FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE ENR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1996 (202) 616-2771 TDD (202) 514-1888 TOP CORPORATE OFFICIALS INDICTED FOR ENVIRONMENTAL CRIMES IN SLAUGHTERHOUSE POLLUTION FALSIFICATION AND DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ORDERED IN $3 MILLION CASE AGAINST SOUTH DAKOTA MEATPACKING COMPANY WASHINGTON D.C. -- A Justice Department probe into environmental crimes at a South Dakota slaughterhouse yielded new indictments today of two top corporate officials for illegal discharges of slaughterhouse waste and a wide-ranging conspiracy which included falsifying required reports to the Environmental Protection Agency. Timothy J. Sinskey, former Senior Vice-President and head of the Sioux Falls Division for John Morrell and Company, was charged with 30 counts of violating the Clean Water Act. Wayne Kumm, the Division's plant engineer, was charged with 17 counts. Both defendants pleaded not guilty before United States Magistrate Judge Mark Marshall in Sioux Falls. Sinskey and Kumm are charged with a conspiracy that involved nearly eight years of illegal dumping of slaughterhouse waste into the Big Sioux River. In addition, Sinskey has been charged with deliberately falsifying monthly discharge monitoring reports submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency to cover up the pollution. According to the indictment, Sinskey asked "Who's going to jail this month?" when he signed the false reports. Kumm allegedly tried to prevent the departure of the assistant manager of the company's waste water treatment plant, Barry M. Milbauer, who resigned because of the pollution, by stating that Milbauer could be promoted to a position overseeing the company's environmental program and had been doing "exactly what we want you to do." Company documents detailing the pollution were to be destroyed after being read by company officials. Today's indictments follow Morrell's guilty pleas on February 7, 1996 to six counts of dumping slaughterhouse waste into the Big Sioux River. Morrell will pay a $2 million criminal fine and pay another $1 million to establish a local environmental cleanup fund, if the plea agreement is approved by the court. "These individuals broke the law and then hid their guilt from federal investigators," said Lois J. Schiffer, Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Environment and Natural Resources Division. "The indictment makes it clear that such behavior will be prosecuted swiftly and forcefully." "This case demonstrates that companies and individuals who conspire to pollute the environment and then lie about what they have done will be held criminally responsible. The indictment charges that senior management placed corporate profits first and turned a blind eye to the environment," said Karen Schreier, United States Attorney for South Dakota. In January 1995, Ronald E. Greenwood and Barry M. Milbauer, the former manager and assistant manager of Morrell's wastewater treatment plant, pleaded guilty to conspiracy to violate the Clean Water Act. The prosecution began after a voluntary disclosure to the government by Chiquita Brands, International, which was the parent corporation of Morrell until December 1995, when Morrell -- one of the largest employers in South Dakota -- was sold to Smithfield Foods, Inc., of Virginia. The Justice Department has a policy which encourages corporations to make disclosures of environmental violations. Under the policy, various factors including a company's cooperation, prompt disclosure and correction of the violation are taken into consideration by prosecutors. Schiffer described the government's non-prosecution of Chiquita as "a good example of the Department's policy to encourage voluntary disclosure of environmental violations. The Justice Department's approach allows prosecutors to distinguish between a company like Chiquita that made a relatively prompt disclosure from a company like Morrell that is charged with concealing its conduct for years." In contrast, Schreier explained that "Morrell has pleaded guilty to failing to disclose or stop the violations during an eight year period, committing more than 100 permit violations, knowingly submitting false reports to EPA, deliberately rigging sampling tests to get desired results and conceal violations, and refusing to expend funds necessary to correct the problem and bring the plant into compliance." Recent state and federal legislative proposals have sought to limit the power of the government to learn of environmental violations, including criminal offenses. Some of these bills would create an evidentiary privilege for violations uncovered in internal company audits, thus allowing offenders to keep both their past misconduct and ongoing pollution from the government and public. Other proposed legislation would immunize polluters who eventually disclose regardless of how deliberate the act, the delay in disclosure, or the amount of harm to human health and the environment. "These bills are fatally flawed because they would take prosecutorial discretion out of the hands of prosecutors and allow a company such as Morrell to go unpunished," added Schiffer. "Even when non-prosecution against a reporting company or individual is warranted, that should not immunize all individuals engaged in the criminal conduct." Today's indictment charges the commission of 177 overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy, including: þ Sinskey and Kumm authorized rigged sampling methods and results to conceal violations; þ Internal memos to senior corporate officials, which revealed deliberate, ongoing pollution, directed the recipient to destroy the memo after it was read; þ Internal company memos warned of possible environmental harm, "fish kills" and EPA investigation. þ Morrell dumped illegally on 137 days between August 1991 and December 1992; þ Morrell submitted false reports to EPA for 16 out of 17 months, Sinskey signed 13 of these reports; þ Morrell's discharges of ammonia nitrogen were as much as 40 times greater than amounts allowed by their EPA permit; Schiffer and Schreier commended the Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigative Division Region VIII for its work on the case. The case is being prosecuted jointly by the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Department of Justice Environmental Crimes Section. An indictment represents charges brought by the Department of Justice and is not itself evidence. As in all criminal cases, the government has the burden proving criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt. ### 96-58