Acceptable risk

HOW MUCH RISK IS ACCEPTABLE?

Defined acceptable risk

Where is it applicable?

At work
place
InBy
transport
product
and
consumption
public life

Product
consumption

Acceptable risk : Cigarette

increases the lifetime risk
companiesCigarette
by 50%

Public Life

Government products and

services = safe

At workplace

How much is then

acceptable?

POLLUTION AND ITS

CONTROL

BENEFITS OF POLLUTION CONTROL

TO BUSINESSES

PRICE BASED
BENEFITS
Lower raw material
and labour costs
Subsidies and lower
taxes
Lower legal costs

SOCIAL BENEFITS
Greater claim on
access to resources
(rights based benefit)
Better Public Image
Assumed longer term
availability of
resources.

REGULATION IN INDIA

Central Pollution Control Board is the apex organisation in India in

the field of pollution control, as a technical wing ofMinistry of
Environment, Forests and Climate Change.

It has responsibilities to conduct monitoring of water and air

quality, and maintains monitoring data. The agency also works
with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of
voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy conservation
efforts.

REGULATION IN INDIA

Air Pollution: CPCB runs nation-wide programs of ambient air quality

monitoring known as National Air Quality Monitoring Programme
(NAMP). Under N.A.M.P., four air pollutants viz., Sulphur Dioxide
(SO2), Oxides of Nitrogen as NO2, Suspended Particulate Matter
(SPM) and Respirable Suspended Particulate Matter (RSPM/ PM10)
have been identified for regular monitoring at all the locations.

Water Pollution: CPCB, in collaboration with various SPCBs has

established a nationwide system of water quality management.
Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS), Monitoring of Indian
National Aquatic Resources System (MINARS) and Yamuna Action
Plan (YAP) are three tiers of inland water monitoring system.

CASE STUDY: COCA COLA WATER

EXPLOITATION
THE PROBLEM:

In 2000, Coca Cola opened a bottling plant in a small district of

Kerala.

Coca Cola drew around 510,000 litres of water each day from
boreholes and open wells. For every 3.75 litres of water used by
the plant, it produced one litre of product and a large amount of
waste water.

CASE STUDY
Two years after production began protest by local residents became
common place. Local communities complained that water pollution
and extreme water shortages were endangering their lives

CASE STUDY
THE SETTLEMENT:

After conducting an enquiry, the Gram Panchayat refused renewal of

Coca-Colas licence to operate on the grounds that it was not in the
public interest to renew the licence in 2003.

The decision was challenged in the High Court. The High Court ordered
the plant to stop drawing the groundwater within a month, ruling that
the amount of water extracted by the plant was illegal. But at the same
time, it ordered the Village Council to renew the licence and not
interfere with the functioning of the Company as long as it was not
extracting the prohibited ground water.

After a long drawn legal battle, Coca Cola was forced to close down its
factory but till date, the afflicted demand compensation for the harm
caused to them.

CONTROLLING POLLUTION
DESIGN

RESOURE
EFFICIENCY

MATERIAL
REUSE

PROCESS
CHANGE OR
ELIMINATIO
N

MATERIAL
SUBSTITUTI
ON

Environmental Harm

Definition

Environmental harm is a broadly-defined concept which may cover many

different types of conduct affecting the environment.

According to section 3A(2) of the Environment Protection Act Environmental

harm is defined as harm to the environment involving damage to native
vegetation or the habitat or native animals, or an alteration of the environment to
its detriment or degradation.

It is an offence under the EP Act to cause material environmental harm or

serious environmental harm.

Material environmental harm - Includes environmental harm that is neither trivial nor negligible
or which results in damage or losses exceeding $20,000.

Serious environmental harm - Includes environmental harm that is irreversible, high impact or
wide-spread or occurs in an area of high conservation value. Environmental harm resulting in
damage or losses exceeding $100,000 is also classified as serious environmental harm.

Case Study
11th December 2005 - Buncefield, England

A large tank at an oil-products storage depot overfilled with petrol due to the
gauge enabling the operation to be monitored becoming stuck and an independent
high-level switch that closed down operations automatically if the tank was
overfilled was inoperable.

Overflowing petrol formed a vapour cloud that ignited, causing a blast that
measured 2.4 on the Richter scale

Fire, which included 20 large fuel tanks, burned for 5 days

Traditional Damage

0 fatalities (incident occurred early Sunday morning)

43 people injured

20 businesses employing 400 people destroyed

60 businesses employing 3,500 people badly damaged

Several homes destroyed and many other buildings damaged

Losses
Total Losses = 894m (1.113 billion)

Compensation Claims = 625m

Industry Losses = 245m

Competent authority and governmental response measures = 15m

Emergency response costs including fire and rescue service = 7m

Alternative sourcing of drinking water = 2m

Environmental Damage

Air pollution: Minimal due to nearly complete combustion, buoyancy of high plume and
favourable weather conditions

Water pollution: 786 litres of foam concentrate containing zinc and perfluorooctane sulfonate
(PFOS) released. 68 million litres of fire fighting water used.

Groundwater pollution in an area of over one hectare

Offenders and Penalties

Total fines and costs: 9.5 million

Hertfordshire Oil Storage Ltd (HOSL) 2.45 million

Total UK 5.2 million

British Pipeline Agency 780,000

PPROACHES TO PRODUCT SAFET

Caveat Emptor
Implied Warranty Negligence
Approach of Merchantability Approach

Strict Product Liabilit

CAVEAT EMPTOR APPROACH

PPROACHES TO PRODUCT SAFET

Caveat Emptor
Implied Warranty Negligence
Approach of Merchantability Approach

Strict Product Liabilit

IMPLIED WARRANTY OF
MERCHANTABILITY
That a product will:
1. Pass without objection in the trade
2. Be of uniform quality and quantity
3. Be fit for its ordinary purposes
4. Be adequately packaged and labeled
5. Conform to its labels

PPROACHES TO PRODUCT SAFET

Caveat Emptor
Implied Warranty Negligence
Approach of Merchantability Approach

Strict Product Liabilit

PPROACHES TO PRODUCT SAFET

Caveat Emptor
Implied Warranty Negligence
Approach of Merchantability Approach

Strict Product Liabilit

THANK YOU!