flats and the waters of the New Bedford Harbor (the “Harbor”). Admittedly, it is undisputed that some PCB’s in the Harbor came from federally permitted releases. The sovereigns do not appear to dispute that some, if not all, of the PCB’s discharged through the North Trough after December 30, 1976 are federally permitted releases. Nevertheless, if the sovereigns establish at trial that non-federally permitted releases by Aerovox were a contributing factor to an injury to natural resources and produce evidence that the injury is indivisible, Aerovox will be jointly and severally liable for all the resulting injury unless it can prove that the injury is divisible. O’Neil v. Picillo, 883 F.2d 176,178-179 (1st Cir.1989). See United States v. Monsanto Co., 858 F.2d 160, 172 (4th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Tyson, No. 84-2663 (1988 WL
holding that the government must satisfy its burden of proving contract damages holding that the burden is on the plaintiff holding that the burden of proving lack of negligence is on the owner holding that the burden of proving that the employee did not make reasonable efforts is on the defendant holding that the burden of proving divisibility in a cercla action is on the defendants