COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA APS ID No. 489516
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Auth ID No. 820822

WATER MANAGEMENT

For Department Use Only FACT SHEET

NAME OF
APPLICANT Borough of Ridgway PROJECT
LOCATION Ridgway Borough, Elk County APPLICATION

NUMBER PA0023213

This application is for a renewal of an NPDES permit, for an existing discharge of treated sewage and oil & gas wastewater (except from shale oil extraction activities) from a POTW. This is a major discharge.

The name and mailing address are: The name and site address are:

Borough of Ridgway
P.O. Box 149 Ridgway, PA 15853

- 0149 Ridgway Boro STP

Route 949 Ridgway, PA 15853

- 0149

The responsible official is: Paul McCurdy , Environmental Manager Tel.: 814

- 772

- 6423

The EPA Waiver is not in effect.

This facility is not listed on the DEP overload list.

RECOMMENDATION AND ACTION
Approve

Issue by Region Refuse Sign ature Date

X DRAFT

REVIEWING ENGINEER FINAL

X

PERMITS SECTION CHIE F

X

REGIONAL PROGRAM MAN AGER

PERMIT CONDITIONS:

1. OTHER
REQUIREMENTS: One: Stormwater into sewers Two: Right of way Three: Department revocation of permit
Four: Solids h andling

2. SPECIAL: 1. TRC Minimization 2. Pretreatment (continued implementation) 3. WET testing for the renewal
4. Stormwater BMP’s
5. SSO condition 6. eDMR Reporting Requirement

7. Brine Wastewater Treatment 8. Limit on quantity of wastew ater associated with natural gas drilling. 9. Requirement for a Radiation Protection Action PlanBorough of Ridgway Ridgway Borough, Elk County Application ID No. PA0023213 Fact Sheet Page 2

Permit Requirements:

The proposed discharge limitations are based on: 40 CFR 133, except for NH 3 - N and Fluoride which are water quality based.

Outfall No. 001 River Mile Index: 94.1 Stream Code: 49224

Lat: 41 25’ 10” Long: 78 45’ 00”

Which Receives Waste From: treated domestic sewage, industrial wast ewater and oil and gas brine wastewater.

The proposed discharge limits are based upon a design flow of 2.2 MGD

.

Loadings (lb/day) Concentrations (mg/l) Monitoring

Parameters Monthly

Average Weekly

Average Monthly

Average Weekly

Average Instant

Maxi mum Measurement

Frequency Sample

Type

Flow (MGD) Report Report+ Continuous Measured

CBOD 5 460 735 25 40 50 2/week 24

- hr. comp.

TSS 550 825 30 45 60 2/week 24

- hr. comp.

Ammonia

- Nitrogen 1981 108 216 2/week 24

- hr. comp.

Fluoride 2035 3050 Report R eport 1/week 24

- hr. comp.

Fecal Coliform* (05/01

- 09/30) 200/100ml 1,000/100

ml 2/week Grab

(10/01

- 04/30) 2,000/100

ml 10,000/100

ml 2/week Grab

Total Residual Chlorine 0.5 1.6 Daily Grab

Total Dissolved Solids 76,299 183,826 + Report Report+ 1/week 24

- Hr Comp. Osmotic Pressure (mO/kg) Report 2/month 24

- Hr Comp.

Total Barium Report Report 2/month 24

- Hr Comp.

Total Strontium Report Report 2/month 24

- Hr Comp.

Chloride Report Report 2/month 24

- Hr Comp.

Sulfate R eport Report 2/month 24

- Hr Comp.

Bromide Report Report 2/month 24

- Hr Comp. Gross Alpha (pCi/L) Report 2/month 24

- Hr Comp. Radium 226/228, Total (pCi/L) Report 2/month 24

- Hr Comp.

Uranium (μg/l) Report 2/month 24

- Hr Comp. pH Within li mits of 6.0 to 9.0 standard units at all times. Daily Grab

*

- Average Monthly limits expressed as a geometric mean

+

- Daily Maximum value

Samples taken at the following location: Outfall 001

- after disinfection.Borough of Ridgway Ridgwa y Borough, Elk County Application ID No. PA0023213 Fact Sheet Page 3

Outfall No. 101 Lat: 41 25’ 10” Long: 78 45’ 00”

Outfall No. 006 Lat: 41 25’ 2.5” Long: 78 45’ 2.5”

Outfall No. 007 Lat: 41 25’ 8.2” Long: 78 44’ 55.8”

Which Receives W aste From: stormwater

The proposed discharge limits are based upon a design flow of N/A MGD.

Loadings (lb/day) Concentrations (mg/l) Monitoring

Parameters Monthly

Average Weekly

Average Monthly

Average Weekly

Average Instant

Maximum Measurement

Frequency Sample

Type

These discharges shall consist of uncontaminated stormwater runoff from the sewage treatment plant site.

Refer to Special Condition #4 in Part C of the permit.

Samples taken at the following location: N/A.

The receiving water is the Clarion River. The receiving stream is in State Water Plan 17

- A and is classified for the following uses: cold water fishes, aquatic life, water supply and recreation. The nearest downstream potable water supply is the PA America n Water Company intake located near Clarion on the Clarion River, approximately 60 miles below the point of discharge.

Future compliance status with the draft permit limits: The permittee should be able to meet these limits based on

historic DMR data and the existing facility design.

A Water Quality Management permit is not required at this time.

Existing Treatment Process/Facilities and WQM permit #2493402: Screening, Grit Removal, Chemical Addition, Oxidation Ditch, Secondary Clarification, Disinfectio n, Aerated Flow Equalization (off

- line), Aerobic Digestion, Gravity Belt Thickener, Sludge Drying Beds and a Sludge Storage Shelter.

#2493402

– Amendment No. 1: Effluent Diffuser

#2493402

– Amendment No. 2: Organic re

- rating from 2,050 lb/day to 4,430 lb /day.Borough of Ridgway Ridgway Borough, Elk County Application ID No. PA0023213

Fact Sheet Addendum Page 4

The Region received draft permit comments from the Borough of Ridgway (applicant), the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the University of Pittsburgh, School of Law.

A. DEP’s response to US EPA ’s 8/2/11 Comments

1. The language in Part B.I.C.5. of the draft permit requires that the permittee submit information on the introduction of new pollutants, or a su bstantial change in pollutants being introduced to the POTW with the Chapter 94 Annual Municipal Wasteload Management Report, or within some other identified time period. This language needs to clearly convey the need for adequate notification of changes to influent wastewater characteristics (as required by 40 CFR 122.42(b)), so that the permitting authority can determine if the NPDES permit needs to be modified before the facility may accept the

wastewater. Since PA DEP is the permitting authority and EPA is the Pretreatment authority for Pennsylvania, the permittee has to provide this notification to both agencies. We suggest modifying the language in Part B.I.C.5. of the draft permit as follows:

"The permittee shall provide the following informatio n to DEP and the US Environmental Protection Agency, in accordance with 40 CFR 122.42(b), prior to accepting a new introduction of pollutants or a substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants into the POTW. This information should also be

p rovided in the annual Municipal Wasteload Management Report, required under the provision of Title 25 Pa. Code Chapter 94."

The October 2011 revision of the municipal sewage, NPDES permit formatted Part B.I.C. in a different manner that no longer inclu des a ‘part 5’. Therefore, the Region opted to use the new format of the permit as it is presently stated.

2. The existing sentence in Special Condition #8 is unclear; we [EPA] suggest revising the language as

follows:

"The amount of brine bein g processed will be limited to 0.02 MGD. Any new introduction of pollutants and any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants being introduced into the POTW would be subject to the notification requirements in Part B.I.C., paragraphs 4 a nd 5 of this permit. Such notification does not authorize acceptance of more than 0.02 MGD of brine wastewater. The permittee shall not accept natural gas drilling wastewater beyond 0.02 MGD until DEP has provided such authorization through a modificatio n to this permit."

The revised condition now follows the format, contained in the October 2011 version of the NPDES permit, that has been approved by EPA. The language reads as follows.

“No more than 20,000 gallons/day of natural gas wastewater from shal low well operations shall be treated at the facility. The acceptance of wastewater generated from shale oil extraction activities is prohibited.”Borough of Ridgway Ridgway Borough, Elk County Application ID No. PA0023213

Fact Sheet Addendum Pa ge 5

3. Special Condition #9 requires a Radiation Protection Action Plan, but doesn't impose any deadlines for submitting this plan. Is the Plan a requirement of a PA regulation that could be

referenced? There are no details in the condition t hat describe what elements this plan is required to

include. Please clarify what is expected of the permittee in this condition.

The following language change will be incorporated :

Within 180 days of permit issuance, the permittee shall submit a Rad iation Protection Plan to DEP’s Bureau of Radiation Protection at the address below for approval. A copy shall be submitted to the DEP regional office that issued the permit. The Plan shall consist of Form X (Doc. ID 2500

- FM

- BWM0430) and accompanying Rad iation Protection Action Plan that meets the requirements of DEP’s “Final Guidance Document on Radioactive Monitoring at Solid Waste Processing and Disposal Facilities” (Doc.

ID 250

- 3100

- 001).

Department of Environmental Protection

Bureau of Radiation Pro tection

PO Box 8469 Harrisburg, PA 17105

- 8469

4. The Additional Requirements on page 5 of the draft permit needs to provide specific language regarding the narrative water quality criteria established in Pa. Code 93.6. Please add the following

pa ragraph to Part A., Additional Requirements so that the permit contains enforceable language that specifically requires meeting the narrative water quality standards under Pa. Code 93.6, in their entirety:

"The permittee may not discharge pollutants in c oncentrations or amounts sufficient to be inimical or harmful to the water uses to be protected or to human, animal, plant or aquatic life."

This language is included in the revised NPDES permit.

5. Regarding the Pretreatment requirements in S pecial Condition 5, paragraph D (Headworks Analysis), please revise the language to read:

"Headworks Analysis

– The permittee shall submit to EPA and DEP, a reevaluation of its local limits based on a headworks analysis of its treatment plant within one year of permit issuance. The list of pollutants to be evaluated, as well as a sampling plan for collection of necessary data, shall be submitted to EPA and DEP within three months of permit issuance. This list of pollutants must include current pollutant s of concern as well as any new pollutants that have been identified as potentially being contained in all new contributions to the POTW, especially those from hydrofracking or other drilling waste discharges. These include total dissolved solids, specifi c ions such as chlorides and sulfates, specific radionuclides, other metals such as barium, strontium and uranium, and other pollutants that could reasonably be expected to be present. Within four months of acceptance of the headworks analysis by the App roval Authority, the permittee shall adopt the revised limits and notify all contributing municipalities of the need to adopt the revised limits."Borough of Ridgway Ridgway Borough, Elk County Application ID No. PA0023213

Fact Sheet Addendum Page 6

The DEP has been in the process of revising the municipal NPDES permit template and special conditions. In October 2011 the revised permit was released having received EPA approval. That permit contained the following ‘Headworks’ language which is substa ntially the same as EPA’s offered version. This DEP language was used in Ridgway’s permit.

Headworks Analysis

– The permittee shall submit a reevaluation of its local limits based on a headworks analysis of its treatment facility to DEP and EPA within one year of permit issuance. The list of pollutants to be evaluated, as well as a sampling plan for collection of necessary data, shall be submitted to EPA and DEP within three months of permit issuance. This list of pollutants must include current pollutant s of concern as well as any new pollutants that have been identified through the receipt of indirect discharges and hauled

- in

wastes. For example, facilities receiving residual waste from oil and gas operations should include such pollutants as Total Diss olved Solids (TDS), specific ions such as chlorides and sulfates, specific radionuclides, metals such as Barium and Strontium, and other pollutants that could reasonably be expected to be present. Within four months of acceptance of the headworks analysis by the Approval Authority, the permittee shall adopt the revised limits and notify all contributing municipalities of the need to adopt the revised limits.

B. DEP’s response to the Applicants’ 6/7/11 c omments

1. The Applicant has questioned the need to sample various parameters, related to brine wastewater, twice/month for the life of the permit. They requested the permit only require 1/month sampling

that will last for 1 year.

The DEP believes that the monitoring frequencies in the draft permit are reasonabl e, but we concluded that it is also reasonable to include language (Part A footnote perhaps) that after two years of monitoring, the permittee can submit a summary of the data and request a permit amendment for a reduction in monitoring frequency.

2. The Applicant has asked for the legal basis for requiring a Radiation Control Plan

The D EP has significant concerns regarding the incidence and implications of radionuclides in natural gas wastewaters, especially those that have been exposed to the Marce llus Shale formation or other deep well formations. These concerns are based on previously collected data, including those data submitted by permittees and the industry. Qualified radiological personnel must be involved to determine the need for radiolog ical monitoring and controls. DEP’s regulations at 25 Pa. Code §297.113 require that any noncaptive wastewater treatment facility that treats residual waste develop and implement a Radiation Protection Action Plan (RPAP). If those facilities operate unde r the Permit

- by

- Rule provisions of 25 Pa. Code §287.102, the D EP is requiring the submission of an RPAP under the provisions of §287.102(a)(6). The permittee should secure qualified radiological personnel to evaluate radiological concerns and submit

an RP AP that the permittee believes will adequately address all radiological concerns.Borough of Ridgway Ridgway Borough, Elk County Application ID No. PA0023213

Fact Sheet Addendum Page 7

3. The Applicant disagrees with the inclusion of I max limits for fecal coliform since they feel it is in direct opposition to the effluent chlorine optimization and minimization special condition in Part C of the permit.

The instantaneous maximum (IMAX) limits for fecal coliform were established in accordance with 25 Pa. Code 92a.47(a)(4) and (5). In addition, technology

- based Total Residual Chlorine (TRC) limits are imposed, which DEP believes are also protective of water quality. The objective is to meet fecal coliform limitations using the least amount of chlor ine, through good management and process control.

Alternatives such as dechlorination and ultraviolet disinfection exist if chlorine cannot be managed to meet the permit requirements.

4. The Applicant has requested the D EP consider enabling eDMR users to also submit their supplemental reports forms electronically

.

Ridgway may upload the supplemental forms, in the eDMR system, if Ridgway chooses to file them electronically. However, the DEP will not require uploading these forms in this permit. It is just not a requirement to do so like it is the DMR reporting information.

5. Part A. Additional Requirements. 1.) language reads: ‘... the discharger may not discharge substances that produce an observable change in the ...turbidity of the receiving water’. Ridgw ay requests that we either verify that the discharge is in violation if it results in a ‘significant increase” in turbidity or actually quantify the unacceptable change.

The D EP believes the existing language is appropriate and the DEP will use its discre tion in enforcing the referenced language. If conditions improve as a result of a discharge, no enforcement will occur.

6. Part A. Additional Requirements. 2.) states: that the permittee shall in sure 85 percent removal of

TSS and BOD. Ridgway would like the lang u age amended to verify that the failure to meet the 85 percent removal rule only pertains in the event the Borough is in violation of the permit limits contained under Part A of the permit.

There is no exemption from the percent removal requirements based upon compliance with permitted

effluent limits. T he exemptions from meeting the percent removal requirements under 25 Pa. Code 92a.47(a)(3) applies to facilities with combined sewer overflows (CSOs) (see 25 Pa. Code 92a.47(g) and (h)). Since Ridgway does not have CSOs, the exemptions do not apply.

The following language has been added to the end of Part A

– ‘Additional Requirements’ 2: except where 92a.47(g) and (h) are applicable to facilities with combined sewer overflows (CSOs)

.Boroug h of Ridgway Ridgway Borough, Elk County Application ID No. PA0023213

Fact Sheet Addendum Page 8

7. The Applicant wants a more specific definition of the term ‘toxics pollutant ’

.

The definition of “toxic pollutant” in the draft permit is that specified i n Chapter 92a.2 (reiterated below)

.

Toxic pollutant

— Those pollutants, or combinations of pollutants, including disease

causing agents, which after discharge and upon exposure, ingestion, inhalation or assimilation into any organism, either directly from the environment or indirectly by ingestion through food chains, may, on the basis of information available to the Administrator or the Department, cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations, physiological malfunctions, includ ing malfunctions in reproduction, or physical deformations in these organisms or their offspring.

8. Part CII.D. Requires chemical analysis of wastewater prior to receipt. Is this the same requirement in Pat C.II.E., which requires a form 26R? O r are there t wo requirements for the same thing ? What are the analytes? What about existing customers? What is the resampling and test frequency?

25 Pa. Code § 287.54 requires, among other things, generators of residual wastes to “Perform a detailed analysis that full y characterizes the physical properties and chemical composition of each type of waste that is generated.” This analysis is to be reported on “Form 26R” (Doc. ID 2540

- PM

- BWM0347). The Form 26R chemical analysis is one item required of residual waste tran sporters that deliver residual waste to processing facilities such as POTWs. The permit requires that the POTW obtain the chemical analysis

results and retain it on

- site for each load of residual waste received. The duty to accurately report the nature

o f the waste falls on the generator of the waste. In general, the waste characterization must be done at least annually. The options that exist for generators to characterize the waste are explained in the instructions to Form 26R (Doc. ID 2540

- PM

- 0347 In structions). Part C II.3.D of the permit refers to the general requirement that all processing facilities obtain the chemical analysis. Part C II.3.E of the permit is intended to clarify that for oil and natural gas drilling or production activities, a g eneral characterization may be

substituted for a waste

- specific characterization for 30 days following initial production of the well.

9. The Applicant requests the D EP to clarify the term ‘frac’ water and the specific conditions for sampling.

The Part C pe rmit language has been clarified to read, “For wastewater generated from hydraulic fracturing operations (“frac wastewater”)”. As long as the generation of the residual waste continues, a waste characterization that is acceptable under the residual waste regulations will need to remain current.

10. The Applicant questioned the need to perform a BOD analysis of any hauled in municipal waste when, in their case, this influent loading is already included in their influent sampling.

It is agreed that if compos ite influent monitoring is done downstream of the entry point for hauled

- in wastes, there should be no need to collect samples for BOD 5 analysis of septage/sludge loads. Central Office

intends to revise the instructions to the Hauled

- In Municipal Was tes form to include this explanation. Until this is done, Ridgway and the Region can /will operate under this premise.Borough of Ridgway Ridgway Borough, Elk County Application ID No. PA0023213

Fact Sheet Addendum Page 9

C. The following addresses th e A pplicants’ 1/26/12 comments on the re

- drafted permit.

1. The Applicant maintains that two years of sampling the new oil and gas related parameters is excessive and has requested this timeframe be shortened to 1 year. The permit will be changed to require only 1 year of sampling the new oil and gas related parameters. This is being approved since they have already been collecting this information for a year.

2. The Applicant requested that the permit be caveated to only require testing of the oil and gas

par ameters when the Borough is actually treating that type of wastewater. The permit will be changed to add this limit on the testing as requested.

3. The Applicant wanted clarification of the enforcement of the 85% removal requirement. They

made the statement that it had been DEP’s prior practice not to take enforcement action if the permittee was in compliance with their numeric effluent limits, even if they fail to be in compliance

with the 85% removal of TSS & BOD when it is due to low influent concentration s.

The DEP reserves its right to take enforcement action for any violation of the NPDES permit. While the DEP often exercise enforcement discretion where a technical violation of permit conditions does not result in effluent limit violations, the DEP wi ll not limit its enforcement discretion in the language of the permit.

4. The Applicant feels the inclusion of the local limits parameters under Part C(II)(4)(D) is problematic since it specifically names specific parameters to be included in the list of Local Limits Assessment. Some of these parameters do not have water quality criteria necessary to perform the corresponding calculations for the assessment.

DEP agrees that water quality criteria, inhibition criteria and sludge disposal standards do not e xist for strontium and specific radionuclides. The permit does not require the development of local limits for parameters that do not have such criteria. However, the sampling plan for the headworks analysis should include all parameters that are likely to be detected in order to provide data on influent waste characteristics. As a result of sampling, you may determine or EPA may request that monitoring be conducted for such parameters, without the establishment of local limits. In addition, the samplin g plan should identify all pollutants that are reasonably expected to be detected in the influent; for hauled

- in wastes, the identification of parameters should be based on prior sampling data by the POTW or industrial source or other

information available to the permittee.

5. The Applicant questions why the Department i mposed a new requirement for a Solids Management Inventory to be included in the Chapter 94 Annual Report. This inventory is not mentioned in Chapter 94.12 which lists the required information of the annual report.

It is acknowledged that a “Solids Management Inventory” is not a requirement of Chapter 94.12 (the permit language refers to the annual report itself, which is required under that provision). The DEP has determined

that t he Solids Management Inventory to be a critical component of a POTW’s ongoing assessment of operations. It assists the POTW and DEP in evaluating solids management practices and troubleshooting operational issues. While this assessment can be and ideally should b e completed more frequently, DEP believes that inclusion of an annual assessment in the Chapter 94 report is the most practical approach.Borough of Ridgway Ridgway Borough, Elk County Application ID No. PA0023213

Fact Sheet Addendum Page 10

6. The App licant believes that requiring the reporting of total volume of hauled

- in residual and municipal wastes under Part B(C)(4)(d) is not necessary since the same information is required under Part C II(4)(B)(4) for the Annual Pretreatment Report.

The permit r equires that you report hauled

- in residual and municipal wastes received on a monthly basis, using the appropriate DEP supplemental reporting forms. In addition, the Chapter 94 report must identify

the total volume of hauled

- in residual and municipal wast es received during the calendar year, by source, i.e., a summary of the information that should be contained on the monthly forms during the calendar year.

7. The Applicant reiterated their opposition of including a Radiation Control Plan requirement in

the permit.

DEP has significant concerns regarding the incidence and implications of Naturally Occurring Radiological Materials (NORM) and Technologically

- Enhanced Naturally Occurring Radiological Materials (TENORM) in natural gas wastewaters. These concer ns are based on previously collected data, including those data submitted by permittees and the industry. Our concerns are not necessarily limited to direct contact exposure surveys measuring gamma radiation that the applicant may be referring to

– contam ination of biosolids and a number of other exposure pathways may need to be evaluated, and include possible effects from beta and alpha radiation.

Qualified radiological personnel must be involved to determine the need for radiological monitoring and

co ntrols. The requirement for a Radiation Protection Action Plan (RPAP) is an existing requirement, as regulations at 25 Pa. Code §297.113 require that any non

- captive wastewater treatment facility that treats residual waste develop and implement an RPAP. If those facilities operate under the Permit

- by

- Rule provisions of 25 Pa. Code §287.102, DEP requires the submission of an RPAP under the provisions of §287.102 (a)(6).

8. The Applicant’s continued disagreement with the instantaneous maximum fecal coliform limits is noted.

9. The Applicant questioned the use of the term ‘discharge flow’ in Part A, footnote #1. They would prefer the Department use the term ‘representative flow’ since they rely on an influent flow measurement to predict the amount of wastewater being discharged.

Rather than changing the term the DEP agrees to add a notation, to page 3 of the permit, so that it reads: Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following location: Outfall 00 1

– after disinfection, except for flow which will be measured at

the influent flow meter.

10. The Applicant wanted clarification for the language under Part A. Additional Requirements subparagraph 1.d.

“ Foam or substances that produce an observed change in the color, taste, odor or turbidity of the receiving water, unless those conditions are otherwise controlled through effluent limitations or other requirements in this permit ”

.Borough of Ridgway Ridgway Borough, Elk County Application ID No. PA002 3213

Fact Sheet Addendum Page 11

This language is contained in regulation, Chapter 92a.41(c) & Chapter 93.6 as well as the PA Clean Streams Law. It has been included in the Applicant’s NPDES permits for many years. The Applicant is correct in stating t hat it would be a violation of the permit to exceed this narrative standard. However, the DEP can only point toward how we have historically enforced this standard in regard to Ridgway’s discharge. This should give an indication as to how any future action will proceed. We do not have the latitude to remove such a standard that has a regulatory basis.

11. The Applicant expressed concern over the open nature of the term ”threatening” in Part A.III.C.4.a and the term “create a danger of pollution” in subs ection (1).

DEP and federal regulations do not define the terms “threatening” and “danger of pollution.” The Applicant’s reiteration of Chapter 91.33(a) does aptly describe incidents causing or threatening pollution except that the threat of pollution is not limited to toxic substances alone, but rather any substance that can cause “pollution” as that term is defined in Section 1 of the Clean Streams Law.

12. The Applicant requested clarification for reporting and notification requirements listed in Part

A .III.C. Specifically, how do they get information to report the permit numbers of the wells they

receive wastewater from? Also, how is this reported in the eDMR system?

When this situation occurs , the DEP recommend s that you use the phrase, “See Attached, ” in the column under Well Permit No., and record the Well Permit Nos. for the daily load(s) in a separate sheet. DEP can provide you with a customized version of the “Hauled

- In Residual Wastes” spreadsheet that will allow you to report this information i n a different worksheet within the same file, upon request.

13. The Applicant wanted to confirm that an annual analysis of a residual waste stream is sufficient for each load for a year and that no additional requirement to analyze each load is necessary be fore accepting it for treatment.

The Applicant’s understanding is correct

– an annual analysis for a specific type of waste may be used, and each load of waste does not need to be sampled.

D. EPA’s 1/26/12 comments on the second draft.

EPA noted a typograp hic error regarding the monthly average NH 3 - N loading limit.

The DEP fixed the typo in the NPDES permit, changing the monthly average NH 3 - N loading limit from 1945 lbs/day to the correct value, 1981 lbs/day.

EPA suggests using a background osmotic press ure value of 5 mO/kg rather than assuming zero.

DEP added the background value that and the reevaluation still showed there was no reasonable potential to exceed the instream water quality criteria for this parameter. The DEP also included an explanation of where the effluent osmotic pressure value came from, namely, the Applicant.

Lastly, we provided EPA with a copy of Ridgway’s comments on the second draft.Borough of Ridgway Ridgway Borough, Elk County Application ID No. PA0023213

Fact Sheet Adde ndum Page 12

E. This is DEP’s response to comments received on 2/28/12 from the University of Pittsburgh, School of

Law filed on behalf of Clean Water Action.

1. Bromide and chloride are not limited in the permit.

DEP agrees that bromide and chloride are p otential threats to water quality standards, including protected uses such as potable water supply (PWS) and aquatic life

- related uses. But this observation does not automatically translate into the necessity for quantitative effluent limits based on any applicable provision of 25 Pa. Code or 40 CFR. There must be reasonable potential for the pollutant loading from the permittee’s facility to challenge those water quality standards.

A. Bromide can create trihalomethane byproducts.

Trihalomethane s are mad e up of four major constituents: Chloroform, Bromodichloromethane, Dibromochloromethane and Bromoform. The NPDES application, effluent sampling showed the first

three constituents were non

- detectable. The last one, Bromoform was detectable but the toxics m odeling showed the calculated water quality based limit (475.6 μg/l) is over six times greater than the average effluent concentration (74 μg/l).

Bromide has low toxicity in the environment and there are no applicable water quality criteria in Pennsylvan ia. The DEP is performing ongoing studies to quantify the concentrations and impact of bromide in our rivers and streams. Based on these studies, the D EP has taken action to reduce the loadings of bromide to rivers and streams, primarily by reducing the discharge of treated natural gas wastewater. Many discharges have been eliminated . Others, such as Ridgway, have been limited under

the applicable provi sions of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 95. Ridgway has instead been limited to receiving and treating 20,000 gall ons per day of natural gas wastewater.

B. Chlorides can harm aquatic life and interfere with sewage treatment.

The situation for chloride is different than the situation for bromide. Chloride has an applicable water quality criterion in 25 Pa. Code Chapter 93 of 250 mg/L based on the need to protect the potable water supply use. As per 25 Pa. Code §96.3(d), the criterion for chloride is applicable only at a downstream point of water supply withdrawal. As described in the Fact Sheet, the nearest downstream PWS is located near Clarion on the Clarion River, more than 60 miles downstream of the Applicant’s facility. Based on the information contained in the permittee’s application, and also ambient water quality data,

the Applicant ’s facility is not capable of discharging sufficient chloride to challenge the water quality

criterion for chloride at the PA American Water Co. intake , or at any downstream PWS.

The DEP recognizes the toxic effects of chloride on aquatic life. Presently, the DEP evaluates and

contro ls the toxic effects of chloride indirectly through application of a water quality criterion for osmotic pressure. The NPDES permit requires monitoring of osmotic pressure.

Sampling and reporting for chloride is also required in the permit. The DEP has begun to track all larger sources of TDS to assure that sufficient data are available to anticipate and avoid potential problems with water quality due to aggregate loadings of TDS in the watersheds. Chloride is potentially a major component of TDS and is now tracked in facilities with substantial chloride loadings.Borough of Ridgway Ridgway Borough, Elk County Application ID No. PA0023213

Fact Sheet Addendum Page 13

The last part of this comment section on chloride suggested setting a 4,000 mg/l chl oride limit to prevent possible treatment plant interference. This statement is in error because the 4/8/11 internal e

- mail referred to this being a TDS and not a chloride limit. Regardless, if the goal was to prevent interference

in treatment then this va lue should be related to an ‘influent’ limitation. NPDES permits are instead designed to set effluent standards. This requirement would more appropriately be imposed through the Federal Pretreatment Program, which the state does not have implementation pri macy.

Treatment plant interference is not evident in the Ridgway facility. The plant has consistently met their permit limitations while taking brine wastewater. Furthermore, we are unaware of any problems related to high chloride concentrations at the PA American Water Co. intake.

C. The permit evaluation process does not appear to have considered either bromide or chloride.

Referring to the previous responses, t he D EP has fully considered the potential threats to water quality

of bromide and chloride w hen developing the permit conditions for the Ridgway facility.

II. The prohibition on receipt of shale gas wastewater is not enforceable on a practical level.

The D EP routinely and successfully imposes conditions on the receipt of wastewater and the p roper operation of a treatment facility. This prohibition is fully enforceable.

The commentator doubts the DEP’s ability to detect a violation of this prohibition. However, the permit and other DEP resources provide the means in which to detect a violati on. The primary basis that the commentator advances to support this contention is that the permittee is likely to falsify records to cover receipt of this wastewater. This is not a credible position, as the deliberate falsification of records is a potenti ally criminal offense for no discernible gain other than a minor financial incentive. Furthermore,

the D EP is very likely to detect such a violation of permit conditions. Contrary to the commentator’s
assertion, the NPDES permit requires monitoring of ch loride and bromide concentrations. C hloride and bromide concentrations in excess of expected levels would be one indication of the violation. In addition, the deception would require the active collusion of one or more producers in the natural gas

indust ry, since producers are required to report each and every shipment of Marcellus Shale

- related

waste to non

- captive treatment facilities and landfills. These stringent and unqualified reporting requirements assure that “front

- end” controls are fully applic able. Those reports are summarized and

are available on D EP ’s website, so anyone could find the records of shipments of the Marcellus Shale wastewater to the Ridgway facility unless those reports also were falsified. Even if this collusion were

present, the scheme would be detected. The industry is cognizant of the restrictions on wastewater treatment and disposal, and responsible natural gas producers would report the activity. It is simply not practical to cover up the routine transport of large volum es of natural gas wastewater through unapproved pathways.

The commentator indicates that DEP enforcement of this condition would be foiled by false reporting by producers and/or the applicant. Such collusion is doubtful given the relatively small financi al gain involved in such activity and the increased scrutiny of the natural gas industry.

The commentator maintains that the D EP sh ould require numeric effluent limits on certain parameters in addition to TDS in order to enforce the prohibition, but the D EP would not have to rely on any violationof numeric effluent limits. The receipt of shale gas extraction wastewater would constitute a violation of

permit conditions independent of its effect on effluent quality and this condition is enforceable

.

Some of the Law School’s comments were directed toward the Applicant so they provided responses to those in a letter to the DEP dated April 16, 2012 (a co py of which was included as part of the permitting record). DEP forwarded a copy of that letter to the Law School along with the fact sheet addendum pages related to the comments we answered.