PFAS settlement payouts are calculated from each water source's flow rate and PFAS concentration. PFAS means per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, a group of persistent man-made chemicals. Those inputs produce a Base Score that estimates treatment cost, and each utility receives a pro rata share of the fund.
According to Chemical & Engineering News in its court-approval report, 3M agreed to pay about $10.3 billion over 13 years. The deal covers more than 11,000 public water systems. Final court approval was granted March 29, 2024 by Judge Richard Gergel. A separate $1.185 billion water-district fund was established by Chemours, DuPont and Corteva, according to the companies in their joint settlement announcement.
Official resources:
- Read the official guidance from Epa — Use this primary source to verify the official guidance.
- Read the official notice from Acs — Use this primary source to verify the official announcement.
Table of Contents
- Who can be paid?
- How is each water source scored?
- How does the score become dollars?
- What is paid separately?
Who can be paid?
Only public water systems can receive payments. A system must submit a timely, complete claim to share in either fund. Awards compensate utilities for treatment and monitoring rather than paying individuals directly.
The official settlement site divides eligible systems into Phase One and Phase Two. Phase One covers systems with detectable PFAS by June 2023. Phase Two covers later detections or systems subject to EPA monitoring rules, with different claim deadlines and fund pools.
- Confirm the utility is an eligible public water system
- Match test dates to Phase One or Phase Two
- File a complete claim before the phase deadline
- Claim each impacted water source only once
How is each water source scored?
A claims administrator calculates a Base Score for each impacted water source. The score uses reported flow rates and PFAS concentrations, as described in the 3M allocation procedures in the Exhibit Q allocation procedures. The score is adjusted upward when concentrations exceed federal or state maximum contaminant levels. In practical terms, larger flows and higher PFAS levels produce higher scores.
An exceedance bump further raises the score for water above a legal limit. Two wells with the same flow can therefore receive different scores. EPA set enforceable limits of 4.0 parts per trillion each for PFOA and PFOS in its April 2024 drinking-water rule. Those limits are the benchmarks referenced for allocation bumps and treatment obligations. A system above 4.0 parts per trillion has a stronger score effect than a system below it.
How does the score become dollars?
Each source payment reflects estimated capital plus operation-and-maintenance treatment cost. The cost is modeled from adjusted flow rate and PFAS Score, then paid pro rata from the available Action Fund, according to the same allocation procedures. Pro rata means the fund is shared in proportion to modeled cost. A system with a higher modeled cost receives a larger share.
If total modeled costs exceed the available fund, each payment is scaled down proportionally. Flow records matter as much as lab results here. Missing or low flow data can lower the modeled cost. Complete pumping and capacity records help support the full calculation.
What is paid separately?
Separate Supplemental, Special Needs and Testing Compensation funds handle costs outside the base payment. The official settlement site describes them as covering later PFAS increases, extraordinary costs, and Phase Two testing. Extraordinary costs include items such as new wells or supplemental water.
These side funds do not raise every base payment. They address specific later or unusual costs through separate requests. Duplicate recovery for the same water is barred across the settlements. A utility should match its test dates, concentration data and flow records to its phase before filing.