Nutrient Reduction Technology Cost Estimations for 

 Point Sources in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed 

Prepared by 

The Nutrient Reduction Technology Cost Task Force 

A Stakeholder Group of the Chesapeake Bay Program

November 2002 
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

The purpose of this report is to provide costs estimates for treatment technologies 

associated with varying concentration levels of nitrogen and phosphorus removal from 

industrial and municipal wastewater plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The data 

will be used by the Chesapeake Bay Program to estimate costs of nutrient removal 

programs for all point-source categories across the Bay watershed during the nutrient and 

sediment water quality criteria and use development process. 

A multi-stakeholder Nutrient Reduction Technology Cost Task Force was assimilated by 

the Chesapeake Bay Program in March of 2002 for the purpose of developing these costs. 

The Task Force consisted of representatives of municipal wastewater associations, state 

governments, EPA, local government organizations, and consultants with extensive 

expertise in the Nutrient Reduction Technology (NRT) field. 

Costs were derived according to specific effluent discharge levels defined across four

Tiers. These tiers were part of a larger effort intended to estimate varying levels of 

nutrient removal from all sources (non-point as well as point sources) across the 

watershed. The Task Force defined what would be logical Tiers (or different nutrient 

reduction levels) for point sources and then estimated costs by Tier, specific to each

facility. Using flows estimated/projected for the year 2010, the tiers range from the 

current (year 2000) treatment levels to the limit of technology (LOT). 

The point sources analyzed in this effort include facilities located in the Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed (from PA, MD, VA, DE, WV, NY, and the District of Columbia), which the 

Bay jurisdictions have determined discharge significant amounts of nitrogen and 

phosphorus. These point sources are divided into several categories for purposes of this 

exercise and include: 

• Significant Municipal facilities (which generally are municipal wastewater 

treatment plants that discharge flows of equal to or greater than 0.5 MGD); 

• Significant Industrial facilities (which have been identified to discharge 

equivalent or greater amounts of nutrient as compared to a municipal wastewater 

treatment plant of 0.5 MGD); 

• Non-significant municipal facilities (which are generally discharge flows smaller 

than 0.5 MGD and limited to facilities in MD and VA due to availability of data); 

and 

• Combined Sewer Overflows (which for this exercise, includes the CSO for the 

District of Colombia because this is the only CSO for which the Bay Program has 

nutrient load data). 

i
Exhibit 1 below provides a summary description of the levels of nutrient reduction by 

point source category for each tier. 

EXHIBIT 1: DESCRIPTION OF TIERS FOR POINT SOURCES* 

(concentrations given in terms of an annual average in mg/l) 

Point Source 

Category

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

Significant 

Municipals

TN = 8 for POTW's 

operating (or planned) 

NRT; TN for remainder 

= 2000 concentrations. 

TP =2000 concentrations, 

except TP =1.5 at those 

targeted by VA.

TN = 8; 

TP = 1.0 or permit 

limit if less

TN= 5.0; 

TP = 0.5 or permit 

limit if less

TN = 3.0; 

TP = 0.1

Significant 

Industrials

TN and TP = 

2000 concentrations 

or permit limit if less

Generally a 50% 

reduction from Tier 1 

(2000 concentrations) 

or permit conditions if 

less

Generally an 80% 

reduction from Tier 1 

(2000 concentrations) 

or permit conditions if

less

TN = 3.0; 

TP = 0.1 or permit 

conditions if less

Nonsignificant 

Municipals

TN and TP = 2000 

concentrations

TN and TP = 2000 

concentrations

TN and TP = 2000 

concentrations

TN = 8 & TP = 2.0 

Or 2000 concentrations 

if less

CSOs See Appendix B for a complete description of the tiers for the DC CSO

* Note that all flows are in terms of those projected by 2010 

Wherever costs were provided by a facility, their respective associations, or a state 

agency, these direct costs were used. Where no other data was available, estimates were 

calculated using different methodologies depending on the technology. Chapters III and 

VI provide information on the estimating methods employed wherever costs were 

otherwise unavailable. 

Exhibit 2 below provides a summary on the numbers of significant municipal facilities 

which provided cost data versus those for which cost estimates were calculated. 

 

Exhibit 2: Summary on the Numbers of Significant Municipal Facilities 

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 

TN CC TP CC TN CC TP CC TN CC TP CC TN CC TP CC 

Provided 54 0 25 1 44 0 3 3

Calculated 9 0 132 111 251 0 252 295

Total 63 0 157 112 295 0 255 298

Note: CC = Capital Cost

ii
For municipal facilities, the technologies priced for each tier varied depending on the 

tiers’ nutrient reduction levels. For Tier 2, the costs for technologies to achieve 8 mg/l 

total nitrogen include extended aeration processes and denitrification zones, along with 

chemical addition to achieve a phosphorus discharge of 1.0 mg/l where facilities are not 

already achieving these levels. For Tier 3, the costs for technologies to achieve 5.0mg/l 

total nitrogen include additional aeration, a secondary anoxic zone plus methanol 

addition, additional clarification tankage, and additional chemical costs to achieve a 

phosphorus discharge of 0.5 mg/l. For Tier 4, the costs for technologies to achieve 

3.0mg/l total nitrogen include deep bed denitrification filters and microfiltration to 

achieve a phosphorus discharge of 0.1 mg/l. (Note: Costs for Tier 1 are generally equal 

to zero because this tier represents actions already being taken or planned). Capital costs 

and operation and maintenance costs were developed as well as annualized costs. Due to 

seasonal fluctuation, the effluent/discharge levels for each tier were defined as an annual 

average. 

For industries, site specific information on costs and reductions by facility was obtained 

via phone contacts or site visits. Where known costs were available for a like industry 

(SIC code), those codes may have been applied to another like discharger. Where cost 

information was otherwise unavailable, a methodology (similar to that developed for 

POTWs) was applied to reflect cost estimates by facility by tier. There are no costs 

associated with Tier 1 because it represents current conditions or plans for reductions that 

are already in progress. Tier 2 and 3, in general, reflect levels of reduction of 50% and 

80% from Tier 1, respectively, unless permit conditions are less than this or site specific 

information provides alternate data. Tier 4 reflects TN and TP concentrations of 3.0 and 

0.1 mg/l respectively unless permit conditions or actual 2000 concentrations are less than 

this. For tier 4, some industrial facilities would be incapable of achieving the discharge 

concentration/level, so the cost/alternative reflects connecting to a POTW. 

Costs for the Blue Plains CSO were provided by the District of Columbia Water and 

Sewer Authority. 

Overall, the costs derived from this effort represent order of magnitude estimates based 

on applying a multi-stakeholder developed methodology uniformly to all facilities across 

the watershed and will vary from actual costs incurred on a site-specific basis. This 

report provides the cost information by facility. Exhibit 3 on next page provides a 

summary of these costs both by jurisdiction and by point source category. 

iii
Exhibit 3: Cost Summary by State and by Point Source Category

DESIGN

# OF FLOW

PLANTS (MGD) TN CC TP CC TN CC TP CC TN CC TP CC TN CC TP CC TN CC TP CC T

WATERSHED TOTAL SIGNIFICANT 304 2,336.01 597.91 0 921.44 40.09 1,519.36 40.09 1,190.49 0 2,709.85 40.09 1 NON-SIGNIFICANT 185 21.17 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00  INDUSTRIAL 49 459.51 0.00 0 48.57 2.36 48.57 2.36 46.02 0.8 94.58 3.16  DC-CSO 1 7.61 130.00 0 0 0 130.00 0 0 0 130.00 0 3 TOTAL 539 2,824.30 727.91 0 970.01 42.45 1,697.92 42.45 1,236.51 0.8 2,934.43 43.25 5,TOTAL BY STATEDC SIGNIFICANT 1 169.40 0.00 0 15.11 9.16 15.11 9.16 103.01 0 118.12 9.16  CSO 1 7.61 130.00 0 0.00 0.00 130.00 0.00 0.00 0 130.00 0.00 3 DC TOTAL 2 177.01 130.00 0 15.11 9.16 145.11 9.16 103.01 0 248.12 9.16 3DE  SIGNIFICANT 3 3.30 3.19 0 2.37 0.25 5.56 0.25 3.18 0 8.74 0.25  INDUSTRIAL 1 37.83 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00  DE TOTAL 4 41.13 3.19 0 2.37 0.25 5.56 0.25 3.18 0 8.74 0.25 MD  SIGNIFICANT 65 725.82 384.75 0 25.13 11.79 409.88 11.79 356.36 0 766.24 11.79  NON-SIGNIFICANT 181 20.59 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00  INDUSTRIAL 10 53.30 0.00 0 12.25 0.21 12.25 0.21 5.89 0 18.14 0.21  MD TOTAL 256 799.71 384.75 0 37.38 12.00 422.13 12.00 362.25 0 784.38 12.00 NY  SIGNIFICANT 18 82.57 0.00 0 61.87 3.29 61.87 3.29 40.60 0 102.47 3.29  NY TOTAL 18 82.57 0.00 0 61.87 3.29 61.87 3.29 40.60 0 102.47 3.29 PA  SIGNIFICANT 123 469.21 72.08 0 277.87 4.79 349.94 4.79 319.81 0 669.76 4.79  INDUSTRIAL 19 75.62 0.00 0 17.34 0.79 17.34 0.79 16.95 0 34.29 0.79  PA TOTAL 142 544.84 72.08 0 295.20 5.58 367.28 5.58 336.77 0 704.05 5.58 

VA SIGNIFICANT 86 871.95 137.90 0 515.90 9.72 653.80 9.72 356.55 0 1,010.35 9.72  NON-SIGNIFICANT 1 0.05 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00  INDUSTRIAL 16 292.44 0.00 0 13.79 1.27 13.79 1.27 22.72 0.8 36.51 2.07  VA TOTAL 103 1,164.44 137.90 0 529.68 10.99 667.58 10.99 379.28 0.8 1,046.86 11.79 WV  SIGNIFICANT 8 13.75 0.00 0 23.19 1.09 23.19 1.09 10.97 0 34.16 1.09  NON-SIGNIFICANT 3 0.53 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00  INDUSTRIAL 3 0.32 0.00 0 5.19 0.10 5.19 0.10 0.45 0 5.64 0.10  WV TOTAL 14 14.60 0.00 0 28.38 1.19 28.38 1.19 11.42 0 39.81 1.19 NOTE: Blue Plains costs are allocated among DC, MD and VA according to the Blue Plains cost allocation methodology by MWCOG.  Non-significant category covers only plants with existing data in the database, which are mainly MD facilities. Most VA non-significant plants are not yet incl Many industrial facilities do not have design flow data available. 2010 flows were used for industrial design flows. Actual design flows were used for severa

 TN CC = Total Nitrogen Capital Costs; TP CC = Total Phosphorus Capital Costs

TIER 1 COSTS ($MIL) TIER 2 COST ($MIL) TIER 3 COST ($MIL) 

INCREMENTAL INCREMENTAL CUMULATIVE INCREMENTAL CUMULATIVE I

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstalbe x-c_exh3 iv 
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

 

This document compiles the work of the Nutrient Reduction Technology Cost Task 

Force which developed methodologies for estimating costs of nutrient removal at 

Chesapeake Bay watershed point sources. This effort was performed by a multi 

stakeholder group comprised of individuals that volunteered their time to support 

this work. The Chesapeake Bay Program would like to thank all the members of 

the Task Force. Special thanks go out to Tom Sadick, of CH2M HILL and Thor 

Young of Sterns and Wheler, two consultants who generously donated their 

exceptional expertise in assisting the Cost Task Force in developing the cost 

methodologies. Additionally, appreciation is extended to Lisa Bacon, Tara Ajello 

and Alta Turner of CH2M HILL who volunteered their expertise in designing 

statistically accurate cost curves as part of the estimation techniques described 

herein. Special thanks also go to Ning Zhou, Point Source Data Manager under 

grant with Virginia Tech, at the Chesapeake Bay Program Office, who took the 

cost methodologies developed by the consultants and the Task Force and applied 

them to all individual point sources in the watershed to develop facility specific 

cost estimates. In addition, thanks go to representatives of many municipal and 

industrial wastewater treatment plants around the watershed for providing cost 

estimates on their own at the request of the Task Force for varying levels of 

nutrient removal for their respective facilities. These individual facility estimates 

were used where available instead of developing costs based on the Task Force 

cost methodologies, and provided for a more credible and accurate database 

overall. 

v
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Executive Summary 

Acknowledgements 

I. Purpose, Background, and General Methodology................................................1 

II. Point Source Nutrient Reduction Technology Tiers Description..............................3 

2.1 Tier 1..........................................................................................4 

2.2 Tier 2..........................................................................................5 

2.3 Tier 3..........................................................................................5 

2.4 Tier 4..........................................................................................5 

III. Cost Methodology for Significant Municipals for Tier 2 and 3................................7 

3.1 Purpose........................................................................................7 

3.2 Background and Approach.................................................................7 

3.3 Tier 2 Nitrogen Removal System Upgrades.............................................8 

3.3.1 Capital Cost Estimating – Tier 2 Nitrogen Removal Upgrades...............8 

3.3.2 O&M Cost Estimating – Nitrogen Removal....................................9 

3.4 Tier 2 Phosphorus Removal System Upgrades.........................................10 

3.4.1 Capital Cost Estimating – Phosphorus Removal..............................11 

3.4.2 O&M Cost Estimating – Phosphorus Removal...............................13 

3.5 Tier 3 Phosphorus Removal System Upgrades.........................................14 

IV. Cost Methodology for Significant Municipals for Tier 3 and 4..............................15 

4.1 Tier 3 Results and Methodology.........................................................15 

4.1.1 Costs for TN = 5 mg/L............................................................16 

4.1.2 Methodology for estimating TN = 5 mg/L costs..............................18 

vi
4.1.3 Methodology for fitting equations to TN = 5 mg/L data.....................20 

4.1.4 Capital Costs for TP = 0.5 mg/L.................................................20 

4.1.5 Methodology for estimating operating costs for TP = 0.5 mg/L............21 

4.2 Tier 4 Results and Methodology.........................................................22 

4.2.1 Deep Bed Denitrifying Filters...................................................22 

4.2.2 Microfiltration.....................................................................23 

4.2.3 Costs for TN = 3 mg/L............................................................23 

4.2.4 Methodology for estimating TN = 3 mg/L costs..............................25 

4.2.5 Methodology for fitting equations to TN = 3 mg/L data.....................26 

4.2.6 Costs for TP= 0.1 mg/L..........................................................27 

4.2.7 Methodology for estimating TP = 0.1 mg/L costs and for fitting equations

to TP = 0.1 mg/L data.............................................................29 

V. Cost Methodology for Industrials.................................................................30 

5.1 Loads.........................................................................................32 

5.2 Costs..........................................................................................33 

5.2.1 Tier 1.................................................................................33 

5.2.2 Tier 2-3...............................................................................33 

5.2.3 Tier 4.................................................................................37 

VI. Cost Methodology for Non-significant Municipals.............................................46 

6.1 Assumption..................................................................................46 

6.2 Methodology.................................................................................46 

6.3 TN capital cost estimates for TN at 8 mg/l for facilities with design flow < 0.5 

MGD..........................................................................................47 

vii
6.4 TN capital cost estimates for TN at 8 mg/l for facilities with design 

flow > 0.5 MGD..............................................................................49 

6.5 TN O&M estimates for TN at 8 mg/l for all non-significant facilities..............50 

6.6 TP capital cost and O&M estimates for TP at 2mg/l for all 

non-significant facilities...................................................................50 

VII. Cost Estimates for Combined Sewer Overflows................................................57 

VIII. Cost Methodology Application for Significant Municipals for Tier 1-4.....................59 

8.1 Allocating Blue Plains Costs to the Jurisdictions......................................59 

8.2 Tier One Costs...............................................................................59 

8.3 Tier Two Costs...............................................................................63 

8.4 Tier 3 and Tier 4 TN Capital Costs......................................................64 

IX. Load Calculation Description and Summary....................................................67 

9.1 Load Calculation For Significant Municipal Facilities................................67 

9.1.1 Tier Definition for Point Sources...............................................67 

9.1.2 2010 Flow Projection..............................................................67 

9.1.3 Load calculation....................................................................69 

9.2 Load Calculation For non-significant Municipal Facilities...........................69 

9.2.1 Tier definition for non-significant municipal facilities.......................69 

9.2.2 Projected 2010 flow...............................................................69 

9.2.3 Load calculation....................................................................69 

9.3 Load Calculation for Industrial Plants and CSO.......................................69 

9.4 Blue Plains Load Allocation Among DC, MD and VA...............................70 

9.5 Load Summary..............................................................................70 

X. Cost Result Summaries.............................................................................97

viii
LIST OF TABLES 

Table I–A Point Source Summary Profile.............................................................2 

Table II–A Total Nitrogen Discharge Loads (lbs/yr) Summary.....................................3 

Table II–B Total Phosphorus Discharge Loads (lbs/yr) Summary..................................3 

Table II-C Description Of Tiers For Point Sources...................................................6 

Table III-A Capital Cost Data Summary – Phosphorus Removal.................................12 

Table IV-A Summary of Tiered Nitrogen and Phosphorus Levels.................................15 

Table IV-B Summary of Capital and Operating Costs for Tier 3 

Nitrogen Removal TN = 5 mg/L..........................................................16 

Table IV-C Summary of Capital and Operating Costs for Tier 4 

Nitrogen Removal TN = 3 mg/L..........................................................23 

Table IV-D Summary of Capital and Operating Costs for Tier 4 

Phosphorus Removal TP = 0.1 mg/L.....................................................27 

Table V-A Total Incremental Capital Cost (For Nitrogen And 

Phosphorus Reductions) Summary By Industry ($)..................................31 

Table V-B Total Incremental Capital Cost (Nitrogen And Phosphorus 

Reductions) Summary By Basin ($) For Industrial Facilities.........................31 

Table V-C Industrial Facility Costing And Concentration Codes By Tier........................38 

Table V-D Flow and Concentration Codes and Data For Industrial 

Facilities by Nutrient Parameter...........................................................40 

Table V-E Industrial Facility Cost Data For All Four Tiers........................................42 

Table V-F Industrial Facility Total Capital Cost And Concentration 

Data For All Four Tiers......................................................................44 

Table VI-A Source Data For The Cost Curve.........................................................47 

Table VI-B Non-significant Facilities with Design Flow < 2010 Flow............................49 

Table VI-C NRT Cost for Non-significant Municipal Facilities...................................51 

Table VII DC CSO & BLUE PLAINS WWTP COST ESTIMATES 

- For Chesapeake Bay-wide UAA Cost Analysis......................................58 

ix
Table VIII-A Current BNR with T1 Cost................................................................59 

Table VIII-B Facilities with Tier 1 TN CC Calculated.................................................50 

Table VIII-C Tier 1 costs, 2000 and T1 TN discharged loads by state...............................60 

Table VIII-D Facilities with Tier 1 TN Capital Costs..................................................60 

Table VIII-E Total Flow Increases Between 2010 and 2000 by State................................62 

Table VIII-F Top Ten Facilities With The Highest Flow Increases..................................63 

Table VIII-G Facilities with Tier 2 TN Capital Costs from sources other than calculation........63 

Table VIII-H Tier 2 TN capital costs and the load reduction by state...............................64 

Table VIII-I Municipal Facilities with Design Flow >30 MGD.....................................64 

Table VIII-J Tier 3 TN capital costs and the load reduction by state...............................65 

Table VIII-K Tier 4 TN capital costs and the load reduction by state...............................66 

Table IX-A Projected 2010 Flows Provided by the State Agency or Facility....................68 

Table IX-A NRT Tier TN Load (Lbs/Yr) Summary By Basin.....................................71 

Table IX-B NRT Tier TN Load (Lbs/Yr) Summary By State......................................71

Table IX-C NRT Tier TN Load (Lbs/Yr) Summary By Facility Type ............................71

Table IX-D NRT Tier TP Load (Lbs/Yr) Summary By Basin.....................................72 

Table IX-E NRT Tier TP Load (Lbs/Yr) Summary By State......................................72

Table IX-F NRT Tier TP Load (Lbs/Yr) Summary By Facility Type ............................72

Table IX-G Discharged Nitrogen Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin.......73 

Table IX-H Discharged Phosphorus Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin....85 

Table X-A Nitrogen Incremental Cost For Significant Municipal Facilities 

In The Bay Watershed.....................................................................98 

Table X-B Phosphorus Incremental Cost For Significant Municipal Facilities 

In The Bay Watershed...................................................................107 

Table X-C NRT Capital Cost Summary For Point Sources By State And Category.........116 

Table X-D NRT Incremental Cost Summary For Point Sources By Category And State....117 

Table X-E NRT Incremental Cost Summary For Significant Municipal Facilities...........118 

Table X-F Total Design Flow and TN Capital Cost Summary for 

Significant Municipals by State.........................................................119 

Table X-G Total Design Flow and TP Capital Cost Summary for 

Significant Municipals by State.........................................................119

x
LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure III-A Cost Curve for TN=8mg/l..................................................................9 

Figure III-A Cost Curve for TP=1mg/l.................................................................12 

Figure IV-A Cost Curves for Total Capital Costs with TN=5mg/l.................................17 

Figure IV-B Cost Curves for Total O&M Costs with TN=5mg/l...................................18 

Figure IV-C Cost Curves for Total Capital Costs with TN=3mg/l.................................24 

Figure IV-D Cost Curves for Total O&M Costs with TN=3mg/l...................................25 

Figure IV-E Cost Curves for Total Capital Costs with TP=0.1mg/l................................27 

Figure IV-F Cost Curves for Allowance for Chemical/Instrumentation System 

Improvements for TP = 0.1 mg/l.........................................................28 

Figure IV-G Cost Curves for Annual O&M Costs for TP = 0.1mg/l...............................28 

Figure VI-A TN Capital Cost Curve at 8 mg/l for Non-significant Facilities.....................48 

Figure VIII-A Cumulative TN Capital Costs by State by Tier........................................66

Figure VIII-B TN Discharged Load Reduction from 2000 Level by State by Tier.................66

xi
LIST OF APPENDIXES 

Appendix A List of NRT Cost Task Force Members 

Appendix B Point Source NRT Cost Survey 

Part 1: Point Source Survey 

Part 2: Point Source Survey Results 

Appendix C Correspondences Used to Develop Costs for Municipalities 

Appendix D Description of CSO Tiers for Blue Plains 

Appendix E Capital Cost Data for Tier 1 for Nitrogen Removal 

Appendix F Statistical Analyses of Tier 2 Cost Data 

Appendix G Details of Cost Assumptions Used in the Tier 3 and 4 Methodology 

Appendix H References and Data Contacts for Industrial Costs 

Appendix I Communications, Decisions, and References for Cost and Load Data Compiling 

Part 1: Communications and Decisions for Cost Methodology Applications 

Part 2: Communications and Decisions for Load Calculations by Tier 

Part 3: References for Section IX Summary Cost Tables 

xii
I. PURPOSE, BACKGROUND AND GENERAL METHODOLOGY 

The purpose of this report is to present costs estimated for technologies to achieve varying 

effluent levels of nitrogen and phosphorus removal from industrial and municipal wastewater 

treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The data will be used by the Chesapeake 

Bay Program in estimating costs of nutrient removal programs for all source categories across 

the Bay watershed during its nutrient and sediment water quality criteria and use development 

process. 

A multi-stakeholder Nutrient Removal Technology Cost Task (NRT) Force was assimilated by 

the Chesapeake Bay Program in March of 2002 for the purpose of developing these costs. The 

Task Force consisted of representatives of municipal wastewater associations, state governments, 

EPA, local government organizations, and consultants with extensive expertise in the NRT field. 

A list of the members of this Task Force can be found in Appendix A. 

Costs were derived according to specific effluent discharge levels defined by Tiers. These Tiers 

were part of a larger effort intended to estimate varying levels of nutrient removal from all 

sources (non-point as well as point sources) across the watershed. The NRT Task Force defined 

what would be logical Tiers (or different nutrient reduction levels) for point sources and then 

estimated costs by Tier. Descriptions of the four tiers can be found in the subsequent section, 

however, generally they range from current (year 2000) reduction levels extrapolated out to 2010 

flows to limits of technology. 

The point sources analyzed in this effort included facilities located in the Chesapeake Bay 

Watershed (from PA, MD, VA, DE, WV, NY, and the District of Columbia) that have been 

identified by the State as significant discharge sources of nitrogen and phosphorus. These point 

sources are divided into several categories for purposes of this exercise and include: 

• Significant Municipal facilities, which generally are municipal wastewater treatment 

plants that discharge flows of equal to or greater than 0.5 MGD. More specifically, 

significant municipal facilities are defined slightly differently for each jurisdiction. For 

Virginia, these facilities are those that 1) have a design flow of 0.5 MGD or greater, and 

2) are located below the fall line, regardless of flow. For MD, significant facilities are 

those having a current flow of 0.5 MGD or greater. For PA, significant facilities are 

those having average annual 1985 flows of 0.4 MGD or greater. For DE, WV and NY 

the Chesapeake Bay Program selected facilities in the EPA Permit Compliance System

database with current flows of 0.5 or greater. 

• Significant Industrial facilities, which have been identified to discharge equivalent or 

greater amounts of nutrient as compared to a municipal wastewater treatment of 0.5 

MGD. These discharge loads would roughly be equivalent to those of municipalities 

with flows of 0.5 MGD or greater, and a Total Nitrogen load of 75 lbs/day, and a 

Phosphorus load of 25 lbs/day or greater (based on a municipal discharge of 6 mg/l TP 

and 18 mg/l TN). 

1
• Non-significant municipal facilities are those, which are generally smaller than discharge 

flows of 0.5 MGD. Only facilities permitted by MDE are included in this analysis due to 

availability of data. 

• Combine Sewer Overflows: only the CSO for the District of Colombia has been costed in 

this exercise because this is the only CSO for which the Bay Program has nutrient load

data. Certainly there are other CSOs in the Bay watershed, but to date, these have not 

been quantified in terms of nitrogen and phosphorus load discharges and thus, are not 

included for analysis here. 

Table I -A provides a summary profile of these facilities in the watershed. 

TABLE I – A: Point Source Summary Profile 

Point Source 

Category Description

Number of 

Facilities

Total 2000 

Flow (MGD)

Significant 

Municipals* Generally > 0.5 MGD 304 1554.4

Significant 

Industrials

Discharge loads generally > 75

lb/day TN & 25 lb/day TP 49 524.7

Non-significant 

Municipals Generally < 0.5 MGD 185 10.8

CSOs Only for Blue Plains 1 7.6

Total – 540 2,097.5

 * including the 6 VA plants to be built by 2010. 

Costs for technologies to achieve various nutrient reduction levels are estimated in this report in 

one of two ways: 

1) Costs were obtained directly from individual facilities, or their respective state 

agencies, or site visit reports and etc.

2) In cases where data was otherwise unavailable, costs were estimated by applying 

methodologies described in this report. 

Costs were obtained either through a survey of the point source facilities issued by the state 

municipal authorities, or from individual contacts. Appendix B provides the point source survey 

and a collection of the survey responses received. Appendix C provides other correspondences 

from facilities. These cost data were used in the costing methodology development and costing 

analysis. 

Wherever costs were obtained directly from facility operators or their respective associations, 

these costs were used. Then, if no other data was available, estimates were calculated using 

different methodologies depending on the technology level of reduction. Chapters III – VI 

provide information on the estimating methods employed wherever costs were otherwise 

unavailable. Chapter VIII is a description of how the cost methodologies were actually applied 

on a facility specific base. Chapter IX is a description of how the loads for each tier were 

calculated. Both concentrations and flows, which are factors of the loads, are important elements 

to applying the cost methodologies.

2
II. TIER DESCRIPTIONS

The Chesapeake Bay Program, as part of an effort to estimate water quality responses as well as 

costs of varying nutrient reduction measures for all sources across the watershed, developed a 

series of technological reduction tiers. The four tiers spanned technological implementation 

ranging from current practices to limits of technology. The NRT Cost Task Force developed 

four tiers for point sources, which range from current (or planned) levels of technological 

implementation and operation to limits of technology for nutrient and phosphorus removal at 

wastewater treatment plants. Different levels of technological implementation are indicated by 

the discharge concentration of nitrogen and phosphorus for each tier. The types of technologies 

necessary to achieve these effluent levels were then matched to the concentrations and costs. All 

concentrations, and calculations performed on them, are assumed on an annual average basis. 

The discharge flows represented for each facility are those projected for the year 2010. It is 

important to note however that capital cots for these technologies are calculated on design flows

by facilities, whereas the O&M costs as well as the discharge loads represented by each tier are 

estimated assuming the 2010 projected flows. Table II-A and II-B summarize the nitrogen and 

phosphorus loads respectively represented by each Tier for each point source category. 

TABLE II – A: Total Nitrogen Discharge Loads (lbs/yr) Summary 

Facility Type 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 

SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL 61,113,341 54,675,431 42,510,365 26,894,197 16,136,518

INDUSTRIAL 9,099,737 7,633,234 6,858,729 5,892,916 3,534,150

NON-SIG MUNICIPAL 493,649 540,258 540,258 540,258 287,977

CSO 162,706 70,298 70,298 70,298 0

Total 70,869,434 62,919,222 49,979,650 33,397,669 19,958,644

TABLE II – B: Total Phosphorus Discharge Loads (lbs/yr) Summary 

Facility Type 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 

SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL 4,387,008 5,252,012 3,685,449 2,046,441 537,884

INDUSTRIAL 1,121,750 1,074,316 623,023 398,245 154,120

NON-SIG MUNICIPAL 74,615 82,174 82,174 82,174 56,219

CSO 46,353 15,330 15,330 15,330 0

Total 5,629,728 6,423,832 4,405,976 2,542,189 748,223

For non-significant facilities, current conditions are assumed for Tiers 1 - 3, and then Tier 4 

assumes a TN of 8 mg/l and a TP of 2.0 mg/l. 

CSO assumptions for all Tiers for the District of Columbia were provided by the Washington 

Council of Governments with load estimates from the DC Washington Area Sanitary Authority 

CSO study in 2001. A description of the tiers for this CSO can be found in Appendix D. 

3
Table II - C summarizes the Tier assumptions, which are described in more detail below. 

2.1 Tier 1

Tier 1 assumes NRT implementation either current or planned extrapolated out to 2010 flows. 

For example, as of the date of this writing, there exist 304 significant municipal facilities in the 

Bay watershed, 84 of which currently operate NRT for nitrogen removal. This number will 

increase to a total of 154 facilities operating NRT for nitrogen by the year 2010. Thus, for 

significant municipalities, NRT is assumed for all 154 facilities, and the Tier 1 discharge level 

relative to these is 8 mg/l Total Nitrogen (TN) that is the generally accepted effluent 

performance for the types of NRT operating in the watershed now. There are some exceptions to 

this effluent concentration for nitrogen however depending on specific situations that exist at

certain facilities. Blue Plains for example has a goal of 7.5 mg/l TN, and Back River has a goal 

of 10 mg/l (see Section IX).

Note that the concentrations for many facilities may actually be increased from one Tier to the 

next due to an artifact in the Tier definitions and their applications to the point source database. 

There exist many facilities in the watershed that are operating at TN concentrations actually less 

than 8 mg/l in 2000. In these cases, the Tier 1 concentrations for these facilities are actually 

raised to 8 mg/l (from the year 2000 to the year 2010). The NRT Cost Task Force believed that 

at 2000 flows some facilities might be able to operate more efficiently than at 2010 flows, thus

the 2000 concentrations may not be realistic for 2010 conditions and that these concentrations 

should be elevated to the Tier definition of 8 mg/l TN. 

For all other facilities (industrial and non-significant municipalities), Tier 1 for nitrogen equals 

the total nitrogen annual average concentration that existed for them in 2000, which is accepted 

as being representative of currant conditions. 

Again, Tier 1 flows, as well as flows for Tiers 2 - 4, are equal to those projected out to the year 

2010. These projections were either obtained directly from individual facilities, or derived from

related population projections performed by the Chesapeake Bay Program (see Section IX). 

Phosphorus removal, whether it is by physical/chemical or biological means, is operating in 

about half of the municipal facilities in the watershed (especially MD) due to state and local 

water quality requirements. Generally, effluents range from 0.18 - 4.0 mg/l. Tier 1 therefore, for 

phosphorus, assumes an effluent concentration equaling the facilities’ annual average discharge 

for this parameter that existed in the year 2000. 

For industries, Tier 1 represents the industries’ current discharge levels unless it is known that 

NRT will be implemented at a given facility by 2010. 

For non-significant facilities, current 2000 conditions are assumed for Tier 1. 

4
2.2 Tier 2

Total Nitrogen for ALL significant municipals is brought to 8 mg/l, which then carries over the 

NRT for the 154 operating NRT and adds NRT for the remaining facilities. Total Phosphorus is 

set equal to 1.0 mg/l or a permit level if less than 1.0 mg/l. 

Section VI more thoroughly describes the tiers for industrial facilities. In general, the tiers 

reflect levels of reduction on the order of 50% from Tier 1 unless permit conditions are less that 

this, in which case, permit conditions would apply. 

For non-significant municipal facilities Tier 1 = Tier 2 = current conditions. 

2.3 Tier 3 

Tier 3 for significant municipals equals a TN of 5.0 mg/l and a TP of 0.5 mg/l. Tier 3 for 

industrial facilities generally reflects a reduction of 80% from Tier 1 unless permit conditions are 

less than this. Tier 1 = Tier 2 = Tier 3 = current conditions for non-significant municipals. 

2.4 Tier 4

Tier 4 for significant municipals equals a TN of 3.0mg/l and a TP of 0.1 mg/l. Tier 4 for 

industrial facilities generally equals Tier 4 for significant municipals unless permit conditions are 

less than that. Tier 4 for non-significant municipal facilities is equal to a TN of 8 mg/l and a TP 

of 2.0 mg/l. It was determined by the NRT Cost Task Force that it would not be feasible and in 

most cases non-cost effective to consider a level of implementation greater than this for small 

facilities. 

Note that for TP, as in the case for TN previously described, loads for certain facilities may 

actually increase depending on the tiers. For example, a facility may have an actual 2000 TP 

effluent concentration of 0.87 mg/l TP, but the concentration is raised to 1.0 mg/l to match the 

Tier 1 definition (assuming there is no permit limits requiring an effluent less than 1.0 mg/l). 

The NRT Task Force believed that this is more appropriate than holding the effluent 

concentration in 2000 constant throughout the Tiers because operations efficiency may decrease 

at higher 2010 flows. 

5
TABLE II - C: Description Of Tiers For Point Sources* 

(concentrations given in terms of an annual average in mg/l) 

Point Source Category

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 

Significant 

Municipals 

TN= 8 for those 

with BNR operating 

or planned; 

TN and TP for rest of

facilities 

= 2000 concentrations 

TN = 8 

TP = 1.0 

Or permit limit if less 

TN= 5.0 

TP = 0.5 

Or permit limit if less 

TN = 3.0 

TP = 0.1 

Significant 

Industrials 

TN and TP = 

2000 concentrations 

or permit limit if less 

Generally a 50% 

reduction from Tier 1 

(or 2000 concentrations) 

or permit conditions if 

less 

Generally an 80% 

reduction from Tier 1 

(or 2000 concentrations) 

or permit conditions if 

less 

TN = 3.0 and TP = 0.1 

or permit conditions if 

less 

Nonsignificant 

Municipals 

TN and TP = 2000 

concentrations

TN and TP = 2000 

concentrations

TN and TP = 2000 

concentrations

TN = 8 & TP = 2.0 

Or 2000 concentrations 

if less 

CSOs See Appendix B for a complete description of the tiers for the DC CSO 

* Note that all flows are in terms of those projected by 2010 

 

6
III. COST METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING THE COSTS 

FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPALS FOR TIER 2 & 3

Prepared by Thor Young, STEARNS & WHELER, LLC, Bowie, MD with assistance from

CH2MHILL, Herndon, VA 

3.1 Purpose 

The purpose of this report is to develop a methodology for estimating the capital and 

operating costs of upgrading all significant municipal wastewater treatment plants in the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed for: 

 

• Tier 2 Nitrogen Goal of 8.0 mg/L effluent annual average total nitrogen (TN) 

for all plants not included in Tier 1 nitrogen removal upgrades. 

• Tier 2 Phosphorus Goal of 1.0 mg/L effluent monthly average total phosphorus 

(TP) for all plants not currently capable of meeting this goal. 

• Tier 3 Phosphorus Goal of 0.5 mg/L effluent monthly average TP for all plants 

that were upgraded for Tier 2 Phosphorus Goals or were already operating with 

less than 1.0 mg/L effluent TP. 

These estimates may be used for scenario planning and cost/benefit analysis, especially 

for plants that do not already have specific cost estimates developed. 

3.2 Background and Approach 

Actual and estimated capital cost data is available for nitrogen removal system upgrades 

to 8.0 mg/L effluent TN for many plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. These 

estimates were tabulated by the EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office. Because the 

actual data date from the late 1990s to 2002, for the purposes of this cost estimating 

method, all costs were converted to 2000 dollars. The year 2000 was selected as the base 

year for the cost estimates for two reasons. First, the data in the EPA’s database was 

collected in the year 2000. Secondly, 2000 is the approximate mid-point of the different 

cost estimates in this database. The cost data was converted to 2000 dollars using 

Engineering News-Record, Building Cost Index. 

The EPA’s Chesapeake Bay Program Office had no previously tabulated capital cost data 

for phosphorus removal systems. 

Nitrogen and phosphorus removal processes involve different associated operations and 

maintenance costs. Therefore, separate approaches were taken for nitrogen and 

phosphorus removal cost estimating. Both capital and operations and maintenance costs 

are assumed to be in July 2000 dollars, and should be updated to the anticipated date of 

construction. 

 7
3.3 Tier 2 Nitrogen Removal System Upgrades 

About half of the significant municipal treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed 

have already been upgraded to meet Tier 1 nitrogen removal goals of 8.0 mg/L effluent 

TN or less. The Tier 2 nitrogen removal goals are the same as the Tier 1 goals (8 mg/L 

TN or less), therefore it was determined that the cost of upgrading non-BNR facilities for 

Tier 2 nitrogen goals could be estimated from an extrapolation of the cost of upgrading 

similar facilities for the Tier 1 nitrogen removal goals. 

3.3.1 Capital Cost Estimating – Tier 2 Nitrogen Removal Upgrades 

The available capital cost data for Tier 1 nitrogen removal upgrades at significant 

municipal wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed are listed in 

Appendix E. Only cost data produced from actual construction costs, engineering design 

estimates, or preliminary engineering reports/facilities plans are included in Appendix E. 

The list, provided by the EPA, includes accurate capital cost estimates for upgrading 67 

facilities. A statistical analysis on the data was performed, and a best-fit line equation 

was calculated. A summary of the statistical analysis is shown in Appendix F. The 

calculated equation is representative of the capital cost associated with nitrogen removal 

for any wastewater treatment facility in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. A graph of the 

data is shown in Figure III -A. The equation can be used to extrapolate cost estimates for 

all plants requiring upgrades that do not have current cost estimates available, based on 

each plant’s specific design flow. 

As Appendix B shows, capital costs from facilities in VA, MD, and PA were used to

determine the average price for nitrogen removal upgrades and much of the cost 

information was obtained from as-bid costs provided by the facility or State as part of 

their state grant cost share programs. It should be noted that while cost estimates from all 

states were collectively used to determine average values, capital costs may be somewhat 

less for the Virginia facilities due to differences in state grant cost share eligibility 

requirements. Because Virginia’s existing grant program is considered “Voluntary 

Cooperative”, the Commonwealth has not funded nitrification process components and/or 

tanks if the need to nitrify year round was based on a permitted requirement; only the

share/percentage of nitrification capacity lost/needed as a result of installing 

denitrification has been considered grant eligible.

The equation for Tier 2 Nitrogen Capital Cost Estimating: 

2 Cost = 2023829 + 704350.8039 × Q − 5986.733 × Q

 where Q = design flow rate (mgd) between 0.5 and 30.0 mgd 

 8
Cost Curve @ 8 mg/L

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Plant Size (mgd)

Cost (2000 $)

 

Figure III- A: Graph showing capital cost to reduce total nitrogen effluent concentrations 

to 8mg/L for plants Chesapeake Bay watershed. 

For treatment plants larger than 30.0 mgd, specific cost data furnished by the facilities 

themselves will be used instead of the cost curve shown in Figure III -A.

3.3.2 O&M Cost Estimating – Nitrogen Removal 

The primary impact on operations costs associated with biological nitrogen removal is the 

change in electrical requirements for aeration. The current effluent ammonia and nitrate 

concentration for each facility can be used to determine the impacts on aeration 

requirements. Plants with ammonia concentrations greater than 2 mg/L require 

additional nitrification to convert ammonia-nitrogen to nitrate-nitrogen. The nitrification 

process requires oxygen. Specifically, 4.57 lbs of oxygen are required per pound of 

ammonia nitrogen removed. Thus, the oxygen requirement can be calculated given a 

plant’s effluent ammonia concentration. Once the oxygen requirement is known, the 

brake horsepower can be determined using a simplified calculation method. This method 

is based on the following assumptions that have been developed from typical aeration 

systems:

 

• The typical actual oxygen requirement/standard oxygen requirement (AOR/SOR) 

 ratio for a fine bubble aeration system is 0.33. 

• The typical fine bubble oxygen transfer efficiency (SOTE) is 2.0% per foot of 

 diffuser submergence. Assume 25% on average. 

• 1 SCFM of air contains 0.0173 pounds of oxygen. 

• 40 HP is required to adiabatically compress 1000 SCFM 

 9
First, the airflow rate (SCFM) is calculated based on the oxygen requirement, AOR/SOR, 

and SOTE. Then, the brake horsepower is calculated based on the airflow rate, blower

discharge pressure, and blower efficiency. Finally the cost is determined based on the 

brake horsepower and the cost of electricity. $0.05 per kilowatt-hour of electricity was 

assumed. An example spreadsheet utilizing this methodology has been provided. The 

calculations are summarized below: 

• ( ) lb N nitrify

lbsO O req d NH NH goal Q 2

2 3 2000 3 2010 ' = [ ] − [ ] × 8.34 × × 4.57

 

• ' ' / ( / ) / / 1440( / ) / 0.0173( / ) 2 2 SCFM req d = O req d AOR SOR SOTE m day lbsO SCFM

• SCFM

HP BHP SCFM 100040 = ×

 

Denitrification processes lower the biochemical oxygen demand of the wastewater 

stream, thus lowering the overall oxygen requirement of the plant. Therefore, 

denitrification processes provide an electrical cost savings to the operation of the plant. 

To determine the electrical cost savings, the amount of oxygen saved is calculated using 

the relationship: 2.86 pounds of oxygen saved per pound of nitrate denitrified. The 

calculated amount of oxygen saved is converted to an electrical cost in the same

procedure used for nitrification processes. An example spreadsheet utilizing this 

methodology has been provided. The calculation to determine the amount of oxygen 

saved by denitrification is shown below: 

( ) lb N denitrify

lbsO O saved NO NO goal Q 2

2 3 2000 3 2010 = [ ] − [ ] × 8.34 × × 2.86

 

In both nitrification and denitrification process operation and maintenance cost 

calculations, the anticipated plant flow rate for the year 2010 should be used. In terms of 

additional operations and maintenance cost, there is a negligible change in solids 

production, and there is no additional labor required. Capital replacement cost is not 

included in the operations and maintenance cost. Maintenance cost can be estimated as 

2% of capital costs per year. 

3.4 Tier 2 Phosphorus Removal System Upgrades 

Significant municipal wastewater treatment plants in the Chesapeake Bay watershed 

should be divided into three categories: “TP<1mg/L”, “1<TP<2mg/L”, and 

“TP>2mg/L”. 

 

 10
For the purposes of this evaluation, it was assumed that all treatment plants will use 

chemical precipitation to remove phosphorus. This is not intended as a recommendation 

of chemical precipitation over biological phosphorus removal. On the contrary, 

biological phosphorus removal is often the preferred alternative when feasible. However, 

for the task of assigning cost for the Tier 2 phosphorus removal standards, it is easier to 

generate capital and operating costs if the assumption is made that all systems use 

chemical precipitation methods. 

Plants with total phosphorus concentration less than 1 mg/L are already achieving Tier 2 

nutrient levels and are not included in the evaluation. Plants with total phosphorus 

concentrations greater than 1 mg/L and less than 2 mg/L are assumed to already have 

chemical addition systems for phosphorus removal. There are no additional capital costs 

associated with these plants; however, there are operations and maintenance costs 

associated with increased chemical addition and sludge handling. The plants with total 

phosphorus concentrations greater than 2 mg/L require new chemical addition facilities 

and subsequent operations and maintenance costs. 

3.4.1 Capital Cost Estimating – Phosphorus Removal 

For all plants with total phosphorus greater than 2 mg/L, capital costs for a new chemical 

addition facility including chemical feed pumps and chemical storage tanks will be 

incurred. For this methodology, we selected alum as the chemical for phosphorus 

removal. Alum is readily available, cost-effective, and precipitates phosphorus 

efficiently. Since chemical feed facilities’ design does not vary greatly between plants, it 

was determined for this evaluation that capital costs for a 0.5, 1, 10, and 30 mgd plant 

would be representative of the range of costs for all plants. Capital costs for plants with 

flow capacities of 0.5 to 10 mgd were obtained from the EPA Handbook – Retrofitting 

POTWs for Phosphorus Removal in the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin (Sept, 1987). 

Capital cost for a plant with flow capacity of 30 mgd was obtained from the Innovative 

and Alternative Technology Assessment Manual (Feb, 1980). Both sources of cost data 

were converted to July 2000 dollars using the Engineering News-Record – Construction 

Cost Index. The results are summarized in Table III - A. These typical cost estimates are 

graphed versus plant design flow capacity. The graph is shown in Figure III-B. Cost 

estimates for individual plants can be extrapolated from Figure III-B based on each 

plant’s specific design flow. 

Capital costs can be extrapolated by determining the equations of the lines between the

data points on Figure III - B. The equations for Figure III-B are as follows: 

For, 0.1 < Q ≤ 1.0 mgd Cost = 94444 x Qdesign + 65556 

 1.0 < Q < 30.0 mgd Cost = 15172 x Qdesign + 144828 

 

 11
From these equations, the facility capital cost based on design flow is given. Facility cost 

for plants with flows outside the range of this graph can be approximated by using the 

maximum and minimum cost.

 

Table III - A: Capital Cost Data Summary – Phosphorus Removal 

Plant Flow 

(mgd) 0.1 1 30

Cost ($) $75,000 $160,000 $600,000

Capital Cost Curve, TP = 1 mg/L

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Plant Size (mgd)

Cost ($)

Figure III - B: Graph showing capital cost/mgd plant flow to reduce total 

phosphorus concentrations to 1 mg/L 

 12
3.4.2 O&M Cost Estimating – Phosphorus Removal 

In chemical phosphorus precipitation, liquid alum, or aluminum sulfate, is added to the 

wastewater stream. The aluminum sulfate reacts with soluble phosphorus to form

aluminum phosphate, which is insoluble and precipitates out of solution as sludge. 

Competing reactions occur simultaneously and thus aluminum hydroxide sludge is also a 

byproduct of phosphorus removal. For plants with total phosphorus concentrations 

greater than 1 mg/L, operations and maintenance costs associated with chemical costs

and sludge handling costs were calculated. 

To estimate the cost of liquid alum per facility, the amount of liquid alum required to 

reduce the plant’s total phosphorus concentration to 1 mg/L is calculated. For this 

methodology, the aluminum dose required is calculated using the aluminum to 

phosphorus molar ratio of 1.5:1 for Tier 2 nutrient levels. Therefore, 14.4 mg/L alum is 

required per 1 mg/L total phosphorus removed. 50 % alum solution should be assumed 

for all calculations with an alum bulk density of 11.09 lb/gal. For this methodology, use 

a budget cost of $269/ton alum, per EPA Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet for 

Chemical Precipitation (September, 2000). An example spreadsheet utilizing this 

methodology has been provided. The calculation is summarized below: 

• TPremoved (mg/L) = TP2000 – TPgoal 

• Alum Mass Flow (lb/day) = TPremoved x MFR x WR x Q2010 x 8.34 

 where: MFR = Al:P molar feed ratio (1.5:1, for Tier 2)

WR = Alum:P weight ratio (9.6:1)

 Q2010 = Anticipated Flow for Year 2010, mgd 

• Alum Cost = Alum (lb/day) x (365days/year) / (2000lbs/ton) x ($269/ton) 

To estimate the sludge production from alum chemical addition, calculations detailed in 

the EPA Design Manual for Phosphorus Removal (September, 1987) should be used. 

The following stoichiometric equations govern the sludge producing reactions: 

Al + PO4 = AlPO4 and Al + 3 OH = Al(OH)3 

Each plant’s specific effluent phosphorus concentration should be used along with the 

anticipated 2010 plant flow rate to calculate the sludge produced to reach a total 

phosphorus concentration of 1 mg/L. For this methodology, sludge handling and disposal 

costs should be assumed to be $300/dry ton sludge. No additional labor costs are 

required for phosphorus precipitation and additional energy costs are negligible. 

Maintenance cost can be estimated as 2% of capital costs per year. Capital replacement 

costs should not be included in the operations and maintenance cost. An example 

spreadsheet utilizing this methodology has been provided. The calculations are 

summarized below:

 13
• Al dose(mg/L) = MFR x TPremoved x AWR 

 where: MFR = Al:P molar feed ratio (1.5:1, for Tier 2)

AWR = Al:P atomic weight ratio (27/31)

 

• [AlPO4] = ( )aw

aw

removed AlPO

P

TP

× 4

 

 where: [AlPO4] = concentration of aluminum phosphate (mg/L) 

Paw = atomic weight of phosphorus (31)

 (AlPO4)aw = atomic weight of aluminum phosphate (122)

 

• [Al(OH3)] = ( ) ( ) aw

aw

removed

aw

Al OH

P

TP

Al

Al dose  × 3



 



















 −















 where: [Al(OH)3] = concentration of aluminum hydroxide (mg/L)

 Alaw = atomic weight of aluminum (27)

 (Al(OH)3)aw = atomic weight of aluminum hydroxide (78)

• Total Sludge (lb/d) = ([AlPO4] + [Al(OH)3]) x Q2010 x 8.34 

• Sludge Handling Cost = Total Sludge x (365d/yr) / (2000lbs/ton) x ($300/ton)

 

3.5 Tier 3 Phosphorus Removal System Upgrades 

In formulating the cost of Tier 3 phosphorus removal system upgrades, it was again 

assumed that all treatment plants will use chemical precipitation to remove phosphorus. 

Furthermore, it was assumed that Tier 3 goals would be enacted after Tier 2 goals were 

already in place, so that all of the significant wastewater treatment plants in the watershed 

would already have chemical phosphorus removal systems in place. Thus, the capital 

cost of implementing Tier 3 phosphorus removal system upgrades will be zero. 

The operating cost of implementing Tier 3 phosphorus removal upgrades can be found 

using the same methodology used to determine the operating cost of Tier 2 phosphorus 

removal upgrades, with the following exceptions: 

• All facilities are assumed to already be operating with an effluent TP of 1.0 

mg/L or less. 

• The goal molar feed ratio to achieve 0.5 mg/L effluent TP will be 2:1 instead of 

1.5:1, as was used to achieve an effluent TP of 1.0 mg/L. 

 14
IV. COST METHODOLOGY FOR TIER 3 AND TIER 4 NUTRIENT 

REMOVAL FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES 

By Tom Sadick, CH2M HILL, Herndon, VA 

Cost estimates were developed to assist in the evaluation of the benefits and potential 

costs of various levels of nutrient removal at wastewater treatment plants in the 

Chesapeake Bay watershed. Four tiers or levels of treatment were analyzed. The first tier 

represents the current (2002) level of treatment being achieved by plants within the 

watershed (DC, Maryland, Virginia and Pennsylvania). Tier 1 is the baseline for 

comparison. The second tier represents the incremental costs required to achieve total 

nitrogen (TN) concentrations of 8 mg/L and total phosphorus (TP) concentrations of 1.0 

mg/L for those plants without this level of treatment in operation or construction. Tier 3 

provides incremental costs for TN of 5 mg/L and TP of 0.5 mg/L. The highest level of

treatment, Tier 4, represents incremental costs for going from Tier 3 to Tier 4 – the limit 

of technology (LOT). LOT is generally considered to be 3 mg/L TN and 0.1 mg/L TP. 

The tiers are summarized in Table IV- A. The purpose of this document is to present the 

results of this work and to describe the methodology used to estimate costs. 

Table IV – A Summary of Tiered Nitrogen and Phosphorus Levels 

Tier Total Nitrogen Total Phosphorus 

1 Current limit Current limit 

2 8 mg/L 1 mg/L 

3 5 mg/L 0.5 mg/L 

4 3 mg/L 0.1 mg/L 

Appendix G provides details of cost assumptions used in this methodology. 

4.1 Tier 3 Results and Methodology 

Cost information for achieving Tier 2 limits were available for approximately one half of 

the treatment plants in the watershed. These data were analyzed statistically and used to 

estimate costs for the plants without specific cost information. However, unlike Tier 2, 

costs for achieving Tier 3 limits is very limited and unavailable within the time frame 

needed for this evaluation. Therefore, a generic approach using was developed to 

estimate approximate costs for this level of treatment. 

Capital costs were estimated by assuming certain improvements were necessary to 

achieve treatment levels to plants with capacities of 0.1, 1.0, 10 and 30 mgd. Operations 

and maintenance (O&M) costs were also calculated for the plants of these sizes. Cost 

15 
curves were then developed from this data and were used for estimating costs for plants 

within these ranges that do not have actual costs available for this level of treatment. 

The results from this type of analysis will provide an “order-of-magnitude” estimate on 

the basis of design flow that will have value for estimating basin-wide costs, but not for 

the development of budgets for individual facilities (an individual facility may cost more 

or less, but the aggregate numbers should be reasonable). Site specific factors such as 

wastewater characteristics, site constraints, geotechnical conditions, and the condition 

and layout of the existing facility can have a dramatic impact on the ultimate cost of a 

WWTP renovation project. Unfortunately, a detailed evaluation of each facility that 

considers site specific factors requires considerable effort, and few facilities have done 

the planning for Tier 3 and Tier 4 nutrient removal, thus this approach was used as an 

approximation of costs. 

4.1.1 Costs for TN = 5 mg/L 

 

Capital and O&M costs for achieving Tier 3 nitrogen limits for the four generic plant 

sizes are presented in Table IV- B. 

Table IV- B

 Summary of Capital and Operating Costs for Tier 3 Nitrogen Removal TN = 5 mg/L 

Plant Design Capacity 

0.1 MGD 1.0 MGD 10 MGD 30 MGD 

Capital Cost $ 241,000 $ 1,112,000 $ 4,927,000 $ 12,383,000

Annual O&M Cost $ 7,046 $ 29,218 $ 157,469 $ 293,938 

Figure IV-A presents the capital cost curves for TN = 5 and Figure IV-B shows the O&M 

cost curves developed from the generic costs. 

16 
TN=5, Cost Curve for Total Capital Costs

y = 967.06x + 144.44

R2 = 1

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Plant Size (mgd)

C

osts (x$1000)

TN=5, Cost Curve for Total Capital Costs

y = 386.01x + 864.83

R2 = 0.999

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Plant Size (mgd)

C

osts (x$1000)

Figure IV- A: Cost Curves for Total Capital Costs with TN = 5 mg/L

17 
TN=5, Cost Curve for Annual O&M Costs

y = 24636x + 4582.1

R2 = 1

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Plant Size (mgd)

Co

sts

TN=5, Cost Curve for Annual O&M Costs

y = 13383x + 19021

R2 = 0.9996

$0

$50,000

$100,000

$150,000

$200,000

$250,000

$300,000

$350,000

$400,000

$450,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Plant Size (mgd)

Co

sts

Figure IV- B: Cost Curves for Total O&M Costs with TN = 5 mg/L

4.1.2 Methodology for estimating TN = 5 mg/L costs 

The methodology for development for costs for TN = 5 consisted of assuming certain 

improvements would be needed to bring a standard activated sludge plant to this level of 

treatment. The following assumptions were made in order to develop the costs. 

4.1.2.1. The plant is already capable of achieving an annual average TN of 8 mg/L 

18 
4.1.2.2. In order to achieve 5 mg/L, improvements would be required to improve 

nitrification, clarification, and to remove an additional 3 mg/L of TN 

4.1.2.3. For increased nitrogen removal, it was further assumed that a secondary anoxic 

zone (following aeration) would be used. The zone was sized for a one hour 

hydraulic detention time at design flow. Methanol addition was also assumed to 

be needed to achieve the additional denitrification in the secondary anoxic zone. 

The costs for additional tankage for the secondary anoxic zone were estimated 

at $2.50 per gallon installed. An allowance was also provided for mixing and 

miscellaneous mechanical equipment not specifically identified. Estimates were 

also made for methanol storage and feed facilities for each size plant. 

4.1.2.4. Because the additional nitrogen removal requires more nitrification capacity and 

reliability an allowance was provided for improvements such as improved flow 

splitting, more tankage, or aeration improvements. These were based on an 

allowance per gallon - $ 0.50/gal for the 0.1 mgd plant, $0.25/gal for the 1.0 

mgd plant , and $ 0.10/gal for the 10 and 30 mgd plants. 

4.1.2.5. It was further assumed that additional clarification capacity would be required 

to handle the additional MLSS needed for more reliable nitrification as well as

improving overall clarification and TSS removal. Additional clarification 

equivalent to 25% of the design flow was assumed. For example, the 1 mgd 

plant would receive 250,000 gpd of additional capacity, 2.5 mgd of clarification 

capacity was added for the 10 mgd plant and the 30 mgd plant would increase 

clarifier capacity by 7.5 mgd. Costs for the additional clarification capacity was 

estimated using EPA cost curves for clarifiers (EPA 430/9-78-009 Innovative 

and Alternative Technology Assessment) and adjusted for inflation using the 

Engineering News Record Construction Cost Indexes (ENR CCI). 

4.1.2.6. The sum of the improvements was then added for each facility and then a 30% 

program implementation cost was added for program costs associated with 

engineering, construction management, legal, bonding and administrative fees. 

The sum of the construction and the implementation cost is the capital cost. 

4.1.2.7. O&M costs were developed using costs for methanol, increased solids 

production, energy, and maintenance. Additional labor for operations was not 

considered necessary for this alternative. The assumptions for each are as

follows: 

• Methanol: 3.1 lbs of methanol per pound of nitrate reduced (3 mg/L nitrate in 

this case) Methanol costs of $1.00 per gallon were used except for the 0.1 mgd 

plant where $2.00 per gallon was used for 55 gallon drum feed instead of bulk 

storage. 

• Additional solids production: Yield of 0.12 lbs of solids per lb of methanol 

applied. $300.00 per dry ton was used for solids handling, stabilization and 

disposal or reuse. 

19 
• Energy was estimated on the basis of mixing and other uses for each plant size 

at $0.05/kW-hr. 

• Maintenance costs were developed using two percent of the plants capital 

cost. 

Note: the O&M costs for all Tiers were developed using design flow for each facility. 

When used to develop basin wide costs, the 2010 flows will be used to prorate the annual 

O&M costs.

4.1.3 Methodology for fitting equations to TN = 5 mg/L data 

Several different types of equation fits were tested with each data set: linear, power, 

logarithmic, and polynomial. Linear, power, and polynomial (specifically quadratic) 

were found to be the closest matches depending on the data set. One measure of the 

success of the fit of an equation to the line is a high coefficient of determination (R2

). 

However, in the case of these data sets, frequently more than one type of equation fit the 

line with an R2 value of over 0.99. The difference in R2 values between equation fits is 

therefore meaningless. However, given the few data points available, it is most 

appropriate to use a linear fit. 

In addition to testing different types of equations, different data sets were also examined. 

The first round involved determining the equation of both the total capital costs and 

O&M costs of the entire upgrade. Then, the equation for the capital costs of each 

component of the upgrade (i.e. secondary anoxic reactor, denite filters, etc.) was 

determined. It was found that the equations for the total capital costs were a close 

enough fit that there was no need to look at the equations for the data subsets. 

The equation fits for the entire upgrade still had some inherent degree of error in them. 

That is, they underestimated costs in some places and overestimated in others. In order to 

minimize this error and refine the equations, the data set was split in two subsets (POTWs

0.1 to 1.0 mgd and POTWs greater than 1.0 mgd to 30 mgd) based on plant size. This 

provided the most precise set of equations for both Total Capital Costs and Annual O&M 

Costs. This same methodology was used to determine the equations associated with the 

TN= 3 mg/L data. 

4.1.4 Capital Costs for TP = 0.5 mg/L 

In formulating the cost of Tier 3 phosphorus removal system upgrades, it was again 

assumed that all treatment plants will use chemical precipitation to remove phosphorus. 

Furthermore, it was assumed that Tier 3 goals would be enacted after Tier 2 goals were 

already in place, so that all of the significant wastewater treatment plants in the watershed 

would already have chemical phosphorus removal systems in place. Thus, the capital 

cost of implementing Tier 3 phosphorus removal system upgrades will be zero. 

20 
4.1.5 Methodology for estimating operating costs for TP = 0.5 mg/L 

In chemical phosphorus precipitation, liquid alum, or aluminum sulfate, is added to the 

wastewater stream. The aluminum sulfate reacts with soluble phosphorus to form 

aluminum phosphate which is insoluble and precipitates out of solution as sludge. 

Competing reactions occur simultaneously and thus aluminum hydroxide sludge is also a 

byproduct of phosphorus removal. For plants with total phosphorus concentrations

greater than 0.5 mg/L, operations and maintenance costs associated with chemical costs 

and sludge handling costs were calculated. All facilities are assumed to already be 

operating with an effluent TP of 1.0 mg/L or less. 

To estimate the cost of liquid alum per facility, the amount of liquid alum required to 

reduce the plant’s total phosphorus concentration to 0.5 mg/L is calculated. For this 

methodology, the aluminum dose required is calculated using the aluminum to

phosphorus molar ratio of 2.0:1 for Tier 3 nutrient levels. Therefore, 19.2 mg/L alum is

required per 1 mg/L total phosphorus removed. 50 % alum solution should be assumed 

for all calculations with an alum bulk density of 11.09 lb/gal. For this methodology, use 

a budget cost of $269/ton alum, per EPA Wastewater Technology Fact Sheet for 

Chemical Precipitation (September, 2000). The calculation is summarized below: 

• TPremoved (mg/L) = TP2000 – TPgoal 

• Alum Mass Flow (lb/day) = TPremoved x MFR x WR x Q2010 x 8.34 

 where: MFR = Al:P molar feed ratio (2.0:1, for Tier 3)

WR = Alum:P weight ratio (9.6:1)

 Q2010 = Anticipated Flow for Year 2010, mgd 

• Alum Cost = Alum (lb/day) x (365days/year) / (2000lbs/ton) x ($269/ton) 

To estimate the sludge production from alum chemical addition, calculations detailed in 

the EPA Design Manual for Phosphorus Removal (September, 1987) should be used. 

The following stoichiometric equations govern the sludge producing reactions: 

Al + PO4 = AlPO4 and Al + 3 OH = Al(OH)3 

Each plant’s specific effluent phosphorus concentration should be used along with the 

anticipated 2010 plant flow rate to calculate the sludge produced to reach a total 

phosphorus concentration of 1 mg/L. For this methodology, sludge handling and disposal

costs should be assumed to be $300/dry ton sludge. No additional labor costs are 

required for phosphorus precipitation and additional energy costs are negligible.

Maintenance cost can be estimated as 2% of capital costs per year. Capital replacement 

costs should not be included in the operations and maintenance cost. The calculations are 

summarized below: 

21 
• Al dose(mg/L) = MFR x TPremoved x AWR 

 where: MFR = Al:P molar feed ratio (2.0:1, for Tier 3)

AWR = Al:P atomic weight ratio (27/31)

 

• [AlPO4] = ( )aw

aw

removed AlPO

P

TP

× 4

 

 where: [AlPO4] = concentration of aluminum phosphate (mg/L) 

Paw = atomic weight of phosphorus (31)

 (AlPO4)aw = atomic weight of aluminum phosphate (122)

 

• [Al(OH3)] = ( ) ( ) aw

aw

removed

aw

Al OH

P

TP

Al

Al dose  × 3



 



















 −















 where: [Al(OH)3] = concentration of aluminum hydroxide (mg/L)

 Alaw = atomic weight of aluminum (27)

 (Al(OH)3)aw = atomic weight of aluminum hydroxide (78)

• Total Sludge (lb/d) = ([AlPO4] + [Al(OH)3]) x Q2010 x 8.34 

• Sludge Handling Cost = Total Sludge x (365d/yr) / (2000lbs/ton) x ($300/ton)

4.2 Tier 4 Results and Methodology 

For Tier 4 generic plant cost development, it was assumed that the technology used to 

achieve an effluent TN of 3 mg/L was deep bed denitrification filters. Metal salt addition 

with microfiltration was assumed as the technology of choice for LOT for 0.1 mg/L TP. 

4.2.1 Deep Bed Denitrifying Filters 

A proven technology that can achieve this level of nitrogen removal and provide a 

reasonable estimate of costs is deep bed denitrifying filters (DBDF). Another significant 

advantage of DBDFs is the filtering action that can aid TSS and phosphorus removal. 

Other technologies can achieve a TN level of 3 mg/L (e.g., fluidized beds, denitrifying 

biological filters, suspended growth systems with multiple anoxic zones and 

supplemental carbon addition), however, applying the simplifying assumption that DBDF 

technology will be used at all facilities will provide reasonable capital and operating costs 

that can be used for preliminary planning and cost benefit analysis. 

Deep bed denitrifying filtration is a down-flow, packed-bed process performing both 

suspended solids removal (as in a typical filter) and biological nitrogen removal. 

Denitrifying bacteria grow on the media using an external source of carbon, such as 

methanol, as a food source and nitrate in the effluent as a source of respiration (under 

22 
anoxic conditions). The DBDFs are similar to water filters except the media is usually a 

coarse, high density sand consisting of round hard particles. Bed depths are typically on 

the order of 5 feet and have a gravel underdrain system. DBDFs use both air and water 

during backwashing. 

In operation, the denitrification process reduces nitrate-nitrogen to nitrogen gas, and 

results in the formation of cell mass, water, and alkalinity. The beds are occasionally 

removed from service and are “bumped” using washwater to remove trapped gas from 

the bed. Conventional hydraulic loading rates of 1 to 2 gpm/sq ft are typical for 

municipal wastewater. At these loading rates backwash intervals can range from 1 to 4 

days. Nitrogen gas bumping cycles are typically between 4 and 8 hrs. 

DBDFs are widely used for nitrogen removal, particularly in smaller plants in Florida 

where TN limits of 3 mg/L are being achieved. Tampa, Florida and Munich, Germany 

have large installations. 

 

4.2.2 Microfiltration 

Low pressure membrane treatment (micro or ultra filtration) is a suitable technology to 

achieve very low effluent phosphorus concentrations if metal salts are used just upstream 

to precipitate soluble phosphorus. Some existing plants in the region with tertiary 

clarification and filtration can reliably achieve TP concentrations below 0.1 mg/L. 

However, microfiltration is considerably less expensive than an additional clarification 

and filtration process and was therefore selected for use in this exercise as a reasonable 

add on process for plants without these facilities. Another factor in the selection of this 

technology is its use with denitrification filters. The denitrification filters must have 

sufficient phosphorus for cell synthesis of the denitrifiying organisms. Approximately 

0.1 to 0.2 mg/L of soluble phosphorus must pass on to the filters to support growth and 

therefore they cannot be relied upon as the final barrier for phosphorus. Adding a small 

dose of metal salts and then processing the flow through microfilters can reduce effluent 

TP to below 0.1 mg/L. 

4.2.3 Costs for TN = 3 mg/L 

 

Capital and O&M costs for achieving Tier 4 nitrogen limits for the four generic plant 

sizes are presented in Table IV- C. 

Table IV- C

 Summary of Capital and Operating Costs for Tier 4 Nitrogen Removal TN = 3 mg/L 

Plant Design Capacity 

0.1 MGD 1.0 MGD 10 MGD 30 MGD 

Capital Cost $ 312,000 $ 1,268,000 $ 9,620,000 $ 26,520,000

Annual O&M Cost $ 22,993 $ 69,925 $ 311,634 $ 841,120 

Figure IV- C presents the capital cost curves for TN = 3 and Figure IV- D shows the 

O&M cost curves developed from the generic costs. 

23 
TN=3, Total Capital Cost Curve

y = 1061.7x + 205.83

R2

 = 1

$0

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Plant Size (mgd)

C

osts (x$1000)

TN=3, Total Capital Cost Curve

y = 866.49x + 627.19

R2

 = 0.9995

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Plant Size (mgd)

C

osts (x$1000)

Figure IV- C: Cost Curves for Total Capital Costs with TN = 3 mg/L

24 
TN=3, Annual O&M Costs

y = 26573x + 44393

R2

 = 1

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

$800,000

$900,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Plant Size (mgd)

Co

sts

TN=3, Annual O&M Costs

y = 52147x + 17779

R2

 = 1

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$70,000

$80,000

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

Plant Size (mgd)

Co

sts

Figure IV- D: Cost Curves for Annual O&M Costs with TN = 3 mg/L 

4.2.4 Methodology for estimating TN = 3 mg/L costs 

As discussed above deep bed denitrification filters were assumed. Costs were developed 

for plant sizes of 0.1, 1.0, 10 and 30 mgd. Capital costs consisted of the following: 

4.2.4.1. A pumping station capable of providing 30 ft TDH to the denitrification filters

and three times the annual design flow to handle peak flows. The cost for the 

25 
station was developed using two sets of EPA cost curves (EPA 430/9-78-009 

Innovative and Alternative Technology Assessment, and the EPA cost curves in 

the Cost of Wastewater Conveyance Manual) with indexing of the cost to the 

present using the ENR CCI.

4.2.4.2. Denitrification filter costs were developed using a design hydraulic loading of 2 

gpm/sq ft and adding redundancy factors for filters being backwashed or out of 

service for maintenance. (50% additional filters for the 0.1 mgd plant, 20% for 

the 1 mgd plant, 15% for the 10 mgd plant and 10% for the 30 mgd plant). A 

flat cost of $1,500 per square foot of filter surface was used. This cost is 

typically used to cover the cost of the filters, building and appurtenances.

4.2.4.3. A 30 % program implementation factor was used to arrive at the final capital 

cost for each generic plant.

4.2.4.4. NOTE: These capital costs are only valid for plants without filtration as a final 

process. Plants with filtration and pumping stations in place will be 

considerably less costly to retrofit for this level of nitrogen removal. 

4.2.4.5. O&M costs were developed using costs for methanol, increased solids 

production, energy, and maintenance, and additional labor on the basis of plant 

size. The assumptions for each are as follows: 

• Methanol: 3.1 lbs of methanol per pound of nitrate reduced (3 mg/L nitrate in 

this case 5 mg/L to 2 mg/L – treatment target) Methanol costs of $1.00 per 

gallon were used except for the 0.1 mgd plant where $2.00 per gallon was 

used for 55 gallon drum feed instead of bulk storage. 

• Additional solids production: Yield of 0.12 lbs of solids per lb of methanol 

applied. $300.00 per dry ton was used for solids handling, stabilization and 

disposal or reuse. 

• Energy was estimated on the basis of pumping and other uses for each plant 

size at $0.05/kW-hr. 

• Labor was based on plant size 0.1 mgd = 2 hrs/day, 1.0 = 4 hrs/day, 10 mgd = 

6 hrs/day and 30 mgd = 12 hrs/day. Labor was considered for a 5 day work 

week. $30 was used per hour to cover salary and fringe benefits. 

• Maintenance costs were developed using two percent of the plants capital 

cost. 

4.2.5 Methodology for fitting equations to TN = 3 mg/L data 

The same methodology was used to determine the equations associated with the TN= 3 

mg/L data as was used to determine the equations for TN = 5 mg/L. Please refer to that 

section for more detailed information. 

26 
4.2.6 Costs for TP= 0.1 mg/L 

Capital and O&M costs for achieving Tier 4 phosphorus limits for the four generic plant 

sizes are presented in Table IV- D. 

Table IV- D

 Summary of Capital and Operating Costs for Tier 4 Phosphorus Removal TP = 0.1 mg/L 

Plant Design Capacity 

0.1 MGD 1.0 MGD 10 MGD 30 MGD 

Capital Cost $ 388,000 $ 1,315,000 $ 6,969,000 $ 18,330,000

Annual O&M Cost $ 54,385 $ 189,800 $ 1,095,000 $ 3,066,000 

Figures IV-E and IV-F present the capital cost curves for TP=0.1 and Figure IV-G shows 

the O&M cost curves developed from the generic costs. Figure IV- E was taken directly 

from EPA 815-C-01-001 Low-Pressure Membrane Filtration for Pathogen Removal: 

Application, Implementation and Regulatory Issues. Figure IV- F shows cost curves for 

additional allowances made for chemical system and instrumentation improvements. 

These costs are explained in more detail in the methodology section. Figure IV- G shows 

the cost curves for O&M associated with a TP = 0.1 mg/L based on data from the EPA 

source cited earlier. 

Micro / Ultrafiltration Costs

y = 1.14E+06x 5.06E-01

y = 1.29E+06x

7.43E-01

$100,000

$1,000,000

$10,000,000

$100,000,000

$1,000,000,000

0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000

Plant Capacity [mgd]

Capital Cost [$]

 Discharge to Sewer - 10 Degrees C

y = 7.39E+05x

9.41E-01

Figure IV- E: Cost Curves for Capital Costs for TP = 0.1 mg/L (Taken directly from EPA 815-C01-001 Low-Pressure Membrane Filtration for Pathogen Removal: Application, 

Implementation and Regulatory Issues) 

27 
TP=0.1, Cost Curves for Allowance for

Chemical/Instrumentation System Improvements

y = 16667x + 83333

R2 = 1

y = 55556x + 44444

R2 = 1

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Plant Size (mgd)

Co

sts

(x$

10

00)

y = 12500x + 125000

R2 = 1

y = 122457x0.9505

R2 = 1

Figure IV- F: Cost Curves for Allowance for Chemical/Instrumentation System Improvements 

for TP = 0.1 mg/L 

TP = 0.1, Cost Curves for Annual O&M

y = 189196x0.5418

R2 = 1

y = 192584x

0.7683

R2 = 0.998

$1

$10

$100

$1,000

$10,000

$100,000

$1,000,000

$10,000,000

0 10 20 30 40 50 6

Plant Size (mgd)

Co

st

0

Figure IV- G: Cost Curves for Annual O&M Costs for TP = 0.1 mg/L 

28 
4.2.7 Methodology for estimating TP = 0.1 mg/L costs and for fitting equations to 

TP = 0.1 mg/L data 

As discussed above, microfiltration was assumed as the technology of choice for LOT 

phosphorus removal for the generic plants. Both capital and O&M costs were developed 

using cost curves for low pressure membrane filtration for drinking water (EPA 815-C01-001 Low-Pressure Membrane Filtration for Pathogen Removal: Application, 

Implementation and Regulatory Issues). This application will be reasonably similar to 

water treatment in terms water quality and membrane flux at this point in the waste water 

treatment process (highly treated denitrification filter effluent TSS < 3 mg/L) and thus, it 

should be applicable. The curve used (shown above in Figure IV- E) was directly from 

the “microfiltration/ultrafiltration costs with discharge to sewer (back to the plant) with a 

minimum water temperature of 10 degrees C.” 

4.2.7.1. In addition to the construction cost of the facilities, an allowance was provided 

for each for improvements to instrumentation and control systems to improve 

chemical application prior to the membranes. The allowances were as follows: 

0.1mgd = $50k, 1.0 mgd = $ 100, 10 mgd = $250k, 30 mgd = $ 500k. This data 

was plotted in Figure IV- F. The same methodology was used to fit an equation 

to the line as was used in analyzing the TN data. The data was split into three 

subsets based on the way the EPA source data divided their equations. 

4.2.7.2. Capital costs include non-construction costs such as engineering, legal and 

permitting. Figure IV- E shows the capital cost curves. These curves and

equations were taken directly from the EPA document referenced earlier. 

Therefore, to determine the total capital cost for a given design flow, the 

equations in Figure IV- E and F need to be added together. 

4.2.7.3. O&M costs were also taken directly from the EPA curves and include: power, 5 

year membrane replacement, labor 2 hrs/week for very small systems < 1 mgd, 

40 hrs for larger systems, and chemical cleaning once per month. The O&M 

costs were based on the data in the EPA document referenced earlier. Costs per 

1,000 gallons were taken from that source, multiplied by the number of 

thousands of gallons in the design flow and multiplied by 365 days. This

provided O&M costs per year at design flow. This data was plotted in Figure 

IV- G on a logarithmic scale. It was determined that the best fit for these curves 

were power equations. The data was split into three subsets based on the way 

the capital cost curves were split. 

29 
V. METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING INDUSTRIAL LOADS and 

COSTS BY TIER 

Estimates of industrial nutrient load reductions by tier and related costs to achieve those 

reductions are presented in this section. The tiers applied to industries conceptually mirror the 

tiers for the significant municipal facilities in that Tier 1 reflects current implementation and 

Tiers 2 – 4 reflect additional reduction measures ultimately leading up to limits of technology. 

There are 49 industrial direct dischargers in the CBPO nutrient point source database that the 

Bay jurisdictions have indicated are substantial sources of nutrients to the watershed. Site 

specific information on many of these facilities was obtained via phone contacts or site visits 

which provided individualized data on what appropriate load reductions and/or costs would be 

by tier. A cost estimation methodology applied wherever site specific information was 

unavailable. Certain assumptions were applied using the methodology described below. These 

costs and reduction levels are to be used only as a means to estimate potential reduction and 

resulting costs watershed wide according to Tiers. This is not information that should be used to 

determine or verify actual site specific load reductions and costs by facility for actual 

implementation measures. 

Table V-A below provides a summary of the costs resulting from the theoretical implementation 

of the tiers grouped by SIC code. Table V-B provides the same summary information grouped 

by major Bay Basins. Tables V-C, V-D, V-D and V-F in this section provide costs and loads by 

facility by Tier as described below. 

Note that the source of some of the following information on loads or costs may come from

individual facility or state contacts. Reference numbers are placed after such information which 

link the information to a hard copy describing the communication. Appendix H to this report 

compiles all of these contacts and is available at the Chesapeake Bay Program Office by 

contacting Ning Zhou at 410-267-5727. 

 

30
Table V-A: TOTAL INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COST (for Nitrogen and Phosphorus Reductions) 

SUMMARY BY INDUSTRY ($)

INDUSTRY

TIER 1 

TOTAL CC

TIER 2

 TOTAL CC

TIER 3

 TOTAL CC

TIER 4

 TOTAL CC

CHEMICALS Total 0 448,884 800,000 20,850,184

FISH HATCHERIES Total 0 0 3,180,697 10,676,419

MEAT PROCESSING Total 0 13,337,166 3,433,441 8,684,998

METALS Total 0 0 0 9,149,406

MISC Total 0 24,984,572 15,256,703 28,127,595

PAPER MILLS Total 0 4,928,496 17,535,141 115,812,973

PETRO-CHEMICALS Total 0 0 398,764 1,124,068

TEXTILES Total 0 7,000,000 6,212,016 2,073,175

Grand Total 0 50,699,118 46,816,762 196,498,818

Table V-B: TOTAL INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COST (Nitrogen and Phosphorus Reductions) 

SUMMARY BY BASIN ($) FOR INDUSTRIAL FACILITIES

INDUSTRY

TIER 1 

TOTAL CC

TIER 2

 TOTAL CC

TIER 3

 TOTAL CC

TIER 4

 TOTAL CC

JAMES RIVER Total 0 5,754,176 21,432,241 70,252,886

MD EASTERN SHORE Total 0 0 0 1,106,448

MD WESTERN SHORE Total 0 0 398,764 5,273,474

PATUXENT RIVER Total 0 7,350,910 489,332 1,325,353

POTOMAC RIVER Total 0 19,593,007 6,916,466 16,979,396

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER Total 0 17,994,525 16,954,959 71,866,171

VA EASTERN SHORE Total 0 6,500 625,000 1,250,000

YORK RIVER Total 0 0 0 28,445,090

Grand Total 0 50,699,118 46,816,762 196,498,818

 

31
5.1 LOADS

Loads for industrial facilities were determined by a combination of facility contacts, estimates based 

on an application of POTW technologies, or simply by applying increasing non-technology based 

percentages of reductions by tier. In general, Tier 1 for industries reflects nutrient concentrations that 

existed in 2000, or plans known to be in place by 2010, or permit limits if less than this. Tier 2 and 3 

for industries generally reflects a 50 and 80% reduction respectively from Tier 1 or permit limits if 

less than this. Tier 4 reflects the same concentrations as for significant municipal facilities at limits 

of technology, or 3 mg/l for TN and 0.1 mg/l for TP. More site specific decisions for loads by facility 

are described below. It should be noted that loads for Tier 4 are really an artifact of how the tiers 

were constructed (which basically equaled LOT for municipals) rather than a reflection of the 

capability of the individual industrial facilities to meet this level. 

See Table V-C for a list of industry concentrations, flows, and codes by Tier for loads and 

costing (see Section 5.2 below). 

See Table V-D for a list of industry concentrations and flows as a result of applying the codes by 

tier listed in Table V-C. The information is organized by nutrient parameter for easy reference. 

Flows: Flows for the year 2010 are the same as those for 2000. This is because industrial flows 

do not necessarily increase due to population, as in the case of municipal facilities, and there 

exist no data for 2010 projections other than data we have for 2000. 

The following methodology (code) was used to determine TN and TP concentrations for the 

industrial facilities for the different tiers. However, in all cases, the permit concentrations will be 

used if lower than those determined by applying the codes below. 

5.1.1. Concentrations will be held constant from Tier 1 because significant reductions have 

already been made (equal or greater than 85%). Code: R 

5.1.2. Concentrations will be held constant from Tier 1 because they are already equal to or

below 3.0 and 0.1 mg/l TN and TP respectively. Code: HC 

5.1.3. The same tier levels are applied as are used for significant municipals where Tier 1 

concentrations are equal or below 20.0 and 7.0 mg/l TN and TP respectively. Code: 

POTW

5.1.4. Tier 2 = 50% of 1985 concentration (or 2000 concentration, whichever is lower), Tier 3 = 

80% reduction from 1985 concentration (or 2000 concentration, whichever is lower). But 

in any case, do not go lower than 3.0 and 0.1 mg/l for TN and TP respectively. Use in 

cases where facilities have experienced an increase in 50% or less in load since 1985. 

Code: AC1 

5.1.5. Tier 2 = 50% of 2000 concentration (or 1985 concentration, whichever is lower), Tier 3 = 

80% reduction from 2000 concentration (or 1985 concentration, whichever is lower). But 

32
in any case, do not go lower than 3.0 and 0.1 mg/l TN and TP respectively. Use in cases 

where facilities have experienced an increase in load of greater than 50%. Code: AC2 

Note: used in only two facilities: Hienz Pet Foods in PA, and Lee's Commercial Carpet 

in VA. Also note that 2010 concentrations are set equal to 2000 concentrations (as 

presented in the following tables) unless it was known that reductions would occur 

between 2000 and 2010. 

5.1.6. Some loads are applied according to site specific information provided by either the 

respective state, or facility. Such site specific information is available for Osram in PA, 

Chemetals in MD, Rocco Farm Foods in VA, Tysons Foods in VA (4031) and others. 

Loads for Wampler Foods - Timberville, VA, Wampler Longacre in WV, and Hester 

Industries WV are all considered to be zero because spray irrigation technology has been 

employed at these facilities. Note: if loads do appear in the final tiers for these facilities, 

it is because the draft data set was finalized prior to input of this information. References 

for load and cost information are cited specifically under Section 5.2: Costs. 

5.1.7. Poultry Processing Plants: TP is set to 2.0 mg/l or lower for all poultry processing plants 

for Tier 2 and 3 because many facilities have this concentration as a permit limit. Tysons 

Foods (4031) has a permit limit of 0.3 mg/l TP. Tysons Foods (4049) has a permit limit 

of 2.0 mg/l TP. 

A different category code may be applied to either TN or TP for a given facility depending on 

the situation. 

5.2 COSTS

It should be noted that costs were generated in this report assuming nutrient reduction was 

implemented through construction of wastewater treatment or transportation to a POTW. There 

may also exist methods to reduce nutrient levels through pollution prevention efforts industrial 

facilities may employ but which were not costed. 

See Table V-E for a list of capital and O&M costs by Tier for TN and TP reduction measures. 

See Table V-F for a list of industrial flows, TN and TP concentrations, and TN and TP combined 

capital costs by Tier. 

5.2.1 Tier 1

All costs for industrial facilities are assumed to be zero for Tier 1 because this represents either 

conditions existing in 2000 or incorporates plans for reductions that were already in process. 

5.2.2 Tiers 2 - 3

Costs for many facilities in these tiers were assumed to be zero whenever their TN or TP 

concentrations that existed in 2000 were equal to, fairly close to if higher, or less than, the 

33
concentrations defined in the tiers. Where concentrations of TN and/or TP were near POTW

influent concentrations, the POTW methodology was applied to obtain a reasonable estimate of 

costs, even where it is known that some industrial wastewater is not treatable biologically. In 

applying the POTW methodology, which is based, in part on knowing a facility s design flow, 

industrial facility design flows were assumed to be equal to 2000 flow . For poultry processing 

plants in general, it was agreed that the Tier 3 TN concentration should be 10.0 mg/l or lower 

because this is a performance level or permitted effluent concentration demonstrated by many 

currently operating facilities. Costs for these facilities are based on a TN of 10 for tier 3 for the 

Virginia plants. However, there may be a few cases where a level of 10 mg/l TN is in fact not 

reflected in the database for Tier 3 due to decision making after the database was completed. 

Where additional considerations other than those above were applied to estimate costs, they are 

explained below: 

Allen Family Foods: TN is already low so no costs for TN reduction are assumed. No costs are 

assumed in general for poultry facilities to meet an effluent TP of 2.0 mg/l because this is a 

standard permit requirement for this industry. 

Bethlehem Steel: Costs are assumed to be zero for this facility as its influent comes from Back 

River and any reductions will be implemented and paid for by Back River.

Chemetals: Based on correspondence with Chemetals and planned reductions via P2 - see 

Chesapeake Bay Point Source 2005 and 2010 Scenario Nutrient Data Compiling, April , 2000, 

CBPO.(Attachment 1, Appendix H) Chemetals planned on getting reductions via P2 since 

1999. These reductions were estimated to result in a TN concentration of 223 mg/l TN, or an 

81% reduction from 2000 levels. Costs are assumed to be zero as they were already planned. 

Costs are zero for TP because their effluent is less than Tier 3 concentrations. 

Congoleum: TP and TN are already below Tier 2 levels so costs are zero. Costs for Tier 3 are 

for TN only to go from TN of 6.6 to 5.0. POTW cost methodology is applied here. 

Garden State Tanning: No costs for TP because it is already very low. During a 1999 facility 

visit, Garden State Tanning stated that they were going to incorporate a recycle line in their 

wastewater treatment system that would result in a 20% reduction of TN in the 

effluent(Attachment 1, Appendix H). The Tier 1 TN concentration reflects this 20% reduction 

from 2000 concentrations. Subsequent information from EPA Region 3 stated that an NPDES 

permit is currently under review which will ask for a 40% reduction within 3 years. (Attachment 

2, Appendix H) Current TN is 121 mg/l based on a 4/18/02 email from Peter Weber from EPA 

Region 3 which stated that the permit will have a load cap of 155,250 lbs TN per year. At their 

current flow of 0.42 MGD, this equates to a TN of 121 mg/l now. A 40% reduction would 

equate to an effluent of 72.5 mg/l TN. However this is not as low as the calculated Tier 2 

concentration of 54.77 mg/l. MDE has requested costing information from this facility but at the 

time of this writing, no information has been provided. Because the facility already has 

nitrification and denitrification capability at its wastewater treatment plant, a Best Professional 

Judgement estimate is approximately $5 million to reduce the TN concentration from 72.5 mg/l 

to 54.77 mg/l. An additional $5 million is estimated to go to the Tier 3 calculated TN effluent of 

21.9 mg/l. 8% O&M is assumed in both tiers. 

34
MD & VA Milk Producers: Costs were determined by applying the POTW methodology because 

TN and TP levels were in the range of municipal influents. 

Indian Head: TN costs are assumed to be zero because TN concentrations are already low. Costs 

for TP are determined using the POTW methodology. 

Upper Potomac River Commission in MD: TN costs are assumed to be zero because TN 

concentrations are already low. Costs for TP are determined using the POTW methodology. It 

should be noted that this facility is a POTW yet it is primarily funded by an industry. 

WR Grace: Concentrations for TN have been substantially reduced since 1985 thus no costs are 

assumed for this facility. TP values are also already low and below Tier 2 and 3 definitions. 

Appleton Paper: Costs are for TP only to go from 1.16 to 0.5 mg/l. The POTW methodology 

was applied. 

Georgia Pacific: 1985 TN and TP concentrations are based on a 3/18/02 email from Bob 

Ehrhart.(Attachment 3, Appendix H) Zero costs are assumed for TN reductions based on an 

3/20/02 email from John Moore, Georgia Pacific which states that the source of nitrogen in the 

effluent should be removed by plans in place already to remove the sludge in the final settling 

pond (which is the source of the nitrogen in the effluent).(Attachment 4, Appendix H) Costs for 

TP are calculated using the POTW methodology. 

Osram: Based on a 3/14/02 email from Carmen Venezia, OSRAM, this facility is incorporating 

P2 into their process by reducing the amount of nitrate used which would result in approximately 

a 20% reduction by end of 2001, a 30% reduction by mid 2002, and a 50% reduction by end of 

2002.(Attachment 5, Appendix H) Hence, Tiers 2 - 3 reflect the 20 and 30% reductions, or 88 

mg/l and 77 mg/l TN respectively. 

Hoecht-Celanese: Based on an 4/11/02 email from Bob Ehrhart, TN has been significantly 

reduced since 1985 and thus no costs are applied.(Attachment 6, Appendix H) TP levels are also 

very low. Its direct discharge has been substantially reduced and thus it is no longer considered a 

significant source of nutrients by VADEQ. 

Lees Commercial Carpet: Based on a 4/4/02 email from Bob Ehrhart which states that achieving 

reductions would only be achievable by jointly constructing a POTW w/ the Town of Glasgow 

the estimate would be approximately $2 million and would apply unilaterally (not incrementally) 

across the tiers. (Attachment 7, Appendix H) Thus, this cost is placed in Tier 2. 

Merck in VA: No costs are assumed for TN as its concentration is already low. Costs are for TP 

reduction only. Based on a 3/22/02 email from Stephen Klevickis at Merck, costs to get to a TP 

of 1.0 would be zero because of source reduction. (Attachment 8, Appendix H) Costs to go to 0.5 

mg/l TP would be about $800,000 to employ precipitation and filtration, also based on the same

correspondence from Merck. 

35
Phillip Morris: Based on a 4/29/02 email from Bob Ehrhart which states that achieving Tier 4 

would be achievable by constructing a pump station and force main, the estimate would be 

approximately $12 million. (Attachment 9, Appendix H) Costs associated with Tier 2 & Tier 3 

were provided by Mrs. Ethel Tatum by letter dated April 29, 2002. (Attachment 9A, Appendix 

H) 

Proctor and Gamble in PA: Based on a 4/2/02 email from Drew Hadley at Proctor and Gamble 

(Attachment 10, Appendix H), this facility discontinued the pulp production in 1999 and 

permanently shut down the sulfite pulp process in May of that year. The wastewater treatment 

plant was also reconfigured at that time to a relatively low load aerated stabilization system. 

Ammonia Nitrogen discharge is now less than 2% of historical discharge levels. However, the 

2000 TN concentration estimates provided by PADEP show a TN estimate of 17.58 mg/l TN. 

Apparently, as this is the same value since 1997, this is an estimate not based on actual data and 

may not reflect this facility s current discharge levels which are most likely something much 

less than that. However, without confirmation from Proctor and Gamble that the TOTAL 

Nitrogen is low, and not just the ammonia nitrogen, we proceeded with assuming POTW tiered 

concentrations, and used the POTW methodology to estimate costs. 

Chicken George’s (formerly, Rocco Farm Foods): This facility’s NPDES permit requires a TN of 

10 and TP of 2.0 be met. Costs are estimated to meet a TN of 10 mg/l for Tier 2 which is a part 

of a 2001-02 upgrade for this facility. Costs were estimated by Bob Ehrhart using costs from

other similar facilities (Attachment 15, Appendix H). 

Tysons Foods Glen Allen(4031): No costs are assumed in Tier 2 for this facility because its TN 

and TP concentrations are already low. TN of 6.0 is estimated based on the early 2000 

performance of BNR recently implemented at that facility. (Attachment 1, Appendix H) 

However, a more accurate projection of TN for this facility for Tiers 2 and 3 would be 10 mg/l 

based on demonstrated performance of similar facilities, however, this was decided after 

completion of the database. Costs to achieve Tiers 3 and 4 are provided by Doug Baxter in a 

4/25/02 email. (Attachment 1B, Appendix H) 

Tysons Foods Temporanceville(4049): The Tier 2 concentration of 60 reflects the early 2000 

performance of BNR that was recently implemented.(Attachment 1, Appendix H) Costs to 

achieve the Tier 3 & Tier 4 concentrations have been provided by Doug Baxter in an email and 

attachment dated: April 24, 2002. (Attachment 1A, Appendix H) 

Wampler-Timberville: This facility is currently offline due to land application (Attachment 11, 

Appendix H). Thus the discharge is essentially zero and no costs are applied to any of the Tiers. 

Hester: This facility has plans already for land application, thus no costs are applied to this 

facility for nutrient reduction. (Attachment 12, Appendix H) 

Wampler-Longacre, WV: This facility has plans already for land application, thus no costs are 

applied to this facility for nutrient reduction. (Attachment 12, Appendix H) 

36
DuPont: Nutrients are already low for the DuPont facilities and therefore no additional costs are 

estimated as confirmed in a telephone conversation with Bob Dunn of DuPont (Attachment 13, 

Appendix H). The Waynesboro facility has a new BNR facility currently operating. 

BWXT: Costs are based on a 4/24/02 email from Bob Ehrhart which states that pumping the 

waste to the Lynchburg facility would cost approximately $5 million for Tier 4 (Attachment 14, 

Appendix H). 

Smurfit Stone: Note that the concentration for Tier 2 should have been 5.26 mg/l TN instead of 

8 mg/l to reflect its 2000 performance levels (or Tier 1). This was an inadvertent error. 

5.2.3 Tier 4

Costs for Tier 4 are zero where reductions are already low or P2 is planned. For poultry facilities 

in general, it was agreed that a more reasonable effluent level for Tier 4 would be a TN 

concentration of 0.3 mg/l instead of 0.1 mg/l because this reflects best performance currently 

operating. However, the database does not reflect a concentration of 0.3, but rather 0.1 mg/l 

because of decision making after the completion of the database. However, costs are based on an 

effluent concentration of 0.3 mg/l instead of 0.1 mg/l. All other costs are based on the POTW

methodology for getting to a TN of 3.0 mg/l and/or a TP of 0.1 mg/l except for individual 

assumptions for the following facilities: 

Chemetals, Garden State Tanning, Osram, and Merck: No Tier 4 costs were estimated because 

no information was available on which to base a reasonable assumption. 

Lees Commercial Carpet and Phillip Morris: See explanation under Tier 2-3 costs for these 

facilities for a description of Tier 3 cost assumptions. 

Tysons Foods (4031): Costs to achieve Tier 4 have been provided by Doug Baxter in an email 

and attachment dated: 4/25/02 (Attachment 1A, Appendix H). 

37
Table V-C: INDUSTRIAL FACILITY COSTING AND CONCENTRATION CODES BY TIER

STA

T FACILITY NPDES

TN 

(mg/l)

TP 

(mg/l)

TN 

(mg/l)

TP 

(mg/l) COST

TN 

(mg/l)

TP 

(mg/l) COST

TN 

(mg/l)

TP 

(mg/l) COST

DE DUPONT-SEAFORD DE0000035 37.83 2.03 0.12 2.03 0.12 0 2.03 0.12 0 HC HC 0 

MD ALLEN FAMILY FOO

DMD0067857 0.75 0.26 4.69 0.09 3.63 2.40 0 3.63 2.40 0 POTW POTW 0 

MD BETHLEHEM STEEL MD0001201 23.18 88.25 24.15 0.35 6.25 0.30 0 6.25 0.30 0 R R 0 

MD CHEMETALS MD0001775 0.13 158.66 0.02 223.00 0.03 0 223.0 0.03 0 223 0.03 0 

MD CONGOLEUM MD0001384 0.26 0.50 0.18 6.60 0.20 0 6.60 0.20 0 POTW POTW N 

MD GARDEN STATE TA

NMD0053431 0.42 109.54 0.05 112.65 0.05 0 112.65 0.05 5 AC1 AC1 5 

MD MD & VA MILK PRO

DMD0000469 0.325 0.36 4.05 27.25 16.19 12.92 0 16.19 12.92 PN POTW POTW PN 

MD NSWC-INDIAN HEA

DMD0003158 0.49 620.05 4.84 1.20 3.00 0 1.20 3.00 P R POTW P 

MD UPPER POTOMAC 

RMD0021687 21.5 20.21 3.58 0.84 1.29 0.79 0 1.29 0.79 0 R POTW P 

MD W R GRACE MD0000311 4.066 4.06 460.17 0.30 25.10 0.15 0 47.99 0.15 0 R R 0 

MD WESTVACO CORPO MD0001422 2.18 1.92 0.09 1.92 0.09 0 1.92 0.09 0 HC HC 0 

PA APPLETON PAPER 

SPA0008265 4.32 0.37 0.16 4.17 1.16 0 4.17 1.16 0 POTW POTW P 

PA CHLOE TEXTILES I

N PA0009172 0.27 0.76 3.88 8.18 0.81 0 8.18 0.81 0 POTW POTW PN 

PA CONSOLIDATED RA PA0009229 0.16 0.48 0.92 2.86 0.22 0 2.86 0.22 0 HC POTW 0 

PA EMPIRE KOSHER P

OPA0007552 1.17 3.32 1.00 8.46 0.40 0 8.46 0.40 0 POTW POTW N 

PA GOLD MILLS DYEH

OPA0008231 0.68 2.92 0.49 8.40 0.15 0 8.40 0.15 0 POTW POTW N 

PA HEINZ PET FOODS PA0009270 0.52 4.58 2.78 41.73 11.80 0 41.73 11.80 N AC2 AC2 N 

PA MERCK & COMPAN

YPA0008419 12.70 8.01 4.61 1.49 0 4.61 1.49 P POTW POTW P 

PA NATIONAL GYPSUM PA0008591 0.31 3.74 3.20 2.93 1.28 0 2.93 1.28 0 R POTW P 

PA OSRAM SYLVANIA PPA0009024 1.09 70.57 0.16 109.98 0.70 0 109.98 0.70 0 88 POTW 0 

PA P-H GLATFELTER C

OPA0008869 12.45 0.37 0.16 11.07 0.07 0 11.07 0.07 N POTW R N 

PA PENNSYLVANIA FIS

HPA0040835 2.291 6.40 1.50 0.30 1.03 0.10 0 1.03 0.10 0 R R 0 

PA PENNSYLVANIA FIS

HPA0010553 6.00 1.50 0.57 6.52 0.15 0 6.52 0.15 0 POTW POTW N 

PA PENNSYLVANIA FIS

HPA0010561 4.87 1.50 0.21 4.25 0.13 0 4.25 0.13 0 POTW POTW 0 

PA PENNSYLVANIA FIS

HPA0112127 13.00 1.40 0.11 0.10 0.03 0 0.10 0.03 0 R R 0 

PA PENNSYLVANIA FIS

HPA0044032 0.20 1.50 0.30 1.03 0.10 0 1.03 0.10 0 R R 0 

PA POPE & TALBOT WI

SPA0007919 1.65 18.00 6.00 6.86 1.02 0 6.86 1.02 0 POTW POTW PN 

PA PROCTOR & GAMBL PA0008885 11.5 4.88 24.64 1.50 17.58 2.44 0 17.58 2.44 PN POTW POTW PN PA TYSON FOODS PA0035092 0.55 111.02 19.53 25.00 2.00 0 25.00 2.00 N AC1 POTW N 

PA USFW-LAMAR NATI

OPA0009857 4.40 0.37 0.09 0.25 0.03 0 0.25 0.03 0 R R 0 

VA HONEYWELL VA0005291 42 132.14 10.65 0.07 1.98 0.13 0 1.98 0.13 0 R R 0 

VA AMOCO-YORKTOW

NVA0003018 56.4 60.77 36.24 0.51 0.90 0.12 0 0.90 0.12 0 R R 0 

VA BROWN & WILLIAM

SVA0002780 1.998 0.82 12.19 3.36 8.27 1.76 0 8.27 1.76 P POTW POTW PN 

VA BWXT VA0003697 2.9 0.48 854.40 0.48 76.50 1.06 0 76.50 1.06 0 R POTW P 

DESIGN

FLOW

(MGD)

2000

FLOW

(MGD)

1985 2010 TIER 1 TIER 2 

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlsTable V-C conc & codes 38 
Table V-C: INDUSTRIAL FACILITY COSTING AND CONCENTRATION CODES BY TIER

STA

T FACILITY NPDES

TN 

(mg/l)

TP 

(mg/l)

TN 

(mg/l)

TP 

(mg/l) COST

TN 

(mg/l)

TP 

(mg/l) COST

TN 

(mg/l)

TP 

(mg/l) COST

DESIGN

FLOW

(MGD)

2000

FLOW

(MGD)

1985 2010 TIER 1 TIER 2 

VA DUPONT-SPRUANCEVA0004669 81.1 23.33 2.15 0.26 2.83 0.11 0 2.83 0.11 0 HC HC 0 

VA DUPONT-WAYNESB

OVA0002160 0.5 2.97 22.74 4.33 3.21 0.14 0 3.21 0.14 0 HC HC 0 

VA GEORGIA PACIFIC 

CVA0003026 12 7.21 0.06 0.03 13.00 7.40 0 13.00 7.40 P POTW AC2 P 

VA LEES COMMERCIAL VA0004677 2 0.80 11.28 17.52 33.09 38.79 0 33.09 38.79 2 AC2 AC2 0 

VA MERCK & COMPAN

YVA0002178 1.2 10.09 11.93 3.17 3.13 2.61 0 3.13 2.61 0 POTW POTW 0.8 

VA PHILLIP MORRIS-P

A VA0026557 2.9 1.92 34.66 13.77 33.93 1.27 0 33.93 1.27 3.5 AC1 R 8 

VA PILGRIMS PRIDE-HI

NVA0002313 0.54 53.66 33.00 53.66 33.00 0 53.66 33.00 PN AC1 AC1 PN 

VA GEORGE'S CHICKE

NVA0077402 1.2 1.21 84.90 11.00 10.00 2.00 0 138.85 33.33 2.96 10 2 0 

VA SMURFIT STONE VA0003115 36 18.45 14.08 5.80 8.00 1.50 0 5.26 1.23 0 POTW POTW P 

VA TYSON FOODS, INC VA0004031 0.95 73.76 0.08 6.00 0.30 0 7.37 0.27 0 6 POTW 0.15 

VA TYSON FOODS, INC VA0004049 0.98 1.05 113.91 1.15 60.00 2.00 0 79.81 14.40 0 AC1 AC1 0.625 

VA WESTVACO CORPO VA0003646 26.48 29.73 8.00 0.29 8.00 0.29 0 8.00 0.29 0 POTW POTW N 

WV HESTER INDUSTRIE WV0047236 0.53 3.87 1.09 12.60 0.94 0 12.60 0.94 0 0 0 0 

WV SPECRATECH INTE

RWV0005533 0.32 27.13 0.14 29.66 3.00 0 29.66 3.00 N AC1 POTW N 

WV WAMPLER-LONGAC WV0005495 1.54 62.41 0.88 52.91 9.79 0 52.91 9.79 0 0 0 0 

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlsTable V-C conc & codes 39 
Table V-D: Flow and Concentration Codes and Data For Industrial Facilities by Nutrient Parameter

2010

STA

T FACILITY NPDES FLOW 85 2010 TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 TIER 2 TIER 3 85 2010 TIER 1 TIER 

DE DUPONT-SEAFORD DE0000035 37.83 2.03 2.03 2.03 2.03 2.03 2.03 HC HC 0.12 0.12 0.12 0MD ALLEN FAMILY FOO

D MD0067857 0.26 4.69 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.63 3.00 POTW POTW 0.09 2.40 2.40 2

MD BETHLEHEM STEEL 

CMD0001201 88.25 24.15 6.25 6.25 6.25 6.25 3.00 R R 0.35 0.30 0.30 0

MD CHEMETALS MD0001775 0.13 158.66 223.00 223.00 223.00 223.00 3.00 223 223 0.02 0.03 0.03 0MD CONGOLEUM MD0001384 0.26 0.50 6.60 6.60 6.60 5.00 3.00 POTW POTW 0.18 0.20 0.20 0MD GARDEN STATE TAN MD0053431 0.42 109.54 112.65 112.65 54.77 21.91 3.00 AC1 AC1 0.05 0.05 0.05 0MD MD & VA MILK PROD

UMD0000469 0.36 4.05 16.19 16.19 8.00 5.00 3.00 POTW POTW 27.25 12.92 12.92 1

MD NSWC-INDIAN HEAD MD0003158 0.49 620.05 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 1.20 R R 4.84 3.00 3.00 1MD UPPER POTOMAC RI

VMD0021687 20.21 3.58 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 1.29 R R 0.84 0.79 0.79 0

MD W R GRACE MD0000311 4.06 460.17 25.10 25.10 25.10 25.10 3.00 25.1 25.1 0.30 0.15 0.15 0MD WESTVACO CORPO

RMD0001422 2.18 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 1.92 HC HC 0.09 0.09 0.09 0

PA APPLETON PAPER SPPA0008265 4.32 0.37 4.17 4.17 4.17 4.17 3.00 POTW POTW 0.16 1.16 1.16 1PA CHLOE TEXTILES IN

CPA0009172 0.27 0.76 8.18 8.18 8.00 5.00 3.00 POTW POTW 3.88 0.81 0.81 0

PA CONSOLIDATED RAILPA0009229 0.16 0.48 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86 2.86 HC HC 0.92 0.22 0.22 0PA EMPIRE KOSHER PO PA0007552 1.17 3.32 8.46 8.46 8.00 5.00 3.00 POTW POTW 1.00 0.40 0.40 0PA GOLD MILLS DYEHO

UPA0008231 0.68 2.92 8.40 8.40 8.00 5.00 3.00 POTW POTW 0.49 0.15 0.15 0

PA HEINZ PET FOODS PA0009270 0.52 4.58 41.73 41.73 4.58 4.58 3.00 AC2 AC2 2.78 11.80 11.80 2PA MERCK & COMPANY PA0008419 12.70 8.01 4.61 4.61 4.61 4.61 3.00 POTW POTW 1.49 1.49 1PA NATIONAL GYPSUM 

CPA0008591 0.31 3.74 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.93 2.93 R R 3.20 1.28 1.28 1

PA OSRAM SYLVANIA P

RPA0009024 1.09 70.57 109.98 109.98 88.00 77.00 3.00 88 77 0.16 0.70 0.70 0

PA P-H GLATFELTER C

OPA0008869 12.45 0.37 11.07 11.07 8.00 5.00 3.00 POTW POTW 0.16 0.07 0.07 0

PA PENNSYLVANIA FIS

H PA0040835 6.40 1.50 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 R R 0.30 0.10 0.10 0

PA PENNSYLVANIA FIS

H PA0010553 6.00 1.50 6.52 6.52 6.52 5.00 3.00 POTW POTW 0.57 0.15 0.15 0

PA PENNSYLVANIA FIS

H PA0010561 4.87 1.50 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 3.00 POTW POTW 0.21 0.13 0.13 0

PA PENNSYLVANIA FIS

H PA0112127 13.00 1.40 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 0.10 R R 0.11 0.03 0.03 0

PA PENNSYLVANIA FIS

H PA0044032 0.20 1.50 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 1.03 R R 0.30 0.10 0.10 0

PA POPE & TALBOT WIS PA0007919 1.65 18.00 6.86 6.86 6.86 5.00 3.00 POTW POTW 6.00 1.02 1.02 1PA PROCTOR & GAMBLEPA0008885 4.88 24.64 17.58 17.58 8.00 5.00 3.00 POTW POTW 1.50 2.44 2.44 1PA TYSON FOODS PA0035092 0.55 111.02 25.00 25.00 25.00 22.20 3.00 25 AC1 19.53 2.00 2.00 2PA USFW-LAMAR NATIO PA0009857 4.40 0.37 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 R R 0.09 0.03 0.03 0VA HONEYWELL VA0005291 132.14 10.65 1.98 1.98 1.98 1.98 1.98 R R 0.07 0.13 0.13 0VA AMOCO-YORKTOWN VA0003018 60.77 36.24 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 0.90 R R 0.51 0.12 0.12 0VA BROWN & WILLIAMS

OVA0002780 0.82 12.19 8.27 8.27 8.00 5.00 3.00 POTW POTW 3.36 1.76 1.76 1

VA BWXT VA0003697 0.48 854.40 76.50 76.50 76.50 76.50 3.00 R R 0.48 1.06 1.06 1

TN Concentrations (mg/l) TN Codes TP Concentration

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlsTable V-D Concs 40 
Table V-D: Flow and Concentration Codes and Data For Industrial Facilities by Nutrient Parameter

2010

STA

T FACILITY NPDES FLOW 85 2010 TIER 1 TIER 2 TIER 3 TIER 4 TIER 2 TIER 3 85 2010 TIER 1 TIER 

TN Concentrations (mg/l) TN Codes TP Concentration

VA DUPONT-SPRUANCE VA0004669 23.33 2.15 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 2.83 HC HC 0.26 0.11 0.11 0VA DUPONT-WAYNESB

OVA0002160 2.97 22.74 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.21 3.00 HC HC 4.33 0.14 0.14 0

VA GEORGIA PACIFIC C

OVA0003026 7.21 2.43 13.00 13.00 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 2.43 4.95 7.40 7.40 4

VA LEES COMMERCIAL 

CVA0004677 0.80 11.28 33.09 33.09 11.28 6.62 3.00 AC2 AC2 17.52 38.79 38.79 17

VA MERCK & COMPANY VA0002178 10.09 11.93 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.13 3.00 POTW POTW 3.17 2.61 2.61 1VA PHILLIP MORRIS-PA

RVA0026557 1.92 34.66 33.93 33.93 17.33 6.93 3.00 AC1 AC1 13.77 1.27 1.27 1

VA PILGRIMS PRIDE-HIN VA0002313 0.54 53.66 53.66 53.66 26.83 10.73 3.00 AC1 AC1 33.00 33.00 33.00 2VA GEORGE'S CHICKEN VA0077402 1.21 84.90 10.00 10.00 10.00 10.00 3.00 10 10 11.00 2.00 33.33 2VA SMURFIT STONE VA0003115 18.45 14.08 8.00 5.26 8.00 5.00 3.00 POTW POTW 5.80 1.50 1.23 1VA TYSON FOODS, INC. VA0004031 0.95 73.76 6.00 6.00 6.00 6.00 3.00 6 6 0.08 0.30 0.27 0VA TYSON FOODS, INC.- VA0004049 1.05 113.91 60.00 60.00 56.96 22.78 3.00 AC1 AC1 1.15 2.00 14.40 2VA WESTVACO CORPO

RVA0003646 29.73 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 5.00 3.00 POTW POTW 0.29 0.29 0.29 0

WV HESTER INDUSTRIE

SWV0047236 0.00 3.87 12.60 12.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 1.09 0.94 0.94 0

WV SPECRATECH INTER WV0005533 0.32 27.13 29.66 29.66 13.57 5.43 3.00 AC1 AC1 0.14 3.00 3.00 1WV WAMPLER-LONGAC

RWV0005495 0.00 62.41 52.91 52.91 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0 0.88 9.79 9.79 0

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlsTable V-D Concs 41 
Table V-E: INDUSTRIAL FACILITY INCREMENTAL COST DATA FOR ALL FOUR TIERS

TIER 1

STA

T FACILITY NPDES ALL COST TN CC TN O&M TP CC TP O&M TN CC TN O&M TP CC TP O&M TN CC 

DE DUPONT-SEAFO

R DE0000035 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

MD ALLEN FAMILY F

OMD0067857 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 476,71

MD BETHLEHEM STEEMD0001201 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MD CHEMETALS MD0001775 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0MD CONGOLEUM MD0001384 0 0 0 0 0 398,764 11,061 0 0 485,06MD GARDEN STATE 

T MD0053431 0 5,000,000 400,000 5,000,000 400,000

MD MD & VA MILK PR

OMD0000469 0 7,251,672 144,428 99,238 37,120 489,332 13,368 0 1,927 584,49

MD NSWC-INDIAN HE

AMD0003158 0 0 0 111,434 10,261 0 0 0 2,625 

MD UPPER POTOMA

CMD0021687 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 109,197 

MD W R GRACE MD0000311 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,149,40MD WESTVACO CORPMD0001422 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PA APPLETON PAPE

RPA0008265 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23,341 4,370,14

PA CHLOE TEXTILES PA0009172 0 0 0 0 0 406,239 11,251 0 908 493,26PA CONSOLIDATED 

RPA0009229 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

PA EMPIRE KOSHER PA0007552 0 0 0 0 0 1,315,629 33,331 0 0 PA GOLD MILLS DYE

HPA0008231 0 0 0 0 0 805,777 21,430 0 0 931,90

PA HEINZ PET FOOD

SPA0009270 0 4,037,698 78,106 128,833 48,885 646,001 17,359 0 2,802 756,49

PA MERCK & COMPA

NPA0008419 0 0 0 337,450 58,179 0 0 0 68,602 11,628,03

PA NATIONAL GYPS

UPA0008591 0 0 0 0 718 0 0 0 1,675 

PA OSRAM SYLVANI

APA0009024 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,863

PA P-H GLATFELTER PA0008869 0 4,905,080 86,637 0 0 5,671,393 169,385 0 0 11,416,64

PA PENNSYLVANIA F PA0040835 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PA PENNSYLVANIA F PA0010553 0 0 0 0 0 3,180,697 102,575 0 0 5,825,69PA PENNSYLVANIA F PA0010561 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,850,72PA PENNSYLVANIA F PA0112127 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PA PENNSYLVANIA F PA0044032 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 PA POPE & TALBOT 

WPA0007919 0 0 0 0 0 1,502,717 42,306 0 8,929 2,059,07

PA PROCTOR & GAMBPA0008885 0 4,355,014 77,780 319,306 64,532 2,750,183 89,061 0 26,392 4,859,30PA TYSON FOODS PA0035092 0 4,039,977 79,131 0 0 676,323 18,132 0 0 789,78PA USFW-LAMAR NA

TPA0009857 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

VA HONEYWELL VA0005291 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 VA AMOCO-YORKTO

WVA0003018 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

VA BROWN & WILLIA

MVA0002780 0 0 0 0 5,173 942,156 24,904 0 4,457 1,081,63

VA BWXT VA0003697 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,588 

TIER 2 TIER 3 

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlsTable V-E costs_TN_TP 42 
Table V-E: INDUSTRIAL FACILITY INCREMENTAL COST DATA FOR ALL FOUR TIERS

TIER 1

STA

T FACILITY NPDES ALL COST TN CC TN O&M TP CC TP O&M TN CC TN O&M TP CC TP O&M TN CC 

TIER 2 TIER 3 

VA DUPONT-SPRUA

NVA0004669 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

VA DUPONT-WAYNE

SVA0002160 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

VA GEORGIA PACIFI

CVA0003026 0 0 0 254,176 386,421 0 0 0 38,944 

VA LEES COMMERCI

AVA0004677 0 2,000,000

VA MERCK & COMPA

NVA0002178 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 800,000 54,503

VA PHILLIP MORRIS-PVA0026557 0 3,500,000 1,300,000 8,000,000 1,900,000 12,000,00VA PILGRIMS PRIDEHVA0002313 0 5,326,149 102,538 116,540 145,144 666,489 17,881 0 2,917 778,98VA GEORGE'S CHIC

K VA0077402 0 2,960,000 0 888,000 0 0 0 0 0 503,00

VA SMURFIT STONE VA0003115 0 0 0 35,786 0 0 0 99,677 16,611,20

VA TYSON FOODS, I

NVA0004031 0 0 0 150,000 1,200 0 0 380,00

VA TYSON FOODS, I

NVA0004049 0 0 0 6,500 150,000 625,000 45,625 0 0 625,00

VA WESTVACO CORPVA0003646 0 0 0 0 0 12,340,085 307,945 0 0 26,386,09WV HESTER INDUST

RWV0047236 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

WV SPECRATECH IN

TWV0005533 0 5,190,884 102,636 95,395 4,520 449,977 12,366 0 1,707 541,28

WV WAMPLER-LONG

AWV0005495 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Total 48,566,474 2,371,256 2,356,873 946,739 46,016,759 3,239,180 800,000 457,056 112,583,97

Notes: Costs are in dollar

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlsTable V-E costs_TN_TP 43 
Table V-F: INDUSTRIAL FACILITY TOTAL INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COST AND CONCENTRATION DATA FOR ALL FOUR 

DESIGN 2000

STATE FACILITY NPDES

FLOW

(mgd)

FLOW

(mgd)

TN 

(mg/l)

TP 

(mg/l)

TN 

(mg/l)

TP 

(mg/l)

TOTAL

CC ($mil)

TN 

(mg/l)

TP 

(mg/l)

TOTAL

CC ($mil)

TN 

(mg/l)

TP 

(mg/l)

CC 

($mil)

DE DUPONT-SEAFORD DE0000035 37.83 2.03 0.12 2.03 0.12 0 2.03 0.12 0 2.03 0.12 0 DE Total 37.83 0 0 0 MD ALLEN FAMILY FOO

DMD0067857 0.75 0.26 4.69 0.09 3.63 2.40 0 3.63 2.40 0 3.63 2.00 0 

MD BETHLEHEM STEEL MD0001201 23.18 88.25 24.15 0.35 6.25 0.30 0 6.25 0.30 0 6.25 0.30 0 MD CHEMETALS MD0001775 0.13 158.66 0.02 223.00 0.03 0 223.0 0.03 0 223.00 0.03 0 MD CONGOLEUM MD0001384 0.26 0.50 0.18 6.60 0.20 0 6.60 0.20 0 6.60 0.20 0.40 MD GARDEN STATE TA

NMD0053431 0.42 109.54 0.05 112.65 0.05 0 112.65 0.05 5 54.77 0.05 5 

MD MD & VA MILK PRO

DMD0000469 0.325 0.36 4.05 27.25 16.19 12.92 0 16.19 12.92 7.35 8.00 1.00 0.49 

MD NSWC-INDIAN HEA

DMD0003158 0.49 620.05 4.84 1.20 3.00 0 1.20 3.00 0.11 1.20 1.00 0 

MD UPPER POTOMAC 

RMD0021687 21.5 20.21 3.58 0.84 1.29 0.79 0 1.29 0.79 0 1.29 0.79 0 

MD W R GRACE MD0000311 4.066 4.06 460.17 0.30 25.10 0.15 0 47.99 0.15 0 25.10 0.15 0 MD WESTVACO CORPO MD0001422 2.18 1.92 0.09 1.92 0.09 0 1.92 0.09 0 1.92 0.09 0 MD Total 116.61 0 12.46234 5.8881 PA APPLETON PAPER 

SPA0008265 4.32 0.37 0.16 4.17 1.16 0 4.17 1.16 0 4.17 1.00 0 

PA CHLOE TEXTILES I

N PA0009172 0.27 0.76 3.88 8.18 0.81 0 8.18 0.81 0 8.00 0.81 0.41 

PA CONSOLIDATED RA PA0009229 0.16 0.48 0.92 2.86 0.22 0 2.86 0.22 0 2.86 0.22 0.00 PA EMPIRE KOSHER P

OPA0007552 1.17 3.32 1.00 8.46 0.40 0 8.46 0.40 0 8.00 0.40 1.32 

PA GOLD MILLS DYEH

OPA0008231 0.68 2.92 0.49 8.40 0.15 0 8.40 0.15 0 8.00 0.15 0.81 

PA HEINZ PET FOODS PA0009270 0.52 4.58 2.78 41.73 11.80 0 41.73 11.80 4.17 4.58 2.78 0.65 PA MERCK & COMPAN

YPA0008419 12.70 8.01 4.61 1.49 0 4.61 1.49 0.34 4.61 1.00 0 

PA NATIONAL GYPSUM PA0008591 0.31 3.74 3.20 2.93 1.28 0 2.93 1.28 0 2.93 1.00 0 PA OSRAM SYLVANIA PPA0009024 1.09 70.57 0.16 109.98 0.70 0 109.98 0.70 0 88.00 0.70 0 PA P-H GLATFELTER C

OPA0008869 12.45 0.37 0.16 11.07 0.07 0 11.07 0.07 4.91 8.00 0.07 5.67 

PA PENNSYLVANIA FIS

HPA0040835 2.291 6.40 1.50 0.30 1.03 0.10 0 1.03 0.10 0 1.03 0.10 0 

PA PENNSYLVANIA FIS

HPA0010553 6.00 1.50 0.57 6.52 0.15 0 6.52 0.15 0 6.52 0.15 3.1807 

PA PENNSYLVANIA FIS

HPA0010561 4.87 1.50 0.21 4.25 0.13 0 4.25 0.13 0 4.25 0.13 0 

PA PENNSYLVANIA FIS

HPA0112127 13.00 1.40 0.11 0.10 0.03 0 0.10 0.03 0 0.10 0.03 0 

PA PENNSYLVANIA FIS

HPA0044032 0.20 1.50 0.30 1.03 0.10 0 1.03 0.10 0 1.03 0.10 0 

PA POPE & TALBOT WI

SPA0007919 1.65 18.00 6.00 6.86 1.02 0 6.86 1.02 0 6.86 1.00 1.50 

PA PROCTOR & GAMBL PA0008885 11.5 4.88 24.64 1.50 17.58 2.44 0 17.58 2.44 4.67 8.00 1.00 2.75 PA TYSON FOODS PA0035092 0.55 111.02 19.53 25.00 2.00 0 25.00 2.00 4.04 25.00 2.00 0.68 PA USFW-LAMAR NATI

OPA0009857 4.40 0.37 0.09 0.25 0.03 0 0.25 0.03 0 0.25 0.03 0 

PA Total 75.62 0 18.12336 16.955 VA HONEYWELL VA0005291 42 132.14 10.65 0.07 1.98 0.13 0 1.98 0.13 0 1.98 0.13 0 VA AMOCO-YORKTOW

NVA0003018 56.4 60.77 36.24 0.51 0.90 0.12 0 0.90 0.12 0 0.90 0.12 0 

1985 2010 TIER 1 TIER 2 

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlsTable V-F total cc and concs 44 
Table V-F: INDUSTRIAL FACILITY TOTAL INCREMENTAL CAPITAL COST AND CONCENTRATION DATA FOR ALL FOUR 

DESIGN 2000

STATE FACILITY NPDES

FLOW

(mgd)

FLOW

(mgd)

TN 

(mg/l)

TP 

(mg/l)

TN 

(mg/l)

TP 

(mg/l)

TOTAL

CC ($mil)

TN 

(mg/l)

TP 

(mg/l)

TOTAL

CC ($mil)

TN 

(mg/l)

TP 

(mg/l)

CC 

($mil)

1985 2010 TIER 1 TIER 2 

VA BROWN & WILLIAM

SVA0002780 1.998 0.82 12.19 3.36 8.27 1.76 0 8.27 1.76 0 8.00 1.00 0.94 

VA BWXT VA0003697 2.9 0.48 854.40 0.48 76.50 1.06 0 76.50 1.06 0 76.50 1.00 0 VA DUPONT-SPRUANCEVA0004669 81.1 23.33 2.15 0.26 2.83 0.11 0 2.83 0.11 0 2.83 0.11 0 VA DUPONT-WAYNESB

OVA0002160 0.5 2.97 22.74 4.33 3.21 0.14 0 3.21 0.14 0 3.21 0.14 0 

VA GEORGIA PACIFIC 

CVA0003026 12 7.21 0.06 0.03 13.00 7.40 0 13.00 7.40 0.25 2.43 4.95 0 

VA LEES COMMERCIAL VA0004677 2 0.80 11.28 17.52 33.09 38.79 0 33.09 38.79 2 11.28 17.52 0 VA MERCK & COMPAN

YVA0002178 1.2 10.09 11.93 3.17 3.13 2.61 0 3.13 2.61 0 3.13 1.00 0.8 

VA PHILLIP MORRIS-P

A VA0026557 2.9 1.92 34.66 13.77 33.93 1.27 0 33.93 1.27 3.5 17.33 1.27 8 

VA PILGRIMS PRIDE-HI

NVA0002313 0.54 53.66 33.00 53.66 33.00 0 53.66 33.00 5.44 26.83 2.00 0.67 

VA GEORGE'S CHICKE

NVA0077402 1.2 1.21 84.90 11.00 10.00 2.00 0 138.85 33.33 3.85 10.00 2.00 0 

VA SMURFIT STONE VA0003115 36 18.45 14.08 5.80 8.00 1.50 0 5.26 1.23 0 8.00 1.00 0 VA TYSON FOODS, INC VA0004031 0.95 73.76 0.08 6.00 0.30 0 7.37 0.27 0 6.00 0.30 0.15 VA TYSON FOODS, INC VA0004049 0.98 1.05 113.91 1.15 60.00 2.00 0 79.81 14.40 0.0065 56.96 2.00 0.625 VA WESTVACO CORPO VA0003646 26.48 29.73 8.00 0.29 8.00 0.29 0 8.00 0.29 0 8.00 0.29 12.3401 VA Total 292.44 0 15.05136 23.5237 WV HESTER INDUSTRIE WV0047236 0.53 3.87 1.09 12.60 0.94 0 12.60 0.94 0 0.00 0.00 0 WV SPECRATECH INTE

RWV0005533 0.32 27.13 0.14 29.66 3.00 0 29.66 3.00 5.29 13.57 1.00 0.44998 

WV WAMPLER-LONGAC WV0005495 1.54 62.41 0.88 52.91 9.79 0 52.91 9.79 0 0.00 0.00 0 WV Total 2.38 0 5.286279 0.44998 Grand Total 524.88 0 50.92335 46.8168 

Note: Total CC = Total Capital Cost = (TN Capital Cost + TP Capital Cost)

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlsTable V-F total cc and concs 45 
VI. COST METHODOLOGY FOR NON-SIGNIFICANT FACILITIES 

A total of 185 non-significant municipal plants are included in this analysis. 183 of these 185 

plants are registered with MDE, and one of them is a VA facility that discharges into Maryland 

waters. MDE provided the loading and flow information for these facilities. The other two 

facilities are WV non-significant plants selected into the database by CBPO. No other 

jurisdictions have provided non-significant facilities information before the progress 2000 model 

run. VADEQ has provided some non-significant plant information after the progress 2000 run, 

and these data have not been processed and loaded into the database at the time of this writing. 

Therefore, this analysis only covers the non-significant municipal facilities existing in the 

database with the progress 2000 data. 

Among the four Tiers, there is no action on non-significant plants for Tier 1-3. For Tier 4, nonsignificant municipal facilities are expected to reduce their TN concentrations to 8 mg/l and TP 

to 2 mg/l. 

The NRT cost estimates for non-significant facilities were developed from the following 

assumption and four different methodologies. 

6.1 Assumption: 

Since the Tier 4 scenario for non-significant facilities provides that TN = 8 mg/l and TP = 2 

mg/l, it is assumed that there are no TN or TP costs where the plant has TN concentration < 8 

mg/l or TP < 2 mg/l respectively. 

6.2 Methodologies: 

6.2.1 TN capital cost estimates for TN at 8 mg/l for facilities with design flow less than 

0.5 MGD. This methodology was developed based on the data from 9 VA and 2 

MD small plants. 

6.2.2 TN capital cost estimates for TN at 8 mg/l for facilities with design flow greater 

than 0.5 MGD. The TN capital cost for Tier 2 methodology developed by 

Stearns & Wheler, LLC and CH2M Hill was used to calculate these costs. 

6.2.3 TN O&M estimates for TN at 8 mg/l for all non-significant facilities. The 

Operating and Maintenance Costs (O&M) were assumed to equal 7% of the 

annualized capital cost assuming a 5.4% amortization factor (based on EPA’s 

1992 Office of Management and Budget Guidelines) was used.

46
6.2.4 TP capital cost and O&M estimates for TP at 2mg/l for all non-significant 

facilities. The spreadsheet application for Tier 2 TP capital cost and O&M 

estimates developed by Stearns & Wheler, LLC was used with the adjustment of 

TP goal. 

6.3 TN capital cost estimates for TN at 8 mg/l for facilities with design flow < 0.5 MGD

The NRT TN@8 cost curve for non-significant facilities with design flow less than 0.5 MGD 

was developed based on the cost data from 9 VA and 2 MD small facilities. The selection of

these source data was recommended by VADEQ and MDE. The cost and design flow data of the 

9 VA non-significant facilities were provided by VADEQ. The MD data were selected from the 

MDE BNR cost report. There are four MD facilities <0.5 MGD having cost data. But only two 

of them were selected to put on the cost curve, because another two plants- Pittsville and 

Centreville have relatively high costs that are far out of the range of the selected data group for 

the curve. The design flows of the selected facilities range from 0.065 MGD to 0.568 MGD. The

following Table VI-A lists all of these facilities, their design flows and NRT capital costs for TN 

=8 mg/l. 

Table VI-A. Source Data For The Cost Curve 

STATE Facilities Design Flow (mgd) TN CC@8

VA Surry County 0.065 405,672

VA Powhatan 0.1 481,571

VA Montross 0.13 432,496

VA Appomattox 0.3 1,353,285

VA Louisa 0.4 694,988

VA Shenandoah 0.4 756,339

VA Crewe 0.5 1,048,720

VA Kilmarnock 0.5 1,714,566

VA Parham Landing 0.568 1,988,294

MD Indian Head 0.5 656,000

MD Snow Hill 0.5 1,600,000

Based on these source data, several curves were generated and evaluated. The following curve 

has the highest R value and was selected as the cost curve for TN capital cost curve for nonsignificant municipal facilities. 

 

47
TN CC@8 Cost Curve for Non-Significant Facilities

y = 355857e2.4921x

R2 = 0.6295

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

2,500,000

0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

Design Flow (MGD)

CC ($)

Figure VI - A. TN Capital Cost Curve at 8 mg/l for Non-significant Facilities 

The equation of this cost curve is 

Y = 355857e2.4921X

Where Y= Capital Cost in Dollar 

X= Design Flow in MGD (or 2010 Flow if Design Flow is less 

 than 2010 Flow) 

There are 21 non-significant facilities with projected 2010 flow greater than current design flow. 

Because we do not have updated design flow information for non-significant facilities, we 

assumed that the design flow will equal to the projected 2010 flow where 2010 flow is greater 

than design flow. In such cases, the 2010 flow was used to calculate the cost for both TN and TP 

costs. Following table lists the 21 plants. 

48
Table VI-B: Non-significant Facilities with Design Flow < 2010 Flow 

FACILITY NPDES DESIGN_FLOW (MGD) 2010 FLOW (MGD)

BOWLEYS QUARTERS MD0058807 0.004 0.0067

CHESAPEAKE CITY NORTH MD0020401 0.075 0.0955

CHESAPEAKE COLLEGE MD0024384 0.015 0.0157

CRESTVIEW MD0022683 0.036 0.0384

FLINTSTONE MD0055620 0.045 0.0587

FOUNTAINDALE MD0022721 0.2 0.2528

FOXVILLE US NAVAL SUPPORT MD0025119 0.018 0.0291

HEBRON MD0059617 0.105 0.1314

I-70 REST AREA MD0023680 0.028 0.0342

JEFFERSON MD0020737 0.15 0.1754

KEMPTOWN SCHOOL MD0056481 0.005 0.0054

MIDDLETOWN MD0024406 0.25 0.2617

NOTCHCLIFF MD0022951 0.02 0.0380

PARKWAY INN MD0052329 0.02 0.0243

PORT DEPOSIT MD0020796 0.15 0.1503

RAWLINGS HEIGHTS MD0023213 0.08 0.0956

SOUTHERN CORRECTIONAL CAMP MD0023914 0.02 0.0349

TAWES VOCATIONAL-TECHNICAL MD0022993 0.01 0.1728

TRAPPE MD0020486 0.115 0.1360

TRI-TOWN PLAZA MD0024937 0.01 0.0135

WILLARDS MD0051632 0.08 0.0820

6.4 TN capital cost estimates for TN at 8 mg/l for facilities with design flow > 0.5 MGD 

The workgroup decided that the TN capital costs for non-significant plants with design flow 

greater than 0.5 MGD were to be calculated by the Tier 2 TN capital cost methodology 

developed by Stearns & Wheler, LLC and CH2M Hill. This methodology is described in a 

document provided Stearns & Wheler, LLC and CH2M Hill. 

The equation of this methodology is

Y = 2023829 + 704350.8039X - 5986.733X2 

Where, Y= TN Capital Cost in dollar 

 X = Design Flow in MGD 

49
6.5 TN O&M estimates for TN at 8 mg/l for all non-significant facilities 

The Operating and Maintenance Costs (O&M) were assumed to equal 7% of the annualized 

capital cost assuming a 5.4% amortization was used. This assumption is based on EPA Office 

of Management and Budget, “Memorandum for Heads of Executive Departments and 

Establishments: Guidelines and Discount Rates for Benefit-Cost Analyses of Federal Programs”, 

Appendix C, Oct. 29, 1992. A discount factor of 0.0830 was chosen for this analysis assuming 

5.4% not taking inflation into account. 

The equation for TN O&M cost for non-significant plants: 

TN O&M Cost = 7% x Annualized Capital Cost 

Annualized Capital Cost = 0.083 x Capital Cost 

 

 Where, Amortization factor = 0.0830 (@ 5.4% over 20 years)

 

6.6 TP capital cost and O&M estimates for TP at 2mg/l for all non-significant facilities 

The spreadsheet application for Tier 2 TP capital cost and O&M estimates developed by Stearns 

& Wheler, LLC was used with the adjustment of TP goal. In the original spreadsheet application 

for Tier 2 TP cost, TP goal was set to 1 mg/l for significant facilities. The scenario for nonsignificant plants requires TP= 2mg/l. Therefore, the TP goad was set to 2 mg/l for nonsignificant plant O&M calculation in the spreadsheet application. Other factors such as design 

flow, 2000 flow, 2010 flow and 2000 TP concentration, were inserted into the different 

application sheet depends on the plant’s 2000 TP concentration level. The original description 

of the Tier 2 TP cost methodology was documented by Stearns & Wheler, LLC

 

Results: 

Based on the assumptions and methodologies described above, the Tier 4 capital and 

O&M costs for TN and TP were calculated for the non-significant facilities. The following is the 

summary of the total costs for 185 non-significant facilities in the current database..

Total TN capital cost: $83,089,000

Total TN O&M cost: $624,534

Total TP capital cost: $11,303,260

Total TN O&M cost: $296,520

Table VI-C lists the detailed cost information for individual non-significant plants. 

50
Table VI - C: NRT Cost for Non-significant Municipal Facilities 

DESIGN TIER 1* TIER 2* TIER 3*

STATE FACILITY NPDES FLOW(mgd)

FLOW

(mgd) TN(mg/l) TP(mg/l)

TOTAL

COST

TOTAL

COST

TOTAL

COST TN CC TN O&M

TN

 NOTE TP CC 

MD ANTIETAM MD0062308 0.163 0.1094 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $534,184 $3,104 1 $80,950 

MD BALTIMORE YACHT CL MD0054542 0.005 0.0019 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $360,319 $2,093 1 $66,028 

MD BELTSVILLE USDA EA

SMD0020842 0.62 0.2358 8.00 2.07 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $124,111 

MD BELTSVILLE USDA WE

SMD0020851 0.2 0.1244 11.70 2.20 0 0 0 $585,783 $3,403 1 $84,445 

MD BENJAMINS TRAILER PMD0024961 0.04 0.0190 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $393,159 $2,284 1 $69,334 MD BETTERTON MD0020575 0.2 0.0212 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $585,783 $3,403 1 $84,445 

MD BIERS LANE MD0065749 0.0095 0.0030 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $364,382 $2,117 1 $66,453 

MD BLOOMINGTON MD0060933 0.05 0.0273 18.00 3.87 0 0 0 $403,080 $2,342 1 $70,278 

MD BOHEMIA MANOR HIG

HMD0023469 0.015 0.0067 1.90 3.00 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $66,973 

MD BOONES MOBILE MD0050903 0.08 0.0652 18.01 1.28 0 0 0 $434,370 $2,524 1 $0 

MD BOONSBORO MD0020231 0.46 0.4034 18.00 2.41 0 0 0 $1,119,788 $6,506 1 $109,000 

MD BOWLEYS QUARTERS MD0058807 0.004 0.0067 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $361,867 $2,102 1 $65,934 

MD BOWLING BROOK PRE MD0067571 0.025 0.0059 0.68 3.00 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $67,917 MD BRANDYWINE RECEIVI MD0025658 0.005 0.0012 5.55 3.00 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $66,028 

MD BRETTON WOODS MD0064777 0.015 0.0097 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $369,411 $2,146 1 $66,973 

MD BROADFORDING MD0051373 0.01 0.0011 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $364,837 $2,120 1 $66,500 

MD BROOK LANE MD0053198 0.01 0.0056 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $364,837 $2,120 1 $66,500 

MD BUDGET MOTEL MD0023027 0.019 0.0021 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $373,112 $2,168 1 $67,350 

MD CAMP SHADOWBROO

KMD0053139 0.04 0.0005 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $393,159 $2,284 1 $69,334 

MD CECILTON MD0020443 0.05 0.0415 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $403,080 $2,342 1 $70,278 

MD CHARLES COUNTY C

O MD0052311 0.06 0.0364 28.30 2.80 0 0 0 $413,251 $2,401 1 $71,223 

MD CHELTENHAM BOYS V MD0023931 0.07 0.0370 10.53 1.02 0 0 0 $423,679 $2,462 1 $0 

MD CHERRY HILL MD0052825 0.25 0.1327 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $663,517 $3,855 1 $89,167 

MD CHESAPEAKE CITY N

OMD0020401 0.075 0.0955 8.17 3.63 0 0 0 $451,423 $2,623 1 $72,639 

MD CHESAPEAKE CITY S

O MD0020397 0.088 0.0748 10.23 1.97 0 0 0 $443,117 $2,575 1 $0 

MD CHESAPEAKE COLLE

GMD0024384 0.015 0.0157 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $370,016 $2,150 1 $66,973 

MD CHOPTICAN HIGH MD0051918 0.02 0.0056 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $374,043 $2,173 1 $67,445 

MD CHURCH HILL MD0050016 0.08 0.0730 6.90 1.95 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $0 MD CLEARSPRING MD0053325 0.2 0.0793 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $585,783 $3,403 1 $84,445 

MD CLIFFTON ON THE PO

TMD0055557 0.2 0.0514 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $585,783 $3,403 1 $84,445 

MD COLONEL RICHARDS

O MD0055522 0.05 0.0063 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $403,080 $2,342 1 $70,278 

MD CONCORD TRAILER P

AMD0023060 0.015 0.0046 12.31 3.00 0 0 0 $369,411 $2,146 1 $66,973 

MD CRESTVIEW MD0022683 0.036 0.0384 13.64 3.03 0 0 0 $391,570 $2,275 1 $68,956 

MD DAN-DEE INC. MD0023710 0.012 0.0024 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $366,660 $2,130 1 $66,689 

MD DONALDSON BROWN 

CMD0054950 0.006 0.0022 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $361,218 $2,099 1 $66,123 

MD DREAMS LANDING MD0052868 0.02 0.0084 16.03 3.00 0 0 0 $374,043 $2,173 1 $67,445 

2010 DATA TIER 4** (TN=8mg/l AND TP=2m

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable VI-C 51 
Table VI - C: NRT Cost for Non-significant Municipal Facilities 

DESIGN TIER 1* TIER 2* TIER 3*

STATE FACILITY NPDES FLOW(mgd)

FLOW

(mgd) TN(mg/l) TP(mg/l)

TOTAL

COST

TOTAL

COST

TOTAL

COST TN CC TN O&M

TN

 NOTE TP CC 

2010 DATA TIER 4** (TN=8mg/l AND TP=2m

MD EASTERN CORRECTI

O MD0023876 0.03 0.0158 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $383,482 $2,228 1 $68,389 

MD EASTERN CORRECTI

O MD0066613 0.48 0.4159 2.05 0.14 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $0 

MD EDGEMEADE RESIDE

NMD0052680 0.005 0.0022 26.59 4.40 0 0 0 $360,319 $2,093 1 $66,028 

MD ELK NECK STATE PAR

KMD0023833 0.108 0.0277 17.21 2.53 0 0 0 $465,762 $2,706 1 $75,756 

MD EMERGENCY MANAGE MD0025666 0.01 0.0002 19.56 1.17 0 0 0 $364,837 $2,120 1 $0 MD ENGLISH GRILL MD0053104 0.003 0.0004 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $358,527 $2,083 1 $65,839 

MD EWELL MD0052230 0.065 0.0224 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $418,432 $2,431 1 $71,695 

MD FAHRNEY-KEEDY ME

MMD0053066 0.025 0.0190 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $378,733 $2,200 1 $67,917 

MD FAIRMOUNT MD0052256 0.05 0.0309 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $403,080 $2,342 1 $70,278 

MD FLINTSTONE MD0055620 0.045 0.0587 16.59 3.00 0 0 0 $411,924 $2,393 1 $69,806 

MD FOREST GREEN MD0053279 0.013 0.0100 18.00 14.80 0 0 0 $367,575 $2,136 1 $66,784 

MD FOUNTAINDALE MD0022721 0.2 0.2528 19.66 3.82 0 0 0 $668,233 $3,882 1 $84,445 

MD FOXVILLE US NAVAL S MD0025119 0.018 0.0291 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $382,600 $2,223 1 $67,256 

MD FUNKSTOWN MD0020362 0.15 0.0643 40.53 5.53 0 0 0 $517,156 $3,005 1 $79,723 

MD GAITHER MANOR MD0022845 0.045 0.0226 3.10 3.97 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $69,806 

MD GALENA MD0020605 0.04 0.0267 26.26 4.51 0 0 0 $393,159 $2,284 1 $69,334 

MD GORMAN MD0060950 0.009 0.0047 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $363,929 $2,114 1 $66,406 

MD GREAT OAKS LANDIN

GMD0024945 0.014 0.0058 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $368,492 $2,141 1 $66,878 

MD GREEN RIDGE FORES

TMD0024988 0.008 0.0032 18.00 3.72 0 0 0 $363,023 $2,109 1 $66,312 

MD GREENBRIAR STATE P MD0023868 0.05 0.0152 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $403,080 $2,342 1 $70,278 

MD GREENSBORO MD0020290 0.28 0.1697 21.02 3.48 0 0 0 $715,025 $4,154 1 $92,000 

MD HAMPSTEAD MD0022446 0.9 0.6826 20.13 0.24 0 0 0 $2,652,895 $15,413 6 $0 

MD HANCOCK MD0024562 0.38 0.2239 20.70 2.43 0 0 0 $917,385 $5,330 1 $101,445 

MD HAPPY TRAILS CAMP

GMD0065757 0.025 0.0035 3.27 3.00 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $67,917 

MD HARBOUR VIEW MD0024023 0.065 0.0077 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $418,432 $2,431 1 $71,695 

MD HARWOOD SOUTHER

NMD0023728 0.04 0.0059 6.70 7.70 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $69,334 

MD HEBRON MD0059617 0.105 0.1314 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $493,725 $2,869 1 $75,473 

MD HIGHLAND VIEW MD0024627 0.03 0.0094 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $383,482 $2,228 1 $68,389 

MD HOLIDAY MOBILE EST

AMD0053082 0.125 0.1071 7.33 1.13 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $0 

MD HUNTER HILL APARTM MD0022926 0.03 0.0291 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $383,482 $2,228 1 $68,389 

MD I-70 REST AREA MD0023680 0.028 0.0342 26.77 3.00 0 0 0 $387,563 $2,252 1 $68,200 

MD JEFFERSON MD0020737 0.15 0.1754 0.45 3.00 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $79,723 MD JUDE HOUSE MD0057614 0.017 0.0000 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $0 MD KEMPTOWN SCHOOL MD0056481 0.005 0.0054 29.00 3.00 0 0 0 $360,712 $2,096 1 $66,028 

MD KENNEDYVILLE MD0052671 0.05 0.0045 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $403,080 $2,342 1 $70,278 

MD KITZMILLER MD0060941 0.04 0.0175 18.00 3.37 0 0 0 $393,159 $2,284 1 $69,334 

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable VI-C 52 
Table VI - C: NRT Cost for Non-significant Municipal Facilities 

DESIGN TIER 1* TIER 2* TIER 3*

STATE FACILITY NPDES FLOW(mgd)

FLOW

(mgd) TN(mg/l) TP(mg/l)

TOTAL

COST

TOTAL

COST

TOTAL

COST TN CC TN O&M

TN

 NOTE TP CC 

2010 DATA TIER 4** (TN=8mg/l AND TP=2m

MD KUNZANG ODSAL PAL

GMD0067539 0.035 0.0008 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $388,290 $2,256 1 $68,862 

MD LACKEY HIGH MD0023159 0.028 0.0106 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $381,575 $2,217 1 $68,200 MD LAFAYETTE MOTEL MD0053201 0.005 0.0013 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $360,319 $2,093 1 $66,028 

MD LEWISTOWN ELEMEN

TMD0022900 0.022 0.0030 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $375,912 $2,184 1 $67,634 

MD LIBERTYTOWN MD0060577 0.05 0.0300 21.45 2.89 0 0 0 $403,080 $2,342 1 $70,278 

MD LYONS CREEK MOBILEMD0053511 0.125 0.0719 10.21 1.91 0 0 0 $485,919 $2,823 1 $0 

MD MANCHESTER MD0022578 0.25 0.0816 20.94 0.27 0 0 0 $663,517 $3,855 1 $0 

MD MANCHESTER PARK MD0023108 0.035 0.0273 16.75 4.65 0 0 0 $388,290 $2,256 1 $68,862 

MD MAPLE HILL PARK MD0053171 0.016 0.0061 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $370,333 $2,152 1 $67,067 

MD MAPLE RUN MD0024970 0.004 0.0031 2.20 3.00 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $65,934 MD MARDELA HIGH MD0024279 0.014 0.0024 9.57 3.00 0 0 0 $368,492 $2,141 1 $66,878 

MD MARLBORO MEADOW

SMD0022781 0.6 0.3243 12.90 0.97 0 0 0 $2,444,284 $14,201 6 $0 

MD MARYLAND MANOR M

OMD0024333 0.07 0.0666 11.00 1.50 0 0 0 $423,679 $2,462 1 $0 

MD MAYO LARGE COMMU

NMD0061794 1 0.5526 8.52 0.81 0 0 0 $2,722,193 $15,816 6 $0 

MD MIDDLETOWN MD0024406 0.25 0.2617 26.02 2.45 0 0 0 $683,107 $3,969 1 $89,167 

MD MILL BOTTOM MD0065439 0.1 0.0527 2.21 3.00 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $75,000 

MD MILLINGTON MD0020435 0.07 0.0581 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $423,679 $2,462 1 $72,167 

MD MONROVIA WWTP MD0059609 0.2 0.0323 3.72 3.00 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $84,445 

MD MORNING CHEER MD0052299 0.03 0.0201 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $383,482 $2,228 1 $68,389 

MD MT CARMEL WOODS MD0053228 0.021 0.0209 13.95 0.79 0 0 0 $374,976 $2,179 1 $0 

MD MT ST MARYS COLLE

GMD0023230 0.16 0.0530 25.49 6.32 0 0 0 $530,206 $3,080 1 $80,667 

MD MYERSVILLE MD0020699 0.3 0.1868 19.88 4.32 0 0 0 $751,566 $4,367 1 $93,889 

MD NAS-PATUXENT MD0020095 0.045 0.0340 8.00 3.00 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $69,806 

MD NATIONAL INSTITUTE 

OMD0020931 0.1 0.0567 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $456,569 $2,653 1 $75,000 

MD NATIONAL WILDLIFE VIMD0065358 0.04 0.0014 18.00 2.09 0 0 0 $393,159 $2,284 1 $69,334 

MD NEW GERMANY STATEMD0023981 0.006 0.0014 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $361,218 $2,099 1 $66,123 

MD NEW LIFE FOURSQUA

RMD0057100 0.009 0.0019 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $363,929 $2,114 1 $66,406 

MD NEW MARKET MD0020729 0.24 0.1208 23.40 4.80 0 0 0 $647,185 $3,760 1 $88,223 

MD NEW WINDSOR MD0022586 0.13 0.0526 15.07 3.97 0 0 0 $492,011 $2,859 1 $77,834 

MD NORTH CAROLINE HIG MD0023621 0.024 0.0023 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $377,790 $2,195 1 $67,823 

MD NORTH HARFORD JR& MD0023281 0.02 0.0120 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $374,043 $2,173 1 $67,445 

MD NORTHERN HIGH SCH

OMD0052167 0.04 0.0158 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $393,159 $2,284 1 $69,334 

MD NOTCHCLIFF MD0022951 0.02 0.0380 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $391,194 $2,273 1 $67,445 

MD NSWC-INDIAN HEAD MD0020885 0.5 0.3471 7.35 2.13 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $112,778 

MD OLD SOUTH MOUNTAI

NMD0055425 0.018 0.0025 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $372,183 $2,162 1 $67,256 

MD OLDTOWN MD0024759 0.04 0.0105 18.00 2.15 0 0 0 $393,159 $2,284 1 $69,334 

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable VI-C 53 
Table VI - C: NRT Cost for Non-significant Municipal Facilities 

DESIGN TIER 1* TIER 2* TIER 3*

STATE FACILITY NPDES FLOW(mgd)

FLOW

(mgd) TN(mg/l) TP(mg/l)

TOTAL

COST

TOTAL

COST

TOTAL

COST TN CC TN O&M

TN

 NOTE TP CC 

2010 DATA TIER 4** (TN=8mg/l AND TP=2m

MD OXFORD MD0022543 0.208 0.1085 18.00 0.67 0 0 0 $597,579 $3,472 1 $0 

MD PARKWAY INN MD0052329 0.02 0.0243 9.40 1.90 0 0 0 $378,088 $2,197 1 $0 

MD PATUXENT MOBILE MD0024694 0.035 0.0259 15.09 1.41 0 0 0 $388,290 $2,256 1 $0 

MD PATUXENT WILDLIFE 

HMD0025623 0.027 0.0209 2.35 3.00 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $68,106 

MD PETER PAN INN MD0024244 0.03 0.0035 4.15 1.27 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $0 MD PHEASANT RIDGE MD0024546 0.125 0.0250 12.97 2.69 0 0 0 $485,919 $2,823 1 $77,362 

MD PICCOWAXIN MIDDLE MD0023451 0.025 0.0027 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $378,733 $2,200 1 $67,917 

MD PINEY ORCHARD MD0059145 1.2 0.3625 3.83 0.28 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $0 

MD PINTO MD0022748 0.45 0.2696 9.94 2.77 0 0 0 $1,092,227 $6,346 1 $108,056 

MD PITTSVILLE MD0060348 0.14 0.0881 14.75 0.95 0 0 0 $3,469,050 $161,940 2 $0 MD PLEASANT BRANCH MD0065269 0.1 0.0510 7.94 3.00 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $75,000 

MD PLESANT VALLEY MD0066745 0.019 0.0093 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $373,112 $2,168 1 $67,350 

MD POCOMOKE TRUCK S

TMD0054330 0.006 0.0024 18.33 3.00 0 0 0 $361,218 $2,099 1 $66,123 

MD POINT LOOKOUT STA

T MD0023949 0.25 0.0186 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $663,517 $3,855 1 $89,167 

MD POINT OF ROCKS MD0020800 0.23 0.0988 17.63 5.05 0 0 0 $631,256 $3,668 1 $87,278 

MD PORT DEPOSIT MD0020796 0.15 0.1503 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $517,533 $3,007 1 $79,723 

MD PRESTON MD0020621 0.116 0.0600 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $475,141 $2,761 1 $76,512 

MD QUEENSTOWN MD0023370 0.085 0.0787 15.54 2.44 0 0 0 $439,816 $2,555 1 $73,584 

MD RANDLE CLIFFS NAVALMD0020168 0.06 0.0173 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $413,251 $2,401 1 $71,223 

MD RAWLINGS HEIGHTS MD0023213 0.08 0.0956 14.66 1.06 0 0 0 $451,623 $2,624 1 $0 

MD RICHLYN MANOR MD0022713 0.09 0.0881 13.43 2.10 0 0 0 $445,331 $2,587 1 $74,056 

MD RISING SUN MD0020265 0.3 0.2553 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $751,566 $4,367 1 $93,889 

MD ROCK HALL MD0020303 0.505 0.2707 14.81 0.51 0 0 0 $2,377,999 $13,816 6 $0 

MD ROCKY GAP STATE P

A MD0051667 0.12 0.0518 6.48 3.00 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $76,889 

MD ROSE HAVEN MD0022756 0.06 0.0486 20.59 1.20 0 0 0 $413,251 $2,401 1 $0 

MD RUNNYMEADE SCHO

O MD0065927 0.02 0.0031 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $374,043 $2,173 1 $67,445 

MD SANDY HOOK MD0064530 0.015 0.0065 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $369,411 $2,146 1 $66,973 

MD SHAMROCK RESTAUR

AMD0058050 0.01 0.0029 1.95 3.00 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $66,500 

MD SHARPTOWN MD0052175 0.15 0.1207 26.00 7.10 0 0 0 $517,156 $3,005 1 $79,723 

MD SHEPPARD PRATT WE MD0067521 0.01 0.0035 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $364,837 $2,120 1 $66,500 

MD SIDELING HILL REST 

A MD0062821 0.025 0.0070 21.00 3.00 0 0 0 $378,733 $2,200 1 $67,917 

MD SMITHSBURG MD0024317 0.333 0.2221 7.55 1.89 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $0 MD SOUTH CARROLL HIG

HMD0024589 0.02 0.0064 18.00 0.14 0 0 0 $374,043 $2,173 1 $0 

MD SOUTHERN CORRECTIMD0023914 0.02 0.0349 20.37 4.50 0 0 0 $388,145 $2,255 1 $67,445 

MD SPRING MEADOWS MD0024953 0.016 0.0106 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $370,333 $2,152 1 $67,067 

MD SPRINGVIEW ESTATE

SMD0022870 0.007 0.0067 21.13 3.00 0 0 0 $362,119 $2,104 1 $66,217 

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable VI-C 54 
Table VI - C: NRT Cost for Non-significant Municipal Facilities 

DESIGN TIER 1* TIER 2* TIER 3*

STATE FACILITY NPDES FLOW(mgd)

FLOW

(mgd) TN(mg/l) TP(mg/l)

TOTAL

COST

TOTAL

COST

TOTAL

COST TN CC TN O&M

TN

 NOTE TP CC 

2010 DATA TIER 4** (TN=8mg/l AND TP=2m

MD ST TIMOTHY SCHOOL MD0056103 0.015 0.0056 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $369,411 $2,146 1 $66,973 

MD ST. JAMES SCHOOL MD0065536 0.016 0.0069 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $370,333 $2,152 1 $67,067 

MD SUDLERSVILLE MD0020559 0.09 0.0497 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $445,331 $2,587 1 $74,056 

MD SUMMER HILL TRAILE

RMD0023272 0.019 0.0113 13.87 1.31 0 0 0 $373,112 $2,168 1 $0 

MD SWAN HARBOR PARK MD0023043 0.05 0.0123 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $403,080 $2,342 1 $70,278 

MD SWAN POINT MD0057525 0.07 0.0367 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $423,679 $2,462 1 $72,167 

MD TALBOT COUNTY REGIMD0023604 0.5 0.3803 14.39 3.09 0 0 0 $1,237,167 $7,188 1 $112,778 

MD TALBOT COUNTY REGIMD0059463 0.15 0.0767 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $517,156 $3,005 1 $79,723 

MD TAWES VOCATIONALTMD0022993 0.01 0.1728 23.76 3.00 0 0 0 $547,415 $3,180 1 $66,500 MD THUNDERBIRD APART MD0050334 0.032 0.0133 32.36 2.25 0 0 0 $385,398 $2,239 1 $68,578 

MD THUNDERBIRD MOTEL MD0053155 0.005 0.0046 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $360,319 $2,093 1 $66,028 

MD TOLCHESTER MD0067202 0.265 0.0901 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $688,789 $4,002 1 $90,584 

MD TRAPPE MD0020486 0.115 0.1360 18.00 2.62 0 0 0 $499,402 $2,902 1 $76,417 

MD TRI-TOWN PLAZA MD0024937 0.01 0.0135 18.00 1.97 0 0 0 $368,027 $2,138 1 $0 

MD TRIUMPH INDUSTRIAL MD0024929 0.063 0.0383 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $416,352 $2,419 1 $71,506 

MD TWIN CITIES MD0055352 0.28 0.1182 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $715,025 $4,154 1 $92,000 

MD TYLERTON MD0052248 0.02 0.0051 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $374,043 $2,173 1 $67,445 

MD U.S. ARMY-CHESAPEA MD0020206 0.005 0.0003 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $360,319 $2,093 1 $66,028 

MD UNION BRIDGE MD0022454 0.2 0.1032 28.07 3.27 0 0 0 $585,783 $3,403 1 $84,445 

MD UNITED CONTAINER MD0024635 0.014 0.0076 18.74 3.00 0 0 0 $368,492 $2,141 1 $66,878 

MD URBANA HIGH SCHOO MD0066940 0.03 0.0029 18.00 3.52 0 0 0 $383,482 $2,228 1 $68,389 

MD US NAVAL ACADEMY MD0023523 1 0.1884 8.00 0.12 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $0 MD USAF BRANDYWINE H

OMD0025640 0.005 0.0014 19.03 3.63 0 0 0 $360,319 $2,093 1 $66,028 

MD USAF TRANSMITTER 

S MD0025631 0.01 0.0000 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $0 

MD VICTOR CULLEN CEN

T MD0023922 0.25 0.0416 10.69 3.00 0 0 0 $663,517 $3,855 1 $89,167 

MD VIENNA MD0020664 0.06 0.0562 19.28 3.00 0 0 0 $413,251 $2,401 1 $71,223 

MD VILLA JULIE COLLEGE MD0066001 0.05 0.0070 3.96 0.16 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $0 MD WALKERS TRAILER P

A MD0057487 0.015 0.0141 22.30 3.00 0 0 0 $369,411 $2,146 1 $66,973 

MD WAYSONS MOBILE MD0023647 0.06 0.0456 19.16 2.28 0 0 0 $413,251 $2,401 1 $71,223 

MD WHITE HOUSE MOTEL MD0056553 0.005 0.0016 18.17 3.00 0 0 0 $360,319 $2,093 1 $66,028 

MD WHITE ROCK MD0025089 0.05 0.0171 12.45 3.00 0 0 0 $403,080 $2,342 1 $70,278 

MD WILLARDS MD0051632 0.08 0.0820 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $436,493 $2,536 1 $73,112 

MD WINTERS APARTMEN

T MD0057606 0.013 0.0002 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $367,575 $2,136 1 $66,784 

MD WOODLAWN MOBILE 

HMD0023337 0.054 0.0000 0 0 0 $0 $0 3 $0 

MD WOODSBORO MD0058661 0.25 0.1220 20.14 2.17 0 0 0 $663,517 $3,855 1 $89,167 

MD WOODSTOCK TRAININ MD0023906 0.05 0.0087 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $403,080 $2,342 1 $70,278 

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable VI-C 55 
Table VI - C: NRT Cost for Non-significant Municipal Facilities 

DESIGN TIER 1* TIER 2* TIER 3*

STATE FACILITY NPDES FLOW(mgd)

FLOW

(mgd) TN(mg/l) TP(mg/l)

TOTAL

COST

TOTAL

COST

TOTAL

COST TN CC TN O&M

TN

 NOTE TP CC 

2010 DATA TIER 4** (TN=8mg/l AND TP=2m

MD WORTON-BUTLERTON MD0060585 0.15 0.0629 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $517,156 $3,005 1 $79,723 

MD Total 20.5905 11.5411 $80,973,919 $612,243 $10,986,221 

VA FAIRVIEW BEACH MD0056464 0.05 0.0392 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $403,080 $2,342 1 $70,278 

VA Total 0.05 0.0392 $403,080 $2,342 $70,278 WV HARPERS FERRY-BOLIWV0039136 0.3 0.1907 18.00 3.00 0 0 0 $751,566 $4,367 1 $93,889 

WV MOUNTAIN TOP PSD WV0101524 0.0504 0.0263 18.83 3.00 0 0 0 $403,482 $2,344 1 $70,316 

WV RIVER BEND PARK WV0105384 0.18 0.0223 24.03 3.00 0 0 0 $557,302 $3,238 1 $82,556 

WV Total 0.5304 0.2393 $1,712,349 $9,949 $246,761 

Grand Total 21.1709 11.8195 $83,089,348 $624,534 $11,303,260 

Note:

* There is no action on non-sigificant plants for Tier 1-3. Therefore, no cost is applied.** Tier 4 scenario for non-significant plant is that TN =8 mg/l and TP = 2 mg/l.1 = Calculated with the curve developed for the non-significant plants < or = 0.5MGD based on 9 VA and 2 MD non-significan

 This methodology used to develop this curve was agreed by Tom Sadick, CH2M Hill and Thor Young, Stearn & Wheler, LL2 = BNR Capital cost from MDE, 5/15/20023 = Assumes that there is no cost for non-significant plants that have TN concentration < 8 mg/l4 = Assumes that there is no cost for non-significant plants that have TP concentration < 2 mg/l5 = Calculated from the methodology developed by Thor Young, Stearn & Wheler for Tier 2 TP cost.  The TP goal in the calculation is adjusted from 1 mg/l to 2 mg/l. 6 = Due to its design flow >0.5 MGD, the costs were calculated from the methodology developed by Thor Young, Stearn & Wh

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable VI-C 56 
VII. COST ESTIMATES FOR COMBINED SEWER OVERFLOWS 

CSO cost estimates were provided by the City of Richmond and the Blue Plains CSO for the District of 

Columbia. However, only Blue Plains CSO costs are considered herein. This is because costs are only

included where respective nutrient reductions are known, which is the case only for Blue Plains at this time. 

Costs for meeting various tiered reductions for the CSO are provided in Table VII. These costs were obtained 

by the Washington Council of Governments. 

The DC CSO tiers are structured to incorporate existing DC-WASA (Washington Area Sanitary 

Authority) programs and acknowledges that the Draft CSO Long Term Control Plan is a major 20-

year capital program, although at the time of this writing, it has yet to be formally approved by EPA. 

Overall nutrient and sediment loads are expected to be reduced by 43% over the next 8 years and this 

is reflected in Tier 1, which is also carried over into Tier 2, and again in Tier 3. 

For purposes of conceptually estimating limits of technology, zero overflows were assumed for 

Tier 4. However, as noted by WASA, this is not considered a practical reduction measure, at this 

time, because it would require complete sewer separation and is not a measure endorsed by WASA. 

The costs, therefore, for Tier 1 – 3 are the same and reflect current estimates by WASA for projects 

already planned. Estimates for the Tier 4 controls are based on the current Draft CSO LTCP and 

reflect the concept of a major 40-year complete sewer separation that was not adopted in the LTCP 

due to the immense cost burden and the potential of making water quality worse (due to the lack of 

treatment the resulting separated stormwater runoff would receive). The O&M costs for the CSO are 

estimated to be 5% of the capital costs.

57
Table VII. DC CSO & BLUE PLAINS WWTP COST ESTIMATES - For Chesapeake Bay-wide UAA Cost Analysis 

Tier Facility Capital Cost (TN req.'s) Capital Cost (TP req.'s) Total Capital Cost (Year 200$'s) Capital Cost Range Tier I/II Blue Plains $33M $20M $53 M $37.1 to $79.5M Tier III Blue Plains $225M $225 M $157.5 to $337.5M Tier IV Blue Plains $365M $25M $390 M $273M to $585M Tier I/II/III DC CSO (Phase I) $130 M $91 to $195 M (proposed Tier IV) DC CSO (LTCP-current draft) $1.1 B $0.77 to $1.65B Tier IV DC CSO (zero discharges) $3.5 B $2.45 to $5.25B 

Notes:

1) Tiers I & II Blue Plains cost estimates are based on current CIP costs and current O&M costs.2) Tiers III & IV Blue Plains cost estimates are estimated costs in Year 2002$'s, and represent 'Planning Level' cost estimates (-30% to +50%).8 ) CSO cost estimates for O&M costs are estimated to be 5% of the capital costs.7) Cost estimates for the CBP's Tier IV CSO controls reflect the concept of a major 40-year complete sewer separation scenario that was not adopted in the curren

immense cost burden and the result of making water quality worse)4) Tier I, II, & III cost estimates for Blue Plains assume continued compliance with existing TP permit limit. Tier IV assumes compliance with a lower TP permit limit3) Tier I & II cost estimates for Blue Plains assume continued voluntary compliance with TN goals. Tiers III & IV also assume either voluntary goals, or use of "annrequirements are included in a permit.5) Blue Plains O&M costs for Tier I & II are based on current costs. Tier III & IV O&M costs estimated from CH2M Hill's 1999 report. All O&M costs are based on 36) Tier I, II & III CSO cost estimates are based on current estimated costs for projects already in the CIP; while estimates for the 'proposed' Tier IV controls are basLTCP.

58
VIII. COST METHODOLOGY APPLICATION FOR THE 

SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPALS FOR TIERS 1-4 

This section explains how the cost estimation methodologies presented in Section III and 

IV were applied to derive the technology costs by facility for various nutrient reduction 

levels. This section also explains where actual data received from facilities or municipal 

representatives was used in lieu of application of the cost estimation methodologies. For 

information regarding the source codes shown in this section, please see the notes at the 

ends of Table X-A (pages 98-106) and Table X-B (pages 107-115). 

8.1 Allocating Blue Plains Costs to the Jurisdictions 

The Blue Plains facility treats wastewater from Maryland, Virginia, as well as the District 

of Columbia. The loads for the Blue Plains facility are therefore proportional to each 

jurisdiction according to the flows being treated from each of the three jurisdictions. The 

flow allocation data were provided by Metropolitan Washington Council of 

Government(MWCOG) (Attachment 11, part 2, Appendix I). Costs to achieve these 

load reductions were also provided by MWCOG(see Table VII). These total costs are 

allocated to each of the jurisdictions according to their percentage of flow treated by Blue 

Plains. In the tables and graphs presenting costs in this report, it will be noted whether 

the costs for Blue Plains are in total or divided up among the jurisdictions. 

8.2 Tier 1 Costs 

Among the 304 significant municipal plants, there are 154 facilities that are currently 

operating NRT or have plans to implement NRT. Only 65 of these 154 plants have costs 

associated with NRT for Tier 1 because the funds for the reminding 89 NRT facilities are 

already in place. Most of the 65 plants with Tier 1 costs are going to implement NRT by 

2005 or 2010. Only 3 out of the 65 plants are currently running NRT and are listed in 

Table VIII- A. 

Table VIII- A: Current BNR with T1 Cost 

STATE FACILITY NPDES BNR_STATUS T1TNCC 

MD HURLOCK MD0022730 CURRENT 5,200,000

MD PRINCESS ANNE MD0020656 CURRENT 3,563,500

VA AQUIA VA0060968 CURRENT 8,000,000

Most of the TN capital costs for these 65 plants are provided by the state agencies or 

from the NRT cost survey. Only 9 facilities (listed in following table) used the estimates 

calculated with the Tier 2 methodology developed by Stearns & Wheler, LLC. 

59
Table VIII- B: Facilities with Tier 1 TN CC Calculated 

STATE FACILITY NPDES BNR_STATUS T1TNCC 

PA ELIZABETHTOWN PA0023108 BY 2005 4,083,001 

PA LACKAWANNA RIVER PA0027081 BY 2005 2,513,941 

PA LEWISBURG AREA PA0044661 BY 2010 3,693,297 

PA LOCK HAVEN PA0025933 BY 2010 4,580,956 

PA LOGAN TOWNSHIP- PA0032557 BY 2005 2,444,284 

VA HAYMOUNT STP VA0089125 BY 2010 2,687,559 

VA ORANGE VA0021385 BY 2010 3,066,885

VA SOUTH WALES STP VA0080527 BY 2010 2,622,367 

VA WIDEWATER WWTP VA0090387 BY 2010 2,374,508 

Total 28,066,798 

Since the total TN capital cost of Tier 1 is $605,314,959, the calculated estimates 

accounts for only 4.7% of the total Tier 1 cost. 

The following table summarizes the Tier 1 costs, along with TN loads discharged in 2000 

in comparison to the Tier 1 load reduction. 

Table VIII- C: Tier 1 costs, 2000 and T1 TN discharged loads by state. 

STATE 

Tier1 TN 

Capital Cost 

2000 TN LOAD 

(lbs/yr) 

TIER 1 TN LOAD 

(lbs/yr) 

REDUCTION 

(2000TN-T1 TN)

DC Total 0 8,726,084 7,805,237 920,847

DE Total 3,187,400 286,701 292,404 -5,702

MD Total 384,749,909 14,142,117 12,566,335 1,575,781

NY Total 0 4,252,589 2,931,661 1,320,928

PA Total 72,079,813 14,326,180 11,941,871 2,384,309

VA Total 145,297,837 27,968,574 26,559,015 1,710,449

WV Total 0 510,833 243,582 267,251

Grand Total 605,314,959 70,213,079 62,340,105 8,173,863

The detailed cost and load data for each facility with Tier 1 cost are listed in Table VIIID. Due to the projected flow increases, many facilities listed in Table VIII- D show load 

increases (negative reduction values). The Tier 1 TN concentrations for these facilities 

are 8 mg/l. 

Table VIII- D: Facilities with Tier 1 TN Capital Costs 

ST FACILITY NPDES T1TNCC ($) SOURCE

2000TN 

(lbs/yr) T1TN (lbs/yr) Reduction 

DE BRIDGEVILLE DE0020249 3,187,400 12, M 12,109 5,404 6,705

MD APG-ABERDEEN MD0021237 8,000,000 2, M 55,125 22,278 32,847

MD BRUNSWICK MD0020958 4,900,000 2, M 34,935 18,562 16,372

MD CAMBRIDGE MD0021636 9,934,376 2, M 112,051 124,494 -12,444

MD CELANESE MD0063878 5,791,500 2, M 18,422 24,754 -6,332

MD CENTREVILLE MD0020834 5,065,400 2, M 12,685 8,587 4,098

MD CHESTERTOWN MD0020010 2,600,000 2, M 17,978 15,916 2,062

MD CONOCOCHEAGUE MD0063509 5,555,439 2, M 21,512 29,063 -7,551

MD COX CREEK MD0021661 9,476,780 2, M 627,021 299,577 327,444

60
Table VIII- D(continued): Facilities with Tier 1 TN Capital 

ST FACILITY NPDES T1TNCC ($) SOURCE

2000TN 

(lbs/yr) T1TN (lbs/yr) Reduction 

MD CRISFIELD MD0020001 4,052,200 2, M 27,044 16,547 10,498

MD DELMAR MD0020532 1,030,000 2, M 24,745 14,068 10,677

MD ELKTON MD0020681 6,360,000 2, M 82,662 42,125 40,537

MD FEDERALSBURG MD0020249 1,500,000 2, M 18,117 8,020 10,097

MD FREDERICK MD0021610 8,816,824 2, M 485,460 189,096 296,364

MD FRUITLAND MD0052990 6,200,000 2, M 25,812 12,612 13,200

MD GEORGES CREEK MD0060071 2,000,000 2, M 36,525 16,293 20,231

MD HAVRE DE GRACE MD0021750 6,278,550 2, M 48,125 34,020 14,105

MD HURLOCK MD0022730 5,200,000 2, M 42,327 25,863 16,464

MD INDIAN HEAD MD0020052 656,000 2, M 13,639 8,587 5,052

MD KENT ISLAND MD0023485 20,742,570 2, M 87,899 39,970 47,929

MD LA PLATA MD0020524 4,120,970 2, M 16,705 20,084 -3,379

MD LEONARDTOWN MD0024767 1,840,000 2, M 18,598 11,730 6,868

MD MATTAWOMAN MD0021865 7,935,800 2, M 320,637 199,109 121,528

MD NORTHEAST RIVER MD0052027 1,800,000 2, M 23,023 15,304 7,719

MD PATAPSCO MD0021601 200,000,000 2, M 2,388,559 1,778,607 609,951

MD POCOMOKE CITY MD0022551 2,700,000 2,2 24,854 23,435 1,420

MD POOLESVILLE MD0023001 1,658,000 2, M 16,660 16,175 485

MD PRINCESS ANNE MD0020656 3,563,500 2, M 20,092 15,100 4,992

MD SALISBURY MD0021571 15,000,000 2, M 332,099 143,631 188,468

MD SENECA CREEK MD0021491 29,520,000 2, M 268,698 458,052 -189,354

MD SNOW HILL MD0022764 1,600,000 2, M 21,632 11,331 10,301

MD WINEBRENNER WWTP MD0003221 852,000 2, M 12,029 5,378 6,651

PA CHAMBERSBURG BOROUGH PA0026051 6,400,000 3, M 130,817 116,352 14,465

PA EASTERN SNYDER COUNTY PA0110582 3,000,000 10, M 70,388 39,061 31,327

PA ELIZABETHTOWN BOROUGH PA0023108 4,083,001 1 236,180 57,096 179,084

PA HARRISBURG SEWERAGE PA0027197 22,682,000 S 1,565,597 639,300 926,297

PA LACKAWANNA RIVER BASIN PA0027081 2,513,941 1 21,300 11,984 9,316

PA LANCASTER AREA SEWER PA0042269 4,249,333 S, 281,766 189,652 92,114

PA LANCASTER CITY PA0026743 1,077,000 3, M 531,348 504,692 26,657

PA LEWISBURG AREA PA0044661 3,693,297 1 83,950 29,180 54,769

PA LOCK HAVEN PA0025933 4,580,956 1 110,987 53,127 57,860

PA LOGAN TOWNSHIP-GREENWOOD PA0032557 2,444,284 1 16,952 8,916 8,035

PA SUNBURY CITY MUNICIPAL PA0026557 3,000,000 15, M 107,663 73,446 34,217

PA SWATARA TOWNSHIP PA0026735 2,000,000 13, M 190,910 81,310 109,600

PA UNIVERSITY AREA JOINT PA0026239 780,000 3, M 236,457 123,537 112,921

PA WILLIAMSPORT -CENTRAL PA0027057 6,330,000 3, M 464,040 178,235 285,805

PA WILLIAMSPORT -WEST PA0027049 5,246,000 3, M 414,413 64,971 349,443

VA AQUIA VA0060968 8,000,000 C9, M 47,259 128,888 -81,629

VA ASHLAND VA0024899 2,415,700 S, M 65,842 37,765 28,077

VA BROAD RUN WRF VA_BROADR 13,500,000 17 58,475

VA COLONIAL BEACH VA0026409 90,000 3, M 32,298 20,617 11,682

VA CULPEPER VA0061590 4,200,000 6, M 57,077 55,312 1,765

VA DOSWELL VA0029521 3,045,000 6, M 100,438 164,460 -64,022

VA FALLING CREEK VA0024996 395,818 6, M 202,791 200,744 2,047

VA HAYMOUNT STP VA0089125 2,687,559 1 23,146

VA HRSD-YORK VA0081311 17,700,000 C14 522,303 309,429 212,874

VA ORANGE VA0021385 3,066,885 1 35,684 16,847 18,836

VA RICHMOND VA0063177 70,000,000 6, M 1,732,937 1,169,249 563,689

VA SOUTH CENTRAL VA0025437 7,800,000 S 276,307 315,033 -38,726

VA SOUTH WALES STP VA0080527 2,622,367 1 20,856 

VA WIDEWATER WWTP VA0090387 2,374,508 1 2,436

Total 4,560,508

61
MD has the highest Tier 1 cost because all MD significant municipal plants reach 

TN@8mg/l in Tier 1, and do not have T N capital costs in Tier 2, except Back River 

using 10 mg/l in Tier 1 and $10 million TN capital cost in Tier 2 to go to 8 mg/l. Other 

states will have all their significant plants reach 8 mg/l in Tier 2. Also note that costs 

for Patapsco alone account for 52% of the total MD Tier 1 costs. 

PA has lower TN capital costs and higher TN load reduction than MD and VA. As the 

following table indicates, the biggest load reduction in PA is Harrisburg that will reduce 

922,000 pounds TN discharge load in Tier 1 with a TN capital cost of $22.68 million. 

While, the highest TN cost in MD is $200 million for Patapsco that will reduce only 

603,000 pounds in Tier 1. In PA, there are 5 facilities with calculated Tier TN capital 

costs, 6 facilities with survey costs and 7 plants with the cost data provided by Virginia 

Tech’s NRT cost estimates. 

There are dramatic increases in the projected 2010 flows from 2000 levels for both MD 

and VA, which increase the Tier 1 loads and off set the load reduction. The 2010 flow 

survey results provided by the state agencies or directly by the facilities are significantly 

greater than the projected 2010 flow estimated by CBPO based on the population 

increase. As Table VIII- E presents, the second column lists the 2010 flow increase 

including the flow survey results, and the third column lists the 2010 flow estimated only 

with the 2010 flow projection methodology. For example, if all facilities use only the 

2010 flow estimates from the flow projection methodology based on the population 

increase, the total 2010 flow increase for VA will only be 48.9 MGD. However, the state 

agencies and some facilities provided their own 2010 flow projections for some plants. 

By using these 2010 flow provided with the 2010 flow estimates for the remaining plants, 

VA will increase the total flow by 130 MGD by 2010. The difference of 82 MGD 

represent nearly additional 2 million pounds TN discharge load at TN=8 mg/l. Blue 

Plains provided a flow slightly lower than the result of its 2000 flow adjusted by the 

population increase in DC area. And, other states including PA did not provide any their 

own 2010 flow projections. Therefore, the load reductions in Tier 1 for MD and VA are 

largely off set by the flow increases that are proportionally higher than other states. 

 

Table VIII- E: Total Flow Increases Between 2010 and 2000 by State 

STATE 

FLOW INCREASES (mgd) 

2010 FLOW-2000 FLOW

(Including survey results) 

FLOW INCREASES (mgd) 

2010 FLOW-2000 FLOW

(only estimates) 

VA 116.47 48.90

MD 52.50 22.25

DC 23.81 24.36

PA 9.86 9.86

NY 0.72 0.72

DE 0.19 0.19

WV -1.68 -1.68

The following table lists the top ten facilities with the highest flow increases. All of them

are using 2010 flow submitted, not calculated. 

 

62
Table VIII- F: Top Ten Facilities With The Highest Flow Increases. 

STATE FACILITY 2000 2010 

DC BLUE PLAINS 317.90 341.71

VA HOPEWELL 29.01 35.12

VA HENRICO COUNTY 37.10 50

MD PATAPSCO 60.54 73

MD SENECA CREEK 6.49 18.8

VA NOMAN M. COLE JR. 42.89 53

VA UPPER OCCOQUAN 24.39 34

VA HRSD-BOAT HARBOR 14.32 23.05

VA ARLINGTON 27.46 35.29

VA HRSD-CHESAPEAKE 19.06 26.3

8.3 Tier Two Costs: 

There is no cost for MD in Tier 2, except for Back River that has $10 million TN capital 

cost to go from TN =10 mg/l to 8 mg/l. For other jurisdictions, most of their Tier 2 TN 

capital costs were calculated with the Tier 2 TN capital cost methodology developed by 

Stearns & Wheler, LLC. The following facilities listed in Table VIII- G use the costs 

provided by the state agencies or from the cost surveys provided by the facilities. 

Table VIII- G: Facilities with Tier 2 TN Capital Costs from sources other than calculation 

STATE FACILITY NPDES T2TNCC T2TN_SOURCE

DC BLUE PLAINS DC0021199 33,000,000 14

MD BACK RIVER MD0021555 10,000,000 19

NY ENDICOTT (V) NY0027669 6,656,000 7

PA ALTOONA CITY -EAST PA0027014 1,200,000 3

PA ALTOONA CITY -WEST PA0027022 1,200,000 3

PA DERRY TOWNSHIP PA0026484 1,983,000 2 

PA GREATER HAZELTON PA0026921 7,840,000 3

PA HANOVER BOROUGH PA0026875 60,000 3

PA LEBANON CITY AUTHORITY PA0027316 4,039,000 3 

VA DAHLGREN VA0026514 30,000 3

VA FISHERSVILLE VA0025291 790,000 3

VA FRONT ROYAL VA0062812 50,000 3

VA HOPEWELL VA0066630 57,230,000 16

VA HRSD-ARMY BASE VA0081230 81,000,000 C14, C15 

VA HRSD-BOAT HARBOR VA0081256 112,000,000 C14, C15

VA HRSD-CHESAPEAKE VA0081264 35,000,000 C14

VA HRSD-JAMES RIVER VA0081272 27,300,000 C14

VA HRSD-NANSEMOND VA0081299 13,100,000 C14

VA HRSD-VIP VA0081281 10,000,000 C14

VA HRSD-WILLIAMSBURG VA0081302 15,800,000 C14

VA LURAY VA0062642 0 3

VA LYNCHBURG VA0024970 54,900,000 C6

VA PARKINS MILL VA0075191 97,000 3

VA STRASBURG VA0020311 120,000 3

VA WAYNESBORO VA0025151 3,500,000 3

VA WOODSTOCK VA0026468 700,000 3

63
Table VIII-H provides a summary of the Tier 2 TN capital costs and the load reduction 

by state. 

 Table VIII- H: Tier 2 TN capital costs and the load reduction by state

STATE 

Tier 2 TN

Capital Cost($) 

Tier 2 Cumulative

Capital Cost ($) 

TN Load Reduction 

(2000-Tier2) (lbs/yr) 

DC Total 33,000,000 33,000,000 920,847

DE Total 2,374,508 5,561,908 8,129

MD Total 10,000,000 394,749,909 1,454,723

NY Total 61,874,054 61,874,054 2,652,253

PA Total 277,865,025 349,944,837 5,294,979

VA Total 406,238,704 626,459,541 8,190,984

WV Total 23,193,004 23,193,004 42,904

Grand Total 804,545,294 1,484,783,253 18,564,819

8.4 Tier 3 and Tier 4 TN Capital Costs: 

The methodology described in Section IV to estimate the Tier 3 and Tier 4 TN capital 

costs were developed for plant sizes of 0.5 to 30 MGD. Additionally, the NRT Cost Task 

Force meeting on March 26, 2002 decided to survey the costs for plants greater than or 

equal to 30 MGD in design (Attachment 1, Part 1, Appendix I). There are a total of 16 

facilities listed below with design flows of this size. Costs on 9 of these 16 plants came

either from the survey or Virginia Tech’s NRT cost estimates. MDE decided to use the 

methodology described in Section IV to calculate the costs for Back River and Patapsco 

(Attachment 1, Part 1, Appendix I). The same methodologies were used for the 

remaining 5 plants to calculate their costs due to the lack of survey data for them. 

Table VIII- I: Municipal Facilities with Design Flow >30 MGD

FACILITY NPDES DESIGN_FLOW T3-4 TN CC Source

BLUE PLAINS DC0021199 370 SURVEY

PISCATAWAY MD0021539 30 CALCULATED

BACK RIVER MD0021555 180 CALCULATED

PATAPSCO MD0021601 73 CALCULATED

WESTERN BRANCH MD0021741 30 SURVEY

WYOMING VALLEY PA0026107 50 SURVEY

HARRISBURG SEWERAGE PA0027197 37.7 SURVEY

UPPER OCCOQUAN SEWAGE VA0024988 54 CALCULATED

ARLINGTON VA0025143 40 CALCULATED

ALEXANDRIA VA0025160 54 SURVEY

NOMAN M. COLE JR. VA0025364 67 SURVEY

RICHMOND VA0063177 70 SURVEY

HENRICO COUNTY VA0063690 75 SURVEY

HOPEWELL VA0066630 35.12 SURVEY

HRSD-VIP VA0081281 40 CALCULATED

HRSD-NANSEMOND VA0081299 30 CALCULATED

64
In addition to the cost data obtained for the larger facilities described above, cost data 

was provided for many facilities to go to 3 mg/l TN. In most cases, the sources of this 

data did not include costs to go to 5 mg/l. Thus, a dilemma arose as to what costs to 

include for Tier 3 (to go to 5 mg/l) for facilities for which cost data was available only to 

go to 8 and 3 mg/l TN. Some options considered by the NRT Cost Task Force included 

the following: 

1) Taking the midpoint of costs to go to 8 mg/l and 3 mg/l, and placing that value 

both in Tier 3 and Tier 4 so that the cumulative costs still equaled the costs to go 

to 8 and 3 mg/l combined. 

2) Inserting the costs of going to 3 mg/l into the Tier 3 (even though this is the tier to 

go to 5 mg/l), and setting the costs to go to Tier 4 to zero, again, keeping the 

cumulative costs equal to the costs to go to 8 and 3 mg/l combined. 

Attachment 2 in Part 1 of Appendix I indicates that Option 2 above was implemented 

because that would keep the cost values in tact that were provided by the various sources. 

Additionally, it was believed that a facility would most likely expend the amount 

provided to go to 3 mg/l whether it achieved 5 or 3 mg/l TN anyway. 

An exception to the above decision rule is that MDE decided to use calculated estimates 

for Tier 3 and Tier 4 for all MD facilities (Attachment 3, Appendix I, Part 1)), except for 

Western Branch that has zero costs for both Tier 3 and Tier 4 because it is already 

operating @ TN =3mg/l (Attachment 1, Appendix I, Part 1). 

Since the actual data for TN@3 costs provided are comparatively lower than the combined 

calculated Tier 3 and Tier 4 costs, MD Tier 3 and Tier 4 TN capital costs are 

comparatively higher than other states. 

 

Table VIII-J and Table VIII-K provide summary cost information for Tier 3 and Tier 4 

respectively and compare this to TN load reductions achieved by each Tier. 

 Table VIII- J: Tier 3 TN capital costs and the load reduction by state

STATE T3TNCC ($) 

T3 Cumulative 

CC ($) 

TN Load Reduction 

(2000-Tier3) (lbs/yr) 

DC Total 225,000,000 258,000,000 3,522,593

DE Total 3,182,908 8,744,816 24,712

MD Total 253,226,556 647,976,465 5,089,163

NY Total 40,600,618 102,474,671 3,252,379

PA Total 319,811,406 669,756,244 8,048,336

VA Total 338,254,142 964,713,683 14,027,696

WV Total 10,971,658 34,164,662 107,054

Grand Total 1,191,047,288 2,685,830,541 34,071,932

65
Table VIII- K: Tier 4 TN capital costs and the load reduction by state 

STATE T4TNCC ($) 

T4 Cumulative 

CC ($) 

TN Load Reduction 

(2000-Tier4) (lbs/yr) 

DC Total 365,000,000 623,000,000 5,603,990

DE Total 4,152,080 12,896,896 35,766

MD Total 491,117,129 1,139,093,595 7,512,123

NY Total 71,577,888 174,052,559 3,652,463

PA Total 241,323,231 911,079,475 9,883,907

VA Total 499,539,463 1,464,253,146 18,082,178

WV Total 15,792,986 49,957,647 149,821

Grand Total 1,688,502,777 4,374,333,318 44,920,247

The following two charts present the cumulative TN capital costs ($million) and the TN

discharged load reduction from 2000 level by each state for each tier. Blue Plains costs 

and load reductions were allocated among jurisdictions. 

Figure VIII-A: Cumulative TN Capital Costs ($million) 

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

1,600

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

TN Capital Cost ($million)

DC DE MD NY PA VA WV

Figure VIII-B: TN Discharged Load Reduction From 2000 Level

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

TN Discharged Load Reduction (million lbs/yr)

DC DE MD NY PA VA WV

66
IX. LOAD CALCULATION DESCRIPTION AND SUMMARY 

This section presents the decision rules for, and results of, estimating TN and TP load reduction 

estimates by facility by Tier. 

9.1 Load Calculation For Significant Municipal Facilities 

9.1.1 Tier Definition for Point Sources 

The Tier definition was reviewed and discussed by the point source workgroup and the NRT 

Cost Task Force members, and approved by the workgroup meeting. All concentrations are in 

mg/l as annual averages. A series of attachments that are referenced in this section are included 

in Appendix I, Part 2. 

9.1.1.1 Tier 1: TN is set to 8 mg/l for all plants currently running NRT or with NRT plans, 

except following three plants. The rest of facilities use their 2000 TN 

 concentrations. 

Blue Plains DC0021199 TN = 7.5 mg/l 

Back River MD0021555 TN= 10 mg/l 

Hopewell VA0066630 TN =21 mg/l (Attachment 1 – Part 2, Appendix I) 

All significant municipal facilities use their 2000 TP concentrations, except VA 

facilities targeted by VADEQ either under the WQIF Grant program and/or the Tributary 

Strategy Plan for Lower River Tributaries. For these VA facilities, TP = 1.5 mg/l. 

The load reductions listed in the Tables in this section reflecting implementation of NRT to TN = 

8 mg/l occur in Tier 1 for the HRSD Nansemond and VIP facilities. However, HRSD requested, 

after the watershed model runs were conducted, that these load reductions should first appear in 

Tier 2. Because the model runs were already completed, these load reduction remain in Tier 1, 

but costs do not show up until Tier 2. Cumulative loads remain the same, as additional load 

reductions do not show up in Tier 2. 

9.1.1.2 Tier 2: TN is set to 8 mg/l for all significant municipal facilities, except Blue 

Plains, which uses TN = 7.5 mg/l 

For TP, all significant municipals use TP = 1mg/l or their lower limits. 

9.1.1.3 Tier 3: TN = 5 mg/l for all significant municipal facilities; 

TP = 0.5mg/l or lower limit for all significant municipal facilities 

9.1.1.4 Tier 4: TN = 3 mg/l for all significant municipal facilities; 

TP = 0.1mg/l for all significant municipal facilities 

9.1.2 2010 Flow Projection

For most significant municipal facilities, their 2010 flows were projected based on the 2000 

flows adjusted by the population increase factors (this factor is set to 1 where population 

decreases). A population increase factor is based on the US Census estimated population 

changes between 2010 and 2000 in the county where the facility located. However, actual 

site specific estimates were obtained for many facilities either from state agencies, facility 

contacts or the survey. Facilities for which actual 2010 estimated flows were obtained are 

listed in Table IX-A. 

67
Table IX-A also lists the attachment # (Attachment 2-10 in Appendix I, Part 2) as the sources 

of these flow data. VADEQ suggested using the design flow or estimated flow for the six 

VA facilities to be built before 2010. TIMBERVILLE and MOOREFIELD will be off-line 

by 2010 according to VADEQ and WVDEP. 

Table IX-A: Projected 2010 Flows Provided by the State Agency or Facility 

FLOW (MGD) SOURCE 

STA FACILITY NPDES DESIGN 2000 2010 

Attachment #

App.I, part 2 

DC BLUE PLAINS DC0021199 370 317.899 341.71 7

MD DAMASCUS MD0020982 1.5 0.881 0.86 7

MD PARKWAY MD0021725 7.5 5.962 6.2 7

MD PATAPSCO MD0021601 73 60.536 73 10

MD PISCATAWAY MD0021539 30 21.052 25.3 7

MD SENECA CREEK MD0021491 5 6.494 18.8 7

MD WESTERN BRANCH MD0021741 30 18.293 23 7

VA ALLEGHANY CO. LOWER JACKSON VA0090671 1.5 0.75 VADEQ 

VA AQUIA VA0060968 6.5 3.326 5.29 8

VA ARLINGTON VA0025143 40 27.464 35.29 7

VA ASHLAND VA0024899 2 1.153 1.55 4

VA BROAD RUN WRF VA_BROADR 15 2.4 3 

VA BROADWAY LAGOONS VA0021245 0.322 0.521 0 VADEQ

VA DOSWELL VA0029521 1 4.135 6.75 4

VA FISHERSVILLE VA0025291 2 0.798 1.71 8

VA H.L. MOONEY VA0025101 18 9.632 14.63 5

VA HARRISONBURG-ROCKINGHAM VA0060640 16 8.571 11.65 8

VA HAYMOUNT STP VA0089125 0.95 0.95 VADEQ

VA HENRICO COUNTY VA0063690 75 37.096 50 6

VA HOPEWELL VA0066630 50 29.007 35.12 2

VA HRSD-ARMY BASE VA0081230 18 12.749 17.45 8

VA HRSD-BOAT HARBOR VA0081256 25 14.318 23.05 8

VA HRSD-CHESAPEAKE/ELIZABETH VA0081264 24 19.056 26.3 8

VA HRSD-JAMES RIVER VA0081272 20 14.467 20 8

VA HRSD-NANSEMOND VA0081299 30 18.948 20.15 8/VADEQ

VA HRSD-VIP VA0081281 40 31.535 35.9 8

VA HRSD-WILLIAMSBURG VA0081302 22.5 15.344 15.9 8/VADEQ

VA HRSD-YORK VA0081311 15 11.329 12.7 8

VA LITTLE FALLS RUN VA0076392 4 2.618 4.16 8

VA LYNCHBURG VA0024970 22 13.216 17.4 8

VA MATHEWS COURTHOUSE VA0028819 0.1 0.047 0.08 8

VA MIDDLE RIVER VA0064793 6.8 3.597 5.65 8

VA MOORES CREEK-RIVANNA VA0025518 15 10.343 11.888 9 

VA NOMAN M. COLE JR. VA0025364 67 42.889 53 8 

VA SOUTH CENTRAL VA0025437 23 12.035 12.93 8

VA SOUTH WALES STP VA0080527 0.856 0.856 VADEQ

VA STUARTS DRAFT VA0066877 1.4 0.836 1.5 8

VA TIMBERVILLE VA0027111 0.2 0.198 0 VADEQ

VA TOTOPOTOMOY VA0089915 5 5 VADEQ

VA UPPER OCCOQUAN SEWAGE VA0024988 54 24.391 34 8 

VA URBANNA VA0026263 0.1 0.056 0.113 8

VA WEST POINT VA0075434 0.6 0.623 0.6 8/VADEQ

VA WEYERS CAVE STP VA0022349 0.5 0.116 0.4 8

VA WIDEWATER WWTP VA0090387 0.5 0.1 VADEQ

WV MOOREFIELD WV0020150 0.6 0.315 0 WVDEP

68
9.1.3 Load calculation

The TN and TP loads for each Tier were calculated with the projected 2010 flows and the 

concentrations defined above for individual facility for each Tier. The following load 

calculation formula was used to calculate the TN and TP annual discharge loads.

 

Annual Discharge Load = Concentration X Flow X 8.344 X 365 

 

9.2 Load Calculation For non-significant Municipal Facilities

9.2.1 Tier definition for non-significant municipal facilities: 

There is no action for Tier 1-3 for non-significant facilities, the current 2000 TN and TP 

concentrations are used for Tier 1-3. NRT is applied to Tier 4 for all non-significant 

facilities. 

Tier 1 – 3: Current 2000 TN and TP were used. 

Tier 4: TN is set to 8 mg/l for all non-significant facilities. 

TP is set to 2 mg/l or lower 2000 concentrations. 

9.2.2 Projected 2010 flow: 

For all non-significant municipal facilities, their 2010 flows were projected based on the 

2000 flows with population increase factors (this factor is set to 1 where population 

decreases). 

9.2.3 Load calculation: 

The same formula as used for calculating loads of significant plants was used. 

 

Annual Discharge Load = Concentration X Flow X 8.344 X 365

9.3 Load Calculation for Industrial Plants and CSO 

a) Load calculations for industrial facilities were performed individually for each facility 

by tier and described in Section V. 

b) CSO Load Calculation 

Only DC CSO is included in this analysis. Based on the scenarios provided by 

MWCOG, there will be 43% CSO flow reduction from 2000 level for Tier 1-3, and a 

zero CSO discharge for Tier 4. 

 

 

69
Tier 1-3: Since there is no treatment change involved in CSO load reduction 

scenarios, current default TN concentration of 7.02 mg/l and TP of 2 mg/l 

were used to calculate the loads. 

TN = 7.02 mg/l 

TP = 2 mg/l 

Flow: Current default flow of 7.61 MGD was used as the base flow. 

 

Flow = 7.61 MGD X (1-43%) = 4.3377 MGD

 

Tier 4: Due to zero discharge, its flow should be zero. 

The discharge loads of DC CSO for each Tier are calculated with the same 

formula: 

Annual Discharge Load = Concentration X Flow X 8.344 X 365 

9.4 Blue Plains Load Allocation Among DC, MD and VA 

The Blue Plains facility treats wastewater from Maryland, Virginia, as well as the District 

of Columbia. The loads for the Blue Plains facility are therefore proportional to each 

jurisdiction according to the flows being treated from each of the three jurisdictions. The 

flow allocation data were provided by Metropolitan Washington Council of 

Government(MWCOG) (Attachment 11, part 2, Appendix I) 

9.5 Load Summary 

Loads are summarized in the following tables by watershed basin, by state and by facility 

type.

Table IX-A provides discharged nitrogen loads for all facilities by basin by tier. 

Table IX-B provides discharged nitrogen loads for all facilities by state by tier. 

Table IX-C summarizes discharged nitrogen loads by point source type by tier for the 

entire Bay watershed.

Table IX-D provides discharged phosphorus loads for all facilities by basin by tier. 

Table IX-E provides discharged phosphorus loads for all facilities by state by tier. 

Table IX-F summarizes discharged phosphorus loads by point source type by tier for the 

entire Bay watershed. 

Table IX-G details discharged nitrogen loads for all facilities by tier sorted by basin. 

Table IX-H details discharged phosphorus loads for all facilities by tier sorted by basin. 

70
 Total Nitrogen Discharged Load Summary 

TABLE IX-A: NRT TIER TN LOAD (lbs/yr) SUMMARY BY BASIN 

CBP_BASIN 2000 T1 T2 T3 T4 

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER 18,406,790 14,667,032 10,009,752 6,486,420 3,767,236

MD EASTERN SHORE 1,399,635 1,053,234 1,039,402 807,596 561,581

MD WESTERN SHORE 9,200,882 7,813,372 7,279,015 5,360,611 2,811,084

PATUXENT RIVER 1,105,479 1,642,075 1,633,176 1,032,757 626,068

POTOMAC RIVER 23,815,593 18,694,524 17,106,000 11,234,067 6,671,469

RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER 593,711 603,585 541,832 338,645 203,187

VA EASTERN SHORE 279,936 216,057 192,246 79,270 13,523

YORK RIVER 1,230,918 1,178,066 1,286,798 866,577 586,430

JAMES RIVER 15,030,654 17,175,126 11,015,416 7,303,871 4,729,907

TOTAL 71,063,596 63,043,070 50,103,636 33,509,813 19,970,486

TABLE IX-B: NRT TIER TN LOAD (lbs/yr) SUMMARY BY STATE * 

STATE 2000 T1 T2 T3 T4 

DC 4,451,433 3,648,026 3,648,026 2,456,848 1,429,413

DE 287,487 292,404 278,572 261,990 250,935

MD 18,090,836 16,743,186 16,125,597 11,251,832 6,294,866

NY 4,264,240 2,931,661 1,600,336 1,000,210 600,126

PA 14,365,430 11,941,871 8,638,350 5,629,036 3,252,912

VA 29,078,389 27,228,746 19,615,040 12,784,164 8,069,366

WV 525,782 257,177 197,716 125,733 72,868

TOTAL 71,063,596 63,043,070 50,103,636 33,509,813 19,970,486

NOTE: * Blue Plains load was allocated among DC, MD and VA according to the flow allocation provided 

by MWCOG for UAA. (Attachment 11, Part 2, Appendix I) 

TABLE IX-C:NRT TIER TN LOAD (lbs/yr) SUMMARY BY FACILITY TYPE 

FACILITY TYPE 2000 T1 T2 T3 T4 

SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL 61,280,775 54,706,871 42,541,943 26,913,933 16,148,360

INDUSTRIAL 9,124,668 7,633,234 6,858,729 5,892,916 3,534,150

NON-SIG MUNICIPAL 495,001 540,258 540,258 540,258 287,977

CSO 163,152 162,706 162,706 162,706 0

Total 71,063,596 63,043,070 50,103,636 33,509,813 19,970,486

 

71
 Total Phosphorus Discharged Load Summary

TABLE IX-D: NRT TIER TP LOAD (lbs/yr) SUMMARY BY BASIN 

CBP_BASIN 2000 T1 T2 T3 T4 

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER 1,934,145 1,969,969 1,168,012 597,230 127,191

MD EASTERN SHORE 201,875 214,324 120,721 83,030 38,713

MD WESTERN SHORE 395,719 435,606 510,996 326,904 96,185

PATUXENT RIVER 102,930 118,710 187,940 103,579 23,190

POTOMAC RIVER 1,202,995 1,322,949 845,869 645,156 251,482

RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER 55,802 96,615 67,729 33,864 6,773

VA EASTERN SHORE 49,358 49,235 7,698 7,039 451

YORK RIVER 189,324 222,313 162,071 92,034 32,514

JAMES RIVER 1,513,003 2,031,025 1,369,910 686,350 172,121

TOTAL 5,645,151 6,460,745 4,440,946 2,575,186 748,618

TABLE IX-E: NRT TIER TP LOAD (lbs/yr) SUMMARY BY STATE * 

STATE 2000 T1 T2 T3 T4 

DC 75,302 72,410 106,987 106,987 47,647

DE 23,839 24,945 19,353 16,590 12,075

MD 1,112,786 1,277,022 1,187,063 794,830 258,611

NY 492,059 495,602 199,551 100,021 20,004

PA 1,508,017 1,542,890 997,049 511,445 109,980

VA 2,326,890 2,985,836 1,906,411 1,031,954 296,609

WV 106,259 62,039 24,532 13,359 3,692

TOTAL 5,645,151 6,460,745 4,440,946 2,575,186 748,618

NOTE: * Blue Plains load was allocated among DC, MD and VA according to the flow allocation provided 

by MWCOG for UAA. (Attachment 11 Part 2, Appendix I) 

TABLE IX-F:NRT TIER TP LOAD (lbs/yr) SUMMARY BY FACILITY TYPE 

FACILITY TYPE 2000 T1 T2 T3 T4 

SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL 4,399,028 5,257,902 3,689,397 2,048,414 538,279

INDUSTRIAL 1,124,824 1,074,316 623,023 398,245 154,120

NON-SIG MUNICIPAL 74,820 82,174 82,174 82,174 56,219

CSO 46,480 46,353 46,353 46,353 0

Total 5,645,151 6,460,745 4,440,946 2,575,186 748,618

72
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE CAMP SHADOWBROOKMD0053139 25 27 27 27 12

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE NORTH HARFORD JR&MD0023281 608 660 660 660 293

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE PERRYVILLE MD0020613 10,781 22,845 22,845 14,278 8,567

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE ADDISON (V) NY0020320 12,501 12,696 5,728 3,580 2,148

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE BATH (V) NY0021431 40,101 40,726 18,499 11,562 6,937

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE BINGHAMTON-JOHNSONY0024414 1,573,153 475,933 475,933 297,458 178,475

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE COOPERSTOWN NY0023591 36,932 37,365 15,774 9,859 5,915

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE CORNING (C) NY0025721 76,923 78,122 31,612 19,758 11,855

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE CORTLAND (C) NY0027561 435,680 207,633 207,633 129,771 77,862

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE ELMIRA / CHEMUNG C NY0035742 326,789 328,422 175,159 109,474 65,684

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE ENDICOTT (V) NY0027669 542,979 541,495 184,577 115,361 69,216

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE HAMILTON (V) NY0020672 38,419 40,050 10,939 6,837 4,102

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE HORNELL (C) NY0023647 142,082 144,296 73,340 45,837 27,502

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE LAKE STREET/CHEMU NY0036986 424,417 426,538 173,390 108,368 65,021

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE NORWICH NY0021423 235,765 245,097 65,272 40,795 24,477

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE ONEONTA (C) NY0031151 160,806 162,692 73,269 45,793 27,476

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE OWEGO #2 NY0025798 52,773 25,363 25,363 15,852 9,511

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE OWEGO (V) NY0029262 29,249 29,287 15,194 9,496 5,698

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE RICHFIELD SPRINGS (VNY0031411 16,082 16,271 7,851 4,907 2,944

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE SIDNEY (V) NY0029271 34,527 34,501 16,204 10,128 6,077

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE WAVERLY (V) NY0031089 85,062 85,173 24,599 15,374 9,224

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE ALTOONA CITY AUTHOPA0027014 252,759 259,659 146,803 91,752 55,051

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE ALTOONA CITY AUTHOPA0027022 311,339 319,838 152,304 95,190 57,114

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE ANNVILLE TOWNSHIP PA0021806 42,767 43,758 11,577 7,235 4,341

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE APPLETON PAPER SPRPA0008265 55,010 54,860 54,860 54,860 39,467

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE ASHLAND MUNICIPAL PA0023558 19,315 19,262 17,606 11,004 6,602

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE BEDFORD BOROUGH MPA0022209 38,930 40,404 23,837 14,898 8,939

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE BELLEFONTE BOROUGPA0020486 95,751 101,301 50,545 31,591 18,954

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE BERWICK MUNICIPAL APA0023248 103,889 104,035 36,205 22,628 13,577

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE BLOOMSBURG MUNIC PA0027171 77,109 77,217 64,843 40,527 24,316

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE BLOSSBURG PA0020036 6,761 7,018 5,071 3,170 1,902

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE BROWN TOWNSHIP MUPA0028088 27,149 28,178 8,216 5,135 3,081

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE BURNHAM BOROUGH PA0038920 15,694 16,289 14,479 9,049 5,430

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE CARLISLE BOROUGH PA0026077 198,197 208,323 83,959 52,474 31,485

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE CARLISLE SUBURBAN PA0024384 22,575 17,148 17,148 10,718 6,431

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE CHLOE TEXTILES INC. PA0009172 6,760 6,742 6,596 4,122 2,473

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE CLARKS SUMMIT-SOU PA0028576 118,078 117,755 55,460 34,662 20,797

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE CLEARFIELD PA0026310 88,457 88,215 63,939 39,962 23,977

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE COLUMBIA PA0026123 40,435 43,988 20,110 12,569 7,541

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE CONSOLIDATED RAIL PA0009229 1,400 1,397 1,397 1,397 1,397

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE CURWENSVILLE MUNI PA0024759 20,051 19,996 10,901 6,813 4,088

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE DANVILLE MUNICIPAL PA0023531 58,057 58,739 52,407 32,754 19,653

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE DERRY TOWNSHIP MUPA0026484 155,620 156,293 84,660 52,912 31,747

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE DILLSBURG BOROUGHPA0024431 21,139 22,191 16,037 10,023 6,014

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE DOVER TOWNSHIP SEPA0020826 80,927 90,258 90,258 56,411 33,847

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE DUNCANSVILLE PA0032883 37,334 38,353 14,851 9,282 5,569

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE EAST PENNSBORO SOPA0038415 122,458 128,714 59,071 36,919 22,152

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE EASTERN SNYDER COPA0110582 70,388 39,061 39,061 24,413 14,648

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE ELIZABETHTOWN BORPA0023108 236,180 57,096 57,096 35,685 21,411

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE ELKLAND MUNICIPAL APA0113298 29,113 30,216 10,592 6,620 3,972

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN_DISCH 73 CBPO, 11/22/2002
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE EMPIRE KOSHER POU PA0007552 30,185 30,103 28,454 17,784 10,670

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE EMPORIUM BOROUGHPA0028631 9,524 10,076 11,725 7,328 4,397

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE EPHRATA BOROUGH WPA0027405 15,376 16,727 67,664 42,290 25,374

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE FAIRVIEW TOWNSHIP PA0081868 12,839 13,478 9,740 6,088 3,653

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE FAIRVIEW TOWNSHIP PA0082589

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE GOLD MILLS DYEHOUSPA0008231 17,543 17,495 16,662 10,414 6,248

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE GREATER HAZELTON PA0026921 211,384 210,807 162,785 101,741 61,044

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE GREGG TOWNSHIP PA0114821 12,604 16,195 16,195 10,122 6,073

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP PA0028746 54,008 31,565 31,565 19,728 11,837

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP PA0080314 54,524 57,310 49,035 30,647 18,388

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE HANOVER BOROUGH PA0026875 255,711 277,726 93,616 58,510 35,106

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE HARRISBURG SEWERAPA0027197 1,565,597 639,300 639,300 399,563 239,738

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE HEINZ PET FOODS PA0009270 66,088 65,907 7,234 7,234 4,739

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE HIGHSPIRE PA0024040 47,583 47,788 25,534 15,959 9,575

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE HOLLIDAYSBURG REGPA0043273 60,176 61,818 72,489 45,306 27,183

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE HOUTZDALE BOROUG PA0046159 2,557 2,960 2,960 1,850 1,110

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE HUNTINGDON BOROU PA0026191 70,434 71,939 51,989 32,493 19,496

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE JERSEY SHORE BOROPA0028665 44,325 46,038 17,476 10,922 6,553

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE KELLY TOWNSHIP MUNPA0028681 11,527 44,367 44,367 27,729 16,637

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE LACKAWANNA RIVER BPA0027081 21,300 11,984 11,984 7,490 4,494

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE LACKAWANNA RIVER BPA0027090 205,831 205,268 124,831 78,019 46,812

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE LACKAWANNA RIVER BPA0027073 29,313 29,232 8,322 5,202 3,121

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE LACKAWANNA RIVER BPA0027065 68,252 68,066 59,620 37,262 22,357

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE LANCASTER AREA SEWPA0042269 281,766 189,652 189,652 118,532 71,119

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE LANCASTER CITY PA0026743 531,348 504,692 504,692 315,432 189,259

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE LEBANON CITY AUTHOPA0027316 551,304 564,084 134,093 83,808 50,285

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE LEMOYNE BOROUGH MPA0026441 115,152 115,650 40,446 25,279 15,167

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE LEWISBURG AREA JOIPA0044661 83,950 29,180 29,180 18,238 10,943

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE LEWISTOWN BOROUGPA0026280 77,838 80,788 46,165 28,853 17,312

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE LITITZ SEWAGE AUTHOPA0020320 194,758 211,872 73,694 46,059 27,635

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE LOCK HAVEN PA0025933 110,987 53,127 53,127 33,204 19,923

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE LOGAN TOWNSHIP-GRPA0032557 16,952 8,916 8,916 5,573 3,344

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE LOWER ALLEN TOWNSPA0027189 134,376 141,241 82,930 51,831 31,099

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE LOWER LACKAWANNAPA0026361 187,419 186,907 85,269 53,293 31,976

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE LYKENS BOROUGH PA0043575 8,114 8,149 5,889 3,681 2,208

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE MAHANOY CITY PA0070041 14,164 13,928 13,928 8,705 5,223

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE MANHEIM BOROUGH APA0020893 19,614 21,337 19,354 12,096 7,258

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE MANSFIELD BOROUGHPA0021814 17,740 18,413 14,029 8,768 5,261

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE MARIETTA-DONEGAL JPA0021717 13,979 15,207 10,990 6,869 4,121

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE MARTINSBURG PA0028347 13,413 13,779 9,958 6,224 3,734

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE MARYSVILLE MUNICIP PA0021571 34,158 37,217 26,896 16,810 10,086

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE MECHANICSBURG BORPA0020885 60,790 63,896 20,195 12,622 7,573

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE MERCK & COMPANY PA0008419 178,739 178,250 178,250 178,250 115,998

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE MIDDLETOWN PA0020664 72,184 72,496 28,883 18,052 10,831

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE MIFFLINBURG BOROU PA0028461 12,460 17,091 17,091 10,682 6,409

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE MILLERSBURG BOROUPA0022535 23,472 23,573 17,036 10,647 6,388

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE MILLERSVILLE BOROUPA0026620 3,378 3,675 16,799 10,499 6,299

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE MILTON MUNICIPAL AUPA0020273 30,410 30,327 41,725 26,078 15,647

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE MONTGOMERY BOROUPA0020699 49,016 50,910 12,590 7,869 4,721

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE MOSHANNON VALLEY PA0037966 57,735 61,081 34,726 21,703 13,022

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN_DISCH 74 CBPO, 11/22/2002
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE MOUNT JOY PA0021067 46,949 51,074 18,200 11,375 6,825

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE MOUNT UNION BOROUPA0020214 11,156 11,395 8,235 5,147 3,088

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE MOUNTAINTOP AREA PA0045985 73,672 66,933 66,933 41,833 25,100

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE MT. CARMEL MUNICIPAPA0024406 66,128 65,947 23,043 14,402 8,641

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE MT. HOLLY SPRINGS BPA0023183 16,524 17,368 9,313 5,821 3,492

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE MUNCY BOROUGH MUPA0024325 15,683 16,289 15,602 9,751 5,851

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE NATIONAL GYPSUM COPA0008591 2,774 2,766 2,766 2,766 2,766

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE NEW CUMBERLAND BOPA0026654 16,550 16,621 12,012 7,507 4,504

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE NEW FREEDOM WTP PA0043257 65,363 68,617 28,007 17,504 10,503

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE NEW HOLLAND BOROUPA0021890 89,240 97,082 26,874 16,796 10,078

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE NEW OXFORD MUNICI PA0020923 39,127 30,219 30,219 18,887 11,332

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE NEWBERRY TOWNSHI PA0083011 25,277 25,386 10,076 6,298 3,779

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE NORTHEASTERN YOR PA0023744 20,748 21,781 15,741 9,838 5,903

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE NORTHUMBERLAND B PA0020567 26,234 26,162 10,975 6,860 4,116

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE OSRAM SYLVANIA PROPA0009024 364,440 363,444 290,822 254,469 9,914

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE P-H GLATFELTER COMPA0008869 420,958 419,808 303,384 189,615 113,769

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE PALMYRA BOROUGH APA0024287 68,723 70,316 19,867 12,417 7,450

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE PENN TOWNSHIP PA0037150 45,082 47,327 40,537 25,335 15,201

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE PENNSYLVANIA FISH &PA0040835 20,131 20,076 20,076 20,076 20,076

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE PENNSYLVANIA FISH &PA0010553 119,459 119,132 119,132 91,359 54,816

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE PENNSYLVANIA FISH &PA0010561 63,264 63,091 63,091 63,091 44,535

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE PENNSYLVANIA FISH &PA0112127 3,970 3,959 3,959 3,959 3,959

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE PENNSYLVANIA FISH &PA0044032 629 627 627 627 627

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE PINE CREEK MUNICIPAPA0027553 34,071 34,962 15,626 9,766 5,860

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE PINE GROVE BOROUGPA0020915 26,040 25,969 10,969 6,856 4,113

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE POPE & TALBOT WIS INPA0007919 34,620 34,525 34,525 25,164 15,098

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE PORTER TOWER JOIN PA0046272 13,210 13,705 13,705 8,566 5,139

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE PROCTOR & GAMBLE PA0008885 262,222 261,505 119,001 74,376 44,625

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE ROARING SPRING BORPA0020249 11,330 16,597 16,597 10,373 6,224

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE SAYRE PA0043681 31,705 31,619 15,949 9,968 5,981

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE SCRANTON SEWER AUPA0026492 739,403 320,456 320,456 200,285 120,171

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE SHAMOKIN-COAL TOWPA0027324 274,373 273,623 86,658 54,161 32,497

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE SHENANDOAH MUNICIPA0070386 27,606 27,531 28,980 18,112 10,867

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE SHIPPENSBURG BOROPA0030643 97,062 100,617 55,628 34,767 20,860

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE SILVER SPRING TOWNPA0083593 2,695 2,833 3,826 2,391 1,435

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE SOUTH MIDDLETON TOPA0044113 14,497 15,237 11,012 6,882 4,129

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE SPRINGETTSBURY TOPA0026808 299,326 275,067 275,067 171,917 103,150

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE ST. JOHNS PA0046388 5,746 7,797 7,797 4,873 2,924

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE STEWARTSTOWN BORPA0036269 8,654 9,085 6,623 4,139 2,484

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE SUNBURY CITY MUNICPA0026557 107,663 73,446 73,446 45,904 27,542

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE SWATARA TOWNSHIP PA0026735 190,910 81,310 81,310 50,819 30,491

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE TOWANDA MUNICIPALPA0034576 17,722 16,658 16,658 10,411 6,247

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE TRI-BORO MUNICIPAL PA0023736 8,512 8,827 6,916 4,323 2,594

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE TWIN BOROUGHS SANPA0023264 11,156 11,637 8,409 5,256 3,154

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE TYRONE BOROUGH SEPA0026727 84,453 155,904 155,904 97,440 58,464

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE TYSON FOODS PA0035092 41,991 41,876 41,876 37,193 5,025

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE UNIVERSITY AREA JOIPA0026239 236,457 123,537 123,537 77,210 46,326

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE UPPER ALLEN TOWNSPA0024902 17,778 18,686 13,504 8,440 5,064

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE USFW-LAMAR NATION PA0009857 3,359 3,350 3,350 3,350 3,350

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE WELLSBORO MUNICIPPA0021687 68,957 71,570 28,784 17,990 10,794

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN_DISCH 75 CBPO, 11/22/2002
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE WESTERN CLINTON COPA0043893 2,703 8,599 8,599 5,375 3,225

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE WHITE DEER TOWNSHPA0020800 15,943 16,894 6,645 4,153 2,492

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE WILLIAMSPORT SANIT PA0027057 464,040 178,235 178,235 111,397 66,838

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE WILLIAMSPORT SANIT PA0027049 414,413 64,971 64,971 40,607 24,364

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE WYOMING VALLEY PA0026107 379,587 581,266 581,266 363,291 217,975

SUSQUEHANNA RIVE YORK CITY PA0026263 445,316 290,627 290,627 181,642 108,985

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER Total 18,406,790 14,667,032 10,009,752 6,486,420 3,767,236

MD EASTERN SHOREBRIDGEVILLE DE0020249 12,109 5,404 5,404 3,377 2,026

MD EASTERN SHOREDUPONT-SEAFORD DE0000035 234,995 234,353 234,353 234,353 234,353

MD EASTERN SHORELAUREL DE0020125 19,340 21,558 7,727 4,829 2,898

MD EASTERN SHORESEAFORD DE0020265 21,043 31,088 31,088 19,430 11,658

MD EASTERN SHOREALLEN FAMILY FOODSMD0067857 410 409 409 409 303

MD EASTERN SHOREBENJAMINS TRAILER PMD0024961 943 1,041 1,041 1,041 463

MD EASTERN SHOREBETTERTON MD0020575 1,137 1,163 1,163 1,163 517

MD EASTERN SHOREBOHEMIA MANOR HIG MD0023469 35 39 39 39 163

MD EASTERN SHOREBUDGET MOTEL MD0023027 104 115 115 115 51

MD EASTERN SHORECAMBRIDGE MD0021636 112,051 124,494 124,494 77,809 46,685

MD EASTERN SHORECECILTON MD0020443 2,061 2,276 2,276 2,276 1,012

MD EASTERN SHORECENTREVILLE MD0020834 12,685 8,587 8,587 5,367 3,220

MD EASTERN SHORECHERRY HILL MD0052825 6,586 7,274 7,274 7,274 3,233

MD EASTERN SHORECHESAPEAKE CITY NOMD0020401 2,150 2,375 2,375 2,375 2,326

MD EASTERN SHORECHESAPEAKE CITY SOMD0020397 2,109 2,329 2,329 2,329 1,822

MD EASTERN SHORECHESAPEAKE COLLEGMD0024384 752 858 858 858 381

MD EASTERN SHORECHESTERTOWN MD0020010 17,978 15,916 15,916 9,948 5,969

MD EASTERN SHORECHURCH HILL MD0050016 1,345 1,535 1,535 1,535 1,779

MD EASTERN SHORECOLONEL RICHARDSOMD0055522 324 347 347 347 154

MD EASTERN SHORECRISFIELD MD0020001 27,044 16,547 16,547 10,342 6,205

MD EASTERN SHOREDELMAR MD0020532 24,745 14,068 14,068 8,793 5,276

MD EASTERN SHOREDENTON MD0020494 12,134 9,952 9,952 6,220 3,732

MD EASTERN SHOREDONALDSON BROWN MD0054950 110 121 121 121 54

MD EASTERN SHOREEASTERN CORRECTIOMD0023876 759 866 866 866 385

MD EASTERN SHOREEASTERN CORRECTIOMD0066613 2,459 2,592 2,592 2,592 10,134

MD EASTERN SHOREEASTON MD0020273 52,633 46,973 46,973 29,358 17,615

MD EASTERN SHOREELK NECK STATE PAR MD0023833 1,315 1,452 1,452 1,452 675

MD EASTERN SHOREELKTON MD0020681 82,662 42,125 42,125 26,328 15,797

MD EASTERN SHOREENGLISH GRILL MD0053104 21 22 22 22 10

MD EASTERN SHOREEWELL MD0052230 1,162 1,225 1,225 1,225 545

MD EASTERN SHOREFAIRMOUNT MD0052256 1,608 1,695 1,695 1,695 753

MD EASTERN SHOREFEDERALSBURG MD0020249 18,117 8,020 8,020 5,013 3,008

MD EASTERN SHOREFOREST GREEN MD0053279 498 551 551 551 245

MD EASTERN SHOREFRUITLAND MD0052990 25,812 12,612 12,612 7,883 4,730

MD EASTERN SHOREGALENA MD0020605 2,084 2,132 2,132 2,132 650

MD EASTERN SHOREGREAT OAKS LANDINGMD0024945 308 315 315 315 140

MD EASTERN SHOREGREENSBORO MD0020290 10,135 10,866 10,866 10,866 4,136

MD EASTERN SHOREHARBOUR VIEW MD0024023 384 425 425 425 189

MD EASTERN SHOREHEBRON MD0059617 6,552 7,203 7,203 7,203 3,201

MD EASTERN SHOREHURLOCK MD0022730 42,327 25,863 25,863 16,164 9,699

MD EASTERN SHOREKENNEDYVILLE MD0052671 243 249 249 249 111

MD EASTERN SHOREKENT ISLAND MD0023485 87,899 39,970 39,970 24,981 14,989

MD EASTERN SHOREMANCHESTER PARK MD0023108 1,259 1,390 1,390 1,390 664

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN_DISCH 76 CBPO, 11/22/2002
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

MD EASTERN SHOREMAPLE HILL PARK MD0053171 301 333 333 333 148

MD EASTERN SHOREMARDELA HIGH MD0024279 64 70 70 70 59

MD EASTERN SHOREMILLINGTON MD0020435 3,114 3,187 3,187 3,187 1,416

MD EASTERN SHOREMORNING CHEER MD0052299 1,000 1,104 1,104 1,104 491

MD EASTERN SHORENORTH CAROLINE HIGMD0023621 119 128 128 128 57

MD EASTERN SHORENORTHEAST RIVER MD0052027 23,023 15,304 15,304 9,565 5,739

MD EASTERN SHOREOXFORD MD0022543 5,625 5,945 5,945 5,945 2,642

MD EASTERN SHOREPITTSVILLE MD0060348 3,601 3,959 3,959 3,959 2,147

MD EASTERN SHOREPOCOMOKE CITY MD0022551 24,854 23,435 23,435 14,647 8,788

MD EASTERN SHOREPOCOMOKE TRUCK STMD0054330 118 131 131 131 57

MD EASTERN SHOREPORT DEPOSIT MD0020796 7,460 8,239 8,239 8,239 3,662

MD EASTERN SHOREPRESTON MD0020621 3,068 3,290 3,290 3,290 1,462

MD EASTERN SHOREPRINCESS ANNE MD0020656 20,092 15,100 15,100 9,437 5,662

MD EASTERN SHOREQUEENSTOWN MD0023370 3,266 3,727 3,727 3,727 1,919

MD EASTERN SHORERISING SUN MD0020265 12,670 13,994 13,994 13,994 6,219

MD EASTERN SHOREROCK HALL MD0020303 11,933 12,213 12,213 12,213 6,596

MD EASTERN SHORESALISBURY MD0021571 332,099 143,631 143,631 89,769 53,862

MD EASTERN SHORESHARPTOWN MD0052175 8,691 9,555 9,555 9,555 2,940

MD EASTERN SHORESNOW HILL MD0022764 21,632 11,331 11,331 7,082 4,249

MD EASTERN SHORESPRING MEADOWS MD0024953 537 583 583 583 259

MD EASTERN SHORESUDLERSVILLE MD0020559 2,388 2,725 2,725 2,725 1,211

MD EASTERN SHORETALBOT COUNTY REG MD0023604 15,766 16,664 16,664 16,664 9,265

MD EASTERN SHORETALBOT COUNTY REG MD0059463 3,980 4,207 4,207 4,207 1,870

MD EASTERN SHORETAWES VOCATIONAL-TMD0022993 11,862 12,505 12,505 12,505 4,211

MD EASTERN SHORETOLCHESTER MD0067202 4,827 4,940 4,940 4,940 2,196

MD EASTERN SHORETRAPPE MD0020486 7,053 7,455 7,455 7,455 3,313

MD EASTERN SHORETRIUMPH INDUSTRIAL MD0024929 1,902 2,101 2,101 2,101 934

MD EASTERN SHORETWIN CITIES MD0055352 6,313 6,479 6,479 6,479 2,880

MD EASTERN SHORETYLERTON MD0052248 266 280 280 280 124

MD EASTERN SHOREU.S. ARMY-CHESAPEAMD0020206 14 16 16 16 7

MD EASTERN SHOREVIENNA MD0020664 3,216 3,300 3,300 3,300 1,369

MD EASTERN SHOREWALKERS TRAILER PAMD0057487 896 961 961 961 345

MD EASTERN SHOREWILLARDS MD0051632 4,087 4,493 4,493 4,493 1,997

MD EASTERN SHOREWOODLAWN MOBILE HMD0023337 0

MD EASTERN SHOREWORTON-BUTLERTONMD0060585 3,372 3,451 3,451 3,451 1,534

MD EASTERN SHORE Total 1,399,635 1,053,234 1,039,402 807,596 561,581

MD WESTERN SHOREABERDEEN MD0021563 28,612 42,018 42,018 26,261 15,757

MD WESTERN SHOREABERDEEN PROVING MD0021237 55,125 22,278 22,278 13,924 8,354

MD WESTERN SHOREABERDEEN PROVING MD0021229 22,292 23,400 23,400 14,625 8,775

MD WESTERN SHOREANNAPOLIS MD0021814 165,551 183,701 183,701 114,813 68,888

MD WESTERN SHOREBACK RIVER MD0021555 2,470,828 2,671,787 2,137,429 1,335,893 801,536

MD WESTERN SHOREBALTIMORE YACHT CLMD0054542 104 106 106 106 47

MD WESTERN SHOREBETHLEHEM STEEL COMD0001201 1,685,321 1,680,716 1,680,716 1,680,716 806,277

MD WESTERN SHOREBOWLEYS QUARTERS MD0058807 362 368 368 368 164

MD WESTERN SHOREBROADNECK MD0021644 68,510 127,415 127,415 79,634 47,781

MD WESTERN SHOREBROADWATER MD0024350 15,371 30,890 30,890 19,307 11,584

MD WESTERN SHORECHEMETALS MD0001775 460,274 87,006 87,006 87,006 1,170

MD WESTERN SHORECHESAPEAKE BAY INSMD0022985

MD WESTERN SHORECHESAPEAKE BEACH MD0020281 8,950 19,690 19,690 12,306 7,384

MD WESTERN SHORECONGOLEUM MD0001384 5,301 5,286 5,286 4,005 2,403

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN_DISCH 77 CBPO, 11/22/2002
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

MD WESTERN SHORECOX CREEK MD0021661 627,021 299,577 299,577 187,235 112,341

MD WESTERN SHOREDREAMS LANDING MD0052868 387 411 411 411 205

MD WESTERN SHOREFREEDOM DISTRICT MD0021512 65,579 69,535 69,535 43,460 26,076

MD WESTERN SHOREGAITHER MANOR MD0022845 181 213 213 213 551

MD WESTERN SHOREHAMPSTEAD MD0022446 35,572 41,842 41,842 41,842 16,631

MD WESTERN SHOREHAVRE DE GRACE MD0021750 48,125 34,020 34,020 21,262 12,757

MD WESTERN SHOREHOLIDAY MOBILE ESTAMD0053082 2,252 2,391 2,391 2,391 2,609

MD WESTERN SHOREJOPPATOWNE MD0022535 15,465 20,913 20,913 13,071 7,842

MD WESTERN SHOREMANCHESTER MD0022578 4,422 5,201 5,201 5,201 1,987

MD WESTERN SHOREMAYO LARGE COMMU MD0061794 13,509 14,341 14,341 14,341 13,464

MD WESTERN SHOREMOUNT AIRY MD0022527 8,883 16,025 16,025 10,016 6,010

MD WESTERN SHORENOTCHCLIFF MD0022951 2,044 2,083 2,083 2,083 926

MD WESTERN SHOREPATAPSCO MD0021601 2,388,559 1,778,607 1,778,607 1,111,629 666,978

MD WESTERN SHOREPHEASANT RIDGE MD0024546 839 987 987 987 609

MD WESTERN SHORERANDLE CLIFFS NAVA MD0020168 751 949 949 949 422

MD WESTERN SHORERICHLYN MANOR MD0022713 3,536 3,604 3,604 3,604 2,147

MD WESTERN SHORERIVERBOAT MOTEL MD0051535

MD WESTERN SHOREROSE HAVEN MD0022756 2,873 3,051 3,051 3,051 1,185

MD WESTERN SHORESOD RUN MD0056545 391,952 306,828 306,828 191,768 115,061

MD WESTERN SHORESOUTH CARROLL HIGHMD0024589 299 352 352 352 157

MD WESTERN SHOREST TIMOTHY SCHOOL MD0056103 299 305 305 305 135

MD WESTERN SHORESUMMER HILL TRAILERMD0023272 451 479 479 479 276

MD WESTERN SHORESWAN HARBOR PARK MD0023043 619 672 672 672 299

MD WESTERN SHOREUNITED CONTAINER MD0024635 426 434 434 434 185

MD WESTERN SHOREUS GYPSUM CO MD0001457

MD WESTERN SHOREUS NAVAL ACADEMY MD0023523 3,917 4,591 4,591 4,591 4,591

MD WESTERN SHOREVILLA JULIE COLLEGE MD0066001 83 84 84 84 170

MD WESTERN SHOREW R GRACE MD0000311 595,770 310,737 310,737 310,737 37,140

MD WESTERN SHOREWOODSTOCK TRAININMD0023906 468 477 477 477 212

MD WESTERN SHORE Total 9,200,882 7,813,372 7,279,015 5,360,611 2,811,084

PATUXENT RIVER BOONES MOBILE MD0050903 3,367 3,574 3,574 3,574 1,588

PATUXENT RIVER BOWIE MD0021628 44,442 50,835 50,835 31,772 19,063

PATUXENT RIVER DORSEY RUN MD0063207 16,490 35,731 35,731 22,332 13,399

PATUXENT RIVER EDGEMEADE RESIDENMD0052680 162 178 178 178 53

PATUXENT RIVER EMERGENCY MANAGEMD0025666 10 11 11 11 4

PATUXENT RIVER FORT MEADE MD0021717 10,331 52,924 52,924 33,077 19,846

PATUXENT RIVER HARWOOD SOUTHERNMD0023728 114 121 121 121 145

PATUXENT RIVER LITTLE PATUXENT MD0055174 366,461 502,683 502,683 314,177 188,506

PATUXENT RIVER LYONS CREEK MOBILEMD0053511 2,107 2,236 2,236 2,236 1,752

PATUXENT RIVER MARLBORO MEADOWSMD0022781 11,654 12,742 12,742 12,742 7,902

PATUXENT RIVER MARYLAND CITY MD0062596 20,306 25,934 25,934 16,209 9,725

PATUXENT RIVER MARYLAND MANOR MOMD0024333 2,102 2,231 2,231 2,231 1,623

PATUXENT RIVER MD & VA MILK PRODUCMD0000469 17,636 17,588 8,689 5,431 3,258

PATUXENT RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE V MD0065358 68 75 75 75 33

PATUXENT RIVER NORTHERN HIGH SCH MD0052167 686 868 868 868 386

PATUXENT RIVER PARKWAY MD0021725 63,213 151,060 151,060 94,412 56,647

PATUXENT RIVER PARKWAY INN MD0052329 656 696 696 696 592

PATUXENT RIVER PATUXENT MD0021652 33,265 118,047 118,047 73,780 44,268

PATUXENT RIVER PATUXENT MOBILE MD0024694 1,121 1,191 1,191 1,191 631

PATUXENT RIVER PATUXENT WILDLIFE HMD0025623 137 149 149 149 508

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN_DISCH 78 CBPO, 11/22/2002
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

PATUXENT RIVER PINE HILL RUN MD0021679 84,780 94,832 94,832 59,270 35,562

PATUXENT RIVER PINEY ORCHARD MD0059145 3,979 4,224 4,224 4,224 8,833

PATUXENT RIVER POINT LOOKOUT STATMD0023949 902 1,020 1,020 1,020 453

PATUXENT RIVER USAF BRANDYWINE H MD0025640 72 79 79 79 33

PATUXENT RIVER USAF TRANSMITTER SMD0025631 0

PATUXENT RIVER WAYSONS MOBILE MD0023647 2,509 2,663 2,663 2,663 1,112

PATUXENT RIVER WESTERN BRANCH MD0021741 418,909 560,383 560,383 350,239 210,144

PATUXENT RIVER Total 1,105,479 1,642,075 1,633,176 1,032,757 626,068

POTOMAC RIVER BLUE PLAINS DC0021199 8,749,992 7,805,237 7,805,237 5,203,492 3,122,095

POTOMAC RIVER WASHINGTON, D.C. C DC-CSO 163,152 162,706 162,706 162,706 0

POTOMAC RIVER ANTIETAM MD0062308 5,709 5,997 5,997 5,997 2,665

POTOMAC RIVER BALLENGER CREEK MD0021822 81,659 100,388 100,388 62,743 37,646

POTOMAC RIVER BELTSVILLE USDA EASMD0020842 7,555 5,745 5,745 5,745 5,745

POTOMAC RIVER BELTSVILLE USDA WE MD0020851 4,053 4,431 4,431 4,431 3,030

POTOMAC RIVER BIERS LANE MD0065749 166 166 166 166 74

POTOMAC RIVER BLOOMINGTON MD0060933 1,421 1,498 1,498 1,498 666

POTOMAC RIVER BOONSBORO MD0020231 21,055 22,115 22,115 22,115 9,829

POTOMAC RIVER BOWLING BROOK PREMD0067571 10 12 12 12 143

POTOMAC RIVER BRANDYWINE RECEIV MD0025658 18 20 20 20 29

POTOMAC RIVER BRETTON WOODS MD0064777 484 534 534 534 237

POTOMAC RIVER BROADFORDING MD0051373 59 62 62 62 27

POTOMAC RIVER BROOK LANE MD0053198 293 308 308 308 137

POTOMAC RIVER BRUNSWICK MD0020958 34,935 18,562 18,562 11,602 6,961

POTOMAC RIVER CELANESE MD0063878 18,422 24,754 24,754 15,471 9,283

POTOMAC RIVER CHARLES COUNTY COMD0052311 2,714 3,134 3,134 3,134 886

POTOMAC RIVER CHELTENHAM BOYS VMD0023931 1,086 1,187 1,187 1,187 902

POTOMAC RIVER CHOPTICAN HIGH MD0051918 270 305 305 305 136

POTOMAC RIVER CLEARSPRING MD0053325 4,140 4,348 4,348 4,348 1,933

POTOMAC RIVER CLIFFTON ON THE POTMD0055557 2,438 2,815 2,815 2,815 1,251

POTOMAC RIVER CONCORD TRAILER PAMD0023060 144 173 173 173 112

POTOMAC RIVER CONOCOCHEAGUE MD0063509 21,512 29,063 29,063 18,164 10,899

POTOMAC RIVER CRESTVIEW MD0022683 1,333 1,594 1,594 1,594 935

POTOMAC RIVER CUMBERLAND MD0021598 355,300 233,824 233,824 146,140 87,684

POTOMAC RIVER DAMASCUS MD0020982 19,999 20,953 20,953 13,096 7,858

POTOMAC RIVER DAN-DEE INC. MD0023710 110 131 131 131 58

POTOMAC RIVER EMMITSBURG MD0020257 7,575 14,086 14,086 8,804 5,282

POTOMAC RIVER FAHRNEY-KEEDY MEMMD0053066 991 1,041 1,041 1,041 462

POTOMAC RIVER FLINTSTONE MD0055620 2,955 2,966 2,966 2,966 1,430

POTOMAC RIVER FORT DETRICK MD0020877 22,788 27,002 27,002 16,876 10,126

POTOMAC RIVER FOUNTAINDALE MD0022721 12,663 15,139 15,139 15,139 6,160

POTOMAC RIVER FOXVILLE US NAVAL SMD0025119 1,333 1,594 1,594 1,594 708

POTOMAC RIVER FREDERICK MD0021610 485,460 189,096 189,096 118,185 70,911

POTOMAC RIVER FUNKSTOWN MD0020362 7,552 7,932 7,932 7,932 1,566

POTOMAC RIVER GARDEN STATE TANN MD0053431 145,063 144,667 70,334 28,134 3,853

POTOMAC RIVER GEORGES CREEK MD0060071 36,525 16,293 16,293 10,183 6,110

POTOMAC RIVER GORMAN MD0060950 246 260 260 260 115

POTOMAC RIVER GREEN RIDGE FORES MD0024988 174 174 174 174 77

POTOMAC RIVER GREENBRIAR STATE PMD0023868 795 835 835 835 371

POTOMAC RIVER HAGERSTOWN MD0021776 265,734 206,287 206,287 128,930 77,358

POTOMAC RIVER HANCOCK MD0024562 13,441 14,118 14,118 14,118 5,456

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN_DISCH 79 CBPO, 11/22/2002
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

POTOMAC RIVER HAPPY TRAILS CAMPGMD0065757 33 35 35 35 86

POTOMAC RIVER HIGHLAND VIEW MD0024627 489 513 513 513 228

POTOMAC RIVER HUNTER HILL APARTMMD0022926 1,518 1,595 1,595 1,595 709

POTOMAC RIVER I-70 REST AREA MD0023680 2,336 2,792 2,792 2,792 834

POTOMAC RIVER INDIAN HEAD MD0020052 13,639 8,587 8,587 5,367 3,220

POTOMAC RIVER JEFFERSON MD0020737 203 243 243 243 4,275

POTOMAC RIVER JUDE HOUSE MD0057614 0

POTOMAC RIVER KEMPTOWN SCHOOL MD0056481 402 480 480 480 132

POTOMAC RIVER KITZMILLER MD0060941 911 961 961 961 427

POTOMAC RIVER KUNZANG ODSAL PAL MD0067539 41 46 46 46 20

POTOMAC RIVER LA PLATA MD0020524 16,705 20,084 20,084 12,553 7,532

POTOMAC RIVER LACKEY HIGH MD0023159 504 582 582 582 259

POTOMAC RIVER LAFAYETTE MOTEL MD0053201 59 69 69 69 31

POTOMAC RIVER LEONARDTOWN MD0024767 18,598 11,730 11,730 7,332 4,399

POTOMAC RIVER LEWISTOWN ELEMENTMD0022900 137 163 163 163 73

POTOMAC RIVER LIBERTYTOWN MD0060577 1,640 1,961 1,961 1,961 731

POTOMAC RIVER LUPPINO RESIDENCE MD0063070

POTOMAC RIVER MAPLE RUN MD0024970 21 21 21 21 76

POTOMAC RIVER MARYLAND CORRECT MD0023957 6,931 22,990 22,990 14,369 8,621

POTOMAC RIVER MATTAWOMAN MD0021865 320,637 199,109 199,109 124,443 74,666

POTOMAC RIVER METTIKI COAL D MD0064149

POTOMAC RIVER MIDDLETOWN MD0024406 17,345 20,737 20,737 20,737 6,376

POTOMAC RIVER MILL BOTTOM MD0065439 296 354 354 354 1,285

POTOMAC RIVER MONROVIA WWTP MD0059609 306 366 366 366 788

POTOMAC RIVER MT CARMEL WOODS MD0053228 771 890 890 890 510

POTOMAC RIVER MT ST MARYS COLLEGMD0023230 3,443 4,116 4,116 4,116 1,292

POTOMAC RIVER MYERSVILLE MD0020699 9,461 11,311 11,311 11,311 4,552

POTOMAC RIVER NAS-PATUXENT MD0020095 1,646 827 827 827 827

POTOMAC RIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE MD0020931 2,822 3,111 3,111 3,111 1,383

POTOMAC RIVER NEW GERMANY STATEMD0023981 73 77 77 77 34

POTOMAC RIVER NEW LIFE FOURSQUA MD0057100 89 107 107 107 47

POTOMAC RIVER NEW MARKET MD0020729 7,200 8,608 8,608 8,608 2,943

POTOMAC RIVER NEW WINDSOR MD0022586 2,051 2,412 2,412 2,412 1,281

POTOMAC RIVER NORBECK COUNTRY CMD0024309

POTOMAC RIVER NORTH INDIAN HEAD EMD0024601

POTOMAC RIVER NSWC-INDIAN HEAD MD0003158 1,782 1,777 1,777 1,777 1,777

POTOMAC RIVER NSWC-INDIAN HEAD MD0020885 6,730 7,772 7,772 7,772 8,456

POTOMAC RIVER OLD SOUTH MOUNTAI MD0055425 114 137 137 137 61

POTOMAC RIVER OLDTOWN MD0024759 571 573 573 573 255

POTOMAC RIVER PETER PAN INN MD0024244 37 44 44 44 85

POTOMAC RIVER PICCOWAXIN MIDDLE MD0023451 127 147 147 147 65

POTOMAC RIVER PINTO MD0022748 8,131 8,161 8,161 8,161 6,569

POTOMAC RIVER PISCATAWAY MD0021539 669,955 616,421 616,421 385,263 231,158

POTOMAC RIVER PLEASANT BRANCH MD0065269 1,033 1,234 1,234 1,234 1,244

POTOMAC RIVER PLESANT VALLEY MD0066745 435 512 512 512 228

POTOMAC RIVER POINT OF ROCKS MD0020800 4,439 5,307 5,307 5,307 2,408

POTOMAC RIVER POOLESVILLE MD0023001 16,660 16,175 16,175 10,109 6,066

POTOMAC RIVER RAWLINGS HEIGHTS MD0023213 4,255 4,271 4,271 4,271 2,330

POTOMAC RIVER ROCKY GAP STATE PAMD0051667 1,019 1,023 1,023 1,023 1,263

POTOMAC RIVER RUNNYMEADE SCHOOMD0065927 146 172 172 172 77

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN_DISCH 80 CBPO, 11/22/2002
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

POTOMAC RIVER SANDY HOOK MD0064530 339 356 356 356 158

POTOMAC RIVER SENECA CREEK MD0021491 268,698 458,052 458,052 286,283 171,770

POTOMAC RIVER SHAMROCK RESTAUR MD0058050 14 17 17 17 70

POTOMAC RIVER SHEPPARD PRATT WEMD0067521 160 191 191 191 85

POTOMAC RIVER SIDELING HILL REST AMD0062821 429 450 450 450 171

POTOMAC RIVER SMITHSBURG MD0024317 4,862 5,107 5,107 5,107 5,411

POTOMAC RIVER SOUTHERN CORRECT MD0023914 1,872 2,162 2,162 2,162 849

POTOMAC RIVER SPRING MILLS WV1031613

POTOMAC RIVER SPRINGVIEW ESTATESMD0022870 361 432 432 432 164

POTOMAC RIVER ST. JAMES SCHOOL MD0065536 361 379 379 379 168

POTOMAC RIVER SWAN POINT MD0057525 1,741 2,010 2,010 2,010 893

POTOMAC RIVER TANEYTOWN MD0020672 15,929 22,186 22,186 13,866 8,320

POTOMAC RIVER THUNDERBIRD APARTMD0050334 1,136 1,311 1,311 1,311 324

POTOMAC RIVER THUNDERBIRD MOTELMD0053155 220 254 254 254 113

POTOMAC RIVER THURMONT MD0021121 9,722 24,449 24,449 15,281 9,168

POTOMAC RIVER TRI-TOWN PLAZA MD0024937 737 740 740 740 329

POTOMAC RIVER UNION BRIDGE MD0022454 7,500 8,823 8,823 8,823 2,514

POTOMAC RIVER UPPER POTOMAC RIV MD0021687 79,436 79,219 79,219 79,219 79,219

POTOMAC RIVER URBANA HIGH SCHOOMD0066940 133 159 159 159 71

POTOMAC RIVER VICTOR CULLEN CENTMD0023922 1,132 1,353 1,353 1,353 1,013

POTOMAC RIVER WESTMINSTER MD0021831 70,103 104,838 104,838 65,524 39,314

POTOMAC RIVER WESTVACO CORPORAMD0001422 12,768 12,733 12,733 12,733 12,733

POTOMAC RIVER WHITE HOUSE MOTEL MD0056553 75 86 86 86 38

POTOMAC RIVER WHITE ROCK MD0025089 542 647 647 647 416

POTOMAC RIVER WINEBRENNER WWTPMD0003221 12,029 5,378 5,378 3,361 2,017

POTOMAC RIVER WINTERS APARTMENTMD0057606 12 13 13 13 6

POTOMAC RIVER WOODSBORO MD0058661 6,259 7,482 7,482 7,482 2,973

POTOMAC RIVER ANTRIM TOWNSHIP PA0080519 21,731 12,076 12,076 7,548 4,529

POTOMAC RIVER CHAMBERSBURG BORPA0026051 130,817 116,352 116,352 72,720 43,632

POTOMAC RIVER FRANKLIN COUNTY AUPA0020834 3,321 3,442 26,352 16,470 9,882

POTOMAC RIVER GETTYSBURG MUNICI PA0021563 23,181 39,416 39,416 24,635 14,781

POTOMAC RIVER HYNDMAN BOROUGH PA0020851 2,714 2,817 2,028 1,268 761

POTOMAC RIVER LITTLESTOWN BOROUPA0021229 17,803 19,336 12,365 7,728 4,637

POTOMAC RIVER WASHINGTON TOWNSPA0080225 21,323 22,700 22,700 14,188 8,513

POTOMAC RIVER WAYNESBORO BOROUPA0020621 13,403 13,894 21,176 13,235 7,941

POTOMAC RIVER ALEXANDRIA VA0025160 2,721,661 924,460 924,460 577,788 346,673

POTOMAC RIVER AQUIA VA0060968 47,259 128,888 128,888 80,555 48,333

POTOMAC RIVER ARLINGTON VA0025143 920,587 859,822 859,822 537,389 322,433

POTOMAC RIVER BROAD RUN WRF

_

R 58,475 58,475 36,547 21,928

POTOMAC RIVER CHICKEN GEORGES VA0077402 513,909 36,910 36,910 36,910 11,073

POTOMAC RIVER COLONIAL BEACH VA0026409 32,298 20,617 20,617 12,886 7,731

POTOMAC RIVER DAHLGREN (DAHLGREVA0026514 5,596 6,317 7,410 4,631 2,779

POTOMAC RIVER DALE CITY #1 VA0024724 72,361 74,585 74,585 46,616 27,969

POTOMAC RIVER DALE CITY #8 VA0024678 86,966 69,368 69,368 43,355 26,013

POTOMAC RIVER DUPONT-WAYNESBORVA0002160 29,128 29,048 29,048 29,048 27,125

POTOMAC RIVER FAIRVIEW BEACH MD0056464 1,901 2,146 2,146 2,146 954

POTOMAC RIVER FISHERSVILLE VA0025291 38,546 82,406 41,663 26,040 15,624

POTOMAC RIVER FRONT ROYAL VA0062812 81,507 94,353 67,316 42,072 25,243

POTOMAC RIVER FWSA OPEQUON VA0065552 137,829 143,520 143,520 89,700 53,820

POTOMAC RIVER H.L. MOONEY VA0025101 634,056 356,452 356,452 222,783 133,670

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN_DISCH 81 CBPO, 11/22/2002
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

POTOMAC RIVER HARRISONBURG-ROC VA0060640 418,813 283,846 283,846 177,404 106,442

POTOMAC RIVER LEESBURG MD0066184 140,776 72,079 72,079 45,049 27,030

POTOMAC RIVER LURAY VA0062642 6,456 6,867 36,625 22,890 13,734

POTOMAC RIVER MASSANUTTEN PUBLI VA0024732 20,687 21,603 9,242 5,776 3,466

POTOMAC RIVER MERCK & COMPANY INVA0002178 96,556 96,293 96,293 96,293 92,159

POTOMAC RIVER MIDDLE RIVER VA0064793 101,906 137,659 137,659 86,037 51,622

POTOMAC RIVER MONTROSS - WESTMOVA0072729 618 756 473 284

POTOMAC RIVER NAVAL SURFACE WARVA0021067 6,449 10,572 10,572 6,608 3,965

POTOMAC RIVER NEW MARKET STP VA0022853 29,402 31,880 13,639 8,524 5,114

POTOMAC RIVER NOMAN M. COLE JR. PVA0025364 2,822,421 1,291,317 1,291,317 807,073 484,244

POTOMAC RIVER PARKINS MILL VA0075191 69,823 80,929 34,622 21,639 12,983

POTOMAC RIVER PILGRIMS PRIDE-HINT VA0002313 88,471 88,229 44,115 17,646 4,932

POTOMAC RIVER PURCELLVILLE VA0022802 20,125 10,320 10,320 6,450 3,870

POTOMAC RIVER QUANTICO-MAINSIDE VA0028363 43,513 33,738 33,738 21,086 12,652

POTOMAC RIVER ROUND HILL WWTP VA0026212 7,153 8,573 3,668 2,292 1,375

POTOMAC RIVER SIL MRRS VA0090263 30,822 30,822 19,264 11,558

POTOMAC RIVER STONY CREEK STP VA0028380 13,896 15,067 6,446 4,029 2,417

POTOMAC RIVER STRASBURG VA0020311 40,582 44,002 18,825 11,765 7,059

POTOMAC RIVER STUARTS DRAFT VA0066877 45,608 36,547 36,547 22,842 13,705

POTOMAC RIVER UPPER OCCOQUAN SEVA0024988 1,425,687 1,981,956 828,392 517,745 310,647

POTOMAC RIVER WAYNESBORO VA0025151 161,369 168,996 68,586 42,866 25,720

POTOMAC RIVER WEYERS CAVE STP VA0022349 6,610 22,781 9,746 6,091 3,655

POTOMAC RIVER WIDEWATER WWTP VA0090387 2,436 2,436 1,523 914

POTOMAC RIVER WOODSTOCK VA0026468 21,975 23,827 10,194 6,371 3,823

POTOMAC RIVER BERKELEY COUNTY P WV0020061 8,186 9,619 14,657 9,161 5,496

POTOMAC RIVER BERKELEY COUNTY P WV0082759 12,385 14,554 22,580 14,112 8,467

POTOMAC RIVER CHARLESTOWN WV0022349 22,125 24,432 18,207 11,379 6,828

POTOMAC RIVER FORT ASHBY PSD WV0041521

POTOMAC RIVER FRANKLIN WV0024970

POTOMAC RIVER HARPERS FERRY-BOLWV0039136 10,485 10,456 10,456 10,456 4,647

POTOMAC RIVER HESTER INDUSTRIES, WV0047236 20,211 0 0 0 0

POTOMAC RIVER HONEYWOOD HOMES WV0080918

POTOMAC RIVER KEYSER WV0024392 62,273 62,504 29,399 18,375 11,025

POTOMAC RIVER MARTINSBURG WV0023167 56,376 66,246 57,170 35,731 21,439

POTOMAC RIVER MOOREFIELD WV0020150 17,320 0 0 0 0

POTOMAC RIVER MOUNTAIN TOP PSD WV0101524 1,513 1,509 1,509 1,509 641

POTOMAC RIVER PETERSBURG WV0021792 13,805 13,767 17,928 11,205 6,723

POTOMAC RIVER REPUBLIC PAPERBOA WV0005517

POTOMAC RIVER RIVER BEND PARK WV0105384 1,551 1,629 1,629 1,629 542

POTOMAC RIVER ROMNEY WV0020699 22,087 23,921 11,126 6,954 4,172

POTOMAC RIVER SHEPHERDSTOWN WV0024775

POTOMAC RIVER SPECRATECH INTERNWV0005533 28,619 28,541 13,055 5,222 2,887

POTOMAC RIVER VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & WV0005525

POTOMAC RIVER WAMPLER-LONGACREWV0005495 248,846 0 0 0 0

POTOMAC RIVER Total 23,815,593 18,694,524 17,106,000 11,234,067 6,671,469

RAPPAHANNOCK RIV CULPEPER VA0061590 57,077 55,312 55,312 34,570 20,742

RAPPAHANNOCK RIV FMC VA0068110 60,984 80,180 80,180 50,113 30,068

RAPPAHANNOCK RIV FORT A.P. HILL (WILCOVA0032034 7,291 2,842 2,842 1,776 1,066

RAPPAHANNOCK RIV FREDERICKSBURG VA0025127 57,378 54,323 54,323 33,952 20,371

RAPPAHANNOCK RIV HAYMOUNT STP VA0089125 23,146 23,146 14,466 8,680

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN_DISCH 82 CBPO, 11/22/2002
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

RAPPAHANNOCK RIV KILMARNOCK VA0020788 3,311 3,499 6,077 3,798 2,279

RAPPAHANNOCK RIV LITTLE FALLS RUN VA0076392 45,300 101,356 101,356 63,348 38,009

RAPPAHANNOCK RIV MASSAPONAX VA0025658 205,268 106,781 106,781 66,738 40,043

RAPPAHANNOCK RIV ORANGE VA0021385 35,684 16,847 16,847 10,530 6,318

RAPPAHANNOCK RIV REEDVILLE VA0060712 2,050 2,177 931 582 349

RAPPAHANNOCK RIV REMINGTON REGIONAVA0076805 10,725 13,966 13,966 8,729 5,237

RAPPAHANNOCK RIV SOUTH WALES STP VA0080527 20,856 20,856 13,035 7,821

RAPPAHANNOCK RIV TAPPAHANNOCK VA0071471 21,122 21,292 9,109 5,693 3,416

RAPPAHANNOCK RIV URBANNA VA0026263 3,191 6,436 2,753 1,721 1,032

RAPPAHANNOCK RIV WARRENTON VA0021172 44,185 51,092 28,752 17,970 10,782

RAPPAHANNOCK RIV WARSAW VA0026891 11,951 12,364 5,289 3,306 1,984

RAPPAHANNOCK RIV WILDERNESS SHORESVA0083411 28,195 31,116 13,312 8,320 4,992

RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER Total 593,711 603,585 541,832 338,645 203,187

VA EASTERN SHORE CAPE CHARLES VA0021288 8,696 8,672 3,710 2,319 1,391

VA EASTERN SHORE ONANCOCK VA0021253 13,295 13,329 5,702 3,564 2,138

VA EASTERN SHORE TANGIER ISLAND VA0067423 2,628 2,635 1,127 705 423

VA EASTERN SHORE TYSON FOODS, INC.-T VA0004049 255,318 191,421 181,706 72,683 9,571

VA EASTERN SHORE Total 279,936 216,057 192,246 79,270 13,523

YORK RIVER AMOCO-YORKTOWN VA0003018 166,665 166,210 166,210 166,210 166,210

YORK RIVER ASHLAND VA0024899 65,842 37,765 37,765 23,603 14,162

YORK RIVER CAROLINE COUNTY REVA0073504 10,584 11,172 4,780 2,987 1,792

YORK RIVER DOSWELL VA0029521 100,438 164,460 164,460 102,788 61,673

YORK RIVER GORDONSVILLE VA0021105 29,210 32,236 13,791 8,619 5,172

YORK RIVER HRSD-YORK VA0081311 522,303 309,429 309,429 193,393 116,036

YORK RIVER MATHEWS COURTHOUVA0028819 1,481 2,535 1,949 1,218 731

YORK RIVER PARHAM LANDING WWVA0088331 2,352 2,612 2,525 1,578 947

YORK RIVER SMURFIT STONE VA0003115 296,463 295,653 449,448 280,905 168,543

YORK RIVER TOTOPOTOMOY VA0089915 121,822 121,822 76,139 45,683

YORK RIVER WEST POINT VA0075434 35,580 34,171 14,619 9,137 5,482

YORK RIVER Total 1,230,918 1,178,066 1,286,798 866,577 586,430

JAMES RIVER ALLEGHANY CO. LOWEVA0090671 42,714 18,273 11,421 6,853

JAMES RIVER BROWN & WILLIAMSONVA0002780 20,829 20,772 20,098 12,561 7,537

JAMES RIVER BUENA VISTA VA0020991 82,744 82,518 35,302 22,064 13,238

JAMES RIVER BWXT VA0003697 111,874 111,568 111,568 111,568 4,375

JAMES RIVER CLIFTON FORGE VA0022772 70,477 70,284 30,068 18,793 11,276

JAMES RIVER COVINGTON VA0025542 101,465 101,188 43,289 27,056 16,233

JAMES RIVER CREWE STP VA0020303 6,832 6,922 4,797 2,998 1,799

JAMES RIVER DUPONT-SPRUANCE VA0004669 201,414 200,864 200,864 200,864 200,864

JAMES RIVER FALLING CREEK VA0024996 202,791 200,744 200,744 125,465 75,279

JAMES RIVER FARMVILLE VA0083135 2,223 2,262 23,698 14,812 8,887

JAMES RIVER GEORGIA PACIFIC CO VA0003026 286,132 285,350 53,338 53,338 53,338

JAMES RIVER HENRICO COUNTY VA0063690 1,517,151 1,218,224 1,218,224 761,390 456,834

JAMES RIVER HONEYWELL VA0005291 800,548 798,361 798,361 798,361 798,361

JAMES RIVER HOPEWELL VA0066630 1,052,385 2,246,161 855,681 534,800 320,880

JAMES RIVER HRSD-ARMY BASE VA0081230 918,983 1,254,443 425,160 265,725 159,435

JAMES RIVER HRSD-BOAT HARBOR VA0081256 1,018,381 1,634,998 561,601 351,001 210,600

JAMES RIVER HRSD-CHESAPEAKE/EVA0081264 1,415,416 1,948,185 640,786 400,491 240,295

JAMES RIVER HRSD-JAMES RIVER VA0081272 895,610 1,234,762 487,290 304,556 182,734

JAMES RIVER HRSD-NANSEMOND* VA0081299 904,767 490,944 490,944 306,840 184,104

JAMES RIVER HRSD-VIP* VA0081281 884,709 874,685 874,685 546,678 328,007

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN_DISCH 83 CBPO, 11/22/2002
TABLE IX-G: Discharged Nitrogen Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

JAMES RIVER HRSD-WILLIAMSBURGVA0081302 382,014 394,768 387,395 242,122 145,273

JAMES RIVER LAKE MONTICELLO STVA0024945 28,940 32,250 13,797 8,623 5,174

JAMES RIVER LEES COMMERCIAL CAVA0004677 81,059 80,837 27,557 16,167 7,329

JAMES RIVER LEXINGTON-ROCKBRI VA0088161 47,964 49,380 21,125 13,203 7,922

JAMES RIVER LYNCHBURG VA0024970 343,072 450,438 423,942 264,964 158,978

JAMES RIVER MOORES CREEK-RIVAVA0025518 425,208 487,381 289,645 181,028 108,617

JAMES RIVER PHILLIP MORRIS-PARKVA0026557 198,657 198,114 101,178 40,471 17,515

JAMES RIVER PROCTORS CREEK VA0060194 272,092 430,068 430,068 268,792 161,275

JAMES RIVER RICHMOND VA0063177 1,732,937 1,169,249 1,169,249 730,780 438,468

JAMES RIVER SOUTH CENTRAL VA0025437 276,307 315,033 315,033 196,895 118,137

JAMES RIVER TYSON FOODS, INC. VA0004031 21,382 17,353 17,353 17,353 8,676

JAMES RIVER WESTVACO CORPORAVA0003646 726,288 724,304 724,304 452,690 271,614

JAMES RIVER Total 15,030,654 17,175,126 11,015,416 7,303,871 4,729,907

Grand Total 71,063,596 63,043,070 50,103,636 33,509,813 19,970,486

Note: 

* The load reductions listed in the Tables in this section reflecting implementation of NRT to TN = 8 mg/l occur in Tier 1 for the HRSD Nansemond 

and VIP facilities. However, HRSD requested, after the watershed model runs were conducted, that these load reductions should first appear in 

Tier 2. Because the model runs were already completed, these load reduction remain in Tier 1, but costs do not show up until Tier 2. Cumulative 

loads remain the same, as additional load reductions do not show up in Tier 2. 

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-g TN_DISCH 84 CBPO, 11/22/2002
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

SUSQUEHANNA RI CAMP SHADOWBROOK MD0053139 4 5 5 53

SUSQUEHANNA RI NORTH HARFORD JR&SR MD0023281 101 110 110 110 73

SUSQUEHANNA RIPERRYVILLE MD0020613 777 858 2,856 1,428 286

SUSQUEHANNA RIADDISON (V) NY0020320 2,115 2,148 716 358 72

SUSQUEHANNA RIBATH (V) NY0021431 6,831 6,937 2,312 1,156 231

SUSQUEHANNA RIBINGHAMTON-JOHNSON CNY0024414 121,100 120,769 59,492 29,746 5,949

SUSQUEHANNA RI COOPERSTOWN NY0023591 5,847 5,915 1,972 986 197

SUSQUEHANNA RI CORNING (C) NY0025721 11,673 11,855 3,952 1,976 395

SUSQUEHANNA RI CORTLAND (C) NY0027561 32,683 33,839 25,954 12,977 2,595

SUSQUEHANNA RIELMIRA / CHEMUNG CO. SNY0035742 65,358 65,684 21,895 10,947 2,189

SUSQUEHANNA RIENDICOTT (V) NY0027669 69,406 69,216 23,072 11,536 2,307

SUSQUEHANNA RI HAMILTON (V) NY0020672 3,938 4,106 1,367 684 137

SUSQUEHANNA RI HORNELL (C) NY0023647 27,080 27,502 9,167 4,584 917

SUSQUEHANNA RI LAKE STREET/CHEMUNG CNY0036986 64,698 65,021 21,674 10,837 2,167

SUSQUEHANNA RI NORWICH NY0021423 23,545 24,477 8,159 4,080 816

SUSQUEHANNA RIONEONTA (C) NY0031151 27,157 27,476 9,159 4,579 916

SUSQUEHANNA RIOWEGO #2 NY0025798 7,868 7,878 3,170 1,585 317

SUSQUEHANNA RIOWEGO (V) NY0029262 5,690 5,698 1,899 950 190

SUSQUEHANNA RI RICHFIELD SPRINGS (V) NY0031411 80 81 491 491 98

SUSQUEHANNA RISIDNEY (V) NY0029271 6,081 6,077 2,026 1,013 203

SUSQUEHANNA RIWAVERLY (V) NY0031089 10,909 10,923 3,075 1,537 307

SUSQUEHANNA RIALTOONA CITY AUTHORITPA0027014 76,855 78,953 18,350 9,175 1,835

SUSQUEHANNA RIALTOONA CITY AUTHORITPA0027022 79,503 81,673 19,038 9,519 1,904

SUSQUEHANNA RIANNVILLE TOWNSHIP PA0021806 2,102 2,151 1,447 724 145

SUSQUEHANNA RIAPPLETON PAPER SPRINGPA0008265 15,237 15,195 13,156 6,578 1,316

SUSQUEHANNA RIASHLAND MUNICIPAL AUTPA0023558 7,117 7,097 2,201 1,100 220

SUSQUEHANNA RIBEDFORD BOROUGH MUNPA0022209 3,988 4,139 2,980 1,490 298

SUSQUEHANNA RIBELLEFONTE BOROUGH PA0020486 4,115 4,353 6,318 3,159 632

SUSQUEHANNA RIBERWICK MUNICIPAL AUTPA0023248 19,686 19,714 4,526 2,263 453

SUSQUEHANNA RIBLOOMSBURG MUNICIPALPA0027171 11,413 11,429 8,105 4,053 811

SUSQUEHANNA RIBLOSSBURG PA0020036 800 830 634 317 63

SUSQUEHANNA RIBROWN TOWNSHIP MUNICPA0028088 915 950 1,027 513 103

SUSQUEHANNA RIBURNHAM BOROUGH PA0038920 2,616 2,715 1,810 905 181

SUSQUEHANNA RI CARLISLE BOROUGH PA0026077 4,192 4,407 10,495 5,247 1,049

SUSQUEHANNA RI CARLISLE SUBURBAN AUTPA0024384 1,320 1,388 2,144 1,072 214

SUSQUEHANNA RI CHLOE TEXTILES INC. PA0009172 670 668 668 412 82

SUSQUEHANNA RI CLARKS SUMMIT-SOUTH APA0028576 21,689 21,629 6,932 3,466 693

SUSQUEHANNA RI CLEARFIELD PA0026310 6,231 6,214 7,992 3,996 799

SUSQUEHANNA RI COLUMBIA PA0026123 1,627 1,770 2,514 1,257 251

SUSQUEHANNA RI CONSOLIDATED RAIL CORPA0009229 106 105 105 105 49

SUSQUEHANNA RI CURWENSVILLE MUNICIPAPA0024759 2,545 2,538 1,363 681 136

SUSQUEHANNA RI DANVILLE MUNICIPAL AUTPA0023531 8,741 8,844 6,551 3,275 655

SUSQUEHANNA RI DERRY TOWNSHIP MUNICPA0026484 13,996 14,056 10,582 5,291 1,058

SUSQUEHANNA RI DILLSBURG BOROUGH AUPA0024431 1,682 1,766 2,005 1,002 200

SUSQUEHANNA RI DOVER TOWNSHIP SEWERPA0020826 14,667 15,397 11,282 5,641 1,128

SUSQUEHANNA RI DUNCANSVILLE PA0032883 4,173 4,287 1,856 928 186

SUSQUEHANNA RIEAST PENNSBORO SOUTHPA0038415 24,507 25,759 7,384 3,692 738

SUSQUEHANNA RIEASTERN SNYDER COUNTPA0110582 18,307 19,303 4,883 2,441 488

SUSQUEHANNA RIELIZABETHTOWN BOROUGPA0023108 5,716 6,218 7,137 3,569 714

SUSQUEHANNA RIELKLAND MUNICIPAL AUT PA0113298 1,120 1,162 1,324 662 132

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH 85 CBPO, 11/6/2002
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

SUSQUEHANNA RIEMPIRE KOSHER POULTR PA0007552 1,427 1,423 1,423 1,423 356

SUSQUEHANNA RIEMPORIUM BOROUGH (MIPA0028631 3,498 3,701 1,466 733 147

SUSQUEHANNA RIEPHRATA BOROUGH WWTPA0027405 11,722 12,753 8,458 4,229 846

SUSQUEHANNA RIFAIRVIEW TOWNSHIP PA0081868 747 784 1,218 609 122

SUSQUEHANNA RIFAIRVIEW TOWNSHIP PA0082589

SUSQUEHANNA RIGOLD MILLS DYEHOUSE PA0008231 317 316 316 316 208

SUSQUEHANNA RIGREATER HAZELTON PA0026921 19,112 19,059 20,348 10,174 2,035

SUSQUEHANNA RIGREGG TOWNSHIP PA0114821 2,544 2,696 2,024 1,012 202

SUSQUEHANNA RI HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP PA0028746 3,979 4,182 3,946 1,973 395

SUSQUEHANNA RI HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP SEWPA0080314 4,073 4,281 6,129 3,065 613

SUSQUEHANNA RI HANOVER BOROUGH PA0026875 10,622 11,536 11,702 5,851 1,170

SUSQUEHANNA RI HARRISBURG SEWERAGEPA0027197 109,743 110,217 79,913 39,956 7,991

SUSQUEHANNA RI HEINZ PET FOODS PA0009270 18,690 18,639 4,391 3,728 158

SUSQUEHANNA RI HIGHSPIRE PA0024040 5,174 5,197 3,192 1,596 319

SUSQUEHANNA RI HOLLIDAYSBURG REGIONPA0043273 14,963 15,372 9,061 4,531 906

SUSQUEHANNA RI HOUTZDALE BOROUGH M PA0046159 263 263 370 185 37

SUSQUEHANNA RI HUNTINGDON BOROUGH PA0026191 8,335 8,513 6,499 3,249 650

SUSQUEHANNA RI JERSEY SHORE BOROUGHPA0028665 12,798 13,293 2,184 1,092 218

SUSQUEHANNA RIKELLY TOWNSHIP MUNICI PA0028681 4,082 4,326 5,546 2,773 555

SUSQUEHANNA RI LACKAWANNA RIVER BAS PA0027081 1,685 1,681 1,498 749 150

SUSQUEHANNA RI LACKAWANNA RIVER BAS PA0027090 13,738 13,700 15,604 7,802 1,560

SUSQUEHANNA RI LACKAWANNA RIVER BAS PA0027073 905 903 1,040 520 104

SUSQUEHANNA RI LACKAWANNA RIVER BAS PA0027065 12,405 12,371 7,452 3,726 745

SUSQUEHANNA RI LANCASTER AREA SEWERPA0042269 16,259 17,688 23,706 11,853 2,371

SUSQUEHANNA RI LANCASTER CITY PA0026743 46,904 51,025 63,086 31,543 6,309

SUSQUEHANNA RI LEBANON CITY AUTHORITPA0027316 22,690 23,216 16,762 8,381 1,676

SUSQUEHANNA RI LEMOYNE BOROUGH MUNPA0026441 7,171 7,202 5,056 2,528 506

SUSQUEHANNA RI LEWISBURG AREA JOINT SPA0044661 4,570 4,842 3,648 1,824 365

SUSQUEHANNA RI LEWISTOWN BOROUGH PA0026280 7,228 7,502 5,771 2,885 577

SUSQUEHANNA RI LITITZ SEWAGE AUTHORITPA0020320 13,274 14,441 9,212 4,606 921

SUSQUEHANNA RI LOCK HAVEN PA0025933 15,635 16,044 6,641 3,320 664

SUSQUEHANNA RI LOGAN TOWNSHIP-GREENPA0032557 2,921 3,001 1,115 557 111

SUSQUEHANNA RI LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIPPA0027189 14,264 14,993 10,366 5,183 1,037

SUSQUEHANNA RI LOWER LACKAWANNA VA PA0026361 16,824 16,778 10,659 5,329 1,066

SUSQUEHANNA RI LYKENS BOROUGH PA0043575 960 964 736 368 74

SUSQUEHANNA RI MAHANOY CITY PA0070041 4,655 4,643 1,741 870 174

SUSQUEHANNA RI MANHEIM BOROUGH AUTHPA0020893 3,009 3,273 2,419 1,210 242

SUSQUEHANNA RI MANSFIELD BOROUGH PA0021814 3,790 3,934 1,754 877 175

SUSQUEHANNA RI MARIETTA-DONEGAL JOINPA0021717 1,280 1,392 1,374 687 137

SUSQUEHANNA RI MARTINSBURG PA0028347 1,806 1,855 1,245 622 124

SUSQUEHANNA RI MARYSVILLE MUNICIPAL APA0021571 366 398 3,362 1,681 336

SUSQUEHANNA RI MECHANICSBURG BOROUPA0020885 2,716 2,855 2,524 1,262 252

SUSQUEHANNA RI MERCK & COMPANY PA0008419 57,770 57,612 38,666 19,333 3,867

SUSQUEHANNA RI MIDDLETOWN PA0020664 2,559 2,570 3,610 1,805 361

SUSQUEHANNA RI MIFFLINBURG BOROUGH PA0028461 1,593 1,688 2,136 1,068 214

SUSQUEHANNA RI MILLERSBURG BOROUGH PA0022535 2,778 2,790 2,129 1,065 213

SUSQUEHANNA RI MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH PA0026620 2,516 2,737 2,100 1,050 210

SUSQUEHANNA RI MILTON MUNICIPAL AUTHOPA0020273 2,223 2,217 5,216 2,608 522

SUSQUEHANNA RI MONTGOMERY BOROUGHPA0020699 3,530 3,667 1,574 787 157

SUSQUEHANNA RI MOSHANNON VALLEY JOI PA0037966 1,832 1,938 4,341 2,170 434

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH 86 CBPO, 11/6/2002
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

SUSQUEHANNA RI MOUNT JOY PA0021067 662 720 2,275 1,138 228

SUSQUEHANNA RI MOUNT UNION BOROUGH PA0020214 1,320 1,348 1,029 515 103

SUSQUEHANNA RI MOUNTAINTOP AREA PA0045985 30,890 30,806 8,367 4,183 837

SUSQUEHANNA RI MT. CARMEL MUNICIPAL SPA0024406 7,943 7,921 2,880 1,440 288

SUSQUEHANNA RI MT. HOLLY SPRINGS BOROPA0023183 745 784 1,164 582 116

SUSQUEHANNA RI MUNCY BOROUGH MUNIC PA0024325 2,919 3,032 1,950 975 195

SUSQUEHANNA RI NATIONAL GYPSUM COMPPA0008591 1,212 1,208 944 472 94

SUSQUEHANNA RI NEW CUMBERLAND BOROPA0026654 724 727 1,501 751 150

SUSQUEHANNA RI NEW FREEDOM WTP PA0043257 5,266 5,529 3,501 1,750 350

SUSQUEHANNA RI NEW HOLLAND BOROUGHPA0021890 5,245 5,706 3,359 1,680 336

SUSQUEHANNA RI NEW OXFORD MUNICIPAL PA0020923 1,162 1,263 3,777 1,889 378

SUSQUEHANNA RI NEWBERRY TOWNSHIP PA0083011 1,867 1,875 1,260 630 126

SUSQUEHANNA RI NORTHEASTERN YORK COPA0023744 2,331 2,447 1,968 984 197

SUSQUEHANNA RI NORTHUMBERLAND BOROPA0020567 867 864 1,372 686 137

SUSQUEHANNA RIOSRAM SYLVANIA PRODUPA0009024 2,311 2,304 2,304 1,652 330

SUSQUEHANNA RIP-H GLATFELTER COMPANPA0008869 2,679 2,672 2,672 2,672 2,672

SUSQUEHANNA RIPALMYRA BOROUGH AUT PA0024287 3,595 3,679 2,483 1,242 248

SUSQUEHANNA RIPENN TOWNSHIP PA0037150 5,263 5,525 5,067 2,534 507

SUSQUEHANNA RIPENNSYLVANIA FISH & BOPA0040835 1,954 1,949 1,949 1,949 1,949

SUSQUEHANNA RIPENNSYLVANIA FISH & BOPA0010553 2,748 2,741 2,741 2,741 1,827

SUSQUEHANNA RIPENNSYLVANIA FISH & BOPA0010561 1,935 1,930 1,930 1,930 1,484

SUSQUEHANNA RIPENNSYLVANIA FISH & BOPA0112127 1,191 1,188 1,188 1,188 1,188

SUSQUEHANNA RIPENNSYLVANIA FISH & BOPA0044032 61 61 61 61 61

SUSQUEHANNA RIPINE CREEK MUNICIPAL APA0027553 2,950 3,027 1,953 977 195

SUSQUEHANNA RIPINE GROVE BOROUGH A PA0020915 3,723 3,713 1,371 686 137

SUSQUEHANNA RIPOPE & TALBOT WIS INC. PA0007919 5,148 5,133 5,033 2,516 503

SUSQUEHANNA RIPORTER TOWER JOINT MUPA0046272 2,233 2,227 1,713 857 171

SUSQUEHANNA RIPROCTOR & GAMBLE PAPPA0008885 36,395 36,295 14,875 7,438 1,488

SUSQUEHANNA RI ROARING SPRING BOROUPA0020249 3,110 3,195 2,075 1,037 207

SUSQUEHANNA RISAYRE PA0043681 698 696 1,994 997 199

SUSQUEHANNA RISCRANTON SEWER AUTH PA0026492 71,631 71,435 40,057 20,029 4,006

SUSQUEHANNA RISHAMOKIN-COAL TOWNSHPA0027324 19,986 19,931 10,832 5,416 1,083

SUSQUEHANNA RISHENANDOAH MUNICIPALPA0070386 1,453 1,449 3,622 1,811 362

SUSQUEHANNA RISHIPPENSBURG BOROUGPA0030643 3,330 3,452 3,477 3,477 695

SUSQUEHANNA RISILVER SPRING TOWNSHIPA0083593 212 222 478 239 48

SUSQUEHANNA RISOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNPA0044113 556 584 1,376 688 138

SUSQUEHANNA RISPRINGETTSBURY TOWNSPA0026808 43,170 45,319 34,383 17,192 3,438

SUSQUEHANNA RIST. JOHNS PA0046388 1,046 1,043 975 487 97

SUSQUEHANNA RISTEWARTSTOWN BOROU PA0036269 1,168 1,226 828 414 83

SUSQUEHANNA RISUNBURY CITY MUNICIPA PA0026557 22,163 22,103 9,181 4,590 918

SUSQUEHANNA RISWATARA TOWNSHIP PA0026735 16,644 16,716 10,164 5,082 1,016

SUSQUEHANNA RITOWANDA MUNICIPAL AUTPA0034576 4,340 4,329 2,082 1,041 208

SUSQUEHANNA RITRI-BORO MUNICIPAL AUTPA0023736 825 856 865 432 86

SUSQUEHANNA RITWIN BOROUGHS SANITA PA0023264 1,320 1,377 1,051 526 105

SUSQUEHANNA RITYRONE BOROUGH SEWEPA0026727 7,460 7,664 19,488 9,744 1,949

SUSQUEHANNA RITYSON FOODS PA0035092 3,359 3,350 3,350 3,350 168

SUSQUEHANNA RI UNIVERSITY AREA JOINT APA0026239 836 884 2,007 2,007 1,544

SUSQUEHANNA RI UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIP PA0024902 2,417 2,541 1,688 844 169

SUSQUEHANNA RI USFW-LAMAR NATIONAL FPA0009857 403 402 402 402 402

SUSQUEHANNA RIWELLSBORO MUNICIPAL APA0021687 6,261 6,498 3,598 1,799 360

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH 87 CBPO, 11/6/2002
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

SUSQUEHANNA RIWESTERN CLINTON COUNPA0043893 943 967 1,075 537 107

SUSQUEHANNA RIWHITE DEER TOWNSHIP PA0020800 1,907 2,021 831 415 83

SUSQUEHANNA RIWILLIAMSPORT SANITARYPA0027057 72,931 75,750 22,279 11,140 2,228

SUSQUEHANNA RIWILLIAMSPORT SANITARYPA0027049 32,058 33,298 8,121 4,061 812

SUSQUEHANNA RIWYOMING VALLEY PA0026107 99,086 98,815 72,658 36,329 7,266

SUSQUEHANNA RIYORK CITY PA0026263 8,974 9,421 36,328 18,164 3,633

SUSQUEHANNA RIVER Total 1,934,145 1,969,969 1,168,012 597,230 127,191

MD EASTERN SHOBRIDGEVILLE DE0020249 3,272 3,647 675 338 68

MD EASTERN SHODUPONT-SEAFORD DE0000035 13,864 13,826 13,826 13,826 11,522

MD EASTERN SHOLAUREL DE0020125 2,772 3,090 966 483 97

MD EASTERN SHOSEAFORD DE0020265 3,931 4,382 3,886 1,943 389

MD EASTERN SHOALLEN FAMILY FOODS MD0067857 36 36 36 36 10

MD EASTERN SHOBENJAMINS TRAILER PAR MD0024961 157 174 174 174 116

MD EASTERN SHOBETTERTON MD0020575 189 194 194 194 129

MD EASTERN SHOBOHEMIA MANOR HIGH MD0023469 55 61 61 61 41

MD EASTERN SHOBUDGET MOTEL MD0023027 17 19 19 19 13

MD EASTERN SHOCAMBRIDGE MD0021636 41,284 42,372 15,562 7,781 1,556

MD EASTERN SHOCECILTON MD0020443 343 379 379 379 253

MD EASTERN SHOCENTREVILLE MD0020834 2,628 2,998 1,073 537 107

MD EASTERN SHOCHERRY HILL MD0052825 1,098 1,212 1,212 1,212 808

MD EASTERN SHOCHESAPEAKE CITY NORTHMD0020401 955 1,055 1,055 1,055 581

MD EASTERN SHOCHESAPEAKE CITY SOUTHMD0020397 406 449 449 449 449

MD EASTERN SHOCHESAPEAKE COLLEGE MD0024384 125 143 143 143 95

MD EASTERN SHOCHESTERTOWN MD0020010 8,437 8,635 1,990 995 199

MD EASTERN SHOCHURCH HILL MD0050016 380 434 434 434 434

MD EASTERN SHOCOLONEL RICHARDSON MMD0055522 54 58 58 58 39

MD EASTERN SHOCRISFIELD MD0020001 3,966 4,181 2,068 1,034 207

MD EASTERN SHODELMAR MD0020532 558 613 1,759 879 176

MD EASTERN SHODENTON MD0020494 1,596 1,711 1,244 622 124

MD EASTERN SHODONALDSON BROWN CENMD0054950 18 20 20 20 13

MD EASTERN SHOEASTERN CORRECTIONALMD0023876 127 144 144 144 96

MD EASTERN SHOEASTERN CORRECTIONALMD0066613 162 171 171 171 171

MD EASTERN SHOEASTON MD0020273 14,411 15,232 5,872 2,936 587

MD EASTERN SHOELK NECK STATE PARK MD0023833 193 213 213 213 169

MD EASTERN SHOELKTON MD0020681 5,185 5,727 5,266 2,633 527

MD EASTERN SHOENGLISH GRILL MD0053104 4 4 4 42

MD EASTERN SHOEWELL MD0052230 194 204 204 204 136

MD EASTERN SHOFAIRMOUNT MD0052256 268 282 282 282 188

MD EASTERN SHOFEDERALSBURG MD0020249 913 979 1,003 501 100

MD EASTERN SHOFOREST GREEN MD0053279 410 453 453 453 61

MD EASTERN SHOFRUITLAND MD0052990 4,302 4,730 1,577 788 158

MD EASTERN SHOGALENA MD0020605 358 366 366 366 162

MD EASTERN SHOGREAT OAKS LANDING MD0024945 51 53 53 53 35

MD EASTERN SHOGREENSBORO MD0020290 1,678 1,799 1,799 1,799 1,034

MD EASTERN SHOHARBOUR VIEW MD0024023 64 71 71 71 47

MD EASTERN SHOHEBRON MD0059617 1,092 1,201 1,201 1,201 800

MD EASTERN SHOHURLOCK MD0022730 22,576 23,171 3,233 1,616 323

MD EASTERN SHOKENNEDYVILLE MD0052671 41 41 41 41 28

MD EASTERN SHOKENT ISLAND MD0023485 3,144 3,588 4,996 2,498 500

MD EASTERN SHO MANCHESTER PARK MD0023108 349 386 386 386 166

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH 88 CBPO, 11/6/2002
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

MD EASTERN SHO MAPLE HILL PARK MD0053171 50 55 55 55 37

MD EASTERN SHO MARDELA HIGH MD0024279 20 22 22 22 15

MD EASTERN SHO MILLINGTON MD0020435 519 531 531 531 354

MD EASTERN SHO MORNING CHEER MD0052299 167 184 184 184 123

MD EASTERN SHONORTH CAROLINE HIGH MD0023621 20 21 21 21 14

MD EASTERN SHONORTHEAST RIVER MD0052027 1,632 1,802 1,913 957 191

MD EASTERN SHOOXFORD MD0022543 210 222 222 222 222

MD EASTERN SHOPITTSVILLE MD0060348 232 255 255 255 255

MD EASTERN SHOPOCOMOKE CITY MD0022551 11,238 12,475 2,929 1,465 293

MD EASTERN SHOPOCOMOKE TRUCK STOP MD0054330 19 21 21 21 14

MD EASTERN SHOPORT DEPOSIT MD0020796 1,243 1,373 1,373 1,373 915

MD EASTERN SHOPRESTON MD0020621 511 548 548 548 366

MD EASTERN SHOPRINCESS ANNE MD0020656 268 282 944 944 189

MD EASTERN SHOQUEENSTOWN MD0023370 514 586 586 586 480

MD EASTERN SHORISING SUN MD0020265 2,112 2,332 2,332 2,332 1,555

MD EASTERN SHOROCK HALL MD0020303 414 423 423 423 423

MD EASTERN SHOSALISBURY MD0021571 22,735 24,995 17,954 8,977 1,795

MD EASTERN SHOSHARPTOWN MD0052175 2,373 2,609 2,609 2,609 735

MD EASTERN SHOSNOW HILL MD0022764 4,791 5,318 1,416 708 142

MD EASTERN SHOSPRING MEADOWS MD0024953 89 97 97 97 65

MD EASTERN SHOSUDLERSVILLE MD0020559 398 454 454 454 303

MD EASTERN SHOTALBOT COUNTY REGION MD0023604 3,385 3,578 3,578 3,578 2,316

MD EASTERN SHOTALBOT COUNTY REGION MD0059463 663 701 701 701 467

MD EASTERN SHOTAWES VOCATIONAL-TEC MD0022993 1,498 1,579 1,579 1,579 1,053

MD EASTERN SHOTOLCHESTER MD0067202 805 823 823 823 549

MD EASTERN SHOTRAPPE MD0020486 1,025 1,083 1,083 1,083 828

MD EASTERN SHOTRIUMPH INDUSTRIAL PARMD0024929 317 350 350 350 233

MD EASTERN SHOTWIN CITIES MD0055352 1,052 1,080 1,080 1,080 720

MD EASTERN SHOTYLERTON MD0052248 44 47 47 47 31

MD EASTERN SHOU.S. ARMY-CHESAPEAKE MD0020206 2 3 3 32

MD EASTERN SHOVIENNA MD0020664 500 514 514 514 342

MD EASTERN SHOWALKERS TRAILER PARK MD0057487 121 129 129 129 86

MD EASTERN SHOWILLARDS MD0051632 681 749 749 749 499

MD EASTERN SHOWOODLAWN MOBILE HOMMD0023337

MD EASTERN SHOWORTON-BUTLERTON MD0060585 562 575 575 575 383

MD EASTERN SHORE Total 201,875 214,324 120,721 83,030 38,713

MD WESTERN SHOABERDEEN MD0021563 584 634 3,414 2,626 525

MD WESTERN SHOABERDEEN PROVING GROMD0021237 1,064 1,154 2,785 1,392 278

MD WESTERN SHOABERDEEN PROVING GROMD0021229 1,323 1,436 2,925 1,462 292

MD WESTERN SHOANNAPOLIS MD0021814 9,606 10,198 22,963 11,481 2,296

MD WESTERN SHOBACK RIVER MD0021555 42,546 43,357 53,436 53,436 26,718

MD WESTERN SHOBALTIMORE YACHT CLUB MD0054542 17 18 18 18 12

MD WESTERN SHOBETHLEHEM STEEL CORPMD0001201 81,163 80,941 80,941 80,941 26,876

MD WESTERN SHOBOWLEYS QUARTERS MD0058807 60 61 61 61 41

MD WESTERN SHOBROADNECK MD0021644 7,258 7,705 15,927 7,963 1,593

MD WESTERN SHOBROADWATER MD0024350 1,963 2,085 3,861 1,931 386

MD WESTERN SHOCHEMETALS MD0001775 11 11 12 12 12

MD WESTERN SHOCHESAPEAKE BAY INSTIT MD0022985

MD WESTERN SHOCHESAPEAKE BEACH MD0020281 1,724 2,179 2,461 1,231 246

MD WESTERN SHOCONGOLEUM MD0001384 161 160 160 160 80

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH 89 CBPO, 11/6/2002
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

MD WESTERN SHOCOX CREEK MD0021661 45,048 47,825 37,447 18,724 3,745

MD WESTERN SHODREAMS LANDING MD0052868 72 77 77 77 51

MD WESTERN SHOFREEDOM DISTRICT MD0021512 4,998 5,879 8,692 4,346 869

MD WESTERN SHOGAITHER MANOR MD0022845 232 273 273 273 138

MD WESTERN SHOHAMPSTEAD MD0022446 432 508 508 508 508

MD WESTERN SHOHAVRE DE GRACE MD0021750 3,500 3,799 4,252 2,126 425

MD WESTERN SHOHOLIDAY MOBILE ESTATE MD0053082 347 369 369 369 369

MD WESTERN SHOJOPPATOWNE MD0022535 1,921 2,085 2,614 1,307 261

MD WESTERN SHOMANCHESTER MD0022578 56 66 66 66 66

MD WESTERN SHOMAYO LARGE COMMUNALMD0061794 1,281 1,360 1,360 1,360 1,360

MD WESTERN SHOMOUNT AIRY MD0022527 798 939 2,003 1,002 200

MD WESTERN SHONOTCHCLIFF MD0022951 341 347 347 347 231

MD WESTERN SHOPATAPSCO MD0021601 144,631 173,933 222,326 111,163 22,233

MD WESTERN SHOPHEASANT RIDGE MD0024546 174 205 205 205 152

MD WESTERN SHORANDLE CLIFFS NAVAL MD0020168 125 158 158 158 105

MD WESTERN SHORICHLYN MANOR MD0022713 553 564 564 564 537

MD WESTERN SHORIVERBOAT MOTEL MD0051535

MD WESTERN SHOROSE HAVEN MD0022756 168 178 178 178 178

MD WESTERN SHOSOD RUN MD0056545 41,334 44,860 38,354 19,177 3,835

MD WESTERN SHOSOUTH CARROLL HIGH SCMD0024589 2 3 3 33

MD WESTERN SHOST TIMOTHY SCHOOL MD0056103 50 51 51 51 34

MD WESTERN SHOSUMMER HILL TRAILER PAMD0023272 43 45 45 45 45

MD WESTERN SHOSWAN HARBOR PARK MD0023043 103 112 112 112 75

MD WESTERN SHOUNITED CONTAINER MD0024635 68 69 69 69 46

MD WESTERN SHOUS GYPSUM CO MD0001457

MD WESTERN SHOUS NAVAL ACADEMY MD0023523 63 67 67 67 67

MD WESTERN SHOVILLA JULIE COLLEGE MD0066001 3 3 3 33

MD WESTERN SHOW R GRACE MD0000311 1,814 1,809 1,809 1,809 1,238

MD WESTERN SHOWOODSTOCK TRAINING CMD0023906 78 80 80 80 53

MD WESTERN SHORE Total 395,719 435,606 510,996 326,904 96,185

PATUXENT RIVER BOONES MOBILE MD0050903 239 254 254 254 254

PATUXENT RIVER BOWIE MD0021628 992 1,085 6,354 3,177 635

PATUXENT RIVER DORSEY RUN MD0063207 945 1,003 4,466 2,233 447

PATUXENT RIVER EDGEMEADE RESIDENTIA MD0052680 27 29 29 29 13

PATUXENT RIVER EMERGENCY MANAGEME MD0025666 1 1 1 11

PATUXENT RIVER FORT MEADE MD0021717 1,198 1,272 6,615 3,308 662

PATUXENT RIVER HARWOOD SOUTHERN HI MD0023728 131 139 139 139 36

PATUXENT RIVER LITTLE PATUXENT MD0055174 18,767 22,000 47,126 31,418 6,284

PATUXENT RIVER LYONS CREEK MOBILE MD0053511 394 418 418 418 418

PATUXENT RIVER MARLBORO MEADOWS MD0022781 873 954 954 954 954

PATUXENT RIVER MARYLAND CITY MD0062596 1,479 1,570 3,242 1,621 324

PATUXENT RIVER MARYLAND MANOR MOBILMD0024333 287 304 304 304 304

PATUXENT RIVER MD & VA MILK PRODUCERMD0000469 14,068 14,030 1,086 543 109

PATUXENT RIVER NATIONAL WILDLIFE VISIT MD0065358 8 9 9 98

PATUXENT RIVER NORTHERN HIGH SCHOOLMD0052167 114 145 145 145 96

PATUXENT RIVER PARKWAY MD0021725 5,304 5,501 18,882 9,441 1,888

PATUXENT RIVER PARKWAY INN MD0052329 133 141 141 141 141

PATUXENT RIVER PATUXENT MD0021652 4,683 4,972 14,756 7,378 1,476

PATUXENT RIVER PATUXENT MOBILE MD0024694 105 111 111 111 111

PATUXENT RIVER PATUXENT WILDLIFE HQ MD0025623 174 191 191 191 127

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH 90 CBPO, 11/6/2002
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

PATUXENT RIVER PINE HILL RUN MD0021679 14,260 16,131 11,854 5,927 1,185

PATUXENT RIVER PINEY ORCHARD MD0059145 294 312 312 312 312

PATUXENT RIVER POINT LOOKOUT STATE P MD0023949 150 170 170 170 113

PATUXENT RIVER USAF BRANDYWINE HOUSMD0025640 14 15 15 15 8

PATUXENT RIVER USAF TRANSMITTER STATMD0025631

PATUXENT RIVER WAYSONS MOBILE MD0023647 299 317 317 317 278

PATUXENT RIVER WESTERN BRANCH MD0021741 37,990 47,636 70,048 35,024 7,005

PATUXENT RIVER Total 102,930 118,710 187,940 103,579 23,190

POTOMAC RIVER BLUE PLAINS DC0021199 104,298 111,804 187,326 187,326 104,070

POTOMAC RIVER WASHINGTON, D.C. COMBDC-CSO 46,480 46,353 46,353 46,353 0

POTOMAC RIVER ANTIETAM MD0062308 952 999 999 999 666

POTOMAC RIVER BALLENGER CREEK MD0021822 3,590 4,293 12,549 6,274 1,255

POTOMAC RIVER BELTSVILLE USDA EAST MD0020842 1,357 1,484 1,484 1,484 1,436

POTOMAC RIVER BELTSVILLE USDA WEST MD0020851 762 833 833 833 757

POTOMAC RIVER BIERS LANE MD0065749 28 28 28 28 18

POTOMAC RIVER BLOOMINGTON MD0060933 306 322 322 322 166

POTOMAC RIVER BOONSBORO MD0020231 2,821 2,963 2,963 2,963 2,457

POTOMAC RIVER BOWLING BROOK PREPARMD0067571 46 54 54 54 36

POTOMAC RIVER BRANDYWINE RECEIVING MD0025658 10 11 11 11 7

POTOMAC RIVER BRETTON WOODS MD0064777 81 89 89 89 59

POTOMAC RIVER BROADFORDING MD0051373 10 10 10 10 7

POTOMAC RIVER BROOK LANE MD0053198 49 51 51 51 34

POTOMAC RIVER BRUNSWICK MD0020958 5,822 6,961 2,320 1,160 232

POTOMAC RIVER CELANESE MD0063878 7,763 7,792 3,094 1,547 309

POTOMAC RIVER CHARLES COUNTY COMM MD0052311 268 310 310 310 221

POTOMAC RIVER CHELTENHAM BOYS VILLAMD0023931 105 115 115 115 115

POTOMAC RIVER CHOPTICAN HIGH MD0051918 45 51 51 51 34

POTOMAC RIVER CLEARSPRING MD0053325 690 725 725 725 483

POTOMAC RIVER CLIFFTON ON THE POTOMMD0055557 406 469 469 469 313

POTOMAC RIVER CONCORD TRAILER PARK MD0023060 35 42 42 42 28

POTOMAC RIVER CONOCOCHEAGUE MD0063509 2,780 4,622 3,633 1,816 363

POTOMAC RIVER CRESTVIEW MD0022683 296 354 354 354 234

POTOMAC RIVER CUMBERLAND MD0021598 50,434 50,621 29,228 14,614 2,923

POTOMAC RIVER DAMASCUS MD0020982 3,005 2,925 2,619 1,310 262

POTOMAC RIVER DAN-DEE INC. MD0023710 18 22 22 22 15

POTOMAC RIVER EMMITSBURG MD0020257 2,912 3,481 1,761 880 176

POTOMAC RIVER FAHRNEY-KEEDY MEMOR MD0053066 165 173 173 173 116

POTOMAC RIVER FLINTSTONE MD0055620 534 536 536 536 358

POTOMAC RIVER FORT DETRICK MD0020877 3,308 3,955 3,375 1,688 338

POTOMAC RIVER FOUNTAINDALE MD0022721 2,460 2,942 2,942 2,942 1,540

POTOMAC RIVER FOXVILLE US NAVAL SUPPMD0025119 222 266 266 266 177

POTOMAC RIVER FREDERICK MD0021610 82,916 99,129 23,637 11,818 2,364

POTOMAC RIVER FUNKSTOWN MD0020362 1,030 1,082 1,082 1,082 391

POTOMAC RIVER GARDEN STATE TANNING MD0053431 64 64 64 13 13

POTOMAC RIVER GEORGES CREEK MD0060071 6,087 6,110 2,037 1,018 204

POTOMAC RIVER GORMAN MD0060950 41 43 43 43 29

POTOMAC RIVER GREEN RIDGE FORESTRYMD0024988 36 36 36 36 19

POTOMAC RIVER GREENBRIAR STATE PARKMD0023868 133 139 139 139 93

POTOMAC RIVER HAGERSTOWN MD0021776 56,857 59,720 25,786 12,893 2,579

POTOMAC RIVER HANCOCK MD0024562 1,578 1,657 1,657 1,657 1,364

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH 91 CBPO, 11/6/2002
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

POTOMAC RIVER HAPPY TRAILS CAMPGRO MD0065757 31 32 32 32 21

POTOMAC RIVER HIGHLAND VIEW MD0024627 81 86 86 86 57

POTOMAC RIVER HUNTER HILL APARTMENTMD0022926 253 266 266 266 177

POTOMAC RIVER I-70 REST AREA MD0023680 262 313 313 313 209

POTOMAC RIVER INDIAN HEAD MD0020052 2,352 2,716 1,073 537 107

POTOMAC RIVER JEFFERSON MD0020737 1,341 1,603 1,603 1,603 1,069

POTOMAC RIVER JUDE HOUSE MD0057614

POTOMAC RIVER KEMPTOWN SCHOOL MD0056481 42 50 50 50 33

POTOMAC RIVER KITZMILLER MD0060941 171 180 180 180 107

POTOMAC RIVER KUNZANG ODSAL PALGULMD0067539 7 8 8 85

POTOMAC RIVER LA PLATA MD0020524 3,460 3,995 753 753 251

POTOMAC RIVER LACKEY HIGH MD0023159 84 97 97 97 65

POTOMAC RIVER LAFAYETTE MOTEL MD0053201 10 11 11 11 8

POTOMAC RIVER LEONARDTOWN MD0024767 3,853 4,359 1,466 733 147

POTOMAC RIVER LEWISTOWN ELEMENTAR MD0022900 23 27 27 27 18

POTOMAC RIVER LIBERTYTOWN MD0060577 221 264 264 264 183

POTOMAC RIVER LUPPINO RESIDENCE MD0063070

POTOMAC RIVER MAPLE RUN MD0024970 28 28 28 28 19

POTOMAC RIVER MARYLAND CORRECTION MD0023957 957 1,005 2,874 1,437 287

POTOMAC RIVER MATTAWOMAN MD0021865 2,890 3,337 4,480 4,480 2,489

POTOMAC RIVER METTIKI COAL D MD0064149

POTOMAC RIVER MIDDLETOWN MD0024406 1,633 1,953 1,953 1,953 1,594

POTOMAC RIVER MILL BOTTOM MD0065439 403 482 482 482 321

POTOMAC RIVER MONROVIA WWTP MD0059609 247 295 295 295 197

POTOMAC RIVER MT CARMEL WOODS MD0053228 44 51 51 51 51

POTOMAC RIVER MT ST MARYS COLLEGE MD0023230 854 1,021 1,021 1,021 323

POTOMAC RIVER MYERSVILLE MD0020699 2,056 2,458 2,458 2,458 1,138

POTOMAC RIVER NAS-PATUXENT MD0020095 274 310 310 310 207

POTOMAC RIVER NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HMD0020931 470 518 518 518 346

POTOMAC RIVER NEW GERMANY STATE PAMD0023981 12 13 13 13 9

POTOMAC RIVER NEW LIFE FOURSQUARE CMD0057100 15 18 18 18 12

POTOMAC RIVER NEW MARKET MD0020729 1,477 1,766 1,766 1,766 736

POTOMAC RIVER NEW WINDSOR MD0022586 540 635 635 635 320

POTOMAC RIVER NORBECK COUNTRY CLUBMD0024309

POTOMAC RIVER NORTH INDIAN HEAD ESTAMD0024601

POTOMAC RIVER NSWC-INDIAN HEAD MD0003158 4,451 4,438 1,479 740 148

POTOMAC RIVER NSWC-INDIAN HEAD MD0020885 1,949 2,251 2,251 2,251 2,114

POTOMAC RIVER OLD SOUTH MOUNTAIN INMD0055425 19 23 23 23 15

POTOMAC RIVER OLDTOWN MD0024759 68 68 68 68 64

POTOMAC RIVER PETER PAN INN MD0024244 11 14 14 14 14

POTOMAC RIVER PICCOWAXIN MIDDLE MD0023451 21 25 25 25 16

POTOMAC RIVER PINTO MD0022748 2,266 2,274 2,274 2,274 1,642

POTOMAC RIVER PISCATAWAY MD0021539 7,517 9,009 13,869 13,869 7,705

POTOMAC RIVER PLEASANT BRANCH MD0065269 390 466 466 466 311

POTOMAC RIVER PLESANT VALLEY MD0066745 73 85 85 85 57

POTOMAC RIVER POINT OF ROCKS MD0020800 1,272 1,520 1,520 1,520 602

POTOMAC RIVER POOLESVILLE MD0023001 1,587 1,749 2,022 1,011 202

POTOMAC RIVER RAWLINGS HEIGHTS MD0023213 308 309 309 309 309

POTOMAC RIVER ROCKY GAP STATE PARK MD0051667 472 474 474 474 316

POTOMAC RIVER RUNNYMEADE SCHOOL MD0065927 24 29 29 29 19

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH 92 CBPO, 11/6/2002
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

POTOMAC RIVER SANDY HOOK MD0064530 56 59 59 59 40

POTOMAC RIVER SENECA CREEK MD0021491 25,684 74,154 28,628 28,628 5,726

POTOMAC RIVER SHAMROCK RESTAURANTMD0058050 22 26 26 26 17

POTOMAC RIVER SHEPPARD PRATT WESTEMD0067521 27 32 32 32 21

POTOMAC RIVER SIDELING HILL REST AREAMD0062821 61 64 64 64 43

POTOMAC RIVER SMITHSBURG MD0024317 1,216 1,278 1,278 1,278 1,278

POTOMAC RIVER SOUTHERN CORRECTION MD0023914 414 478 478 478 212

POTOMAC RIVER SPRING MILLS WV1031613

POTOMAC RIVER SPRINGVIEW ESTATES MD0022870 51 61 61 61 41

POTOMAC RIVER ST. JAMES SCHOOL MD0065536 60 63 63 63 42

POTOMAC RIVER SWAN POINT MD0057525 290 335 335 335 223

POTOMAC RIVER TANEYTOWN MD0020672 4,156 4,888 2,773 1,387 277

POTOMAC RIVER THUNDERBIRD APARTMENMD0050334 79 91 91 91 81

POTOMAC RIVER THUNDERBIRD MOTEL MD0053155 37 42 42 42 28

POTOMAC RIVER THURMONT MD0021121 1,787 2,136 3,056 1,528 306

POTOMAC RIVER TRI-TOWN PLAZA MD0024937 81 81 81 81 81

POTOMAC RIVER UNION BRIDGE MD0022454 874 1,028 1,028 1,028 629

POTOMAC RIVER UPPER POTOMAC RIVER CMD0021687 49,000 48,866 48,866 30,773 6,155

POTOMAC RIVER URBANA HIGH SCHOOL MD0066940 26 31 31 31 18

POTOMAC RIVER VICTOR CULLEN CENTER MD0023922 318 380 380 380 253

POTOMAC RIVER WESTMINSTER MD0021831 5,854 6,886 13,105 6,552 1,310

POTOMAC RIVER WESTVACO CORPORATIOMD0001422 598 597 597 597 597

POTOMAC RIVER WHITE HOUSE MOTEL MD0056553 12 14 14 14 10

POTOMAC RIVER WHITE ROCK MD0025089 130 156 156 156 104

POTOMAC RIVER WINEBRENNER WWTP MD0003221 1,136 1,193 672 336 67

POTOMAC RIVER WINTERS APARTMENTS MD0057606 2 2 2 21

POTOMAC RIVER WOODSBORO MD0058661 674 806 806 806 743

POTOMAC RIVER ANTRIM TOWNSHIP PA0080519 3,126 3,240 1,510 755 151

POTOMAC RIVER CHAMBERSBURG BOROU PA0026051 37,236 38,599 14,544 7,272 1,454

POTOMAC RIVER FRANKLIN COUNTY AUTHOPA0020834 2,113 2,191 3,294 1,647 329

POTOMAC RIVER GETTYSBURG MUNICIPAL PA0021563 2,327 2,528 4,927 2,463 493

POTOMAC RIVER HYNDMAN BOROUGH PA0020851 269 279 254 127 25

POTOMAC RIVER LITTLESTOWN BOROUGH PA0021229 2,448 2,659 1,546 773 155

POTOMAC RIVER WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP PA0080225 7,021 7,278 2,838 1,419 284

POTOMAC RIVER WAYNESBORO BOROUGHPA0020621 12,274 12,723 2,647 1,323 265

POTOMAC RIVER ALEXANDRIA VA0025160 6,005 6,170 20,800 20,800 11,556

POTOMAC RIVER AQUIA VA0060968 1,015 1,610 2,900 2,900 1,611

POTOMAC RIVER ARLINGTON VA0025143 5,360 6,868 19,346 19,346 10,748

POTOMAC RIVER BROAD RUN WRF VA_BROADR 731 7,309 3,655 731

POTOMAC RIVER CHICKEN GEORGES VA0077402 123,344 123,007 7,382 7,382 369

POTOMAC RIVER COLONIAL BEACH VA0026409 6,639 7,022 2,577 1,289 258

POTOMAC RIVER DAHLGREN (DAHLGREN SVA0026514 439 496 926 463 93

POTOMAC RIVER DALE CITY #1 VA0024724 743 886 1,678 1,678 932

POTOMAC RIVER DALE CITY #8 VA0024678 714 851 1,561 1,561 867

POTOMAC RIVER DUPONT-WAYNESBORO VA0002160 1,252 1,249 1,249 1,249 904

POTOMAC RIVER FAIRVIEW BEACH MD0056464 317 358 358 358 238

POTOMAC RIVER FISHERSVILLE VA0025291 6,510 13,917 5,208 2,604 521

POTOMAC RIVER FRONT ROYAL VA0062812 8,055 9,324 8,414 4,207 841

POTOMAC RIVER FWSA OPEQUON VA0065552 17,672 20,483 17,940 8,970 1,794

POTOMAC RIVER H.L. MOONEY VA0025101 2,953 4,473 8,020 8,020 4,456

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH 93 CBPO, 11/6/2002
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

POTOMAC RIVER HARRISONBURG-ROCKINGVA0060640 57,587 78,058 35,481 17,740 3,548

POTOMAC RIVER LEESBURG MD0066184 11,624 12,812 9,010 4,505 901

POTOMAC RIVER LURAY VA0062642 1,765 1,877 4,578 2,289 458

POTOMAC RIVER MASSANUTTEN PUBLIC SEVA0024732 2,766 2,888 1,155 578 116

POTOMAC RIVER MERCK & COMPANY INC.-SVA0002178 80,398 80,179 30,720 15,360 3,072

POTOMAC RIVER MIDDLE RIVER VA0064793 22,566 35,349 17,207 8,604 1,721

POTOMAC RIVER MONTROSS - WESTMORE VA0072729 111 95 47 9

POTOMAC RIVER NAVAL SURFACE WARFARVA0021067 3,387 3,823 1,322 661 132

POTOMAC RIVER NEW MARKET STP VA0022853 3,931 4,262 1,705 852 170

POTOMAC RIVER NOMAN M. COLE JR. POLLVA0025364 13,923 17,159 29,055 29,055 16,141

POTOMAC RIVER PARKINS MILL VA0075191 9,335 10,819 4,328 2,164 433

POTOMAC RIVER PILGRIMS PRIDE-HINTON VA0002313 54,403 54,255 3,288 3,288 164

POTOMAC RIVER PURCELLVILLE VA0022802 2,691 3,225 1,290 645 129

POTOMAC RIVER QUANTICO-MAINSIDE VA0028363 342 407 759 759 422

POTOMAC RIVER ROUND HILL WWTP VA0026212 1,148 1,375 458 229 46

POTOMAC RIVER SIL MRRS VA0090263 5,779 3,853 1,926 385

POTOMAC RIVER STONY CREEK STP VA0028380 1,858 2,014 806 403 81

POTOMAC RIVER STRASBURG VA0020311 5,425 5,883 2,353 1,177 235

POTOMAC RIVER STUARTS DRAFT VA0066877 4,920 6,853 4,568 2,284 457

POTOMAC RIVER UPPER OCCOQUAN SEWAVA0024988 3,173 4,411 10,355 10,355 10,355

POTOMAC RIVER WAYNESBORO VA0025151 35,879 37,575 8,573 4,287 857

POTOMAC RIVER WEYERS CAVE STP VA0022349 884 3,046 1,218 609 122

POTOMAC RIVER WIDEWATER WWTP VA0090387 609 305 152 30

POTOMAC RIVER WOODSTOCK VA0026468 2,938 3,185 1,274 637 127

POTOMAC RIVER BERKELEY COUNTY PSSDWV0020061 4,677 5,496 1,832 916 183

POTOMAC RIVER BERKELEY COUNTY PSSDWV0082759 7,206 8,467 2,822 1,411 282

POTOMAC RIVER CHARLESTOWN WV0022349 6,183 6,828 2,276 1,138 228

POTOMAC RIVER FORT ASHBY PSD WV0041521

POTOMAC RIVER FRANKLIN WV0024970

POTOMAC RIVER HARPERS FERRY-BOLIVARWV0039136 1,747 1,743 1,743 1,743 1,162

POTOMAC RIVER HESTER INDUSTRIES, INCWV0047236 1,513 0 0 0 0

POTOMAC RIVER HONEYWOOD HOMES WV0080918

POTOMAC RIVER KEYSER WV0024392 3,826 3,840 3,675 1,837 367

POTOMAC RIVER MARTINSBURG WV0023167 18,245 21,439 7,146 3,573 715

POTOMAC RIVER MOOREFIELD WV0020150 2,887 0 0 0 0

POTOMAC RIVER MOUNTAIN TOP PSD WV0101524 241 240 240 240 160

POTOMAC RIVER PETERSBURG WV0021792 6,742 6,723 2,241 1,121 224

POTOMAC RIVER REPUBLIC PAPERBOARD WV0005517

POTOMAC RIVER RIVER BEND PARK WV0105384 194 203 203 203 136

POTOMAC RIVER ROMNEY WV0020699 3,852 4,172 1,391 695 139

POTOMAC RIVER SHEPHERDSTOWN WV0024775

POTOMAC RIVER SPECRATECH INTERNATIOWV0005533 2,895 2,887 962 481 96

POTOMAC RIVER VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWWV0005525

POTOMAC RIVER WAMPLER-LONGACRE, IN WV0005495 46,052 0 0 0 0

POTOMAC RIVER Total 1,202,995 1,322,949 845,869 645,156 251,482

RAPPAHANNOCK RCULPEPER VA0061590 9,348 10,371 6,914 3,457 691

RAPPAHANNOCK RFMC VA0068110 2,835 15,034 10,023 5,011 1,002

RAPPAHANNOCK RFORT A.P. HILL (WILCOX CVA0032034 1,365 1,441 355 178 36

RAPPAHANNOCK RFREDERICKSBURG VA0025127 7,927 8,934 6,790 3,395 679

RAPPAHANNOCK RHAYMOUNT STP VA0089125 4,340 2,893 1,447 289

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH 94 CBPO, 11/6/2002
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

RAPPAHANNOCK RKILMARNOCK VA0020788 1,839 1,944 760 380 76

RAPPAHANNOCK RLITTLE FALLS RUN VA0076392 7,050 11,172 12,670 6,335 1,267

RAPPAHANNOCK RMASSAPONAX VA0025658 5,075 20,021 13,348 6,674 1,335

RAPPAHANNOCK RORANGE VA0021385 4,771 3,159 2,106 1,053 211

RAPPAHANNOCK RREEDVILLE VA0060712 274 291 116 58 12

RAPPAHANNOCK RREMINGTON REGIONAL VA0076805 3,364 2,619 1,746 873 175

RAPPAHANNOCK RSOUTH WALES STP VA0080527 3,910 2,607 1,303 261

RAPPAHANNOCK RTAPPAHANNOCK VA0071471 2,824 2,846 1,139 569 114

RAPPAHANNOCK RURBANNA VA0026263 427 860 344 172 34

RAPPAHANNOCK RWARRENTON VA0021172 3,337 3,859 3,594 1,797 359

RAPPAHANNOCK RWARSAW VA0026891 1,598 1,653 661 331 66

RAPPAHANNOCK RWILDERNESS SHORES VA0083411 3,769 4,160 1,664 832 166

RAPPAHANNOCK RIVER Total 55,802 96,615 67,729 33,864 6,773

VA EASTERN SHORCAPE CHARLES VA0021288 1,163 1,159 464 232 46

VA EASTERN SHORONANCOCK VA0021253 1,777 1,782 713 356 71

VA EASTERN SHORTANGIER ISLAND VA0067423 351 352 141 70 14

VA EASTERN SHORTYSON FOODS, INC.-TEMPVA0004049 46,067 45,941 6,381 6,381 319

VA EASTERN SHORE Total 49,358 49,235 7,698 7,039 451

YORK RIVER AMOCO-YORKTOWN VA0003018 22,058 21,998 21,998 21,998 18,507

YORK RIVER ASHLAND VA0024899 8,802 7,081 4,721 2,360 472

YORK RIVER CAROLINE COUNTY REGIOVA0073504 2,564 2,706 597 299 60

YORK RIVER DOSWELL VA0029521 31,303 30,836 20,558 10,279 2,056

YORK RIVER GORDONSVILLE VA0021105 3,905 4,310 1,724 862 172

YORK RIVER HRSD-YORK VA0081311 45,959 58,018 38,679 19,339 3,868

YORK RIVER MATHEWS COURTHOUSE VA0028819 202 345 244 122 24

YORK RIVER PARHAM LANDING WWTP VA0088331 221 245 316 158 32

YORK RIVER SMURFIT STONE VA0003115 69,554 69,364 56,181 28,091 5,618

YORK RIVER TOTOPOTOMOY VA0089915 22,842 15,228 7,614 1,523

YORK RIVER WEST POINT VA0075434 4,757 4,568 1,827 914 183

YORK RIVER Total 189,324 222,313 162,071 92,034 32,514

JAMES RIVER ALLEGHANY CO. LOWER JVA0090671 4,568 2,284 1,142 228

JAMES RIVER BROWN & WILLIAMSON VA0002780 4,430 4,418 2,512 1,256 251

JAMES RIVER BUENA VISTA VA0020991 11,062 11,032 4,413 2,206 441

JAMES RIVER BWXT VA0003697 1,550 1,546 1,458 729 146

JAMES RIVER CLIFTON FORGE VA0022772 9,422 9,396 3,759 1,879 376

JAMES RIVER COVINGTON VA0025542 13,565 13,528 5,411 2,706 541

JAMES RIVER CREWE STP VA0020303 164 166 600 300 60

JAMES RIVER DUPONT-SPRUANCE VA0004669 7,882 7,860 7,860 7,860 7,104

JAMES RIVER FALLING CREEK VA0024996 26,704 31,618 25,093 12,547 2,509

JAMES RIVER FARMVILLE VA0083135 8,589 8,742 2,962 1,481 296

JAMES RIVER GEORGIA PACIFIC CORPOVA0003026 162,875 162,430 108,652 10,975 2,195

JAMES RIVER HENRICO COUNTY VA0063690 173,622 233,377 152,278 76,139 15,228

JAMES RIVER HONEYWELL VA0005291 52,110 51,968 51,968 51,968 40,244

JAMES RIVER HOPEWELL VA0066630 36,983 160,440 106,960 53,480 10,696

JAMES RIVER HRSD-ARMY BASE VA0081230 53,997 73,708 53,145 26,573 5,315

JAMES RIVER HRSD-BOAT HARBOR VA0081256 61,445 98,649 70,200 35,100 7,020

JAMES RIVER HRSD-CHESAPEAKE/ELIZAVA0081264 91,597 126,074 80,098 40,049 8,010

JAMES RIVER HRSD-JAMES RIVER VA0081272 58,254 80,313 60,911 30,456 6,091

JAMES RIVER HRSD-NANSEMOND VA0081299 72,341 76,721 61,368 30,684 6,137

JAMES RIVER HRSD-VIP VA0081281 96,305 109,336 109,336 54,668 10,934

JAMES RIVER HRSD-WILLIAMSBURG VA0081302 46,860 48,424 48,424 24,212 4,842

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH 95 CBPO, 11/6/2002
TABLE IX-H: Discharged Phosphorus Loads (lbs/yr) for All Point Sources Sorted by Basin

BASIN FACILITY NPDES 2000 Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4

JAMES RIVER LAKE MONTICELLO STP VA0024945 3,869 4,312 1,725 862 172

JAMES RIVER LEES COMMERCIAL CARPVA0004677 95,022 94,762 42,801 18,952 244

JAMES RIVER LEXINGTON-ROCKBRIDGEVA0088161 6,412 6,602 2,641 1,320 264

JAMES RIVER LYNCHBURG VA0024970 124,313 163,218 52,993 26,496 5,299

JAMES RIVER MOORES CREEK-RIVANNAVA0025518 100,164 114,810 36,206 18,103 3,621

JAMES RIVER PHILLIP MORRIS-PARK 500VA0026557 7,456 7,435 7,435 7,435 584

JAMES RIVER PROCTORS CREEK VA0060194 17,081 20,224 53,758 26,879 5,376

JAMES RIVER RICHMOND VA0063177 114,364 219,234 146,156 73,078 14,616

JAMES RIVER SOUTH CENTRAL VA0025437 27,446 59,069 39,379 19,690 3,938

JAMES RIVER TYSON FOODS, INC. VA0004031 791 789 868 868 289

JAMES RIVER WESTVACO CORPORATIOVA0003646 26,328 26,256 26,256 26,256 9,054

JAMES RIVER Total 1,513,003 2,031,025 1,369,910 686,350 172,121

Grand Total 5,645,151 6,460,745 4,440,946 2,575,186 748,618

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable ix-h TP_DISCH 96 CBPO, 11/6/2002
X. COST RESULTS SUMMARIES

This section provides tables that summarize the costs which were either obtained directly from

individual facilities, or calculated using the previously described methodologies. 

Table X-A - provides the costs for TN removal by Tier for all of the significant municipal facilities. 

Table X-B - provides the costs for TP removal by Tier for all of the significant municipal facilities. 

Table VI-C in Section 6 provides the costs for the non-significant municipal facilities. 

Table V-C - in Section 5 provides the costs for the industrial facilities. 

Table VII - in Section 7 provides the costs for the Blue Plains CSO.

Table X-C - provides a summary of the costs in total for all point source categories arranged by state. 

Table X-D - provides a summary of the costs by state arranged by point source category. 

Table X-E - provides a summary of the costs for the significant municipal facilities only by state. 

Table X-F and X-G provide information relating the amount of total design flow and number of the 

facilities being treated by each Tier to the total cost for each jurisdiction.

References noted in the Section X tables are included in the Part 3 of Appendix I.

97
Table X-A: NITROGEN INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED

DESIGN

ST

A FACILITY NPDES

BNR

STATUS

FLOW

(MGD)

FLOW

(MGD)

TN

(mg/l)

TP

(mg/l) TN CC TN O&M

TN

NOTE TN CC TN O&M

TN

NOTE TN CC TN O&

DC BLUE PLAINS DC0021199 CURRENT 370 341.71 7.50 0.11 0 0 14 33,000,000 5,541,509 14 225,000,000 13,400

DC Total 370.00 341.71 0 0 33,000,000 5,541,509 225,000,000 13,400

DE BRIDGEVILLE DE0020249 BY 2010 0.8 0.22 8.00 5.40 3,187,400 63,244 12, M 0 0 N 918,088 6

DE LAUREL DE0020125 0.5 0.32 22.32 3.20 8 2,374,508 147,026 1 627,970 10

DE SEAFORD DE0020265 CURRENT 2 1.28 6.04 1.13 0 0 9 0 0 N 1,636,850 29

DE Total 3.30 1.81 3,187,400 63,244 2,374,508 147,026 3,182,908 46

MD ABERDEEN MD0021563 CURRENT 4 1.72 8.00 0.12 0 0 2 0 0 N 2,408,870 31

MD ABERDEEN PROVINMD0021237 BY 2005 2.8 0.91 8.00 0.41 8,000,000 159,146 2, M 0 0 N 1,945,658 18MD ABERDEEN PROVINMD0021229 CURRENT 3 0.96 8.00 0.49 0 0 2 0 0 N 2,022,860 18MD ANNAPOLIS MD0021814 CURRENT 10 7.54 8.00 0.44 0 0 2 0 0 N 4,724,930 115MD BACK RIVER MD0021555 CURRENT 180 87.73 10.00 0.16 0 0 2 10,000,000 141,129 19, M 70,346,630 1,183

MD BALLENGER CREEKMD0021822 CURRENT 6 4.12 8.00 0.34 0 0 2 0 0 N 3,180,890 68

MD BOWIE MD0021628 CURRENT 3.3 2.09 8.00 0.17 0 0 2 0 0 N 2,138,663 39MD BROADNECK MD0021644 CURRENT 6 5.23 8.00 0.48 0 0 2 0 0 N 3,180,890 86MD BROADWATER MD0024350 CURRENT 2 1.27 8.00 0.54 0 0 2 0 0 N 1,636,850 29MD BRUNSWICK MD0020958 BY 2005 0.7 0.76 8.00 3.00 4,900,000 10,928 2, M 0 0 N 821,382 23

MD CAMBRIDGE MD0021636 BY 2005 8.1 5.11 8.00 2.72 9,934,376 198,241 2, M 0 0 N 3,991,511 80

MD CELANESE MD0063878 BY 2005 1.25 1.02 8.00 2.52 5,791,500 116,260 2, M 0 0 N 1,347,343 29MD CENTREVILLE MD0020834 BY 2005 0.375 0.35 8.00 2.79 5,065,400 101,583 2, M 0 0 N 507,088 12

MD CHESAPEAKE BEACMD0020281 CURRENT 1.18 0.81 8.00 0.89 0 0 2 0 0 N 1,320,322 23

MD CHESTERTOWN MD0020010 BY 2005 0.9 0.65 8.00 4.34 2,600,000 51,782 2, M 0 0 N 1,014,794 19MD CONOCOCHEAGUE MD0063509 BY 2005 4.1 1.19 8.00 1.27 5,555,439 111,577 2, M 0 0 N 2,447,471 21MD COX CREEK MD0021661 BY 2005 15 12.30 8.00 1.28 9,476,780 198,973 2, M 0 0 N 6,654,980 180

MD CRISFIELD MD0020001 BY 2005 1 0.68 8.00 2.02 4,052,200 80,139 2, M 0 0 N 1,111,500 19

MD CUMBERLAND MD0021598 BY 2005 15 9.60 8.00 1.73 0 0 2 0 0 N 6,654,980 140

MD DAMASCUS MD0020982 CURRENT 1.5 0.86 8.00 1.12 0 0 2 0 0 N 1,443,845 22

MD DELMAR MD0020532 BY 2005 0.65 0.58 8.00 0.35 1,030,000 19,833 2, M 0 0 N 773,029 18

MD DENTON MD0020494 CURRENT 0.8 0.41 8.00 1.38 0 0 2 0 0 N 918,088 12

MD DORSEY RUN MD0063207 CURRENT 2 1.47 8.00 0.22 0 0 2 0 0 N 1,636,850 33MD EASTON MD0020273 CURRENT 2.35 1.93 8.00 2.59 0 0 2 0 0 N 1,771,953 41MD ELKTON MD0020681 BY 2005 2.7 1.73 8.00 1.09 6,360,000 128,234 2, M 0 0 N 1,907,057 35MD EMMITSBURG MD0020257 CURRENT 0.75 0.58 8.00 1.98 0 0 2 0 0 N 869,735 17MD FEDERALSBURG MD0020249 BY 2005 0.75 0.33 8.00 0.98 1,500,000 29,282 2, M 0 0 N 869,735 10MD FORT DETRICK MD0020877 CURRENT 2 1.11 8.00 1.17 0 0 8 0 0 N 1,636,850 25MD FORT MEADE MD0021717 CURRENT 4.5 2.17 8.00 0.19 0 0 8 0 0 N 2,601,875 38MD FREDERICK MD0021610 BY 2005 8 7.76 8.00 4.19 8,816,824 153,316 2, M 0 0 N 3,952,910 122MD FREEDOM DISTRICTMD0021512 CURRENT 3.5 2.85 8.00 0.68 0 0 2 0 0 N 2,215,865 53MD FRUITLAND MD0052990 BY 2005 0.5 0.52 8.00 3.00 6,200,000 124,549 2, M 0 0 N 627,970 17

MD GEORGES CREEK MD0060071 BY 2005 0.6 0.67 8.00 3.00 2,000,000 40,709 2, M 0 0 N 724,676 21MD HAGERSTOWN MD0021776 CURRENT 8 8.47 8.00 2.32 0 0 2 0 0 N 3,952,910 133

MD HAVRE DE GRACE MD0021750 BY 2005 1.89 1.40 8.00 0.89 6,278,550 125,354 2, M 0 0 N 1,594,389 32MD HURLOCK MD0022730 CURRENT 2 1.06 8.00 7.17 5,200,000 103,378 2, M 0 0 N 1,636,850 24

2010 DATA* TIER 1 $) (TN=8 for NRT plants)) TIER 2 ($) (TN=8 for ALL) TIER 3 ($) (TN=5 for A

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-a 98 
Table X-A: NITROGEN INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED

DESIGN

ST

A FACILITY NPDES

BNR

STATUS

FLOW

(MGD)

FLOW

(MGD)

TN

(mg/l)

TP

(mg/l) TN CC TN O&M

TN

NOTE TN CC TN O&M

TN

NOTE TN CC TN O&

2010 DATA* TIER 1 $) (TN=8 for NRT plants)) TIER 2 ($) (TN=8 for ALL) TIER 3 ($) (TN=5 for A

MD INDIAN HEAD MD0020052 BY 2005 0.5 0.35 8.00 2.53 656,000 12,603 2, M 0 0 N 627,970 11

MD JOPPATOWNE MD0022535 CURRENT 0.95 0.86 8.00 0.80 0 0 2 0 0 N 1,063,147 25

MD KENT ISLAND MD0023485 BY 2005 2.135 1.64 8.00 0.72 20,742,570 415,470 2, M 0 0 N 1,688,961 36MD LA PLATA MD0020524 BY 2005 1 0.82 8.00 1.59 4,120,970 82,823 2, M 0 0 N 1,111,500 24MD LEONARDTOWN MD0024767 BY 2005 0.68 0.48 8.00 2.97 1,840,000 37,068 2, M 0 0 N 802,041 15

MD LITTLE PATUXENT MD0055174 CURRENT 22.5 20.63 8.00 0.35 0 0 2 0 0 N 9,550,055 293

MD MARYLAND CITY MD0062596 CURRENT 2.5 1.06 8.00 0.48 0 0 2 0 0 N 1,829,855 22

MD MARYLAND CORRE MD0023957 CURRENT 1.23 0.94 8.00 0.35 0 0 2 0 0 N 1,339,622 27MD MATTAWOMAN MD0021865 BY 2005 15 8.17 8.00 0.13 7,935,800 162,078 2, M 0 0 N 6,654,980 119

MD MOUNT AIRY MD0022527 CURRENT 1.2 0.66 8.00 0.47 0 0 2 0 0 N 1,328,042 19

MD NORTHEAST RIVERMD0052027 BY 2005 2 0.63 8.00 0.94 1,800,000 35,703 2, M 0 0 N 1,636,850 14MD PARKWAY MD0021725 CURRENT 7.5 6.20 8.00 0.29 0 0 2 0 0 N 3,759,905 98MD PATAPSCO MD0021601 BY 2010 73 73.00 8.00 0.78 200,000,000 4,067,523 2, M 0 0 N 29,043,560 995

MD PATUXENT MD0021652 CURRENT 7.5 4.85 8.00 0.34 0 0 2 0 0 N 3,759,905 77

MD PERRYVILLE MD0020613 CURRENT 1.65 0.94 8.00 0.30 0 0 2 0 0 N 1,501,746 23MD PINE HILL RUN MD0021679 CURRENT 6 3.89 8.00 1.36 0 0 2 0 0 N 3,180,890 64MD PISCATAWAY MD0021539 CURRENT 30 25.30 8.00 0.12 0 0 2 0 0 N 12,445,130 354

MD POCOMOKE CITY MD0022551 BY 2005 1.4 0.96 8.00 4.26 2,700,000 200,000 2, 2 0 0 N 1,405,244 25

MD POOLESVILLE MD0023001 BY 2005 0.625 0.66 8.00 0.87 1,658,000 33,147 2, M 0 0 N 748,853 21

MD PRINCESS ANNE MD0020656 CURRENT 1.26 0.62 8.00 0.15 3,563,500 70,685 2, M 0 0 N 1,351,203 17

MD SALISBURY MD0021571 BY 2005 6.8 5.90 8.00 1.39 15,000,000 303,495 2, M 0 0 N 3,489,698 95MD SENECA CREEK MD0021491 BY 2005 5 18.80 8.00 1.30 29,520,000 566,020 2, M 0 0 N 2,794,880 323MD SNOW HILL MD0022764 BY 2005 0.5 0.47 8.00 3.75 1,600,000 32,017 2, M 0 0 N 627,970 15

MD SOD RUN MD0056545 CURRENT 20 12.59 8.00 1.17 0 0 2 0 0 N 8,585,030 180

MD TANEYTOWN MD0020672 CURRENT 1.1 0.91 8.00 1.76 0 0 2 0 0 N 1,289,441 27

MD THURMONT MD0021121 CURRENT 1 1.00 8.00 0.70 0 0 2 0 0 N 1,111,500 29MD WESTERN BRANCHMD0021741 CURRENT 30 23.00 8.00 0.68 0 0 2 0 0 N 0 

MD WESTMINSTER MD0021831 CURRENT 5 4.30 8.00 0.53 0 0 2 0 0 N 2,794,880 73

MD WINEBRENNER W

WMD0003221 BY 2005 1 0.22 8.00 1.77 852,000 16,578 2, M 0 0 N 1,111,500 6

MD Total 556.23 397.79 384,749,909 7,788,496 10,000,000 141,129 253,226,556 5,843

NY ADDISON (V) NY0020320 0.42 0.24 17.73 3.00 8 2,318,600 46,669 1 550,605 8

NY BATH (V) NY0021431 1 0.76 17.61 3.00 8 2,722,193 53,890 1 1,111,500 22

NY BINGHAMTON-JOHNNY0024414 BY 2005 20 19.53 8.00 2.03 0 0 7 0 0 N 8,585,030 280

NY COOPERSTOWN NY0023591 0.52 0.65 18.95 3.00 8 2,388,473 46,400 1 647,311 21

NY CORNING (C) NY0025721 2.13 1.30 19.77 3.00 8 3,496,935 67,489 1 1,687,031 28

NY CORTLAND (C) NY0027561 BY 2005 10 8.52 8.00 1.30 0 0 7 0 0 N 4,724,930 130NY ELMIRA / CHEMUN

GNY0035742 12 7.19 15.00 3.00 8 9,613,949 181,374 1 5,496,950 107

NY ENDICOTT (V) NY0027669 10 7.58 23.47 3.00 8 6,656,000 133,689 7, M 0 

NY HAMILTON (V) NY0020672 0.85 0.45 29.29 3.00 8 2,618,202 50,710 1 966,441 13

NY HORNELL (C) NY0023647 4 3.01 15.74 3.00 8 4,745,444 90,005 1 2,408,870 54NY LAKE STREET/CHE

MNY0036986 9.5 7.12 19.68 3.00 8 8,174,859 147,651 1 4,531,925 109

NY NORWICH NY0021423 2.2 2.68 30.04 3.00 8 3,544,425 60,713 1 1,714,052 59

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-a 99 
Table X-A: NITROGEN INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED

DESIGN

ST

A FACILITY NPDES

BNR

STATUS

FLOW

(MGD)

FLOW

(MGD)

TN

(mg/l)

TP

(mg/l) TN CC TN O&M

TN

NOTE TN CC TN O&M

TN

NOTE TN CC TN O&

2010 DATA* TIER 1 $) (TN=8 for NRT plants)) TIER 2 ($) (TN=8 for ALL) TIER 3 ($) (TN=5 for A

NY ONEONTA (C) NY0031151 4 3.01 17.76 3.00 8 4,745,444 63,867 1 2,408,870 54

NY OWEGO #2 NY0025798 BY 2005 2 1.04 8.00 2.48 0 0 7 0 0 N 1,636,850 23NY OWEGO (V) NY0029262 1 0.62 15.42 3.00 8 2,722,193 53,458 1 1,111,500 18NY RICHFIELD SPRIN

G NY0031411 0.6 0.32 16.58 0.08 8 2,444,284 48,320 1 724,676 10

NY SIDNEY (V) NY0029271 1.7 0.67 17.03 3.00 8 3,203,924 92,656 1 1,521,047 16

NY WAVERLY (V) NY0031089 0.65 1.01 27.70 3.55 8 2,479,128 46,106 1 773,029 31

NY Total 82.57 65.68 0 0 61,874,054 1,182,996 40,600,618 990PA ALTOONA CITY AUTPA0027014 5.5 6.03 14.15 4.30 8 1,200,000 15,637 3, M 8,330,000 282

PA ALTOONA CITY AUTPA0027022 9 6.25 16.80 4.29 8 1,200,000 12,811 3, M 11,530,000 257PA ANNVILLE TOWNSHPA0021806 0.75 0.48 30.24 1.49 8 2,548,725 49,155 1 869,735 14

PA ANTRIM TOWNSHIPPA0080519 CURRENT 1.05 0.50 8.00 2.15 0 0 N 0 0 N 1,270,140 15PA ASHLAND MUNICIP

APA0023558 1.3 0.72 8.75 3.23 8 2,929,367 59,227 1 1,366,643 20

PA BEDFORD BOROU

GPA0022209 1.2 0.98 13.56 1.39 8 2,860,429 58,274 1 1,328,042 28

PA BELLEFONTE BOR

OPA0020486 3.22 2.07 16.03 0.69 8 4,229,766 81,123 1 2,107,782 40

PA BERWICK MUNICIP

APA0023248 3.65 1.49 22.99 4.36 8 4,514,951 92,508 1 2,273,767 27

PA BLOOMSBURG MUNPA0027171 4.29 2.66 9.53 1.41 8 4,935,313 101,150 1 2,520,813 47PA BLOSSBURG PA0020036 0.6 0.21 11.07 1.31 8 2,444,284 49,090 1 724,676 6

PA BROWN TOWNSHIPPA0028088 0.6 0.34 27.44 0.93 8 2,444,284 49,450 1 724,676 10PA BURNHAM BOROU

GPA0038920 0.64 0.59 9.00 1.50 8 2,472,161 49,976 1 763,358 18

PA CARLISLE BOROU

GPA0026077 7 3.45 19.85 0.42 8 6,660,935 136,597 1 3,566,900 55

PA CARLISLE SUBURB

APA0024384 CURRENT 0.925 0.70 8.00 0.65 0 0 N 0 0 N 1,038,971 20

PA CHAMBERSBURG BPA0026051 BY 2005 5.2 4.78 8.00 2.65 6,400,000 124,868 3, M 0 0 N 0 

PA CLARKS SUMMIT-S

OPA0028576 2 2.28 16.99 3.12 8 3,408,584 64,033 1 1,636,850 52

PA CLEARFIELD PA0026310 4.5 2.62 11.04 0.78 8 5,072,176 104,021 1 2,601,875 46PA COLUMBIA PA0026123 2 0.83 17.50 0.70 8 3,408,584 69,207 1 1,636,850 18PA CURWENSVILLE MUPA0024759 0.5 0.45 14.68 1.86 8 2,374,508 47,998 1 627,970 15

PA DANVILLE MUNICIP PA0023531 3.22 2.15 8.97 1.35 8 4,229,766 85,178 1 2,107,782 41

PA DERRY TOWNSHIP PA0026484 5 3.47 14.77 1.33 8 1,983,000 111,000 S 1,240,000 26

PA DILLSBURG BOROUPA0024431 1 0.66 11.07 0.88 8 2,722,193 55,091 1 1,111,500 19

PA DOVER TOWNSHIP PA0020826 CURRENT 4 3.70 7.53 1.36 0 0 N 0 0 N 2,408,870 67PA DUNCANSVILLE PA0032883 1.217 0.61 8.00 2.31 8 2,872,157 55,995 1 1,334,604 17PA EAST PENNSBORO PA0038415 3.7 2.42 17.43 3.49 8 4,547,969 86,388 1 2,293,067 44PA EASTERN SNYDER PA0110582 BY 2005 2.8 1.60 8.00 3.95 3,000,000 61,856 10, M 0 0 N 0 

PA ELIZABETHTOWN BPA0023108 BY 2005 3 2.34 8.00 0.87 4,083,001 86,431 1 0 0 N 2,022,860 46

PA ELKLAND MUNICIP

APA0113298 0.55 0.43 22.82 0.88 8 2,409,411 47,203 1 676,323 14

PA EMPORIUM BOROUPA0028631 0.52 0.48 6.88 2.53 8 2,388,473 47,765 1 647,311 16PA EPHRATA BOROU

GPA0027405 3.8 2.78 1.98 1.51 8 4,613,914 93,551 1 2,331,668 51

PA FAIRVIEW TOWNSHPA0081868 0.5 0.40 11.07 0.64 8 2,374,508 47,883 1 627,970 13

PA FRANKLIN COUNT

YPA0020834 0.4 1.08 1.05 0.67 8 2,304,611 46,741 1 531,264 39

PA GETTYSBURG MUNPA0021563 CURRENT 1.63 1.62 5.11 0.51 0 0 N 0 0 N 1,494,026 40

PA GREATER HAZELT

OPA0026921 8.9 6.68 10.36 0.94 8 7,840,000 163,170 3, M 16,250,000 391

PA GREGG TOWNSHIP PA0114821 CURRENT 0.8 0.66 6.60 1.33 0 0 N 0 0 N 918,088 20

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-a 100 
Table X-A: NITROGEN INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED

DESIGN

ST

A FACILITY NPDES

BNR

STATUS

FLOW

(MGD)

FLOW

(MGD)

TN

(mg/l)

TP

(mg/l) TN CC TN O&M

TN

NOTE TN CC TN O&M

TN

NOTE TN CC TN O&

2010 DATA* TIER 1 $) (TN=8 for NRT plants)) TIER 2 ($) (TN=8 for ALL) TIER 3 ($) (TN=5 for A

PA HAMPDEN TOWNSHPA0028746 CURRENT 1.76 1.30 8.00 1.06 0 0 N 0 0 N 1,544,208 31

PA HAMPDEN TOWNSHPA0080314 2.5 2.01 9.35 0.70 8 3,747,289 73,618 1 1,829,855 42PA HANOVER BOROU

GPA0026875 3.65 3.84 23.73 0.99 8 60,000 0 3 5,130,000 161

PA HARRISBURG SEWEPA0027197 BY 2010 37.7 26.24 8.00 1.38 22,682,000 865,000 S 0 0 N 0 PA HIGHSPIRE PA0024040 2 1.05 14.97 1.63 8 3,408,584 69,030 1 1,636,850 23

PA HOLLIDAYSBURG RPA0043273 2 2.98 6.82 1.70 8 3,408,584 67,349 1 1,636,850 68PA HOUTZDALE BORO PA0046159 CURRENT 0.3 0.12 6.89 0.71 0 0 N 0 0 N 434,558 4

PA HUNTINGDON BOR

OPA0026191 3.75 2.13 11.07 1.31 8 4,580,956 93,717 1 2,312,368 39

PA HYNDMAN BOROU

GPA0020851 0.104 0.08 11.11 1.10 8 2,097,017 42,022 1 245,014 5

PA JERSEY SHORE B

OPA0028665 0.8 0.72 21.08 6.09 8 2,583,478 52,678 1 918,088 21

PA KELLY TOWNSHIP 

MPA0028681 CURRENT 2.75 1.82 2.20 0.78 0 0 N 0 0 N 1,926,358 36

PA LACKAWANNA RIVEPA0027090 7 5.12 13.16 0.88 8 6,660,935 128,655 1 6,920,000 160

PA LACKAWANNA RIVEPA0027065 6 2.45 9.13 1.66 8 6,034,411 120,013 1 3,180,890 40

PA LACKAWANNA RIVEPA0027073 1 0.34 28.10 0.87 8 2,722,193 55,025 1 1,111,500 9PA LACKAWANNA RIVEPA0027081 BY 2005 0.7 0.49 8.00 1.12 2,513,941 55,025 1 0 0 N 821,382 15

PA LANCASTER AREA SPA0042269 BY 2005 15 7.78 8.00 0.75 4,249,333 93,253 S, 0 0 N 10,460,000 179

PA LANCASTER CITY PA0026743 BY 2010 29.73 20.71 8.00 0.81 1,077,000 8,461 3, M 0 0 N 23,080,000 543PA LEBANON CITY AUTPA0027316 8 5.50 33.65 1.39 8 4,039,000 121,589 3, M 7,620,000 167PA LEMOYNE BOROU

GPA0026441 2.088 1.66 22.88 1.42 8 3,468,413 71,828 1 1,670,819 37

PA LEWISBURG AREA JPA0044661 BY 2010 2.42 1.20 8.00 1.33 3,693,297 75,717 1 0 0 N 3,630,000 51

PA LEWISTOWN BOR

O PA0026280 2.4 1.89 14.00 1.30 8 3,679,787 75,693 1 1,791,254 40

PA LITITZ SEWAGE AUTPA0020320 3.5 3.02 23.00 1.57 8 4,415,719 80,056 1 2,215,865 56PA LITTLESTOWN BORPA0021229 1 0.51 12.51 1.72 8 2,722,193 54,974 1 1,111,500 14PA LOCK HAVEN PA0025933 BY 2010 3.75 2.18 8.00 2.42 4,580,956 94,176 1 0 0 N 4,590,000 79

PA LOGAN TOWNSHIP-PA0032557 BY 2005 0.6 0.37 8.00 2.69 2,444,284 49,316 1 0 0 N 724,676 11

PA LOWER ALLEN TO

WPA0027189 5.95 3.40 13.63 1.45 8 6,002,771 123,770 1 3,161,589 56

PA LOWER LACKAWANPA0026361 6 3.50 17.54 1.57 8 6,034,411 125,085 1 3,180,890 57PA LYKENS BOROUGH PA0043575 0.41 0.24 11.07 1.31 8 2,311,606 46,470 1 540,935 8

PA MAHANOY CITY PA0070041 CURRENT 1.38 0.57 8.00 2.67 0 0 N 0 0 N 1,397,524 15

PA MANHEIM BOROU

GPA0020893 1 0.79 8.82 1.35 8 2,722,193 55,150 1 1,111,500 23

PA MANSFIELD BOROUPA0021814 1 0.58 10.50 2.24 8 2,722,193 54,996 1 1,111,500 16PA MARIETTA-DONEG

APA0021717 0.6 0.45 11.07 1.01 8 2,444,284 49,329 1 724,676 14

PA MARTINSBURG PA0028347 0.5 0.41 11.07 1.49 8 2,374,508 47,892 1 627,970 13PA MARYSVILLE MUNICPA0021571 0.5 1.10 11.07 0.12 8 2,374,508 48,576 1 627,970 37PA MECHANICSBURG BPA0020885 2.08 0.83 25.31 1.13 8 3,462,978 66,706 1 1,667,731 18

PA MIDDLETOWN PA0020664 2.2 1.19 20.08 0.71 8 3,544,425 72,505 1 1,714,052 26PA MIFFLINBURG BOR

OPA0028461 CURRENT 0.512 0.70 6.18 0.79 0 0 N 0 0 N 639,575 23

PA MILLERSBURG BORPA0022535 1 0.70 11.07 1.31 8 2,722,193 55,131 1 1,111,500 20

PA MILLERSVILLE BORPA0026620 1 0.69 1.75 1.30 8 2,722,193 54,784 1 1,111,500 20PA MILTON MUNICIPALPA0020273 2.6 1.71 5.81 0.43 8 3,814,671 76,696 1 1,868,456 35PA MONTGOMERY BORPA0020699 0.6 0.52 32.35 2.33 8 2,444,284 49,858 1 724,676 16

PA MOSHANNON VALL PA0037966 1.5 1.43 14.07 0.45 8 3,066,885 62,920 1 1,443,845 37

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-a 101 
Table X-A: NITROGEN INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED

DESIGN

ST

A FACILITY NPDES

BNR

STATUS

FLOW

(MGD)

FLOW

(MGD)

TN

(mg/l)

TP

(mg/l) TN CC TN O&M

TN

NOTE TN CC TN O&M

TN

NOTE TN CC TN O&

2010 DATA* TIER 1 $) (TN=8 for NRT plants)) TIER 2 ($) (TN=8 for ALL) TIER 3 ($) (TN=5 for A

PA MOUNT JOY PA0021067 1.3 0.75 22.45 0.32 8 2,929,367 56,610 1 1,366,643 20

PA MOUNT UNION BORPA0020214 0.63 0.34 11.07 1.31 8 2,465,194 49,636 1 753,688 10

PA MOUNTAINTOP AREPA0045985 CURRENT 2.4 2.75 8.00 3.68 0 0 N 0 0 N 1,791,254 58

PA MT. CARMEL MUNICPA0024406 1.5 0.95 22.90 2.75 8 3,066,885 62,740 1 1,443,845 24PA MT. HOLLY SPRIN

G PA0023183 0.6 0.38 14.92 0.67 8 2,444,284 48,311 1 724,676 12

PA MUNCY BOROUGH PA0024325 1.4 0.64 8.35 1.55 8 2,998,186 59,638 1 1,405,244 17

PA NEW CUMBERLANDPA0026654 1.25 0.49 11.07 0.48 8 2,894,913 58,383 1 1,347,343 14PA NEW FREEDOM WTPA0043257 1.3 1.15 19.60 1.58 8 2,929,367 56,042 1 1,366,643 32PA NEW HOLLAND BORPA0021890 1.14 1.10 28.90 1.70 8 2,819,009 52,382 1 1,304,881 33PA NEW OXFORD MUNPA0020923 CURRENT 0.825 1.24 8.00 0.33 0 0 N 0 0 N 942,264 37PA NEWBERRY TOWNSPA0083011 0.4 0.41 20.16 1.49 8 2,304,611 46,658 1 531,264 14

PA NORTHEASTERN Y

OPA0023744 1.7 0.65 11.07 1.24 8 3,203,924 64,714 1 1,521,047 15

PA NORTHUMBERLANDPA0020567 0.75 0.45 19.07 0.63 8 2,548,725 51,570 1 869,735 13PA PALMYRA BOROU

GPA0024287 1.42 0.82 28.31 1.48 8 3,011,935 57,355 1 1,412,964 21

PA PENN TOWNSHIP PA0037150 4.2 1.66 9.34 1.09 8 4,876,496 96,435 1 2,486,072 29PA PINE CREEK MUNICPA0027553 1.3 0.64 17.90 1.55 8 2,929,367 59,403 1 1,366,643 17PA PINE GROVE BOR

OPA0020915 0.6 0.45 18.94 2.71 8 2,444,284 49,478 1 724,676 14

PA PORTER TOWER J

OPA0046272 CURRENT 0.43 0.56 7.69 1.30 0 0 N 0 0 N 560,276 19

PA ROARING SPRING BPA0020249 CURRENT 0.7 0.68 5.61 1.54 0 0 N 0 0 N 821,382 21PA SAYRE PA0043681 1.94 0.65 15.86 0.35 8 3,367,738 68,131 1 1,613,689 15

PA SCRANTON SEWERPA0026492 BY 2005 28 13.15 8.00 1.78 0 0 4 0 0 N 11,673,110 184

PA SHAMOKIN-COAL T

OPA0027324 7 3.56 25.26 1.84 8 6,660,935 138,847 1 3,566,900 57

PA SHENANDOAH MUNPA0070386 2 1.19 7.60 0.40 8 3,408,584 69,167 1 1,636,850 27PA SHIPPENSBURG B

OPA0030643 2.75 2.28 14.47 0.50 8 3,915,519 80,883 1 1,926,358 46

PA SILVER SPRING TO PA0083593 0.5 0.16 5.92 0.47 8 2,374,508 47,610 1 627,970 5

PA SOUTH MIDDLETONPA0044113 0.75 0.45 11.07 0.42 8 2,548,725 51,419 1 869,735 13

PA SPRINGETTSBURY PA0026808 CURRENT 15 11.29 8.00 1.32 0 0 N 0 0 N 6,654,980 165

PA ST. JOHNS PA0046388 CURRENT 0.6 0.32 5.88 1.07 0 0 N 0 0 N 724,676 10

PA STEWARTSTOWN BPA0036269 0.4 0.27 10.97 1.48 8 2,304,611 46,151 1 531,264 9PA SUNBURY CITY MU PA0026557 BY 2005 3.5 3.01 8.00 2.41 3,000,000 63,044 15, M 0 0 N 2,500,000 63

PA SWATARA TOWNSHPA0026735 BY 2005 6.3 3.34 8.00 1.64 2,000,000 32,982 13, M 0 0 N 5,659,000 55PA TOWANDA MUNICIPPA0034576 CURRENT 1 0.68 8.00 2.08 0 0 N 0 0 N 1,111,500 19

PA TRI-BORO MUNICIP PA0023736 0.5 0.28 10.21 0.99 8 2,374,508 47,736 1 627,970 9

PA TWIN BOROUGHS SPA0023264 0.6 0.35 11.07 1.31 8 2,444,284 49,225 1 724,676 11PA TYRONE BOROUGHPA0026727 CURRENT 9 6.40 4.45 0.39 0 0 N 0 0 N 4,338,920 99

PA UNIVERSITY AREA JPA0026239 BY 2005 3.84 5.07 8.00 0.06 780,000 6,986 3, M 0 0 N 520,000 20

PA UPPER ALLEN TO

WPA0024902 0.48 0.55 11.07 1.51 8 2,360,538 47,756 1 608,629 18

PA WASHINGTON TO

WPA0080225 CURRENT 1 0.93 7.79 2.57 0 0 N 0 0 N 1,111,500 27

PA WAYNESBORO BORPA0020621 1.59 0.87 5.25 4.81 8 3,128,612 62,756 1 1,478,586 22PA WELLSBORO MUNICPA0021687 2 1.18 19.89 1.81 8 3,408,584 65,503 1 1,636,850 27PA WESTERN CLINTONPA0043893 CURRENT 0.9 0.35 2.58 0.90 0 0 N 0 0 N 1,014,794 10PA WHITE DEER TOWNPA0020800 0.42 0.27 20.34 2.43 8 2,318,600 46,747 1 550,605 9

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-a 102 
Table X-A: NITROGEN INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED

DESIGN

ST

A FACILITY NPDES

BNR

STATUS

FLOW

(MGD)

FLOW

(MGD)

TN

(mg/l)

TP

(mg/l) TN CC TN O&M

TN

NOTE TN CC TN O&M

TN

NOTE TN CC TN O&

2010 DATA* TIER 1 $) (TN=8 for NRT plants)) TIER 2 ($) (TN=8 for ALL) TIER 3 ($) (TN=5 for A

PA WILLIAMSPORT SANPA0027057 BY 2005 10.5 7.32 8.00 3.40 6,330,000 137,056 3, M 0 0 N 9,610,000 217

PA WILLIAMSPORT SANPA0027049 BY 2005 4.5 2.67 8.00 4.10 5,246,000 112,263 3, M 0 0 N 9,760,000 176PA WYOMING VALLEY PA0026107 CURRENT 50 23.86 5.21 1.36 0 0 3 0 0 N 24,690,000 402PA YORK CITY PA0026263 CURRENT 26 11.93 8.00 0.26 0 0 3 0 0 N 11,080,000 171PA Total 469.21 301.35 72,079,813 1,866,433 277,865,025 5,667,625 319,811,406 6,443

VA ALEXANDRIA VA0025160 BY 2005 54 37.94 8.00 0.05 0 0 5 0 0 N 20,000,000 592

VA ALLEGHANY CO. L

OVA0090671 1.5 0.75 18.70 2.00 8 3,066,885 116,567 1 1,443,845 19

VA AQUIA VA0060968 CURRENT 6.5 5.29 8.00 0.10 8,000,000 160,000 C9, M 0 0 N 4,000,000 35

VA ARLINGTON VA0025143 BY 2005 40 35.29 8.00 0.06 0 0 5 0 0 N 16,305,230 489

VA ASHLAND VA0024899 BY 2010 2 1.55 8.00 1.50 2,415,700 45,093 S, M 0 0 N 0 

VA BROAD RUN WRF VA_BROADR BY 2010 15 2.40 8.00 0.10 13,500,000 268,466 17 0 0 N 6,654,980 35

VA BUENA VISTA VA0020991 2.25 1.45 18.70 2.50 8 3,578,310 68,555 1 1,733,353 31

VA CAPE CHARLES VA0021288 0.25 0.15 18.70 2.50 8 2,199,543 43,674 1 386,205 6

VA CAROLINE COUNT

YVA0073504 0.5 0.20 18.70 4.53 8 2,374,508 47,083 1 627,970 6

VA CLIFTON FORGE VA0022772 2 1.23 18.70 2.50 8 3,408,584 66,802 1 1,636,850 28

VA COLONIAL BEACH VA0026409 BY 2010 2 0.85 13.26 2.72 90,000 740 3, M 0 0 N 3,360,000 39

VA COVINGTON VA0025542 3 1.78 18.70 2.50 8 4,083,001 77,968 1 2,022,860 35

VA CREWE STP VA0020303 0.5 0.20 11.54 0.28 8 2,374,508 47,295 1 627,970 6

VA CULPEPER VA0061590 BY 2005 4.5 2.27 8.00 1.50 4,200,000 82,381 6, M 0 0 N 2,601,875 39

VA DAHLGREN (DAHL

GVA0026514 0.325 0.30 6.82 0.54 8 30,000 0 3 520,000 13

VA DALE CITY #1 VA0024724 BY 2005 4 3.06 8.00 0.09 0 0 5 0 0 N 1,060,000 24VA DALE CITY #8 VA0024678 BY 2005 4 2.85 8.00 0.10 0 0 5 0 0 N 1,060,000 22VA DOSWELL VA0029521 BY 2010 1 6.75 8.00 1.50 3,045,000 57,875 6, M 0 0 N 0 VA FALLING CREEK VA0024996 BY 2010 10.1 8.24 9.57 1.26 395,818 2,206 6, M 0 0 N 5,598,000 393VA FARMVILLE VA0083135 CURRENT 2.4 0.97 0.76 2.95 8 0 0 N 1,791,254 20

VA FISHERSVILLE VA0025291 2 1.71 15.82 2.67 8 790,000 14,425 3, M 3,360,000 80

VA FMC VA0068110 BY 2005 5.4 3.29 8.00 1.50 0 0 21 0 0 N 2,949,284 55

VA FORT A.P. HILL (WILVA0032034 CURRENT 0.53 0.12 8.00 4.06 0 0 N 0 0 N 656,982 3

VA FREDERICKSBURG VA0025127 CURRENT 3.5 2.23 8.00 1.32 0 0 N 0 0 N 2,215,865 41

VA FRONT ROYAL VA0062812 4 2.76 11.21 1.11 8 50,000 0 3 4,790,000 99

VA FWSA OPEQUON VA0065552 CURRENT 8.4 5.89 8.00 1.14 0 0 5 0 0 N 6,390,000 238VA GORDONSVILLE VA0021105 0.67 0.57 18.70 2.50 8 2,493,057 48,685 1 792,370 17

VA H.L. MOONEY VA0025101 BY 2005 18 14.63 8.00 0.10 0 0 5 0 0 N 8,011,100 267

VA HARRISONBURG-R

OVA0060640 CURRENT 16 11.65 8.00 2.20 0 0 5 0 0 N 7,040,990 169

VA HAYMOUNT STP VA0089125 BY 2010 0.95 0.95 8.00 1.50 2,687,559 53,319 1 0 0 N 1,063,147 27

VA HENRICO COUNTY VA0063690 BY 2010 75 50.00 8.00 1.53 0 0 6 0 0 N 25,000,000 4,000

VA HOPEWELL VA0066630 BY 2010 50 35.12 21.00 1.50 0 0 20 57,230,000 2,383,200 16 13,200,000 1,603

VA HRSD-ARMY BASE VA0081230 18 17.45 23.60 1.39 8 81,000,000 154,000 C14, C15 7,813,010 251VA HRSD-BOAT HARB

OVA0081256 25 23.05 23.29 1.41 0 8 112,000,000 151,900 C14, C15 10,515,080 326

VA HRSD-CHESAPEAK VA0081264 24 26.30 24.32 1.57 8 35,000,000 213,800 C14 10,129,070 372VA HRSD-JAMES RIVERVA0081272 20 20.00 20.27 1.32 8 27,300,000 132,100 C14 8,585,030 286VA HRSD-NANSEMONDVA0081299 CURRENT 30 20.15 8.00 1.25 0 0 C14 13,100,000 0 C14 12,445,130 282

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-a 103 
Table X-A: NITROGEN INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED

DESIGN

ST

A FACILITY NPDES

BNR

STATUS

FLOW

(MGD)

FLOW

(MGD)

TN

(mg/l)

TP

(mg/l) TN CC TN O&M

TN

NOTE TN CC TN O&M

TN

NOTE TN CC TN O&

2010 DATA* TIER 1 $) (TN=8 for NRT plants)) TIER 2 ($) (TN=8 for ALL) TIER 3 ($) (TN=5 for A

VA HRSD-VIP VA0081281 CURRENT 40 35.90 8.00 1.00 0 0 C14 10,000,000 0 C14 16,305,230 497

VA HRSD-WILLIAMSBU VA0081302 22.5 15.90 8.15 1.00 8 15,800,000 0 C14 9,550,055 226VA HRSD-YORK VA0081311 BY 2010 15 12.70 8.00 1.50 17,700,000 132,100 C14 0 0 N 6,654,980 186VA KILMARNOCK VA0020788 0.2 0.25 4.61 2.56 8 2,164,460 43,304 1 337,852 11

VA LAKE MONTICELLO VA0024945 0.6 0.57 18.70 2.50 8 2,444,284 47,709 1 724,676 18VA LEESBURG MD0066184 CURRENT 4.85 2.96 8.00 1.42 0 0 5 0 0 N 2,736,978 51

VA LEXINGTON-ROCKBVA0088161 CURRENT 4 0.87 18.70 2.50 8 0 0 N 2,408,870 15VA LITTLE FALLS RUN VA0076392 CURRENT 4 4.16 8.00 0.88 0 0 5 0 0 N 4,000,000 25

VA LURAY VA0062642 1.6 1.50 1.50 0.41 8 0 0 3 3,360,000 86VA LYNCHBURG VA0024970 22 17.40 8.50 3.08 8 54,000,000 620,000 C6 845,000 1,000VA MASSANUTTEN PUBVA0024732 0.75 0.38 18.70 2.50 8 2,548,725 50,186 1 869,735 11

VA MASSAPONAX VA0025658 BY 2005 8 4.38 8.00 1.50 0 0 5 0 0 N 3,952,910 69VA MATHEWS COURTHVA0028819 0.1 0.08 10.41 1.42 8 2,094,204 41,818 1 241,146 5

VA MIDDLE RIVER VA0064793 CURRENT 6.8 5.65 8.00 2.05 0 0 5 0 0 N 3,489,698 91

VA MONTROSS - WESTVA0072729 0.1 0.03 6.54 1.17 0 0 8 2,094,204 41,870 1 241,146 2

VA MOORES CREEK-RIVA0025518 15 11.89 13.46 3.17 8 11,242,076 209,708 1 6,654,980 174

VA NAVAL SURFACE 

WVA0021067 CURRENT 0.4 0.43 8.00 2.89 0 0 N 0 0 N 531,264 15

VA NEW MARKET STP VA0022853 0.5 0.56 18.70 2.50 8 2,374,508 46,327 1 627,970 18VA NOMAN M. COLE JRVA0025364 BY 2005 67 53.00 8.00 0.11 0 0 5 0 0 N 12,760,000 345

VA ONANCOCK VA0021253 0.25 0.23 18.70 2.50 8 2,199,543 43,505 1 386,205 10

VA ORANGE VA0021385 BY 2010 1.5 0.69 8.00 1.50 3,066,885 59,901 1 0 0 N 1,443,845 18

VA PARHAM LANDING 

WVA0088331 0.57 0.10 8.27 0.78 8 2,423,364 48,416 1 695,664 3

VA PARKINS MILL VA0075191 2 1.42 18.70 2.50 8 97,000 922 3, M 3,360,000 66

VA PROCTORS CREEK VA0060194 CURRENT 21.5 17.65 8.00 0.38 0 0 5 0 0 N 1,500,000 526VA PURCELLVILLE VA0022802 BY 2005 1 0.42 8.00 2.50 0 0 5 0 0 N 1,111,500 5VA QUANTICO-MAINSIDVA0028363 CURRENT 2.2 1.38 8.00 0.10 0 0 N 0 0 N 1,714,052 30

VA REEDVILLE VA0060712 0.2 0.04 18.70 2.50 8 2,164,460 43,210 1 337,852 1

VA REMINGTON REGI

OVA0076805 BY 2005 2 0.57 8.00 1.50 0 0 5 0 0 N 1,636,850 13

VA RICHMOND VA0063177 BY 2010 45 47.99 8.00 1.50 70,000,000 1,350,323 6, M 0 0 N 10,000,000 363

VA ROUND HILL WWTPVA0026212 0.5 0.15 18.70 3.00 8 2,374,508 47,177 1 627,970 5

VA SIL MRRS VA0090263 CURRENT 1.923 1.27 8.00 1.50 0 0 22 0 0 22 0 

VA SOUTH CENTRAL VA0025437 BY 2010 23 12.93 8.00 1.50 7,800,000 338,000 S 0 0 N 4,300,000 217

VA SOUTH WALES STPVA0080527 BY 2010 0.856 0.86 8.00 1.50 2,622,367 52,058 1 0 0 N 972,243 25

VA STONY CREEK STP VA0028380 0.6 0.26 18.70 2.50 8 2,444,284 48,336 1 724,676 8

VA STRASBURG VA0020311 0.98 0.77 18.70 2.50 8 120,000 794 3, M 2,650,000 54

VA STUARTS DRAFT VA0066877 BY 2005 1.4 1.50 8.00 1.50 0 0 5 0 0 N 520,000 14VA TANGIER ISLAND VA0067423 0.1 0.05 18.70 2.50 8 2,094,204 41,788 1 241,146 3

VA TAPPAHANNOCK VA0071471 0.8 0.37 18.70 2.50 8 2,583,478 50,893 1 918,088 11

VA TOTOPOTOMOY VA0089915 BY 2010 5 5.00 8.00 1.50 0 0 5 0 0 N 2,794,880 85VA UPPER OCCOQUANVA0024988 54 34.00 19.14 0.04 8 22,601,459 394,910 1 21,709,370 466

VA URBANNA VA0026263 0.1 0.11 18.70 2.50 8 2,094,204 41,649 1 241,146 7

VA WARRENTON VA0021172 2.5 1.18 14.22 1.07 8 3,747,289 73,296 1 1,829,855 24

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-a 104 
Table X-A: NITROGEN INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED

DESIGN

ST

A FACILITY NPDES

BNR

STATUS

FLOW

(MGD)

FLOW

(MGD)

TN

(mg/l)

TP

(mg/l) TN CC TN O&M

TN

NOTE TN CC TN O&M

TN

NOTE TN CC TN O&

2010 DATA* TIER 1 $) (TN=8 for NRT plants)) TIER 2 ($) (TN=8 for ALL) TIER 3 ($) (TN=5 for A

VA WARSAW VA0026891 0.3 0.22 18.70 2.50 8 2,234,595 44,241 1 434,558 8

VA WAYNESBORO VA0025151 4 2.81 19.71 4.38 8 3,500,000 44,309 3, M 0 

VA WEST POINT VA0075434 0.6 0.60 18.70 2.50 8 2,444,284 47,444 1 724,676 19

VA WEYERS CAVE STPVA0022349 0.5 0.40 18.70 2.50 8 2,374,508 47,238 1 627,970 13VA WIDEWATER WWTPVA0090387 BY 2010 0.5 0.10 8.00 2.00 2,374,508 47,445 1 0 0 N 627,970 3VA WILDERNESS SHORVA0083411 0.5 0.55 18.70 2.50 8 2,374,508 49,352 1 627,970 18VA WOODSTOCK VA0026468 0.8 0.42 18.70 2.50 8 700,000 13,131 3, M 2,650,000 36

VA Total 845.85 652.05 137,897,837 2,649,908 513,412,543 5,747,584 338,088,427 14,883

WV BERKELEY COUNT

YWV0082759 2.35 0.93 5.16 3.00 8 3,645,992 72,898 1 1,771,953 19

WV BERKELEY COUNT

YWV0020061 0.9 0.60 5.25 3.00 8 2,652,895 53,035 1 1,014,794 17

WV CHARLESTOWN WV0022349 1.2 0.75 10.74 3.00 8 2,860,429 56,745 1 1,328,042 21WV KEYSER WV0024392 2.4 1.21 17.01 1.05 8 3,679,787 74,749 1 1,791,254 25WV MARTINSBURG WV0023167 5 2.35 9.27 3.00 8 5,395,915 47,892 1 2,794,880 40WV MOOREFIELD WV0020150 BY 2010 0.6 0.00 8.00 3.00 0 0 11 0 0 N 724,676 

WV PETERSBURG WV0021792 0.8 0.74 6.14 3.00 8 2,583,478 51,542 1 918,088 22

WV ROMNEY WV0020699 0.5 0.46 17.20 3.00 8 2,374,508 46,645 1 627,970 15

WV Total 13.75 7.02 23,193,004 403,506 10,971,658 163

Grand Total 2,341 1,767 597,914,959 12,368,080 921,719,133 18,831,375 1,190,881,573 41,771

Source Notes

* 2010 Data are the projections based on 2000 data. 2010 flows are projected with 2000 flow and population increase factor, except where facility's own projection is provided. Con1 = Calculated from the methodologies provided from Thor Young, Stearn & Wheler, LLC and Tom Sadick, CH2M Hill. 2 = NRT eligible cost report from MDE,4/23/02, where cost=0, MDE has indicated funds already appropriated2a= NRT Cost report, from MDE 3/6/2002 3 = Randall 51 Facility Report, 1999 for BNR @8 and additional 3/2001 report with 60 facilities.4 = Paid for by Corp of Engineers5 = From VA 2000 Annual Report and VA 2002 annual Report - Assumes that the cost share information equals 1/2 of total BNR cost to get 8, and that funds are already made availab except for FMC and Henrico where no funds have been spent as of 2002.6 = Email from Bob Ehrhart to Allison Wiedeman, 3/7/027= BNR funded under federal funds.8 = No cost is applied, because TN or TP =current level for Tier 1 for this facility8a = The 2010 TP concentration of 1.5 mg/l shown for these facilities reflects the specific effluent concentration targeted by Virginia either under WQIF Grant program and/or the Tribu9 = Cost survey from Seaford WWTP, 3/22/0210 = From 4/2/01 letters from Eastern Snyder County Regional Authority to Senator Specter. Also, costs not calculated to 8 because they are currently designing only to 3 

(4/26/01 Telephone conversation between CBPO and Gannett Hemming)

11= Message from WVDEP, cost=0 due to irrigation.12 = Email message from Paul Janiga, DE DNREC, 3/28/02.13 = Cost survey from Mike Kyle, LASA, 3/6/0214 = DC CSO & Blue Plains Cost Estimates- UAA cost analysis, from Tanya spano, WMCOG, 4/10/0215 = Telephone conversation with Sunberry WWTP, 6/21/0116 = Cost Summary: City of Hopewell, from Bob Steidel, Hopewell Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. 8/7/2002. 17= Message from Tom Broderick, LCSA, concerning Broad Run, 3/11/0218 = Message from Marya Levelev, 4/5/02, Western Branch already can achieve 3 mg/l.

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-a 105 
Table X-A: NITROGEN INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED

DESIGN

ST

A FACILITY NPDES

BNR

STATUS

FLOW

(MGD)

FLOW

(MGD)

TN

(mg/l)

TP

(mg/l) TN CC TN O&M

TN

NOTE TN CC TN O&M

TN

NOTE TN CC TN O&

2010 DATA* TIER 1 $) (TN=8 for NRT plants)) TIER 2 ($) (TN=8 for ALL) TIER 3 ($) (TN=5 for A

19 = Message from Marya Levelev, 8/12/02, to add $10 million TN cc in Tier 2 for Back River20 = Message from Bob Steidel, 9/17/02, to remove the Tier 1 cost for Hopewell.21 = Message from Bob Ehrhart, 9/4/02, to remove Tier 1 costs for FMC and Hopewell.22 = Message from Bob Ehrhart, 9/19/02, to add SIL which replaced Broadway Lagoons, Timberville, Rocco Quality Foods and Wampler Foods-Timberville.23 = Message from Bob Ehrhart, 11/14/02, No Tier 2 TP cost due to chemical feed facilities have been funded.A = The capital costs at TN =3 from sources other than calculation are applied to Tier 3 for TN. And, in these cases, the Tier 4 TN capital costs are set to zero. Message from AllisoB = The value is set to zero, because this plant's TN or TP level have been lower than the defined level in this Tier for more than five years.C14 = Message from W. Hunley, HRSD, 10/3/02C15 = Cost shown represent an order of magnitude planning level estimate as transmitted by HRSD on October 3, 2002. A less costly alternative, which provides for only seasonal ni and/or an annual average TN concentration greater than 8.0 mg/l, does potentially exist as discussed in the September 1989 Technical Memoranda C.22 and C. 25 prepared by C6 = Letter from City of Lynchburg to Allison Wiedeman, 7/14/2001C9 = Bos, Robert E, PE, Public Utility Administrator with County of Stafford, letter to Allison Wiedeman, EPA, re: Nitrogen Removal Costs, 7/31/01M = For facilities with existing capital costs and no O&M costs available, the O&M costs are calculated from exiting capitlal costs adjusted by the cost ratio between calculated O&M a the methodologies provided from Thor Young, Stearn & Wheler, LLC and Tom Sadick, CH2M Hill. N = NRT facilities that currently have or will install NRT by 2010, It is assumed that no additional cost is needed.S = From NRT cost survey results.

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-a 106 
Table X-B: PHOSPHORUS INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED

DESIGN

STAT FACILITY NPDES

BNR

STATUS

FLOW

(MGD)

FLOW

(MGD)

TN

(mg/l)

TP

(mg/l)

TP 

CC

TP

O&M

TP

NOTE TP CC TP O&M

TP

NOTE

TP 

CC TP O&M

DC BLUE PLAINS DC0021199 CURRENT 370 341.71 7.50 0.11 0 0 8 20,000,000 3,358,491 14 0 0 

DC Total 370.00 341.71 0 0 20,000,000 3,358,491 0 0 DE BRIDGEVILLE DE0020249 BY 2010 0.8 0.22 8.00 5.40 0 0 8 141,111 10,888 1 0 1,198 DE LAUREL DE0020125 0.5 0.32 22.32 3.20 0 0 8 112,778 8,023 1 0 1,714 DE SEAFORD DE0020265 CURRENT 2 1.28 6.04 1.13 0 0 8 0 1,346 1 0 6,895 DE Total 3.30 1.81 0 0 253,889 20,257 0 9,807 MD ABERDEEN MD0021563 CURRENT 4 1.72 8.00 0.12 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 MD ABERDEEN PROVING GR

OMD0021237 BY 2005 2.8 0.91 8.00 0.41 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 

MD ABERDEEN PROVING GR

OMD0021229 CURRENT 3 0.96 8.00 0.49 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 

MD ANNAPOLIS MD0021814 CURRENT 10 7.54 8.00 0.44 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 MD BACK RIVER MD0021555 CURRENT 180 87.73 10.00 0.16 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 MD BALLENGER CREEK MD0021822 CURRENT 6 4.12 8.00 0.34 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 MD BOWIE MD0021628 CURRENT 3.3 2.09 8.00 0.17 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 MD BROADNECK MD0021644 CURRENT 6 5.23 8.00 0.48 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 MD BROADWATER MD0024350 CURRENT 2 1.27 8.00 0.54 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 546 MD BRUNSWICK MD0020958 BY 2005 0.7 0.76 8.00 3.00 0 0 8 131,667 15,230 1 0 4,117 MD CAMBRIDGE MD0021636 BY 2005 8.1 5.11 8.00 2.72 0 0 8 267,721 78,132 1 0 27,610 MD CELANESE MD0063878 BY 2005 1.25 1.02 8.00 2.52 0 0 8 163,793 16,028 1 0 5,490 MD CENTREVILLE MD0020834 BY 2005 0.375 0.35 8.00 2.79 0 0 8 100,973 7,245 1 0 1,904 MD CHESAPEAKE BEACH MD0020281 CURRENT 1.18 0.81 8.00 0.89 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 3,367 MD CHESTERTOWN MD0020010 BY 2005 0.9 0.65 8.00 4.34 0 0 8 150,556 21,050 1 0 3,530 MD CONOCOCHEAGUE MD0063509 BY 2005 4.1 1.19 8.00 1.27 0 0 8 0 1,696 1 0 4,073 MD COX CREEK MD0021661 BY 2005 15 12.30 8.00 1.28 0 0 8 0 28,172 1 0 66,439 MD CRISFIELD MD0020001 BY 2005 1 0.68 8.00 2.02 0 0 8 160,000 8,934 1 0 3,670 MD CUMBERLAND MD0021598 BY 2005 15 9.60 8.00 1.73 0 0 8 0 58,071 1 0 51,857 MD DAMASCUS MD0020982 CURRENT 1.5 0.86 8.00 1.12 0 0 8 0 830 1 0 4,647 MD DELMAR MD0020532 BY 2005 0.65 0.58 8.00 0.35 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 MD DENTON MD0020494 CURRENT 0.8 0.41 8.00 1.38 0 0 8 0 1,268 1 0 2,207 MD DORSEY RUN MD0063207 CURRENT 2 1.47 8.00 0.22 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 MD EASTON MD0020273 CURRENT 2.35 1.93 8.00 2.59 0 0 8 180,482 29,019 1 0 10,417 MD ELKTON MD0020681 BY 2005 2.7 1.73 8.00 1.09 0 0 8 0 1,252 1 0 9,342 MD EMMITSBURG MD0020257 CURRENT 0.75 0.58 8.00 1.98 0 0 8 0 4,669 1 0 3,124 MD FEDERALSBURG MD0020249 BY 2005 0.75 0.33 8.00 0.98 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 1,696 MD FORT DETRICK MD0020877 CURRENT 2 1.11 8.00 1.17 0 0 8 0 1,573 1 0 5,988 MD FORT MEADE MD0021717 CURRENT 4.5 2.17 8.00 0.19 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 MD FREDERICK MD0021610 BY 2005 8 7.76 8.00 4.19 0 0 8 266,204 210,251 1 0 41,937 MD FREEDOM DISTRICT MD0021512 CURRENT 3.5 2.85 8.00 0.68 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 5,439 MD FRUITLAND MD0052990 BY 2005 0.5 0.52 8.00 3.00 0 0 8 112,778 10,815 1 0 2,797 MD GEORGES CREEK MD0060071 BY 2005 0.6 0.67 8.00 3.00 0 0 8 122,222 13,502 1 0 3,613 MD HAGERSTOWN MD0021776 CURRENT 8 8.47 8.00 2.32 0 0 8 266,204 97,440 1 0 45,750 MD HAVRE DE GRACE MD0021750 BY 2005 1.89 1.40 8.00 0.89 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 5,935 MD HURLOCK MD0022730 CURRENT 2 1.06 8.00 7.17 0 0 8 175,172 57,625 1 0 5,736 

2010 DATA* TIER 1 ($) (TP=Current) TIER 2 $) (TP=1 for ALL) TIER 3 ($) (TP=0.5 fo

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-b 107 
Table X-B: PHOSPHORUS INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED

DESIGN

STAT FACILITY NPDES

BNR

STATUS

FLOW

(MGD)

FLOW

(MGD)

TN

(mg/l)

TP

(mg/l)

TP 

CC

TP

O&M

TP

NOTE TP CC TP O&M

TP

NOTE

TP 

CC TP O&M

2010 DATA* TIER 1 ($) (TP=Current) TIER 2 $) (TP=1 for ALL) TIER 3 ($) (TP=0.5 fo

MD INDIAN HEAD MD0020052 BY 2005 0.5 0.35 8.00 2.53 0 0 8 112,778 6,714 1 0 1,904 

MD JOPPATOWNE MD0022535 CURRENT 0.95 0.86 8.00 0.80 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 2,762 MD KENT ISLAND MD0023485 BY 2005 2.135 1.64 8.00 0.72 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 3,866 MD LA PLATA MD0020524 BY 2005 1 0.82 8.00 1.59 0 0 8 0 4,030 1 0 4,454 MD LEONARDTOWN MD0024767 BY 2005 0.68 0.48 8.00 2.97 0 0 8 129,778 10,448 1 0 2,602 MD LITTLE PATUXENT MD0055174 CURRENT 22.5 20.63 8.00 0.35 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 MD MARYLAND CITY MD0062596 CURRENT 2.5 1.06 8.00 0.48 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 MD MARYLAND CORRECTIONMD0023957 CURRENT 1.23 0.94 8.00 0.35 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 MD MATTAWOMAN MD0021865 BY 2005 15 8.17 8.00 0.13 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 MD MOUNT AIRY MD0022527 CURRENT 1.2 0.66 8.00 0.47 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 MD NORTHEAST RIVER MD0052027 BY 2005 2 0.63 8.00 0.94 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 3,001 MD PARKWAY MD0021725 CURRENT 7.5 6.20 8.00 0.29 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 MD PATAPSCO MD0021601 BY 2010 73 73.00 8.00 0.78 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 184,707 MD PATUXENT MD0021652 CURRENT 7.5 4.85 8.00 0.34 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 MD PERRYVILLE MD0020613 CURRENT 1.65 0.94 8.00 0.30 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 MD PINE HILL RUN MD0021679 CURRENT 6 3.89 8.00 1.36 0 0 8 0 11,611 1 0 21,032 MD PISCATAWAY MD0021539 CURRENT 30 25.30 8.00 0.12 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 MD POCOMOKE CITY MD0022551 BY 2005 1.4 0.96 8.00 4.26 0 0 8 166,069 29,233 1 0 5,197 MD POOLESVILLE MD0023001 BY 2005 0.625 0.66 8.00 0.87 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 2,620 MD PRINCESS ANNE MD0020656 CURRENT 1.26 0.62 8.00 0.15 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 MD SALISBURY MD0021571 BY 2005 6.8 5.90 8.00 1.39 0 0 8 0 19,113 1 0 31,854 MD SENECA CREEK MD0021491 BY 2005 5 18.80 8.00 1.30 0 0 8 0 45,868 1 0 101,586 MD SNOW HILL MD0022764 BY 2005 0.5 0.47 8.00 3.75 0 0 8 112,778 12,847 1 0 2,513 MD SOD RUN MD0056545 CURRENT 20 12.59 8.00 1.17 0 0 8 0 17,662 1 0 68,048 MD TANEYTOWN MD0020672 CURRENT 1.1 0.91 8.00 1.76 0 0 8 0 5,741 1 0 4,920 MD THURMONT MD0021121 CURRENT 1 1.00 8.00 0.70 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 2,158 MD WESTERN BRANCH MD0021741 CURRENT 30 23.00 8.00 0.68 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 39,020 MD WESTMINSTER MD0021831 CURRENT 5 4.30 8.00 0.53 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 1,185 MD WINEBRENNER WWTP MD0003221 BY 2005 1 0.22 8.00 1.77 0 0 8 0 1,414 1 0 1,193 MD Total 556.23 397.79 0 0 2,619,174 827,485 0 805,854 

NY ADDISON (V) NY0020320 0.42 0.24 17.73 3.00 0 0 8 105,222 8,377 1 0 1,270 

NY BATH (V) NY0021431 1 0.76 17.61 3.00 0 0 8 160,000 15,754 1 0 4,103 NY BINGHAMTON-JOHNSON CNY0024414 BY 2005 20 19.53 8.00 2.03 0 0 8 448,268 175,305 1 0 105,551 NY COOPERSTOWN NY0023591 0.52 0.65 18.95 3.00 0 0 8 114,667 12,998 1 0 3,498 NY CORNING (C) NY0025721 2.13 1.30 19.77 3.00 0 0 8 177,144 24,996 1 0 7,011 NY CORTLAND (C) NY0027561 BY 2005 10 8.52 8.00 1.30 0 0 8 0 21,404 1 0 46,048 NY ELMIRA / CHEMUNG CO. SNY0035742 12 7.19 15.00 3.00 0 0 8 326,892 125,406 1 0 38,846 NY ENDICOTT (V) NY0027669 10 7.58 23.47 3.00 0 0 8 296,548 131,191 1 0 40,935 NY HAMILTON (V) NY0020672 0.85 0.45 29.29 3.00 0 0 8 145,833 10,350 1 0 2,426 NY HORNELL (C) NY0023647 4 3.01 15.74 3.00 0 0 8 205,516 53,881 1 0 16,265 NY LAKE STREET/CHEMUNG NY0036986 9.5 7.12 19.68 3.00 0 0 8 288,962 123,447 1 0 38,454 NY NORWICH NY0021423 2.2 2.68 30.04 3.00 0 0 8 178,206 47,860 1 0 14,476 

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-b 108 
Table X-B: PHOSPHORUS INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED

DESIGN

STAT FACILITY NPDES

BNR

STATUS

FLOW

(MGD)

FLOW

(MGD)

TN

(mg/l)

TP

(mg/l)

TP 

CC

TP

O&M

TP

NOTE TP CC TP O&M

TP

NOTE

TP 

CC TP O&M

2010 DATA* TIER 1 ($) (TP=Current) TIER 2 $) (TP=1 for ALL) TIER 3 ($) (TP=0.5 fo

NY ONEONTA (C) NY0031151 4 3.01 17.76 3.00 0 0 8 205,516 53,833 1 0 16,249 

NY OWEGO #2 NY0025798 BY 2005 2 1.04 8.00 2.48 0 0 8 175,172 16,282 1 0 5,625 NY OWEGO (V) NY0029262 1 0.62 15.42 3.00 0 0 8 160,000 13,511 1 0 3,370 NY RICHFIELD SPRINGS (V) NY0031411 0.6 0.32 16.58 0.08 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 NY SIDNEY (V) NY0029271 1.7 0.67 17.03 3.00 0 0 8 170,620 14,409 1 0 3,594 NY WAVERLY (V) NY0031089 0.65 1.01 27.70 3.55 0 0 8 126,945 23,843 1 0 5,455 NY Total 82.57 65.68 0 0 3,285,513 872,847 0 353,177 PA ALTOONA CITY AUTHORITPA0027014 5.5 6.03 14.15 4.30 0 0 8 228,274 169,072 1 0 32,558 PA ALTOONA CITY AUTHORITPA0027022 9 6.25 16.80 4.29 0 0 8 281,376 175,652 1 0 33,778 PA ANNVILLE TOWNSHIP PA0021806 0.75 0.48 30.24 1.49 0 0 8 0 1,910 1 0 2,567 PA ANTRIM TOWNSHIP PA0080519 CURRENT 1.05 0.50 8.00 2.15 0 0 8 160,759 7,913 1 0 2,678 PA ASHLAND MUNICIPAL AUTPA0023558 1.3 0.72 8.75 3.23 0 0 8 164,552 16,583 1 0 3,905 PA BEDFORD BOROUGH MUNPA0022209 1.2 0.98 13.56 1.39 0 0 8 0 3,147 1 0 5,287 PA BELLEFONTE BOROUGH PA0020486 3.22 2.07 16.03 0.69 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 4,237 PA BERWICK MUNICIPAL AUTPA0023248 3.65 1.49 22.99 4.36 0 0 8 200,206 45,232 1 0 8,029 PA BLOOMSBURG MUNICIPALPA0027171 4.29 2.66 9.53 1.41 0 0 8 0 9,021 1 0 14,381 PA BLOSSBURG PA0020036 0.6 0.21 11.07 1.31 0 0 8 0 533 1 0 1,125 PA BROWN TOWNSHIP MUNICPA0028088 0.6 0.34 27.44 0.93 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 1,549 PA BURNHAM BOROUGH PA0038920 0.64 0.59 9.00 1.50 0 0 8 0 2,456 1 0 3,211 PA CARLISLE BOROUGH PA0026077 7 3.45 19.85 0.42 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 PA CARLISLE SUBURBAN AUTPA0024384 CURRENT 0.925 0.70 8.00 0.65 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 1,122 PA CHAMBERSBURG BOROU PA0026051 BY 2005 5.2 4.78 8.00 2.65 0 0 8 223,722 69,774 1 0 25,804 PA CLARKS SUMMIT-SOUTH 

APA0028576 2 2.28 16.99 3.12 0 0 8 175,172 43,398 1 0 12,300 

PA CLEARFIELD PA0026310 4.5 2.62 11.04 0.78 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 7,870 PA COLUMBIA PA0026123 2 0.83 17.50 0.70 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 1,821 PA CURWENSVILLE MUNICIP

APA0024759 0.5 0.45 14.68 1.86 0 0 8 0 3,190 1 0 2,418 

PA DANVILLE MUNICIPAL AUTPA0023531 3.22 2.15 8.97 1.35 0 0 8 0 6,224 1 0 11,623 PA DERRY TOWNSHIP MUNICPA0026484 5 3.47 14.77 1.33 0 0 8 0 9,430 1 0 18,776 PA DILLSBURG BOROUGH AUPA0024431 1 0.66 11.07 0.88 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 2,709 PA DOVER TOWNSHIP SEWE PA0020826 CURRENT 4 3.70 7.53 1.36 0 0 8 0 11,171 1 0 20,017 PA DUNCANSVILLE PA0032883 1.217 0.61 8.00 2.31 0 0 8 163,292 9,864 1 0 3,294 PA EAST PENNSBORO SOUT PA0038415 3.7 2.42 17.43 3.49 0 0 8 200,964 53,899 1 0 13,101 PA EASTERN SNYDER COUN PA0110582 BY 2005 2.8 1.60 8.00 3.95 0 0 8 187,310 42,890 1 0 8,663 PA ELIZABETHTOWN BOROU PA0023108 BY 2005 3 2.34 8.00 0.87 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 9,402 PA ELKLAND MUNICIPAL AUTPA0113298 0.55 0.43 22.82 0.88 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 1,776 PA EMPORIUM BOROUGH (M PA0028631 0.52 0.48 6.88 2.53 0 0 8 114,667 8,361 1 0 2,600 PA EPHRATA BOROUGH WWTPA0027405 3.8 2.78 1.98 1.51 0 0 8 0 11,658 1 0 15,006 PA FAIRVIEW TOWNSHIP PA0081868 0.5 0.40 11.07 0.64 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 621 PA FRANKLIN COUNTY AUTH PA0020834 0.4 1.08 1.05 0.67 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 1,929 PA GETTYSBURG MUNICIPALPA0021563 CURRENT 1.63 1.62 5.11 0.51 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 228 PA GREATER HAZELTON PA0026921 8.9 6.68 10.36 0.94 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 31,529 PA GREGG TOWNSHIP PA0114821 CURRENT 0.8 0.66 6.60 1.33 0 0 8 0 1,822 1 0 3,592 

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-b 109 
Table X-B: PHOSPHORUS INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED

DESIGN

STAT FACILITY NPDES

BNR

STATUS

FLOW

(MGD)

FLOW

(MGD)

TN

(mg/l)

TP

(mg/l)

TP 

CC

TP

O&M

TP

NOTE TP CC TP O&M

TP

NOTE

TP 

CC TP O&M

2010 DATA* TIER 1 ($) (TP=Current) TIER 2 $) (TP=1 for ALL) TIER 3 ($) (TP=0.5 fo

PA HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP PA0028746 CURRENT 1.76 1.30 8.00 1.06 0 0 8 0 641 1 0 7,000 

PA HAMPDEN TOWNSHIP SE

WPA0080314 2.5 2.01 9.35 0.70 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 4,316 

PA HANOVER BOROUGH PA0026875 3.65 3.84 23.73 0.99 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 20,173 PA HARRISBURG SEWERAGEPA0027197 BY 2010 37.7 26.24 8.00 1.38 0 0 8 0 82,263 1 0 141,782 PA HIGHSPIRE PA0024040 2 1.05 14.97 1.63 0 0 8 0 5,442 1 0 5,663 PA HOLLIDAYSBURG REGIONPA0043273 2 2.98 6.82 1.70 0 0 8 0 17,130 1 0 16,076 PA HOUTZDALE BOROUGH 

MPA0046159 CURRENT 0.3 0.12 6.89 0.71 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 276 

PA HUNTINGDON BOROUGH PA0026191 3.75 2.13 11.07 1.31 0 0 8 0 5,292 1 0 11,530 PA HYNDMAN BOROUGH PA0020851 0.104 0.08 11.11 1.10 0 0 8 0 69 1 0 450 PA JERSEY SHORE BOROUG PA0028665 0.8 0.72 21.08 6.09 0 0 8 141,111 32,976 1 0 3,876 PA KELLY TOWNSHIP MUNIC PA0028681 CURRENT 2.75 1.82 2.20 0.78 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 5,510 PA LACKAWANNA RIVER BASPA0027090 7 5.12 13.16 0.88 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 20,930 PA LACKAWANNA RIVER BASPA0027065 6 2.45 9.13 1.66 0 0 8 0 13,352 1 0 13,222 PA LACKAWANNA RIVER BASPA0027073 1 0.34 28.10 0.87 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 1,358 PA LACKAWANNA RIVER BASPA0027081 BY 2005 0.7 0.49 8.00 1.12 0 0 8 0 496 1 0 2,658 PA LANCASTER AREA SEWERPA0042269 BY 2005 15 7.78 8.00 0.75 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 20,704 PA LANCASTER CITY PA0026743 BY 2010 29.73 20.71 8.00 0.81 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 69,130 PA LEBANON CITY AUTHORITPA0027316 8 5.50 33.65 1.39 0 0 8 0 17,519 1 0 29,739 PA LEMOYNE BOROUGH MUNPA0026441 2.088 1.66 22.88 1.42 0 0 8 0 5,826 1 0 8,970 PA LEWISBURG AREA JOINT PA0044661 BY 2010 2.42 1.20 8.00 1.33 0 0 8 0 3,243 1 0 6,472 PA LEWISTOWN BOROUGH PA0026280 2.4 1.89 14.00 1.30 0 0 8 0 4,699 1 0 10,238 PA LITITZ SEWAGE AUTHORITPA0020320 3.5 3.02 23.00 1.57 0 0 8 0 14,194 1 0 16,344 PA LITTLESTOWN BOROUGH PA0021229 1 0.51 12.51 1.72 0 0 8 0 3,021 1 0 2,742 PA LOCK HAVEN PA0025933 BY 2010 3.75 2.18 8.00 2.42 0 0 8 201,723 29,561 1 0 11,782 PA LOGAN TOWNSHIP-GREENPA0032557 BY 2005 0.6 0.37 8.00 2.69 0 0 8 122,222 7,565 1 0 1,977 PA LOWER ALLEN TOWNSHIPPA0027189 5.95 3.40 13.63 1.45 0 0 8 0 12,559 1 0 18,392 PA LOWER LACKAWANNA V

APA0026361 6 3.50 17.54 1.57 0 0 8 0 16,610 1 0 18,911 

PA LYKENS BOROUGH PA0043575 0.41 0.24 11.07 1.31 0 0 8 0 619 1 0 1,306 PA MAHANOY CITY PA0070041 CURRENT 1.38 0.57 8.00 2.67 0 0 8 165,765 11,192 1 0 3,089 PA MANHEIM BOROUGH AUT PA0020893 1 0.79 8.82 1.35 0 0 8 0 2,318 1 0 4,292 PA MANSFIELD BOROUGH PA0021814 1 0.58 10.50 2.24 0 0 8 160,000 9,118 1 0 3,111 PA MARIETTA-DONEGAL JOINPA0021717 0.6 0.45 11.07 1.01 0 0 8 0 49 1 0 2,437 PA MARTINSBURG PA0028347 0.5 0.41 11.07 1.49 0 0 8 0 1,657 1 0 2,208 PA MARYSVILLE MUNICIPAL 

APA0021571 0.5 1.10 11.07 0.12 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 

PA MECHANICSBURG BOROUPA0020885 2.08 0.83 25.31 1.13 0 0 8 0 897 1 0 4,479 PA MIDDLETOWN PA0020664 2.2 1.19 20.08 0.71 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 2,713 PA MIFFLINBURG BOROUGH PA0028461 CURRENT 0.512 0.70 6.18 0.79 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 2,198 PA MILLERSBURG BOROUGHPA0022535 1 0.70 11.07 1.31 0 0 8 0 1,792 1 0 3,778 PA MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH PA0026620 1 0.69 1.75 1.30 0 0 8 0 1,730 1 0 3,726 PA MILTON MUNICIPAL AUTH PA0020273 2.6 1.71 5.81 0.43 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 PA MONTGOMERY BOROUGHPA0020699 0.6 0.52 32.35 2.33 0 0 8 122,222 8,126 1 0 2,792 PA MOSHANNON VALLEY JOI PA0037966 1.5 1.43 14.07 0.45 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-b 110 
Table X-B: PHOSPHORUS INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED

DESIGN

STAT FACILITY NPDES

BNR

STATUS

FLOW

(MGD)

FLOW

(MGD)

TN

(mg/l)

TP

(mg/l)

TP 

CC

TP

O&M

TP

NOTE TP CC TP O&M

TP

NOTE

TP 

CC TP O&M

2010 DATA* TIER 1 ($) (TP=Current) TIER 2 $) (TP=1 for ALL) TIER 3 ($) (TP=0.5 fo

PA MOUNT JOY PA0021067 1.3 0.75 22.45 0.32 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 

PA MOUNT UNION BOROUGHPA0020214 0.63 0.34 11.07 1.31 0 0 8 0 866 1 0 1,826 PA MOUNTAINTOP AREA PA0045985 CURRENT 2.4 2.75 8.00 3.68 0 0 8 181,241 64,537 1 0 14,844 PA MT. CARMEL MUNICIPAL SPA0024406 1.5 0.95 22.90 2.75 0 0 8 167,586 17,038 1 0 5,112 PA MT. HOLLY SPRINGS BOR PA0023183 0.6 0.38 14.92 0.67 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 715 PA MUNCY BOROUGH MUNICPA0024325 1.4 0.64 8.35 1.55 0 0 8 0 2,937 1 0 3,460 PA NEW CUMBERLAND BOR

OPA0026654 1.25 0.49 11.07 0.48 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 

PA NEW FREEDOM WTP PA0043257 1.3 1.15 19.60 1.58 0 0 8 0 5,504 1 0 6,211 PA NEW HOLLAND BOROUGHPA0021890 1.14 1.10 28.90 1.70 0 0 8 0 6,369 1 0 5,960 PA NEW OXFORD MUNICIPALPA0020923 CURRENT 0.825 1.24 8.00 0.33 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 PA NEWBERRY TOWNSHIP PA0083011 0.4 0.41 20.16 1.49 0 0 8 0 1,670 1 0 2,235 PA NORTHEASTERN YORK C PA0023744 1.7 0.65 11.07 1.24 0 0 8 0 1,300 1 0 3,491 PA NORTHUMBERLAND BOR

OPA0020567 0.75 0.45 19.07 0.63 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 633 

PA PALMYRA BOROUGH AUT PA0024287 1.42 0.82 28.31 1.48 0 0 8 0 3,244 1 0 4,406 PA PENN TOWNSHIP PA0037150 4.2 1.66 9.34 1.09 0 0 8 0 1,242 1 0 8,990 PA PINE CREEK MUNICIPAL 

APA0027553 1.3 0.64 17.90 1.55 0 0 8 0 2,916 1 0 3,465 

PA PINE GROVE BOROUGH 

APA0020915 0.6 0.45 18.94 2.71 0 0 8 122,222 8,801 1 0 2,433 

PA PORTER TOWER JOINT M PA0046272 CURRENT 0.43 0.56 7.69 1.30 0 0 8 0 1,395 1 0 3,039 PA ROARING SPRING BOROUPA0020249 CURRENT 0.7 0.68 5.61 1.54 0 0 8 0 3,041 1 0 3,681 PA SAYRE PA0043681 1.94 0.65 15.86 0.35 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 PA SCRANTON SEWER AUTHPA0026492 BY 2005 28 13.15 8.00 1.78 0 0 8 0 85,177 1 0 71,070 PA SHAMOKIN-COAL TOWNS PA0027324 7 3.56 25.26 1.84 0 0 8 0 24,700 1 0 19,219 PA SHENANDOAH MUNICIPALPA0070386 2 1.19 7.60 0.40 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 PA SHIPPENSBURG BOROU

GPA0030643 2.75 2.28 14.47 0.50 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 

PA SILVER SPRING TOWNSH PA0083593 0.5 0.16 5.92 0.47 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 PA SOUTH MIDDLETON TOWNPA0044113 0.75 0.45 11.07 0.42 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 PA SPRINGETTSBURY TOWN PA0026808 CURRENT 15 11.29 8.00 1.32 0 0 8 0 29,686 1 0 61,004 PA ST. JOHNS PA0046388 CURRENT 0.6 0.32 5.88 1.07 0 0 8 0 185 1 0 1,729 PA STEWARTSTOWN BOROUPA0036269 0.4 0.27 10.97 1.48 0 0 8 0 1,081 1 0 1,469 PA SUNBURY CITY MUNICIP

APA0026557 BY 2005 3.5 3.01 8.00 2.41 0 0 8 197,930 39,036 1 0 16,289 

PA SWATARA TOWNSHIP PA0026735 BY 2005 6.3 3.34 8.00 1.64 0 0 8 0 17,786 1 0 18,033 PA TOWANDA MUNICIPAL AU PA0034576 CURRENT 1 0.68 8.00 2.08 0 0 8 160,000 9,298 1 0 3,694 PA TRI-BORO MUNICIPAL AUTPA0023736 0.5 0.28 10.21 0.99 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 1,503 PA TWIN BOROUGHS SANIT

APA0023264 0.6 0.35 11.07 1.31 0 0 8 0 885 1 0 1,865 

PA TYRONE BOROUGH SEWEPA0026727 CURRENT 9 6.40 4.45 0.39 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 PA UNIVERSITY AREA JOINT PA0026239 BY 2005 3.84 5.07 8.00 0.06 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 PA UPPER ALLEN TOWNSHIPPA0024902 0.48 0.55 11.07 1.51 0 0 8 0 2,314 1 0 2,995 PA WASHINGTON TOWNSHIPPA0080225 CURRENT 1 0.93 7.79 2.57 0 0 8 160,000 15,254 1 0 5,034 PA WAYNESBORO BOROUGHPA0020621 1.59 0.87 5.25 4.81 0 0 8 168,951 57,274 1 0 9,254 PA WELLSBORO MUNICIPAL 

APA0021687 2 1.18 19.89 1.81 0 0 8 0 7,872 1 0 6,384 

PA WESTERN CLINTON COUNPA0043893 CURRENT 0.9 0.35 2.58 0.90 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 1,526 PA WHITE DEER TOWNSHIP PA0020800 0.42 0.27 20.34 2.43 0 0 8 105,222 5,336 1 0 1,474 

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-b 111 
Table X-B: PHOSPHORUS INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED

DESIGN

STAT FACILITY NPDES

BNR

STATUS

FLOW

(MGD)

FLOW

(MGD)

TN

(mg/l)

TP

(mg/l)

TP 

CC

TP

O&M

TP

NOTE TP CC TP O&M

TP

NOTE

TP 

CC TP O&M

2010 DATA* TIER 1 ($) (TP=Current) TIER 2 $) (TP=1 for ALL) TIER 3 ($) (TP=0.5 fo

PA WILLIAMSPORT SANITAR

YPA0027057 BY 2005 10.5 7.32 8.00 3.40 0 0 8 304,134 151,230 1 0 39,528 

PA WILLIAMSPORT SANITAR

YPA0027049 BY 2005 4.5 2.67 8.00 4.10 0 0 8 213,102 72,604 1 0 14,409 

PA WYOMING VALLEY PA0026107 CURRENT 50 23.86 5.21 1.36 0 0 8 0 71,004 1 0 128,912 PA YORK CITY PA0026263 CURRENT 26 11.93 8.00 0.26 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 PA Total 469.21 301.35 0 0 4,793,727 1,724,742 0 1,291,747 VA ALEXANDRIA VA0025160 BY 2005 54 37.94 8.00 0.05 0 08 0 01 0 0 VA ALLEGHANY CO. LOWER JVA0090671 1.5 0.75 18.70 2.00 0 0 8 167,586 9,552 1 0 4,053 VA AQUIA VA0060968 CURRENT 6.5 5.29 8.00 0.10 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 VA ARLINGTON VA0025143 BY 2005 40 35.29 8.00 0.06 0 08 0 01 0 0 VA ASHLAND VA0024899 BY 2010 2 1.55 8.00 1.50 0 0 8a 175,172 22,725 1 0 8,375 VA BROAD RUN WRF VA_BROADR BY 2010 15 2.40 8.00 0.10 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 VA BUENA VISTA VA0020991 2.25 1.45 18.70 2.50 0 0 8 178,965 21,547 1 0 7,829 VA CAPE CHARLES VA0021288 0.25 0.15 18.70 2.50 0 0 8 89,167 4,826 1 0 821 VA CAROLINE COUNTY REGI

OVA0073504 0.5 0.20 18.70 4.53 0 0 8 112,778 7,980 1 0 1,060 

VA CLIFTON FORGE VA0022772 2 1.23 18.70 2.50 0 0 8 175,172 18,807 1 0 6,668 VA COLONIAL BEACH VA0026409 BY 2010 2 0.85 13.26 2.72 0 0 8 175,172 15,570 1 0 4,572 VA COVINGTON VA0025542 3 1.78 18.70 2.50 0 0 8 190,344 52,922 1 0 9,602 VA CREWE STP VA0020303 0.5 0.20 11.54 0.28 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 VA CULPEPER VA0061590 BY 2005 4.5 2.27 8.00 1.50 0 0 8a 0 11,052 1 0 12,267 VA DAHLGREN (DAHLGREN SVA0026514 0.325 0.30 6.82 0.54 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 116 VA DALE CITY #1 VA0024724 BY 2005 4 3.06 8.00 0.09 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 VA DALE CITY #8 VA0024678 BY 2005 4 2.85 8.00 0.10 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 VA DOSWELL VA0029521 BY 2010 1 6.75 8.00 1.50 0 0 8a 160,000 85,740 1 0 5,403 VA FALLING CREEK VA0024996 BY 2010 10.1 8.24 9.57 1.26 0 0 8 0 17,712 1 0 44,521 VA FARMVILLE VA0083135 CURRENT 2.4 0.97 0.76 2.95 0 0 8 181,241 19,315 1 0 5,256 VA FISHERSVILLE VA0025291 2 1.71 15.82 2.67 0 0 8 175,172 27,144 1 0 9,240 VA FMC VA0068110 BY 2005 5.4 3.29 8.00 1.50 0 0 8a 0 13,603 1 0 17,782 VA FORT A.P. HILL (WILCOX CVA0032034 CURRENT 0.53 0.12 8.00 4.06 0 0 8 115,611 5,259 1 0 630 VA FREDERICKSBURG VA0025127 CURRENT 3.5 2.23 8.00 1.32 0 0 8 0 5,819 1 0 12,048 VA FRONT ROYAL VA0062812 4 2.76 11.21 1.11 0 0 8 0 2,469 1 0 14,929 VA FWSA OPEQUON VA0065552 CURRENT 8.4 5.89 8.00 1.14 0 0 8 0 6,903 1 0 31,830 VA GORDONSVILLE VA0021105 0.67 0.57 18.70 2.50 0 0 8 128,833 9,596 1 0 3,059 VA H.L. MOONEY VA0025101 BY 2005 18 14.63 8.00 0.10 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 VA HARRISONBURG-ROCKIN VA0060640 CURRENT 16 11.65 8.00 2.20 0 0 8 0 0 23 0 62,951 VA HAYMOUNT STP VA0089125 BY 2010 0.95 0.95 8.00 1.50 0 0 8 0 3,927 1 0 5,133 VA HENRICO COUNTY VA0063690 BY 2010 75 50.00 8.00 1.53 0 0 8 300,000 500,000 S 0 270,175 VA HOPEWELL VA0066630 BY 2010 50 35.12 21.00 1.50 0 0 8a 1,070,000 365,000 16 0 0 VA HRSD-ARMY BASE VA0081230 18 17.45 23.60 1.39 0 0 8 0 55,819 1 0 94,291 VA HRSD-BOAT HARBOR VA0081256 25 23.05 23.29 1.41 0 0 8 0 77,225 1 0 124,551 VA HRSD-CHESAPEAKE/ELIZ

AVA0081264 24 26.30 24.32 1.57 0 0 8 0 124,804 1 0 142,112 

VA HRSD-JAMES RIVER VA0081272 20 20.00 20.27 1.32 0 0 8 0 52,667 1 0 108,070 VA HRSD-NANSEMOND VA0081299 CURRENT 30 20.15 8.00 1.25 0 0 8 0 43,772 1 0 114,358 

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-b 112 
Table X-B: PHOSPHORUS INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED

DESIGN

STAT FACILITY NPDES

BNR

STATUS

FLOW

(MGD)

FLOW

(MGD)

TN

(mg/l)

TP

(mg/l)

TP 

CC

TP

O&M

TP

NOTE TP CC TP O&M

TP

NOTE

TP 

CC TP O&M

2010 DATA* TIER 1 ($) (TP=Current) TIER 2 $) (TP=1 for ALL) TIER 3 ($) (TP=0.5 fo

VA HRSD-VIP VA0081281 CURRENT 40 35.90 8.00 1.00 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 190,325 

VA HRSD-WILLIAMSBURG VA0081302 22.5 15.90 8.15 1.00 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 85,916 VA HRSD-YORK VA0081311 BY 2010 15 12.70 8.00 1.50 0 0 8a 0 34,796 1 0 69,265 VA KILMARNOCK VA0020788 0.2 0.25 4.61 2.56 0 0 8 84,445 22,658 1 0 1,345 VA LAKE MONTICELLO STP VA0024945 0.6 0.57 18.70 2.50 0 0 8 122,222 9,467 1 0 3,060 VA LEESBURG MD0066184 CURRENT 4.85 2.96 8.00 1.42 0 0 8 0 10,322 1 0 15,985 VA LEXINGTON-ROCKBRIDGEVA0088161 CURRENT 4 0.87 18.70 2.50 0 0 8 205,516 14,863 1 0 4,685 VA LITTLE FALLS RUN VA0076392 CURRENT 4 4.16 8.00 0.88 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 12,207 VA LURAY VA0062642 1.6 1.50 1.50 0.41 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 VA LYNCHBURG VA0024970 22 17.40 8.50 3.08 0 0 8 478,612 308,781 1 0 94,021 VA MASSANUTTEN PUBLIC S VA0024732 0.75 0.38 18.70 2.50 0 0 8 136,389 7,432 1 0 2,050 VA MASSAPONAX VA0025658 BY 2005 8 4.38 8.00 1.50 0 0 8a 0 0 1 0 23,682 VA MATHEWS COURTHOUSE VA0028819 0.1 0.08 10.41 1.42 0 0 8 0 275 1 0 432 VA MIDDLE RIVER VA0064793 CURRENT 6.8 5.65 8.00 2.05 0 0 8 247,998 54,207 1 0 30,530 VA MONTROSS - WESTMOREVA0072729 0.1 0.03 6.54 1.17 0 0 8 0 44 1 0 168 VA MOORES CREEK-RIVANN

AVA0025518 15 11.89 13.46 3.17 0 0 8 372,408 219,075 1 0 63,711 

VA NAVAL SURFACE WARFARVA0021067 CURRENT 0.4 0.43 8.00 2.89 0 0 8 103,334 50,513 1 0 2,345 VA NEW MARKET STP VA0022853 0.5 0.56 18.70 2.50 0 0 8 112,778 9,197 1 0 3,025 VA NOMAN M. COLE JR. POLLVA0025364 BY 2005 67 53.00 8.00 0.11 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 VA ONANCOCK VA0021253 0.25 0.23 18.70 2.50 0 0 8 89,167 10,034 1 0 1,264 VA ORANGE VA0021385 BY 2010 1.5 0.69 8.00 1.50 0 0 8a 167,586 11,927 1 0 3,736 VA PARHAM LANDING WWTP VA0088331 0.57 0.10 8.27 0.78 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 310 VA PARKINS MILL VA0075191 2 1.42 18.70 2.50 0 0 8 175,172 21,125 1 0 7,678 VA PROCTORS CREEK VA0060194 CURRENT 21.5 17.65 8.00 0.38 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 VA PURCELLVILLE VA0022802 BY 2005 1 0.42 8.00 2.50 0 0 8 160,000 8,452 1 0 2,289 VA QUANTICO-MAINSIDE VA0028363 CURRENT 2.2 1.38 8.00 0.10 0 0 8 0 0 1 0 0 VA REEDVILLE VA0060712 0.2 0.04 18.70 2.50 0 0 8 84,445 3,318 1 0 205 VA REMINGTON REGIONAL VA0076805 BY 2005 2 0.57 8.00 1.50 0 0 8a 0 0 23 0 3,097 VA RICHMOND VA0063177 BY 2010 45 47.99 8.00 1.50 0 0 8a 0 198,373 1 0 145,391 VA ROUND HILL WWTP VA0026212 0.5 0.15 18.70 3.00 0 0 8 112,778 4,745 1 0 813 VA SIL MRRS VA0090263 CURRENT 1.923 1.27 8.00 1.50 0 0 22 0 0 22 0 0 VA SOUTH CENTRAL VA0025437 BY 2010 23 12.93 8.00 1.50 0 0 8a 0 53,448 1 0 100,000 VA SOUTH WALES STP VA0080527 BY 2010 0.856 0.86 8.00 1.50 0 0 8 0 3,538 1 0 4,625 VA STONY CREEK STP VA0028380 0.6 0.26 18.70 2.50 0 0 8 122,222 5,725 1 0 1,430 VA STRASBURG VA0020311 0.98 0.77 18.70 2.50 0 0 8 158,111 12,743 1 0 4,175 VA STUARTS DRAFT VA0066877 BY 2005 1.4 1.50 8.00 1.50 0 0 8a 0 11,513 1 0 8,105 VA TANGIER ISLAND VA0067423 0.1 0.05 18.70 2.50 0 0 8 75,000 3,823 1 0 249 VA TAPPAHANNOCK VA0071471 0.8 0.37 18.70 2.50 0 0 8 0 0 23 0 2,020 VA TOTOPOTOMOY VA0089915 BY 2010 5 5.00 8.00 1.50 0 0 8a 0 20,668 1 0 27,017 VA UPPER OCCOQUAN SEW

AVA0024988 54 34.00 19.14 0.04 0 08 0 01 0 0 

VA URBANNA VA0026263 0.1 0.11 18.70 2.50 0 0 8 75,000 8,928 1 0 611 VA WARRENTON VA0021172 2.5 1.18 14.22 1.07 0 0 8 0 719 1 0 6,376 

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-b 113 
Table X-B: PHOSPHORUS INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED

DESIGN

STAT FACILITY NPDES

BNR

STATUS

FLOW

(MGD)

FLOW

(MGD)

TN

(mg/l)

TP

(mg/l)

TP 

CC

TP

O&M

TP

NOTE TP CC TP O&M

TP

NOTE

TP 

CC TP O&M

2010 DATA* TIER 1 ($) (TP=Current) TIER 2 $) (TP=1 for ALL) TIER 3 ($) (TP=0.5 fo

VA WARSAW VA0026891 0.3 0.22 18.70 2.50 0 0 8 93,889 17,796 1 0 1,173 

VA WAYNESBORO VA0025151 4 2.81 19.71 4.38 0 0 8 205,516 82,836 1 0 15,211 VA WEST POINT VA0075434 0.6 0.60 18.70 2.50 0 0 8 122,222 11,048 1 0 3,749 VA WEYERS CAVE STP VA0022349 0.5 0.40 18.70 2.50 0 0 8 112,778 7,216 1 0 2,161 VA WIDEWATER WWTP VA0090387 BY 2010 0.5 0.10 8.00 2.00 0 0 8 112,778 3,082 1 0 540 VA WILDERNESS SHORES VA0083411 0.5 0.55 18.70 2.50 0 0 8 112,778 9,031 1 0 2,952 VA WOODSTOCK VA0026468 0.8 0.42 18.70 2.50 0 0 8 141,111 8,010 1 0 2,261 VA Total 845.85 652.05 0 0 7,379,470 2,841,483 0 2,071,890 

WV BERKELEY COUNTY PSSDWV0082759 2.35 0.93 5.16 3.00 0 0 8 180,482 18,933 1 0 5,008 

WV BERKELEY COUNTY PSSDWV0020061 0.9 0.60 5.25 3.00 0 0 8 150,556 12,958 1 0 3,251 WV CHARLESTOWN WV0022349 1.2 0.75 10.74 3.00 0 0 8 163,034 15,617 1 0 4,038 WV KEYSER WV0024392 2.4 1.21 17.01 1.05 0 0 8 0 449 1 0 6,520 WV MARTINSBURG WV0023167 5 2.35 9.27 3.00 0 0 8 220,688 43,211 1 0 12,679 WV MOOREFIELD WV0020150 BY 2010 0.6 0.00 8.00 3.00 0 0 8 122,222 3,779 1 0 540 WV PETERSBURG WV0021792 0.8 0.74 6.14 3.00 0 0 8 141,111 14,989 1 0 3,976 WV ROMNEY WV0020699 0.5 0.46 17.20 3.00 0 0 8 112,778 9,806 1 0 2,467 WV Total 13.75 7.02 0 0 1,090,872 119,742 0 38,479 Grand Total 2,341 1,767 0 0 39,422,645 9,765,046 0 4,570,953 

Source Notes

* 2010 Data are the projections based on 2000 data. 2010 flows are projected with 2000 flow and population increase factor, except where facility's own projection is provided. Con1 = Calculated from the methodologies provided from Thor Young, Stearn & Wheler, LLC and Tom Sadick, CH2M Hill. 

2 = NRT eligible cost report from MDE,4/23/02, where cost=0, MDE has indicated funds already appropriated2a= NRT Cost report, from MDE 3/6/2002 3 = Randall 51 Facility Report, 1999 for BNR @8 and additional 3/2001 report with 60 facilities.4 = Paid for by Corp of Engineers5 = From VA 2000 Annual Report and VA 2002 annual Report - Assumes that the cost share information equals 1/2 of total BNR cost to get 8, and that funds are already made availab except for FMC and Henrico where no funds have been spent as of 2002.6 = Email from Bob Ehrhart to Allison Wiedeman, 3/7/027= BNR funded under federal funds.8 = No cost is applied, because TN or TP =current level for Tier 1 for this facility8a = The 2010 TP concentration of 1.5 mg/l shown for these facilities reflects the specific effluent concentration targeted by Virginia either under WQIF Grant program and/or the Tribu9 = Cost survey from Seaford WWTP, 3/22/0210 = From 4/2/01 letters from Eastern Snyder County Regional Authority to Senator Specter. Also, costs not calculated to 8 because they are currently designing only to 3  (4/26/01 Telephone conversation between CBPO and Gannett Hemming)11= Message from WVDEP, cost=0 due to irrigation.12 = Email message from Paul Janiga, DE DNREC, 3/28/02.13 = Cost survey from Mike Kyle, LASA, 3/6/0214 = DC CSO & Blue Plains Cost Estimates- UAA cost analysis, from Tanya spano, WMCOG, 4/10/0215 = Telephone conversation with Sunberry WWTP, 6/21/0116 = Cost Summary: City of Hopewell, from Bob Steidel, Hopewell Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility. 8/7/2002. 17= Message from Tom Broderick, LCSA, concerning Broad Run, 3/11/0218 = Message from Marya Levelev, 4/5/02, Western Branch already can achieve 3 mg/l.

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-b 114 
Table X-B: PHOSPHORUS INCREMENTAL COST FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES IN THE BAY WATERSHED

DESIGN

STAT FACILITY NPDES

BNR

STATUS

FLOW

(MGD)

FLOW

(MGD)

TN

(mg/l)

TP

(mg/l)

TP 

CC

TP

O&M

TP

NOTE TP CC TP O&M

TP

NOTE

TP 

CC TP O&M

2010 DATA* TIER 1 ($) (TP=Current) TIER 2 $) (TP=1 for ALL) TIER 3 ($) (TP=0.5 fo

19 = Message from Marya Levelev, 8/12/02, to add $10 million TN cc in Tier 2 for Back River20 = Message from Bob Steidel, 9/17/02, to remove the Tier 1 cost for Hopewell.21 = Message from Bob Ehrhart, 9/4/02, to remove Tier 1 costs for FMC and Hopewell.22 = Message from Bob Ehrhart, 9/19/02, to add SIL which replaced Broadway Lagoons, Timberville, Rocco Quality Foods and Wampler Foods-Timberville.23 = Message from Bob Ehrhart, 11/14/02, No Tier 2 TP cost due to chemical feed facilities have been funded.A = The capital costs at TN =3 from sources other than calculation are applied to Tier 3 for TN. And, in these cases, the Tier 4 TN capital costs are set to zero. Message from AllisoB = The value is set to zero, because this plant's TN or TP level have been lower than the defined level in this Tier for more than five years.C14 = Message from W. Hunley, HRSD, 10/3/02C15 = Cost shown represent an order of magnitude planning level estimate as transmitted by HRSD on October 3, 2002. A less costly alternative, which provides for only seasonal n and/or an annual average TN concentration greater than 8.0 mg/l, does potentially exist as discussed in the September 1989 Technical Memoranda C.22 and C. 25 prepared by C6 = Letter from City of Lynchburg to Allison Wiedeman, 7/14/2001C9 = Bos, Robert E, PE, Public Utility Administrator with County of Stafford, letter to Allison Wiedeman, EPA, re: Nitrogen Removal Costs, 7/31/01M = For facilities with existing capital costs and no O&M costs available, the O&M costs are calculated from exiting capitlal costs adjusted by the cost ratio between calculated O&M a the methodologies provided from Thor Young, Stearn & Wheler, LLC and Tom Sadick, CH2M Hill. N = NRT facilities that currently have or will install NRT by 2010, It is assumed that no additional cost is needed.S = From NRT cost survey results.

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-b 115 
Table X-C: NRT CAPITAL COST SUMMARY FOR POINT SOURCES BY STATE AND CATEGORY 

DESIGN

# OF FLOW

PLANTS (MGD) TN CC TP CC TN CC TP CC TN CC TP CC TN CC TP CC TN CC TP CC T

WATERSHED TOTAL SIGNIFICANT 304 2,336.01 597.91 0 921.44 40.09 1,519.36 40.09 1,190.49 0 2,709.85 40.09 1 NON-SIGNIFICANT 185 21.17 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00  INDUSTRIAL 49 459.51 0.00 0 48.57 2.36 48.57 2.36 46.02 0.8 94.58 3.16  DC-CSO 1 7.61 130.00 0 0 0 130.00 0 0 0 130.00 0 3 TOTAL 539 2,824.30 727.91 0 970.01 42.45 1,697.92 42.45 1,236.51 0.8 2,934.43 43.25 5,TOTAL BY STATEDC SIGNIFICANT 1 169.40 0.00 0 15.11 9.16 15.11 9.16 103.01 0 118.12 9.16  CSO 1 7.61 130.00 0 0.00 0.00 130.00 0.00 0.00 0 130.00 0.00 3 DC TOTAL 2 177.01 130.00 0 15.11 9.16 145.11 9.16 103.01 0 248.12 9.16 3DE  SIGNIFICANT 3 3.30 3.19 0 2.37 0.25 5.56 0.25 3.18 0 8.74 0.25  INDUSTRIAL 1 37.83 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00  DE TOTAL 4 41.13 3.19 0 2.37 0.25 5.56 0.25 3.18 0 8.74 0.25 MD  SIGNIFICANT 65 725.82 384.75 0 25.13 11.79 409.88 11.79 356.36 0 766.24 11.79  NON-SIGNIFICANT 181 20.59 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00  INDUSTRIAL 10 53.30 0.00 0 12.25 0.21 12.25 0.21 5.89 0 18.14 0.21  MD TOTAL 256 799.71 384.75 0 37.38 12.00 422.13 12.00 362.25 0 784.38 12.00 NY  SIGNIFICANT 18 82.57 0.00 0 61.87 3.29 61.87 3.29 40.60 0 102.47 3.29  NY TOTAL 18 82.57 0.00 0 61.87 3.29 61.87 3.29 40.60 0 102.47 3.29 PA  SIGNIFICANT 123 469.21 72.08 0 277.87 4.79 349.94 4.79 319.81 0 669.76 4.79  INDUSTRIAL 19 75.62 0.00 0 17.34 0.79 17.34 0.79 16.95 0 34.29 0.79  PA TOTAL 142 544.84 72.08 0 295.20 5.58 367.28 5.58 336.77 0 704.05 5.58 

VA SIGNIFICANT 86 871.95 137.90 0 515.90 9.72 653.80 9.72 356.55 0 1,010.35 9.72  NON-SIGNIFICANT 1 0.05 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00  INDUSTRIAL 16 292.44 0.00 0 13.79 1.27 13.79 1.27 22.72 0.8 36.51 2.07  VA TOTAL 103 1,164.44 137.90 0 529.68 10.99 667.58 10.99 379.28 0.8 1,046.86 11.79 WV  SIGNIFICANT 8 13.75 0.00 0 23.19 1.09 23.19 1.09 10.97 0 34.16 1.09  NON-SIGNIFICANT 3 0.53 0.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0.00 0.00  INDUSTRIAL 3 0.32 0.00 0 5.19 0.10 5.19 0.10 0.45 0 5.64 0.10  WV TOTAL 14 14.60 0.00 0 28.38 1.19 28.38 1.19 11.42 0 39.81 1.19 NOTE: Blue Plains costs are allocated among DC, MD and VA according to the Blue Plains cost allocation methodology by MWCOG.  Non-significant category covers only plants with existing data in the database, which are mainly MD facilities. Most VA non-significant plants are not yet incl Many industrial facilities do not have design flow data available. 2010 flows were used for industrial design flows. Actual design flows were used for severa

 TN CC = Total Nitrogen Capital Costs; TP CC = Total Phosphorus Capital Costs

TIER 1 COSTS ($MIL) TIER 2 COST ($MIL) TIER 3 COST ($MIL) 

INCREMENTAL INCREMENTAL CUMULATIVE INCREMENTAL CUMULATIVE I

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstalbe x-c 116 
Table X-D: NRT INCREMENTAL COST SUMMARY FOR POINT SOURCES BY CATEGORY AND STATE

Significant Plants Summary

STATE

# 

PLANTS

DESIGN

FLOW TN CC TN O&M TN CC TN O&M TP CC TP O&M TN CC TN O&M TP CC TP O&M TN CC 

DC Total 1 153 0 0 15,108,649 2,537,112 9,156,757 1,537,644 103,013,514 6,135,027 0 0 167,110,81DE Total 3 3.3 3,187,400 63,244 2,374,508 147,026 253,889 20,257 3,182,908 46,665 0 9,807 4,152,08MD Total 65 726 384,749,909 7,788,496 25,126,486 2,681,237 11,786,742 2,366,944 356,361,691 11,986,151 0 805,854 658,425,23NY Total 18 82.57 0 0 61,874,054 1,182,996 3,285,513 872,847 40,600,618 990,925 0 353,177 71,577,88PA Total 123 469.21 72,079,813 1,866,433 277,865,025 5,667,625 4,793,727 1,724,742 319,811,406 6,443,904 0 1,291,747 241,323,23VA Total 86 888 137,897,837 2,649,908 515,898,541 6,206,296 9,721,232 3,261,645 356,552,954 16,008,012 0 2,071,890 505,210,10WV Total 8 13.75 0 0 23,193,004 403,506 1,090,872 119,742 10,971,658 163,451 0 38,479 15,792,98Grand To 304 2,336 597,914,959 12,368,080 921,440,267 18,825,798 40,088,731 9,903,821 1,190,494,749 41,774,135 0 4,570,953 1,663,592,34

Insignificant Plants Summary

STATE

# 

PLAN

DESIGN TN CC TN O&M TN CC TN O&M TP CC TP O&M TN CC TN O&M TP CC TP O&M TN CC 

MD 181 20.59 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 80,973,91VA 1 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 403,08

WV 3 0.53 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 1,712,34

GRAND 

T 185 21.17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83,089,34

Industrial Plants Summary

STATE

# 

PLANTS

DESIGN

FLOW TN CC TN O&M TN CC TN O&M TP CC TP O&M TN CC TN O&M TP CC TP O&M TN CC 

DE Total 1 37.83 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 MD Total 10 53.30 0 0 12,251,672 544,428 210,673 47,381 5,888,095 424,429 0 113,749 5,695,67PA Total 19 75.62 0 0 17,337,769 321,654 785,589 172,314 16,954,957 504,830 0 138,513 47,981,09VA Total 16 292.44 0 0 13,786,149 1,402,538 1,265,216 722,524 22,723,729 2,297,555 800,000 203,087 58,365,92WV Total 3 0.32 0 0 5,190,884 102,636 95,395 4,520 449,977 12,366 0 1,707 541,28GRAND 

T 49 459.51 0 0 48,566,474 2,371,256 2,356,873 946,739 46,016,759 3,239,180 800,000 457,056 112,583,97

CSO SUMMARYSTATE

# 

PLANTS

DESIGN

FLOW TN CC TN O&M TN CC TN O&M TP CC TP O&M TN CC TN O&M TP CC TP O&M TN CC 

DC 1 7.61 130,000,000 6,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,500,000,00

GRAND TOTAL W/O CS

O 538 2,817 597,914,959 12,368,080 970,006,741 21,197,054 42,445,603 10,850,560 1,236,511,508 45,013,315 800,000 5,028,009 1,859,265,66

W CSO 539 2,824 727,914,959 18,868,080 970,006,741 21,197,054 42,445,603 10,850,560 1,236,511,508 45,013,315 800,000 5,028,009 5,359,265,66NOTE: Blue Plains costs are allocated among DC, MD and VA according to the flow allocation projected by MWCOG. Most VA insignificant plants are not yet included

TIER 1 COSTS ($) TIER 2 COST ($) TIER 3 COSTS ($) TIER 1 COSTS ($) TIER 2 COST ($) TIER 3 COSTS ($) TIER 1 COSTS ($) TIER 2 COST ($) TIER 3 COSTS ($) TIER 1 COSTS ($) TIER 2 COST ($) TIER 3 COSTS ($) 

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-d 117 
Table X-E: NRT INCREMENTAL COST SUMMARY FOR SIGNIFICANT MUNICIPAL FACILITIES

STATE TN CC TN O&M TN CC TN O&M TP CC TP O&M TN CC TN O&M TP CC TP O&M TN CC T

DC Total 0 0 33,000,000 5,541,509 20,000,000 3,358,491 225,000,000 13,400,000 0 0 365,000,000 17DE Total 3,187,400 63,244 2,374,508 147,026 253,889 20,257 3,182,908 46,665 0 9,807 4,152,080 MD Total 384,749,909 7,788,496 10,000,000 141,129 2,619,174 827,485 253,226,556 5,843,881 0 805,854 491,117,129 11NY Total 0 0 61,874,054 1,182,996 3,285,513 872,847 40,600,618 990,925 0 353,177 71,577,888 2PA Total 72,079,813 1,866,433 277,865,025 5,667,625 4,793,727 1,724,742 319,811,406 6,443,904 0 1,291,747 241,323,231 6VA Total 137,897,837 2,649,908 513,133,676 5,742,007 8,045,556 2,980,258 337,701,603 14,885,310 0 2,071,890 474,629,026 11WV Total 0 0 23,193,004 403,506 1,090,872 119,742 10,971,658 163,451 0 38,479 15,792,986 Grand Total 597,914,959 12,368,080 921,440,267 18,825,798 40,088,731 9,903,821 1,190,494,749 41,774,135 0 4,570,953 1,663,592,340 50

Note: The costs listed are incremental.

TIER 1 COSTS ($) TIER 2 COST ($) TIER 3 COSTS ($) 

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-e 118 
Table X-F: Total Design Flow and TN Capital Cost Summary for Significant Municipals by State

# of Design # of Capital Cost # of Capital Cost # of Capital Cost # of 

State Plants Flow (MGD) Plants MGD % $million Plants MGD % $million Plants MGD % $million Plants MGDC 1 169.4 0 0.0 0% 0.00 1 169.4 100% 15.11 1 169.4 100% 103.01 1 16DE 3 3.3 1 0.8 24% 3.19 1 0.5 15% 2.37 3 3.3 100% 3.18 3 MD 65 725.8 31 162.2 22% 384.75 1 349.6 48% 25.13 64 695.8 96% 356.36 64 69NY 18 82.6 0 0.0 0% 0.00 15 50.6 61% 61.87 17 72.6 88% 40.60 17 7PA 123 469.2 15 129.5 28% 72.08 85 188.7 40% 277.87 120 423.5 90% 319.81 102 22VA 86 876.7 14 127.9 15% 137.90 45 385.9 44% 515.90 82 867.7 99% 356.55 60 54WV 8 13.8 0 0.0 0% 0.00 7 13.2 96% 23.19 8 13.8 100% 10.97 8 Total 304 2,341 61 420 598 155 1,158 921 295 2,246 1,190 255 1,TN Cost Notes: (detailed notes were listed in Table X-A)

Tier 1: MD All costs for 31 plants were provided from MDE, $200 million is due to Potapsco alone.

PA 5 plants used calculated costs; Costs for another 5 plants were from the Randall report; The remaining 5 plants used costs from survey or fac

VA 4 plants used calculated costs; 1 plant used the Randall report cost; 4 plants used the grant agreement costs; the remaining 5 plants used co

Tier 2: MD Back River ($ 10 million) and Blue Plains ($ 15Million)

PA 79 plants used calculated costs; Cost for 5 plant were from the Randall report; The remaining 1 plant used costs from survey or facility contacVA 29 plants used calculated costs; 7 plants used the Randall report cost; the remaining 9 plants used costs from survey or facility contacts.

Table X-G: Total Design Flow and TP Capital Cost Summary for Significant Municipals by State

# of Design # of Capital Cost # of Capital Cost # of Capital Cost # of 

State Plants Flow (MGD) Plants MGD % $million Plants MGD % $million Plants MGD % $million Plants MG

DC 1 169.4 0 0.0 0% 0.00 1 169.4 100% 9.16 0 0.0 0% 0.00 1 16DE 3 3.3 0 0.0 0% 0.00 2 1.3 39% 0.25 0 0.0 0% 0.00 3 MD 65 725.8 0 0.0 0% 0.00 16 206.5 28% 11.79 0 0.0 0% 0.00 65 72NY 18 82.6 0 0.0 0% 0.00 16 72.0 87% 3.29 0 0.0 0% 0.00 18 8PA 123 469.2 0 0.0 0% 0.00 27 71.1 15% 4.79 0 0.0 0% 0.00 123 46VA 86 876.7 0 0.0 0% 0.00 44 259.4 30% 9.72 0 0.0 0% 0.00 81 69WV 8 13.8 0 0.0 0% 0.00 7 11.3 83% 1.09 0 0.0 0% 0.00 8 Total 304 2,341 0 0 0 113 791 40 0 0 0 299 2,Note: Blue Plains design flow and costs were allocated among DC, MD and VA based on the ratios provided by MWCOG for UAA.

But Blue Plains is counted only once in the "# of Plants" columns as a DC plant.The "%" columns list the percentage of the design flow costed over the total design flow in each state.

Design Flo

w Design Flo

w Design Flow De

Design Flow Design Flow Design Flow De

Tier 1 Facilities with Costs Tier 2 Facilities with Costs Tier 3 Facilities with Costs Tier 4 FTier 1 Facilities with Costs Tier 2 Facilities with Costs Tier 3 Facilities with Costs Tier 4 F

NRT_TABLE_V-X.xlstable x-f-g 119