Yesterday we wrote about HSBC violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Today we present HSBC violations of the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and other EPA violations. At least thirty-two facilities were in violation.
This news is shocking because HSBC has been pushing a “green initiative” for a year or more. Trying to appeal to those who think “green is in”, HSBC has been pumping out the banks press releases while ignoring enough real issues to attract the attention of the EPA.
As with HSBC violations of the Americans With Disabilities Act, this is a training issue. Even the local auto parts store knows about material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) and inspections by the fire marshall.
While all of us considered deaths of two firefighters in California – while fighting the latest forest fire – were a tragedy, failure to keep MSDS puts lives at risk. Firefighters must know what is contained in a facility, and what they will be fighting.
EPA has entered into a Consent Agreement with HSBC Finance Corporation and HSBC USA Inc. (HSBC or Respondent) to resolve violations of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the Clean Air Act (CAA) and requirements adopted as part of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) pursuant to the CAA, and the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA), and their implementing regulations.
Respondent disclosed that it failed to prepare and implement a Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) plan and/or failed to have adequate secondary containment in violation of CWA section 311(j), 33 U.S.C. 1321(j), and 40 CFR Part 112 for eighteen facilities located in the following states: California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina, and Texas. EPA, as authorized by CWA section 311(b)(6), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6), has assessed a civil penalty for these violations.
Respondent disclosed that it failed to comply with CAA section 110, 42 U.S.C. 7410, and requirements adopted as part of State Implementation Plans (SIPs) for eight facilities located in the following states: California, Illinois, Maryland, New Jersey, Texas, and Virginia. EPA, as authorized by CAA section 113, 42 U.S.C. 7413, has assessed a civil penalty for these violations.
Respondent disclosed that it failed to comply with CAA section 608, 42 U.S.C. 7671g, when it failed to keep servicing records documenting the date and type of service, as well as the quantity of refrigerant purchased and added, for appliances containing greater than fifty pounds of refrigerant located at four facilities located in the following states: California, Illinois, and New York. EPA, as authorized by CAA section 113, 42 U.S.C. 7413, has assessed a civil penalty for these violations.
Respondent disclosed that it failed to comply with EPCRA section 302, 42 U.S.C. 11002, and the regulations found at 40 CFR 355.30, when it failed to notify the State Emergency Response Committee (SERC) for twenty-eight facilities located in the following states: California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia.
Respondent disclosed that it failed to comply with EPCRA section 303, 42 U.S.C. 11003, and the regulations found at 40 CFR 355.30, when it failed to designate a facility emergency coordinator and notify the Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) at twenty-eight facilities in the following states: California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia.
Respondent disclosed that it failed to comply with EPCRA section 311, 42 U.S.C. 11021, and the regulations found at 40 CFR Part 370, when it failed to prepare and submit a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) for a hazardous chemical(s) and extremely hazardous chemical(s) at thirty-one (31) facilities located in the following states: California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia. EPA, as authorized by EPCRA section 325, 42 U.S.C. 11045, has assessed a civil penalty for these violations.
Respondent disclosed that it failed to comply with EPCRA section 312, 42 U.S.C. 11022, and the regulations found at 40 CFR Part 370, when it failed to prepare and submit emergency and chemical inventory forms to the LEPC, SERC, and the fire department at thirty-two (32) facilities located in the following states: California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, New Jersey, New York, Nevada, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, and Virginia. EPA, as authorized by EPCRA section 325, 42 U.S.C. 11045, has assessed a civil penalty for these violations.
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act violations put many communities at risk, displaying HSBC’s disregard for anyone and anything other than HSBC.
Once again HSBC Finance, formerly predatory lender Household International, has presented problems for HSBC.
In February of 2009, HSBC published the “HSBC Finance Governance Standards”, which clearly fell short of being complete. The document states: “the Directors will exercise their business judgment in what they reasonably believe to be in the best interests of the Corporation.”
Most business majors and all facilites managers know about the EPA requirements that were violated.
We will publish this article in the “Green Initiative” category.
Related posts:
