3M will pay New Jersey $450M over PFAS contamination
Global chemical manufacturer 3M has agreed to pay New Jersey $450 million over pollution by 'forever chemicals' rather than proceed to a trial set to start next week, state Attorney General Matthew J. Platkin announced Tuesday.
Platkin said it is the largest settlement regarding per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances — known as PFAS — in the state's history.
PFAS are known by many as 'forever chemicals' because of their ability to remain in the environment and human body without breaking down. PFAS are widely used and may be linked to harmful health effects in humans and animals, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
A federal trial is scheduled to start Monday against DuPont and its spinoff company, Chemours, in a related PFAS case filed by New Jersey. Platkin said it will be the first trial of its kind in the U.S.
The state Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has filed suit against 3M and other companies, including DuPont, for contamination at DuPont Chambers Works sites in Pennsville and Carney's Point in Salem County.
Although Minnesota-based 3M did not operate any facilities in New Jersey, it supplied around 85% of a type of PFAS known as PFOA.
'We allege that 3M knew of the harms of PFAS, knew that it didn't break down, knew that it accumulated in water and soil and bodies, and knew that it was harmful,' Platkin said, 'And yet 3M continued to sell as much PFAS as it could.'
In a news release, 3M called the agreement 'another important step toward reducing risk and uncertainty on these legacy issues.' It said the agreement is not an admission.
What are PFAS?
PFAS are a group of human-made chemical compounds used for decades to make firefighting foam, stain-resistant clothing, and food packaging. They have been linked to low infant birth weights, effects on the immune system, cancer, and hormone disruption. PFAS can accumulate in the body and remain for long periods.
Platkin said 3M made a firefighting foam that contained PFAS and was used in military facilities, firefighter training academies, state government, and local fire departments across the state.
'They sold these dangerous chemicals to the brave first responders who put their lives on the line to protect us, putting these heroes in harm's way and prioritizing their own profits over their healthy cities,' Platkin said.
'We're pleased today to announce a settlement that begins to right some of these terrible wrongs in the settlement announced today,' Platkin said.
Under the settlement, 3M will pay up to $450 million over the next 25 years. Up to $275 million of that would be paid in the first four years. The money will go into site cleanup, a statewide fund for PFAS contamination, and to address natural resource damages.
The company said it stopped supplying PFAS to DuPont's Salem County site in 2001. In 2020, it announced that it was getting out of making two PFAS compounds, PFOA and PFOS. It has pledged to stop making any PFAS by the end of this year. It posted an FAQ on the agreement.
PFAS trial set to begin Monday
Meanwhile, Platkin said the state's 2019 civil suit against DuPont and other companies that have not agreed to a settlement is scheduled to start Monday.
'It will be the first trial in the country for environmental PFAS liability to a state,' Platkin said. 'We're putting New Jersey clearly at the front of the line when it comes to remediating harms related to these forever chemicals.'
The state filed suit against E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. (now known as EIDP Inc.), the Chemours Co., Corteva Inc., and DuPont de Nemours. The trial is scheduled for U.S. District Court in Camden.
The New York-based law firm Kelley Drye & Warren represented New Jersey in the 3M settlement, and in the current case against the other chemical companies.
William Jackson, an environmental attorney with Kelley Drye, called the settlement and forthcoming trial 'landmark matters.'
Tuesday was not the first time New Jersey had reached a large settlement with a company over PFAS.
In 2023, state officials announced a $393 million settlement with chemical maker Solvay Specialty Polymers to clean up various locations across 37 square miles contaminated by 'forever chemicals' in Gloucester and Camden Counties.
The state had accused Solvay, which has a plant just off the Delaware River in West Deptford, Gloucester County, with contaminating drinking water and causing other pollution linked to toxic compounds once produced at the plant.
'Better living through chemistry'
During Tuesday's announcement, DEP Commissioner Shawn LaTourette said manufacturers of PFAS 'knew just how poisonous these substances were' when they were released into New Jersey's environment.
'It's better living through chemistry — until it isn't,' LaTourette said.
He noted that 3M has been moving away from PFAS.
'We begrudge no innovator their creativity or the ability to profit from their ideas and their creations, but we do ask that they innovate safely and with care for the people and the communities,' LaTourette said.
___
© 2025 The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Local businesses, organizations come together to host tornado relief event
Several local businesses and organizations came together at the Laurel-London Optimist Club June 1 to provide free items to tornado-affected residents of Laurel County. The "London Community Tornado Relief Event" was made possible by David Byrd of All American Events, Melanie Hester of American Scrub Company and Kaitlyn Floyd on her own behalf. Hester said the goal of the event was to "bring joy to the kids and families in the community." "With all the heartbreak right now, I just think this is so needed," Floyd added. At her booth, Floyd sold t-shirts made by Harlan-based business Shirt Shack Screen Printing. Funds raised by the t-shirt sales will go toward supporting families impacted by the May 16 tornado. Floyd said Martin's Peterbilt is matching the amount raised, doubling the profit. Raffles additionally took place with donations from businesses in the community. Also among those hosting booths were Hoss Auto Sales and Family Health Care Associates who collaborated to provide an array of items needed by those affected at this time including tarps, toiletries, basic hygiene products, snacks, beverages, and pet food. Working the booth were Vanessa Watson and Faith Vaught with Family Health Care Associates, as well as Steve and Kaylee Watson with the auto shop. Alesha Staley was present on behalf of Second Mile Behavioral Health to send the message that their therapists can help tornado survivors with the trauma they may have from the recent storm. "Our therapists stay pretty booked but when the tornado hit and we knew there would likely be an increase in needs, they started opening up more availability," said Staley. Reach the mental health service at (606) 657-5504. Southern Sips & Sweets, Kendra's Shaved Ice, and the Mom and Daughter Shop provided cool treats on the warm day. While the Mom and Daughter Shop no longer has a home, owner BJ Cromer is selling ice-cream to raise funds for her grandson, Liam Brown, who has cancer. At the event however, Cromer gave out free ice cream while accepting donations toward Liam. Additional booths included the North Laurel Middle School's girls basketball team, the U.S. Army, McDonald's, Love at First Bite, Somerset Community College, and Senture. Children at the event gravitated to the inflatables provided by All American Events, a local service ran by Byrd and Austin Schaser which handles inflatable rentals. Us and Sometimes Joe, a band made up of London natives, also performed as community members visited booths. The event served as a testament to the community's resilience.
Yahoo
37 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Are States Gearing Up to Ban Nonstick Cookware?
Photo: Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images If frying eggs or bacon is a regular part of your morning ritual, take note. Soon, your ability to use nonstick cookware may come down to where you live. New York state lawmakers recently introduced a bill that would prohibit 'the manufacture, sale, and use' of cookware containing polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), the primary substance used to create a nonstick surface. Though the chemical compound, commonly known by the brand name Teflon, is approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration, New York has now joined a growing list of states that are proposing to ban—or in some cases, have already banned—nonstick cookware in their territories. Find answers about nonstick pans Is New York banning nonstick cookware? Are nonstick pans safe? What happens when PFAS accumulate in the body? Should consumers throw out nonstick pans? What other states have banned nonstick pans? In January of this year, two New York State senators introduced Senate Bill S1767, which if passed, 'prohibits the manufacture, sale, and use of cookware containing polytetrafluoroethylene.' In the bill's justification, the sponsors write that the chemicals used in nonstick pans are 'within the family of polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) which are known to have severe health effects such as harm to reproductive and bodily functions, developmental effects in youth, increased cancer risk and increased risk for high cholesterol and obesity.' It acknowledges that additional research is needed to determine the full scope of risk, but 'we should not leave people vulnerable to the potential negative health effects,' it concludes. The bill is currently in Senate committee, meaning it hasn't been brought to the floor for voting by the whole legislative body. Once on the floor, it needs to be approved by both the New York State Senate and Assembly, then signed into law by the governor. I Tried It I Tried It: Our Place's Cast Iron Always Pan Is The Real Deal Your favorite pan now comes in a sturdier version There is little debate about the safety risk of nonstick pans that do not use Teflon coating, for example ceramic or cast-iron pans. However, those that do use PTFE have raised concerns in recent years. 'PTFE belongs to a subgroup of what is known as PFAS,' explains Bruce Jarnot, PhD, global materials compliance expert, toxicologist, and product compliance advisor at Assent. PFAS are often colloquially called 'forever chemicals,' because they don't degrade over time, and the human body cannot metabolize them. In some instances, this can come in handy. PFAS are used to insulate leads in a pacemaker or used in hip joint replacements since they are inert. 'In these instances, it's fine, it's inert,' Jarnot says. 'But there are other considerations to take into account when considering potential laws like New York State Senate Bill 1767.' The first, he says, is the environmental waste and pollution that manufacturers of products containing PFAS make. 'We all have the monomers—the building blocks of polymers like Teflon—inside us from the manufacturing phase,' Jarnot says, adding that the waste ends up in water and soil, which eventually makes its way to the humans. 'So there's a strong argument against PFAS in general. Because they stay put in the body, and they can accumulate over time when they're in our environment.' In cookware specifically, that potential risk increases because the products are used with high heats. 'That's probably the highest heat environment that a material like Teflon is exposed to. So when you have a pacemaker implanted, it's at body temperature. If you're searing fish or steak in a fry pan, it's being exposed to much higher heat,' he says. Chemical reactions occur faster in hot environments, and, 'You could have decomposition of the polymer giving rise to some really nasty airborne PFAS. And there is probably some internalization of these decomposing products at high temperature.' According to the the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), exposure to PFAS could be harmful to human health. 'Scientists at EPA, in other federal agencies, and in academia and industry are continuing to conduct and review the growing body of research about PFAS. However, health effects associated with exposure to PFAS are difficult to specify for many reasons,' the agency says. For that reason, more research is required to determine the exact risks. As Jarnot explains, toxicologists often say that it's the dose that makes the poison. 'So here you have something that's not metabolizing and that is accumulating in your body, creating aggregate exposure. In that case, every bit you add to your exposure cup counts.' Even in states where nonstick pans are legal, some consumers may consider discarding theirs because of potential risk. 'As a toxicologist, I still use Teflon pans,' Jarnot admits. 'But you should never heat them without something in it, and should avoid very high heat.' That said, eliminating nonstick pans could be an easy way to minimize exposure to PFAS. 'You're getting exposure in almost all drinks—water, wine, beer, soda—because it's in the water these drinks are made from. But you need water, you need food. So one of the places you could easily omit exposure is in cookware,' Jarnot adds. Multiple states have passed or are considering legislation about polytetrafluoroethylene in their territories. California, for example, passed a law that states cookware with intentionally added PFAS must be disclosed on product labels; however, it hasn't passed a full ban. Others, like Connecticut, Maine, Vermont, and Rhode Island have passed laws that go into effect over the next few years and ban products with intentionally added PFAS. Minnesota passed a law banning PFAS in a number of consumer goods, including cookware, which went into effect in January of this year. Originally Appeared on Architectural Digest More Great Stories From AD Not a subscriber? Join AD for print and digital access now. This Lower East Side Loft Is a Sexy Riff on '90s Basements How a Financial Influencer Upgraded Her Brooklyn Apartment on a Budget 13 Best Platform Beds of 2025 We Use In Our Own Bedrooms
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Montana Supreme Court strikes down trio of abortion bills as unconstitutional
In this photo illustration, packages of Mifepristone tablets are displayed at a family planning clinic on April 13, 2023 in Rockville, Maryland. A Massachusetts appeals court temporarily blocked a Texas-based federal judge's ruling that suspended the FDA's approval of the abortion drug Mifepristone, which is part of a two-drug regimen to induce an abortion in the first trimester of pregnancy in combination with the drug Misoprostol. (Photo illustration by) A trio of abortion-related bills, passed in 2021, were declared unconstitutional by a nearly unanimous Montana Supreme Court on Monday. Nearly, because Justice Jim Rice wrote both a concurring and dissenting opinion affirming again Montana's constitutionally protected right-to-privacy, which includes medical procedures and abortion. The laws were halted before they could even be practically enacted, so the hurdles to the procedure, including waiting periods, mandatory ultrasound, a pile of documentation and banning abortion after 20 weeks, even before the point of fetal viability, never rippled throughout the state. Justice Beth Baker wrote the opinion on behalf of the court, which not only reaffirmed the state Constitution's right-to-privacy as unique and separate from federal cases on abortion, but also took the state to task for failing to support its claim that the State of Montana had a compelling interest in abortion, while not proving that any of the legislative hurdles were scientifically supported. The lawsuit was brought by Planned Parenthood of Montana, and had a handful of other entities that wrote friends-of-the-court briefs, including a group of delegates to the 1972 Montana Constitutional Convention. The three laws that were challenged were House Bill 136, House Bill 140 and House Bill 171: HB 136 would have banned abortion at 20 weeks, even though expert opinion agreed that fetal viability is not possible until at least 22 weeks. HB 171 would have put paperwork and more requirements for healthcare providers who provide abortion via medication or telehealth, subjecting them to both civil and criminal penalties. HB 180 would have required healthcare professionals to provide both ultrasound and fetal heartbeat tones to those considering abortion, and requiring a patient to sign a form created by the state, demonstrating that the patient had been offered the choice, and yet declined. Because fetal viability — or the concept a child can survive outside the womb — is dictated by a host of factors, including medical science and approximate age of the fetus, the court rejected the state's attempts to prescribe a fixed number of weeks for viability. 'A fixed gestational age that does not allow a provider's case-specific determination fails to ensure that the government does not interfere with an individual's private medical decision,' the ruling said. 'Until a fetus is viable and able to survive outside the womb, the right of personal autonomy belongs to the person on whose body the fetus depends. 'We find no legal authority for the idea that the state's interest in preserving fetal life or the fetus' right to life takes precedence over all constitutional protections and dignities of the mother.' Attorneys for the state had argued that physical safety risks of abortion increase as the pregnancy progresses, and that abortions lead to worse mental health outcomes, an argument that the Supreme Court dismissed and debunked. 'The record shows that abortion is safe,' the decision said. 'As the district court noted, there were zero deaths cause by abortion in Montana between 2010 and 2020 and only 25 of 8,402 (0.3%) reported abortions in Montana from 2016 to 2021 resulted in complications. This court cannot find a bona fide health risk simply based on a detailed step-by-step description of what the state defines as 'barbaric' and 'gruesome' procedure when the overwhelming evidence shows that procedural abortions are safe.' The ruling also said if the state wanted to address health outcomes or mental health issues, banning abortion was not the least restrictive way to do it. The court also pointed out waiting-periods and requiring multiple in-person visits, as outlined by HB 171, actually increased the odds of harm or complications, instead of avoiding them. 'The record demonstrates that compliance with the 24-hour wait period, the multiple in-person visits, and the telehealth ban serve only to delay access to abortion care — thus increasing the odds that the patient will not be able to obtain an abortion or increasing the odds of the very complications this state asserts it wishes to protect against,' the opinion said. The ruling also said in addition to violating the state's constitutional provisions for privacy, it also impacted physician's free-speech rights by requiring them to provide forms and documents, for example, information about a disputed abortion reversal procedure, that have not been medically verified or supported. They said HB 171 compelled healthcare professionals to give advice contrary to their training and conscience. Physicians and experts also raised concerns about the state's assertion abortion led to other health care concerns, for example, an increase in breast cancer, which has never been scientifically established. 'Forcing medical providers to give medical advice that they disagree with — like the safety and efficacy of abortion reversal — is a form of compelled-speech triggering protections,' the ruling said. '(Planned Parenthood) asserts that patients may mistakenly understand the consent form to indicate DPHHS's and their provider's approval of abortion reversal.' The ruling calls such compelled speech egregious because it 'favors one viewpoint over another — namely, the viewpoint that abortion reversal is safe and possible over the judgements and viewpoints of providers that it is unsafe, ineffective and undermines informed consent.' The court noted the state does not mandate documentation or consent that requires medical providers to discuss the risk of carrying a pregnancy to term. Finally, the court also called into question the real purpose of HB 140, which mandates ultrasounds and fetal heart tones before an abortion, something that providers said either happens during the course of pregnancy, but may not be medically necessary. 'The court stated it was 'left with the strong impression that the law aims to advance the ulterior motive of discouraging abortion,' which is unacceptable under the law,' the ruling said. Montana's highest court found that in the case of HB 140, it was exactly substituting the judgment of the state, and the lawmakers who supported it, with the views of the doctor. 'The court's decision further protects what Montanans need and deserve: Legal access to compassionate, timely abortion care, free from government interference. At the same moment as this win for Montanans, anti-abortion politicians continue to threaten to decimate access to care by 'defunding' Planned Parenthood via the reconciliation bill before Congress, in an effort to shut down health centers who provide abortion and other reproductive care. Montanans agree that abortion should remain legal and accessible, and Planned Parenthood of Montana will always do whatever we can to ensure that patients in Montana have access to abortion care,' said Martha Fuller, president and CEO of Montana Planned Parenthood, after the ruling in a statement. The case was active for several years of litigation, and had district court Judge Amy Eddy sitting in place of former Chief Justice Mike McGrath, who retired at the end of 2024, as well as Judge Shane Vannatta, who was sitting in for Dirk Sandefur, who also retired. McGrath has since been replaced by Chief Justice Cory Swanson, and Sandefur was succeeded by Justice Katherine Bidegaray.
