ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 4,

1995

PEOPLE OF THE STATE

)

OF ILLINOIS,

Complainant,

v.

)

PCB 95—114

(Enforcement—Air)

C.P. INORGANICS,

INC.,

n/k/a PHIBRO-TECH,

INC.,

a Delaware Corporation,

Respondent.

CONCURRING OPINION (by J. Theodore Meyer):

I concur with the majority’s acceptance of the stipulation

and settlement in this case.

However,

I continue to be troubled

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

in the

settlement agreement.

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 people of the State of

Illinois.

(415 ILCS 5/42(f)

(1992)).

In the instant case,

the

complaint requests that the Board impose such costs and fees;

however, the stipulation and settlement does not refer to this

request, nor

explain whether some percentage of costs and fees

were figured into the penalty.

I continue to believe that costs

and fees should be pursued on behalf of the Illinois taxpayer,

and urge the parties to bear this in mind in future negotiations

in this case.

J. ‘~Theodorefleyer

Board Member

I, Dorothy M. Gunn,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, heize~ycertify that

the above concurring opinion was filed

on the

~(‘~-~‘

day of

______________,

1995.

(I

~

~

/

~

~

borothy M~7Gunn,Clerk

Illiois P°dllutionControl Board