Processing & Books, Inc. v. Pollution Control Bd., No. 47682

CourtSupreme Court of Illinois
Writing for the CourtSCHAEFER
Citation351 N.E.2d 865,64 Ill.2d 68
Decision Date28 June 1976
Docket NumberNo. 47682
PartiesPROCESSING AND BOOKS, INC., et al, Appellees, v. The POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD et al., Appellants.

Page 865

351 N.E.2d 865
64 Ill.2d 68
PROCESSING AND BOOKS, INC., et al, Appellees,
v.
The POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD et al., Appellants.
No. 47682.
Supreme Court of Illinois.
June 28, 1976.

[64 Ill.2d 70]

Page 866

William J. Scott, Atty. Gen., Chicago (Russell R. Eggert, Fredric J. Entin, and Jeffrey S. Herden, Asst. Attys. Gen., of counsel), for appellants.

Lewis D. Clarke and Clayton P. Voegtle, Waukegan (Snyder, Clarke, Dalziel, Holmquist & Johnson, Waukegan, of counsel), for appellees.

SCHAEFER, Justice:

A complaint filed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency with the Illinois Pollution Control Board on April 7, 1972, charged that the respondents, Processing and Books, Inc., an Illinois corporation, and National Mellody Farm Fresh Egg Company, its wholly owned subsidiary, had caused air pollution consisting of odors from chicken manure and incinerators used to dispose of dead chickens, in violation of section 9(a) of the Environmental Protection Act (Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1009(a)). The Board fined the respondents $3,000 and entered a cease and desist order.

The respondents appealed, raising issues concerning [64 Ill.2d 71] the adequacy of the record to support the Board's findings, the specificity of those findings, the burden of introducing evidence, and the propriety of the relief ordered. The appellant court reversed on the ground that the Board's order does not specifically indicate that it took into consideration four factors set out in the Act as bearing on the reasonableness of the pollution. The court declined to remand, apparently not because the record is devoid of evidence to support the order, but because the evidence that supports the order was not introduced by the Agency. (28 Ill.App.3d 115, 328 N.E.2d 338 (2d Dist. 1975).) We granted leave to appeal.

The offense charged is set out in section 9(a) of the Environmental Protection Act:

'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).

'Air pollution' is defined in section 3(b) 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.' Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1003(b).

Section 33 provides:

'(a) After due consideration of the written and oral statements, the testimony and arguments that shall be submitted at the hearing, or upon default in appearance of the respondent on return day specified in the notice, the Board shall issue and enter such final order, or make such final determination, as it shall deem appropriate under the circumstances. In all such matters the Board shall file and publish a written opinion stating the facts and reasons leading to its decision. The Board shall immediately notify the respondent of such order in writing by registered mail.

[64 Ill.2d 72] (c) In making its orders and determinations, the Board shall take into consideration all the facts and circumstances

Page 867

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 or reducing or eliminating the emissions, discharges or deposits resulting from such pollution source.' Ill.Rev.Stat.1971, ch. 111 1/2, par. 1033.

Before we consider the formal deficiencies which the appellate court found in the Board's order, it is necessary to review the stipulated facts as well as the evidence received during the five public hearings, as reflected in the order of the Board.

The property involved is a portion of the large Hawthorne-Mellody farm, which is owned by Processing and Books, Inc., and leased to National Mellody Farm Fresh Egg Company, which conducts an egg-producing operation. This operation is located southeast of the Village of Mundelein and south of the village of Libertyville in an area zoned for agricultural uses. In 1965, the cattle and dairy operations to which the farm had been primarily devoted were terminated, and since that time the poultry operation has been greatly expanded. Before a new building program was undertaken in 1965, the chicken population was between 15,000 and 18,000. In 1965 the two existing chicken houses were 'phased out,' and two new ones were built. Two more new houses were built in 1966, and 12 more were stated in 1969 and completed in 1970. Each new house has a capacity of more than 21,350 [64 Ill.2d 73] chickens. The total chicken population ranges between 296,000 and 330,000, and the farm produces between 160,000 and 170,000 grade 'AA' eggs per day, 95 percent of which are sold to the National Tea Company.

The Board found that '(s)ome of Respondent's neighbors had lived in the area for almost 20 years. Some of them had their own farm animals and therefore had to dispose of manure....

To continue reading

Request your trial
10 practice notes
  • State Citizen Suits, Standing, and the Underutilization of State Environmental Law
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 52-6, June 2022
    • 1 Junio 2022
    ...and economic reasonableness of reducing or eliminating the emissions); Processing & Books, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board , 351 N.E.2d 865 (Ill. 1976) (discussing air pollution violation from odors emitted from egg and poultry farm); and Cobin v. Pollution Control Board , 307 N.E.2d 191 (I......
  • Tri-County Landfill Co. v. Illinois Pollution Control Bd., TRI-COUNTY
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 5 Agosto 1976
    ...the agency (Illinois Revised Statutes, 1975, ch. 111 1/2, par. 31; Processing and Books, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board (1976), Ill., 351 N.E.2d 865, and the Board, in order to make a valid determination that a Page 325 violation has been committed, is not required to make an unfavorable f......
  • Wells Mfg. Co. v. Pollution Control Bd., Nos. 49643
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 6 Octubre 1978
    ...at which interference becomes "unreasonable" in this statutory context. (See Processing & Books, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board (1976),64 Ill.2d 68, 76-77, 351 N.E.2d 865.) The Board must balance the costs and benefits of abatement in an effort to distinguish "the trifling inconvenience, p......
  • Roti v. LTD COMMODITIES, No. 2-04-0199.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 9 Febrero 2005
    ...Co., 73 Ill.2d at 232, 22 Ill.Dec. 672, 383 N.E.2d 148, quoting Processing & Books, Inc. v. Pollution Control 823 N.E.2d 646 Board, 64 Ill.2d 68, 77, 351 N.E.2d 865 The Act provides several salient factors to consider in determining whether interference is unreasonable. "In making its order......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • Tri-County Landfill Co. v. Illinois Pollution Control Bd., TRI-COUNTY
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 5 Agosto 1976
    ...the agency (Illinois Revised Statutes, 1975, ch. 111 1/2, par. 31; Processing and Books, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board (1976), Ill., 351 N.E.2d 865, and the Board, in order to make a valid determination that a Page 325 violation has been committed, is not required to make an unfavorable f......
  • Wells Mfg. Co. v. Pollution Control Bd., Nos. 49643
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Illinois
    • 6 Octubre 1978
    ...at which interference becomes "unreasonable" in this statutory context. (See Processing & Books, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board (1976),64 Ill.2d 68, 76-77, 351 N.E.2d 865.) The Board must balance the costs and benefits of abatement in an effort to distinguish "the trifling inconvenience, p......
  • Roti v. LTD COMMODITIES, No. 2-04-0199.
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 9 Febrero 2005
    ...Co., 73 Ill.2d at 232, 22 Ill.Dec. 672, 383 N.E.2d 148, quoting Processing & Books, Inc. v. Pollution Control 823 N.E.2d 646 Board, 64 Ill.2d 68, 77, 351 N.E.2d 865 The Act provides several salient factors to consider in determining whether interference is unreasonable. "In making its order......
  • Slager v. Illinois Pollution Control Bd., No. 80-697
    • United States
    • United States Appellate Court of Illinois
    • 7 Mayo 1981
    ...bears the burden of introducing evidence on each of the section 33(c) factors. In Processing & Books v. Pollution Control Board (1976), 64 Ill.2d 68, 351 N.E.2d 865, the Illinois Supreme Court clarified its holding in Incinerator. The court stated that once the Agency establishes a prima fa......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • State Citizen Suits, Standing, and the Underutilization of State Environmental Law
    • United States
    • Environmental Law Reporter Nbr. 52-6, June 2022
    • 1 Junio 2022
    ...and economic reasonableness of reducing or eliminating the emissions); Processing & Books, Inc. v. Pollution Control Board , 351 N.E.2d 865 (Ill. 1976) (discussing air pollution violation from odors emitted from egg and poultry farm); and Cobin v. Pollution Control Board , 307 N.E.2d 191 (I......

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