Tag: EPA

  • Virginia Dairy Settles With EPA on Alleged Environmental Violations

    environmental Strategist®, between the lines:  As an environmental Strategist®, the number one pushback we hear from a business with regard to strategizing on managing and transferring their environmental exposures is, “We do not have any environmental exposures in our business.”

    We know every business is impacted by environmental exposures, but instead of getting confrontational, I have found the best comeback to anyone who believes they do not have any environmental exposures impacting their business is to agree with them and then ask, do you have any neighbors that have environmental exposures associated with their business?  What if a neighboring business had an environmental loss and it impacted you?  When they do a Phase I site assessment they do a minimum of a 2 mile radius search to determine if there are any properties within a 2 mile radius that could cause an environmental loss and impact neighboring properties.

    The story below is just one simple example of how vapor intrusion / air emissions from a neighboring property can impact businesses causing sick building syndrome.

    eS Risk Management Strategies: 

    1. When meeting with a business that does not believe they have any environmental exposures, explain to them that in a Phase I site assessment they do a minimum of a 2 mile radius search to see if any neighbors could contaminate their property.  Ask them to pull up Google maps satellite and type in their address.  Now ask them scan back to a 2 mile radius from their property.  Lastly, ask them how confident they feel that no neighbors within that two mile radius will contaminant their property?  What is their strategy should a third party contaminate their property?  Pollution liability insurance can protect property owners should neighboring third parties contaminate their property.
    2. In preparation for a meeting to strategize on managing and transferring environmental exposures go to the EPA website: https://echo.epa.gov/.  At the EPA ECHO website you can type in a street address, a city, a county / perish… and it will give you a list of businesses / property owners that have or currently are involved in a cleanup or environmental violations.  Sharing a list of the neighboring properties is a great way to show that a credible source, the government, has identified contaminating neighbors and if the government knows about it, shouldn’t it be of concern to them.  What is their strategy?

    Epa-Logo

    News Releases from Region 03

    PHILADELPHIA (July 21, 2016) – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today that Sunshine Pride Dairy, Inc. will pay a $179,074 penalty to settle alleged federal environmental violations at its former cheese processing facility in Winchester, Va.  The dairy shut down cheese processing operations in December 2011, but left anhydrous ammonia, a hazardous substance, stored in its refrigeration system with only a skeleton maintenance crew at the facility.

    EPA alleged that in July 2012, the facility did not properly notify emergency response agencies about two instances when anhydrous ammonia was released into the air.  These included one release of between 100-500 pounds and another of more than 1,500 pounds. After the second release, Sunshine Pride Dairy had the remaining anhydrous ammonia drained from the system.

    EPA cited the company for not updating its operating procedures to reflect current conditions at the facility, failing to document proper training of its operators, and failing to maintain its ammonia processing equipment.  In addition, EPA also alleged that the dairy did not report the ammonia to the state, county and local fire department as required on its annual chemical reporting forms for the years 2012 and 2013.

    The settlement resolves alleged violations under three federal statutes: failing to maintain risk management obligations required under the Clean Air Act Section 112(r); failing to comply with community right-to-know reporting requirements; and failing to report releases to the National Response Center, as required by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act.

    These requirements help to ensure safeguards are in place to protect the health and safety of workers, local residents and the environment.  It’s also essential that local, state and national emergency response authorities are notified immediately when a release of hazardous substances occurs, so they can respond quickly and effectively.

    As a part of the settlement, the company did not admit or deny EPA’s allegations.

    The applicable federal statutes are:

    CERCLA and EPCRA release reporting and annual inventory reporting:
    https://www.epa.gov/epcra
    Clean Air Act Section 112(r): https://www.epa.gov/rmp

  • Toxic lead removal could be California’s biggest yet

    environmental Strategist, between the lines:  Some of the products you may be using today that contain lead are chocolate, cosmetics, computers and other electronics, construction trade materials, batteries, keels of boats, car and truck tires….

    • Production and use of lead is growing worldwide.
    • Roughly 10 million tons are produced annually with half of that coming from recycling.
    • Lead is usually found in ore with zinc, silver and most abundantly in copper.
    • The United States is one of the world’s top producers of lead.
    • At the current rate of use it’s predicted that lead will run out in just under forty years.

    After reading about a lead issue California is dealing with it should become pretty clear that lead is a huge environmental exposure most people do not think about.

    Workers remove topsoil from homes in the 1200 block of South Indiana Street in Boyle Heights that may have been contaminated by lead from an Exide Technologies plant in Vernon. (Irfan Khan / Los Angeles Times)

    By: Tony Barboza, LA Times 

    The task of removing lead-contaminated soil from thousands of homes near a closed Vernon battery recycling plant would be the largest cleanup of its kind in California and rank among the biggest conducted nationwide, say environmental officials and experts in toxic remediation.

    The California Department of Toxic Substances Control announced last week that soil testing shows decades of air pollution from the Exide Technologies facility deposited toxic dust across a wider area of southeast L.A. County than previously estimated, possibly fouling as many as 10,000 homes.

    “It is safe to say that no lead cleanup of neighborhoods in California involving DTSC has approached the number of potential properties that could be involved in this case,” department spokesman Sandy Nax wrote in an email.

    Community groups that rallied for the plant’s closure are now urging state officials to dedicate additional funds quickly to expand soil testing and clean more homes. Over the last year, contaminated soil has been removed and replaced at 146 of the homes closest to the facility in Maywood and Boyle Heights, with Exide footing the bill.

    “Every day, week or month that goes by, our children are being exposed to the poison that is lead,” said Mark Lopez, who lives a few miles from the Exide plant in East Los Angeles and heads the group East Yard Communities for Environmental Justice. “We hope the next battle is not having to fight DTSC for the cleanup.”

    Lead is a powerful neurotoxin that has no safe level of exposure. It can cause learning disabilities, behavioral problems and diminished IQs in children. Because of its use throughout the years in gasoline, paint and batteries, the metal is one of the most common contaminants at cleanup sites across the nation.

    Exide issued a statement Monday standing by the findings of a report it filed last week with state regulators “that establish the limits of lead impacts from the Vernon facility.”

    The Georgia-based company has said its contributions to lead in the soil are small relative to other sources, such as lead-based paint in older homes, leaded gasoline phased out decades ago and other businesses in the heavily industrial city of Vernon. The report said contamination from the plant was limited to nearby industrial zones and do not extend into residential areas.

    The preliminary results released by the state last week were based on soil samples from 146 additional homes spread over a two-square mile area stretching out from the plant and into Boyle Heights, Maywood, Huntington Park and East Los Angeles. The sampling data were used to predict where similarly elevated levels of lead should be expected.

    Officials with the toxic substances department have not determined how many of potentially thousands of properties will ultimately require soil cleanup, but acknowledged last week that it would be considerably more extensive and costly than anticipated.

    In a deal reached in March with the U.S. attorney’s office, Exide agreed to close and demolish the 15-acre facility to avoid criminal charges stemming from years of environmental law violations. As part of the settlement, the company is required to pay $50 million for a state-supervised pollution cleanup, including $9 million to remove lead contamination from homes.

    Now, the cleanup cost could balloon to tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars.

    State and federal officials say the agreement with Exide requires the company to pay the full cost of cleanup, even if it exceeds $50 million. But the toxic substances department said last week it was looking for funds to pay for the work while the agency seeks additional money from Exide and other responsible parties.

    Lead emissions from smelters, mines and battery processing facilities have resulted in extensive cleanups before, many of them through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Superfund program to deal with the nation’s most hazardous sites.

    Many of those were the result of pollution from secondary lead smelters, which like Exide melted down used car batteries into raw materials for new ones.

    One of the largest is an EPA cleanup in Omaha, Neb., that has removed soil from the yards of more than 12,000 homes contaminated by an old smelter’s lead emissions. The cleanup has been going on for more than a decade, at a cost of more than $300 million.

    A moderate-sized cleanup is a few hundred homes, said Ian H. von Lindern, who worked for decades as a consultant on environmental cleanups, including the Bunker Hill Superfund Site in northern Idaho, where more than 6,000 properties were cleaned of lead-tainted soil.

    “Ten thousand would be large,” he said.

    Determining the extent of the contamination from a facility like Exide will be challenging and expensive, environmental cleanup experts said.

    Removing the lead could take many years — but would significantly reduce health risks to young children. Those age 6 and under are most vulnerable to lead poisoning because they often play outside and ingest soil and dust.

    The county health department has tested the blood of hundreds of people who live near Exide as part of a free screening program funded by the company. The tests have not revealed any lead poisoning requiring medical intervention, but the program has faced criticism for screening few young children

    Cleaning up a yard takes about a week and costs about $45,000, the toxic substances department said. Contractors dig up and haul away contaminated topsoil and replace it with new dirt.

    Department officials said last week they are studying other major cleanups and believe the lead could be removed from soil in L.A. County at a lower cost.

  • Are You A Property Owner? How Are You Managing Your Vapor Intrusion Exposure?

    environmental Strategist, between the lines:  Vapor intrusion is such a huge environmental exposure for property owners, that ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials ) the society that developed Phase I and Phase II site assessments has developed ASTM 2600 which deals specifically with vapor intrusion. If you are a property owner you must have a strategy in place to address your exposure to vapor intrusion which can result from both onsite or migrating offsite contamination. Relying on the at fault party/s to make you whole is a very weak strategy. Pollution liability insurance can protect property owners from vapor intrusion.

    What is Vapor Intrusion you ask? In Laymans terms, Vapor Intrusion occurs when volatile chemicals migrate from contamination in the soil or groundwater up into a building’s interior space. Vapor Intrusion can pose a potential health threat to the occupants of the building, especially to sensitive populations such as children. The diagram below is an excellent illustration of how vapor intrusion typically occurs.

    courtesy of www.epa.gov

    Vapor Intrusion: An Emerging Risk that Could Cost Property Owners

    Posted on March 4, 2015 by Eugene Wingert

    Years after property owners thought they had completed the clean-up and environmental remediation of old contaminated sites, vapor intrusion has emerged as a risk that could result in additional clean-up costs and liability exposures.

    The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines vapor intrusion as the “migration of volatile chemicals from the groundwater or soil into an overlying building.”  Some building owners or managers may not be aware that they have a potential vapor intrusion problem at their property. In urban districts, many buildings are built in areas where soils or groundwater have elevated levels of contaminants.  However, even in areas with newer construction, the subsurface conditions could create bodily injury, remediation, or property damage exposures. In many situations, historical property uses may have impacted soils and groundwater. In a non-industrial setting, common sources of sources of volatile chemicals can include: dry cleaners, service stations or auto body shops, or leaking underground fuel storage tanks. Contaminants that are commonly found at impacted properties include:

    • Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), including Benzene
    • Chlorinated Volatile Organic Compounds (CVOCs) such as Perchloroethylene (PCE), Trichloroethylene (TCE), 1,1,1 –Trichloroethane (1,1,1-TCA) and Vinyl Chloride
    • Landfill gas (methane)

    Volatile chemicals can diffuse and migrate through the subsurface. When the vapors reach an obstruction (such as pavement, concrete foundation, or slab) they can collect.  As cracks develop in these obstructions, the pressure difference between the building and the subsurface allows the vapors to migrate upward into the buildings.  The vapors may accumulate in work spaces or living areas within buildings to levels that pose hazards affecting properties,, acute health effects or odors. In some cases, such as residences with low concentrations of these vapors, chronic, long-term exposure may also present a risk.

    Vapor intrusion first became an issue because of several high profile Superfund cleanups.  While many of the thousands of contaminated sites in the United States have been cleaned up, vapor intrusion issues may emerge when these sites undergo post-remediation inspections. The EPA and state environmental regulatory agencies are required to perform post-remediation inspections on a regular basis to determine whether a site, which had been cleaned up and was granted a “No Further Action” decision, remains within acceptable state.

    In many cases, vapor intrusion was not considered in the original risk assessment and remediation planning. Most states have dozens if not hundreds of sites that will be re-examined.  To add to the concern, there is debate among regulators, including environmental and safety professionals, as to what can be considered safe concentrations of volatile chemicals in breathing spaces.  Inconsistent interpretation of the chemical exposures and response actions creates an uncertainty in a property owner’s risk management strategy.

    A recent development in the enforcement of levels to which a party must cleanup the contaminants highlights the regulatory inconsistency across the country.  For example, in 2014, the EPA in Region 9 (California) recently set strict guidelines for trichloroethylene (TCE) levels in buildings caused by vapor intrusion. The guidelines cover sites that are listed on the National Priorities List (Superfund list) and call for a tiered cleanup and response.  Depending on the concentration of TCE in the building, the stricter requirements could potentially require evacuation of buildings if TCE levels are deemed too high.  Under prior guidance, installation of a vapor instruction remediation system may have been sufficient.   The impact on safety concerns, as well as the costs from loss of use of a building, could have significant effect on property owners and insurers alike.

    In addition to those sites that are monitored by regulators, there are a significant number of properties that may still have undiscovered vapor intrusion conditions. This is common in many commercial buildings where occupants or neighboring properties (past and present) used volatile chemicals as part of their operations.  A common example would be dry cleaners.  Most dry cleaners use tetrachloroethene (PCE).  The PCE and some of its by-products (trichloroethene, dichloroethylene, and vinyl chloride) can contaminate soils and groundwater and accumulate beneath a building foundation.  This accumulation can occur over time, and may not be discovered until years after the dry cleaning operations ceased.

    A recent example of this occurred in a commercial building in New York.  There, a dry cleaner’s antiquated equipment had numerous releases and caused contamination to soil at the building.  Over time, the state regulator determined that the contamination from these releases had spread beneath multiple properties, and was migrating toward several additional commercial and residential properties.  As a result, the regulator is performing environmental studies to determine the extent of the contaminant plume.  The ultimate cleanup cost may become the responsibility of the owner of the property that leased the space to the dry cleaner, but property owners affected by the contaminant plume may also incur costs to ensure the vapors are not impacting their properties.

     

  • There Are 532 Superfund Sites in Indian Country! How many contaminated sites don’t we know about?

     environmental Strategist™, between the lines:  My question after you read the article below is how many contaminated sites don’t we know about?

    Under CERCLA you are responsible for the environmental condition of your property.  What if a third party contaminates your property and they do not have the financial ability to correct the problem?  Your asset has just become a liability.

    Contamination from third parties can come from air, water, soil, ground water or just over the surface of the land and below are real life examples.

    While this article points out that 25% of Superfund sites are on Tribal land, the other 75% represent and even greater impact on human health and the environment.

    Environmental Strategist™ Risk Management Tip:  Environmental insurance can protect real estate owners if third parties contaminate their property.

    Environmental Trivia Question:  Where are the highest concentration of Superfund Sites in the United States?  Answer below article.

    Kill the Land, Kill the People: There Are 532 Superfund Sites in Indian Country!

    Terri Hansen:  Indian Country Today – 6/17/14

    Of a total of 1,322 Superfund sites as of June 5, 2014, nearly 25 percent of them are in Indian country. Manufacturing, mining and extractive industries are responsible for our list of some of the most environmentally devastated places in Indian country, as specified under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), the official name of the Superfund law enacted by Congress on December 11, 1980. 

    Most of these sites are not cleaned up, though not all of the ones listed below are still active. Some sites are capped, sealing up toxics that persist in the environment. In cases like the Navajo, the Akwesasne Mohawk and the Quapaw Tribe, the human health impacts are known because some doctors and scientists took enough interest to do studies in their regions. Some of those impacts may persist through generations given the involvement, as in the case of the Mohawk, of endocrine disrupters. 

    TheSalt Chuck Mine Superfund site in southeast Alaska operated as a copper-palladium-gold-silver mine from 1916 to 1941. Members of the Organized Village of Kasaan, a federally recognized tribe, traditionally harvested fish, clams, cockles, crab and shrimp from the waters in and around Salt Chuck, unaware for decades that areas of impact were saturated with tailings from the former mine. As if that weren’t enough, Pure Nickel Inc. holds rights to mining leases in the area and began active exploration to do even more mining in summer 2012, according to Ground Truth Trekking.

    The Elem Band of Pomo Indians, whose colony was built on top of the waste of what would become California’s Sulfur Bank Mine Superfund site in 1970, have elevated levels of mercury in their bodies, and now fear for their health. According to an NBC News investigation, nearby Clear Lake is the most mercury-polluted lake in the world, despite the EPA’s spending about $40 million over two decades trying to keep mercury contamination out of the water. Although the EPA cleaned soil from beneath Pomo homes and roads, pollution still seeps beneath the earthen dam built by the former mine operator, Bradley Mining Co. For years, Bradley Mining has fought the government’s efforts to recoup cleanup costs.

    The Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California requested EPA involvement in the cleanup of an abandoned open pit sulfur mine on the eastern slope of California’s Sierra Nevada that became the Leviathan Mine Superfund site. The Washoe Tribe had become concerned that contaminated waters were affecting their lands downstream, causing impacts to culture and health, environmental damage, remediation, monitoring and testing, posting of health advisories, drinking water, effects on pregnancy, and cancer. Aluminum, arsenic, cadmium, iron, manganese, nickel and thallium have beendetectedin surface water and sediment downstream from the mine. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) concluded that exposures could result in cancerous and non-cancerous health effects.

    The abandoned FMC phosphorus facility occupies more than 1,000 acres of the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes’ Fort Hall Reservation in Idaho, and lies within Eastern Michaud Flats Superfund site. The primary contaminants of concern at the site are arsenic, elemental phosphorous and gamma radiation. FMC left a legacy of contamination in the air, groundwater, soil and the nearby Portneuf River, which threatened plants, wildlife and human health on the reservation and in surrounding communities. The Shoshone-Bannock have long asked for a cleanup of contaminated soils, but instead the EPA’s 2012 interimremedyis to cap and fill, including areas containing gamma radiation and radionuclides.

    Answer to trivia question:  Silicon Valley

  • Wal-Mart’s Environmental Risk Transfer Strategy

    A few years ago we told you about Wal-Mart paying a multimillion dollar fine to the EPA for storm water runoff from their construction sites.  The fines were generated through the construction vendors Wal-Mart hired to do work for them.

    We suggested one strategy Wal-Mart would probably institute would be requiring certain vendors they hire to evidence proof of environmental liability insurance.  That day has arrived.

    Over the course of the last few weeks we have had agents contact us on insureds looking to do work for Wal-Mart but in order to even offer a bid a vendor has to be able to include with their bid package an insurance certificate evidencing proof of Contractors Pollution Liability (CPL) insurance being in force.  So Wal-Mart has gone a step further and said if you do not have CPL in place we do not want you to even submit a bid to us.

    In other words, No CPL, no work with Wal-Mart.

    We all know that Wal-Mart carriers a big stick and the businesses they impact are vast.  So if it makes good business sense for Wal-Mart to require CPL insurance I am sure you will see vendors of Wal-Mart along with other businesses implementing this same risk transfer strategy.

    environmental Strategist, risk management strategy:  For years we have stated that environmental insurance allows insureds to use the environmental insurance they purchase as a marketing tool to drive growth and profits.  Wal-Mart has now reinforced this and do not be surprised when this becomes a requirement for more and more contractors bidding jobs.  We have been seeing this trend growing for years and with companies like Wal-Mart getting on board it just solidifies that CPL coverage will become part of doing business for contractors.

  • EPA adopts ASTM E1527-13 Standard

    environmental Strategist™, between the lines:  environmental Strategist™ research shows in excess of 50% of Phase I site assessments are inaccurate which supports the changes outlined below.

    Two changes outlined in the article below stood out to me and both deal primarily with, Who Are Your Neighbors?

    1.  Identifying potential for vapor releases, or the potential presence or migration of vapors associated with hazardous substances or petroleum products.
    2. Greater emphasis on conducting regulatory file reviews, particularly of adjacent properties, which may pose a concern.

    In other words you may not be a polluter but who are your neighbors and what if they are causing contamination to come onto your property.  Under Federal law the real estate owner is ultimately responsible for the environmental condition of their property.  Environmental insurance can protect real estate owners if third parties contaminate their property.

    EPA adopts ASTM E1527-13 Standard

    From: Allison Winter, ENN 
    Published January 6, 2014 09:35 AM

    EPA finalized a rule last week adopting the revised ASTM E1527-13 “Standard Practice for Environmental Site Assessments: Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Process” as a standard by which parties may comply with the “All Appropriate Inquiries” Rule, 40 CFR Part 312.

    In the United States, the Phase I ESA is a report prepared for a piece of property that identifies potential or existing environmental contamination liabilities. Phase I ESAs assess risks of ownership and are conducted in order to determine if a site may be contaminated from past spills, leaking underground storage tanks, or historical uses of the site, to name a few.

    American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) released the revised E1527-13 standard in November 2013, and now the EPA has announced that they will recognize it. However, the newly revised EPA rule does not delete reference to the previous ASTM standard, E1527-05, so as of now, both standards are acceptable.

    However, in the Federal Register notice finalizing the rule, EPA indicated that it does intend to propose an amendment to 40 CFR Part 312 removing reference to the E1527-05 standard. In its response to comments received on the new rule, EPA noted that it “… agrees with commenters that the revised ASTM E1527-13 standard includes improvements to the previous standard and its use will result in greater clarity for prospective purchases with regard to potential contamination at a property. Therefore, EPA recommends that environmental professionals and prospective purchasers use the ASTM E1527-13 standard.”

    Some changes to the standard include:

    •   Clarification to the definition of a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC). A REC is the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products, in, on, or at a property.
    •    Addition of the term: “Controlled RECs”. Controlled RECs refer to contamination that has been remediated, but still may be the basis for ongoing or future land use or exposure control obligations
    • Identifying potential for vapor releases, or the potential presence or migration of vapors associated with hazardous substances or petroleum products.
    • Greater emphasis on conducting regulatory file reviews, particularly of adjacent properties, which may pose a concern.

  • Walmart to pay more than $110 Million for Environmental Crimes and Violations!

    environmental Strategist™, between the lines:  $81,000,000 environmental penalty  and a total of $110,000,000 being paid by Wal-Mart to “resolve cases alleging violations of federal and state environmental laws.”  That is some serious cash, must be some serious violations, or at least that is probably going to be the view of the general public.

    Wal-Mart will survive this reputational risk but what damage has it done and what if it were the other way around?

    What if Wal-Mart attracted customers by assisting the local communities in which they operate to make it an environmentally better place to live?  Better protecting human health and the environment would build a stronger customer base than being viewed as an illegal disposer of waste polluting the local communities in which they operate to increase profits and competitiveness against small locally owned businesses.

    Illegal disposal of waste is a tens of billions of dollars a year industry in the United States!

    To be environmentally proactive and make where you work a better place to live, go to www.estrategist.com.

    walmart
    This is something every business needs to consider. How are you impacting the environment? Could you be subject to fines and penalties for your impacts?

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    May 28, 2013
    Wal-Mart Pleads Guilty To Federal Environmental Crimes And Civil Violations And Will Pay More Than $81 Million

    Retailer admits violating criminal and civil laws designed to protect water quality and to ensure proper handling of hazardous wastes and pesticides

    WASHINGTON – Wal-Mart Stores Inc. pleaded guilty today in cases filed by federal prosecutors in Los Angeles and San Francisco to six counts of violating the Clean Water Act by illegally handling and disposing of hazardous materials at its retail stores across the United States. The Bentonville, Ark.-based company also pleaded guilty today in Kansas City, Mo., to violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) by failing to properly handle pesticides that had been returned by customers at its stores across the country.

    As a result of the three criminal cases brought by the Justice Department, as well as a related civil case filed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Wal-Mart will pay approximately $81.6 million for its unlawful conduct. Coupled with previous actions brought by the states of California and Missouri for the same conduct, Wal-Mart will pay a combined total of more than $110 million to resolve cases alleging violations of federal and state environmental laws.

    According to documents filed in U.S. District Court in San Francisco, from a date unknown until January 2006, Wal-Mart did not have a program in place and failed to train its employees on proper hazardous waste management and disposal practices at the store level. As a result, hazardous wastes were either discarded improperly at the store level – including being put into municipal trash bins or, if a liquid, poured into the local sewer system – or they were improperly transported without proper safety documentation to one of six product return centers located throughout the United States.

    “By improperly handling hazardous waste, pesticides and other materials in violation of federal laws, Wal-Mart put the public and the environment at risk and gained an unfair economic advantage over other companies,” said Ignacia S. Moreno, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division.  “Today, Wal-Mart acknowledged responsibility for violations of federal laws and will pay significant fines and penalties, which will, in part, fund important environmental projects in the communities impacted by the violations and help prevent future harm to the environment.”

    “As one of the largest retailers in the United States, Wal-Mart is responsible not only for the stock on its shelves, but also for the significant amount of hazardous materials that result from damaged products returned by customers,” said Melinda Haag, U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California. “The crimes in these cases stem from Wal-Mart’s failure to comply with the regulations designed to ensure the proper handling, storage, and disposal of those hazardous materials and waste. With its guilty plea today, Wal-Mart is in a position to be an industry leader by ensuring that not only Wal-Mart, but all retail stores properly handle their waste.”

    “This tough financial penalty holds Wal-Mart accountable for its reckless and illegal business practices that threatened both the public and the environment,” said Tammy Dickinson, U.S. Attorney for the Western District of Missouri. “Truckloads of hazardous products, including more than 2 million pounds of pesticides, were improperly handled under Wal-Mart’s contract. Today’s criminal fine should send a message to companies of all sizes that they will be held accountable to follow federal environmental laws. Additionally, Wal-Mart’s community service payment will fund important environmental projects in Missouri to help prevent such abuses in the future.”

    Wal-Mart owns more than 4,000 stores nationwide that sell thousands of products which are flammable, corrosive, reactive, toxic or otherwise hazardous under federal law. The products that contain hazardous materials include pesticides, solvents, detergents, paints, aerosols and cleaners. Once discarded, these products are considered hazardous waste under federal law.

    Pursuant to the plea agreement filed in Missouri and accepted today by U.S. District Judge John T. Maughmer, Wal-Mart agreed to pay a criminal fine of $11 million and to pay another $3 million to the Missouri Department of Natural Resources, which will go to that agency’s Hazardous Waste Program and will be used to fund further inspections and education on pesticide regulations for regulators, the regulated community and the public. In addition, Wal-Mart has already spent more than $3.4 million to properly remove and dispose of all hazardous material from Greenleaf’s facility.

    In conjunction with today’s guilty pleas in the three criminal cases, Wal-Mart has agreed to pay a $7.628 million civil penalty that will resolve civil violations of FIFRA and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). In addition to the civil penalties, Wal-Mart is required to implement a comprehensive, nationwide environmental compliance agreement to manage hazardous waste generated at its stores.  The agreement includes requirements to ensure adequate environmental personnel and training at all levels of the company, proper identification and management of hazardous wastes, and the development and implementation of Environmental Management Systems at its stores and return centers. Compliance with this agreement is a condition of probation imposed in the criminal cases.

    The criminal cases announced today are a result of investigations conducted by the FBI and the EPA, which received substantial assistance from the California Department of Substance and Toxics Control, and the Missouri Department of Natural Resources.

    In Missouri, the case was prosecuted by Deputy U.S. Attorney Gene Porter and ENRD Senior Trial Attorney Jennifer Whitfield of the Environmental Crimes Section of the Environment and Natural Resources Division. In California, the cases were prosecuted in Los Angeles by Assistant U.S. Attorney Joseph O. Johns and in San Francisco by Assistant U.S. Attorney Stacey Geis.

    More information about the case: URL http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/waste/cases/walmart.html

    ERMI utilizes environmental Strategist™ Brand resources to assist our agents to sell more insurance.

  • Cement Manufacturer Agrees to Reduce Harmful Air Emissions at Colorado Plant


    WASHINGTON— April 19th: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced today that CEMEX, Inc., the owner and operator of a Portland cement manufacturing facility in Lyons, Colo., has agreed to operate advanced pollution controls on its kiln and pay a $1 million civil penalty to resolve alleged violations of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 

    “Today’s settlement will reduce harmful emissions of nitrogen oxides, which can have serious impacts on respiratory health for communities along Colorado’s Front Range,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.  “Cutting these emissions will also help improve environmental quality and visibility in places like Rocky Mountain National Park.”

    “The settlement is part of the Justice Department’s continuing efforts, along with the EPA, to bring significant sources of air pollution within the cement manufacturing sector into compliance with the Clean Air Act.” CEMEX

    The Department of Justice , on behalf of EPA, filed a complaint against CEMEX alleging that between 1997—2000, the company unlawfully made modifications at its Lyons plant that resulted in significant net increases of nitrogen oxide (NOx) and particulate matter (PM) emissions. The complaint further alleges that these increased emissions violated the CAA’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration and Non-Attainment New Source Review requirements, which state that companies must obtain the necessary permits prior to making modifications at a facility and install and operate required pollution control equipment if modifications will result in increases of certain pollutants.

    As part of the settlement, CEMEX will install “Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction” (SNCR) technology at their Lyons facility, which is an advanced pollution control technology designed to reduce NOx emissions. This will reduce their NOx emissions by approximately 870 to 1,200 tons of NOx per year. The initial capital cost for installing SNCR is approximately $600,000 and the cost of injecting ammonia into the stack emissions stream, a necessary part of the process, is anticipated to be about $1.5 million per year.

    The settlement is part of EPA’s national enforcement initiative to control harmful air pollution from the largest sources of emissions, including Portland cement manufacturing facilities.

    NOx emissions may cause severe respiratory problems and contribute to childhood asthma. These emissions also contribute to acid rain, smog, and haze which impair visibility in national parks. CEMEX’s facility is located within 20 miles of Rocky Mountain National Park, and its emissions may contribute to visibility impairment and to the nitrogen pollution problem that is affecting the park’s vegetation, water quality, and trout populations. Air pollution from Portland cement manufacturing facilities can also travel significant distances downwind, crossing state lines and creating region-wide health problems.

    More information about the settlement: http://www.epa.gov/enforcement/air/cases/cemex-lyons.html

    More information about EPA’s national enforcement initiative: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/data/planning/initiatives/2011airpollution.html