Upload
addison-juttie
View
262
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
1/57
Bhopal Gas Tragedy InformationIn the early hours of December 3,1984, methylisocyanate (MIC) gas leaked from a plant owned,
managed and operated by Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) in the central India city of Bhopal.According to government figures, approximately 5,200 people died and several thousand other
individuals suffered permanent or partial disabilities.Click here to view the 2006 affidavit of the
Union of India in the Supreme Court.
A great deal has been written and/or broadcast about the tragedy in the past 31 years, some of it
factual, but much of it inaccurate or misleading. The information presented on this website is
supported by facts and documentation, and will help those seeking information gain an accurate
and balanced perspective of the Bhopal tragedy and Union Carbide's (UCC) efforts.
Union Carbide Statement Regarding The Tragedy
The 1984 gas leak in Bhopal was a terrible tragedy that continues to evoke strong emotions even
31 years later. In the wake of the gas release, UCC and its then-chairman Warren Anderson
worked diligently to provide aid to the victims and attempted to set up a process to resolve their
claims. All claims arising out of the release were settled in 1989 at the explicit direction and with
the approval of the Supreme Court of India by means of a settlement agreement between the
Government of India (GOI) and UCC and UCIL. In 1991, and again in 2007, the Supreme Court
upheld the fairness and adequacy of the settlement in response to court challenges from non-
governmental organizations.
The Bhopal plant was owned and operated by UCIL, an Indian company in which UCC held just
over half the stock. Other stockholders included Indian financial institutions and thousands of
private investors in India. UCIL designed, built, managed and operated the plant using Indian
consultants and workers. In 1994, UCC sold its entire stake in UCIL to Mcleod Russel India
Limited of Calcutta, and UCIL was renamed Eveready Industries India Limited (EIIL). As a result
of the sale of its shares in UCIL, UCC retained no interest in the Bhopal site. With the approval of
the India Supreme Court, the proceeds of the UCIL sale were placed in a trust and exclusively
used to fund a hospital in Bhopal, which now provides specialist care to victims of the tragedy.
Because the government closed off the site from any and all operations following the gas
release, UCIL was only able to undertake clean-up work in the years just prior to the UCC's sale
of its stock in 1994, and spent some $2 million on that effort. The central and state government
authorities approved, monitored and directed every step of the clean-up work. Following the sale,
we understand that EIIL continued some clean-up work. In 1998, the Madhya Pradesh State
Government (MPSG), which owned and had been leasing the property to EIIL -- and still owns
the property today -- cancelled EIIL's lease, took over the facility and assumed all accountability
for the site, including the completion of any additional remediation. The media reported that a trial
incineration of some waste from the Bhopal plant site was conducted in August 2015. For
additional information, please see the page on this site entitled "Remediation (Clean Up) of the
Bhopal Plant Site." Specific questions regarding that work, or any other site remediation work,
http://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Aff%2026Oct06%20of%20UOI%20in%20SC%20in%20CA3187%20n%203188.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Aff%2026Oct06%20of%20UOI%20in%20SC%20in%20CA3187%20n%203188.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Aff%2026Oct06%20of%20UOI%20in%20SC%20in%20CA3187%20n%203188.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Aff%2026Oct06%20of%20UOI%20in%20SC%20in%20CA3187%20n%203188.pdf
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
2/57
are best directed to Madhya Pradesh State Government and/or the Central Pollution Control
Board (CPCB).
Late in 1986, Union Carbide filed a lengthy court document in India detailing the findings of its
scientific and legal investigations into the cause of the gas release.Click here to view the
Jackson Browning Report.
Engineering consulting firm, Arthur D. Little, Inc., conducted a thorough investigation and
reached the same conclusion.Click here to view the Arthur D. Little Report.
Please see "Cause of the Bhopal Tragedy" pages on this website for complete details.
Together with the rest of the chemical industry, Union Carbide has worked to develop and
globally implement Responsible Care® to help prevent such an event in the future by improving
process safety standards, community awareness and emergency preparedness, as well as
protecting workers and communities by working with governmental bodies to assure that industry
best practices are implemented through regulations.
For more information about Responsible Care®, see www.responsiblecare.com or www.icca-
chem.org.
Union Carbide's Response to the Tragedy and the Settlement.
In the wake of the release, Union Carbide Corporation publicly accepted moral responsibility for
the tragedy. Details may be found here on the immediate aid Union Carbide provided to the
victims.
Cause of the Bhopal Tragedy.
Details may be found here on Union Carbide's investigation into the tragedy.
History of Union Carbide India Limited
UCIL was a diversified manufacturing company incorporated in 1934. For details on its 60-year
history, please see these pages.
Bhopal Plant History and Ownership
Details on the plant's history and the roles that the MPSG and the India central government
played in its development and operations may be found here.
Remediation (Clean Up) of the Bhopal Plant SiteDetails about what remediation UCIL was able to perform and when that work was done, as well
as any work undertaken since the MPSG took control of the site in 1998, may be found here.
Bhopal Litigation in the U.S.
American personal injury lawyers who had gone to Bhopal brought civil litigation in the U.S.
against UCC within days of the disaster. Information on that civil litigation, as well as on the class
action lawsuits subsequently filed, may be found here.
Bhopal Litigation in India
Information on the civil and criminal litigation, as well as on the GOI's curative petition and the
Public Interest Litigation, may be found here.
http://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/browning.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/browning.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/casestdy.pdfhttp://www.responsiblecare.com/http://www.responsiblecare.com/http://www.responsiblecare.com/http://www.icca-chem.org/http://www.icca-chem.org/http://www.icca-chem.org/http://www.bhopal.com/UCC-Response-Efforts-to-Tragedyhttp://www.bhopal.com/Cause-of-Bhopal-Tragedyhttp://www.bhopal.com/History-of-UC-India-Limitedhttp://www.bhopal.com/Bhopal-Plant-History-and-Ownershiphttp://www.bhopal.com/Remediation-of-Bhopal-Plant-Sitehttp://www.bhopal.com/Bhopal-Litigation-in-the-UShttp://www.bhopal.com/Bhopal-Litigation-in-the-UShttp://www.bhopal.com/Bhopal-Litigation-in-Indiahttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/browning.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/browning.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/casestdy.pdfhttp://www.responsiblecare.com/http://www.icca-chem.org/http://www.icca-chem.org/http://www.bhopal.com/UCC-Response-Efforts-to-Tragedyhttp://www.bhopal.com/Cause-of-Bhopal-Tragedyhttp://www.bhopal.com/History-of-UC-India-Limitedhttp://www.bhopal.com/Bhopal-Plant-History-and-Ownershiphttp://www.bhopal.com/Remediation-of-Bhopal-Plant-Sitehttp://www.bhopal.com/Bhopal-Litigation-in-the-UShttp://www.bhopal.com/Bhopal-Litigation-in-India
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
3/57
Environmental Studies of the Bhopal Plant Site
The Bhopal plant closed after the 1984 methylisocyanate (MIC) gas release and never resumed
normal operations. A chronological overview of the various studies undertaken up until 1998,
when the MPSG took control of the site, may be found here.
Reports, Studies, UCC Opinions and Court DecisionsResearch reports and court rulings that provide additional information and insight with regard to
the tragedy in Bhopal, India, may be found here.
Contact Information for Bhopal Information Center
Details on how to contact the Bhopal Information Center appear on this page.
Responsible Care® is a registered service mark of the American Chemistry Council, Inc.
Union Carbide's Response EffortsTo the Tragedy and the Settlement
In the early hours of December 3,1984, methylisocyanate (MIC) gas leaked from a plant owned,
managed and operated by Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) in the central India city of Bhopal.
According to government figures, approximately 5,200 people died and several thousand other
individuals suffered permanent or partial disabilities.Click here to view the 2006 affidavit of the
Union of India in the Supreme Court.
A great deal has been written and/or broadcast about the tragedy in the past 31 years, some of it
factual, but much of it inaccurate or misleading. The information presented on this website is
supported by facts and documentation, and will help those seeking information gain an accurate
and balanced perspective of the Bhopal tragedy and Union Carbide's (UCC) efforts.
Union Carbide Statement Regarding The Tragedy
The 1984 gas leak in Bhopal was a terrible tragedy that continues to evoke strong emotions even
31 years later. In the wake of the gas release, UCC and its then-chairman Warren Anderson
worked diligently to provide aid to the victims and attempted to set up a process to resolve their
claims. All claims arising out of the release were settled in 1989 at the explicit direction and with
the approval of the Supreme Court of India by means of a settlement agreement between the
Government of India (GOI) and UCC and UCIL. In 1991, and again in 2007, the Supreme Court
upheld the fairness and adequacy of the settlement in response to court challenges from non-
governmental organizations.
The Bhopal plant was owned and operated by UCIL, an Indian company in which UCC held just
over half the stock. Other stockholders included Indian financial institutions and thousands of
private investors in India. UCIL designed, built, managed and operated the plant using Indian
consultants and workers. In 1994, UCC sold its entire stake in UCIL to Mcleod Russel India
Limited of Calcutta, and UCIL was renamed Eveready Industries India Limited (EIIL). As a result
http://www.bhopal.com/Environmental-Studies-of-Bhopal-Plant-Sitehttp://www.bhopal.com/Reports-Studies-UCC-Opinions-and-Court-Decisionshttp://www.bhopal.com/Contact-Information-for-Bhopal-Information-Centerhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Aff%2026Oct06%20of%20UOI%20in%20SC%20in%20CA3187%20n%203188.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Aff%2026Oct06%20of%20UOI%20in%20SC%20in%20CA3187%20n%203188.pdfhttp://www.bhopal.com/Environmental-Studies-of-Bhopal-Plant-Sitehttp://www.bhopal.com/Reports-Studies-UCC-Opinions-and-Court-Decisionshttp://www.bhopal.com/Contact-Information-for-Bhopal-Information-Centerhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Aff%2026Oct06%20of%20UOI%20in%20SC%20in%20CA3187%20n%203188.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Aff%2026Oct06%20of%20UOI%20in%20SC%20in%20CA3187%20n%203188.pdf
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
4/57
of the sale of its shares in UCIL, UCC retained no interest in the Bhopal site. With the approval of
the India Supreme Court, the proceeds of the UCIL sale were placed in a trust and exclusively
used to fund a hospital in Bhopal, which now provides specialist care to victims of the tragedy.
Because the government closed off the site from any and all operations following the gas
release, UCIL was only able to undertake clean-up work in the years just prior to the UCC's saleof its stock in 1994, and spent some $2 million on that effort. The central and state government
authorities approved, monitored and directed every step of the clean-up work. Following the sale,
we understand that EIIL continued some clean-up work. In 1998, the Madhya Pradesh State
Government (MPSG), which owned and had been leasing the property to EIIL -- and still owns
the property today -- cancelled EIIL's lease, took over the facility and assumed all accountability
for the site, including the completion of any additional remediation. The media reported that a trial
incineration of some waste from the Bhopal plant site was conducted in August 2015. For
additional information, please see the page on this site entitled "Remediation (Clean Up) of the
Bhopal Plant Site." Specific questions regarding that work, or any other site remediation work,
are best directed to Madhya Pradesh State Government and/or the Central Pollution ControlBoard (CPCB).
Late in 1986, Union Carbide filed a lengthy court document in India detailing the findings of its
scientific and legal investigations into the cause of the gas release.Click here to view the
Jackson Browning Report.
Engineering consulting firm, Arthur D. Little, Inc., conducted a thorough investigation and
reached the same conclusion.Click here to view the Arthur D. Little Report.
Please see "Cause of the Bhopal Tragedy" pages on this website for complete details.
Together with the rest of the chemical industry, Union Carbide has worked to develop and
globally implement Responsible Care® to help prevent such an event in the future by improving
process safety standards, community awareness and emergency preparedness, as well as
protecting workers and communities by working with governmental bodies to assure that industry
best practices are implemented through regulations.
For more information about Responsible Care®, see www.responsiblecare.com or www.icca-
chem.org.
Cause of the Bhopal TragedyPrint
Union Carbide's Investigation
A Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) investigation team arrived in Bhopal within days of the
incident, but could not begin its investigation because the Indian Central Bureau of Investigation
(CBI) had taken control of and sealed the plant; seized control of the plant’s records; and
prohibited interviews of plant employees on duty the night of the incident. What was known was
that the methylisocyanate (MIC) unit had been shut down six weeks before the incident, and the
MIC storage Tank 610 -- from which the gas was released -- had been isolated at that time.
http://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/browning.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/browning.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/casestdy.pdfhttp://www.responsiblecare.com/http://www.responsiblecare.com/http://www.responsiblecare.com/http://www.icca-chem.org/http://www.icca-chem.org/http://www.icca-chem.org/http://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/browning.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/browning.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/casestdy.pdfhttp://www.responsiblecare.com/http://www.icca-chem.org/http://www.icca-chem.org/
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
5/57
The UCC team was only permitted to take samples of the residue in Tank 610 and, after several
months of extensive analyses, issued a report in March 1985. UCC’s initial investigation showed
that a large volume of water had been introduced into the MIC tank and caused a chemical
reaction that forced 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. The incident occurred despite the fact that the system had been
designed and operated to keep out even trace amounts of water and that no water had ever
entered any of the tanks during the five years the plant had been in operation.
Cause Finally Determined
For more than a year, the CBI prohibited interviews with plant employees and denied meaningful
access to plant records. However, in December 1985, a U.S. magistrate ordered the Government
of India (GOI) to provide UCC with copies of plant records that had been seized. Moreover, the
GOI could no longer restrict access to plant employees while it was before a U.S. court seeking
discovery from UCC.
Shortly after the gas release, UCC launched an aggressive effort to identify the cause. With
access to employees and plant records, UCC investigators conducted more than 70 interviews in
India and examined some 70,000 pages of plant records and documentation that the Indian
government had reluctantly released. UCC's follow-up investigation confirmed its initial
conclusion: a large volume of water had been introduced into the MIC tank. This caused a
chemical reaction that forced the pressure release valve to open and allowed the gas to leak.
Some two and a half years after the tragedy, UCC filed a lengthy court document in India
detailing the findings of its scientific and legal investigations: the cause of the disaster was
sabotage.Click here to view the Jackson Browning Report. The UCC’s investigation proved with
virtual certainty that the disaster was caused by the direct entry of water into Tank 610 through a
hose connected to the tank.
All of this was supported by hard evidence set forth in the presentation made by Ashok S.
Kalelkar of Arthur D. Little, Inc. at The Institution of Chemical Engineers Conference on
Preventing Major Chemical Accidents.Click here to view the Arthur D. Little Report. Early
accounts of the disaster that focused on the GOI’s theory that water-washing caused the accident
subsequently were disproved.
Frequently Asked Questions About the Cause of the
Bhopal Gas Tragedy
1. What caused the gas leak?
A. Shortly after the gas release, UCC launched an aggressive effort to identify the cause. An
initial investigation by UCC showed that a large volume of water had been introduced into the
MIC tank. This caused a chemical reaction that forced 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.
http://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/browning.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/casestdy.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/browning.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/casestdy.pdf
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
6/57
Some two and a half years after the tragedy, and only after the Indian government's reluctant
release of some 70,000 pages of documentation, UCC filed a lengthy court document in India
detailing the findings of its scientific and legal investigations: the cause of the disaster was
undeniably sabotage. Click here to view the Jackson Browning Report. UCC’s investigation
proved with virtual certainty that the disaster was caused by the direct entry of water into Tank
610 through a hose connected to the tank.
All of this was supported by hard evidence set forth in the presentation made by Ashok S.
Kalelkar of Arthur D. Little, Inc. at The Institution of Chemical Engineers Conference. Click here
to view the Arthur D. Little Report.
2. Who could have sabotaged plant operations and caused the gas leak?
A. 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, Inc., determined that the water could only have been introduced
into the tank deliberately, since process safety systems -- in place and operational -- would have
prevented water from entering the tank by accident.
3. Were the valves faulty on the MIC tanks at the plant?
A. No. In fact, documented evidence gathered after the incident showed that the valve near to the
plant's water-washing operation was closed and leak-tight. Furthermore, process safety systems
-- in place and operational -- would have prevented water from entering the tank by accident.
4. Why didn’t the plant’s safety systems contain the leak?
A. 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:
1.The tank's gas storage system was designed to prevent such a large amount of water
from beinginadvertently introduced into the system; and
2.Process safety systems -- in place and operational -- would have prevented water from
entering the tank by accident.
5. How do you respond to concerns expressed about the technologies used at the plant
prior to the incident?
A. Contrary to allegations made by certain parties in various lawsuits, UCC did not design,
construct or operate the Bhopal plant. And, most importantly, all of the decisions with respect to
the plant and its design, construction, and operation were either made by UCIL or mandated by
GOI policies and directives.
In 1987, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling that "UCC’s participation was
limited and its involvement in plant operations terminated long before the accident....the UOI
[Union of India] controlled the terms of the agreements and precluded UCC from exercising any
authority to 'detail design, erect and commission the plant,' which was done independently over
the period from 1972 to 1980 by UCIL process design engineers....The preliminary process
http://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/browning.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/browning.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/casestdy.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/casestdy.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/casestdy.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/browning.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/casestdy.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/casestdy.pdf
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
7/57
design information furnished by UCC could not have been used to construct the plant.
Construction required the detailed process design and engineering data prepared by hundreds of
Indian engineers, process designers and sub-contractors..."Please click here to read the U.S.
Court of Appeals complete 1987 decision.
History of Union Carbide India Limited
The Company
Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) was a diversified manufacturing company incorporated in
1934. Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) became one of the first U.S. companies to invest in
India when UCC acquired shares in UCIL in 1934. Employing approximately 9,000 people at the
height of its business operations, UCIL operated 14 plants in five divisions. UCIL's annual saleswere nearly $200 million and UCIL shares were publicly traded on the Calcutta Stock Exchange,
with UCC owning just over half the shares. The other stockholders included Indian financial
institutions and thousands of private investors in India.
Situated in the central Indian state of Madhya Pradesh, the Bhopal plant was built in 1969 and a
production facility was added in 1979. The plant produced pesticides for use in India to help the
country’s agricultural sector increase its productivity and contribute more significantly to meeting
the food needs of one of the world's most heavily populated regions. The plant never resumed
normal operations after the December 1984 gas leak.
The design, engineering and construction of the Bhopal plant was a UCIL project from beginning
to end. The project took eight years to complete (from 1972 to 1980). It involved hundreds of
Indian engineers and designers from UCIL and major Indian engineering firms, dozens of Indian
subcontractors and thousands of Indian construction workers. UCC did not design, construct or
operate the Bhopal plant. All of the decisions with respect to the plant and its design,
construction, and operation were made either by UCIL or mandated by GOI policies and
directives.
As found by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in its 1987 decision dismissing the
Bhopal gas disaster litigation in the U.S.: “In short, the plant has been constructed and managedby Indians in India.” The Court found that “UCC’s participation was limited and its involvement in
plant operations terminated long before the [1984] accident.” With respect to alleged pollution at
the Bhopal plant site, the Second Circuit Court concluded in its 2013 decision that individuals
“living near the Bhopal plant may well have suffered terrible and lasting injuries from the wholly
preventable disaster for which someone is responsible. After nine years of contentious litigation
and discovery, however, all that the evidence in this case demonstrates that UCC is not that
entity.”
In 1994, UCC sold its entire stake in UCIL to Mcleod Russel India Limited of Calcutta, which
renamed the company Eveready Industries India Limited (EIIL) -- a company that continues toexist today as one of India’s leading battery and flashlight manufacturers. The proceeds from the
http://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Westlaw_Document_13_56_14.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Westlaw_Document_13_56_14.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Westlaw_Document_13_56_14.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Westlaw_Document_13_56_14.pdf
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
8/57
UCIL sale -- some $90 million -- were placed in a trust and exclusively used to fund a hospital in
Bhopal to provide specialist care to victims of the tragedy.
In 1998, the Madhya Pradesh State Government (MPSG), which owned and had been leasing
the property to EIIL, cancelled the lease, took over the facility and assumed all accountability for
the site, including the completion of any remediation.Click here to view the MPSG press release.
Frequently Asked Questions about Union Carbide
India Limited
1. Who owned the Bhopal plant at the time of the incident and who owns it now?
A. The Bhopal plant was designed, built, owned and operated by UCIL, an Indian company in
which UCC held just over half of the stock. Indian financial institutions and thousands of private
investors in India held the rest of the stock. In 1994, UCC sold its entire interest in UCIL to
Mcleod Russel India Limited, which renamed the company Eveready Industries India Limited
(EIIL). In 1998, the MPSG, which owns and had been leasing the property to EIIL, took over the
facility and assumed all accountability for the site, including the completion of any additional
remediation.
In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that UCC was not the entity
responsible for any environmental pollution resulting from operation of the UCIL plant prior to the
disaster. The Second Circuit concluded: "[M]any others living near the Bhopal plant may well
have suffered terrible and lasting injuries from a wholly preventable disaster for which someone is
responsible. After nine years of contentious litigation and discovery, however, all that the
evidence in this case demonstrates is that UCC is not that entity".To view the entire ruling by the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, please click here.
2. Did UCIL abandon the Bhopal plant after the gas leak?
A. No. After the incident, UCIL completed one of the most single important remediation activities
-- the transformation and removal of tens of thousands of pounds of methylisocyanate (MIC) from
the plant.Click here and see page 7, in the Jackson Browning Report. The plant never resumed
normal operations after the 1984 gas tragedy and, in the following years, the Indian government
severely restricted access to the site. UCIL was only able to undertake clean-up work in the years
just prior to the sale, and spent some $2 million on that effort, which included beginning
construction of a secure landfill to hold the wastes from two solar evaporation ponds on site. The
central and state government authorities in India approved, monitored and directed every step of
the clean-up work.
3. What is the status of remediation now?
A. We understand that after UCC sold its stock in UCIL in 1994, EIIL continued the clean-up work
and completed the construction of the secure landfill on site. In 1998, the MPSG, which owned
and had been leasing the property to EIIL, took over the facility and assumed all accountability
for the site, including the completion of any additional remediation.
http://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/MP%20Press%20Release%20re%20Bhopal.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Bhopal%20%202nd%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20June%202013%20Decision.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Bhopal%20%202nd%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20June%202013%20Decision.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/browning.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/MP%20Press%20Release%20re%20Bhopal.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Bhopal%20%202nd%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20June%202013%20Decision.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Bhopal%20%202nd%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20June%202013%20Decision.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/browning.pdf
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
9/57
In 2004, a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed and is currently before the State of Madhya
Pradesh High Court in Jabalpur. One of the claims made in the litigation -- against the Union of
India, the State of Madhya Pradesh and private companies allegedly responsible -- seeks
remediation of the plant site. (UCC is not involved in that litigation.) For additional information on
this 2004 PIL, please see “Alok Pratap Singh vs. UOI: Madhya Pradesh High Court” in the
Bhopal Litigation in India section of this website.
The media reported in 2007 that the Supreme Court of India had directed the central and state
governments to pay for collection of waste on the site and to have it landfilled or incinerated, as
appropriate. While some of the waste had been landfilled, public interest groups again
challenged the Court's incineration directive, as did the states where waste incineration facilities
were located.
However, in 2012, the Supreme Court selected the Pithampur waste treatment storage and
disposal facility (TSDF) in Madhya Pradesh’s Dhar district as the most suitable facility for
incinerating the waste. Though environmental NGOs claimed the facility failed to meet desired
safety parameters, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) submitted an affidavit in 2014
verifying the suitability of the facility to carry out the incineration.
According to The Indian Express, 10 tons of trial waste were transferred to the site in July 2015
and the trial incineration was conducted over a five-day period in mid-August. Operated by the
Ramky Group Company, the TSDF was monitored by the CPCB, as well as private firms CVR
Labs of Chennai and Vimta Lab of Hyderabad. The Express reported that officials associated
with the trial said the levels of emissions and ambient air quality from the burning was within
permissible limits, with the air quality being monitored at three locations in and around the facility,
including a station representing Tarpura village adjacent to the facility.
The full report on the trial incineration results will be submitted to the Supreme Court, which will
decide on how the rest of the waste at the site will be handled, said The Express, which also
noted that officials expect the remaining waste (some 335 tons) to be burnt at the “same place,
using the same technology and the same control parameters”.
Bhopal Plant History and Ownership
Bhopal Plant
Union Carbide India Limited's (UCIL) Bhopal plant was a vast chemical complex containing miles
of complicated piping and hundreds of specialized reactors, pressure vessels, heat exchangers
and other equipment and employed more than 1,000 workers. The plant began operations in the
late 1960son a site leased from the Madhya Pradesh State Government (MPSG), which selected
the location.
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
10/57
At the time, the area surrounding the site was removed from the city and very lightly populated.
However, in the ensuing the years, the authorities encouraged thousands of people to settle near
the plant and distributed “pattas” granting land rights to the hutment dwellers around the factory.
At the time of the gas release, the plant site contained about 55 acres, and an additional, non-
contiguous 35-acre site, also leased from MPSG, was utilized for solar evaporation ponds
(SEPs). On July 7, 1998, the MPSG terminated the leases of the plant site and SEPs.Click here
to view the MPSG press release.
Design and Construction of the Plant
The design, engineering and construction of the Bhopal plant was a UCIL project from beginning
to end and took eight years to complete (1972-1980). The project involved hundreds of Indian
engineers and designers from UCIL and major Indian engineering firms, dozens of Indian
subcontractors and thousands of Indian construction workers.
Contrary to allegations made by certain parties, Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) did not
design, construct or operate the Bhopal plant. And, most importantly, all of the decisions with
respect to the plant and its design, construction, and operation were either made by UCIL or
mandated by Government of Indian (GOI) policies and directives. (See 1987 Court of Appeals
Ruling below.)At the insistence of the GOI, UCC’s role in the project was very narrow and
contractually defined.
Pursuant to an arm’s-length contract with UCIL, which required GOI approval, UCC
provided process design packages for the phosgene, methylisocyanate (MIC) and Sevin units
(although UCIL decided not to use UCC’s Sevin process). The process design packages that
UCC provided were nothing more than design starting points; they provided only general
parameters -- such as the composition and flows of chemicals, temperatures, working pressures,
certain information on materials of construction and the like. A plant cannot be constructed from
process design packages.
In the years after UCIL’s receipt of UCC’s process designs, UCIL made a vast number of choices,
trade-offs and changes during the detail design, engineering and construction of the plant, and
UCC’s process designs were changed in innumerable ways to suit UCIL’s operating philosophy
and local conditions. UCC had no further design role. Much of the technology for the Bhopal
plant was developed by UCIL itself (the naphthol process and Sevin process) or acquired from
Stauffer Chemical Corporation (the carbon monoxide process). Furthermore, UCIL decided not to
use UCC’s Sevin process and developed its own.
http://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/MP%20Press%20Release%20re%20Bhopal.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/MP%20Press%20Release%20re%20Bhopal.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/MP%20Press%20Release%20re%20Bhopal.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/MP%20Press%20Release%20re%20Bhopal.pdf
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
11/57
1987 U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
Rules
UCC Did Not Design, Construct or perate
!hopal "lant
In a 1984 case, plaintiffs sought to prove that the Bhopal accident was caused by negligence on
the part of UCC in originally contributing to the design of the plant and its provision for storage of
excessive amounts of the gas at the plant. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in
1987 upheld a lower court's ruling that "UCC’s participation was limited and its involvement in
plant operations terminated long before the accident.
"Under 1973 agreements negotiated at arm’s-length with UCIL, UCC did provide a summary
'process design package' for construction of the plant and the services of some of its technicians
to monitor the progress of UCIL in detailing the design and erecting the plant. However, the UOI
[Union of India] controlled the terms of the agreements and precluded UCC from exercising any
authority to 'detail design, erect and commission the plant,' which was done independently over
the period from 1972 to 1980 by UCIL process design engineers who supervised, among many
others, some 55 to 60 Indian engineers employed by the Bombay engineering firm of Humphreys
and Glasgow.
"The preliminary process design information furnished by UCC could not have been used to
construct the plant. Construction required the detailed process design and engineering data
prepared by hundreds of Indian engineers, process designers and sub-contractors. During the 10
years spent constructing the plant, its design and configuration underwent many changes."Click
here to view the Court of Appeals decision -- Union Carbide Corporation Gas Plant Disaster at
Bhopal, India.
Back-integration
The plant began operations in 1969 as a formulations plant; that is, UCIL imported the chemical
carbaryl from UCC, formulated it into the insecticide brand products (such as Sevin and Temik)
and sold the formulated products to distributors in India. The formulation process did not involve
the manufacture of any chemicals, such as MIC, by UCIL in India. Rather, the imported carbaryl
was combined with other materials to make various end products.
That arrangement benefited UCIL because it was able to sell the formulated insecticide to a
growing agricultural market in India without having to make the large capital investment
necessary to build a major chemical plant.However, from the time UCIL first began to import
carbaryl from UCC's plant in Institute, WVA, the GOI pressured UCIL to “back-integrate;” that is,
to build a chemical plant capable of manufacturing carbaryl from indigenous raw material, in
order to save the foreign exchange paid for those imports. The mechanism to enforce back-
integration was the GOI’s control over import licenses. To import carbaryl into India, the GOI
required UCIL to obtain annually a license that included a condition that UCIL develop and
implement plans to build a fully back-integrated chemical plant in India, which included the
http://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Westlaw_Document_13_56_14.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Westlaw_Document_13_56_14.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Westlaw_Document_13_56_14.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Westlaw_Document_13_56_14.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Westlaw_Document_13_56_14.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Westlaw_Document_13_56_14.pdf
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
12/57
manufacture of MIC. UCIL’s choice: either back-integrate or abandon the sizable market it had
developed for insecticides in India.
In 1977, UCIL started the Sevin unit and ceased importation of carbaryl. From 1977-1980,
carbaryl was produced in the Sevin unit from MIC and naphthol imported from Institute in 55-
gallon drums. The MIC unit started in February 1980 and importation of MIC ceased. From
1980-1984, the only material imported into the plant from the U.S. was naphthol. (UCIL
completed a naphthol unit in 1977, but all attempts to operate it were unsuccessful, so the
importation continued from the U.S.)
The Government of India’s (GOI) Role
Laws, regulations and policies generated by the GOI and MPSG permeated every aspect of the
Bhopal facility from its inception. No action of any significance was taken without the approval of
the GOI or MPSG.
The GOI required UCIL to maximize Indian involvement in the design, procurement, construction
and operation of the plant and to minimize foreign involvement of any kind. The GOI restricted
the use of imported materials and foreign consultants, and, as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit confirmed in 1987, "precluded UCC from exercising any authority to ‘detail design,
erect and commission the plant.'"
The GOI closely monitored the progress of the plant, required detailed periodic reports and
approved plans and drawings, including the MIC manufacturing facility and storage tanks, as well
as the UCIL-designed waste disposal systems for the treatment and disposal of wastes, which
also were approved by the MPSG authorities. The thrust of numerous GOI policies was to
completely “Indianize” the project.
In short:
• The plant had been constructed and managed by Indians in India.
• No Americans were employed at the plant at the time of the accident. From 1980-84,
more than 1,000 Indians were employed at the plant -- but only one American was
employed there and he left in 1982.
• No Americans visited the plant for more than one year prior to the incident. And,
• During the 5-year period before, communications between the plant and the U.S. were
almost non-existent.
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
13/57
U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit
Rules in 2#1$ Decision
%hat UCC Not Responsi&le for An'
(n)iron*ental "ollutions at !hopal Site
In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reached a similar conclusion that UCC
was not the entity responsible for any environmental pollution resulting from operation of the
UCIL plant prior to the disaster. UCIL designed the waste disposal system for the treatment and
disposal of wastes, which was approved by the Madhya Pradesh State Government authorities.
The Second Circuit concluded "...[M]any others living near the Bhopal plant may well have
suffered terrible and lasting injuries from a wholly preventable disaster for which someone is
responsible. After nine years of contentious litigation and discovery, however, all that the
evidence in this case demonstrates is that UCC is not that entity".Click here to view the entire
ruling by the Court of Appeals.
Frequently Asked Questions About UCIL Ownership
of the Bhopal Plant
1. Who owned the Bhopal plant at the time of the incident and who owns it now?
A. The Bhopal plant was owned and operated by UCIL, an Indian company in which UCC held
just over half of the stock. Indian financial institutions and thousands of private investors in India
held the rest of the stock. In 1994, UCC sold its entire interest in UCIL to Mcleod Russel India
Limited, which renamed the company Eveready Industries India Limited (EIIL). In 1998, the
MPSG, which owns and had been leasing the property to EIIL, canceled the lease; took over the
facility; and assumed all accountability for the site, including the completion of any additional
remediation.
2. Did UCIL abandon the Bhopal plant after the gas leak?
A. No. UCIL, an Indian company, managed and operated the Bhopal plant at the time of the gas
leak. After the incident, UCIL completed one of the most single important remediation activities.
Known as "Operation Faith", the initiative transformed and removed tens of thousands of pounds
of methylisocyanate (MIC) from the plant.Click here to see page 7 in the Jackson Browning
Report. In the years following the tragedy, the Indian government severely restricted access to
the site. UCIL was only able to undertake clean-up work in the years just prior to the sale, and
spent some $2 million on that effort, which included beginning construction of a secure landfill to
hold the wastes from two solar evaporation ponds on site. The central and state government
authorities in India approved, monitored and directed every step of the clean-up work.
We understand that, after the sale of UCIL stock in 1994, EIIL continued the clean-up work and
completed the construction of the secure landfill on site. In 1998, the MPSG, which owns and had
been leasing the property to Eveready, canceled the lease; took over the facility; and assumed all
accountability for the site, including the completion of any additional remediation.
http://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Bhopal%20%202nd%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20June%202013%20Decision.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Bhopal%20%202nd%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20June%202013%20Decision.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/browning.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/browning.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Bhopal%20%202nd%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20June%202013%20Decision.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Bhopal%20%202nd%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20June%202013%20Decision.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/browning.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/browning.pdf
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
14/57
3. How does UCC respond to the allegations made in court cases through the years that it
was responsible for the design of the technologies employed at the Bhopal plant that led
to the tragedy and resulting on-site and off-site pollution?
A. Contrary to allegations made by certain parties in various lawsuits, UCC did not design,
construct or operate the Bhopal plant. And, most importantly, all of the decisions with respect to
the plant and its design, construction, and operation were either made by UCIL or mandated by
GOI policies and directives.
At the insistence of the GOI, UCC’s role in the project was very narrow and contractually defined.
Pursuant to an arm’s-length contract with UCIL, which required GOI approval, UCC provided
process design packages for several units, but the design packages were nothing more than
design starting points. They provided only general parameters -- such as the composition and
flows of chemicals, temperatures, working pressures, certain information on materials of
construction and the like. A plant cannot be constructed from process design packages. In the
years after UCIL’s receipt of UCC’s process designs, UCIL made a vast number of choices,
trade-offs and changes during the detail design, engineering and construction of the plant, and
UCC’s process designs were changed in innumerable ways to suit UCIL’s operating philosophy
and local conditions.
In 1987, the U.S. Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's ruling that "UCC’s participation was
limited and its involvement in plant operations terminated long before the accident....the UOI
[Union of India] controlled the terms of the agreements and precluded UCC from exercising any
authority to 'detail design, erect and commission the plant,'" which was done independently over
the period from 1972 to 1980 by UCIL process design engineers....The preliminary process
design information furnished by UCC could not have been used to construct the plant.
Construction required the detailed process design and engineering data prepared by hundreds of
Indian engineers, process designers and sub-contractors..."Click here to view the entire ruling by
the Court of Appeals --Union Carbide Corporation Gas Plant Disaster at Bhopal, India.
Subsequently, in 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld U.S. District
Court Judge John F. Keenan’s comprehensive decision of June 2012 in the Sahu vs. Union
Carbide Corporation case. Judge Keenan had unambiguously concluded that UCC is not liable
for any environmental remediation or pollution-related claims made by residents near the Bhopal
plant site in India; dismissed all claims against UCC and former Chairman Warren Anderson; and
ruled that UCC had no liability related to the plant site. The Second Circuit concluded "...[M]anyothers living near the Bhopal plant may well have suffered terrible and lasting injuries from a
wholly preventable disaster for which someone is responsible. After nine years of contentious
litigation and discovery, however, all that the evidence in this case demonstrates is that UCC is
not that entity". Click here to view complete 2013 court decision.
Remediation (Clean Up) of the Bhopal Plant
Site
http://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Westlaw_Document_13_56_14.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Westlaw_Document_13_56_14.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Westlaw_Document_13_56_14.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Bhopal%20%202nd%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20June%202013%20Decision.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Bhopal%20%202nd%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20June%202013%20Decision.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Westlaw_Document_13_56_14.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Westlaw_Document_13_56_14.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Bhopal%20%202nd%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20June%202013%20Decision.pdf
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
15/57
Status of the Former UCIL Plant Site
The Bhopal plant closed after the 1984 methylisocyanate (MIC) gas release and never resumed
normal operations. While the Bhopal gas release litigation was in progress, no steps could be
taken to remediate the site because the MIC unit was considered by the Central Bureau of
Investigation (CBI) as “evidence” in the criminal case. All activity at the site was closely monitored
and controlled by the CBI, the Indian courts and the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board
(MPPCB).
UCIL was finally permitted to undertake clean-up work in the years just prior to the sale of its
stock by UCC in 1994, and spent some $2 million on that effort, which included beginning
construction of a secure landfill to hold the wastes from two on-site solar evaporation ponds. The
central and state government authorities approved, monitored and directed every step of the
clean-up work. Following the sale, it appears that UCIL, now renamed Eveready Industries India
Limited (EIIL), continued some clean-up work and completed the construction of the secure
landfill on the site. In 1998, the Madhya Pradesh State Government (MPSG), which owned and
had been leasing the property to EIIL, cancelled the lease; took over the facility; and assumed all
accountability for the site, including the completion of any additional remediation.Click here to
view the MPSG press release.
According to media reports, court-ordered remediation efforts directed at the government entities
have proceeded slowly. Furthermore, proposals made by private companies have similarly been
questioned or rejected. For example, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) protested against
and blocked remediation attempts by those who offered to help raise funds for clean up or to
conduct pro-bono remediation. The disposal of the waste has consistently proved to be a non-
starter, and was further hindered after a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the Madhya
Pradesh High Court in 2004. (UCC is not involved in that litigation.)
The media reported in 2007 that the Supreme Court of India had directed the central and state
governments to pay for collection of waste on the site and to have it landfilled or incinerated, as
appropriate. While some of the waste had been landfilled, public interest groups again
challenged the Court's incineration directive, as did the states where waste incineration facilities
were located.
However, in 2012, the Supreme Court selected the Pithampur waste treatment storage and
disposal facility (TSDF) in Madhya Pradesh’s Dhar district as the most suitable facility for
incinerating the waste. Though environmental NGOs claimed the facility failed to meet desired
safety parameters, the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) submitted an affidavit in 2014
verifying the suitability of the facility to carry out the incineration.
According to The Indian Express, 10 tons of trial waste were transferred to the site in July 2015
and the trial incineration was conducted over a five-day period in mid-August. Operated by the
Ramky Group Company, the TSDF was monitored by the CPCB, as well as private firms CVR
Labs of Chennai and Vimta Lab of Hyderabad. The Express reported that officials associated
with the trial said the levels of emissions and ambient air quality from the burning were within
permissible limits, with the air quality being monitored at three locations in and around the facility,including a station representing Tarpura village adjacent to the facility.
http://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/MP%20Press%20Release%20re%20Bhopal.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/MP%20Press%20Release%20re%20Bhopal.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/MP%20Press%20Release%20re%20Bhopal.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/MP%20Press%20Release%20re%20Bhopal.pdf
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
16/57
The full report on the trial incineration results will be submitted to the Supreme Court, which will
decide on how the rest of the waste at the site will be handled, said The Express, which also
noted that officials expect the remaining waste (some 335 tons) to be burnt at the “same place,
using the same technology and the same control parameters”.
Frequently Asked Questions About Remediation of
the Bhopal Plant Site
1. Did UCIL abandon the Bhopal plant after the gas leak?
A. No. UCIL, an Indian company, managed and operated the Bhopal plant from its startup to the
time of the gas leak. After the incident, UCIL completed an important remediation activity -- the
transformation and removal of tens of thousands of pounds of MIC from the plant. In the years
following the tragedy, the Indian government severely restricted access to the site.UCIL was
permitted to undertake clean-up work only in the years just prior to the Union Carbide sale of its
UCIL stock, and spent some $2 million on that effort, which included beginning construction of a
secure landfill to hold the wastes from two, on-site solar evaporation ponds. The central and state
government authorities in India approved, monitored and directed every step of the clean-up
work.
It appears that after the sale of UCIL stock in 1994, the renamed UCIL -- now called Eveready
Industries India Limited (EIIL) -- continued the clean-up work and completed the construction of
the secure landfill on the site. In 1998, the MPSG, which owned and had been leasing the
property to EIIL, took over the facility and assumed all accountability for the site, including the
completion of any additional remediation.
The media reported that a trial incineration of some waste from the Bhopal plant site was
conducted in August 2015. Specific questions regarding this or any other remediation work are
best directed to the Madhya Pradesh State Government and/or the Central Pollution Control
Board (CPCB).
2. Is there groundwater contamination at the site?
A. According to media reports, various groups have made assessments of the groundwater
quality at the Bhopal site through the years, including a recent effort supervised by the State of
Madhya Pradesh. For an overview of those studies, please see "Environmental Studies of the
Bhopal Plant Site" on this website. Specific questions regarding these issues are best addressed
by the organizations that conducted the studies and/or the Madhya Pradesh State Government.
3. Did the gas leak contaminate the groundwater and soil outside the plant?
A. No. Indian government authorities have publicly and repeatedly confirmed that no
contamination of soil or groundwater outside the plant walls resulted from the MIC gas leak.
4. Did the day-to-day operations of the plant contaminate the groundwater or soil outside
the plant?
A. 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
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
17/57
used as chemical disposal and treatment areas. However, the study found no evidence of
groundwater contamination outside the plant and concluded that local water-wells were not
affected by plant disposal activities. UCC sold its stock in UCIL in 1994, and the state
government took over responsibility for the site in 1998. If groundwater outside the plant is now
contaminated after this length of time, it cannot under any circumstances be the responsibility of
UCC.
Specific questions regarding these issues are best directed to organizations that have conducted
environmental studies and the Madhya Pradesh State Government. For an overview of
environmental studies, please see “Environmental Studies of the Bhopal Plant Site” on this
website.
5. What remediation work has been performed at the site?
A. Because the government closed off the site from any and all operations following the gas
release, UCIL was only able to undertake additional clean-up work in the years just prior to the
1994 sale and spent some $2 million on that effort, which included beginning construction of a
secure landfill to hold the wastes from two, on-site solar evaporation ponds. The central and state
government authorities in India approved, monitored and directed every step of the clean-up
work. We understand that, after UCC sold its stock in UCIL in 1994, the renamed company --
EIIL -- continued the clean-up work at the site and completed the construction of the secure
landfill on the site. In 1998, the MPSG, which owned and had been leasing the property to EIIL,
cancelled the lease; took over the facility; and assumed all accountability for the site, including
the completion of any additional remediation.
The media reported that a trial incineration of some waste from the Bhopal plant site was
conducted in August 2015. Specific questions regarding this or any other remediation work are
best directed to the Madhya Pradesh State Government and/or the Central Pollution Control
Board (CPCB).
6. Why shouldn’t UCC be responsible for the Bhopal site clean-up under the “polluter
pays” principle?
A. UCC did not own or operate the site. If the court responsible for directing clean-up efforts
ultimately applies the "polluter pays" principle to a corporation, it would seem that legal
responsibility would fall to UCIL (now called EIIL), which leased the land, operated the site and
was a separate, publicly traded Indian company when the Bhopal tragedy occurred. In 1994,
UCC sold its interest in UCIL with the approval of the Indian Supreme Court. EIIL remains a
viable company today. The fact that UCC was not responsible for the operation of the Bhopal site
was considered by the U.S. courts and confirmed. In 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Second Circuit concluded that UCC was not the entity responsible for any environmental
pollution resulting from operation of the UCIL plant. The Second Circuit concluded, "[M]any
others living near the Bhopal plant may well have suffered terrible and lasting injuries from a
wholly preventable disaster for which someone is responsible. After nine years of contentious
litigation and discovery, however, all that the evidence in this case demonstrates is that UCC is
not that entity.”
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
18/57
7. What about claims of contaminated groundwater outside the plant contaminating the
adjoining region?
A. While we are aware of conflicting claims being made by various groups and reported in the
media, we have no first-hand knowledge of what chemicals, if any, may remain at the site and
what impact, if any they may be having on area groundwater.
It is important to note, however, that a 1998 study of drinking-water sources near the plant site by
the MPPCB found some contamination that likely was caused by improper drainage of water and
other sources of environmental pollution. The Control Board did not find any traces of chemicals
linked to chemicals formerly used at the UCIL plant. Further,The Hindustan Times reported on
April 29, 2006, that "A study by the National Institute of Occupational Health (NIOH),
Ahmedabad, has virtually debunked voluntary organisations' fear about contamination of water in
and around Union Carbide plant…." We believe it is important for the MPSG to complete the
remediation of the plant site. The state is in the best position to evaluate all scientific information
that is available and make the right decision for Bhopal.
Specific questions regarding these issues are best directed to organizations that have conducted
environmental studies and the MPSG. For an overview of environmental studies, please see
“Environmental Studies of the Bhopal Plant Site” on this website.
8. What is the status of litigation against UCC regarding remediation of the site and/or
paying damages for the effects of pollution?
A. Two lawsuits filed in New York federal court in 2004 and 2007 have focused on site
remediation and compensation for residents related to the alleged impact of pollution. In June
2012, a federal court unambiguously concluded in the first of these cases, Janki Bai Sahu et al.
v. UCC, that neither UCC nor its former Chairman Warren Anderson are liable for any
environmental remediation or pollution-related personal injury claims made by residents near the
Bhopal plant site. In June 2013, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld
the 2012 court decision, stating: "[M]any others living near the Bhopal plant may well have
suffered terrible and lasting injuries from a wholly preventable disaster for which someone is
responsible. After nine years of contentious litigation and discovery, however, all that the
evidence in this case demonstrates is that UCC is not that entity".
A separate case filed in 2007 in New York District Court -- Jagarnath Sahu et al. v. UCC -- seeks
damages to clean up properties allegedly polluted by contaminants from the Bhopal plant. This
suit, which had been stayed pending resolution of appeals in the Janki Bai Sahu case, is the last
remaining Bhopal-related case before U.S. courts. UCC moved for summary judgment in this
case and on July 30, 2014, the District Court dismissed this case essentially on the same basis
as the earlier-filedSahu case. Plaintiffs’ appeal is pending.
Other pollution-related litigation is pending in India against various parties in the Madhya Pradesh
High Court and the India Supreme Court. For additional information, please see "Bhopal
Litigation in the U.S." and "Bhopal Litigation in India" pages on this website.
Bhopal Litigation in the U.S.
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
19/57
Initial Cases
Within days of the disaster, American personal injury lawyers who had gone to Bhopal brought
civil litigation in the U.S. against Union Carbide Corporation (UCC). The cases were first brought
on behalf of individual claimants by the U.S. lawyers and later by the Government of India (GOI)
as statutory representative of all claimants under the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act passed by
the Indian Parliament in early 1985. The cases were consolidated in New York before U.S.
District Judge John F. Keenan.
UCC moved to dismiss the litigation on the grounds offorum non conveniens;this is, it asked the
court to dismiss the case because another court, or forum, in this case, India, was much better
suited to hear the case. Judge Keenan granted the motion in May 1986 on the condition that
UCC accept thecivil jurisdiction of the Indian courts to hear the cases, which UCC accepted. The
dismissal was affirmed on appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review it.
Class Action Lawsuits
Between 1999 and 2007, three class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the
Southern District of New York against UCC and former UCC Chairman Warren M. Anderson:
TheBano case was filed in November 1999 -- eight years after the settlement between
UCC and the GOI was upheld by the Supreme Court of India. The Bano plaintiffs
attempted to avoid the preclusive effect of the settlement with the GOI by alleging
violations of international law and that UCC and Mr. Anderson had failed to appear in
criminal proceedings in India, which they alleged was required by UCC’s consent to
jurisdiction as a condition to dismissal of the U.S. litigation and the Supreme Court of
India’s judgment upholding the settlement. The case was assigned to Judge John F.
Keenan.
In January 2000 -- after the publication of a 1999 Greenpeace report concerning pollution
at the former UCIL plant site -- the Bano plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, adding
environmental pollution claims unrelated to 1984 gas leak. The amended complaint
alleged property damage in 16 colonies near the plant site as a result of groundwater
pollution caused by the operation of the UCIL plant and also added Haseena Bi as a
plaintiff, claiming personal injury and property damage from the alleged contamination.
For the next six years, the case and various appeals by the Bano plaintiffs were argued
before both the District Court and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit,
respectively. Finally, in August 2006, the Court of Appeals affirmed the last of Judge
Keenan’s rulings, ending the litigation.
Key rulings by Judge Keenan in the Bano case that were upheld by the Court of
Appeals included:
o Plaintiffs lacked standing to sue with respect to the Bhopal gas disaster since the
GOI was the exclusive representative of the victims under the Bhopal Act.
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
20/57
o Plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the settlement with the GOI.
o UCC did not violate his order to consent to the civil jurisdiction of the Indian
courts, which was imposed as a condition to the dismissal of earlier litigation in
the United States based upon the 1984 gas release on the grounds offorum non
conveniens, by not appearing in the criminal case in India.
o UCC did not agree to criminal jurisdiction in India when the civil settlement was
upheld by the Supreme Court of India and the criminal case was allowed to
proceed.
o Dismissal of environmental pollution claims.
o Dismissal of plaintiff Bi's personal injury and property damages claims.
o Dismissal of claims seeking the remediation of the UCIL plant site.
o Dismissal of claims for property damage, injunctive relief and class-action
certification.
For the complete opinion of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, please click here.
For Union Carbide's statement on this ruling, pleaseclick here.
Remediation and Plant Site Pollution Litigation TheJanki Bai Sahu case -- filed in November 2004 -- alleged personal injuries caused
by pollution from the former UCIL plant site. The case, known as Sahu I, was brought by
13 individuals on behalf of themselves, family members and others similarly situated, and
also was assigned to Judge Keenan.
For the next eight-plus years, the case and various appeals by the Sahu plaintiffs were
argued before both the Court and U.S. District Court of Appeals for the Second District,
respectively. Finally, in the June, 2013, the Court of Appeals affirmed the last of Judge
Keenan’s rulings, ending the Sahu I litigation.
Key rulings by Judge Keenan during the Sahu trial that were upheld by the Appeals
Court included:
o Rejecting plaintiffs’ direct liability claims that UCC “participated in the creation of
the pollution by approving the back-integration of the Bhopal Plant, designing the
Bhopal Plant’s waste disposal systems, transferring technology to UCIL, by its
knowledge of water pollution risks, and by its ‘intimate participation’ in
environmental remediation efforts.”
http://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Bano_Decision.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Bano_Decision.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Union_Carbide_Statement_on_Bano.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Bano_Decision.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Union_Carbide_Statement_on_Bano.pdf
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
21/57
o Rejecting plaintiffs' argument that the alleged environmental contamination would
not have occurred if UCC had not approved back-integration of the plant, based
on the undisputed fact that UCIL -- acting under pressure from the GOI -- first
proposed back-integration and that UCC’s approval did not, “as a matter of law,
rise to the level of participation in the creation of pollution.”
o Rejecting plaintiffs’ contention that UCC “designed the faulty waste disposal
systems installed at the Bhopal plant,” holding that “the documents [plaintiffs]
cited simply do not establish that UCC was responsible for such design.” Judge
Keenan found that “UCIL may have consulted UCC about its plans early on, but
UCIL was the ultimate decision maker, so primary responsibility for the design
and construction of the waste disposal system at the Bhopal Plant rested with
UCIL.” A memorandum outlining the respective roles of UCC and UCIL “states in
no uncertain terms that ‘UCIL will have the primary responsibilities for designing
and providing the… facilities for… disposal of wastes.’”
o Rejecting plaintiffs’ argument that UCC was liable because it provided
manufacturing technology to UCIL. Judge Keenan ruled that the generationof
waste does not give rise to liability; rather,disposalof the waste is the issue.
o Finding that plaintiffs offered no evidence than any technology provided by UCC
“itself was polluting” or “caused pollution, in and of itself.” Judge Keenan
concluded “that the evidence demonstrates that the allegedly unproven and
improper technology used at the Bhopal Plant was selected and/or developed by
UCIL, not UCC.”
o Ruling that “[t]he fact that UCC recognized potential waste disposal issues does
not give rise to the extensive liability Plaintiffs suggest.” Even if UCC had a duty to
act, as plaintiffs’ contended, Judge Keenan found that “UCC did speak up,
numerous times,” making UCIL fully aware of the waste disposal issues.
o Agreeing with UCC “that UCIL/EIIL is and always has been an adequately
capitalized corporation, negating any inference that UCIL was a dummy or shell
corporation used to carry out business.” Indeed, he held that “it is uncontested
that EIIL is an independent going concern of adequate capitalization and assets,”
negating any inference of abuse of the corporate form.
o Finding that the documents plaintiffs relied on to support their contention that
UCC controlled UCILactually showedthat UCIL had “discretion which is
completely inconsistent with plaintiffs’ theory of absolute control.” Judge Keenan
concluded that “there is a marked lack of evidence of domination.”
o Asserting there was no individual liability for Mr. Anderson.
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
22/57
o Rejecting plaintiffs’ claims for medical monitoring and remediation on the grounds
that they were impracticable – the same grounds on which they were rejected in
theBanocase.
In its last ruling in 2013, the Court of Appeals held:
o Concerning “Direct Liability” claims: "...no reasonable juror could find that UCC
participated in the creation of the contaminated drinking water.…Neither UCC’s
approval of the plan to “back-integrate” the plant, nor its transfer of technology for
pesticide manufacture, nor its designs for a waste disposal system, nor its limited
involvement in remediation amount to participation in the failure of the
evaporation ponds to contain the hazardous waste."
o “Sahu’s negligence claim fails for the same reason as does her nuisance theory –
namely that any actions taken by UCC did not legally cause the pollution
complained of.”
o Regarding plaintiffs’ “Indirect Liability” theories, “We find no error in the District
Court’s legal conclusions and, based upon an independent review of the record,
conclude that no reasonable juror could find for Sahu on any of these theories.”
The Court of Appeals concluded: “Sahu and many others living near the Bhopal plant may well
have suffered terrible and lasting injuries from a wholly preventable disaster for which someone is
responsible. After nine years of contentious litigation and discovery, however, all that the
evidence in this case demonstrates is that UCC is not that entity.”
To view the entire ruling by the Court of Appeals, pleaseclick here.
Jagarnath Sahu et al v. UCC and Warren Anderson (aka, Sahu II case) --After the
Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the Bano action, a second Sahu class action
alleging property damage claims was filed in March 2007. The second Sahu action had
been stayed pending the final appeal in the first Sahu action. Following its resolution, in
July 2014 Judge John Keenan dismissed the Sahu II case and stated that the company
could not be sued for ongoing contamination from the [Bhopal] chemical plant. An appeal
is pending.
Frequently Asked Questions about the Bhopal
Litigation in the U.S.
1. What is the status of U.S. litigation against UCC regarding paying additional
compensation to victims?
A. In 1989, UCC and UCIL entered into a $470 million legal settlement with the Indian
Government, settling all claims arising from the incident. The Indian Supreme Court affirmed the
settlement and described it as "just, equitable and reasonable." UCC and UCIL promptly paid the
money to the GOI. A lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in 1999 asserting claims for personal
http://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Bhopal%20%202nd%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20June%202013%20Decision.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Bhopal%20%202nd%20Court%20of%20Appeals%20June%202013%20Decision.pdf
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
23/57
injuries and property damage arising out the Bhopal gas disaster was dismissed, and the
dismissal was affirmed on appeal.
2. What is the status of U.S. litigation regarding remediation (clean up) of the site?
A. Cases filed in New York Federal court in November 2004, and thereafter, have focused on site
remediation and compensation for residents. In June 2012, a Federal court unambiguously
concluded in the Sahu I case that neither UCC nor its former Chairman Warren Anderson are
liable for any environmental remediation or pollution-related personal injury claims made by
residents near the Bhopal plant site.
However, plaintiffs filed an appeal. In June 2013, the Federal Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit upheld the 2012 court decision, stating: "...many others living near the Bhopal plant may
well have suffered terrible and lasting injuries from a wholly preventable disaster for which
someone is responsible. After nine years of contentious litigation and discovery, however, all that
the evidence in this case demonstrates is that UCC is not that entity".
A separate case -- Jagarnath Sahu et al v UCC and Warren Anderson (Sahu II) -- filed in 2007 in
New York District Court sought damages to clean up six individual properties allegedly polluted
by contaminants from the Bhopal plant, as well as the remediation of property in 16 colonies
adjoining the plant. This suit, which had been stayed pending resolution of appeals in Janki Bai
Sahu case (Sahu I), was the last remaining Bhopal-related case before U.S. Courts. In July 2014,
Judge Keenan ruled that UCC was not liable for any on-ongoing pollution from the Bhopal
chemical plant. An appeal is pending.
3. Aren't UCC and Mr. Anderson in violation of Judge Keenan's 1986 order that required
them to appear in Indian Courts?
A. No. The American litigation was civil litigation. Judge Keenan's order and UCC's consent
were with respect to civil jurisdiction in India -- not criminal jurisdiction. UCC did litigate and settle
the civil claims arising from the Bhopal tragedy in the Indian civil courts. UCC is not subject to
criminal jurisdiction in India and has not consented to it. UCC and Mr. Anderson were not
required to appear in any criminal matters in India.
As the U.S. Court of Appeals noted in its 2006 decision upholding Judge John Keenan's rulings
in the Bano case, UCC did not violate his order to consent to the civil jurisdiction of the Indian
courts, which was imposed as a condition to the dismissal of earlier litigation in the United States
based upon the 1984 gas release on the grounds offorum non conveniens, by not appearing in
the criminal case in India. For the complete opinion of the Court of Appeals, please click here.
Bhopal Litigation in IndiaPrint
The litigation in India pertaining to the Bhopal tragedy can be broken into four distinct categories:
• Civil litigation.
• Criminal litigation.
http://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Bano_Decision.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Bano_Decision.pdfhttp://www.bhopal.com/Bhopal-Litigation-in-India/Civil%20Litigationhttp://www.bhopal.com/Bhopal-Litigation-in-India/Criminal%20Litigationhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/Bano_Decision.pdfhttp://www.bhopal.com/Bhopal-Litigation-in-India/Civil%20Litigationhttp://www.bhopal.com/Bhopal-Litigation-in-India/Criminal%20Litigation
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
24/57
• Curative Petition litigation.
• Other Civil Proceedings in India: Public Interest Litigation.
For details on each of these categories , please click on the respective link above.
Civil LitigationPrint
In September 1986, the Government of India (GOI) instituted a civil suit against Union Carbide
Corporation (UCC) in the Court of the District Judge, Bhopal, India, on behalf of all victims of the
disaster. In keeping with its consent to jurisdiction given as a condition to dismissal of the U.S.
litigation, UCC appeared and defended itself.
During the next three years, extensive proceedings took place in the suit concerning a variety of
issues, including the issue of interim relief to the victims. When the proceedings eventually
reached the Indian Supreme Court in 1988, the Court urged UCC, Union Carbide India Limited
(UCIL) and the GOI -- in lieu of interim relief -- to reach a final global settlement. In February
1989, after 24 days of hearings, the Supreme Court recommended a $470 million global
settlement that was accepted by UCC, UCIL and the GOI. Ten days after the decision, UCC paid
$425 million and UCIL paid $45 million to the GOI. The settlement resolved the civil litigation and
quashed the criminal proceedings. The Supreme Court subsequently issued a decision
explaining, among other things, how it arrived at the sum of $470 million for an overall settlement
and why it considered the settlement to be “just, equitable and reasonable.”
In November 1989, Rajiv Gandhi’s government, which entered into the global settlement withUCC, was defeated in national elections. The opposition parties formed a coalition government,
which reopened the question of compensation for the gas victims; concluded that the settlement
was wholly inadequate; and instructed the Law Minister to back review petitions brought by
activists in the Supreme Court challenging the settlement.
Three different Constitution Benches of the Supreme Court (i.e., a panel of five senior justices
appointed by the Chief Justice) conducted hearings that went on for 64 days over a period of two
years. In a 117-page decision, dated December 1989, the Supreme Court upheld the
constitutionality of the Bhopal Act and the authority of the GOI to settle on behalf of the victims.
For the complete court decision, pleaseclick here.
In October 1991, in a 114-page judgment, the Supreme Court further held that:
• The civil settlement was “just, equitable and reasonable”;
• The GOI was required to cover any shortfall in the settlement amount;
• The GOI was required to buy medical insurance for 100,000 asymptomatic people;
•
The criminal case could proceed, and
http://www.bhopal.com/Bhopal-Litigation-in-India/Curative%20Petitionhttp://www.bhopal.com/Bhopal-Litigation-in-India/Other%20Civil%20Proceedings%20in%20India%20Public%20Interest%20Litigationhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/1989_Settlement.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/1989_Settlement.pdfhttp://www.bhopal.com/Bhopal-Litigation-in-India/Curative%20Petitionhttp://www.bhopal.com/Bhopal-Litigation-in-India/Other%20Civil%20Proceedings%20in%20India%20Public%20Interest%20Litigationhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/1989_Settlement.pdf
8/18/2019 Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information
25/57
• UCC was requested to fund a hospital in Bhopal for treatment of the victims.
For the complete court decision part 1 pleaseclick here.
For the complete court decision part 2 pleaseclick here.
Post-1991 Proceedings Regarding the Settlement
Virtually all claims were reviewed and adjudicated by 2002. A total of Rs. 1511.51 crores was
paid from the settlement fund, according to a GOI Scheme (program), which established the
categories of claims and amounts of compensation, and which was administered by the Bhopal
Gas Victims Welfare Commissioner. UCC played no role in the distribution of settlement funds.
The following year, various activist groups petitioned the Supreme Court, seeking disposal of the
remaining balance of the settlement funds, which was approximately equal to the amount already
paid. In July 2004, the Supreme Court directed the Welfare Commissioner to disburse the
balance of Rs. 1503.01 crores to the claimants who had already received compensation, thus
doubling the amount of compensation per claimant.
In 2006, activist groups sought to require the GOI to increase the settlement fund by five times,
alleging that the Supreme Court substantially underestimated the number of victims of the
disaster when it approved the settlement. The GOI said the allegations were unfounded and
frivolous, and asked the Court to impose sanctions on the activist groups. In 2007, the Supreme
Court denied the requested relief on the grounds urged by the GOI.
In 2009, the Welfare Commissioner rejected another challenge to the settlement by activists and
the Madhya Pradesh High Court affirmed the decision.
In 2010, activists filed a special petition in the Supreme Court, which the Welfare Commissioneralso opposed while defending the settlement. The Supreme Court has not ruled on this petition.
Criminal Litigation
The Indian Central Bureau on Investigation (CBI) initiated criminal proceedings in December
1987, which accused Union Carbide Corporation (UCC) Chairman Warren M. Anderson, seven
managers of Union Carbide Indian Limited (UCIL) and three corporate entities -- UCC, UnionCarbide Eastern and UCIL -- with “culpable homicide not amounting to murder,” the most serious
offense charged. These criminal charges were quashed as part of the 1989 settlement, which
resolved all civil claims as well.
However, in its October 1991 judgment upholding the settlement of the civil claims, the Supreme
Court of India also held that the criminal case could proceed. Mr. Anderson and UCC were
ordered to appear before the Indian criminal court in 1992, but did not because the court lacked
criminal jurisdiction over them and the criminal charges had been quashed as part of the global
settlement. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bhopal (CJM), declared them absconders and directed
that a warrant be issued against Mr. Anderson to initiate proceedings for extradition.
http://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/1991_Review_order.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/1991_Review_order2.pdfhttp://storage.dow.com.edgesuite.net/dow.com/Bhopal/1991_Review_order.pdfhttp://storage.dow.co