its response costs pursuant to § 107(a). The Bronson Defendants and the United States contend that because Plaintiff ITT entered into a consent decree with respect to the NBIA Site, and because ITT could have brought a § 113(f) contribution claim, but failed to do so in a timely manner, ITT should not be able to evade the statute of limitations and the allocation scheme of a § 113(f) contribution claim by bringing a contribution claim under the guise of a § 107(a) cost recovery action. This Court agrees. Prior to Atlantic Research the law in the Sixth Circuit and in most other circuits was that a claim for costs incurred in performing a cleanup pursuant to a judicial or administrative settlement is limited to a contribution action under § 113(f). See Centerior Serv., 153 F.3d at 351 (<HOLDING>). See also Consol. Edison, 423 F.3d at 101
holding that the state was not liable as an operator for responding to a site to conduct cleanup activities holding that debtor was liable to the commonwealth for past and future cleanup costs holding that cleanup costs incurred pursuant to a consent decree were not incurred voluntarily and must be sought through a  113f contribution action holding that an action by plaintiffs who had a legal obligation to conduct cleanup pursuant to a  106 order and then sought costs for cleanup from other prps was the quintessential action for contribution holding that a federal court may order a state to pay cleanup costs pursuant to the comprehensive environmental response compensation and liability act of 1980