| Commitments and Contingent Liabilities | Note 16. Commitments and Contingent Liabilities Litigation Overview In addition to the matters discussed below, the Company and certain of its subsidiaries, from time to time, are subject to various lawsuits, claims, assessments, and proceedings with respect to product liability, intellectual property, personal injury, commercial, contractual, employment, governmental, environmental, anti-trust, and other such matters that arise in the ordinary course of business. In addition, Chemours, by virtue of its status as a subsidiary of DuPont prior to the Separation, is subject to or required under the Separation-related agreements executed prior to the Separation to indemnify DuPont against various pending legal proceedings. It is not possible to predict the outcomes of these various lawsuits, claims, assessments, or proceedings. Except as noted below, while management believes it is reasonably possible that Chemours could incur losses in excess of the amounts accrued, if any, for the aforementioned proceedings, it does not believe any such loss would have a material impact on the Company’s consolidated financial position, results of operations, or cash flows. Additional disputes between Chemours and DuPont may also arise with respect to indemnification matters, including disputes based on matters of law or contract interpretation. If and to the extent these disputes arise, they could materially adversely affect Chemours. The Company accrues for litigation matters when it is probable that a liability has been incurred, and the amount of the liability can be reasonably estimated. Legal costs such as outside counsel fees and expenses are recognized in the period in which the expense was incurred. Management believes the Company’s litigation accruals are appropriate based on the facts and circumstances for each matter, which are discussed in further detail below. The following table sets forth the components of the Company’s accrued litigation at March 31 , 20 20 and December 31, 201 9 .
March 31, 2020
December 31, 2019
Asbestos
$
34
$
34
PFOA
20
20
All other matters
4
6
Total accrued litigation
$
58
$
60
The following table sets forth the current and long-term components of the Company’s accrued litigation and their balance sheet locations at March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019.
Balance Sheet Location
March 31, 2020
December 31, 2019
Accrued Litigation:
Current accrued litigation
Other accrued liabilities (Note 13)
$
8
$
10
Long-term accrued litigation
Other liabilities (Note 15)
50
50
Total accrued litigation
$
58
$
60
Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina For information regarding the Company’s ongoing litigation and environmental remediation matters at its Fayetteville Works site in Fayetteville, North Carolina (“Fayetteville”), refer to “Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina” under the “Environmental Overview” within this “Note 16 – Commitments and Contingent Liabilities.” Asbestos In the Separation, DuPont assigned its asbestos docket to Chemours. At March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, there were approximately 1,100 lawsuits pending against DuPont alleging personal injury from exposure to asbestos. These cases are pending in state and federal court in numerous jurisdictions in the U.S. and are individually set for trial. A small number of cases are pending outside of the U.S. Most of the actions were brought by contractors who worked at sites between the 1950s and the 1990s. A small number of cases involve similar allegations by DuPont employees or household members of contractors or DuPont employees. Finally, certain lawsuits allege personal injury as a result of exposure to DuPont products. At March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, Chemours had an accrual of $34 related to these matters. Benzene In the Separation, DuPont assigned its benzene docket to Chemours. At March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, there were 16 cases pending against DuPont alleging benzene-related illnesses. These cases consist of premises matters involving contractors and deceased former employees who claim exposure to benzene while working at DuPont sites primarily in the 1960s through the 1980s, and product liability claims based on alleged exposure to benzene found in trace amounts in aromatic hydrocarbon solvents used to manufacture DuPont products such as paints, thinners, and reducers. Management believes that a loss is reasonably possible as to the docket as a whole; however, given the evaluation of each benzene matter is highly fact-driven and impacted by disease, exposure, and other factors, a range of such losses cannot be reasonably estimated at this time. PFOA Chemours does not, and has never, used “PFOA” (collectively, perfluorooctanoic acids and its salts, including the ammonium salt) as a polymer processing aid and/or sold it as a commercial product. Prior to the Separation, the performance chemicals segment of DuPont made PFOA at Fayetteville and used PFOA as a processing aid in the manufacture of fluoropolymers and fluoroelastomers at certain sites, including: Washington Works, Parkersburg, West Virginia; Chambers Works, Deepwater, New Jersey; Dordrecht Works, Netherlands; Changshu Works, China; and, Shimizu, Japan. These sites are now owned and/or operated by Chemours. At March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, Chemours maintained accruals of $20 related to PFOA matters under the Leach Settlement as discussed below. These accruals relate to DuPont’s obligations under agreements with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and voluntary commitments to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (“NJ DEP”). These obligations and voluntary commitments include surveying, sampling, and testing drinking water in and around certain Company sites, and offering treatment or an alternative supply of drinking water if tests indicate the presence of PFOA in drinking water at or greater than the state or the national health advisory. The Company will continue to work with the EPA and other authorities regarding the extent of work that may be required with respect to these matters. Leach Settlement In 2004, DuPont settled a class action captioned Leach v. DuPont The C8 Science Panel found probable links, as defined in the settlement agreement, between exposure to PFOA and pregnancy-induced hypertension, including preeclampsia, kidney cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid disease, ulcerative colitis, and diagnosed high cholesterol. Under the terms of the settlement, DuPont is obligated to fund up to $235 for a medical monitoring program for eligible class members and pay the administrative costs associated with the program, including class counsel fees. The court-appointed Director of Medical Monitoring implemented the program, and testing is ongoing with associated payments to service providers disbursed from an escrow account which the Company replenishes pursuant to the settlement agreement. As of March 31, 2020, approximately $1.7 has been disbursed from escrow related to medical monitoring. While it is reasonably possible that the Company will incur additional costs related to the medical monitoring program, such costs cannot be reasonably estimated due to uncertainties surrounding the level of participation by eligible class members and the scope of testing. In addition, under the Leach settlement agreement, DuPont must continue to provide water treatment designed to reduce the level of PFOA in water to six area water districts and private well users. At Separation, this obligation was assigned to Chemours, and $20 was accrued for these matters at March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019. PFOA Leach Class Personal Injury Further, under the Leach settlement, class members may pursue personal injury claims against DuPont only for those diseases for which the C8 Science Panel determined a probable link exists. Approximately 3,500 lawsuits were subsequently filed in various federal and state courts in Ohio and West Virginia and consolidated in multi-district litigation (“MDL”) in Ohio federal court. These were resolved in March 2017 when DuPont entered into an agreement settling all MDL cases and claims, including all filed and unfiled personal injury cases and claims that were part of the plaintiffs’ counsel’s claims inventory, as well as cases tried to a jury verdict (“MDL Settlement”) for $670.7 in cash, with half paid by Chemours, and half paid by DuPont. Concurrently with the MDL Settlement, DuPont and Chemours agreed to a limited sharing of potential future PFOA costs (indemnifiable losses, as defined in the Separation agreement between DuPont and Chemours) for a period of five years. During that five-year period, Chemours will annually pay future PFOA costs up to $25 and, if such amount is exceeded, DuPont will pay any excess amount up to the next $25 (which payment will not be subject to indemnification by Chemours), with Chemours annually bearing any further excess costs under the terms of the Separation agreement. After the five-year period, this limited sharing agreement will expire, and Chemours’ indemnification obligations under the Separation agreement will continue unchanged. Chemours has also agreed that it will not contest its indemnification obligations to DuPont under the Separation agreement for PFOA costs on the basis of defenses generally applicable to the indemnification provisions under the Separation agreement, including defenses relating to punitive damages, fines or penalties, or attorneys’ fees, and waives any such defenses with respect to PFOA costs. Chemours has, however, retained other defenses, including as to whether any particular PFOA claim is within the scope of the indemnification provisions of the Separation agreement. While all MDL lawsuits were dismissed or resolved through the MDL Settlement, the MDL Settlement did not resolve PFOA personal injury claims of plaintiffs who did not have cases or claims in the MDL or personal injury claims based on diseases first diagnosed after February 11, 2017. Since the resolution of the MDL, approximately 78 personal injury cases have been filed and are pending in West Virginia or Ohio courts alleging status as a Leach class member. These cases are consolidated before the MDL court. A six-plaintiff June 2020 trial involving kidney cancer matters will be rescheduled. In March 2020, a two-plaintiff trial before the MDL court resulted in: a mistrial in a kidney cancer case when the jury could not reach a verdict, and an award of $40 in compensatory and emotional distress damages and $10 in loss of consortium damages in a testicular cancer case. The jury found that DuPont’s conduct did not warrant punitive damages. The Company will appeal the verdict. Management believes that the probability of a loss regarding the verdict is remote, given numerous meritorious grounds for post-trial motions and appeal. State of Ohio In February 2018, the State of Ohio initiated litigation against DuPont regarding historical PFOA emissions from the Washington Works site. Chemours is an additional named defendant. Ohio alleges damage to natural resources and fraudulent transfer in the spin-off that created Chemours and seeks damages including remediation and other costs and punitive damages. PFAS DuPont and Chemours have received governmental and regulatory inquiries and have been named in other litigations, including class actions, brought by individuals, municipalities, businesses, and water districts alleging exposure to and/or contamination from perfluorinated and polyfluorinated compounds (“PFAS”), including PFOA. Many actions include an allegation of fraudulent transfer in the spin-off that created Chemours. Chemours has declined DuPont’s requests for indemnity for fraudulent transfer claims. Chemours has responded to letters and inquiries from governmental law enforcement entities regarding PFAS, including in January 2020, a letter informing it that the U.S. Department of Justice, Consumer Protection Branch, and the United States Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania are considering whether to open a criminal investigation under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and asking that it retain its documents regarding PFAS and food contact applications. Based upon the letter, we are presently unable to predict the duration, scope, or result of any potential governmental, criminal, or civil proceeding that may result, the imposition of fines and penalties, and/or other remedies. We are also unable to develop a reasonable estimate of a possible loss or range of losses, if any. Aqueous Film Forming Foam Matters Chemours does not, and has never, manufactured aqueous film forming foam (“AFFF”). DuPont and Chemours have been named in several hundred matters, involving AFFF, which is used to extinguish hydrocarbon-based (i.e., Class B) fires and subject to U.S. military specifications. Most matters have been transferred to or filed directly into a multidistrict litigation (“AFFF MDL”) in South Carolina federal court or identified by a party for transfer. The matters pending in the AFFF MDL allege damages as a result of contamination, in most cases due to migration from military installations or airports, or personal injury from exposure to AFFF. Plaintiffs seek to recover damages for investigating, monitoring, remediating, treating, and otherwise responding to the contamination. Others have claims for personal injury, property diminution, and punitive damages. There are AFFF lawsuits pending outside the AFFF MDL that have not been designated by a party for inclusion in the MDL. These matters identifying DuPont and/or Chemours as a defendant are: Valero Refining (“Valero”) has six pending state court lawsuits filed commencing in June 2019 regarding its Tennessee, Texas, Oklahoma, California, and Louisiana facilities. These lawsuits allege that several defendants that designed, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold AFFF or PFAS incorporated into AFFF have caused Valero to incur damages and costs including remediation, AFFF disposal, and replacement. Valero also alleges fraudulent transfer. In September 2019, a lawsuit alleging personal injury resulting from exposure to AFFF in Long Island drinking water was filed by four individuals in New York state court. State Natural Resource Damages Matters In addition to the State of New Jersey actions (as detailed below) and the State of Ohio action (as detailed above), the states of Vermont, New Hampshire, New York, and Michigan have filed lawsuits against defendants, including DuPont and Chemours, relating to the alleged contamination of state natural resources with PFAS compounds either from AFFF and/or other unidentified sources. These lawsuits seek damages including costs to investigate, clean up, restore, treat, monitor, or otherwise respond to contamination to natural resources. The lawsuits include counts for fraudulent transfer. Other PFAS Matters DuPont has also been named in approximately 50 lawsuits pending in New York courts, which are not part of the Leach class, brought by individual plaintiffs alleging negligence and other claims in the release of PFAS, including PFOA, into drinking water, and seeking medical monitoring, compensatory, and punitive damages against current and former owners and suppliers of a manufacturing facility in Hoosick Falls, New York. Two other lawsuits in New York have been filed by a business seeking to recover its losses and by nearby property owners and residents in a putative class action seeking medical monitoring, compensatory and punitive damages, and injunctive relief. In May 2017, the Water Works and Sewer Board of the Town of Centre, Alabama filed suit against numerous carpet manufacturers located in Dalton, Georgia and suppliers and former suppliers, including DuPont, in Alabama state court. The complaint alleges negligence, nuisance, and trespass in the release of PFAS, including PFOA, into a river leading to the town’s water source, and seeks compensatory and punitive damages. In February 2018, the New Jersey-American Water Company, Inc. (“NJAW”) filed suit against DuPont and Chemours in New Jersey federal court alleging that discharges in violation of the New Jersey Spill Compensation and Control Act (“Spill Act”) were made into groundwater utilized in the NJAW Penns Grove water system. NJAW alleges that damages include costs associated with remediating, operating, and maintaining its system, and attorney fees. In October 2018, a putative class action was filed in Ohio federal court against 3M, DuPont, Chemours, and other defendants seeking class action status for U.S. residents having a detectable level of PFAS in their blood serum. The complaint seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, including the establishment of a “PFAS Science Panel.” In December 2018, the owners of a dairy farm filed a lawsuit in Maine state court against numerous defendants including DuPont and Chemours alleging that their dairy farm was contaminated by PFAS, including perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (“PFOS”) and PFOA present in treated municipal sewer sludge used in agricultural spreading applications on their farm. The complaint asserts negligence, trespass, and other tort and state statutory claims and seeks damages. In May 2019, a putative class action was filed in Delaware state court against two electroplating companies, 3M and DuPont, alleging responsibility for PFAS contamination, including PFOA and PFOS, in drinking water and the environment in the nearby community. Although initially named in the lawsuit, Chemours was subsequently dismissed. The putative class of residents alleges negligence, nuisance, trespass, and other claims and seeks medical monitoring, personal injury and property damages, and punitive damages. Commencing In November 2019, 30 residents filed a lawsuit in New Jersey state court against DuPont, Chemours, and other defendants alleging that they are responsible for PFAS contamination, including PFOA and PFOS, in groundwater and drinking water. Plaintiffs have claims for medical monitoring, property value diminution, trespass, and punitive damages. In November 2019, the City of Rome, Georgia filed suit against numerous carpet manufacturers located in Dalton, Georgia, suppliers, DuPont, and Chemours in Georgia state court alleging negligence, nuisance, and trespass in the release of perfluorinated compounds, including PFOA, into a river leading to the town’s water source. City of Rome alleges damages to property and lost profits, and expenses for abatement and remediation and punitive damages. In December 2019, a putative class action was filed in Georgia state court on behalf of customers of the Rome, Georgia water division and the Floyd County, Georgia water department against numerous carpet manufacturers located in Dalton, Georgia, suppliers, DuPont, and Chemours in Georgia state court alleging negligence and nuisance and related to the release of perfluorinated compounds, including PFOA, into a river leading to their water sources. The matter was removed to federal court. Damages sought include compensatory damages for increased water surcharges, as well as punitive damages and injunctive relief for abatement and remediation. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Directives and Litigation In March 2019, the NJ DEP issued two Directives and filed four lawsuits against Chemours and other defendants. The Directives are: (i) a state-wide PFAS Directive issued to DuPont, DowDuPont, DuPont Specialty Products USA (“DuPont SP USA”), Solvay S.A., 3M, and Chemours seeking a meeting to discuss future costs for PFAS-related costs incurred by the NJ DEP and establishing a funding source for such costs by the Directive recipients, and information relating to historic and current use of certain PFAS compounds; and, (ii) a Pompton Lakes Natural Resources Damages (“NRD”) Directive to DuPont and Chemours demanding $0.1 to cover the cost of preparation of a natural resource damage assessment plan and access to related documents. The lawsuits filed in New Jersey state courts by the NJ DEP are: (i) in Salem County, against DuPont, 3M, and Chemours primarily alleging clean-up and removal costs and damages and natural resource damages under the Spill Act, the Water Pollution Control Act (“WPCA”), the Industrial Site Recovery Act (“ISRA”), and common law regarding past and present operations at Chambers Works, a site assigned to Chemours at Separation ; DuPont requested that Chemours defend and indemnify it in these matters. Chemours has accepted the defense while reserving rights and declining DuPont’s demand as to matters under ISRA, fraudulent transfer, or involving other DuPont entities. PFOA and PFAS Summary With the exception of the trial verdict in the testicular cancer case noted above, management believes that it is reasonably possible that the Company could incur losses related to PFOA and/or PFAS matters in excess of amounts accrued, but any such losses are not estimable at this time due to various reasons, including, among others, that such matters are in their early stages and have significant factual issues to be resolved. U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery, Inc. There are seven lawsuits, including two putative class actions (one in which class certification was denied), pending against DuPont by area residents concerning the U.S. Smelter and Lead Refinery multi-party Superfund site in East Chicago, Indiana. Several of the lawsuits allege that Chemours is now responsible for DuPont environmental liabilities. The lawsuits include allegations for personal injury damages, property diminution, and other damages. At Separation, DuPont assigned Chemours its former plant site, which is located south of the residential portion of the Superfund area, and its responsibility for the environmental remediation at the Superfund site. Management believes a loss is reasonably possible, but not estimable at this time due to various reasons including, among others, that such matters are in their early stages and have significant factual issues to be resolved. Securities Litigation In October 2019, a putative class action was filed in Delaware federal court against Chemours and certain of its officers. Following appointment of lead plaintiff, the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System, and counsel, the plaintiff filed an amended complaint alleging that the defendants violated the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 by making materially false and misleading statements and omissions in public disclosures regarding environmental liabilities and litigation matters assigned to Chemours in connection with its spin-off from DuPont. The amended complaint seeks a class of purchasers of Chemours stock between February 16, 2017 and August 1, 2019 and demands compensatory damages and fees. Management believes that it is not possible at this time to reasonably assess the outcome of this litigation or to estimate the loss or range of loss, if any, as the matter is in the early stages with significant issues to be resolved. The Company believes that it has insurance coverage applicable to this matter and has presented a claim. If the Company were not to prevail in the litigation and were to fail to secure insurance coverage or ample insurance coverage, the impact could be material to the Company’s results of operations, financial position, and cash flows. Mining Solutions Facility Construction Stoppage In March 2018, a civil association in Mexico filed a complaint against the government authorities involved in the permitting process of the Company’s new Mining Solutions facility under construction in Gomez Palacio, Durango, Mexico. The claimant sought and obtained a suspension from the district judge to stop the Company’s construction work. The suspension was subsequently lifted on appeal, and the matter is before the Supreme Court of Mexico. A second similar complaint was filed in September 2019, and again, a suspension of construction was granted. Chemours has filed an appeal. In the event that the suspension of construction is ultimately upheld, the Company would incur $26 of contract termination fees with a third-party services provider. At March 31, 2020, the Company had $144 of long-lived assets under construction at the facility, $7 of other related prepaid costs, and $51 of the Company’s goodwill assigned to the Mining Solutions reporting unit. Management believes these amounts are recoverable as of March 31, 2020. Environmental Overview Chemours, due to the terms of the Separation-related agreements with DuPont, is subject to contingencies pursuant to environmental laws and regulations that in the future may require further action to correct the effects on the environment of prior disposal practices or releases of chemical substances, which are attributable to DuPont’s activities before it spun-off Chemours. Much of this liability results from the Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act (“CERCLA,” often referred to as “Superfund”), the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (“RCRA”), and similar federal, state, local, and foreign laws. These laws require Chemours to undertake certain investigative, remediation, and restoration activities at sites where Chemours conducts or once conducted operations or at sites where Chemours-generated waste was disposed. The accrual also includes estimated costs related to a number of sites identified for which it is probable that environmental remediation will be required, but which are not currently the subject of enforcement activities. Chemours accrues for remediation activities when it is probable that a liability has been incurred and a reasonable estimate of the liability can be made. Where the available information is sufficient to estimate the amount of liability, that estimate has been used. Where the available information is only sufficient to establish a range of probable liability, and no point within the range is more likely than any other, the lower end of the range has been used. Estimated liabilities are determined based on existing remediation laws and technologies and the Company’s planned remedial responses, which are derived from environmental studies, sampling, testing, and analyses. Inherent uncertainties exist in such evaluations, primarily due to unknown environmental conditions, changing governmental regulations regarding liability, and emerging remediation technologies. These accruals are adjusted periodically as remediation efforts progress and as additional technological, regulatory, and legal information becomes available. Environmental liabilities and expenditures include claims for matters that are liabilities of DuPont and its subsidiaries, which Chemours may be required to indemnify pursuant to the Separation-related agreements. These accrued liabilities are undiscounted and do not include claims against third parties. Costs related to environmental remediation are charged to expense in the period that the associated liability is accrued. The following table sets forth the components of the Company’s environmental remediation liabilities at March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019, and for the five sites that are deemed the most significant by management, including Fayetteville as further discussed below.
March 31, 2020
December 31, 2019
Chambers Works, Deepwater, New Jersey
$
20
$
20
East Chicago, Indiana
17
17
Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina
196
201
Pompton Lakes, New Jersey
42
43
USS Lead, East Chicago, Indiana
13
13
All other sites
108
112
Total environmental remediation
$
396
$
406
The following table sets forth the current and long-term components of the Company’s environmental remediation liabilities and their balance sheet locations at March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019.
Balance Sheet Location
March 31, 2020
December 31, 2019
Environmental Remediation:
Current environmental remediation
Other accrued liabilities (Note 13)
$
73
$
74
Long-term environmental remediation
Other liabilities (Note 15)
323
332
Total environmental remediation
$
396
$
406
The time-frame for a site to go through all phases of remediation (investigation and active clean-up) may take about 15 to 20 years, followed by several years of operation, maintenance, and monitoring (“OM&M”) activities. Remediation activities, including OM&M activities, vary substantially in duration and cost from site to site. These activities, and their associated costs, depend on the mix of unique site characteristics, evolving remediation technologies, and diverse regulatory requirements, as well as the presence or absence of other potentially responsible parties. In addition, for claims that Chemours may be required to indemnify DuPont pursuant to the Separation-related agreements, Chemours, through DuPont, has limited available information for certain sites or is in the early stages of discussions with regulators. For these sites in particular, there may be considerable variability between the clean-up activities that are currently being undertaken or planned and the ultimate actions that could be required. Therefore, considerable uncertainty exists with respect to environmental remediation costs and, under adverse changes in circumstances, although deemed remote, the potential liability may range up to approximately $540 above the amount accrued at March 31, 2020. Chemours incurred environmental remediation expenses of $15 and $33 for the three months ended March 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively. Fayetteville Works, Fayetteville, North Carolina Fayetteville has been in operation since the 1970s and is located next to the Cape Fear River southeast of the City of Fayetteville, North Carolina. Hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid (“HFPO Dimer Acid,” sometimes referred to as “GenX” or “C3 Dimer Acid”) is manufactured at Fayetteville. The Company has operated the site since its separation from DuPont in 2015. The Company believes that discharges from Fayetteville to the Cape Fear River, site surface water, groundwater, and air emissions have not impacted the safety of drinking water in North Carolina. The Company is cooperating with a variety of ongoing inquiries and investigations from federal, state, and local authorities, regulators, and other governmental entities. Consent Order with North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (“NC DEQ”) In September 2017, the NC DEQ issued a 60-day notice of intent to suspend the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit for Fayetteville, and the State of North Carolina filed an action in North Carolina state court regarding site discharges, seeking a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, as well as other relief, including abatement and site correction. The state court entered a partial consent order resolving NC DEQ’s motion for a temporary restraining order. In November 2017, NC DEQ informed the Company that it was suspending the NPDES permit for Fayetteville. The Company thereafter commenced the capture and separate disposal of all process wastewater from Fayetteville related to the Company’s own operations. In June 2018, the North Carolina Legislature enacted legislation (i) granting the governor the authority, in certain circumstances, to require a facility with unauthorized PFAS discharges to cease operations, and (ii) granting the governor the authority, in certain circumstances, to direct the NC DEQ secretary to order a PFAS discharger to establish permanent replacement water supplies for parties whose water was contaminated by the discharge. In July 2018, Cape Fear River Watch (“CFRW”), a non-profit organization, sued NC DEQ in North Carolina state court, seeking to require NC DEQ to take additional actions at Fayetteville. On August 29, 2018, CFRW sued the Company in North Carolina federal court for alleged violations of the Clean Water Act (“CWA”) and the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief and penalties. In February 2019, the North Carolina Superior Court for Bladen County approved a Consent Order (“CO”) between NC DEQ, CFRW and the Company, resolving the State’s and CFRW’s lawsuits and other matters (including Notices of Violation (“NOVs”) issued by the State). Under the terms of the CO, Chemours paid $13 in March 2019 to cover a civil penalty and investigative costs and agreed to certain compliance measures (with stipulated penalties for failures to do so), including the following:
•
Install a thermal oxidizer to control all PFAS in process streams from certain processes at Fayetteville at an efficiency of 99.99%;
•
Develop, submit, and implement, subject to |
