New defendant named in PFAS lawsuit

A new defendant has been added to a federal lawsuit brought by a group of Town of Stella property owners who have alleged the long-standing practice of spreading sludge/fibercake from the Rhinelander paper mill on local farmlands caused their properties to become contaminated with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
On April 14, the 48 named plaintiffs filed a fourth amended complaint adding the chemical company BASF as a defendant. The move comes nearly two years after their original complaint, listing Ahlstrom Munksjo, Wausau Paper, and the chemical giant 3M as defendants, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin.
Ahlstrom is the current owner of the Rhinelander mill, having purchased it from Wausau Paper in 2018.
“At the Rhinelander facility, Ahlstrom and its predecessors used PFAS products manufactured by 3M and BASF,” the newly amended complaint alleges. “Ahlstrom then improperly disposed of PFAS-containing waste by spreading tons of this waste on farms in the Rhinelander area.”
Ahlstrom, Wausau Paper and their predecessors “knew or should have known about the inherent risks and dangers involved in applying PFAS-containing waste on farmlands, and at all relevant times, defendants 3M and BASF knew or should have known about the inherent risks and dangers involved in the use of PFAS compounds in products sold to other companies, like Ahlstrom and Wausau Paper — including that both PFOA and PFOS are mobile in water, not easily biodegradable, highly persistent in the environment, and present significant and unreasonable risks to both human health and the environment,” the complaint states.

Nevertheless, the complaint alleges, the defendants “made a conscious choice to manufacture, market, sell, and dispose of PFAS products and waste in a way that caused harm to Plaintiffs.”
PFAS are a group of man-made, fluorinated chemicals manufactured and used since the 1940s. Because they are designed to be stable and unreactive to water, grease, heat, and other elements, they are often referred to as “forever” compounds. Studies have shown a link between human exposure to PFAS and adverse health effects and some of the Stella plaintiffs allege they have experienced health issues they attribute to PFAS contamination.
“PFAS concentrations in plaintiffs’ private wells and nearby lakes are among the highest in the country and have been found at levels that are thousands of times greater than EPA health limits,” the amended complaint notes.
The plaintiffs filed their original complant August 2023, several months after a DNR-conducted statewide study revealed the dangerously high levels of PFAS in some private wells in the eastern Oneida County township.
All of the defendants have mounted a vigorous response to the allegations, including BASF.
“BASF is aware that it has been sued in a putative class action pending in the Western District of Wisconsin involving the alleged use of PFAS-containing products at a paper mill,” company officials said in a statement to the Star Journal. “BASF does not believe the allegations have merit, and it intends to defend the case vigorously. BASF regards protection of health, safety, and the environment as an important responsibility and is dedicated to operating its facilities in a safe and environmentally responsible fashion. As always, the company is committed to coordinating with federal, state, and local regulators concerning PFAS substances, potential remediation measures, and the continued development of appropriate and scientifically sound regulations and public communications.”
For its part, Alstrom has insisted that it has not used PFOA or PFOS in its manufacturing process since purchasing the mill seven years ago.
“The Rhinelander Mill and its employees are important for Ahlstrom, producing some of the company’s most important products utilizing our proprietary FluoroFree® technology,” a company statement reads. “These products are an important part of Ahlstrom’s vision to be the preferred sustainable specialty materials company for all our stakeholders.”
The defendants have also argued that land-spreading is a common practice, regulated by the DNR, that does not meet the legal definition of a “hazardous activity” as is required for the plaintiff’s strict liability claim to prevail.
They have also signaled their opposition to any attempt to have the lawsuit certified as a “class action” as it is their belief that none of the plaintiffs’ claims meet the “rigorous standards” for class certification.
Court records indicate Judge William M. Conley is not expected to rule on the question of class certification until late next year. The case is not scheduled for trial until March 2027.