Loading
Manufacturing
7 min read
Areas of Expertise :
Environmental Engineering, Hazardous Materials, Hazardous Waste, Industrial Hygiene, Regulatory Compliance
Published Date:
Last Modified Date:
Jurisdiction:
Federal. Ninth Circuit
United States v. Roach, 792 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2015), was a federal prosecution under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) involving hazardous waste left at the former All Metals Processing Company (AMP) facility in Burbank, California. AMP operated an electroplating business at the property before being evicted. Hundreds of drums, vats, and other containers containing chemical materials remained at the site. The dispute centered on whether hazardous waste kept in sealed containers at the former facility remained in “storage” or had already been “disposed” of under RCRA.
Robert Roach, an owner, officer, and director of AMP, was convicted of knowingly causing hazardous waste to be stored without a permit under 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2(b). On appeal, he argued that the remaining waste should be treated as disposed waste rather than stored waste. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected that argument and affirmed the district court’s judgment on July 8, 2015.
All Metals Processing Company operated an electroplating business in Burbank, California. Under a stipulated judgment, AMP agreed to vacate the property, remove toxic materials, and clean the premises by March 16, 2007. AMP was evicted from the facility on March 20, 2007, but hundreds of drums and other containers remained on the property.
The waste streams documented at the site included acids, bases, oxidizers, heavy metals, combustibles, cyanides, and other hazardous substances associated with the electroplating operation. Some containers were sealed and intact, while others were corroded, deteriorated, or leaking. AMP did not have a permit authorizing hazardous waste storage at the facility.
In June 2007, the Los Angeles County Fire Department, EPA personnel, and EPA contractors inspected and assessed the former AMP property. Sampling and testing identified regulated hazardous waste, including materials containing metals, corrosive substances, cyanides, and other hazardous chemicals.
The site contained both closed or sealed containers and others that showed deterioration or leakage. The trial and appellate records established that hazardous waste remained in sealed receptacles as well as in containers that had leaked. The federal indictment later alleged unlawful hazardous waste storage at the facility from June 16, 2007, through at least June 27, 2007.
A federal grand jury returned a single-count indictment charging Roach and a co-defendant with knowingly storing and causing the storage of hazardous waste without the required permit. The charge against Roach was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A), together with 18 U.S.C. § 2(b).
The indictment concerned regulated hazardous waste left at the former AMP facility after the company had ceased operating there and had been removed from the property.
The prosecution proceeded to a bench trial in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On June 2, 2014, U.S. District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez found Roach guilty of knowingly causing the unpermitted storage of hazardous waste.
Evidence at trial addressed the hazardous waste remaining at the property, the condition of the containers, and AMP’s lack of a hazardous waste storage permit. The district court did not issue separate detailed findings of fact in a written opinion. Roach was later sentenced principally to one year and one day in federal custody.
Roach appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and challenged the classification of the remaining hazardous waste as stored material. He argued that the waste should be treated as disposed waste rather than stored waste after AMP lost possession of the facility.
His conviction rested solely on hazardous waste contained in five sealed, non-leaking containers. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the containers themselves had not been abandoned in a manner that transformed their contents into disposed waste. Instead, custody of the containers effectively passed to AMP’s former landlord, while the hazardous waste remained contained in sealed and intact receptacles.
Roach also challenged his liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b). The court held that he could be liable as a principal because he caused the continuing unlawful storage even though custody of the containers had passed to another party. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.
Court:
United States District Court for the Central District of California
Case Name:
United States v. Roach
Hazardous Chemicals
Waste Management
Environmental Compliance
Environmental Contamination
Environmental Sampling
Environmental Site Inspection
Electroplating
Industrial Chemicals
Regulatory Issues
Environmental Protection Agency EPA
United States v. Roach, 792 F.3d 1142 (9th Cir. 2015), was a federal prosecution under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) involving hazardous waste left at the former All Metals Processing Company (AMP) facility in Burbank, California. AMP operated an electroplating business at the property before being evicted. Hundreds of drums, vats, and other containers containing chemical materials remained at the site. The dispute centered on whether hazardous waste kept in sealed containers at the former facility remained in “storage” or had already been “disposed” of under RCRA.
Robert Roach, an owner, officer, and director of AMP, was convicted of knowingly causing hazardous waste to be stored without a permit under 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A) and 18 U.S.C. § 2(b). On appeal, he argued that the remaining waste should be treated as disposed waste rather than stored waste. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected that argument and affirmed the district court’s judgment on July 8, 2015.
All Metals Processing Company operated an electroplating business in Burbank, California. Under a stipulated judgment, AMP agreed to vacate the property, remove toxic materials, and clean the premises by March 16, 2007. AMP was evicted from the facility on March 20, 2007, but hundreds of drums and other containers remained on the property.
The waste streams documented at the site included acids, bases, oxidizers, heavy metals, combustibles, cyanides, and other hazardous substances associated with the electroplating operation. Some containers were sealed and intact, while others were corroded, deteriorated, or leaking. AMP did not have a permit authorizing hazardous waste storage at the facility.
In June 2007, the Los Angeles County Fire Department, EPA personnel, and EPA contractors inspected and assessed the former AMP property. Sampling and testing identified regulated hazardous waste, including materials containing metals, corrosive substances, cyanides, and other hazardous chemicals.
The site contained both closed or sealed containers and others that showed deterioration or leakage. The trial and appellate records established that hazardous waste remained in sealed receptacles as well as in containers that had leaked. The federal indictment later alleged unlawful hazardous waste storage at the facility from June 16, 2007, through at least June 27, 2007.
A federal grand jury returned a single-count indictment charging Roach and a co-defendant with knowingly storing and causing the storage of hazardous waste without the required permit. The charge against Roach was brought under 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A), together with 18 U.S.C. § 2(b).
The indictment concerned regulated hazardous waste left at the former AMP facility after the company had ceased operating there and had been removed from the property.
The prosecution proceeded to a bench trial in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. On June 2, 2014, U.S. District Judge Philip S. Gutierrez found Roach guilty of knowingly causing the unpermitted storage of hazardous waste.
Evidence at trial addressed the hazardous waste remaining at the property, the condition of the containers, and AMP’s lack of a hazardous waste storage permit. The district court did not issue separate detailed findings of fact in a written opinion. Roach was later sentenced principally to one year and one day in federal custody.
Roach appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and challenged the classification of the remaining hazardous waste as stored material. He argued that the waste should be treated as disposed waste rather than stored waste after AMP lost possession of the facility.
His conviction rested solely on hazardous waste contained in five sealed, non-leaking containers. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the containers themselves had not been abandoned in a manner that transformed their contents into disposed waste. Instead, custody of the containers effectively passed to AMP’s former landlord, while the hazardous waste remained contained in sealed and intact receptacles.
Roach also challenged his liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b). The court held that he could be liable as a principal because he caused the continuing unlawful storage even though custody of the containers had passed to another party. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment.
The following disciplines relate to technical and regulatory issues that can arise in matters involving hazardous waste classification, containment, industrial facilities, and RCRA compliance. These descriptions identify potential areas of expertise and do not indicate that experts from these disciplines testified in United States v. Roach.
Environmental engineering experts may evaluate industrial waste systems, containment methods, facility layouts, drainage controls, and environmental conditions at facilities where hazardous materials are generated or stored. In a matter involving an electroplating facility, their analysis may address how waste was contained, the physical condition of storage areas, and whether facility practices were consistent with applicable technical requirements.
Hazardous materials experts may examine the chemical characteristics, classification, labeling, handling, and containment of regulated substances. Their work can include reviewing laboratory results, chemical compositions, and waste profiles to determine how particular materials are classified under environmental regulations.
Industrial hygiene experts may assess chemical exposure and contamination conditions in workplaces, industrial facilities, and cleanup environments. Depending on the issues presented, their analysis can address airborne contaminants, ventilation, exposure pathways, worker protection measures, and occupational conditions associated with hazardous substances.
Regulatory compliance experts may review permitting requirements, manifests, recordkeeping, reporting obligations, and hazardous waste management procedures. Their analysis can address whether activities involving the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of regulated waste complied with applicable federal and state requirements.
The prosecution charged Roach under 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A) with knowingly storing and causing the storage of hazardous waste without the required permit. AMP did not have a permit authorizing hazardous waste storage at the Burbank facility.
The Ninth Circuit considered whether hazardous waste left inside sealed and intact containers remained in storage after AMP lost possession of the property. Roach argued that the circumstances had converted the waste into disposed waste, while the court concluded that the five sealed, non-leaking containers supporting his conviction continued to constitute storage.
AMP had stopped operating at and had been evicted from the Burbank property before the period covered by the federal charge. Regulated hazardous waste nevertheless remained at the site in containers that varied in condition, including sealed receptacles and containers that were deteriorated or leaking.
The Ninth Circuit also addressed liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b). It held that Roach could be treated as a principal for causing the unlawful storage to continue even though custody of the relevant containers had effectively passed to AMP’s former landlord.
The prosecution against Robert Roach followed AMP’s eviction from its Burbank electroplating facility and the discovery of hazardous waste that remained on the property. After a bench trial, Roach was convicted of knowingly causing unpermitted hazardous waste storage and was sentenced principally to one year and one day in federal custody.
On July 8, 2015, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment. The court held that the hazardous waste supporting Roach’s conviction remained in storage because it was contained in five sealed, non-leaking containers, and the transfer of custody to AMP’s former landlord did not convert that contained waste into disposed waste. The court also upheld Roach’s liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b).
What happened in United States v. Roach?
United States v. Roach concerned hazardous waste left at the former All Metals Processing Company electroplating facility in Burbank, California. Robert Roach, an owner, officer, and director of AMP, was convicted after a bench trial of knowingly causing hazardous waste to be stored without the required permit.
What RCRA provision was involved in United States v. Roach?
The prosecution involved 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A), which prohibits knowingly treating, storing, or disposing of identified or listed hazardous waste without the required permit. Roach was also charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b), which imposes principal liability on a person who willfully causes an act to be done that would constitute a federal offense if directly performed by that person or another.
What is the difference between hazardous waste storage and disposal under RCRA?
Storage generally involves holding hazardous waste temporarily or for a period of years in a manner that does not constitute disposal. Disposal is separately defined under RCRA and includes specified forms of discharging, depositing, injecting, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing waste into or on land or water under circumstances in which the waste or its constituents may enter the environment.
Why did the Ninth Circuit treat the sealed containers as storage?
The hazardous waste supporting Roach’s conviction remained inside five sealed, non-leaking containers. The Ninth Circuit concluded that transferring custody of those containers to the former landlord did not, by itself, change the contained hazardous waste from stored material into disposed waste.
What was the outcome of United States v. Roach?
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on July 8, 2015. As a result, Roach’s conviction for knowingly causing unpermitted hazardous waste storage and his sentence of one year and one day in federal custody remained in place.
The following disciplines relate to technical and regulatory issues that can arise in matters involving hazardous waste classification, containment, industrial facilities, and RCRA compliance. These descriptions identify potential areas of expertise and do not indicate that experts from these disciplines testified in United States v. Roach.
Environmental engineering experts may evaluate industrial waste systems, containment methods, facility layouts, drainage controls, and environmental conditions at facilities where hazardous materials are generated or stored. In a matter involving an electroplating facility, their analysis may address how waste was contained, the physical condition of storage areas, and whether facility practices were consistent with applicable technical requirements.
Hazardous materials experts may examine the chemical characteristics, classification, labeling, handling, and containment of regulated substances. Their work can include reviewing laboratory results, chemical compositions, and waste profiles to determine how particular materials are classified under environmental regulations.
Industrial hygiene experts may assess chemical exposure and contamination conditions in workplaces, industrial facilities, and cleanup environments. Depending on the issues presented, their analysis can address airborne contaminants, ventilation, exposure pathways, worker protection measures, and occupational conditions associated with hazardous substances.
Regulatory compliance experts may review permitting requirements, manifests, recordkeeping, reporting obligations, and hazardous waste management procedures. Their analysis can address whether activities involving the generation, transportation, treatment, storage, or disposal of regulated waste complied with applicable federal and state requirements.
The prosecution charged Roach under 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A) with knowingly storing and causing the storage of hazardous waste without the required permit. AMP did not have a permit authorizing hazardous waste storage at the Burbank facility.
The Ninth Circuit considered whether hazardous waste left inside sealed and intact containers remained in storage after AMP lost possession of the property. Roach argued that the circumstances had converted the waste into disposed waste, while the court concluded that the five sealed, non-leaking containers supporting his conviction continued to constitute storage.
AMP had stopped operating at and had been evicted from the Burbank property before the period covered by the federal charge. Regulated hazardous waste nevertheless remained at the site in containers that varied in condition, including sealed receptacles and containers that were deteriorated or leaking.
The Ninth Circuit also addressed liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b). It held that Roach could be treated as a principal for causing the unlawful storage to continue even though custody of the relevant containers had effectively passed to AMP’s former landlord.
The prosecution against Robert Roach followed AMP’s eviction from its Burbank electroplating facility and the discovery of hazardous waste that remained on the property. After a bench trial, Roach was convicted of knowingly causing unpermitted hazardous waste storage and was sentenced principally to one year and one day in federal custody.
On July 8, 2015, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the judgment. The court held that the hazardous waste supporting Roach’s conviction remained in storage because it was contained in five sealed, non-leaking containers, and the transfer of custody to AMP’s former landlord did not convert that contained waste into disposed waste. The court also upheld Roach’s liability under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b).
What happened in United States v. Roach?
United States v. Roach concerned hazardous waste left at the former All Metals Processing Company electroplating facility in Burbank, California. Robert Roach, an owner, officer, and director of AMP, was convicted after a bench trial of knowingly causing hazardous waste to be stored without the required permit.
What RCRA provision was involved in United States v. Roach?
The prosecution involved 42 U.S.C. § 6928(d)(2)(A), which prohibits knowingly treating, storing, or disposing of identified or listed hazardous waste without the required permit. Roach was also charged under 18 U.S.C. § 2(b), which imposes principal liability on a person who willfully causes an act to be done that would constitute a federal offense if directly performed by that person or another.
What is the difference between hazardous waste storage and disposal under RCRA?
Storage generally involves holding hazardous waste temporarily or for a period of years in a manner that does not constitute disposal. Disposal is separately defined under RCRA and includes specified forms of discharging, depositing, injecting, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing waste into or on land or water under circumstances in which the waste or its constituents may enter the environment.
Why did the Ninth Circuit treat the sealed containers as storage?
The hazardous waste supporting Roach’s conviction remained inside five sealed, non-leaking containers. The Ninth Circuit concluded that transferring custody of those containers to the former landlord did not, by itself, change the contained hazardous waste from stored material into disposed waste.
What was the outcome of United States v. Roach?
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment on July 8, 2015. As a result, Roach’s conviction for knowingly causing unpermitted hazardous waste storage and his sentence of one year and one day in federal custody remained in place.
Hazardous Chemicals
Waste Management
Environmental Compliance
Environmental Contamination
Environmental Sampling
Environmental Site Inspection
Electroplating
Industrial Chemicals
Regulatory Issues
Environmental Protection Agency EPA
Manufacturing
Metallurgy, +4
Manufacturing
Manufacturing, +4
Manufacturing