Unilever Pleads Guilty To Violating Clean Water Act In Clinton; Town Will Receive $1 Million For Fishway And Other Projects

The charges stem from Unilever’s December 2008 illegal discharge of industrial wastewater at a manufacturing site in Clinton and the company’s failure to report the discharge in a timely manner.

Conopco, Inc., which does business as Unilever Home & Personal Care USA, has waived its right to indictment and has pleaded guilty to two felony violations of the federal Clean Water Act, according to the Acting United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut,  the Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection. 

Unilever, which used to have a facility in Clinton, was accused of illegally discharging industrial wastewater in December 2008 at that manufacturing site in Clinton. The company also admitted to failing to report the discharge in a timely manner. Unilever has agreed to pay a $1 million fine and to contribute $3.5 million to state and local environmental programs. 

Of the $3.5 million, $500,000 will be used to to construct a fishway at Chapman Mill Pond in Clinton. The town also will receive an additional $500,000 for other environmentally beneficial projects.

Also, $2.5 million will be used to fund research, outreach and education projects related to the effects of rising sea levels. Specifically, that $2.5 million will be used for the new Institute for Community Resiliency and Climate Adaptation at UConn.  Creation of the Institute was envisioned in Special Act 13-9

Funding will address threats posed by severe weather

“This court action provides funding that will help bring to life our vision for an Institute that supports Connecticut residents and communities in addressing the very real threats posed by severe weather," said Gov. Dannel Malloy. "Working together with the General Assembly last session we created a framework for an Institute at UConn – that was the first step.  The resources made available by the court take us to step two and will help move us beyond planning and study to the real work of the Institute."

“The people of our state suffered greatly as a result of Hurricane Irene and Storm Sandy and unfortunately the outlook ahead is for even more extreme weather events as a result of changes in the climate being predicted by experts.  Those events, and the continued rising of sea levels caused by the climate warming, mean that lives, property, and infrastructure are at increasing risk from strong winds, tidal surges, and flooding," Malloy said. 

Thousands of gallons of untreated wastewater over several years

Attorney General Jepsen said that, "in addition to today’s federal plea, the state intends to enter into a settlement with Unilever that resolves several incidents in which the company violated its DEEP wastewater discharge permit. The state filed suit against Unilever in 2009, and amended its complaint in 2012, alleging discharge of thousands of gallons of untreated wastewater over the course of several years."

“The state’s settlement includes $100,000 in civil penalties, to be satisfied by payment of the Supplemental Environmental Project funds specified under the company’s plea agreement with the U.S. Attorneys' Office. In addition to the $2.5 million for the Connecticut Resiliency and Climate Adaptation Center, $500,000 will find various environmentally beneficial projects in the Town of Clinton and $500,000 will be used to design and construct a fishway at the Chapman Mill Pond in Clinton," Jepsen said. 

Unilever required to implement plan for clean up in Clinton

“The state’s settlement also requires Unilever to set forth and implement a strict plan for appropriate clean-up of the former industrial site at John Street in Clinton, subject to approval by Commissioner Esty. The settlement includes a permanent injunction requiring Unilever comply with the water pollution control statutes and regulations at the site," Jepsen said. 

“This injunction will ensure that Unilever complies with state environmental law in cleaning up its former industrial site in Clinton. Individuals or businesses that violate our laws may endanger public health and safety and the environment. Violations of this nature are not acceptable. I’m pleased that this agreement will require Unilever to safely close its facility and to fund various environmentally beneficial projects that will promote smart growth, energy efficiency and brownfield redevelopment," Jepsen said. 

Here is the full statement From the U.S. Attorney's Office: 


Deirdre M. Daly, Acting United States Attorney for the District of Connecticut, Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, and Commissioner Daniel C. Esty of the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection announced that CONOPCO, INC., doing business as UNILEVER HOME & PERSONAL CARE USA, (“Unilever”) waived its right to indictment and pleaded guilty today in Hartford federal court to two felony violations of the Clean Water Act.

The charges stem from Unilever’s December 2008 illegal discharge of industrial wastewater at a manufacturing site in Clinton and the company’s failure to report the discharge in a timely manner.  As part of its plea agreement, Unilever agreed to pay a $1 million fine.  The company also intends to contribute $3.5 million to state and local environmental programs. 

“The environmental integrity of Connecticut’s rivers and the Long Island Sound are of essential importance to our state,” said Acting U.S. Attorney Daly.

As this case demonstrates, our Office will vigorously prosecute companies whose actions threaten Connecticut’s natural resources.  We recognize and thank the EPA for their invaluable work in this investigation.

In addition, it is entirely appropriate that Unilever has agreed to redress their violations by contributing $2.5 million to fund research, outreach and education projects related to the effects of rising sea levels, $500,000 to construct a fishway in Clinton, and $500,000 to the Town of Clinton for other environmentally beneficial projects.

The Company’s contributions will directly assist the State of Connecticut in its efforts to protect and preserve our environment”“America’s communities deserve clean water, free from containments in illegal wastewater discharges,” said Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

“Protecting these communities means holding violators accountable, both for illegal discharges and for failure to report them.”“This case sends the clear message that those who flaunt environmental laws designed to protect public health and natural resources will pay a price,” said DEEP Commissioner Esty.

“A portion of the funds will be directed to environmentally beneficial projects in the town of Clinton, the place where the violations took place.  The remaining dollars will be used to build on our efforts to increase the resiliency of coastal communities and interior floodplains – and their residents – so we are better prepared to face the more extreme and severe weather predicted for the future.

”According to court documents and statements made in court, Unilever’s Clinton manufacturing facility produced a variety of health and beauty products for sale in the United States.  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.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 4:00 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.

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 December 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.

”On December 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 December 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.  On approximately December 10, Unilever notified the DEEP for the first time of the discharge that occurred five days earlier on December 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 December 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.”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 December 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.  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.
  • In December 2012, Unilever ceased manufacturing operations at the Clinton facility.Unilever pleaded guilty to two counts of knowingly violating, or causing to be violated, the Clean Water Act.  Each of these counts carries a maximum term of probation of five years and a fine of up to $500,000.  U.S. District Judge Robert N. Chatigny scheduled sentencing for March 3, 2014.

    Under the terms of a binding plea agreement, if accepted by the court, Unilever will be placed on probation for three years and pay a fine of $1 million.  At the time of sentencing, Unilever intends to bring to the court’s attention that it 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 used to fund the Connecticut Resiliency and Climate Adaptation Center, 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 environmentally beneficial projects proposed by the Town of Clinton, including the acquisition of open space.

    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.  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.

    This matter has been investigated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection.  The case is being prosecuted by Assistant U.S. Attorney Ray Miller and Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter Kenyon.
    Andrew Desrosiers December 05, 2013 at 10:17 PM
    Are there any plans for the unilever building? As far as I can remember it has been a vacant waste of space. Even the collapsed factory near the police station has resulted in a similar eye sore. Are there any plans for these two places?
    alan kravitz December 06, 2013 at 10:21 AM
    The town has a $50,000 Vibrant Communities Initiative Grant from the CT Trust for Historic Preservation to study the redevelopment potential of the Unilever Facility. We need to get Unilever to be a participant, perhaps this settlement can be used to leverage that participation. The President of Unilever is a member of the UN Committee on Sustainability and the company has put a great deal of effort and money to develop a Sustainability Plan that fails to acknowledge its past pollution or the impact of plant abandonment on communities like Clinton. We need to come up with a plan for the redevelopment of this critical site next to our train station, Route 1 and our Downtown. They need to cleanup the site and find a way to dispose of it and improve their corporate image. Our interests are convergent.
    Jay December 07, 2013 at 04:02 PM
    In reality this nonsense has been going on behind the scenes for years with no notification or public participation. Since there was no mention of pollution or any residue, there was obviously none. This kind of "settlement is typical of a "gotcha " where Deep bureaucrats and the local state Federal Attorney get to pretend they are actually worth their $100,000 salaries "protecting " us from literally nothing. The "fish ladder " is a joke as there is no evidence of upstream fish migration ever in this river. The dam however needs to be rebuilt and Solignoy, the now former owner, refused to fix . Now we, taxpayers get to pay for their negligence by paying for a "fish ladder' wrapped around a new dam.. All is a cheat. _
    Jeff Cashman December 20, 2013 at 10:06 AM
    The dam as it is now, acts as a seperation of fresh water fish and salt water fish. Are we trying to get stripped bass in the lake. This transition of BRACISH water is a normal transition of water mix. Years as a child involved in its harvest of all this has to offer, complete repair of the dam, with advances of more than milling lumber are needed. Its more than a fish latter. It will serve with controling water elevations with many engineered details. What will be amasing is how they built the dam so many years ago with only oxen and horses and mans hard work. I hope they can preserve the history also. If the right people are in volved it will be awsome to see this cange and improvement. I hope to have a place to fish my old stopping grounds. Good luck.


    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 »