Incinerator, Inc. v. Pollution Control Bd., No. 46369

CourtIllinois Supreme Court
Writing for the CourtUNDERWOOD
Citation319 N.E.2d 794,59 Ill.2d 290
Parties, 7 ERC 1342 INCINERATOR, INC., Appellant, v. The POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD et al. (The Environmental Protection Agency, Appellee.)
Docket NumberNo. 46369
Decision Date27 November 1974

Page 794

319 N.E.2d 794
59 Ill.2d 290, 7 ERC 1342
INCINERATOR, INC., Appellant,
v.
The POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD et al. (The Environmental
Protection Agency, Appellee.)
No. 46369.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
Nov. 27, 1974.

[59 Ill.2d 292]

Page 795

Pedersen & Houpt, Chicago (Richard V. Houpt, Chicago, of counsel), for appellant.

William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Springfield (Richard W. Cosby and Dennis R. Fields, Asst. Attys. Gen., of counsel), for appellee.

UNDERWOOD, Chief Justice:

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) brought an action against appellant, Incinerator, Inc., alleging violation of various provisions of the Environmental Protection Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1001 et seq.) and of certain rules and regulations of the Illinois Pollution Control Board adopted pursuant thereto. At the conclusion of extensive hearings before the Pollution Control Board, the Board fined appellant $20,000 for causing air pollution and $5,000 for failure to file an 'Air Contaminant Emission Reduction Program.' Appellant was further ordered to cease and desist operations until such time as satisfactory air-pollution-control equipment was installed and other specified corrections were accomplished. Its petition for variance, which was considered at the same time, was denied. The appellate court affirmed [59 Ill.2d 293] (Incinerator, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board (1973), 15 Ill.App.3d 514, 305 N.E.2d 35), and we have allowed appellant's petition for leave to appeal.

Since 1958 appellant has operated a large refuse incinerator situated in the village of Stickney near its border with the town of Cicero. The plant operates seven days a week and has the capability of processing 500 tons of solid waste per day in its two rotary-kiln incinerators. Refuse from various municipalities accounts for most of the plant's capacity, although the plant also accepts refuse from private scavengers. On April 2, 1971, the EPA filed a complaint alleging that during specified periods appellant: (1) had caused air pollution in violation of section 9(a) of the Environmental Protection Act and corresponding provisions of the Air Pollution Control Act previously in effect; (2) had emitted particulate

Page 796

matter in violation of Rule 3--3.232 of the Pollution Control Board's rules and regulations governing the control of air pollution; (3) had discharged smoke in excess of and in violation of the same section of said rules and regulations; and (4) had failed to file a letter of intent to file an 'Air Contaminant Emission Reduction Program' as required by section 2--2.12 of said rules and regulations. The EPA subsequently filed an amendment charging appellant with installation of new pollutioncontrol equipment without obtaining a permit as required by section 9(b) of the Act and Rule 3--2.110 of the Board's rules and regulations. Shortly after the complaint was filed, appellant filed a petition for variance before the Pollution Control Board which was consolidated with the complaint for hearing. In its answer to the EPA's complaint, appellant denied causing air pollution as charged and pleaded an affirmative defense that the compliance required by the EPA was 'technologically unfeasible as the available pollution control equipment had (not) yet proven to be effectively adaptable to this or similar institutions.' Appellant admitted its failure to comply with the Board's rules and regulations requiring [59 Ill.2d 294] the filing of the 'Air Contaminant Emission Reduction Program.'

The principal question raised on this appeal concerns the alleged violation of section 9(a) of the Environmental Protection Act. In order to properly define the issues involved, it is necessary to set forth the pertinent statutory provisions. Section 9(a) provides that: 'No person shall: (a) Cause or threaten or allow the discharge or emission of any contaminant into the environment in any State so as to cause or tend to cause air pollution in Illinois, either alone or in combination with contaminants from other sources, or so as to violate regulations or standards adopted by the Board under this Act.' (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1009(a).) The term 'air pollution' is defined in section 3(b) of the Act as 'the presence in the atmosphere of one or more contaminants in sufficient quantities and of such characteristics and duration as to be injurious to human, plant, or animal life, to health, or to property, Or to unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of life or property.' (Emphasis added.) (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1003(b).) Section 33(c) of the Act provides as follows: 'In making its orders and determinations, the Board shall take into consideration all the facts and circumstances bearing upon the reasonableness of the emissions, discharges or deposits involved including, but not limited to: (i) the character and degree of injury to, or interference with the protection of the health, general welfare and physical property of the people; (ii) the social and economic value of the pollution source; (iii) the suitability or unsuitability of the pollution source to the area in which it is located, including the question of priority of location in the area involved; and (iv) the technical practicability and economic reasonableness of reducing or eliminating the emissions, discharges or deposits resulting from such pollution source.' (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1033(c).) Section 33(a) of the Act contains the following provisions with regard to [59 Ill.2d 295] decisions rendered by the Board: 'After due consideration of the written and oral statements, the testimony and arguments that shall be submitted at the hearing, or upon...

To continue reading

Request your trial
28 practice notes
  • Celotex Corp. v. Pollution Control Bd., No. 55848
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • February 4, 1983
    ...be said that the Board's rules rest upon any evidence of statutory compliance. See Incinerator, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board (1974), 59 Ill.2d 290 [319 N.E.2d We further hold that there is no evidence that the Board took into account the economic reasonableness of these rules for a subst......
  • Harris-Hub Co., Inc. v. Illinois Pollution Control Bd., HARRIS-HUB
    • United States
    • Illinois Appellate Court
    • July 7, 1977
    ...are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (Incinerator, Inc. v. Pollution Control Page 1076 [8 Ill.Dec. 690] Board (1975), 59 Ill.2d 290, 319 N.E.2d 794; May v. Illinois Pollution Control Board (1976), 35 Ill.App.3d 930, 342 N.E.2d 784; Rhodes v. Pollution Control Board (1972), 8......
  • Wells Mfg. Co. v. Pollution Control Bd., Nos. 49643
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • October 6, 1978
    ...Mystik Tape v. Pollution Control Board (1975), 60 Ill.2d 330, 328 N.E.2d 5; Incinerator, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board (1974), 59 Ill.2d 290, 319 N.E.2d 594; City of Monmouth v. Pollution Control Board (1974), 57 Ill.2d 482, 313 N.E.2d The Act places the burden of proof on the Agency or o......
  • Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Pollution Control Bd., No. 57487
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 19, 1974
    ...that the Board's rules rest upon any evidence of statutory compliance. See Incinerator, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board (1974), Ill., 319 N.E.2d 794. We further hold that there is no evidence that the Board took into account the economic reasonableness of these rules for a substantial numbe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
28 cases
  • Celotex Corp. v. Pollution Control Bd., No. 55848
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • February 4, 1983
    ...be said that the Board's rules rest upon any evidence of statutory compliance. See Incinerator, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board (1974), 59 Ill.2d 290 [319 N.E.2d We further hold that there is no evidence that the Board took into account the economic reasonableness of these rules for a subst......
  • Harris-Hub Co., Inc. v. Illinois Pollution Control Bd., HARRIS-HUB
    • United States
    • Illinois Appellate Court
    • July 7, 1977
    ...are contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence. (Incinerator, Inc. v. Pollution Control Page 1076 [8 Ill.Dec. 690] Board (1975), 59 Ill.2d 290, 319 N.E.2d 794; May v. Illinois Pollution Control Board (1976), 35 Ill.App.3d 930, 342 N.E.2d 784; Rhodes v. Pollution Control Board (1972), 8......
  • Wells Mfg. Co. v. Pollution Control Bd., Nos. 49643
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • October 6, 1978
    ...Mystik Tape v. Pollution Control Board (1975), 60 Ill.2d 330, 328 N.E.2d 5; Incinerator, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board (1974), 59 Ill.2d 290, 319 N.E.2d 594; City of Monmouth v. Pollution Control Board (1974), 57 Ill.2d 482, 313 N.E.2d The Act places the burden of proof on the Agency or o......
  • Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Pollution Control Bd., No. 57487
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • December 19, 1974
    ...that the Board's rules rest upon any evidence of statutory compliance. See Incinerator, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board (1974), Ill., 319 N.E.2d 794. We further hold that there is no evidence that the Board took into account the economic reasonableness of these rules for a substantial numbe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT