Kelsey Olson
Mengelkoch & Neilson
HOPR 1105
8 May 2006
Abstract
Wal-Mart has taken over the retail industry. With net sales topping $312 billion dollars they are easily the largest retailer in the world. As of January 31, 2006 Wal-Mart is in operation of 3,289 Supercenters and General Merchandise Stores in the United States. Undoubtedly, the sheer size of this corporation leaves an impact on the environment. But just how much does it influence the face of our world? Through research of various public records and press releases I will show that Wal-Mart, like many corporations, does not always live up to its environmental expectations. It violations of the Clean Water Act are in direct opposition to its advertised values.
Wal-Mart & The Clean Water Act: Corporate Environmental Responsibility
Never has one single corporation drawn as much attention as Wal-Mart has in the past few years. With a net income over 11 billion dollars, Wal-Mart is the most profitable retailing company in America. Professor Kenneth Stone, now retired from Iowa State University, has devoted his academic studies to this one corporation and its impacts. He has recently traveled from Texas to Bemidji State University in northern Minnesota to give a presentation about the company and it’s impacts. Here at Bemidji State University we have one entire honors program class dedicated to the study of this retailing giant. This can all be attributed to the fact that Wal-Mart has been such a hot-button issue in recent years as their domination of the retail industry, and American economy, swells even greater. It has been under the media’s microscope for a variety of issues ranging from employee hiring practices to discrimination of minority employees to health care policies to suburban sprawl and the environmental factors that go along with it. Perhaps the most well documented trouble is that of Wal-Mart’s environmental violations. While is has taken many initiatives towards environmental sustainability, Wal-Mart has, in recent years, done a poor job of upholding the laws that regulate the purity of our nation’s waters.
The Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act was established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and ratified by congress in 1972 with revisions in 1978. The Act aims to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters” (Clean Water Act sec. 101. (a)) Essentially, the Act mandates that recreational surface waters in the United States have the ability to be swimmable, drinkable, and fishable. In mandating this, the Clean Water Act holds companies responsible for maintaining that their practices and the practices of their contractors (including construction) are in accordance with these laws. When they are found to be outside of the law, the EPA can, and does, as Wal-Mart found out, hand out hefty fines. The Act also requires that construction sites of 5 acres or more obtain special permits controlling discharges and ensuring proper pollution control with a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). In its Report to Congress on the Phase I Storm Water Regulations, the EPA estimates that there are more than 62,000 construction sites of 5 or more acres annually that all should be obtaining a permit and yet only one-third of them actually do. (EPA factsheet, 4) There are measures to control and prevent runoff pollution that are not only effective but simple and inexpensive to implement. These include proper planning to reduce time soil is left exposed and installing silt fences. (EPA factsheet, 2) While these measures seem relatively easy to carry out, few companies actually take the time to do it.
What is Storm Water?
Amendments made in 1987 to the Clean Water Act dealt largely with non-point source pollution, namely runoff. The laws called for a control of the runoff from precipitation and melting of snow (storm water runoff), which flow into lowlands, especially waterways, carrying with them many toxic pollutants. This non-point source pollution affects many of our nation’s, as well as the world’s, waters. Non-point source pollution can come from many sources: parking lots (oil, grease, and toxic chemical runoff), excess fertilizers on lawns and crops, bacteria from livestock, and improperly managed construction sites. There are many adverse effects from these pollutants. Silt runoff, called sedimentation, from construction sites is especially problematic because, according to Michigan’s Department for Environmental Quality, “loss of fertile topsoil, filling of lakes and stream…damage to plant and animal life, and structural damage to buildings and roads” can all result. (FAQ par. 1) These disruptions are detrimental to the balance of the aquatics systems. Storm water runoff is also problematic when there are large amounts of precipitation and not enough places for water to go due to imperviousness of the surroundings (from parking lots, roadways, buildings, etc.) and flooding ensues. (US EPA gen. info website). As Allen Dearry writes, “Increases in impervious surfaces and attendant surface water runoff contribute to deterioration in availability and use of safe, clean water supplies for both recreation and consumption.” (Dearry par. 2) Storm water runoff, like other pollutants, is just not good for our environment or us. According to the 2000 EPA National Water Quality Inventory, which is mandated by section 305 (b) of the Clean Water Act, forty-five percent of lakes and thirty-nine percent of rivers have been assessed as “polluted” by the US EPA. (fig. 1)
How Does This Relate to Wal-Mart?
As one of the largest companies in the world, second now to Exxon Mobil, (Forbes 2006) Wal-Mart has a giant impact on both the economy and the government. In fact, the company proclaims these responsibilities itself. In a self-released public relations publication Wal-Mart states, “We require companies that do business with us to comply with all laws and regulations…At Wal-Mart we believe in ‘doing the right thing.’ We expect contractors that provide services to our company to also do the right thing for their employees and community.” (Wal-martfacts.com sec. 4) Included in the ‘contractors that provide service’ are the construction companies that have, along with Wal-Mart incurred large fines for violations of the Clean Water Act that have polluted the waters surrounding these violations.
EPA vs. Wal-Mart
In early 2001, the EPA filed civil charges against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and ten other named defendants (Western Builders, Inc; Rogers-O’Brien Construction, Co.; D/B Constructors, Inc.; Jaynes Corporation; Gerald A Martin, Ltd.; WS Bowlware Construction, Inc; Vratsinas Construction, Co.; Construction Supervisors, Inc.; Dalmac Construction, Inc., and Williams Construction & Development, Inc.) declaring that they violated various aspects of the Clean Water Act including: failure to obtain proper construction permits, illegal discharges of pollutants, and uncontrolled erosion. These violations were found at 17 different sites across the country (USA v. Wal-Mart, General Allegations #33). Wal-Mart was deemed to be either “owner” or “operator” of these sites at all times of the violation and is therefore responsible for ensuring that all requirements of the building permit are met (USA v Wal-Mart General Allegations “Site Responsibility”). Wal-Mart eventually settled with a consent decree for $1 million dollars (EPA factsheet, 1) and agreed to that they would “comply with the terms and conditions of permits at future construction sites, including, among other things, the development and implementation of a pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), the application of best management practices to minimize or eliminate discharges of pollutants from the site with storm water discharges, and the implementation of corporate policies designed to achieve and assure compliance with the law cited herein.” (USA v. Wal-Mart “prayer for relief” (B)) After settling, Wal-Mart continued construction on new Wal-Marts throughout the country, supposedly under the terms of their agreement for the 2001 settlement. With Wal-Mart Planning to open 1,500 new stores in the United States in the coming years (Marcus Kabel, AP) there are a lot of opportunities for them to prove that have made improvements and are doing even more in the way of environmental responsibility.
Unfortunately, in 2004 Wal-Mart did not, in fact, uphold the requirements of The Clean Water Act or its 2001 settlement. In routine inspections at various locations the
EPA found Wal-Mart to be, again, in violation of these laws in 24 settings in 9 different states (Utah, South Dakota, Texas, Michigan, Delaware, Colorado, Tennessee, California, and New Jersey) (EPA v Wal-Mart “Venue & Jurisdiction” #4). In routine inspections the EPA “detected a pattern of failures to comply with the requirements of applicable permits for the discharge of storm water from these construction sites.” (USA v Wal-Mart 2 Factual Allegations #25) Included in these violations were “failure to install diversion dikes at the concrete washout, …placement of a portable toilet next to a storm water inlet poor housekeeping in the concrete mixing
area, failure to install an earth perimeter, … and spilling or dumping paint near an uncovered manhole” (USA v Wal-Mart 2). Wal-Mart settled these civil charges with a $3.1 million civil penalty (the largest at the time), the condition of developing an extensive compliance program, and performance of a supplemental environmental project for one of the affected states. The compliance program states that in addition to the Clean Water Act laws Wal-Mart will develop a training program for is employees and contractors on measures to reduce pollution and careful oversight of its contractors with sanctions for violations (EPA factsheet, 2).
The Future
Since Wal-Mart’s settlement with the EPA with the promise of implementation of proper controls and pollution-prevention training Wal-Mart has began a new initiative towards “sustainability.” They were awarded the first annual “Waste News Environmental Award” which is bestowed upon one company which the organization believes has taken the most positive steps toward environmental progress as well as past performances and future commitments. They propose, on walmartfacts.com, an online “bulletin board” produced by Wal-Mart, Inc., that their goals are “[t]o be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy; to create zero waste; and to sell products that sustain our resources and our environment.” Wal-Mart has done beneficial things for the environment, such as their “Acres for America” Program, recycling programs, and their use of hybrid vehicles in their fleet, and is looking toward the future as being an environmentally aware corporation.
Refrences
Dearry, Allen. August 2004. “Impacts of our built environment on public health.” [Electronic Version]. Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol 12. pg A 600- A601
Forbes, Inc. 2006 Rankings by sales. Retrieved 26 April 2006
<>
Kabel, Marcus. 07 Feb 2006. Associated Press. (no title) Retrieved 26 April 2006.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Frequently Asked Questions Retieved 07 May 2006.
US V. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al. United States District Court W estern District Of Arkansas Fayetteville Division. Retrieved 11 April 2006.
US V. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. United States District Court for the District of Deleware. Retrieved 08 April 2006
United States EPA. August 2002. National Water Quality Inventory: A Profile. Retrieved 15 April 2006.
United States EPA Factsheet. 12 May 2004. US V. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Factsheet. Retrieved 11 April 20 www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/cwa/walmart2.html
United States EPA. March 2006 Clean Water Act. Sections 101-607 Retrieved 10 March 2006, from
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (n.d) “Wal-Mart Facts : Do You Know?” Contractor Standards. Retrieved 11 April 2004. <>
Mengelkoch & Neilson
HOPR 1105
8 May 2006
Abstract
Wal-Mart has taken over the retail industry. With net sales topping $312 billion dollars they are easily the largest retailer in the world. As of January 31, 2006 Wal-Mart is in operation of 3,289 Supercenters and General Merchandise Stores in the United States. Undoubtedly, the sheer size of this corporation leaves an impact on the environment. But just how much does it influence the face of our world? Through research of various public records and press releases I will show that Wal-Mart, like many corporations, does not always live up to its environmental expectations. It violations of the Clean Water Act are in direct opposition to its advertised values.
Wal-Mart & The Clean Water Act: Corporate Environmental Responsibility
Never has one single corporation drawn as much attention as Wal-Mart has in the past few years. With a net income over 11 billion dollars, Wal-Mart is the most profitable retailing company in America. Professor Kenneth Stone, now retired from Iowa State University, has devoted his academic studies to this one corporation and its impacts. He has recently traveled from Texas to Bemidji State University in northern Minnesota to give a presentation about the company and it’s impacts. Here at Bemidji State University we have one entire honors program class dedicated to the study of this retailing giant. This can all be attributed to the fact that Wal-Mart has been such a hot-button issue in recent years as their domination of the retail industry, and American economy, swells even greater. It has been under the media’s microscope for a variety of issues ranging from employee hiring practices to discrimination of minority employees to health care policies to suburban sprawl and the environmental factors that go along with it. Perhaps the most well documented trouble is that of Wal-Mart’s environmental violations. While is has taken many initiatives towards environmental sustainability, Wal-Mart has, in recent years, done a poor job of upholding the laws that regulate the purity of our nation’s waters.
The Clean Water Act
The Clean Water Act was established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and ratified by congress in 1972 with revisions in 1978. The Act aims to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation's waters” (Clean Water Act sec. 101. (a)) Essentially, the Act mandates that recreational surface waters in the United States have the ability to be swimmable, drinkable, and fishable. In mandating this, the Clean Water Act holds companies responsible for maintaining that their practices and the practices of their contractors (including construction) are in accordance with these laws. When they are found to be outside of the law, the EPA can, and does, as Wal-Mart found out, hand out hefty fines. The Act also requires that construction sites of 5 acres or more obtain special permits controlling discharges and ensuring proper pollution control with a storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). In its Report to Congress on the Phase I Storm Water Regulations, the EPA estimates that there are more than 62,000 construction sites of 5 or more acres annually that all should be obtaining a permit and yet only one-third of them actually do. (EPA factsheet, 4) There are measures to control and prevent runoff pollution that are not only effective but simple and inexpensive to implement. These include proper planning to reduce time soil is left exposed and installing silt fences. (EPA factsheet, 2) While these measures seem relatively easy to carry out, few companies actually take the time to do it.
What is Storm Water?
Amendments made in 1987 to the Clean Water Act dealt largely with non-point source pollution, namely runoff. The laws called for a control of the runoff from precipitation and melting of snow (storm water runoff), which flow into lowlands, especially waterways, carrying with them many toxic pollutants. This non-point source pollution affects many of our nation’s, as well as the world’s, waters. Non-point source pollution can come from many sources: parking lots (oil, grease, and toxic chemical runoff), excess fertilizers on lawns and crops, bacteria from livestock, and improperly managed construction sites. There are many adverse effects from these pollutants. Silt runoff, called sedimentation, from construction sites is especially problematic because, according to Michigan’s Department for Environmental Quality, “loss of fertile topsoil, filling of lakes and stream…damage to plant and animal life, and structural damage to buildings and roads” can all result. (FAQ par. 1) These disruptions are detrimental to the balance of the aquatics systems. Storm water runoff is also problematic when there are large amounts of precipitation and not enough places for water to go due to imperviousness of the surroundings (from parking lots, roadways, buildings, etc.) and flooding ensues. (US EPA gen. info website). As Allen Dearry writes, “Increases in impervious surfaces and attendant surface water runoff contribute to deterioration in availability and use of safe, clean water supplies for both recreation and consumption.” (Dearry par. 2) Storm water runoff, like other pollutants, is just not good for our environment or us. According to the 2000 EPA National Water Quality Inventory, which is mandated by section 305 (b) of the Clean Water Act, forty-five percent of lakes and thirty-nine percent of rivers have been assessed as “polluted” by the US EPA. (fig. 1)
How Does This Relate to Wal-Mart?
As one of the largest companies in the world, second now to Exxon Mobil, (Forbes 2006) Wal-Mart has a giant impact on both the economy and the government. In fact, the company proclaims these responsibilities itself. In a self-released public relations publication Wal-Mart states, “We require companies that do business with us to comply with all laws and regulations…At Wal-Mart we believe in ‘doing the right thing.’ We expect contractors that provide services to our company to also do the right thing for their employees and community.” (Wal-martfacts.com sec. 4) Included in the ‘contractors that provide service’ are the construction companies that have, along with Wal-Mart incurred large fines for violations of the Clean Water Act that have polluted the waters surrounding these violations.
EPA vs. Wal-Mart
In early 2001, the EPA filed civil charges against Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. and ten other named defendants (Western Builders, Inc; Rogers-O’Brien Construction, Co.; D/B Constructors, Inc.; Jaynes Corporation; Gerald A Martin, Ltd.; WS Bowlware Construction, Inc; Vratsinas Construction, Co.; Construction Supervisors, Inc.; Dalmac Construction, Inc., and Williams Construction & Development, Inc.) declaring that they violated various aspects of the Clean Water Act including: failure to obtain proper construction permits, illegal discharges of pollutants, and uncontrolled erosion. These violations were found at 17 different sites across the country (USA v. Wal-Mart, General Allegations #33). Wal-Mart was deemed to be either “owner” or “operator” of these sites at all times of the violation and is therefore responsible for ensuring that all requirements of the building permit are met (USA v Wal-Mart General Allegations “Site Responsibility”). Wal-Mart eventually settled with a consent decree for $1 million dollars (EPA factsheet, 1) and agreed to that they would “comply with the terms and conditions of permits at future construction sites, including, among other things, the development and implementation of a pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), the application of best management practices to minimize or eliminate discharges of pollutants from the site with storm water discharges, and the implementation of corporate policies designed to achieve and assure compliance with the law cited herein.” (USA v. Wal-Mart “prayer for relief” (B)) After settling, Wal-Mart continued construction on new Wal-Marts throughout the country, supposedly under the terms of their agreement for the 2001 settlement. With Wal-Mart Planning to open 1,500 new stores in the United States in the coming years (Marcus Kabel, AP) there are a lot of opportunities for them to prove that have made improvements and are doing even more in the way of environmental responsibility.
Unfortunately, in 2004 Wal-Mart did not, in fact, uphold the requirements of The Clean Water Act or its 2001 settlement. In routine inspections at various locations the
EPA found Wal-Mart to be, again, in violation of these laws in 24 settings in 9 different states (Utah, South Dakota, Texas, Michigan, Delaware, Colorado, Tennessee, California, and New Jersey) (EPA v Wal-Mart “Venue & Jurisdiction” #4). In routine inspections the EPA “detected a pattern of failures to comply with the requirements of applicable permits for the discharge of storm water from these construction sites.” (USA v Wal-Mart 2 Factual Allegations #25) Included in these violations were “failure to install diversion dikes at the concrete washout, …placement of a portable toilet next to a storm water inlet poor housekeeping in the concrete mixing
area, failure to install an earth perimeter, … and spilling or dumping paint near an uncovered manhole” (USA v Wal-Mart 2). Wal-Mart settled these civil charges with a $3.1 million civil penalty (the largest at the time), the condition of developing an extensive compliance program, and performance of a supplemental environmental project for one of the affected states. The compliance program states that in addition to the Clean Water Act laws Wal-Mart will develop a training program for is employees and contractors on measures to reduce pollution and careful oversight of its contractors with sanctions for violations (EPA factsheet, 2).
The Future
Since Wal-Mart’s settlement with the EPA with the promise of implementation of proper controls and pollution-prevention training Wal-Mart has began a new initiative towards “sustainability.” They were awarded the first annual “Waste News Environmental Award” which is bestowed upon one company which the organization believes has taken the most positive steps toward environmental progress as well as past performances and future commitments. They propose, on walmartfacts.com, an online “bulletin board” produced by Wal-Mart, Inc., that their goals are “[t]o be supplied 100 percent by renewable energy; to create zero waste; and to sell products that sustain our resources and our environment.” Wal-Mart has done beneficial things for the environment, such as their “Acres for America” Program, recycling programs, and their use of hybrid vehicles in their fleet, and is looking toward the future as being an environmentally aware corporation.
Refrences
Dearry, Allen. August 2004. “Impacts of our built environment on public health.” [Electronic Version]. Environmental Health Perspectives, Vol 12. pg A 600- A601
Forbes, Inc. 2006 Rankings by sales. Retrieved 26 April 2006
<>
Kabel, Marcus. 07 Feb 2006. Associated Press. (no title) Retrieved 26 April 2006.
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality. Frequently Asked Questions Retieved 07 May 2006.
US V. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. et al. United States District Court W estern District Of Arkansas Fayetteville Division. Retrieved 11 April 2006.
US V. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. United States District Court for the District of Deleware. Retrieved 08 April 2006
United States EPA. August 2002. National Water Quality Inventory: A Profile. Retrieved 15 April 2006.
United States EPA Factsheet. 12 May 2004. US V. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Factsheet. Retrieved 11 April 20 www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/civil/cwa/walmart2.html
United States EPA. March 2006 Clean Water Act. Sections 101-607 Retrieved 10 March 2006, from
Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (n.d) “Wal-Mart Facts : Do You Know?” Contractor Standards. Retrieved 11 April 2004. <>
posted by Louise Mengelkoch at
12:37 PM
