Who is responsible for the Bhopal accident? How should blame be apportioned among parties involved, including Union Carbide corporation, UCIL, plant workers, governments in India or others? The cause of Union Carbide’s tank 610 MIC leak have two theories. One theory according to the Indian government, that water was introduced through a hose into bleeder A at filter pressure safety valve lines. It happened on the Eve of the disaster when a supervisor ordered an operator, R.Khan to unclog four filter valves near the MIC production area by washing them out with water. Khan connected a water hose to the piping above the clogged valves but neglected to insert a slip blind, a device that seals lines to prevent water leaks into adjacent pipes. …show more content…
So the Carbide investigators disproves the theory. Instead Carbide scientists felt the only way that an amount of water sufficient to cause the observed reaction could have entered the tank was through accidental or deliberate connection of a water hose to the piping that led directly into the tank. Carbide investigators then did a thorough interviews with the plant’s employee and careful examination of plant records along with physical evidence led them to conclude that the cause of the gas leak was sabotage by a disgruntled employee who intentionally hooked a water hose to the tank. From here on we can see whether its an employee ill intention to blame for the whole accident or whether the gas tank model was defective in design because its safety standards were lower than similar Carbide plants in the United States. It conclude that Carbide had consciously permitted inadequate safety standards to exist. Indian prosecutors argued that the managers of UCIL were criminally …show more content…
It gave $1 million to an emergency relief fund and offered to turn its guest house in Bhopal into an orphanage. Immediately after the disaster, Union Carbide also rushed a team of investigators to Bhopal. But the team got little cooperation from Indian authorities operating in a climate of anti-Carbide popular protest.It was denied access to plant records and workers. Yet the investigators got to look at tank 610 and took core samples from its bottom residue for test experiment. Then in late 1985 , when the Indian government finally allowed Carbide more access to plant records and employees. Carbide did more than 70 interviews and careful examination of plant records and physical evidence which led them to conclude that the cause of the gas leak was sabotage by a disgruntled employee who intentionally hooked a water hose to the tank. They did agreed to pay $470 million settlement to the Indian government which are distributed funds to gas victims. In 1994 Union Carbide sold its 50.9 percent equity in UCIL to the Indian subsidiary of a British company for $90 million. It gave all this money to the Indian government for a hospital and clinics in Bhopal. I should say Warren Anderson as the Chairman and CEO and the whole Union Carbide corporation has tried their best in anyway they can come and help with the accident. Even though what
Meshkati, Najmedin. "Human Factors in Large-Scale Technological Systems' Accidents: Three Mile Island, Bhopal, Chernobyl." Industrial Crisis Quarterly 5 (1991): 131-54. Personal World Wide Web Pages. Web. 19 Mar. 2011. .
Negligience is the major key to be considered. Most businesses only care about profit and neglect the hazard they pose on the environment. The two companies were making so much money that it wouldn’t cost a lot to clean up considering the profit they make. They eventually paid $69million but what about the destiny that has been destroyed because of their negligence. They knew dumping of these chemicals was polluting the local water and causing life threatening health issues but they never cared.
In conclusion, based upon my understanding of the social responsibilities and ethics of businesses, this is a clear example of businesses ignoring their responsibilities. By allowing their first tank to be placed in such a dangerous area, the business placed their employees in danger, completely ignoring the entire concepts of both job safety and employee well-being. It was their place to ensure that their employees would be safe, and they completely ignored
Media outlets demanded answers from BP concerning what caused the disaster that started April 10, 2010. It became one of the worst environmental spills in U.S. history. Instead of owning up to the problem and taking responsibility, the company went on an offensive-blame-fueled binge that left those affected by the events horrified and angry. (Houpe, 2010)
The Challenger disaster of 1986 was a shock felt around the country. During liftoff, the shuttle exploded, creating a fireball in the sky. The seven astronauts on board were killed and the shuttle was obliterated. Immediately after the catastrophe, blame was spread to various people who were in charge of creating the shuttle and the parts of the shuttle itself. The Presidential Commission was decisive in blaming the disaster on a faulty O-ring, used to connect the pieces of the craft. On the other hand, Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch, in The Golem at Large, believe that blame cannot be isolated to any person or reason of failure. The authors prove that there are too many factors to decide concretely as to why the Challenger exploded. Collins and Pinch do believe that it was the organizational culture of NASA and Morton Thiokol that allowed the disaster. While NASA and Thiokol were deciding whether to launch, there was not a concrete reason to postpone the mission.
“On March 23, 2005, at 1:20 pm, the BP Texas City Refinery suffered one of the worst industrial disasters in recent U.S. history. Explosions and fires killed 15 people and injured another 180, alarmed the community, and resulted in financial losses exceeding $1.5 billion.” (U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, 2007) There are many small and big decisions and oversights that led to the incident. Underneath all the specific actions or inaction is a blatant disregard for addressing safety violations and procedures that had been pointed out to BP even years before this event. The use of outdated equipment and budget cuts also contributed to the circumstances that allowed this accident to happen.
Since 2005, PBS reported of four major incidents involving BP. The first incident was an explosion that killed 15 people at BP’s Texas refinery in Texas City. BP did not replace the old blown-down drums, a safety feature, with safer, modern flares to save money. An investigation commissioned by former Secretary of State James Baker concluded that this incident was preventable and BP failed in putting safety as a priority. In the Alaska incident, 260,000 gallons of oil leaked from a BP oil pipeline on Alaska’s North Slope in March, 2006. Later investigations found that BP hired uncertified inspectors and kept records poorly. BP agreed to re-inspect 10,000 points and corrected their problems. In July of 2005, a BP oil platform, called Thunder Horse, toppled after Hurricane Dennis. After an investigation, BP found that their engineers had incorrectly installed a number of valves that supported the rig. On January 2007, the Minerals Management Service cited this accident was caused by human error (PBS). In 2010, the Deep Water Horizon rig exploded, leading to oil leaking into the Gulf of Mexico. Again BP is ...
Around 4:00 a.m. March 28, 1979, in a non-nuclear section of the Unit 2 plant, the main feed water pumps stopped running.Because of this malfunction, steam generators were not able to remove the heat.This led to complicated chain of events.First, as designed, the turbine shut down, followed by the reactor itself.This led to a rise in the pressure, so the pressurized relief valve opened, just like it was supposed to do.However, when the pressure decreased to accepted levels, the valve should have closed, instead it remained open, it was stuck.This led to a continued decrease in the pressure of the system.[6]Also, in another part of the plant, the emergency feed water system failed to operate because of a human error; the valve was left closed whe...
Travelling at a speed twice that of sound might seem to be something futuristic; however, this feat has already been achieved almost 40 years ago by the world’s only supersonic passenger aircraft-The Concorde. Concorde brought a revolution in the aviation industry by operating transatlantic flights in less than four hours. The slick and elegant aircraft with one of the most sophisticated engineering was one of the most coveted aircrafts of its time. However, this was all destined to end when Air France Flight 4590 was involved in a tragic disaster just outside the city of Paris on July 25, 2000. The crash killed 113 people, but more disastrous was its impact. The belief and confidence people had with Concorde gradually started to fade, and finally Concorde was grounded after two and a half years of the crash. Official reports state that the main cause of the crash was a piece of metal dropped by a Continental aircraft that flew moments before Concorde, but, over the last decade, the report has met a lot of criticism, and many alternative hypotheses have thus been proposed.
In that case, unions have already blamed the fiasco. That is because the fiasco make the decision to outsource much of the company’s IT jobs, as Indian staff are paid little compared with their British counterparts.
When looking at that, there are some questions to be asked, did Roger Boisjoly act ethically as a whistle-blower? Was Boisjoly treated fairly by Morton Thiokol? Could the managers of Morton Thiokol have done anything differently? To start, did Boisjoly act ethically? In my opinion, Boisjoly did all that he could to prevent the launch of the Challenger. He informed his managers of the defect and the probability of an explosion. He consulted all internal channels and had evidence. Sadly, his managers ultimately ignored him and went ahead with the launch. As we know, that resulted in an explosion as predicted. When outside sources questioned Boisjoly about the incident, he was truthful and told them all of his predictions and gave evidence. Next, was Boisjoly treated fairly by Morton Thiokol? To me, Boisjoly's employers did not give him the respect he deserved. He found a problem and informed them of it. The managers of Thiokol did not listen and it resulted in a loss. Later, after Boisjoly blew the whistle, his work environment changed and he was treated differently. Lastly, could the managers of Thiokol have made different decisions? Yes, the Morton Thiokol managers should have researched the problem and found an answer before going ahead with the launch. The had been informed that there was a malfunction and if NASA decided to go ahead with the launch it could potentially
This tragic accident was preventable by not only the flight crew, but maintenance and air traffic control personnel as well. On December 29, 1972, ninety-nine of the one hundred and seventy-six people onboard lost their lives needlessly. As is the case with most accidents, this one was certainly preventable. This accident is unique because of the different people that could have prevented it from happening. The NTSB determined that “the probable cause of this accident was the failure of the flightcrew.” This is true; the flight crew did fail, however, others share the responsibility for this accident. Equally responsible where maintenance personnel, an Air Traffic Controllers, the system, and a twenty cent light bulb. What continues is a discussion on, what happened, why it happened, what to do about it and what was done about it.
After the accident, a full-scale investigation was launched by the United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB). It concluded that the accident was caused by metal fatigue exacerbated by crevice corrosion, the corrosion is exacerbated by the salt water and the age of the aircraft was already 19 years old as the plane operated in a salt water environment.
The primary cause is of airplane accidents does at some stage contain an element of a person being unable to discharge his duties correctly and in an accurate manner. More than 53% accidents are the result of ignorance or faults by the pilot during flight. Other staff is responsible for about 8% accidents. The most obvious errors by pilot are made during the take off or landing on the runway. Additionally errors can occur during the maintenance of the airplane outside the plane, whereby a lack of thorough inspection and oversight can lead to complication during mid-flight. Fueling and loading of the plane also sometimes create problems (Shapiro, 2001).
Nearly three decades ago, the Union Carbide pesticide plant in Bhopal India had a devastated tragedy. The toxic chemical and methyl isocyanate gas leak from the plant killed thousands of civilians who were sleeping and injured hundreds of thousands of people in the nearby neighborhood. For those who survived from this catastrophic incident had injuries ranging from blindness to suffering burns of the skins. The cause of this accident was due to the lack of safety standards and the decision making of Management of Union Carbide in the U.S and management in India in which it played a huge role on how this incident unfold and the many lives that were affected by this horrific accident. The Union Carbide manager in India’s overlooked at safety issues that could have clued them to the problem that needed to be resolved. And if management had a high priority for the safety of their employee’s well-being instead of profit, this situation could have been avoided. After the incident, it was a matter of who was responsible and who will compensate for the injured victims.