PFAS Cost Recovery for Part 139 Airports
Holding AFFF manufacturers accountable for the multi-million dollar cost of PFAS remediation and system transitions at Part 139 airports nationwide
The Mandate: Safety at a Toxic Cost
For decades, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations under 14 CFR Part 139 required certificated airports to maintain specific Aircraft Rescue and Firefighting (ARFF) capabilities using MIL-SPEC Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF). While AFFF was the mandated standard for suppressing high-heat aviation fuel fires, it contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS)—synthetic "forever chemicals" that do not break down in soil or water.
Innocent Compliance: Airports used, stored, and discharged AFFF in good-faith compliance with federal safety mandates, unaware that chemical manufacturers concealed the severe persistence, toxicity, and environmental risks of these formulations.
Why Action is Required Now
Federal agencies have accelerated enforcement and remediation standards, creating an urgent operational and financial need for airports to assert recovery claims:
- Routine Operational Releases: Contamination originated from routine training exercises, equipment testing, hangar deluge system discharges, storage leaks, and emergency responses—not just major aircraft incidents
- Presumptive Legacy Impact: Because AFFF use was federally mandated, Part 139 certification serves as the primary screening criterion for establishing historical foam use and property impact across approximately 520 commercial airports nationwide
EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCL)
Enforceable National Primary Drinking Water Regulations set limits as low as 4 parts per trillion (ppt) for key PFAS compounds
DoD Phase-Out Mandate
Complete phase-out of PFAS-containing AFFF required across Department of Defense facilities as of October 1, 2024
CERCLA Hazardous Substance Designation
Mandatory federal investigation, containment, and cleanup orders enabled by designated hazardous substance status under CERCLA
Statute of Limitations Deadlines
Strict filing windows established by emerging state environmental thresholds and active federal MDL docket deadlines
Federal MDL No. 2873: Phased Settlement Roadmap
National cost recovery claims against AFFF manufacturers are centralized in the federal Multidistrict Litigation (MDL No. 2873: Aqueous Film-Forming Foams Products Liability Litigation) in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina:
Established manufacturer liability and delivered over $14 billion in settlement recoveries for Public Water Systems nationwide
Resolving remediation and property claims for fire training facilities and regional academies across the U.S. and Canada
Dedicated litigation and recovery track for Part 139 airports addressing real-property contamination, equipment transition, and operational compliance costs
Phases 1 & 2 (Proven Precedent)
Phases 4 (Active Airport Track)
Phase 3 (Active Intake)
The Multi-Million Dollar Financial Burden
The transition to PFAS-free systems is a substantial proposition that can detract from other critical investments. Airports are currently facing massive costs through no fault of their own, including:
Cost Category | Required Actions |
Infrastructure | Replacing or retrofitting ARFF vehicles, proportioning systems, hangar deluge piping, and containment infrastructure |
Environmental | Delineating and mitigating contaminated soil, vadose zone migration, groundwater plumes, and stormwater retention basins |
Operational | Procuring certified Fluorine-Free Foam (F3), equipment decontamination, personnel retraining, and hazardous disposal of legacy AFFF concentrate |
Compliance | Certified laboratory verification, hydrogeologic modeling, regulatory documentation, and long-term monitoring |
Hydrogeology: The Vadose Zone & Proactive Legal Shield
- Vadose Zone Infiltration: Sprayed AFFF penetrates the unsaturated vadose zone directly beneath runways, training grounds, and hangar pads. Driven by gravity, PFAS molecules migrate downward into the water table without breaking down.
- Off-Site Plume Migration: Groundwater plumes moving beyond airport property boundaries into municipal reservoirs and drinking water wells expose airports to significant third-party liability.
- The Proactive Legal Shield: Filing an affirmative claim within MDL No. 2873 establishes an official legal record proving that chemical manufacturers—rather than airport personnel—are responsible for legacy contamination.
Our No-Risk Commitment
- 1/3 Contingency Basis: Our legal services are provided on a contingency fee structure—we only get paid if you recover funds
- No Testing Required: Airports do not need to commission costly soil or water testing; claims are substantiated through operational documentation and historical records
- Turnkey Document Review: Our team manages historical evidence gathering, ARFF log audits, Airport Certification Manual (ACM) reviews, foam purchasing tracing, and MDL court submissions
- Grant & Funding Protection: Filing an MDL claim does not affect airport eligibility for FAA Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law funds, or state infrastructure appropriations
We provide a simplified, no-risk path for airports to pursue reimbursement for compliance and remediation expenses. Early engagement is critical to positioning your facility for maximum recovery.
Holding Manufacturers Accountable
Evidence shows that the manufacturers of AFFF—including BASF, Tyco Fire Products, Chemguard Inc., Buckeye Fire Equipment, and Kidde / National Foam—misrepresented the safety of these products while profiting from their widespread use.
Bartlett Law Offices seeks to recover these costs through the ongoing AFFF Multidistrict Litigation (MDL No. 2873). This is the same legal framework that has already secured over $14 billion in settlements for contaminated public water systems.
Bartlett Law Offices seeks to recover these costs through the ongoing AFFF Multidistrict Litigation (MDL No. 2873). This is the same legal framework that has already secured over $14 billion in settlements for contaminated public water systems.
Why Choose Us?
We offer a national authority in environmental law combined with deep scientific expertise.
Nationally recognized legal authority with a B.A. in Hydrogeology and former NSF Research Fellow; dual-boarded NBTA certified trial attorney with over 100 jury verdicts