Environmental Impacts

Here is a study of Wal-Mart Supercenters' environmental policies and impacts.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT’S A FACT:
Wal-Mart just does not care about the environment.

A series of articles from around the country, detailing the environmental track record of the company Connecticut Attorney General Richard Blumenthal called “systemic environmental lawbreakers”.

Wal-Mart to Pay Fine to Settle Violation
Associated Press – May 12, 2004

By CURT ANDERSON Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Wal-Mart Stores Inc., the nation's largest retailer, will pay a $3.1 million fine to settle a Clean Water Act violation stemming from excessive storm water runoff from its construction sites, federal officials said Wednesday.

Wal-Mart also agreed in the settlement with the Environmental Protection Agency and Justice Department to improve runoff controls at the more than 200 sites each year where the company builds stores, including Sam's Club outlets.

"Storm water requirements have been in place for a long time," said Thomas Sansonetti, assistant attorney general for environment and national resources. "Developers like Wal-Mart must share responsibility with their construction contractors to ensure compliance."

Officials at Wal-Mart, based in Bentonville, Ark., did not immediately return a telephone call seeking comment.

Storm water runoff carries sediment and dirt into the nation's waterways, killing fish, destroying habitat and blocking light that spurs growth of beneficial plant life. The runoff also can contain pesticides, chemicals, solvents and other toxic substances.

The settlement, filed in U.S. District Court in Wilmington, Del., cites Wal-Mart violations at 24 construction sites in nine states and alleges the company failed to get required permits, did not institute a runoff control plan and failed to install controls to prevent discharges.

Wal-Mart will comply with these requirements under the agreement and will improve training and inspections of its construction sites. The settlement also requires frequent reporting to the EPA.

In addition, Wal-Mart agreed to spend $250,000 to help protect sensitive wetlands or waterways in one state, not yet determined, among the nine involved in the settlement. The nine states are California, Colorado, Delaware, Michigan, New Jersey, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas and Utah.

In 2001, Wal-Mart and several contractors reached a similar storm water settlement that included payment of a $1 million penalty. EPA inspections of other sites arising from that case led to the latest violations.

Wal-Mart reported sales in the fiscal year ended Jan. 31 of more than $256 billion, according to the company's Internet site. In the United States, Wal-Mart operates 2,981 stores and supercenters, 538 Sam's Club outlets and 67 Neighborhood Markets.

Activists move to sue Wal-Mart over erosion
ALISON WALDMAN/COASTAL MONMOUTH BUREAU 617 words 14 August 2003Asbury Park Press8English(c) Copyright 2003, Asbury Park Press. All Rights Reserved.
NEPTUNE - A local environmental group took the first step this week to file a lawsuit against Wal-Mart, claiming construction of the new store on Route 66 and Jumping Brook Road created runoff that polluted nearby waterways.
The Shark River Cleanup Coalition Inc., a nonprofit group dedicated to cleaning and protecting local waterways, notified Wal-Mart this week by letter of its intention to file a lawsuit, said Brian F. Hegarty, president of the organization, yesterday.
Notification of an intent to sue is required when a citizen group files a lawsuit under the federal Clean Water Act or under the state's environmental rights statutes, said Judith Weinstock of the Rutgers Environmental Law Clinic in Newark, who is representing the coalition.
The Neptune City-based coalition must wait 30 days following the notice to file in state court or 60 days to file in a federal court, said Weinstock, who declined to say in which court the suit would be filed.
A Wal-Mart spokeswoman declined to comment on the notification, but said the company received the letter.
The coalition claims to have documented through pictures and video the discharge of mud, silt, clay and sediment into Jumping Brook, which flows near the site and into the Shark River, on more than a dozen occasions since April.
This includes an incident on Memorial Day when heavy rains created a runoff that dumped up to eight truckloads of clay, sand and sediment into the Jumping Brook, after a portion of the fencing meant to restrain the dirt was breached.
The Freehold Soil Conservation District issued a stop-work order until drainage problems were corrected about a week later.
"Sediment in the streams smothers all of the life in the stream and chokes the fish," said Hegarty.
Unusually heavy rains did create a water runoff problem at the site, but company representatives have met weekly with conservation district officials to correct the problem, said Mia Masten, northeast region community affairs manager for Wal-Mart Stores Inc., yesterday.
"We are doing everything we can to mitigate the runoff," Masten said.
The discharge into waterways is a violation of Wal-Mart's state-issued permit to discharge storm water, Weinstock said. The permit required Wal-Mart to submit a plan for soil erosion and sediment control, but the company has failed to follow the plan, Weinstock said.
"The plan is very specific about what measures are supposed to be implemented," Weinstock said.
Ultimately, Hegarty and Weinstock said they want Wal-Mart to correct the runoff problem and to clean up the affected waterways.
In a written statement released Tuesday, Hegarty criticized the conservation district and the state Department of Environmental Protection for failing to enforce erosion control measures or to issue fines.
Aside from meeting weekly with municipal officials, company representatives and the builders, Kay Contracting of Cherry Hill, soil conservation district officials also inspect the site regularly, said Ines Grimm, district manager. Inspections range from every day to every two or thee days, said Grimm, who declined to comment on the issues in the potential suit against Wal-Mart.
Grimm said yesterday she has asked a soil erosion sediment control engineer for the state Department of Agriculture to inspect the site with a soil scientist to determine how much material may have left the site and how much has been removed from the stream, as well as how far material may have spread in the water.
She said Wal-Mart has removed runoff from the stream on three occasions since Memorial Day.
Wal-Mart officials have said the store is expected to open early next year.











Sparring Match Continues over Chattanooga, Tenn., Wal-Mart under Construction
By Mike Pare, Chattanooga Times/Free Press, Tenn. Knight Ridder/Tribune Business News 484 words 12 July 2003Chattanooga Times/Free Press (KRTBN)EnglishCopyright (C) 2003 KRTBN Knight Ridder Tribune Business News
Jul. 12--An attorney for the developer of the new Brainerd Wal-Mart, responding Friday to an earlier court order to stop work temporarily, says the site has been used commercially for at least 40 years.
But a leader against construction of the shopping center fears the $20 million project will harm nearby wetlands permanently.
Parties on both sides of the issue continue to spar in a runup to a hearing Tuesday in Hamilton County Chancery Court concerning the building of the shopping center near Osborne Office Park and Interstate 75.
Roger Dickson, a lawyer for developer Bright-Par 3 Associates, said the project is being constructed in an area used for commercial purposes for the past 40 to 50 years. The construction site was a nine-hole Par 3 golf course for decades, he said.
Mr. Dickson said the impact of the Wal-Mart Supercenter together with 50,000 square feet of stores for other tenants will revitalize Eastgate and Brainerd.
"It will generate a lot of activity, which will be very helpful in the Brainerd area," he said.
Sandy Kurtz of the Coalition for Responsible Progress, which opposes the shopping center, said the commercial zoning of the property isn't what is undergoing a challenge.
"We're concerned about the survival of the wetlands," she said. When the location was a golf course, there wasn't that concern, Ms. Kurtz said.
Work started on the 208,000-square-foot Wal-Mart last month, but it was halted temporarily Monday after a Hamilton County judge issued a court order. The coalition of local activists and the Tennessee Environmental Council sought the work stoppage, claiming construction is damaging the wetlands and other areas.
The Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation last week issued a notice of violation in connection with the project's stormwater permit. An inspection at the site found erosion control measures were not installed properly, among other violations.
An attorney for the developer said steps were made to fix water quality issues discovered during construction, though the environmental council questioned if the problems were fully addressed.
Richard Urban, field office manager of water pollution control for TDEC, said the state can't revoke a construction permit for noncompliance.
"Once work starts again, they are still under the permit to only have clean material off the site. If that's not the case, that will be another violation," he said.
A hearing to consider other possible court action concerning the project is set for Tuesday at 9 a.m. before Chancellor Howell N. Peoples.















EPA has fined Wal-Mart for violations at supercenter sites
ROSE FRENCH 694 words 19 February 2003The Tennessean-Nashville1 English(c) Copyright 2003, The Tennessean. All Rights Reserved.
Erosion, storm-water issues concern local officials
By ROSE FRENCH Staff Writer
ANTIOCH - Mega-retailer Wal-Mart has run into environmental briar patches in recent years in at least two of its Tennessee supercenter construction sites, having been fined $1 million by the Environmental Protection Agency for Clean Water Act violations at 17 store sites nationwide.
The retail chain is in the early stages of constructing a new Antioch superstore on a 37-acre site near Murfreesboro Pike and Hamilton Church Road, where Wal-Mart has plans to build the supercenter store.
Tennessee Excavating Co., contractor for Wal-Mart, recently was granted Metro permits for tree removal and six months of blasting as part of site preparations for the future supercenter at 3035 Hamilton Church Road.
Erosion and storm-water management are two major areas of concern for Metro Water Services and other government officials. These issues arise with a large-scale project where a substantial number of trees are removed, dirt is significantly graded and acres of asphalt for parking lots and roofing are going in.
Large expanses of nonporous surfaces, such as parking lots and massive rooftops, block storm water from being reabsorbed into the earth. This can create flooding conditions nearby or allow water that has been contaminated with oil or other chemicals to flow directly into streams, without the filtering benefits that occur when water crosses or is absorbed by grass and earth.
At the Wal-Mart site, the East Fork Hamilton Creek, which flows across Murfreesboro Pike and beneath Hamilton Church Road, probably would be the first environmental feature to be affected by sediment erosion or storm-water pollutants, officials say.
Jim Armstrong, a civil engineer with Metro Water Services, said the department has worked with Wal-Mart to come up with storm-water detention ponds on the site. The ponds are there to mitigate flood impacts and to serve as an initial holding area for storm-water runoff, which would then be cleaned "to some extent before it travels downstream."
"The other concern is dirt leaving the site and to see that proper erosion controls are put in," Armstrong said.
Soil erosion is the main cause of stream pollution in the Middle Tennessee region, according to officials at the state Department of Environment and Conservation.
Wal-Mart has proposed several new store locations in the Antioch area over the past year. Metro Council members approved Wal-Mart's request to rezone the forested tract at Hamilton Church Road and Murfreesboro Pike in June. Meanwhile, council members turned down another proposed supercenter location off Old Hickory Boulevard amid intense opposition by residents.
Also, according to state environment and conservation officials, JDN Development apparently violated at least two conditions of its state-issued permit in building the 220,279-square-foot Franklin, Tenn., supercenter three years ago. The violations included diversion of the South Prong Spencer Creek without proper notification of the state department.
Despite the fines and violations, Wal-Mart spokeswoman Daphne Moore said Wal-Mart's environmental gaffes are few and far between.
"Those are isolated incidents when you consider we operate over 3,000 locations across the county," she said. "It certainly doesn't it make it right, but it's not protocol. With every new development, we have every intention of complying with regulations in place."
A recent study by U.S. Public Interest Research Group, a national environmental and consumer advocacy group, Tennessee ranked third in the nation for percentage of large industrial, municipal and federal facilities that were in violation of their clean water permits. period. n
Top 10 violators
The 10 states with the highest percentage of major industrial, municipal and federal facilities found to have had significant environmental violations in a recent 15-month study were, in order:
Utah, Texas, Tennessee, Wyoming, the District of Columbia, Indiana, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Kansas and Ohio.


Wal-Mart receives $5,000 fine for wetlands violation
163 words 13 October 200114:05Associated Press NewswiresEnglishCopyright 2001. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
NORTH CHARLESTON, S.C. (AP) - State environmental regulators have fined Wal-Mart Stores Inc. for $5,000 after officials say wetlands were filled without authorization.
Wal-Mart was cited for five violations of the Coastal Zone Management Act, including the filling of freshwater wetlands and disturbing land without proper authorization, said Steve Brooks, state Office of Ocean and Coastal Resources Management enforcement director.
The violations occurred after work began to convert the current store to a Wal-Mart Supercenter.
The company had been working on the project for five days before regulators discovered the violations. Since then, Wal-Mart has been cooperating with state and federal environmental regulators, Brooks said.
A Wal-Mart spokesman blamed the violations on an oversight and miscommunication among contractors when obtaining environmental permits.
"It's unfortunate, but at the same time certainly not anything that was done intentional or without regard to the law," said John Bisio, company spokesman.






Blumenthal sues Wal-Mart over alleged environmental violations at Stratford site
26 September 2001Associated Press Newswires
HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - State Attorney General Richard Blumenthal and state environmental officials on Wednesday announced they have sued Wal-Mart over its attempt to expand a Stratford store beyond state-approved dimensions.
The store is being built on a Superfund site that cost federal and state taxpayers $85 million to clean up, Blumenthal said.
"Thankfully, Wal-Mart's reckless, irresponsible actions did not expose its workers and the citizens of Stratford to the lead, asbestos, PCBs and other hazardous materials buried at the site, but they very easily could have," Blumenthal said.
Blumenthal and the state Department of Environmental Protection sued in Hartford Superior Court this week, seeking temporary and permanent injunctions to block Wal-Mart from allegedly violating restrictions on the property's use.
Restrictions are designed to protect a cap covering contaminated soil and shield the public from exposure to buried hazardous materials.
The bankrupt Raytech Corp. shut the plant in 1989, leaving behind contaminated sludge from 70 years of manufacturing brake linings and auto parts.
Wal-Mart spokesman Bill Wertz said he was surprised and disappointed by the state's action.
"My understanding is that our contractor proceeded with some excavation in the mistaken belief that it had obtained the necessary approval," he said. "It was an honest paperwork mistake and there was no harm done."
Wertz said Wal-Mart has no problem with meeting the conditions set forth by the state and will abide by the restraining orders, if issued.
"It was an issue that could have been resolved very easliy and cooperatively without any need for this legal action," he said.

Two Wal-Mart stores fined for environmental violations
232 words 18 April 200107:42Associated Press NewswiresEnglishCopyright 2001. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
BANGOR, Maine (AP) - Wal-Mart has agreed to pay more than $25,000 for hazardous waste violations at its stores in Ellsworth and Skowhegan.
In Ellsworth, a store employee dumped about 60 gallons of photographic fixer into the sewer system, according to the state Department of Environmental Protection.
Fixer contains high amounts of silver, and is normally processed through a silver recovery unit prior to disposal. The DEP said the store's recovery unit was broken.
In Skowhegan, store employees disposed of several bags of broken and outdated pesticide and fertilizer products by dumping them in the woods near the store, the DEP said.
The products contained a material identified as 2,4-D, which is a hazardous material in Maine.
Both incidents were discovered through complaints to the DEP.
Wal-Mart spokesman Bill Wertz said the incidents violated company policy as well as state regulations.
"We work very hard to follow the rules and to be good neighbors wherever we have stores," he said. "When actions like this happen, it's upsetting to us."
The fines are part of an agreement between the company and the DEP. The agreement also calls for the company to audit its garden centers, photo processing centers and automotive repair facilities in all 21 Wal-Marts in Maine.
The agreement is expected to be approved this week.



SUIT PUTS WAL-MART ON THE DEFENSIVE
TRACY GORDON FOX; Courant Staff Writer 696 words 9 May 2000The Hartford Courant4S EASTERN B1 English(Copyright @ The Hartford Courant 2000)
In the videotape Wal-Mart sent to every home in town last month, a new store proposed for a 142-acre site with 37 acres of wetlands is depicted in perfect harmony with the pristine waterways that run nearby.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal paints a very different picture of the giant retailer in a lawsuit filed last month against 11 of the state's 16 stores, which he called "systemic environmental lawbreakers."
He disputes claims that Wal- Mart had corrected all of the clean- water violations in other towns by the time the lawsuit was filed and is warning Colchester to scrutinize the project before approving wetlands and zoning applications.
"We would simply recommend extraordinary vigilence and vigor in assuring the company complies with the spirit and letter of the law," Blumenthal said Monday. "And we will certainly continue to scrutinize carefully the company's record and performance."
The lawsuit, announced by the state last week, could help a group of small stores and residents who are fighting to keep the Wal-Mart and a large shopping center out of the community.
They have been looking for ammunition to respond to residents who say they want the shopping center in order to improve services in town and add to the commercial tax base. Wal-Mart is expected to bring in $200,000 in tax revenue annually, create nearly 300 jobs and award community grants, according to a presentation before the economic development commission Monday.
Lebanon developer Ronald Lyman, who is building the 307,855- square-foot shopping center which would include Wal-Mart, said the rest of the development would bring another 300 jobs and more than $200,000 in additional taxes. He said he is negotiating with several major chains, including Pier 1 Imports, Staples, Lane Bryant, Radio Shack, and Linens and Things.
"The timing couldn't be any worse for what I'm doing with them right now," Lyman said of the lawsuit.
The battle over the development will be played out in a series of meetings, starting with an informational session tonight at 7 at Bacon Academy. The town is expecting so many people to show that it has hired a police officer to control traffic.
At a meeting last week, a Wal- Mart spokesman assured residents that the violations found at the chain's Connecticut stores were all addressed last summer.
Not so, Blumenthal said.
"That contention is blatantly inconsistent with the facts, as indicated by state Department of Environmental Protection's investigation, and public statements made by the highest DEP officials," Blumenthal said.
In fact, Wal-Mart has not fixed all the problems, said Margaret Bowles, a Boston-based project consultant for Wal-Mart. She claimed, however, the violations are being addressed.
During the past year, she said, a team from the company's home office in Arkansas has come to each store to teach store managers ways to prevent the violations. Other violations are still being addressed, she said.
"They've got people here this week who are working on all these allegations," she said.
Bowles said the Colchester store would be built differently, with an enclosed gardening center, to prevent many of the problems found in the other stores. In addition, only one of the acres of wetlands would be affected by the project, she said.
Lyman said there would be safeguards in place to ensure there are no violations on the site.
The lawsuit, filed last month in Superior Court in Hartford, accuses the stores of polluting nearby rivers and streams. State DEP officials said the pollution occurred because the stores keep fertilizers and pesticides outside, and when it rains, the products pollute storm water that runs off into waterways and eventually into public drinking supplies.
"At some of the stores, there was simply no adequate provision to deal with storm water runoff," Blumenthal said.
First Selectwoman Jenny Contois said she has requested information about the lawsuit from Blumenthal's office.
"It's a concern and I want all the facts," Contois said. "I have a responsibility to find out all I can."