With the raising awareness of the negative impact of aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF) on the environment and human health, comes a stringent need for replacements. Herein, the scope is to have AFFF removed from firefighting use as soon as possible, and have these replaced with alternative options.
In Georgia, the use of AFFF is strictly limited to emergencies, while for fire exercises, AFFF can only be used if the facility where the exercise is taking place has rigorous containment measures set in place.Despite consistent efforts being made, viable replacements for AFFF still require more research to determine their safety. These alternatives referred to as fluorine-free-foam, must comply with strict regulations and guidelines yet the extent to which this is possible is yet to be determined.
Firstly, there is a wide variety of potential formulations that do not use fluorine compounds, yet may use other substances, which in different combinations, may present increased toxicity to the environment. Secondly, expert decision-making for the use of these alternatives needs to be backed up by rigorous scientific studies, using current standards in measuring human and environmental toxicity.
As of 2019, there were over 90 available fluorine-free foams on the market from a total of 22 manufacturers. All these may pose distinct risks to the environment and implicitly to humans depending on their manufacturing process, and their components, as well as accumulative effects.
Per-and polyfluoroalkyl (PFAS) substances are synthetic compounds with specific properties that make them essential to the firefighting industry, either for equipment or as fire suppressant agents. To date, sellers and manufacturers of firefighting substances and equipment still use PFAS despite their now widely known toxicity because alternatives with similar efficiency are slow to develop.
One of the most widely used PFAS substances for firefighting are AFFF. These foams are crucial to the containment of Class B fires or fires that have a high risk of expanding quickly due to being fueled by highly flammable agents such as oil. The reason why AFFF work so well is that when mixed with water, these create a film over the flammable substance which not only stops the fire in its tracks but also prevents it from spreading elsewhere. These effective properties are hard to be surpassed by current alternatives.
Despite their efficiency, AFFF are highly toxic to the environment and to humans. In the past decade, these foams have been linked with various cancers, neurological diseases and autoimmune conditions. The increased toxicity of AFFF is somewhat dose-dependent, but because these substances have an increased persistence in the environment and in humans, exposure dosages accumulate over time.
As firefighters and military personnel tend to come into contact with these substances frequently as a result of their job, these populations are most at risk of developing conditions related to AFFF exposure. Several investigations conducted on participants working as firefighters found increased levels of PFAS in their blood. Subsequently, these levels were linked with a higher incidence of cancer, dysfunctions of the lipid metabolism, leading to high cholesterol, and implicitly, cardiovascular issues.
Concomitantly, local communities can also become exposed. When AFFF is used in a fire, this is mixed with water to create the fire suppressant foam. This water then becomes contaminated with PFAS and inadvertently infiltrates the soil, contaminating both the area where the AFFF was used, as well as surrounding areas by infiltrating groundwater. This is a significant concern because most of the time this groundwater feeds into public and private drinking water wells serving local populations. Considering the cumulative effect of AFFF, over time, these populations will also have an increased risk of developing various diseases associated with PFAS.
There’s been some discussion around the potential effects of fluorine-free foams on animal species and the environment. On one hand, earlier conclusions suggested that any immediate toxicity might naturally dissipate over time. However, questions linger about whether longer-term developmental or reproductive impacts, which tend to be more persistent, would resolve on their own.
Despite these results, it must be recognized that the vast majority of fire suppressant substances, especially for Class B fires, pollute. The scope is not to look for a perfect solution, but for a solution that would have a minimal impact on the environment and by default on human health. To be able to accomplish this, substantially more research should be carried out into safer alternatives.
Jonathan Sharp serves as the CFO at the Environmental Litigation Group, P.C. Jonathan oversees case evaluations, financial analyses, and asset management for individuals affected by toxic exposure.
