application for waste transfer station have to accurately state the volume of waste that it's going to process and i think i don't see how there can be any answer other than yes it must and this transfer station a two point one six acres and i think that's satisfactory but you also have to state the nature of the activity proposed and that's really i think the focus of the argument today is the nature of the activity proposed because the volume of waste that awaits transfer station processes drives the entire analysis how can it not be essential in the public hearing those you know that are pouring in that  mueller who is probably what most experienced practitioners in syria can imagine i don't know why you would include something like surplusage in a notice like this but more importantly when you look at what happens at the hearing on the si what does it all depend on other going to be accidents are there no safety personnel it all depends on the volume of waste that the facilities processing because that determines how many trucks are coming and going how many trucks are being loaded you know loaded every hour right doesn't matter of course that it's absolutely essential and the problem that we have here is it was inaccurate and it was misleading because when you look at the record you'll see that the hero says and of two hundred tons per day application that talks about the tonnage until you get now to hear it and what happens is that here they bring in experts mr hockey you read his power point presentation and you look at the calculations that are being done and it's all six hundred tons per day some specificity falls right within the recent public hearing because that notice goes out to the state representatives it's going to make its way in the media to make its way to the public and those are the people that have to assess what kind of a i think that's one reason but i also think that it was coached in terms to not hit anybody's radar ok it's it's all over the place in terms of there will be no hazardous waste of medical waste that kind of wasted you know anybody  courts in this area as being probably one of the most critical documents that is filed that triggers this site approval process a public hearing with elm is the most critical or sion of this entire in order for a member of the public or a state representative or anyone else who may consider the bush to attend or participate in hearing that description has to be accurate to the letter and compliance with that pre filing notice requirement and in this instance you have a situation where the applicant was indicating that their facility was going to be one size that is they were going to accept approximately an receive greater than a average of two hundred pounds per day it came out in connection with the questions about what this facility would indeed be processed and mr hockey again speaking and indicating that indeed it was the comply with all the requirements in the environmental protection act describing the nature and size of that activity and that if there are any errors in the back description the defect in the notice relating to the property as to be applied in determining whether the criteria were met and also to any record references or factual issues as the latest criteria for example with respect to criterion one in the criteria the standard that has been established for well over thirty years is that an applicant must produce evidence showing the amount of waste generated in the service area the available disposal capacity and transfer capacity of a local to that surface area and then to determine whether there is any shortfall in that disposal capacity or transfer station of the asadi so that the transfer station could be determined here there was no such evidence presented the applicant did not present any transfer station capacity analysis no disposal capacity analysis and as a result the evidence in this record establish that the amount of waste being generated in the service area vary between twenty three hundred and thirty seven hundred tons per day the purring being landfill which is located in will county is capable of accepting and handling all of that waste generated in the service for a transfer station to be needed generally well to transfer station provides the service area his acce coming in from beyond the service area but if that's the case then the service area is not obligated and there's not one of the silly things and all that out of service in real ways that's that's one of the which was and i quote except the nonhazardous phrase for temporary storage consolidation and further transfer to a waste disposal treatment facility that's the fourteenth seventy five of the records that run nature of the activity and it would be different if he already has imposed in its application for example dandle hazardous waste liquid waste or to do something other than what a transfer station does such as storing it or burning it but that's not the case the application states and average you can hundred times per day that was sufficient to put interested persons on inquiry if they had any concerns about the proposed development the application itself analyzed two hundred times  furthermore this happened and did address the waste conduction and disposal of these of its surface area you can find it at a minimum in the application and see fifty three to sixty six in the testimony at twenty six of forty twenty six eighteen and requirement on the statute that isn't there and it's not the tradition here is jale to rewrite legislation it's their job to interpret it would describe the nature of the activity hearing on an amended application does not require no notice and therefore work the issue of whether the odd variance if any in volume ott is is four day public hearing that's exactly what the bills did when it adopted ordinance ten twenty six which then was appealed to the pollution control board now not only did the village have the ultimate decision making authority but the un and big us language of the act also allows the siting authority to include any conditions on the siting approval that may be necessary to accomplish the purpose that's the explicit language of thirty nine going to eat in order to spend twenty six criterion one was addressed over three singles based pages where the village made explicit findings credibility determinations and weighed any conflicts in the it's about half a page and it also includes various conditions simply because waste management thinks their experts were better doesn't make the religious findings improper it doesn't their job is to determine whether any other body can possibly not find and a reasonable reason that the villages findings were inaccurate or against the he the contention that by imposing the condition somehow makes it a not new application and that is now been amended a third time i think is completely not borne out by any of the cases it's kind of novel issue but i think that by the specific nature and language of thirty nine point two eight the conditions that were imposed in this case as found by the who should control who are reasonable and necessary and as pointed out by issue the testimony seemed to be that two hundred was what they they wanted and there was evidence that no other transfer station has such a limitation so i think what the village wanted to do was simply go with  that's not what the evidence was i mean hypothetically you can say that that's not what the evidence was in this case and to the point about what the word is that the special condition it says three hundred tons per day is capped yes you can come back and ask for more and you know what we can  determination of what it wanted was a single landfill to handle all these waste it sent out that process for bid there were numerous companies that proposed instruction an operation of a landfill within will county so happens