|
|
|
  
8/27/2025
WT Staff
 Knowledge of an environmental crime? Give us a call at 877-52-WATER (877-529-2837), or email info@wtny.us
August 27, 2025 1259 pm EDT
CrimeBox
Clean Water Act Conviction Fiscal Year 2014; Case ID# CR_2568 (Connecticut)
Ben& Jerry's manufacturer sentenced to $4.5 million in fines and restitution for deliberate dumping
The defendant in this case is the manufacturer of popular consumer products Hellman's Mayonnaise, Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream and Dove personal care products, to name a few. According to Unilever, one of the world's largest manufacturers of consumer goods, 3.4 billion people use their products daily. Unilever is headquartered in the United Kingdom, formed by the merger of Dutch manufacturer Margarine Unie with London soap-maker, Lever Brothers. According to the company website, "Unilever has a purpose to brighten everyday life for all, and aims to achieve net zero emissions, protect nature and improve livelihoods by 2030.
The defendant was convicted and sentenced for a felony violation of the US Clean Water Act in 2014 following an incident at its Clinton, Connecticut facility in 2008. Investigators found partially treated wastewater had been deliberately discharged to the watershed via a storm drain, a routine occurrence over a period of years.
Federal district court in Hartford was presented with information regarding the manufacturer's wastewater discharge permit. According to the case briefing, discharge of untreated wastewater is permitted from the defendant's facilities under a set of specific conditions. The defendant was permitted to bypass the wastewater treatment system when unanticipated and unavoidable release of wastewater is "necessary to prevent loss of life, personal injury or severe property damage". If such a bypass were to become necessary, the defendant was required to report to state environmental authorities within two hours. A written report was to be submitted within five days, explaining the situation, the duration of the bypass event (with dates and times), explaining the corrective actions taken. The defendant was further required to submit plans to prevent contamination issues from recurring.
In December 2008, a contractor at the Clinton manufacturing facility witnessed a bypass hose conveying untreated wastewater around the treatment system. According to the witness, a 4,500 gallon tank was draining contaminated contents to a storm drain. The contractor immediately reported the bypass to the defendant's on-site wastewater treatment operator. The bypass hose was shut off. The witness also reported to the incident to the contractor-supervisor, and the defendant's Safety, Health and Environmental (SHE) manager on site. SHE manager inspected the waste treatment area within an hour of the initial report, noting foamy liquid and signs of recent discharge at the storm drain. The plant manager was notified, photos were taken and the wastewater treatment equipment was inspected.
Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) was to be notified within two hours of a spill or bypass, however, the defendant did not comply. The following day, the defendant's SHE manager forwarded the incident report to internal legal counsel for further investigation and notification of the state authorities. Forward another day, the witness submitted an email about the incident, stating, "[t]his is not the first time I've seen this done at your facility, I've seen this on two previous occasions. At that time, however, I was still trying to learn the system as quickly as possible and didn't understand the significance of what I was viewing."
The third-party contractor employee witness to the CWA violation at Unilever included in the email report that a senior wastewater plant operator for the defendant had deliberately set up the bypass, not once or twice, but "on several occasions, and perhaps more often than we care to know." Three days after the initial report of illegal discharge, the defendant's plant manager interviewed two wastewater treatment operators and the reporting party. All three denied responsibility. The wastewater operators claimed no knowledge of the bypass, while the contract employee stated belief that the senior operator had set up the bypass. The plant manager did not determine who was responsible for the bypass or confirm whether any prior bypasses had occurred. The plant manager advised executive management via email, stating legal counsel had been consulted to deal with state environmental authorities.
Three days following the bypass incident, Connecticut State environmental inspectors visited the site for an unrelated matter. During this visit, the inspector was not informed of the bypass and contaminant discharge. By the fifth day post-incident, the defendant made the first official notification to the State in writing, within the required five-day time period for the mandatory written report. The defendant also notified U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with a written report dated eleven days post-incident.
By the defendant's own investigation of the discharge event, reporting to federal and state authorities, the responsible party had not been determined, however it could have been "vandals". The incident was minimized in the report as a "one-off". The US EPA investigation garnered an admission from the defendant's junior wastewater operator. According to the junior operator, the intentional bypass was routine, occurring for two years prior to the reported incident. In each illegal discharge, approximately 1500 gallons of partially treated wastewater was allowed to flow down a storm drain leading to Hayden Creek. EPA determined this practise was hidden, unknown to upper management, including the SHE manager and the plant manager.
Further, EPA investigators found the defendant's upper level management were aware of problems with the facility's wastewater treatment process, including the challenge of treatment when wastewater flow is highly varied, when the contamination characteristics and flow volume vary from day to day. The wastewater plant operators were authorized to call in a third party environmental services company to pick up non-compliant wastewater for treatment off site. The cost of this service was considerable, $1500 per load.
The defendant's upper management was aware the plant's wastewater treatment system was in need of repair and maintenance. Required equipment replacements and system improvements were not fully implemented. The treatment system was known to be labor intensive, requiring operator attention and constant adjustments. In spite of this, EPA learned the senior operator was often absent and the junior operator was not trained or licensed to work without supervision. Four years after the bypass incident, the defendant chose to shut down operations at the Clinton, Connecticut location.
In 2013, the defendant plead guilty to two counts of knowingly violating, or causing to be violated, the Clean Water Act. Sentencing included a $3.5 million payment to the Connecticut Statewide Supplemental Environmental Project Account (SEP). A portion of this restitution payment was sent to Connecticut Institute for Resiliency and Climate Adaptation, to be used for research, outreach and education regarding sea level rise. A portion of the funds built a fishway at the Chapman Mill Pond in Clinton. Half a million dollars was allocated to fund water quality or ecosystem restoration projects in the lower Hammonasset River watershed.
The defendant was ordered to participate in environmental compliance inspections by a third party auditor for all of the US manufacturing locations. Within one year, all employees were to be certified in environmental compliance requirements and receive basic environmental compliance training. The defendant's employees directly advising on notifications to the state and federal environmental agencies were required to take additional training in US legal requirements and environmental laws.
"The environmental integrity of Connecticut’s rivers and the Long Island Sound are of essential importance to our state and all of us," said U.S. Attorney for the case Dierdre Daly. "As this prosecution so clearly demonstrates, we will pursue all violations of federal laws to protect our waters. We recognize and thank the EPA for their invaluable work in this investigation, and commend Unilever for redressing their violations by contributing $2.5 million to fund research, outreach and education projects... The Company’s contributions will directly assist the State of Connecticut in its efforts to protect and preserve our environment."
The multi-national giant was commended by US EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance. Assistant Administrator Cynthia Giles, "Unilever is taking responsibility for its illegal actions by funding important environmental research and development. This work is critical to protect communities, and help them prepare for the effects of climate change."
"This case sends a strong message that everyone must obey our environmental laws and regulations – they are designed to protect natural resources and the public health and will be enforced," said DEEP Commissioner Robert Klee.
Federal Fine: $1,000,000; Restitution: $3,500,000; Probation: 36 months
See last SDWA Legal, "City of Harlem Public Works Director sentenced to prison for illegal discharge and false statements", here.
SDWA CrimeBox briefs are compiled from EPA Criminal Enforcement records.
|
|
|
|
All rights reserved 2025 - WTNY - This material may not be reproduced in whole or in part and may not be distributed,
publicly performed, proxy cached or otherwise used, except with express permission.
|
|
