Hanover Foods must pay $1.15M fine, make $1.5M in upgrades over water pollution – PennLive.com

Report on Hanover Foods’ Environmental Violations and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

Hanover Foods has entered into a settlement agreement requiring a $1.15 million civil penalty and a $1.5 million investment in facility upgrades following extensive violations of the Clean Water Act. This case highlights the critical intersection of industrial production, environmental regulation, and the global commitment to the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production). The actions taken by regulatory bodies enforce corporate accountability and aim to restore compliance with environmental standards essential for protecting vital water ecosystems.

Details of Environmental Non-Compliance

An investigation into the operations at the Hanover Foods wastewater treatment facility revealed significant and prolonged non-compliance with its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit. These actions directly undermined progress toward multiple SDGs.

• Violation Frequency: The company committed over 600 permit violations within the last nine years.
• Nature of Discharges: Environmental inspections identified discharges that exceeded temperature limits and contained floating solids and visible scum, directly contravening targets within SDG 6 and threatening aquatic ecosystems as outlined in SDG 14 (Life Below Water).
• Affected Waterways: Untreated industrial wastewater was released into Oil Creek, a tributary that flows into the Codorus Creek, the Susquehanna River, and ultimately the Chesapeake Bay watershed, a critical ecological region.
• Operational Failures: The company was also cited for violations of operations and maintenance conditions at the facility, indicating a systemic failure in achieving sustainable production patterns (SDG 12).
• Stated Cause: Hanover Foods attributed many violations to increased production demands for canned foods during the COVID-19 pandemic, underscoring the environmental pressures that can arise from shifts in consumption.

Financial and Remedial Actions

The settlement agreement, reached between Hanover Foods, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and the Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper Association, mandates specific corrective measures. These actions reflect the principle of accountability central to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Financial Penalties

• A total civil penalty of $1.15 million has been levied.
• The penalty is divided equally, with $575,000 payable to the U.S. Department of Justice and $575,000 to the Pennsylvania DEP.

Mandated Facility Upgrades

Hanover Foods is required to invest approximately $1.5 million in facility upgrades to ensure its production processes align with environmental laws and the principles of SDG 12. The required improvements include:

1. Installation of a new boiler.
2. Installation of new lagoon aerators.
3. Construction of a new equalization tank.
4. Upgrading of facility pumps.
5. Implementation of a new online sensor for continuous monitoring and data collection.

A new heat exchanger was also previously installed while litigation was ongoing.

Impact on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

This case serves as a critical example of local environmental enforcement’s role in achieving global sustainability objectives.

• SDG 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation): The pollution of the Chesapeake Bay watershed directly violates the core objective of protecting and restoring water-related ecosystems. The enforcement action and required upgrades are essential measures to bring the company’s operations into alignment with this goal.
• SDG 12 (Responsible Consumption and Production): The violations demonstrate an unsustainable production model that failed to manage industrial waste. The settlement forces a transition toward more responsible practices, including investment in cleaner and more efficient technology.
• SDG 14 (Life Below Water): The discharge of pollutants into the river system poses a direct threat to aquatic life. Safeguarding the Chesapeake Bay, as noted by the EPA, is vital for conserving marine and freshwater ecosystems.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The litigation and settlement process, driven by the EPA and DEP, exemplifies the function of effective institutions in upholding environmental law and ensuring corporate accountability for pollution.
• SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals): The resolution was achieved through the collective action of federal and state government agencies alongside a non-governmental organization (Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper Association), demonstrating a multi-stakeholder partnership to achieve environmental goals.

Conclusion and Future Outlook

The settlement with Hanover Foods underscores the importance of regulatory oversight in ensuring that industrial activities do not compromise environmental health and progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals. While the company has stated its commitment to environmental stewardship, sustained compliance will depend on the effective implementation of the mandated upgrades and continuous monitoring. The case is subject to a thirty-day public comment period and final court approval, after which the measures will be legally binding, marking a step toward greater environmental responsibility and the protection of crucial water resources for future generations.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article on Hanover Foods’ environmental violations and subsequent settlement connects to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary focus is on water pollution from industrial activities and the legal and corporate response to it. The following SDGs are directly relevant:

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation: This is the most central SDG, as the entire article revolves around the pollution of a water source (Oil Creek, leading to the Susquehanna River and Chesapeake Bay) by an industrial facility’s wastewater.
• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production: The pollution is a direct result of industrial food processing. The company’s failure to manage its waste sustainably, especially during periods of increased production, highlights unsustainable production patterns.
• SDG 14: Life Below Water: The discharge of pollutants into a watershed that feeds the Chesapeake Bay directly impacts marine and coastal ecosystems. The article explicitly mentions that the measures are “vital for safeguarding the Chesapeake Bay.”
• SDG 15: Life on Land: This goal includes the protection of freshwater ecosystems. The pollution affects Oil Creek, Codorus Creek, and the Susquehanna River, which are inland freshwater bodies whose health is critical for terrestrial and aquatic life.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article details a legal process involving government institutions (EPA, Pa. DEP), a civil society group (Lower Susquehanna Riverkeeper Association), and a corporation, culminating in a legal settlement. This demonstrates the role of strong institutions in enforcing environmental laws and ensuring corporate accountability.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

• SDG 6: Clean Water and Sanitation

  • Target 6.3: By 2030, improve water quality by reducing pollution, eliminating dumping and minimizing release of hazardous chemicals and materials, halving the proportion of untreated wastewater. The article details Hanover Foods’ release of polluted wastewater (“discharged water that exceeded temperature limits and had floating solids and visible scum”) into Oil Creek. The settlement, which forces the company to pay fines and invest “$1.5 million in upgrades to its wastewater treatment facility,” is a direct action aimed at reducing this pollution and improving water quality.

• SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production

  • Target 12.4: By 2020, achieve the environmentally sound management of chemicals and all wastes throughout their life cycle… and significantly reduce their release to air, water and soil. The company’s “more than 600” violations of its discharge permit over nine years represent a failure in the environmentally sound management of its industrial waste. The mandated upgrades are a step towards achieving this target.

• SDG 14: Life Below Water

  • Target 14.1: By 2025, prevent and significantly reduce marine pollution of all kinds, in particular from land-based activities. The pollution originates from a land-based food processing plant and flows “into a tributary of the Codorus Creek, which feeds into the Susquehanna River and the Chesapeake Bay watershed.” The enforcement action and facility upgrades are measures to prevent this type of land-based pollution from reaching a major estuary.

• SDG 15: Life on Land

  • Target 15.1: By 2020, ensure the conservation, restoration and sustainable use of terrestrial and inland freshwater ecosystems and their services. The pollution directly degrades inland freshwater ecosystems (Oil Creek, Susquehanna River). The legal action taken by the EPA and DEP is a measure to enforce laws designed to conserve these vital ecosystems.

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national… levels and ensure equal access to justice. The article describes the enforcement of the “Clean Water Act” through “four years of litigations” involving federal and state agencies, resulting in a settlement. This is a clear example of the rule of law being applied to address environmental harm.
  • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels. The actions of the EPA and the Pa. DEP, from conducting “environmental inspections” to levying a “$1.15 million civil penalty,” demonstrate institutional accountability and effectiveness in enforcing environmental regulations.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article contains several explicit and implicit indicators that can measure progress:

• For Target 6.3 (Improve water quality):

  • Qualitative Indicators: The article mentions visual and physical signs of pollution, such as “water that exceeded temperature limits,” “floating solids,” and “visible scum.” The absence of these would indicate improved water quality.
  • Technological Indicators: The installation of a “new online sensor for continuous monitoring” is a direct tool for measuring water quality parameters in real-time, providing data to track compliance and progress.

• For Target 12.4 (Environmentally sound management of waste):

  • Compliance Indicator: The article states the company “violated its National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit more than 600 times.” A key indicator of progress would be the reduction and eventual elimination of these permit violations.
  • Financial Investment Indicator: The mandated “$1.5 million in upgrades to its wastewater treatment facility” is a quantifiable measure of investment in environmentally sound infrastructure.

• For Target 16.3 (Rule of law):

  • Enforcement Indicator: The “$1.15 million civil penalty” serves as a quantitative indicator of legal enforcement and the financial consequences of non-compliance with environmental laws like the Clean Water Act.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: pennlive.com