RosenbergChemicalValley

Chemical Valley

The film // Chemical Valley //, released in 1991 and directed by Mimi Pickering and Anne Lewis, depicts the response of a chemical plant in West Virginia to the pressures of the local community in the aftermath of the Bhopal Disaster of 1984. Through a montage of town hall meetings and commentary of those living near the plant, the piece suggests that the risks of disaster and long-term health effects are prevalent even in the United States, and that corporations do not take sufficient steps to ensure the safety of those in surrounding regions.

In tackling these issues, it is found that there are three major stakeholders involved in the process, each of which possesses a variety of common and competing interests. The first of these is the chemical corporations, which are suggested to consider two primary goals: maintaining the bottom line and preserving the public perception of the entity. In one sense these activities may coexist, in that if the costs of negative externalities such as pollution and spills are internalized through lawsuits and penalties, the implementation of cleaner technologies may impact profits as well as prevent these damaging public relations affairs. However, in practice these goals often come into conflict, as it is expensive to maintain safe and clean practices in the face of the pressures of shareholders to increase profits. In this case, preserving the public perception of the corporation is a means of covering up for the misdeeds of the past, and typically involves investment intended to assuage tensions by improving the quality of life of the surrounding communities. Such may include the construction of schools, the creation of jobs, and as was shown in the movie the holding of open houses and facility tours to drum up an image of responsibility. While some may argue that corporations have a self-managed obligation to willingly submit to the regulatory culture, it seems that these incentives may be weak in the event that executives and other employees are not subjected to the very externalities that they generate.

In addition, the citizens of the so called “fence communities” are presented with an equally challenging policy agenda. While on the one hand they welcome the economic contributions of the corporation as detailed above, they have great concern for the health and safety of themselves and future generations. Unlike the managers of these factories, their quality of life is impacted daily by acrid air and the fear of evacuation stemming from the potential for catastrophic calamities like that in Bhopal, India. In efforts to pressure the corporations to enhance safety and take greater notice of these issues, they must additionally be careful not to drive them abroad or towards other communities, which would result in the destruction of the local economy and a dramatic loss of social capital.

Mediating between these strong interests is the federal government, with whom responsibility is placed to evaluate the levels of toxicity associated with these plants and to ensure that local communities are not subject to significant environmental harm. Agencies such as the Center for Disease Control (CDC) have been studying the rates of cancers around the Institute plant, while others such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have conducted general studies of the types of chemicals emitted during the Bhopal Disaster. In formulating policy, these agencies must carefully weigh the importance of requiring “Best Available Control Technology” with the economic viability of the industry as a whole. Politicians from both the region and other chemical-laden states such as New Jersey have played a significant role in the debates concerning these incentives, but it is clear that there are pecuniary interests related to campaign and other such finance which may compromise the partiality of these institutions.

Although not specifically focused on oil, the film does delve into the cultural and economic significance of petroleum-based products within the consumer culture. Initially, these chemical plants were developed for projects such as the generation of chemical products that had once been imported from Germany during World War I and the manufacture of artificial rubber during World War II. However, in later years they were involved in refining chemicals which are represented in nearly every kind of product. One of the chemicals created at the Institute plant was involved in the pre-sweetening of cereals, while others were utilized in plastics and artificial fabrics such as nylon. With the promise of artificial plastic manufacturing powered by nuclear energy sources, there was an industry wide belief in the post-World War II era that this reliance on petroleum-based products would be a risk free solution to the world’s consumption requirements.

Despite this optimism, it is clear that there are numerous problems associated with such a dependence on oil. The most obvious of these is the potential for catastrophic disaster at chemical facilities, which was demonstrated no more clearly than by the disaster at the Union Carbide plant in Bhopal, India on Dec 3, 1984. Although the plant was not in operation at the time, faults in the safety mechanisms and poor maintenance led to the deaths of thousands as toxic substances were released into the air of the surrounding communities. While such a catastrophe has not yet occurred in the United States, it is likely that in the absence of proper oversight, the door could be opened for accidents in the future which cause similar devastation. In 1977, the release of an ammonia cloud from a facility in Florida only narrowly missed blanketing Pensacola due to auspicious wind patterns. Additionally, in 1985, the Institute plant in West Virginia was subject to a gas leak which required the hospitalization of 134 people. While the short-term health effects of these disasters have been chronicled, it is far more difficult to forecast the longer-term impacts of proximity to these facilities. In particular, one example was presented in the movie in which a mother was concerned that passing near the Institute plant may have had the potential for causing birth defects in her unborn child, and another resident had observed an unusually high rate of cancer among her neighbors. One study conducted in the community suggested that cancer rates may have been 50% above the national average in Institute, but its conclusions were quickly withdrawn with little explanation provided. Perhaps this may be indicative of uncertainty over small-scale epidemiology studies, as was suggested in class, or of corporate pressures to reduce poor publicity within governmental institutions.

If we were to mobilize a shift away from oil in response to these concerns, it is likely that the results would comprise a mixed bag for many. Although the kinds of disasters observed in the film may decrease in magnitude and intensity, it is likely that newer technologies, which have been studied less extensively, will be prone to accidents as well. Since the regulatory environment of “learning by doing” has been prevalent over the last century, it is possible that disasters may continue to occur, but in a less predictable form. However, it is possible that newer technologies may also be more efficient, resulting in less pollution and improving the quality of life of those in communities such as Institute.

On the other hand, there are likely to be some negative economic impacts associated with a shift away from oil. Communities such as Institute, which have relied heavily on the contributions of these corporations for developing local institutions, will likely be crippled by the loss of skills and sustenance associated with an outward migration of jobs. Since it will be difficult to attract newer, high technology industries to these kinds of poor communities, it is possible that they may see a loss of quality of life. In addition, unless newer methods are developed for manufacturing the wares which are common in everyday consumption, it is possible that those living elsewhere may have to make do with a lower standard of living during this transitional period. However, there may be a shift towards developing artificial petroleum substitutes, such as in the case of the algae farms in // Fuel //, which diminishes the impact of these alterations in manufacturing technique and permits a more gradual adjustment towards a sustainable future.

In terms of the arguments presented by the film, I was especially compelled by that suggesting that chemical corporations are both knowingly inept and lax at maintaining the safety systems which are necessary for protecting nearby communities. In the case of the release of gasses at Institute detailed above, $5 million had supposedly been spent on improving the safety of the plant prior to resuming production in the aftermath of the Bhopal disaster. Additionally, there have been notable and possibly deliberate breakdowns in communication between the managers of these plants and the nearby communities in the immediate aftermath of these accidents. In one case, authorities were not notified for three hours, and residents could not hear the emergency whistles at the facility which were supposed to warn them to evacuate during some of the drills. With the bevy of public relations campaigns carried out by the West Virginia plant, whether town hall meetings, tours of the facility, or open houses for the entire community, it is apparent that these corporations are aware of the harm of their commercial activities.

In contrast, I was less convinced in the absence of more concrete evidence that the Institute plant was deliberately constructed next to a poor, black community with the intent of exploiting those with weaker voices. Although I am admittedly not knowledgeable of the demographics and other dynamics of the region, I still am compelled to wonder what the alternatives were for the location of such a facility. Perhaps there was no other suitable site located so near to the infrastructure of a city like Charleston, or the municipality had provided tax breaks and other concessions which attracted developers. While I will admit that these forms of racism are extremely prevalent even in our modern society, I also wonder whether these generalizations have been made out of anger and frustration, to be used as a scapegoat for deeper seeded problems within the community. Especially in seeing how riled up and organized the residents had become in opposing the environmental damage caused by Union Carbide, one has to wonder whether those in charge of designing these activities possessed such strong ignorance of these local undertones.

In suggesting forms of corrective action, the film primarily focuses on enhancing the social accountability of corporations for the negative externalities associated with their operations. Although not explicitly stated, it is implied that forcing corporate executives to endure the suffering of local communities may compel them to take stronger action in abiding by regulation. How this would be implemented without generating immense controversy I am unsure, but the economic feasibility of relocating to more removed communities has diminished the ability of those in charge to empathize with the damage that their corporation has caused. It is also suggested that lines of communication between communities and plants need to be enhanced to prevent future disasters from inflicting such a large toll on human life. In addition to the flaws in emergency alert systems, the town hall meetings throughout the film showed that managers and spokespeople for the plant had increasingly utilized scripted and clichéd responses meant to dodge the concerns of local citizens. With a loss of trust in these corporations in the aftermath of the Bhopal disaster, it is essential that these stakeholders work together to address the concerns of both parties. Last, it is suggested that governments, particularly at the federal level, have an enhanced role to play in the coming years through their choice of a regulatory regime. Since the technologies necessary to protect nearby communities were often available at the time of the film, some have recommended that agencies such as the EPA force “Best Available Control Technology” upon the firms, in which they are forced to adopt these devices regardless of economic feasibility. However, the corporations have fired back, incensed that the government would be willing to put them out of business in the name of safety. It is clear from these proceedings that an intermediate compromise may be appropriate, in which control technologies are gradually adopted, and corporations are required to set aside a certain percentage of profits each year to conduct research and development aimed at improving the efficiency and cost of compliance. This middle ground is especially crucial, since many of the communities most outraged by the damages caused by chemical manufacturing are those which would be ruined if the business operations of corporations were to cease.

In watching the film, I was compelled to seek out additional information regarding the present state of the Institute plant and community. The following sources proved useful in this endeavor:

[]

[]

In the first of these sources, details are provided regarding the consequences of an explosion at the chemical plant in 2008, which at the time was called the “Bayer CropScience plant.” Since crop-protection chemicals were produced in Institute, there were concerns about the quality of breathable air in the aftermath of the disaster. This led many residents to take actions such as taping their windows shut, closing vents, and turning off air-conditioning systems. However, community officials, after urging residents to stay indoors, later re-assessed the situation and determined that no contaminants had been released into the air, despite a foul odor which was said to permeate the town. Nevertheless, one person had still been killed and one other injured on site, and it is clear that the themes of health concerns and general fear resulting from an uncertainty of information persist to this day.

In the second source, transitions in management and efforts to decrease dangers at the plant are outlined. On March 1, 2010, Steven Hedrick replaced Nick Crosby as the Institute site leader, which is believed to have been in response to U.S. Chemic al Safety Board studies suggesting that it was safety lapses under Crosby’s watch which led to the explosion in 2008 which ultimately killed 2 workers (it seems that the one who had been injured and airlifted to the burn unit later passed away). In addition, the plant is said to be stepping up efforts to reduce stockpiles of the chemical MIC at the plant, which was responsible for the Bhopal Disaster and was a primary concern of residents throughout the film. Although not a complete resolution of the issues prevalent in the community, it seems that the corporation is beginning to take the necessary steps to address the concerns of residents in Institute.