Commonwealth sues chemical maker over PFAS health risks

By Xanthe Gregory

ABC Central West

Topic: Environmental Impacts

The Commonwealth is suing the maker of a firefighting foam that polluted 28 defence bases (ABC News).

In short:

A 1,600‑page claim says a US chemical company hid harmful environmental and health data about its foam for many years.

The government is suing 3M for $2 billion over PFAS pollution at 28 Australian defence sites.

What's next?

The case will go back to court in October.

A US chemical firm is accused of keeping secret that its foam used by the Australian Defence Force was toxic and did not break down.

A huge Federal Court claim says 3M’s actions were "intentional and reprehensible".

It says that by 1979 3M knew its PFAS chemicals in foam would stay forever, build up in living things, and could be toxic and enter drinking water.

The Commonwealth says 3M kept making and selling AFFF for another 24 years, at least until 2003.

The claim says 3M showed "conscious, contemptuous, outrageous" disregard for the Commonwealth and the public, including defence staff and nearby residents affected by PFAS spread.

At the first hearing on Aug 7, Justice Catherine Button called the 1,600‑page file "daunting"; 3M’s lawyers said it was the most complex case they’d seen.

Chemicals in foam used at Williamtown RAAF base are now at the centre of a water‑pollution scare (CRC CARE).

In its biggest claim ever, the government said in May it seeks $2 billion for PFAS damage at 28 defence bases and surrounding areas.

Large amounts of foam were released at each site during training and operations for about 30 years.

The ABC obtained the claim, which says 3M’s AFFF caused major land and water contamination, including drinking water, threatening human, animal and environmental health.

The Commonwealth says it has spent "substantial costs", including $214 million on investigations, clean‑up and monitoring, and $367 million on settlements from five class actions.

The claim also aims to cover future costs the Commonwealth expects, such as further loss‑damage claims.

The federal government has faced several class actions from communities harmed by base contamination (Four Corners).

The 28 bases are split into three groups for the case.

The highest‑risk sites are where PFAS keeps leaking, new areas are being polluted, and water‑quality limits are exceeded.

Seventeen bases fall in this group, including Jervis Bay, Richmond and Wagga Wagga (NSW), Oakey and Townsville (QLD), Darwin and Tindal (NT) and Williams and Bandiana (VIC).

AFFF’s history in Australia

The claim traces AFFF back to 1962 when 3M, at the US Navy’s request, began developing foam alternatives for oil fires.

In 1972, after Australian Defence Force staff saw 3M demos, the Commonwealth started buying AFFF.

It met US military specs and was marketed as "the most effective foaming agent ever developed" (court papers).

The government points to 3M statements from 1973 saying the product was "non‑toxic to humans, biodegradable and would not harm nearby streams".

The federal government says it kept buying the foam until 2003, provided it did not seriously harm the environment or create waste problems.

3M has made PFAS chemicals since the 1950s (Supplied: 3M).

Internal reports detail risks

The Commonwealth’s lawyers say 3M lied, citing 310 internal documents, test reports and data sheets.

The claim cites a 1978 3M toxicity study where rhesus monkeys died quickly after exposure to an AFFF component; even at lower doses the animals showed stomach problems and other toxicity signs.

The government also refers to a 1998 paper that found PFOS, a PFAS type, in rat blood without known exposure, warning of significant ecological danger from PFOS levels.

The report’s author quit 3M in 1999, saying he was worried about PFOS dangers and deeply disappointed by the company’s handling of environmental risks.

In 1981, 3M announced a policy barring women of child‑bearing age from its Decatur, Alabama plant to avoid exposing them to a fluorochemical that caused rat birth defects.

The Commonwealth cited a 2000 document, Project Spring Communication Plan, showing 3M would phase out some PFAS products, including certain foams.

The STOP PFAS group says a 1992 petrol‑tanker crash foam spill is the main source of contamination (Supplied).

It said tiny amounts of these chemicals are now everywhere, including in people, and they persist, but current science says such low levels do not pose health or environmental risk.

"It is like a small piece of plastic by the road – it does no harm, but you’d rather not see it," the internal memo read.

The Commonwealth alleges that even though 3M knew the PFAS properties and risks, it took no real steps to warn buyers of AFFF or to suggest ways to limit PFAS release into the wider environment.

The ABC has asked 3M for comment.

When Attorney‑General Michelle Rowland announced the suit in May, a 3M spokesperson said the company would "defend itself through the legal process".

"3M never made PFAS in Australia and stopped selling the products in Australia about twenty years ago," the statement said.

"Nevertheless, the Department of Defence kept using PFAS‑containing foams for almost another twenty years."

The matter will return to court on October 16.

See more ABC coverage in your search results

Pagsasanay sa pakikinig

Pagsasanay sa pakikinig