Union Carbide's Bhopal Disaster

Union Carbide's Bhopal Disaster

In 1984, as if in a nightmare, a cloud of poison gas reached out and snuffed the lives of thousands of people in the sleeping city of Bhopal, India. The residents awoke to a terrible disaster, a chemical explosion whose memory could never be erased. At the center of the tragedy was the Union Carbide pesticide plant, and surrounding the accident were doubts and accusations of negligence and unethical practices.

The Disaster

On December 3, 1984, one of the world's worst chemical disasters occurred at the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal, India. Forty tons of vaporous methyl isocyanate (MIC) gas exploded, releasing a toxic mixture of MIC, hydrogen cyanide, monomethyl amine, carbon monoxide, and possibly 20 other lethal chemicals into the air. At least 3,000 people died, and estimates of injuries ranged from 20,000 to 300,000 people (Hedges, 2000, para. 3).

The people of Bhopal referred to it as "The Devils' Night." In the aftermath, there were 70 funeral pyres 25 bodies high, all burning together. Mass graves overflowed, and babies died in hospitals that reported a death every minute. Animal carcasses were all over, as were the flies and vultures. Leaves on trees shriveled; crops were scorched; milk spoiled; and ponds grew scummy. "Everywhere sounded the wails of grieving relatives, moans of survivors in pain and cries of hungry children" (Lang, 1984, paras. 3-4, 23).

It was a tragedy of immeasurable proportions.

The Role of Ethics in the Disaster

Immediately after the disaster, accusations arose about U.S. corporations endangering the Third World "in a callous search for profits" (Lang, 1984, para. 17). Many argued that dangerous chemical plants were being placed in very densely populated areas around the world (Lang, 1984, para. 19). Tragically, the people of Bhopal were unprepared for a chemical disaster (Newton & Dillingham, 2002, pp. 92-93).

The Indian government charged Union Carbide and its senior executives with "culpable homicide - the legal equivalent of manslaughter" (Hedges, 2000, para. 7). The lawsuits claimed that Union Carbide and its executives violated international law and fundamental human rights by neglecting to maintain plant safety (Hedges, 2000, para. 14). Investigations after the accident revealed a long list of safety violations. Workers had grown to ignore the temperature and pressure gauges because they were notoriously unreliable. An important refrigeration unit designed to keep the MIC at low temperatures had been disabled for quite some time. The gas scrubber and the flare tower that were designed to neutralize and burn any escaping MIC had been disabled. The design of the flare tower was shortsighted in that it was only capable of handling a quarter of the actual amount of gas released, and the water curtain that was supposed to neutralize any remaining gas did not reach the top of the flare tower (Weir, 1987, pp. 41-42).

Despite these blatant safety violations, Union Carbide claimed that a disgruntled employee's sabotage was ultimately responsible for the accident (Hedges, 2000, para. 13). The company had evidence proving that a large amount of water caused the explosion, and that such a large quantity would have had to have been added intentionally; it could not have been caused by a small amount of water from leaky pipes as the investigators had stated. Union Carbide officials also identified evidence of tampering with safety valves and gauges (Newton & Dillingham, 2002, p. 86).

Regardless of the appearance of impropriety, or even sabotage, Union Carbide's role should have been to adhere to ethical standards and responsibility at all costs. Their chemical plant should have been situated away from a densely populated area. Rules, procedures, proper maintenance, and inspections should have been in place, and they should have prepared the community better through open and honest communication. "Union Carbide [insisted] that the Bhopal facility was built by Americans to the same safety standards as U.S. factories. However, the company also [said] that it had not installed a computerized safety system at Bhopal, despite having one at a sister plant in West Virginia" (Lang, 1984, para. 11). Author David Weir quoted a United Nations official who wished to remain anonymous when he said,

Even those companies that say they will maintain the same standards as in the developed world find it difficult to resist the temptation to take a shortcut. Even if they have a good design for their plant, however, there's no good infrastructure in the underdeveloped countries. Even if they put it away from population centers, who will check and control that the people don't come in around it? (Newton & Dillingham, 2002, p. 90).

Had Union Carbide exercised more responsibility and ethics from the very beginning, perhaps the Bhopal disaster would have been avoided.

Preventing Future Disasters

The Bhopal accident served as a wake-up call for the chemical industry (Lang, 1984, para. 23). In response, the Chemical Manufacturers Association created a program called Responsible Care®, "the chemical industry's commitment to the continuous