Bhopal tragedy

11/01/03

The article on the Bhopal disaster is incorrect in many important respects (7 December, p 6). First, the evidence is not "fresh". The documents referenced very likely have been in the hands of the Indian government for many years, and none contains information contradicting the facts as they have been long expressed by Union Carbide (UC) and confirmed by US courts.

Secondly, there is no evidence to support the claim that UC had authority or control over the plant's ultimate design or operations and thus bears responsibility for the disaster. To the contrary, as the US Court of Appeals has concluded, the Indian government "precluded UC from exercising any authority to detail design, erect and commission the plant. UC's participation in the design of the plant was strictly limited and its involvement in plant operations terminated long before the accident . . . in short, the plant has been constructed and managed by Indians in India."

Third, "unproven technology" was not in use at the time of the disaster. All of the technologies referred to in the 1972 memo were either never used or were taken out of service years before. Fourth, the valves were not "faulty". After the disaster they were found closed and not leaking. This was one of many reasons investigators concluded that employee sabotage was the only plausible cause of the disaster.

Finally, the Bhopal plant design was in fact rated superior to the UC facility at Institute, West Virginia, from an environmental standpoint - in part because the Indian facility had the benefit of knowledge acquired from the operation of the older US plant.

Allegations similar to those in the article have been made repeatedly during the 18 years since the tragedy. The "new documents" bring no new facts to light, nor do they provide support for the claims that have been soundly rejected by the US courts and resolved by the Indian courts under the 1989 settlement.

William A. Krohley
Kelley Drye & Warren LLP, Attorneys for Union Carbide Corporation New York, US

* * * *

The blame for Bhopal

25/01/03

Contrary to Union Carbide attorney William Krohley's claim about the newly discovered company documents (January11, letters) referred to in the Bhopal disaster article (7 December, p 6), the evidence they contain could not be fresher. In November 2002, India's Central Bureau of Investigation, which is prosecuting the ongoing criminal case against Union Carbide in India, confirmed that they had never before had possession of these documents.

None of Krohley's claims bear scrutiny. He also states: "there is no evidence to support the claim that UC had authority or control over the plant's ultimate design or operations and thus bears responsibility for the disaster". But the documents make it clear that, under the 1973 design transfer agreement, all technology inputs for the key production units at the Bhopal plant came from UC. These units were operational until the time of the disaster, and not decommissioned beforehand as Krohley falsely implies.

Further, the remarks Krohley cites from the US Court of Appeals were only initial impressions which the court stated ought not be taken to prejudge the ultimate question of liability. No US court has ever rejected the assertions made by Bhopal survivors on their merits, only on jurisdictional and procedural grounds.

Carbide's own 1985 study found the pressure valve on the MIC tank that caused the disaster to be leaking. The connecting pipe that enabled water to reach the leaking valve was authorised in May 1983 by UC in line with the design review process outlined in the documents. The only investigation to conclude that sabotage was to blame was sponsored by Carbide. The independent Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research found a mesh of causes, such as an excess of MIC (80 times EU limits), incautious design, poor materials, faulty alarms, inadequate system controls and safety back-up.

Lastly, the Bhopal plant was rated superior to the Carbide's factory in Institute, West Virginia, only because the American plant disposed of waste into a river and not into solar evaporation ponds. However, this assessment ignored the danger of subsurface water pollution, which has since poisoned Bhopal's supplies.

The documents highlight Carbide's control of its subsidiary as well as its role in causing the disaster. They contradict the "facts as expressed by Union Carbide" and provide the "probable cause standard" of evidence required to extradite Carbide officials in the unresolved criminal case.

Tim Edwards,
UK Campaign for Justice in Bhopal
Hove, England

The original article referred "a 1972 memo" that discussed how investment in the Bhopal plant would have to reduced for Union Carbide to retain control of its Union Carbide India subsidiary. In fact, the memo was dated 2 December 1973--Ed.