SALISBURY, Md. – A series of new court filings in the ongoing Salisbury PFAS contamination lawsuit against Perdue Farms sheds more light on where the company says the contamination comes from and who it believes is ultimately responsible.
In a filing Friday, May 8, in U.S. District Court in Maryland and obtained by WBOC, Perdue asked a federal judge to allow third-party charges against companies associated with longtime fire technology specialists 3M and Johnson Controls. Perdue alleges that a fire extinguishing agent used at the Salisbury soybean processing agribusiness facility, made by 3M and delivered through a Johnson Controls system, contributed to the PFAS contamination.
This lawsuit is based on claims brought by: salisbury neighbors They allege that PFAS contamination from Purdue’s Zion Church Road facility affected nearby groundwater and private wells. PFAS are also known as forever chemicals and are linked to cancer and other serious health risks. WBOC previously reported on the tests ordered by the state of Maryland Ministry of the Environment Along with Purdue’s efforts to provide bottled water to potentially affected residents; Perform a well testinstall treatment systems for neighboring homeowners.
Purdue’s latest filing alleges that the contamination is related to aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), which was used for years in the facility’s fire suppression system as a safety measure in the soybean extraction process, which contains hexane, a flammable chemical.
According to the complaint against 3M, Purdue says its Salisbury facility began using 3M firefighting foam products in 1986. The company claims these foam products contain PFAS chemicals and that 3M knew for decades that the chemicals could persist in the environment, but failed to properly warn users.
Purdue also said that an environmental review conducted after the 2023 MDE test determined that the only site-related source of regulated PFAS detected within the facility was the old firefighting foam system. The filing states that the types of PFAS found in groundwater and soil are consistent with chemicals associated with older 3M foam formulations.
“3M had knowledge as early as the 1960s that its AFFF products, when used as intended and directed, would release PFAS into the environment,” Purdue’s filing states. “However, 3M did not notify or warn Purdue about the presence or danger of PFAS in AFFF.
“Purdue now knows a lot about PFAS,” the filing continues.
A separate lawsuit against Johnson Controls and related companies focuses on the maintenance and testing of the fire suppression systems themselves. Purdue alleges that Johnson Controls repeatedly released large amounts of firefighting foam without adequate containment during testing and maintenance work at the facility.
Perdue said these releases could introduce PFAS, including foam, into wastewater systems. groundwater around the property. The company also alleges that Johnson Controls failed to warn Purdue about the environmental risks associated with foam products.
In its latest filing, Purdue said it has spent significant resources responding to the contamination, including testing hundreds of nearby wells, installing point-of-entry treatment systems for residents, upgrading water treatment infrastructure and replacing the facility’s old firefighting foam system with a fluoride-free alternative.
At the same time, Purdue continues to deny liability. underlying litigation. The company says 3M and Johnson Controls should be required to pay some or all of the costs if they are ultimately found liable for the damages claimed by the plaintiffs.
“Evidence collected throughout this investigation has led to the identification of substances containing PFAS as of today. “This legal action alleges that the companies responsible for manufacturing, supplying and servicing these systems knew or should have known about the environmental risks associated with these products,” said Herb Frerichs, general counsel for Perdue Farms. Purdue does not manufacture PFAS or fire extinguishing agents and continues to work with regulators and communities to hold accountable parties responsible for these products and their handling. ”
The company noted that the legal action reflects a larger national debate about how liability for PFAS contamination should be considered among manufacturers of widely accepted fire protection products and the companies that use them.
In response to this development, attorneys at Broxtedt Mandalas Federico, who are representing Salisbury residents in the lawsuit against Purdue, told WBOC that Purdue’s accountability remains unchanged.
“Purdue’s efforts to add additional defendants are not unusual in this type of litigation and do not diminish Purdue’s own liability for the discharge of contaminated sewage and contamination of local groundwater,” said a statement on behalf of Phil Federico and Chase Broxtedt. “Our commitment to our communities remains unchanged. We remain steadfast in our commitment to uncovering the full extent of the contamination and continuing to pursue meaningful remedies to restore access to safe, clean drinking water on behalf of those most affected.”
A broader lawsuit against Purdue is currently pending, and the company and the Salisbury plaintiffs are pursuing mediation, which could potentially resolve the dispute out of court. A status report on these efforts is currently scheduled to be submitted on August 3, 2026, according to court documents.
