PROP65 News-35828 © Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.

Transcription

© Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.
PROP65
News-35828
FREDRIC EVENSON, SBN 198059
DAVID WILLIAMS, SBN 144479
2 Public Interest LawTers Group
2070 Allston Way, Suite 300
I
3 Berkeley, CA 94712-3157
Telephone: (510) 647-1900
4 Facsimile: (510) 647-1905
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
5 ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION
1
6
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF FRESNO
9
10
11
ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION, a
non-profit corporation, on behalf of itself and
the public interest,
Plaintiff,
13
14
15
16
17
V.
2O
21
CONSENT JUDGMENT BETWEEN
PLAINTIFF, ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS
FOUNDATION AND DEFENDANT, J.M.S.
ENTERPRISES, INC.
JONES CLEANING CENTERS, INC.;
LAMOURE'S INCORPORATED; J.M.S.
ENTERPRISES, INC., dba MASTERCRAFT
DRY CLEANING; SIGNATURE
CLEANERS, and DOES 1 through 100
inclusive,
18
19
CASE NO. 638758-3
1.
Defendants.
I?\TRODUCTION
1.1
On September 15, 1999, the Ecological Rights Foundation ("ERF" or "Plaintiff'),
on behalf of the general public, filed a Complaint for Injunctive Relief, Civil Penalties and
Restitution ("Complaint") in the Superior Court for the County of Fresno ("Action"), arising
22
from alleged violations of the Safe Drinking Water and Toxics Enforcement Act of 1986
23
("Proposition 65"), Cal. Health & Safety Code {}w25249.5 et seq., and Business and
24
Professions Code w167
17200 et seq. by J.M.S. Enterprises Inc., dba Mastercraft Dry Cleaning,
25
including all of its divisions (collectively referred to as "J.M.S. Enterprises" or "Defendant").
26
-1CONSENT JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 638758-3
1
2
3
4
PROP65
News-35829
Said Complaint is attached as Exhibit A. ERF and Defendant are referred to herein collectively
as "the Parties." The purpose of this Consent Judgment is to resolve all Claims raised in this
Action, on the terms set forth below.
1.2.
Prior to filing the Complaint, plaintiff served on Defendant a Proposition 65
Notice of Intent to Sue ("Notice"), pursuant to Cal. Health & Safety Code w 25249.7(d), giving
5
notice to the Attorney General of California and other public officials authorized to bring suit
6
under Proposition 65 of the alleged violations referred to in paragraph 1.1 above. Said Notice is
7
attached as Exhibit B. Defendant stipulates that said notice is adequate to comply with 22 Cal.
8
Code Regs, w 12903.
9
10
11
12
13
1.3.
Neither the Attorney General nor any of the other such public officials has
commenced any action in response to such Notices. For purposes of this Consent Judgment
Plaintiff acts on behalf of the general public as to those matters described in the Complaint and
Notice attached as Exhibits A and B.
1.4.
The Complaint alleges that Defendant has violated Proposition 65 and the
14
Business and Professions Code by exposing individuals in California to Perchloroethylene and/or
15
Tetrachloroethylene (hereinafter collectively, "Perc") designated by the State of California as a
16
chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer for purposes of Proposition 65, without
17
first providing a clear and reasonable warning to such individuals.
18
19
1.5.
Defendant owns the following stores that in conducting business use Perc and/or
handle materials cleaned with Perc. The store locations are as follows:
5142 N. Palm Avenue
Fresno, CA 93704
20
21
7955 N. Cedar
Fresno, CA 93720
22
23
24
25
26
Defendant has elected to settle this matter by entering into this Consent Judgment.
1.6.
For purposes of this Consent Judgment, the Parties further stipulate that this Court
has subject matter jurisdiction over the allegations contained in the Complaint. Without
conceding that this Court has personal jurisdiction over any Defendant, Defendant does not
-2CONSENT JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 638758-3
1
2
3
4
PROP65
News-35830
contest the exercise of personal jurisdiction by this Court or venue in the County of Fresno solely
and exclusively for the purposes of this Consent Judgment; or the exercise of jurisdiction by this
Court to enter this Consent Judgment as a resolution of the clai.ms which were or could have
been raised in the Complaint based on the facts alleged therein.
1.7.
5
The Parties enter into this Consent Judgment to settle disputed claims between
them and avoid prolonged litigation; to ensure that the objectives of Proposition 65 are
6
expeditiously carried out; and to provide a prompt remedy for the matters alleged in the
7
Complaint. By execution of this Consent Judgment, Defendant does not admit any violations of
8
Proposition 65 or the Business & Professions Code, or any other law or standard applicable to
9
warning or disclosure concerning the use of Perc. Nothing in this Consent Judgment shall be
10
construed as an admission by the Parties of any fact, issue of law, or violation of law; nor shall
11
12
13
14
compliance with this Consent Judgment constitute or be construed as an admission by the Parties
of any fact. issue of law, or violation of law. Defendant specifically denies that it has committed
any such violation or that any present warning program is not sufficient to comply with any
&':ies under Proposition 65 that relate to the use of Perc. Defendant asserts it has not violated
15
Proposition 65, the Business & Professions Code, or any other state or federal law (including the
16
common law) or regulation relating to the use of Perc in dry cleaning. Nothing in this Consent
17
Judgment sh tl prejudice, waive or impair any right, remedy or defense the Parties may have in
18
any other or further legal proceeding. However, this paragraph shall not diminish or otherwise
i9
affect the obligations, responsibilities and duties of defendant under this Consent Judgment,
20
2.
In the interest of settlement, the Defendant agrees to undertake the actions identified
21
22
23
P R O P O S I T I O N 65 C O M P L I A N C E R E Q U I R E M E N T S
below.
2.1.
Defendant shall provide a clear and reasonable warning that use of Perc in dry
24
clean]no_ exposes persons to a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer, in the
25
manner provided in this Agreement, except as provided in paragraph 2.6.
26
-3CONSENT JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 638758-3
2.2.
1
2
3
PROP65
News-35831
Beginning February 1, 2000, Defendant shall post, in each of its stores in such a
way that it is likely to be seen by customers and employees, at least one sign ("Sign") of the
same size, and wording, lettering, and layout as the sign attached as Exhibit C.
2.3.
4
Beginning February 1, 2000, Defendant shall cause to be posted on its bags
containing garments dry-cleaned with Perc, a warning that states as follows:
5
PROPOSITION 65 WARNING: These Dry
Cleaned Fabrics Contain and Emit Residual
Amounts of Perchloroethylene, a Chemical Known
to the State of California to Cause Cancer.
6
7
8
Provided, however, that Defendant shall be able to continue using any other bags which contain a
9
substantially similar warning which it purchased prior to February 1, 2000.
10
11
2.4.
Beginning March 1, 2000, Defendant shall place an advertisement in a newspaper
which serves the area near its store, which will state as follows:
12
PROPOSITION 65 WARNING: Most dry cleaners
use perchloroethylene, which is a chemical known
to the State of California to cause cancer. The air
near dry cleaning plants that use perchloroethylene
contains residual amounts of perchloroethylene, as
do dry cleaning stores and dry cleaned fabrics. The
dry cleaners identified below also provide dry
cleaning services that do not use perchloroethylene.
13
14
15
16
17
Such advertisements shall be published at least quarterly (i.e., one time every three (3) months).
18
19
20
21
2.5
The warning required by paragraphs 2.2 through 2.3 above shall be delivered
with, inserted with, printed on, or prominently affixed to the establishment or garment bag with
such conspicuousness as to render it likely to be read and understood by an ordinary individual
under customary conditions of purchase or use. The warning shall be at least the same size as the
22
largest of any other health or safety warnings on the product label and the word "WARNING"
23
shall be in all capital letters and in bold print.
24
25
2.6.
Alternative Warning Requirements. In agreeing to the requirements set forth at
paragraph 2.1 through 2.5 above, the Parties further acknowledge that administrative agencies of
26
-4CONSENT JLIDGMENT
CASE NO. 638758-3
PROP65
News-35832
the State of California, including the Office of the Attorney General and the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment ("OEHHA"), may act to initiate or promulgate
regulations under Proposition 65 or issue other interpretive guidance in the future that may affect
the requirement to distribute warnings under Proposition 65 for the Use of Perc in dry cleaning.
If the State of California, including the Office of the Attorney General or OEHHA, or any other
agency thereof, through the execution of a consent judgment in another action or through the
6
promulgation of a regulation or issuance of other interpretive guidance, specifically permit any
7
form(s) of clear and reasonable warning under Proposition 65, other than that described at
8
paragraphs 2.2 through 2,4 above, or vary the form or content of the warning described at
9
10
11
12
13
14
paragraphs 2.2 through 2.4 above, then Defendant may satisfy its obligations under paragraphs
2.2 through 2.4 by distributing warnings in a manner consistent with said consent judgment, or
regulation or interpretive guidance promulgated or issued by the State. Nothing in this
agreement shall be construed to relieve Defendant from its obligation to comply with any
requirement imposed by the State of California after this agreement is executed.
2.6.1. If other warnings are required by other statutes, such as the Occupational Safety
15
and Health Act or Federal Hazardous Substances Act, those warnings shall be administered as
16
required by' those laws, but the administration of those warnings shall be considered separate
17
from any requirement of this agreement. The administration ( f such warning by the Defendant
lg
shall not be construed as failure to comply with the requirements set forth at paragraph 2.2
19
through 2.4 above. Nor shall the administration of such warnings relieve the Defendant of the
20
obligation to comply with the requirements set forth at paragraph 2.2 through 2.4.
21
2.6.2. In the event that any law, rule, regulation or final decision of any legislative,
22
judicial or executive body becomes effective or is entered that renders the warning requirements
23
of paragraphs 2.2 through 2.4 of this Consent Judgment unnecessary, unlawful or inappropriate
24
to comply with other applicable laws, Defendant is released from its obligations under those
25
paragraphs 30 days after the parties jointly agree to modify the consent judgment to reflect the
26
change in the law. Should Plaintiff not consent, Defendant may petition the Court for the
-5CONSENT JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 638758-3
1
2
3
4
PROP65
News-35833
modification. In any such petition, the burden shalt be on the Defendant to prove that
compliance with paragraphs 2.2 through 2 4 of this Consent Judgment is unnecessary, unlawful,
or inappropriate with respect to the subject law(s).
2.6.3. Should Defendant cease using Perc and handling products cleaned with Perc, at
any of its stores, the warning requirements of sections 2.2 through 2.4 will not apply to that store.
5
Should Defendant determine that the emissions of Perc at any of its stores do not require a
6
warning under Proposition 65, that Defendant may seek modification of this Consent Judgment
7
in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph 6.
8
3.
DUTIES LIMITED TO CALIFORNIA
9
This Consent Judgment shall have no effect on Defendant's use of Perc outside the State
10
11
12
13
14
of California.
4.
PERC MACHINES
4.1.
Defendant agrees and stipulates that it will either:
4.1.1. Not, at any time after the execution of this Consent Judgment, install a drycleaning machine that uses Perc at any new store location. Defendant further agrees and
15
stipulates that if in the future, the Perc machines at its current store locations are replaced,
16
Defendant will replace them with dry cleaning machines that do not use Perc or stoddard solvent.
17
As used in this agreement, the term "stoddard solvent" refers only to that substance, a .,d
18
specifically does not include (among other products) Exxon DF-2000. Provided, however, that
19
Defendant will not be required to comply with this provision to the extent it is unable to obtain
20
government or landlord approval for the installation of any dry-cleaning machine that uses a
21
substance other than Perc; or
22
23
24
25
26
4.1.2. Install one dry cleaning or wet cleaning machine that does not use Perc or
stoddard solvent for each new dry cleaning machine which uses Perc that it installs.
4.2.
Notwithstanding the other provisions of this paragraph, Defendant may, within
twelve (12) months of the date this Consent Judgment is entered, replace an existing dry cleaning
machine which uses Perc with a dry cleaning machine that uses Perc, if the new dry cleaning
-6CONSENT JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 638758-3
1
2
3
PROP65
News-35834
machine has primary and secondary control systems, as required for new dry cleaning machines
under Regulation XIV, Rule 1421, Table 1, of the South Coast Air Quality Management District
Rules, in effect as of December 1, 1999, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D.
4.3.
4
After February 1, 2000, Defendant will make known and available to customers
cleaning that does not use Perc, although such cleaning may be performed by persons other than
5
Defendant.
6
5.
MONETARY
7
5.1.
Within thirty (30) days of receipt of written notice of the entry" of the Consent Judgment,
8
Defendant shall pay the sum of three thousand dollars ($3,000) to the Law Offices of David
9
Williams as payment of attorneys fees and costs in connection with the Action. Within thirty
10
(30) days of receipt of written notice of the entry of the Consent Judgment, Defendant shall
11
I'
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
donate the sum of $750 to ERF, a non-profit corporation, and $250 to Californians for
Alternatives to Toxics, a non-profit corporation. These funds will be used to increase awareness
of and for the reduction of toxic exposures. Such payment shall not be considered as a civil
penalty for purposes of Cal. Health and Safety Code w 25249.7(b), but rather shall be treated as
restitution for purposes of Business and Professions Code w 17200 et, seq., and shall be paid by
check, made payable to the organizations ehumerated above. Said checks shall be delivered to
the Law Offices of David Williams, 2070 Allston Street, Suite 300, P.O. Box 12157, Berkeley,
Ca!i~brnia 94712-3157.
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
-7CONSENT JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 638758-3
6.
1
4
News-35835
M O D I F I C A T I O N OF C O N S E N T J U D G M E N T
This Consent Judgment may be modified only by ~Titten agreement of the Plaintiff and
2
3
PROP65
the Defendant, or upon a duly noticed motion, and the entry of a modified Consent Judgment by
the Court. Notice of such motion shall be served on the California Attorney General.
7.
5
E N F O R C E M E N T OF C O N S E N T J U D G M E N T
The Parties or the California Attorney General may enforce the terms and conditions of
6
this Consent Judgment by motion or order to show cause before the Superior Court of Fresno
7
County. In any action brought by any Party to enforce this Consent Judgment, or to remedy a
8
breach of this Consent Judgment, the prevailing party may seek whatever fines, penalties or
9
remedies that are provided for by law, and shall be entitled to recover its attorneys fees and costs.
10
8.
11
12
13
14
15
A P P L I C A T I O N OF C O N S E N T J U D G M E N T
This Consent Judgment shall apply to and be binding upon the Plaintiff, acting on behalf
of the general public, and the Defendant, its subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, subdivisions, and
its successors and assigns. It is the intention of the parties that this Consent Judgment will be r e s
"udicata
as to any pending or potential action relating to the subject matter of the Claims released
aerein.
16
9.
17
Each dgnatory to this Consent Judgment certifies that he or she is fully authorized by the
AUTHORITY TO STIPULATE TO C O N S E N T J U D G M E N T
18
~arty he or she represents to stipulate to this Consent Judgment, to enter- into and execute the
19
Consent Judgment on behalf of the party represented, and legally to bond that party.
20
10.
21
10.1. This Consent Judgment is a final and binding resolution between and among, the
CLAIMS COVERED
22
Plaintiff and its agents, acting on behalf of the general public, and Defendant (defined for
23
purposes of paragraphs 8 and 10 to include its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions,
24
subdivisions, directors, officers, shareholders, employees, agents or attorneys) and its customers,
25
distributors, wholesalers, retailers or any other person in the course of business who may use
26
Perc, with respect to any and all Claims, as defined in paragraph 10.4, which Defendant or ERF
-8CONSENT JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 638758-3
1
PROP65
News-35836
each have had in the past or now have against each other, or any o f them, whether based on
actions committed by Defendant, or by any entity within its chain of distribution, including, but
3
4
not limited to, retail sellers, wholesalers, and any other person i~ the course of business, with
respect to the Claims as defined in paragraph 10.4.
10.2.
5
Compliance with the terms of this Consent Judgment resolves any issue, nov,, and
in the past, concerning compliance by Defendant, its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, successors,
6
divisions, subdivisions, directors, officers or employees, and its customers, distributors,
7
wholesalers, retailers or any other person in the course of doing business who may use, or
8
maintain Perc only to the extent such use or maintenance applies to Defendant's use of Perc, with
9
ti~e requirements of Proposition 65 and Business and Profession Code section 17200 et seq.
10
I1
10.3.
defendant in this Action, other than Defendant.
12
13
14
Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect the liability of any other
10.4.
For purposes of this Consent Judgment, "Claims" shall mean any and all manner
of action or actions, cause or causes of action, in law or in equity, administrative actions, in law
or equity, administrative actions, petitions, suits, debts, liens, contracts, agreements, promises,
15
liabilities, claims, demands, unknown fixed or contingent, that have existed, or now exist, all to
16
the extent based upon, arising out of or relating to the compliance of Defendant with Proposition
17
65, or regulations promulgated there' nder, and Business and Professions Code w167
17200 et seq.,
18
with respect to the use and/or maintenance of Perc as identified on the Notices attached as
19
Exhibk B. In this regard, the Parties expressly waive the application of Califomia Civil Code
20
Section 1542, which provides as follows:
21
A general release does not extend to claims which
the creditor does not know or suspect to exist in his
favor at the time of executing the release, which if
known by him must have materially affected this
settlement with the debtor.
22
23
24
11.
RETENTION
OF JURISDICITON
25
The Court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter to implement the Consent Judgment.
26
-9CON SENT JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 638758-3
12.
1
4
5
News-35837
P R O V I S I O N OF N O T I C E
12.1. When any party is entitled to receive any notice or report under this Consent
2
3
PROP65
Judgment, the notice or report shall be sent by overnight courier to the person and address set
forth in this section. Any party may modify the person and addresses to whom notice is to sent
by sending each other party written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested.
12.2. Notice or reports shall be sent to the following:
6
For the Plaintiff:
Fredric Evenson, Esq.
Public Interest Lawyers Group
2070 Allston Street, Suite 300
P.O. Box 12157
Berkeley, California 94712-3157.
7
8
9
10
For the Defendant:
Robert C. Goodman, Esq.
Goodman I Kang LLP
177 Post Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94108
11
12
13
14
13.
15
ENTIRE A G R E E M E N T
This Consent Judgment is the sole and entire agreement and understanding of the Parties
16
with respect to the entire subject matter hereof and any and all prior discussions, negotiations,
17
commitments and understanding related hereto. No representations, oral or otherwise, express or
18
implied, other than those contained herein have been made by any party hereto. No other
19
agreements not specifically referred to herein, oral or otherwise, shall be deemed to exist or to
2O
bind any ofthe parties.
21
14.
22
23
24
ATTORNEY G E N E R A L
Upon execution of this Consent Judgment by all parties, Plaintiff shall serve a copy of it
on the California Attorney General together with a copy of the request for the Court to enter this
Consent Judgment as a final judgment. Such notice will be served on the Office of the Attorney
25
26
-10-
CONSENT JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 638758-3
1
2
PROP65
News-35838
General at least seven (7) days prior to the filing of the request for entry of this Consent
Judgment.
15.
3
COURT APPROVAL
This Consent Judgment shall be effective only after it has been executed by the Court.
4
Otherwise, it shall be of no force or effect and cannot be used in any proceeding for any purpose,
5
16..
EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS
6
The stipulations to this Consent Judgment may be executed in counterparts and/or by
7
facsimile, which taken together shall be deemed to constitute one document.
8
9
10
IT IS SO STIPULATED:
Dated:
ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION
11
12
By:
Its:
13
14
J.M.S. ENTERPRISES, INC.
15
16
17
By: k~ ~
..~__~.
Its: p~'t~, ._/',M.'Y, / ~ / ' 3
18
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED:
Dated:
Judge of the Superior Court
22
23
24
25
26
-11CONSENT JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 638758-3
..~4r
PROP65
1
2
General at least seven (7) days prior to the filing of the request for entry of this Consent
Judgment.
15.
3
COURT APPROVAL
This Consent Judgment shall be effective only after it has been executed by the Court.
4
5
News-35839
Otherwise, it shall be of no force or effect and cannot be used in any proceeding for any purpose,
16.
6
EXECUTION IN COUNTERPARTS
The stipulations to this Consent Judgment may be executed in counterparts and/or by
7
facsimile, which taken together shall be deemed to constitute one document.
8
9
IT IS SO STIPULATED:
10
11
12
By: ~
,is:
13
#
(~")'~/7""
ff./
14
15
J.M.S. ENTERPRISES, INC.
16
17
By:
Its:
18
19
20
21
IT IS SO ORDERED:
Dated:
Judge of the Superior Court
22
23
24
25
26
1 -
CONSENT JUDGMENT
CASE NO. 638758-3
PROP65
News-35840
EXHIBIT A
PROP65
2
3
4
5
6
DAVID WILLIAMS, SBN 144479
FREDRIC EVENSON, SBN 198059
Public Interest Lawyers Group
2070 Allston Way, Suite 300
P.O. Box 12157
Berkeley, CA 94712-3157
Telephone: (510) 647-1900
Facsimile: (510) 647-19.05
News-35841
, .p 1 5 12 S
Sg
i:RES~OCOUtii't ~.o?i..ii,O~tC0tJR'~
Attorneys for Plaintiff,
7
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
8
COUNTY OF FRESNO
9
10
ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION,
a non-profit Corporation,
11
Plaintiff,
12
V.
13
14
15
16
JONES CLE,a2'~rlNG CENTERS, INC.;
LAMOURE'S INCORPORATED;
MASTERCRAFT DRY CLEANING;
SIGNATURE CLEANERS, and DOES
1 through 100 inclusive,
COMPLAINT FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF AND CIVIL PENALTIES
Health & Safety Code {}25249.5, et seq;
Bus. & Prof. Code {}17200
Defendants.
17
18
ECOLOGICAL RIGHTS FOUNDATION alleges as follows:
INTRODUCTION
19
1.
20
This Complaint seeks civil penalties and an injunction to remedy the continuing
21
failure of defendants JOINTS CLEANING CENTERS, INC.; LAMOURE'S INCORPORATED;
22
MASTERCRAFT DRY CLEANING; SIGNATURE CLEANERS; and DOES 1 through 100
inclusive, to give clear and reasonable warnings to residents of California who clean, store, wear,
24
use, or transport clothing and/or other fabric that is dry cleaned using tetrachloroethylene as a
25
solvent, that those residents are exposed to chemicals known to the State of California to cause
2(;
CPH]COi.
o7,
2~;
CO:,JA"L/~L'!T ]'Or< IN,1UNC-I]ViZ
I{EL~F ,,',2q) CIVIL PENALTIES
EXHIBIT
A
2.
1
PROP65
News-35842
Tetrachloroethylene is a solvent used in the dry cleaning process utilized by each
2
defendant. Carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chloride are produced when tetracNoroethylene breaks
3
down. Residual amounts oftetrachloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chloride remain or~
4
dry cleaned clothing and other fabric and continue to off-gas, expoiing those around to significant
5
amounts of these chemicals. Tetrachloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chloride are
6
chemicals that have been listed for more than a year as known to the State of California to cause
7
cancer.
8
9
3.
Residents of the State of California are exposed to tetrachloroethylene, carbon
tetrachloride and vinyl chloride when they wear, use, store, or transport dry cleaned clothing or
10
other fabric9 Also, employees of dry cleaning plants and stores are exposed to significant amounts
tl
of te:rachloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chloride when clothing or other fabric is
12
cleaned, stored, or transported. Defendants have not provided these exposed individuals with
13
clear and reasonable warnings that they are being exposed to chemicals "known to the State of
14
Calit%rnia to cause cancer.
15
4.
At all times relevant to this action, defendants, and each of them, knew that their
16
pro,fuc:s and services cause exposures to tetrachloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and vinyl
t7
chloride. Defendants intended that residents of California use defendants' dry cleaning services in
1S
such ",','aT as x',ould lead to significant health threatening exposures to the above mentioned
19
carci::%enic chemicals.
PARTIES
2O
5.
??
Plaintiff' Ecological Rights Foundation is a California non-profit corporation
d~, ,.:~:.,~ to the protection and enhancement of the environment, to educating consumers of toxic
e>:po~u.cs from products in California, and to enforcing California and federal environmental
24
25
laws. Eoolo~ica! Rights Foundation is a "person" pursuant to Health & Safety Code w
6.
Dd'endant JONES CLEANING CENTERS, INC. is a corporation organized
26
v.it!-dp, a::.:l ~::::Ic:the laws of the State of California, and is a business that dr)., cleans, or causes to
Z7
bc (10 c:.'::r~oJ, clothing and/or fab:ic for customers in the California market People in the County
28
CO>,;]'i.A:>(F I?9
INJUNCIIVI
}
]:El.IF;i .,',2;i} ~.A"'~',,.I~].~NAL'IILS
2
PROP65
News-35843
1
of Fresno have had clothing and/or other fabric dry cleaned by defendants, thereby being exposed
2
to tetrachloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chloride.
3
7.
Defendant LAMOURE'S INCORPORATED is is a corporation organized within
4
and under the laws of the State of California, and is a business that dry cleans, or causes to be dry
5
cleaned, clothing and/or fabric for customers in the California market. People in the County of
6
Fresno have had clothing and/or other fabric dry cleaned by defendants, thereby being exposed to
7
tetrackloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chloride.
8
9
8.
Defendant MASTERCRAFT DRY CLEANING is a business entity with its
principal place of business in Fresno County, and is a business that dry cleans, or causes to be dry
10
cleaned, clothing and/or fabric for customers in the California market. People in the County of
11
Fresno have had clothing and/or other fabric dry cleaned by defendants, thereby being exposed to
12
tetrachloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chloride.
13
9.
Defendant SIGNATURE CLEANERS is a business entity with its principal place
14
of business in Fresno County, and is a business that dry cleans, or causes to be do' cleaned,
15
clothing and/or fabric for customers in the California market. People in the County of Fresno have
16
had clothing and/or other fabric dry cleaned by defendants, thereby being exposed to
17
tetrachloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chloride.
18
10.
19
Civil Procedure w
20
sues these defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek to amend this Complaint and
21
include these Doe defendants' true names and capacities when they are ascertained. Each of the
22
fictitiously named Doe defendants is alleged to be an agent, employee or acting in concert with
23
one or several of the above named and is responsible in some manner for the conduct alleged
21
herein.
25
] 1.
The true names and capacities of defendants sued herein under California Code of
as Does 1 through 100, inclusive, are unknown to plaintiff', who therefore
On May 4, 1999, plaintiffsent 60-day Notice Letters to the State Attorney
26
OencEal% ofJice, to the District attorneys of eve<r' county in California, and to the City, Attorneys
27
G,Ce.,t;i.\9
,,,,,..~;c,J;liacl b, with a potmlation exceeding 750,000. On or before that same (late,
r , . l r
.
"
",\
2,<
CO" II)L,,'~!;<I F q R I?,,'.3U:~CTIVIZ
]t]:;Lrl;F AND C I\"I L i~
PROP65
News-35844
I
plaintiff sent similar 60-day notice letters to each of the defendants. A copy of the letter sent to
2
the Attorney General is attached to this complaint as an Exhibit.
3
4
12.
Each defendant is a business that employs ten or more individuals. Each
defendant offers its dry cleaning services within California to residents of.the State of California.
JURISDICTION
5
6
13.
T h e Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to California Health &
7
Safety Code w
8
enforcement in any court of competent jurisdiction. California Constitution Article IV, Section 10
9
grants the Superior Court "original jurisdiction in all causes except those given by statute to other
10
trial courts." Chapter 6.6 of the Health & Safety Code, and Division 7, part 2 (Sections 17200 et
11
seq.) of the Business & Professions Code, which contain the statutes under which this action is
12
brought, do not grant jurisdiction to any other trial court.
13
14.
and Business & Profession's Code w167
17203 and 17204, which allow
This Court also has jurisdiction over the defendants because they are each
14
corporations or individuals that have sufficient minimum contacts in California and within the
15
County of Fresno. Defendants intentionally availed themselves of the California and Fresno
]6
County markets for their dr 5, cleaning services. It is thus consistent with traditional notions of fair
17
play and substantial justice for the California courts to exercise jurisdiction over them.
18
15.
Venue is proper in this Court because acts of which plaintiff complains occurred
19
within the County of Fresno during the times relevant to .this Complaint and the complaint seeks
20
permanent injunctive relief, and the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional minimum of
21
this co,~rt.
09
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
(Violations of Proposition 65)
23
24
25
26
27
]6
Plaintiff realleges and incorporates by reference into this First Claim for Relief, as
s,,ec~m_<,?, set forth herein, paragraphs 1 through 15, inclusive.
17
The People oFthe State of California have declared by referendum under
]:',opo:,~t,,~ (,> (Cahiom~a Health & Safety, Code }25249.5 et seq.) their desire
2~",
CC<'.{{'L:"d < t I <-)~:~.1},~]~,!~',!CI[VI-2
kLLtI-I /,.,'~}) Ci",'ii. PEt,'AI/II]IS
4
[t]o be informed
PROP65
1
2
News-35845
about exposures to chemicals that cause cancer."
18.
To effectuate this goal, Section 25249.6 of the Health & Safety Code mandates
3
that persons who, in the course of doing business, knowingly and intentionally expose any
4
individual to a chemical known to the State of California to cause cancer or birth defects must
5
provide a clear and reasonable warning to such individual prior to the exposure.
6
19.
Since before the date of the filing of this Complaint, defendants, and each of them,
7
have engaged in conduct which violates Health & Safety Code {}25249.6. This conduct includes
8
knowingly and intentionally exposing to the above mentioned toxic chemicals, California residents
9
who dry clean, transport, use, or store dry cleaned clothing and/or fabrics. The normally intended
10
use of the clothing and/or fabrics subjected to defendants' dry cleaning process causes exposure to
11
tetrachloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chloride, chemicals known to the State of
12
California to cause cancer. Defendants have not provided clear and reasonable warnings, within
13
the meaning of Health & Safety Code {}w25249.6 and 25249.11.
14
20.
At all times relevant to this action, defendants, and each of them, "knew that their
15
products were causing an exposure to tetrachloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chloride.
16
Defendants intended that residents of California use defendants' dry cleaning services in such ways
17
as would lead to significant health threatening exposures to the above mentioned toxic chemicals.
]S
21.
By the above-described acts, defendants, and each of them, are liable and should
19
be liable, pursuant to Health & Safety Code w
2O
each individual exposed to tetrachloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chloride. In
for a civil penalty of $2,500 per day for
additio:,., an action for injunctive relief under the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act
22
is sp~ciflcally authorized herein pursuant to Health & Safety Code {}25249.7.
23
SECOND CLAEVI FOR RELIEF
(Violations of Business & Professions {}w
et seq.)
9~
Oq
26
22
Plaintiff" reallcgcs and incorporates by reference into this Second Claim for Relief,
as ifs!:e,:;(]:.:,lly se[ forth herein, paragraphs ] through 22.
" ' "7
z. 9
C (-<,.'. i 'L/d?,:T t:()i!. ]h' J U ~:CTi',/J2
,.r
CIVIL I ~'~,4]AI~:S
5
~
23,
1
PROP65
News-35846
By intentionally exposing residents of the State to tetrachloroethylene, carbon
2
tetrachloride and vinyl chloride without first providing a clear and reasonable warning, defendants
3
have violated Proposition 65, Section 25249.5 el seq. of the California Health & Safety Code.
4
These violations thus constitute unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business practices as defined by
5
Business & Professions Code Section 17200 el seq. Unless the Court grants equitable relief,
6
defendants will unfairly benefit from and continue these violations.
24.
7
An action for injunctive relief under Unlawful Business Practices Act is specifically
authorized herein Pursuant to Business & Professions Code w 17203.
8
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
9
Wherefore, plaintiff prays for judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows:
10
A
11
Pursuant to the First Claim for Relief, that defendants, and each of them, be
12
assessed a civil penalty in an amount equal to $2,500 per day, per individual exposed in violation
13
ofHealth & Safety Code Section 25249.6 to tetrachloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and/or
14
vinyl chloride as the result of working at or in close proximity to defendants dry cleaning plants or
15
wearing, storing, transporting, cleaning or using clothing and/or fabric dry cleaned by defendants;
B
16
Pursuant to the Second Claim for Relief, that defendants, and each of them, be
17
enjoined, restrained and ordered to comply with the provisions of Section 25249.5 el seq. of the
18
California Health & Safety Codel and not commit any further unlawful or unfair businesspractices;
19
and that defendants, and each of them, be required to disgorge unjust profits secured through
2O violation of Section 25249.5 et seq.
C.
2I
That pursuant to the Second Claim for Relief, all defendants be assessed
22
reasonable attorney's fees according to the usual hourly rate of plaintiffs counsel herein, and costs
"b ",
./.O
of suit actually incurred by' plaintiff`for the preparation and pursuit of this action; and
24
O
For such other relief as this Court deemsjust and proper.
25
Dated September 1, 1999
g-.Respectfully submitted,
26
David Williams
Attorney for plaintiff
Ecological Rights Founclatio:~
27
CO.'.;!~L.:,.1Nt ~ YO?, ] N J U b ; C ] I \ T 2
I',[~L1}Li: A:,; D CIVIL PI;N,'~d.]'ti~S
~Z
i
9
PROP65
i .
k!
~k
)
,
9 184 9
L\
News-35847
PROP65
News-35848
PUBLIC INTEREST LAWYERS GROUP
INDEPENDENT PRACTITIONERS
Ruth M. Berkowitz
Suzanne E. Bevash
J. Kirk Boyd
Sharon E. Duggan
Fredric Evenscn
Danielle R. Fugere
I...eeAnn C. Lahren
David H.Willi ares
THE PRESIDIO, BUILDING 1004
P.O. Box 29921
SAN FRAN(.'ISCO, CALIFORNIA 94129-0921
TELEPHONE (415)561-2222
..
FAX (415) 561-2223
May 4, 1999
NOTICE OF VIOLATION OF
CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE w
et. seq ("Proposition 65")
Dear Public Enforcement Agencies:
This office and the Ecological Rights Foundation (ERF) hereby give you notice that the dry cleaning companies
on the attached Certificate of Service are in violation o f Cal. Health & Safety Code w
et seq., otherwise known as
Proposition 65. This office and ERF are both private enforcers of Proposition 65. Both organizations may be contaated at
the address and telephone number above. For notice purposes, I am a "responsible individual" within both noticing entities
and may be contacted at the same address and telephone number.
A summao' of the statute and its implementing regulations, which was prepared by the lead agency designated
under ~he. sta.tu'e, is enclosed with the copy of this notice served upon the violators. The specific details of the violations
which are the subject of this notice are provided below.
These Proposition 65 violations have occurred, occur, and will occur when residents of the State have clothing.
drapes, or og, er materials cleaned by processes that use tetrachloroethylene (also "known as perchloroethylene or pete).
Resid,-al amounts of tetrachloroethylene remain on dry cleaned materials. Carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chloride are
prod'eced when tetraehloroethylene breaks down. These chemicals are "known to the State of California to cause cancer or
bi:-th defects or other reproductive harm~ Exposures occur through inhalation, ingestion and through dermal (skin) contact.
\Vhen d:-y clear.ed clothes, drapes, or other materials are transported or brought into the home or workplace,
:e...-a,.~::o:o~_,.~.;.qe,,e, carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chloride are released. Individuals are exposed to significant amounts of
~hese chemicals when the), enter dry cleaning establishments, transport, touch, wear, use, or store dry' cleaned clothing.
arape< or o:.,~r m~ ~c, mls. Employees of dry cleaning establishments ai-e exposed to significant amounts of these
cb-.~:ica!s when the': ~.o'Jd~, clean, store, transport, or work in close proximiU' to clothing, drapes, and other materials that
}~.-: ".~:.::~ dr, r
Family members and those who reside with employees of dry cleaning establishments are exposed
".:..~! cr.::i ::::-r. a:--:o.'.r~:s of these chemicals from the discharge of the chemicals from the employees clothing or breath.
Non_~ of t!le above referenced businesses have provided people with clear and reasonable warning that they are
"czinc c:,:poscd to chemicals that cause cancer, bi~h defects, and other reproductive harm in violation of the requirements
<,f r'-~: . .t.r.'~
...
c,:
~ Safety. Code w
Ihcs'n vio!::'iop, s have occurred every day since at least April 1995 and will continqe to occur every day' until
clc'ar ctr.d " '
.... <,i..~.s are given.
Sincerely,
,-
/#
David l-I. \Villiams
['.
t
>.
-
PROP65
News-35849
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, the undersigned, declare under penalty ofperjiary:
I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the within action. I am
employed by the Public Interest Lawyers Group the business address for which is P. O. Box 29921, The Presidio, Bldg.,
1004, San Francisco, CA 94129-0921. I am readily familiar with the busniess' practice for collection and processing of
correspondence for mailin with the United States Postal Service, and that correspondence is collected and deposited with
the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business
On May 4, 1999, I served the following documents:
Letter from David H. Williams dated May 4, 1999.
Notice of Violation of California Health & Safety Code w 25249.5 et seq.
The Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986 (Proposition 65): A Summary
on the following parties by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed envelope, addressed to the parties listed
below, and depositing it at a United States Postal Service Office for delivery by Certified Mail:
Jones Cleaning Centers, Inc.
Robin Kramer, President
2089 West Shaw Ave
Fresno, CA 93711
On May 4, 1999, I served the following document(s):
Notice of Violation of California Heahh & Safety Code w 25249.5 et seq.
on each of the parties listed on the service list attached hereto by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed
envelope, addressed to the parties on the attached sen'ice list, and depositing it at a United States Postal Service mail
box, in the regular course of business.
I declare under penalty of perjury for the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct
and that this declaration was excuted on May 4, 1999, in San Francisco, California.
Dmsilla Jones
fl " v -
U
ENDIX A:
PROP65
News-35850
OFFICE OF E N V I R O N M E N T A l . . E A L T H HAZARD ASSESSMENT
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1986 (PROPOSITION 65}: A S U M M A R Y
The following summary has been prepared by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard A s s e s s m e n t , the lead agency for the
ementation of the Safe Drinking Water and T o x i c Enforcement A c t of 1986 (commonly k n o w n as "Proposition 6 5 " ) . A c o p y of this
~mary must be included as an a t t a c h m e n t to any notice of violation served upon an alleged v i o l a t o r of the Act. The s u m m a r y provides
c information about the provisions of the law, and is intended to serve only as a convenient source of general i n l o r m a t i o n . It is not
nded to provide authoritative guidance on the meaning or application of the law. The reader,is directed to the s t a t u t e and its
!ementing regulations (see citations below) for further information.
Proposition 65 appears in California l a w as Health and Safety Code Sections 2 5 2 4 9 . 5 t h r o u g h 2 5 2 4 9 . 1 3 . Regulations that
~ide more specific guidance on compliance, and that specify procedures to be followed by the State in carrying out certain aspects of
taw, are found in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, Sections 1 2 0 0 0 through 1 4 0 0 0 .
AT DOES PROPOSITION 65 REQUIRE?
The "Governor's ZJ'St." Proposition 65 requires the Governor to publish a list of chemicals t h a t are k n o w n to the State of
ifornia to cause cancer, or birth defects or othe r reproductive harm. This list must be u p d a t e d at least once a year. Over 5 5 0
,micals have been listed as of M a y 1, 1996. Only those chemicals that are on the list are regulated under this law. Businesses that
duce, use, release or otherwise engage in activities involving those chemicals must c o m p l y with t h e following:
Clear and reasonable warnings. A business is required to warn a person before " k n o w i n g l y and intentionally" e x p o s i n g t h a t
son to a listed chemical. The warning given must be "clear and reasonable." This means that the warning must: (1) clearly make
~wn that the chemical involved is k n o w n to cause cancer, or birth defects or other r e p r o d u c t i v e harm; and (2) be given in such a w a y
:t it wi!l effectively reach the person before he or she is exposed. Exposures are e x e m p t from the warning requirement if t h e y occur
s than tweh'e months after the date of listing of the chemical.
Prohibit/on from discharges into drinking water. A business must not knowingly discharge or release a listed chemical into water
onto land where it passes cr probably will pass into a source of drinking water, Discharges are e x e m p t from this requirement if they
cur less than t w e n t y months after the date of listing of the chemical.
]ES PROPOSITION 65 PROVIDE ANY EXEMPTIONS?
Yes. The law exempts:
Governmente/agencies a n d p u b / i c water utl/ities. All agencies of the federal, State or local government, as well as entities
erati,~g public water systems, are exempt.
Businesses with nine or fewer employees. Neither the warning requirement nor the discharge prohibition applies to a business
3t employs a total of nine or f e w e r employees.
Exposures that pose no slgnif/cant risk o f cancer. For chemicals that are listed as k n o w n to the State to cause cancer
"arcinogens"), a warning is not required if the business can demonstrate that the exposure occurs at a level that poses "no significant
k." This means that the exposure is calculated to result in not more than one excess case of cancer in 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 individuals e x p o s e d
e r a 70-year lifetime. The Proposition 65 regulati0ns identify specific "no significant risk" levels for more than 2 5 0 listed carcinogens.
Exposures that w/l/produce no observable reproductive effect at 1,000 times the level in question. For chemicals k n o w n to the
ate to cause bir~h defects or other reproductive harm ("reproductive toxicants"), a warning is not required if the business can
mar, strafe that the exposure v.ql', produce no observable effect, even at 1,000 times the level in question. In other words, t h e level of
:posure must be beiow the ' n o observable effect level (NOEL)," divided by a 1",000-fold safety or uncertainty factor. The " n o
.~ervab,e effect h . e
is the highest dose level which has not been associated with an observable adverse r e p r o d u c t i v e or
~,,'e!opm e,",t al effect,
D,rsch~rqes t/'qt c'D nor result in a "significant amount'" of the listed chemical entering into any source o f drinking water. The
:hioition from discharges into drinki'~g water does not apply if the discharger is able to d e m o n s t r a t e that a " s i g n i f i c a n t a m o u n t " of t h e
:!ed chemisM has ns:, ds~2s not, or will not enter any drinking water source, and that the discharge complies w i t h all other applicable
,vs, regu!ations, pa.m;ts, requ}rements, or orders. A "significant a m o u n t " means any d e t e c t a b l e amount, except an a m o u n t that w o u l d
~ t th~ "no si:r',ifi:P.~t r;s'.C or "no observable effect" test if an individual were exposed to such an amount in drinking w a t e r .
O W IS PROPOSITIO['I B5 EF~FORCED7
Enforcemen,t is carried out through eivit bv,'suks. These lawsuits may be brought by the A t t o r n e y General, any district attorney,
: co;rain city a~:orc.~ ,'s {those in citi.~s ,,.r
a population exceeding 7 5 0 , 0 0 0 ) . Lawsuits m a y also be brought by private parties acting in
~e publi.: interest, but o;,!'/ after providing notice of the alleged violation to the A t t o r n e y General. the appropriate district a t t o r n e y and
: ; at~ornP, y, and thE, L'.:si,qess accused of th~ violation. The notice must provide adequate information to allow the recipient to assess
9. i',;~-~:c of the ;',!'~L:~-J '.'i0'.~ti_~n. A naris-2 must ccmpl,/ with the information and procedural requirements specified in regulations (Title
2, C-,]:~orns Co5~: cf Rej~b~i3r~s, Ses~i'~n 12903i. A private part,/ may' not pursue an e n f o r c e m e n t action directi," c~rlcter Proposition ~ :
L: 2 L,i :!~:~ s
:~,:~.~,.,:~:i of~!c_,!s r-ot,2cl ;:bg,.'e initiates an action within si:<%' days of th~ notice.
A btJs r',ess fo'_:",:i i,:2 b,2 in ,,,{r
of Fro;'osition 65 is subject to civil penalties of uD to $2,500 ~er d~.~, i.:.r ,2ach violation. }r~
:!.'. ti::rb i,hP. [;ss'.n-~: s n.s: !::: or.!~.;::l b'/ a co:~r[ of lav,' to stop c o m m i t t i n g the violation.
:O;~ FLIRTIdER INFOS;'.'L&i'JO,N...
C,or~:~.:t ~h<' O.f :~ of rznvi'_~:t.nt~! ;:e,~i!h Hazard Assessrn, eqt's Propgsition 65 Implementation Office at 1916} 4 4 5 - 6 9 0 0 .
.
PROP65
News-35851
PUBLIC INWERESTLAWYERS GROUP
d. Berkowitz
Tile PRESIDIO,BUILDING1004
P.O. Box 29921
SANFRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94129-0921
TELEPHONE (415) 561-2222
FAX (415) 561-2223
ne E. Bevash
: Boyd
~ E. Duggan
Fredric Evenson
Danielle R. Fugere
LeeArm C. Lahren.
David H.Williams
May 4, 1999
:at Public Enforcement Agencies:
This office and the Ecological Rights Foundation (ERF) hereby give you notice that the dry' cleaning companies
the a~ached Ce~ificate of Ser','ice are in violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code w
el seq., otherwise known as
oposition 65. This office and ERF are both private enforcers of Proposition 65. Both organizations may be contacted at
e address and telephone number above. For notice purposes, I am a "responsible individual" within both noticing entities
~d may be contacted at the same address and telephone number.
A summary of the statute and its implementing regulations, which was prepared by the lead agency designated
~der the statute, is enclosed with the copy of this notice served upon the violators. The specific details of the violations
hich are the subject of this notice are provided below.
These Proposition 65 violations have occurred, occur, and will occur when residents of the State have clothing,
apes, or other materials cleaned by processes that use tetrachloroethylene (also "known as perchloroethylene or perc).
esidual amounts of tetrachloroethylene remain on dry cleaned materials. Carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chloride are
oduced when te~achloroethylene breaks down. These chemicals are known to the State of California to cause cancer or
rth defects or other reproductive harm. Exposures occur through inhalation, ingestion and through dermal (skin) contact.
~hen dry, cleaned clothes, drapes, or other materials are transported or brought into the home or workplace,
!raehloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chloride are released. Individuals are exposed to significant amounts o f
ese chemicals when they enter dr), cleaning establishments, transport, touch, wear, use, or store dry cleaned clothing,
apes, or other materials. Employees of dry cleaning establishments are exposed to significant amounts of these
mmica!s when tt-~ey to,ach, clean, store, transport, or work in close proximity to clothing, drapes, and other materials that
~ve been d.w c]ea>cd. Family' members and those who reside with employees of do' cleaning establishments are exposed
5:.g;~ificant an>o,::<,~ of these chemicals from the discharge of the chemicals from the employees clothing or breath.
None of the above referenced businesses have provided people with clear and reasonable warning that they are
:i'ng exposed to chemica]s that cause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive harm in violation of the requirements
i Cal. Health & S::fety Code w
These violations have occuned eve O' day since at least April 1995 and will continue to occur eveFy day' until
~':,r and reasonable v.a,-l~h~gs arc given.
Sincerely,
David I1. Williams
i<1-~.
9
PROP65
News-35852
I, tile undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury:
I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years] and not a party to the within action. I am
the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business 9
Letter from David H. Williams dated May 4, 1999
Lamoure's Cleaners
Jean B. Lamoure, President
1304 G Street
Fresno, CA 93706
on each of the p2rties listed on the service list attached hereto by placing a tree and correct copy thereof in a sealed
envelope, addressed to the parties on the attached service list, and depositing it at a United States Postal Service mail
box.
and ~aat this declaration was excuted on May 4, 1999, in San Francisco, California.
/,t-,',
/..----
DrusilK J o n ~ f
---.,
~,PPENDIX A:"
PROP65
News-35853
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAl.. .EALTH HAZARD ASSESSI{/IENT
THE SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1986 [PROPOSITION 65): A SUMMARY
The following s u m m a r y has been prepared by the Office of E n v i r o n m e n t a l Health Hazard Assessment, the lead a g e n c y for the
mplementation of the Safe Drinking Water and T o x i c E n f o r c e m e n t A c t of 1 9 8 6 ( c o m m o n l y k n o w n as "P~oposition 6 5 " ) . A c o p y of this
,ummary must be included as an a t t a c h m e n t to any notice of v i o l a t i o n served u p o n an alleged v i o l a t o r of the Act. The s u m m a r y providles
)asic information about the p[ovisions of the law, and is intended to serve only as a c o n v e n i e n t source of general i n f o r m a t i o n . It is not
ntended to provide authoritative guidance on the meaning or application of the l a w . The reader is directed to the s t a t u t e and its
mplementing regulations (see citations b e l o w ) for further i n f o r m a t i o n .
Proposition 65 appears in California l a w as Health and S a f e t y Code Sections 2 5 2 4 9 . 5 t h r o u g h 2 5 2 4 9 . 1 3 . Regulations t h a t
~rovide more specific guidance on compliance, and that specify p r o c e d u r e s to be f o l l o w e d by the S t a t e in carrying out certain aspects of
:he law, are found in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, Sections 1 2 0 0 0 t h r o u g h 1 4 0 0 0 .
NHAT DOES PROPOSITION 65.REQUIRE?
The "Governor's List." Proposition 65 requires the G o v e r n o r to publish a list of chemicals t h a t are k n o w n to the State of
California to cause cancer, or birth defects or other r e p r o d u c t i v e harm. This list m u s t be u p d a t e d at least once a year. Over 5 5 0
;hemicals have been listed as of M a y 1, 1 9 9 6 . Only those chemicals t h a t are on the list are regulated under this law. Businesses that
~roduce, use, release or otherwise engage in activities involving t h o s e chemicals m u s t c o m p l y w i t h the following:
C/ear and reasonable warnings. A business is required to w a r n a p e r s o n before " k n o w i n g l y and intentionally" e x p o s i n g t h a t
3erson to a listed chemical. The w a r n i n g given m u s t be "clear and reasonable." This means that the warning must: (1) clearly m a k e
known that the chemical involved is k n o w n to cause cancer, or birth defects or o t h e r r e p r o d u c t i v e harm; and [2) be given in such a w a y
that it will effectively reach the person before he or she is exposed. Exposures are e x e m p t f r o m the warning r e q u i r e m e n t if t h e y occur
~ess than t w e l v e months after the date of listing of the chemical.
Prohibition from discharges into drinking water. A business m u s t not k n o w i n g l y discharge or release a listed chemical into w a t e r
or onto land w h e r e it passes or probably will pass into a source of drinking w a t e r . Discharges are e x e m p t from this r e q u i r e m e n t if t h e y
occur less than t w e n t y months after the date of listing of the chemical.
DOES PROPOSITION 65 PROVIDE ANY EXEMPTIONS?
Yes. The law exempts:
Governmental agencies a n d p u b l i c water utilities. All agencies of the federal, State or local g o v e r n m e n t , as well as entities
operating public w a t e r systems, are e x e m p t .
Businesses with nine or fewer emp/oyees. Neither the w a r n i n g r e q u i r e m e n t nor the discharge prohibition applies to a business
that employs a total of nine or f e w e r e m p l o y e e s .
Exposures that pose no significant risk o f cancer. For chemicals that are listed as k n o w n to the State to cause cancer
("carcinogens"), a warning is n o t required if the business can d e m o n s t r a t e that the exposure occurs at a level that poses " n o significant
risk." This means that the exposure is calculated to result in not m o r e than one excess case of cancer in 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 individuals e x p o s e d
over a 70-year lifetime. The Proposition 65 regulations identify specific "no significant risk" levels for more than 2 5 0 listed c a r c i n o g e n s .
Exposures that will produce no observable reproductive effect at 1,000 times the level in question. For chemicals k n o w n to t h e
State to cause birth defects or other r e p r o d u c t i v e harm ( " r e p r o d u c t i v e t o x i c a n t s " ) , a w a r n i n g is not r e q u l r e d i f the business can
demonstrate that the exposure will produce no observable effect, even at 1 , 0 0 0 times the level in question. In other words, the level of
exposure must be b e l o w the "no o b s e r v a b l e effect level (NOEL)," divided by a 1,OO0-fold s a f e t y or uncertainty factor. The "no
observab!e effect leve!" is the highes~ dose level w h i c h has not been associated w i t h an o b s e r v a b l e adverse r e p r o d u c t i v e or
developmental effect.
D/scharges that do not result in a "significant a m o u n t " o f the listed chemical entering into any source of drinking water. The
proh]:~!tian from d!scherges into drinking v.,ater does not apply if the discharger is able to d e m o n s t r a t e that a "significant a m o u n t " of the
listed chemical has not, does not, or will not enter any drinking w a t e r source, and that the discharge complies w i t h all other applicable
laws, regu!ations, permits, requirements, or orders. A "significant a m o u n t " means any d e t e c t a b l e amount, except an a m o u n t that w o u l d
meet the "no significant risk" or "no o b s e r v a b l e effect" test if an individual w e r e e x p o s e d to such an a,,m~unt in drinking w a t e r .
}40',',' IS PROPOSITION 65 EI'IFORCED?
.... o,cement is carried out t h r o u g h civil lawsuits. These lawsuits may be b r o u g h t by the A t t o r n e y General, any district a t t o r n e y ,
c,r certain cky attorneys (those in cities w i t h a p o p u l a t i o n exceeding 7 5 0 , 0 0 0 ) . L a w s u i t s m a y also be brcught by p r i v a t e parties acting in
tho public interest, but cn!'," a,'~.er providing notice ot the alleged v i o l a t i o n to the A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l the appropriate district a t t o r n e y and
cib,, ettorne,r, , end the business accused of the violation. The notice m u s t provide a d e q u a t e i n f o r m a t i o n to allow the recipient to assess
-he i~2tur:.~ of the elia~;e~ v :,!~,t]on. A notice must comp!y w i t h the i n f o r m a t i o n and procedural requireme--ts specified in regulations (Title
{7 C~di~'ornic Co:!e cf Re;juf~tl.3~s, Section 12g031. A p r i / a , e p a r t y m a y not pursue an e n f o r c e m e n t act{on directly under Proposition 65
i; t's; oi t;.,:~ govemme:;~', ofiicis',s no[e:l ab:~'.'e in]ti-utes an action w i t h i n sixty days of the notice.
/, ,h,.~:~;ress f<und to t a ia ,,.!c!:~:ian of Proposition 65 is subject to civil penalties of up to $2.']]'7 ~.c" de',' ic," each ,.,iolatior~. In
;.2.ii:;~r< t h ; b'.:;b ~5s r;a, be c r d e ' } : i b'/ ~: co~:r~ of law to stop c o m m i t t i n g the violation.
FOF: FUHT~IE~q I,~IFOFL,',IATIOt',k..
Ccr4a=t the O~h:e of F;~.ir::'~'~r-.'nt<,~ t.le~!,'.h }4azard Assef;sment's Proposition 65 Imp!ementation O[fice at (916) 4 4 5 - 6 9 0 0 .
: i':: !.,~ <-! .'.17; !4 !: --~,
PROP65
News-35854
PUBLIC INTERESTLAWYERS GROUP
Ruth M. Berkowitz
Suzarme E. Bevash
J.Kirk Boyd
Sharon E. Duggan
TI IE PRESIDIO,BUILDING1004
P.O. Box 29921
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94129-0921
TELEPHONE (415) 561-22.22
FAX (415) 561-2223
".
Fredric Even~on
Danielle R. Fugere
LeeAnn C. Lah,en
David H.Will iams
May 4, 1999
on the attached Certificate of Service are in violation of Cal. Health & Safety Code w
et seq., otherwise "known as
Proposi!ion 65. This office and ERF are both private enforcers of Proposition 65. Both organizations may be contacted at
'~:nder the s:atute, is enclosed with the copy of this notice sem, ed upon the violators. The specific details of the violations
c,,=pe~,, or other materials cleaned by processes that use tetrachloroethylene (also known as perchloroethylene or perc).
Residual amounts of tetraehloroethylene remain on dry cleaned materials. Carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chloride are
produced when tetrachloroetlqylene breaks down. These chemicals are known to the State of California to cause cancer or
birth defects or other reproductive harm. Exposures occur through inhalation, ingestion and through dernlal (skin) contact.
\\'hen do' cleaned clothes, drapes, or other materials are transported or brought into the home or workplace,
>.~=h~,.
..........
.....
<~,,'t l~n
,~: ~ carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chloride are released. Individuals are exposed to significant amounts o f
these chemic::ls when they enter dry cleaning establishments, transport, touch, wear, use, or store dry cleaned clothing,
drapes, or other m.~erials. Employees of do' cleaning establishments are exposed to significant amounts of these
chemicals when the)' touch, clean, store, transport, or work in close proximity to clothing, drapes, and other materials that
h:~.,.e been do' clear~ed. Family members and those who reside with employees of dry cleaning establishments are exposed
< -:.rr.!:-.::t.,. :-:t-,~,<-.'s of these chemicals from the discharge of the chemicals from the employees clothing or breath.
>(one of the above referenced businesses have provided people with clear and reasonable "warnirlg that they are
bein= exposed to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive harm in violation of the requirements
of Cal. tiea]th & Safeb' Code }25249.6.
] ~.~_,~ vio]mions have occurred every day' since at least April 1995 and will continue to occur every day until
clear ai~i rc;.;onab!e v,.amings are given.
Sincerely,
David H, \Vil]iams
PROP65
News-35855
I, the undersigned, declare under penalty of perjury:
I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, and not .-i party to the within action. I am
the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business '
Mastercraft Dry Cleaning
Steve Barglund, Owner - President
5142 N. Palm Avenue
Fresno, CA 93704
box.
and hhat this declaration was excuted on May 4, 1999, in San Francisco, California.
-"
Dmsilla JoneS[ ~ '
U
,-
PPENDIX A:'
PROP65
News-35856
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTA~ .s
HAZARD ASSESSMENT
4E SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1986 (PROPOSITION 65}: A SUMMARY
The foltowlng s u m m a r y has been prepared by the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the lead a g e n c y for the
qplementation of the Safe Drinking W a t e r and T o x i c Enforcement A c t of 1986 (commonly k n o w n as "Proposition 6 5 " ) . A c o p y of this
~mmary must be included as an a t t a c h m e n t to any notice of violation served upon an alleged violator of the Act. The s u m m a r y p r o v i d e s
asic information about the provisions of the law, and is intended to serve only as a convenient source of general i n f o r m a t i o n . It is not
~tended to provide autho[itative guidance on the meaning or application of the law. The reader is directed to the s t a t u t e and its
,qplementing regulations (see citations below) for further information.
Proposition 65 appears in California law as Health and Safety Code Sections 2 5 2 4 9 . 5 through 2 5 2 4 9 . 1 3 . Regulations that
rovide more specific guidance on compliance, and that specify procedures to be f o l l o w e d by the State in carrying out certain aspects o f
qe law, are found in Tide 22 of the California Code of Regulations, Sections 1 2 0 0 0 through 14000.
VHAT DOES PROPOSITION 65 REQUIRE?
The "Governor's List. "" Proposition 65 requires the Governor to publish a list of chemicals that are k n o w n to the State of
;aiifornia to cause cancer, or birth defects or other reproductive harm. This list must be updated at least once a year. Over 5 5 0
:hemicals have been listed as of M a y 1, 1996. Only those chemicals that are on the list are regulated under this law. Businesses that
;reduce, use, release or otherwise engage in activities involving those chemicals must comply with the following:
Cleat and reasonable warnings. A business is required to warn a person before " k n o w i n g l y and intentionally" e x p o s i n g that
~erson to a listed chemical. The warning given must be "clear and reasonable," This means that the warning must: (1) clearly make
:nown that the chemical involved is k n o w n to cause cancer, or birth defects or other reproductive harm; and (2) be given in such a w a y
hat it will effectively reach the person before he or she is exposed, Exposures are e x e m p t from the warning requirement if t h e y occur
ass than twelve months after the date of listing of the chemical.
Prohibition from discharges into drinking water. A business must not k n o w i n g l y discharge or release a listed chemical into w a t e r
Dr onto land where it passes or probably will pass into a source of drinking water. Discharges are e x e m p t from this requirement if they
3ccur less than t w e n t y months after the date of listing of the chemical.
DOES PROPOSITION 65 PROVIDE A N Y EXEMPTIONS?
Yes. The law e x e m p t s :
Governmental agencies end public water utilities. All agencies of the federal, State or local government, as well as entities
operating pub!it water systems, are e x e m p t .
Businesses w,th nine or f e w e r employees. Neither the warning requirement nor the discharge prohibition applies to a business
that e m p b y s a total of nine or f e w e r employees.
{"carcinogens"l, a warning is not required if the business can demonstrate that the exposure occurs at a level that poses " n o significant
risk." This means that the exposure is calculated to result in not more than one excess case of cancer in 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 individuals e x p o s e d
over a 70-year lifetime. The Proposition 65 regulations identify specific "no significant risk" levels for more than 2 5 0 listed carcinogens.
Exposures that wiff p r o d u c e no observable reproductive effect at 1,000 times the level in question. For chemicals k n o w n to t h e
State to cause birth defects or other reproductive harm ("reproductive t o x i c a n t s " ) , a warning is not required if the business can
demonstrate that the exposure wi!l produce no observable effect, even at 1 , 0 0 0 times the level in question. In other words, the level o f
e•
must be below the "no observab]e effect level (NOEL)," divided by a 1,000-fold safety or uncertainty factor. The " n o
observable effect teveF is the highest dose level which h~s not been associated with an observable adverse r e p r o d u c t i v e or
deve!opmental effect.
D.;scharEes that do n o t result in a "'significant amount "" o f the listed chemical entering into any source o f drlnking water. The
prohi~kic~ f:cm disz,~.ar#es into drinking water does not apply if the discharger is able to demonstrate that a "significant a m o u n t " of t h e
!isted chemica! has not, does not, or ;',,ifl not enter any drinking water source, and that the discharge complies w i t h all other applicable
laws, regu[ations, permits, requirements, or orders. A "significant amount" means any detectable amount, e x c e p t an a m o u n t that w o u l d
m~.at the ':no signi,gc~.nt risk" or "no observable effect" test if an individual were e x p o s e d to such an amount in drinking water.
HOW IS P~DPOSITtON 66 ENFORCED?
Enforcemer,: is carried out through civil lawsuits. These lawsuits may be brought by the Attorney General, any district attorney.
or certain cit'7. .a,,o~n~,,
....
~ (those in cities v.'kh a population exceeding ? 5 0 , 0 0 0 } . Lawsuits may also be brought by private parties actir'~ 9 i'~
th? -,
~'~,~ intere,~"
. .......
~,.~,~
~,,," o:,F; after providing notice of the alleged violation to the A t t o r n e y General, the appropriate d~strict attorney mqd
cq.,, ~ttor;,e<, ~::~cl .<-~ b-'s;ness accused o~ ~he '.'}obtlon. The notice mus~ provide adequate information to allow the recipient to assess
i ! 2 nature c,f the ~:!:-'~e.! vi:~!-,tion. A no:ice must comply with the information and procedural requirements specified in regulations ( ] i t l c
'. . .:". . .C~hfnru[:~ r r , of P,c:',:.!lations, o
~"~.-"*~l.n 12903). A private party may not pursue an enforcement action direct;,, under Proposition 65
:7 :r~: cf ti:t: gtw-:n,;~,2n:..i cffi::i~Is n.~tctl above inki~tes an action within sixty days of the notice.
A .~-"-;;q:s~.
" each violation . In
. . . f::~.:~:!
. . . to ~.~'in ,.'"~,~ ".~on ( ' Prcpos;~ion 6 5 i s s u b i e c t to civilpenalties o f u p t o *~
,,_,5,33 par do'/ ;or
~:]Ji:]~.:X '",~
.... "~-:,,:=u:~ n,,-~,, ~..i-~,~-~.,-,._~'~'~ by, a c,:)~;r~ or" lav,' to s~op committing the violation.
FOi~ FURTFtER h'~FO,n,L~,;~TlO[,]...
Cot, tact the Ofii:ze of Environm.snt~l }!c~!th Hszard Assessment's Proposition 65 Implementation Office at (916) 4 4 5 - 6 9 0 0 .
s
PROP65
News-35857
Ruth M. Berkowitz
Suzanne E. Bevash
J. Kirk Boyd
Sharon E. Duggan
BUILDING1004
P.O. Box 29921
TELEPHONE (415) 561-2222
FAX (415) 561-2223
THr! PRESIDI(),
Fredric Evenson
Danielle R. Fugere
LeeAnn C. Lahren
David H.Wiliiams
May 4, 1999
et. seq ("Proposition65")
Proposition 65.This office and ERF are both private enforcers of Proposition 65. Both organizations may be contacted at
A summary' of the statute and its implementing regulations, which was prepared by' the lead agency designated
under the statute, is enclosed with the copy of this notice served upon the violators. The specific details of the violations
drapes, or other materials cleaned by processes that use tetrachloroethylene (also known as perchloroethylene or perc).
Residual amounts oftetrachloroethylene remain on dry cleaned materials. Carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chloride are
produced when tetrachloroethylene breaks down. These chemicals are known to the State of California to cause cancer or
birth defects or other reproductive harm. Exposures occur through inhalation, ingestion and through dermal (skin) contact.
When dry, cleaned clothes, drapes, or other materials are transported or brought into the home or workplace,
tetrachloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chloride are released. Individuals are exposed to significant amounts of
these chemica!s when they enter dry cleaning establishments, transport, touch, wear, use, or store dry cleaned clothing,
drapes, or other materials. Employees of dry cleaning establishments are exposed to significant amounts of these
chemicals when they, touch, clean, store, transport, or work in close proximiU, to clothing, drapes, and other materials that
have been do' cleaned. Family members and those who reside with employees of dry cleaning establishments are exposed
to significa< amounts of these chemicals from the discharge of the chemicals from the employees clothing or breath.
N.cme of the above referenced businesses have provided people with clear and reasonable warning that they are
being exposed to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive harm in violation of the requirements
of Cal. Ife2hh & Safety' Code w
These violations have occurred every.' da), since at least April 1995 and will continue to occur every day until
clear am! reasonab!e warnings are given.
Sincerely,
D:~vicl H, \Villiai-Lls
12h ~ !:,.
PROP65
News-35858
I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, and not a party to the within action, l am
employed by the Public Interest Lawyers Group the business address for which is P. 0. Box 29921, The Presidio, Bldg.,
1004, San Francisco, CA 94129-0921, I am readily familiar with the busniess' practice for collection and processing of
the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course ofbusiness 9
Oa May 4, 1999, I served the following documents:
Signature Cleaners
Michael Smith, Owner
132 W. Noes Ave., #115
Fresno, CA 93711
box.
an~that this declaration was excuted on May 4, 1999, in San Francisco, California.
N
t/, f~-)!/
.~f;
Dn:silla~'fies
PROP65
APPENDIX A:
News-35859
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTA~ .EALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT
THE SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1986 IPROPOSITION 65); A SUMMARY
The following s u m m a r y has been prepared by the Office of E n v i r o n m e n t a l Health Hazard A s s e s s m e n t , the lead a g e n c y for the
i m p l e m e n t a t i o n of the Safe Drinking W a t e r and T o x i c Enforcement A c t of 1 9 8 6 (commonly k n o w n as " P r o p o s i t i o n 6 5 " ) . A c o p y of thi~
s u m m a r y m u s t be included as an a t t a c h m e n t to any notice of violation served upon an alleged v i o l a t o r of the Act. The s u m m a r y p r o v i d e s
basic i n f o r m a t i o n a b o u t the p r o v i s i o n s of the law, and is intended to serve only as a convenient source of general i n f o r m a t i o n . It is n o t
intended to provide a u t h o [ i t a t i v e g u i d a n c e on the meaning or application of the law. The reader is directed to the s t a t u t e and its
implementing regulations (see c i t a t i o n s b e l o w ) for further information.
Proposition 65 appears in California l a w as Health and S a f e t y Code Sections 2 5 2 4 9 . 5 t h r o u g h 2 5 2 4 9 , 1 3 . Regulations that
provide more specific guidance on c o m p l i a n c e , and that specify procedures to be followed by the State in carrying out certain aspects of
the law, are found in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, Sections 1 2 0 0 0 through 1 4 0 0 0 .
WHAT DOES PROPOSITION 65:REQUIRE?
The "Governor's U s t . " Proposition 65 requires the Governor to publish a list of chemicals that are k n o w n to the S t a t e of
California to cause cancer, or birth defects or other reproductive harm. This list must be updated at least once a year. Over 5 5 0
chemicals have been listed as of M a y 1, 1 9 9 6 . Only those chemicals that are on the list are regulated under this l a w . Businesses that
produce, use, release or o t h e r w i s e engage in activities involving those chemicals must c o m p l y w i t h the f o l l o w i n g :
Clear and reasonable warnings. A business is required to w a r n a person before " k n o w i n g l y end i n t e n t i o n a l l y " e x p o s i n g that
person to a listed chemical. The w a r n i n g given m u s t be "clear and reasonable." This means that the warning m u s t : [1) clearly make
k n o w n that the chemical i n v o l v e d is k n o w n to cause cancer, or birth defects or other reproductive harm; and (2) be given in such a w a y
that it will e f f e c t i v e l y reach the person before he or she is exposed. Exposures are e x e m p t f r o m the warning r e q u i r e m e n t if t h e y occur
less than t w e l v e m o n t h s after the date of listing of the chemical.
ProhibfEon from discharges into drinking water. A business m u s t not k n o w i n g l y discharge or release a listed c h e m i c a l into w a t e r
or onto land w h e r e it passes or p r o b a b l y will pass into a source of drinking water. Discharges are e x e m p t t r o m this r e q u i r e m e n t if t h e y
occur less than t w e n t y m o n t h s after the date of listing of the chemical.
DOES PROPOSITION 65 PROVIDE ANY EXEMPTIONS?
Yes. The l a w e x e m p t s :
Governmental agencies andpublic water utilities. All agencies of the federal, State or local g o v e r n m e n t , as w e l l as entities
Businesses with nine or fewer employees. Neither the w a r n i n g requirement nor the discharge prohibition applies t o a business
that e m p l o y s a total of nine or f e w e r e m p l o y e e s .
Exposures that pose no s/gnfftlcant risk o f cancer. For chemicals that are listed as k n o w n to the State to cause cancer
["carcinogens"), a warning is n o t required if the business can d e m o n s t r a t e that the exposure occurs at a level that poses " n o significant
risk." This means that the e x p o s u r e is calculated to result in not m o r e than one exdess case of cancer in 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 individuals e x p o s e d
over a 70-year lifetime. The Proposition 65 regulations identify specific "no significant risk" levels for more t h a n 2 5 0 listed carcinogens.
Exposures that wil/ produce no observable reproductive effect a t 1 , 0 0 0 times the fevel in question. For chemicals k n o w n to the
Sta:e to cause b:.qh defects or o t h e r r e p r o d u c t i v e harm ("reproductive toxicants"), a warning is not required if the business can
d e m o n s t r a t e that the exposure will produce no observable effect, even at 1 , 0 0 0 times the level in question. In other w o r d s , the level of
exposure must be b e l o w the " n o o b s e r v a b l e effect level (NOEL)," divided by a 1,000-fold safety or u n c e r t a i n t y factor. The " n o
observable effect level" is the highest dose level which has not been associated with an observable adverse r e p r o d u c t i v e or
d e v e l o p m e n t a l effect.
Discharges that do not result in a "significant amount" o f the listed chemical entering into any source o f drinkh~g water. The
prohibition from discharges into drinking w a t e r does not apply if the discharger is able to d e m o n s t r a t e that a " s i g n i f i c a n t a m o u n t " of the
listed chemical has not, does not, or wilt not enter any drinking w a t e r source, and that the discharge compiles w i t h all e t h e r applicable
!a,..zs, regu!a[ions, permits, requirements, or orders. A "significant a m o u n t " means any detectable amount, e x c e p t an a m o u n t that w o u l d
meet the "no significant risk" or "no observable effect" test if an individual were exposed to such an a m o u n t in drinking w a t e r .
HOW IS PROPOSITION 65 ENFORCED?
Enforcement is carried out t h r o u g h civil lawsuits. These lawsuits may be brought by the A t t o r n e y General, any district a t t o r n e y ,
o: certain cky at:ome,,,s {those in cities w i t h a population exceeding 7 5 0 , 0 0 0 ) . Lawsuits m a y also be brought by private parties acting in
::;.~ pub!io inte'es,, but only after providing notice of the alleged violation to the A t t o r n e y General, the appropriate district a t t o r n e y and
,:it./ atEc~ng.,., and the business accused of the violation. The notice m u s t provide adequate information to altow the recipient to assess
:kc I;gt,Jro of ',i've c,'.!ctGe::l v i o l a t i o n . A notice mus;. comply w i t h the information and procedural requirements specified in regulations (Titi.~
o. . .~. . .f-'nFt~rniq
{~ o:,~
I
.
. Section 12903). A private part,/ m a y not pursue an e n f o r c e m e n t a : , , o n directly under Proposit;cn 5::,
....
o;" "r- e:,,_
,{. ,"~ on,_.,
i! c,<-~ ~'~ "".~, cs,'ernm-]n::d~ of!i::.ials note:! above initiates an action w i t h i n sixt,,.' days of the notice.
A bJsir, ess f0un2 "~ be in violation o~ Proposition 65 is s'. bieot to civil penalties of up to S 2 . E : 9 ~er r!i~ ,' icr each vlolatior,. I".,
aL!:JiL;:'.n, U;c b'.~siness ,'T.~a'r' be ordered b',' a court of Is'L, to StOp c o m m i t t i n g the vio!atio,q.
FO~I FURTHER I?}FOR,%'iATION...
(::L'.'I::'!::
tl~
'"~ : :.; -, . .
O:
~ . : r / ' .i : : : ~:', 71 1 ~ t
,
-:2.:,~"~ i- . .".,.".~ ' d
Assessment's
Proposition
G5
mp
em, en.::~'::
~ O~fize
a:
(g16) 4 4 5 - 6 9 0 0
PROP65
News-35860
EXHIBIT B
PROP65
News-35861
PUBLIC INTERESTLAgrYERS GROUP
Ruth M. Berkowitz
Suzanne E. Bevash
J. Kirk Boyd
Sharon E. Duggan
lhedric Evenso n
Danielle R. Fugere
LeeAnn C: Lahren
David H.Williams
TIIE PRESIDIO,BUILDING 1004
P.O. Box 29921
SAN FKANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94129-0921
TELEPHONE (415) 561-22.22
FAX (415)561-2223
May 4, 1999
Proposition 65. This office and ERF are both private enforcers of Proposition 65. Both organizations may be contacted at
under the statute, is enclosed with the copy of this notice served upon the violators. The specific details of the violations
drapes, or other materials cleaned by processes that use tetrachloroethylene (also "knov,'n as perchloroethylene or perc).
Residual amounts of tetrachloroethylene remain on dry cleaned materials. Carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chloride are
produced when tetrachloroethylene breaks down. These chemicals are "known to the State of California to cause cancer or
birth defects or other reproductive harm. Exposures occur through inhalation, ingestion and through dermal (skin) contact.
W-hen dry cleaned clothes, drapes, or other materials are transported or brought into the home or workplace,
tetrachtoroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chloride are released. Individuals are exposed to significant amounts of
these chemica!s when they enter dr5,' cleaning establishments, transport, touch, wear, use, or store dry cleaned clothing,
drapes, or other materials. Employees of dr), cleaning establishments are exposed to significant amounts of these
chemicals when they touch, clean, store, transport, or work in close proximi b' to clothing, drapes, and other materials that
have been dr)' c!eaned. Family members and those who reside with employees of dry cleaning establishments are exposed
t.o significant amo'c.r.ts of these chemicals from the discharge of the chemicals from the employees clothing or breath.
Nonc of the above referenced businesses have provided people with clear and reasonable v,'arning that the)' ,".re
being exposed to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive harm in violation of the requirenqcnts
of Cal. ]lealth & Safety Code w
These \iob.tions l',avc occurTcd c\'cr)' chy since at least April 1995 and will continue to occur every day until
c.ep, ?.,nJ rcasDr,.ablc v.mI?ings are given.
Smcerdy,
,-
EXHIBIT B
................
PROP65
N e w s - 3 5 8 62
I, the undersigned, deciare under penalty of perjury:
I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, and not ,4 party to the within action. I am
employed by the Public Interest LawyersGroup the business address for which is P. O. Box 29921, The Presidio, Bldg.,
the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course of business
Mastercraft Dry Cleaning
5142 N. Palm Avenue
Fresno, CA 93704
On May 4, 1999, I sep,,ed the following document(s):
en,.'dope, addressed to the parties on the attached service list, and depositing it at a United States Postal Service mail
box.
and ~at this declaration was excuted on May 4, 1999, in San Francisco, California.
/)}
@
A
L/
-----
,
© Prop 65
News.
All Rights
Reserved.
OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL.
.EALTH
HAZARD
ASSESSMENT
.
,PPENDIX A:
PROP65
News-35863
HE SAFE DRINKING WATER AND TOXIC ENFORCEMENT ACT OF 1 9 8 6 {PROPOSITION 65h A S U M M A R Y
The following s u m m a r y has been prepared by the Office of E n v i r o n m e n t a l Health Hazard A s s e s s m e n t , the lead a g e n c y for the
,'nplementation of the Safe Drinking W a t e r and Toxic Enforcement A c t of 1 9 8 6 ( c o m m o n l y k n o w n as " P r o p o s i t i o n 6 5 " ) . A c o p y of this
ummary must be included as an a t t a c h m e n t to any notice of violation served upon an alleged v i o l a t o r of the Act. The s u m m a r y p r o v i d e s
~asic information about the p r o v i s i o n s of the l a w , and is intended to serve only as a c o n v e n i e n t source of general i n f o r m a t i o n . It is not
qtended to provide a u t h o r i t a t i v e g u i d a n c e on the meaning or application of the law. The reader is directed to the s t a t u t e and its
-nplementing regulations (see citations b e l o w ) for further information.
Proposition 65 appears in California l a w as Health and Safety Code Sections 2 5 2 4 9 . 5 t h r o u g h 2 5 2 4 9 . 1 3 . Regulations that
~rovide more specific guidance on c o m p l i a n c e , and that specify procedures to be f o l l o w e d by the S t a t e in carrying out certain aspects of
h e law, are found in Title 22 o f the California Code of Regulations, Sections 1 2 0 0 0 through 1 4 0 0 0 .
NHAT DOES PROPOSITION 65 .REQUIRE?
The "Governor's List." Proposition 65 requires the Governor to publish a list of chemicals t h a t are k n o w n to the S t a t e of
;a!ifornia to cause cancer, or birth d e f e c t s or other reproductive harm. This list m u s t be updated at least once a year. Over 5 5 0
:hemicafs have been listed as of M a y 1, 1 9 9 6 . Only those chemicals t h a t are on the list are regulated under this l a w . Businesses that
3reduce, use, release or o t h e r w i s e e n g a g e in activities involving t h o s e chemicals m u s t c o m p l y w i t h the f o l l o w i n g :
Clear and reasonable warnings. A business is required to w a r n a p e r s o n before " k n o w i n g l y and i n t e n t i o n a l l y " e x p o s i n g that
aerson to a listed chemical. The w a r n i n g given must be "clear and r e a s o n a b l e . " This means that the warning m u s t : (1) clearly make
known that the chemical involved is k n o w n to cause cancer, or birth d e f e c t s or o t h e r r e p r o d u c t i v e harm; and (2) be g i v e n in such a w a y
that it will effectively reach the person before he or she is exposed. Exposures are ~ x e m p t from the warning r e q u i r e m e n t if t h e y occur
less than t w e l v e months after the date of listing of the chemical.
Prehibition from discharges into drinking water. A business m u s t not k n o w i n g l y discharge or release a listed chemical into w a t e r
or onto land where if passes or p r o b a b l y will pass into a source of drinking w a t e r . Discharges are e x e m p t from this r e q u i r e m e n t if t h e y
DOES PROPOSITION 65 PROVIDE A N Y EXEMPTIONS?
Governmenta/agencles andpub/ic water utilities. All agencies of the federal, State or local g o v e r n m e n t , as w e l l as entities
Businesses with nine or fewer employees. Neither the w a r n i n g r e q u i r e m e n t nor the discharge prohibition applies to a business
("carcinogens"), a warning is n o t required if the business can d e m o n s t r a t e that the exposure occurs at a level that poses " n o significant
risk." This means that the e x p o s u r e is calculated to result in not more than one excess case of cancer in 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 individuals e x p o s e d
over a 70-year lifetime, The Proposition 65 regulations identify specific " n o significant risk" levels for more t h a n 2 5 0 listed carcinogens.
Exposures that w/i/produce no observable reproductive effect at 1,000 times t h e / e v e / i n question. For c h e m i c a l s k n o w n to t h e
State to cause birth defects or other r e p r o d u c t i v e harm ("reproductive t o x i c a n t s " ) , a warning is not required if the business can
d~m, onstrate that the exposure will produce no observable effect, even at 1 , 0 0 0 times the level in question. In o t h e r w o r d s , the level of
c:<posura must be b-:lg,,v the "no observable effect level (NOEL)," divided by a 1 , 0 0 0 - f o l d s a f e t y or u n c e r t a i n t y factor. The " n o
observable ,"~-'u,,.~<level" is the h i g h e s t dose level which has not been associated w i t h an o b s e r v a b l e adverse r e p r o d J c t i v e or
d e'.'.e',~pmeatel effect.
Ds'scha'~e~ that do not result in a "significant amount" of the Hsted chemica/ entering into .any source o f drinking water. The
~ruT<i:~ition frcm c;sckmrges into drinking w a t e r does not apply if the discharger is able to d e m o n s t r a t e that a " s i g n i f i c a n t a m o u n t " of the
!;ste5 chemlcat has not, does not, or will not enter any drinking w a t e r source, and that the discharge complies w i t h all o t h e r applicable
hv,'s, re:'juiations, pcrn;ks, requirements, or orders. A "significant a m o u n t " means any d e t e c t a b l e amount, e x c e p t an a m o u n t that w o u l d
~,os; t)~. "no si~;r',ifi:snt risk" or "no cbservable effect" test if an individual w e r e exposed to such an amount in drinking ,.:~ater.
lie',',' IS PROPOSI710,'4 65 ENFORCED?
En/orce-;~.~n: is carried ou~ ti]rou~h civil lawsuits. These lawsuits m a y be brought by the At~orne',, General. an,,, district aHorncr
(," c:~::~in ok./ a::orne'/s (those in cities v,kh a population exceeding 7 5 0 , 0 0 0 ) . Lav-suks mav also be brou0ht by pri,.,ate parties acting ]~
t!<~ T ~!f]--- i n t o c a t, but o~fil after providing notice of the a'legod violation to tile A t t o r n e y General. ti~e approprtate chstric[ attorney ~'nd
: : / r:t:c:,'-,O,/, ~:-,:! th ~. bus!n-~gs ac:cu.~od c,f the ,.'imlation, The notice F,',clst provid e edeq:~ate informatio,"; to allo',': tile recipient to assess
-.' ;;-t,::-: uf ~!::' ~ :i:1;-::] ,..]>l:::k~,:~ A r.:;ti:--., must compl'y with the i a f o r m a t i a a am'! procedural requirer-'ents spe,':ifi~d in regulations (Tit[< :: i-,r. :~ ( .,::-: c! ~:;:,:;,.Jl~ti:,:,s, 2,-,::i::~ i 2703). A r,d,.,at~ part',, me,,, not p,.lr:;t:e ,'m e n f o r c e m e a t at:is:-, d i r o c d / under Proposition E:
" ; t i t);;~ <jo',':.r::;;,u',tc;i o f T ; : f i ; :;:,::-[ ::': o'.< ir,:tiot<s ~:ri cotion v,'h)l{f] si>:tT' d:~'/.% of the notic.c.
.: k,~_-,;:::~: f..:: ] ;: t:. 7;'.],::::{_ : :,; i~;:.:'J~;?~, r~5 i-; sc'!ijc:;l to civill-7::~:Itic~ of u::, t:) 02.:_'.'_, ~J:: el,.' : t r m-!ch violation. I
I [ : ; ;:,
9
9 :I
[;;b'
,,~ " 9 ;:-
i
" 'L
:
I':~r~P~"<
;:'!]:,
I;('
['J!]t;t:L[
[" ,' 7. C'';;;:[
C~
iJ).'~"
[O
S~';)
CO'l];]'~it[}[l[i
till,'
,.'io]:]:ion.
"~ 1- N ~
Cor~ca_:~ tMt. C>ffit:e st En,.'i:,..:'._'~tzd I io~.l#~ H:!zaq:l ;,:,sos'.;m:~.r~t's Pro',)o~,hior~ 65 hapb~n-'D.p.t-tti_-: ~, ()flb:,~ a,t (916) 4 4 5 - 6 9 0 D .
PROP65
News-35864
Ruth M. Berkowitz
Suzarme E. Bevash
J. Kirk Boyd
Sharon E. Duggan
Fredric Evens o n
TIlE PRESIDIO,BUILDING 1004
P.O. Box 29921
TELEPHONE (415) 561-22.22
FAX (415) 561-2223
Danielle R. Fugere
LeeAnn C2 Lahren
David H.Williams
May 4, 1999
Proposition 65. This office and ERF are both private enforcers of Proposition 65. Both organizations may be contacted at
under the statute, is enclosed with the copy of this notice served upon the violators. The specific details o f the violations
drapes, or other materials cleaned by processes that use tetrachloroethylene (also "known as perchloroethylene or perc).
Residual amounts of tetrachloroethylene remain on dry cleaned materials. Carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chloride are
produced when tetrachloroetl';ylene breaks down. These chemicals are known to the State of California to cause cancer or
birth defects or other reproductive harm. Exposures occur through inhalation, ingestion and through dernaal (skin) contact.
\~,~en d u cleaned clothes, drapes, or other materials are transported or brought into the home or workplace,
tetrachloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride and vinyl chldride are released. Individuals are exposed to significant amounts of
these chemicals when they enter dry cleaning establishments, transport, touch, wear, use, or store dry cleaned clothing,
drapes, or other materials. Employees of dry cleaning.establishments are exposed to significant amounts of these
chemicals when they touch> clean, store, transport, or work in close proximity to clothing, drapes, and other materials that
have beer', do' cleaned. Family members and those who reside with employees of dry cleaning establishments are exposed
to signi~caat amounts of these chemicals from the discharge of the chemicals from the employees clothing or breath.
None of the above referenced businesses have provided people with clear and reasonable warning that the}, arc
being exposed to chemicals that cause cancer, birth defects, and other reproductive harm in violation of the requirements
of Cal. Health & SafcW Code w
Tb.mse violations have occun-cd every day since at least April 1995 and will continue to occur every clay until
cleat and reasonable warnings are given.
Sincerely,
David
EXHIBIT
B
I{. \\'illianls
PROP65
N e w s - 3 5 8 65
I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years, and not .4 party to file within action. I am
1004, San Francisco, CA 94129-0921. I am readily familiar with the busniess' practice for collection and processing o f
correspondence for mailin with the United States Postal Service, and that c0rresponclence is collected and deposited with
the United States Postal Service that same day in the ordinary course o f business
Mastercrafl Dry Cleaning
5142 N. Palm Avenue
Fresno, CA 93704
o n each of the parties listed on the service list attached hereto by placing a true and correct copy thereof in a sealed
box.
and ~ a t ~ i o n
,,vasexcuted on May4,1999, inSan Fro ncisc o, Cali fornia.
9
Drusilla Jone
:PPENDIX
A:'
PROP65
News-35866
OFFICE OF E N V I R O N M E N T A L .s
HAZARD ASSESSMENT
CALIFORNIA E N V I R O N M E N T A L P R O T E C T I O N A G E N C Y
H E SAFE DRINKING W A T E R A N D T O X I C E N F O R C E M E N T A C T OF 1 9 8 6 ( P R O P O S I T I O N 65}: A S U M M A R Y
The following s u m m a r y has b e e n prepared by the Office of E n v i r o n m e n t a l Health Hazard A s s e s s m e n t , the lead a g e n c y for the
-nplementation of the Safe Drinking W a t e r and T o x i c Enforcement A c t of 1 9 8 6 ( c o m m o n l y k n o w n as " P r o p o s i t i o n 6 5 " h A c o p y of t h i s
u m m a r y must be included as an a t t a c h m e n t to any notice of violation s e r v e d upon an alleged v i o l a t o r of the A c t . The s u m m a r y p r o v i d e s
~asic information about the provisions of the law, and is intended to serve only as a c o n v e n i e n t s o u r c e of general i n f o r m a t i o n 9 It is n o t
~tended to provide authoritative g u i d a n c e on the meaning or application of the l a w . The reader is directed to the s t a t u t e and its
mplementing regulations (see c i t a t i o n s b e l o w ) for further information.
Proposition 65 appears in California l a w as Health and Safety C o d e Sections 2 5 2 4 9 . 5 t h r o u g h 2 5 2 4 9 . 1 3 . R e g u l a t i o n s that
~rovide more specific guidance on compliance, and that specify procedures t o be followed b y the S t a t e in carrying out certain aspects of
:he law, are found in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, S e c t i o n s 1 2 0 0 0 through 1 4 0 0 0 .
N H A T DOES PROPOSITION 65 .REQUIRE?
The "'~overnor's List. " P r o p o s i t i o n 65 requires the Governor to publish a list of chemicals t h a t are k n o w n to the S t a t e of
3atifornia to cause cancer, or birth d e f e c t s or o t h e r reproductive harm. This list must be u p d a t e d at least once a year. O v e r 5 5 0
=hemicals have been listed as of M a y 1, 1 9 9 6 . Only those chemicals t h a t are on the list are r e g u l a t e d under this l a w . Businesses that
3reduce, use, release or o t h e r w i s e engage in activities involving t h o s e c h e m i c a l s m u s t c o m p l y w i t h t h e f o l l o w i n g :
Clear and reasonable warnings. A business is required to w a r n a . p e r s o n before " k n o w i n g l y and i n t e n t i o n a l l y " e x p o s i n g that
person to a listed chemical. The w a r n i n g given m u s t be "clear and r e a s o n a b l e . " This means t h a t the w a r n i n g m u s t : (1) clearly make
k n o w n t h a t the chemical involved is k n o w n to cause cancer, or birth d e f e c t s or other r e p r o d u c t i v e harm; and (2) be g i v e n in such a w a y
that it will effectively reach the p e r s o n before he or she is exposed. Exposures are i~xempt f r o m the w a r n i n g r e q u i r e m e n t if t h e y o c c u r
less than t w e l v e months after the d a t a o f listing of the chemical.
Prohibition from discharges i n t o drinking water. A business m u s t n o t k n o w i n g l y discharge or release a listed c h e m i c a l into w a t e r
or onto land where if passes or p r o b a b l y will pass into a source of drinking w a t e r . Discharges are e x e m p t from this r e q u i r e m e n t if t h e y
DOES PROPOSITIOH 65 PROVIDE A N Y EXEMPTIONS?
Governmental agencies and public water utilities. All agencies of the federal, State or local g o v e r n m e n t , as w e l l as entities
o p e r a t i n g public w a t e r systems, are e x e m p t .
Businesses with nfne or f e w e r employees. Neither the w a r n i n g r e q u i r e m e n t nor the d i s c h a r g e prohibition applies t o a b u s i n e s ~
Exposures that pose no ~iEnificant risk o f cancer. For chemicals t h a t are listed as k n o w n t o the State to c a u s e cancer
("carcinogens"}, a warning is not required if the business can d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t the exposure occurs at a level that poses " n o s i g n i f i c a n t
risk." This means that the exposure is calculated to result in not more t h a n o n e excess case of cancer in 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 individuals e x p o s e d
over a 70-year lifetime, The Proposition 65 regulations identify specific " n o significant risk" levels for more t h a n 2 5 0 listed c a r c i n o g e n s .
Exposures that wE/produce no observable reproductive effect at 1 , 0 0 0 times the level in question. For chemicals k n o w n t o t h e
State to cause birth defects or o t h e r r e p r o d u c t i v e harm ("reproductive t o x i c a n t s " ) , a w a r n i n g is n o t required if the business can
demonstrate that the e~posure will produce no observable effect, even at 1 , 0 0 0 times the level in question. In o t h e r w o r d s , the level of
e>:pasure must be belo,v the "no o b s e r v a b l e effect lever (NOEL)," divided by a 1 , 0 0 0 - f o l d s a f e t y or u n c e r t a i n t y f a c t o r . The " n o
observ~b',a effect level' is the highest dose level which has not been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h an o b s e r v a b l e adverse r e p r o d u c t i v e or
developmental effect.
Discharges that c'o not result in a "significant a m o u n t " o f the l i s t e d chemical entering into any source o f drinking water. T h e
pro~,l:,i:ior, from discha~qes into drinking w a t e r does not apply if the discharger is able to d e m o n s t r a t e that a " s i g n i f i c a n t a m o u n t " of the
listed ehemica~ has not, does not, or will not enter any drinking w a t e r source, and that the discharge complies w i t h all o t h e r applicable
{q'.vs, regulations, pcrmks, requirements, or orders. A "significant a m o u n t " means any d e t e c t a b l e a m o u n t , e x c e p t an a m o u n t that w o u l d
rnaet the "'no sig,ni[icant risk" or "no observable efiect" test if an i n d i v i d u a l w e r e exposed to such an a m o u n t in drinking w a t e r .
~IO',V IS PROPOSITtO~'4 65 Eh;FORCED?
En[orcemen~ is carried out t h r o u g h civil lawsuits. These l a w s u i t s m a y be brought by the Attorne.,, General. any district alter nay.
",; co:rain city attomo./s (:hose in cities w l t h a population exceeding 7 5 0 , 0 0 0 ) . Lav,,suks m a y also be brought by p n v a t e parties a c t i n g iq
:'~ p:.~bli.; ir~tcre;'., b'-, or, l'/ after pro'/icf[ng notice of the a!leged v i o l a t i o n to tile A t t o r n e y General, ti~e appropriate drstriot a t t o r n e y a nd
9.'c/
" z~t,'crne./, t' :<I ti~F~ b:Js]ntss accursed o~ lh9 ,.'iola.tion. The notice must provide adequate i n f o r m a t i o n to a l l o w tb.e recipient to assess
',i,-- n-<,;:~, of [~'.:' .ti:.'-.::j '.,io!i:tion. A n : : i c e rru.~[ compl,/ ,..:hh the informatimn and procedural requiren-an.:s spe,':ifi:~d in regulations I Tit;.:~
. : {~.:::':in-{-,i[~ C(,:;.:}(~f ,,n_-~:~,J]ti]~ls,. S.:.,3[iDi~ i2~_~03). A pri,.,a[~, part,,, a m / not pur'-"te an e n f o r c e m e n t e::;o'-, (!ir,~c'l_, , unJar P r o p o s i t i o n O!.
9
.~.~ t!::~ (19'.'cr:l;r<: I:~:; 9
:::
riLi."i
!!!. O'.':'! il',[tint':!.S ~;3 cT.tion ~.','i[~lill Sixty' (.1:3'{9 o f t h e n o t i c e .
..'. !:.~;;',:_-.: f.:' : i [:~ t,e [:~ '..[ .!-::iL, : r,! i'rn;.~.;si[;on 65 i.~ suLject to, civil p.~t<'-;kies el u.'.:, to ~.~2,".SI;~:,~; r : , / ic:r e~.ch violatlon." I:,
I : ::.~, :;~c L.:-.::!-:r Ln,~,' be cr.:!:r'_< ~,." :: c'n;:[ C~ I:tv; [o S;C;.~ coqlrni~.[in 9 the ,,'io!Btien.
[c!t: FLIRT~tCf{ I:'JTO,:4~",IATIO[']...
'
'
Co:~tn={ ',iv., F)iii-:e of Ea'.'bo ,':'ant:,! Ile.~.!#~ l-I:~z~,'(l Asses:;ment's F'roposi-ion G5 Irnple~ne <.-~;:n Office a~ (916) 4 4 5 - 6 9 0 0 " .
[ :'- ! : : , , ; ". IF;,>..'
I
J
PROP65
N e w s - 3 5 8 67
EXHIBIT C
PROP65
N e w s - 3 5 8 68
P R O P O S I T I O N 65 WARNING:
THIS AREA CONTAINS P E R C H L O R O E T H Y L E N E ,
A C H E M I C A L K N O W N TO THE STATE OF
C A L I F O R N I A TO CAUSE CANCER.
EXHIIh~T C
PROP65
News-35869
EXHIBIT D
9
PROP65
News-35870
TABLE 1
Rule 1421 Requirements and Summary of Compliance Dates
for Existing and New Facilities
Facility Type
Equipment Requirements
Column 1
Column 2
Compliance Required
Eqfiipment
Option(s)
Dry
Requirements
Cleaning
Equipment
EXISTING
FACILITIES Replacement
of Existing
Equipment
i
DATE OF CON
Column 3
Column 4
Colu
Water-Repelling Environmental-- Leak Ch
and Dip Tank Training
Repair,
Requirements Requirements Operatio
Mainten
Require
Closed-Loop Before 12/9/98Machine
iwith
6/9/96
10/9/96
219I
Primary
Control
System
Closed-Loop After 12/9/98
Machine
with
Primary
Control
System and
a Secondary
Control
System
I
Closed-Loop After 6/9/96
Adding
Machine
Equipment with
(Not
Primary
Replacement) Control
System and
Ja Secondary
q
iControl
i
i
iSystem
NEW
Closed-Loop Upon
Upon
~o months
Upon
FACILITIES
Machine
commencement commencement following
commen
]with
of operation
of operation
commencement of opera
'Primary
operation
Control
iSystem and
!a Secondary
!Control
iSystem
EXHIBIT
D
PROP65
News-35871

PROP65 News-35828 © Prop 65 News. All Rights Reserved.

Transcription

Similar documents

Nature`s Best Cleaners

betco university basic cleaning techniques

Welcome to Intelli-Trak™

On Lecture 4 - The University of Hong Kong

Cutting Red Tape to Promote Business Growth (Jackson, MS – Goree)

Hands-Free Cleaning® - Intellibot Robotics

Pegasus Janitorial Services

studio unit Avida Tower Makati west - Phil

7 - Prop 65 News Documents

Our Brochure - All Star Master Cleaning, Inc