## Facts

- Douglas Hoflin served as Ocean Shores, Washington’s Director of Public Works, overseeing road maintenance and operation of the city sewage treatment plant.
- The city accumulated leftover road paint in 55-gallon drums; some drums still contained paint after jobs ended.
- A fire marshal ordered the drums moved outdoors due to explosion risk; Hoflin was aware the contents were flammable.
- After returning as Director in 1983, Hoflin told the sewage plant director he planned to dispose of the paint by burying the drums at the sewage treatment plant.
- The sewage plant director warned that burying the drums could jeopardize the plant’s NPDES permit; Hoflin stated he would proceed.
- The city also buried sludge removed from the golf course kitchen at the sewage treatment plant, contrary to NPDES permit conditions.
- Hoflin was convicted of (1) aiding and abetting disposal of hazardous waste without a permit under RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A), and (2) aiding and abetting an NPDES-permit violation under the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(1).

## Issues

1. Under 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A), must the government prove the defendant knew there was no permit authorizing the hazardous-waste disposal?
2. Under RCRA, must the government prove the defendant knew the waste met EPA’s technical regulatory definition of “hazardous waste”?
3. Were the jury instructions for the Clean Water Act misdemeanor under 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(1) inadequate so as to require reversal?

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed both convictions.
- The court held RCRA § 6928(d)(2)(A) does not require proof the defendant knew a permit was lacking; it is enough that the defendant knowingly disposed of hazardous waste and the disposal was in fact without a permit.
- The court held the government need not prove the defendant knew the waste’s technical regulatory classification; proof of knowledge of the waste’s harmful character, together with its listed/identified status, was sufficient under the instructions given.
- The court held the Clean Water Act misdemeanor instructions adequately stated the elements and mental state for knowingly aiding and abetting an NPDES-permit violation.

## Legal Principles

- For RCRA illegal disposal under 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A), “knowingly” modifies the act of treating, storing, or disposing of hazardous waste; it does not require knowledge of the “without a permit” condition.
- RCRA’s criminal provisions may be applied as public-welfare regulations: handlers of dangerous wastes are charged with responsibility for compliance even absent proof of awareness of specific permit status.
- RCRA does not require proof that a defendant knew the material’s technical regulatory designation as “hazardous waste,” so long as the defendant knowingly handled/disposed of waste with awareness of its potentially harmful nature and the waste is in fact identified/listed as hazardous.
- Clean Water Act misdemeanor liability under 33 U.S.C. § 1319(c)(1) may be sustained where instructions require findings that conduct violated NPDES permit conditions and the defendant knowingly participated (including via aiding and abetting).

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit upheld Hoflin’s RCRA and Clean Water Act convictions, ruling that illegal hazardous-waste disposal does not require proof the defendant knew a permit was absent or knew the waste’s technical EPA classification, and that the NPDES-permit-violation instructions were sufficient.


United States v. Hoflin, 880 F.2d 1033 (9th Cir. 1989)