ILLINOIS
    POLLUTION
    CONTROL
    BOARD
    July 24,
    1980
    SHELL
    OIL
    COMPANY,
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB
    79—166
    ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION
    AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    ORDER
    OF
    THE
    BOARD
    (by
    D.
    Satchell):
    On
    June
    12,
    1980
    the
    Environmental
    Protection
    Agency
    (Agency)
    filed a motion to dismiss the variance petition
    filed August 17,
    1979 by Shell Oil Company
    (Shell).
    The petition requests a vari-
    ance from Rule 501 of Chapter
    9:
    Special Waste Hauling Regula-
    tions.
    Rule 501 provides for the form of manifests and prescribes
    rules on record-keeping,
    access to records and reporting.
    The
    petition requests a variance only for internal waste movements at
    Shell’s petroleum refinery at Wood River.
    The Agency requests
    dismissal because of
    a Board decision holding that waste movements
    across
    a public highway between parts of a single facility are not
    subject to Chapter
    9
    (The Eureka Company v. EPA, PCB 79-117,
    35
    PCB 325, September 6, 1979).
    However, Shell states that its
    trucks move “on the public roads” and that part of its facility is
    located “approximately one mile from the main refinery property.”
    The shipments are between “contiguous and non—contiguous parts”
    of
    the refinery
    (Pet.
    1,
    2).
    Shell’s situation is beyond the scope
    of the Eureka exception.
    See
    also 45 F.R.
    33,066,
    33,075, May
    19,
    1980;
    40 C.F.R. Part 260.l0(a)(48).
    The motion to dismiss
    is denied.
    The Board on its
    own
    motion has examined the petition for
    sufficiency.
    The Board notes that Shell’s cost estimate may now
    be deficient in that it does not
    take
    into account that Shell may
    be required to comply with federal manifest requirements even if
    granted a variance from Chapter
    9.
    The Board also notes that Shell
    has not requested a variance from Rules 301 and 302 which prescribe
    delivery and acceptance of special waste without a manifest~ The
    petition is unclear as to the extent of the variance requested from
    Rule 501.
    The manifest which Shell presently uses appears to con-
    form with Rule 501(A) and the definition of umanifest,fl
    subject to
    the Agency’s authority to prescribe the form
    (Pet.
    Ex.
    B).
    It is
    furthermore unclear why Shell cannot utilize
    a single manifest to
    satisfy the Agency and for its own purposes.
    The petition will
    —2—
    be subject to dismissal unless an amended petition addressing
    the noted deficiencies
    is filed within forty-five days of the
    date of this Order.
    IT IS SO
    ORDERED.
    Mr. Dumelle concurs.
    I, Christan
    L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Boa1d, hereby ce tify that the above Order was adopted
    on the
    ~
    day of
    _________________,
    1980 by a vote of
    “~S.-~O
    Christan
    L.
    Mo~J,
    Clerk
    Illinois
    Pollution
    Control
    Board

    Back to top