Case study 1

TAJ

Taj Mahal, the world famous white-marbled monument

of love, is fast losing its sheen due to pollution, a
Parliamentary committee report has said.
The Committee, headed by Rajya Sabha MP Sitaram
Yechury, recommended that caution should be taken to
retain the original glory of the Taj, which is turning
yellow day by day.
"The Committee expresses its concern that Taj Mahal,
the world famous monument at Agra is becoming
yellowish due to deposition of Suspended Particulate
Matter (SPM)," its report, which was tabled in
Parliament, said.
It recommended that the Archaeological Survey of India
(ASI) while undertaking any conservation activity at Taj
Mahal take abundant cautions to retain the original
glory of the shimmering white marble used in this.
The Air Pollution Monitoring Laboratory at Agra, has
found that the level of air pollutants -- Sulphur-di-oxide
and Nitrus Oxide gases -- are generally permissible
limits whereas the suspended particulate matter is
always at a very high level except during the rainy
season, it said.
The laboratory is continuously monitoring the ambient
air quality in and around Taj Mahal to study the possible
impact of air pollutant on the monument and to
formulate conservation measures accordingly.
"The deposition of SPM on the shimmering white
marble of the Taj Mahal imparts yellow tinge to the
marble surface," the report said.
"To restore the pristine glory of the Taj Mahal, as a
conservation measure, the clay pack treatment which is
non-corrosive and non-abrasive is carried out for the
removal of the acretionary deposits," The Committee
said.
I am not a terribly romantic person, but on my bucket
list of things to do before I die is to see the Taj Mahal.
And if I can be quite honest, I have a secret fantasy that
when I do see it, the man I’m with will propose to me.
This is all true.
So, imagine my horror when I found out that one of
the most beautiful and romantic monuments in the
world, is turning yellow because of air and water
pollution!

A new survey, commissioned by India’s Ministry of

Environment, found that the pollution levels in the
city of Agra, home of the Taj Mahal, have risen as
a result of petrol fumes, traffic and increased
population. The pollution has elevated to a point
where emissions of nitrogen oxide have reached
higher levels than those taken twelve years ago…
yikes!

Measures were previously launched in 1998 to

prevent further pollution damage (as the facade
was already tingeing yellow), and received global
attention when then-president Bill Clinton stated
that pollution had done “what 350 years of wars,
invasions and natural disasters have failed to do
begun to mar the magnificent walls of the Taj
Mahal.”
As a result vehicles were banned from the area
surrounding the building, an LED display was
installed to give a running count of air pollution,
and diesel-run rickshaws were replaced with
greener vehicles.

But despite all this, the problem persists for several

reasons. The increased population has led to more
cars on the road which means more traffic and
fuels being consumed. More people means more
of a need for water, and as the water table has
dropped in the river—which runs next to the
monument— the wood foundations have lost the
moisture needed to avoid subsidence. And the
water that is available has become contaminated
with runoff from nearby factories and human
waste. Illegal building and lack of regulation in
Agra have had a negative impact as well.
The Taj Mahal was built by the emperor Shah
Jahan as a memorial and mausoleum for his third
wife, who died having the couple’s 14th child. His
love for her was to be reflected in the building
itself, and it has become a beacon of romance
around the world.
A clay pack treatment has been introduced to try
and maintain the white appearance of the marble
building and thwart any yellow color the pollution
threatens to cause. However, with this new report
it seems only a matter of time before the emperor’s
sparkling white tribute turns into something else
entirely.

Case study 2

WATER HITS AND STICKS: FINDINGS

CHALLENGE A CENTURY OF
ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT SOIL
HYDROLOGY
Researchers have discovered that some of
the most fundamental assumptions about
how water moves through soil in a
seasonally dry climate such as the Pacific
Northwest are incorrect – and that a century
of research based on those assumptions will
have to be reconsidered. A new study by
scientists from Oregon State University and
the Environmental Protection Agency
showed – much to the surprise of the
researchers – that soil clings tenaciously to
the first precipitation after a dry summer,
and holds it so tightly that it almost never
mixes with other water. The finding is so
significant, researchers said, that they aren’t
even sure yet what it may mean. But it
could affect our understanding of how
pollutants move through soils, how nutrients
get transported from soils to streams, how
streams function and even how vegetation
might respond to climate change.
The research was just published online in
Nature Geoscience, a professional journal.
“Water in mountains such as the Cascade
Range of Oregon and Washington basically
exists in two separate worlds,” said Jeff
McDonnell, an OSU distinguished professor
and holder of the Richardson Chair in
Watershed Science in the OSU College of
Forestry. “We used to believe that when
new precipitation entered the soil, it mixed
well with other water and eventually moved
to streams. We just found out that isn’t
true.”
“This could have enormous implications for
our understanding of watershed function,”
he said. “It challenges about 100 years of
conventional thinking.”
What actually happens, the study showed, is
that the small pores around plant roots fill
with water that gets held there until it’s
eventually used up in plant transpiration
back to the atmosphere. Then new water
becomes available with the return of fall
rains, replenishes these small localized
reservoirs near the plants and repeats the
process. But all the other water moving
through larger pores is essentially separate
and almost never intermingles with that
used by plants during the dry summer.
The study found in one test, for instance,
that after the first large rainstorm in
October, only 4 percent of the precipitation
entering the soil ended up in the stream –
96 percent was taken up and held tightly by
soil around plants to recharge soil moisture.
A month later when soil moisture was fully
recharged, 55 percent of precipitation went
directly into streams. And as winter rains
continue to pour moisture into the ground,
almost all of the water that originally
recharged the soil around plants remains
held tightly in the soil – it never moves or
mixes.
“This tells us that we have a less complete
understanding of how water moves through
soils, and is affected by them, than we
thought we did,” said Renee Brooks, a
research plant physiologist with the EPA and
courtesy faculty in the OSU Department of
Forest Ecosystems and Society.
“Our mathematical models of ecosystem
function are based on certain assumptions
about biological processes,” Brooks said.
“This changes some of those assumptions.
Among the implications is that we may have
to reconsider how other things move
through soils that we are interested in, such
as nutrients or pollutants.”
The new findings were made possible by
advances in the speed and efficiency of
stable isotope analyses of water, which
allowed scientists to essentially “fingerprint”
water and tell where it came from and
where it moved to. Never before was it
possible to make so many isotopic
measurements and get a better view of
water origin and movement, the researchers
said.
The study also points out the incredible
ability of plants to take up water that is so
tightly bound to the soil, with forces nothing
else in nature can match.
The research was conducted in the H.J.
Andrews Experimental Forest near Blue
River, Ore., a part of the nation’s Long Term
Ecological Research, or LTER Program. It
was supported by the EPA.

Case study 3
GREEN DOT WASTE MANAGEMENT IN INDIA
Introduction
The 'Green Dot', a waste management system,
was developed to reduce packaging waste as well
as to increase recycling/reuse rates in India. The
case discusses the Green Dot system, giving
details about the waste collection, sorting and
disposal mechanisms, the charges that companies
had to pay to become a part of the system, etc. It
then gives an account of the initial obstacles faced
by the system and the measures taken to
surmount them. It also compares the Green Dot
system with the system followed in the UK.
Aim
» Understand some of the environmental and
social pressures that companies have to deal with
today» Discuss the ways in which companies can
minimize the quantity of waste that they generate,
and what governments can do to encourage this»
Understand the waste management system
adopted in India» Analyze the advantages and
disadvantages of the system» Appreciate the
advantages of competition and the effects of
monopolization

Success

The Green Dot is a Success

The Packaging Ordinance and the implementation
of the Green Dot system produced many tangible
results. Both the producers as well as ordinary
citizens responded favorably to the law. Between
1991 and 2000, there was a marked reduction in
the quantity of packaging waste generated in India.
“There has been a 14% decrease in the volume of
consumer packaging between 1991 and 2000,”
Criticisms
Despite the high recycling rates, the Green Dot
system was also criticized on several grounds and
from several quarters. In the initial years, as it had
limited capacity to recycle plastics, the DSD
started exporting a significant share of the
packaging waste that it collected to countries like
China, Pakistan, and Indonesia, and officially listed
it as “recycled”. Greenpeace's Andreas Bernstorff,
who went to these countries to check what
happened to the waste, found that the waste was
either incinerated or dumped in landfills,
sometimes illegally, in the recipient countries

Case study 4

Bhopal disaster

The Bhopal disaster is the world's worst industrial

catastrophe. It occurred on the night of December
2–3, 1984 at the Union Carbide India
Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant in Bhopal, Madhya
Pradesh, India. A leak of methyl isocyanate gas
and other chemicals from the plant resulted in the
exposure of hundreds of thousands of people.
Estimates vary on the death toll. The official
immediate death toll was 2,259 and the
government of Madhya Pradesh has confirmed a
total of 3,787 deaths related to the gas release.
[1]
Other government agencies estimate 15,000
deaths.[2] Others estimate that 3,000 died within
weeks and that another 8,000 have since died
from gas-related diseases.[3][4] A government
affidavit in 2006 stated the leak caused 558,125
injuries including 38,478 temporary partial and
approximately 3,900 severely and permanently
disabling injuries.[5]
UCIL was the Indian subsidiary of Union
Carbide Corporation (UCC). Indian Government
controlled banks and the Indian public held 49.1
percent ownership share. In 1994, the Supreme
Court of India allowed UCC to sell its 50.9 percent
share. The Bhopal plant was sold to McLeod
Russel (India) Ltd. UCC was purchased by Dow
Chemical Company in 2001.
Civil and criminal cases are pending in the United
States District Court, Manhattan and the District
Court of Bhopal, India, involving UCC, UCIL
employees, and Warren Anderson, UCC CEO at
the time of the disaster.[6][7] In June 2010, seven ex-
employees, including the former UCIL chairman,
were convicted in Bhopal of causing death by
negligence and sentenced to two years
imprisonment and a fine of about $2,000 each, the
maximum punishment allowed by law. An eighth
former employee was also convicted but died
before judgment was passed.[

Case study 5

Chernobyl disaster

The Chernobyl disaster was a nuclear accident that

occurred on 26 April 1986, at the Chernobyl Nuclear
Power Plant in Ukraine (then in the Ukrainian Soviet
Socialist Republic, part of the Soviet Union). It is
considered the worst nuclear power plant accident in
history and is the only level 7 event on the International
Nuclear Event Scale.
The disaster occurred on 26 April 1986, at reactor
number four at the Chernobylplant, near the town
of Pripyat in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic,
during a systems test. A sudden power output surge took
place, and when an attempt was made for emergency
shutdown, a more extreme spike in power output
occurred which led to a reactor vessel rupture and a
series of explosions. This event exposed the graphite
moderator components of the reactor to air and they
ignited; the resulting fire sent a plume of
radioactive fallout into the atmosphere and over an
extensive geographical area, including Pripyat. The
plume drifted over large parts of the western Soviet
Union, Eastern Europe, Western Europe, and Northern
Europe. Large areas in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia had
to be evacuated, with over 336,000 people resettled.
According to official post-Soviet data,[1] about 60% of
the falloutlanded in Belarus. Despite the accident,
Ukraine continued to operate the remaining reactors at
Chernobyl for many years. The last reactor at the site
was closed down in 2000, 14 years after the accident.[2]
The accident raised concerns about the safety of the
Soviet nuclear power industry as well as nuclear power in
general, slowing its expansion for a number of years
while forcing the Soviet government to become less
secretive about its procedures.[3]
The countries of Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus have been
burdened with the continuing and
substantial decontamination and health care costs of the
Chernobyl accident. A 2006 report prepared by
the Chernobyl Forum, led by the World Health
Organization (WHO) states, "Among the 134 emergency
workers involved in the immediate mitigation of the
Chernobyl accident, severely exposed workers and
firemen during the first days, 28 persons died in 1986
due to ARS(Acute Radiation Syndrome), and 19 more
persons died in 1987-2004 from different causes. Among
the general population affected by Chernobyl radioactive
fallout, the much lower exposures meant that ARS cases
did not occur". It is estimated that there will ultimately be
a total of 4,000 deaths attributable to the accident, due to
increased cancer risk.[4] However, the largest health
problem of the accident was the perception was the
"mental health impact" from the anxiety experienced by
those exposed.[4]

Case study 6
LOVE CANAL

Love Canal is a neighborhood in Niagara

Falls, New York, which became the subject of
national and international attention, controversy,
and eventual environmental notoriety following the
discovery of 21,000 tons of toxic waste that had
been buried beneath the neighborhood by Hooker
Chemical. Love Canal officially covers 36 square
blocks in the far southeastern corner of the city,
along 99th Street and Read Avenue. Two bodies
of water define the northern and southern
boundaries of the neighborhood: Bergholtz Creek
to the north and the Niagara Riverone-quarter mile
(400 m) to the south. In this area, Grand Island is
situated on the south shore of the Niagara River. It
is located in the white collar LaSalle section of the
city of Niagara Falls.
Hooker Chemical sold this site to the Niagara Falls
School Board with a deed explicitly detailing the
danger contained within the site[citation needed], and
including a liability limitation clause about the
contamination. The construction efforts of housing
development, combined with particularly heavy
rainstorms, released the chemical waste, leading
to a public healthemergency and an urban
planning scandal. Hooker Chemical was found to
be negligent in their disposal of waste, though not
reckless in the sale of the land, in what became a
test case for liability clauses. The dumpsite was
discovered and investigated by the local
newspaper, theNiagara Falls Gazette, from 1976
through the evacuation in 1978. Potential health
problems were first raised by reporter Michael H.
Brown in July 1978.
Ten years after the incident, New York State
Health Department Commissioner David Axelrod
stated that Love Canal would long be remembered
as a "national symbol of a failure to exercise a
sense of concern for future generations."[1] The
Love Canal incident was especially significant as a
situation where the inhabitants "overflowed into the
wastes instead of the other way around.

Lala lajpatrai college

Environmental management
Presentation
[topic-case studies]

Made by:-
Akshay jain -180
Kanak jajoo-194
Kafeel nathani-163
Nomaan nathani-164
Zeeshan khatri-190
Zeehan d’silva-208