ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    March 14,
    1986
    ILLINOIS ENWIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 79—145
    THE CELOTEX CORPORATION
    and PHILIP CAREY COMPANY,
    Respondents.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (By B.
    Forcade):
    This matter
    comes before
    the Board on
    a March
    3,
    1986,
    Celotex Corporation (“Celotex”) Response
    in Opposition to
    Complainant’s Motion Seeking Interlocutory Appeal from the
    Hearing Officer’s October
    7,
    1985,
    Order, Complainants Motion
    to
    Overrule the Hearing Officer’s Order,
    and Complainants Motion
    to
    Deny Sanctions
    (“Celötex Response
    in Opposition
    to Various Agency
    Motions”).
    Celotex also
    filed
    a Motion
    for Reconsideration of
    Denial of Celotex Motion
    for Sanctions on March
    3,
    1986.
    On
    March
    4,
    1986,
    the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (“Agency”)
    filed
    a Motion
    for Interlocutory Appeal
    and Appeal
    of
    the Hearing Officer’s Ninth Order Regarding Various Matters and
    Celotex filed
    a response on March 11,
    1986.
    The Agency’s motions, which Celotex responds
    in opposition
    to, have been disposed of
    in the Board’s Order of February 26,
    1986.
    As the balance of these Agency motions were decided
    in
    Celotex’s favor,
    the Board
    is perplexed
    as
    to the purpose of
    Celotex’s March
    3,
    1986,
    filing.
    Nonetheless,
    the Celotex
    Response
    in Opposition to Various Agency Motions clearly deals
    with issues already decided
    and
    is,
    therefore, moot.
    Celotex’s
    March
    3,
    1986,
    Motion
    for Reconsideration of Denial
    of Celotex
    Motion
    for Sanctions
    is denied.
    The Agency’s March
    4,
    1986, Motion
    for Interlocutory Appeal
    is granted.
    The Hearing Officer’s ruling from which inter-
    locutory appeal
    is taken
    is affirmed.
    The Hearing Officer Order
    at issue provides for at least one day of additional deposition
    of Agency witness James Daugherty and provides
    a procedure for
    requesting additional deposition days if sworn justification
    is
    made
    to
    the Hearing Officer.
    The Agency does not object
    to the
    additional day of deposition but objects
    to the procedure
    outlined
    for requesting any subsequent depositions as
    it “does
    not impose
    a limitation on the number of times James Daugherty
    —2—
    can be deposed.”
    The Board
    finds that the Hearing Officer’s
    Order
    is consistent with the Board’s Order of February 14,
    1986,
    regarding Daugherty’s deposition.
    The Board also finds that the
    procedure of requiring “sworn justification”
    for subsequent
    depositions and the Hearing Officer’s practice of reviewing the
    deposition
    transcripts for repetition,
    relevancy and harrassment
    provide adequate safeguards to
    the Agency’s witness.
    The Hearing
    Officer’s Ninth Order regarding various matters
    is affirmed.
    As
    a final matter,
    on February 28,
    1986,
    Celotex filed
    a
    Celotex Response
    in Opposition
    to Complainants’ Motion and
    Proposed Schedule
    to End
    the Celotex Hearing
    in 60 days.
    While
    this response requests Board action,
    it, more appropriately,
    should be addressed
    to the Hearing Officer.
    IT
    IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Dorothy M.
    Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certifies that the above Order was adopted on
    the /‘/~4day of
    __________________,
    1986, by
    a vote
    of ___~Z_~__.
    2
    L~
    )
    7 ~
    Dorothy
    M.
    G’tinn,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top