an outlier it is a one and only case in history of american jurisprudence that found the current owner is not liable for sponsor costs incurred by the government prior to purchase this is right and we've heard the briefing on that and have that argument from appendix fifty three that language in this agreeing that was your evidence to support the fact it was ongoing cleanup occurring after the purchase or that demonstrates a train of cars some chemical was well aware of it at the time we purchased a property are we also have  i'm not trying to fault you for words but since you yourself are slipping back and forth between for us how how are we to be confident that what was going on was a removal action and wanted to greece if that's true does that make a difference in terms of responsibility here i mean we've said we're not going to be wound up about the at least in this war argument about th learn patience but the statue of the patients that we sent hans side was a basis for the decision about liability right there was an argument that the statute of limitations context should inform how we view ok and with respect to the time frame after october twenty twelve are you representing that the removal action was focused on chemicals that were on the premises that had been there in two thousand and seven that brought everybody there to cause itemized by and individuals involved in those relating to move the actions planned for the scene chemicals that remain on property from two thousand and seven i don't know specifically which one is referring to but  as of the time the legal action is initiated or your current owner as of the time that the removal costs are incurred does it have to be either or can snatch a while  then i have two questions for you one does it even matter here in this instance is it the pennsylvania is and under circle no i thought i thought you were i thought your position both in the briefing and here was once you're current owner you're on the hook for everything that's right ok so if they were current owner because they are the definition of the winner at all or are we looking at what all costs because i had seems to flip back and forth the district court focusing on costs with end with your adversaries went between the court and the attorney for mr mr white it struck me that the comment all seem to overlook a number of very significant factors in this case i think the first significant factor that the commonwealth overlooks is the complaint those not state a claim upon what relief could be granted here when i read this complaint i looked under  factual identify that's fine but i understand their position to be and if indeed the district were to take their position to be that costs were ongoing that there was even if  a was incurring costs the state of pennsylvania was incurring costs and that those costs continued at least through december twenty twentieth's we're taking that as a baseline for purposes of our discussion why don't you start where  mr wright left off and answer for me if you would whether it would indeed it makes any difference in this case whether we approach it under the hard side complaint is filed will sure you could you could hypothesize a circumstance where a polluter could have a defense of the settlement in a release right because not the circumstance we've got here  question the district court focused on was the current owner question and it said current owner we're going with the hard side and we end not with three factors if you go with lee factors we factors filed custom trainer is the owner that's that much is clear is that correct ok so look at it harder side which the district work focused on if you ask the question the way horse i did why did when were the costs incurred were costs not being incurred between october twenty twenty of the december twentieth well by the state of pennsylvania there were c opening line of the summary of oregon is at the time of perry's purchase the site in question clean of activities were almost complete while almost isn't all the way complete by definition almost means not complete twenty nine of the commonwealth's complaint it says they went to the site in twenty thirteen and witnessed rapid demolition of pipes tanks and buildings does that does that make this it make any difference at all if that their incurring are actually scraping the chemicals out of the ground or removing big pace which were reaching the chemicals certainly know how so pipes tanks in building the to end buildings are not hazardous substance there are well if there leeching hazardous substances isn't their removal part of the cleanup i don't know that they were because there is nothing in the complaint that claims that well i took their complaint responsible for the pollution pay for printer customs this head true i thought circle was designed to put every potentially responsible party on the hook and then when they're all on the hook let them sort it out so that the taxpayers are paying them a bill but people in that group of p r piece potentially responsible parties are the ones on the hook isn't that the design circle i would i would suggest wh capital a small two i am small three i in there it specifically says the term owner operator means schmall to aa in the case of an onshore in in the category of one of the world buckets of potentially responsible parties one of which is by admission here an owner operator or facility how does that how does that take your this very same language and in that case the company was bankrupt and what the court held in there was statute and it identifies a tax only quincy actually here isn't it isn't that really a bankruptcy specific thing i mean what's we're not in the bankruptcy con here were it we're just trying to figure out a liability so maybe the easiest way to do this is this is ask the question should schwartz quit to you your position is there some temporal limitation and that is a position with this record took bid you could be a current owner and you can be liable but you but your liability won't be for quote all costs quit you know the statute says all costs if that's true then explain why congress would have made the brownfields amendments in two thousand and two and say to people there's a way for you to limit your costs going backward in time and here's the way you can do if if it's true that your costs were already limited going backward in time what point forward that costs are expended the person who made that really should be what noble well i understand that's your think it's a saucily defensible policy assertion but it but i'm trying to get you to grapple with what it appears to be congress policies or shin was which when it didn't say all costs after you get a hold of the property it said all cost full stop so that if congress decides not to put a temple imitation on it why should we read it temporal limitation into it because i think the statute is forward looking in its construction and when it says let me just go to the specific language of it from which there is a release or threatened release which column of young parents or response cost you shall be liable for all costs and again if they're not there if they are custom chemical didn't make that the current owners only rival for certain costs and not all costs that's the that's the logical step which i understand your poems to be taking issue with if you read the district court's opinion  might have a one thirteen f contribution action under circle but you know maybe i'll know when i get it out but how does any of that speak to whether or not as a colonel or potentially there's no connection between that the actual abt responsibility of a given party and the cost that they are then responsible or if you're going to contain them just at period of ownership how would that make any sense all of the owners along the way property transfers ownership are going to have joint sever liability and we'll have to work it out among themselves at some point because again your honor i don't know what these costs work from what i can see in the record there were nothing more the soil or water listening the sympathy that bought this property for twenty thousand dollars they to send scrappers in and hundreds of thousands of dollars in profits from scrapping and to doing so they released chemicals and that wasn't even a that wasn't even disputed below they were they were tearing stuff out at their stuff out there releases and so you can't really argue to the contrary ground appeal what was conceded below so we got to focus on what i understand your for those who profit from contamination but at the cost of it not the public at large the consequence of the part of the district court's decision is that the department can and eat ph and every other state can normally longer we cover response costs they spent  the arguments the central piece of this argument about current owner at all costs there's no distinction with a difference for why ability for this defendant in your view is my question to you is under your view of it we don't have in other words you disagree with the district court so if we were to agree with you there would be no need to consider the difference between haskin circled would hear you