1 SEAGLE LAW
J. Harold Seagle
2 (North Carolina Bar No. 8017)
haroldseagle@charter.net
3
P.O. Box 15307
4 Asheville, N.C. 28813
Telephone: 828-774-5711
5 Fax: 828-774-5701
6 BARON & BUDD, P.C.
Scott Summy
7
(North Carolina Bar No. 27171)
8 ssummy@baronbudd.com
Cary L. McDougal (pending Pro Hac Vice)
9 (Texas State Bar No. 13569600)
Stephen C. Johnston (pending Pro Hac Vice)
10 (Texas State Bar No. 00796839)
Brett D. Land (pending Pro Hac Vice)
11
(Texas State Bar No. 24092664)
12 3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75219-4281
13 Telephone: (214) 521-3605
Fax: (214) 520-1181
14
15 Attorneys for Plaintiff
16
17

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
No.

18

:

19 BRUNSWICK COUNTY, a governmental
entity;
20
Plaintiff,
21 v.
22 DOWDUPONT, INC., a Delaware
23 corporation; E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS
AND COMPANY, a business entity form
24 unknown; THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, a
Delaware corporation; THE CHEMOURS
25 COMPANY FC, LLC, a Delaware limited
liability company, and DOES 1 to 25,
26
27

-CV)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

-

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

Defendants.

28
-1-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 1 of 38

 “A river is the report card for its watershed.”
– Alan Levere, Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Plaintiff BRUNSWICK COUNTY hereby alleges, upon information and belief, as follows:
I.

INTRODUCTION

1.

The events giving rise to this Complaint represent the latest installment in a decades-long

history of E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company’s discharges of toxic substances into the Cape
Fear River with blatant disregard for the effects on consumers downstream. As has been widely
reported, Du Pont, and its successor Chemours, used the River as the dumping ground for
countless chemicals while assuring the EPA and state agencies that they were doing no such
thing. As a public water provider that depends upon the Cape Fear River, Brunswick County has
suffered extensive property damage to its water supply, raw water, water treatment system, and
water distribution system. The County sues to recover the costs of removing these chemicals
from drinking water before it is served to the public.
2.

DuPont in fact has a long history of toxic chemical liabilities arising from perfluoroalkyl

substances (PFASs) such as the biopersistent, bioaccumulative, toxic chemical PFOA1 also
known as “C8.”2 DuPont began using C8 in 1951 to make consumer products including the
immensely popular Teflon® non-stick cookware and continued to use it profitably for decades.
When DuPont’s supplier, the 3M Company, came under increasing scrutiny from the United
States Environmental Protection Agency and decided to stop making C8, DuPont began
producing C8 at the Fayetteville Works facility on the Cape Fear River in North Carolina,
assuring regulators and the public that all C8 wastewater would be contained and disposed of
elsewhere, and that C8 presented no threat to human health or the environment. Only when
residents near DuPont’s manufacturing plant in Parkersburg, West Virginia began to pursue
litigation over DuPont’s contamination of the Ohio River with C8 did evidence begin to emerge
of DuPont’s internal knowledge of C8’s health hazards, which DuPont had concealed from the
1

Perfluorooctonic acid, CAS No. 335-67-1.
“C8” refers to the eight-carbon chain in the perfluorinated molecule of PFOA. The term “C8” also
includes
the ammonium salt of PFOA, known as “APFO”, which is dissolved by water into PFOA and
27
ammonium.

26

2

28
-2-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 2 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

E.P.A. Mounting evidence, thousands of civil lawsuits, epidemiological studies, and federal
agency pressure—including the largest environmental administrative penalty ever imposed by
the E.P.A.—eventually forced DuPont to begin phasing out C8 in 2006.
3.

To keep producing its highly profitable fluoroproducts, DuPont turned to an alternative

perfluorinated chemical—dubbed “Gen X”—which DuPont also planned to manufacture at the
Fayetteville Works facility. To obtain the necessary approvals and permits, DuPont assured state
and federal regulators that Gen X would not be released into groundwater—even though DuPont
knew that it had secretly been releasing Gen X into the Cape Fear River since at least 1980 (and
planned to continue doing so). DuPont understood that regulators were very concerned about the
hazards of perfluorinated chemicals such as C8 and Gen X, and had data from its own studies to
demonstrate Gen X’s toxicity in animals, but remained silent about its ongoing contamination of
the drinking water supply for hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians. Instead, in a familiar
refrain, DuPont maintained that Gen X presented no threats to human health or the environment.
DuPont’s repugnant act of deception worked, and in 2009, commercial production of Gen X
began at the Fayetteville Works, where DuPont also continued to manufacture C8 until at least
2013.
4.

Meanwhile, by 2011, DuPont could no longer credibly deny the toxicity of C8 because an

independent scientific panel created to help settle a class action over DuPont’s Ohio River
contamination had begun to release a series of reports linking C8 exposure to various serious
health effects in humans. Facing thousands of pending personal injury lawsuits, DuPont became
desperate to spin off its C8 liabilities. By mid- 2015, DuPont had dumped its perfluorinated
chemical liabilities into the lap of a new and apparently undercapitalized entity, Defendant
Chemours Company, which Fortune magazine described as “[l]oaded up with debt and stuffed
full of potentially toxic assets…[and] seen by many investors as a listing garbage scow locked on
a one-way course to the bottom of the ocean” due to the C8 liability that “now sits on its balance

26
27
28
-3-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 3 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

sheet like a ticking time bomb.” 3 By 2017, over 3,500 civil lawsuits had been filed against
DuPont for C8 contamination of the Ohio River and the drinking water of nearly 70,000
residents in and around Parkersburg, West Virginia. All told, DuPont and Chemours will pay
over $1 billion to resolve the C8 liabilities related to Ohio River contamination.
5.

As a result of the 2015 spin-off, Chemours now owns the Fayetteville Works facility,

where it continues to lease manufacturing space to DuPont and to produce a variety of products
including Gen X. In November 2016, environmental scientists published the results of water
testing that showed high levels of Gen X in the Cape Fear River downstream of the Fayetteville
Works, at the intake for the raw water that is used to generate drinking water for thousands of
North Carolinians in a five-county area. Worse, their results showed that conventional water
treatment technologies do not effectively remove such chemicals from drinking water.
Confronted by state regulators, Chemours finally admitted that DuPont had been releasing Gen X
into the Cape Fear River since at least 1980—a fact long concealed from the State of North
Carolina. Sampling along the Cape Fear River confirms that Defendants have been
contaminating the Cape Fear River and the public drinking water systems that draw from the
river downstream of the Fayetteville Works facility with a variety of undisclosed byproducts—
including Nafion® Byproducts 1 and 2 (“C7”)4,, Gen X (“C6”), and other perfluoroalkyl
substances known as PFECAs (perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids)—through wastewater,
groundwater, and/or air deposition. Contamination of the Cape Fear River with Gen X alone has
well exceeded North Carolina’s temporary health standard and has repeatedly been found at
levels considered to be unsafe. And Gen X is only one of the PFASs that Defendants have
knowingly released into the region’s public drinking water supply for decades. DuPont (and
now Chemours) uses PFASs to manufacture a wide range of products, resulting in the production
of hundreds (if not thousands) of different PFAS chemicals—and the identity of the PFASs that
enter the environment due to this process remains unknown to regulators and the public. While

26
27

3
4

http://fortune.com/2016/05/18/how-dupont-spinoff-chemours-came-back-from-the-brink/
“C6” and “C7” refer to the number of carbons in the perfluorinated molecules.

28
-4-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 4 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

public attention has focused on C8, and now Gen X, these discharges merely scratch the surface
of what may be contained in the rivers and waterways Defendants have been polluting.
6.

Luckily for the communities affected, Chemours vows to handle its toxic liabilities

differently than DuPont. Chemours’ Code of Conduct: A Guide to Our Values explains that
“Unshakeable Integrity” is one of Chemours’ five values. Chemours’ Code of Conduct vows to
“do what’s right for customers, colleagues, and communities—always.”5 Chemours’ Code of
Conduct explains “our values are simple yet powerful, and our focus on delivering efficiency and
results for our customers never overshadows our commitment to ethical behavior in all we do.
When we do what’s right for our people, customers, shareholders, and communities, success will
follow.”6
7.

Mark Newman, Chemours’ Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer says

“Whether it’s about being open and clear about our performance or our stewardship practices,
our goal is to be brave and do the right thing, always.”7 Paul Kirsch, Chemours’ Fluoroproducts
President says, “When we do what’s right for our customers, shareholders, and communities, we
are confident success will follow.”8
8.

For nearly forty years, Defendants have been secretly releasing their persistent,

bioaccumulative, and toxic perfluorinated chemicals into the Cape Fear River at unsafe levels
and contaminating the drinking water source for hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians—
just as they did in the Ohio River—all the while misleading state and Federal regulators and the
public. Plaintiff Brunswick County is a community public water supplier that serves thousands of
North Carolina residents whose public drinking water supply has been contaminated by
Defendants’ PFASs for decades. By this lawsuit, Plaintiff hopes to hold Chemours to its
promises. In particular, Plaintiff seeks to recover the costs—past, present, and future—necessary

24
25

5

Chemours’ Code of Conduct: A Guide to Our Values
https://s2.q4cdn.com/107142371/files/doc_downloads/governance/2017/code-of-conduct-en-us.pdf
26 6
Id.
7
27 8 Id.
Id.

28
-5-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 5 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

to manage and remove Defendants’ perfluorinated chemicals from its public drinking water
supply.
II.

PARTIES

9.

Plaintiff BRUNSWICK COUNTY (“Brunswick”) is a governmental entity formed under

the laws of the State of North Carolina, maintaining its seat in Bolivia, North Carolina. Plaintiff
Brunswick County purchases raw water pumped from an intake on the Cape Fear River. The
County then treats that water at its Northwest Water Treatment Plant before supplying it as
finished drinking water to the public.
10.

Defendant DOWDUPONT, INC. (“DowDuPont”) is a Delaware corporation with two

principal places of business, including in Midland, Michigan and Wilmington, Delaware.
11.

Defendant E.I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY (“DuPont”) is or was a

Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware, and is
registered to do business as a foreign corporation in the State of North Carolina. DuPont owned
and operated the Fayetteville Works facility from approximately 1971 until 2015 and currently
leases a portion of the site from Defendant Chemours Company FC, LLC. As of August 31,
2017, a $130 billion merger between Dow Chemical and DuPont was completed. Plaintiff is
unaware what, if anything, remains of DuPont outside of the merger with Dow Chemical.
12.

Defendant THE CHEMOURS COMPANY is a Delaware corporation with its principal

place of business in Wilmington, Delaware, and is registered to do business as a foreign
corporation in the State of North Carolina.
13.

Defendant THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC is a Delaware limited liability

corporation with its principal place of business in Wilmington, Delaware, and is registered to do
business as a foreign corporation in the State of North Carolina. THE CHEMOURS COMPANY
FC, LLC currently owns and operates the Fayetteville Works Facility, located at 22828 NC
Highway 87 W., Fayetteville, North Carolina. THE CHEMOURS COMPANY FC, LLC is a
subsidiary of THE CHEMOURS COMPANY and the two entities are referred to in this
Complaint as “Chemours.”

28
-6-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 6 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

III.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

14.

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 because complete diversity exists

between the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The Plaintiff is located in North Carolina, but no
Defendant is a citizen of North Carolina. Defendants are incorporated and maintain principal
places of business in locations other than North Carolina, as outlined above.
15.

substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated in this judicial district
and division.
IV.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

Venue is appropriate in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(a) because a

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
a.

16.

Historical Background

From 1951 through 2002, DuPont purchased the perfluorinated chemical PFOA (also

known as “C8”) from the 3M Company and used it to make a variety of “fluoroproducts,”
including the immensely-popular Teflon® nonstick cookware, at its Washington Works plant
near Parkersburg, West Virginia.
17.

C8 is a perfluorinated chemical that is toxic to human health, biopersistent, and

bioaccumulative—characteristics DuPont concealed for decades.
18.

Although both 3M and DuPont had found C8 in blood samples from their own

employees, and DuPont had itself been studying its potential toxicity since at least the 1960s and
knew that it was contaminating drinking water drawn from the Ohio River, neither company
disclosed to the public or to government regulators what they knew about the substance’s
potential effects on humans, animals, or the environment.9
19.

In 1999, the first of thousands of civil lawsuits was filed as a result of DuPont’s

contamination of the Ohio River, questioning the environmental and health effects of C8. The
civil lawsuit—and the internal corporate knowledge it revealed—triggered an investigation by
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of the toxicity of C8.

26
27

9

See, e.g., Fred Biddle, “DuPont confronted over chemical’s safety,” Wilmington News Journal (Apr. 13,
2003).

28
-7-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 7 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

20.

In the face of growing pressure by the Environmental Protection Agency over widespread

risks to human health and the environment posed by C8, 3M began to phase out the
manufacturing of C8 in 2000. That year, DuPont made an estimated $200 million in after-tax
profits from products manufactured with C8.10
21.

In May 2002, 3M announced that it would cease to manufacture C8 altogether. In

October 2002—so that it could continue manufacturing a range of profitable Teflon® products—
DuPont began making C8 at its Fayetteville Works facility—upstream of Plaintiff’s
community—and shipping its C8 waste to its Chambers Works plant in New Jersey, for disposal
into the waters of the Delaware River and Delaware Bay. DuPont publicly maintained that
disposing of C8 into the waters there posed no environmental risks, and that there was “no
evidence” C8 causes adverse human health effects.11
22.

By December 2005, the E.P.A. uncovered evidence that DuPont concealed the

environmental and health effects of C8, and the E.P.A. announced the “Largest Environmental
Administrative Penalty in Agency History.12” The E.P.A. fined DuPont for violating the Toxic
Substances Control Act “Section 8(e)—the requirement that companies report to the E.P.A.
substantial risk information about chemicals they manufacture, process or distribute in
commerce.”13
23.

Thereafter in 2006, the E.P.A. began a voluntary PFOA Stewardship Program, in which

DuPont participated, designed to prevent C8 from further entering the environment and to
eliminate C8 from consumer products by 2015. At that time, DuPont identified another
perfluorinated chemical—PFPrOPrA14 or “Gen X”—that could be used as an alternative to C8.
24.

By 2009, DuPont negotiated with the E.P.A. to manufacture Gen X at DuPont’s

Fayetteville Works facility in North Carolina—the same plant where DuPont had continued the

24
10

See Biddle, supra note 9.
See Biddle, supra note 9.
12
26 13 $16.5 million.
https://yosemite.epa.gov/opa/admpress.nsf/68b5f2d54f3eefd28525701500517fbf/fdcb2f665cac66bb852
570d7005d6665!opendocument
27 14
Perfluoro-2-propoxypropanoic acid, CAS No. 13252-13-6.

25

11

28
-8-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 8 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7

manufacture of C8 despite incriminating evidence of C8’s environmental and health effects. The
E.P.A. “determined that the chemical could be commercialized if there were no releases to
water.15
25.

Meanwhile, by July 2011, DuPont could no longer credibly dispute the human toxicity of

C8, which it continued to manufacture at the Fayetteville Works facility. The “C8 Science Panel”
created as part of the settlement of a class action over DuPont’s releases from the Washington
Works plant had reviewed the available scientific evidence and notified DuPont of a “probable

8

link”16 between C8 exposure and the serious (and potentially fatal) conditions of pregnancy-

9

induced hypertension and preeclampsia.17 By October 2012, the C8 Science Panel had notified

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

DuPont of a probable link between C8 and five other conditions—high cholesterol, kidney
cancer, thyroid disease, testicular cancer, and ulcerative colitis.
26.

By April 28, 2013,18 in accordance with E.P.A.’s PFOA Stewardship Program,

Defendants had phased out the intentional manufacture of C8 at the Fayetteville Works facility,
instead manufacturing “Gen X” as an alternative product to use in making Teflon®.
27.

As DuPont’s C8 liabilities mounted, DuPont became desperate to reduce its

perfluorinated chemical liabilities and decided to spin-off its perfluorinated chemical operations
into a new company. In July 2015, E.I. du Pont de Nemours spun off its chemicals division,
creating Chemours, a new publicly-traded company named The Chemours Company, once
wholly owned by DuPont. By mid- 2015, DuPont had dumped its perfluorinated chemical
liabilities into the lap of the new Chemours Company.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

15

Vaughn Haugherty, “Toxin taints CFPUA drinking water,” StarNews (June 8, 2017),
http://www.starnewsonline.com/news/20170607/toxin-taints-cfpua-drinking-water/1 (emph. added).
16
Under the settlement, “probable link,” means that given the available scientific evidence, it is more
likely than not that among class members a connection exists between PFOA/C8 exposure and a
particular human disease.
17
See The C8 Science Panel, Status Report: PFOA (C8) exposure and pregnancy outcome among
participants in the C8 Health Project (July 15, 2011),
http://www.c8sciencepanel.org/pdfs/Status_Report_C8_and_pregnancy_outcome_15July2011.pdf.
18
See “Corrective Measures Study Work Plan,” Chemours Fayetteville Works, RCRA Permit No.
NCD047368642-R2-M3, PARSONS, December 2016 (hereinafter, “Parsons”).

28
-9-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 9 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

28.

In May 2016, Fortune magazine wrote, “When industrial giant DuPont spun off its

performance chemicals division in July 2015, few gave the orphaned appendage much hope.
Loaded up with debt and stuffed full of potentially toxic assets—on multiple levels—the new
company, re-branded as Chemours, was seen by many investors as a listing garbage scow locked
on a one-way course to the bottom of the ocean.” “So while Chemours products made up around
a fifth of DuPont’s overall sales when it was spun off, it ended up inheriting nearly two-thirds of
its environmental liabilities. Pending lawsuits linked to a chemical used in making Teflon, one of
Chemours’ biggest products, now sits on its balance sheet like a ticking time bomb, threatening
to wipe out millions of dollars from the company’s coffers over the next few years.”19
29.

By 2017, over 3,500 civil lawsuits had been filed against DuPont for C8 contamination of

the Ohio River and the drinking water of nearly 70,000 residents in and around Parkersburg,
West Virginia. DuPont had settled the first round of civil cases for nearly $350 million in 2001,
resolving water filtration claims, and funding epidemiological health studies of the nearly 70,000
residents. Then, in February 2017, DuPont and Chemours settled the second round of cases for
nearly $671 million, resolving thousands of personal injury claims for exposure to C8 via
drinking water drawn from the contaminated Ohio River. All told, DuPont and Chemours will
pay over $1 billion to resolve the C8 liabilities related to Ohio River contamination.
30.

As of 2017, and as a result of the 2015 Chemours spin-off, Defendant Chemours

Company FC, LLC, now owns and operates the Fayetteville Works facility, leasing space to two
other chemical manufacturers, Defendant DuPont/DowDuPont, Inc. and non-party Kuraray
America, Inc.
31.

At the Fayetteville Works facility, DuPont and Chemours have long made, used, and/or

generated a variety of toxic perfluoroalkyl substances that are structurally and functionally
similar, including C8, Gen X (“C6”), Nafion Byproducts 1 and 2 (“C7”)20, and other
perfluorinated chemicals known as PFECAs (perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids).

26
27

19
20

http://fortune.com/2016/05/18/how-dupont-spinoff-chemours-came-back-from-the-brink/
“C6” and “C7” refer to the number of carbons in the perfluorinated molecules.

28
-10-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 10 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18

a.
32.

21
22

The Fayetteville Works facility (“the Site”) is located at 22828 NC Highway 87 W, near

Duart Township in Bladen County, North Carolina. The Site is located 15 miles southeast of the
City of Fayetteville on NC Highway 87, south of the Bladen-Cumberland county line. Its
geographic location is 34º50’30” north latitude, 78º50’00” west longitude. The Site contains
2,177 acres of relatively flat undeveloped open land and woodland bounded on the east by the
Cape Fear River, on the west by NC Highway 87, and on the north and south by farmland.21
33.

DuPont purchased the Site property in parcels from several families in 1970. The Site’s

first manufacturing area was constructed in the early 1970s. Currently, the Site manufactures
plastic sheeting, safety glass, fluorochemicals, and intermediates for plastics manufacturing. A
former manufacturing area, which was sold in 1992, produced nylon strapping and elastometric
tape.22
34.

In July 2015, Defendant Chemours Company FC, LLC, became the owner of the entire

2,177 acres of the Fayetteville Works along with Fluoromonomers, Nafion® membranes, and
PPA manufacturing units. The polyvinyl fluoride (PVF) resin manufacturing unit remained with
the DuPont Company.23
35.

Defendants’ manufacturing operations at the Site24 consist of three current perfluorinated

chemical (“PFC”) manufacturing areas and a former manufacturing area:25

19
20

The Fayetteville Works Site

a.

Chemours Fluoromonomers and Nafion® Membrane - Manufactures Nafion®

fluoropolymer membrane—a perfluorosulfonic acid (PFSA) membrane—for use in electronic
cells, as well as various fluorochemicals used for Nafion® membrane, Teflon® fluoropolymer,
Viton® elastomers, and other fluorinated products.

23
24

21

Parsons, supra note 18.
25 23 Id.
Id.
24
In two additional manufacturing areas at the Fayetteville Works, Kuraray America manufactures
26
Butacite polyvinyl butyral sheeting and resin, and SentryGlass-branded safety glass products, but upon
information and belief does not use or generate the polyfluorinated chemicals at issue.
27 25
Id.
22

28
-11-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 11 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6

b.

used as a processing aid for off-site fluoropolymer manufacturing—upon information and belief,
the product known as “GenX.” This area formerly manufactured ammonium perfluorooctanoate
(APFO, the ammonium salt of PFOA, which is also known as “C8”). Chemours publicly
maintains that the last date of C8 production at the Site was April 28, 2013, and that the C8
manufactured in this area was never used in any of the other manufacturing facilities at the Site.

7
8

c.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

DuPont Company PVF - Manufacturers polyvinyl fluoride (PVF) resin used to

produce Tedlar® film.

9
10

Chemours Polymer Processing Aid (PPA) - Manufactures a fluorochemical that is

d.

The Polymer Manufacturing Development Facility (PMDF) - Manufactured

Teflon® fluorinated ethylene propylene (FEP) for electrical wiring insulation and other
applications. Since the PMDF unit was permanently shut down in June 2009, it no longer
manufactures DuPont Teflon®. Chemours publicly maintains that the site did not use C8 in its
processes.
36.

In addition to the manufacturing operations at the Site, Chemours operates two natural

gas-fired boilers and a wastewater treatment plant for the treatment of process and sanitary
wastewaters from Chemours and DuPont. Hazardous wastes generated from the Chemours’
manufacturing processes and laboratories were, as of 2016, managed at the permitted Hazardous
Waste Container Storage Area, in four permitted hazardous waste tanks, and at the 90-day
ignitable waste accumulation area prior to being shipped offsite for treatment, disposal, or
recycling.26
37.

The Cape Fear River is located along the eastern property boundary of the Site,

approximately 1,850 feet from the eastern portion of the manufacturing area. Willis Creek, a
tributary of the Cape Fear River, is located in the northern portion of the Site, approximately
3,000 feet from the manufacturing area. Portions of the Georgia Branch, another tributary to the
Cape Fear River, flow along the southern boundary of the Site approximately 1 mile southwest

26
27

26

Id.

28
-12-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 12 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

of the manufacturing area. A drainage channel leading to the Cape Fear River is located just
south of the plant area and is used as the outfall area (“Outfall 2”) covered by National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit No. NC003573 (the “NPDES Permit”).27
38.

discharging into the Cape Fear River. This groundwater travels at a rate of 217 feet per year,
resulting in an estimated travel time of approximately 15.5 years from the Chemours Polymer
Processing Aid area (where Defendants manufactured C8 and later Gen X) to the Cape Fear
River.28
39.

17
18
19
20
21
22

Upon information and belief, the Site also has at least one stack that has operated over the

years as a source for airborne emissions of perfluoroalkyl substances, thereby giving rise to
additional water contamination when airborne particles are deposited and dissolve and/or leach
into groundwater. Plume modeling conducted in 2002 by DuPont Engineering29 demonstrates
that DuPont’s C8 manufacturing processes would give rise to an airborne APFO (C8) plume with
a “hot spot” directly over Willis Creek, which flows into Cape Fear River.

15
16

Underneath the Site, groundwater flow is generally west-southwest to east-northeast,

b.
40.

Defendants’ Pollution of the Cape Fear River

In 1980—unbeknownst to state or federal regulators or the public—DuPont began to

release Gen X (C6) at the Fayetteville Works site as a byproduct of one or more of its
manufacturing processes there, including, upon information and belief, a vinyl ether
manufacturing process. At a point in time that is as yet unknown, DuPont also began to release
other perfluoroalkyl substances (in addition to Gen X) from the Fayetteville Works site,
including PFOA (C8), Nafion® Byproducts 1 and 2 (C7) and other perfluorinated chemicals
known as PFECAs.30 Indeed, upon information and belief, there are hundreds of different

23
24
25

27

Id.
26 29 See id.
See DuPont Engineering Technology, “Exposure Evaluation for New Process at Fayetteville Site”
(Aug.
20, 2001, rev. Feb. 20, 2002).
27 30
Perfluoroalkyl ether carbolocylic acids, a type of perfluoroalkyl substances that includes Gen X.
28

28
-13-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 13 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

PFASs generated in DuPont’s manufacturing processes, and an unknown number of these have
also been discharged into the waste stream and into the Cape Fear River.
41.

Defendants were required to obtain a NPDES Permit from the State of North Carolina

before making an outlet into the Cape Fear River, or causing or permitting any waste to be
directly or indirectly discharged into waters of the state in violation of any State water quality
standards or point source effluent standards or limits. See 33 U.S.C. §§ 1311, 1342; N.C. Gen
Stat. § 143-215.1.
42.

In 1987, DuPont obtained its initial NPDES Permit No. NC003573 from the State of

North Carolina,31 authorizing the release of wastewaters from the facility wastewater treatment
plant through Outfall 002, which feeds into the Cape Fear River. Upon information and belief,
DuPont did not disclose to the State that it planned to discharge Gen X, C8, or any other
perfluoroalkyl substances to the Cape Fear River, nor did it disclose the number, variety or
identity of the many PFAS chemicals generated in its processes and found in its waste streams.
43.

The segment of the Cape Fear River affected by discharges from Outfall 002 is classified

by the State of North Carolina as “Class WS-IV” surface water, making it a “source of water
supply for drinking, culinary, or food-processing purposes” as well as for “aquatic life
propagation and maintenance of biological integrity (including fishing and fish), wildlife,
secondary recreation, [and] agriculture.” 15A N.C.A.C. 2B.0211(1), 2B.0216(1); see also 15A
N.C.A.C. 2b.0101; N.C. Gen. Stat. § 143-214.1(b).
44.

Upon information and belief, DuPont’s on-site wastewater treatment plant is ineffective

at removing Gen X and other perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in the water that is discharged
into the Cape Fear River.
45.

In 1995, DuPont asked the State of North Carolina for permission to reroute wastewater

from its Nafion® manufacturing area to bypass the facility wastewater treatment plant. At this

25
26

31

At the time, the regulating entity was known as the North Carolina Department of Environment &
Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality. It is now known as the Department of Environmental
27
Quality (DEQ), Division of Water Resources (DWR).

28
-14-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 14 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

time, upon information and belief, DuPont knew that the wastewater it planned to discharge
contained Gen X and other PFAS byproducts of the Nafion® manufacturing process. Although
DuPont had a duty under North Carolina law and federal law to clearly identify in its NPDES
permit application any potential toxins, the only waste DuPont disclosed was fluoride. Upon
information and belief, the request to release Nafion® process wastewater directly into the Cape
Fear River was authorized in DuPont’s 1996 NPDES Permit renewal.
46.

In May 2001, following 3M Company’s announcement that it would no longer

manufacture C8, DuPont submitted an NPDES Permit renewal application to the State of North
Carolina stating that it intended to begin manufacturing C8 at the Fayetteville Works Site.
DuPont represented to the State that C8 does not pose a health concern to humans or animals at
the levels present in the workplace or environment, that DuPont had used C8 for forty years with
no observed health effects, and that C8 is neither a known developmental toxin nor a known
carcinogen. DuPont requested authorization to discharge wastewater from its C8 operations
directly to a dedicated outfall, without sending it through the facility’s wastewater treatment
plant. At this time, DuPont did not disclose that its manufacturing processes at the Fayetteville
Works site in fact generated hundreds of PFASs, nor did it disclose the number, variety or
identity of the PFASs found in its waste streams.
47.

In October 2002—before the State granted the requested NPDES Permit renewal—

DuPont began making C8 at the Fayetteville Works site. In January 2004, the State granted the
renewed NPDES permit—without authorizing the requested discharge of the C8 manufacturing
wastewater into the Cape Fear River.
48.

DuPont applied for its next NPDES renewal permit on May 1, 2006. DuPont’s

application represented that wastewater from the C8 manufacturing operations “is collected and
shipped off-site for disposal”; that no process wastewater is discharged to the Site’s wastewater
treatment plant or to the Cape Fear River, and that none of the produced C8 is used at the
Fayetteville Works site. DuPont further represented that wastewater from the Nafion®
operations was being treated in the facility’s wastewater treatment plant. Upon information and

28
-15-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 15 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

belief, DuPont did not disclose that it was releasing any C8, Gen X or other PFECAs, or other
perfluoroalkyl byproducts of its Nafion® operations, into the Cape Fear River. Nor did DuPont
disclose the number, variety or identity of the PFAS chemicals generated in its processes and
found in its waste streams.
49.

The State granted a renewed NPDES permit on May 25, 2007. Under this permit, DuPont

was required to capture and dispose of all C8 process water off-site, and also to monitor for C8
due to known groundwater contamination. The resulting monitoring reports document discharges
and/or releases of C8 into the Cape Fear River through at least March 2017, when Chemours
reported PFOA (C8) discharges of 10,000 ppt through Outfall 002. Indeed, even after Chemours
reportedly stopped making C8 at the Fayetteville Works site in 2013, regular discharges of C8 at
Outfall 002 continued, reaching as high as 160,000 ppt in October 2016.32
50.

On January 28, 2009, DuPont entered into a consent order with the E.P.A governing the

manufacturing of Gen X. The consent order acknowledged that E.P.A. “has concerns that [Gen
X] will persist in the environment, could bioaccumulate, and be toxic . . . to people, wild
animals, and birds.” The consent order also acknowledged E.P.A.’s “human health concerns”
about Gen X, including that “uncontrolled . . . disposal of [Gen X] may present an unreasonable
risk of injury to human health and the environment.” The order required DuPont to “recover and
capture (destroy) or recycle [Gen X] at an overall efficiency of 99% from all of the effluent
process streams and the air emissions (point source and fugitive).” In negotiating the Consent
Order, upon information and belief, neither DuPont (nor, apparently, its lawyers) disclosed to the
E.P.A. that DuPont had been releasing Gen X (and other related PFASs) into the Cape Fear
River from the Fayetteville Works site since at least 1980. And once more, DuPont remained

23
24
25

32

See ICIS Detail Report for NPDES Permit No. NC0003673 based on data extracted based on data
extracted
on June 28, 2017, available at
26
https://iaspub.epa.gov/enviro/ICIS_DETAIL_REPORTS_NPDESID.icis_tst?npdesid=NC0003573&npva
27 lue=1&npvalue=13&npvalue=14&npvalue=3&npvalue=4&npvalue=5&npvalue=6&rvalue=13&npvalue
=2&npvalue=7&npvalue=8&npvalue=11&npvalue=12

28
-16-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 16 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

silent about the number, variety and identity of the PFAS chemicals generated in its processes
and found in its waste streams.
51.

Upon information and belief, DuPont met with North Carolina regulators in August 2010

and represented (1) that—like C8—GenX would be produced in a “closed-loop” system that
would not result in the discharge of GenX into the Cape Fear River; and (2) that the wastewater
generated from GenX manufacturing would be collected and shipped off-site for disposal.
DuPont did not disclose to the State that it had already been discharging GenX or other PFECAs,
or other perfuoroalkyl byproducts from its Nafion® processes into the Cape Fear River. Nor did
DuPont disclose to regulators the number, variety and identity of the PFAS chemicals generated
in its processes and found in its waste streams.
52.

The following year, in April 2011, DuPont applied for a renewal of its NPDES Permit,

confirming that “all process wastewater generated from [the PPA Manufacturing Area where
DuPont produced C8 and GenX] is collected and shipped offsite for disposal” and “no process
wastewater from this manufacturing facility is discharged to the site’s biological [wastewater
treatment plant] or to the Cape Fear River.” DuPont continued to mislead regulators, failing to
explain that the Fayetteville Works operations had been contaminating the Cape Fear River with
PFASs such as Gen X and Nafion® Byproducts 1 and 2 since approximately 1980, and failing to
disclose the number, variety or identity of the PFAS chemicals generated in its processes and
found in its waste streams, even though DuPont knew full well that regulators had serious
concerns about the effects of these substances on human health and understood that its
discharges were contaminating the drinking water used by hundreds of thousands of North
Carolinians. In fact, at the very same time DuPont was reassuring the State about its “closed
system” for manufacturing Gen X, upon information and belief, DuPont was discharging Gen X
and other perfluoroalkyl byproducts of its Nafion® manufacturing processes into the Cape Fear
River on an ongoing basis.
53.

On February 6, 2012, the State of North Carolina issued NPDES renewal permits to

DuPont, and to Chemours on October 28, 2015. Upon information and belief, the Permit does

28
-17-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 17 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

not authorize any discharges of Gen X or other PFESAs or other perfluoroalkyl byproducts of
the Nafion® processes from the Fayetteville Works site.
54.

DuPont conducted a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Facility Investigation

(RFI), in three phases from 2001 through 2014. The RFI identified widespread C8 contamination
in the soil and groundwater at the Fayetteville Works site, some of which DuPont attributed to its
past Nafion® manufacturing activities, including a “historical release originating from the
Nafion® manufacturing area’s common process wastewater sump.”33 The RFI also documented
at least seven releases of PFASs at the Fayetteville Works site between March 2011 and
February 2013.
55.

In 2015, State regulators required Chemours to perform additional groundwater sampling

to determine if groundwater flowing from the Fayetteville Works site was contaminating the
Cape Fear River with C8 or other PFASs. Chemours still did not disclose to regulators that the
Fayetteville Works operations had been contaminating the Cape Fear River with PFASs such as
Gen X and Nafion® Byproducts 1 and 2 since approximately 1980. Upon information and
belief, Chemours identified both C8 and other PFASs in its ground water, but only disclosed to
the State (at the time) that it had found C8.
56.

At least by 2015, and reportedly by April 2013, Defendants ceased manufacturing C8 at

the Fayetteville Works site. Manufacturing of Gen X and fluoroproducts such as Nafion®
perfluorosulfonic acid (PFSA) membrane, however, have continued.
57.

At all relevant times, Defendants knew, or should have known, that the perfluoroalkyl

substances they were releasing into the environment created a probable risk to human health in
the public drinking water supply drawn from the Cape Fear River, due to the persistence and
toxicity of these substances and the fact that they are not removed through conventional water
treatment processes.

25
26

33

DuPont Fluoroproducts, “Biennial Report for the Manufacture of APFO Calendar Years of 2002 and
2003,
DuPont Company —Fayetteville Works,” submitted October 26, 2004 in U.S. E.P.A. Docket No.
27
AR-226.

28
-18-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 18 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

c.
58.

Public Disclosure of Defendants’ Pollution.

In November 2016, Dr. Detlef Knappe of North Carolina State University and a team of

researchers from other institutions published a study that identified GenX and other PFASs at the
King’s Bluff intake site in the Cape Fear River,34 at levels that are believed to be unsafe.
Between June 14, 2013 and December 2, 2013 Dr. Knappe’s team had taken daily samples of
raw water downstream of the Fayetteville Works site at the King’s Bluff intake, and at two
locations upstream of the Fayetteville Works site. While upstream sampling revealed only the
presence of so-called “legacy PFASs,”35 at King’s Bluff, Dr. Knappe’s team found
concentrations of Gen X as high as 4,500 parts per trillion (“ng/L” or “ppt”), with a mean
(average) concentration of Gen X of 631 ppt—both well in excess of the current the current state
health goal of 140 ppt.

12

Average concentration in drinking water source (ng/L) 

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

 
22 Source: Mei Sun, et al., “Legacy and Emerging Perfluoroalkyl Substances are Important Drinking Water 
Contaminants in the Cape Fear Watershed of North Carolina,” 3 Environ. Sci. Technol. Let. 415 (2016). 

23  

24 Dr. Knappe’s team also detected significant concentrations of six other PFECAs at King’s Bluff.
25
26

34

Mei Sun, et. al, “Legacy and Emerging Perfluoroalkyl Substances are Important Drinking Water
Contaminants
in the Cape Fear Watershed of North Carolina,” 3 Environ. Sci. Technol. Let. 415 (2016).
27 35
E.g., PFASs that had been phased out through the E.P.A.’s voluntary PFOA Stewardship Program.

28
-19-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 19 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

59.

DuPont reportedly installed new abatement technology in November 2013, that the

company claimed would “dramatically drop” the average Gen X levels in the Cape Fear River.
Dr. Knappe’s 2016 article reports, however, that additional samples taken in August 2014
showed similar levels of Gen X to the mean concentrations he had found in August 2013 (again,
in excess of the current North Carolina state health advisory standard) as well as a high
concentration of other PEFCAs at levels that are believed to be unsafe for humans.
60.

Dr. Knappe further reported that based on an analysis taken every stage of the water

treatment process at the Sweeney Water Treatment Plant in Wilmington, North Carolina, PFASs
in the Cape Fear River were not effectively removed by the coagulation, ozonation, biofiltration,
or disinfection processes ordinarily used by water providers such as Plaintiff to treat drinking
water.36
61.

On June 15, 2017, representatives of Chemours met with officials from state and local

agencies, including Plaintiff Brunswick County, and represented that the GenX compound found
in the Cape Fear River was not due to discharge from the plant making GenX but was likely a
byproduct of another manufacturing process conducted at the Fayetteville Works site since 1980.
Upon information and belief, these discharges exceeded the current state health goal of 140 ppt
and occurred at levels believed to be unsafe for human consumption.
62.

In July 2017, upon information and belief, Chemours admitted to State regulators that its

2015 groundwater sampling had also revealed the presence of PFASs other than C8 at the
Fayetteville Works site.
63.

In August 2017, the State requested additional groundwater sampling at the Fayetteville

Works site, which demonstrated the presence of Gen X at 13 of 14 sampling locations, at levels
greater than the practical quantitation limit of 10 ng/L (ppt). Levels of Gen X in groundwater
monitoring wells at the site show Gen X at concentrations from 519 to 61,300 ppt—vastly

25
26
27

36

Mei Sun, et. al, supra note 34.

28
-20-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 20 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24

exceeding both the PQL and the current state health goal of 140 ppt. Five wells adjacent to the
Cape Fear River have Gen X concentrations in excess of 11,800 ppt.
64.

Defendants’ Nafion® manufacturing processes, described as PFESA Byproduct No. 1 and
PFESA Byproduct No. 2 (and referred to in this Complaint as Nafion® Byproduct Nos. 1 and 2),
at an outfall where Defendants’ wastewater is discharged into the Cape Fear River. In particular,
even after Chemours took undisclosed steps to reduce its PFAS releases from the Fayetteville
Works site, the E.P.A. found levels of Nafion® Byproduct No. 1 (CAS No. 29311-67-9) as high
as 15,800 ppt, and Nafion® Byproduct No. 2 (CAS No. 749836-20-2) as high as 73,900 ppt.
65.

27

All of the PFAS chemicals found in the Cape Fear River—including Gen X, and PFESA

Byproduct No. 1 and PFESA Byproduct No. 2—have been consistently found at levels that far
exceed the EPA’s health standards for PFOA/PFOS. Given what is believed to be the
cumulative nature of PFAS exposures, and the fact that these substances were continuously
discharged into the region’s public water supply for nearly forty years, extreme caution should
be taken to completely eliminate any further PFAS chemicals from entering into the public water
systems.
66.

It is believed that there are a number of other PFAS chemicals that have not been

specifically named or identified that have also been released from Defendants’ operations at the
Fayetteville Works site and have contaminated the Cape Fear River at unsafe levels.
Notwithstanding the great public interest and concern about Defendants’ contamination of the
Cape Fear River, Defendants still have not released information to the public or to regulators that
would identify the number, variety and identity of PFASs they have generated in their
manufacturing processes and released through waste streams into the environment around the
Fayetteville Works site.

25
26

In August 2017, the E.P.A. confirmed the presence of additional byproducts of

d.
67.

The Chemicals at Issue

Perfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) that have been detected in raw and/or treated water

drawn from the Cape Fear River downstream of the Fayetteville Works facility, and that upon

28
-21-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 21 of 38

 1
2
3

information and belief have resulted from Defendants’ activities at the Fayetteville Works site,
include, but are not limited to: perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA or “C8”) (CAS No. 335-67-1),
several perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids (PFECAs), including perfluoro-2-propoypropanoic

4

acid (PFPrOPrA or “Gen X”) (CAS No. 13252-13-6); and two byproducts of the Nafion®

5

perfluorosulfonic acid (PFSA)37 membrane manufacturing process that are known only to the

6

Plaintiff as “PFESA Byproducts 1 and 2” (or “Nafion® Byproducts 1 and 2”).38

7
8
9
10
11
12

68.

PFASs are a class of man-made chemicals that do not occur naturally in the environment.

They have been widely used to make products more stain-resistant, waterproof and/or nonstick,
although they have many other commercial applications in aerospace, automotive, construction,
and electronics manufacturing. PFASs may be differentiated from each other by the “chain
length,” or the number of carbon atoms, in the molecule. PFOA, for example, has eight carbon
atoms, so it is referred to as “C8” and considered a “long-chain” PFAS.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

37
38

Perfluorosulfonic acid is a perfluoroalkyl substance.
The complete list of PFASs found by Dr. Knappe’s team consists of:
a. Perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs):
i. Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) (CAS No 375-22-4);
ii. Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) (CAS No. 2706-90-3);
iii. Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) (CAS No. 335-67-1);
iv. Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) (CAS No. 335-67-1);
v. Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA or “C8”) (CAS No. 335-67-1);
vi. Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) (CAS No. 375-95-1);
vii. Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) (CAS No. 335-76-2);
b. Perfluorosulfonic acids (PFSAs):
i. Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) (CAS No. 375-73-5);
ii. Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHSx) (CAS No. 355-46-4);
iii. Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) (CAS No. 1763-23-1);
c. Perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids (PFECAs);
i. Perfluoro-2-methoxyacetic acid (PFMOAA) (CAS No. 674-13-5);
ii. Perfluoro-3-methoxypropanoic acid (PFMOPrA) (CAS No. 377-73-1);
iii. Perfluoro-4-methyoxybutanoic acid (PFMOBA) (CAS No. 863090-89-5);
iv. Perfluoro-2-propoypropanoic acid (PFPrOPrA or “Gen X”) (CAS No. 13252-13-6);
v. Perfluoro(3,5-diolxahexanoic) acid (PFO2HxA) (CAS No. 39492-88-1);
vi. Perfluoro(3,5,7-trioxaoctanoic) acid (PFO3OA) (CAS No. 39492-89-2);
vii. Perfluoro(3,5,7,9-tetraoxadecanoic) acid (PFO4DA) (CAS No. 39492-90-5).

28
-22-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 22 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

69.

only degrade very slowly, if at all, under environmental conditions. For example, it is
documented that some polyfluorinated chemicals break down to form perfluorinated ones.39
70.

22
23

PFASs are found in the indoor and outdoor environments, wildlife, and human tissue and

bodily fluids all over the globe. They are emitted via industrial processes and military and
firefighting operations, and they migrate out of consumer products into air, household dust, food,
soil, ground and surface water, and make their way into drinking water. 40
71.

Regulators and the public have little access to information about the commercial

applications, potential release mechanisms, and resulting exposure sources and concentrations
for many of the individual PFASs, of which there are thousands. As a result, there is little
knowledge of their environmental fate and transport characteristics, or their toxicological
properties, because they have not been studied. Most of the data on fate and toxicity has been
provided by industry and is limited to the required testing. Non-industry researchers are
hindered by the difficulty of obtaining from the manufacturers (who treat these substances as
proprietary) the necessary reference standards they need to study the toxicity of these substances
in the laboratory and to develop analytical techniques to detect and quantify their presence in the
environment.41
72.

On information and belief, PFASs have sufficiently similar chemical structures and

functions to render exposures cumulative, for purposes of their toxicity in humans and animals.

20
21

PFASs are highly persistent in the environment, as they contain perfluorinated chains that

a.
73.

“Long Chain” PFASs.

Of the PFASs, so-called “long chain PFASs”—in particular, the PFOA/C8 used in

making Teflon® and a similar chemical used in making ScotchGuard,42 PFOS—have been the
most extensively studied and regulated to date.

24
39

Arlene Blum, et al., “The Madrid Statement on Poly- and Perfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs),” 123
Env’tl Health Persp. A 107 (May 2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1509934.
40
26 41 Id.
See, e.g., Wang et al., “A Never-Ending Story of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFASs)?” 51
Environ.
Sci. Technol. 2508 (2017).
27 42
PFOS, which is perfluorooctanyl sulfonate, CAS No. 1763-23-1.

25

28
-23-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 23 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

74.

In animal studies, some long-chain PFASs have been found to cause liver toxicity,

disruption of lipid metabolism and the immune and endocrine systems, adverse neurobehavioral
effects, neonatal toxicity and death, and tumors in multiple organ systems. In the growing body
of epidemiological evidence, some of these effects are supported by significant or suggestive
associations between specific long-chain PFASs and adverse outcomes, including associations
with testicular and kidney cancers, liver malfunction, hypothyroidism, high cholesterol,
ulcerative colitis, lower birth weight and size, obesity, decreased immune response to vaccines,
and reduced hormone levels and delayed puberty.43
75.

The “C8 Science Panel” that was empowered by DuPont to “offer a scientific answer to

the important fundamental question: Is PFOA exposure as experienced by the class [of people
who obtained their drinking water from the Ohio River] capable of causing serious latent
disease?”44 has concluded there is a “probable link” between exposure to the long-chain PFAS
known as PFOA or C8 in drinking water and the serious conditions of pregnancy-induced
hypertension and preeclampsia, high cholesterol, kidney cancer, thyroid disease, testicular
cancer, and ulcerative colitis.45
76.

In 2006, the E.P.A. initiated the voluntary PFOA Stewardship Program, calling for the

complete elimination of PFOA (C8) and long-chain PFASs from emissions to all media and from
manufactured products by 2015, “because of concerns about the impact of PFOA and long-chain
PFASs on human health and the environment, including concerns about their persistence,
presence in the environment and in the blood of the general U.S. population, long half-life in
people, and developmental and other adverse effects in laboratory animals.”46

22
23
43

Id.
Letter dated January 22, 2010 from Laurence F. Janssen, Esq. [lead counsel for DuPont] to Drs.
Fletcher,
Steenland & Savitz [the C8 Science Panel], re: “Jack W. Leach et al., v. E.I. du Pont de
25
Nemours and Company, Circuit Court of Wood County, WV, Civil Action No. 01-C-608.”
45
26 46 See ¶8, supra.
U.S. Envt’l Prot. Agency, “Fact Sheet: 2010/2015 PFOA Stewardship Program,” accessed at
https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/fact-sheet-20102015-pfoa27
stewardship-program#launch.

24

44

28
-24-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 24 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

77.

Candidate List 3,” for which “the occurrence or anticipated occurrence of a contaminant was
likely at levels of concern to human health.”47
78.

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

In 2009, the E.P.A. established provisional health advisories (PHAs) for short-term

exposures to PFOA and PFOS through drinking water, recommending a level of 0.4 ppb (parts
per billion) for PFOA and 0.2 ppb (parts per billion) for PFOS. In 2016, the E.P.A. issued more
stringent lifetime health advisories for long-term exposures to C8 and PFOS, recommending that
the combined level of these two PFASs in drinking water should not exceed 70 parts per trillion
(ppt).48 The similar PFASs found in the Cape Fear River—including Gen X and Nafion®
Byproducts 1 and 2—have consistently been found at levels that well exceed the E.P.A.’s health
advisories for PFOA and PFOS.

12
13

In 2009, the E.P.A. included PFOA/C8 and PFOS on its “Drinking Water Contaminant

b.
79.

“Short Chain” PFASs.

The most common replacements for the long-chain PFASs targeted by E.P.A.’s PFOA

Stewardship Program are shorter-chain PFASs with similar structures, or compounds with
fluorinated segments joined by ether linkages, such as the PFECAs that include Gen X and
Nafion® Byproducts 1 and 2.
80.

These shorter-chain fluorinated alternatives are more likely than not bioaccumulative,

and they are still as environmentally persistent as long-chain substances or may degrade into
equally persistent products.49 Manufacturing applications often requires a higher relative
concentration of shorter-chain PFAS to achieve the same level of desired performance as
provided by the longer-chain PFAS, resulting in higher application concentrations for the
alternatives, and potentially higher released concentrations to the environment.

23
24
25

47

U.S. Envt’l Prot. Agency, “Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 3—Final,” 74 Fed. Reg. 51850
(Oct.
8, 2009).
26 48
U.S. Envt’l Prot. Agency, Lifetime Health Advisories and Health Effects Support Documents for
Perfluorooctanoic Acid and Perfluorooctane Sulfonate, 81 Fed. Reg. 33250 (May 25, 2016).
27 49
Arlene Blum, et al., supra note 39.

28
-25-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 25 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

81.

As with the long-chain PFASs, evidence exists to support the toxicity of PFECAs in

humans and animals, as noted in the March 11, 2009 Consent Order entered on DuPont’s
Premanufacture Notice for P-08-508 and P-08-509.
82.

DuPont has been studying the health effects of the PFECA’s known as Gen X since last

least 1963, when it conducted an acute oral toxicity study in rats to determine the lethal dose for
exposure to Gen X’s ammonium salt. DuPont’s internal data studies have demonstrated an
association between Gen X and various health effects in laboratory animals that are consistent
with the effects of other PFASs, including effects in the liver, kidney, pancreas, testicles, and
immune system.50
83.

The publicly-reported results of Defendants’ studies on the toxicity of Gen X contain

misrepresentations and factual misstatements that tend to understate Gen X’s potential for
toxicity.51 Defendants’ selective and/or misleading release of data on Gen X is consistent with
Defendants’ concealment of similar pertinent health data on C8—for which they received an
administrative penalty from the E.P.A.
84.

Data from DuPont’s animal studies indicates that Gen X is an animal carcinogen in

multiple organ systems in both male and female rats, and that Gen X poses
reproductive/developmental risks, as well as toxicity in the liver, kidneys, the hematological
system, the adrenal glands, the stomach, as well as other adverse effects.52
85.

Specifically, DuPont’s data53 show toxic effects from short term exposures, sub-chronic

exposures, and long-term exposures:

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

50

See TSCA Non-Confidential Business Information submitted to E.P.A. 8(e) Coordinator, USEPA, for
8EHQ-06-16478,
https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2746960/GenX8eFilings.pdf.
51
See Beekam et al. “Evaluation of substances used in the GenX technology by Chemours, Dordrecht,”
RIVM Letter report 2016-0174 (National Institute for Public Health and the Environment Ministry of
Health, Welfare and Sport, The Netherlands 2016); and J.M. Caverly Rae, et al., “Evaluation of chronic
toxicity and carcinogenicity of ammonium 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)-propanoate in
Sprague–Dawley rats,” 2 Toxicology Reports 939 (2015).
52
See data reported in Lisa Craig, “H-28548: Combined Chronic Toxicity/Oncogenicity Study 2-Year
Oral Gavage Study In Rats”– Laboratory Project ID: DuPont-18405-1238” (MPI Research, Inc.,
Mattawan, Michigan 2013) (sponsored By E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company).
53
Id.

28
-26-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 26 of 38

 1
2
3

a.

levels exceeding controls in the brain, liver, adrenal gland, pancreas (two types of pancreatic
cancer), testes, as well as fibrosarcomas, malignant lymphomas, and uterine polyps.

4
5
6
7

b.

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

Gen X exposure to rats and mice resulted in adverse reproductive and

developmental effects, severe liver toxicity and adverse liver impacts from changes to RNA
messaging, that may lead to adverse effects not only in the liver, but in other organs, as well as
cancer occurrence.

8
9

Gen X exposure to rats and mice resulted in numerous different types of cancer at

c.

Gen X exposure to rats and mice resulted in adverse impacts in the adrenal gland,

kidneys, stomach, bile duct, brain, reproductive cycles, the tongue, eyes, and immune system,
and potentially may result in genotoxicity.
86.

The toxicity results from reports of animal studies in fact indicate that Gen X is a

significantly toxic PFAS. Human studies have not been done at this time. However, based on the
available animal studies, Gen X may in fact be as toxic or more toxic to humans than PFOA.
87.

Likely human adverse effects from Gen X exposure could range from reproductive/

developmental adverse effects to adverse liver effects, to human immune system/RNA
messaging disruption adverse impacts, to stomach, ocular, and tongue toxicity, to human cancer.
Human exposure to Gen X in drinking water is continuous, moreover, unlike the exposure in
existing animal studies.
88.

In July 2017, the North Carolina Health and Human Services Department released a

health goal for exposure to Gen X in drinking water of 140 nanograms per liter (parts per trillion
or “ppt”). According to the State, this updated health goal of 140 ppt is expected to be the most
conservative and health protective for non-cancer effects in bottle-fed infants, pregnant women,
lactating women, children and adults. It is based, however, on the available public literature that
consists primarily of DuPont-funded (and misleading) publications as discussed above.
89.

Given what is believed to be the cumulative nature of PFAS exposure, and the fact that

consumers of the public drinking water drawn from the Cape Fear River have already been
exposed to a combination of Defendants’ perfluorinated contaminants (including PFOA/C8, Gen

28
-27-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 27 of 38

 1
2
3

X, and Nafion® Byproducts 1 and 2, and an unknown number of other PFEASs) for the last
thirty-seven years (or more), extreme caution should be taken to completely eliminate any further
PFAS chemicals from entering into Plaintiff’s public water system.

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

e.
90.

Defendants’ Statutory Violations

Defendants violated their ongoing duty under both North Carolina and Federal law to

disclose to the State of North Carolina any known constituents in their discharges that posed a
potential risk to human health, in connection with their NPDES Permit. See, e.g., 15A N.C.A.C.
2H.0105(j)(requiring applicants to disclose “all known toxic components that can be reasonably
expected to be in the discharge, including but not limited to those contained in a priority
pollutant analysis”); 14A N.C.A.C. 2B.0202(64) (defining toxic substances to include “any
substance or combination of substances…which after discharge and upon exposure…has the
potential to cause death, disease, behavioral abnormalities, cancer, genetic mutations,
physiological malfunctions (including malfunctions or suppression in reproduction or growth) or
physical deformities in such organisms or their offspring”); 40 C.F.R. § 122.41(l)(8) (requiring,
as a standard NPDES permit condition, that “[w]here the permittee becomes aware that it failed
to submit any relevant facts in a permit application, or submitted incorrect information in a
permit application . . . it shall promptly submit such facts or information.”); U.S. Envt’l Prot.
Agency, “Revised Policy Statement on Scope of Discharge Authorization and Shield Associated
with NPDES Permits,” available at https://www3.epa.gov/npdes/pubs/owm0131.pdf.
91.

Defendants also violated, and continue to violate, their duty under the NPDES Permit to

take “all reasonable steps to minimize or prevent any discharge . . . in violation of [its] permit
with a reasonable likelihood of adversely affecting human health or the environment,” 40 C.F.R.
§ 122.41(d), as well as their duty under North Carolina groundwater regulations to take action to
terminate and control any discharge of “waste or hazardous substance to the groundwaters of the
State, or in proximity thereto,” mitigate any resulting hazards, and notify State regulators. 15A
N.C.A.C. 2L .0106(b).

27
28
-28-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 28 of 38

 1
2

92.

violate, North Carolina water quality standards for surface water, in that they:

3
4
5

a.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

N.C.A.C. 02B .0208(a); and
b.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

preclude, on a short term and/or long term basis, one or more of the best uses of

the water, including as “a source of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food-processing
purposes” and for “aquatic life propagation and maintenance of biological integrity (including
fishing and fish), wildlife, secondary recreation, [and] agriculture.” See 15A N.C.A.C. 2B
.0216(2) and 15A N.C.A.C. 2B .0216(1) & .0211(1).
93.

Defendants’ ongoing discharges of Gen X and, upon information and belief, other

perfluoroalkyl substances known as PFECAs (perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids) including
Nafion® Byproducts 1 and 2, into groundwater have violated, and continue to violate, North
Carolina groundwater standards in that these discharges are comprised of substances which are
not naturally occurring and for which no standard is specified, but are contaminating
groundwater at or above the practical quantitation limit (PQL), as prohibited by 15A N.C.A.C.
2L .0202(c).

18
19

render the Cape Fear River waters injurious to aquatic life or wildlife, recreational

activities, public health, or impair the waters for one or more of their designated uses, 15A

6
7

Defendants’ ongoing discharges into the Cape Fear River have violated, and continue to

f.
94.

Damages to Plaintiff and Its Public Drinking Water Resources

Plaintiff owns, operates, and maintains a public water distribution system that treats raw

water drawn from the Cape Fear River and distributes it as drinking water to approximately
73,000 residential customers in Brunswick County, as well as more than 2,000 commercial
customers. Plaintiff has a property interest—including upon information and belief a
usufructuary interest—in the water it received from the Cape Fear River. Plaintiff has suffered,
and continues to suffer, damages to its property and to its public drinking water resources as a
direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct as set forth above.
95.

Specifically, the County’s water supply, raw water, water treatment system, and

distribution system are contaminated with PFASs.

28
-29-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 29 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

96.

As a community public water supplier, Plaintiff obtains raw water pumped by the Lower

Cape Fear Water & Sewer Authority from the King’s Bluff intake on the Cape Fear River and
treats it at the Northwest Water Treatment Plant owned and operated by Plaintiff. Under its
contract with LCFWSA, Plaintiff is also responsible for maintaining the LCFWSA facility at the
King’s Bluff intake.
97.

Under G.S. 130A Article 10, Plaintiff is required to receive a permit for its community

public water supply system—identified as EPA SDWIS No. NC0410045—from the State of
North Carolina, Department of Environmental Quality, Division of Water Resources, and must
comply with the rules found in Title 15A, Subchapter 18C of the North Carolina Administrative
Codes, as well as the federal Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 300f, et seq., and the
regulations found in 40 C.F.R. Parts 141 and 142.
98.

As community public water supplier, Plaintiff has spent substantial amounts of money to

ensure a safe and high-quality drinking water supply for the public. Plaintiff’s conventional
water treatment systems are presently incapable of effectively removing the perfluorinated
chemicals Defendants have released—and continue to release—into the Cape Fear River. Given
what is believed to be the cumulative nature of PFAS exposure, and the fact Plaintiffs’ customers
have already been exposed to a combination of Defendants’ perfluorinated contaminants
(including PFOA/C8, Gen X, and Nafion® Byproducts 1 and 2, and an unknown number of
other PFEASs) for decades, extreme caution should be taken to completely prevent any further
PFAS chemicals from entering into Plaintiff’s public water system. Plaintiff will incur
substantial costs to identify, construct, maintain, and operate an appropriate treatment system
that can remove Defendants’ perfluorinated chemicals from its public drinking water for the
foreseeable future.
99.

In 2014 and 2015, water testing established the presence of C8 and PFOS compounds at

the Northwest Water Treatment Plant owned and operated by Plaintiff. In June 2017, additional
testing found Gen X at the King’s Bluff intake in amounts substantially in excess of the state
health goal in raw water (ranging from 629 ppt to 830 ppt). Additional testing at this time also

28
-30-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 30 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

found Gen X in treated water at the Northwest Water Treatment Plant at levels substantially
exceeding the state health goal, ranging from 695 to 910 ppt. As recently as October 12, 2017,
testing has confirmed the continuing presence of C8, Gen X, and other perfluorinated chemicals
in both raw and treated water at Plaintiff’s Northwest Water Treatment Plant.54
100.

X emissions after the public exposure of its long history of Gen X contamination from the
Fayetteville Works site in mid-2017, but has not attempted (or achieved) any decrease in its other
PFAS emissions, which include Nafion® Byproducts 1 and 2 and—upon information and
belief—a number of other unidentified PFASs. Further, the PFASs Defendants released for
several decades are believed to be contained in the sediment of the Cape Fear River, in the
groundwater that feeds the River at the Fayetteville Works site, and in deposits from the air
emanating from the Fayetteville Works site. Thus, PFAS contaminants will continue to enter the
Cape Fear River for decades to come even if Chemours removes these chemicals from its waste
stream. Particularly in view of Defendants’ long history of deceiving regulators and the public
about emissions both from the Fayetteville Works site and from their other facilities in the
United States, Plaintiff cannot rely upon Chemours to protect the quality of the public drinking
water Plaintiff supplies, but must investigate and develop an effective method of removing the
continuing PFAS contamination from the raw water Plaintiff obtains from the Cape Fear River
and delivers to the public. By this action, Plaintiff seeks the costs to design, operate and
maintain an adequate filtration system that will completely remove all PFAS chemicals from its
public water supply.
V.

25

CAUSES OF ACTION
COUNT I
Public Nuisance

23
24

Upon information and belief, Chemours has taken undisclosed steps to decrease its Gen

101.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

forth here, and further alleges as follows.

26
27

54

http://www.brunswickcountync.gov/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/BCPU-17-15909-10-12-17.pdf

28
-31-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 31 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

102.

Defendants’ operation of the Fayetteville Works facility, and their discharges, emissions,

and releases of perfluoroalkyl substances including, but not limited to, PFOA (“C8”), Gen X,
Nafion® Byproducts 1 and 2, and other perfluoroalkyl substances known as PFECAs
(perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids), create a public nuisance that unreasonably endangers the
health of thousands of North Carolina residents served by Plaintiff’s public water system.
103.

The condition created by Defendants affects a substantial number of people who use the

Cape Fear River as a drinking water supply and interferes with the rights of the public at large to
clean and safe drinking water.
104.

An ordinary person would be reasonably annoyed or disturbed by the presence of toxic

perfluoroalkyl substances including, but not limited to, PFOA (“C8”), Gen X, Nafion®
Byproducts 1 and 2, and other perfluoroalkyl substances known as PFECAs (perfluoroalkyl ether
carboxylic acids), that endanger the health of animals and humans and degrades water quality.
105.

The seriousness of the environmental and human health risk Defendants have created far

outweighs any social utility of Defendants’ conduct in manufacturing products using
perfluoroalkyl substances including, but not limited to, PFOA (“C8”), Gen X, Nafion®
Byproducts 1 and 2, and other perfluoroalkyl substances known as PFECAs (perfluoroalkyl ether
carboxylic acids), and concealing the dangers posed to human health and the environment.
106.

Continuing harm caused by Defendants includes not only their ongoing releases of Gen

X, Nafion® Byproducts 1 and 2, and other perfluoroalkyl substances known as PFECAs
(perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids), but also the continued propagation of Defendants’
historical releases of perfluoroalkyl substances, including PFOA (“C8”), through migration in
groundwater, leaching from soil, and recirculation from sediments.
107.

Defendants knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known that its

manufacturing operations at the Fayetteville Works site were causing the type of contamination
now found in the Cape Fear River. Defendants knew of the bioaccumulative, persistent
properties of PFASs and the inability of conventional water treatment systems to remove them.
Defendants knew that their perfluoroalkyl substances including, but not limited to, PFOA

28
-32-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 32 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

(“C8”), Gen X, Nafion® Byproducts 1 and 2, and other perfluoroalkyl substances known as
PFECAs (perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids), would contaminate the water supply in the Cape
Fear River. In addition, Defendants knew that certain perfluoroalkyl substances including PFOA
(“C8”) are associated with serious toxic effects and cancers in humans exposed through drinking
water, and that other similar PFECAs (perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids), including Gen X,
are associated with serious toxic effects in animals, have not been studied in humans, and present
a probable risk to human health. As a result, it was foreseeable to Defendants that humans may
be exposed to perfluoroalkyl substances including, but not limited to, PFOA (“C8”), Gen X,
Nafion® Byproducts 1 and 2, and other perfluoroalkyl substances known as PFECAs
(perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids), by drinking treated drinking water drawn from the Cape
Fear River. Defendants thus knew, or should have known, that their contamination would
seriously and unreasonably interfere with the ordinary comfort, use, and enjoyment of the Cape
Fear River.
108.

The condition created by Defendants adversely affects the quality of the raw water drawn

from the Cape Fear River and causes inconvenience and annoyance to Plaintiff, who must incur
costs in order to ensure the safety of the public drinking water it supplies.
109.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ creation of this public nuisance, Plaintiff

has suffered—and will continue to suffer—harm that is different from the type of harm suffered
by the general public, and Plaintiff will incur substantial costs to remove Defendants’
contamination from the drinking water it distributes.
110.

Defendants’ conduct was a substantial factor in causing the harm to Plaintiff. The harm to

Plaintiff and the citizens served by its public water system will continue until an injunction is
issued to abate the nuisance Defendants have created.
111.

Plaintiff seeks all legal and equitable relief as allowed by law, including inter alia actual

damages in an amount to be proven at trial, an injunction to abate the nuisance, all costs and
expenses of suit and pre- and post-judgment interest.

27
28
-33-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 33 of 38

 COUNT II
Private Nuisance

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

112.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

forth here, and further alleges as follows.
113.

Defendants’ operation of the Fayetteville Works facility, and their discharges, emissions,

and releases of perfluoroalkyl substances including, but not limited to, PFOA (“C8”), Gen X,
Nafion® Byproducts 1 and 2, and other perfluoroalkyl substances known as PFECAs
(perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids), constitute an unreasonable use of Defendants’ land which
as caused substantial and unreasonable interference with Plaintiff’s use and enjoyment of its
property.
114.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct that created a nuisance, Plaintiff

has incurred injuries, damage, and harm as set forth above. Defendants are liable for damages in
an amount to be proven at trial.
115.

The nuisance Defendants have created is ongoing and the harm to Plaintiff will continue

until an injunction is issued to abate it.
116.

Plaintiff seeks all legal and equitable relief as allowed by law, including inter alia actual

damages in an amount to be proven at trial, an injunction to abate the nuisance, all costs and
expenses of suit and pre- and post-judgment interest.

18
19
20 117.

COUNT III
Trespass to Real Property
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

21 forth here, and further alleges as follows.
22 118.

Defendants’ operation of the Fayetteville Works facility, and their discharges, emissions,

23 and releases of perfluoroalkyl substances including, but not limited to, PFOA (“C8”), Gen X,
24 Nafion® Byproducts 1 and 2, and other perfluoroalkyl substances known as PFECAs
25 (perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids), have resulted in an unauthorized entry by Defendants
26 upon real property owned by Plaintiff.
27
28
-34-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 34 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5

119.

Defendants’ unauthorized entry upon Plaintiff’s property has resulted in substantial

injury, damage, and harm to Plaintiff and constitutes a trespass to real property.
120.

Plaintiff seeks all legal and equitable relief as allowed by law, including inter alia actual

damages in an amount to be proven at trial, an injunction to prevent further trespasses, and all
costs and expenses of suit and pre- and post-judgment interest.

6
COUNT III
Trespass to Chattels

7
8 121.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

9 forth here, and further alleges as follows.
10 122.

Defendants’ operation of the Fayetteville Works facility, and their discharges, emissions,

11 and releases of perfluoroalkyl substances including, but not limited to, PFOA (“C8”), Gen X,
12 Nafion® Byproducts 1 and 2, and other perfluoroalkyl substances known as PFECAs
13 (perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids), have resulted in an unauthorized interference with
14 Plaintiff’s possession and use of its water and water system.
15 123.

Defendants’ unauthorized interference has resulted in substantial injury, damage, and

16 harm to Plaintiff and constitutes a trespass to chattels.
17 124.

Plaintiff seeks all legal and equitable relief as allowed by law, including inter alia actual

18 damages in an amount to be proven at trial, an injunction to prevent further trespasses, and all
19 costs and expenses of suit and pre- and post-judgment interest.
20

COUNT IV
Negligence Per Se

21
22
23
24
25
26
27

125.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

forth here, and further alleges as follows.
126.

Defendants’ conduct violates federal and state public safety statutes that are intended to

protect human health and the environment, as set forth above.
127.

Plaintiff is within the class of persons those statutes are intended to protect, and its

injuries are of the nature contemplated by the statutes.

28
-35-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 35 of 38

 1
2
3
4

128.

Defendants’ negligence per se directly and proximately caused Plaintiff injury, damage,

and harm as set forth above.
129.

Plaintiff seeks actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, all costs and expenses

of suit and pre- and post-judgment interest.

5
COUNT V
Negligence

6
7 130.

Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

8 forth here, and further alleges as follows.
9 131.

Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty of reasonable care in in the manufacture, management,

10 use, storage, and handling of their perfluoroalkyl substances including, but not limited to, PFOA
11 (“C8”), Gen X, Nafion® Byproducts 1 and 2, and other perfluoroalkyl substances known as
12 PFECAs (perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids), and in the discharge and remediation of these
13 substances in and around the Fayetteville Works facility.
14 132.

Defendants had a duty, in particular, to: (1) identify the potentially harmful chemical

15 byproducts of their operations that were discharged into the air, soil, groundwater, and surface
16 water; (2) investigate and understand the characteristics of the chemical byproducts of their
17 operations before releasing those byproducts into the environment; (3) conduct their operations
18 in a manner that would not unreasonably endanger human health and the environment; (4)
19 investigate and remediate environmental releases that they knew posed a potential risk to human
20 health and the environment; and (5) warn Plaintiff of environmental releases that created a
21 probable risk to human health in the public drinking water supply drawn from the Cape Fear
22 River, due to the persistence and toxicity of these substances and the fact that they are not
23 removed through conventional water treatment processes.
24 133.

Defendants failed to exercise ordinary and reasonable care in the manufacture,

25 management, use, storage, and handling of their perfluoroalkyl substances including, but not
26 limited to, PFOA (“C8”), Gen X, Nafion® Byproducts 1 and 2, and other perfluoroalkyl
27
28
-36-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 36 of 38

 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11

substances known as PFECAs (perfluoroalkyl ether carboxylic acids), and in the discharge and
remediation of these substances.
134.

Defendants’ failure to exercise ordinary and reasonable care has directly and proximately

caused the groundwater, surface water, soil, and river sediment in and around the Fayetteville
Works facility to become contaminated with Defendants’ persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic
perfluoroalkyl substances.
135.

Defendants’ failure to exercise ordinary and reasonable care has directly and proximately

caused Plaintiff to suffer injury, damage, and harm as set forth above.
136.

Plaintiff seeks all legal and equitable relief as allowed by law, including inter alia actual

damages in an amount to be proven at trial, an injunction to prevent further trespasses, and all
costs and expenses of suit and pre- and post-judgment interest.

12
13
14 137.

COUNT VI
Punitive Damages
Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set

15 forth here, and further alleges as follows.
16 138.

Defendants’ conduct in secretly releasing their persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic

17 perfluorinated chemicals into the Cape Fear River and contaminating the drinking water source
18 for thousands of North Carolinians, all the while misleading state and Federal regulators and the
19 public, was willful and wanton, in that Defendants’ acted with a conscious disregard for and
20 indifference to the rights and safety of others, which Defendants knew or should reasonably have
21 known was reasonably likely to result in injury, damage or harm.
22 139.

Defendants’ willful and wanton conduct caused Plaintiff to suffer injury, damages, and

23 harm as set forth above, for which Plaintiff seeks punitive damages as allowed by law.
24
25
26
27
28
-37-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 37 of 38

 1

VI.

PRAYER

2
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiff respectfully prays that this Court grant the following relief:
3
4

1.

Entry of judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendants for compensatory and punitive

5 damages, including, but not limited to, costs to design, operate and maintain an adequate
6 filtration system that will completely remove all PFAS chemicals from its public water supply;
7
2.

Entry of such injunctive relief as necessary to abate the nuisance caused by Defendants

8
and to prevent continuing injury and damages to Plaintiff; and
9
3.

For such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

10
11

TRIAL BY JURY IS DEMANDED PURSUANT TO FEDERAL RULE OF CIVIL

12 PROCEDURE 38.

Respectfully Submitted,

13
14 Dated this 31st day of October 2017.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27

/s/ J. Harold Seagle
J. Harold Seagle
SEAGLE LAW
P.O. Box 15307
Asheville, N.C. 28813
Telephone: 828-774-5711
haroldseagle@charter.net
North Carolina Bar No. 8017
Scott Summy
BARON & BUDD, P.C.
3102 Oak Lawn Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, Texas 75219-4281
Telephone: (214) 521-3605
ssummy@baronbudd.com
North Carolina Bar No. 27171
Cary McDougal (pending Pro Hac Vice)
(Texas State Bar No. 13569600)
Stephen Johnston (pending Pro Hac Vice)
(Texas State Bar No. 00796839)
Brett D. Land (pending Pro Hac Vice)
(Texas State Bar No. 24092664)
Attorneys for Plaintiff

28
-38-

Case 7:17-cv-00209-BO Document 1 Filed 10/31/17 Page 38 of 38