3M 2014 Annual Report Download - page 113

107
As previously reported, the Company entered into a voluntary remedial action agreement with the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (ADEM) to address the presence of PFCs in the soil at the Company’s manufacturing facility in
Decatur, Alabama. Pursuant to a permit issued by ADEM, for approximately twenty years, the Company incorporated its
wastewater treatment plant sludge containing PFCs in fields at its Decatur facility. After a review of the available options to
address the presence of PFCs in the soil, ADEM agreed that the preferred remediation option is to use a multilayer cap over
the former sludge incorporation areas on the manufacturing site with subsequent groundwater migration controls and
treatment. Implementation of that option will continue and is expected to be completed in 2018.
The Company continues to work with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) pursuant to the terms of the
previously disclosed May 2007 Settlement Agreement and Consent Order to address the presence of certain PFCs in the
soil and groundwater at former disposal sites in Washington County, Minnesota (Oakdale and Woodbury) and at the
Company’s manufacturing facility at Cottage Grove, Minnesota. Under this agreement, the Company’s principal obligations
include (i) evaluating releases of certain PFCs from these sites and proposing response actions; (ii) providing treatment or
alternative drinking water upon identifying any level exceeding a Health Based Value (“HBV”) or Health Risk Limit (“HRL”)
(i.e., the amount of a chemical in drinking water determined by the Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) to be safe for
human consumption over a lifetime) for certain PFCs for which a HBV and/or HRL exists as a result of contamination from
these sites; (iii) remediating identified sources of other PFCs at these sites that are not controlled by actions to remediate
PFOA and PFOS; and (iv) sharing information with the MPCA about certain perfluorinated compounds. During 2008, the
MPCA issued formal decisions adopting remedial options for the former disposal sites in Washington County, Minnesota
(Oakdale and Woodbury). In August 2009, the MPCA issued a formal decision adopting remedial options for the Company’s
Cottage Grove manufacturing facility. During the spring and summer of 2010, 3M began implementing the agreed upon
remedial options at the Cottage Grove and Woodbury sites. 3M commenced the remedial option at the Oakdale site in late
2010. At each location the remedial options were recommended by the Company and approved by the MPCA. Remediation
work has been completed at the Oakdale and Woodbury sites, and they are in an operational maintenance mode.
Remediation will continue at the Cottage Grove site during 2015.
In February 2014, the Company submitted its most recent environmental assessment report to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency summarizing the levels of PFCs in the soil, groundwater and surface water at or near its manufacturing
facility in Cordova, Illinois. The Company will continue to monitor PFCs at the site and is engaged in discussions with the
Illinois EPA concerning next steps for the site. In August 2014, the Illinois EPA approved a request by the Company to
establish a groundwater management zone at the site, which includes ongoing pumping of impacted site groundwater,
groundwater monitoring and routine reporting of results.
The Company cannot predict what additional regulatory actions arising from the foregoing proceedings and activities, if any,
may be taken regarding such compounds or the consequences of any such actions.
Environmental Litigation
As previously reported, a former employee filed a purported class action lawsuit in 2002 in the Circuit Court of Morgan
County, Alabama, seeking unstated damages and alleging that the plaintiffs suffered fear, increased risk, subclinical injuries,
and property damage from exposure to certain perfluorochemicals at or near the Company’s Decatur, Alabama,
manufacturing facility. The court in 2005 granted the Company’s motion to dismiss the named plaintiff’s personal injury-
related claims on the basis that such claims are barred by the exclusivity provisions of the state’s Workers Compensation
Act. The plaintiffs’ counsel filed an amended complaint in November 2006, limiting the case to property damage claims on
behalf of a purported class of residents and property owners in the vicinity of the Decatur plant.
Also, in 2005, the judge in a second purported class action lawsuit (filed by three residents of Morgan County, Alabama,
seeking unstated compensatory and punitive damages involving alleged damage to their property from emissions of certain
perfluorochemical compounds from the Company’s Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility that formerly manufactured
those compounds) granted the Company’s motion to abate the case, effectively putting the case on hold pending the
resolution of class certification issues in the first action described above, filed in the same court in 2002. Despite the stay,
plaintiffs filed an amended complaint seeking damages for alleged personal injuries and property damage on behalf of the
named plaintiffs and the members of a purported class. No further action in the case is expected unless and until the stay is
lifted.
In February 2009, a resident of Franklin County, Alabama, filed a purported class action lawsuit in the Circuit Court of
Franklin County seeking compensatory damages and injunctive relief based on the application by the Decatur utility’s
wastewater treatment plant of wastewater treatment sludge to farmland and grasslands in the state that allegedly contain
PFOA, PFOS and other perfluorochemicals. The named defendants in the case include 3M, Daikin America, Inc.,
Synagro-WWT, Inc., Synagro South, LLC, and Biological Processors of America. The named plaintiff seeks to represent a
class of all persons within the State of Alabama who have had PFOA, PFOS, and other perfluorochemicals released or
deposited on their property. In March 2010, the Alabama Supreme Court ordered the case transferred from Franklin
County to Morgan County. In May 2010, consistent with its handling of the other matters, the Morgan County Circuit Court