3M 2004 Annual Report Download - page 38

12
Regulatory evaluation activities continue in the European Union (including some of its member countries), other
countries and certain international bodies as to PFOA and/or PFOS. These activities include gathering of
exposure and use information, preliminary risk assessment, and examination of regulatory approaches.
The Company, in cooperation with local and state agencies, tested groundwater beneath two former waste
disposal sites in Washington County, Minnesota, used many years ago by the Company to dispose of waste
containing perfluorooctanyl compounds. The test results show that water from municipal wells near the former
disposal sites contain low levels of perfluorooctanyl compounds (PFOS and PFOA) that the Minnesota
Department of Health does not currently consider to pose a health risk. Additional testing will be conducted and
the Company expects to assist the government authorities in addressing such circumstances as appropriate.
The Company has completed the self-audit it agreed with the EPA in June 1999 to undertake concerning its
compliance with the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) that included the TSCA Section 8(e) reporting
requirement as applied to studies on perfluorooctanyl chemistry and other products. Based on communications
with EPA, the Company understands that EPA is presently evaluating the results of this self-audit pursuant to the
agreement, which provides for stipulated monetary penalties.
The Company markets its newly reformulated Scotchgard™ Products, which replace previous versions, pursuant
to a consent agreement with the EPA that requires extensive health and environmental effects testing of the base
chemistry underlying such products, most of which has been completed. The EPA has not yet issued the
anticipated hazard assessment of that health and environmental effects testing for the reformulated Scotchgard™
Products.
The Company cannot predict what regulatory actions arising from the foregoing proceedings and activities, if any,
may be taken regarding such compounds or the consequences of any such actions.
Litigation: A purported class action lawsuit involving perfluorooctanyl chemistry that originally was filed in 2002
against the Company by a former employee in the Circuit Court of Morgan County, Alabama, remains pending.
The lawsuit seeks unstated compensatory and punitive damages and alleges that the plaintiffs suffered fear,
increased risk, and sub clinical injuries from exposure to perfluorooctanyl chemistry at or near the Company’s
Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility. The complaint also alleges that the Company acted improperly with
respect to disclosures to workers concerning such chemistry. The Company is awaiting a decision from the court
on the Company’s motion to dismiss the complaint that was heard on December 10, 2003. The Company’s
separate motion to dismiss the class action allegations is also pending. On September 10, 2004, three residents of
Morgan County, Alabama, filed a purported class action lawsuit involving perfluorooctanyl chemistry in the Circuit
Court of Morgan County. The lawsuit seeks unstated compensatory and punitive damages and alleges that the
plaintiffs suffered damage to their property from emissions of perfluorooctanyl compounds from the Company’s
Decatur, Alabama, manufacturing facility that formerly produced those compounds. The purported class appears
to be included in the putative class action described above. On February 3, 2005, the judge granted the Company’s
motion to abate the case, effectively putting the case on hold pending the outcome of the class certification decision
in the action described above filed in the same court in 2002.
On October 8, 2004, two residents of Washington County, Minnesota, filed a purported class action in the District
Court of Washington County on behalf of Washington County residents whose property has allegedly been
harmed by perfluorooctanyl compounds and who have allegedly suffered personal injury from such compounds
from the Company’s Cottage Grove, Minnesota, manufacturing facility that formerly produced those compounds
and other of its facilities nearby. The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages in excess of $50,000 per plaintiff and
class member.
Several hundred plaintiffs who claim to have lived in the vicinity of the ACME Barrel Company’s storage drum
reconditioning facility in Chicago, Illinois, filed a lawsuit in the third quarter of 2003 in the Circuit Court of Cook
County, Illinois, against 3M and a number of other companies that allegedly were customers of ACME Barrel. The
complaint seeks unspecified damages for personal injuries and death allegedly caused by the plaintiffs’ exposure
to chemicals migrating from ACME Barrel’s drum reconditioning operations. The plaintiffs also assert that a class
should be certified on behalf of all persons similarly situated. A separate wrongful death lawsuit was filed in the
Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, against 3M and a number of other companies on behalf of the estate and
family of a person who worked at the Cook County Juvenile Detention Center in the vicinity of the ACME Barrel
facility. The lawsuit alleges unspecified damages from personal injuries and death allegedly caused by exposure
to chemicals migrating from ACME Barrel’s drum reconditioning operations.