When was the bhopal plant built

UCC provided information necessary for the construction, start up and operation of the plant. UCC would not give up its exclusive formula and technical know-how. It only provided UCIL with the necessary instructions to run the plant. The technology exchange from the USA to India was formalized in a technical services agreement. These reviews included safety monitoring.

Bhopal is a classic example of corporate double standards. An international coalition working to address the grave injustices suffered by half a million Bhopalis. What Happened in Bhopal?

Setting the Stage for Tragedy: 2. That Night: December 3, 3. The Immediate Aftermath: 4. After nine years of contentious litigation and discovery, however, all that the evidence in this case demonstrates is that UCC is not that entity".

Click here to view the complete opinion of the U. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. What is the status of remediation now? In , the MPSG, which owned and had been leasing the property to EIIL, took over the facility and assumed all accountability for the site, including the completion of any additional remediation. One of the claims made in the litigation -- against the Union of India, the State of Madhya Pradesh and private companies allegedly responsible -- seeks remediation of the plant site.

UCC is not involved in that litigation. The media reported in that the Supreme Court of India had directed the central and state governments to pay for collection of waste on the site and to have it landfilled or incinerated, as appropriate.

While some of the waste had been landfilled, public interest groups again challenged the Court's incineration directive, as did the states where waste incineration facilities were located.

Though environmental non-governmental organizations NGOs claimed the facility failed to meet desired safety parameters, the Central Pollution Control Board CPCB submitted an affidavit in verifying the suitability of the facility to carry out the incineration.

According to The Indian Express, 10 tons of trial waste were transferred to the site in July and the trial incineration was conducted over a five-day period in mid-August The Express reported that officials associated with the trial said the levels of emissions and ambient air quality from the burning were within permissible limits, with the air quality being monitored at three locations in and around the facility, including a station representing Tarpura village adjacent to the facility.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Back-integration The plant began operations in as a formulations plant; that is, UCIL imported the chemical carbaryl from UCC, formulated it into the insecticide brand products such as Sevin and Temik and sold the formulated products to distributors in India. Rather, the imported carbaryl was combined with other materials to make various end products. That arrangement benefited UCIL because it was able to sell the formulated insecticide to a growing agricultural market in India without having to make the large capital investment necessary to build a major chemical plant.

From , the only material imported into the plant from the U. UCIL completed a naphthol unit in , but all attempts to operate it were unsuccessful, so the importation continued from the U. The GOI required UCIL to maximize Indian involvement in the design, procurement, construction and operation of the plant and to minimize foreign involvement of any kind. The GOI restricted the use of imported materials and foreign consultants, and, as the U. The GOI closely monitored the progress of the plant, required detailed periodic reports and approved plans and drawings, including the MIC manufacturing facility and storage tanks, as well as the UCIL-designed waste disposal systems for the treatment and disposal of wastes, which also were approved by the MPSG authorities.

Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reached a similar conclusion that UCC was not the entity responsible for any environmental pollution resulting from operation of the UCIL plant prior to the disaster. UCIL designed the waste disposal system for the treatment and disposal of wastes, which was approved by the Madhya Pradesh State Government authorities.

The Second Circuit concluded " After nine years of contentious litigation and discovery, however, all that the evidence in this case demonstrates is that UCC is not that entity". Click here for the complete opinion of the U. Who owned the Bhopal plant at the time of the incident and who owns it now? Indian financial institutions and thousands of private investors in India held the rest of the stock.

In , the MPSG, which owns and had been leasing the property to EIIL, canceled the lease; took over the facility; and assumed all accountability for the site, including the completion of any additional remediation. After the incident, UCIL completed one of the most single important remediation activities.

Known as "Operation Faith", the initiative transformed and removed tens of thousands of pounds of methylisocyanate MIC from the plant. Click here to see page 7 in the Jackson Browning Report.

In the years following the tragedy, the Indian government severely restricted access to the site.