Pan Am's shameful environmental record

Blogger's note: This is not invented.

The legal document below is from Attorney General Martha Coakley, written as a sentencing memorandum after Pan Am Railroad spilled between 800 and 1700 gallons of fuel in Ayer, failed to report it, then reported it as 9 gallons. The company was fined $400,000 in this March 30, 2009 judgement.

Days later, Pan Am broke ground to build a duplicate parking lot over an aquifer that supplies 60 percent of Ayer's water. UPS [United Parcel Service] will handle logistics at the site to unload vehicles from trains built by Ford Motor Company.

Read this document and you will see why we do NOT trust Pan Am Railroad to safeguard our aquifer.

COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
MIDDLESEX, ss SUPERIOR COURT
CRIMINAL NOS.
2008-395
2008-396
2008-397
2008-398
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS
v.
SPRINGFIELD TERMINAL RAILWAY COMPANY
MAINE CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY
BOSTON and MAINE CORPORATION
PAN AM RAILWAYS INCORPORATED
COMMONWEALTH’S MEMORANDUM ON SENTENCING
Each of the four defendants in this case has been convicted of two counts of Failing to
Notify the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection of a Release of Oil or
Hazardous Materials, pursuant to G.L. c. 21E, §7. The Commonwealth recommends that the
Court sentence each defendant on one count to pay the maximum penalty of $100,000 (a
combined total of $400,000), and that the Court impose the maximum penalty on each defendant
on the second count, but suspend that penalty for a period of three years during which each
defendant would be on probation. Because of the specialized nature of environmental violations,
the Commonwealth requests that the defendants be required to pay for the cost of an independent
environmental monitor who will be responsible for overseeing their probation during the three
years.
The Commonwealth submits this Sentencing Memorandum in order to set out the reasons
why it is appropriate for the Court to impose the maximum monetary penalty on these
defendants, based upon their repeated prior environmental violations and one prior criminal
matter. This history is discussed in the first section of the memorandum. The second section
lays out for the Court the history of penalties that have been imposed on other defendants for
violations of G.L. c. 21E, §7, to show that the penalties sought here are not out of proportion to
the penalties imposed in the past, even on the civil side of the docket. The third section discusses the law that supports the requirement that the defendants pay for the cost of an environmental
monitor during a period of probation.

I. The Defendants’ Prior Violations of the Law.
The defendants have a long track record of violating the environmental laws, including a
particularly long record of unreported releases of oil and other hazardous materials to the
environment, and have utterly failed to develop reliable or consistent environmental management
systems despite having been ordered to do so repeatedly.
Perhaps the most relevant history is the defendants’ history of unreported oil spills in the
State of Maine, which goes back over 20 years. As more fully set forth in the attachments to
this Memorandum, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection ordered the defendants in 1986 to promptly report any “discharges of petroleum” (Ex. A), but they have consistently and
repeatedly failed to do so:
• In 1990, the defendant Maine Central Railroad was fined $25,000 for “fail[ing] to
promptly report and remove” numerous oil discharges at its maintenance yard in
Waterville, including fuel leaking from locomotives without drip pans, fuel leaking
into a turn table pit that drained directly into the Kennebec River, and fuel
contaminating soil near the loading dock. The defendant was also fined for failing to
develop and maintain a hazardous waste contingency plan, for failing to train their
employees in hazardous materials response, and for failing to properly store or timely
dispose of hazardous waste. (Ex. B)

• In 1995, Maine Central was again fined $10,500 for failing to properly store, label
and inspect hazardous materials at its Waterville yard, and for again “failing to
develop and maintain a contingency plan for hazardous waste management.” (Ex. C)

• Between 1978 and 2003, Maine DEP staff “documented approximately 22 prohibited
oil discharge incidents” at the Rigby Rail Yard in South Portland, Maine operated by
defendant Pan Am Railways, Inc. and owned by its subsidiary Portland Terminal
Company, resulting in the discharge of “approximately 11,760 gallons of oil” at the
property. The Maine DEP issued a Notice of Violation on August 15, 2007 after its
staff found evidence of multiple prohibited discharges of oil, posing a threat to
“coastal waters, groundwater, Long Creek, Calvary Pond, Barberry Creek and the
Fore River” and that the discharges had never been reported. (Ex. D)

• The Maine DEP issued two additional notices of violation on September 11, 2007 and
October 18, 2007 when it discovered that discharges of hundreds of gallons of waste
oil from the Rigby Yard had contaminated the nearby Calvary Pond on August 6,
September 12 and October 12, 2007, and that Pan Am had failed to report all three
discharges and failed to undertake actions to remediate them. (Ex. E and F) Because
of Pan Am’s lack of responsiveness, the State of Maine had to spend $287,385 to
investigate and clean up the Calvary Pond. (Ex. G)

• In January 2006, a resident of Anson, Maine reported to the Maine DEP that the
defendants Pan Am Railways, Inc. and Maine Central Railroad had improperly
discharged oil onto the railroad tracks in that town and onto the property at 46 River
Road in Anson. The Maine DEP determined that the defendants had failed to report
the discharges and failed to undertake to clean up the discharges, and required the
defendants to reimburse it for the cost of a clean-up. (Ex. G and H)

• In March 2006, Maine Central was again fined $19,000 after a concerned citizen
reported that the company’s railroad ties and bridge structures were consistently
dripping hazardous material into the Royal River in Grey, Maine, and the company
was again required to reimburse the Maine Department of Environmental Protection
for costs it occurred in responding to the incident. (Ex. H)

• In August 2007, the Maine DEP inspected Maine Central’s Waterville Yard and
discovered evidence of multiple prohibited discharge of oil at the property, including
discharges to soil and storm drains posing a threat to groundwater and to the nearby
Kennebec River. The Department’s staff documented “34 prohibited oil discharge
incidents” at the property between 1985 and 2001. The Department determined that
“MEC failed to report the discovery of the prohibited discharges of oil described
above [and] failed to immediately undertake to remove those discharges”. (Ex. I)

• In November 2007, the Maine DEP received an anonymous report of a prohibited
discharge of oil along the railroad tracks in Orono, Maine that stretched for
approximately 8 miles, and the Department issued a Notice of Violation to defendants
Pan Am Railways, Inc. and Maine Central Railroad for failing to report the spill.
(Ex. G)

• In April 2008, staff of the Madison Paper Company in Madison, Maine discovered
prohibited discharges of oil on the railroad tracks adjacent to the company’s mill.
The Maine DEP sent the defendants Pan Am Railways, Inc. and Maine Central
Railroad a Notice of Violation for failing to report or to clean up the discharges.
(Ex. G)

• In May 2008, the Maine DEP again discovered evidence of multiple prohibited
discharges of oil at the Rigby Yard operated by Pan Am Railways, Inc. that had never
been reported, including “at least thirteen (13) storm drain catch basins and man ways
at the Site that contained oil”, six of which “drain directly to the South Portland
municipal storm water system”. (Ex. J)

The defendants’ history of environmental compliance in Massachusetts is no
better:

• In April 2002, the defendant Boston and Maine Corporation was fined $30,000 for
failing to close a dump in Northfield, Massachusetts that was leaching hazardous
materials into the environment. Additional penalties were suspended, based upon the
defendant’s agreement to develop an Environmental Management System (EMS) to
govern all of its environmental compliance activities. (Ex. K) In May 2007—five
years later -- $15,000 of the suspended penalties were imposed because the defendant
still had not developed an adequate Environmental Management System, a decision
on which the defendant then proceeded to seek administrative review. (Ex. L)

• In March 2005, the defendant Boston and Maine Corporation was fined $43,400 for
three different violations—failing submit required inspection and monitoring reports
for the closure of the Northfield, Massachusetts dump that had first been required in
1999; failing to submit inspection and monitoring reports for a spill of oil that had
occurred at the defendant’s fuel depot in Williamstown, Massachusetts in 1989; and
failing to submit a remedy plan for multiple releases of oil that had occurred at the
defendant’s Rail Yard in East Deerfield, Massachusetts in 1998. $8,400 of this
penalty was suspended. (Ex. M)

• In April 2005, the defendant Boston and Maine Corporation was also fined $9,250 for
failing to properly dispose of oil and hazardous materials from its Rail Yard in East
Deerfield, Massachusetts. (Ex. N)

• In December 2005, a portion of the penalty that had been suspended in March 2005
was imposed on the defendant Boston and Maine Corporation because the company
still had not developed remedial alternatives for the recovery of free phase oil at the

Williamstown depot facility (a remedial process that remains ongoing to this day for a
release that occurred in 1989). (Ex. O)

• In August 2006, the Massachusetts DEP issued to the defendant Boston and Maine
Corporation a Notice of Noncompliance for failing to timely complete remediation
activities with respect to releases of oil at the company’s Rail Yard in East Deerfield,
Massachusetts. (Ex. P)

• In May 2007, the defendants Boston and Maine Corporation and Pan Am Railways,
Inc. were fined $59,747 for failing to properly dispose of railroad ties that were
leaching hazardous materials into the environment in Deerfield, Charlmont, and near
the Wachusetts Reservoir. (Ex. Q) The defendants then appealed the fine.

• In December 2007, the Massachusetts DEP issued a Notice of Noncompliance to the
defendant Boston and Maine Corporation for failing to timely perform an Immediate
Response Action for a spill of oil that had been discovered at the defendant’s East
Deerfield Rail Yard. The spill, from abandoned tanks and drums, had been reported
to the DEP by a passer-by (not by the defendant) in August 2007. (Ex. R) The
Department also issued a Notice of Noncompliance to defendant Pan Am Railways,
Inc. in December 2007 for accumulating excess quantities of waste oil at the East
Deerfield Rail Yard and failing to properly store the oil. (Ex. S)

The defendants’ compliance history with both the Commonwealth and the State of Maine
is remarkable not only for the defendants’ repeated failures to report spills of oil and hazardous
materials, but also for their failure to adopt or implement required spill response plans or an
overall environmental management system sufficient to prevent future spills. The State of Maine ordered the defendant Maine Central Railroad to adopt a spill response plan in 1990 (Ex. B) and again in 1995 (Ex. C), and yet the company still did not have one in place in February 1998 when several hundred gallons of oil leaked from a locomotive in the Waterville Rail Yard into the nearby Kennebec River. The United States Environmental Protection Agency fined Maine Central $47,300 for failing to have a spill response plan in place.

As the EPA regional administrator stated at the time, “Maine Central Railroad made two
big mistakes here. First, it had no plan to prevent or deal with oil spills; second, it discharged
hundreds of gallons of oil into the Kennebec. It’s unfortunate a spill had to occur for the
company to follow the law . . . .” (Ex. T).1

Similarly, the defendant Boston and Maine Corporation agreed in 2002, but then failed,
to develop a comprehensive Environmental Management System. As of May 4, 2007 – five
years later – the company still had not developed an acceptable EMS. When, thereafter, it
submitted an EMS in February 2008, DEP still found it wanting. For example, the EMS
contained a long list of Standard Operating Procedures, pollution prevention plans, and guidance
documents for many environmentally related compliance activities.

However, of the 50 listed
documents, 35 (or 70%) had projected completion dates in the future. The documents that still
had not been drafted included many critical environmental compliance programs such as policies
for the accumulation of hazardous wastes, management of used solvents and used oil, solid waste
disposal, corporate compliance tracking, environmental training, and response to noncompliance.
As noted below, the Commonwealth believes that the only way the defendants are
going to develop a real environmental compliance program is if an independent, outside monitor
is there to ensure they do so.
The defendants’ long history of failure to report releases of oil and hazardous substances
and failure to adopt responsible environmental compliance practices strongly supports the
imposition of the sentence recommended by the Commonwealth.
Finally, the Commonwealth believes it appropriate to bring to the Court’s attention one
criminal matter involving Boston and Maine Airways (BMAC), an affiliate of defendant Pan Am
1 In July 2007, the defendant Springfield Terminal Railway was also fined by EPA for
failing to fully implement a spill control plan for its facility in Springfield, Massachusetts.

Railways, Inc. that is owned and controlled by the same individuals as Pan Am Railways, Inc. In
the case of United States v. John Nadolny, Docket No. 07-CR-26 (D.N.H.), John Nadolny, then
the Secretary and General Counsel of Boston and Maine Airways, pled guilty to making false
statements in financial statements submitted to the Department of Transportation in support of
the company’s application for an air carrier certificate. In sentencing Nadolny, Judge Barbadoro
of the United States District Court in New Hampshire observed that Nadolny’s actions “were
undertaken on behalf of BMAC. He was an officer of the company. His actions would be
chargeable or taken – undertaken ostensibly to benefit the company, and it would seem that the
company is criminally culpable here.” (Ex. U, at 4) Indeed, when Mr. Nadolny’s misstatements
were brought to the attention of the Department of Transportation, the Department revoked
BMAC’s air carrier certificate:

Specifically, we find that BMAC’s authority to operate large aircraft was based on false
financial information submitted to the department, without which the air carrier would
not have been found fit to hold such authority, when it first sought to expand . . . . We
find further that BMAC’s management knew, or should have known, about the false
financial information and it therefore . . . lacks the competence necessary to oversee the
air transportation authorized in the air carrier’s certificate.
Application of Boston-Maine Airways Corp., Docket OST-00-7668, Order of Department of
Transportation, Feb. 1, 2008, at 15. (Ex. V).
II. The History of Penalties Under G.L. c. 21E, §7.

Unlike all other violations of chapter 21E, which are punishable by a fine of no more than
$50,000 and a house of correction sentence, violations of the reporting requirement of section 7
are punishable by a fine of up to $100,000 and imprisonment in state prison. There is a reason
why the Legislature adopted this enhanced punishment for failures to notify DEP. As Nicholas
Child testified at the trial in this case, notification is the linchpin of DEP’s ability to respond to
environmental emergencies. Notification is what enables DEP’s Emergency Response Unit to
coordinate with local authorities, such as police, fire and water authorities. Notification enables
the Emergency Response Unit to determine whether a threat is posed to human health or the
environment, and enables the Emergency Response Unit to determine whether it needs to go to
the site and take proactive steps for protection.

Because notification is so critical to the DEP process, the Commonwealth has repeatedly
sought substantial fines for failure to report. The size of the fines that the Commonwealth is
requesting in this case is consistent with numerous civil penalties that have been imposed for
failure to report:

• In the 2002 case of Signature Flight Support Group, the company paid a penalty of
$250,000 and agreed to perform a Supplemental Environmental Project valued at
$200,000 for failure to report a jet fuel spill at Logan Airport.
• In the 1997 case of Zeneca Plastics Company, the company paid a civil penalty of
$400,000 for failure to report a release of toxic vapors to the air of a Wilmington
neighborhood.

• In the 1991 case of Monsanto Corporation, the company paid a penalty of $1 million
for releasing of sulfuric acid into the Mystic River and failing to report the spill in a
timely and complete manner.

• In the 2001 case of MRP Site Development Inc. aka MRP Testa, the company paid a
$1 million criminal fine and was placed on probation for four years for violating the
state’s 21E §7 notification requirement and using PAH contaminated recycled
demolition debris for use as a road base product.

• In the 2007 case of Boot Hydropower, the company paid a fine of $125,000
for failing to report a spill of hydraulic oil into the Merrimac River.

• In the 2008 case of Mantrose-Haeuser Co. and Zinsser Co., the defendants paid a civil
penalty of $2 million and agreed to perform a Supplemental Environmental Project
valued at $300,000 for a series of violations, two of which entailed the failure to
report spills of sulfuric acid into the Ten Mile River.

The present case is a criminal case in which the Commonwealth introduced evidence that
the defendants did not merely fail to report the release of diesel fuel, but took steps to
deliberately cover up the spill. For example, the Commonwealth introduced evidence that, on
the night of the spill, the defendants ordered workers to dig holes that would enable pooled oil to
sink below the ground surface. The next day, the defendants directed their workers to remove
the most heavily stained soil and ballast on the surface, and put in fresh ballast, even though
stained and fuel-soaked soil remained below (and there continued to be an overwhelming smell
of diesel fuel). Moreover, as soon as the defendants learned that government authorities had
been alerted to the spill, the first thing they did was to try to remove from the scene the
locomotive that had spilled the fuel at a time when the locomotive still showed evidence of the
size of the spill.

When the Court considers the purposes of the notification requirement, the size of prior
fines for failure to notify, and the defendants’ deliberate effort to cover up, the fines sought by
the Commonwealth are amply justified.
III. Authority for Imposition of an Environmental Monitor
The superior court has the inherent power to suspend a sentence and impose a term of
probation with conditions. E.g., Commonwealth v. Pinnick, 52 Mass. App. Ct. 1104 (2001)
(defendant sentenced to a term of 8 – 10 years in State prison, suspended for 5 years, with
probation.); Commonwealth v. Delise, 440 Mass 137 (2003) (defendant sentenced for violating
an abuse prevention order and assault and battery; to12 to 15 years in state prison, suspended for a four year period of probation to commence on release from house of corrections);
Commonwealth v. Speight, 59 Mass. App.Ct. 28 (2003) (defendant sentenced by Superior Court
10 to 2 ½ years in a house of correction, committed, followed by a suspended 8 – 10 year
sentence.)2

In this case, the Commonwealth asks the Court to impose a maximum monetary fine of
$100,000 on each defendant on the first count on which it has been convicted and asks that
another $100,000 fine be suspended on the second count and that each defendant be placed on
probation for a period of three years with conditions. When sentencing a defendant, all of the
goals of punishment are to be considered: deterrence, rehabilitation, moral reinforcement,
punishment. Commonwealth v. Williams, 60 Mass.App.Ct. 331 (2004); Cepulonis v.
Commonwealth, 384 Mass. 495 (1981); Commonwealth v. Goodwin, 414 Mass. 88 (1993). A
monetary fine will serve as a punishment to the defendants, but something more is needed here.

The defendants in this case are profitable multi-million dollar corporations. The defendants have
an extensive history of environmental violations and a history of paying fines, and therefore
payment of a fine alone will not serve to fulfill the multifaceted goals of sentencing and may not
fully deter the defendants from future violations. There needs to be a component of the sentence
that addresses the rehabilitation and moral reinforcement necessary in order for the corporate
entities as a whole to come into compliance with the environmental laws of the Commonwealth.
A judge has wide latitude to consider a variety of factors when imposing a sentence.

Commonwealth v. Ferguson, 30 Mass.App.Ct. 580 (1991). A condition of probation is
enforceable, even if infringes on a constitutionally protected or preferred right, as long as the
condition is reasonably related to the goals of probation. Commonwealth v. Power, 420 Mass.
2 It should also be noted that G.L. 21E, §11, the provision that sets forth the punishments that
may be imposed under the Oil & Hazardous Material Release Prevention Act, specifically states
that “The superior court department of the trial court shall have jurisdiction to …grant such
additional relief as it deems necessary or appropriate to secure compliance with, the provisions
of this chapter, or any order or regulation issued or adopted there under upon the petition of the
attorney general or the commissioner. G.L. 21E §11.410 (1995); Commonwealth v. Lapointe, 435 Mass. 455 (2001). The propriety of a probation
condition depends upon the facts of the case. Commonwealth v. Lapointe, 435 Mass. 455
(2001).

In this case, the Commonwealth asks the Court to order the Defendants to retain an
independent environmental compliance monitor for the duration of the three year probationary
period. The imposition of a monitor is directly relevant to the non-compliance with
environmental laws at issue in this case. Moreover, the defendants’ enforcement history shows
that the defendants cannot be relied upon to address environmental matters in an adequate
manner on their own. There must be an independent monitor to ensure compliance by the
defendants and to directly report incidents of non-compliance should it become necessary.
There is an established history in the federal courts of ordering independent monitors
to be put in place when conditions of probations are imposed on corporate defendants.
Among other cases, monitors were ordered in:

• U.S. v. Lucas Aerospace Communications & Electronics, Inc., (94 Cr 493, E.D. N.Y.)
(in cases of false claims violations, was to recommend to company additional disciplinary
actions, personnel/policy/procedural changes, or other remedial actions to ensure against
similar misconduct).

• U.S. v. International Longshoremen’s Association, 518 F.Supp.2d 422 (2007): (monitor
put in to oversee labor union, in case involving violations of RICO, pattern of
racketeering)

• Claudio v. U.S. Department of Labor, 137 F.Supp. 2d 405 (2001)(again, monitor installed
to oversee operations of a union)

• U.S. v. Mahwah Homes, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.)(monitor installed in case involving falsifying
tax returns)

• U.S. v. BP Products North America (S.D.Tex 2009) 2009 WL 677653 (monitor installed
to guard against future OSHA safety violations)

See W. Swenson, Compliance Programs and Corporate Sentencing Guidelines §4:18 (2008).
A relevant precedent in the environmental context is the case of United States v.
Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Docket No. 93-CR-1063 (S.D.N.Y.), in which the court
ordered the imposition of an environmental monitor on Consolidated Edison Co. of New York,
over the company’s objection, after the company failed to give notice of the dispersal of asbestos
from a manhole explosion. Prosecutors in the case argued that a fine alone would mean little to a
company with substantial revenues, and the court agreed that a monitor was needed in order to
change a corporate culture in employees felt intimidated not to speak out against illegal
practices. (Ex. W and X).

The Judge appointed a monitor from a pool of applicants submitted
by each side and costs of the monitor were paid by the defendant. As in the Con Edison case,
there is evidence in this case that the corporate culture of these defendants does not place an
emphasis on environmental compliance. During the trial of this case, evidence was presented
that showed that managerial level individuals knew there was a significant spill of diesel fuel in
the rail yard, but instead of notifying the DEP, the defendants had their employees undertake
steps to cover up the incident.

Although obviously not binding in this case, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines in §8D1.1
provide factors for courts to consider when imposing conditions of probation on a corporate
entity “(3) if, at the time of sentencing, (A) the organization (i) has 50 or more employees, or (ii)
was otherwise required under law to have an effective compliance and ethics program; and (B)
the organization does not have such a program; (4) if the organization within five years prior to
sentencing engaged in similar misconduct, as determined by a prior criminal adjudication, and
any part of the misconduct underlying the instant offense occurred after that adjudication; (5) if
an individual within high-level personnel of the organization or the unit of the organization
within which the instant offense was committed participated in the misconduct underlying the
instant offense and that individual within five years prior to sentencing engaged in similar
misconduct, as determined by a prior criminal adjudication, and any part of the misconduct
underlying the instant offense occurred after that adjudication; (6) if such sentence is necessary
to ensure that changes are made within the organization to reduce the likelihood of future
criminal conduct.” See United States Sentencing Guidelines §8D1.1 (setting forth eight
situations in which organizational probation is appropriate.) Virtually all of these factors are
present in this case

Moreover, it is in the interest of the Court to order an independent environmental
compliance monitor to oversee the Defendants’ probationary period because corporate
environmental compliance is a specialized area of the law that is not ordinarily handled by the
Court’s probation department. It would be critical to the oversight of probation here to have a
specialized individual involved.

As proposed by the Commonwealth, the monitor would be selected by DEP and paid by
the defendants. The monitor would report to the DEP Environmental Strike Force Director on a
regular basis regarding the environmental activities of the defendants. The initial task of the
monitor will be to assist the defendants in finalizing an Environmental Management System
(EMS) that is acceptable to the DEP and applicable to each of the defendants. DEP ordered the
Boston & Maine Corporation to create such an EMS in 2002 but that project, 7 years later,
remains uncompleted. (See Ex. L) Additional responsibilities of the monitor would include:

a. The monitor would assist the defendants in developing internal environmental
compliance controls and procedures to prevent future violations of the law and monitor
the effectiveness of the procedures implemented;

b. The monitor would submit quarterly reports to DEP, with copies to the defendants,
regarding the defendants’ compliance and cooperation regarding environmental matters;

c. The monitor would immediately communicate any compliance issues to DEP so that DEP
can provide appropriate guidance or take any necessary corrective action;

d. The monitor and the defendants would review and inventory all of oil and hazardous
material in the defendants’ control including both their use and their transport, and
oversee deadlines for remediation of hazardous waste sites already in the compliance
process;

e. The monitor would ensure that the defendants have trained all personnel in the area of
spill reporting and response procedures, including ensuring that new employees get
trained and how annual refreshers are handled;

f. The monitor would establish an independent data collection point where all releases of oil
and hazardous material by the defendants is called in and logged at this independent
entity to show that they are reporting as required.

Conclusion
For all these reasons, the Commonwealth respectfully requests that this Honorable Court
sentence each defendant on one count to pay the maximum penalty of $100,000 (a combined
total of $400,000), and that the Court impose the maximum penalty on each defendant on the
second count, but suspend that penalty for a period of three years during which each defendant
would be on probation with the condition that the defendants be required to pay for the cost of an independent environmental monitor who will be responsible for overseeing their probation
during the three years.

Respectfully Submitted,
MARTHA COAKLEY
ATTORNEY GENERAL
By: ___________________________________
Andrew Rainer, Chief (BBO # 542067)
Wendoly Ortiz Langlois, AAG (BBO # 654442)
Environmental Crimes Strike Force
Office of the Attorney General
One Ashburton Place, 19th Floor
Boston, MA 02108
(617) 727-2200
Date: March 30, 2009