El Toro Air Station Lawsuit: PFAS/AFFF MDL, Navy Claims, and VA Benefits

Anyone considering an El Toro Air Station lawsuit for toxic exposure at the former Marine Corps Air Station in Irvine, California, currently has two civil paths and one benefits path: a federal multidistrict litigation against the manufacturers of firefighting foam, direct civil claims against the U.S. Navy under federal environmental statutes, and a separate VA disability claim. As of early 2026, the multidistrict litigation has paused intake of new claims, and eligibility, deadlines, and available defendants depend heavily on which track fits your situation.

What the Lawsuits Are About

El Toro operated from 1943 until it was decommissioned in July 1999.¹ In 1985, trichloroethylene (TCE), an aircraft cleaning solvent, was found in the groundwater beneath the base and central Irvine. Solvents had been rinsed directly into the ground, creating a contamination plume roughly one mile wide and three miles long that extended beyond base boundaries.² The EPA placed El Toro on the Superfund National Priorities List on February 21, 1990, and investigators identified 25 potentially contaminated areas, including four hazardous waste landfills.³

Contaminants identified at the site include TCE, tetrachloroethylene (PCE), polychlorinated biphenyls, battery acids, leaded fuels, arsenic, perchlorate, jet fuel, petroleum hydrocarbons, and munitions residues.³ A 2017 VA appeals decision recorded a maximum TCE concentration in groundwater of 160 parts per billion and PCE at up to 100 parts per billion.⁴

Then came PFAS. A March 2018 Pentagon report showed six on-base groundwater wells with per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances at levels up to 3,826 parts per trillion, far above the EPA’s then-applicable lifetime health advisory of 70 parts per trillion.⁵ PFAS originated from aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) used in fire-training exercises. The Navy’s Fourth CERCLA Five-Year Review, completed in November 2024, confirmed PFAS at five installation restoration program sites and that the formal Superfund investigation for PFAS has begun.⁶

Who May Be Eligible to Sue

People who may be eligible include military members and their families who were stationed at El Toro, civilian employees who worked there, and residents who lived nearby and were exposed to contaminated soil or groundwater.⁷ Some legal sources indicate a minimum of six months of toxic exposure at the base is needed to establish eligibility for the PFAS litigation track.⁸

Eligibility also depends on a qualifying medical diagnosis. Statutes of limitations for water contamination claims are state-specific, with a typical window of roughly two years from the date of diagnosis, so waiting to consult an attorney can foreclose a claim entirely.⁸

Health Conditions Tied to the Claims

The EPA and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry have linked TCE exposure to neurological damage, liver and kidney damage, and several cancers.⁹ PFAS exposure is separately linked to certain cancers, fertility problems, and developmental issues in children.¹⁰

Conditions claimed in litigation and VA proceedings cover a wide catalog. Cancers include kidney, liver, testicular, thyroid, breast, lung, bladder, brain, cervical, colorectal, pancreatic, prostate, and stomach cancers, along with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, Hodgkin’s lymphoma, multiple myeloma, and various leukemias. Neurological conditions include Parkinson’s disease, Alzheimer’s, ALS, multiple system atrophy (MSA), peripheral neuropathy, and cognitive impairment. Reproductive harms, autoimmune disorders, cardiovascular conditions, and chronic respiratory disease have also been reported.¹¹

The medical conditions currently tied to the PFAS litigation specifically are narrower: kidney cancer, liver cancer, testicular cancer, thyroid cancer, thyroid disease, and ulcerative colitis. Those criteria may change as the litigation evolves.⁸

The PFAS/AFFF Multidistrict Litigation

The largest active legal track for El Toro exposure involves PFAS. Claims tied to firefighting foam at El Toro and other military bases have been consolidated into federal multidistrict litigation (MDL No. 2873) before Judge Richard M. Gergel in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina.¹² The defendants are the AFFF manufacturers, including 3M Company, DuPont de Nemours, Tyco Fire Products, and BASF Corporation.¹³

Several settlements have already been approved. In spring 2024, courts approved a 3M settlement of $10.5 billion to $12.5 billion and a DuPont settlement of $1.185 billion. In November 2024, final approval was entered for a $750 million Tyco Fire Products settlement and a $315.5 million BASF settlement.¹³ These settlements cover PFAS claims nationwide rather than El Toro alone, but El Toro personnel and residents are among those who filed within the proceeding.

As of September 2025, the MDL paused intake of new PFAS claims. People who filed before the cutoff are waiting on continuing negotiations between their attorneys and the manufacturers, and the litigation may resume accepting new cases in the future.⁸

Civil Claims Against the Navy

A separate track runs directly against the federal government. Plaintiffs have brought claims alleging negligence, failure to warn, and willful disregard for health and the environment by the U.S. Navy, along with violations of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). The core allegations are improper waste disposal, failure to maintain wastewater lines and underground storage tanks, failure to warn personnel and neighbors of known health risks, and inadequate cleanup.⁷

One earlier action, Airport Working Group of Orange County, Inc., et al. v. U.S. Department of Defense, et al., was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. A January 2005 order noted that the court retained continuing jurisdiction over compliance with the parties’ cleanup settlement, and observed that there was “no guarantee money will be appropriated” from the Defense Base Closure Account for the El Toro cleanup and “no time-table for the El Toro clean-up.”¹⁴

In 2019, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to force the Navy to release PFAS sampling data and records explaining why PFAS contamination had not been disclosed in the “Findings of Suitability for Transfer” documents used before conveying base parcels for civilian development. PEER’s complaint alleged that aquifers on the base supply water to nearby residents and that contaminated plumes could migrate into public drinking water sources, yet the Navy had not notified regulators or the public.⁵

VA Disability Claims Are a Separate Track

Suing for damages and applying for VA disability benefits are different processes with different rules. Veterans who served at El Toro can pursue VA benefits, but the path is harder than at Camp Lejeune. There is no presumptive service connection for diseases linked to El Toro. The VA does not presume that service at the base equals toxic exposure, and it has not designated any conditions as presumptive for TCE exposure there.⁴

El Toro veterans must show a current medical diagnosis, evidence that the condition began or worsened during service, and a medical opinion linking the condition to their specific exposure at the base.¹⁵ The medical nexus opinion is often the hardest part. In one published VA appeals decision, claims for prostate cancer, diabetes, and hypertension were denied after the VA examiner concluded that the veteran’s age, race, and family history were more likely causes than his El Toro service.⁴ In another, a neurological disability claim was denied because the veteran could not produce a formal diagnosis; his reported memory loss was attributed to depression. Individual claims can still succeed. A 2021 Los Angeles Times report described a veteran whose multiple system atrophy the VA attributed to TCE exposure, resulting in full disability benefits.⁹

The PACT Act, signed in 2022, has not changed this picture for El Toro. The law recognizes more than 20 diseases as presumptively caused by toxic exposure, but the list of qualifying toxic agents remains limited to Agent Orange, burn pits, and Camp Lejeune water contamination. Volatile organic compounds such as TCE and PCE at other contaminated military bases are not included, so El Toro veterans must still meet the same individual-proof standard.¹⁶

Deadlines and What to Do Now

Two facts drive timing. First, the PFAS MDL has paused new intake, and at least one firm active in El Toro cases has stopped accepting new PFAS matters while monitoring whether the litigation reopens. Second, statutes of limitations for water contamination claims are state-specific, with a typical window of roughly two years from diagnosis, meaning the clock on a potential claim may already be running even if the MDL is not currently accepting filings.⁸

Anyone who lived, worked, or served at El Toro and has since been diagnosed with a condition linked to TCE, PCE, or PFAS exposure should gather service or employment records tying them to the base, obtain medical records confirming the diagnosis, and consult an attorney experienced in environmental toxic tort litigation to assess which track fits and whether a filing deadline applies. Veterans pursuing VA benefits should assemble the same records, plus a medical opinion connecting the condition to base exposure, because without that nexus opinion an El Toro claim is unlikely to succeed under current VA rules.

1
U.S. EPA. National Priorities List Partial Deletion for El Toro
2
Irvine Ranch Water District. TCE El Toro Facts
3
U.S. EPA. El Toro MCAS Cleanup Profile
4
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Board of Veterans Appeals Decision, Citation 1730179
5
PEER. Navy Buries Forever Chemical Contamination in SoCal
6
U.S. Department of Defense. Former MCAS El Toro Fourth CERCLA Five-Year Review Fact Sheet
7
TruLaw. El Toro Air Station Lawsuit
8
Robert King Law Firm. Marine Corps Air Station El Toro Water Contamination
9
Los Angeles Times. Veterans Point to Their Service at El Toro Base Had Toxic Consequences
10
The New York Times. Military Defense PFAS Forever Chemicals Cleanup Delay
11
Hill & Ponton, P.A. El Toro Marine Corps Air Station Toxic Exposure
12
U.S. District Court, District of South Carolina. MDL No. 2873 – AFFF Products Liability Litigation
13
Keller Rohrback L.L.P. AFFF PFAS Liability Litigation
14
U.S. District Court, Central District of California. Airport Working Group of Orange County v. U.S. Department of Defense, Order
15
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Board of Veterans Appeals Decision, Citation 18141295
16
Coastal Review. PACT Act Ignores TCE PCE Contamination on Military Bases