## Facts

- A hazardous-waste disposal operation used part of a pig farm in Coventry, Rhode Island (the Picillo site) beginning in 1977, receiving drummed and bulk industrial wastes.
- A major explosion and subsequent investigation revealed extensive contamination, and state and federal authorities undertook response actions, leading to the site’s cleanup as a Superfund matter.
- Rohm and Haas Company (R&H) generated some waste deposited at the site and incurred significant cleanup liabilities and payments.
- Daniel J. Capuano, Jr., Jack Capuano, and related entities participated as transporters/haulers and operators involved in bringing wastes to the site.
- Earlier litigation and government settlements addressed portions of the site cleanup and granted the Capuanos contribution protection for matters covered by those settlements.
- Cleanup progressed in phases, including earlier soil-related work and a later groundwater remedial phase with additional, later-incurred costs.
- After paying groundwater remediation costs, R&H (with American Cyanamid) filed a CERCLA § 113(f) contribution action in the District of Rhode Island seeking to shift an equitable share of groundwater cleanup costs to the Capuanos.
- The district court entered judgment for plaintiffs, allocating liability using an estimate of total groundwater cleanup costs (including future costs) and awarding prejudgment interest.

## Issues

1. Whether the CERCLA statute of limitations barred a contribution claim seeking reimbursement for groundwater remediation costs incurred in a later cleanup phase.
2. Whether claim preclusion barred the contribution claim due to prior Picillo-site litigation and settlements.
3. Whether prior government settlements granted the Capuanos contribution protection against private claims for groundwater remediation costs.
4. Whether the district court could allocate contribution liability using estimated total (including future) groundwater cleanup costs and award prejudgment interest.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.
- The contribution claim was timely because the limitations period for the groundwater claim ran from the relevant groundwater response costs and events tied to that phase, not from earlier determinations concerning different response work.
- Claim preclusion did not apply because the groundwater remedial phase and its costs were not reasonably litigable in the earlier actions.
- The Capuanos’ settlement-based contribution protection did not extend to groundwater remediation because the settlements addressed only specified matters (primarily soil-related response work).
- The district court acted within its equitable authority under CERCLA § 113(f) by allocating liability based on expert-supported estimates of total groundwater remediation costs, and prejudgment interest was permissible under CERCLA.

## Legal Principles

- CERCLA § 113(f) authorizes contribution among potentially responsible parties, and courts may allocate response costs using equitable factors.
- For later, phase-specific response work, a contribution limitations period may run from the incurrence of the response costs (or other phase-specific triggering events), rather than from earlier judgments tied to different site work.
- Claim preclusion does not bar a CERCLA contribution claim when the claim depends on new operative facts and costs that were not yet incurred or sufficiently defined in prior litigation.
- Settlement-based contribution protection under CERCLA extends only to the “matters addressed” in the settlement and does not automatically cover later cleanup phases outside that scope.
- Courts may enter contribution judgments using reasonable estimates of total response costs (including future costs) when supported by the record, and may include prejudgment interest to ensure full recovery of recoverable costs.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit held that a generator’s CERCLA contribution action seeking groundwater remediation costs was timely and not barred by prior litigation or the Capuanos’ settlement protections, and it approved equitable allocation based on estimated total cleanup costs and an award of prejudgment interest.


Am. Cyanamid Co. v. Capuano, 381 F.3d 6 (1st Cir. 2004)