Sacramento loves to hate Consumer Watchdog, because we expose the dirty deeds politicians do for corporations, confront regulators who are asleep at the switch, and don’t believe you have to go along with big corporations to get along.  We also take on the rich and powerful in the initiative process on behalf of consumers, which the legislature and lobbyists consider a slap in the face.

Whenever we have a big fight with the insurance industry, most of which we have won, some PR flack materializes as the voice of Sacramento’s hatred. There was a Republican operative in the Schwarzenegger years, before that a  soon-to-become Blue Shield executive, and now a former chief mouthpiece for two disgraced California Democratic politicians, who recently took to Capitol Weekly’s pages with venom for all things Consumer Watchdog.

It’s somewhat flattering to have a stalker, since it’s reserved for only the most successful public interest groups. It means that the insurance industry, Silicon Valley and the other corporations we fight and beat are very worried about us.

The big difference between journalists and political bloggers is that a journalist gets fired for lying and a political blogger can get paid to do it.

Political bloggers like CW’s latest official stalker Steve Maviglio don’t disclose how much they are paid or who pays them, nor do they live by journalistic standards. That makes them the perfect hit-men-for hire by crooked corporations and politicians who want to attack the credibility of their critics with phony facts and outrageous allegations.

Recently, the chair of the Fair Political Practices Commission proposed new rules to require political bloggers to disclose the source of their funding when engaging in political campaigns.   The rules were temporarily beaten back by Sacramento’s PR lobby including Maviglio, the former communications chief for Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez and Governor Gray Davis, both driven from Sacramento in scandalous firestorms that Maviglio mismanaged. Only in Sacramento do the PR hacks responsible for politicians’ falls from grace become putative pundits.

Maviglio’s recent blog/oped in Sacramento’s Capitol Weekly erroneously attacking our nonprofit Consumer Watchdog came within days of a remarkably similar op-ed attack on us in the Union Tribune by a Republican consultant Jeffrey Barker, former Schwarzenegger communications deputy.  (Despite Maviglio’s crazy claim that Consumer Watchdog reserves its criticism for Latino Democrats, Consumer Watchdog was one of the toughest critics of Schwarzenegger’s pay to play politics.)

Why the well-orchestrated attacks on Consumer Watchdog now?

There’s no force the insurance industry fears more.

Our sister organization Consumer Watchdog Campaign has turned in 800,000 signatures for a ballot measure to require health insurance companies to justify rate changes and get permission from the insurance commissioner before raising rates.  Maviglio and his compadre Barker falsely stated we didn’t collect enough signatures to qualify for the ballot.  In fact, county election officials are counting all the signatures now and have to report back to the Secretary of State by August 23.

We are also fighting Prop 33, a venal scam paid for by Mercury Insurance company’s billionaire founder to deregulate auto insurance and unfairly penalize drivers with perfect driving records.  Voters rejected the nearly identical Prop 17 in 2010 after we led the effort against it, notwithstanding the $16 million spent by the insurance company. But insurance companies rarely take no for an answer.

Our consumer group is the insurance industry’s chief watchdog. Since 2003 we have stopped over $2.2 billion in unreasonable proposed rate hikes by property casualty insurance companies.

Insurance companies would love to escape our scrutiny and return to the good old days of highway robbery; hence Maviglio’s critiques of Consumer Watchdog and the intervener program. Fact: The cost of the experts, attorneys and advocates to save $2.3 billion (all paid for by insurance companies that failed to raise rates) was about $5.7 million over the decade. That’s 25 cents paid to experts for every $100 saved, the most effective regulatory process for consumers in American history. State records show, despite Maviglio’s ridiculous claims, that Prop 103’s author and Consumer Watchdog founder Harvey Rosenfield made less than $25,000 each year during the last ten years from intervener fees.

Who else but the companies and their bought and paid for politicians would fund Maviglio’s online advertising and blogging?  Maviglio refuses to disclose his company’s client list.

By contrast, Consumer Watchdog discloses all of our donors and income to the Internal Revenue Service and the Attorney General of California. We have an independent board of directors, a consistent charitable mission to protect consumers that hasn’t changed in two decades, and our tax returns are public documents.

Our advocacy affiliate, Consumer Watchdog Campaign, publicly discloses all campaign contributions for ballot measure and political activity on the Secretary of State’s website. Maviglio falsely charges that Consumer Watchdog Campaign concealed the identity of donors to the health insurance rate regulation ballot initiative. In fact, every one of the campaign donors are disclosed on the Secretary of State’s website.  And the contributions coming directly from Consumer Watchdog are clearly disclosed on these state finance reports as “non-donor” funds; money that Consumer Watchdog earned, rather than raised from others.  These dollars were principally obtained from successful litigation against telecommunications, insurance, and hi-tech companies that we beat in court after they ripped off consumers.  Our legal cases and their public interest outcomes are a matter of public record – protecting consumers in important ways.

Ironically the money the political mudslingers accuse Consumer Watchdog of hiding may have come from the very corporations that are funding Maviglio and Barker. But of course we won’t know. Unlike nonprofits and political committees, they are accountable to no one and have to disclose nothing.

The real flaw with Maviglio’s attacks is his failure to recognize the irrefutable record of insurance reform Prop 103, authored by Rosenfield.  The Consumer Federation of America reported in 2008 that drivers have saved $62 billion on their auto insurance bills due to the law’s regulation. California has the fourth most competitive state for auto insurance.  It’s a model that works because of the elected insurance commissioner’s post, also created by Prop 103, and the effective intervention system. And that’s why it should be extended to health insurance under our new ballot measure.

We are willing to debate the merits, policies and politics anywhere any time.   But Maviglio could care less about consumers or ethics. A great example is his effort recently to have a Democratic official in Sacramento sanctioned for filing an ethics complaint against Maviglio’s client Sacramento Mayor Kevin Johnson.  Maviglio claims an ethics complaint is an attack, when in fact it is a matter of public honor and responsibility.

The failure to have perspective and proportion about propriety and ethics has haunted Maviglio and his prominent clients. He is no doubt angry that Consumer Watchdog has called them out and focused pubic opinion on their breaches of the public trust.

When Governor Gray Davis took money from energy companies that were pillaging the state, and refused to use his eminent domain powers to seize power plants that were later shown to be manipulating electricity prices, we raised questions. When Davis wanted the legislature to force ratepayers to bail out the utility companies, we worked with Senate leaders and stopped him.  Davis and Maviglio’s failure to understand the public’s anger with him led to Davis’s recall.

Meanwhile, as Davis’s deputy, Maviglio was privy to insider information on what was going on in the industry and himself traded in energy stock of a company, Calpine, that got massive state contracts. He was properly chastised by us and in the court of public opinion. Five other Davis aides resigned in the insider trading scandal that ensued, but Maviglio refused.

When Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez flew around the world living high on his campaign contributors’ credit cards, then ran away from a television news reporter’s questions in Los Angeles, he became the poster child for Sacramento corruption.  Maviglio’s mismanagement of the scandal led not only to Nunez’s fall from political grace but the failure of a term limits extension initiative championed by Nunez. Opponents featured footage of the Maviglio-inflamed scandal.

Maviglio’s career under the Capitol Dome also suffered from an ethical lapse that we called out.   The high frequency of Maviglio’s private political blogging during the work day while he was communications deputy for the Assembly Speaker Fabian Nunez led us to file an ethics complaint questioning whether Maviglio was using a government computer and state time for private political activity.  After a formal investigation, we received a letter from the Assembly Rules committee that stated: “Following a review of the facts produced from this investigation, appropriate action has been taken to ensure there is compliance with Assembly policies.” Not long after, Mavigilio went to work for Johnson’s Mayoral campaign and turned to private clients.

Many of the fights Consumer Watchdog now finds itself in are extensions of old ones Maviglio is connected to. Our battle with Mercury Insurance over Prop 33’s insurance deregulation scheme is basically the same legislation Gray Davis signed as governor after taking big campaign contributions from Mercury Insurance. Consumer Watchdog invalidated that law in court as an illegal amendment to Prop 103. Nunez jet-setting included a high-price World Cup fundraiser patronized by Blue Cross, shortly after legislation to regulate health insurance premiums failed on his Assembly’s floor.

Insurance deregulators and the politicians in their pockets will always find Steve Maviglios to speak for them. It’s high time that the same strict regulation that applies to nonprofits, political committees and politicians apply to political bloggers too.

—

Jamie Court is the president of Consumer Watchdog, author of The Progressive’s Guide To Raising Hell, and a leader of StopProp33.org.

Originally posted on August 6, 2012 at CapitolWeekly.net

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound? If a hazardous vapor spews out of an industrial plant, but no regulator reacts, was there ever a leak?

Well, on July 6, Evergreen Oil workers decided not to stick around to find out. Some 70 workers walked off the job the minute they heard there was a leak at the hazardous waste and used motor oil recycling plant. It was a “self-evacuation,” according to the Alameda County Fire Department. One worker did go to a medical facility, was evaluated for exposure, and later released. Everybody else came back sometime after the leak was contained in the mid-morning.

But no worries, said the Alameda Fire Department. The leak was harmless to people’s health. And Newark City officials patted Evergreen’s plant manager on the back for, get this, reporting the leak properly and quickly. Sadly, that could be a first.

Here’s what we know about Evergreen Oil up in Newark, California in the East Bay area:  It handles hazardous waste materials like anti-freeze and other toxic waste. And it’s the only oil refinery recycling used motor oil here in the West. It employs a couple of hundred workers, generates about $36 million in sales each year, and has been operating since the mid 1980s.

Now, recycling used motor oil is a great idea. We want to live sustainably. And we need to do something about the underbelly of toxic waste in California from chemicals used to make computers to the engine oil you left behind at your last oil change.

The problem is that Evergreen Oil’s operations aren’t safe. It’s a serial toxic polluter with a very long record. The point isn’t just this particular leak on July 6, which was quickly contained. The point is this leak is part of a much bigger problem involving Evergreen’s record of operations, and its ability to negotiate its way out any real accountability.

Since opening in 1986, nearly every agency with the ability to fine Evergreen has done so. Evergreen’s been cited for dangerous levels of cyanide, arsenic, and other harmful chemicals in its wastewater, for violating public health standards, for the toxic gases it has allowed to emanate from the site and that have, on occasion, reached the nostrils of school children, for poisonous fumes and odors at the site, for an explosion, and for illegally handling, treating and disposing of hazardous waste.

Yet, almost every single time, California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control has given Evergreen a pass to stay out of court with wrist-slap fines and promises the company will clean up its act. But somehow, Evergreen is never clean. Since it opened, Evergreen has had at least five major fires at its facility, at least three major oil spills, over 100 hazmat and odor incidents requiring the Newark Fire Department’s response, and thousands of complaints from the community to local authorities. If that wasn’t enough, in March 2011, a huge explosion at the Evergreen facility involving a hydrochloric acid tank and waste oil sent flames hundreds of feet into the air and nearly required an evacuation of the surrounding areas.

It’s understandable that local officials and the community want the jobs. But when it came to land use, local officials didn’t think much about the plant’s location. Evergreen operations are less than half a mile from a housing development. A former Newark City Manager, Alberto Huezo, put it like this to the Oakland Tribune: “This goes back to the fact that it’s an industry we desperately need. But it was put in the wrong place-and the neighbors were there first.”

An alphabet soup of state and local regulators has authority over Evergreen. It has permits for hazardous waste handling, storage, and disposal, air quality, waste water and more. But all these regulators seem to be leaving it to the next guy to figure out what went wrong and who’s responsible for enforcement. There are some boots on the ground investigating, but nothing is bubbling to the surface yet.

The Department of Toxic Substances Control should step in as the lead regulator. Evergreen is a hazardous waste plant, after all. But the department says its permit exempts from regulation the part of Evergreen’s plant involving certified recycled oil since it is no longer considered a “hazardous material.” That’s the part of the plant where the leak allegedly occurred. Never mind that recycled oil still contains toxins. And what leaked wasn’t the oil anyway, it was a hazardous heat transfer chemical used in the refining process.

As the DTSC investigates its own authority to regulate, its first instinct should always be proactive and protective. Because when an Evergreen falls, it definitely gives off smells and sometimes much worse.

Google — facing the possibility of a penalty of around $4 billion — is trying to cut a deal with European antitrust regulators that would settle the regulators’ objections without having to pay a fine.

It’s not certain that an agreement can be reached, but if one is, it will have a direct impact on the United States.  Joaquin Almunia, EU competition commissioner, said that any concessions the Internet giant offers to resolve the EU’s antitrust concerns would be applied worldwide.

“We will look for worldwide solutions; it will not be very useful to get European-wide solutions,” he said.

One of the main complaints against Google is the way it unfairly favors its own properties ahead of competitors in search results.  We documented that two years ago in our study, Traffic Report: How Google is Squeezing out Competitors and Muscling Into New Markets.

In May the Commission said it was concerned that Google was favoring its own services in search, copying material from websites of competitors without permission, shutting out advertising competition and placing restrictions on the portability of online search advertising campaigns from its platform AdWords to the platforms of competitors. Almunia told the company to offer changes or face a formal statement of objections with the risk of fines in the billions of dollars. In Europe antitrust penalties can be imposed before a court proceeding.

At the time I predicted that Google would not offer meaningful remedies.  Despite my skepticism, the EU is saying that Google is apparently responding. The New York Times quoted Almunia from a news conference Wednesday:

“We were trying to clarify to them how these solutions should be established. They were exploring with us what kind of solutions we were asking for, and now we have enough clarifications so as to start the process of technical meetings.”

“They will try to solve it. And I have reasons to believe that they think it’s worth it.”

Funny how $4 billion concentrates the mind, isn’t it.

Reportedly, one of the things that moved the possibility of a settlement forward was that Google agreed that any concessions it makes on search will apply to all  platforms including computers and mobile devices.

I’m sure the EU is acting in good faith.  I have my doubts about Google. The real difficulty in accurately assessing the situation is the secrecy that surrounds the negotiations.  We simply don’t know what Google has proposed and what the EU wants.  When an antitrust case gets to this stage, it really all should be on the public record.

Here is what another critic said, as reported by The New York Times:

“For years, Google has said it deserves the benefit of the doubt,” said Jonathan Zuck, president of the Association for Competitive Technology, an industry group heavily financed by Microsoft. “Unfortunately, they’ve played us for fools every time.”

Mr. Zuck praised the commission’s “persistent work,” but said an “effective remedy” required an admission by Google of wrongdoing. “Without that understanding on the part of Google, it will never implement the kind of fundamental changes to its business practices that are necessary to curb these abuses,” he said.

I agree.

Besides the the European antitrust investigation, the Internet giant faces antitrust investigations by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission and several states. Antitrust officials in Korea, India and Brazil are also looking into Google’s business practices. A European deal could well serve as a blueprint for settlements with other authorities.  The FTC and the EU have been in close touch about their investigations.

One difference is that the FTC’s probe includes an investigation into whether Google has abused its dominance of the Android operating system. The EU is not looking into that, but Almunia held out the possibility that it might.

Interestingly, in the semi-boilerplate language found in Google’s just-filed Form 10-Q, is a clear indication that the Internet giant finally gets that it is under scrutiny:

We are subject to increased regulatory scrutiny that may negatively impact our business.

The growth of our company and our expansion into a variety of new fields implicate a variety of new regulatory issues, and we have experienced increased regulatory scrutiny as we have grown. In particular, we are cooperating with the regulatory authorities in the United States and abroad, including the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the European Commission (EC), and several state attorneys general in investigations they are conducting with respect to our business and its impact on competition. Legislators and regulators, including those conducting investigations in the U.S. and Europe, may make legal and regulatory changes, or interpret and apply existing laws, in ways that make our products and services less useful to our users, require us to incur substantial costs, expose us to unanticipated civil or criminal liability, or cause us to change our business practices. These changes or increased costs could negatively impact our business and results of operations in material ways.

I hope the Europeans extract meaningful concessions, though  I remain skeptical that will happen. Google has a history of stonewalling and foot-dragging.  The best solution would be to break Google into different companies devoted to different lines of business.

_________________________________________________________________________

John M. Simpson is a leading voice on technological privacy and stem cell research issues. His investigations this year of Google’s online privacy practices and book publishing agreements triggered intense media scrutiny and federal interest in the online giant’s business practices. His critique of patents on human embryonic stem cells has been key to expanding the ability of American scientists to conduct stem cell research. He has ensured that California’s taxpayer-funded stem cell research will lead to broadly accessible and affordable medicine and not just government-subsidized profiteering. Prior to joining Consumer Watchdog in 2005, he was executive editor of Tribune Media Services International, a syndication company. Before that, he was deputy editor of USA Today and editor of its international edition. Simpson taught journalism a Dublin City University in Ireland, and consulted for The Irish Times and The Gleaner in Jamaica. He served as president of the World Editors Forum. He holds a B.A. in philosophy from Harpur College of SUNY Binghamton and was a Gannett Fellow at the Center for Asian and Pacific Studies at the University of Hawaii. He has an M.A. in Communication Management from USC’s Annenberg School for Communication.

Timidity and Fragmented Oversight of Evergreen Oil Plant Hamper Enforcement, Endanger Community, Says Group

New information obtained from emergency responders shows that a July 6th high-temperature leak at the Evergreen Oil re-refining plant in Newark, California involved a hazardous industrial chemical, not just recycled motor oil, as initially reported. Consumer Watchdog called on the chief regulator of the facility to shut the plant down. In a letter sent Tuesday to Debbie Raphael, Director of the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), the consumer organization asked her to convene fragmented regulatory agencies and respond strongly to the latest in a long series of safety violations and accidents at the plant in Newark, CA.

According to Consumer Watchdog, regulators are unclear about who is the lead regulator overseeing the facility, with DTSC’s own enforcers acknowledging they are uncertain of the department’s authority over the whole plant, which processes used motor oil. They were also not aware of what actions other agencies might be taking.

“The DTSC, which should be the leader in any event involving this serial safety violator, seems almost to be looking for reasons not to get involved,” said Consumer Watchdog advocate Liza Tucker. “This is an opportunity for the new director to show strong leadership and creativity in a department that appears to have faltered for years.”

The letter sent Tuesday said in part:

“Such holes in oversight must be filled for the safety of all Californians.  Rather than parsing its ability to regulate this portion and not that portion of a toxic waste plant, the DTSC should put itself at the forefront of saying that this is one dangerous accident too many….. ”

“On its face, the idea that the DTSC would have authority to regulate one part of a hazardous waste plant but not another is absurd, particularly when the release on July 6 was hazardous enough to warrant an evacuation, whether the dangerous leak was in the re-refinery area of the plant or not. ”

Download the entire letter here with a timeline of events

On July 6, a pipe leak spewed a hazardous vapor filled with “heat transfer” chemicals used in re-refining. That  triggered an emergency evacuation of the facility.  The company and Newark police warned the surrounding community, including a nearby elementary school, to expect a wave of “strong chemical odors” from the leak.

See link to CAL-EMA public record of initial report here.

The DTSC said that the leak on July 6 took place in a portion of Evergreen’s facility where recycled oil is processed.  A DTSC official stated that the department’s hands are tied because the permit issued to Evergreen does not cover the part of the facility where the leak occurred. According to DTSC, once the waste oil has been partially treated, it is no longer considered a “hazard.”  But the heat transfer liquid used to control refining temperatures is hazardous, according to the Alameda County Health and Environmental Agency.

“Evergreen’s long history of repeated and serious safety violations has to come to an end,” said Tucker. “The department has to take control of the situation, including coordination with other regulators, for the sake of the community surrounding the Evergreen plant, and to set an example for all Californians.”

The July 6 accident markeds the latest in a string of problems at the plant that includes a burst pipe and major fire in March 2011 and repeated citations by the DTSC for safety violations and carelessness.  Yet the DTSC has let the company off the hook with consent decrees and hand-slap fines for at least a dozen years, said Consumer Watchdog.  The group said now is the opportune time for new leadership at the DTSC to rethink its approach to regulating hazardous waste and recycling facilities.

Click here for more.

Read Consumer Watchdog’s July 16 letter to DTSC Director Debbie Raphael here.

Also read Consumer Watchdog’s April 9 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee.  

State Department of toxic Substances Control Must Send “Strong Message” to Evergreen Oil Re-Refiner Over Repeated Safety Lapses, Accidents

Consumer Watchdog called on the Director of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Debbie Raphael, to indefinitely close the Evergreen Oil waste-oil re-refinery in Newark, Ca. in a letter sent today. On July 6, a pipe leak spewed “superheated oil” and triggered an emergency evacuation of the facility. The company and Newark police warned the surrounding community, including a nearby elementary school, to expect a wave of “strong odors” from the leak.

Read today’s letter to Raphael here

Consumer Watchdog cited repeated problems at the facility as an example of DTSC’s failure to take tough action against toxic industries that continue to operate after repeated safety violations near homes and schools in testimony and a letter presented at Debbie Raphael’s State Senate confirmation hearings in April.

The confirmation letter said several companies, including Evergreen, “appear to have manipulated or ignored the DTSC and other agencies to the detriment of concerned and frustrated local residents.”

The accident marks the latest in a string of problems at the plant that re-refines used motor oil, including a burst pipe and major fire in March 2011 and repeated citations by the DTSC for safety violations and carelessness.

<!–more–>

“Consumer Watchdog is appalled to learn of yet another accident at the Newark-based used oil recycler Evergreen Oil,” said Liza Tucker, an advocate at Consumer Watchdog. “We call on the DTSC to shut this refinery down indefinitely. Evergreen needs to know that sloppy safety procedures, and refusal to fix or replace shoddy infrastructure, is simply unacceptable.”

The DTSC has let the company off the hook with consent decrees and hand-slap fines for at least a dozen years, said Consumer Watchdog. The group called for the new leadership at the DTSC to send toxic industries a strong message that there is a new sheriff in town who won’t allow careless endangerment.

The letter sent today to Director Raphael said in part:

“Your department has repeatedly cited Evergreen Oil for cracks and gaps in waste container storage and transfer areas, failing to track contaminated petroleum waste coming in and out of the facility, careless soil contamination, and omissions in its own inspection system.

“Still, the DTSC fined this company that generates some $36 million in annual revenues less than $60,000 under six separate consent decrees between 2006 and 2011. This practice of accepting promises that Evergreen will police itself, instead of taking the company to court, has been an abject failure. The DTSC has cited the company for failure to follow even its own simple safety procedures.

“At the same time, members of the local community say that for 25 years Evergreen has ignored federal and state laws and polluted their neighborhoods.”

The department has a special responsibility to working and middle class families in the small cities where companies produce and recycle toxics including PCBs, dioxin, and heavy metals near homes and schools, Consumer Watchdog said. Too many of these companies have mastered the arts of delay to avoid fixing leaks, improving infrastructure, and following adequate internal safety controls.

“Evergreen Oil has proven repeatedly that it cannot be trusted,” said Tucker. “The DTSC and other regulators need to put community safety first and show zero tolerance for such polluters.”

Consumer Watchdog has previously described problems at several hazardous waste sites, and also called for reforms at the DTSC to address a lack of transparency, a disconnect between inspection and enforcement, and a preference for weak settlements instead of more aggressive prosecution of serial violators.

Read Letter to Director Raphael

Also read Consumer Watchdog’s April 9 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee

State Department of toxic Substances Control Must Send “Strong Message” to Evergreen Oil Re-Refiner Over Repeated Safety Lapses, Accidents

Consumer Watchdog called on the Director of the California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Debbie Raphael, to indefinitely close the Evergreen Oil waste-oil re-refinery in Newark, Ca. in a letter sent today.  On July 6, a pipe leak spewed “superheated oil” and triggered an emergency evacuation of the facility.  The company and Newark police warned the surrounding community, including a nearby elementary school, to expect a wave of “strong odors” from the leak.

Read today’s letter to Raphael here

Consumer Watchdog cited repeated problems at the facility as an example of DTSC’s failure to take tough action against toxic industries that continue to operate after repeated safety violations near homes and schools in testimony and a letter presented at Debbie Raphael’s State Senate confirmation hearings in April.

The confirmation letter said several companies, including Evergreen, “appear to have manipulated or ignored the DTSC and other agencies to the detriment of concerned and frustrated local residents.”

The accident marks the latest in a string of problems at the plant that re-refines used motor oil, including a burst pipe and major fire in March 2011 and repeated citations by the DTSC for safety violations and carelessness.

“Consumer Watchdog is appalled to learn of yet another accident at the Newark-based used oil recycler Evergreen Oil,” said Liza Tucker, an advocate at Consumer Watchdog.  “We call on the DTSC to shut this refinery down indefinitely.   Evergreen needs to know that sloppy safety procedures, and refusal to fix or replace shoddy infrastructure, is simply unacceptable.”

The DTSC has let the company off the hook with consent decrees and hand-slap fines for at least a dozen years, said Consumer Watchdog.  The group called for the new leadership at the DTSC to send toxic industries a strong message that there is a new sheriff in town who won’t allow careless endangerment.

The letter sent today to Director Raphael said in part:

“Your department has repeatedly cited Evergreen Oil for cracks and gaps in waste container storage and transfer areas, failing to track contaminated petroleum waste coming in and out of the facility, careless soil contamination, and omissions in its own inspection system.

“Still, the DTSC fined this company that generates some $36 million in annual revenues less than $60,000 under six separate consent decrees between 2006 and 2011.  This practice of accepting promises that Evergreen will police itself, instead of taking the company to court, has been an abject failure. The DTSC has cited the company for failure to follow even its own simple safety procedures.

“At the same time, members of the local community say that for 25 years Evergreen has ignored federal and state laws and polluted their neighborhoods.”

The department has a special responsibility to working and middle class families in the small cities where companies produce and recycle toxics including PCBs, dioxin, and heavy metals near homes and schools, Consumer Watchdog said.  Too many of these companies have mastered the arts of delay to avoid fixing leaks, improving infrastructure, and following adequate internal safety controls.

“Evergreen Oil has proven repeatedly that it cannot be trusted,” said Tucker.  “The DTSC and other regulators need to put community safety first and show zero tolerance for such polluters.”

Consumer Watchdog has previously described problems at several hazardous waste sites, and also called for reforms at the DTSC to address a lack of transparency, a disconnect between inspection and enforcement, and a preference for weak settlements instead of more aggressive prosecution of serial violators.

Read Letter to Director Raphael

Also read Consumer Watchdog’s April 9 letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee

– 30 –