Frequently Asked Questions Regarding the Bhopal Incident

Shortly after the gas release, Union Carbide launched an aggressive effort to identify the cause. An initial investigation by Union Carbide experts reported that a large volume of water had apparently been introduced into the MIC tank, causing a chemical reaction forcing the pressure release valve to open and allowed the gas to leak. A committee of experts working on behalf of the Indian government conducted its own investigation and reached the same conclusion. An independent investigation by engineering consulting firm Arthur D. Little determined that the water could only have been introduced into the tank deliberately, since process safety systems were in place and operational that would have prevented water from entering the tank by accident.

Investigations suggest that only an employee with the appropriate skills and knowledge of the site could have tampered with the tank. An independent investigation by the engineering consulting firm Arthur D. Little determined that the water could only have been introduced into the tank deliberately, since process safety systems were in place and operational that would have prevented water from entering the tank by accident.

The Indian authorities are well aware of the identity of the employee and the nature of the evidence against him.

No. In fact, documented evidence gathered after the incident showed that the valve close to the plant’s water-washing operation was closed and leak-tight. Furthermore, process safety systems were in place and operational that would have prevented water from entering the tank by accident.

No. In 1982, a technical team from Union Carbide visited the Bhopal plant to conduct a routine process safety review, and identified some safety issues to be addressed by the plant. All of those issues had been addressed by the plant well before the December 1984 gas leak — none of them had anything to do with the incident.

Based on several investigations, the safety systems in place could not have prevented a chemical reaction of this magnitude from causing a leak. In designing the plant’s safety systems, a chemical reaction of this magnitude was not factored in for two reasons: First the tank’s gas storage system was designed to automatically prevent such a large amount of water from being inadvertently introduced into the system; second, process safety systems were in place and operational that would have prevented water from entering the tank by accident. The system design did not, however, account for the deliberate introduction of a large volume of water.

Critics have suggested that three certain technologies may have been in use, but they were not. Two of the technologies questioned by critics (a carbon monoxide process and a MIC-to-Sevin process) were never used at the plant. A naphthol process developed by UCIL was permanently shut down in 1982, two years before the incident — none of them had anything to do with the incident.

The Bhopal plant was owned and operated by Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL), an Indian company that was owned by Union Carbide Corporation (that held just over half of the stock), the Indian financial institutions and thousands of private investors in India. In 1994, Union Carbide sold its entire interest in UCIL to MacLeod Russell (India) Limited, and UCIL was renamed Eveready Industries India, Limited. In 1998, the government of the State of Madhya Pradesh took over the facility and all accountability for completing any further remediation of the site.

No. Union Carbide India, Limited (UCIL), an Indian company, owned and operated the Bhopal plant at the time of the gas leak. After the incident, the Government of India ceased operations at the plant and took complete control of the property.

Immediately following the gas release, Union Carbide Corporation began providing aid to the victims and established a process to resolve their claims. Among the many efforts Union Carbide took to address the situation after the disaster were:

In 1989, Union Carbide and Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) entered into a $470 million legal settlement with the Indian Government, settling all claims arising from the incident. The settlement was affirmed by the Indian Supreme Court, which described it as “just, equitable and reasonable.” The money was promptly paid to the Government of India by Union Carbide and UCIL.

After the incident, UCIL began cleanup work at the site under the direction of Indian national and state government authorities. After the sale of UCIL stock in 1994, the renamed company, Eveready Industries India Limited, continued cleanup work at the site until 1998. The government of the State of Madhya Pradesh took over the facility in 1998 and assumed all responsibility for completing any further remediation. Since that time, media reports indicate no further cleanup work has taken place.

No. To the contrary, the Bhopal plant design had the benefit of knowledge acquired from the operation of older chemical facilities. For example, as compared to other similar plants, Environmental Impact Assessment ratings for the Bhopal plant show favorable ratings in wastewater disposal and carbon monoxide emissions, and essentially the same ratings as other similar plants for potential effects on human health.

No. Indian government authorities have publicly and repeatedly confirmed that no contamination of soil or groundwater outside the plant walls resulted from the gas leak.

A report issued by the India’s National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI) in 1997 found soil contamination within the factory premises at three major areas that had been used as chemical disposal and treatment areas. The study found no evidence of groundwater contamination outside the plant and concluded that local water-wells were not affected by plant disposal activities.

A 1998 study of drinking-water sources near the plant site by the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board did find some contamination, but it was unrelated to the plant. The Control Board did not find any traces of chemicals linked to chemicals formerly used at the UCIL plant. Rather, the Control Board found that the contamination likely was caused by improper drainage of water and other sources of environmental pollution.

We are unaware of governmental studies since 1998 that specifically address this issue, but it is possible some have been conducted. People should contact the government of Madhya Pradesh for current information.

After the incident, UCIL began cleanup work at the site under the direction of Indian national and state government authorities. After the sale of UCIL stock in 1994, the renamed company, Eveready Industries India Limited, continued cleanup work at the site until 1998. The government of the State of Madhya Pradesh took over the facility in 1998 and assumed all responsibility for completing any further remediation. Since that time, media reports indicate no further cleanup work has taken place.

We have seen conflicting reports on this and believe it is important for the State of Madhya Pradesh to restart and complete the remediation of the plant site. They are in the position to evaluate all scientific information that is available and make the right decision for Bhopal. For specific details, people should contact the government of Madhya Pradesh.

In 1989, Union Carbide and Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) entered into a $470 million legal settlement with the Indian Government, settling all claims arising from the incident. The settlement was affirmed by the Indian Supreme Court, which described it as “just, equitable and reasonable.” The money was promptly paid to the Government of India by Union Carbide and UCIL. No further legal claims for damages resulting from the gas leak are outstanding against Union Carbide.

Union Carbide, along with the rest of the chemical industry, has worked to develop and globally implement its “Responsible Care” program, designed to prevent any future events through improving community awareness, emergency preparedness and process safety standards. For more information on Responsible Care, please visit http://www.responsiblecare.com/ or http://www.icca-chem.org/ (the web site of the International Council of Chemical Assocations).

Pursuant to the settlement, the Government of India assumed responsibility for disbursing funds from the settlement and providing medical coverage to citizens of Bhopal in the event of future illnesses. In July 2004, fifteen years after reaching settlement, the Supreme Court of India ordered the Government of India to release all additional settlement funds to the victims. News reports indicate that there was approximately $327 million in the fund as a result of earned interest from money remaining after all claims had been paid.

UCC has contributed significantly in providing aid to the victims and has fulfilled every responsibility and obligation it had in Bhopal.

For example, UCC paid the full settlement of $470 million to the Government of India in 1989, and also provided substantial monetary and medical aid to the victims, including establishing a charitable trust fund to which it paid approximately $90 million (the proceeds of its sale of all its UCIL stock) to build a hospital that opened in Bhopal in 2000.

Pursuant to the settlement, the Government of India assumed responsibility for disbursing funds from the settlement and providing medical coverage to citizens of Bhopal in the event of future illnesses. In July 2004, fifteen years after reaching settlement, the Supreme Court of India ordered the Government of India to release all additional settlement funds to the victims. News reports indicate that there was approximately $327 million in the fund as a result of earned interest from money remaining after all claims had been paid