« May 2006 | Main | May 2007 »
January 30, 2007
Tata FAQ #1: What is Tata’s proposed involvement in Bhopal?
A January 1, 2007 article published in The Indian Express, announced that, “Tata group chairman Ratan Tata has volunteered his services to the UPA government for “remediation” of the Bhopal gas tragedy site to pave the way for Dow Chemicals, now the majority stakeholder of Union Carbide Ltd, to invest in India.” In a letter to Planning Commission Vice Chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia, dated November 28th, Ratan wrote that he was willing “to lead and find funding for remediation of site above and below ground” in Bhopal. The proposal made to the Indian government consists of setting up a trust with contribution from other corporations, including Dow, for the purposes of cleaning-up the abandoned Union Carbide Factory site. The UPA government is now considering the idea of setting up of a Committee of Secretaries under Cabinet Secretary B K Chaturvedi to examine Tata’s proposal and implementation of the site remediation plan. An alternative is an inter-ministerial meeting with Tata or his representatives. The details of the proposal remain to be made publicly available. A request for a copy under the Right to Information Act is currently pending before the ministries of commerce and finance.
For the past twenty-two years, the abandoned Union Carbide Factory has been leaking toxins from the factory into the groundwater that serves as the primary drinking source for many Bhopal communities.
Posted by zinda at 11:19 PM | Comments (0)
Tata FAQ #2: What did Tata have to say in response to protest by victimized communities?
Following the first set of protests by the gas-affected community against Tata’s proposed initiative, a Tata Group Spokesperson insisted that there seemed to be some misunderstanding. The spokesperson explained that they thought a fund should be established, “… to bring like-minded corporates to contribute …”, and insisted that such a fund would be “… independent of issues addressed in the court …”.
By way of clarifying the spirit in which they had hoped their proposition would be received, they noted that, “There is a risk that health issues may emerge, which impact not only the unfortunate victims of the Bhopal tragedy, but also those citizens of Bhopal who were not affected by the tragedy but who may be impacted by possible contamination of underground water”. As such they claim their offer is no different than any public-spirited initiative to clean-up a polluted site.
Why is this response unacceptable?
Ratan Tata’s claim that the proposed fund would be completely independent of any issues currently being discussed in the court does not hold up to legal scrutiny. Dow Chemical, which now owns Union Carbide, is currently in the midst of legal trials in which they are being held liable for the clean-up. A Government-sponsored clean up could, theoretically, recover costs from the polluter - Union Carbide Corporation/Dow Chemical, but a charitable clean-up cannot be turned into liability for another. A charitable remediation fund is a donation, which is impossible to recover from a third-party. In practice, Dow would be relieved of this liability.
Moreover, Tata’s assessment of the current situation in Bhopal regarding water contamination and the associated health effects, as expressed in his response, is vastly inaccurate and belies severe misunderstanding of the gravity of the situation and the research that has been done to date. While Tata speaks of hypothetical populations in Bhopal that “may be impacted by possible contamination”, the evidence in Bhopal conclusively reveals an environmental health catastrophe of far great magnitude, the health effects of which are already being suffered by sizable populations. It is scientifically proven that, not only has the abandoned factory caused severe contamination of ground water sources, this contamination has already had devastating health effects on the communities that have had no choice but to use this water supply.
Furthermore, using phrases such as, “health issues may emerge”, and “may be impacted by possible contamination”, is not only misleading but also, offensive to people in Bhopal who live with the imminent reality of illness and morbidity as consequences of contamination. Such comments make it unclear whether Tata is: (1) merely gravely ignorant about the severity of the present day crisis in Bhopal, (2) does not believe that the research to date is valid or (3) is reluctant to admit how severe the contamination is due to the legal implications it has for Dow.
Members of the affected community will almost certainly need medical treatment for the rest of their lives, and it is likely that their children will as well. Adequate treatment is not currently being provided. Given Tata’s lack of understanding of the current situation in Bhopal, there is a serious risk that, were his proposal to be accepted, this could lead to extreme neglect of the actual needs of the people of Bhopal. Tata’s proposal makes no mention of providing the much needed medical services. This means that, in functionally reducing, if not eliminating Dow’s liability, Dow, Tata and other “like minded corporates”, may be lauded for their charitable contributions, while thousands continue to suffer from inadequate treatment for health affects that have been caused by water contamination over the past two decades.
Posted by zinda at 11:15 PM | Comments (0)
Tata FAQ #3: What is Ratan Tata’s motive in this whole affair, how and why did he get involved?
Ratan Tata’s offer follows directly from a recommendation made at the US – India Economic Partnership CEO forum in March 2006, which he co-chaired along with the American CEO of JP Morgan Chase, William B. Harrison Jr. Recommendation V to encourage trade and investment names the need to set up a “dispute settlement mechanism” for “ resolving legacy issues such as those impacting Dow/ Bhopal tragedy of 1984”. It is noted that this would “send a positive signal to US investors,” and would thus increase business activities of American Multination corporations in India.
Much of the recommendations made at the US-INDIA CEO forum were for a reduction of legal barriers and minimum standards that might dissuade investors and encourage them to turn elsewhere to maximize profits and minimize expenses. As a large Indian Multinational, Tata stands to gain a significant business advantage through increased partnership with American corporations. As a corporation with factories set-up throughout India, they also stand to gain from a reduction in legal liabilities that make corporations accountable to the communities in which they operate.
A January 1st, 2007 Indian Express article on Tata’s proposal for remediation of the Bhopal UC factory site notes: “Writing to the MEA on November 8, Liveris, who is a member of Indo-US CEO forum, said that it was not possible for Dow to invest in India unless the issue was cleared. The Dow CEO said that it wants to work with the local industry CEOs, Madhya Pradesh Government and New Delhi to expedite the remediation efforts.” Dow is currently planning a major expansion in India. A special task force has been set-up in the national planning commission to facilitate these expansion plans. Tata’s current proposal is thus identified as a means of fulfilling the conditions for facilitating Dow’s expansion.
Posted by zinda at 11:13 PM | Comments (0)
Tata FAQ #4: What harm would it do if Tata’s proposal were to be accepted? At least the site would be cleaned up, wouldn’t it?
The Tata’s proposal shifts the burden of remediation from that of a legal liability shouldered by the polluting company, to charitable donations by benevolent corporations. This precedence for dealing with industrial disasters creates a far more attractive climate in India for American Investment. Under the rubric of “corporate responsibility”, rather than corporate liability, Multinational corporations would have the green light to set up factories without fear of legal retribution should their factories prove to have devastating long term consequences for the communities.
There is no question that the site needs to be cleaned up; that failure to clean it up has dire environmental and health consequences for the community. However, the survivors of the Bhopal gas disaster insist that this clean-up should be done in a lawful manner that will prevent such disasters from recurring. While, at present, every minute that the site remains unclean means the spreading and ingestion of toxins, demands have been made that the government provide a supply of clean water to the affected people of Bhopal until satisfactory plans for the clean-up of the site can be made, implemented and completed.
Posted by zinda at 11:12 PM | Comments (0)
Tata FAQ #5: What is Dow Chemical’s response to demands for clean up and compensation?
Dow Chemical claims that because they only purchased Union Carbide Ltd. after the disaster, they are not legally liable to clean up the contamination caused by the now abandoned Union Carbide Factory. In August 2004, Dow made a submission to the court in which they state that “the said merger… did not disturb the status and independence of UCC and UCC survived the merger.” They therefore go on to argue that “they will not be able to accept any liability to serve and/or produce the alleged absconder UCC before this Hon’ble Court”. The court subsequently ruled that Dow must show cause why they should not be held accountable in making UCC stand trial. The Department of Chemical and Fertilizers has since launched an application in a Public Interest Lawsuit to the district court, asking that Dow pay Rs. 100 Crore ($22 million dollars) for the clean-up. Dow continues to refuse this liability. They have countered with an offer to make a voluntary contribution to clean-up efforts, but only on condition that this is not taken by the Indian Government to be their legal duty.
Why is this response unacceptable?
According to well-established merger laws, as the new parent company, Dow Chemical Ltd. also inherited Union Carbide's liabilities. On January 9, 2002 Dow accepted Carbide's liabilities in the US and settled a Texas asbestos lawsuit originally filed against Union Carbide. That Dow is now denying Carbide’s liability in India suggests an unacceptable global double standard. Allowing Dow to evade this liability in India would sanction the shifting of assets and undertaking of international mergers as a means of avoiding liability for disasters caused by a corporate plant.
Posted by zinda at 11:09 PM | Comments (0)
Tata FAQ #6: What precedent would be set if Tata were to take responsibility for organizing the clean-up?
Were Tata to take responsibility for organizing the clean-up via voluntary corporate contributions to a designated fund, a precedent would be set whereby the environmental health of a community becomes the responsibility of optional charity work, rather than a legal right to be protected against unsafe practices of multi-national corporations. By allowing liability to be evaded in a disaster of the magnitude of the Bhopal Gas Leak of 1984, a dangerous precedent is set for the future of corporate accountability.
If Dow is allowed to escape liability India, while accepting the analogous liability in America, a precedent will be set for corporations to expand internationally, while avoiding liability should their safety and environmental practices prove to be substandard.
Posted by zinda at 11:09 PM | Comments (0)
Tata FAQ #7: What are the environmental health risks in Bhopal related to the abandoned Union Carbide Factory?
The corporation has been well aware of the environmental health effects on and around the Union Carbide plant for almost 20 years. A 1989 Union Carbide internal correspondence document demonstrates that the corporation had conclusive proof with regard to the poisoning of ground water within the factory premises. The report states that during tests to find out what the effect of the contaminated water on living systems was, found that:
“All samples cause 100% mortality to fish in toxicity assessment studies and were to be diluted several fold to render them suitable for survival of fish”
Residents ingest this contaminated water on a daily basis due to the fact that they have no other viable option.
A number of toxic chemicals that were created, used, and dumped as waste in Union Carbide’s pesticide formulation process still lurk in the water, soil and living organisms around the factory.
The majority of over 20,000 people living in communities that surround the abandoned Union Carbide plant and solar evaporation ponds rely on groundwater for all of their domestic water uses, including drinking. A 2001-2003 survey in Annu Nagar (pop. 1528) found that 91% of the households interviewed use contaminated hand pumps to supply drinking water. Mercury, heavy metals, and VOC’s appeared at dangerously high levels in the water samples the study analyzed. This study conclusively shows that these communities continue to be poisoned by the chemicals that have been left behind at the Union Carbide factory in Bhopal.
In 2000 a series of health camps were organized by the Sambhavna Trust Clinic in Atal-Ayub Nagar. Tests of Haemoglobin content in the blood of persons affected by water contamination conducted at this time revealed a high prevalence of anemia, far exceeding national averages.
Abdominal pain, skin lesions, dizziness, constipation, indigestion, burning sensations in chest and stomach, skin discoloration, suppression of lactation, underweight births, birth defects, child growth retardation and contaminated breast milk are just some of the chronic health problems linked to the ingestion of contaminated water in the neighbourhoods surrounding the old Union Carbide Factory in Bhopal.
Survivors’ organizations have been calling for an official assessment of the damage to environment and human health wrought by Union Carbide so that Union Carbide and Dow Chemical can be asked to pay the costs of medical and environmental rehabilitation and supply of safe drinking water to the affected communities.
The Centre for Rehabilitation Studies published a “Consolidated Report on Medical Research (1995 – 2005)” on the Bhopal Gas Disaster in 2006. The report designated a specific section to deal with a, “Morbidity survey related to water contaminations”. The survey was conducted in known water affected areas such as; Arif Nagar, Atal Ayub Nagar, Annu Nagar and other identified localities in the surrounding areas of the solar evaporation pond. The report concluded that, “It is definite that the water and soil contamination has caused (an) increase in morbidity pattern among the population staying near UCIL factory and surrounding area of Solar Evaporation Pond.” The study found higher instances of Respiratory disorders, Gastro intestinal disorders and skin diseases in the affected population than in the control population.
Little Research on Health Effects
The National Institute of Occupational Health conducted a study on body burden (presence of chemicals in the bloodstream) in 2004; the results however, have not yet been published. In 2004, an epidemiological survey conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Government’s Center for Rehabilitation Studies found that residents of communities affected by groundwater contamination have a higher prevalence of skin diseases and respiratory and gastrointestinal health concerns.
The Poison is Spreading
In 1984, wind carried the toxic MIC gas south. Today the geological slant of the water table carries toxins in the groundwater to communities north of the plant. Contaminants, such as heavy metals and VOCs, are found in greater concentration closer to the plant; however, underground toxic plumes can travel between 200 and 700 meters per year. Movement through the water table has carried contaminants as far north as Shiv Nagar, which is 3 km away from the factory. As long as the site is not properly cleaned up, the contamination will continue to spread and continue to create new affected populations.
From Water to Food and Breast Milk
A study carried out by the Fact Finding Mission on Bhopal of 1999-2004 found bioaccumulation of toxins in vegetables and breast milk. Lead, Mercury, Nickel, BOCs, HCH (CH) pesticide, and halo-organic compounds were found in soil, water, vegetables. Breast milk of mothers in these communities also carry high concentrations of toxic chemicals and heavy metals. Based on the projections of the Sambhavna Trust Clinic survey of Annu Nagar mentioned earlier, at least half of all children under 2 are potentially nursing on contaminated breast milk
The Next Generation
Many of the chemicals found in the ground water are known to cause developmental problems. Too many children in the affected communities are born with congenital abnormalities and growth retardation.
Posted by zinda at 11:01 PM | Comments (0)
Tata FAQ #8: Isn’t it dangerous for people to continue living in the communities affected by ground water contamination?
Indeed it is a dangerous place to live on and if there were options people would have moved out particularly after finding out about the chemicals and their effects. Majority of the residents of these communities are among the poorest in the city and have settled in these communities because they could not afford to pay rent or buy a piece of land somewhere in the city. For their livelihood they need to stay close to the city where they sell their labour. The city has an abysmal record of relocation. In early 90’s , as part of “city beautification” plans, 2,500 survivors from communities such as Fatehgarh, Shahid Nagar, Retghat were relocated to an area 17 kilometers from the city centre devoid of the most basic facilities for health care, sanitation and transport. More recently in 2006, hundreds of families were moved due to railway’s expansion plans to a place close to the municipal dump more than 12 kilometers away from the city where people have to walk 3 kilometers to get any water.
Of course if people have access to adequate supply of safe water for their everyday needs, if hazardous sites such as the factory premises and the landfill are made inaccessible and chemical wastes exposed to the elements are contained in a safe manner the dangers can be limited in a very significant way.
While supply of water is still much short of the requirement, the improvement in this regard has been significant in the last couple months. Storage tanks in different communities are being connected to piped water supply and a 4 million USD project for supply of water to the entire contamination affected population is underway. The MP High Court has directed the state government to ensure containment of exposed chemical waste and making hazardous locations inaccessible for animals and people. The state government remains to implement this order.
Posted by zinda at 10:59 PM | Comments (0)
Tata FAQ #9: Why are survivors of the Gas Disaster, residents of communities affected by contamination, and the organizations that support them opposed to Tata’s proposal?
The survivors’ movements and the NGO’s that support them are extremely concerned with cleaning up the contaminated water supply. Last year survivors marched the 800 kilometers to Delhi, which took 33 days and then went on hunger strike in an appeal to the Indian Government; their principal demands included supply of safe water and clean up of the site. In formulating their demands, they emphasize that Dow Chemical USA is liable for the environmental and health damages in Bhopal and must be made to act in accordance with this liability. They maintain that according to the “polluter pays principle” which is valid both in USA and India Dow/Union Carbide must pay for the clean up in Bhopal. Ratan Tata’s offer is understood as a means of helping Dow Chemical escape the liabilities of the ongoing disaster in Bhopal. This position has the widespread support of the gas and water affected community, as can be seen by ongoing rallies in Bhopal in opposition to Tata’s proposal, and the boycotting of Tata products that is now being honored by most shop keepers in water contaminated areas.
Posted by zinda at 10:58 PM | Comments (0)
Tata FAQ #10: What reasons do you have to think that TATA is not concerned about people in Bhopal?
Tata has waited 22 years before making this “public spirited” offer. Over the course of the past two decades the only response to the disaster from the Tata family was condemnation of Anderson’s arrest in 1984. Now, the very official who denied Anderson’s extradition from the US to stand trial in India, David Goodman, is the head of Tata Corporate Office in the US.
Tata has a long history of collaborating with foreign investors, often in ways that sacrifice the well being of Indian communities. The Tata family had helped the East India Company in smuggling opium to China, has functioned as the commissariat for the invasion of Ethiopia by the British army and had named its textile factory in Nagpur "Empress Mills" in honour of Queen Victoria. The Bhopal leaders see Ratan Tata following the footsteps of his ancestors in the Tata family and serving imperialist interests in his role as the Co-Chairman of the US India CEO Forum.
Tata has yet to answer for the environmental destruction wrought by their activities in different parts of the country. The Comptroller and Auditor General of India has singled out Tata's Chromite mines in Sukhinda, Orissa for causing widespread pollution and health damage. Similarly the Supreme Court appointed Monitoring Committee on Hazardous Wastes has passed strong comments against waste disposal by Rallis – a Tata company in Patancheru near Hyderabad. In Mithapur Gujarat, Tata's factories have contaminated ground water and destroyed agriculture in villages such as Arambada, Bheemrana, Lalapur, Surajkaradi and Padli. In Jamshedpur, where Tata's run a steel plant, thousands of tonnes of boiler ash containing lethal heavy metals are dumped in the middle of the city at Jugsalai. Tata's collieries at West Bokaro in Jharkhand are responsible for the irreparable damage caused to the Bokaro river. In the Gulf of Kutch, Tata Chemicals is currently facing two cases in the Supreme Court of India for open drainage and pipe line through a reserve forest and a sanctuary. That Tata companies have shown such disregard for environmental destruction and community hardship caused by their activities is cause for great alarm and casts a strong shadow of doubt as to Tata’s intentions in Bhopal. The leaders ask Ratan Tata to first clean his own backyard before attempting to clean up Bhopal.
Posted by zinda at 10:54 PM | Comments (0)
Tata FAQ #11: What role have the Indian and US governments played on the issue of water contamination?
In April, 2004, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in the United States ruled (the first time any court has done so) that a multinational corporation based in one country could be held responsible there for an environmental cleanup in another country. Holding Union Carbide responsible for a comprehensive cleanup in Bhopal became a possibility – but there was one catch. Since the Indian Government holds title to the land, the court ruled that the permission of the government was needed before any cleanup could be enforced. For the Indian Government, the decision should have been quick and easy: after all, if Union Carbide wasn’t held liable, the Indian Government would probably have to foot the ~$500 million bill itself, or worse leave the Union Carbide waste there, where it continues to poison people for generations to come and do irreparable damage the environment. Yet the Government appeared strangely reluctant to submit the necessary No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the court.
It took an international campaign of Bhopal supporters in India and the US who faxed, called, emailed, demonstrated and went on a hunger strike for the Indian Government to submit the necessary NOC to the court. It is now the official policy of the Indian Government that Dow must be held liable for a comprehensive cleanup in Bhopal.
In a letter to the Ministry of Industry on December 8, the Charge d’ Affairs of the US Embassy in Delhi urged the government to withdraw the Rs 100-crore claim on Dow. A senior Cabinet Minister said: “if we do not help Dow settle this, then the company will move to Thailand or Vietnam.”
Posted by zinda at 10:12 PM | Comments (0)
Tata FAQ #12: Who is Responsible for Providing Safe Water?
Union Carbide is still fighting its legal responsibilities to gas and water affected Bhopal residents in court. Regardless of whose legal responsibility it is to decontaminate and protect the groundwater, the need for safe drinking water in affected communities is an urgent humanitarian matter. In a 1999 study of groundwater contamination, Greenpeace International issued the following statement: “The municipal corporation of Bhopal, the central government of Madhya Pradesh, and the national government of India all have a responsibility to provide clean drinking water to Bhopal’s water affected communities.”
On May 7, 2004 the Supreme Court of India directed the MP state government to provide clean drinking water to all, residents of contaminated communities. At present the quantities of water being delivered by the MP state government fall well below UN standards.
Posted by zinda at 10:11 PM | Comments (0)
Tata FAQ #13: What can the Indian government DO on the issue of water contamination?
Union Carbide/Dow Chemicals has been shirking its responsibilities and liabilities in Bhopal for the last 23 years; no one knows how long it will take to make them own up. In the meantime the Government of India can:
(1) Step in and commit full funds for and agree to a time-bound plan for delivery of piped Kolar Reservoir water to communities affect by Union Carbide/Dow Chemical’s contamination. The Kolar Reservoir is the closest clean water supply to the localities that are currently ingesting contaminated water. Other sites that have been proposed as potential supplies for clean water are either currently being tainted by sewage or in the path of being polluted by the chemical waste that Union Carbide/Dow Chemicals has still not cleaned up.
(2) The Indian Government can ensure scientific assessment of the depth and spread of toxic contamination in and around the Union Carbide factory in Bhopal.
(3) It can secure the chemical waste exposed to the elements, so as to stop further leaching of toxins into the ground water.
(4) It can make hazardous spots inaccessible for animals and people.
(5) Finally, the Indian Government can support the plaintiffs in the suit for damages in the US federal court.
Posted by zinda at 10:09 PM | Comments (0)
Tata FAQ #14: Who is legally liable to clean up the site and why?
Dow is legally liable to clean up the site.
This is why! The polluter pays principle is the law in India, and intent or knowledge of contamination is not a prerequisite for being held accountable. In Indian law, the Hazardous Waste (Management and Handling) Rule of 1989 594(E), Section 3 Sub section (1) and Section 4(1) stipulates that the producers of the contaminated waste are responsible for decontamination. The polluter pays principle is also enshrined in the Environmental Protection Act, passed in India in 1986. Ruling in Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India (1996) 5 SCC.647, the Indian Supreme Court declared that, “. . . Once the activity carried on is hazardous or inherently dangerous, the person carrying on such activity is liable to make good the loss caused to any other person by his activity irrespective of the fact whether he took reasonable care while carrying on his activity. The rule is premised upon the very nature of the activity carried on.” Elaborating on the polluter pays principle in MC Mehta v. Union of India (1997) 2 SCC 353, the Supreme Court ruled that polluter pays principle as interpreted by the Court means that “the absolute liability for harm to the environment extends not only to compensate the victims of pollution but also of restoring the environment degradation.” Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India
In a June 28, 2004 official letter, the Indian Government has gone so far as to stress that the polluter pays principle applies in this specific case: "Pursuant to the ‘polluter pays’ principle recognized by both the United States and India, Union Carbide should bear all of the financial burden and cost for the purpose of environmental clean up and remediation." The letter was issued in support of Bano v. Union Carbide.
Posted by zinda at 10:04 PM | Comments (0)
Tata FAQ #15: What standards of clean up do the affected people want?
After 23 years of being neglected Bhopal deserves to have the Union Carbide (Dow Chemical) site cleaned up with the highest international standards and the utmost of care. Survivors and organizations supporting them propose that an independent assessment needs to be conducted of different technologies for removal and containment of hazardous waste to ensure thoroughness and effectiveness and also to ensure that the methods used do not pose risks to the workers involved or to the surrounding communities.
Survivors and their supporting organizations demand that the Indian Government ensure scientific assessment of the depth and spread of toxic contamination in and around the Union Carbide factory in Bhopal. They demand that Union Carbide’s current owner The Dow Chemical Company pay for the clean-up of toxic contamination and compensation for the health and environmental damage caused by reckless dumping of chemical wastes.
Many governmental and non-governmental agencies, including Greenpeace, the State Research Laboratory of Public Health, and the Citizen’s Environmental Laboratory from Boston, have conducted research and studies and have consistently found alarming levels of such toxins as mercury and highly volatile organchlorine compounds (VOCs).
The wastes currently stored at UCIL will need to be transported to another location for destruction. The wastes cannot legally be transported as they are, neither within India nor internationally. Since these wastes are defined as hazardous under waste category 15 of the Indian Hazardous Wastes (Management and Handling) Rules, 1989: “wastes from manufacturing pesticides and herbicides formulation units”, they will need to be packaged and labeled according to the guidelines for transportation of hazardous wastes published by the Central Pollution Control Board in October 2004. Currently they meet none of the stipulations of this legislation.
Posted by zinda at 10:02 PM | Comments (0)
Tata FAQ #16: How do survivors and the organizations supporting them propose the clean-up of the abandoned factory site should be done?
The central government must provide the resources necessary to:
1. Identify specific strategies for containment and remediation of contaminated soil and ground water at different locations within and outside the factory and the Solar Evaporation Ponds. Contain chemical waste and contaminated soil from the factory premises and Solar Evaporation Landfill in suitable containers labeling each container with description of contained material and its chemical analysis.
2. Identify strategies for protecting neighbourhood population from hazards during containment of chemical waste and contaminated soil.
3. Identify specific strategies for decontaminating the Sevin and MIC plants and for conserving the structures following necessary repairs to retain them as part of the memorial to the disaster for future generations
4. Identify strategies for shipment of contained material to the United States for disposal through appropriate methods.
5. Force Dow Chemical to pay for all assessment, containment, removal, remediation, and shipping of toxic material left by its subsidiary Union Carbide.
The Survivors and Organizations that support them have methodically drawn out the following Road Map to Remediation and Justice:
A. Review
1. Review and scientific assessment of “containment” work – including aspects of offsite/onsite monitoring, safety of workers and communities, adherence to internationally established best practices for such activities carried out within UCIL, Bhopal factory premises between May 31, 2005 to June 22, 2005.
2. Review of scientific studies on hazardous chemical waste carried out by Union Carbide, government research agencies and non-government organizations from 1989 onwards and bringing different sets of data together for a comprehensive picture of toxic pollution in and around the Union Carbide factory.
3. Critique of various studies, including those carried out by NEERI and IICT, with a view to establishing quality of science, veracity of information and integrity of conclusions.
B. Assessment
1. Assessment of damages caused to workers and neighbourhood residents due to exposure to toxic dust and to the local environment as a result of mishandling of hazardous material within UCIL , Bhopal factory premises between May 31, 2005 to June 22, 2005.
2. Scientific assessment of the nature of contaminants in the ground water at different depths up to at least 100 meters and at least up to 3 kilometers from the factory and Solar Evaporation Ponds. Assessment of the rate of spread of pollution plume, and the distance beyond 3 km to which the pollution may have spread.
3. Geological and hydro-geological mapping of the land up to at least 100 meters depth and at least up to 3 kilometers from the factory and Solar Evaporation Ponds.
4. Scientific assessment of the concentration and toxicity of chemicals and chemical waste on the surface and at different depths within the Union Carbide factory premises.
5. Conduct epidemiological studies for determination of potential and actual health damages caused to the residents and their unborn children as a result of exposure to contaminated ground water and soil in the neighbourhood of the Union Carbide factory.
6. Conduct baseline study before commencing remediation operations to establish parameters that can be monitored during and after remediation to assess the quality and efficacy of the remediation operations.
C. Rectification
1. Affixation of civil and criminal liability for damages caused to workers and neighbourhood residents due to exposure to toxic dust and to the local environment as a result of mishandling of hazardous material within UCIL , Bhopal factory premises between May 31, 2005 to June 22, 2005.
2. Judicial action against consultants, particularly CSIR agencies, if found to have engaged in unscientific procedures, or propagating wrongful information or conclusions.
3. Appropriate judicial action against concerned government officials and ministers after calling for explanations from the State and Union government for misleading information and deliberate neglect towards monitoring the health status of and provision of adequate medical care to the people affected by ground water and soil contamination.
D. Planning
1. Identify specific strategies for containment of soil contaminated with specific chemicals at different locations within and outside the factory and the Solar Evaporation Ponds based on information gathered through; A2, B3 and B4.
2. Identify specific strategies for decontaminating the Sevin and MIC plants and for conserving the structures following necessary repairs to retain them as part of the memorial to the disaster for future generations.
3. Identify specific strategies for containment and remediation of contaminated ground water within and outside the factory and the Solar Evaporation Ponds based on information gathered through; A2, B2 and B3.
4. Identify strategies for protecting neighbourhood population from hazards during containment of chemical waste and contaminated soil.
5. Identify strategies for provision of appropriate medical care to the people affected by ground water and soil contamination and protecting the health and lives of their unborn children.
6. Identify strategies for remediation of land following removal of contaminated soil and chemicals waste from different locations within and outside the factory and the Solar Evaporation Ponds.
7. Identify strategies for shipment of contained material to USA or other OECD nation for disposal through appropriate methods.
8. Explore options to direct Government of India to seek assistance from the United Nations Environment Program under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) that provide for technical assistance for remediation and disposal of POPs or POPs-contaminated material.
E. Containment
1. Contain chemical waste and contaminated soil from the factory premises and Solar Evaporation Landfill in suitable containers labeling each container with description of contained material and its chemical analysis.
2. Construct suitable above-ground tanks, with requisite monitoring systems, for safe keeping the containers with chemical waste and contaminated soil within the factory premises. Provide for community oversight of site maintenance.
F. Remediation
1. Remediation of land following removal of contaminated soil and chemicals waste from different locations within and outside the factory and the Solar Evaporation Ponds.
2. Remediation of ground water through appropriate strategies developed in D3.
Posted by zinda at 09:55 PM | Comments (0)
Tata FAQ #17: What is happening in the courts on the issue of contamination and clean up?
In the U.S. there is a civil court case in the Southern District federal court in New York. The civil case was filed in 1999 by survivors against Union Carbide, seeking a comprehensive cleanup of the contaminated site and the properties around the factory, and compensation and medical monitoring for those poisoned by Carbide’s chemical waste. This lawsuit has survived four motions to dismiss, and has been reinstated by the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals twice. In 2004, in a letter to the federal court in New York where a suit by contamination affected residents of Bhopal is ongoing, the Government of India stated that the offending corporation “should bear all of the financial burden and cost for the purpose of environmental clean up and remediation”.
On August 3, 2004, the division bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court admitted a Public Interest Litigation by Alok Pratap Singh, filed against UCIL with regard to the contamination at the site. The High Court later served notices upon the Government of India, the Madhya Pradesh government, Union Carbide, EIIL and The Dow Chemical Company in the matter.
In 2005 the Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers made a claim before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh against Dow Chemical for payment of Rs. 100 Crores [23 million USD] as advance for the clean up of contamination in Bhopal. A March 30, 2005 interim order directed the Government of India to constitute a five member expert committee to prepare a scheme and action plan for removal of the toxic wastes at the plant. The subsequent ‘Task Force’ was comprised of Central and M.P. State Government departments and Indian scientific agencies. The Technical Sub-committee in the Task Force set up by the MP High Court has unanimously concluded that the first option to deal with the hazardous waste is to ask Dow Chemical to ship it to USA for final disposal.
Posted by zinda at 09:53 PM | Comments (0)
January 10, 2007
MP Pollution Board asks for Rs. 3.45 lakh as RTI fee ...even though BPL applicants are exempt from any charge
Rahul Noronha, Pioneer, January 10, 2007
Following the law in letter rather than spirit is an established bureaucratic trait. But the mandarins at the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board (MPPCB) took it to absurd levels when they asked a Below Poverty Line applicant who had sought information under the Right to Information Act to deposit Rs 3,44,875 as analysis charges.
Ironically, BPL information seekers are not to be charged for information sought by them.
Hazra Bi, a resident of JP Nagar and a gas victim had sought information from the MPPCB on three counts. The applicant had sought details from the MPPCB of water testing, especially of solar evaporation ponds between 1977-84, reports of water testing and ground water contamination between 1984-92 and water testing reports from Union Carbide and its neighbourhoods between 2003-05.
The MPPCB in its reply to the applicant stated that it would provide the reports of samples collected from the neighbouring areas of the Union Carbide plant and asked for Rs 3,44,875 as analysis charges. To be fair to the Board, the rules under RTI guarantee the required information be given to a BPL applicant free of cost, whereas the Board asked for the sum as analysis charges.
Satinath Shadangi of the Bhopal Group for Information and Action told The Pioneer that the Board was deliberately misinterpreting the application. " The applicant had asked for photocopies of the report and not asked for an analysis to be conducted again for which the Board asked for the sum," he said. Moreover, he added that the Board couldn't provide the reports as samples collected between 2003-05 cannot be analysed now. " The Board intends to dissuade people," he alleged.
The Board agreed to give the executive summary of the water testing and ground water contamination between 1984-92 for Rs 20. The State Information Commission is presently without a head and other officials of the Commission were unavailable for comment.
Posted by bhola at 09:29 AM | Comments (0)