EDITOR'S PAGE
The Bhopal settlement "I can say I have seen chemical warfare. Everything so quiet. Goats, cats, whole families—father, mother, children—all lying silent and still. And every structure totally intact. I hope never again to see it." That was the reaction of Bhopal's mayor, a physician by trade, to the chemical disaster that struck his city in December 1984, when a Union Carbide-owned plant ran amok. The worst industrial accident of all time, it brought immediate and agonizing death to about 2000 and serious injury to tens of thousands of others. Now, four years later, the exceedingly difficult course from this human agony to a legal settlement has apparently been run. Last month Carbide and the government of India accepted a settlement directed by the Indian Supreme Court—a settlement that is already being legally challenged. It involves a cash-on-the-barrelhead payment by Carbide of $470 million—$425 million by Carbide itself and $45 million from its Indian subsidiary. Part of the agreement is the quashing of criminal charges against various company officals. The money goes to the Indian government that, by Indian law, is the sole representative of the victims of the tragedy. There are some meritorious aspects to this settlement. It terminates a legal process that otherwise could have dragged on for many more years. It removes uncertainty and presumably will enable Indian authorities to move ahead with additional relief and compensation for victims and for the city of BhopaL From Carbide's point of view, it removes incredible pressure and allows the company to remain intact and to go about its other business. Also the settlement, and the process by which it was achieved, was largely unaffected by the ambulance-chasing antics that have brought so much discredit to the legal profession, especially in this country. The question of the fairness of the settlement cannot be answered unequivocally as it involves the central issue of the monetary value of human life and health. On a per-victim basis, it is certainly not a lot of money, especially by U.S. standards. But even in these days of megadeals, $470 million is a considerable sum, that, if used promptly and wisely, can bring some real and substantial relief. To the many Indian critics of the settlement, it is a sellout. To this school of thought, the $470 million payment, which is partly covered by insurance, is grossly inadequate and does not punish Carbide enough. According to these critics, the settlement indicates that multinationals are free to run sloppy and dangerous operations with little fear of serious retribution if something goes wrong. One disadvantage to the settlement is that it leaves a lot of questions unanswered. The issue of how well—or how badly—the Bhopal plant was operated and maintained remains unresolved, at least legally. Carbide's strident claim that the accident was caused by mischief-making by a disgruntled employee and not by operational inadequacies remains untested. Weaknesses in governmental environment, safety, and zoning regulations in Bhopal, and their contributions to the enormity of the tragedy, will not be fully explored. What chemical makers worldwide have learned from the accident, and how such knowledge is applied to prevent a repetition, remain as the fundamental long-term issues stemming from BhopaL In this regard the prognosis is good in light of the detailed reviews of operating procedures that have pervaded the industry since the accident. Bhopal was a shattering reminder that making chemicals can be a very dangerous business—a business that demands the unwavering application of the highest levels of responsibility and professionalism throughout the entire chemical enterprise. Michael Heylin Editor
Views expressed on this page are those of the author only and not necessarily those of ACS
March 20, 1989 C&EN
5
