$3.3 Million Penalty for Hazardous Waste Violations

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra announced a $3,318,700 settlement with Cox Communications California, LLC (Cox) and other related entities to resolve allegations that its California facilities unlawfully disposed of hazardous waste – including hazardous batteries, electronic devices, and aerosols. These acts constitute violations of California’s Hazardous Waste Control Law, and of California’s Unfair Competition Law, as such conduct gives Cox a competitive advantage over other regulated entities that are complying with the law. Cox also is alleged to have discarded customer records without rendering personal information unreadable. This settlement was the result of a partnership between the Attorney General’s Office and the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office.

“If a company wants to do business in our state, it must abide by our laws,” said Attorney General Becerra. “Unlawfully disposing of hazardous waste can lead to serious health and environmental risks. Unlawfully disposing of personal customer information can seriously jeopardize a person’s right to privacy and open the door to identity theft. The California Department of Justice will continue working with state and local agencies to prosecute those who violate our environmental and customer record laws.”

“The Alameda County District Attorney’s Office has an environmental protection unit and a consumer protection unit dedicated to ensuring that all entities abide by state laws protecting our natural resources and consumer protection laws,” said District Attorney O’Malley. “Today’s settlement marks a victory for both the environment and for the customers of Cox Communication. The legal action also serves as a warning that companies who unlawfully dispose of hazardous waste will be brought to justice.”

As part of the settlement, Cox will:

• Pay $2,100,000 for civil penalties, $404,700 for projects furthering environmental protection, and $814,000 for reimbursement of law enforcement and investigation costs;
• Provide $450,000 in broadcast “air time” for Public Service Announcements to educate the public on how to properly dispose of and recycle consumer hazardous waste such as batteries and electronic devices;
• Spend at least $665,000 on environmental activities beyond those currently required by law in lieu of payment of $150,400 in additional civil penalties;
• Conduct three external environmental compliance audits and three internal audits to review its customer records management procedures;
• Use certified recyclers to safely recycle electronics and other recyclable materials; and
• Be bound by a permanent injunction prohibiting similar violations of law.

The settlement and final judgment follow an extensive investigation by the Attorney General’s Office and the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office. The investigation included a series of inspections of dumpsters belonging to Cox facilities. The inspections revealed that Cox was routinely and systematically sending hazardous wastes to local landfills that were not permitted to receive those wastes. Several dumpster inspections also revealed Cox disposed of customer records containing confidential personal information. During the relevant period of the investigation, Cox operated 25 facilities in California.

Baton Rouge Hazardous Waste and DOT Hazardous Materials Training

Register for Hazardous Waste Management and DOT Hazardous Materials Training: The Complete Course in Baton Rouge, LA on June 5-7 and save $100 or receive an Amazon Fire HD 10 tablet with electronic versions of both handbooks. To take advantage of this offer, click here or call 800-537-2372.

Chattanooga Hazardous Waste and DOT Hazardous Materials Training

Register for Hazardous Waste Management and DOT Hazardous Materials Training: The Complete Course in Chattanooga, TN on June 12-14 and save $100 or receive an Amazon Fire HD 10 tablet with electronic versions of both handbooks. To take advantage of this offer, click here or call 800-537-2372.

Dayton Hazardous Waste and DOT Hazardous Materials Training

Register for Hazardous Waste Management and DOT Hazardous Materials Training: The Complete Course in Dayton, OH on June 26-28 and save $100 or receive an Amazon Fire HD 10 tablet with electronic versions of both handbooks. To take advantage of this offer, click here or call 800-537-2372.

DOT Wants Your Input to Improve the 2020 Emergency Response Guidbbook

To assist in the gathering of information, the DOT’s Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) is soliciting input from ERG users on experiences using, and concerns with, the 2012 and 2016 editions. PHMSA is interested in any comments stakeholders and users wish to provide, but are particularly looking for answers to the following questions:

1. How can PHMSA make the ERG more user-friendly for first responders during the initial response phase of a hazardous materials transportation incident? Provide examples.
2. Does ERG2016 effectively emphasize the most useful information for the initial response phase?
3. Have you encountered conflicting or ambiguous guidance messages when using the ERG and other sources of technical information?
4. Are there ways to improve the White Pages? For example: Did you find the “How to Use this Guidebook'' flow chart on page 1 of ERG2016 useful in understanding how to use the ERG? Please explain why or why not. Do you believe PHMSA should reformat the tables, charts, and the information they provide (i.e., Table of Placards, Rail Identification Chart, and Road Trailer Identification Chart)? What changes do you think would make them more useful, clear, and easy to read and use? What other identification charts should be added, if any? What other subject(s) should be addressed? How could PHMSA improve the information the ERG provides on chemical, biological, and radiological transportation incidents? Can you suggest information to include or remove? Do you find the terms in the Glossary appropriate and current? What terms should PHMSA add? What terms should be removed or changed?
5. In ERG2016's Yellow or Blue Pages, have you found any identification number and/or material name that seems to be assigned to an incorrect Guide number? If so, please note the identification number, material name, the Guide number, and suggest a new Guide number with your reasons why.
6. Do the Orange Guide Pages contain recommendations and responses that are appropriate to the material they are assigned to? If not, please explain and recommend a correction.
7. How could PHMSA change/improve the introduction and description of the Green Pages, or any of the following tables? Table 1--”Initial Isolation and Protective Action Distances'' Table 2--”Water Reactive Materials Which Produce Toxic Gases'' Table 3--”Initial Isolation and Protective Action Distances for Different Quantities of Six Common TIH Gases''
8. When calling any of the Emergency Response Telephone Numbers listed in ERG2016, have you experienced a busy telephone line, disconnection, or no response? If so, please describe.
9. What format(s) of the ERG do you use (hardcopy, electronic, online, mobile applications, etc.), and why?
10. How often do you use the ERG in a dangerous goods transportation emergency? In addition to the specific questions listed in this notice, PHMSA is also interested in any supporting data and analyses that will enhance the value of the comments submitted.

Read more on  $3.3 Million Penalty for Hazardous Waste Violations.