## Facts

- Gary Wasserson was president and CEO of Sterling Supply Company, which stored commercial laundry and dry-cleaning chemicals in a Philadelphia warehouse.
- Sterling ceased operations in 1994, leaving hundreds of chemical containers in the warehouse, including substances treated as hazardous waste under federal law.
- Wasserson had consulted an environmental professional and learned that hazardous-waste storage and disposal required special legal compliance and added expense.
- By 1999, Wasserson directed a former employee, Charles Hughes, to arrange a warehouse clean-out involving scrap, debris, and chemical containers.
- Hughes lacked experience with hazardous-waste rules and hired a general rubbish-removal contractor found under ordinary “garbage removal” listings.
- Chemicals were removed and taken to a landfill not permitted to accept hazardous waste, without required hazardous-waste manifests and permits.
- The government’s evidence supported that Wasserson knew hazardous waste was present and nevertheless initiated the clean-out without informing Hughes of the hazardous nature of the materials or the compliance requirements.

## Issues

1. Whether 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A), criminalizing knowing disposal of hazardous waste without a permit, is limited to operators of disposal facilities.
2. Whether a defendant who does not operate the disposal facility may be convicted for unpermitted disposal under an aiding-and-abetting theory pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2.
3. Whether the trial evidence was sufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdict on the unpermitted-disposal count.

## Decision

- The Third Circuit reversed the district court’s post-verdict judgment of acquittal on the unpermitted-disposal count.
- The court held that § 6928(d)(2)(A) is not confined to disposal-facility operators and can reach those who cause hazardous waste to be disposed of without a permit.
- The court also held that, absent a clear congressional directive to the contrary, 18 U.S.C. § 2 applies to RCRA offenses and allows conviction of one who aids and abets unpermitted disposal.
- The jury’s guilty verdict on the unpermitted-disposal count was reinstated, with further proceedings consistent with the appellate opinion.

## Legal Principles

- RCRA’s criminal prohibition on knowing disposal of hazardous waste without a permit applies by its terms to “any person” and is not categorically limited to disposal-facility operators.
- Federal aiding-and-abetting liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2 presumptively applies to federal crimes, including environmental crimes, unless Congress clearly excludes it.
- Aiding-and-abetting liability may be supported where the principal offense occurred, the defendant knew the offense’s essential nature, and the defendant intentionally assisted, induced, or caused the unlawful disposal.
- Evidence that a corporate officer understood hazardous-waste compliance requirements yet directed an ordinary trash clean-out without required safeguards can support an inference of intentional facilitation of unpermitted disposal.

## Conclusion

The Third Circuit held that unpermitted hazardous-waste disposal under RCRA is not restricted to disposal-facility operators and that a person who knowingly causes or facilitates such disposal may be convicted as an aider and abettor under 18 U.S.C. § 2; it therefore reinstated the jury’s guilty verdict on the disposal-without-a-permit count.


United States v. Wasserson, 418 F.3d 225 (3d Cir. 2005)