Saugus Board of Health concerned about Wheelabrator

The Board of Health criticized Wheelabrator Saugus after the latest environmental compliance audit uncovered a number of housekeeping issues at the trash-to-energy facility.

In its findings after inspecting Wheelabrator ENVIRON cited a number of problems at the plant, including discrepancies with the completion of sheets related to the monitoring of waste loads, the failure to list corrective actions on logs and inspection forms that don’t accurately depict the locations of spill containment kits.

“I was very disappointed, this doesn’t make me feel comfortable at all,” Board of Health member Pamela Harris said.

In the report filed by ENVIRON Wheelabrator offers responses to each of the issues that were identified, clarifying that the problems have been rectified.

The state Department of Environmental Protection required Wheelabrator to hire an independent environmental auditor to monitor compliance with environmental regulations after the company was hit with a $7.5 million fine last year to resolve alleged violations, such as emitting ash through holes in the roof, failure to properly treat and dispose of ash and dumping wastewater into surrounding wetlands.

Board members expressed concern that Wheelabrator Regional Vice President Jairaj Gosine has put corrective actions into place but still isn’t getting positive results out of them.

Harris suggested the board consider contacting the Attorney General’s Office and DEP to find out why problems keep surfacing at Wheelabrator.

“This is not what the citizens expect, nor do we deserve this,” Harris said.

Harris also brought up the complaints that came in from the public about an unpleasant odor that emanated from the Wheelabrator facility this past summer. She noted the problem seemed to stem from Wheelabrator not keeping the doors tightly shut in between trucks dropping off loads of waste.

“People were irate and I don’t blame them,” Harris said.

Board of Health member Stephen Rappa said the board repeatedly hears the same explanations from different managers at Wheelabrator, only to see the issues continually surface. He wondered if the company is lax with housekeeping matters what else could be going wrong at the facility.

Harris stressed that something needs to be done to help the residents who have to put up with the Wheelabrator plant on a daily basis.

Read more

Posted: October 11, 2012 12:28 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Don’t go downing some Dioxin.

Harris County Attorney Vince Ryan announced Thurday (Aug. 16) that his Office has filed an amended complaint against several companies that knowingly allowed dioxin to pollute the San Jacinto River for more than 40 years. The complaint details the companies’ actions, inactions, and silence that led to decades of dioxin exposure to the public and the food supply of Harris County.

[cleeng_content id="860312440" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]The lawsuit was first filed in December 2011 against International Paper Company, Waste Management, Inc., Waste Management of Texas, Inc. and McGinnes Industrial Maintenance Corporation.

The County’s lawsuit contends that in 1965 the Champion Paper Mill contracted with what is now a Waste Management company to dispose of toxic wastes from a paper mill into ponds located near the San Jacinto River. The waste ponds were eventually abandoned and portions of the ponds and their toxic contents became submerged below the San Jacinto River.

The chemical wastes include dioxin which is widely regarded as one of the world’s most toxic chemicals.

[pwal id="14275451" description=""]According to the lawsuit, historical documents reveal that the abandonment of deteriorating and leaking dioxin waste pits was planned, purposeful and intentional. The County’s lawsuit alleges details of a corporate plan to dispose of toxic “black liquor” into ponds near the shores of the San Jacinto River. Defendants are alleged to have voted to “abandon” pits full of dioxin waste, while company executives rewarded themselves with large bonuses.

The complaint notes that “[b]ecause Defendants have left a legacy of pollution in Harris County by causing and allowing dioxin to be released into the San Jacinto River instead of spending the money to properly dispose of their dangerous chemicals, it is appropriate that they now compensate Harris County for the consequences of their choices.”

Harris County is represented by Vince Ryan, Harris County Attorney, Terry O’Rourke, and Rock Owens of the Office of the Harris County Attorney, and the law firm of Connelly · Baker · Wotring LLP.[/pwal][/cleeng_content]

Posted: August 17, 2012 3:06 pm
Comments: (Comments)

An extra $6M paid to Wheelabrator in 2011.

Guess who stroked Wheelabrator a check for $13,831,164 — or approximately the cost of two Steve Austins?

That would be you and I… Assuming you’re a Broward County taxpayer.

***

Imagine waking up with an extra $13M in your checking account — and you didn’t just win the Scratchy Lottery or have to blow the entire 7th Fleet. Holy fuckmoly.

***

Let’s turn our attention to Davie…

Given all that has recently transpired with regards to open competition, transparency, and no-more back room deals in the garbage business marketspace, don’t you think they should rethink their previous 20 year commitment (franchise) to Waste Management?

[cleeng_content id="401985537" description="To read more about the M paid to Wheelabrator, sign up today!" price="0.49"]Shouldn’t they check out the Broward County ILA (Inter-Local Agreement) for Waste Disposal or Recovered materials (Recycling) or perhaps piggy-back onto the Miramar trash gig?

Save a whole bunch of money and be nice to the environment? Ain’t that worth at least a little bit of investigation? One freaking phone call? A tweet?

Well, not according to those in charge of Davie. Fuck that noise, they say.

Hell, they’re even bundling up pickup, waste disposal, and recycling.

4.1 CONTRACT AMENDMENT – A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF DAVIE, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT FOR THE SOLID WASTE, BULK WASTE, RECYCLING AND CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS COLLECTION CONTRACT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF DAVIE AND WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. OF FLORIDA; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (tabled from July 18, 2012)

All this seems to be a full thrust attack by the Waste Management people, in spite of Sun Bergeron’s commitment of moving their HQ to Davie.

And speaking of those two Steve Austins…

Wheelabrator Tonnages (FY92-Current) Shortfall Fees 3[/cleeng_content]

Posted: August 14, 2012 11:02 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Trash complaints lead to warning.

Numerous complaints of missed trash and recycling collections has prompted the Town of Hilton Head Island to send a warning this week to its lone waste hauler.

Town manager Steve Riley sent Republic Services Inc. a letter, dated Monday, stating the company was in breach of its franchise agreement with the town because of poor performance.

The town received more than 130 complaints last month, according to facilities manager Julian Walls. Most were because of missed pickups and Republic’s failure to respond within 24 hours after being notified, according to town officials.

Riley gave the company five days to make corrections and meet performance requirements required performance standards or risk losing the town’s business.

Republic contends the agreement makes it difficult for the company to anticipate how many customers it must serve from month to month, which disrupts its operations.

[islandpacket.com]

Posted: August 4, 2012 11:09 am
Comments: (Comments)

Rural trash ignored as cities’ fines loomed?

The state’s utility commission is investigating whether Waste Management ignored rural customers during the recent trash strike in favor of customers in cities that were threatening hefty fines for missed pickups.

[cleeng_content id="572814952" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]The Washington Utilities and Transportation Commission said Friday it will investigate how the company deployed replacement drivers it hired to collect garbage after its recycle- and garbage-truck drivers walked off the job July 25.

In a letter to the company, the commission said Waste Management appeared to give short shrift to customers in unincorporated King and Snohomish counties, and it took longer to resume service than it had promised.

The company had filed plans with the commission in June describing how it would provide service in the event of a strike. It updated the commission on those plans as the strike unfolded, said commission spokeswoman Amanda Maxwell.

But news reports and complaints from about 20 customers indicate the company did not follow those plans, and “it did look like what they said they were doing did not happen,” Maxwell said.

The commission regulates waste-company rates and services in areas where they do not directly contract with municipalities. It can fine companies as much as $1,000 for violations, and it can define a violation broadly or narrowly, Maxwell said. That raises the possibility of significant fines if it defines a violation as a missed collection at a single household, she said.

Waste Management’s spokeswoman said Friday the company was busy planning its collection routes for Saturday and could not yet address the investigation.

The strike, which affected about 220,000 customers in King and Snohomish counties, ended Thursday when the company’s recycle drivers, represented by Teamsters Local 117, approved a six-year contract with Waste Management. Garbage-truck drivers of Teamsters Local 174 had joined the strike in solidarity and resumed work Thursday.

Teamsters’ leadership credited local mayors with helping to end the strike by publicly announcing plans to document and fine the company for missed collections. Collectively, the fines could have reached about $3 million a day.

[seattle-times][/cleeng_content]

Posted: August 4, 2012 10:53 am
Comments: (Comments)

San Antonio is taking WM to Court.

CITY OF SAN ANTONIO v. WHEELABRATOR AIR POLLUTION CONTROL, INC.
No. 04-11-00821-CV.
Court of Appeals of Texas, Fourth District, San Antonio.

Delivered and Filed: August 1, 2012.

OPINION
PHYLIS J. SPEEDLIN, Justice.

The City of San Antonio, acting by and through CPS Energy1 (hereinafter “CPS”), appeals the trial court’s denial of its plea to the jurisdiction in this lawsuit by Wheelabrator Air Pollution Control, Inc. in which it asserts a breach of contract claim and, alternatively, a quasi-contractual quantum meruit claim to recover a 10% contract retainage withheld by CPS. This interlocutory appeal raises a question of first impression—whether the governmental/proprietary distinction employed in the Texas Tort Claims Act applies in a contractual or quasi-contractual setting to determine whether a municipality is immune from suit. We hold that the governmental/proprietary distinction does not apply, and conclude CPS is immune from suit on the quantum meruit claim. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying CPS’s plea to the jurisdiction, render judgment dismissing Wheelabrator’s quantum meruit claim for want of jurisdiction, and remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.

CONCLUSION
Because the Legislature’s limited waiver of governmental immunity from suit in Chapter 271 does not include quantum meruit claims, and the proprietary/governmental distinction from the TTCA does not apply in this contractual or quasi-contractual context, CPS is immune from suit on Wheelabrator’s quantum meruit claim. In addition, the circumstances do not support a waiver of immunity by conduct. Therefore, the trial court erred in denying CPS’s plea to the jurisdiction as to the quantum meruit claim. Accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s order denying CPS’s plea to the jurisdiction and render judgment that Wheelabrator’s quantum meruit claim is dismissed for want of jurisdiction. We remand the cause to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

[leagle.com]

Posted: August 3, 2012 3:04 pm
Comments: (Comments)

We The People – WM’s Cash Camel

So I wonder, and maybe you are also, just how bad are we getting hammered by Waste Management?

[cleeng_content id="280874318" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]Hammered… Overbilled. Forgotten reimbursements. That sort of thing.

And if you look, and not very hard at that, you’ll find buckets of money here and over there.

Like say the $287,657 overbilled to the residents of Delray Beach.

Or the $84,584.60 paid back to the City of Boca Raton — along with this (kinda sorta) apology.

We at Waste Management are looking forward to providing excellent service to your residents and continuing our good working relationship with you and the City for many years to come.

Show of hands please…

How many people think getting taken for $90K is a good working relationship?

Also, let us not forget $19,750.17 in City of Gulfstream Franchise Fees that Waste Management neglected to reimburse.

Doh!

The Gulfstream annual contract with Waste decreased from $144,588 to $122,988 effective 10/01/08 – a 14.9% decline. At the same time, Delray’s residential contract with Waste increased 63.1%.

Gulfstream’s manager (Mr. Thrasher) stated in writing, “The reduction is a combination of corrections to their (Waste’s) data base and some bargaining.”

This begs a critical question, “How much was Waste overbilling Gulfstream in prior years and can Waste’s data be trusted?

In the coming weeks, your pallies at MAOS will be querying every single municipality in South Florida that’s provided service by Waste Management. Our inquiry will be simple — “yo homey, for the last decade, let me knows how much the kind folks at WM have overbilled, underpaid, or pretty much fucked over the taxpayer.”

We’ll report back as that intel comes available.

[/cleeng_content]

Posted: August 1, 2012 11:57 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Waste Management brings in strikebreakers

Waste hauling giant Waste Management Inc. brought in professional strikebreakers against a strike by its recycling drivers in Seattle, Washington on Friday.

[cleeng_content id="469266805" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]The contract between Teamsters Local 117 and the company expired on May 31. Negotiations were halted on June 15 by the federal mediator due to the refusal of Waste Management to respond to the union’s proposals. Waste Management had presented its “last, best and final” offer on June 6, offering a six-year contract that, according to its web site, contained an average of four percent increase in wages and benefits along with a $2,000 “signing bonus”.

Among the issues in dispute is a $9 an hour pay gap between the recycling drivers and the garbage drivers, who are in a different union but have not crossed picket lines and have ceased work.

On Sunday night the union raised a proposal to the federal mediator to get negotiations resumed. Waste Management was said to be reviewing the proposal Monday.

While vehicles were delayed by picketing at the six collection stations, the bus carrying strikebreakers got through and they were making pickups on Monday.

The replacement drivers are being used primarily to collect garbage at commercial establishments. Waste Management had long planned to continue operations during a strike. In June it flew in and housed out-of-state strikebreakers and contracted with the notorious Huffmaster firm, which specializes in the logistics of breaking strikes. Barricades, flood lights, and barbed wire have been added to the fencing around the company’s depot, and additional security has been deployed.

Waste Management is the largest waste haulage company in the United States with operations in Canada and Puerto Rico. With 45,000 employees and 20 million customers, it earned $13.4 billion in 2011, an increase of 6.9 percent over the previous year. Last week it announced a restructuring of its operations to decrease costs by one percent. The company plans to eliminate a layer of management at the “group level” and lay off 700 employees. It anticipates continued cost-cutting measures over the next two years.

The response of the Teamsters to the provocative actions of Waste Management has been to appeal to the company to resume negotiations, promising to remove the picketers if they would return to the bargaining table. Waste Management insisted that it will not consider negotiations until the workers return to work. The union has filed numerous complaints with the National Labor Relations Board against the company over bad-faith bargaining and coercion of employees.

Meanwhile, the city of Seattle, headed by Democratic Mayor Michael Patrick McGinn, is encouraging Waste Management to break the strike. According to an interview by Associated Press and King 5 News, Timothy Croll, solid waste director for Seattle Public Utilities, said, “The company is well aware of the choices they could make. One is settling; another is replacement drivers.” The city can impose fines on Waste Management of $1.25 million a day if service is halted for more than a week.

A two-month lockout of garbage haulers by the second largest waste hauler, Republic Services Inc., in Evansville, Indiana was suspended last month with workers returning to work without a contract. Republic Services facilities across the country had been picketed in the course of a dispute that centered on company contributions to the Teamsters’ Central State Pension Fund, which is in precarious financial shape. The company was insisting on introducing 401(k) plan in its place.

In the course of that struggle, sanitation workers from the Evansville facility travelled to Milpitas, California to conduct a picket at the Republic hauling yard, landfill and recycling facility there. Far from being an effort to expand the strike in order to effectively shut down all of Republic Service operations, the striking workers were instead involved in a stunt by the union to conduct a protest picket for one day. Over 200 workers at Milpitas honored the picket line.

Republic Services made $589 million in profits in 2011, a 16.4 percent increase over 2010.

[wsws.org][/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 31, 2012 1:06 am
Comments: (Comments)

WM Overbilling Delray AGAIN?

Our man on the Delray Beach scene, Kenneth MacNamee, is at it again.

Every town would be grateful to have someone like him…

***

Mr. Harden:

I reviewed Ord.32-11 with the last WM rate increase for trash services. The Charts and Tables indicated different % rate increase for Residential (8.5%) vs. Commercial (8.3%).

So, I researched the governing Contract Amendment 2008 and the two statistical tables (Miami Ft. Lauderdale CPI and Lower Atlantic Diesel Retail Prices).

Here are my calculations. Please tell me where I erred:

1. The April 2010 CPI index increased from 222.625 to the April 2011 level of 231.503– a 3.99% increase I assume gets rounded to 4%
2. The average monthly per gallon diesel price for the 12 months ended April 2010 rose from $2.67 per gal to $3.23 per gal for the year ending April 2011.
3. According to the Fuel Surcharge Calculation table (pg. 9 of the 2008 Amendment), the “Percent of Surcharge” falls from (6%) to (2%)– an increase of 4%

These two calculations result in total to an 8% increase (4% CPI and 4% Diesel).

If my calculations are correct, then why did Ord 32-11 indicate “Total Fees-Contractor” for Curbside Roll-Out Carts increase from $10.52 to $11.42 ( a 8.56% increase). An 8% increase should have increased WM’s charge to the City to only $11.36– $.06 less.

$.06 per month per customer doesn’t sound like much money but when it is extended for 33,000 residential customers for a year, it means WM will have overbilled Delray $23,760. And, the inflated base rate will be utilized for the upcoming 10/01/12 WM rate increase. I calculate that will be 4% (2% CPI and 2% Diesel). Am I correct?

Finally, WM increased its Commercial rates for Collection by 8.3%. Why not 8.5%? based on my reading of the 2008 Contract Amendment, the percentage rate increases for residential and Commercial should be identical.

Please investigate. Maybe WM is billing the City properly and the Ordinance is wrong. I await your reply.

Posted: July 29, 2012 1:42 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Replacement drivers on way in Seattle waste strike

[cleeng_content id="321628058" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]

SEATTLE —

[seattle times]

[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 29, 2012 10:40 am
Comments: (Comments)

No swimming thanks to Waste Management.

Study shows San Jacinto River still highly contaminated.

[cleeng_content id="608022629" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]Releasing a new study on the contamination of the San Jacinto River, the advocacy group Texans Together and the volunteer group San Jacinto River Coalition used the San Jacinto Monument as a backdrop Thursday, May 31, to urge residents not to swim in or eat fish from the river.

“We’re here in front of the San Jacinto Monument because of the importance of the great victory for Texans that occurred here,” said Fred Lewis, president of Texans Together.

“What’s also nearby is something of great shame for the citizens of Texas.”

The independent study by Houston toxicologist Dr. Stephen King found high levels of toxic dioxin and furan in fish and oyster near the San Jacinto River Waste Pits, which are located near the Interstate-10 bridge.

King in his report recommends that “wading, swimming, fishing, crabbing, and collecting oysters and clams should be banned” in proximity of the waste pits.

Toxicity levels are similar to those found by governmental authorities in 1990 and 2005, according to the report.

Currently, signs on a fence around the site advise against eating fish and crabs from the area. Further downstream, signs recommend adults eat no more than 8 ounces of any fish or blue crab from the river per month, and advise children and pregnant women not to eat any at all.

“To summarize Dr. King’s report: The cat is out of the bag,” Lewis said. “In other words: the dioxin is out of the waste pits – a good bit of it – and is now in the river, still contaminating the fish and the environment.”

Terence O’Rourke, first assistant Harris County Attorney, called dioxin “the most toxic material ever made by our species.”

Harris County has sued Waste Management and International Paper Co., successor to Champion Papers Inc., the company that had its paper mill waste dispose in ponds on the banks of the San Jacinto River in the 1960s. Waste Management owns the site previously owned by McGinnes Industrial Maintenance Corp., which is also listed as a defendant in the suit.

The Harris County Attorney’s Office is asking for $25,000 per day that the contamination occurred.

The defendants argue that they have cooperated with Harris County, the Texas Commission of Environmental Quality and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for years on the river cleanup and have spent millions of dollars on it. They also claim Harris County has no standing to bring the suit.

Over the years, the river submerged the ponds and the toxic waste was released into the stream, according to the lawsuit.

In 2005, the TCEQ got involved in the site after the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department became aware of the waste pits. As part of its Superfund program, the EPA added the site to its National Priorities List in March 2008 and erected a fence with warning signs around it in 2010, while working on the cleanup.

In spring 2011, Waste Management and International Paper Co. placed an armored cap over the waste pits to temporarily address the release of dioxin into the San Jacinto River.

Sarah Davis with the San Jacinto River Coalition, a group composed of mostly Highlands and Channelview residents, said her organization is not satisfied with temporary solutions.

“What we want is immediate and permanent remediation.”

She said the pollution is not fair to homeowners along the river, who bought their houses because they wanted to use the river for recreation, which is no longer possible. The river’s contamination also devalues their homes, Davis said.

The San Jacinto River Coalition is holding an open meeting on Thursday, June 14, at 7 p.m. at the United Methodist Church in Highlands, to which everyone who is interested is invited.

“Our power is in our voices,” Davis said.

[yourhoustonnews.com][/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 25, 2012 11:10 am
Comments: (Comments)

Reviewing Waste Management’s EPA History.

About two weeks ago, I reached out to the EPA inquiring about Waste Management’s environmental track record.

[cleeng_content id="289181210" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]For those unaware, there’s nine (I think) EPA regions… So for those areas where WM doesn’t provide their services, you’d expect my regional inquiry to fall short (see below).

***

According to the FOIA Officer in Seattle, my inquiry “broke her computer.”

No, I shit you not. Those were her exact words.

Refining my inquiry, I directed my updated request to the folks in DC, where I’m still awaiting the data.

***

One bit of feedback I received — “I enjoy your site, but you are always changing things up.” Guilty. As I have indicated, MAOS is an ongoing collaborative experiment between technology and activism. In other words, this fucker is living and growing.

And with growing comes growing pains – aka the occasional software defect (bug). So, for those times my code blows (sometimes quiet often), take a moment and open a support ticket. I’d be appreciative of your help.

[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 24, 2012 2:33 pm
Comments: (Comments)

SEC wins lawsuit against former WM officer.

The Associated Press State & Local Wire
June 30, 2006

[cleeng_content id="902600824" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]A former Waste Management Inc. chief financial officer was found liable Thursday for civil fraud and other securities violations that federal officials said left investors out more than $6 billion.

James Koenig was found liable by a jury that deliberated for a day and a half on evidence presented by U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission attorneys over an 11-week trial before federal Judge Wayne R. Andersen.

The allegations of corporate fraud were the biggest ever brought by the government when the case was filed in March 2002, although they since have been surpassed by the WorldCom scandal and others, officials said.

“This was the first billion-dollar plus financial fraud that the SEC took on and this is the most decisive resolution that we could hope for,” said John D. Worland Jr., one of three SEC attorneys at the trial.

Waste Management restated its earnings by $1.7 billion in 1997 after new management took over. The value of the stock dropped $6 billion after the earnings were restated.

The company had been in decline and government attorneys said the earnings had been inflated from 1992 through 1996 to keep share prices up and help management hang onto their jobs.

Waste Management’s founder and former chairman and chief executive officer, Dean L. Buntrock, along with four other executives settled with the SEC in September 2005 and agreed to pay more than $30 million, although they admitted none of the allegations contained in the suit.

Koenig maintained throughout the case that his accounting of the company’s earnings had been completely accurate.

“We are disappointed by the jury’s verdict,” said Koenig attorney Sarah R. Wolff. “We think the evidence doesn’t support the verdict and we stand by our client and we are actively considering an appeal of these claims.”

The jury found Koenig liable on all of the allegations against him, ranging from securities fraud to lying to auditors.

Among the witnesses were a number of accountants from the former Arthur Andersen accounting firm.

Some of the accountants testified that following a 1993 audit that showed problems they sat down with Koenig and he agreed to a series of “action steps” that would fix the problems but changes never were made.

Witnesses said Koenig received hundreds of thousands of dollars in bonuses while government regulators say he was inflating the earnings.

The government is expected to ask Judge Andersen to require Koenig to pay a substantial penalty and bar him from serving as an officer or director of a publicly traded company. A status hearing is set for July 17.[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 19, 2012 10:37 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Odoriferous.

Posted: July 18, 2012 11:47 pm
Comments: (Comments)

No soup landfill for you.

Humphrey on the Hill
The Knoxville News Sentinel
July 9, 2011 Saturday

[cleeng_content id="290378654" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]Landfill Expansion, Denied Under Bredesen, Gets Fresh Look Under Haslam

Waste Management Inc., told it could not expand a landfill near Lewisburg by state regulators under Gov. Phil Bredesen‘s administration, has been told that it can expand under a plan approved by Gov. Bill Haslam‘s administration, reports Anne Paine.

The Department of Environment and Conservation said in April, 2010, that the company should not expand its almost-full Cedar Ridge Landfill into an area with a sinkhole and creek.

Contamination from the landfill 55 miles south of Nashville had showed up repeatedly in local waters, regulators said. Also, limestone riddled with cracks and open cavities lies beneath much of the property, making the area unstable.

This year under a new governor, state regulators held private negotiations with landfill officials who had appealed the denial. The meetings led to a signed agreement that is serving as a how-to-expand-the-landfill guide.

State environmental officials say the document has nothing to do with politics and doesn’t guarantee approval for extending the life of the landfill in Lewisburg, where Middle Tennessee waste — including some of Nashville’s sewage sludge — has gone over the years.

“We said, ‘Here are our objections,’ and they said, ‘Well, we think we can give you information to overcome those objections,’ ” said Bob Martineau, commissioner of the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation.

We said, ‘OK, we’ll give you a shot to do that.’ ”

Local resident Kathy Fox said she is worried and perplexed. Engineering to try to fix the site’s many shortcomings could bring problems later.

“We’d like to know why the state has changed its mind,” said Fox, with the nonprofit Tri-County Environmental Association.

“We felt like it’s not a matter of if the sinkhole will collapse, but when. You would have such a disaster — the pollution that would cause would be beyond our imagination.”

The group is one of five parties — the others being neighbors of the landfill – - that filed a lawsuit against Waste Management last year over pollution from the more than 20-year-old landfill, which they say continues to taint creeks and springs.

Waste Management has denied the accusations, saying it has no ongoing state or federal violations at its Cedar Ridge Landfill in Marshall County.

***

Editor’s Note: The picture shown above is a stock image.[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 18, 2012 9:47 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Hellebuyck et al v. Waste Management

March 1, 2010

[cleeng_content id="407621328" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]The price tag on an intolerable sickening odor was nearly $19 million for Houston- based Waste Management Inc. – but most of that is dedicated to corrective action at the Lenox Township-based Pine Tree Acres Landfill.

Thirteen plaintiffs, including Frank Hellebuyck, owner of New Haven-based H&B Auto Electric Inc., filed a proposed class-action lawsuit in August on behalf of hundreds of residents and business owners with property near the landfill on 29 Mile Road.

At issue was an alleged recent increase in blowing debris, dust and odor from the 840-acre landfill.

Neighbors sued for nuisance, negligence and violations of the Michigan Environmental Protection Act.

They claim land values suffered after processing equipment at Pine Tree could no longer keep up with gaseous emissions.

The waste disposal site’s noxious emissions became really bad about four or five years ago, said David Honigman, partner at Troy-based Mantese Honigman Rossman & Williamson P.C. and lead attorney for the neighbors.

(There was an) inability of the existing plant and equipment to process the growing volume of waste and the changing character of the waste stream. As a result (of the settlement), Waste Management agreed to dramatically increase the capacity of the site to process emissions.

The lawsuit was proceeding to case evaluation before Macomb County Circuit Judge Donald Miller when the parties reached the settlement Dec. 14 for $18.76 million.

The case was formally dismissed last month.

The settlement includes a commitment to pursue in good faith an estimated $15 million in plant improvements that will boost Pine Tree Acres’ ability to convert landfill gas into electrical power.

But Tom Horton, vice president of Midwest public affairs at Waste Management, said that proposed expansion is subject to getting a power purchase agreement from a utility company for the enhanced power output.

Exclusive of the waste-to-energy plant expansion, Waste Management estimates its obligation includes around $2.2 million in other plant improvements and $750,000 to the plaintiffs and their attorneys.

• Venue: Macomb County Circuit Court, Judge Donald Miller
• Case filed: Aug. 18, 2009
• Settlement: $18.76 million according to plaintiffs, $3 million according to defendants; Dec. 14, 2009
• Plaintiffs: Frank Hellebuyck, April Heiler, Jeffrey and Marnie Ickes, Jack Domanski, Dennis Dorgosch, Dreanna and Joseph Fileccia, Don and Shelly Vavro
• Lead counsel: David Honigman, partner, Mantese Honigman Rossman and Williamson P.C., Troy
• Defendants: Pine Tree Acres Inc., Waste Management Inc., Waste Management of Michigan
• Lead counsel: Steven Berry, partner, Berry Johnston Sztykiel & Hunt P.C., Zeeland

[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 16, 2012 10:23 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Suit alleges problems with aluminum wastes.

Akron Beacon Journal (Ohio)
January 27, 2010

[cleeng_content id="158467337" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]Jan. 27–A second landfill in Stark County might have problems with buried aluminum wastes, according to a lawsuit.

The possibility of aluminum dross problems at American Landfill near Waynesburg comes in a suit filed in U.S. District Court in Akron.

Named defendants are American Landfill Inc. and its parent company, Waste Management Inc., a Texas-based trash hauling-disposal giant.

Filing the suit last week were the Stark-Tuscarawas-Wayne Solid Waste Management District; a Stark grass-roots group, Citizens Against American Landfill Expansion; and two of its leaders, Jill Van Voorhis of Sandy Township and Vivian Baier of Osnaburg Township.

The so-called citizen suit seeks an order to force the companies to investigate and correct all the alleged violations at American Landfill and to fund a communitywide health study.

If the two companies lose the suit, they face penalties of up to $27,500 per day per violation.

“Waste Management American Landfill utilizes numerous EPA-approved safeguards to protect the environment and public health,” company spokeswoman Beth Schmucker said. “This includes regular testing and monitoring of groundwater, surface water and air. The claims in the lawsuit are groundless.”

American Landfill, off state Route 44, has rising landfill temperatures, fires and sinkholes — all evidence of aluminum-waste problems that have plagued Countywide Recycling & Disposal Facility in Stark County’s Pike Township, the suit says.

The Ohio Environmental Protection Agency has “no evidence” of a major aluminum dross problem at American Landfill, agency spokeswoman Lynn Sowers said.

EPA staffers and Stark County Health Department inspectors have seen no signs of fire, smoke, odors, steam or subsidence at American, although the landfill has reported taking in aluminum wastes in the past, she said.

The U.S. EPA and the Ohio EPA have been working since mid-2006 to control the underground fires and odors at Countywide. The problem has been traced to underground aluminum wastes coming into contact with landfill liquids.

Countywide’s 88-acre tract with the problems has been isolated to keep the fires from spreading. The federal and state agencies are letting the fires burn themselves out, a process that could take years.

Legal action

The 32-page suit that raises numerous health and environmental concerns at American Landfill was assigned to U.S. District Judge Solomon Oliver Jr.

The garbage district a year ago announced its plan to file the suit. Handling its case are D. David Altman of Cincinnati, a prominent Ohio environmental attorney, and Canton attorneys Thomas Connors, Kristen Zemis and James Wherley Jr.

American Landfill is one of the largest landfills in Ohio for taking waste overall and for taking out-of-state waste. The city of Akron dumps its garbage in the 1,072-acre facility.

The landfill processes about 3,700 tons of trash a day, although it is permitted to handle more. It has available room to accept trash for 62 years.

The landfill faces an “imminent and substantial threat” of a fire, explosion, chemical reactions triggered by heat or landfill subsidence due to buried aluminum wastes, the suit says.

According to the suit, landfill temperatures — a sign of aluminum-waste problems — have been “steadily rising” since late 2001.

The companies repeatedly have asked permission from the Canton Health Department’s air department to operate the landfill at higher temperatures, the suit says.

Some temperatures inside the landfill approach 160 degrees, the EPA said.

The suit says the “continuing occurrence of fires and subsidences, sometimes known as ‘sinkholes’ at the facility, has been documented in the defendants’ and Ohio EPA’s files as well as in local fire department files.”

The plaintiffs charge that the two companies have “improperly handled and disposed of landfill wastes in a manner that continues to threaten the health and the environment in the surrounding community.”

The landfill also took in wastes beyond household trash, and such sludges, metals, brine and industrial wastes pose a greater threat, the suit said.

Migration alleged

Landfill liquids and landfill gases illegally have been allowed to migrate beyond boundaries, the suit says, and groundwater, including at least two aquifers in the area, has been affected.

The water is polluted with ammonia, chloride, sodium, carbon disulfide, nickel and other metals and certain volatile organic compounds, the suit says.

There is also evidence of cancer-causing benzene and vinyl chloride in toxic air releases, the suit said.

Only 25 percent of American Landfill has a synthetic liner — with the other 75 percent having only a clay liner.

The landfill collects and hauls away the liquid runoff from the lined portion.

The big concern is that the leachate from the unlined landfill areas, which date to the 1970s before liners were required, is escaping into the aquifer under the landfill.

The suit says the full extent of the contamination around American Landfill is not yet known and additional testing is needed.

The Ohio EPA has no evidence of groundwater problems linked to leachate from American Landfill, EPA spokesmen Doug Dobransky said.

There was a small contamination problem at one well in 2002-2003. That problem was corrected and the groundwater was treated, he said.

The quality of the groundwater near American Landfill is poor but there is no evidence the landfill is responsible, he said.

In 2005, the EPA indicated the problem was caused by brine, or salt, from nearby gas and oil wells, a view the grass-roots group and its experts dispute.

Since last May, the company and the EPA have been assessing benzene and arsenic levels in two water wells. Two new wells will be installed soon to determine if those pollutants are coming from the landfill, Dobransky said.

In July 2006, the Ohio EPA approved an expansion of 160 acres laterally and 178 acres vertically at American. That expansion has been appealed to the Ohio Environmental Review Appeals Commission, where a decision is pending.[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 16, 2012 9:58 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Got the crabs?

HOUSTON, TEXAS
Friday, July 13, 2012

[cleeng_content id="212872964" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]International Paper and Waste Management of Texas polluted the San Jacinto River for decades by abandoning retention ponds filled with dioxin waste from IP’s paper mill, a dozen crab fishermen claim in Harris County Court.

Lead plaintiff Dao Van Pho sued International Paper Co., Waste Management and its predecessor, McGinnes Industrial Maintenance Corp., seeking punitive damages and medical monitoring for their exposure to dioxin.

The plaintiffs say the problem began 1965, when McGinnes bagged an exclusive contract to dispose waste from the Champion Paper Mill in Pasadena, Texas.

“While Champion (now defendant International Paper) made money by selling its paper, its paper mill produced as a dangerous byproduct 2,3,7,8-TCDD, as well as other dioxins, that Champion sought to dispose,” the complaint states.

“Champion chose to have its dioxin waste dumped into ponds by MIMC located in the area where the Interstate Highway 10 Bridge crosses over the San Jacinto River, east of the city of Houston between the areas known as Channelview and Highlands, Texas (the ‘Site’).

“MIMC constructed its waste ponds so that they were directly adjacent to, and jutting out into, the San Jacinto River.

“Records indicated that the waste ponds were frequently inundated by the river. In addition to the fact that the dioxin waste seeped from the ponds into the river, records show that liquid waste was also intentionally pumped out of one of the ponds at the site, directly into the San Jacinto River.

“MIMC and Champion were ordered to stop discharging waste from the ponds into the San Jacinto River, though the subsequent records show that wastes continued to seep from the ponds and the pond levees deteriorated causing continuous release of dioxin over the following years and decades.”

The crabbers say the companies later abandoned the ponds, allowing dioxin to “quietly seep” into the environment as parts of the ponds were submerged by the river. They say the pollution has created an ecological nightmare for the site and its environs.

“Data collected by Texas state agencies in various watershed studies have indicated that fish and shellfish tissue samples taken in the San Jacinto River contain unusually high dioxin concentrations and exceeded the health-based standard in 97 percent of fish samples and in 95 percent of the crab samples,” according to the complaint.

The pollution has caused authorities to warn nursing or pregnant women and children younger that 12 not to eat any fish or crab from the area, the crabbers say.

“All others are advised to consume no more than 8 ounces of certain fish within any given month,” the complaint states. “Adults and children are also advised to avoid the risk of exposure through skin contact by not camping, fishing or picnicking near the site.

“Further testing and chemical analysis confirm that both human and ecological health are threatened by releases of dioxin from the site and that defendants’ dioxin continues to migrate from the waste ponds into the San Jacinto River.

“In 2008, at the urging of Harris County and others, the San Jacinto River site was ultimately placed on the National Priorities List for Superfund Sites.”

The crabbers want the giant companies held responsible.

“Defendants achieved a tremendous economic benefit by leaving fishermen and crabbers holding their waste while they pocketed the profits saved from not having to pay for proper disposal, putting them at a competitive advantage over other responsible companies,” the complaint states.

In a footnote, the complaint adds: “In 2010 alone International reported over $644 million in net profits and $25 billion in assets, and defendant Waste Management reported over $950 million in net profits and $21 billion in assets.”

The crabbers seek damages for negligence, trespass, nuisance and conspiracy.

They also want medical monitoring, for their “increased risk of future adverse health effects, ailments and potential increased risk of cancer.”

They are represented by Marc Hill with Hill & Hill of Houston; Tom Thornhill of Slidell, La.; Ba Nguyen with Levinthal Wilkens & Nguyen of Houston; and The Tammy Tran Law Firm in Houston.

[courthousenews.com]

[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 16, 2012 11:25 am
Comments: (Comments)

Major polluters in Baltimore and DC

WASHINGTON, D.C.
January 22, 2009

The same environmental groups that joined forces with the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) to help get the agency more than $11 million in extra funds to enforce state and federal clean air rules are now warning that the same state agency has failed to take action on more than 1,400 separate pollution violations across Maryland, including those at the Wheelabrator Incinerator in Baltimore and the Mirant Chalk Point power plant on the Patuxent River in Prince Georges County right outside of Washington, D.C.

The Environmental Integrity Project (EIP), the Baltimore Harbor Waterkeeper, Inc., and Clean Water Action, represented by the University of Maryland Environmental Law Clinic, are filing a complaint in Maryland state court, asking the judge to order the MDE to issue for the Wheelabrator incinerator a Clean Air Act permit that was supposed to have been put in place place more than a year ago by September 1, 2007. In a separate action, EIP and the Chesapeake Climate Action Network sent a letter today notifying Mirant of the groups’ intent to sue over more than 1,400 violations of the Clean Air Act at the Chalk Point power plant.

The groups emphasized that they are taking these actions reluctantly and only after making repeated efforts to work with the MDE to take the necessary actions to enforce the Clean Air Act.

Jennifer Peterson, lawyer, Environmental Integrity Project, said: “We have been very slow to publicize our frustration until now, hoping that the new administration in Annapolis would take a tougher stance on enforcement of the Clean Air Act. We’ve uncovered significant violations of the Clean Air Act in our review of Maryland’s Clean Air program. Although we have shared our findings with the state and helped them secure over $11 million dollars in additional funding for the Clean Air program, the state has been largely unresponsive to the serious issues we have brought to their attention.”

Andy Fellows, Chesapeake regional director, Clean Water Action, said: “We feel that we have waited long enough for an answer from MDE to our questions about pollution from the Wheelabrator incinerator and other Maryland facilities that still don’t have Clean Air Act permits. These permits are long overdue, and the issues we raise have real impacts on Maryland’s waters, including the Chesapeake Bay, in addition to the obvious impacts to public health.”

Jane Barrett, director, University of Maryland Environmental Law Clinic, said: “The fundamental building blocks for implementing the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act are permits. MDE’s failure to issue permits as required by law in a timely manner undermines its compliance and enforcement responsibilities and is a disservice to the citizens of the state.”

The three major deficiencies identified by EIP in its review of the Maryland Clean Air program are: the failure to issue Clean Air Act operating permits for major polluters; inclusion of illegal provisions in operating permits; and a reluctance to enforce the Clean Air Act and hold polluters accountable.

Clean Air Act operating permits are critical to ensure that facilities are complying with the law. Without these permits, facilities are not required to monitor and measure their emissions of air pollution, and both the state and citizens have no way of knowing whether the facility is actually meeting the emission limits they are subject to. According to EIP’s review, two major power plants in Maryland still do not have operating permits even though they should have been issued nearly 10 years ago. A third power plant in the state is operating with an expired permit.

Even more significantly, Maryland operating permits contain illegal provisions and missing emission limits, which result in the dumping of hundreds of tons of illegal emissions into the air in violation of the Clean Air Act.

THE WHEELABRATOR INCINERATOR AND MIRANT’S CHALK POINT

In addition to failing to respond to EIP objections to the illegal provisions in the Wheelabrator draft permit, the MDE has not issued the final permit even though the state agency was required to do so by September 1, 2007. MDE’s failure to issue final operating permits to major sources of air pollution like the Wheelabrator incinerator when citizens submit comments on a draft permit effectively prevents citizens from seeking review by the EPA. The Clean Air Act provides citizens the right to seek review in state court to compel MDE to issue a final operating permit, which is what the groups are now doing in relation to the Wheelabrator incinerator.

The EIP investigation found that Chalk Point power plant is burning dirty, residual fuel oil without required pollution controls for particulate matter in violation of the Clean Air Act and Maryland law. According to data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration, Chalk Point received over 187 million gallons of residual fuel oil from January 2005 to June 2007. Using EPA data, EIP documented 1,430 separate violations of the Clean Air Act at the Chalk Point facility since January 4, 2006.

Particulate matter is a mixture of very small particles, including organic chemicals, metals, and ash, which can cause health and environmental problems. Once inhaled, PM can affect the heart and lungs, and cause serious health effects. Numerous scientific studies have linked PM exposure to increased respiratory systems, such as irritation of the airways, coughing, and difficulty breathing; decreased lung function; aggravated asthma; development of chronic bronchitis; irregular heartbeat; heart attacks; and premature death in people with heart or lung disease. The burning of the volume of dirty residual fuel oil received by the Chalk Point facility would result in public health costs of up to $101.6 million, according to EPA formulas. Per unit of energy, the burning of residual fuel oil produces nearly 30 percent more carbon dioxide emissions, a greenhouse gas that contributes to global warming, than burning natural gas.

Although the Mirant Chalk Point violations were brought to the state’s attention in August 2008, no action was taken. Today, the groups are sending a notice letter to Mirant announcing their intent to sue the company for failure to comply with the Clean Air Act.

The details of the Wheelbrator court filing and the notice-of-intent letter sent to Mirant are available online at http://www.environmentalintegrity.org.

ABOUT EIP

The Environmental Integrity Project (http://www.environmentalintegrity.org) is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization established in March of 2002 by former EPA enforcement attorneys to advocate for effective enforcement of environmental laws. EIP has three goals: 1) to provide objective analyses of how the failure to enforce or implement environmental laws increases pollution and affects public health; 2) to hold federal and state agencies, as well as individual corporations, accountable for failing to enforce or comply with environmental laws; and 3) to help local communities obtain the protection of environmental laws. Baltimore Harbor Waterkeeper is a local grass-roots organization dedicated to addressing Baltimore’s water-quality issues. Its mission is to protect and restore Baltimore Harbor and the greater Patapsco River and its tributaries through enforcement, fieldwork, and citizen action in order to make the river suitable for recreation, including fishing and swimming, to improve public health, and to improve the health of the river ecosystem.

The Chesapeake Climate Action Network is the first grassroots, nonprofit organization dedicated exclusively to fighting global warming in Maryland, Virginia, and Washington, D.C. Its mission is to educate and mobilize citizens of this region in a way that fosters a rapid societal switch to clean energy and energy-efficient products, thus joining similar efforts worldwide to halt the dangerous trend of global warming. For more on current campaigns and an exclusive multi-media climate blog, visit http://www.chesapeakeclimate.org.

Clean Water Action is an organization of 1.2 million members working to empower people to take action to protect America’s waters, build healthy communities and to make democracy work for all of us. For 36 years Clean Water Action has succeeded in winning some of the nation’s most important environmental protections through grassroots organizing, expert policy research and political advocacy focused on holding elected officials accountable to the public.

The Environmental Law Clinic at the University of Maryland School of Law provides pro bono legal services to environmental organizations and other clients concerned about environmental problems in Maryland, as well as issues of national significance that affect the State’s environment.

[environmentalintegrity.org]

Posted: July 15, 2012 8:39 pm
Comments: (Comments)

They’re a green company, alright.

The Boston Globe
January 4, 2011

[cleeng_content id="663094797" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]AG investigating waste incinerator; Employees tell of pollution releases

Attorney General Martha Coakley is investigating Wheelabrator Saugus, the waste incinerator responsible for burning trash from 15 North Shore cities and towns, for alleged environmental violations including the discharge of hazardous chemicals into the air and water, according to several people who said they were interviewed by state officials.

The state investigation was spurred by two employees of the plant who filed a civil lawsuit against Wheelabrator Saugus Inc. and its parent company, Texas based Waste Management Inc., more than a year ago in Essex Superior Court. The suit, a copy of which was obtained by the Globe, alleges that operators of the Saugus incinerator have knowingly violated environmental laws for years, endangered public health, and defrauded the communities that paid to send their garbage there for proper handling.

The employees filed suit under the Massachusetts False Claims Act, the law that protects whistle-blowers who report their employers for committing fraud against the government. In accordance with the law, it was filed on behalf of the 15 North Shore towns and cities that contract with Wheelabrator and was sealed by the court to keep it from public view while the state conducted its investigation.

Such cases can lead to a financial settlement between the state and a company, with a portion paid to the whistle-blowers.

A spokeswoman for Coakley said it is the policy of the attorney general’s office not to confirm or deny investigations. A Wheelabrator spokeswoman did not respond to requests for comment.

The employees’ lawsuit alleges that Wheelabrator “knowingly, illegally, secretly, and systematically” allowed toxic pollutants such as mercury and lead, contained in the ash produced by waste incineration, to enter the environment. It describes a series of alleged lapses at the plant, including a failure to use adequate amounts of lime to neutralize the toxicity of the ash; inoperable equipment that was supposed to help control air pollution; and a failure to treat runoff from the landfill on the property before discharging it into the Lynn sewer system.

Wheelabrator has not been cited for major environmental violations at its three Massachusetts incinerators in the last five years, and at least one former employee of the Saugus plant told state investigators he did not believe the plant ever put public health at risk.

Waste Management Inc., based in Houston, is the largest recycler and landfill operator in North America. The company, which also handles trash pickup in municipalities around the country, spent millions on a recent marketing campaign that highlighted its environmentally friendly practices.

Wheelabrator Technologies Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary based in Hampton, N.H., operates energy-producing incineration plants around the country, including three municipal incinerators in Saugus, North Andover, and Millbury. Together, they generate enough electricity to power 150,000 homes a day. The 35-year-old Saugus plant was the first large-scale, commercially successful waste-to-energy project in the United States, according to the company’s website.

Its boilers, housed in boxlike structures beneath a towering emissions stack on Route 107, have the capacity to burn up to 1,500 tons of solid waste per day. The site is near the Saugus River, the 600-acre Rumney Marsh Reservation, and the GE River Works plant.

Former and current employees of the company who spoke to the Globe on condition of anonymity to protect their jobs and families said they repeatedly raised their concerns with supervisors, who brushed aside their questions, before deciding to take their case to court and to the state.

“For a company that preaches being green, it really made me wonder,” said one worker. “Are they thinking green in the sense of money or in the sense of doing the right thing for our children and grandchildren?”

The lawsuit alleges that the Saugus incinerator regularly generated more ash waste water than it had room to store and that plant operators disposed of the excess illegally, by dumping it into the parking lot, where storm drains lead to surrounding waterways, and by secretly diverting it, using hoses hooked up to the municipal sewer system, unauthorized lines designed to bypass monitoring equipment.

The suit also alleges that a hole in the roof of the incinerator plant allowed toxic ash to swirl untreated into the atmosphere.

The lawsuit was filed for the employees by Jan Schlictmann, the Beverly attorney whose legal battle against polluters in Woburn was made into the Hollywood film “A Civil Action.” Schlictmann declined to comment; Orestes Brown, another lawyer representing the workers, did not return phone calls.

A former Wheelabrator Saugus employee who asked not to be named said he worked at the plant for more than a decade and never saw any serious problems. The man, who said he had been interviewed by state investigators, said he told them there was no way waste water could have been dumped without him seeing it.

The Wheelabrator incinerators, which also burn waste in Millbury from more than 30 surrounding communities and in North Andover from more than 20, are inspected at least twice a year, according to a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection.

The spokesman, Edmund Coletta, said he could neither confirm nor deny a state investigation.

For the last five years, Wheelabrator’s environmental record in the state has been free of major violations. Operators of its North Andover incinerator were fined $4,600 in 2005 for storing waste oil on site for more than 180 days, Coletta said, and the Millbury plant was sent a notice of noncompliance in 2009 for failing to submit a required report on its recycling program.

In 1999, Wheelabrator agreed to pay a $25,000 fine and spend $91,000 to establish a mercury recycling program, after federal environmental officials accused the company of violating the Clean Air Act in North Andover.

Wheelabrator’s parent company, Waste Management Inc., has run into more serious trouble in the past with regulators, both in Massachusetts and elsewhere in the country. Under a settlement with the state attorney general’s office in 2000 and 2001, the company agreed to pay more than $1 million in back wages owed to trash haulers in Massachusetts and throughout New England after allegedly violating the state’s prevailing wage law.

A decade ago, a three-year federal investigation of Waste Management’s financial practices nationwide uncovered a culture of accounting fraud that inflated the company’s income by more than $1 billion over four years. The Arthur Andersen accounting firm spent millions on a settlement with the government, while Waste Management paid more than $450 million to settle a resulting class-action lawsuit.[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 15, 2012 7:20 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Taxpayers Challenge No Bid Contract

PRESS RELEASE
From: Concerned Taxpayers of Duval County, Inc.
John Winkler, President and legal counsel
April 26, 2009
Jacksonville, Florida

[cleeng_content id="698473673" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]The legality of Mayor Peyton’s efforts to give Waste Management a $750 million City contract without competitive bids was challenged in a lawsuit by a local citizen’s group late Friday. The Concerned Taxpayers of Duval County, on behalf of all local residents, are requesting a court ruling on whether the Mayor’s proposal for the Trail Ridge landfill can even legally be considered by City Council. John Winkler, President of the CTDC, said his group is unaffiliated with any potential landfill operator. “Our sole purpose is to insure that the City follows the spirit and letter of its own laws on giving out large contracts, ” said Winkler. “City Council must determine both who will run the landfill and how much it will cost the residents for the next thirty years or more. Hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are at stake, and the process has to be transparent, fair, and free of corporate intimidation of either the public or public officials.”

Winkler explains that the suit asks the court to declare that a vote by City Council to waive the city competitive bidding rules is illegal, as would be entering into the restated contract on Trail Ridge. The CTDC maintains the Mayor’s request to City Council violates local law because the overriding public purpose of the Procurement Code and the contracts it covers make it clear that landfill operations must be bid. The proposed “restated” contract is also unlawful because it contains provisions which could force the City to sell the entire 977 acre Trail Ridge site, together with the newly-purchased City “dirt mine,” to Waste Management without following the City ordinance on land sales.

“The citizens must guarantee City Council is not intimidated by Waste Management’s threats of litigation, amplified by the Mayor, into approving execution of an illegal ‘no-bid’ contract on the landfill,” Winkler reiterated. “Moreover, even a legal contract that could force the City into selling its only landfill site to a private company is irresponsible. The people of Duval County are unwilling to take that risk.”[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 15, 2012 4:50 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Waste Management Forever?

From the Concerned Taxpayers of Duval County
29 March 2010

[cleeng_content id="936473956" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]Due to court ordered mediation, a proposed new deal between Waste Management Inc. and the city of Jacksonville provides Mayor Peyton another opportunity to settle the dispute over the Trail Ridge landfill. The legislation implementing this tentative agreement has been introduced as City Council bill 2010- 0217. The Concerned Taxpayers of Duval County continues to oppose any agreement between the two parties that circumvents competitive bidding and there is nothing in this new agreement that indicates that the Mayor’s Office is any more committed to competitively bidding the garbage landfill contract than it was when its first negotiated agreement with Waste Management was rejected by Jacksonville City Council.

It doesn’t take knowledge of rocket science to operate a landfill. Whatever Waste Management (WM), Republic/Southland, or anyone else in the garbage disposal industry may want the people of Jacksonville and their City Council to believe, spreading out household trash and covering it with dirt really is something that anyone able to operate a dump truck and bulldozer can do. While it may or may not be the kind of civic duty Jacksonville cares to perform using its own employees, there is nothing so special about the creation of a thousand-layer trash pile that it can only be done by giving exclusive rights to do so to one outfit, without competitive bidding, for the next thirty-five years.

Wait, you say, is this a rerun column? The whole “bid the landfill” vs. “Waste Management Forever” debate was fought out last year, you remember, and won by the forces of light when City Council rejected the Mayor’s no-bid, 35 year, $750 million contract extension on running the Trail Ridge dump, right? Didn’t the City then leap at the chance to litigate with Waste Management if need be in order to establish our right to either build our own trash mound or have the low bidder do it?

Yes, that happened, but suddenly there’s a new deal proposed by the Jacksonville General Counsel that is a whole lot like the Mayor’s old deal. Call it landfill redux, deja vu all over again, or lipstick on a pig – no matter how you slice the new proposed landfill contract, it’s still (at best) last year’s baloney. Unlike last year, however, there is no time for a deliberative process at City Council. The new proposed contract (Ordinance 2010-217) demands City Council accept it by April 30, 2010, as presented, with no changes
allowed.

When a group of us at the Concerned Taxpayers of Duval County (www.jaxtaxpayers.org) sued the City last year to get a ruling that Jacksonville had to either bid out a contract this huge or do the work themselves, we pointed out several legal problems in the Mayor’s tentative agreement. One provision of that proposal (still available for review at www.coj.net under Ordinance 2008-538) was an illegal clause which could have, under certain circumstances, forced the sale of the entire thousand acre Trail Ridge landfill site, and an adjacent “borrow pit” (dirt mine) site, from the City to Waste Management without any competition.

Another illegal aspect of the earlier version of the no-bid contract under state law was that it could have gone on for an indefinite period of years, since it defined WM’s right to spread garbage in terms of tons (42 million) rather than time. Interestingly, the proposed contract now thrown in front of City Council avoids these two problems by leaving out the bargain land sale provision and defining a maximum number of years that Waste Management will have the exclusive right to run the City’s landfill(s).

The new proposal essentially allows no more than ten years as the period WM would have been running the existing landfill before it would have been full, another 19 years for WM to operate any expansions or new landfill, with another possible six year extension “upon mutual agreement.” Not, in my opinion, coincidentally, this potentially 35 year agreement is the same length of time as the estimates on how long the Mayor’s earlier proposal would have run.[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 15, 2012 4:42 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Bid The Landfill!

29 March 2010

[cleeng_content id="174553624" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]Due to court ordered mediation, a proposed new deal between Waste Management Inc. and the city of Jacksonville provides Mayor Peyton another opportunity to settle the dispute over the Trail Ridge landfill. The legislation implementing this tentative agreement has been introduced as City Council bill 2010- 0217. The Concerned Taxpayers of Duval County continues to oppose any agreement between the two parties that circumvents competitive bidding and there is nothing in this new agreement that indicates that the Mayor’s Office is any more committed to competitively bidding the garbage landfill contract than it was when its first negotiated agreement with Waste Management was rejected by Jacksonville City Council.

See below past President John Winkler’s commentary on the landfill question.

It doesn’t take knowledge of rocket science to operate a landfill. Whatever Waste Management (WM), Republic/Southland, or anyone else in the garbage disposal industry may want the people of Jacksonville and their City Council to believe, spreading out household trash and covering it with dirt really is something that anyone able to operate a dump truck and bulldozer can do. While it may or may not be the kind of civic duty Jacksonville cares to perform using its own employees, there is nothing so special about the creation of a thousand-layer trash pile that it can only be done by giving exclusive rights to do so to one outfit, without competitive bidding, for the next thirty-five years.

Wait, you say, is this a rerun column? The whole “bid the landfill” vs. “Waste Management Forever” debate was fought out last year, you remember, and won by the forces of light when City Council rejected the Mayor’s no-bid, 35 year, $750 million contract extension on running the Trail Ridge dump, right? Didn’t the City then leap at the chance to litigate with Waste Management if need be in order to establish our right to either build our own trash mound or have the low bidder do it?

Yes, that happened, but suddenly there’s a new deal proposed by the Jacksonville General Counsel that is a whole lot like the Mayor’s old deal. Call it landfill redux, deja vu all over again, or lipstick on a pig – no matter how you slice the new proposed landfill contract, it’s still (at best) last year’s baloney. Unlike last year, however, there is no time for a deliberative process at City Council. The new proposed contract (Ordinance 2010-217) demands City Council accept it by April 30, 2010, as presented, with no changes allowed.

When a group of us at the Concerned Taxpayers of Duval County (www.jaxtaxpayers.org) sued the City last year to get a ruling that Jacksonville had to either bid out a contract this huge or do the work themselves, we pointed out several legal problems in the Mayor’s tentative agreement. One provision of that proposal (still available for review at www.coj.net under Ordinance 2008-538) was an illegal clause which could have, under certain circumstances, forced the sale of the entire thousand acre Trail Ridge landfill site, and an adjacent “borrow pit” (dirt mine) site, from the City to Waste Management without any competition.

Another illegal aspect of the earlier version of the no-bid contract under state law was that it could have gone on for an indefinite period of years, since it defined WM’s right to spread garbage in terms of tons
(42 million) rather than time. Interestingly, the proposed contract now thrown in front of City Council avoids these two problems by leaving out the bargain land sale provision and defining a maximum
number of years that Waste Management will have the exclusive right to run the City’s landfill(s).

The new proposal essentially allows no more than ten years as the period WM would have been running the existing landfill before it would have been full, another 19 years for WM to operate any expansions or new landfill, with another possible six year extension “upon mutual agreement.” Not, in my opinion, coincidentally, this potentially 35 year agreement is the same length of time as the estimates on how long the Mayor’s earlier proposal would have run.[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 10, 2012 7:36 pm
Comments: (Comments)

It Is Official!

02 June 2010

[cleeng_content id="772526691" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]The Concerned Taxpayers of Duval County, Inc. (CTDC) and a group of individual citizens announced today that they have filed new counts in their ongoing lawsuit challenging the right of the Jacksonville government to enter into a 19 to 25 year, multi-hundred million dollar, no-bid contract extension with Waste Management to operate the City’s Trail Ridge landfill and future waste disposal technology.

Specifically, they have amended the complaint filed last year against the City of Jacksonville and the City Council to request that the Court declare the passage of Ordinance 2010-217 to be both illegal and void. The several grounds asserted include multiple City and Council violations of Florida’s open government meeting (“Sunshine”) law.

The lawsuit further seeks to protect the public interest by asking the Court to force the City to correct violations of the public records law, which require government and officials to make records available to every citizen for review and copying. The City has failed to create and provide minutes of a public meeting (related to Trail Ridge), and refused to make a Council member’s records of the official business use of his cell phone available to the public.

A press conference will be held at 12:00 noon on Thursday, June 3, 2010, in front of the Jacksonville City Hall, 117 West Duval Street, Jacksonville, Florida, by Victor Wilhelm, President of the CTDC, and John Winkler, lead attorney for the Plaintiffs.

The Concerned Taxpayers of Duval County, Inc. is a not for profit corporation and nonpartisan political committee dedicated to serving the community as a watchdog group, using public information to oppose corruption, waste, and “Sunshine Law” violations in government.[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 10, 2012 6:09 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Waste Management Class Action Suit

High Tide Harry’s Inc. v. Waste Management
Case No.: 05-CA-009441
Orange County, Florida
April, 2008

[cleeng_content id="515940975" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]DISCUSSION: A class action lawsuit has been filed against Waste Management Inc. of Florida, and Pinellas County has been included by virtue of having contracted for commercial solid waste collection services with Waste Management Inc. of Florida. Pinellas County’s right to bring suit individually will be preserved by excluding itself from the class action lawsuit. The lawsuit claims that between January 1, 2001, and the time of the Court entering the Final Judgment, Waste Management of Florida violated the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, failed to act in accordance with the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breached its contract, and unlawfully charged and collected money from its Open-Market Commercial Customers. Waste Management of Florida denies it did anything wrong and believes it would have prevailed at trial.

[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 10, 2012 12:26 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Waste Management Duval County Lawsuit.

This article was originally from the Florida Independent.

[cleeng_content id="410020436" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]Since 1992, the city’s Trail Ridge landfill has been run by Waste Management, a waste and environmental service with locations throughout the country. But when Jacksonville Mayor John Peyton began negotiations to extend the contract in 2007, things got sticky.

After Peyton asked the City Council for a contract extension worth $750 million, taxpayers and council members alike were more than a little shocked. Republic Services, a competitor of Waste Management, argued that it could offer identical services for a lower price. (Side note: The two companies have somewhat of a history. In 2008, Republic Services rejected a $6.2 billion takeover by Waste Management, opting instead for an earlier offer from another potential buyer.)

The fight to run the city dump became increasingly contentious, with arguments from both sides playing out in television commercials shown across the First Coast and on the Internet.

In late April 2009, council members voted unanimously to overturn the no-bid contract, but any excitement surrounding the decision didn’t last long. Less than 20 days after the 18-0 vote that would allow bids on the Trail Ridge contract, Waste Management filed suit against the city, alleging a contract breach. After reports indicated that a courtroom legal battle could cost the city upwards of $1 million, the City Council approved a settlement with Waste Management in a 10-8 vote. In addition to a contract extension, the settlement included a $1.6 million cash payment to the company.

Since the settlement, the city’s relationship with Waste Management has come under even more scrutiny, with allegations that the company’s ties to City Council members may have had something to do with the eventual settlement. The city has also come under fire for its refusal to hand over minutes from certain meetings concerning the contract, a supposed violation of Florida’s Sunshine Law.

The Concerned Taxpayers of Duval County (a nonprofit watchdog group) originally filed a complaint challenging the no-bid contract last year. On June 1, 2010, the group amended its complaint from two counts to 15. The revised complaint includes more claims of public records law violations, as well as a claim that the final vote allowing the contract was void because an ordinance requiring a two-thirds majority vote was not met. (You can read the claim or download it below.)

Attorney John Winkler, former president of the Concerned TaxPayers of Duval County, says the initial decision to file suit against the city was a fairly easy one: “[The no-bid contract] struck us as rewarding special interests and we think it has a heavy-handed lobbyist influence.”

The original complaint called for a mandatory injunction that would force the city to shed light on several missing minutes from meetings concerning the Trail Ridge landfill, which the city has since made available. Winkler sees the city’s compliance to be a victory for the Concerned Taxpayers: “The city admitted that the violation was there, so we know we’re vindicated that far.”

But Winkler says the City of Jacksonville and Mayor John Peyton will have to work harder to gain their respect: “For what it’s worth, Waste Management actually called me last week and said they’d be willing to intervene as a party in the suit. But that doesn’t interest me. Our suit is aimed at having the city correct its injustices.”

By Virginia Chamlee | 06.10.10 | 12:00 pm

A recently settled lawsuit concerning a no-bid contract in Jacksonville has taxpayers turning up their noses, for a number of reasons. [/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 9, 2012 8:38 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Waste Lawsuit Partners At Odds With Pompano

April 11, 2003
By Lisa J. Huriash Staff Writer

[cleeng_content id="103922927" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]Pompano Beach’s efforts to settle a legal dispute with giant garbage hauler Waste Management could land the city in hot water with three other cities left out of the deal.

Pompano Beach joined with Dania Beach, Pembroke Pines and Hallandale Beach to sue Waste Management last year, seeking $34 million they claim the company overcharged them. This week, Pompano Beach commissioners tentatively approved Waste Management’s offer to settle their portion of the lawsuit for $18.5 million.

If the settlement becomes final, the three other cities will be left battling the case by themselves.

Hallandale Beach and Dania Beach officials are angry about Pompano Beach’s decision, and Pembroke Pines has hinted it’s none too happy, either. The three cities have not received a settlement offer from Waste Management.

“We are disappointed they have elected to do that and we intend to challenge their decision,” said Hallandale Beach City Manager Mike Good.

“I understand the position Pompano is in, but to simply succumb to the temptation of the dollar is not good justification for separating yourselves from the team,” said Dania Beach City Manager Ivan Pato. “When you’re part of the team going in, you should be part of the team coming out.”

When asked if the three cities will sue Pompano Beach, he answered, “If that’s what the group decides to do, then yes … our city is supporting whatever steps are necessary [to pursue] the interests of the group as a whole.”

Pembroke Pines attorney David Tolces said much the same. “Pembroke Pines would take all action necessary to protect their interest.”

Pompano Beach City Attorney Gordon Linn said he anticipated some trouble from the other cities. As a result, the settlement with Waste Management calls for the company to provide legal counsel if the city is sued for leaving the consortium.

The suit contends Waste Management overcharged the four cities for dumping garbage into landfills instead of recycling and composting it as called for in a 1988 contract. The dispute has been in arbitration for several months.

A study conducted by Government Services Group in Tallahassee agreed that the cities were overcharged from 1992 through 2001 because disposal into landfills costs substantially less than recycling and composting.

The study concluded that Dania Beach has overpaid $2.9 million; Hallandale Beach $5.2 million; Pembroke Pines $11.2 million; and Pompano Beach $14.7 million.

The settlement offer supported by a majority of Pompano Beach commissioners calls for a $5 million “signing bonus” up front and a $750,000 annual rebate for 18 years beginning next year — totaling $18.5 million.

In return, the city will not ask other companies to bid on its hauling and disposal contracts, and instead will give Waste Management 10-year extensions.

Commissioners voted 3-1 to accept the settlement. Final approval is expected April 22.

“We are coming out a winner,” Mayor Kay McGinn said. “If we go out to bid, we might get something better, but the chances are pretty nil somebody’s going to give us $5 million.”

But most of the settlement amount is money the city was overcharged, argued Vice Mayor Lamar Fisher, who cast the only vote against the deal.

“We’re not getting a pot of gold; we’re just kind of getting those funds back,” he said.

Fisher said he wanted the city to seek bids to see if it could get a better deal, instead of locking into a long contract.

“The deal might be the best deal out there. But how do we know?” he said.[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 8, 2012 4:47 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Delray Beach fines Waste Management.

We came upon these collection of letters… Thought you might enjoy them.

[cleeng_content id="780814053" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]PS. This is called old-fashioned reporting… Maybe Bob Norman needs to roll down his sleeves, tighten the knot in his tie. Guy thinks he’s Peter Norton.

The “professionals” at WPLG are getting schooled up by MAOS.

***

January 31, 2006

Mr. Luigi Pace, District Manager
c/o Waste Management, Inc. of Florida
65 1 Industrial Way
Boynton Beach, Florida 33426

Dear Mr. Pace:

In accordance with paragraph 19 of the franchise agreement between the City of Delray Beach and Waste Management Inc. of Florida, I, as Contract Administrator, am authorizing Barbara Schooler, Utility Customer Service Manager, to deduct $10,000.00 from payments due to Waste Management, Inc. of Florida for non-completion of the bulk and vegetation waste collection routes enumerated below.

***

February 10, 2006

Mr. Luigi Pace, District Manager
c/o Waste Management, Inc. of Florida
651 Industrial Way
Boynton Beach, Florida 33426

Dear Mr. Pace:

In accordance with paragraph 19 of the franchise agreement between the City of Delray Beach and Waste Management Inc. of Florida, I, as Contract Administrator, am authorizing Barbara Schooler, Utility Customer Service Manager, to deduct $7,000.00 from payments due to Waste Management, Inc. of Florida for non-completion of the bulk and vegetation waste collection routes enumerated below.

***

February 28, 2006

Mr. Luigi Pace, District Manager
c/o Waste Management, Inc. of Florida
651 Industrial Way
Boynton Beach, Florida 33426

Dear Mr. Pace;

In accordance with paragraph 19 of the franchise agreement between the City of Delray Beach and Waste Management Inc. of Florida, I, as Contract Administrator, am authorizing Barbara Schooler, Utility Customer Service Manager, to deduct $6,000.00 from payments due to Waste Management, Inc. of Florida for non-completion of the waste collection routes enumerated below.

[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 8, 2012 4:00 pm
Comments: (Comments)

The Stop Waste Management Campaign.

A google for the keywords “Waste Management Corruption” revealed the following post.

[cleeng_content id="415704285" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]Enjoy.

The World’s Worst Lawbreakers – Worse Then Ever

Waste Management Incorporated received legal judgments of at least $357.2 Million from 1991 to 2000. These judgments over ten years are three and one-half times the 1970-1991 judgments of $104.6 Million! If you thought WMI was bad in the eighties, they were seven times the worse in the nineties. In addition to the $5.7 million environmental non-compliance fines over $1,000, they were adjudged other court judgments including a $220 million shareholder settlement, a $91.5 million Federal court judgment, and a $11.6 million Chemical Waste Management Pennsylvania guilty plea. Click for details of others judgments.

WMI continues to be one of the worst corporation in America. Their pollution, corruption, and racism are unbelievably stinking. With tens of stockholder lawsuits in recent years, a desperation merger, a turnover of six CEOs in two years, a worst case drop in stock value in 1999, WMI continues to attempt to recover as the world’s largest waste management company. But plans to sell its international operations may even end this claim!

Check out these other organizations to confirm how bad Waste Management is.EBIC (Click WMX at bottom of homepage), INFACT, (Click Hall of Shame) and Rachel’s (Click search back issues and then WMI: A Culture) have provided analyses of their corruption in politics and their pollution in the nineties. In addition Common Cause and the Center for Responsive Politics give details on some of WMI’s massive lobbying activity.

During the eighties Waste Management (WMX) had been fined and penalized 50 million dollars. A review by the Ventura County, CA sheriff’s departmentfound the following violations between 1980 and 1991:

1. Criminal violation, 10 violations in 5 states; total fines and penalties, $5.1 million.
2. Antitrust civil cases, 23 in 23 states; penalties of S23.2 million.
3. Environmental civil cases, 22 in 12 states; total fines and costs of $5.4 million.
4. Administrative cases, 87 in 13 states,; total fines and penalties of $3.3 million.

In addition, Chemical Waste Management (CWM) had 81 environmental actions in 12 states with fines and penalties or $15.3 million! CWM had been 77% owned by WMX, but in 1995 WMX took it completely over. Mainly through CWM operations, WMX admitted that it owned 104 Superfund sites (others said it was over 130 sites). WMX also owned 56% of Rust International. Another 40% of Rust was owned by Wheelabrator which is 58% was owned by WMX. Confusing? Well, a simple way to look at it is that WMX essentially controlled Rust International, Wheelabrator and also Waste Management International.. Today WMI owns 100% of all these subsidiaries. WMX is the world’s largest provider of comprehensive waste management services, offering collection and disposal services for residential, commercial and industrial generators of solid, liquid, chemical, nuclear and hazardous wastes. Its sales in 1994 were $10.1 billion, profits were $784 million. Rust International is a leading provider of engineering, construction and environmental and infrastructure consulting services, hazardous substance remediation services and other on-site industrial and related services. Its clients are primarily from government and in the chemical, petrochemical, nuclear, energy, utility, pulp and paper, manufacturing, environmental services and other industries. 1994 sales were $1.7 billion with a $55 million profit. Wheelabrator concentrates on trash-to-energy facilities, water purification design and facilities, and advanced air pollution systems. In 1994 their sales were $1.3 billion and profits were $185 million.

For extensive information on WMX in the eighties, also consult Charlie Cray’s book on our site.For a Canadian view around the Adams Mine fight, see Highgrader Magazine.

dated 1995, revised 2000.

This post originally from stopwmx.org.[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 8, 2012 3:03 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Jefferson Parish settles part of WM lawsuit.

by Dominic Massa
Eyewitness News
Posted on April 15, 2011 at 10:26 AM

[cleeng_content id="579170820" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]JEFFERSON PARISH, La. – The latest chapter of the Jefferson Parish garbage saga has the parish and Waste Management settling part of the parish’s federal lawsuit against the company, officials announced Friday.

The settlement with Waste Management is seen as the first step in canceling the controversial $160 million contract with River Birch landfill, which is also the subject of a federal investigation.

The parish had sued Waste Management in 2009, as the administration of former parish president Aaron Broussard worked to negotiate the deal with River Birch.

“The Parish of Jefferson and Waste Management have entered into a settlement agreement which results in a dismissal of a portion of the claim pending in Federal Court,” said the parish in a statement Friday.

“The Parish and Waste Management still have claims against one another in Federal Court. Due to the pending litigation, we cannot go into any further detail at this time,” said the statement from parish president John Young’s office.[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 7, 2012 10:19 pm
Comments: (Comments)

County sues over San Jacinto River waste pits.

By ALLAN TURNER
HOUSTON CHRONICLE
December 27, 2011

[cleeng_content id="525390479" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]Harris County has filed a lawsuit in state court to recover hundreds of millions of dollars from local waste management companies and a Pasadena paper factory responsible for storage of a human carcinogen that has leaked into the San Jacinto River.

Named as defendants in the action, which seeks penalties of up to $25,000 a day dating to 1965, are McGinnis Industrial Maintenance Co., Waste Management Inc., Waste Management of Texas and International Paper Co.

The lawsuit, announced Tuesday by County Attorney Vince Ryan, centers on riverside waste disposal pits near the Interstate 10-San Jacinto River crossing opened in 1965 to contain dioxin, a toxic byproduct of paper production.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designated the leaking, now-submerged pits, as a Superfund cleanup site three years ago.

State health officials have issued warnings for children younger than 12 and pregnant women regarding eating fish or crabs caught near the site. They also have warned against camping or picnicking near the sites.

“When I took office, I asked community residents and leaders to name one thing I could do to improve the environment in Harris County,” Ryan said in a statement issued Tuesday. “Cleaning up the San Jacinto River Waste Pits was, without a doubt, the thing almost everyone agreed upon.”

The lawsuit was filed Thursday under authorization of the Texas Water and Texas Health and Safety codes, and any damages resulting from it would be shared with the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

McInnis Industrial Maintenance Co., the lawsuit asserts, now is wholly owned by Waste Management. International Paper is the successor to the Champion paper company. In 2010, the lawsuit claims, International Paper reported more than $644 million in net profits and $25 billion in assets. Waste Management reported $950 million in net profits and $21 billion in assets.

“Because defendants have left a legacy of pollution in Harris County by causing and allowing dioxin to be released into the San Jacinto River instead of spending the money to properly dispose of their dangerous chemicals, it is appropriate that they now compensate Harris County for the consequences of their choices, actions and inaction that have put the public health and environment at risk,” the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit cites the World Health Organization’s designation of dioxin (2,3,7,8-Tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin) as a human carcinogen. The chemical, the lawsuit says, can also cause serious skin disease and changes to blood and urine that may indicate liver damage, alter glucose metabolism and affect hormone levels.

[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 7, 2012 10:11 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Garbage Collection Payout.

Tampa, FL: (Apr-04-08)

[cleeng_content id="587914490" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]A class action lawsuit was brought against Waste Management, Inc. of FL, after investigations regarding the company’s operations. In a recent development in the 2005 filed lawsuit, sources stated that the company announced that it has reached a settlement in the class action, resolving the allegations. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, company officials said that a $1.25 million fund would be distributed on a pro rata basis among members of the class that qualify. It is estimated that the typical payout for businesses may be in the range of $25, and that there are around 50,000 class members throughout FL. Though the actual payout might not seem much, industry spokespersons stated that the deal could lead to more operational scrutiny of one of its giants.

[lawyersandsettlement.com][/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 7, 2012 10:01 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Fort Lauderdale Firm Accused Of Conspiring.

A Waste Management Inc. subsidiary has been accused by the federal government of conspiring with other waste haulers to violate antitrust laws in southern Florida.

[cleeng_content id="560975670" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]A one-count felony information filed in U.S. District Court in Miami Thursday alleged that Waste Management Inc. of Florida, doing business as United Sanitation Services, conspired with the other companies to allocate customers in Dade and Broward counties.

The charge stems from a grand jury investigation into alleged antitrust violations in the waste disposal service industry in South Florida.

The Justice Department has been investigating the waste disposal industry across the nation and 11 grand juries have been empaneled to hear cases.

Another Waste Management subsidiary, Waste Management of California Inc., was one of three companies charged in Los Angeles in June with price-fixing.

Two United Sanitation Services officials were indicted on antitrust charges in 1985 and convicted late last year.

Waste Management Inc. said in a statement that company officials had not seen the felony information. The company said the charges were part of the case in which the two United Sanitation Services officials were convicted.

“The company has cooperated with the government throughout the investigation,” said the statement, read by Joseph Pokorny, the company’s vice president for corporate and public affairs.

Waste Management Inc. is the largest waste disposal service company in the country, headquartered in Oak Brook, Ill.

If convicted, the Florida corporation can be fined up to $1 million, fined twice the gain the company derived from the crime or twice the pecuniary loss to the victims of the crime, whichever is greatest.

The waste hauling business in the two South Florida counties was worth $45 million in 1984, the Justice Department said in a statement released in Washington, D.C.[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 7, 2012 7:44 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Stiff consequences.

Financial Analysis, Planning & Reporting
October 2001

[cleeng_content id="275643763" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]Has Waste Management Inc. discarded its tarnished reputation over alleged accounting and reporting misdeeds? Possibly. But another episode in the ongoing saga has emerged: The company has raised concerns by beating earnings estimates with the help of excluding expenses it considers ”unusual.” But are these expenses truly unusual, or are they merely normal, ongoing costs of operations?

Latest Chapter

To beat earnings estimates for the second quarter, Waste Management, the nation’s leading garbage hauler, has excluded a slew of what it deems unusual expenses from its pro-forma earnings. These ”unusual expenses” include $ 1 million to paint its garbage trucks and $ 20 million in consulting fees. By excluding these expenses, the company could report pro-forma earnings of $ 212 million. This represented 33 cents per share, which was one cent ahead of the expectations of Wall Street analysts, according to Thomson Financial/First Call. Had these expenses not been excluded, the company would have earned $191 million, or 30 cents per share.

In its defense, the company considered the truck painting expenses unusual because the trucks were not supposed to be painted this year. The consulting expenses were considered unusual because they were incurred as part of a turnaround effort.

To us, the truck painting expense parlay is utter nonsense. Accounting standards allow companies to exclude ”extraordinary items” from the rest of their figures so investors can see how the company’s core operations are doing. But for an expense to be considered ”extraordinary,” it must be both ”unusual in nature” and ”nonrecurring.” So to say that truck painting is ”extraordinary” for a firm that has the sixth largest truck fleet (33,000 vehicles) in the country is totally off the wall.

However, Waste Management Inc. is not a stranger to accounting controversy.

Past Troubles

In June 2000, Waste Management Inc. settled SEC administrative charges that it made materially false and misleading forecasts of its second quarter 1999 earnings (In re Waste Management Inc., SEC, Admin. Proc. File No. 3-10238, 6/21/00). In a June 21 release, the SEC noted that the company also settled charges that it had violated securities law books and records and internal controls provisions. Without admitting or denying misconduct, the company agreed to cease and desist from future securities law violations, according to the SEC.

Waste Management had some accounting problems before this. In late 1998, the company and its outside auditor tentatively agreed to a $ 220 million settlement of shareholder class actions stemming from its alleged overstatement of income between 1991 and 1997. USA Waste Services Inc. acquired the company then based in Oakbrook, IL shortly after it disclosed in February 1998 that its income had been overstated. The merged entity then took on the name Waste Management Inc.

Reporting Chaos

The root of the problem is that pro-forma financial information about a company may exclude any cost or expense the company wants, yet be presented in a form that suggests reliability and soundness. In many cases, pro-forma financials are a tool companies use to disseminate an idealized version of their performance. Such financials are not audited and may not even be reconcilable with the financial statements companies have filed with the SEC.

This is one of the reasons why pressure is intensifying to create guidelines for pro-forma accounting to eliminate the sleight-of-hand some companies practice. Recently, FASB Chairman Edmund Jenkins told a House subcommittee that companies that release informal pro-forma accounting statements should be required simultaneously to report the same figures using generally accepted accounting principles. In testimony before the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade, and Consumer Protection, Jenkins stressed that pro-forma accounting allows a company to present numbers informally in virtually whatever context it chooses. For instance, a company using pro-forma accounting could show a profit for a certain period, as long as it explained that to find that profit, certain charges and expenses were not recorded on the pro-forma report.

This phenomenon astonished Cliff Stearns (R-FL), the chairman of the subcommittee, who agreed that standards are in order for pro-forma accounting.

At the same hearing, James Leisenring, director of international activities at FASB, said pro-forma accounting is starting to take root around the world. “‘Pro-forma accounting seems to be something Americans can export, and it’s probably going to cause the same confusion you’re describing here,” he told Stearns.

Stiff Consequences

The SEC does not regulate corporate news releases, conference calls, or informal pro-forma earnings reports. However, regulators say that, in general, companies must portray the condition of their businesses to investors and the public in an accurate manner. Distorted results, such as those in pro-forma releases, could trigger regulatory action, as Waste Management Inc. has found out.

Companies must also consider the consequences from shareholders. Misleading earnings forecasts can trigger shareholder lawsuits.[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 7, 2012 4:45 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Standard Operating Procedure.

Los Angeles Times
July 16, 1992, Thursday, Ventura County Edition

[cleeng_content id="736721559" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]The Santa Clara County grand jury indictments of Waste Management of California announced Wednesday represent the latest legal battle by giant Waste Management Inc., the world’s largest waste disposal company.

Formed in 1968, Waste Management Inc. now operates more than 600 subsidiaries that serve 1,700 public agencies in the United States and Canada. It has offices in 20 other countries, with worldwide revenues of $7 billion last year.

But as it has grown over the past decade, Waste Management has been charged with crimes ranging from bribery to price-fixing.

Recent studies of the company’s record by the Ventura County Sheriff’s Department and the San Diego County district attorney’s office found that the company and its subsidiaries had paid $52.3 million in fines during the 1980s. The studies listed 10 criminal, 22 environmental and 23 civil antitrust cases. Two former Chicago-area employees were found guilty of bribery in the mid-1980s, they noted.

Several major cases have been in California, where Waste Management owns more than 50 companies and operates seven landfills and a toxic-waste dump.

• In Los Angeles County, prosecutors charged in a 1987 antitrust criminal case that Waste Management of California and two other rubbish companies operated an illegal cartel that divided up customers and fixed prices. Two Waste Management officials pleaded no contest, and the company agreed to pay $1 million in fines;
• In Orange County, a Waste Management subsidiary, Dewey’s Rubbish Service of Irvine, pleaded guilty in 1990 to a criminal antitrust count of price-fixing. Waste Management paid a $1-million fine but contended the illegal activity occurred in 1983-84, before it bought the rubbish service.
• In San Diego County, Waste Management of California, doing business as Daily Disposal Service, pleaded guilty in 1990 to a criminal antitrust violation for conspiring to allocate customers and fix prices for its commercial and industrial hauling services. It agreed to pay a $500,000 fine.
• In a plea that affected San Diego County, Waste Management Inc. agreed in 1990 to pay $19.5 million to settle a class-action civil suit charging that the company and Browning-Ferris Industries had conspired to fix refuse prices.
• At Chemical Waste Management’s hazardous-waste dump in the Kettleman Hills in Central California, the company agreed in 1985 to pay fines of $4 million in a case in which the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency alleged the mishandling of hazardous waste.
• At the Kettleman Hills facility, the EPA fined the company $2.5 million in 1984, alleging a total of 130 violations. The EPA said the company had allowed landfill leaks to contaminate the local water supply.

[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 7, 2012 2:04 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Another day, another bazillion dollar lawsuit.

Arkansas Democrat-Gazette (Little Rock)
November 12, 2004 Friday

[cleeng_content id="892346115" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]Six months later, sides still waiting in landfill lawsuit

Attorneys for the company that operates the Tontitown landfill argued in Washington County Circuit Court six months ago that the company should be allow to proceed with a planned expansion.

A group of residents living near the landfill sued Waste Management Inc. last year arguing that the company could not get a permit to expand the 66-acre landfill without a certificate of need from the Tri-County Solid Waste District.

After the one-day hearing May 10, Judge Mike Mashburn said he expected to issue a ruling in about two weeks. Mashburn said this week that he could not comment on the open case, including why it’s taking longer.

The Tri-County Solid Waste District board denied Waste Management’s request for the certificate of need in 2001. A former Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality official reversed the board’s decision in 2001, allowing Waste Management to proceed with its permit application without the district’s permission.

The residents sued seeking to stop the process.

George Zeiler, one of the residents, said he doesn’t think there is anything either side can do to speed things up.

“He’s a good solid judge,” Zeiler said. “We’re just disappointed that it’s taking so long.”

Dale Evans, the Fayetteville attorney representing the neighbors, said Mashburn asked him last month to e-mail copies of briefs he filed before the hearing. Evans said he has never waited so long for a decision.

Despite the lawsuit, Waste Management filed a permit application with the state environmental department in July. The company is seeking to expand the landfill by 55 acres.

Steve Martin, chief of the state environmental department’s solid waste division, said he doesn’t expect to make a preliminary ruling on the application until January. If he rules that Waste Management should get a permit, the department will hold a public comment session, he said. Zeiler said the neighbors would voice their opposition at such a hearing.

Jordan Johnson, spokesman for Waste Management, said he didn’t know how far the company will go with the permit process or any physical work on the expansion before Mashburn rules.

Waste Management faces another lawsuit in Washington County Circuit Court at the end of November.

Razor-bax Excavation Inc. sued Waste Management in 2002, alleging that the company broke a $10.53 million contract with the excavation company to haul clay to the landfill. Razorbax is owned by John Dale Baxter, the son of former Waste Management executive Bob Baxter.

Waste Management fired Bob Baxter in January 2002. In April 2002, the former executive filed a complaint with the state environmental department claiming the landfill had a hole in its protective lining.

The state investigated the complaint and did not find a leak. State officials temporarily shut down the landfill for recordkeeping violations.

Evans is representing John Dale Baxter. Mashburn will hear arguments in that case on Nov. 30.

Johnson declined to comment on that lawsuit.[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 7, 2012 8:56 am
Comments: (Comments)

A well-deserved reputation.

Los Angeles Times
October 14, 1992

[cleeng_content id="155788735" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]FIRM SUES D.A. OVER CHARGES OF MOB TIES;
COURTS: NATION’S LARGEST TRASH COMPANY SAYS IT WAS MALIGNED IN REPORT BY SAN DIEGO COUNTY PROSECUTORS.

BYLINE: By TOM GORMAN, TIMES STAFF WRITER
DATELINE: SAN DIEGO

The nation’s largest trash company sued the San Diego County district attorney Tuesday, charging in U.S. District Court that he had maligned the company’s reputation by alleging it has ties with organized crime.

Waste Management Inc., based in Oak Brook, Ill., charged that Dist. Atty. Edwin Miller’s statements are not only false but that he refused to allow the company to respond to his allegations before publishing them.

Miller made his charges in a March report to the San Diego County Board of Supervisors.

The county board had asked Miller to conduct a background check of the company because it wanted to operate a privately owned landfill in the county.

In his report, Miller noted that, “Historically, the refuse industry has been reputed to be infiltrated by members of organized crime. In many instances, this is a well-deserved reputation.”

He went on to identify several situations that he said showed Waste Management was linked to organized crime. The report focused on allegations that various company officials had criminal ties before they worked for Waste Management or that companies taken over by Waste Management had previous ties to organized crime.

Waste Management tried to refute Miller’s report by hiring the Los Angeles law firm of O’Melveny & Myers to conduct its own investigation. The law firm’s report concluded that Miller had offered “a few anecdotes which for the most part have nothing to do with Waste Management or anyone ever associated with it…”

There is not now and never has been any connection between Waste Management and organized crime.”

But Waste Management said it was still reeling from Miller’s report, which the company says has since received worldwide notoriety, has tainted the company’s reputation and scared off potential customers.

Company officials say they want Miller to retract his allegations — and to recall all copies of the report so the offensive chapter can be destroyed.

Steve Casey, spokesman for the district attorney’s office, said: “We understand Waste Management has brought numerous lawsuits in the past, and so this is not a huge surprise,” he said. “The suit has no merit.”[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 7, 2012 8:23 am
Comments: (Comments)

WMI’s Record: Enviro and Contract Crimes

BLUE RIDGE ENVIRONMENTAL DEFENSE LEAGUE
PO Box 88
Glendale Springs, North Carolina 28629

[cleeng_content id="253650088" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]October 2002

WMI’s Record: Environmental and Contract Crimes

Waste Management Inc. has a 19 year record of environmental violations and contract crimes, that is, violations directly related to its business.

WMI, headquartered in Houston, Texas, is a holding company whose subsidiaries are in the business of collecting, transporting and disposing of solid waste, hazardous waste, and radioactive waste for residential, municipal, commercial and industrial customers.

WMI operates 302 landfills, more than any other company. Currently, WMI is liable for 79 sites on the National Priority List of CERCLA (Superfund). WMI was formerly known WMX. The company changed its name after USA Waste Service, Inc. acquired WMX in 1998. This report is only a partial record of violations by WMI and its subsidiaries.

1983: WMI convicted for price fixing, paid $350,000 fine.

1985: WMI convicted of price fixing in Dade and Broward Counties, Florida.

1985: EPA fines WMI $350,000 for hazardous waste violations in Oregon.

1985: EPA fines WMI $350,000 for hazardous waste violations in Alabama.

1986: WMI official is convicted of bribery of the Mayor of Fox Lake, Illinois

1986: In Florida, David Travel Co., filed a class action antitrust civil case against Waste Management of Florida, et al. The case was settled for $1,200,000 in 1988.

1987: WMI and Browning Ferris Industries (BFI), another waste hauling company, were convicted of price fixing and fined $1 million.

1988: WMI pleads no contest to price fixing in Broward and Dade Counties, Florida and pays $1 million. Chemical Waste Management (CWM) paid a $12.5 million in for environmental violations in Vickery, Ohio including mixing PCB’s with oil and selling it as fuel.

1989: Los Angeles County District Attorney wins $1 million anti-trust case against WMI, the largest anti-trust case in California history. WMI pleads no contest.

1989: WMI pleads guilty and pays $1.5 million for price-fixing in Orange and San Diego Counties, California.

1990: EPA fines WMI $1,300,000 for violating deep well injection regulations. Since 1985 WMI has been fined $2.5 million at the same site.

1990: Philadelphia grand jury hands down decision to prosecute both WMI and BFI in a $50 million collusion and price-fixing case involving 60 counties in 13 states. Both companies settle without conviction by agreeing to pay the $50 million jointly.

1990: EPA fines Chemical Waste Management $750,000 for waste lagoon violations in Vickery, Ohio.

1990: Chemical Waste Management paid $3,750,000 to settle federal charges concerning dangerous practices at a Chicago hazardous waste incinerator. In 1991 an explosion shut down the operation and brought another fine of $2.5 million.

1990: Chemical Waste Management promised that their Emelle, Alabama HW landfill would “promise safe containment for hazardous wastes for 10,000 years.” Between 1984 and 1986 the appraised value of the town mayor’s home dropped from $60,000 to $15,000 because of the landfill. In 1987 Alabama DEM reported contamination of monitoring wells. In 1989 Alabama state troopers found 740 safety violations in 312 CWM trucks. In 1990 CWM paid $123,000 for disposing sludge without proper treatment. Sumter County unemployment rose from 5.8% to 21% between 1978 and 1986.

1991: WMI fined $4.1 million for dumping more trash than permitted in Erie, Pennsylvania landfill.

1991: The Sheriff of Ventura County, California issued a report on September 21 describing 225 different criminal and civil actions over 13 years against WMI and subsidiaries costing $52,321,933 in fines and penalties (misdemeanors, administrative misdeeds, and felonies). Consent agreements allow government to claim victory and WMI to avoid trial and conviction.

1991: A report from the Chairman of the New York State Assembly’s Environmental Conservation Committee found that WMI illegally dumped liquid hazardous waste in municipal landfills. A witness stated, “A rolloff is an open top container much like a dump body truck.

The average capacity is twenty cubic yards. We have heard Mr. Kaufman discuss placing toxic or hazardous materials in the rolloff with plastic, putting sand at the base of it in the corners and putting absorbent-type solid waste material into the rolloff and then emptying the drum of liquid hazardous waste material into that rolloff….Approximately sixty drums containing hazardous or liquid waste can be disposed of in one container. This container is then hoisted on a chassis truck and taken to a sanitary landfill where it is disposed of as solid waste or garbage.…”

Detective Sergeant Dirk Ottens, Organized Crime’s Involvement In the Waste Hauling Industry, February 6, 1991

1992: The San Diego Report found that WMI’s methods of doing business and history of civil and criminal violations established a predictable pattern which has been fairly consistent over a significant number of years. The report stated:

“We have reviewed recent practices and problems and our concerns have not diminished. The company’s recent business practices and violations do not appear to be different from the past.”

“The company’s history requires extreme caution by the San Diego Board of Supervisors or any other governmental entity contemplating any contractual or business relationship with Waste Management.”

“It is clear that Waste Management engages in practices designed to gain undue influence over government officials”

“These practices suggest an unseemly effort by Waste Management to manipulate local government for its own business ends….[and] may have a corrupting impact on local government and lead to decisions unsuitable to the best interests of the public.”

1992: A spokesman for Waste Management attempted to deflect criticism by attacking the report by the Attorney General of San Diego. He said, “The San Diego Report seems to be pretty much a complete rehash of a couple of reports compiled by a couple of pretty extreme environmental groups.”

Kingsport, Tennessee Times-News July 17, 1992

1992: A rival waste disposal company filed a $50,000 lawsuit against Dade County, FL when the government negotiated solely with WMI for a $125 million disposal contract following Hurricane Andrew. WMI also was involved in collusion with another company to split the contract, but the County Commission voted to award the contract anyway.

1992: WMI came to east Tennessee to open a commercial solid waste dump. Greer Tidwell, Jr. a partner in the Nashville branch of Baker Worthington is the son of Greer Tidwell, Sr., who was then Regional EPA Director in Atlanta. Baker Worthington’s Howard Baker, former Tennessee Senator and Reagan Administration Chief of Staff, was also a major stockholder in WMI and sat on their Board of Directors. Jeff Anderson, Johnson City Commissioner, was a partner at Baker Worthington’s Johnson City branch. According to BREDL member Douglas Cartera Johnson City attorney opposed to a local WMI’s landfillwhen the landfill site was first proposed the city hired Law Engineering to do a geological report on the site. Law Engineering found serious problems on the old shale mining site, including a stream that ran through the middle of the proposed dump. The report was unacceptable to WMI and city, so in 1992 a new firm was brought in to do an updated geological report. The new firm was SEC Donahue, a subsidiary of Waste Management Inc. According to Mr. Carter, “The problems cleared right up.” In addition to the incestuous business relationships, the local newspaper found that WMI’s track record also looked bad: “What we have are strong familial and business connections between Waste Management Inc., the law firm of Baker Worthington, the Johnson City Commission, and Region IV EPA….According to an October 12 article in the Wall Street Journal, Waste Management was recently penalized $11.6 million in fines for violating environmental laws. In 1990 the company paid out $5.4 million in fines, and in 1991 $8.1 million. Waste Management claims it is trying to become more responsible in its practices, but the numbers seem to indicate the opposite.”

Johnson City Weekly Beat November 16, 1992

1996: WMX was found guilty of cheating, fraud, misrepresentation, greed, and other crimes against the original owners of the hazardous waste dump in Emmelle, Alabama. The citizens of Emmelle got nothing, but the original owners of the Emmelle dump received $91 million. Federal Judge Odell Horton awarded the plaintiffs contract damages of $76 Million and punitive damages of $15 Million. He wrote, “During the trial of this case, it became crystal clear to this Court, based upon the totality of the evidence in the record, that Defendant’s top corporate officers decided upon and followed a well defined plan to cheat Plaintiffs out of money rightfully due them under the terms of the purchase agreement for the Emelle hazardous waste disposal facility. Nothing more, nothing less. What is troubling about this case is that fraud, misrepresentation and dishonesty apparently became part of the operating culture of the Defendant corporation. Even more so, Defendant and its corporate officers apparently refused to recognize their duties as required by the totally unambiguous contract. … It seems Defendant and its corporate officers still believe that they did not do anything wrong.”

Mark W. Gregory, et al., vs. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. (WMX), (Case No. 93-2343-H/V) December 11, 1996

1996: Waste Management Inc. reported its resources for Superfund cleanups were reduced by about 90% from previous years. At the time WMI was responsible for 114 Superfund sites, but WMI attempted to avoid clean ups. For example, on in 1993 the Ohio EPA determined that a remedial action would cost approximately $20.5 million, for which WMI would bear major responsibility. The groundwater contamination included volatile organic compounds: 2-Butanone, acetone, 4-methyl 2-pentanone, xylenes, and toluene. WMI did some testing and claimed that there was no danger from the landfill; the company recommended that there be no major cleanup.

1997: On June 13 the Indiana Commissioner of the Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) Michael O’Connor denied the request of Waste Management to expand its Fort Wayne Adams Center Hazardous Waste Treatment and Disposal Facility. O’Connor said, “Indiana’s Good Character law allows IDEM to effectively deny a permit application if the applicant has not demonstrated good environmental stewardship.” He continued, “With Chem Waste’s poor environmental track record, I could not approve their expansion request.” Chem Waste is Chemical Waste Management, a wholly owned subsidiary of Waste Management Inc.

This victory culminated a prolonged citizen fight to stop and close the landfill. An associate attorney for the city of New Haven, Indiana said the state “would have to grant a permit to Satan before they could grant a permit to this outfit.” IDEM listed five years of violations:

1. Guilty pleas to six criminal felony violations and $3 million penalties (Case No. CR-22-253).
2. $25,000 penalty in Alabama hazardous waste case (Case No. 92-156-HW – 7/4/92);
3. $25,000 penalty for California hazardous waste tank spill (Case No. 723347 – 7/29/92);
4. Various operational violations in California $65,000 penalty (Case No. HWCA 92/93-022 – 11/13/92);
5. $15,000 penalty regarding analysis methods for incinerator ash at Port Arthur, Texas (Case No. RCRA VI-204-H – 4/8/94);
6. $17,400 Penalty for violations of Toxic Substances Control Act in USEPA Region V (Case No. TSCA-V-C-30-93 – 8/1/94) plus eight more cases.

The IDEM Commissioner also found that CWM apparently lied in its application by claiming they no longer were associated with Chem Waste. O’Connor found through some attempted dummy corporation slight of hand that Waste Management attempted to hide their very direct affiliation. Waste Management was caught lying again. Indiana enacted “Good Character” law in 1990. Waste Management and CWM challenged the law but lost before the Indiana Supreme Court in 1994.

Indianapolis Star, June 14, 1997
http://www.ebic.org/pubs/wmx.html

1998: Waste Management wrote off $3.54 billion of earnings which it had falsely reported during the previous ten years.

Waste News, April 6, 1998
http://www.ebic.org/pubs/wmx.html#8

1999: WMI violated the antifraud, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the Securities Exchange Act. The Securities and Exchange Commission ruled, “The fact that the deficiencies in WMI’s systems prevented management from receiving timely and reliable data about the company’s performance does not excuse the company for making statements without a reasonable basis or without disclosing material facts necessary to make the statements not misleading.” The company settled with the SEC by complying with a cease and desist order.

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/admin/34-42222.htm

2001: The SEC’s action was followed by a WMI shareholders class action lawsuit. The headlines read: “Waste Management Settles Lawsuit for $457 Million,” (New York Times, November 8, 2001). Also, WMI’s accountant Arthur Andersen was found guilty of malpractice in the case and paid $27 million.

http://www.ebic.org/pubs/wmx.html#8

2002: As of December 31, 2001, the company is involved in four proceedings which could result in penalties of $100,000 or more. These actions include 1) exceeding incinerator air pollution limits, 2) a hazardous waste disposal violation, 3) landfill gas emissions at an NPL site, and 4) work under an EPA unilateral administrative order. Another unresolved case involves a 1998 EPA notice of violation of chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) disposal regulations. The EPA ordered WMI to comply with CFC regulations and is conducting a civil investigation.

WMI Annual Form 10-K for FY 2001, Securities and Exchange Commission

[/cleeng_content]

Posted: July 4, 2012 8:55 am
Comments: (Comments)

Garbage Truck Drivers Win $7M Settlement

July 21st, 2010
By Sarah Pierce

(LEGAFI) — It took nearly five years of litigation, but current and former garbage truck drivers for Waste Management of Massachusetts, Inc. have finally won their class action lawsuit against the company for wage violations and unpaid overtime. More than 1,200 drivers will share in the $7 million class action settlement, which was approved by a Massachusetts State Court on June 25. The drivers’ attorney estimates that most drivers will receive checks for more than double what they should have been paid in the first place (one and one-half times their regular rate of pay for hours worked over 40 per week), while some drivers will receive as much as $60,000 in back pay.

The drivers allege Waste Management of Massachusetts manipulated its prevailing wage payroll records in order to deny them their correct overtime pay. A court ruling in 2008 agreed, finding that the company used an illegal payroll formula to determine the hourly rate it used to calculate overtime pay and ordering the company to pay for an independent audit of its payroll records. An extensive audit review led to a mediation session between the parties in late 2009, which resulted in the $7 million settlement that was finally approved last month. The class action lawsuit settlement will give more than 1,200 current and former garbage truck drivers for the company and average of more than 200% of what they were lawfully owed in overtime pay dating back to 2003.

The attorney for the plaintiffs said in a statement that it was a significant victory for the drivers. “After being told for years that their pay was correct, they’d had enough. It took almost 5 years, but justice has prevailed.”

Posted: June 26, 2012 6:58 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Why is Bob Norman so focused on SWS? *

Have you hopped on the garbage truck bandwagon, questioning Bob “Geraldo” Norman’s impartiality?

Are you, along with many others, wondering if his post New Times greener pastures included WM stock options?

At the June 22 close, WM shares were trading at $32.37.

Has WPLG’s Norman stopped even hinting at balanced journalism? Two seconds on the Googles would have revealed these choice headlines:

• $7.5M to settle charges against Wheelabrator
• Wheelabrator Compromises with DEP over Environmental Violation
• Wheelabrator settles lawsuit amid alleged environmental violations

$7.5M? Lawsuit? Environmental violations? What gives?

Glad you asked.

In 2009, two company employees filed a complaint alleging Wheelbrator “failed to put a check on the outflow of toxic gases in its facilities” and did not contain wastewater and ash; thereby dumping lead, cadmium, and arsenic into the wetlands, posing “a threat to human health and the environment.”

Local elected officials were flabbergasted by the accusations. Selectman Stephen Horlick said “it’s particularly troublesome that it took a Wheelabrator employee to come forward to levy the accusations against the company.” He wondered how many violations have taken place at the Saugus plant over the last 30 years that were never brought forward.

Is your kid glowing green? Does your cat double as a night light? Do you live on Love Canal Way?

If so, then you might be a redneck have a problem.

In 2011, Wheelabrator cut a $7.5M deal, $2M in civil penalties alone, with the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection resolving multiple environmental violations and settling claims the company violated the Clean Water Act, the Hazardous Waste Management Act, and the Wetlands Protection Act.

Wheelabrator officials admitted no wrongdoing as part of the settlement and indicated they took the action to avoid lengthy litigation.

Admitted no wrongdoing? WTF? How did they keep a straight face and say “oh that lead.” Is that cadmium with a “k”?

This settlement was the largest for a Massachusetts case alleging environmental violations.

* All of this reminds us of Norman’s slanted handling of Howard “Pine Hollow” Dvorkin — that is, anyone with big dollars must always be the only one in the wrong.

First Dvokrin, now Ron Bergeron.

Posted: June 24, 2012 4:54 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Shenanigans.

John W. Scott, IG
Office of the Inspector General
One North University Drive
Suite 111
Plantation, FL 33324

[cleeng_content id="565909435" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="3.49" referral="0.10"]Dear Sir:

On December 8, 2009, the City of Lauderdale Lakes adopted Ordinance 09-21, thereby entering into a five-year solid waste services contract with Waste Management. Awarded retroactively, the contract’s timeframe was from October 1, 2009 to September 30, 2014.

In the City of Lauderdale Lakes, solid waste management is a public works service.

We have concluded the City of Lauderdale Lakes failed to comply with City Code Section 82-193 by not requiring a formal competitive process for this public works services contract; as it was neither solicited for bid nor publicly advertised.

This sole-source award did not allow for any marketplace cost adjustment, thereby denying residential and commercial users access to the best available rates, as an open solicitation would have forced a competitive review. There is no provision for competition-based downward-rate modifications. Additionally, users are subjected to a 12% franchise fee and costs are scheduled to escalate over the next five years.

As the City of Lauderdale Lakes has taken redirecting blame to an art form, we note culpability for this issue belongs solely with City Manager Jonathan “The Weasel” Allen.

Editor’s Update:
And if there is any question about Allen being responsible for this fiasco, keep the following in mind:

1. He was Assistant City Manager and overseeing Public Works.
2. Was by-passing Purchasing on numerous matters (OIG Report).
3. Directed Chris VanVliet to prepare the WM agenda and contract.

Please investigate.

Happy hunting;

Timothy “Chaz” Stevens

[/cleeng_content]

Posted: May 14, 2012 12:01 am
Comments: (Comments)

Ahoy there PGA.

Dear PBCO Inspector General Sheryl Steckler,

On behalf of the public we appreciate your oversight review of the City of Palm Beach Gardens add on executed contract with Waste Management in April 2012.

However, please review the City of Palm Beach Gardens Charter and Municipal Ordinances: Franchise Agreements in Section 18-5 of their Charter, such as WM’ are required to be executed as an Ordinance, which requires two (2) public readings, and publication of public notice at least fourteen (14) days prior to each reading.

The only exception to this Ordinance requirement is a justified “Good Cause Emergency” and I think any court will agree the execution of WM contract with the City of Palm Beach Gardens was not an emergency due to health, welfare and safety of the public in April 2012; since WM current contract does not expire until 2013.

The elected body of Palm Beach Gardens violated their own Charter and Municipal Ordinances Requirement for Franchisee Agreements Requirements in Section 18-5 and Section 3(a) of their municipal codes, when they added on and executed a five (5) year contract in the April 2012 City Council meeting with Waste Management.

Once again thanks to you and your staff for the good work you are doing to protect the rights of the rate payers of all WM contracts, and your business sound recommendations for government in the sunshine and competitive procurement. I believe if your review most municipalities in Palm Beach County, you will learn that most Franchise Agreements with WM violates those cities charters and municipal codes, because the agreements are executed through resolutions and not ordinances.

Posted: May 12, 2012 9:59 am
Comments: (Comments)

Mo’ trouble.

Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Broward State Attorney Office
201 Southeast 6th Street
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
Attention: Timothy Donnelly, Assistant State Attorney
Public Corruption Unit

John W. Scott, Inspector General
Office of the Inspector General
One North University Drive, Suite 111
Plantation, FL 33324

Dear Sirs:

The City of Lauderdale Lakes City Manager Jonathan K. Allen, in 2009 was the Assistant City Manager, and he and former City Manager Anita Fain-Taylor conspired with Waste Management, Inc. of Florida, D/B/A Southern Sanitation Services and Broward Disposal, to circumvent the competitive solicitation process as required in F. S. 287.057, and the City’s own procurement code.

On October 21, 2009 in his official capacity as the Assistant City Manager, Allen and Taylor recommended to the elected body to approve a non-compete award to Waste Management, Inc. of Florida, D/B/A Southern Sanitation Services and Broward Disposal; non-compete award valued annually at $6M.

Allen in 2009 in his capacity as Assistant City was responsible for the management oversight of five (5) departments: Public Works and Engineering Services, Fire Rescue, Human Resources, Parks and Recreation, and Social Services/Alzheimer Care. He also assists with budget and policy development functions, manages the City’s Federal/State Legislative Program, coordinated the City’s CDBG Grant Program, and performs other special projects under the purview of the City Manager.

The elected body approved the contract award on October 21, 2009; and the award was retroactive October 1, 2009 until September 30, 2014. The non-compete award has a total value over five (5) years of $60M. The award is documented in the City’s municipal codes as Ordinance Number 09-21.

Allen and Taylor were informed by the City’s Purchasing Director in 2009 that any procurement for solid waste required a competitive bid process. Allen and Taylor with forethought, elected to disregard the competitive procurement requirements, and procurement F. S. 287.057.

Allen and Taylor’s decisions to contract with their favored vendor, instead of conducting a competitive solicitation, violated not only the City’s Procurement Code, but also violated basic tenets of good public policy.

Sec. 82-193. – Public contracts.

Contracts for supplies, equipment, materials or public works. Unless otherwise exempt or waived under this section, all contracts for the acquisition of supplies, equipment, materials or public works for the city government in excess of $5,000.00 shall require approval of the city commission, unless such authority has been specifically delegated to the city manager. All contracts for the acquisition of supplies, equipment, materials and public works for the city government in excess of $10,000.00 shall be approved by the city commission only after informal competitive conditions have been maintained and written quotes have been received from at least three different sources of supply. Contracts for the acquisition of supplies, equipment, materials or public works exceeding an anticipated expenditure of $25,000.00 shall be approved by the city commission only after formal competitive conditions have been maintained, written specifications provided, advertisement for bids in a newspaper of general circulation published in the county shall have occurred in at least two consecutive issues of such newspaper, not less than 12 days prior to the date of reception of such bids, and written responses have been received.

Additionally, this covenant also applies.

The City of Lauderdale Lakes Administrative Policy Number 00-19

The City of Lauderdale Lakes Administrative Procurement Policy governs the acquisition of goods and services procured by the City. The relevant sections mandate the following:

(4.2) The City Commission must approve purchases in excess of $25,000 and/or three or more years in duration.

(4.4) Purchases over $25,000 require formal competitive conditions.

Allen with the approval of Taylor elected to direct the City’s Public Works Administrator Chris VanFliet, to prepare a non-compete contract with Waste Management as a sole source waste hauler, for the purpose of circumventing competitive procurement best practices for a total award valued at $60 M.

City of Lauderdale Lakes

(5.5.12) Sole source purchases shall not be authorized unless User departments provide supporting documentation to justify the authenticity of the claim.

Allen and Taylor’s egregious conspiracy with Waste Management to circumvent competitive procurement criminally violated F.S. 838.22 (2); and serve no public good for the taxpayers in the City of Lauderdale Lakes.

The Florida Bid Tampering Statute

The bid tampering statute, Sec. 838.22(2), states in pertinent part:

It is unlawful for a public servant, with corrupt intent to obtain a benefit for any person or to cause unlawful harm to another, to circumvent a competitive bidding process required by law or rule by using a sole-source contract for commodities or services.

Allen and Taylor’s criminal actions created real financial problems, in the wake of the gross mismanagement of public funds that has already endangered the City—as addressed in the Broward County Inspector General report 11-017.

On October 25, 2011 Allen now in the capacity as the City Manager of Lauderdale Lakes, was forced to recommend to the elected body to approve a deferral payment of $428,115.60 to Waste Management; as a result of awarding a non-compete solid waste and disposal contract valued at $60 M. The deferral payment is documented as Resolution 2011-94.

Allen, Taylor, and Waste Management’s conspiracy created a financial burden on the taxpayers, which required them to pay higher residential and commercial rates, due to Waste Management’s financial inducement (Pay to Play).

Additionally, by intentionally failing to solicit competitive quotes, Allen, Taylor and Waste Management have had a direct impact on the residential rates by not allowing to the cost to reset at market rates.

Waste Management agreed to pay the City an industry high twelve percent (12%) annual franchise fee on all gross revenues. The twelve percent (12%) annual franchise fee does not decrease Waste Management’s annual gross profits, because the (12%) is passed on to the City’s customers’ monthly residential and commercial rates.

If Waste Management did not have to pay the City an industry high, twelve percent (12%) annual franchise fee; residential and commercial fees would have been reduced to the industry average of five percent (5%); reflecting a seven percent (7%) monthly reduction for taxpayers solid waste fees in the beautiful City of Lauderdale Lakes.

Given this, I respectfully request the Broward County State Attorney’s Office and the Broward Office of Inspector General thoroughly investigates this allegation and to the extent permitted by State or local law or regulations, any and all penalties, sanctions, or other disciplinary actions for violations of such standards be applied forthwith.

I stand ready to assist.

Happy hunting;

Timothy “Chaz” Stevens

Enclosures: (3)

I. Sec. 82-193. – Public contracts.
II. City of Lauderdale Lakes WM Resolution 2011-94 Executed
III. Solid Waste Collection Franchise with Waste Management, Inc., of Florida, as adopted by Ord. No. 09-21 on December 8, 2009.

Download complaint

Posted: April 10, 2012 11:30 pm
Comments: (Comments)

PB’s Mt. Trashmore.

The great folks at WPEC have put together a second story about Waste Management’s unsavory business practices.

Here’s an excerpt from the story.

PALM BEACH COUNTY, Fla. — Tonight CBS12 investigates the price of picking up your trash.

It costs cities a lot of money to hire companies for trash pickup. But who’s making sure taxpayers get the best deal?

It’s part of our project Waste Watch, aimed at holding government officials accountable for how they spend your tax dollars.

Trash pickup is one of the most expensive services cities and counties provide to their residents. Millions, even tens of millions of dollars of your taxes, paid to companies like Waste Management, Waste Pro, Republic and others.

Just like when you shop for the best price, say for gasoline, cities can put these contracts out for competitive bids every few years to see if another company can do it cheaper. But many don’t.

For those interested, you can watch the video and read the rest of the story here.

Posted: April 5, 2012 3:44 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Bolo Alert.

We issuing a BOLO Alert for Section 44 of the Solid Waste and Recycling Collection Franchise Agreement Palm Beach County and Waste Management, Inc (download).

Hey, stop that fucking yawning. Shit, I haven’t *even begun*…

About Section 44:

Public Entity Crimes.

No Contractor may be a person or affiliate identified on the Department of General Services “convicted vendor” list. This list is defined at consisting of persons and affiliates who are disqualified from public contracting and purchasing process because they have been found guilty of a public entity crime. The Contractor is required to comply with Florida Statute 287.133, as amended, or its successor.

More about this later… The story is, as they say, developing and we’re just getting this onto the “big boys radar.”

Posted: April 4, 2012 12:51 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Palm Beach State Attorney.

Tuesday, April 3, 2012

15th Judicial Circuit State Attorney
c/o State Attorney Peter Antonacci
Assistant State Attorney Paul Zacks
Assistant State Attorney Mike Waites
401 North Dixie Highway
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401

RE: Criminal Complaint against Waste Management Inc.

Dear Sirs:

I hereby file the following criminal complaint against Waste Management Inc.

Download PBCO SAO Complaint

Posted: April 3, 2012 3:10 pm
Comments: (Comments)

We ❤ Trash.

Last week, we chronicled numerous Palm Beach County cities who were doling out multi-million dollar no-bid contracts to Waste Management. For those of us in Broward and Miami-Dade who felt left out in the cold, fear not!

Drum roll please.

The following are Broward/Miami-Dade Waste Management contracts up for bid in 2012-2013.

Broward

1. Margate $6.5M
2. Cooper City $3M
3. Southwest Ranches – just awarded to SWS $2.5M rates reduced from WM
4. Coral Springs $8M
5. Davie $7M
6. Municipalities and Broward County Recycling $1.2B

That’s “B” for “holy fuck, a billion dollars?”.

Miami-Dade

1. Florida City Dade Co. $4M
2. Coral Gables $6.5M

Posted: April 2, 2012 4:49 pm
Comments: (Comments)

PB’s trash

[cleeng_content id="497972420" description="Why stop now? It's just getting interesting!" price="0.99" referral="0.10"]The following is a list of Waste Management illegal extensions in Palm Beach County… All up for renewal 2012 and 2013 and should be going out to bid to lower homeowners residential rates.

1. Town of Juno Beach have not been competitively bid since 1984, current contract extension expires September 2013; however WM is negotiating new illegal extension now. Annual value $2.5M.
2. Town of Highland Beach have not been competitively bid since 1994; approved new illegal contract extension November 2011 until December 2014. Highland Beach granted new extension in November 2011; despite WM extension in 2011 did not expire until September 2013. Annual value $1.5M.
3. Town of Jupiter have not been competitively bid since 1997; approved new illegal contract extension May 2011-2017. Don’t know annual value.
4. City of Delray Beach, you have the information. Annual value $8M.
5. City of Riviera Beach, you have the information. Annual value $6M.
6. Tequesta contract expires 9/30/12; I have not reviewed if it has already been extended or if it is going out to BID. Annual value $2 M.
7. Town of Wellington contract expires 9/30/12; I have not reviewed if it has already been extended or if it is going out to BID. Annual value $7.5M.
8. Lake Clarke Shores contract expires 9/30/13; I have not reviewed if it has already been extended or if it is going out to BID. Annual value $500,000.
9. Golf contract expires 9/30/13; I have not reviewed if it has already been extended or if it is going out to BID. Annual value $500,000.
10. Palm Beach Shores contract expires 9/30/13; I have not reviewed if it has already been extended or if it is going out to BID. Annual value $650,000.
11. Gulfstream contract expires 9/30/12; I have not reviewed if it has already been extended or if it is going out to BID. Annual value $500,000.

[/cleeng_content]

Posted: March 28, 2012 10:43 am
Comments: (Comments)

Jury Trial.

Lawsuit #1:

WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. OF FLORIDA,
Plaintiff,
v.
S.S.T. TIRE SERVICE, INC.,

1. Waste Management cultivates a long standing practice of discreet arid under-the-table
corruption wherein countless public officials are groomed and influenced so that Waste
Management secures lucrative waste disposal contracts, and Waste Management’s vendors are
coerced into making political campaign contributions, favor-giving, and influence peddling.

Download

Lawsuit #2:

A-l BALERS & COMPACTORS, LLC,
vs.
WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC. OF FLORIDA, a Florida

Unfortunately during that time Waste Management’s employees, including Rick Roura, Alberto Suarez Basulto, Craig Aha, and Nick Castoro, on behalf of Waste Management, forced A1 to make political campaign contributions and pay for gifts and other “kickbacks” for Waste Management employees; however, when A-1 refused to continue, Waste Management conspired with one of A-1′ s owners to start a competing business.

download

Posted: March 27, 2012 9:58 pm
Comments: (Comments)

Illegal Donations

Waste Management is trying to quietly settle two lawsuits filed by subcontractors, who were forced to donate to elected officials in Martin County; and change the ownership of their companies to their wives names.

The Attorney for the case is Greg Weiss, 772-214-8972, gweiss@leopoldkuvin.com the subcontractors filed the lawsuit in 2009 and 2011 alleging that WM forced them to make contributions to elected officials in Martin County, and pay for professional football tickets and golf trips.

The companies are also stating that WM had them to change the incorporation of their companies, so their wives could be considered the owners, even though they were housewives and never worked in their husband’s businesses. The change of the corporate ownership to their wives names help them qualify for women and small business subcontracting requirements on governmental contracts.

The companies suing are A-Baler Compactors Repairs and S S T Tires; they are alleging the same things. WM is trying to quietly settle the cases, before the press learns of the lawsuits.

- John Doe

Posted: March 25, 2012 4:19 pm
Comments: (Comments)