United States v. Hayes International Corporation

BUS/372
Petra Yurchich
August 29, 2011
United States v. Hayes International Corporation The United States v. Hayes International Corporation is a legal case regarding environmental law. The issue with case is not an issue of wrong or right but an issue of presumed knowledge and whether the presumed knowledge constitutes liability for the Hayes International Corporation. Specifically, “The degree of knowledge necessary for a conviction under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6928(d)(1), unlawful transportation of hazardous waste” (Openjurist, 2011). This essay will serve to explain the facts and parties involved with this case as well as possible implications the ruling with have on business practices. The Hayes International Corporation operates an airplane refurbishing plant in Birmingham, Alabama. Through the processes of the business, Hayes generates certain waste products; two of the waste products are relevant to this case. During the refurbishing process, Hayes is required to drain the fuel from the planes so they may work on them safely. Additionally, Hayes employs the use of solvents to clean the paint guns and lines which it uses to paint planes, generating a mix of paint and solvents. Hayes employee L. H. Beasley orally agreed with Jack Hurt an employee of Performance Advantage Inc to haul the wastes for Hayes. In this verbal agreement, Mr. Hurt agreed to pay Mr. Beasley and the Hayes Corporation twenty cents per gallon for the drained jet fuel which Advantage Performance would haul away. An additional agreement was made; Mr. Hurt at no additional cost would remove the paint and solvent mix of waste, all of this agreement was made orally. Between January 1981 and March 1982, wastes were transported from Hayes to Performance Advantage on eight occasions. “Beginning in August 1982, government officials discovered drums of waste generated by Hayes and illegally disposed of by Performance Advantage” (Openjurist, 2011). Officials discovered roughly six hundred drums of waste, these drums were found at seven illegal disposal sites in Georgia and Alabama. Many of the drums were buried in the ground or dumped in yards, when opened the drums contained the paint and solvent mixture that Performance Advantage had removed from the Hayes Corporation. The prosecutions in this case were brought under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; the Act creates a cradle to grave regulation. Through regulation this Act ensures hazardous wastes are disposed of properly. “Generators of waste are required to identify hazardous wastes, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6922(1), and use a manifest system to ensure that wastes are disposed of only in facilities possessing a permit. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 6922(5)” (Openjurist, 2011). In this case the paint and solvent mixture were classified hazardous based on the characteristic of the mixtures ignitability. The court’s ruling convicted Beasley and Hayes International Corporation on eight counts of violating “42 U.S.C. Sec. 6928(d)(1), which provides criminal sanctions for knowingly transports any hazardous waste identified or listed under this subchapter to a facility which does not have a permit under section 6925 of this title” (Openjurist, 2011). The court’s decided that the Hayes Corporation were liable based on the actions of L.H. Beasley as it was determined Performance Advantage absolutely did not have the proper permit to haul hazardous waste. “Despite the company’s lack of actual knowledge that the hauler did not have a permit, both the company and its contracting officer were found guilty of violating the act” (Kubasek & Silverman, 2008). What will the implications of this case have on businesses moving forward? When dealing with hazardous waste the precedent has been set that you are “presumed to know” the regulations required of a company that has hazardous waste or material and the requirements of those companies that haul hazardous waste or materials. The ruling on this case puts the impetus on the company who employs to have the material or waste hauled. Future businesses with be responsible and held accountable for any hazardous waste or material they contract out to have sent to a disposal site and it is the company’s responsibility to know what regulations apply to normal operations of their industry and the specifics. In conclusion, the United States v. Hayes International Corporation ruling favored the United States citing “presumed knowledge” as the principle deciding factor. While Hayes didn’t directly know whether Performance Advantage had the proper permits to haul Hayes’ waste mixture of paint and solvents, it was still the responsibility of Hayes to know the regulations set forth for their industry. Hayes defense of “we didn’t know” didn’t stand up in court and their lack of knowledge ultimately led to approximately six hundred barrels of waste being dumped illegally. Furthermore, this case sets a new precedent on the responsibility of those companies and industries that generate hazardous waste and materials.
References
Kubasek, N. K., & Silverman, G. S. (2008). Environmental law (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.
OpenJurist, 2011. 786 F. 2d 1499 - United States v. Hayes International Corporation. Retried on August 28, 2001 from http://openjurist.org/786/f2d/1499/united-states-v-hayes-international-corporation-h