Order 1255327: Intro To Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defense (CBRN)

The factory was at first permitted for the preparation of insecticides from constituent substances which were brought in from the main corporation in small and manageable amounts. Nevertheless, as a result of mounting competition in the industry, the company implemented a backward integration whereby it began manufacturing raw materials as well as intermediate products which were used to formulate the end product in one facility. This was a process that was quite hazardous and sophisticated. By the year 1984, the plant had started manufacturing Sevin at a quarter of its capacity of production as a result of reduced demand for the insecticides. As a consequence of failures of the crops and scarcity, the farmers suffered a decrease in capital and increased in indebtedness which made them reduce their investments in pesticides (Broughton,2005).

Due to decreased profitability, the managers at the local level were given directions to close the plant as they awaited its sale later in the year. When no buyer was found, the company decided to dismantle the major production units in order to ship to a different developing country. The facility, however, continued its operations with procedures that were below the standards of procedures and safety equipment of the mother company. The local administration had prior knowledge of the safety issues but was reluctant about placing substantial manufacturing safety and contamination control problems on the industry that was already struggling because it was afraid of the economic effects that would be involved due to the loss of the company which was a significant employer, forgetting about the danger it was subjecting its citizens into (Carlsten,2003).

On the eve of the disaster, one of the plant's operator observed a tiny leakage of the methyl isocyanate gas and an increase in pressure in the tank used for storage. A certain safety device that was designed for the neutralization of noxious release from the system had been turned off some few weeks ago. A regulator that was faulty had let the mixing of some amount of the gas with water used for cleaning the internal pipes. A refrigeration unit that served as a safety component for cooling the tank storing the gas had its coolant drained to be used in another area of the plant and pressure from the reactions in the tank were persistently building up. The gas flare protection system had not been in action for a couple of months. This negligence and the substandard operations taking place at the plant led to this disaster that saw thousands of people lose their lives as well as their normal body functions. It was a case of great negligence on the part of the Indian government which was aware of all the happenings at the plant as well as from the management of the company (Carlsten,2003).

Soon after the disaster, the mother company in America started dissociating itself from responsibility for the leakage of the gas. It intended to shift the entire blame on the Indian subsidiary claiming that it was built and wholly operated by the subsidiary in India. There was also a fabrication of scenarios showing sabotage by some unknown extremist group and dissatisfied employees claims that were disputed by various sources (Broughton,2005).

Different lawsuits have since been filed by different parties starting with a multi-billion-dollar lawsuit that was filed in a court in the United States by an American Attorney. This marked the start of several years of legal intrigues which largely ignored the moral consequences of the disaster and its effects on the persons living in Bhopal were to a great extent ignored. The government of India also enacted the “Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act” as a means to ensure that any arising claims the incident would be handled fast and equally. The enactment made the Indian administration the main victims’ representative in the legal proceedings both in India and outside. All cases were ultimately taken out of the American legal structure and wholly put under the Indian legal system which was a detriment to the people that were affected by the disaster (Broughton,2005).

Years after the accident, tons of industrial waste were still at the site. The Union Carbide Corporation was bought by the Dow Chemical Company and neither the company nor the government had been able to clean the site well. The water and soil in the area still remained contaminated which was said to be behind various chronic health issues as well as high incidences of birth defects by the people living around the area. The court resulted in an order that the state supplied clean water for drinking to the residents due to the contamination of groundwater. Later on, all the company’s executives were convicted with negligence in the handling of the disaster. The continued mishandling of the disaster by the government and the company led to various protests by the victims and other citizens (Dhara & Dhara,2002).

According to Carlsten (2003), awareness of environmental issues in India increased largely following the disaster. The government passed the Environment Protection Act and strengthened their commitment to the environment. The importance of the integration of environmental strategies into every plan for industrial development was established in the country. India has put into place more strategies for disaster preparedness and come up with more strict rules governing the manufacture of hazardous products and gases. The Bhopal disaster was a great lesson for the nation such that it had to be stricter on foreign companies seeking to establish themselves in India.

The Bhopal disaster events revealed that the expansion of industrial development in the underdeveloped nations without considering safety protocols can have major effects. The tragedy showed that the issues related to manufacturing perils as well as toxic contamination which are deemed local have effects on the dynamics of the global market. The Sevin producing plant in Bhopal was built for purposes of exploiting the huge and growing pesticide market in India as opposed to avoiding environmental regulations. Nevertheless, the project was executed in a manner that suggested a double standard for the international companies that operates in the developing nations (Broughton,2005). National and international governments and agencies are supposed to focus on the techniques that are widely applicable to company responsibility and preventing accidents as much as in the developing nations as in the developed manufacturing nations. Deterrence should comprise of reduction of risk where a plant is located and designing of safety laws (Bertazzi,1999).

References

Bertazzi, P. A. (1999). Future prevention and handling of environmental accidents. Scandinavian journal of work, environment & health, 580-588.

Broughton, E. (2005). The Bhopal disaster and its aftermath: a review. Environmental Health, 4(1), 6.

Carlsten, C. (2003). The Bhopal disaster: prevention should have priority now. International journal of occupational and environmental health, 9(1), 93.

Dhara, V. R., & Dhara, R. (2002). The Union Carbide disaster in Bhopal: a review of health effects. Archives of Environmental Health: An International Journal, 57(5), 391-404.

Fernandez, H (2017). The Bhopal Disaster.

Taylor, A. (2014). Bhopal: the world’s worst industrial disaster, 30 years later. The Atlantic.