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

ApproveIssue by 

Region Refuse Signature Date

X DRAFT

REVIEWING ENGINEER FINAL

X

PERMITS SECTION CHIEF

X

REGIONAL PROGRAM MANAGER

PERMIT CONDITIONS:

1. OTHER 

REQUIREMENTS:

One: Stormwater into sewers

Two: Right of way 

Three: Department revocation of permit 

Four: Solids handling

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 wastewater associated with natural gas drilling.

9. Requirement for a Radiation Protection Action Plan
Borough 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 NH3-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 wastewater 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

Maximum

Measurement

Frequency

Sample

Type

Flow (MGD) Report Report+ Continuous Measured

CBOD5 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 Report 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 Report 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 limits 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

Ridgway 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 Waste 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 American 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, Disinfection, 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 substantial 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 information 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 

provided 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 includes 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 being 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 and 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 

modification 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 shallow 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 Page 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 that 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 Radiation 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 Radiation 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 Protection

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 

paragraph 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 concentrations 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 Special 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 

pollutants 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, specific 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

Approval 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 substantially 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 pollutants 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 Dissolved 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 comments

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 reasonable, 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 DEP has significant concerns regarding the incidence and implications of radionuclides in natural gas 

wastewaters, especially those that have been exposed to the Marcellus 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 

radiological 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 under the Permit-by-Rule provisions of 25 Pa. 

Code §287.102, the DEP 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 RPAP 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 chlorine, 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 DEP 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’. Ridgway 

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 DEP believes the existing language is appropriate and the DEP will use its discretion 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 insure 85 percent removal of 

TSS and BOD. Ridgway would like the language 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. The 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). 
Borough 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 in Chapter 92a.2 (reiterated below). 

Toxic pollutant—Those pollutants, or combinations of pollutants, including diseasecausing 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, including 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? Or are there two 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 fully 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 transporters 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 

of 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 Instructions). 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 general characterization may be 

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

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

sampling.

The Part C permit 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 composite influent monitoring is done downstream of the entry point for hauled-in 

wastes, there should be no need to collect samples for BOD5 analysis of septage/sludge loads. Central Office

intends to revise the instructions to the Hauled-In Municipal Wastes 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 the Applicants’ 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 

parameters 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 concentrations. 

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 will 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 exist 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 sampling 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 imposed 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 the 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 be 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 Applicant 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 requires 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 wastes 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 concerns 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 – contamination 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 

controls. 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 001 – 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. PA0023213 

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 that 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 subsection (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 recommends 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 in 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 before 

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 typographic error regarding the monthly average NH3-N loading limit.

The DEP fixed the typo in the NPDES permit, changing the monthly average NH3-N loading limit from 

1945 lbs/day to the correct value, 1981 lbs/day. 

EPA suggests using a background osmotic pressure 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 Addendum 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 potential 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.

Trihalomethanes are made 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 modeling 

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 

Pennsylvania. The DEP is performing ongoing studies to quantify the concentrations and impact of 

bromide in our rivers and streams. Based on these studies, the DEP 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 provisions of 25 Pa. Code Chapter 95. Ridgway has instead been limited to receiving and 

treating 20,000 gallons 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 

controls 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 chloride 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 value 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 primacy. 

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, the DEP has fully considered the potential threats to water quality 

of bromide and chloride when 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 DEP routinely and successfully imposes conditions on the receipt of wastewater and the proper 

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 violation. 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 

potentially criminal offense for no discernible gain other than a minor financial incentive. Furthermore, 

the DEP is very likely to detect such a violation of permit conditions. Contrary to the commentator’s 

assertion, the NPDES permit requires monitoring of chloride and bromide concentrations. Chloride 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 

industry, 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 applicable. Those reports are summarized and 

are available on DEP’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 volumes 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 financial gain 

involved in such activity and the increased scrutiny of the natural gas industry.

The commentator maintains that the DEP should require numeric effluent limits on certain parameters in 

addition to TDS in order to enforce the prohibition, but the DEP would not have to rely on any violation 
of 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 copy 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.