3M 2007 Annual Report Download - page 82

Download and view the complete annual report

Please find page 82 of the 2007 3M annual report below. You can navigate through the pages in the report by either clicking on the pages listed below, or by using the keyword search tool below to find specific information within the annual report.

Page out of 100

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
  • 13
  • 14
  • 15
  • 16
  • 17
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
  • 26
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 33
  • 34
  • 35
  • 36
  • 37
  • 38
  • 39
  • 40
  • 41
  • 42
  • 43
  • 44
  • 45
  • 46
  • 47
  • 48
  • 49
  • 50
  • 51
  • 52
  • 53
  • 54
  • 55
  • 56
  • 57
  • 58
  • 59
  • 60
  • 61
  • 62
  • 63
  • 64
  • 65
  • 66
  • 67
  • 68
  • 69
  • 70
  • 71
  • 72
  • 73
  • 74
  • 75
  • 76
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
  • 82
  • 83
  • 84
  • 85
  • 86
  • 87
  • 88
  • 89
  • 90
  • 91
  • 92
  • 93
  • 94
  • 95
  • 96
  • 97
  • 98
  • 99
  • 100

76
A similar age discrimination purported class action was filed against the Company in November 2005 in the Superior
Court of Essex County, New Jersey, on behalf of a class of New Jersey-based employees of the Company. The
Company removed this case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. On June 29, 2007, the
attorneys for the plaintiff amended their complaint and dropped the class action allegations.
In addition, three former employees filed age discrimination charges against the Company with the U.S. Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission and the pertinent state agencies in Minnesota and California during 2005; two of
these charges were amended in 2006. Such filings include allegations that the release of claims signed by certain former
employees in the purported class defined in the charges is invalid for various reasons and assert age discrimination
claims on behalf of certain current and former salaried employees in states other than Minnesota and New Jersey. In
2006, one current employee filed an age discrimination charge against the Company with the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission and the pertinent state agency in Missouri, asserting claims on behalf of a class of all current
and certain former salaried employees who worked in Missouri and other states other than Minnesota and New Jersey.
The same law firm represents the plaintiffs and claimants in each of these proceedings.
Environmental Matters and Litigation
The Company’s operations are subject to environmental laws and regulations including those pertaining to air emissions,
wastewater discharges, toxic substances, and the handling and disposal of solid and hazardous wastes enforceable by
national, state, and local authorities around the world, and private parties in the United States and abroad. These laws
and regulations provide, under certain circumstances, a basis for the remediation of contamination and for personal injury
and property damage claims. The Company has incurred, and will continue to incur, costs and capital expenditures in
complying with these laws and regulations, defending personal injury and property damage claims, and modifying its
business operations in light of its environmental responsibilities. In its effort to satisfy its environmental responsibilities
and comply with environmental laws and regulations, the Company has established, and periodically updates, policies
relating to environmental standards of performance for its operations worldwide.
Remediation: Under certain environmental laws, including the United States Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act of 1980 and similar state laws, the Company may be jointly and severally liable, typically
with other companies, for the costs of environmental contamination at current or former facilities and at off-site locations.
The Company has identified numerous locations, most of which are in the United States, at which it may have some
liability. Please refer to the following section, "Accrued Liabilities and Insurance Receivables Related to Legal
Proceedings" for more information on this subject.
Regulatory Activities: As previously reported, the Company has been voluntarily cooperating with ongoing reviews by
local, state, national (primarily the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)), and international agencies of possible
environmental and health effects of perfluorooctanyl compounds (perflurooctanoic acid or “PFOA” and perfluorooctane
sulfonate or “PFOS”) and related compounds. As a result of its phase-out decision in May 2000, the Company no longer
manufactures perfluorooctanyl compounds, except that a subsidiary recovers and recycles PFOA in Gendorf, Germany,
for internal use in production processes and has agreed to a product stewardship initiative with the EPA to work toward
elimination of its use of PFOA by 2015.
Regulatory activities concerning PFOA and/or PFOS continue in Europe and elsewhere, and before certain international
bodies. These activities include gathering of exposure and use information, risk assessment, and consideration of
regulatory approaches.
As previously reported, the Company, in cooperation with state agencies, tested soil and groundwater beneath three
former waste disposal sites in Washington County, Minnesota, used many years ago by the Company to dispose lawfully
of waste containing perfluorinated compounds. In addition, subsequent testing of water from certain municipal wells in
Oakdale, Minnesota and some private wells in Lake Elmo, Minnesota, indicated the presence of low levels of PFOS and
PFOA that, in some cases, were slightly above guidelines established by the Minnesota Department of Health (“MDH”).
As previously reported, the Company addressed the presence of these compounds in the water by treating certain
municipal wells in Oakdale and by providing a grant to the City of Lake Elmo to extend city water to certain residents with
these compounds in their private wells. In March 2007 the MDH lowered the Health-Based Values (HBVs) (i.e., the
amount of a chemical in drinking water considered by the MDH staff to be safe for people to drink for a lifetime) for PFOA
from 7 parts per billion (ppb) to 0.5 ppb and for PFOS from 1 ppb to 0.3 ppb. In August 2007 the MDH established these
same levels as Health Risk Limits (“HRL”) (i.e., the amount of a chemical in drinking water determined by the MDH to be
safe for people to drink for a lifetime) through an expedited rule-making process. In a final report issued on January 15,
2008, the MDH proposed a draft value to lower the HRL for PFOA from 0.5 ppb to 0.3 ppb in anticipation of HRL rule-
making in 2008.
As previously reported, the MDH has also detected low levels of a perfluorinated compound called perfluorobutanoic acid
(PFBA) in municipal wells (and in private wells as announced by the MDH in June 2007) in six nearby communities
(Woodbury, Cottage Grove, Newport, St. Paul Park, South St. Paul, and Hastings, all communities located southeast of
St. Paul), some of which slightly exceed the MDH’s well guidance for PFBA, currently at 1 ppb. The Company is working
with the MDH and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) in assessing the source of PFBA in these wells and is
supplying data that could be used in determining an appropriate drinking water guideline level. The MDH has not issued