In an 8-1 decision with broad implications for CERCLA cleanups, in Burlington N. & S. F. R. Co. v. United States (see Burlington), the U.S. Supreme Court (1) clarified the meaning of "arrang[e] for disposal" under section 107 of CERCLA by ruling that it includes an intent requirement - the arranger is not liable if it did not intend to dispose of the materials, and (2) clarified the level of proof needed to demonstrate divisibility of harm and thereby avoid joint and several liability at multi-party Superfund sites. On the arranger liability issues, the Court held that Shell Oil Company had not "arranged for disposal" when it sold pesticides to a chemical distributor even though it knew the distributor was a sloppy operator and that spills and leaks of its product were occurring. On the divisibility issue, the court found that Burlington N. & S. F. Railroad Company had presented sufficient evidence to show that the harm at the site was reasonably capable of apportionment to defeat joint and several liability, even though the contamination was old and commingled and the evidence was less than perfect. Apportionment has long been recognized as a defense, but the standards of proof required by lower courts had made it almost impossible to prove. This decision will breathe new life into the defense and cause parties at CERCLA sites to consider more carefully the geographic, temporal, and chemical characteristics of commingled contamination to determine whether a divisibility defense can be asserted.