IL~L1t’~O1SPOLLUTI~COt~TROLHOARD
August
 6,
 1967
hOWARD
 S.
 SPURGEON, d/b/a
HIGUVIE~~S~TES
 SUbDIVISION,
Petitioner,
v.
 )
 PCB 87-111
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTEC~lONAGENCY,
)
Respondents.
ORDt~ROF
THE
BO~D
(by J,D. Dumelle):
This matter
 comes before
 the Board upon
 a July
 31,
 1987,
petition
 for variance filed
 by Howard
 S.
 Spurgeon
 (Spurgeon).
The petition
 is deficient in that it fails
 to include:
a)
 A clear
 and complete statement of the precise extent of
the relief sought including specific identification of
the
particular provisions
 of the regulations or Board
Order from which
 the variance
 is sought;
b)
 A description
 of
 the business
 or activity
 of the
petitioner including
 the size of the business and
number
 of employees and
 a description
 of the location
and area affected by petitioner’s operations;
c)
 The quantity and types
 of material usec in
 the process
or activity for which the variance
 is required and
 a
full description
 of
 the p&rticular process
 or activity
in which the materials are used;
d)
 The quantity
 anci types of materials discharged
 from the
process of activity requiring the variance,
 the
location of the points
 of discharge and
 as applicable,
the identification of the receiving waterway or
 land,
or
 location of the nearest air monitoring station
maintained by the Agency;
e)
 Data describing
 the nature and extent of
 the present
failure
 to meet the numerical standards or particular
provisions from which
 the variance
 is sought and
 a
factual statement why compliance with
 the Act and
regulations
 was not
 or cannot be achieved by the
required compliance date;
80—121
f)
 A detailed description
 of the existing and proposed
equipment or proposed method of
 control
 to be under-
taken
 to acnieve
 full compliance with the Act anã
regulations,
 including
 a time schedule
 for
 the
implementation of
 all
 phases of the control program
from initiation of design
 to program completion and the
estimated costs involved for each phase
 and the total
cost to achieve compliance;
g)
 An assessment with supporting factual
 information,
 of
the environmental impact that the variance will impose
on human, plant,
 and animal life
 in the affected
 area,
including,
 where applicable, data describing
 the
existing air and water quality which
 the discharge may
affect;
h)
 Past efforts to achieve compliance including costs
incurred,
 results
 achieved,,
 permit
 status,
 and,
 for
publicly—owned treatment works
 or connections thereto,
construction grant status;
i)
 A discussion
 of
 tile availability of alternate methods
of compliance,
 the extent that such methods were
studied,
 and the comparative factors leading
 to the
selection of the control program proposed to achieve
compliance;
3)
 h
 statement
 of
 the measures
 to
 be undertaken during
 the
period
 of the variance
 to minimize the impact of the
discharge of
 contaminants on human,
 plant,
 and animal
life in the affected areas,
 including the numerical
interim discharge limitations which
 can be achieved
during the period of the variance;
k)
 A concise factual
 statement of the reasons
 the
 petitioner believes that compliance with the particular
provisions
 of the regulations or Board Order
 would
impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship;
 and
1)
 An indication
 as
 to whether the
 Board may grant
 the
relief consistent with the Clean S~aterAct
 (33 VS.C.
1251),
 U.S.E.P.A.
 effluent guidelines
 and standards,
any other Federal regulations,
 or any wide area waste
treatment management plan approved
 by the Administrator
of U.S.E.P.A. pursuant to Section 201 of the Clean
hater Act.
Unless
 an amended petition
 is filed within
 45 days of the
date of
 this Order, curing
 the above—noted defects, this matter
will besubject
 to dismissal.
IT
 IS SO ORDERED.
80—122
—3—
I,
 Lorothy
 M. ~unn, Clerk of
 the Illinois Pollution Control
tne
_______________
 day of
 .
 ,
 1967
 by a vote
 Board, her,e~t—certifythat ~~~above
 Order was adopted
 on
of
________________
Doro~Gunn,
 Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
80—123