The Critical Shift towards Safer Firefighting Solutions and Its Impact on Health and the Environment

Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) has long been a staple in fighting fuel-based fires, especially in aviation settings where rapid fire suppression is essential. However, growing concerns about the environmental and health impacts of AFFF have led to increased scrutiny. This has sparked a push towards safer alternatives, such as fluorine-free foams (F3).

Despite these efforts, the transition to F3 in the U.S. has been slower than anticipated, leaving many to question why AFFF alternatives are under such intense scrutiny.

The Legacy of AFFF and the Rise of PFAS Concerns

AFFF, developed in the 1960s, quickly became the preferred firefighting foam for tackling flammable liquid fires, especially in the military and aviation sectors.

Its widespread use is well-documented. The National Library of Medicine reports that in Florida, a third of fire departments using AFFF applied it in two to five incidents annually. Additionally,  nearly 17% of these departments used the foam more than 16 times a year.

AFFF’s effectiveness lies in its unique triple-action design. It creates a foam blanket to suppress vapors, cools the fire, and forms a vapor-suppressing film to prevent re-ignition. However, this film, formed by fluorinated surfactants, is at the heart of the environmental and health concerns surrounding AFFF.

The chemicals used in AFFF, particularly per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), are incredibly persistent in the environment, earning them the nickname “forever chemicals.” PFAS have been linked to serious health issues, including cancer, thyroid disease, liver damage, and developmental problems.

PFAS’s environmental persistence and health risks have drawn significant attention from regulatory agencies, notes TorHoerman Law. This has led to a strong push to phase out products containing these chemicals, such as AFFF.

This movement gained momentum following the widespread detection of PFAS in groundwater across the U.S., which is largely attributed to AFFF spills.

According to the EPA, data from the National Response Center show that there have been 897 documented incidents involving AFFF containing PFAS since 1990. These incidents include both spills and usage reports.

While many of these incidents occurred at Department of Defense and federal facilities, some also involved commercial harbors and civilian firefighting operations.

The extensive groundwater contamination caused by the foam has led citizens and water utilities to file lawsuits against PFAS manufacturers and government entities. The AFFF lawsuit accuses these parties of negligence in managing and cleaning up PFAS chemicals. This failure has led to widespread contamination and potential health risks.

The legal actions seek to hold these responsible parties accountable for their role in the environmental damage and associated health hazards.

1. How do PFAS chemicals affect the environment beyond human health?

PFAS chemicals can disrupt ecosystems by contaminating soil and water sources. They can harm wildlife by accumulating in the food chain, leading to reproductive and developmental issues in animals. Additionally, PFAS contamination can reduce biodiversity and disrupt natural habitats.

2. How many AFFF lawsuits were pending in the U.S. as of July 2024?

As of July 2024, there were 9,525 pending AFFF lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. This litigation consolidates claims from individuals across various states. It also includes lawsuits from multiple water supply companies seeking compensation for the costs of removing chemicals from their drinking water.

The Push for Safer Alternatives: F3 Foams

In response to these concerns, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Department of Defense (DoD) have been actively researching fluorine-free foams (F3). They are testing these foams as a safer alternative to AFFF.

Fluorine-free foams are developed with a blend of highly effective phosphate betaine silicone surfactant (PPSS) and various hydrocarbon surfactants. Up North News reports that these foams provide a more environmentally responsible solution. Research has highlighted the impressive effectiveness of F3 foams, particularly those combining sodium alpha-olefin sulfonate with PPSS.

Unlike AFFF, which creates a vapor-suppressing film, F3 foams use a double-action approach. They establish a foam blanket to suppress vapors and cool the fire with water.

Despite these advancements, transitioning to F3 is not without its hurdles.

Why the Transition is Slow

The shift to F3 foams in the U.S. has been gradual, with several factors contributing to this delay:

Effectiveness and Training Concerns

One of the most significant challenges with F3 foams is their lack of a vapor-suppressing film. This means that the foam blanket must be meticulously maintained to prevent re-ignition.

Firefighters require additional training to adapt to this new approach, and there is a learning curve involved in managing F3 foams effectively. Aviation Pro reports that the fear of operational failures during this transition period contributes to hesitancy.

Compatibility and Equipment Issues

Transitioning to F3 is not as simple as swapping out the foam. Existing firefighting systems, particularly in airports and military bases, are often designed with AFFF in mind. Ensuring compatibility with F3 foams may require significant modifications to equipment, which can be both costly and time-consuming. Additionally, F3 foams cannot be mixed with other types of foams, complicating the transition further.

Financial and Regulatory Hurdles

The cost of transitioning to F3 is a significant barrier for many institutions. While the FAA is guiding the move to F3, there is currently no mandate requiring airports to make the switch. This lack of a regulatory requirement, coupled with uncertainty about potential financial assistance for the transition, leaves many organizations in a state of limbo.

Local Regulations and Variability

Airports and firefighting agencies must also navigate a patchwork of state and local regulations regarding the use of F3 or AFFF. This variability adds another layer of complexity to the transition process, as organizations must ensure compliance with both federal guidelines and local requirements.

The Future of Firefighting Foams in the U.S.

The scrutiny of AFFF and the slow adoption of F3 alternatives highlights a broader issue in the U.S. The challenge of balancing safety, effectiveness, and environmental responsibility. The need to phase out PFAS-containing foams is clear. However, transitioning to safer alternatives like F3 involves numerous obstacles that require careful consideration and coordinated action.

The FAA, DoD, and other stakeholders must continue to collaborate to address these challenges. They need to provide the necessary guidance, training, and financial support to ensure a smooth transition.

What restrictions has Wisconsin imposed on AFFF use?

As of September 1, 2020, Wisconsin has implemented new restrictions to limit the use of AFFF. These regulations focus on reducing the release of PFAS-containing foam into surface water and sewage systems. The aim is to mitigate PFAS contamination and protect both the environment and public health.

Overall, addressing PFAS contamination and transitioning to safer firefighting solutions is crucial for protecting public health and the environment.

It demands a comprehensive approach that includes training, financial support, and a commitment to environmental stewardship. As the firefighting community adapts to these changes, the lessons learned will pave the way for safer and more sustainable practices in the future.