dismissed their claims and their requests for injunctive relief

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document 118 Filed 06/26/12 Page 18 of 56employees of the parent and subsidiary corporations to meetperiodically to discuss business matters.”). Plaintiffs offerno legal authority for the proposition that implementing andfollowing an internal review process for a subsidiary’s capitalexpenditures, in and of itself, is tortious conduct; it doesnot, as a matter of law, rise to the level of participation inthe creation of pollution. Furthermore, nothing in the 1973Capital Budget Proposal, the minutes of the UCC ManagementCommittee meeting in which UCC endorsed the Capital BudgetProposal, or the 1977 Review of the Capital Budget Proposalsuggests that UCC directly participated in any pollutingactivity. Instead, these documents indicate that themanufacturing processes and waste disposal systems to beimplemented at the Bhopal Plant were all initially proposed byUCIL. (2005 Heck Decl., Ex. D1 at UCC04204-06, UCC04212-14).2. Design of Waste Disposal SystemsNext, Plaintiffs argue that UCC can be held directly liablebecause it designed the faulty waste disposal systems installedat the Bhopal Plant. However, the documents cited simply do notestablish that UCC was responsible for such design. In May 1972negotiations with the Government of India to obtain an allotmentof land on which to construct a pesticide manufacturing plant,UCIL informed public health authorities in Bhopal that “theexact design of the effluent treatment unit is in process . . .18
Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document 118 Filed 06/26/12 Page 19 of 56[and that] such work will be carried out by a consultingengineering company of repute who are specialized in design ofeffluent treatment and disposal, under the guidance of ourPrincipals’ Engineering Department.” (Handley Decl., Ex. J atUCC04769). It appears that UCC did offer limited guidance toUCIL, but it does not follow that UCC designed the BhopalPlant’s waste disposal facilities. For example, in a memorandumdated July 21, 1972, UCC reported a “preliminary evaluation . .. of the waste disposal problems for the proposed SEVIN unit tobe located in Bhopal, India.” (2005 Heck Decl., Ex. D3 atUCC04127). In the memorandum, UCC presented a “proposed systemfor neutralizing and disposing of the acid-bearing processwastes,” including using limestone pits to neutralizehydrochloric acid waste and an evaporation pond for the disposalof wastewater. (Id. at UCC04128-29). However, UCC explainedthat the “waste disposal evaluation has been based on verypreliminary and incomplete information” and was undertaken notto set forth a definitive or mandatory design of the BhopalPlant’s waste disposal facilities, but to “(a) provide a basisfor estimating investment and operating cost, (b) recommendfurther development, and (c) serve as a basis for negotiationswith the Indian Government.” (Id. at UCC04127).Similarly, on June 15, 1973, Mr. G. R. Hattiangadi of UCCsent a memorandum to several UCIL employees commenting on UCIL’s19
Page 1 and 2: Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document
Page 56: Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document

dismissed their claims and their requests for injunctive relief

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?