# What ’ s the Status of Point Source Nitrogen Reduction in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed? January 2 004

What reduct ions have bee n achi eved?

As of 20 01, point sources represent 21% of the total nitrogen load (or 59 m illion pou nds per year) delivered t o the Ches apeake Bay from all sourc es i n the 64, 000 square mile Ches apeake Bay wa tershed. There are 368 p oint source mu nicipal and indu strial wa stewater treatment facilities that contr ibutesi gnifi cant amounts of nut rie nts t o the Ches apeake Bay ( 58 are i ndustr ialand 310 are m unicipal). Since 1985, these point sources achieved a 32% reduction (26 m illion pou nds per yea r) in tota l nitrog en b eing delive red to the B ay.



## How w ere t hese reduc ti ons achi eved?

These r educti ons were ac complis hed by the voluntary implementat ion of nut rie nt re ducti on tec hnology ( NRT ) and/ or polluti on prevention measure s atapproxi mately one thi rd of the 368 facilit ies . I ndustr ialreductions have been pr imarily due to pollut ion pre venti on alt hough some end-of- pipe t echnol ogy has bee n employed. Formunicipalfaci li ti es, which cont ribut e the bulk of the po int so urc e nitr og en lo ad , the per cen tag e offlo w cur ren tly o per atin g u nd er N RT fro m all facilit ies is approxi mately 55%. Sever al of t he Bay juri sdic ti ons have i nstitute d a varie ty of inno vativ e incen tive-ba sed p rog ram s to im plem ent N RT at m un icipal w astew ater trea tm ent p lants generally vi a 50% st ate c ost share grants . To date , Maryland has spentapproxi mately $190 million,and VA approxi mately $99 mil li on in capi tal cos t s hare fundi ng for NRT des ign, const ruct ion and i nstallat ion. PA has all ocate d funds both underthei r Growing Greenerini ti ative for NRT upgrades as wel l as by providi ng creative opportuni ti es t hrough thei r SRFs and Sewage Act Planni ng Program. A handful of the se fac il it ies were re quire d to i mplement NRT or have nit roge n li mits under a st ate NPDES permit . Howeve r, faciliti es were a cco untabl e forthe perform ance of the techno logy generally throug h cost share contractual agreem ents. For the few faciliti es that

do have nit roge n li mits in t hei r per mits , t his is pri marily a re sul t of the rec ent institutions of loc al TM DL s for m any Bay sub-b asins. 

## Ho w muc h do es it cost?

NR T te chn olo gy is ad va ncin g a t an exp on ent ial ra te: L ess th an 10 yea rs ag o re du ction s to 8 m g/l were s tat e- of-t he- artfor t his reg ion a nd it cos t abou t $35 /lb of ni tr ogen r emoved. Now, re duct ions down to 3 mg/l

are ent ir ely feas ibl e, and thecos ts are le ss than $ 10/lb for f aci liti es that

have no NRT in pla ce,and an ave rage of $4/lb fo r t he many faciliti es that have s ome form of nut ri ent rem ova l operating now . In 200 2, the C hesap eake B ay P rogra m assem bled a b road stakeho lder task force including academia,st ate age ncie s, and mun icipal ex pert s t o estimate t he cos t of im plem entin g N RT to 3 m g/l fo r all 36 8 po int sou rces in th e w atersh ed. T hey estim ated that $ 4.7 billi on in capi tal

expe ndit ures would be requ ir ed forall faciliti es to go beyond t hei r cur rent op eratin g co nd itions, o r pla ns, to g et to d ischa rge lev els of 3 m g/l TN ($4.5 of th is wo uld b e to upgrade the 310 munic ipal faciliti es) . Howeve r, thi s was a cons erv ative e st imate . A r ece nt engi neer ing s tudy o f Maryl and = s 66 major munici pal facili ti es, concl uded thatthe c ost of im plem entin g N RT to 3 m g/l w ou ld be 32% less tha n th e prev ious C hesa pea ke B ay P rog ram stud y. Ad ditio na lly, a rece nt stu dy by Vir gin ia = s Ham pton R oads Sa nitation Distric t developed revisedcos ts for NRT to 3 mg/lfor t hei r 8 fac ilit ie s whic h res ult ed i n es ti mates that were 2 3% lessthan t he Ba y P rog ram estim ated for thos e sam e pla nts. 

## What contr ibut ions can poi nt s ource s make t oward

rest orin g the Chesapeak e Bay?

In M arch 200 3, the Bay P rogram adop ted new nutrient reduction goals, calli ng for B ay w atershed juri sdic ti ons to r educe t he amount of nit rogen ent eri ng the Bay from the curre nt 285 million po un ds to no m ore th an 175 m illion po un ds p er yea r (or a 110 m illion po un d p er yea r redu ction ). Estim ates h ave been m ad e ofthe p oten tial fo r po int sou rce red uctio n at v ariou s levels of treatm ent. Result s of t his analysi s were t hat poi nt sour ces could c onceivably cont ribut e either13, 26, or 37% of the total reductions needed for the B ay if all facilities r educed their discharges to total nitrogen conc ent rat ions of 8, 5, o r 3 mg/l res pective ly by2010. But r athe r t han a one size f it s all appr oach, Bay jur is dic ti ons wi ll

det erminethe requ ir ed re duct ion l eve ls on a fac ility-by- facility bas is duri ng im plem enta tion o f the ir respe ctive trib uta ry stra tegies a nd w ater q ua lity stan da rds.



## W hat is in st ore for the fut ure?

Nutrie nt re moval conti nues t o advance for the Bay = s poi nt sour ces . By 2010, curre nt pl ans are that the to tal flo w fro m m un icipal f acilities treate d b y N RT w ill rise from 55% to 81 % w hich equ ates to an additi onal re ducti on of 3.1 mil li on pounds per ye ar from 2001 leve ls . I ndustr ies , t hrough poll uti on prevention or e nd-of-pipe tr eatment ar e expe cte d to al so cont ribut e an additional500,000 poun d reduction by 2010. Ea ch of the Ba y jurisdicti ons are in the process of developing tributary str ategi es t o achie ve the ir res pect ive nutri ent allocations. These s trat egie s wil l i nclude a faci li ty- byfacility asse ssment of what additi onal actions willbe re quire d for point sourc es. Virgi nia has an no un ced a No tice ofInten t for R egu latory Actio n (N OIR A) to dev elop techn olog y ba sed lim its an d all sta tes are a lso in th e pro cess of dev elop ing th eir nu trient rela ted w ater q ua lity stan da rds. The se st anda rdsto ge th erwit h t he tr ib ut ar y s tr at eg ie s wi ll for m the bas isforde ci si ons on NPDES perm itting req uirem ents f or p oint so urce fac ilities. It has be en a greed that a nn ua l aver age limits for nit rogen areappropri ate as the Bay = s r esp onse is li nked no t t o monthl y dis char ges , but to l ong te rm loads . Addi ti onal ly,innov ative appr oache s t o per mitt ing s uch as water she d-bas ed pe rmit ti ng and tr ading are bei ng cons ide red b y theBay part ners . Atthe same t ime, te chnol ogy re gardi ng bo th p erfo rm an ce an d af for da bility co ntinu es to a dv an ce.



### Table 1: Chesapeake Bay Point Source Profile Point Source Category # Facilities

in Bay Wa tershed Cu mula tive M illions o f Po und s Re duc tion f rom 200 1 lev els

of TotalNitroge n Delivered by 2010 (% reducti ons of t otal water shed l oad contributi on) Costs t o go to 3 mg/l(bi ll ions of doll ars)** As Planned* All t o 8

mg/l All t o 5

mg/l All to 3 mg /l

M unicipal 310 2.6 12.9 26.9 36.8 $4.5 Indust rial 58 0.5 1.0 1.7 3.8 $0.2 Total 368 3. 1( 3%) 13 . 9( 13 %) 28 . 6 ( 26 %) 40 . 6( 37 %) $4.7 * F or t he mu ni cipa l fac i l i ti es t o i nc re as e f l ow u nd erNRT fro m 5 5% t o 8 1%, an d a dd i ti on alre du ct i on s kn own as plan ned fo r industries. ** According to conservative Bay Program 2002 esti mates althou gh recent studi es i n M D and VA show that these costs c ould be 2 3% - 32% low er. 

## Contact: Al

lis on Wiedem an, Technology Coordi nator , (410) 267- 5733