In December 1984, Bhopal witnessed a harrowing industrial disaster with the leak of methyl isocyanate gas from Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) which has left a legacy of hazardous waste. Rishabh Mehta discusses the complicated policy solutions enacted following this tragedy and delineates a way forward.
In December 1984, Bhopal witnessed one of the most harrowing industrial disasters in history. The leak of methyl isocyanate gas from the Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) plant claimed thousands of lives overnight and left a horror of health and environmental crises. Four decades later, the disaster’s toxic legacy lingers as hazardous waste contaminates the soil and groundwater.
As Pandora’s box unleashed its evils upon the world, so too does Bhopal’s toxic legacy, which remains an enduring reminder of human hubris and the cost of negligence. But unlike Pandora’s tale, hope cannot be our sole salvation, rather accountability and action must guide us forward.
On January 1 2025, the Indian government transported 337 metric tonnes of toxic waste from the UCIL site in Bhopal to Pithampur, Indore, for incineration. While touted as a major step in addressing the environmental aftermath, this decision has re-ignited debates over its effectiveness, safety, and timing. Questions about the adequacy of policy responses and long-term solutions remain unresolved. This article critically examines the policy decisions shaping this waste transfer and its implications for environmental justice and public health.
A legacy of neglect
The Bhopal disaster’s immediate aftermath saw the enactment of the “Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act” and a $470 million settlement with Union Carbide in 1989. However, these measures proved insufficient in addressing the magnitude of the crisis. Successive governments formed task forces and commissioned studies to assess contamination, yet substantive remediation efforts remained elusive. As confirmed by multiple studies, groundwater contamination in 42 nearby areas contains carcinogenic chemicals exceeding safe limits by 50 times. The lack of effective policies to mitigate such contamination has left affected communities vulnerable, perpetuating environmental and public health risks.
Unfortunately, the bureaucratic response to the disaster has been marred by delays and avoidance of corporate accountability. Union Carbide’s now parent company, Dow Chemicals, has consistently distanced itself from responsibility, leaving the burden of remediation on the Indian government. This has resulted in taxpayers shouldering the costs of waste disposal, which many argue should have been funded by the corporation responsible for the tragedy.
The toxic waste transfer: a policy necessity or greenwashing?
The recent transfer of 337 metric tonnes of pre-stored toxic waste to Pithampur has been carried out to comply with judicial mandates under the directives of the Supreme Court and the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Alok Pratap Singh (Deceased) In Rem vs the Union Of India. However, critics argue that the operation carried out covertly at midnight, focuses on less harmful waste stored since 2005, while larger issues like groundwater contamination and toxic residues at the factory site remain unaddressed.
Over the years, various locations, including Ankleshwar in Gujarat and Taloja in Maharashtra, were considered for incinerating the waste. However, public protests and concerns about technical inadequacies derailed these plans. Even Pithampur, designated as the current disposal site, has faced scrutiny. Trial runs in 2015 reportedly resulted in toxic emissions, raising fears about long-term exposure to harmful by-products such as dioxins and furans. These chemicals, known for their long-term health impacts, have raised concerns among environmental experts and local communities. Activists have called the move a “slow-motion Bhopal” in the making and warned of the potential for secondary environmental disasters in Pithampur.
The timing of the transfer, coinciding with the 40th anniversary of the tragedy, has led many to view it as a public relations exercise. A 2010 government-commissioned study highlighted that over 11 lakh tonnes of contaminated soil and other toxic substances remain untreated at the UCIL premises. Activists have questioned the rationale behind incinerating 337 tonnes that had already been securely stored when the broader environmental crisis remains unsolved. According to a technical presentation by the Ministry of Environment & Forests on the incineration of Union Carbide’s hazardous waste, the process is expected to generate 900 tonnes of residue. The recent decision to incinerate the waste at Indore is a 180-degree pivot from the state government’s previous stance, as officials from the state had opposed incineration in multiple official meetings.
The communication surrounding the risks of incineration at Pithampur has raised concerns about transparency. Limited engagement with local communities has led to apprehension, as residents worry about potential health impacts such as respiratory issues. Several petitions have highlighted these concerns, reflecting the need for a more inclusive approach to policymaking, incorporating community voices and comprehensively addressing their apprehensions.
Alternatives and the way forward
The current approach to disposing of Bhopal’s toxic waste has faced significant criticism, highlighting the need for more robust, globally aligned solutions. One viable alternative is secure containment. Hazardous materials can be stored in stainless steel drums with advanced sealing technology to prevent leakage. This method is widely used in nuclear waste management, where containment over decades ensures minimal environmental impact. For instance, the US Department of Energy uses this technique to manage nuclear waste at the Hanford Site, reducing risks to surrounding communities.
Another critical alternative is deploying closed-loop incineration technology, significantly reducing emissions and toxic residues. Germany, known for its stringent environmental standards, employs such technologies in facilities like Remondis, ensuring waste is incinerated with minimal harm to air quality. India could collaborate with countries like Germany to adopt or import such advanced systems.
A more sustainable approach involves enforcing corporate accountability. Companies responsible for hazardous waste should fund its disposal or repatriate it to countries with the infrastructure to handle such materials safely. A notable precedent is Unilever’s mercury waste, which was repatriated to the USA for safe disposal after contamination at a thermometer factory in Kodaikanal, Tamil Nadu. This aligns with the “polluter pays” principle, a cornerstone of environmental jurisprudence globally.
By adopting these alternatives, India can move beyond temporary fixes and implement sustainable solutions prioritising public health, environmental integrity, and global best practices.
The midnight waste transfer from Bhopal to Pithampur epitomises the dangers of greenwashing in environmental policy. While the recent waste transfer is presented as progress, it fails to address contamination and corporate accountability. India must adopt a comprehensive approach grounded in global best practices and prioritise community engagement to resolve this toxic legacy. Only then can the lessons of Bhopal truly inform a sustainable and just environmental policy framework.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of the Department of Sociology, LSE Human Rights, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Image credit: Rishabh Mehta
Image credit: Yann Forget / Wikimedia Commons / CC-BY-SA.
The post Bhopal toxic waste transfer to Indore: four decades of policy and environmental dilemmas first appeared on LSE Human Rights.
This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.