States block 3M’s $10.3B PFAS deal
States block 3M's $10.3B PFAS deal
States Oppose $10.3 Billion 3M Settlement Over Water Pollution
/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/ENQ4UE6G6RMLRIY7SLMUPUYP3A.jpg)
A group of 22 states and U.S. territories have come together to oppose a proposed $10.3 billion settlement that aims to resolve claims against 3M Co over water pollution caused by so-called “forever chemicals.” Led by California, the group has filed a motion in a South Carolina federal court, arguing that the settlement does not adequately hold the company accountable for the damage caused by per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
The proposed settlement, announced on June 22, would provide funds over a 13-year period to cities, towns, and public water systems to test and treat PFAS contamination. However, the states argue that this amount is insufficient to address the wide-ranging harm caused by these chemicals, which are used in various products such as firefighting foam, non-stick cookware, and cosmetics. PFAS has been linked to cancers, hormonal dysfunction, and environmental damage.
California Attorney General Rob Bonta expressed his concerns, stating, “While I appreciate the effort that went into it, the proposed settlement in its current form does not adequately account for the pernicious damage that 3M has done in so many of our communities.” The states believe that the deal could shift liability for future health concerns caused by PFAS onto the water systems themselves, potentially enabling 3M to seek compensation from the water systems in future litigation.
The Group’s opposition to the settlement is not unexpected, as initial objections to large settlements are relatively common. The attorneys representing U.S. water systems, one of the key parties involved in the negotiations, assured that they would work to address the issues raised by the states.
One major concern expressed by the states is the requirement for public water systems to decide whether to opt into the settlement before knowing the amount they would receive and the costs associated with remediation. This could pose a significant challenge for these systems, particularly in cases where contamination levels and associated costs remain unknown.
- Santander to hire 150 bankers for investment banking growth.
- Capitalizing on Rising Interest Rates
- Best Savings Account Bonuses – How to Get Them
Moreover, three cities in the state of New York, which have claims related to cleaning up PFAS at superfund sites within their jurisdiction, also moved to block the settlement. They argued that the water system settlement would reduce the funds available for cleaning up these types of sites across the country. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has estimated that addressing superfund sites contaminated with PFAS could cost more than $17 billion.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recognizes PFAS as an “urgent public health and environmental issue.” These substances, often referred to as “forever chemicals,” persist in the human body and the environment for extended periods without easily breaking down. In response to this concern, the EPA has taken steps to tighten regulations for PFAS in recent years, including establishing the first-ever national drinking water standards for six of these chemicals in March.
It is important to note that 3M has not admitted liability in the proposed settlement. The company stated in June that the funds would support remediation efforts at public water systems that detect any level of PFAS. However, it’s worth noting that the settlement does not cover claims related to personal injury or property damage resulting from PFAS contamination.
To proceed, the proposed settlement must gain approval from U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel, presiding over the cases in South Carolina. The outcome of this case will significantly impact 3M’s legal responsibilities and the financial implications of addressing PFAS contamination. 3M previously committed to ceasing PFAS production by 2025, recognizing the urgency of the issue at hand.
In conclusion, the opposition to the $10.3 billion settlement by a group of 22 states and U.S. territories signals the complex nature of resolving water pollution disputes related to PFAS contamination. The concerns raised by the states highlight the need for adequate accountability and compensation for the damage caused by these forever chemicals. As the legal battle continues, the outcome of this case will have broader implications for addressing PFAS contamination nationwide and holding responsible parties accountable for their actions.
