The Australian government’s A$2 billion ($1.4 billion) lawsuit, announced May 28, against chemical manufacturer 3M for alleged environmental damages from firefighting foam containing per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) could lay the groundwork for other countries struggling with billion-dollar remediation projects, analysts say.
“A federal state holding a multinational company accountable for national-scale environmental pollution is bold,” says Hélène Duguy, an environmental lawyer at ClientEarth who specializes in chemical pollution.
While the lawsuit is focused only on PFAS contamination at Australian defense sites, Duguy says it could be a model to consolidate local claims of PFAS contamination while recovering costs associated with remediation. The results of the lawsuit could encourage other governments to “take the burden off the shoulders of municipalities and residents who do this on their own.”
Minnesota-based 3M has settled several lawsuits in the US and other countries in recent years for PFAS pollution, most notably in drinking water.
In 2023, 3M settled a $10.3 billion lawsuit brought by public water utilities in the US for alleged contamination in tap water attributed mostly to aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). The fire suppressant usually contains either perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) or perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), two chemicals known to be toxic to humans. Australia’s Department of Defence has used AFFF at their 28 defense sites, leading to widespread contamination, the lawsuit contends.
In a statement provided to C&EN, 3M says it has never manufactured PFAS in Australia and stopped selling AFFF in the country 2 decades ago. It plans to challenge these claims in court.
The lawsuit alleges that 3M knew about the environmental risks of AFFF and withheld and misrepresented that information to the Australian government.
“I think it’s consistent with what we’ve been seeing in the United States for many years,” says Robert A. Bilott, an environmental lawyer who successfully sued DuPont on behalf of communities exposed to PFOA in Ohio and West Virginia. Lawsuits by impacted residents and state governments have made similar arguments that PFAS manufacturers understood the risks associated with their products and didn’t disclose them, Bilott says.
The environmental contamination from PFAS is expensive to clean up, Duguy says, which isn’t reflected in the cheap price tag of PFAS. Lawsuits like the one in Australia put the responsibility for remediation and pollution control onto chemical producers. “It’s a responsibility question,” she says. “Who bears the burden of [companies’] actions?” Up until now, she says, remediation has fallen on local and state authorities and tax-paying citizens.
So far, the Australian Department of Defence has spent A$817 million ($574 million) on remediating PFAS contamination at their defense bases, including removing contaminated soil, treating water, and providing bottled water to nearby communities, according to a PFAS inquiry by the Australian Parliament, published in November. Peter Khalil, Assistant Minister for Defence in Australia, wrote in a May 28 statement that the 3M lawsuit would recover past and future expenses incurred by the government.
Bilott says he wouldn’t be surprised if other countries take note of Australia’s lawsuit. While countries have differing laws that dictate how governments can hold companies accountable, “you’re dealing with a situation where folks are finding out all across the world that they have the same chemicals in their water, in their soil, in their fish,” he says. “It’s the same science, and it’s the same companies.”
Duguy agrees, adding that she hopes it’ll encourage other national governments to pursue this type of direct cost recovery. The information that comes out of this case could also strengthen evidence that 3M was withholding data on PFAS, which would support potential claims by other national governments, she says.
C&EN reached out to multiple chemical-industry attorneys for comment but did not hear back by publication time.
