ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOPJ~RD

July

8,

1976

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 75—409

WILLIAM UHLER, SR., ANN UHLER,

)

and WILLIAM UILER,

JR., d/b/a

)

McCOOK DRUM AND BARREL CO., INC.,

)

Respondents.

Mr.

James Dobrovolny,

Assistant Attorney General,

appeared for the

Complainant;

Mr. William Uhler,

Sr. and Mrs. Ann Uhler, Pro Se, appeared for the

Respondents.

OPINICN AND ORDER OF THE

BOARD

(by Mr.

Zeitlin):

This matter is before the

Board

on a formal Complaint filed by

the Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency) on October 17, 1975,

alleging that Respondents owned and operated certain new and existing

emission sources and air pollution control equipment without the

requisite Agency permits, in violation of Section

9(b)

of the Envi-

ronmental Protection Act

(Act)

and Rules

103(b) (1)

and 103(b) (2)

of

Chapter

2:

Air Pollution, of the Board’s Rules and Regulations.

A

hearing was held

in the matter on April 23,

1976,

in LaGrange,

Illinois;

the record was held open by the Hearing Officer for additional sub—

missions by Respondents until June 10,

1976.

Testimony at hearing and an unanswered Request for Admission

indicate that Respondents operate a metal drum reclamation facility

in McCook,

Illinois.

Operations include the use of a boiler, an

incinerator, and a shot—blasting machine with attendant baghouse,

all subject to the permit requirements of Rules

103 (b) (1) and 103(b) (2).

It

is clear, both by virtue of oral admissions at hearing and from

the unanswered Request for Admissions,

that the facility has operated

without those permits.

There was, however, some confusion at hearing as to which of

the above described equipment could be considered new emission sources

(subject to Rule 103(b) (1) or old emission sources

(subject to Rule

l03(b)(2).

It became apparent at hearing that the incinerator,

alleged in the Complaint to be an existing emission source, is

in

fact a new emission source,

(R.

24-26).

We must for that reason

dismiss Count

I of the Complaint.

23

—

19

---

—‘.

The Complaint’s allegations concerning the boiler

(existing

emission source: Count

II)

,

the shot—blasting equipment

(new emission

source: Count

III), and the baghouse

(new emission controls: Count

III) were correct,

CR. 26—30).

Based on Respondent’s admissions at

hearing, we shall therefore find violations of Section 9(b)

and Rules

103(b) (1) and 103(b) (2).

We do not, however, feel that any penalty

is appropriate for those violations.

The Attorney General stated,

at the April 23,

1976 hearing, that,

once Uhler

—-

Mr. Uhler was made aware of

these permit requirements and contact had been

made and communications had,

I think he proceeded

in good faith to obtain those and has indicated

that he will do so in the future.

CR.

39.,)

In addition, we note that the Hearing Officer held the record

in this case open for the submission, by Mr. Uhier, of certain stack

tests which were apparently the only thing lacking from an earlier

permit application,

CR.

39).

Other information

(Hearing Officer’s

letters dated January 21 and April 26,

1976)

seemingly indicates

that Respondents were genuinely confused about the permit requirement,

and that they acted swiftly to comply once that confusion was resolved.

The stack tests in question were submitted to the Board on May 11,

1976, and indicate that Respondents have reapplied for the relevant

permits with stack test data indicating compliance with all applicable

emission limitations.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD that:

1.

Respondents William Uhler, Sr., Ann Uhler

and William Uhler,

Jr.,

d/b/a NcCook Drum and Barrel

Company,

Inc.,

are found to have operated a gas-fired

boiler,

shot-blaster and baghouse at a McCook,

Illinois

drum reconditioning facility without the required

permits from the Environmental Protection Agency,

in

violation of Section 9(b) of the Environmental Protection

Act and Rules 103(b) (1) and 103(b) (2)

of Chapter

2:

Air Pollution,

of the Pollution Control Board Rules

and Regulations.

23

—20

---

—3—

2.

Respondents shall,

if the required permits

have not been received from the Agency within one

hundred twenty

(120)

days of the date of this Order,

cease and desist all such violations.

3.

Count

I of the Complaint in this matter is

dismissed.

I,

Christan

L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, her~bycertify th

above Opinion and Order were

adopted on the

~ day of

_________,

1976,

by a vote of

_____

Illinois Pollution

rol Board