Wausau Paper added as a defendant in Stella PFAS lawsuit

Six months after a group of Town of Stella property owners first filed a federal lawsuit alleging that PFAS-contaminated sludge spread on nearby farmlands contaminated their drinking water, the number of plaintiffs in the case has increased from 6 to 40 and a new defendant has been added.

The plaintiffs’ amended complaint, filed Feb. 9, adds Wausau Paper, the former owner of the Rhinelander paper mill, as a defendant.

The current owner, Ahlstrom Munksjö, remains a defendant as does the 3M corporation which, the plaintiffs allege, sold and/or distributed products to the mill that contained dangerous chemicals. The mill 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 Rhinelander Paper Mill was established in approximately 1903. It was acquired or through merger and acquisition became Wausau Paper in approximately 1997,” according to the narrative set forth in the amended complaint. “In approximately August of 2013 Wausau Paper Mills, LLC and Wausau Paper Corp. sold the Rhinelander Paper Miller to Expera Specialty Solutions, LLC and/or other successors in interest to Ahlstrom. Through these names changes, mergers and/or acquisitions there was an identity of ownership which remained the same.”

 “Additionally, or in the alternative, as part of the sale of the Rhinelander Paper Mill from Wausau Paper Mills, LLC and Wausau Paper Corp, Wausau Paper contractually retained some or all pre-sale liabilities related to the Rhinelander Paper Mill,” the plaintiffs allege.

PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are a group of human-made chemicals used for decades in numerous products, including non-stick cookware, fast food wrappers, stain-resistant sprays and certain types of firefighting foam. These contaminants have made their way into the environment through accidental spills of PFAS-containing materials, discharges of PFAS-containing wastewater to treatment plants and certain types of firefighting foams, according to the DNR. These chemicals are known to accumulate in the human body, posing risks to human health including certain cancers, liver damage and decreased fertility. 

Among the health issues listed in the amended complaint, including health concerns allegedly afflicting the new plaintiffs added to the case since the original filing in August, are kidney cancer, kidney disease, thyroid disease and high cholesterol.

Ahlstrom, Wausau Paper, and their predecessors “knew or should have long known of the dangers associated with PFAS in products made and used at the Rhinelander Paper Mill and knew that disposal of PFAS-containing waste on farmlands could lead to groundwater contamination,” the amended complaint reads. 

The amended complaint also includes an extensive recitation of what is referred to as “defendants’ knowledge and concealment of PFOA/PFOS hazards.” 

“On information and belief, by the 1970s, Defendant 3M knew, or reasonably should have known, among other things, that: (1) PFOA and PFOS are toxic; and (2) upon entering the environment, PFOA and PFOS migrate through the subsurface, mix easily with groundwater, resist natural degradation, render drinking water unsafe and/or non-potable, and can be removed from property and drinking water supplies only at substantial expense,” the plaintiffs allege. “Notwithstanding their respective knowledge of the dangers involved with PFAS Products, 3M willfully, negligently and carelessly: (1) designed, manufactured, marketed, and/or sold PFAS Products containing PFOA and/or PFOS; (2) issued instructions on how PFAS Products should be used and disposed of, thus improperly permitting PFOA and/or PFOS to contaminate soil and groundwater; (3) failed to recall and/or warn users of PFAS Products of the dangers of soil and groundwater contamination as a result of the standard use and disposal of these products; and, (4) further failed and refused to issue the appropriate warnings and/or recalls to the users of PFAS Products, notwithstanding the fact that Defendants knew the identity of those users.”

As a direct result of defendants’ acts as alleged “plaintiffs’ properties have been contaminated, and will continue to be contaminated, with PFOA and PFOS (types of PFAS), the amended complaint notes. 

“This has created an environmental and public health hazard until such contamination may be remediated. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiffs must assess, evaluate, investigate, monitor, remove, clean up, correct, and remediate PFAS contamination from their properties at significant expense, loss and damage to Plaintiffs,” the document continues. “Defendants had a duty to evaluate and test such products adequately and thoroughly to determine their environmental fate and transport characteristics and potential human health and environmental impacts before they sold such products, but they breached this duty. Defendants moreover breached their duty to minimize the environmental harm caused by PFOA and PFOS. Moreover, Defendants failed to warn Plaintiffs of the known risks for environmental and health hazards arising from the usage of Defendants’ PFAS in their intended manner for its intended purpose.”

Through the lawsuit, which is in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin, the plaintiffs “seek to recover damages (including but not limited to compensatory, punitive, and/or consequential damages) arising from both personal injury to certain Plaintiffs and the continuous and ongoing contamination of all Plaintiffs’ Properties by Defendants’ PFAS,” according to the amended complaint. “Such damages moreover include, but are not limited to, the past and future costs of restoring and remediating contamination from their real properties and drinking water wells, past and future medical expenses (for those alleging personal injuries), loss of earnings, and household expenses, among others.”

In a statement to the River News in response to a request for comment on the amended complaint, Ahlstrom stressed that it has only owned the mill since 2018 “and has not used PFOA or PFOS in the Rhinelander Mill’s manufacturing process.”

“We are reviewing the amended complaint and have no further comment on it at this time, as it is Ahlstrom’s policy not to provide comment on pending litigation,” the statement reads. “However, Ahlstrom acquired the Rhinelander Mill in 2018 and has not used PFOA or PFOS in the Rhinelander Mill’s manufacturing process.”

As of press time for this edition, Wausau Paper had yet to respond to our request for comment.

All of the defendants are expected to file written answers to the amended complaint in the coming weeks. The River News expects to report on those filings in detail.

A number of private wells in Stella, located just east of Rhinelander, have the highest levels of PFAS detected in Wisconsin to date. Surface water has also been contaminated to the point where the DNR last week offered updated guidance related to consumption of fish harvested from the Moen chain of lakes and the Hat Rapids flowage.

In addition, earlier this month, the agency completed a preliminary assessment of the PFAS-contaminated lands in Stella that included a recommendation that the site be added to the national Superfund inventory.

“The Town of Stella site was selected to move forward in the process based on the number of impacted wells and impacted surface water,” according to John Sager, the DNR hydrogeologist who prepared the preliminary assessment report. 

Superfund, also known as the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act  or CERCLA, is a 1980 law that allows the EPA to clean up contaminated sites. It also forces the parties responsible for the contamination to either perform cleanups or reimburse the government for EPA-led cleanup work, according to the EPA website.

“The next step in the CERCLA process is a Site Inspection, this includes limited sampling of environmental media (e.g., soil and groundwater) to confirm existing analytical data,” Sager explained. “Following the Site Inspection a preliminary HRS score is calculated, but additional investigation may be warranted to finalize an HRS score. At this time, we do not have a specific timeframe when EPA will score the site.”

According to the EPA website, the Hazard Ranking System (HRS) is used to determine whether a particular site qualifies for placement on the Superfund National Priorities List (NPL).

 “Sites with preliminary HRS scores below 28.50 do not qualify for the NPL, and are assigned a No Further Remedial Action Planned (NFRAP) decision,” according to the EPA website. “The NFRAP decision can also be made at sites with preliminary HRS scores of 28.50 or higher if EPA determines the site would received a ‘no action’ Record of Decision (ROD) if placed on the NPL. Sites that do not qualify for placement on the NPL remain with the state, tribe, municipality or other federal government agency. Sites that do qualify for the NPL and need further short- or long-term cleanup attention are referred to appropriate cleanup programs.”

“NPL listing does not guarantee that DNR will receive any funding to assist with the (Stella) site,” Sager stressed. “NPL listing allows EPA to determine if there are viable responsible parties or if Superfund Trust monies could be used. EPA would make that determination.”

As of late 2023, there are more than 1,100 sites on the Superfund National Priorities List.

Heather Schaefer may be reached at [email protected].