to the extent ITT seeks contribution for reimbursement costs, it is clearly limited to a § 113(f) claim, and this § 113(f) claim is barred by the statute of limitations. ITT, 506 F.3d at 459 n. 3 (“We note that Plaintiff did, in fact, concede before the district court that its § 113 contribution claim with respect to the NBIA Site is time-barred.”). Accordingly, the issue in this motion is whether ITT, who engaged in work at the site pursuant to a consent decree, can rec a party expends funds for cleanup solely due to the imposition of liability under an administrative or court order or final judgment, it has not in fact, incurred, necessary costs of response within the meaning of section 107(a)”); United Techs. Corp. v. Browning-Ferris Indus., 33 F.3d 96, 102 (1st Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>); Akzo Coatings, Inc. v. Aigner Corp., 30 F.3d
holding that investigatory costs are considered costs of response under cercla recognizing that an award of temporary attorneys fees and costs is based on an assessment of need and ability to pay as well as the reasonableness of the fees and costs holding that the term contribution as used in  113 covers parties disproportionate payments of firstinstance costs as well as parties disproportionate payments of reimbursed costs holding that the costs of computerized research should be characterized not as taxable costs but as attorneys fees holding attorney fees not allowable as costs