The General Metal Fabncators, Inc (GMF). facility in Erwin. Tennessee. was engaged in metal stamping. plating, and painting The facility utilized hazardous chemicals and generated hazardous waste. No RCRA permit had been sought for the GMF facility. The hazardous waste disposal practices at GMF were discovered by chance by state waste-management authorities whose attention was caught, while driving to an appointment at another facility, by two 55-gallon drums abandoned among weeds on GMF's property.
Gale Dean, the production manager, had day-to-day supervision of GMF's production process and employees Among his duties was the instruction of employees on hazardous waste handling and disposal Numerous practices at GMF violated RCRA GMF's plating operations utilized rinse baths contaminated with hazardous chemicals, which were drained through a pipe into an earthen lagoon outside the facility In addition. Dean instructed employees to shovel various kinds of solid wastes from the tanks into 55-gallon drums Dean ordered the construction of a pit. concealed behind the facility. Into which 38 drums of such hazardous waste were tossed. The contents spilled onto the soil from open or corroded drums. Chemical analyses of soil and solid wastes revealed that the lagoon and the pit were contaminated with Chromium In addition, the pit was contaminated with toluene and xylene solvents. All of these substances are hazardous Drums of spent chromic acid solution were also illegally stored on the premises.
Dean was familiar with me chemicals used in each of the tanks on the production lines, and described to authorities the manner in which the contents or the rinse tanks were deposited in the lagoon Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) provided to GMF by the chemical manufacturer clearly stated that various chemicals in use at GMF were hazardous and were subject to state and federal pollution control laws The MSDS were given to investigators by Dean, who demonstrated his knowledge of their contents The MSDS delivered with the chromic acid made specific reference to RCRA and to related EPA regulations Dean informed investigators that he 'had read this RCRA waste code but thought it was a bunch of bull****."
RCRA makes it a crime for "Any person to ... knowingly treat, store, or dispose of any hazardous waste ... without a permit .... "Dean, along with the plant manager and the owners of the company, were indicted for conspiracy to violate RCRA, and, individually, for violations of various sections of the statute Dean was convicted of, among other things, knowingly storing, and of disposing of hazardous wastes without a permit. He appealed the conviction, contending that (1) RCRA requires that the owner of a facility have a permit and that since he was not the owner, he should not have been convicted of storing and disposing without a permit, and (2) that the materials were not hazardous because of the way he had stored or disposed of them Has Dean stated Sound reasons why his conviction should be reversed?