Unilever Pays $4.5 Million for Environmental Violations at Clinton Plant

Of that, $500,000 will be used to construct a fishway at the Chapman Mill Pond in Clinton, and $500,000 will be used to fund water quality or ecosystem restoration projects in the lower Hammonasset River watershed.

Unilever closed its Clinton manufacturing plant in December 2012. Credit: Patch file photo
Unilever closed its Clinton manufacturing plant in December 2012. Credit: Patch file photo
Unilever will pay millions of dollars in fines and other payments after the international manufacturer pled guilty to violating federal environmental regulations after it illegally discharged thousands of gallons of wastewater from its former Clinton facility.

Conopco, Inc , doing business as Unilever Home & Personal Care USA (“Unilever”) was sentenced to three years of probation and a $1 million fine for violating the Clean Water Act at its former manufacturing site in Clinton in 2008, according to the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut.

As part of the resolution of the case, Unilever also is contributing $3.5 million to state and local environmental programs — including $1 million to construct a fishway in Clinton and for other environmental projects in the lower Hammonasset River watershed — and instituting a new environmental compliance program at its U.S. manufacturing facilities.

Clinton Plant

Unilever’s Clinton manufacturing facility produced a variety of health and beauty products for sale in the United States. The company produces many well-known consumer brand products such as Suave, Dove, Vaseline, Bertolli, Lipton and Sunlight, as well as others.

According Thomas Carson, spokesman for the Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, the wastewater produced by the plant was regulated by a permit that prohibited the company from bypassing any portion of its wastewater treatment system unless the bypass was unanticipated, unavoidable, and necessary to prevent loss of life, personal injury or severe property damage. 

The permit further required that Unilever notify authorities within two hours of becoming aware of any bypass, and submit a written report within five days setting forth the cause of the problem, the duration of the event including dates and times, and corrective actions taken or planned to prevent future occurrences.

A Discover Is Made

On December 5, 2008, at approximately 3:00 p.m., a third party contract employee noticed that a hose was being used to bypass the industrial process wastewater treatment system by allowing the contents of a 4,500 gallon vacuum filter filtrate tank to discharge directly to a storm drain pipe that led to Hayden Creek. 

Upon making this discovery, the contract employee alerted the junior wastewater treatment operator for the Clinton facility and showed him the hose and ongoing wastewater bypass. 

These two individuals then shut off the hose at approximately 3:10 p.m. At 3:30 p.m., the contract employee notified his non-Unilever supervisor about his observations, and was urged to notify the Safety, Health and Environmental (SHE) manager of the Clinton facility. 

The SHE manager received a call from the contract employee between 3:30 and 3:45 p.m. 

After asking the contract employee to send her an email describing his observations, the SHE manager went to the waste treatment area between 3:45 and 4 p.m. and observed foamy water and signs of recent discharge at the inlet of the storm drain pipe.

The SHE manager notified the plant manager, took pictures, and observed the downstream oil/water separator. 

'This Is Not The First Time I've Seen This'

Despite the requirement that the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection (DEEP) be notified within two hours of the detection of such a bypass, Unilever chose not notify the DEEP within this two-hour window.

On Dec. 6, 2008, the SHE manager referred the matter to counsel for Unilever for further investigation and notification of DEEP. 

The next day, in response to the SHE manager’s request, the contract employee sent the SHE manager an email detailing his observations of the bypass and 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.” 

In the email, the contract employee opined that the senior operator had performed the intentional bypass and had "done this on several occasions, and perhaps more often than we care to know."

Who Is Responsible?

On Dec. 8, 2008, three days after being notified of the illegal discharge, the Unilever plant manager interviewed the two wastewater treatment operators and the contract employee who had initially discovered the bypass. 

All three individuals denied any responsibility for the bypass and indicated that they did not know who was responsible, although the contract employee again stated that he believed that the senior operator was responsible. 

From these interviews, the plant manager did not determine who was responsible for the bypass or confirm whether any prior bypasses had occurred. 

Later that day, the plant manager sent an email to his superior within the organization indicating that “we had somebody by pass [sic] the waste treatment process and put water into the storm water system . . .working with legal on how to handle the DEP [sic], if at all.”

On Dec. 8, a DEEP compliance inspector was on-site at the Clinton facility for an unrelated reason. Unilever again failed to notify the on-site DEEP representative of the bypass that had occurred, Carson stated.  

A 'One-Off' Incident?

On approximately Dec. 10, Unilever notified the DEEP for the first time of the discharge that occurred five days earlier on Dec. 5. This written notification occurred within the required five-day time period for the mandatory written report. 

Unilever also disclosed the discharge to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in a written submission dated Dec. 16, 2008. Unilever conducted its own internal investigation of the December 2008 incident. 

In subsequent conversations and written communications with federal and state authorities throughout 2009 and 2010, Unilever claimed it was unable to conclusively determine who was responsible for the bypass, and mischaracterized the incident as an isolated, “one-off” incident that may have been the work of unknown “vandals.”

Federal Investigation

An extensive EPA investigation revealed the truth about what had happened. 
The junior operator admitted to the EPA that he intentionally bypassed the system on Dec. 5.

EPA further concluded that for an extended period of time, perhaps as long as two years prior to December 2008, the wastewater treatment operators routinely bypassed the system on a weekly basis, discharging approximately 1,500 gallons of partially treated wastewater at a time to the storm drain that led to Hayden Creek. 

EPA’s investigation established that these bypasses were concealed from and unknown to Unilever management, including the SHE manager and the plant manager. 

Clinton System Malfunctions

Unilever’s management was aware, however, both that the operators were not properly overseeing the wastewater treatment system and that the system was not properly functioning: 
  • The strength, flow, and variability of the facility’s wastewater made it difficult to treat. System upsets and capacity limitations often necessitated that wastewater be trucked off-site for treatment at a cost of approximately $1500 per truckload. The treatment system operators had authority to call for trucking if needed for wastewater treatment.
  • Portions of the treatment system were old and in need of repair and maintenance.  Equipment replacements and system improvements recommended by outside consultants were not fully implemented, although some corrective measures were completed. 
  • The treatment system required constant operator attention and adjustment.  Nevertheless, during 2008, the senior operator was often absent.  The junior operator did not possess the required license or training to qualify him to operate the system independently for extended periods of time without supervision, yet he was allowed by Unilever to do so.
  • Although the waste treatment operators were licensed by the State of Connecticut and subject to applicable permit requirements, they required oversight to properly operate the plant.  That oversight was inconsistent and the operators were allowed to act autonomously.
Unilever ceased manufacturing operations at the Clinton facility in December 2012.

On Dec. 5, 2013, Unilever pleaded guilty to two counts of knowingly violating, or causing to be violated, the Clean Water Act.        

Payments Made

Thursday, Unilever made a $3.5 million payment to the Connecticut Statewide Supplemental Environmental Project Account (SEP) administered by DEEP. 

Of that money, $2.5 million will be directed to the Connecticut Institute for Resiliency and Climate Adaptation at the University of Connecticut’s Avery Point campus, which will conduct research, outreach and education projects related to the effects of rising sea levels. 

In addition, $500,000 will be used to design and construct a fishway at the Chapman Mill Pond in Clinton, and $500,000 will be used to fund various water quality or ecosystem restoration projects in the lower Hammonasset River watershed.       

Unilever also has agreed to periodic environmental compliance inspections by an outside auditor at all of its manufacturing locations in the U.S, and to certify, within one year of sentencing, that all of its employees at these facilities who perform or manage work subject to environmental compliance requirements have received basic environmental compliance training. 

Other Agreements

In addition, all Unilever employees who are responsible for advising these facilities with respect to mandatory notifications to be made to state and federal environmental agencies must complete additional training to ensure they understand the legal notification requirements under applicable environmental laws. 

“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 related to the effects of rising sea levels, and $1 million to construct a fishway in Clinton and for other environmentally projects in the lower Hammonasset River watershed," Deirdre M. Daly, United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, stated in a press release. "The company’s contributions will directly assist the state of Connecticut in its efforts to protect and preserve our environment.”
Jonathan Sanders April 04, 2014 at 08:55 AM
So you dodged the question. Does the EPA and it's Clean Water Act only apply to CT? Did Unilever leave CT simply because they were being harassed by the state? I will answer for you. The answer is no. The CWA applies to the entire country, not just CT. The reason Unilever left CT has more to do with the cost of doing business in this area than Federal waste water laws.
Jay April 04, 2014 at 12:41 PM
It actually was the last kick in the butt from Ct and loser politicians feeding the bogeyman fears foistered on the public by idiot "news" and greedy bureaucrats expanding their job descriptions and salaries. . It was surprising how long Unilever did stay here - We will never see as large again as large a source of low and mid level jobs with decent benefits again as well as anyone to fill that very large empty facility. Of course the mall has lots of opportunities as well as McD's or move to south Carolina, etc....
Jim Braun April 04, 2014 at 08:21 PM
This is an informative article, but I fail to see if any environmental damage was done. There is no mention of cleanup costs, just the $1M fine and $3.5M....well I don't know what to call it. Was there an environmental impact also, i.e. dead marine life, contaminated soil, etc.?
Pamela DeFilippo April 05, 2014 at 12:52 AM
These laws are in place for a reason. i find it sad that some seem to think we own this environment and can do as what suits us best at the time rather than to think of the loss and expense to future generations. What if this was a highly toxic material, what if more detriment is yet to be uncovered such as illness, loss of both human and animal life? All that seems important to some is the loss of some good paying jobs, not the unknown effects of irresponsibility on an environment we need to protect for future generations. It was wrong, they need to pay for that no matter what State it happens in...period. We all pay for our mistakes.
Jay April 05, 2014 at 11:25 AM
It should be understood that a majority of the so called "save the tree's, whales and what have you " is a con. Do a little checking on the salaries of the various "Not for Profits" do -gooder corporations ( yes, they incorporate) - They accept millions in donations and need to show some results - their co-conspirators in govt, ie DEEP, Dpt of Justices, etc jump in with laws that they then get paid to enforce and prosecute - more millions plus the politicians get to stand around for photo opportunities for reelection "proving" they are saving us. - and you get to clap your hands and think "goody, I am saved." This was a stupid mistake by a few low level unilever employees - not a massive conspiracy by a greedy corporation pouring poison, etc into a river. It hurt no one, except the hysterical and credulous and the longterm result are 400 or 500 good jobs are gone from Clinton and Connecticut forever..


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »