Case 2:22-cv-04091-RPK-ARL Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 1
`
`STATE OF NEW YORK and BASIL SEGGOS as
`Commissioner of the New York State Department of
`Environmental Conservation and Trustee of New York
`State’s Natural Resources,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`-against-
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`-------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`-------------------------------------------------------------------------- x
`
`2:22-cv-4091
`No: _____________
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`NORTHROP GRUMMAN SYSTEMS CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`Plaintiffs State of New York and Basil Seggos, in his official capacities as Commissioner
`
`of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and Trustee of New York
`
`State’s Natural Resources (collectively, the “State”), by their attorney Letitia James, Attorney
`
`General of New York, as and for their complaint, allege as follows upon information and belief:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action under the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
`
`Compensation and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601-9675 (“CERCLA”), as amended,
`
`and New York’s common law of public nuisance and restitution (a) to recover costs that have
`
`been and will be incurred by the State in responding to the release and threatened release of
`
`hazardous substances into the environment at and from certain properties and facilities related to
`
`a former industrial complex located in the Hamlet of Bethpage, Town of Oyster Bay, Nassau
`
`County, New York (as more specifically defined in Paragraphs 23-29 below, the “Sites”) ; and
`
`(b) to recover natural resource damages associated with such releases and threatened releases
`
`from the Sites.
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04091-RPK-ARL Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 2
`
`2.
`
`More specifically, this action seeks a judgment against defendant Northrop
`
`Grumman Systems Corporation (“Northrop Grumman”):
`
`(a)
`
`awarding reimbursement to the State of its costs incurred to date in
`
`responding to releases and threats of releases of hazardous substances at and from the Sites;
`
`(b)
`
`declaring that Northrop Grumman is liable to the State for the State’s
`
`future costs in responding to such releases and threats of releases;
`
`(c)
`
`(d)
`
`
`
`compensating the State for damages to its natural resources; and
`
`awarding enforcement costs and interest.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`3.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the State’s claims arising under the laws of the
`
`United States, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 2201 and 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607 and 9613, and has
`
`supplemental jurisdiction over the common law claims arising under the laws of the State,
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. The Court also has jurisdiction to enter a declaratory judgment
`
`under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 9613.
`
`4.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9613(b) and 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1391(b) because the threatened and actual releases of hazardous substances that give rise to
`
`this action occurred and/or are occurring within this District and the Sites are located within this
`
`District.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff State of New York, as a body politic and sovereign entity, brings this
`
`action on behalf of itself and as parens patriae, trustee, guardian, and representative on behalf of
`
`all residents and citizens of the State, particularly those individuals who live in the vicinity of the
`
`Sites. The State does so to recover costs and damages that have been incurred by the State in
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04091-RPK-ARL Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 3
`
`responding to the release of hazardous substances at and from the Sites pursuant to State Finance
`
`Law § 97-b and to obtain other declaratory relief.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff Basil Seggos, as Commissioner of the New York State Department of
`
`Environmental Conservation (“DEC”) and Trustee of the State’s natural resources under state
`
`and federal law, brings this action to recover damages for injury to and loss of the State’s natural
`
`resources, to recover costs that have been incurred by the State in responding to the release of
`
`hazardous substances at and from the Sites, and to obtain other declaratory relief.
`
`7.
`
`Northrop Grumman Systems Corporation (“Northrop Grumman”) is a corporation
`
`established under the laws of Delaware, with its principal place of business at 2980 Fairview
`
`Park Drive in Falls Church, Virginia. Northrop Grumman is authorized to do business in this
`
`State with a place of business in Bethpage, New York. Northrop Grumman is the successor to,
`
`among other entities, Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation and Grumman Corporation.
`
`8.
`
`During the period from the 1930s to the present, Northrop Grumman has been the
`
`owner of some of the Sites and an operator of all of the Sites. During that ownership and
`
`operation, there were releases of hazardous substances on portions of the Sites that Northrop
`
`Grumman owned, and Northrop Grumman disposed of hazardous substances on portions of the
`
`Sites that Northrop Grumman owned and/or operated.
`
`STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
`
`CERCLA
`
`9.
`
`Under CERCLA, when there is a release or a threatened release of hazardous
`
`substances into the environment from a facility, certain categories of persons are liable to the
`
`State for the costs that the State incurs to respond to the release or threatened release as long as
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04091-RPK-ARL Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 4
`
`the State’s response actions are “not inconsistent with the national contingency plan.” 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 9607(a).
`
`10.
`
` “Hazardous substances” are defined in 42 U.S.C. § 9601(14) and include, but are
`
`not limited to, substances that the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“U.S. EPA”)
`
`has designated as hazardous pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9602. The substances that U.S. EPA has
`
`designated as hazardous are listed in 40 C.F.R. § 302.4.
`
`11. A “release” includes spilling, escaping, leaching, or disposing “into the
`
`environment.” 42 U.S.C. § 9601(22). The “environment” includes groundwater, land surface,
`
`and subsurface strata. 42 U.S.C. § 9601(8).
`
`12. A “facility” includes “any site or area where a hazardous substance has been
`
`deposited, stored, disposed of, or placed, or otherwise come to be located.” 42 U.S.C. § 9601(9).
`
`It also includes buildings, structures, and equipment. Id.
`
`13.
`
`The term “respond” includes taking “removal” actions, “remedial” actions, and
`
`related enforcement activities. 42 U.S.C. § 9601(25). A “removal” action includes the “cleanup
`
`or removal of released hazardous substances from the environment” and the assessment and
`
`evaluation of a release. 42 U.S.C. § 9601(23). A “remedial” action means “those actions
`
`consistent with permanent remedy taken instead of or in addition to removal actions.” 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 9601(24).
`
`14.
`
`15.
`
`The “national contingency plan” is set forth in 40 C.F.R. Part 300.
`
`CERCLA also provides that when there is a release or a threatened release of
`
`hazardous substances into the environment from a facility, certain categories of persons are liable
`
`for “damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural resources, including the reasonable
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04091-RPK-ARL Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 5
`
`costs of assessing such injury, destruction, or loss resulting from such a release.” 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 9607(a).
`
`16.
`
`The term “natural resources” includes “land, fish, wildlife, biota, air, water,
`
`ground water, drinking water supplies, and other such resources belonging to, managed by, held
`
`in trust by, appertaining to, or otherwise controlled by . . . any State.” 42 U.S.C. § 9601(16).
`
`17.
`
`Natural resources damages include, without limitation, injury, destruction, or loss
`
`to such natural resources, and the reasonable costs of assessing such injury, destruction, or loss.
`
`42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(6) & (16), 9607(a).
`
`18.
`
`The persons liable for response costs and natural resource damages under 42
`
`U.S.C. § 9607(a) include (i) current owners and operators of a facility; and (ii) owners and
`
`operators of a facility at the time of disposal of hazardous substances. “Persons” includes,
`
`among others, individuals, firms and corporations. 42 U.S.C. § 9601(21).
`
`19.
`
`CERCLA provides that, in an action for recovery of costs, “the court shall enter a
`
`declaratory judgment on liability for response costs or damages that will be binding in any
`
`subsequent action or actions to recover further response costs or damages.” 42 U.S.C.
`
`§ 9613(g)(2).
`
`New York Law
`
`20.
`
`The State’s third and fourth claims for relief are based on New York common
`
`law. These claims seek to abate any existing public nuisance and to recover funds that the State
`
`has spent and will spend abating any public nuisance and contamination at or from the Sites.
`
`21.
`
`A public nuisance is a condition that offends, interferes with, or causes damage to
`
`the public in the exercise of rights common to all, in a manner such as to offend public morals,
`
`interfere with use by the public of a public place, or endanger or injure the property, health,
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04091-RPK-ARL Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 6
`
`safety, or comfort of a considerable number of persons. In particular, the release or threat of
`
`release of hazardous wastes into the environment is a public nuisance.
`
`22.
`
`Persons who cause or contribute to the creation or maintenance of a public
`
`nuisance are strictly, and jointly and severally, liable for its abatement. Fault is not an issue: a
`
`plaintiff seeking to abate a public nuisance is not required to demonstrate negligence or willful
`
`conduct on the part of the defendant.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`The Sites
`
`23.
`
`In 1983, DEC listed approximately 600 acres in Bethpage on the Registry of
`
`Inactive Hazardous Waste Disposal Sites in New York State (the “Registry”) as the Grumman
`
`Aerospace-Bethpage Facility Site, Site No. 130003 (the “Original Site”). The Original Site is
`
`primarily located in an area bounded by Stewart Avenue to the north and east, Central Avenue to
`
`the south, Route 107 to the southwest, and New South Road to the west.
`
`24.
`
`In March 1993, DEC divided the Original Site into two parts. DEC designated
`
`approximately 500 acres of the Original Site on the Registry as the Northrop Grumman-
`
`Bethpage Facility Site, Site No. 130003A. DEC designated the remaining approximately 100
`
`acres of the Original Site on the Registry as the Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant Site,
`
`Site No. 130003B.
`
`25.
`
`In March 2000, DEC divided the Grumman Bethpage Facility Site, Site No.
`
`130003A, into two parts. DEC designated one part, consisting of approximately 26 acres, on the
`
`Registry as the Northrop Grumman-Steel Los Plant 2 Site, Site No. 130003C. DEC continued to
`
`designate the remaining part of the site as the Northrop Grumman-Bethpage Facility Site, Site
`
`No. 130003A.
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04091-RPK-ARL Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 7
`
`26.
`
`For the purposes of this Complaint, the term “Grumman Site” is defined to
`
`include all land and facilities that DEC designated in March 1993 as the Grumman Bethpage
`
`Facility Site, Site No. 130003A, including the land and facilities later designated as the Northrop
`
`Grumman Steel Los Plant 2 Site, Site No. 130003C, irrespective of any subsequent changes to
`
`those sites’ boundaries or designations.
`
`27.
`
`For the purposes of this Complaint, the term “Naval Weapons Site” is defined to
`
`include all land and facilities that DEC designated in March 1993 as the Naval Weapons
`
`Industrial Reserve Plant Site, Site No. 130003B, irrespective of any subsequent changes to that
`
`site’s boundaries.
`
`28.
`
`Next to the Grumman Site, between Stewart Avenue and the eastern boundary of
`
`that Site, is an area of approximately 18 acres consisting of (a) Bethpage Community Park, part
`
`of which had been built on former industrial settling ponds, and (b) a road formerly used to
`
`access Plant 24 on the Grumman Site (collectively, the “Settling Ponds Area” or “Operable Unit
`
`3 Area”).
`
`29.
`
`For the purposes of this Complaint, the Grumman Site, the Naval Weapons Site
`
`and the Settling Ponds Area collectively constitute the “Sites.” A map showing the location of
`
`the Grumman Site and the Naval Weapons Site is attached as Exhibit A.
`
`Historical Activities at the Sites
`
`30.
`
`Beginning in the 1930s, Northrop Grumman, through two of its predecessors,
`
`Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation and Grumman Corporation, along with the United
`
`States Department of the Navy (the “Navy”), used the Sites for industrial and research purposes.
`
`Among other things, Northrop Grumman was a major manufacturer of military aircraft for the
`
`United States at the Sites during World War II and later, including through the Cold War.
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04091-RPK-ARL Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 8
`
`31.
`
`All manufacturing ceased at the Sites in 1996.
`
`32. At some or all times between the 1930s and the present, Northrop Grumman
`
`owned (a) the Grumman Site, and (b) portions of the Settling Ponds Area, including the part
`
`on which the industrial settling ponds were located.
`
`33. At some or all times between the 1930s and the present, Northrop Grumman
`
`operated (a) the Grumman Site, (b) portions of the Settling Ponds Area, including the
`
`industrial settling ponds themselves, and (c) together with the Navy, the Naval Weapons
`
`Site.
`
`34.
`
`During the period that Northrop Grumman owned part of the Sites and operated
`
`the Sites, Northrop Grumman released hazardous substances to the soil and groundwater at parts
`
`of the Sites that Northrop Grumman owned and/or operated, including at the former industrial
`
`settling ponds in the Settling Ponds Area.
`
`35.
`
`Among the hazardous substances released at those parts of the Sites at those times
`
`are several volatile organic compounds (“VOCs”), including but not limited to trichloroethene
`
`(“TCE”), and other non-VOC hazardous substances, including but not limited to 1,4-dioxane.
`
`36.
`
`TCE is a carcinogen that may cause kidney cancer, liver cancer and malignant
`
`lymphoma. Short-term exposure to high concentrations of TCE can cause dizziness, headaches,
`
`effects on hearing, seeing and balance, liver damage, possible kidney damage and death.
`
`37.
`
`U.S. EPA has classified 1,4-dioxane as likely to be carcinogenic to humans.
`
`Long-term exposure can harm the liver and kidneys. Short-term exposure can cause eye and
`
`nose irritation or, at very high levels, severe kidney and liver effects, and possibly death.
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04091-RPK-ARL Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 9
`
`38.
`
`Hazardous substances released at or from the Sites have entered the groundwater
`
`beneath the Sites because the Sites include or are near areas where precipitation enters the
`
`ground and percolates down through the soil to replenish the groundwater.
`
`39.
`
`The federal and New York State governments have set out standards, criteria and
`
`guidance that establish appropriate, relevant and applicable requirements for investigation and
`
`cleanup of inactive hazardous waste sites, including maximum permissible concentrations of
`
`hazardous substances in groundwater and soil (“standards”).
`
`40.
`
`Groundwater contaminated by releases at and from the Sites has had, and
`
`continues to have, concentrations of hazardous substances released at or from the Sites, including
`
`without limitation TCE and 1,4-dioxane, at levels far exceeding applicable standards.
`
`41.
`
`The contaminated groundwater underneath the Sites migrates from the Sites to the
`
`south-southeast toward the Great South Bay, which connects to the Atlantic Ocean.
`
`42.
`
`Over time, the contaminated groundwater from the Sites has formed multiple
`
`underground plumes, each of which continues to move further south-southeast from the Sites.
`
`One plume area consists of groundwater that (a) is contaminated by hazardous substances at least
`
`some of which were released at or from the Operable Unit 3 Area and (b) has concentrations of
`
`such hazardous substances in excess of the respective standards for those hazardous substances
`
`(the “Eastern Plume”). Another plume area consists of groundwater that (a) is contaminated by
`
`hazardous substances at least some of which were released at or from the Grumman Site and/or
`
`the Naval Weapons Site, and (b) has concentrations of such hazardous substances in excess of
`
`the respective standards for those hazardous substances (the “Western Plume”).
`
`43.
`
`The Eastern Plume and the Western Plume, together with other plumes
`
`(collectively, the “Plumes”), join and comingle in certain locations. The Plumes are currently
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04091-RPK-ARL Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 10
`
`approximately 4.3 miles long and 2.1 miles wide and extend downward to a depth of
`
`approximately 900 feet beneath the ground surface.
`
`44.
`
`Beneath the Sites is a portion of U.S. EPA-designated sole source aquifer that
`
`extends under much of Long Island and is the primary source of drinking water for 2.6 million
`
`Long Island residents.
`
`45.
`
`Approximately 360 public water supply wells in Nassau County withdraw
`
`drinking water from that sole source aquifer.
`
`46.
`
`The Plumes have contaminated that aquifer and have affected groundwater intake
`
`at 11 public water supply wells operated by the Bethpage Water District, South Farmingdale
`
`Water District, and Liberty Utilities (New York Water) Corp., including five public water supply
`
`wells operated by Bethpage Water District that are directly downgradient from the Sites and
`
`within the central portion of the Plumes. Although all groundwater intake at these wells is
`
`subject to treatment before distribution to the public, and all water distributed to the public after
`
`treatment meets and has met all relevant drinking water standards, untreated groundwater taken
`
`from some of these wells has over time contained increasing concentrations of hazardous
`
`substances related to the Sites.
`
`47.
`
`The continuing expansion of the Plumes to the south-southeast threatens to
`
`contaminate groundwater intake at additional public water supply wells that are currently
`
`unaffected by the Plumes.
`
`Investigation and Remedial Work to Date
`
`48. DEC listed the Grumman Site and the Naval Weapons Site on the Registry based
`
`on the on-site and off-site presence of hazardous substances in the soil and groundwater.
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04091-RPK-ARL Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 11
`
`49.
`
`To date, DEC, Northrop Grumman and the Navy have undertaken response
`
`activities to address soil and groundwater contamination from the release of hazardous
`
`substances at and from the Sites. Those activities have included: investigations; soil
`
`remediation; groundwater recovery, treatment and recharge; monitoring and well-head
`
`treatment for affected or potentially affected public water supplies; and response actions for
`
`soil vapor.
`
`50.
`
`An operable unit at a site represents a portion of an overall program to investigate,
`
`eliminate or mitigate a release of hazardous substances that for technical or administrative
`
`reasons can be addressed separately.
`
`51.
`
`Response activities at the Sites have been divided into multiple operable units,
`
`two of which are primarily relevant to this Complaint. Operable Unit 2 consists of groundwater
`
`contamination originating in part from release of hazardous substances at and from the Grumman
`
`Site and the Naval Weapons Site. Operable Unit 3 consists of soil and groundwater
`
`contamination originating from release of hazardous substances at and from the Settling Ponds
`
`Area.
`
`Operable Unit 2
`
`52.
`
`In 1997, in Operable Unit 2, Northrop Grumman began operating a groundwater
`
`extraction and treatment system serving as an on-site containment system along the southern and
`
`southwestern boundary of the Grumman Site to prevent further migration of contaminants
`
`beyond this boundary. Following withdrawal of contaminated groundwater from the aquifer, the
`
`groundwater is treated to remove the chemicals of concern and is returned to the aquifer.
`
`53.
`
`In March 2001, DEC issued a Record of Decision (“ROD”) for Operable Unit 2
`
`groundwater contamination from the Grumman Site (“Operable Unit 2 ROD”). The Operable
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04091-RPK-ARL Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 12
`
`Unit 2 ROD selected a remedy for that contamination that includes, among other things,
`
`continued operation of the on-site containment system along the southern and southwestern
`
`boundary of the Grumman Site. Northrop Grumman continues to operate this system to date.
`
`54.
`
`In January 2003, the Navy issued, and in April 2003 amended, a ROD for the
`
`Operable Unit 2 groundwater contamination originating from the Naval Weapons Site (“Navy
`
`Operable Unit 2 ROD”). The Navy Operable Unit 2 ROD selected a remedy to be implemented
`
`by the Navy for that contamination which included, among other things, a system to extract
`
`contaminants in the eastern part of the Plumes near the Seaford-Oyster Bay Expressway. The
`
`Navy has continued to operate this system since 2008.
`
`55.
`
`In April 2015, DEC and Northrop Grumman entered into an Administrative Order
`
`on Consent for response actions to address Operable Unit 2 groundwater contamination (the
`
`“Operable Unit 2 Consent Order”). In accordance with the Operable Unit 2 ROD and the
`
`Operable Unit 2 Consent Order, Northrop Grumman has, among other things, continued to
`
`operate the on-site containment system located along the southern and southwestern boundary of
`
`the Grumman Site.
`
`Operable Unit 3
`
`56.
`
`In 2009, in Operable Unit 3, Northrop Grumman began operating a second
`
`groundwater extraction and treatment system, also referred to as an on-site containment system,
`
`along the southern boundary of the Settling Ponds Area, that operates in the same manner as the
`
`system operating in Operable Unit 2.
`
`57.
`
`In March 2013, DEC issued a ROD for Operable Unit 3 soil and groundwater
`
`contamination (“Operable Unit 3 ROD”). The Operable Unit 3 ROD selected a remedy for that
`
`contamination that included, among other things, continued operation of the on-site containment
`
`
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04091-RPK-ARL Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 13
`
`system along the southern boundary of the Settling Ponds Area. Northrop Grumman continues
`
`to operate this system to date.
`
`58.
`
`In May 2014, DEC and Northrop Grumman entered into an Administrative Order
`
`on Consent for response actions to address Operable Unit 3 soil and groundwater contamination
`
`(the “Operable Unit 3 Consent Order”).
`
`59.
`
`In accordance with the Operable Unit 3 ROD and the Operable Unit 3 Consent
`
`Order, Northrop Grumman is in the process of installing a third groundwater extraction and
`
`treatment system to address contamination in a portion of the Plumes downgradient from the
`
`Settling Ponds Area known as the RW-21 Area (the “RW-21 System”). Northrop Grumman has
`
`installed groundwater extraction wells for this system but has not yet completed the
`
`infrastructure to begin use of the wells for treatment.
`
`Current Conditions
`
`60. As a result of response actions, contaminated soil at some areas of the Sites
`
`has been addressed, and DEC has delisted portions of the Grumman Site and the Naval
`
`Weapons Site from the Registry.
`
`61.
`
`Nonetheless, notwithstanding response actions to date, the Plumes still exist and
`
`continue to expand, leading to increased concentration of hazardous substances in groundwater
`
`further and further downgradient from the Sites. Recent data show TCE concentrations many
`
`times greater than the TCE standard in the off-site portion of the Plumes.
`
`62.
`
`These current conditions indicate that the response actions to date regarding the
`
`Plumes are not fully protective of human health and the environment.
`
`63.
`
`In April 2019, DEC issued a feasibility study report examining possible additional
`
`actions to remediate the ongoing groundwater contamination along with a proposed amended
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04091-RPK-ARL Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 14
`
`ROD, and in December 2019, DEC issued an Amended Record of Decision for Operable Units 2
`
`and 3 (“Amended ROD”). The Amended ROD is attached as Exhibit B.
`
`64.
`
`The Amended ROD states that it builds upon the Navy Operable Unit 2 ROD, the
`
`Operable Unit 2 ROD and the Operable Unit 3 ROD, and selects a remedy, denominated as
`
`“Alternative 5B,”to redress the Plumes’ ongoing expansion toward currently unaffected water
`
`districts and elevated levels of contamination.
`
`65.
`
`The Amended ROD’s selected remedy includes significant additional extraction
`
`and treatment of contaminated groundwater. The remedy contemplates that extraction wells will
`
`be placed along the perimeter of the Plumes to prevent the Plumes from migrating further, while
`
`other extraction wells will be placed at points of particularly high contaminant concentrations in
`
`the interior of the Plumes to remove significant amounts of the contaminants. The remedy also
`
`contemplates construction of new groundwater treatment plants as well as over 23 miles of
`
`underground piping to transport the extracted water from the wells to the treatment plants and to
`
`transport the treated water from the plants to discharge locations.
`
`FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`CERCLA—COST RECOVERY
`
`66.
`
`The State repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations
`
`contained in Paragraphs 1 through 65 in this claim for relief.
`
`67.
`
`68.
`
`The Sites are “facilities” as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 9601(9).
`
`Buildings, structures, and equipment where hazardous substances were deposited,
`
`stored, disposed of, placed, or otherwise came to be located at the Sites are also “facilities” under
`
`42 U.S.C. § 9601(9).
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04091-RPK-ARL Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 15
`
`69.
`
`There have been “releases” and threatened “releases” of “hazardous substances,”
`
`as those terms are defined in 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(14) and (22), at and from the Sites into the
`
`“environment,” as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 9601(8).
`
`70.
`
`Hazardous substances released into the environment at the Sites include, but are
`
`not limited to, TCE and 1,4-dioxane.
`
`71.
`
`The State has incurred costs, and will continue to incur costs, to “respond,” as that
`
`term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 9601(25), to the releases and threatened releases of hazardous
`
`substances at and from the Sites and other facilities at the Sites, including costs to assess,
`
`monitor, evaluate, oversee, and conduct “removal” and/or “remedial actions,” as those terms are
`
`defined in 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(23) and 9601(24).
`
`72.
`
`42 U.S.C. § 9607(a) provides that (i) persons who are current owners or operators
`
`of a facility, and (ii) persons who were owners or operators at the time that hazardous substances
`
`were disposed of, shall be liable for the costs of removal and remedial actions that are “not
`
`inconsistent with the national contingency plan.”
`
`73.
`
`The response actions that the State has taken and will in the future take to respond
`
`to the release of hazardous substances at and from the Sites are not inconsistent with the national
`
`contingency plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300.
`
`74.
`
`75.
`
`Northrop Grumman is a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 9601(21).
`
`Northrop Grumman owned and still owns parts of the Sites. The United States
`
`Government contracted with Northrop Grumman to operate the Sites, and Northrop Grumman
`
`disposed of hazardous substances at the Sites within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(2)
`
`during the period that it owned and/or operated the Sites.
`
`
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04091-RPK-ARL Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 16
`
`76.
`
`Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a), Northrop Grumman is strictly, and jointly and
`
`severally, liable to the State for past response costs incurred by the State as a result of the release
`
`or threatened release of hazardous substances at and from the Sites and other facilities at the
`
`Sites.
`
`77.
`
`Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(a) and 9613(g), Northrop Grumman is strictly, and
`
`jointly and severally, liable for future response costs that will be incurred by the State as a result
`
`of the release or threatened release of hazardous substances at and from the Sites and other
`
`facilities at the Site.
`
`SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`CERCLA—NATURAL RESOURCE DAMAGES
`
`78.
`
`The State repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations
`
`contained in Paragraphs 1 through 77 in this claim for relief.
`
`79.
`
`Plaintiff Basil Seggos, as Commissioner of DEC, is the designated Trustee of
`
`New York’s natural resources under CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. § 9607(f)(2)(B).
`
`80.
`
`81.
`
`The Sites are “facilities” as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 9601(9).
`
`Buildings, structures, and equipment where hazardous substances were deposited,
`
`stored, disposed of, placed, or otherwise came to be located at the Sites are also “facilities” under
`
`42 U.S.C. § 9601(9).
`
`82.
`
`There have been “releases” and threatened “releases” of “hazardous substances,”
`
`as those terms are defined in 42 U.S.C. §§ 9601(14) and (22), at and from the Sites into the
`
`environment, as that term is defined in 42 U.S.C. § 9601(8).
`
`83.
`
`Hazardous substances released into the environment at the Sites include, but are
`
`not limited to, TCE and 1,4-dioxane.
`
`
`
`
`16
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04091-RPK-ARL Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 17
`
`84.
`
`Those releases of hazardous substances have caused “injury to, destruction of, or
`
`loss of natural resources,” including but not limited to groundwater, within the meaning of 42
`
`U.S.C. § 9607(a).
`
`85.
`
`42 U.S.C. § 9607(a) provides that (i) persons who are current owners or operators
`
`of a facility, and (ii) persons who were owners or operators at the time that hazardous substances
`
`were disposed of, shall be liable for “damages for injury to, destruction of, or loss of natural
`
`resources, including the reasonable costs of assessing such injury, destruction, or loss resulting
`
`from such a release.”
`
`86.
`
`87.
`
`Northrop Grumman is a “person” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 9601(21).
`
`Northrop Grumman owned and still owns parts of the Sites. The United States
`
`Government contracted with Northrop Grumman to operate the Sites, and Northrop Grumman
`
`disposed of hazardous substances at the Sites within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 9607(a)(2)
`
`during the period that it owned and/or operated the Sites.
`
`88.
`
`Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 9607(a) and 9613, Defendant is strictly, and jointly and
`
`severally, liable for the State’s natural resource damages arising from the release of hazardous
`
`substances at and from the Sites.
`
`THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
`PUBLIC NUISANCE
`
`The State repeats, realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations
`
`89.
`
`contained in Paragraphs 1 through 88 in this claim for relief.
`
`90.
`
`The release of hazardous substances at and from the Sites and their presence in
`
`the environment, including in groundwater and in soil at and in the vicinity of the Sites, offends,
`
`interferes and causes damage to the public in the exercise of rights common to all in a manner
`
`such as to endanger or injure the property, health, safety or comfort of a considerable number of
`
`
`
`
`17
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-04091-RPK-ARL Document 1 Filed 07/13/22 Page 18 of 21 PageID #: 18
`
`persons. Those releases and that presence thus constitute a public nuisance endangering public
`
`health and safety.
`
`91. Northrop Grumman participated in the creation and/or maintenance of a public
`
`nuisance at and in the vicinity of the Sites.
`
`92.
`
`Northrop Grumman is also the owner of part of the Sites on which the public
`
`nuisance was created and is maintained.
`
`93. Because Northrop Grumman participated in the creation and maintenance of that
`
`public nuisance and is owner of the land upon which the nuisance has been