dismissed their claims and their requests for injunctive relief

Case 1:04-cv-08825-JFK-HBP Document 118 Filed 06/26/12 Page 34 of 565. UCC’s “Intimate Participation” in Site RehabilitationPlaintiffs argue that UCC participated in the creation of anuisance through its intimate involvement in the inadequateclean-up of the Bhopal site. First, Plaintiffs claim that UCCapproved the disposal of acid sludge, but they can do so only bymischaracterizing the evidence. In May 1986, after the BhopalPlant had been shut down, UCIL informed UCC that it needed todispose of sludge in tanks, but had “not been able to find asafe practical and acceptable method of cleaning these tanks.”(2005 Heck Decl., Ex. D14 at UCC01758; Ex. D16 at UCC01760). Byletter dated September 2, 1986, UCC forwarded to UCIL cleaningprocedures recommended by DuPont and the Manufacturing ChemistsAssociation, but noted that UCC has “no additional advice tooffer for removal of the sludge.” (2005 Heck Decl., Ex. D15 atUCC01740). Thereafter, UCIL performed experiments at Bhopaland, in October 1987, proposed a sludge neutralization anddisposal plan on its own. (2005 Heck Decl., Ex. D17 atUCC01728). In the memorandum, UCIL suggested that an “on-sitejoint review be held” to finalize the plan for sludge disposal,but there is no evidence that such joint review ever occurred.(Id.). Plaintiffs also point out that in 1988, UCC providedUCIL with guidelines for the disposal of Sevin and naphtholtars; however, the document cited specifically states that,despite this guidance, UCIL is “not in a position to develop any34