frazer/exton Development, L.P. v. United States, 19-2143

The Foote Mineral Superfund Site was contaminated by government-contracted lithium processing and waste disposal during the 1940s–1950s, producing soil and groundwater contamination.
EPA involvement began in 1988 with consent orders and remedial investigations; Frazer/Exton acquired the site in 1998 with actual knowledge of contamination and agreed to assume environmental obligations.
EPA issued a Record of Decision in 2006; Frazer/Exton volunteered to perform the remedial work and entered a consent order (approved 2008). Additional contamination was discovered and EPA amended the ROD in 2008.
Frazer/Exton represented it completed investigation/remediation in 2011. Whiteland purchased the site at sheriff’s sale in 2016 and executed an environmental covenant (PEC) in 2017; EPA approved it.
Frazer/Exton (later joined by Whiteland) sued the United States in the Court of Federal Claims on July 24, 2018, alleging a gradual physical taking by deposition of hazardous substances.
The Claims Court held the takings claim accrued by 2011 (when remediation was represented complete), dismissed under the six-year statute of limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2501), and the Federal Circuit affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
When did the physical-takings claim accrue?	Accrual delayed until land-use restrictions (PEC) made the taking permanent and foreseeable.	Claim accrued by 2011 when remediation was completed and the contamination/stabilization was evident.	Accrual occurred by 2011; suit filed in 2018 was time-barred.
Whether stabilization doctrine requires regulatory action (PEC) before accrual	Stabilization should be measured only once EPA remediation and land-use restrictions fixed permanency.	Stabilization concerns the physical process itself; regulatory measures do not extend accrual beyond stabilization.	Court declined to extend stabilization doctrine to wait for regulatory action; regulatory restrictions are separate from physical taking.
Whether accrual suspension (concealment or inherently unknowable injury) applies	The injury was inherently unknowable until the PEC; accrual should be suspended until then.	Plaintiff bought with knowledge of contamination and had information showing permanence by 2011; no reasonable ignorance.	Accrual-suspension inapplicable; facts show plaintiffs knew or should have known by 2011.

United States v. Dickinson, 331 U.S. 745 (1947) (stabilization concept for gradual physical takings)
Boling v. United States, 220 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (stabilization touchstone: permanency and foreseeability of damage)
Banks v. United States, 314 F.3d 1304 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (accrual and stabilization analysis in gradual takings)
Mildenberger v. United States, 643 F.3d 938 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (obligation to sue arises once permanency is evident)
Young v. United States, 529 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (concealment and inherently unknowable exceptions to accrual)
Holmes v. United States, 657 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (reasonableness component of the inherently unknowable test)