## Facts

- Hayes International Corporation operated an aircraft refurbishing facility in Birmingham, Alabama that generated waste, including jet fuel drained from aircraft and a paint-and-solvent mixture from painting and equipment cleaning.
- Louis H. Beasley, a Hayes employee, handled hazardous-waste disposal responsibilities.
- In early 1981, Beasley made an oral arrangement with Performance Advantage, Inc., under which Performance Advantage bought Hayes’s jet fuel (about $0.20 per gallon) and, in exchange, removed other wastes from Hayes (including the paint/solvent mixture) at no charge.
- Between January 1981 and March 1982, Hayes waste was transported to Performance Advantage on eight occasions.
- In 1982, officials discovered roughly 600 drums of Hayes-generated waste illegally disposed at seven unlicensed sites in Georgia and Alabama; the drums contained the paint/solvent mixture and were dumped or buried.
- RCRA requires waste generators to identify hazardous wastes and use a manifest system to ensure shipment only to permitted facilities.
- Trial evidence included an internal Hayes memorandum requiring non-resale hazardous waste to go to an EPA-approved site with a completed manifest returned, and evidence that Beasley did not manifest shipments of the paint/solvent waste.
- Evidence also indicated Performance Advantage could not recycle the paint waste, no longer wanted it, and that Beasley was informed it was not being recycled.

## Issues

1. Whether sufficient evidence supported the jury’s finding that Hayes and Beasley “knowingly” transported hazardous waste to a facility lacking a permit, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(1).
2. What level of knowledge § 6928(d)(1) requires regarding (a) the hazardous nature of the material and (b) the receiving facility’s permit status.

## Decision

- The Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court’s judgments of acquittal notwithstanding the verdict and reinstated the jury’s guilty verdicts on eight counts under 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(1).
- Applying the sufficiency standard, the court held a rational jury could find beyond a reasonable doubt that defendants knowingly transported hazardous waste to an unpermitted facility.
- The court rejected a requirement that the government prove defendants’ precise, technical knowledge of regulatory classifications or permit details.

## Legal Principles

- On review of a post-verdict acquittal, the question is whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements beyond a reasonable doubt; the appellate court gives no deference to the district court’s contrary view of the evidence.
- Under 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(1), the government must prove the defendant knew the material was hazardous waste and knew, or deliberately avoided knowing, that it was being transported to a facility not properly permitted.
- The knowledge element need not be shown by direct evidence; it may be established through circumstantial evidence, including the nature and economics of the transaction and noncompliance with required manifesting practices.
- In a heavily regulated area, a defendant cannot avoid liability by claiming ignorance of RCRA’s specific requirements when the evidence supports awareness of hazardous characteristics and facts indicating improper disposal.

## Conclusion

The court reinstated RCRA transportation convictions, holding that “knowledge” under § 6928(d)(1) can be inferred from circumstantial evidence showing awareness of hazardous waste handling obligations and facts indicating shipment to an unpermitted facility, without proof of technical expertise about permits or classifications.


United States v. Hayes Int'l Corp., 786 F.2d 1499 (11th Cir. 1986)