The problem of PFAS at airports: AFFF
Aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) was introduced over 50 years ago as a way to fight oil and chemical fires. Since then, it has been used extensively at airports across the country — not only for emergency response, but also for training and equipment testing.
As regulatory scrutiny around PFAS has increased, attention has focused on toxic chemical compounds such as PFOS and PFOA found in AFFF. Large volumes of AFFF — and consequently PFAS — have been released at airports, contaminating soil, surface water, and groundwater.
Because these “forever chemicals” do not naturally break down, facilities that historically used AFFF may face long-term contamination — along with the associated costs of investigation, remediation, and ongoing management.
Airports are already incurring costs
Many airports have already started transitioning to PFAS-free firefighting foam and have experienced firsthand that the transition plans come with a high price tag. Unfortunately, the 2024 FAA Bill fell short of its promise to secure enough funding for PFAS cleanup efforts, and - through no fault of their own - airports are finding themselves burdened with significant costs. In an effort to seek funding to cover both existing costs and anticipated ones, many airports have turned to litigation against PFAS manufacturers to hold them accountable for the clean-up costs.
Manage risk for your airport
Cleaning up PFAS contamination can cost millions of dollars upfront and require years or even decades of ongoing operations and maintenance. One option to fund current and anticipated costs of cleaning up PFAS contamination is to use the legal process to hold the PFAS and AFFF manufacturers accountable. Many airports around the country already identified litigation as a cost recovery strategy, ultimately to limit their financial burden.
Why Acting Now Is Important
- Airports are already incurring PFAS-related costs.
- The PFAS settlements from 3M, DuPont, Tyco, and BASF do not apply to airport claims, which will continue to be litigated and might be resolved by future settlements from these and other defendants. Airports have an opportunity to increase their potential payouts by bringing their own legal action now.
Low lift, high reward
From a cost-benefit analysis standpoint, taking legal action makes sense. Although litigation has a reputation for requiring significant work for the client, experienced law firms like SL Environmental Law Group provide:
- Regulatory updates and litigation advice: We help you navigate the evolving regulatory landscape and develop your litigation strategy accordingly.
- Low burden: We handle the tedious, time-consuming work. We only need a short checklist from you to get started – the rest is on us.
- High quality: We have an experienced PFAS litigation team, including scientists, investigators, and attorneys with decades of experience holding polluters accountable for water contamination.
- No financial risk: Clients only pay if and when a positive outcome is achieved, as we work on a contingency basis.
Because you only pay if and when you win, there is no downside to taking proactive steps amidst evolving regulatory and financial pressures. If, for example, airports are provided with exemptions from some of the coming PFAS regulations—as many argue they should, given federal requirements to use AFFF—and as a result, you don’t incur any cleanup costs, you've lost nothing by engaging a contingency fee law firm. If, on the other hand, no such exemptions are created, and airports are made responsible for cleaning up the mess made by AFFF, you've preserved your ability to bring claims against the responsible manufacturers.
Our attorneys are licensed in various jurisdictions, including California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, and New Hampshire. Please refer to individual attorney bios for specific licensure.
This web site is designed for general information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.