2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp

8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp

1/26

UNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT

SOUTHERNDISTRICTOFWESTVIRGINIA

CHARLESTONDIVISION

MAYANYE,acitizenofKanawhaCountyandothercurrentorformer

residentsof,andworkersin,Kanawha

County

Plaintiffs,

v. CaseNo.11-cv-00087

(Hon.JosephR.Goodwin)

BAYERCROPSCIENCE,L.P.,

Defendant.

PLAINTIFFSMEMORANDUMINSUPPORTOFPRELIMINARYINJUNCTION

InsupportoftheirMotionforPreliminaryInjunction,Plaintiffs,byCounsel,respectfullystateas

follows:

I. StatementoftheCaseTheComplaintin thisactionwasfiledonFebruary8,2011.Followingnoticeanda hearingon

February10,2011,theCourtenteredaTemporaryRestrainingOrder(TRO)enjoiningtheproductionof

Methyl isocayanate (MIC) at the Institute,West Virginia facility of Defendant Bayer CropScience, LP

(Bayer)untilFebruary25,2011atwhichtimetheCourtsetahearingonthisMotionforPreliminary

Injunction,andfixedthecurrentbriefingschedule. Thepartiesattendeda discoveryconferencewith

MagistrateJudgeStanleyonFebruary11,2011,andhaveexchangeddiscoveryrequests.OnFebruary

12, 2011, Bayer filed an emergency motion for relief from the TRO, which the Court denied as to

modificationandgrantedas to clarification on February 13,2011. Thepartiesmeton February 14,

2011,andappearedbeforeJudgeStanleyin aneffort toresolvedifferencesoverdiscoveryissues.An

AmendedComplaintwasfiledasofrightunderRule15,Fed.R. Civ.P.,onApril14,2011,Defendants

havingfilednopleadingresponsivetotheComplaint.


2/26

2

II. StatementofFacts

Methyl isocyanate (MIC)isthe highly toxicchemicalwhich killed between8,000 and10,000

citizensofBhopal,Indiawithin72hoursofthe1984explosionofUnionCarbidesMICplant,andan

estimated25,000laterfromgas-relateddiseasesattributedtothecatastrophicBhopaldisaster.Many

thousandsmorecontinuetosufferfromlong-terminjuriessustainedasaresultoftheBhopaldisaster.

TheUnionCarbideplantinBhopalreleasedapproximately88,000pounds(40tons)ofMICatthetimeof

the Bhopal disaster; Bayers pesticide manufacturing facility in Institute, West Virginia stored

approximately 200,000pounds ofMICat thetimeof theAugust2008explosion. Although Bayer in

August2009announcedan80%reductionoftheMICvolumestobestoredatInstitute,BayersRisk

ManagementPlan(EXHIBITH-2)recordsvolumesplannedtoremainonsitewillequal50,000pounds,

nearly60%ofthevolumesreleasedatBhopal.

Importantly,Bayers January11,2011announcementthatit hadreconfigured theproduction

processatInstitutetoeliminateabove-groundstorage,indicatedthatsubstantialvolumesofMICwould

continue to be stored underground at Institute. Critically, Bayers January 2011 announcement

indicatedthatithadnotadoptedthepractice,initiatedbyDupontaftertheBhopaldisaster,ofonly

producingMICinvolumesimmediatelyconsumedbyotherchemicalprocesses,therebyeliminatingthe

risks associated with ongoing, on-site storage of the highly toxic MIC. The Dupont strategy of

eliminatingon-sitestoragewasrejectedbecauseofthecostofreconfiguringtheInstitutefacility.

Additionally,althoughBayerhasrepresentedinitsoppositiontotheTROinthisproceedingthat

the Bayerfacility issafeand readyto turnon toresume themanufacture ofMIC, inanEmergency

MotionforClarificationandRelieffromtheTRO,filedonSaturday,February12,2011,Bayerprovideda

laundrylistofitemswhichtheywishedtocomplete,andarequestthattheCourtmakeclearthatnone


3/26

3

ofthelisteditemsviolatedthetermsoftheTRO,whichcandidlycouldnothavebeenclearer.Thelitany

ofuncompleteditemsconstitutesa shockingadmission ofunpreparednessonBayerspart, including

suchelementaryitemsastrainingofpersonnelandwritingofstandardoperatingprocedures.Critically,

thesewereamongthespecificfailingsidentifiedbytheChemicalSafetyBoard(CSB)initsfinalreportof

thecausesoftheAugust28,2008explosion.

As stated in the AmendedComplaint1, anexplosion atBayers Larvinproductionunit, which

employsMIC,atInstitute,WVinvolvedvirtuallyallofthefactorsoftheBhopaldisasterexcepttheloss

oflifeinmassivenumbers.ForPlaintiffs,thedifferencesinthebodycountofferlittlecomfort.Indeed,

theawarenessthatamassivelossoflifewasavoidedonbythearbitraryflightpathofBayersresidue

treaterandtherandomdistributionpatternfortheshrapnelreleasedonAugust28,2008explosion--

inplainlanguage,simpleluck--makescontinuedmanufactureandstorageofMICatBayersInstitute

site a constant, immediate fear to residents of Institute and the surrounding Kanawha County

community,andseriouslyimpairstheirenjoymentoftheirproperty.Bayersweekenddisclosuresof

unpreparednessreinforcethosefears.

Thattheoutcomeswereamerelyfortuityandnotaresultofanyplannedprecautionsorspecial

safetypracticesadoptedbyBayerisconfirmedbythelonglitanyofBayersincompetentmanagement

ofthechemicalfacilityatInstitutesinceits2002acquisitionoftheplant.Thatlitany,alltoofamiliarto

theresidentsofInstituteandadjoiningcommunities,includesthefollowing:

2010

February22,2010:

A smallamountofaceticacidwas releasedat the Bayerplantwhileworkerswere

tryingtoclearlinesofabargedockedattheInstitutefacility.Residentsbegancalling

Metro911about1pmtoreportasulfursmell;somecomplainedofheadaches.ABayer

1Plaintiffsincorporatebyreferencethefactsappearingat1to27oftheComplaint.


4/26

4

employeecalledMetro911at2pmtoreporttheleak.Theemployeesaidtherewasno

dangertothepublic.

Aceticacid,alsoknownasethanoicacid,isanorganicacidthatgivesvinegaritssour

tasteandpungentsmell.Itisusedasasolvent,amongotherthings.Concentratedacetic

acidiscorrosiveandcanburntheskinandeyes.

(TheCharlestonDailyMail,2/23/10;TheCharlestonGazette2/23/10)

February4throughFebruary17,2010:

Morethan3,500poundsofammoniagasfromtheBayer-operated,DowChemicalCo.

facilityinInstitutewentundetectedfornearlytwoweeks.TheleakoccurredinDows

ethylene oxide catalyst unit, which is located on Bayer CropScience property at the

multi-company Institute site. Metro 911 said the leak was reported at 1:52 p.m.

Wednesday,February17.thAnall-clearwasgivenat3:40p.m.thatsameday.Metro911

ShiftCapt.JoeCoenreportedthattheplantfoundammoniahadbeenleakingthroughareliefvalveatthetopoftheanhydrousammoniatankatarateofnearly270poundsper

dayfromFeb.4to17,totalingmorethan3500pounds.

Coensaidplantofficialsdidntdiscovertheleakuntiltheysawthegaugesdroppingand

checked the changes against their records. Operators had been looking at their

inventoryrecordsandsawthatthegaugeshadbeendroppingfordays,hetoldThe

CharlestonGazette.

Ammonia is a colorless gas with a pungent, suffocating odor. It is caustic and is a

powerfulirritant. Itcanburntheskinandotherpartsofthebody.Dependingonthe

amount, exposure can also cause severe pulmonary and gastrointestinal irritation,nausea,vomiting,pulmonaryedemaandevendeath.

(TheCharlestonGazette2/18/10)

2009:

October24,2009:

TwelvepoundsofhydrogencyanideleakedattheBayerfacilityinInstituteonSaturday,

October24.PlantspokesmanTomDoversaidtheleakfromadistillationcolumnwas

fixedbymaintenanceworkers.


5/26

5

Hydrogen cyanide is a poisonous gas that can cause irritation to eyes, skin and

respiratorytract,aswellasnausea,headacheanddizziness.Symptomsofexposuremay

bedelayed.OSHAsayshighconcentrationsofitcanrapidlycausedeath.


February15,2009:

About five gallons of liquid cesium sulfate were spilled. The chemical is used as a

promoterinacatalystproductionprocessattheplant,Bayerofficialssaid,statingthatit

isa non-toxic liquid and presentednodanger tothepublic.Workersweremoving a

pallet of largeplastic totes inwhich the chemical is storedwhen one of the pallets

edgesgotcaughtonatotesvalveandcrackedit.


2008:

September2008:

Bayeragreestopay$112,500inEPAsettlementtoresolvewide-rangingviolationsatits

Instituteplant(committedbyapriorownerbutnotresolveduntil2008),including:

---between January 1999 and March 2001, the plant disclosed three dozen water

pollution violations in its required monthly discharge reports to regulators. These

includedrepeatedinstanceswheretheplantdischargedfarmorethanitsallowedlimits

oftoluene,cyanide,andsolidsintotheKanawhaRiver;

---amongtheviolationswerenumerousinstanceswheretheplantdumpedmorethana

dozen times its legal limit of chloroform. EPA inspectors also allege that the plant

officialsdidnotproperlymonitorwaterpollutiondischargesorupdateawaterpollution

controlplan;

---EPAinspectorsdiscoveredthattheplantwasnotmonitoringtheflowofmaterialsout

of three vents meant to discharge air emissions during startup, shutdown and

malfunctions in theCarbarylinsecticideunit. Plant officialsdidnotreporthowmuch

pollutionwasemittedfromtheseventsduringsevenincidentsin2000and2001;

---Plantofficialsunderreportedroutinetoxicemissionsofatotalofmorethan1,000of

fourchemicalsinitsToxicsReleaseInventoryfilingsfor1999,EPAfound.Theplantalso

did not properly report a total of 46,000 pounds of 15 different chemicals. The

chemicalsweredumpedatanoff-sitelandfill,asopposedtoanon-sitefacility,asthe

planthadreportedinitsTRIfilings;

---On February5, 2001, plantofficials waited almost 5hours to report a leak of the

pesticidecarbosulan.Theleakoccurredat10:30pm,andtheplantdidnotreportitto


6/26

6

federalauthoritiesuntil3:19amthefollowingmorning.Federallawrequiressuchleaks

to be reported immediately. Plant officials also violated federal law by not filing a

requiredfollow-upreportwithmoredetailsoftheincident.


LateSeptember2008:

AreportedleakofMICthatwasdismissedbyaBayerspokesmanasanon-incident.

TomDover,Bayerspokesperson,confirmedthatatankassociatedwiththeMICstorage

wasopenedduringinspectionsinthewestsideoftheplant,butstatedthattheamount

ofchemicalleakedwasfarbelowreportablelevels.Workerstookactionaftersmelling

theodorofMIC,whichDoversaidhasastrongsmellevenatlowlevels.Employeesthen

lefttheareaandseveralwerecheckedoutattheplantsmedicalfacility.Onecontractor

thendecidedonhisowntogotoanoutsidehospitalafterhisshift.

DalePetry,KanawhaCountyEmergencyServicesDirector,statedthathewasdisturbedthathedidntknowaboutthesituation.IwishIhadknownaboutit,saidPetry.Let

memakethedecisionwhetheritshouldbereportedtothepublic.Countyofficialssaid

theyfirstheardabouttheMICreleasewhenWSAZcontactedthemaboutit.

(TheCharlestonGazette11/18/08;www.wsaz.com/mobi?storyid=33401989)

2007

December28,2007:

Leak of thiodicarb, a chemical used in insecticides, causing a cabbage-like odor that

could be smelled up and down the Kanawha Valley and into neighboring Putnam.

Companyofficialssaidnotenoughofthechemicalescapedtoposeahealththreat,but

KanawhaCountyCommissionPresidentKentCarperblastedthecompanyforfailingto

notify emergency service officials or the public about the nature of the release for

severalhours.The notificationwas just absolutely abysmal fromBayer,Carper said

aftertheDec.28incident.Informationgiventothefirstresponderswassoinadequate

thatnooneknewtotallywhattodo.

ComplaintsaboutodorsneartheplantcontinuedtocomeintoMetro911,emergency

officialssaidandcomplaintscontinuedaboutlingeringodorsintheNitroandSt.Albans

areaneartheplantonDec.29and31st.Therewereadditionalcomplaintsaboutodors

andthestrangehazeneartheplantonJan.1st.

Ifthereareleaks,theyresupposedtotellus,Carpersaid.Everybodysdenyingthere

are any leaks, but we keep getting these reports. Carper further told press upon


7/26

7

hearing of the thiodicarb release: How could it be a controlled event when the

chemicalrelease(couldbesmelled)cleardowninPutnamCounty?

HundredsofpeoplecomplainedaboutthestrongodorscomingfromtheInstituteplant

for nearly one week before Bayer attributed the smell to a minor release of

thiodicarb.Atleastonepersonwashospitalized.

Bayeragreedearlierinweekthataplantworkerhadnotedabluehazeoverplantbut

they could not explain. The World Health Organization describes the substance as

extremelytoxicandpotentiallycarcinogenic.IthasbeenbannedintheEuropeanUnion.

(WVDEPcitedthemforairpollutionviolation)(TheCharlestonGazette,Jan.9,2008)

December20,2007:

ResidentsinSt.Albans,acrosstheriverfromplant,reportedodorsfromafaultytankat

thefacilityswastewatertreatmentplant;(WVDEPcitedforairpollutionviolation)(The

CharlestonGazette,Jan.9,2008)

November16,2007:

Aspillofabout100poundsofRhodimet,achemicalusedinanimalfeed,causedbad

odorsthatlastedfor10days.(WVDEPcitedthemforairpollutionviolation.)

(TheCharlestonGazette,Jan.9,2008)ThefearPlaintiffsexperiencecurrentlyisnotconfinedtotheperiodofBayerownership,butis

cumulativeandincludesthefollowing:

August13,2001:

10 workers received medical treatment after a chloroform leak at the plant. (The

CharlestonGazette8/30/08)

October15,1999:

Ashelter-in-placeadvisoryisissuedforresidentswithintwomilesofplantafteraleakof

thedeadlygasphosgene.(TheCharlestonGazette8/30/08)

July28,1997:

Highwinds and heavy rains shut down a chemical disposal system and blow out an

incinerator flame, prompting the release of a relatively small amount of MIC. (The

CharlestonGazette8/30/08)


8/26

8

February15,1996:

Aleakandfireinvolvingthechemicaltoluenepromptedanotherwidespreadshelter-in-

placeadvisoryacrossthewesternpartofthevalley.Rhone-Poulencpays$450,000fine

toOSHA.(TheCharlestonGazette8/30/08)

December13,1994:

Afaultychemicalpumpcausedaleakofsulfurdichloride;oneworkerinjured,others

forcedtoshelterinplace.(TheCharlestonGazette8/30/08)

March1994:

Union Carbide fined $75,000 for not reporting a leak of ethylene oxide.

(www.endgame.org/carbide-history.html)

June19,1994:

Ahigh-techmonitoringsystemsomehowallowsalargeleakofuntreatedwastewater

from the plant to be discharged into the Kanawha River. (The Charleston Gazette

8/30/08)

August18,1994:

ThousandsofKanawhaValleyresidentstakeshelterin theirhomesafteran explosionripsthroughtheInstitutefacility.Oneworkeriskilledintheblast,andaseconddies10

yearslaterfromtheeffectsofcyanidethatburnedhislungs.OSHAfinesthecompany

$1.7 million, but later settles for $700,000. (The Charleston Gazette 8/30/08; The

CharlestonGazetteDec.2,2004)

May20,1993:

Morethan1,000residentsofInstituteandWestDunbarshelterintheirhomesbecause

ofachlorineleakfromtheInstituteplantsbargeloadingdock.(TheCharlestonGazette

8/30/08)

August13,1988:

Fireandexplosionof4300poundsofethyleneoxideatInstitute;tetranaphalenewas

spilledintheriverkilling3000fish.(www.endgame.org/carbide-history.html)

June1986:


9/26


10/26

10

theissuanceofpreliminaryinjunctions."). RealTruthnotedthattheBlackwelderstandardinseveral

respectsnowstandsinfataltensionwiththeSupremeCourt's2008decisioninWinter."RealTruth,575

F.3dat347.

Under Winter, the four relevant factors for determining whether to issue a Preliminary

Injunctionare:"(1)thatthePlaintiffis likelytosucceedonthemerits;(2)thatthePlaintiffis likelyto

sufferirreparableharmintheabsenceofinjunctiverelief;(3)thatthebalanceoftheequitiestipsinthe

Plaintiffsfavor;and(4)thataninjunctionwouldbeinthepublicinterest."RealTruth,575F.3dat346-47

citingWinter,129S.Ct.at374.TheCourtinRealTruthbestdescribesthenewstandardunder Winterfor

determiningwhethertoissueatemporaryrestrainingorder(orpreliminaryinjunction)ascomparedto

Blackwelder:

First, the SupremeCourt inWinter, recognizing that a preliminary injunction affords

relief before trial, requires that the plaintiff make a clear showing that it will likely

succeedonthemeritsat trial.129S.Ct.at374,376.YetinBlackwelder,we instructed

thatthelikelihood-of-successrequirementbeconsidered,ifatall,onlyafterabalancing

ofhardships is conducted and then only under therelaxedstandard of showing that

"graveorseriousquestionsarepresented"forlitigation.550F.2dat195-96(emphasis

added); see also RumCreek Coal, 926 F.2dat 363. TheWinter requirementthat the

plaintiffclearlydemonstratethatitwilllikelysucceedonthemeritsis farstricterthanthe Blackwelder requirement that the plaintiff demonstrate only a grave or serious

questionforlitigation.

Second,Winter requires that the plaintiffmakea clearshowingthat it islikely tobe

irreparablyharmedabsentpreliminaryrelief. 129S.Ct. at374-76.Blackwelder,onthe

other hand, requires that the court balance the irreparable harm to the respective

parties, requiring only that the harm to the plaintiff outweigh the harm to the

defendant.550F.2dat196.Moreover, Blackwelderallowsthatuponastrongshowing

ontheprobabilityofsuccess,themovingpartymaydemonstrateonlyapossibilityof

irreparableinjury,id.at195-astandardexplicitlyrejectedinWinter,129S.Ct.at375-76.

Third, in Winter, the Supreme Court emphasized the public interest requirement,

stating, "In exercising their sound discretion, courts of equity should pay particular

regard for the public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of

injunction." 129 S.Ct. at 376-77 (emphasis added) (internal quotations marks and

citationomitted).Yet,undertheBlackwelderstandard,thepublicinterestrequirement

"doesnotappearalwaystobeconsideredatlengthinpreliminaryinjunctionanalyses,"

eventhoughitmustalwaysbeconsidered. RumCreekCoal,926F.2dat366-67;seealso


11/26

11

Blackwelder,550F.2dat196.

Fourth,whileWinterarticulatesfourrequirements,eachofwhichmustbesatisfiedas

articulated, Blackwelder allows requirements to be conditionally redefined as other

requirements are more fully satisfied so that "grant[ing] or deny[ing] a preliminary

injunctiondependsupona'flexibleinterplay'amongallthefactorsconsidered...forall

four[factors)areintertwinedandeachaffectsindegreealltheothers."550F.2dat196.

Thus,asanexample,thecourtinBlackwelderobserved:

The two more important factors are those of probable irreparable injury to

plaintiffwithoutadecreeandoflikelyharmtothedefendantwithadecree.If

that balance is struck in favorof plaintiff, it is enough that graveor serious

questions arepresented; andplaintiffneed notshowa likelihood of success.

550F.2dat196(emphasisadded).BecauseofitsdifferenceswiththeWinter

test, the Blackwelder balance-of-hardship test may no longer be applied in

grantingordenyingpreliminaryinjunctionsintheFourthCircuit,asthestandard

articulatedinWintergovernstheissuanceofpreliminaryinjunctionsnotonlyin

theFourthCircuitbutinallfederalcourts.575F.3dat345-347.

Although the differences in focus and weight betweenBlackwelder andReal Truth may be

critical in some cases, for purposes of the present discussion, the focus for Preliminary Injunction

purposesofcompetinginjury,mirrorsinlargepartthecompetinginterestsassessedindeterminingthe

existenceofanuisance,discussedbelow,effectivelymergingthediscussionoflikelihoodofsuccesson

themeritswiththebalancingofinjuries.

IV. Argument

ThefactsinsupportofthisrequestforaPreliminaryInjunctioninthiscasecouldnotbemore

compelling,northebalanceofinterests--publicandprivate--soclearlyandunambiguouslyresolvedin

favorofissuanceofanorderoftemporaryrelief.Thebalancingtestinthiscaseultimatelyrequiresthat

thisCourtacknowledge:(a)thecurrent,palpablereason-basedfear,experiencedbyPlaintiffsandother

membersoftheaffectedcommunities,whichgreatlyimpairstheirpropertyrights,plus(b)theimminent

riskofacatastrophicindustrialdisaster,potentiallycausingpermanentbodilyinjuryand/orlossoflifeto

thousands.


12/26

12

Compoundingthisanalysisistheuniquestressassociatedwithlivingthroughyetanothereffort

on Bayers part to restart its MIC dependent, Larvin production plant. As noted, the CSB found a

numberofdeficienciesintheAugust28,2008startupoftheMICproductionfacility,whichintoomany

respectsmirrorthelitanyofuncompleteditemspresentedintheEmergencyMotionfiledbyBayerthis

pastSaturday.

Moreover,thestartupofBayersnewandimprovedMICproductionannouncedonJanuary1,

2011takesplaceagainstthebackdropofBayersChiefExecutiveOfficerspublicacknowledgementthat

Bayer has repeatedly employed deception and dissembling in its communicationswith government

officialsandthepublic.

Specifically, Bayers CEO admitted in 2009 that it had invoked the provisions of Homeland

Securitylegislation,whichbarredreleaseofcertaininformation,toenhanceitspublicrelationsposture

andtoavoidaseriousdiscussionoftheinherentdangersofmanufacturingMICinamajorpopulation

center. The abuse of Homeland Security exemptions from disclosure was so repugnant that the

Congressimmediatelypassedamendmentstocontrollinglegislationtoeliminatethealreadythinreed

behindwhichBayerwasattemptingtohide.Thus,CongresspassedtheAmericanCommunityRightto

KnowAct,whichamendedtherelevantstatutetoaddthefollowingitalicizedlanguage:

(d)NondisclosureofInformation.

(1) In general. Information developed under thissectionor sections70102, 70104,

and70108isnotrequiredtobedisclosedtothepublic,including

(A)facilitysecurityplans,vesselsecurityplans,andportvulnerabilityassessments;and

(B)other informationrelatedto securityplans,procedures,orprogramsforvesselsor

facilitiesauthorizedunderthissectionorsections 70102,70104,and70108.

(2) Limitations. Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to authorize the

designationofinformationassensitivesecurityinformation(asdefinedinsection1520.5

oftitle49,CodeofFederalRegulations)

(A)toconcealaviolationoflaw,inefficiency,oradministrativeerror;

(B)topreventembarrassmenttoaperson,organization,oragency;

(C)torestraincompetition;or


13/26

13

(D)topreventordelaythereleaseofinformationthatdoesnotrequireprotectioninthe

interest of transportation security, including basic scientific research information not

clearlyrelatedtotransportationsecurity.

46U.S.C.70103(emphasisadded).

As though that were not enough to impair Bayers credibility fatally, the public

misrepresentationscontinueasthislawsuitgoesforward.StatementsbyBayerinitsoppositiontothe

motion for temporary restraining order include the assertion that the public interest required the

continuedproductionofTemik, which in turn requiredMICas aprecursor,orcomponent, andthat

Temikwascriticaltoagriculture,particularlytheproductionofcottonandpeanuts.Specifically,Bayers

pleading

MIC serves auseful purpose inthenationaland global economy.MIC isused inthe

productionof anumberofanumberofdifferentpesticides-includingaproductcalled

"Temik." Temik is crucial to theprotectionofa varietyof crops including cottonand

peanuts,andtherecurrently isno knownalternative.This factoraloneweighsgreatly

againsttheimpositionofaninjunction.Thecessationof theproductionofMICwould

depriveconsumersofausefultoolinprotectingtheircrops,andleavethemwithouta

viablealternative.

February9,2011Oppositionatp.14(emphasisadded).

Infact,farmershavealreadyabandoneduseofTemikindroves.Tobesure,accordingatleast

onepublicreport,usageofTemikfortreatmentofthrips,thegreatestpestrisktocrops,hasdeclinedby

fully80%infavorofawholenewclassoffoliarproducts. ExhibitA.Noristhisasurpriseforaproduct

which the Scientific American describes as having caused the worst known outbreak of pesticide

poisoninginNorthAmerica,inanarticledescribingthelongoverduebanonTemikbyEPA. ExhibitB.

Temikisdescribedasagranularinsecticidewithhighlevelsofdermaltoxicity,andhasahighresidue

inchildrenaged15,resultingindiarrheaandvomiting,adverseeffectsonthenervoussystem,andis

associatedwithhighratesof coloncanceramongapplicatorswithhigh levelsof exposure. ExhibitC.

Moreover,TemikisnoteventhesoleproductavailablefromBayer.Ifonecallsthe866numberatthe

endofaQ&ApublishedbyBayer,andisfortunateenoughtospeaktoapersonidentifiedasBethWalsh,


14/26

14

onelearnsthatBayerisconsideringrewritingthelabelonitsMoventoproducttoreplaceTemik.In

short, not onlywill cotton anpeanut farmers not be injured by the long overduedisappearance of

Temik,ifitcangetitsMoventoproductrelabled,Bayerwillincurlittletonoeconomicloss.

But thealternativesreadily availableto peanut andcottonfarmers at atime when Bayer

statesto thisCourtthatTemikis necessarydo nothingtoshoreupBayersalreadylamecredibility.

Indeed,theycompeltheconclusionthatnodecisionaffectingpublichealthandsafetycanbebasedon

anyuncorroboratedstatementfromBayer.

TheresultofBayershistoryofrecklessness,towardsbothsafetyandthetruth,isthatroutine

assurances that all is well and nothing bad will happen, which Bayers public relations department

disseminate daily, must be discounted by any informedperson. To bemore direct, no reasonably

informed persons, not Plaintiffs and not this Court, should swallow -- hook, line and sinker -- the

assurances of safety from BayersPR machine,on this record,where thestakesareso high,Bayers

safetyrecordsosorry,andtheircredibilitysothin.

WestVirginiascommonlawofnuisance

InWestVirginia,nuisanceisaflexibleareaofthelawthatisadaptabletoawidevarietyof

factualsituations.SharonSteelCorp.v.CityofFairmont,175W.Va.479,483-84(1985).TheSupreme

CourtofAppealsofWestVirginiahasgenerallydescribedanuisanceas:

Anythingwhich annoys ordisturbs the free use ofonesproperty,or

whichrendersitsordinaryuseorphysicaloccupationuncomfortable.A

nuisanceisanythingwhichinterfereswiththerightsofacitizen,either

inperson,property,theenjoymentofhisproperty,orhiscomfort.A

condition is a nuisance when it clearly appears that enjoyment of

propertyismateriallylessened,andphysicalcomfortofpersonintheir

homesismateriallyinterferedwiththereby.

Duffv.MorgantownEnergyAssociates,187W.Va.712,715(1992)(quoting Hendricksv.Stalnaker,181

W.Va.31,33(1989)).


15/26

15

Withinthisbroaddefinition,aprivatenuisanceisdefinedasasubstantialandunreasonable

interferencewiththeprivateuseandenjoymentofanothersland,(Hendricksatsyllabuspoint1)and

furtherdescribedasconductthatisintentionalandunreasonable,negligentorreckless,orthatresults

inabnormally dangerous conditions or activities in an inappropriate place. (Hendricks 33-34)

(emphasisadded).TheCourthasadoptedabalancingtesttodeterminewhetheragiveninterferenceis

unreasonable,weighingwhetherthegravityoftheharmtotheindividualisgreaterthanthesocial

valueoftheactivityallegedtocausetheharm.(Hendricksatsyllabuspoint2).

A public nuisance, rather than harming a limited number of persons, affects an indefinite

numberofpersons,i.e.,thegeneralpublic.Harkv.MountainForkLumberCo.,127W.Va.586,595-96

(1945).Whilepublicofficialsareroutinelyregardedashavingstandingtobringasuittoabateapublic

nuisance,aprivateplaintiffabletoshowaninjurydifferentinbothkindanddegreefromthepublic

mayalsobringacaseasapublicnuisance.Duff,187W.Va.at716n.7.

Nuisancesuitsfrequentlyinvolveconductorlandusethatispresentlyoccurring,suchaswhena

plantemitscoalsmokeandsoot,Parkerv.CityofFairmont,72W.Va.688(1913),thusprovidinggreater

evidencebearingontheharmandvalueof theactivity inquestion.Butcourtsalsohaveauthorityto

enjoin a facility or company from future conduct, termed a prospective (or anticipatory) nuisance.

WilliamL.Prosser&W.PageKeeton,ProsserandKeetonontheLawofTorts89,at640-41(5thed.

1984).

Wherethenuisancein question isa nuisanceper se, ora nuisance regardless of contextor

circumstance,2most jurisdictionswillpermit an injunction. Other activitiesarecalleda nuisanceper

accidens, oranaction that becomes a nuisance through facts, surroundings, orother circumstance.

2Insomejurisdictionsthisisonlypossiblewheretheactivityisillegal,suchastheestablishmentofabrothel.See,

e.g.,CityofBowiev.BoardofCountyComm'rs,260Md.116,127-28(1970).


16/26

16

Duff,187W. Va. at717(quotingChambersv. Cramer,49W.Va.395, syllabuspoint2 (1901)). The

SupremeCourthaswrittenthatsuchanuisancemaybemerelyarightthinginawrongplace,likeapig

intheparlorinsteadofthebarnyard.VillageofEuclid,Ohio,etal.v.AmberRealtyCo.,272U.S.365,

388(1926).

PresentNuisanceRootedinaReasonableFear

BayersMICproductionplantinInstituteisacurrentlyexperienced,presentnuisancebasedon

thesubstantialandunreasonableinterferencewiththeprivateuseandenjoymentofanothersland

caused by the reason-based fear of catastrophe in light of Bayers history ofmismanagement and

misconduct.Casesrecognizingpresentnuisancebasedonreason-basedfeardatetothelate19thand

early20thcenturies,duringtheupheavalcausedbytheAmericanIndustrialRevolutionandconcomitant

advancesintechnology.Courtsapplyingthistheoryconsideredthestorageofnitroglycerin,thebuilding

offacilitiestocareforterminallyillpatients,thehousingofaleper,andtheplannedconstructionofa

reservoironahillsidejustabovearesidentialarea.Doaneat460-61.

InFerryv.CityofSeattle,200P.336(1921)(FerryI),theSupremeCourtofWashingtonfirst

declinedtoissueaninjunctionduetothefailureofplaintiffstoshowahighprobabilityofinjuryifthe

reservoirwereconstructed,andpresumingthatitwouldbeconstructedsafely.FerryI,200P.at340.

Fourmonthslater,however,thecourtreverseditselfandissuedaninjunctionbasedontheinterference

with theplaintiffsenjoyment of their propertycausedby their fears for their lives. Ferryv. Cityof

Seattle,203P.40(1922)(FerryII).Thecourtexplicitlyconsideredtherealizationoftheinjurywhich

wouldcertainlyensueshouldthereservoirbreakasthebasisforthereasonablenessoftheplaintiffs

fear,ratherthanthelevelofprobabilitythatitwouldinfactbreak.FerryII ,203P.at40.Towit:

If the breaking of the proposed reservoir would probably result in

comparatively smalldamage and no loss of life, Iwouldnot demand


17/26

17

proofofitssafetywithahighdegreeofcertainty;but,inviewofwhat

now seems to me would be the appalling result of such breaking, I

wouldwant the necessity of its location there, and its safety, to be

provenbeyondalldoubt,beforewithholdingtheinjunctivereliefprayed

for.

Id.at42(Parker,C.J.,concurring).

Cases upholding a finding of presentnuisance fromreason-based fear typically involved the

plaintiffscomplainingofinterferencewiththeenjoymentoftheirresidentialpropertytheirhomes

andsoughttoenjointheintrusionofdangerousactivitiesintotheirenjoymentanduseofthatproperty.

Doaneat462.MayaNyesaffidavitinthisproceedingmakesitplainthatPlaintiffsandotherresidents

inInstituteandsurroundingcommunitiesexperiencerationallybasedfearsthatsignificantlyimpairtheir

day-to-dayenjoymentof lifeattheirresidences,i.e.,whichunreasonably interferewithenjoymentof

theirpropertyrights.

Thereisnothingspeculative,prospectiveorfuturisticaboutthefearwhichPlaintiffsandothers

inInstituteandsurroundingcommunitiesexperiencedaily.Theyhavelivedthroughmultipleepisodes

ofvaryingdegreesofseriousness.Theyknowthatitismerelyamatteroftimebeforeanotherleak

occurs,andhavenoassurancethatitwillbetrivial(asBayerrepeatedlyassures),anothercatastrophe

ontheorderof theAugust 28,2008explosion,or onewheretheflightpathofair-bornemetal hits

targetswithmuchmoretoxicresultsthanthatexperiencedonAugust28,2008.Indeed,noonecan

assurePlaintiffsorthecommunityofthereleasestobeexpectedfromanaccidentlikethatonAugust

28,2008because--afterall--Bayerturnedofftheairmonitoringequipment.

Prospectiveinjury

Where the action or conduct complained of is not yet a nuisance per se and the injury

complained ofhas not yet occurred, a presumptionexists that aperson entering into a legitimate


18/26

18

businesswillconductitinaproperway,sothatitwillnotconstituteanuisance.Chambers,495W.Va.

395atsyllabuspoint2.Plainly,anypresumptionthatmightordinarilyapplywherethepartiesare

startingoutwitha cleanslate,hasnoweightin thecircumstancesofthiscase.Bayers longhistoryof

incompetenceandrecklessnesshasbeenlaidoutindetailinrealtime,foralltosee,hearandsmell.

That history fully supports Plaintiffs position that future leaks from Bayers MIC plant are not

speculative,butareinfactreasonablycertain,andtheMICplantthereforeconstitutesanuisance.

Bayershistoryshowsbeyondallgroundoffairquestioningthataprospectiveleakwilloccur

and that a nuisance, albeit prospective, exists. Courts have not hesitated to enjoin an activity

prospectivelyifitisreasonablycertainthatsuchactivitywillconstituteanuisance.Duff,187W.Va.

at717(citingChambers,495W.Va.395atsyllabuspoint3).Toenjoinaprospectivenuisance,thecourt

must find that thedanger isimpendingand imminent[as] establishedby conclusiveevidence,the

damagesmustbe serious,andthebalancingof theequitiesmust favorgranting theinjunction,i.e.,

thatmoreharmmustbeinflictedbyrefusingtheinjunction,thanbygrantingit.Id.(citingChambers).

Insum,althoughenjoiningaprospectivenuisancerequiresashowingtheinjuryisreasonably

certain tooccur, thehistoryof Bayersoperation of theInstituteplantmakes it clear that theonly

purelyspeculative,fantasy-basedprojectionisthattheInstituteplantwillNOTexperienceleaks,serious

leaks,inthefuture.Giventhishistory,thecourtmustconductabalancingoftheequitiesbetweenthe

partiesandassessthegravityof theharmthatmayoccurwithoutan injunction,relativetothesocial

valueoftheconductallegedtocausethatharm.WestVirginiasjurisprudenceinthisregardrepresents

asignificantimprovementovertheapproachutilizedinthosejurisdictionsacrossthecountry,inwhich

themagnitudeoftheinjuryfearedisnotconsidered.


19/26

19

Courts haveconsideredwhether the threatened harm is irreparablewhendeciding whether

conductisanuisance.TheMarylandCourtofAppealsconsideredtworequests,farapartintime,foran

injunction based on the targeted activity constituting a nuisance. While it denied both, the court

explicitlyconsideredtheprospectsofan irreparableinjuryin doingso. Kingv.Hamill,54A.625,627

(Md.1901);Leatherburyv.GaylordFuelCorp.,347A.2d826(Md.1975)(seealsoSharpat638).

Moreover,thesheerrandomnessofthepreviousexplosionandthelonghistoryofaccidentsat

theplant,demonstratethat imminence is impossible todetermine under thebest of circumstances;

indeedrejectionofaninjunctionongroundsofimminencewouldmeanthataninjunctionoftheBayer

facilitymustawaityetanother,evenmoredevastatingcatastrophethanthosealreadyexperience(and

assumesanyonewillbelefttofilesuit).Thatcannotbethelawofthisjurisdiction.

TheDuffCourtrecognizedVillageofWilsonvilleetal.v. SCAServices,Inc.,426N.E.2d824(Ill.

1981)asagoodexampleofacasewhereprospectivenuisancetheorieswereappliedtoenjoinactivity

threateningcatastrophicharm.JusticeRyansconcurrenceinthatcaseisanoft-citedexampleofhow

prospectivenuisancedoctrinecouldandshouldchangetoaccountforthemagnitudeofthethreatened

harm,whichthemajorityapproachdoesnotdoinmostsituations.

InVillageofWilsonville,theplaintiffssoughtaninjunctiononpublicnuisancegroundsagainsta

companyoperating a hazardouswaste landfilladjoining their villageandlocatedover anabandoned

minesite.Theplaintiffscontendedthattherewasariskoftheminecausingthesoilholdingthewaste

to break open and contaminate surrounding soil and groundwater, and that the various chemicals

storedon thesitewereincompatible,thusraisinga riskofincendiarycombinationand thereleaseof

toxicvaporsinthearea.426N.E.2dat826-30.AlthoughthelandfillwasdulylicensedbytheIllinois

Environmental Protection Agency and had duly obtained new permits each time new waste was


20/26

20

deliveredtothelandfill,thetrial,appellate,andSupremeCourtsallfoundanuisanceexisted,although

underdifferenttheories.ThemajoritydecisionfortheSupremeCourtofIllinoisupheldthetraditional

anticipatorynuisancerulerequiringahighprobabilityofharm,andthenfoundithighlyprobablethat

contaminationwouldoccurat thelandfill,creatinga publicnuisance,andthusupheldthegrantofan

injunction.VillageofWilsonville,426N.E.2dat836-37.

While JusticeRyan agreed with the majority, hepreferred the approach takenby the court

below,whichhadabrogated thehighprobability requirement. JusticeRyanpositedthat,in keeping

withthepositionoftheRestatementofTortsonpreventativeinjunctivereliefgenerally,thatthemore

serioustheanticipatedinjury,thelessjustificationthereisfortakingthechancesthatareinvolvedin

pronouncing the harm too remote. Village ofWilsonville, 426 N.E.2d at 842(Ryan, J., concurring)

(quotingRestatementofTorts(2nd)933at561,commentb(1979)).Therefore,abalancingtest,where

agreaterseverityofthreatenedharmrequiresaproportionatelylessershowingoftheprobabilityofit

comingtopassandviceversa,ismoreappropriatethantheunnecessarilynarrowtestusedbythe

majority.Id.Thispermitsthecourttoassessriskrationally,andto:

avoi[d] the anomalous result possible under a more restrictive alternative

where a person engaged in an ultrahazardous activity with potentially

catastrophicresultswouldbeallowedtocontinueuntilhehasdrivenanentire

communitytothebrinkofcertaindisaster.Acourtofequityneednotwaitso

longtoproviderelief.

Id.

ThisapproachmirrorsthefamoustestconstructedbyJusticeHandinUnitedStatesv.Carroll

Towing Co. for determining reasonableness in negligence cases, where liability is found if the

seriousness of the potential harm, multiplied by its probability of occurring, exceeds the cost of

precaution.Doaneat469(citingCarrollTowing,159F.2d169(2ndCir.1947).Thefavorablecitationby


21/26

21

the Duff court, its inherent rationality, and its applicability to environmental cases indicate that

articulatingandpressingthistheorymayleadtoawiderchangein theuseofanticipatorynuisancein

WestVirginiacasesonenvironmentalharm,andperhapselsewhere.

The available literature on prospective nuisance strongly supports issuance of a preliminary

injunction in this matter. See generally Charles J. Doane, Comment: Beyond Fear: Articulating a

ModernDoctrine inAnticipatoryNuisance forEnjoiningImprobableThreatsofCatastrophicHarm,17

B.C. Envtl.Aff.L. Rev. 441(1990)(Exhiibit E);AndrewH.Sharp,Comment: AnOunce ofPrevention:

RehabilitatingtheAnticipatoryNuisanceDoctrine,15B.C.Envtl.Aff.L.Rev.627(1988)( ExhibitF).

In Duff, a West Virginia prospective nuisance case in which the Supreme Court of Appeals

overturneda circuitcourtdecision granting an injunction ofa power companysplans fora trucking

routeonnuisancegrounds,theCourtcitednottoapreviousWestVirginiacasetoprovideprecedentfor

actuallyfindingaprospectivenuisanceandgrantinganinjunctionagainstit,buttoacasefromIllinois

(albeitafoundationalcaseinthefield).187W.Va.at717n.10.

InDuff,thetrialcourtgrantedaninjunctionagainstaparticulartruckingrouteforcoalplanned

bytheappellantenergycompanyonbothprivateandpublicprospectivenuisancegrounds.187W.Va.

at714-15.TheCourtconsideredthedegreeofcertaintyoftheoccurrenceoftheharm,thenatureand

gravityoftheharm,andthebalanceoftheharmrelativetothesocialvalueofthetrucking.3Id.at719.

Afterreviewingtheevidence,theSupremeCourtofAppealsfoundthattruckingwasnotanuisanceper

se,andthatfromtheavailablerecord,itdoesnotclearlyappearthattheproposedtruckingeither

threatensdevastatingharmoriscertaintoresultinseriousdamagesorirreparableinjury.Id.Though

3TheWestVirginiaSupremeCourtofAppealshaspreviouslyrecognizedcircumstanceswherecoalhaulingcould

amounttoanunreasonableuseofpublicroadways,thusconstitutingapublicnuisance.Duff,187W.Va.at719

n.19(citingWestv.NationalMinesCorp.,168W.Va.578(1981),rehgonappeal,175W.Va.543(1985)).


22/26

22

stressingthatplaintiffswouldlaterhaveanopportunitytoshowthatthetruckingwasanuisanceinfact

onceoperational,thecourtdeclinedtofindaprospectiveprivatenuisance.

DuffreliedonHendricks,acasedecidedjustthreeyearsearlier,formanyofitsstatementsof

law.Onelandownerplannedtoplaceaseptictankontheonlyparcelofhisnewpropertyflatenoughto

accommodateone,buttheadjoiningneighbordrilled forawaterwellonhispropertyina placenear

enoughtothetargetedlocationtomakeobtainingapermitfortheseptictankimpossible.Hendricks,

181W.Va.at32-33.Theunreasonablenessoftheinterferencewasdeterminedbybalancingthegravity

oftheharmagainstthesocialvalueoftheactivity.Id.at35.Thecourtnotedthattheinterferencewith

thelandownerspropertycausedbytheneighborsconductsurelywassubstantialitmadeoperatinga

septic tank on the property impossible. The critical question was whether the interference was

unreasonable, and on that point, the court held for the neighbor, finding that absent evidence of

maliciousintent,thecompetinginterestswereroughlyequal,andthereforenoprivatenuisancewas

present.Id.at35-36.

No comparable equation exists in this case. Plaintiffs current reason-based fears, and

prospectivedamageto,PlaintiffsfarexceedtheincrementaleconomicinjurytotheDefendantfromits

terminationofMICoperations inFebruary 2011, insteadof thealreadyplannedterminationof such

activitiesinmid-2012.

Sharon Steel examined the law of nuisance from a slightly different posture. The city of

Fairmont, West Virginia, passed an ordinance making it unlawful for any person to permanently

dispose or attempt topermanently dispose of hazardous waste within the City, while allowing for

storageofsuchwastewheresuchstoragewasdefinedastemporary.175W.Va.at482.SharonSteel

had sought to construct a permanent hazardous waste storage facility at a location where it had

operatingacokingplantforthreedecades,whichhadproducedsignificantamountsofhazardouswaste


23/26

23

asabyproduct.Id.at481.Thedefinitionofhazardouswasteparalleleditsdefinitioninfederaland

statelawinrelevantrespects.Id.at482.

ThecourtheldthatFairmontwasattemptingnottoregulatethemanagementandcontrolover

hazardouswastedisposal,buttoabateapublicnuisance.Id.at483.Suchanordinancewasheldnotto

bepreemptedbyeitherRCRAortheWestVirginiaHazardousWasteManagementAct,W.Va.Code22-

18-3to 22-18-95,becauseeachhaveprovisionspreservingcommon lawactions, includingnuisance

actions.Id.at487.Furthermore,Fairmontandothermunicipalitieshavetheauthoritytoprovidefor

theeliminationofhazardstopublichealthandsafetyasapublicnuisance,W.Va.Code8-12-5(23),so

longasitcanmeetitsburdentoshowtheallegedlyharmfulfutureconductisapublicnuisance. The

courtendedupsupportingtheCitysargumentonthefollowinggrounds:

[W]hethersomeactivityorthingisanuisanceisgenerallyaquestionof

fact.Therefore, we conclude that while the ordinance declares the

permanentdisposalofhazardouswastes,asthereindefined,withinthe

CityofFairmonttobeapublicnuisance,theissueofwhetheragiven

site is a public nuisance is a question of fact dependent upon the

circumstancesexistingatsuchsite.We,however,affirmthepowerof

theCitytoenactsuchanordinanceaswebelievebyitsterms,under

thedefinitionofhazardouswaste,acommonlawnuisanceisdefined.

Id.at488(citationsomitted).

NuisancePerSe

Anuisanceperse,isgenerallydefinedasanact,occupation,orstructurewhichisanuisanceat

alltimesandunderanycircumstances,regardlessoflocationorsurroundings.Duff,187W.Va.at717

(citingHarlessv.Workman,145W.Va.266,274(1960)).Foraprospectivenuisance,theplaintiffsmust

showthattheinjurytobecausedbythenuisanceisimpendingandimminentandtheeffectcertain

establishedbyconclusiveevidence.Id.(quotingChambers).


24/26

24

BecausetheBayerplantis infacttheonlyplantintheUnitedStatescontinuingtostorelarge

quantitiesofMIConsite(ratherthanutilizingthemethodspioneeredbycompetitorsafterBhopalto

create just enough MIC for use at the relevant point of the manufacturing process, followed by

immediateconsumptionof this chemical),thecurrentBayerprocess isa nuisanceperse,threatening

devastating harm in all circumstances, regardless of the warning systems and safety measures

implemented.

PublicNuisance

The burden ofproof required toshowthatMICprocedures isa public nuisance ismuchthe

sameasthatrequiredforaprivatenuisance;plaintiffsbeartheburdenofprovingthatseriousharmis

reasonablycertaintoresult fromBayersconduct.Duff,187W.Va.at721. Theevidencewouldalso

need to includethoseharms that affect thecitizenryof Instituteasawhole or interferewith public

property,ratherthanprivateproperty,unlessaplaintifforplaintiffswereanticipatedtosufferaharm

differentindegreeandkindfromthatofthegeneralpublic.Id.at716,719-22.

Asnotedabove,apublicnuisanceinWestVirginiaisonethataffectsanindefinitenumberof

persons,andordinarilyonlypublicofficialsmaybringanactiontoenjoinsuchanuisance.Hark,127W.

Va.at595-96.Thereareexceptions,however.InWestv.NationalMinesCorp.,168W.Va.578(1981),a

landowneradjacenttoapublicroadsoughtaninjunctionagainstacoalcompanyusingthatroadtohaul

coal.Theresultingdustdrovethelandownertocleanhishousethoroughly,boilhisdrinkingwater,give

upthetendingofhisgarden,andwearasurgicalmaskaroundthehouse.West,168W.Va.at579-82.

The court held that the publics right to use of a public roadway must be exercised in a

reasonablemanner and with due regard for the rightof adjoining propertyowners to the use and

enjoyment of their property. Id. at 587. Although the use of the roads by National Mines was


25/26

25

technically,itwasnotreasonableandsothatusecouldbeenjoined:Thelawdoesnotallowanyone,

whateverhiscircumstancesorconditionsmaybe,tobedrivenfromhishouseorcompelledtoliveinit

inpositivediscomfort, although caused by a lawful anduseful businesscarried on inhisvicinity. Id.

(citingMartinv.Williams,141W.Va.595,610(1956)).Thecourtreversedthedismissalofthesuitand

remandedfortheentryofanorderconsistentwithitsopinion.Id.at592.

Plainly,theimpactonthePlaintiffsintheirhomesandofficesnear,ifnotimmediatelyadjacent

to,theMICfacilityaredifferentinkindfromthatexperiencedbythecommunityatlarge,andsupporta

findingofpublicnuisance.

Conclusion

Opposingthecompellinghumanstakeson thePlaintiffssideoftheequation,isthetransitory

economic benefit, to a multi-billion dollar, multi-national corporation, from operating an

undistinguishedpesticidemanufacturingplant--notcriticaltoanysignificantpublicpurpose--forthe

verybriefperiodofanother18months.

Another18monthsof operationofBayersaccidentprone,and recklesslyoperated,pesticide

facility in Institute, WV, do not outweigh Plaintiffs real, current fears or the imminent risk to a

populationcenterof300,000peopleinthe25-mileradiusofInstitute(whichBayeritselfdefinesasthe

vulnerabilityzone inaworst case scenario). Even ifoneconfines theanalysis strictly toeconomic

losses, thepotential lossto plaintiffs in theformofdiminished property valueswould, cumulatively,

dwarftheprofitsBayercanexpecttomakeinthenext18months.Moreover,thelong-termimpactof

the Kanawha Valley economy as a whole from a catastrophic release of toxic chemicals would be

devastating,convertingthisstatetoaneconomicdesertwithallthegrowthpotentialofLoveCanal.

Plaintiffspositionrestsuponthedemonstratedirrationality,recklessness,anddangerousness

ofproducingandstoringMIC,on-siteatInstitute.ThealternativepositionwouldrequirethisCourtto


26/26

26

ignoreBayerssafetyhistoryandallowBayertogoforwardbaseduponBayersassurancesofsafety.

ThatisanunreasonablerisktoimposeonanycitizenoftheKanawhaValley.

Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an order preliminarily enjoining the

resumptionorcontinuationofMICproductionbyBayerattheInstitutefacilityuntilsuchtimeasallCSB

recommendations have been implemented, and the Congressionally mandated NAS study of the

inherentrisksofMICproductionandstorageinamajorpopulationcenter,isavailableforreview.

Respectfullysubmitted,

/s/WilliamV.DePaulo

WilliamV.DePaulo,Esq.#995

179SummersStreet,Suite232

Charleston,WV25301Tel:304-342-5588

Fax:304-342-5588

[email protected]

CounselforPlaintiffs

Documents

2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp