' " In support of this reasoning, the State asserts that this court's decision in Standard Scrap Metal Co. v. Pollution Control Board (1986), 142 Ill. App.3d 655, 491 N.E.2d 1251, is "instructive." The State contends that Park's failure to comply with the permit requirements was not a mere "paper" or "minor" violation and cites the following language from the Standard Scrap case:
The Board has not shown that Trilla's omission has harmed in a serious manner either the information gathering or oversight roles of the Agency. See Standard Scrap Metal Co. v. Pollution Control Board (1986), 142 Ill. App.3d 655, 491 N.E.2d 1251. The circumstances here are readily distinguishable from those cases where a violation of the permit program could create a harmful impediment to the Agency's responsibility to protect the environment and the public.
This distinguishes them from other violators who attempted to remedy their violation and received a lesser penalty. See e.g., Standard Scrap Metal Co. v. Pollution Control Board, 142 Ill.App.3d 655, 662 (1986) (defendant violator applied for and was granted permit after suit filed against it); People ex rel. Ryan v. McHenry Shores, 295 Ill.App.3d 628, 638 (1998) (after receiving enforcement letter from Agency, defendant made some attempt to remedy violations). ¶ 68 The majority does not dispute that the defendants violated the Act for years and profited considerably.
To the contrary, they are indicative of flagrant violations of the Act, distinguishing defendants' conduct from that of other violators who were assessed comparatively lesser penalties. See, e.g., Standard Scrap Metal Co. v. Pollution Control Board, 142 Ill.App.3d 655, 662, 96 Ill.Dec. 791, 491 N.E.2d 1251 (1986) (defendant violator applied for and was granted a permit after suit was filed against it); McHenry Shores, 295 Ill.App.3d at 631, 230 Ill.Dec. 264, 693 N.E.2d 393 (after receiving enforcement letter from Agency, defendant made some attempt to remedy violations). Accordingly, we do not find the court's decision to impose fines against each defendant or the amount of those fines to be an abuse of discretion.
Additionally, good faith or lack thereof is pertinent to the issue of whether a penalty should be imposed and, if so, the amount of the penalty. Archer Daniels Midland v. Pollution Control Board (1986), 149 Ill. App.3d 301, 305, 500 N.E.2d 580; Standard Scrap Metal Co. v. Pollution Control Board (1986), 142 Ill. App.3d 655, 662, 491 N.E.2d 1251; see also City of Chicago v. Pollution Control Board (1978), 57 Ill. App.3d 517, 521, 373 N.E.2d 512. • 7 Applying these principles to the instant case, we note that with respect to the first statutory factor, the PCB found that "[t]he Board does consider that the degree of interference with the public health, welfare or property is considerable for operating without a permit.
In addition, the good faith, or the lack thereof, on the part of ADM is pertinent to the issues of whether a penalty should be imposed, and, if so, the amount of the penalty. (See Standard Scrap Metal Co. v. Pollution Control Board (1986), 142 Ill. App.3d 655, 491 N.E.2d 1251.) Imposition of penalties under the Act is not to be invoked for punishment but to aid enforcement of the Act. Harris-Hub Co. v. Pollution Control Board (1977), 50 Ill. App.3d 608, 365 N.E.2d 1071.