United States v. Charles George Trucking Co., Inc., Civ. A. No. 85-2463-G.

Citation624 F. Supp. 1185
Decision Date14 January 1986
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 85-2463-G.
PartiesUNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES GEORGE TRUCKING COMPANY, INC., et al., Defendants.
CourtUnited States District Courts. 1st Circuit. United States District Courts. 1st Circuit. District of Massachusetts

Samuel L. Silverman, Asst. U.S. Atty., Joseph J. McGovern, Dept. of Justice, Environmental Enforcement Section Washington, D.C., for plaintiff.

Anne Rogers, Margaret E. Sheehan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Environmental Prot. Div., Boston, Mass., for Com. of Mass.

William F. Macauley, Craig & Macauley, Boston, Mass., for defendants.

Bruce F. Smith, Boston, Mass., for Charles George Sr., Charles George Trucking Co.

Richard E. Bachman, Hale, Sanderson, Byrnes & Morto, Boston, Mass., for Dorothy George, Dorothy Lacerte.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN PART AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS

GARRITY, District Judge.

The United States commenced this action on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") against the defendants for their involvement with the Charles George Land Reclamation Trust landfill ("Charles George landfill"), a hazardous waste dump in northeastern Massachusetts. Relief is sought pursuant to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 6901 et seq. The matter now comes before the court upon the government's motion for summary judgment against defendants Charles George, Sr. ("Charles George") and Dorothy George1 with respect to the Fourth Claim for Relief of its complaint. That claim, which is also the subject of the two defendants' motion to dismiss,2 seeks an injunction ordering the defendants to answer EPA information requests and the imposition of civil penalties for their previous failure to do so.

The following facts are undisputed. On February 4, 1985, Charles George and Dorothy George each received a letter from the Director of the Waste Management Division in EPA's Boston office requesting information about the Charles George landfill. The letter contained 26 questions; it informed the defendants of the statutory authority upon which the requests were based and that a failure to furnish the information within thirty days without adequate justification could result in an enforcement action by the EPA and the subsequent imposition of civil penalties. Although defendants' counsel indicated that the defendants would respond by May 5, 1985, the EPA has yet to receive such a response.

In support of its motion for partial summary judgment the government contends that the defendants violated both RCRA and CERCLA by failing to respond. The two statutes require that persons who have handled hazardous wastes in some manner provide information relating to those wastes upon the request of a duly designated representative of the EPA or the president. See RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6927(a) and CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9604(e)(1). Moreover, RCRA provides that any person who violates one of its requirements is liable to the United States for a civil penalty of up to $25,000 per day for each violation. 42 U.S.C. § 6928(g).

The defendants oppose the motion for summary judgment on three grounds. First, they argue that the government exhibits which offered to prove that Charles George and Dorothy George have handled hazardous waste have not been properly authenticated as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 56(e). In response to this challenge, however, the government has submitted certified copies of the public documents previously filed and the affidavits of the custodians of records to authenticate other exhibits. These supplemental filings are sufficient to cure any defects that may have originally existed. See Chronister v. Sam Tanksley Trucking Inc., N.D.Ill.1983, 569 F.Supp. 464. The government's exhibits and Charles George's answers to the government's interrogatories and requests for admissions demonstrate that between 1971 and 1979 the two defendants were trustees of the Charles George landfill with the authority to operate and maintain the landfill; that between 1973 and 1976 Charles George applied for hazardous waste collection and disposal licenses; that Charles George was president, treasurer and a director of Charles George Trucking Company, Inc., a company which hauled hazardous waste; and that Dorothy George was also a director of that company. In sum, the government has demonstrated that no genuine issue of fact exists as to whether these defendants handled hazardous substances.

The defendants also challenge the government's motion for summary judgment on the ground that neither RCRA nor CERCLA require that the defendants disclose certain of the information requested by the EPA. The defendants do not contest that they are required to answer the ten EPA information requests which seek descriptions of the hazardous substances dumped at the landfill and of the manner in which such substances were handled. However, they note that the EPA also seeks information about the preparation of answers to its letters (requests 3, 4), transactions with customers (requests 5, 6, 19, 25, 26), the individual defendant's role in the Charles George landfill and Charles George Trucking Company (requests 16, 18) and the finances of the two companies (requests 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24). The defendants argue that these 16 requests do not concern "information relating to" hazardous waste within the meaning of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6927(a), or CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 6904(e)(1).

The court finds that the defendants' interpretation of these two provisions is too restrictive. The plain language indicates that the EPA's requests need not be confined solely to descriptions of hazardous waste; the information requested must somehow relate to these substances. Clearly, information concerning who shipped or delivered hazardous substances to the landfill (requests 5, 6, 19, 25, 26)3 pertain to those substances; such information will not only assist the EPA in ascertaining the nature of the substances dumped, it will also help the EPA identify other sources of information regarding these substances. Similarly, information regarding the defendant's role in handling the substances involved (requests 16, 18) and how that defendant prepared his or her answers (requests 3, 4) relates to hazardous waste in that it allows the EPA to assess and identify the source of the individual's knowledge regarding these substances.

However, the court also finds that the EPA requests regarding the finances and insurance coverage of the landfill and the trucking company (requests 15, 17, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24) are not related to hazardous substances. The government argues that RCRA and CERCLA authorize the EPA to gather...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • United States v. Charles George Trucking Co., Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • August 15, 1986
    ...the landfill, and members of the George family in connection with their operation of the landfill and the trucking company. On January 14, 1986, 624 F.Supp. 1185, the court granted a substantial portion of the government's motion for partial summary judgment against the George parents, Char......
  • U.S. v. Charles George Trucking Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
    • June 3, 1987
    ...court granted the government's motion for partial summary judgment against the appellants on these issues. United States v. Charles George Trucking Co., 624 F.Supp. 1185 (D.Mass.1986). Although determining that seven of the twenty-six questions contained in the letter were insufficiently re......
  • South Dakota Bd. of Regents v. Hoops
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of South Dakota
    • January 14, 1986
    ... ... H. Ray HOOPS, Defendant ... Civ. No. 85-3042 ... United States District Court, ... v. Mesa Petroleum Co., 576 F.Supp. 1495, 1498-99 (D.Del. 1983) ... the real party in interest.* In Tradigrain, Inc. v. Mississippi State Port Authority, 701 F.2d ... ...
  • Bohl v. Leibowitz
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Massachusetts
    • March 24, 1998
    ...the trial court might have permitted the appropriate amendment of the bill of complaint."). Cf. United States v. Charles George Trucking Co., Inc., 624 F.Supp. 1185, 1187 (D.Mass.1986) (non-movant allowed to supplement affidavits filed in opposition to summary judgment after the sufficiency......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Civil Enforcement of the Clean Air Act
    • United States
    • Air pollution control and climate change mitigation law
    • August 18, 2010
    ...an action brought to enforce either an information request under CAA 23. See, e.g. , United States v. Charles George Trucking Co . , 624 F. Supp. 1185, 16 ELR 20495 (D. Mass. 1986), af’d , 823 F.2d 685 (1st Cir. 1987) (RCRA reporting violations are subject to civil penalties). 24. 42 U.S.C.......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT