U.S. v. Hansen

Decision Date24 August 2001
Docket NumberDocket No. 98-00023-CR-2-1,No. 99-11638,99-11638
Parties(11th Cir. 2001) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHRISTIAN A. HANSEN, ALFRED R. TAYLOR, et al., Defendants-Appellants
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Eleventh Circuit

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia, D.C.

Before BIRCH and DUBINA, Circuit Judges, and HANCOCK*, District Judge.


Alfred R. Taylor, Christian A. Hansen, and Randall W. Hansen appeal their convictions for conspiracy to commit environmental crimes, violating the Clean Water Act, violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and violating the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. On appeal, they each assert several alleged trial and sentencing errors. Finding no merit to their claims, we AFFIRM.


Christian Hansen ("Hansen") founded the Hanlin Group ("Hanlin") in 1972, and served as its President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board until early April 1993. R19-160. Hanlin operated an industrial plant in Brunswick, Georgia, as LCP Chemicals-Georgia ("LCP"), R21-41, and Hansen served as the plant manager for approximately two months in 1993. R19-166-67. Randall Hansen ("Randall"), Hansen's son, was hired as an executive vice president in 1992. R21-193. He became Chief Executive Officer in April 1993 and served in that capacity until November 1993. R21-195. Alfred Taylor ("Taylor") began working for LCP in 1979, and became the Brunswick operations manager in 1991. R21-243-44. He served as plant manager from February until July 1993. R21-244-45.

Hanlin purchased the Brunswick plant in 1979.1 R21-41. The plant, which is on a site adjacent to tidal marshes and Purvis Creek, operated continuously year-round, manufacturing caustic soda, hydrogen gas, hydrochloric acid, and chlor-alkali bleach. About 150 people worked at the plant in two "cell buildings" or "cellrooms." Each cellroom was about the size of a football field and contained fifty mercury "cells," the units used to produce the bleach, soda, gas, and acid ultimately sold by LCP. R8-200-2. "The production process generated hazardous wastes, including elemental mercury, mercury-contaminated sludge (or "muds"),2 wastewater, chlorine contaminated wastewater, and extremely caustic wastes with high pH values." Id. at 2-3; R16-112-14. The wastes were subject to various environmental regulations, including wastewater limitations on pH, mercury, and chlorine set forth in LCP's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES"), and to regulations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2).

LCP constructed a wastewater treatment system in 1989 and 1990, and was allowed, by NPDES permit, to discharge the treated wastewater into Purvis Creek. Although LCP represented that the system would have a continuous treatment capacity of 70 gallons per minute in the project description submitted to the Georgia EPD, Govt. Ex. 10-3b at SW5 00001807, the filtration and storage systems installed had a capacity of only 35 gallons per minute, R20-20-21; Govt. Ex. 1-12. LCP did not notify the Georgia EPD of the lower wastewater treatment capacity. R20-290. The plant was authorized to store wastewater which was awaiting treatment in the wastewater treatment plant on the floor of the cellrooms. R16-118; R21-145, 161. The cellrooms were constructed of concrete, with a downward slope which diverted the wastewaters to a sump3 and then to the wastewater treatment holding tanks. R19-33-34. If the cellroom became incapable of holding the wastewater, it leaked out onto the ground and accumulated in a lake. R16-131-32. LCP also used "Bunker C" oil tanks for additional wastewater storage. R19-291; R20-42-45. Due to accidental spills, bleach sometimes accumulated on the Cellroom 1 floor. R19-258. During the early 1990s, the maintenance at the plant began deteriorating. R20-177, 179. Replacement parts were not made available, and wastewater began accumulating around the plant. Id.

The operations were subject to Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("OSHA") regulations for the protection and safety of the employees. The workers exposed to mercury vapors in the mercury cell process were provided with liquids to drink in order to stay hydrated and deplete the mercury, and their exposure was periodically monitored through an extensive mercury urinalysis procedure. R20-145-46; R21-251-52. Employees who showed exposure to excess mercury were not allowed to return to work until they were seen by a medical physician, and were then relocated to other plant locations away from the mercury cells.4 R20-146, 164-65, 168-69, 174; R21-255, 258; R22-12, 24.

In August 1992, OSHA inspected the plant "due to an employee complaint about safety hazards associated with water on cell room floors." Govt. Ex. 10-7i. OSHA found this to be a "willful violation and demanded that no employees be allowed to work in contact with the water while the equipment was energized," and "forced" LCP "to erect a boardwalk system above the water level around all the equipment until the water c[ould] be eliminated permanently." Id. LCP added wooden elevated walkways in the cellrooms to prevent the workers from having contact with the water on the floor and to reduce the workers' risk of electrical shock or chemical burns.5 R16-118; R21-145-46, 161. The chemicals used in LCP's operations were very alkaline and caustic and could irritate and burn skin.6 R16-93; R19-43, 197; R20-188; R21-263-64. To minimize the workers' risk of skin irritations and burns, LCP held routine safety meetings, encouraged and received safety inspections, and provided the employees with training, protective equipment to preclude skin contact, and first aid stations and showers to relieve inadvertent contact. R19-47, 194, 233-34, 246, 300-01; R20-170, 181-82, 185, 188, 190-91; R21-249. All employees, including those assigned to the cellrooms, were authorized to work elsewhere in the plant if they were concerned about their safety. R19-302; R20-186-87, 320-2; R21-156.

In 1991, LCP's parent corporation, Hanlin, filed a voluntary bankruptcy petition with pre-petition obligations exceeding $100 million. R19-119; R21-194. Shortly thereafter, Randall was hired as an executive vice president of LCP and charged with "developing the business and financial plans necessary to turn around the financial condition of the chemical business."7 R21-193; R16-97. Randall worked closely with Hanlin's bankruptcy attorneys, the law firm of McCarter and English, and the environmental law firm of Decher, Price and Rhoads. R19-140-43; R21-194, 215.8 Randall also worked closely with LCP's corporate environmental manager and site environmental managers. R20-64-65; R21-210, 215. During the bankruptcy proceedings, available funds for maintenance, repair, and environmental compliance were restricted. R19-50-52. Randall attempted to find additional funds by selling excess equipment and reducing the payroll but the funds remained limited. Id. The ultimate decision-making for all major projects, capital and extraordinary expenditures, and the sale of assets, were subject to the approval of the Board and the bankruptcy creditor's committee and court. R19-121, 143-47, 174-75; R21-196. Although funds were requested to address the cellrooms' wastewater problem, the funds were usually not released. R21-259-60.

In February 1992, the Brunswick plant manager, James L. Johns, advised Randall in writing that, without "extensive work," to keep the wastewater treatment system operable, they would be unable to "operate the plan for more than a few days without 'willfully' violating EPD regulations which we will not do." Govt. Ex. 1-8a at HA 00024857.9 In April 1992, Randall visited the Brunswick plant and met with plant manager James L. Johns for "an update on regulatory compliance requirements." Govt Ex. 10-7b. He indicated that he would provide guidance on the approval of funds for a study for the NPDES permit, LCP's commitment regarding the 1 June 1992 Georgia EPD deadline for cellroom floor repairs, and the possibility of a study or remediation plan for the "brine impoundments." Id. In June 1992, Randall was advised in writing that a conference with OSHA on 8 May 1992 noted 26 serious violations and 11 non-serious violations. Govt. Ex. 10-7d.

During the summer of 1992, the Brunswick plant management changed.10 R16-104-05. In August 1992, Taylor advised Randall that Brunswick was "unable to meet current permit limitations," that he anticipated "more restrictive" limitations, and that the "[p]erformance of the waste water treatment system [was] a serious threat to the continued operation of the plant." Govt. Ex. 1-12. Taylor said that while the "generation of waste water ha[d] greatly increased due to leaking brine tanks, [poor condition of the] brine pumps [and] . . . brine filters, heavy rainfall, the necessity to destroy bleach, and numerous operating problems," at the same time the capacity of the wastewater system was limited by the reduced capacity of the filtration and storage systems, was "further reduced" by the "[l]ack of maintenance," and the system was "frequently shut down due to mechanical problems and operator errors." Id. In November 1992, Randall visited the Brunswick plant to interview a candidate for plant manager, and spoke with the acting manager, Hugh Croom. R19-30. At that time, Croom advised Randall of problems with the caustic filters and the intentional dumping of caustic on the cellroom floors by some unknown employee. R19-30-31, 56-58. Croom testified that Randall "was just as concerned as we were about the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
153 cases
  • Geralds v. Inch
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Florida
    • May 13, 2019
    ...... See United States v . Hansen , 262 F.3d 1217, 1234 (11th Cir. 2001) (per curiam); Strickler v . Greene , 527 U.S. 263, 281-82 (1999). As to the suppression element, the State ... and Adams "got along famously and did not keep, we didn't keep secrets because-or I didn't, you know, I don't think Bob was keeping secrets from us or keeping secrets from him as far as pieces of evidence or anything like that. So, no, there wouldn't have been anything that we would have said we ......
  • United States v. Bates, No. 18-12533
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • May 28, 2020
    ...the evidence established the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." Descent , 292 F.3d at 706 (quoting United States v. Hansen , 262 F.3d 1217, 1236 (11th Cir. 2001) ).Here, there is sufficient evidence for a jury to reasonably find that Bates did not act in self-defense. To rebut Ba......
  • United States v. Bazantes, No. 17-15721
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (11th Circuit)
    • October 26, 2020
    ...the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, as we are required to do, the facts are these. See United States v. Hansen, 262 F.3d 1217, 1236 (11th Cir. 2001).Cesar Arbelaez Tabares and Juan Carlos Bazantes founded, owned, and managed IWES Contractors, Inc., a drywall contracting......
  • Sierra Club, Inc. v. Tyson Foods, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • November 7, 2003
    ...and abate a release of hazardous substance. There may be several "persons in charge" at the same facility. See United States v. Hansen, 262 F.3d 1217, 1253-54 (11th Cir.2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1111, 122 S.Ct. 2326, 122 S.Ct. 2327, 153 L.Ed.2d 158 (2002). Therefore, under the definitio......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
20 books & journal articles
  • Environmental crimes.
    • United States
    • American Criminal Law Review Vol. 46 No. 2, March 2009
    • March 22, 2009
    ...was sufficient to allow jury to infer that defendant knew of illegal storage of hazardous waste). (48.) See United States v. Hansen, 262 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2001) (finding that an admitted goal "to operate the plant until a buyer could be found" and knowledge of the plant's problems with e......
  • General Principles of Criminal Liability
    • United States
    • Environmental crimes deskbook 2nd edition Part Two
    • June 20, 2014
    ...Id. at 1193. he public welfare defense is discussed infra in this chapter in subsection F. 33. Id. at 1192. 34. 402 U.S. 558 (1971). 35. 262 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2001), cert. denied , 535 U.S. 1111 (2002). 36. Id. at 1254. 37. 273 F.3d 139 (2d Cir. 2001). 38. Id. at 146-47. But see United S......
  • Specific Environmental Statutes
    • United States
    • Environmental crimes deskbook 2nd edition Part Three
    • June 20, 2014
    ...waste. 324. Id. at 796. 325. 42 U.S.C. §6928(e). 326. Id . §6928(f). 327. Id. 328. Id. 329. No. CR 87-488 (E.D.N.Y. 1988). 330. 262 F.3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 535 U.S. 1111 (2002). 331. See United States v. Protex Ind . , 874 F.2d 740, 19 ELR 21061 (10th Cir. 1989). 332. John......
  • Historical Perspectives on Environmental Management
    • United States
    • Practical Guide to Environmental Management. 10th Edition -
    • January 10, 2006
    ...see Riesel, supra note 41; Barber, supra note 77; and Smith, supra note 77. 81. Hayes , 786 F.2d at 1503. See United States v. Hansen, 262 F. 3d 1217 (11th Cir. 2001) in which the Eleventh Circuit interpreted the “knowing endangerment” provision as applying if the defendant had knowledge of......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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