Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 1 of 103
`
`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 1 of 103
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`Civil Action No.
`
`TRIAL BY JURY REQUESTED
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
`
`
`TOWN OF NEW WINDSOR,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`VS.
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, STATE OF NEW
`YORK. NEW YORK AIR NATIONAL GUARD. PORT
`AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JERSEY,
`NATIONAL EXPRESS LLC. AFCO AVPORTS LLC,
`FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION, ATLANTIC
`AVIATION FBO HOLDINGS LLC THE 3M
`COMPANY (f/k/a MINNESOTA MINING AND
`MANUFACTURING CO.), 13.]. DUPONT DE
`NEMOURS & COMPANY. THE CHEMOURS
`COMPANY. THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC.
`DUPONT DE NEMOURS, INC, CORTEVA, INC.,
`RAYTHEON TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION.
`
`successor-in-interest to UNITED TECHNOLOGIES
`CORPORATION. CARRIER GLOBAL
`CORPORATION, UTC FIRE & SECURITY
`AMERICAS CORPORATION, INC., TYCO FIRE
`PRODUCTS L.P., successor-in-interest to the ANSUL
`COMPANY, CHEMGUARD, INC, CHEM DESIGN
`PRODUCTS, INC... KIDDE PLC INC. KIDDE-
`FENWAL, INC ., ANGUS INTERNATIONAL SAFETY
`GROUP, LTD., ANGUS FIRE ARMOUR
`CORPORATION, NATIONAL FOAM INC, CHUBB
`FIRE, LTD, BUCKEYE FIRE EQUIPMENT
`COMPANY, and JOHN DOES 1—10.
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`Plaintiff TOWN OF NEW WINDSOR (“‘Town" or "‘Plaintif‘f"), by and through its
`
`attorneys, Woslcrvclt «E: Rea, LLP, for its Complaint against Defendants states as follows:
`
`INTRODUCTION AND NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`Plaintit‘fTown of New Windsor (“Town“) is a municipal supplier of drinking water,
`
`

`

`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 2 of 103
`
`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 2 of 103
`
`as the owner and operator of the New Windsor Consolidated Water District that serves 30.000 of
`
`its residents and nearby water customers in Orange County. New York.
`
`2.
`
`The Defendants have caused the contamination of the Town's drinking water
`
`supplies with perfluoroalkyl substances and polytluoroalkyl substances (collectively termed “per-
`
`and polyfluoroalkyl substances" or "PFAS"). These PFAS-containing aqueous film forming foams
`
`{“AFFF"). made with fluorinated chemical feedstocks. were constituents of firefighting foams used
`
`in tire training exercises and to extinguish fires at Stewart International Airport (“Airport Property")
`
`and Stewart Air National Guard Base (“Base") (collectively, “the Facilities”). This AFFF foam and
`
`its PFAS-contaminated concentrate seeped. leaked. was discharged, drained, leaked and disposed
`
`of on the ground and subsequently seeped into surface waters at the Base and at the Airport
`
`Property. These PEAS-contaminated foams were not contained, and they migrated through the
`
`environmental media at
`
`the Facilities and into the surrounding environment. These PFAS
`
`discharges from the Facilities have now contaminated the Town‘s drinking water supplies produced
`
`at
`
`the Butterhill Wells Treatment and Filtration Plant (“Butterhill Wells") and Kroll Well
`
`(collectively, the "Town’s drinking water Supplies" and "Town Property").
`
`3.
`
`This PEAS—containing AFFF was developed by the Defendant United States of
`
`America, acting through the United States Department of Defense ("DOD"), in consultation with
`
`Defendant 3M Company in the mid-1960s. for extinguishing liquid petroleum-based fires (“Class
`
`B Fires") that occur on military bases and on naval vessels. Since then. DOD has mandated the use
`
`of PFAS-containing AFFF at all military bases. including the Base, and at federally funded civilian
`
`airports. including the Airport.
`
`4.
`
`The firefighting foams discharged from the Facilities contain the PFAS compounds
`
`perfluorooctane sult‘onic acid (“PFOS”). perfluorooctanoic acid (_"PFOA”) —
`
`including their salts.
`
`

`

`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 3 of 103
`
`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 3 of 103
`
`ionic states. precursor chemicals. and acid forms of the molecules (collectively. “'PFOAIS") - and
`
`other PFASS-containing fluorosurfactants used to make the foams“ concentrates.
`
`5.
`
`6.
`
`PFAS are toxic and hazardous to health and the environment.
`
`The Owner. Operators and Lessees of the Facilities. including the United States. the
`
`State ot‘New York. the Port Authority ofNew York and New Jersey. National Express LLC. AFCO
`
`Avports LLC, Federal Express Corporation. and Atlantic Aviation FBO Holdings LLC
`
`(collectively. "OwnerIOperatorfLessee Defendants"), acting through their agents. employees and
`
`instrumentalities. improperly stored. discharged and disposed these contaminated foams at the
`
`Facilities for decades. discharging
`
`thousands of gallons of AFFF and their contaminated
`
`concentrates into soils. groundwater. surface waters. floor drains, ditches and lagoons.
`
`7.
`
`The Ownen’Operatorstessee Defendants” discharges contaminated an off-site
`
`retention pond. Recreation Pond (“Rec Pond“). and the environment. migrating into groundwater.
`
`Kroll Well. Butterhill Wells. Silver Stream. Washington Lake Reservoir (the City of Newburgh‘s
`
`primary drinking water supply). and the Moodna Creek. a tributary of the Hudson River.
`
`8.
`
`Moreover. Defendant Operators repeatedly violated the terms of their SPDES
`
`permits. which prohibited discharges of AFFF containing PFAS into storm drains and into the
`
`sanitary
`
`sewer
`
`system. Those
`
`violations.
`
`and
`
`other
`
`acts
`
`and
`
`omissions
`
`of
`
`the
`
`OwnerfOperatorJ/Lessee Defendants resulted in the contamination of the Moodna Watershed.
`
`9.
`
`The Manufacturer Defendants are the companies that made. sold andfor distributed
`
`the PFAS-eontaining AFFF. andi’or made. sold andlor distributed PFAS and fluorosurfactant
`
`t‘eedstoeks for use by other Defendant Manufacturers for use in making their AFFF products that
`
`were disposed ofat the Facilities and into the environment. They include 3M Company. E..I. DuPont
`
`de Nemours and Company. the Chemours Company. the Chemours Company FC LLC. Corteva
`
`

`

`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 4 of 103
`
`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 4 of 103
`
`1110.. DuPont de Nemours, Inc.. Tyco Fire Products L.P., Chemguard Inc. Chem Design Products
`
`Inc... Raytheon Technologies Corporation (successor—in-interest
`
`to United Technologies
`
`Corporation). Carrier Global Corporation. UTC Fire & Security Americas Corporation, Inc._. C hubb
`
`Fire. Ltd.. Kidde PLC. Inc.._ Kidde—Fenwal.
`
`Inc._. Angus lntemational Safety Group. Ltd.. Angus
`
`Fire Armour Corporation. National Foam. Inc.. and Buckeye Fire Equipment Company, and all
`
`their corporate predecessors, affiliates and divisions (collectively, “Manufacturer Defendants").
`
`10.
`
`The Manufacturer Defendants manufactured andtor used PFOS. PFOA. and other
`
`PFAS. such as perfluorononanoic acid (“‘PFNA“). perfluorohcxanesulfonic acid ("PFHxS"). and
`
`perfluoroheptanoic acid (“PFHpA‘”) (and their salts, ionic states, and acid forms of the molecules),
`
`and the "precursor" chemicals that break down into PFOA. PFOS, PFNA. PFHS and PFHpA. to
`
`make AFFF containing PFAS andfor the fluorosurfactant feedstocks needed to make Mil-Spec
`
`AFFF. These products were discharged at the Facilities and into the environment. As a result. the
`
`Manufacturer Defendants” PFAS products now contaminate the Town’s drinking water supplies.
`
`ll.
`
`PFAS are synthetic chemicals that are water soluble and highly mobile once
`
`discharged into the environment. where they spread rapidly through soils. groundwater. surface
`
`water and drinking water supplies. They are extremely persistent and toxic at extremely low levels.
`
`measured in parts per trillion (“ppt”).
`
`12.
`
`PFAS are known as "forever" chemicals because they are resistant to breakdown,
`
`before and after they are discharged into the environment. The chemical stability of PFAS means
`
`they persist for long periods and can be found long distances from where they were originally
`
`discharged into the environment.
`
`PFAS have very long, half—lives, so once ingested by humans.
`
`they bioaccumulate in the human body. PFAS bio-magnify in aquatic life. birds. and mammals up
`
`the food chain. to humans. PFAS exposure is linked to serious adverse health effects, including
`
`

`

`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 5 of 103
`
`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 5 of 103
`
`kidney and testicular cancer,
`
`liver and thyroid tumors, ulcerative colitis. pregnancy—induced
`
`preeclampsia. impaired fetal development. impaired development in young children, and high
`
`cholesterol levels.
`
`13.
`
`The Manufacturer Defendants were fully aware of the mobility, persistence. and
`
`bioavailability of their PFAS-containing products, and the dangers they pose to health and the
`
`environment.
`
`14.
`
`Historic corporate documents generated by Defendant 3M Company (“3M") and
`
`Defendant E.l. DuPont de Nemours & Company (“Old DuPont") demonstrate that their own in—
`
`house toxicology and industrial medicine departments had extensively researched and documented
`
`the dangers that PF0A. PFOS and related PFAS posed to drinking water supplies. to wildlife. and
`
`to humans.
`
`including their production plant employees and thousands of other people who
`
`consumed the water that had been contaminated by their PFOAJS products and waste streams.
`
`15.
`
`All of the Manufacturer Defendants had expertise and understanding of the mobility.
`
`persistence and toxicity of the PFAS and the fluorochemical surfactant feedstocks contained in the
`
`AFFF that was used and released at the Facilities. They knew or should have known that. once
`
`released into the environment, these PFAS products would contaminate surrounding sources of
`
`drinking water.
`
`16.
`
`Despite knowing of these health and environmental
`
`threats.
`
`the Manufacturer
`
`Defendants deliberately concealed their own internal corporate research and failed to warn
`
`regulators. USers. customers or the public of these dangers. They failed to instruct their customers
`
`and users ofthe need and/or method by which their PFAS products needed to be stored. contained
`
`and diSposcd of. in order to protect against, avoid and prevent the known adverse health effects and
`
`consequences to the environment. including contamination of public drinking water.
`
`Instead. the
`
`

`

`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 6 of 103
`
`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 6 of 103
`
`Manufacturer Defendants touted the “safety" of their PFAS products that they reasonably knew
`
`would end up in drinking water.
`
`1?.
`
`As a result oftheir intentional and/or negligent failure to warn regulators. customers.
`
`users and the public of the known dangers of PFAS and the fluorosurfactant feedstocks contained
`
`in their AFFF products. these toxic. defectively designed products now contaminate the Facilities
`
`and the environment. including the Watershed and the Town‘s drinking water supplies.
`
`18.
`
`The term “Watershed“ as used in this Complaint means the affected areas between.
`
`in and around the Base. the Airport Property. and the waters. streams, and tributaries that drain them
`
`into the Hudson River. primarily within the Moodna Watershed. The “Watershed" includes, among
`
`other features. Rec Pond. Brown’s Pond. Kroll Well. Silver Stream (above and below its Diversion
`
`Gate near Washington Lake). Moodna Creek. all
`
`their
`
`impoundments and tributaries. and
`
`groundwater that sources the Kroll Well and Butterhill Wells wellflelds.
`
`19.
`
`In this action, the Town seeks injunctive relief ordering Defendants to abate this
`
`public nuisance they have caused. by fully remediating and restoring the Butterhill Wells and Kroll
`
`Well drinking water supplies; and an order requiring Defendants to immediately remediate the
`
`Facilities to prevent further releases of contamination. The Town also seeks compensatory and
`
`consequential damages for past and future costs it has incurred and will incur due to contamination
`
`of the Butterhill Wells. including but not limited to:
`
`the purchase of replacement drinking water
`
`supplies; lost revenues; past and future interest and bond repayment costs related to development
`
`and construction of the Butterhill Wells (until the contamination is remediated in full): payment of
`
`all the 'l‘uwn‘s environmental consulting and legal fees/expenses related thereto; all necessary costs
`
`of response; restitution in full; indemnification: and punitive damages against the Manufacturing
`
`Defendants for their intentional manufacture of defective products and their reckless and wanton
`
`

`

`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 7 of 103
`
`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 7 of 103
`
`failure to warn of the dangers inherent in these defective products, all of which has endangered the
`
`health and welfare of the Town. its residents, its water customers and consumers, and the public in
`
`general.
`
`20.
`
`Two related cases have been filed by the City of Newburgh. City qf’Newburgh v.
`
`United States QfAmeriea. 91 iii... and the State of New York, State ofNen-' York v. 3M Company. 9!
`
`(ii. 011 December 18. 2018, these cases and approximately 1’? other AFFF cases pending across the
`
`Country were transferred by the Judicial Panel for Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL Panel") to the
`
`United States District Court
`
`for the District of South Carolina,
`
`for discovery and pretrial
`
`proceedings under the supervision of United States District Judge Richard Gergel. in MDL No.
`
`2873. in Re: Aqueous Film Framing F(Jams Products Liability Litigation. Additional AFFF cases
`
`have also since been transferred. Upon information and belief, this case may be subject to the
`
`December 18. 2018 MDL order and transfer by the MDL Panel.
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`21.
`
`Plaintiff Town of New Windsor is a municipal corporation organized under the
`
`laws of the State of New York. with offices at 555 Union Avenue. New Windsor, New York 12553.
`
`A.
`
`DEFENDANT OWNER, OPERATORS, AND LESSEES OF THE FACILITIES
`
`22.
`
`Defendant United States of America maintains offices at
`
`the Office of the
`
`President ot'the United States, at the White House. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington. DC.
`
`The Department of Defense (“DOD") is an executive department of the federal government of the
`
`United States. with headquarters at the Pentagon. Washington. DC. 20301. The United States Air
`
`Force (“Air Force" and “USAF"? is a branch ofthe DOD. The United States Air National Guard
`
`("USANG") is a division of the National Guard Bureau and also a bureau of the Air Force. The
`
`United States Marine Corps Reserve ('USMCR) is the reserve force of the United States Marine
`
`

`

`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 8 of 103
`
`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 8 of 103
`
`Corps, a branch of the DOD.
`
`23.
`
`The Air Force, along with the New York Air National Guard (“NYANG”), is the
`
`current operator of the ANS Base. Upon information and belief. the USMCR also conducted
`
`operations on the ANG Base.
`
`24.
`
`During the course of their operations. the Air Force and USMCR. acting through
`
`their agents, employees and instrumentalities. negligently conducted andfor allowed the improper
`
`storage, handling. discharge andfor disposal of AFFF containing PFAS at the ANG Base and into
`
`the environment, which resulted in PFAS contamination of the Town’s drinking water supplies.
`
`DOD, U SANG. and the Air Force are collectively referred to in this Complaint as “DOD.“
`
`25.
`
`Defendant State of New York (“State") is a state with offices at the New York
`
`State Capitol Building, State Street and Washington Avenue, Albany, New York 12224. The New
`
`York State Department of Transportation (“NYSDOT”) is an agency of the State with offices at 50
`
`Wolf Road. Albany. New York 12232.
`
`26.
`
`The State. through NYSDO'I‘, is the owner of both the Base and the Airport Property.
`
`The State. through NYANG.
`
`is an Operator of the Base. The State. acting through its agents.
`
`employees and instrumentalities. negligently stored, handled. discharged andfor disposed of AFFF
`
`containing PFAS at and from the Base, anda’or allowed others under their control to improperly
`
`store, handle, discharge, and dispose of Mil-Spec AFFF at the Facilities and into the environment.
`
`resulting in PFAS contamination of the Watershed and the Town’s drinking water supplies.
`
`2?.
`
`Defendant New York Air National Guard (“NYANG”) is the Air Force militia ot‘
`
`the State, with offices at 330 Old Niskayuna Road. Latham. New York 121 10. Upon information
`
`and belief, NYANG is tmder the jurisdiction of the Governor of the State. As noted above, the
`
`NYANG, along with the Air Force. is the current operator ofthe ANG Base.
`
`

`

`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 9 of 103
`
`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 9 of 103
`
`28.
`
`During the course of operations, the Air Force and USMCR, acting through their
`
`agents. employees and instrumentalities. negligently conducted and/or allowed the improper
`
`storage. handling. discharge andfor disposal of AFFF containing PFAS at the Base and into the
`
`environment. resulting in PFAS contamination of the Watershed and the Town's drinking water
`
`supplies.
`
`29.
`
`Upon information and belief. other State agencies or instrumentalities may have also
`
`participated andfor negligently allowed the improper storage. handling. discharge andior disposal
`
`of AFFF containing PFAS at or around the Base and into the environment. resulting in PFAS
`
`contamination of the Watershed and the Town's drinking water supplies.
`
`30.
`
`Collectively. the State. NYANG. and NYSDOT are referred to in this Complaint as
`
`"State."
`
`31.
`
`Defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (“PANYNJ”) is a bi-
`
`state public benefit corporation with offices at 4 World Trade Center. 150 Greenwich Street. New
`
`York. New York 10007.
`
`32.
`
`Upon information and belief. the PANYNJ is an operator of the Airport Property.
`
`During the course of its operations. the I’ANYNJ. acting through its agents. employees and
`
`instrumentalities. negligently conducted andror allowed the improper storage. handling. discharge.
`
`and/or disposal of AFFF containing PFAS at the Airport Property and into the environment.
`
`resulting in PFAS contamination of the Watershed and the Town's drinking water supplies.
`
`33.
`
`Defendant National Express LLC ("National Express“) is a Delaware limited
`
`liability umupany with a principal place of business at 2601 Navistar Drive. Lisle, Illinois 60532.
`
`34-
`
`Upon information and belief. National Express is the successor of SWF Airport
`
`Acquisition. Inc. (“SW13“). former lessee and operator of the Airport Property.
`
`

`

`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 10 of 103
`
`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 10 of 103
`
`35.
`
`Upon information and belief, during the course of its operations, National Express
`
`and its predecessors. acting through their agents. employees and instrumentalities. negligently
`
`conducted anda’or allowed the improper storage, handling, discharge andlor disposal of AFFF
`
`containing PFAS at the Airport Property and into the environment. resulting in PFAS contamination
`
`of the Watershed and the Town's drinking water supplies.
`
`36.
`
`Defendant AFCO Avports Management LLC (“Ax/ports") is a Delaware limited
`
`liability company. with a principal place of business at 45025 Aviation Drive, Suite 100, Dulles
`
`International Airport, Dulles. Virginia 20166.
`
`3?.
`
`Upon information and belief. Avports is a current operator and lessee of the Airport
`
`Property, having succeeded to the lease previously held by National Express.
`
`38.
`
`Upon information and belief. during the course of its operations. Avports and its
`
`predecessor lessees and operators, acting through their agents, employees and instrumentalities,
`
`negligently conducted andfor allowed improper storage, handling. discharge andlor disposal of
`
`AFFF containing PFAS at the Airport Property and into the environment. resulting in PFAS
`
`contamination of the Watershed and the Town’s drinking water supplies.
`
`39.
`
`Defendant Federal Express Corporation (“FedEx“) is a Delaware corporation
`
`with a principal place of business at 3610 Hacks Cross Road, Memphis. Tennessee 38120.
`
`40.
`
`Upon information and belief, FedEx is a lessee of the Airport and conducts or has
`
`conducted business at the Airport Property.
`
`41.
`
`On September 5, 2005. a jet operated by or on behalfof FedEx caught fire in midair
`
`and landed at the Airport so the. fire could be extinguished. This resulted in thousands of gallons
`
`of AFFF containing PFAS to flow. uncontained into the environment. Defendant FedEx was
`
`negligent in causing andror allowing the improper discharge andr‘or disposal of the AFFF containing
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 11 of 103
`
`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 11 of 103
`
`PFAS used to extinguish the fire. which thereafter resulted in contamination of the Watershed and
`
`the Town‘s drinking water supplies.
`
`42.
`
`Defendant Atlantic Aviation FBO Holdings LLC ("Atlantic Aviation") is a
`
`Delaware limited liability company with a principal place of business at 5201 Tennyson Parkway.
`
`Suite 150. Plano, Texas 75024.
`
`43.
`
`Upon information and belief. Atlantic Aviation is a lessee of and currently conducts
`
`operations at the Airport Property. 011 April l3. 2019. a major spill ofAFFF containing PFAS was
`
`discharged from the Atlantic Aviation hangar at the Airport and disposed of into the environment.
`
`where it entered Silver Stream and the Moodna Creek. This negligent handling of AFFF containing
`
`PFAS by Defendant Atlantic Aviation resulted in contamination of the Watershed and the Town's
`
`drinking water supplies.
`
`44.
`
`Upon information and belief. all of the Ownera’Operator/Lessee Defendants, acting
`
`through their agents. employees, and instrumentalities. negligently conducted. caused. andi’or
`
`allowed the improper storage. handling, discharge andfor disposal of AFFF containing PFAS at
`
`andi’or from the Facilities and into the environment. where they now contaminate the Watershed
`
`and the Town's drinking water supplies.
`
`B.
`
`DEFENDANT MANUFACTURERS
`
`4S.
`
`Defendant The 3M Company (“3M") (fr’kfa Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing
`
`Co.) is a Delaware corporation with a principal place of business at 3M Center, St. Paul. Minnesota
`
`55144.
`
`46.
`
`Upon information and belief, 3M designed, manufactured. marketed. and/or sold the
`
`AFF F containing PFAS that was used. stored. discharged andt’or disposed of at the Facilities and
`
`into the environment. and which now contaminates the Watershed and the Town‘s drinking water
`
`ll
`
`

`

`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 12 of 103
`
`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 12 of 103
`
`supplies.
`
`4?.
`
`Upon information and belief. until approximately 2002. 3M also manufactured.
`
`marketed andior sold PFOS and PFOA chemicals to some or all of the other Defendant
`
`Manufacturers, who used these chemicals to make the AFFF used. stored. discharged andtor
`
`disposed of at the Facilities. As a result. these chemicals now contaminate the Watershed and the
`
`Town's drinking water supplies.
`
`48.
`
`Defendant E.I. DuPont de Nemours and Company ("Old DuPont") is a Delaware
`
`corporation with a principal place of business at 974 Centre Read. Wilmington. Delaware 19805.
`
`49.
`
`Upon information and belief. beginning in or around 2000. Old DuPont and its
`
`subsidiaries. affiliates. divisions and successors designed. manufactured. marketed andfor sold
`
`PFOA and other fluorosurfactant feedstocks used by some or all of the other Manufacturer
`
`Defendants to make the AFFF that was used. stored. discharged andfor disposed of at the Facilities
`
`and into the environment. As a result. Old DuPont‘s PFOA andfor other fluorosurfactants now
`
`contaminate the Watershed and the Town's drinking water supplies.
`
`50.
`
`Defendant the Chemours Company {"‘Chemours"') is a Delaware corporation with
`
`a principal place of business at WU? Market Street. Wilmington. Delaware 19889.
`
`51-
`
`Upon information and belief. Chemours was a wholly owned subsidiary of Old
`
`DuPont until it was spun off by Old DuPont in 2015 and made into a publicly traded corporation in
`
`order to limit Old DuPont‘s PFAS liability.
`
`52-
`
`Upon information and belief. Chemours.
`
`its corporate affiliates. subsidiaries.
`
`divisions and predecessors (including Old DuPont) designed, manufactured. marketed andfor sold
`
`PFOA and other fluorosurfactant feedstocks used by some or all of the other Manufacturer
`
`Defendants to make the AFFF containing PFAS that was used. stored. discharged andfor disposed
`
`

`

`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 13 of 103
`
`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 13 of 103
`
`of at the Facilities and into the environment. As a result. Chemours’ PFOA andfor fluorosurfactant
`
`feedstocks now contaminate the Watershed and the Town‘s drinking water supplies.
`
`53.
`
`Defendant the Chemours Company FC LLC (“‘Chemours PC“) is a Delaware
`
`limited liability corporation with a principal place of business at 1007 Market Street. Wilmington.
`
`Delaware 19899.
`
`54.
`
`Upon information and belief. Chemours PC is a successor-in-interest to DuPont
`
`Chemical Solutions. a subsidiary of Old DuPont that operated its performance chemicals business.
`
`55.
`
`Chernours FC and its predecessors. subsidiaries. divisions auditor and affiliates
`
`(including Old DuPont) designed. manuiactured. marketed and Upon information and belief. for
`
`sold PFOA and fluorosurfactant feedstocks to some or all of the other Manufacturers for their use
`
`in making AFFF containing PFAS. which was then used. stored. discharged andfor disposed of at
`
`the Facilities and into the environment. Chemours FC"s PFOA andfor fluorosurfactants now
`
`contaminate the Watershed and the Town‘s drinking water supplies.
`
`56.
`
`Upon information and belief.
`
`the reason for Old DuPont”s 2015 spin-off of
`
`Chemours was because by 2015. Old DuPont had been sued in multiple governmental and private
`
`party class action lawsuits. and it expected that hundreds more mass tort cases would be filed across
`
`the country as more people discovered illness and injury caused by exposure to Old DuPont’s PFAS
`
`products.
`
`57.
`
`Anticipating enormous PFAS liabilities (which would include three jury verdicts
`
`awarding $19.?M in compensatory and punitive damages to former DuPont employees suffering
`
`from cancer; u clues ucticm settlement of $343M; and the funding of a multi-million dollar
`
`independent science panel. called the “C8 Panel.“ to determine to health effects of exposure and
`
`determine DuPont‘s liability; another class action settlement of $6?1M; an EPA civil penalty of
`
`i3
`
`

`

`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 14 of 103
`
`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 14 of 103
`
`$16.5M. and scores of other class actions. mass tort cases. and suits by municipal water suppliers
`
`whose drinking water had been contaminated by Old DuPont‘s products). Old DuPont hatched a
`
`scheme to offload its financial responsibility for PFAS onto the back of Chemours. its corporate
`
`subsidiary.
`
`58.
`
`In 2015. Old DuPont spun off Chemours into an independent. publicly traded
`
`company. Pursuant to a separation agreement dated June 26. 2015 (hereinafter “Old Dupont-
`
`Chemours Separation Agreement"). Old DuPont required Chemours to assume Old DuPont's
`
`PFOAIS liabilities. After the spin-off. Chemours continued to make. market andr’or sell PFOA
`
`andfor t‘luorosurfactant feedstocks to others for their manufacture ol’AFFF. Upon information and
`
`belief. this PFOA andfor fluorosurfactant was used in AFFF containing PFAS. which was used.
`
`stored. discharged andi’or disposed of at the Facilities and in the environment. and now contaminates
`
`the Watershed and the Town’s drinking water supplies. in August 201?. Old DuPont merged with
`
`the Dow Chemical Company to become DowDuPont Inc. (“DowDuPont”).
`
`59.
`
`In 2019. DowDuPont separated into three publicly traded companies. which were to
`
`operate separateiy in the agriculture. materials science. and specialty products space. Upon
`
`information and belief. this separation was governed by an April 2019 separation agreement. later
`
`modified by a .lune 1019 letter agreement. For purpose of this Complaint. these two agreements
`
`will collectively be referred to as the "DowDuPont Separation Agreement."
`
`60.
`
`Defendant Corteva. Inc. (“‘Corteva“) is a Delaware corporation with a principal
`
`place of business located at 9?4 Centre Road. Wilmington. Delaware 19805.
`
`61.
`
`Upon inrommtiuu and belief. Concva is one of the three companies Spun of‘t"
`
`pursuant to the DowDupont Separation Agreement. Corteya assumed DowDuPont's agriculture
`
`business.
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 15 of 103
`
`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 15 of 103
`
`62.
`
`Upon information and belief. pursuant to the terms of the DowDupont Separation
`
`Agreement. Corteva also assumed all or a portion of Old DuPont's perfluorinated chemicals
`
`liabilities. including its PFOAJS liabilities. Pursuant to the DowDuPont Separation Agreement.
`
`Corteva became and remains the direct parent company of Old DuPont.
`
`63.
`
`Defendant DuPont de Nemours, Inc. (“New DuPont") is a Delaware corporation
`
`with a principal place of business at 974 Centre Road, Building '?30. Wilmington. Delaware 19805.
`
`64.
`
`Upon information and belief, pursuant to the DowDupont Separation Agreement.
`
`New DuPont assumed DowDuPont's specialty products business.
`
`65.
`
`Upon information and belief. pursuant to the DowDuPont Separation Agreement.
`
`New DuPont also assumed all or a portion of Old DuPont"s perfluorinated chemicals liabilities.
`
`including its PFOAKS liabilities.
`
`66.
`
`Upon information and belief. Old DuPont. New DuPont, Corteva and Chemours
`
`have either: (1) designed. manufactured. marketed. andror sold PFOA andror fluorosurfactant
`
`feedstoeks to some or all ofthe Defendant Manufacturers. who used those feedstocks in their AF FF
`
`Products. which were used. stored. discharged andfor disposed of at the Facilities and into the
`
`environment. and which now contaminate the Watershed and the Town‘s drinking water supplies:
`
`or (2) assumed andfor succeeded Old DuPont‘s liabilities for its performance chemicals business.
`
`including its PFOAfS liabilities for the same.
`
`6?.
`
`Defendant Tyco Fire Products L.P. (“Tyco”) is a Delaware limited partnership
`
`with a principal place of business at 1400 Pennbrook Parkway. Lansdale. Pennsylvania 19446.
`
`(18.
`
`Upon information and belief. Tyeo is a subsidiary ofJohnson Controls International,
`
`I’LC .
`
`69.
`
`Upon information and belief. Tyco is the successor-in-interest
`
`to The Ansul
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 16 of 103
`
`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 16 of 103
`
`Company (“Ansul”). which since 1975. had designed. manufactured. marketed, andi’or sold AFFI"
`
`containing PFAS. After Tyco acquired Ansul in 1990. it continued making the Tyco/Ansul brand
`
`of AFFF containing Pl-‘AS. which was used, stored. discharged andi’or disposed of at the Facilities
`
`and into the environment, and which now contaminates the Watershed and the Town’s drinking
`
`water supplies.
`
`”2'0.
`
`7"].
`
`Upon information and belief. Tyeo acquired Chemguard. Inc. in 201 l.
`
`Defendant Chemguard, Inc. (“Chemguard”) is a Wisconsin corporation with a
`
`principal place ofbusiness at One Stanton Street. Marinette. Wisconsin 5414342542.
`
`72.
`
`Upon information and belief. Chemguard is a subsidiary of Johnson Controls
`
`International PLC.
`
`73.
`
`Upon information and belief. Chemguard developed, designed. manufactured.
`
`marketed. sold. andi’or distributed AFFF containing PFAS that was used. stored. discharged andi’or
`
`disposed of at the Facilities and into the environment. and which now contaminates the Watershed
`
`and the Town‘s drinking water supplies.
`
`74.
`
`Moreover. Chemguard also designed- manufactured. marketed.
`
`andi’or
`
`sold
`
`fluorosurt‘actant feedstocks to some or all of the Manufacturer Defendants. who used them in the
`
`AFFF containing PFAS. which was used. stored. discharged andfor disposed of at the Facilities and
`
`into the environment. As a result. Chemguard‘s fluorosurfactants now contaminate the Watershed
`
`and the Town's drinking water supplies.
`
`75.
`
`Defendant Chem Design Products. Inc. (“Chem Design") is a Texas corporation
`
`with a principal place ofbusincss looatcd at Two Stanton Street. Marine-rte. Wisconsin 541413.
`
`76.
`
`Upon information and belief. Chem Design is a subsidiary of Johnson Controls
`
`International. PLC.
`
`16
`
`

`

`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 17 of 103
`
`Case 7:21-cv-03943 Document 1 Filed 05/04/21 Page 17 of 103
`
`7?.
`
`Upon information and belief. Chem Design designed. manufactured, marketed.
`
`andror sold fluorinated surfactant feedstocks to some or all of the Manufacturer Defendants. who
`
`used them in th