ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May

6,

1976

PPG INDUSTRIES,

INC.,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 75—108

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

Mr.

A. Lewis Hull and Mr. George P. Cheney,

Jr., appeared on behalf

of Petitioner.

Mr. Joseph E. Svoboda appeared on behalf of Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Goodman):

This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board

(Board)

upon the Amended Petition for Variance filed by PPG Industries,

Inc.

(PPG)

and received by the Board on June 30,

1975.

PPG seeks a

variance from the total suspended solids

(TSS)

requirement of Rule

408(a)

of Chapter

3 for a wastewater stream from its glass manufactu-

ring facility

in Mt.

Zion,

Macon County,

Illinois,

known as Works

No.

14 Plant

(Mt.

Zion Plant).

The wastewater stream in question

is re-

ferred to as outfall

001.

PPG originally

sought a variance for

another wastewater

stream referred to as outfall

002.

However,

in

a

Stipulation of Facts

(Stipulation)

submitted by the parties on March

18,

1976,

PPG withdrew its request for

variance

for outfall

002.

The

Agency filed its Recommendation on June 11,

1975.

PPG has filed a

waiver of the 90-day rule.

A hearing was held in this matter on March 18,

1976,

at the

Macon County Courthouse,

Decatur,

Illinois.

At the hearing,

the

Stipulation was admitted into evidence.

No citizen witnesses testi-

fied.

The water softener backwash and non—contact cooling water

from

the Mt.

Zion Plan

is discharged to a 2.5 acre man-made pond,

known

as Lake Pittsburgh.

Outfall

001

is the outfall from Lake Pittsburgh.

21—295

---

—2—

Lake Pittsburgh,

a private pond which lies wholly on PPG’s property,

discharges to a ditch tributary

to Lake Decatur.

Lake Pittsburgh

also receives drainage from adjacent properties,

as well

as storm

water flow from PPG’s property.

The parties agree

that no natural

watercourses enter Lake Pittsburgh.

The sources

of water to Lake

Pittsburgh are primarily through man—made structures,

the discharge

outlet of the Mt. Zion Plant, sub-surface field tiles,

and storm run-

off from the immediate plant property.

The pond was constructed to act as a cooling pond in

1957,

and

that

is still its function today.

Under these circumstances,

Lake

Pittsburgh

is considered a “treatment works” rather than “waters of

the State.t’

Therefore,

the TSS concentration which must meet the

Rule 408(a)

limitation of 15.0 mg/l

is that contained

in the dis-

charge from the pond to the ditch tributary to Lake Decatur rather

than

in the discharge

into the pond

from the Mt. Zion plant.

PPG supplied monitoring data with respect

to flows into and

out of Lake Pittsburgh

(Table

I below)

and with respect

to the

TSS concentrations

in the water supplied by the City of Decatur

to

the Mt.

Zion Plant

(Table II below).

The Agency has also taken grab

samples

of discharge at the outlet

of Lake Pittsburgh

(Table III be-

low).

Table

I

TSS Concentration

TSS Concentration

of PPG Discharge

of Discharge from

Date of Sample

into Lake

Outlet of Lake

2/20/75

11.5 mg/l

2.0 mg/l

2/26/75

4.0 mg/l

70.0 mg/l

2/28/75

7.2 mg/l

14.1 mg/l

3/5/75

8.0 mg/l

3/12/75

18.0 mg/l

Table

II

TSS Concentration of

Date Sampled

Incoming City Water

1/24/75

15.0 mg/l

1/27/75

6.5 mg/l

1/28/75

2.5 mg/i

1/29/75

6.0 mg/i

1/30/75

4.5 mg/i

1/31/75

9.5 mg/i

21—296

---

—3—

Table III

Date Sampled

Total Suspended Solids

(at Lake Outlet)

7/23/74

80 mg/i

8/14/74

59 mg/i

9/11/74

180 mg/i

10/9/74

47 mg/i

11/14/74

18 mg/i

12/11/74

4 mg/i

1/16/75

1 mg/i

The parties agree that the concentration of total suspended

solids discharged at outfall

001

is not attributable to the Mt. Zion

Plant.

The above data support that conclusion as does

a graph sub-

mitted into evidence by PPG (Exhibit C of the Stipulation) which plots

the TSS at outfall

001 and at the inlet to Lake Pittsburgh from the

plant.

The concentration of TSS at outfall

001 is, rather, attribu-

table to the effects of storm action,

animal action and fish action

stirring up the sediment within the pond.

The field drainage from ad-

jacent properties and storm water flow from PPG Industries property

also contribute

to the TSS concentration.

PPG also alleges that the

quality of water purchased from the City of Decatur demonstrated in

Table II above,

adds to the problem.

PPG has considered two alternatives

for complying with Rule 408

(a).

The first, treatment of suspended solids at outfall 001 by in-

stallation of

a clarifier,

is estimated to cost $615,000.00.

The

second,

elimination of outfall 001 through use of a cooling tower and

incineration of water softener backwash to remove dissolved solids,

is estimated to cost $150,000.00.

The Board recognizes that there

is no apparent relationship be-

tween suspended solids discharged at outfall 001 and the suspended

solids contained

in the influent to Lake Pittsburgh.

However, because

Lake Pittsburgh

is

a treatment facility, PPG has a greater responsi-

bility to maintain it in an environmentally

sound condition.

PPG has

not proven that achieving compliance with Rule 408(a) would impose an

arbitrary and unreasonable hardship upon it.

Furthermore,

although

PPG has researched the cost of compliance,

it has not submitted a de-

tailed description of

a program to be undertaken

to achieve compli-

ance.

The essence of

a variance

is

a firm and adequate program for

achieving compliance.

Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater

Chicago

v.

EPA,

3 PCB

57.

Therefore, the Board denies PPG’s request

for variance from Rule 408(a)

for outfall

001.

This Opinion represents the findings of fact and conclusions of

law of the Board

in this matter.

21

—297

---

—4—

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:

1.

The request of PPG Industries,

Inc.,

for variance from

Rule 408(a)

for outfall

001

is hereby denied.

2.

The request of PPG Industries,

Inc.,

for variance from

Rule 408(a)

for outfall

002 is dismissed without pre-

judice.

Mr. Young abstained.

I, Christan

L. Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, h reby certify the above Opinion and Order was

a&~pfedon the

day of

,

1976 by a vote of

Illinois Pollution