Opinion ID: 561846
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: CERCLA Violation

Text: 41 At the time of the asbestos emissions, CERCLA provided in pertinent part: 42 Any person ... in charge of a facility from which a hazardous substance is released, other than federally permitted release, in a quantity equal to or greater than that determined pursuant to section 9602 of this title [that is, more than one pound of asbestos] who fails to notify immediately the appropriate agency of the United States Government as soon as he has knowledge of such release ... shall ... be fined ... or imprisoned ... or both.... 43 42 U.S.C. Sec. 9603(b)(3) (1986) (emphasis added). 44 As we explained above, knowledge as used in such regulatory statutes means knowledge that one is doing the statutorily prescribed acts, not knowledge that the statutes or potential health hazards exist. As we noted, the very nature of hazardous substances such as asbestos puts individuals controlling the substances on notice that criminal statutes probably regulate the handling and release of the substances. 45 The district court properly charged jurors that to prove Buckley guilty of failure to notify, the government needed to prove that Buckley knew of the release of more than one pound of asbestos.... The district court also correctly informed jurors that the government needed to establish only knowledge of the presence of the asbestos, not knowledge of the asbestos's legal status. Buckley takes particular exception to the following instruction: 46 The government is not required to prove a wrongful intent or awareness of wrongdoing. The question whether the defendant acted in good faith is not material. It is the responsibility of persons who voluntarily associate themselves with asbestos demolition operations as supervisors or persons in charge to comply with the law. 47 Perhaps, viewed in isolation, this instruction might lead a juror to conclude that the statute did not specify knowledge as an element of the offense. However, immediately prior to reading this instruction, the district court unequivocally foreclosed such a misinterpretation by stating that the government needed to prove that Buckley knew of the presence of asbestos at the demolition site. 48 Accordingly, we hold that taken as a whole, the instruction accurately states the law.