ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November 2,
    1978
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 78—164
    HENRY SCHUCK,
    )
    Respondent.
    MR. GEORGE TINKHAM, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON
    BEHALF
    OF
    THE
    COMPLAINANT.
    MR.
    HENRY
    SCHUCK
    APPEARED
    PRO
    SE.
    OPINION
    AND
    ORDER
    OF
    THE
    BOARD
    (by
    Dr.
    Satchell):
    This matter comes before the Board upon
    a complaint filed
    by the Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency)
    on June
    5,
    1978.
    The complaint alleges that Henry Schuck operates or causes to
    be operated a solid waste management site located in the
    North 1/2,
    Northwest 1/4,
    Section
    5,
    Township 25 North,
    Range
    3
    West of the Third Principal Meridian in Tazewell County,
    Illinois
    without an operating permit in violation of Rule 202(b) (1)
    of
    the Chapter
    7:
    Solid Waste Rules and Regulations
    (Chapter
    7)
    and Section
    21(e)
    of the Environmental Protection Act
    (Act).
    A hearing was held July
    31,
    1978.
    At that time the complaint
    was amended to allege a permit violation through the date of
    July
    31,
    1978
    (R.
    49,
    50).
    Also added was a second count alleging
    violations of Rule
    305(a)
    and
    (c)
    of Chapter
    7 and Section 21(b)
    of the Act from June
    2,
    1977 until July 31, 1978
    (R.
    51)
    Complainant’s Exhibit
    7
    is
    a Request for Admission of Facts
    and a Request for Admission of Documents.
    The documents were
    served on Respondent and no answer was received
    (R.
    47, 48).
    Under Board Procedural Rule 314 unless a response is received
    within twenty days the requests for admissions are deemed
    admitted.
    Thus
    in this case the requested admissions are
    admitted.
    This alone
    is enough to find Respondent
    in violation
    of the original complaint;
    however, the Board will consider the
    evidence presented at hearing.
    Several Ageacy inspections were made from June
    2,
    1977 to
    July
    25,
    1978
    (Comp. Ex.
    1,
    2,
    4,
    6,
    8).
    All the inspections
    showed lack of any appropriate cover.
    Mrs. Schuck stated that
    there has never been a permit issued from the Agency for the
    site
    (R.
    7)
    32—29
    —2—
    The site is
    in a rural area north of Morton, Illinois
    (R.28).
    It is comprised
    of several small
    areas, various gullies with
    refuse dumped along the side of the gullies
    (R.
    28)
    .
    On his
    February
    2,
    1978 inspection John Taylor,
    an Agency employee, saw
    no evidence that would suggest the site was being covered
    (R.29).
    The case
    for Mr. Schuck
    (who
    is
    82 years old) was presented
    by Mrs.
    Schuck who is a joint owner in the property
    (Comp.
    Ex.
    2,
    R.
    7).
    The Schucks maintain that the operation on their farm is
    not a sanitary waste disposal, but an attempt to stop erosion of
    the gully and to build a road to connect portions of their farm
    (R.
    78).
    The refuse is dumped and then occasionally the area
    will be spread and compacted
    (R.
    62, 64).
    The road is to provide
    a shorter route to move farm equipment
    from one area to another
    (H.
    60,
    61).
    The Schucks only want gravel, bricks or concrete
    left over from building operations
    (H.
    57,
    85).
    However, materials
    at the site include tires, old cars, barrels, demolition material
    and putrescible material
    (R.
    73,
    74, 75,
    99).
    Some people
    evidently dump waste on the site
    as they please
    (H.
    61,
    72)
    The site has
    a cable across the road and a no dumping sign
    (R.
    63,
    67);
    however, the cable does not have
    a padlock and is
    attached to
    a pole by a hook
    (R.
    66).
    The Board finds that there is more than sufficient evidence
    to find Respondent in violation of the permit requirements of
    Rule 202(b) (1)
    of Chapter
    7 and Section 21(e)
    of the Act and the
    daily and final cover requirements
    of Rules
    305(a)
    and 305(c)
    and
    Section
    21 (b)
    of the Act.
    Before making a final determination
    the
    Board must consider the factors of Section 33(c)
    of the Act.
    The Board has been presented little information concerning the
    geological formation at the site; therefore, it
    is difficult to
    assess whether the site is suitable for refuse disposal.
    It may
    well be feasible to fill an area for a road in this manner;
    however,
    the information necessary to make this determination
    would be that required on a permit application.
    Uncovered refuse
    scattered about allows the potential for the harborage of vectors
    and the potential for water pollution as water passes through the
    refuse producing leachate which can contaminate surface and
    ground water.
    In this case no actual injury has been shown,
    although there
    is discolored water with barrels standing in
    it
    (Camp.
    Ex.
    6,
    R.
    9).
    There certainly
    is a high potential for
    public injury.
    The need for
    a road would indicate that the
    project, has some social and economic value;
    however,
    the road
    could be accomplished through other methods or with a permit.
    The Shucks own just under 400 acres
    (R.
    7)
    .
    There
    is no evidence
    the Schucks are technically or economically unable to comply with
    permit requirements.
    The Agency has been involved at this site
    since 1970
    (R.
    11).
    Some of the refuse, particularly old car
    bodies, has been on the site for fifteen years
    (R.
    71,
    74).
    32—30
    —3—
    The Board finds that a penalty
    is necessary to aid the
    enforcement of the Act
    in this case.
    A penalty of $400 will
    be assessed.
    Respondent will also be required to cease and
    desist further violations of the Act by submitting
    a compliance
    plan
    for either obtaining a permit or properly closing the site
    within sixty days of this order.
    Respondent shall
    bhen have
    120 days to implement this plan.
    This
    Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions of law in this matter.
    ORDE:R
    It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that:
    1.
    Henry Schuck is found to be
    in violation of Rule
    202(b) (1)
    of the Chapter
    7:
    Solid Waste ‘Regulations
    and Section 21(e)
    of the Environmental Protection
    Act and Rules
    305(a)
    and 305(c)
    of Chapter
    7 and
    Section
    21(b)
    of the Act.
    2.
    Respondent shall cease and desist further violations
    of the Act by submitting to the Agency within sixty days
    of this order a compliance plan to either obtain
    a
    permit or properly close the site.
    Respondent shall
    then have 120 days
    to implement the plan.
    3.
    Respondent shall pay a penalty of $400 within thirty-
    five days
    of this order.
    Payment
    ~h~1
    be by certified
    check or money order to:
    State of Illinois
    Fiscal Services Division
    Environmental Protection Agency
    2200 Churchill Road
    Springfield,
    Illinois 62706
    Mr. Nels Werner dissented.
    I, Christan
    L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, her~y certify the above Opinion and Order were
    adopted on the
    ~
    day of
    ))rv
    ~
    1978 by
    a
    vote of
    3-!
    Illinois Pollutio
    ntrol Board
    32—31

    Back to top