The cross examination of the man who has submitted a site application for a proposed waste transfer station in Fayette County dominated the first day of a public hearing concerning the site application. Chris Sutter, owner of Sutter Disposal and Countryside Disposal who submitted the site application for the proposed transfer facility was called as the first witness by his attorney Patrick Shaw to be briefly questioned about his background, the process of trash collection and about the nine criteria listed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Act to be met as part of a siting review. Following the brief direct examination, counsel for the opposition, Rick Porter, was the given the chance to cross examine Sutter. Porter began his line of questioning about the dates and process of Sutter submitting and withdrawals of previous site applications as well as any possible communication with Fayette County Board members before the dismissal of his site application in December. Porter then moved his line of questioning to the possible tonnage Sutter expected to move through the proposed facility, how he came upon finding the site. Porter then inquired as to when Sutter hired an engineer and whether an engineer had certified the language of the site application before focusing a needs analysis. Porter briefly moved away from the topic of a needs analysis to grill Sutter on the end of his employment at Sutter Sanitation Service after it was sold and when Sutter began passing out materials about his business he was starting. Porter then moved back to discussing the needs analysis and showed maps with the mileage from different communities within the service area proposed by Sutter to his proposed transfer station and current landfill sites in Effingham and Envotech Landfill in Litchfield. After Sutter was then questioned concerning segregated materials or items that cannot go to a landfill and whether or not a plan for itemizing those materials are in the site application, which Porter says is not there and Sutter says is in the operations plan, questions centered on traffic and the county’s Solid Waste plan. Porter then wrapped up his line of questioning following a brief break. Attorney Shaw then called his second witness, Adam Bohnoff, a civil engineer and project manager for CEI who worked with Sutter on the application. Shaw asked Bohnoff about the criteria and the design aspects for the proposed transfer station that address things such as fire and if the designs protect public health, safety and welfare. Attorney Porter was then given his time to cross examine Bohnoff and began his line of questioning with asking about Bohnoff’s experience with designing facilities like the one proposed by Sutter. Porter then inquired as to whether Bohnoff had done a geohydrology study, whether a Stormwater Pollution Protection Plan was done as a part of the site application and the design setback that shows the facility being 72 feet from the center of Route 185 which Porter stated should be 90 feet. After Porter wrapped up his line if questioning, Shaw stated he had no more witnesses.
The hearing then turned to Porter beginning to call witnesses for the opposition. Porter’s first witness was Kassie Washburn who read a prepared statement asking 12 questions of board members with respect to the site application. After no cross examination by attorney Shaw, Porter called on witness Susan Tackett who also read a prepared statement and who was also not cross examined by attorney Shaw. Following Tackett, hearing moderator Scott Kains noted that the time was nearing 6:00pm which was the set time limit for the first day of the hearing and put the hearing into recess until 9am on Wednesday at Vandalia Moose Lodge.
Comments