The company that built and owned the Bhopal chemical plant in India cut crucial corners in its design, documents just released in the US suggest.
The accident at Union Carbide鈥檚 pesticide plant in Bhopal in 1984 killed 8000 people immediately and injured at least 150,000. It remains the worst industrial disaster on record, and the victims are still dying. The company paid $470 million compensation to a trust in 1989. The survivors say they received around $500 each and claim the clean-up efforts were inadequate.
Dow Chemical, which took over Union Carbide, still insists that Carbide鈥檚 Indian subsidiary was wholly responsible for the design and running of the plant. 鈥淯nion Carbide maintained a very 鈥渉ands-off鈥� relationship with Union Carbide India on virtually all matters,鈥� John Musser, who inherited the Bhopal brief at Dow, told 快猫短视频 this week.
Advertisement
But in the latest of a series of legal actions, Bhopal survivors launched a class action in New York state in 1999. In November the court forced the company to release internal documents 鈥� and some contradict its claims.
Limited trial run
Under a policy of forcing foreign companies to invest, the Indian government had asked Carbide to make insecticides such as Sevin in India instead of importing them. It also insisted that the company raise at least a quarter of the investment from local shareholders.
But a 1972 memo says that if Carbide issued enough shares to raise the $28 million estimated cost, the company鈥檚 stake in its Indian subsidiary would drop below 53 per cent. To prevent this it would have to 鈥渞educe the amount of investment鈥� to $20.6 million鈥�, with the cuts 鈥渕ainly on the Sevin project鈥�.
This meant using what another memo admitted were unproven technologies, mostly on systems not directly involved in the accident. However, the Sevin production system involved in the accident had had 鈥渙nly a limited trial run鈥�, the memo states.
快猫短视频鈥檚 investigation of the accident, and subsequent studies by the company and trade unions, showed that a faulty valve let nearly a tonne of water being used to clean pipes pour into a tank holding 40 tonnes of methyl isocyanate (MIC), an intermediate in the production of Sevin. The resulting runaway reaction produced a cloud of toxic gas.
鈥淎ct of sabotage鈥�
Musser still echoes Carbide鈥檚 claims at the time, saying the accident was an 鈥渁ct of sabotage鈥� 鈥� someone deliberately putting water in the tank. Regardless of how the water got into the MIC, the runaway reaction should have been contained. It was not, largely because Bhopal had far more limited emergency equipment than Carbide鈥檚 US plant.
Crucially, Bhopal had no 鈥渒nock-down鈥� tank where the mass of chemicals that boiled out of the MIC tank might have settled. Then only gases would have escaped, which could have been burnt off by flare towers or by filtered out by a 鈥渟crubber鈥�.
But the Bhopal plant had only one flare, shut for repairs on the night of the accident. The US plant had a back-up. Bhopal鈥檚 sole scrubber was overwhelmed by the mass of liquids and gases that boiled up it at a rate over 100 times what it was designed for.
Suspect analysis
So who was responsible for this design? Carbide鈥檚 1972 memo specified that the US headquarters would either perform all design work for the plant, or approve designs done elsewhere.
Also unlike the US plant, Bhopal鈥檚 waste was poured into open lagoons to evaporate. Recent analyses of groundwater, soil and people near the plant have found high levels of heavy metals such as mercury and toxic organochlorine chemicals.
Earlier analyses by Indian agencies concluded there was no local contamination. Yet company memos from 1989, 1990 and 1995 show that Carbide鈥檚 officials knew by 1989 that the Indian analyses were suspect and that there might be contamination, says Satinath Sarangi of the Bhopal Group for Information and Action. When questioned by 快猫短视频, Musser did not confirm or deny that there was contamination but instead quoted the Indian analyses.
Campaigners hope the fresh evidence will persuade the Indian government to join the US lawsuit. Only then can the company be tried for negligence.