For decades, the military used aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) containing highly potent toxins known as PFAS to extinguish hazardous fuel fires. Research now shows that these “forever chemicals” infiltrate drinking water and pose severe health risks.
Under legal pressure to act, the Department of Defense has launched an urgent mission to find safer alternatives. Their goal is to protect personnel from this hidden danger in their own backyards. In this article, we will explore the DOD’s efforts and the reasons behind the urgent need for replacements.
PFAS: A Family of Chemicals with Shared Properties and Health Concerns
According to Harvard University, per and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) represent a broad class of more than 3,000 related chemicals. These chemicals are defined by their stable carbon-fluorine bonds. This bond gives PFAS its signature properties—water, stain, and heat resistance- while also reducing friction. As a result, PFAS has been widely used in consumer goods and industrial applications.
Extensive scientific research has revealed the health impacts of some common “legacy” PFAS, like perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS). Decades of medical studies show that these chemicals disrupt human biology in alarming ways. They affect the kidneys, liver, and thyroid and increase the risk of conditions like diabetes. Their impacts seemingly have few limits.
More recent work explores lesser-known PFAS and has helped inform a new EPA rule. This rule sets a maximum contaminant level for any two PFAS in drinking water at four parts per trillion.
To appreciate this quantity’s size, it equals just four drops in 20 Olympic swimming pools. The goal is to drive detectable PFAS levels in tap water as close to zero as possible, mirroring regulations for other hazards like lead.
While the health effects of the entire class of PFAS remain under study, their persistence is concerning. The severity of problems linked to certain examples of PFAS adds to this concern. These man-made compounds warrant serious concern and limitations in our environment.
PFAS Litigation and Settlements
Large PFAS contamination caused by aqueous film-forming foam and other industrial sources has led to widespread litigation. Hundreds of water utilities have filed lawsuits seeking funding for treatment technology, monitoring, and cleanup costs.
Due to the immense scale of potential damages and the number of impacted utilities, major PFAS manufacturers have agreed to settlements. Companies like DuPont and 3M are among those manufacturers agreeing to these settlements. The settlements amount to multi-billion dollars. They are intended to resolve pending and future water utility claims across the U.S.
However, as per the National Law Review, estimates indicate over 9,000 utilities may require treatment, costing billions annually. The massive scope of needed remediation exceeds even the largest PFAS settlements to date. Utilities receiving settlement funds are unlikely to cover all costs. Additional state and federal funding may help fill the gap.
Given these financial shortfalls, legal observers predict water utilities will pursue contribution claims directly against companies that discharged PFAS into water sources.
Lawsuits by private citizens over similar harms also increase utility litigation risk. While initial settlements progressed, the full extent of PFAS pollution liabilities remains disputed. This is likely to involve all responsible parties going forward.
Read also How Drug Abuse Ruins Your Teeth? The Hidden Dangers You Need to Know
Transitioning to PFAS-Free Firefighting Foam
The Department of Defense uses AFFF containing PFAS at over 1,500 facilities and 6,800 vehicles worldwide. However, PFAS poses health risks and contaminates drinking water near bases. As a result, recent laws require DOD to stop using AFFF by certain deadlines, with potential waivers.
The latest AFFF lawsuit update is that DOD is working to replace AFFF with fluorine-free foam alternatives. However, several challenges remain. Current alternatives are not always compatible with DOD’s firefighting systems and cannot be mixed with water in advance.
According to TruLaw, transitioning systems will require an estimated $2.1 billion in funding. DOD firefighters also need additional training on using new foam products.
Due to these issues, the DOD expects to request waivers from the initial AFFF ban deadlines. More time is needed to transition firefighting systems without risking safety or mission capabilities. DOD continues developing new foam specifications and addressing compatibility, cost, and training gaps to complete the transition away from PFAS-containing AFFF.
FAQs
1. What is the status of AFFF in California?
A: Legislation banning the use of firefighting foams containing PFAS has been passed in California. This prohibition became effective on January 1, 2022. The law covers the production, distribution, and usage and regulates the disposal of firefighting foams that contain PFAS compounds.
2. Why do firefighters use foam in their operations?
A: Foam is preferred in firefighting for its superior performance over water alone. It can extinguish fires more rapidly and provides an effective barrier against fuel vapors. The foam creates a covering layer on flammable liquids, cutting off the oxygen supply and suppressing the fire.
3. Can you explain what 3% AFFF aqueous film-forming foam is?
A: Fomtec AFFF 3% is a specialized firefighting foam concentrate. Its composition includes a mixture of fluorocarbon and hydrocarbon surfactants, along with various solvents and stabilizing agents. This particular formulation uses only C6 pure fluorosurfactants, which are designed to form an aqueous film for fire suppression.
Going forward, resolving PFAS contamination will require sustained cooperation across all levels of government, industry, and the public. By coming together in recognition of our shared stakes in environmental wellness, we can develop comprehensive solutions. These solutions will safeguard communities and support infrastructure upgrades to protect both current and future generations.
