United States v. John Borowski
23 Envtl. L. Rep. (Envtl. Law Inst.) 20102, 35 ERC (BNA) 1729, 977 F.2d 27 (1992)
Sections
Rule of Law:
The knowing endangerment provision of the Clean Water Act applies only to dangers that occur after pollutants reach a publicly owned treatment works, not to occupational health risks faced by employees handling the pollutants at the source prior to discharge.
Facts:
- Borowski owned and operated an optical mirror manufacturing facility that used nickel plating baths and nitric acid in its production process.
- The manufacturing process generated spent chemical baths that required disposal.
- Instead of proper pretreatment, Borowski ordered employees to dump the spent nickel and nitric acid baths directly into plating room sinks connected to the municipal sewer system.
- The disposal process required employees to manually bail out the hazardous chemicals using plastic buckets, portable pumps, and scoops.
- Employees were frequently splashed with the chemicals and exposed to toxic fumes, resulting in daily nosebleeds, rashes, chemical burns, and respiratory distress.
- The facility lacked adequate protective gear and ventilation to shield the workers from these hazardous substances.
- The discharges into the sewer system significantly exceeded the EPA's pretreatment standards for nickel and nitric acid.
- The prosecution conceded that the only persons placed in imminent danger by these actions were the employees at the facility, not anyone downstream at the public treatment works.
Procedural Posture:
- The United States indicted Borowski and his company in the federal district court for violating the knowing endangerment provision of the Clean Water Act.
- The defendants moved to dismiss the indictment, arguing the statute did not apply to employee safety, but the district court denied the motion.
- The defendants moved for a judgment of acquittal, which was also denied by the district court.
- After an 18-day trial, the jury in the district court returned guilty verdicts against both defendants on all counts.
- Borowski and his company appealed their convictions to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the Clean Water Act's 'knowing endangerment' felony provision apply when a defendant's illegal discharge places only their own employees in imminent danger of bodily injury while handling the pollutants at the facility?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Hornby
No, the knowing endangerment provision does not extend to industrial employees handling pollutants at the point of discharge before they reach public treatment works. The court reasoned that the statutory language—specifically whether the violation 'thereby' placed employees in danger—was ambiguous. The employees would have faced the exact same dangers handling the chemicals even if the chemicals had been drummed for legal disposal rather than illegally poured down the sink. Consequently, the danger was inherent to the industrial process, not caused by the Clean Water Act violation (the discharge). The court further emphasized that the Clean Water Act's purpose is to protect the integrity of the nation's waters and publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), not to regulate industrial workplace safety. The court noted that other statutes, such as OSHA and RCRA, are specifically designed to address worker safety and hazardous waste handling. Finally, invoking the rule of lenity, the court resolved the statutory ambiguity in favor of the defendants.
Analysis:
This decision draws a sharp line between environmental crimes and workplace safety crimes. By ruling that the Clean Water Act (CWA) cannot be used to prosecute employers for endangering workers inside a facility, the court limited the reach of the CWA's severe felony penalties. This forces prosecutors to rely on statutes like OSHA or RCRA for workplace safety violations, which may carry different penalties or standards of proof. The case underscores the principle that criminal statutes must be strictly construed according to their specific legislative purpose—here, water protection versus worker protection.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: United States v. John Borowski (1992)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"