## Facts

- General Metal Fabricators, Inc. (GMF) operated a metal stamping, plating, and painting facility that used chromic acid and generated hazardous waste, but obtained no RCRA permit.
- State officials discovered hazardous-waste problems after noticing abandoned 55-gallon drums on GMF property.
- Gale E. Dean, GMF’s production manager, supervised daily operations and employees and instructed employees on hazardous-waste handling and disposal.
- GMF drained contaminated plating rinse water through a pipe into an earthen lagoon outside the facility.
- Dean directed employees to shovel solid wastes from tanks into drums and ordered construction of a concealed pit where drums of hazardous waste were dumped.
- The practices caused contamination of soil and the lagoon area.
- Dean was indicted (with others) for conspiracy and substantive RCRA offenses; his trial was severed, and he was convicted of conspiracy, failure to file hazardous-waste documentation, and multiple counts of unpermitted storage and disposal.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Dean “knowingly” treated, stored, or disposed of hazardous waste without a permit under 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d).
2. Whether a non-owner production manager could be criminally liable as a person “engaged in the management”/operator for unpermitted hazardous-waste handling.
3. Whether the wastes at issue qualified as “hazardous waste” under 42 U.S.C. § 6921 and implementing regulations.

## Decision

- The Sixth Circuit affirmed Dean’s convictions on all counts.
- The court held the government need not prove Dean knew of the permit or documentation requirements; it was enough that he knowingly engaged in the storage/disposal conduct involving wastes that were in fact hazardous.
- The court held Dean’s operational control and direct supervision of waste-handling practices supported treating him as a person engaged in management of hazardous waste for purposes of RCRA’s criminal provisions.
- The court held the chromic acid and related wastes satisfied the statutory and regulatory definitions of hazardous waste.

## Legal Principles

- For RCRA crimes under 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d), “knowingly” generally requires knowledge of the relevant facts (the conduct and the hazardous nature of the material), not knowledge of the permit scheme or regulatory classifications.
- RCRA criminal liability is not limited to corporate owners; individuals with functional, day-to-day control over hazardous-waste handling may qualify as persons engaged in management/operators.
- A waste may be “hazardous” under 42 U.S.C. § 6921 through regulatory listing or by exhibiting regulatory characteristics; proof may be made through evidence showing the waste fits those definitions.

## Conclusion

The Sixth Circuit upheld convictions arising from unpermitted hazardous-waste storage and disposal at a metal-finishing facility, ruling that a production manager who directed the waste practices could be held criminally liable where he knowingly carried out the conduct involving hazardous wastes, even without proof that he knew the permit and recordkeeping requirements.


United States v. Dean, 969 F.2d 187 (6th Cir. 1992)