NCJ Number
139283
Journal
George Washington Law Review Volume: 59 Issue: 4 Dated: (April 1991) Pages: 862-888
Date Published
1991
Length
27 pages
Annotation
This analysis of prosecution of environmental offenses focuses on the requirement of criminal intent set forth in section 6928(d) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, and concludes that the appellate court decision in United States v. Dee correctly interpreted this requirement.
Abstract
William Dee and others were chemical engineers employed as civilian supervisors by the U.S. Army. Dee and Lentz were held accountable for the illegal storage and disposal of hazardous waste by their subordinates, because, as defined by the RCRA, they knew the general nature of the material and that it was not an innocuous substance like water. By establishing that these managers were aware of preexisting violations, the government enabled the jury to infer that Dee and Lentz knowingly failed to correct violations within their area of supervision and control which they had the power to correct. This application of the responsible corporate officer doctrine properly holds those officers criminally liable who have the ultimate responsibility for, and the power to protect, the public health and the environment from the dangers of hazardous waste, but fail to do so.