SALISBURY, Md. - A new set of court filings in the ongoing Salisbury PFAS contamination lawsuit against Perdue Farms is shedding further light on where the company says the pollution may have originated and who it believes should ultimately bear responsibility.
In filings submitted Friday, May 8 in U.S. District Court in Maryland and obtained by WBOC, Perdue asked a federal judge to allow third party complaints against 3M and several entities tied to Johnson Controls, companies that have specialized in firefighting technology for years. Perdue argues the firefighting foam used at its Salisbury soybean processing AgriBusiness facility, manufactured by 3M and dispensed through Johnson Controls’ systems, contributed to the PFAS contamination.
The suit stems from claims brought by Salisbury neighbors who allege PFAS contamination from Perdue’s Zion Church Road facility impacted nearby groundwater and private wells. PFAS, otherwise known as forever chemicals, have been linked to cancer and other serious health risks. WBOC has previously reported on testing ordered by the Maryland Department of the Environment along with Perdue’s efforts to provide bottled water to potentially impacted residents, conduct well testing, and install treatment systems for nearby homeowners.
Perdue’s newest filings argue that the contamination is linked to aqueous film forming foam, or AFFF, that was used in the facility’s fire suppression systems for years as a safeguard in the soybean extraction process involving hexane, a flammable chemical.
According to the filing against 3M, Perdue says the Salisbury facility began using 3M firefighting foam products in 1986. The company alleges those foam products contained PFAS chemicals and that 3M knew for decades the chemicals could persist in the environment but failed to adequately warn users.
Perdue also says environmental investigations conducted after MDE testing in 2023 identified the former firefighting foam system as the only site related source of regulated PFAS detected at the facility. The filing says the types of PFAS found in groundwater and soil are consistent with chemicals tied to older 3M foam formulations.
“3M possessed knowledge as early as the 1960s that its AFFF products would release PFAS into the environment when used as intended and directed,” Perdue’s filing reads. “But 3M did not inform or warn Perdue of the presence or dangers of PFAS in its AFFF.
“Perdue now knows all too well about PFAS,” the filing continues.
A separate filing against Johnson Controls and related companies focuses on maintenance and testing of the fire suppression system itself. Perdue alleges Johnson Controls repeatedly discharged large amounts of firefighting foam during testing and maintenance operations at the facility without sufficiently containing it.
Perdue alleges those releases allowed PFAS containing foam to enter wastewater systems and groundwater around the property. The company also alleges Johnson Controls failed to warn Perdue about the environmental risks associated with the foam products.
In its most recent filings, Perdue says 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 fluorine free alternative.
At the same time, Perdue continues to deny liability in the underlying lawsuits. The company says that if it is ultimately found responsible for damages claimed by plaintiffs, 3M and Johnson Controls should be required to cover some or all of those costs.
“The evidence collected through this investigation has, as of today, identified PFAS-containing firefighting foam systems as the source of regulated PFAS associated with the site,” said Herb Frerichs, General Counsel for Perdue Farms. “The legal actions allege that companies responsible for manufacturing, supplying and servicing those systems knew or should have known about the environmental risks associated with these products. Perdue did not manufacture PFAS or firefighting foam, and we are pursuing accountability from the parties responsible for those products and their handling while continuing to work with regulators and the community.”
The company noted that the latest legal action reflects a larger national discussion over how PFAS contamination responsibility should be considered between manufacturers of widely approved fire protection and the companies that used them.
In response to the development, attorneys with Brockstedt Mandalas Federico, representing the Salisbury residents in the litigation against Perdue, tell WBOC that Perdue’s accountability remains unchanged.
"Perdue's effort to add new defendants is not uncommon in litigation of this nature, and it does not diminish Perdue's own responsibility for their discharge of contaminated wastewater and contamination of the community's groundwater,” a statement on behalf of Phil Federico and Chase Brockstedt reads. “Our commitment to the community remains the same. We are steadfast in our resolve to continue working on behalf of those most affected to uncover the full extent of the contamination and pursue meaningful remedies that restore their access to safe, clean drinking water."
The broader lawsuit against Perdue is currently on hold as the company and the Salisbury plaintiffs explore mediation to potentially resolve the dispute outside of court. A status report on those efforts is currently scheduled to be filed on Aug. 3, 2026, according to court documents.
