United States v. Macdonald & Watson Waste Oil Co.

933 F.2d 35 (1991)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Master Chemical Company had toluene-contaminated soil. It contracted with D to remove the soil. An employee of D signed the contract, and another employee of D supervised the removal and signed all the manifests accepting the contaminated soil at D's facility. It was clear that acceptance of the soil was a violation of the law. Neither NIC, the landlord, nor D reported the disposal of the Master Chemical wastes as a release of a hazardous substance into the environment pursuant to CERCLA § 103(b)(3). D'Allesandro (D1) was president of D. D did not have a license to accept solid wastes and did so when it removed and accepted toluene-contaminated soil from a Masters Chemical Company. At trial, the prosecution conceded that it had no direct evidence against D1 or even that D1 knew that the Masters shipment was even coming into the site. The prosecution alleged that D1 should be held responsible because he was a corporate officer and he was in a position to ensure that D would comply with RCRA regulations. Ds were found guilty. D1 and Nic contend that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions. D1 was the manager and principal of D. There was evidence that he participated actively in the firm's day-to-day management and that he had been warned on other occasions that his company had disposed of toluene-contaminated soil and that this was illegal. There was no direct evidence, however, of his knowledge of the particular shipments at issue. D1 was convicted as president and appealed under a jury instruction about the fact that D1 was a responsible officer.