## Facts

- MacDonald & Watson Waste Oil Co. transported and disposed of waste oils and contaminated soil and operated the “Poe Street Lot” disposal site in Providence, Rhode Island, which it leased from Narragansett Improvement Company (NIC).
- NIC held a RCRA permit authorizing disposal of certain liquid hazardous wastes at Poe Street, but neither NIC nor MacDonald & Watson had a permit to dispose of solid hazardous waste there.
- An underground toluene tank leak at Master Chemical Company contaminated surrounding soil; MacDonald & Watson was hired to excavate and dispose of the toluene-contaminated soil.
- Multiple truckloads of the excavated toluene-contaminated soil were taken to and disposed of at the Poe Street Lot; the soil qualified as a solid hazardous waste under RCRA.
- Evidence showed the company president, Eugene K. D’Allesandro, had previously been warned by a consultant that accepting toluene-contaminated soil at Poe Street violated NIC’s permit.
- A federal grand jury charged MacDonald & Watson, NIC, and individuals (including D’Allesandro and employees Faust Ritarossi and Frances Slade) with RCRA felony offenses and CERCLA release-notification violations tied to the Master Chemical shipments.
- After dismissals and severances, 17 counts went to the jury; all defendants were convicted on all submitted counts.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove the excavated soil was toluene-contaminated and constituted hazardous waste regulated under RCRA.
2. Whether there was sufficient evidence that the individual defendants knowingly transported hazardous waste to a facility lacking the required permit under RCRA § 3008(d)(1).
3. Whether federal prosecutors may bring RCRA criminal actions in a state with an EPA-authorized hazardous-waste program.
4. Whether a facility with a RCRA permit for some wastes satisfies § 3008(d) when the permit does not authorize the specific waste and disposal activity at issue.
5. Whether a “responsible corporate officer” instruction may substitute for proof of actual knowledge in a felony prosecution requiring that the defendant acted “knowingly.”

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the RCRA and CERCLA convictions of MacDonald & Watson, NIC, Ritarossi, and Slade.
- The court held the record allowed the jury to find the transported soil was contaminated with toluene and was a RCRA hazardous waste.
- The court upheld the convictions of Ritarossi and Slade, concluding the jury could infer they knew the material was toluene-contaminated soil and knew, or willfully avoided learning, that the facility lacked permit authorization for that waste stream.
- The court held federal criminal enforcement under RCRA remains available in states with authorized hazardous-waste programs.
- The court interpreted “facility which has a permit” in § 3008(d) to require a permit authorizing management of the particular hazardous waste and activity involved; a permit for other wastes did not authorize disposal of toluene-contaminated soil.
- The court reversed D’Allesandro’s RCRA § 3008(d)(1) conviction and remanded because the jury instructions permitted conviction without finding he had actual knowledge of the charged shipments, improperly using a responsible-corporate-officer theory to satisfy the statute’s explicit knowledge element.

## Legal Principles

- RCRA felony liability under § 3008(d) requires proof that the defendant acted “knowingly”; corporate status and general supervisory responsibility cannot replace that mens rea.
- Knowledge in environmental felonies may be proved by circumstantial evidence and may include deliberate ignorance where supported by the record, but it may not be presumed from officer position alone.
- For § 3008(d)(1)–(2)(A), a “permit” must authorize the specific hazardous waste and the specific treatment, storage, or disposal activity; a facility is “without a permit” as to wastes or activities outside its permit’s scope.
- Federal criminal enforcement authority under RCRA is not displaced by an EPA-authorized state hazardous-waste program; state authorization does not create exclusive state criminal jurisdiction.
- Evidence establishing contamination and regulated hazardous-waste status may rest on sampling, expert testimony, and linkage between excavation practices and disposed loads sufficient for a reasonable jury finding.
- CERCLA release-notification convictions may be sustained when evidence supports defendants’ roles in handling released hazardous substances and awareness of contamination, subject to correct instructions on any required knowledge element.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit sustained most convictions for transporting and disposing of toluene-contaminated soil at a facility not permitted for that waste, confirming that RCRA permits are waste-specific and that federal criminal enforcement continues in authorized states, but it reversed the company president’s felony transportation conviction because the jury was allowed to convict without finding actual knowledge of the charged shipments.


United States v. MacDonald & Watson Waste Oil Co., 933 F.2d 35 (1st Cir. 1991)