ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

October

19,

1995

ROBERT SCHWANKE STONE COMPANY,

)

INC.,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 94—137

(UST FRD)

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

CONCURRING OPINION

(by J. Theodore Meyer):

I concur with the majority’s acceptance of the stipulation

of settlement

in this case.

However,

I continue to be troubled

by the absence of any mention of attorney’s fees and costs in

these settlement agreements.

Section 42(f)

of the Environmental Protection Act

(Act)

provides that the Board may award costs and reasonable attorney’s

fees in cases brought on behalf of the citizens of Illinois.

(415 ILCS 5/42 (f)

(1994).

This section should be construed

broadly, and a violator of the Act should reimburse.the Illinois

taxpayer for all fees and costs incurred by the Attorney General,

The concept of attorney’s fees should include the employer’s

share of federal and Social Security taxes as well as health

insurance and life insurance.

Attorney’s costs should not only

include direct costs incurred by the individual attorney, but

alto indirect

costs

such as

travel time, administrative

support, printing, copying and overhead.

After all, the time and

money spent by complainant’s attorney in prosecuting this matter

certainly could have been used to handle other matters.

Regarding costs, the now common practice by state and local

governments of charging a “user fee” to those who use a service

(such as paying for photocopies)

should be a cost imposed on

a

party who has violated the Act.

This case presented an

opportunity for the respondent to submit an affidavit of all fees

and costs, and I believe that the Board should have taken this

opportunity to reimburse the Illinois taxpayer.

J.

~eodore

M~yer

Board

Member

---

2

I,

Dorothy

N.

Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board,

hereby

certify

that

t~

a~ove concurring

opinion was filed

on the

9~~2 day

of

~

1995.

I

Control

Board