TLLINO

-

&

-

CONTR~LBOARD

at

r

,

1985

‘C

LINISHING CO., INC.

Petition

v.

KB

84-1 4

Docket A

ye

013

ENVIRONMENTAL

-

FC’TON AGENCY,

r4

‘st OF

THE

BOARD (by J

A dersor):

Or November 21, 1984,

ic finishing Co., lac

(‘

C~j(

to

a petition for vane

c’

a

35 Ill. A m

Code

•

04(c).

The petit,.

tc

~

npinied by an

ôao..

SC

ti

t

‘ices C through H tiereto torstitu e trade sect t~ r

he

~entiaJbus:nesb

r a -n

‘..

r protected

from

discb.

c

r 7 and

‘.1 of the

Ert.ro~~artal

Protecti”i

c’.

(?‘t’

‘

er

6, 1984, the Bard

-eq ‘~ted,pursuant to 35 ILl

tim

0 235(a

that Class c j ~ti.tyits claim in accora

ree

e procedures in Sectiot 120.202, specifically addvts0i. c

question

as to whether Section 7(c) of the Act (Ill. R°

3

t983

ch. ll~

par

100

‘c)) applies to the apper’dicei

t-irina plant emission do a.

On January 9, 1985, Clasci

~ts claim to el’r

ot’~ ~ endix C and rortimns ot Aper

r m the claimed material an’

f led a document entitled

‘J:.a.t-

or of Claim of Troth

‘

ard otn r C ntdent ol

...

‘mat

n’

tic

~

3

n,_-r~

-

.I~q

it

ci

ered

an

Orcer

exterd

j

st~dECissol p?~i~dby

r

o

r ing dzys

.-

1rsary 7,

,

tterst

i

rot sub:ect

-ietheritrop~a

:

:

4~

req Jations.

0

losure reau~e,,,,st jan

7(0

0.

the Act.

r

It,

December 6, 198

Ord

r, the Board noted that its

‘scest for )ustification

t

s

.le pursuanr

~.

35 Ill

Adm

Cc

t

102.

That reguiati r

‘a

eral provi

~q

of Part .20

P

ch

amor~othe

tnino~

•

-

at

‘‘

a

t

ry

requlrat.lt..

t)

lisciosure

and

non—die

-

ontai.ed

.

cti~n

7

of

tli

)

)

‘I

)

Respon’e

I..

~~~rde tc~

o~

~ dha

ads

‘c

ach ~

t’~

.

v

r

qu

reo

t

VSc’io~ 7c

ra

‘

anyportior

a.

ti)

jni°t

t

a

d’Lc

‘1’

)

~he

publi

~ca

Equlatory p

i

‘

7’c

,

C

of

the

fl°rial

‘

&

‘.

—

-

regai~

c. t s

cL.

-

~r

pit

—

t

It

1

e

pirs-r

:c

c

V

c.

ex’

C

t ade

4ecr

.nc’r

It

*

p

---

~uNrsedes

any

c-if

ng requirements

in this Part and

be ~efererced p~io~

r

undertaking any of

the

pr ce~fir~s

~d in th

s Part

‘

~e

ion 7(c) of the Act is ore ~

requireient

I

54 ires the following:

~No

~i

t tading any other provision

of tr~isTitic or a’iy

other

law to the

co~trarj

I

e ission data reported to

or )ther~cc

~t med

by

the Agency,

the

Boar

or the

Department

in

connection

witt sty

ririination,

inspection or

proce~drngunder this Act shall be avail—

~blt.

the public to the extent required

by

t

federal Clean Air Act Amendments

of l9/~ (P,L~, 95—95) as amended~

(i~ar~

Air Act provisror r?~erenced

(Section

114) require’

o~Lr~

of any emissior

a~-awhich the U,S~EPA Administrator

i’~

state when so author

zed)

may reasonably require of an~

I-

owns or operat~car emission sources

Neither the

tc

rct ~uIee ciefine

s~o~oata~ However, federa

reC~iL3~

;

C

P 2~30l(a)(2) deUnes

~emission

data,”

in part, as

i~

necessary

to determine the identity, amount,

t

y, coi~-e~trationor o~-tercharacteristics

(to the cxtart

air

quality)

of any emission which has

been

emittel

y

tr

r

~c~~or

any, combination of

the foregoing~”

In

its Justification, Classic contends that the materia

w

i

i~

laimed to repr “cot

t ade secrets

in Appendices D

t~r-igt H

is

not

1em esior

data” within the meaning of

40 C~F

~

.~ion7~c’

~.

~

A~,

The Board will review

CaCt

~r d aple-id

c

ci

o

ons

thereof

separately

for

ths

~

of t~eterminingwhe

icr

emission data”

is invo1ved~

D

~aa

c-i

aterial processed and

a

o

~n

op

is

by ma~.hineand to’~acd

f

-

c

c—v

nth

I

t

ri

the plantwide tot’l

ct

‘

i

~

r

~a

I

cmputing emissions and

the

,

~r~y ~h

DC

Aisclos~d~(Justfi~~

~ce

that informatior nees~ar

c~sis

-q ired to be disclosed by Sectio~7(c

ii

A~t

e Boari concurs with this positon~ Tt

~m~i

data”

is focused not only oi

t

so on

i

formation

~

“

(Ernolisis added~) The Board

notes

thi’-

~ aiss

as

in this case,

is a calcuL

4

ocent the data on the amount

c~r~onents

of the equation,

it

is

C

~iv~~d

emissions figure~ Therefcte~

j

~gi

1

re,

~c

~emissc

rissit.

~t-a

in

mci.

C~-rth~

.v~

r’

~

‘~

~nrc

uc

r

is

ve~ I

---

c.

u~ be disclosed.

Hocev°

a

y of materiel prress

the ‘Materi *1 Processe

c

•

Section 7(c)

a

a

with regard to

Apper’diic

I

oantwide

totals to be diaclo

•

i

data from ech piece of

c

osed.

The perti e t lana aqe

s n data’; therefore, a plain read

ec ~he..

equipment

emission

d

t’

au.t.

h

I

~-Ie definition

nf

‘elnisaoi

202

02, Qich 1entifies

och

tne

a

)le as ‘em ssion sour’e

n

&

ion source

invloved (and, t

•

the Board

looks

to

the

point

‘

Ir this case,

the Petittoc;

from

a

rule

which

applies

to

‘Board Note’ following 3

-

1

~es

the

word

equipn*nt’

in

f

tie prescribed paper co

-inq

,

the

‘coating

line’

r

C interest.

The Board also no:’

-

~

gram relies,

ir

part,

on

er

or

c’ cf equipment.

Given the i

)

ig

line

information

to

the

ac

~

•

iota on emissions by machine mc~

n

nbers

of the public wishinq to

‘or

all

of the above rears

rtwide totals of forinul~tt

r

issic reiterates

it,

pon

.o’

a ttwide totals rut

be

As

stated

above,

t1te

a

rg disclosure of al

ente

data.

Tlerefoe,

Aooerl

-

£tSdix F

claims

that

the

itens

in

-nd II.b contain ‘the

or-

r

-

d that this is not emission dat-

a ssion data.

(Justification p.

pe-tdix

D

the

Board

agre

h’

t

i.

rial coatel (which is co~tai

i’ormation necessary to determine

‘oncentrat ion,

or

other

related to air quality) of a y

the sour

1

(see 46 ‘FR i.C

—

t of the i antity of enss

s

C

ju.

3

a~

~

-

is

x0”

t

rc

‘s.

c

Ta

r

I

1

tieAc

-

t

I7

)

iii

t

a

I

t

.)

I.

C

ii~

vIa

~

b

)i’

cC

•

‘

‘s

C

t

.

~ x~eedina•ec

1

ccst. a ~

21

a,a~

r

th,a~

to

V

V

1

it—

‘i~ mi

t

at

f

‘

Ui3

a-

1

S

~ ma

t

I

d.

(

4

it

d

Cs

I

subsot

1

jc

2)

tIE.

..

in

tic-

aararr~

the id.

I

~,

chcar’t

r’

‘,

i

1

-

6’. E

c

4

t

---

in terms of the quantity of material produced~ This

is descript-

ive

of the process but

is not ‘~necessary.” The necessary emis-

sion data

is. provided

t.o the public elsewhere

in Appendix F.

Appt.~urdixG~containing Classic~sproposed compliance plan,

also appears to contain emission data,

~

estimated reductfons

in emissions resulting from implementation of

a compliance

program~ Classic has claimed that the entire compliance plan

is

a trade secret and that it does not contain emission data~ While

there may be trade

secret.s or confidential data

interspersed in

the pror.~med compiiar~m~J.

an,

the proiçtosed reductions

in cmis—

sion~a

~-rticipate~t~rissionlevels

nder the variance are

clearly ~‘emissiondata” which must

be treated as disciosable

under Section 7(c)

of the Act.~ Classic did not specify what,

if

any, other trade secret material

is contained in the compliance

plane

Therefore, rather than attempt to redraft the compliance

plan to eliminate possible trade secret material, the Board

belieres

it will he more expeditious

in this case to hold that

the entire plan

is

•dj~•c:iosable~ If Classic chooses,

it

may

submit an amended disclcsable compliance plan and withdraw

t.h.i

one

by filing

a Motion to Withdraw and Substitute within the

35

day period following the date of this Orders

(Appendix G,

like

all other claimed material, will be protected from disclosure

during

this 35 day

per.iod..)

~ndixH

Appendix H which contains Classic’s formulation testing

program and results clearly does not contain “emission data,”

and,

therefore,

is not s~tbjectto Section

7 (c).~

IL

Is the Article

Tn..v.nlved

a Trade Secret?

Having

found that

he “Material Processed” columns~in

Appendix D, all cf Appendix H,

and the claimed portion of

Appendix F are not

s.ub~.ect to Section 7(c),

the next question

is

whether

th..ey

contain.

trade

secrets~

Under

the

Act

and

Part

120,

a

trade

s:ecret

must

meet

a

two—pronged

test~

Basically,

it

must

have

been

kept

secra.t

and.

it

must

have

competitive

value~

In.

its

statement.

of

justi.tication

Classic

states

that

it

has

long

imple-

mented

a

program

to

ensure

limited

disclosure of the

material

involvea,

1nc~ucrle storing

the

material

in

locked

file

cabinets,

securing

its

offices

in

the

evening,

and

limiting

a~.mittance t.o

the

plant

to

approved

individuals,

Classic also states

that

complete raw materfal information

is accessible only to its tech-

nical

staff.

It

notes

that

management personnel,

government

regulators,

consultants,

an.d

its

attorneys also have knowledge of

the

“process

information,”

Classic

has

included

a

certification

that

Classic.

has

n

knowle.dge

that

the

articles involved have

ever been

pu

l~zr.-

~“~eminated,

or otherwise become

a matte~

of g~ner~I~

~

tThe certification

is signed

by

Tony

Sorrt..mnt

Inc

who

t re Hoard

assumes

is

the

owner of the

---

lorized representative of the

owl

e atatements,

the Board fins

h’-

th?

e

irst ~prong~

OL

the two~pro.

tr

etitive value

of

the

articles

c

tat the specialized

job shop” produc

t

competitive and that Classic h~s

i

to develop new coatings, adhesives,

iii

order to gain a competitive edge

hi

~ssic

argues that disclosure of these

ar

~icing

product iuplication, ed warke~

to t.h~d~trimenLof Ciessic~ corn~

ais

of these arguments,

the Bo~rd

c

nvolved meet the competitive

v~’~s

test

as

well

as

the

“secrecy”

Pr

t

ds

that

the

“Material

Process

cn

di

H, and

the

claimed

portion

ci

c

etc

within

the

meaning

of

the

Ac

a

d above,

the Board finds

that

~

columns

in Appendix D,

all

port

i

r,

aragraphs I~band II~b

of

Appendii

ncrets~ The Board hereby orders the

t~

continue to protect these article~

sant to Subpart

C of

35 .Ill.~ Ads

i

these

items with the word

3

dnt to

35

IlL Adm~Code l2O~3lO

i

:b~ve.

thr Bnard finds

that

all

U

r thai

the “Material Proer.

au all portions of Appendix E ard

i

ed

to be available to the publ~c~

7

c) of the Act

The Board here ~

~ Board to conti ~iueto prote~-

3

~crets

ursuant to Sub

a~L

r

3

days

from

the date

ef

S

35

days the Board does not

~econsideration

or

Modification c

ation of

a petition for rev

w

t~

these articles by

i

con

e

Clerk

is ordered to make

for

public inspection and to

notit

o~ion

for

Reconsideration

or

Modr~.

~ notification of a petition

for

~evi

erd

to

these articles by

a

court

C’

rk

is

ordered

to

continue to

,~rcts

purs

ant

to

Subpart C

iier~ice

ordered by the Board~

---

IT

Boa

~

Meyer dissented~

rk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board,

t

e

above Order was

adopted

on

the

1985

by

a vote

of

Doro

hy

M~

~Gunn,

Clerk

Illinois

Pollution

Control

t

62~514