ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April 11, 1991
    SEXTON ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    SYSTEMS,
    INC.,
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 91—4
    )
    (Permit Appeal)
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    )
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by J. Anderson):
    On March
    25, 1991,
    Sexton Environmental Systems,
    Inc.
    (“Sexton”)
    filed a motion requesting the Board to maintain as
    confidential certain “trade secret portions” of the transcript
    in
    this matter
    (page
    26, lines 14—20) pending the resolution of a
    trade secret claim that
    it filed with the Agency on March
    6,
    1991.
    On March 28, 1991,
    the Board granted the motion with the
    caveat that, since the response time had not run, the ruling
    might be subject to reconsideration upon the filing of an
    objection.
    On April
    3, 191,
    the Illinois Environmental
    Protection Agency (“Agency”)
    filed a response objecting to the
    motion.
    On April 10,
    1991,
    Sexton filed its reply to the Agency
    motion as well as a motion to file the reply instanter.
    The
    Board grants Sexton’s motion to file its reply instanter and
    grants reconsideration of this matter.
    The Agency asks that the Board deny Sexton’s request or, in
    the alternative, grant the motion only with respect to the fifth
    word of line 16, page
    26 of the transcript.
    In support of its
    motion,
    the Agency states that the testimony at issue does not
    satisfy 35
    Ill. Adm. Code 120.230.*
    Specifically, the Agency
    argues that the testimony was disseminated at hearing and became
    a matter of general public knowledge, and that it has no
    competitive value because
    it
    is
    s
    statement regarding the
    objective of Sexton’s research project rather than a discussion
    of the process itself or the equipment used.
    The Agency also
    *
    35 Ill. Adm. Code 120.230(a)(2)(A)
    and
    (B) provides that an
    article
    is a trade secret only upon a demonstration that
    1) the
    article has not been published, disseminated or otherwise become
    a matter of general public knowledge; and
    2)
    the article has
    competitive value.
    121—73
    —2—
    argues that, assuming that the testimony was excluded, Sexton has
    waived any right to contest the inclusion of the testimony in the
    record when it did not object at hearing to the introduction of
    the testimony.
    The Agency next argues that the testimony
    addresses the issue of whether the treatment process is a
    recycling process, an issue that is central to the disposition of
    the case, and that Sexton is attempting to exclude the testimony
    because it
    is damaging to Sexton’s case.
    Finally,
    the Agency
    argues that the testimony has no competitive value because the
    testimony at issue was read verbatim from page 86 of the Agency’s
    Record and the transcript does not reflect a correct reading of
    the material.
    In its reply, Sexton disputes all of the Agency’s
    assertions.
    Sexton also notes that no members of the public were
    present at the hearing.
    On March
    8, 1991,
    the Board granted Sexton’s motion to
    maintain the permit record
    in this matter confidential pending a
    decision by the Agency on Sexton’s March 6, 1991 trade secret
    claim.
    The testimony at issue
    is part of Sexton’s permit
    application and thus, part of the confidential permit record in
    this matter.
    We note that the Agency itself arguably became
    entangled in this confidentiality issue when it asked Sexton’s
    witness to read the material at issue verbatim from the permit
    application.
    In light of these
    facts we hereby deny the Agency’s motion
    and affirm our March 28,
    1991 Order.
    We are not ruling on the
    question of whether the testimony actually constitutes a trade
    secret.
    We will continue to maintain the testimony confidential
    until Sexton’s March
    6,
    1991 trade secret claim is resolved.
    IT IS
    SO ORDERED.
    J. Theodore Meyer abstained.
    I,
    Dorothy M. Gunn,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify tha~the above Order was adopted on
    the
    /,fl2
    day of
    _____________,
    1991,
    by a vote of
    ________
    ~
    Dorothy M.
    G~4tin, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    121—74

    Back to top