Introduction
When disposing waste materials some companies do not adhere to appropriate waste management policies; when the above happens, it leads to environmental pollution. Waste management is important in modern business environment as the public, government, and international bodies have become sensitive on how companies dispose their wastes. Environments supported by legal legislations are in the forefront advocating for effective waste management programs within organizations as it reduces pollution. In the recent past, there have been cases that have been reported and charged against United States environmental conservation acts. This paper discusses some of the recent waste management cases that have been reported and decided in the United States.
People of the State Of Illinois (Complainant) V/S Kraft Foods Global, Inc. (Respondent)
In 2007 Kraft Foods Global Inc simply referred to as Kraft found itself in the docks after a case against its waste discharge in 2005 was filed by Office of the Attorney General (the office was acting on behalf of people of Illinois). according to the case, Kraft was accused that in 2005, waste waters from its processing unit and manufacturing/production facility located at 1555 West Ogden Avenue, Naperville, DuPage County has disposed waste water against the demand of Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5; the case was in court for about three years. On January 7, 2010, Kraft offered to pay for the damages paid to the tune of $84,570; this was the amount that Illinois Pollution Control Board accepted to settle the case.
Although the amount of fine can be said to be substantial, the main problem that the ruling had was how the judges came up with the damages cost. Again the amount never got to the real people who had been affected by the spillage and damage, it never looked into the health implications that the inappropriate waste disposal had on the people.
U.S. Silver Corporation v/s EAP
In the case of U.S. Silver Corporation, the company violated in Idaho’s Silver Valley which was a violation of Clean Water Act; in the case U.S. Silver Corporation had discharged mine tailing and exceedances that were highly rich in Copper, Lead and Mercury without seeking the approval of the council and neither did they not dispose the materials according to the international standards of waste disposal. The discharge of the materials was said to have occurred in the years 2003 to 2007; when completing the case the judge agreed to give a penalty of $87,000 ton May 17, 2011 U.S. Silver Corporation which it accepted to settle.
In the case the penalty was sufficient to deter such an occurrence, the only challenge that can be experienced is that those people who have suffered as a result of the wastes were not considered in the package to be compensated or their case looked into by the government.
City of Farmington, MO V/S EAP
According to the case, the City of Farmington, MO was accused of having discharged waste water with high nickel levels in sewage sludge; the waters were also having high volumes of Ammonia for about 266 occasions between October 2006 and November 2008, according to the case, the water dispensed had nickel rates ranging from 59 to 791% above the regulatory level of 420 milligrams per kilogram. The inappropriate waste management policy occurred in Madison, Perry, St. Francois and St. Genevieve counties, which are mostly agricultural land and the waste resulted to damage and negative effect on farming in over 660 acres of farming land.
When deciding the case, judges considered National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits and the Clean Water Act and its amendments and additions that had been suggested on February 1 2010; in light with the changes and the legislation, it was decided that the city could pay damages of $61,566 which could cover the costs incurred.
The damage that was done by the council was far and much reaching than the penalty that was placed on it, this is an indication of the deficiency that legal laws have in punishing those people who are not willing to conserve the environment. In my thinking and recommendations, when determining the penalty that should be changed to polluter, the long term and short term effect of the problem should be considered; for example, in this case there is high possibility that the soils in the region where affected negatively and could hardly produce as high as it used to be.
Mack Trucks, Inc. – Washington County
In the case of Mack Trucks, Inc. – Washington County, Mack Trucks, Inc had emitted gaseous products into the atmosphere that were not favorable to the environment in its plant at Hagerstown; with the pollution Mack Trucks, Inc polluted the air quality with the engine and transmissions in the plant. The country air pollution department on May 5th 2011 sorted to handle and solve the case when they implanted a penalty of $35,000 to the company.
Looking at the amount of the penalty, the country was lenient; the pollution that the plant caused is likely to have long lasting impact on the people, this would have necessitated the adoption of a better system that would address any effect as a result in the future.
Julia Hurley – La Plata, Charles County
According to the case, Julia Hurley discharged waste water to a defective septic tank located at Robin Road; the action by the company was seen as a violation of Clean Water Fund act; the net penalty that was charged as a result was $1,000; considering the case and the intention that the Julia Hurley had the penalty is good enough to deter any such future occurrences.
Dixie Construction Company, Inc. – Harford County
According to this case, Dixie Construction Company, Inc failed to enact effective measures to maintain sediments at their operational base located at APG Belgian Block Corse; in the case the company was accused of placing the sediments in a place likely to cause damages of water in the city. Due to the effect, the company was fined $4,200 on March 14 2011; the amount that was charged was sufficient to cater for any such other occurrences in the future.
Conclusion
When a company disposes its wastes effectively it benefits from customers loyalty; customer loyalty is when customers feel that they like and appreciates a firm’s product. It builds a positive attitude toward company’s products. With increased awareness, the adoption of clean technology and effective waste management policies should be in the center stage of organizations. In the past, different states, counties, and local governments have charged individuals and companies with violation of waste management and environment pollution rules.
Reference List
Ernesto, Zedillo. 2008. Global Warming: Looking Beyond Kyoto. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.
Liz, Kay. 2011. Maryland environmental enforcement actions: Naughty Businesses of the Week. Online. Web.
Penwell. 2011. U.S. Silver pays penalty for wastewater discharge violations in Idaho’s Silver Valley. Web.
Schulte, John. 2000. Globalization: A Critical Introduction. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Scriven-Young, Dave. 2011. State Enforcement Action Alleging Wastewater Discharge Violations Settled for $84,570. Web.
SEATTLE. 2011. U.S. addresses sewage discharge violations in Unalaska. Web.