Laserfiche WebLink
Board found a violation of the permit." (Joint Answer Brief at 22.) The record supports no such <br />finding. <br />The record contains absolutely no evidence that Cotter violated any provision of its <br />permit. It is undisputed the permit was never offered into evidence and never reviewed by the <br />Board. To support their argument that the Board found Cotter violated its permit, Defendants <br />can point only to page 277 of the record. (Id.) This portion of the record reveals the Division's <br />last -ditch effort to cure the glaring evidentiary deficiency that Cotter's permit was not even part <br />of the record. The Division argued that the August 10, 2010 Order had somehow become part of <br />Cotter's pre- existing permit: <br />MR. PAULIN [Board Chairman]: Does the order also become part <br />of the permit? <br />MS. LINDEN [Division Counsel]: The order specifies that Cotter <br />was to submit modifications to its permit, which then become part <br />of the permit. <br />MR. PAULIN: So if I went downstairs to look at this permit, that <br />order would be a part of it? <br />MS. LINDEN: It's part of the permit file, yes. <br />AR:0277:11 - 20. <br />This argument — that the August 2010 Order somehow became part of the "permit file" so <br />any violation of the Order should ipso facto be deemed a violation of the permit — cannot support <br />the Board's imposition of civil penalties. Section 124(7) limits the imposition of civil penalties <br />to the violation of a "permit." The Act does not authorize the Board to impose a civil penalty for <br />the violation of any document that the Division may place in the "permit file." <br />Moreover, Defendants' argument that it "would have been extremely impractical to admit <br />the permit into evidence because Cotter's permit consists of 826 different documents dating as <br />7 <br />