You are on page 1of 44

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.

and maintains monitoring data. Forests and Climate Change. as a technical wing of Ministry of Environment.REGULATION IN INDIA  Central Pollution Control Board is the apex organisation in India in the field of pollution control. The agency also works with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts. .  It has responsibilities to conduct monitoring of water and air quality.

. Oxides of Nitrogen as NO2.  Water Pollution: CPCB. Monitoring of Indian National Aquatic Resources System (MINARS) and Yamuna Action Plan (YAP) are three tiers of inland water monitoring system. Global Environment Monitoring System (GEMS). Under N.P. four air pollutants viz..A. in collaboration with various SPCBs has established a nationwide system of water quality management.M.. Sulphur Dioxide (SO2).REGULATION IN INDIA  Air Pollution: CPCB runs nation-wide programs of ambient air quality monitoring known as National Air Quality Monitoring Programme (NAMP). Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM) and Respirable Suspended Particulate Matter (RSPM/ PM10) have been identified for regular monitoring at all the locations.

000 litres of water each day from boreholes and open wells.75 litres of water used by the plant. Coca Cola opened a bottling plant in a small district of Kerala. . it produced one litre of product and a large amount of waste water.  Coca Cola drew around 510.CASE STUDY: COCA COLA WATER EXPLOITATION THE PROBLEM:  In 2000. For every 3.

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

the afflicted demand compensation for the harm caused to them. Coca Cola was forced to close down its factory but till date. the Gram Panchayat refused renewal of Coca-Cola’s licence to operate on the grounds that it was not in the public interest to renew the licence in 2003. The High Court ordered the plant to stop drawing the groundwater within a month. .  After a long drawn legal battle. ruling that the amount of water extracted by the plant was illegal.CASE STUDY THE SETTLEMENT:  After conducting an enquiry. 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.  The decision was challenged in the High Court. But at the same time.

.

CONTROLLING POLLUTION DESIGN RESOURE EFFICIENCY MATERIAL REUSE PROCESS CHANGE OR ELIMINATIO N MATERIAL SUBSTITUTI ON .

Environmental Harm .

.  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.Definition  Environmental harm is a broadly-defined concept which may cover many different types of conduct affecting the environment. 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”.

 Serious environmental harm .Includes environmental harm that is irreversible.000 is also classified as “serious environmental harm”. Material environmental harm . high impact or wide-spread or occurs in an area of high conservation value.Includes environmental harm that is neither trivial nor negligible or which results in damage or losses exceeding $20. .000. Environmental harm resulting in damage or losses exceeding $100.

Case Study 11th December 2005 .  Overflowing petrol formed a vapour cloud that ignited.Buncefield. causing a blast that measured 2. 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.4 on the Richter scale  Fire. burned for 5 days . which included 20 large fuel tanks.

.

500 people badly damaged  Several homes destroyed and many other buildings damaged .Traditional Damage  0 fatalities (incident occurred early Sunday morning)  43 people injured  20 businesses employing 400 people destroyed  60 businesses employing 3.

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 .Losses Total Losses = £894m (€1.

68 million litres of fire fighting water used.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.  Groundwater pollution in an area of over one hectare .

2 million  British Pipeline Agency – £780.000 .Offenders and Penalties Total fines and costs: £9.45 million  Total UK – £5.5 million  Hertfordshire Oil Storage Ltd (HOSL) – £2.

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 .

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

.

.

.

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! .