachment 8, Appendix H) Costs to go to 0.5
mg/1 TP would be about $800,000 to employ precipitation and filtration, also based on the same
correspondence from Merck.
35
-------
Phillip Morris: Based on a 4/29/02 email from Bob Ehrhart which states that achieving Tier 4
would be achievable by constructing a pump station and force main, the estimate would be
approximately $12 million. (Attachment 9, Appendix H) Costs associated with Tier 2 & Tier 3
were provided by Mrs. Ethel Tatum by letter dated April 29, 2002. (Attachment 9A, Appendix
H)
Proctor and Gamble in PA: Based on a 4/2/02 email from Drew Hadley at Proctor and Gamble
(Attachment 10, Appendix H), this facility discontinued the pulp production in 1999 and
permanently shut down the sulfite pulp process in May of that year. The wastewater treatment
plant was also reconfigured at that time to a relatively low load aerated stabilization system.
Ammonia Nitrogen discharge is now less than 2% of historical discharge levels. However, the
2000 TN concentration estimates provided by PADEP show a TN estimate of 17.58 mg/1 TN.
Apparently, as this is the same value since 1997, this is an estimate not based on actual data and
may not reflect this facility s current discharge levels which are most likely something much
less than that. However, without confirmation from Proctor and Gamble that the TOTAL
Nitrogen is low, and not just the ammonia nitrogen, we proceeded with assuming POTW tiered
concentrations, and used the POTW methodology to estimate costs.
Chicken George's (formerly, Rocco Farm Foods): This facility's NPDES permit requires a TN of
10 and TP of 2.0 be met. Costs are estimated to meet a TN of 10 mg/1 for Tier 2 which is a part
of a 2001-02 upgrade for this facility. Costs were estimated by Bob Ehrhart using costs from
other similar facilities (Attachment 15, Appendix H).
Tysons Foods Glen Allen(4031): No costs are assumed in Tier 2 for this facility because its TN
and TP concentrations are already low. TN of 6.0 is estimated based on the early 2000
performance of BNR recently implemented at that facility. (Attachment 1, Appendix H)
However, a more accurate projection of TN for this facility for Tiers 2 and 3 would be 10 mg/1
based on demonstrated performance of similar facilities, however, this was decided after
completion of the database. Costs to achieve Tiers 3 and 4 are provided by Doug Baxter in a
4/25/02 email. (Attachment IB, Appendix H)
Tysons Foods Temporanceville(4049): The Tier 2 concentration of 60 reflects the early 2000
performance of BNR that was recently implemented. (Attachment 1, Appendix H) Costs to
achieve the Tier 3 & Tier 4 concentrations have been provided by Doug Baxter in an email and
attachment dated: April 24, 2002. (Attachment 1 A, Appendix H)
Wampler-Timberville: This facility is currently offline due to land application (Attachment 11,
Appendix H). Thus the discharge is essentially zero and no costs are applied to any of the Tiers.
Hester: This facility has plans already for land application, thus no costs are applied to this
facility for nutrient reduction. (Attachment 12, Appendix H)
Wampler-Longacre, WV: This facility has plans already for land application, thus no costs are
applied to this facility for nutrient reduction. (Attachment 12, Appendix H)
36
-------
DuPont: Nutrients are already low for the DuPont facilities and therefore no additional costs are
estimated as confirmed in a telephone conversation with Bob Dunn of DuPont (Attachment 13,
Appendix H). The Waynesboro facility has a new BNR facility currently operating.
BWXT: Costs are based on a 4/24/02 email from Bob Ehrhart which states that pumping the
waste to the Lynchburg facility would cost approximately $5 million for Tier 4 (Attachment 14,
Appendix H).
Smurfit Stone: Note that the concentration for Tier 2 should have been 5.26 mg/1 TN instead of
8 mg/1 to reflect its 2000 performance levels (or Tier 1). This was an inadvertent error.
5.2.3 Tier 4
Costs for Tier 4 are zero where reductions are already low or P2 is planned. For poultry facilities
in general, it was agreed that a more reasonable effluent level for Tier 4 would be a TN
concentration of 0.3 mg/1 instead of 0.1 mg/1 because this reflects best performance currently
operating. However, the database does not reflect a concentration of 0.3, but rather 0.1 mg/1
because of decision making after the completion of the database. However, costs are based on an
effluent concentration of 0.3 mg/1 instead of 0.1 mg/1. All other costs are based on the POTW
methodology for getting to a TN of 3.0 mg/1 and/or a TP of 0.1 mg/1 except for individual
assumptions for the following facilities:
Chemetals, Garden State Tanning, Osram, and Merck: No Tier 4 costs were estimated because
no information was available on which to base a reasonable assumption.
Lees Commercial Carpet and Phillip Morris: See explanation under Tier 2-3 costs for these
facilities for a description of Tier 3 cost assumptions.
Tysons Foods (4031): Costs to achieve Tier 4 have been provided by Doug Baxter in an email
and attachment dated: 4/25/02 (Attachment 1 A, Appendix H).
37
-------
Table V-C: INDUSTRIAL FACILITY COSTING AND CONCENTRATION CODES BY TIER
DESIGN
FLOW
(MGD)
2000
FLOW
(MGD)
1985
2010
TIER 1
TIER 2
TIER 3
TIER 4
STA
FACILITY
NPDES
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
COST
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
COST
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
COST
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
COST
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
DE
DUPONT-SEAFORD
DE0000035
37.83
2.03
0.12
2.03
0.12
0
2.03
0.12
0
HC
HC
0
HC
HC
0
2.03
0.10
MD
ALLEN FAMILY FOO
MD0067857
0.75
0.26
4.69
0.09
3.63
2.40
0
3.63
2.40
0
POTW
POTW
0
POTW
POTW
PN
3.00
0.10
MD
BETHLEHEM STEEL
MD0001201
23.18
88.25
24.15
0.35
6.25
0.30
0
6.25
0.30
0
R
R
0
R
R
0
3.00
0.10
MD
CHEMETALS
MD0001775
0.13
158.66
0.02
223.00
0.03
0
223.0
0.03
0
223
0.03
0
223
0.03
?
3.00
0.03
MD
CONGOLEUM
MD0001384
0.26
0.50
0.18
6.60
0.20
0
6.60
0.20
0
POTW
POTW
N
POTW
POTW
PN
3.00
0.10
MD
GARDEN STATE TAf
MD0053431
0.42
109.54
0.05
112.65
0.05
0
112.65
0.05
5
AC1
AC1
5
AC1
AC1
?
3.00
0.05
MD
MD & VA MILK PRO[
MD0000469
0.325
0.36
4.05
27.25
16.19
12.92
0
16.19
12.92
PN
POTW
POTW
PN
POTW
POTW
PN
3.00
0.10
MD
NSWC-INDIAN HEAL
MD0003158
0.49
620.05
4.84
1.20
3.00
0
1.20
3.00
P
R
POTW
P
R
POTW
P
1.20
0.10
MD
UPPER POTOMAC F
MD0021687
21.5
20.21
3.58
0.84
1.29
0.79
0
1.29
0.79
0
R
POTW
P
R
POTW
P
1.29
0.10
MD
WR GRACE
MD0000311
4.066
4.06
460.17
0.30
25.10
0.15
0
47.99
0.15
0
R
R
0
R
R
N
3.00
0.10
MD
WESTVACO CORPO
MD0001422
2.18
1.92
0.09
1.92
0.09
0
1.92
0.09
0
HC
HC
0
HC
HC
0
1.92
0.09
PA
APPLETON PAPER J
PA0008265
4.32
0.37
0.16
4.17
1.16
0
4.17
1.16
0
POTW
POTW
P
POTW
POTW
PN
3.00
0.10
PA
CHLOE TEXTILES IN
PA0009172
0.27
0.76
3.88
8.18
0.81
0
8.18
0.81
0
POTW
POTW
PN
POTW
POTW
PN
3.00
0.10
PA
CONSOLIDATED RA
PA0009229
0.16
0.48
0.92
2.86
0.22
0
2.86
0.22
0
HC
POTW
0
HC
POTW
P
2.86
0.10
PA
EMPIRE KOSHER PC
PA0007552
1.17
3.32
1.00
8.46
0.40
0
8.46
0.40
0
POTW
POTW
N
POTW
POTW
P
3.00
0.10
PA
GOLD MILLS DYEHC
PA0008231
0.68
2.92
0.49
8.40
0.15
0
8.40
0.15
0
POTW
POTW
N
POTW
POTW
N
3.00
0.10
PA
HEINZ PET FOODS
PA0009270
0.52
4.58
2.78
41.73
11.80
0
41.73
11.80
N
AC2
AC2
N
AC2
AC2
PN
3.00
0.10
PA
MERCK & COMPANN
PA0008419
12.70
8.01
4.61
1.49
0
4.61
1.49
P
POTW
POTW
P
POTW
POTW
PN
3.00
0.10
PA
NATIONAL GYPSUM
PA0008591
0.31
3.74
3.20
2.93
1.28
0
2.93
1.28
0
R
POTW
P
R
POTW
P
2.93
0.10
PA
OSRAM SYLVANIA F
PA0009024
1.09
70.57
0.16
109.98
0.70
0
109.98
0.70
0
88
POTW
0
77
POTW
?
3.00
0.10
PA
P-H GLATFELTER C<
PA0008869
12.45
0.37
0.16
11.07
0.07
0
11.07
0.07
N
POTW
R
N
POTW
R
N
3.00
0.07
PA
PENNSYLVANIA FIS
PA0040835
2.291
6.40
1.50
0.30
1.03
0.10
0
1.03
0.10
0
R
R
0
R
R
0
1.03
0.10
PA
PENNSYLVANIA FIS
PA0010553
6.00
1.50
0.57
6.52
0.15
0
6.52
0.15
0
POTW
POTW
N
POTW
POTW
N
3.00
0.10
PA
PENNSYLVANIA FIS
PA0010561
4.87
1.50
0.21
4.25
0.13
0
4.25
0.13
0
POTW
POTW
0
POTW
POTW
N
3.00
0.10
PA
PENNSYLVANIA FIS
PA0112127
13.00
1.40
0.11
0.10
0.03
0
0.10
0.03
0
R
R
0
R
R
0
0.10
0.03
PA
PENNSYLVANIA FIS
PA0044032
0.20
1.50
0.30
1.03
0.10
0
1.03
0.10
0
R
R
0
R
R
0
1.03
0.10
PA
POPE & TALBOT Wl!
PA0007919
1.65
18.00
6.00
6.86
1.02
0
6.86
1.02
0
POTW
POTW
PN
POTW
POTW
PN
3.00
0.10
PA
PROCTOR & GAMBL
PA0008885
11.5
4.88
24.64
1.50
17.58
2.44
0
17.58
2.44
PN
POTW
POTW
PN
POTW
POTW
PN
3.00
0.10
PA
TYSON FOODS
PA0035092
0.55
111.02
19.53
25.00
2.00
0
25.00
2.00
N
AC1
POTW
N
AC1
POTW
PN
3.00
0.10
PA
USFW-LAMAR NATIC
PA0009857
4.40
0.37
0.09
0.25
0.03
0
0.25
0.03
0
R
R
0
R
R
0
0.25
0.03
VA
HONEYWELL
VA0005291
42
132.14
10.65
0.07
1.98
0.13
0
1.98
0.13
0
R
R
0
R
R
0
1.98
0.10
VA
AMOCO-YORKTOWf
VA0003018
56.4
60.77
36.24
0.51
0.90
0.12
0
0.90
0.12
0
R
R
0
R
R
0
0.90
0.10
VA
BROWN & WILLIAMS
VA0002780
1.998
0.82
12.19
3.36
8.27
1.76
0
8.27
1.76
P
POTW
POTW
PN
POTW
POTW
PN
3.00
0.10
VA
BWXT
VA0003697
2.9
0.48
854.40
0.48
76.50
1.06
0
76.50
1.06
0
R
POTW
P
R
POTW
5
3.00
0.10
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlsTable V-C cone & codes
38
CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
Table V-C: INDUSTRIAL FACILITY COSTING AND CONCENTRATION CODES BY TIER
DESIGN
FLOW
(MGD)
2000
FLOW
(MGD)
1985
2010
TIER 1
TIER 2
TIER 3
TIER 4
STA
FACILITY
NPDES
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
COST
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
COST
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
COST
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
COST
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
VA
DUPONT-SPRUANCI
VA0004669
81.1
23.33
2.15
0.26
2.83
0.11
0
2.83
0.11
0
HC
HC
0
HC
HC
0
2.83
0.10
VA
DUPONT-WAYNESB
VA0002160
0.5
2.97
22.74
4.33
3.21
0.14
0
3.21
0.14
0
HC
HC
0
HC
HC
0
3.00
0.10
VA
GEORGIA PACIFIC C
VA0003026
12
7.21
0.06
0.03
13.00
7.40
0
13.00
7.40
P
POTW
AC2
P
POTW
AC2
P
3.00
0.10
VA
LEES COMMERCIAL
VA0004677
2
0.80
11.28
17.52
33.09
38.79
0
33.09
38.79
2
AC2
AC2
0
AC2
AC2
0
3.00
0.10
VA
MERCK & COMPANN
VA0002178
1.2
10.09
11.93
3.17
3.13
2.61
0
3.13
2.61
0
POTW
POTW
0.8
POTW
POTW
?
3.00
0.10
VA
PHILLIP MORRIS-PA
VA0026557
2.9
1.92
34.66
13.77
33.93
1.27
0
33.93
1.27
3.5
AC1
R
8
AC1
R
12
3.00
0.10
VA
PILGRIMS PRIDE-HI
VA0002313
0.54
53.66
33.00
53.66
33.00
0
53.66
33.00
PN
AC1
AC1
PN
AC1
AC1
PN
3.00
0.10
VA
GEORGE'S CHICKEI
VA0077402
1.2
1.21
84.90
11.00
10.00
2.00
0
138.85
33.33
2.96
10
2
0
10
2
0.503
3.00
0.10
VA
SMURFIT STONE
VA0003115
36
18.45
14.08
5.80
8.00
1.50
0
5.26
1.23
0
POTW
POTW
P
POTW
POTW
PN
3.00
0.10
VA
TYSON FOODS, INC
VA0004031
0.95
73.76
0.08
6.00
0.30
0
7.37
0.27
0
6
POTW
0.15
6
POTW
0.38
3.00
0.10
VA
TYSON FOODS, INC
VA0004049
0.98
1.05
113.91
1.15
60.00
2.00
0
79.81
14.40
0
AC1
AC1
0.625
AC1
AC1
0.625
3.00
0.10
VA
WESTVACO CORPO
VA0003646
26.48
29.73
8.00
0.29
8.00
0.29
0
8.00
0.29
0
POTW
POTW
N
POTW
POTW
PN
3.00
0.10
WV
HESTER INDUSTRIE
WV0047236
0.53
3.87
1.09
12.60
0.94
0
12.60
0.94
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.00
0.10
WV
SPECRATECHINTEI
WV0005533
0.32
27.13
0.14
29.66
3.00
0
29.66
3.00
N
AC1
POTW
N
AC1
POTW
N
3.00
0.10
WV
WAMPLER-LONGAC
WV0005495
1.54
62.41
0.88
52.91
9.79
0
52.91
9.79
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3.00
0.10
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlsTable V-C cone & codes
39
CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
Table V-D: Flow and Concentration Codes and Data For Industrial Facilities by Nutrient Parameter
2010
TN Concentrations (mg/l)
TN Codes
TP Concentrations (mg/l)
TP Codes
STA
FACILITY
NPDES
FLOW
85
2010
TIER 1
TIER 2
TIER 3
TIER 4
TIER 2
TIER 3
85
2010
TIER 1
TIER 2
TIER 3
TIER 4
TIER 2
TIER 3
DE
DUPONT-SEAFORD
DE0000035
37.83
2.03
2.03
2.03
2.03
2.03
2.03
HC
HC
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.1C
HC
HC
MD
ALLEN FAMILY FOOD
MD0067857
0.26
4.69
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.63
3.0C
POTW
POTW
0.09
2.4C
2.40
2.00
2.00
0.1C
2
2
MD
BETHLEHEM STEEL
MD0001201
88.2E
24.15
6.2E
6.25
6.25
6.25
3.0C
R
R
0.35
0.3C
0.30
0.30
0.30
0.1C
R
R
MD
CHEMETALS
MD0001775
0.13
158.66
223.0C
223.00
223.00
223.00
3.0C
223
223
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
MD
CONGOLEUM
MD0001384
0.26
0.50
6.6C
6.60
6.60
5.00
3.0C
POTW
POTW
0.18
0.2C
0.20
0.20
0.20
0.1C
POTW
POTW
MD
GARDEN STATE TAN
MD0053431
0.42
109.54
112.6E
112.65
54.77
21.91
3.0C
AC1
AC1
0.05
0.0E
0.05
0.05
0.01
0.01
R
R
MD
MD & VA MILK PRODI
MD0000469
0.36
4.05
16.1S
16.19
8.00
5.00
3.0C
POTW
POTW
27.25
12.92
12.92
1.00
0.50
0.1C
POTW
POTW
MD
NSWC-INDIAN HEAD
MD0003158
0.4£
620.05
1.2C
1.20
1.20
1.20
1.2C
R
R
4.84
3.0C
3.00
1.00
0.50
0.1C
POTW
POTW
MD
UPPER POTOMAC Rl
MD0021687
20.21
3.58
1.2S
1.29
1.29
1.29
1.2S
R
R
0.84
0.7£
0.79
0.79
0.50
0.1C
POTW
POTW
MD
WR GRACE
MD0000311
4.06
460.17
25.1C
25.10
25.10
25.10
3.0C
25.1
25.1
0.30
0.1E
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.1C
R
R
MD
WESTVACO CORPOF
MD0001422
2.1£
1.92
1.92
1.92
1.92
1.92
1.92
HC
HC
0.09
0.0£
0.09
0.09
0.09
0.0£
HC
HC
PA
APPLETON PAPER S
PA0008265
4.32
0.37
4.17
4.17
4.17
4.17
3.0C
POTW
POTW
0.16
1.16
1.16
1.00
0.50
0.1C
POTW
POTW
PA
CHLOE TEXTILES INC
PA0009172
0.27
0.76
8.1£
8.18
8.00
5.00
3.0C
POTW
POTW
3.88
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.50
0.1C
POTW
POTW
PA
CONSOLIDATED RAIL
PA0009229
0.16
0.48
2.86
2.86
2.86
2.86
2.86
HC
HC
0.92
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.22
0.1C
POTW
POTW
PA
EMPIRE KOSHER PO
PA0007552
1.17
3.32
8.46
8.46
8.00
5.00
3.0C
POTW
POTW
1.00
0.4C
0.40
0.40
0.40
0.1C
POTW
POTW
PA
GOLD MILLS DYEHOl
PA0008231
0.68
2.92
8.4C
8.40
8.00
5.00
3.0C
POTW
POTW
0.49
0.1E
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.1C
POTW
POTW
PA
HEINZ PET FOODS
PA0009270
0.52
4.58
41.73
41.73
4.58
4.58
3.0C
AC2
AC2
2.78
11.8C
11.80
2.78
2.36
0.1C
AC2
AC2
PA
MERCK & COMPANY
PA0008419
12.7C
8.01
4.61
4.61
4.61
4.61
3.0C
POTW
POTW
1.4S
1.49
1.00
0.50
0.1C
POTW
POTW
PA
NATIONAL GYPSUM
PA0008591
0.31
3.74
2.93
2.93
2.93
2.93
2.93
R
R
3.20
1.28
1.28
1.00
0.50
0.1C
POTW
POTW
PA
OSRAM SYLVANIA PF
PA0009024
1.0£
70.57
109.98
109.98
88.00
77.00
3.0C
88
77
0.16
0.7C
0.70
0.70
0.50
0.1C
POTW
POTW
PA
P-H GLATFELTER CO
PA0008869
12.4E
0.37
11.07
11.07
8.00
5.00
3.0C
POTW
POTW
0.16
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
R
R
PA
PENNSYLVANIA FISH
PA0040835
6.4C
1.50
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
R
R
0.30
0.1C
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.1C
R
R
PA
PENNSYLVANIA FISH
PA0010553
6.0C
1.50
6.52
6.52
6.52
5.00
3.0C
POTW
POTW
0.57
0.1E
0.15
0.15
0.15
0.1C
POTW
POTW
PA
PENNSYLVANIA FISH
PA0010561
4.87
1.50
4.2E
4.25
4.25
4.25
3.0C
POTW
POTW
0.21
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.1C
POTW
POTW
PA
PENNSYLVANIA FISH
PA0112127
13.0C
1.40
0.1C
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.1C
R
R
0.11
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
R
R
PA
PENNSYLVANIA FISH
PA0044032
0.2C
1.50
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
1.03
R
R
0.30
0.1C
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.1C
R
R
PA
POPE & TALBOT WIS
PA0007919
1.6E
18.00
6.86
6.86
6.86
5.00
3.0C
POTW
POTW
6.00
1.02
1.02
1.00
0.50
0.1C
POTW
POTW
PA
PROCTOR & GAMBLE
PA0008885
4.88
24.64
17.58
17.58
8.00
5.00
3.0C
POTW
POTW
1.50
2.44
2.44
1.00
0.50
0.1C
POTW
POTW
PA
TYSON FOODS
PA0035092
0.5E
111.02
25.0C
25.00
25.00
22.20
3.0C
25
AC1
19.53
2.0C
2.00
2.00
2.00
0.1C
2
2
PA
USFW-LAMAR NATIO
PA0009857
4.4C
0.37
0.2E
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.2E
R
R
0.09
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
R
R
VA
HONEYWELL
VA0005291
132.14
10.65
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
1.98
R
R
0.07
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.1C
R
R
VA
AMOCO-YORKTOWNs VA0003018
60.77
36.24
0.9C
0.90
0.90
0.90
0.9C
R
R
0.51
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.12
0.1C
R
R
VA
BROWN & WILLIAMSt VA0002780
0.82
12.19
8.27
8.27
8.00
5.00
3.0C
POTW
POTW
3.36
1.76
1.76
1.00
0.50
0.1C
POTW
POTW
VA
BWXT
VA0003697
0.48
854.40
76.5C
76.50
76.50
76.50
3.0C
R
R
0.48
1.06
1.06
1.00
0.50
0.1C
POTW
POTW
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlsTable V-D Cones
40
CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
Table V-D: Flow and Concentration Codes and Data For Industrial Facilities by Nutrient Parameter
2010
TN Concentrations (mg/l)
TN Codes
TP Concentrations (mg/l)
TP Codes
STA
FACILITY
NPDES
FLOW
85
2010
TIER 1
TIER 2
TIER 3
TIER 4
TIER 2
TIER 3
85
2010
TIER 1
TIER 2
TIER 3
TIER 4
TIER 2
TIER 3
VA
DUPONT-SPRUANCE
VA0004669
23.33
2.15
2.83
2.83
2.83
2.83
2.83
HC
HC
0.26
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.11
0.1C
HC
HC
VA
DUPONT-WAYNESBC
VA0002160
2.97
22.74
3.21
3.21
3.21
3.21
3.0C
HC
HC
4.33
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.1C
HC
HC
VA
GEORGIA PACIFIC C(
VA0003026
7.21
2.43
13.0C
13.00
2.43
2.43
2.43
2.43
2.43
4.95
7.4C
7.40
4.95
0.50
0.1C
4.95
0.5
VA
LEES COMMERCIAL
VA0004677
0.8C
11.28
33.0£
33.09
11.28
6.62
3.0C
AC2
AC2
17.52
38.7£
38.79
17.52
7.76
0.1C
AC2
AC2
VA
MERCK & COMPANY
VA0002178
10.0£
11.93
3.13
3.13
3.13
3.13
3.0C
POTW
POTW
3.17
2.61
2.61
1.00
0.50
0.1C
POTW
POTW
VA
PHILLIP MORRIS-PAF
VA0026557
1.92
34.66
33.93
33.93
17.33
6.93
3.0C
AC1
AC1
13.77
1.27
1.27
1.27
1.27
0.1C
R
R
VA
PILGRIMS PRIDE-HIN
VA0002313
0.54
53.66
53.66
53.66
26.83
10.73
3.0C
AC1
AC1
33.00
33.0C
33.00
2.00
2.00
0.1C
2
2
VA
GEORGE'S CHICKEN
VA0077402
1.21
84.90
10.0C
10.00
10.00
10.00
3.0C
10
10
11.00
2.0C
33.33
2.00
2.00
0.1C
2
2
VA
SMURFIT STONE
VA0003115
18.4E
14.08
8.0C
5.26
8.00
5.00
3.0C
POTW
POTW
5.80
1.5C
1.23
1.00
0.50
0.1C
POTW
POTW
VA
TYSON FOODS, INC.
VA0004031
0.9E
73.76
6.0C
6.00
6.00
6.00
3.0C
6
6
0.08
0.3C
0.27
0.30
0.30
0.1C
0.3
0.3
VA
TYSON FOODS, INC.-
VA0004049
1.0E
113.91
60.0C
60.00
56.96
22.78
3.0C
AC1
AC1
1.15
2.0C
14.40
2.00
2.00
0.1C
2
2
VA
WESTVACO CORPOF
VA0003646
29.73
8.00
8.0C
8.00
8.00
5.00
3.0C
POTW
POTW
0.29
0.2£
0.29
0.29
0.29
0.1C
POTW
POTW
WV
HESTER INDUSTRIES
WV0047236
o.oc
3.87
12.6C
12.60
0.00
0.00
O.OC
0
0
1.09
0.94
0.94
0.00
0.00
O.OC
0
0
WV
SPECRATECHINTER
WV0005533
0.32
27.13
29.66
29.66
13.57
5.43
3.0C
AC1
AC1
0.14
3.0C
3.00
1.00
0.50
0.1C
POTW
POTW
WV
WAMPLER-LONGACF
VW0005495
O.OC
62.41
52.91
52.91
0.00
0.00
O.OC
0
0
0.88
9.7£
9.79
0.00
0.00
O.OC
0
0
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlsTable V-D Cones
41
CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
Table V-E: INDUSTRIAL FACILITY INCREMENTAL COST DATA FOR ALL FOUR TIERS
TIER 1
TIER 2
TIER 3
TIER 4
STA
FACILITY
NPDES
ALL COST
TN CC
TN O&M
TP CC
TP O&M
TN CC
TN O&M
TP CC
TP O&M
TN CC
TN O&M
TP CC
TP O&M
DE
DUPONT-SEAFOR
DE0000035
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MD
ALLEN FAMILY FC
MD0067857
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
476,717
31,083
629,731
90,259
MD
BETHLEHEM STEI
MD0001201
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MD
CHEMETALS
MD0001775
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
MD
CONGOLEUM
MD0001384
0
0
0
0
0
398,764
11,061
0
0
485,063
31,493
639,005
91,755
MD
GARDEN STATE 1
MD0053431
0
5,000,000
400,000
5,000,000
400,000
MD
MD & VA MILK PR'
MD0000469
0
7,251,672
144,428
99,238
37,120
489,332
13,368
0
1,927
584,494
36,377
740,859
108,221
MD
NSWC-INDIAN HE
MD0003158
0
0
0
111,434
10,261
0
0
0
2,625
0
0
862,547
127,944
MD
UPPER POTOMAC
MD0021687
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
109,197
0
0
12,884,637
2,132,534
MD
WR GRACE
MD0000311
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,149,406
152,410
0
0
MD
WESTVACO CORF
MD0001422
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PA
APPLETON PAPEI
PA0008265
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
23,341
4,370,145
159,180
3,981,196
592,703
PA
CHLOE TEXTILES
PA0009172
0
0
0
0
0
406,239
11,251
0
908
493,269
31,896
647,998
93,207
PA
CONSOLIDATED F
PA0009229
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
504,840
70,177
PA
EMPIRE KOSHER
PA0007552
0
0
0
0
0
1,315,629
33,331
0
0
0
0
1,550,422
216,966
PA
GOLD MILLS DYEI
PA0008231
0
0
0
0
0
805,777
21,430
0
0
931,908
53,440
0
0
PA
HEINZ PET FOOD
PA0009270
0
4,037,698
78,106
128,833
48,885
646,001
17,359
0
2,802
756,495
44,825
891,024
132,565
PA
MERCK &COMPA
PA0008419
0
0
0
337,450
58,179
0
0
0
68,602
11,628,038
381,760
8,359,599
1,370,929
PA
NATIONAL GYPSL
PA0008591
0
0
0
0
718
0
0
0
1,675
0
0
691,947
100,307
PA
OSRAM SYLVAN 1^
PA0009024
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,863
PA
P-H GLATFELTER
PA0008869
0
4,905,080
86,637
0
0
5,671,393
169,385
0
0
11,416,648
375,278
0
0
PA
PENNSYLVANIA F
PA0040835
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PA
PENNSYLVANIA F
PA0010553
0
0
0
0
0
3,180,697
102,575
0
0
5,825,697
203,818
0
0
PA
PENNSYLVANIA F
PA0010561
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,850,722
173,918
0
0
PA
PENNSYLVANIA F
PA0112127
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PA
PENNSYLVANIA F
PA0044032
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
PA
POPE & TALBOT \
PA0007919
0
0
0
0
0
1,502,717
42,306
0
8,929
2,059,077
88,305
1,984,452
283,283
PA
PROCTOR & GAM
PA0008885
0
4,355,014
77,780
319,306
64,532
2,750,183
89,061
0
26,392
4,859,307
174,181
4,356,183
651,359
PA
TYSON FOODS
PA0035092
0
4,039,977
79,131
0
0
676,323
18,132
0
0
789,785
46,460
917,419
136,849
PA
USFW-LAMAR NA
PA0009857
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VA
HONEYWELL
VA0005291
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VA
AMOCO-YORKTO\
VA0003018
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VA
BROWN & WILLIAI
VA0002780
0
0
0
0
5,173
942,156
24,904
0
4,457
1,081,634
60,794
1,124,462
170,457
VA
BWXT
VA0003697
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2,588
0
0
5,000,000
126,955
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlsTable V-E costs_TN_TP 42 CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
Table V-E: INDUSTRIAL FACILITY INCREMENTAL COST DATA FOR ALL FOUR TIERS
TIER 1
TIER 2
TIER 3
TIER 4
STA
FACILITY
NPDES
ALL COST
TN CC
TN O&M
TP CC
TP O&M
TN CC
TN O&M
TP CC
TP O&M
TN CC
TN O&M
TP CC
TP O&M
VA
DUPONT-SPRUAIv
VA0004669
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VA
DUPONT-WAYNEJ
VA0002160
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
VA
GEORGIA PACIFIC
VA0003026
0
0
0
254,176
386,421
0
0
0
38,944
0
0
5,799,883
878,300
VA
LEES COMMERCI,
VA0004677
0
2,000,000
VA
MERCK & COMPA
VA0002178
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
800,000
54,503
VA
PHILLIP MORRIS-I
VA0026557
0
3,500,000
1,300,000
8,000,000
1,900,000
12,000,000
1,000,000
VA
PILGRIMS PRIDE-
VA0002313
0
5,326,149
102,538
116,540
145,144
666,489
17,881
0
2,917
778,988
45,930
908,936
135,472
VA
GEORGE'S CHICK
VA0077402
0
2,960,000
0
888,000
0
0
0
0
0
503,000
40,000
500,000
100,000
VA
SMURFIT STONE
VA0003115
0
0
0
35,786
0
0
0
99,677
16,611,208
534,581
11,833,882
1,955,433
VA
TYSON FOODS, ll>
VA0004031
0
0
0
150,000
1,200
0
0
380,000
1,200
0
0
VA
TYSON FOODS, ll>
VA0004049
0
0
0
6,500
150,000
625,000
45,625
0
0
625,000
40,000
625,000
75,000
VA
WESTVACO CORF
VA0003646
0
0
0
0
0
12,340,085
307,945
0
0
26,386,091
834,352
18,480,816
3,077,696
WV
HESTERINDUSTF
WV0047236
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
WV
SPECRATECHINI
WV0005533
0
5,190,884
102,636
95,395
4,520
449,977
12,366
0
1,707
541,288
34,255
0
0
WV
WAMPLER-LONG/i
WV0005495
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total 48,566,474 2,371,256 2,356,873 946,739 46,016,759 3,239,180 800,000 457,056 112,583,979 4,575,535 83,914,838 12,718,371
Notes: Costs are in dollar
NRT TABLE V-X.xIsTable V-E costs TN TP 43 CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
Table V-F: INDUSTRIAL FACILITY TOTAL INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COST AND CONCENTRATION DATA FOR ALL FOUR TIERS
DESIGN
FLOW
(mgd)
2000
FLOW
(mgd)
1985
2010
TIER 1
TIER 2
TIER 3
TIER 4
;tat
FACILITY
NPDES
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
TOTAL
CC ($mil)
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
TOTAL
CC ($mil)
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
CC
($mil)
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
TOTAL
CC ($mil)
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
DE
DUPONT-SEAFORD
DE0000035
37.83
2.03
0.12
2.03
0.12
0
2.03
0.12
0
2.03
0.12
0
2.03
0.12
0
2.03
0.10
DE Total
37.83
0
0
0
0
MD
ALLEN FAMILY FOO
MD0067857
0.75
0.26
4.69
0.09
3.63
2.40
0
3.63
2.40
0
3.63
2.00
0
3.63
2.00
1.11
3.00
0.10
MD
BETHLEHEM STEEL
MD0001201
23.18
88.25
24.15
0.35
6.25
0.30
0
6.25
0.30
0
6.25
0.30
0
6.25
0.30
0
3.00
0.10
MD
CHEMETALS
MD0001775
0.13
158.66
0.02
223.00
0.03
0
223.0
0.03
0
223.00
0.03
0
223.00
0.03
0
3.00
0.03
MD
CONGOLEUM
MD0001384
0.26
0.50
0.18
6.60
0.20
0
6.60
0.20
0
6.60
0.20
0.40
5.00
0.20
1.12
3.00
0.10
MD
GARDEN STATE TAf
MD0053431
0.42
109.54
0.05
112.65
0.05
0
112.65
0.05
5
54.77
0.05
5
21.91
0.01
?
3.00
0.05
MD
MD & VA MILK PRO[
MD0000469
0.325
0.36
4.05
27.25
16.19
12.92
0
16.19
12.92
7.35
8.00
1.00
0.49
5.00
0.50
1.33
3.00
0.10
MD
NSWC-INDIAN HEAL
MD0003158
0.49
620.05
4.84
1.20
3.00
0
1.20
3.00
0.11
1.20
1.00
0
1.20
0.50
0.86
1.20
0.10
MD
UPPER POTOMAC F
MD0021687
21.5
20.21
3.58
0.84
1.29
0.79
0
1.29
0.79
0
1.29
0.79
0
1.29
0.50
12.88
1.29
0.10
MD
W R GRACE
MD0000311
4.066
4.06
460.17
0.30
25.10
0.15
0
47.99
0.15
0
25.10
0.15
0
25.10
0.15
4.15
3.00
0.10
MD
WESTVACO CORPO
MD0001422
2.18
1.92
0.09
1.92
0.09
0
1.92
0.09
0
1.92
0.09
0
1.92
0.09
0.00
1.92
0.09
MD Total
116.61
0
12.46234
5.8881
21.45
PA
APPLETON PAPER J
PA0008265
4.32
0.37
0.16
4.17
1.16
0
4.17
1.16
0
4.17
1.00
0
4.17
0.50
8.35
3.00
0.10
PA
CHLOE TEXTILES IN
PA0009172
0.27
0.76
3.88
8.18
0.81
0
8.18
0.81
0
8.00
0.81
0.41
5.00
0.50
1.14
3.00
0.10
PA
CONSOLIDATED RA
PA0009229
0.16
0.48
0.92
2.86
0.22
0
2.86
0.22
0
2.86
0.22
0.00
2.86
0.22
0.50
2.86
0.10
PA
EMPIRE KOSHER PC
PA0007552
1.17
3.32
1.00
8.46
0.40
0
8.46
0.40
0
8.00
0.40
1.32
5.00
0.40
1.55
3.00
0.10
PA
GOLD MILLS DYEHC
PA0008231
0.68
2.92
0.49
8.40
0.15
0
8.40
0.15
0
8.00
0.15
0.81
5.00
0.15
0.93
3.00
0.10
PA
HEINZ PET FOODS
PA0009270
0.52
4.58
2.78
41.73
11.80
0
41.73
11.80
4.17
4.58
2.78
0.65
4.58
2.36
1.65
3.00
0.10
PA
MERCK & COMPANN
PA0008419
12.70
8.01
4.61
1.49
0
4.61
1.49
0.34
4.61
1.00
0
4.61
0.50
19.99
3.00
0.10
PA
NATIONAL GYPSUM
PA0008591
0.31
3.74
3.20
2.93
1.28
0
2.93
1.28
0
2.93
1.00
0
2.93
0.50
0.69
2.93
0.10
PA
OSRAM SYLVANIA F
PA0009024
1.09
70.57
0.16
109.98
0.70
0
109.98
0.70
0
88.00
0.70
0
77.00
0.50
?
3.00
0.10
PA
P-H GLATFELTER C<
PA0008869
12.45
0.37
0.16
11.07
0.07
0
11.07
0.07
4.91
8.00
0.07
5.67
5.00
0.07
11.42
3.00
0.07
PA
PENNSYLVANIA FIS
PA0040835
2.291
6.40
1.50
0.30
1.03
0.10
0
1.03
0.10
0
1.03
0.10
0
1.03
0.10
0
1.03
0.10
PA
PENNSYLVANIA FIS
PA0010553
6.00
1.50
0.57
6.52
0.15
0
6.52
0.15
0
6.52
0.15
3.1807
5.00
0.15
5.83
3.00
0.10
PA
PENNSYLVANIA FIS
PA0010561
4.87
1.50
0.21
4.25
0.13
0
4.25
0.13
0
4.25
0.13
0
4.25
0.13
4.85
3.00
0.10
PA
PENNSYLVANIA FIS
PA0112127
13.00
1.40
0.11
0.10
0.03
0
0.10
0.03
0
0.10
0.03
0
0.10
0.03
0
0.10
0.03
PA
PENNSYLVANIA FIS
PA0044032
0.20
1.50
0.30
1.03
0.10
0
1.03
0.10
0
1.03
0.10
0
1.03
0.10
0
1.03
0.10
PA
POPE & TALBOT Wl!
PA0007919
1.65
18.00
6.00
6.86
1.02
0
6.86
1.02
0
6.86
1.00
1.50
5.00
0.50
4.04
3.00
0.10
PA
PROCTOR & GAMBL
PA0008885
11.5
4.88
24.64
1.50
17.58
2.44
0
17.58
2.44
4.67
8.00
1.00
2.75
5.00
0.50
9.22
3.00
0.10
PA
TYSON FOODS
PA0035092
0.55
111.02
19.53
25.00
2.00
0
25.00
2.00
4.04
25.00
2.00
0.68
22.20
2.00
1.71
3.00
0.10
PA
USFW-LAMAR NATIC
PA0009857
4.40
0.37
0.09
0.25
0.03
0
0.25
0.03
0
0.25
0.03
0
0.25
0.03
0
0.25
0.03
PA Total
75.62
0
18.12336
16.955
71.86617
VA
HONEYWELL
VA0005291
42
132.14
10.65
0.07
1.98
0.13
0
1.98
0.13
0
1.98
0.13
0
1.98
0.13
0
1.98
0.10
VA
AMOCO-YORKTOWf
VA0003018
56.4
60.77
36.24
0.51
0.90
0.12
0
0.90
0.12
0
0.90
0.12
0
0.90
0.12
0
0.90
0.10
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlsTable V-F total cc and cones
44
CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
Table V-F: INDUSTRIAL FACILITY TOTAL INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COST AND CONCENTRATION DATA FOR ALL FOUR TIERS
DESIGN
FLOW
(mgd)
2000
FLOW
(mgd)
1985
2010
TIER 1
TIER 2
TIER 3
TIER 4
;tat
FACILITY
NPDES
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
TOTAL
CC ($mil)
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
TOTAL
CC ($mil)
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
CC
($mil)
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
TOTAL
CC ($mil)
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
va
BROWN & WILLIAMS
VA0002780
1.998
0.82
12.19
3.36
8.27
1.76
0
8.27
1.76
0
8.00
1.00
0.94
5.00
0.50
2.21
3.00
0.10
VA
BWXT
VA0003697
2.9
0.48
854.40
0.48
76.50
1.06
0
76.50
1.06
0
76.50
1.00
0
76.50
0.50
5
3.00
0.10
VA
DUPONT-SPRUANCI
VA0004669
81.1
23.33
2.15
0.26
2.83
0.11
0
2.83
0.11
0
2.83
0.11
0
2.83
0.11
0
2.83
0.10
VA
DUPONT-WAYNESB
VA0002160
0.5
2.97
22.74
4.33
3.21
0.14
0
3.21
0.14
0
3.21
0.14
0
3.21
0.14
0
3.00
0.10
VA
GEORGIA PACIFIC C
VA0003026
12
7.21
0.06
0.03
13.00
7.40
0
13.00
7.40
0.25
2.43
4.95
0
2.43
0.50
5.80
3.00
0.10
VA
LEES COMMERCIAL
VA0004677
2
0.80
11.28
17.52
33.09
38.79
0
33.09
38.79
2
11.28
17.52
0
6.62
7.76
0
3.00
0.10
VA
MERCK & COMPANN
VA0002178
1.2
10.09
11.93
3.17
3.13
2.61
0
3.13
2.61
0
3.13
1.00
0.8
3.13
0.50
?
3.00
0.10
VA
PHILLIP MORRIS-PA
VA0026557
2.9
1.92
34.66
13.77
33.93
1.27
0
33.93
1.27
3.5
17.33
1.27
8
6.93
1.27
12
3.00
0.10
VA
PILGRIMS PRIDE-HI
VA0002313
0.54
53.66
33.00
53.66
33.00
0
53.66
33.00
5.44
26.83
2.00
0.67
10.73
2.00
1.69
3.00
0.10
VA
GEORGE'S CHICKEI
VA0077402
1.2
1.21
84.90
11.00
10.00
2.00
0
138.85
33.33
3.85
10.00
2.00
0
10.00
2.00
1.00
3.00
0.10
VA
SMURFIT STONE
VA0003115
36
18.45
14.08
5.80
8.00
1.50
0
5.26
1.23
0
8.00
1.00
0
5.00
0.50
28.45
3.00
0.10
VA
TYSON FOODS, INC
VA0004031
0.95
73.76
0.08
6.00
0.30
0
7.37
0.27
0
6.00
0.30
0.15
6.00
0.30
0.38
3.00
0.10
VA
TYSON FOODS, INC
VA0004049
0.98
1.05
113.91
1.15
60.00
2.00
0
79.81
14.40
0.0065
56.96
2.00
0.625
22.78
2.00
1.25
3.00
0.10
VA
WESTVACO CORPO
VA0003646
26.48
29.73
8.00
0.29
8.00
0.29
0
8.00
0.29
0
8.00
0.29
12.3401
5.00
0.29
44.87
3.00
0.10
VA Total
292.44
0
15.05136
23.5237
102.64
WV
HESTER INDUSTRIE
WV0047236
0.53
3.87
1.09
12.60
0.94
0
12.60
0.94
0
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.10
wv
SPECRATECH INTEI
WV0005533
0.32
27.13
0.14
29.66
3.00
0
29.66
3.00
5.29
13.57
1.00
0.44998
5.43
0.50
0.54
3.00
0.10
WV
WAMPLER-LONGAC
WV0005495
1.54
62.41
0.88
52.91
9.79
0
52.91
9.79
0
0.00
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.00
3.00
0.10
WV Total
2.38
0
5.286279
0.44998
0.54
Grand Total 524.88 0 50.92335 46.8168 196.50
Note: Total CC = Total Capital Cost = (TN Capital Cost + TP Capital Cost)
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlsTable V-F total cc and cones CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
VI. COST METHODOLOGY FOR NON-SIGNIFICANT FACILITIES
A total of 185 non-significant municipal plants are included in this analysis. 183 of these 185
plants are registered with MDE, and one of them is a VA facility that discharges into Maryland
waters. MDE provided the loading and flow information for these facilities. The other two
facilities are WV non-significant plants selected into the database by CBPO. No other
jurisdictions have provided non-significant facilities information before the progress 2000 model
run. VADEQ has provided some non-significant plant information after the progress 2000 run,
and these data have not been processed and loaded into the database at the time of this writing.
Therefore, this analysis only covers the non-significant municipal facilities existing in the
database with the progress 2000 data.
Among the four Tiers, there is no action on non-significant plants for Tier 1-3. For Tier 4, non-
significant municipal facilities are expected to reduce their TN concentrations to 8 mg/1 and TP
to 2 mg/1.
The NRT cost estimates for non-significant facilities were developed from the following
assumption and four different methodologies.
6.1 Assumption:
Since the Tier 4 scenario for non-significant facilities provides that TN = 8 mg/1 and TP = 2
mg/1, it is assumed that there are no TN or TP costs where the plant has TN concentration < 8
mg/1 or TP < 2 mg/1 respectively.
6.2 Methodologies:
6.2.1 TN capital cost estimates for TN at 8 mg/1 for facilities with design flow less than
0.5 MGD. This methodology was developed based on the data from 9 VA and 2
MD small plants.
6.2.2 TN capital cost estimates for TN at 8 mg/1 for facilities with design flow greater
than 0.5 MGD. The TN capital cost for Tier 2 methodology developed by
Stearns & Wheler, LLC and CH2M Hill was used to calculate these costs.
6.2.3 TN O&M estimates for TN at 8 mg/1 for all non-significant facilities. The
Operating and Maintenance Costs (O&M) were assumed to equal 7% of the
annualized capital cost assuming a 5.4% amortization factor (based on EPA's
1992 Office of Management and Budget Guidelines) was used.
46
-------
6.2.4 TP capital cost and O&M estimates for TP at 2mg/l for all non-significant
facilities. The spreadsheet application for Tier 2 TP capital cost and O&M
estimates developed by Stearns & Wheler, LLC was used with the adjustment of
TP goal.
6.3 TN capital cost estimates for TN at 8 mg/1 for facilities with design flow < 0.5 MGD
The NRT TN@8 cost curve for non-significant facilities with design flow less than 0.5 MGD
was developed based on the cost data from 9 VA and 2 MD small facilities. The selection of
these source data was recommended by VADEQ and MDE. The cost and design flow data of the
9 VA non-significant facilities were provided by VADEQ. The MD data were selected from the
MDE BNR cost report. There are four MD facilities <0.5 MGD having cost data. But only two
of them were selected to put on the cost curve, because another two plants- Pittsville and
Centreville have relatively high costs that are far out of the range of the selected data group for
the curve. The design flows of the selected facilities range from 0.065 MGD to 0.568 MGD. The
following Table VI-A lists all of these facilities, their design flows and NRT capital costs for TN
=8 mg/1.
Tabic VT-A Source Data For The Cost Curvc
S T A i t:
I'aci lilies
Design Now (mud)
T\ CC«/X
VA
Surry County
0.065
405,672
VA
Powhatan
0.1
481,571
VA
Montross
0.13
432,496
VA
Appomattox
0.3
1,353,285
VA
Louisa
0.4
694,988
VA
Shenandoah
0.4
756,339
VA
Crewe
0.5
1,048,720
VA
Kilmarnock
0.5
1,714,566
VA
Parham Landing
0.568
1,988,294
MD
Indian Head
0.5
656,000
MD
Snow Hill
0.5
1,600,000
Based on these source data, several curves were generated and evaluated. The following curve
has the highest R value and was selected as the cost curve for TN capital cost curve for non-
significant municipal facilities.
47
-------
TN CC@8 Cost Curve for Non-Significant Facilities
2.4921X
y = 355857e
R2 = 0.6295
0.2 0.3 0.4
Design Flow(MGD)
Figure VI - A. TN Capital Cost Curve at 8 mg/1 for Non-significant Facilities
The equation of this cost curve is
2 492IX
Y = 355857e
Where Y= Capital Cost in Dollar
X= Design Flow in MGD (or 2010 Flow if Design Flow is less
than 2010 Flow)
There are 21 non-significant facilities with projected 2010 flow greater than current design flow.
Because we do not have updated design flow information for non-significant facilities, we
assumed that the design flow will equal to the projected 2010 flow where 2010 flow is greater
than design flow. In such cases, the 2010 flow was used to calculate the cost for both TN and TP
costs. Following table lists the 21 plants.
48
-------
Table VI-B: Non-significant Facilities with Design Flow < 2010 Flow
FACILITY
NPDES
DESIGN FLOW (MGD)
2010 FLOW (MGD)
BOWLEYS QUARTERS
MD0058807
0.004
0.0067
CHESAPEAKE CITY NORTH
MD0020401
0.075
0.0955
CHESAPEAKE COLLEGE
MD0024384
0.015
0.0157
CRESTVIEW
MD0022683
0.036
0.0384
FLINTSTONE
MD0055620
0.045
0.0587
FOUNTAINDALE
MD0022721
0.2
0.2528
FOXVILLE US NAVAL SUPPORT
MD0025119
0.018
0.0291
HEBRON _
MD0059617
0.105
0.1314
1-70 REST AREA
MD0023680
0.028
0.0342
JEFFERSON
MD0020737
0.15
0.1754
KEMPTOWN SCHOOL
MD0056481
0.005
0.0054
MIDDLETOWN
MD0024406
0.25
0.2617
NOTCHCLIFF
MD0022951
0.02
0.0380
PARKWAY INN
MD0052329
0.02
0.0243
PORT DEPOSIT
MD0020796
°-15
0.1503
RAWLINGS HEIGHTS
MD0023213
0.08
0.0956
SOUTHERN CORRECTIONAL CAMP
MD0023914
002
0.0349
TAWES VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL
MD0022993
0.01
0-1728
TRAPPE
MD0020486
0.115
0.1360
TRI-TOWN PLAZA
MD0024937
0.01
0.0135
WILLARDS
MD0051632
0.08
0.0820
6.4 TN capital cost estimates for TN at 8 mg/1 for facilities with design flow > 0.5 MGD
The workgroup decided that the TN capital costs for non-significant plants with design flow
greater than 0.5 MGD were to be calculated by the Tier 2 TN capital cost methodology
developed by Stearns & Wheler, LLC and CH2M Hill. This methodology is described in a
document provided Stearns & Wheler, LLC and CH2M Hill.
The equation of this methodology is
Y = 2023829 + 704350.8039X - 5986.733X2
Where, Y= TN Capital Cost in dollar
X = Design Flow in MGD
49
-------
6.5 TN O&M estimates for TN at 8 mg/1 for all non-significant facilities
The Operating and Maintenance Costs (O&M) were assumed to equal 7% of the annualized
capital cost assuming a 5.4% amortization was used. This assumption is based on EPA Office
of Management and Budget, "Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and
Establishments: Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analyses of Federal Programs",
Appendix C, Oct. 29, 1992. A discount factor of 0.0830 was chosen for this analysis assuming
5.4% not taking inflation into account.
The equation for TN O&M cost for non-significant plants:
TN O&M Cost = 7%> x Annualized Capital Cost
Annualized Capital Cost = 0.083 x Capital Cost
Where, Amortization factor = 0.0830 (@ 5.4% over 20 years)
6.6 TP capital cost and O&M estimates for TP at 2mg/l for all non-significant facilities
The spreadsheet application for Tier 2 TP capital cost and O&M estimates developed by Stearns
& Wheler, LLC was used with the adjustment of TP goal. In the original spreadsheet application
for Tier 2 TP cost, TP goal was set to 1 mg/1 for significant facilities. The scenario for non-
significant plants requires TP= 2mg/l. Therefore, the TP goad was set to 2 mg/1 for non-
significant plant O&M calculation in the spreadsheet application. Other factors such as design
flow, 2000 flow, 2010 flow and 2000 TP concentration, were inserted into the different
application sheet depends on the plant's 2000 TP concentration level. The original description
of the Tier 2 TP cost methodology was documented by Stearns & Wheler, LLC
Results:
Based on the assumptions and methodologies described above, the Tier 4 capital and
O&M costs for TN and TP were calculated for the non-significant facilities. The following is the
summary of the total costs for 185 non-significant facilities in the current database..
Total TN capital cost: $83,089,000
Total TN O&M cost: $624,534
Total TP capital cost: $11,303,260
Total TN O&M cost: $296,520
Table VI-C lists the detailed cost information for individual non-significant plants.
50
-------
Table VI - C: NRT Cost for Non-significant Municipal Facilities
DESIGN
2010 DATA
TIER 1*
TIER 2*
TIER 3*
TIER 4** (TN=8mg/l AND TP=2mg/l)
FLOW
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TN
TP
TOTAL
TOTAL
STATE
FACILITY
NPDES
FLOW(mgd)
(mgd)
TN(mg/l)
TP(mg/l)
COST
COST
COST
TN CC
TN O&M
NOTE
TP CC
TP O&M
NOTE
CC
O&M
MD
ANTIETAM
MD006230S
0.163
0.1094
1S.00
3.00
0
0
0
$534,154
S3.104 1
$S0,950
$2,523
5
$615,134
$5,627;
MD
BALTIMORE YACHT CL
MD0054542
0.005
0.0019
18.0C
3.00
0
0
0
$360,319
S2.093 1
$66,028
$1,337
5
$426,347
S3.430
MD
BELTSVILLE USDA EAJ
MD0020842
0.62
0.2358
""*8.00
2.07
""*"0
"" 0
"" 0
$0
SC 3
"$124,111
* $2,610
""*5 "
$124,111
S2.610
MD
BELTSVILLE USDA WE
MD0020851
0.2
0.1244
11.70
2.20
""""'0
"" 0
0
S585.783
S3.403 1
$84,445
$1,895
5 ""
$670,228
$5,298;
MD
BENJAMINS TRAILER F
MD0024961
0.04
0.019C
18.O0
3.00
0
0
0
$393,159
S2.284 1
$69,334
S1,544
5
$462,493
S3.828
MD
BETTERTON
MD0020575
0.2
0.0212
18.0C
" 3.o0
0
""0
0
* $585,783
S3.403 1
* $84,445
$1,864
$670,228
* $5,268;
MD
BIERS LANE
MD0065749
0.0095
0.003C
18.O0
*3.00
0
"""'0
0
$364,382
" $2,1171 1
$66,453
$1,354
$430,835
S3.471
MD
BLOOMINGTON
MD0060933
0.05
0.0273
18.0C
3.87
0
* '* 0
0
$403,080
S2.342 ' 1 "
"""$70,278
$1,828
5
" $473,358
$4,170:
MD
BOHEMIA MANOR HIGI
MD0023469
0.015
0.0067
1.90
3.0C
0
0
o
$0
$0| 3 "
$66,973
$1,395
:5 '"
$66,973
S1.395
MD
BOONES MOBILE
MD0050903
0.08
0.0652
18.01
1.28
"" ' 0
0
""""" 0
S434.370
S2.524 1
$0
$0
4 -
$434,370
S2.524
MD
BOONSBORO
MD0020231
Q46
0.4034
18.00
2.41
""0
0
0
$1,119,788
$6,506? 1
S109.000
$3,552
5'"
$1,228,788
$10,058*
MD
BOWLEYS QUARTERS
MD0058807 '
0*004
0.0067
18.00
3.00
""""*0
0
0
$361,867
$2,1025 1
* ""$65,934
$1,374
...... 5
$427,801
S3.477
MD
BOWLING BROOK PRE
MD0067571
0.025
0.0059
0.68
3.00
""""0
"'"0
"0
$0
$0| 3
$67,917
"" $1,407
5"
$67,917
$1,407:
MD
BRANDYWINE RECEIV
MD0025658
0.005
0.0012
5.55
3.0C
0
' """""0
""""0
"" so
"$0< 3
$66,028
$1,330
5 "
$66,028
$1,330:
MD
BRETTON WOODS
MD0064777
0.015
0.0097
18.0C
3.O0
" 0
0
0
$369*411
$2,146s 1
""$66,973
$1,420
'* 5
$436,384
$3,566
MD
BROADFORDING
MD0051373
"""" 0.01
0.0011
18.00
3.00
"" 0
" 0
0
$364,837
' "$2,120! 1
$66,500
* "$1,339
v*"~5 "
$431,337
S3.459
MD
BROOK LANE
MD0053198
0.01
0.0056
18.0C
3.00
0
0
$364,837
"$2,1201 1
*" S66.500
""'$1,376
5 '
$431,337
S3.496
MD
BUDGET MOTEL
MD0023027
0.019
0.0021
18.00
3.oO
0
0
""""0
$373,112
$2,168? 1 "
$67,350
$1,364
5 "
$440,462
S3.532
MD
CAMP SHADOWBROOf
MD0053139
"""0.04
0.0005
18.O0
3.0C
0
""""""0
""" 0
$393,159
S2.284 T"
$69,334
'""$1,391
"5 "
$462,493
$3,675
MD
CECILTON
MD0020443
0.05
0.0415
18.0C
3.00
""""o
w" 0
0
$403,080
S2.342 1 "
$70,278
$1,749
5 "
$473,358
$4,091
MD
CHARLES COUNTY CO
MD0052311
' 0.06
0.0364
* 28.30
2.80
0
0
0
$413,251
$2,401? 1 "
S71,223
$1,665
5
$484,474
$4,066-
MD
CHELTENHAM BOYSV
MD0023931
0.07
0.037C
10.53
1.02
0
0
0
$423,679
* S2.462 1 '"
$0
SO
4 -¦
$423,679
$2,462;
MD
CHERRY HILL
MD0052825
0.25
0.1327
18.O0
3.0C
0
"" 0
0
"$663,517
$3,855: 1
S89.167
$2,880
5 "
$752,684
$6,735:
MD
CHESAPEAKE CITY NC
MD0020401
0.075
0.0955
8.17
3.63
'"""0
0
' 0
$451,423
$2,623?' 1 '
$72,639
" $2,739
5*"
$524,062
* $5,362;
MD
CHESAPEAKE CITY SC
MD0020397
0.088
0.0748
10.23
1.97
0
"0
ri
* "$443,117
S2.575 1
$0
$0
*4
$443,117
$2,575;
MD
CHESAPEAKE COLLEC
MD0024384
0.015
0.0157
18.0C
3.00
0
0
$370,016
$2,150s 1
S66.973
$1,469
5"
$436,989
$3,619;
MD
CHOPTICAN HIGH
MD0051918
0.02
0.0056
18.0C
3.0C
' 0
""0
"'"'0
$374,043
$2,173? 1 "
$67,445
S1,395
5
$441,488
S3.568
MD
CHURCH HILL
MD0050016
0.08
0.073C
6.90
1.95
0
0
"""" 0
$0
SC 3
$0
SO
4
$0
SO
MD
CLEARSPRING
MD0053325
'""""""0.2
0.0793
18.00
3.0C
0
0
0
" $585,783
S3.403 1
"$841445
S2.345
5'""
$670,228
$5,748;
MD
CLIFFTON ON THE PO'
MD0055557
0.2
0.0514
* 18.0C
3.00
o
0
».
"*" $585,783
$3,4035 1
$84,445
"""§2,113
..... ,
$670,228
$5,517*
MD
COLONEL RICHARDSC
MD0055522
0.05
0.0063
18.0C
3.o0
0
0
0
$403,080
S2.342 1 '
$70,278
$1,458
5 "
$473,358
S3.800
MD
CONCORD TRAILER P>
MD0023060
"""'""aoi5
0.0046
" 12.31
3.00
0
0
0
" "$369,411
$2,146; 1
$66,973
' "$1,378
*""5 '"
$436,384
$3,524
MD
CRESTVIEW
MD0022683
0.036
*' 0.0384
13.64
3.03
"" 0
0
0
$391,570
"$2,2751 1
$68,956
$1,706
"'* 5 "
$460,526
S3.981
MD
DAN-DEE INC.
MD0023710
0.012
0.0024
18.00
3.o0
0
" 0
* $366,660
$2,130 1
$66,689
$1,354
5
$433,349
S3.484
MD
DONALDSON BROWN
MD0054950
0.006
0.0022
18.O0
3.00
'" 0
0
......... ^
$361,218
S2.099 1 "
$66,123
$1,341
. 5 «
$427,341
$3,439;
MD
DREAMS LANDING
MD0052868
0.02
0.0084
16.03
3.0C
0
0
0
$374,043
$2,1735 1 "*
$67,445
" '"$1,419
5 «.
$441,488
S3.592
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable Vl-C 51 CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
Table VI - C: NRT Cost for Non-significant Municipal Facilities
DESIGN
2010 DATA
TIER 1*
TIER 2*
TIER 3*
TIER 4** (TN=8mg/l AND TP=2mg/l)
FLOW
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TN
TP
TOTAL
TOTAL
STATE
FACILITY
NPDES
FLOW(mgd)
(mgd)
TN(mg/l)
TP(mg/l)
COST
COST
COST
TN CC
TN O&M
NOTE
TP CC
TP O&M
NOTE
CC
O&M
MD
EASTERN CORRECTIO
MD0023876
0.03
0.0158
18.00
3.00
0
0
0
$383,482
$2,228
1
$68,389
$1,498
5
$451,871
$3,726,
MD
EASTERN CORRECTIO
MD0066613
0.48
0.4159
2.05
0.14
0
0
0
SO
SO
3
SO
$0
4
$0
SO
MD
EDGEMEADE RESIDEfv
MD0052680
0.005
0.0022
26.59
4.40
*' "" 0
*"""" 0
0
$360,319
$2,093 1
S66.028
$1,364
*5'"
$426,347
S3.458
MD
ELK NECK STATE PAR
MD0023833 '
0.108
0.0277
17.21
2.53
0
0
0
$465,762
$2,706 1
$75,756
* $1,636
5 ""*
$541,518
$4,343*
MD
EMERGENCY MANAGE
MD0025666
0.01
0.0002
19.56
1.17
0
""*0
""*"6
"$364,837
$2,120: 1
$0
$0
4 "*
$364,837
$2,120-
MD
ENGLISH GRILL
MD0053104
0.003
0.0004
18.00
3.00
"o
0
0
$358,527
"* $2,083 1 "
S65.839
$1*320
5 "
$424,366
S3.403
MD
EWELL
MD0052230
0.065
0.0224
18.00
"* 3.00
0
0
0
$418,432
$2,43U 1
$71,695
** "$1,619
5
$490,127
$4,050:
MD
FAHRNEY-KEEDY MEIV
MD0053066 '
0.025
0.0190
*18.00
3.00
0
0
"o
$378,733
S2.20C 1 "
S67.917
$1,515
5 "
$446,650
$3,716:
MD
FAIRMOUNT
MD0052256
0.05
0.0309
18.00
3.00
'"""o
0
$403,080
* * $2,3421 1
$70,278
* $1,661
** 5 "
$473,358
$4,003*
MD
FLINTSTONE
MD0055620
0.045
0.0587
* 16.59
3.00
0
™d
0
$411,924
$2,393? 1
$69,806
$1,881
v, ^
$481,730
$4,275;
MD
FOREST GREEN
MD0053279
0.013
0.0100
18.00
14.80
0
* 0
0
$367,575
*"$2,1365 1
$66,784
$2,398
5*
$434,359
S4.534
MD
FOUNTAIN DALE
MD0022721
0.2
0.2528
* 19.66
3.82
'""**0
0
0
"$668,233
S3.882 1
$84,445
* "$5,493
5 **
$752,678
$9,376*
MD
FOXVILLE US NAVAL S
MD0025119
0.018
0.0291
18.00
* 3.00
0
*" """o
$382,600
* S2.223 1 ""
$67,256
$1,586
s
$449,856
$3,808
MD
FUNKSTOWN
MD0020362
*""'"""*0.15
0.0643
40.53
5.53
0
0
0
$517,156
S3.005 1 ""
S79.723
S3.470
* *' 5 "*
$596,879
$6,474;
MD
GAITHER MANOR
MD0022845
0.045
0.0226
3.10
3.97
......
* ""*"'*0
"""o
SO
SO 3
$69,806
$1,764
5 "*
$69,806
S1.764
MD
GALENA
MD0020605
0.04
0.0267
26.26
., 451
"" *"*"0
0
0
S393.159
S2.284 1 "
S69.334
$1,940
... 5 -
$462,493
$4,224.
MD
GORMAN
MD0060950 *
0.009
' 0.0047
18.00
3.00
0
*""""o
0
$363,929
"$2,114; 1
$66,406
* "$1,367
" 5 "
$430,335
$3,482;
MD
GREAT OAKS LANDINC
MD0024945
0.014
0.0058
18.00
3.00
"""" ""o
" 0
*'" 0
* $368,492
$2,1411 1 "
*"* $66,878
*$1,385
""5 "*
$435,370
S3.526
MD
GREEN RIDGE FORES'
MD0024988
0.008
0.0032
18.00
0
0
0
$363,023
S2.109 1
*$66,312
$1,371*
5
$429,335
$3,481,
MD
GREENBRIAR STATE F
MD0023868
*0.05
0.0152
18.00
3.00
"'""o
0
0
$403,080
"* S2.342 1
$70,278
$1,532
" *5
$473,358
$3,873:
MD
GREENSBORO
MD0020290 "
028
0.1697
21.02
3.48
0
0
*""o
*"$715,025
'$4,1545 1
" $92,000
$3,917
5
$807,025
S8.071
MD
HAMPSTEAD
MD0022446
0.9
0.6826
20.13
*0.24
0
*"""" 0
"*"*:"'o
$2,652,895
* $15,413? 6
$0
$0
4 "*
$2,652,895
$15,413
MD
HANCOCK
MD0024562
0.38
* 0.2239
20.70
2.43
*""'"o
0
0
$917,385
S5.33C 1 '
$101,445
$2,825
"**5
$1,018,830
$8,155:
MD
HAPPY TRAILS CAMPC
MD0065757
0.025
0.0035
* 3.27
3.00
0
0
0
$0
$0? 3
$67,917
$1,387
... s
$67,917
$1,387;
MD
HARBOUR VIEW
MD0024023
0.065
0.0077
18.00
3.00
0
0
0
S418.432
* "$2;43if 1
$71,695
**$1,498
5
$490,127
S3.929
MD
HARWOOD SOUTHERh
MD0023728
0.04
0.0059
6.70
' 7.70
'**0
*0
SO
$o| 3
S69.334
* $1,667
""5 "
$69,334
$1,667
MD
HEBRON
MD0059617
0.105
0.1314
18.00
3.00
...
0
0
S493.725
S2.869 1 "
$75,473
$2,596
5"
$569,198
$5,464,
MD
HIGHLAND VIEW
MD0024627
0.03
0.0094
18.00
3.00
" k~" 0
' 0
*'" 0
$383,482
$2,228; 1
S68.389
$1,445
"""'5
$451,871
$3,673;
MD
HOLIDAY MOBILE EST/
MD0053082
0.125
0.1071
7.33
1.13
0
0
0
$0
$0! 3
$0
$0
"* 4 '*
$0
SO
MD
HUNTER HILLAPARTIV
MD0022926
0.03
0.0291
18.00
3.00
0
0
0
S383.482
S2.228 1
S68.389
$1*608
**"*5 *
$451,871
S3.836
MD
I-70 REST AREA
MD0023680
0.028
0.0342
26.77
3.00
0
0
0
$387,563
S2.252 1
*$68,200
$1,647
***5 "
$455,763
S3.899
MD
JEFFERSON
MD0020737
0.15
0.1754
0.45
3.00
'o
0
$0
SO 3""
S79.723
S3.045
>5
$79,723
S3.045
MD
JUDE HOUSE
MD0057614
0.017
0.0000
0
0
0
$0
"*'****""*"$0;" 3
$0
SO
'"* 4
$0
SO
MD
KEMPTOWN SCHOOL
MD0056481
0.005
" 0.0054
29.00
3.00
"" 0
0
0
$360,712
$2,096; 1
S66.028
$1,366
5
$426,740
$3,461:
MD
KENNEDYVILLE
MD0052671
0.05
0.0045
18.00
3.00
""""**0
0
0
$403,080
$2,342;" 1 ***
$70,278
$1,443
5
$473,358
S3.785
MD
KITZMILLER
MD0060941
0.04
0.0175
18.00
""""3.37
*"" 0
0
*""o
$393,159
S2.284 1
$69,334
*" S1,585
5
$462,493
S3.869
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable Vl-C 52 CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
Table VI - C: NRT Cost for Non-significant Municipal Facilities
DESIGN
2010 DATA
TIER 1*
TIER 2*
TIER 3*
TIER 4** (TN=8mg/l AND TP=2mg/l)
FLOW
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TN
TP
TOTAL
TOTAL
STATE
FACILITY
NPDES
FLOW(mgd)
(mgd)
TN(mg/l)
TP(mg/l)
COST
COST
COST
TN CC
TN O&M
NOTE
TP CC
TP O&M
NOTE
CC
O&M
MD
KUNZANG ODSAL PALi
MD0067539
0.035
0.0008
18.00
3.00
0
0
0
$388,290
$2,256. 1
$68,862
$1,384
5
$457,152
$3,640,
MD
LACKEY HIGH
MD0023159
0.028
0.0106
18.00
3.00
0
0
0
$381.575
$2,217 1
$68,200
$1,452
5
$449,775
S3.669
MD
LAFAYETTE MOTEL
MD0053201
0.005
0.0013
18.00
3.00
0
0
0
" $360,319
$2,093 1
$66,028
$1,331
*5 "
$426,347
S3.424
MD
LEWISTOWN ELEMEN"
MD0022900
0.022
0.0030
18.00
3.00
""'15
0
$375,912
$2,184 1
$67,634
S1.377
5 "
$443,546
$3,56t
MD
LIBERTYTOWN
MD0060577
0.05
0.0300
21.45
2.89
™~"6
0
0
$403,080
$2,342 1
$70,278
$1.626
""5 *"
S473.358
S3.968
MD
LYONS CREEK MOBILE
MD0053511
0.125
0.0719
** 10.21
" "i .91
0
0
$485,919
$2,823 1
$d
$d
4 ""
$485,919
S2.823
MD
MANCHESTER
MD0022578
* 0.25
0.0816
20.94
0.27
0
' 0
0
$663,517
$3,855 1
"""""$0
so
"* 4
$663,517
S3.855
MD
MANCHESTER PARK
MD0023108
0.035
0.0273
16.75
** 4.65
0
0
" 0
$388,290
$2,256 1
$68,862
" $1.974
5
$457,152
S4.230
MD
MAPLE HILL PARK
MD0053171
0.016
0.0061
18.00
3.00
":'o
0
d
$370,333
$2,152 1
$67,067
$1,392
5 *"
$437,400
$3,543
MD
MAPLE RUN
MD0024970
0.004
0.0031
2.20
3.00
""" 0
0
0
$0
$C 3
$65,934
$1,344
' 5
$65,934
S1.344
MD
MARDELA HIGH
MD0024279
0.014
0.0024
9.57
3.00
0
' 0
0
$368,492
$2,141 1 '
$66,878
S1.357
' *5 "
$435,370
S3.498
MD
MARLBORO MEADOW!
MD0022781
0.6
0.3243
12.90
" 0.97
0
0
0
$2,444,284
$14,201 6
$0
$0
* 4 ''
$2,444,284
S14.201
MD
MARYLAND MANOR Ml
MD0024333 '
0.07
0.0666
11.OC
1.50
0
0
0
$423,679
$2,462 1
so
SO
4
$423,679
$2,462,
MD
MAYO LARGE COMMU
MD0061794
f
0.5526
8.52
0.81
0
0
0
$2,722,193
$15,816 6
!"$o
SO
" 4
$2,722,193
$15,816
MD
MIDDLETOWN
MD0024406
"~"0.25
0.2617
26.02
2.45
ti
* ' 0
0
$683,107
$3,969 1 "
S89.167
S2.757
5
$772,274
S6.726
MD
MILL BOTTOM
MD0065439
O.f
0.0527
2.21
3.00
0
...... 0
0
$0
$C 3
$75,000
v"'$1.936
' 5 "
S75.000
$1,936
MD
MILLINGTON
MD0020435
0.07
0.0581
18.00
3.00
0
0
"'""6
$423,679
$2,462 1
$72,167
S1.924
5
$495,846
S4.386
MD
MONROVIA VWVTP
MD0059609
0.2
0.0323
3.72
3.00
* 0
0
""""o
$0
$C 3
S84.445
$1,956
5 "
$84,445
$1,956
MD
MORNING CHEER
MD0052299
0.03
0.0201
18.00
3.00
0
0
" 0
$383,482
$2,228 1 '
$68,389
$1,534
5
$451,871
S3.762
MD
MT CARMEL WOODS
MD0053228
0.021
0.0209
13.95
' 0.79
0
0
0
$374,976
$2,179 1
SO
SO
4
$374,976
$2,179
MD
MT ST MARYS COLLEG
MD0023230
0.16
0.0530
25.49
6.32
""o
0
0
$530,206
$3,080 1 "
$80,667
S3.507
" 5 "
$610,873
S6.588
MD
MYERSVILLE
MD0020699
0.3
0.1868
19.88
4.32
0
" 0
0
$751,566
"""* $4,367 1
S93.889
$5,461
5 "
$845,455
$9,828
MD
NAS-PATUXENT
MD0020095
0.045
0.0340
8.00
" 3.00
0
0
0
so
$0 3 '
$69,806
S1.677
5
$69,806
$1.677
MD
NATIONAL INSTITUTE i
MD0020931
0.1
0.0567
18.00
3.00
0
""o
0
$456,569
12V653!" 1
$75,000
S1.969
5 "
$531,569
$4,622
MD
NATIONAL WILDLIFE V
MD0065358
"""" 0.04
0.0014
18.00
2.09
0
0
0
$393,159
$2,284 1
S69.334
$1,388
5
$462,493
S3.672
MD
NEW GERMANY STATE
MD0023981
0.006
0.0014
18.00
3.00
0
0
$361,218
$2,099 1 '
* * $66,123
$1,334
5 "
$427,341
$3,433
MD
NEW LIFE FOURSQUAI
MD0057100
0.009
0.0019
18.00
3.00
0
" * 0
0
$363,929
$2,114 1
S66.406
S1.344
' 5 "
$430,335
S3.459
MD
NEW MARKET
MD0020729
0.24
0.1208
23.40
4.80
0
0
0
$647,185
$3,760 1 "
$88,223
S4.560
5 "
$735,408
S8.321
MD
NEW WINDSOR
MD0022586
"''*""0.13
0.0526
15.07
3.97
0
0
0
$492.011
$2,859 1 "*
" S77.834
S2.413
5 "
$569,845
$5,271:
MD
NORTH CAROLINE HIG
MD0023621
0.024
0.0023
18.00
3.00
*"'""o
0
' 0
$377,790
$2,195 1
' $67,823
$1,376
5 "
$445,613
$3,57i;
MD
NORTH HARFORDJR&
MD0023281
0.02
0.012C
18.00
3.00
0
""'0
0
$374,043
$2,173 1 ""
$67,445
$1.448
' *** 5 "
$441,488
S3.622
MD
NORTHERN HIGH SCH
MD0052167
0.04
0.0158
18.00
3.00
0
"o
$393,159
$2,284 1
S69.334
$1,518
5 "
$462,493
S3.802
MD
NOTCHCLIFF
MD0022951
0.02
0.0380
18.00
3.00
0
0
0
$391,194
$2,273 1
$67,445
$1,663
**5
$458,639
S3.936
MD
NSWC-INDIAN HEAD
MD0020885
" 0.5
0.3471
* 7.35
2.13
* * 0
0
0
$0
$dj 3 "
$112,778
S2.627
5 "
$112,778
S2.627
MD
OLD SOUTH MOUNTAII
MD0055425
0.018
0.0025
18.00
3.00
0
0
0
* $372,183
$2,162 1
' $67,256
$1,366
5
$439,439
S3.528
MD
OLDTOWN
MD0024759 "*
0.04
0.0105
18.00
2.15
0
0
0
$393,159
* $2,284 1
S69.334
S1.400
5
$462,493
S3.684
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable Vl-C 53 CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
Table VI - C: NRT Cost for Non-significant Municipal Facilities
DESIGN
2010 DATA
TIER 1*
TIER 2*
TIER 3*
TIER 4** (TN=8mg/l AND TP=2mg/l)
FLOW
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TN
TP
TOTAL
TOTAL
STATE
FACILITY
NPDES
FLOW(mgd)
(mgd)
TN(mg/l)
TP(mg/l)
COST
COST
COST
TN CC
TN O&M
NOTE
TP CC
TP O&M
NOTE
CC
O&M
;MD
OXFORD
MD0022543
0.208
0.1085
18.00
0.67
0
0
0
$597,579
$3,472
1
$0
$0
4
$597,579
$3,472,
MD
PARKWAY INN
MD0052329
0.02
0.0243
9.40
1.90
0
0
0
S378.088
$2,197
1
SO
SO
4
$378,088
S2.197
MD
PATUXENT MOBILE
MD0024694
0.035
0.0259
15.09
1.41
"" 0
0
0
" S388.290
S2.256
1 "
so
so
4 "
$388,290
S2.256
MD
PATUXENT WILDLIFE h
MD0025623 '
0 027
0.0209
2.35
3.00
0
"**""15
0
SO
$0
3 "
S68.106
S1.535
5 *"
$68,106
S1.535
MD
PETER PAN INN
MD0024244
0.03
0.0035
4.15
1.27
0
0
0
' "" $o
* * 3 "
$0
SO
""*4
$0
SO
MD
PHEASANT RIDGE
MD0024546
0.125
0.0250
12.97
* * ' 2.69
""" 0
0
0
S485.919
S2.823
1 ^
S77.362
S1.690
5
S563.281
S4.513
MD
PICCOWAXIN MIDDLE
MD0023451
— " 0.025
0.0027
18.0C
3.00
"0
0
0
$378,733
S2.20C
1""
" S67.917
S1.381
" 5
$446,650
$3,581,
MD
PINEY ORCHARD
MD0059145
1 2
0.3625
3.83
0.28
0
" 0
SO
SC
3 "
SO
SO
4 "
$0
$0
MD
PINTO
MD0022748
0.45
0.2696
9.94
2.77
"*':""o
0
0
S1.092.227
S6.346
"""l
' S108.056
$3,877
5 "
$1,200,283
$10,223
MD
PITTSVILLE
MD0060348
0.14
0.0881
14.75
0.95
""""o
0
0
S3.469.050 S161.94C
2
SO
SO
4 v:
S3.469.050 $161,940
MD
PLEASANT BRANCH
MD0065269
0.1
0.051 C
7.94
3.00
" ' 0
"~o
0
SO
SC
*"**3 *
S75.000
S1.922
" 5 "
$75,000
$1.922
MD
PLESANT VALLEY
MD0066745
0.019
0.0093
18.0C
3.00
0
,, Q
S373.112
S2.168
1
S67.350
S1.424
5
$440,462
$3,592
MD
POCOMOKE TRUCKS"
MD0054330
0.006
0.0024
18.33
3.00
0
0
* 0
S361.218
$2,099
1
* S66.123
S1.342
5
$427,341
S3.441
MD
POINT LOOKOUT STAT
MD0023949
0.25
0.0186
18.00
3.00
0
0
0
S663.517
S3.855
" 1
S89.167
$1,937
" 5
$752,684
$5,792
MD
POINT OF ROCKS
MD0020800
0.23
0.0988
17.63
5.05
0
*""o
0
S631.256
S3.668
1
S87.278
$4,238
""5 '''
$718,534
S7.905
MD
PORT DEPOSIT
MD0020796
0.15
0.1503
18.00
3.00
0
0
0
S517.533
S3.007
1
S79.723
$2,837
5 "
$597,256
$5,844,
MD
PRESTON
MD0020621
0.116
0.060C
18.0C
3.00
0
* 0
0
$475,141
S2.761
1
S76.512
S2.026
5 "
$551,653
S4.787
MD
QUEENSTOWN
MD0023370
0.085
" 0.0787
15.54
2.44
0
0
0
S439.816
$2,555
1
S73.584
$1,761
" 5
$513,400
S4.316
MD
RANDLE CLIFFS NAVA
MD0020168 "
0.06
0.0173
18.00
3.00
0
0
S413.251
* S2.401
1
" S71.223
S1.568
5 *"
$484,474
S3.969
MD
RAWLINGS HEIGHTS
MD0023213
0.08
0.0956
14.66
1.06
0
0
0
$451.623
S2.624
1
$0
$0
4
$451,623
S2.624
MD
RICHLYN MANOR
MD0022713
0.09
0.0881
13.43
2.10
0
0
0
S445.331
* S2.587
1
S74.056
S1.554
5
$519,387
S4.141
MD
RISING SUN
MD0020265
0.3
0.2553
18.0C
3.00
" """" 0
0
0
$751,566
S4.367
1
S93.889
S3.988
5 "
$845,455
S8.355
MD
ROCK HALL
MD0020303
05Q5
0.2707
14.81
0.51
0
0
0
S2.377.999
S13.816
6
SO
SO
" 4 "
S2.377.999
$13,816
MD
ROCKY GAP STATE PA
MD0051667
0.12
0.0518
6.48
3.00
0
0
0
SO
$0
3
S76.889
S1.966
5
$76,889
$1.966
MD
ROSE HAVEN
MD0022756
0.06
0.0486
20.59
1.20
*0
0
, 0
S413.251
S2.401
- «
SO
$d
4
$413,251
$2,401
MD
RUNNYMEADE SCHOC
MD0065927
0.02
0.0031
18.0C
3.00
""'o
'"""o
0
S374.043
$2,173
1
S67.445
"" S1.375
"" 5 "
$441,488
S3.548
MD
SANDY HOOK
MD0064530
0.015
0.0065
18.0C
3.00
"'""6
0
0
S369.411
$2,146
"1
$66,973
$1,393
" 5
$436,384
$3,539
MD
SHAMROCK RESTAUR
MD0058050
0.01
0.0029
1.95
3.00
0
0
0
SO
$0
3 "
S66.500
$1.354
5 "
$66,500
$1.354
MD
SHARPTOWN
MD0052175
0.15
0.1207
26.0C
7.10
0
0
*""o
" $517,156
S3.005
"1 ,,,
S79.723
S6.682
5
$596,879
$9,687
MD
SHEPPARD PRATT WE
MD0067521
" 0.01
0.0035
18.0C
3.00
" ""o
0
0
S364.837
S2.12C
1 «"
* S66.500
S1.359
5 "
S431.337
S3.479
MD
SIDELING HILL REST A
MD0062821
0.025
0.007C
21.00
3.00
0
""o
* * 0
S378.733
S2.20C
1 ""
$67,917
S1.417
5 -
$446,650
S3.617
MD
SMITHSBURG
MD0024317
0.333
0.2221
" 7.55
1.89
0
0
* * 0
SO
$0
3 "
$0
SO
4 "
$0
$0;
MD
SOUTH CARROLL HIGh
MD0024589
0.02
0.0064
18.0C
0.14
0
0
0
S374.043
S2.173
1 *"
SO
"'""$0
"" '4
$374,043
S2.173
MD
SOUTHERN CORRECT
MD0023914
0.02
" 0.0349
20.37
4.50
0
0
*"""o
S388.145
S2.255
*'"i"""
S67.445
" S2.069
5 "*
$455,590
S4.324
MD
SPRING MEADOWS
MD0024953
0.016
0.0106
18.0C
3.00
0
0
0
$370,333
S2.152
1 *
S67.067
S1.429
* " * 5
$437,400
S3.581
MD
SPRINGVIEW ESTATE!
MD0022870
* 0.007
0.0067
21.13
* 3.00
0
0
0
S362.119
S2.104
" S66.217
$1.380
5 "
$428,336
$3,484-
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable Vl-C 54 CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
Table VI - C: NRT Cost for Non-significant Municipal Facilities
DESIGN
2010 DATA
TIER 1*
TIER 2*
TIER 3*
TIER 4** (TN=8mg/l AND TP=2mg/l)
FLOW
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TN
TP
TOTAL
TOTAL
STATE
FACILITY
NPDES
FLOW(mgd)
(mgd)
TN(mg/l)
TP(mg/l)
COST
COST
COST
TN CC
TN O&M
NOTE
TP CC
TP O&M
NOTE
CC
O&M
MD
ST TIMOTHY SCHOOL
MD0056103
0.015
0.0056
18.00
3.00
0
0
0
$369,411
$2,146 1
$66,973
$1,385
5
$436,384
$3,532,
MD
ST. JAMES SCHOOL
MD0065536
0.016
0.0069
18.00
3.00
0
0
0
S370.333
S2.152 1
S67.067
S1.398
5
$437,400
S3.550
MD
SUDLERSVILLE
MD0020559
0.09
0.0497
18.00
3.00
0
0
0
$445,331
S2.587 1
$74,056
S1.892
*"*5 "
$519,387
S4.479
MD
SUMMER HILL TRAILEI
MD0023272
0.019
0.0113
13.87
1.31
0
0
0
$373,112
S2.168 1 "
SO
SO
4
$373,112
S2.168
MD
SWAN HARBOR PARK
MD0023043
0.05
0.0123
' 18.0C
3.00
0
$403,080
S2.342 1
S70.278
S1.507
5 "
S473.358
$3,849
MD
SWAN POINT
MD0057525
0.07
0.0367
* 18.0C
3.00
OT"o
0
0
* $423,679
S2.462 1 '*
$72,167
" S1.746
5 "
$495,846
S4.208
MD
TALBOT COUNTY REG
MD0023604 '
0.5
0.3803
14.39
3.09
0
0
0
$1,237,167
S7.188 1
$112,778
$5,680
5 ""
$1.349.945
S 12.868
MD
TALBOT COUNTY REG
MD0059463
" 0.15
" 0.0767
18.0C
3.00
" 0
0
0
$517,156
S3.005 1
' S79.723
S2.229
5 "
$596,879
$5,234*
MD
TAWES VOCATIONAL-"
MD0022993
0.01
0.1728
23.76
3.00
0
" o
0
$547,415
S3.180 1
$66,500
S2.759
*" 5
$613,915
S5.939
MD
THUNDERBIRD APART
MD0050334
0.032
0.0133
32.36
2.25
0
0
0
$385,398
S2.239 1 ' **
S68.578
S1.399
" *5 *"
$453,976
$3,638^
MD
THUNDERBIRD MOTEL
MD0053155
, 0.005
0.0046
18.0C
3.00
"'""""'o
0
0
$360,319
S2.093 T"
$66,028
$1.359
5
$426,347
S3.452
MD
TOLCHESTER
MD0067202
0.265
0.0901
18.0C
3.00
0
... 0
0
$688,789
S4.002 1
S90.584
$2,557
$779,373
S6.559
MD
TRAPPE
MD0020486
0.115
0.136C
18.0C
2.62
0
0
0
$499,402
S2.902 1
$76,417
S2.220
...... ^ ,,
$575,819
S5.122
MD
TRI-TOWN PLAZA
MD0024937
0.01
0.0135
18.00
1.97
0
.... ^
0
$368,027
S2.138 1
$0
SO
4 **'
$368,027
$2,138;
MD
TRIUMPH INDUSTRIAL
MD0024929
* 0.063
0.0383
18.0C
3.00
0
"""o
0
$416,352
S2.419 1
S71.506
S1.747
"""5""
$487,858
S4.166
MD
TWIN CITIES
MD0055352
0.28
0.1182
18.0C
3.00
0
" 0
$715,025
' S4.154 1
$92,000
$2,817
5 "
$807,025
S6.971
MD
TYLERTON
MD0052248
0.02
0.0051
18.0C
3.00
"""o
0
0
$374,043
S2.173 "I'"
$67,445
$1,391
5 "
$441,488
$3,564:
MD
U.S. ARMY-CHESAPEA
MD0020206
0.005
0.0003
18.0C
3.00
*" 0
' *c>
*'0
$360,319
S2.093 1 '
S66.028
S1.323
5 K
$426,347
$3,416:
MD
UNION BRIDGE
MD0022454
0.2
0.1032
28.07
3.27
0
0
, 0
$585,783
* S3.403 1
$84,445
S2.772
"'5 "
$670,228
S6.176
MD
UNITED CONTAINER
MD0024635
0.014
0.0076
18.74
3.00
0
"""*0
0
$368,492
S2.141 1 "
' $66,878
S1.400
$435,370
$3,541;
MD
URBANA HIGH SCHOO
MD0066940
0.03
0.0029
18.0C
3.52
0
" 0
0
$383,482
S2.228 1
S68.389
S1.404
5
$451,871
S3.632
MD
US NAVAL ACADEMY
MD0023523
0.1884
8.00
0.12
0
""'"6
0
$0
SO 3
$0
SO
'T
$0
$0
MD
USAF BRANDYWINE Hi
MD0025640
0.005
0.0014
19.03
3.63
0
0
$360,319
" S2.093 1
$66,028
S1.339
"" 5 "
$426,347
S3.432
MD
USAF TRANSMITTER S
MD0025631
0.01
O.OOOC
0
0
,,,y
$0
$01 3
$0
SO
"""a "
$0
$0
MD
VICTOR CULLEN CENT
MD0023922 '
0.25
0.0416
10.69
3.00
""o
"" *"*0
0
$663,517
S3.855 1
$89,167
$2,127
" *" 5
$752,684
S5.982
MD
VIENNA
MD0020664
*""" 0.06
* 0.0562
19.28
3.00
0
0
0
$413,251
S2.401 1
' $71.223
$1,889
.. s
$484,474
S4.290
MD
VILLA JULIE COLLEGE
MD0066001
0.05
0.007C
3.96
0.16
0
ti
0
so
SO 3
$0
SO
""4 "
$0
SO
MD
WALKERS TRAILER PA
MD0057487
0.015
0.0141
* 22.3C
3.00
0
0
0
$369.411
S2.146 1
$66,973
S1.456
s
$436,384
S3.603
MD
WAYSONS MOBILE
MD0023647
0.06
0.0456
19.16
2.28
0
0
$413,251
S2.401 1
" * $71.223
S1.530
5 "
$484,474
$3,931:
MD
WHITE HOUSE MOTEL
MD0056553
0.005
0.0016
18.17
3.00
0
0
0
$360,319
S2.093 1
$66,028
$1,333
... 5
S426.347
$3,427r
MD
WHITE ROCK
MD0025089
0.05
0.0171
12.45
3.00
*' 0
0
0
$403,080
S2.342 1
S70.278
$1.547
5 "
$473,358
$3,889:
MD
WILLARDS
MD0051632
0.08
0.0820
18.00
3.00
0
0
"" 0
$436,493
S2.536 1 "
* $73,112
S2.140
"5 "
$509,605
S4.676
MD
WINTERS APARTMENT
MD0057606
0.013
0.0002
18.00
3.00
""" 0
0
' 0
$367,575
S2.136 1
S66.784
$1,338
5 "
$434,359
S3.473
MD
WOODLAWN MOBILE f
MD0023337
0.054
O.OOOC
0
0
0
so
SO 3
$0
$0
* 4 ""
$0
$0;
MD
WOODSBORO
MD0058661 "
0.25
0.122C
20.14
2.17
0
0
$663,517
S3.855 1
$89,167
S1.955
5 "
$752,684
S5.810
MD
WOODSTOCK TRAININ
MD0023906
0.05
0.0087
18.0C
3.00
,:>Q
0
$403,080
S2.342 1 '
$70,278
$1,478
5 "
$473,358
S3.819
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable Vl-C 55 CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
Table VI - C: NRT Cost for Non-significant Municipal Facilities
DESIGN
2010 DATA
TIER 1*
TIER 2*
TIER 3*
TIER 4** (TN=8mg/l AND TP=2mg/l)
FLOW
TOTAL
TOTAL
TOTAL
TN
TP
TOTAL
TOTAL
STATE
FACILITY
NPDES
FLOW(mgd)
(mgd)
TN(mg/l)
TP(mg/l)
COST
COST
COST
TN CC
TN O&M
NOTE
TP CC
TP O&M
NOTE
CC
O&M
MD
WORTON-BUTLERTON MD0060585
0.15
0.0629
18.00
3.00
0
0
0
$517,156
$3,005
1
$79,723
$2,115
5
$596,879
$5,119
MD Total
20.5905
11.5411
S80.973.919 S612.243
S10.986.221
S91.960.140 S900.121
VA
FAIRVIEW BEACH
MD0056464
0.05
0.0392
18.00
3.00
0
0
0
$403,080
$2,342
1
$70,278
$1,729
5
$473,358
$4,071
VA Total
0.05
0.0392
$403,080
$2,342
$70,278
$473,358
$4,071
;WV
HARPERS FERRY-BOL
WV0039136
0.3
0.1907
18.00
3.00
* 0
0
0
$751,566
$4,367
1
' $93,889
$3,455
5
$845,455
$7,821
iWV
MOUNTAIN TOP PSD
WV0101524
**** 0.0504
0.0263
18.83
3.00
0
0
0
1403,482
$2,344
*1
$70,316
$1,624
5
$473,798
$3,968?
;WV
RIVER BEND PARK
VW0105384
0.18
0.0223
24.03
3.00
0
0
0
$557,302
$3,238
1
$82,556
$1,835
5
$639,858
$5,073;
WV Total
0.5304
0.2393
$1,712,349
$9,949
$246,761
$1,959,110
$16,862
Grand Total
21.1709
11.8195
$83,089,348 $624,534
$11,303,260
$94,392,608 $921,054
Note:
* There is no action on non-sigificant plants for Tier 1-3. Therefore, no cost is applied.
** Tier 4 scenario for non-significant plant is that TN =8 mg/l and TP = 2 mg/l.
1 = Calculated with the curve developed for the non-significant plants < or = 0.5MGD based on 9 VA and 2 MD non-significant facilities.
This methodology used to develop this curve was agreed by Tom Sadick, CH2M Hill and Thor Young, Stearn & Wheler, LLC.
2 = BNR Capital cost from MDE, 5/15/2002
3 = Assumes that there is no cost for non-significant plants that have TN concentration < 8 mg/l
4 = Assumes that there is no cost for non-significant plants that have TP concentration < 2 mg/l
5 = Calculated from the methodology developed by Thor Young, Stearn & Wheler for Tier 2 TP cost.
The TP goal in the calculation is adjusted from 1 mg/l to 2 mg/l.
6 = Due to its design flow >0.5 MGD, the costs were calculated from the methodology developed by Thor Young, Stearn & Wheler for Tier 2 TN cost
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable Vl-C
56
CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
VII. COST ESTIMATES FOR COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS
CSO cost estimates were provided by the City of Richmond and the Blue Plains CSO for the District of
Columbia. However, only Blue Plains CSO costs are considered herein. This is because costs are only
included where respective nutrient reductions are known, which is the case only for Blue Plains at this time.
Costs for meeting various tiered reductions for the CSO are provided in Table VII. These costs were obtained
by the Washington Council of Governments.
The DC CSO tiers are structured to incorporate existing DC-WASA (Washington Area Sanitary
Authority) programs and acknowledges that the Draft CSO Long Term Control Plan is a major 20-
year capital program, although at the time of this writing, it has yet to be formally approved by EPA.
Overall nutrient and sediment loads are expected to be reduced by 43% over the next 8 years and this
is reflected in Tier 1, which is also carried over into Tier 2, and again in Tier 3.
For purposes of conceptually estimating limits of technology, zero overflows were assumed for
Tier 4. However, as noted by WASA, this is not considered a practical reduction measure, at this
time, because it would require complete sewer separation and is not a measure endorsed by WASA.
The costs, therefore, for Tier 1 - 3 are the same and reflect current estimates by WASA for projects
already planned. Estimates for the Tier 4 controls are based on the current Draft CSO LTCP and
reflect the concept of a major 40-year complete sewer separation that was not adopted in the LTCP
due to the immense cost burden and the potential of making water quality worse (due to the lack of
treatment the resulting separated stormwater runoff would receive). The O&M costs for the CSO are
estimated to be 5% of the capital costs.
57
-------
I
Table VII. DC CSO & BLUE PLAINS WWTP COST ESTIMATES - For Chesapeake Bay-wide UAA Cost Analysis (as of 4/02/02)
Tier
Facility
Capital Cost (TN req.'s)
Capital Cost (TP req.'s)
Total Capital Cost (Year 200$'s)
Capital Cost Range (-30%-+50%)
O&M (annual)
Tier l/l I
Blue Plains
$33 M
$20M
$53 M
$37.1 to $79.5M
$8.9M
Tier III
Blue Plains
$225M
$225 M
$157.5 to $337.5M
$13.4M
Tier IV
Blue Plains
$365 M
$25 M
$390 M
$273M to $585M
$18.7 M
Tier l/ll/lll
DC CSO (Phase I)
$130 M
$91 to $195 M
$6.5 M
(proposed Tier IV)
DC CSO (LTCP-current draft)
$1.1 B
$0.77 to S1.65B
$55 M
Tier IV
DC CSO (zero discharges)
$3.5 B
$2.45 to $5.25B
$175 M
Notes:
1) Tiers I & II Blue Plains cost estimates are based on current CIP costs and current O&M costs.
2) Tiers III & IV Blue Plains cost estimates are estimated costs in Year 2002$'s, and represent 'Planning Level' cost estimates (-30% to +50%).
3) Tier I & II cost estimates for Blue Plains assume continued voluntary compliance with TN goals. Tiers III & IV also assume either voluntary goals, or use of "annual average" goals if TN
requirements are included in a permit.
4) Tier I, II, & III cost estimates for Blue Plains assume continued compliance with existing TP permit limit. Tier IV assumes compliance with a lower TP permit limit.
5) Blue Plains O&M costs for Tier I & II are based on current costs. Tier III & IV O&M costs estimated from CH2M Hill's 1999 report. All O&M costs are based on 370 MGD average daily flow.
6) Tier I, II & III CSO cost estimates are based on current estimated costs for projects already in the CIP; while estimates for the 'proposed' Tier IV controls are based on the current, Draft CSO
LTCP.
7) Cost estimates for the CBP's Tier IV CSO controls reflect the concept of a major 40-vear complete sewer separation scenario that was not adopted in the current Draft CSO LTCP (due to the
immense cost burden and the result of making water quality worse)
8 ) CSO cost estimates for O&M costs are estimated to be 5% of the capital costs.
58
-------
VIII. COST METHODOLOGY APPLICATION FOR THE
SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPALS FOR TIERS 1-4
This section explains how the cost estimation methodologies presented in Section III and
IV were applied to derive the technology costs by facility for various nutrient reduction
levels. This section also explains where actual data received from facilities or municipal
representatives was used in lieu of application of the cost estimation methodologies. For
information regarding the source codes shown in this section, please see the notes at the
ends of Table X-A (pages 98-106) and Table X-B (pages 107-115).
8.1 Allocating Blue Plains Costs to the Jurisdictions
The Blue Plains facility treats wastewater from Maryland, Virginia, as well as the District
of Columbia. The loads for the Blue Plains facility are therefore proportional to each
jurisdiction according to the flows being treated from each of the three jurisdictions. The
flow allocation data were provided by Metropolitan Washington Council of
Government(MWCOG) (Attachment 11, part 2, Appendix I). Costs to achieve these
load reductions were also provided by MWCOG(see Table VII). These total costs are
allocated to each of the jurisdictions according to their percentage of flow treated by Blue
Plains. In the tables and graphs presenting costs in this report, it will be noted whether
the costs for Blue Plains are in total or divided up among the jurisdictions.
8.2 Tier 1 Costs
Among the 304 significant municipal plants, there are 154 facilities that are currently
operating NRT or have plans to implement NRT. Only 65 of these 154 plants have costs
associated with NRT for Tier 1 because the funds for the reminding 89 NRT facilities are
already in place. Most of the 65 plants with Tier 1 costs are going to implement NRT by
2005 or 2010. Only 3 out of the 65 plants are currently running NRT and are listed in
Table VIII- A.
Table VIII- A: Current BNR with T1 Cost
STATE
FACILITY
npd.es
BNR STATUS
T1TNCC
MD
HURLOCK
MD0022730
CURRENT
5,200,000
MD
PRINCESS ANNE
MD0020656
CURRENT
3,563,500
VA
AQUIA
VA0060968
CURRENT
8,000,000
Most of the TN capital costs for these 65 plants are provided by the state agencies or
from the NRT cost survey. Only 9 facilities (listed in following table) used the estimates
calculated with the Tier 2 methodology developed by Stearns & Wheler, LLC.
59
-------
Table VIII- B: Facilities with Tier 1 TN CC Calculated
STATE
FACILITY
NPDES
BNR STATUS
T1TNCC
PA
ELIZABETHTOWN
PA0023108
BY 2005
4,083,001
PA
LACKAWANNA RIVER
PA0027081
BY 2005
2,513,941
PA
LEWISBURG AREA
PA0044661
BY 2010
3,693,297
PA
LOCK HAVEN
PA0025933
BY 2010
4,580,956
PA
LOGAN TOWNSHIP-
PA0032557
BY 2005
2,444,284
VA
HAYMOUNT STP
VA0089125
BY 2010
2,687,559
VA
ORANGE
VA0021385
BY 2010
3,066,885
VA
SOUTH WALES STP
VA0080527
BY 2010
2,622,367
VA
WIDEWATER WWTP
VA0090387
BY 2010
2,374,508
Total 28,066,798
Since the total TN capital cost of Tier 1 is $605,314,959, the calculated estimates
accounts for only 4.7% of the total Tier 1 cost.
The following table summarizes the Tier 1 costs, along with TN loads discharged in 2000
in comparison to the Tier 1 load reduction.
Table VII]
[- C: Tier 1 costs, 2000 and T1 TN discharged loads by state.
STATE
Tierl TN
Capital Cost
2000 TN LOAD
(Ibs/yr)
TIER 1 TN LOAD
(Ibs/yr)
REDUCTION
(2000TN-T1 TN)
DC Total
0
8,726,084
7,805,237
920,847
DE Total
3,187,400
286,701
292,404
-5,702
MD Total
384,749,909
14,142,117
12,566,335
1,575,781
NY Total
0
4,252,589
2,931,661
1,320,928
PA Total
72,079,813
14,326,180
11,941,871
2,384,309
VA Total
145,297,837
27,968,574
26,559,015
1,710,449
WV Total
0
510,833
243,582
267,251
Grand Total 605,314,959 70,213,079 62,340,105 8,173,863
The detailed cost and load data for each facility with Tier 1 cost are listed in Table VIII-
D. Due to the projected flow increases, many facilities listed in Table VIII- D show load
increases (negative reduction values). The Tier 1 TN concentrations for these facilities
are 8 mg/1.
Table VTTT- D Facilities with Tier 1 TN Capital Costs
ST
FACILITY
NPDES
T1TNCC ($)
SOURCE
2000TN
(Ibs/yr)
T1TN (Ibs/yr)
Reduction
DE
BRIDGEVILLE
DE0020249
3,187,400
12, M
12,109
5,404
6,705
MD
APG-ABERDEEN
MD0021237
8,000,000 2, M
55,125
22,278
32,847
MD
BRUNSWICK
MD0020958
4,900,000 2, M
34,935
18,562
16,372
MD
CAMBRIDGE
MD0021636
9.934.376 2. M
112,051
124,494
-12,444
MD
CELANESE
MD0063878
5.791.500 2. M
18,422
24,754
-6,332
MD
CENTREVILLE
MD0020834
5.065.400 2. M
12,685
8,587
4,098
MD
CHESTERTOWN
MD0020010
2.600.000 2. M
17,978
15,916
2,062
MD
CONOCOCHEAGUE
MD0063509
5,555,439;2, M
21,512
29,063
-7,551
MD
COX CREEK
MD0021661
9,476,780 2, M
627,021
299,577
327,444
60
-------
Table vm-D(continued): Facilities with Tier 1 TN Capital
ST
FACILITY
NPDES
T1TNCC ($)
SOURCE
2000TN
(Ibs/yr)
T1TN (Ibs/yr)
Reduction
MD
CRISFIELD
MD0020001 ;
4,052,200
2, M
27,044
16,547
10,498
MD
DELMAR
MD0020532
1,030,000
2, M
24,745
14,068
10,677
MD
ELKTON
MD0020681 !
6,360,000
2, M
82,662
42,125
40,537
MD
FEDERALSBURG
MD0020249 ,
1,500,000
2, M
18,H7
8,020
10,097
MD
FREDERICK
MD0021610 =
8,816,824
2, M
485,460
189,096
296,364
MD
FRUITLAND
MD0052990 ,
6,200,000
2, M
25,812
12,612
13,200
MD
GEORGES CREEK
MD0060071 j
2,000,000
2, M
36,525
16,293
20,231
MD
HAVRE DE GRACE
MD0021750
6,278,550
2, M
48,125
34,020
14,105
MD
HURLOCK
MD0022730 ;
5,200,000
2, M
42,327
25,863
16,464
MD
INDIAN HEAD
MD0020052 ,
656,000
2, M
13,639
8,587
5,052
MD
KENT ISLAND
MD0023485 :
20,742,570
2, M
87,899
39,970
47,929
MD
LA PLATA
MD0020524
4,120,970
2, M
16,705
20,084
-3,379
MD
LEONARDTOWN
MD0024767 :
1,840,000
2, M
18,598
11,730
6,868
MD
MATTAWOMAN
MD0021865 ,
7,935,800
2, M
320,637
199,109
121,528
MD
NORTHEAST RIVER
MD0052027 ,
1,800,000
2, M
23,023
15,304
7J19
MD
PATAPSCO
MD0021601 ;
200,000,000
2, M
2,388,559
1,778,607
609,951
MD
POCOMOKE CITY
MD0022551 !
2,700,000
2,2
24,854
23,435
1,420
MD
POOLESVILLE
MD0023001 ;
1,658,000
2, M
16,660
16,175
4S5
MD
PRINCESS ANNE
MD0020656 ,
3,563,500
2, M
20,092
15,100
4,992
MD
SALISBURY
MD0021571 I
15,000,000
2, M
332,099
143,631
188,468
MD
SENECA CREEK
MD0021491 ,
29,520,000
2, M
268,698
458,052
-189,354
MD
SNOW HILL
MD0022764 1
1,600,000
2, M
21,632
11,331
10,301
MD
WINEBRENNER WWTP
MD0003221 ,
852,000
2, M
12,029
5,378
6,651
PA
CHAMBERSBURG BOROUGH
PA0026051
6,400,000
3, M
130,817
116,352
14,465
PA
EASTERN SNYDER COUNTY
PA0110582
3,000,000
10, M
70,388
39,061
31,327
PA
E LIZABETHTOWN BOROUGH
PA0023108
4,083,001
1
236,180
57,096
179,0S4
PA
HARRISBURG SEWERAGE
PA0027197
22,682,000
S
1,565,597
639,300
926,297
PA
LACKAWANNA RIVER BASIN
PA0027081
2,513,941
1
21,300
11,984
9,316
PA
LANCASTER AREA SEWER
PA0042269
4,249,333
s,
281,766
189,652
92,114
PA
LANCASTER CITY
PA0026743
1,077,000
3, M
531,348
504,692
26,657
PA
LEWISBURG AREA
PA0044661
3,693,297
1
83,950
29,180
54,769
PA
LOCK HAVEN
PA0025933
4,580,956
1
110,987
53,127
57,860
PA
LOGAN TOWNSHIP-GREENWOOD
PA0032557
2,444,284
1
16,952
8,916
8,035
PA
SUNBURY CITY MUNICIPAL
PA0026557
3,000,000
15, M
107,663
73,446
34,217
PA
SWATARA TOWNSHIP
PA0026735
2,000,000
13, M
190,910
81,310
109,600
PA
UNIVERSITY AREA JOINT
PA0026239
780,000
3, M
236,457
123,537
112,921
PA
WILLIAM SPORT -CENTRAL
PA0027057
6,330,000
3, M
464,040
178,235
285,805
PA
WILLIAMSPORT-WEST
PA0027049
5,246,000
3, M
414,413
64,971
349,443
VA
AQUIA
VA0060968
8,000,000
C9, M
47,259
128,888
-81,629
VA
ASHLAND
VA0024899
2,415,700
S, M
65,842
37,765
28,077
VA
BROAD RUN WRF
VABROADR
13,500,000
17
5S.475
VA
COLONIAL BEACH
VA0026409
90,000
3, M
32,298
20,617
11,682
VA
CULPEPER
VA0061590
4,200,000
6, M
57,077
55,312
1765
VA
DOS WELL
VA0029521
3,045,000
6, M
100,438
164,460
-64.022
VA
FALLING CREEK
VA0024996
395,818
6, M
202,791
200,744
2,047
VA
HAYMOUNT STP
VA0089125
2,687,559
1
23,146
VA
HRSD-YORK
VA0081311
17,700,000
C14
522,303
309,429
212,874
VA
ORANGE
VA0021385
3,066,885
1
35,684
16,847
18,836
VA
RICHMOND
VA0063177
70,000,000
6, M
1,732,937
1,169,249
563,689
VA
SOUTH CENTRAL
VA0025437
7,800,000
S
276,307
315,033
-38,726
VA
SOUTH WALES STP
VA0080527
2,622,367
1
20,856
VA
WIDEWATER WWTP
VA0090387
2,374,508
1
2,436
Total
4,560,508
61
-------
MD has the highest Tier 1 cost because all MD significant municipal plants reach
TN@8mg/l in Tier 1, and do not have T N capital costs in Tier 2, except Back River
using 10 mg/1 in Tier 1 and $10 million TN capital cost in Tier 2 to go to 8 mg/1. Other
states will have all their significant plants reach 8 mg/1 in Tier 2. Also note that costs
for Patapsco alone account for 52% of the total MD Tier 1 costs.
PA has lower TN capital costs and higher TN load reduction than MD and VA. As the
following table indicates, the biggest load reduction in PA is Harrisburg that will reduce
922,000 pounds TN discharge load in Tier 1 with a TN capital cost of $22.68 million.
While, the highest TN cost in MD is $200 million for Patapsco that will reduce only
603,000 pounds in Tier 1. In PA, there are 5 facilities with calculated Tier TN capital
costs, 6 facilities with survey costs and 7 plants with the cost data provided by Virginia
Tech's NRT cost estimates.
There are dramatic increases in the projected 2010 flows from 2000 levels for both MD
and VA, which increase the Tier 1 loads and off set the load reduction. The 2010 flow
survey results provided by the state agencies or directly by the facilities are significantly
greater than the projected 2010 flow estimated by CBPO based on the population
increase. As Table VIII- E presents, the second column lists the 2010 flow increase
including the flow survey results, and the third column lists the 2010 flow estimated only
with the 2010 flow projection methodology. For example, if all facilities use only the
2010 flow estimates from the flow projection methodology based on the population
increase, the total 2010 flow increase for VA will only be 48.9 MGD. However, the state
agencies and some facilities provided their own 2010 flow projections for some plants.
By using these 2010 flow provided with the 2010 flow estimates for the remaining plants,
VA will increase the total flow by 130 MGD by 2010. The difference of 82 MGD
represent nearly additional 2 million pounds TN discharge load at TN=8 mg/1. Blue
Plains provided a flow slightly lower than the result of its 2000 flow adjusted by the
population increase in DC area. And, other states including PA did not provide any their
own 2010 flow projections. Therefore, the load reductions in Tier 1 for MD and VA are
largely off set by the flow increases that are proportionally higher than other states.
Table VIII- E: Total Flow Increases Between 2010 and 2000 by State
STATE
FLOW INCREASES (mgd)
2010 FLOW-2000 FLOW
(Including survey results)
FLOW INCREASES (mgd)
2010 FLOW-2000 FLOW
(only estimates)
VA
116.47
48.90
MD
52.50
22.25
DC
23.81
24.36
PA
9.86
9.86
NY
0.72
0.72
DE
0.19
0.19
WV
-1.68
-1.68
The following table lists the top ten facilities with the highest flow increases. All of them
are using 2010 flow submitted, not calculated.
62
-------
Table VIII- F: Top Ten Facilities With The Highest Flow Increases.
STATE
FACILITY
2000
2010
DC
BLUE PLAINS
317.90
341.71
VA
HOPEWELL
29.01
35.12
VA
HENRICO COUNTY
37.10
50
MD
PATAPSCO
60.54
73
MD
SENECA CREEK
6.49
18.8
VA
NOMAN M. COLE JR.
42.89
53
VA
UPPER OCCOQUAN
24.39
34
VA
HRSD-BOAT HARBOR
14.32
23.05
VA
ARLINGTON
27.46
35.29
VA
HRSD-CHESAPEAKE
19.06
26.3
8.3 Tier Two Costs:
There is no cost for MD in Tier 2, except for Back River that has $10 million TN capital
cost to go from TN =10 mg/1 to 8 mg/1. For other jurisdictions, most of their Tier 2 TN
capital costs were calculated with the Tier 2 TN capital cost methodology developed by
Stearns & Wheler, LLC. The following facilities listed in Table VIII- G use the costs
provided by the state agencies or from the cost surveys provided by the facilities.
Table VIII- G: Facilities with Tier 2 TN Capital Costs from sources other than calculation
STATE
FACILITY
NPDES
T2TNCC
T2TN SOURCE
DC
BLUE PLAINS
DC0021199
33,000,000
14
MD
BACK RIVER
MD0021555
10,000,000
19
NY
ENDICOTT (V)
NY0027669
6,656,000
7
PA
ALTOONA CITY -EAST
PA0027014
1,200,000
3
PA
ALTOONA CITY -WEST
PA0027022
1,200,000
3
PA
DERRY TOWNSHIP
PA0026484
1,983,000
2
PA
GREATER HAZELTON
PA0026921
7,840,000
3
PA
HANOVER BOROUGH
PA0026875
60,000
3
PA
LEBANON CITY AUTHORITY
PA0027316
4,039,000
3
VA
DAHLGREN
VA0026514
30,000
3
VA
FISHERSVILLE
VA0025291
790,OOO
3
VA
FRONT ROYAL
VA0062812
50,000
3
VA
HOPEWELL
VA0066630
57,230,000
16
VA
HRSD-ARMY BASE
VA0081230
81,000,000
C14, C15
VA
HRSD-BOAT HARBOR
VA0081256
112,000,000
C14, C15
VA
HRSD-CHESAPEAKE
VA0081264
35,000,000
C14
VA
HRSD-JAMES RIVER
VA0081272
27,300,000
C14
VA
HRSD-NANSEMOND
VA0081299
13,100,000
C14
VA
HRSD-VIP
VA0081281
10,000,000
C14
VA
HRSD-WILLIAMSBURG
VA0081302
15,800,000
C14
VA
LURAY
VA0062642
0
3
VA
LYNCHBURG
VA0024970
54,900,000
C6
VA
PARKINS MILL
VA0075191
97,000
3
VA
STRASBURG
VA0020311
120,000
3
VA
WAYNESBORO
VA0025151
3,500,000
3
VA
WOODSTOCK
VA0026468
700,000
3
63
-------
Table VIII-H provides a summary of the Tier 2 TN capital costs and the load reduction
by state.
Table VIII- H: Tier 2 TN capital costs and the load reduction by state
STATE
Tier 2 TN
Capital Cost($)
Tier 2 Cumulative
Capital Cost ($)
TN Load Reduction
(2000-Tier2) (Ibs/yr)
DC Total
33,000,000
33,000,000
920,847
DE Total
2,374,508
5,561,908
8,129
MD Total
10,000,000
394,749,909
1,454,723
NY Total
61,874,054
61,874,054
2,652,253
PA Total
277,865,025
349,944,837
5,294,979
VA Total
406,238,704
626,459,541
8,190,984
WV Total
23,193,004
23,193,004
42,904
Grand Total
804,545,294
1,484,783,253
18,564,819
8.4 Tier 3 and Tier 4 TN Capital Costs:
The methodology described in Section IV to estimate the Tier 3 and Tier 4 TN capital
costs were developed for plant sizes of 0.5 to 30 MGD. Additionally, the NRT Cost Task
Force meeting on March 26, 2002 decided to survey the costs for plants greater than or
equal to 30 MGD in design (Attachment 1, Part 1, Appendix I). There are a total of 16
facilities listed below with design flows of this size. Costs on 9 of these 16 plants came
either from the survey or Virginia Tech's NRT cost estimates. MDE decided to use the
methodology described in Section IV to calculate the costs for Back River and Patapsco
(Attachment 1, Part 1, Appendix I). The same methodologies were used for the
remaining 5 plants to calculate their costs due to the lack of survey data for them.
Table VIII-1: Municipal Facilities with Design Flow >30 MGD
FACILITY
NPDES
DESIGN FLOW
T3-4 TN CC Source
BLUE PLAINS
DC0021199
370
SURVEY
PISCATAWAY
MD0021539
30
CALCULATED
BACK RIVER
MD0021555
180
CALCULATED
PATAPSCO
MD0021601
73
CALCULATED
WESTERN BRANCH
MD0021741
30
SURVEY
WYOMING VALLEY
PA0026107
50
SURVEY
HARRISBURG SEWERAGE
PA0027197
37.7
SURVEY
UPPER OCCOQUAN SEWAGE
VA0024988
54
CALCULATED
ARLINGTON
VA0025143
40
CALCULATED
ALEXANDRIA
VA0025160
54
SURVEY
NOMAN M. COLE JR.
VA0025364
67
SURVEY
RICHMOND
VA0063177
70
SURVEY
HENRICO COUNTY
VA0063690
75
SURVEY
HOPEWELL
VA0066630
35.12
SURVEY
HRSD-VIP
VA0081281
40
CALCULATED
HRSD-NANSEMOND
VA0081299
30
CALCULATED
64
-------
In addition to the cost data obtained for the larger facilities described above, cost data
was provided for many facilities to go to 3 mg/1 TN. In most cases, the sources of this
data did not include costs to go to 5 mg/1. Thus, a dilemma arose as to what costs to
include for Tier 3 (to go to 5 mg/1) for facilities for which cost data was available only to
go to 8 and 3 mg/1 TN. Some options considered by the NRT Cost Task Force included
the following:
1) Taking the midpoint of costs to go to 8 mg/1 and 3 mg/1, and placing that value
both in Tier 3 and Tier 4 so that the cumulative costs still equaled the costs to go
to 8 and 3 mg/1 combined.
2) Inserting the costs of going to 3 mg/1 into the Tier 3 (even though this is the tier to
go to 5 mg/1), and setting the costs to go to Tier 4 to zero, again, keeping the
cumulative costs equal to the costs to go to 8 and 3 mg/1 combined.
Attachment 2 in Part 1 of Appendix I indicates that Option 2 above was implemented
because that would keep the cost values in tact that were provided by the various sources.
Additionally, it was believed that a facility would most likely expend the amount
provided to go to 3 mg/1 whether it achieved 5 or 3 mg/1 TN anyway.
An exception to the above decision rule is that MDE decided to use calculated estimates
for Tier 3 and Tier 4 for all MD facilities (Attachment 3, Appendix I, Part 1)), except for
Western Branch that has zero costs for both Tier 3 and Tier 4 because it is already
operating @ TN =3mg/1 (Attachment 1, Appendix I, Part 1).
Since the actual data for TN@3 costs provided are comparatively lower than the combined
calculated Tier 3 and Tier 4 costs, MD Tier 3 and Tier 4 TN capital costs are
comparatively higher than other states.
Table VIII-J and Table VIII-K provide summary cost information for Tier 3 and Tier 4
respectively and compare this to TN load reductions achieved by each Tier.
Table VIII- J: Tier 3 TN capital costs and the load reduction by state
STATE
T3TNCC ($)
T3 Cumulative
CC ($)
TN Load Reduction
(2000-Tier3) (Ibs/yr)
DC Total
225,000,000
258,000,000
3,522,593
DE Total
3,182,908
8,744,816
24,712
MD Total
253,226,556
647,976,465
5,089,163
NY Total
40,600,618
102,474,671
3,252,379
PA Total
319,811,406
669,756,244
8,048,336
VA Total
338,254,142
964,713,683
14,027,696
WV Total
10,971,658
34,164,662
107,054
Grand Total 1,191,047,288 2,685,830,541 34,071,932
65
-------
Table VIII- K: Tier 4 TN capital costs and the load reduction by state
STATE
T4TNCC ($)
T4 Cumulative
CC ($)
TN Load Reduction
(2000-Tier4) (Ibs/yr)
DC Total
365,000,000
623,000,000
5,603,990
DE Total
4,152,080
12,896,896
35,766
MD Total
491,117,129
1,139,093,595
7,512,123
NY Total
71,577,888
174,052,559
3,652,463
PA Total
241,323,231
911,079,475
9,883,907
VA Total
499,539,463
1,464,253,146
18,082,178
WV Total
15,792,986
49,957,647
149,821
Grand Total
1,688,502,777
4,374,333,318
44,920,247
The following two charts present the cumulative TN capital costs ($million) and the TN
discharged load reduction from 2000 level by each state for each tier. Blue Plains costs
and load reductions were allocated among jurisdictions.
Figure Vlll-A: Cumulative TN Capital Costs ($million)
~ DC BDE DMD ~ NY BPA DVA
1
dl ,
-1
JZL
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
Figure Vlll-B: TN Discharged Load Reduction From 2000 Level
~ DC DDE DMD ~ NY BPA DVA BVW
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
66
-------
IX. LOAD CALCULATION DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY
This section presents the decision rules for, and results of, estimating TN and TP load reduction
estimates by facility by Tier.
9.1 Load Calculation For Significant Municipal Facilities
9.1.1 Tier Definition for Point Sources
The Tier definition was reviewed and discussed by the point source workgroup and the NRT
Cost Task Force members, and approved by the workgroup meeting. All concentrations are in
mg/1 as annual averages. A series of attachments that are referenced in this section are included
in Appendix I, Part 2.
9.1.1.1 Tier 1: TN is set to 8 mg/1 for all plants currently running NRT or with NRT plans,
except following three plants. The rest of facilities use their 2000 TN
concentrations.
Blue Plains DC0021199 TN = 7.5 mg/1
Back River MD0021555 TN=10mg/l
Hopewell VA0066630 TN =21 mg/1 (Attachment 1 - Part 2, Appendix I)
All significant municipal facilities use their 2000 TP concentrations, except VA
facilities targeted by VADEQ either under the WQIF Grant program and/or the Tributary
Strategy Plan for Lower River Tributaries. For these VA facilities, TP = 1.5 mg/1.
The load reductions listed in the Tables in this section reflecting implementation of NRT to TN =
8 mg/1 occur in Tier 1 for the HRSD Nansemond and VIP facilities. However, HRSD requested,
after the watershed model runs were conducted, that these load reductions should first appear in
Tier 2. Because the model runs were already completed, these load reduction remain in Tier 1,
but costs do not show up until Tier 2. Cumulative loads remain the same, as additional load
reductions do not show up in Tier 2.
9.1.1.2 Tier 2: TN is set to 8 mg/1 for all significant municipal facilities, except Blue
Plains, which uses TN = 7.5 mg/1
For TP, all significant municipals use TP = lmg/1 or their lower limits.
9.1.1.3 Tier 3: TN = 5 mg/1 for all significant municipal facilities;
TP = 0.5mg/l or lower limit for all significant municipal facilities
9.1.1.4 Tier 4: TN = 3 mg/1 for all significant municipal facilities;
TP = 0. lmg/1 for all significant municipal facilities
9.1.2 2010 Flow Projection
For most significant municipal facilities, their 2010 flows were projected based on the 2000
flows adjusted by the population increase factors (this factor is set to 1 where population
decreases). A population increase factor is based on the US Census estimated population
changes between 2010 and 2000 in the county where the facility located. However, actual
site specific estimates were obtained for many facilities either from state agencies, facility
contacts or the survey. Facilities for which actual 2010 estimated flows were obtained are
listed in Table IX-A.
67
-------
Table IX-A also lists the attachment # (Attachment 2-10 in Appendix I, Part 2) as the sources
of these flow data. VADEQ suggested using the design flow or estimated flow for the six
VA facilities to be built before 2010. TIMBERVILLE and MOOREFIELD will be off-line
by 2010 according to VADEQ and WVDEP.
Table IX-A: Projected 2010 Flows Provided by the State Agency or Facility
FLOW
MGD)
SOURCE
STA
FACILITY
NPDES
DESIGN
2000
2010
Attachment #
App.l, part 2
DC
BLUE PLAINS
DC0021199
370
317.899
341.71
7
MD
DAMASCUS
MD0020982
1.5
0.881
0.86
7
MD
PARKWAY
MD0021725
7.5
5.962
6.2
7
MD
PATAPSCO
MD0021601
73
60.536
73
10
MD
PISCATAWAY
MD0021539
30
21.052
25.3
7
MD
SENECA CREEK
MD0021491
5
6.494
18.8
7
MD
WESTERN BRANCH
MD0021741
30
18.293
23
7
VA
ALLEGHANY CO. LOWER JACKSON
VA0090671
1.5
0.75
VADEQ
VA
AQUIA
VA0060968
6.5
3.326
5.29
8
VA
ARLINGTON
VA0025143
40
27.464
35.29
7
VA
ASHLAND
VA0024899
2
1.153
1.55
4
VA
BROAD RUN WRF
VA BROADR
15
2.4
3
VA
BROADWAY LAGOONS
VA0021245
0.322
0.521
0
VADEQ
VA
DOSWELL
VA0029521
1
4.135
6.75
4
VA
FISHERSVILLE
VA0025291
2
0.798
1.71
8
VA
H.L. MOONEY
VA0025101
18
9.632
14.63
5
VA
HARRISONBURG-ROCKINGHAM
VA0060640
16
8.571
11.65
8
VA
HAYMOUNT STP
VA0089125
0.95
0.95
VADEQ
VA
HENRICO COUNTY
VA0063690
75
37.096
50
6
VA
HOPEWELL
VA0066630
50
29.007
35.12
2
VA
HRSD-ARMY BASE
VA0081230
18
12.749
17.45
8
VA
HRSD-BOAT HARBOR
VA0081256
25
14.318
23.05
8
VA
HRSD-CHESAPEAKE/ELIZABETH
VA0081264
24
19.056
26.3
8
VA
HRSD-JAMES RIVER
VA0081272
20
14.467
20
8
VA
HRSD-NANSEMOND
VA0081299
30
18.948
20.15
8/VADEQ
VA
HRSD-VIP
VA0081281
40
31.535
35.9
8
VA
HRSD-WILLIAMSBURG
VA0081302
22.5
15.344
15.9
8/VADEQ
VA
HRSD-YORK
VA0081311
15
11.329
12.7
8
VA
LITTLE FALLS RUN
VA0076392
4
2.618
4.16
8
VA
LYNCHBURG
VA0024970
22
13.216
17.4
8
VA
MATHEWS COURTHOUSE
VA0028819
0.1
0.047
0.08
8
VA
MIDDLE RIVER
VA0064793
6.8
3.597
5.65
8
VA
MOORES CREEK-RIVANNA
VA0025518
15
10.343
11.888
9
VA
NOMAN M. COLE JR.
VA0025364
67
42.889
53
8
VA
SOUTH CENTRAL
VA0025437
23
12.035
12.93
8
VA
SOUTH WALES STP
VA0080527
0.856
0.856
VADEQ
VA
STUARTS DRAFT
VA0066877
1.4
0.836
1.5
8
VA
TIMBERVILLE
VA0027111
0.2
0.198
0
VADEQ
VA
TOTOPOTOMOY
VA0089915
5
5
VADEQ
VA
UPPER OCCOQUAN SEWAGE
VA0024988
54
24.391
34
8
VA
URBANNA
VA0026263
0.1
0.056
0.113
8
VA
WEST POINT
VA0075434
0.6
0.623
0.6
8/VADEQ
VA
WEYERS CAVE STP
VA0022349
0.5
0.116
0.4
8
VA
WIDEWATER WWTP
VA0090387
0.5
0.1
VADEQ
WV
MOOREFIELD
WV0020150
0.6
0.315
0
WVDEP
68
-------
9.1.3 Load calculation
The TN and TP loads for each Tier were calculated with the projected 2010 flows and the
concentrations defined above for individual facility for each Tier. The following load
calculation formula was used to calculate the TN and TP annual discharge loads.
Annual Discharge Load = Concentration X Flow X 8.344 X 365
9.2 Load Calculation For non-significant Municipal Facilities
9.2.1 Tier definition for non-significant municipal facilities:
There is no action for Tier 1-3 for non-significant facilities, the current 2000 TN and TP
concentrations are used for Tier 1-3. NRT is applied to Tier 4 for all non-significant
facilities.
Tier 1 - 3: Current 2000 TN and TP were used.
Tier 4: TN is set to 8 mg/1 for all non-significant facilities.
TP is set to 2 mg/1 or lower 2000 concentrations.
9.2.2 Projected 2010 flow:
For all non-significant municipal facilities, their 2010 flows were projected based on the
2000 flows with population increase factors (this factor is set to 1 where population
decreases).
9.2.3 Load calculation:
The same formula as used for calculating loads of significant plants was used.
Annual Discharge Load = Concentration X Flow X 8.344 X 365
9.3 Load Calculation for Industrial Plants and CSO
a) Load calculations for industrial facilities were performed individually for each facility
by tier and described in Section V.
b) CSO Load Calculation
Only DC CSO is included in this analysis. Based on the scenarios provided by
MWCOG, there will be 43% CSO flow reduction from 2000 level for Tier 1-3, and a
zero CSO discharge for Tier 4.
69
-------
Tier 1-3: Since there is no treatment change involved in CSO load reduction
scenarios, current default TN concentration of 7.02 mg/1 and TP of 2 mg/1
were used to calculate the loads.
TN = 7.02 mg/1
TP = 2 mg/1
Flow: Current default flow of 7.61 MGD was used as the base flow.
Flow = 7.61 MGD X (1-43%) = 4.3377 MGD
Tier 4: Due to zero discharge, its flow should be zero.
The discharge loads of DC CSO for each Tier are calculated with the same
formula:
Annual Discharge Load = Concentration X Flow X 8.344 X 365
9.4 Blue Plains Load Allocation Among DC, MD and VA
The Blue Plains facility treats wastewater from Maryland, Virginia, as well as the District
of Columbia. The loads for the Blue Plains facility are therefore proportional to each
jurisdiction according to the flows being treated from each of the three jurisdictions. The
flow allocation data were provided by Metropolitan Washington Council of
Government(MWCOG) (Attachment 11, part 2, Appendix I)
9.5 Load Summary
Loads are summarized in the following tables by watershed basin, by state and by facility
type.
Table IX-A provides discharged nitrogen loads for all facilities by basin by tier.
Table IX-B provides discharged nitrogen loads for all facilities by state by tier.
Table IX-C summarizes discharged nitrogen loads by point source type by tier for the
entire Bay watershed.
Table IX-D provides discharged phosphorus loads for all facilities by basin by tier.
Table IX-E provides discharged phosphorus loads for all facilities by state by tier.
Table IX-F summarizes discharged phosphorus loads by point source type by tier for the
entire Bay watershed.
Table IX-G details discharged nitrogen loads for all facilities by tier sorted by basin.
Table IX-H details discharged phosphorus loads for all facilities by tier sorted by basin.
70
-------
Total Nitrogen Discharged Load Summary
TABLE IX-A: NRT TIER TN LOAD (Ibs/yr) SUMMARY BY BASIN
CBP BASIN
2000
T1
T2
T3
T4
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
18,406,790
14,667,032
10,009,752
6,486,420
3,767,236
MD EASTERN SHORE
1,399,635
1,053,234
1,039,402
807,596
561,581
MD WESTERN SHORE
9,200,882
7,813,372
7,279,015
5,360,611
2,811,084
PATUXENT RIVER
1,105,479
1,642,075
1,633,176
1,032,757
626,068
POTOMAC RIVER
23,815,593
18,694,524
17,106,000
11,234,067
6,671,469
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER
593,711
603,585
541,832
338,645
203,187
VA EASTERN SHORE
279,936
216,057
192,246
79,270
13,523
YORK RIVER
1,230,918
1,178,066
1,286,798
866,577
586,430
JAMES RIVER
15,030,654
17,175,126
11,015,416
7,303,871
4,729,907
TOTAL
71,063,596
63,043,070
50,103,636
33,509,813
19,970,486
TABLE IX-B: NRT TIER TN LOAD (Ibs/yr) SUMMARY BY STATE *
STATE
2000
T1
T2
T3
T4
DC
4,451,433
3,648,026
3,648,026
2,456,848
1,429,413
DE
287,487
292,404
278,572
261,990
250,935
MD
18,090,836
16,743,186
16,125,597
11,251,832
6,294,866
NY
4,264,240
2,931,661
1,600,336
1,000,210
600,126
PA
14,365,430
11,941,871
8,638,350
5,629,036
3,252,912
VA
29,078,389
27,228,746
19,615,040
12,784,164
8,069,366
WV
525,782
257,177
197,716
125,733
72,868
TOTAL
71,063,596
63,043,070
50,103,636
33,509,813
19,970,486
NOTE: * Blue Plains load was allocated among DC, MD and VA according to the flow allocation provided
by MWCOG for UAA. (Attachment 11, Part 2, Appendix I)
TABLE IX-C:NRT TIER TN LOAD (Ibs/yr) SUMMARY BY FACILITY TYPE
FACILITY TYPE
2000
T1
T2
T3
T4
SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL
61,280,775
54,706,871
42,541,943
26,913,933
16,148,360
INDUSTRIAL
9,124,668
7,633,234
6,858,729
5,892,916
3,534,150
NON-SIG MUNICIPAL
495,001
540,258
540,258
540,258
287,977
CSO
163,152
162,706
162,706
162,706
0
Total 71,063,596 63,043,070 50,103,636 33,509,813 19,970,486
71
-------
Total Phosphorus Discharged Load Summary
TABLE IX-D: NRT TIER TP LOAD (Ibs/yr) SUMMARY BY BASIN
CBP BASIN
2000
T1
T2
T3
T4
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER
1,934,145
1,969,969
1,168,012
597,230
127,191
MD EASTERN SHORE
201,875
214,324
120,721
83,030
38,713
MD WESTERN SHORE
395,719
435,606
510,996
326,904
96,185
PATUXENT RIVER
102,930
118,710
187,940
103,579
23,190
POTOMAC RIVER
1,202,995
1,322,949
845,869
645,156
251,482
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER
55,802
96,615
67,729
33,864
6,773
VA EASTERN SHORE
49,358
49,235
7,698
7,039
451
YORK RIVER
189,324
222,313
162,071
92,034
32,514
JAMES RIVER
1,513,003
2,031,025
1,369,910
686,350
172,121
TOTAL
5,645,151
6,460,745
4,440,946
2,575,186
748,618
TABLE IX-E: NRT TIER TP LOAD (Ibs/yr) SUMMARY BY STATE *
STATE
2000
T1
T2
T3
T4
DC
75,302
72,410
106,987
106,987
47,647
DE
23,839
24,945
19,353
16,590
12,075
MD
1,112,786
1,277,022
1,187,063
794,830
258,611
NY
492,059
495,602
199,551
100,021
20,004
PA
1,508,017
1,542,890
997,049
511,445
109,980
VA
2,326,890
2,985,836
1,906,411
1,031,954
296,609
WV
106,259
62,039
24,532
13,359
3,692
TOTAL
5,645,151
6,460,745
4,440,946
2,575,186
748,618
NOTE: * Blue Plains load was allocated among DC, MD and VA according to the flow allocation provided
by MWCOG for UAA. (Attachment 11 Part 2, Appendix I)
TABLE IX-F:NRT TIER TP LOAD (Ibs/yr) SUMMARY BY FACILITY TYPE
FACILITY TYPE
2000
T1
T2
T3
T4
SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL
4,399,028
5,257,902
3,689,397
2,048,414
538,279
INDUSTRIAL
1,124,824
1,074,316
623,023
398,245
154,120
NON-SIG MUNICIPAL
74,820
82,174
82,174
82,174
56,219
CSO
46,480
46,353
46,353
46,353
0
Total 5,645,151 6,460,745 4,440,946 2,575,186 748,618
72
-------
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
BASIN
FACILITY
NPDES f
2000
/T?©1>2
/Tier-4 //
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
CAMP SHADOWBROO
MD0053139
25
27
27
27
12
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
NORTH HARFORD JRS
MD0023281
608
660
660
660
293
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
PERRYVILLE
MD0020613
10,781
22,845
22,845
14,278
8,567
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
ADDISON (V)
NY0020320
12,501
12,696
5,728
3,580
2,148
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
BATH (V)
NY0021431
40,101
40,726
18,499
11,562
6,937
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
BINGHAMTON-JOHNSI
NY0024414
1,573,153
475,933
475,933
297,458
17a 475
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
COOPERSTOWN
NY0023591
36,932
37,365
15,774
9,859
5,915
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
CORNING (C)
NY0025721
76,923
78,122
31,612
19,758
11.855
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
CORTLAND (C)
NY0027561
435,680
207,633
207,633
129,771
77,862
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
ELMIRA/CHEMUNG C
NY0035742
326,789
328,422
175,159
109,474
65,684
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
ENDICOTT (V)
NY0027669
542,979
541,495
184,577
115,361
69,216
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
HAMILTON (V)
NY0020672
38,419
40,050
10,939
6,837
4,102
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
HORNELL (C)
NY0023647
142,082
144,296
73,340
45,837
27,502
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
LAKE STREET/CHEMU
NY0036986
424,417
426,538
173,390
108,368
65,021
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
NORWICH
NY0021423
235,765
245,097
65,272
40,795
24,477
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
ONEONTA (C)
NY0031151
160,306
162,692
73,269
45,793
27,476
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
OWEGO #2
NY0025798
52,773
25,363
25'363
15,852
9,511
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
OWEGO(V)
NY0029262
29,249
29,287
15,194
9,496
5,698
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
RICHFIELD SPRINGS (
NY0031411
16,082
16,271
7,851
4,907
2, £144
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
SIDNEY (V)
NY0029271
34,527
34,501
J6.204
1°,128
6,077
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
WAVERLY (V)
NY0031089
85,062
85,173
24,599
15,374
9,224
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
ALTOONA CITY AUTHC
PA0027014
252,759
259,659
146,803
91,752
55,051
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
ALTOONA CITY AUTHC
PA0027022
311,339
319,838
152,304
95,190
57,114
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
ANNVILLE TOWNSHIP
PA0021806
42,767
43,758
11,577
7,235
4,341
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
APPLETON PAPER SP
PA0008265
55,010
54,860
54,860
54,860
39,467
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL
PA0023558
19,315
19,262
17,606
11,004
6,602
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
BEDFORD BOROUGH
PA0022209
38,930
40,404
23,837
14,898
8,939
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
BELLEFONTE BOROUC
PA0020486
95,751
101,301
50,545
31,591
18,954
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
BERWICK MUNICIPAL
PA0023248
103,889
104,035
36,205
22.628
13,577
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
BLOOMSBURG MUNIC
PA0027171
77,109
77,217
64,843
40,527
24,316
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
BLOSSBURG
PA0020036
6,761
7,018
5,071
3,170
1,902
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
BROWN TOWNSHIP M
PA0028088
27,149
28,178
8,216
5,135
3,osi
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
BURNHAM BOROUGH
PA0038920
15,694
16,289
14,479
9,049
5,4:30
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
CARLISLE BOROUGH
PA0026077
198,197
208,323
83,959
52,474
31,465
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
CARLISLE SUBURBAN
PA0024384
22,575
17,148
17,148
10,718
6,431
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
CHLOE TEXTILES INC.
PA0009172
6,760
6,742
6,596
4,122
2,473
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
CLARKS SUMMIT-SOU
PA0028576
118,078
117,755
55,460
34,662
20.7£I7
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
CLEARFIELD
PA0026310
88,457
88,215
63,939
39,962
2Z!977
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
COLUMBIA
PA0026123
40,435
43,988
20,110
12,569
7,54-1
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
CONSOLIDATED RAIL
PA0009229
1,400
1,397
1,397
1,397
1,397
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
CURWENSVILLE MUNI
PA0024759
20,051
19,996
10,901
6,813
4,088
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
DANVILLE MUNICIPAL
PA0023531
58,057
58,739
52,407
32,754
19,653
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
DERRY TOWNSHIP ML
PA0026484
155,620
156,293
84,660
52,912
31,747
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
DILLSBURG BOROUGI
PA0024431
21 .,139
22,191
16,037
10,023
6,014
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
DOVER TOWNSHIP SE
PA0020826
80,927
90,258
90,258
56,411
33,847
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
DUNCANSVILLE
PA0032883
37,334
38,353
14,851
9.2S2
5,569
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
EAST PENNSBORO SC
PA0038415
122,458
128,714
59,071
36,919
22,152
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
EASTERN SNYDER CC
PA0110582
70,388
39,061
39,061
24,413
14,6481
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
ELIZABETHTOWN BOF
PA0023108
236,180
57,096
57,096
35,685
21,411
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
ELKLAND MUNICIPAL/
PA0113298
29,113
30,216
10,592
6,620
3,972
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN_DISCH 73 CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
/BA8§|
I
FACILITY |
NPDES |
2000 |
Tier 1 |
Tier 2 |
Tier 3 |
Tier4 |
SUSQUEHANNA
R|VE
EMPIRE KOSHER POU
PA0007552
30.185
30.103
28.454
1/7S4
10.6/0
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
EMPORIUM BOROUGH
PA0028631 j
9.524
10.076
11,725s
7\328
4,39/j
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
EPHRATA BOROUGH \
PA0027405 |
15,376s
16.727
67.664
42,290s
25.374
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
FAIRVIEW township;
PA0081868
12.839
13.478
9.740
6.088
3,653s
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVEj
FAIRVIEW TOWNSHIP:
PA0082589 J
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE!
GOLD MILLS DYEHOU-
PA0008231 j
17.543
17.495
16,662s
10,4-14]
6.248
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
GREATER HAZELTON
PA0026921
211.384
210.807
162,785;
101741
61.044
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
GREGG TOWNSHIP J
PA0114821 J
12.604
16.195
16,195s
10.122
6.0/3
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE!
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP?
PA0028746 j
54.008
31,565!
31,565j
19728
11.63/
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIPs
PA0080314
54.524
57,310s
49.035
30.64/
18.388
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
HANOVER BOROUGH
PA0026875
255.711
277,726s
93.616
58.510
35.106
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE!
HARRISBURG SEWER
PA0027197 j
1,565,597;
639,300s
639,300s
399,563!
22QJ3>Sk
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
HEINZ PET FOODS
PA0009270 j
66.088
65.907
7.234
/.234
4139
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVEj
HIGHSPIRE
PA0024040 j
47.583
47,788s
25.534
15.959
9.575
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE!
HOLLIDAYSBURG REG
PA0043273 J
60.176
61,818s
72,489s
45.306
27A83
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
HOUTZDALE BOROUG
PA0046159 j
2.557
2.960
2,960s
1,850s
1.110
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE!
HUNTINGDON BOROUJ
PA0026191
70,434!
71,939!
51,989s
32,493s
I9.496
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
JERSEY SHORE BORC
PA0028665
44,325;
46.038
17,476S
10.922
6,553;
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
KELLY TOWNSHIP MU
PA0028681 J
11.527
44,367s
44.367
27.729
16.63/
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE!
LACKAWANNA RIVER
PA0027081 '
21,300!
11.984
11,984
7490;
4,494s
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
LACKAWANNA RIVER
PA0027090 /
205,831s
205,268s
124.831
¦78,019j
46,812
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVEj
LACKAWANNA RIVER
PA0027073 s
29.313
29.232
8,322s
5,202=
3.121
SUSQUEHANNA
R|VE
LACKAWANNA RIVER j
PA0027065 j
68.252
68.066
59,620s
37.262
22.357
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
LANCASTER AREA SE
PA0042269 j
281.766
189,652s
189,652s
118.532
¦71,119;
SUSQUEHANNA
R|VE
LANCASTER CITY
PA0026743 j
531.348
504,6925
504,692
315.432
189,259s
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
LEBANON CITY AUTHC
PA0027316 j
551,304s
564.084
13-4.093
83,808s
50,235'
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
LEMOYNE BOROUGH *
PA0026441 j
115,152
115.650
40.446
25,279s
-I5.167
SUSQUEHANNA
R|VE
LEWISBURG AREA JOj
PA0044661 '
83.950
29.180
29,180s
18,238s
10,94-3;
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
LEWISTOWN BOROUG
PA0026280 j
77.838
80.788
46.165
28,853|
1/.312
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVEj
LITITZ SEWAGE AUTH
PA0020320 j
194.758
211.872
73.694
46.059
27.635
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE!
LOCK HAVEN
PA0025933 j
110,987;
53.127
53.127
33.204
19.923
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
LOGAN TOWNSHIP-GF
PA0032557 j
16.952
8,916!
8.916
5.5/3
3,344s
SUSQUEHANNA
R|VE
LOWER ALLEN TOWN!
PA0027189
134,376s
141,241,
82.930
51.831
31.099
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
LOWER LACKAWANN/
PA0026361 j
187,419s
186,907s
85.269
53,293s
31.9/6
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
LYKENSBOROUGH <
PA0043575
8.114
8.149
5,889s
3.681
2.208
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE!
MAHANOY CITY
PA0070041 J
14.164
13.928
13>928>
8705s
5.223
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
MANHEIM BOROUGH/
PA0020893
19.614
21.337
19.354
I2,096;
7,258;
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVEj
MANSFIELD BOROUGH
PA0021814 j
17.740
18.413
14.029
8768s
5,261j
SUSQUEHANNA
R|VE
MARIETTA-DONEGAL.;
PA0021717 j
13.979
15.207
10.990
6.869
4.121
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
MARTI NSBURG
PA0028347 J
13,413s
13,779s
9.958
6.224
3,734j
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE!
MARYSVILLE MUNICIP
PA0021571 j
34.158
37.217
26,896s
16,81°S
10.0S6
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
MECHANICSBURG BO
PA0020885
60,790s
63,896;
20.195
12.622
7.573
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
MERCK & COMPANY j
PA0008419 j
178,739!
178,250s
I78,250;
178,250s
115,99a
SUSQUEHANNA
R|VE
MIDDLETOWN
PA0020664 j
72.184
72.496
28.883
18,052s
10,831!
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
MIFFLINBURG BOROU
PA0028461 j
12.460
17.091
1/.091
10,682;
6.409
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVEj
MILLERSBURG BOROl
PA0022535
23,472s
23,573s
1/.036
10.647
6.388
SUSQUEHANNA
R|VE
MILLERSVILLE BOROU
PA0026620 j
3.378
3.675
16799
10,499s
6,299;
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
MILTON MUNICIPAL Al
PA0020273 j
30.410
30.327
41.725
26.078
15.64/
SUSQUEHANNA
R|VE
MONTGOMERY BORO
PA0020699 j
49.016
50.910
12,590s
7,869s
4,72i;
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
MOSHANNON VALLEY'
PA0037966
57.735
61.081
34.726
21703;
lao22
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN_DISCH 74 CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
BASIN
I
FACILITY |
NPDES |
2000 |
Tier 1 |
Tier 2 |
Tier 3 |
Tier4 |
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
MOUNT JOY
PA0021067
46,949
51,074
18,200
11,375
6,825
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
MOUNT UNION BOROl
PA0020214
11,156
11,395
8,235
5,147
3,088
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
MOUNTAINTOP AREA
PA0045985 j
73.672
66.933
66.933
41,833;
25.100
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
MT. CARMEL MUNICIP
PA0024406
66.128
65.947
23,043;
14.402
8.641
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVEj
MT. HOLLY SPRINGS E
PA0023183 J
16,524;
17,368:
9,313l
5.821
3,492j
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE!
MUNCY BOROUGH ML
PA0024325 j
15,683;
16.289
15.602
9,751 j
5,851j
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
NATIONAL GYPSUM Cj
PA0008591 j
2,774;
2.766
2.766
2.766
2766
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
NEW CUMBERLAND B'
PA0026654
16.550
16.621
12.012
7.507
4.504
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE!
NEW FREEDOM WTP *
PA0043257 j
65.363
68.617
28.007
17.504
10.503
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
NEW HOLLAND BORO
PA0021890 *
89,240;
97.082
26.874
16.796
IO.O78
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
NEW OXFORD MUNICI
PA0020923 j
39.127
30.219
30.219
18.887
11,332
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE!
NEWBERRY TOWNSHI
PA0083011 j
25.277
25,386;
10.076
6,298\
3.779
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
NORTHEASTERN YOR
PA0023744 J
20.748
21,781,
15.741
9,838;
5.903
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVEj
NORTHUMBERLAND B
PA0020567
26.234
26.162
10.£175
6.860
•4.116
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE!
OS RAM SYLVANIA PR(
PA0009024 j
364,440®
363,444;
2£I0.822
254,469;
9,914;
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
P-H GLATFELTER COI\
PA0008869 j
420,958;
419,808;
303,384;
189_615
113_769
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE!
PALMYRA BOROUGH /
PA0024287 j
68,723;
70,316;
19,867j
12.417
7,45°;
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
PENN TOWNSHIP
PA0037150 !
45.082
47.327
40,537;
25.335
15,201 j
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
PENNSYLVANIA FISH 1
PA0040835 j
20.131
20.076
20.076
20.076
20.0/6
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE!
PENNSYLVANIA FISH c
PA0010553 1
119,459;
119,"132|
119.132
91,359
54,816;
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
PENNSYLVANIA FISH I
PA0010561 j
63.264
63.091
63.091
63.091
44.535
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVEj
PENNSYLVANIA FISH §
PA0112127
3.970
3.959
3,95SI;
3,959;
3.959
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE!
PENNSYLVANIA FISH §
PA0044032 J
629!
627
627
627
627
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
PINE CREEK MUNICIP,
PA0027553 !
34.071
34,962;
^5.626
9,766;
5.860
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE!
PINE GROVE BOROUG
PA0020915 j
26.040
25.969
10.969
6.856
4,113
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
POPE & TALBOT WIS l!
PA0007919
34,620;
34.525
34.525
25.164
15.098
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
PORTER TOWER JOIN!
PA0046272 J
13,21°;
13>705L
13,705;
8,566;
5.139
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE!
PROCTOR & GAMBLE
PA0008885 *
262.222
261,505;
119,001j
74.376
44.625
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
ROARING SPRING BOI
PA0020249 J
11,330;
16.597
16.597
1°.373
6.224
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVEj
SAYRE
PA0043681 ;
31,705;
31,619
15.949
9,g68;
5.981
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE!
SCRANTON SEWER Al
PA0026492 j
739.403
320.456
320,456;
200.285
120.1/1
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
SHAMOKIN-COAL TOW
PA0027324 j
274,373j
273,623:
86.658
54.161
32.497
SUSQUEHANNA
R|VE
SHENANDOAH MUNIC
PA0070386 j
27,606!
27.531
28,980:
18,112j
1°.867
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
SHIPPENSBURG BOR(
PA0030643 j
97,062;
100.617
55.628
34,767i
20,860;
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
SILVER SPRING TOWh
PA0083593 j
2.695
2.833
3.826
2,39i;
1,435;
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE!
SOUTH MIDDLETON Tj
PA0044113 j
14.497
15.237
H.°12
6.882
4.129
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
SPRINGETTSBURY TO;
PA0026808 j
299,326!
275,067;
275.067
iw
103.150
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVEj
ST. JOHNS
PA0046388 j
5,746;
7.797
7.797
4.873
2.924
SUSQUEHANNA
R|VE
STEWARTSTOWN BOF
PA0036269
8.654
9,085;
6.623
4.139
2,484;
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
SUNBURY CITY MUNIC
PA0026557 j
107,663;
73.446
73.446
45.904
27.542
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE!
SWATARA TOWNSHIP
PA0026735
190,910;
81.310
81'310l
50.S19
30.491
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
TOWANDA MUNICIPAL
PA0034576 j
17,722;
16.658
16.658
1°.411
6.247
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
TRI-BORO MUNICIPAL;
PA0023736 j
8.512
8.827
6,916;
4.323
2.594
SUSQUEHANNA
R|VE
TWIN BOROUGHS SAh*
PA0023264 j
11.156
11.637
8,4051=
5.256
3,154
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
TYRONE BOROUGH SI
PA0026727 j
84.453
155.£I04
155,904;
97,440;
58.464
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVEj
TYSON FOODS
PA0035092 j
41,991;
41.876
41.876
37.193
5,02Si
SUSQUEHANNA
R|VE
UNIVERSITY AREA JO
PA0026239 J
236,457;
123,537!
123,537i
77,210;
46.326
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
UPPER ALLEN TOWNS
PA0024902 !
17.778
18.686
13.504
8,440!
5.O64
SUSQUEHANNA
R|VE
USFW-LAMAR NATION;
PA0009857 '
3.359
3.350
3.350
3,35°;
3,350j
SUSQUEHANNA
RIVE
WELLSBORO MUNICIF;
PA0021687 j
68.957
71.570
28.784
17,"0;
IO.794
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN_DISCH 75 CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
BASIN
| FACILITY |
NPDES |
2000 |
Tier 1 |
Tier 2 |
Tier 3 |
Tier 4 |
SUSQUEHANNA RIVE WESTERN CLINTON C
PA0043893
2,703
8,599
8,599
5,375
3,225
SUSQUEHANNA RIVE WHITE DEER TOWNSh
PA0020800
15.943
16.894
6.645
4.153
2.492
SUSQUEHANNA RIVE WILLIAMSPORT SANIT
PA0027057 ®
464.040
178.235
178.235
111.397
66.838
SUSQUEHANNA RIVE WILLIAMSPORT SANIT
PA0027049
414.413
64.971
64.971
40.607
24.364
SUSQUEHANNA RIVE WYOMING VALLEY
PA0026107 j
379.587
581.266
581.266
363.291
217.975
SUSQUEHANNA RIVE YORK CITY
PA0026263 j
445.316
290.627
290.627
181.642
108.985
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER Total
18,406,790
14,667,032
10,009,752
6,486,420
3,767,236
MD EASTERN
SHORE BRIDGEVILLE
DE0020249
12.109
5.404
5.404
3.377
2.026
MD EASTERN
SHORE DUPONT-SEAFORD ;
DE0000035 j
234.995
234.353
234.353
234.353
234.353
MD EASTERN
SHORE LAUREL
DE0020125 j
19.340
21.558
7.727
4.829
2.898
MD EASTERN
SHORE SEAFORD
DE0020265 '
21.043
31.088
31.088
19.430
11.658
MD EASTERN
SHORE ALLEN FAMILY FOODS;
MD0067857 j
410
409
409
409
303
MD EASTERN
SHORE BENJAMINS TRAILER I
MD0024961 j
943
1.041
1,041
1.041
463
MD EASTERN
SHORE BETTERTON
MD0020575 j
1.137
1.163
1.163
1.163
517
MD EASTERN
SHORE BOHEMIA MANOR HIG
MD0023469
35
39
39
39
163
MD EASTERN
SHORE BUDGET MOTEL
MD0023027 j
104
115
115
115
51
MD EASTERN
SHORE CAMBRIDGE
MD0021636
112.051
124.494
124.494
77.809
46.685
MD EASTERN
SHORE CECILTON
MD0020443
2.061
2.276
2.276
2.276
1.012
MD EASTERN
SHORE CENTREVILLE
MD0020834 j
12.685
8.587
8.587
5.367
3.220
MD EASTERN
SHORE CHERRY HILL
MD0052825 °
6.586
7.274
7.274
7.274
3.233
MD EASTERN
SHORE CHESAPEAKE CITY NC
MD0020401 j
2.150
2.375
2.375
2.375
2.326
MD EASTERN
SHORE CHESAPEAKE CITY SC
MD0020397 j
2.109
2.329
2.329 ^
2.329
1.822
MD EASTERN
SHORE CHESAPEAKE COLLEC
MD0024384
752
858
858
858
381
MD EASTERN
SHORE CHESTERTOWN
MD0020010
17.978
15.916
15.916
9.948
5.969
MD EASTERN
SHORE CHURCH HILL
MD0050016 '
1.345
1.535
1.535
1.535
1.779
MD EASTERN
SHORE COLONEL RICHARDSC
MD0055522 j
324
347
347
347
154
MD EASTERN
SHORE CRISFIELD
MD0020001
27.044
16.547
16,547i
10.342
6.205
MD EASTERN
SHORE DELMAR
MD0020532 j
24.745
14.068
14.068
8.793
5.276
MD EASTERN
SHORE DENTON
MD0020494
12.134
9.952
9.952
6.220
3.732
MD EASTERN
SHORE DONALDSON BROWN
MD0054950 ®
110
121
121;
121
54
MD EASTERN
SHORE EASTERN CORRECTIC
MD0023876 ;
759
866
866
866
385
MD EASTERN
SHORE EASTERN CORRECTIC
MD0066613
2.459
2.592
2.592
2.592
10.134
MD EASTERN
SHORE EASTON
MD0020273 j
52.633
46.973
46.973
29.358
17.615
MD EASTERN
SHORE ELK NECK STATE PAR
MD0023833
1.315
1.452
1.452
1.452
675
MD EASTERN
SHORE ELKTON
MD0020681
82.662
42.125
42.125
26.328
15.797
MD EASTERN
SHORE ENGLISH GRILL
MD0053104 j
21
22
22
22
10
MD EASTERN
SHORE EWELL
MD0052230
1.162
1.225
1.225
1.225
545
MD EASTERN
SHORE FAIRMOUNT
MD0052256 j
1.608
1.695
1.695
1.695
753
MD EASTERN
SHORE FEDERALSBURG
MD0020249
18.117
8.020
8.020
5.013
3.008
MD EASTERN
SHORE FOREST GREEN
MD0053279 i
498
551
551
551
245
MD EASTERN
SHORE FRUITLAND
MD0052990 [
25.812
12.612
12.612
7.883
4.730
MD EASTERN
SHORE GALENA
MD0020605
2.084
2.132
2.132
2.132
650
MD EASTERN
SHORE GREAT OAKS LANDINt!
MD0024945
308
315
315
315
140
MD EASTERN
SHORE GREENSBORO
MD0020290 j
10.135
10.866
10.866
10.866
4.136
MD EASTERN
SHORE HARBOUR VIEW
MD0024023
384
425 ^
425
425
189
MD EASTERN
SHORE HEBRON
MD0059617
6.552
7.203
7.203
7.203
3.201
MD EASTERN
SHORE HURLOCK
MD0022730
42.327
25.863
25.863
16.164
9.699
MD EASTERN
SHORE KENNEDYVILLE
MD0052671 *
243
249
249
249
111
MD EASTERN
SHORE KENT ISLAND
MD0023485 !
87.899
39.970
39.970
24.981
14.989
MD EASTERN
SHORE MANCHESTER PARK '
MD0023108
1.259
1.390
1.390
1.390
664
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN_DISCH 76 CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
| /BA8§| | 1
NPDES |
2000 |
I
/P!§k2 |
I
J\
MD EASTERN SHORE MAPLE HILL PARK
MD0053171 .
301
333
333
333
148
MD EASTERN SHORE MARDELA HIGH
MD0024279
64 ^
70 _
70
70
59
MD EASTERN SHORE MILLINGTON
MD0020435 j
3.114
3.187
3.187
3.187
1.416
MD EASTERN SHORE MORNING CHEER
MD0052299 J
1.000
1.104
1.104
1.104
491
MD EASTERN SHORE NORTH CAROLINE HIC
MD0023621 j
119
128
128
128
57
MD EASTERN SHORE NORTHEAST RIVER !
MD0052027 j
23.023
15.304
15.304
9.565
5.739
MD EASTERN SHORE OXFORD
MD0022543 j
5.625
5.945
5.945
5.945
2.642
MD EASTERN SHORE PITTSVILLE
MD0060348
3.601
3.959
3.959
3.959
2.147
MD EASTERN SHORE POCOMOKE CITY
MD0022551
24.854
23.435
23.435
14.647
8.788
MD EASTERN SHORE POCOMOKE TRUCK S'
MD0054330 j
118 ^
131
131
131
57:
MD EASTERN SHORE PORT DEPOSIT
MD0020796 °
7.460
8.239
8.239
8.239
3.662
MD EASTERN SHORE PRESTON
MD0020621 j
3.068
3.290
3.290
3.290
1.462
MD EASTERN SHORE PRINCESS ANNE
MD0020656 j
20.092
15.100
15.100
9.437
5.662
MD EASTERN SHORE QUEENSTOWN
MD0023370
3.266
3.727
3.727
3.727
1.919
MD EASTERN SHORE RISING SUN
MD0020265 *
12.670
13.994
13.994
13.994
6.219
MD EASTERN SHORE ROCK HALL
MD0020303
11.933
12.213
12.213
12.213
6.596
MD EASTERN SHORE SALISBURY
MD0021571
332.099
143.631
143.631
89.769
53.862
MD EASTERN SHORE SHARPTOWN
MD0052175 j
8.691
9,555-
9,555;
9,555)
2.940
MD EASTERN SHORE SNOW HILL
MD0022764 f
21.632
11.331
11.331
7.082
4.249
MD EASTERN SHORE SPRING MEADOWS .
MD0024953 j;
537
583
583
583
259
MD EASTERN SHORE SUDLERSVILLE
MD0020559
2.388
2.725
2.725
2.725
1.211
MD EASTERN SHORE TALBOT COUNTY REG
MD0023604
15.766
16.664
16.664
16.664
9.265
MD EASTERN SHORE TALBOT COUNTY REG
MD0059463
3.980
4.207
4.207
4.207
1.870
MD EASTERN SHORE TAWES VOCATIONAL-
MD0022993
11.862
12.505
12.505
12.505
4.211!
MD EASTERN SHORE TOLCHESTER
MD0067202 j
4.827
4.940
4.940
4.940
2.196
MD EASTERN SHORE TRAPPE
MD0020486 j
7.053
7.455
7.455
7.455
3.313
MD EASTERN SHORE TRIUMPH INDUSTRIAL
MD0024929 ,
1.902
2.101
2.101
2.101
934
MD EASTERN SHORE TWIN CITIES
MD0055352 j
6.313
6.479
6.479
6.479
2.880
MD EASTERN SHORE TYLERTON
MD0052248
266
280
280
280 ^
124
MD EASTERN SHORE U.S. ARMY-CHESAPE/
MD0020206 j
14
16
16
16s
7s
MD EASTERN SHORE VIENNA
MD0020664 *
3.216
3.300
3.300
3.300
1.369
MD EASTERN SHORE WALKERS TRAILER PA
MD0057487 j
896
961
961
961
345
MD EASTERN SHORE WILLARDS
MD0051632
4.087
4.493
4.493
4.493
1.997
MD EASTERN SHORE WOODLAWN MOBILE K
MD0023337 ;
0
MD EASTERN SHORE WORTON-BUTLERTOI^
MD0060585 j
3.372
3.451
3.451
3.451
1.534
MD EASTERN SHORE Total
1,399,635
1,053,234
1,039,402
807,596
561,581
MD WESTERN SHORf ABERDEEN
MD0021563
28.612
42.018
42.018
26.261
15.757
MD WESTERN SHORf ABERDEEN PROVING
MD0021237 j
55,125s
22.278
22.278
13.924
8.354
MD WESTERN SHORf ABERDEEN PROVING
MD0021229
22.292
23.400
23.400
14.625
8.775
MD WESTERN SHORf ANNAPOLIS
MD0021814 1
165,551 j
183.701
183.701
114.813
68.888
MD WESTERN SHORf BACK RIVER
MD0021555
2.470.828
2.671.787
2.137.429
1.335.893
801.536
MD WESTERN SHORf BALTIMORE YACHT CI
MD0054542 '
104
106
106
106
47
MD WESTERN SHORf BETHLEHEM STEEL C'
MD0001201
1.685.321
1.680.716
1.680.716
1.680.716
806.277
MD WESTERN SHORf BOWLEYS QUARTERS
MD0058807 !
362
368
368
368
164
MD WESTERN SHORf BROADNECK
MD0021644
68.510
127.415
127.415
79.634
47.781
MD WESTERN SHORf BROADWATER
MD0024350
15.371
30.890
30.890
19.307
11.584
MD WESTERN SHORf CHEMETALS
MD0001775
460.274
87.006
87.006
87.006
1.170
MD WESTERN SHORf CHESAPEAKE BAY INS
MD0022985 '
MD WESTERN SHORf CHESAPEAKE BEACH
MD0020281 '
8.950
19.690
19.690
12.306
7.384
MD WESTERN SHORf CONGOLEUM
MD0001384
5.301
5.286
5.286
4.005
2.403
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN_DISCH
77
CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
| BASIN |
FACILITY |
NPDES |
2000 |
Tier 1 |
Tier 2 |
Tier 3 |
Tier 4 |
MDWESTERN SHORI,
COX CREEK
MD0021661
627.021
299.577
299.577
187.235
112,341
MD WESTERN SHORI;
DREAMS LANDING
MD0052868 j
387
411
411
411
205
MD WESTERN SHORI
FREEDOM DISTRICT
MD0021512
65.579
69.535
69.535
43.460
26.076
MD WESTERN SHORI!
GAITHER MANOR
MD0022845 j
181
213
213
213
551
MD WESTERN SHORI
HAMPSTEAD
MD0022446
35.572
41.842
41.842
41.842
16.631
MD WESTERN SHORI
HAVRE DE GRACE J
MD0021750
48.125
34.020
34.020
21.262
12.757
MD WESTERN SHORI;
HOLIDAY MOBILE EST
MD0053082 j
2.252
2.391
2.391
2.391
2.609
MD WESTERN SHORI;
JOPPATOWNE
MD0022535 J
15.465
20.913
20.913
13.071
7.842
MD WESTERN SHORI
MANCHESTER
MD0022578 ;
4.422
5.201
5.201
5.201
1.987
MD WESTERN SHORI
MAYO LARGECOMMU
MD0061794
13.509
14.341
14.341
14.341
13.464
MD WESTERN SHORI
MOUNT AIRY
MD0022527
8.883
16.025
16.025
10.016
6.010
MD WESTERN SHORI
NOTCHCLIFF
MD0022951
2.044
2.083
2.083
2.083
926
MD WESTERN SHORI
PATAPSCO
MD0021601 j
2.388.559
1.778.607
1.778.607
1.111.629
666.978
MD WESTERN SHORI
PHEASANT RIDGE
MD0024546 ^
839
987
987 ^
987
609
MD WESTERN SHORI
RANDLE CLIFFS NAVA;
MD0020168
751
949
949
949
422
MD WESTERN SHORI
RICHLYN MANOR
MD0022713
3.536
3.604
3.604
3.604
2.147
MD WESTERN SHORI
RIVERBOAT MOTEL J
MD0051535
MD WESTERN SHORI
ROSE HAVEN
MD0022756
2.873
3.051
3.051
3.051
1.185
MD WESTERN SHORI
SOD RUN
MD0056545
391.952
306.828
306.828
191.768
115.061
MD WESTERN SHORI
SOUTH CARROLL HIGS
MD0024589
299
352
352
352
157
MD WESTERN SHORI
ST TIMOTHY SCHOOL
MD0056103 j
299
305
305
305
135
MD WESTERN SHORI
SUMMER HILL TRAILE
MD0023272
451
479
479
479
276
MD WESTERN SHORI
SWAN HARBOR PARK;
MD0023043
619
672
672
672
299
MD WESTERN SHORI
UNITED CONTAINER
MD0024635 j
426
434
434
434
185
MD WESTERN SHORI
US GYPSUM CO
MD0001457 j
MD WESTERN SHORI
US NAVAL ACADEMY
MD0023523
3.917
4.591
4.591
4.591
4.591
MD WESTERN SHORI
VILLA JULIE COLLEGE
MD0066001
83
84
84
84=
170
MD WESTERN SHORI
W R GRACE
MD0000311 j
595.770
310.737
310.737
310.737
37.140
MD WESTERN SHORI
WOODSTOCK TRAINS
MD0023906
468
477
477
477
212
MD WESTERN SHORE Total
9,200,882
7,813,372
7,279,015
5,360,611
2,811,084
PATUXENT RIVER
BOONES MOBILE
MD0050903
3.367
3.574
3.574
3.574
1.588
PATUXENT RIVER
BOWIE
MD0021628
44.442
50.835
50.835
31.772
19.063
PATUXENT RIVER
DORSEYRUN
MD0063207 j
16.490
35.731
35.731
22.332
13.399
PATUXENT RIVER
EDGEMEADE RESIDED
MD0052680
162
178
178
178
53
PATUXENT RIVER j
EMERGENCY MANAGE
MD0025666 j
10
11
11
11;
4
PATUXENT RIVER
FORT MEADE
MD0021717
10.331
52.924
52.924
33.077
19.846
PATUXENT RIVER
HARWOOD SOUTHERI
MD0023728 j
114
121
121
121
145
PATUXENT RIVER s
LITTLE PATUXENT
MD0055174
366.461
502.683
502.683
314.177
188.506
PATUXENT RIVER
LYONS CREEK MOBILI
MD0053511 j
2.107
2.236
2.236
2.236
1.752
PATUXENT RIVER
MARLBORO MEADOW
MD0022781 J
11.654
12.742
12.742
12.742
7.902
PATUXENT RIVER
MARYLAND CITY
MD0062596 j
20.306
25.934
25.934
16.209
9.725
PATUXENT RIVER
MARYLAND MANOR M
MD0024333 j
2.102
2.231
2.231
2.231
1.623
PATUXENT RIVER
MD & VA MILK PRODU
MD0000469
17.636
17.588
8.689
5.431
3.258
PATUXENT RIVER
NATIONAL WILDLIFE V
MD0065358 [
68
75
75
75
33
PATUXENT RIVER J
NORTHERN HIGH SCH
MD0052167 !
686
868
868
868
386
PATUXENT RIVER j
PARKWAY
MD0021725
63.213
151.060
151.060
94.412
56.647
PATUXENT RIVER
PARKWAY INN
MD0052329 ;
656
696
696
696
592
PATUXENT RIVER
PATUXENT
MD0021652
33.265
118.047
118.047
73.780
44.268
PATUXENT RIVER
PATUXENT MOBILE J
MD0024694 (
1.121
1.191
1.191
1.191
631
PATUXENT RIVER
PATUXENT WILDLIFE l!
MD0025623 j
137
149
149
149
508
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN.
DISCH
78
CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
| BASIN
| FACILITY |
NPDES |
2000 |
Tier 1 |
Tier 2 |
Tier 3 |
Tier 4 |
PATUXENT RIVER
PINE HILL RUN
MD0021679 ,
84.780
94,832
94.832
59.270
35,562
PATUXENT RIVER
PINEY ORCHARD
MD0059145 j
3.979
4.224
4.224
4.224
8.833
PATUXENT RIVER
POINT LOOKOUT STA"
MD0023949 =
902
1.020
1.020
1.020
453
PATUXENT RIVER
USAF BRANDYWINE H
MD0025640 j
72
79
79
79
33
PATUXENT RIVER
USAF TRANSMITTERS
MD0025631 ,
0
PATUXENT RIVER
WAYSONS MOBILE
MD0023647 >
2.509
2.663
2.663
2.663
1.112
PATUXENT RIVER
WESTERN BRANCH ;
MD0021741
418.909
560.383
560.383
350.239
210.144
PATUXENT RIVER Total
1,105,479
1,642,075
1,633,176
1,032,757
626,068
POTOMAC
RIVER
BLUE PLAINS
DC0021199
8.749.992
7.805.237
7.805.237
5.203.492
3.122.095
POTOMAC
RIVER
WASHINGTON. D.C. C
DC-CSO
163.152
162.706
162.706
162.706
0
;POTOMAC
RIVER
ANTIETAM
MD0062308 ;
5.709
5.997
5.997
5.997
2.665
POTOMAC
RIVER
BALLENGER CREEK j
MD0021822 j
81,659;
100.388
100.388
62.743
37.646
POTOMAC
RIVER
BELTSVILLE USDA EA-
MD0020842
7,555;
5.745
5.745
5.745
5.745
POTOMAC
RIVER
BELTSVILLE USDA WE
MD0020851 j
4.053
4.431
4.431
4.431
3.030
POTOMAC
RIVER
BIERS LANE
MD0065749 j
166=
166
166
166
74
POTOMAC
RIVER
BLOOMINGTON j
MD0060933
1.421
1.498
1.498
1.498
666
POTOMAC
RIVER
BOONSBORO
MD0020231 '
21.055
22.115
22.115
22.115
9.829
POTOMAC
RIVER
BOWLING BROOK PRE
MD0067571 j
10
12
12
12
143
;POTOMAC
RIVER
BRANDYWINE RECEIV
MD0025658
18
20
20
20 ^
29
POTOMAC
RIVER
BRETTON WOODS
MD0064777 j
484
534
534
534
237
POTOMAC
RIVER
BROADFORDING
MD0051373 j
59
62
62
62
27
POTOMAC
RIVER
BROOK LANE
MD0053198 j
293
308
308;
308
137
POTOMAC
RIVER
BRUNSWICK
MD0020958 j
34.935
18.562
18.562
11.602
6.961
POTOMAC
RIVER
CELANESE |
MD0063878
18.422
24.754
24.754
15.471
9.283
POTOMAC
RIVER
CHARLES COUNTY CC
MD0052311
2.714
3.134
3.134
3.134
886
POTOMAC
RIVER
CHELTENHAM BOYS V
MD0023931 ;
1.086
1.187
1.187
1.187
902
;POTOMAC
RIVER
CHOPTICAN HIGH
MD0051918
270
305
305
305
136
POTOMAC
RIVER
CLEARSPRING
MD0053325
4.140
4.348
4.348
4.348
1.933
POTOMAC
RIVER
CLIFFTON ON THE PO
MD0055557 j
2.438
2.815
2.815
2.815
1.251
POTOMAC
RIVER
CONCORD TRAILER P|
MD0023060
144
173
173
173
112
POTOMAC
RIVER
CONOCOCHEAGUE <
MD0063509 j
21.512
29.063
29.063
18.164
10.899
POTOMAC
RIVER
CRESTVIEW
MD0022683
1.333
1.594
1.594
1.594
935
POTOMAC
RIVER
CUMBERLAND
MD0021598
355.300
233.824
233.824
146.140
87.684
POTOMAC
RIVER
DAMASCUS
MD0020982 j
19.999
20.953
20.953
13.096
7.858
;POTOMAC
RIVER
DAN-DEE INC.
MD0023710 ;
110
131
131
131
58
POTOMAC
RIVER
EMMITSBURG
MD0020257 i
7.575
14.086
14.086
8.804
5.282
O
<
2
O
H
O
CL
RIVER
FAHRNEY-KEEDY MEI\
MD0053066 j
991
1.041
1.041
1.041
462
POTOMAC
RIVER
FLINTSTONE j
MD0055620
2.955
2.966
2.966
2.966
1.430
POTOMAC
RIVER
FORT DETRICK
MD0020877 /
22.788
27.002
27.002
16.876
10.126
POTOMAC
RIVER
FOUNTAINDALE
MD0022721 j
12.663
15.139
15.139
15.139
6.160
POTOMAC
RIVER
FOXVILLE US NAVAL 6
MD0025119 j
1.333
1.594
1.594
1.594
708
POTOMAC
RIVER
FREDERICK
MD0021610
485.460
189.096
189.096
118.185
70.911
;POTOMAC
RIVER
FUNKSTOWN ]
MD0020362 !
7.552
7.932
7.932
7.932
1.566
POTOMAC
RIVER
GARDEN STATE TANN
MD0053431
145.063
144.667
70.334
28.134
3.853
POTOMAC
RIVER
GEORGES CREEK
MD0060071 j
36.525
16.293
16.293
10.183
6.110
POTOMAC
RIVER
GORMAN
MD0060950 j
246
260
260
260
115
POTOMAC
RIVER
GREEN RIDGE FORES
MD0024988
174
174
174
174
77
POTOMAC
RIVER
GREENBRIAR STATE F
MD0023868 j
795
835
835
835
371
POTOMAC
RIVER
HAGERSTOWN
MD0021776
265.734
206.287
206.287
128.930
77.358
POTOMAC
RIVER
HANCOCK
MD0024562
13.441
14.118
14.118
14.118
5.456
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN_DISCH 79 CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
1 <1
| 1 NPDES I
2000 |
I
/P!§k2 |
I
J\
'POTOMAC RIVER
HAPPY TRAILS CAMPC MD0065757
33
35
35
35
86
POTOMAC RIVER
HIGHLAND VIEW MD0024627 j
489
513
513
513
228
POTOMAC RIVER
HUNTER HILL APARTIV MD0022926 j
1.518
1.595
1.595
1.595
709
[POTOMAC RIVER
1-70 REST AREA MD0023680 '
2.336
2.792
2.792
2.792
834
POTOMAC RIVER
INDIAN HEAD MD0020052 '
13.639
8.587
8.587
5.367
3.220
'POTOMAC RIVER
JEFFERSON MD0020737 j
203
243
243
243
4.275
POTOMAC RIVER
JUDE HOUSE MD0057614 j
0
POTOMAC RIVER
KEMPTOWN SCHOOL MD0056481 j
402
480
480
480
132
POTOMAC RIVER
KITZMILLER MD0060941 j
911
961
961 _
961
427
POTOMAC RIVER
KUNZANG ODSAL PAL MD0067539
41
46
46
46
20
POTOMAC RIVER
LA PLATA MD0020524 '
16.705
20.084
20.084
12.553
7.532
[POTOMAC RIVER
LACKEY HIGH MD0023159
504
582
582
582
259
POTOMAC RIVER
LAFAYETTE MOTEL MD0053201
59
69
69
69=
31
'POTOMAC RIVER
LEONARDTOWN MD0024767 I
18.598
11.730
11.730
7.332
4.399
POTOMAC RIVER
LEWISTOWN ELEMEN' MD0022900
137
163
163
163
73
POTOMAC RIVER
LIBERTYTOWN MD0060577
1.640
1.961
1.961
1.961
731
POTOMAC RIVER
LUPPINO RESIDENCE MD0063070 j
POTOMAC RIVER
MAPLE RUN MD0024970 '
21
21
21
21
76
POTOMAC RIVER
MARYLAND CORRECT MD0023957 ;
6.931
22.990
22.990
14.369
8.621
POTOMAC RIVER
MATTAWOMAN MD0021865
320.637
199.109
199.109
124.443
74.666
POTOMAC RIVER
METTIKI COAL D MD0064149
POTOMAC RIVER
MIDDLETOWN MD0024406
17.345
20.737
20.737
20.737
6.376
POTOMAC RIVER
MILL BOTTOM MD0065439 °
296
354
354
354
1.285
POTOMAC RIVER
MONROVIAVVWTP MD0059609 '
306
366
366
366
788
POTOMAC RIVER
MT CARMEL WOODS MD0053228 '
771
890
890
890
510
POTOMAC RIVER
MT ST MARYS COLLEC MD0023230 ®
3.443
4.116
4.116
4.116
1.292
POTOMAC RIVER
MYERSVILLE MD0020699 =
9.461
11.311
11.311
11.311
4.552
POTOMAC RIVER
NAS-PATUXENT MD0020095
1.646
827
827
827
827
POTOMAC RIVER
NATIONAL INSTITUTE MD0020931 j
2.822
3.111
3.111
3.111
1.383
POTOMAC RIVER
NEW GERMANY STATI MD0023981 '
73
77
77
77
34
POTOMAC RIVER
NEW LIFE FOURSQUA MD0057100 j
89
107
107
107
47
POTOMAC RIVER
NEW MARKET MD0020729
7.200
8.608
8.608
8.608
2.943
POTOMAC RIVER
NEW WINDSOR MD0022586
2.051
2.412
2.412
2.412
1.281
POTOMAC RIVER
NORBECK COUNTRY ( MD0024309 j
POTOMAC RIVER
NORTH INDIAN HEAD MD0024601 ,
POTOMAC RIVER
NSWC-INDIAN HEAD MD0003158
1.782
1.777
1,777s
1.777
1.777
POTOMAC RIVER
NSWC-INDIAN HEAD MD0020885
6.730
7.772
7.772
7.772
8.456
POTOMAC RIVER
OLD SOUTH M0UNTAI MD0055425 ;
114
137
137
137
61
POTOMAC RIVER
OLDTOWN MD0024759
571
573
573
573
255
POTOMAC RIVER
PETER PAN INN MD0024244
37
44
44
44
85
POTOMAC RIVER
PICCOWAXIN MIDDLE MD0023451 /
127
147
147
147
65
POTOMAC RIVER
PINTO MD0022748 *
8.131 _
8.161
8.161
8.161
6.569
POTOMAC RIVER
PISCATAWAY MD0021539
669.955
616.421
616.421
385.263
231.158
POTOMAC RIVER
PLEASANT BRANCH MD0065269
1.033
1.234
1.234
1.234
1.244
POTOMAC RIVER
PLESANT VALLEY MD0066745
435
512
512
512
228
POTOMAC RIVER
POINT OF ROCKS MD0020800 '
4.439
5.307
5.307
5.307
2.408
POTOMAC RIVER
POOLESVILLE MD0023001 '
16.660
16.175
16.175
10.109
6.066
POTOMAC RIVER
RAWLINGS HEIGHTS MD0023213 j
4.255
4.271
4.271
4.271
2.330
POTOMAC RIVER
ROCKY GAP STATE Pf MD0051667
1.019
1.023
1.023
1.023
1.263
POTOMAC RIVER
RUNNYMEADE SCHOC MD0065927 <
146
172
172
172
77
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN
_DISCH
80
CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
/BA8§|
I I
NPDES |
2000 |
I
/P!§k2 |
I
J\
POTOMAC
RIVER
SANDY HOOK
MD0064530 s
339
356
356
356
158
POTOMAC
RIVER
SENECA CREEK
MD0021491 j
268.698
458.052
458.052
286.283
171.770
POTOMAC
RIVER
SHAMROCK RESTAUR
MD0058050 j
14
17
17
17
70
POTOMAC
RIVER
SHEPPARD PRATT WE
MD0067521
160
191
191
191 ^
85
POTOMAC
RIVER
'SIDELING HILL REST A
MD0062821 j
429
450
450
450
171
POTOMAC
RIVER
SMITHSBURG
MD0024317 j
4.862
5.107
5.107
5.107
5.411
POTOMAC
RIVER
SOUTHERN CORRECT
MD0023914
1.872
2.162
2.162
2.162
849
POTOMAC
RIVER
SPRING MILLS
WV1031613
POTOMAC
RIVER
SPRINGVIEW ESTATE-
MD0022870
361
432
432
432
164
POTOMAC
RIVER
ST. JAMES SCHOOL j
MD0065536 '
361
379
379
379
168
POTOMAC
RIVER
'SWAN POINT
MD0057525 '
1.741
2.010
2.010
2.010
893
POTOMAC
RIVER
TANEYTOWN
MD0020672 J
15.929
22.186
22.186
13.866
8.320
POTOMAC
RIVER
Jthunderbird apart
MD0050334
1.136
1.311
1.311
1.311
324
POTOMAC
RIVER
THUNDERBIRD MOTE1
MD0053155 ®
220
254
254
254
113
POTOMAC
RIVER
THURMONT
MD0021121 j
9.722
24.449
24.449
15.281
9.168
POTOMAC
RIVER
TRI-TOWN PLAZA
MD0024937 j
737
740
740
740
329
POTOMAC
RIVER
UNION BRIDGE
MD0022454
7.500
8.823
8.823
8.823
2.514
POTOMAC
RIVER
UPPER POTOMAC RIV
MD0021687 '
79.436
79.219
79.219
79.219
79.219
POTOMAC
RIVER
URBANAHIGH SCHOC
MD0066940
133
159
159
159
71
POTOMAC
RIVER
VICTOR CULLEN CEN1
MD0023922 ,
1.132
1.353
1.353
1.353
1.013
POTOMAC
RIVER
WESTMINSTER
MD0021831
70.103
104.838
104.838
65.524
39.314
POTOMAC
RIVER
WESTVACO CORPOR/t
MD0001422
12.768
12.733
12.733
12.733
12.733
POTOMAC
RIVER
WHITE HOUSE MOTEL
MD0056553
75
86
_ 86
86
38
POTOMAC
RIVER
WHITE ROCK
MD0025089 j
542
647
647
647
416
POTOMAC
RIVER
WINEBRENNER WWTF
MD0003221 j
12.029
5.378
5.378
3.361
2.017
POTOMAC
RIVER
WINTERS APARTMEN"
MD0057606 j
12
13
13
13
6
POTOMAC
RIVER
WOODSBORO
MD0058661
6.259
7.482
7.482
7.482
2.973
POTOMAC
RIVER
ANTRIM TOWNSHIP J
PA0080519
21.731
12.076
12.076
7.548
4.529
POTOMAC
RIVER
CHAMBERSBURG BOF
PA0026051 j
130.817
116.352
116.352
72.720
43.632
POTOMAC
RIVER
FRANKLIN COUNTY Al
PA0020834
3.321
3.442
26.352
16.470
9.882
POTOMAC
RIVER
GETTYSBURG MUNICI
PA0021563 j
23.181
39.416
39.416
24.635
14.781
POTOMAC
RIVER
HYNDMANBOROUGH
PA0020851 j
2.714 ^
2.817
2.028
1.268
761
POTOMAC
RIVER
LITTLESTOWN BOROL
PA0021229 j
17.803
19.336
12.365
7.728
4.637
POTOMAC
RIVER
WASHINGTON TOWNS
PA0080225 j
21.323
22,700;
22.700
14.188
8.513
POTOMAC
RIVER
WAYNESBORO BOROI
PA0020621 J
13.403
13.894
21.176
13.235
7.941
POTOMAC
RIVER
ALEXANDRIA
VA0025160 '
2.721.661
924.460
924.460
577.788
346.673
POTOMAC
RIVER
AQUIA
VA0060968
47.259
128.888
128.888
80,555i
48.333
POTOMAC
RIVER
ARLINGTON
VA0025143 j
920.587
859.822
859.822
537.389
322.433
POTOMAC
RIVER
BROAD RUN WRF
R ~
58.475
58.475
36.547
21.928
POTOMAC
RIVER
CHICKEN GEORGES
VA0077402 •
513.909
36.910
36.910
36.910
11.073
POTOMAC
RIVER
COLONIAL BEACH
VA0026409 j
32.298
20.617
20.617
12.886
7.731
POTOMAC
RIVER
DAHLGREN (DAHLGRE
VA0026514 J
5.596
6.317
7.410
4.631
2.779
POTOMAC
RIVER
DALE CITY #1
VA0024724
72.361
74.585
74.585
46.616
27.969
POTOMAC
RIVER
DALE CITY #8
VA0024678 j
86.966
69.368
69.368
43.355
26.013
POTOMAC
RIVER
DUPONT-WAYNESBOF
VA0002160 J
29.128
29.048
29.048
29.048
27.125
POTOMAC
RIVER
FAIRVIEW BEACH
MD0056464 j
1.901
2.146
2.146
2.146
954
POTOMAC
RIVER
FISHERSVILLE
VA0025291 J
38.546
82.406
41.663
26.040
15.624
POTOMAC
RIVER
FRONT ROYAL
VA0062812 j
81.507
94.353
67.316
42.072
25,243s
POTOMAC
RIVER
FWSA OPEQUON
VA0065552
137.829
143.520
143.520
89.700
53.820
POTOMAC
RIVER
H.L. MOONEY
VA0025101
634.056
356.452
356.452
222.783
133.670
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN_DISCH 81 CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
1
| FACILITY |
NPDES |
2000 |
Tier 1 |
Tier 2 |
Tier 3 |
Tier 4 |
'POTOMAC RIVER
HARRISONBURG-ROC
VA0060640 ,¦
418.813
283.846
283.846
177.404
106.442
POTOMAC RIVER
LEESBURG
MD0066184
140.776
72.079
72.079
45.049
27.030
POTOMAC RIVER
LURAY
VA0062642 )
6.456
6.867
36.625
22,890:
13.734
[POTOMAC RIVER
MASSANUTTEN PUBLI
VA0024732 j
20.687
21.603
9.242
5.776
3.466
POTOMAC RIVER
MERCK & COMPANY It
VA0002178
96.556
96.293
96.293
96.293
92.159
'POTOMAC RIVER
MIDDLE RIVER
VA0064793 j
101.906
137.659
137.659
86.037
51.622
POTOMAC RIVER
MONTROSS - WESTMC
VA0072729 =
618
756
473
284
POTOMAC RIVER
NAVAL SURFACE WAF
VA0021067 !
6.449
10.572
10.572
6.608
3.965
POTOMAC RIVER
NEW MARKET STP
VA0022853 j
29.402
31.880
13.639
8.524
5.114
POTOMAC RIVER
NOMAN M. COLE JR. P
VA0025364
2.822.421
1.291.317
1.291.317
807.073
484.244
POTOMAC RIVER
PARKINS MILL
VA0075191 J
69.823
80.929
34.622
21.639
12.983
[POTOMAC RIVER
PILGRIMS PRIDE-HINT
VA0002313 j
88.471
88.229
44.115
17.646
4.932
POTOMAC RIVER
PURCELLVILLE
VA0022802 j
20.125
10.320
10.320
6.450
3.870
'POTOMAC RIVER
QUANTICO-MAINSIDE
VA0028363 j
43.513
33.738
33.738
21.086
12.652
POTOMAC RIVER
ROUND HILL VWVTP
VA0026212 J
7.153
8.573
3.668
2.292
1.375
POTOMAC RIVER
SIL MRRS
VA0090263
30.822
30.822
19.264
11.558
POTOMAC RIVER
STONY CREEK STP
VA0028380 J
13.896
15.067
6.446
4.029
2.417
POTOMAC RIVER
STRASBURG
VA0020311 j
40.582
44.002
18.825
11.765
7.059
POTOMAC RIVER
STUARTS DRAFT
VA0066877 j
45.608
36.547
36.547
22.842
13.705
POTOMAC RIVER
UPPER OCCOQUAN SS
VA0024988 ,
1.425.687
1.981.956
828.392
517.745
310.647
POTOMAC RIVER
WAYNESBORO
VA0025151 j
161.369
168.996
68.586
42.866
25.720
POTOMAC RIVER
WEYERS CAVE STP
VA0022349 j
6.610
22.781
9.746
6.091
3.655
POTOMAC RIVER
WIDEWATER WWTP J
VA0090387 j
2.436
2.436
1.523
914
POTOMAC RIVER
WOODSTOCK
VA0026468 j
21.975
23.827
10.194
6.371
3.823
POTOMAC RIVER
BERKELEY COUNTYP
WV0020061 [
8.186
9.619
14.657
9.161
5.496
POTOMAC RIVER
BERKELEY COUNTYP
WV0082759 j
12.385
14.554
22.580
14.112
8.467
POTOMAC RIVER
CHARLESTOWN
WV0022349
22.125
24.432
18.207
11.379
6.828
POTOMAC RIVER
FORT ASH BY PSD
WV0041521 j
POTOMAC RIVER
FRANKLIN
WV0024970 j
POTOMAC RIVER
HARPERSFERRY-BOL
WV0039136 j
10.485
10.456
10.456
10.456
4.647
POTOMAC RIVER
HESTER INDUSTRIES.
WV0047236 °
20.211
0
0 ^
0
0
POTOMAC RIVER
HONEYWOOD HOMES
WV0080918
POTOMAC RIVER
KEYSER
WV0024392 <
62.273
62.504
29.399
18.375
11.025
POTOMAC RIVER
MARTINSBURG
WV0023167 j
56.376
66.246
57.170
35.731
21.439
POTOMAC RIVER
MOOREFIELD
WV0020150 j
17.320
0
0
0
0
POTOMAC RIVER
MOUNTAIN TOP PSD 1
WV0101524
1.513
1.509
1.509
1.509
641
POTOMAC RIVER
PETERSBURG
WV0021792
13.805
13.767
17.928
11.205
6.723
POTOMAC RIVER
REPUBLIC PAPERBOA
WV0005517 <
POTOMAC RIVER
RIVER BEND PARK
WV0105384
1.551 ;¦
1.629
1.629
1.629
542
POTOMAC RIVER
ROMNEY j
WV0020699 '
22.087
23.921
11.126
6.954
4.172
POTOMAC RIVER
SHEPHERDSTOWN j
WV0024775 j
POTOMAC RIVER
SPECRATECHINTERN
WV0005533 |
28.619
28.541
13.055
5.222
2.887
POTOMAC RIVER
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC &
WV0005525 j
POTOMAC RIVER
WAMPLER-LONGACRE
WV0005495 '
248.846
0
Os
Os
0
POTOMAC RIVER Total
23,815,593
18,694,524
17,106,000
11,234,067
6,671,469
RAPPAHANNOCK RIV CULPEPER
VA0061590
57.077
55.312
55.312
34.570
20.742
RAPPAHANNOCK RIV FMC
VA0068110
60.984
80.180
80.180
50.113
30.068
RAPPAHANNOCK RIV FORT A.P. HILL (WILC(
VA0032034 J
7.291
2.842
2.842
1.776
1.066
RAPPAHANNOCK RIV FREDERICKSBURG ;
VA0025127 j
57.378
54.323
54.323
33.952
20.371
RAPPAHANNOCK RIV HAYMOUNT STP
VA0089125 J
23.146
23.146
14.466
8.680
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN
_DISCH
82
CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
I
BASIN |
FACILITY
| NPDES |
2000 |
Tier 1 |
Tier 2 |
Tier 3 |
Tier 4 |
'RAPPAHANNOCK RIV
KILMARNOCK
VA0020788 ,¦
3.311
3.499
6.077
3.798
2.279
RAPPAHANNOCK RIV
LITTLE FALLS RUN
VA0076392 j
45.300
101.356
101.356
63.348
38.009
RAPPAHANNOCK RIV
MASSAPONAX
VA0025658 j
205.268
106.781
106.781
66.738
40.043
[RAPPAHANNOCK RIV
ORANGE
VA0021385 j
35.684
16.847
16.847
10.530
6.318
|RAPPAHANNOCK RIV
REEDVILLE
VA0060712 |
2.050
2.177
931
582
349=
'RAPPAHANNOCK RIV
REMINGTON REGION/
VA0076805 :
10.725
13.966
13.966
8.729
5.237
RAPPAHANNOCK RIV
SOUTH WALES STP
VA0080527 j
20.856
20.856
13.035
7.821
RAPPAHANNOCK RIV
TAPPAHANNOCK
VA0071471 ,.
21.122
21.292
9.109
5.693
3.416
RAPPAHANNOCK RIV
URBANNA
VA0026263
3.191
6.436
2.753
1.721
1.032
RAPPAHANNOCK RIV
WARRENTON
VA0021172 j
44.185
51.092
28.752
17.970
10.782
RAPPAHANNOCK RIV
WARSAW
VA0026891 ;
11.951
12.364
5.289
3.306
1.984
[RAPPAHANNOCK RIV
WILDERNESS SHORE!
VA0083411 ;
28.195
31.116
13.312
8.320
4.992
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER Total
593,711
603,585
541,832
338,645
203,187
VA EASTERN SHORE CAPE CHARLES
VA0021288 ,
8.696
8.672
3.710
2.319
1.391
VA EASTERN SHORE ONANCOCK
VA0021253
13.295
13.329
5.702
3.564
2.138
VA EASTERN SHORE TANGIER ISLAND
VA0067423
2.628
2.635
1.127
705
423
VA EASTERN SHORE TYSON FOODS. INC-T
VA0004049 j
255.318
191.421
181.706
72.683
9.571
VA EASTERN SHORE Total
279,936
216,057
192,246
79,270
13,523
YORK RIVER
AMOCO-YORKTOWN
VA0003018
166.665
166.210
166.210
166.210
166.210
YORK RIVER
ASHLAND
VA0024899 j
65.842
37.765
37.765
23.603
14.162
YORK RIVER
CAROLINE COUNTY R
VA0073504 j
10.584
11.172
4.780
2.987
1.792
YORK RIVER
DOSWELL
VA0029521
100.438
164.460
164.460
102.788
61.673
YORK RIVER
GORDONSVILLE
VA0021105 j
29.210
32.236
13.791
8.619
5.172
YORK RIVER
HRSD-YORK
VA0081311 j
522.303
309.429
309,429:
193.393
116.036
YORK RIVER
MATHEWS COURTHOl
VA0028819
1.481
2.535
1.949
1.218
731
YORK RIVER
PARHAM LANDING WV
VA0088331 J
2.352
2.612
2.525
1.578
947
YORK RIVER
SMURFIT STONE
VA0003115 =
296.463
295.653
449.448
280.905
168.543
YORK RIVER
TOTOPOTOMOY
VA0089915
121.822
121.822
76.139
45.683
YORK RIVER
WEST POINT
VA0075434 j
35.580
34.171
14.619
9.137
5.482
YORK RIVER Total
1,230,918
1,178,066
1,286,798
866,577
586,430
JAMES
RIVER
ALLEGHANY CO. LOW
VA0090671
42.714
18.273
11.421
6.853
JAMES
RIVER
BROWN & WILLIAMSO
VA0002780
20.829
20.772
20.098
12.561
7.537
JAMES
RIVER
BUENA VISTA
VA0020991
82.744
82.518
35.302
22.064
13.238
JAMES
RIVER
BWXT
VA0003697
111.874
111.568
111.568
111.568
4.375
JAMES
RIVER
CLIFTON FORGE
VA0022772 J
70.477
70.284
30.068
18.793
11.276
JAMES
RIVER
COVINGTON
VA0025542 j
101.465
101.188
43.289
27.056
16.233
JAMES
RIVER
CREWE STP
VA0020303
6.832
6.922
4.797
2.998
1.799
JAMES
RIVER
DUPONT-SPRUANCE
VA0004669
201.414
200.864
200.864
200.864
200.864
JAMES
RIVER
FALLING CREEK
VA0024996 J
202.791
200.744
200.744
125.465
75.279
JAMES
RIVER
FARMVILLE
VA0083135 J
2.223
2.262
23.698
14.812
8.887
JAMES
RIVER
^GEORGIA PACIFIC CO
VA0003026 j
286.132
285.350
53.338
53.338
53.338
JAMES
RIVER
HENRICO COUNTY
VA0063690 j
1.517.151
1.218.224
1.218.224
761.390
456.834
JAMES
RIVER
HONEYWELL
VA0005291 j
800.548
798.361
798.361
798.361
798.361
JAMES
RIVER
HOPEWELL
VA0066630
1.052.385
2.246.161
855.681
534.800
320.880
JAMES
RIVER
HRSD-ARMY BASE
VA0081230 j
918.983
1.254.443
425.160
265.725
159.435
JAMES
RIVER
HRSD-BOAT HARBOR
VA0081256 '
1.018.381
1.634.998
561.601
351.001
210.600
JAMES
RIVER
HRSD-CHESAPEAKE/E
VA0081264
1.415.416
1.948.185
640.786
400.491
240.295
JAMES
RIVER
HRSD-JAMES RIVER
VA0081272 j
895.610
1.234.762
487.290
304.556
182.734
JAMES
RIVER
HRSD-NANSEMOND*
VA0081299
904.767
490.944
490.944
306.840
184.104
JAMES
RIVER
HRSD-VIP"
VA0081281
884.709
874.685
874.685
546.678
328.007
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN_DISCH 83 CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
/BA8§|
I I
NPDES |
2000 |
J
/P!§k2 |
I
J\
JAMES RIVER
HRSD-WILLIAMSBURG
VA0081302
382.014J
394.768
387,395!
242,122=
145,273;
JAMES RIVER
Slake monticello st
VA0024945 j
28.940
32.250
13.797
8.623
5.174
JAMES RIVER
LEES COMMERCIAL C.
VA0004677
81.059
80.837
27.557
16.167
7.329
JAMES RIVER
LEXINGTON-ROCKBRI
VA0088161 J
47.964
49.380
21.125
13.203
7.922
JAMES RIVER
LYNCHBURG
VA0024970 j
343,0725
450.438
423,942!
264,964!
158,978;
JAMES RIVER
MOORES CREEK-RIVA
VA0025518
425.208
487,381,
289.645
181,028!
108,617)
JAMES RIVER
PHILLIP MORRIS-PAR!•
VA0026557
198,657=
198,114;
101,178?
40.471
17,515)
JAMES RIVER
PROCTORS CREEK j
VA0060194
272.092
430.068
430,068!
268,792i
161,275!
JAMES RIVER
RICHMOND
VA0063177 j
1,732,937s
1.169.249
1.169.249
730,780!
438,468)
JAMES RIVER
SOUTH CENTRAL
VA0025437 j
276.307
315,033?
315,033!
196,895i
118, -137!
JAMES RIVER
TYSON FOODS, INC. j
VA0004031 j
21,382]
17.353
17.353
17.353
8.676
JAMES RIVER
WESTVACO CORPOR/
VA0003646
726,288=
724,304?
724.304
452,690!
271,614!
JAMES RIVER Total
15,030,654
17,175,126
11,015,416
7,303,871
4,729,907
Grand Total
71,063,596
63,043,070
50,103,636
33,509,813
19,970,486
Note:
* The load reductions listed in the Tables in this section reflecting implementation of NRT to TN = 8 mg/l occur in Tier 1 for the HRSD Nansemond
and VIP facilities. However, HRSD requested, after the watershed model runs were conducted, that these load reductions should first appear in
Tier 2. Because the model runs were already completed, these load reduction remain in Tier 1, but costs do not show up until Tier 2. Cumulative
loads remain the same, as additional load reductions do not show up in Tier 2.
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN_DISCH 84 CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
BASIN
FACILITY
NPDES
2000
, Tier 1
, Tier 2
Tier 3
Tier 4
SUSQUEHANNA
R
CAMP SHADOWBROOK
MD0053139
4
5
5
5
3
SUSQUEHANNA
R
NORTH HARFORD JR&SR
MD0023281
101
110
110
110
73
SUSQUEHANNA
R
PERRYVILLE
MD0020613
777
858
2,856
1,428
286
SUSQUEHANNA
R
ADDISON (V)
NY0020320
2,115
2,148
716
358
72
SUSQUEHANNA
R
BATH (V)
NY0021431
6,831
6,937
2,312
1,156
231
SUSQUEHANNA
R
BINGHAMTON-JOHNSON (
NY0024414
121,100
120,769
59,492
29,746
5,949
SUSQUEHANNA
R
COOPERSTOWN
NY0023591
5,847
5,915
1,972
986
197
SUSQUEHANNA
R
CORNING (C)
NY0025721
11,673
11,855
3,952
1,976
395
SUSQUEHANNA
R
CORTLAND (C)
NY0027561
32,683
33,839
25,954
12,977
2,595
SUSQUEHANNA
R
ELMIRA/CHEMUNG CO. S
NY0035742
65,358
65,684
21,895
10,947
2,189
SUSQUEHANNA
R
ENDICOTT (V)
NY0027669
69,406
69,216
23,072
11,536
2,307
SUSQUEHANNA
R
HAMILTON (V)
NY0020672
3,938
4,106
1,367
684
137
SUSQUEHANNA
R
HORNELL (C)
NY0023647
27,080
27,502
9,167
4,584
917
SUSQUEHANNA
R
LAKE STREET/CHEMUNG
NY0036986
64,698
65,021
21,674
10,837
2,167
SUSQUEHANNA
R
NORWICH
NY0021423
23,545
24,477
8,159
4,080
816
SUSQUEHANNA
R
ONEONTA (C)
NY0031151
27,157
27,476
9,159
4,579
916
SUSQUEHANNA
R
OWEGO #2
NY0025798
7,868
7,878
3,170
1,585
317
SUSQUEHANNA
R
OWEGO (V)
NY0029262
5,690
5,698
1,899
950
190
SUSQUEHANNA
R
RICHFIELD SPRINGS (V)
NY0031411
80
81
491
491
98
SUSQUEHANNA
R
SIDNEY (V)
NY0029271
6,081
6,077
2,026
1,013
203
SUSQUEHANNA
R
WAVERLY (V)
NY0031089
10,909
10,923
3,075
1,537
307
SUSQUEHANNA
R
ALTOONA CITY AUTHORIT
PA0027014
76,855
78,953
18,350
9,175
1,835
SUSQUEHANNA
R
ALTOONA CITY AUTHORIT
PA0027022
79,503
81,673
19,038
9,519
1,904
SUSQUEHANNA
R
ANNVILLE TOWNSHIP
PA0021806
2,102
2,151
1,447
724
145
SUSQUEHANNA
R
APPLETON PAPER SPRINI
PA0008265
15,237
15,195
13,156
6,578
1,316
SUSQUEHANNA
R
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AUT
PA0023558
7,117
7,097
2,201
1,100
220
SUSQUEHANNA
R
BEDFORD BOROUGH MUh
PA0022209
3,988
4,139
2,980
1,490
298
SUSQUEHANNA
R
BELLEFONTE BOROUGH
PA0020486
4,115
4,353
6,318
3,159
632
SUSQUEHANNA
R
BERWICK MUNICIPAL AUT
PA0023248
19,686
19,714
4,526
2,263
453
SUSQUEHANNA
R
BLOOMSBURG MUNICIPAI
PA0027171
11,413
11,429
8,105
4,053
811
SUSQUEHANNA
R
BLOSSBURG
PA0020036
800
830
634
317
63
SUSQUEHANNA
R
BROWN TOWNSHIP MUNK
PA0028088
915
950
1,027
513
103
SUSQUEHANNA
R
BURNHAM BOROUGH
PA0038920
2,616
2,715
1,810
905
181
SUSQUEHANNA
R
CARLISLE BOROUGH
PA0026077
4,192
4,407
10,495
5,247
1,049
SUSQUEHANNA
R
CARLISLE SUBURBAN AU"
PA0024384
1,320
1,388
2,144
1,072
214
SUSQUEHANNA
R
CHLOE TEXTILES INC.
PA0009172
670
668
668
412
82
SUSQUEHANNA
R
CLARKS SUMMIT-SOUTH /
PA0028576
21,689
21,629
6,932
3,466
693
SUSQUEHANNA
R
CLEARFIELD
PA0026310
6,231
6,214
7,992
3,996
799
SUSQUEHANNA
R
COLUMBIA
PA0026123
1,627
1,770
2,514
1,257
251
SUSQUEHANNA
R
CONSOLIDATED RAIL COF
PA0009229
106
105
105
105
49
SUSQUEHANNA
R
CURWENSVILLE MUNICIP>
PA0024759
2,545
2,538
1,363
681
136
SUSQUEHANNA
R
DANVILLE MUNICIPAL AU1
PA0023531
8,741
8,844
6,551
3,275
655
SUSQUEHANNA
R
DERRY TOWNSHIP MUNIC
PA0026484
13,996
14,056
10,582
5,291
1,058
SUSQUEHANNA
R
DILLSBURG BOROUGH AL
PA0024431
1,682
1,766
2,005
1,002
200
SUSQUEHANNA
R
DOVER TOWNSHIP SEWE
PA0020826
14,667
15,397
11,282
5,641
1,128
SUSQUEHANNA
R
DUNCANSVILLE
PA0032883
4,173
4,287
1,856
928
186
SUSQUEHANNA
R
EAST PENNSBORO SOUTI
PA0038415
24,507
25,759
7,384
3,692
738
SUSQUEHANNA
R
EASTERN SNYDER COUN'
PA0110582
18,307
19,303
4,883
2,441
488
SUSQUEHANNA
R
ELIZABETHTOWN BOROU
PA0023108
5,716
6,218
7,137
3,569
714
SUSQUEHANNA
R
ELKLAND MUNICIPAL AUT
PA0113298
1,120
1,162
1,324
662
132
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH OD CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
BASIN
I
FACILITY |
NPDES |
2000 |
Tier 1 |
Tier 2 |
Tier 3 |
Tier 4 |
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
EMPIRE KOSHER POULTR
PA0007552 j
1,427=
1.423
1.423
1,423:
356
SUSQUEHANNA
R|
EMPORIUM BOROUGH (M
PA0028631
3.498
3.701
1.466
733
147;
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
EPHRATA BOROUGH WW":
PA0027405 j
11.722
12.753
8.458
4.229
846
SUSQUEHANNA
Rj
FAIRVIEW TOWNSHIP
PA0081868 «
747
784
1.218
609
122
SUSQUEHANNA
RI
FAIRVIEW TOWNSHIP
PA0082589 '
SUSQUEHANNA
R
GOLD MILLS DYEHOUSE :
PA0008231 '
317
316
316
316
208
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
GREATER HAZELTON
PA0026921 i
19.112
19.059
20.348
10.174
2.035
SUSQUEHANNA
R|
GREGG TOWNSHIP
PA0114821
2.544
2.696
2.024
1.012
202
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP
PA0028746 S
3.979
4.182
3.946
1.973
395;
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP SE\;
PA0080314 |
4.073
4.281
6.129
3,065:
61 3;
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
HANOVER BOROUGH
PA0026875 j
10.622
11.536
11.702
5.851
1.170
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
HARRISBURG SEWERAGE
PA0027197
109.743
110.217
79.913
39.956
7.991
SUSQUEHANNA
R|
HEINZ PET FOODS
PA0009270 i
18.690
18.639
4.391
3.728
158
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
HIGHSPIRE
PA0024040 s
5,174.
5.197
3.192
1.596
319
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
HOLLIDAYSBURG REGION
PA0043273
14.963
15.372
9.061
4.531
906
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
HOUTZDALE BOROUGH M:
PA0046159 j
263
263
370
185
37
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
HUNTINGDON BOROUGH i
PA0026191 j
8.335
8.513
6.499
3.249
650
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
JERSEY SHORE BOROUG
PA0028665 (
12.798
13.293
2,184.
1.092
218
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
KELLY TOWNSHIP MUNICI
PA0028681 !
4.082
4.326
5.546
2.773
555
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
LACKAWANNA RIVER BAS
PA0027081
1.685
1.681;
1.498
749
150
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
LACKAWANNA RIVER BAS
PA0027090 :
13.738
13.700
15.604
7.802
1.560
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
LACKAWANNA RIVER BAS:
PA0027073
905
903
1.040
520
104
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
LACKAWANNA RIVER BAS:
PA0027065
12.405
12.371
7.452
3.726
745!
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
LANCASTER AREA SEWEF
PA0042269 j
16.259
17.688
23,706:
11.853
2,371
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
LANCASTER CITY
PA0026743
46.904
51.025
63.086
31.543
6.309
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
LEBANON CITY AUTHORIT;
PA0027316 j
22.690
23.216
16.762
8,381.
1.676
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
LEMOYNE BOROUGH MUh;
PA0026441 !
7.171
7.202
5.056
2.528
506:
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
LEWISBURG AREA JOINT I
PA0044661 ;
4.570
4.842
3.648
1.824
365:
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
LEWISTOWN BOROUGH "
PA0026280 s
7.228
7.502
5.771
2.885
577
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
LITITZ SEWAGE AUTHORI'
PA0020320
13.274
14.441
9.212
4.606
921
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
LOCK HAVEN
PA0025933 ;
15.635
16.044
6.641
3.320
664
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
LOGAN TOWNSHIP-GREEli
PA0032557 j
2.921
3.001
1.115
557
Hi!
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIP
PA0027189 !
14.264
14.993
10.366
5.183
1.037
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
LOWER LACKAWANNA VA
PA0026361
16.824
16.778
10.659
5.329
1.066
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
LYKENS BOROUGH
PA0043575 >
960:
964.
736
368:
74
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
MAHANOY CITY
PA0070041 !
4,655:
4.643
1.741
870
174
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
MANHEIM BOROUGH AUT
PA0020893
3.009
3.273
2.419
1.210
242;
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
MANSFIELD BOROUGH j
PA0021814 ;
3.790
3,934.
1.754
877i
175
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
MARIETTA-DONEGAL JOlK
PA0021717 ;
1.280
1.392
1.374
687
137;
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
MARTI NSBURG
PA0028347 j
1,806:
1.855
1.245
622:
124:
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
MARYSVILLE MUNICIPAL A
PA0021571 ¦;
366
398
3.362
1.681;
336
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
MECHANICSBURG BOROl:
PA0020885
2.716
2.855
2.524
1.262
252
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
MERCK & COMPANY
PA0008419
57.770
57.612
38.666
19.333
3.867
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
MIDDLETOWN
PA0020664 !
2.559
2.570
3.610
1.805
361
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
MIFFLINBURG BOROUGH !
PA0028461 |
1,593:
1.688
2.136
1.068
214!
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
MILLERSBURG BOROUGH
PA0022535 j
2.778
2,790:
2.129
1.065
213
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH!
PA0026620 i
2.516
2.737
2.100
1.050
210
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
MILTON MUNICIPAL AUTH:
PA0020273 i
2.223
2.217
5.216
2.608
522
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
MONTGOMERY BOROUGH
PA0020699
3.530
3.667
1.574
787
157
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
MOSHANNON VALLEY JOI;
PA0037966 s
1,832:
1.938
4.341
2.170
434
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH OO CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
BASIN
I
FACILITY |
NPDES |
2000 |
Tier 1 |
Tier 2 |
Tier 3 |
Tier 4 |
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
MOUNT JOY
PA0021067 j
662
720
2.275
1,138s
228
SUSQUEHANNA
R|
MOUNT UNION BOROUGH;
PA0020214 ;
1.320
1.348
1.029
515s
103;
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
MOUNTAINTOP AREA
PA0045985 '
30.890
30.806
8.367
4.183
837
SUSQUEHANNA
Rj
MT. CARMEL MUNICIPAL 8
PA0024406 J
7.943
7.921
2.880
1.440
288
SUSQUEHANNA
Rl
MT. HOLLY SPRINGS BOR
PA0023183 I
745
784
1.164
582
116
SUSQUEHANNA
R
MUNCY BOROUGH MUNIC
PA0024325 j
2.919
3.032
1.950
975
195
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
NATIONAL GYPSUM COMF
PA0008591 '
1.212
1 ,208:
944.
472
94:
SUSQUEHANNA
R|
NEW CUMBERLAND BORC
PA0026654 I
724
727
1,501;
751
150:
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
NEW FREEDOM WTP
PA0043257
5.266
5.529
3.501
1.750
350;
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
NEW HOLLAND BOROUGH.
PA0021890 !
5.245
5.706
3.359
1.680
336;
SUSQUEHANNA
Rl
NEW OXFORD MUNICIPAL
PA0020923 i
1.162
1.263
3.777
1,889s
378
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
NEWBERRY TOWNSHIP |
PA0083011 '
1.867
1.875
1.260
630
126;
SUSQUEHANNA
R|
NORTHEASTERN YORK C'
PA0023744
2,331 j
2.447
1.968
984
197
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
NORTHUMBERLAND BORC
PA0020567 [
867
864
1.372
686
137
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
OS RAM SYLVAN IA PRODL
PA0009024 ;
2.311
2,304;
2.304
1.652
330
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
P-H GLATFELTER COM PA
PA0008869 j
2.679
2.672
2.672
2.672
2.672
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
PALMYRA BOROUGH AUTs
PA0024287 j
3.595
3.679
2.483
1.242
248
SUSQUEHANNA
R|
PENN TOWNSHIP
PA0037150 (
5.263
5,5255
5.067
2.534
507:
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
PENNSYLVANIA FISH & BC
PA0040835 :
1.954
1.949
1.949
1.949
1.949
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
PENNSYLVANIA FISH & BC
PA0010553
2.748
2.741
2.741
2.741
1.827
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
PENNSYLVANIA FISH & BC
PA0010561 i
1.935
1.930
1.930
1.930
1,484;
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
PENNSYLVANIA FISH & BC
PA0112127
1.191
1.188
1.188
1.188
1,188:
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
PENNSYLVANIA FISH & BC
PA0044032 )
61
61
61
61
61
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
PINE CREEK MUNICIPAL/
PA0027553 j
2.950
3.027
1.953
977:
195;
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
PINE GROVE BOROUGH A
PA0020915 [
3.723
3.713
1 ,371 ;
686
137:
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
POPE & TALBOT WIS INC.
PA0007919 *
5.148
5.133
5.033
2.516
503
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
PORTER TOWER JOINT M
PA0046272 '
2.233
2.227
1.713
857s
171
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
PROCTOR & GAMBLE PAF
PA0008885 s
36.395
36.295
14.875
7.438
1.488
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
ROARING SPRING BOROL
PA0020249 ^
3.110
3.195
2.075
1.037
207:
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
SAY RE
PA0043681 s
698
696
1.994
997
199
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
SCRANTON SEWER AUTH
PA0026492 s
71.631
71.435
40.057
20.029
4.006
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
SHAMOKIN-COAL TOWNS
PA0027324 |
19.986
19.931
10.832
5.416
1.083
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
SHENANDOAH MUNICIPAL
PA0070386 i
1.453
1,449s
3.622
1.811
362
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
SHIPPENSBURG BOROUG
PA0030643
3.330
3,452s
3.477
3,477s
695
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
SILVER SPRING TOWNSH
PA0083593 i
212
222
478
239
48
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWt
PA0044113 s
556
584
1,376s
688
138;
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
SPRINGETTSBURY TOWN
PA0026808 s
43.170
45.319
34.383
17.192
3.438
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
ST. JOHNS
PA0046388 I
1.046
1,043s
975
487
97:
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
STEWARTSTOWN BOROU
PA0036269
1.168
1,226s
828
414
83;
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
SUNBURY CITY MUNICIPA
PA0026557 |
22.163
22.103
9.181
4,590s
918:
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
SWATARA TOWNSHIP
PA0026735 |
16.644
16.716
10.164
5.082
1.016
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
TOWANDA MUNICIPAL AU
PA0034576 |
4.340
4.329
2.082
1.041
208;
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
TRI-BORO MUNICIPAL AU"
PA0023736 [
825
856
865
432
86
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
TWIN BOROUGHS SANITA
PA0023264 !
1.320
1.377
1.051
526
105;
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
TYRONE BOROUGH SEWE
PA0026727
7.460
7.664
19.488
9.744
1,949;
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
TYSON FOODS
PA0035092 !
3.359
3.350
3.350
3.350
168
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
UNIVERSITY AREA JOINT t.
PA0026239 s
836s
884
2.007
2.007
1,544,
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP
PA0024902 I
2.417
2.541
1.688
844
169:
SUSQUEHANNA
Rf
USFW-LAMAR NATIONAL fj
PA0009857 j
403
402
402
402
402
SUSQUEHANNA
Ri
WELLSBORO MUNICIPAL/
PA0021687 ¦;
6.261
6.498
3.598
1.799
360;
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH Of CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
BASIN | FACILITY |
NPDES |
2000 |
Tier 1 |
Tier 2 |
Tier 3 |
Tier 4 |
SUSQUEHANNA R WESTERN CLINTON COUN
PA0043893 j
943
967
1.075
537
107
SUSQUEHANNA R WHITE DEER TOWNSHIP ;
PA0020800 ;
1.907
2.021
831
415
83
SUSQUEHANNA R WILLIAMSPORT SANITARY
PA0027057 |
72.931;
75.750
22.279
11.140
2,228
SUSQUEHANNA R WILLIAMSPORT SANITARY
PA0027049 ;
32.058
33.298
8.121
4.061
812:
SUSQUEHANNA RIWYOMING VALLEY
PA0026107
99.086
98.815
72.658
36.329
7.266
SUSQUEHANNA RliYORK CITY
PA0026263 j
8.974
9,421 :
36.328
18.164
3.633
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER Total
1.934.145
1.969.969
1.168.012
597.230
127.191
MD EASTERN SHC BRIDGEVILLE
DE0020249
3.272
3.647
675:
338
68:
MD EASTERN SHO;DUPONT-SEAFORD
DE0000035 i
13.864
13.826
13.826
13.826
1 1 ,522:
MD EASTERN SHC LAUREL
DE0020125 j
2.772
3.090
966
483
97:
MD EASTERN SHC SEAFORD
DE0020265 1
3.931
4,382:
3.886
1.943
389
MD EASTERN SHC ALLEN FAMILY FOODS
MD0067857 i
36
36
36
36
10:
MD EASTERN SHC BENJAMINS TRAILER PAR
MD0024961 ,
157
174
174
174
116
MD EASTERN SHC BETTERTON
MD0020575 '
189
194
194
194
129:
MD EASTERN SHO!BOHEMIA MANOR HIGH ;
MD0023469
55
61;
61
61
41
MD EASTERN SHO; BUDGET MOTEL
MD0023027
17
19
19
19
13
MD EASTERN SHC CAMBRIDGE
MD0021636 !
41.284
42,372:
15.562
7.781
1,556:
MD EASTERN SHC CECILTON
MD0020443
343
379
379
379
253
MD EASTERN SHC CENTREVILLE
MD0020834 !
2.628
2.998
1.073
537
107;
MD EASTERN SHC CHERRY HILL
MD0052825 >
1.098
1.212
1.212
1.212
808;
MD EASTERN SHC CHESAPEAKE CITY NORT
MD0020401
955s
1.055
1.055
1.055
581;
MD EASTERN SHC CHESAPEAKE CITY SOUTS
MD0020397 1
406
449
449:
449
449
MD EASTERN SHO;CHESAPEAKE COLLEGE ;
MD0024384
125
143
143:
143
95
MD EASTERN SHC CHESTERTOWN
MD0020010 !
8.437
8.635
1.990
995
199
MD EASTERN SHC CHURCH HILL
MD0050016 !
380
434
434
434
434
MD EASTERN SHC COLONEL RICHARDSON IV
MD0055522 :
54
58
58
58
39
MD EASTERN SHC CRISFIELD
MD0020001
3.966
4.181
2.068
1.034
207
MD EASTERN SHC DELMAR
MD0020532 !
558
613
1.759
879
176
MD EASTERN SHC DENTON
MD0020494 :
1.596
1.711
1,244.
622
124
MD EASTERN SHC DONALDSON BROWN CEN
MD0054950
18
20
20
20
13
MD EASTERN SHC EASTERN CORRECTIONAL
MD0023876
127
144
144:
144
96
MD EASTERN SHC EASTERN CORRECTIONAL
MD0066613
162
171;
171
171
171
MD EASTERN SHC EASTON
MD0020273
14,411;
15.232
5.872
2.936
587;
MD EASTERN SHC ELK NECK STATE PARK
MD0023833
193
213
213
213
169;
MD EASTERN SHC ELKTON
MD0020681
5.185
5.727
5.266
2.633
527;
MD EASTERN SHC ENGLISH GRILL
MD0053104 '
4
4
4
4
2
MD EASTERN SHC EWELL
MD0052230 s
194
204
204
204
136
MD EASTERN SHC FAIRMOUNT
MD0052256
268:
282
282
282
188;
MD EASTERN SHC FEDERALSBURG
MD0020249 ;
913
979
1.003
501
100:
MD EASTERN SHC FOREST GREEN
MD0053279
410i
453
453
453
61
MD EASTERN SHC FRUITLAND
MD0052990
4.302
4.730
1.577
788
158:
MD EASTERN SHC GALENA
MD0020605
358:
366
366
366
162
MD EASTERN SHOGREAT OAKS LANDING :
MD0024945 '
51:
53
53:
53
35
MD EASTERN SHO;GREENSBORO
MD0020290 j
1.678
1.799
1.799
1.799
1.034
MD EASTERN SHO! HARBOUR VIEW
MD0024023
64
71
71;
71
47:
MD EASTERN SHC HEBRON
MD0059617 !
1 ,092:
1 .201 :
1.201;
1.201;
8oo;
MD EASTERN SHC HURLOCK
MD0022730
22.576
23.171
3.233
1.616
323
MD EASTERN SHC KENNEDYVILLE
MD0052671 ;
41
41
41
41
28
MD EASTERN SHC KENT ISLAND
MD0023485 (
3.144
3.588
4.996
2.498
500
MD EASTERN SHC MANCHESTER PARK
;MD0023108
349
386
386
386
166:
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH OO CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
BASIN | FACILITY |
NPDES |
2000 |
Tier 1 |
Tier 2 |
Tier 3 |
Tier 4 |
MD EASTERN SHO;MAPLE HILL PARK
MD0053171 j
50
55
55
55:
37
MD EASTERN SHC MARDELA HIGH
MD0024279 ;
20
22
22
22
15
MD EASTERN SHC MILLINGTON
MD0020435
519
531
531
531
354:
MD EASTERN SHC MORNING CHEER
MD0052299 '
167
184
184:
184
123
MD EASTERN SHQNORTH CAROLINE HIGH ;
MD0023621 ®
20s
21;
21
21
14;
MD EASTERN SHO;NORTHEAST RIVER
MD0052027 I
1.632
1.802
1.913
957
191
MD EASTERN SHC OXFORD
MD0022543 !
210
222
222
222
222
MD EASTERN SHC PITTSVILLE
MD0060348 j
232:
255
255
255
255
MD EASTERN SHC POCOMOKE CITY
MD0022551 t
11.238
12.475
2.929
1.465
293
MD EASTERN SHC POCOMOKE TRUCK STOP
MD0054330 i
19
21
21
21
14
MD EASTERN SHC PORT DEPOSIT
MD0020796
1,243^
1.373
1.373
1.373
915
MD EASTERN SHC PRESTON
MD0020621
511
548
548
548:
366
MD EASTERN SHC PRINCESS ANNE
MD0020656 ;
268
282
944
944
189:
MD EASTERN SHO5QUEENSTOWN
MD0023370
514
586
586
586
480
MD EASTERN SHC RISING SUN
MD0020265
2.112
2.332
2.332
2.332
1,555'
MD EASTERN SHC ROCK HALL
MD0020303 !
414
423
423
423
423
MD EASTERN SHC SALISBURY
MD0021571 !
22.735
24.995
17.954
8.977
1 ,795:
MD EASTERN SHC SHARPTOWN
MD0052175 !
2.373
2.609
2.609
2.609
735
MD EASTERN SHC SNOW HILL
MD0022764 ®
4,791;
5.318
1.416
708
142:
MD EASTERN SHC SPRING MEADOWS
MD0024953 j
89
97
97
97
65
MD EASTERN SHOSUDLERSVILLE
MD0020559 :
398
454
454
454
303l
MD EASTERN SHC TALBOT COUNTY REGION
MD0023604 i
3.385
3,578s
3.578
3.578
2.316
MD EASTERN SHC TALBOT COUNTY REGION
MD0059463 j
663
701
701
701
467:
MD EASTERN SHC TAWES VOCATIONAL-TEC
MD0022993 j
1.498
1.579
1,579i
1 ,579:
1.053
MD EASTERN SHC TOLCHESTER
MD0067202
805
823
823
823=
549
MD EASTERN SHC TRAPPE
MD0020486
1.025
1.083
1 ,083:
1.083
828:
MD EASTERN SHC TRIUMPH INDUSTRIAL PAS
MD0024929
317
350
350
350
233;
MD EASTERN SHC TWIN CITIES
MD0055352 !
1.052
1.080
1.080
1.080
720
MD EASTERN SHC TYLERTON
MD0052248
44
47
47
47
31;
MD EASTERN SHC U.S. ARMY-CHESAPEAKE ,
MD0020206
2
3
3
3j
2
MD EASTERN SHC VIENNA
MD0020664 j
500
514
514
514
342'
MD EASTERN SHC WALKERS TRAILER PARK:
MD0057487 ;
121;
129
129
129
86:
MD EASTERN SHC WILLARDS
MD0051632 ?
681
749
749
749
499:
MD EASTERN SHC WOODLAWN MOBILE HOIV
MD0023337
MD EASTERN SHO=WORTON-BUTLERTON
MD0060585 f
562
575
575
575
383;
MD EASTERN SHORE Total
201.875
214.324
120.721
83.030
38.713
MD WESTERN SHCABERDEEN
MD0021563
584
634
3.414
2.626
525
MD WESTERN SHCABERDEEN PROVING GRC
MD0021237
1,064.
1.154
2.785
1.392
278
MD WESTERN SHCABERDEEN PROVING GRC
MD0021229 |
1.323
1.436
2.925
1 ,462:
292
MD WESTERN SHC ANNAPOLIS
MD0021814 *
9.606
10.198
22.963
11.481 j
2,296;
MD WESTERN SHC BACK RIVER
MD0021555 j
42.546
43.357
53.436
53.436
26.718
MD WESTERN SHC BALTIMORE YACHT CLUB ^
MD0054542 '
17
18
18
18
12'
MD WESTERN SHC BETHLEHEM STEEL CORP
MD0001201
81.163
80.941>
80.941;
80.941
26.876
MD WESTERN SHC BOWLEYS QUARTERS
MD0058807 i
60
61:
61
61
41
MD WESTERN SHC BROADNECK
MD0021644 >
7.258
7.705
15.927
7,963:
1.593
MD WESTERN SHC BROADWATER
MD0024350 !
1.963
2.085
3.861
1,931::
386
MD WESTERN SHCCHEMETALS
MD0001775 S
11;
11
12
12
12'
MD WESTERN SHC CHESAPEAKE BAY INSTIT
:MD0022985
MD WESTERN SHC CHESAPEAKE BEACH
MD0020281 \
1.724
2.179
2.461
1.2311
246
MD WESTERN SHQCONGOLEUM
MD0001384 '
161
160
160
160
so;
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH OS CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
BASIN | FACILITY |
NPDES |
2000 |
Tier 1 |
Tier 2 |
Tier 3 |
Tier 4 |
MD WESTERN SHC COX CREEK
MD0021661 j
45.048
47.825
37.447
18,724:
3,745;
MD WESTERN SHC DREAMS LANDING
MD0052868 ;
72
77
77;
77
51:
MD WESTERN SHC FREEDOM DISTRICT
MD0021512 f
4.998
5.879
8.692
4.346
869
MD WESTERN SHC GAITHER MANOR
MD0022845
232
273:
273
273
138:
MD WESTERN SHC HAMPSTEAD
MD0022446
432;
508
508
508
508:
MD WESTERN SHC HAVRE DE GRACE
MD0021750
3.500
3.799
4.252
2.126
425
MD WESTERN SHC HOLIDAY MOBILE ESTATE
MD0053082
347
369
369
369
369;
MD WESTERN SHC JOPPATOWNE
MD0022535 i
1.921
2.085
2.614
1.307
261;
MD WESTERN SHC MANCHESTER
MD0022578 !
56
66
66
66
66
MD WESTERN SHC MAYO LARGE COMMUNAL
MD0061794 j
1.281;
1.360
1.360
1.360
1.360
MD WESTERN SHC MOUNT AIRY
MD0022527 !
798
939:
2.003
1.002
200
MD WESTERN SHC NOTCHCLIFF
MD0022951 >
341
347
347
347
231
MD WESTERN SHC PATAPSCO
MD0021601
144.631
173.933
222.326
111.163
22.233
MD WESTERN SHC PHEASANT RIDGE
MD0024546 f
174
205
205
205
152:
MD WESTERN SHQ RANDLE CLIFFS NAVAL :
MD0020168
125
158
158
158
105
MD WESTERN SHC RICHLYN MANOR
MD0022713
553
564
564.
564
537
MD WESTERN SHC RIVERBOAT MOTEL
MD0051535
MD WESTERN SHC ROSE HAVEN
MD0022756
168
178:
178
178
178
MD WESTERN SHC SOD RUN
MD0056545
41.334
44.860
38.354
19.177
3.835
MD WESTERN SHC SOUTH CARROLL HIGH SC
MD0024589 '
2
3
3
3:
3
MD WESTERN SHCsST TIMOTHY SCHOOL
MD0056103 S
50
51:
51
51
34:
MD WESTERN SHC SUMMER HILL TRAILER P/
MD0023272 ?
43
45
45
45
45
MD WESTERN SHC SWAN HARBOR PARK
MD0023043
103
112
112
112
75
MD WESTERN SHCUNITED CONTAINER
MD0024635
68
69
69
69
46
MD WESTERN SHC US GYPSUM CO
MD0001457
MD WESTERN SHC US NAVAL ACADEMY
MD0023523
63
67
67
67
67;
MD WESTERN SHC VILLA JULIE COLLEGE
MD0066001 I
3
3
3
3
3
MD WESTERN SHC W R GRACE
MD0000311 s
1.814
1.809
1.809
1.809
1.238
MD WESTERN SHCWOODSTOCK TRAINING C
MD0023906 !
78
80
80
80
53;
MD WESTERN SHORE Total
395.719
435.606
510.996
326.904
96.185
PATUXENT RIVER BOONES MOBILE
MD0050903 !
239
254
254
254
254
PATUXENT RIVER BOWIE
MD0021628 j
992
1.085
6.354
3.177
635
PATUXENT RIVER DORSEY RUN
MD0063207 s
945
1.003
4.466
2.233
447
PATUXENT RIVER EDGEMEADE RESIDENTIA
MD0052680 !
27
29:
29
29
13:
PATUXENT RIVER;EMERGENCY MANAGEME
:MD0025666
1
1;
1;
1
1
PATUXENT RIVER! FORT MEADE
MD0021717 »
1.198
1.272
6.615
3.308
662;
PATUXENT RIVER HARWOOD SOUTHERN HI-
MD0023728 !
131
139
139
139
36
PATUXENT RIVER : LITTLE PATUXENT
MD0055174 '
18.767
22.000
47.126
31.418
6.284
PATUXENT RIVERjLYONS CREEK MOBILE
MD0053511 j
394
418
418
418
418
PATUXENT RIVER; MARLBORO MEADOWS ;
MD0022781 !
873
954
954
954
954
PATUXENT RIVER; MARYLAND CITY
MD0062596 s
1.479
1 ,570:
3.242
1,621;
324
PATUXENT RIVER;MARYLAND MANOR MOBI
MD0024333
287
304
304
304
304;
PATUXENT RIVER;MD & VA MILK PRODUCER
MD0000469 j
14,068:
14.030
1.086
543:
109
PATUXENT RIVER;NATIONAL WILDLIFE VISIT
MD0065358
8
9:
9-
9
8i
PATUXENT RIVER;NORTHERN HIGH SCHOO
MD0052167 ''
114
145
145
145
96
PATUXENT RIVER; PARKWAY
MD0021725
5.304
5.501
18.882
9.441
1.888
PATUXENT RIVER PARKWAY INN
MD0052329 j
133
141
141
141
141
PATUXENT RIVER;PATUXENT
MD0021652 !
4.683
4.972
14.756
7.378
1,476;
PATUXENT RIVER;PATUXENT MOBILE
MD0024694 i
105
111:
111
111;
111
PATUXENT RIVER;PATUXENT WILDLIFE HQ I
MD0025623
174
191
191
191
127
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
| BASIN
| FACILITY |
NPDES |
2000 |
Tier 1 |
Tier 2 |
Tier 3 |
Tier 4 |
: PATUXENT RIVER
SPINE HILL RUN
MD0021679 j
14.260
16.131
11.854
5.927
1,185;
PATUXENT RIVER
PINEY ORCHARD
MD0059145 ;
294
312
312
312
312
PATUXENT RIVER
POINT LOOKOUT STATE F
MD0023949
150
170
170
170
113
iPATUXENT RIVER
USAF BRANDYWINE HOU$
MD0025640
14
15
15
15
8
PATUXENT RIVER
USAF TRANSMITTER STA"
MD0025631
PATUXENT RIVER WAYSONS MOBILE
MD0023647 i
299
317
317
317
278;
PATUXENT RIVER!WESTERN BRANCH
MD0021741 |
37.990
47.636
70.048
35.024
7.005
PATUXENT RIVER Total
102.930
118.710
187.940
103.579
23.190
iPOTOMAC
RIVER
BLUE PLAINS
DC0021199 '
104,298;
111.804
187.326
187.326
104,070;
POTOMAC
RIVER
WASHINGTON. D.C. COMI
DC-CSO
46.480
46.353
46.353
46.353
0
POTOMAC
RIVER
ANTIETAM
MD0062308
952
999:
999
999
666
POTOMAC
RIVER
BALLENGER CREEK
MD0021822 5
3.590
4.293
12.549
6.274
1.255
POTOMAC
RIVER
BELTSVILLE USDA EAST
MD0020842 j
1.357
1,484.
1.484
1.484
1.436
iPOTOMAC
RIVER
BELTSVILLE USDA WEST ;
MD0020851
762
833
833
833
757
POTOMAC
RIVER
BIERS LANE
MD0065749
28
28:
28
28;
18
POTOMAC
RIVER
BLOOMINGTON
MD0060933 i
306
322
322
322
166:
POTOMAC
RIVER
BOONSBORO
MD0020231 !
2.821
2.963
2.963
2.963
2.457
POTOMAC
RIVER
BOWLING BROOK PREPAF
MD0067571 :
46
54
54
54:
36
iPOTOMAC
RIVER
BRANDYWINE RECEIVING
MD0025658 j
10
11
11:
11
7
POTOMAC
RIVER
BRETTON WOODS
MD0064777
81
89
89
89
59:
POTOMAC
RIVER
BROADFORDING
MD0051373 ,
10
10:
10
10
7;
POTOMAC
RIVER
BROOK LANE
MD0053198
49
51
51
51
34;
POTOMAC
RIVER
BRUNSWICK
MD0020958 :
5.822
6.961
2.320
1.160
232
iPOTOMAC
RIVER
CELANESE
MD0063878 }
7,763:
7.792
3.094
1.547
309;
POTOMAC
RIVER
CHARLES COUNTY COMIV
MD0052311
268
310
310
310
221
POTOMAC
RIVER
CHELTENHAM BOYS VILLA
MD0023931 j
105
115
115
115
115
POTOMAC
RIVER
CHOPTICAN HIGH
MD0051918
45
51
51
51
34;
POTOMAC
RIVER
CLEARSPRING
MD0053325 ;
690
725
725
725
483;
iPOTOMAC
RIVER
CLIFFTON ON THE POTOIV
MD0055557 !
406
469
469
469
313
POTOMAC
RIVER
CONCORD TRAILER PARK
MD0023060 j
35
42
42
42
28
POTOMAC
RIVER
CONOCOCHEAGUE
MD0063509 !
2.780
4.622
3.633
1.816
363
POTOMAC
RIVER
CRESTVIEW
MD0022683 i
296
354
354
354
234
POTOMAC
RIVER
CUMBERLAND
MD0021598 !
50.434
50.621 j
29,228:
14,614.
2,923
iPOTOMAC
RIVER
DAMASCUS
MD0020982
3.005
2.925
2.619
1.310
262:
POTOMAC
RIVER
DAN-DEE INC.
MD0023710
18
22
22
22
15
POTOMAC
RIVER
EMMITSBURG
MD0020257 ;
2.912
3.481
1 ,761 ;
880:
176:
POTOMAC
RIVER
FAHRNEY-KEEDY MEMOR
MD0053066 '
165
173
173
173
116
POTOMAC
RIVER
FLINTSTONE
MD0055620
534
536
536
536
358
iPOTOMAC
RIVER
FORT DETRICK
MD0020877 !
3.308
3.955
3.375
1.688
338
POTOMAC
RIVER
FOUNTAINDALE
MD0022721
2.460
2.942
2.942
2.942
1.540
POTOMAC
RIVER
FOXVILLE US NAVAL SUPI
MD0025119 1
222
266
266
266
177;
POTOMAC
RIVER
FREDERICK
MD0021610 i
82.916
99.129
23.637
11.818
2.364
POTOMAC
RIVER
FUNKSTOWN
MD0020362
1.030
1.082
1.082
1.082
391
iPOTOMAC
RIVER
GARDEN STATE TANNING:
MD0053431 »
64
64
64
13
13
POTOMAC
RIVER
GEORGES CREEK
MD0060071 f
6.087
6.110
2.037
1.018
204
POTOMAC
RIVER
GORMAN
MD0060950 !
41
43
43
43
29;
POTOMAC
RIVER
GREEN RIDGE FORESTRY
MD0024988 j
36
36:
36
36
19
POTOMAC
RIVER
GREENBRIAR STATE PAR
MD0023868 !
133
139
139
139
93;
iPOTOMAC
RIVER
HAGERSTOWN
MD0021776 }
56.857
59.720
25.786
12.893
2,579;
POTOMAC
RIVER
HANCOCK
MD0024562
1 ,578:
1 ,657:
1.657
1.657
1,364;
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH 5 I CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
BASIN
| FACILITY |
NPDES |
2000 |
Tier 1 |
Tier 2 |
Tier 3 |
Tier 4 |
POTOMAC
RIVER
HAPPY TRAILS CAMPGRO
MD0065757 j
31
32
32
32
21
POTOMAC
RIVER
;HIGHLAND VIEW
MD0024627 j
81
86
86
86
57
POTOMAC
RIVER
HUNTER HILLAPARTMEN';
MD0022926 ;
253
266
266
266
177
POTOMAC
RIVER
I-70 REST AREA
MD0023680
262
313
313
313
209l
POTOMAC
RIVER
•INDIAN HEAD
MD0020052
2.352
2,716s
1.073
537
107:
POTOMAC
RIVER
JEFFERSON
MD0020737 »
1.341
1.603
1.603
1.603
1,069;
POTOMAC
RIVER
JUDE HOUSE
MD0057614 !
POTOMAC
RIVER
KEMPTOWN SCHOOL
MD0056481 I
42
50;
50
50
33
POTOMAC
RIVER
KITZMILLER
MD0060941 f
171
180
180
180
107=
POTOMAC
RIVER
KUNZANG ODSAL PALGUL
MD0067539 f
7s
8
8
8
5:
POTOMAC
RIVER
LA PLATA
MD0020524
3.460
3.995
753
753
251
POTOMAC
RIVER
LACKEY HIGH
MD0023159 ^
84
97
97
97
65
POTOMAC
RIVER
LAFAYETTE MOTEL
MD0053201
10
11
11
11
8
POTOMAC
RIVER
; LEO NARDTOWN
MD0024767 S
3.853
4.359
1.466
733
147;
POTOMAC
RIVER
LEWISTOWN ELEMENTAR
MD0022900 !
23
27
27
27
is;
POTOMAC
RIVER
LIBERTYTOWN
MD0060577
221
264
264
264
183;
POTOMAC
RIVER
iLUPPINO RESIDENCE
MD0063070 !
POTOMAC
RIVER
MAPLE RUN
MD0024970
28
28
28
28
19
POTOMAC
RIVER
MARYLAND CORRECTION
MD0023957 {
957
1.005
2.874
1.437
287
POTOMAC
RIVER
MATTAWOMAN
MD0021865 1
2.890
3.337
4,480s
4.480
2.489
POTOMAC
RIVER
METTIKI COAL D
MD0064149 !
POTOMAC
RIVER
MIDDLETOWN
MD0024406 ®
1.633
1.953
1.953
1.953
1.594
POTOMAC
RIVER
MILL BOTTOM
MD0065439 j
403
482
482
482
321;
POTOMAC
RIVER
MONROVIA VVWTP
MD0059609
247
295
295
295
197
POTOMAC
RIVER
MT CARMEL WOODS
MD0053228 '
44
51
51
51
51
POTOMAC
RIVER
MT ST MARYS COLLEGE ;
MD0023230 5
854
1.021
1.021 j
1.021
323
POTOMAC
RIVER
MYERSVILLE
MD0020699
2.056
2.458
2.458
2.458
1,138;
POTOMAC
RIVER
NAS-PATUXENT
MD0020095 !
274
310
310
310
207
POTOMAC
RIVER
NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF S
MD0020931
470
518
518s
518s
346:
POTOMAC
RIVER
NEW GERMANY STATE PA
MD0023981 f
12
13
13
13
9;
POTOMAC
RIVER
NEW LIFE FOURSQUARE 0
MD0057100 !
15
18
18
18
12
POTOMAC
RIVER
NEW MARKET
MD0020729 !
1.477
1.766
1.766
1.766
736
POTOMAC
RIVER
NEW WINDSOR
MD0022586
540
635
635
635
320
POTOMAC
RIVER
; NORBECK COUNTRY CLU
MD0024309 ^
POTOMAC
RIVER
NORTH INDIAN HEAD EST
MD0024601 '
POTOMAC
RIVER
NSWC-INDIAN HEAD
MD0003158 i
4.451
4.438
1.479
740
148
POTOMAC
RIVER
NSWC-INDIAN HEAD
MD0020885
1.949
2,251 ;
2,251,
2.251
2.114
POTOMAC
RIVER
OLD SOUTH MOUNTAIN IN
;MD0055425 j
19
23
23
23
15
POTOMAC
RIVER
OLDTOWN
MD0024759 |
68
68
68
68
64:
POTOMAC
RIVER
PETER PAN INN
MD0024244 j
11
14
14
14
14
POTOMAC
RIVER
PICCOWAXIN MIDDLE
MD0023451 !
21
25
25
25
16;
POTOMAC
RIVER
PINTO
MD0022748 j
2.266
2.274
2.274
2.274
1.642
POTOMAC
RIVER
PISCATAWAY
MD0021539 ;
7.517
9.009
13.869
13.869
7,705;
POTOMAC
RIVER
PLEASANT BRANCH
MD0065269 5
390
466s
466
466
311
POTOMAC
RIVER
PLESANT VALLEY
MD0066745 j
73
85
85
85
57
POTOMAC
RIVER
POINT OF ROCKS
MD0020800
1.272
1.520
1.520
1.520
602!
POTOMAC
RIVER
POOLESVILLE
MD0023001 i
1.587
1.749
2.022
1.011
202
POTOMAC
RIVER
RAWLINGS HEIGHTS
MD0023213 i
308
309
309
309
309
POTOMAC
RIVER
ROCKY GAP STATE PARK
MD0051667 I
472
474
474
474
316
POTOMAC
RIVER
RUNNYMEADE SCHOOL I
MD0065927 !
24
29
29
29
19;
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
| BASIN
| FACILITY
| NPDES |
2000 |
Tier 1 |
Tier 2 |
Tier 3 |
Tier 4 |
POTOMAC RIVER
SANDY HOOK
MD0064530 j
56
59
59
59
40
POTOMAC RIVER
SENECA CREEK
MD0021491 |
25.684
74.154
28.628
28.628
5,726:
POTOMAC RIVER
SHAMROCK RESTAURAN" MD0058050 j
22
26
26
26
17
POTOMAC RIVER
SHEPPARD PRATT WESTE MD0067521
27
32
32
32
21
POTOMAC RIVER
SIDELING HILL REST ARE/ MD0062821 s
61
64
64
64
43;
;POTOMAC RIVER
SMITHSBURG
MD0024317 !
1.216
1 ,278:
1.278
1.278
1 ,278:
POTOMAC RIVER
SOUTHERN CORRECTION MD0023914
414
478
478
478
212:
POTOMAC RIVER
SPRING MILLS
WV1031613 i
POTOMAC RIVER
SPRINGVIEW ESTATES
MD0022870 j
51
61
61
61
41
POTOMAC RIVER
ST. JAMES SCHOOL
MD0065536 S
60
63
63
63
42
POTOMAC RIVER
SWAN POINT
|mD0057525
290
335
335
335
223
POTOMAC RIVER
TANEYTOWN
MD0020672 >
4.156
4.888
2.773
1.387
277
POTOMAC RIVER
THUNDERBIRD APARTME MD0050334 »
79
91
91
91
81
POTOMAC RIVER
THUNDERBIRD MOTEL
:MD0053155
37
42
42
42
28
POTOMAC RIVER
THURMONT
MD0021121 !
1.787
2.136
3.056
1.528
306:
POTOMAC RIVER
TRI-TOWN PLAZA
MD0024937 '
81
81
81
81;
81;
POTOMAC RIVER
UNION BRIDGE
MD0022454 '
874
1.028
1.028
1.028
629
POTOMAC RIVER
UPPER POTOMAC RIVER • MD0021687 j
49.000
48.866
48.866
30.773
6,155:
POTOMAC RIVER
URBANAHIGH SCHOOL
MD0066940 »
26
31
31
31;
18
POTOMAC RIVER
VICTOR CULLEN CENTER
MD0023922 }
318
380
380
380
253
POTOMAC RIVER
WESTMINSTER
MD0021831
5.854
6.886
13.105
6.552
1.310
POTOMAC RIVER
WESTVACO CORPORATIC MD0001422 j
598
597
597
597
597'
POTOMAC RIVER
WHITE HOUSE MOTEL
MD0056553 !
12i
14
14s
14
10l
POTOMAC RIVER
WHITE ROCK
MD0025089 !
130
156
156
156
104
POTOMAC RIVER
iWINEBRENNER WWTP
MD0003221 !
1.136
1.193
672
336s
67;
POTOMAC RIVER
WINTERS APARTMENTS
MD0057606 f
2
2
2
2
1;
POTOMAC RIVER
WOODSBORO
MD0058661 5
674
806
806
806i
743
POTOMAC RIVER
ANTRIM TOWNSHIP
PA0080519 ;
3,126;
3.240
1,510s
755
151;
POTOMAC RIVER
CHAMBERSBURG BOROU PA0026051 I
37.236
38.599
14,544;
7.272
1.454
POTOMAC RIVER
FRANKLIN COUNTY AUTH PA0020834
2.113
2,191;
3.294
1.647
329:
POTOMAC RIVER
GETTYSBURG MUNICIPAL PA0021563 [
2.327
2.528
4.927
2.463
493
POTOMAC RIVER
HYNDMANBOROUGH
PA0020851
269
279
254
127
25:
POTOMAC RIVER
LITTLESTOWN BOROUGH PA0021229 '
2.448
2.659
1.546
773
155
POTOMAC RIVER
WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP PA0080225 1
7.021
7.278
2.838
1.419
284;
POTOMAC RIVER
;WAYNESBORO BOROUGH PA0020621
12.274
12.723
2.647
1.323
265
POTOMAC RIVER
ALEXANDRIA
VA0025160
6.005
6.170
20.800
20.800
11.556
POTOMAC RIVER
AQUIA
VA0060968 ;
1.015
1,610s
2.900
2,900s
1.611
POTOMAC RIVER
ARLINGTON
VA0025143 i
5.360
6.868
19,346s
19.346
10.748
POTOMAC RIVER
BROAD RUN WRF
VA_BROADR
731
7.309
3.655
731
POTOMAC RIVER
CHICKEN GEORGES
VA0077402 ;
123.344
123.007
7.382
7.382
369
POTOMAC RIVER
COLONIAL BEACH
VA0026409
6.639
7.022
2.577
1.289
258;
POTOMAC RIVER
DAHLGREN (DAHLGREN SVA0026514 s
439
496
926
463
93;
POTOMAC RIVER
DALE CITY #1
VA0024724 !
743
886
1.678
1.678
932
POTOMAC RIVER
DALE CITY #8
VA0024678 j
714
851
1.561
1 ,561 ;
867;
POTOMAC RIVER
iDUPONT-WAYNESBORO
VA0002160 '
1.252
1.249
1.249
1.249
904;
POTOMAC RIVER
iFAIRVIEW BEACH
MD0056464
317
358
358
358
238
POTOMAC RIVER
FISHERSVILLE
VA0025291 !
6.510
13.917
5.208
2.604
521
POTOMAC RIVER
FRONT ROYAL
VA0062812
8.055
9.324
8.414
4.207
841
POTOMAC RIVER
FWSA OPEQUON
JVA0065552 *
17,672;
20.483
17.940
8.970
1.794
POTOMAC RIVER
H.L. MOONEY
VA0025101 j
2.953
4.473
8.020
8.020
4.456
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH
93
CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
| BASIN
| FACILITY
| NPDES |
2000 |
Tier 1 |
Tier 2 |
Tier 3 |
Tier 4 |
POTOMAC RIVER
iHARRISONBURG-ROCKINi
VA0060640 j
57.587
78.058
35.481 j
17.740
3,548;
POTOMAC RIVER
LEESBURG
MD0066184 '
11.624
12.812
9.010
4.505
901
POTOMAC RIVER
LURAY
VA0062642 s
1.765
1.877
4,578;
2.289
458
POTOMAC RIVER
MASSANUTTEN PUBLIC SI
VA0024732 '
2.766
2.888
1.155
578
116
POTOMAC RIVER
MERCK & COMPANY INC.-
VA0002178
80.398
80.179
30.720
15.360
3.072
;POTOMAC RIVER
MIDDLE RIVER
VA0064793 s
22.566
35.349
17.207
8.604
1,721;
POTOMAC RIVER
MONTROSS - WESTMORE
VA0072729
111
95
47
9
POTOMAC RIVER
NAVAL SURFACE WARFAF
VA0021067 i
3.387
3.823
1.322
661
132
POTOMAC RIVER
NEW MARKET STP
VA0022853 j
3.931
4.262
1.705
852
170;
POTOMAC RIVER
NOMAN M. COLE JR. POLL
VA0025364 j
13.923
17.159
29.055
29.055
16.141
POTOMAC RIVER
PARKINS MILL
A/A0075191
9.335
10.819
4.328
2.164
433
POTOMAC RIVER
PILGRIMS PRIDE-HINTON
VA0002313 *
54.403
54,255;
3.288
3.288
1 64;
POTOMAC RIVER
PURCELLVILLE
VA0022802 j
2.691
3.225
1.290
645;
129
POTOMAC RIVER
iQUANTICO-MAINSIDE
VA0028363 *
342
407
759;
759
422
POTOMAC RIVER
ROUND HILL WWTP
VA0026212 j
1.148
1.375
458
229
46
POTOMAC RIVER
SIL MRRS
VA0090263 S
5.779
3.853
1.926
385
POTOMAC RIVER
STONY CREEK STP
VA0028380 s
1.858
2.014
806
403
81
POTOMAC RIVER
STRASBURG
VA0020311
5.425
5.883
2.353
1.177
235|
POTOMAC RIVER
STUARTS DRAFT
VA0066877 I
4.920
6.853
4.568
2.284
457;
POTOMAC RIVER
UPPER OCCOQUAN SEW/
VA0024988 J
3.173
4.411
10.355
10.355
10,355;
POTOMAC RIVER
WAYNESBORO
VA0025151 '
35.879
37.575
8.573
4.287
857;
POTOMAC RIVER
WEYERS CAVE STP
VA0022349
884
3.046
1.218
609
122!
POTOMAC RIVER
WIDEWATER WWTP
VA0090387
609
305
152
30
POTOMAC RIVER
WOODSTOCK
VA0026468 j
2.938
3.185
1.274
637
127
POTOMAC RIVER
BERKELEY COUNTY PSSC
WV0020061
4.677
5.496
1.832
916
183;
POTOMAC RIVER
BERKELEY COUNTY PSSC
WV0082759
7.206
8.467
2.822
1 .41 1 ;
282
POTOMAC RIVER
CHARLESTOWN
WV0022349 !
6.183
6.828
2.276
1.138
228;
POTOMAC RIVER
FORT ASH BY PSD
WV0041521 j
POTOMAC RIVER
FRANKLIN
WV0024970 j
POTOMAC RIVER
HARPERS FERRY-BOLIVAI
WV0039136 j
1.747
1.743
1.743
1.743
1,162;
POTOMAC RIVER
HESTER INDUSTRIES, INC
WV0047236 »
1.513
0
0
0
0
POTOMAC RIVER
HONEYWOOD HOMES
WV0080918 j
POTOMAC RIVER
KEYSER
WV0024392 {
3.826
3.840
3.675
1.837
367
POTOMAC RIVER
MARTINSBURG
WV0023167 ;
18.245
21.439
7.146
3.573
715;
POTOMAC RIVER
MOOREFIELD
WV0020150
2.887
0
0
0
0
POTOMAC RIVER
MOUNTAIN TOP PSD
WV0101524 j
241
240
240
240
160;
POTOMAC RIVER
PETERSBURG
WV0021792
6.742
6.723
2.241
1.121
224
POTOMAC RIVER
REPUBLIC PAPERBOARD
WV0005517 '
POTOMAC RIVER
RIVER BEND PARK
WV0105384
194;
203
203
203
136
POTOMAC RIVER
ROMNEY
WV0020699
3,852;
4.172
1.391
695
139
POTOMAC RIVER
iSHEPHERDSTOWN
WV0024775 j
POTOMAC RIVER
SPECRATECH INTERNATH
WV0005533 •
2.895
2.887
9621
481
96
POTOMAC RIVER
VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POV
WV0005525 j
POTOMAC RIVER
iWAMPLER-LONGACRE, IN
;WV0005495
46.052
0s
0
0;
°:
POTOMAC RIVER Total
1.202.995
1.322.949
845.869
645.156
251.482
RAPPAHANNOCK I
CULPEPER
VA0061590
9.348
10.371
6.914
3.457
691
RAPPAHANNOCK I
FMC
VA0068110
2.835
15.034
10.023
5,01 1 ;
1.002
RAPPAHANNOCK I
FORT A.P. HILL (WILCOX C
VA0032034 j
1.365
1,441 j
355
178
36
iRAPPAHANNOCK I
FREDERICKSBURG
VA0025127
7.927
8.934
6.790
3.395
679
RAPPAHANNOCK I
HAYMOUNT STP
VA0089125 !
4.340
2.893
1.447
289
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH
94
CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
| BASIN
| FACILITY
| NPDES |
2000 |
Tier 1 |
Tier 2 |
Tier 3 |
Tier 4 |
'RAPPAHANNOCK I
KILMARNOCK
VA0020788 j
1.839
1.944
760
380
76
RAPPAHANNOCK I
LITTLE FALLS RUN
VA0076392 )
7.050
11.172
12.670
6.335
1,267=
RAPPAHANNOCK I
MASSAPONAX
VA0025658 j
5.075
20.021 j
13.348
6.674
1.335
RAPPAHANNOCK I
ORANGE
VA0021385
4.771
3.159
2.106
1.053
211
RAPPAHANNOCK I
REEDVILLE
VA0060712 !
274:
291
116
58
12-
RAPPAHANNOCK I
REMINGTON REGIONAL
VA0076805
3,364;
2.619
1.746
873
175
RAPPAHANNOCK I
SOUTH WALES STP
VA0080527 !
3,910i
2.607
1.303
261;
RAPPAHANNOCK I
TAPPAHANNOCK
VA0071471 .
2,824!
2.846
1.139
569
114
RAPPAHANNOCK I
URBANNA
VA0026263 s
427
860
344
172i
34
RAPPAHANNOCK I
WARRENTON
VA0021172 )
3.337
3.859
3.594
1.797
359
|RAPPAHANNOCK I
WARSAW
VA0026891
1.598
1.653
661
331
66
RAPPAHANNOCK I
WILDERNESS SHORES
VA0083411 '
3.769
4.160
1.664
832
166:
RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER Total
55.802
96.615
67.729
33.864
6,773
VA EASTERN SHO CAPE CHARLES
VA0021288 !
1.163
1.159
464
232
46
VA EASTERN SHO ONANCOCK
VA0021253 '
1.777
1.782
713s
356
71
VA EASTERN SHO TANGIER ISLAND
VA0067423 j
351
352
141;
70
14;
VA EASTERN SHO TYSON FOODS. INC.-TEMF
VA0004049
46.067
45.941::
6.381
6.381
319:
VA EASTERN SHORE Total
49.358
49.235
7.698
7.039
451
YORK RIVER
AMOCO-YORKTOWN
VA0003018
22.058
21.998
21.998
21.998
18.507
YORK RIVER
ASHLAND
VA0024899 ;
8.802
7.081
4,721;
2.360
472
YORK RIVER
CAROLINE COUNTY REGK
VA0073504 j
2.564
2.706
597
299
60:
YORK RIVER
DOSWELL
VA0029521 1
31.303
30.836
20.558
10.279
2.056
YORK RIVER
GORDONSVILLE
VA0021105 ;
3.905
4.310
1,724.
862
172;
YORK RIVER
HRSD-YORK
VA0081311 i
45.959
58.018
38.679
19.339
3.868
YORK RIVER
MATHEWS COURTHOUSE
VA0028819
202
345s
244;
122
24
YORK RIVER
PAR HAM LANDING WWTP
VA0088331 (
221
245
316
158
32?
YORK RIVER
SMURFIT STONE
VA0003115 !
69.554
69.364
56.181
28.091
5,618;
YORK RIVER
TOTOPOTOMOY
VA0089915 !
22.842
15.228
7.614
1.523
YORK RIVER
WEST POINT
VA0075434
4.757
4.568
1.827
914
183;
YORK RIVER Total
189.324
222,313:
162.071
92.034
32.514
JAMES
RIVER
ALLEGHANY CO. LOWER „
VA0090671 '
4.568
2.284
1.142
228
JAMES
RIVER
BROWN & WILLIAMSON
VA0002780
4,430=
4.418
2.512
1.256
251;
JAMES
RIVER
BUENA VISTA
VA0020991 I
11.062
11.032
4,413 s
2.206
441
JAMES
RIVER
BWXT
VA0003697 i
1.550
1,546s
1,458s
729
146
JAMES
RIVER
CLIFTON FORGE
VA0022772 ;
9.422
9.396
3.759
1.879
376:
JAMES
RIVER
COVINGTON
VA0025542 !
13.565
13.528
5,411;
2.706
541
JAMES
RIVER
CREWE STP
VA0020303 s
164
166
600
300
60
JAMES
RIVER
J DUPONT-SPRUANCE
VA0004669
7.882
7.860
7.860
7.860
7.104
JAMES
RIVER
FALLING CREEK
VA0024996 |
26.704
31.618
25.093
12.547
2,509!
JAMES
RIVER
FARMVILLE
VA0083135 (
8.589
8.742
2.962
1.481
296
JAMES
RIVER
GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPC
VA0003026 i
162.875
162.430
108.652
10.975
2.195
JAMES
RIVER
HENRICO COUNTY
VA0063690 s
173.622
233.377
152.278
76.139
15.228
JAMES
RIVER
HONEYWELL
VA0005291 |
52.110
51.968
51.968
51.968
40,244:
JAMES
RIVER
HOPEWELL
VA0066630
36.983
160.440
106.960
53,480s
10.696
JAMES
RIVER
HRSD-ARMY BASE
VA0081230 I
53.997
73,708 j
53.145
26.573
5,315;
JAMES
RIVER
HRSD-BOAT HARBOR
VA0081256 f
61.445
98.649
70.200
35.100
7,020;
JAMES
RIVER
HRSD-CHESAPEAKE/ELIZ/
VA0081264 s
91.597
126.074
80.098
40.049
8.010
JAMES
RIVER
HRSD-JAMES RIVER
VA0081272 {
58.254
80.313
60.911
30.456
6.091
JAMES
RIVER
HRSD-NANSEMOND
VA0081299 j
72.341;
76.7211
61.368
30.684
6.137
JAMES
RIVER
HRSD-VIP
VA0081281
96.305
109.336
109.336
54.668
10.934
JAMES
RIVER
HRSD-WILLIAMSBURG
VA0081302 !
46.860
48.424
48.424
24.212
4.842
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (Ibs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin
BASIN
| FACILITY |
NPDES |
2000 |
Tier 1 |
Tier 2 |
Tier 3 |
Tier 4
JAMES
RIVER
SLAKE MONTICELLO STP ;
VA0024945 j
3.869
4.312
1.725
862 >
172
JAMES
RIVER
LEES COMMERCIAL CARF
VA0004677 !
95.022
94.762
42.801
18.952
244
JAMES
RIVER
i LEXINGTON-ROCKBRIDGE;
VA0088161 !
6.412
6.602
2.641;
1.320
264
JAMES
RIVER
LYNCHBURG
VA0024970
124.313
163.218
52.993
26.496
5,299
JAMES
RIVER
MOORES CREEK-RIVANN/
VA0025518 s
100,164;
114.810
36.206
18.103
3,621
JAMES
RIVER
PHILLIP MORRIS-PARK 50
VA0026557 >
7.456
7.435
7.435
7.435
584
JAMES
RIVER
PROCTORS CREEK
VA0060194 !
17.081
20.224
53.758
26.879
5,376
JAMES
RIVER
RICHMOND
VA0063177 *
114.364
219.234
146.156
73.078
14,616
JAMES
RIVER
[SOUTH CENTRAL
VA0025437 i
27.446
59.069
39.379
19.690
3,938
JAMES
RIVER
TYSON FOODS, INC.
VA0004031 f
791
789
868
868
289
JAMES
RIVER
WESTVACO CORPORATIC
VA0003646
26.328
26.256
26.256
26.256
9,054
JAMES RIVER Total
1.513.003
2.031.025
1.369.910
686.350
172.121
Grand Total
5,645,151
6,460,745
4,440,946
2,575,186
748,618
96
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
X. COST RESULTS SUMMARIES
This section provides tables that summarize the costs which were either obtained directly from
individual facilities, or calculated using the previously described methodologies.
Table X-A - provides the costs for TN removal by Tier for all of the significant municipal facilities.
Table X-B - provides the costs for TP removal by Tier for all of the significant municipal facilities.
Table VI-C in Section 6 provides the costs for the non-significant municipal facilities.
Table V-C - in Section 5 provides the costs for the industrial facilities.
Table VII - in Section 7 provides the costs for the Blue Plains CSO.
Table X-C - provides a summary of the costs in total for all point source categories arranged by state.
Table X-D - provides a summary of the costs by state arranged by point source category.
Table X-E - provides a summary of the costs for the significant municipal facilities only by state.
Table X-F and X-G provide information relating the amount of total design flow and number of the
facilities being treated by each Tier to the total cost for each jurisdiction.
References noted in the Section X tables are included in the Part 3 of Appendix I.
97
-------
Table X-A: NITROGEN INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED
DESIGN
2010 DATA-
TIER 1 $) (TN=8 for NRT plants))
TIER 2 ($) (TN=8 for ALL)
TIER 3 ($) (TN=5for ALL)
TIER 4 (S)
TN=3for ALL)
ST/5
FACILITY
NPDES
BNR
STATUS
FLOW
(MGD1
FLOW
(MGD)
TN
(mq/l)
TP
(mg/l)
TN CC
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
TN CC
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
TN CC
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
TN CC
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
DC
BLUE PLAINS
DC0021199
CURRENT
370
341.71
7.50
0.11
0
0
14
33,000,000
5,541,509
14
225,000,000
13,400,000
14
365,000,000
17,501,280
14
DC Total
37000
341.71
0
0
33,000,000
5,541,509
225,000,000
13,400,000
365,000,000
17,501,280
DE
BRIDGEVILLE
DE0020249
BY 2010
0.8
0.22
8.00
5.4C
3,187,400
63,244
12, M
0
0
N
918,088
6,734 1
1,055,210
16,495
1
DE
LAUREL
DE0020125
0.5
0.32
22.32
3.2C
8
2,374,508
147,026
1
627.970
10.719 "
736,700
27,814
1
DE
SEAFORD
DE0020265
CURRENT
2
1.28
6.04
1.1;
0
0
9
0
0
N
1,636,850
29.211 1
2,360,170
62,228
1
DE Total
3.30
1 81
3,187,400
63,244
2,374,508
147,026
3,182,908
46,665
4,152,080
106,537
MD
ABERDEEN
MD0021563
CURRENT
1.72
8.00
0.1:
0
0
2
0
0
N
2,408,870
31.281 "
4,093,150
64,967
1
MD
ABERDEEN PROVIISMD0021237
BY 2005
2.8
0.91
8.00
0.41
8,000,000
159.146
2, M
0
0
N
1,945,658
18.448 "
3,053,362
38,794
1
MD
ABERDEEN PROVINMD0021229
CURRENT
3
0.96
8.00
0.4E
0
0
2
0
0
N
2,022,860
18.942 1
3,226,660
39,733
1
MD
ANNAPOLIS
MD0021814
CURRENT
10
...„7-54
8.00
0.4^
0
0
2
0
0
N
4,724,930
115.245 "
9,292,090
233,824
1
MD
BACK RIVER
MD0021555
CURRENT
180
87.73
10.00
o.ie
0
0
2
10,000,000
141,129
19, M
70,346,630
1.183.324 "
156,595,390
2,352,813
1
MD
BALLENGER CREEI5MD0021822
CURRENT
......6
4.12
8.00
0.3^
0
_ 0
2
0
„„,0
N
3,180,890
68.203 "
5,826,130
J39,973
1
MD
BOWIE
MD0021628
CURRENT
3.3
2.09
8.00
0.17
0
0
2
0
0
N
2,138,663
39,949 1
3,486,607
83,510
1
MD
BROADNECK
MD0021644
CURRENT
... ...®
5.23
8.00
0.4E
0
0
2
0
0
N
3,180,890
86,565 1
5,826,130
177,657
1
MD
BROADWATER
MD0024350
CURRENT
2
1.27
8.00
0.5^
0
0
2
0
0
N
1,636,850
29.025 "
2,360,170
61,832
1
MD
BRUNSWICK
MD0020958
BY 2005
0.7
,0.76
8.00
3.0C
4,900,000
10.928
2, M
0
0
N
821,382
23.756 1 __
949.040
59,079
1
MD
CAMBRIDGE
MD0021636
BY 2005
8.1
5.11
8.00
2.7S
9,934,376
198,241
2, M
0
0
N
3,991,511
80.382 1
7,645,759
163J83
1
MD
CELANESE
MD0063878
BY 2005
1.25
1.02
8.00
2.5:
5.791.500
116,260
2, M
0
_____ 0
N
1,347,343
29.057 1
1,710,303
63,080
1
MD
CENTRE VILLE
MD0020834
BY 2005
0.375
0.35
8.00
2.7E
5,065,400
101,583
2, M
0
___ 0
N
507,088
12.988 1
603,988
35,086
1
MD
CHESAPEAKE BEA(!MD0020281
CURRENT
1,18
0.81
8.00
0.8E
0
2
0
_____ 0
N
1,320,322
23.842 1
1,649,648
51,878
1
MD
CHESTERTOWN
MD0020010
BY 2005
0.9
0.65
8.00
4.3^
2,600,000
51,782
2, M
0
0
N
1,014,794
19.420 1
1.161.380
46,971
1
MD
CONOCOCHEAGUEMD0063509
BY 2005
4,1
1.19
8.00
1.27
5,555,439
111,577
2, M
0
0
N
2,447,471
21.498 1
4,179,799
44,613
1
MD
COX CREEK
MD0021661
BY 2005
15
12.30
8.00
1.2E
9,476,780
198,973
2, M
0
0
N
6,654,980
180.144 1
13,624,540
363,121
1
MD
CRISFIELD
MD0020001
BY 2005
1
0.68
8.00
2.0:
4,052,200
80,139
2, M
0
... 0
N
1,111,500
19.843 "
1,267,550
47,489
1
MD
CUMBERLAND
MD0021598
BY 2005
15
9.60
8.00
1.7:
0
0
2
0
0
N
6,654,980
140.605 1
13,624,540
283,421
1
MD
DAMASCUS
MD0020982
CURRENT
1.5
0.86
8.00
1.1:
0
0
2
0
0
N
1,443,845
22.415 1 __
1,926,925
48,305
1
MD
DELMAR
MD0020532
BY 2005
0.65
0.58
8.00
0.3J
1,030,000
19,833
2, M
0
0
N
773,029
18.295 1
895,955
45.903
1
MD
DENTON
MD0020494
CURRENT
0.8
0.41
8.00
1.3E
0
„.„9
2
0
0
N
918,088
12.403 1
1,055,210
30,378
1
MD
DORSEY RUN
MD0063207
CURRENT
2
1.47
8.00
0.2:
0
0
2
0
0
N
1,636,850
33.574 1
2,360,170
71,522
1
MD
EASTON
MD0020273
CURRENT
2.35
1.93
8.00
2.5E
0
0
2
0
0
N
1,771,953
41.406 "
2,663,441
87,650
1
MD
ELKTON
MD0020681
BY 2005
2.7
1.73
8.00
1.0E
6,360,000
128,234
2, M
0
0
N
1,907,057
35,319 1
2,966,713
74,371
1
MD
EMMITSBURG
MD0020257
CURRENT
0.75
0.58
8.00
1.9E
0
2
0
0
N
869,735
17.775 1
1,002,125
43,854
1
MD
FEDERALSBURG
MD0020249
BY 2005
0.75
0.33
8.00
0.9E
1,500,000
29,282
2, M
0
0
N
869,735
10.121 1
1.002.125
24,969
1
MD
FORT DETRICK
MD0020877
CURRENT
2
1.11
8.00
1.17
0
,_0
8
0
0
N
1,636,850
25.371 1_
2,360,170
54,048
1
MD
FORT MEADE
MD0021717
CURRENT
4.5
2.17
8.00
0.1E
0
__ 0
8
0
0
N
2,601,875
38.252 "
4,526,395
79,150
1
MD
FREDERICK
MD0021610
BY 2005
8
7.76
8.00
4.1E
8.816.824
153.316
2, M
0
0
N
3,952,910
122.320 1
7.559.110
249,304
1
MD
FREEDOM DISTRICSMD0021512
CURRENT
3.5
2.85
8.00
0.6E
0
0
2
0
0
N
2,215,865
53.705 "
3,659,905
112,037
1
MD
FRUITLAND
MD0052990
BY 2005
,0.5
0.52
8.00
3.0C
6,200,000
.124,549
2, M
0
0
N
627,970
17.496 "
736.700
45.400
1
MD
GEORGES CREEK
MD0060071
BY 2005
0.6
0.67
8.00
3.0C
2,000,000
40,709
2, M
0
0
N
724,676
21.582 "
842,870
54,688
1
MD
HAGERSTOWN
MD0021776
CURRENT
8
8.47
8.00
2.3:
0
0
2
0
0
N
3,952,910
133.441 1_
7,559,110
271,969
1
MD
HAVRE DE GRACE
MD0021750
BY 2005
1.89
1.40
8.00
0.8E
6,278,550
125,354
2, M
0
0
N
1,594,389
32.739 "
2,264,856
69,900
1
MD
HURLOCK
MD0022730
CURRENT
2
1.06
8.00
7.17
5,200,000
103,378
2, M
0
0
, .,N
1,636,850
24.302 1
2,360,170
51,769
1
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-a 98 CBP0.11/22/2002
-------
Table X-A: NITROGEN INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED
DESIGN
2010 DATA-
TIER 1 $) (TN=8 for NRT plants))
TIER 2 ($) (TN=8 for ALL)
TIER 3 ($) (TN=5for ALL)
TIER 4 (S) (TN=3 for ALL)
ST/5
FACILITY
NPDES
BNR
STATUS
FLOW
(MGD)
FLOW
(MGD)
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
TN CC
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
TN CC
TN O&M |
¦.
TN CC
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
TIICC |
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
MD
INDIAN HEAD
MD0020052
BY 2005
0.5
0.35
8.00
2.5;
656,000
12,603
2, M
0
_ 0
N
627,970
11.912 1
736,700;
30,909
1
MD
JOPPATOWNE
MD0022535
CURRENT
0.95
0.86
8.00
0.8C
0
0
2
0
0
N
1,063,147
25.286 1 _
1.214.465
60.823
1
MD
KENT ISLAND
MD0023485
BY 2005
2.135
1.64
8.00
0.7:
20,742,570
415,470
2, M
0
0
N
1,688,961
36.570 "
2.477.146
77,704
1
MD
LA PLATA
MD0020524
BY 2005
0.82
8.00
1.5E
4,120,970
82,823
2, M
0
...... 0
N
1.111.500
24.085 1
1.267.550
57,642
1
MD
LEONARDTOWN
MD0024767
BY 2005
0.68
0.48
8.00
2.97
1,840,000
37,068
2, M
0
0
, N ...
802,041
15.105 "
927,806!
37.695
1
MD
LITTLE PATUXENT;MD0055174
CURRENT
22.5
20.63
8.00
0.3E
0
0
2
0
0
N
9,550,055
293,557; 1
20.123.215
588,955
1
MD
MARYLAND CITY
MD0062596
CURRENT
2.5
1.06
8.00
0.4E
0
0
2
0
0
N
1,829,855
22.344 "
2.793.415
47,187
1
MD
MARYLAND CORRESMD0023957
CURRENT
1.23
0.94
8.00
0.3E
0
0
2
0
„ 0
N
1,339,622
27.220 1
1.692.973
59,129
1
MD
MATTAWOMAN
MD0021865
BY 2005
15
8.17
8.00
0.1;
7,935,800
162,078
2, M
0
0
N
6,654,980
119.730 "
13.624.540
241,343
1
MD
MOUNT AIRY
MD0022527
CURRENT
1.2
0.66
8.00
0.47
0
_.o
2
0
0
N
1,328,042
19.228 1
1.666.978
41,811
1
MD
NORTHEAST RIVERMD0052027
BY 2005
2
0.63
8.00
0.9^
1,800,000
35,703
2, M
0
0
N
1.636.850
14.380 1
2.360.170
30,634
1
MD
PARKWAY
MD0021725
CURRENT
7.5
6.20
8.00
0.2E
0
0
2
0
0
N
3,759,905
98,699 1
7.125.865
201.451
1
MD
PATAPSCO
MD0021601
BY 2010
73
73.00
8.00
0.7E
200,000,000
4,067,523
2, M
0
0
...N
29,043,560
995,980! -i
63.880.960
1,984,222
1
MD
PATUXENT
MD0021652
CURRENT
7.5
4.85
8.00
0.3^
0
2
0
0
N
3,759,905
77.129 1
7.125.865
157,426
1
MD
PERRYVILLE
MD0020613
CURRENT
1.65
0.94
8.00
0.3C
0
0
2
0
0
N
1,501,746
23,358 1
2.056.898
50,144
1
MD
PINE HILL RUN
MD0021679
CURRENT
6
3.89
8.00
1.36
0
0
2
0
_J0;
N
3,180,890
64.428 1
5.826.130
132,225
1
MD
PISCATAWAY
MD0021539
CURRENT
30
25.30
8.00
0.1:
0
0
2
0
0
N
12,445,130
354,631= 1
26.621.890
709,735
1
MD
POCOMOKE CITY
MD0022551
BY 2005
1.4
0.96
8.00
4.26
2,700,000
200,000
2. 2
0
0
N
1,405,244
25.940 "
1.840.276
56,059
1
MD
POOLESVILLE
MD0023001
BY 2005
0.625
0.66
8.00
0.87
1,658,000
33,147
2, M
0
N
748,853
21.222 "
869.413
53,504
1
MD
PRINCESS ANNE
MD0020656
CURRENT
1.26
0.62
8.00
0.1E
3,563,500
70,685
2, M
0
0
, N .....
1,351,203
17.650 "
1.718.967
38.304
1
MD
SALISBURY
MD0021571
BY 2005
6.8
5.90
8.00
1.3E
15,000,000
303,495
2, M
0
Oj
N
3,489,698
95.384 "
6.519.322
195,136
1
MD
SENECACREEK
MD0021491
BY 2005
5
18.80
8.00
1.3C
29,520,000
566,020
2, M
0
0
N
2,794,880
323,119= 1_
4.959.640
666,490
1
MD
SNOW HILL
MD0022764
BY 2005
0.5
0.47
8.00
3.7E
1,600,000
32,017
2, M
0
0
N
627,970
15.719 1
736,700!
40.788
1
MD
SOD RUN
MD0056545
CURRENT
20
12.59
8.00
1.17
0
2
0
0
N
8,585,030
180,512! 1
17.956.990
362,593
1
MD
TANEYTOWN
MD0020672
CURRENT
1.1
0.91
8.00
1.76
0
0
2
0
0
N
1,289,441
27.932 1
1.580.329
60,946
1
MD
THURMONT
MD0021121
CURRENT
1
1.00
8.00
0.7C
0
_ 0
2
0
01
N
1,111,500
29.319 "
1,267,550J
70,168
1
MD
WESTERN BRANCH MDGG2- v.-
CURRENT
30
23.00
8.00
0.6E
0
0
2
0
0
N
0
0
18
0
0
18
MD
WESTMINSTER
MD0021831
CURRENT
5
4.30
8.00
0.5;
0
„ 0
2
0
0
N
2,794,880
73.955 1_
4.959.640
152,545
1
MD
WINEBRENNER WVJMD0003221
BY 2005
1
0.22
8.00
1.77
852,000
16,578
2, M
0
0
N ....
1111.500
6.450 1
1.267.550
15,436
1
MD Total
556.23
397.79
384,749,909
7,788,496
10,000,000
141,129
253,226,556
5,843,881
491,117,129
11,987,846
NY
ADDISON (V)
NY0020320
0.42
0.24
17.73
3.0C
8
2,318,600
46.669
1
550,605
8,357 1
651,764;
22,213
1
NY
BATH (V)
NY0021431
1
0.76
17.61
3.0C
8
2,722,193
_ 53.890
1
1,111,500
22,184 1
1.267.550
53,091
1
NY
Bl NGHAMTON-JOHIi NY0024414
BY 2005
20
19.53
8.00
2.0:
0
0
7
0
0
8,585,030
280,000= 1
17.956.990
562,432
1
NY
COOPERSTOWN
NY0023591
0.52
0.65
18.95
3.0C
8
2,388,473
46.400
1
647,311
21.655 1
757.934
55.897
1
NY
CORNING (C)
NY0025721
2.13
1.30
19.77
3.0C
8
3,496,935
67.489
1
1,687,031
28.951 "
2.472.814
61,519
1
NY
CORTLAND (C)
NY0027561
BY 2005
10
8.52
8.00
1.3C
0
0
7
0
0
4,724,930
130,259= 1
9.292.090
264,286
1
NY
ELMIRA CHEMUNQNY0035742
12
7.19
15.00
3.0C
8
9,613,949
181.374
1
5,496,950
107,607= 1
11.025.070
217,631
1
NY
ENDICOTT (V)
NY0027669
10
7.58
23.47
3.0C
8
6,656,000
133.689
7, M
0
_ _0
3, M
0
m0
A
NY
HAMILTON (V)
NY0020672
0.85
0.45
29.29
3.0C
8
2,618,202
50.710
1
966,441
13.481 1
1.108.295
32,803
1
NY
HORNELL (C)
NY0023647
4
3.01
15.74
3.0C
8
4,745,444
90.005
1
2,408,870
_ 54.598 1
4.093.150
II3.395
1
NY
LAKE STREET/CHEI.NY0036986
9.5
7.12
19.68
3.0C
8
8,174,859
147.651
1
4,531,925
109,489; 1
8.858.845
222,361
1
NY
NORWICH
NY0021423
2.2
2.68
30.04
3.0C
8
3,544,425
60.713
1 ^
1,714,052
59.015 1
2.533.468
125.247
1
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-a 99 CBP0.11/22/2002
-------
Table X-A: NITROGEN INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED
DESIGN
2010 DATA-
TIER 1 $) (TN=8 for NRT plants))
TIER 2 ($) (TN=8 for ALL)
TIER 3 ($) (TN=5for ALL)
TIER 4 (S) (TN=3 for ALL)
ST/5
FACILITY
NPDES
BNR
STATUS
FLOW
(MGD)
FLOW
(MGD)
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
TN CC
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
TN CC
TN O&M |
¦.
TN CC
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
TIICC |
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
NY
ONEONTA (C)
NY0031151
4
3.01
17.76
3.0C
8
4,745,444
63.867
1
2,408,870
54,545! 1
4.093.150
113,284
1
NY
OWE GO #2
NY0025798
BY 2005
2
1.04
8.00
2.4:
0
,, 0
7
0
N
1.636.850
23.832 1 ,
2.360.170
50.769
1
NY
OWEGO (V)
NY0029262
1
0.62
15.42
3.0C
8
2,722,193
53.458
1
1,111,500
18.221 1
1.267.550
43,608
1
NY
RICHFIELD SPRING
NY0031411
0.6
0.32
16.58
0.0E
8
2,444,234
48.320
1
724.676
10.399 1 _
842,870;
26,351
1
NY
SIDNEY (V)
NY0029271
1.7
0.67
17.03
3.0C
8
3,203,924
92.656
1
1,521,047
16.342 "
2.100.223
35.040
1
NY
WAVERLY (V)
NY0031089
0.65
1.01
27.70
3.5:
8
2.479.128
46.106
1
773,029
31.990 1 ,
895,955;
80,263
1
NY Total
82.57
65.68
0
0
61,874,054
1,182,996
40,600,618
990,925
71,577,888
2,080,192
PA
ALJOONA CITY AU1
PA0027014
5.5
6.03
14.15
4.3C
8
1,200,000
15.637
3, M
8,330,000
282,903
3, M
0
0
A
PA
ALTOONA CITY AU1
PA0027022
9
6.25
16.80
4.2E
8
1,200,000
12.811
3, M
11,530,000
257,415
3, M
0
0
A
PA
ANNVILLE TOWNSh
PA0021806
,.,,0.75
0.48
30.24
1.4E
8
2,548,725
49.155
1
869,735
14.609 1
1.002.125
36,041
1
PA
ANTRIM TOWNSHIF
PA0080519
CURRENT
1.05
0.50
8.00
2.1E
0
0
N
0
0
N
1,270,140
15.612 1
1.537.004
34,127
1
PA
ASHLAND MUNICIP
PA0023558
1,3
0.72
8.75
3.2:
8
2,929,367
59.227
1
1,366,643
20.243 1 _
1.753.627
43,877
1
PA
BEDFORD BOROUC
PA0022209
1.2
0.98
13.56
1.3E
8
2,860,429
58.274
1
1,328,042
28.601 1
1.666.978
62,191
1
PA
BELLEFONTE BORC
PA0020486
3.22
2.07
16.03
0.6E
8
4,229,766
81.123
1
2,107,782
40.018 1
3.417.288
83,728
1
PA
BERWICK MUNICIP/
PA0023248
3.65
1.49
22.99
4.36
8
4,514,951
92.508
1
2,273,767
27.630 1
3.789.879
57,560
1
PA
BLOOMSBURG MUf
PA0027171
4.29
2.66
9.53
1.41
8
4.935.313
101,150;
1
2.520.813
47.417 "
4.344.432
98,261
1
PA
BLOSSBURG
PA0020036
0.6
0.21
11.07
1.31
8
2,444,284
49.090
1
724,676
6.718 1
842.870
17,022
1
PA
BROWN TOWNSHIF
PA0028088
0.6
0.34
27.44
0.9;
8
2,444,284
49.450
1
724,676
10.882 1,
842,870;
27,576
1
PA
BURNHAM BOROUC
PA0038920
0.64
0.59
9.00
1.5C
8
2.472.161
49.976
1
763,358
18.895 1
885,338!
47,498
1
PA
CARLISLE BOROUC-
PA0026077
7
3.45
19.85
0.4:
8
6,660,935
136,597:
1
3,566,900
55.481 1,
6.692.620
113,423
1
PA
CARLISLE SUBURB
PA0024384
CURRENT
0.925
0.70
8.00
0.6:
0
r 0
N
0
0
1,038,971
20.826 J
1.187.923
50,229
1
PA
CHAMBERSBURG E
PA0026051
BY 2005
5.2
4.78
8.00
2.6:
6,400,000
124,868
3, M
0
0
0
3, M
0
.„„,0
A
PA
CLARKS SUMMIT-S
PA0028576
2
2.28
16.99
3.1:
8
3,408,584
64.033
1
1,636,850
52.111 1
2,360,170;
111,012
1
PA
CLEARFIELD
PA0026310
4.5
2.62
11.04
0.7:
8
5.072.176
104.021
1
2,601,875
46.213 1
4,526,395;
95,623
1
PA
COLUMBIA
PA0026123
2
0.83
17.50
0.7C
8
3,408,584
69.207
1
1,636,850
18.896 1
2.360.170
40,254
1
PA
CURWENSVILLE Ml
PA0024759
0.5
0.45
14.68
1.86
8
2,374,508
47.998
1
627,970
15.122 ¦
736.700
39,240
1
PA
DANVILLE MUNICIP
PA0023531
3.22
2.15
8.97
1.3:
8
4,229,766
85.178
1
2,107,782
41.492 1
3.417.288
86,812
1
PA
DERRY TOWNSHIP
PA0026484
, 5
3.47
14.77
1.3:
8
1,983,000
111.000
1,240,000
26,496
S, M
0
„_.„0
A
PA
DILLSBURG BOROL
PA0024431
J
0.66
11.07
o.8:
8
2,722,193
55.091
1
1,111,500
19.232 1
1,267,550;
46,027
1
PA
DOVER TOWNSHIP
PA0020826
CURRENT
4
3.70
7.53
1.3:
0
_ 0
N
0
__0s
2,408,870
67.193 1
4,093,150;
139.553
1
PA
DUNCANSVILLE
PA0032883
1.217
0.61
8.00
2.31
8
2,872,157
55,995J
1
1,334,604
17.684 "
1.681.708
38,431
1
PA
EAST PENNSBORO
PA0038415
3.7
2.42
17.43
3.4:
8
4,547,969
86.388
1
2,293,067
44.910 1
3.833.203
93,514
1
PA
EASTERN SNYDER
PA0110582
BY 2005
2.8
1.60
8.00
3.9:
3,000,000
61.S56
10, M
0
0
0
_ 0
10
0
0
10
PA
ELIZABETHTOWN B
PA0023108
BY 2005
3
2.34
8.00
0.87
4,083,001
86,431
1
0
0
2,022,860
46.220 1 _
3,226,660$
96,949
1
PA
ELKLAND MUNICIP/
PA0113298
0.55
0.43
22.82
o.8:
8
2,409,411
47.203
1
676,323
14.331 1
789,785!
36,722
1
PA
EMPORIUM BOROU
PA0028631
0.52
0.48
6.88
2.5:
8
2,388,473
47.765
1
647,311
16.096 "
757.934
41,549
1
PA
EPHRATA BOROUG
PA0027405
3.8
2.78
1.98
1.51
8
4,613,914
93.551
1
2,331,668
51,068; 1
3.919.852
106,241
1
PA
FAIRVIEW TOWNS h
PA0081868
0.5
0.40
11.07
0.6^
8
2,374,508
47.883
1
627,970
13.512 1
736.700
35.061
1
PA
FRANKLIN COUNTY
PA0020834
0.4
1.08
1.05
0.67
8
2,304,611
46.741
1
531,264
39,036 1
630,530!
104,476
1
PA
GETTYSBURG MUN
PA0021563
CURRENT
1.63
1.62
5.11
0.51
0
0
N
0
N
1,494,026
40.528 1
2.039.569
87,048
1
PA
GREATER HAZELTC
PA0026921
8.9
6.68
10.36
0.9^
8
7,840,000
163,170;
3, M
16,250,000
391,838
3, M
0
0
A
PA
GREGG TOWNSHIP
PA0114821
CURRENT
0.8
0.66
6.60
1.3:
0
o
N
0
0
N
918,088
20.182 "
1.055.210
49,433
1
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-a 100 CBP0.11/22/2002
-------
Table X-A: NITROGEN INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED
DESIGN
2010 DATA-
TIER 1 $) (TN=8 for NRT plants))
TIER 2 ($) (TN=8 for ALL)
TIER 3 ($) (TN=5for ALL)
TIER 4 (S) (TN=3 for ALL)
ST/5
FACILITY
NPDES
BNR
STATUS
FLOW
(MGD)
FLOW
(MGD)
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
TN CC
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
TN CC
TN O&M |
¦.
TN CC
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
TNCC |
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
PA
HAMPDEN TOWNS I-
PA0028746
CURRENT
1.76
1.30
8.00
1.06
0
_ 0
N
0
_ 0
N
1,544,208
31,339
1
2.152.212
67,103
1
PA
HAMPDEN TOWNSh
PA0080314
2.5
2.01
9.35
0.7C
8
3J47,289
_ 73.618
1
1,829,855
42.247
1
2.793.415
89,217
1
PA
HANOVER BOROUC
PA0026875
3.65
3.84
23.73
0.9E
8
60.000
0
3
5,130,000
161,192
3, M
0
0
A
PA
HARRISBURG SEW
PA0027197
BY 2010
37.7
26.24
8.00
1.3E
22,682,000
865.000
S
0
0
N
0
3, M
0
0
A
PA
HIGHSPIRE
PA0024040
2
1.05
14.97
1.6:
8
3,408,584
69.030
1
1,636,850
23,992
1
2.360.170
51,110
1
PA
HOLLIDAYSBURG R
PA0043273
2
2.98
6.82
1.7C
8
3,408,584
67.349
1
1.636.850
68,113
1
2.360.170
145.099
1
PA
HOUTZDALE BORO
PA0046159
CURRENT
0.3
0.12
6.89
0.71
0
0
N
0
.,,0'
434,558
4,849
1
524,360;
13,536
1
PA
HUNTINGDON BOR
PA0026191
3.75
2.13
11.07
1.31
8
4,580,956
93717=
1
2,312,368
39,380
1
3.876.528
81,961
1
PA
HYNDMAN BOROUC
PA0020851
0.104
0.08
11.11
1.1C
8
2,097,017
42.022
1
245,014
5,719
1
316,267s
18,574
1
PA
JERSEY SHORE BC
PA0028665
0.8
0.72
21.08
6.0E
8
2,583,478
52,67%
1
918,088
21,779
1
1.055.210
53,344
1
PA
KELLY TOWNSHIP f
PA0028681
CURRENT
2.75
1.82
2.20
0.7E
0
0
N
0
0
1,926,358
36,965
1
3.010.038
77,784
1
PA
LACKAWANNA RIVE
PA0027090
7
5.12
13.16
0.8E
8
6,660,935
128,655:
1
6,920,000
160,034
3, M
0
0
A
PA
LACKAWANNA RIVE
PA0027065
6
2.45
9,13
1.66
8
6,034,411
120.013
1
3,180,890
40,506
1
5,826,130;
83,129
1
PA
LACKAWANNA RIVE
PA0027073
1
0.34
28.10
0.87
8
2722.193
55,025=
1
1.111.500
9.980
1
1.267.550
23,885
1
PA
LACKAWANNA RIVE
PA0027081
BY 2005
0.7
0.49
8.00
1.1:
2,513,941
55,025
1
0
0
N
821,382
15,338
1
949,0401
33.143
1
PA
LANCASTER AREA
PA0042269
BY 2005
15
7.78
8.00
0.7E
4,249,333
93,253
S.
0
0
N
10,460,000
179,248
3, M
0
0
A
PA
LANCASTER CITY
PA0026743
BY 20-10
29.73
20.71
8.00
0.81
1,077,000
8,461
3, M
0
0
N
23,080,000
543,241
3, M
0
0
A
PA
LEBANON CITYAU1
PA0027316
8
5.50
33.65
1.3E
8
4,039,000
121,589;
3, M
7,620,000
167,209
3,M
0
0
A
PA
LEMOYNE BOROUC
PA0026441
2.088
1.66
22.88
1.4:
8
3,468,413
71.828
1
WO,819
37,339
1
2.436.421
79,407
1
PA
LEWISBURG AREA
PA0044661
BY 2010
2.42
1.20
8.00
1.3:
3,693,297
75,717
1
0
N
3,630,000
51,337
3, M
0
o
A
PA
LEWISTOWN BORO
PA0026280
2.4
1.89
14.00
1.3C
8
3,679J87
75.693i
1
1,791,254
40,374
1
2.706.766
85,397
1
PA
LITITZ SEWAGE AU
PA0020320
3.5
3.02
23.00
1.57
8
4.415719
80.056
1
2,215,865
56,917
1
3.659.905
118738
1
PA
LITTLESTOWN BOR
PA0021229
1
0.51
12.51
1.7:
8
2722,193
54.974
1
1.111.500
14,829
1
1,267,550;
35,488
1
PA
LOCK HAVEN
PA0025933
BY 2010
3.75
2.18
8.00
2.4:
4,580,956
94,176
1
0
4,590,000
79,880
3, M
0
A
PA
LOGAN TOWNSHIP-
PA0032557
BY 2005
0.6
0.37
8.00
2.6E
2,444,284
49,316
1
0
0
¦724,676
H.810
1
842.870
29,927
1
PA
LOWER ALLEN TOV
PA0027189
5.95
3.40
13.63
1.4E
8
6,002,771
123770
1
3.161.589
56,433
1
5.782.805
J1S,843
1
PA
LOWER LACKAWAIV
PA0026361
6
3.50
17.54
1.57
8
6,034,411
125.085
1
3,180,890
57,932
1
5,826,130;
118,893
1
PA
LYKENS BOROUGH
PA0043575
0.41
0.24
11.07
1.31
8
2,311,606
46.470
1
540,935
8,656
1
641.147
23,085
1
PA
MAHANOY CITY
PA0070041
CURRENT
1.38
0.57
8.00
2.67
0
^ _ 0
N
0
0
1,397,524
15,530
1
1.822.946
33,580
1
PA
MANHEIM BOROUG
PA0020893
.,.,.,,,,..,1
0.79
8.82
1.3E
8
2722,193
, ,55,150;
1
1111500
23,209
1
1.267.550
55,545
1
PA
MANSFIELD BOROL
PA0021814
... 1
0.58
10.50
2.2i
8
2,722,193
54.996
1
1,111,500
16,823
1
1.267.550
40,262
1
PA
MARIETTA-DONEG/
PA0021717
0.6
0.45
11.07
1.01
8
2,444,284
49.329
1
724,676
14.557
1
842.870
36,888
1
PA
MARTINSBURG
PA0028347
0.5
0.41
11.07
1.4E
8
2,374,508
47.892
1
627,970
13,814
1
736,700;
35,845
1
PA
MARYSVILLE MUNK
PA0021571
0.5
1,10
11.07
0.12
8
2,374,508
48.576
1
627,970
37,312
1
736,700;
9 6,817
1
PA
MECHANICS BURG
PA0020885
2.08
0.83
25.31
1.1:
8
3,462,978
66706s
1
1,667,731
18,672
1
2.429.489
39,"715
1
PA
MIDDLETOWN
PA0020664
2.2
1.19
20.08
0.71
8
3,544,425
¦72,505!
1
1714.052
26,114
1
2.533.468
55,422
1
PA
MIFFLINBURG BOR
PA0028461
CURRENT
0.512
0.70
6.18
0.7E
0
0
N
0
OS
639,575
23.560
1
749.440
60,939
1
PA
MILLERSBURG BOF
PA0022535
J
0.70
11.07
1.31
8
2722,193
55.131
1
1,111,500
20,429
1
1.267.550
48,892
1
PA
MILLERSVILLE BOR
PA0026620
1
0.69
1.75
1.3C
8
2722,193
54784
1
1111500
20,145
1
1.267.550
48,212
1
PA
MILTON MUNICIPAL
PA0020273
2.6
1.71
5.81
0.4:
8
3,814,671
76,696i
1
1,868,456
35.448
1
2.880.064
74,748
1
PA
MONTGOMERY BOI
PA0020699
0.6
0.52
32.35
2.3:
8
2,444,284
49.858
1
724,676
16,676
1
842.870
42,257
1
PA
MOSHANNON VALL
PA0037966
1,5
1.43
14.07
0.4E
8
3,066,885
62.920
... ,1
1.443.845
37,147
1
1.926.925
30.054
1
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-a 101 CBP0.11/22/2002
-------
Table X-A: NITROGEN INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED
DESIGN
2010 DATA-
TIER 1 $) (TN=8 for NRT plants))
TIER 2 ($) (TN=8 for ALL)
TIER 3 ($) (TN=5for ALL)
TIER 4 (S) (TN=3 for ALL)
ST/5
FACILITY
NPDES
BNR
STATUS
FLOW
(MGD)
FLOW
(MGD)
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mcj/l)
TN CC
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
TN CC
TN O&M |
¦.
TN CC
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
TIICC |
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
PA
MOUNT JOY
PA0021067
1.3
0.75
22.45
0.3S
8
2,929,367
56.610
1
1.366.643
20.927 1
1.753.627
45.359 1
PA
MOUNT UNION BOF
PA0020214
0.63
0.34
11.07
1,31
8
2,465,194
49.636
1
753.6SS
10.785 1,
874.721
27.163 1
PA
MOUNTAINTOP AR[
PA0045985
CURRENT
2.4
2.75
8.00
3.6:
0
0
N
0
0^
1,791,254
58,538 1
2.706.766
123.815 1
PA
MT. CARMEL MUNIC
PA0024406
_ 1.5
0.95
22.90
2.7:
8
3,066,885
62.740
1
1.443.845
24.650 1
1.926.925
53.123 1
PA
MT. HOLLY SPRING
PA0023183
0.6
0.38
14.92
0.67
8
2,444,284
48.311
1
724,676
12.336 "
842,8701
31.260 1
PA
MUNCY BOROUGH
PA0024325
1,4
0.64
8.35
1.5:
8
2,998,186
59.638
1
1,405,244
, 17.270 1
1.840.276
37.322 1
PA
NEWCUMBERLANC
PA0026654
1.25
0.49
11.07
0.4:
8
2,894,913
58.383
1
1,347,343
14.100 1
1.710.303
30.609 1
PA
NEW FREEDOM WT
PA0043257
1.3
1,15
19.60
1.5E
8
2,929,367
56.042
1
1,366,643
32.203 1
1.753.627
69.800 1
PA
NEW HOLLAND BOF
PA0021890
1.14
1.10
28.90
1.7C
8
2,819,009
52.382
1
1,304,881
33,165 1
1.614.989
72.262 1
PA
NEW OXFORD M UN
PA0020923
CURRENT
0.825
1.24
8.00
0.3:
0
0
N
0
J)j.
942.264
37.444 1
1.081.752
91.406 1
PA
NEWBERRY TOWN!
PA0083011
0.4
0.41
20.16
1.4E
8
2,304,611
46.658
1
531,264
14.926 1
630,530'
39.949 1
PA
NORTHEASTERN Y
PA0023744
1.7
0.65
11.07
1.2*
8
3,203,924
64.714
1
1.521047
15.875 1
2.100.223
34.039 1
PA
NORTHUMBERLANI
PA0020567
0.75
0.45
19.07
0.6:
8
2,548,725
51.570
1
869,735
13.850 1
1.002.125
34.169 1
PA
PALMYRA BOROUG
PA0024287
1,42
0.82
28.31
1.4E
8
3,011,935
57,355^
1
1,412,964
21.835 1
1.857.606
47.160 1
PA
PENN TOWNSHIP
PA0037150
4.2
1.66
9.34
1 0£
8
4,876,496
96.435
1
2,486,072
29.801 1
4.266.448
61.797 1
PA
PINE CREEK MUNIC
PA0027553
1,3
0.64
17.90
1.5:
8
2,929,367
59.403
1
1,366,643
17.967 1
1.753.627
38.942 1 _
PA
PINE GROVE BORC
PA0020915
0.6
0.45
18.94
2.71
8
2,444,284
49.478
1
724,676
14.529 "
842,870|
36.817 1
PA
PORTER TOWER JC
PA0046272
CURRENT
0.43
0.56
7.69
1.3C
0
,„„p
N
0
_ oj
560,276
19.852 1
662.381
52.590 1
PA
ROARING SPRING
PA0020249
CURRENT
0.7
0.68
5.61
1.5*
0
0
N
0
__0!
821,382
21.241 "
949,040;
52.825 1
PA
SAYRE
PA0043681
1.94
0.65
15.86
0.3:
8
3,367,738
68.131
1
1.613.689
15.179 1
2.308.181
32.374 1,
PA
SCRANTON SEWEF
PA0026492
BY 2005
28
13.15
8.00
1.7:
0
0
4
0
mm0i
11,673,110
184,956! 1
24.888.910
370.357 1
PA
SHAMOKIN-COAL T
PA0027324
7
3.56
25.26
1.8*
8
6,660,935
138,847!
1
3,566,900
57.265 1
6.692.620
117.070 1
PA
SHENANDOAH MUI*
PA0070386
2
1.19
7.60
0.4C
8
3,408,584
69.167
1
1,636,850
27.230 1
2.360.170
58.008 1
PA
SHIPPENSBURG BC
PA0030643
2.75
2.28
14.47
0.5C
8
3.915.519
80.883
1
1,926,358
_ 46.348 1
3.010.038
_ 97.527 1
PA
SILVER SPRING TO
PA0083593
0.5
0.16
5.92
0.47
8
2,374,508
47.610
1
627,970
5,308 1
736,700|
13.773 1
PA
SOUTH MIDDLETOI*
PA0044113
0.75
0.45
11.07
0.4:
8
2,548,725
51.419
1
869,735
13,895 1
1.002.125
34.282 1
PA
SPRINGETTSBURY
PA0026808
CURRENT
15
11.29
8.00
1.3:
0
0
... N ,
0
....... p!
N
6,654,980
165.406 "
13.624.540
333.413 1
PA
ST. JOHNS
PA0046388
CURRENT
0.6
0.32
5.88
1.07
0
0
N
0
0
N
724.676
m 10.327 "
842.870
_ 26.169 1 ,
PA
STEWARTSTOWN E
PA0036269
0.4
0.27
10.97
1.4:
8
2,304,611
46.151
1
531,264
9.811 "
630,5301
26.257 1
PA
SUNBURY CITY MU
PA0026557
BY 2005
3.5
3.01
8.00
2.41
3,000,000
63,044
15, M
0
0
N
2,500,000
63,999
S, M
0
„.„.o
A
PA
SWATARA TOWNSK
PA0026735
BY 2005
6.3
3.34
8.00
1.6*
2,000,000
32,982
13, M
0
0
N
5,659,000
55,000
S
0
0
A
PA
TOWANDA MUNICIF
PA0034576
CURRENT
1
0.68
8.00
2.0:
0
0
N
0
N
1,111,500
19.976 "
1,267,550;
_ 47.807 1
PA
TRI-BORO MUNICIP
PA0023736
0.5
0.28
10.21
0.9E
8
2,374,508
47.736
1
627,970
9,595 1
736,700;
24.896 1
PA
TWIN BOROUGHS £
PA0023264
0.6
0.35
11.07
1.31
8
2,444,284
49.225
1
724,676
11.139 1
842,870|
28.226 1 ,
PA
TYRONE BOROUGh
PA0026727
CURRENT
9
6.40
4.45
0.3E
0
0
N
0
0
N
4,338,920
99,159 1
8.425.600
201.598 1
PA
UNIVERSITY AREA
PA0026239
BY 2005
3.84
5.07
8.00
o.oe
780,000
6,986
3, M
0
0
N
520,000
20,598
3, M
0
0 A
PA
UPPER ALLEN TOW
PA0024902
0.48
0.55
11.07
1.51
8
2,360,538
47.756
1
60S.629
18.945 1
715,466=
49.431 1
PA
WASHINGTON TOW
PA0080225
CURRENT
1
0.93
7.79
2.57
0
0
N
0
0
N
1,111,500
27.222 1
1.267.550
65.149 1
PA
WAYNESBORO BOF
PA0020621
1.59
0.87
5.25
4.81
8
3,128,612
62.756
1
1,478,586
22.029 1
2,004,909!
47.362 1
PA
WELLSBOROMUNK
PA0021687
2
1.18
19.89
1.81
8
3,408,584
65.503
1
1,636,850
27.046 1 ,
2.360.170
_ 57.615 1
PA
WESTERN CLINTOh
PA0043893
CURRENT
0.9
0.35
2.58
0.9C
0
0
N
0
0
N
1.014.794
10.492 1
1.161.380
25.377 1
PA
WHITE DEER TOWf>
PA0020800
0.42
0.27
20.34
2.4:
8
2,318,600
46.747
1
550,605
9,694 1
651.764
25.766 1
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-a 102 CBP0.11/22/2002
-------
Table X-A: NITROGEN INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED
DESIGN
2010 DATA-
TIER 1 $) (TN=8 for NRT plants))
TIER 2 ($) (TN=8 for ALL)
TIER 3 ($) (TN=5for ALL)
TIER 4 (S) (TN=3 for ALL)
ST/5
FACILITY
NPDES
BNR
STATUS
FLOW
(MGD)
FLOW
(MGD)
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mcj/l)
TN CC
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
TN CC
TN O&M |
¦.
TN CC
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
TIICC |
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
PA
WILLIAMSPORT SA|PA0027057
BY 2005
10.5
7.32
8.00
3.4C
6,330,000
137,056
3, M
0
_ 0
N
9.610.000
217,201
3, M
0
0
A
PA
WILLIAMSPORT SAjPA0027049
BY 2005
4.5
2.67
8.00
4.1C
5,246,000
112.263
3, M
0
0
N
9,760,000
176,149
3, M
0
0
A
PA
WYOMING VALLEY
PA0026107
CURRENT
50
23.86
5.21
1.36
0
_ 0
3
0
0
N
24,690,000
402,031
3, M
0
0
A
PA
YORK CITY
PA0026263
CURRENT
26
11.93
8.00
0.26
0
0
3
0
...... 0
N
11.080.000
171,126
3, M
0
0
A
PA Total
,469.21
301 35
72,079,813
1,866,433
277,865,025
5,667,625
319,811,406
6,443,904
241,323,231
6,681,174
VA
ALEXANDRIA
VA0025160
BY 2005
54
37.94
8.00
0.0E
0
,„„„„0
5
0
N
20,000,000
592,000
S
55.000.000
800,000
S
VA
ALLEGHANY CO. LCh/A0090671
1.5
0.75
18.70
2.0C
8
3,066,885
116.567
1
1,443,845
19,548
1
1.926.925
42,126
1
VA
AQUIA
VA0060968
CURRENT
6.5
5.29
8.00
0.1C
8,000,000
160,000
09, M
0
_0l
N
4,000,000
35,000
S
0
0
A
VA
ARLINGTON
VA0025143
BY 2005
40
35.29
8.00
o.oe
0
0
5
0
0
N
16,305,230
489,067
1
35.286.790
976.927
1
VA
ASHLAND
VA0024899
BY 20-10
2
1.55
8.00
1.5C
2,415,700
45.093
S, M
0
0
N
0
...
s
0
0
S
VA
BROAD RUN WRF
VA_BROADR
BY 20-10
15
2.40
8.00
0.1C
13,500,000
268,466
17
0
0
N
6,654,980
35,163
1
11.025.070
72,654
1
VA
BUENA VISTA
VA0020991
2.25
J ,45
18.70
2.5C
8
3,578,310
68,555,
1
1,733,353
31,639
1
2.576.793
67,089
1
VA
CAPE CHARLES
VA0021288
0.25
0.15
18.70
2.5C
8
2,199,543
43.674
1
386,205
6,542
1
471,275)
18,769
1
VA
CAROLINE COUNTWA0073504
0.5
0.20
18.70
4.5;
8
2,374,508
47.083
1
627,970
6,631
1
736.700
17.205
1
VA
CLIFTON FORGE
VA0022772
2
1.23
18.70
2.5C
8
3,408,584
66.802
1
1,636,850
28,253
1
2.360.170
60,186
1
VA
COLONIAL BEACH
VA0026409
BY 2010
2
0.85
13.26
2.7S
90,000
740
3, M
0
0
N
3,360,000
39.766
3, M
0
A
VA
COVINGTON
VA0025542
3
1.78
18.70
2.5C
8
4,083,001
77.968
1
2,022,860
35,043
1
3.226.660
73,504
1
VA
CREWE STP
VA0020303
0.5
0.20
11.54
0.2E
8
2,374,508
47.295
1
,627,970
6,654
1
736.700
17,267
1
VA
CULPEPER
VA0061590
BY 2005
4.5
2.27
8.00
1.5C
4,200,000
82,381
6, M
0
0
N
2,601,875
39,978
1
4.526.395
82,721
1
VA
DAHLGREN (DAHLCjVA0026514
0.325
0.30
6.82
0.5^
8
30,000
0
3
520.000
13,353
3, M
0
,„„9
A
VA
DALE CITY #1
VA0024724
BY 2005
4
3.06
8.00
0.0E
0
0
5
0
0
N
1,060,000
24,433
S, M
0
0
A
VA
DALE CITY #8
VA0024678
BY 2005
4
2.85
8.00
0,1 C
0
m_0
5
0
„ 0
N
1,060,000
22.724
S, M
0
0
A
VA
DOSWELL
VA0029521
BY 2010
1
6.75
8.00
1.5C
3,045,000
57,875
6, M
0
oj
N
0
0
S
0
0
S
VA
FALLING CREEK
VA0024996
BY2010
10.1
8.24
9.57
1.26
395,818
2.206
6, M
0
0
N
5,598,000
393,000
s
0
0
A
VA
FARMVILLE
VA0083135
CURRENT
2.4
0.97
0.76
2.9:
8
0
0
N
1791254
20,726
1
2.706.766
43,838
1
VA
FISHERSVILLE
VA0025291
2
1.71
15.82
2.67
8
790,000
14.425
3, M
3,360,000
80,360
3, M
0
,,,0
A
VA
FMC
VA0068110
BY 2005
5.4
3.29
8.00
1.5C
0
0
21
0
0
N
2,949,284
55,633
1
5.306.236
114,502
1
VA
FORT A.P. HILL (WlfVA0032034
CURRENT
0.53
0,12
8.00
4.06
0
0
N
0
0
N
,656,982
3,882
1
768.551
9."5
1
VA
FRE DE RICKS BURG; VA0025127
CURRENT
3.5
2.23
8.00
1.3:
0
0
N....
0
0
N
2,215,865
41,955
1
3.659.905
87,526
1
VA
FRONT ROYAL
VA0062812
_ 4
2.76
11.21
1.11
8
50,000
0
3
4,790,000
99,650
3, M
0
0
A
VA
FWSA OPEQUON
VA0065552
CURRENT
8.4
5.89
8.00
1.V
0
0
5
0
0
N
6,390,000
238,000
S
0
0
A
VA
GORDONSVILLE
VA0021105
0.67
0.57
18,70
2.5C
8
2,493,057
48.685
1
792,370
17,816
1
917,189;
44,537
1
VA
H.L. MOONEY
VA0025101
BY 2005
18
14.63
8.00
0.1C
0
0
5
0
0
N
8,011,100
267,500
S
0
424,845
S
VA
harrisonburg-r|vaoo6064o
CURRENT
16
11.65
8.00
2.2C
0
_ 0
5
0
0
N
7,040,990
169.762
1
14,491,030;
341,8"
1
VA
HAYMOUNT STP
VA0089125
BY 2010
0.95
0.95
8.00
1.5C
2,687,559
53,319
1
0
0
N
1,063,147
27,986
1
1.214.465
67,319
1
VA
HENRICO COUNTY
VA0063690
BY 2010
75
50.00
8.00
1.5;
0
9,
6
0
0
N
25,000,000
4,000,000
s
0
_J)
A
VA
HOPEWELL
VA0066630
BY2010
50
35.12
21.00
1.5C
0
0
20
57,230,000
2,383,200;
16
13,200,000
1,603,300
16
39.750.000
539,700
16
VA
HRSD-ARMY BASE
VA0081230
18
17.45
23.60
1.3E
8
81,000,000
154.000
C14, C15
7.813.010
251,973
1
16.224.010
506,735
1
VA
HRS D-BOAT HARBQ VA0081256
25
23.05
23.29
1.41
0
8
112,000,000
151.900
C14, C15
10,515,080
326,016
1
22.289.440
653,438
1
VA
hrsd-chesapeakJvaoo81264
24
26.30
24.32
1.57
8
35,000,000
213.800
014
10,129,070
372,817
1
21.422.950
747,517
1
VA
HRSD-JAMES RIVElh/A0081272
20
20.00
20.27
1.3S
8
27,300,000
132,100|
014
8,585,030
286.681
1
17.956.990
575,853
1
VA
HRS D-NANSEMONg VA0081299
CURRENT
30
20,15
8.00
1.2:
0
o
014
13,100,000
014
12,445,130
282.443
1
26.621.890
565,263
1
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-a 103 CBPO.11/22/2002
-------
Table X-A: NITROGEN INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED
DESIGN
2010 DATA-
TIER 1 $) (TN=8 for NRT plants))
TIER 2 ($) (TN=8 for ALL)
TIER 3 ($) (TN=5for ALL)
TIER 4 (S) (TN=3 for ALL)
ST/5
FACILITY
NPDES
BNR
STATUS
FLOW
(MGD)
FLOW
(MGD)
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mcj/l)
TN CC
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
TN CC
TN O&M |
¦.
TN CC
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
TIICC |
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
va
HRSD-VIP
VA0081281
CURRENT
40
35.90
8.00
1.0C
0
_ 0
C14
10,000,000
0
C14
16,305,230
497,521
1
35.286.790
993,813
1
VA
HRSD-WILLIAMSBU
VA0081302
22.5
15.90
8.15
1.0C
8
15,800,000
0
C14
9,550,055
226,231
1
20.123.215
453,882
1
va
HRSD-YORK
VA0081311
BY 2010
15
12.70
8.00
1.5C
17,700,000
132,100
C14
0
0
N
6,654,980
186,069
1
13.624.540
375.063
1
VA
KILMARNOCK
VA0020788
0.2
0.25
4.61
2.56
8
2,164,460
43.304
1
337,852
11,859
1
418,1901
35.177
1
va
LAKE MONTICELLO
VA0024945
0.6
0.57
18.70
2.5C
8
2,444,284
47.709
1
724,676
18,275
1
842.870
46,309
1
,VA
LEESBURG
MD0066184
CURRENT
4.85
2.96
8.00
1.4:
0
0
5
0
m 0
N
2,736,978
51.194
1
4.829.666
105,691
1
va
LEXINGTON-ROCKE
VA0088161
CURRENT
4
0.87
18.70
2.5C
8
0
0
N
2,408,870
15,727
1
4.093.150
32,663
1
VA
LITTLE FALLS RUN
VA0076392
CURRENT
4
4.16
8.00
0.8E
0
0
5
0
. Pi
N
4,000,000
25,000
S
0
A
VA
LURAY
VA0062642
1.6
1.50
1.50
0.41
8
0
0
3
3,360,000
86,100
3, M
0
0
A
VA
LYNCHBURG
VA0024970
22
17.40
8.50
3.0E
8
54,000,000
620,000'
C6
845,000
1,000,000
C6
0
0
A
va
MASSANUTTEN PU
VA0024732
0.75
0.38
18.70
2.5C
8
2,548,725
50.186
1
869,735
11,663
1
1.002.125
28.773
1
VA
MASSAPONAX
VA0025658
BY 2005
8
4.38
8.00
1.5C
0
0
5
0
o[
3,952,910
69,073
1
7.559.110
140,780
1
va
MATHEWS COURTh
VA0028819
0.1
0.08
10.41
1.4S
8
2,094,204
41,818'
1
241,146
5,637
1
312.020
18,395
1
VA
MIDDLE RIVER
VA0064793
CURRENT
6.8
5.65
8.00
2.0J
0
5
0
........Pi
3,489,698
91,418
1
6.519.322
187,023
1
VA
MONTROSS - WES1
VA0072729
0.1
0.03
6.54
1.17
0
0
8
2,094,204
41.870
1
241,146
2,186
1
312.020
7,135
1
va
MOORES CREEK-R
VA0025518
15
11.89
13.46
3.17
8
11,242,076
209,708!
1
6,654,980
174,172
1
13.624.540
. .. 351 °83
1
va
NAVAL SURFACE V\
VA0021067
CURRENT
0.4
0.43
8.00
2.8E
0
0
N
0
0
531,264
15,661
1
630,530;
41,914
1
VA
NEWMARKET STP
VA0022853
0.5
0.56
18.70
2.5C
8
2,374,508
46.327
1
627,970
18,921
1
736.700
49.095
1
va
NOMAN M. COLE JF
VA0025364
BY 2005
67
53.00
8.00
0.11
0
5
0
0
12,760,000
345,810
3, M
0
0
VA
ONANCOCK
VA0021253
025
0.23
18.70
2.5C
8
2.199.543
43.505
1
386,205
10,055
1
471.275
28,848
1
VA
ORANGE
VA0021385
BY 2010
1.5
0.69
8.00
1.5C
3,066,885
59,901
1
0
0t
1,443,845
18,022
1
1.926.925
38,839
1
va
PARHAM LANDING
VA0088331
0.57
0.10
8.27
0.7E
8
2,423,364
48.416
1
695,664
3.386
1
811.019
8,637
1
va
PARKINS MILL
VA0075191
2
142
18.70
2.5C
8
97,000
922
3, IVI
3,360,000
66,779
3, M
0
0
A
VA
PROCTORS CREEK
VA0060194
CURRENT
21.5
17.65
8.00
0.3E
0
0
5
0
0
N
1,500,000
526,000
S
0
0
A
va
PURCELLVILLE
VA0022802
BY 2005
1
0.42
8.00
2.5C
0
. 0
5
0
0
N
1,111,500
5.790
3, M
0
0
A
VA
QUANTI CO-MAI NSII
VA0028363
CURRENT
2.2
1.38
8.00
0.1C
0
0
N
0
0
N
1,714,052
30,504
1
2.533.468
64,738
1
VA
REEDVILLE
VA0060712
0.2
0.04
18.70
2.5C
8
2,164,460
43.210
1
337,852
1,817
1
418,190'
5,391
1
va
REMINGTON REGIC
VA0076805
BY 2005
2
0.57
8.00
1.5C
0
0
5
0
_0i.
N
1.636.850
13,123
1
2.360.170
27,956
1
va
RICHMOND
VA0063177
BY 2010
45
47.99
8.00
1.5C
70,000,000
1.350.323
6, M
0
_ 0
N
10,000,000
363,325
S, M
0
0
A
VA
ROUND HILL WWTF
VA0026212
0.5
0.15
18.70
3.0C
8
2,374,508
47,177s
1
627,970
5,088
1
736,700j
13,203
1
va
SILMRRS
VA0090263
CURRENT
1923
127
8.00
1.5C
0
0
22
0
JDi
22
0
0
22
2.293.450
62,820
1
VA
SOUTH CENTRAL
VA0025437
BY 2010
23
12.93
8.00
1.5C
7,800,000
338,000
S
0
0
N
4,300,000
217,000
S
0
0
A
VA
SOUTH WALES STF
VA0080527
BY 20-10
0.856
0.86
8.00
1.5C
2,622,367
52,058
1
0
0
N
972,243
25,671
1
1114.665
62,417
1
va
STONY CREEK STP
VA0028380
0.6
0.26
18.70
2.5C
8
2,444,284
48.336
1
724,676
8,538
1
842.870
21635
1
,VA
STRASBURG
VA0020311
0.98
0.77
18.70
2.5C
8
120,000
794!
3, M
2,650,000
54,950
3, M
0
0
A
VA
STUARTS DRAFT
VA0066877
BY 2005
1.4
1,50
8.00
1.5C
0
„0
5
0
. 0
N
520.000
14,970
3, M
0
,_P
A
va
TANGIER ISLAND
VA0067423
0.1
0.05
18.70
2.5C
8
2,094,204
41.788
1
241,146
3,260
1
312,020!
10,639
1
VA
TAPPAHANNOCK
VA0071471
0.8
0.37
18.70
2.5C
8
2,583,478
50.893
1
918,088
11.352
1
1.055.210
27.S04
1
VA
TOTOPOTOMOY
VA0089915
BY 2010
5
5.00
8.00
1.5C
0
0
5
0
0
N
2,794,880
85,936
1
4.959.640
177,258
1
va
UPPER OCCOQUAh
VA0024988
54
34.00
19.14
0.0^
8
22,601,459
394,910;
1
21,709,370
466,998
1
47.417.650
931,433
1
,VA
URBANNA
VA0026263
0.1
0.11
18.70
2.5C
8
2,094,204
41.649
1
241,146
7,962
1
312,020!
25,983
1
VA
WARRENTON
VA0021172
2.5
1.18
1422
1.07
8
3,747,289
73,296;
1.„,
1,829,855
24,771
1 _
2,793,415=
52,313
1
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-a 104 CBP0.11/22/2002
-------
Table X-A: NITROGEN INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED
DESIGN
2010 DATA-
TIER 1 $) (TN=8 for NRT plants))
TIER 2 ($) (TN=8 for ALL)
TIER 3 ($) (TN=5for ALL)
TIER 4 (S) (TN=3 for ALL)
BNR
FLOW
FLOW
TN
TP
TN
I
TN
I
TN
ST/5
FACILITY
NPDES
STATUS
(MGD)
(MGD)
(mg/l)
(mg/l)
TN CC
TN O&M
NOTE
TN CC
TN O&M |
¦.
TN CC
TN O&M
NOTE
TIICC |
TN O&M
NOTE
va
WARSAW
VA0026891 J
0.3
0.22
18.70
2.5C
8
2,234,595
44.241
1
434,558
8,664
1
524.360
24,187
1
VA
WAYNESBORO
VA0025151
4
2.81
19.71
4.3E
8
3,500,000
44.309
3, M
0
0
3, M
0
A
va
WEST POINT
VA0075434
0.8
0.60
18.70
2.5C
8
2,444,284
47.444
1
724,676
19.364
1
842,870!
49,067
1
VA
WEYERS CAVE STF
VA0022349 !
0.5
0.40
18.70
2.5C
8
2,374,508
47.238
1
627,970
13,520
1
736.700
35,082
1
va
WIDEWATER WWTF
VA0090387
BY 2010
0.5
0.10
8.00
2.0C
2,374,508
47.445 1
0
0
N
627,970
3,380
1
736.700
8,771
1
VA
WILDERNESS SHOf
VA0083411 J
0.5
0.55
18.70
2.5C
8
2,374,508
49.352
1
627,970
18,467
1
736,7001
47,918
1
va
WOODSTOCK
VA0026468
0.8
0.42
18.70
2.5C
8
700,000
"13.131
3, M
2,650,000
36,668
3, M
0
0
A
VA Total
845.85
652.05
137,897,837
2,649,908
513,412,543
5,747,584
338,088,427
14,883,168
475,053,706
11,543,148
WV
BERKELEY COUNT
WV0082759 '
2.35
0.93
5.16
30C
8
3,645,992
72.898
1
.1,771,953
19,904
1
2.663.441
42,133
1
WV
BERKELEY COUNT
WV0020061 >
0.9
0.60
5.25
3.0C
8
2,652,895
53.035
1
1,014,7 94
17,883
1
1.161.380
43.254
1
WV
CHARLESTOWN
WV0022349
1.2
0.75
10.74
3.0C
8
2,860,429
56.745
1
1,328,042
21,846
1
1.666.978
47,502
1
WV
KEYSER
WV0024392 J
2.4
1.21
17.01
1.0E
8
3,679,787
74.749
1
1791,254
25,712
1
2.706.766
54,383
1
WV
MARTINSBURG
WV0023167
5
2.35
9.27
3.0C
8
5,395,915
47.892
1
2,794,880
40,329
1
4.959.640
83,186
1
WV
MOOREFIELD
WV0020150
BY 2010
0.6
0.00
8.00
3.0C
0
0
11
0
!°i
.... N
724,676
0
1
842.870
0
1
WV
PETERSBURG
WV0021792
0.8
0.74
6.14
3.0C
8
2,583,478
51.542
1
918,088
22,343
1
1,055,210!
54,725
1
WV
ROMNEY
WV0020699
0.5
0.46
17.20
3.0C
8
2,374,508
46.645
1
627,970
15.435
1
736.700
40.050
1
WV Total
13.75
7.02
23,193,004
403,506
10,971,658
163,451
15,792,986
365,233
Grand Total
2,341
1,767
597,914,959
12,368,080
921,719,133
18,831,375
1,190,881,573
41,771,993
1,664,017,020
50,265,410
Source Notes
* 2010 Data are the projections based on 2000 data. 2010 flows are projected with 2000 flow and population increase factor, except where facility's own projection is provided. Concentrations are the same as 2000.
1 = Calculated from the methodologies provided from Thor Young, Stearn & Wheler, LLC and Tom Sadick, CH2M Hill.
2 = NRT eligible cost report from MDE,4/23/02, where cost=0, MDE has indicated funds already appropriated
2a= NRT Cost report, from MDE 3/6/2002
3 = Randall 51 Facility Report, 1999 for BNR @8 and additional 3/2001 report with 60 facilities.
4 = Paid for by Corp of Engineers
5 = From VA 2000 Annual Report and VA 2002 annual Report - Assumes that the cost share information equals 1/2 of total BNR cost to get 8, and that funds are already made available for these facilities to go to 8,
except for FMC and Henrico where no funds have been spent as of 2002.
6 = Email from Bob Ehrhart to Allison Wiedeman, 3/7/02
7= BNR funded under federal funds.
8 = No cost is applied, because TN or TP =current level for Tier 1 for this facility
8a = The 2010 TP concentration of 1.5 mg/l shown for these facilities reflects the specific effluent concentration targeted by Virginia either under WQIF Grant program and/or the Tributary Strategy Plan for the Lower River Tributaries.
9 = Cost survey from Seaford WWTP, 3/22/02
10 = From 4/2/01 letters from Eastern Snyder County Regional Authority to Senator Specter. Also, costs not calculated to 8 because they are currently designing only to 3
(4/26/01 Telephone conversation between CBPO and Gannett Hemming'
11= Message from WVDEP, cost=0 due to irrigation.
12 = Email message from Paul Janiga, DE DNREC, 3/28/02.
13 = Cost survey from Mike Kyle, LASA, 3/6/02
14 = DC CSO & Blue Plains Cost Estimates- UAA cost analysis, from Tanya spano, WMCOG, 4/10/02
15 = Telephone conversation with Sunberry WWTP, 6/21/01
16 = Cost Summary: City of Hopewell, from Bob Steidel, Hopewell Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. 8/7/2002.
17= Message from Tom Broderick, LCSA, concerning Broad Run, 3/11/02
18 = Message from Marya Levelev, 4/5/02, Western Branch already can achieve 3 mg/l.
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-a 105 CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
Table X-A: NITROGEN INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED
DESIGN
2010 DATA*
TIER 1 $) (TN=8 for NRT plants))
TIER 2 ($) (TN=8 for ALL)
TIER 3 ($) (TN=5for ALL)
TIER 4 (S)
TN=3for ALL)
STfi
FACILITY
NPDES
BNR
STATUS
FLOW
(MGD)
FLOW
(MGD)
TN
(mg/l)
TP
(mg/l)
TN CC
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
TN CC
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
TN CC
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
TN CC
TN O&M
TN
NOTE
19 = Message from Marya Levelev, 8/12/02, to add $10 million TN cc in Tier 2 for Back River
20 = Message from Bob Steidel, 9/17/02, to remove the Tier 1 cost for Hopewell.
21 = Message from Bob Ehrhart, 9/4/02, to remove Tier 1 costs for FMC and Hopewell.
22 = Message from Bob Ehrhart, 9/19/02, to add SIL which replaced Broadway Lagoons, Timberville, Rocco Quality Foods and Wampler Foods-Timberville.
23 = Message from Bob Ehrhart, 11/14/02, No Tier 2 TP cost due to chemical feed facilities have been funded.
A = The capital costs at TN =3 from sources other than calculation are applied to Tier 3 for TN. And, in these cases, the Tier 4 TN capital costs are set to zero. Message from Allison Wiedeman, 5/3/02.
B = The value is set to zero, because this plant's TN or TP level have been lower than the defined level in this Tier for more than five years.
C14 = Message from W. Hunley, HRSD, 10/3/02
C15 = Cost shown represent an order of magnitude planning level estimate as transmitted by HRSD on October 3, 2002. A less costly alternative, which provides for only seasonal nitrification
and/or an annual average TN concentration greater than 8.0 mg/l, does potentially exist as discussed in the September 1989 Technical Memoranda C.22 and C. 25 prepared by CH2M Hill. Message from Bob Ehrhart, 11/4/02
C6 = Letter from City of Lynchburg to Allison Wiedeman, 7/14/2001
C9 = Bos, Robert E, PE, Public Utility Administrator with County of Stafford, letter to Allison Wiedeman, EPA, re: Nitrogen Removal Costs, 7/31/01
M = For facilities with existing capital costs and no O&M costs available, the O&M costs are calculated from exiting capitlal costs adjusted by the cost ratio between calculated O&M and capital cost from
the methodologies provided from Thor Young, Stearn & Wheler, LLC and Tom Sadick, CH2M Hill.
N = NRT facilities that currently have or will install NRT by 2010, It is assumed that no additional cost is needed.
S = From NRT cost survey results.
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-a
106
CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
Table X-B: PHOSPHORUS INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED
DESIGN
2010 DATA-
TIER 1 ($) (TP=Current)
TIER 2$) (TP=1 for ALL)
TIER 3 ($) (TP=0.5 for ALL)
TIER 4 (S) (TP=0.1 for ALL)
BNR
FLOW
FLOW
TN
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
STAl
FACILITY
NPDES
STATUS
(MGD)
(MGD)
(mg/l)
1
CC
O&M
NOTE
TP CC
TP O&M
NOTE
CC
TP O&M
NOTE
TP CC
TP O&M
NOTE
DC
BLUE PLAINS
DC0021199
CURRENT
370
341.71
7.50?
0.11
0
0 8
20,000,000
3,358,491
14
0
0
14
25,000,000
1,198,718
14
DC Total
370.00
341.71
0
0
20,000,000
3,358,491
0
0
25,000,000
1,198,718
DE
BRIDGEVILLE
DE0020249
BY 2010
0.8
0.22
8.00?
5.4c
0
0 8
141,111
10.888 1
0
1.198 1
1,107,172
46.479 1
DE
LAUREL
DE0020125
0.5
0.32
.22.32}
3.2c
0
0 8
112,778
8.023 1 ,
0
1.714 1
874,978
82.429 .1 .......
DE
SEAFORD
DE0020265
CURRENT
2
1.28
6.04S
1.1:
0
0 8
0
1.346 1
0
6.895 _ ,1
2,275,679
209.272 1
DE Total
3.30
1.81
0
0
253,889
20,257
0
9,807
4,257,828
338,180
MD
ABERDEEN
MD0021563
CURRENT
4
1.72
8.00;f
0.1:
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
3,763,436
240,882s 1
MD
ABERDEEN PROVING GRCMD0021237
BY 2005
2.8
0.91
8.005
0.41
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
2,902,223
138,716? 1 ,..,
MD
ABERDEEN PROVING GR(jMD0021229
CURRENT
3
0.96
8.00?
0.4E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
3,051,371
143,3921 1
MD
ANNAPOLIS
MD0021814
CURRENT
10
7.54
8.00?
P-4Z
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
6.701.258
823,833? 1 .....
MD
BACK RIVER
MD0021555
CURRENT
180
87.73
10.001
0.1£
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
100,291,496
8.307.728 1
MD
BALLENGER CREEK
MD0021822
CURRENT
6
4.12
.... 8-0tS .
0.3^
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
5,067,115
523.899 1
MD
BOWIE
MD0021628
CURRENT
3.3
2.09
8.00|
0.17
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
3,270,506
304,707; 1
MD
BROADNECK
MD0021644
CURRENT
5.23
8.00l
0.4E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
5,067,115
664,944; 1
MD
BROADWATER
MD0024350
CURRENT
1.27
8.00?
0.5^
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
546 1
2,275,679
207,940| 1
MD
BRUNSWICK
MD0020958
BY 2005
0.7
0.76
8.001
3.0C
0
0 8
131,667"
15.230 1
0
4.117 1...
1,035,087
.169,733: 1 .
MD
CAMBRIDGE
MD0021636
BY 2005
8.1
5.11
8.00?
2.7S
0
0 8
267,"721
78.132 1
0
27.610 1
6,322,049
606,062} 1
MD
CELANESE
MD0063878
BY 2005
1.25
1.02
... 8.00?
2.5S
0
0 8
163793
16.028 1
0
5.490 ,1
1,626,795
185.802 1
MD
CENTRE VILLE
MD0020834
BY 2005
0.375
0.35
8.00}
2.7E
0
0 8
100,973
7,245: 1
0
1.904 1
759,286
104,508; 1
MD
CHESAPEAKE BEACH
MD0020281
CURRENT
1.18
0.81
.,.,8.00? _
0.8E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
3.367 ,.1,„...
1,561,808
149.779 1
MD
CHESTERTOWN
MD0020010
BY 2005
0.9
0.65
8.00?
4.3^
0
0 8
150,556
21.050 1
0
3.530 1
1,175,260
129,708, 1
MD
CONOCOCHEAGUE
MD0063509
BY 2005
4.1
1.19
8.00?
1.27
0
0 8
0
1.696 1
0
4.073 1 .,..
3,832,009
165.660 1 ....
MD
COX CREEK
MD0021661
BY 2005
15
12.30
8.00;;
1.2E
0
0 8
0
28,17-2? 1
0
66.439 1
9,760,640
1.316.794 1
MD
CRISFIELD
MD0020001
BY 2005
1
0.68
8.00i
2.0:
0
0 8
160,000
8.934 1
0
3.670 .,.,1
1,390,000
130.791 1
MD
CUMBERLAND
MD0021598
BY 2005
15
9.60
8.00?
1.7;
0
0 8
0
58.071 1
0
51.857 1
9,760,640
1,027,777: 1
MD
DAMASCUS
MD0020982
CURRENT
1.5
0.86
8.00?
US
0
0 8
0
830 1
0
4.647 ...1......
1,851,848
150,771; 1
MD
DELMAR
MD0020532
BY 2005
0.65
0.58
8.00|
0.3J
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
997,280
133.080 1
MD
DENTON
MD0020494
CURRENT
0.8
0.41
8.00)
1.3E
0
0 8
0
1.268 1
0
2.207 1 .....
1,107,172
85.601 1
MD
DORSEY RUN
MD0063207
CURRENT
2
1.47
8.001
0.2:
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
2,275,679
240,527? 1
MD
EASTON
MD0020273
CURRENT
2.35
1.93
_ 8.0(S ^
2.5E
0
0 8
180,482
29.019 1 ,
0
. 10.417 1
2,556,347
304,602? 1
MD
ELKTON
MD0020681
BY 2005
2.7
1.73
8.00?
1.0E
0
0 8
0
1,252} 1
0
9.342 1
2,826,651
264,521} .., ,1
MD
EMMITSBURG
MD0020257
CURRENT
0.75
0.58
8.00}
1.9E
0
0 8
0
4.669 1
0
3.124 1...
1,071,677
.124,794; 1
MD
FEDERALSBURG
MD0020249
BY 2005
0.75
0.33
8.00}
0.9E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
1.696 1
1,071,677
71,053; 1
MD
FORT DETRICK
MD0020877
CURRENT
2
1.11
8.001
1.17
0
0 8
0
1.573 1 _
0
5.988 1
2,275,679
181.763 1 .....
MD
FORT MEADE
MD0021717
CURRENT
4.5
2.17
8.00|
0.1 £
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
4,102,241
295,232? 1
MD
FREDERICK
MD0021610
BY 2005
8
7.76
8.00?
4.1 £
0
0 8
266,204
210.251 ,.1„,..
0
41.937 1.....
6,264,304
923,206: 1
MD
FREEDOM DISTRICT
MD0021512
CURRENT
3.5
2.85
8.0(j
0.6E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
5.439 1
3,413,810
411,157) 1
MD
FRUITLAND
MD0052990
BY 2005
0.5
0.52
8.00;
3.0C
0
0 8
112,778
10.815 1
0
2.797 .1... ..
874.978
134,547) 1 .
MD
GEORGES CREEK
MD0060071
BY 2005
0.8
0.67
8.001
3.0C
0
0 8
122,222
13.502 1
0
3.613 1
958,115
159,887) 1
MD
HAGERSTOWN
MD0021776
CURRENT
8
8.47
8.00}
2.3S
0
0 8
266,204
97.440 1,,,
0
45.750 1 ,.
6,264,304
1.007.140 1 ...
MD
HAVRE DE GRACE
MD0021750
BY 2005
1.89
1.40
8.00?
0.8E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
5,935 1
2,184,979
232,027? 1
MD
HURLOCK
MD0022730
CURRENT
2
1.06
8.00?
7.17
0
0 8
175,172
57,625? 1.,,
0
5.736 1
2,275,679
174,099; 1
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-b
107
CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
Table X-B: PHOSPHORUS INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED
DESIGN
2010 DATA-
TIER
($) (TP=Current)
TIER 2$) (TP=1 for ALL)
TIER 3 ($) (TP=0.5 for ALL)
TIER 4 (S) (TP=0.1 for
ALL)
BNR
FLOW
FLOW
TN TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
I
TP
STAl
FACILITY
NPDES
STATUS
(MGD)
(MGD)
(mg/l) (mcj/l)
cc
O&M
NOTE
TP CC
TP O&M | NOTE
CC
TP O&M
NOTE
TP CC | TP O&M
NOTE
MD
INDIAN HEAD
MD0020052
BY 2005
0.5
0.35
8. OOf 2.5;
0
0 8
112,778
6714 1
0
1.904 1
874,978! 91.602 1
MD
JOPPATOWNE
MD0022535
CURRENT
0.95
0.86
8.001 0.8C
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
2.762 1__
1.208.015 166.256 1 _
MD
KENT ISLAND
MD0023485
BY 2005
2.135
1.64
8.00! 0.7:
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
3.866 1
2.385.295 265,019: 1
MD
LA PLATA
MD0020524
BY 2005
1
0.82
... .„.8-°tt 15£
0
0 8
0
4.030 1 ,
0
4.454 1
1.390.000 158.753 1
MD
LEONARDTOWN
MD0024767
BY 2005
0.68
0.48
8.00? 2.97
0
0 8
J29.,778
10.448 1
0
2.602 1
1,020,117: 108.696 1
MD
LITTLE PATUXENT
MD0055174
CURRENT
22.5
20.63
8.00| _ 0.3E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
14.243.449 2.165.645 1
MD
MARYLAND CITY
MD0062596
CURRENT
2.5
1.06
8.00$ 0.4E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
2.673.351 165,7825 1
MD
MARYLAND CORRECTIONMD0023957
CURRENT
1.23
0.94
8.00J 0.3E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
1,608,323! 173,208: 1 _
MD
MATTAWOMAN
MD0021865
BY 2005
15
8.17
8.001 0.1;
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
9,760,640: 875,188: 1
MD
MOUNT AIRY
MD0022527
CURRENT
1.2
0.66
8.00? 0.47
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
1.580.472 121,430; Jl _
MD
NORTHEAST RIVER
MD0052027
BY 2005
2
0.63
8.001 _ 0.9^
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
3.001 1
2.275.679 103.022 1
MD
PARKWAY
MD0021725
CURRENT
7.5
6.20
8.00? 0.2E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
5.972.817 748,618: „1,„
MD
PATAPSCO
MD0021601
BY 2010
73
7300
8.00j 0.7E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
184,707: 1
42.919.870 7.228.896 1
MD
PATUXENT
MD0021652
CURRENT
7.5
4.85
8.00 0.3^
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
5.972.817 585,016j 1
MD
PERRYVILLE
MD0020613
CURRENT
1.65
0.94
8.001 0.3C
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
1.982.292 160,794: 1
MD
PINE HILL RUN
MD0021679
CURRENT
6
3.89
8.001 1.36
0
0 8
0
11.611 1 ,
0
21.032 1
5.067.115 494,9011 1
MD
PISCATAWAY
MD0021539
CURRENT
30
25.30
8.00| 0.12
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
18.639.092 2.618.102 1
MD
POCOMOKE CITY
MD0022551
BY 2005
1.4
0.96
8.00» 4.26
0
0 8
166,069
29.233 1 ,
0
5.197 _ 1 _
1.763.058 171,343: J ,
MD
POOLESVILLE
MD0023001
BY 2005
0.625
0.66
8.00J_ 0.87
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
2.620 1
977.878 155,786 1
MD
PRINCESS ANNE
MD0020656
CURRENT
1.26
0.62
8.00I 0.11
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
1.636.003 113.132 1
MD
SALISBURY
MD0021571
BY 2005
6.8
5.90
8.00? 1.3E
0
0 8
0
19.113 1
0
31.854 1
5,556,410: 728,147: 1
MD
SENECA CREEK
MD0021491
BY 2005
5
18.80
. 8.00s 1.3C
0
0 8
0
45.868 1
0
101,586: 1
4.431.721 2.493.599 1 ,
MD
SNOW HILL
MD0022764
BY 2005
0.5
0.47
8.00> 3.7E
0
0 8
112,778
12.847 1
0
2.513 1
874,978: 120.880 1
MD
SOD RUN
MD0056545
CURRENT
20
12.59
8.00? 1.17
0
0 8
0
17.662 1 ,
0
68.048 _1
12.760.503 1.329.599 1
MD
TANEYTOWN
MD0020672
CURRENT
1.1
0.91
8.001 1.76
0
0 8
0
5.741 1
0
4.920 1
1.486.331 171,535: 1
MD
THURMONT
MD0021121
CURRENT
1
1.00
8.00? 0.7C
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
2.158
1.390.000 193,252] 1 _
MD
WESTERN BRANCH
MD0021741
CURRENT
30
23.00
8.00,j 0.6E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
39.020 1
18.639.092 2,380,093: 1
MD
WESTMINSTER
MD0021831
CURRENT
5
4.30
,8.00? 0.5;
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
1.185 1
4.431.721 570.732 1
MD
WINEBRENNER WWTP
MD0003221
BY 2005
1
0.22
8.00s| 1.77
0
0 8
0
1.414 1
0
1.193 J
1.390.000 42.511 1
MD Total
556.23
397.79
0
0
2,619,174
827,485
0
805,854
386,898,209 44,938,204
NY
ADDISON (V)
NY0020320
0.42
0.24
17.73j_ 3.0C
0
0 8
105,222
8.377 1
0
1.270 1
802.746 66.194 1
NY
BATH (V)
NY0021431
.J
0.76
17.61# 3.0C
0
0 8
160,000
15.754 1 ,
0
4.103 r 1__
1.390.000 146,21% 1
NY
BINGHAMTON-JOHNSON CNY0024414
BY 2005
20
19.53
8.00t< 2.0:
0
0 8
448,268
175,305: 1
0
J 05,551] 1
12.760.503 2.062.392 1
NY
COOPERSTOWN
NY0023591
0.52
0.65
18.95] _ 3.0C
0
0 8
114,667
12.998 J „
0
3.498 1_
892.180 165,283, 1
NY
CORNING (C)
NY0025721
2.13
1.30
19.77s 3.0C
0
0 8
177,144
24.996 1
0
7.°11i 1 .....
2,381,267: 209,716; 1
NY
CORTLAND (C)
NY0027561
BY 2005
10
8.52
8.00? 1.3C
0
0 8
0
21.404 1
0
46.048 1
6,701,258: 931.158 1 ,
NY
ELMIRA / CHEMUNG CO. S
NY0035742
12
7.19
15.00,j 3.0C
0
0 8
326,892
125.406 1
0
38.846 1
7.933.681 778,464: 1
NY
ENDICOTT (V)
NY0027669
10
7.58
,.23.47] 3.0C
0
0 8
296,548
131.191 1
0
40,935: 1 ,
6.701.258 827,759; 1
NY
HAMILTON (V)
NY0020672
0.85
0.45
29.291 3.0C
0
0 8
145,833
10.350 1
0
2.426 1
1.141.670 91.510 1
NY
HORNELL (C)
NY0023647
4
3.01
15.74; 3.0C
0
0 8
205,516
53.881 1 _
0
16.265 1
3.763.436 420.443 ,J
NY
LAKE STREET/CHEMUNG
NY0036986
9.5
7.12
19.68| 3.0C
0
0 8
288,962
123,447} 1
0
38.454 1
7.112.961 813,481! 1
NY
NORWICH
NY0021423
2.2
2.68
30.04] 3.0C
0
0 8
178,206
47.860 J _
0
14.476 1
2,437,447: 429.785 J
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-b
108
CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
Table X-B: PHOSPHORUS INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED
DESIGN
2010 DATA-
TIER
($) (TP=Current)
TIER 2$) (TP=1 for ALL)
TIER 3 ($) (TP=0.5 for ALL)
TIER 4 (S) (TP=0.1 for
ALL)
BNR
FLOW
FLOW
TN TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
I
TP
STAl
FACILITY
NPDES
STATUS
(MGD)
(MGD)
(mg/l) (mcj/l)
cc
O&M
NOTE
TP CC
TP O&M | NOTE
CC
TP O&M
NOTE
TP CC | TP O&M
NOTE
NY
ONEONTA (C)
NY0031151
4
3.01
17.76S 3.0C
0
0 8
205,516
53.833 1
0
16.249 1
3.763.436 420.033 1
NY
OWE GO #2
NY0025798
BY 2005
2
1.04
8.00} 2.4E
0
0 8
175.172
16.282 1
0
5.625 1
2.275.679 170.734 1
NY
OWEGO (V)
NY0029262
1
0.62
15.42} 3.0C
0
0 8
160,000
13_511 1 _
0
3.370 1
1.390.000 120,101; 1
NY
RICHFIELD SPRINGS (V)
NY0031411
0.6
0.32
16.58| _ 0.0E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
958.115 77.042 1 ,
NY
SIDNEY (V)
NY0029271
1.7
0.67
17.03? 3.0C
0
0 8
170,620
14.409 1
0
3.594 1
2.025.100 113,264; 1
NY
WAVERLY (V)
NY0031089
0.65
1.01
27.70} 3.5!:
0
0 8
126,945
23,843| 1
0
5,4555 1
997,280? 232,696} J,„,
NY Total
82.57
65.68
0
0
3,285,513
872,847
0
353,177
65,428,020 8,076,273
PA
ALJOONA CITY AUTHORI"
PA0027014
5.5
6.03
14.15} 4.3C
0
0 8
228,274
169,072? 1
0
32.558 1
4.753.037 781,731; 1
PA
ALTOONA CITY AUTHORI"
PA0027022
9
6.25
16.80| 4.2E
0
0 8
281,376
175.652 1
0
33.778 1
6.834.065 723,562; 1
pA
ANNVILLE TOWNSHIP
PA0021806
0.75
0.48
30.241 1.4E
0
0 8
0
1.910 1__
0
2.567 1 _
1.071.677 102,562; 1 ,
PA
ANTRIM TOWNSHIP
PA0080519
CURRENT
1.05
0.50
8.00} 2.1E
0
0 8
160.759
7.913 1
0
2,678? 1
1.438.455 94.382 1
pA
ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AU"
PA0023558
1.3
0.72
8.755 3-2:
0
0 8
164,552
16.583 1_
0
3.905 _1_
1,672,652? 130,953? 1 ,
pA
BEDFORD BOROUGH MUIjPA0022209
1.2
0.98
13.56} 1.3E
0
0 8
0
3.147 1
0
5.287 1
1.580.472 180,621; 1
PA
BELLEFONTE BOROUGH
PA0020486
3.22
2.07
16.03} .„0.6£
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
4.237 , J
3.212.578 304.699 1 _
pA
BERWICK MUNICIPAL AU1PA0023248
3.65
1.49
22.99| 4.36
0
0 8
200.206
45.232 1
0
8.029 1
3.519.941 212.006 1
pA
BLOOMSBURG MUNICIPASPA0027171
4.29
2.66
9.53} 1.41
0
0 8
0
9.021 1
0
14.381 1
3.961.156 365,752; J
PA
BLOSSBURG
PA0020036
0.6
0.21
11.07} 1.31
0
0 8
0
533 1
0
1.125 1
958,1151 49.767 1
pA
BROWN TOWNSHIP MUNI;PA0028088
0.6
0.34
27.44} 0.9:
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
1.549 1
958,115; 80.622 1
pA
BURNHAM BOROUGH
PA0038920
0.64
0.59
9.00? 1.5C
0
0 8
0
2,456} 1
0
3,211! 1
989,561; 137,944? 1
PA
CARLISLE BOROUGH
PA0026077
7
3.45
19.85} 0.4:
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0 1
5.676.432 422,786; 1
pA
CARLISLE SUBURBAN AU}PA0024384
CURRENT
0.925
0.70
8.00} 0.6E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
1.122 1
1.191.737 138,001) 1
pA
CHAMBERSBURG BOROU=PA0026051
BY 2005
5.2
4.78
.8.00} 2.6E
0
0 8
223.722
69.774 1
0
25.804 1 ,
4.561.171 _ 627,679? 1
PA
CLARKS SUMMIT-SOUTH
PA0028576
2
2.28
16.99} 3.1:
0
0 8
175,172
43.398 1
0
12.300 _ 1 _ _
2.275.679 373,330; 1
pA
CLEARFIELD
PA0026310
4.5
2.62
11.04} 0.7E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
7.870 1
4.102.241 356,678; J _
pA
COLUMBIA
PA0026123
2
0.83
17.50? 0.7C
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
1.821 1
2.275.679 135,371; 1
PA
CURWENSVILLE MUNICIPSPA0024759
0.5
0.45
14.68? 1.8E
0
0 8
0
3.190 1
0
2.418
874,978? 116.290 1 _
pA
DANVILLE MUNICIPAL AU'
PA0023531
3.22
2.15
8.97? 1.3E
0
0 8
0
6.224 1 _
0
11,623? 1
3.212.578 315,923! j
pA
DERRY TOWNSHIP MUNIC;PA0026484
5
3.47
14.77? 1.3;
0
0 8
0
9.430 1
0
18.776 1 ,
4.431.721 460,880? 1 ,
PA
DILLSBURG BOROUGH AlJpA0024431
1
0.66
11.07} 0.8E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
2.7091
1.390.000 126.762 1
pA
DOVER TOWNSHIP SEWEIPA0020826
CURRENT
^ 4
3.70
7.53? 1.36
0
0 8
0
11.171 1
0
_ 20.017 1
3.763.436 517,431! 1
pA
DUNCANSVILLE
PA0032883
1.217
0.61
8.00} _ 2.31
0
0 8
163,292
9.864 1
0
3.294 1
1.596.276 112,163, 1
PA
EAST PENNSBORO SOUTiPA0038415
3,7
2.42
.,.17.43? 3.4E
0
0 8
200,964
53.899 1
0
, 13.101 1
3,555,073? 344,813} 1,
PA
EASTERN SNYDER COUN;PA0110582
BY 2005
2.8
1.60
8.00? 3.9E
0
0 8
187,310
42.890 1
0
8.663 1
2.902.223 243,221? 1
pA
ELIZABETHTOWN BOROU=PA0023108
BY 2005
3
2.34
„8.00} 0.87
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
9.402 1
3.051.371 349,882} 1
pA
ELKLAND MUNICIPAL AUTPA0113298
0.55
0.43
22.82? 0.8E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
1.776 1
917,419' 108,165; 1
pA
EMPORIUM BOROUGH (M?PA0028631 _
0.52
0.48
6.88? _ 2.5E
0
0 8
114,667
_ 8.361 J _
0
2.600 1
892,180; 122,856; 1
pA
EPHRATA BOROUGH WWiPA0027405
3.8
2.78
1.98? _ 1.51
0
0 8
0
11.658 1
0
15.006 1
3.624.983 392,539; 1
PA
FAIRVIEW TOWNSHIP
PA0081868
0.5
0.40
J 1.07? 0.6^
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
621 1
874,97% 103,908; 1
pA
FRANKLIN COUNTY AUTH>PA0020834
0.4
1.08
1.05} _ 0.67
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
1,929; 1
783,713; 311,394, 1
pA
GETTYSBURG MUNICIPAL:PA0021563
CURRENT
1.63
1.62
^ 5.11? _ 0.51
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
228; 1_
1.965.078 278,207; 1
pA
GREATER HAZELTON
PA0026921
8.9
6.68
10.36? 0.9^
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
31.529 1
6.777.827 775,360; 1
pA
GREGG TOWNSHIP
PA0114821
CURRENT
0.8
0.66
6.60} 1,3E
0
0 8
0
1.822 1
0
3.592 1
1.107.172 139.294 1
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-b
109
CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
Table X-B: PHOSPHORUS INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED
DESIGN
2010 DATA-
TIER
($) (TP=Current)
TIER 2$) (TP=1 for ALL)
TIER 3 ($) (TP=0.5 fo
STAl
FACILITY
NPDES
BNR
STATUS
FLOW
(MGD)
FLOW
(MGD)
TN
(mg/l)
1
TP
cc
TP
O&M
TP
NOTE
TP CC
TP
TP O&M | NOTE
TP
CC
TP O&M
PA
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP
PA0028746
CURRENT
1.76
1.30
8. OOf
1.06
0
0 8
0
641 1
0
7,000
PA
HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP SE
PA0080314
2.5
2.01
9.35;
0.7C
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
4.316
pA
HANOVER BOROUGH
PA0026875
3.65
3.84
23.75
0.9E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
20,173
PA
HARRISBURG SEWERAGE :!»GG2 "!••
BY 2010
37.7
26.24
8.00|
1.3E
0
0 8
0
82.263
0
141,782
pA
HIGHSPIRE
PA0024040
2
1.05
14.97;:
1.6:
0
0 8
0
5.442 1
0
5,663
pA
HOLLIDAYSBURG REGIOIJPA0043273 ,
2
2.98
„,6.82i
1.7C
0
0 8
0
17.130 1 ,
0
16,076
PA
HOUTZDALE BOROUGH IV5PA0046159
CURRENT
0.3
0.12
6.89;
0.71
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
276
PA
HUNTINGDON BOROUGH
PA0026191
3.75
2.13
J1.07f
1.31
0
0 8
0
5.292 1
0
11,530
PA
HYNDMAN BOROUGH
PA0020851
0.104
0.08
11.11;
1.1C
0
0 8
0
69 1
0
450
pA
JERSEY SHORE BOROUGcPA0028665_
0.8
0.72
21.08;
6.0E
0
0 8
141,111
32.976 1
0
3,876
PA
KELLY TOWNSHIP MUNIC;PA0028681
CURRENT
2.75
1.82
2.20;
0.7E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
5,510
pA
LACKAWANNA RIVER BASPA0027090
7
5.12
13.16S
0.8E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
20,930
pA
LACKAWANNA RIVER BAS:PA0027065
6
2.45
9.13>
1.66
0
0 8
0
13.352 1
0
13,222
PA
LACKAWANNA RIVER BAgPA0027073
1
,.,0-34
28.10;
0.87
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
1,358
pA
LACKAWANNA RIVER BAS;:PA0027081
BY 2005
0.7
0.49
8.00;
1.1:
0
0 8
0
496 1
0
2,658
pA
LANCASTER AREA SEWE|PA0042269
BY 2005
15
7.78
8.00;
0.7E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
20,704
PA
LANCASTER CITY
PA0026743
BY 2010
29.73
20.71
8.001
0.81
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
59,130
pA
LEBANON CITY AUTHORI"
PA0027316
8
5.50
33.655
1.3E
0
0 8
0
17.519 1
0
29.739
pA
LEMOYNE BOROUGH MUI;PA0026441
2.088
1.66
22.88<
1.4:
0
0 8
0
5.826 1
0
8,970
PA
LEWISBURG AREA JOINT
PA0044661
BY 2010
2.42
1.20
8.004
1.3:
0
0 8
0
3.243 1_
0
6,472
pA
LEWISTOWN BOROUGH
PA0026280
2.4
1.89
14.oo|
1.3C
0
0 8
0
4,699; 1
0
10,238
pA
LITITZ SEWAGE AUTHORl]pA0020320_
3.5
3.02
23.00;
1.57
0
0 8
0
14.194 1 _
0
16.344
PA
LITTLESTOWN BOROUGhJpA0021229
1
0.51
12.51 J
1.7:
0
0 8
0
3.021 1
0
2,742
pA
LOCK HAVEN
PA0025933
BY 2010
3.75
2.18
8.oo;
2.4:
0
0 8
201,723
_ 29.561 1
0
11,782
pA
LOGAN TOWNSHIP-GREE;PA0032557
BY 2005
0.6
0.37
8.00,
2.6E
0
0 8
122,222
7.565 1
0
1,977
PA
LOWER ALLEN JOWNSHIP,PA0027189
5.95
3.40
13.63;
1.4E
0
0 8
0
12.559 1
0
18,392
pA
LOWER LACKAWANNA VA PA0026361
6
3.50
17.54|
1.57
0
0 8
0
16.610 1
0
18,911
pA
LYKENS BOROUGH
PA0043575
0.41
0.24
11.07#
1,31
0
0 8
0
619 1
0
1.306
PA
MAHANOY CITY
PA0070041
CURRENT
1.38
0.57
8.00|
2.67
0
0 8
165,765
11.192 1
0
3,089
pA
MANHEIM BOROUGH AUTIPA0020893
1
0.79
8.82;
1.3E
0
0 8
0
2.318 1
0
4,292
pA
MANSFIELD BOROUGH
PA0021814
1
0.58
10.501
2.2i
0
0 8
160,000
9.118 1
0
3,111
PA
MARIETTA-DONEGAL JOiriPA0021717
0.6
0.45
11.071
1.01
0
0 8
0
49 1
0
2,437
PA
MARTI NSBURG
PA0028347
0.5
0.41
11.07|
1.4E
0
0 8
0
_1.657 1
0
2,208
pA
MARYSVILLE MUNICIPAL
PA0021571
0.5
1.10
11.07;;
0.12
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0
pA
MECHANICS BURG BOROl!PA0020885
2.08
0.83
25.31;
1.1:
0
0 8
0
897 1
0
4,479
pA
MIDDLETOWN
PA0020664
2.2
1.19
20.08|
0.71
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
2,713
pA
MIFFLINBURG BOROUGH
PA0028461
CURRENT
0.512
0.70
6.18;
0.7E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
2,198
PA
MILLERSBURG BOROUGH PA0022535
1
0.70
11.07;
1.31
0
0 8
0
1.792 1 _
0
3.778
pA
MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH=PA0026620
1
0.69
1.75;
1.3C
0
0 8
0
1.730 1
0
3,726
pA
MILTON MUNICIPAL AUTHPA0020273
2.6
1.71
5.81?
0.4:
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
_ _ 0
pA
MONTGOMERY BOROUGI;PA0020699
0.6
0.52
32.35?
2.3:
0
0 8
122,222
8.126 1
0
2,792
pA
MOSHANNON VALLEY JOI=PA0037966
1.5
1.43
14.071
0.4E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0
TIER 4 (S) (TP=0.1 for
TP CC |
TP O&M
2.076.053
218,866
2.673.351
313,449
3.519.941
548,189
23.085.846
2,684,742
2.275.679
171,883
2.275.679
487,964
681,020;
39,909
3.590.086
302,530
412,902;
44,435
1.107.172
150,314
2.864.524
277,412
5.676.432
628,601
5,067,115;
311,140
1,390,000!
65,783
1,035,087;
109,583
9.760.640
833.618
18.482.056
2,144,517
6,264,304;
654.670
2,347,336;
269,562
2.611.175
187,943
2,595,551!
297,906
3.413.810
435,750
1,390,000!
97,739
3.590.086
309,155
958,115!
87,495
5.036.010
433,631
5,067,115;
444,999
793,284;
68.803
1.745.110
102,173
1,390,000;
152.977
1,390,000;
110,887
958,115;
107.846
874.978
106,229
874,978?
286,926
2.340.853
134,712
2.437.447
190,181
885.336
180,361
1,390,000;
134,655
1,390,000;
132,781
2.750.372
264,311
958,115!
123,545
1,851.848
249,869
NRT TABLE V-X.xlstable x-b
110
CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
Table X-B: PHOSPHORUS INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED
DESIGN
2010 DATA-
TIER
($) (TP=Current)
TIER 2$) (TP=1 for ALL)
TIER 3 ($) (TP=0.5 fo
STAl
FACILITY
NPDES
BNR
STATUS
FLOW
(MGD)
FLOW
(MGD)
TN
(mg/l)
1
TP
cc
TP
O&M
TP
NOTE
TP CC
TP O&M | NOTE
TP
cc
TP O&M
PA
MOUNT JOY
PA0021067
1.3
0.75
22.45}
0.3:
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0
PA
MOUNT UNION BOROUGHPA0020214
0.63
0.34
11.07}
1.31
0
0 8
0
866 1
0
1.826
pA
MOUNTAINTOP AREA
PA0045985
CURRENT
2.4
2.75
8.00}
3.6E
0
0 8
181,241
64.537 1
0
14,844
PA
MT. CARMELMUNICIPAL
PA0024406
0.95
..,..22.90?
2.7E
0
0 8
167,586
17.038
0
5,112
pA
MT. HOLLY SPRINGS BORPA0023183
0.6
0.38
14.92$
0.67
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
715
pA
MUNCY BOROUGH MUNIQPA0024325
1,4
0.64
8.35}
1.5E
0
0 8
0
2.937 1 ...
0
3.460
PA
NEW CUMBERLAND BORCIPA0026654
1.25
0.49
11.07J
0.4E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
P.
PA
NEW FREEDOM WTP
PA0043257
1.3
1.15
19.6ol
1.5E
0
0 8
0
5.504 1
0
6,211
PA
NEW HOLLAND BOROUGHPA0021890
1.14
1.10
28.90^
1.7C
0
0 8
0
6,369 1
0
5,960
pA
NEW OXFORD MUNICIPAL|PA0020923
CURRENT
0.825
1.24
„,8.00l
0.3;
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0.
PA
NEWBERRY TOWNSHIP
PA0083011
0.4
0.41
20.16}
1.4E
0
0 8
0
1.670 1
0
2,235
pA
NORTHEASTERN YORK CiPA0023744
1.7
0.65
11.071
1.2*
0
0 8
0
1.300 J ,
0
3.491
pA
NORTHUMBERLAND BORJPA0020567
0.75
0.45
19.075
0.6:
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
633
PA
PALMYRA BOROUGH AUTJPA0024287
1.42
0.82
28.31.1.
1.4E
0
0 8
0
3.244 ,1._
0
4,406
pA
PENN TOWNSHIP
PA0037150
4.2
1.66
9.34|
1 0£
0
0 8
0
1.242 1
0
8,990
pA
PINE CREEK MUNICIPAL /jpA0027553
1,3
0.64
17.90S.
1.5E
0
0 8
0
2.916 1 ,,
0
3,465
PA
PINE GROVE BOROUGH A;PA0020915
0.6
0.45
18.94J
2.71
0
0 8
122,222
8.801 1
0
2,433
pA
PORTER TOWER JOINT M PA0046272
CURRENT
0.43
0.56
7.69?
1.3C
0
0 8
0
1.395 ,1 ,,
0
3,039
pA
ROARING SPRING BOROLipA0020249
CURRENT
0.7
0.68
5.61|
1.5*
0
0 8
0
3.041 1
0
3,681
PA
SAYRE
PA0043681
1.94
0.65
15.86*
0.3E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
.._ 0
pA
SCRANTON SEWER AUTh|pA0026492
BY 2005
28
13.15
8.00?
1.7E
0
0 8
0
85.177 1
0
71,070
pA
SHAMOKIN-COAL TOWNS,PA0027324
7
3.56
25.26}
1.8*
0
0 8
0
24.700 1
0
19,219
PA
SHENANDOAH MUNICIPAI;PA0070386
2
1.19
7.60}
0.4C
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0
pA
SHIPPENSBURG BOROUCPA0030643
2.75
2.28
14.47:
0.5C
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
pA
SILVER SPRING TOWNSHJPA0083593
0.5
0.16
5.92}
0.47
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0
PA
SOUTH MIDDLETON TOW:PA0044113
0.75
0.45
11.075
0.42
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0
pA
SPRINGETTSBURY TOWNS PA0026808
CURRENT
15
11.29
8.00}
1.3:
0
0 8
0
29.686 1
0
61,004
pA
ST. JOHNS
PA0046388
CURRENT
0.6
0.32
v . 5.88}
1.07
0
0 8
0
185 1
0
1,729
PA
STEWARTSTOWN BOROUPA0036269
0.4
0.27
10.97}
1.4E
0
0 8
0
1,081] 1
0
1,469
pA
SUNBURY CITY MUNICIPAPA0026557
BY 2005
3.5
3.01
..... aool
2.41
0
0 8
197,930
39.036 1.,.,
0
16,289
pA
SWATARA TOWNSHIP
PA0026735
BY 2005
6.3
3.34
8.00;
1.6*
0
0 8
0
17.786 1
0
18,033
PA
TOWANDA MUNICIPAL AUPA0034576
CURRENT
1
0.68
_8.00|.
2.0E
0
0 8
160.000
9.298 1
0
3.694
PA
TRI-BORO MUNICIPAL AU}PA0023736
0.5
0.28
10.21}
0.9E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
1,503
pA
TWIN BOROUGHS SANITAPA0023264
0.6
0.35
11.07}
1.31
0
0 8
0
885 1
0
1,865
pA
TYRONE BOROUGH SEWgPA0026727
CURRENT
9
6.40
4.45}
0.3E
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0
pA
UNIVERSITY AREA JOINT
PA0026239
BY 2005
3.84
5.07
8.00}
o.oe
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0
pA
UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIRPA0024902
0.48
0.55
11.07?
1.51
0
0 8
0
2.314 J ....
0
2,995
PA
WAS HI NGTON TOWNSHIF PA0080225
CURRENT
1
0.93
...7.74
2.57
0
0 8
160.000
15.254 1
0
5.034
pA
WAYNESBORO BOROUGNPA0020621
1.59
0.87
5.251
4.81
0
0 8
168,951
57.274 1
0
9,254
pA
WELLSBORO MUNICIPAL
PA0021687
2
1,18
19.89j
1.81
0
0 8
0
7.872 J
0
6,384
pA
WESTERN CLINTON COUIJPA0043893
CURRENT
0.9
0.35
...2.58}
0.9C
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
1.526
pA
WHITE DEER TOWNSHIP
PA0020800
0.42
0.27
20.34}
2.4;
0
0 8
105.222
5.336 1 _
0
1.474
TIER 4 (S) (TP=0.1 for
TP CC |
TP O&M
1,672,652s
135,374
981.786
79,021
2,595,551}
431,926
1.851.848
165,809
958.115
91.392
1,763,05%
114.074
1,626,795;
90,161
1,672,652!
208,320
1,524,237}
206,067
1.124.540
256,280
783,713}
119,069
2.025.100
110.027
1.071.677
97,234
1,780,940i
144,781
3.900.164
229,776
1.672.652
116,225
958,115:
107,639
812,105s
156,668
1,035,087*
151,765
2.226.366
108.121
17.473.874
1,365,717
5.676.432
436,379
2.275.679
195,078
2.864.524
347.827
874,978,
40,819
1,071,677!
97,555
9.760.640
1,209,063
958.115
76.509
783.713
78,260
3.413.810
434,282
5.252.406
419,567
1,390,000;
...131.666
874,978}
73.782
958.115
82,522
6.834.065
740,666
3.652.817
.714,940
857,455:
146,780
1,390,000;
179,428
1,930,489;
150,328
2.275.679
193,758
1.175.260
70,078
802,746,
76,780
NRT TABLE V-X.xlstable x-b
111
CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
Table X-B: PHOSPHORUS INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED
DESIGN
2010 DATA*
TIER 1
($) (TP=Current)
TIER 2$) (TP=1 for ALL)
TIER 3 ($) (TP=0.5 for
ALL)
TIER 4 (S) (TP=0.1 for
ALL)
BNR
FLOW
FLOW
TN
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
I
TP
STA1
FACILITY
NPDES
STATUS
(MGD)
(MGD)
(mg/l)
'
CC
O&M
NOTE
TP CC
TP O&M | NOTE
CC
TP O&M
¦.
TP CC |
TP O&M
NOTE
PA
WILLIAMSPORT SANITARY
PA0027057
BY 2005
10.5
7.32
8.0C
3.4C
0
0 8
304,134
151.230 1
0
39,528
1
7.010.600
797,388
1
pA
WILLIAMSPORT SANITARX
PA0027049
BY 2005
4.5
2.67
8.0C
4.1C
0
0 8
213,102
72.604
0
14.409
1
4.102.241
362.436
1
pA
WYOMING VALLEY
PA0026107
CURRENT
50
23.86
5.21
1.3€
0
0 8
0
71.004 1
0
128.912
1
30.084.265
2,407,145
1
pA
YORK CITY
PA0026263
CURRENT
26
H.93
8.0C
0.2£
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0
1
16.303.836
1.243.143
1
PA Total
46921
301.35
0
0
4,793,727
1,724,742
0
1,291,747
396,116,842
40,127,199
VA
ALEXANDRIA
VA0025160
BY 2005
54
37.94
8.0C
O.Of
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0
1
0
0
B
VA
ALLEGHANY CO. LOWER
VA0090671
1.5
0.75
18.7C
2.0C
0
0 8
167,586
9.552 1
0
4,053
1
1.851.848
131.486
1
VA
aquia_______
VA0060968
CURRENT
6.5
5.29
8.0C
0,1 c
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0
1
5.374.706
660,273
1
VA
ARLINGTON
VA0025143
BY 2005
40
35.29
8.0C
o.oe
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0
1
0
0
B
VA
ASHLAND
VA0024899
BY 2010
2
155
8.0C
1.5C
0
0
8a
175,172
22.725 1 _
0
8.375
1
2.275.679
254.216
1
VA
BROAD RUN WRF
VAJ3ROADR
BY2010
15
2.40
8.00;
0.1C
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0
1
0
0
17
VA
BUENA VISTA
VA0020991
2.25
1,45
18.7C
2.5C
0
0 8
178,965
21.547 1 _
0
7.829
1
2.477.301
231,238
1
VA
CAPE CHARLES
VA0021288
0.25
0.15
18.7C
2.5C
0
0 8
89,167
4.826 1
0
821
1
623.612
54.373
1
VA
CAROLINE COUNTY REGI VA0073504
0.5
0.20
18.7C
4.53
0
0 8
112,778
7.980 1
0
1.060
1
874.978
50,988
1
VA
CLIFTON FORGE
VA0022772
2
123
18.7C
2.5C
0
0 8
175,172
18.807 1
0
6.668
1
2.275.679
202.405
1
VA
COLONIAL BEACH
VA0026409
BY 2010
2
0.85
13.26
2.72
0
0 8
175,172
15.570 1
0
4.572
1
2.275.679
138.784
1
VA
COVINGTON
VA0025542
3
1.78
18.7C
2.5C
0
0 8
.190,344
52.922 1
0
9,602
1
3.051.371
265.271
1
VA
CREWE STP
VA0020303
0.5
0.20
11.54
0.26
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0
1
874.978
51.172
1
VA
CULPEPER
VA0061590
BY 2005
4.5
2.27
8.0C
1.5C
0
0
8a
0
11.052 1
0
12,267
1
4.102.241
308,555
1
VA
DAHLGREN (DAHLGREN S
VA0026514
0.325
0.30
6.82
0.5^
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
_ 116
1
708.032
96,298
1
VA
DALE CITY #1
VA0024724
BY 2005
4
3.06
8.0C
0.0£
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0
1
3.763.436
427.580
1
VA
DALE CITY #8
VA0024678
BY 2005
4
2.85
8.0C
0.1C
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0
1
3.763.436
397.670
1
VA
DOSWELL
VA0029521
BY 2010
1
6.75
8.001
1.5C
0
0
8a
160,000
85.740 1
0
5.403
1
1.390.000
1,299,942
1
VA
FALLING CREEK
VA0024996
BY2010
10.1
8.24
9.57
1.2€
0
0 8
0
17.712 1
0
44.521
1
6.763.197
899.819
1
VA
FARMVILLE
VA0083135
CURRENT
2.4
0.97
0.76
2.9H
0
0 8
181,241
19.315 1
0
5.256
1
2,595,551^
152,928
1
VA
FISHERSVILLE
VA0025291
2
1.71
15.82
2.67
0
0 8
175,172
27.144 1
0
9.240
1
2.275.679
280,458
1
VA
FMC
VA0068110
BY 2005
5.4
3.29
8.0C
1.5C
0
0
8a
0
13.603 1
0
17.782
1
4.689.380
428.780
1
VA
FORTA.P. HILL (WILCOX ( VA0032034
CURRENT
0.53
0.12
8.0C
4.0€
0
0 8
115,611
5.259 J ,
0
630
1
900.666
29,518
1
VA
FREDERICKSBURG
VA0025127
CURRENT
3.5
2.23
8.0C
1.31
0
0 8
0
5.819 1
0
12,048
1
3.413.810
321.206
1
VA
FRONT ROYAL
VA0062812
4
2.76
11.21
1.11
0
0 8
0
2.469 1__
0
14.929
1
3.763.436
385,908
1
VA
FWSA OPEQUON
VA0065552
CURRENT
8.4
5.89
8.0C
1 .U
0
0 8
0
6.903 1
0
31,830
1
6.494.226
692.822
1
VA
GORDONSVILLE
VA0021105
0.67
0.57
18.7C
2.5C
0
0 8
128,833
9,596 1
0
3.059
1
1.012.557
128.660
1
VA
H.L. MOONEY
VA0025101
BY 2005
18
14.63
8.00|
0.1C
0
0 8
0
0 1
0
0
0
759,796
S
VA
HARRISONBURG-ROCKIN;VA0060640
CURRENT
16
11.65
8.0C
2.2C
0
0 8
0
0 23
0
62.951
1
10.364.714
1,243,671
1
VA
HAYMOUNT STP
VA0089125
BY 2010
0.95
0.95
8.0C
1.5C
0
0 8
0
3.927 1 _
0
5.133
1
1.208.015
184.010
1
VA
HENRICO COUNTY
VA0063690
BY2010
75
50.00
8.0C
1.53
0
0 8
300,000
500.000 S
0
270.175
1
300.000
580,000
S
VA
HOPEWELL
VA0066630
BY2010
50
35.12
21.0C
1.5C
0
0
8a
1,070,000
365.000 16
0
0
16
26.550.000
1,461,300
16
VA
HRSD-ARMY BASE
VA0081230
18
17.45
23.6C
1.3£
0
0 8
0
55.819 1
0
94.291
1
11.566.461
1.852.009
1
VA
HRSD-BOAT HARBOR
VA0081256
25
23.05
23.29
1.41
0
0 8
0
77.225 1
0
124,551
1
15.716.889
2,406,892
1
VA
HRSD-CHESAPEAKE/ELIZlvA0081264
24
26.30
24.32
1.57
0
0 8
0
124.804 1
0
142.112
1
15.128.584
2,751,813
1
VA
HRSD-JAMES RIVER
VA0081272
20
20.00
20.27
1.31
0
0 8
0
52.667 1
0
108,070
1
12.760.503
2,111,605
1
VA
HRSD-NANSEMOND
VA0081299
CURRENT
30
20.15
8.0C
1.2£
0
0 8
0
43.772 1
0
114.358
1
18.639.092
2.085.169
1
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-b
112
CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
Table X-B: PHOSPHORUS INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED
DESIGN
2010 DATA-
TIER
($) (TP=Current)
TIER 2$) (TP=1 for ALL)
TIER 3 ($) (TP=0.5 for ALL)
TIER 4 (S) (TP=0.1 for
ALL)
STAl
FACILITY
NPDES
BNR
STATUS
FLOW
(MGD)
FLOW
(MGD)
TN
(mg/l)
1
TP
cc
TP
O&M
TP
NOTE
TP CC
TP O&M |
¦.
TP
CC
TP O&M
TP
NOTE
TP CC |
TP O&M
TP
NOTE
VA
HRSD-VIP
VA0081281
CURRENT
40
35.90
8. OOf
1.0C
0
0
8
0
. 0
1
0
190.325 1
24.403.414
3.662.4S7 1
VA
HRSD-WILLIAMSBURG
VA0081302
22.5
15.90
8.153
J-.oc
0
0
8
0
1
0
85.916 1
14.243.449
1.668.967 ...1......
VA
HRSD-YORK
VA0081311
BY 2010
15
12.70
8.00*
1.5C
0
0
8a
0
34796
1
0
69.265 ,,1,,_.
9760,640;
1.360.100 1
VA
KILMARNOCK
VA0020788
0.2
0.25
,,..4.61^
2.56
0
0
8
84,445
22.658
1
0
1,345; 1
560.479
98.650 1
VA
LAKE MONTICELLO STP
VA0024945
0.6
0.57
18.70»
2.5C
0
0
8
122,222
9.467
1
0
3.060 1
958.115
135,391] 1
VA
LEESBURG
MD0066184
CURRENT
4.85
2.96
8.00;
1.4:
0
0
8
0
10.322
1
0
15.985 .....1 _
4,333782i
395,171] 1
VA
LEXINGTON-ROCKBRI DG| VA0088161
CURRENT
4
0.87
18.701
2.5C
0
0
8
205,516
14.863
1
0
4.685 1
3763,436;
121,106! 1
VA
LITTLE FALLS RUN
VA0076392
CURRENT
.4
4.16
..„ 8-0C§
0.8E
0
0
8
0
0
1
0
, 12,207; ...J
3763.436
581,054; 1 ..
VA
LURAY
VA0062642
1.6
1.50
1.50}
0.41
0
0
8
0
0
1
0
0 1
1.939.157
259,622} 1
VA
LYNCHBURG
VA0024970
22
17.40
8.50;
3.0E
0
0
8
478,612
308781
1
0
94.021 1 ....
13,947,657;
1.828.449 ...1 ...
VA
MASSANUTTEN PUBLIC S;VA0024732
0.75
0.38
18.701
2.5C
0
0
8
136,389
7,432i
1
0
2.050 1
1,0"71,677;
81.879 1
VA
MASSAPONAX
VA0025658
BY 2005
8
4.38
,8.00;
1.5C
0
0
8a
0
. 0;.
1
0
....... 23.682 1
6.264.304
.521,326; 1 ....
VA
MATHEWS courthouse v..:::::-:-:--;-
0.1
0.08
10.41;
1.4:
0
0
8
0
275
1
0
432 1
405,553;
43.471 1
VA
MIDDLE RIVER
VA0064793
CURRENT
6.8
5.65
8.00#
2.0J
0
..,,0
8
247,998
54.207
1
0
30.530 1 ...
5,556,410|
697.873 1 .
VA
MONTROSS - WESTMORE!VA0072729
0.1
0.03
6.54;
1.17
0
0
8
0
44
1
0
168 1
405,553i
16.863 1
VA
MOORES CREEK-RIVANN V»GG2: :
15
11.89
13.461
3.17
0
.. .,,....,0
8
372,408
219,075j
1
0
63711 J.„..
9760,640;
1,2"73,139; . .1.....
VA
NAVAL SURFACE WARFAIjVA0021067
CURRENT
0.4
0.43
8.00l
2.8E
0
0
8
103,334
50.513
1
0
2.345 1
783713
124.927 1
VA
NEW MARKET STP
VA0022853
0.5
0.56
J8.70|
2.5C
0
0
8
112,778
9.197
1
0
3.025 ...... J......
874.978
145.499 .1 .
VA
NOMAN M. COLE JR. POLlJvA0025364
BY 2005
67
53.00
8.00|
0.11
0
0
8
0
...ot
1
0
0 1
39,597,492;
5.270706 1
VA
ONANCOCK
VA0021253
0.25
0.23
18.70;
2.5C
0
0
8
89,167
10.034
1
0
1.264 ..J....
623,612;
83.572 J..
VA
ORANGE
VA0021385
BY 2010
1.5
0.69
8.00|
1.5C
0
0
8a
I67.586
11,927}
1
0
3.736 1
1.851.848
121.225 1
VA
PARHAM LANDING WWTPjVA0088331 ..
0.57
0.10
8.271
0.7E
0
.0
8
0
„„„o:
1
0
310 1
933,894]
25.369 1 .
VA
PARKINS MILL
VA0075191
2
1.42
18.701
2.5C
0
0
8
1 "75.172
21.125
1
0
7.678 1
2,275,6"79;
233,060; 1
VA
PROCTORS CREEK
VA0060194
CURRENT
21.5
17.65
,...,8.00|
0.3E
0
.0
8
0
0
1
0
0 1
13.651,476
1,856,981] 1
VA
PURCELLVILLE
VA0022802
BY 2005
1
0.42
8.00l
2.5C
0
0
8
160.000
8.452
1
0
2.289 1
1,390,000;
81,569; 1
VA
QUANTICO-MAINSIDE
VA0028363
CURRENT
2.2
1.38
8.00;
0.1C
0
.0
8
0
0
1
0
0 1
2.437.447
.222,149! 1
VA
REEDVILLE
VA0060712
0.2
0.04
18.70;
2.5C
0
0
8
84,445
3.318
1
0
205; 1
560.479
15.117 1
VA
REMINGTON REGIONAL
VA0076805
BY 2005
2
0.57
8.001
1.5C
0
0
8a
0
...o>.
23
0
......... 3.097 1.....
2.275.679
94,014; ...1.......
VA
RICHMOND
VA0063177
BY 2010
45
47.99
8.00;
1.5C
0
0
8a
0
198.373
1
0
145,391; 1
27,252,964;
4,867,426; 1
VA
ROUND HILL WWTP
VA0026212
0.5
0.15
18.70:-
3.0C
0
0
8
112,778
..4 745i..
1
0
813 1
874.978
39.128 1 ...
VA
SILMRRS
VA0090263
CURRENT
1.923
1.27
8.003
1.5C
0
0
22
0
.0!
22
0
0
22
2.212.325
209.375 1
VA
SOUTH CENTRAL
VA0025437
BY 2010
23
12.93
8.00?
1.5C
0
0
8a
0
......... 53.448
1
0
100.000
S
7,420,000;
200,000! S
VA
SOUTH WALES STP
VA0080527
BY 20-10
0.856
0.86
8.00l
1.5C
0
0
8
0
3.538
1
0
4.625 1
1.145747
1 "73.911 1
VA
STONY CREEK STP
VA0028380
0.6
0.26
18.70;
2.5C
0
.0
8
122,222
5725;
1
0
1.430 1
.958,115;
63.253 1
VA
STRASBURG
VA0020311
0.98
0.77
18.701
2.5C
0
0
8
158,111
12743
1
0
4,175t 1
1.227.295
147.537 1
VA
STUARTS DRAFT
VA0066877
BY 2005
1.4
1.50
8.001
1.5C
0
.0
8a
0
....... 11.513
1
0
8.105 ... 1 .....
1 763.058
26"7,211; 1
VA
TANGIER ISLAND
VA0067423
0.1
0.05
18.70;
2.5C
0
0
8
75,000
3.823
1
0
249! 1
405,553j
25.142 1
VA
TAPPAHANNOCK
VA0071471
0.8
0.37
18.70|
2.5C
0
.0
8
0
._0>
23
0
2.020 1
1.107_172
78.346 1
VA
TOTOPOTOMOY
VA0089915
BY 2010
5
5.00
8.OOI
1.5C
0
0
8a
0
20.668
1
0
27.017 1
4.431721
663.191 1
VA
UPPER OCCOQUAN SETO!VA0024988
54
34.00
19.14;
.0.0/
0
0
8
0
0
1
0
0 1
0
0i B
VA
URBANNA
VA0026263
0.1
0.11
18.70;
2.5C
0
0
8
75,000
8.928
1
0
611 1
405,553;
61.403 1
VA
WARRENTON
VA0021172
2.5
1.18
14.221
1.07
0
0
8
0
719s
1
0
6,376! .....1,,,,..
2.673.351
183791 1 ......
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-b
113
CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
Table X-B: PHOSPHORUS INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED
DESIGN
2010 DATA-
TIER
($) (TP=Current)
TIER 2$) (TP=1 for ALL)
TIER 3 ($) (TP=0.5 for ALL)
TIER 4 (S) (TP=0.1 for
ALL)
BNR
FLOW
FLOW
TN TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
I
TP
STAl
FACILITY
NPDES
STATUS
(MGD)
(MGD)
(mg/l) (mg/l)
cc
O&M
NOTE
TP CC
TP O&M | NOTE
CC
TP O&M
NOTE
TP CC | TP O&M
NOTE
VA
WARSAW
VA0026891 s
0.3
0.22
18.70* 2.5C
0
0 8
93,889
17,796| 1
0
1.173 1
681.020 71.309 1
VA
WAYNESBORO
VA0025151 /'
4
2.81
19.71 J 4.3E
0
0 8
,205,516
82.836 1
0
15.211 1
3.763.436 393.188 J _
VA
WEST POINT
VA0075434 J
°.e
0.60
18.70| 2.5C
0
0 8
122,222
11.048 1
0
3 749 1
958,115] 143,455: 1
VA
WEYERS CAVE STP
VA0022349 j
0.5
0.40
18.70> 2.5C
0
0 8
112,778
7,21 ©i 1
0
2.161 1
874,978: 103.969 1 ,
VA
WIDEWATER WWTP
VA0090387
BY 2010
0.5
0.10
8.001 2.0C
0
0 8
112,778
3.082 1
0
540}
874,978; 25.992 1
VA
WILDERNESS SHORES
VA0083411 J
0.5
0.55
18.70} 2.5C
0
0 8
112,778
9.031 1
0
2.952 1
874.978 142.010
VA
WOODSTOCK
VA0026468 j
0.8
0.42
18.70? 2.5C
0
0 8
141,111
8,010; 1
0
2.261 1
1.107.172 87.677 1
VA Total
845 85
652.05
0
0
7,379,470
2,841,483
0
2,071,890
409,232,246 52,293,664
WV
BERKELEY COUNTY PSSCWV0082759 J
2.35
0.93
5.163 3.0C
0
0 8
1S0.4S2
18.933 1
0
5.008 1
2.556.347 146.420 1
wv
BERKELEY COUNTY PSSCIWV0020061 J
0.9
0.60
5.25^ 3.0C
0
0 8
150,556
12.958 J „
0
3.251 1__
1.175.260 119,444! 1_
wv
CHARLESTOWN
WV0022349 ;
1.2
0.75
10.74} 3.0C
0
0 8
163,034
15,6171 1
0
4.038 1
1.580.472 137.960 1
WV
KEYSER
WV0024392 J
2.4
1.21
17.01 ^ 1.0E
0
0 8
0
449 1
0
6.520 1 ,
2,595,551; ,189,716; 1
WV
MARTINSBURG
WV0023167 J
5
2.35
9.27j 3.0C
0
0 8
220.6SS
43.211 1
0
12.679 1
4.431.721 311,2305 1
WV
MOOREFIELD
WV0020150
BY 2010
0.6
0.00
8.00J 3.0C
0
0 8
122,222
3,779i 1,
0
540 1
958,115; _
WV
PETERSBURG
WV0021792
0.8
0.74
6.145 3.0C
0
0 8
141,111
14,989' 1
0
_ 3.976 1 _
1.107.172 154,205| 1
WV
ROMNEY
WV0020699
0.5
0.46
17.20* 3.0C
0
0 8
112.778
9.806 1
0
2.467 1 _
874,978; 118,693j 1
WV Total
13.75
7.02
0
0
1,090,872
119,742
0
38,479
15,279,616 1,177,669
Grand Total 2,341 1,767 0 0 39,422,645 9,765,046 0 4,570,953 ########### 148,149,906
Source Notes
* 2010 Data are the projections based on 2000 data. 2010 flows are projected with 2000 flow and population increase factor, except where facility's own projection is provided. Concentrations are the same as 2000.
1 = Calculated from the methodologies provided from Thor Young, Stearn & Wheler, LLC and Tom Sadick, CH2M Hill.
2 = NRT eligible cost report from MDE,4/23/02, where cost=0, MDE has indicated funds already appropriated
2a= NRT Cost report, from MDE 3/6/2002
3 = Randall 51 Facility Report, 1999 for BNR @8 and additional 3/2001 report with 60 facilities.
4 = Paid for by Corp of Engineers
5 = From VA 2000 Annual Report and VA 2002 annual Report - Assumes that the cost share information equals 1/2 of total BNR cost to get 8, and that funds are already made available for these facilities to go to 8,
except for FMC and Henrico where no funds have been spent as of 2002.
6 = Email from Bob Ehrhart to Allison Wiedeman, 3/7/02
7= BNR funded under federal funds.
8 = No cost is applied, because TN or TP =current level for Tier 1 for this facility
8a = The 2010 TP concentration of 1.5 mg/l shown for these facilities reflects the specific effluent concentration targeted by Virginia either under WQIF Grant program and/or the Tributary Strategy Plan for the Lower River Tributaries.
9 = Cost survey from Seaford WWTP, 3/22/02
10 = From 4/2/01 letters from Eastern Snyder County Regional Authority to Senator Specter. Also, costs not calculated to 8 because they are currently designing only to 3
(4/26/01 Telephone conversation between CBPO and Gannett Hemming)
11= Message from WVDEP, cost=0 due to irrigation.
12 = Email message from Paul Janiga, DE DNREC, 3/28/02.
13 = Cost survey from Mike Kyle, LASA, 3/6/02
14 = DC CSO & Blue Plains Cost Estimates- UAA cost analysis, from Tanya spano, WMCOG, 4/10/02
15 = Telephone conversation with Sunberry WWTP, 6/21/01
16 = Cost Summary: City of Hopewell, from Bob Steidel, Hopewell Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. 8/7/2002.
17= Message from Tom Broderick, LCSA, concerning Broad Run, 3/11/02
18 = Message from Marya Levelev, 4/5/02, Western Branch already can achieve 3 mg/l.
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-b 114 CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
Table X-B: PHOSPHORUS INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED
DESIGN
2010 DATA*
TIER 1 ($) (TP=Current)
TIER 2$) (TP=1 for ALL)
TIER 3 ($) (TP=0.5for ALL)
TIER 4 (S) (TP=0.1 for ALL)
BNR
FLOW
FLOW
TN TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
TP
STA1
FACILITY
NPDES
STATUS
(MGD)
(MGD)
(mg/l) (mg/l)
CC
O&M
NOTE
TP CC
TP O&M
NOTE
CC
TP O&M
NOTE
TP CC
TP O&M
NOTE
19 = Message from Marya Levelev, 8/12/02, to add $10 million TN cc in Tier 2 for Back Rivei
20 = Message from Bob Steidel, 9/17/02, to remove the Tier 1 cost for Hopewell.
21 = Message from Bob Ehrhart, 9/4/02, to remove Tier 1 costs for FMC and Hopewell.
22 = Message from Bob Ehrhart, 9/19/02, to add SIL which replaced Broadway Lagoons, Timberville, Rocco Quality Foods and Wampler Foods-Timberville.
23 = Message from Bob Ehrhart, 11/14/02, No Tier 2 TP cost due to chemical feed facilities have been funded.
A = The capital costs at TN =3 from sources other than calculation are applied to Tier 3 for TN. And, in these cases, the Tier 4 TN capital costs are set to zero. Message from Allison Wiedeman, 5/3/02.
B = The value is set to zero, because this plant's TN or TP level have been lower than the defined level in this Tier for more than five years.
C14 = Message from W. Hunley, HRSD, 10/3/02
C15 = Cost shown represent an order of magnitude planning level estimate as transmitted by HRSD on October 3, 2002. A less costly alternative, which provides for only seasonal nitrification
and/or an annual average TN concentration greater than 8.0 mg/l, does potentially exist as discussed in the September 1989 Technical Memoranda C.22 and C. 25 prepared by CH2M Hill. Message from Bob Ehrhart, 11/4/02
C6 = Letter from City of Lynchburg to Allison Wiedeman, 7/14/2001
C9 = Bos, Robert E, PE, Public Utility Administrator with County of Stafford, letter to Allison Wiedeman, EPA, re: Nitrogen Removal Costs, 7/31/01
M = For facilities with existing capital costs and no O&M costs available, the O&M costs are calculated from exiting capitlal costs adjusted by the cost ratio between calculated O&M and capital cost from
the methodologies provided from Thor Young, Stearn & Wheler, LLC and Tom Sadick, CH2M Hill.
N = NRT facilities that currently have or will install NRT by 2010, It is assumed that no additional cost is needed.
S = From NRT cost survey results.
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-b
115
CBPO, 11/22/2002
-------
Table X-C: NRT CAPITAL COST SUMMARY FOR POINT SOURCES BY STATE AND CATEGORY
DESIGN
TIER 1 COSTS ($MIL)
TIER 2 COST ($MIL)
TIER 3 COST ($MIL)
TIER 4 COST ($MIL)
# OF
FLOW
INCREMENTAL
INCREMENTAL
CUMULATIVE
INCREMENTAL
CUMULATIVE
INCREMENTAL
CUMULATIVE
PLANTS
(MGD)
TN CC
TP CC
TN CC
TP CC
TN CC
TP CC
TN CC
TP CC
TN CC
TP CC
TN CC
TP CC
TN CC
TP CC
WATERSHED TOTAL
SIGNIFICANT
NON-SIGNIFICANT
304
185
2,336.01
21.17
597.91
0.00
0
0
921.44
0.00
40.09
0.00
1,519.36
0.00
40.09
0.00
1,190.49
0.00
0
0
2,709.85
0.00
40.09
0.00
1,663.59
83.09
1,301.89
11.30
4,373.44
83.09
1,341.98
11.30
INDUSTRIAL
49
459.51
0.00
0
48.57
2.36
48.57
2.36
46.02
0.8
94.58
3.16
112.58
83.91
207.17
87.07
DC-CSO
1
7.61
130.00
0
0
0
130.00
0
0
0
130.00
0
3,500.00
0
3,630.00
0
TOTAL
539
2,824.30
727.91
0
970.01
42.45
1,697.92
42.45
1,236.51
0.8
2,934.43
43.25
5,359.27
1,397.11
8,293.70
1,440.35
TOTAL BY STATE
DC
SIGNIFICANT
CSO
1
1
169.40
7.61
0.00
130.00
0
0
15.11
0.00
9.16
0.00
15.11
130.00
9.16
0.00
103.01
0.00
0
0
118.12
130.00
9.16
0.00
167.11
3,500.00
11.45
0.00
285.23
3,630.00
20.60
0.00
DC TOTAL
2
177.01
130.00
0
15.11
9.16
145.11
9.16
103.01
0
248.12
9.16
3,667.11
11.45
3,915.23
20.60
DE
SIGNIFICANT
INDUSTRIAL
3
1
3.30
37.83
3.19
0.00
0
0
2.37
0.00
0.25
0.00
5.56
0.00
0.25
0.00
3.18
0.00
0
0
8.74
0.00
0.25
0.00
4.15
0.00
4.26
0.00
12.90
0.00
4.51
0.00
DE TOTAL
4
41.13
3.19
0
2.37
0.25
5.56
0.25
3.18
0
8.74
0.25
4.15
4.26
12.90
4.51
MD
SIGNIFICANT
NON-SIGNIFICANT
INDUSTRIAL
65
181
10
725.82
20.59
53.30
384.75
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
25.13
0.00
12.25
11.79
0.00
0.21
409.88
0.00
12.25
11.79
0.00
0.21
356.36
0.00
5.89
0
0
0
766.24
0.00
18.14
11.79
0.00
0.21
658.43
80.97
5.70
398.36
10.99
15.76
1,424.66
80.97
23.84
410.14
10.99
15.97
MD TOTAL
256
799.71
384.75
0
37.38
12.00
422.13
12.00
362.25
0
784.38
12.00
745.09
425.10
1,529.47
437.10
NY
SIGNIFICANT
18
82.57
0.00
0
61.87
3.29
61.87
3.29
40.60
0
102.47
3.29
71.58
65.43
174.05
68.71
NY TOTAL
18
82.57
0.00
0
61.87
3.29
61.87
3.29
40.60
0
102.47
3.29
71.58
65.43
174.05
68.71
PA
SIGNIFICANT
INDUSTRIAL
123
19
469.21
75.62
72.08
0.00
0
0
277.87
17.34
4.79
0.79
349.94
17.34
4.79
0.79
319.81
16.95
0
0
669.76
34.29
4.79
0.79
241.32
47.98
396.12
23.89
911.08
82.27
400.91
24.67
PA TOTAL
142
544.84
72.08
0
295.20
5.58
367.28
5.58
336.77
0
704.05
5.58
289.30
420.00
993.35
425.58
VA
SIGNIFICANT
NON-SIGNIFICANT
INDUSTRIAL
86
1
16
871.95
0.05
292.44
137.90
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
515.90
0.00
13.79
9.72
0.00
1.27
653.80
0.00
13.79
9.72
0.00
1.27
356.55
0.00
22.72
0
0
0.8
1,010.35
0.00
36.51
9.72
0.00
2.07
505.21
0.40
58.37
411.00
0.07
44.27
1,515.56
0.40
94.88
420.72
0.07
46.34
VA TOTAL
103
1,164.44
137.90
0
529.68
10.99
667.58
10.99
379.28
0.8
1,046.86
11.79
563.98
455.35
1,610.84
467.13
WV
SIGNIFICANT
NON-SIGNIFICANT
INDUSTRIAL
8
3
3
13.75
0.53
0.32
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
23.19
0.00
5.19
1.09
0.00
0.10
23.19
0.00
5.19
1.09
0.00
0.10
10.97
0.00
0.45
0
0
0
34.16
0.00
5.64
1.09
0.00
0.10
15.79
1.71
0.54
15.28
0.25
0.00
49.96
1.71
6.18
16.37
0.25
0.10
WV TOTAL
14
14.60
0.00
0
28.38
1.19
28.38
1.19
11.42
0
39.81
1.19
18.05
15.53
57.85
16.71
NOTE: Blue Plains costs are allocated among DC, MD and VA according to the Blue Plains cost allocation methodology by MWCOG.
Non-significant category covers only plants with existing data in the database, which are mainly MD facilities. Most VA non-significant plants are not yet included due to no loading data.
Many industrial facilities do not have design flow data available. 2010 flows were used for industrial design flows. Actual design flows were used for several MD plants that have the data.
TN CC = Total Nitrogen Capital Costs; TP CC = Total Phosphorus Capital Costs
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstalbe X-C
116
CBPO, 11/12/2002
-------
Table X-D: NRT INCREMENTAL COST SUMMARY FOR POINT SOURCES BY CATEGORY AND STATE
Significant Plants Summary
TIER 1 COSTS (S)
TIER 2 COST (S)
TIER 3 COSTS (S)
TIER 4 COSTS (S)
STATE
TN CC
TN O&M
TN CC
TN O&M
TP CC
TP O&M
TN CC
TN O&M
TP CC
TP O&M
TN CC
TN O&M
TP CC
TP O&M
DC Total 1 153; 0 0 15.108.649 2.537.112 9.156.757 1.537.644 103.013.514 6.135.027 0 0 167.110.811 8.012.748 11.445.946 548.818
DE Total j 3' 3.3 3.187.400 63.244 2.374.508 147.026 253.889 20.257 3.182.908 46.665 0 9.807 4.152.080 106.537 4.257.828 338.180
MD Total 65 726 384.749.909 7.788.496 25.126.486 2.681.237 11.786.742 2.366.944 356.361.691 11.986.151 0 805.854 658.425.237 20.010.054 398.357.668 45.487.670
NY Total < 18 82.57 0 ...................... 0 !61.874.054 1.182.996 3.285.513 872.847 40.600.618 990.925 0 353.177 71.577.888 2.080.192 65.428.020 8.076.273
PA Total j 123 469.21 72.079.813 1.866.433 277.865.025 5.667.625 4.793.727 1.724.742 319.811.406 6.443.904 0 1.291.747 241.323.231 6.681.174 396.116.842 40.127.199
VA Total ; 86 888 137.897.837 2.649.908 515.898.541 6.206.296 9.721.232 3.261.645 356.552.954 16.008.012 0 2.071.890 505.210.107 13.017.780 411.003.381 52.423.385
VW Total 8 13.75 0 0 23.193.004 403,506; 1.090.872 119.742 10.971.658 163,451! 0; 38.479 15.792.986 365.233 15.279.616 1,177,669
Grand To 304 2,336 597,914,959 12,368,080 921,440,267 18,825,798 40,088,731 9,903,821 1,190,494,749 41,774,135
0 4,570,953 1,663,592,340 50,273,719 1,301,889,303 148,179,194
Insignificant Plants Summary
TIER 1 COSTS (S)
TIER 2 COST (S)
TIER 3 COSTS (S)
TIER 4 COSTS (S)
STATE
#
PLAN
DESIG
N
TN CC
TN O&M
TN CC
TN O&M
TP CC
TP O&M
TN CC
TN O&M
TP CC
TP O&M
TN CC
TN O&M
TP CC
TP O&M
MD
181
20.59
0;
0;
0;
0;
0
0;
0;
0
0
0
80.973.919
612.243
10,986,221;
287,877
VA
1
0.05
0!
0
0
0
0>
0>
0
0>
0
0>
403.080
2.342
70.278
1,729
VW
3
0.53::
0
0!
0!
0!
0
0
0
0
0
0!
1.712.349
9.949
246,761;
6,914
GRAND 1
185
21.17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
83,089,348
624,534
11,303,260
296,520
Industrial Plants Summary
TIER 1 COSTS (S)
TIER 2 COST (S)
TIER 3 COSTS (S)
TIER 4 COSTS (S)
STATE
TN CC
TN O&M
TN CC
TN O&M
TP CC
TP O&M
TN CC
TN O&M
TP CC
TP O&M
TN CC
TN O&M
TP CC
TP O&M
DE Total ]
MD Total;
PA total
VA Total ¦
VW Total
1 37.83
10 53.30
19 75.62
16 292.44
3 0.32
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0 12.251.672 544,428 210.673 47,381 5,888,095 424.429 0 113.749 5,695,679; 251.363 15,756,779; 2,550,713
0 17.337.769 321.654 785.589 172.314 16.954.957 504.830 0 138.513 47.981.091 1.733.061 23.885.080 3.648.345
0 13,786,149s 1,402,538= 1.265.216 722,524, 22,723,729; 2,297,5551800,000? 203.087 58,365,921 T 2,556,8571 44.272.979 6,519,313
0 5.190.884 102.636 95.395 4.520 449.977 12.366 0 1.707 541.288 34.255 0 0
GRAND 1 49 459.51
CSO SUMMARY
0 48,566,474 2,371,256 2,356,873 946,739 46,016,759 3,239,180 800,000 457,056 112,583,979 4,575,535 83,914,838 12,718,371
TIER 1 COSTS (S)
TIER 2 COST (S)
TIER 3 COSTS (S)
TIER 4 COSTS (S)
STATE
TN CC
TN O&M
TN CC
TN O&M
TP CC
TP O&M
TN CC
TN O&M
TP CC
TP O&M
TN CC
TN O&M
TP CC
TP O&M
DC 1 7.61 130,000,000 6,500,000 0 0 00 0000 3,500,000,000 175,000,000
GRAND TOTAL
W/OCSC 538 2,817 597,914,959 12,368,080 970,006,741 21,197,054 42,445,603 10,850,560 1,236,511,508 45,013,315 800,000 5,028,009 1,859,265,666 55,473,788 1,397,107,401 161,194,086
WCSO 539 2,824 727,914,959 18,868,080 970,006,741 21,197,054 42,445,603 10,850,560 1,236,511,508 45,013,315 800,000 5,028,009 5,359,265,666 230,473,788 1,397,107,401 161,194,086
NOTE: Blue Plains costs are allocated among DC, MD and VA according to the flow allocation projected by MWCOG. Most VA insignificant plants are not yet included.
NRT TABLE V-X.xlstable x-d 117 CBPO, 11/12/2002
-------
Table X-E: NRT INCREMENTAL COST SUMMARY FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES
TIER 1 COSTS (S)
TIER 2 COST (S)
TIER 3 COSTS (S)
TIER 4 COSTS (S)
STATE
TN CC
TN O&M
TN CC
TN O&M
TP CC
TP O&M
TN CC
TN O&M
TP CC
TP O&M
TN CC
TN O&M
TP CC
TP O&M
DC Total
0
0
33,000,000
5,541,509
20,000,000
3,358,491
225,000,000
13,400,000
0
0
365,000,000
17,501,280
25,000,000
1,198,718
DE Total
3,187,400
63,244
2,374,508
147,026
253,889
20,257
3,182,908
46,665
0
9,807
4,152,080
106,537
4,257,828
338,180
MD Total
384,749,909
7,788,496
10,000,000
141,129
2,619,174
827,485
253,226,556
5,843,881
0
805,854
491,117,129
11,987,846
386,898,209
44,938,204
NY Total
0
0
61,874,054
1,182,996
3,285,513
872,847
40,600,618
990,925
0
353,177
71,577,888
2,080,192
65,428,020
8,076,273
PA Total
72,079,813
1,866,433
277,865,025
5,667,625
4,793,727
1,724,742
319,811,406
6,443,904
0
1,291,747
241,323,231
6,681,174
396,116,842
40,127,199
VA Total
137,897,837
2,649,908
513,133,676
5,742,007
8,045,556
2,980,258
337,701,603
14,885,310
0
2,071,890
474,629,026
11,551,456
408,908,787
52,322,951
WV Total
0
0
23,193,004
403,506
1,090,872
119,742
10,971,658
163,451
0
38,479
15,792,986
365,233
15,279,616
1,177,669
Grand Total 597,914,959 12,368,080 921,440,267 18,825,798 40,088,731 9,903,821 1,190,494,749 41,774,135 0 4,570,953 1,663,592,340 50,273,719 1,301,889,303 148,179,194
Note: The costs listed are incremental.
NRT TABLE V-X.xlstable x-e
118
CBPO, 11/6/2002
-------
Table X-F: Total Design Flow and TN Capital Cost Summary for Significant Municipals by State
Tier 1 Facilities with Costs
Tier 2 Facilities with Costs
Tier 3 Facilities with Costs
Tier 4 Facilities with Costs
# of
Design
# of
Design Flow
Capital Cost
# of
Design Flow
Capital Cost
# of
Design Flow
Capital Cost
# of
Design Flow
Capital Cost
State
Plants
Flow (MGD)
Plants
MGD
%
$million
Plants
MGD
%
$million
Plants
MGD
%
$million
Plants
MGD
%
$million
DC
1
169.4
0
0.0
0%
0.00
1
169.4
100%
15.11
1
169.4
100%
103.01
1
169.4
100%
167.11
DE
3
3.3
1
0.8
24%
3.19
1
0.5
15%
2.37
3
3.3
100%
3.18
3
3.3
100%
4.15
MD
65
725.8
31
162.2
22%
384.75
1
349.6
48%
25.13
64
695.8
96%
356.36
64
695.8
96%
658.43
NY
18
82.6
0
0.0
0%
0.00
15
50.6
61%
61.87
17
72.6
88%
40.60
17
72.6
88%
71.58
PA
123
469.2
15
129.5
28%
72.08
85
188.7
40%
277.87
120
423.5
90%
319.81
102
220.9
47%
241.32
VA
86
876.7
14
127.9
15%
137.90
45
385.9
44%
515.90
82
867.7
99%
356.55
60
545.1
62%
505.21
WV
8
13.8
0
0.0
0%
0.00
7
13.2
96%
23.19
8
13.8
100%
10.97
8
13.8
100%
15.79
Total
304
2,341
61 420
598 155 1,158
921
295 2,246
1,190
255 1,721
1,664
TN Cost Notes: (detailed notes were listed in Table X-A)
Tier 1: MD All costs for 31 plants were provided from MDE, $200 million is due to Potapsco alone.
PA 5 plants used calculated costs; Costs for another 5 plants were from the Randall report; The remaining 5 plants used costs from survey or facility contacts.
VA 4 plants used calculated costs; 1 plant used the Randall report cost; 4 plants used the grant agreement costs; the remaining 5 plants used costs from survey or facility contacts.
Tier2: MD Back River ($ 10 million) and Blue Plains ($ 15Million)
PA 79 plants used calculated costs; Cost for 5 plant were from the Randall report; The remaining 1 plant used costs from survey or facility contacts.
VA 29 plants used calculated costs; 7 plants used the Randall report cost; the remaining 9 plants used costs from survey or facility contacts.
Table X-G: Total Design Flow and TP Ca
aital Cost Summary for Significant Municipals by State
Tier 1 Facilities with Costs
Tier 2 Facilities wit
i Costs
Tier 3 Facilities with Costs
Tier 4 Facilities with Costs
# of
Design
# of
Design Flow
Capital Cost
#of
Design Flow
Capital Cost
# of
Design Flow
Capital Cost
# of
Design Flow
Capital Cost
State
Plants
Flow (MGD)
Plants
MGD
%
^million
Plants
MGD
%
^million
Plants
MGD
%
^million
Plants
MGD
%
^million
DC
1
169.4
0
0.0
0%
0.00
1
169.4
100%
9.16
0
0.0
0%
0.00
1
169.4
100%
11.45
DE
3
3.3
0
0.0
0%
0.00
2
1.3
39%
0.25
0
0.0
0%
0.00
3
3.3
100%
4.26
MD
65
725.8
0
0.0
0%
0.00
16
206.5
28%
11.79
0
0.0
0%
0.00
65
725.8
100%
398.36
NY
18
82.6
0
0.0
0%
0.00
16
72.0
87%
3.29
0
0.0
0%
0.00
18
82.6
100%
65.43
PA
123
469.2
0
0.0
0%
0.00
27
71.1
15%
4.79
0
0.0
0%
0.00
123
469.2
100%
396.12
VA
86
876.7
0
0.0
0%
0.00
44
259.4
30%
9.72
0
0.0
0%
0.00
81
695.7
79%
411.00
WV
8
13.8
0
0.0
0%
0.00
7
11.3
83%
1.09
0
0.0
0%
0.00
8
13.8
100%
15.28
Total
304
2,341
113
791
40
299 2,160
1,302
Note: Blue Plains design flow and costs were allocated among DC, MD and VA based on the ratios provided by MWCOG for UAA.
But Blue Plains is counted only once in the "# of Plants" columns as a DC plant.
The "%" columns list the percentage of the design flow costed over the total design flow in each state.
NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-f-g
119
CBPO, 11/6/2002
------- |