Alumna

... was mentioned earlier. Deciding between fighting litigation and using an ADR was critical to the survival and marketing edge Alumina has in the aluminum products industry. When two parties initially adopt extreme and unreasonable positions, it is almost impossible for the situation to be rectified using exclusively negotiation or settlement. Bates is claiming her daughter's leukemia caused by the contact she had with a toxic substance found within her drinking water. That substance, she claims, was generated through the negligence of Alumina. As with most toxic tort cases (www-space.arc.nasa.gov/~astrochm/PAHs.html) "a plaintiff complaining of toxic exposure is not obligated to prove his or her case "beyond a reasonable doubt". Instead, he or she must only prove that "his or her claims are merely more likely true than not." Since the daughter is the same age as the previous Alumina EPA violation, there would be a notable correlation between the water pollutants, Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAH), released by Alumina and the existing leukemia. The group agreed that an alternative dispute resolution method (ADR) was the best method to employ since litigation is not always the best way to settle disputes. Using a neutral third party during the arbitration ...

.. One reason for this is its practicality, given the difficulty in some cases of identifying and proving environmental harm. Another reason is that the right to prosecution in English law has occasionally been restricted. Although this is becoming less common, a good example of this restriction is in relation to water pollution. Under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Acts[14], which created a system of consents for discharges to water and a general pollution offence in similar terms to the Water Resources Act 1991 (s.85). A prosecution under the River Acts could only be brought by a water authority, or with the consent of the Attorney-General. However, this restriction was removed by the Control of Pollution Act 1974 and now there is a right of private prosecution for all basic water pollution offences. The most common use of the criminal law is in a subsidiary role to the regulators. Numerous criminal offences consist purely of ignoring the dictates of the regulatory body, and no direct act of pollution has to be committed. The Water Resources Act 1991[15] states that it is a criminal offence to discharge trade or sewage waste without, or in breach of, a consent from the Environment