ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 13,
1973
)
)
IN
TIlE MATTER OF THE MOTION FOR STAY
)
R72-2
OF SHELL OIL COMPANY
)
)
)
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Dumelie):
Shell Oil Company, on September 26,
1973,
filed
a Motion
to Stay the effective
date of the Pollution Control Board’s
Noise Pollution Control Re~ulation~,R72-2, alleging that Shell
was a party in two proceedings pending before the Illinois
Appellate Court in the First
and Fifth Districts
to determine
the validity of the Noise Regulations.
An Affidavit in Support
of Motion for Stay,
from
E.A.
Baliman, Manager of Shell OIl
Company’s Wood River
Refinery, accompanied the Motion for Stay.
The Environmental Protection Agency filed a Motion
to Strike
the Affidavit,
on October 10,
1973,
alleging that the Affidavit
consisted of unfounded, conclusory hearsay and otherwise
inadmissible statements.
On October 25,
1973,
the Agency filed
a Memorandum and Response in Opposition to Petitioner’s Motion
to Stay.
The Board heard oral argument on the Motion for Stay
on November 15,
1973.
Following the oral argument,
the Board
suggested that the parties meet and confer upon an agreed
proposed Board order.
Shell filed
a Proposed Order to Grant
the Stay on November 28,
1973.
The Agency filed
a Supplemental
Response in Opposition to Granting the Stay and their Proposed Order
to Deny the Granting of the Stay on December 12,
1973.
After
a
care:Fui review of the Noise Regulations
as adopted,
the Opinion
of the Board which accompanied the Noise Regulations on July 31,
1973,
material submitted by Shell Oil Company and the Environmental
Protection Agency, and the oral argument presented before the
Board, the Board decided to deny Shell Oil Company’s Motion
to Stay
the effective date of the Noise Pollution Control Regulations
on December
13,
1973.
The majority of Shell Oil Company’s reasons for the grant
of this Stay were considered at the time the Board adopted the
Noise
Regulations,
The Board lacks
any authority
to compel
-2-
Shell Oil Company to actively proceed with its appeal of the noise
regulations.
Shell Oil Company could well delay the appeal process
while
it did nothing to reduce the amount of noise emanating from
the Wood River Refinery.
Such action could extend the length of
time that people would be exposed to excessive noise from the
Wood River Refinery.
Shell Oil Company alleges that it would be forced to expend
a substantial portion of their alleged $17 million dollars of
compliance costs while appealing
the regulation.
However, the
alleged $17 million dollars is not completely relevant as only
money for preliminary design work would be spent immediately.
Shell’s
compliance cost was considered in adopting the regulations as
Shell presented extensive testimony at hearings held prior to
the adoption of R72-2.
Based upon Shell’s comments, Rule 208
Ce)
was adopted which exempted existing industries from residential
nighttime limits (R72-2, Opinion, pp.
5,
24, 34, and 44).
“By
adding this exception, the economic impact of regulation is lessened
by an amount equivalent to a 10 dB reduction in noise requirements”
(R72-2, Opinion p.
31).
Shell has alleged that approximately
5 to 6 years would be
needed before Shell would be in compliance with the regulation.
This argument was considered in the adoption of the original
noise regulations and Rule 209
(1) was added to provide
refineries with a two year compliance date
(R72-2, Opinion pp.
7,
8,
24,
34, and 44).
The Board has recognized that Shell Oil
Company is
in a unique situation;
“...in that not only
is it a very large refinery,
but abuts the residential community of South Roxana,
allowing only the width of the street for noise
attenuation.
Rather than basing a regulation on
this unique situation,
this could be handled in a
variance proceeding.
The rule that exempts existing
noise sources from the nighttime limits also serves
to reduce Shell’s problems in complying with the
regulation.
Additionally, an extended two-year
compliance date has been provided for oil refineries.”
(R72-2, Opinion p.
24).
Shell Oil Company has alleged a substantial loss in product
production from the Wood River Refinery at the time of a national
energy shortage
(Paragraph
S of the Affidavit in Support of the
Motion for Stay by E.A.
Ballman).
Shell has not convinced the
Board that modification of existing equipment and/or installation
of new noise abatement equipment could not proceed during the
normal
downtime
for
inspection
and
maintenance.
10—380
-3-
While
Shell Oil Company has alleged compliance
cost
of
$17 million dollars over a
5
to
6 year period,
the Environmental
Protection Agency alleged that Shell
Oil Company for
a:
“few
hundred thousand dollars.. .should be
able
to
comply with
the proposed limits within the compliance
schedule in Rule
209, because of the
great amount of
preliminary sound pressure level data already measured
by Shell Oil Company and the availability of commercially
produced noise
abatement systems”
(R72-2, Agency Exhibit
128,
Part
4,
Section
4 Conclusions).
Shell Oil Company has failed to convince the Board that
a Stay in the effective date
of the Noise Regulations
is warranted.
Therefore,
the Board denies Shell Oil Company’s Motion for Stay.
IT IS SO
ORDEREI).
Mr. Henss and Mr. Seaman dissent.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Order was adopted on the /.3~
day of December,
1973 by
a vote of
3—~
Christan L. Moffet~lerk
Illinois Pollution ~kfitro1Board
10—
381