RECEIVED
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
CIFPR’cnpnrp
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
JUN 2? 2003
complainant,
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control Board
v.
)
No. PCB 03-51
DRAW
DRAPE
CLEANERS,
INC.,
an Illinois corporation,
Respondent.
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
See Attached Service List
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on June 27,
2003, the People of the
State of Illinois filed with the Illinois Pollution Control Board
COMPLAINANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
true and
correct copies of which are attached and hereby served upbn you.
Respectfully submitted,
LISA
MADIGAN
Attorney General
State of
Ii inois
BY:
_________
JOEL J.
STERNSTEIN
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph St.,
20th Floor
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
(312)
814-6986
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
SERVICE LIST
Mr. Bradley Halloran,
Esq.
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100
W. Randolph Street,
Suite 11-500
Chicago,
Illinois 60601
Ms. Maureen Wozniak, Esq.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
p.o.
Box 19276
springfield, Illinois 62702
Ms. Michele Rocawich,
Esq.
~eissberg and Associates,
Ltd.
401 S.
LaSalle Street,
Suite 403
Chicago,
Illinois 60605
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOAIMECEIVEI3
CLERKS OFRCF
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
JUN
2
7
~
ax rel. LISA MADIGAN, Attorney
General of the State of Illinois
)
STATE OFILLrnOIS
Ollutlon
Control
Board
Complainant,
v.
)
No.
PCB 03-51
DRAW
DRAPE
CLEANERS,
INC.,
an Illinois corporation,
Respondent.
COMPLAINANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL
STThDtIARY JUDGMENT
Plaintiff,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
ax
rel.
LISA
MADIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, and pursuant
to Section 101.516 qf the Illinois Pollution Control Board
procedural Regulations,
35
Ill. Adm. Code 101.516, hereby moves
for the entry of an order granting summary judgment in favor of
the Complainant and against Respondent
DRAW
DRAPE CLEANERS
INC.
INTRODUCTION
An eight-count complaint was filed in this matter on October
15,
2002.
A copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Exhibit A.
This complaint involves a petroleum solvent
dry cleaning facility operated by Respondent located at 2235-2239
West Roscoe Street,
Chicago, Cook County,
Illinois.
Complainant
seeks summary judgement against Respondent on four of the eight
counts:
Count
IV, construction of an emissions source without
a
permit;
Count
V, operation of an emissions source without
a
permit;
Count VII,
installation of
a non-solvent recovery dryer
1
and lack of a cartridge filter; and Count VIII,
failure to
perform an initial flow rate test on Dryer #2.
Complainant served Respondent with written discovery on
April
1.,
2003,
including a First Request for Admission of
Facts.
Respondent subsequently served Plaintiff with responses to
written discovery including Draw Drape Cleaners Response to First
Request
to Admit
(“Response”).
In the Response, Respondent
admitted many facts pertinent
to the alleged violations in the
Complaint.
The Response
is attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Exhibit
B.
Respondent admitted that it failed
to secure
the required
construction and operating permits for Dryer #2
at its facility.
Respondent also admitted that Dryer #2 is not
a solvent recovery
dryer and that Dryer #2 lacks a cartridge filter.
Furthermore,
Respondent admitted that it failed to perform an initial
flow
rate test on Dryer #2.
There are no material questions of fact
or law with respect to Counts
IV,
V,
VII, and VIII of the
Complaint.
complainant
is entitled to summary judgment on those
CountS~.
SUt’ff’IARY JUDGMENT STANDARD
Summary judgment
is appropriate when the pleadings,
depositions, admissions on file,
and affidavits disclose there
is
no genuine issue
as to any material fact and the moving party
is
entitled to judgment as
a matter of
law.
Dowd & Dowd,
Ltd.
v.
2
Gleason,
181 Il1.2d 460,
483,
693 N.E.2d 358,
370
(1998)
.
Use of
summary judgment procedure is to be encouraged as an aid in
expeditious disposition of lawsuits;
however,
it
is drastic means
of disposing of litigation and should be allowed only when the
right of the moving party is clear and free of doubt.
Gilbert
v.
Sycamore Municipal Hospital,
156 Ill.2d 511,
518,
622 N.E.2d 788,
792
(1993)
.
Although summary judgment is drastic,
the instant
case is tailor made for this type of disposition and resolution.
Furthermore, using summary judgment as a means of
finding
Respondent liable for violations of the laws and regulations as
alleged in Counts
IV,
V,
VII, and VIII will limit the future
proceedings by the Complainant against Respondent and will
dispose of a portion of the lawsuit.
Complainant’s right to
summary judgment on Counts IV,
V,
VII,
and VIII is clear and free
of doubt.
This is an appropriate use of summary judgment.
ADMITTED BACKGROUND FACTS AND BACKGROUND LAW
At all times relevant to the complaint,
Respondent was/is an
Illinois corporation in good standing and was/is the operator of
a petroleum solvent dry cleaning facility
(facility)
for cleaning
drapes.
Admitted by Respondent in Exhibit B
-
Response Nos.
1,
2,
3.
Respondent installed Dryer #2 at the facility in 1996 and
operated Dryer #2 until sometime in 2001 or 2002.
Respondent
used Dryer *2 to dry clean drapes after it was installed.
Dryer
3
#2 also lacks a cartridge filter.
Dryer #2 emitted volatile
organic material
(“VOW’,
also known as volatile organic
compounds)
to the environment after it was installed until
sometime in 2001 or 2002.
Admitted by Respondent in Exhibit B
-
Response Nos.
6,
7,
8,
11.
Section 3.315 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”),
415 ILCS 5/3.315
(2002),
provides the following
definition:
“Person” is any individual,
partnership, co-
partnership,
firm,
company,
limited liability
company,
corporation, association,
joint
stock company,
trust, estate,
political
subdivision,
state agency,
or any other
legal
entity,
or their legal representative,
agent
or assigns.
Respondent
is a “person” as the term is defined
in Section 3.315
of the Act.
ARGUMENT
-
COUNTS IV AND 1
The Act and the Illinois Pollution Control Board
(“Board”)
Air Pollution Regulations
state that no person shall construct or
operate an emissions source without first obtaining proper
permits from the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”)
.
Count
IV of the Complaint alleges that Respondent
constructed an emissions source without a permit while Count V of
the Complaint alleges that Respondent operated an emissions
source without a permit.
Section 9(b) of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/9(b) (2002), provides as
4
follows:
No person shall:
*
*
*
(b)
Construct,
install, or operate any
equipment,
facility, vehicle,
vessel,
or
aircraft capable of causing or contributing
to air pollution or designed to prevent air
pollution,
of any type designated by Board
regulations, without a permit granted by the
Agency,
or in violation of any conditions
imposed by such permit.
Section 3.115 of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/3.115
(2002), provides
the following definition:
“Air pollution”
is the presence in the
atmosphere of one or more contaminants in
sufficient quantities and of such
characteristics and duration as to be
injurious to human,
plant,
or animal
life,
to
health,
or to property,
or to unreasonably
interfere with the enjoyment of life or
property.
Section 3.165 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.165
(2002), provides
the following definition:
“Contaminant”
is any solid,
liquid,
or
gaseous matter, any odor,
or any form of
energy,
from whatever source.
VOM is
a contaminant,
as that term is defined in Section 3.165 of
the Act,
415 ILCS 5/3.165
(2002).
Dryer #2
is equipment that is
capable of causing or contributing to air pollution since
it is a
source of VOM.
Section 201.142 of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,
35
Ill. Adm. Code 201.142, provides as follows:
5
Construction Permit Required
No person shall cause or allow the
construction of any new emission source or
any new air pollution control equipment, or
cause or allow the modification of any
existing emission source or air pollution
control equipment,
without first obtaining a
construction permit from the Agency,
except
as provided in Section 201.146.
Section 201.143
of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,
35
Ill. Adm. Code 201.143, provides,
in pertinent part,
as follows:
Operating Permit for New Sources
No person shall cause or allow the operation
of any new emission source or new air
pollution control equipment of a type for
which a construction permit is required by
Section 201.142 without first obtaining an
operating permit from the Agency,
except for
such testing operations as may be authorized
by the construction permit.
Section 201.102 of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,
35
Ill. Adm. Code 201.102,
provides,
in pertinent part,
the
following definitions;
“Emission Source”: any equipment or facility
of
a type capable of emitting specified air
contaminants to the atmosphere.
*
*
*
“New Emission Source”: any emission source,
the construction or modification of which is
commenced on or after April
14,
1972.
*
*
*
“Specified Air Contaminant”: any air
contaminant as to which this Subtitle
contains emission standards or other specific
limitations and any contaminant regulated
6
Illinois pursuant to Section 9.1 of the Act.
VOM is
a “specified air contaminant”
as defined by Section
201.102
of the Board Air Pollution Regulations.
Dryer #2
is
a
“new emission source”
as that term is defined by Section 201.102
of the Board Air Pollution Regulations because it
is capable of
emitting VOM.
Respondent installed Dryer #2
at its facility without first
obtaining a permit from the Agency.
Admitted by Respondent in
Exhibit B
-
Response No.
40.
In addition, Respondent operated
Dryer #2 without first obtaining a permit from the Agency.
Admitted by Respondent in Exhibit B
-
Response No~41.
(Note
that the year “2996”
in Response No.
41 is obviously a typo and
should be
“1996” which is what the corresponding No. 41
is in the
Complainant’s First Request for Admission of Facts
-
See Exhibit
C.)
Thus,
Respondent violated Section 9(b)
of the Act and
Sections 201.142 and 201.143 of the Board Air Pollution
Regulations as alleged in Counts IV and V of the Complaint.
Summary judgment for Counts IV and V of the Complaint should be
awarded to Complainant.
ARGUMENT
-
COUNTS VII AND VIII
The Act and the associated provisions in the Code of Federal
Regulations state that petroleum dry cleaners may only use
solvent recovery dryers with cartridge filters.
In addition,
the
7
dry cleaner must do an initial test on the dryer to verify flow
rate of
recovered solvent.
Count VII of the Complaint alleges
that Respondent did not install a solvent recovery dryer with a
cartridge filter while Count VIII of the Complaint alleges that
Respondent did not perform the initial test.
Section 9.1(d)
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/9.1(d) (2002),
provides,
in pertinent part,
as follows:
No person shall:
(1)
violate any provisions of Sections 111,
112,
165 or
173 of the Clean Air Act,
as now
or hereafter amended, or federal regulations
adopted pursuant thereto; or
(2)
construct,
Lnstall, modify or operate
any equipment,
building,
facility,
source or
installation which is subject to regulation
under Sections 111,
112,
165 or 173 of the
Clean Air Act,
as now or hereafter amended,
except in compliance with the requirements of
such Sections and federal regulations adopted
pursuant thereto,
and no such action shall be
undertaken without
a permit granted by the
Agency or in violation of any conditions
imposed by such permit.
Sections 60.620 to 60.625 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations,
40 C.F.R.
60.620-60.625, were adopted pursuant to
Section 111 of the Clean Air Act.
Sections 60.620 to 60.625 of
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations
set standards of
performance for petroleum dry cleaners.
Section 60.622 of Title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
40 C.F.R.
60.622,
provides,
in pertinent part,
as
follows:
8
Standards for volatile organic compounds
(a) Each affected petroleum solvent dry
cleaning dryer that is installed at a
petroleum dry cleaning plant after December
14,
1982,
shall be a solvent recovery dryer.
The solvent recovery dryer(s)
shall be
properly installed,
operated and maintained.
(b)
Each affected petroleum solvent filter
that is installed at
a petroleum dry cleaning
plant after December 14,
1982,
shall be
a
cartridge filter.
Cartridge filters shall be
drained in their sealed housings for at least
8 hours prior to their removal.
Respondent installed Dryer #2
in 1996,
well after December
14,
1982.
Dryer #2
is not a solvent recovery dryer,
and it lacks
a cartridge filter.
Admitted by Respondent in Exhibit B
-
Response No.
17 and 19.
Section 60.624 of Title 40 of the Code of
Federal
Regulations,
40 C.F.R.
60.624, provides,
in pertinent part,
as
follows:
Test methods and procedures
Each owner or operator of an affected
facility subject to the provisions of
§60.622(a)
shall perform an initial test
to
verify that the flow rate of recovered
solvent from the solvent recovery dryer at
the termination of the recovery cycle
is no
greater than 0.05 liters per minute.
This
test shall be conducted for a duration of no
less than
2 weeks during which no less than
50 percent of the dryer loads shall
be
monitored for their
final recovered solvent
flow rate.
Respondent did not initially test Dryer
#2 to verify the
flow rate
of recovered solvent after Dryer #2 was installed in
9
1996.
Admitted by Respondent in Exhibit B
-
Response Nos.
45,
46, and
47.
In its Responses addressing the test for the verification of
flow rate of recovered solvent
in Dryer #2, Respondent claimed
that there was no test available.
Complainant assumes that
Respondent
is referring to a commercially available test or a
test performed by a technical consultant for the verification of
flow rate.
The remainder of Section 60.624 of Title 40 of the
Code of Federal Regulations spells out the manner in which the
test
is to be conducted:
The suggested point for measuring the flow
rate of recovered solvent is the outlet of
the solvent-water separator.
Near the end of
the recovery cycle,
the entire flow of
recovered solvent should be diverted to a
graduated cylinder.
As the recovered solvent
collects in the graduated cylinder, the
elapsed time is monitored and recorded in
periods of greater than or equal to
1 minute.
At the same time,
the volume of solvent in
the graduated cylinder is monitored and
recorded to determine the volume
of recovered
solvent that is collected during each time
period.
The recovered solvent flow rate is
calculated by dividing the volume of solvent
collected per period by the length of time
elapsed during the period and converting the
result with appropriate factors into units of
liters per minute.
The recovery cycle and
the monitoring procedure should continue
until the flow rate of solvent
is less than
or equal to 0.05 liter per minute.
The type
of articles cleaned and the total length of
the cycle should then be recorded.
Respondent would have only required a graduated cylinder,
a
l0
stopwatch,
pen and paper,
a knowledge
of simple arithmetic, and
time to meastare every other dryer load for two weeks.
Respondent
cannot hide behind the excuse that a test was not available since
Respondent’s owners,
operators,
or employees could have easily
performed this simple test.
For the sake of argument,
even if the test was complicated,
such circumstances would not excuse Respondent from performing
the test.
Respondent failed to perform the test by its own.
admission and thereby violated the Act and the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Thus,
Respondent violated Sections 60.622 and 60.624 of
Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations and Section 9.1(d)
of
the Act as alleged in Counts VII and VIII of the Complaint.
Summary judgment for Counts VII and VIII
of the Complaint should
be awarded to Complainant.
CONCLUSION
WHEREFORE,
for the foregoing reasons,
Complainant
respectfully request the Board to:
1.
Enter an order granting summary judgment for
Complainant and against Respondent for Counts
IV,
V,
VII, and
VIII in the Complaint filed with the Board
in this matter;
2.
Order that Respondent is
liable for penalties for
violations of the Act, the Board Air Pollution Regulations, and
the Code of Federal Regulations;
11
3.
Assess the Attorney General’s fees and costs in this
case against Respondent; and
4.
Order any other relief it deems just and appropriate.
12
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
ex
rel. LISA
MADIGAN
Attorney General of the
State of Illinois
MATTHEW 3. DUNN,
Chief
Environmental Enforcement/
Asbestos Litigation Division
By:
JOEL STERNSTEIN
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188
W. Randolph St. 20th Fl.
Chicago,
Illinois 60601
(312)
814-6986
13
RECEIVED
CLERK’S
OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
OCT
1
5
2002
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
STATE
OF
IWNOIS
by
JAMES
E.
RYAN,
Attorney
)
Pollution
Control Board
General
of
the
State
of
Illinois
Complainant,
)
v.
)
No. PCB 03-~(
DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS,
INC.,
____________
an Illinois corporation,
Respondent.
)
~Exh1bitA...
NOTICE OF FILING
TO:
See Attached Service List
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on October 15,
2002,
the People of
the State of Illinois filed with the Illinois Pollution Control
Board a Complaint,
true and correct
copies of which are attached
and hereby served upon you.
Failure to file an answer to this complaint within 60 days
may have severe consequences.
Failure to answer will mean that
all allegations in the complaint will be taken
as if admitted for
purposes of this proceeding.
If you have any questions about
this procedure, you should contact the hearing officer assigned
to this proceeding,
the Clerk’s Office, or an attorney.
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES E. RYAN
Attorney General
State
of Illinois
BY:
________
JOEL 3. STERNSTEIN
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph St., 20th Floor
Chicago,
Illinois
60601
(312)
814-6986
THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
CLERK’S
OFFICE
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
OCT
1
5
2002
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
)
STATE OFIWNQJS
by
JAMES
E.
RYAN, Attorney
)
Pollution
Control Bo~rd
General
of
the
State
of
Illinois
)
Complainant,
No. PCB 03-St
DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS,
INC.,
an Illinois corporation,
)
Respondent.
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES
complainant,
PEOPLE
OF
THE
STATE
OF
ILLINOIS,
by
JAMES
E.
RYAN,
Attorney
General
of
the
State
of
Illinois,
complains
of
Respondent, DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS,
INC.,
as follows:
COUNT I
AIR POLLUTION
1.
This Complaint
is brought on behalf of the People
(“Complainant”)
by the Attorney General on his own motion and
upon the request of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Illinois EPA”) pursuant to the terms and provisions of Section
31 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”),
415 ILCS
5/31(2002).
2.
The Illinois EPA is an administrative agency of the
State
of Illinois,
created pursuant to Section 4 of the Act, 415
ILCS 5/4
(2002), and charged,
inter alia,
with the duty of
9~forcingthe Act.
This Complaint is brought pursuant to Section
31 of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/31 (2002)
1
their legal representative,
agent or
assigns.
10.
Respondent
is
a “person”
as the term is defined in
Section 3.315 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.315
(2002).
11.
Section 3.165
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/3.165
(2002),
provides the following definition:
“Contaminant”
is any solid,
liquid, or
gaseous matter, any odor,
or any form of
energy,
from whatever source.
12.
VOM is a contaminant,
as that term is defined in
SectiOfl 3.165 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.165
(2002).
13.
Section 3.115
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/3.115
(2002),
provides the following definition:
“Air pollution”
is the presence in the
atmosphere of one or more contaminants in
sufficient quantities and .of such
characteristics and duration as to be
injurious to human,
plant,
or animal life,
to
health,
or to property, or to unreasonably
interfere with the enjoyment of life or
property.
14.
Section 9(a)
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/9(a) (2002),
provides as follows:
No person shall:
(a)
Cause or threaten or allow the discharge
or emission of any contaminant into the
environment in any State
so as to cause or
tend to cause air pollution in Illinois,
either alone
or in combination with
contaminants from other sources,
so as to
violate regulations or standards adopted by
the Board under this Act;
15.
Section 201.141 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
3
the Act,
415 ILCS 5/9(a) (2002),
and Section 201.141 of the
Board
Air pollution Regulation,
35
Ill. A±U.Code 201.141;
3.
Ordering Respondent to cease and desist from further
violations of Section 9(a)
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/9(a) (2002),
and
Sectiofi 201.141 of the Board Air Pollution Regulation,
35
Ill.
Adm. code 201.141;
4.
Assessing against Respondent a civil penalty of Fifty
Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00)
for each violation of the Act and
pertinent Board Air Pollution Regulations,
and an additional
civil penalty of Ten Thousand Dollars
($10,000.00)
for each day
of violation;
s.
Taxing all costs in this action pursuant
to Section
42(f)
of the Act, including attorney,
expert witness and
consultant
fees,
against Respondent;
and
6.
Granting such other relief
as the Board deems
appropriate and just.
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF STANDARDS FOR PETROLEUM SOLVENT DRY CLEANERS
1.
-
14.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference
herein paragraphs
1 through 14 of Count
I as paragraphs
1 through
13 of this Count
II.
15.
Section 218.607 of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,
3~Ill. Mm.
Code 218.607, provides as follows:
5
and exposure to the atmosphere.
19.
Neither Dryer #1 nor Dryer #2 have a cartridge
filtration system.
20.
Respondent,
by its conduct as alleged herein, violated
Sectiofl 9(a) of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/9 (a) (2002)
,
and Section
218.607 of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm. Code
218.607.
WHEREFORE,
Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully requests that the Board enter a judgment in favor of
Complainant and against Respondent,
DRAW DRAPE
CLEANERS,
INC.,
on
Count II:
1.
Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time
Respondent will be required to answer the allegations herein;
2.
Finding that Respondent has violated Section 9(a)
of
the Act,
415
ILCS 5/9(a) (2002), and Section 218.607 of the Board
Air pollution Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 218.607;
3.
Ordering Respondent
to cease and desist from further
violations of Section 9(a)
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/9(a) (2002),
and
Section 218.607 of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,
35
Iii.
Adm. Code 218.607;
4.
Assessing against Respondent a civil penalty of Fifty
Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00)
for each violation of the Act and
pertinent Board Air Pollution Regulations, and an additional
civil penalty of Ten Thousand Dollars
($10,000.00)
for each day
7
requirements of Section 218.607 (b) (2) of the Board Air Pollution
RegulationS,
35
Iii. Mm. Code 218.607(b) (2)
18.
Respondent has failed to follow the methods described
in EPA-450/3-82009
(1982)
in order to demotistrate compliance
with sections 218.607 (a)
(2)
and 218.607(b)
(1)
of the Board Air
Pollution Regulations,
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 218.607 (a) (2)
and
(b) (1),
for both Dryer #1 and Dryer #2.
19.
Respondent,
by its conduct as alleged herein, violated
Section 9(a)
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/9 (a) (2002)
,
and Section
218.610 of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,
35
Ill. Mm.
Code
218.610.
WHEREFORE,
Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully requests that the Board enter a judgment in favor of
Complainant and against Respondent, DRAW
DRAPE
CLEANERS,
INC.,
on
Count III:
1.
Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time
Respondent will be required to answer the allegations herein;
2.
Finding that Respondent has violated Section 9(a)
of
the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9(a) (2002), and Section 218.610 of the Board
Air pollution Regulations,
35 Ill. Mm.
Code 218.610;
3.
Ordering Respondent to cease and desist from further
violations of Section 9(a)
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/9(a) (2002),
and
SectiOfl 218.610 of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 218,610;
9
(“Board”) Air Pollution Regulations,
35
Iii.
Adru.
Code 201.102,
provides1
in pertinent part,
the following definitions:
“Emission Source”: any equipment or facility
of
a type ca ab
of emitting specified air
contaminantt
o the atmosphere.
“New Emission Source”: any emission source,
the construction or modification of which is
commenced on or after April
14,
1972.
“Specified.Air Contaminant”: any air
contaminant as to which this Subtitle
contains emission standards or other specific
limitations and any contaminant regulated
Illinois pursuant to Section 9.1 of the Act.
15.
VOM is a specified air contaminant as defined by
Section 201.102 of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adrn.
Code 201.102.
16,
Dryer #2
is
a “new emission source”
as that term is
defined by Section 201.102 of the Board Air Pollution
Regulations,
35
Ill. Adm. Code 201.102 because
it
is capable. of
emitting VOM.
17.
Section 201.142 of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,
35
fli.
Adm. Code 201.142, provides as follows:
Section 201.142 Construction Pertait Required
No person shall cause or allow the
construction of any new emission source or
any new air pollution control equipment,
or
cause or allow the modification of any
existing emission source or air pollution
control equipment, without first obtaining a
construction permit from the Agency,
except
as provided in Section 201.146.
18.
Respondent installed Dryer *2 at its facility without
11
42(f)
of the Act,
including attorney,
expert witness and
consultant fees, against Respondent;
and
6.
Granting such other relief
as the Board deems
appropriate and just.
coun
v
OPERATION OF AN EMISSIONS SOURCE~WITHOUT A PERMIT
1-16.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference
herein paragraphs
1 through 16 of Count IV as paragraphs
1
through 16 of this Count V.
17.
Section 201.143 of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,
35
flJ.. Mm. Code 201;143, provides,
in pertinent part,
as
follows:
Operating Permit for New Sources
No pe±’sonshall cause or allow the operation
of any new emission source or new air
pollution control equipment
of a type for
which a construction permit
is required by
Section 201.142 without first obtaining an
operating permit from the Agency,
except for
such testing operations
as may be authorized
by the construction permit.
18.
Since
1996,
Respondent has operated and continues to
operate Dryer #2 without
first obtaining a permit from the
Illinois EPA.
19.
Respondent, by its conduct as alleged herein, violated
Section 201.143 of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 201.143, and Section 9(b)
of the Act,
415 ILCS
5/9W) (2002).
13
coumrr
VI
VIOLATION OF FESOP CONDITION
5
1-14.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference
herein paragraphs
1 through 14 of Count IV as paragraphs
1
through 14 of this Count VI.
15.
Respondent was granted a FESOP to operate its emissions
sources.
The FESOP was granted on January 13,
1998 and expires
on January 13,
2003.
16.
Respondent’s FESOP,
No.
95100005, provides,
in
pertinent part,
the following condition:
*
*
*
5.
The
Permittee
shall
comply
with
the
standards,
operating practices,
inspections and repair of leaks,
and the testing and monitoring
requirements for petroleum solvent
dry cleaners as specified in 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 218.607 through
218.610.
17.
By violating the Board Air Pollution Regulations
at
SectiOns 218.607 and 218.610,
35
Ill. Adm. Code 218.607 and
218.610, Respondent also violated Condition No.
S of its FESOP
No.
95100005.
By violating Condition No.
5 of its FESOP No.
95100005, Respondent also violated 9(b)
of the Act,
415 ILCS
5/9(b) (2002).
WHEREFORE,
Complainant,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
respectfully requests that the Board enter a judgment in favor of
complainant and against Respondent,
DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS,
INC.,
on
15
1..
Section 9.1(d)
of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/9.1(d) (2002),
provides~ in pertinent part,
as follows:
No person shall:
(2.)
violate any provisions of Sections 111,
112,
165 or 173 of the Clean Air Act,
as now
or hereafter amended, or federal regulations
adopted pursuant thereto;
or
(2)
construct,
install, modify or operate
any equipment,
building,
facility, source or
installation which is subject to regulation
under Sections
111,
112,
165 or 173 of the
Clean Air Act, as now or hereafter amended,
except in compliance with the requirements of
such Sections and federal regulations adopted
pursuant thereto,
and no such action shall be
undertaken without a permit granted by the
Agency or in violation of any conditions
imposed by such permit.
12.
Sections 60.620 to 60.625 of Title 40 of the Code of
Federal Regulations,
40 C.F.R.
60.620-60.625, were adopted
pursuant to Section 111
of the Clean Air Act.
13.
Sections 60.620 to
6.\0.625 of Title 40
of the Code of
Federal Regulations,
40 C.F.R.
60.620-60.625,
set standards of
performance for petroleum dry cleaners.
14.
Section 60.622 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
Regulations1
40 C.F.R.
60.622 provides,
in pertinent part,
as
follows:
Standards for volatile organic compounds
(a) Each affected petroleum solvent dry
cleaning dryer that is installed at a
petroleum dry cleaning plant after December
14,
1982,
shall be a solvent recovery dryer.
The solvent recovery dryer(s)
shall be
17
Thousand Dollars
($50,000.00)
for each violation of the Act and
pertinent Board Air Pollution Regulations,
and an additional
civil penalty of Ten Thousand Dollars
($10,000.00)
for each day
of violation;
5.
Taxing all costs in this action pursuant to Section
42(f)
of the Act,
including attorney,
expert witness and
consultant
fees,
against Respondent;
and
6.
Granting such other relief as the Board deems
appropriate and just.
COUNT VIII
FAILURE
TO PERFORM AN INITIAL FLOW
RATE
TEST ON DRYER #2
2.
-
15.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference
herein paragraphs
1 through 15 of Count VII
as paragraphs
1
through 16 of this Count VIII.
16.
Section 60.624 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal
RegulatiOns,
40 C.F.R.
60.624, provides, in pertinent part,
as
follows:
Test methods and procedures
Each owner or operator of an affected
facility subject to the provisions of
§60.622(a)
shall perform an initial test
to
verify that the flow rate of recovered
solvent from the solvent recovery dryer at
the termination of the recovery cycle is no
greater than 0.05 liters per minute.
This
test shall be conducted for a duration of no
less than 2 weeks during which no less than
50 percent of the dryer loads shall be
monitored for their final recovered solvent
flow rate.
19
of violation;
5.
Taxing all costs in this action pursuant to Section
42(f)
of the Act, including attorney,
expert witness and
consultant
fees,
against Respondent;
and
6.
Granting such other relief as the Board deems
appropriate and just.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
ex
rel.
JNIES
E. RYAN, Attorney
General of the State of Illinois
MATTHEW
J. DUNN,
Chief
Environmental Enforcement!
Asbestos Litigation Division
~
~~~____
RoS~M~j&..cAzEAU,C~&Qf~
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney Genera!
~nse1:
JOEL’ J. STERNSTEIM
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph St.,
20th
Floor
Chicago, Illinois
60601
(312)
814-6986
C,\~oe1
-
case
Document,\Draw
Drape\Cornplaint.w$
21
CERTIFICATE~0F SERVICE
I,
JOEL J.
STERNSTEIN,
an Assistant Attorney General,
certify that on the 15th day of October,
2002,
I caused to be
served by First Class Mail the foregoing Complaint to the parties
named on the attached service list,
by depositing same in postage
prepaid envelopes with the United States Postal Service located
at 100 West Randolph Street,
Chicago,
Illinois 60601.
JOEL J.
STERNSTEIN
c\Joel
.
Case
Dccuments\Oraw
Drape\coinplaint
.
notice
of
1i3.ing.wpd
BEFORE THE RLfl”~OIS
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE
OF THE
STATE OF
ILLiNOIS
Complainant,
DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS, INC.,
an Illinois corporation,
Respondent
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
No.PCB 03-51
(Enforcement
-
Air)
DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS’ RESPONSE
TO FIRST REQUEST TO ADMIT
To:
Ms. Maureen Wozniak,
Esq.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021
North Grand Avenue East
Springfield, Illinois
62702
Telephone:
(217)-782-5544
Fax:
(217) 782-9807
Joel I. Sternstein
Assistant Attorney
General
Environmental Bureau
188W. Randolph St.
20th
Floor
Chicago, Illinois
60601
Telephone:
(3 12)-814-6986
Fax:
(312)
814-2347
Respondent Draw Drape Cleaners, Inc. (collectively “Respondent”), by their attorneys,
Weissberg and Associates, Ltd., respond to Complainant’s First Request for Admission ofFacts
on Respondent Draw Drape Cleaners, Inc. (“Requests”),
and states:
1.
Please admit that at all times relevant to the Complaint, Respondent was and
is an
Illinois corporation
duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of Illinois and is in
good standing.
RESPONSE:
Admit
2.
Please admit that at all times relevant to the Complaint,
Respondent has
operated
the facility.
Exhibit
RESPONSE:
Admit
3.
Please
admit thatRespondent operates a petroleum
solvent
dry cleaning
operation
at its facility to clean drapes.
RESPONSE:
Admit
4.
Please admit that Respondent installed Dryer #1
at the facility sometime prior to
1981 and continues to operate Dryer #1.
RESPONSE:
Admit
5.
Please admit that Dryer #1
emitted VOM into the air from the time that it was
installed until the present.
RESPONSE:
Admit
6.
Please
admit thatRespondent installed Dryer #2
at the facility in 1996
and
continues to operate Dryer #2.
RESPONSE:
Respondent admits they operated Dryer
#2
until the WAInspector told
Respondent
that Dryer #2 was in violation, Respondent denies that they continue to
operate
Dryer #2.
7.
Please admit thatDryer #2 emittedVOM after it was installed until sometime in
2001 or 2002.
RESPONSE: Admit
2
8.
Please
admit that Dryer #2 was used to dry clean drapes from
the time it was
installed until sometime in 2001 or 2002.
RESPONSE:
Respondents admits Dryer #2
was used occasionally to dry
clean drapes
but states it was mainly used to fluff materials before pressing.
9.
Please admit that Dryer
#2 has only been used for “fluffing”
drapes since
sometime in 2001
or 2002.
RESPONSE:
Admit
10.
Please admit that Dryer
#1
is a petroleum solvent
dryer.
RESPONSE:
Admit
11.
Please admit that Dryer #2 is a petroleum solvent dryer.
RESPONSE:
Admit
12.
Please
admit that Respondent uses naptha as
a solvent in its
dry cleaning
operations in Dryer #1.
RESPONSE:
Admit
—I
13.
Please admit that Respondent used naptha as a solvent
in its dry cleaning
operations
in Dryer #2
at those times when it performed dry cleaning operations
in Dryer #2.
RESPONSE:
Admits that naptha was used occasionally in Dryer #2
14.
Please admit that vapors from Dryer #1
have never been recovered.
RESPONSE:
Admit
15.
Please admit that v
pors from Dryer
#2 have never been recovered.
RESPONSE:
Admit
16.
Please admit that Dryer #1
is not a solvent recovery dryer.
RESPONSE:
Admit
17.
Please admit that Dryer #2 is not
a solvent recovery
dryer.
RESPONSE:
Admit
18.
Please admit that Dryer #1
lacks
a cartridge filter.
RESPONSE:
Admit
19.
Please admit that Dryer #2
lacks a cartridge filter.
4
RESPONSE:
Admit
20.
Please admit
that an illinois EPA inspector was at the facility on January
17,
2001.
RESPONSE:
Admit
21.
Please admit that
an Illinois EPA inspector was
at the facility on march 29,
2001.
RESPONSE:
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in
¶
21
due to lack
of knowledge.
22.
Please admit
that the current registered
agent for Draw Drape is Richard
J.
Zell.
RESPONSE:
Admit
23.
Please admit that the cunent president ofDraw Drape
is
Steven M. Press.
RESPONSE:
Admit
24.
Please admit
that Steven M. Press owns
50
of the roscoe Street Partnership.
RESPONSE:
Admit
25.
Please admit that
RichardS.
Zell owns 50
ofthe Roscoe
Street partnership.
RESPONSE:
Admit
26.
Please admit
that Steven M. Press owns50
ofthe Illinois corporation
“American Drapery Cleaners
and
Flameproofers,
Inc.”
RESPONSE:
Admit
27.
Please admit that Richard
1.
Zell owns50
ofthe Illinois corporation “American
Drapery CleanersandFlameproofers,
Inc.”
RESPONSE:
Admit
28.
Please admit that in June2001, Richard
S.
Zell ofDraw Drape, Inc. received a
ViolationNotice letter from IllinoisEPA.
RESPONSE:
Admit
29.
Please admit that said ViolationNotice letterfrom Illinois
EPA was numbered A
2001 00103.
RESPONSE:
Respondent neither admits
nor
denies the allegations in ¶29 due to lack
of knowledge.
30.
Please admit that neither Richard
I.
Zell nor any other person representing Draw
Drape, Inc. responded to the June 2001 illinois EPA Violation Notice letter
within
45 days of
receipt ofthe Violation Notice letter.
RESPONSE:
Denied
6
31:
Please admit that for Dryer #1
Respondent has failed to
limit
VON! emissions to
the atmosphere to
an average of
3.5 kilograms ofVON!per 100 kilograms dryweight articles
cleaned.
1~ESPONSE:
Denied
32.
Please admit that
for Dryer #2, Respondent failed to limit VOM emissions to the
atmosphere to an average of3.5
kilograms ofVON! per 100
kilograms dry weight articles
cleaned between the installation of Dryer #2
and the time at which dry
cleaning operations
ceased in 2001
or 2002.
RESPONSE:
Denied
33.
Please admit
that for Dryer
3
Respondent has failed to
reduce VOM content in all
filtration wastes to
1.0 kilogram or less per
100 kilograms of articles dry
cleaned, before disposal
and exposure to the atmosphere.
RESPONSE:
Denied
34.
Please admitthat for Dryer #2, between the installation ofDryer #2
in
1996 and
the time that dry
cleaning operations were stopped in 2001
or 2002,
Respondent has
failed to
reduce VOM
content in all
filtration wastes to
1.0 kilogram or less
per
100
kilograms ofarticles
dry cleaned, before disposal and exposure to the atmosphere.
RESPONSE:
Denied
35.
Please admit that Respondent failed to visually inspect Dryer
#1
in order to
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Section 218,607(b)(2) of the Board’s Air
Pollution Regulations,
35
111.
Adm.
Code 2l8.607(b)(2),
7
RESPONSE:
Denied
36.
Please admit that Respondent failed to visually inspectDryer #2 in orderto
demonstrate corppliance with the requirements of Section 218.607(b)(2) of the Board’s Air
Pollution Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 218.607(b)(2).
RESPONSE:
Denied
37.
Please admit that Respondent failed to follow the methods
described in EPA-
450/3-82-009 (1982) in order to demonstrate compliance with Sections 218.607(a)(2) and
21 8.607(b)(i) of the 218.607(a)(2) and (b) (1),
for Dryer #1.
RESPONSE:
Denied
38.
Please admit that Respondent has failed to follow the methods described in EPA-
450/3-82-009 (1982) in order to demonstrate
compliance with Sections 218.607(a) (2) and
218,607(b)
(1) ofthe board’s Air Pollution Regulations,
35
111.
Adm.
Code
218.607(a) (2) and
(b) (1), for Dryer #2.
RESPONSE:
Denied
39,
Please admit that Dryer #2 is
a “new emission source” as that term in defined by
Section 201.102 ofthe Board Air Pollution Regulations,
35
ill.
Adm.
Code 201.102,
because it is
capable ofemitting VOM.
RESPONSE:
Denied
8
40.
Please
admit thatRespondent installed Dryer #2 at its facility without first
obtaining a permit from the Illinois EPA.
RESPONSE:
Admit
41.
Please admit that since 2996, Respondent has operated and continues to
operate
Dryer #2 at its
facility without a permit from the Illinois EPA.
RESPONSE:
Admit
42.
Please admit
that Respondent was granted aPESO? to operate its emissions
sources at its facility.
RESPONSE:
Admit
43.
Please admit that saidPESO? was granted on January 13, 1998 and expircd
on
January 13,
2003.
RESPONSE:
Denied
44.
Please admit that Respondent’s PESO? No.
95100005,
provided,
in pertinent part,
the following condition:
RESPONSE:
Respondent neither admits nor denies the allegations in ¶44 as the
PESO? speaks for
itself
45.
Please
admit that Respondent did not perform an initial test on Dryer #2 to
veri&
that the flow rate of recovered solvent from Dryer #2 was no greater than
.05 liters per minute.
RESPONSE:
Admits
but states there is
no test available.
9
46.
Please admit that Respondent did not perform said initial test for a duration of at
least 2 weeks.
RESPONSE:
Admits but states there is no test available.
47.
Please admit that Respondent ,did notperform said initial test on Dryer #2 for
at
least 50
percent of the dryer loans during said 2 weeks and did not monitor those loads fo~
‘theft
final recovered solvent flow rate.
RESPONSE:
Admits but states there is no test available.
DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS, INC., an
Illinois corporation
By:
One oftheir attorneys
Ariel Weissberg, Esq.
JohnH. Redfield,
Esq.
Michele Mary Rocawich, Esq.
Weissberg and Associates, Ltd.
401
S. LaSalle
St.,
Suite 403
Chicago, IL
60605
312/663-0004
FAX: 312/663-1514
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Michele Rocawich,
certify that on April
30, 2003,
we served this Draw Drape Cleaners
Response to Request to Admit on the above-named counsels by
regular mail.
/~~~Li
Michele Rocawich
10
COUNTY
OFCOOK
)
)
SS
STATE OF ILLINOIS
VERIFICATION
I, Richard Zell, being
duly sworn,
state I have read DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS’
RESPONSEJO FIRST
REQUEST TO ADIVUT and all the statements in this Response are true
and correct to the best of my knowledge
and belief.
‘;.v/
/
&~
RJCHAtW ZELL
12
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
complainant,
v.
)
No.
PCB 03-51
(Enforcement
-
Air)
DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS,
INC.,
an Illinois corporation,
)
Respondent.
)
~
COMPLAINANT’S FIRST REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF FACTS
ON RESPONDENT DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS,
INC.
complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by LISA
MAIJIGAN, Attorney General of the State of Illinois, pursuant to
Section 101.616 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s
procedural Regulations and Illinois Supreme Court Rule 216,
hereby serves the following First Request for Admission
of. Facts
upon
Respondent
DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS,
INC.,
to admit the truth of
the following facts
in writing within 28 days from the date of
service
hereof.
INSTRUCTIONS AND DEFINITIONS
1.
With
respect
to
any
requested
admission
which
Respondent
refuses
to
answer
because
of
a
claim
of
privilege,
provide
a
statement
signed
by
an
attorney
representing Respondent
setting forth as to each:
a.
the nature of
the
claim
of
privilege;
b.
the
statute,
rule
or
decision
which
is
claimed
to
give
rise
to
the
claim
of
privilege;
c.
all
facts
relied
upon
in
support
of
the
claim
of
privilege;
d.
an identification
of
all
documents
related
to
the
claim of privilege;
e.
an identification of all persons having knowledge
of
any
facts
related
to
the
claim
of
privilege;
1
and
f.
an identification of all events,
transactions or
occurrences related to the claim of privilege.
2.
For all requested admissions which Respondent denies or
which Respondent can neither admit nor deny, pursuant to Illinois
Supreme Court Rule 216(c), Respondent is required to provide
Plaintiff with a sworn statement denying specifically the matters
of which admission is requested or setting forth in detail the
reasons why Respondent cannot truthfully admit or deny those
matters.
3.
“Complaint”
shall
mean
the
Complaint
for
Civil
penalties
filed
in
this
case
by
Plaintiff
on
October
15,
2002.
4.
“Plaintiff”
shall
mean
the
Plaintiff
listed
in
the
complaint
and
any
of
his
agents,
representatives,
or
persons
who
acted
as
Plaintiff’s
representative.
5.
“Respondent”
shall refer to Draw Drape Cleaners,
Inc.,
and
the
agents,
employees,
representatives
or
any
other
person
or
persons
acting
for
or
in
concert
with
Draw
Drape
Cleaners,
Inc..
6.
“Facility”
shall mean the property located 2235-2239
West
Roscoe
Street,
Chicago,
Cook
County,
Illinois,
60618 as
referenced
in
paragraph
4
Count
I
of
the
complaint.
7.
“Act”
shall
mean
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
ACt,
415
ILCS
5/3.
et.
seq.
(2002)
8.
“Own”
means
have
good
legal
title
to,
hold
as
property,
posess.
9.
“Operate”
means
use,
exercise
control
over,
or
having
responsibility for the daily operation of.
10.
“Entity” means a corporation,
an incorporated
business,
or
a
limited
liability
company.
11.
“Current”
or
“Present”
means
the
filing
date
of
this
First
Request
for
Admissions
of
Facts.
12.
“Illinois
EPA”
means
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency.
13.
“Board” shall mean the Illinois Pollution Control
Board.
2
14.
“Person”
shall
include,
but
is
not
limited
to,
any
natural
person;
business
or
corporation,
whether
for
pzof it
or
not;
firm,
partnership,
or
other
non-corporate
business
organization;
charitable,
religious,
education,
governmental,
or
other non-profit
institution,
foundation,
body,
or other
organization; or employee,
agent, or representative of any of the
foregoing.
15.
“Or”
shall
mean
and/or
wherever
appropriate.
16.
“FESOP”
shall
mean
Federally
Enforceable
State
Operating
Permit.
17.
“VOM”
shall
mean
volatile
organic
material
or
volatile
organic
compound.
18.
“Dryer
#1”
shall
mean
the
Dryer
installed
at
the
facility
prior
to
1981
that
is
still
in
operation
at
the
facility.
19.
“Dryer
#2”
shall
mean
the
Dryer installed at the
facility
in
1996.
20.
All
terms
not
specifically
defined
herein
shall
have
their
logical
ordinary
meaning,
unless
such
terms
are
defined
in
the
Act
or
the
regulations
promulgated
thereunder,
in which case
the
appropriate
or
regulatory definitions shall apply;
FACTS
Reuuest No.
1
Please
admit
that
at
all
times
relevant
to
the
Complaint,
Respondent
was
and
is
an
Illinois
corporation
duly
organized
and
existing under the laws of the State of Illinois and is in good
standing.
.
Request No.
2
Please admit that at all times relevant to the Complaint,
Respondent
has
operated
the
facility.
~se:
3
Requ~fltNo. ~
please
admit
that
Respondent
operates
a
petroleum
solvent
dry
cleaning
operation
at
its
facility
to
clean
drapes.
Request
Nor.
4
Please
admit
that
Respondent
instaLled
Dryer
#1
at
the
facility sometime prior to 1981 and continues to operate Dryer
#1.
Request No.
S
Please
admit
that
Dryer
#1
emitted
VOM
into
the
air
from
the
time
that
it
was
installed
until
the
present.
ReqtieSt
No.
6
Please admit
that Respondent installed Dryer #2 at the
facility
in
1996
and
continues
to operate Dryer #2.
Request
No.
7
Please
admit
that
Dryer
#2
eatitted
VOM
after
it
was
installed until sometime in 2001 or 2002.
~eq~eQt No.
8
Please admit that Dryer #2 was used to dry clean drapes from
the time
it was installed until sometime in 2001 or 2002.
4
Request
No.
9
Please
admit
that
Dryer
#2
has
only
been
used
for
“fluffing”
drapes since sometime in 200.
or 2002.
Response:
Request
No.
10
Please admit that Dryer #1
is a petroleum solvent dryer.
Response:
Request
No.
i:i.
Please admit that Dryer #2
is
a petroleum solvent dryer.
Response:
Request
No.
12
Please
admit
that
Respondent
uses
naptha
as
a solvenL in its
dry
cleaning
operations
in
Dryer
#1.
Response:
Request
No.
13
Please admit that Respondent. used naptha as
a solvent in its
dry Cleaning operations in Dryer #2 at those times when it
performed dry cleaning operations in Dryer
#2.
Request
No.
14
.
.
Please admit that vapors from Dryer
#1. have never been
recovered.
Response:
5
Reques.t ~j,o.15
Please admit that vapors from Dryer #2 have never been
recovered.
g~pgflseJ.
Request No.
16
Please
admit
that
Dryer
#1 is not
a solvent recovery dryer.
Request No.
it
Please admit that Dryer #2
is not a solvent recovery dryer.
Request No.
18
Please admit that Dryer #1 lacks a cartridge filter.
~ç~pQflSe
Request No.
19
Please admit that.Dryer #2 lacks
a cartridge filter.
Request No.
20
please
admit
that
an
Illinois
EPA
inspector
was
at
the
facility on January 17,
2001.
~se:
6
Request No.
21
Please admit that an Illinois EPA inspector was
at the
facility on March 29,
2001.
Response:
Request No.
22
Please admit that the current registered agent for Draw
Drape is Richard ~J.Zell.
Response:
Request No.
23
Please admit that the current president of Draw Drape
is
Steven
N.
Press.
Response:
Requ~e5tNo.
24
Please admit that Steven M.
Press owns 50
of the Roscoe
Street Partnership.
Response:
Request No.
25
Please admit that Richard J. Zell owns
50
of the Roscoe
Street
Partnership.
Response:
Request No.
26
Please admit that Steven M. Press
owns
50
of the Illinois
corporation “American Drapery Cleaners and Flameproofers,
Inc.”
Response:
7
Reaj.iest. to.
27
please admit that Richard J.
Zell owns 50
of the Illinois
corporation “American Drapery Cleaners and Flameproofers,
Inc.”
Respons~i.
Request No.
28
Please admit that in June 2001,
Richard J.
Zell of Draw
Drape,
Inc. received a Violation Notice letter from Illinois EPA
RespoflffQI.
Requ~estNo.
29
please admit that said Violation Notice letter from Illinois
EPA was numbered A 2001 00103.
se:
RequeQt No.
30
Please
admit
that
neither
Richard
J.
Zell
nor
any
other
person
representing
Draw
Drape,
Inc.
responded to the June 2001
Illinois EPA Violation Notice letter within 45 days of receipt of
the Violation Notice letter.
Requept No.
31
Please admit that for Dryer #1 Respondent has failed to
limit VOM emissions to the atmosphere to an average of 3.5
kilograms of VOM per 100 kilograms dry weight articles cleaned.
Requ~stNo~32~
8
Please admit that for Dryer #2, Respondent failed to limit
VON emissions to the atmosphere
to an average of 3.5 kilograms of
VON
per
100
kilograms
dry
weight
articles
cleaned
between
the
installation
of
Dryer #2 and the time at which dry cleaning
operations ceased in2001 or 2002.
ResponaQi
Request No.
33
Please admit that for bryer #1 Respondent has failed to
reduce VON content in all filtration wastes to 1.0 kilogram or
less per 100 kilograms of articles dry cleaned, before disposal
and exposure to the atmosphere.
Response:
Request No.34
Please admit that for Dryer #2, between the installation of
Dryer #2
in 1996 and the time that dry cleaning operations were
stopped
in
2001
or
2002,
Respondent
has
failed
to
reduce
VON
content
in all filtratiofl wastes to 1.0 kilogram or less per 100
kilograms
of
articles
dry
cleaned,
before
disposal
and
exposure
to the atmosphere.
Resp~
Request No.
35
Please
admit
that
Respondent
failed
to
visually
inspect
Dryer
#1
in
order
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
requirements
of
section
218.607(b)
(2)
of
the
Board’s
Air
Pollution
Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
218.607(b)
(2).
Request No.
36
Please admit that Respondent failed to visually inspect
Dryer #2
in order to demonstrate compliance with the requirements
of Section 218.607(b) (2)
of
the Board’s Air Pollution
Regulations,
35
Iii.
Adm. Code 218.607(b) (2).
9
1~equ,agtNo.,37
Please
admit
that
Respondent
failed
to
follow
the
methods
described
in
EPA-~450/382009
(1982)
in
order
to
demonstrate
compliance with Sections 218.607 (a) (2)
and 218.607(b)
(1)
of the
Board’s Air Pollution Regulations,
35
Ill. Adm. Code
218.607 (a) (2)
and
(b)(1),
for Dryer #1.
~eq~~estNo.
38
Please admit that Respondent has failed to follow the
methods described in EPA-450/3-82-009
(1982)
in order to
demonstrate compliance with Sections 218.607 (a) (2)
and
218.607(b) (1)
of the Board’s Air Pollution Regulations,
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 218.607(a) (2)
and
(b)(1),
for Dryer #2.
~pQflSe:
Request No.
39
Please admit that Dryer #2
is
a “new emission source”
as
that term is defined by Section 201.102 of the Board Air
Pollution Regulations,
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 201.102, because it
is
capable of emitting VON.
Requ~5tNo, ~O
Please admit that Respondent installed Dryer #2
at its
facility without first obtaining a permit from the Illinois EPA.
~equestNo.
41
Please admit that since
1996, Respondent has operated and
I0
•continues to operate Dryer #2
at its facility without a permit
from the Illinois EPA.
Response:
Request No.
42
Please admit that Respondent was granted a FESOP to operate
its emissions sources at its facility.
Response:
Request No.
43
Please admit that said FESOP was granted on January 13,
1998
and expired on January 13,
2003.
Response:
Request No.
44
Please admit that Respondent’s FESOP No.
95100005, provided,
in pertinent part,
the following condition:
5.
The Permittee shall comply with the
standards1 operating practices,
inspections and repair of leaks,
and the testing and monitoring
requirements for petroleum solvent
dry cleaners as specified in 35
Ill. Adm. Code 218.607 through
218.610.
Response:
Request No.
45
Please admit that Respondent did not perform an initial
test on Dryer #2 to verify that the flow rate of recovered
solvent from Dryer #2 was no greater than
.05 liters per
minute.
11
Response:
Request No.
46
Please admit that Respondent did not perform said
initial
test for a duration of at least
2 weeks.
Response:
Request No.
47
Please admit that Respondent did not perform said
initial test on Dryer #2 for at least 50 peróent of the
dryer loads during said
2 weeks and did not monitor those
loads for their final recovered solvent flow rate.
Response:
Respectfully submitted,
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
ex rel.
LISA MADIGAN,
Attorney
General
of
the
State of Illinois
MATTHEW J.
DU1~IN, Chief
Environmental Enforcement!
Asbestos Litigation Division
ROSEMARIE CAZEAU,
Chief
•
Environmental Bureau
Assistant Attorney General
By:
_________________________
JOEL J. STERNSTEIN
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188 W. Randolph St.
20th Fl.
Chicago, Illinois 60601
(312)
814-6986
H:\common\Environmefltal’JOEL\caSe Documents\Draw Drap~\Discovery\request-admit
I .wpd
12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,
JOEL J.
STERNSTEIN,
an Assistant Attorney General,
certify that on the 11th day of AprIl,
2003,
I caused to be
served by First Class Mail the foregoing COMPLAINANT’S FIRST
REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF FACTS ON RESPONDENT DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS,
INC. to the parties named on the attached service list,
by
depositing same in postage prepaid envelopes with the United
States Postal Service located at 100 West Randolph Street,
Chicago,
Illinois 60601.
~
JOEL J. STERNSTEIN
SERVICE LIST
Ms. Maureen Wozniak,
Esq.
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield,
Illinois
62702
Ms. Michele Rocawich,
Esq.
Weissberg and Associates,
Ltd.
401
S. LaSalle Street,
Suite 403
Chicago,
Illinois 60605
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,
JOEL J. STERNSTEIN,
an Assistant Attorney General,
do
certify that
I• caused to be mailed this
27th
day of June,
2003,
the foregoing Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment by
first-class mail in a postage prepaid envelope and depositing
same with the United States Postal Service located in Chicago,
Illinois.
JOEL J. STERNSTEIN
