h refusal to terminate a clean water act permit for a facility that is not discharging anything has discharged nothing for eight years going on no nine and has no plan to discharge unit now that you've said that doesn't that on its face present jurisdictional problem and standing seems to me like your standing is permit by regulation and by statute confers an exemption for the resource conservation and recovery of these folks are injured by your threatened with injury by virtue of the fact that the would then we would issue a notice of intent to terminate the permit which go through the permitting process like any other permit i'm for it says issue when you're denying a permit that's different from terminating an existing term we've had we've had significant new facilities built as part of the our l w t without any public process with some of the products and connections are  the decision here is predicated on an action by the environmental appeals board which read the rule about when terminations is called for under the clean water act documentation about it the process of adopting zero liquid discharge as its principal operation started back in the nineteen the needs of the  six i of course answer as many questions as we need to but our general goal is nine six this court has no jurisdiction over the petition because citizens have no standing explain why they have neither substandard nor procedural standing and then on address your question judge mathis at about thirteen six another one and finally i'll clarify the scope of the state's record exemption and talk about the lots where court permit first citizens i'm no substantial standing d injury to e p a action the only part of the lot they say god and exemption on account of the permit is a radioactive liquid waste treatment facility but physically that facility is only a small part of the lab if you look at a ar fifteen it shows a map of the lab and its different technical areas the treatment facility is on top of the area fifty which is in the northwest quadrant just south of the big row and it's tiny citizens haven't specified whether any impending release will be coming from the treatment facility or somewhere else at the lab that has nothing to do with this lawsuit second they can't rely on procedural standing here this case is not about procedure they have raise no to the states record exemption that is the basis for that exemption yes but again there is this is they can't is there a procedural standing argument which they try to argue because this is not a procedural case and we really at the end of the day the well that that's not the kind of procedural injury of this court typically recognized as a procedural injury it's one that arises not going to agencies decision but from it's an informed decision making and here there is no claim that a p a skip some procedure required by the clean water act so it's denial is not uninformed and can give rise to a procedural injury and this court in the wild earth opinion cited on page seven in reply or talks about this concept at the end of the day  here citizens real goal is to get you to override the state's exemption regulation they don't like the fact that this state is exempting their treatment facility based on permanent status and they want you to change that you have no authority to do that jurisdiction under one after turns on the function of similarity to an issue in its origin i am apartment here p p s deny all of the termination request loft apartment in plays it love it issue is intact now it's not identical and the court rejected the functional parts for nationwide road rule that it said makes no decision whatsoever on individual permit applications this is on page sixty two of that opinion the court did not reject a functional approach as it applies to individual parliaments like the ones exemption that citizens are worried about covers only the treatment facilities wastewater treatment unit but it does not cover the leaks or releases from that unit so any release or releases at the lab including from the falls that's correct given that the lab is covered by record permit and that the treatment facility is regulated under the atomic energy act they haven't shown that the exemption meaningful you exactly why that's the case that the facts are not all that complex about this facility there are three parts to this facility there is the waste water treatment facility itself which through  they were never fully permitted so they've never been used and now they're in a state of disrepair and all the all the liners must be replaced that's going to take at least another year so they've never been in the picture and they won't be in the picture to aid in case of a failure of the mechanical evaporator in the future for some time so mechanical evaporator was added in two thousand and eleven we're now eight years later so for eight years there has been no change in the condition of facility either before the permit was issued or after the permit was issued the time frame is not relevant in fact there was a period after two thousand and twelve when the asylum is made clear that it needed over five one of about eighteen months before the comment period closed on that renewal permit or petitioners had that information and could have objected to the permit and not result resorted to a request to terminate after the fact so what would happen tomorrow morning if the mechanical of apple or suffered a major breakdown which is quite possible this waste water treatment facility process is just under a million gallons of influence over you and the usable any more waste if over five one is not there because a mechanical of operator is under repair so you would have a period of about four months to fill up those tanks assuming that they were even empty when the mechanical evaporator broke down tomorrow morning which is highly unlikely but at most about four months to order the parts get them install do a shakedown get permission from the state to operate the facility and put it back on line to try to deal with all of that what you've stored in those tanks and operate again whereas if five one is in the picture you're not facing that deadline but without zero five one at the end of that four month period the the research and development operations at this laboratory start to become impacted because they are producing the low level liquid radioactive waste that must go somewhere and those tanks are full of mechanical evaporator is not yet fully repaired and permitted and over five one is not available certainly couldn't be permitted again in four months time there is a real impact on this laboratory and that was all made clear in the renewal application clear back in two thousand and twelve that over five one is the just in case very important just in case portion of this facility and moreover if the mission of the laboratory increases the need to treat more and more radioactive what waste then even case the pork producers council could use to say but until you have an actual discharge or if you have not had one in a long period of time e p a cannot issue a permit i see i'm out of time but i would close by saying that there is nothing in the discharge says there is no such thing as a just in case permit it's authorized by law this facility is not under repair it doesn't have a repair permit the ladder as a whole is regulated by the hazardous and solid waste amendments which can be applied if there is a solid waste management in the cleanup he doesn't regulate the operation of the facility regulation under the atomic energy act is self