Download pdf - Bhopal Gas Tragedy Information

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


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


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

Print

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


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/


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


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


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

Print

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


8/57

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


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

Print

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.


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


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


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


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.


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


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.


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


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


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

Print

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


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


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


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


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.”


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


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.


19/57

Print

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.


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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

Print

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