Environment

Sacramento – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. sent a letter last week to six major retailers, warning them that a number of children’s products on their store shelves were found to contain “illegal levels of lead” and to pull the products from their stores immediately.

“Private testing uncovered a number of products designed for children that contain dangerous and illegal levels of lead,” Brown said. “These products must be removed from store shelves at once to protect our kids from toxic lead exposure.”

Children are particularly susceptible to the risks of lead exposure, which can damage the nervous system and other organs. Children are exposed by ingesting the lead when they put the products in their mouths, handle them and then touch their mouths, or transfer the lead from the products to food.

Any children’s product that contains more than 300 parts per million (ppm) of lead is considered a hazardous substance and therefore illegal to sell in the state. The following products were found to contain excessive levels of lead:

• Kids Poncho sold by Walmart, 677 ppm;
• MSY Faded Glory Rebecca Shoes sold by Walmart, 1331 ppm;
• Reversible Croco Belt sold by Target, 4270 ppm;
• Dora the Explorer Activity Tote sold by TJ Maxx, 2348 ppm;
• Paula Fuschia Open-Toed Shoes sold by Sears, 3957 ppm;
• Disney Fairies Silvermist’s Water Lily Necklace sold by Walgreens, 22000 ppm;
• Barbie Bike Flair Accessory Kit sold by Tuesday Morning, 6196 ppm.

Brown has also requested that the companies provide his office with results from any of their own tests conducted on the products and report how they plan to ensure that other items do not contain toxic quantities of lead.
Brown has reported the findings to the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission, which could order a recall of the products.

In 2008, Brown’s office reached a settlement with several major toy companies over excessive levels of lead in their products. The settlement allocated $548,000 in funding for consumer safety groups to monitor lead levels in consumer goods and to provide outreach about product recalls. The Center for Environmental Health discovered the current violations with a grant from the Public Health Trust, which administers the settlement fund.

"Based on our testing, it appears there are fewer problem toys on store shelves this year. But parents should know that some children's products still contain high levels of lead,' said Michael Green, Executive Director of the Center for Environmental Health. 'After all the attention to lead-tainted toys, manufacturers and retailers still need to do more to keep lead out of our kids' hands.'

A sample copy of the letter:

November 13, 2009

Dear Retailer:

We just received a report about a children’s product purchased in your store in Richmond, California that contains illegal levels of lead. The lead levels reported exceed the limits in the federal Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (“CPSIA”). Furthermore, selling the product without a proper warning likely violates California’s Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act of 1986, commonly known as “Proposition 65.” We are writing to ask that you stop selling the product immediately and take other corrective action as needed.

The children’s product is a Cherokee brand reversible “Croco” belt, Style 1139915TG, purchased at your store in Richmond on September 27, 2009. The SKU is 492020800102. Our internal reference number is PHT 082. Please use it in communications with our office about this. We have enclosed photographs of the product.

The item was purchased by an investigator for the Center for Environmental Health, using a grant from a fund administered by the Public Health Institute. The fund was established through a Proposition 65 settlement between our office and several companies over lead in toys. (People v. Mattel et al., Alameda County Super. Ct., Civ. No. RG 07-356892.) After screening the product for lead, the Center for Environmental Health sent a sample to a federally-approved laboratory for further testing. The test results, which are enclosed, indicate 4,270 parts per million (“ppm”) lead in the black artificial leather on the front surface of the belt. This exceeds federal lead limits, which deem a children’s product with more than 300 ppm lead in an accessible component a “banned hazardous substance.” It also appears to violate Proposition 65, which requires a clear and reasonable warning prior to exposing persons to known carcinogens and reproductive toxins, including lead. (Cal. Health & Saf. Code, § 25249.6; Cal. Code Regs., tit. 27, § 27001.)

Lead is a toxic metal that damages the nervous system and other organs. Even at low levels of exposure, lead can impact brain development in children. Based on what appears to be violations of federal and state law, you should stop selling the product immediately. Additionally, please send us any test results you have and any representations from the manufacturer or supplier about the lead content in the product. Please contact us immediately so we can discuss what further actions your company intends to take.

Sincerely,

EDMUND G. BROWN JR.
Attorney General

Oakland – After finding “hundreds of environmental violations” at Shell gasoline stations statewide, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today announced that his office has secured a $19.5 million judgment against the oil company and its affiliates, which will ensure compliance with the state’s hazardous waste and underground fuel storage laws.

“Shell Oil Company disregarded the state’s underground fuel storage and hazardous waste laws, committing hundreds of environmental violations at its gasoline stations across California,” Brown said. “This judgment requires the company to pay $19.5 million in penalties, comply with state law and improve its spill monitoring, employee training and hazardous waste management.”

In 2006, the Attorney General’s Office launched a statewide investigation into Shell and its gasoline stations after the San Diego and Riverside County District Attorneys settled cases with the company following numerous underground fuel storage violations.

Working with the California State Water Resources Control Board, the Attorney General’s Office investigated more than 1,000 Shell gasoline stations throughout California.

The investigation uncovered hundreds of violations at the company’s gasoline stations. For example:

• In February 2007, an inspector discovered that a Shell gasoline station located at 4355 Pacheco Blvd. in Martinez failed to properly maintain the required leak detection monitoring system for its gasoline tanks. The Shell station is located next door to the office of the Contra Costa County Hazardous Materials Program.

• In May 2006, an inspector discovered that a Shell gasoline station located at 7899 Greenback Lane in Citrus Heights, 20 miles northeast of Sacramento, failed to properly maintain spill alarms for its gasoline tanks. Inspectors observed similar violations in October 2005, September 2003 and April 2003.

• In August 2005, an inspector discovered that a Shell gasoline station located at 12398 Los Osos Valley Rd. in San Luis Obispo failed to maintain the required leak detection monitoring system for its gasoline tanks.

• In March 2005, an inspector discovered that a Shell gasoline station located at 30245 Agoura Rd. in Agoura Hills failed to properly conduct and maintain secondary containment testing and monitoring for its gasoline tanks. The inspector also found liquid and hazardous substances in the containment sump. Shell’s own inspector found liquid in the sump on previous visits to the station.

The judgment requires Shell, its subsidiaries, corporate parents, affiliates and successors to pay $19.5 million in civil and administrative penalties and immediately comply with state underground fuel storage and hazardous waste statutes, regulations and permits.

The company must also take immediate steps to improve spill and alarm monitoring, employee training, hazardous waste management and emergency response at its gasoline stations by:

• Implementing a “smart” monitoring system with programmable sensors to monitor for fuel leaks and other environmental alarms;
• Utilizing a continuous remote alarm monitoring, diagnosis and notification system;
• Providing annual compliance and emergency response training sessions to employees, contractors, consultants, retailers and operators;
• Implementing risk management software systems to drive improved underground storage tank compliance;
• Working with a third-party contractor to manage and oversee Hazardous Material Business Plans and Underground Storage Tank Monitoring Response Plans;
• Working with a third-party contractor to provide onsite underground storage tank permitting, registration and testing services;
• Completing a health, safety, security and environmental checklist to monitor, assess and address compliance issues; and
• Maintaining an underground storage tank equipment database and checklist.

Brown has taken aggressive action to stop violators of California’s underground fuel storage and hazardous waste laws:

• In August, Brown and eight district attorneys reached an agreement requiring U-Haul Co. of California to improve the way it handles and disposes of hazardous materials at its 179 regulated facilities throughout the state;
• In June, Brown joined 20 district attorneys and the Los Angeles City Attorney in a suit against Target Corp. to block the retailer from continuing to illegally dump hazardous waste in local landfills;
• In June, Brown and three district attorneys forged a settlement with Kmart requiring the company to stop disposing toxic substances in landfills and pay more than $8.65 million in civil penalties, costs and funding for projects to improve environmental protection in California;
• In April, Brown filed suit against TravelCenters of America – a national gas station chain – to force the corporation to comply with California’s underground fuel storage laws.

The $19.5 million judgment includes: $7.8 million in civil and administrative penalties to district attorneys and regulatory agencies; $5 million in civil penalties to the Attorney General’s Office; $5 million in civil and administrative penalties to the California State Water Resources Control Board; $700,000 to fund the Sacramento County Abandoned Well Restoration Project; $500,000 to the California Climate Action Registry; $400,000 in investigative costs and attorneys’ fees to the Attorney General’s Office; and $100,000 in investigative costs to the California State Water Resources Control Board.

The complaint, stipulated judgment and order, signed in Alameda County Superior Court, are attached. Included in the stipulated judgment is a full list of the Shell gasoline stations subject to the terms of the settlement.

'This case is a critical milestone, allowing global warming cases to be decided by the courts, just as they decide complex water pollution, air pollution, and toxic dumping cases,' Attorney General Jerry Brown said. “It’s highly significant that the federal court has affirmed the right of states to challenge the greenhouse gas emissions generated by coal-fired power plants. The time has now come for Congress to enact long overdue climate protection legislation.”

Oakland – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and eight District Attorneys today reached an agreement requiring U-Haul Company of California to “clean up its act” and improve the way it handles and disposes of hazardous materials at its 179 regulated facilities throughout the state.

“U-Haul has turned a blind eye to California’s hazardous materials laws for years, even after an explosion and fire severely damaged one of its facilities,” Brown said. “This agreement forces U-Haul to clean up its act and improve the way it handles hazardous materials, plans for emergencies and trains employees.”

U-Haul’s hazardous materials practices first came under scrutiny in November 2004, following an explosion and two-alarm fire at a Santa Rosa facility, which resulted in flash burns to an employee.

The emergency response team that arrived on the scene had difficulty assessing the situation due to the lack of information about stored hazardous materials. The facility had no site map indicating where hazardous materials were stored as required by law, and employees had failed to properly label flammable materials including gasoline. The building was damaged in the fire and ultimately closed.

Subsequently, the Attorney General’s office and 8 District Attorneys launched a 2-year statewide investigation into U-Haul’s handling of hazardous materials and training of employees. The investigation revealed violations at virtually all of U-Haul’s 179 California regulated facilities. Despite being repeatedly notified of the violations, U-Haul did not address them.

Such violations include:

• Inadequate training regarding handling of hazardous materials and hazardous materials business plans;
• Improper storage of hazardous waste such as oil filters and pans, waste gasoline and car batteries;
• Improper transport of hazardous waste; and
• Lack of statutorily mandated hazardous material business plans and emergency response plans.

The Attorney General’s office, joined by the District Attorneys of Sonoma, Alameda, Sacramento, San Joaquin, Solano, San Francisco, Santa Clara and Riverside, filed suit on July 27, 2006, seeking penalties and a permanent injunction to enforce compliance with hazardous materials and hazardous waste laws.

Today’s agreement resolves the lawsuit and requires U-Haul to:
• Complete and maintain statutorily mandated hazardous material business plans and emergency response plans for regulated facilities;
• Train its employees how to properly handle hazardous materials;
• Retain an environmental coordinator who will oversee, monitor and submit annual reports on the company’s compliance;
• Inspect hazardous waste storage areas at regulated facilities on a weekly basis;
• Properly transport hazardous waste; and
• Pay $2 million in costs and penalties.

This settlement, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, is attached.

OAKLAND-Fighting to ensure the safety of children’s playgrounds and ball fields, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today signed off on an agreement requiring Georgia-based AstroTurf, LLC to virtually eliminate lead from its artificial grass, creating the country’s first enforceable lead standards for artificial turf products.

“As schools and daycare centers replace grass with artificial turf, extreme care must be taken to minimize lead exposure,” Brown said. “This agreement is the first of its kind and will help make playgrounds and ball fields safe for our children.”

In 2008, Brown filed suit against AstroTurf and two other companies for excessive lead levels after testing by the Center for Environmental Health (CEH) found high levels in artificial turf products. Brown’s office independently tested AstroTurf and other artificial turf products and confirmed CEH’s findings. AstroTurf immediately took steps to begin reformulating its products.

Today’s consent judgment requires AstroTurf to reformulate its products so that they contain less than 100 parts per million (ppm), and to further reduce lead levels to 50 ppm by June 2010. Lab results found that some AstroTurf products contained more than 5,000 ppm lead. Lead was added to keep the colors vibrant over time. AstroTurf will be prohibited from selling any existing stock that doesn’t meet these standards.

AstroTurf will also provide a grant of $60,000 to the Public Health Trust to fund “wipe testing” of dislodgeable lead on artificial turf fields at daycare centers, schools and public playing fields in California. If the level of dislodgeable lead exceeds the specified replacement level, AstroTurf will provide replacement turf to the daycare center, school or public field at no cost.

AstroTurf will also provide a mailed warning to all customers who purchased its products in California in the past five years. The warning will (1) inform customers that the turf products contain lead; (2) explain “good maintenance practices” that can effectively reduce exposures to lead; and (3) advise the customers of the availability of the program to test and replace old turf products. AstroTurf will also establish a website to provide information to the public on lead content in its products.

The Los Angeles City Attorney and Solano County District Attorney joined Brown in the case against AstroTurf. In addition to its obligation to replace products that exceed acceptable lead levels, the company will pay $170,000 in civil penalties, grants and attorney fees.

"Today's agreement with AstroTurf sets a strong standard for other companies who have not yet agreed to eliminate lead risks to children from turf,' said CEH Executive Director Michael Green. 'Lead is a stunningly toxic chemical that has no place in playing fields for children. We applaud the Attorney General, the LA City Attorney, the Solano County DA and AstroTurf for this accord to protect California's children.'

A copy of the consent judgment is attached.

Sacramento – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today won a “profoundly important decision,” protecting 40 million acres of pristine forest land from development by reinstating a 2001 rule banning road building and commercial logging that had been repealed by the Bush Administration.

“This is a profoundly important decision because it brings to a halt the ill-considered development plans of the Bush Administration and preserves for generations to come 4.4 million acres of prime California forest,” said Brown.

The reinstatement of the 2001 'Roadless Rule' confers permanent protection on 40 million acres of pristine and near-pristine national forest land through prohibitions on road building and commercial logging. A portion of the protected land – 4.4 million – is in national forests in California.

The “Roadless Rule” was adopted at the end of the Clinton administration after years of study and public review. The rule generated more favorable public comment than any administrative action in the history of the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The Bush administration, however, wasted no time in launching a legal assault on the “Roadless Rule.” Initially, the administration failed to defend the rule from legal challenges and timber and oil/gas industry attacks, and ultimately repealed it in 2005 without conducting its own environmental analysis.

In response to the Bush Administration’s efforts to undo the rule’s protections, the California Attorney General's office, along with New Mexico, Oregon and Washington, filed a lawsuit in 2005 in the Northern District of California Court to reinstate the rule.

In 2007, the Northern District of California issued a decision agreeing that the rule had been unlawfully repealed and reinstated it nationwide. However, the Bush Administration immediately appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals seeking to overturn the decision. Today’s ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reaffirmed the Northern District’s 2007 decision.

The ruling is attached.

“EPA’s reversal tears down the last remaining barrier preventing California from enforcing its laws curbing greenhouse gases. Today’s decision stands in sharp contrast to the Bush EPA’s politically driven denial two years ago.”

Pleasanton, Calif. – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today sued the City of Pleasanton to remove its “draconian and illegal” limit on new housing, a significant cause of traffic congestion, air pollution and urban sprawl in the East Bay and Tri-Valley area.

“Pleasanton’s draconian and illegal limit on new housing forces people to commute long distances, adding to the bumper-to-bumper traffic along 580 and 680 and increasing dangerous air pollution,” Brown said. “It’s time for Pleasanton to balance its housing and its jobs and take full advantage of its underutilized land and proximity to BART.”

Brown today filed a motion to intervene in Alameda County Superior Court that would force Pleasanton to lift its housing cap. The suit was initially filed by the nonprofit group Public Advocates on October 17, 2006.

In 1996, Pleasanton adopted Measure GG, which imposed a strict, permanent cap of 29,000 total housing units within the city. At the time, Pleasanton had 21,180 homes, apartments and condominiums. The cap, therefore, allowed fewer than 8,000 new housing units to be built within city limits, regardless of demand or state law requirements.

The City is now on the verge of adopting a General Plan update, which calls for the creation of 45,000 additional jobs by 2025, while retaining the 29,000 limit on housing. This, Brown contends, violates state law, which requires every California city to provide sufficient housing to accommodate its fair share of regional needs.
The State requires Pleasanton to provide 3,277 additional housing units between 2007 and 2014. The cap, however, allows for only 2,000 more to be built – and that does not account for additional housing which will likely be required after 2014.

In the past 10 years, job growth in Pleasanton has nearly doubled -- from 31,683 to more than 58,000. Yet, the number of new housing units has not kept pace with demand. This is despite the fact that there is ample land for development, including property adjacent to the Pleasanton BART station. Unless the city lifts its housing cap, this and other land near transit will most likely not be utilized for housing.

As a result of the cap, many workers have been unable to find affordable housing within Pleasanton. A 2005 Association of Bay Area Governments study found that 79 percent of Pleasanton’s 58,000 employees lived outside Pleasanton, and their commutes can take two hours per day or more.

Brown’s suit demands that Pleasanton’s housing cap be repealed – so that jobs and housing can increase in proportion with each other.

In his suit, Brown contends that:

• Pleasanton is violating state law by enforcing a housing cap that prevents the City from accommodating its fair share of the regional housing need, as required by state housing element law (Gov. Code §65583.).

• Pleasanton’s housing cap violates the state constitution, which prohibits cities from adopting ordinances that conflict with state law.

• Pleasanton’s general plan is internally inconsistent, in violation of California Government Code Section 65300.5. The City’s existing land use element contains the housing cap limit of 29,000 housing units, while its housing element recognizes that the cap must be addressed because it prevents the City from meeting its fair share of regional housing needs.

If Pleasanton continues to enforce its housing cap, the consequences for the region include:

• Increased traffic congestion and longer commute times. Interstate 580 has some of the longest commute times in the region, with evening eastbound commuters delayed 7,410 hours and morning westbound commuters delayed 5,120 hours in 2007.

• Urban sprawl. Communities outside of Pleasanton will continue to lose farmland and open space to accommodate Pleasanton’s workers. These communities will have to build more schools, fire and police stations to keep up with anticipated growth.

• Increased greenhouse gas emissions. More people will be commuting for longer periods and over greater distances. Pleasanton’s CO2 output was 1.388 million tons in 2008. When the City is projected to reach 105,000 jobs in 2025, it is estimated its CO2 output will increase to 1.940 million tons. The increase is the equivalent of adding 120,000 cars to the road every year.

• Increased dependence on foreign oil.

Transportation is the largest contributor to California’s greenhouse gas emissions. The California Air Resources Board estimates that transportation is currently responsible for 38 percent of the greenhouse gas emissions in the state. Transportation accounts for 50 percent of greenhouse gas emissions in the Bay Area.

Brown has reached several agreements and settlements with local governments and businesses across California to help them reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. Some of his actions include:

• A landmark settlement with San Bernardino County which established a greenhouse gas reduction plan that identifies sources of emissions and sets reduction targets.

• An agreement with Stockton requiring it to identify and reduce greenhouse gas emissions, permit construction of thousands of new residential units within its current city limits, develop a rapid transit bus system and require all new buildings to be energy efficient.

• An agreement with ConocoPhillips that offsets greenhouse gases attributable to an oil refinery expansion in Contra Costa County.

An agreement with the Port of Los Angeles that identifies and reduces greenhouse gas emissions generated from port operations.

Brown’s suit against the City of Pleasanton is attached.

Oakland -- Fighting to protect Californians from exposure to “toxic and corrosive” chemicals, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr., 20 district attorneys and the Los Angeles City Attorney today filed legal action against Target Corporation to block the retailer from continuing to illegally dump hazardous waste in local landfills.

Separately, Brown and the Riverside, Ventura and San Joaquin County District Attorneys have forged a settlement with Kmart over similar claims, requiring the company to stop disposing toxic substances in landfills and pay more than $8.65 million in civil penalties, costs and funding for projects to improve environmental protection in California.

“Target has shown a willful disregard for California’s hazardous waste laws by dumping flammable liquids and toxic chemicals in local landfills over a period of eight years,” Brown said. “If successful, this lawsuit would force Target to comply with state laws governing the lawful handling and disposal of toxic and corrosive waste.”

“By contrast, Kmart has cooperated, agreed to live up to its obligations under the law and will train its employees to properly handle and dispose of hazardous waste.”

Target

Target currently operates more than 200 retail stores and seven distribution centers in California. The retailer carries and handles hundreds of items with hazardous properties, including: bleach, paints, pesticides, aerosol products, oven cleaners and automotive products.

Under California law, Target is responsible for properly handling and disposing of products that are damaged during shipping or stocking, returned to the store by customers or removed because they are past their expiration date.

Target is also required under law to employ a licensed hazardous waste hauler to pick up the waste and transport it to a hazardous waste disposal facility. This ensures that hazardous waste will not end up at local landfills where toxic chemicals can seep into California’s water supplies or emit dangerous gases.

Since 2001, however, local environmental health inspectors have served Target with more than 300 Notices of Violation (NOVs) for breaking California’s hazardous waste control laws.

In March 2006, the Attorney General’s Office launched an investigation into Target’s practices in conjunction with district attorneys throughout the state after local store inspections revealed ongoing violations. Violations include:

• In May 2009, an Alameda County Target store sent flammable aerosol canisters, propane canisters, light bulbs containing mercury, corrosive spray cleaners and medical waste to a local landfill not authorized to receive such waste.

• In March 2009, a San Bernardino County Target store sent a photo processing unit with toxic liquid and other hazardous materials to a local landfill not authorized to receive such waste.

• In December 2008, a Target employee in San Joaquin County informed county inspectors that hazardous waste, including pesticides, were routinely disposed of in the store’s trash compactor for transportation to a local landfill not authorized to receive such waste.

• In January 2008, investigators discovered that multiple Los Angeles County Target stores sent several tons of products that could not be sold, to the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank. The shipments contained over 5,000 pounds of damaged, leaking and unusable items with flammable, toxic and corrosive properties. A licensed hazardous waste hauler had to be dispatched to the food bank to properly handle the hazardous waste at a cost of over $5,000.

• In March 2002, a Sacramento County Target employee dumped leaking containers of liquid pool chlorine into the store’s trash compactor. The chlorine reacted with other chemicals in the compactor and toxic fumes were released into the air. This led to the store’s evacuation, an emergency response and several individuals were transported to local hospitals.

This joint investigation found that Target stores across California have illegally dumped thousands of pounds of hazardous waste in local landfills. Target was cited by local environmental health inspectors for violations of environmental laws as recently as last month.

Brown, the 20 district attorneys and the Los Angeles City Attorney are suing Target for:

• Intentional and negligent disposal of hazardous waste at a point not authorized in violation of California’s Health and Safety Code;

• Intentional and negligent unauthorized transportation of hazardous waste in violation of California’s Health and Safety Code;

• Intentional and negligent violations of Hazardous Waste Control Laws for Hazardous Waste Handling Training and Storage Requirements in violation of California’s Health and Safety Code;

• Knowing violations of Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Laws in violation of California’s Health and Safety Code; and

• Violations of Unfair Competition Laws.

This lawsuit would require Target to immediately comply with California law and start using a licensed hazardous waste hauler to pick up the waste and transport it to a hazardous waste disposal facility. Additionally, the lawsuit seeks $25,000 maximum penalties for each violation.

The 20 district attorneys who signed onto today’s lawsuit include: Alameda County D.A. Tom Orloff; Contra Costa County D.A. Robert J. Kochly; Fresno County D.A. Elizabeth A. Egan; Humboldt County D.A. Paul V. Gallegos; Kings County D.A. Ronald Calhoun; Los Angeles County D.A. Steve Cooley; Merced County D.A. Larry D. Morse II; Monterey County D.A. Dean D. Flippo; Orange County D.A. Tony Rackauckas; Riverside County D.A. Rod Pacheco; Sacramento County D.A. Jan Scully; San Bernardino County D.A. Michael A. Ramos; San Diego County D.A. Bonnie M. Dumanis; San Joaquin County D.A. James P. Willett; San Mateo County D.A. James P. Fox; Santa Clara D.A. Dolores A. Carr; Solano County D.A. David W. Paulson; Stanislaus County D.A. Birgit A. Fladager; Ventura Country D.A. Gregory D. Totten; and Yolo County D.A. Jeff W. Reisig. Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo also signed onto the lawsuit.

Today’s complaint against Target, filed in Alameda County Superior Court, is attached.

Kmart

Kmart currently operates 100 retail stores throughout California. The retailer carries and handles hundreds of items with hazardous properties, such as: latex and acrylic paints, pesticides, fertilizers, aerosols, pool chemicals, jewelry cleaners, auto batteries and waste oil.

In 2005, the Riverside County District Attorney’s Office initiated a formal investigation into Kmart’s hazardous waste handling practices. Subsequently, the Attorney General’s Office joined the investigation, which uncovered that Kmart had failed to account for most of the hazardous waste it generated between 2002 and 2007.

The investigation found that:

• In December 2006, a Kmart in Ventura County dumped liquid waste down drains.

• On two separate occasions in 2006, a San Joaquin County Kmart as well as a Ventura County Kmart sent waste oil generated at the stores to private oil change companies instead of disposing of the waste oil at an authorized disposal location.

• In 2005, a Kmart in Riverside sent 32 gallons of flammable latex paint, nine bottles of flammable STP Water Remover, 11 cans of flammable spray paint, and one can of flammable Armor All Tire Foam to a local landfill not authorized to receive such waste. Fortunately, the waste was intercepted at a transfer station.

Brown’s office contends the company violated California’s:

• Hazardous Waste Control Law by sending multiple flammable and hazardous waste for disposal at local landfills and failing to properly train its employees in handling hazardous waste;

• Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory Act by failing to submit required reporting records from 2004-2007; and

• Unfair Competition Laws.

The settlement prohibits Kmart from sending hazardous and flammable materials to landfills, and requires it to properly train its employees to comply with California’s hazardous materials and hazardous waste laws. Additionally, Kmart must properly label, segregate and store its hazardous waste.

Under the settlement, Kmart must pay $8.65 million in civil penalties, costs and funding for projects to improve environmental protection in California.

A copy of the complaint and stipulated judgment, filed in Ventura County Superior Court, is attached.

LOS ANGELES -- Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and the California Department of Food and Agriculture last week forged an agreement requiring Bombino Express Worldwide to immediately stop the “illegal importation” of produce that has not been treated to eradicate the Oriental Fruit Fly or other crop-damaging pests.

In July 2008, Bombino Express Worldwide imported 34 packages of Indian mangoes and yams that were labeled “ladies’ apparel” through Los Angeles International Airport. Airport dogs discovered the packages and prevented the produce from entering the food supply.

“Bombino Express Worldwide illegally imported mangoes and yams without treating them for dangerous pests such as the Oriental Fruit Fly,” Brown said. “It’s critical that imported produce be properly inspected to avoid devastating and costly pest infestations.”

State and Federal laws prohibit the importation of untreated mangoes from India because they can be infested with crop-damaging pests, like the Oriental Fruit Fly, which reproduces rapidly due to lack of natural biological constraints.

An Oriental Fruit Fly infestation could cost the state up to $176 million in crop losses, eradication efforts and quarantine requirements.

Brown’s Office and the California Department of Food and Agriculture filed a lawsuit against Bombino Express Worldwide and its CEO Mohmed Yasin Latiwala of New Jersey in July 2008, contending that the company had violated:

• Food and Agriculture Code section 5306, which prohibits importation of plant material in violation of a plant quarantine;
• Food and Agriculture Code section 6321, which prohibits the importation of any fruit/plant/vegetable which may become a host to any species of the fruit fly family;
• Food and Agriculture Code section 6421, which prohibits shipments of plants brought into the state without proper markings and disclosure; and
• Food and Agriculture Code section 6461, prohibiting importation of plant material infested with agricultural pests subject to quarantine.

Bombino Express Worldwide is headquartered in Mumbai, India. The settlement prevents Bombino Express Worldwide from importing produce that have not been properly inspected for foreign pests. The company will also pay $40,000 in civil penalties. If the company violates the agreement in the future, it will be forced to pay $1.6 million in additional penalties.

“The inspectors who prevented these shipments from passing into California deserve the appreciation of farmers throughout California,” said CDFA Secretary A.G. Kawamura. “Invasive pests are a primary threat to our crops, and keeping them out of California is vital to the security of our food supply and the stability of our agricultural economy.”

A copy of the settlement agreement is attached.