Upload
diapalino
View
216
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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.
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
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
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
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.
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
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.
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
5/26
5
Hydrogen cyanide is a poisonous gas that can cause irritation to eyes, skin and
respiratorytract,aswellasnausea,headacheanddizziness.Symptomsofexposuremay
bedelayed.OSHAsayshighconcentrationsofitcanrapidlycausedeath.
(TheCharlestonGazette11/2/09)
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.
(TheCharlestonGazette2/25/09)
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
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
6/26
6
federalauthoritiesuntil3:19amthefollowingmorning.Federallawrequiressuchleaks
to be reported immediately. Plant officials also violated federal law by not filing a
requiredfollow-upreportwithmoredetailsoftheincident.
(TheCharlestonGazette9/12/08)
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
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
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)
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
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:
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
9/26
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
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
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
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.
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
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
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
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,
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
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)).
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
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).
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
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
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
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
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
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.
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
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
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
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
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
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)).
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
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
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
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).
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
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
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
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
8/7/2019 2011-02-14 Motion for Prel Inj - Memo in Supp
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
CounselforPlaintiffs