ILLT!’~IOISPOLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June

8,

1989

PEOPLE

 OF THE STATE OF

ILLINOIS,

Complainant,

v.

)

 PCB 89—67

B

 & W CORPOR~ITION, an Illinois

Corporation,

Respondent.

ORDER OF THE BCTh~RD (by

1.

 Mar.in):

On

 !lay

25,

 1989,

B

 & W Corporation

 (B&W)

 filed

 a Motion

to

Dismiss

 the ~pri1

14,

 1989 complaint

 filed

 by the People of

the

State of Illinois

 (People).

 The People filed

 a response

 on June

1,

 1989.

 The Complaint alleges

 that B

 & W operated its paint

spray booths and drying oven without

 a permit for approximately

four years.

Essentially,

B

&

W’s

 motion asserts

 that B

& W

 is now

in

compliance with

 the Environmental Protection ~ct’s

 (~ct)

requirement that it have

 a permit for

 its air emissions.

Evidently,

B

 & W was issued

 an air permit on February

10,

 1989.

B

 & ~ also

 asserts

 that

 it has acted

 in good faith

 to comply with

the ~ct,

 and that the Board

is

 riot authorized

 under Illinois

law

to issue

 a penalty based

 on the People’s allegations

 and the fact

that B

 & W currently has

 an air permit.

The People respond by stating

 that B

 & W did not act

 in good

faith since,

 according

 to the People’s allegation,

 it took B

& W

four years

 to submit an approvahie operating permit

application.

 The People further assert that the Board must

impose

 a penalty

 to aid in the enforcement

 of the act.

The Board

 is not convinced

 that

it

 is barred

as

 a matter of

law from issuing

 a decision which would

 find B

& W

 in violation,

impose

 a civil penalty and/or require B

&

 to cease and desist

from violations of the 1~ct.

The Board notes that Section

 33(a)

 of the ~ct

 states:

It shall

not

be

 a defense

 to findings

 of violations

of

the provisions

 of the ~ct

 or Board regulations or

 a bar

to the assessment

 of civil penalties that the person has

come into compliance subsequent to the violation, except

where such action

 is barred by any applicable State

or

federal statute

of

 limitation.

lriO-•39

2

In issuing

 its orders,

 the Board must consider factors

listed

 in Section 33(c)

 of the kct.

 One of those factors

 is “any

subsequent compliance”.

 However, such considerations are based

upon factual information introduced at hearing.

B

 & W’s motion

 is denied.

 This matter shall proceed

to

hearing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

 of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

1he~~by

certify

 t the above Order was adopted

on

the

_______

 day of

 1989,

by

 a vote

of

Dorothy

 M. inn,

 Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Ifl(~-4(1