RECE~vED

CLERK’S OFP’(~F

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

JUL 02 20C4

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

)

STATE OF !LLI~c~

ex

rel.

LISA

MADIGAN,

Attorney

)

Poflution Con~roI

Boaru

General

of

the

State

of

Illinois

Complainant,

v.

)

No. PCB 03-51

DRAW

DRAPE

CLEANERS,

INC.,

an

Illinois corporation,

A1’4ERICAN

DRAPERY

CLEANERS

&

FLAMEPROOFERS,

INC.,

an

Illinois

corporation,

and

RICHARD.ZELL, an

Illinois

resident,)

Respondents.

NOTICE OF FILING

TO:

See

Attached

Service

List

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July

2,

2004,

the People of the

State of Illinois filed with the Illinois Pollution Control Board

COMPLAINANT’S SECOND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUIVIMARY JUDGMENT,

true

and correct copies of which are attached and hereby served upon

you.

Respectfully submitted,

LISA

MADIGAN

Attorney General

State of Illinois

BY:

1O(/±

~

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.

Weissberg and Associates,

Ltd.

401

S. LaSalle Street,

Suite 403

Chicago,

Illinois 60605

---

CLERK’S

OFPC~F

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

JUL

02

2004

PEOPLE OF THE STATE’ OF ILLINOIS,

)

-

ex

rel.

LISA

‘MADIGAN.,

Attorney

)

PoHu~onControl Board

General of the State of Illinois

Complainant,

.

‘V

)

No. PCB 03-51

DRAW

DRAPE

CLEANERS,

INC.,

an’

Illinois

corporation,

AMERICAN

DRAPERY

CLEANERS

&‘

FLA.MEPROOFERS,

INC.,

an

Illinois

corporation,

and

RICHARD

ZELL,

an

Illinois

resident;)

Respondents.

.

COMPLAINANT’S

SECOND MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff,

PEOPLE

OF

THE

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS,

exrel.

LISA

MADIGAN,

Attorney

,General

of

the

State

of

Illinois,

and pursuant

to Section 101.516 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

procedural Regulations,

35

Ill.

Adm.

Code 101.516, hereby moves

for the entry of an order granting partial summary judgment in

favor of the Complainant and against Respondents RICHARD ZELL,

an

Illinois resident;

and AMERICAN DRAPERY CLEANERS & FLAMEPROOFERS,

an Illinois corporation.

INTRODUCTION

An eight-Oount complaint was filed in this matter on October

15,

2002 against Respondent Draw Drape Cleaners,,

Inc.

(“Draw

Drape”).

An Amended Complaint,

substantially similar to the

original complaint,

was’ filed against Draw Drape and Respondents

Richard Zell

(“Zell”)

and American Drapery Cleaners &

1

---

Flameproofers,

Inc.

(“ADC&FI”)

on

Decethber

30,

2003.

A

copy

of

the

Amended

Complaint

is

attached

hereto

and

incorporated

herein

as

Exhibit.1.

The

Amended

Complaint

invàlves

a

petroleum

solvent,

dry

cleaning

facility

operated

by

Respondents’

located

at

2235-

2239’

West

Roscoe

Street,

Chicago,

Cook

County,

Illinois.

On

June

27,

2003,

Complainant

filed

its

first

Motion

for

Partial

Summary

Judgment

against

Respondent Draw Drape

(“First

Motion”).

,

See Exhibit

2.

On

August

21,

2003

the

Board

granted

Complainant’s First Motion.

See Exhibit

3.’

The

Board

found

in

Complainant’s favor on each of the four counts

for which

Complainant sought summary judgment: C~unt’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 and lack of a cartridge filter; and

Count VIII..

failure

tO perform an initial flow rate test on Dryer

#2.

‘

‘

‘

Complainant

served” Respondent Draw Drape with two sets of

written discovery which Draw Drape answered.

Portions of the

answers to Complainant’s discovery requests are attach,ed herein.

Today,

Complainant is filing its Second Motion for Partial

Summary Judgment

(“Second Motion”)

against Respondents Zell and

.ADC&FI

with respect to the same counts for which

it was awarded

summary judgrr~entin the First Motion.’

2

---

SUMMARY

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.

Gleason,

181 Ill.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 allow~donly when the

,right of the moving party

is clear and free of doubt.

Gilbert v.

Sycamore Municipal Hospital,

156

I1l.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

Respondents Zell and ADC&FI liable for violations of the laws and

regulations as alleged in Counts IV,

V, VII, and VIII will limit

the future proOeedings by the Complainant against those

Respondents and will dispose of a portion of the lawsuit.

Complainant’~right to summary judgment on Counts

IV, V,

VII,

and

VIII with respect

to’ Respondents Zell and ADC&FI

is clear and

free of doubt.

This

is an appropriate use of summary judgment.

ADMITTED

FACTS AND

ARGUMENT

-

DRAW DRAPE

Complainant incorporates the “Admitted Facts and Background

Law” section and the arguments sections of its First Motion into

3’

---

this Second Motion as though fully set forth herein.

See

Exhibit

2,

pp.

4-11.

‘

LIABILITY

OF

ADC&FI

AND

ZELL

Complainant alleges that both Respondents Zell and ADC&FI

are equally as liable as Draw Drape for the violations of the

Environmental Protection Act

(“Act”)

and Board regulations by

virtue of their relationship’to Dra~iDrape.

Thus,

any finding of

summaryjudgment

against Draw Drape should also apply to Zell and

ADC&FI.

‘

‘

Liability

of

Zell

In

Illinois

environmental

law,

corporate

officers

can

be

personally liable ‘for their company’s environmental violations.

The standard for corporate officer liability in environmental

‘enforcement ‘actions is set forth in People

v.

C.J.R.

Processing,

Inc.,

et

al.,

269 Ill.

App.’ 3d 1013,

647 N.E.2d 1035

(3d Dist..

1995).

As in this case,

the People sued both the company and a

corporate officer for the vJolations of the Act and regulations.

Id.

at 1014,

647 N.E.2d at

1036.

The C.J.R.

Court held that a

corporate officer constitutes a ‘~person”under Section 3.26

(now

3.315)

o,f the Act.

.~L

A corpOrate officer can be held

personally liable for his company’s environmental violations

if

he was personally involved in

or

actively participated in a

violation

of the Act,

or

if he had the ability or authority to

control the acts or omissions

that gave riseto

the violation.

4

---

Id.

at

1018,

647

N.E.2d

at

1038.’

The C.J.R.

Court went on to

say

that’ the General Assembly intended for the Act to be’

liberally construed.

~.

at 1037.

Any other

“.

.

interpretation of section 3.26

(now 3.315) would not serve the

Act’s express purpose of imposing responsibility upon those who

cause harm to the environment.”

j~c~Imposition of liability on

only the corporation and not upon those responsible, individuals

would prevent enforcement of the Act from achieving its

objective.

.

Respondents identified Zell as the Vice President of Draw

Drape.

Respondents also identified Zell as ‘one of only two,

people having knowledge of the operations

at the dry cleaning

facility and having knowledge of the VOM emissions at the

facility.

See

Exhibit

4,

Answer

to Interrogatory,

2.

Respondents

admit

that Zell operates and manages both Draw ‘Drape and ADC&FI.

Zell is/was the only person responsible for day-to-day operations

The C.J.R.

Court relied upon the Eighth Circuit’s decision

in United States v. Northeastern Phar.

And Chem.

Co.,

Inc.,

et

al.,

810 F.2d 726

(8th Cir.

1986)

.

In

Northeastern

Pharmaceutical,

the federal government sought to have

a’

corporation’s president and vice-president held personally liable

for their company’s improper hazardous waste’disposal.

In holding

these corporate officers personally liable,

the Eighth Circuit

noted,

that while the president of the corporation was not

involved in the actual day-to-day decisions

to transport and

dispose of the hazardous waste,

he “was the individual

in charge

of and directly responsible for all of

his

company’s

operations,

including those at the

subject

plant,

and he had

the ultimate

authority

to

control

the disposal of

his

company’ s

hazardous substances.”

810 F.2d at 745

(underline added)

.

‘

5

---

of

th

dry

cleaning

business.

See ‘Exhibit 5, Answer to

Interrogatories

1 and

3.

Furthermore,

Zell

“is’the

only

person~

who had’dealings with or conferred with orcorresponded,or met

with government regulators

.

.

.‘,

in all matters related to the

Complaint

.

.

.“,

See’Exhibit

5,

Answer

to

Interrogatory

2.

Given

that

Zell

ha,d

complete

and

total

control

over

all

aspects

of” the

day—to-operations

at

Draw

Drape,

Zell

also

had

complete

and

total

control

over

acts

and/or

omissions

giving

rise

to

the

i)iolations

as

alleged

1±1.the

Amended

Complaint.

Given his

complete ,control, of Draw Drape and hi’s knowledge of the VOM

issue,

Zell was also personally involved in and actively

partiqipated in acts Or omissions which resulted in violations of

the Act, violations of the Board’s regulations, and violations of

the C.F.’R.

Under the holding in C.J.R.,

Zell’is just as liable

for the violatiOns

a,s alleged’ in the Amended Complaint as

is Draw

Drape.

‘

‘

,

‘

There

are

no

disputed

facts

regarding

Zeli’s

control

over

Draw Drape,

and the legal authority for holding Zell liable as

spelled, out in C.J.R.

is clear.

Given that the Board has ruled

in Complainant’s favor on its First,Motion with respect to Draw

Drape,

it should’also rule ‘in favor of Complainant on its Second

Motion with respect to Zell.

,

‘

LIability, of ADC&FI

Complainant claims that ADC&FI is liable for the same

‘6

---

violations

in

the

Amended Complaint against Draw Drape given

that,

but

for

the

name,

the

two

corporations

are

essentially

the

same,, entity.

“

In

Draw

Dr’ape’s

First

Response

to

Complainant’s

First

Set

of

Interrogatories,, Complainant asked Draw Drape to describe its

relationship to ADC&FI.

Although Draw Drape applied for and

received the Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit

(FESOP),

ADC&FI

is engaged in the same dry cleaning business

as

Draw Drape.

Draw Drape and ADC&FI are owned by’the same parties

and use the same facilities.

See

Exhibit

4,

Answer

to

Interrogatory 8.

But for the identity of the ‘customers’ served,

both companies constr,ucted and operated the same non-permitted.

emissions eource, used the same non-solvent recovery dryer,

without a cartridge filter, and used Dryer #2 without performing

an initial flow rate test.

Furthermore, ‘Draw Drape and ADC&FI

are wholly owned

(50

each)

by the same two parties

-

Zell and

Steven Press.

See

Exhibit

4, Answer

to

Interrogatories

8

and

10;

Exhibit

5, Answer to Interrogatory 4.

The facts a~eclear and undisputed regarding the culpability

of ADC&FI for the alleged violations.

The law is clear as well.

Pursuant to C.J.R.

and given the General Assembly’s intent that

the Act be liberally construed,

the corporate veil between Draw

Drape and

ADC&FI should

be pierced just as the corporate veil

between Draw Drape and Zell should be pierced.

The Board has

7

---

ruled in Complainant’s ,favor On its First Motion with respect to

‘Draw.Drape’s

liability,

and

it should also rule in favor of

Complainant on its Second Motion with respect to ADC&FI’s

liability.

‘

“

‘

,

‘

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE,

for the foregoing reasons, Complainant

respectfully requests the Board to:

1.

Enteran order granting summary judgment.for

Complainant and against Respondent.s Zell and ADC&FI for Counts

IV, ‘V, VII,

and VIII in the Amended Complaint;

2.

‘

Order

that Respondents Zell and ADC&FI are liable for

penalties for violations of the Act, the Board Air Pollution

Regulations, and the Code of Federal Regulations;

3.

Assess the Attorney General’s fees and costs

in this

case against’Respondents Zell and ADC&FI; and

,‘

4.

Order any ‘other relief it deems just and appropriate.

8

---

Respectfully submitted1

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

ex rel.

LISA

MADIGAN

Attorney General of the

State of Illinois

MATTHEW

J. DUNN,

Chief

Environmental Enforcement/

Asbestos Litigation Divisi~on

By:

JOEL

STERNSTEIN

Assistant

Attorney

General

Environmental

Bureau

188

W.

Randolph

St.

20th

Fl.

Chicago, Illinois6060l

(312)

814-6986

9

---

f~1~VED

CL~FU~’S

O~1(1~

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS:

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

,DEC

~

02003

PEOPLE

OF

THE

‘STATE

OF

ILLINOIS,

‘

)

.

,

SThTE OFILLiNOIS

by

LISA

MADIGAN,

Attorney

‘

)

‘

‘

‘

‘

PoUt~onContro1Bo~rd1

General

of

the

State

of

Illinois

)

‘

.

‘

‘

.

Complainant,

‘

EXHIBIT

)‘

‘‘

v.

‘

.

.

‘‘

)

No.

PCB

03-51

DRAW

DRAPE

AN,

INC

~,

an

,

)

I11~nois

corporation,

AMERICAN

.‘

1.,

DRAPERY

CLEANERS

&

FLAIvIEPROOFERS,

INC.,

an

Illinois

corporation,

and

RICHARD

ZELL,

an

Illinois residEnt,

Respondents.

.

‘

‘

‘

‘

‘

)

NOTICE OF FILING

,

TO:

See Attached Service List

.

,

‘PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on December .30,

2003,

the PeOple of

the State of Illinois filed with the Illinois Pollution Control

Board an AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR CIVILPENALTIES,

true and correct

copies of which are attached and hereby served upon you.

Respectfully, submitted,

LISA

MADIGAN

Attorney

General

State

of

Illinois

BY

__________

JOEL J. STERNSTEIN

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental

Bureau

188

W.

Randolph

St.,

20th

Floor

Chicago,

Illinois

60601

(312)

814-6986

Date: December 30,

2003

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

---

SERVICE LIST

Mr..

Bradley

Halloran,

Esq.’

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

ioo

w.’

~.andolph

Street,

Suite

.11-500

Chicago,

Illinois

.

60601

.Ns..Naureen

Wozniak,

Esq.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

‘1021

North

Grand

Avenue

East’

p0.

BoX

19276

.

springfield,

Illinois

62702

Ms.

Michele

Rocawich,

Esq.

~ejssberg

and

Associates,

Ltd.

401

g.

LaSalle

Street,

Suite

403

‘

Chibago,

Illinois

60605

Mr.

Richard

Zell

,

‘

.

president,

Draw

Drape

Cleaners

.

‘

Vice president and,Secretary,

.

.

.

.

American

Drapery

Cleaners

and

Flameproof ers

Inc.’

2235 West Roscoe

.

.

,

.

.

‘

Chicago,

Illinois

60618

‘‘

---

—.

~

.

.__.~LERg’5

O,Fi~i~—

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

DEC

3

0

2U03

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

)

.

,

.

:

,

STA~fEOFILUNO~

by

LISA

MADIGAN,

Attorney

)

.

~

Control Board

General

of

the

State

of

Illinois

)

.

.

.

.

‘

Complainant,

‘

,

.

~.

‘

V.

‘

r

‘

‘

‘

‘)

No.

PCB

03-51.

DRAW .DRAPE

CLEANERS,

INC.,

an

‘

)

.

.

‘

.

..

Illinois

corporation,

‘AMERICAN

.

.

)

‘‘

.

‘DRAPERY

CLEANERS’

&

‘F’LANEPROOFERS,

)

.

“

‘

.

INC.,

an

Illinois

corporation,

and

)‘

‘

RICHARD

ZELL,

an Illinois resident,)’

‘

‘

‘

Respondents.

‘.

.

.

.

‘

)

‘

.‘

.

.

.

.

AMENDED

COMPLAINT FOR CIVIL PENALTIES

Complainant,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, by LISA

MADIGAN,’

Attorney Genera,

of the State of Illinois, complains of

Respondents

DRAW

DRAPE

CLEANERS,’

INC., AMERICAN DRAPERY CLEANERS

& FLAMEPROOFERS,

INC.,

and

RICHARD

.ZELL as follows:

‘

COUNTI

.‘

.

‘

AIR

POLLUTION

‘

1.

This

Complaint

.is’brought

on

behalf

of

the

People

(“Complainant”)

by

the

Attorney

General

on

her,

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.

‘Specifically, ‘this Complaint is b±~oughtagainst

Respondent

DRAW

DRAPE

CLEANERS,

INC.

(“DDCI”)

pursuant’ to Section

1

---

31

of’

the

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.

.

.

.

‘

‘

3.

The Illinois

EPA’ is an administrative agency of th~

State of Illinois,

created pursuant to Section 4 of theAct,

415

ILCS 5/4

(2002),

and.charged,’

inter alia,

with the duty,of

enforcing

the

Act.

.

‘

‘

.

‘

.

‘

4.

At

all

t~mes relevant

to

,thi’s

Complaint,

Respondent

DDCI

was

and

is

an

Il,inois

corporation

duly

organized

and

existing

under

the

laws

of

the

State

of

Illinois

and

is

in

good

~tanding.

.

‘

.

‘

‘

.

5.

At

‘all

times

relevant

to

this

Complaint,

Respondent

ADC&FI

wa’s and is an

Illinois

corporation

duly

organized

and

existing under the laws of the State of ‘Illinois and is in good

standing.

‘

‘

.

.

‘

‘

‘

.

‘

6.

At

all

times

relevant

to

this Complaint,

Respondent

RICHARD ZELL’ was and is

a’ resident

of. the State of Illinois.

7.

Respondents operate a facility located at 2235-2239

‘

West RoScOe Street,

Chicago, Cook County,’ Illinois, ‘60618

(“facility”).

.

,

.

‘

.

‘

8.

Respondents operate a petroleum solvent dry cleaning

ope~atibflat the facility to clean drapes.

.

‘

.

.

9.’

Respondent RICHARD ZELL is the operator arid manager of

2

---

both DDCI and ACDAF’I.

‘RICHARD

ZELL is responsible for the day-

to-day’ o~erations of both DDCI and ACDAFI.

RICHARD

‘ZELL is the

registered agent for DDCI and the’ corporate secretary ‘for ACDAFI.

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.’

‘

.‘

‘.

..

11.

Respondents installed Dryer’ #2 at the .fac:ility 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.

.

.‘

12.

Both Dryer #1 ap~d:Dryer#2 emit volatile organic

material

(“VOM”)

to the environment.

:‘

,

13.

Section’3.315 of ‘the ~ct,,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,

stá.te

,

agency, or any other legal. entity,

.or,~

their legal representative,

agent or

assigns.

.

‘

‘

.

.

‘

.

.

..

.

.

‘

14.

Each Respondent

is

a “person” asHthe term is def,ined’in

Section 3.315

of the Act,

415 ILCS5/3.3l5

(2002).

,

15.

.

Section 3.165. of the Act,

415

.ILtS

5/3.165

(‘2002),

provideS the following def.init~.on:

‘

‘

“Contaminant”

is any solid,

liquid,

‘or,.

,

3

---

n

gaseous

matter,

any

odor,

or

any

form’of

.

.

‘

energy,.

from

whatever

source.

‘

‘

‘

16

-.

VOM is a contaminant,

as that term is defined, in

Section

3

165 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3 165

(2002)

17-

Section 3.115 of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/3.115

(2002),

provides the following definition:

‘

.

‘

‘

“Air pollution”

is the’presence in the

‘

atrnosphere 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 enjoyrn~ntof life or

property..

.

.

.

‘

18.

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,

ei,ther alone or in combination with,

‘

contaminants from othe.r sources,

so às’to

violateregulations or standards adopted by.

the Board under this Act;

.

.

19.

Section 201.141 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

(“Board”) Air Pollution Regulations,

35

I1l’~.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

contam~.nantsfrom other

sources,, to cause or

4

---

tend to cause ‘air pollution in I11’inois, ‘or

so as

tO, .violate the provisions of this

Chapter, or so as to prevent the attainment

or maintenance of any applicable ambient air

quality standard.

,

‘

.

.

20.

Rethpondents have emitted VOM into the atmosphere from

Dryer #1 and Dryer #2 causing air pollution in violation of the

Federa11~Er~forceableState Operating Permit

(“FESOP”),

in

violation of

‘the Act, and in violation of the Board’s

regulation’s.

.

‘‘

.“

‘

‘

“

.‘

.

.

‘

‘

...‘..

.

.

.

21

Respondents, by their conduct alleged herein,

violated

Section

9(a)’ of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9 (a) (2002),

and Section

201.141’ of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,

35 Ill. Adm. Code

201.141.

:

‘

.

WHEREFORE,

Complainant,

PEOPLE’OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

respectfully requests that the Board’ enter a judgment in favor of

Complainant

‘and against Respondents

DRAW

DRAPE CLEANERS,

INC.,

AMERICAN DRAPERY CLEANERS

&

FLAMEPROOFERS,

INC.,

and

RICHARD

ZELL

on

Count

I:

‘

.

.

‘

‘

.

‘

‘

1.

,

Authorizing

a

hearing

in

this

matter

at

which

~ime

Respondents will be required to answer the allegations herein,

‘2,.

Finding that Respondents have violated:Section

9(a)

Of

the Act, 415

ILCS 5/9(a) (2002)’,

and

Section 201.141 of ~the Board

Air pollution Regulation,

35 Ill. Adm. Code 201.141;’,

‘

3.

Ordering Respondents to ceas,e and desist from further

violatiOnS of Section 9(a)

of

the Act,

415 .ILCS 5/9(a) (2002), and

S

---

Sectiofl

201.141

of

the

Boa~dAir

Pollution

Regulation,

35

Iii.

Adm.

Code

201.141;

‘

,

‘:

‘4.

Assessing against Respondents’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;

.

‘.

,

‘

:‘

‘

5.

‘Taxing

all

costs

in

this

action

pursuant

~to

Section

42(f)

of the Act,

including attox~ney, expert witness and

consultant

fees,

against Respondents;

and.

‘

.

‘

6.

Granting such other relief as the’Board’deems

appropriate and just.

.COUNTII

.‘

.

VIOLATION

OF STANDARDS FOR PETROLEUM

SOLVENT DRY CLEANERS

i,

-

18.

Complainant

realleges

and

incorporates

by

reference:

herein

‘paragraphs

1

through’

18

of

Count

I

‘as

paragraphs,

‘1

t~i.’rough

18

of

this

Count

II.

.

.

‘

.

19.

Secti’on

218.607

of

the

Board

Air

Pollution

Regulations,

3~ ~l.

Adrn.

Code

218.607,

provides’

as

follows:

‘

Standards

for

Petroleum

Solvent

Dry

Cleaners

a)

The

owner

or

operator

of a petroleum

,‘

.

solvent

dry

cleaning

dryer

shall

either:

,‘

1)

Limit emissions of VOM to the

atmosphere to an average of 3.5

kilograms of VOM per 100 kilograms dry

weight of articles dry cleaned,

or

6

---

2)

,

Install,and

ope~ate a’solvent

recovery’dryer

in

a

manner

such’that

the,

‘dryer

remains

closed

and

the

recovery.

phase

continues

until

,a

final

solvent

flow

rate

of

50

milliliters

per

r~tinute

is

attained.

.

.

‘

‘

.

b)

The

owner

or

operator

of.

a

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

of

articles

dry

cleaned,

before

disposal;

.

and

exposure

,to

the

atmosphere,

or

2)

.

Install

and,

operate

a

cartridge

filtration

system,

and

drain

the

‘filter

cartridges

in

their

sealed.housings

for

8

hours

or

more

before

‘their

removal.

20.

For

both

Dryer

#1and,Dryer

#2,

Respondents

have

failed

to

limit

VOM

emissions

to

the

atmosphere

to

an

average

of

3

5

kilograttl~

of

VOM

per

100

kilograms

dry weight articies ‘cleaned.

:21.

Neither Dryer #1 nor Dryer #2 are solvent recovery

dryers.

,

,

.

‘

‘

‘

‘,

22..

For both Dryer#l and Dryer

#2,

Respondents

have

failed

to reduce,VOM content in all ‘filtration waste~to

1

.

0 kilogram or

less per 100 ki1og~amsof articles dry cleaned, before disposal,

and exposure to the atmosph~re.”

,

.

.

2,3.

Neither Dryer *1 nor Dryer #2 have a cartridge

filtration system.

‘

.

24.

Respondents,.by their conduct, as alleged herein,’

violated. Section 9(a)

of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9(a) (20.02), .and

7

---

Section’218.607 of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,’ 35

in.

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 Respondents

DRAW

DRAPE CLEANERS,

INC.,

AMERICAN DRAPERY CLEANERS

& FLAMEPROOFERS, INC

,

and

RICHARD

ZELL

on

Count

II~

‘

‘.

.

.

“

,.

.

.

,

‘

,.

,

.

i

Authorizing

a hearing in this matter at which time

Respondents will be required to answer the allegation’s herein;

‘2.

Finding that Respondents’ have violated Sedtion 9 (a)

of.

the Ace, 415 ILCS 5/9(a)’.(2002),”and Section 218.607 of’the’Board

~jr’PO11uti0nRegu1a~i0fl5,

35

Ill.. ~

Code 2l8..60’7~

‘

3.

Ordering Respondents to.cease and desist from further

violat±oflSpfSection

9’(a)

of the Act,

415 ILCS. 5/9(a) (2002), and

Sectiofl 218 607 of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,

35 Ill

Adm

Code 218 607,

4’.

Assessing against Respondents 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;,

,.

5.

Taxing: all costs

in this act±oi~

pursuant to ~ection

42(f)

of the Act, inc1udi~gattorney, expert witness

and.

consultant fees,

against Respondents;’

and.

,

8

---

6.

‘

Granting”such other relief as the Board’, deems

appropriate and just.

‘

‘.

-

,‘

,

.

‘

COUNT’

III’

,

“

.,

.

FAILURE ‘TO’ CONDUCT ADEQUATE TESTING

.

‘‘

1

-‘18.

Cbmp1a~.nantrealleges and incorporates by reference’

herein paragraphs

1 thro~igh18 of Count

I as paragraphs ‘1 through

18 of this Count III

19.’

Section 218.610 of the Board’ Air Pollution Regulations,

35 ill.

Adm.

Code’ 218.610, prov~.desas 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)

cbmpiiance with Sections 218.607 (a) (2).

and

(b) (1)

of this Part

shall’ be determined.

by methods ‘described in EPA~450/3~82~009

(1982)

.

incorporated by reference in Section

218.112 of this Part.

‘

“

.

.

,

20., ‘Section 218.607 of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,

35 ill. Adm.

Code 218.607,

sets standards for petroleum solvent,

dry cleaning operations;

‘

‘

‘

‘21.

Respondents have failed to visually ‘inspect both.Dryer

*1 and Dryer “#2. In order

t’o ‘demonstrate compliance with the

‘

requirements

of’ SectiOn 218,607(b)

(2)

of the Board Air Pollution

Regulat~On5, ‘35 Ill. “Adrn.

Code 218.607(b) (2).

‘

.

..

“

22.

Respondents’ have failed to follow the methods’ described

±nEPA-450/3-82-009

(1982) in.order to demonstrate compliance

9

---

with

SeCtions

218.607(a)

(2)~and.218.607(b’)(l)

of’the

Board

Air

pollutiQfl Regulations’,

35

Iii,

Adm.

Code

218.607(a)

(2).

and

(b) (i), ‘for both Dryer #1 and pryer #2.

23

Respondents, by their conduct as alleged herein,

vidlated Section 9(a)

of the Act,

415 ILCS 5/9(a) (2002), and

SectiOn 218 610 of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,

35 Ill

Adm

Code 218 610

WHEREFORE,

Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

respectful.Y

requests that the Board enter a judgment in favor of

Complainant and against.,Respondents

DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS,

INC.,

AMERICAN

DRAPERY

CLEANERS

&

FLAMEPROOFERS,

INC.,

and RICHARD :ZELL

on

Count

III

i

Authorizing a hearing in this matter at which time

Respondents will be required to answer the~allegations herein,

2

Finding that Respondents have violated Section 9(a)

of

the’ Act, 415 ILCS 5/9(a) (2002), ‘and Section 218.610. of the Board

Air pollution Regulations,

35 .111.

Ad.m.

Code.218.610;

‘

‘3.

Ord~ringRespondents’ to cease and desist from further

violations of Section 9(a)

of the Act,

415 II~CS5/9 (a) (2002)

,

and,

SectiOri 218 610 of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,

35 Ill

Adrn

Code 218

610,

4.,

Assessing against Respondents

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

10

---

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

consu1ta~1t’fees against Respondents; and

‘,

‘

.

6

Granting such other relief as the Board deems

appropriate ,and just.

‘

“

.‘

‘

,‘

,~

.

‘

,

couNTlv,

:

‘

‘

:,

-‘

CONSTRUCTION. OF AN EMISSIONS SOURCE WITHOUT A PERMIT

1-16.

CQmplainant realleges ‘and incorporates by reference

herein paragraphs 1 through 16 of Count .1

as paragraphs

1 through

16

,of this Count IV.

,‘

.

‘

..

.

.

‘

17

Section 9(b)

of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9(b) (2002)

provides as follows:

‘

No person shall

*

*

‘

*

,

.

.

‘

,

.

,

(b)

Construct,

install,

or operate any

equipment,

facility; ‘vCI~.icle,’’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.

.

‘

‘

18.

Section 201.102 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

(~‘Eoard”)Air Pol1ut~on‘R~gu1ations,, 35 Ill. Adm. Code.20l.102,

provideS~ in pertinent part,

the following definitions:

.

“Emission Source”: any equipment or facility

.11

---

‘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

re~1ated

‘..

.,

.

Illinois

pursuant,

to

Section

9.1

of

the

Act.

19

VOM

is

a

specified

air

contaminant

as

defined

by

Section 201 102 of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,

35 Iii

Adm

Code 201 102

20

Dryer #2

is a “new emission source” as that term is

defined’bY Sectioh 201.102 of the Board Air Pollution

Regulations,

35 Ill

Adrn

Code 201 102 because it

is

capable of

~mitting

VOM.

.

‘

“

.

‘

.

.

‘

‘

..

.

.‘

.

,

21

Section 201 142 of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,

35

Ii...

Adm.

Code 201.142,.provides-as follows,:

“.

Section 201.142 Construction Permit Required

.

No person shal,1 cause ‘or allow’ the

‘

.

.,

‘

.

‘

construction of any new emission source or

any new air pollution control equipment,

.

or

cause ‘or ‘allow t~emodification 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.

22.

Respondents’ insta1l’ed’Dryer’.#~‘at the, facility without

first” obtaining a permit.from the Illinois EPA.

,

‘

.

23.

Respondents,’by their conduct as alleged herein,

.

12’

‘....

.

.

‘‘‘

---

violated Section 9(b)

of the Act, 415

ILCS 5/9(b)’(2002), and

,Section 201.142 of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,

‘35 Ill.

Adm. Code’ 201.142.

,

“

“

:

,

‘

,

‘.

.

.

,

.

,

WHEREFORE,

Complainant,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

respectfully ‘requests.. that the Board enter a judgment

±11

favor, of

COmplainant and agä.inst ReCpondents DRAW

DRAPE

CLEANERS,

INC.,

AMERICAN DRAPERY CLEANERS

& FL~AMEPROOFERS,.’INC.,. and

RICHARD’

ZELL

on Count IV:

‘

“

‘

‘

,

,

.‘

.

1.

“

Authorizing’a hearing.in this matter at which time’,

Respondents will be required to answer the allegations herein;

2.

Finding that Respondents have violated Section 9(b)

of

the Act,

415

ILCS 5/9(b) (2002), and Section 201.142 of the Board

Air

Pollution’RegulatiOfl,”35.Ill.

Adm.

Code

‘201.142;

‘3.

Ordering,

Respondents

to

cease

and desist from further

violations of SectiOn

9’(b)

of the Act,.

415 ILCS

5/9(b,) (2002),

and

Section 201.142 of the’Board Air Pollution RegulatiOn,

35,111.

Adm. Code 201.142;

.

‘

‘

,

4.

Assessing against Respondents a civil penalty of Fif~y

Thousand Dollars

($50,000.00)

for. each violation of the Adt 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

13

---

consulta.11t

fees,

agaiinst

Respondent’s;

and

“

‘

‘

6.

“

‘Granting

such

other relief as the Board’:deem~

,

.

‘

a~proprJ.3~teand

just.

.,

.

‘

COUNTV

.

‘.‘

,

OPERATION OF ‘AN EMISSIONS SOURCE WITHOUT A PERMIT

1-16.

‘

Complainant realleges ‘and incorporates by’reference

herein paragraphs

1.throi.igh16 of Count

IV as .para~raphs1

through

16

of

this

Count

‘V.

,

,

.

‘

‘

.

‘

‘

,

17.

Section

201.143

of

the

~oa±~d:Air

~ol1i.~tion

Regulat~.onth,

35111.

Adrn.

Code

201.143,

provides,

in

pertinent

part,

as

follows:

.

.

,

.

‘

‘

‘

‘

Operating

Permit

for New Sources

.

‘

No’petson shall cause’or allow the operation

of any new emission source or new air

‘

‘

.

pollution control equipment-of a type’for

.

‘

which a co’nstruction 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

l996,Respondents

have

operated

and

continue

to

‘operate Dryer., *2 without first obtaining a permi~

from’the

Illinois EPA.

,

..

.

.

.

.

19.

Respondents,..by th~ir”cpnductas alleged’herein,

violated

Section

201.143

of

the

BOard

Air

Pollution

Regulations,

35

ill. Mm. Code 201.143, and Section 9(b)

of the Act,

415 ILCS

5/9(b) (2002).

.

.

‘

‘

.

WHEREFORE,

Comp1ai~iant,.PEOPLE OF THE STATE ,OF ILLINOIS,

14

..

---

respectfuIly,’.reqUestS that the Board

enter

a jud~mentin favor of

Complainant and against Respondents

DRAW

DRA.PE’CLEANERS,

INC.,

AMER~CAN DRAPERY

CLEANERS & FL~NEPROOFERS, INC.,

arid

RICHARD

ZELL

on Count V:.

‘‘‘

‘

‘

,

‘:

‘‘

‘1.:’

Authorizing a hearing, in this matter at which time

,

Respondents ‘will be required to answer; the allegations herei±i;

2

Finding that P.espondents have violated Section

9 (b)

of

.theAct,

415

ILCS, 5/9(b).(2002),and’Section 201.143 of theBoard

•

‘

Air Pol1utiOn~ReguIatidns, 35111. -Adm~Code 201.l43~

.

.

.

3.

-

Ordering Respondents to cease and desist from further

violations of Section

9(b) ‘of the Act,

415 ILCS

59’(b)

(2,002), and

Section 201.143 of

the, Board Air Pollution Regulations,

35

Ill..

Adm. Code 201.143;

,

‘

‘.

.

‘

.

,

.

‘

“

.

.

‘

‘

.4.

Assessing against Respondents

a civil penalty of F’ifty

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 posts in this action pursuant to Section

.

42(f)

of the Act, including attorney, expert witness and

consultant’fees,

against Respondents; and

‘5.

‘~Grantingsuch other relief as the Board deems

app±opriateand’ just’...

.

‘

‘

‘.

,

‘

15

---

CO1JNT,V~L

.

,

;

‘

VIOLATION ‘OF FE~OP’CONDITION

5

,.

,

‘

‘~

1-15.

‘,

Complainant realleges and incorporates by reference

herein paragraphs 1.through 4,

7 through

8, and 10 through 16 of

‘Count. I and paragraphs

17 and 18 of Count IV as

paragraphs. 1.

‘through 15

of this ‘Coun~VI.

,

~.

‘

.‘

.,

‘

1G

Respondent DDCI was granted a FESOP to operate its

,emis’siofl3 :sources.

The FESOP was’. granted on January 13,

19,98 and

expires on January 13, 2003

17.

Respondent DDCI’sFESOP,

No’.

95100005, ‘provide’s,

in

pertineflt: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. Mm.

Code 218.607

through

‘,

.

.218.510.”

.‘

.

.~

18.

By violating the Board Air Pollution Regulations’ ,at,

SectionS 218.607 and 2.18.610,

35

Ill’.

Adm. Code 218;607 and

-

218.610; ReSpondent DDCI also viblated Condition No

.‘

~ of its

FESOP

No.’ 95100005.

By violating Condition

No.,. 5

of its FESOP

No.’ 95100005, Respondent DDCI,also violated 9(b)

of the Act,

415

ILCS 5/9(b) (2002).

,

‘

.

‘

.

WHEREFORE,

Complainant,

PEOPLE OF THE~S.TATE.OFILLINOIS,

respectfully requests that the Board e~ter.a judgment’ in favor of

16

---

spo~d~tTDRrTRAPECI3EANERS~INCTofl

Count V~:

.

-

.

,

.‘

“

‘.

,

1.

.

~uthorizing

a

hearing

in this matter at’which time

‘Respondent

DDCI

will

be required to answer the alLegations

1~erein;’

,

.

,

,‘

.

‘

‘

‘.

‘

2.

Finding

that

Re’~pondent ‘DDCI

has

violated

Condition’5

of

FESOPNO.

95100005,

and

Section

.9(b)

of

the.

Act

‘415

ILCS

‘5/9(b)

(2002Y;

‘

,

.‘.

.

‘

.

,

.,

_i~

.

‘..‘.

.

.

.

‘

3.

Ordering

Respondent

DDCI

to

cease

and

desist

from

“

further

violations

of

Condition

S

of

FES.OP

No..

95100005,’

‘Section

9(b)

of

the

Act,

“415’

ILC$

5/~(b) (2002);’

‘

‘

,~

‘

‘

.

.

4.

‘

Assessing

against

Respondent

.DDCI

a

civil

penalty

of

Fifty ThousaridDollars

($50,000.00)

for

each

violation

of

the

Act,,

and pertinent Board Air Pollution Regulations, and an additional

civil

penalty

of

Ten

Thousand

Dol~.ars” ($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

~consu1tant fees; against Respondent;

arid

-

‘.

.

,,

,

6.

Granting such other relief as the:.Eoarddeems

,

appropriate and just.

.

.

.~..

,

~,

.,

-

COUNT

VII

.

“

‘

.

,

•

.

INSTALLATION

OF

A

NON-SOLVENT

RECOVERY

DRYER

‘

‘

AND

LACK OF A CARTRIDGE FILTER ON DRYER

‘*2,

-

1-14.

Cotnplainant”realleges and incorporates by reference

17

---

~~~aragrä~hs

.1

~

14 of t~iisCount VII.

‘

‘

.

‘

.

‘

15

.‘

Sectio~

9.1(d)

of

the

Act,

415

ILCS

5/9.lç.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)

,

constn~ct,install, modify or operate..

‘

.aiiy equipment,building, facility, source or

installation.which.is subject to regulation

under Sections 111,

112,

155 or 173,o’f ‘the

.

‘Clean. Air Act,

as now or hereafter amended,

except in compliance with ,the requirements of

,

such Sections and federal regulations adopted

.pur~uantthereto, and no,such action shall be’

undertaken without a pe’rrnit.granted by the

Agency or in violation of any conditions

‘

-

imposed by such permit.

.

‘

,.

‘

16..

.

Sections

60.620

to 50.625 of Title’40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations1

40 C’.F.R.

60.620-60.625, were adopted

‘

pursuant. tOS~ction111

‘of the Clean Air Act.-

.

,

,,

17.

Sections 60.620 to 60.625 of Title’40 of the Code of

‘Federal Regulations,

40 C.F.R.

60.520-50.625,

set standards of

perforrttaflCe.for.’Petroleum dry cleaners.

.

.

.

.

18.

Section .60.622’ of Title 40 of the ,Code of Federal

ReguiatiOflsi

40,C.F.R.

60.522 provides,’ in pertinent part,

as

follows’.:

.

Standards for vOlatile organic compounds

(a) Each affected petroleum solvent dry

18

---

——

“

___

____

petroleum dry cleanIng plant. after~December

14,1982,

shall be a solvent recbvery’dryer.

The solvent recovery dryer(s)’, shall be

,

.

properly installed,’ operated and maintained.

(b)

Each affected petroleum

‘solvent

fliter

,

‘

that is installed at a petroleum dry cleaning’

plant after.Deceft~.ber 14, 1982,’shall be a

.

.

cartridge filter.’ Ca’rtridge filters shall be’

‘

drained in’their sealed housings for at least

8 hours’prior,to their removal1

.,

‘19.,

Dryer #2.;was’installed after’December 14, ‘1982.

It

i,s

not

asolven~

recovery

dryer,

and

it,

lacks

a

cartridge

filter.,

20.

Respondents, by their,conduct ‘as

,

alleged herein,

‘

violated Secti9n 60.622 o’f,Title,40 of ‘the. Code of Federal.

Regulations,

40 C.F.R.

60.622,’ ‘and Section 9.1(d)

of the Act,

415

ILCS, 5/9.1(d) (2002)

.

‘

..

‘

‘.

‘

‘

.

,

,

‘

‘

WHEREFORE,

Complainant,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

“

respect~ullyrequests that the Board enter

a

judgment

in

favor

of

Complainant and against Respondents

DRAW

DRAPE CLEANERS,,

INC.,

ANERICAN

DRAPERY CLEANERS

& FLANEPROOFERS,” INC.,, and

RICHARD

ZELL

on

Count

VII:

.

.

.

‘

.

1.

Authorizing

a

hearing

in

this

matter”at

which

time.

Respondents will’ ‘be required.:tq answer the allegations herein;

2.

Finding’that Respondents’have~vio1atedSection”6O.~2’2

.-

of

TitJ.e 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations,

40 C.F.R.

60.622,.

and Section 9.1(d). of th~Act, 415 ILCS 5/9.1(d) (2002)

3.

Ordering Respondents to cease and desist’ from further

violations

of Section 60.622’of Title 40.of

the. Code of Federal

19

---

~g~l~EJi~T

40 ~T

~

~6 72,~

and

S~ion

9T~f

eA~t~4

15

-

-

~LCS-.~/9.1(d) (2002);

‘.

‘~

.

.

“.

,.

.

.

4

Assessing against Respondents

a civil penalty of Fifty

Thousand Dollars

($50,000

00)

for each violation of the Act and

pertinei~tBoard Air Pollution Regulations, and an additional

civil penalty of Ten Thousand Dollars

($10,000

00)

for each day

of violation,

I

5

Taxing all costs in this action pursuant to Section

42(f) of the Act,

including attorney,

exp~rt

witn:es’s and

‘

.

consultant

fees,

against Respondents;

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

1

-

19.

Complainant

realleges

‘and

incorporates

by

r~ference

herein p~.ragraphs1 through 19 of Count VII as paragraphs

1

th±~ough

19

of this Count VIII.

‘

‘

.

20.

Section

60.624

of

Title

40

of the Code ,of Federal

‘

RegulatiOflS.

40

C~F~R~

60.524,

‘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

20

---

~eater

than 7~05~i~~

pe~ti~iite.

T~Its

test shall

be

conducted

for

a

duration

of

no

less than

‘2 weeks du~ing.which no less than

50

percent

of the dryer loads shall be

.

monitored

for

their

final

recovered

solvent

-

flow

rate.

‘

‘

.21.

Respondents did i~otinitially test Dryer #2 to ‘verify

the flow rate of recovered solvent,, after Dryer’ #2 was installed

in 1996.

..

.‘

22.

Respondents, ‘by their conduct ,as alleged,herein,

violated,

Section

5.0.624

of

Title

40

of

the

Code

of

Federal

RegulationS

40 C.F.R.

60.624,

and Section 9.1(d)

of the Act,

415

ILCS

5/9.1(d)

(2002)

.

WHEREFORE,

Complainant,

PEOPLE

OF

THE

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS,

r~spectfullYrequests that the Board enter

a, judgment in favor of

Complainant and against Respondents DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS,

INC.,

AMERICAN

DRAPERY CLEANERS

& FLANEPROOFERS,

INC.,

and

RICHARD

ZELL

on

Count

VIII:

.‘

‘

.

,

‘

i.

Authorizing a hearing in this matter,at which time

Respondents will be required to answer the allegations herein;

2.

‘

Finding that Respondents have violated Section 60.624

of Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations,

40 C.F.R.

60.624,

and Section

9.1(d)

of the Act,

415 ILCS 5/9.1(d) (2002);

3.

Ordering Respondents

to cease and desist from further

violations of Section 60.624 of Title 40 of the Code of Federal

RegulationS,

40 C.F.R.

60.624, and Section 9.1(d)

of the Act,

415

ILCS 5/9.1(d)’(2002);

21

---

1ff

Re~5id~i~

~‘

~i~TiT~

ityfFtfty~

~‘~~“:

‘

Thousand Dollars

($50~.000.00) for each violation of theAct

atid

pertinent Board Air Pollution Regulations, and an

additional

‘

civil penaltyof 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 .Res~ondents; and.

‘

.

.

6.

Granting

such

other relief as the Board deems

appropriate and just.

,

.

.

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

ex

rel.

LISA

MADIGAN,

Attorney.

General

of

the

State

of

Illinois

MATTHEW J.

DUNN,

Chief

Environmental Enforcement/.

Asbestos Litigation Division

By:

~

~

fl4~t

ROSEMARIE CAZEAU,

C

ef

Environmental

Bureau

Assistant Attorney General

Qf.

Counsel,:

.

JOELJ. STERNSTEIN

.

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

188 W.

Randolph St.,

20th

Floor

Chicago,

Illinois

‘60601

(312)

814-6986

~

\c

o~\ErwirOflmeflta1\~0Et.\Ca5eDo~umeflts\Dr3w Drape\and-corn~1ai~-fir~a1

22

---

CERTIFICATE

OF

SERVICE

‘‘

I,

JOEL

J.

STERNSTEIN,

an

Assistant

Attorney

General,

certify that on the

30th

day

of December 2003,

I caused to be

served by First Class Mail the foregoing

AMENDED

COMPLAINT ‘FOR

CIVIL PENALTIES to the parties namned’on t’he attached service

list, bydepo’siting same in postage’prepaid enveiopes’with the

United States Postal Service located at 100 West’Randolph Street,’

Chicago,

Illinois

60601.

.

_________

JOEL

J.

STERNSTEIN

~

Docurnertts\D~aw

Drape\neti~

of

fj1io~•wpd

---

v.

DRAW

DRAPE CLEANERS,

INC.,

an Illinois corporation,

‘Respondent.

_________

TO:

See

Attached

Service

List

PLEASE

TAKE

NOTICE’that onJune27,

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 wh~chare attached and hereby

served

upon

you.,

Respectfully

submitted,’

LISA

MADIGAN

Attorney

General

,

..~

State of

Ii.-inois

BY:’

_________

JOELJ.

STERNSTEIN

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

188

W.

Randolph

St.,

20th’

Floor

Chicago,

Illinois

‘

60501

(312)

814-6986

-

THIS FILING IS SUBMITTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PEOPLE OF’ THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

Complainant,

RECEIVED

CLERK’S

OFFICE

)

JUN

27.2003

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Pollution

Control’Board

No.

PCB

03-51

)

•

..)

NOTICE OF_FILING

EXHLBIT

---

SERVICE LIST

Mr. BradleY Halloran,

Esq.

,

i11ino~~Pollution Control Board

‘~.oo

w.

Randolph Street,

Suite 11-500

Chicago,

Illinois 60601

Ms.’ MaUZ~eeflWozniak,

Esq.

-

i11inoi~Environmental Protection Agency

1021,North Grand Avenue, East

P.O. BOX 19275

.

‘

springfield,

Illinois 62702

Ms. Michele Rocawich,

Esq.

.

~5jssberg

and Aâsociates,

401 S.

LaSalle Street,

Chicago,

Illinois .60605

---

BEFORE THE XLLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

CLERK’SOFFICE’

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

)

JUN

2

~20~3

ex

rel..

LISA

MADIGAN,

Attorney

“

‘

)

.

•

““

‘

STATE

OFI

General

of

the

State

of

Illinois’

)

.‘

•

.

Poll~ti0~

cOntroj~d

‘Complainant,

:

‘

,:

,

‘

)

‘

•

‘

‘

‘

‘

.

‘

V.

.

‘

..

)

Nd.. PCB 03-51

DRAW

DRAPE

CLEANERS,

INC.,’

,

)

.

‘

,~

•

:

an

Illinois

Corporation,

Respondent.

-

.

‘

),

‘

.

‘‘

.

COMPLAINANT’S MOTION FOR PARTIAL

StTh~V!ARYtTtYDGMENT

plaintiff,

PEOPLE

OF

THE

STATE

OF

ILLINOIS,

ex

rel

LISA

MADIGAN,Attorney General of the State of Illinois, and pursuant

to Section 101.516 pf ,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

waC

filed

in

this

matter

on

October

15,

2002..

A copy of ,which is attached hereto,and

incorporated

herein

as

Exhibit

A.

This

compiaint’involves’

a.

petroleum

solvent

dry

oleaniflg

‘facility

operated

by

Respondent

located

at

223,5-2239

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;

.nd Count VIII, failure

t.o

perforLtL an initialf’low rate’ test’on Dryer #2.

‘

,

.

Complainant

served

Respondent

with

written’discovery

on’

April 11,

2003,

including a First Requ~stfor 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 tnany,,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

forDryer

#2

at

i’ts

facility..’

Respotident

also

a~xn~.ttedthat

Dryer

#2

is

not

a

‘solv~nt recovery

dryer and that Dryer #2 lacks a cartrIdge filter.

Furthermore,

.

.

ResPoflde~~tadmitted

tha,t

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

Count5.

-

.

.

,

Stfl~ARY

1TZYDGMENT

~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 pa.rtyis

entitled

to

judgment

,as

a

matter

of

law,

Dowd

&

Dowd,’Ltd.

V.

2

---

GleasQn,

181 Ill.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,.

6,22 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

sti.mmary judgment as a means

of, finding

Respondent liable for violations of the laws and regulations as

alleged, in Counts

IV,

V1 VII,~and VIII will limit the’ fifture

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’ BACKGROITND FACTS

AND

BACIGROUND

LAW

At all times’ relevant to the complaint,

Respondent was/is an

Illinois

corporation

in

good standing and was/is the dperator 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 in~talled. Dry~r

3

---

#2 also lacks a cartridge filter

Dryer #2 emitted volatile

-organic

material(”VOM”,

also

known’

as

volatile

organic

-

compounds)

to the environment after’ it’ was ‘installed until

sometime in2001 or .2002’.’ Admitted byRespondent inExhibit B

-

Response Nos.

6,

7,

~,

ii.

‘

.

,

‘

.

.

.

,

.

Section 3 315 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act

‘(“Act”),

415.ILCS 5/3.315

(20’02),,provides the following

defixiltion

“Person” ‘is any individual, partnership, co-

partnership,

firm,

company,

limited

liability

company,

corporation,.association,

joint

‘

.

stock company,

trust,.

eätate, political

subdivision,

state agency,

or any other ‘legal’

-

entity, or their legal representative, agent

‘

‘

or assigns.

.

-

.

.

.‘

‘

.•

;

.

Respofldeflt’is

a

“perS,on”aS

the

term

is

defined

in

SectIon

3.315

of the Act.

.

,

.

,

‘.

‘

ZRGOMENT

-

COUNTS

IV

AND ‘V

‘

‘

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 Environméntal’Protectior~.’Agency

.

(“AgencY”).

Count IV of the Complaint alleges that’Respondent

~onstrUCted an emissions source witho~.ita 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 persoh shall:

•*

.‘*

*‘

(b),

Construct,’ install,’ or operate

any

equipment,

facility, vehicle, vessel, or

aircraf.t

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

im~osedby such: permit.

‘

Section.3..115 of the Act, ~15.ILCS 5/3.115

(2002), provides

the following definition:

-

.

‘

.

.

.

‘

“Air,

pollution”

is

the

presence

in

~he

atmosphere ‘of one or more contaminants in

-

sufficient quantities and of such

characteristics and’duration’as to be

“

‘

-

injurious to human, plant,

or,ariitnàl life,

to

health,

or to property,

or to.unreasonably

-

interfere with’the enjoyment Of, life or

.,

property

Section 3.155

of

the

Act,

‘415

ILCS 5/3.165~(2002), provides

the

following

definition:

-

.

‘

.

.

“Contaminant”

is

any

solid1

liquid,

or

.

‘

gaseous

matter,

any

odor,

or any form of.

energy, from whatever source.

‘

VOMiC

a contaminant,

as that term is definedin 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

Boa~d 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

causeor 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

~

Acirn.

Code

201.143,

provIdes,

in’pèrtinent

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

whi~h a

construction

permit,is.

required

by

Section 201.142 without first obtaining’ an

‘

operating permit from the:Agency,

except for’

such.’testing operations as.rnay’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 s~urce,

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 ,orother’specific

limitations and any contaminant regulated

6

---

Illinois

pursuant

to

Section

9

1

of the Act

VON

is

a

“specified

air

contaminant” as defined by Section

201,102 ~f the Board Air Pollution Regulations.

pryer

#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 VON.:

‘

‘

‘

‘

.

.

RespOndent,

installed

Dryer

#2

at

it’s facility without.first

obtainilig

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 ~rom the Agency.

Admitted by.Respondent, in Exhibit B

-

RespdnseNo.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

15

in

the

Complainant’

s

First

Request

for

Admission

of

Facts

-

See

Exhibit

C.)

.

.

.

,

‘

,

‘

•,

,

.

,

Thus,

Respondent’ violated Section 9(b)

of ‘the ‘Act and

Sedtiofls

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

A~.GtTh1ENT

-

COUNTS VII AND VIII~

.

The Act and the associated provisions’ in the Code’ of Federal

Regulations

state that petroleum dry. cleaners may only u’se

.

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

C~mplaint alleges

that Respondent did not install a solvent recovery dryer with a

cartridge filter while Count Viii of the Complaint alleges that

.RespOfl.defl~did not perform the”initial test.

-

Section 9.1(d) ‘of the Act,

4.15

ILCS 5/9.1(d) (2002),

provideS~

i~i.

pertinent

part, as follows

No person shall

(1)

violate

any

provisions

of Sections 111,

‘

.

112,

165 or’l73 of

the

Clean Air Act’, as now

or hereafter amended, or fedEral, regulations

‘

adopted pursuan.t,thereto; or

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

‘,

(2)

‘construct,

jn’stall, modify or -operate

any

equipment,

building,

facility,

source

or

installation which is,subject to

regulation

,

under Sections ‘111,

112,

155

or, 173

of

the

-

-Clean, Air Act, as now or hereafter amended,

.

except in compliance with the requirements of

‘

such Sectionsand 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; ofl

:‘

Title 40of the Code of Federal Regulations set standardsof

performance for petroleum dry cleaners.

‘Section 60.522 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,

properl.y installed, operated and maintained.

(b)

‘Each

affected

petroleum

solven?

filter

,

•

‘

‘

that

is

‘installed.at

a

petroleum

dry

cleaning

‘plant after.Decembe.r

14,

1982,

shall be-a

,

-

cartridge, filter.

,

Cartridge filters shall be

drained

~

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’isnot’a solvent’recovery dryer, and it 1~cks

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, ~inpertinent part,

as

follows:

•

‘

.‘..

‘

.

,

.

.

Test methods and procedures

Each’owner properàtor of’an affected

facility subject. to the provisions of

-

,

§60.622(a)

shalllpérform an init~a1test to

verify that the flow rate’ of recovered’

so,lvent’.frbm the solvent recovery dryer

ä.t

.

the termination of the recovery cycle’ is no

-.

greater. than 0.05 litersper minute..

This

test

shall

be

conducted

for

a

duration

of

no

l~ss‘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 solv~ntafter 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

recdvered,

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’6O~624of Title’4Oof

the

COde of Federal Regulations-spells out the manner ‘in which’ the’

teCt is

to.be’ conducted:

‘

“

.

The

suggested

paint

for

measuring

the

flow

rate of recovered.solvent is

the

outlet

of’

the

solvent-water

separator.

,

Near the end ~f’

the

recovery,

cycle,

the

entire flow of’

‘redovered’ solvent Should be diverted to a

graduated cylinder~ As the recovered soI~ent.

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 gradu~.tedcylinder

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

literper 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

10

---

stopwatch, pen and paper, a knowledge of simple arithmetic,

and

time

to

measure every other dryer load for two weeks

Respondent

cannot

hide

‘behind

the

excuse

?hat

a

tEs,t

was

not’available ‘since

Respondeflt’,S owners’,

ope~ator’s, 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

Summarr judgment for Counts VII ~ñd VIII of the Con~p1aintshould

‘be’ awarded to’Complainant.

‘

.

‘

.

.

:

‘

.

CONCLUSION

WHEREFORE,

for the foregoing reasons, .Complain~nt

,

respectfully requEst the’Board to:

,

1.

Enter an order’ granting summary judgment for

-

‘

,

Complainant’ and against Respondent for’‘Counts

IV,

V1 VI~, ‘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

Boaid

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

---

By:..

I~

IJOEL STERNSTEIN

.

.‘

-

Assistant’

Attorney

General

Environmental

Bureau

188

W.

Randolph

St.

20th

Fl.

Chicago, Illinois 60601

(312).

814--6986

Respectfully

submitted,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

.ex

rel.

LISA

MADIGAN

‘,

‘

Attorney

General

of

the

‘

State

of. Illinois

‘:

MATTHEW

J.

DUNN,

Chief

‘

Environmental Enforcement!

Asbestos Litigation Division

13

---

CLERK~SOFFJCE

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

OCT

1

~

2002

PEOPLE’ OF THE’: STATE OF ILLINOIS,

).

.

.

STAIEOFiLUNC)~S

by

JAMES

E.

RYAN,

Attorney

‘

.

)

,

‘

.

,

‘

Pollution

Control &ard

General of the State of-Illinois

)

Complainant,

.

.

v.

‘

.

‘

-

.

)

.

No. PCB O3-~t

DRAW

DRAPE

CLEANERS,

INC.,

.

an Illinois corporation,

.

,

),

Respondent.

‘

.

‘

.

)

‘

..

‘

.

•!11,P~

~‘~—

4.

NOTICE

OF

FILING

TO’:

See Attached Service List

:

‘

PLEASE

‘TAKE

NOTICE

that

on

October

15,

2002,

the

People

of

the State of Illinois

,flied 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.

Fai1ur~

to

answer,

will

mean

that

all allegations

in

the

complaint,

will

be taken as if’adrnitted for

purposes of ‘this proceeding.

If you have any questions about

‘this

procedure,

you should contac’t the hearing officer assigned

tothiS; proceeding,, the Clerk’s Office,

or an attorney.

Respectfully’

submitted,

JAMES

E.

RYAN

‘

-

.

‘

Attorney General

State ofIllinois.

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. Richard Zell

‘,

.

.

.

-

Draw Dx~apeCleaners

‘

2235

West

Roscoe

Chicago, Illinois

60618

.

.

Ms..

Maureen

Wozniak,

Esq.’

Illinois

Environmental

Protection

Agency

1021 North Grand Avenu~,East

P.O. Box 19276

.

‘

.

-

“springfield,

Illinois

62702

‘

:

---

-

BEFORE.THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD’

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

)

.

-

by

JAMES

E.

RYAN,

Attorney

.

)

.

‘

General

of

the

State

of

Illinois

)

.

Complainant,

.

.

.

.

‘

)

‘

-

‘

‘

‘

.

)

No. P~B

o~-~(

DRAW

DRAPE” CLEANERS,

INC.,

.

.

‘

.

.

an

I1linOi~

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:

-.

COUNTI

..

.

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

S/31(2002)

..

.

.

‘

.

‘‘

‘

-

‘

‘

.

:

2.

The Illinois EPA is’ an administrative~.age~c~

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

‘enforcing the Act.

‘.,This Complaint is brought pursua~i.tto Section

31

of

the

Act,

415

ILCS,

5/3i

(2002,)

.

‘

.

.

.

.

‘

•

CLER,~’~

0i~FICE

OCT

1

5

2U02

STATE

OFlLLi1~Oi~

Pollution control Eoard

V.

)

1

---

3.

‘

At

all

times

relevant

to

this

Complaint,

‘DRAW DRAPE

‘CLEANERS,

INC.,

‘(“Respondent”) was and is an Illinois’corporation

‘duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of

-

‘Illinois and is in goo’d standing..

.

.

4.

‘

‘

At all times relevant to this. Complaint, Respondent has’

operated

a...facility

located

at 2235-2239 West Roscoe Street,

‘Chicago,

Cook County,’ Illinois,

60618

(~~facility~r)

.,.

5.

“Respondent Operates a’petrol’eum solvent

dry

cleaning

operation’ at its facility to clean drapes.

6.

Respondent installed Dryer #1 at its facility in 198D

andcoritinueS to operate Dryer #1.

,.Dryer #1 is a.petroleum

‘solvent ‘dryer, but it is not ~“~Eólventrecovery dryer.

Dryer #1

lacks a cartridge filter.

-

.

.

.7.’

Respondent installed

Dryer

#2

at

the’facility

in

1996

and’contiflueS 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.

.

,

‘

.

.

‘

8.

Both Dryer #1 and Dryer #2 emit volatile organic

material

(“VOM”,)

to

the.envi.ronment.

‘

‘

.-

9..

Sec,tion 3.315 of the 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 subdiv~1”sion,’ state

.

‘

.

.

agency,

‘or

any

other

legal

entity,

or

2

---

their’ legal’ representative,

agent or

assigns.

10;’

Respondent is a

“person”, as theterm

is defined in

Section 3~315of the,Act,

415 ILCS 5/3.315

(2002).

11.

Section 3.l65pf the’Ac~,

415

ILCS

5/3.165

(2,002),

provides’ t~iefollowing definition:

.

‘

..

‘

.

“Contaminant”

is

any

solid,

liquid,’

or

gasEous’matte.r’,

any

odor,.

or

any’

form

of

-

energy,

from whatever source.

.,

-

12.

VQM is a contaminant,

as that term,is defined in

:Sectjoñ 3.165 of the Act,

415 ILCS 5/3.165

(2002).

13.:

Section 3.115 of the Act, 415 ILCS :5/3.11.5

(2002),,

provides the’ following definition:

‘

‘

“Air pollution” ~s,the presence in the

-

atmosphere of one or more 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, 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 incombination 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

---

(“Board”) Air Pollution Regulations,

35 Ill

Adrn

Code 201 141,

provides’ as”follows:

“

‘‘

.

“

.

.

‘

.

Section

‘291.141 Prohibition of Air Po11ut~.on

-

-

.

‘

-

‘

No person shall cause orthreaten or allow

-

the

discharge

or

emission’of

any

con~aminant

.

-

.

-

-

into the environment in any State so..a~,

‘

either alone or in combination with

-

‘

.

-

contaminants from: other sources,

to cause’ or

‘tend to cause air pollution in Illinois, or

so as-to vi6late the provisions of ‘this

-

Chapter, or so as to’preventthè attainment,

‘

-

or

maintenance’

of’any

applicable

ambient

air

‘

-

quality. standard.’,~

-

,

-

‘

H,

‘

‘

-

:.-

‘

16.

Responaent’has emitted VOM into the atmosphere from~’

‘‘

Dryer ~1 and Dryer #2 causing air pollution in, violat.on of. its

Federally ‘Enforceable State Operating Permit

(“FESOP”), in

violation of the

Act,’ and in viblatiqn of’the Board’s.

regulatio~S.’

.

‘

.

‘

.

.-

~.

-

-.

-

17~

-

:RespOndeflt, by its conduct alleged herein, violated

Section 9(a)

of

the

Act,

41~ ILCS

5/9(a)

(20.02),

and

Section

201.141,9f

the

Board..Air Pollution Regulations,

35

Ill. Adm.

Code

201.141.

-,

‘

.

.

.

‘

.

‘

.

.

.

WHEREFORE,

Complainant, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

“respectfully requests “that -the ‘Board enter. a judgment ,in favOr of

complaiñant:.and against Respondent,

DRAW

DRAPE

CLEANERS,

INC.,

on

Count’

I:

.

.

.

‘

,

.

.

.

.

Authorizing a hearing in ‘this ‘matter at which time

“Respondent’ will be”.required to answer the’ allegations herein;

2.

‘

Finding tb~atRespondent ‘has violated Section

-9 (a)

of

4

---

the

Act,

415

ILCS

5/9(a)

(2002)’,

and,Sectlon.201.141

‘of

the

Board

Air

Pollution Regulation,

35

Ill’. Adm. Code 201.141;.

,

3.

Ordering

Respondent to cease and desist fr~mfurther

violations

of

Section

9(a)

of

the

Act,

‘415

ILCS

‘5/9(a).(2002),

and

Section

201.141

of the,Board Air Pollution Regulation,

35,111.’

Adm. Code.201.141;

.

:

‘

:

‘

,

.

“

.

4.

-

Assessing against, Respondent a civil penalty of Fifty

Thousan,d Dollars

($50,000.00)

for each ‘violationo.f the Act and

pertinent Board Air Pollution Regulations~ and an additional

civil penalty of Ten Thousand bollars

($10,000.00)

for each day

of violation;

,,,,

:,

,

:

-

‘

.

‘

5.

Taxing. all costs

in ,thi~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.’

.

‘

-

,

.

.

COUNTII

-

‘

-

1~PLATION OF

STA~DARDSFOR

PETROLETTh~ SOLVENT

DRY

CLEANERS

1

-

14.

Complainan,trealleges and incorporates by reference

herein paragraphs

1 through 14 of Count

I as ‘paragraphs

1 through

13 of this ,Count

II.

‘

,

.

.

-

is;

Section 218.607 of the Board Air Pollution Regulations,

35 Iii. Adm. Code 218.607, provides as follows:

‘

,

5

---

Standards

for

Petroleum

Solvent

Dry

Cleaners

-

a)

The owner or operator of a petroleum

-

solvent dry cleaning dryer shall either:

1)

Limit emissions of VOM to the

atmosphere to an average of 3.5

-

kilograms of VOM per 100 kilograms dry

weight of articles dry’ cleaned, or

2),

Install, and operate a soli)ent.

recovery,’dryer in a manner such that’ -the

dryer remains ‘closed and the recovery,

phase continues until’a.final solvent

flow rate’. .of

50 milliliters per minute

-

is attained.’

.

.

.

.

-

b)

‘The own~ror operator of a petroleum

‘solvent, filtration system shall

‘

‘

.,

‘either:

,

.

‘

.

.

-

-

1)

Reduce the VON content in all

filtration.wastes

to

1.0

‘kilogram

or

less per 100 kilograms dry weight of

-.

articles dry cleaned, be’fore disposal,

and exposure,to the atmosphere,

‘or

2)

Install and operate a cartridge

filtration system,

and’ drain the filter-

cartridges in their sealed housings for

8 hours or more before their removal.

16.

For,both Drye.r #1 and Dryer .#2,.Respondent has failed

to limit VOM emissions to the atmosphere to an a~verageof 3.5

kilograms of VOM per 100 kilograms dry weight articles cleaned.

17.,

Ne’ither Dryer #1 nbr Dry~r‘#2 are solvent recovery

dryers’.

‘

‘

.

‘

.

18.

‘For both Dryer #1 and Dryer #2, Respondent has failed

to reduce VOM content in all fi1tratioi~.wastes to 1.0 kilogram or

less per 100 kilograms of articles dry cleaned,

before’ disposal,

6

---

and exposu’re’to the atmosphere.

.

.

‘.

-

19.

‘Neither’Dryer #1 nor Dryer #2 ‘haves, cartridge-

‘filtration system.

“

.

,

,

-

.

.

‘

.

.

.

20.

Respondent, by its conduct as alleged herein, 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.

.

--

‘

,

‘

‘

WHEREFORE,’ Complainant,

PEOPLE’ OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

respectfully.,requests

that, the Board enter ájudgmer~tin favor of

Complaiflant’and again~t:Respondent, DRAW DRAPE CLEANERS,. INC.,.

on.

Count

II~

,

‘

‘

-

.

‘

,

‘

.

‘

.‘

1.

Authorizing a hearing in this matter at wh±ch’tirne

Respondent’Will be required to answer the-allegations herein;

2.

Findii~gthatRespondent

has’ violated Section

‘9(a)

‘of

the Act,

415 ILCS 5/9(a) (20021,’ and Section 218.607 of the Board

Air pollution Regulations,

35

Ill. Adm. Code 218.607;

3.

ordering Respondent to cease’. and de’sist from further

violations

of

Section

‘9(a)

of

the

Act,

415

ILCS

5/9 (a)

(2002),

and

‘Section218.6’07

of

the

Board

Air

Pollution

Regulations,

35

Ill.

.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

---

of violation;

‘

.

.

‘

.

‘5.-

‘Taxing all costs in this- action pursuan,t, to Section

42(f). of

the

Act; including attorney, expert ‘witness and

coisultant

fees,

against

Respondent;

and’

.

-

-

.

6.

Granting such other reliEf as the Board deems,

-

‘appropriate

and

just.

.‘

,

:

,

-.

‘

‘

COUNT

III

‘

‘-

.

FAILURE

TO

CONDUCT

ADEQUATE

TESTING

-

‘

‘

‘

1

-

14.

,

Complainant.

realleges

and

incorporates

by

reference

herein paragraphs ~ through 14 of Count

I’ as’paragraphs

1 through

14 of this Count

III.

,,

,

:.

.

15.

Section 218.610

‘of the Bba~dAir Pollution’ Regulations,

~

~fl.

.~dm.‘Code 218.610, providesàs 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 Se~tions218.607 (a) (2)

and

(b) (1)

of this Part shall’ be determined

by mèthods’described in EPA-450/3-82-.009

(1982)

incorporated by. ref~rencein Section

“218.112 of’this Part.

‘

.

.

‘

‘

.

‘

.

16.

Section 218.607 of the Board Air Pollution RegulationC,

35

Iii.

-Adin.

Code 218.607,

sets

standards for petroleum solvent

dry clEaning operations.

.‘

.

.

.,‘

.

.

.

.

17.

Respondent has failed to visually inspectboth Dryer #1

and Dryer #2 in order to demonstrate compliance with the

8

---

‘requirEments of Section 218.607(b) (2)

of’ the’ Board Air Pollution

Regulations,

35 IlL Mm. -Code 218.607 (b) (2).

-

-

18.. Respondent has failed’ to follow the ~nethodsdescribed

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’2l8.607(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), a~idSection

218.610 of the Board’Air Pollution Regulations,

35 Ill. Adm. Code

218.610.

‘

,

.

‘.

‘

‘

‘

.

‘.

.

,

WHEREFORE’,

Complainant,

PEOPLE, OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS;

respedtful~y

requeEtsthat

the

Board

enter

a

judgment

in

favor

of

Complainant and against

P.espon,dent’,

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, 3~Ill. Adm; 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

Section 218.610 of the Board Air Pollutioni’Regulations,

35111.

Adm. Code

218,. 610;

‘

---

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’ofTen. 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.

.

‘Grant±n~süch.other relief

‘as the Board deems

.

app~opria.taand just.

‘

“

‘

‘

.

:.

‘

,

‘

COtJNT’IV

‘

.

‘‘

CONSTRUCTION OF AN

EMISSIONS

SOURCE WITHOUT A PERMIT

‘‘

-

1-12.

Complainant reä.l1ege~and incorporates by ‘reference

herein paragr~aphs1 ‘through

12, of Count

I as paragraphs

1 through

12 of

this’ Count IV.

.

‘

‘

.

.

,

‘

.

13.

‘

Section

.9, (b)

of the Act, 415 ILCS 5/9 (b) (2002)

,

provides as follows:

.

.

.

‘

,‘

-

‘

-

‘

No’ person shall:

.

*

*

.

*

.

.

.

(b)

Construct, instáll~or, operate any

.

equip~nent; 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.

.

.

‘

.

.

-

14.

Section 201.102 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

10

---

(“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 specifiedair

contaminants to the atmosphere.

‘“

.

-

.

-

“New Emission Source”: any’emission source,

the construction or modification of ,which is

.commenced ‘on or after April ‘14,

19,72.,.

“Specified .Air’ Contaminant”:

any,lair

.

cOntaminant as to which this.Subtitle

..

,

.

.

‘

-

‘contains emission standards or other specific.

-

-