Podcast Summary
Holding 3M Accountable for Polluting the Tennessee River with PFOAs: Public interest lawyer Bill Matsoukidis played a crucial role in securing a settlement for the contamination of the Tennessee River with 'forever chemicals' PFOAs, using evidence from the DuPont case and advocating for mandatory medical monitoring and studies on health effects.
Bill Matsoukidis, a public interest lawyer and co-founder of Matsoukidis and FanaChukwu, played a significant role in holding 3M accountable for polluting the Tennessee River with PFOAs, a group of chemicals known as "forever chemicals" due to their persistence in the body and the environment. This case built on the medical monitoring data from the DuPont PFOA case, which settled for $633 million and established a precedent for mandatory medical monitoring and studies on the health effects of PFOAs. The importance of this settlement lies in the fact that PFOAs, used by 3M and other companies to create waterproofing and flame retardants, have been linked to various health issues and are now present in the blood supply of almost all Americans. By representing Tennessee River Keeper and using the scientific evidence from the DuPont case, Matsoukidis helped bring attention to the ongoing contamination of the Tennessee River and the need for further action to address the health and environmental consequences of these chemicals.
PFAS Lack of Regulation and Health Concerns: The EPA's failure to regulate Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) has resulted in health concerns and lawsuits against companies like DuPont, with potential correlations to cancers. The absence of regulation poses a significant health risk to people worldwide.
The lack of regulation of Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has led to health concerns and lawsuits against companies like DuPont. The case of PFOS and PFOA in West Virginia led to health monitoring and correlations to cancers, but if DuPont had known this earlier, they may have faced greater financial consequences. The EPA's relationship with powerful polluting companies complicates these cases, making it difficult to explain to judges. Despite some progress, the EPA still lacks the power of law to regulate PFAS as a hazardous chemical, and there are no minimum contaminant levels set. The new EPA administrator's actions will be closely watched, but past actions suggest a corrupt institutional culture. The impact of PFAS is not limited to the US, and the absence of regulation poses a significant health risk to people worldwide.
States take action as federal regulators drag their feet on PFAS: States are setting stricter limits for PFAS while federal regulators acknowledge health risks but move slowly to set standards. Our case aimed to protect human health and the environment by stopping contamination.
The regulation of harmful chemicals like PFAS is a complex issue with agencies like the EPA acknowledging the health risks but moving slowly to set standards. Meanwhile, states are taking matters into their own hands, setting stricter limits. Our case, filed under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, sought injunctive relief to stop the contamination and protect human health and the environment. It's concerning that regulatory agencies allow contaminated fish to be caught and consumed instead of holding polluters accountable. The people's right to clean water and fish should not be compromised. The public owns the fisheries and waters, not corporations.
ADEM prioritizes companies over public and environment: Despite the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, ADEM's actions have led to public frustration, as they prioritize polluting companies over public health and the environment, making it difficult for individuals to hold them accountable for unregulated hazardous waste and health concerns.
According to the discussion, the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) is perceived as an agency that prioritizes protecting polluting companies over the public and the environment. ADEM's actions, such as making sweetheart deals with companies and preempting private lawsuits, have led to frustration and a belief that it fails to uphold the public's rights to clean water and fish. The case involving 3M and the release of PFAS into the Tennessee River is an example of this, where the companies' actions have led to health concerns and the inability to consume fish from the river. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act enables private individuals to sue companies for such environmental hazards, and studies and expert testimony can help prove the presence and danger of unregulated hazardous waste. The use of replacement chemicals, which may still pose risks, further highlights the complexities and ongoing challenges in addressing these issues.
Regulatory Arbitrage and Chemical Contamination: Companies evade responsibility for toxic chemical disposal through slight molecular changes, while public demands cleanup and accountability
Companies have been producing and disposing of harmful chemicals, such as PFOS and PFOA, for decades, despite their toxicity and negative impact on the environment and human health. These companies have changed the molecular structure of these chemicals slightly to make them technically legal, while continuing to release them into the environment. This practice, known as regulatory arbitrage, allows these companies to avoid accountability and cleanup costs. The public, who own natural resources like rivers and fish, should have the right to demand remedies and cleanup efforts when their health and environment are threatened. The Tennessee Riverkeeper and similar organizations are fighting to hold these companies accountable and clean up the contamination, even the last molecule. This is a complex issue that requires progressive legislation and a shift in corporate responsibility towards prioritizing the health of people and the environment over profits.
Ongoing Contamination of Groundwater with PFAS and its Impact on the Environment: Despite decades-long efforts, the persistent contamination of groundwater with PFAS from multiple sources continues to impact the environment, requiring comprehensive and long-term solutions
The contamination of PFAS in the groundwater near a specific site is a persistent issue that requires more than just temporary solutions. The levels of contamination are significantly higher than the standard, and the groundwater is flowing towards the river, leading to ongoing contamination. Despite efforts made over the past 20 years to address the issue, the problem is not solved, as evidenced by high readings in surface water and fish. A complete clean-up of every last molecule is necessary, but given the political and judicial limitations, this may not be enough. The contamination comes from multiple sources, including a landfill on the 3M plant site and one owned by the county, and leachate from these landfills is being treated minimally before being released into the river. When the lawsuit was filed, the defendants tried to dismiss it, claiming that if there was contamination in the river, they should not be held responsible. However, the ongoing contamination highlights the need for comprehensive and long-term solutions to address this issue.
Understanding science and law in environmental litigation: Effective advocacy in environmental litigation requires a deep understanding of science and law. Independent judiciary and expert witnesses play crucial roles in resolving complex pollution cases.
Effective advocacy in environmental litigation requires a thorough understanding of the science behind the pollution and the legal framework surrounding it. In the discussed case, the plaintiffs successfully argued against the defendants' attempts to dismiss their lawsuit based on point source discharges not falling under the statute. However, the defendants tried to mix the case into a multi-district litigation and switched counsel. The plaintiffs, with the help of expert witnesses, advocated for a comprehensive investigation into the sources of PFAS contamination in the Tennessee River before considering cleanup methods. This approach allowed for a more informed and effective resolution to the issue. The case highlights the importance of an independent judiciary and the role of expert witnesses in environmental litigation.
3M Hudson River Cleanup: Transparent and Public Process: 3M is funding a team of experts to address PFAS contamination in the Hudson River in a transparent and public manner, with Riverkeeper's involvement, aiming to restore the river to a safe state for fishing and consumption.
The ongoing legal case between Riverkeeper and 3M regarding PFAS contamination in the Hudson River involves not just proving the health risks and exposure pathways of the chemicals, but also determining an effective cleanup solution. If the case had gone to trial, the court might have ordered a study and cleanup plan. Now, with the settlement, 3M is funding a team of experts to address the cleanup in a transparent and public manner. The cleanup process is expected to be a significant environmental issue in the coming months, and Riverkeeper will have a voice in the proceedings. Ultimately, the goal is to restore the Hudson River to a point where it's safe for fishing and consumption. While the cleanup will take time, the hope is that one day, those affected can safely catch and eat fish from the river itself.
