Away from the edge: On waste disposal from the 1984 Bhopal plant accident
The incineration of toxic waste from the Bhopal tragedy took time and effort
The Madhya Pradesh Pollution Control Board has confirmed that officials had incinerated 337 tonnes of toxic wastemoved to a private waste treatment facility in Pithampur from the defunct Union Carbide facility in Bhopal. The event closes a single, but important, chapter in the sordid history of the 1984 Bhopal disaster, the state response to which pushed the city and its people to the edge. The successful incineration is illustrative in that it demanded interventions from the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Supreme Court of India, and the Union Environment Ministry, among other stakeholders, over more than a decade. In the end, the State government was able to arrange for the waste to be safely disposed of — including an outreach exercise to assuage public anxiety over the emissions — within six months at a cost of ₹126 crore. Evidently the means have always existed; the political initiative to effect them has been wanting. This is an important detail: waste, once it has entered the environment, has a tendency to be converted to different forms; it seldom goes away. The toxic waste incinerated thus far has yielded more than 800 tonnes of ash and residue that officials will have to landfill in a scientific manner. Like solid waste landfills around the country, this new facility will require regular upkeep, monitoring, and funds of its own. The site of the Union Carbide plant also retains several more tonnes of contaminated soil and other hazardous artefacts, plus contaminated subsurface resources in the area.
Crucially, much of the impetus for positive change in the matter, including waste removal, has come from victims’ families, survivors, and activists rather than from the state. Survivors’ groups have filed petitions arguing that deaths and injuries continue to be undercounted and that they are owed inflation-adjusted damages. Since the Supreme Court closed the door on the curative route, also in dispute is whether a new valuation of losses can be forced on The Dow Chemical Company, notwithstanding the fact that it remains a proclaimed offender. Long-term surveillance has been patchy, with activists and survivors alleging that the advisory committee appointed by the top court has met only sporadically and that local hospitals continue to suffer a shortage of specialist medical workers to attend to survivors. In the final analysis, Dow must account for all remediation activities. Both the State and the Centre must close pending settlement claims and attend on a self-motivated basis to the survivors’ well-being, if required with the assistance of a new statutory body to unify health, relief, and remediation goals. Ultimately, the families must be able to move on.