The article ‘electroplater who claims he has no hazardous waste’ is a case that addresses one of the pressing issues related to waste management (Admin3, 2016). In most production companies dealing with toxic waste products, the owners sometimes improperly store the used containers or materials, claiming that they would reuse them, but the reality is that they try to evade the costs of waste disposal management (Srivastava, 2007). In that case, this case illustrates how the owner of an electroplating company refuses to invest on proper waste management, storing the waste products recklessly within the company’s building (Admin3, 2016). The company’s owner tries to evade costs of proper waste management by accumulating waste products within the company’sbuilding, which then increases the risks in terms of health, injuries and environmental sustainability at large.
Several issues are identified in this case in relation to proper waste management. One, upon investigation, it is noted that chemical containersare found exposed recklessly within the building putting the employees at great risks of getting injured or event contamination (Admin3, 2016). The company’s owner stores the containers within the building claiming they will be reused in the future, which is far from the truth. The truth is he does that to evade the cost of proper disposal. The case also identifies another issue within the electroplating company, which is lack of proper safety and health precautions (Admin3, 2016). The investigation on the company’s operations indicates presence of toxic fumes, which cause serious respiratory problems among the employees. The electroplating tanks are not properly constructed and installed thus increasing the safety risks, such as gases explosions and release of lethal fumes.
Such as company needs to be shut down with immediate effect due to the fact that it poses great environmental, safety and health risks to both the people working there and the larger society as well. The action of OSHA to shut the company down is therefore the best in a situation like this regardless the cost of solving the damage (Admin3, 2016). The owner’s claim that the containers within the building did not contain waste is no a justifiable reason for such an action. The only answer to the company’s reckless waste disposal is lack of proper management.
There are other cases where companies refused to dispose their waste materials and containers, claiming that they would reuse them in the future only to evade the cost of proper disposal. In an article,’Wal-Mart pleads guilty to dumping hazardous waste’, which was published on 28th May 2013, the similar issue is investigated whereby the companies’ poor waste management is illustrated (O’Donnell, 2013). In cases heard in San Francisco and Los Angeles, Wal-Mart was found guilty on a number of counts related to the violation of Clean Water Act whereby the company was accused of disposing and handling materials considered being hazardous across the US. The article indicates that, due to lack of proper waste management program, the company mishandled its waste products, especially the used plastic bags, pesticides and other materials (O’Donnell, 2013). For instance, in Kansas City, the company mishandled the plastic bags that were returned by the company thus violating the federals law in practice. Lack of proper employees’ training on better waste management, and lack of good policies and decisions on waste disposal investments are considered to be the major causes of this issue. Similar to the electroplating company, Wal-Mart also incurred huge liability costs as fines and compensations for the mess caused.
Admin3. (2016). Case study.USA online essays.Retrieved from https://usaonlineessays.com/case-study-147/.
O’Donnell, J. (2013). Wal-Mart pleads guilty to dumping hazardous waste. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/05/28/wal-mart-waste/2366999/.
Srivastava, S. K. (2007). Green supply‐chain management: a state‐of‐the‐art literature review. International journal of management reviews, 9(1), 53-80.