Transcription
It was one of the worst industrial disasters in history. In 1984, toxic gas from a pesticide factory killed thousands of people in Bhopal, India, and caused hundreds of thousands of injuries. Forty years on, authorities have now only just begun to deal with some of the toxic waste by burning it, but people living close to the incineration site fear that that is damaging their health. DW's Shalu Yadav reports.
Images that haunt India even 40 years on: A leak from a pesticide factory killed thousands, many collapsing on the streets in the city of Bhopal. That has become synonymous with industrial catastrophe. The toxic factory waste was never dealt with; it remains in pits and ponds. People nearby are still dying a slow death.
I've come to the town of Pamur, 250 km from Bhopal. Many people here are thinking about those who died in the gas tragedy because that processing plant over there has started a trial phase to put out the toxic waste from the Bhopal disaster. That waste includes residue of the pesticides which killed all of those people 40 years ago. They're known as forever chemicals because they retain their properties indefinitely. Those living near the plant complain of health problems since the waste started burning here a week ago. Locals say authorities ask them not to speak out, but they fear the toxic waste more than retribution. It is being burned with thousands of liters of diesel and other flammable material.
“I feel a burning sensation in my breath, in my stomach,” one local said. “This waste has been burning for four to five days, and I've been suffering. The pollution from the waste smells like death. My eyes are still burning. I've heard that in Bhopal, pregnant women are suffering from cancer. We fear about our future generation. The waste shouldn't be burnt here; people are already feeling sick. Imagine what will happen when they burn the rest of it.”
In Bhopal, those fears are well understood. Activist Rashna Dingra says the government is creating what she calls a sacrifice zone in Pamur without removing the real threat from Bhopal. “This whole thing has become a PR gimmick because still today, as we speak, thousands of tons of toxic waste continues to remain buried,” she said. “So while nothing is being done on the waste that is actually causing the harm, that is actually poisoning people as we speak and finding new victims every day, but a superficial solution of incinerating 1% of the total waste, injuring and maiming the people of Pamur and Indore and Mahu is in the plan.” She argues that Union Carbide, the American company that owned the factory during the accident, should take responsibility for the cleanup. The firm is now owned by Dow Chemicals, which she accuses of environmental racism. “Will Dow be able to do this in the US? Will Dow be able to do this in Europe? I mean, this is not just, just the government’s responsibility. I mean, Dow is able, Dow won’t be able to get away with this in Europe or or or or US, but they’re able to get away here.”
A regional government official told DW the authorities are capable of dealing with the cleanup safely. “I simply want to say that our country is capable of doing this job properly,” the official said. “We know how to solve our problems; we are self-reliant; we can burn even more than this.”
Back in Pamur, mistrust in the authorities keeps locals on edge, and worry looms large about the future of their next generation.
“I’d like to welcome Fiona McLoud, professor of process safety at the University of Sheffield,” the DW reporter said. “She spent years looking into this disaster, and I’m very pleased to welcome her to DW News. So we’ve got 40 years now since the Bhopal disaster, and most of that toxic waste is still there. Why has it proved such a challenge to remove?”
“It’s a great question,” Professor McLoud responded. “I think you have to look at who will pay. So in the 1989 settlement between the government of India, which represented the victims, and Union Carbide Corporation, no provision was ever made for the cleanup of the site. And what’s interesting is this is not waste that is a result of the accident; this is waste that was created during many years from 1969 to 1984, when after the accident the site was effectively abandoned.”
“What do you mean by that exactly? How, how did this additional waste get there then? Could possibly be harming people?” the reporter asked.
“Okay, so most of the waste, as, as your report very rightly pointed out, remains on the site itself,” Professor McLoud explained. “So there were dumping areas in the site, and there were solar evaporation ponds. I’m a chemical engineer; it’s quite a common practice in hot countries to take your aqueous waste and evaporate it and then scrape up the solids, basically using solar energy to do the job that you would otherwise do, you would otherwise use fossil fuels for. But that only works if you have properly lined ponds and you take the solids away, and especially in India, you have to cover those ponds during monsoon so there’s no runoff of toxic materials. And the materials we’re talking about are really nasty. I mean, we’re talking about mercury, we’re talking about cadmium, we’re talking about chromium, but we’re also talking about persistent organic pollutants, everything from chlorinated benzenes to cyclohexanes, chlorinated cyclohexanes, to pesticide residues. And of course, the job of the pesticide is to kill, you know, we’re trying to target insects and protect crops, and they used in tiny, tiny quantities can be used safely, but in the large quantities in the manufacturing facility, you need very, very careful controls.”
“What about the way that part of it is now being disposed of?” the reporter asked. “We heard in that report people with health complaints after this has been burned. Is burning a safe way to dispose of it?”
“Um, who can say?” Professor McLoud replied. “I mean, let me put this another way: You have to understand your hazard first of all; what is the bad thing that’s going to hurt you? Then you’ve got to understand your controls; what temperature are we going to incinerate this at? What rate? What’s our gas cleaning? How are we going to deal with the ash? And then finally, you make a judgment as to whether the controls are acceptable and the residual risk is acceptable to the, to the society. Somebody must have done that calculation; somebody must know the answer. So why not share it with the rest of us? Why not open it to scientific rigor? It’s not enough just to say, ‘Don’t you worry, it’s all fine; we know what we’re doing.’ Show us the scientific data which says we’ve looked at the hazard; we’ve assessed the controls of the incinerator at Pitampur, and we have concluded that the residual risk is acceptable. Nobody has provided that information despite repeated requests. I think there will be a court case on the 27th of March when they will look at the initial results, but the solution to pollution is not dilution. You don’t burn it just by doing it in tiny, tiny, tiny amounts. And don’t underestimate how much stress will be on the people around, you know, they, they know about the accident; they know how many people died; they know people are continuing to suffer from the groundwater pollution around the Bhopal site. It’s not surprising that they’re not feeling well, whether that’s to do with what’s coming out of the incinerator or not, but it really is up to the authorities to show the scientific data which convinces them that it’s safe to burn this material. Don’t forget this is a mixture of reactor residues, slurry, dug-up soil, there may be mercury present, which obviously you don’t incinerate; it will end up in the ash. So we really need a scientific explanation of why anyone thinks this is safe to do, but it’s a sideshow. What matters is a proper remediation plan for the millions of tons of contaminated soil on the Bhopal site and the solar evaporation ponds outside of the site.”
“Yeah, and just very briefly, what might that plan look like? What would you advise would be the best way to clean up this chemical leak?” the reporter asked.
“Well, there’s a fantastic plan already been put together by a group of activists and scientists and government authorities in 2013,” Professor McLoud answered. “The Center for Science Environment in Delhi brought together everybody in a roundtable meeting in Delhi, and they came up with a really pragmatic plan: Number one, security; don’t let children play on a polluted site. Number two, don’t let animals graze on a polluted site; there are children drinking the milk and eating the meat. Number three, stop the runoff; don’t let the monsoon rains escape from a polluted site. And then finally, a proper scientific study; you don’t make the problem go away by ignoring it; sample, sample, sample, sample to the right depth, sample right across all the areas that may have become contaminated over the last 40, 50 years, because don’t remember this, don’t forget this site started in 1969. And only once you understand what your problem is can you come up with a remediation plan. Look, this isn’t rocket science; it’s done all over the world. The Indians are more, you know, the Indian technical have some of the best technical people in the world; this is not a difficult problem, but it does require a grown-up coordinated plan.”
“Well, thank you very much for joining us,” the reporter concluded. “We’ve been speaking with Fiona McLoud, professor of process safety at the University of Sheffield.”