useful waste this change to its operation will extend the useful life of the facility approximately five years the parties agree that the operative language and statutes are found in section thirty nine and section greed three of the act section thirty nine provides that the agency may not grant a permit for the development of a new pollution control facility unless the applicant has submitted prove to the agency that the facilities location has been approved by the county board what makes it new your honored section three point three three zero b defines a new pollution control facility as the area of expansion beyond the boundary of a currently permitted pollution and replace it with a thin line or gaining that extra space but in doing that direction actually extending the facility beyond the current boundary that is listed in its current permit and so my it's my contention that the statutory words currently permitted pollution control facility are reference to gricar its current permit and the word boundary in the statute is a reference to the permit boundaries that designate where in the facility waste can and cannot and the current ways boundary shows that the wedge area is has a border around it over which waste may not go if you want to put waste into that space you'd need a permit because you'd be creating a new pollution control facility requiring local siting from permitting county now why do i say the permit boundary in the statute is a reference to the current waste boundary in the permit and the reason is because we have an illinois supreme court decision and a decision from district which in clarifies these terms these boundary terms both of these cases interpret section three three three zero at the act and am i g the court concluded that within the context of the statute both the lateral and the vertical dimensions of the facilities boundaries matter for calculating whether a new permits required and mig operator wanted to simply extend the facility upwards and the operator argued that that wouldn't cross a boundary but the court said no it would cross the boundary to do quite the same thing that brick areas trying to do here which is to expand its facility not upward and not pass the lateral boundaries but across a boundary that exists in the middle of the facility the court held that inward expansions beyond the permanent boundaries are no different and applied the same megan alice's in mind the court specifically how the word currently in the statute means as after the present time that's it two or three alive third ten twenty seven so the court is clear in my state and in mit that what we're looking at is the current permit not a not a previous permit and if we look at the current permit we can see waste boundaries and it's clear that they're crossing away foundry in the that there is no ambiguity the agency's determination as to how to read the statutory tax should be given deference that this court is inclined to do that because as the court explained in city of park keegan as between the board and the agency when it comes to permanent issues it is the agency that is charged as being the gate keeper for the statute the agency is the one with experience and expertise  by state explains that the question about whether local siting is required is really about the scope and nature of the facility here there is no there can be no argument or no reasonable argument that brick areas application won't change the scope and nature of this facility it's going to extend this facilities operational life five years that's five years the people of her million county will have waste facility running there and their community it's five years of waste on the county roads it's five years of whatever problems time with the facility it's five years they will have a covered facility at that location and there can be no doubt either although there's some confusion perhaps that that there is an expansion here it's not simply a of putting back into the facility material that was once there because we know in input into the siting process without the agency getting proof of local citing the words decision essentially eliminates any possibility that local government would have any say and so that's another reason why we the application was denied in this case because brickyard did not tender a certificate showing that the local government had approved the site instead they tendered documents from my contention that it's necessary to show current approval of a current proposal regards argument is that they could use a past occurrence from one thousand nine hundred two but even if that were true and it's not even if it were true two and that's important to the application process which is going to place since at least six two thousand and twelve requires the local government to certify the completeness and the accuracy of the prior local sighting including explaining what was is a two page form it's on the internet it goes to the county and it says we're expanding this facility please show us you know give us records that show local citing that should have been tendered when the agency received this application that  not included if it had been included it would have been a certificate from vermilion county and then i would be able to tell you what their position is because it would have been set out on the form of the position what matt according to what you've said about expansion no i know i believe their their position is we would know from their record the record that we'd have for the current application what was approved in the prior side if if we would know there is a new poll or what do now if if the current board approved us then this format would say we certify that we have proved it and we have that we have a certificate from a county officer in the form specifically if if we had a county officer certifying the completeness and and and the up until city of the local siting i think it has to be a local sighting from twenty fifteen at the time the application the current term of my my opponents say oh we can use a had asked to certify the record we now i think the obligation to show local citing by the statute is very much on the application and whatever they want to use to show local siting he needs to be in the form of a certified good that here he's right well let's back up and let's ask you if i could defer the question of whether there can be an intervention because ok i think the answer is yes but let's confirm that if there's not an answer to that i'll certainly provide the with the answer but assuming there's there could be an intervention by the green county i think the question is what do we do with the silence of the silent suggests consent or does the silence suggest they're going to stand on that statutory obligations and know that the and that's exactly what happened so i think that the citizens in the mit case from the supreme court and by state are very clear about what a boundary is and what an expansion beyond a boundary is the court takes a look at those cases i think you come to the conclusion that this is not what is in vision by those courts in talking about a new pollution control facility i have some comments here about the poor decisions that my opponent has raised my brief though distinguishes those cases to the extent that it comes up on top of the bottle unless there are other questions i mean board's rejection of the ground presents two issues on appeal first whether the board's interpretation of the environmental protection act or act is entitled to deference and second whether the border line that construction correctly found regards undermines that intent is also unsound policy this requires the necessary rounds of local to reduce waste time and resources of a local government as well as the from an applicant the study review process is often expensive and extensive hook and these burdens aren't eliminated simply because the local government isn't helping recoup some of its costs at the backend as the agency agency points out the agency places heavy reliance under an agency permit before the siting members went to effect it later in one thousand nine hundred two secure local siting approval accordingly the m i g and by state decisions are wholly in opposite here site those that's correct your honor that that is their argument and argument is that the agency may be sort of at the front end the gatekeeper but ultimately final permit decisions of the proposed change would make the interior wedge added by the agency in permitting three years after local siting approval open to waste rather just the fill the wedge runs from the forty foot manful ceiling expansion approved by the county down through the grandfathered existing landfill below most of the purpose in which to begin with iran i believe it was two separate units one and two why because they are subject to different regulations well then what do we do about this idea of there being a barrier protecting one from two protecting one and two from whatever's going to be in the middle of certainly  a problem with it violates the act for a number of reasons either but that's that's a process that we submit this application should have gone through not an additional run of local siting when the they would still go through that they can still go through that if if it's if this court affirms it's remanded to the agency the permit as the technical review of the permit will proceed then it might get meetings like then that the agency might say mean it please the court good afternoon your honors this is a straightforward interpretation of the act and unfortunately the e p a is confusing principles of permit and citing this case is the case the first impressions of sort in front of a court not in front of the board because it involves the question of it involves a difference between permeating boundaries and citing boundaries i'm just deciding to answer  currently permitted facility that the local government then has to cite that our contention is they did that three million county did that in one nine hundred ninety two the boundary they established in  boundary that is the operative boundaries for purposes of your court's attention in this matter that's exactly what the board decided the a board apply to have its own cases where they did look at situations where it the time the company it was told by the e p a that they needed to have this area of separation in order to close a portion of the landfill pursuant to the new regulations we contend that regulatory that is not necessary and we contend that we can prove that in a technical review of this application which the agency did not do because they said we need further citing there is no further citing that needs to be done here because her million county in fact in it we stipulated to facts that they authorized in one nine hundred ninety two an expansion of the facility that had been permitted the time by by expanding the entire for terms of whether you have to go back to permit and how many or that is the boundary that was cited asked by vermilion county the l n g case and the by state case both of those cases the court was faced with a situation where there had never been local siting before so all they could look at was the permitted boundaries of the agency in terms of where you place waste and end the court said well you know we're going to look at the permanent boundaries of the agency the board rightly in this case said no that's not what you do when we've already gone to local siting and they used to have their cases that they had decided previously one waste management involving waste management the other one involving staley county and they basically read those cases to say when they've already achieved siting what we have to do is look to see what bio injury it is that the county cited because it's what they're doing to do with waste to see to place waste within that boundary that the county cited them there with then they're not creating a new pollution a troll facility for case agree like case of this fourth district many years ago the only reason we're here in terms of the special jurisdiction of the appellate court is because section forty one allows you to review decisions of the board shins of the agency and to further explain the board is the one that has the most experience in terms of reviewing and applying the citing provisions of the act because it's the board reviews local government decisions on site it the agency wants to turn this into a strict permit in case but all the agency does is it's a gate keeper for terms in terms of allowing a permit to process and the that if the applicant submit proof to the agency that the location the location of the facility has been approved then they're obligated to process that permit county decision contemplated waste within this area that's called the way it's called the wedge that permit boundary has only been established by the agency in dealing with the agency allowed a bios a loose control facility to be constructed without going through citing and waukegan didn't like it so they knew that they could come to the court and argue for for the court to be heard or the board to hear it and in fact in this case it's very clear that the permit application both the original application the supplementary application was sent to the county board chairman it was sent stu the state's attorney of cook county i'm sorry vermillion county and that is all in our brief and that's what the law requires and it described exactly what my client wants to do it described we are going to put waste in this area of the wedge that has been that's currently not permit it to accept a waste the border this decision is true to every statutory construction argument that that is appropriate number one they want to that put a clean bill into that area which is which is very expensive obviously to put clean fill between these two units and they want should be heard and they want to have a technical review of amplification that would allow them to is there any opportunity for the marion county participate absolutely or if they don't like the conditions that you accept for know your county could pop up and say we don't like that that dark sufficient safeguards to prevent groundwater pollution absolutely they can do that there is no prohibition whatsoever from the county participating in any board proceeding in any permit process it's clear from the forty seven thousand pages record they five agency orbit they just require there to be a separation by clean fill from unit want to unit to clearly the county board did not anticipate any of that in no reason to know as as the board found that waste would not be in that particular area so again for a million county did not have any volumetric restrictions on the amount of waste like some counties do when they do site they basically said this is going to be our land for raising it by forty fifty feet it's a maximum height of seven hundred fifteen feet and it's one contiguous coterminous mound that's what they approved inciting that is the relevant and operative boundary i think for your court's decision and that's not that it's consistent with mit it's consistent with by state and it's consistent with the  ask that you affirm the board's decision was very well regarded and very well thought out it reviewed all of the arguments by the agency it's a bound them wanting and we would hope that this work does as well thank you if you go that rebuttal argument first i'd ask the court for leave to address the intervention question i just don't know what the answer is and i'd prefer to let the court know whether the million county could or could not appear on my proposed filing a letter to the court that would be our right to clarify again your request to leave to do what i'd like to file a letter explaining to the court what the law is with regard to whether a county could intervene at the agency level  three zero requires with regard to the area of expansion both of those courts measured an expansion of a landfill against the current but the existing permit at the time of the application they looked at the permit application they saw the boundaries they use that as the area of expansion ms manning argues that that the reason the court didn't look to local siting boundaries was because they weren't available to the supreme court and the appellate court when those decisions were issued that's an argument which might have some weight if the court lamented in the decisions not having local siting boundaries but the court in either of those decisions will meant that it all what the courts did in those decisions was they looked at the statutory language here area of correct as of the present time that's the language that's used in by state which permit matters as of the present time to over three elapse third at ten twenty seven so the court's in those two decisions and limit those cases to those fact patterns but i would suggest that both of those decisions were decided after nine hundred eighty one so the court knew that local siting was a thing and never in any of those those decisions or that discussion was anyone concerned about local citing the courts apply the statutory language is written i think who should get deference is a bit of a red herring because my argument is that there isn't any ambiguity here it's with regard to the statu whether the whether the general assembly is modifying the word counting before or after the board makes the argument that there is nothing before the word boundary to tell the court what foundry refers to and then jumped into an ambiguity argument in my argument as the word boundary in the the facility was higher the slopes were different we have a different unit now a different facility now this is twenty fifteen this application comes in question is always always in this case and in all these cases if the scope and nature of the increase the volume with that required i don't think that's possible tonight or his x rated you can be more efficient in pack in more ways but the volume will stay the same the the boundaries that established with the volume in this as long as they don't change it's unlikely you're going to affect the scope in the church but here we're actually closing an area that is off limits to waste and putting waste there so i suppose a more efficiency wouldn't change by and it would just change the