The crowd gathered in a conference room at West Virginia State University, spilling out into the hall and standing when there were no more chairs left. The university is just yards away from the Bayer plant.
People wanted to know: were they exposed to any chemicals that night? Was the accident preventable? But the most pressing question was: will it happen again?
Maya Nye already knows the answer. She’s the spokeswoman for a community group called People Concerned About MIC and addressed the panel, remembering the same plant’s 1993 explosion.
“My story is only one of thousands in this community and in communities across the world in harm’s way of a chemical plant,” she said. “It is a story that has occurred time and time again and unfortunately it continues to occur.”
In the months following the explosion, there has been a dearth of information, and as a congressional hearing on Tuesday determined, Bayer has tried to cover up some of the details surrounding the case.
The explosion could have been worse. Only 80 feet away from the epicenter of the explosion was a tank of MIC—the toxic gas that killed thousands in Bhopal, India. The congressional hearing determined that mere chance prevented a projectile from hitting the tank and if it had, “the consequences could have eclipsed the 1984 disaster in India.”
In an elaborate presentation, officials from the Chemical Safety Board outlined the runaway chemical reaction that resulted in the explosion and the deaths of two Bayer workers. They went through, minute by minute, the emergency response. And then they discussed the possible toxic consequences from chemicals involved in the incident.
At the community meeting, Donna Willis said she was also concerned with her long-term exposure to all of the plant’s chemicals.
“I just want to know how much chemicals can the human body take and not show some phys effect that is not associated to cigarettes?” she asked. “There is not a physician in the state of West Virginia who has been certified by our board, who can stand up and say that we are suffering cancer, that we are suffering heart ailments or anything else all because of cigarettes and second-hand smoking.
“Who is out there testing these drugs and these chemicals and what effect there will be on our bodies?”
The reports show that all of the fence line monitors at the plant may not have been working on the night of the explosion. So no one is absolutely sure what was released into the air. A byproduct of MIC – Methomyl -- could have been released. Exposure can cause nervous system damage or respiratory arrest.
The Chemical Safety Board determined the accident was avoidable. The board concluded that employees were inadequately trained to operate the new production equipment in the Methomyl unit.
And the unit’s heater was deficient, so workers overrode safety devices to get the chemicals up to their proper temperature.
Also, plant operators routinely worked 12 or even 18 hour shifts in the months leading up to the accident, so worker fatigue could have been a factor, the report says.
Nick Crosby, Bayer Vice President of Institute site operations was the only person on the panel to speak in defense of Bayer. But after a litany of comments comparing Bayer with the 1984 Bhopal leak, Pam James stood in defense of the chemical plant. She says her husband works at the plant, and she knew Barry Withrow, who died that night.
“You people that are here for the other side didn’t know Barry,” she said. “I didn’t know Bill Oxley. But I also know that my husband is well-respected. He’s a smart man and he wouldn’t go into an environment that’s unsafe.”
James was the only speaker during the public comment period to defend Bayer. The remaining speakers all expressed outrage at the scope of Bayer’s failures.
Sue Davis says she asked a Bayer official at a previous community meeting why the company needs to stockpile MIC.
“And he didn’t say anything that any of you said,” she said. “He said because it’s more economical. So in other words, they equate money with my life and your life.”
But perhaps the question of the evening was summed up by Demetrios Paparoupas during the public comment period:
“How many more instances do we have to have before something actually happens?”