Toxins Allowed to Seep into Waterways, Group Says

Valley News Dispatch
2 April 2012
By Mary Ann Thomas

Two environmental groups are pushing PPG Industries to clean up toxins such as arsenic and lead that are seeping into the Allegheny River in Armstrong County and white-washing portions of a hillside.

PennEnvironment, with an office in Pittsburgh, and the Sierra Club refiled a complaint in federal District Court, Western District of Pennsylvania in Pittsburgh recently alleging that PPG is violating the federal Clean Water Act and the state Clean Streams Law with unpermitted and untreated discharge of pollutants into the Allegheny River.

The waste site, located off Route 128 in Cadogan and North Buffalo townships, is discharging arsenic, chromium, lead, manganese, copper, zinc, mercury and other toxins into the river and a local stream, Glade Run.

The pH level of some of the leakage is as high as 12.69, the group said, about the same as household bleach.

Ammonia has a pH of about 11.

The dump has racked up 162 discharge violations and 33 reporting violations, according to PennEnvironment's complaint and monthly monitoring reports submitted by PPG to the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection from February 2010 through December, 2011.

"We filed the suit because PPG has had five decades to remediate this site and stop the pollution and protect the Allegheny River," said Erika Staaf, clean water advocate with PennEnvironment.

The nonprofits are seeking judgment, imposing of penalties and coverage of legal expenses.

In the lawsuit, PennEnvironment argues that neither the federal Environmental Protection Agency nor the state Department of Environmental Protection is "diligently prosecuting a civil or criminal action to redress the violations."

Jeremy Neuhart, PPG spokesman, said the lawsuit's allegations are without merit and the company has been working with the state Department of Environmental Protection on a final cleanup plan.

The company is committed to develop a final plan to address the problems at the Cadogan site, he said.

"PPG's former operations in and around Ford City played a very significant role in the company's history," he said, "And PPG will continue to work to fulfill its environmental responsibilities there."

Festering problem

A festering pollution problem that started decades ago, PPG discarded a slurry used in glass polishing from about 1950 to 1970 from its bustling glass plant in Ford City into waste lagoons covering almost 77 acres on company-owned land across rthe river.

PPG sent the slurry waste from the plant via a pipe system under the Allegheny River to several lagoons on the Cadogan and North Buffalo site, which the company had formerly used as a sandstone quarry, according to the court papers.

In the same area, the company deposited about 20 million cubic feet of solid waste from the 1920s to 1970s, according to the complaint.

The company sold the waste site for $1 to Ford City borough in 1972, but PPG is responsible for the site, which now contains a park and ballfields.

As the property owner, Ford City borough is a defendant in the case. There's no effort, however, to force the borough to do anything.

"The attitude in Ford City is 'if there's an issue here, let's resolve it,'" said Frank Wolfe, borough solicitor. "I don't think it's a secret that PPG has issues with this property, but the company and DEP have been dealing with it.

"I know that they (PPG) are trying to do things," Wolfe said. "It's not as though PPG is trying to ignore it."

Elusive final plan

The company has been working with the state for decades on the Cadogan site.

According to court documents, PPG and DEP entered into an agreement on the discharges from the site into the river in 1971, citing it was violating the state's Clean Streams Law.

The agency and the company continued to exchange correspondence and work on a proposed remediation plan over the years.

Then PPG withdrew it cleanup plan in 1973, according to the complaint.

According to Neuhart, DEP concluded in 1984 that there was "No Action Needed (no hazard)" at the site, based on its own sampling and assessment.

The company conducted multiple extensive environmental assessments, including a conclusion that there "was not material adverse risk to human health or the environment," he said.

In 2010, PPG installed an interim collection and treatment system. The company is in compliance with discharge limits set by DEP in July 2009, according to Neuhart.

However, PPG is still out of compliance with DEP's 2009 administrative order, according to John Poister, DEP spokesman.

"The department issued that order after years of back and forth with the company requiring them to clean up the site and stop the leaching of contaminated water into the Allegheny River," he said.

PPG appealed the order, which DEP rejected, but the company did install a temporary treatment facility that was not "adequate," according to Poister.

"There have been continued discussions resulting in the company filing a revised plan this past November which is under review," he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

Mary Ann Thomas can be reached at mthomas@tribweb.com or 412-782-2121 x1510.