PITTSBURGH – The western Pennsylvania borough of Coraopolis is suing a host of corporations beginning with 3M, for their alleged actions in causing groundwater contamination in its local wells through the use of its products containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
Coraopolis’s Water & Sewer Authority filed its litigation in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on May 8, suing 3M, E.I. DuPont De Nemours and Company, The Chemours Company LLC, Tyco Fire Products, LP and dozens of other companies. The Town did not respond to a message seeking the contract it signed with private lawyers who are presumably working on a contingency fee.
According to the litigation, the defendants are all manufacturers of fire suppression products, including aqueous film forming foam (AFFF), which contained water-soluble toxins such as perfluoroctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluoroctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), which have been in production use for more than 60 years.
PFOA and PFOS are part of the PFAS family. Consumer products like Teflon, Scotch guard, waterproofing compounds, stain proofing compounds, paper and cloth coatings, waxes, and various other products were popular uses for PFAS.
“Defendants manufactured, marketed and/or sold AFFF with the knowledge that these toxic compounds would be released into the environment during fire protection, training and response activities even when the AFFF was used as directed and intended by the manufacturer,” the suit says.
“PFOA and PFOS do not occur in nature. Rather, they are stable, man-made chemicals. They are highly water soluble, persistent in the environment and resistant to biologic, environmental, or photochemical degradation. Because these compounds are water soluble and do not readily adsorb to sediments or soil, they tend to stay in the water column and can be transported long distances.”
The suit adds PFAS has manifested in wells overseen and controlled by the Coraopolis Water and Sewer Authority. Per the lawsuit, injuries are not sudden and can arise months, years or decades after exposure to PFOA and PFOS.
Though 3M ceased production of AFFF manufactured with PFOA and PFOS in 2002, it allegedly knew of the risks it would pose to both the environment and human health.
Many other lawsuits on this topic have become part of a growing number being heard in a South Carolina multi-district litigation and if the instant case is removed to federal court, it will likely end up there.
Meanwhile, states are imposing their own PFAS regulations and hiring private lawyers to file lawsuits, while Democrats in Congress push for putting a label on PFAS that will lead to litigation against more defendants.
While the Environmental Protection Agency has referenced possible carcinogenic potential for PFAS, others complain that it’s all too premature and that the exact health effects of PFAS in the human body aren't known yet.
In January, a Philadelphia federal judge ruled that since PFAS hasn’t yet been legally classified as “hazardous” under Pennsylvania’s Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act, a case brought by homeowners residing in the vicinity of U.S. Navy facilities in Willow Grove and Warminster must be dismissed.
In response to the instant litigation, 3M issued a statement saying it “acted responsibly” with respect to its PFAS-containing products.
“3M acted responsibly in connection with its manufacture and sale of AFFF (aqueous film-forming foam) and products containing PFAS. We will continue to vigorously defend our record of environmental stewardship,” said Sean Lynch, Media Relations Specialist for 3M.
For counts of public nuisance, private nuisance, strict liability (design defect), strict liability (failure to warn), trespass, civil conspiracy, fraudulent transfer and negligence, the plaintiff is seeking:
• Compensatory damages to cover investigation, testing, assessment, treatment and remediation of and future installation of monitoring mechanisms for PFAS contamination;
• Punitive damages and consequential damages;
• Costs, disbursements and attorneys’ fees; and
• Pre-and post-judgment interest, any other and further relief as the Court deems just, proper, and equitable, in addition to a trial by jury.
The plaintiff is represented by Vincent A. Tucceri and Nathaniel J. Boring of Gaitens Tucceri & Nicholas in Pittsburgh, plus Scott Summy of Baron & Budd in Dallas, Texas.
The defendants have not yet secured legal counsel.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-20-005577
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com