From our private database of 35,800+ case briefs...
Bell Petroleum Services, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
3 F.3d 889 (1993)
In 1984, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated a chrome-plating shop in Odessa, Texas, as a Superfund site under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). The designation came after the Texas Water Commission conducted an investigation and found that during the chrome-plating process, finished parts were rinsed and the rinse water was pumped out of the building into the ground. The state of Texas conducted a remedial investigation and found that the only source of groundwater in the area, the Trinity Aquifer, contained elevated concentrations of the hazardous material chromium. Remedial efforts were subsequently undertaken. In 1988, the EPA sought to recover response costs from the operators of the chrome-plating shop. The chrome-plating shop was located on property owned by John Leigh from 1967 to 1981. Leigh conducted chrome-plating activities at the shop in 1971 and 1972. In 1972, Bell Petroleum Services, Inc. (Bell) purchased the assets of the shop and leased the property from Leigh. Bell conducted similar, more extensive chrome-plating activities on the property until 1976. In 1976, Sequa Corporation (Sequa) purchased Bell’s shop assets and leased the property from Leigh. Sequa conducted similar chrome-plating activities until 1977. The EPA filed a Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) cost-recovery action in district court against Leigh, Bell, and Sequa (operators) (defendants). The EPA argued that the harm to the Trinity Aquifer could not be apportioned because it was a single harm that was indivisible and required the imposition of joint and several liability. The district court agreed and found Leigh, Bell, and Sequa jointly and severally liable. The district court rejected volume as a basis for apportionment because the proposed apportionment methods were highly speculative due to records being lost and competing theories of apportionment. Sequa appealed, arguing that it was erroneously required to prove a certain basis for apportionment rather than a reasonable basis. Sequa pointed to testimony from various witnesses regarding the wastewater disposal practices and amount of chrome-plating activity conducted by each shop operator and expert testimonies of using different volumetric approaches to calculate the total amount of chromium released by each operator.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Jolly, J.)
Dissent (Parker, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 620,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 620,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 35,800 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.