Document yOgmXJqYB6qLa0BNx6YVpnkD

STATE OF ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD State of Illinois Center TOO West Randolph street Suite 11-500 Chicago. Illinois 60601 312-917-3620 JOHN C. MARUN. CHAIRMAN URBANA. ILLINOIS JOAN G. ANDERSON WESTERN SPRINGS. ILLINOIS JACOB D. DUMELLE OAK PARK. ILLINOIS RONALD C. FLEMAL DEKALB ILLINOIS BILL S. FORCADE CHICAGO. ILLINOIS J. THEODORE MEYER CHICAGO. ILLINOIS MICHAEL L. NARDULLI CHICAGO. ILLINOIS CERTIFICATION ............... ' I', Dorothy M. Giirin, Clerk'of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, do hereby certify that I have the custody and control of all Board files and the records of the said Pollution Control Board; and that the enclosed items transmitted herewith are a true and exact copy of the original. Pollution Control Board Newsletter #24, dated June 14, 1971 ( ; Pollution Control Board Newsletter #37, dated December 5, 1971 Title 35, Environmental Protection, Subtitle B, Chapter I, Rules and Regulations dated June 1989 with amendments through February 6, 1989 . R71-16, Asbestos Regulations, Opinion of the Board on Adoption of Regulations by Mr. Lawton dated January 6, 1972 . Dorothy M. Gatin, Clerk Pollution (Control Board SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE Dated: August 25, 1989 SC-ALL-15060 SCF-ALLF-03400 David p. Currie,Chairman Samuel R.Aloricm Jacob D. Dumelle Richard J. Kissel Samuel T. Lawton. Jr. State of Illinois Pollution Go.vtrol Boars 189 West Madison Street Suite 900 Chicago, Illinois 60602 . NEWSLETTER #2H June U, 1971 TeuepMONe 312-793-3620 ?.:ss S5 :-Ha 55 H3 ul*- . '* DU?AGE COUNTY REGIONALIZATION PLAN HEARINGS AUTHORIZED At its Danville meeting on June 9, the Board authorized hearings on a proposal which would require the development of a regional waste water treatment system in Du?age County. The proposal, if adopted, would be a county-wide system of nine*sewage treatment plants in accordance with the Regional Wastewater Plan approved by the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. Presently, over 90 sewage treatment plants are operating in the county. The county and local governmental units involved 'would have until January 1, 1972, to submit a plan for accomplishing the regionalization scheme and final compliance would be required by January 1, 1975. In his exclamation of the proposal. Chairman Currie stated that the proliferation of small sewage plants in densely populated and rapidly developing DuPage County makes impossible the correction of existing pollution and constitutes a threat of further pollution in the future. Furthermore, small plants have higher per capita construction and operating costs. County taxpayers, therefore, have to pay a higher price for scattered small treatment plants than they would for larger and more efficient treatment facilities. Hearings are scheduled for Juiy, August, and September. The hearings will provide an opportunity for the people of DuPage County and Illinois to provide factual information and to express their views on the concept of regionalization. A copy of the proposal is appended to this Newsletter. ASBESTOS HEARINGS SCHEDULED Finding that the uncontrolled spraying of asbestos fiber and other fiber-containing material unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of life and property and presents a severe threat to the public health NEWSLETTER 24 -2- June 14, 1971 and -.welfare, the Board authorized in Danville that hearings be held on detailed proposed regulations which would restrict the commercial use of products containing asbestos. The set of regulations, if adopted, would be the most comprehensive set of controls for the tox substance ever enacted. The proposed regulations would, among other things, require a permit for the manufacturing of asbestos products, for the commercia use of asbestos in construction work and for the demolition of asbes containing buildings. Demolition of buildings containing asbestos would have to be conducted in accord with strict controls to reduce dust emission. Plants manufacturing asbestos products would be required to meet an emission standard. The spraying of asbestos fiber, done in high-rise construction, would be unlawful. And the use of asbestos in the brake lining of vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1975 and sold for use in Illinois would be pro hibited. A copy of the proposed regulation is appended to this Newsletter. Asbestos-containing products have, in recent years, been widely used, especially in the fireproofing of buildings and in the lining of automobile brakes. These uses and others contribute annually to the discharge of asbestos fiber into the atmosphere. The fiber, once released, is thought to be virtually indestructible, resulting in a gradual, irreversible increase in the amount of asbestos fiber present in the ambient air. Medical evidence has shown that heavy, prolonged exposure to asbestos fiber can cause a lung disease known as asbestosis and a very rare cancer of the lining of the lungs, mesothelioma. NSSD PHOSPHORUS VARIANCE DENIED At the Danville meeting, the Board voted to deny a variance re quest in North Shore Sanitary District v. EPA, PCB 71-36. The District requested that six of its seven lakeside plants (North Chicago, Lake 31uff, Lake Forest, Park Avenue, Ravine Drive, and Carey Avenue) be exempted from the phosphorus effluent standards until December 31, 1972. The one year variance was not requested for its Waukegan plant. The Board's opinion, written by.Mr. Dumelle, points out that the District's cost estimates for compliance were not realistic. The district maintained that temporary phosphorus treatment facilities v;c cost $654,000 the first year and $292,000 annually, thereafter. This sum includes costs for tanks, hardware, chemicals, additional sludge handling, additional labor, and a minimal salvage value. But, at a subsequent hearing relating to the Districts compliance to the Board's order in League of Women Voters et al v. North Shore Sanitary District, PCB 70-7, 12,13j 14, the District made a statement which is ir. effect an amendment to this variance request, thus, substantially lowering the estimated cost. It withdrew its request for a variance as to the North Chicaro clant. This removes almost half of the NEWSLETTER U24 -3- June 14, 1971 hydraulic capacity fro- the request. The Board stated that ether factors also reduce the estimated cost: The District could easily use a cheaper method of removal than the alum precipitation method it had chosen, such as the free wasta pickle liquor method it uses at its Waukegan plant; as phosphorus removal becomes a more widespread requirement in Illinois, nearby Districts will be willing buyers of used equipment, the salvage value will be more than minimal. The Act admonishes the Eoard to grant variances only where cases of arbitrary or unreasonable hardship are shown. But the Board ruled that "[m]ere imposition of a money cost standing alone cannot be considered an unreasonable hardship." The Board stated that since many of the District's recent activities are stymied by litigation it can have no real .confidence that if .. this variance is granted, an extention of the variance will not be asked for a year from now. LAKE MICHIGAN THERMAL STANDARD ADOPTED The 5oard adopted the proposed draft of Thermal Standards for Lake Michigan, R70-2. These standards' permit the continued existence of heat sources now in operation which have not been shown to cause harm, so long as they conform to the modified water quality standard which consists of a 3 F. rise limitation and a series of monthly temperatures 'which are never to be exceeded. Thfe maximum permissible temperature is 3C ?. Sources under construction as of January 1, 1971 must meet the new standard, and there are a number of additional conditions designed to minimize any adverse effect and to require modification if significant harm results. Finally, the potential damage inherent in the proliferation of large heat sources is prevented by prohibiting significant new heat sources not under construction as of January 1, 1971. A copy of the proposal is continued in the addenda section of Newsletter #21. OTHER ACTIONS At its June 9 meeting in Danville the Board announced the following actions: In League of Women Voters et. al. v. North Shore Sanitary District, PCB 70-7, 12, 13, & 14, the Board ordered several control programs to oe started immediately. These interim measures will help abate pollution violations until District completes its expansion program ordered previously by the Board (March 31, 1971). This order In no way affects the Board's order for the District's phosphorus variance request (PCB 71- .UJL 2 ll.U t pollution variance until July 1, 1972, at 'which time its Taylorville 'waste treatment facilities must be n compliance with SV/B-14. The company must post a performance bond to insure complete treatment of its storm and process waste waters. NEW,SLE" #24 -4- June 14, 1971 In EPA v. C.E. Keans. ?CE 71-30, the 3oard issued a ceaseand-desist order restraining Respondent from depositing refuse on his Flora property. He is also to remove or cover the refuse and to pay a $100 penalty. Due to financial difficulty, he claimed he couldn't operate a landfill in accord with the law. The Board finds that "[p]overty is no excuse; people Who haven't money to do business as the law requires shouldn't do business." In EPA v. Southern Illinois Asphalt Co. Inc. , PCB 71-31* the Board issued a cease-and-desist order until Respondent obtain th quired permit and also issued a $5,000 penalty for its failure to do The 3oard also recommended the Agency consider the effect the plant has on .the surrounding residential area in McLeansboro . .. before granting the pending permit application. Mr. Lawton's concurring opinion points out that "...compliance with the regulations, which are designed for general application, does not justify the causing of a nuisance." In Northern Petrochemical Co. v. EPA, PCB 71-47, the Board granted an air pollution variance- so that the company may conduct a fire-fighting training course on its Morris property. This case is similar to Deere & Co. v. EPA, PCB 70-20, where the Board noted that "[t]he Importance of instructing employees in fire fighting techniques Is clear ... and that ... there is no substitut in learning how to fight fires, for actually fighting fires." In EPA v. Truax-Traer Coal Co, and Consolidation Coal Co. , PCB 7i-5*n the Board dismissed a purported variance petition because petitioner failed to comply with statutory and regulatory provisions for the filing of a variance petition. In effect the petitioner sought a declaratory judgement that the Act does not apply to its fackson County operations. The Board also directed the Agency to file within twenty days a detailed report for abatement proposals for the petitioner's operations. In Electric Wheel Co. v. EPA, PCB 71-55, the Board granted a variance until December 31, 1971, so that the petitioner may complete Its ACERP v.!ith minor modifications at its Quincy foundry. The Board felt that the Agency's delay in filing recommendations and the company's good faith in pursuing the program were sufficient reasons to grant the variance. In City of Lincoln v. EPA, PCB 71-56, the Board denied a variance request to burn allegedly diseased elm trees. Upon the City's own admission, the trees weren't infectious but only dead and rotten. The Board stressed that the diseased exception not to be abused by attempting, under cover of the exception, to burn vegetation blown down by a storm. is #24 -5- June l1!, 1971 In Citizens Utilities Company of Illinois v. EPA, PCB 71-125, the Board granted the DuPage County company's petition to expedite Droceedings. The variance request is for temporarily bypassing a stabilization lagoon so it may be cleaned as hot weather* has made It substantially non-functional. In this exceptional situation, th Board has waived the 21-day notice rule. But sufficient notice is given by this newsletter to inform interested parties. The hearing will be held in the early part of the week of June 21st. MISSISSIPPI RIVER THERMAL STANDARDS The record in Mississippi River Thermal Standard, R 70-16, a citizen.initiated proposal to.change the Mississippi River therma discharge regulations, will remain open until June 21. In addition to the testimony and exhibits received in the public hearings at Pock Island and Alton the record has been open to receive communications from interested persons and the testimony regarding thermal discharges in the hearing on the Quad-Cities nuclear electr generating plant permit application, PCB 71-20. ' * CORRECTIONS . Newsletter #22 contained two typographical errors as follows: I. Explanation of Proposed Water Quality Standards Revisions # ?. 71-14; Fart IX: Permits page 15, second full paragraph - The date in the first line should be December 31, 1973 not December 31, 1971. . II. Proposed V.ater Quality Standards Revisions - # R 71-14; Part II: V/ater Quality Criteria Section 203 (b) - The range of pH should be 6.0 to 9.0 not 6.5 to 9.0. . NEW CASES FILED AND HEARINGS AUTHORIZED PCB 71-127 Illinois State Fair Agency. . Springfield petitioner seeks a variance from open burning regulations to conduct interim fire-fighting training and to dispose of single story building. No hearing was authorized pending Agency recommendation. FC3 71-128 City of Zion. Petitioner requests an open burning variance to burn diseased trees in Lake County. No hearing was authorized pending .Agency recommendation. PCB 71-12? Commonwealth Edison Company. Petitioner seeks a variance from air pollution regulations at three stations in V.'innebagc, hill and Tazewell counties. A hearing was authorized. NEWS . xi."l #2U -6- June ill, 1971 PCS 71-130 Chicago-Ducucue Foundry Corporation. East Dubuque petitioner seeks a variance from air pollution regulations. The company wants to wait until the United States EPA adopts National Ambient Air Quality Standards before installing control equipment. No hearing was authorized pending Agency recommendation. PC3 71-131 Willow Creek Drainage District. Morgan County petitioner seeks a variance from open burning regulations so it may burn refuse from clean-up operations. No hearing was authorized pending Agency recommendation. PCB 71-132 American National Bank & Trust Co. Petitioner seeks a variance from the prohibition of new sewer connections to the North Shore Sanitary District in order to connect a neve sixty-five unit complex. A hearing was authorized. PCB 71-133 Thomas and Sandra Heading. Lake County petitioners seek variance to connect a one family residence to the NSSD. A hearing was authorized. PCB 71-131* Union Oil Co. of California. Chicago nefinery-of Union 76 Division seeks open burning variance to conduct fire-fighting training classes. No hearing was authorized pending Agency recommendation. ?C3 71-135 Ravinia Festival. Petitioner seeks open burning variance so it may burn diseased elm trees at its Highland Park location. No hearing was authorized pending Agency recommendation. PCB 71-136 A.K. Zamost. retitioner requests a variance to connect a new single family residence to the NSSD. A hearing was authorized. NEWSLETTER #2*4 -7- June 1*4 ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD Notice is hereby given that the Illinois Pollution Control Board has scheduled the following hearings in addition to those previously announced along with the changes- of scheduled nestings as described. Public comments are invited. June 21 1:00 p.m. June 22423 10:00 a.m. EPA v. City of Champaign v. The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois and Alpha Material and Fuel Company, PCB 71-51C, Champaign City Council Chambers, Champaign, Illinois'. Hearing continued from June 8, 1971- June 23 10:00 a.m. Elgin Jaycees v. Tri-County Landfill Co. et. al. , PCB 71-59, Pre-hearing conference. City Council Chambers, Elgig Municipal Bldg., 150 Dexter Ct., Elgin, Illinois. ( June 26 10:00 a.n. Citizens Utilities Co. of 111, v. EPA PCB 71-125, DuPage County Sheriff's Office, Courtroom #7, 205 Reber, Wheaton, Illinois. (Accelerated Date). June 29 10:00 a.m. Proposed Water Quality Standards Revisions, R 71-14, Central Junior High School, Auditorium, 21st 4 Delmore, Granite City, Illinois. June 2*4 10:30 a.m. Employees of Holmes Brothers v. Herlan, Inc, and L. Mervls, PCB 71-39, City Council Chambers, City Hall, Danville, Illinois. June 30 10:30 a.m. Proposed 'Water Quality Standards Revisions, R 71-1** > Southern Illinois University, Neckers Hall, B-*4*40, Carbondale, Illinois. June 30 & July 7 10:00 a.m. EPA v. Incinerator, Inc. PCB 71-69> Cicero Public Library, 5221 W. Cermak P.d. , Cicero, Illinois July 1 10:00 a.m. National Gypsum Co. v. EPA, PCB 71-99, Council Chambers, City Hall, 106 N. Utica St., Waukegan, Illinois. NEWSLETTER #24 July 7, 8, 10:00 a.m. &9 July 8 10:00 a.m. July 8 10:00 a.m. July 13 9:15 a.m. 10:30 a.m. 11:45 a^m. 2:00 p.m. 3:15 p.m. July in 10:00 a.m. July m & 15 10:00 a.m. July 21 & 22 10:00 a.m. July 29 10:00 a.m. July 23 10:00 a.m. LATE NOTICED June 17 9:30 a 18, 2D, 25 & 28 thru July 2. -8- June 14, 1971 EPA v. Modern Foundry & Manufacturing: Co., PC5 71-108, City Council Chambers , Belleville, Illinois. Board Meeting, Belleville Court House, Belleville, Illinois. Scott Volkswagon, Inc, v. EPA, PCB 71-112 Waukegan Public Library, 128 North County, Waukegan, Illinois. Ray Wlckstrom, PCB 71-105 Howard & Barbara Weinstein, PCB 71-107 David S. McAdams, PCB 71-113 - Robert D. Charles, PCB 71-122 Dole Construction Co., PCB 71-126; Waukegan Public Library, 128 North bounty, Waukegan, Illinois. City of Monmouth, 111, v. EPA, PCB 71-121 City^Hall Council Chambers, 112 N. Main St., Monmouth, Illinois. (Corrected Date). Sherwin-Williams Co. , PCB 71-111; 3raham Paint & Varnish Co., Inc., PCB 71General Paint & Chemical Co. . PCB 71-115; Enterprise Paint Mfg. Co., PCB 71-116 Armstrong Cbemcon, Inc. , PCB 71-117; Jewel Paint & Varnish Co. , PCB 71-118; The v'alspar Corp. , PCB 71-119; N.L. Industries, Inc., PCB 71-120; Illinois Liquor Control Commission Hearin Room, Room 419, 188 W. Randolph St., Chicago, Illinois. Ralston Purina v. EPA, PCB 71-88, University Union, 3rd floor lounge on July 21, Ballroom on July 22, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois. EPA v. Eli Amlgonl, PCB 71-89, Supervisor Office, Court House, Eureka, Illinois. (Corrected Date). Henry Hannah v. Minnesota Paints, Inc., PCB 71-123, City Hall Council Chambers, 915-l6t'n Ave. , East Moline, Illinois EPA v. Granite City Steel Co., PCB 70-34 Curcuit Court Courtroom, City Hall, Oranite City, Illinois. NEWSLETTER #24 -9- ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD COM INC- FORMAL MEETINGS AND HEARINGS June 14, 1971 June 17 418 10:00 a.m. Lake Michigan Waste Water Discharge Prohibition R 71-5, ana Proposed Water Water Quality Standards Revisions, R 71-14, Auditorium, Technological Institute, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. June 17 9:30 a.a. EPA v. J.C. Dill. PCB 71-42, Danville Ci: Hall, Danville, Illinois. June 18 10:00 a.m. Robert H. Monyek v. EPA, PCB 71-80, Waukegan City Hall, 106 N. Utica, Waukegan, Illinois. June 18 1:00 p.m. National Starch & Chemical Corp. V. EPA, PCB 71-83, Village Hall, Meridosia, 111. June 19 10:00 a.m. EPA v. Claremont Hills Water & Sewer Co., Inc. PCB 71-871 McHenry County Court House Annex, 121 W. Calhoun, Woodstock, Illinois. June 21 10:00 a.m. Robert C. Wagnon v. EPA, PCB 71-85, 10th Floor, Lake County Court House, Waukegan, Illinois. June 21 22 & 23 1:00 p . m. 10:00 a.m. EPA v. City of Champaign v. The Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois and Alpha Material and Fuel Company, PCB 71-51C, Champaign City Council Chambers, Champaign, Illinois. Hearing continued from June 6, 1971. June 23 10:00 a.m. Elgin Jaycees v. Tri-County Landfill Co. et. al., PCB 71-59, Pre-hearing conference. City Council Chambers, Elgin Municipal Bldg., 150 Dexter Ct., Elgin, Illinois. June 23 10:00 a.n. Board Meeting, Chicago Circle Campus, 750 S. Halsted St., Chicago, Illinois. June 24 10:00 a.m. Chambers, Bering, Quinlan Co. v. EPA, PCB 71-102, Supervisors Room, Macon County 3uilding, Decatur, Illinois. June 24 10:00 a.m. Proposed Water Quality Standards Revision R 71-14, State of Illinois Regional ' Office Building, 4302 N. Main St., Rockford, Illinois. June 24 10 a. m. Employees of Holmes Brothers v. Merlan, Inc, and L. Meryls, PCB 71-33, City Council Chambers, City Hall, R #24 June 25 10:00 a. m. June 25 10:30 a.m. June 25 1:30 p.m. June 25 10:30 a.n. June 26 10:00 a.n. June 23 10:00 a.n. June 29 10:00 a.n. J une 2 9 10:00 a.n. June 29 & 30 10:00 a.n. June 29 July 2 10:00 a.n. June 30 10:00 a.n. June 50 9:30 a.n. -10- June 14, 1971 Proposed Water Quality Standards Revisions, R 71-14, Galena City Hall, Galena, Illinois. John Ciancio v. EPA, PCB 71-100, Waukegan Public, Library, 128 N. County, Waukegan, 111. Mr. and Mrs. Wallace W. Piroyan v. EPA, PCB 71-103, Waukegan Public Library, Waukegan, 111. EPA v. Charles Rhodes, PCB 71-53, Room 502, Macon County Courthouse, 253 E. Wood Street, Decatur, Illinois. Citizens Utilities Co. of 111, v. EPA, PCB 71-125, DuPage County Sheriff's Office, Courtroom #7, 205 Reber, Wheaton, Illinois. (Accelerated Date). Quad City Area Regional Air Pollution Control Board v. Village of Cordova, FCB 71-97, County Building, 1504 Third Ave. , Rock Island, Illinois. Proposed Water Quality Standards Revision R 71-14, Central Jr. High School, Auditorium, Granite City, Illinois. EPA v. Williamson County Housing Authority, PCB 71-109, City Hall Herrin, Illinois. EPA v. City of Urbana v. Urbana & Champaign Sanitary District, Saline Branch Drainage District, and the Board of Trustees of the University of 111. , PCB 71-51U, Urbana City Council Chambers, Urbana, Illinois. U.S. Industrial Chemical Co. v. EPA, PCB 7i-4lJ, Forty-Martyrs School Hall, Tuscola, Illinois. Proposed 'Water Quality Standards Revision R 71-14, Southern Illinois University, Neckers Hall,.B-440, Carbondale, Illinois Flintkote v. SPA, PCB 71-68, Wabash County Courthouse, 4th & Market, Fount Carmel, Illinois. nsv;sle: ;?. #24 June 30 & July 7 10 : 0 0 n. June 30 10:00 a.n. July 1 July 1 10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. July 7, 8, 10:00 a.m. &9 July 8 10:00 a.m. July 8 10:00 a.n. July 8 July 12 10:00 a.n. 9:30 a.n. July 13 9:15 a.n. 10:30 a.n. 11:^5 a.m. 2:00 p.m. 3:15 p.n. July 111 10:00 a.m. -11- June 14, 1971 EPA v. Incinerator, Inc.,PCB 71-63, Cicero Public Library, 5221 VJ. Cermak Rd., Cicero, Illinois. EPA v. City of Marlon, PCB 71-25, 2nd Floor Courtroom, City Hall, Marion, Illinois. ' Standard Brands v. EPA, PCB 71-98, City Hall, Pekin, Illinois National Gypsum Co. v. EPA, PCB 71-99, Council Chambers, City Hall, 106 N. Utica St.., Waukegan, Illinois. . .. EPA v. Modern Foundry & Manufacturing Co. , PCB 71-108, City Council Chambers, Belleville, Illinois. Freeman Coal Mining Corp. v. EPA, PCB 71-78, City Council Cahmbers, 1100 Main St., Mt Vernon, Illinois. Scott Volkswagon, Inc, v. EPA, PCB 71-112 Waukegan Public Library, 128North County, Waukegan, Illinois. Board Meeting, Belleville Court House, Belleville, Illinois. EPA v. Bath, Inc, and John C. Walker, PCB 71-52, Room 502, Macon County Court house, 253 Eastwood, Decatur, Illinois. Ray Wickstrom, PCB 71-105 Howard & Barbara Weinstein, PCB 71-107 David S. McAdams, PCB 71-113 Robert D. Charles, PCB 71-122 Dole Construction Co., PCB 71-126; Waukegan Public Library, 128 North County, Waukegan, Illinois. City of Monmouth, 111, v. EPA, PCB 71-121 City Hall Council Chambers, 112 N. Main St., Monmouth, Illinois. (Corrected Date). NEV.'SLETI`EH 2k -12- June 14, 1971 July Hi & 15 10:00 a.m. July 21 & 22 10:00 a.m. July 29 10:00 a.m. July 2 3 10:00 a.n. LATE NOT ICES June 17, 9:30 a.m. 18, 24 , 25, & 28 t hru July 2. June 17 & 18 10:00 a.m. July 23 & 30 July 26 10:00 a.m. 10:00 a.m. Sherv.'ln-WiIlians Co. , PCB 71-111; Graham Paint & Varnish Co. , Inc., ?C3 71- General Paint & Chemical Co. , PCB 71-115.: Enterprise Paint Mfg. Co., PCB 71-116; Armstrong Chemcon, Inc. PCB 71-117; Jewel Paint & Varnish Co., PCB 71-118; The Valspar Corp. , PCB 71-119; N.L. Industries, Inc., PCB.71-120; . Illinois Liquor Control Commission Hearir Room, Room 419, 188 W. Randolph St., Chicago, Illinois. Ralston Purina v. EPA, PCB 71-88, University Union, 3rd floor lounge on . July 21, Ballroom on July 22, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois. EPA v. Ell Amigonl, PCB 71-89, Supervisor Office, Court House, Eureka, Illinois. (Corrected Date). r Henry Hannah v. Minnesota Paints, Inc., PC3 71-123, City Hall Council Chambers, 915-l6th Ave., East .Moline, Illinois. EFA Vi Granite City Steel Co., PCB 70-34 Curcuit Court Courtroom, City Hall, Granite City, Illinois. Lloyd A. Fry Roofing Co. v. EPA, PCB 71-4 71-33, One North LaSalle St., Suite 3700, Chicago, Illinois (Corrected Date). DuPage County Regionalization , R 70-17 location to be announced. Monsanto Co. v. EPA, PCB 71-110, Sauget City Hall, 2897 Monsanto Avenue, Suaget, Illinois. ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD June- 9 , 1971 In the hatter of DU PAGE COUNTY REGIOHAL SEWAGE TREATMENT ) ) ) ) ) ) H R 70-17 NOTICE OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS Notice is hereby given that the Pollution Control Board, follow ing earlier inquiry hearings on the subject, has authorized public hearings to be held for the purpose of receiving testimony re lating to the adoption of the fol owing proposed new regulations, Kr. George Sullivan will serve as hearing officer and .vir. Jccoo Duma lie as attending Board Member Hearings will be held as ij $ ; Public testimony is invited PROPOSED REGULATIONS (Authorized for hearing only, June K'ct yet adopted by the Board.) 1971. CHAPTER IV: WATER POLLUTION PART ll: Regional Sewage Treatment 1101 Preamble. The proliferation of numerous small sewage treatment plants in densely populated and rapidly developing Du Page County constitutes a severe and in tolerable impediment to the correction of present water pollution and a continuing threat of additional pollution in the future. Not only, do the higher.unit costs of constructing and operating small plants v/aste finite dollars and therefore contribute to pollution; small plants cannot produce as satisfactory an effluent as can larger plants, because they cannot provide certain types of sophisticated treatment, because they cannot practicably be adequately supervised or maintained, and because they cannot provide adequate standby treatment capacity to prevent pollution in the event of a malfunction. The establishment or continued operation of sewage treat ment -n r.r,si i ns to exhibit these deficiencies. in area, :ucn a- KUi County where the population density .s high enough to mate larger plants economically feasible and indeed economically far mere desirable, is contrary to the anti-pollution policy of the Environmental Protection Act. 1102 Regional Plants to Be Constructed. On or before January 1, 197b, all sewage treatment plants now or then existing in DuPage County shall bo replaced by nine plants designed and constructed in substantial accordance with the Regional Wastewater Plan approved by the Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission harch 3, 1971. Governmental agencies operating these nine plants shall thereafter accept and treat all sewage from tributary areas as designated by that Plan, and all other sewage treatment plants in DuPage County shall cease operation, except as provided in Rule 1005 of this Chaptei'. 1103 Programs to 3e Submitted. On or before January 1, 1972, the County of DuPage ana every municipality or sanitary district with current responsibility for the treatment of sewage in DuPage County shall file with this Board ana with the Environmental Protection Agency a detailed and firm program fer compliance with the requirements of Rule 1102 of this Chapter. Such programs, preferably submitted on a joint basis, shall include among other things the following: a. A description of the location, capacity, treat ment facilities, cost, and service area for the proposed plant that is to accept and treat the sewage from the area under the applicant's jurisdiction; b. A firm commitment by one or more responsible governmental agencies to construct and operate the proposed plant, together with a firm schedule for design, award of contracts, commencement of construct full operation, and abandonment of obsolete plants; c. A firm commitment by the affected goveramental . agencies for the financing of the necessary facilitie through taxation, user charges, revenue and general obligation bonds, special assessments, connection charges, loans, grants, contracts, or otherwise; d. An attorney's opinion affirming and explaining the authority of the responsible governmental agencie to carry out their undertaking as described; e. Assurance that the program conforms with Rule 1002 of this Chapt r and with ail applicable regulati l Ui u<iu water poii.ur.icr: and Lh-j ui^-I Oi solid waste; f. Assurances as to what interim measures will be provided to secure compliance with applicable regulations regarding sewage treatment, including water quality standards, before January 1, 1975- 110*1 Compliance Hearing. (a) Upon receipt of the programs required by Rule 1103 of this Chapter, or in default of their timely receipt, the Board shall schedule a hearing or hearings in accordance with Chapter 1 of these Rules and Regulations, in which to determine whether the programs submitted will achieve compliance with this Part. The governments specified in Rule 1103 of this Chapter shall oe parties petitioner in such hearings, and the Environmental Protection Agency shall be responden The Agency may file a countercomplaint against any person allegedly responsible for any failure to conform with the requirements in this Part. b. After hearings as specified in paragraph (a) of this Rule, the Board shall determine whether the programs submitted are adequate to achieve compliance with this Fart. T!:e Board may modify the submitted programs in any manner conducive to the achievement of the policies or requirements cf this Parc, and she; order the parties to do whatever is necessary or proper to achieve those ends. -3- 1105 Fu ture Conu tru ct j sn. No permit shall be granted for the construction or operation of any additional sewage treatment plant in Dupage County, except for interim facilities in the event of a demonstrated emergency, that does not confer::: with the principles of the Regional Wastewater Plan describe in Rule 1102 of this Chapter, or that .is of capacity so snail as to produce significant diseconomies of scale or to create a significant rick of inadequate treatment, according to the policies expressed in Rule llOl of this Chapter. 1106 Limitation on Hew Connections. After January 1, 1975> no source of 'wastes nay be connected, and no existing source nay be increased in the strength or volume of discharge s to any sewer in DuPage County not tributary to a sewage treatment plant that meets the requirements of this Part. 1107 Other Regulations Preserved. Nothing in this Part shall relieve any person from the obligation to comply in all respects with any existing ,or future regulations, including but not limited to the water quality standards and inrlamentation plan for streams in DuFage County. e R 70-17 DuPegs County Regional Sewage Treatment EXPLAi TION OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS (by Mr. Carrie) , DuPage County, bedroom to Chicago, is experiencing the familiar growing pains of a rapidly developing suburban area. Beset by a typical multiplicity of local governments and with its county government hampered by a legal incapacity to supplant local sewage- treatment facilities without local consent, DuPage has sprouted an inordinate number of'separate treatment plants (83 in 1970 (R. 313))> many of them quite small indeed, and in many cases quite close to one another. Small plants are a necessity in remote areas sparsely populated, but not in DuPage County, which has a high population density and a considerable total population. In DuPage County the costs of transporting sewage to central locations for^treatnent are low. Inquiry hearings held in February 1971 have established the disadvantages of unnecessarily small plants, including the-rr threat of peffutien , as sec icvc.n i r: _ ;:e p i-vp <J ..a 1 e 10C1. Tne testimony of Dr. John Pfeffer of the Institute for Environmental Quality (R. 176--9*1) is a concise summary of this proof. Operation costs for a plant treating one million gallons per day, he testified, are three times those of a plant treating 100 million gallons, on a per-gailon basis; `construction costs are considerably higher as well.. As an example of the savings of regional sewage treatment, Dr. Pfeffer cited costs of alternativ treatment systems to serve Albany County, Mew York: For each of the eight affected municipalities to treat its own sewage would have cost $78,500,000, required 110 operating personnel, and cost $29.00 per capita for the first year. A regional twoplant system cost $53,100,000 and required only 35 operators, at half the per capita cost. On the question of the unsatisfactory effluent from small plants Dr. Pfeffer referred to the use of less effective trickling filters for secondary treatment in such plants, because of the necessity for expert operators, beyond the means of small plants, to run the more acceptable activated sludge facilities. This fact we have recognized in prescribing more lenient effluent standards for small plants (e.g., SV3-12, SV.f2--13, as amended by fi R 70-3, Jan. , 1971); it is an additional reason why we cannot allow unnecessarily small plants in areas that can support large ones. Dr. Pfeffer point"> .** also to the probability that sophist!cated advanced treat menr method' required now or in the future will likev/isc- be beyond the effective competence of small plants. Moreove-r y he testified, larger plants are more reliable, both becau; 1 "r.r- f-y r.; e i n 1: i nr d `iert'ieastern J11 inoi: of w ttc-r ma ntenance and because of their backup capacity to DOilUC' on durir -.aj.i unction3. .in a larger plant, he said, You have generally multiple units, which, if one of the particular units becomes inactivated for some reason, you can increase the load slightly to the remaining unit without markedly affecting the efficiency. If you are sitting here with a small plant that has one primary clarifier and you have to . shut that clarifier down to replace the mecha.nisn then all the water is bypassed, and in the past it has been letting raw sewage into the stream .... So far as our hearings have disclosed, everybody agrees, and has agreed for years, that the present proliferation cf small plants is intolerable and that they should be promptly replaced by eight to a dozen relatively large plants each serving a relatively largo area. The County has been pressing for regier;alizr-.tion sir.ce 1956 (R. 27) The PuPare County Association cf Sanitary 'districts endorsed a plan for regional treatment in i960 (R. 21). The Du is go County nayorr. and Managers in February of this year adooted a plan for regional treat ment (?.. 5). Thus the various governments responsible for sewage treatment in PuFage County-- te municipalities through their Mayors and managers, the Sanitary Districts, and the County itself--all agree as to what should be done. But they are unable to decide who is to do it or how it is to be paid for. A 1970 bond issue to establish a county-operated regional system was roundly defeated, apparently chiefly because it was thought to impose an excessive proportion of the financial burden on areas of the county that already had provided for their own sewage treatment (R. 9, 22, 23). Even today there remains disagreement. The County apparently expects to run the regional plants (R. 27-31); the municipalities want to control a county wide waste water board operating several subregional plants (R. 16-17); the sanitary districts want the county divided into several independent sanitary districts (R. 202, 235-36). districts do eager to ar.k the county to take ovc-r their function!;-. r : * -a ral cn cn::v.ructicr. grants are unavailable for DuPage County un ci regional plan is established (F.. 121, 125). Bills have bc-r-^rj ini ro iuced in the General Asser.bly to set up . variouc reg_. ; T_ tr C/c. tr.ent authorities with the requisite fina.noi powcrr: (E. 16 2 3*1- 35 }. They languish for want of consensus over who is t;o b e a bo lished and who expanded. We have even been asked by a res r-e ctable quasi-public agency to allov; inadequate faci 1 4 4- i nc o continue violating the pollution standards while the debate go on (?.. 61). The situation is exquisitely Byzantine. Legislation.to clari fy the administrative responsibility `and financial authority f or carrying out the agreed program. is obviously desirable, The General Assembly should create, without referendum, a cou nty-wide sanitary district with exclusive authority to co nstruct and operate sewage treat- ment facilities threughou t the county, and with adequate authority to raise money by taxes, general obligation and revenue bonds, specia 1 assessments, user and connect! on charges, and other means, The County, or the General Ass embly , short Id also enact a subui vision ordinance, if one is not now in effect, requiring any new land developer to pay the co st. of additions.; /sniiaties r ~'j!._.y*_*v. 1 r:at and treat its anticipated sewage before permission is given to begin develop-- ment. trust some such legislation will be enacted this autumn.2 V/e cannot, however, count on it, nor afford to wring our hands while v:e wait. It has taken fifteen years already, and nothing has been done. V/e have no assurance that legislation v/ill be forthcoming. The existing governments in DuPage County have authority to do what is necessary even under the present patchwork laws; and what they have power to do v/e can and should order them to do in order to remove the present threat of pollution. See Environmental Protection Act, section 13 and 13 (c), authorizing the Eoard to adopt regulations to prevent water pollution, specifically including standards relating to the construction and operation of facilities designed to prevent pollution. 2 The bill proposed by DuPage and Lake Counties to allow for county-run subreg ions each bearing its own costs would be satisfactory if it did not leave the creation of oubre.g on up to a referendum an d allow deannexation by local option, and if section 46 of the Environrnental Protection Act were aimu 11ai;eously arr.ende c: to include counties, as discussed below. -u- The County and all municipalities and Sanitary districts have authority to construct, accuire, and operate sewage treat ment facilities (111. Rev. Stat.', ch. 2k, 11-1*11-2 (Municipalities); clj. 3**, 3111 (counties); ch. *12, 306, . 306.1 (sanitary districts). All have the power of condemnation without regard for municipal or sanitary district boundaries (ch. 2k, ll-iiil-2; ch. 3k, 3110; ch. k2, 307) - Municipalities ana sanitary districts may accept and treat sewage fro:.: outside their boundaries (ch. 2k, 11-1*16-1; ch. k2, 316); may contract with one another, if adjacent, for the common construction or use of facilities (ch. 2*1, 11-1*17-1); and may contract for the county to provide sewage treatment, the local government paying its share of costs (ch. 2k, 11-lkf-k; ch. 3*1, 3331). All these governments have authority to raise funds by revenue and general obligation bonds, by user and connection charges, by general taxation, and by special assessment under the new Constitution effective July 1 (R. 158). The northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, after extensive study, has adopted a Regional V'a.stewater Plan for the Chicago metropolitan area. This plan, endorsed by the Environmental Protection Agency at our hearings (A. 1*19), contemplates a nine--plant ryste.m renci sting of the existing plants operated dy uion .".a Ayr; r.uc west .*. hiva-gc -*::v. by the Wh,r= t >:if 111 n.via 1c. .Sanitary Districts; a consolidation os' the existing Elmhurst and .'alt Creek Sanitary District plants-; and new plants at Naperville, l.'oodridge, and (t'wc) in the Adbison-V.'codridge area (See MII'C, Regional wastewater Plan, adopted .'larch , 1971; R. 59-61, 63-6*1). This plan appears, on the basis of the evidence so far before us, to be an entirely reasonable means of eliminating the present problem. In the absence of contrary evidence, we think it should be carried out at once. We could draft regulations prescribing exactly which government is to build which plant. It would appear sensible, if nothing better can be worked out in a reasonable time, that the Wheaton and Hinsdale Sanitary Districts and Elmhurst, Gler. Ellyn, and West Chicago each take responsibility for treatment in its region, since they are operators of existing plants that are to be expanded to become parts of the new plan, and that the County build the new plants. Or we could order every one else to contract for the County to supply service every where. V/e shall not hesitate to order just this if the parties and the legislature cannot agree on a better' institutional frame work such as a single county-wide district as suggested aoove. But v;e propose to allow six months for such a framework to be created before doing sc. Consequently the present proposal is to require the implementation cf the HIPC plan by January, 1575, allowing six months for a resolution of the administrative questions, which will be settled in an adjudicative Board hearing that will approve- a final detailed program, and three years for the construction of facilities. The proposal makes clear that future- plants must conform to the regional principle; that no new development will be permitted after 1973 until regionalization is accomplished; and-, that regionalization will not be permitted to postpone compliance with existing or future 'water quality standards or requirements for advanced waste treatment. . Mayor Kottke of Itasca put the matter clearly and succinctly . There has been much talk, much dialog, much discussion going or., and nothing has been done . . . . I think we are going to lean on the Pollution Control Board . . . . . We need you here to say, "This must be dene." V/o can't sit back and wait on the county or the mayors and managers to co up with a solution, because in m.v opinion ... it will never happen. We are not going to get an agreement because v;e have constant bickering between the sanitary districts and the communities. They are all locking, for perpetuation of their system, for autonomy, for control. I think it has got to be taken away e.r.d I say the Pollution Control hoard r.as zo be the ini: agency and you hove to come up with a definite situation and say, "This is going to be- :it." . . . . You have a mandate from the people ox' DuPage County, and that ^ is to form a nine-plant district .... (R. 275* 280, 28?) We agree that it is for us to unravel the present jam by prescribing what shall be done. V/e cannot create sanitary districts, but we can order plants built and Intend to do so. The streams cannot wait for consensus among those who wil3 not come to terms, v.'e add that it is not only the people of DuPage County who suffer from the Inability of their governments to get together on this issue; those downstream of Dupage's inadequate plants are forced to accept whatever DuPage puts Into its revolting streams. It is therefore imperative that tine people of the County not be permitted a veto power over the construction of necessary treatment v.'orks, and it will become even more essential, if the Legislature chooses to entrust the job of carrying out klPC's plan to the County itself, that section 46 of the Environmental Protection Act be amended, as the Board has already requested, to permit non-referendum bonds by counties as well as by other local governments when ordered by this Board. The omission of counties from section 46 was an oversight that has no justification in policy; we urge once again that it be quickly rectified. Public comment on proposed regualtions is invited. AS3 ::stcs REGUL TIONS: eo T ji, or spray l.WSULATIOIi PREAMBLE It is hereby determined that the uncontrolled discharge of asbestos fiber into the environment tends to severely endanger the public health and welfare and that the uncontrolled spraying of other fiber-containing material unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of life and property. ...................... 1. Definitions Agency - The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency. Asbestos - Any fiber or any mixture containing fiber of hydrated silicate mineral, which, on the basis of its crystalline structure, falls into one of two categories: (1) pyroxenes - ebrysatile fiber; (2) amyhiboles - crocidolite, ariosite , tremolitc, actinolyte or anthophylito fiber. . Commercial Activity - Any activity done for hire or having financial profit as a. primary aim. Debris - Asbestos-containing waste produced by the demolition of a structure. . Spraying - The pneumatic application of material used for fireproofing or insulation. . Waste - Any asbestos-containing matter which has been or is intended to be discarded. 2. General Requirements No commercial activity, not o the revise hereinafter pro hibited, involving the discharge of asbestos fiber into the environment from the construction, alteration, repair or demolition of a structure or from the processing or manu facturing of asbestos-containing products, shall be conducted unless the person or entity in charge of such activity com plies with the following regulations: A. A permit shall be obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency to engage in such activity. Before obtaining such permit, the applicant shall demonstrate cornel.l with the following safeguards: (1) The designation of personnel to exer cise full-time supervisory authority over all aspects of the activity from which the release of asbestos fiber into the environment could result, in such a manner as to insure compliance with the per tinent asbestos control regulations. -2- (" (2) That ci-h employee engaged in such activity has completed or v.-ill complete a satisfactory course of ins true tio?i on the potential hazards of exposure to asbestos fiber including the precautions that must be ... . .. observed to prevent or restrict the dispersion of asbes tos fiber into the environment. ' (3) That such additional safeguards as are herein after specifically required and such precautions consisten with the purpose of these regulations as the Environrrcnta Protection Agency deems necessary under the circumstances shall be complied with. D. Facilities shall be provided and procedures instituted and supervised that prevent the removal of asbestos-containing material from the site on the clothing of employees. C. Asbestos-containing wastes shall be immediately vacuumed or otherwise collected where vacuuming is impossible, and shall bo placed in a container resister.t to tearing or breaking under normal handling conditions, which shall be tightly sealed and clearly narke: as containing asbestos waste. Such containers shall be placed direct upon a vehicle for disposal by burial at an approved site. This subsection (C) shall not apply to the demolition of a structure, except as provided in Section 4(A)(1) and (c) or to the disposal of sludge waste except as provided in Section 5(C). -3 - 3.. SPRAY FIREPROOFING a:;j insulation________ A. The spraying of asbestos-containing material is pro hibited. B. Non-asbestos particulate matter used for insulation or fireproofing shall not be sprayed unless the following proce dures are taken: (1) Before the start of spraying operations, all floor areas shall be swept clean and cleared of all objects, mater ial and equipment other than that employed in the application of the fiber-containing material, or, in the alternative, all such objects, material and equipment jShall be covered with plastic or plastic-coated tarpaulins. (2) The entire floor or area to be sprayed shall be enclosed with plastic or plastic-coated tarpaulins in a manner whicl shall preclude the escape of fiber-containing material from the enclosure. All interior open areas such as elevator shafts and stairwells shall be enclosed in a manner which shall prevent the escape of fiber-containing material from the working area. "Stack effect" of the shafts, stairwells and comparable spaces shall be considered in providing proper enclosures. (3) Regardless of adherence to the stated control prac tices, any visible emission of fiber-containing materials beyond the building perimeter will be considered a violation. - l (4) In case of visible emission of fibrous material from the construction site, immediate steps shall be taken to cause the cessation of such emissions by either effective control measures or work stoppage at the source of the emissions.There shall then be immediate and complete cleanup of all material that has escaped the construction site, and measures shall be taken that will insure that no further dispersal of any fibrous material into the atmos phere can occur....................... .. . . .. . (5) The entire sprayed area, all ledges and surfaces in cluding tarpaulins v.'ithin the enclosure shall be thoroughly vacuumed upon completion of the spraying operation end immediately #' before the enclosure is dismantled. The vacuuni cleaner shall con- LaJ.ii e strong, single service, disposable inner bag r.f durable material which shall be removed from the vacuum cleaner and tightly sealed. The bag shall then be placed in a container and disposed of at an approved site in accordance with Section 1(C). (6) All areas used for opening bags containing fibrous material or the changing of hoopers shall be enclosed so as to prevent the escape of such material from the immediate area in vhic such activity occurs. ' (7) Any plenum or other structure coated with or containing fibrous insulation and used in the circulation of air in a building -5.- I shall be thoroughly cleaned of all debris and waste insulation. .All applied fiber-containing insulation within a plenum or duct shall be coated with a sealant which precludes exposure of the fiber-containing material to the circulating air. 4. CONSTRUCTION, ALTERATION AND REPAIR OF STRUCTURE . A. (1) The cutting, trimming, fitting or stripping of asbestos-containing material in the construction, alteration or repair of a structure which is done at the site of such structure shall be conducted within a special enclosure designed to pre clude the escape of asbestos fiber from the immediate area of sue enclosure. ** (2) The mechanical exhaustion of dust from such en closure to the ambient air is prohibited unless such exhaust syst is equipped with a fabric filter for dust collection. B. Asbestos-containing material applied in the construct alteration or repair of a structure shall be coated with a sealan provided with a cover or installed in some other manner so as to preclude exposure of the asbestos fiber to the circulating air. 5. DEMOLITION A. Where the risk of public exposure to asbestos fiber from the dislodging of asbestos-ccntai'nir.g materials is present, no demolition of a structure shall be initiated unless all safe guards necessary and practicable to reduce the emission of dust a taken. 1 Such procedures shall include,.but are not necessarily limited to: . (1) Boilers and pipes insulated with asbestos-containir.c material shall be wetted and stripped before ' toppling of v;alls is begun. This procedure shall be followed, where practicable, as to all other asbestos-lir.ed surfaces. Such asbestos waste shall ....... be immediately bagged and disposed of in accordance with Sec. 1(C). (2) Demolition by toppling of walls is prohibited except i' within an enclosure approved by the Environmental Protection Agency as part of the permit granted for demolition of that structure. ( .V (3) Before the demolition of any section of the structure, adequate wetting to suppress the dust shall be employed. (4) Asbestos-containing debris shall not be cropped or thrown from any floor but shall be transported* by dust-tight chutes or buckets. Asbestos-containing debris in chutes or buckets shall be sufficiently wetted to preclude dust dispersion at the point of discharge. (5) All asbestos-containing debris shall be thoroughly wetted before loading into trucks, other vehicles or containers. During transport such waste shall be enclosed or covered so as to prevent dust dispersion. Asbestos-containing debris shall be disposed by burial at an approved site. -7- B. In the event asbestos-containing natter becomes air borne beyond the property boundaries or in the event freezing tem peratures preclude the use of water for dust suppression, denolitic work shall cease until adequate alternate measures can be taken. K. MANUFACTURING A. (1) No factory, plant or enterprise which engages in the processing or manufacturing of any- asfoestos-containi-ng .product . shall emit asbestos fiber into the ambient air in excess of .5 fibe per cubic centimeter of air. The ambient air quality at the bounda of such factory, plant or enterprise shall not exceed .05 fiber per cubic centimeter of air. .\2). Or. !y tinerr. of 5. microns or greater in length with a length to breadth ratio of 3 to 1 shall be counted. . (3) Sampling shall be determined by the membrane filter method with phase contrast microscopy at 430 X magnification. B. No water used in processing or manufacturing which con tains concentrations of asbestos fiber shall be discharged into sewage systems or to the waters of Illinois. C. Waste sludge containing asbestos collected from settlir. ponds shall be enclosed during transport and shall be disposed by burial at an approved site. 7. ASBESTOS-CONTAINING PRODUCTS It is hereby determined that the continuous emission of asbestos fiber from asbestos-containing products contributes sic- nificantly to the increasing volume of. asbestos-fiber in the ambient air and endangers the health of future generations. A. No product which may emit asbestos-fiber during its transportation shall be transported unlas3 such product is enclosed in such a manner as to preclude the emission of asbestos fiber into the ambient air. B. The use of asbestos in the brake lining of vehicles manufactured after January 1, 1975/ and sold for use in . Illinois is prohibited. Y -9-