Business 8th Edition by Marianne Jennings

Exercise 16

Changing Your Oil: It Can Be Criminal
Facts
Johnson Towers (Johnson) repairs and overhauls large motor vehicles. In its operations, Johnson uses degreasers and other industrial chemicals that contain methylene chloride and trichlorethylene, classified as "hazardous wastes" under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and as pollutants under the Clean Water Act.
The waste chemicals from Johnson's cleaning operations were drained into a holding tank and, when the tank was full, pumped into a trench. The trench flowed from the plant's property into Parker's Creek, a tributary of the Delaware River. Under RCRA, generators of such wastes must obtain a permit from the EPA, but Johnson had not received or even applied for such a permit.
Jack Hopkins, a foreman, and Peter Angel (defendants) the service manager for Johnson, were charged with criminal violations of the RCRA and the Clean Water Act. Johnson was also charged and pled guilty. Mr. Hopkins and Mr. Angel pled not guilty on grounds that they were not "owners" or "operators" as required for RCRA violations. The trial court agreed and dismissed all charges against the two men except for the criminal conspiracy charges.
The government appealed the dismissal.
Judicial Opinion
SLOVTTER, Circuit Judge
The single issue in this appeal is whether the individual defendants are subject to prosecution under RCRA's criminal provision, which applies to:
any person who -... (2) knowingly treats , stores , or disposes of any hazardous waste identified or listed under this subchapter either - (A) without having obtained a permit under Section 6925 of this title... or (B) in knowing violation of any material condition or requirement of such permit.
If we view the statutory language in its totality, the congressional plan becomes... apparent. First, "person'' is defined in the statute as "an individual, trust, firm, joint stock company, corporation (including a government corporation), partnership, association, State, municipality, commission, political subdivision of a State, or any interstate body" Had Congress meant to take aim more narrowly, it could have used more narrow language. Second, under the plain language of the statute, the only explicit basis for exoneration is the existence of a permit covering the action. Nothing in the language of the statute suggests that we should infer another provision exonerating persons who knowingly treat, store or dispose of hazardous waste but are not owners or operators.
Finally, though the result may appear harsh, it is well established that criminal penalties attached to regulatory statutes intended to protect public health, in contrast to statutes based on common law crimes, are to be construed to effectuate the regulatory purpose.
In summary, we conclude that the individual defendants are "persons" within the RCRA, that all elements of that offense must be shown to have been knowing, but that such knowledge, including that of the permit requirement, may be inferred by the jury as to those individuals who hold the requisite responsible positions with the corporate defendant. For the foregoing reasons, we will reverse the district court's dismissal and we will remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Who is charged with criminal violations?