ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November 22, 1974

MINERVA OIL COMPANY,

Petitioner,

vs.

)

PCB 74—374

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Henss):

On October

17, 1974 Minerva Oil Company filed “Petition for

Variance from the Water Pollution Regulations of Illinois”.

Two

weeks later the Environmental Protection Agency filed a Motion

to Dismiss contending that the variance petition does not comply

with Rule

401 of the Board’s Procedural Rules.

The Board did not

immediately rule on the Motion to Dismiss since we had been

informed that Petitioner intended to file an amended petition.

No

such amended petition has been filed.

The Petition for Variance consists of a long narrative pre-

sentation such

as

one might expect to

find

in

an argument or brief.

It does not comply

with

Rule 401 of our Procedural Rules in format

or in content.

We have no alternative but the dismissal of this

petition.

If Minerva Oil Company chooses

to file a new Petition

for Variance it should be prepared in compliance with the provisions

of Rule 401.

That

Rule

provides:

~‘401 Petition.

(a)

A variance proceeding shall be

commenced

by

filing

a

petition

for

variance

with

the

Agency

and

by

filing

ten

copies of the

petition

with

the

Clerk

of

the

Board.

To

the

extent

necessary

to

enable

the

Board

to

render

its

decision,

the

petition

shall

contain

the

following:

(i)

specific

identification

of

the

particular

provisions

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act

or

regulations

from

which

the

variance

is

sought;

(ii)

a

description

of

the

business

or

activity

in

question;

—~

537

---

—2—

(iii)

the quantity and type of raw materials

processed,

and a description of the particular

process or activity in which the raw materials are

used.

(iv)

an estimate of the quantity and type of

contaminants discharged;

(v)

data

showing

the

nature

and

extent

of

the

present failure to meet the particular provisions

from which the variance is sought;

(vi)

a description of existing and proposed

equipment for the control of discharges;

(vii)

a time schedule for bringing the activity

into compliance;

(viii)

a detailed description of the program to

be undertaken to achieve compliance, including a

time schedule of all phases involved from initiation

to completion and the estimated costs involved;

(ix)

an explanation of why petitioner believes the

program proposed will achieve compliance.

(x) details as to past efforts

to achieve com-

pliance and results achieved.

(b)

a concise statement of why the petitioner believes

that compliance with the provision from which variance is

sought would impose an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship,

including a description of the costs

that compliance would

impose on

the

petitioner and others,

information as to the

feasibility of alternatives available to abate the via-

lations and their costs.

(c) The injury that the grant of the variance would

impose on the public including the effect that continued

discharge of contaminants will have upon the air, water

or land.

(d)

If the petitioner seeks a delay in complying a

statement of the reasons for such delay.

(e) A clear statement of the precise extent of the

relief sought.

(f) The petition may be accompanied by such affidavit

or other proof as the petitioner may submit in order to

make it possible for the Board,

if it so decides,

to

dispose of the matter without a hearing.

14

—

538

---

‘-3—

It is Ordered that the Motion to Dismiss be allowed and the

Petition £or Variance be and it is hereby dismissed without

prejudice.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Order was adopted this

~

day of

1je~Jj~k.

,

1974 by

a vote of

‘/

to

C

14

—

539