Albert I. Telsey, Esq. New Jersey Attorney Catherine Pastrikos Kelly, Esq. New Jersey Attorney ID 1 79042016 MEYNER AND LANDIS LLP One Gateway Center Suite 2500 Newark, New Jersey 07102 P: 973-624-2800 F: 973-624-0356 Attorneys for Plainti?f Carneys Point Township SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY LAW DIVISION - SALEM COUNTY DOCKET NO.: TOWNSHIP OF CARNEYS POINT, PLAINTIFF, Civil Action V. VERIFIED COMPLAINT NEW JERSEY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, DEFENDANT. Plaintiff Cameys Point Township (?Carneys Point? or ?Township?) ?les this Complaint against the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection upon personal knowledge about its own actions and upon information and belief as to all other matters as follows: I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT l. Cameys Point seeks an order approving the Public Participations Plan attached as Attachment A that will allow the Township and its residents their lawful right to participate in (1) the remediation of the 1,455-acre Chambers Works site located in Pennsville and Cameys Point Townships (?Chambers Works? or ?Site?) and (2) the establishment of a properly calculated remediation funding source for the Site that has been reviewed and approved by the Township and not secretly negotiated without the Township?s participation. See Attachment (Site map). 2. The Site Remediation Reform Act allows the Township to participate in the remediation of the Site because E. I. DuPont De Nemours and Co. (?DuPont?) and The Chemours Company FC, LLC (?Chemours?) have proven themselves to be unreliable at remediating the Site in a timely and competent manner. They have failed to meet a key statutory remediation deadline and have been cited by the DEP for numerous remediation Violations. As a consequence, the SRRA deems them to be unreliable and requires that they be subject to a form of strict oversight by DEP and Carneys Point known as ?direct oversight.? 3. Cameys Point is threatened by the non-performance of unreliable parties like DuPont and Chemours because their failure to remediate the Site and post an RFS puts the health, safety and welfare of the community in jeopardy, especially since DuPont is abandoning the Site and Chemours may soon follow. Direct oversight entitles the Township to hands-on participation in the remediation of the Site and the posting of an adequate RFS through a Public Participation Plan that allows the Township to review and approve plans and reports and attend meetings with regulators. This type of participation ensures the Township that DuPont and Chemours will remediate the onsite and offsite impacts of their pollution in a manner that will be protective of the community and in the event they fail to do so DEP and the Township can access the suf?ciently funded RFS to complete the remediation work. 4. The Township is ready, willing and able to participate and has hired an enviromnental consulting ?rm, a Licensed Site Remediation Professional and a expert to assist the Township in its participation efforts. A expert is a consultant quali?ed to use software approved by DEP to calculate the RF for a large cleanup site like Chambers Works. 5. Cameys Point?s expert spent six months reviewing hundreds of thousands of documents related to the investigation of the Site prepared over the past thirty years. He concluded that over 100M pounds of hazardous waste had been discharged at the Site; the contamination has travelled and impacted drinking water wells as far as 2-miles from the Site (See Attachment only 8% of the contamination has been remediated over the past 30 years; it will take hundreds of years to complete the work at the slow rate DuPont and Chemours are working and the RFS required to address the onsite and offsite pollution is $1.126 Billion (net present value). While a large sum this is hardly the only cleanup in New Jersey and elsewhere. 6. Cameys Point provided the above information to the DEP over a year ago and demanded its right pursuant to the SRRA to participate at the Site. DEP ignored the demand. Carneys Point then submitted a Petition signed by over 1,000 residents demanding participation. DEP ignored it. Cameys Point then had its legislators intervene. DEP then responded and held a meeting with the Cameys Point Mayor, councilmen and professionals to tell them that Cameys Point and its residents could not participate at the Site. Prior to ?ling this suit the Mayor met with DEP representatives again, presented them with the Public Participation Plan (Attachment A) and asked DEP to sign and approve it. DEP refused. 7. The Township is outraged by conduct because it violates the SRRA and is arbitrary and capricious. In addition, in an identical situation involving a DuPont/Chemours site in Pompton Lakes DEP gave the Borough of Pompton Lakes the opportunity to review and approve the remediation plan and RF for that site without obstruction. DEP is denying Cameys Point those same rights here. 8. To make matters worse Carneys Point has recently discovered that DEP is engaged in secret negotiations with DuPont and Chemours to let them leave the 100M pounds of hazardous waste onsite; to fund the Site for only the next 30?years; and to post only as an RFS as a credit. That is only 4% of the amount necessary to clean up the Site. Direct oversight regulations require cash not a credit to allow DEP and the community access to funds to complete the work if DuPont and Chemours fail to do it. In addition to excluding Carneys Point from participating in the remediation of the Site, which violates the SRRA, all of these elements of the secret plan also violate the SRRA. Carneys Point has demanded that DEP provide information about these secret negotiations and DEP has refused. 9. Presently, the RFS for Chambers Works is Chemours may soon abandon the Site and leave it as an unfunded contaminated relic of the past that will pollute Carneys Point for generations to come. DEP has told Carneys Point to just let DEP do its job. 10. The problem is DEP is not doing its job. DEP is not allowing the Township to participate as permitted by law and is about to approve a remediation plan and RFS for the Site that does not comply with its own regulations and that will irreparany harm the Township. 1 1. DEP is Violating Governor Murphy?s ?Environmental Justice? Executive Order No. 23 signed April 20, 2018, which requires DEP to teach other state agencies how to protect low income communities from the ravages of pollution. How can DEP teach other agencies the lesson of environmental justice when DEP is promoting environmental injustice in Salem County, the poorest county in the State, for the spectacular bene?t of multi-billion dollar international corporate polluters? DEP has not proven itself to be a worthy teacher of environmental justice principles here. As such Carneys Point must be permitted to protect itself as the SRRA provides. 12. This court can correct DEPs failure to comply With the SRRA pursuant to a writ of mandamus. The modern way of handling mandamus is through a statutory action pursuant the Environmental Rights Act and a common law action in lieu of prerogative writ. Carneys Point brings both claims for relief against DEP as well as a claim for temporary restraints pursuant to R. 4:52-1. Carneys Point requests that the court issue an Order to Show Cause to compel DEP to appear in court and explain why the Public Participation Plan (Attachment A) should not be ordered and to restrain DEP from approving a remediation plan and RFS for the Site without the participation and consent of Carneys Point. 11. PARTIES 13. Plaintiff Carneys Point Township is a political subdivision of the State of New Jersey with its of?ces at 303 Harding Highway, Carneys Point, Salem County, New Jersey. 14. Defendant DEP is an agency of the State of New Jersey located at 401 E. State St., Trenton, New Jersey. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 15. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court because Defendants are a state agency with jurisdiction over this matter and this Site. Moreover Plaintiff 3 causes of action arise from transactions and occurrences that took place in Salem County. IV. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS A. DEP Should Have Placed DuPont And Chemours Under Direct Oversight. 16. The SRRA provides that if a responsible party has been subject to two enforcement actions related to the remediation of the site in a 5-year period and/or failed to meet the May 7, 2014 statutory deadline to complete the remedial investigation that party is deemed ?unreliable? and is subject to direct oversight by DEP. 17. DuPont was the subject of two signi?cant enforcement actions in 2011 involving 220 spills of hazardous waste onsite and the mismanagement of its wastewater treatment plant designed to remediate the Site resulting in approximately $1 million in penalties. That misconduct subjected DuPont to direct oversight by DEP. 18. DuPont and Chemours also failed to investigate the full horizontal and vertical extent of the pollution problem at and emanating from the Site by the SRRA deadline of May 7, 2014 because they have been moving much too slowly over the past 30-years they have been investigating the Site. That misconduct also subjected DuPont and Chemours to direct oversight by DEP. 19. Direct oversight requires DEP to determine the remediation plan for the Site; con?rm the RF is calculated according to DEP requirements and is posted in cash as a remediation trust fund; and to make sure the local community participates in the remediation and RFS process through a Public Participation Plan. The RF must be calculated using or another method accepted by DEP. 20. Carneys Point and its professionals are entitled by the SRRA to participate in the remediation of the Site as a co-equal stakeholder with DEP and the responsible parties to assure that the Site is remediated as required by law, a suf?cient RFS is posted in form and amount as required by the law and the health, safety and welfare of the community is protected as required by law. 21. DuPont and Chemours had to submit a Public Participation Plan in 2011 and 2014 when the direct oversight triggers occurred and each failed to do so. DEP did not compel them to do so even though DEP has determined that, ?the statute leaves no further room for negotiating another result [other than direct oversight]. In such a case, the person responsible for conducting the remediation has already demonstrated an inability to remediate according to SRRA and the ARRCS rules.? B. As A Result Of Failure To Act Pursuant To New Jersey Law, Carneys Point Took Action To Protect Itself. 22. In 2016, Cameys Point hired an independent certi?ed consultant to review 30-years of reports submitted by DuPont and Chemours to DEP and the US. Environmental Protection Agency regarding the Site. The consultant spent 6- months inputting Site data for all areas of environmental concern onsite and offsite. He concluded that over 100 million pounds of hazardous waste had been discharged at the Site; the contamination has travelled and impacted drinking water wells as far as 2-mi1es from the Site; only 8% of the contamination has been remediated over the past 30 years; and it will take hundreds of years to complete the work at the slow rate DuPont and Chemours are working. 23. He also calculated that it would cost $1.7 Billion to remediate the contamination onsite and offsite. 24. Cameys Point hired an economist to reduce the $1.7 Billion remediation total to net present value, which was calculated to be $1.126 Billion. 25. While a large sum, Chambers Works is hardly the only billion-dollar cleanup site in New Jersey or the country. For example, the Lower Passaic River cleanup in Newark is more than 26. The reason this number is so high is because, from its beginnings in the 18905 until the early 1970s, DuPont operated a chemical manufacturing facility at the Site with no meaningful environmental controls on its operations. Millions of gallons of contaminated wastewater from chemical production buildings located all over the Site ?owed into unlined earthen ditches to settling basins and then to the Delaware River. Huge quantities of water obtained from the Salem Canal and groundwater wells were used in production processes. Contaminated process water was discharged from hundreds of production buildings into miles of unlined earthen ditches that discharged directly to the Salem Canal, the Delaware River or to large unlined settling basins. These earthen ditches and unlined basins provided a direct pathway for hazardous waste to enter the soil and groundwater. 27. In December 2016 (later amended), Cameys Point sued DuPont and Chemours pursuant to the ERA because: DuPont and Chemours failed to post an RFS for the Site and failed to solicit a Public Participation Plan from Cameys Point in 2011 and 2014 as required by the SRRA when it triggered direct oversight; and 03) DuPont failed to post an RFS in 2015 as required by the blew Jersey Industrial Site Recovery Act when it transferred the Site to Chemours in 2015, among other things. 28. In January 2017, Cameys Point wrote to the DEP Commissioner to inform him about its lawsuit against DuPont and its ?ndings and demanded participation fearing the Site might become a huge unfunded abandoned facility and a danger to the community. The DEP Commissioner never responded to Cameys Point. 29. The SRRA and its regulations provide the public with the opportunity to petition DEP to demand participation if it is not provided. 30. In March 2017, the Township submitted a petition to DEP demanding public participation. Although only 25 signatures are required by New Jersey law to initiate a public participation plan, more than 1,000 concerned residents of Cameys Point signed the Township?s petition. DEP, however, refused to respond to the petition until the Township?s legislative representatives intervened. DEP then set a meeting for May 12, 2017. 31. Prior to the meeting, Chemours sent a letter to DEP admitting it did not have a Public Participation Plan for the Site but would work with DEP to prepare one. 32. On May 12, 2017, DEP and EPA representatives held a meeting with Township representatives, including the Township?s Mayor, councilmen, attorneys, consultant, LSRP and environmental consultant. At the meeting, Township representatives told DEP that the Township wanted: a seat at the table to participate in the remediation at the Site and the RFS process; the reaction to the calculation of for the con?rmation that DEP is requiring DuPont and Chemours to post an RF and prepare a Public Participation Plan; and con?rmation that DEP will post its response to the Township?s petition on the DEP website as required by regulation. DEP refused all these requests and told the Township to write a letter to DEP whenever they wanted to know something and someone would get back to them. 33. In June 2017 Cameys Point sent a letter to DEP asking speci?c questions and requesting a public participation plan. DEP responded that Cameys Point should prepare one for review. When Cameys Point submitted its Public Participation Plan (Attachment A) DEP refused to accept it. 34. At an identical but smaller DuPont/Chemours site in Pompton Lakes the Borough of Pompton Lakes asked for the right to participate by reviewing the remediation plan and RFS for that site and the DEP Commissioner personally made sure the remediation plan and RFS for the Pompton Lakes site was accepted by DEP only if the Borough approved them, which the Borough eventually did. DEP, however, has denied the same rights to Carneys Point for the much larger DuPont/Chemours Chambers Works Site. C. DEP, DuPont And Chemours Engage In Secret NegotiatiOns To Develop A Remediation Plan For The Site. 35. Unbeknownst to Carneys Point, at the time of the May 12, 2017 meeting, DEP was already in secret negotiations with DuPont and Chemours to have them develop a remediation plan for the Site and to calculate an RFS. DEP did not tell Carneys Point about these secret discussions at the meeting on May 12, 2017, or thereafter. Carneys Point discovered these secret negotiations were occurring on its own much later. 36. Speci?cally, in the secret negotiations, DEP, DuPont and Chemours prepared a term?sheet on how to describe current Site conditions and how to prepare a workplan for remediating the Site (?Secret Remediation Plan?). Using that term sheet, Chemours? counsel then commissioned AECOM, DuPont and Chemours? long time consultant on the Site, to prepare the Secret Remediation Plan. The Secret Remediation Plan provided that: DuPont and Chemours would leave the 100 million pounds of hazardous waste where it is because they do not want to clean it up; they will spend only 30 years in their casual effort to remediate the Site rather than the hundreds of years calculated by and they will post the RFS as some kind of credit letter instead of cash, as required by the SRRA. 37. Although AECOM invented the software, AECOM did not calculate the RFS for DuPont and Chemours during the secret negotiations. Instead, DEP let Chemours calculate the RFS itself, which violated DEP regulations. Chemours told DEP that based on its own internal calculations, the RF for the Site was going to be posted as a credit letter (?Secret RFS Proposal?). This is 4% of the amount required for the RFS. 38. Chemours is now pushing DEP to quickly accept the Secret Remediation Plan and Secret RFS Proposal so DEP, DuPont and Chemours can enter into an Administrative Consent 10 Order that might short circuit Carneys Point?s lawsuit demanding DuPont and Chemours post an accurate RFS in cash as calculated by and as required by the SRRA. 39. When Carneys Point discovered these secret negotiations were happening the Township demanded DEP provide it with documents related to the secret plan. DEP provided the Township with redacted correspondence, emails and memos with all the text blacked out. 40. The Township again requested documents about what was going on. DEP refused to provide them claiming this was all part of a settlement with DuPont and Chemours and that DEP was entitled to deny the Township its participation rights. 41. In December 2017, the Township told DEP Via letter that, pursuant to New Jersey law, DEP could not enter into an ACO with DuPont and Chemours without the Township?s involvement and consent. DEP ignored the Township?s letter. 42. In March 2018, Carneys Point wrote to the DEP Commissioner demanding that the Commissioner not accept the Chemours RF for the Site and that DEP permit the Township to participate as it did in the Borough of Pompton Lakes. DEP did not respond to the letter. 43. In March 2018, Carneys Point sent another letter to DEP requesting that DEP set aside each month?s correspondence and reports on the Chambers Works remediation so a Township representative could drive up from Salem County and review the documents at DEP in Trenton. DEP denied the request. 44. In March 2018, DuPont announced it was ceasing operations at most of its leasehold locations at Chambers Works. This cessation might lead to the ultimate abandonment of the Site. 45. In April 2018, the Mayor asked DEP one last time to allow the Township to participate. Mark Pedersen from DEP Visited Mayor Kenneth Brown and told him Carneys Point 11 would not be allowed to participate, Carneys Point should just try to keep its residents calm and to stop writing letters to the DEP. 46. Having exhausted its administrative remedies Carneys Point ?les this action. V. CLAIMS COUNT 1 (Environmental Rights Act - SRRA) 47. Carneys Point incorporates by reference each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 48. The Environmental Rights Act permits a municipality to enforce New Jersey environmental laws, such as the SRRA, when DEP is unwilling or unable to do so and the violation is of a continuous nature. 49. failure to permit the Township to participate in the remediation/RPS process at Chambers Works through a Public Participation Plan is a Violation of the SRRA and is continuous. 50. Section 4.b of the ERA provides that: any person may commence a civil action in any court of competent jurisdiction for declaratory and equitable relief against any other person for the protection of the environment, or the interest of the public therein, from pollution, impairment or destruction.? 51. The ERA further provides that no conduct shall be permitted if a feasible and prudent alternative exists consistent with public health, safety and welfare. 52. The ERA further provides that a court ?may grant temporary and permanent equitable relief, including the imposition of such conditions as may be necessary to protect the environment, or the interest of the public therein, from pollution, impairment or destruction.? 12 53. Cameys Point is entitled to bring an ERA action to enforce its right to a Public Participation Plan because DEP has failed to act and because the Plan is necessary for the public welfare. 54. As a political subdivision of the state the ERA does not require Cameys Point to provide DEP or others with a 30-day notice letter in advance of suit. 55. DuPont and Chemours are under direct oversight, because DuPont was the subject of two remediation enforcement actions and DuPont and Chemours? failed to meet the May 7, 2014 SRRA deadline to determine the full scope of the pollution problem at and emanating from the Site. As a result of being under direct oversight DuPont and Chemours proved themselves to be unreliable remediation parties and the SRRA entitled Cameys Point to participate in the remediation?lF process at the Site through a Public Participation Plan. 56. The Public Participation Plan (Attachment A) sought by Carneys Point herein is a basic plan. The plan provides that DEP will respond to the Township?s calculation; DEP will provide the Township with the competing remediation plans and RF calculations prepared by DuPont and Chemours so Cameys Point can provide DEP with its comments; DEP will determine the remediation plan and RF for the Site in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and guidance documents with the consent of Cameys Point (similar to the consent right DEP provided the Borough of Pompton Lakes); Cameys Point?s representatives can attend the regular oversight meetings between DEP, EPA, DuPont and Chemours and the court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter. 57. This plan is a feasible and prudent alternative to the attempt to prevent the Township from participating, which violated the SRRA, is consistent with New Jersey remediation laws and regulations, and protects the public health, safety and welfare by allowing Cameys Point 13 to participate in the free ?ow of ideas, concerns and solutions related to the Site, as permitted by the SRRA. Carneys Point?s participation will also assist the community protect the environment and the interest of the public from pollution. 58. Accordingly, Cameys Point respectfully requests that the Court order the Public Participation Plan (Attachment A). COUNT 2 (Action in Lieu of Prerogative Writ) 59. Cameys Point incorporates by reference each and every allegation in the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. 60. An action in lieu of prerogative writ ordering the Public Participation Plan is appropriate for the following reasons: 61. The administrative action of providing the Township with such a Plan pursuant to the SRRA is mandatory and not discretionary. The SRRA requires that the Township ?shall? be entitled to the Plan. 62. A substantial public interest is being affected. Carneys Point is facing the abandonment of a huge manufacturing facility that has polluted the Township as far as 2-miles from the Site. The Township is seeking its statutory right to participate in the remediation of the Site to make sure it gets cleaned up so the community is protected. Obtaining a Public Participation Plan for that purpose is within the public interest. 63. There is a substantial likelihood that Cameys Point?s interests will be adversely affected if the Township is not provided with a Public Participation Plan. DEP may accept for the RFS as a credit instead of posted cash when the Township?s calculation concluded the RFS is $1 . 126B. That is only of the amount needed to be posted. If the Court does not grant the Township an opportunity to participate in the Site remediation/RFS process at 14 Chambers Works there is a substantial likelihood will not cover the cost of remediation leaving the Site fallow and contaminated for generations, which will adversely impact Cameys Point. 64. There is no adequate remedy at law. The Township is seeking participation in the remediation/RF process at Chambers Works. The Township is not seeking money for itself. 65. The administrative requirement for the Plan is an obligation that continues daily until compliance is achieved so the 45-day rule pertaining to action in lieu of a prerogative writ does not apply. Each day of failure to permit a Public Participation Plan is a new start to calculating the 45 -day timeframe. 66. Cameys Point has exhausted its administrative remedies. Cameys Point has sought DEP intervention numerous times, including a formal petition, Without obtaining relief. The Township is not entitled to appeal the decision of the DEP to deny it a Public Participation Plan. The Township cannot take an appeal directly to the Appellate Division. Thus, the Township has exhausted its administrative remedies. 67. Accordingly, Carneys Point respectfully requests that the Court order the Public Participation Plan (Attachment A). COUNT 3 (Preliminary Injunction) 61. Cameys Point incorporates by reference each and every allegation listed above as if fully set forth herein. 62. New Jersey Court Rule 4:52-1 allows temporary restraints when there is clear and convincing evidence that (1) plaintiff asserts a settled legal right; (2) the material facts are uncontroverted with a preliminary showing of a reasonable probability of success on the merits; 15 (3) an injunction is necessary to prevent irreparable harm; and (4) plaintiff harm weighs more heavily than the burden to defendant. 63. Cameys Point claims injunctive relief; that is, the right to participate in the remediation plan/RF process at Chambers Works with a Public Participation Plan as permitted by the SRRA. This is a settled legal right as set forth in Count 1 (ERA action) and Count 2 (action in lieu of prerogative writ). 64. The facts provided herein are uncontroverted and entitle Cameys Point to the Public Participation Plan it seeks. 65. Cameys Point faces irreparable harm if the DEP approves the current remediation plan and credit RF for the Chambers Works site without the participation of the Township. 66. The Site requires over in an RF S. It presently has an RFS of 67. DEP, DuPont and Chemours are secretly negotiating an RFS of that can be posted as a credit instead of cash as required by the SRRA. That is only 4% of the amount that must be posted. 68. DuPont is preparing to shut down most of its operations and Chemours may soon abandon the Site as a contaminated eyesore that will ruin the health, safety and welfare of the community for generations to come. This is a catastrophe in the making. Cameys Point must be given its voice through a Public Participation Plan to raise objections during the course of the DEP administrative proceedings occurring here as is permitted by the SRRA. 69. If a state agency acts arbitrarily and capriciously to deny the statutory rights of a community, such Cameys Point?s right to participate in the remediation/RF process underway by unreliable remediating parties such as DuPont and Chemours, then that conduct, by de?nition, creates irreparable harm to the community that is entitled to be enjoined. DEP has denied Cameys l6 Point its rights for a Public Participation Plan as permitted by the SRRA and documents related to the secret plans for the remediation and RFS for the Site as required by the Administrative Requirements for the Remediation of Contaminated Sites regulations. 70. Imposing due process Where it is required by law can never harm any party including DEP so there is no harm to DEP if the court imposes temporary restraints. Besides, this Site has been without an RF since 2011, when DuPont was hit with two penalty actions; so waiting a While longer for the Township to comment on and approve an appropriate remediation plan/RF for the Site will not harm DEP. 71. Even if the court were to consider one of these factors to be less than clearly and convincingly established the court can give deference to a public entity and grant temporary restraints when the municipality is seeking to maintain the status quo pending a full hearing, as is the case here. 72. Accordingly, Carneys Point respectfully requests that the Court temporarily restrain DEP from approving a remediation plan and RFS for the Site without the consent of Carneys Point as required by the SRRA. VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREF ORE, for all of the foregoing reasons, Carneys Point respectfully requests that the Court issue an Order to Show Cause compelling DEP to appear in Court and explain why the Court should not issue judgment as follows: 1. Ordering the Public Participation Plan attached hereto as Attachment 2. Temporarily restraining DEP from approving a remediation plan and RF for the Site pending approval by Carneys Point of the remediation plan and l7 3. Ordering DEP to pay Carneys Point its attomey?s fees and expenses as permitted by the and 4. Such other relief as the court deems just and proper. Dated: May 9, 2018 By: Respectfully submitted, ME AND LANDIS LLP Albert 1. Telsey Catherine Pastrikos Kelly (ID 1 79042016) atelsey@mevner.com ckelly@mevner.com One Gateway Center, Suite 2500 Newark, New Jersey 07102 P: 973.602.3439 F: 973.624.0356 Attorneys for Plaintiff Carneys Point Township 18 JERSEY COUNTY OF SALEM SS BROWN, being duly swam upon his oath says: I am Maer of Cameys Point Township. I am authhrized to make this veri?ca?m. Icertify thafi: i have persona?y examined and am familiar with the infomati?n submitted herein, including all attached decmm?cs, and that basal on my 'iQQuiry of those individuals immediater responsible for?btaining the infmma?tm, to the best 01? my that the submitted information is true, accurate and complete. BROWN, Mayor, Camey's Pam? Tommship DATED: May 3, 2018 19 ATTACHMENT A Public Participation Plan for Carnevs Point Township (Chambers Works Site) . Township Remediation Funding Source calculation. Within 45 days of the date of a court order the Department of Environment Protection shall review the Township?s $1 .126B RFS calculation and provide the Township with a written determination of the acceptability or non-acceptability of the RFS with an analysis that relies on applicable laws, regulations and guidance documents based on Site conditions (Hereinafter ?Appropriate Analysis?). . DuPont/Chemours RFS calculation. Within 10 days of the date of a court order DEP shall provide the Township with all RFS reports, calculations, correspondence and supporting documentation provided to DEP by E. I. DuPont De Nemours and Co. (?DuPont?) and The Chemours Company C, LLC (?Chemours?) with regard to the RFS for the Site and all DEP comments provided to DuPont and Chemours with regard to those submission; within 45 days thereafter the Township shall provide DEP with an Appropriate Analysis of the DuPont and Chemours RFS (?Township Comments?); and within 30 days after that DEP shall provide the Township with an Appropriate Analysis of the Township Comments. . DEP RFS determination. After the exchanges above have been completed DEP shall establish the RFS for the Site in form and amount pursuant to applicable laws, regulations and guidance documents based on Site conditions with the written consent of the Township. . Dispute Resolution. If the DEP does not establish the RFS in form and amount or does establish an RFS, which the Township refuses to consent to, then the parties shall seek to amicably resolve the matter or, if unsuccessful, contact the court in writing to request a case management conference where the court shall determine if the dispute can be briefed with or without a hearing or if further proceedings shall be scheduled as the court may deem necessary to hear evidence and rule on whether the amount and form of the RFS for the Site as determined by DEP complies with an Appropriate Analysis. Regulatory Meetings. The Township may have a representative attend the quarterly or other scheduled meetings with DuPont, Chemours and regulatory personnel related to Site remediation; receive copies of meeting agendas, handouts, correspondence and minutes; and provide input and comment to the proceedings, which DEP shall respond to in a reasonable time and manner. . Retained Jurisdiction. The court shall retain jurisdiction of this matter to address any disputes between the parties they cannot resolve themselves related to the RF and the remediation of the Site until a ?nal remediation document for the Site is issued or as otherwise ordered by the court. END 21 Attachment ES 8510 manna? swam ani?ers I I 3 7.. . NM ?11. 11863 me than? mg: m! Wino-hm. mum El:an Dunk I that: mm WHMMOM . mi nut-mus. Census m? I SITE LOCATION MAP t? ms; muss CHAMBERS woaxs coma 055mm. mass? ?3 aamtuml ?M?sw 16001 60517181 Q51 Extent Newark. as am w, - M. YTON $238201 woo 2600 LA 7 *thH MLAYTON mu- 2,0? kt! gamma KJNEST 22 Attachment Wit-Int: r5 931mmGrave llvof ??th Pom! I - . I Chambers I Works 1? mm val I iegend a EXPANBED QREAS MAP Sake Sawing. 5413 163$? - ?3 2 {W?mm' $351 ?L'u b.9573 *m?m ass: m: tune Maximum mm DE 1973 37am 3063385! LEGS - Em Swain - arm-um!- on Wt! #33? m: 3.5? 30K DAVE?13. simatlma; 4169 In! a I - 2:1 1 3555 an 3 ?stmm?: Pm I'm-run 1?31}: 5 MURDW 23