U.S. v. Ward
| Decision Date | 14 April 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 81-5162,81-5162 |
| Parties | , 12 Envtl. L. Rep. 20,285, 9 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 1488 UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Robert Earl WARD, Jr. a/k/a "Buck" Ward, Appellant. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit |
Roger W. Smith, Raleigh, N. C. (Wade M. Smith, Elizabeth F. Kuniholm, Tharrington, Smith & Hargrove, Raleigh, N. C., on brief), for appellant.
Anne Almy, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C. (Anthony C. Liotta, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., Land and Natural Resources Div., Peter R. Steenland, Jr., Nancy S. Bryson, U. S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D. C., on brief), for appellee.
Before BRYAN, Senior Circuit Judge, and ERVIN and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges.
Robert Earl Ward, Jr. appeals his conviction on eight counts of unlawful disposal of toxic substances (15 U.S.C. §§ 2614, 2605 and 40 C.F.R. § 761.01(b)) and aiding and abetting the unlawful disposal of toxic substances (18 U.S.C. § 2). Ward contends (1) that the evidence is insufficient to support a conviction, (2) that his federal prosecution is a violation of his right not to be placed in double jeopardy, because he had been tried and acquitted on state charges arising out of the alleged disposal, (3) that opinions of government experts were based on speculation and, therefore, inadmissible, and (4) that testimony from his state court trial from a witness now deceased was improperly excluded in the district court. We affirm.
Ward is chairman of the board of Ward Transformer Company. The company is in the business of purchasing, rebuilding and reselling used voltage transformers. 1 Many transformers contain oil laced with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). The PCBs have a high ignition temperature or "flash point" which reduces the likelihood of fire in the event of transformer rupture. PCBs have been designated as toxic substances under the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2629) and accompanying regulations (40 C.F.R. part 761). Ward Transformer stored approximately 7500 gallons of PCB laced oil from used transformers at its plant near Raleigh, North Carolina.
As it became clear that disposal of PCB oil would be tightly regulated under the above mentioned act and regulations, Robert Burns, a long time friend of Ward, approached Ward to present him with a business proposition whereby Burns would become the "PCB king". From his studies, Burns concluded that the new regulations would prohibit further manufacture of PCB chemicals, but would permit continued use of existing PCB laced oil in electric transformers. Knowing also that transformer dealers would be eager to get rid of oil they had on hand, Burns felt he could acquire excess PCB oil from transformer dealers by charging a fee to remove it from their premises. He would store the oil then sell it back to dealers as they needed it for reconditioning used transformers. To implement this plan, Burns formed Transformer Sales Company, acquiring a storage facility in Youngsville, Pennsylvania.
Ward and Burns entered into an agreement whereby Burns would remove the 7500 gallons of oil from the Ward Transformer facility for a $1.70 per gallon removal fee. Burns was to be paid the full amount by check. He was to cash the checks and return seventy cents per gallon to Ward to retire an outstanding $50,000 debt.
Burns began to remove PCB oil from Ward Transformer's facility in 55 gallon drums and shipped them to Youngsville for storage. Two or three months into the operation, Burns realized that transportation and materials costs were making his venture unprofitable. He, therefore, devised a scheme, for which he sought Ward's approval, to dispose of the oil in remote areas by spraying it on the ground. Ward approved the plan and suggested at least one alternate dump site in South Carolina. Fort Bragg's impact range was decided on as the best spot for the dump. Burns outfitted a truck with a 750 gallon tank and a spray nozzle at the Ward Transformer plant. Ward's employees assisted in this project.
On June 24, 1978, Burns filled his tank truck with PCB oil at the Ward Transformer plant, drove to Fort Bragg, dumped the oil, and returned for another load which was also dumped at Fort Bragg. Two problems were encountered during this trip. First, the truck got stuck in the sandy area where the oil was dumped, and second, the sandy soil did not absorb the oil as well as Burns had anticipated. Burns recommended that the oil be sprayed along rural roadsides in North Carolina. Ward approved the plan.
To avoid detection, Burns improved the design of the tank truck. The old design with the 750 gallon tank, enclosed in a box with swinging doors, required someone to ride in the rear to open and close the doors. The new apparatus consisted of a pipe and nozzle directly behind the passenger door. When the dump site was reached the passenger would turn a valve directly behind his door and release the oil. Burns showed this new apparatus to Ward. All the work on the truck was done at Ward Transformer.
Burns' sons carried out the spraying operations in rural North Carolina. After loading the truck at Ward Transformer, the boys would pick out a stretch of rural road; the passenger would reach out and turn the valve releasing the contaminated oil; they would drive along at about 30 miles per hour dumping the oil in a four to six inch band along the roadside. On one occasion when the boys got stuck in the truck and had to call a wrecker, Burns reported to Ward that "nobody asked any questions."
Ward was advised on a daily basis of the progress of the unlawful disposal until August 4, 1978, when all the oil had been removed from Ward Transformer's plant.
The telltale strips of blackened grass along the rural North Carolina roadsides were quickly discovered by state and federal authorities. Shortly thereafter, Burns confessed to the unlawful dumping, at which time he stated that Ward had nothing to do with the scheme. When he learned that Ward was not participating in a plan to extricate the Burnses, 2 Burns repudiated his previous exculpatory statements and admitted that Ward had been intimately involved in the dumping scheme. Burns was the government's key witness on the issue of Ward's participation in the dumping scheme.
During the months immediately after discovery of the dump sites in North Carolina, authorities indicted Ward for malicious damage to real property under N.C.G.S. §§ 14-127, 14-3 and 14-5. Ward was acquitted by a state court jury.
The elements of the crime of causing the unlawful disposal of toxic substances under 15 U.S.C. §§ 2614, 2605 were correctly charged by the district court as (1) intentionally causing the disposal (2) of a PCB mixture containing 500 parts per million (ppm) or more PCBs (3) in a manner not authorized by 40 C.F.R. § 761.10. The court also instructed that under 18 U.S.C. § 2, whoever willfully aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures the commission of the crime of unlawful disposal of toxic substances is punishable as a principal. Ward argues that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Ward
...convicted on all eight counts. The conviction was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. United States v. Ward, 676 F.2d 94 (4th Cir.1982). Ward's subsequent petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court was denied on 5 October 1982. Ward......
-
U.S. v. Northeastern Pharmaceutical & Chemical Co., Inc.
...be criminally prosecuted for RCRA violations), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1208, 105 S.Ct. 1171, 84 L.Ed.2d 321 (1985); United States v. Ward, 676 F.2d 94, 97 (4th Cir.) (chairperson of board convicted of unlawful disposal of toxic substances in violation of 15 U.S.C. Secs. 2605, 2614, and 40 C.......
-
Giles v. United States, 3:14-cv-652-RJC
...need only establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime occurred on a date reasonably near that alleged." United States v. Ward, 676 F.2d 94, 96 (4th Cir. 1982). Under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, "[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible......
-
Giles v. United States
..."proof need only establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the crime occurred on a date reasonably near that alleged." United States v. Ward, 676 F.2d 94, 96 (4th Cir. 1982). Under Rule 404(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, "[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not adm......
-
Specific Environmental Statutes
...444. Id. §2607(c). 445. 40 C.F.R. §717.12(b). 446. 15 U.S.C. §2611. 447. Id . §2612. 448. Id. §2605(e). 449. 40 C.F.R. pt. 761. 450. 676 F.2d 94 (4th Cir. 1982), cert. denied , 459 U.S. 835 (1982). Specific Environmental Statutes Page 181 I. Special Titles TSCA also contains several specia......
-
Criminal Enforcement of Air Pollution Control Laws
...denied , 444 U.S. 1074 (1980); United States v. Distler, 671 F.2d 954, 11 ELR 20340 (6th Cir.), cert. denied , 454 U.S. 827 (1981). 9. 676 F.2d 94, 12 ELR 20285 (4th Cir.), cert. denied , 459 U.S. 835, (1982). 10. 42 U.S.C. §6973. 11. John F. Cooney et al., Criminal Enforcement of Environme......
-
Individual Liability for Environmental Law Violations
...1447 (11th Cir. 1988). 96. Id. 97. Id. at 1451. 98. Id. at 1451. 99. Id. 100. 15 U.S.C. §§ 2601-2629 (1982) See United States v. Ward, 676 F.2d 94 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 835 (1982). 101. 42 U.S.C. §§ 7401_7641 (1982). 102. 33 U.S.C. §§ 1251_1387 (1982). 103. See 33 U.S.C. § 1319......