An Overview of Pennsylvania’s Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy For ALL Point Source Dischargers

An Overview of Pennsylvania’s

Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy

For ALLPoint Source Dischargers

June 10, 2005

The pollutants causing water quality impairments drain into to the Bayand its rivers fromthe entire watershed.

Watershed-wide Pollution Reductions Needed

Chesapeake Bay Watershed Boundary

Chesapeake Watershed Subbasins

Living Resource Protection & Restoration

... but much more needs to be done. Declines are due to overharvest, disease, pollution and loss of oyster reef habitat.

The new agreement commits to increase native oysters tenfold by 2010.

Declines in Oyster Harvests are Beginning to Reverse…

53 55 57 59 61 63 65 67 69 71 73 75 77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 990

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Co

mm

erci

al H

arve

st (

mill

ion

s o

f lb

s)

VA

MD

00

Year

Chesapeake Bay Partners

• Signatories to the Chesapeake Bay agreement– EPA (representing the Federal government)

– Jurisdictions of MD, PA, VA and DC

– Chesapeake Bay Commission (representing MD, PA and VA state legislatures)

• Headwater states– DE, NY and WV

– Memorandum of Understanding committing to water quality goals and commitments

• Protection and Restoration of:

– Living Resources

– Vital Habitat

– Water Quality

• Sound Land Use

• Stewardship and Community Engagement

Chesapeake 2000

Restored Water Quality Means:

• More oxygen and improved habitat for more fish, crabs and oysters.

• Clearer water and more underwater Bay grasses.

• Fewer algae blooms and better fish food.

Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Criteria

• Water Clarity – light for underwater Bay grasses• Chlorophyll a – base of the Bay food chain• Dissolved Oxygen – for fish, crabs and oysters

Together, these three criteria define the conditions necessary to protect the wide variety of the Bay’s living resources and their habitats.

WQ Criteria vs. Nutrient and Sediment

• Reduction of Nutrients:

•Reduce algae blooms

•Improve water clarity

•Increase dissolved oxygen

•Increase zooplankton

• Reduction of Sediment:

•Improve water clarity

•Improve habitat

Conceptual Watershed

Watershed Model

Regional Acid Deposition Model

The Model

Chesapeake Bay Estuary Model Package

Total Nitrogen Yields

Total Phosphorus Yields

SusquehannaN 69.2 P 2.55Tier 3.5

PotomacN 30.5 P3.18Tier 3.5

East. Sh. MDN 10.6 P 1.3Tier 3.5/ 3.0

West. Sh. MDN 8.0 P .62Tier 3.5

East. Sh. VAN 0.7 P 0.1Tier 3.5/ 3.0

PatuxentN 2.5 P 0.2Tier 3.5

RappahannockN 5.0 P 0.66Tier 3.0/ Trib Strat

YorkN 5.7 P 0.48Trib Strat James

N 28.1 P 3.71Trib Strat

Cap Loads for the

Major Basins(Based on April 2003

Agreement)

SusquehannaN 80.99 P 2.52

PotomacN 35.78 P 3.48

YorkN 5.70P 0.48 James

N 26.43P 3.42

East. Shore VAN 1.16 P 0.08

East. Shore MDN 14.1P 1.14

W. Shore MD.N 11.29P 0.84

RappahannockN 5.24P 0.62

PatuxentN 2.46P 0.21

Note: Clear Skies Accounts for 8 M lbs. N

Nitrogen Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay

135.34

30.20 28.25

5.02

70.80

9.73 9.13

46.71

2.35

120.98

22.75

15.78

4.08

58.43

7.73 7.70

35.68

2.05

76.25

13.6811.10

2.38

34.32

5.05 5.51

25.74

1.11

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Susquehanna Eastern ShoreMD

Western ShoreMD

Patuxent Potomac Rappahannock York James Eastern ShoreVA

(million p

ounds

TN

per

yea

r)

1985 2001 Progress Cap Load Allocation

Phosphorus Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay

5.11

3.09

1.96

0.51

5.30

1.27 1.18

8.48

0.22

4.00

1.89

0.93

0.28

4.22

0.920.77

5.55

0.21

2.52

1.140.84

0.21

3.48

0.620.48

3.42

0.08

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9


Western ShoreMD


(million p

ounds

TP p

er y

ear)

1985 2001 Progress Cap Load Allocation

Land-Based Sediment Loads Delivered to the Chesapeake Bay

1.178

0.382

0.164 0.201

2.033

0.418

0.158

1.278

0.021

1.027

0.299

0.129 0.129

1.721

0.331

0.125

1.193

0.018

0.962

0.1630.100 0.095

1.494

0.288

0.103

0.935

0.0080.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5


Western ShoreMD


(million t

ons

SED

per

yea

r)

1985 2001 Progress Land-Based Sediment Cap Load Allocation

2,210,000 tons sediment (70%)1,500 tons nitrogen (2%)

1,740 tons phosphorus (40%)

3,100,000 tons sediment75,000 tons nitrogen

4,350 tons phosphorus

890,000 tons sediment73,500 tons nitrogen

2,610 tons phosphorus

PA Reservoir System

The reservoir system on the lower Susquehanna affects the amount of nutrients and sediment that reach the Bay.

Upper two reservoirs have reached capacity.

Conowingo Reservoir may reach capacity in about 25 years.

Phase 5 Calibration

• Phase 4.3 – 26 calibration stations

• Phase 5.0 – 236 hydrology and 100+ water quality calibration stations

Old vs. New Segments

Total Nitrogen

278

175109 71.9

0

100

200

300

400

2002 Cap

mil

lb

s p

er y

ear

Bay PA

Comparing 2002 and Cap LoadsBay-wide vs. Pennsylvania

34% Reduction Needed

Total Phosphorus

19.5

12.8

3.58 2.460

5

10

15

20

25

2002 Cap

mil

lbs

per

yea

r

Bay PA

Comparing 2002 versus Cap LoadsBay-wide vs. Pennsylvania

31% Reduction Needed

Pennsylvania’sChesapeake Bay

Tributary Strategy

Prepared by thePennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection

December 2004

Edward G. Rendell, Governor

Kathleen A. McGinty, SecretaryCommonwealth of Pennsylvania

Department of Environmental Protection

An Equal Opportunity Employer

3900-BK-DEP1656 Rev. 1/2005Last published in 2002

Bay Sources of Total Nitrogen

Agriculture41%

Forest15%

Point Sources21%

Developed11%

Mixed Open7%

Septic Systems4%

Air1%

PA Sources of Total Nitrogen

Forest21%

Point Sources

11%

Developed7%

Mixed Open

7%

Septic Systems

4%

Agriculture49%

Air1%

Sources of Total Nitrogen

Bay-wide vs. Pennsylvania

Based on Pounds per Year

Bay Sources of Total Phosphorus

Agriculture48%

Forest2%

Point Sources

22%

Developed16%

Mixed Open11%

Air1%

PA Sources of Total Phosphorus

Agriculture63%Forest

3%

Point Sources

18%

Mixed Open8%

Air1%

Developed7%

Sources of Total Phosphorus

Bay-wide vs. Pennsylvania

Based on Pounds per Year

Pennsylvania’sChesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy

Non-Point Sources

•Agriculture•Forest•Urban•Septic Systems

Meet Bay water quality goals through Best Management Practices (BMPs)

Point Sources

•“Significant” Point Sources (municipal and industrial)•Smaller Point Sources•New dischargers

NPDES Annual Load Limits for:-Total Nitrogen(Total Nitrogen = Organic nitrogen, ammonia, nitrate and nitrite)

-Total Phosphorus

Non-Point - Agriculture

Currently Tracked BMPs• Nutrient Management

• Animal Waste Management

• Soil Conservation Plans

• Conservation Tillage

• Retire Highly Erodible Land

• Forest & Grass Buffers

• Wetland Restoration

• Rotational Grazing

• Stream Bank Fencing

• Phytase for Poultry

Promoting/Tracking

Additional BMPs• Cover Crops

• Precision Agriculture

• Precision Dairy Feeding

• Advanced No-Till

• Horse Pasture Management

• Manure Transport

• Yield Reserve

• Carbon Sequestration

• Precision Rotational Grazing

• Phytase for Swine

• Ag Ammonia Emission Controls

Non-Point Urban

Currently Tracked BMPs• Erosion & Sedimentation

Control

• Dirt & Gravel Road

• Stormwater Management

Promoting/Tracking

Additional BMPs• Urban Street Sweeping

• Stream Restoration

• Low Impact Development

• Stormwater Retrofits

• Nitrogen Removing Septic Systems

• Urban Nutrient Management

13 Non-Point Watershed Strategies

• 13 Watersheds identified in PA: 12 in Susquehanna; 1 in Potomac

• The strategy, by watershed:• identifies specific land uses• watershed nutrient and sediment allocations• appropriate BMPs.

POINT SOURCES

PENNSYLVANIA’S CHESAPEAKE BAY

TRIBUTARY STRATEGY

MAJOR POINT SOURCES IN PA

• 140+ Sewage treatment plants in the Bay Watershed above 0.4MGD

• 20 Significant Industrial Dischargers

• Constitute a very significant portion of the nutrient loads to the Bay

• We’re talking about total N and total P

• 3 DEP Regions involved

THE POINT SOURCE CHALLENGE

• Point sources constitute 11% of the TN load and 18% of the TP load

• Goal is to remove about 4 million lbs TN and about 400,000 lbs TP

• Cap loads after goal is reached

Comparison of Nitrogen Loads(mil lbs)

Basin Source 1985 2002 Strategy 1985 - 2002

Susquehanna NPS 102.1 90.7 58.1 43% - 36%

PS 11.2 12.3 8.13 27% - 33%

Total 66.2

Potomac NPS 6.59 6.05 3.28 50% - 45%

PS 0.236 0.201 0.174 26% - 13%

Total 3.45

WHATS BEHIND THE NUMBERS

• Need to equitably allocate allowable loads among point source and non-point sources

• Everybody do their “fair share” of the burden

• Typical way to do baseline allocations for point source discharges is to choose a cost-effective, achievable level of technology

SIGNIFICANT STP SOURCES

• STPs with design flow 0.4 MGD or above• Must meet loading based upon performance levels of

8 mg/l N and 1mg/l P –presuming BNR and chemical precipitation of P

• These loads are to be based on projected 2010 flows – projecting from 2000 flows, census, Ch 94

• These loads are then the “caps”• Remember these are loadings in pounds not

concentrations• Running annual average, reported monthly

SMALLER STP SOURCES

• STPs with design flow under 0.4 mgd • Must meet loads based upon existing

performance levels of total P and total N• Load is based upon design flow, not 2010 flow• These loads are then the “caps”• STPs under a certain size ( say 2000 gpd )

exempt

Rules for both significant and small STPs

• Design flows and 2010 flows are the “base sewage flows” or “dry weather flows”.

• Prevents getting artificially high allowable loads for leaky sewer systems

• If there are local conditions requiring more stringent total N or total P limits, these trump the Bay limits

INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGERS

• 20 Significant– Set at current loading.– Some additional reserve for growth

• May set a combined cap for all industry, and treat all industry as a consortium.

New or expanded discharges

• Zero net total N and total P loads.• If replacing existing discharges or existing on-lot

disposal systems, credit for eliminating that load counts towards the net

• If discharge is totally new (development induced), new discharger must:– Treat and land apply wastewater– Treat and recycle– Treat and discharge and buy credits

“Credits” ??

• DEP will be developing a nutrient trading program• Instead of treating down to assigned cap load, pay

someone else to remove your excess load• Trading will probably be point-to-point, or point-to-

non-point.• Trading will probably be facilitated by a “watershed

permit”

What is a “watershed permit”

• An “overlay” permit for a number of discharges all on one large watershed, to accomplish a load allocation

• Would “overlay” the normal NPDES permits• Would be an “accounting” permit for all the

established total N and total P load limits for all dischargers on the watershed.

• Would be the accounting system for nutrient trading• Needs a basis in regulation

How might this all roll out

• Monitoring may be required soon – expect a letter in the mail

• A defining date is the MD adoption of Bay WQ standards – possibly this summer

• Official permit actions (normal renewals or new) after this date may need to contain load limits

• Flexible period of time to comply• Next defining date will be DEP passage of regs and

creation of a watershed permit – early 2007• Actions after that date would require load limits.

SOME OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

• We are working with PMAA and consultants make a smooth transition

• Some issues still need to be fleshed out• Important to keep lines of communication

open• Planning is important• Funding is important --- we understand that,

and will do all we can

Point sources --- leading the way

Point Sources – Cap Load Calculations

• “Significant” Municipal Point Sources: (DEP Calc. 2010 flow) x 8 mg/L TN x 8.34 x 365 days(DEP Calc. 2010 flow) x 1 mg/L TP x 8.34 x 365 days

• “Significant” Industrial Point Sources:‘Current Loadings + margin for growth’

• Remaining Point Source Dischargers:WWTP Design Flow x ~20 mg/L TN x 8.34 x 365 days WWTP Design Flow x ~6 mg/L TP x 8.34 x 365 days

• New Point Source Dischargers:TN and TP cap loads = 0 lbs

NOTE: Local stream conditions may dictate a lower cap load (Total Maximum Daily Loads) )

“Significant” Municipal Point Sources DEP Calc. 2010 flow

• Details not currently available from DEP

• Previous discussions included:

2000 Annual Average Flow as the base flow.

2000 was a typical precipitation year.

Increase the base flow by a population increasefrom 2000 – 2010.

“Significant” Municipal Point Sources Example Nitrogen Calculation

DEP Calc. 2010 flow: 1 MGD

1 MGD x 8 mg/L TN x 8.34 x 365 days = 24,382 lb/yr

Cap Load = 24,382 lb/yr (~67 lb/d, average)

Average TN from using 2010 Flow: 8 mg/L

“Any increase in the discharge volume will necessarily result in a commensurate reduction in the nutrient concentration in

order to stay below the annual load allocation.” – page 47



1 MGD x 8 mg/L TN x 8.34 x 365 days = 24,382 lb/yr





WWTP Design Flow: 2 MGD



Average TN at Design: 4 mg/L



WWTP Design Flow: 2 MGD

Future Upgrade to WWTP: 3 MGD



Average TN at Design: 4 mg/L

Average TN with at Upgrade Design: 2.6 mg/L

Nutrient Reduction Technology

• Nitrogen Reduction:

• Biological Nitrification and

• Biological Denitrification

• Phosphorus Reduction

• Biological Phosphorus Removal and/or

• Physical/Chemical Precipitation of Phosphorus

Periodic Table

Total Nitrogen

TKN Nitrate / Nitrite

Organic - particulate

Organic - dissolved

Ammonia

Total Nitrogen = Organic Nitrogen + Ammonia + Nitrate + Nitrite

Weak Medium StrongOrganic Nitrogen 8 15 35Ammonia 12 25 50Nitrate/Nitrite Trace Trace TraceTotal Nitrogen 20 40 85

SeptageTotal Nitrogen 100 - 1,600 (700 typical)

(mg/L)

Wastewater Engineering, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.

Typical Untreated Domestic Wastewater

Biological Nitrogen Removal

• Hydrolysis: Organic Nitrogen → Ammonia (NH3)

• Nitrification: Ammonia → Nitrite (NO2) → Nitrate (NO3)

• Denitrification: Nitrate → Nitrogen Gas (N2↑)

Nitrobacter NitrosomonasAlcaligenes Flavobacterium

Total Phosphorus

Inorganic Phosphorus Organic Phosphorus

Orthophosphate Polyphosphates

Total Phosphorus = Organic Phosphorus + Inorganic Phosphorus

Weak Medium StrongInorganic Phosphorus 1 3 5Organic Phosphorus 4 8 15Total Phosphorus 5 11 20

SeptageTotal Phosphorus 50 - 800 (250 typical)

(mg/L)

Wastewater Engineering, Metcalf & Eddy, Inc.

Typical Untreated Domestic Wastewater

Phosphorus Removal

• Hydrolysis: Polyphosphates → Orthophosphate

• Bacterial Decompostion:

Organic Phosphorus → Orthophosphate

• Orthophosphate Removal:

Biological: Bacterial Storage and Release

Chemical/Physical: Precipitation with a metal salt or lime

Acinetobacter

• Fluidized Beds

• Denitrification Biological Filters

• Suspended Growth with Multiple Zones and Carbon Addition

• Filtration / Membranes

Requires full BNR as a first step.

Need sufficient phosphorus for bacterial cell growth.

Enhanced Nutrient Removal

Treatment Difficulty Value

Moderate/Easy 0.5 - 1.0 mg/L TP

More Difficult 0.1 - 0.5 mg/L TP

Treatment Difficulty Value

Moderate/Easy 7 to 10 mg/L TN

More Difficult 3 to 7 mg/L TN

Technology Thresholds

Nitrogen

Phosphorus

Incr

ea

sing

Co

st

Decreasing Effluent Concentration

Biological Nutrient Removal

• Increasing Cost for Decreasing Effluent Concentrations

• Biological Nitrogen Removal for facilities that were planning to or have previously installed.

“Nutrient Reduction Technology Cost Estimations for Point Sources in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed”

Treatment Tier 1 (TN=8)

Treatment Tier 2 (TN=8; TP=1)• Biological Nitrogen Removal

• Assumes WWTPs Currently Use Chemical Precipitation of TP

• Assumed No Additional Labor



• Improved Nitrification and Clarification

• Secondary Anoxic Zones with Mixing and Methanol Addition

• No Additional Chemical Precipitation Capital Costs

• Assumed No Additional Labor


Treatment Tier 3 Upgrade (TN=5; TP=0.5)

Treatment Tier 2 (TN=8; TP=1)


Treatment Tier 4 Upgrade (TN=3; TP=0.1)• Deep Bed Denitrification Filters with Pumping

• Microfiltration

• More Methanol, Instrumentation

• Some Additional Labor


Treatment Tier 3 Upgrade (TN=5; TP=0.5)

Treatment Tier 2 (TN=8; TP=1)


Summary:1 2 3 4

TN 8 8 5 3TP 1.5 1 0.5 0.1

Capital Cost, Mil. $ $84 $415 $790 $1,535O&M Cost, Mil. $/yr $1.6 $9.3 $17.0 $63.8

Treatment Tier

PENNSYLVANIA SIGNIFICANT POINT SOURCE TOTALS

Does not include site-specific factors: wastewater characteristics, site constraints, geotechnical

conditions, condition/age of existing WWTP, etc.


Updated from Year 2000 Dollar Value to 2005 using ENR (+17%)

0.394 MGD2009 Projected Annual Average Flow Rate (since 2010 flow not available) Chapter 94 Report

0.675 MGD Permitted Annual Average Flow Rate WQM Part II Permit not Maximum Month Flow Rate)

7298 - Current ENR Index

1654 EDUs Number of EDUs in 2010 Chapter 94 Report (extrapolate one year)

194.00$ Average Annual User Rate Authority/Municipal Records

$44,000 per year Median Household Income http://censtats.census.gov/pub/Profiles.shtml

30 years Term of loan/bond estimate

5.0% % Loan/bond interest estimate

Example Calculation

"Nutrient Technology Cost Estimate…", pp.100-103

Capital Cost O&M Cost

$2,111,284 $48,311 Tier 2 TN = 8

$724,676 $12,336 Tier 3 TN = 5

$842,870 $31,260 Tier 4 TN = 3



$0 $0 Tier 2 TP = 1

$0 $715 Tier 3 TP = .5

$958,115 $91,392 Tier 4 TN = .1

“Nutrient Reduction Technology Cost Estimations for Point Sourcesin the Chesapeake Bay Watershed”

Example Calculation

[2009 or 2010 flow] ÷ [Annual Average Design flow] x [8 mg/L TN] =

[2009 or 2010 flow] ÷ [Annual Average Design flow] x [1 mg/L TP] =

0.394 ÷ 0.675 x 8 = 4.7 mg/L average TN at Design

0.394 ÷ 0.675 x 1 = 0.58 mg/L average TP at Design



$2,111,284 $48,311 Tier 2 TN = 8

$724,676 $12,336 Tier 3 TN = 5

$842,870 $31,260 Tier 4 TN = 3



$0 $0 Tier 2 TP = 1

$0 $715 Tier 3 TP = .5

$958,115 $91,392 Tier 4 TN = .1

Example Calculation

TN Tier 2 + TN Tier 3 + TP Tier 2 + TP Tier 3 = Capital Costs

$2,475,205 + $849,588 + 0 + 0 = $3,324,793 Capital Costs*

TN Tier 2 + TN Tier 3 + TP Tier 2 + TP Tier 3 = O&M Costs

* - Increased using ENR indices: 7298/6225 = 1.17

$48,311 + $12,336 + 0 + $715 =

Annual Debt Service at 30 years at 5% = $216,283

$61,362 Annual O&M Costs

Example Calculation


$2,475,205 + $849,588 + 0 + 0 = $3,324,793 Capital Costs*


$48,311 + $12,336 + 0 + $715 =

Annual Debt Service at 30 years at 5% =

Annual Cost Increase = $277,645

$216,283



Example Calculation


$2,475,205 + $849,588 + 0 + 0 = $3,324,793 Capital Costs*


$48,311 + $12,336 + 0 + $715 =



With 1,654 Estimated EDUs = $167.86/year user rate increase

Current User Rate is $194.00 => 87% user rate increase


$216,283


Example Calculation


$2,475,205 + $849,588 + 0 + 0 = $3,324,793 Capital Costs*


$48,311 + $12,336 + 0 + $715 =



With 1,654 Estimated EDUs = $167.86/year user rate increase

Current User Rate is $194.00 => 87% user rate increase

New User Rate => $361.86 per year

New User Rate => 0.8% of MHI ($44,000)


$216,283


What To Do Now

• Understand Your Influent TN and TP in the different forms

• Determine if you want to purchase testing equipment

• Compare with typical domestic concentrations

• Identify any dischargers to your facility with high levels of TN/TP

• Test effluent TN and TP

• How much is being removed currently?

• How complete is nitrification?

What To Do Now

• Document septic systems which have been retired and connected to your system.

• Continue communicate with DEP: Permit Writer and Planner.

• Prepare to update your Act 537 Plan.

• Communicate with contributing municipalities and major dischargers.

Other Issues

• Accepting Hauled waste and Septage.

• Costs related to meeting more stringent requirements serving only existing users can not be included in tapping fees.

• Who pays what: Existing vs. New Users.

• Land Application of Biosolids.

• New Septic Systems will Require Denitrification Units.

• Very little grant money will be available

• Pennvest loans need to be repaid (even w/ good interest rate!)

• Nutrient reduction for the Bay is only one of the issues you face

• Your rates will go up, perhaps significantly

• Sewer bills still less than gasoline, cable, internet service and competing with health care, mass transit and education on legislative front

BE PREPARED

An Overview of Pennsylvania’s Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy For ALL Point Source Dischargers

Documents

Transcript of An Overview of Pennsylvania’s Chesapeake Bay Tributary Strategy For ALL Point Source Dischargers