OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

 Evaluation Report 

Despite Progress, EPA Needs to 

Improve Oversight of Wastewater 

Upgrades in the Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed 

Report No. 08-P-0049 

January 8, 2008 
Report Contributors: Martha Chang 

Dave Cofer 

 Dan Engelberg 

 Linda Fuller

 Julie Hamann

 Gerry Snyder 

Abbreviations 

CBPO Chesapeake Bay Program Office 

DCWASA District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

mg/l Milligrams per liter 

NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load 

Cover photo: Blue Plains Wastewater Treatment Plant, Washington DC. 

(Photo courtesy District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority) 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 08-P-0049 

Office of Inspector General January 8, 2008

At a Glance


Catalyst for Improving the Environment 

Why We Did This Review 

This review is one of several 

conducted by the Office of 

Inspector General in response 

to a congressional request. We 

sought to determine how well 

the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) is 

assisting its Chesapeake Bay 

partners in cleaning up the Bay.

This report evaluates the

progress in controlling

discharges from wastewater 

treatment facilities. 

Background 

Nutrient overload has been 

identified as the primary cause 

of water quality degradation

within the Chesapeake Bay.

Wastewater treatment facilities 

are responsible for

approximately 20 percent of 

nutrient discharges into the

Bay. Of this amount, the 

483 largest or “significant” 

facilities account for 95 percent 

of the discharges. Wastewater 

treatment facility operations are 

governed by the Clean Water 

Act’s National Pollutant 

Discharge Elimination System

Permitting Program. 

For further information, 

contact our Office of 

Congressional and Public 

Liaison at (202) 566-2391. 

To view the full report, 

click on the following link: 

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2008/ 

20080108-08-P-0049.pdf 

Despite Progress, EPA Needs to Improve 

Oversight of Wastewater Upgrades in the 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

What We Found 

Chesapeake Bay wastewater treatment facilities risk not meeting the 2010 deadline 

for nutrient reductions if key facilities are not upgraded in time. In the 7 years 

since signing the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement, EPA and its State partners have 

taken a number of steps to lay the foundation for achieving the 2010 wastewater 

nutrient reduction goals. Water quality standards have been set, nutrient loadings 

have been allocated, and nutrient limits are beginning to be incorporated into 

permits. However, States need to finish adding nutrient limits to the permits, and 

the facilities will need to make significant reductions in the 3 years remaining 

before the deadline. Crucially, these reductions will need to be maintained once 

achieved. Significant challenges include generating sufficient funding and 

addressing continuing population growth. EPA needs to better monitor progress to 

ensure needed upgrades occur on time and loading reductions are achieved and 

maintained. Otherwise, Bay waters will continue to be impaired, adversely 

affecting living resources throughout the ecosystem that supports commercial and 

recreational uses. 

We also looked at the potential for obtaining additional reductions from wastewater 

treatment facilities to compensate for goals not being met in other areas, but 

determined that this would not be practical or cost effective. 

What We Recommend 

We recommend that the EPA Region 3 Regional Administrator work with the 

States to establish interim construction milestones for priority facilities; monitor 

milestone and financial funding progress for these facilities; and continue efforts in 

developing effective and credible water quality trading programs. The Regional 

Administrator should also have EPA and States continue to evaluate industrial 

discharges and refine industrial nutrient cap loads where appropriate. In response to 

our draft report, EPA concurred with all our recommendations and estimated that 

wastewater facilities will come close to achieving the nutrient reduction goals in 

2010. EPA’s estimate was based on new information which had not been verified 

by EPA and was received too late for the OIG to evaluate. 
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR GENERAL 

January 8, 2008 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Despite Progress, EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of 

Wastewater Upgrades in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

Report No. 08-P-0049 

FROM: Wade T. Najjum 

Assistant Inspector General, Office of Program Evaluation 

TO: Donald S. Welsh 

 Regional Administrator, Region 3 

This is our report on the subject evaluation conducted by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) 

of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). This report contains findings that describe 

the problems the OIG has identified and corrective actions the OIG recommends. This report 

represents the opinion of the OIG and does not necessarily represent the final EPA position. 

Final determinations on matters in this report will be made by EPA managers in accordance with 

established resolution procedures. 

The estimated cost of this report – calculated by multiplying the project’s staff days by the 

applicable daily full cost billing rates in effect at the time – is $571,638. 

Action Required 

In accordance with EPA Manual 2750, you are required to provide a written response to this 

report within 90 calendar days. You should include a corrective actions plan for agreed upon 

actions, including milestone dates. We have no objections to the further release of this report to 

the public. This report will be available at http://www.epa.gov/oig. 

If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at 202-566-0827 

or najjum.wade@epa.gov; Dan Engelberg, Director, at 202-566-0830 or engelberg.dan@epa.gov; 

or Linda Fuller, Project Manager, at 617-918-1485 or fuller.linda@epa.gov. 
Despite Progress, EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of Wastewater Upgrades 

in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

Table of Contents 

Chapters 

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1 

Purpose ......................................................................................................... 1 

Background .................................................................................................... 1 

 Noteworthy Achievements.............................................................................. 4 

 Scope and Methodology................................................................................. 5 

2 Wastewater Treatment Facilities Risk Not Achieving 2010 Goals 

if Various Challenges Are Not Overcome ........................................................... 6 

More Nutrient Reductions Needed ................................................................ 6 

Challenges Must Be Overcome to Achieve Nutrient Reduction Goals........... 9 

Conclusions ................................................................................................... 14 

Recommendations ......................................................................................... 14 

Agency Response and OIG Comments ......................................................... 15 

3 Obtaining Additional Nutrient Reductions from 

Wastewater Facilities Not Cost Effective or Practical ....................................... 16 

Limited Additional Reductions ....................................................................... 16 

Potential Additional Wastewater Reductions 

Cannot Compensate for Other Sectors’ Missed Goals.............................. 18 

Conclusions ................................................................................................... 18 

 Recommendation ........................................................................................... 18 

Agency Response and OIG Comments ......................................................... 18 

Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits................................. 19 

Appendices 

A Details on Scope and Methodology .................................................................... 20 

B Tables on Reductions Needed ............................................................................ 23 

C Agency Response ................................................................................................. 25

D OIG Evaluation of Agency Response .................................................................. 30 

E Calculation of Potential Additional Nutrient Reductions 

Below Existing Cap Load Allocations................................................................. 33

F Distribution ............................................................................................................ 34 
Chapter 1

Introduction 

Purpose 

In 2000, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its Chesapeake 

Bay Program partners (Bay partners) agreed to improve the water quality of the 

Chesapeake Bay and its tidal tributaries. They sought to improve the water 

quality to the level needed to support aquatic life and to have the Bay removed 

from EPA’s impaired waters list by 2010. If the Bay partners do not achieve their 

nutrient reduction goals by 2010, EPA plans to establish a total maximum daily 

load (TMDL) for the watershed. 

Senator Barbara Mikulski of Maryland requested the EPA Office of Inspector 

General (OIG) to evaluate the progress being made toward achieving the 2010 

goals. In 2006, after we had started this review, EPA acknowledged that the 

nutrient goals will not be met by 2010 but did not set a new date. We previously 

reported on progress in agriculture, air deposition, and land development. This 

report focuses on progress in reducing contributions from wastewater treatment 

facilities. We sought to answer the following questions: 

• Will the 2010 goals for reducing nutrient loads from wastewater treatment 

facilities be achieved and sustained to restore the ecological health of the 

Chesapeake Bay? 

• What challenges must be overcome to meet and sustain reduction goals for 

nutrient loads from wastewater treatment facilities within the Chesapeake 

Bay watershed? 

• What further reductions can be achieved from wastewater treatment 

facilities if a future TMDL were to require point sources to compensate for 

non-point discharges not meeting 2010 goals? 

Background 

The Chesapeake Bay is North America’s largest and most biologically diverse 

estuary and provides the region economic and recreational benefits. The 

Chesapeake Bay watershed covers 64,000 square miles and includes parts of six 

States – Delaware, Maryland, New York, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West 

Virginia – and all of the District of Columbia. A watershed refers to a geographic 

area in which water drains to a common outlet. As of 2005, more than 16 million 

people lived within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

1 
Nutrients Primary Cause of Bay Water Quality Degradation 

Nutrient overload has been identified as the primary cause of water quality 

degradation within the Chesapeake Bay. Nitrogen and phosphorus, also known as 

nutrients, are the basic building blocks for vegetation. However, in an aquatic 

environment, excess nutrients fuel large algal blooms that block sunlight and 

deplete oxygen as the algae decompose. Without sunlight, underwater bay 

grasses cannot grow, and without sufficient oxygen blue crabs and fish cannot 

live. Nutrients come from many sources, such as lawn fertilizer, wastewater 

treatment plants, septic systems, cropland, livestock, and the air. Figures 1.1 and 

1.2 illustrate the contributions of nitrogen and phosphorus from various sectors. 

Figure 1.1: Nitrogen Loads - 2005 Figure 1.2: Phosphorus Loads - 2005 

Forest 

Mixed Open 

13% 

Urban Runoff 

17% 

Deposition to 

Atmospheric 

Non-Tidal 

Forest 

15% Wastewater 2% 22%

Agriculture 

40% Agriculture 

45% Wastewater 

20% 

Septic Atmospheric 5% Deposition to

Mixed Open Urban Runoff Non-Tidal 

7% 12% Water Water

1% 1%

Source: Chesapeake Bay Program Office data 

In an effort to protect and restore the Chesapeake Bay’s ecosystem, State and 

Federal agencies, academic institutions, and non-government organizations 

formed a regional partnership in 1983. The State governments, District of 

Columbia, and EPA signed various agreements in 1983, 1987, and 2000. The 

latest agreement, Chesapeake 2000, was signed by the States of Maryland, 

Pennsylvania, and Virginia (the “signatory States”); the District of Columbia; the 

Chesapeake Bay Commission (a tri-state legislative advisory body); and EPA. 

As the representative of the Federal Government, EPA and its Chesapeake Bay 

Program Office (CBPO) coordinate partner activity and implementation of 

strategies to meet the restoration goals of the Chesapeake Bay. CBPO, 

headquartered in Annapolis, Maryland, is part of EPA’s Region 3. Part of the 

CBPO’s charge is coordinating the actions of EPA with those of appropriate 

officials of other Federal agencies and State and local authorities in developing 

strategies to: 

• improve the water quality and living resources in the Chesapeake Bay 

ecosystem, and 

• obtain the support of the appropriate officials of the agencies and 

authorities in achieving the objectives of the Chesapeake Bay Agreement. 

2 
In Chesapeake 2000, the Bay partners agreed to improve water quality in the Bay 

and its tributaries so that these waters would be removed from EPA’s impaired 

waters list by 2010 and avoid the development of a TMDL. The non-signatory 

Bay watershed States of Delaware, New York, and West Virginia also agreed to 

nutrient goals by signing a six-State Memorandum of Understanding with EPA. 

A TMDL is a calculation of the maximum amount of a pollutant a waterbody can 

receive and still meet water quality standards, and an allocation (wasteload 

allocation) of that amount to the pollutant’s sources. These allocations would be 

incorporated as new discharge limits in permits of wastewater treatments 

facilities. 

Wastewater Sector Governed by Clean Water Act Regulations 

Wastewater treatment facility operations are governed by the Clean Water Act’s 

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permitting Program. 

Facilities must obtain a permit from the State or EPA to discharge pollutants into 

a waterbody. Permits are issued for a specific period of time not to exceed 

5 years. Facilities are expected to monitor and report on their compliance with 

permit limits. Region 3 administers the NPDES program for the District of 

Columbia while the States administer their own programs. 

In 2004, EPA, the six watershed States and District of Columbia agreed to the 

NPDES Permitting Approach of Discharges of Nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed, with the purpose of issuing NPDES permits to “significant” municipal 

and industrial wastewater treatment facilities to further the goals of the 

Chesapeake 2000 agreement. “Significant” facilities were defined as a subset of 

all municipal and industrial facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed that are 

discharging or have potential to discharge significant amounts of nitrogen and 

phosphorus. 

EPA and its Bay partners expect most significant municipal wastewater treatment 

facilities to upgrade plant technologies to meet the new NPDES permit limits. 

Most limits have been set to require biological nutrient removal technology, 

through which bacteria-enhanced treatment reduces effluent total nitrogen to an 

average of 5 milligrams per liter (mg/l) and total phosphorus to an average of 

0.5 mg/l. Maryland has required all of its significant facilities and Virginia half to 

use state-of-the-art, or enhanced, nutrient removal technology. Such technology 

can achieve total nitrogen levels as low as 3 mg/l and total phosphorus levels as a 

low as 0.03 mg/l. 

To date, EPA and its Bay partners have identified 483 facilities (402 municipal 

wastewater plants and 81 industrial wastewater plants) as “significant” 

dischargers of nitrogen and phosphorus. Table 1.1 provides a breakdown by 

jurisdiction. The total number of significant facilities will increase over time as 

growth in population leads to increased flows at the smaller facilities. 

3 
Table 1.1: Chesapeake Bay Significant Wastewater Treatment Facilities 

Jurisdiction Municipal Industrial Total 

Design Flow 

(million gallons 

per day) 

District of Columbia 1 0 1 370 

Delaware 3 1 4 3 

Maryland 75 10 85 676 

New York 26 2 28 91 

Pennsylvania 183 30 213 648 

Virginia 101 23 124 1,206 

West Virginia 13 15 28 46 

Total 402 81 483 3,0401 

Source: CBPO as of July 2007 

The size of significant facilities, measured in terms of design flow – the quantity 

of sewerage a plant is designed to discharge – typically starts with a minimum 

design flow of 0.4 to 0.5 million gallons per day, depending on the State’s 

definition. These plants account for approximately 95 percent of the nitrogen and 

phosphorus wastewater loads into the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Discharges 

from wastewater treatment facilities are described in terms of "delivered" or 

"discharged" loads. Loads express the amount of a particular pollutant discharged 

to the receiving water. The discharged load is that discharged at the end-of-pipe. 

The delivered load is an estimated load from the Bay watershed model that 

represents the amount of nutrient that reaches the tidal waters of the Chesapeake 

Bay or its tributaries. 

Noteworthy Achievements 

EPA and its Bay partners have taken considerable steps to lay the foundation for 

achieving the 2010 wastewater point source nutrient reduction goals. EPA 

worked with its Bay partners to establish the overall nutrient reduction goals so 

that the Bay and its tributaries can be removed from the impaired waters list. 

EPA assisted the States in revising their water quality standards by issuing its 

April 2003 Ambient Water Quality Criteria for Dissolved Oxygen, Water Clarity, 

and Chlorophyll a for the Chesapeake Bay and Its Tidal Tributaries, and its 

October 2003 Technical Support Document for Identification of Chesapeake Bay 

Designated Uses and Attainability. 

 In December 2004, EPA Regions 2 and 3 and the Chesapeake Bay jurisdictional 

partners developed and agreed to the NPDES Permitting Approach for Discharges 

of Nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed for municipal and industrial 

wastewater NPDES discharge sources. With this approach, EPA and State 

NPDES permitting authorities agreed to place annual total nitrogen and 

phosphorus load limits (consistent with the individual State tributary strategies) 

and monitoring requirements (consistent with Chesapeake Bay nutrient goals) in 

1

 For two high flow cooling water facilities, the CBPO tracks only the loadings and not the design flow; therefore, 

the design flow represents 481 rather than 483 facilities. 

4 
the permits of all significant dischargers in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. This 

is particularly noteworthy considering some dischargers are hundreds of miles 

upstream and may not directly benefit from improvements to the Bay. 

Scope and Methodology 

We conducted this evaluation in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and 

perform the evaluation to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide 

a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our evaluation 

objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our evaluation objectives. 

We reviewed loadings data from 1985 to 2005 to determine the progress the 

Chesapeake Bay Program partners have made in reducing nutrients, and the 

activities the Bay partners had taken in meeting wastewater treatment nutrient 

reduction goals resulting from the Chesapeake 2000 agreement. We performed 

our work at EPA Region 3 and the Chesapeake Bay Program, and Chesapeake 

Bay jurisdictions, from October 2006 through July 2007. For the purposes of this 

evaluation, the only point sources reviewed were wastewater treatment facilities. 

We did not review discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations or 

stormwater point sources. Discharges from stormwater are discussed in another 

report.2 

Appendix A provides further details on our scope and methodology, including 

prior reviews. 

2

 EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00031, Development Growth Outpacing Progress in Watershed Efforts to Restore 

the Chesapeake Bay, September 10, 2007. 

5 
Chapter 2

Wastewater Treatment Facilities Risk Not Achieving 

2010 Goals if Various Challenges Are Not Overcome 

Chesapeake Bay wastewater treatment facilities risk not achieving the 2010 

deadline for nutrient reductions if key facilities are not upgraded in time. EPA 

and its Bay partners agreed wastewater treatment facilities should discharge no 

more than 43.6 million pounds of nitrogen and 3.3 million pounds of phosphorus 

on an annual basis.3 EPA and its Bay partners have made progress in controlling 

nutrient discharges from these facilities but challenges persist, including: 

• generating sufficient funding to upgrade technology, 

• developing viable trading programs, and 

• maintaining existing cap loads with increasing population. 

If wastewater treatment facilities are not upgraded as expeditiously as possible, 

Bay waters will continue to be impaired, adversely affecting the living resources 

throughout the ecosystem that support commercial and recreational uses. 

More Nutrient Reductions Needed 

Although the wastewater treatment sector has made progress, more reductions are 

needed to achieve the nutrient reduction goals. Based on CBPO data, nitrogen 

loads delivered to the Bay declined from 88 million pounds per year in 1985 to 

63 million pounds in 2000. These reductions can be attributed to industrial 

reductions and installation of biological nutrient reduction technology at some 

municipal facilities. Phosphorus loads delivered to the Bay declined from 

9 million pounds per year in 1985 to 4 million pounds in 2000 as a result of 

improved treatment capability and implementation of phosphate detergent bans. 

Since 2000, when the 2010 nutrient goals were established, nitrogen and 

phosphorus loadings have declined. Based on CBPO data, nitrogen loads 

delivered to the Bay declined from 63 million pounds per year in 2000 to 

54 million pounds in 2005. Phosphorus loads delivered to the Bay declined from 

4.3 million pounds per year in 2000 to 4 million pounds in 2005. Despite this 

progress, more reductions are needed to achieve the 2010 goals, which are 

43.6 million pounds for nitrogen and 3.3 million pounds for phosphorus on an 

annual basis. Achieving the goals on time is uncertain based on the existing rate 

3

 The wastewater treatment nutrient reductions goals were obtained from State-provided documents and may have 

changed slightly from the tributary strategies. EPA and State officials both agreed that it is more accurate to present 

current State nutrient reductions goals. 

6 
of decline for both total nitrogen and phosphorus. EPA and its Bay partners are 

relying on a number of significant wastewater treatment facilities to install or 

upgrade nutrient removal technology during the remaining years before, as well as 

after, the 2010 deadline. 

A Few Facilities Responsible for Majority of Nutrient Reductions 

A few States and facilities are responsible for the majority of nutrient reductions 

needed. At the State level, Maryland and Virginia are responsible for 

approximately 81 percent of the additional 10.4 million pounds per year of 

nitrogen reductions needed to meet the wastewater treatment reduction goal. 

West Virginia, Virginia, and Maryland are responsible for approximately 

73 percent of the additional 724,000 pounds per year needed in phosphorus 

reductions. See Appendix B, Table B.1, for more details. At the facility level, 

five municipal facilities account for approximately half of overall nitrogen 

reductions required, and two facilities account for approximately a third of the 

phosphorus reductions needed. See Appendix B, Tables B.2 and B.3, for more 

information. 

Limited Facility Progress Information 

We cannot reasonably estimate when the wastewater facilities will achieve the 

nutrient reduction goals because neither EPA nor all the States we reviewed were 

able to provide up-to-date information on the status of facility upgrades. Much 

progress remains to be made by EPA and the States in revising permits, and by 

the wastewater treatment facilities in constructing and improving nutrient removal 

technology at their plants. As of July 2007, only 32 percent of the 483 significant 

facilities had received nitrogen and phosphorus permit limits. These 156 facilities 

represent approximately 55 percent of the Chesapeake Bay design flow. 

Revising NPDES permits represents an important step in achieving the reduction 

goals. The nutrient discharge limits will provide the facilities with permit 

requirements that are enforceable by EPA and the States. Therefore, EPA and the 

States need to incorporate these new limits into the permits as quickly as possible 

to allow sufficient time for construction and implementation. 

EPA and States should also include interim construction milestones for the major 

phases of design completion, construction start, construction completion, and 

compliance with permit limits. Because the pace of nutrient reductions needs to 

be accelerated, milestones should provide for an aggressive schedule to complete 

construction as expeditiously as possible. EPA and the States should routinely 

monitor progress and take appropriate action to get any facilities falling behind 

schedule back on track. EPA and the States also need to monitor the construction 

progress of facilities under a general permit and follow up to ensure these 

facilities are upgraded on a timely basis. 

7 
State managers said they expect well over 200 wastewater treatment facilities to 

meet the 2010 nutrient reduction goals. However, as of the end of 2006, only 

Maryland could provide a schedule of plant upgrades, and reported only two 

facilities as construction completed. Pennsylvania and Virginia did not have 

schedules. Based on the limited information provided to us, we believe these 

projections may be optimistic given the long lead times necessary to complete 

these projects, and the increased demand on limited construction companies and 

rising construction costs. To meet the deadline, the State agencies will need to be 

aggressive by issuing permits with enforceable milestones as soon as possible. 

Based on November 2006 data, Maryland officials expect 54 municipal facilities to 

be upgraded with state-of-the-art, or enhanced, nutrient removal technology by 

2010. Nine additional municipal facilities are expected to be upgraded by 2011.4 

Excluding the Maryland portion of the largest facility (Blue Plains) in the 

watershed, Maryland officials estimate the next two largest Maryland facilities 

(Back River and Patapsco) will be upgraded in 2012. Table 2.1 provides more 

details for Maryland. As of July 2007, Maryland reported issuing six permits with 

the stricter nutrient limits. Other wastewater treatment permits will include stricter 

nutrient limits as they come up for renewal on their 5-year permitting cycles. Only 

two facilities currently are operating with enhanced nutrient removal technology. 

Table 2.1: Status of Maryland Municipal Facilities in Upgrading to 

 Enhanced Nutrient Removal Technology

Enhanced Nutrient 

Removal Technology 

Installed 

Construction 

Phase 

Design, Planning, or 

Pre-planning 

Number of Facilities 2 10 53 

Design Flow 

(million gallons per day) 3.7 25.9 551.7 

 Source: Maryland Department of the Environment, November 2006 implementation data. 

 Note: The Blue Plains facility, specifically Maryland’s portion of Blue Plains’ design flow (169.6 million gallons 

 per day), is not included in this analysis. 

According to Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s Section 

Chief, Engineering and Construction Section, the State reopened the permits for its 

63 largest facilities in January 2007 to include more stringent limits. Officials are 

relying on the upgrade of these facilities and a successful nutrient trading program 

to meet their wastewater treatment nutrient reduction goals. Of the three signatory 

States, Pennsylvania is the one State that expects to meet these goals by 2010. 

Virginia issued a general permit with more stringent nutrient limits in September 

2006 covering all 124 of its significant wastewater treatment facilities. However, 

compliance plans were not available at the time of the OIG review. As a result, 

Virginia officials were unable to tell which facilities planned to upgrade in the 

near future and which planned to utilize the State nutrient trading program. 

4

 Maryland Department of the Environment officials did not provide implementation data on the six Federal municipal 

facilities and four small municipal facilities (Piney Orchard, Marlboro Meadows, Hampstead, and Rock Hall). 

8 
Challenges Must Be Overcome to Achieve Nutrient Reduction Goals 

Facilities will need to overcome challenges to achieve nutrient reduction goals. 

These include obtaining sufficient funds for new technology, establishing viable 

trading programs, and addressing population growth. 

Additional Funds Needed to Implement Technology 

Obtaining sufficient and timely funding to install nutrient removal technology 

poses the greatest challenge faced by municipalities in achieving nutrient 

reduction goals. Based on the jurisdiction and CBPO data, a minimum of 

$3.36 to $3.96 billion is needed to upgrade wastewater treatment plants to meet 

Tributary Strategies. See Figure 2.1. 

Figure 2.1: Estimated Nutrient Removal Technology Costs Compared to State Grant 

Funds Provided 

Millions 

$1,400 

$1,200 

$1,000 

$800 

$600 

$400 

$200 

$0 

DC MD PA VA DE,NY,WV 

Jurisdiction 

Estimated 

Wastewater 

Treatment Control 

Costs 

State Grant Funds 

Sources: a. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority officials. District numbers only include the 

 District’s portion of Blue Plains. 

b. Maryland Department of the Environment. Maryland grant funds represent the amount 

Maryland officials expect will be available from the Chesapeake Bay Restoration Fund. 

c. Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. Pennsylvania grants funds represent 

grant funds provided to date. 

d. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Virginia’s grant funds represent a combination 

of past appropriations, interest earned, and significant General Assembly funding provided. 

e. Delaware, New York, and West Virginia data obtained from the Chesapeake Bay Program 

Nutrient Reduction Technology Cost Estimates for Point Sources in the Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed, November 2002. 

9 
Even though Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are providing municipalities 

with grants to install nutrient upgrades, these grants will not fund all the costs. 

EPA does not have a dedicated grant program to provide funding for the 

construction or upgrade of wastewater treatment facilities. Therefore, 

municipalities will need to determine how they will generate sufficient funding. 

The jurisdictions have addressed the funding challenge in different ways. 

Virginia and Maryland created Chesapeake Bay watershed-specific funding 

sources to support plant upgrades. In contrast, the District of Columbia and 

Pennsylvania do not have dedicated Chesapeake Bay watershed-specific funding 

sources for nutrient removal technology. All jurisdictions, including Maryland 

and Virginia, face funding gaps due to increasing construction costs. The 

additional funds needed may be obtained from rate payers or loans from the State 

revolving fund or other lending institutions. 

District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority (DCWASA) officials have not 

identified how they plan to fund the District’s portion (approximately 

$330 million) of the estimated $800 million for the Blue Plains facility upgrade. 

The Blue Plains facility is the largest wastewater treatment facility in the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed, and also serves communities in Maryland and 

Virginia. Progress in reducing nutrients has been made at the Blue Plains facility. 

The facility already is meeting its phosphorus wasteload cap allocation and has 

achieved approximately 90 percent of the total nitrogen reductions needed. 

However, because of its significant size and location on the Bay, achieving the 

remaining 10 percent nitrogen reductions is vital to the ultimate protection of the 

Bay. In April 2007, EPA modified DCWASA’s NPDES permit to further reduce 

Blue Plains facility’s nitrogen limits. A timeline for installing the nutrient 

removal technology needed to meet these new limits is expected to be outlined in 

a forthcoming consent agreement with EPA. Similar to other facilities, the Blue 

Plains facility has competing priorities, such as a court-ordered consent decree to 

reduce combined sewer overflows at an estimated cost of $2 billion. DCWASA 

officials estimate addressing both nutrient reduction goals and the combined 

sewer overflow issue could result in double-digit rate increases for District of 

Columbia rate payers. 

Pennsylvania officials estimate it will cost approximately $260 to $360 million to 

achieve its wastewater treatment tributary strategy goals. Pennsylvania does not 

have a dedicated funding source to support nutrient removal technology upgrades 

at wastewater treatment facilities within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

However, the State has provided approximately $28 million in grant funds to 

wastewater treatment facilities within the Bay watershed. Pennsylvania municipal 

wastewater treatment facilities are exploring various options to fund nutrient 

removal technology upgrades. These options include securing loans from State 

revolving funds, leveraging bonds, and increasing user fees. 

10 
Virginia officials estimate it will cost approximately $1.5 to $2.0 billion to meet 

wastewater treatment allocations. Virginia established the Water Quality 

Improvement Fund to provide funding for nutrient removal technology upgrades. 

Virginia officials estimate the cost to the State for providing grants to meet the 

allocations is between $750 million and $1 billion. It has appropriated 

$550 million to the Fund, and based on Virginia’s information, the OIG calculated 

that an additional $200 to $450 million in Fund commitments will be needed for 

nutrient removal technology upgrades. 

Maryland officials estimate it will cost approximately $1 billion to achieve its 

wastewater nutrient allocations. In 2004, Maryland created the Bay Restoration 

Fund to fully finance enhanced nutrient removal technology upgrades at all 

municipal wastewater treatment plants. The Bay Restoration Fund, supported by 

a monthly $2.50 household user fee, provides approximately $65 million a year. 

Maryland officials estimate user fees will generate approximately $750 million 

for enhanced nutrient removal projects. Despite this dedicated funding, Maryland 

officials still expect a funding shortfall of approximately $250 million. 

The issue of insufficient funding is magnified by the fact that construction costs 

have rapidly increased in recent years. Revised cost estimates from Maryland’s 

wastewater treatment facilities demonstrate this trend. Maryland’s estimate of the 

cost of upgrades to enhanced nutrient removal technology increased by more than 

35 percent, from $740 million to more than $1.02 billion, in the last 2 years. 

Following the 20-City Average Construction Cost Index, a leading construction 

industry indicator, the construction market inflation rate increased from an 

historical 2 to 3 percent annual rate to 3.79 percent annually between 2000 and 

2004 and 4.51 percent annually between 2004 and 2006. Within the Chesapeake 

Bay watershed, these inflation rates may be even higher due to an increased 

volume of construction activity. 

Costs to implement nutrient removal technology differ widely for each 

wastewater treatment plant. Costs depend on the plant’s size, configuration, 

existing nutrient removal processes, and treatment needs. We estimate “typical” 

construction costs for nutrient removal technology to be approximately 

$12.5 million for a 10-million-gallons-per-day plant serving 52,000 people 

(approximately 20,000 households).5

 Construction costs give smaller 

communities or communities with lower median household incomes a larger 

financial problem. States are exploring alternative ways to lessen the economic 

burden, including nutrient trading. 

5

 OIG calculated costs using $1.25 per gallon for nutrient removal (obtained from Pennsylvania and Maryland cost 

documents). A domestic treatment plant is expected to treat an average of 74 gallons per day per capita (source: 

Water Environment Federation’s Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants). The average number of 

persons in a typical U.S. household is estimated to be 2.59 (source: 2000 U.S. Census). [10 million gallons per day / 

(74 gallons per day*2.59 average number of person in a typical household) = 52,000 people, or 20,000 households.] 

11 
As recognized by EPA and the State partners, funding is critical to the success of 

the Chesapeake Bay wastewater nutrient reduction effort. The existing grant 

money provided by the States will not address all of the costs. Municipalities will 

need to consider other funding options. On its Website, EPA provides guidance 

and software programs for analyzing the financing of clean water projects, which 

municipalities may find useful. EPA’s March 2007 Tools for Financing Water 

Infrastructure refers readers to tools municipalities can use in financial analysis. 

In June 2007, EPA announced the availability of the Financing Alternatives 

Comparison Tool, which provides a side-by-side comparison of various financing 

options. EPA needs to further promote the use of these tools to the Chesapeake 

Bay wastewater community. EPA should also gather information from States and 

report on the progress individual wastewater facilities are making in funding and 

constructing nutrient removal technology as part of the CBPO’s annual reporting 

process. The CBPO recently started to issue health and restoration assessments 

annually but these reports do not include financial data. Reporting facility 

progress in obtaining funding will help publicize the need, as appropriate, for 

greater public support for facility upgrades. 

EPA Needs to Continue Working with States on Trading Programs 

EPA needs to develop a formal plan to capture and disseminate lessons learned 

from its oversight of the Chesapeake Bay States’ development of water quality 

trading programs. Water quality trading allows facilities facing higher pollution 

control costs to meet regulatory obligations by purchasing equivalent (or superior) 

pollution reductions from another source at lower cost. States are relying on 

trading as a tool in achieving and maintaining the goals. 

In August 2007, EPA issued the non-binding, Water Quality Trading Toolkit for 

Permit Writers. The toolkit provides national guidance to States on developing 

their water quality trading programs. The guidance recommends that EPA and its 

Bay partners (a) ensure permits contain enforceable trading provisions, (b) review 

monitoring data, and (c) ensure enforcement takes place if credits are not realized. 

EPA and its partners need to ensure that the developing water quality programs 

are consistent with the Clean Water Act and include the above recommended 

provisions so that programs will be credible and successful across the watershed. 

EPA has provided guidance to the Chesapeake Bay States in developing their 

trading programs. Senior EPA officials stated that they do not want to stifle 

creativity and have encouraged flexibility. Both Virginia and Pennsylvania 

regard their trading programs as integral tools to achieving wastewater 

commitments. Maryland plans to use the trading program as a tool for 

maintaining its 2010 nutrient goal reductions. Because the States are testing 

different approaches, it is important that EPA have a formal mechanism to track 

water quality trading so that others can learn. 

12 
Considering that the Bay partners will be using innovative trading techniques – 

such as point to non-point source trading – Bay partners, traders, and other 

stakeholders need to be assured the programs are credible. Otherwise, trades 

could result in non-point sources receiving credit for more nutrient reductions 

than actually available. To prevent this, EPA needs to continue to ensure State 

programs establish baselines and enforceable agreements that allow for 

inspections. 

Another concern is the future viability of interstate trades when each State has the 

flexibility to develop their own programs. EPA should continue working with the 

States to address these concerns on a watershed basis. EPA and the States should 

develop a “common currency” – equivalent and clearly defined units of trades – 

which allows participants and regulators to evaluate and monitor potential trades. 

This will also help ensure programs have sufficient safeguards. 

EPA will need to develop a system to collect the information it needs to share 

with States on lessons learned in developing trading programs. This will be an 

important task considering that States are being allowed flexibility in developing 

their programs and the partners are still addressing complex trades between point 

and non-point sectors. When interstate trading starts, EPA should develop a 

tracking system for these trades. 

Rising Population Growth Can Impact Cap Loads 

Maintaining existing cap loads amidst rapid population growth presents a major 

challenge. If the wastewater treatment facilities cannot further upgrade or expand 

their capacity to take on additional customers, new development may need to rely 

on septic systems or build their own small treatment systems. The Bay partners 

project population growth of greater than 20 percent in many watershed areas, 

with some areas projected to grow by more than 60 percent by 2030. The 

suburban and rural edges surrounding the District of Columbia, Baltimore, and 

Richmond are expected to experience the greatest growth, putting stress on the 

wastewater treatment capacity of local municipal systems.6 

EPA and the States have not overlooked growth’s effect on the wastewater 

treatment sector. EPA and State officials maintain that existing cap load 

allocations will not change in response to population growth, and that any 

increases in load resulting from population growth at wastewater treatment 

facilities will be offset by other means, such as water quality trading or advances 

in technology. Even though non-significant facilities represent approximately 

5 percent of the nutrient load to the Bay, States are planning to place controls on 

limiting expansion of non-significant facilities, down to facilities as small as 

40,000 gallons per day in Virginia. While this is a positive effort, it may have the 

6

 For example, independent analysts project Virginia basins could experience 2 to 6 percent average annual flow 

increases between 2004-2010 (CH2MHill, May 31, 2006 Technical Memorandum). 

13 
unintended consequence of increasing reliance on less regulated septic systems or 

small wastewater treatment facilities, or even illegal hookups. 

We discussed land development issues in more detail in a prior report, 

Development Growth Outpacing Progress in Watershed Efforts to Restore the 

Chesapeake Bay. We recommended that EPA take the lead in addressing such 

issues by developing a strategy to reverse the trend of increasing loads from 

developing lands. In this strategy, EPA would develop a set of environmentallysensitive design practices that result in no-net increase in nutrient and sediment 

loads in new development, and methods to work with States and communities to 

adopt these practices. 

Conclusions 

Wastewater treatment plants have made progress in reducing nutrients, but 

wastewater facilities risk not meeting the 2010 deadline if key facilities are not 

upgraded in time. EPA and its Bay partners must address the challenges of 

securing adequate funding, establishing a sound and viable trading program, and 

controlling nutrient loading amidst rapid population growth. Construction costs 

have been rising faster than dedicated funding sources. However, these 

challenges are not insurmountable. Better management and tracking, and early 

detection of shortfalls, can help achieve and sustain required wastewater 

reductions. EPA and the States need to take a more active role in monitoring the 

progress of municipalities in addressing these challenges and provide assistance 

or other appropriate actions as necessary. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the EPA Region 3 Regional Administrator instruct staff to: 

2-1 Review and comment on State-drafted NPDES permits for significant 

facilities to ensure that interim construction milestones are included in 

compliance schedules longer than 1 year to meet the Chesapeake Bay 

allocations. The milestones should include: 

• design completion 

• construction start 

• construction completion 

• compliance with permit limits 

2-2 Obtain from NPDES-authorized States information on progress in 

achieving the milestones above for “select priority facilities.” Such 

priority facilities include those that are identified as needing the largest 

nutrient reductions and are identified by the States as missing the interim 

milestones noted in Recommendation 2-1. If milestones are missed, EPA 

14 
will work with the States to take appropriate followup action to ensure 

compliance with the milestones. 

2-3 Collect information and report on the amount and source of funding for 

the aforementioned “select priority facilities” as part of the CBPO’s 

annual reporting process. 

2-4 Promote awareness of and use of the "Financing Alternatives Comparison 

Tool" and other financial analysis tools within the Chesapeake Bay 

community. 

2-5 Continue to assist States in their development of effective trading 

programs by ensuring that: (a) States establish a common nutrient trading 

currency, and (b) lessons learned are captured and disseminated. In 

addition, if an interstate trading protocol or program is developed, EPA 

should develop a formal mechanism to track water quality trading across 

State lines. 

Agency Response and OIG Comments 

EPA concurred with all our recommendations. EPA also included an estimate 

showing that the wastewater facilities will come close to meeting their nutrient 

reduction goals in 2010. This information was received from State Agencies 

when EPA was reviewing our draft report. The new information had not yet been 

verified by EPA. Because our review had been completed, we could not evaluate 

the new information and therefore do not express an opinion on the veracity or 

accuracy of the data. 

A complete copy of the Agency’s response can be found in Appendix C and our 

detailed comments in Appendix D. 

15 
Chapter 3

Obtaining Additional Nutrient Reductions from 

Wastewater Facilities Not Cost Effective or Practical 

Although EPA and its Bay partners could obtain additional nutrient reductions 

from significant municipal wastewater treatment facilities to compensate for other 

sources not meeting 2010 goals, these additional reductions are not cost effective 

or practical. Obtaining these additional reductions would require justifying 

additional expenditures, recalculating wasteload allocations, and reopening and 

modifying permits already being put in place. At this point, EPA has no plans to 

require additional reductions from wastewater treatment facilities. 

Limited Additional Reductions 

Municipal Facilities – Additional Reductions Possible but Not 

Cost Effective 

Potential additional nutrient reductions from municipal wastewater treatment 

facilities can be obtained beyond their cap load allocations if all significant 

municipal facilities operated with state-of-the-art nutrient removal technology. 

Facilities in the District of Columbia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia could 

reduce the nutrients delivered to the Bay by up to 9.9 million pounds per year for 

nitrogen and 1 million pounds for phosphorus. This equates to approximately 

14 and 20 percent, respectively, of the overall reductions needed by the non-point 

nutrient sources to meet the Chesapeake Bay nutrient goals. Based on our 

methodology (see Appendix E), our estimate represents the upper reaches. 

However, these additional reductions may not be cost effective or practical. 

Funding the estimated $3.4 billion needed to install the nutrient removal 

technology to meet current goals still remains a challenge for most communities. 

Installing enhanced nutrient removal technology will substantially increase costs 

even further. The 2003 Chesapeake Futures report estimates that improving 

technology to reduce total nitrogen from 6 to 3 mg/l would increase costs 4-to-10-

fold. This incremental upgrade from regular to state-of-the-art technology is less 

cost-effective than other measures to reduce additional nutrients. Certain 

agricultural best management practices in particular may provide a more 

justifiable means for nutrient reduction. 

Seeking additional reductions would require resetting wasteload allocations. The 

Bay partners have already begun to include nitrogen and phosphorus discharge 

limits in significant facilities’ NPDES permits, which are issued for a period of up 

to 5 years. Some facilities have already begun the capital-intensive process of 

16 
upgrading their plant technologies to meet these current limits. Amending current 

permits because of the regulatory process would not be an easy task 

Industrial Facilities – Ability to Reduce Nutrients Should Be Reviewed 

EPA and its Bay partners may be able to obtain additional nutrient reductions 

from industrial wastewater treatment facilities beyond current cap load 

allocations. Most industries do not have technology-based limits for nitrogen and 

phosphorous. Since the technology-based limits are developed on a national 

basis, those permits with technology-based limits may not be as stringent as 

permit limits driven by Chesapeake Bay water quality standards. EPA and its 

State partners have the authority under the Clean Water Act to require stricter 

nutrient limits than the technology-based limits. However, during the Chesapeake 

2000 nutrient allocation process, most States in the Chesapeake Bay watershed 

opted not to require stricter nutrient limits for industrial facilities, even though 

many municipal facilities were given near state-of-the-art technology allocations 

to meet the sector nutrient reduction quota. 

The OIG did not estimate the additional nutrient reductions available from 

industrial facilities. These facilities have different wastewater streams than 

municipal systems. Therefore, additional reductions cannot be calculated in the 

same manner. Also, industrial facilities operate on widely variant production and 

nutrient removal processes, with no universal state-of-the-art nutrient discharge 

concentration. For example, in 2005, average nutrient discharge concentrations of 

significant industrial facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed ranged from 

0.4 mg/l to 210 mg/l for nitrogen and 0.01 mg/l to 14.6 mg/l for phosphorus; one 

outlier facility reported an average total nitrogen concentration of 2,754 mg/l. 

Because some of these concentrations appear high, EPA and its Bay partners 

should work with industrial facilities to gain additional nutrient reductions. 

Equity with Other Sectors 

The concept of “fair and equitable” nutrient allocations among the various 

partners underlined the collaborative process used to derive the final 2010 nutrient 

allocation commitments. It has been largely credited for the progress the 

Chesapeake Bay program has made to date. Resetting nutrient wasteload 

allocations for municipal or industrial wastewater facilities as a result of other 

sectors not delivering on their commitments could undermine the agreement 

achieved by the States amongst themselves and with their nutrient sources. 

Maintaining the momentum gained thus far should be foremost in the goal of 

improving the Chesapeake Bay water quality. This would involve building on the 

effort and progress made by the Bay partners so far. If the wastewater treatment 

community perceives that non-point source sectors have not followed through in 

the partnership of “shared sacrifice,” they may challenge any requirements for 

additional reductions. 

17 
Potential Additional Wastewater Reductions Cannot Compensate for 

Other Sectors’ Missed Goals 

Additional reductions from the wastewater treatment community, both municipal 

and industrial, are not large enough to compensate for shortfalls from the 

agricultural and developed land sectors. As of 2005, the agricultural sector 

needed to reduce nitrogen by more than 50 million pounds per year, nearly five 

times the total additional reductions that could be gained by imposing an 

Enhanced Nutrient Removal goal on all significant municipal wastewater 

treatment facilities. Phosphorus needs to be reduced by 3.3 million pounds per 

year, or over three times. Gains from industrial facilities are also limited. Based 

on previous progress, the agricultural sector will have a significant shortfall in 

meeting its nutrient reduction goals, but wastewater treatment facilities could 

make up only a small portion of this gap. 

Conclusions 

Although the wastewater treatment community could achieve additional nutrient 

reductions beyond existing cap load allocations, such an effort would not promote 

equity or be the most cost-effective track. While EPA and its Bay partners should 

review industrial facility operations for potential additional reductions, these 

reductions will not compensate for shortfalls from other sectors. EPA and the 

Bay partners’ primary focus should be on overcoming the present challenges and 

reaching the current nutrient reduction goals. The success of the Chesapeake Bay 

program and the health of the bay depend on the efforts of all the partners sharing 

the responsibility to reduce loads. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the EPA Region 3 Regional Administrator: 

3-1 Work with NPDES-delegated States to complete current efforts, related to 

industrial discharges, to: (a) characterize current nutrient discharge levels; 

(b) refine nutrient cap loads, where appropriate; and (c) issue permits 

reflecting modified cap loads. 

Agency Response and OIG Comments 

EPA concurred with our recommendation. A complete copy of the Agency’s 

response can be found in Appendix C and our detailed comments in Appendix D. 

18 
Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

POTENTIAL 

MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Rec. 

No. 

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official 

Planned 

Completion 

Date 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed 

To 

Amount 

2-1 

2-2 

14 

14 

Review and comment on State-drafted NPDES permits 

for significant facilities to ensure that interim construction 

milestones are included in compliance schedules longer 

than 1 year to meet the Chesapeake Bay allocations. 

The milestones should include: 

• design completion 

• construction start 

• construction completion 

• compliance with permit limits 

Obtain from NPDES-authorized States information on 

progress in achieving the milestones above for “select 

priority facilities.” Such priority facilities include those 

that are identified as needing the largest nutrient 

reductions and are identified by the States as missing 

the interim milestones noted in Recommendation 2-1. 

If milestones are missed, EPA will work with the States 

to take appropriate followup action to ensure compliance 

with the milestones. 

O 

O 

EPA Region 3 

Regional 

Administrator 

EPA Region 3 

Regional 

Administrator 

2-3 

2-4 

2-5 

3-1 

15 

15 

15 

18 

Collect information and report on the amount and source 

of funding for the aforementioned “select priority 

facilities” as part of the CBPO’s annual reporting 

process. 

Promote awareness of and use of the "Financing 

Alternatives Comparison Tool" and other financial 

analysis tools within the Chesapeake Bay community. 

Continue to assist States in their development of 

effective trading programs by ensuring that: (a) States 

establish a common nutrient trading currency, and (b) 

lessons learned are captured and disseminated. In 

addition, if an interstate trading protocol or program is 

developed, EPA should develop a formal mechanism to 

track water quality trading across State lines. 

Work with NPDES-delegated States to complete 

current efforts, related to industrial discharges, to: 

(a) characterize current nutrient discharge levels; 

(b) refine nutrient cap loads, where appropriate; and 

(c) issue permits reflecting modified cap loads. 

O 

O 

O 

O 

EPA Region 3 

Regional 

Administrator 

EPA Region 3 

Regional 

Administrator 

EPA Region 3 

Regional 

Administrator 

EPA Region 3 

Regional 

Administrator 

O = recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending;

C = recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed;

U = recommendation is undecided with resolution efforts in progress 

19 

1 
Appendix A 

Details on Scope and Methodology 

We reviewed loadings data from 1985 to 2005 to determine the progress the Chesapeake Bay 

Program partners have made in reducing nutrients, and the activities the Bay partners have taken 

in meeting the wastewater treatment nutrient reduction goals agreed upon in the Chesapeake 

2000 agreement. We performed our work at EPA Region 3 and the Chesapeake Bay Program, 

and Chesapeake Bay jurisdictions from October 2006 through July 2007 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

The scope of this evaluation is limited to nutrient discharges from “significant” wastewater 

treatment facilities as defined and identified by the partner States. These facilities account for 

approximately 95 percent of the wastewater nutrient discharge into the Chesapeake Bay. We 

limited our inquiry to the four signatory jurisdictions: Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the 

District of Columbia. According to CBPO data, these jurisdictions accounted for more than 

95 percent of nitrogen wastewater loads and 86 percent of phosphorus wastewater loads in 2005. 

We interviewed EPA staff from Region 3, including in CBPO, and the Office of Water. We also 

interviewed State and district staff working in the NPDES permits division and involved in 

implementing the wastewater treatment aspect of the tributary strategies. Other relevant 

interviewees included staff from the U.S. Geological Survey, wastewater treatment officials and 

representatives, industry consultants, academic experts, and environmental advocacy groups. 

We visited the largest wastewater treatment facility in the Chesapeake Bay watershed – Blue 

Plains. We also reviewed numerous documents and publications, including the Clean Water Act, 

the Chesapeake 2000 agreement, State and district tributary strategies and implementation plans, 

State regulations and public notices, the Blue Plains wastewater treatment permit, and reports by 

Chesapeake Bay Program-affiliated workgroups. We performed various quantitative analyses 

using wastewater discharge data from the CBPO Nutrient Point Source Database and 

jurisdictional cost and construction data obtained from State officials. 

Management Controls 

We reviewed CBPO’s database management controls and operating procedures. We determined 

that CBPO had adequate procedures for managing the Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Point Source 

Database. However, we identified some improvements CBPO could make to strengthen its 

procedures, including the development of a data dictionary, and made suggestions to CBPO. 

The CBPO Data Manager responded positively by creating a data dictionary, which is under 

review, and will consider incorporating the data dictionary and other suggestions into an updated 

version of the program’s standard operating procedures. We also conducted a limited data 

reliability review of the wastewater treatment data from the Chesapeake Bay Nutrient Point 

Source database. While we found some data missing from non-critical fields, critical fields had 

relevant data and this did not impact our review. EPA officials plan to remove these non-critical 

fields, which are no longer used, in an updated version of the database. Removing these fields 

will not impact management controls. 

20 
Limitations 

We did not review discharges from concentrated animal feeding operations, stormwater, septic 

systems, or “non-significant” wastewater treatment facilities. We did not address the combined 

sewage overflow systems associated with some “significant” wastewater treatment facilities. 

Prior Reviews 

EPA's OIG has completed several reports evaluating progress occurring in the Chesapeake Bay. 

These reports included the following: 

EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00004, Saving the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Requires 

Better Coordination of Environmental and Agriculture Resources, November 20, 2006 

(conducted jointly with the U.S. Department of Agriculture). 

We reported that Bay partners have committed the agricultural community to making the 

largest nutrient reductions, but few of the practices in the tributary strategies have been 

implemented. We recommended that EPA improve its coordination and collaboration 

with the U.S. Department of Agriculture and other agricultural community partners. 

EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00009, EPA Relying on Existing Clean Air Act 

Regulations to Reduce Atmospheric Deposition to the Chesapeake Bay and its 

Watershed, February 28, 2007. 

We reported that Federal clean air regulations for decreasing nitrous oxide emissions 

should sufficiently reduce the amount of nitrogen that reaches the Bay to meet the 

reduction goals set out by EPA for the air sector. We recommended that CBPO develop 

actions and strategies to address nitrogen deposition from animal feeding operations. 

EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00031, Development Growth Outpacing Progress in 

Watershed Efforts to Restore the Chesapeake Bay, September 10, 2007. 

We reported that the developed land sector goals under the Chesapeake 2000 agreement 

will not be met by 2010. The ability to attain these goals diminishes as new development 

increases nutrient and sediment loads at rates faster than they are reduced. We 

recommended that the CBPO Director prepare and implement a strategy that 

demonstrates leadership in reversing the trend of increasing nutrient and sediment loads 

from developed and developing lands. 

The following additional reviews by the EPA OIG and the Government Accountability Office 

also addressed the Chesapeake Bay: 

Government Accountability Office Report No. GAO-06-96, Chesapeake Bay 

Program: Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better Assess, Report, and Manage 

Restoration Progress, November 2005. 

The Government Accountability Office recommended that the EPA Administrator 

instruct CBPO to (1) complete its efforts to develop and implement an integrated 

assessment approach; (2) revise its reporting approach to improve the effectiveness and 

21 
credibility of its reports; and (3) develop a comprehensive, coordinated implementation 

strategy that takes into account available resources. 

EPA OIG Report No. 2006-P-00032, EPA Grants Supported Restoring the 

Chesapeake Bay, September 6, 2006. 

We reported that EPA awarded grants that contributed toward meeting the goals of the 

Clean Water Act and the Chesapeake 2000 Agreement. 

EPA OIG Report No. 2007-P-00032, Federal Facilities in Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

Generally Comply with Major Clean Water Act Permits, September 5, 2007. 

We reported that, overall, EPA and States are doing well managing how major Federal 

facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed comply with their NPDES permits. In EPA’s 

last reporting period (2004), major Federal facilities in the watershed had a lower rate of 

Significant Noncompliance than other Federal and non-Federal major-permit facilities 

nationwide. 

22 
Appendix B 

Tables on Reductions Needed 

Table B.1: Reductions Needed from 2005 Wastewater Delivered Loadings to 2010 Wastewater 

Delivered Goals for Total Nitrogen and Total Phosphorus (as of June 2007) 

Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus 

(delivered pounds/year) (delivered pounds/year) 

Jurisdiction 2000a 2005a 

2010 

Goal b,c,& d 

Reductions 

Needede 2000a 2005a 

2010 

Goal b,c,& d 

Reductions 

Needede 

Marylandf 17,226,873 15,570,921 9,960,249 5,610,672 963,524 719,861 593,919 125,942 

Pennsylvania 12,862,681 11,216,949 10,358,618 858,331 672,237 689,254 608,223 81,031 

Virginiaf 25,554,098 22,290,624 19,507,426 2,783,198 2,216,318 1,962,062 1,782,759 179,303 

Washington, DCfg 4,548,767 2,581,447 2,114,528 466,919 98,452 80,248 86,941 -6,693 

Delaware 286,852 177,233 154,772 22,461 23,777 8,956 6,167 2,789 

New York 2,142,744 1,695,678 1,105,569 590,109 214,182 223,941 123,084 100,857 

West Virginia 328,585 460,119 390,666 69,453 70,245 308,988 67,977 241,011 

 Bay-wide 62,950,600 53,992,971 43,591,828 10,401,143 4,258,735 3,993,310 3,269,070 724,240 

Sources: a. 2000 and 2005 loadings data provided by CBPO. 

b. 2010 goals for Delaware, New York, and West Virginia provided by CBPO. The New York and 

Delaware 2010 goals were estimated by CBPO and based on draft numbers provided by States. 

c. 2010 goals for Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia from State environmental departments. 

d. District of Columbia 2010 goals from NPDES permits. 

e. OIG calculations using data provided by CBPO; Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia State 

environmental departments; and NPDES permits. 

f. Includes States’ respective portion of the Blue Plains nutrient loads and allocations. 

g. Includes only the District of Columbia’s portion of the Blue Plains nutrient loads and allocations. 

Table B.2: Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Needing the Most Total Nitrogen Reductions to 

Meet Wasteload Allocation Goals (as of June 2007) 

DC0021199 Blue Plains 370 5,195,719 1.0 4.20 4,689,000 506,719 

MD0021555 Back River 180 3,068,592 1.0 4.00 2,192,803 875,789 

MD0021601 Patapsco 73 3,001,906 1.0 4.00 889,304 2,112,602 

PA0027197 Harrisburg 38 1,224,688 1.0 6.00 688,575 536,113 

VA0063177 Richmond 45 2,246,479 1.0 8.00 1,096,402 1,150,077 

706 14,737,384 9,556,084 5,181,300 

NPDES 

Identification 

Number Plant Name 

Design 

Flow 

(million 

gallons 

per day) 

2005 Total 

Nitrogen 

Discharged 

Load 

(lbs/yr)

a 

Total 

Nitrogen 

Delivery 

Factorb 

Total Nitrogen 

Wasteload 

Allocation 

Nitrogen Total Nitrogen 

Concentration 

(mg/l)

b 

Total 

Delivered 

Wasteload 

Allocation 

(lbs/yr)

b&c 

Reductions 

Needed to 

Reach Goal 

(lbs/yr)

d 

Sources: a. 2005 loadings data provided by CBPO. 

b. 2010 goals for Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia from State environmental departments. 

c. District of Columbia 2010 goals from NPDES permits. 

d. OIG calculations using data provided by CBPO; Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia State 

environmental departments; and NPDES permits. 

23 
Table B.3: Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants Needing the Most Total Phosphorus 

Reductions to Meet Wasteload Allocation Goals (as of June 2007) 

NPDES 

Identification 

Number 

Plant 

Name 

Design Flow 

(million 

gallons 

per day) 

2005 Total 

Phosphorus 

Discharged 

Load (lb/yr)

a 

Total 

Phosphorus 

Delivery 

Factorb 

Total 

Phosphorus 

Wasteload 

Allocation 

Concentration 

(mg/l)

b 

Total 

Phosphorus 

Delivered 

Wasteload 

Allocation 

(lbs/yr)

b 

Total 

Phosphorus 

Reductions 

Needed to 

Reach Goal 

(lbs/yr)

c 

MD0021601 Patapsco 73 140,530 1.0 0.3 66,698 73,832 

VA0063177 Richmond 45 227,189 1.0 0.5 68,525 158,664 

118 367,719 135,223 232,496 

Sources: a. 2005 loadings data provided by CBPO. 

b. 2010 goals for Maryland and Virginia from State environmental departments. 

c. OIG calculations using data provided by CBPO; Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia State 

environmental departments; and NPDES permits. 

24 
Appendix C 

Agency Response 

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION III 

1650 Arch Street 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-2029 

SUBJECT: Draft Evaluation Report: Despite Progress, EPA Needs to 

Expand Oversight of Wastewater Upgrades in the 

Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

FROM: Donald S. Welsh 

Regional Administrator (3RA00) 

TO: 

Dan Engelberg 

Director of Program Evaluations, Water Issues 

Office of the Inspector General (2460T) 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Evaluation Report: Despite 

Progress, EPA Needs to Improve Oversight of Wastewater Upgrades in the Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed. The recommendations of the draft report are appropriately focused on EPA actions 

to track, promote, and assist federal, state, and local efforts to reduce the discharge of nutrients 

from wastewater facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Therefore, EPA concurs with all of 

the recommendations in the draft report (see Attachment A). 

EPA is proud of the enormous progress that has been made and is underway in the 

upgrade of wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed for nutrient pollution 

control. Through EPA’s and our state partners’ efforts, we are well on our way to achieving the 

largest nutrient reduction technology upgrade of wastewater treatment facilities in the country 

(estimated at nearly $4 billion in controls). EPA has played a leadership role with our state 

partners in developing credible water quality criteria and agreeing to a comprehensive nutrient 

budget to achieve those criteria. EPA has also led the development of the NPDES Permit 

Approach for Discharges of Nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed (Permitting Approach). 

This Permitting Approach has guided all of our partner states in consistent and effective 

permitting of nutrients in the Bay. EPA has also significantly increased our NPDES oversight of 

nearly 500 significant point source facilities, including about 200 minor facilities, in the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed. EPA is closely tracking the drafting and issuance of permits for all 

significant facilities, major and minor. This increased oversight has been, and continues to be, a 

significant investment of EPA staff resources. 

25 
Due to EPA’s leadership and a committed watershed partnership, the latest information, 

shared recently with the OIG, projects that the basin-wide aggregate phosphorus loading caps for 

wastewater treatment facilities will be met by 2010 with Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania and 

the District of Columbia all meeting their jurisdiction-specific cap loads (see Attachment B). 

Furthermore, by 2010, this same information suggests that the basin-wide aggregate nitrogen 

loading caps for wastewater treatment facilities will be met in Pennsylvania and Virginia; and 

95% of the reductions necessary to attain the aggregate basin-wide nitrogen loading cap will be 

achieved. As recently as December 3, 2007, Virginia’s Governor Kaine announced that 

Virginia’s largest wastewater treatment facilities and industries within the Chesapeake Bay 

watershed expect to meet their nutrient reduction goals by the end of 2010. This most recent 

information was provided to the OIG after the draft report was submitted to EPA for comment. 

We understand that this timing does not allow the OIG to verify the validity of this most recent 

data for inclusion in the final report. 

While we are confident that the progress that has been realized is a remarkable example 

of a strong and committed partnership, we are aware that more work needs to be done to ensure 

that the job is fully accomplished. The partnership needs to complete plans to issue NPDES 

permits with aggressive compliance schedules for the reduction of nutrients. We need to track 

progress and develop contingencies if unforeseen delays occur. It is this tracking and response to 

potential delays that are appropriately the focus of the recommendations of the draft OIG report. 

If you or your staff have any questions related to our response to the draft report, please 

contact Robert Koroncai, at 215-814-5730 or Richard Batiuk, at 410-267-5731. 

cc: Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator, Office of Water 

 Jon Capacasa, Director, Water Protection Division, Region III 

 Jeff Lape, Director, Chesapeake Bay Program Office, Region III 

 Bob Koroncai, Associate Director, Water Protection Division, Region III 

 Richard Batiuk, Associate Director for Science, Chesapeake Bay Program Office 

 Lorraine Fleury, Audit Coordinator, Region III 

 Michael Mason, Office of Water 

Attachments 

26 
Attachment A 

Recommendations- Draft Evaluation Report: Despite Progress, EPA Needs to 

Improve Oversight of Wastewater Upgrades in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

We recommend that the EPA Region 3 Regional Administrator instruct staff to: 

2-2 Review and comment on State-drafted NPDES permits for significant facilities to ensure that 

interim milestones are included in compliance schedules longer than 1 year to meet the 

Chesapeake Bay allocations. The milestones should include: 

• design completion 

• construction start 

• construction completion 

• compliance with permit limits 

2-6 Obtain from NPDES-authorized States information on progress in achieving the 

milestones above for “select priority facilities.” Such priority facilities include those that 

are identified as needing the largest nutrient reductions and are identified by the States as 

missing the interim milestones noted in Recommendation 2-1. If milestones are missed, 

EPA will work with the States to take appropriate follow-up action to ensure compliance 

with the milestones. 

2-7 Collect information and report on the amount and source of funding for the 

aforementioned “select priority facilities” as part of the CBPO’s annual reporting process. 

2-8 Promote awareness and use of the "Financing Alternatives Comparison Tool" and other 

financial analysis tools within the Chesapeake Bay community. 

2-9 Continue to assist States in their development of effective trading programs by ensuring 

that: (a) States establish a common nutrient trading currency, and (b) lessons learned are 

captured and disseminated. In addition, if an interstate trading protocol or program is 

developed, EPA should develop a formal mechanism to track water quality trading across 

State lines. 

3-2 Work with NPDES delegated-States to complete current efforts, related to industrial 

discharges, to: (a) characterize current nutrient discharge levels; (b) refine nutrient cap 

loads, where appropriate; and (c) issue permits reflecting modified cap loads. 

27 
Attachment B 

More Recent Documentation from Chesapeake Bay Watershed State Partners on 

Scheduled Significant Wastewater Facility Upgrades and Estimated Delivered 

Loadings 

Through e-mail attachments transmitted on October 19, 2007, EPA provided the OIG 

with the latest detailed documentation supporting the Chesapeake Bay Program partnership’s 

estimated delivered nitrogen and phosphorus loads from wastewater treatment facilities by 2010. 

We estimate the basin-wide aggregate phosphorus cap loads for wastewater treatment facilities 

will be met by 2010 with Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia each 

achieving their jurisdiction-specific phosphorus cap load. Furthermore, based on available 

information, by 2010 we anticipate that the nitrogen cap loads for wastewater treatment facilities 

will be met in Pennsylvania and Virginia. Basin-wide, we expect to achieve 95 percent of the 

reductions needed to attain the aggregate nitrogen cap load by 2010. 

The information provided by the delegated NPDES regulatory agencies in Maryland, 

Virginia, and Pennsylvania is credible data, to be supported by permit limits, compliance 

schedules, and funding sources. Below is documentation on each set of data provided to the OIG 

supporting the above stated 2010 projections. 

"2010 Ches Bay Watershed WWTP Delivered Load Projections.xls" - This file contains the 

summation of the Chesapeake Bay Program Office’s calculations of the basin-wide and 

jurisdiction specific estimates of projected wastewater treatment facility delivered loads by 2010 

for total nitrogen and total phosphorus. These 2010 estimates for the Maryland, Virginia, and 

Pennsylvania facilities were based directly on current treatment facility upgrade schedules 

recently received from the three states. New York, Delaware, and West Virginia do not yet have 

similar facility specific upgrade schedules. For the significant facilities in these three states, the 

Chesapeake Bay Program Office assumed 2005 concentrations and 2010 flows in making the 

2010 projections. In the case of the Blue Plains facility in the District of Columbia, EPA knows 

the facility will not be upgraded for additional nitrogen reductions prior to 2010, so the 

Chesapeake Bay Program Office again assumed 2005 concentrations and 2010 flows in making 

the 2010 projections. Given there are likely to be wastewater treatment facilities in New York, 

Delaware, and West Virginia, upgraded prior to 2010 (based on communications with agency 

regulators in each jurisdiction) using a 2005 concentration and a 2010 flow across all facilities in 

these three jurisdictions, at this time, just makes the current 2010 projections that much more 

conservative. 

"1985-2005 Watershed Model Estimated Loads.exl" - This file contains the 1985-2005 record 

of Phase 4.3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model’s estimated total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and 

sediment loads delivered to the Chesapeake Bay tidal waters from all sources and all 

jurisdictions. This spreadsheet provided the OIG with the official state-by-state nitrogen and 

phosphorus cap load allocations for the wastewater sector. 

"PA DEP Phase 1 Scheduled WWTP Upgrades and Estimated Loads.xls" - This file 

contains the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection’s latest schedule for their 

28 
Phase 1 wastewater treatment facilities upgrades. Pennsylvania DEP provided detailed facilityby-facility information on the timing of facility upgrades and planned trades supporting the 

state’s projection for making its statewide nitrogen and phosphorus wastewater treatment facility 

cap loads by 2010. 

"MDE 2010 Estimate WWTP Delivered Load.xls" - This file contains the Maryland 

Department of the Environment’s latest estimates for which facilities will be upgraded by 2010, 

and their estimates for total nitrogen and total phosphorus delivered loads from all their 

significant facilities by 2010. Maryland’s estimates are supported by a well-defined funding 

source (Maryland’s “Flush Fee”) and a long record of tracking real wastewater facility 

upgrades—from secondary to BNR in the 1990s and from BNR to ENR in the 2000s. 

"VA DEQ Jan 2011 Estimated WWTP Delivered Loads.xls" - This file contains the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality’s latest estimates for their 

January 1, 2011, delivered loads from all their significant facilities (hence the reference to 2011 

and not 2010). This file is a concise summation of the wealth of data and information contained 

in their recently released "Exchange Compliance Plan” also submitted by EPA to the OIG. 

"Exchange Compliance Plan” – This set of 15 PDF files contains the entire set of 

documentation on each of Virginia’s 126 significant facilities’ planned upgrades, planned trades 

and estimated flows and loads out through 2030. 

29 
Appendix D 

OIG Evaluation of Agency Response 

As noted in its response (Appendix C) to our draft report, EPA and its State partners have taken 

several important steps that have resulted in wastewater facilities reducing their nutrient 

discharges. However, to achieve the 2010 loading goal, all the Bay partners will need to fasttrack their respective responsibilities. Considering that only 3 years are left to meet the goal, 

time does not allow for delays. Yet, as we reported, major challenges continue to threaten the 

partners’ progress. The new information provided by the State agencies identifies which 

facilities are expected to either complete their plant upgrades or be participating in a trading 

program by 2010. EPA correctly states in its response that its focus should now be on tracking 

progress and developing contingencies in the event of unforeseen delays to ensure that the plans 

are achieved. 

EPA also provided several documents, which it describes in Attachment B to its December 14, 

2007, response. The following provides our detailed comments on these documents. 

No. 

Region 3 Response 

Attachment B OIG Response 

1 Through e-mail attachments transmitted on 

October 19, 2007, EPA provided the OIG with the 

latest detailed documentation supporting the 

Chesapeake Bay Program partnership’s 

estimated delivered nitrogen and phosphorus 

loads from wastewater treatment facilities by 

2010. We estimate the basin-wide aggregate 

phosphorus cap loads for wastewater treatment 

facilities will be met by 2010 with Maryland, 

Virginia, Pennsylvania, and the District of 

Columbia each achieving their jurisdiction-specific 

phosphorus cap load. Furthermore, based on 

available information, by 2010 we anticipate that 

the nitrogen cap loads for wastewater treatment 

facilities will be met in Pennsylvania and Virginia. 

Basin-wide, we expect to achieve 95 percent of 

the reductions needed to attain the aggregate 

nitrogen cap load by 2010. 

The information provided by the delegated 

NPDES regulatory agencies in Maryland, Virginia, 

and Pennsylvania is credible data, to be 

supported by permit limits, compliance schedules, 

and funding sources. Below is documentation on 

each set of data provided to the OIG supporting 

the above stated 2010 projections. 

The OIG completed its field work in July 2007 

and issued its draft report to EPA on 

September 20, 2007. EPA received the new 

information from the States when it was in the 

process of responding to our draft report. 

Because our review was completed, we could 

not evaluate the new information and 

therefore the OIG has no position on the 

veracity or accuracy of EPA’s projections. 

30 
No. 

Region 3 Response 

Attachment B OIG Response 

2 The information provided by the delegated 

NPDES regulatory agencies in Maryland, Virginia, 

and Pennsylvania is credible data, to be 

supported by permit limits, compliance schedules, 

and funding sources. Below is documentation on 

each set of data provided to the OIG supporting 

the above stated 2010 projections. 

Only about 32 percent of the NPDES permits 

have been issued as final and few of the 

facilities have completed construction 

upgrades as of the fall of 2007. The Maryland 

and Pennsylvania data did not contain 

compliance schedules, only the estimated 

dates of when the significant facilities were 

expected to achieve their 2010 nutrient goals. 

Additionally, very little financial data was 

provided for these facilities. We do not know 

if loans or grants have been secured or if user 

rates have been increased. As discussed in 

our report, funding has been identified as a 

significant challenge that must be addressed 

to achieve 2010 nutrient goals. 

3 "2010 Ches Bay Watershed WWTP Delivered 

Load Projections.xls" - This file contains the 

summation of the CBPO’s calculations of the 

basin-wide and jurisdiction specific estimates of 

projected wastewater treatment facility delivered 

loads by 2010 for total nitrogen and total 

phosphorus. These 2010 estimates for the 

Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania facilities 

were based directly on current treatment facility 

upgrade schedules recently received from the 

three States. New York, Delaware, and West 

Virginia do not yet have similar facility specific 

upgrade schedules. For the significant facilities in 

these three States, the CBPO assumed 2005 

concentrations and 2010 flows in making the 2010 

projections. In the case of the Blue Plains facility 

in the District of Columbia, EPA knows the facility 

will not be upgraded for additional nitrogen 

reductions prior to 2010, so the CBPO again 

assumed 2005 concentrations and 2010 flows in 

making the 2010 projections. Given there are 

likely to be wastewater treatment facilities in New 

York, Delaware, and West Virginia, upgraded prior 

to 2010 (based on communications with Agency 

regulators in each jurisdiction) using a 2005 

concentration and a 2010 flow across all facilities 

in these three jurisdictions, at this time, just makes 

the current 2010 projections that much more 

conservative. 

State officials project that approximately 160 

wastewater treatment facilities of the almost 

500 facilities will meet the 2010 nutrient 

reduction goals. The majority of these 

facilities will need construction upgrades to 

meet the new limits. Based on limited 

information as of October 2007, little 

construction has begun. Some facilities plan 

to engage in water quality trading to meet the 

limits. However, the trading programs are 

presently evolving and are largely unproven. 

Region 3 Water Division and CBPO managers 

described these compliance schedules as 

“aggressive.” These schedules leave little 

room for error. If one or two of the most 

significant facilities expected to meet the 2010 

goal date fails to meet their 2010 projected 

wasteload allocation goals, the one facility 

could seriously jeopardize the aggregate 

achievement of the 2010 nutrient goals. 

4 "1985-2005 Watershed Model Estimated 

Loads.exl" - This file contains the 1985-2005 

record of Phase 4.3 Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

Model’s estimated total nitrogen, total 

phosphorus, and sediment loads delivered to the 

Chesapeake Bay tidal waters from all sources and 

all jurisdictions. This spreadsheet provided the 

OIG with the official State-by-State nitrogen and 

phosphorus cap load allocations for the 

wastewater sector. 

This information provides cap load allocations 

but on its own does not provide evidence of 

meeting future loadings. 

31 
No. 

Region 3 Response 

Attachment B OIG Response 

5 "PA DEP Phase 1 Scheduled WWTP Upgrades 

and Estimated Loads.xls" - This file contains the 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection’s latest schedule for their Phase 1 

wastewater treatment facilities upgrades. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection provided detailed facility-by-facility 

information on the timing of facility upgrades and 

planned trades supporting the State’s projection 

for making its Statewide nitrogen and phosphorus 

wastewater treatment facility cap loads by 2010. 

Pennsylvania officials project 5 facilities are 

presently meeting their wasteload allocation 

limits and 20 of the 63 Phase I facilities will 

need to upgraded by 2010. At the time of our 

review, none of the 20 facilities had more 

stringent nutrient wasteload allocation limits in 

the permits. The data provided does not 

contain construction start or construction 

completion dates. The OIG believes these 

dates are necessary to ensure facilities are on 

schedule. 

6 "MDE 2010 Estimate WWTP Delivered 

Load.xls" - This file contains the Maryland 

Department of the Environment’s latest estimates 

for which facilities will be upgraded by 2010, and 

their estimates for total nitrogen and total 

phosphorus delivered loads from all their 

significant facilities by 2010. Maryland’s 

estimates are supported by a well-defined funding 

source (Maryland’s “Flush Fee”) and a long record 

of tracking real wastewater facility upgrades— 

from secondary to Biological Nutrient Removal in 

the 1990s and from Biological Nutrient Removal to 

Enhanced Nutrient Removal in the 2000s. 

Even with the well-defined funding source, 

Maryland is the only State not projecting to 

meet the 2010 nutrient limits. It should be 

pointed out that Maryland has required the 

most significant reductions. As of October 

2007, Maryland is now projecting that 

39 facilities, rather than 54 facilities as 

originally planned, will be upgraded by 2010. 

In our opinion, this is an indication that 

challenges are delaying plans. These 39 

facilities represent approximately 12 percent 

of estimated 2010 total nitrogen loads. Many 

of these 39 facilities do not have more 

stringent Enhanced Nutrient Removal 

wasteload allocation limits in the permits. 

7 "VA DEQ Jan 2011 Estimated WWTP Delivered 

Loads.xls" - This file contains the Virginia 

Department of Environmental Quality’s latest 

estimates for its January 1, 2011, delivered loads 

from all its significant facilities (hence the 

reference to 2011 and not 2010). This file is a 

concise summation of the wealth of data and 

information contained in its recently released 

"Exchange Compliance Plan” also submitted by 

EPA to the OIG. 

"Exchange Compliance Plan” – This set of 15 

PDF files contains the entire set of documentation 

on each of Virginia’s 126 significant facilities’ 

planned upgrades, planned trades and estimated 

flows and loads out through 2030. 

Virginia officials expect 96 of the 104 facilities 

in the Exchange Compliance Plan to meet 

nutrient limits by 2011. Only 8 are not 

projected to meet the goals. Fifty-nine 

facilities are planning upgrades, of which 46 

are expected to be completed by 2011. 

Twenty facilities will rely on water quality 

trading to meet the 2011 goals. To date, 

trading is still an unproven program in 

Virginia, which further necessitates EPA 

oversight. The Virginia data indicates the 

Potomac-Shenandoah River Basin (perhaps 

the most critical river basin in Virginia to the 

Bay’s health) will not be compliant by 2011 for 

both total nitrogen and total phosphorus. The 

Virginia Exchange Compliance Plan 

discusses concerns with rising costs and the 

large demand for construction services, which 

could potentially present obstacles for 

achieving nutrient reduction goals. 

32 
Appendix E 

Calculation of Potential Additional Nutrient 

Reductions Below Existing Cap Load Allocations 

We calculated the potential additional nutrient reductions, beyond current allocation goals, that 

may be gained from significant municipal wastewater treatment facilities. For the purposes of 

this analysis, we assume that all significant municipal wastewater treatment facilities have 

reached their wasteload allocation goals, and that municipal facilities can achieve and maintain 

state-of-the-art, or enhanced, technology limits of 4.0 mg/l total nitrogen and 0.3 mg/l total 

phosphorus. The analysis also does not consider trading or compliance rates. This analysis 

omits municipal wastewater treatment facilities in Delaware, New York, and West Virginia 

because, at the time of the analysis, facility-specific wasteload allocations had not been 

designated and the total design flow from these facilities accounted for less than 5 percent of the 

total Chesapeake Bay design flow. We also excluded the more than 2,000 non-significant 

facilities in the Chesapeake Bay watershed since they also represent less than 5 percent of the 

nutrient wastewater load into the Chesapeake Bay. 

We based our analysis on facilities operating at their permitted limit. However, facilities will 

typically operate below their permitted pollutant limits as a safety measure, which will allow the 

facility to stay within the bounds of their permit. We do not have a standard measure to factor 

this practice into our calculations. To provide some accounting for this practice, we compared 

the permitted level against 4.0 mg/l for total nitrogen and 0.3 mg/l for phosphorus rather than the 

state-of-the-art levels of 3.0 mg/l and 0.1 mg/l, respectively. We selected those levels because 

Maryland, which is requiring facilities to upgrade to state-of-the-art enhanced nutrient removal 

technology, is using those levels in permits. Therefore, our estimates represent the upper reaches 

and actual reductions could be lower. This demonstrates an annual discharged reduction of 

10.7 million pounds per year of total nitrogen and 1.4 million pounds of total phosphorus. 

Natural attenuation of nutrients en route to the Bay from the original discharge point alters the 

nutrient reductions actually delivered to the Bay. We estimated the delivered nutrient reductions 

by multiplying the additional discharged reductions above with location-specific nutrient 

delivery factors. Estimates show a 9.9 million nitrogen pound-per-year and 1 million 

phosphorous pound-per-year reduction delivered to the Bay as a result of basin-wide state-of-theart technology implementation. 

Industrial wastewater treatment facilities typically have different wastewater streams and nutrient 

removal processes than municipal systems. Since enhanced nutrient removal technology 

concentration limits vary by industry type, it is difficult to gauge their potential additional 

nutrient reductions. As a result, we did not estimate the potential additional nutrient reductions 

for significant industrial facilities. However, we did review their nutrient discharge 

concentrations, many of which were substantially higher than concentrations for municipal 

facilities. Because nutrient effluent guidelines for available industry types are based on best 

available technology economically achievable, not state-of-the-art technology or Chesapeake 

Bay watershed goals, we believe the potential for additional nutrient reductions exists for the 

industrial facilities. 

33 
Appendix F 

Distribution 

Office of the Administrator 

Regional Administrator, Region 3 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Water 

Director, Chesapeake Bay Program Office 

Director, Water Protection Division, Region 3 

Office of General Counsel 

Agency Followup Official (the CFO) 

Agency Followup Coordinator 

Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations 

Associate Administrator for Public Affairs 

Audit Followup Coordinator, Region 3 

Audit Followup Coordinator, Office of Water 

Deputy Inspector General 

34