## Facts

- David James Carr worked as a civilian maintenance foreman on the firing range at Fort Drum, an Army installation in New York.
- Carr’s duties included assigning civilian workers to tasks on the range and supervising their work.
- In May 1986, Carr directed workers to dispose of cans of waste paint by transporting them in a truck to a water-filled pit on the range and throwing the cans into the pond.
- Some cans leaked, releasing paint into the water.
- After workers expressed concern and reported the problem to Carr, he directed them to cover the cans by dumping earth into the pit and otherwise conceal the disposal rather than reporting the release.
- Carr was charged under CERCLA § 103, which requires any person “in charge of a facility” to immediately notify the appropriate federal agency of a reportable release of a hazardous substance.
- At trial, the court instructed the jury that the truck and the disposal area were “facilities” and that a person could be “in charge” if he had supervisory control, including where control was shared with others.
- The jury convicted Carr, and he appealed, challenging the jury instruction defining “in charge.”

## Issues

1. Whether a maintenance foreman with supervisory authority over the work crew, truck, and disposal site can be a “person in charge of a facility” under CERCLA § 103.
2. Whether the jury instruction improperly broadened “in charge” by allowing conviction based on “any authority” or by extending liability to a relatively low-level employee.
3. Whether the truck and the disposal area could be treated as CERCLA “facilities” for purposes of § 103’s reporting requirement.

## Decision

- The Second Circuit affirmed Carr’s conviction.
- The court held that CERCLA § 103 is not limited to top-level officials and can apply to an operational supervisor with practical authority over the activities causing the release.
- The court concluded that, viewed as a whole, the jury instructions adequately tied “in charge” to supervisory authority and control, and did not permit conviction based on trivial involvement.
- The court upheld treating both the truck used for transport and the disposal area as “facilities” under CERCLA.

## Legal Principles

- CERCLA § 103 imposes a criminal duty to report a reportable hazardous-substance release on any person “in charge of a facility.”
- Where CERCLA does not define “in charge,” the term is construed to reach individuals with supervisory responsibility and practical control over the relevant operations, not solely the highest-ranking officials.
- A person may be “in charge” even if authority over the facility is shared with others; exclusive control is not required.
- “Facility” under CERCLA is construed broadly and may include mobile equipment used in disposal activities and the specific location where disposal occurs.
- Appellate review of jury instructions examines the charge as a whole; language suggesting “any authority” is not reversible if the overall instruction requires actual supervisory control and decision-making responsibility.

## Conclusion

The Second Circuit upheld Carr’s CERCLA § 103 conviction, holding that a supervisor who directed and controlled the disposal operation could be found “in charge of a facility,” even if not a top official, and that the jury instructions and facility determinations were legally sufficient.


United States v. Carr, 880 F.2d 1550 (2d Cir. 1989)