In alternative dispute resolution (ADR), the informal process of resolving disputes, each party involved mutually agrees to meet with a professional third party to resolve the dispute constructively and efficiently rather than go to court. Through ADR, parties are encouraged to enter into negotiations that lead to the timely resolution of their dispute. The most common forms of ADR are mediation and arbitration. Although ADR is usually conducted on a voluntary basis, courts sometimes require it before the case is brought to court. Since the political and civil unrest of the 1960s, there has been rapid growth in ADR in the United States. New laws protecting individual rights and a lack of tolerance for discrimination led more people to file lawsuits. The significant increase in lawsuits has overburdened the justice system with long delays. Mediation and arbitration have become more popular as they have relieved some of the pressure on the justice system. (Spangler, 2003) Today, ADR is used in several types of disputes in the United States. An example of successful conflict resolution involved the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and NIBCO, Inc. This led to a $750,000 settlement in 1996. The dispute lasted more than two years and was close to an administrative hearing and possible litigation. NIBCO is "a worldwide manufacturer of flow control products for the residential, commercial, industrial, and irrigation markets. (NIBCO, Inc., 2007, 1) NIBCO products are manufactured by pouring molten brass into molds of sand. The sand is then contaminated with lead and cadmium leaching from the brass. At the Nacogdoches, Texas plant, NIBCO added iron fillings to the sand and then disposed of it in a municipal landfill toxicity characteristics leaching procedure, the EPA determined that the sand was a hazardous waste. The EPA also concluded that NIBCO was in violation of RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act) regulations because the sand had not been treated with a permit. NIBCO disagreed. Their position stated that sand treatment was part of the manufacturing process and not a waste; therefore, the treated sand was not a hazardous waste. Under the authority of RCRA, EPA filed an administrative enforcement action seeking injunctive relief and a $2.2 million penalty from NIBCO. Both sides prepared their case before an administrative law judge. As the hearing date approached, NIBCO was willing to change its treatment and disposal procedures. However, both sides failed to agree on the amount of the fine. NIBCO suggested mediation to avoid expense and uncertainty of the outcome of the hearing.