Subscribe for updates
Recent Posts
- New Jersey Federal Court Dismisses PFAS Consumer Suit Against Band-Aid on Standing Grounds
- Massachusetts Federal Court Concludes that Biopellets Containing PFAS are “Useful Products,” Providing Defense to Superfund Liability
- District Court Certifies 23(b)(3) Class Action Alleging Injury from Misrepresentations That Pet Food Was “Healthy” Despite Presence of PFAS
- Fifth Circuit Upholds TCEQ’s Third Construction Extension for Texas LNG Project
- Sixth Circuit Holds Clean Air Act Requires Compliance with RACT even where Attainment Application is Pending
Topics
- State Implementation Plans
- Venue
- NJDEP
- Connecticut
- Pollutants
- Federal Land Policy and Management Act
- Agency Action
- Loper Bright
- Council on Environmental Quality
- Public Trust Doctrine
- New Jersey Civil Rights Act
- Title VI
- Environmental Justice
- Disparate Impact
- Massachusetts
- Evidence
- Internal Investigation
- Citizens Suit
- FIFRA
- Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
- Georgia
- Major Questions Doctrine
- Lead Paint
- Greenwashing
- Good Faith Settlement
- Federal Facilities
- Statutory Notice
- Oil Pollution Act
- Federal Jurisdiction
- Owner Liability
- Court of Federal Claims
- Ripeness
- Renewable Fuel Standard
- Fish and Wildlife Service
- Greenhouse Gas
- Refinery
- Alaska
- Florida
- National Priorities List
- Vapor Intrusion
- Solvents
- Price-Anderson Act
- Solid Waste Management Act
- Personal Jurisdiction
- Successor Liability
- Potentially Responsible Parties
- Operator Liability
- Federal Circuit
- Environmental Covenants
- Apportionment
- National Contingency Plan
- Divisibility
- Water Pollution Control Act
- Strict Liability
- Public Utilities Commission
- Utilities
- Historic Resources
- Hydraulic Fracturing
- Water Use
- PFAS
- Ohio
- Arbitration
- Alternative Dispute Resolution
- Climate Change
- Auer Deference
- Fees
- Commonwealth Court
- West Virginia
- Forest Service
- TSCA
- Martime
- Asbestos
- Gold King Mine
- New Mexico
- Utah
- Tribal Lands
- Federal Tort Claims Act
- Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control
- Delaware
- FERC
- National Forest Management Act
- Endangered Species Act
- Chevron Deference
- United States Supreme Court
- HSCA
- Alter Ego
- Corporate Veil
- Allocation
- Eleventh Amendment
- Delaware River Basin Commission
- Mining
- Intervention
- New Hampshire
- Building Materials
- Property Damage
- First Circuit
- PCBs
- Groundwater
- Natural Resource Damages
- Brownfields
- Innocent Party
- Brownfield
- Environmental Rights Amendment
- PHMSA
- Pipeline Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
- Effluents
- FOIA
- Sediment Sites
- EHB
- Texas
- Missouri
- Pipelines
- Injunction
- Coal Ash
- Spoliation
- Stormwater
- TMDL
- Safe Drinking Water Act
- Colorado
- Michigan
- Drinking Water
- North Carolina
- Bankruptcy
- Hearing Board
- Civil Penalties
- Clean Streams Law
- Arranger Liability
- Retroactive
- Sovereign Immunity
- Damages
- Stigma
- Fair Market Value
- Tax assessment
- Property Value
- Storage Tank
- Energy
- Fifth Circuit
- Electric
- Indemnification
- Arizona
- Ninth Circuit
- Attorney-Client
- OPRA
- Iowa
- Discovery Rule
- Fourth Circuit
- Eighth Circuit
- Administrative Appeals
- Taxes
- Preemption
- CAFA
- Natural Gas
- Contamination
- Procedure
- Residential
- Inspection
- Freshwater Wetlands Protect Act
- New York
- Natural Gas Act
- Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection
- Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
- Hazardous Air Pollutants
- HAPs
- Mercury
- D.C. Circuit
- Condemnation
- Takings
- Storage
- Flooding
- Takings Clause
- Fifth Amendment
- Spill Act
- Causation
- NEPA
- Interior
- Mineral Leasing Act
- Tenth Circuit
- California
- Act 13
- Zoning
- Duty to Defend
- Insurance Coverage
- Landfill
- Eminent Domain
- Sixth Circuit
- Private Right of Action
- Illinois
- Water
- Citizen Suit
- Diligent Prosecution
- Subject Matter Jurisdiction
- Arkansas
- Pennsylvania
- Press
- Uncategorized
- Maryland
- Eleventh Circuit
- Riverbed
- Navigability
- Montana
- Equal-Footing Doctrine
- Seventh Circuit
- Indiana
- Breach of Contract
- Public Lands
- Green House Counsel
- Bona Fide Prospective Purchaser
- Boiler MACT
- EPA
- Enforcement
- Delay Notice
- Equity
- Laches
- CISWI
- Rulemaking
- Consent Decree
- Declaratory Relief
- Contribution
- Second Circuit
- NPDES
- Standing
- Medical Monitoring
- Dimock
- Case Update
- Legislation
- Louisiana
- Certification
- Dukes
- CLE
- Cases to Watch
- Privilege
- Work Product
- Expert Witness
- Decisions of Note
- Discovery
- Insurance
- Defense Costs
- Remediation
- Response Action Contractors
- Consultant Liability
- Negligence
- Rapanos
- Army Corps
- Donovan
- Nuisance
- Hog Barn
- Trespass
- Odors
- Farming
- Class Actions
- Kentucky
- New Jersey
- Informal Agency Action
- ISRA
- Administrative Hearing
- Waste
- RCRA
- Railroad
- Cancer
- Air
- Combustion
- Emissions
- CERCLA
- Speaking Engagements
- Toxic Torts
- Federal Procedure
- Third Circuit
- Removal
- Statute of Limitations
- Permits
- Clean Air Act
- Title V
- Supreme Court
- Cost Recovery
- Superfund
- Cleanup
- Statute of Repose
- Multi-District Litigation
- Camp Lejeune
- Tolling
- Administrative Procedures Act
- Enforcement Action
- Marcellus Shale
- Deeds
- Due Process
- Mineral Rights
- Clean Water Act
- Wetlands
- Oil and Gas
- Royalties
- Real Estate
- Exploration
- Drilling
- Leases
Blog editor
Blog Contributors
Back in July of last year, in the case of Hobart Corp. v. Waste Management of Ohio, 758 F.3d 757 (6th Cir. 2014), held that the statute of limitations for a contribution action following the execution of an Administrative Settlement Agreement and Order on Consent (“AOC”) that settles an entity’s liability to the government begins to run as of the effective date of the AOC. To the extent that anyone might have thought that the Sixth Circuit would reconsider this holding, those hopes have been dashed. On January 24, 2015, in LWD PRP Group v. Alcan Corp., ___ F.3d ___ (6th Cir. 2015), the Sixth Circuit stood fast, finding that it lacked “power to reverse [Hobart,] reversing the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss certain counterclaims.
The issue in both cases was whether the statute of limitations for removal actions performed pursuant to a voluntary settlement with the United States should run from the from the completion of the removal pursuant to CERCLA §113(g)(2) or the date of the settlement pursuant to CERCLA §113(g)(3). Section 113(g)(2) provides the limitations period for Section 107 actions and expressly provides that claims can be brought within a three year period “after completion of the removal action.” On the other hand, Section 113(g)(3) provides the limitations period for judgments, certain specified administrative orders and judicially approved settlements, and holds that the three year period runs from the date of the issuance or entry of such orders. But Administrative Orders on Consent fall into none of these categories, and it has long been contended that since such settlements result in voluntary action by the settling parties, the more liberal limitations period of Section 113(g)(2) is appropriate. However, the Sixth Circuit has now firmly disagreed, holding that when AOCs resolve liability to the government it is analogous to the types of orders covered by Section 113(g)(3) and therefore the limitations period runs from the effective date of the AOC.
