`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`SUEZ WATER NEW YORK INC.,
`
`Case No. 2010731
`
`
`
`: : : : :
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`-against-
`
`E.I. DUPONT DE NEMOURS AND
`COMPANY; DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC.
`(F/K/A DOWDUPONT, INC.); DUPONT
`SPECIALTY PRODUCTS USA, LLC;
`CORTEVA, INC.; THE CHEMOURS
`COMPANY; and THE CHEMOURS
`COMPANY FC, LLC,
`
`Defendants.
`- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Plaintiff SUEZ Water New York Inc. (hereinafter, “SUEZ”) hereby files this Complaint
`
`against Defendants E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company, Inc., DuPont de Nemours, Inc.,
`
`DuPont Specialty Products USA, LLC, Corteva, Inc., The Chemours Company, and The
`
`Chemours Company FC, LLC (collectively, the “Defendants”), and alleges as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`1.
`
`SUEZ brings this action against Defendants jointly and severally for damages
`
`sustained as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ releases of per- and polyfluoroalkyl
`
`substances (“PFAS”), including without limitation perfluorooctanoic acid (“PFOA”) and
`
`perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (“PFOS”), into New York’s environment. For more than six decades,
`
`Defendants, as manufacturers and distributors of PFAS and PFAS-containing commercial and
`
`consumer products, have knowingly and willfully discharged PFAS into the air, water, and soil,
`
`and placed PFAS and PFAS-containing products into the stream of commerce, resulting in
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-10731-LJL Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 2 of 27
`
`widespread and long-lasting contamination to natural resources within and throughout New York
`
`State—including, pertinently, the water sources that SUEZ relies upon to provide safe drinking
`
`water to its more than 500,000 customers in New York.
`
`2.
`
`On August 26, 2020, after several years of studying the long-term effects of PFAS,
`
`the New York State Department of Health adopted Maximum Contaminant Levels for public water
`
`systems. The Maximum Contaminant Levels (“MCLs”) are among the most stringent in the
`
`United States, and SUEZ, as the owner and operator of multiple public water systems in New
`
`York, must begin testing for PFAS immediately. As a result, and based upon technical analyses
`
`of SUEZ’s various sources of public drinking water, SUEZ has been, and will continue to be,
`
`required to make significant and costly upgrades to the water treatment infrastructure for its public
`
`water systems and will incur significant ongoing costs required to operate and maintain those
`
`upgrades, as well as to engage in the regular monitoring of PFAS levels in all water sources
`
`necessitated by New York’s adoption of these standards.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants were, or reasonably should have been, aware that their acts and
`
`omissions directly and proximately caused the release of PFAS into New York’s environment and
`
`that such releases could pose hazards to the State’s natural resources, but chose profits over safety
`
`and continued to contaminate the environment for more than a half-century. Only recently has the
`
`full scope of Defendants’ actions begun to come to light. Moreover, the emerging costs of
`
`remedying Defendants’ long-running contamination of New York’s environment are substantial,
`
`and those costs have fallen disproportionately upon those whose responsibility it is to provide safe
`
`drinking water to New York residents. Therefore, SUEZ brings this action against Defendants in
`
`an effort to hold them accountable for the significant harms done to New York’s public water
`
`-2-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-10731-LJL Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 3 of 27
`
`supplies and to ensure that SUEZ has the resources necessary to continue to provide its customers
`
`with drinking water that meets and exceeds New York’s newly adopted MCLs.
`
`PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
`
`4.
`
`SUEZ is a New York corporation with its principal place of business in West
`
`Nyack, New York. SUEZ was established in 1893 and currently has five operating units in New
`
`York State which serve customers across Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Tioga, and Westchester
`
`Counties. Collectively, these water systems service approximately 123,000 unique connections
`
`and provide water to approximately 505,000 individual customers across New York.
`
`5.
`
`Defendant E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”) is a Delaware
`
`corporation with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware. DuPont does business
`
`throughout the United States, including in this District.
`
`6.
`
`Defendant DuPont de Nemours, Inc. (f/k/a DowDuPont) (“New DuPont”) is a
`
`Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware. New DuPont
`
`does business throughout the United States, including in this District.
`
`7.
`
`Defendant DuPont Specialty Products USA, LLC (“DuPont LLC”) is a Delaware
`
`limited liability company with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware. DuPont
`
`LLC does business throughout the United States, including in this District.
`
`8.
`
`Defendant Corteva, Inc. (“Corteva”) is a Delaware corporation with its principal
`
`place of business in Wilmington, Delaware. Corteva does business throughout the United States,
`
`including in this District. Corteva is the parent corporation of DuPont and holds certain of New
`
`DuPont’s assets and liabilities, as well as its agricultural and nutritional businesses.
`
`9.
`
`Defendant The Chemours Company (“Chemours”) is a Delaware corporation with
`
`its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware. Chemours does business throughout the
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-10731-LJL Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 4 of 27
`
`United States, including in this District. Chemours was incorporated as a subsidiary of DuPont on
`
`April 30, 2015. On July 1, 2015, DuPont spun off Chemours and created a separate corporate
`
`entity to hold its “performance chemicals” business lines, along with certain of DuPont’s
`
`environmental liabilities.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant The Chemours Company FC, LLC (“Chemours FC”) is a Delaware
`
`limited liability company with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware. Chemours
`
`FC does business throughout the United States, including in this District. Chemours FC is a
`
`subsidiary of Chemours.
`
`11.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because it is an
`
`action between citizens of different states and the amount in controversy exceeds the sum of
`
`$75,000, exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`12.
`
`Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2) because a
`
`substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in the Southern District
`
`of New York.
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
`
`13.
`
`PFAS are a group of manufactured fluorinated organic chemicals that are used in a
`
`wide variety of industrial and commercial products. Previously, PFAS were commonly referred
`
`to as perfluorinated compounds.
`
`14.
`
` Due to their unique properties that resist heat, oil, stains, grease, and water, PFAS
`
`have played a central role in the manufacture and development of many consumer products since
`
`their introduction in the 1940s. Notably, PFAS have been used to produce many consumer and
`
`industrial products including carpets, clothing, fabrics for furniture, food packaging, a variety of
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-10731-LJL Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 5 of 27
`
`cookware, and Defendant-affiliated name brands such as Stainmaster®, Teflon®, Gore-Tex®, and
`
`Tyvek®. PFAS have also been put to wide industrial use due to their unique ability to resist harsh
`
`chemicals and high temperatures.
`
`15.
`
`Two of the most prevalent PFAS are perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and
`
`perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), both of which have been widely used and applied in the
`
`manufacturing industry. Although the uses of PFOA and PFOS have been gradually phased out in
`
`recent years, both chemicals remain prevalent, and consumer products, food, and drinking water
`
`continue to be primary sources of exposure to PFAS.
`
`16.
`
`The United States Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) has found
`
`widespread PFAS contamination in the environment, and that the substances have likely been
`
`released into the environment in several different ways. For example, EPA found that PFAS can
`
`be released during the manufacture, normal use, disposal, and/or biodegradation of consumer
`
`products containing PFAS. PFAS may also be released into the air, soil, and water during the
`
`manufacture, use, and disposal of PFAS themselves.
`
`17.
`
`Once present in the environment, PFAS are extremely persistent and often have
`
`degradation periods of years, decades, or longer under natural conditions. PFAS are also highly
`
`resistant to chemically aided degradation processes. For these reasons, PFAS are often referred to
`
`as “forever chemicals.”
`
`18.
`
`Additionally, PFAS are soluble and mobile in water, which greatly amplifies the
`
`spread of PFAS beyond the initial sources of introduction into the environment. And, because
`
`PFAS, and particularly PFOA, are water-soluble, they can migrate readily from soil to
`
`groundwater. Therefore, once PFAS are released into the environment, they are extremely difficult
`
`to remove and even more difficult to contain.
`
`-5-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-10731-LJL Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 6 of 27
`
`Federal and State Regulation of PFOA and PFOS
`
`19.
`
`In light of emerging scientific evidence regarding the potential long-term effects
`
`that PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS, may have on the environment, EPA has designated the
`
`substances as “emerging contaminants.”
`
`20.
`
`In 2016, EPA issued drinking water health advisories for PFOA and PFOS.
`
`Specifically, EPA guidance provided that a combined level of PFOA or PFOS in excess of 70 parts
`
`per trillion (“ppt”) in drinking water may pose increased risks for people who consume such water.
`
`21.
`
`In February 2019, EPA announced an Action Plan to address PFAS contamination
`
`that includes initiating steps to establish federal MCLs for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water.
`
`EPA’s Action Plan is ongoing.
`
`22.
`
`Pending the establishment of federal MCLs for PFOS and PFOA, several states
`
`have taken steps to establish their own state-based MCLs.
`
`23.
`
`In 2017, New York State identified PFOA and PFOS as “emergent contaminants”
`
`in drinking water, and established the Drinking Water Quality Council to further study the effects
`
`of these “emergent contaminants” on the environment and the public, with the ultimate goal of
`
`adopting MCLs for both substances in the public drinking water.
`
`24.
`
`Also in 2017, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
`
`(“NYDEC”) amended N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 6, § 597.3 to include PFOA and PFOS
`
`on the list of hazardous substances. This decision was made, in part, based upon a Department
`
`ecotoxicologist’s identification of these compounds as potential hazards to the environment and a
`
`parallel finding that proper management of these compounds was needed to protect both public
`
`health and the environment.
`
`-6-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-10731-LJL Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 7 of 27
`
`25.
`
`On July 30, 2020, the New York State Department of Health’s Public Health and
`
`Health Planning Committee approved the adoption of specific MCLs for PFOA and PFOS in New
`
`York’s public water systems.
`
`26.
`
`On August 26, 2020, a Notice of Adoption of the new MCL regulations was
`
`published in the New York State Register, at which point the regulations took immediate effect.
`
`See 42 N.Y. Reg. 6 (Aug. 26, 2020).
`
`27.
`
`Pursuant to the new rules, all public water systems will be required to begin
`
`regularly testing and monitoring for PFOA and PFOS. See 42 N.Y. Reg. 15 (proposed Jan. 22,
`
`2020) (to be codified at N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. tit. 10, §§ 5-1.51(b), 5-1.53 tbl. 9C). Water
`
`systems serving 10,000 or more people will be required to begin doing so within 60 days, while
`
`systems serving between 3,300 and 9,999 people will have 90 days to comply and systems serving
`
`fewer than 3,300 people will have six months to begin testing and monitoring. Id.
`
`28.
`
`Under the adopted MCLs, public water systems must supply drinking water with
`
`less than 10 ppt of either PFOS or PFOA. See 42 N.Y. Reg. 13 (proposed Jan. 22, 2020) (to be
`
`codified at N.Y. Comp. R. & Regs. tit. 10, § 5-1.53 tbl. 3); see also N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs.
`
`tit. 10, §§ 5-1.50 to 5-1.53. If the results of any monitoring sample exceed these limits, the public
`
`water system must collect one to three more confirmation samples from the same sampling point
`
`within 30 days; the MCL will be exceeded if any of these three confirmation samples is positive
`
`and the average of the initial sample and all confirmation samples exceeds 10 ppt. See N.Y. Comp.
`
`R. & Regs. tit. 10, § 5-1.53 tbl. 3. If a water system exceeds an MCL, it must take corrective
`
`action, including the installation of a suitable treatment process. Id. § 5-1.51(a).
`
`-7-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-10731-LJL Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 8 of 27
`
`Defendants’ Knowledge of the Inherent Dangers of PFAS
`
`29.
`
`Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s and continuing to present, Defendants have
`
`identified the potential risks that PFAS exposure posed to both humans and the environment and
`
`have documented such potential risks in numerous internal memoranda and scientific research
`
`studies.
`
`30.
`
`No later than the early 1980s, Defendants became aware that PFAS could enter the
`
`environment during the manufacture and use of PFAS and PFAS-containing products and that
`
`once PFAS were released into the environment, they could freely spread beyond the points of
`
`initial contamination due to their unique solubility characteristics. Defendants also became aware
`
`during this time period that PFAS were highly resistant to the natural chemical degradation process
`
`and could persist in the environment indefinitely.
`
`31. Moreover, Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that the PFAS-
`
`containing commercial and consumer products placed into the stream of commerce would be used,
`
`and ultimately disposed of, in a reasonably foreseeable manner, and that such disposal into landfills
`
`and other waste treatment facilities and the ensuing biodegradation would further amplify and
`
`exacerbate the spread of PFAS into the environment far beyond the location of products’ original
`
`manufacture and distribution.
`
`Defendants’ Releases of PFAS in New York
`
`32.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants have caused the release of significant
`
`amounts of PFAS into the soil, groundwater, surface waters and waterways, and air of New York
`
`State through their use, handling, management, distribution, sale, marketing, and/or disposal of
`
`PFAS and PFAS-containing materials and products since at least the late 1950s.
`
`-8-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-10731-LJL Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 9 of 27
`
`33.
`
`These releases of PFAS, including PFOS and PFOA, into the soil, groundwater,
`
`surface waters and waterways, and air of New York State have been continuous and long running.
`
`34.
`
`Beginning in the late 1950s, Defendants used PFOA to manufacture, among other
`
`things, fluoroelastomers, perfluoroelastomers, and specialty fluoroelastomers, which were then
`
`used in the production of a variety of consumer products. This process resulted in both significant
`
`discharge and disposal of PFAS as a byproduct of the manufacturing process itself, as well as the
`
`creation of products that would later be found to contain significant levels of PFAS.
`
`35.
`
`Additionally, in or around 2002, Defendants began to produce their own PFOA,
`
`rather than relying on outside sources of the substances for their unique needs. Thereafter,
`
`Defendants used PFAS, including the PFOA produced in their own facilities, to produce many of
`
`the commercial and consumer products discussed above. Defendants also sold raw PFOA to other
`
`industrial users for their own use, including numerous industrial manufacturers in New York State.
`
`36.
`
`In addition to PFAS themselves, Defendants have also manufactured and sold
`
`PFAS-containing commercial and consumer products to industrial customers, downstream
`
`distributors, and individual consumers in New York State for more than six decades.
`
`37.
`
`The sale of PFAS and PFAS-containing commercial and consumer products to
`
`Defendants’ customers and the customers’ foreseeable use and ultimate disposal of Defendants’
`
`products, has resulted in the direct and indirect release of PFAS to the soil, groundwater, surface
`
`waters and waterways, and air of New York State.
`
`38.
`
`Industrial customers, for example, have directly and indirectly discharged PFAS to
`
`publicly owned wastewater treatment systems incapable of removing those compounds. As a
`
`result, PFAS have been further discharged to surface waters or released to soil and groundwater
`
`-9-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-10731-LJL Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 10 of 27
`
`after passing through the treatment systems, thereby exponentially amplifying the environmental
`
`spread of PFAS.
`
`39.
`
`Similarly, many consumers who have purchased and used Defendants’ PFAS-
`
`containing products have unknowingly proliferated the environmental contamination caused by
`
`Defendants’ hazardous products by disposing of such products to waterways, publicly owned
`
`treatment works, and landfills, where the PFAS have been steadily and continuously released into
`
`the environment as a result of the natural and/or chemically-aided degradation process over the
`
`course of many years.
`
`40. Moreover, because of the solubility of PFAS, the mobility of PFAS, and the ability
`
`of PFAS to resist the natural degradation process and many now-existing water treatment
`
`solutions, the reach of Defendants’ PFAS contamination has extended far beyond the locations
`
`where the initial manufacturing, use, and disposal of the PFAS and PFAS-containing products took
`
`place.
`
`41.
`
`Defendants have known for decades that PFAS could harm the environment but
`
`failed to take meaningful steps to prevent or mitigate the foreseeable contamination to New York’s
`
`natural resources.
`
`42.
`
`Likewise, Defendants knew that they were releasing potentially toxic PFAS into
`
`the environment through their manufacture and use of PFOA and PFOS, and Defendants failed to
`
`take any action to remedy such harm or to disclose the risks to regulators or the New York public.
`
`43.
`
`Defendants also knew, or reasonably should have known, that the purchasers of
`
`their PFAS and PFAS-containing products would release, discharge and/or dispose of such
`
`products into New York’s waterways, publicly owned treatment works, and landfills, and that
`
`-10-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-10731-LJL Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 11 of 27
`
`these foreseeable actions would further amplify the spread of PFAS contamination into the soil,
`
`groundwater, surface waters and waterways, and air of New York State.
`
`44.
`
`Defendants’ manufacture, use and disposal of PFAS, as well as their sale of PFAS
`
`and PFAS-containing products to industrial customers, downstream distributors, and individual
`
`consumers and users in New York, and their foreseeable use and disposal of such substances and
`
`products, has directly and proximately caused significant contamination to SUEZ’s sources of
`
`public drinking water.
`
`45.
`
`By causing the release of PFAS into the environment for more than a half-century,
`
`during which time such contaminants were commingled with one another and combined into the
`
`natural resources they infiltrated, Defendants have inflicted an indivisible injury upon SUEZ that
`
`has caused unitary harm.
`
`46.
`
`Therefore, because Defendants’ own actions have caused harm that is not capable
`
`of division, Defendants are jointly and severally responsible for all damages SUEZ has incurred,
`
`as well as those that SUEZ imminently will incur, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’
`
`use, handling, management, distribution, sale, marketing, and/or disposal PFAS and PFAS-
`
`containing materials and products.
`
`The Presence of PFAS in Public Water Systems Across New York
`
`47.
`
`Between 2015 and 2018, the New York State Department of Health conducted
`
`targeted sampling of 278 public water systems across the State, during which time the Department
`
`tested for the presence of both PFOA and PFOS. The sampling revealed that 34 public water
`
`systems (12.2%) had levels of PFOA exceeding 10 ppt, and 24 public water systems (8.6%) had
`
`levels of PFOS exceeding 10 ppt.
`
`-11-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-10731-LJL Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 12 of 27
`
`48.
`
`Increased levels of PFOA and PFOS have also been detected in the surface waters
`
`and monitoring wells near commercial and residential landfills in New York State, with some
`
`samples revealing levels of PFOA exceeding 1,900 ppt in surrounding surface waters and 4,200
`
`ppt in leachate samples taken from points adjacent to the landfills. Elevated levels of PFAS were
`
`also identified in downgradient stream and sediment samples, with sampling revealing
`
`downstream levels of PFOA exceeding 73 ppt.
`
`49.
`
`In July 2020, the New York State Department of Health estimated that
`
`approximately 21% of all public water systems had levels of PFOA and/or PFOS currently
`
`exceeding 10 ppt.
`
`Impact of Defendants’ Long-Running PFAS Releases on SUEZ’s Water Systems
`
`50.
`
`SUEZ owns and operates five public water systems in New York that consist of
`
`surface water intakes, wells, and water treatment facilities. SUEZ’s water supply services more
`
`than 123,000 unique water service connections and provides water service to approximately
`
`505,000 New York residents.
`
`51.
`
`SUEZ is committed to supplying its customers with safe drinking water that meets
`
`the federal and state guidelines and restrictions, including New York’s stringent new MCLs for
`
`PFOA and PFOS. SUEZ must therefore implement significant enhancements to its existing
`
`treatment infrastructure to assure that the water it supplies to its New York customers meets New
`
`York’s MCLs.
`
`52.
`
`In anticipation of the adoption and implementation of New York’s final MCLs,
`
`SUEZ began a monitoring initiative whereby SUEZ proactively monitored its existing water
`
`systems for the presence of PFOA and PFOS.
`
`-12-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-10731-LJL Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 13 of 27
`
`53.
`
`At various times in 2019 and 2020, SUEZ conducted sampling in accordance with
`
`its monitoring initiative at several water systems across New York State. At several separate sites,
`
`testing of the source water revealed levels of PFOA and/or PFOS exceeding the newly implemented
`
`MCLs.
`
`54.
`
`At SUEZ’s Rockland Water System in Rockland County, New York, testing
`
`revealed concentrations of PFOA as high as 19 ppt and concentrations of PFOS as high as 11 ppt.
`
`Moreover, as recently as October 2020, sampling revealed concentrations of PFOA and/or PFOS
`
`above 10 ppt in at least 16 of SUEZ’s source water wells or water systems in SUEZ’s Rockland
`
`Water System. Sampling at several other wells or systems during the same time period indicated
`
`concentrations of PFOS or PFOA approaching 10 ppt, with the possibility that the MCLs might be
`
`exceeded in the near future.
`
`55.
`
`At SUEZ’s Lake Deforest Water Treatment Plant in Clarkstown, New York, testing
`
`revealed concentrations of PFOA as high as 16 ppt and concentrations of PFOS as high as 15 ppt,
`
`and additional exceedances have been recorded as recently as October 14, 2020.
`
`56.
`
`At SUEZ’s Forest Park Water System in Putnam and Westchester Counties, New
`
`York, testing revealed concentrations of PFOA as high as 22 ppt and concentrations of PFOS as
`
`high as 20 ppt. Moreover, as recently as October 2020, sampling indicated concentrations of PFOA
`
`and/or PFOS above 10 ppt in at least 15 of Plaintiff’s source water wells in SUEZ’s Forest Park
`
`Water System. Sampling at several other wells during the same time period revealed concentrations
`
`of PFOS or PFOA approaching 10 ppt, with the possibility that the MCLs might be exceeded in the
`
`near future.
`
`57.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants’ actions in releasing or causing the release
`
`of PFAS, including but not limited to PFOA and PFOS, into the soil, groundwaters, surface waters
`
`-13-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-10731-LJL Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 14 of 27
`
`and waterways, and air of New York and in designing, manufacturing, marketing, and distributing
`
`PFAS and PFAS-containing commercial and consumer products to industrial users, downstream
`
`distributors, and individual consumers in New York has directly and proximately caused the
`
`contamination of SUEZ’s water sources.
`
`58.
`
`As a result, SUEZ has incurred, and will continue to incur, significant expense
`
`related to PFAS contamination and the remedial steps that must be taken to comply with New York
`
`State’s MCLs and to monitor for such compliance in the future, as well as numerous other costs
`
`necessitated by, associated with, or related to compliance with New York State’s MCLs.
`
`59.
`
`Specifically, SUEZ has identified three prudent, reliable, and cost-effective
`
`drinking water treatment options for PFAS removal: granular activated carbon (“GAC”), closed
`
`circuit reverse osmosis (“CCRO”), and ion exchange (“IX”). The efficacy of these options depends
`
`on source water quality, existing treatment technology, site layout, waste stream options, and other
`
`site-specific conditions.
`
`60.
`
`Regarding SUEZ’s Rockland Water System, initial analysis indicates that either
`
`GAC or IX will be the most effective treatment for the removal of PFAS, including PFOA and
`
`PFOS, to meet New York State’s MCLs.
`
`61.
`
`Regarding SUEZ’s Lake Deforest Water Treatment Plant, initial analysis indicates
`
`that GAC will be the most effective treatment for the removal of PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS,
`
`to meet New York State’s MCLs.
`
`62.
`
`Regarding SUEZ’s Forest Park Water System in Putnam and Westchester Counties,
`
`initial analysis indicates that either GAC or IX will be the most effective treatment for the removal
`
`of PFAS, including PFOA and PFOS, to meet New York State’s MCLs.
`
`-14-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-10731-LJL Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 15 of 27
`
`63.
`
`SUEZ is currently analyzing the costs associated with the installation and operation
`
`of each of the drinking water treatment options under consideration at SUEZ’s Rockland Water
`
`System, Lake Deforest Water Treatment Plant, and Forest Park Water System. Initial estimates
`
`show that the implementation of such treatments will cost millions of dollars per location.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`COUNT ONE
`(Public Nuisance)
`
`64.
`
`The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 63 above are incorporated by reference as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`65.
`
`Defendants’ acts and omissions, including Defendants’ failure to exercise due care
`
`in their use, handling, management, distribution, sale, marketing, and/or disposal of PFAS,
`
`including without limitation PFOS and PFOA, as well as PFAS-containing commercial and
`
`consumer products, have resulted in the release of significant amounts of PFAS into the
`
`environment and natural resources of New York State.
`
`66.
`
`Defendants’ acts and omissions have substantially and unreasonably interfered
`
`with, and continue to interfere with, SUEZ’s right to the use and enjoyment of New York’s natural
`
`resources and SUEZ’s right to the use of New York’s groundwater and surface water as sources
`
`of public drinking water, rights which SUEZ holds in common with members of the public, and
`
`have had the effect of endangering or injuring the property, health, safety or comfort of a
`
`considerable number of persons, thus creating a public nuisance.
`
`67.
`
`The public nuisance created by Defendants’ acts and omissions is continuing, and
`
`Defendants have failed to take steps to abate this public nuisance.
`
`68. Moreover, SUEZ has suffered, continues to suffer, and will in the future suffer, a
`
`special injury different in kind from, and of a greater magnitude than, that suffered by the public
`
`-15-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-10731-LJL Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 16 of 27
`
`as a whole. As the owner and operator of public water systems, SUEZ is required to provide
`
`drinking water that complies with New York State’s MCLs. In order to meet these MCLs and as
`
`a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions, SUEZ will be required to design,
`
`install and operate new and/or additional drinking water treatment systems.
`
`69.
`
`Therefore, as a direct and proximate result of the continuing public nuisance created
`
`by Defendants’ acts and omissions, including Defendants failure to exercise due care in their use,
`
`handling, management, distribution, sale, marketing, and/or disposal of PFAS and PFAS-
`
`containing commercial and consumer products, SUEZ has suffered, is currently suffering, and will
`
`continue to suffer a special injury, separate and apart from that shared by the public as a whole,
`
`and is therefore entitled to damages equal to the costs associated with the creation or acquisition,
`
`as well as installation and implementation, of drinking water treatment systems necessary to
`
`comply with the new MCLs, as well as the additional ongoing costs for the operation and
`
`maintenance of those systems and the regular monitoring of PFAS levels in all water sources
`
`necessitated by New York’s adoption of these standards.
`
`70.
`
`Defendants’ creation and maintenance of a public nuisance have directly and
`
`proximately caused indivisible harm to SUEZ, and Defendants are therefore jointly and severally
`
`liable for all such damages incurred by SUEZ in an amount to be proved at trial.
`
`COUNT TWO
`(Private Nuisance)
`
`71.
`
`The allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 63 above are incorporated by reference as
`
`if fully set forth herein.
`
`72.
`
`SUEZ owns and has the right to the possession and use of its wells, surface water
`
`intakes, and drinking water treatment and supply systems that make up SUEZ’s five water systems
`
`in New York, which span Orange, Putnam, Rockland, Tioga, and Westchester Counties.
`
`-16-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-10731-LJL Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 17 of 27
`
`73.
`
`Defendants’ acts and omissions, including Defendants’ failure to exercise due care
`
`in their use, handling, management, distribution, sale, marketing, and/or disposal of PFAS,
`
`including without limitation PFOS and PFOA, as well as PFAS-containing commercial and
`
`consumer products, have resulted in the release of significant amounts of PFAS into the
`
`environment and natural resources of New York State, including its groundwater and surface
`
`water.
`
`74.
`
`These intentional acts and omissions have directly and proximately caused
`
`environmental contamination that has substantially and unreasonably interfered with, and
`
`continues to interfere with, SUEZ’s right to use the groundwater and surface water sources that
`
`supply its public water systems, thereby constituting a private nuisance.
`
`75.
`
`The private nuisance created by Defendants’ intentional acts and omissions is
`
`continuing, and Defendants have failed to abate this private nuisance.
`
`76.
`
`Therefore, as a direct and proximate result of the continuing private nuisance
`
`created by Defendants’ acts and omissions, including Defendants’ failure to exercise due care in
`
`their use, handling, management, distribution, sale, marketing, and/or disposal of PFAS, as well
`
`as PFAS-containing commercial and consumer products, SUEZ has suffered, is currently
`
`suffering, and will continue to suffer damages equal to the costs associated with the creation or
`
`acquisition, as well as installation and implementation, of the drinking water treatment systems
`
`necessary to comply with the new MCLs, as well as the additional ongoing costs for the operation
`
`and maintenance of those systems and the regular monitoring of PFAS levels in all water sources
`
`necessitated by New York’s adoption of these standards.
`
`-17-
`
`
`
`Case 1:20-cv-10731-LJL Document 1 Filed 12/18/20 Page 18 of 27
`
`77.
`
`Defendants’ creation and maintenance of a private nuisance have directly and
`
`proximately caused indivisible harm to SUEZ, and Defendants are therefore jointly and severally
`
`liable for all such damages incurred by SUEZ in an amount to be proved at trial.
`
`COUNT THREE
`(Negligence)
`
`78.
`
`The allega