Case Study for Bhopal Gas Tragedy

Introduction
The Bhopal Gas Tragedy, which occurred on the night of December 2 – 3 1984,
in Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India, is one of the worst industrial disasters in
history. A leak of methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas from the Union Carbide India
Limited (UCIL) pesticide plant resulted in an immediate death toll estimated
between 2,000 and 3,000 people, with long-term effects leading to many more
fatalities and chronic health issues for the survivors. This case study examines
the events leading to the disaster, the immediate and long-term impacts, and
the responses from various stakeholders, drawing on a range of secondary
sources.

Background
Union Carbide Corporation and UCIL
Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) was a multinational company headquartered
in the United States, with operations in various sectors including chemicals and
plastics. UCIL, its Indian subsidiary, operated the pesticide plant in Bhopal. The
plant manufactured the pesticide Sevin (carbaryl), using MIC as an
intermediate. MIC is highly toxic and volatile, requiring stringent safety
measures for its storage and handling.

Factors leading to the disaster

1. Poor Maintenance and Safety Standards
Deferred Maintenance: The plant had numerous broken and
malfunctioning safety systems, including the refrigeration system that
was supposed to cool the storage tank containing methyl isocyanate
(MIC).
Inoperative Safety Systems: Critical safety systems, such as the gas scrubber
and the flare tower, were either not operational or were turned off to save
costs.
2. Lack of Proper Training
Inadequate Training: Many plant workers were not adequately trained to
handle the hazardous chemicals and emergency procedures.
High Turnover: Frequent changes in personnel led to a lack of experienced and
knowledgeable staff.
3. Design and Operational Flaws
Substandard Plant Design: The plant was designed with inadequate safety
measures compared to similar facilities in other countries.
Large Storage of MIC: Storing large quantities of highly toxic MIC in a densely
populated area was inherently risky.
4. Cost-Cutting Measures
Budget Cuts: Cost-cutting measures led to reduced safety and maintenance
expenditures, compromising the plant's operational integrity.
Staff Reductions: Reducing the workforce further strained the remaining
employees, who were already undertrained and overworked.
5. Human Error
Improper Cleaning Procedures: Workers used water to clean pipes connected
to the MIC storage tank, leading to the introduction of water into the tank.
Failure to Follow Protocols: Standard operating procedures and safety protocols
were not followed correctly.
6. Corporate Negligence
Negligence by Union Carbide Corporation (UCC): The parent company did not
enforce rigorous safety standards or ensure that the Indian subsidiary adhered
to them.
Lack of Oversight: There was insufficient oversight and auditing of the plant’s
operations and safety practices by both UCC and local authorities.
7. Regulatory Failures
Inadequate Regulation: Local regulatory agencies failed to enforce stringent
industrial safety regulations.
Weak Monitoring: There was a lack of regular inspections and monitoring of
the plant’s safety practices.
8. Chemical Reaction and Gas Release
Exothermic Reaction: The introduction of water into the MIC storage tank
triggered an exothermic reaction, raising the temperature and pressure inside
the tank.
Release of Toxic Gas: The resulting high pressure caused a large volume of toxic
MIC gas to be released into the atmosphere, affecting thousands of people.
9. Emergency Response Failures
Ineffective Warning Systems: The alarm system was either not activated in time
or not loud enough to alert the nearby population.
Lack of Preparedness: The local community and emergency services were not
adequately prepared to handle a chemical disaster of this magnitude.

The Night of the Disaster

Sequence of Events
On the night of December 2, 1984, water entered Tank 610 containing MIC due
to poor maintenance and failed safety protocols. The reaction between water
and MIC resulted in a runaway exothermic reaction, increasing the pressure
and temperature inside the tank. Around 40 metric tons of MIC gas was
released into the atmosphere over Bhopal.

Immediate Impact
Human Toll: The gas spread over densely populated areas of Bhopal, causing
immediate deaths due to choking, pulmonary edema, and respiratory failure.
Estimates of immediate fatalities range from 2,000 to 3,000 people.
Health Effects: Thousands suffered from severe respiratory issues, eye
irritation, and gastrointestinal problems. Long-term health effects included
respiratory diseases, cancer, and birth defects among survivors and their
descendants.

Aftermath of Bhopal Gas Tragedy

In the United States, UCC was sued in federal court. In one action, the court
recommended that UCC pay between $5 million and $10 million to assist the
victims. UCC agreed to pay a $5 million settlement. The Indian government,
however, rejected this offer and claimed $3.3 billion. In 1989, UCC agreed to
pay $470 million in damages and paid the cash immediately in an out-of-court
settlement.

Warren Anderson, the CEO and Chairman of UCC was charged with
manslaughter by Bhopal authorities in 1991. He refused to appear in court and
the Bhopal court declared him a fugitive from justice in February 1992. Despite
the central government’s efforts in the United States to extradite Anderson,
nothing happened. Anderson died in 2014 without ever appearing in a court of
law.

Effects of Bhopal gas tragedy

1. Poor Maintenance and Safety Standards

Deferred Maintenance: The plant had numerous broken and malfunctioning
safety systems, including the refrigeration system that was supposed to cool
the storage tank containing methyl isocyanate (MIC).
Inoperative Safety Systems: Critical safety systems, such as the gas scrubber
and the flare tower, were either not operational or were turned off to save
costs.
2. Lack of Proper Training
Inadequate Training: Many plant workers were not adequately trained to
handle the hazardous chemicals and emergency procedures.
High Turnover: Frequent changes in personnel led to a lack of experienced and
knowledgeable staff.
3. Design and Operational Flaws
Substandard Plant Design: The plant was designed with inadequate safety
measures compared to similar facilities in other countries.
Large Storage of MIC: Storing large quantities of highly toxic MIC in a densely
populated area was inherently risky.
4. Cost-Cutting Measures
Budget Cuts: Cost-cutting measures led to reduced safety and maintenance
expenditures, compromising the plant's operational integrity.
Staff Reductions: Reducing the workforce further strained the remaining
employees, who were already undertrained and overworked.
5. Human Error
Improper Cleaning Procedures: Workers used water to clean pipes connected
to the MIC storage tank, leading to the introduction of water into the tank.
Failure to Follow Protocols: Standard operating procedures and safety protocols
were not followed correctly.
6. Corporate Negligence
Negligence by Union Carbide Corporation (UCC): The parent company did not
enforce rigorous safety standards or ensure that the Indian subsidiary adhered
to them.
Lack of Oversight: There was insufficient oversight and auditing of the plant’s
operations and safety practices by both UCC and local authorities.
7. Regulatory Failures
Inadequate Regulation: Local regulatory agencies failed to enforce stringent
industrial safety regulations.
Weak Monitoring: There was a lack of regular inspections and monitoring of
the plant’s safety practices.
8. Chemical Reaction and Gas Release
Exothermic Reaction: The introduction of water into the MIC storage tank
triggered an exothermic reaction, raising the temperature and pressure inside
the tank.
Release of Toxic Gas: The resulting high pressure caused a large volume of toxic
MIC gas to be released into the atmosphere, affecting thousands of people.
9. Emergency Response Failures
Ineffective Warning Systems: The alarm system was either not activated in time
or not loud enough to alert the nearby population.
Lack of Preparedness: The local community and emergency services were not
adequately prepared to handle a chemical disaster of this magnitude.
The Bhopal gas tragedy resulted in thousands of immediate deaths and long-
term health effects for the surviving population, highlighting the critical need
for stringent industrial safety measures, regulatory oversight, and corporate
accountability.

Analysis and Inferences

Systemic Failures
The Bhopal Gas Tragedy was the result of systemic failures at multiple levels:
Corporate Negligence: UCC and UCIL's prioritization of cost-cutting over safety
led to catastrophic safety lapses.
Regulatory Inadequacy: Weak regulatory frameworks and enforcement
mechanisms failed to ensure industrial safety standards.
Lack of Preparedness: The lack of emergency preparedness and adequate
healthcare infrastructure exacerbated the human toll of the disaster.

Ethical and Moral Dimensions

The ethical implications of the Bhopal Gas Tragedy are profound. The actions of
UCC and UCIL reflect a disregard for human life in pursuit of profit. The
inadequacy of the compensation and the ongoing suffering of the victims raise
questions about corporate accountability and justice. The disaster highlights
the need for multinational corporations to adhere to stringent safety and
ethical standards, regardless of the regulatory environment in host countries.

Conclusion
The Bhopal gas tragedy serves as a grim testament to the catastrophic
consequences of industrial negligence and insufficient safety protocols. The
disaster, which claimed thousands of lives and left a legacy of chronic health
issues, environmental degradation, and socio-economic disruption,
underscores the critical need for stringent industrial safety standards, robust
regulatory oversight, and corporate accountability.

The tragedy exposed significant flaws in safety management, emergency

preparedness, and regulatory frameworks, both at the corporate and
governmental levels. Despite the settlement reached with Union Carbide
Corporation, the compensation was widely viewed as inadequate, highlighting
the need for more effective legal mechanisms to address such large-scale
industrial disasters.