ÿWPCµF ˆÓÿó®c£¥1fÅCMËÍ‘dÿó®c(TÞ ¼Ðxª-ÙvEpM²}.y’Fh² t%˜l"—ÊBŠ\u/¹ õ `£R­|ÕÖoß¼j¼¡Qls¤¦ñ’ÃÁ·¬ýNWÎõTVP'ÅÌç˜ q«ê^SŒ€Æ‹¢³¶Q *änÜö¢5ݵ%Ã{ê7•MQ¼S+­‚ÕZ<Òe4Zd–"‰x ý‹ÐNÐÇ΢df/…S-l;]LÀû3¡ƒxæaî»6€mhõ}lÁQÄR(zI˜'‹ùl¸c÷»ÿG©x°TëRŸ¨L!&9A¼ßŸð{Ä fî%­ì ø¶ÿb äç™ØÚ—$ßf„3 3ÇP¦­Öü™7éʆ°_‰ßîŒgÙØ¤ßy¨EÄB§&0¬Yt3>/Éd‰òÀÛË«í÷ÁÄÜÕèP™;ñs9» Ó}'ˆmëíh×& ä½GÈÆ§.GØ<“À´©åk“u¥ˆ*Ò¿Md„ (âØ¯åM¬wò”üec¿ÝT¯Í³ÂøK=NÆhÍê]ø™ì´ð¡²vi*„ãÕPñ5?ÍOœH#Æü»,4Iñ”ÃC_Ɣޚ,ˆƒ`£gÕ¦@ L…#ÁF U> %E 0GK U:’ ·Ì Ì ^ ƒ w 4“ § ¶ 0c¸ b 0D# Šg bñEù mûNU 8 0UL 0é¡ŠÆ 0æc 0ãI 0à, 0Ý  0Úé 0×à 0Ôš 0Cn 0×± 0Ôˆ 0Ñ\ 0Î- 0Ëû 0ÈÆ 0ÅŽ 0ÀS 0@! 0ÔS! 0Ñ'" 0Îø" 0ËÆ# 0È‘$ 0ÅY% 0Â& 0½à& 00' 0<Í' 0¾ ( 0>Ç( 0v) 0`{) 0`Û) 0`;* 0`›* 0`û* 08[+ 0Ò“+ 02e, 0ü—, 0:“- 0YÍ- 0_&. 0 …. 0j/ 0„ù0 B*}2 D/§2 D+Ö2 0„3 D/…4 0δ4 06‚5 0¸5 0:À6 0^ú6 0<X7 1e”7U6ù7U>/8U*m8 1u—8 72 94>9r;7=dF@ 0bªD 04 E 0(@E AMhE 0NµEµEµEµEµEµEµEµEµEµEµEFFFFFFFFFFFFFF B F F F F F F F F F F F 0(F˜HP LaserJet 5Ü,,,,Ü0<èÀ( 9Z+&Courier RegularX(îí$¡¡Ô€XmTXXXÔ,°À`   "CG Times Bold ­Ý ƒ„Zw$ÝÔ€Xl\XXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú*Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔOf€the€District€of€Massachusetts,€sitting€by€designation.)d1s fqç0‚ ‚ÐHŠ3|x4(;3†è$©©Ý ƒîí!ÝÔ€Xl\XXXÔÝ  Ý- ù-(Ã$òòÚ  Ú*Ú  Úóó Ô  ' Moisakis0Moisakis .   - ù-ÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ<4šÛ 9Z+‹ Courier New *+ ÿÿ(_26Ô2ÔÔ3  Ôà..à*G+M ÿÿ(_25Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó Ý ƒ„Zw$ÝÔ€Xl\XXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú1Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔPRP's€can€include€"present€and€past€owners€and€operators€of€aÐ ° Ðcontaminated€site,€transporters€who€selected€the€site,€andÐ †Ö Ðgenerators€of€waste€who€arranged€for€disposal€of€their€wastes€atÐ \¬ Ðthe€site."€€Jeff€Civins€&€Bane€Phillippi,€òòNew€Federal€BrownfieldsÐ 2‚ ÐLegislation:€€Who's€Liable€Now?óó,€65€Tex.€B.J.€982,€983€(Dec.€2002). Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 Level 5*D+M ÿÿ(_24Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*A+M ÿÿ(_23Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>+M ÿÿ(_22Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;+M ÿÿ(_21Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8+M ÿÿ(_20Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5+M ÿÿ(_19Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*2+M ÿÿ(_18Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ôà..àÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó* ÿÿ(_17Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô€*GM ÿÿ(_16Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*DM ÿÿ(_15Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*AM ÿÿ(_14Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*>M ÿÿ(_13Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*;M ÿÿ(_12Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*8M ÿÿ(_11Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó*5M ÿÿ(_10Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(2M ÿÿ&_9Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô€Ó  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó( ÿÿ&_8Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô(GM ÿÿ&_7Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ° ÓÓ/%` ` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ /ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(DM ÿÿ&_6Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ,"¸ ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ ,ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(AM ÿÿ&_5Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ` ÓÓ) hÀpÈ xÐ )ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(>M ÿÿ&_4Ó ¨ý ÓÓ ¸ ÓÓ&hhÀpÈ xÐ &ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(;M ÿÿ&_3Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓ#ÀÀpÈ xÐ #ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(8M ÿÿ&_2Ó ¨ý ÓÓ h ÓÓ pÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó(5M ÿÿ&_1Ó ¨ý ÓÓ À ÓÓppÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó&2M ÿÿ$_Ó ¨ý ÓÓ  ÓÓÈÈ xÐ ÓÔ2ÔÔ3  ÔÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ ¨ý Ó0ÿÿ.Normal<ÿÿ:Definition T<AAÿÿ:Definition LÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó8ÿÿ6Definitionòòóó(''ÿÿ&H1ò òÔ  ÔÔ‡°°°ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ  Ô(ÿÿ&H2ò òÔ‡„„„ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H3ò òÔ‡¼¼¼ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H4ò òÔ‡XXXÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó(ÿÿ&H5ò òÔ‡ôôôÔó óÔ‡ôôôÔ(ÿÿ&H6ò òÔ‡ÔÔ‡ôôôÔó ó2ÿÿ0Addressòòóó8MMÿÿ6BlockquoteÓ , ÓÓ , ÓÓ5+Ü Ü` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5ÓÓ  ÓÓ  ÓÓ5+° °` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ 5Ó,ÿÿ*CITEòòóó,dlÿÿ*CODEÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡S<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Tô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Emphasisòòóó6ÿÿ4HyperlinkóóòòÔ ÿ ÔóóÔ  Ô<ÿÿ:FollowedHypeóóòòÔ €€ ÔóóÔ  Ô4goÿÿ2Keyboardò òÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡S<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Tô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔó ó<“›ÿÿ:PreformattedÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡S<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Tô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ/%° °Ïî ,KkŠ©È %#/Ó<š®ÿÿ:z©Bottom of Ó7€H(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡U%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Tô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€I(€X7Ó&ÿÿ  d dG)1dxd'dxd<š®ÿÿ:z©Top of ForÓ7€K(€X7ÓÓ  ÓÔ‡ÔÔ?‡U%ä2¼A`‹Arial?ÔÓ  ÓÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Tô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔÓ7€I(€X7ÓG)2dxd0KSÿÿ.SampleÔK‡S<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔS‡Tô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ0ÿÿ.Strongò òó ó8dlÿÿ6TypewriterÔ‡ôôôÔÔK‡S<þ6X9`(‹Courier NewKÔÔ‡ôôôÔÔS‡Tô\  `‹&Times New RomanSÔ4ÿÿ2Variableòòóó: ÿÿ8HTML MarkupÔB  ÔÔ ÿ ÔÔ  Ô2 ÿÿ0CommentÔB  Ô!"#$%&'( ÿÿ35;AGMSY_11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.<þ6X9`(‹Courier Newô\  `‹&Times New Roman%ä2¼A`‹Arial3#37=CIQYag­­1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a)Vi) *Ý ƒ„Zw$ÝÔ€Xl\XXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú2Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€comparison€to€the€other€subsections€is€not€perfect.€€Indeed,Ð ° Ðin€ðððð€9613(g)(4)&(5)€the€terms€"such€claims"€and€"suchÐ †Ö Ðindemnification"€refers€back€to€the€words€"claim"€orÐ \¬ Ðindemnification"€used€earlier€in€the€sentence,€whereas€in€ðð9613Ð 2‚ Ð(g)(3),€we€read€the€term€"such€costs"€to€refer€back€to€the€costsÐ X Ðcontained€in€a€"judgment." “Ý ƒ„Zw$ÝÔ€Xl\XXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú3Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Capuanos€also€argue€that€their€settlement€agreementsÐ ° Ðprohibits€all€future€contribution€claims.€€The€Capuanos€abandonÐ †Ö Ðthis€argument,€however,€after€conceding€that€the€"four€corners"€ofÐ \¬ Ðthe€Consent€Decree€does€not€support€it. -Ý ƒ„Zw$ÝÔ€Xl\XXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú5Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔThis€benefit€varies.€€For€example,€assume€there€are€four€PRPs,Ð ° Ðlabelled€PRP€A„D,€and€that€PRP€A€settled€with€the€government€forÐ †Ö Ð$100,000.€€Also€assume€PRP€A€settled€with€PRP€B€for€$20,000,€butÐ \¬ Ðwent€to€trial€against€PRP€C€&€D.€€If,€at€trial,€the€courtÐ 2‚ Ðdetermined€that€PRP€B€was€responsible€for€$40,000,€then€PRP€€A,€CÐ X Ð&€D€would€be€responsible€for€the€$60,000€total€remaining.€€TheÐ Þ. Ð$20,000€not€awarded€would€be€borne€entirely€by€PRP€A.€€In€contrast,Ð ´  Ðhad€PRP€A€settled€with€PRP€B€for€$50,000,€then€PRP€A€wouldÐ Š Ú Ðexperience€a€$10,000€windfall. ZÝ ƒ„Zw$ÝÔ€Xl\XXXÔÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú4Ú  Úóó€€Ý  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€òòPneumo€Abex€Corp.óó€v.€òòBessemer€&€Lake€Erie€R.R.€Co.óó,€936€F.Ð ° ÐSupp.€1274€(E.D.€Va.€1996);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòGenCorp,€Inc.óó,€935€F.Ð †Ö ÐSupp.€928€(N.D.€Ohio€1996);€òòHillsborough€Co.óó€v.€òòA€&€E€Road€OilingÐ \¬ ÐServ.,€Inc.óó,€853€F.€Supp.€1402€(M.D.€Fla.€1994);€òòAtlantic€RichfieldÐ 2‚ ÐCo.óó€v.€òòAmerican€Airlines,€Inc.óó,€836€F.€Supp.€763€(N.D.€Okla.€1993);Ð X ÐòòBarton€Solventsóó€v.€òòSouthwest€Petro„Chem.,€Inc.óó,€834€F.€Supp.€342Ð Þ. Ð(D.€Kan.€1993);€òòCity€&€County€of€Denveróó€v.€òòAdolph€Coors€Co.óó,€829€F.Ð ´  ÐSupp.€340€(D.€Colo.€1993);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòSCA€Serv.€of€Ind.,Ð Š Ú ÐInc.óó,€827€F.€Supp.€526€(N.D.€Ind.€1993);€òòKing€Indus.,€Inc.óó,€814€F.Ð ` ° ÐSupp.€at€215;€òòComerica€Bank-Detroitóó€v.€òòAllen€Indus.,€Inc.óó,€769€F.Ð 6 †  ÐSupp.€1408€(E.D.€Mich.€1991).(:2lK$££Ý ƒîí!ÝÔ€Xl\XXXÔÝ  Ý&c$"ð"ðà0 à(ÿÿ$’’\^IA<< cÿÿ(ÍO$——ÔÿÔòòóóÔÿÔ  d(J2Zw$¤¤Ý ƒîí!ÝÔ€Xl\XXXÔÝ  ÝÓ  ÓòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó€€Ý ƒîí!ÝÔ€Xl\XXXÔÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÔ€XÇXXXl\ÔÔ€°Ï…°XXÇÔÑ€ÑÑ8€DûXXdÈdÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÙ*ƒ!Ùà@l l ìàUnited€States€Court€of€AppealsˆÐ ° ÐÔ€„4¾„°°Ï…Ôà@ÀÀ ìàFor€the€First€CircuitˆÐ à ÐÌÔ€„×]„„„4¾ÔÔ€Xl\X„„×]ÔßA€y) °°` dE<_ ` AßÐ ` ° ÐÌÌNo.€03„2143Ð  k ÐÌà@Ô Ô ìàAMERICAN€CYANAMID€COMPANY,ˆÐ Ç  Ðà@””%ìàPlaintiff,ˆÐ  í  ÐÌà@ÄÄìàROHM€AND€HAAS€COMPANY,ˆÐ I™  Ðà@<< ìàPlaintiff,€Appellee,ˆÐ o  ÐÌà@tt)ìàv.ˆÐ Ë  ÐÌà@@ @ ìàDANIEL€J.€Ô_ÔCAPUANOÔ_Ô,€JR.;€JACK€Ô_ÔCAPUANOÔ_Ô;ˆÐ wÇ Ðà@LLìàUNITED€SANITATION,€INC.,ˆÐ M Ðà@ˆˆìàDefendants,€Appellants,ˆÐ #s ÐÌà@44ìàA.€Ô_ÔCAPUANOÔ_Ô€BROS.,€INC.;€Ô_ÔCAPUANOÔ_Ô€ENTERPRISES,€INC.,ˆÐ Ï Ðà@XX%ìàDefendants.ˆÐ ¥õ ÐÌßA€y) °°` d³E<P` AßÐ Q¡ ÐÌà@œ œ ìàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€UNITED€STATES€DISTRICT€COURTˆÐ 6† Ðà@l l ìàFOR€THE€DISTRICT€OF€RHODE€ISLANDˆÐ  \ Ðà@Œ Œ ìà[Hon.€Mary€M.€Ô_ÔLisiÔ_Ô,€òòU.S.€District€Judgeóó]ˆÐ â2 ÐÌßA€y) °°` d³E<` AßÐ ŽÞ ÐÌà@„„'ìàBeforeˆÐ sà ÐÌà@| | ìàÔ_ÔTorruellaÔ_Ô€and€Ô_ÔLipezÔ_Ô,€òòCircuit€Judgesóó,ˆÐ  o! Ðà@° ° ìàand€Saris,׃×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú*Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€òòDistrict€Judgeóó.ˆÐ õ E" ÐÌÌßA€y) °°` dE<v#` AßÐ w#Ç% ÐÌÓ  Óà  àòòMortimer€C.€Newtonóó,€was€on€brief,€for€appellants.Ð \$¬' Ðà  àòòJohn€M.€Armstrongóó,€with€whom€òòÔ_ÔSchnaderÔ_Ô€Harrison€Segal€&€LewisÐ 2%‚ ( ÐÔ_ÔLLPÔ_Ôóó€was€on€brief,€for€appellee.Ð &X!) ÐÌÌßA€y) °°` dàE<‰(` AßÐ Š(Ú#, ÐÌÓ  ÓAugust€18,€2004Ð o)¿$. ÐÓZ ÓÌßA€y) °°` d E<+` AßÐ  +k&0) ÐÔ_ÔÑ  ÑÓÓÙ*!ÙØØÑ8€DûXXdÈXXdÈ8ÑÑ€ÑÓ*°,X°` ¨ ƒX°œX*Óà ` àò òTORRUELLA,€òòCircuit€Judgeóó.ó ó€€In€1977,€Warren€Picillo,€Sr.Ð ° Ðand€his€wife€agreed€to€allow€part€of€their€pig€farm€in€Coventry,Ð xÈ ÐRhode€Island€("Picillo€site")€to€be€used€as€a€disposal€site€forÐ $t Ðdrummed€and€bulk€waste.€€Later€that€year,€after€thousands€ofÐ Ð  Ðbarrels€of€hazardous€waste€replaced€what€pigs€at€one€time€calledÐ | Ì Ðhome,€a€monstrous€explosion€ripped€through€the€Picillo€site.€€TheÐ ( x  Ðtowering€flames,€lasting€several€days,€brought€the€waste€site€toÐ Ô$  Ðthe€attention€of€the€Rhode€Island€environmental€authorities.€€RhodeÐ €Ð  ÐIsland€investigators€"discovered€large€trenches€and€pits€filledÐ ,|  Ðwith€free„flowing,€multi„colored,€pungent€liquid€wastes."€€òòVioletóóÐ Ø( Ðv.€òòPicilloóó,€648€F.€Supp.€1283,€1286€(D.R.I.€1986).€€Recognizing€theÐ „Ô Ðenvironmental€disaster€it€had€discovered,€Rhode€Island€closed€theÐ 0€ Ðpig€farm€and,€with€the€federal€government,€began€the€cleanupÐ Ü, Ðprocess.Ð ˆØ Ðà ` àIn€a€nutshell,€this€case€involves€an€action€under€the€Ð 4„ ÐComprehensive€Environmental€Response,€Compensation€and€LiabilityÐ à0 ÐAct€("CERCLA")€ðððð€101„405,€as€amended€by€the€Superfund€AmendmentsÐ ŒÜ  Ðand€Reauthorization€Act€of€1986€("SARA"),€42€U.S.C.€ðððð€9601„9675,Ð 8!ˆ" Ðbrought€by€a€company€whose€hazardous€waste€was€deposited€at€theÐ ä"4$ ÐPicillo€site€against€a€group€of€people€who€were€involved€with€theÐ $à& Ðsite.Ð <&Œ!( ÐÌÌÐ @+&. Ðò òÓ  ÓI.€€òòBackgroundóóÐ ° ÐÓ‰ÓA.€€CERCLAó óÐ xÈ Ðà ` àCERCLA€is€a€statutory€scheme€that€provides€specificÐ @ Ðprocedures€for€the€remediation€of€a€hazardous€site.€€To€understandÐ ì < Ðthis€appeal,€it€is€necessary€to€mention€some€of€these€proceduresÐ ˜ è Ðand€define€certain€terms.Ð D ”  Ðà ` àThe€remediation€process€at€a€hazardous€site€is€called€aÐ ð@  Ðresponse€action.€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€9601(25).€€A€response€action€involvesÐ œì  Ðremoval€actions,€which€"means€the€cleanup€or€removal€of€releasedÐ H˜  Ðhazardous€substances€from€the€environment,"€€òòid.óó€ðð€9601(23),€andÐ ôD Ðremedial€actions,€which€"means€those€actions€consistent€withÐ  ð Ðpermanent€remedy€taken€instead€of€or€in€addition€to€removal€actionsÐ Lœ Ðin€the€event€of€a€release€or€threatened€release€of€a€hazardousÐ øH Ðsubstance€into€the€environment,"€€òòid.óó€ðð€9601(24).Ð ¤ô Ðà ` àWhen€the€government€performs€a€response€action,€it€canÐ P  Ðbring€"a€cost€recovery€action€under€ðð€9607€.€.€.€for€the€costs€ofÐ üL Ðthe€cleanup€[against]€a€party€found€to€be€an€owner€or€operator,Ð ¨ø  Ðpast€operator,€transporter,€or€arranger."€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòDavisóó,Ð T!¤" Ð261€F.3d€1,€28„29€(1st€Cir.€2001).€€"A€party€found€liable€underÐ #P$ Ðâ âðð9607€may€in€turn€bring€an€action€for€contribution"€againstÐ ¬$ü& Ðpotentially€responsible€parties€("PRPs")׃×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€under€ðð€9613(f).€€òòId.óó€atÐ ° Ð29.Ð \¬ Ðâ âò òB.€€The€partiesó óÐ X Ðà ` àDefendants„appellants,€Daniel€Capuano,€Jr.;€Jack€Capuano;Ð Ð  ÐUnited€Sanitation,€Inc.;€A.€Capuano€Brothers,€Inc.;€and€CapuanoÐ | Ì ÐEnterprises,€Inc.€(hereinafter€referred€to€as€"the€Capuanos"),€wereÐ ( x  Ðin€the€business€of€hauling€hazardous€waste.€€Jack€Capuano€was€theÐ Ô$  Ðpresident€and€sole€shareholder€of€Sanitary€Landfill,€Inc.,€aÐ €Ð  Ðlandfill€operation€located€in€Cranston,€Rhode€Island.€€Jack€CapuanoÐ ,|  Ðand€Daniel€Capuano€jointly€owned€United€Sanitation,€Inc.,€a€wasteÐ Ø( Ðhauling€company.€€Jack€Capuano€was€the€president€of€UnitedÐ „Ô ÐSanitation€and€Daniel€was€the€vice„president.€€In€1977,€theÐ 0€ ÐCapuanos€reached€an€agreement€with€Warren€Picillo€to€dump€hazardousÐ Ü, Ðwaste€on€his€pig€farm.Ð ˆØ Ðà ` àIn€1977,€plaintiff„appellee,€Rohm€&€Haas€Company€("R&H")Ð 4„ Ðoperated€research€facilities€in€Spring€House€and€Bristol,Ð à0 ÐPennsylvania,€which€generated€hazardous€waste.€€Forty„nine€of€theÐ ŒÜ  Ð10,000€drums€of€waste€at€Picillo€were€generated€by€R&H.€€òòO'Neilóó€v.Ð 8!ˆ" ÐòòPicilloóó,€682€F.€Supp.€706,€709,€720€(D.R.I.€1988).Ð ä"4$ Ðà ` àThese€drums€ended€up€at€the€Picillo€site€in€a€round„aboutÐ $à& Ðway.€€R&H's€Spring€House€facility€contracted€with€Jonas€WasteÐ <&Œ!( ÐRemoval€("Jonas")€to€dispose€of€its€waste.€€Jonas€sent€the€waste€toÐ ° Ðthe€Chemical€Control€Corporation,€which€later€contracted€withÐ \¬ ÐChemical€Waste€Removal€to€dispose€of€the€waste.€€Chemical€WasteÐ X ÐRemoval€disposed€of€the€waste€at€the€Picillo€site.€€R&H's€BristolÐ ´  Ðfacility€contracted€with€Scientific€Chemical€Processing€("SCP")€toÐ ` ° Ðdispose€of€its€waste.€€SCP€later€contracted€with€Daniel€Capuano€andÐ  \  ÐUnited€Sanitation€to€dispose€of€the€waste€at€the€Picillo€site.Ð ¸  Ðò òC.€€The€soil€cleanupó óÐ d´  Ðà ` àIn€1983,€Rhode€Island€brought€an€enforcement€action€underÐ ,|  ÐCERCLA€ðð€107,€42€U.S.C.€ðð€9607,€for€cleanup€costs€at€the€PicilloÐ Ø( Ðsite.€€This€initial€action€was€brought€against€35€defendants€"whoÐ „Ô Ðwere€either€owner/operators€of€the€site,€parties€who€allegedlyÐ 0€ Ðtransported€waste€there,€parties€alleged€to€have€arranged€for€theirÐ Ü, Ðwaste€to€be€transported€to€the€site,€and€parties€alleged€to€haveÐ ˆØ Ðproduced€waste€deposited€at€the€site."€€òòO'Neilóó,€682€F.€Supp.€atÐ 4„ Ð709.Ð à0 Ðà ` àRhode€Island€settled€with€twenty€of€the€defendants,Ð ŒÜ  Ðincluding€the€Capuanos.€€The€Capuanos€agreed€to€pay€$500,000.€Ð 8!ˆ" ÐRhode€Island€went€to€trial€against€five€of€the€remainingÐ ä"4$ Ðdefendants,€including€R&H.€€After€trial,€the€district€court€foundÐ $à& ÐR&H€and€two€other€companies€jointly€and€severally€liable€for€un„Ð <&Œ!( Ðreimbursed€past€response€costs€of€$991,937€and€for€"all€futureÐ è'8#* Ðcosts€of€removal€or€remedial€action€incurred€by€the€state€.€.€.Ð ”)ä$, Ðinclud[ing]€any€costs€associated€with€the€removal€of€contaminatedÐ @+&. Ðsoil€piles."€€òòId.óóat€731.€€We€affirmed€the€district€court'sÐ ° Ðholdings.€€òòO'Neilóó€v.€òòPicilloóó,€883€F.2d€176€(1st€Cir.€1989).Ð \¬ Ðà ` àThe€United€States€also€sought€reimbursement€for€itsÐ X Ðresponse€costs€associated€with€the€soil€cleanup€at€the€Picillo€siteÐ ´  Ðand€settled€with€many€parties,€including€the€Capuanos.€€TheÐ ` ° ÐCapuanos€agreed€to€pay€$1,500,000.€€The€settling€parties€receivedÐ  \  Ðcontribution€protection€as€part€of€the€settlement€agreement.€€òòSeeóóÐ ¸  Ð42€U.S.C.€ðð€9613(f)(2)€("A€person€who€has€resolved€its€liability€toÐ d´  Ðthe€United€States€or€a€State€in€an€administrative€or€judiciallyÐ `  Ðapproved€settlement€shall€not€be€liable€for€claims€for€contributionÐ ¼  Ðregarding€matters€addressed€in€the€settlement.").€€In€1989,€theÐ h¸ ÐUnited€States€filed€a€cost€recovery€action€under€ðð€9607€against€R&HÐ d Ðand€another€company,€American€Cyanamid.€€òòSeeóóòòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð À ÐòòAmerican€Cyanamid€Co.óó,€794€F.€Supp.€61€(D.R.I.€1990).€€The€districtÐ l¼ Ðcourt€entered€a€judgment€against€them€for€$3,339,029€plus€interest.€Ð h ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòAmerican€Cyanamid€Co.óó,€786€F.€Supp.€152,€165Ð Ä Ð(D.R.I.€1992).Ð pÀ  Ðò òD.€€Groundwater€cleanupó óÐ !l" Ðà ` àIn€1987,€the€United€States€began€developing€a€RemedialÐ ä"4$ ÐInvestigation€and€Feasibility€Study€("RI/FS")€with€respect€to€theÐ $à& Ðgroundwater€at€the€Picillo€site.€€By€September€1993,€the€UnitedÐ <&Œ!( ÐStates€called€for€a€groundwater€cleanup.€€On€March€30,€1994,€theÐ è'8#* ÐUnited€States€issued€a€"special€notice€letter"€to€twenty€PRPs,Ð ”)ä$, Ðincluding€the€Capuanos€and€R&H,€demanding€they€implement€aÐ @+&. Ðgroundwater€remedy€and€reimburse€the€Environmental€ProtectionÐ ° ÐAgency€("EPA")€for€the€costs€related€to€the€RI/FS€and€enforcementÐ \¬ Ðcosts.€€In€response€to€the€United€States's€letter,€two€groups€ofÐ X ÐPRPs€made€settlement€offers.€€The€Capuanos€joined€neither€group.€Ð ´  ÐR&H€joined€one€of€the€groups€making€a€settlement€offer.€€As€aÐ ` ° Ðresult,€R&H€began€incurring€cleanup€costs€in€late€1994.€€R&H€wasÐ  \  Ðexpelled€from€the€settlement€group,€however,€in€March€1995€becauseÐ ¸  Ðit€could€not€agree€with€the€group€regarding€R&H's€contribution.€Ð d´  ÐWithout€R&H,€a€group€of€PRPs€settled€with€the€United€States€andÐ `  Ðagreed€to€implement€a€groundwater€remedy.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àIn€1998,€R&H€entered€a€consent€decree€with€the€UnitedÐ h¸ ÐStates€to€pay€$4,350,000€to€compensate€the€United€States€for€directÐ d Ðresponse€costs€related€to€groundwater€cleanup,€plus€$110,000Ð À Ðtowards€oversight€costs,€and€$69,000€towards€natural€resourceÐ l¼ Ðdamage.€€The€consent€decree€was€approved€in€October€1998.Ð h Ðò òE.€€R&H's€contribution€actionó óÐ Ä Ðà ` àIn€April€1995,€R&H€instituted€a€ðð€9613(f)(1)€contributionÐ ŒÜ  Ðaction€in€the€United€States€District€Court€for€the€District€of€NewÐ 8!ˆ" ÐJersey€to€recover€past€and€future€response€costs€related€toÐ ä"4$ Ðgroundwater€cleanup.€€The€suit€named€52€PRPs,€including€theÐ $à& ÐCapuanos.€€In€March€1999,€the€Capuanos€moved€to€dismiss€R&H'sÐ <&Œ!( Ðclaims€against€them€based€on€personal€jurisdiction€and€venueÐ è'8#* Ðgrounds.€€The€District€Court€of€New€Jersey€concluded€it€lackedÐ ”)ä$, Ðjurisdiction€over€the€Capuanos.€€Thus,€the€District€Court€of€NewÐ @+&. ÐJersey€severed€the€claims€against€the€Capuanos€and€transferred€themÐ ° Ðto€the€District€Court€of€Rhode€Island.Ð \¬ Ðò òF.€€The€proceedings€belowó óÐ X Ðà ` àIn€2001,€the€Capuanos€filed€a€motion€for€summaryÐ Ð  Ðjudgment,€which€was€denied.€€In€March€2003,€the€matter€was€triedÐ | Ì Ðbefore€a€district€judge€who€found€the€Capuanos€liable€to€R&H€andÐ ( x  Ðentered€judgment€for€$2,651,838.€€In€September€2003,€the€districtÐ Ô$  Ðcourt€amended€the€judgment€to€include€$507,369€for€prejudgmentÐ €Ð  Ðinterest.€€The€Capuanos€appeal€from€this€amended€judgment€and€forÐ ,|  Ðthe€reasons€stated€below,€we€affirm.Ð Ø( Ðà ` àFor€ease€of€discussion,€this€opinion€is€organized€intoÐ „Ô Ðthree€parts.€€Part€One€addresses€the€affirmative€defenses€raised€byÐ 0€ Ðthe€Capuanos€„„€statute€of€limitations,€res€judicata,€andÐ Ü, Ðcontribution€immunity.€€Part€Two€addresses€issues€relating€to€theÐ ˆØ Ðtrial.€€Part€Three€addresses€issues€relating€to€the€judgment€andÐ 4„ Ðthe€awarding€of€prejudgment€interest.Ð à0 Ðà@| | ìàò òII.€€òòPart€One:€€Affirmative€defensesóóˆÐ ŒÜ  ÐA.€€Statute€of€limitationsó óÐ T!¤" Ðà ` àCERCLA€mandates€that:Ð #l$ ÐÓÓà8 ` àNo€action€for€contribution€for€any€responseÐ È$ & Ðcosts€or€damages€may€be€commenced€more€than€3Ð ž%î ' Ðyears€after€--€Ðt&Ä!(` x` x ÐÌà8 ` à(A)€€the€date€of€judgment€in€any€action€underÐ  (p#* Ðthis€Act€for€recovery€of€such€costs€orÐ ö(F$+ Ðdamages,€or€ÐÌ)%,` x` x ÐÌà8 ` à(B)€€the€date€of€an€administrative€order€underÐ x+È&. Ðsection€122(g)€[42€USCS€ðð€9622(g)]€(relatingÐ N,ž'/ Ðto€de€minimis€settlements)€or€122(h)€[42€USCSÐ ° Ððð€9622(h)]€(relating€to€cost€recoveryÐ †Ö Ðsettlements)€or€entry€of€a€judicially€approvedÐ \¬ Ðsettlement€with€respect€to€such€costs€orÐ 2‚ Ðdamages.ÐX` x` x ÐÌÓr<Ó42€U.S.C.€ðð€9613(g)(3).Ð ´  Ðà ` àSection€9613(g)(3)€lists€four€events€that€trigger€theÐ ` ° Ðrunning€of€the€statute€of€limitations:€€(1)€the€entry€of€aÐ  \  Ðjudgment;€(2)€a€ðð€9622(g)€de€minimis€settlement;€(3)€a€ðð€9622(h)Ð ¸  Ðcost€recovery€settlement;€and€(4)€a€judicially€approved€settlement.€Ð d´  ÐThe€Capuanos€contend€that€R&H's€contribution€action€is€time„barredÐ `  Ðbecause€a€judgment€against€R&H€was€entered€on€April€20,€1988,€atÐ ¼  Ðwhich€time€R&H€was€adjudged€jointly€and€severally€liable€for€pastÐ h¸ Ðand€future€costs€of€remediation€at€the€Picillo€site.€€òòSeeóóòòO'Neilóó,Ð d Ð682€F.€Supp.€at€730„31.€€If€they€are€correct,€any€claims€forÐ À Ðcontribution€should€have€been€brought€by€April€20,€1991,€many€yearsÐ l¼ Ðbefore€this€case€was€filed.Ð h Ðà ` àTo€support€their€argument,€the€Capuanos€first€contendÐ Ä Ðthat€the€plain€language€of€ðð€9613(g)(3)€sets€the€triggering€dateÐ pÀ  Ðfor€starting€the€statute€of€limitations€as€the€"date€of€judgment€inÐ !l" Ðòòanyóó€action€under€this€Act."€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€9613(g)(3)€(emphasisÐ È"$ Ðadded).€€Since€òòO'Neilóó€was€a€"judgment"€in€an€"action"€under€ðð€9607,Ð t$Ä& Ðthe€plain€language€of€ðð€9613(g)(3)€would€suggest€that€the€statuteÐ  &p!( Ðof€limitations€started€in€1988.€€The€Capuanos€make€this€argumentÐ Ì'#* Ðacknowledging€that€response€costs€relating€to€the€groundwaterÐ x)È$, Ðremediation€had€not€been€identified€or€incurred€at€the€time€of€theÐ $+t&. ÐòòO'Neilóójudgment.€€Nevertheless,€citing€òòUnited€Statesóóv.€òòDavisóó,€261Ð ° ÐF.3d€1,€46€(1st€Cir.€2001),€the€Capuanos€argue€that€costs€orÐ \¬ Ðdamages€need€not€be€identified€for€a€plaintiff€in€a€CERCLA€actionÐ X Ðto€seek€an€allocation€of€future€response€costs.Ð ´  Ðà ` àThe€Capuanos€also€argue€that€an€adjudged€liable€PRP€whoÐ ` ° Ðis€permitted€to€seek€contribution€for€response€costs€before€itsÐ  \  Ðliability€is€established,€and€who€can€seek€an€allocation€of€futureÐ ¸  Ðresponse€costs€once€its€liability€is€established,€should€not€beÐ d´  Ðable€to€split€its€contribution€claims€into€several€successiveÐ `  Ðlawsuits€as€the€cleanup€continues€and€the€PRP's€costs€become€fixed.€Ð ¼  ÐSplitting€contribution€suits€results€in€inefficiencies€andÐ h¸ Ðconflicting€judgments,€the€antitheses€of€CERCLA's€policyÐ d Ðobjectives.Ð À Ðà ` àThe€district€court,€rejecting€the€Capuanos'€arguments,Ð l¼ Ðheld€that€"whether€a€PRP€can€seek€contribution€ultimately€dependsÐ h Ðon€whether€it€incurs€future€costs.€€Until€that€occurs,€regardlessÐ Ä Ðof€whether€liability€has€been€assessed€against€a€contributionÐ pÀ  Ðdefendant,€there€has€been€no€expenditure€or€fixing€of€costs€forÐ !l" Ðwhich€a€PRP€may€seek€contribution."€€We€agree€with€the€districtÐ È"$ Ðcourt's€holding€and€reject€the€Capuanos'€arguments€for€similarÐ t$Ä& Ðreasons.Ð  &p!( Ðà ` àWe€review€de€novo€questions€regarding€the€properÐ Ì'#* Ðinterpretation€of€a€statute.€€òòSeeóóòòUnited€Techs.€Corp.óó€v.€òòBrowning„Ð x)È$, ÐFerris€Indus.,€Inc.óó,€33€F.3d€96,€98€(1st€Cir.€1994).€€"It€isÐ $+t&. Ðapodictic€that€our€first€recourse€must€be€to€the€statute's€text€andÐ ° Ðstructure."€€òòId.óó€at€99.€€The€main€issue€on€appeal€is€whether€theÐ \¬ Ð1988€òòO'Neilóójudgment€qualifies,€for€purposes€of€the€limitationsÐ X Ðperiod€in€this€action,€as€a€"judgment€in€any€action€under€this€ActÐ ´  Ðfor€recovery€of€such€costs€or€damages."€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€9613(g)(3).€Ð ` ° ÐIt€is€undisputed€that€òòO'Neilóówas€a€judgment€in€an€action€underÐ  \  ÐCERCLA.€€The€controversy€surrounds€whether€the€òòO'Neilóó€judgment€wasÐ ¸  Ðfor€"recovery€of€such€costs€or€damages."€€We€believe€it€was€not.Ð d´  Ðà ` àò ò1.€€The€declaratory€judgment€in€òòO'Neiló óóóÐ `  Ðà ` àThe€district€court,€in€òòO'Neilóó,€issued€a€declaratoryÐ Ø( Ðjudgment€holding€R&H€"jointly€and€severally€liable€for€all€futureÐ „Ô Ðcosts€of€removal€or€remedial€action€incurred€by€the€state€relativeÐ 0€ Ðto€the€Picillo€site."€€This€declaratory€judgment€did€not€triggerÐ Ü, Ðthe€statute€of€limitations€for€the€groundwater€cleanup€becauseÐ ˆØ Ðbeing€held€jointly€and€severally€liable€for€all€future€costs€ofÐ 4„ Ðremoval€or€remedial€action€is€not€a€judgment€for€the€òòrecoveryóó€ofÐ à0 Ðsuch€costs.Ð ŒÜ  Ðà ` àReaching€this€conclusion€requires€us€to€dissect€42€U.S.C.Ð 8!ˆ" Ððð€9613.€€Section€9613(g)(2)€provides€that,€in€an€initial€action€forÐ ä"4$ Ðthe€recovery€of€costs,€"the€court€shall€enter€a€declaratoryÐ $à& Ðjudgment€on€liability€for€response€costs€or€damages€that€will€beÐ <&Œ!( Ðbinding€on€any€subsequent€action€or€actions€to€òòrecoveróó€furtherÐ è'8#* Ðresponse€costs€or€damages."€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€9613(g)(2)(B)€(emphasisÐ ”)ä$, Ðadded).€€The€òòO'Neilóó€judgment€was€an€initial€action€for€the€recoveryÐ @+&. Ðof€costs€associated€only€with€the€soil€remediation.€€The€districtÐ ° Ðcourt€also€entered€a€declaratory€judgment€by€holding€that€"theÐ \¬ Ðdefendants€are€jointly€and€severally€liable€for€all€future€costs€ofÐ X Ðremoval€or€remedial€action€incurred€by€the€state€relative€to€theÐ ´  ÐPicillo€site."€€òòO'Neilóó,€682€F.€Supp.€at€730.€€Although€the€districtÐ ` ° Ðcourt€entered€a€judgment€on€liability€for€future€response€costs,Ð  \  Ðthe€district€court€did€not€enter€a€judgment€for€the€recovery€ofÐ ¸  Ðsuch€costs.€€The€declaratory€judgment€is€binding€on€any€subsequentÐ d´  Ðactions€to€recover€response€costs€or€damages,€but€it€is€not€itselfÐ `  Ða€judgment€for€the€recovery€of€such€costs€or€damages.Ð ¼  Ðà ` àò ò2.€€The€judgment€for€past€soil€remediation€response€costsó óÐ h¸ Ðà ` àThe€Capuanos€also€contend€that€the€òòO'NeilóójudgmentÐ 0€ Ðtriggered€the€running€of€the€statute€of€limitations€because€it€wasÐ Ü, Ða€judgment€for€the€recovery€of€response€costs.€€In€òòO'Neilóó,€R&H€wasÐ ˆØ Ðheld€"jointly€and€severally€liable€for€past€response€costs€totalingÐ 4„ Ð$991,937.30"€for€the€soil€remediation.€€Thus,€the€Capuanos€argue,Ð à0 ÐR&H€had€three€years€from€the€date€of€the€òòO'Neilóó€judgment€to€bringÐ ŒÜ  Ða€contribution€action€not€only€for€costs€relating€to€the€soilÐ 8!ˆ" Ðremediation,€but€also€for€any€response€costs€or€damages€that€couldÐ ä"4$ Ðarise€in€the€future.Ð $à& Ðà ` àWe€disagree€and,€once€again,€begin€our€inquiry€byÐ <&Œ!( Ðexamining€the€language€of€the€statute.€€When€interpreting€aÐ è'8#* Ðstatute,€"courts€must€strive€to€give€effect€to€each€subsectionÐ ”)ä$, Ðcontained€in€a€statute,€indeed,€to€give€effect€to€each€word€andÐ @+&. Ðphrase."€€òòBrowning„Ferrisóó,€33€F.3d€at€101.€€Section€9613(g)(3)Ð ° Ðstates€that€"[n]o€action€for€contribution€for€any€response€costs€orÐ \¬ Ðdamages€may€be€commenced€more€than€3€years€after€„„€(a)€the€date€ofÐ X Ðjudgment€in€any€action€.€.€.€for€recovery€of€òòsuchóó€costs€orÐ ´  Ðdamages."€€42€U.S.C.€9613(g)(3)€(emphasis€added).€€There€are€twoÐ ` ° Ðplausible€interpretations€of€subparagraph€(a).€€Under€oneÐ  \  Ðinterpretation,€the€term€"such€costs€or€damages"€refers€to€anyÐ ¸  Ðresponse€costs.€€Under€a€second€interpretation,€the€term€"suchÐ d´  Ðcosts€or€damages"€refers€to€the€costs€or€damages€contained€in€theÐ `  Ð"judgment"€mentioned€in€subparagraph€(a).Ð ¼  Ðà ` àSeveral€factors€favor€the€latter€interpretation.€€First,€Ð h¸ Ðother€subsections€of€ðð€9613(g)(3)€contain€the€word€"such"€and€useÐ d Ðit€to€limit€and€identify€a€word€within€the€same€sentence.€€ForÐ À Ðexample,€ðð€9613€(g)(4)€states€that€"[n]o€action€based€on€rightsÐ l¼ Ðsubrogated€pursuant€to€this€section€by€reason€of€payment€of€a€claimÐ h Ðmay€be€commenced€.€.€.€more€than€3€years€after€the€date€of€paymentÐ Ä Ðof€òòsuchóó€claim."€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€9613(g)(4)€(emphasis€added).€Ð pÀ  ÐSimilarly,€ðð€9613(g)(5)€states€that€"where€a€payment€pursuant€to€anÐ !l" Ðindemnification€agreement€with€a€response€action€contractor€is€madeÐ È"$ Ð.€.€.€an€action€.€.€.€for€recovery€of€òòsuchóó€indemnification€paymentÐ t$Ä& Ðfrom€a€potentially€responsible€party€may€be€brought€at€any€timeÐ  &p!( Ðbefore€the€expiration€of€3€years€from€the€date€on€which€suchÐ Ì'#* Ðpayment€is€made."€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€9613(g)(5)€(emphasis€added).€€InÐ x)È$, Ðboth€subsections,€the€word€"such"€is€used€to€identify€a€particularÐ $+t&. Ðclaim€or€payment.€€Similarly,€we€find€that€"such€costs"€in€ðð9613Ð ° Ð(g)(3)€refers€to€the€judgment€mentioned€earlier€in€the€sentence€andÐ \¬ Ðidentifies€a€particular€claim€or€payment.׃X×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð X Ðà ` àOur€interpretation€of€other€subsections€of€ðð€9613€furtherÐ ´  Ðsupports€the€interpretation€that€"such€costs"€refers€to€costsÐ ` ° Ðidentified€in€the€judgment.€€Section€9613(g)(2)€requires€a€court€toÐ  \  Ðenter€a€declaratory€judgment€on€liability€and€then€provides€thatÐ ¸  Ðsubsequent€actions€for€future€response€costs€"may€be€maintained€atÐ d´  Ðany€time€during€the€response€action,€but€must€be€commenced€no€laterÐ `  Ðthan€3€years€after€the€date€of€completion€of€all€response€action."€Ð ¼  ÐòòSeeóó€42€U.S.C.€ðð€9613(g)(2)(B).€€Section€9613(g)(2),€therefore,Ð h¸ Ðallows€for€the€cleanup€and€the€payment€for€that€cleanup€to€occur€inÐ d Ðphases.€€When€a€PRP€is€forced€to€pay€more€than€its€share€of€thatÐ À Ðcleanup,€it€turns€to€ðð€9613(f),€which€allows€a€PRP€to€"seekÐ l¼ Ðcontribution€from€any€other€person€who€is€liable€or€potentiallyÐ h Ðliable."€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€9613(f)(1).€€We€have€determined€that€ðð9613Ð Ä Ð(g)(2)'s€declaratory€provision€applies€to€ðð€9613(f)(1),€allowing€aÐ pÀ  ÐPRP€to€obtain€a€declaratory€judgment€in€a€contribution€action.€Ð !l" ÐòòSeeóóòòDavisóó,€261€F.3d€at€45„46.€€After€obtaining€such€a€declaratoryÐ È"$ Ðjudgment,€a€PRP€is€able€to€seek€contribution€from€other€PRPs€inÐ t$Ä& Ðphases€as€it€incurs€costs€beyond€its€pro€rata€share.€€ByÐ ° Ðinterpreting€"such€costs"€to€refer€to€those€costs€contained€in€aÐ \¬ Ðjudgment,€a€PRP€would€not€lose€the€ability€to€seek€contribution€ifÐ X Ða€phase€of€a€cleanup€occurs€after€three€years€of€an€initialÐ ´  Ðjudgment.Ð ` ° Ðà ` àThe€Capuanos€disagree€and€contend,€citing€òòDavisóó,€thatÐ  \  Ðregardless€of€when€a€PRP€incurs€response€costs,€a€PRP€is€requiredÐ ¸  Ðto€seek€a€declaratory€judgment€in€a€contribution€action€for€anyÐ d´  Ðfuture€remediation€within€three€years€of€being€held€liable€for€anyÐ `  Ðtype€of€remediation.€€Such€an€argument€is€self„defeating€and€provesÐ ¼  Ðwhy€a€judgment€for€soil€remediation€does€not€trigger€the€statute€ofÐ h¸ Ðlimitations€for€contribution€claims€relating€to€the€groundwaterÐ d Ðremediation.€€The€òòO'Neilóó€judgment€regarding€soil€remediationÐ À Ðtriggered€the€statute€of€limitations€for€a€contribution€actionÐ l¼ Ðregarding€soil€remediation.€€Consequently,€R&H€sought€contributionÐ h Ðfrom€other€PRPs€for€the€soil€remediation.€€òòSeeóóòòAmerican€Cyanamidóóv.Ð Ä ÐòòKing€Indus.,€Inc.óó,€814€F.€Supp.€215€(D.R.I.€1993).€€R&H€could€not,Ð pÀ  Ðhowever,€seek€contribution€relating€to€the€soil€remediation€fromÐ !l" Ðthe€Capuanos€because€the€Capuanos€had€settled€with€the€governmentÐ È"$ Ðregarding€costs€associated€with€soil€remediation€and,€as€discussedÐ t$Ä& Ðearlier,€settling€parties€are€immune€from€contribution€suitsÐ  &p!( Ðregarding€matters€addressed€in€the€settlement.€€òòSeeóó€42€U.S.C.Ð Ì'#* Ððð9613(f)(2).€€At€the€time€of€the€òòO'Neilóójudgment,€R&H€was€alsoÐ x)È$, Ðunable€to€seek€contribution€relating€to€the€groundwater€remediationÐ $+t&. Ðbecause€it€was€uncertain€whether€groundwater€remediation€was€likelyÐ ° Ðto€occur.€€òòSeeóóòòDavisóó,€261€F.3d€at€47„48€(stating€that€a€PRP€mayÐ \¬ Ðseek€a€declaratory€judgment€in€a€contribution€action€if€the€PRP€isÐ X Ðlikely€to€incur€more€than€its€fair€share€of€future€cleanup);€òòseeÐ ´  Ðalsoóó€òòBoeing€Co.óóv.€òòCascade€Corp.óó,€207€F.3d€1177,€1192€(9th€Cir.Ð ` ° Ð2000)€(stating€that€declaratory€relief€is€appropriate€when€"thereÐ  \  Ðis€a€substantial€controversy,€between€parties€having€adverse€legalÐ ¸  Ðinterests,€of€sufficient€immediacy€and€reality€to€warrant"Ð d´  Ðdeclaratory€relief€(citation€omitted)).€€Indeed,€in€1988,€RhodeÐ `  ÐIsland€and€the€United€States€had€not€assessed€whether€there€wasÐ ¼  Ðgroundwater€contamination€at€the€Picillo€site.€€On€appeal€inÐ h¸ ÐòòO'Neilóó,€we€discussed€giving€Rhode€Island€and€the€EPA€"time€toÐ d Ðconduct€further€tests"€and€we€discussed€the€possibility€that€"afterÐ À Ðconducting€the€necessary€tests,€the€government€[could]€conclude[]Ð l¼ Ð[that]€there€was€in€fact€no€harm€to€the€area's€groundwater."€Ð h ÐòòO'Neilóó,€883€F.2d€at€183.€€As€such,€R&H€could€not€seek€a€declaratoryÐ Ä Ðjudgment€against€the€Capuanos€after€the€òòO'Neilóójudgment€because,€atÐ pÀ  Ðthe€time€of€the€òòO'Neilóó€judgment,€R&H€did€not€have€a€contributionÐ !l" Ðclaim,€declaratory€or€otherwise,€against€the€Capuanos.€€òòSeeóóòòDavisóó,Ð È"$ Ð261€F.3d€at€48€(stating€that€a€PRP€may€seek€a€declaratory€judgmentÐ t$Ä& Ðin€a€contribution€action€if€the€PRP€is€likely€to€incur€more€thanÐ  &p!( Ðits€fair€share€of€future€cleanup).€€Thus,€the€òòO'NeilóójudgmentÐ Ì'#* Ðpertaining€to€soil€remediation€could€not€trigger€the€statute€ofÐ x)È$, Ðlimitations€for€a€contribution€action€for€groundwater€remediation.Ð $+t&. Ðà ` àThis€interpretation€of€ðð€9613€comports€with€theÐ ° Ðlegislative€history€of€the€statute€of€limitations€and€advancesÐ \¬ ÐCERCLA's€purpose.€€òòSeeóó€òòOrtegaóó€v.€òòStar„Kist€Foods,€Inc.óó,€370€F.3dÐ X Ð124,€143€(1st€Cir.€2004)€("Resort€to€legislative€history€isÐ ´  Ðappropriate€where,€as€here,€the€text€of€a€statute€is€susceptible€toÐ ` ° Ðtwo€textually€plausible€interpretations.").Ð  \  Ðà ` àThe€legislative€history€indicates€that€ðð€9613Ð ¸  Ð"establishes€a€three-year€statute€of€limitations€for€the€filing€ofÐ d´  Ðan€action€for€contribution€for€response€costs€or€damages.€TheÐ `  Ðstatute€of€limitations€begins€to€run€at€the€date€of€judgment€forÐ ¼  Ðrecovery€of€response€costs€or€damages€or€the€date€of€entry€of€aÐ h¸ Ðjudicially€approved€settlement€with€respect€to€such€costs€orÐ d Ðdamages."€€€H.R.€Rep.€No.€253€(I),€99th€Cong.,€1st€Sess.,€at€*79Ð À Ð(1985).€€In€discussing€the€statute€of€limitations,€CongressÐ l¼ Ðreferred€to€ðð€9613(g)(3)(A)€and€ðð€9613(g)(3)(B)€together.€€InÐ h Ðsubsection€(B),€the€statute€of€limitations€is€triggered€by€theÐ Ä Ð"entry€of€a€judicially€approved€settlement€with€respect€to€suchÐ pÀ  Ðcosts€or€damages."€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€9613(g)(3)(B).€€The€entry€of€aÐ !l" Ðjudicially€approved€settlement€provides€contribution€protectionÐ È"$ Ðonly€"regarding€matters€addressed€in€the€settlement"€and€allows€aÐ t$Ä& Ðsettling€PRP€to€seek€contribution€within€three€years€of€thatÐ  &p!( Ðsettlement€for€costs€incurred€in€the€settlement.€€òòSeeóó42€U.S.C.Ð Ì'#* Ððð9613(f)(2).€€Similarly,€a€PRP€has€three€years€to€seekÐ x)È$, Ðcontribution€for€costs€contained€within€a€judgment.€€The€statute€ofÐ $+t&. Ðlimitations,€however,€is€not€triggered€for€costs€not€containedÐ ° Ðwithin€the€judgment.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àGenerally,€the€interpretation€of€ðð€9613€implicates€twoÐ X Ðcompeting€principles.€€On€the€one€hand,€"CERCLA's€'essentialÐ ´  Ðpurpose'€[is]€making€'those€responsible€for€problems€caused€by€theÐ ` ° Ðdisposal€of€chemical€poisons€bear€the€costs€and€responsibility€forÐ  \  Ðremedying€the€harmful€conditions€they€created.'"€€òòBoydóó€v.€òòBostonÐ ¸  ÐGas€Co.óó,€992€F.2d€401,€405€(1st€Cir.€1993)€(quoting€òòDedham€WaterÐ d´  ÐCo.óó€v.€òòCumberland€Farms€Dairy,€Inc.óó,€805€F.2d€1074,€1081€(1st€Cir.Ð `  Ð1986)).€€Congress€also€wanted€"to€give€potentially€responsibleÐ ¼  Ðparties€the€explicit€right€to€sue€other€liable€or€potentiallyÐ h¸ Ðliable€parties€who€also€may€be€responsible€for€the€hazardous€wasteÐ d Ðsite."€€H.R.€Rep.€No.€253€(I),€99th€Cong.,€1st€Sess.,€at€15€(1985)Ð À Ð(by€enacting€SARA,€Congress€wanted€to€"protect€the€interests€andÐ l¼ Ðrights€of€those€who€may€be€held€liable€for€.€.€.€clean„ups.").Ð h Ðà ` àOn€the€other€hand,€the€Supreme€Court€has€recognized€thatÐ Ä Ðstatutes€of€limitations€are€not€disfavored,€but€rather€"'are€foundÐ pÀ  Ðand€approved€in€all€systems€of€enlightened€jurisprudence'€[and]Ð !l" Ðrepresent€a€pervasive€legislative€judgment€that€.€.€.€'the€right€toÐ È"$ Ðbe€free€of€stale€claims€in€time€comes€to€prevail€over€the€right€toÐ t$Ä& Ðprosecute€them.'"€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòKubrickóó,€444€U.S.€111,€117Ð  &p!( Ð(1979)€(citations€omitted).€€Indeed,€by€passing€SARA,€CongressÐ Ì'#* Ðrecognized€that€"CERCLA€currently€includes€no€explicit€statute€ofÐ x)È$, Ðlimitations€for€the€filing€of€cost€recovery€actions€[and€SARA]Ð $+t&. Ðprovides€for€the€timely€filing€of€cost€recovery€actions,€to€assureÐ ° Ðthat€evidence€concerning€liability€and€response€costs€is€fresh€andÐ \¬ Ðto€provide€a€measure€of€finality€to€affected€responsible€parties."€Ð X ÐH.R.€Rep.€No.€253€(I),€99th€Cong.,€1st€Sess.,€at€15€(1985).Ð ´  Ðà ` àDefining€"such€costs"€to€identify€those€costs€containedÐ ` ° Ðin€a€judgment€upholds€both€principles.€€First,€it€ensures€thoseÐ  \  Ðresponsible€for€environmental€damage€bear€the€costs€for€remedyingÐ ¸  Ðthe€harmful€conditions€they€created.€€An€environmental€cleanupÐ d´  Ðtakes€many€years€to€complete.€€To€make€the€cleanup€manageable,€itÐ `  Ðis€done€in€phases.€€If€an€initial€cost€recovery€action€triggeredÐ ¼  Ðthe€statute€of€limitations€for€the€recovery€of€any€costs€in€futureÐ h¸ Ðphases,€PRPs€could€manipulate€CERCLA€to€avoid€paying€their€share.€Ð d ÐIndeed,€by€settling€with€the€government€for€the€soil€remediation,Ð À Ðthe€Capuanos€received€contribution€protection€for€the€soilÐ l¼ Ðremediation€only.€€At€the€time€of€the€soil€remediation,€€theÐ h Ðlikelihood€of€a€groundwater€cleanup€was€unknown.€€Allowing€theÐ Ä Ðimmunity€the€Capuanos's€received€for€the€soil€remediation€toÐ pÀ  Ðeffectively€shield€them€from€contribution€relating€to€future€phasesÐ !l" Ðof€the€cleanup€would€provide€the€Capuanos€protection€for€which€theyÐ È"$ Ðnever€paid€„„€a€result€in€conflict€with€the€purpose€of€CERCLA.Ð t$Ä& Ðà ` àOur€interpretation€of€ðð€9613€also€ensures€that€evidenceÐ  &p!( Ðconcerning€liability€and€response€costs€is€fresh€and€provides€aÐ Ì'#* Ðmeasure€of€finality€to€affected€responsible€parties.€€To€limitÐ x)È$, Ð"such€costs"€to€those€costs€contained€in€a€judgment€results€in€aÐ $+t&. Ðcontribution€action€tracking€the€statute€of€limitations€for€costÐ ° Ðrecovery€actions.€€In€a€cost€recovery€action,€any€actions€after€a€Ð \¬ Ðdeclaratory€judgment€"must€be€commenced€no€later€than€3€years€afterÐ X Ðthe€date€of€completion€of€all€response€action."€€42€U.S.C.€ðð9613Ð ´  Ð(g)(2)(B).€€Thus,€the€latest€a€judgment€for€the€recovery€of€costsÐ ` ° Ðcould€occur€is€three€years€after€the€completion€of€a€responseÐ  \  Ðaction.€€A€PRP€would€then€have€three€years€to€commence€aÐ ¸  Ðcontribution€action.€€The€workings€of€42€U.S.C.€ðð€9613,€therefore,Ð d´  Ðensure€that€evidence€concerning€liability€and€response€costs€isÐ `  Ðfresh.Ð ¼  Ðò òB.€€Res€judicataó óÐ h¸ Ðà ` àThe€Capuanos€argue€that,€under€the€doctrine€of€resÐ 0€ Ðjudicata,€R&H€is€precluded€from€seeking€contribution€against€them.€Ð Ü, Ð"The€applicability€of€the€doctrine€of€res€judicata€is€a€question€ofÐ ˆØ Ðlaw€subject€to€plenary€review."€€òòBay€State€HMO€Mgmt.,€Inc.óó€v.Ð 4„ ÐòòTingley€Sys.,€Inc.óó,€181€F.3d€174,€177€(1st€Cir.€1999).€€Under€theÐ à0 Ðdoctrine€of€res€judicata,€"a€final€judgment€on€the€merits€of€anÐ ŒÜ  Ðaction€precludes€the€parties€or€their€privies€from€relitigatingÐ 8!ˆ" Ðissues€that€were€or€could€have€been€raised€in€that€action."€€òòAllenóóÐ ä"4$ Ðv.€òòMcCurryóó,€449€U.S.€90,€94€(1980)€(citation€omitted).€€"For€aÐ $à& Ðclaim€to€be€precluded,€there€must€be:€(1)€a€final€judgment€on€theÐ <&Œ!( Ðmerits€in€an€earlier€action;€(2)€sufficient€identity€between€theÐ è'8#* Ðâ âcauses€of€action€asserted€in€the€earlier€and€later€suits;€and€(3)Ð ”)ä$, Ðsufficient€identity€between€the€parties€in€the€two€suits."€€òòBayÐ ° ÐStateóó,€181€F.3d€at€177.Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àThe€Capuanos€first€argue€that€R&H€cannot€seekÐ X Ðcontribution€from€them€in€this€case€because€R&H€failed€to€seekÐ ´  Ðcontribution€from€them€in€the€òòKing€Industriesóócase.€€òòSeeóóòòKingÐ ` ° ÐIndus.,€Inc.óó,€814€F.€Supp.€215.€€The€òòKing€Industriesóócase€was€filedÐ  \  Ðafter€R&H€was€found€liable€in€òòO'Neilóó.€€In€R&H's€Second€AmendedÐ ¸  ÐComplaint€in€òòKing€Industriesóó,€R&H€alleged€that€the€defendants€wereÐ d´  Ð"jointly€and€severally€liable€to€the€plaintiffs€for€contributionÐ `  Ð...€[for]€past€and€future€response€costs."€€R&H€entered€intoÐ ¼  Ðmultiple€settlement€agreements€and€dismissal€agreements,€approvedÐ h¸ Ðby€the€district€court,€with€most€of€the€parties€sued€in€òòKingÐ d ÐIndustriesóó.€€òòSeeóó€òòKing€Indus.,€Inc.óó,€814€F.€Supp.€215.€€Some€of€theÐ À Ðsettlement€agreements€included€dismissals€with€prejudice.€€TheÐ l¼ ÐCapuanos€contend€that€the€dismissals€with€prejudice€were€judgmentsÐ h Ðon€the€merits€and€therefore€the€doctrine€of€res€judicata€shouldÐ Ä Ðpreclude€the€suit€before€us€from€proceeding.€€We€disagree€forÐ pÀ  Ðseveral€reasons.Ð !l" Ðà ` àIt€is€true€that€"a€voluntary€dismissal€with€prejudice€isÐ È"$ Ðordinarily€deemed€a€final€judgment€that€satisfies€the€res€judicataÐ t$Ä& Ðcriterion."€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòCunanóó,€156€F.3d€110,€114€(1st€Cir.Ð  &p!( Ð1998).€€But,€a€dismissal€with€prejudice€contained€in€a€consentÐ Ì'#* Ðdecree€"is€not€a€ruling€on€the€merits€.€.€.€[that]€applies€òòtoÐ x)È$, Ðothersóó€under€the€law€of€claim€preclusion."€€òòLangtonóó€v.€òòHoganóó,€71Ð $+t&. ÐF.3d€930,€935€(1st€Cir.€1995)€(emphasis€added).€€The€Capuanos€wereÐ ° Ðnot€defendants€in€òòKing€Industriesóó€and€were€not€parties€to€any€ofÐ \¬ Ðthe€settlement€agreements.€€Therefore,€the€dismissal€agreements€doÐ X Ðnot€have€a€res€judicata€effect€over€claims€against€the€Capuanos.Ð ´  Ðà ` àSecond,€at€the€time€of€the€òòKing€Industriesóó€suit,€R&HÐ ` ° Ðcould€not€pursue€a€claim€against€the€Capuanos€because€theÐ  \  Ðgroundwater€remediation€had€not€yet€occurred€and€the€Capuanos€hadÐ ¸  Ðcontribution€immunity€for€claims€relating€to€the€soil€remediation.€Ð d´  Ð"[R]es€judicata€will€not€attach€if€the€claim€asserted€in€the€secondÐ `  Ðsuit€could€not€have€been€asserted€in€the€first."€€òòMass.€Sch.€of€LawÐ ¼  Ðat€Andover,€Inc.óó€v.€òòAm.€Bar€Ass'nóó,€142€F.3d€26,€38€(1st€Cir.€1998);Ð h¸ ÐòòGonzlezóó€v.€òòBanco€Cent.€Corp.óó,€27€F.3d€751,€756€(1st€Cir.€1994)Ð d Ð(stating€that€"principles€of€res€judicata€will€bar€all€claims€thatÐ À Ðeither€were€or€could€have€been€asserted€in€the€initial€action.").Ð l¼ Ðà ` àThe€Capuanos€also€argue€that€R&H€is€precluded€fromÐ h Ðseeking€contribution€because€of€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€41(a)(1),€alsoÐ Ä Ðknown€as€the€"two€dismissal"€rule.€€This€Rule€states€that€"anÐ pÀ  Ðaction€may€be€dismissed€by€the€plaintiff€without€order€of€courtÐ !l" Ð...€[and]€the€dismissal€is€without€prejudice,€except€that€aÐ È"$ Ðnotice€of€dismissal€operates€as€an€adjudication€upon€the€meritsÐ t$Ä& Ðwhen€filed€by€a€plaintiff€who€has€once€dismissed€.€.€.€an€actionÐ  &p!( Ðbased€on€or€including€the€same€claim."€€R&H€dismissed€two€cases:€Ð Ì'#* Ðthe€òòKing€Industriesóó€case€and€a€1995€contribution€lawsuit€againstÐ x)È$, Ðthe€Capuanos€filed€in€the€District€Court€of€Rhode€Island.€Ð $+t&. ÐNonetheless,€the€"two€dismissal"€rule€does€not€apply€to€this€caseÐ ° Ðbecause€the€dismissal€in€the€òòKing€Industriesóó€case€does€not€count€asÐ \¬ Ða€dismissal€for€purposes€of€this€rule€as€applied€to€the€Capuanos.€Ð X ÐThe€"two€dismissal"€rule€"is€not€applicable€unless€the€defendantsÐ ´  Ðare€the€same€or€substantially€the€same€or€in€privity€in€bothÐ ` ° Ðactions."€€5€Moore's€Federal€Practice€ðð€41.04€(2d€ed.€1996).€€TheÐ  \  ÐCapuanos€were€not€defendants€in€òòKing€Industriesóó,€nor€were€they€inÐ ¸  Ðprivity€with€the€defendants€in€òòKing€Industriesóó.€€òòSee€generallyóóÐ d´  ÐòòGonzlezóó,€27€F.3d€at€757„63.€€As€a€result,€the€"two€dismissal"€ruleÐ `  Ðdoes€not€preclude€R&H's€claims€against€the€Capuanos.Ð ¼  Ðò òC.€€Contribution€Immunityó óÐ h¸ Ðà ` àIn€1988,€the€Capuanos€entered€settlement€agreements€withÐ 0€ Ðthe€United€States€and€Rhode€Island.€€In€return€for€contributionÐ Ü, Ðimmunity,€the€Capuanos€paid€$1,500,000€to€the€United€States€andÐ ˆØ Ð$500,000€to€Rhode€Island.€€The€Capuanos€argue€that€their€ConsentÐ 4„ ÐDecree€provides€contribution€immunity€against€R&H's€contributionÐ à0 Ðclaims.׃Y×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€Capuanos'€settlement€agreement€provided€immunity€forÐ ŒÜ  Ð"future€liability"€for€past€response€costs,€but€it€did€not€provideÐ 8!ˆ" Ðimmunity€for€claims€related€to€"groundwater€protection€orÐ ä"4$ Ðremediation."€€The€Capuanos€argue€that€R&H€failed€to€prove€that€the€Ð $à& Ðmoney€R&H€paid€to€the€United€States,€and€for€which€R&H€now€seeksÐ <&Œ!( Ðcontribution,€was€for€groundwater€protection€or€remediation.€€WeÐ ° Ðdisagree.€€The€Capuanos'€argument€is€nothing€more€than€creativeÐ \¬ Ðword€play.€€According€to€the€Capuanos,€R&H€settled€with€theÐ X Ðgovernment€for€"past€response€costs."€€R&H's€"past€response€costs"Ð ´  Ðare€costs€incurred€by€the€United€States€through€October€25,€1995.€Ð ` ° ÐThus,€R&H's€"past€response€costs"€would€be€"future€liability"€forÐ  \  Ðpast€response€costs€as€it€pertains€to€the€Capuanos€and€the€CapuanosÐ ¸  Ðhave€contribution€protection€for€future€liability€for€past€responseÐ d´  Ðcosts.Ð `  Ðà ` àRegardless€of€how€the€Capuanos€choose€to€phrase€the€costsÐ ¼  Ðincurred,€it€is€undisputed€that€the€four€corners€of€the€CapuanosÐ h¸ ÐConsent€Decree€does€not€provide€contribution€immunity€for€costsÐ d Ðrelating€to€groundwater€protection€or€remediation.€€At€trial,€R&HÐ À Ðintroduced€documents€detailing€the€work€performed€by€the€UnitedÐ l¼ ÐStates€in€regard€to€the€groundwater€remediation€and€introduced€theÐ h Ðtestimony€of€an€expert€that€the€cost€of€the€groundwater€RemedialÐ Ä ÐInvestigation€("RI")€and€Feasibility€Study€("FS")€exceeded€$4.7Ð pÀ  Ðmillion.€€The€expert€testified€that€the€groundwater€RI/FS€wasÐ !l" Ðdifferent€from€the€soil€RI/FS€and€the€$4.7€million€did€not€includeÐ È"$ Ðany€costs€dealing€with€the€soil€remediation.€€R&H€ultimatelyÐ t$Ä& Ðsettled€with€the€United€States€for€$4.35€million€and€is€seekingÐ  &p!( Ðcontribution€for€a€portion€of€that€amount.€€€The€evidence€showed,Ð Ì'#* Ðtherefore,€that€the€costs€R&H€paid€to€the€United€States,€for€whichÐ x)È$, Ðit€now€seeks€contribution,€were€for€groundwater€protection€andÐ $+t&. Ðremediation,€and€the€Capuanos€do€not€have€contribution€immunity€forÐ ° Ðcosts€relating€to€groundwater€protection€or€remediation.Ð \¬ Ðà ` àIn€the€alternative,€the€Capuanos€argue€that€even€if€thereÐ X Ðwas€proof€showing€that€R&H€is€seeking€contribution€for€the€RI/FSÐ ´  Ðrelating€to€the€groundwater,€a€RI/FS€is€part€of€a€"removal€action"Ð ` ° Ðand€is€not€"groundwater€protection€or€remediation"€and€thus€it€isÐ  \  Ðnot€a€cost€that€was€excluded€from€the€Capuanos'€Consent€Decree.Ð ¸  Ðà ` àThe€RI/FS€is€part€of€the€groundwater€protection€andÐ d´  Ðremediation€process.€€"The€purpose€of€the€.€.€.€(RI/FS)€is€toÐ `  Ðassess€site€conditions€and€evaluate€alternatives€to€the€extentÐ ¼  Ðnecessary€to€select€a€remedy.€€Developing€and€conducting€an€RI/FSÐ h¸ Ðgenerally€includes€the€following€activities:€project€scoping,€dataÐ d Ðcollection,€risk€assessment,€treatability€studies,€and€analysis€ofÐ À Ðalternatives.€"€€40€CFR€300.430.€€Since€the€RI/FS€is€the€first€stepÐ l¼ Ðin€groundwater€protection€and€remediation,€the€RI/FS€is€not€a€costÐ h Ðexcluded€by€this€Consent€Decree.Ð Ä Ðà@ô ô ìàò òIII.€€òòIssues€relating€to€the€trialóóó óˆÐ pÀ  Ðà ` àIn€reviewing€the€appeal€of€a€bench€trial,€we€review€theÐ 8!ˆ" Ðdistrict€court's€legal€conclusions€de€novo€and€its€factual€findingsÐ ä"4$ Ðfor€clear€error.€€òòCarigliaóó€v.€òòHertz€Equip.€Rental€Corp.óó,€363€F.3dÐ $à& Ð77,€82€(1st€Cir.€2004).Ð  <&Œ!( Ðò òA.€€Fed.€R.€Civ.€P.€19€joinderó óÐ ° Ðà ` àThe€Capuanos€argued€to€the€district€court€that€Fed.€R.Ð xÈ ÐCiv.€P.€19(a)€required€all€non„settling€PRPs€to€be€joined€asÐ $t Ð"necessary"€parties.€€The€district€court€held€that€Rule€19€does€notÐ Ð  Ðrequire€joinder€of€other€known€solvent€PRPs.€€In€their€appellate€Ð | Ì Ðbrief,€the€Capuanos€mention€the€Rule€19€issue,€but€do€not€provideÐ ( x  Ðany€arguments€as€to€why€Rule€19€requires€other€PRPs€to€be€joined.€Ð Ô$  ÐSince€the€Capuanos€failed€to€develop€any€argument,€we€consider€thisÐ €Ð  Ðissue€waived.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòBongiornoóó,€106€F.3d€1027,€1034Ð ,|  Ð(1st€Cir.€1997)€("We€have€steadfastly€deemed€waived€issues€raisedÐ Ø( Ðon€appeal€in€a€perfunctory€manner,€not€accompanied€by€developedÐ „Ô Ðargumentation.").Ð 0€ Ðò òB.€€Allocation€of€shares€of€liabilityó óÐ Ü, Ðà ` àAfter€trial,€the€district€court€concluded€that€theÐ ¤ô ÐCapuanos,€as€operators,€were€"liable€for€the€total€volume€(100%)€ofÐ P  Ðwaste€dumped€at€the€Picillo€site."€€The€Capuanos€were€also€"liableÐ üL Ðfor€a€share€of€the€waste€dumped€at€the€Picillo€site€as€arrangersÐ ¨ø  Ð[and€they€were]€liable€as€transporters€for€7.94%€of€the€total€Ð T!¤" Ðwaste€delivered€to€the€site."€€The€district€court€concluded€thatÐ #P$ ÐR&H€was€liable€for€3.23%€of€the€waste.Ð ¬$ü& Ðà ` àBefore€allocating€percentage€shares€of€liability,€theÐ X&¨!( Ðdistrict€court€informed€the€Capuanos€that€it€would€"consider€theÐ (T#* Ðrelative€fault€of€non„parties€in€arriving€at€an€equitableÐ °)%, Ðallocation€of€liability."€€The€district€court€did€not€ultimatelyÐ \+¬&. Ðconsider€the€relative€fault€of€non„parties€when€allocatingÐ ° Ðliability€because€the€parties€failed€to€present€evidence€concerningÐ \¬ Ðthe€relative€fault€of€non„parties.€€According€to€the€districtÐ X Ðcourt,€the€Capuanos'€"decision€not€to€present€any€evidence€that€mayÐ ´  Ðhave€mitigated€their€liability€.€.€.€is€one€they€will€have€to€liveÐ ` ° Ðwith."€€The€Capuanos,€not€wanting€to€"live€with"€it,€appealed€theÐ  \  Ðissue,€arguing€that€a€district€court€cannot€make€a€properÐ ¸  Ðallocation€unless€it€accounts€for€the€shares€of€all€PRPs,Ð d´  Ðregardless€of€whether€the€PRPs€are€parties€to€the€action€andÐ `  Ðregardless€of€whether€evidence€was€presented€regarding€the€absentÐ ¼  ÐPRP's€actions.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àIn€resolving€contribution€claims,€a€district€court€hasÐ d Ðbroad€discretion€to€"allocate€response€costs€among€liable€partiesÐ À Ðusing€such€equitable€factors€as€the€court€determines€areÐ l¼ Ðappropriate."€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€9613(f)(1).€€It€is€not€unprecedented€forÐ h Ða€district€court€to€reason€"that€a€fair€and€equitable€allocationÐ Ä Ð[can]€only€be€achieved€by€comparing€[a€defendant's]€role€as€a€PRPÐ pÀ  Ðto€other€PRPs."€€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòConsol.€Coal€Co.óó,€345€F.3d€409,Ð !l" Ð414€(6th€Cir.€2003).€€However,€the€decision€to€allocate€responseÐ È"$ Ðcosts€among€the€named€parties€or€all€parties€"is€within€the€Court'sÐ t$Ä& Ðdiscretion€to€adopt€and€apply."€€òòUnited€Statesóóv.€òòConsol.€Coal€Co.óó,Ð  &p!( Ð184€F.€Supp.€2d€723,€745€(S.D.€Ohio€2002).€€Indeed,€in€some€casesÐ Ì'#* Ðapportioning€responsibility€among€all€PRPs€is€not€an€attractiveÐ x)È$, Ðoption€as€it€could€"complicate€an€already€difficult€allocationÐ $+t&. Ðprocess€or€saddle€firms€.€.€.€with€excess€costs"€and€"might€takeÐ ° Ðyears€of€trial€time."€€òòAkzo€Nobel€Coatings,€Inc.óó€v.€òòAigner€Corp.óó,Ð \¬ Ð197€F.3d€302,€306€(7th€Cir.€1999).Ð X Ðà ` àR&H€provided€the€district€court€with€evidence€indicatingÐ ´  Ðthat€the€Capuanos€were€liable,€as€operators,€for€100%€of€the€wasteÐ ` ° Ðat€the€Picillo€site.€€The€district€court€did€not€abuse€itsÐ  \  Ðdiscretion€in€reaching€such€a€conclusion€since€the€district€courtÐ ¸  Ðfound€the€evidence€to€be€"credible"€and,€more€important€for€theÐ d´  Ðpurposes€of€this€discussion,€"unrefuted."€€òòSeeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€òòUnited€StatesóóÐ `  Ðv.€òòDavisóó,€31€F.€Supp.€2d€at€68€(allocating€100%€liability€among€theÐ ¼  Ðparties€to€the€action,€even€though€many€other€PRPs€existed).Ð h¸ Ðò òC.€€Accounting€for€settlements€of€other€PRPsó óÐ d Ðà ` àThe€district€court€concluded€that€R&H€paid€the€UnitedÐ Ü, ÐStates€government€$4,636,725€for€groundwater€related€cleanup€costs.€Ð ˆØ ÐBy€using€a€pro€tanto€approach€and€subtracting€the€$382,807€R&HÐ 4„ Ðreceived€in€settlements,€the€district€court€concluded€that€the€netÐ à0 Ðtotal€R&H€paid€to€the€United€States€for€the€groundwater€cleanup€wasÐ ŒÜ  Ð$4,253,918.€€Since€R&H's€share€of€the€cleanup,€based€upon€3.23%€ofÐ 8!ˆ" Ðliability,€was€$1,602,080,€the€Capuanos€were€held€liable€forÐ ä"4$ Ð$2,651,838€„„€the€amount€R&H€paid€in€excess€of€their€share.Ð $à& Ðà ` àThe€Capuanos€argue€that€the€district€court€erred€inÐ <&Œ!( Ðmaking€this€calculation€because€the€district€court€should€haveÐ è'8#* Ðdetermined€the€equitable€pro„rata€share€of€liability€of€theÐ ”)ä$, Ðsettling€PRPs€rather€than€deducting€the€monetary€amount€of€theÐ @+&. Ðsettlements€from€R&H's€costs.€€CERCLA,€as€amended€by€SARA,€statesÐ ° Ðthat€"[a]€person€who€has€resolved€its€liability€to€the€òòUnitedÐ \¬ ÐStatesóó€or€a€òòStateóó€.€.€.€does€not€discharge€any€of€the€otherÐ X Ðpotentially€liable€persons€unless€its€terms€so€provide,€but€itÐ ´  Ðreduces€the€potential€liability€of€the€others€by€the€amount€of€theÐ ` ° Ðsettlement."€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€9613(f)(2)€(emphasis€added).€€We€haveÐ  \  Ðheld€that€this€"plain€language€admits€of€no€construction€other€thanÐ ¸  Ða€dollar-for-dollar€reduction€of€the€aggregate€liability."€€òòUnitedÐ d´  ÐStatesóó€v.€òòCannons€Eng.€Corp.óó,€899€F.2d€79,€92€(1st€Cir.€1990).Ð `  Ðà ` àCERCLA€also€allows€a€private€party€to€seek€contributionÐ ¼  Ðfrom€non„settling€parties,€but,€unlike€a€settlement€with€the€UnitedÐ h¸ ÐStates€or€a€State,€CERCLA€does€not€instruct€a€court€as€to€how€aÐ d Ðsettlement€agreement€between€two€private€parties€affects€theÐ À Ðcontribution€liability€of€non„settling€parties.€€òòSeeóó42€U.S.C.Ð l¼ Ððð9613(f)(1).€€Rather,€CERCLA€charges€a€district€court€to€"allocateÐ h Ðresponse€costs€among€liable€parties€using€such€equitable€factors€asÐ Ä Ðthe€court€determines€are€appropriate."€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€9613(f)(1).Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àWe€read€this€provision€to€give€the€district€courtÐ !l" Ðdiscretion€regarding€the€most€equitable€method€of€accounting€forÐ È"$ Ðsettling€parties.€€We€believe€that€the€district€court€did€not€abuseÐ t$Ä& Ðits€discretion€by€applying€the€pro€tanto€approach€given€theÐ  &p!( Ðcircumstances€of€this€case.€€Courts€that€have€addressed€the€issueÐ Ì'#* Ðof€a€private„party€contribution€suit€involving€settling€partiesÐ x)È$, Ðhave€debated€between€two€approaches.€€The€first€approach,€the€claimÐ $+t&. Ðreduction€approach,€advanced€by€the€Capuanos,€follows€the€method€ofÐ ° Ðthe€Uniform€Comparative€Fault€Act€("UCFA"),€which€provides€that€theÐ \¬ Ðliability€of€non„settlers€is€reduced€by€the€proportionate€share€ofÐ X Ðfault€attributed€to€the€settling€parties.€€UCFA€ðð€2.׃[×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€secondÐ ´  Ðapproach,€the€pro€tanto€approach,€follows€the€method€of€the€UniformÐ ` ° ÐContribution€Among€Tortfeasors€Act€("UCATA"),€which€reduces€theÐ  \  Ðliability€of€litigants€by€the€dollar€amount€of€third„partyÐ ¸  Ðsettlements.€UCATA€ðð€4;€òòseeóó€òòAkzo€Nobel€Coatings,€Inc.óó,€197€F.3d€at€Ð d´  Ð307„08.Ð `  Ðà ` àBoth€of€these€approaches€have€distinct€advantages€and€Ð ¼  Ðdisadvantages.€€The€claim€reduction€approach€"requires€the€court€toÐ h¸ Ðdetermine€the€responsibility€of€all€firms€that€have€settled,€asÐ d Ðwell€as€those€still€involved€in€the€litigation."€€òòId.óóat€307.€€SuchÐ À Ða€process€can€lead€to€a€"complex€and€unproductive€inquiry"€and€mayÐ l¼ Ðbe€unrealistic€in€situations€where€waste€was€deposited€by€hundredsÐ h Ðof€polluters€for€years,€if€not€decades,€prior€to€the€litigation.€Ð Ä Ðâ âòòId.óó€€The€claim€reduction€approach€has€the€benefit,€however,€ofÐ pÀ  Ðensuring,€in€theory,€that€damages€are€apportioned€equitably€amongÐ ° Ðthe€liable€parties.׃Z×Ý ƒÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àIn€contrast,€under€the€pro€tanto€approach€"a€litigatingÐ X Ðdefendant's€liability€will€frequently€differ€from€its€equitableÐ ´  Ðshare,€because€a€settlement€with€one€defendant€for€less€than€itsÐ ` ° Ðequitable€share€requires€the€nonsettling€defendant€to€pay€more€thanÐ  \  Ðits€share."€€òòMcDermott,€Inc.óó€v.€òòAmClydeóó,€511€U.S.€202,€212€(1994);Ð ¸  ÐòòseeóóLewis€A.€Kornhauser€&€Richard€L.€Revesz,€òòSettlements€UnderÐ d´  ÐJoint€and€Several€Liabilityóó,€68€N.Y.U.€L.€Rev.€427,€474€(1993).€Ð `  ÐNonetheless,€the€pro€tanto€approach€is€easier€to€administer€and€isÐ ¼  Ðthe€approach€adopted€by€CERCLA€when€there€is€a€settlement€betweenÐ h¸ Ða€person€and€the€United€States€or€a€State.€€òòSeeóó42€U.S.C.€ðð9613Ð d Ð(f)(2).Ð À Ðà ` àThe€different€approaches€to€accounting€for€settlingÐ l¼ Ðparties€can€produce€different€results€and,€for€uniformity€purposes,Ð h Ðit€may€be€wise€to€choose€one€of€these€two€approaches.€Ð Ä ÐòòSeeóóòòMcDermott,€Inc.óó,€511€U.S.€at€207€(granting€certiorari€becauseÐ pÀ  Ðthe€courts€of€appeals€had€differing€approaches€for€determining€howÐ !l" Ða€settlement€with€less€than€all€of€the€defendants€in€an€admiraltyÐ È"$ Ðcase€affect€the€liability€of€non„settling€defendants).€€At€thisÐ ° Ðjuncture,€however,€we€decline€to€do€so.€€CERCLA€provides€theÐ \¬ Ðdistrict€court€with€the€discretion€to€allocate€response€costs€amongÐ X Ðliable€parties,€and€we€believe€that€determining€how€a€settlementÐ ´  Ðaffects€the€liability€of€the€non„settling€parties€is€within€thatÐ ` ° Ðdiscretion.€€While€it€is€not€unimaginable€that€the€use€of€one€ofÐ  \  Ðthese€approaches€might€produce€a€result€so€inequitable€that€itÐ ¸  Ðwould€constitute€an€abuse€of€discretion,€in€this€case€it€did€notÐ d´  Ðand€therefore€we€do€not€disturb€the€district€court's€utilization€ofÐ `  Ðthe€pro€tanto€approach.Ð ¼  Ðò òD.€€The€district€court's€factual€findingsó óÐ h¸ Ðà ` àThe€Capuanos€contend€that€the€district€court€committedÐ 0€ Ðclear€error€by€basing€its€findings€of€fact€on€the€depositionÐ Ü, Ðtestimony€of€Warren€Picillo,€Sr.,€rather€than€on€the€depositionÐ ˆØ Ðtestimony€of€Jack€and€Daniel€Capuano.€€Ultimately,€"weighing€theÐ 4„ Ðevidence€and€assessing€the€witnesses'€credibility€is€uniquely€theÐ à0 Ðprovince€of€the€district€court"€and€when€there€are€"two€permissibleÐ ŒÜ  Ðviews€of€the€evidence€.€.€.€the€factfinder's€choice€between€thoseÐ 8!ˆ" Ðcompeting€views€cannot€be€clearly€erroneous."€€òòFed.€Refinance€Co.Ð ä"4$ ÐInc.óó€v.€òòKlockóó,€352€F.3d€16,€29€(1st€Cir.€2003)€(citations€omitted).€Ð $à& ÐThe€task€of€assessing€witness€credibility€in€this€case€was€aÐ <&Œ!( Ðdifficult€one€as€both€sides€produced€testimony€calling€forÐ è'8#* Ðscrupulous€credibility€evaluation.€€On€the€one€hand,€the€testimonyÐ ”)ä$, Ðcontained€in€Warren€Picillo's€deposition€was€tainted€by€the€factÐ @+&. Ðthat€he€had€attempted€to€extort€money€from€the€Capuanos€in€exchangeÐ ° Ðfor€his€silence€or€favorable€testimony.€€On€the€other€hand,€theÐ \¬ Ðtestimony€of€Jack€and€Daniel€Capuano€was,€in€the€district€court'sÐ X Ðwords,€"wholly€incredible"€as€they€openly€admitted€that€their€priorÐ ´  Ðdeposition€testimony€contained€"carefully€constructed€lies."€€InÐ ` ° Ðthe€end,€the€district€court€had€to€determine€whose€testimony€wasÐ  \  Ðbelievable€by€examining€the€testimony€of€all€the€parties€inÐ ¸  Ðrelation€to€the€documentary€evidence.€€After€conducting€theÐ d´  Ðrequisite€inquiry,€we€conclude€that€the€district€court€did€notÐ `  Ðcommit€clear€error€in€its€factual€findings.Ð ¼  Ðò òE.€€Transporter€Liabilityó óÐ h¸ Ðà ` àThe€Capuanos€appeal€the€district€court's€conclusion€thatÐ 0€ Ðthe€Capuanos€transported€hazardous€waste€to€the€Picillo€site.Ð Ü, ÐCERCLA€imposes€transporter€liability€on€"any€person€who€accepts€orÐ ˆØ Ðaccepted€any€hazardous€substances€for€transport€to€disposal€orÐ 4„ Ðtreatment€facilities,€incineration€vessels€or€sites€selected€byÐ à0 Ðsuch€person"€from€which€there€is€a€release€of€hazardous€substances.Ð ŒÜ  Ð42€U.S.C.€ðð€9607(a)(4).€€The€district€court€concluded€that€UnitedÐ 8!ˆ" ÐSanitation€and€its€officers,€Jack€and€Daniel€Capuano,€were€liableÐ ä"4$ Ðas€transporters€for€7.94%€of€the€waste€delivered€to€the€PicilloÐ $à& Ðsite€since€Jack€and€Daniel€selected€the€Picillo€site€and€UnitedÐ <&Œ!( ÐTransportation€transported€960€55„gallon€drums€of€hazardous€wasteÐ è'8#* Ðâ âto€the€site.Ð ”)ä$, Ðà ` àThe€Capuanos€argue€that€the€district€court's€finding€wasÐ ° Ðâ âclearly€erroneous€because€(1)€United€Sanitation€did€not€transportÐ \¬ Ðhazardous€waste;€(2)€United€Sanitation€and€the€Capuanos€had€noÐ X Ðtrucks€capable€of€transporting€hazardous€waste;€and€(3)€the€onlyÐ ´  ÐCapuano€remotely€identified€with€hazardous€waste€disposal€wasÐ ` ° ÐAnthony€Capuano.€€After€examining€the€record,€we€find€that€theÐ  \  Ðdistrict€court's€conclusion€that€the€Capuanos€were€"transporters"Ð ¸  Ðwas€not€clearly€erroneous.Ð d´  Ðà ` àFirst,€Picillo€testified€that€"the€Capuanos€themselvesÐ `  Ðbrought€their€own€waste€down€[to€the€Picillo€site]€on€their€ownÐ ¼  Ðtrucks"€and€that€some€of€the€barrels€"came€from€Danny€Capuano'sÐ h¸ Ðplace."€€Although€this€testimony€supports€the€finding€that€theÐ d ÐCapuanos€physically€transported€some€of€the€waste,€we€haveÐ À Ðinterpreted€CERCLA€not€to€impose€liability€on€a€transporter€whoÐ l¼ Ðmerely€follows€the€directives€of€a€generator.€€òòSeeóóòòDavisóó,€261€F.3dÐ h Ðat€55.€€Rather,€for€CERCLA€liability€to€attach,€a€transporter€mustÐ Ä Ð"actively€participate€in€the€selection€decision€or€have€substantialÐ pÀ  Ðinput€in€that€decision."€€òòId.óó€€In€this€case,€the€Capuanos€hadÐ !l" Ðsubstantial€input€in€the€decision,€often€making€the€finalÐ È"$ Ðdetermination€whether€to€allow€waste€to€be€dumped€at€their€own€landÐ t$Ä& Ðfill€or€to€send€it€on€to€the€Picillo€site.€€Further,€the€CapuanosÐ  &p!( Ðarranged€for€employees€of€the€Scientific€Chemical€Corporation€toÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âvisit€the€Picillo€site€as€a€possible€waste€dumping€location.€€AfterÐ x)È$, Ðviewing€the€site,€the€visitors€concluded€"this€would€be€an€idealÐ ° Ðspot."Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àSecond,€according€to€deposition€and€trial€testimony,Ð X Ðtrucks€carrying€hazardous€waste€would€arrive€at€the€Capuanos€placeÐ ´  Ðof€business€only€to€be€redirected€by€the€Capuanos,€or€theirÐ ` ° Ðemployee€Louie€Falcone,€to€the€Picillo€site.€€Indeed,€since€theÐ  \  ÐPicillo€site€was€difficult€to€find,€the€Capuanos€would€come€to€theÐ ¸  ÐPicillo€site€"in€a€pick„up€truck€in€front€of€the€big€trucks€andÐ d´  Ðshow€them€where€the€farm€was€and€show€them€where€the€dump€was,€toÐ `  Ðdump"€the€hazardous€waste.€€òòSeeóó42€U.S.C.€ðð€9601(26)€(definingÐ ¼  Ð"transportation"€as€"the€movement€of€a€hazardous€substance€by€anyÐ h¸ Ðmode").Ð d Ðà ` àThird,€when€the€drivers€arrived€at€the€Picillo€site,€theyÐ À Ðwould€give€Picillo,€Sr.€a€bill€of€lading.€€At€the€end€of€the€week,Ð l¼ ÐPicillo,€Sr.€would€take€the€bills€of€lading€to€the€Capuanos€to€getÐ h Ðpaid.€€The€record€confirms€that€Mr.€Picillo€received€UnitedÐ Ä ÐSanitation€checks€signed€by€Jack€Capuano€and€Dan€Capuano.€€AlthoughÐ pÀ  Ðthese€payments€do€not,€in€and€of€themselves,€prove€that€theÐ !l" ÐCapuanos€transported€the€waste,€the€payments€do€support€theÐ È"$ Ðinference€that€the€Capuanos€were€involved€with€the€transportationÐ t$Ä& Ðof€waste€to€the€Picillo€site.Ð  &p!( Ðò òF.€€Operator€Liabilityó óÐ Ì'#* Ðà ` àThe€Capuanos€appeal€the€district€court's€conclusion€thatÐ ”)ä$, Ðthe€Capuanos€were€liable€as€operators€of€the€Picillo€site.€€CERCLAÐ @+&. Ðimposes€liability€on€"the€owner€and€operator€of€a€vessel€or€aÐ ° Ðfacility."€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€9607(a)(2).€€"The€phrase€'owner€andÐ \¬ Ðoperator'€is€defined€only€by€tautology€.€.€.€as€'any€person€owningÐ X Ðor€operatingðð€a€facility,€ðð€9601(20)(A)(ii).€.€.€.€"€€òòUnited€StatesóóÐ ´  Ðv.€òòBestfoodsóó,€524€U.S.€51,€56€(1998).€€The€Supreme€Court€hasÐ ` ° Ðclarified€that,€"under€CERCLA,€an€operator€is€simply€someone€whoÐ  \  Ðdirects€the€workings€of,€manages,€or€conducts€the€affairs€of€aÐ ¸  Ðfacility."€€òòId.óóat€66.€€More€specifically,€"an€operator€mustÐ d´  Ðmanage,€direct,€or€conduct€operations€specifically€related€toÐ `  Ðpollution,€that€is,€operations€having€to€do€with€the€leakage€orÐ ¼  Ðdisposal€of€hazardous€waste,€or€decisions€about€compliance€withÐ h¸ Ðenvironmental€regulations."€òòId.óóat€66„67.Ð d Ðà ` àThe€district€court's€conclusion€that€the€Capuanos€wereÐ À Ðoperators€of€the€site€was€not€clearly€erroneous.€€First,€theÐ l¼ ÐCapuanos€approached€Warren€Picillo€with€the€idea€of€dumping€on€hisÐ h Ðpig€farm.€€Once€Warren€agreed,€he€gave€the€Capuanos€exclusiveÐ Ä Ðdisposal€rights€at€the€site€and€the€Capuanos€hired€a€bulldozer€toÐ pÀ  Ðclear€the€trees€and€"dig€a€big,€big€hole."€€The€Capuanos€walked€theÐ !l" Ðoperator€of€the€bull„dozer€to€the€site€and€"showed€him€what€to€doÐ È"$ Ðand€how€to€do€it."€€Such€actions€are€consistent€with€those€of€anÐ t$Ä& Ðoperator€of€a€facility€"who€directs€the€workings€of,€manages,€orÐ  &p!( Ðconducts€the€affairs€of€a€facility."€€òòId.óó€at€56€(1999).Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àSecond,€as€discussed€earlier,€the€Capuanos€€directed€theÐ x)È$, Ðhazardous€waste€to€the€Picillo€site.€€If€the€drivers€of€the€wasteÐ $+t&. Ðdid€not€know€how€to€reach€the€site,€the€Capuanos€would€drive€themÐ ° Ðto€the€site€so€they€could€dump€the€waste.€€Further,€the€CapuanosÐ \¬ Ðmanaged€and€conducted€the€affairs€of€the€Picillo€site€by€organizingÐ X Ðand€implementing€its€payment€structure.€€The€waste€generators€paidÐ ´  Ðthe€Capuanos€to€dispose€of€their€waste€and€then€the€Capuanos€wouldÐ ` ° Ðgive€Warren€Picillo€a€share€of€the€money.€€"[O]perator€liabilityÐ  \  Ðrequires€an€ultimate€finding€of€.€.€.€involvement€with€operationsÐ ¸  Ðhaving€to€do€with€the€leakage€or€disposal€of€hazardous€waste."€Ð d´  ÐòòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòKayser-Roth€Corp.óó,€272€F.3d€89,€102€(1st€Cir.Ð `  Ð2001)€(internal€quotations€and€citation€omitted).€€The€fact€thatÐ ¼  Ðthe€Capuanos€developed€the€idea€for€using€the€site,€prepared€theÐ h¸ Ðsite€for€dumping,€arranged€for€waste€to€be€dumped€at€the€site,Ð d Ðshowed€transporters€where€to€dump€on€the€site,€and€collectedÐ À Ðpayment€and€transmitted€a€share€to€Warren€Picillo€for€dumping€atÐ l¼ Ðthe€site€demonstrates€that€the€district€court's€conclusion€that€theÐ h ÐCapuanos€were€liable€as€operators€of€the€site€was€not€clearlyÐ Ä Ðerroneous.Ð pÀ  Ðò òG.€€Arranger€Liabilityó óÐ !l" Ðà ` àThe€Capuanos€appeal€the€district€court's€conclusion€thatÐ ä"4$ Ðthe€Capuanos€were€liable€as€arrangers.€€The€district€courtÐ $à& Ðconcluded€that€the€Capuanos€were€arrangers€because€their€conductÐ <&Œ!( Ð"constituted€active€participation€as€a€broker€in€the€disposal€ofÐ è'8#* Ðtheir€customer's€waste."€€The€Capuanos€argue€that€arrangerÐ ”)ä$, Ðliability€can€only€be€imposed€on€a€party€that€owned€or€possessedÐ @+&. Ðhazardous€materials,€not€on€a€party€that€brokered€the€disposal€ofÐ ° Ðhazardous€material.€€We€review€whether€arranger€liability€canÐ \¬ Ðattach€to€a€party€that€brokered€the€disposal€of€waste€de€novo€asÐ X Ðsuch€review€entails€statutory€interpretation€of€42€U.S.C.€ðð9607Ð ´  Ð(3).€€òòSeeóóòòUnited€Techs.€Corp.óó,€33€F.3d€at€98.€€We€review€whetherÐ ` ° Ðthe€Capuanos€acted€as€a€broker€for€the€disposal€of€hazardous€wasteÐ  \  Ðfor€clear€error.Ð ¸  Ðà ` àAn€arranger€is€defined€asÐ d´  ÐÓÓà8 ` àany€person€who€by€contract,€agreement,€orÐ `  Ðotherwise€arranged€for€disposal€or€treatment,Ð æ6 Ðor€arranged€with€a€transporter€for€transportÐ ¼  Ðfor€disposal€or€treatment,€of€hazardousÐ ’â Ðsubstances€owned€or€possessed€by€such€person,Ð h¸ Ðòòby€any€other€party€or€entityóó,€at€any€facilityÐ >Ž Ð.€.€.€owned€or€operated€by€another€party€orÐ d Ðentity€and€containing€such€hazardousÐ ê: Ðsubstances,€.€.€.€.€ÐÀ` x` x ÐÌÓMÓ42€U.S.C.€ðð€9607(3)€(emphasis€added).€€We€begin€our€inquiry€byÐ l¼ Ðexamining€the€plain€language€of€the€statute.€€This€portion€of€42Ð h ÐU.S.C.€ðð€9607(3)€can€be€read€two€ways,€depending€on€which€words€theÐ Ä Ðclause€"by€any€other€party€or€entity"€modifies.€€First,€this€clauseÐ pÀ  Ðcan€be€read€to€modify€the€preceding€words€"owned€or€possessed€byÐ !l" Ðsuch€persons,"€which€would€make€liable€any€person€who€arranged€forÐ È"$ Ðthe€disposal€of€a€hazardous€substance€"owned€or€possessed€by€suchÐ t$Ä& Ðperson€[or]€by€any€other€party€or€entity."€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóóv.Ð  &p!( ÐòòMottoloóó,€629€F.€Supp.€56,€60€(D.N.H.€1984)€(holding€that€theÐ Ì'#* Ðarranger€liability€"provision€clearly€states€that€the€person€whoÐ x)È$, Ðarranges€for€disposal€or€transport€for€disposal€of€hazardousÐ $+t&. Ðsubstances€need€not€own€or€possess€the€waste").€€Or,€second,€theÐ ° Ðclause€can€be€read€to€modify€the€words€"disposal€or€treatment,"Ð \¬ Ðwhich€would€make€the€sentence€read€"any€person€who€.€.€.€arrangedÐ X Ðfor€disposal€or€treatment€.€.€.€by€any€other€party€or€entity."€€TheÐ ´  Ðsentence€structure€of€ðð€9607(3)€makes€it€clear€that€the€latterÐ ` ° Ðinterpretation€is€the€correct€one.€€The€clause€"by€any€other€partyÐ  \  Ðor€entity"€clarifies€that,€for€arranger€liability€to€attach,€theÐ ¸  Ðdisposal€or€treatment€must€be€performed€by€another€party€or€entity,Ð d´  Ðas€was€the€case€here.Ð `  Ðà ` àSome€courts€have€held€parties€liable€as€arrangers€even€ifÐ ¼  Ðthey€did€not€actually€own€or€physically€possess€the€hazardous€wasteÐ h¸ Ðso€long€as€they€had€the€authority€to€control€the€handling€andÐ d Ðdisposal€of€the€hazardous€substances.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð À ÐòòNortheastern€Pharm.€&€Chem.€Co.óó,€810€F.2d€726,€743€(8th€Cir.€1986)Ð l¼ Ð(holding€that€"requiring€proof€of€personal€ownership€or€actualÐ h Ðphysical€possession€of€hazardous€substances€as€a€precondition€ofÐ Ä Ðliability€.€.€.€would€be€inconsistent€with€the€broad€remedialÐ pÀ  Ðpurposes€of€CERCLA");€òòGould,€Inc.óó€v.€òòA.M.€Battery€&€Tire€Serv.óó,€954Ð !l" ÐF.€Supp.€1020€(M.D.€Pa.€1997);€òòNew€Yorkóó€v.€òòSCA€Servs.,€Inc.óó,€844€F.Ð È"$ ÐSupp.€926€(S.D.N.Y.€1994);€òòEmergency€Technical€Servs.€Corp.óó€v.Ð t$Ä& ÐòòMorton€Int'lóó,€1993€U.S.€Dist.€LEXIS€8018€(N.D.€Il.€1993);€òòUnitedÐ  &p!( ÐStatesóó€v.€òòBlissóó,€667€F.€Supp.1298€(E.D.€Mo.€1987);€òòMottoloóó,€629€F.Ð Ì'#* ÐSupp.€at€60;€òòsee€alsoóó€òòSea€Lionóó€v.€òòWall€Chem.€Corp.óó,€974€F.€Supp.Ð x)È$, Ð589,€596€(S.D.€Tex.€1996)€(noting€that€"under€definitive€and€wellÐ $+t&. Ðreasoned€authorities,€the€ownership€definition€[for€arrangerÐ ° Ðliability]€is€quite€broad€and€includes€constructive€possession").€Ð \¬ ÐMost€of€these€cases€involved€a€corporate€officer€of€a€generator€ofÐ X Ðhazardous€waste€claiming€he€could€not€be€liable€as€an€arrangerÐ ´  Ðbecause€he€did€not€personally€own€or€possess€the€waste.€Ð ` ° ÐòòNortheastern€Pharm.óó,€810€F.2d€at€746€(holding€that€a€corporateÐ  \  Ðofficer€is€liable€as€an€arranger€for€making€corporate€decisionsÐ ¸  Ðabout€the€handling€and€disposal€of€hazardous€substances);€òòMottoloóó,Ð d´  Ð629€F.€Supp.€at€60€(discussing€the€liability€of€a€corporateÐ `  Ðofficer).€€Thus,€these€holdings€reflect€the€idea€that€a€corporateÐ ¼  Ðofficer€can€be€liable€as€an€arranger€if€he€controls€the€decision€toÐ h¸ Ðdispose€of€the€waste€on€behalf€of€his€company€that€owns€the€waste.€Ð d ÐThese€cases€are€distinguishable€from€the€case€at€hand€because€thisÐ À Ðcase€does€not€involve€corporate€officers;€rather€it€involves€aÐ l¼ Ðparty€that€does€not€own€the€waste€and€that€arranges€for€theÐ h Ðdisposal€of€others'€waste.Ð Ä Ðà ` àThe€case€of€òòSCA€Servicesóó,€844€F.€Supp.€926,€althoughÐ pÀ  Ðsimilar€to€this€case,€is€also€distinguishable.€€€In€òòSCA€Servicesóó,Ð !l" Ða€transporter€accepted€waste€for€disposal.€€Subsequent€to€theÐ È"$ Ðpickup,€the€transporter€learned€it€could€not€dispose€of€the€wasteÐ t$Ä& Ðat€its€designated€site,€so€the€transporter€arranged€for€a€differentÐ  &p!( Ðtransporter€to€pick€up€the€waste€and€dispose€of€it.€€òòId.óó€at€928.€Ð Ì'#* ÐIn€òòSCA€Servicesóó,€the€first€transporter€went€beyond€its€role€asÐ x)È$, Ðtransporter€and€effectively€became€an€arranger€by€taking€possessionÐ $+t&. Ðof€the€waste€and€making€arrangements€for€the€waste€to€be€picked€upÐ ° Ðand€disposed€of€by€another€company.€€òòId.óó€€Unlike€the€transporter€inÐ \¬ ÐòòSCA€Servicesóó,€though,€the€Capuanos€did€not€take€possession€of€theÐ X Ðwaste€before€arranging€to€have€it€disposed€by€another€transporter.Ð ´  Ðà ` àThere€is€a€category€of€cases,€however,€that€involvesÐ ` ° Ðdefendants€similar€to€the€Capuanos,€brokers€who€arranged€for€aÐ  \  Ðgenerator's€waste€to€be€disposed€of€illegally.€€òòSeeóó€òòGould,€Inc.óó€Ð ¸  Ð954€F.€Supp.€1020€(a€broker€who€arranged€for€the€disposal€of€waste,Ð d´  Ðmade€contact€with€the€site,€and€received€a€profit€is€liable€as€anÐ `  Ðarranger);€òòEmergency€Technicalóó,€1993€U.S.€Dist.€LEXIS€8018€(holdingÐ ¼  Ðthat€a€broker€who€was€actively€involved€in€the€timing,€manner€andÐ h¸ Ðlocation€of€the€disposal€of€hazardous€substances€could€be€liable€asÐ d Ðan€arranger);€òòBlissóó,€667€F.€Supp.€1298€(broker€liable€as€anÐ À Ðarranger€because€controlled€the€place€and€manner€of€disposal).€Ð l¼ ÐThese€cases€involved€brokers€who€did€not€own€or€transport€hazardousÐ h Ðwaste€but€controlled€the€hazardous€waste's€disposal.€€These€courtsÐ Ä Ðheld€that€a€broker€could€be€liable€as€an€arranger,€and€we€agree.Ð pÀ  Ðà ` àWhen€a€broker€arranges€for€the€disposal€of€hazardousÐ !l" Ðwaste€and€it€does€so€by€exercising€control€over€the€waste,€suchÐ È"$ Ðcontrol€can€amount€to€constructive€possession€of€the€waste.€€WereÐ t$Ä& Ðwe€to€interpret€CERCLA€not€to€impose€liability€on€a€party€thatÐ  &p!( Ðconstructively€possessed€hazardous€waste€and€arranged€for€itsÐ Ì'#* Ðillegal€disposal,€then€the€statute€would€be€subject€to€a€loopholeÐ x)È$, Ðthrough€which€brokers€and€middlemen€could€escape€liability€byÐ $+t&. Ðarranging€to€have€hazardous€waste€picked€up€and€deposited€at€anÐ ° Ðillegal€site.€€In€addition€to€escaping€liability,€the€broker€wouldÐ \¬ Ðalso€profit€by€charging€a€fee€for€his€services.€€Indeed,€theÐ X ÐCapuanos€earned€most€of€their€profits€in€this€manner.€€The€CapuanosÐ ´  Ðfound€a€site,€the€Picillo€pig€farm,€where€hazardous€waste€could€beÐ ` ° Ðdumped€illegally.€€They€then€arranged€for€the€waste€to€be€picked€upÐ  \  Ðfrom€various€waste€generators€across€New€England€and€dumped€on€theÐ ¸  Ðillegal€site.€€A€broker€should€not€be€able€to€profit€from€suchÐ d´  Ðactivity,€much€less€escape€liability.€€We€therefore€hold€that€aÐ `  Ðbroker€can€be€liable€as€an€arranger€if€the€broker€controls€theÐ ¼  Ðdisposal€of€the€waste.Ð h¸ Ðà ` àSince€the€Capuanos,€as€discussed€above,€selected,Ð d Ðsecured,€and€directed€the€waste€to€the€Picillo€site,€all€for€a€fee,Ð À Ðit€was€not€clearly€erroneous€for€the€district€court€to€concludeÐ l¼ Ðthat€the€Capuanos€were€liable€as€arrangers€given€our€interpretationÐ h Ðof€the€statute.Ð Ä Ðà@ÄÄìàò òIV.€€òòPost„trial€issuesóóˆÐ pÀ  ÐA.€€Measure€of€contribution€entitlementó óÐ 8!ˆ" Ðà ` àThe€district€court€entered€a€monetary€judgment€in€favorÐ #P$ Ðof€R&H€based€upon€the€costs€associated€with€the€groundwaterÐ ¬$ü& Ðcleanup.€€The€Capuanos€contend€that€any€contribution€entitlementÐ X&¨!( Ðshould€have€been€based€on€aggregate€response€costs,€includingÐ (T#* Ðâ âmonies€expended€on€soil€remediation.€€We€review€the€districtÐ °)%, Ðcourt's€legal€conclusion€on€this€issue€de€novo.€€òòCarigliaóó€v.€òòHertzÐ ° ÐEquip.€Rental€Corp.óó,€363€F.3d€77,€82€(1st€Cir.€2004).Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àIn€interpreting€CERCLA's€contribution€provisions,€thisÐ X Ðcircuit€"give[s]€the€word€'contribution'€its€generally€acceptedÐ ´  Ðlegal€meaning."€€òòBrowning-Ferris€Indus.óó,€33€F.3d€at€99.€€WhenÐ ` ° Ðapplied€to€an€environmental€case,€the€term€contribution€"refers€toÐ  \  Ðan€action€by€a€responsible€party€to€recover€from€anotherÐ ¸  Ðresponsible€party€that€portion€of€its€costs€that€are€in€excess€ofÐ d´  Ðits€pro€rata€share€of€the€òòaggregate€response€costsóó."€òòId.óó€at€103Ð `  Ð(emphasis€added).€€Focusing€on€the€words€"aggregate€responseÐ ¼  Ðcosts,"€the€Capuanos€contend€that€the€district€court€erred€by€notÐ h¸ Ðcalculating€the€soil€remediation€costs€together€with€theÐ d Ðgroundwater€remediation€costs.€€We€disagree.€€Contribution€is€theÐ À Ðright€"of€one€who€has€discharged€a€common€liability€to€recover€ofÐ l¼ Ðanother€also€liable,€the€aliquot€portion€which€he€ought€to€pay€orÐ h Ðbear."€òòId.óó€at€99€(quoting€Black's€Law€Dictionary€399€(6th€ed.Ð Ä Ð1990)).€€In€the€action€before€the€district€court,€the€Capuanos€andÐ pÀ  ÐR&H€shared€common€liability€for€the€groundwater€remediation€only.€Ð !l" ÐSince€the€Capuanos€had€contribution€immunity€for€costs€relating€toÐ È"$ Ðthe€soil€remediation,€it€was€not€error€for€the€district€court€toÐ t$Ä& Ðconclude€that€the€costs€associated€with€the€soil€remediation€wereÐ  &p!( Ðnot€relevant.Ð  Ì'#* Ðò òB.€€Awarding€of€contribution€entitlementó óÐ ° Ðà ` àThe€district€court€determined€that€R&H's€share€ofÐ xÈ Ðliability€for€its€hazardous€waste€at€the€Picillo€site€was€3.23%.€Ð $t ÐR&H€paid€the€United€States€$4,636,725€in€groundwater€cleanup€costsÐ Ð  Ðand€received€$382,807€in€settlements.€€Thus,€R&H's€total€netÐ | Ì Ðpayment€for€the€groundwater€cleanup€to€the€United€States€wasÐ ( x  Ð$4,253,918.Ð Ô$  Ðà ` àThe€district€court€concluded€that€the€total€estimatedÐ €Ð  Ðcost€of€the€groundwater€cleanup€would€be€$49,600,000.€€ByÐ ,|  Ðmultiplying€the€total€estimated€cost€of€the€cleanup€($49,600,000)Ð Ø( Ðby€R&H's€share€of€responsibility€(3.23%),€the€district€courtÐ „Ô Ðconcluded€that€R&H's€share€of€payment€for€the€groundwaterÐ 0€ Ðremediation€should€have€been€$1,602,080.€€Since€R&H€had€alreadyÐ Ü, Ðpaid€$4,253,918,€the€district€court€concluded€that€the€CapuanosÐ ˆØ Ðwere€liable€for€the€$2,651,838€that€R&H€paid€over€its€fair€shareÐ 4„ Ð($4,253,918€„€$1,602,080).Ð à0 Ðà ` àThe€Capuanos€contend€that€the€district€court€should€notÐ ŒÜ  Ðhave€entered€a€monetary€judgment€since€the€cost€of€the€groundwaterÐ 8!ˆ" Ðcleanup€is€unknown€and,€therefore,€it€is€impossible€to€calculateÐ ä"4$ Ðwhether€R&H€paid€an€amount€in€excess€of€its€pro€rata€share.€€It€isÐ $à& Ðfirmly€established€in€this€circuit€that€a€party€may€seekÐ <&Œ!( Ðdeclaratory€relief€in€a€contribution€action.€€òòDavisóó,€261€F.3d€atÐ è'8#* Ð47.€€By€allowing€such€relief,€parties€"will€know€their€share€ofÐ ”)ä$, Ðcosts€before€they€are€incurred."€€òòId.óó€(citing€òòBoeing€Co.óó,€207€F.3dÐ @+&. Ðat€1191).€€Indeed,€"the€more€liability€can€be€limited€andÐ ° Ðquantified,€the€more€practical€it€is€for€a€party€to€budget€andÐ \¬ Ðborrow€to€finance€it."€€òòBoeing€Co.óó,€207€F.3d€at€1191.€€Taking€thisÐ X Ðlogic€one€step€further,€the€district€court€in€this€case€entertainedÐ ´  Ðestimates€of€the€costs€of€the€groundwater€remedy€and€entered€aÐ ` ° Ðjudgment€based€on€the€submitted€evidence.€€In€so€doing,€theÐ  \  Ðdistrict€court€did€not€abuse€its€discretion.Ð ¸  Ðà ` àR&H€presented€the€district€court€with€three€alternativesÐ d´  Ðfor€calculating€estimated€response€costs.€€First,€R&H€proposed€thatÐ `  Ðthe€common€liability€was€$5,969,202.52,€based€upon€the€responseÐ ¼  Ðcosts€the€United€States€incurred€until€this€litigation€in€theÐ h¸ Ðdistrict€court.€€As€the€district€court€correctly€noted,€this€amountÐ d Ðis€only€a€small€fraction€of€the€costs€expected€to€be€incurred€inÐ À Ðthe€future.€€Second,€R&H€submitted€the€total€costs€for€theÐ l¼ Ðgroundwater€remedy€as€estimated€by€the€EPA's€Record€of€Decision,Ð h Ðwhich€was€$22,300,000.€€Last,€R&H€submitted€the€estimate€providedÐ Ä Ðby€the€Ashland€Group,€a€group€of€PRPs€that€has€sued€R&H€forÐ pÀ  Ðcontribution€in€the€United€States€District€Court€for€the€DistrictÐ !l" Ðof€New€Jersey.€€This€estimate€was€$49,600,000.Ð È"$ Ðà ` àIn€some€cases,€it€may€be€impossible€to€estimate€the€totalÐ t$Ä& Ðcost€of€a€remediation.€€In€other€cases,€the€available€estimates€mayÐ  &p!( Ðbe€too€outdated€to€make€an€informed€calculation.€€In€this€case,Ð Ì'#* Ðâ âhowever,€the€district€court€was€presented€with€a€recent€estimateÐ x)È$, Ðprovided€by€a€group€of€companies€performing€the€groundwater€remedy.€Ð ° ÐThe€Capuanos€did€not€challenge€the€accuracy€of€this€estimate.Ð \¬ Ðâ âà ` àThe€district€court€acted€consistent€with€CERCLA's€goalsÐ X Ðby€entering€a€monetary€judgment€before€the€remediation€wasÐ ´  Ðcompleted.€€Entering€a€monetary€judgment€fosters€an€incentive€forÐ ` ° Ðtimely€settlements€and€provides€finality€for€those€parties€thatÐ  \  Ðchoose€to€settle.€€òòSeeóó€òòUnited€Techs.€Corp.óó,€33€F.3d€at€103€(statingÐ ¸  Ðthat€CERCLA€"was€designed€to€encourage€settlements€and€provide€PRPsÐ d´  Ða€measure€of€finality€in€return€for€their€willingness€to€settle").Ð `  Ðà ` àBy€settling€with€the€United€States,€a€PRP€pays€a€portionÐ ¼  Ðof€the€response€costs.€€By€seeking€contribution€from€other€PRPs,€aÐ h¸ Ðsettling€PRP€seeks€to€recoup€the€portion€it€paid€in€excess€of€itsÐ d Ðpro€rata€share.€€If€a€PRP€is€unable€to€receive€a€monetary€judgmentÐ À Ðuntil€the€remediation€process€is€complete,€then€a€PRP€may€beÐ l¼ Ðreluctant€to€settle€knowing€it€will€be€unable€to€recoup€any€moneyÐ h Ðit€paid€in€excess€of€its€pro€rata€share€until€the€remediation€isÐ Ä Ðcompleted.€€In€contrast,€by€not€settling,€a€PRP€could€be€heldÐ pÀ  Ðliable€for€a€percentage€of€the€cleanup€in€a€contribution€action€butÐ !l" Ðforestall€payment€of€that€percentage€until€the€cleanup€isÐ È"$ Ðcompleted.€€Thus,€a€non„settler€could€avoid€payment€to€the€PRP€thatÐ t$Ä& Ðdid€settle€for€many€years,€if€not€decades.€€Such€an€approach€favorsÐ  &p!( Ða€non„settling€PRP€over€a€settling€PRP,€the€antithesis€of€whatÐ Ì'#* Ðâ âCERCLA€was€enacted€to€achieve.Ð x)È$, Ðà ` àEntering€a€monetary€judgment€is€a€double„edged€sword€forÐ ° Ðâ âboth€parties.€€For€example,€in€this€case,€if€the€response€costs€areÐ \¬ Ðmore€than€estimated,€R&H€will€receive€a€windfall€at€the€expense€ofÐ X Ðthe€Capuanos.€€In€contrast,€if€the€response€costs€are€less€thanÐ ´  Ðestimated,€the€Capuanos€will€receive€a€windfall€at€the€expense€ofÐ ` ° ÐR&H.€€In€a€CERCLA€action,€the€district€court€is€afforded€broadÐ  \  Ðdiscretion€in€apportioning€liability€because€it€is€very€difficultÐ ¸  Ðto€determine€accurately€the€liability€of€each€party.€€As€a€result,Ð d´  Ðone€party€may€be€forced€to€pay€more€than€its€equitable€share.€€òòSeeóó,Ð `  Ðòòe.g.óó,€òòDavisóó,€261€F.3d€at€48„49;€òòUnited€Techs.€Corp.óó,€33€F.3d€atÐ ¼  Ð102„03;€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.€òòCharles€George€Trucking,€Inc.óó,€34€F.3dÐ h¸ Ð1081,€1086€(1st€Cir.€1994).€€The€fact€that€the€€monetary€judgmentÐ d Ðis€entered€based€on€an€estimate,€therefore,€does€not€on€its€ownÐ À Ðmake€that€judgment€unjust.€€The€district€court€entertained€manyÐ l¼ Ðpossibilities€regarding€the€estimate€of€total€response€costs€andÐ h Ðboth€sides€had€opportunities€to€suggest€whether€the€estimatedÐ Ä Ðresponse€cost€was€too€low€or€too€high.€€After€reviewing€theÐ pÀ  Ðpossible€estimated€costs,€the€district€court€concluded€thatÐ !l" Ð$49,600,000€was€the€best€estimate€of€total€response€costs€andÐ È"$ Ðentered€a€judgment€using€that€estimate.€€We€believe€it€was€notÐ t$Ä& Ðerror€to€do€so.Ð  &p!( Ðò òC.€€Joint€and€Several€Liabilityó óÐ Ì'#* Ðà ` àThe€district€court€held€that€"judgment€shall€enterÐ ”)ä$, Ðagainst€Defendants€Jack€and€Daniel€Capuano,€and€United€Sanitation"Ð @+&. Ðin€the€amount€of€$2,651,838.€€The€Capuanos€briefly€argue€that€theÐ ° Ðdistrict€court€erred€by€entering€judgment€in€this€manner€and€thatÐ \¬ Ðthe€district€court€should€have€allocated€a€percentage€ofÐ X Ðresponsibility€to€Jack€and€Daniel€individually€for€which€they€wouldÐ ´  Ðhave€been€severally€liable.€€As€we€stated€previously,€"we€òòóóhaveÐ ` ° Ðsteadfastly€deemed€waived€issues€raised€on€appeal€in€a€perfunctoryÐ  \  Ðmanner,€not€accompanied€by€developed€argumentation."€€òòSeeóóÐ ¸  ÐòòBongiornoóó,€106€F.3d€at€1034.€€The€dearth€of€argumentation€not€onlyÐ d´  Ðdeprives€this€court€an€explanation€of€the€basis€of€an€argument,€itÐ `  Ðalso€confuses€one's€adversary.€€Indeed,€the€Capuanos€briefÐ ¼  Ðargumentation€on€this€point€produced€a€tangential€line€ofÐ h¸ Ðargumentation€from€R&H€in€response,€resulting€in€the€proverbial€twoÐ d Ðships€passing€in€the€night.€€Therefore,€we€will€not€address€thisÐ À Ðissue€and€consider€it€waived.Ð l¼ Ðò òD.€€Pre„judgment€interestó óÐ h Ðà ` àThe€district€court€awarded€R&H€prejudgment€interestÐ à0 Ðciting€the€language€of€42€U.S.C.€ðð€9607,€which€provides€that€"[t]heÐ ŒÜ  Ðamounts€recoverable€in€an€action€under€this€section€shall€includeÐ 8!ˆ" Ðinterest€on€the€amounts€recoverable€.€.€.€.€Such€interest€shallÐ ä"4$ Ðaccrue€from€the€later€of€(i)€the€date€payment€of€a€specified€amountÐ $à& Ðis€demanded€in€writing,€or€(ii)€the€date€of€the€expenditureÐ <&Œ!( Ðconcerned."€€42€U.S.C.€ðð€9607(a).€€The€Capuanos€argue€that€theÐ è'8#* Ðdistrict€court's€reliance€on€ðð€9607€was€misplaced€since€this€actionÐ ”)ä$, Ðwas€brought€pursuant€to€ðð€9613,€not€ðð€9607.€€The€prejudgmentÐ @+&. Ðinterest€statute€specifically€limits€itself€to€amounts€recoverableÐ ° Ð"òòunder€this€sectionóó."€€Reviewing€this€question€of€statutoryÐ \¬ Ðinterpretation€de€novo,€we€affirm€the€awarding€of€prejudgmentÐ X Ðinterest.€€òòSeeóóòòUnited€Techs.€Corp.óó,€33€F.3d€at€98.Ð ´  Ðà ` àPrior€to€the€passage€of€SARA,€there€was€"much€uncertaintyÐ ` ° Ð.€.€.€as€to€whether€a€responsible€party€could€recover€from€otherÐ  \  ÐPRPs€the€portion€of€its€cleanup€costs€that€exceeded€its€pro€rataÐ ¸  Ðshare."€€òòId.óó,€at€100€(citation€omitted).€€This€uncertainty€endedÐ d´  Ðwhen€Congress€adopted€42€U.S.C.€ðð€9613.€€"A€principal€goal€ofÐ `  Ð[this]€new€section€9613€was€to€clarify€and€confirm€the€right€of€aÐ ¼  Ðperson€held€jointly€and€severally€liable€under€CERCLA€to€seekÐ h¸ Ðcontribution€from€other€potentially€responsible€parties€.€.€.€."€Ð d ÐòòId.óó(quotation€marks€and€citations€omitted).€€Thus,€ðð€9613€beginsÐ À Ðby€incorporating€provisions€of€ðð€9607.€€òòSeeóó42€U.S.C.€ðð€9613(f)(1)Ð l¼ Ð(stating€that€"[a]ny€person€may€seek€contribution€from€any€otherÐ h Ðperson€who€is€liable€or€potentially€liable€under€section€107(a)€[42Ð Ä ÐU.S.C.S.€ðð€9607(a)]").€€Since€the€prejudgment€interest€provision€ofÐ pÀ  Ððð€9607€refers€to€"actions€under€this€section"€and€because€ðð€9613(f)Ð !l" Ðincorporates€the€liability€provisions€of€ðð€9607,€an€action€forÐ È"$ Ðcontribution€also€incorporates€the€prejudgment€interest€provision.€Ð t$Ä& ÐòòSeeóó€òòConsol.€Coal€Co.óó,€345€F.3d€at€415;€òòGoodrich€Corp.óó€v.€òòTown€ofÐ  &p!( ÐMiddlesburyóó,€311€F.3d€154,€177€(2d€Cir.€2002);€€òòBancamericaÐ Ì'#* ÐCommercial€Corp.óó,€v.€òòMosher€Steel€of€Kansas,€Inc.óó,€100€F.3d€792,Ð x)È$, Ð801€(10th€Cir.€1996).€€For€some€purposes,€such€as€statutes€ofÐ $+t&. Ðlimitations,€ðð€9613€and€ðð€9607€are€€"distinct,€non„overlappingÐ ° Ðanodynes."€òòUnited€Techs.€Corp.óó,€33€F.3d€at€103€(distinguishingÐ \¬ Ðbetween€the€different€statutes€of€limitations€for€a€ðð€9607€and€aÐ X Ððð9613€action).€€But,€since€ðð€9613€incorporates€the€liabilityÐ ´  Ðprovision€of€ðð€9607,€we€believe€it€also€incorporates€theÐ ` ° Ðprejudgment€interest€provision.Ð  \  Ðà ` àAs€the€Tenth€Circuit€stated,€and€the€Second€CircuitÐ ¸  Ðagreed,€such€a€conclusion€is€consistent€with€both€logic€and€policy.€Ð d´  ÐòòBancamerica€Commercial€Corp.óó,€100€F.3d€at€801;€òòGoodrich€Corp.óó,€311Ð `  ÐF.3d€at€177.Ð ¼  ÐÓÓà8 ` àThe€purpose€of€contribution€is€to€equitablyÐ h¸ Ðapportion€response€costs€among€liable€parties.Ð >Ž ÐFailure€to€grant€prejudgment€interest€onÐ d Ðcontribution€awards€may€instead€result€inÐ ê: Ðòòinequitableóó€apportionment,€because€partiesÐ À Ðawarded€contribution€will€still€have€lost€theÐ –æ Ðtime€value€of€the€money€they€spent€on€behalfÐ l¼ Ðof€other€liable€persons,€and€those€personsÐ B’ Ðwill€have€gained€an€equal€amount.€Further,Ð h Ðrefusal€to€grant€prejudgment€interest€is€aÐ î> Ðdisincentive€for€private€parties€toÐ Ä Ðvoluntarily€undertake€cleanup€actions€becauseÐ šê Ðthey€will€lose€the€time€value€of€the€moneyÐ pÀ  Ðthey€spend€on€behalf€of€other€persons.€Ð F –! ÐIndeed,€it€would€create€a€perverse€incentiveÐ !l" Ðfor€responsible€parties€to€delay€involvementÐ ò!B# Ðin€cleanups,€because€as€they€delay,€they€gainÐ È"$ Ðthe€time€value€of€the€funds€they€should€beÐ ž#î% Ðinvesting€in€the€cleanup.Ðt$Ä&` x` x ÐÌÓ¾|ÓòòBancamerica€Commercial€Corp.óó,€100€F.3d€at€801€(emphasis€inÐ  &p!( Ðoriginal);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòGoodrich€Corp.óó,€311€F.3d€at€177.Ð Ì'#* Ðà ` àThe€conclusion€that€awarding€prejudgment€interest€wasÐ x)È$, Ðappropriate€does€not€end€our€inquiry.€€The€Capuanos€also€contendÐ $+t&. Ðthat€prejudgment€interest€cannot€be€awarded€because€R&H€waited€toÐ ° Ðsupplement€the€record€after€trial€„„€rather€than€submittingÐ \¬ Ðevidence€during€trial€„„€regarding€accrual€dates€and€numbersÐ X Ðrequired€to€calculate€interest.€€Other€circuits€have€held,€and€weÐ ´  Ðagree,€that€"because€interest€determinations€are€compoundedÐ ` ° Ðcalculations,€it€may€be€impossible€for€parties€to€provide€accurateÐ  \  Ðcalculations€prior€to€the€court's€allocation€of€response€costÐ ¸  Ðliability.€€In€such€instances,€parties€may€submit€their€interestÐ d´  Ðcalculations€to€the€court€subsequent€to€that€finding."€€òòBancamericaÐ `  ÐCommercial€Corp.óó,€100€F.3d€at€802€(citing€cases);€òòUnited€Statesóó€v.Ð ¼  ÐòòTown€of€Brightonóó,€153€F.3d€307,€321€(6th€Cir.€1998).€€Therefore,Ð h¸ Ðthe€district€properly€awarded€prejudgment€interest.Ð d Ðà ` àLast,€the€Capuanos€argue€that€the€district€court€erred€byÐ À Ðaccepting€the€accrual€date€submitted€by€R&H.€€The€district€courtÐ l¼ Ðcalculated€prejudgment€interest€from€May€5,€1999,€the€date€when€R&HÐ h Ðmade€a€written€demand€to€the€Capuanos.€€The€Capuanos€argue,Ð Ä Ðhowever,€that€this€written€demand€letter€was€never€presented€to€theÐ pÀ  Ðdistrict€court€during€or€after€the€trial.€€Attached€to€R&H's€motionÐ !l" Ðfor€prejudgment€interest€was€an€"Exhibit€A"€which€calculatedÐ È"$ Ðprejudgment€interest€from€May€5,€1999€through€July€31,€2003.€€TheÐ t$Ä& Ðdistrict€court€relied€on€this€exhibit€and€found€that€the€letter€wasÐ  &p!( Ðsent€on€May€5,€1999.€€The€Capuanos€did€not€object€to€this€finding.€Ð Ì'#* ÐTherefore,€the€prejudgment€interest€award€is€affirmed.€€òòSeeóó€òòTown€ofÐ x)È$, ÐBrightonóó,€153€F.3d€at€321€(stating€that€there€was€"an€adequateÐ $+t&. Ðbasis€for€the€district€court€to€calculate€prejudgment€interest"Ð ° Ðwhen€the€plaintiff€"claim[ed],€without€refutation,€that€it€issuedÐ \¬ Ða€demand€letter"€on€a€certain€date).Ð X Ðà@¤¤#ìàò òV.€€òòConclusionóóó óˆÐ ´  Ðà ` àFor€the€reasons€discussed€herein,€we€affirm€the€judgmentÐ | Ì Ðof€the€district€court.Ð ( x  Ðà ` àò òòòAffirmedóó.ó ó