Stella residents to hear PFAS update

State and county officials are headed back to Stella to provide an update to residents regarding the township’s ongoing struggle with PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) contamination.

The Oneida County Health Department is hosting the informational meeting, scheduled for 5:30 p.m. May 1 at the Stella Town Hall, but the Department of Natural Resources and Department of Health Services (DHS) will be presenting.

“The DNR will be reviewing the expanded private well water sampling and DHS will be doing a PFAS 101 overview and discussing safe surface water recreation and fish consumption advisories,” according to the health department. “There will then be a Q&A for the residents of Stella to answer any questions.”

Stella, located approximately 11 miles east of Rhinelander, has the unfortunate distinction of being home to some of the highest levels of PFAS contamination recorded in the state.

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.

The contamination in Stella was first discovered in late 2022 after the DNR conducted a voluntary sampling project.

Since then, state officials have visited the township periodically to provide updates and guidance.

Last August, six Stella property owners filed a federal lawsuit against the current and former owners of the Rhinelander paper mill, and chemical giant 3M, alleging the spread of PFAS-contaminated sludge/fibercake from the mill on local farmlands contaminated their drinking water. An amended complaint, filed in February and listing 43 named plaintiffs, alleges various health issues have resulted including kidney cancer, kidney disease, thyroid disease and high cholesterol.

“At the Rhinelander facility, Ahlstrom and its predecessors used PFAS products manufactured by 3M. Ahlstrom then improperly disposed of PFAS-containing waste by spreading tons of this waste on farms in the Rhinelander area” causing extensive contamination of private well water, the plaintiffs allege.

The defendants have countered with an array of arguments. For their part, the Ahlstrom defendants are challenging the plaintiffs’ claim that land application of papermaking waste is an “abnormally dangerous activity.”

“The complaint does not contain factual allegations to show that land application of papermaking fibercake qualifies as an abnormally dangerous or ultrahazardous activity, as required to support a strict liability claim under Wisconsin law,” the Ahlstrom defendants argued in a brief in support of their motion to dismiss the case.

There is a “critical difference between Ahlstrom’s alleged conduct and the limited types of activities that courts have found abnormally dangerous or ultrahazardous to justify imposition of liability without proof of fault,” the brief states.

Specifically, “the complaint does not (and cannot) allege facts demonstrating that land application of papermaking fibercake is an uncommon activity in Wisconsin; to the contrary, state regulations and facts alleged in the Complaint show that land application is regulated and permitted by the State. Nor does the Complaint allege facts showing that land application presents risks that cannot be eliminated through reasonable care, as required under the narrow doctrine of abnormally dangerous activity reserved for inherently dangerous activities such as the use of explosives, blasting, and pile driving.”

In its motion to dimiss, 3M argues the plaintiffs’s complaint “does not plausibly allege that 3M was the cause of any of Plaintiffs’ injuries,” a pleading failure the company insists requires dismissal of every claim against it.

“According to the complaint, Ahlstrom and Wausau Paper ‘improperly’ and ‘inappropriate[ly]’ disposed of millions of pounds of waste on open farmland, which was ‘not a common practice,’” attorneys for 3M wrote in a brief in support of their motion. “The Complaint does not plausibly allege that, when it allegedly sold PFOS- and PFOA-containing products to Ahlstrom and Wausau Paper, 3M had any reason to foresee these allegedly improper, intervening actions by third parties. Ahlstrom and Wausau Paper’s alleged actions were thus a superseding cause that severs any potential connection to 3M and absolves 3M of any liability for Plaintiffs’ alleged injuries.”

The chemical company also argues it could not have foreseen the injuries the plaintiffs claim they have suffered.

“Plaintiffs’ strict-liability and negligence claims against 3M fail because 3M had no duty to predict and warn against Ahlstrom and Wausau Paper’s allegedly hazardous conduct,” the brief states. “A manufacturer’s duties to design reasonably safe products, to adequately warn others of dangers from those products, and to act reasonably extend only to foreseeable risks of the products. Plaintiffs do not plausibly allege that their asserted injuries — caused by Ahlstrom and Wausau Paper’s allegedly improper dumping — were foreseeable to 3M.”

The Wausau Paper/Essity defendants filed their own motion to dismiss on April 5.

That filing reiterates some of Ahlstrom’s arguments regarding the application of sludge. It also include an argument that Essity is not an appropriate defendant.

“Plaintiffs’ allegations regarding Wausau Paper entities and Essity North America exhibit legal defects that render several of the claims non-cognizable,” according to a brief filed in support of the motion. “As acknowledged in the amended complaint, Wausau Paper’s land application process was actively regulated and monitored by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (‘WDNR’). Far from being ‘abnormal’ or any abnormally dangerous activity, land application was a disclosed and regulated activity done for the salutary benefit of farm soil and cannot be a basis for strict liability under Wisconsin law. Further, Plaintiffs do not allege facts to plausibly show that Wausau Paper knew or should have known that its fibercake contained PFAS that could travel to Plaintiffs’ properties. Plaintiffs allege to the contrary: that Wausau Paper was not informed about risks associated with the use of PFAS compounds. Because Plaintiffs have not alleged that Wausau Paper intended to cause PFAS to enter Plaintiffs’ properties, their intentional trespass and private nuisance claims should also be dismissed. The claims against Essity North America should be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(2) because Plaintiffs do not meet their burden to establish personal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs do not allege, for example, that Essity North America is incorporated or principally operates in Wisconsin. Nor do Plaintiffs allege any facts regarding any business operations by Essity North America in connection with the paper mill.”

 According to the brief, the only alleged connection is that Essity North America “retains or contractually acquired liability for the prior ownership and operation” of the paper mill. Yet, according to the brief, “it is settled law that ‘corporate affiliation or stock ownership alone’ cannot establish personal jurisdiction as a matter of due process.”

According to court records, a pretrial conference in the case has been rescheduled from May 2 to May 24.

Heather Schaefer may be reached at [email protected].