DENVER – Executive Recycling, Inc. (a corporation) and Brandon Richter, age 38, of Highlands Ranch, Colorado, the owner and chief executive officer of Executive Recycling, were sentenced today by U.S. District Court Judge William J. Martinez for their roles in a fraudulent scheme related to the disposal and exportation of electronic waste to foreign countries, announced United States Attorney John Walsh, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) Special Agent in Charge Kumar Kibble and EPA Criminal Investigation Division Special Agent in Charge Jeffrey Martinez.  Executive Recycling, the corporation, was sentenced to pay a $4,500,000 fine and serve 3 years on probation.  Richter was ordered to serve 30 months in federal prison, followed by 3 years on supervised release.  Judge Martinez also ordered Richter to pay a $7,500 fine and $70,144 in restitution joint and several with the victims of the crime.  Richter was ordered to report to a Bureau of Prisons facility within 15 days of designation.  Judge Martinez also ordered $142,241.10 in asset forfeiture.

The defendants were convicted in December 2012 of multiple counts of mail and wire fraud and environmental crimes related to the illegal disposal of electronic waste, smuggling, and obstruction of justice, following an 11-day trial.

Last week former vice president of operations, Tor Olson, age 38, of Parker, Colorado, was sentenced to serve 14 months in prison, pay a $5,000 fine, and pay over $15,000 in restitution.  Olson remains free on bond pending appeal.

Executive Recycling, Inc., as a corporation, Brandon Richter and Tor Olson were indicted by a federal grand jury in Denver on September 15, 2011. The jury trial before Judge Martinez began on December 3, 2012. The jury reached their verdict on December 21, 2012.  Olson was sentenced on July 17, 2013.

According to the indictment, as well as the facts presented at trial, Executive Recycling was an electronic waste recycling business located in Englewood, Colorado with affiliated locations in Utah and Nebraska. The company collected electronic waste from private households, businesses, and government entities. Executive Recycling was registered with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment as a “Large Quantity Handler of Universal Waste.” Richter, as owner and CEO, was responsible for supervising all aspects of the company. Olson, the vice president of operations, was responsible for running day-to-day operations.

A significant portion of electronic waste collected by the defendants were Cathode Ray Tubes (CRTs). CRTs are the glass video display component of an electronic device, usually a computer or television monitor, and are known to contain lead. The defendants engaged in the practice of exporting electronic waste, including CRTs, from the United States to foreign countries, including the People’s Republic of China. The defendants regularly negotiated the sale of electronic waste to brokers who represented foreign buyers or who sold the electronic waste overseas. The foreign buyers often paid the defendants directly. To transport the electronic waste, the defendants used shipping cargo containers which were loaded at the company’s facility. The containers were then transported by rail to domestic ports for export overseas.

Executive Recycling appeared as the exporter of record in over 300 exports from the United States between 2005 and 2008. Approximately 160 of these exported cargo containers contained a total of more than 100,000 CRTs.

Between February 2005 and continuing through January 2009, the defendants knowingly devised and intended to devise a scheme to defraud various business and government entities who wanted to dispose of their electronic waste, and to obtain these business and government entities’ money by means of materially false and fraudulent pretenses. The defendants represented themselves on a website to have “extensive knowledge of current EPA requirements.” The defendants falsely advertised to customers that they would dispose of electronic waste in compliance with all local, state and federal laws and regulations. It was part of the scheme that the defendants falsely represented that they would dispose of all electronic waste, whether hazardous or not, in an environmentally friendly manner. Specifically, the defendants falsely represented that the defendant company recycled electronic waste “properly, right here in the U.S.” They also stated that they would not send the electronic waste overseas.

The defendants’ misrepresentation induced customers to enter into contracts or agreements with the defendants for electronic waste disposal. Each victim paid the defendants to recycle their electronic waste in accordance with the representations made by the defendants. Contrary to their representations, the defendants sold the electronic waste they received from customers to brokers for export overseas to the People’s Republic of China and other countries.

“The defendants in this case not only caused actual harm to the environment by shipping electronic waste overseas for dumping, they defrauded their customers by falsely claiming to be disposing of that waste in an environmentally safe way,” said U.S. Attorney John Walsh.  “As cases like this one show, federal investigators and the U.S. Attorney’s Office can and will reach beyond our country’s borders to investigate crime and prosecute wrongdoers.”

“This prison sentence and fine awarded to this CEO demonstrate that there are no shortcuts to following U.S. export laws,” said Kumar Kibble, special agent in charge of HSI Denver.  “This CEO also intentionally deceived the public for years by falsely advertising an environmentally friendly recycling business plan within the United States.  Instead, he regularly exported tons of obsolete and discarded electronic equipment containing toxic materials to third-world countries, and took actions to illegally hide these practices from government officials.”

“The defendants claimed to safely recycle e-waste in the U.S., but regularly exported obsolete and discarded electronic equipment with toxic materials to third-world countries,” said Jeff Martinez, Special Agent in Charge of EPA’s criminal enforcement office in Colorado.  “Pollution and greed respect no boundaries and EPA is committed to combating the illegal traffic of e-waste, which poses particularly significant environmental health risks in developing countries.”

This case was investigated by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), the Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigation Division and the Colorado Attorney General’s Office, Special Prosecutions Unit.

The defendants were prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorneys Suneeta Hazra and Valeria Spencer and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Lillian Alves.

Use caution when selecting a company to handle your universal waste, hazardous waste, or used oil.  Their crimes could lead to your headaches.

This is big news!  The regulated industry has been waiting for this Final Rule for some time.  This will affect the Federal RCRA regulations that most states with authorized hazardous waste programs “adopt by reference” into their state regulations.  Prior to this Final Rule most states already had some form of this exclusion, but it was not codified in the regulations.  Below is the news release from the USEPA, I’ll write an article on this soon providing a summary and what you need to know.

Common-sense exclusion will save industry up to $27.8 million per year

Release Date: 07/23/2013
Contact Information: Enesta Jones, jones.enesta@epa.gov, 202-564-7873, 202-564-4355

WASHINGTON – Today the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) modified the hazardous waste management regulations under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) to conditionally exclude solvent-contaminated wipes from hazardous waste regulations provided that businesses clean or dispose of them properly. The rule is based on EPA’s final risk analysis, which was peer reviewed in 2008 and published for public comment in 2009, that concluded wipes contaminated with certain hazardous solvents do not pose significant risk to human health and the environment when managed properly. EPA estimates that the final rule will result in a net savings of between $21.7 million and $27.8 million per year.

Wipes are used in conjunction with solvents for cleaning and other purposes by tens of thousands of facilities in numerous industrial sectors, such as printers, automobile repair shops and manufacturers of automobiles, electronics, furniture and chemicals.

“Today’s rule uses the latest science to provide a regulatory framework for managing solvent-contaminated wipes that is appropriate to the level of risk posed by these materials,” said Mathy Stanislaus, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response. “I’ve heard directly from stakeholders about the benefits of this rule and the need to finalize it. The rule reduces costs for thousands of businesses, many of which are small businesses, while maintaining protection of human health and the environment.”

Today’s final rule excludes wipes that are contaminated with solvents listed as hazardous wastes under RCRA that are cleaned or disposed of properly. To be excluded, solvent-contaminated wipes must be managed in closed, labeled containers and cannot contain free liquids when sent for cleaning or disposal. Additionally, facilities that generate solvent-contaminated wipes must comply with certain recordkeeping requirements and may not accumulate wipes for longer than 180 days.

EPA estimates that the final rule will result in a net savings of $18 million per year in avoided regulatory costs and between $3.7 million and $9.9 million per year in other expected benefits, including pollution prevention, waste minimization and fire prevention benefits.

Today’s rule is consistent with President Obama’s Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, which charges federal agencies to monitor regulatory effectiveness and to help make agency regulatory programs more effective or less burdensome in achieving the regulatory objectives.

EPA first proposed modified regulations for solvent-contaminated wipes on November 20, 2003, and published a revised risk assessment for public comment on October 27, 2009. The docket for this rulemaking is EPA-HQ-RCRA-2003-0004 and can be accessed at http://www.regulations.gov once the final rule is published.

More information about this rulemaking:http://www.epa.gov/epawaste/hazard/wastetypes/wasteid/solvents/wipes.htm

Release Date: 07/01/2013

Contact Information: Mark MacIntyre, EPA/Seattle 206-553-7302/206-369-7999(cell) macintyre.mark@epa.gov

(Seattle – July 1, 2013) The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has agreed to improve waste handling practices and pay $136,000 in a settlement announced today by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. According to the agreement, DOE allegedly operated several dangerous waste storage units without proper permit authorization and placed waste in a landfill before treating it. Instead, DOE treated the waste after placement, a violation of existing dangerous waste regulations. 

“Today’s agreement includes commitments by DOE to address these allegations and ensure that these units are properly managed,” said Ed Kowalski, director of EPA’s Office of Compliance and Enforcement in Seattle. “When handling mixed (nuclear and hazardous) waste, there’s no such thing as being ‘too careful’. Strict compliance with all dangerous waste requirements is the only acceptable path here.”

Inspections were conducted by the EPA National Enforcement Investigations Center in 2011, where inspectors focused on the facility’s Solid Waste Operational Complex. At this facility, radioactive and dangerous wastes are stored and processed prior to shipment to other locations for treatment and disposal.

Under today’s agreement, DOE will:

· Close eight dangerous waste storage units that EPA contends had not received proper authorization under the state dangerous waste permit.
· Submit closure plans for the eight units through a state dangerous waste permit modification request.
· Close, or request an extension to the time allowed to close, an additional two inactive dangerous waste storage units.
· Treat dangerous waste before disposal as required by state & federal regulations.
· Pay a penalty of $136,000, payable to the U.S. Treasury.

As a state with an authorized hazardous waste program under RCRA, Washington is able to create and enforce its own regulations in lieu of those of the USEPA.  A state’s program will be authorized as long as it is at least as stringent and as broad as that of the USEPA.  In this case the state of Washington refers to “Hazardous Waste” as “Dangerous Waste” which you will notice in the above news release.  Washington has other state-specific regulations that you must comply with if you wish to avoid fines and penalties paid by the DOE.

At my Seminar Training I will point out the differences between the USEPA and your state when possible.  For Onsite Training I will research your state’s regulations and provide an in-depth explanation of what is required for compliance.  Please contact me for a free training consultation.

PHILADELPHIA (June 5, 2013) — The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has ordered Century Aluminum of West Virginia to develop an updated cleanup plan for a former industrial facility in Ravenswood, W.Va., that was used for the storage and disposal of hazardous materials that were byproducts of aluminum production.

EPA is currently overseeing cleanup activities at the site, located on Route 2 South, Century road, Ravenswood, W.Va., where soil and groundwater is contaminated with cyanide, fluoride, lead, arsenic and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs). Cleanup work includes restoration of contaminated groundwater to drinking water standards and to control human and environmental exposure to hazardous wastes in the soil that remain in place at the plant.

Under the order announced today, the company must develop a plan, known as a materials management plan, that identifies specific locations at the plant where contaminants remain, and put in place procedures and safeguards for any future construction or excavation in those areas. The plan must be approved by EPA and the West Virginia Department of the Environmental Protection. The plan must include a health and safety section for the safety of workers and contractors doing excavation or construction work in these known contaminated areas.

The order also restricts using groundwater beneath the property for drinking water. Using the property for any purpose other than industrial is prohibited unless it is demonstrated that there is no threat to human health or the environment.

Aluminum production began at the site in 1957 when Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corporation began operations. The facility included a plant that produced aluminum from alumina ore, and a plant that produced plate and coil aluminum alloy. The former Kaiser plant was sold in 1989 to Ravenswood Aluminum Corporation, which later changed its name to Century Aluminum of West Virginia. In 1999, Century Aluminum sold 500 acres of the facility to Pechiney Rolled Products but Century Aluminum retained the plant that produces aluminum, which covered approximately 350 acres. In February 2009, Century Aluminum shut down the aluminum production operation due to the low demand for aluminum.

For more information about EPA’s civil enforcement of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), go to: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/cleanup/rcra/

It is interesting to note that this enforcement action is being handled under the authority of RCRA and not under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) which amended the earlier Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA).  While SARA has the authority to clean-up abandoned sites and spills where ownership cannot be established, RCRA has the authority to recover contaminated sites where ownership is known, as in this case.

News Release:
06/05/2013

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.”

“Federal laws that address the proper handling, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes exist to safeguard our environment and protect the public from harm,” said André Birotte Jr., the U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California. “Retailers like Wal-Mart that generate hazardous waste have a duty to legally and safely dispose of that hazardous waste, and dumping it down the sink was neither legal nor safe. The case against Wal-Mart is designed to ensure compliance with our nation’s environmental laws now and in the future.”

“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.”

“The FBI holds all companies, regardless of size, to the same standards,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge David J. Johnson of the San Francisco Field Office. “We will continue to work closely with our law enforcement partners to ensure there is a level playing field for all businesses and that everyone follows the rules.”

“Today Wal-Mart is taking responsibility for violating laws that protect people from hazardous wastes and chemicals,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. “Walmart is committing to safe handling of hazardous wastes at all of its facilities nationwide, and action that will benefit communities across the country.” 

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.

Wal-Mart pleaded guilty this morning in San Francisco to six misdemeanor counts of negligently violating the Clean Water Act. The six criminal charges were filed by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Los Angeles and San Francisco (each office filed three charges), and the two cases were consolidated in the Northern District of California, where the guilty pleas were formally entered before U.S. Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. As part of a plea agreement filed in California, Wal-Mart was sentenced to pay a $40 million criminal fine and an additional $20 million that will fund various community service projects, including opening a $6 million Retail Compliance Assistance Center that will help retail stores across the nation learn how to properly handle hazardous waste.

In the third criminal case resolved today, Wal-Mart pleaded guilty in the Western District of Missouri to violating FIFRA. According to a plea agreement filed in Kansas City, beginning in 2006, Wal-Mart began sending certain damaged household products, including regulated solid and liquid pesticides, from its six return centers to Greenleaf LLC, a recycling facility located in Neosho, Mo., where the products were processed for reuse and resale. Because Wal-Mart employees failed to provide adequate oversight of the pesticides sent to Greenleaf, regulated pesticides were mixed together and offered for sale to customers without the required registration, ingredients, or use information, which constitutes a violation of FIFRA. Between July 2006 and February 2008, Wal-Mart trucked more than 2 million pounds of regulated pesticides and additional household products from its various return centers to Greenleaf. In November 2008, Greenleaf was also convicted of a FIFRA violation and paid a criminal penalty of $200,000 in 2009. 

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. 

Release Date: 05/28/2013

Contact Information: Dale Kemery (News media only) kemery.dale@epa.gov 202-564-7839 202-564-4355

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

Release Date: 04/08/2013

Contact Information: David Deegan, (617) 918-1017

(Boston, Mass. – April 8, 2013) – A packaging company has agreed to pay $484,900 in penalties to settle EPA claims that it violated numerous federal and state environmental regulations at its liquid and aerosol packaging facility in Dudley, Mass.

According to EPA’s complaint, filed in Sept. 2012, Shield Packaging Company, Inc. violated rules regarding hazardous waste management, chemical accident prevention, hazardous chemical inventory reporting, and oil pollution prevention contained in the Clean Air Act, the Emergency Planning & Community Right-to-Know Act, the Clean Water Act, and the Mass. Hazardous Waste Management Regulations.

EPA had alleged that Shield Packaging violated requirements in the Clean Air Act’s chemical accident prevention provisions by not fully developing and putting in place a risk management plan that adequately addressed processes that used extremely hazardous substances at the facility. The company also failed to submit a required inventory of all hazardous materials on site to emergency responders, and failed to fully implement an oil Spill Prevention, Control and Countermeasure plan, as required by federal law. Further, the company violated the Massachusetts Hazardous Waste Management Regulations by failing to conduct hazardous waste determinations on wastes at the facility, failing to manage hazardous wastes in accordance with required federal and state management practices, and failing to implement an adequate hazardous waste management training program at the facility.

“Failing to carefully follow hazardous waste management, chemical accident prevention, and oil spill prevention requirements poses increased risks of exposure to dangerous substances for both humans and the environment,” said Curt Spalding, regional administrator of EPA’s New England office. “Hazardous substances must be properly handled, stored and disposed of to ensure that the local community and first responders are not subject to unacceptable risks.”

Risk Management Plans help prevent accidental releases of substances that can seriously harm the public and the environment from short-term exposures. The plans also reduce the severity of releases that do occur. A company that fails to create and put in place this type of plan for an extremely hazardous substance can leave the public and environment at risk from accidental releases.

Hazardous chemical inventory reports required under the federal Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act help protect emergency personnel and the community by making them aware of which hazardous chemicals are present at a local facility.

Oil spill prevention plans required under the Clean Water Act help prevent accidental releases of oil from reaching nearby waters, by requiring facilities that store significant quantities of oil to adopt certain measures and controls that reduce the risks associated with releases.

The company cooperated with EPA throughout its investigation, and since EPA’s inspections, the company has completed some work and pledged to complete additional work to fix the problems identified at the facility.

Note the absence of a Hazardous Waste Training Program.  I can’t say that my training services would have prevented all of these violations, but when you choose my Onsite Training Services, you get more than just training.  The day prior to the training I will walk the site with you to gather information for the next day’s training, but I also will share with you my 20+ years of experience with the regulations of the USEPA, OSHA, and the PHMSA/USDOT.

A small investment in training can help to prevent huge fines like these.  Contact me to arrange for the training you need.

PRESS NOTICE

BILL NETTLES
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
1441 Main Street, Suite 500 * Columbia, SC 29201 * (803) 929-3000
March 26, 2013

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
CONTACT PERSON: James Leventis, AUSA
  James.Leventis@usdoj.gov                                    
  (803) 929-3172

  Dawn Harris-Young
Harris-Young.Dawn@epa.gov
(404) 562-8421

COLUMBIA – U.S. Attorney Bill Nettles, the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today that United States District Court Judge Cameron Currie approved a consent decree with Weylchem US, Inc. to resolve alleged violations of federal and state air, water, and solid waste pollution laws at Weylchem’s specialty chemical manufacturing facility in Elgin and its wastewater treatment plant in Lugoff.  Under the consent decree, Weylchem agreed to perform corrective action measures and to pay a civil penalty of $500,000, of which $175,000 will be paid to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control. (more…)