to do so. See Appleton Papers, 2012 WL 2704920, at *11. First, as the Appleton Papers court correctly concluded, imposing liability on parties lacking this knowledge would not deter them from arranging for the disposal of a product they do not believe to be harmful. See id, It cannot be said, moreover, that such a party was attempting to “contract away” its responsibility for polluting if it did not even realize it was polluting. See id. This interpretation is also consistent with the Supreme Court’s recognition that parties who arrange for the sale of a useful product that contains hazardous substances are not liable as arrangers under CERCLA even when they know the substances “will be leaked, spilled, dumped, or otherwise discarded.” Burlington N., 556 U.S. at 510, 129 S.Ct. 1870 (<HOLDING>). Under this rule, a party who sells a product
holding past owners liable for the disposal of hazardous wastes that leaked from an underground storage tank holding that arranger liability claim requires proof that defendant arranged for the disposal of hazardous substances owned or possessed by defendant holding that a party that sold a product to another party arranged for disposal of a hazardous substance holding that circumstantial evidence alone may establish discriminatory intent holding that such knowledge may provide evidence of the entitys intent to dispose of its hazardous wastes but alone is insufficient to prove that an entity planned for the disposal