ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    March ~4
    ,
    1972
    LLOYD
    A.
    FRY ROOFING
    COMPANY
    #71-4
    V.
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    REV, LOUIS
    HEMMERICH,
    ET AL
    V.
    LLOYD A.
    FRY ROOFING COMPANY
    SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (BY MR.
    LAWTON):
    Order entered in the
    above proceeding
    on October
    14,
    1971 pro-
    vided inter alia as
    follows:
    “2.
    Fry shall advise this Board when such installation
    has
    been
    completed.
    This
    proceeding
    shall
    remain
    open
    and
    the
    Board
    shall
    conduct
    a
    further
    hearing
    not less than
    30
    nor
    more
    than
    60
    days
    after
    notice
    of the installation
    of said air pollution abatement
    equipment
    in order
    to ascertain whether
    odors
    beina
    emitted by Fry’s operation have been abated
    as
    a
    consequence
    of
    the air pollution control
    equiprient
    installed.
    Such further orders shall
    he issued
    by
    this Board
    as
    are appropriate
    in consideratien
    the
    hearings.”
    On November 12,
    1971, Respondent
    filed
    an
    anneal
    from our
    Octo-
    ber
    14,
    1971
    Order
    in
    the
    First
    District,
    Illinois Apeellate Court.
    On February
    1,
    1972,
    Respondent, by its attorney,
    advised the Board
    that control equipment had been installed pursuant to an agreed order
    entered in the Circuit Court
    of Cook County.
    Pursuant to paragraph
    2
    of our October 14,
    1971 Order,
    the Hearing Officer advised all parties
    that hearing would be held to ascertain whether odors being emanated
    by Fry’s operation had been abated
    as
    a consequence of the control
    equipment installed.
    On March
    4,
    1972, counsel for Respondent wrote
    to
    the Hearing Officer asserting that because of the pending appeal,
    the Board no longer retained jurisdiction of the cause
    and that the
    hearing should be cancelled.
    4—42
    Respondent’s March
    4,
    1972 letter to the Hearing Officer
    is
    construed as
    a motion to cancel the hearing, which motion
    is
    denied.
    No order of stay has been entered by the Appellate Court
    and until
    this is done,
    we shall pursue the implementation of our
    October i4~ ~97l Order.
    I,
    Christan Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    certify that the above Supplemental Order was adopted on
    the
    ~day
    of March, 1972
    by
    ~
    vote
    ol
    4-0.
    4—43

    Back to top