DRAW
DRAPE CLEANERS, INC.,
an
Illinois corporation,
Case
No.
PCB
03-51
(Enforcement
—
Air)
~ECE~VED
CLERK’S OFFICE
MAR
2
2004
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control
S card
Respondent.
NOTICE OF FILING
To:
Joel J. Stemstein, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General
Environmental Bureau
188
W. Randolph St.,
20th
Floor
Chicago, IL
60601
FAX:
(312)814-2347
Bradley P. Halloran
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
James R. Thompson Center, Suite 11-500
100 West Randolph Street
Chicago, Illinois 60601
FAX:
(312) 814-3669
Maureen Wozniak, Esq.
Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
1021
N. Grand Avenue, East
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, IL
62702
FAX:
(815)
782-9807
On March 2, 2004, we filed with the Clerk ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board, James
R. Thompson Center, 100W. Randolph, Suite 11-500, Chicago, Illinois 60601,
RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER
TO
AMENDED
COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL
PENALTIES, a
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
J~EOPLEOF THE
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Complainant,
V.
copy of which is
served on you.
Arid
Weissberg, Esq.
John H. Redfield, Esq.
Michele Rocawich, Esq.
Weissberg and Associates, Ltd.
401
S. LaSalle St., Suite 403
Chicago, IL
60605
Attorney No.
03125591
312-663-0004
DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS, INC.,
an
Illinois
corporation
By:
4
One oftheir attorneys
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I,Michele Rocawich, certify that on March 2, 2004, Respondents’ Answer to Amended
Complaint for Civil Penalties was served on the foregoing parties by facsimile and first class
mail.
Ar:~L~k
Michele Rocawich
RECEIVED
CLERK’S OFFICE
MAR
-
22004
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution
Control Board
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLiNOIS,
)
by LISA MADIGAN, Attorney
)
General ofthe State ofIllinois
)
Case No. PCB 03-51
)
Complainant,
)
v.
)
)
)
DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS, INC.,
)
an Illinois corporation, AMERICAN
)
DRAPERY CLEANERS
& FLAMEPROOFERS,
)
INC., an Illinois
corporation, and RICHARD
)
ZELL,
an Illinois resident,
)
)
Respondents.
)
RESPONDENTS’ ANSWER
TO
AMENDED
COMPLAINT
FOR CIVIL
PENALTIES
Respondents Draw Drape Cleaners, Inc., American Drapery Cleaners & Flameproofers,
Inc.
and Richard Zell
(collectively “Respondents”), by their attorneys,
WEISSBERG AND
ASSOCIATES, LTD.,
respond to the Amended Complaint for Civil Penalties (“Complaint”)and
state as follows:
COUNT I
AIR POLLUTION
1.
This Complaint is brought on behalfofthe People (“Complainant”) by the
Attorney General on her own motion and upon the request ofthe Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency (“Illinois EPA”) pursuant to the terms and provisions ofSection 31 ofthe
Illinois Environmental Protection Act (“Act”), 415 ILCS 5/31(2002).
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations ofparagraph
1
ofthe
Complaint and state the Complaint speaks foritself.
1
2.
Specifically, this Complaint is brought against Respondent DRAW DRAPE
CLEANERS, INC. (“DDCI”) pursuant to
Section 31
ofthe Act, 415 ILCS
5/31
(2002). This
Complaint is brought against Respondents AMERICAN DRAPERY CLEANERS &
FLAMEPROOFERS, INC. (“ADC&FI”) and RICHARD ZELL by the Attorney General on her
own motion.
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations ofparagraph 3 ofthe
Complaint and state the Act speaks for itself.
3.
The Illinois EPA is an administrative agency ofthe State ofIllinois, created
pursuant to
Section 4 oftheAct, 415 ILCS
5/4
(2002)
,
and charged,
inter alia,
with the duty of
enforcing the Act.
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor
deny the allegations ofparagraph 3 ofthe
Complaint and state the Act speaks for itself.
4.
At all times relevant to this Complaint, Respondent DDCI was and is an Illinois
corporation duly organized and
existing under the laws of the State ofIllinois and is in good
standing.
ANSWER:
Respondents admit the allegations ofparagraph 4 ofthe Complaint.
5.
At all times relevant to this Complaint, RespondentADC&FI was and is an
Illinois corporation duly organized
and existing under the lawsofthe State ofIllinois and is in
good standing.
2
ANSWER:
Respondents admit the allegations ofparagraph
5 ofthe Complaint.
6.
At
all times relevantto this Complaint, Respondent RICHARD ZELL was and is
a resident ofthe State ofIllinois.
ANSWER:
Respondents admit the allegations ofparagraph 6 ofthe Complaint.
7.
Respondents operate a facility located at 2235-2239 West Roscoe Street, Chicago,
Cook County, Illinois, 60618 (“facility”).
ANSWER:
Respondents admit the allegations ofparagraph 7 ofthe Complaint.
8.
Respondents operate a petroleum solvent dry cleaning operation at the facility to
clean drapes.
ANSWER:
Respondents admit the allegations ofparagraph 8 ofthe Complaint.
9.
Respondent RICHARD ZELL is the operator and managerofboth DDCI and
ACDAFI. RICHARD ZELL is responsible for the day-to-day operations ofboth DDCI and
ACDAFI. RICHARD ZELL is the registered agent for DDCI and the corporate secretary for
ACDAFI.
ANSWER:
Respondents admit the allegations of paragraph 9 ofthe Complaint.
10.
Respondents installed Dryer #1
at its
facility in 1980 and continue to operate
Dryer #1. Dryer #1
is a petroleum solvent dryer, but it is not a solvent recovery dryer. Dryer #1
lacks a cartridge filter.
ANSWER:
Respondents admit the allegations ofparagraph 10 ofthe Complaint.
3
11.
Respondents installed Dryer #2 at the facility in 1996 and continue to operate
Dryer#2. Dryer #2
is a petroleum solvent dryer, but it is not a solvent recovery dryer. Dryer #2
lacks a cartridge filter.
ANSWER:
Respondents admit the allegations ofparagraph
11 ofthe Complaint.
12.
Both Dryer #1
and Dryer #2 emit volatile organic material (“VOM’) to the
environment.
ANSWER:
Respondents
admit the allegations ofparagraph 12 ofthe Complaint.
13.
Section
3.3 15 ofthe Act, 415
ILCS
5/3.3
15 (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.
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations ofparagraph 13 ofthe
Complaint and state the Act speaks for itself.
14.
Each Respondent is a “person” as the term is defined in Section
3.3 15 ofthe Act,
415
ILCS 5/3
.315
(2002)
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations ofparagraph 14 ofthe
Complaint and state the Act speaks for itself.
15.
Section 3.165 ofthe Act,
415 ILCS 5/3.165 (2002), provides the following
4
definition:
“Contaminant” is any solid,
liquid, or gaseous matter, any odor, or any
form ofenergy, from whatever source.
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations ofparagraph
15 ofthe
Complaint and state the Act speaks foritself.
16.
VOM is a contaminant, as that term is defined in section 3.165 ofthe Act, 415
ILCS 5/3.165 (2002).
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations ofparagraph 16 of the
Complaint and state the Act speaks for itself.
17.
Section 3.115 ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.115 (2002)., provides the following
definition;
“Air pollution” is the presence in the atmosphere ofone ormore contaminants in
sufficient quantities and ofsuch 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 oflife orproperty.
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations ofparagraph 17 of the
Complaint and state the Act speaks for itself.
18.
Section 9(a) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/9(a) (2002), provides as follows:
No person shall:
(a)
Cause orthreaten or allow the discharge or emission ofany 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 othersources,
so as to violate regulations or standards adoptedby the Board under this Act;
5
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations ofparagraph 18 ofthe
Complaint and state the Act speaks for itself.
19.
Section 20 1.141
ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board (“Board”) Air Pollution
Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm.
Code 201.141, provides as follows:
Section
201.141 Prohibition
of
Air Pollution
No person shall cause or threaten or allow the discharge or emission of any
contaminant into the environment in any State so as, either alone or in
combination with contaminants from other sources, to cause or tend to cause air
pollution in Illinois, or so as to violate the provisions ofthis Chapter, or so as to
prevent the attainmentor maintenance ofany
applicable ambient air quality
standard.
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations ofparagraph 19 ofthe
Complaint and state the Regulations speak for themself.
20.
Respondents have emitted VOM into the atmosphere from Dryer #1
and Dryer #2
causing airpollution in violation ofthe Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit
(“FESOP”), in violation ofthe Act, and in violation of the Board’s regulations.
ANSWER:
Respondents deny the allegations ofparagraph 20 ofthe Complaint.
21.
Respondents, by their conduct allegedherein, violated Section 9(a) ofthe Act,
415 ILCS 5/9(a) (2002), and Section 201.141 ofthe Board Air Pollution Regulations, 35
III.
Adm. Code 201.141.
ANSWER:
Respondents deny the allegations ofparagraph 21
of the Complaint.
6
WHEREFORE, Respondents DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS, INC., AMERICAN
DRAPERY CLEANERS
&
FLANEPROOFERS, INC., and
RICHARD ZELL denies that
Complainant, the People ofthe State ofIllinois, by James E. Ryan, Attorney General ofthe State
ofIllinois, are entitled to any relief, prays for the dismissal ofthe Amended Complaint and for
such further relief as the Pollution Control Board deemsjust and proper.
COUNT II
VIOLATION OF STANDARDS FOR PETROLEUM
SOLVENT DRY CLEANERS
1
-
18.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs
1
through
18 of Count I as paragraphs I through
18 ofthis Count II.
ANSWER:
Respondents restate theirresponses to paragraphs
1 though
18 of the Complaint as
though fully stated here.
19.
Section 218.607 ofthe Board Air Pollution Regulations, 35
111. Adm.
Code
218.607, provides as follows:
Standards for Petroleum Solvent Dry Cleaners
a)
The owner or operator ofa petroleum solvent dry cleaning dryer shall either:
1.
Limit emissions ofVOM to
the atmosphere to
an average of3.5
kilograms ofVOM per 100 kilograms dry weight ofarticles dry
cleaned, or
2.
Install and operate a solvent recovery dryer in a manner such that
the dryer remains closed and the recovery phase continues until a
final solvent flow rate of50 milliliters per minute is attained.
b)
The owner oroperator ofa petroleum solvent filtration system shall either:
1.
Reduce the VOM content in all filtration wastes to
1.0 kilogram or
less per 100 kilograms dry weight ofarticles dry cleaned, before
disposal, and exposure to
the atmosphere, or
7
2)
Install and operate a cartridge filtration system, and drain the filter
cartridges in their sealed housings for 8 hours or morebefore their
removal.
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations ofparagraph
19 of Count II of
the Complaint arid state the Regulations speak for themself
20.
For both Dryer#1. and
Dryer #2, Respondents have failed to limit VOM emissions
to the atmosphere to an average of 3.5 kilograms ofVOM per 100 kilograms dry weight articles
cleaned.
ANSWER:
Respondents deny
the
allegations ofparagraph 20 ofCount II ofthe Complaint.
21.
NeitherDryer #1
nor Dryer #2 are solvent recovery dryers.
ANSWER:
Respondents admit the allegations ofparagraph 21
of Count II ofthe Complaint.
22.
For both Dryer #1
and Dryer#2, Respondents have failed to reduce VOM content
in all filtration wastes to
1.0 kilogram or less per 100 kilograms ofarticles dry cleanedbefore
disposal, and exposure to the atmosphere.
ANSWER:
Respondents deny the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofCount II ofthe Complaint
23.
Neither Dryer #1
nor Dryer #2 have a cartridge filtration system.
ANSWER:
Respondents admit the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofCount TIthe Complaint.
24.
Respondentsi by their conduct as alleged herein, violated Section 9(a) ofthe Act,
8
415
ILCS 5/9(a)
(2002), and Section 218.607 ofthe Board Air Pollution Regulations, 35
III.
Adrn.
Code 218.607.
ANSWER:
Respondents deny the allegations ofparagraph 24
of Count II ofthe Complaint.
WHEREFORE, Respondents DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS, NC.,
AMERICAN
DRAPERY CLEANERS & FLANEPROOFERS, iNC., and RICHARD ZELL denies that
Complainant, the People ofthe State ofIllinois, by James E.
Ryan, Attorney General ofthe
State
of Illinois, are entitled
to any relief, prays for the dismissal ofthe Amended Complaint and for
such furtherrelief as the Pollution Control Board deemsjust and proper.
COUNT III
FAILURE TO
CONDUCT ADEOUATE TESTING
1
-18.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs
1
through
18 of Count I as paragraphs
1
through 18 ofthis Count III.
ANSWER:
Respondents restate theirresponses to paragraphs
1
though 18 ofthe Complaint as
though fully stated here.
19.
Section 218.610 ofthe Board Air Pollution Regulations,
35 Ill. Adm. Code
2 18.610, provides as follows:
Testing
and Monitoring
a)
Compliance with Sections 218.607(b) (2), 218.608 and 218.609 of
this Part shall be determined by visual inspection; and
b)
Compliance with Sections 218.607 (a)
(2) and (b) (1) ofthis Part
shall be determined by methods described in EPA-450/3--82-009 (1982)
incorporated by reference in Section 218.112 ofthis Part.
9
20.
Section 2 18.607 of the Board Air Pollution Regulations, 35 Ill. Adm.
Code
218.607, sets standards for petroleum solvent dry cleaning operations.
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations ofparagraph
19 ofCount III
ofthe Complaint and state the Regulations speak forthemselves.
21.
Respondents have failed to visually inspect both Dryer #1
and Dryer #2 in order
to demonstrate compliance with the requirements ofSection 218607(b) (2) ofthe Board Air
Pollution Regulations,
35 Ill. Adm.
Code 2 18.607(b) (2).
ANSWER:
Respondents nor deny the allegations ofparagraph 21
of Count III ofthe
Complaint
22.
Respondents have 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 Air Pollution Regulations,
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 218.607
(a) (2) and (b)(l), for both
Dryer #1
and Dryer.#2.
ANSWER:
Respondents deny the allegations ofparagraph 22 of Count III ofthe Complaint
23.
Respondents, by their conduct as alleged herein, violated Section 9(a) ofthe Act,
415 ILCS 5/9(a) (2002), and Section 218.6 10 ofthe Board AirPollution Regulations, 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 218.610.
ANSWER:
Respondents deny the allegations ofparagraph 23of Count III ofthe Complaint
WHEREFORE, Respondents DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS, iNC., AMERICAN
10
DRAPERY CLEANERS
&
FLANEPROOFERS, INC., and RICHARD ZELL denies that
Complainant, the People ofthe State ofIllinois, by James E. Ryan, Attorney General ofthe State
ofIllinois, are entitled
to any relief, prays for the dismissal ofthe Amended Complaint and for
such further relief as the Pollution Control Board deemsjust and proper.
COUNT IV
CONSTRUCTION OF AN EMISSIONS SOURCE WITHOUT A PERMIT
1-16.
Complainant realleges
and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs
1
through
16 ofCount I as paragraphs
1
through 16 ofthis Count IV.
ANSWER:
Respondents restate their responses to paragraphs I though 16 ofthe Complaint as
though fully stated here.
17.
Section 9(b) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS
5/9(b) (2002), provides as follows:
No person shall:
***
(b)
Construct, install, or operate any equipment, facility, vehicle,
vessel, or aircraft capable ofcausing or contributing to airpollution or
designed to prevent airpollution, ofany type designated by Board
regulations, without a permit granted by the Agency, or in violation of
any conditions imposed by such permit.
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations ofparagraph
17
of Count IV
ofthe Complaint and state the Act speaks for itself.
18.
Section 201.102 ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board (“Board”) Air Pollution
Regulations,
35 Ill. Adm.
Code 201.102, provides in pertinent part, the following definitions:
11
“Emission Source”: any equipment or facility ofa type capable ofemitting
specified air contaminants to the atmosphere.
“New Emission Source”: any emission source, the construction or modification
ofwhich-is commenced on or after April
14,
1972.
“Specified Air Contaminant”: any air contaminant as to which this Subtitle
contains emission standards or otherspecific limitations and any contaminant
regulated Illinois pursuant to Section 9.1
ofthe Act.
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations ofparagraph
18 ofCount IV
ofthe Complaint and state the Regulations speak forthemseif
19.
VOM is a specified air contaminant as defined by Section 201.102 ofthe Board
Air Pollution Regulations,
35 III. Adm.
Code 201.102.
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations ofparagraph 19 of Count IV
ofthe Complaint and state the Regulations speak for themselves.
20.
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 ofemitting
VOM.
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations ofparagraph 20 ofCount IV
ofthe Complaint and state the Regulations speak for themselves.
21.
Section 201.142 ofthe Board Air Pollution Regulations,
35 Ill. Adm. Code
201.142, provides as follows:
Section 201.142 Construction Permit Required
No person shall cause or allow the construction ofany new emission
source or any new airpollution control equipment, or cause or allow the
12
modification ofany
-existing emission source or airpollution control
equipment, without first obtaining a construction permit from the Agency,
except as provided in
Section 201.146.
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations ofparagraph 21
ofCount IV
ofthe Complaint and state the Regulations speak for themselves.
22.
Respondents installed Dryer #2 at the facility without first obtaining a permit
from the Illinois EPA.
ANSWER:
Respondents admit the allegations ofparagraph 22 of Count IV ofthe Complaint.
23.
Respondents, by their conduct as alleged herein, violated Section 9(b) of the Act,
415 ILCS 5/9(b)
(2002), and section 201.142 ofthe Board AirPollution Regulations, 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 201.142:
ANSWER:
Respondents
deny the allegations ofparagraph 23 ofCount IV ofthe
Complaint.
WHEREFORE, Respondents DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS, iNC., AMERICAN
DRAPERY CLEANERS &
FLANEPROOFERS, INC.,
and RICHARD ZELL denies that
Complainant, the People ofthe State ofIllinois, by James E. Ryan, Attorney General ofthe State
ofIllinois, are entitled to any relief, prays for the
dismissal ofthe Amended Complaint and for
such further relief as the Pollution Control Board deemsjust and proper.
13
COUNT V
OPERATION OF AN EMISSIONS
SOURCE WITHOUT A PERMIT
1-16. Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs
1
through
16 ofCount IV as paragraphs
1
through 16 ofthis Count V.
ANSWER:
Respondents restate their responses to paragraphs I though
16 of the Complaint as
though fully stated here.
17.
Section 201.143 ofthe 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 ofany new emission source or new
air pollution control equipment ofa type forwhich 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.
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations ofparagraph
17 ofCount V of
the Complaint and state the Regulations
speak for themselves.
18.
Since
1996, Respondents have operated and
continue to operate Dryer#2 without
first obtaining a permit from the Illinois EPA.
ANSWER:
Respondents admit the allegations ofparagraph
18 of Count V ofthe Complaint.
19.
Respondents, by their conduct as alleged herein, violated section 201.143 ofthe
Board Air Pollution Regulations,
35
Ill. Adm. Code 201.143, and Section 9(b) ofthe Act, 415
ILCS s/9(b) (2002).
14
ANSWER:
Respondents denies the allegations ofparagraph 19 ofCount V ofthe Complaint.
WHEREFORE, Respondents DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS, iNC.,
AMERICAN
DRAPERY CLEANERS
&
FLANEPROOFERS, INC., and
RICHARD ZELL denies that
Complainant, the People ofthe
State ofIllinois, by James E. Ryan, Attorney General ofthe State
of Illinois, are entitled to any relief,
prays for the dismissal ofthe Amended Complaint and for
such further relief as the Pollution Control Board deems just and proper.
COUNT VI
VIOLATION OF FESOP CONDITION
5
1-15.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by-reference herein paragraphs
1
through
4,
7 through B, and 10 through 16 of Count I and paragraphs 17 and
18 of Count IV as
paragraphs
1 through 15 ofthis Count VI.
ANSWER:
Respondents restate their responses to paragraphs
1
through 4,
7 through B,
and
10 through
16 ofCount I and paragraphs
17 and 18 ofCount IV as paragraphs
1
through
15 of
this Count VI as though fully stated here.
16.
Respondent DDCI was granted a FESOP
to operate its emissions sources. The
FESOP was granted on January
13,
1998 expires on January 13, 2003.
ANSWER:
Respondents
admit the allegations ofparagraph 16 of Count VI ofthe Complaint.
17.
Respondent DDCI’s FESOP, No. 95100005, provides, in pertinent part, the-
following condition:
*
*
*
15
5.
The Permittee shall comply with the standards, operating practices,
inspections and repair ofleaks, and the testing and monitoring
requirements forpetroleum solvent dry cleaners as specified in 35.
Ill. Adm. Code 218.607 through 218
.610.
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admits nor denies the allegations ofparagraph
18 ofCount
VI ofthe Complaint and states the FESOP speaks for itself.
18.
By violating the Board Air Pollution Regulations at Sections 218.607 and
218.610,
35 Ill. Adm. Code 218.607 and 218.610, Respondent DDCI also violated Condition No.
5 ofits FESOP No.
95100005. By violating Condition No.
5
ofits FESOP No. 95100005,
Respondent DDCI also violated 9(b) ofthe Act, 415 ILCS 5/9(b)
(2002).
ANSWER:
Respondents denies the allegations ofparagraph
18 ofCount VI ofthe Complaint.
WHEREFORE, Respondents DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS, INC., AMERICAN
DRAPERY CLEANERS
& FLANEPROOFERS, INC., and RICHARD ZELL denies that
Complainant, the People ofthe State ofIllinois, by James E. Ryan, Attorney General ofthe State
ofIllinois, are entitled
to any relief, prays forthe dismissal ofthe Amended Complaint and for
such further relief as the Pollution Control Board deemsjust and proper.
COUNT VII
INSTALLATION OFA NON-SOLVENT RECOVERY DRYER
AND LACK OF A CARTRIDGE-FILTER ON DRYER #2
1-14.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs
1
through
14 of Count I as paragraphs
1
through
14 ofthis Count VIII.
ANSWER:
Respondents restate their responses to paragraphs
1 though 14 ofthe Complaint as
16
though fully stated here.
15.
Section 9.1(d) ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthe Clean Air Act, as now or hereafter amended, except in compliance
with the requirements ofsuch Sections and federal regulations adopted pursuant
thereto, and no such action shall be undertaken without a permit granted by the
Agency orin violation of any conditions imposed by suchpermit.
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations ofparagraph 15 of Count VII
ofthe Complaint and state the Act speaks for itself.
16.
Sections 60.620 to 60.625 of Title 40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations, 40
C.F.R. 60.620-60.625, were adopted pursuant to Section
111 ofthe Clean AirAct.
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations ofparagraph 16 of Count VII
ofthe Complaint
and state the Regulations speak for themselves.
17.
Sections 60.620 to 60.625 ofTitle 40 of the Code ofFederal Regulations, 40
C.F.R. 60.620-60.625, set standards ofperformance for petroleum dry cleaners.
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations ofparagraph 17 of Count VII
ofthe Complaint and state the Regulations speak forthemselves.
17
18.
Section 60.622 of Title 40 ofthe code ofFederal Regulations, 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 properly installed,
operated and maintained.
(b)
Each affected petroleum solvent filter that
is installed at a petroleum dry
cleaning plant after December 14,
1962, shall be a cartridge filter,
Cartridge
filters shall be drained in their sealed housings for at least 8 hoursprior to their
removal.
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations ofparagraph 18 ofCount VII
ofthe Complaint
and state the Regulations speak for themselves.
19.
Dryer #2 was installed afterDecember 14,
1962. It is not a solvent recovery dryer,
and it lacks a cartridge filter.
ANSWER:
Respondents admit the allegations ofparagraph 19 of Count VII ofthe Complaint.
20.
Respondents, by their conduct as alleged herein, violated Section 60.522 ofTitle
40 of the Code ofFederal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 60.622, and
Section 9.1(d) ofthe Act, 415
ILCS 5/9.1(d) (2002).
ANSWER:
Respondents deny the allegations ofparagraph 20 ofCount VII ofthe Complaint.
WHEREFORE, Respondents DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS, INC., AMERICAN
DRAPERY CLEANERS
& FLANEPROOFERS, iNC., and RICHARD ZELL denies that
Complainant,
the People ofthe State ofIllinois, by James E. Ryan, Attorney General ofthe State
18
ofIllinois, are entitled to any relief, prays for the dismissal ofthe Amended Complaint and for
such further relief as the Pollution Control Board deemsjust and proper.
COUNT
VIII
FAILURE TO PERFORM AN INITIAL FLOW RATE
TEST ON DRYER#2
1
-
19.
Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference herein paragraphs
1
through
19 ofCount VII as paragraphs
1 through
19 ofthis Count VIII.
ANSWER:
Respondents restate their responses to paragraphs
1 though
19 ofthe Complaint as
though fully stated here.
20.
Section 60.624 ofTitle 40 ofthe
Code of Federal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 60.624,
provides, in pertinentpart, as follows:
Test methods and procedures
Each owner or operatorof an affected facility subject to the provisions of§60.622
(a) shall perform an
initial test to verify that the flow rate ofrecovered solvent
from the solvent recovery dryer at the termination ofthe 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 ofthe dryer loads shall
be monitored for their final recovered solvent flow rate.
ANSWER:
Respondents neither admit nor deny the allegations ofparagraph 20 of Count VIII
ofthe Complaint and state the Regulations speak for themselves.
21.
Respondents did not initially test Dryer #2 to verify the flow rate ofrecovered
solvent after Dryer #2 was installed in 1996.
ANSWER:
Respondents deny the allegations ofparagraph 21 ofCount VIII ofthe Complaint
and state there is no recovered solvent and there is no testto perform to verify flow rate.
19
22.
Respondents, by their conduct as alleged herein, violated Section 60.624 ofTitle
40 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations, 40 C.F.R. 60.624,
and Section 9.1(d) ofthe Act, 415
ILCS 5/9.1(d)
(2002).
ANSWER:
Respondents deny the allegations ofparagraph 22 ofCount VIII ofthe Complaint
WHEREFORE, Respondents DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS, iNC., AMERICAN
DRAPERY CLEANERS & FLANEPROOFERS, INC.,
and RICHARD ZELL denies that
Complainant, the People ofthe State ofIllinois, by James E. Ryan, Attorney General ofthe State
ofIllinois, are entitled to
any relief, prays forthe dismissal ofthe Amended Complaint and for
such further relief as the Pollution Control Board deemsjust and proper.
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
A.
In 1994, a fire at Respondent’s plant damaged or destroyed part ofthe physical
plant and equipment including a Dryer identical to Dryer #2 at issue in this
Complaint. The Dryerthat was damaged was installed in the l960s and, pursuant
to the Act, was “grandfathered in” and did not require a permit.
B.
Since Dryer #2
replaced an identical dryer damaged in the 1994 fire, Dryer #2 has
been used mainly to ready drapes for pressing by “fluffing.” Theprocess of
“fluffing” does not emit VOMs into the environment. Duringthe last year. Dryer
#2 has beenused only for “fluffing” and hasnot emitted VOMs into the
environment.
C.
Respondent installed Dryer #2 after the fire because there was no recovery dryer
20
available at that time (i.e., in
1994) in the size Respondent needed for his
operations. When a recovery dryer the proper size became available in March
2002,
Respondent ordered the new recovery dryer immediately. The manufacturer
acceptedRespondent’s
order for the new recovery dryer in May 2002 and
delivered the new dryer (Dryer#3) in late September 2002. Dryer #3
is being
installed at this time and Respondent has obtained a Permit #02030079 to
operate
Dryer #3.
D.
Respondent has always operated its plant b&ow the emissions allowed under its
FESOP Permit
#95
100005; in fact, Respondent would have to emit an additional
1,000 gallons per year to reach the emissions
allowedunder its FESOR.
E.
Respondent’s operations are unique in that its process commercially flame proofs
drapes in
a cost effective manner that triples the life ofthe drapes. The State of
Illinois has approved Respondent’s operations for useby schools and related
entities, and lists Respondent’s operation as a source on the State’s website.
DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS, INC.,
AMERICAN DRAPERY CLEANERS &
FLANEPROOFERS, INC., and
RICHARD
ZELL,
Respondents,
By:
A~
~L~_
One oftheir attorneys
Ariel Weissberg, Esq.
Michele Mary Rocawich, Esq.
WEISSBERG AND ASSOCIATES,
LTD.
401
S. LaSalle St., Suite 403
Chicago, IL
60605
312/663-0004
21
