-
House Committee Targets Chip Technology Firms for China Ties - 3 mins ago
-
Hearts Melt Over Owner’s Elderly Cat Befriending New Kitten: ‘Mini Me’ - 33 mins ago
-
Why Latino men voted for Trump: ‘It’s the economy, stupid’ - 34 mins ago
-
A New Trump Administration Is No Reason to Change Investing Plans - 47 mins ago
-
Low Lake Mead Water Levels Spur Surge in ‘Illegal Roads,’ Costing Millions - about 1 hour ago
-
How a Trump term could impact California’s LGBTQ+ students, financial aid - about 1 hour ago
-
Russia Hits Ukraine with Drones, Missiles Overnight - 2 hours ago
-
DraftKings Promo Code: $200 NBA Bonus Instantly for Games This Weekend - 2 hours ago
-
Opinion: I thought I had my L.A. cycling commute down. I’d missed the obvious - 2 hours ago
-
Argentina Drove Down Teen Pregnancy. Then Came Javier Milei. - 2 hours ago
Walmart could pay $7.5 million for alleged landfill violations
Walmart will be liable for millions of dollars in civil penalties and costs for allegedly dumping hazardous waste and sensitive customer records in California landfills, according to a stipulated judgment filed this week in Alameda County Superior Court.
The judgment would settle a lawsuit brought against Walmart by California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta and the district attorneys of 12 counties in December 2021. Under its terms, the nation’s largest retailer will be required to pay penalties for allegedly dumping in state landfills nearly 80 tons of hazardous waste and confidential customer information from its stores throughout the state.
As part of the settlement, the company did not admit to any wrongdoing. According to the stipulated judgment, the company “has compliance programs in place to reasonably comply” with state laws regarding the generation, storage and disposal of hazardous waste.
If an Alameda County Superior Court judge approves the settlement, Walmart will have to pay $4.3 million in civil penalties and $3.2 million in reimbursements, according to a news release from the Riverside County district attorney’s office. “The settlement also imposes injunctive terms, which will require Walmart to hire an independent third-party auditor to conduct three annual rounds of waste audits at its facilities throughout California during the next four years,” the office said.
According to the 2021 lawsuit, Walmart allegedly disposed of aerosols cans, spray paints, rust removers, bleach, pesticides and over-the-counter drugs in regular trash bins, which are not permitted to receive such waste products.
State regulations dictate that hazardous and medical waste be stored in nonleaking containers and properly labeled when disposed of, among other requirements.
“Walmart’s illegal disposal of hazardous and medical waste not only violated California laws, but, if left unchecked, posed a threat to human health and the environment,” Bonta said. “This settlement will ensure that Walmart takes the necessary steps to ensure that its hazardous waste is handled and disposed of as required by law.”
More than 300 Walmart stores, including 33 in Riverside County, disposed of hazardous waste in regular trash bins, according to the lawsuit. More than 70 waste audits between 2015 and 2021 were conducted across the state.
Other counties involved in the investigation included Alameda, Fresno, Monterey, Orange, Sacramento, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Joaquin, Solano, Tulare and Yolo.
“This settlement brings accountability that helps to protect our environment from toxic waste,” San Diego Dist. Atty. Summer Stephan said in a news release. “These types of investigations and settlements are a reminder to corporations that they have a responsibility to be a good steward to our environment.”
This is Walmart’s second go-around on a waste disposal issue, following a 2010 settlement requiring the company to pay $27.6 million for disposing of hazardous waste in San Diego County. The retailer also agreed to halt its unlawful waste disposals.
Jacquelyn Cook, a Walmart spokesperson, did not respond immediately to a request for comment. She previously called the 2021 lawsuit “unjustified,” saying that the company adhered to obligations to better manage its waste.
Source link