ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 5, 1987
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
DUO FAST CORPORATION
)
PCB 87—4
TRADE SECRET CLAIM
DETERMINATION
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by B. Forcade):
This matter comes before the Board on a December 12, 1986,
Confidential Trade Secret Claim and Record Submittal filed by the
Duo Fast Corporation (“Duo Fast”) in the R82—l4, RACT III,
regulatory proceeding. By Order of January 8, 1987, the Board,
pursuant to 35 Iii. Adm. Code 120.215, triggered a justification
of the trade secret claim and separately docketed this matter
from the general regulatory proceeding in which this issue
arose. Duo Fast, on January 23, 1987, requested an extension of
time to submit its statement of justification (“Justification”)
which was granted by Board Order on January 26, 1987. Duo Fast
filed its Justification on February 5, 1987. On February 19,
1987, the Board, pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 120.225 entered an
Order extending its decision period by an additional ten working
days or until March 6, 1987.
Duo Fast submits two documents to be included in the
regulatory record in R82—l4, each of which it is claimed contain
or constitute confidential trade secrets protectable under the
Environmental Protection Act, Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. li1i/~, par.
1001 et seq., (“Act”) and Board regulations. The first document,
entitled Areas of Activity Relating to VOC Emission Reduction”
(“R & D Summary”), is a description of recent efforts by Duo Fast
to comply with the existing 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.204, the
amendment of which is the subject of the R82—14 proceeding. This
information was requested by the Board and the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”) at hearing in R82—
14. Duo Fast asserts that the entire document contains
confidential trade secret information such that it is not
reasonably practical to separate the trade secret portions from
the remainder. Duo Fast requests protection for the entire
document.
The second document, entitled “Duo Fast Corporation Control
Equipment Evaluation” (“Y & A Report”), is a report by the
consulting firm of Yates & Auberle concerning the costs and
engineering considerations, associated with utilizing add—on
control equipment to further control volatile organic materials
(“VOM”) emission at Duo Fast’s facility. Duo Fast only claims
discreet portions of this document as confidential trade secret
material. An expurgated copy of this document, with all claimed
76.117
—2—
information deleted, was filed in accordance with the Board’s
regulations.
The Act and Board regulations provide the standards and
procedures for filing and adjudicating claims of confiden-
tiality. Section 7 of the Act provides four exceptions to the
general requirement that the Agency, Board and Department of
Energy and Natural Resources maintain public files. The four
exceptions are: 1) trade secret material; 2) privileges
recognized in judicial proceedings; 3) internal agency
communications; and 4) information regarding secret manufacturing
processes or confidential data. Section 7(c) also provides an
overriding directive that:
“nothwithstanding any other provisions of this
Title or any other laws to the contrary, all
emissions data reported to or otherwise ob-
tained by the Agency, the Board or the Depart-
ment of Energy and Natural Resources in con-
nection with
...
proceeding under this Act
shall be available to the public to the extent
required by the federal Clean Air Act Amend-
ments of 1977 (P.L. 95—95) as amended.”
(Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. lll~/2, par. 1007)
35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.107 addresses the general issue of public
information and implementation of Section 7 of the Act. 35 Ill.
Adm. Code Part 120 of the Board’s procedural rules specifically
creates a procedure for claiming, justifying, adjudicating and
protecting trade secret information.
Section 120.102 states, in pertinent part, that “statutory
requirements for disclosure and non—disclosure contained in
Section 7 of the Act
...
supersedes any conflicting requirements
in this Part and should be referenced prior to undertaking any of
the procedures contained in this Part.” The Board, in its
January 8, 1987, Order, requested that Duo Fast address issues
related to Section 7(c) of the Act and the requirements of the
federal Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 1857 et seq., in addition
to its Justification under Part 120.
The Board will address, as a threshold issue, whether the
information in the two claimed reports is required to be
disclosed pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Act. If Section 7(c)
applies to any portion of the material, that portion must be
available to the public because it supersedes all other statutory
or regulatory provisions. If the material is not subject to
Section 7(c), the next level of inquiry is whether it represents
confidential or trade secret material under the Act, Part 101 and
Part 120 regulations.
76.118
—3—
I. Is Disclosure required by Section 7(c) of the Act?
Under Section 7(c) of the Act, emissions data shall be made
available to the public to the extent required by the CAA.
Section 114 of the CAA requires that certain emission data in the
possession of the government be kept available to the public.
Neither the Act nor Board rules define “emission data.”
“Emission data” is defined at 40 CFR 2.30l(a)(2)(i) as:
(2)(l) “Emission data” means, with
reference to any source of emission of any
substance into the air
—
(A) Information necessary to determine
the
identity,
amount,
frequency,
concentration, or other characteristics (to
the extent related to air quality) of any
emission which has been emitted by the source
(or of any pollutant resulting from any
emission by the source), or any combination of
the foregoing;
(B) Information necessary to determine
the
identity,
amount,
frequency,
concentration, or other characteristics (to
the extent related to air quality) of the
emissions which, under an applicable standard
or limitation, the source was authorized to
emit (including, to the extent necessary for
such purposes, a description of the manner or
rate of operation of the source); and
(C) A general description of the location
and/or nature of the source to the extent
necessary to identify the source and to
distinguish it from other sources (including,
to the extent necessary for such purposes, a
description of the device, installation, or
operation constituting the source).
Duo Fast, in its Justification, contends that neither the R
& D Summary nor the Y & A Report are emission data as defined by
the applicable federal regulations. Duo Fast argues that prong
(B) of the federal definition is inapplicable because the
“necessary” information to determine what Duo Fast is
“authorized” to emit is available in its permit and Board
regulations. Duo Fast argues that prong (C) of the federal
definition is inapplicable because “the location and nature of
the emission source is clear and not confusable locally with any
source.” Regarding prong (A) of the federal definition, Duo Fast
argues that the Agency “already requires Duo Fast to submit semi-
annual data necessary to determine air emissions from the
facility” (Justification, pp. 4—6).
76-119
—4—
Duo Fast bases its interpretation of the “necessary to
determine” language of the federal definition on RSR Corporation
v. EPA, 588 F. Supp. 1251 (N.D. Tex.., 1984). In that case, the
district court remanded an appeal of a United States Environ-’
mental Protection Agency (USEPA) trade secret determination
because the administrative record did not show that USEPA (1)
considered and examined all relevant factors and alternatives or
(2) adequately explained the evidence regarding these relevant
factors and alternatives. Id. at 1256. Duo Fast argues that RSR
Corporation stands for the proposition that if there are
alternative means of calculating or determining emissions other
than through the use of trade secret claimed material, then that
trade secret claimed material is not “necessary” to determine
emissions and is therefore not emission data.
The Board does not believe that Duo Fast has correctly
interpreted either the federal definition or the RSR Corporation
opinion. The federal definition utilizes the phrase “necessary
to determine” to broaden, rather than limit, what constitutes
emission data under the CAA. A plain reading of the federal
definition would indicate that the definition certainly includes
actual emission data as well as the information necessary to
calculate that emission data. This broader scope is necessary
because in most circumstances involving sources of air pollution,
there is rio way to instantaneously measure and record actual air
emissions. Air emissions are, typically, calculated from various
types of data*. Certain measurement and calculation methods are
more appropriate or accurate for different emission processes and
pollutants. Another rationale for this broad definition is to
ensure that emission data can be verified, rather than presented
as a single number with no supporting data or calculations.
The federal definition of emission data is intended to be
broad and flexible in order to account for different pollutants,
different measurement and calculation techniques and differences
related to quality and quantity of emissions. It would be
untenable to exclude information that is clearly air emission
data on the grounds that that information is hypothetically or
actually calculable in a different form. Additionally, Duo
Fast’s argument that the claimed material does not constitute
*
Examples of commonly used methods for determining air emis-
sions include: the use of established emission factors to
calculate emissions where an emission process is well defined and
understood; actual emissions can be measured and used to estimate
probable emission factors and rates; measurements of ambient
concentrations of pollutants can be used in a model to “back—
calculate” emissions from a specific source; mass balance cal-’
culations can be used where known amounts of materials used in a
process, such as VOM’s, can be directly correlated to emissions.
76-120
—5—
emission data because information “necessary to determine” the
air emissions from its facility is publicly available in permits,
regulations and monitoring reports could be contradictory. If
certain information claimed to be a trade secret is publicly
available in other forms, then it is possible that that
information has not been kept confidential and, consequently,
could fail one of the prongs of the test for trade secrecy. As
that “other” information is not before the Board in this record,
the Board makes no findings of fact on this issue.
Even if the Board were to accept Duo Fast’s interpretation
of the federal definition for emission data, the Board could not
find that the information “necessary to determine” emission data
was indeed publicly available or available to the Board in this
proceeding or the R82—14 proceeding. Duo Fast has made very
general reference to Board regulations, its permit and periodic
monitoring reports filed with the Agency as the source of the
“necessary” information (Justification pp. 5—6). Beyond these
general references, there is no specific description,
identification or citation to this information. This type of
vague general references cannot provide an adequate factual basis
for this Board to find that all necessary information to
determine Duo Fast’s air emissions is indeed publicly
available. It would be unreasonable for this Board to bar public
access to air emission data based on a general allegation that
air emission can be determined through the use of other data that
is available “somewhere.” In fact, the information submitted by
Duo Fast and claimed to be trade secret was specifically
requested by the Agency and Board because it was not part of the
R82—14 record and was deemed a necessary part of the record for
decision.
The Board disagrees with Duo Fast’s argument that prong (C)
of the federal definition of emission data is inapplicable since
“the location and nature of the emission source is clear and not
confusable locally with any source.” The issue is not whether
Duo Fast’s plantwide emissions are adequately identified in
relation to other sources of air emissions but whether emissions
from particular pieces of equipment within Duo Fast’s facility
are identified in terms of nature and source. This issue was
first addressed by the Board in Classic Finishing Company, Inc.
v. IEPA, PCB 84—174 Docket A, 62 P.C.B. 509 (February 7, 1985).
In Classic, the Board construed the Act to require disclosure of
“all emission data,” including equipment emission data. The
Board found that:
“This comports with the definition of
‘emission source’ in 35 Ill. Admn. Code
202.102, which identifies both the equipment
and the facility as a whole as ‘emission
source.’ In determining what is the ‘emission
source’ involved (and, therefore, the point of
76.121
—6—
emission), the Board looks to the point at
which the source is regulated.”
62 P.C.B. at 511.
The Classic case dealt with a variance from 35 Ill. Admn.
Code 215.204, which is the same rule at issue in the R82—l4
proceeding, as it relates to Duo Fast. Section 215.204 applies
to individual coating lines or coating equipment. Therefore, the
coating line or equipment is the emission source of interest.
The relevancy and importance of equipment specific emissions is
illustrated by Duo Fast’s own compliance efforts which have
resulted in different levels of emission reductions from selected
types of equipment.
R & D Summary
This document consists of a twelve page summary of Duo
Fast’s efforts since the early 1970’s to reduce VOM’s and comply
with existing Section 215.204. Duo Fast claims the entire
document as a trade secret. The R & D Summary narratively
describes Duo Fast’s efforts to eliminate certain VOM’s in its
manufacturing process, its research and development efforts
regarding alternative methods of applying coatings and new
coating formulation efforts. Upon review of this document, the
Board finds that it does not contain emission data as
contemplated by the Act or CAA. The document, at most, describes
what is no longer used by Duo Fast and what the results of
certain research and development projects were. One statement on
page 12 does quantify, in terms of a percent, the overall
reduction of VOM emissions achieved as a result of certain
process changes. However, this percent figure is not significant
in terms of calculating emissions from Duo Fast’s facility as no
base line quantification of past emissions is provided, nor are
any underlying assumptions for this figure.
Y & A Report
Duo Fast claims discreet portions of this report as
confidential trade secret information. The claimed information
falls into three general categories: (1) the number and type of
staple making machines at the Duo Fast facility and the VOM
emission rates in tons per year from the various categories of
staple making machines; (2) the configuration of an emission
control system designed by Yates & Auberle, including emission
“pick—up” points and ducting configuration; and (3) the location,
in the plant floor, of the staple making machines. These three
categories are designated by the Board for purposes of
discussion and analysis. Duo Fast has not categorized the
claimed information in this manner or explained the specific
reason for claiming this material as a trade secret. The claimed
material is found at pages 1—3, 5—7, 9, 11—13, Attachment A
(complete), Attachment B (complete) and pages 1—2 of Attachment
E.
76.122
—7—
The Board finds that the number and type of staple making
machines at the Duo Fast facility and the VOM emission rates in
tons per year from these various types of machines constitute
emission data under the Act and CAA. 40 CFR 2.301(a)(2)(i)(A)
defines emission data as “information necessary to determine the
identity, amount, frequency, concentration, or other char-
acteristics
...
of any emission which has been emitted by the
source...” (emphasis added). In the instant case, Duo Fast
operates over 100 conventional staple making machines and a
number of light and heavy wire machines at its Franklin Park
facility. Each of these machines is an individual emission
source regulated by 35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.204. This regulation
specifies emission limitations that apply to the coating line or
equipment. Each staple making machine, as a part of its
designated function, coats staples and, consequently, emits
VOM. Some of the machines have numerous emission points.
Different types of machines making different types of staple
products emit different rates of VOM.
Because Duo Fast operates a complex, multi—process facility
with numerous emission sources, the best and perhaps the only
feasible method of determining VOM emissions from the Duo Fast
facility is to calculate them from the individual VOM emission
rates of each machine, the hours of operation of these machines
and, of course, the number of machines operating. There is no
single pipe, stack or vent that can be measured. Consequently,
“necessary” information to determine emissions includes the
number and type of staple making machines as well as the VOM
emission factors or rates for those machines. Consistent with
this determination, the Board finds that the following claimed
information in the Y & R Report constitutes air emission data:
P.1
—
all claimed information; P.2
—
all claimed information
except first paragraph, first line, tenth word; P.2 footnote
—
second line, sixth and seventh word; P.3
—
all claimed
information; p.5
—
all claimed information; P.6
—
all claimed
information; P.7
—
all claimed information; P.9
—
all claimed
information except fifth paragraph, third line, fourth word; P.
11
—
all claimed information; P. 12
—
all claimed information;
P.13
—
all claimed information; Attachment E
—
P.1—2
—
all
claimed information.
The second general category of claimed information consists
of certain references and diagrams showing the design and
configuration of a hypothetical air pollution control system
utilizing catalytic and thermal oxidizers. This hypothetical
system would bring Duo Fast into compliance with the amendment to
35 Ill. Adm. Code 215.204 proposed in R82—l4. This system is not
currently in operation nor is it considered an economically
reasonable option by Duo Fast. The claimed information consists
of various references to the number of “pick—ups” points for a
ducting system and two attachments (A & B) showing the
configuration of the duct system over the various staple making
76-123
—8—
machines and the points of capture over VOM emission sources.
The third general category of information is contained in these
same two attachments and consists of the location on the plant
floor of the various staple making machines.
The Board finds that the claimed information in these two
general categories does not constitute emission data under the
Act or CAA. The design and configuration of a hypothetical
control system, in these circumstances, is not necessary for
calculating or determining emissions that have occurred or are
authorized. Nor is it necessary to distinguish emission
sources. Also, in these circumstances, the location of the
various staple making machines is not significant in terms of
emission data. The individual staple making machines are located
on a commmon plant floor and are housed by a common roof
enclosure. Consequently, their precise location is not signi-
ficant in determining air emissions, as they emit VOM into a
common enclosed space. These determinations are specific to the
facts of this case and the Board does not hold that design and
configuration of a control system could not be signifi’ant in
determining air emissions in other circumstances. Likewise,
emission source equipment configuration could be considered
significant in terms of air emissions in other circumstances.
Consistent with these determinations, the Board finds the
following does not constitute air emission data under the Act or
CAA: P.1
—
first paragraph, first line, tenth word; P.1
—
footnote, second line, sixth and seventh word; P.9
—
fifth para-
graph, third line, fourth word; Attachment A
—
entire document;
Attachment B
—
entire document.
II. Does the Claimed Information Constitute a Trade Secret?
The balance of the claimed material not determined to be
emission data must now be analyzed as to whether it is a
protectable trade secret. Under the Act and Part 120, a trade
secret must meet a two—pronged test: (1) it must have been kept
secret and confidential and (2) it must have competitive value.
Duo Fast, in its Justification, states that both the R & D
Summary and the Y & A Report were prepared specifically for the
R82—l4 proceeding and for no other purpose. Neither document has
been submitted to any other person or organization, except that a
copy of the Y & A Report with all confidential information
deleted was supplied to the EcIS contractor in R82—l4. Both
reports have been submitted to the Agency but only with similar
claims of confidentiality. Internally, copies of both articles
are limited and confined to secure files at: (1) Duo Fast’s
corporate headquarters; (2) the offices of environmental
consultant Yates & Auberle; and (3) its law firm, Coffield,
Ungaretti, Harris & Slaven. The only other persons to whom this
material has been disclosed are appropriate Agency and Board
76-124
—9—
personnel pursuant to Part 120. Duo Fast states that the
articles can also be disclosed to appropriate USEPA personnel in
their confidential form, as support for the R82—l4 proceeding.
Duo Fast provides a Certificate by the Manager of Duo Fast’s
Department of Chemistry and Chemical Engineering that Duo Fast
has no knowledge that either of these documents has ever been
published, disseminated or otherwise become a matter of general
public knowledge (Justification, pp. 2—3). On the basis of these
statements, the Board finds that the information meets the first
“prong” of the two—pronged trade secret test. The Board does
note, however, that the number and type of machines were
disclosed at hearing on March 20, 1986 (R82—l4, R. 3366—3368)
Also certain other claimed information contained in the Y & A
Report is calculable from information that is not claimed ( Y & A
Report, p. 2). However, in each of these instances, this claimed
information is determined by the Board to constitute emission
data and is therefore not subject to the trade secret analysis.
Duo Fast further asserts that the information contained in
the documents
“. .
.concerns state—of—the—art secret manufacturing
techniques and process formulas developed by Duo Fast, only after
extensive research and development efforts.” Duo Fast would lose
its competitive advantage if such information was made available
to competitors. The claimed information would enable Duo Fast’s
competitors to copy Duo Fast’s unique manufacturing process and
discover Duo Fast’s state—of—the—art compliance coatings. This
would effectively destroy the market advantages developed by Duo
Fast through its research and development program (Justification,
p. 4). on the basis of these arguments and evidence in the form
of affidavit, the Board concludes that the claimed material has
competitive value. The Board finds that the R & D Summary, in
its entirety, constitutes a protectable trade secret and that the
balance of the Y & A Report, not found to be emission data,
constitutes a protectable trade secret.
III. May Duo Fast Withdraw tJnprotectable Material?
In its Order of January 8, 1987, the Board requested that
Duo Fast address the following question:
“If the material is determined to be air
emission data, must the Board, under state and
federal law, make this information available
to the public?”
The Board posed this question because it had concerns that the
mandatory language in Section 7(c) requiring the availability to
the public of emission data in possession of government.
Duo Fast responded that there was no apparent legal
authority barring the return of certain materials to its owner.
Duo Fast further argues that 35 Ill. Adm. Code lOl.l07(c)(3)
76-125
—10—
contemplates a process of withdrawal by the applicant after a
Board determination. Additionally, Duo Fast argues that it
submitted the information with the condition that if a
determination adverse to Duo Fast is made by the Board, it be
allowed to withdraw that material.
The Board finds that Duo Fast may withdraw those portions of
the claimed material determined by the Board to be disciosable
under Section 7(c) of the Act. The process in which trade
secrets are handled and determined by an agency of government
entails the balancing of the property interest of the owner of a
trade secret and the statutorily mandated interests of the public
to view emission data in the possession of a government agency.
Section 7 and 7.1 of the Act clearly recognize these competing
interests. Section 7(c) incorporates an overriding requirement
that emission data in possession of government must be available
to the public to the extent required by the CAA. The Board is
cognizant of the fact that public availability of emission data
is an important element of an approvable state implementation
(SIP) under the CAA. NRDC v. USEPA, 478 F.2d 875 (1973), (where
court determined that administrator of USEPA should have
disapproved SIP where state statutes and regulations allowed
emission reports to be held confidential). However, these
requirements do not prevent withdrawal from the possession of a
government agency, information conditionally submitted for
purposes of trade secret determination.
Duo Fast submitted the claimed articles with the caveat that
they would be kept confidential pending a determination by the
Board and that they could be withdrawn from the possession of the
Board if determined to be disclosable. Duo Fast triggered a
process created by the Act and regulations whereby claimed trade
secret articles are kept confidential and the agency in
possession goes through a formal determination process. Under
these circumstances, Duo Fast has a strong expectation that its
property interest will be protected by the terms of its
conditional submission and the Part 120 determination process.
To refuse withdrawal of the articles and require disclosure would
unreasonably interfere with Duo Fast’s property rights. Addi-
tionally, the practical impact of a contrary decision would be
the end of voluntary submission to government agency of necessary
information.
Duo Fast can also appeal today’s determinations. During the
pendency of an appeal, the claimed information continues to be
treated in a confidential manner pursuant to Section 120.240.
IV. Sufficiency of the R82—14 Record for Board Decision and USEPA
Rev jew
The Board, by its January 8, 1987, Order, also requested
that Duo Fast respond to the following question:
76.126
—11—
“In the event Duo Fast withdraws the material
at issue, will the Board’s record be
sufficient for decisionmaking and SIP
submittal?”
Duo Fast’s contends that even if all the claimed information
was withdrawn, the record in R82—14 would support Duo Fast’s
position as other evidence exists on both the subject matter of
the R & D Summary and the Y & A Report. This issue is more
properly considered in the context of the R82—l4 rulemaking and
will not be considered further in this docket.
V. Record of Decision Supporting this Opinion and Order
As the Board separately docketed the Duo Fast trade secret
determination from the R82—14 proceeding, it is necessary to
designate the record for today’s decision. The record considered
by the Board in the PCB 87—4 docket consists of those documents
filed in PCB 87—4 and the documents enumerated in number 3 of the
following order from the R82—14 docket. The Clerk of the Board
is directed to incorporate these documents into the PCB 87—4
docket.
The above Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
1. For the reasons stated in the Opinion above, the Board finds
that the entire document entitled “Areas of Activity Relating
to VOC Emission Reduction” constitutes a trade secret. The
Board finds that the following portions of the document
entitled “Duo Fast Corporation Control Equipment Evaluation”
constitute a trade secret:
P.2 first paragraph, first line, tenth word;
P.2 footnote, second line, sixth and seventh word;
P.9 fifth paragraph, third line, fourth word;
Attachment A
—
entire document; and
Attachment B
—
entire document.
The Clerk of the Board is ordered to continue to protect
these articles as trade secrets pursuant to Subpart C of 35
Ill. Adm. Code 120 and to mark these document (or appropriate
portions thereof) with the word “DETERMINED” pursuant to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 120.310.
76-127
—12—
2. For the reasons stated in the Opinion above, the Board finds
that the following portions of the document entitled “Duo
Fast Corporation Control Equipment Evaluation” constitute air
emission data and are required to be made available to the
public pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Environmental Protec-
tion Act:
P.1 all claimed information;
P.2 all claimed information except:
—
the first paragraph, first line, tenth word and
—
the footnote, second line, sixth and seventh
word;
P.3 all claimed information
P.5 all claimed information
P.6 all claimed information
P.7 all claimed information
P.9 all claimed information except:
—
the fifth paragraph, third line, fourth word;
P.11 all claimed information; and
Attachment E, pp. 1—2
-
all claimed information.
The Clerk of the Board is ordered to continue to protect
these articles as trade secrets pursuant to Subpart C of 35
Ill. Adm. Code 120 for 35 days from the date of this Order.
If, within that 35 days, the Board does not receive a Motion
for Reconsideration or Modification of this Order, a notifi-
cation of a petition for review of this Order, or a motion
requesting withdrawal of the articles determined to be
emission data, the Clerk is ordered to make these articles
available for public inspection and to notify the owner.
If the Board receives a Motion for Reconsideration or
Modification of this Order or a notification of a petition
for review of this Order by a court of competant
jurisdiction, the Clerk is ordered to continue to protect
these articles as trade secrets pursuant to Subpart C of 35
Ill. Adm. Code 120 until otherwise ordered by the Board.
3. The following documents from the R82—l4 docket are incor-
porated into the PCB 87—4 docket as part of the record of
decision in this matter:
76-128
—13—
1. December 2 & 3, 1985, Hearing Transcript;
2. March 20, 1986, Hearing Transcript;
3. August 4, 1986, Hearing Transcript;
4. September 4, 1986, Hearing Transcript;
5. October 30, 1986, Hearing Transcript;
6. Exhibits: 86, 87, 89, 92, 93, 96, 119,
120, and 125 through 137;
7. Public Comments: 72, 75, 76, 78, 88, 91,
93, 94, 96, 98, 99 and 103;
8. 8/26/85
—
Motion to Reopen the Record
(Dockets A & B);
9. 8/30/85
—
Request for Public Hearing by
CACI;
10. 9/05/85
—
Order of the Board: Motion for
Public Hearing granted;
11. 9/20/85
—
Order of the Board (Dockets A &
B);
12. 11/25/85
—
Motion to Further Amend
(Dockets A & B);
13. 1/10/86
—
Chicago Association of Commerce
and Industry and Duo Fast Corporation’s
Motion for Further Hearings;
14. 2/10/86
—
Hearing Officer Order;
15. 3/14/86
—
Notice of Testimony; Testimony
on behalf of Chicago Association of
Commerce and Industry;
16. 3/14/86
—
Agency Amendments and Prepared
Testimony for Hearing on March 20, 1986;
17. 3/17/86
—
Testimony on behalf of Chicago
Association of Commerce and Industry
(3/20/86 hearing);
18. 3/17/86
—
Testimony on behalf of Duo Fast
Corporation by Donald J. Kurr (3/20/86
hearing);
76-129
—14--
19. 4/3/86
—
Objections to the Agency’s
Motion to Amend 35 Ill. Adm. Code
215.204;
20. 4/10/86
—
Interim Order of the Board;
21. 5/22/86
—
Interim Order of the Board by
B. Forcade;
22. 5/29/86
—
Hearing Officer Order Regarding
Various Matters;
23. 6/2/86
—
Agency Motion to Correct
Transcripts;
24. 7/1/86
—
Duo Fast’s Proposed Amendments
to 35 Ill. Admn. Code 215: Subpart F:
Coating Operations; Motion for Extension
of Time to File Testimony;
25. 7/11/86
—
Order of the Board by B.
For cade;
26. 7/14/86
—
Agency Testimony and Attach-
ments/References for RACT III hearings 8—
4—86 through 8—8—86;
27. 7/23/86
—
Hearing Officer Order;
28. 7/28/86
—
Agency Motion to Amend 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 215.204;
29. 7/29/86
—
Duo Fast’s Motion for Leave to
Present Testimony and for Scheduling
Order;
30. 7/31/86
—
Order of the Board by B.
Forcade: motion for leave to present
testimony and for scheduling Order
granted;
31. 8/8/86
—
Testimony on behalf of Duo Fast
by Donald J. Kurr and John J. Yates for
9/3/86 hearing;
32. 8/13/86
—
Agency Motion for Modification
of Board Order Dated May 22, 1986;
33. 8/14/86
—
Order of the Board by B.
Forcade: motion for modification of May
22, 1986, Board Order granted;
76-130
—15—
34. 8/22/86
-
Testimony of Chris Romaine
(Sec. 215.204) for September 3—9, 1986,
hear ings;
35. 8/22/86
—
Duo Fast’s Rebuttal Testimony
of Donald J. Kurr; Exhibit—Letter dated
August 20, 1986, from Smith Engineering;
Exhibit—Affidavit of Richard E. Burton;
36. 8/25/86
—
Hearing Officer Order Regarding
Various Matters;
37. 8/28/86
—
Copy of letter to Susan J.
Schroeder by Shell J. Bleiweiss;
38. 10/15/86
—
Duo Fast’s Joint Motion to
Cancel Hearing;
39. 10/16/86
—
Duo Fast’s Motion to Correct
Transcript;
40. 10/29/86
—
Duo Fast’s Motion to Withdraw
Petition for Site—Specific Relief and to
Substitute Three Sets of Alternative
Language for Amending Rule 215.204;
41. 11/10/86
—
Hearing Officer Order
Regarding Various Matters;
42. 11/10/86
—
Agency Motion to Correct
Transcript (Hearing held 9/4/86);
43. 11/17/86
—
Agency Motion to Extend the
Close of Record;
44. 11/20/86
—
Order of the Board by B.
Forcade: Agency motion to extend the
close of record granted; Record will
close December 12, 1986;
45. 12/11/86
—
Agency Motion to Further Amend
35 Ill. Adm. Code 211.122 and 215.204
(Filed with Public Comment #99);
46. 12/12/86
—
Motion to Withdraw Petition on
behalf of Duo Fast;
47. Duo Fast Confidential Trade Secret Claim
and Record Submittal; and
76-131
—16-’
48. 1/8/87
—
Interim Order of the Board:
Trade Secret Determination docketed as
PCB 87—4.
The Clerk of the Board is directed to incorporate duplicates
of these documents into the PCB 87—4 docket.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board Member J. Theodore Meyer voted present.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the bove Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
~
day of
______________,
1987, by a vote
of ~ -O
.
Dorothy M. Guz’in, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
76-132
