1. )Complainant,
      2. )) PCB 79—145
      3. Respondents.
      4. 61-03

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November
8,
1984
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
)
Complainant,
)
)
PCB 79—145
CELOTEX CORPORATION
and
)
PHILIP
CAREY
COMPANY,
)
Respondents.
ORDER OF THE
BOARD
(by B.
Forcade):
On October
25,
1984,
respondents, The Celotex Corporation
and
Philip
Carey
Company,
(~Celotexu)filed an application for
nondisclosure in
an envelope stamped
‘SNot Subject to Disclosure.”
According to 35
Ill,
Adm,
Code lOl.l07(c)(3), material marked
~not subject
to disclosure” is automatically afforded confidential
treatment until
a ruling
by the Board.
On November 1,
1984, the
Illinois Environmental
Protection
Agency
(“Agency”) filed a
response to
Celotex’s application.
This matter arose when the Agency,
in discovery,
requested
production of the Analyses of Wastes which was done in the spring
of
1976
by Erickson Chemical Company on samples of materials
disposed of at
the landfill at issue,
In a September
25, 1984
response, Celotex objected claiming a protection against dis-
closure from
discovery based on attorney-client privilege and
attorney work product
privilege.
In an October
2,
1984 reply the
Agency objected to
the privilege and requested in
camera inspec-
tion
by
the
Board.
By Orders of October
5 and 15,
1984, the
Hearing Officer
provided for submission to the Board
of the
material
in
question and memoranda.
Ce1otex~s
attorney states by affidavit that the material in
question is the result of
services performed by Erickson for that
attorney in
contemplation of litigation and is thus not subject
to
disclosure,
The Agency argues that Supreme Court Rule 201(b)
requires disclosure
of objective and material information such as
this and
that
the material
is discoverable.
Thus, the Board must
address
two questions, whether the material
is subject to discovery
and whether
the
material may be disclosed to the public under
section
7
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (“Act”)
and
35 Ill,
Ads, Code 101.107.
61-03

2
The
Board
finds
the
material
in
question
is
subject
to
discovery
.
In
Consolidation
Coal
Co.
v.
rus—Erie
Co, 432
~
2d
250,
89
111,
App.
2d 103
(1983),
the Illinois Supreme
Court evaluated the
Attorney—Client
and
work
product privilege
as
it applies to technical
reports,
When
dismissing
the
privilege
as
it pertained
to
a metallurgical report the Court stated:
The
report
is
actually a notebook that
contains objective and material infor-
mation consisting of mathematical com-
putations,
formulae,
tables, drawings,
photographs, industry specification
data,
and handwritten notes,
It does
not
reflect
or disclose
the theories,
mental
impressions or litigation plans
of B_Evs attorneys.
Nor is it the pro-
duct of the attorney~smental processes
(Supra, at 254).
Here, the material in question is objective and material information
that does not reflect or disclose the theories, mental
impressions
or litigation plans of Celotexes attorney,
nor is
it
the
product
of his mental process.
Neither was the material prepared by
Celotex and communicated to the attorney in confidence,
Thus,
the material in question here is subject to discovery.
Additionally, the material
in question is subject to disclosure,
Section 7(d)
of the Act provides that material describing “the
quantity and identity of substances” placed in landfills “may
under no circumstances be kept confidential.”
The material in
question here describes the identity and quantity of such sub-
stances and may not be kept as confidential.
Celotex is directed to provide the
subject
material
to
the
Agency under discovery within seven
(7) days of the date of this
Orders
The Clerk of the Board is directed to release the material
to the Board~s
public
files,
after
35
days.
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED,
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,,hereby
certify
that
the
above
Order
was
adopted
on
the
day of
~
1984 by a vote of
Dorothy M.~Gunn,Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
61-04

Back to top