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 22 of 56responsible for the overall venture. This includesresponsibility for the plant design and construction . . . [and]the contracting of the detailed design of all thefacilities.”)). Indeed, the February 1974 Design TransferAgreement, pursuant to which UCIL purchased manufacturingprocess design packages from UCC makes no mention of designs forwaste disposal facilities. (Handley Decl., Ex. LL at UCC12071).Plaintiffs also rely on a December 31, 1973 MethylIsocyanate and “Sevin” Carbamoylation Units WastewaterCollection System Design Report prepared by the Chemicals andPlastics Division of UCC. That report merely describes“necessary function of design, construction, and materialsprocurement” for a wastewater collection system, namelyunderground drainage and sewer pipes. (2005 Heck Decl., Ex. D6at UCC04249). Appended to the Design Report are what appear tobe the Chemicals and Plastics Division’s generic StandardOperating Procedures for the construction, (id. at UCC04266-73),design, (id. at UCC04274-77), and testing (id. at UCC04278-81),of any underground sewer and drain system. The report containscriteria for the wastewater collection system, not the designitself, and in no event specifies a system for the treatment anddisposal of effluent at the Bhopal Plant. Moreover, UCCinformed UCIL that this design report and the June 15, 1973memorandum submitting comments on UCIL’s waste disposal plans,22
Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document 118 Filed 06/26/12 Page 23 of 56(Handley Decl., Ex. G), “will conclude formal [UCC] input onwaste disposal requirements for the India SEVIN Unit.” (Id. atUCC04547).It is true that in a letter dated December 9, 1972, UCILrepresented to Bhopal public health authorities that its wastedisposal plans “are based on the best available know-how andexperience at the disposal of Union Carbide India Limited. Theproposed methods are accepted standards incorporating latestdesigns in this field of technology and are in use at the plantof the Principals of Union Carbide India Ltd., in the UnitedStates.” (Handley Decl., Ex. K at UCC04778). This establishesnothing more than UCIL’s intention to adopt “standard” wastedisposal “methods,” such as acid neutralization pits and solarevaporation ponds, which were also used by UCC. It does notestablish that UCC dictated the design of the waste treatmentand disposal system actually constructed at the Bhopal Plant.Indeed, the evidence is to the contrary.First and foremost, the February 7, 1976 report which“describes proposed Waste Disposal Facilities for the PesticidesPlant of Union Carbide India Limited at Bhopal, India” wasprepared by the Engineering Department, Agricultural ProductsDivision, Union Carbide India Limited. (Handley Decl., Ex. FFat UCC04638, UCC04640). It was approved by Mr. L. J. Couvras, aUCIL employee. (Id. at UCC04638). Although Plaintiffs contend23
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?