Alumina Inc: Company Analysis

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is required to establish the concentrations of contaminants that are permitted in public drinking-water systems. A public water system is defined by EPA as a “system for the provision to the public of water for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances, if such system has at least fifteen service connections or regularly serves at least twenty-five individuals” (63 Fed. Reg. 41940 [1998]). Section 1412 of the act, as amended in 1986, requires EPA to publish maximum-contaminant-level goals (MCLGs) and promulgate national primary drinking-water regulations (maximum contaminant levels [MCLs]) for contaminants in drinking water that might cause

The general population of the State of Georgia are reliant upon the waterways, streams, lakes, and subsurface waters for open and private water supply, and agrarian, modern, and recreational employments. The Georgia Water Quality Control Act (WQCA) (O.C.G.A. § 12-5-2) represents the effects on the water amount and quality inside the State of Georgia. The Environmental Protection Division (EPD) of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is charged to build up and keep up the quality and amount of Georgia's water assets (O.C.G.A § 12-5-21(b)). It is Georgia's arrangement that water assets be used judiciously for the most extreme advantage of the general population, keeping in mind the end goal to reestablish and keep up a sensible level of

In Jan. 2011, the EPA decided to veto the dumping of waste from the Spruce No. 1 Mine. But the agency’s efforts have so far been rebuffed by the courts as an overreach: Under the weird legal regime that governs mining, it’s the Army Corps of Engineers, not the EPA, which has the ultimate say-so over those permits. In 2012, the D.C. district court ruled that EPA lacked authority to veto the permit after the Corps had issued it. However, in fact EPA's decision is based on evidence from scientific research on serious environmental harm from mining. In May 2013, a coalition of Appalachian and environmental groups petitioned the EPA to set a numeric water quality standard under the Clean Water Act to protect streams from pollution caused by mountaintop removal mining . They claimed that “State politics and industry pressure have so far failed to end this pollution without such a standard and more and more streams and communities who rely on those waters are left vulnerable. We need EPA to act now.” The EPA’s authority over the Clean Water Act in respect to Spruce Mine No. 1 was finally affirmed by the Supreme Court in March 2014.

The paper provides vital information on the implementation of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and how the act has served as the hallmark for hazardous waste management in the United States. Created in the late 1970s, the RCRA has provided generators of hazardous with policy guidelines and how these processes are implemented to protect public health. As an article review, this paper will address the implementation and the challenges associated with the RCRA and how the Act continues to experienced tremendous changes since its foundation. The paper will also examine the RCRA contingency plan that seeks to address and minimize public health hazards in the environment.

Recently, a contractor working for the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) unintentionally released 3 million gallons of toxic mine waste into the Animas River in the Mountain West state of Colorado. Right now, people in the US are debating the efficacy of the EPA (the right-wing is using the spill as anti-government propaganda) and the noxious aftermath the spill will undoubtedly have on local economies, communities and ecosystems.

Residents complain that the waste is making the water unsafe for families and their children, and is killing water life and vegetation downstream. Plant managers state that they are doing nothing wrong and are meeting all legal and regulatory requirements. Are the manufacturer's actions ethical? Discuss the reasoning for your opinion. Describe two steps the manufacturer can take to improve their business ethics? (4 Marks)

The ethical issues that were identified in the case study of Guerrilla Government in EPA’s Seattle Regional Office were cumbersome. The first of many to create unethical situations was the administrator of EPA’s Seattle regional office in 1981, John Spencer. His staff remembers his tenure for all the unethical actions he took such as using tax payer’s money to buy a membership for the EPA in the Chamber of Commerce (O’Leary, 2014 p. 48). His actions continued even after numerous attempts to advise him that his actions were against federal guidelines and caused serious conflict of interest questions. He also allegedly took several personal trips to Alaska to handle

Loblaw Companies Limited is the leader of Canada’s food and pharmacy, their independently-operated stores, food and household products as well as pharmacies can be found in every Canadian’s neighborhoods.

An effective corporate governance regime includes prosecution for individuals who conduct unethical or illegal acts in the name of the enterprise [4]. Why so that there were no discussions in regards to the person/s responsible for dumping pollutants in the adjacent stream? Wasn’t the disposal unethical enough to violate the name of the enterprise? The management’s failure to recognize that such action ruins the reputation of the company is ineffective itself.

In August, presiding U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth issued an opinion stating the EPA’s “failure to deny the allegations that personal accounts were being used to conduct official business leaves open the possibility that they were.” Accompanying the opinion was an order permitting Landmark to conduct discovery limited to the following issues: whether and to what extent the EPA administrator, deputy administrator and/or chief of staff utilized personal e-mail accounts to conduct official business during the relevant time periods and whether the EPA intentionally excluded those personnel from the FOIA request response.

For us the dream is individually defined. It may be that moment of escape on

This document is an summary introduction of XYZ Technologies Inc. this summary represents the different details about the company as a whole and it provides details about what the company does, how it works and the skills and products that it offers to its customers. This document also presents a legal strategy to assist XYZ Technologies Inc with its eCommerce business practice. The document includes XYZ’s business formation, business models. The document also discusses details about the practice of XYZ Technologies Inc’s Intellectual property and asset protection. The document also goes over the labor and employment agreement where we define the type of workers that work for the company and how the legal aspect of the Internet usage policy for the purpose of promoting employee diversification. The document also presents a section of transactional law. And finally the last section discusses the regulatory, compliance and liability issues within XYZ Company.

Frank, manager of corporate reporting at Amalgamated Forest Products, has threatened to go public with information regarding a falsified report on the effect of effluent controls on the discharge of wastewater from pulp and paper companies, which has angered his boss, Jim McIntosh and the company’s president, Jim Letourneau. Letourneau was to testify before a legislative subcommittee the following week and use the report, “Endangered Species: The Pulp and Paper Industry in the Upper Peninsula”, to give the industry’s perspective on proposed legislation. The section of the report which contained the falsified financial information was prepared by Tina

Within the Gilbane Gold case, the major problem is the contribution of water pollution by dumping chemicals to speed production for Z CORP. However, there is doubt as to what extent the company violated city regulations. Tom Richards believes that Z-CORP broke regulations repeatedly but Professor Massin believes that it is not solid evidence. Part of the problem is that two different tests are involved: an older and a less sensitive test which does not break regulations but there is also the newer and more sensitive one which does. The newer test was said that the company just broke city regulations, but not by a large amount.

There primary function of Clean Water Act is to devise the fundamental structure to control expulsion of polluted material into the U.S waters and implementing quality principles for surface water. In the light of this Act, several pollution control programs have been implemented by Environmental Protection Agency comprising developing standards against water wastage for manufacturing firms (Stern & Kollikkathara, 2008). It has also defined principles interrelated to quality of water for all pollutants in surface water. Clean Water Act states, it’s illegal to dispose off any contaminant from any point source into negotiable water without any legal authorization.