dismissed their claims and their requests for injunctive relief

Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document 118 Filed 06/26/12 Page 24 of 56that UCC designed the solar evaporation ponds, UCC’s only inputwas preliminary and did not include actual constructionparameters. Moreover, the actual ponds constructed at theBhopal Plant differ from UCC’s early suggestions, furtherindicating that such facilities were UCIL’s design. Forexample, UCC’s July 21, 1972 preliminary study of waste disposalat Bhopal notes “[t]o avoid danger of polluting subsurface watersupplies in the Bhopal area, this [evaporation] pond should belined with clay suitable for rendering the pond bottom and dikesimpervious to water.” (2005 Heck Decl., Ex. D3 at UCC04129).In January 1977, however, Humphreys & Glasgow, UCIL’sengineering consultants, determined that construction of solarevaporation ponds as originally conceived would be too costly.(Handley Decl., Ex. HHH at UCC04922). Thus, UCIL and itsengineering consultants devised a last-minute “alternativescheme for the Pond so as to effect cost reduction,” using apolyurethane lining in the evaporation ponds to “reduce use ofexpensive murum and non-swelling clay” and eliminating a catchdrain. (Id. at UCC04922-23).Similarly, UCC’s June 15, 1973 comments on UCIL’s wastedisposal plans note that UCIL was interested in building a 13-acre solar evaporation pond with a life expectancy of ninemonths, but UCC opined that “[s]izing a pond for a lifeexpectancy of under a year . . . is not advisable” and suggested24