~gcgiY~fl
    Mr.
    GeneVVharton
    clERK’S
    OFFICE
    Aitamorit,
    Illinois
    082003
    Telephone 6i8-267-9503
    JAN
    STATE OF ILLINOIS
    Illinois
    Pollution Control Board
    ~ ~
    Control
    Board
    Attn.
    Mr.
    Brad
    Halloran
    December
    27,
    2002
    rO
    100 West Randolph Street
    Suite 11-500
    IL
    Chicago,
    III. 60601-3286
    ;3.-43
    Re:
    Sutter’s Sanitation Services
    appUcation for waste transfer—a comment
    ~13
    1)
    Dear
    Sir;
    I
    now
    live in
    Altamont,
    Effingham County, but have owned
    property in Mason
    Townshiprfor all ofmy life—the township where there Is a proposal to abate a
    solid wastetransfer station.
    I am opposed to the SLitter Sanitation
    Services
    application to put a waste transfer station on the site ofthe old Quandt farm.
    1
    have over the years hauled some grain to the Quandt’s old
    elevators and know
    the property not to be suitable for waste material—only grains and farm supplies.
    I read the attached article from the December20 newspaper and was particularly
    interested in Mr. Deibel’s comments to the reporter near the end of the article
    where he said that Landfill
    33 had had a problem with Sutter carrying
    hazardous
    materials some years
    ago.
    ft is generally known around here and has been for
    several
    years
    that Sutter’s tend
    sometimes
    to haul hazardous stuff or operate on
    the edgewith
    the nature
    of the garbage
    they
    haul, and therefore
    I
    am not
    surprised to see
    Mr.
    Deibel
    confirm my concerns about his dealing in hazardous
    materials,
    Just to make sure ofthis1
    I
    spoke to Mr. Deibel directly about whether
    what was in the paper Is what he said. He confirmed for me it was.
    1 also believe that the area that Sutter’s want to put the waste transfer in is riot
    legitimate for such a station because t is surrounded by farm homes and good
    farm land, at least for this area. I should know as for most of my life
    1 lived in that
    township just about 4 miles
    away
    from that place. And
    it would not be
    in the
    interest of myself or my family members who own land nearby there to see our
    property values drop because of concerns over garbage being hauled in and out
    of there in big volurnea
    Also,
    the saf4~y
    of that area especially for the farmers
    operating around there I believe would be not as goodwhat with the garbage
    truck traffic and some questions around that farm about whether Sutter’s is
    mixing hazardous
    materials into the trash being transferred.
    Lastly, I have attached the entire news article for you to read as part of my
    comment.
    In addition 10 the above,
    I am troubled by what appears to have been
    a
    decision made by our county board here to approve this waste transfer for
    Sutter’s because of therecycling operatith out there—.~basëdohhow f read
    Mrs.
    Deters’s comments.
    To connect up the need for recycling with the factors
    surrounding whether that location is suitable for waste transfer is not right to my
    way
    ofthinking, and therefore
    I wonder aboutthe board’s judgment arid what
    they were really using to evalu3te whether to give Sutter’s a permit.
    He did a lot
    of publicity around hers when that rEcycling place first opened—so it looks to me
    based on the story in the newspaper’ that he was setting the board up for getting
    his waste location through without proper consideration ofwhether It really was a
    suitable
    place
    for
    it.
    Thank you for consideration ofmy letl:er.
    ene (Raleigh) Wharton
    P.S.
    News article from Effingham Daily News attached
    Challenges
    ....Continued from Al
    make
    that kind
    of
    long trip
    over
    highways, and
    making
    the
    trip
    to
    other
    landfills
    is
    proving
    very
    costly
    to
    Sutter.
    The
    proposed
    transfer station would
    be
    a site
    where
    his
    garbage
    trucks would
    be
    unloaded,
    and
    the
    refuse
    then reloaded
    into
    semitrailers
    to
    be
    hauled
    -
    -
    -
    away.
    I
    co
    cerne,
    PCB hearing officer Bradley Halloran con-
    about the- impact
    ducted
    the
    appeal
    hearing
    Thursday
    in
    the
    Effingham
    County
    Board room. Appeals
    :.
    from both
    Landfill 33
    and Stock were consol-
    station will have”
    idated into one hearing.
    ‘,
    ~
    Stock’
    -
    Public
    comment will
    be considered by
    the
    ~
    .-‘~
    PCB if postmarked
    by
    Jan.
    3. Attorneys
    for
    potential neighbor
    both
    sides
    must file
    post-hearing briefs
    by
    Jan.
    10.
    Replies to those briefs
    must be filed
    by
    Jan.
    17.
    Hailoran
    said
    the
    PCB
    will
    make
    its
    decision when
    it
    meets Feb. 20 in
    Chicago.
    Halloran
    said transcripts
    of the
    hearing
    will
    be
    available
    Dec. 24
    on the PCB Web site at www.ipcb.state.il.us,
    Thursday’s
    hearing included
    testimony
    from a man who
    lives
    across
    the
    road
    from
    the
    proposed
    transfer
    station,
    as.
    well
    as
    from Tracy
    Sutter
    of
    Sutter
    Sanitation
    and Duane
    Stock
    of
    Stock
    & Co. Landfill
    33 representatives
    did not tes-
    tify Thursday.
    Lloyd
    Stock, a relative of Duane Stock
    who leases a home
    across
    the road
    from
    the
    proposed transfer
    station,
    said the
    station would have a negative impact on
    the immediate area.
    “I’m
    concerned about
    the
    impact that the
    transfer
    station
    will
    have,”
    Lloyd, Stock
    said.
    He added
    that he
    was
    “con-
    cerned and disappointed” about the situation.
    Lloyd Stock added that he already has seen garbage trucks
    pulling
    into
    the
    transfer station
    site.
    Sutter
    uses the site
    as
    a
    drop-off recycling center.
    Duane Stock,
    who
    owns the home
    that Lloyd Stock
    lives
    in, said he had been hampered by not being able to receive a
    copy
    of
    the
    transcript from
    the
    siting
    hearing until
    late
    November.
    “That put us at a disadvantage,”
    Stock
    said.
    The mobile
    home
    at
    which
    Stock
    resides
    is
    within
    1,000
    feet of the proposed site
    —
    which is a violation of IPCB sit-
    ing criteria.
    However, the home did
    not exist at the
    time the
    county board approved
    Sutter’s
    permit. Lloyd
    Stock had the
    home placed
    on
    the property shortly after the
    board awarded
    Sutter
    testified
    Thursday
    that
    a county board
    committee
    visited his recycling operation soon after
    it opened in March,
    though
    he couldn’t remember
    the
    exact
    date.
    He
    did
    say
    it
    was
    before
    he
    filed
    his
    application
    for
    a
    transfer station on April
    19.
    Also
    testifying’ Thursday
    was
    Nancy
    Deters
    of rural Cumberland
    County,
    who
    said it was
    her opinion that Landfill
    33’s opposition was
    a “personal vendetta” against Sutter, who has
    claimed Landfill
    33
    has
    banned
    him
    from
    dumping
    trash at
    its
    facility
    on
    the
    southeast
    edge of Effingham.
    Deters,
    the
    mother
    of
    Effingham
    County
    State’s Attorney
    Ed Deters, admitted
    that she
    had
    no
    background in
    solid
    waste
    manage-
    ment,
    other
    than to
    take
    “big black
    bags
    to
    the recycling center.”
    She added that she was not likely to take
    Sutter’s position
    merely because
    her
    son. represents
    the county board
    in
    legal
    matters,
    “My son and I rarely agree about anything,” she said.
    Ed Deters,
    who cross-examined
    his
    mother briefly,
    asked
    her if she ‘remembered
    a
    statement by
    former
    county board
    Chairman Leon Gobczynski that recycling was
    not one of
    the
    issues. in the controversy.
    But Mrs. Deters
    said
    recycling
    was
    an
    underlying
    issue
    during earlier hearings
    on
    the matter.
    “It was likethe elephant in the room,”
    she said.
    Landfill
    33
    representatives
    did
    not
    testify,, but
    owner.
    Richard Deibel,
    who attended
    the
    hearing,
    said
    after
    the
    hearing that there was
    no vendetta against Sutter and that, in
    fact, Sutter Sanitation is. not barred
    from using Landfill 33.
    Deibel said
    Sütter
    chose to
    stop
    using
    Landfill
    33
    after a
    disagreement
    over
    a load including
    potentially
    hazardOus
    materials several years ago.
    “We felt like we needed more clarification
    on that particu-
    lar load,” Deibel said.
    “We have sent him (Sutter) a letter saying
    they could haul
    to Landfill
    33
    as long
    as they conduct themselves in a proper
    business manner,” Deibel added.
    In
    addition. to owning
    Landfill 33, Deibel also owns Sani-
    tation Service Inc.
    (also known as
    the
    Rubbish Gobbler)
    and
    French
    Sanitation
    Co.
    Sutter Sanitation
    is
    the
    only
    garbage
    collection
    service
    in
    Effingham
    County
    not
    owned
    by
    Deibel.
    -

    Back to top