20 years
The Bhopal Memory Project


about | what dow wants you to know

In Spring 2004, the Bard Human Rights Project posted on an open "Remember Bhopal" listserve that an archive project about Bhopal called the Bhopal Memory Project would soon be made available online. In response, HRP received an information request from the email address horsenuzzler@aol.com.  Immediately after referring “HN” to a private, unpublished draft of the project, HRP was contacted by Dow Chemical spokesperson John Musser. 

There followed a phone conversation with Musser, who offered a close reading and criticism of all of the text on the entire site, and who wanted to clarify that the company position remains that employee sabotage is the only explanation for the Bhopal gas disaster.  When asked for evidence of this (a position in disagreement with nearly every other source available), Musser cited a report commissioned from Arthur D. Little Co. by Union Carbide, entitled Investigation of Large Magnitude Incidents: Bhopal as a Case Study, as evidence. The report, which is peppered with phrases such as “with virtual certainty,” “we believe that it was at this point”, and appears to be based on the premise that the Indian employees of the plant are lying, has no supporting evidence beyond some contradiction between accounts.  For this reason, we asked if Dow has done any direct investigation into the causes of the disaster, and was told by Musser that Dow had never done any investigation – that this was Union Carbide’s story, but that Dow believes them. 

There were in fact some factual errors on the site that Musser had helpfully pointed out (partly because he had been looking at a draft), so although he had not been convincing in pushing the sabotage theory, when those errors were corrected we contacted Musser again to see if he had further comments. However, this time our emails were returned by the Union Carbide Corporation’s spokesperson, a Mr. Tom Sprick.  Musser had told us that Dow tries to say as little as possible about the Bhopal disaster, because of concern about acquiring perceived liability for the disaster. 

Sprick introduced himself by saying that, although Union Carbide is a fully owned subsidiary of Dow, “Dow has no responsibility for Bhopal,” and that is why Musser had asked him to contact us.  From this followed an exchange of letters with Sprick, which is presented below.  Although the position of the Union Carbide Corporation has remained static in the face of much evidence to prove it wrong, and although the numbers that they provide for their contributions of aid and compensation money are often misleading and repetitive, the exchange below is nonetheless interesting and important.  The letters from Sprick constitute some of the longer statements made by Union Carbide about the gas disaster in several years, and the monitoring and emails from Dow and Musser show that while they may not believe themselves to be responsible for the gas disaster, they certainly believe themselves to be vulnerable to it, given the resources they expend on monitoring any deviations from their position.  

You may read Dow-Carbide's full position on the Bhopal Disaster at www.bhopal.com.

A piece-by-piece dissection of www.bhopal.com is available through the International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal at www.bhopal.net/bhopal.con. While the site looks like Union Carbide's old website, just run your mouse over the answers to see the truth revealed.

******************************

The First Exchange

******************************

To: Bard Human Rights Project hrp@bard.edu

From: jmusser@dow.com

Date: 9 August 2004

I would appreciate an opportunity to speak to someone regarding

inaccurate statements made on your "Bhopal Memory Project" web site. I recognize there are many differences of opinion regarding the Bhopal

tragedy. I'm happy to share our opinion on these matters but I'm most

interested in setting the record straight with you as to matters that

are factually incorrect as posted on your web site.  Thank you for your

consideration.

Sincerely,

John Musser

The Dow Chemical Company

47 Building

Midland, MI 48667

989/636-5663 (O)

989/638-7800 (OFAX)

jmusser@dow.com

 

*******************************

From: keenan@bard.edu

Subject: Re: Your web site

Date: August 10, 2004

To: jmusser@dow.com

Cc: bhanna@bard.edu

Dear John Musser,

We'd be happy to talk with you about the website and our Bhopal project. And we'd be particularly grateful for correction of any factual errors. We also have a broader aim, which is to create a channel or a platform for dialogues between the interested parties in the ongoing controversy, whether they are in government, the corporate world, NGOs, academics and other researchers, or among the survivors and their advocates ... and we'd be delighted to have you and others from Dow or Carbide involved.

I have cc'd this email to Bridget Hanna, who directs the project for us,

and you should feel free to make contact with her and start the process. I hope it won't be limited to straightening things out, or even to the website, but rather can grow into an ongoing exchange, and into actions which can cut through the polemics and address the tragedy in a meaningful, future-oriented way.

Yours,

Thomas Keenan

Assoc Prof, Comparative Literature

Director, Human Rights Project

Bard College

******************************

From: Bridget Hanna

Sent: Saturday, August 14, 2004

To: Musser, John (JC)

Subject: Re: Follow Up

Dear Mr. Musser,

Thank you for sending me the documentation that we discussed.  I am

reviewing it carefully.

I have also been reviewing the "Statement of The Dow Chemical Company regarding the Bhopal Tragedy."  Could you please send me the document in which the "US Supreme Court reaffirmed earlier US Court rulings that the only State with jurisdiction in the case against Union Carbide on matters relating to the Bhopal tragedy was India."  I would

particularly like to see highlighted the passages in which they "based

this decision on the fact that UCIL was a separate and independent

legal entity, managed and operated exclusively by Indian citizens in

India."

   

Thank you for your assistance,

Bridget Hanna

******************************

From: jmusser@dow.com

Subject: RE: Follow Up

Date: August 20, 2004

To: bhanna@bard.edu

Dear Ms. Hanna,

I'm sorry for the delay getting back to you but I had more trouble finding an electronic file of the Second Circuit court opinion which discusses the separateness of Union Carbide Corporation and Union Carbide India Ltd. I suggest you read the entire opinion for a complete understanding. Of particular interest to your questions I would refer you to page 4 paragraph 2; page 6 paragraph 2; page 6 last paragraph; page 7 paragraphs 1 and 2 up to the section marked "*201"; last full paragraph on page 7. Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

******************************

From:  jmusser@dow.com

Subject:  Bhopal Memory Project

Date:  Sep 30, 2004

To:  bhanna@bard.edu

Dear Ms. Hanna,

Please advise when it might be convenient to discuss your research and

the materials I sent you regarding the Bhopal tragedy.

Regards,

John Musser

******************************

From: Bridget Hanna

Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 10:42 AM

To: Musser, John (JC)

Subject: Bhopal Memory Project

 

Dear Mr. Musser,

Thank you for your continued interest in my Bhopal project.  I've finally "finished" my bhopal website, at www.bard.edu/bhopal, taking into careful consideration your thoughtful editorial suggestions and the documentation you have provided - which I have also made available in my Resources section for download by users.

Before I announced the site to various groups however, I wanted to give you the opportunity to look it over again and make comments on the material.  Please review it and contact me with your feedback.

Best,

Bridget Hanna

******************************

From: jmusser@dow.com

Subject: RE: Bhopal Memory Project

Date: November 11, 2004

To: bhanna@bard.edu

Dear Ms. Hanna,

Thank you for responding. I appreciate your consideration of the material I forwarded and I'm happy to review the site in its entirety and provide you with feedback. I hope to be back to you by the end of this week or early next.

Best wishes,

John Musser

******************************

The Second Exchange

******************************

From: mediarelations@unioncarbide.com

Subject: Union Carbide Comments on Bhopal Memory Project

Date: November 18, 2004

To: bhanna@bard.edu

Dear Ms. Hanna:

Please see the attached for Union Carbide's comments on the Bhopal Memory Project.  Thank you.

Tomm F. Sprick

Director

Union Carbide Information Center

Attachment:

Nov. 18, 2004

Ms. Bridget Hanna

Bard College

Annandale-on-Hudson, NY

Bhopal Memory Project

bhanna@bard.edu

 

Dear Ms. Hanna,

John Musser at Dow has asked me to provide comments on the Bhopal Memory Project since Dow has no responsibility for Bhopal, and since I am Union Carbide's spokesperson regarding the tragedy, especially pertaining to all the relief and remediation efforts and the settlement.

I have completed a review of most of your proposed website content, but was unable to access all of the documents.  That not withstanding, I offer the following comments on various sections:

In the "About the 1984 disaster" (and other) section(s) you:

Say "...at a neglected Union Carbide pesticide factory..." That is not an accurate statement. 

First, the plant in Bhopal was managed, run and operated on a day-to-day basis by Union Carbide India Ltd. (UCIL) -- not Union Carbide (UC).  They two are separate companies in the eyes of the law, in the U.S. and in India. Union Carbide India Limited was a publicly traded company, with stock held by Union Carbide, Indian financial institutions and private investors.  This is important because the Indian government essentially forbid Union Carbide to have any hands-on involvement in managing or operating the plant in Bhopal.  It is also important to understand that UCIL was a very significant company, with more than a dozen facilities in India at the time of the tragedy (and still is, though the name of the company was changed to Eveready Industries India Ltd).

         

          Second, little evidence exists to call the factory neglected.  In fact, in 1982 a technical audit team from Union Carbide visited the plant to conduct a routine process safety review (a standard practice at all UC subsidiaries).  All safety issues identified during that audit were addressed by the plant well before the December 1984 gas leak and none had anything to do with the incident.

     b)  Refer to the safety systems not being functional at the time of the tragedy in anticipation of the pending sale of the factory. 

First, the facts show – based on several investigations – that 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: the tank's gas storage system was designed to automatically prevent such a large amount of water from being inadvertently introduced into the system; and the process safety systems were in place and operational and would have prevented water from entering the tank by accident. The system design did not, however, account for the deliberate introduction of a large volume of water.

   Second, during a global meeting of UC Agricultural Products in mid-1984 (months before the disaster), managers had a “think piece” that included an idea about moving the business from India, but it was never seriously considered or acted upon. A document containing this information is one of the oldest included in the initial court case.

c)  State that Union Carbide has at times “implied” the tragedy was caused by sabotage.  We have always emphatically stated that the tragedy was caused by sabotage. You make no reference to the basis for our assertion -- the Arthur D. Little investigation. Since you do offer the report as a reference at a different location on the site, I think it would be appropriate to note our basis and include a link to the report in this opening section of your site.

d)  Assert that taking “moral responsibility…was a meaningless fig leaf….”  Our then chairman, Warren Anderson, took his “moral responsibility” quite seriously and backed it up with immediate offers of monetary, medical and technical aid.  For his effort of flying immediately over to India, against the advice of counsel, he was rewarded by being arrested, placed under house arrest and ultimately told to leave the country.  He also saw all early UC efforts to provide relief rejected by the Indian government.

e)  State that "no party has ever been charged or publicly identified….” That is only partially correct.  Union Carbide shared the details of its investigation with the Indian government and the Indian authorities are well aware of the identity of the employee and the nature of the evidence against him. While he has never been charged is a question best answered by the Indian government.

In the "20 Years Later" section you:

a)  Say that “hazardous materials were removed by UCC.”  Union Carbide never remediated the site.  Up and through 1994, UCIL spent more than $2 million on site cleanup, with all the work being conducted under the strict oversight of the Indian Government. After Union Carbide sold its shares in UCIL and the company was renamed Eveready Industries Limited, we understand EIIL continued the remediation effort, again under strict oversight of the Indian Government.  Then, in 1998, the government of Madhya Pradesh took control of the site and publicly assumed all responsibility for future remediation activities.

b)  Reference "tests conducted by Union Carbide Corporation...noting that all groundwater samples caused immediate 100% mortality in fish." While I have no knowledge of such tests, you casually omit any reference to UC’s publicly stated position that, "the government tested it and found nothing wrong with it." I know you were advised earlier about a report issued by the India's highly respected National Environmental Engineering Research Institute (NEERI), which, in 1997, found soil contamination within the factory premises at three major areas that had been used as chemical disposal and treatment areas. However, the study also found no evidence of groundwater contamination outside the plant and concluded that local water-wells were not affected by plant disposal activities.

Furthermore, a 1998 study of drinking-water sources near the plant site by the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board did find some contamination, but did not find any traces of chemicals linked to chemicals formerly used at the UCIL plant.  Rather, the Control Board found that the contamination likely was caused by improper drainage of water and other sources of environmental pollution.  The point is, these reports were not made up; they do exist and that is what they say.  A failure to mention these is a disservice to those objectively interested in all the facts.

While we have seen conflicting reports currently being made by various groups and 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.  We believe it is important for the State of Madhya Pradesh to restart and complete the remediation of the plant site.  The state is in best position to evaluate all available scientific information and to make the right decision for Bhopal.  For specific details, you‘ll need to contact the government of Madhya Pradesh.

c)  Say "…but Union Carbide says that it was a saboteur….”  While you may not believe  Union Carbide’s position, we do have the Arthur D. Little study to back our position. To my knowledge, there has been nothing but anecdotal evidence to support other theories.

Refer to the criminal indictments of individuals responsible for the disaster.  All of the key people from UCIL -- officers in the company and those actually running the plant -- have appeared to face charges, which were reduced to a misdemeanor status.

Union Carbide officials have not been in court to face charges.  They are not subject to the jurisdiction of the Indian court since they did not have any involvement in the operation of the plant.  Therefore, it would be totally unfair to bring criminal charges against them.

In the about “The Memory Project," section, you:

a) Again refer to the Bhopal plant as the Union Carbide plant. The correct reference  would be "the Union Carbide India Ltd. or UCIL plant."

b) Say "Indeed, and had not Union Carbide spent millions of dollars on public relations, misinformation and evasion, perhaps the lives of the affected people would be different --and perhaps more of them would be alive today to tell about it."   This statement is grossly unfair and very reminiscent of typical activist rhetoric that also fails to account for what Union Carbide did to provide assistance.  No where on your site do I see any mention of the following:

-- In the wake of the release, Union Carbide provided immediate and continuing aid to the victims and set up a process to resolve their claims. 

-- In the days, months and years following the disaster, Union Carbide took the following actions to provide continuing aid:

Immediately provided approximately $2 million in aid to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund.

          2)  Immediately and continuously provided medical equipment and supplies.

          3)  Sent an international team of medical experts to Bhopal to provide expertise and assistance.

          4)  Funded the attendance by Indian medical experts at special meetings on research and treatment for victims.

          5) Provided $5 million to the Indian Red Cross relief fund.

          6) Provided a $2.2 million grant to Arizona State University to establish a vocational-technical center in Bhopal, which was constructed and opened, but was later closed and leveled by the government.

          7) Offered an initial $10 million to build a hospital in Bhopal; the offer was declined.

          8)  Provided an additional $4.6 million in humanitarian aid to victims.

          9)  Established an independent charitable trust for a Bhopal hospital and provided initial funding of approximately $20 million.  Upon the sale of its interest in UCIL, and pursuant to a court order, provided about $90 million to the charitable trust for the hospital.

-- Then, of course, there is $470 million settlement paid by UC and UCIL.

Together, all of the above should count for something more than "public relations.”

My final concern relates to the [student- ed.] paper authored by [name omitted-ed.] The paper is riddled with factual errors and unsubstantiated opinions.  For example:

The Bhopal factory was not closed in 1980.

I have already addressed the premise that of the factory not being well maintained.

All the deficiencies identified in the 1982 audit were addressed by UCIL prior to the tragedy and did not contribute to it.

The plant’s safety systems did not fail; they were not designed to be capable of handling a reaction of this magnitude.

Union Carbide does not now have, nor has it ever had, a figure for the number who died or were injured.  All figures we discuss come from the Government of India. And,    

Perhaps most telling, are the comments she makes under the section “The Legal Aspect” in which she notes a discrepancy on the UC website regarding the dollars contributed by UCC employees to the relief efforts.  Her comment -- “this does not speak highly of the company’s organizational and communicational abilities” – is quite ironic given that on page 1 of her own abstract she says that UC owned 59 percent of the stock in UCIL, while on page 13 she says the amount is 51.9 percent.  And, the sale of the stock took place in 1994 – not 1992. 

I appreciate your interest in hearing our perspective of your website.  However, its tone, content and lack of content representing the “other side of the story” suggests that your objective is more that of advocacy, rather than one of providing a balanced record of the Bhopal tragedy and its aftermath.

Thank you again for seeking our input.

Sincerely,

Tomm F. Sprick

Director

Union Carbide Information Center

******************************

From: bhanna@bard.edu

Subject: RE: bhopal memory project

Date: December 20, 2004

To: mediarelations@unioncarbide.com

Dear Mr. Sprick,

Thank you for your response to my genuine inquiry as to the positions of the Dow Corporation on the content of my website.

You wrote that the website’s “tone, content and lack of content representing the ‘other side of the story’ suggests that [my] objective is more that of advocacy, rather than one of providing a balanced record of the Bhopal tragedy and it’s aftermath.”  Although much of the content has at this point been verified to my satisfaction, I remain open-minded, and committed to one of the most important functions of the website – that of creating an undiscriminating archive, I am therefore more than willing to address the mentioned “lack of content.”  Any further documentation or statements that you can provide me with will be posted as soon as possible.  In fact, I would provide a whole page on my site devoted to your material.

I especially appreciated your clarification on several factual points; in particular about the types of remediation and support that Union Carbide has provided to Bhopal since the disaster.  On other issues, I still have a few further questions about your position.

1.  Responding to 1a of your letter.  I was very interested in your statement that “in 1982 a technical audit team from Union Carbide visited the plant to conduct a routine process safety review (a standard practice at all UC subsidiaries).  All safety issues identified during that audit were addressed by the plant well before the December 1984 gas leak and none had anything to do with the incident.”    Can you please provide documentation of both the safety review and the confirmation that “all of the issues …were addressed by the plant”?  If that is true then the plant certainly does not qualify as neglected.

3.  Re: 1e.  Did you provide an actual name of a saboteur to the Indian government to assist in their search for the culprit of the crime?  

4.  Re: 2b.  The document including the quote about the 100% mortality in fish is attached.  However, I don’t have any independent source to verify that this is an official Carbide document.  Can you help me with that?  Is it a Carbide document?  I will make sure to mention the NEERI report on the site as well, but I haven’t seen the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board study.  Can you please send it to me? 

5.  Re: 3b.  You wrote “in the wake of the release, Union Carbide provided immediate and continuing aid to the victims.”  What kind of aid, and how was it distributed?  If that is true, it makes a huge difference in this issue.  Please send me the details. 

6.  What was the “additional $4.6 million in humanitarian aid to victims” spent on, and who administered it?

I will be applying some of your notes to my work. I look forward to your response to this letter – as well as to any further information you can provide, which I will post as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Bridget Hanna

Bhopal Memory Project

******************************

From: mediarelations@unioncarbide.com

Subject: RE: bhopal memory project

Date: December 30, 2004

To: bhanna@bard.edu

Thank you, Ms. Hanna...

For the opportunity to provide you with additional details concerning

Union Carbide’s position on the Bhopal tragedy.  My company and I do, and I’m sure your readers will, appreciate the balance you provide to this issue.

Since 1984, the interest of journalists, citizens and students has risen

and fallen many times as details surrounding the accident have were

explained, have been forgotten, and resurfaced again and again. Literally, there has been no “new news” on the accident itself for many years.  But, unfortunately for the Bhopal victims and their families, their problems have continued since the money from the settlement has languished in banks and promises to provide rehabilitation, medical assistance, vocational training and clean up of the site have not been kept by various government agencies.  While today’s journalists may feel they have “uncovered” new details, all of these information was examined and properly explained long ago.

I must add, however, that my comments in no way diminish our feelings of compassion for the victims and their families, and our feelings that the remaining funds should be distributed immediately to them and concerns raised about the environmental conditions at and surrounding the site addressed by the government.  The government assumed ownership of the site in 1998 and, at that time, said it would clean up the contamination.  Nor do I question the sincerity of the efforts of the victim’s groups and environmentalists and/or other concerned organizations or individuals who continue to press the government to help the victims and their families.

Getting back to the accident itself, I’m sure you can understand -- having put together the information for your website -- how much has been written about the tragedy in the past 20 years.  Faced with continuing worldwide interest, especially during five-year anniversary periods, Union Carbide long ago decided that we should concentrate solely on the key issues; that is, the plight of the victims and their continued suffering, rather than the minutiae of the accident itself, which, as I have said, has been reviewed to exhaustion in the last 20 years.

However, since you have devoted so much time and effort to your project and are interested in presenting a balanced view, let me try to address the additional questions you have raised:

1.  Can you please provide documentation of both the safety review and the confirmation that “all of the issues …were addressed by the plant”?  If that is true then the plant certainly does not qualify as neglected.

A. I do not have, nor have I ever had a copy of the detailed operational

safety survey to which you refer.  I will do my best to try to obtain a

copy for you, but cannot promise it.

What I do have, and am attaching to this e-mail, is a copy of a press

release that Union Carbide issued on Dec. 11, 1984.  When released to the media, this press release included a copy of the detailed operational

safety survey for Union Carbide India Limited.  As you’ll read in the last

paragraph of the press release, “…Subsequent progress reports from Union Carbide India Limited represented to Union Carbide Corporation that all problems uncovered in the 1982 survey had been take care of, except for….” The last sentence notes: “We (UC) have no reason to believe that what was represented to us by Union Carbide India Limited did not in fact occur.”

Bridget, it is important to remember that none of the deficiencies

identified in the 1982 survey had anything to do with the cause of the

tragedy as we know it.

2. I did not see a question No. 2

3.  Re: 1e.  Did you provide an actual name of a saboteur to the Indian

government to assist in their search for the culprit of the crime?

A. Union Carbide never publicly disclosed the name of the employee because it would serve no useful purpose; UC is not a governmental body and has no authority to “arrest” or “charge” anyone.  However, the Indian Government, through its Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), had access to the same information as Union Carbide did.  The CBI was well aware of the identity of the employee and the nature of the evidence against him.  Indian authorities refused to pursue this individual because they, as litigants, were not interested in proving that anyone other than Union Carbide was to blame for the tragedy.  The fact that employee sabotage caused the disaster under existing law would have exculpated Union Carbide.  You may be interested to note that the CBI subjected the UCIL employee who found the local pressure indicator was missing on the morning after the accident (a key factor in UC’s sabotage theory) to six days on interrogation to get him to change his story.  That effort was unsuccessful.

 

4.  Re: 2b.  The document including the quote about the 100% mortality in fish is attached. However, I don’t have any independent source to verify that this is an official Carbide document. Can you help me with that?  Is it a Carbide document?  I will make sure to mention the NEERI report on the site as well, but I haven’t seen the Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board study.  Can you please send it to me?

A.  I did not see any attachment re: the fish study.  If you want to

resend it, I will look at it, but can’t promise that I will be able to

verify it.

Separately, as you requested, I have attached a copy of the MP Pollution Control Board press release from July 1998 that references the 230-page 1997 NEERI study.  I started to underscore several of the key conclusions the MP government makes for your ease of reference, but then realized the entire document is worthy of your review and quite telling.

In case you have not heard, you should be aware that a BBC news story on Dec. 2, 2004, and confirmed Dec. 3 from India quotes Uma Shankar Gupta, minister in charge of the [Bhopal] gas relief department, as saying that the Indian federal government has asked an Indian company to carry out a survey of the site to assess the extent of the problem [contamination]. Additionally, a Dec. 13 Press Trust of India story quotes another government official as saying Engineers India Ltd has submitted a technical proposal for removing toxic wastes lying in and around the former plant, and that the plan was under consideration.  If these latest stories are accurate, Union Carbide is encouraged and hopes that the Indian government initiates the clean up as soon as possible. The state is in the position to evaluate all scientific information that is available and make the right decision for Bhopal.

5.  Re: 3b.  You wrote “in the wake of the release, Union Carbide provided immediate and continuing aid to the victims.”  What kind of aid, and how was it distributed?  If that is true, it makes a huge difference in this issue.  Please send me the details.

A. Union Carbide immediately accepted moral responsibility for the

tragedy, and this commitment was reflected in our relief efforts, which

included:

    1) Contributing $2 million to the Indian Prime Minister's relief fund.

 This money initially was rejected by the government, but later was

accepted.

    2) Donating $5 million to the Indian Red Cross's relief fund.  This money initially was offered to the Indian Government, which refused

it.  Then UC contributed it to the Indian Red Cross.

    Please note that in both of these cases, as was true with the final settlement monies, Union Carbide had/has no way of knowing how the

monies were used, who benefited and how it may have ultimately been

distributed.

    3) Organizing and sending to India a team of top medical experts to

help identify the best treatment options and work with the local

medical community.

    4) Marshalling all the information on the toxicity on the gas methyl isocyanate (MIC) and providing substantial expertise for the

short-term and long-term treatment of victims. On the day of the

tragedy, UC also dispatched a team of technical MIC experts, who

carried all published and unpublished studies on MIC available at that

time and shared those studies with medical and scientific personnel in

Bhopal.

    5) Providing substantial amounts of medical equipment, supplies and

expertise to the victims.

    6) In the first half of 1985, UC’s U.S. employees, retirees and former

employees collected and distributed $120,000 to Bhopal relief organizations.

    7) Granting, in April 1985 and January 1986, $2.2 million to Arizona

State University to set up and operate a vocational-technical center

in Bhopal to provide training and local jobs. Please note that the

Government of India demolished this center in 1987 after discovering

that Union Carbide had funded its development and construction through

the afore-mentioned grant.  I arrived in Bhopal one day after the

demolition took place and saw the destruction!

    8) Funding, in June 1985, visits to the U.S. by Indian medical experts

to attend special meetings on research and treatment of victims exposed to MIC.

    9) Donating, in May 1986, $1 million to Sentilles, a Swiss-based

humanitarian organization, for medical, educational and training

programs in Bhopal.

   10) UC’s efforts culminated in 1989 with the settlement and, later, the

contribution of $100 million from our sale of the UCIL shares to a

charitable trust fund to build a hospital for victims.  The hospital

became operational in 2000.

6.  What was the “additional $4.6 million in humanitarian aid to victims” spent on, and who administered it?  A.  During the mid 1980’s, UC “consolidated” -- for ease of reference --

some of its relief dollars into one figure, rather than detail them as I

have for you in this document.  Some journalists prefer the details; other want “ballpark figures.”  The $4.6 million figure used early on was

actually a bit more than $5 million and represented Nos. 2 and 6 in the

answer to question No. 5 above.  I have recently updated our website to make this consistent.  Again, UC does not know how the monies were used, who benefited and how it may have ultimately been distributed. I hope you find this additional information of interest and will be incorporated into your project’s website.  Again, my thanks and have a Happy New Year.

Best regards,

Tomm F. Sprick

Director

Union Carbide Information Center

mediarelations@unioncarbide.com

return

 

 

An educational initiative of the Human Rights Project at Bard College, Annandale-on-Hudson, NY




The Bhopal Memory Project Bard Human Rights Project