Latest news with #PFAS-related
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
ABO-Group Environment General Meeting: ABO-Group shifts to large, multidisciplinary soil projects
Ghent, 28 May 2025 – 20:30 – Press release / Non-regulated information This autumn, ABO-Group Environment celebrates a milestone: 30 years of expertise in environmental services. What began three decades ago as pioneering work in soil remediation in Flanders, alongside the introduction of the first Flemish soil decree, has evolved into an international benchmark for environmental consulting, soil investigations and geotechnics. Today, ABO-Group combines the expertise of around twenty specialized companies, fully committing to large, cross-border projects of a multidisciplinary nature. Recent assignments for the French Ministry of Defence signal a new chapter: a strategic shift towards innovation and international impact. Annual General Meeting 2024 ABO-Group, listed on Euronext Brussels and Euronext Paris, held its Annual General Meeting and reported strong growth of 14.6%, achieving a turnover of nearly EUR 100 million. In Belgium, revenue increased by 23% to EUR 33.6 million, driven by increased demand for PFAS-related projects and the acquisition of Infrabureau Demey and soil consultancy Rimeco1. The Netherlands had a strong year, growing by 38.8%, thanks to integrated project execution and the acquisition of ecology specialist Eco Reest. In France, turnover rose by 2.5% despite the postponement of subsidiary Geosonic's ongoing lithium project. Internal, international collaboration It is noteworthy that market demand within the sector has shifted significantly over recent years. Previously, clients requested primarily soil investigations; nowadays, there is growing demand for combined quotations involving geotechnical-geophysical soil investigations alongside ecological studies. With its extensive range of specializations, experts, and a one-stop-shop approach, ABO has secured a unique market position responding to this new demand. ABO is one of the few companies able to address multidisciplinary requests, as it integrates all phases—from sampling, laboratory analysis, and consulting to engineering—under one roof. ABO-Group is preparing for larger, more complex, multidisciplinary projects. This requires internal organizational adjustments, such as recruiting additional personnel and intensifying cross-border collaboration among group companies. For 2025, approximately EUR 45 million worth of large-scale assignments have already been secured, including EUR 25 million from the French Ministry of Defence. ABO-Group expects this new integrated approach will become a significant asset from the second half of this year onwards, particularly in the current stagnant climate within the geotechnical sector, mainly driven by France's weakened residential construction market. Selected references Besides assignments to upgrade and reinforce military airbases and to build stable platforms for deploying an anti-missile defense shield, ABO-Group has secured an additional EUR 10 million contract from the French Navy. This involves soil investigations for creating safe docking areas for nuclear submarines and improving port infrastructure to accommodate aircraft carriers, including the 'Charles De Gaulle'. Additionally, various parcels have been awarded for constructing new high-speed rail lines, such as Bordeaux–Toulouse and Marseille–Nice. Major assignments have also been secured in Belgium and the Netherlands, including projects for Port of Antwerp-Bruges and regional development initiatives in Almere and Lelystad. About ABO-Group Environment ABO-Group, founded in 1995 as a consultancy firm for soil investigations, has grown into an international engineering firm specialized in all aspects of environment and soil: quality, reuse and remediation, geotechnics and monitoring, ecology and cultural heritage. ABO-Group operates through various semi-independent subsidiaries in Belgium, France and the Netherlands. With over 800 experts, the group possesses the technology, expertise and scale necessary to offer complete solutions for the most challenging projects. Its clients include businesses active in construction, infrastructure, mining and raw materials, energy and water, ranging from indicative studies and design to execution and maintenance of diverse assets. ABO-Group Environment is listed on EURONEXT Brussels and EURONEXT Paris. For a more detailed description of ABO-Group Environment's activities, please visit: For more information Frank De Palmenaer CEO ABO-Group Environment nv T: +32 (0)496 59 88 881 Full-year effect of the 2023 ABO-Group Environment - General Meeting - ABO-Group shifts to large, multidisciplinary soil projects Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
3M reached $450M settlement with New Jersey over alleged PFAS contamination
This story was originally published on Manufacturing Dive. To receive daily news and insights, subscribe to our free daily Manufacturing Dive newsletter. 3M announced last week that it reached a proposed agreement with the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection to pay up to $450 million to resolve all legacy PFAS-related claims in the state. The deal includes an approximately $210 million commitment to settle litigation relating to The Chemours Co.'s Chambers Works site in Deepwater, New Jersey, alleging 3M supplied PFAS to one of the facilities, according to court documents. The settlement also includes 3M's pledge to pay approximately $75 million to resolve current and future statewide claims from 2030 to 2050, according to the press release. New Jersey officials have filed three lawsuits against 3M since March 27, 2019, according to court documents. In March 2019, New Jersey's Department of Environmental Protection issued a mandate to 3M — along with Solvay Specialty Polymers USA, E.I. DuPont de Nemours, then conglomerate DowDuPont and Chemours — to fund the state's PFAS assessment and cleanup efforts. The state then sued the chemical manufacturers listed in the directive. Two of the 3M lawsuits are related to the Chambers Works factories site, which DuPont previously owned and initially established as a gunpowder manufacturing plant in 1892, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The facilities later began producing dyes and chemical manufacturing. The state's environmental agency accused 3M of allegedly supplying more than 500,000 pounds of PFOA, a form of PFAS, to the site from the 1970s until 2002, according to court documents. The state also holds 3M partially responsible for DuPont's alleged disposal of PFAS-laced waste from the Chambers Works site, saying that the waste was generated by DuPont using 3M's PFOA-based products. The discharge allegedly contaminated New Jersey's natural resources near the site, according to the lawsuit. Chemours took over the Chambers Works site and production in 2015 when DuPont broke off Chemours and Corteva as their own separate entities. The Chambers Works facilities still make fluorinated products such as oils and greases, according to the Chemours website. The last lawsuit involves allegations that 3M contaminated public water supplies across the U.S. with PFAS-based aqueous film-forming foam. A federal judge finalized 3M's settlement last year, and the company agreed to pay public water suppliers between $10.5 billion and $12.5 billion. States included in the multidistrict litigation have the choice to opt out of the settlement and instead pursue further litigation. 3M's proposed settlement with New Jersey will resolve the state's lawsuits against the chemical manufacturer, as well as the state's agreement not to sue in the future. 3M said in its press release that the agreement is not an admission of liability. While 3M has one manufacturing facility in Flemington, New Jersey, the factory does not produce any forever chemicals-laced products. The company is on track to phase out its PFAS usage in its manufacturing processes by next year. New Jersey officials noted in the agreement that 3M 'has taken actions, which other companies have not taken, to cease manufacturing of AFFF and PFAS and to seek to phase out the use of PFAS in its products.' 3M is the second chemical manufacturer with which New Jersey has settled litigation. In 2023, the U.S. subsidiary of Brussels-based chemical company Solvay S.A. reached a $392.7 million settlement regarding PFAS contamination claims in the state. 3M settled with the state a week before it was set to go to trial, alongside DuPont and Chemours. The first phase of the court trial involving Chemours and DuPont began on Monday, according to the court documents. Recommended Reading Solvay reaches $393M 'forever chemicals' settlement with New Jersey Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
National Observer
15-05-2025
- Business
- National Observer
States are banning forever chemicals. Industry is fighting back
This story was originally published by Wired and appears here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration In 2021, James Kenney and his husband were at a big box store buying a piece of furniture when the sales associate asked if they'd like to add fabric protectant. Kenney, the cabinet secretary of New Mexico's Environment Department, asked to see the product data sheet. Both he and his husband were shocked to see forever chemicals listed as ingredients in the protectant. 'I think about your normal, everyday New Mexican who is trying to get by, make their furniture last a little longer, and they think, 'Oh, it's safe, great!' It's not safe,' he says. 'It just so happens that they tried to sell it to the environment secretary.' Last week, the New Mexico legislature passed a pair of bills that Kenney hopes will help protect consumers in his state. If signed by the governor, the legislation would eventually ban consumer products that have added PFAS—per- and polyfluorinated alkyl substances, known colloquially as 'forever chemicals' because of their persistence in the environment—from being sold in New Mexico. As health and environmental concerns about forever chemicals mount nationally, New Mexico joins a small but growing number of states that are moving to limit—and, in some cases, ban—PFAS in consumer products. New Mexico is now the third state to pass a PFAS ban through the legislature. Ten other states have bans or limits on added PFAS in certain consumer products, including cookware, carpet, apparel, and cosmetics. This year, at least 29 states—a record number—have PFAS-related bills before state legislatures, according to an analysis of bills by Safer States, a network of state-based advocacy organizations working on issues around potentially unsafe chemicals. The chemical and consumer products industries have taken notice of this new wave of regulations and are mounting a counterattack, lobbying state legislatures to advocate for the safety of their products—and, in one case, suing to prevent the laws from taking effect. Some of the key exemptions made in New Mexico highlight some of the big fights that industries are hoping they'll win in statehouses across the country: fights they are already taking to a newly industry-friendly US Environmental Protection Agency. PFAS is not just one chemical but a class of thousands. The first PFAS were developed in the 1930s; thanks to their nonstick properties and unique durability, their popularity grew in industrial and consumer uses in the postwar era. The chemicals were soon omnipresent in American lives, coating cookware, preventing furniture and carpets from staining, and acting as a surfactant in firefighting foam. In 1999, a man in West Virginia filed a lawsuit against US chemical giant DuPont alleging that pollution from its factory was killing his cattle. The lawsuit revealed that DuPont had concealed evidence of PFAS's negative health effects on workers from the government for decades. In the years since, the chemical industry has paid out billions in settlement fees around PFAS lawsuits: in 2024, the American multinational 3M agreed to pay between $10 billion and $12.5 billion to US public water systems that had detected PFAS in their water supplies to pay for remediation and future testing, though the company did not admit liability. (DuPont and its separate chemical company Chemours continue to deny any wrongdoing in lawsuits involving them, including the original West Virginia suit.) As the moniker 'forever chemicals' suggests, mounting research has shown that PFAS accumulate in the environment and in our bodies and can be responsible for a number of health problems, from high cholesterol to reproductive issues and cancer. EPA figures released earlier this year show that almost half of the US population is currently exposed to PFAS in their drinking water. Nearly all Americans, meanwhile, have at least one type of PFAS in their blood. For a class of chemicals with such terrifying properties, there's been surprisingly little regulation of PFAS at the federal level. One of the most-studied PFAS chemicals, PFOA, began to be phased out in the US in the early 2000s, with major companies eliminating the chemical and related compounds under EPA guidance by 2015. The chemical industry and manufacturers say that the replacements they have found for the most dangerous chemicals are safe. But the federal government, as a whole, has lagged behind the science when it comes to regulations: The EPA only set official drinking water limits for six types of PFAS in 2024. In lieu of federal guidance, states have started taking action. In 2021, Maine, which identified an epidemic of PFAS pollution on its farms in 2016, passed the first-ever law banning the sale of consumer products with PFAS. Minnesota followed suit in 2023. 'The cookware industry has historically not really engaged in advocacy, whether it's advocacy or regulatory,' says Steve Burns, a lobbyist who represents the industry. But laws against PFAS in consumer products—particularly a bill in California, which required cookware manufacturers to disclose to consumers if they use any PFAS chemicals in their products—were a 'wakeup call' for the industry. Burns is president of the Cookware Sustainability Alliance, a 501c6 formed in 2024 by two major companies in the cookware industry. He and his colleagues have had a busy year, testifying in 10 statehouses across the country against PFAS restrictions or bans (and, in some cases, in favor of new laws that would exempt their products from existing bans). In February, the CSA was one of more than 40 industry groups and manufacturers to sign a letter to New Mexico lawmakers opposing its PFAS ban when it was first introduced. The CSA also filed a suit against the state of Minnesota in January, alleging that its PFAS ban is unconstitutional. Its work has paid off. Unlike the Maine or Minnesota laws, the New Mexico bill specifically exempts fluoropolymers, a key ingredient in nonstick cookware and a type of PFAS chemical, from the coming bans. The industry has also seen success overseas: France excluded kitchenware from its recent PFAS ban following a lobbying push by Cookware Sustainability Alliance member Groupe SEB. (The CSA operates only in the US and was not involved in that effort.) 'As an industry, we do believe that if we're able to make our case, we're able to have a conversation, present the science and all the independent studies we have, most times people will say well, you make a good point,' Burns says. 'This is a different chemistry.' It's not just the cookware industry making this argument. Erich Shea, the director of product communications at the American Chemistry Council, told WIRED in an email that the group supports New Mexico's fluoropolymer exclusion and that it will 'allow New Mexico to avoid the headaches experienced by decisionmakers in other states.' The FDA has authorized nonstick cookware for human use since the 1960s. Some research—including one peer-reviewed study conducted by the American Chemistry Council's Performance Fluoropolymer Partnership, whose members include 3M and Chemours, has found that fluoropolymers are safe to consume and less harmful than other types of PFAS. Separate research has called their safety into question. However, the production of fluoropolymers for use in nonstick cookware and other products has historically released harmful PFAS into the environment. And while major US manufacturers have phased out PFOA in their production chain, other factories overseas still use the chemical in making fluoropolymers. The debate over fluoropolymers' inclusion in state bans is part of a larger argument made by industry and business groups: that states are defining PFAS chemicals too broadly, opening the door to overregulation of safe products. A position paper from the Cookware Sustainability Alliance provided to WIRED lambasts the 'indiscriminate definition of PFAS' in many states with recent bans or restrictions. 'Our argument is that fluoropolymers are very different from PFAS chemicals of concern,' Burns says. Some advocates disagree. The exemption of fluoropolymers from New Mexico's ban, along with a host of other industry-specific exemptions in the bill, means that the legislation 'is not going to meet the stated intentions of what the bill's sponsors want it to do,' says Gretchen Salter, the policy director at Safer States. Advocates like Salter have concerns around the use of forever chemicals in the production of fluoropolymers as well as their durability throughout their life cycles. 'Fluoropolymers are PFAS. PFAS plastics are PFAS. They are dangerous at every stage of their life, from production to use to disposal,' she claims. Kenney acknowledges that the fluoropolymer exemption has garnered a 'little bit of criticism.' But he says that this bill is meant to be a starting point. 'We're not trying to demonize PFAS—it's in a lot of things that we rightfully still use—but we are trying to gauge the risk,' he says. 'We don't expect this to be a one and done. We expect science to grow and the exemptions to change.' With a newly industry-friendly set of regulators in DC, industry groups are looking for wins at the federal level too. In February, an organization of chemical manufacturers and business groups, including the American Chemistry Council and the Cookware Sustainability Alliance, sent a letter to the EPA outlining suggested 'principles and policy recommendations' around PFAS. The group emphasized the need to 'recognize that PFAS are a broad class of chemistries with very diverse and necessary properties' and recommended the agency adopt a government-wide definition of PFAS based on West Virginia and Delaware's definitions. Both of those states have a much more conservative definition of what defines PFAS than dozens of other states, including Maine, New Mexico, and Minnesota. A federal definition like this could 'have a chilling effect on state legislation going forward,' said Melanie Benesh, the vice president of government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, an environmental activist organization. 'There would be this federal position that the chemical industry could point to, which might be convincing to some state legislators to say, well, this is what the federal government has said is a definition of PFAS. As you start excluding PFAS from the class, you really limit what PFAS are covered by consumer product bans.' Shea, of the American Chemistry Council, told WIRED that the group believes 'that the federal regulatory approach is preferable to a patchwork of different and potentially conflicting state approaches.' States with bans face a monumental task in truly getting PFAS out of consumers' lives. Vendors in Minnesota have been left with expensive inventory that they can no longer sell; Maine's law, one of the most aggressive, makes exemptions for 'currently unavoidable use' of PFAS, including in semiconductors, lab equipment, and medical devices. PFAS are used in so many of the products in our lives that it's almost unfathomable to think of phasing them out altogether, as soon as possible. For advocates like Salter, it's a change worth making. 'There might be essential uses for PFAS right now,' she says. 'But we want to spur the search for safer alternatives, because we don't want to give a pass to chemicals that are harming human health. By exempting them altogether, you are completely removing that incentive.'
BBC News
26-02-2025
- Health
- BBC News
Jersey government 'committed' to safety of water supply
Ministers have promised to act on a petition which called for better healthcare for people who were exposed to a chemical used in firefighting foam at Jersey the environment minister and health minister said all actions used to tackle PFAS in the island's water will be guided by scientific the early 1990s the foam was used on the airport fire training ground and leaked into the neighbouring area and private borehole water supplies.A spokesperson for Jersey Water said it was committed to playing a key role in implementing solutions to treat PFAS. 'Stricter standards' More than 1,200 people signed a petition to "clean Jersey's water, build a treatment plant and improve PFAS-related healthcare".The petition said the island's water was "contaminated with many types of PFAS and nitrates posing risks to health" and called for a new treatment plant. Environment Minister Deputy Steve Luce said the government was "committed to ensuring the safety and quality" of the water supply and protecting public health."I am acutely aware of the challenges posed by PFAS contamination and the potential health risks it presents," he said. Luce said Jersey Water's 2024 report demonstrated 100% compliance with current UK and EU regulatory standards for PFAS."We are working towards introducing a specific regulatory requirement for Jersey to meet even stricter standards," he added."I recognise the need for advanced treatment solutions to address PFAS contamination." 'Significant work' Luce said models similar to Australia's $30m treatment plant in Katherine were being considered as a solution. He said Jersey Water had undertaken "significant work" to review options, adding it was "committed" to implementing treatment technology to reduce PFAS and nitrates in the island's water. "I am confident that when I bring forward a Jersey regulatory standard for PFAS later this year, Jersey Water will be in an advanced position to implement treatment in their two water plants," he said. 'Critical need' A spokesperson for Jersey Water said it was focused on the "critical need" to address the risks posed by PFAS pollution on the island and they were working closely with the added: "Our focus is on investigating and selecting the right treatment solution for Jersey, based on the most up-to-date scientific evidence, global best practices, and compliance with the future regulatory limits the government sets for the island." The Minister for Health and Social Services, Deputy Tom Binet, said "significant steps" were being taken to address the health impacts of PFAS contamination for all islanders "especially in the island's hotspot around the airport".Mr Binet said the public health commissioned the independent PFAS scientific advisory panel in 2023 which produced two of three planned reports on the impacts on PFAS on health."I am committed to delivering the report's recommendations and report three, which focuses on interventions to lower PFAS levels, blood testing, and re-testing," he natural environment department will also release a hydrogeological survey report, to understand the impact on the environment.
BBC News
28-01-2025
- Health
- BBC News
Jersey ministers to respond to PFAS petition
Jersey ministers will have to respond after more than 1,000 people signed a petition to "clean Jersey's water, build a treatment plant and improve PFAS-related healthcare".The petition said: "Jersey's water is contaminated with many types of PFAS... and nitrates, posing risks to health."The petition calls for a new treatment plant to "safeguard public health, our food chain, and our environment".In December, Jersey Water said the results of recent water quality tests revealed island drinking water "remains among the best in the world". 'Effective solutions' At the time, Jersey Water added it "ensured that the trace levels of PFAS concentrations found in mains water are 68% lower than the UK and EU regulatory limits".The petition said: "International models, like Australia's $30m treatment plant in Katherine, provide effective solutions to mitigate contamination."The deadline for the petition is 17 June. When a petition reaches 1,000 signatures, the relevant minister is required to issue a response. The BBC has approached Jersey Water for a comment.
