Opinion ID: 201206
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Contribution Immunity

Text: 45 In 1988, the Capuanos entered settlement agreements with the United States and Rhode Island. In return for contribution immunity, the Capuanos paid $1,500,000 to the United States and $500,000 to Rhode Island. The Capuanos argue that their Consent Decree provides contribution immunity against R & H's contribution claims. 3 The Capuanos' settlement agreement provided immunity for future liability for past response costs, but it did not provide immunity for claims related to groundwater protection or remediation. The Capuanos argue that R & H failed to prove that the money R & H paid to the United States, and for which R & H now seeks contribution, was for groundwater protection or remediation. We disagree. The Capuanos' argument is nothing more than creative word play. According to the Capuanos, R & H settled with the government for past response costs. R & H's past response costs are costs incurred by the United States through October 25, 1995. Thus, R & H's past response costs would be future liability for past response costs as it pertains to the Capuanos and the Capuanos have contribution protection for future liability for past response costs. 46 Regardless of how the Capuanos choose to phrase the costs incurred, it is undisputed that the four corners of the Capuanos Consent Decree does not provide contribution immunity for costs relating to groundwater protection or remediation. At trial, R & H introduced documents detailing the work performed by the United States in regard to the groundwater remediation and introduced the testimony of an expert that the cost of the groundwater Remedial Investigation (RI) and Feasibility Study (FS) exceeded $4.7 million. The expert testified that the groundwater RI/FS was different from the soil RI/FS and the $4.7 million did not include any costs dealing with the soil remediation. R & H ultimately settled with the United States for $4.35 million and is seeking contribution for a portion of that amount. The evidence showed, therefore, that the costs R & H paid to the United States, for which it now seeks contribution, were for groundwater protection and remediation, and the Capuanos do not have contribution immunity for costs relating to groundwater protection or remediation. 47 In the alternative, the Capuanos argue that even if there was proof showing that R & H is seeking contribution for the RI/FS relating to the groundwater, a RI/FS is part of a removal action and is not groundwater protection or remediation and thus it is not a cost that was excluded from the Capuanos' Consent Decree. 48 The RI/FS is part of the groundwater protection and remediation process. The purpose of the ... (RI/FS) is to assess site conditions and evaluate alternatives to the extent necessary to select a remedy. Developing and conducting an RI/FS generally includes the following activities: project scoping, data collection, risk assessment, treatability studies, and analysis of alternatives. 40 CFR 300.430. Since the RI/FS is the first step in groundwater protection and remediation, the RI/FS is not a cost excluded by this Consent Decree.