Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) has long been used in firefighting, notably to put out flammable liquid fires. However, its main constituents, per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), have been closely studied due to their environmental persistence and possible health risks.
These PFAS, sometimes known as ‘forever chemicals’ because of their resistance to environmental degradation, are creating widespread alarm. The mounting evidence of adverse health effects and their persistent nature has led to a wave of regulatory changes.
Many U.S. states have imposed bans or restrictions on PFAS-based AFFF. This page gives a complete review of the present state of PFAS-based AFFF laws.
Why the Need to Phase Out or Ban PFAS-Based AFFF
The push to phase out or ban these products stems primarily from the growing concerns about their environmental and health risks. These molecules are considered to be extremely persistent in the environment, giving them the name “forever chemicals.” PFAS can seep into groundwater, contaminate soil, and accumulate in wildlife and human bodies over time.
Studies have found probable correlations between PFAS exposure and a variety of health conditions, including cancer, thyroid disorders, immune system malfunction, and so on. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), PFAS exposure can put you at risk of the following conditions:
- Increase in cholesterol levels, leading to cardiovascular problems
- Changes in liver enzymes
- Decrease in birth weight of babies whose mothers were exposed
- Lower vaccine response
- Pregnancy-related preeclampsia and hypertension
- Kidney and testicular cancer
Firefighters, who are regularly exposed to AFFF during training and firefighting operations, face a higher risk of PFAS exposure.
According to TorHoerman Law, exposed firemen who were diagnosed with health problems have been filing lawsuits against AFFF manufacturers. They say that these companies should have informed them about the potential health problems linked with their products. However, they neglected their health and focused on profits, so they should be liable for firefighters’ health conditions, especially cancer.
If you were diagnosed, you could also file a firefighter foam cancer lawsuit to seek justice and rightful compensation for your damages. All you need to do is find an experienced attorney to represent you throughout the case. Although there is growing evidence available that links AFFF exposure to cancer, having a good lawyer is still vital. Knowing that someone capable and experienced is handling your case will give you peace of mind.
As a result of these issues, there is a rising need to regulate and phase out PFAS-based AFFF. Many states have taken proactive measures by implementing bans or restrictions on its use. The focus of replacement has been particularly on training purposes where alternative solutions can be readily employed. The federal government is also taking steps to address PFAS contamination and promote the development of safer alternatives.
Current Landscape of PFAS-Based AFFF Regulations
The regulation of PFAS-based AFFF varies significantly across states, with some states implementing complete bans and others opting for restrictions. For instance, California has banned using PFAS-containing AFFF for firefighting training and testing purposes, while other states, like Washington, have imposed restrictions.
According to CA.gov, California has also banned the use of PFAS in some food packaging materials. PFAS directly exposes humans to adverse health effects. Therefore, Assembly Bill 1200 (Ting) was adopted in 2021 and went into effect in January 2023. The bill bans the use of PFAS-containing plant-fiber food packaging with levels exceeding 100 parts per million total fluorine.
Several states have introduced legislation to gradually phase out PFAS-based AFFF, providing a transition period for fire departments and organizations to adopt. The specific regulations and timelines differ across states, creating a complex regulatory landscape that requires careful navigation.
Consider the example of New Jersey, where the bill to phase out AFFF is in motion and can be signed into law. According to NJ Spotlight News, the Senate and the Assembly passed the bill without a single vote against it. This shows huge support for the bill, but the state still weighs the ban on this toxic yet effective firefighting foam.
If passed, the bill will ban the use of PFAS-containing AFFF with a two-year grace period. However, the oil refineries will get an extended grace period of eight years to transition to PFAS-free alternatives.
The federal government has also taken action to address the problem of PFAS pollution. This includes the Environmental Protection Agency’s PFAS Action Plan, which describes a comprehensive strategy for combating PFAS chemicals. The Department of Defense (DoD) has also been actively transitioning from AFFF and exploring fluorine-free alternatives for firefighting applications.
As stated by the Air Force Civil Engineering Center, fluorine-free foams are being sent to bases. This resulted from the DoD establishing guidelines on removing PFAS from firefighting activities. The Air Force has allocated $8.55 million to buy more than 270,000 gallons of the new fluorine-free foam (F3). Overseas locations were the first to get the new foam, with Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida taking delivery in early January.
The regulatory landscape for PFAS-based AFFF is constantly evolving, with new legislation and regulations being introduced at the state and federal levels. Fire departments and organizations must remain up to speed on these developments in order to comply and make educated judgments about employing AFFF.
Challenges Posed by the Bans
The bans and restrictions on PFAS-based AFFF present several challenges for fire departments and organizations reliant on these foams for firefighting operations.
- Limited availability of effective alternatives: One of the primary challenges is the limited availability of readily available and equally effective alternatives to PFAS-based AFFF. Fluorine-free foams (F3) have emerged as a potential replacement for AFFF. However, as the Interstate Technology Regulatory Council states, their effectiveness in combating certain types of fires is still under evaluation. They don’t possess the film-forming properties and are different in how they work. The transition to F3 foams may require adjustments in firefighting tactics and equipment.
- Cost implications: Transitioning to fluorine-free foams and other alternatives can significantly burden fire departments, especially smaller ones with limited budgets. PFAS-based AFFFs are often more readily available and cost-effective, making the switch to alternatives a financial challenge.
- Training and adaptation: Firefighters are accustomed to using PFAS-based AFFF and may require additional training to effectively utilize alternative firefighting agents. The transition period can be disruptive and temporarily impact firefighting capabilities until firefighters are fully comfortable with the new foams and techniques.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is there an alternative for AFFF foam?
Yes, various alternatives to AFFF foam exist, such as fluorine-free foams (F3) and protein foams with shorter-chain PFAS molecules. However, the efficacy and availability of these options vary, and they may not be utterly harmless to the environment and human health. Therefore, continuous research is required to discover even better solutions and fine-tune the existing ones.
Is AFFF illegal in the United States?
AFFF is not entirely outlawed in the United States, but several states have prohibited or restricted its usage, notably for firefighter training. The restrictions differ by state, as some have even proposed a complete ban on their use. However, the primary aim is to phase out PFAS-based AFFF instead of banning it altogether.
Is the US Navy still using AFFF?
The US Navy is gradually replacing AFFF with fluorine-free alternatives. However, due to logistical obstacles and the necessity to preserve firefighting efficacy, it may take some time to eliminate AFFF. The Department of Defense has already set guidelines to completely phase out PFAS-based AFFF and switch to potential alternatives.
To conclude, the regulatory landscape surrounding PFAS-based AFFF is rapidly evolving. It is being driven by the need to balance firefighting effectiveness with environmental and health concerns. While AFFF has been a critical tool, PFAS chemicals’ persistence, and potential health risks have prompted a shift towards safer alternatives.
The transition away from PFAS-based AFFF presents both challenges and opportunities. Fire departments and organizations must carefully evaluate the alternatives, considering effectiveness, cost, and firefighter training. Ongoing research and development efforts are crucial for identifying and refining alternatives that can effectively replace AFFF without compromising firefighting capabilities.
