Environment

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forest land from development by reinstating a 2001 rule banning road building and commercial logging that had been repealed by the Bush Administration.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administration failed to defend the rule from legal challenges and timber and oil/gas industry attacks, and ultimately repealed it in 2005 without conducting its own environmental analysis.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In 2007, the Northern District of California issued a decision agreeing that the rule had been unlawfully repealed and reinstated it nationwide.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.

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 in to 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.

Washington, DC – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today signed on to an “historic agreement” between the Obama Administration, the State of California and automakers that will lead to the nationwide adoption of California’s stringent vehicle emissions standards.

Under the agreement, the federal government will require a 30 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from motor vehicles. This will mean that U.S. motor vehicles will be required to achieve a fleetwide standard of approximately 35.5 miles per gallon by 2016, four years earlier than federal law requires.

This is the first greenhouse gas emission limit by the federal government, and it is the direct result of California's action to control tailpipe emissions.

“This is an historic agreement that will lead to a 30 percent reduction in motor vehicle greenhouse gas emissions nationwide,” Brown said. “This agreement brings an end to a five-year legal battle; it means that automakers finally recognize that their future depends on making cleaner and more efficient vehicles.”

For over 40 years, California has had authority under the Clean Air Act to set stricter standards than the federal government for automobile emissions. Other states have been permitted to adopt those tougher standards for the past 30 years.

In 2005, California applied its authority to greenhouse gas emissions, adopting standards that require a 30 percent reduction in global warming emissions from vehicles by 2016. Fourteen states adopted identical regulations.

The automobile industry attacked California’s standards at every turn, challenging them in both state and federal court.

Brown has staunchly and successfully defended California’s law against these challenges, provided assistance to Vermont, Rhode Island, and New Mexico whose laws were also challenged, and sued Bush Administration’s EPA for denying California’s waiver.

Brown expects EPA will act quickly to grant California’s waiver. Once the waiver is granted, the state will consider compliance with a substantially similar federal standard to be compliance with California’s standard.

There are 32 million registered vehicles in California, twice the number of any other state. Cars generate 20% of human-made carbon dioxide emissions in the United States, and at least 30% of such emissions in California.

A copy of Brown's letter outlining his understanding of the agreement it attached.

San Francisco – Responding to a lawsuit that Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. and others filed last year, the U.S. Department of Energy has agreed to reconsider the Bush Administration’s “grossly inadequate” home furnace and boiler efficiency regulations.

“The Bush Administration’s grossly inadequate efficiency standards did not do nearly enough to reduce energy use, greenhouse gas emissions and consumer costs from boilers and furnaces,” Attorney General Brown said. “Today’s agreement forces reconsideration of the regulations and could lead to much tougher standards.”

In November 2007, the Bush Administration put forward regulations that gave manufacturers eight years to make only minimal increases in the efficiency of home furnaces and boilers.

In February 2008, Attorney General Brown joined the California Energy Commission, the State of New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts, and New York City, Earthjustice and the National Resources Defense Council in challenging the Bush Administration’s efficiency standards on the grounds that the standards violated the Energy Policy and Conservation Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

Last week, the U.S. Department of Energy filed a motion asking the U.S. Second Circuit Court of Appeals to allow it to reopen the rulemaking process and examine key problems with the regulation including: the failure to consider regional standards and whether a more stringent standard would affect natural gas prices.

The Second Circuit granted the U.S. Department of Energy’s motion today. This resolves the 2008 lawsuit and could lead to more stringent standards, reducing greenhouse gas emissions, energy use and energy costs.

The original lawsuit contended that the Bush Administration’s regulations were illegal because they:

• Proposed only minimal increases in efficiency, far less than the Department’s own analysis recognized could be achieved. The U.S. Department of Energy standards would increase furnace efficiency by less than 3% and boiler efficiency only 2.5% over 23 years.

• Resulted from a flawed process. The U.S. Department of Energy overstated the economic barriers to adopting a stricter standard and also failed to consider the positive economic impact of more stringent standards.

• Gave manufacturers too much time to meet the new standards. The U.S. Department of Energy would not require furnace and boiler manufacturers to comply with the new standards until 2015, eight years after the standards were originally issued.

This agreement is part of Attorney General Brown’s fight for stronger federal action on global warming and energy efficiency.

Last week, Attorney General Brown commended the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for issuing a proposed determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare.

Earlier this month, Attorney General Brown and 14 states urged the Obama Administration to overturn the Bush EPA’s denial of California’s request to enforce its automobile greenhouse gas emissions law.

In 2002, California enacted legislation requiring a 30% reduction in automobile greenhouse gas emissions by 2016. But before the State can enforce its law, EPA must grant a Clean Air Act wavier.

A copy of the Second Circuit’s order is attached.

SACRAMENTO – Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. today commended the Environmental Protection Agency for taking the federal government’s “first concrete step toward curbing global warming” by issuing a proposed determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare.

“After years of inexcusable neglect under the Bush Administration, the EPA has taken the first concrete step toward curbing global warming by making a preliminary determination that greenhouse gases endanger public health or welfare.” Attorney General Brown said. “This proposed endangerment determination opens the door to the first serious national effort to reduce greenhouse gases.”

This proposed determination stems from the Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA -- a case in which California was a lead plaintiff -- which required EPA to determine whether the greenhouse gas emissions that lead to global warming “may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”
The Bush Administration refused to comply with the court’s order to make such a determination.

Brown has made combating global warming a major priority of the Attorney General’s office. He has:
• Requested the EPA requesting to curb greenhouse gases from ocean-going vessels, aircraft, and non-road vehicles;

• Urged the EPA to regulate emissions from power plants and other large polluting sources;

• Sued the Department of Energy for failing to require updated efficiency standards for appliances and other equipment;

• Sued the Fish and Wildlife Service for allowing federal projects to be approved without considering the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on endangered species; and

• Defended California's new motor vehicle greenhouse gas regulations from challenge by the automobile industry.

In California, Attorney General Brown has reached path-breaking settlements with San Bernardino County and the City of Stockton requiring them to adopt Climate Action Plans for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and has filed over 40 comments letters on local land-use projects under the California Environmental Quality Act.

More information on Attorney General Brown’s efforts to combat global warming can be found at http://ag.ca.gov/globalwarming/.

RIVERSIDE – Fighting to safeguard groundwater supplies threatened by toxic contamination, Attorney General Edmund G. Brown Jr. has filed suit against a national gas station chain – TravelCenters of America – to force the corporation to comply with underground fuel storage laws it has “knowingly and repeatedly disregarded” for years.

“TravelCenters of America has knowingly and repeatedly disregarded California’s underground fuel storage laws for years,” Attorney General Brown said. “This has put the Inland Empire’s scarce groundwater supplies at serious risk of contamination.”

On July 10, 2008, Riverside District Attorney Rod Pacheco filed legal action seeking an injunction against TravelCenters for violating the laws governing the management and handling of underground storage tanks of hazardous materials.

TravelCenters subsequently responded to the suit, offering more than a dozen legal theories as to why the law does not apply. This includes claims that the law is unconstitutional, is pre-empted by federal law, and violates due process.

At the request of the Riverside District Attorney, Attorney General Brown joined the case to enforce California’s health and safety laws, which Travelcenters has consistently violated and ignored. The suit was filed last week and made public today.

Over a number of years, the Riverside Department of Environmental Health conducted inspections at the TravelCenters facility in Riverside County, which revealed numerous, longstanding violations of California’s underground storage tank law. TravelCenters has failed to correct many of the deficiencies, even after repeated warnings.

Given these violations, Brown is seeking a permanent injunction to block TavelCenter’s illegal activities under Chapters 6.5, 6.7, and 6.95 of Division 20 of California’s Health and Safety Code, and section 17200 of California’s Business and Professions Codes, which governs unfair competition and business practices.

Brown’s suit contends that TravelCenters:

• Failed to have adequate containment and detection equipment for hazardous materials storage tanks;
• Improperly raised, altered, tampered, or disabled sensors in spill boxes that detect leaks;
• Failed to identify the date the hazardous materials were received;
• Failed to manage hazardous waste containers;
• Failed to maintain documentation of employee training;
• Failed to identify an emergency coordinator;
• Failed to inspect container storage areas;
• Failed to store incompatible wastes in separate containers;
• Failed to remove accumulated liquid or debris from the secondary containment system;
• Failed to have an operational audible/visual alarm system connected for continuous monitoring;
• Failed to have emergency response plans; and
• Failed to maintain a complete hazardous materials business plan.
In addition, the lawsuit seeks up to a statutory maximum of $25,000 in civil penalties for each day of each violation. This could amount to millions of dollars in penalties.

TravelCenters of America operates 234 travel centers, including 188 owned and 46 franchisees along interstate highways of 41 US states and in the province of Ontario, Canada.

A copy of Attorney General Brown’s complaint is attached.