decision doesn't mention cost at all and i would suggest that the board is actually backed away from the cost as a basis for just a final decision that in fact it has been done is not now doing that anymore but if the court were to look at because the evidence doesn't or that the groundwater if the groundwater is contaminated that creates a different problem so for that reason we would argue that this decision should be reversed but the most compelling reason to reverse the course of the board's decision is because it has regulations we know who is contributing to an increase in him and he is your question if i may ask your initial question the old material versus the newer material that distinction are you asking about the three of them have been there a hundred years ago my question is when the back room is but the board actually uses an objective standard to measure groundwater to the quality that they believe should the water should meet it's our view that the statute requires for the promulgated well that protects groundwater and it doesn't than we think is it is a source of contamination to the ground water so if the soil exceeds the max the logical inference we think is the only reasonable logical inference is one that's sort of this placed in groundwater exactly not from just yes but i would suggest that that does not comply with what the general assembly did with the legislation that in the two sections that are heard as the charge the general was to protect ground water at these facilities the groundwater should be protected and we can't even know what is there until we're testing the industry is very much against the idea of testing the water because they recognize these materials can migrate congregate and go from being harmless to becoming dangerous so what we need an essential requirement of any rule that text around water is that there be regular fasting and has that risk that material that is chemical coming through the gates almost all over time and sure can migrate into groundwater and without testing no one knows what's going on with the groundwater and there's no way to protect the public from a material correct and i think the board used that as a reason why the proposal was reasonably rejected but i don't think that's accurate because what that century does it says well the world isn't perfect so there or no i think that's a ball that's just the board has misunderstood the notions of what the cost of monitoring is because the board is not understanding the dangers posed by the old bill that he threw the gates you for two thousand and five because the board is on but it still strikes me as a reasonable precaution that the state should take the stage is remiss for not taking the test of water right there at the site where we know the water is going through the water that the but the system here the plans to drop the wells down downgrade from where the degrees going through with what it was going through the debris will tell us is this a source of problem here you know is this where we can we can fluid there's no question about it but i still think that in terms of safety it's not it's a room opposition to test the water right there when it's just come through the debris there are tests that the government has the soil but still there is no system there is no systematic way to test the water without a systematic way to test the water you just don't really know what the stance of the water is proposal that included groundwater monitoring before the border but first now it's one of the questions or one of the issues that came up was it can't just sink four rolls down grade here because you need to know what's coming in maybe because if you don't know what's coming up bring monitoring and i personally would argue that those things are monitoring but they may not be considered by others they may just be for the inspections but in this case it did come down to a question of the cost of groundwater monitoring most there's a whole list in this in the brief of materials that we're finding in these sites from the current materials that's materials that have been after the the board's rules have been a fact and my point is we also have  apart and my way through the water table they end up in the ground water and when they hit the ground water i would suggest at that point the intent of the general assembly is through it because the general assembly doesn't want the ground water contaminated now  true that ground water is not drinking water and before people's drink water they don't have their own well that it will be protected by the municipality the trees their water temp problems first there's a lot of reasons for water that isn't drinking understand our point it's not that it's it's it's that we want to know what's in the groundwater it's not that we want to assess that we think it's necessary to assess blame we just one task name so that the board knows that there's been from panic is an asshole and we can't put them in the ground but we think we should test the water in which they said it so that we can know whether the the the water is if you were at risk of becoming contaminated right