On May 28, 2013, the world’s retail behemoth, more commonly known as Wal-Mart, plead guilty to violating both federal and state environmental laws. Since 2003, it has been charged with allegations of inappropriately disposing of hazardous waste and other consumer products on multiple accounts.1 Hearings took place in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco and Los Angeles, as Wal-Mart was charged with six counts of violating the Clean Water Act (CWA) in California. In Kansas City, Missouri, the company was charged with one count of violating the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Wal-Mart Stores Inc. has finally settled a decade-long investigation by agreeing to pay approximately $82 million in fines and community service project initiatives. In total, Wal-Mart is expected to pay a fine of $110 million as it has been charged for the same misconduct on previous occasions.2 This judicial resolution sets the stage for all other retailers, big and small, across the United States, emphasizing their legal duty to properly dispose of waste and to abide by federal and state environmental regulations.
3The Northern District of California Cases
The two cases in California have been consolidated in the Northern District of California with six misdemeanor accounts of violating the CWA . Employees have been reported to have mishandled and improperly dispose of hazardous materials including: “pesticides, solvents, detergents, paints, aerosols and cleaners.”4 These consumer products, of some of which may be “flammable, corrosive, reactive, or toxic,” have been carelessly tossed into on-site garbage receptacles and local sewage systems, which act as direct conveyances to nearby waterways.5Again, these allegations of environmental waste violations date all the way back to the year 2003, amounting to decade long violations that can have innumerable effects on the environment, although damages to the environment have not yet been realized. Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Environment and Natural Resources Division, Ignacia S. Moreno states that “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.”6
In January 2006, Wal-Mart took considerable action to address this issue by creating an environmental compliance office to effectively train employees regarding proper “management and disposal practices at the store level.”7 The office is made up of 50 environment compliance staff and has since developed standards to facilitate the identification of consumer products classified as hazardous.8 One mechanism of disposal requires employees to place returned or damaged hazardous items into a special chemical bag.9 This bag must be labeled, enumerating the contents, and put into a bucket liner, which is then sealed and placed into a color-coded bucket. This bucket is then taken to treatment center and is properly documented.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160404104558if_/http://www.youtube.com/embed/MnJRUcIDf4s 10
In California, settlement agreements between the government and Wal-Mart were reached in 2010, after which the guilty plea was announced in 2013.11 For violations in the State of California, Wal-Mart was sentenced to pay “$40 million on 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.”12
The Western District of Missouri Case
The Western District of Missouri charged Wal-Mart for having violated FIFRA. As of 2006, Wal-Mart was sending damaged consumer products from its six return centers to a recycling facility called Greenleaf LLC. At Greenleaf, these products were illegally mixed together and repurposed for resale. For two years, Greenleaf reprocessed these products, namely pesticides, “without the required registration, ingredients, or use of information,” thereby violating FIFRA.13 Consequently, Wal-Mart continued sending returned and damaged products to Greenleaf, which added up to approximately “2 million pounds of regulated pesticides and additional household products.”14 In 2009, Greenleaf was also charged with violation of FIFRA with a criminal penalty of $200,000.
Wal-Mart will be paying a criminal fine of $11 million and an additional $3 million, which will “fund further inspections and education on pesticide regulations.”15 Furthermore, Wal-Mart has already paid compensation worth approximately $3.4 million to properly dispose of residual hazardous waste at Greenleaf.
The Final Word
Lastly, Wal-Mart will pay a civil penalty in the amount of $7.628 million for the civil violation of FIFRA and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has recognized Wal-Mart for its prompt response in creating a compliance office. The company will be expected to bolster the program and to continuously ensure proper training on management and disposal of hazardous consumer products. This incident will set precedent for all other retailers in the United States, reflecting the stringency of these environmental regulations to protect against environmental damage. Andre Birotte Jr., U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California sums it up as such: “Federal laws that address the proper handling, storage and disposal of hazardous wastes exist to safeguard our environment and protect the public from harm.”16 We need to make sure that companies do their part and comply with regulations set forth to protect our environment and health. Consumers need to use their buying power to support responsible companies and hold them accountable for their obligations.
