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 20 of 56waste disposal plans. (Handley Decl., Ex. G). In thatmemorandum, UCC noted that UCIL “recommended neutralization of[waste hydrochloric acid] using limestone,” a procedure UCCfound to be “perfectly acceptable,” (id. at UCC04545), andoffered observations on UCIL’s evaporation pond concept, whichwas “somewhat different” from UCC’s concept. (Id. at UCC04546).However, UCC had previously confirmed that “[a]fter he transmitsthe comments he has prepared on the proposals that have beenmade in India, Mr. Hattiangadi has no further obligation toprovide general information on the disposal of plant wastes –other than any reviews or consultations that may be specificallyrequested by personnel in India.” (Handley Decl., Ex. F atUCC04544). UCC went on to clarify that Mr. Hattiangadi wouldnot “issue a general criteria report like those that we issuedfor [illegible] storage, etc.” (Id.). UCC did providesomething in the nature of a “criteria report” – that is, areport laying out UCC’s “performance and design requirements” –for the waste liquid incinerator to be used at Bhopal. (2005Heck Decl., Ex. D4 at UCC04175). However, even in that case,UCC noted that it “has no in-house capability to design theincinerator hardware, [so] this report was written in the formof an inquiry specification to allow the UCIL project group toobtain bids from local vendors.” (Id. at UCC04174). In otherwords, UCC specifically informed UCIL of the limited role it20
Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document 118 Filed 06/26/12 Page 21 of 56could and would play with respect to the design of the BhopalPlant’s waste disposal system. Cf. 2005 Heck Decl., Ex. D1 atUCC04187 (“By Government requirement all possible work inengineering and construction will be done in India with UCILassuming an overall responsibility for implementation of theproject.”).Documents discussing UCIL’s purchase from UCC of “designpackages” consisting of the technical guidelines for the processof manufacturing pesticides also confirm UCC’s limited role inthe design of waste disposal facilities. In a July 12, 1973memorandum, UCC acknowledged that it “has been commissioned tosupply certain portions of the process technology for the IndiaSEVIN Project,” but also noted “the desire by UCIL to perform asmuch of the design as possible in India,” such that “manyportions of the design that would normally be performed at theTechnical Center as an extension of the process design willinstead be transferred in whole or in part to India.” (HandleyDecl., Ex. MM at UCC12132). Consequently, UCC’s memorandumexplicitly defined the division of responsibilities between UCCand UCIL with respect to design of the Bhopal Plant. (Id.).The memo states in no uncertain terms that “UCIL will have theprimary responsibilities for designing and providing the . . .facilities for . . . disposal of wastes.” (Id. at UCC12141; seealso id. at UCC12133 (“Union Carbide India Limited (UCIL) is21
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?