ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    August 15,
    1972
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
    Complainant,
    v
    )
    PCB 72-55
    JAKE’S AUTO
    & WRECKING CO.,
    INC.,
    an Illinois corporation,
    and JAKE
    TALMADGE d/b/a JAKE’S AUTO WRECKERS,
    Respondents.
    Douglas
    T. Moring, Assistant
    Attorney
    General,
    for the Environmental
    Protection Agency;
    H. Arthur Flammel
    for Respondents.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr.
    Parker):
    This
    is
    an enforcement proceeding brought
    by the Agency
    against
    Respondents who operate an automobile wrecking and salvage yard in
    or near Joliet,
    Illinois,
    The Complaint,
    filed February
    9,
    1972,
    charge3 Respondents with causing or allowing open burning of refuse
    and sundry automobile appurtenances,
    and conducting salvaging and
    reclaiming of automobile metals by open burning,
    on April
    29,
    May I and 20, July 7,
    17,
    18 and 27, August 12, November 7,
    8,
    9 and
    10, and December 9, all in 1971, and on January 24, 1972.
    By written stipulation filed prior to the public hearing
    Respondents admitted the allegations of the Complaint but reserved
    the right to present as part
    of their case in chief
    any affirmative
    defenses they might have.
    At the public hearing, conducted July
    5,
    1972,
    Respondents
    stated that they had no affirmative defenses to present
    (R.5).
    Respondents did, however, present the testimony of Mr. Jake Talmadge
    individual Respondent and President of the corporate Respondent,
    in mitigation of any money penalties that the Board might assess.
    Respondent Talmadge’s unchallenged testimony was that since
    filing of the Complaint he had done his utmost to avoid further
    open
    burning violations
    CR.
    9.
    21,
    23), that only a single additiona
    open burning incident had occurred
    (an automobile seat caught fire
    from a burning cigarette), and that he put out the fire with a hose
    as
    soon as he could
    (R.
    9)
    Mr. Talmadge testified that his formal education extended
    only through the seventh grade
    (R.
    23-24),
    and that the automobile
    salvage yard providus the only income he and his wife receive
    (R,
    10).
    Copies
    of
    Respon~k:ts’ 1969 and 1970 corporate and per-
    sonal income tax returns were placed in evidence
    (Exhs,
    1-4)
    They
    show that Mr. Talmadge’s compensation for
    1969
    was $2,350.00 and
    that the corporation incurred a loss during 1969 of $321.78.
    In
    1970 Mr. Talmadge received $2,618.34 compensation and the corpor-
    ation reported taxable income of $1,740.36.
    Respondent Talmadge testified that his corporate and personal
    income tax returns for 1971 had not been filed
    as yet because he
    was unable to pay for preparation of the returns by a bookkeeping
    and tax service
    (R.
    10-11).
    Mr. Talmadge said he has been and
    still is ill with malaria, pneumonia and headaches,
    that he received
    treatment for these illnesses as an outpatient at Hines Hospital
    last year
    (R.
    14), and is currently receiving medical treatments
    from a Joliet doctor
    (R.
    15).
    Because of these illnesses Mr. Tal—
    inadge has been and is presently on
    a restricted work schedule,
    which has deeply and adversely affected his income
    (R.
    16,
    20).
    We have before us then,
    a situation in which numerous open
    burning violations have been admitted and Respondents have in
    effect agreed to the entry of a cease and desist order.
    In
    seeking to minimize a money penalty Respondent Talmadge points
    to his firm resolve to avoid future violations as well as to his
    poor health and income plight and a resulting limited ability to
    pay such a penalty.
    Respondents’ counsel suggested that imposition
    of a large money penalty might force Respondents out of business
    (R.
    5—6)
    Financial hardship is a factor that the Board has considered
    in the past in assessing the magnitude of
    a money penalty
    (e.g.
    see EPA~v.City of East St. Louis, PCB #71-26, decision
    dated July 8~,.l97l). Under the circumstances we believe no
    useful purpose would he served in assessing more than a nominal
    money penalty against Respondents, whose ability to pay a larger
    penalty is left in serious doubt on the record before us.
    Accord-
    ingly,
    a cease and desist order will be entered, and Respondents will
    be required to pay a nominal penalty of
    $50.00.
    ORDER
    1. Respondents shall cease and desist from the open burning
    of refuse and automobile appurtenances at their auto-
    mobile wrecking and salvage yard located in or near
    Joliet,
    Illinois.
    2. Respondents shall withi~i35 days after receipt of this
    Order pay a penalty of $50.00
    by check payable to Fiscal
    Services Division, Environmental Protection
    Agency,
    2200 Churchill Road,
    Springfield, Illinois
    62706.
    I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Pollution Control Board, certify
    that the Board adopted the above Order and Opinion this
    /~
    ‘day
    of
    ~
    ,l972, by a vote of
    ~
    /
    5
    —
    144

    Back to top