Score:   1
Docket Number:   CD-CA  2:18-cr-00448
Case Name:   USA v. CG Roxane LLC et al
  Press Releases:
          LOS ANGELES – A federal grand jury returned a 16-count indictment yesterday charging three companies, including the company that produces bottled water under the name “Crystal Geyser,” with violating the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”) and the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (“HMTA”). The charges center on the alleged failure of the defendants to disclose information regarding arsenic in wastewater transported from Crystal Geyser’s Olancha, California, facility in March and May 2015.

          The indictment charges three companies:



CG Roxane, LLC (“Crystal Geyser”), a limited liability corporation that does business under the name “Crystal Geyser” and produces bottled drinking water in Olancha, California;





United Pumping Services, Inc. (“United Pumping”), a corporation located in the City of Industry that provides transportation services for customers needing transportation of hazardous and nonhazardous waste; and





United Storm Water, Inc. (“United Storm Water”), a corporation located in the City of Industry that provided environmental and lake draining services.



          The investigation and indictment in this case focused on alleged violations involving Crystal Geyser’s wastewater, not the safety or quality of Crystal Geyser’s bottled water.

          According to the indictment, in producing its bottled water, Crystal Geyser would draw water from natural sources that contained naturally occurring arsenic. Crystal Geyser would use sand filters to reduce the concentration of arsenic so that the water met federal drinking water standards. To maintain the effectiveness of the sand filters, Crystal Geyser would regenerate them by back-flushing a hydroxide and water solution through the sand filters, causing the filters to release arsenic into the hydroxide and water solution. This process would generate thousands of gallons of arsenic-contaminated wastewater.

          The indictment alleges that Crystal Geyser discharged the arsenic-contaminated wastewater into a nearby manmade pond which Crystal Geyser called “the Arsenic Pond.”  In September 2014, testing by the California Department of Toxic Substances Control (“DTSC”) showed that the wastewater stored in the Arsenic Pond constituted a hazardous waste. In October 2014, DTSC testing also showed that arsenic-contaminated wastewater generated by the regeneration process was a hazardous waste. After October 2014, Crystal Geyser stopped discharging regeneration wastewater into the Arsenic Pond.

          The indictment further alleges that, in March 2015, Crystal Geyser regenerated and back-flushed the sand filters and, it hired United Pumping and United Storm Water to transport the resulting several thousand gallons of high pH, arsenic-contaminated wastewater to a hazardous waste facility in Los Angeles County. In transporting that hazardous wastewater, the defendants utilized manifests that did not disclose any information about the arsenic content of the wastewater, contrary to law.

          According to the indictment, after that March regeneration, in April 2015, DTSC informed Crystal Geyser that the wastewater in the Arsenic Pond constituted a hazardous waste and instructed Crystal Geyser to remove that wastewater from the Arsenic Pond and to transport it, using a hazardous waste manifest, to an authorized facility permitted to accept that specific type of hazardous waste.

          In May 2015, Crystal Geyser again hired United Pumping and United Storm Water, this time to drain and transport the Arsenic Pond. United Pumping and United Storm Water transported the contents of the Arsenic Pond to a facility in Fontana, California despite the fact that that facility was not permitted to treat hazardous waste. According to the indictment, Crystal Geyser, United Pumping, and United Storm Water transported the contents of the Arsenic Pond using non-hazardous waste manifests and did not identify the arsenic in the wastewater, even though they knew that the water constituted arsenic hazardous waste.

          “Our nation’s environmental laws are specifically designed to ensure that hazardous wastes are properly handled from beginning to end – from the point of generation to the point of disposal,” said United States Attorney Nick Hanna. “The alleged behavior of the three companies charged in this indictment undermines that important objective and jeopardizes the safety of our community.”

          Each of the defendants faces a statutory maximum fine of $8 million if convicted on all of the 16 counts in the indictment.

         “EPA and its law enforcement partners are committed to the protection of public health and safety,” said Special Agent-in-Charge Jay M. Green of EPA’s criminal enforcement program in California.  “This case was opened due to the hazards posed by illegal management and transportation of hazardous wastes. Today’s charges demonstrate that those who refuse to comply with the law will be held to account and prosecuted.”

          An indictment contains allegations that a defendant has committed a crime. Every defendant is presumed to be innocent until and unless proven guilty in court.

          The investigation in this matter is being conducted by the United States Environmental Protection Agency Criminal Investigations Division and the United States Department of Transportation’s Office of Inspector General, with assistance from the California Department of Toxic Substances Control.

         This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorneys Dennis Mitchell and Erik M. Silber of the Environmental and Community Safety Crimes Section.

Docket (0 Docs):   https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1q5gk_59KSnX3C6Twbb0jxjuBFGzzqKcYOOEfAXyLlq0
  Last Updated: 2025-03-01 19:57:42 UTC
Description: The fiscal year of the data file obtained from the AOUSC
Format: YYYY

Description: The code of the federal judicial circuit where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the federal judicial district where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: The code of the district office where the case was located
Format: A2

Description: Docket number assigned by the district to the case
Format: A7

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which cannot be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A unique number assigned to each defendant in a case which can be modified by the court
Format: A3

Description: A sequential number indicating whether a case is an original proceeding or a reopen
Format: N5

Description: Case type associated with the current defendant record
Format: A2

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, defendant number, and reopen sequence number
Format: A18

Description: A concatenation of district, office, docket number, case type, and reopen sequence number
Format: A15

Description: The status of the defendant as assigned by the AOUSC
Format: A2

Description: A code indicating the fugitive status of a defendant
Format: A1

Description: The date upon which a defendant became a fugitive
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which a fugitive defendant was taken into custody
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date when a case was first docketed in the district court
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which proceedings in a case commenced on charges pending in the district court where the defendant appeared, or the date of the defendant’s felony-waiver of indictment
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code used to identify the nature of the proceeding
Format: N2

Description: The date when a defendant first appeared before a judicial officer in the district court where a charge was pending
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: A code indicating the type of legal counsel assigned to a defendant
Format: N2

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE1
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE1
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE1
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the second highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE2
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE2
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE2
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the third highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE3
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE3
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE3
Format: A3

Description: The title and section of the U.S. Code applicable to the offense committed which carried the fourth highest severity
Format: A20

Description: A code indicating the level of offense associated with FTITLE4
Format: N2

Description: The four digit AO offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: The four digit D2 offense code associated with FTITLE4
Format: A4

Description: A code indicating the severity associated with FTITLE4
Format: A3

Description: The FIPS code used to indicate the county or parish where an offense was committed
Format: A5

Description: The date of the last action taken on the record
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which judicial proceedings before the court concluded
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the final sentence is recorded on the docket
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The date upon which the case was closed
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: The total fine imposed at sentencing for all offenses of which the defendant was convicted and a fine was imposed
Format: N8

Description: A count of defendants filed including inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed excluding inter-district transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings commenced
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants filed whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated including interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated excluding interdistrict transfers
Format: N1

Description: A count of original proceedings terminated
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants terminated whose proceedings commenced by reopen, remand, appeal, or retrial
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period including long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: A count of defendants pending as of the last day of the period excluding long term fugitives
Format: N1

Description: The source from which the data were loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: A10

Description: A sequential number indicating the iteration of the defendant record
Format: N2

Description: The date the record was loaded into the AOUSC’s NewSTATS database
Format: YYYYMMDD

Description: Statistical year ID label on data file obtained from the AOUSC which represents termination year
Format: YYYY

Data imported from FJC Integrated Database
F U C K I N G P E D O S R E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E