## Facts

- William Dee, Robert Lentz, and Carl Gepp were civilian engineers employed by the U.S. Army at Aberdeen Proving Ground, working on chemical-warfare related systems.
- Gepp oversaw operations and maintenance at the “Pilot Plant,” and Dee and Lentz were his superiors.
- Aberdeen held an “umbrella” RCRA permit that designated specific authorized hazardous-waste storage areas, but it did not authorize storage, treatment, or disposal at the Pilot Plant or the “Old Pilot Plant.”
- Aberdeen promulgated APG 200-2, an internal regulation requiring compliance with federal hazardous-waste law and regulations, including RCRA.
- A superseding indictment charged defendants with multiple counts of illegal storage, treatment, and disposal of hazardous wastes at the Pilot Plant (counts 1–3) and at the Old Pilot Plant (count 4), alleging the activities occurred without a RCRA permit.
- A jury in federal district court convicted defendants of multiple violations of RCRA’s criminal provisions, 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d).
- Defendants appealed, arguing RCRA criminal liability did not apply to federal employees at a federal facility, asserting Supremacy Clause-type immunity, and challenging the mens rea proof and trial rulings.

## Issues

1. Whether RCRA’s criminal provisions, 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d), apply to federal employees working at a federal facility.
2. Whether Supremacy Clause (Neagle-type) immunity bars a federal prosecution by the United States against its own employees for alleged violations of federal environmental crimes.
3. What “knowingly” requires under § 6928(d), including whether the government must prove knowledge of the permit requirement or legal unlawfulness.
4. Whether the evidence and jury instructions were sufficient to sustain the convictions.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed the judgments of conviction.
- The court held that RCRA’s criminal provisions apply to federal employees; nothing in § 6928(d) exempts federal personnel from being prosecuted as “persons.”
- The court rejected Supremacy Clause/Neagle-type immunity because the case involved federal prosecution for federal crimes, not a state prosecution conflicting with federal authority.
- The court found sufficient evidence of the required knowledge and concluded the jury instructions, taken as a whole, properly stated the law and did not warrant reversal.

## Legal Principles

- RCRA’s criminal prohibitions in 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d) may be enforced against individual federal employees at federal facilities when they knowingly engage in unpermitted hazardous-waste handling.
- Supremacy Clause/Neagle-type immunity addresses state interference with federal duties and does not bar the federal government from prosecuting federal employees for violating federal criminal law.
- For § 6928(d), “knowingly” focuses on awareness of handling hazardous waste and engaging in the charged conduct (e.g., storage, treatment, disposal), and does not require proof that the defendant knew the permit status or that the conduct violated RCRA.

## Conclusion

The Fourth Circuit affirmed RCRA convictions of Army civilian engineers for unpermitted hazardous-waste activities at unapproved locations, holding that federal employment does not exempt individuals from federal environmental crimes, Supremacy Clause immunity does not apply to federal-on-federal prosecutions, and “knowingly” does not require knowledge of permit-law details.


United States v. Dee, 912 F.2d 741 (4th Cir. 1990)