Liability of trustees under CERCLA remains an unanswered question

2 See, e.g., New York v. Shore Realty Corp., 759 F.2d 1032, 1042 (2d Cir.1985) (finding Congressional intent for strict liability in the absence of a specific provision).* Courts have consistently held that liability is joint and several.See, e.g., County Line Inv.Co. v. Tinney, 933 F.2d 1508, 1515 (10th Cir.1991) (per curiam) (stating that joint and several liability is imposed upon resposible parties regardless of fault).However, if a potentially responsible party can demonstrate to the court's satisfaction that the harm is divisible, then the party will be made to pay only for its share.See, e.g., O'Neil v. Picillo, 883 F.2d 176, 178 (lst Cir.1989) ("The rule adopted by the majority of courts, and the one we adopt, is based on the Restatement (Second) of Torts: damages should be apportioned only if the defendant can demonstrate that the harm is divisible.")(citing United States v. Monsanto Co., 858 F.2d 169, 171-73 (4th Cir.1988); United States v. Bliss, 667 F. Supp.1298, 1312-13 (E.D. Mo.1987); United States v. Chem-Dyne Corp., 572 F. Supp.802, 809-11 (S.D Ohio 1983)) (emphasis added).' 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(l)-(4)(1988).