Two months after chemical giants DuPont de Nemours, Corteva and Chemours reached a $1.18 billion settlement agreement to resolve all PFAS-related drinking water contamination claims against them, the companies amended their proposal this week.
The amendments include extending the deadline for settlement class members to submit a request to opt-out of the settlement from 60 days to 90 days.
The chemical giants will also establish a settlement-specific website for class members to view and estimate the amount of money they may receive under the proposed settlement agreement if they choose to participate, according to court documents. Using the estimate tool could allow possible recipients to better determine if they wish to opt into the settlement or seek another resolution.
The motion comes after 22 attorneys general requested additional time to seek clarification and respond to DuPont, Corteva and Chemours’ proposed settlement, according to court documents.
The attorneys general represent Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Wisconsin, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealths of the Northern Mariana Islands and Puerto Rico.
“DuPont and the plaintiffs agreed to revise the settlement to address those concerns,” the company told Manufacturing Dive in an email. “We look forward to the Court’s decision on our motion.”
The settlement covers public water systems that detect any level of PFAS and those under monitoring for PFAS as mandated by the EPA, state or local laws. This encompasses water systems for the majority of the country.
On Monday, the same day DuPont, Corteva and Chemours submitted their motion to amend the settlement, five state attorneys general from Arizona, California, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and the District of Columbia filed an amicus letter saying the proposed settlement is flawed. The letter also said the companies should pay more and that it does not account for their full liability in PFAS water contamination cases.
“As a result of our negotiations with DuPont, the revised proposed settlement is a better deal for the American people and I am supportive of it moving forward,” California Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a statement. “But DuPont must pay far more to address the damage its toxic products have caused, and California will vigorously prosecute its own PFAS lawsuit to ensure the company is held accountable. When reviewing future settlements with DuPont or other PFAS manufacturers, we urge the court not to consider the DuPont settlement as a point of reference.”
Still, the three chemical manufacturers’ proposed and modified settlement “comes closer to the standards of fairness and reasonableness required” under class action law than 3M’s proposed $10 billion settlement, the amicus letter said.
Unlike DuPont, Chemours and Corteva’s proposal, 3M’s proposal was challenged last month by 22 attorneys general across the U.S., claiming the proposal contained “severe flaws.” The states and U.S. territories said in their motion that they were not included in the class settlement approval process and did not have adequate time to review the settlement and how it may impact their rights.