ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

October 4,

1979

IN THE MATTER OF:

R79—2

PETITION FOR AMENDMENT TO

)

RULE 204(f)(1)

)

INTERIM ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Goodman):

The Agency’s Motion to Dismiss this regulatory proceeding

is denied.

The Board interprets the incorporation by reference of

Shell Oil Company’s July 24,

1978 petition for variance

(PCB

78-190) as an incorporation for purposes only of the cost

effectiveness of the regulatory proposal.

Proponents’ alle-

gations concerning cost effectiveness are not irrelevant

as

the Agency states and proof

is not conditioned on matters

alleged in such variance petition.

The Agency apparently misinterprets the necessity of Shell

Oil Company’s involvement in the regulation from Proponents’

use of the phrase in

(F)(2),

“from

...

sources located in the

associated petroleum refinery, or refineries if allowed more

than one,” which phrase refers to installations and not enti-

ties.

Contrary to the Agency’s assertion, Shell Oil Company

is not a necessary party to this proposal; this proposal could

have applicability within Illinois with or without Shell’s

participation.

Shell Oil Company would be affected by the proposed reg-

ulation in two cases:

if Shell owned or operated a sulfur

recovery plant upon which “construction” commenced

(1) on or

after October

1, 1976; or

(2) prior to October 1,

1976, pro-

viding either

(a) that specifically designed tail gas sulfur

dioxide control equipment was installed and “total actual”

sulfur dioxide emissions from certain sources within the

refinery/ies are reduced by a certain amount,

“such reduction

to

be

embodied in an enforceable permit limitation”, or

(b)

that Shell caused or allowed sulfur dioxide emissions to

ex-

ceed 4,000 ppm on a 24—hour average basis.

Even if the proposal could possibly be construed as one

concerning”a voluntary associational and interdependent con-

trol plan,” and assuming that Shell Oil Company does not

intervene in the proceedings,

Shell’s conduct indicating non—

association with such control plan would constitute a viola—

35—511

---

—2—

tion of the regulation if and when adopted and made effective;

such possible future conduct

however~.does not render this

proposed regulation hypothetical.

Shell’s alleged “intent”

not to participate cannot be judged on the basis of a peti-

tion for variance it filed in 1978.

The Agency’s alternative motion to postpone scheduling

of hearings

is granted.

The Board

finds that information

derivable from modeling studies currently undertaken by the

Agency for the United States Environmental Protection Agency

should be made available to all persons

at hearings regarding

this proposal.

Such information will result

in more efficient

rulemaking by the State.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Mr.

Dumelle concurs

I, Christan

L.

Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereb

certify the above Order was adopted on

the

~

day of

___________

,

1979 by a vote of

4f..p

Christan L. Moffet

lefk

Illinois Pollution

ntrol Board

35—512