Case 5:16-cv-01029-LCB Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 1 of 21
`
`FILED
`
` 2016 Jun-24 PM 02:16
`U.S. DISTRICT COURT
`N.D. OF ALABAMA
`
`UNITED STATE DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
`NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`Case No. ______________
`
`)
`
`TENNESSEE RIVERKEEPER, INC.,
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`3M COMPANY; BFI WASTE SYSTEMS
`)
`OF ALABAMA, LLC; CITY OF DECATUR,
`)
`ALABAMA; MUNICIPAL UTILITIES
`)
`BOARD OF DECATUR, MORGAN
`
`COUNTY, ALABAMA; and JOHN DOES 1-10, )
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`This is a citizen’s suit for declaratory and injunctive relief brought pursuant to the
`
`1.
`
`provisions of Section 7002(a)(1)(B) of the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
`
`(“RCRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B), to abate the imminent and substantial endangerment to
`
`health and the environment caused by Defendants’ disposal of hazardous and solid waste
`
`containing perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”), perfluorooctane sulfonate (“PFOS”), and related
`
`chemicals at several locations in and around Decatur, Alabama, resulting in the contamination of
`
`groundwater, sediments, private water supplies, the Tennessee River and its tributaries, fish, and
`
`public drinking water supplies that utilize water from the Tennessee River. Despite knowledge of
`
`the significant hazards posed by these chemicals, Defendants have failed to take the steps
`
`necessary to protect health and the environment from this contamination. Due to Defendants’
`
`violations of RCRA as alleged in this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive
`
`relief, and the award of attorney’s fees and costs of litigation.
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-01029-LCB Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 2 of 21
`
`2.
`
`For decades, Defendant 3M Company made and/or used PFOA and PFOS – chemicals
`
`involved in the manufacture of flagship 3M “non-stick” brands like Stainmaster and Scotchgard –
`
`at the company’s Decatur, Alabama facility, one of its largest plants. However, these popular –
`
`and profitable – products double as toxic threats: Research strongly indicates PFOA and PFOS are
`
`potent carcinogens, and the chemicals have been linked to a host of other serious health issues.
`
`Even worse, the very properties that make these products popular also make them a persistent
`
`environmental problem: In essence, these “non-stick” chemicals do not stick to anything in the
`
`environment either, meaning they do not bind to anything to break down into safer components.
`
`There is thus nearly no safe level of these chemicals in the environment.
`
`3.
`
`Yet, for decades, 3M Company and its co-Defendants discharged countless tons of these
`
`toxins into the environment – and, more specifically, into the Tennessee River. Perhaps worse, the
`
`Defendants have done little to clean up the contamination they have created.
`
`4.
`
`As such, and without question, these chemicals pose significant threats to the Tennessee
`
`River, her various environmental habitats, the wildlife that calls her home, and the people who
`
`come in contact with her waters.
`
`5.
`
`Consequently, where its members serve as both users and guardians of the Tennessee
`
`River, the Tennessee Riverkeeper now implores this court to help it do what the Defendants, the
`
`State of Alabama and the United States Environmental Protection Agency should have done over
`
`the past several decades – compel the clean up of the contamination the Defendants have caused
`
`and abate the substantial threat these pollutants pose to the Tennessee River.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the RCRA claims set forth in this Complaint
`
`6.
`
`pursuant to Section 7002(a)(1)(B) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B), and the federal question
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-01029-LCB Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 3 of 21
`
`statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1331. This Court also has jurisdiction to award Plaintiff all necessary
`
`injunctive relief, pursuant to Section 7002(a) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a).
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiff has complied with the pre-suit notice provisions of RCRA. Pursuant to Section
`
`7002(b)(2)(A) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(b)(2)(A), on September 18, 2015, Plaintiff mailed a
`
`Notice of Intent to file suit under RCRA for abatement of the imminent and substantial
`
`endangerment to health and the environment discussed herein to Defendants, the Administrator of
`
`the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), the Regional Administrator of the EPA, and
`
`the Chief of the Land Division of the Alabama Department of Environmental Management
`
`(“ADEM”) (the “September Notice,” attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference
`
`herein).
`
`8.
`
`More than 90 days have passed since the September Notice was served on Defendants and
`
`these agencies, and the violations complained of in the September Notice are ongoing or likely to
`
`recur, and the violations remain a present threat to human health and the environment, as of the
`
`date this Complaint is being filed.
`
`9.
`
`EPA has not commenced, nor is it diligently prosecuting, an action under RCRA § 7003,
`
`42 U.S.C. § 6973, to address the violations by Defendants of RCRA complained of herein.
`
`10.
`
`EPA has not commenced, and is not diligently prosecuting, an action under Section 106 of
`
`the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
`
`(“CERCLA”), 42 U.S.C. § 9606, to address the violations by Defendants of RCRA complained of
`
`herein.
`
`11.
`
`Neither EPA nor the State of Alabama is actually engaging, nor have they actually engaged,
`
`in a removal action under Section 104 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9604, to address the violations by
`
`Defendants of RCRA complained of herein.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-01029-LCB Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 4 of 21
`
`12.
`
`Neither EPA nor the State of Alabama is diligently proceeding with a remedial action under
`
`CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9601 et. seq., to address the violations by Defendants of RCRA complained
`
`of herein.
`
`13.
`
`EPA has not obtained a court order, nor has it issued an administrative order, under RCRA
`
`Section 7003, 42 U.S.C. § 6973, or Section 106 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9606, pursuant to which
`
`any Defendant or any other responsible party is diligently conducting a removal action, Remedial
`
`Investigation and Feasibility Study, or any remedial action that addresses the violations by
`
`Defendants of RCRA complained of herein.
`
`14.
`
`The State of Alabama has not commenced, nor is it diligently prosecuting, an action under
`
`RCRA Section 7002(a)(1)(B), 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B), to address the violations by Defendants
`
`of RCRA complained of herein.
`
`15.
`
`The State of Alabama has not incurred costs to initiate a Remedial Investigation and
`
`Feasibility Study under CERCLA Section 104, 42 U.S.C. § 9604, to address the violations by
`
`Defendants of RCRA complained of herein.
`
`16.
`
`Venue is appropriate in the Northern District of Alabama, pursuant to Section 7002(a) of
`
`RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a), because the violations complained of herein have and continue to
`
`occur within this judicial district.
`
`17.
`
`Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 6972(b)(2)(F), upon receipt of a file stamped copy of this
`
`Complaint, Plaintiff will serve a copy of this Complaint on the Administrator of the Environmental
`
`Protection Agency and the Attorney General of the United States.
`
`PARTIES
`Plaintiff, Tennessee Riverkeeper, Inc. (“Riverkeeper”) is a non-profit membership
`
`18.
`
`corporation, with over 1,800 members, dedicated to the preservation, protection, and defense of
`
`the Tennessee River and its tributaries. Riverkeeper actively supports effective enforcement and
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-01029-LCB Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 5 of 21
`
`implementation of federal environmental laws, including RCRA, the CWA and the Alabama
`
`Water Pollution Control Act (“AWPCA”), on behalf of and for the benefit of its members.
`
`19. Members of Riverkeeper have recreated in, on or near, or otherwise used and enjoyed, or
`
`attempted to use and enjoy, the Tennessee River, including the Wheeler Reservoir, and its
`
`tributaries, in the past, and they intend to do so in the future. They have a direct and beneficial
`
`interest in the continued protection, preservation, and enhancement of the environmental, aesthetic,
`
`and recreational values in these waters, and the quality of these waters directly affects the
`
`recreational, aesthetic and environmental interests of members of Riverkeeper. The recreational,
`
`aesthetic, and environmental interests of Riverkeeper’s members have been, are being, and will be
`
`adversely affected by the Defendants’ continued violations of RCRA as alleged in this complaint.
`
`20.
`
` Members of Riverkeeper now recreate less on the Tennessee River, including the Wheeler
`
`Reservoir, because of the Defendants’ violations of RCRA. The violations alleged herein have had
`
`a detrimental impact on those members’ interests because the violations have adversely affected
`
`and/or diminished aquatic life and water quality in the Tennessee River, and have made the
`
`Tennessee River less suitable for fishing, boating, swimming, skiing, wading, walking, observing
`
`nature, and/or relaxing. Said members would recreate more in and around the Tennessee River but
`
`for Defendant’s violations of RCRA, and the imminent and substantial endangerment to health
`
`and the environment Defendants have thereby created. Riverkeeper members will recreate more
`
`often in or near the Tennessee River once Defendants’ violations of RCRA have been abated.
`
`21.
`
`Riverkeeper members enjoy fishing, boating, swimming, skiing, wading, walking,
`
`observing nature, or relaxing at Wheeler Reservoir. Riverkeeper members are thus concerned that
`
`the contamination Defendants have caused and created poses a risk to their health and safety. For
`
`example, Riverkeeper members who fish at and/or near the Wheeler Reservoir are concerned that
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-01029-LCB Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 6 of 21
`
`fish caught from these waters may not be safe to eat. Members are also concerned about the safety
`
`of drinking water, which may contain these contaminants. Moreover, they are concerned about
`
`absorption of these chemicals through their skin if their bodies are exposed to waters containing
`
`these chemicals.
`
`22.
`
`The relief sought in this case would provide redress for these injuries. Additionally,
`
`because these injuries are being caused by pollution of waters of the United States and/or the
`
`improper handling, storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of hazardous waste, the injuries
`
`fall within the zone of interests protected by the RCRA.
`
`23.
`
`Defendant 3M Company (“3M”) is a foreign corporation authorized to do business in the
`
`State of Alabama, and doing business in Decatur, Morgan County, Alabama, at all times relevant
`
`hereto. Defendant 3M owns and operates manufacturing and disposal facilities located at 1400
`
`State Docks Road in Decatur, Alabama (“3M Decatur facility”). Defendant 3M also owns the Bert
`
`Jeffries Landfill. Defendant 3M is a “person” within the meaning of Section 1004(15) of RCRA,
`
`42 U.S.C. § 6903(15).
`
`24.
`
` Defendant BFI Waste Systems of Alabama, LLC (“BFI”) is a foreign limited liability
`
`corporation authorized to do business in the State of Alabama, and doing business in Hillsboro,
`
`Lawrence County, Alabama, at all times relevant hereto. Defendant BFI owns and operates the
`
`BFI Morris Farms Landfill located on County Road 418 in Hillsboro, Alabama (“Morris Farms
`
`Landfill”). Defendant BFI is a “person” within the meaning of Section 1004(15) of RCRA, 42
`
`U.S.C. § 6903(15).
`
`25.
`
`Defendant City of Decatur, Alabama (“Decatur”) is an incorporated municipality located
`
`in Morgan County, Alabama. Defendant Decatur owns and operates the City of Decatur – Morgan
`
`County Sanitary Landfill (“Morgan County Landfill”) located on Landfill Drive in Trinity, Morgan
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-01029-LCB Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 7 of 21
`
`County, Alabama. Defendant Decatur is a “person” within the meaning of Section 1004(15) of
`
`RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6903(15).
`
`26.
`
`Defendant Municipal Utilities Board of Decatur, Morgan County, Alabama, (“Decatur
`
`Utilities”) is a municipal utility service owned and operated by Defendant Decatur. Defendant
`
`Decatur Utilities owns and operates the Dry Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant (“WWTP”)
`
`located at 902 Wilson Street NW in Decatur, Alabama. Defendant Decatur Utilities is a “person”
`
`within the meaning of Section 1004(15) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6903(15).
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff is presently unaware of the true names or capacities, including whether they are
`
`individuals or business entities, of Defendant Does 1 through 10, and therefore sues them under
`
`such fictitious names, and will seek leave of this court to insert true names and capacities once
`
`they are ascertained.
`
`STATUTORY BACKGROUND
`RCRA is a comprehensive environmental statute that was enacted with the primary purpose
`
`28.
`
`of reducing generation of hazardous waste, and, moreover, to ensure the proper treatment, storage,
`
`and disposal of waste that is generated, so as to minimize its present and future threats to human
`
`health and the environment. 42 U.S.C. § 6902(b).
`
`29.
`
`Section 7002(a)(1)(B) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B), authorizes private citizens to
`
`commence civil actions:
`
`against any person … including any past or present generator, past or present
`transporter, or past or present owner or operator of a treatment, storage, or disposal
`facility who has contributed or who is contributing to the past or present handling,
`storage, treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste which
`may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to health or the
`environment.
`
`Section 7002(a) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6972(a)(1)(B), empowers this Court to restrain any
`
`30.
`
`person who has contributed or who is contributing to the past or present handling, storage,
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-01029-LCB Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 8 of 21
`
`treatment, transportation, or disposal of any solid or hazardous waste, and to order such person to
`
`take such other action as may be necessary.
`
`31.
`
`Section 1004(3) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. § 6903(3), defines “disposal” as “the discharge,
`
`deposit, injection, dumping, spilling, leaking, or placing of any solid waste or hazardous waste into
`
`or on any land or water so that such … waste or any constituent thereof may enter the environment
`
`… or discharged into any waters, including ground waters.”
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`Defendants’ Generation, Handling, Storage, Treatment, Transportation and/or Disposal of
`PFOA and PFOS Contaminated Waste
`Defendant 3M owns and operates the 3M Decatur facility, consisting of manufacturing and
`
`32.
`
`disposal facilities, located at 1400 State Docks Road in Decatur, Alabama, along the banks of the
`
`Tennessee River. Defendant 3M’s Decatur facility has released and continues to release PFOA,
`
`PFOS, and related chemicals into groundwater and surface water, through which these chemicals
`
`have been and continue to be discharged into the Tennessee River (Wheeler Reservoir) and its
`
`tributaries.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant 3M manufactured and/or used PFOA, PFOS, and related chemicals at its
`
`Decatur facility and disposed of hazardous and solid waste containing these chemicals in and on
`
`its property and on adjacent property, from which properties these chemicals have migrated and
`
`continue to migrate into the Tennessee River (Wheeler Reservoir) and its tributaries.
`
`34.
`
`Defendant 3M has discharged and continues to discharge wastewater containing PFOA,
`
`PFOS, and related chemicals from its on-site wastewater treatment plant into Bakers Creek, a
`
`tributary to the Tennessee River. 3M disposed of sludge from its on-site wastewater treatment
`
`plant by means of subsurface injection in a 575-acre area designated as the “sludge incorporation
`
`area.” In addition, 3M also has discharged and continues to discharge wastewater containing
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-01029-LCB Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 9 of 21
`
`PFOA, PFOS, and related chemicals to Defendant Decatur Utilities’ Dry Creek WWTP, which
`
`discharges wastewater containing these chemicals into the Tennessee River.
`
`35.
`
`Defendant BFI owns and operates the Morris Farms Landfill which, for many years,
`
`accepted sludge contaminated with PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals from 3M’s Decatur
`
`facility. As a result, PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals are present in the Morris Farms Landfill,
`
`resulting in groundwater contamination and the generation of contaminated leachate. This leachate
`
`is sent to Dry Creek WWTP, owned and operated by Defendant Decatur Utilities, which discharges
`
`wastewater containing PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals to the Tennessee River.
`
`36.
`
`Defendant City of Decatur owns and operates the Morgan County Landfill which, for many
`
`years, accepted the majority of industrial waste from Defendant 3M’s Decatur facility as well as
`
`Defendant 3M’s onsite WWTP sludge. As a result, PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals are present
`
`in the Morgan County Landfill, resulting in groundwater contamination and the generation of
`
`contaminated leachate. This leachate is sent to the Dry Creek WWTP, which is owned and
`
`operated by Defendant Decatur Utilities, and which discharges wastewater containing PFOA,
`
`PFOS and related chemicals to the Tennessee River.
`
`37.
`
`Defendant 3M owns the Bert Jeffries Landfill, which, for many years, accepted industrial
`
`waste and sludge contaminated with PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals from 3M’s Decatur
`
`facility. As a result, PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals are present in the Bert Jeffries Landfill,
`
`resulting in groundwater and surface water contamination.
`
`38.
`
`Defendant Decatur Utilities owns and operates the Dry Creek WWTP, which has received
`
`wastewater containing PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals from 3M and other industrial facilities
`
`over the course of many years. The Dry Creek WWTP continues to receive wastewater from 3M’s
`
`Decatur facility, as well as landfill leachate from the Morris Farms and Morgan County Landfills,
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-01029-LCB Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 10 of 21
`
`where both this wastewater and leachate is contaminated with PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals.
`
`The Dry Creek WWTP does not remove these hazardous chemicals from the waste stream and, as
`
`a result, discharges these hazardous chemicals into the Tennessee River. The Dry Creek WWTP
`
`also disposes of its sludge that is contaminated with these hazardous chemicals into the Morgan
`
`County Landfill. For many years, sludge (biosolids) from the Dry Creek WWTP that contained
`
`PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals was applied as a soil amendment on fields in Lawrence,
`
`Morgan and Limestone Counties in Alabama, and these chemicals have contaminated the soil,
`
`surface water and groundwater at and near those fields.
`
`Hazards of PFOA, PFOS, and Related Chemicals
`
`39.
`
`The stable carbon-fluorine bonds that make PFOA and PFOS such pervasive industrial and
`
`consumer products also result in their persistence. There is no known environmental breakdown
`
`mechanism for these chemicals. They are readily absorbed into biota and have a tendency to
`
`accumulate with repeated exposure. PFOS crosses the placenta in humans, accumulates in
`
`amniotic fluid, and has been detected in the umbilical cord blood of babies.
`
`40. When humans are exposed to PFOA and PFOS, these toxic chemicals bind to plasma
`
`proteins in the blood and are readily absorbed and distributed throughout the body. The liver and
`
`kidneys are important binding and processing sites for PFOA and PFOS, resulting in physiologic
`
`changes to these and other organs. Because of strong carbon-fluorine bonds, PFOA and PFOS are
`
`stable to metabolic degradation, resistant to biotransformation, and have long half-lives in the
`
`body. These toxic chemicals accumulate in the body over time, and cause long-term physiologic
`
`alterations and damage to the blood, liver, kidneys, immune system and other organs.
`
`41.
`
`The human diseases caused by exposure to PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals include
`
`cancer, immunotoxicity, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis and high cholesterol. The association
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-01029-LCB Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 11 of 21
`
`between exposure to these chemicals and certain cancers has been reported by the C8 Health
`
`Project, an independent science panel charged with reviewing the evidence linking PFOA, PFOS
`
`and related chemicals to diseases based on health research carried out by the Science Panel in the
`
`Mid-Ohio Valley population exposed to PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals as a result of releases
`
`from an E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company chemical plant. The C-8 Science Panel identified
`
`kidney cancer and testicular cancer as having a “probable link” to PFOA exposure in the Mid-
`
`Ohio Valley population exposed to PFOA in drinking water. Epidemiological studies of workers
`
`exposed to PFOA on the job support the association between PFOA exposure and both kidney and
`
`testicular cancer and also suggest associations with prostate and ovarian cancer and non-Hodgkin’s
`
`lymphoma. Rodent studies also support the link with cancer. The majority of a United States
`
`Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) Science Advisory Board expert committee
`
`recommended in 2006 that PFOA be considered “likely to be carcinogenic to humans.”
`
`42.
`
`Additionally, the C8 Science Panel has found a probable link between exposure to PFOA,
`
`PFOS, and related compounds, and the following human diseases: pregnancy-induced
`
`hypertension, ulcerative colitis, and high cholesterol. Furthermore,
`
`in
`
`recent years,
`
`immunotoxicity of PFOA, PFOS and related compounds, has been demonstrated in a wide variety
`
`of species and models, including humans. For instance, a study of ninety-nine Norwegian children
`
`at age three found that maternal serum PFOA concentrations were associated with decreased
`
`vaccine responses, especially toward rubella vaccine, and increased frequencies of common cold
`
`and gastroenteritis. The combined human and experimental evidence is in strong support of
`
`adverse effects on immune functions at relatively low exposure levels.
`
`43.
`
`In May 2016, the EPA announced Drinking Water Health Advisories for PFOA and PFOS
`
`of 70 parts per trillion (0.07 parts per billion, or “ppb”). The EPA develops health advisories to
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-01029-LCB Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 12 of 21
`
`provide information about substances that can cause human health effects and are known or
`
`anticipated to occur in drinking water. EPA’s health advisories are based on the best available
`
`peer-reviewed studies of the effects of PFOA and PFOS on laboratory animals and were also
`
`informed by epidemiological studies of human populations that have been exposed to
`
`perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs). EPA determined that these studies indicate that exposure to
`
`PFOA and PFOS over certain levels may result in adverse health effects, including developmental
`
`effects to fetuses during pregnancy or to breastfed infants (e.g., low birth weight, accelerated
`
`puberty, skeletal variations), cancer (e.g., testicular, kidney), liver effects (e.g., tissue damage),
`
`immune effects (e.g., antibody production and immunity), thyroid effects and other effects (e.g.,
`
`cholesterol changes).
`
`44.
`
`Despite the stringency of the EPA’s newly-announced guidelines, a survey of similar state
`
`standards indicates the EPA advisory still may not be strict enough. For instance, the State of New
`
`Jersey has in place a drinking water health advisory for PFOA that is only 0.04 ppb, and New
`
`Jersey has proposed lowering this number to just 0.02 ppb.
`
`45.
`
`Defendants have long been aware of the toxicity and persistence of PFOA, PFOS and
`
`related chemicals. Yet, Defendants knowingly and intentionally disposed of solid and hazardous
`
`waste containing these chemicals resulting in the contamination of groundwater, sediments, private
`
`water supplies, fish, the Tennessee River and its tributaries.
`
`Contamination of the Tennessee River Caused by Defendants’ Disposal of PFOA, PFOS,
`and Related Chemicals
`
`EPA and the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (“ADEM”) have
`
`
`46.
`
`identified Defendants’ facilities as past and continuing sources of PFOA and PFOS contamination
`
`in the Tennessee River in and around Decatur, Alabama, including the contamination of the River
`
`and the area’s surface water, porewater, sediments and fish. The primary source is Defendant
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-01029-LCB Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 13 of 21
`
`3M’s Decatur facility, where high levels of PFOA and PFOS in groundwater continue to discharge
`
`to the Tennessee River, and ongoing discharges of contaminated wastewater to the Tennessee
`
`River occur via Bakers Creek and the Dry Creek WWTP.
`
`47.
`
`Concentrations of PFOA as high as 4,980 ppb and PFOS as high as 3,890 ppb – or,
`
`respectively, more than 70,000 and 55,000 times higher than the EPA’s newly-promulgated safety
`
`advisory - have been found in groundwater on the 3M site along the south bank of the Tennessee
`
`River. Porewater from the bottom of the river bed near the 3M facility, which is groundwater that
`
`discharges into the river, showed average concentrations of PFOA from 0.0977 to 70.4 ppb.
`
`48.
`
`Sediment concentrations in the river have been found as high as an average of 24.1 ppb
`
`PFOA, and surface water concentrations as high as an average of 0.420 ppb PFOA at one
`
`monitoring site. PFOS concentrations for single samples collected in the lower, middle and upper
`
`reaches of the confluence area where Bakers Creek flows into the Tennessee River were 0.450,
`
`0.691 and 0.0237 ppb, respectively. Sediment contamination resulting from past discharges by
`
`Defendants represents a continuing source of contamination of surface water in the Tennessee
`
`River and a present threat to human health and the environment.
`
`49.
`
`The Decatur Utilities’ Dry Creek WWTP discharges into the Tennessee River
`
`approximately 2 miles upstream from the 3M Decatur facility, and it is an ongoing significant
`
`source of PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals as a result of its disposal of these toxins. Sampling
`
`in 2005-06 found that the effluent from the WWTP contained as much as 17.4 ppb of PFOA and
`
`2.85 ppb of PFOS, and the sludge contained as much as 1,875 ppb of PFOA and 2,110 ppb of
`
`PFOS. More recent sampling of the effluent from the WWTP showed lower but still harmful
`
`levels of these hazardous chemicals.
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-01029-LCB Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 14 of 21
`
`50.
`
`Based on the contamination in the Tennessee River caused by Defendants’ discharges,
`
`ADEM has placed Wheeler Reservoir, from 5 miles upstream of Elk River to the Joe Wheeler
`
`Dam, on the state’s impaired waters list for PFOS contamination impairing swimming and fish
`
`and wildlife uses.
`
`51.
`
`As a result of the contamination in the Tennessee River caused by Defendants’ discharges,
`
`and based on contamination of fish with PFOS, the Alabama Department of Public Health has
`
`issued a fish consumption advisory for portions of Wheeler Reservoir and its tributaries, including:
`
`Baker’s Creek embayment at Wheeler Reservoir (Morgan County); Wheeler Reservoir mid
`
`station, main river channel Tennessee River Mile 296 (Limestone County); Wheeler Reservoir,
`
`Tennessee River Miles 303 to 296, area south of the main river channel (Morgan County).
`
`52.
`
`PFOS was detected in every fish specimen collected in the Tennessee River and Bakers
`
`Creek near the 3M plant in a November 2012 sampling event. The median filet tissue PFOS
`
`concentrations ranged from 25.7 ppb in Reach 03 (backwater area at RM 307.5), upstream of the
`
`plant, to 435 ppb in Reach 05 (Mouth of Bakers Creek). Concentrations as high as 103 ppb were
`
`found in bass below the Joe Wheeler Dam, nearly 40 miles downstream of the plant at Shoal Creek.
`
`Median catfish filet tissue PFOS concentrations ranged from 1.50 ppb in Reach 01 (RM 320) to
`
`283 ppb in Reach 05 (Mouth of Bakers Creek). PFOA was detected at up to 6.06 ppb in fish in
`
`Bakers Creek cove and up to 4.01 ppb down river at Mallard Creek.
`
`53.
`
`PFOA has been detected in all of the finished water samples collected from the West
`
`Morgan/East Lawrence Water Treatment Plant, about 15 miles downstream from Defendant 3M’s
`
`Decatur facility on the Tennessee River. In 2013, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
`
`Registry found an association between elevated levels of PFOA in the blood serum of tested local
`
`residents and use of drinking water from the West Morgan/East Lawrence Water Authority.
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-01029-LCB Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 15 of 21
`
`54.
`
`At least 4 other public water supplies using water from the Tennessee River downstream
`
`from Defendant 3M’s Decatur facility have detected PFOA contamination in finished water
`
`samples, including the Muscle Shoals WTP, the Florence Municipal Water Supply, and the
`
`Sheffield WTP, all of which are approximately 45 miles downstream of 3M’s Decatur facility.
`
`55.
`
`Human exposure pathways of these chemicals include swimming, boating, skiing, fishing,
`
`eating contaminated fish, and drinking water contaminated with PFOA, PFOS and related
`
`chemicals.
`
`Other Contamination Caused By Defendants’ Disposal of PFOA, PFOS
`and Related Chemicals
`
`The Morgan County Landfill has groundwater that is contaminated with PFOS and related
`
`
`56.
`
`chemicals. Downgradient monitoring wells have shown PFOS concentrations as high as 14.8 ppb.
`
`This groundwater is hydrologically connected to nearby surface water, which, in turn, flows to the
`
`Tennessee River. Morgan County Landfill leachate is trucked and/or piped to the Decatur Utilities’
`
`Dry Creek WWTP. Recent leachate samples showed 148 ppb PFOA and 175 ppb PFOS. As the
`
`result of inadequate treatment, the contaminated leachate contributes to the ongoing discharges of
`
`PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals from the Dry Creek WWTP to the Tennessee River.
`
`57.
`
`Groundwater and surface water at and around the Morris Farm Landfill is contaminated
`
`with PFOS and related chemicals. Downgradient monitoring wells have shown PFOS
`
`concentrations as high as 22.5 ppb. Contaminated groundwater discharges into Dry Creek, which
`
`flows into the Tennessee River at the Mallard Creek embayment. BFI Morris Farms Landfill
`
`leachate is also trucked to the Decatur Utilities Dry Creek WWTP. Recent leachate samples
`
`showed 137 ppb PFOA and 93.9 ppb PFOS. As a result of inadequate treatment, the contaminated
`
`leachate contributes to the ongoing discharges of PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals from the Dry
`
`Creek WWTP to the Tennessee River.
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 5:16-cv-01029-LCB Document 1 Filed 06/23/16 Page 16 of 21
`
`58.
`
`The biosolids that Decatur Utilities spread on agricultural fields in Lawrence, Morgan, and
`
`Limestone counties are causing ongoing contamination of soil and groundwater with PFOA, PFOS
`
`and related chemicals. Sampling conducted by EPA in 2007 and 2009 of soils at agricultural sites
`
`that received these biosolids found PFOS levels as high as 1,409 ppb and PFOA levels as high as
`
`2,531 ppb. In February 2009, EPA sampled a number of private water wells (potable and non-
`
`potable) near the fields that received biosolids from Decatur Utilities. Sampling results from
`
`twelve non-potable private water wells associated with these fields showed PFOA concentrations
`
`up to 6.41 ppb and PFOS up to 0.15 ppb. Water from drinking water wells at two residences had
`
`PFOA levels of 0.6 ppb and 2.2 ppb, and another private drinking water well had a PFOS level of
`
`0.365 ppb.
`
`59.
`
`Groundwater and surface water at and around the Bert Jeffries Landfill (also known as the
`
`Browns Ferry Road Site is also contaminated with PFOA, PFOS and related chemicals. PFOA
`
`concentrations in groundwater at the landfill were as high as 19.4 ppb in 2013 testing, and PFOS
`
`was as high as 25.1 ppb. This groundwater is hydrologically connected to nearby surface water
`
`and contributes to surface water contamination. Off-site surface water contamination was as high
`
`as 0.163 ppb PFOA and 1.54 ppb PFOS in 2012-13. The