Every week the lawyers at my firm talk to civilian and military firefighters whose health has been threatened by the very tool they relied upon to protect other peoples’ lives: aqueous film-forming foams.
For decades aqueous film-forming foams were the gold standard in fire suppression. But like many seemingly foolproof solutions, these fire extinguishers bear a dark legacy through the carcinogenic toxic chemicals called per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS).
Since its invention by the U.S. Navy and the 3M company in the 1960s, PFAS-based firefighting foams, especially aqueous film-forming foams AFFF, were promoted as “safe as soap” until PFAS’s hazardous nature came to light. AFFF is highly effective against flammable fuel fires, but the chemicals that make this foam a lifesaver also cause devastating health and environmental damage.
You’ve probably heard of the alarming nationwide problem of PFAS contamination of our drinking-water sources and their link to various types of cancer, including testicular and kidney, and altered immune and thyroid function.
While almost 97% of Americans are affected by the toxic chemicals, mainly through drinking water, firefighters are disproportionately affected. These hardworking, risk-taking first responders have found themselves directly exposed to PFAS chemicals for decades. The consequences are devastating. Firefighters have a 9% higher risk of developing cancer than the general population, mainly because of military and civilian fire departments’ extensive use of aqueous film-forming foam.
The ‘Forever Chemicals’ and Their Cost
PFAS, or “forever chemicals,” are a large family of human-made substances used in a variety of industries like firefighting and for the production of a wide range of household products. They do not break down naturally and can accumulate in water, soil, and even the human body.
The Environmental Protection Agency has made it clear that there is no safe level of chemical exposure — implying that even low amounts of these substances can pose significant risks over time.
The Environmental Working Group’s updated PFAS contamination map reveals that military installations and industrial facilities have the highest levels of PFAS in their groundwater. Due to the persistence of PFAS in the surroundings, contamination from these sites can easily spread to nearby water systems and endanger communities who rely on the same aquifers or water sources.
This makes PFAS a critical public health and environmental issue, especially for firefighters whose exposure is often unavoidable.
As the realization of the dangers of PFAS grows, so does the push to find safer and more sustainable alternatives. Yet the major question is whether these new formulations truly represent a breakthrough in safety or if they could merely be another regrettable substitution.
The Rise of PFAS-Free Alternatives
The market now offers a range of viable and biodegradable options that promise to reduce the environmental and health risks associated with traditional foams. Many of these formulations adhere to stringent international standards and have already been adopted globally. By April 2019 over 90 fluorine-free foams were produced and made available by 22 different manufacturers. These products vary in composition, but a notable innovation is the emergence of soy-based foams that are seen as more environmentally friendly.
Yet such promising benefits still warrant caution. AFFF was hailed not long ago as nonhazardous — a claim that has since been debunked with the discovery of severe long-term health risks. This may similarly happen with the alternatives, which are not completely guaranteed risk-free.
For instance, some solvent-laden formulations — though PFAS-free — still contain chemicals that can irritate the respiratory system, cause skin reactions, and lead to liver toxicity with prolonged exposure. Meanwhile, soy-based foams may trigger allergic reactions in some individuals, specifically those with sensitivities to the legume.
A study published in May 2023 discusses concerns about hydrocarbon surfactants and other non-fluorinated surfactants commonly found in fluorine-free foam formulations. A 2011 medical study demonstrated that long-term exposure to hydrocarbon surfactants leads to hypotension, mental deterioration, respiratory failure, acute kidney injury, and arrhythmia.
Such studies are necessary, and scientists call for more research to investigate the safety and efficiency of these alternatives.
What Should Be Done Next?
Certain states, such as Alaska, have already banned PFAS-containing firefighting foam. However, state laws do not apply to military bases. The Department of Defense planned to transition to fluorine-free firefighting foams by October 2024, but the deadline was extended. The DOD has been investing in studies to find suitable replacements that conform to its military requirements in terms of efficiency but do not pose environmental and health concerns.
A significant concern linked to the quest for a suitable fluorine-free foam alternative is that many products claim to be greener and safer for the environment and human health. But manufacturers are still not required to disclose all the chemicals they use. Without proper third-party testing, knowing what some foam products contain is hard. To address this, the Massachusetts-based nonprofit organization Clean Production Action in 2020 launched the first eco-label certification program for PFAS-free firefighting foams, the “GreenScreen Certified Standard for Firefighting Foams.” The program ensures that foams claiming to be PFAS-free are indeed free of these added chemicals and thousands of other chemicals of high concern. Several states have already turned to the GreenScreen certification program.
As thorough research and testing necessitate time and resources, we need a more comprehensive and collaborative approach involving all responsible parties, such as the Department of Defense, the Environmental Protection Agency, research institutes, and firefighting foam manufacturers, to develop a suitable replacement foam that does not pose a risk to firefighter’s health and does not contaminate the environment.
Furthermore, finding a suitable replacement foam is only the first step. While there are guidelines, we need an overarching policy that fire departments can follow throughout the complex transitioning process, including training on handling the new foam, what kind of new equipment would be necessary, and how to decontaminate old equipment.
The rise of PFAS-free alternatives is a positive development, as they appear to be better and safer. But it’s crucial to remember that “safer” does not always mean “safe enough.”
As the world gets hotter and wildfires more severe and deadlier, firefighting foams — and firefighters — will become more important than ever. Let’s look out for their future — and ours.
Previously in The Revelator:
The Silent Threat Beneath Our Feet: How Deregulation Fuels the Spread of Forever Chemicals
