Airport operators across the country pursue PFAS claims

Milberg PLLC, which has filed complaints on behalf of multiple U.S. airports in PFAS-related litigation, is seeing a surge in inquiries from airport operators seeking to understand their exposure and recovery options following PFAS contamination caused by decades of mandated use of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF). The firm, which participated in last month's ACI-NA Legal Affairs Conference in Coronado, California, specifically to meet with airport legal professionals on this issue, reports that awareness is growing, but so is the cost of waiting.

"The question now isn't whether they have PFAS contamination," said Vicki Maniatis. "It's who is going to pay for it."

Part 139 airports present a particularly compelling case. The FAA has historically required the use of AFFF at all certified airports since the 1970s. For decades, airports stored, tested, and sprayed the foam on their premises. Given AFFF's PFAS content, it is highly likely that these airports already have PFAS contamination—testing will confirm the extent, but the underlying exposure is, in most cases, simply a matter of record.

"While in Coronado, one thing was very clear: a significant number of airports represented at that conference are already in litigation or preparing to move forward," said Tristan Duarte, Associate Attorney at Milberg. "The airports that haven't yet assessed their options should act promptly to preserve their rights."

Airport operators pursuing claims are seeking recovery for costs that extend well beyond replacing foam, including firefighter retraining, infrastructure flushing, equipment replacement, and ongoing environmental remediation. These are substantial costs, and it is only right that the manufacturers responsible for the harm foot the bill.

"The question now isn't whether they have PFAS contamination," said Vicki Maniatis, Senior Partner at Milberg, "It's who is going to pay for it."

AFFF manufacturers have already agreed to pay more than $14 billion to resolve contamination claims brought by public water systems, with settlements against 3M ($10.3B), DuPont ($1.185B), Tyco ($750M), and BASF ($316.5M). These cover only four of twelve primary manufacturers; litigation continues against the rest.

Milberg has filed complaints on behalf of multiple Part 139 airports in the AFFF Products Liability Litigation (MDL No. 2873), U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina, and expects additional filings as more operators assess their contamination, evaluate their options, and decide to act.