Hundreds of Washington drinking-water utilities could be eligible for a piece of more than $10 billion as part of a tentative settlement with chemical and manufacturing giant 3M for its role in “forever chemicals” contaminating drinking water across the nation.
In the state, the chemicals, per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, have been found in fish tissue, human breast milk and just over 200 water sources so far, as new statewide drinking-water testing requirements roll out. PFAS have been linked to several health problems, including cancer, and are emerging as one of the most pervasive sources of pollution on the planet.
Under the proposed settlement, 3M agreed to contribute up to $12.5 billion, said Ken Sansone, an attorney representing utilities with contamination claims. According to a statement provided by the company, the agreement will benefit utilities “nationwide that provide drinking water to a vast majority of Americans,” payable over the next 13 years.
The settlement, if approved by the court, would be broken into two phases, addressing both current and future drinking-water claims brought by various public utilities.
The company argues the agreement “is not an admission of liability.” If it is not approved by the court, “3M is prepared to continue to defend itself in the litigation.” The company said it will also continue to address other PFAS litigation “by defending itself in court or through negotiated resolutions.”
Firefighting foams have emerged as a major source of PFAS contamination across the country and in Washington. They were first developed by 3M in the 1950s, in collaboration with the Navy.
Lawsuits filed by local governments, including at least five filed by Washington public water utilities, allege 3M failed to disclose internal studies dating back decades documenting the persistence of these chemicals in the environment, their toxicity and their widespread presence in human blood. In 1998, 3M finally shared over 1,200 studies with the Environmental Protection Agency, drawing a $1.5 million fine for failing to report them earlier.
The tentative settlement comes on the heels of Chemours, DuPont and Corteva’s agreement to pay about $1.2 billion to settle claims regarding their role in PFAS contamination.
Who is eligible?
About 300 water systems are plaintiffs in the case that would benefit from the settlement, among them Sammamish Plateau Water, which had seven wells test positive for PFAS contamination, two of them above the state action levels in 2021.
Any public water systems that serve more than 25 people and have detected PFAS in their wells are allowed to participate in the settlement, Sansone said. The number of those systems across the country is not known, but it is estimated to be in the thousands.
In Washington, hundreds of public drinking-water sources from the San Juan Islands to south Puget Sound and east to Yakima have tested positive for levels of PFAS above state action levels.
Sansone, the attorney representing utilities with contamination claims, recommends that those who are eligible to participate seek legal counsel and consider whether the settlement would meet their needs.
The funds will be divided up using a formula that allocates amounts based on the number of consumers a system has and its amount of pollution.
But the number of utilities that could have rights to the funds will continue to grow as more choose to participate in the settlement or file new lawsuits that are grouped into the case.
What’s next?
The 3M settlement fund can go up to $12.5 billion, depending on participation. The DuPont settlement is fixed at $1.185 billion.
Funds from the settlement are supposed to be used for water testing and decontamination, by the construction of filtering systems that can cost millions or other methods. Once 3M has paid a water system, its obligations would be satisfied under the settlement.
The settlement is not a done deal. Court approval could take months.
“I think this is an incredibly important step forward in holding these corporations responsible for all of the damage that they’ve caused to public drinking water supplies across the country, through their defective products and, frankly, their irresponsible practices,” Sansone said.
But, Sansone said, the settlement will not pay 100% of the costs that some systems face or may face, nor is it the appropriate solution for everyone. “Individual systems may not find that to be acceptable and may want to continue to push forward with the lawsuit,” he said.
