Resource Conservation And Recovery Act Prosecutions
Overview of RCRA
The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 is a key federal law in the U.S. that regulates hazardous and non-hazardous waste management. Violations can lead to criminal and civil liability, including fines, injunctions, and imprisonment. Criminal liability under RCRA often involves improper disposal of hazardous waste or knowingly endangering human health or the environment.
RCRA prosecutions usually involve:
Improper storage of hazardous waste
Illegal dumping or transport of hazardous waste
Misrepresentation of hazardous waste treatment
Violations that lead to environmental contamination
Case 1: United States v. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (1988)
Facts:
Chemical Waste Management (CWM), a major hazardous waste disposal company, was prosecuted for illegal dumping of toxic waste in unlined landfills in Houston, Texas. The company failed to comply with RCRA standards for landfill construction and monitoring.
Legal Issue:
Whether knowingly failing to operate a hazardous waste facility according to RCRA’s requirements constitutes a criminal offense.
Outcome:
CWM pleaded guilty to criminal charges.
The company paid over $1 million in fines.
Federal court emphasized that corporate managers can be held personally liable for knowingly violating RCRA.
Significance:
This case reinforced that corporations cannot ignore hazardous waste regulations, and RCRA violations can carry serious financial and criminal consequences.
Case 2: United States v. BFI Waste Systems, Inc. (2000)
Facts:
BFI Waste Systems illegally disposed of hazardous solvents in landfills that were not approved for such waste. Employees falsified records to cover up violations.
Legal Issue:
Violation of RCRA § 3008(a) and criminal provisions for illegal disposal and falsification of records.
Outcome:
BFI was fined $5 million.
Two senior employees were sentenced to prison terms of 18 months and 12 months, respectively.
The court held that intentional falsification and concealment significantly aggravated liability.
Significance:
Highlights that employee misconduct, coupled with corporate negligence, leads to both corporate and individual liability under RCRA.
Case 3: United States v. Waste Technologies Industries, Inc. (2007)
Facts:
Waste Technologies operated a facility storing hazardous industrial solvents. The company failed to maintain proper containment, resulting in leakage that contaminated nearby soil and groundwater.
Legal Issue:
Violation of RCRA’s “cradle-to-grave” requirement, which mandates proper management of hazardous waste throughout its lifecycle.
Outcome:
The company was convicted of willful endangerment of human health and the environment.
Paid $2.5 million in fines and required to fund a $10 million cleanup.
Senior management faced probation for failing to supervise operations adequately.
Significance:
This case demonstrates that environmental contamination directly linked to negligence or willful misconduct can trigger severe RCRA enforcement actions.
Case 4: United States v. Veolia Environmental Services (2013)
Facts:
Veolia was charged with illegal transportation and disposal of hazardous wastes, including mercury-containing lamps, without following RCRA manifest and record-keeping requirements.
Legal Issue:
Violation of RCRA § 6928(d) for improper transport and disposal.
Outcome:
Veolia agreed to plead guilty.
Paid a $1.2 million criminal fine and implemented strict internal compliance programs.
The case involved multiple state-level environmental agencies coordinating with federal prosecutors.
Significance:
Illustrates the importance of proper record-keeping and transport compliance under RCRA, even for large multinational corporations.
Case 5: United States v. Joseph Mangano (1999)
Facts:
Joseph Mangano, a small business owner in New Jersey, illegally dumped hazardous paint and solvents behind his property to avoid disposal costs. This contamination affected local groundwater supplies.
Legal Issue:
Criminal violation of RCRA § 6928(f) for improper disposal of hazardous waste and endangerment of public health.
Outcome:
Mangano was sentenced to 3 years in prison.
Ordered to pay restitution for environmental cleanup.
This case also served as a warning to small businesses that RCRA liability is not limited to large corporations.
Significance:
Shows that individual actors can be personally criminally liable under RCRA for illegal hazardous waste disposal.
Key Takeaways from RCRA Prosecutions
Both individuals and corporations can face criminal liability.
Violations include improper storage, disposal, transportation, and record-keeping.
RCRA cases often involve significant fines, cleanup costs, and prison sentences.
Intentional misconduct or concealment aggravates penalties.
Compliance programs and environmental audits can mitigate risk but do not prevent criminal liability if violations occur.
RELATED Blog
0 comments