simply to impose the cost of setting up a fund on the navy correct if that's true for it simply costs why isn't what you are asking for just that the me under compensatory damages why does it morph into an injunction  but i think that as as the pennsylvania supreme court has framed out the issue this is a question of state law as to whether the relief is in jump in jump to very not is it is a really just  just you seem to be saying yes the labor matters and that's a pretty unusual position in the law usually we look to the substance of what's going on i couldn't agree more but substance should always predominate over form but the substance here is money is not going to go into the giovanni's pockets we're not asking to have money put in our pockets we're not asking this is not a case where we went with the iranians went out and got medical testing no more asking that money that would otherwise come out of their pockets not come out of their pockets well we're making is make them put money and set aside that we would otherwise have to put in and set aside but it would be a court supervised fund the court would create a fund the court would create the court would decide what is the proper medical monitoring protocol what sort of blood testing is appropriate well this is true then it's not just a question of telling the navy to fund something right if  really saying you want because the quote it's not going to do that if that's what you're asking for it then you're asking the navy to set up a medical monitoring not fund but amid a medical monitoring protocol and that's a very different thing is we're asking the court to decide what is an appropriate private medical monitoring program for these people and the need to then fund that and third party would administer a third party would administer it yes you know  any immunity with respect to any state seven civil procedure will require me including but not limited to injunctive relief but doesn't that leave out the whole with the things that they're talking about the me entire list is about administrative order so who are mistreated penalties or fines or sentences that cetera he's wrong none of these are private actions these are these are all in the context of some sort of similar criminal enforcement by a governmental agency appears can you point to anything in this waiver that says any need for this to extend to private suits by private parties against the government ok other than first of all the government engages in the disposal or management of solid waste it is then subject to all federal and state local requirements sudden from procedural so that i don't think anybody's question that piece of it but question to what extent we can see that this amendment was added after department of engineers ohio which was about the ability of ohio to stand up and hold the government to its own intended to broaden the waiver been unity well i simply want to say is this it says the federal government isn't gauging the dispose of cash or this waste it is subject to and shell comply with all federal state and local disease then you are subject to medical monitoring clay that is a federal that is a security obviously not a federal that is a state me quire me as interpreted by the pennsylvania supreme court i wonder whether you argument here is intentional with your argument about whether this is a challenge because your argument here is that this is not a challenge because it's not all clean up and here the language of the waverers in terms of control of  but it is in fact the case it was never dealt with explicitly right it was it was in this court five times never going to with this never though explicitly with some of the most brilliant minds that ever sat here clerks advocates no one so this is an do more we're not asking him to do more we're not we're not assuming we're anything under pennsylvania state law for medical monitoring plan which may or may not have the same criteria  as opposed to remove election work a site that is not on the national priorities list both he said in circuit and the eleventh circuit cases especially oshie that they quote below relied upon that w authority actually it's different but we're dealing with the fundamental thing we call it you're right we've got a split but not but not factual and not a factual split in other words even in even in going on for a very long time this could actually go on forever you know decades and decades and decades congressmen to prevent private parties from being able to seek some kind of relief for their health needs for the community that's that's basically the ninety six thirteen assertion that congress has said you know what we know this takes a long time but too bad lot of people might get sick a lot of people might die but you don't get the to come pick work that's the  pennsylvania law they frame your complaint they want their rights under pennsylvania law they say the government gave a broad waiver of sovereign immunity that used the word any talked about it sovereign immunity argument as to pennsylvania state law and this is the o'neill versus i me case it looked at arguments made by plaintiffs suggesting that they're bringing this pennsylvania hazardous sites clean up act claims to get for medical monitoring and what it specifically when he was drafted by pennsylvania was modeled after circle it was meant to provide additional remedies that circuit doesn't provide i get that but regret is a very different statute and yes it's true is it all is that all part of the saying help me out here hear it's private parties and so i think context matters and it matters in the cases that they're relying on it matters in the context of this particular waiver and there's nothing i think you want to brought this up earlier is there's nothing in either one of these provi just that it interferes with it's an even and this court said in the clinton county well intentioned it wants to prove upon you cannot dictate specific actions to the federal government that's the arc ok so the ninth circuit but let's focus in on removal remedia medical monitoring is not a reveal or removal action i think that those cases concern private parties medical monitoring but durfy that this is the down in this case that now they say we just want the money in a fund that's all we want you need and if they do anything great assume that sic i understand your position that that's not what they said in their complaint but take a hypothetical right  mentor many circle laws one and rhode island and one or washington where the courts held with the liquor waiver applied and allowed the action to go forward against the federal government and a private course recovery action so