Ahlstrom: Rhinelander paper mill ‘performing well’

While the parties wait for a federal judge to decide whether a group of Town of Stella property owners will be allowed to amend for a second time their lawsuit alleging that the spread of PFAS-contaminated sludge from the Rhinelander paper mill on local farmlands contaminated their drinking water, the mill’s owner, Ahlstrom-Munksjo, has issued a statement reiterating that it has not used PFOA or PFOS (types of PFAS) in its manufacturing process since purchasing the mill in 2018.

In fact, the Helsinki, Finland-based company has implemented proprietary technology as part of its sustainability efforts. Demand remains stong and the mill, long one of the Rhinelander community’s largest employers, is performing well, according to the statement.

“Ahlstrom acquired the Rhinelander Mill in 2018 and has not used PFOA or PFOS in the Rhinelander Mill’s manufacturing process,” the company’s statement reads. “The Rhinelander Mill and its employees are important for Ahlstrom, producing some of the company’s most important products utilizing our proprietary FluoroFree® technology. These products are an important part of Ahlstrom’s vision to be the preferred sustainable specialty materials company for all our stakeholders. Customer demand for the products produced at the Rhinelander Mill is strong, and the mill is performing well.”

For just over a year, Ahlstrom has been defending itself against a lawsuit alleging that its DNR-permitted land-spreading activities led to the contamination of private drinking water wells. 

Wausau Paper, the former owner of the mill, is also a defendant in the case as is chemical giant 3M which the plaintiffs allege previously provided PFAS-containing products to the mill.

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.

Stella residents became aware of the contamination in late 2022 after the DNR conducted a statewide testing program.

The plaintiffs filed their lawsuit in August 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. In February 2024, their complaint was amended to include additional plaintiffs and information.

On Sept. 25, attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the complaint for a second time to “reflect the current parties” and “generally amplify and clarify earlier actual allegations based on information presently known...”

In addition to the previously leveled allegations related to contaminated drinking water, the proposed second amended complaint references “significant contamination in multiple water bodies in or near Stella,” according to copy of the document filed with the motion.

As the August 2023 and February 2024 complaints did not include references to contaminated water bodies, the second amended complaint, if the court allows it, represents a potential broadening of the scope of the litigation.

It should be noted that the DNR did not announce the results of its testing of water bodies in and around Stella until May.

Also, the newspaper is waiting for the court to rule before reporting further on the contents of the proposed second amended complaint.

Meanwhile, the defendants have mounted a vigorous defense from the outset. 

Among other things, they argue 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 plaintiffs to prevail on their strict liability claim.

The defendants have also indicated they intend to intend to “vigorously oppose” any attempt by the plaintiffs 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.

Regardless of the fate of the second amended complaint, at this point it appears the case is a long way from resolution.

Court records indicate the parties do not expect the court to rule on the question of class certification until late 2025, at the earliest, and the case is not scheduled to go to trial until September 2026.

The defendants have until Oct. 9 to reply to the plaintiffs’ request for permission to file the second amended complaint. 

Heather Schaefer may be reached at [email protected].