The legacy of the toxic AFFF firefighting foam

Like many other states in the U.S., Texas is facing the alarming issue of groundwater and, consequently, drinking water contamination across its territory due to the widespread use of aqueous film-forming foam, a Class-B type of firefighting foam. AFFF has been widely used at military bases, commercial airports, and various fire departments since the 1960s because they are one of the most effective solutions capable of extinguishing fuel fires in seconds due to their main chemical components of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). PFAS are a large group of synthetic chemicals, each having a solid and unique carbon-fluorine bond, which gives them their effective surfactant properties but makes them highly toxic at the same time.

Scientists, certain government bodies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency, and public health organizations have been increasingly vocal about the adverse effects of PFAS on the environment and humans in recent years. Studies have shown that once PFAS enter the environment, especially groundwater, they do not break down and bioaccumulate, causing severe diseases such as decreased fertility, weakened immune system, and various types of cancers.

While PFAS affects everyone living at or close to a contaminated site, firefighters are at a heightened risk of becoming ill due to long-term exposure because of working with AFFF, and using equipment containing PFAS regularly. Studies show that firefighters have higher levels of PFAS in their bodies and that cancer diagnoses among them are more frequent compared to the general public.

Phasing out AFFF and transitioning to fluorine-free firefighting foam is presented as a viable solution by most stakeholders affected, including the U.S. Department of Defense. While more and more research and testing are being conducted to find a suitable AFFF substitute among the existing products on the market, the question remains whether fluorine-free foam is a safer option.

How is Texas handling the AFFF-problem?

Without federal laws concerning PFAS and AFFF, individual states can adopt their own rules and regulations at non-military sites. Texas is one of the states with no enacted laws nor recommendations related to AFFF use or disposal yet.

In March 2021, a bill relating to hazardous substances used in firefighting products was introduced for debate in Texas, but no action has been taken since then.

The bill proposes that firefighting foam containing PFAS designed for flammable liquid fires should not be used or discharged at any time, including during the training of firefighters. It also proposes prohibiting the production and sale of PFAS-containing firefighting foams unless otherwise required by federal law.

According to the bill, manufacturers and retailers should recall the already sold PFAS containing firefighting foam by March 2024, reimburse all who have purchased it, and ensure the safe transportation and storage of the recalled foam. Furthermore, manufacturers and sellers of PFAS-containing firefighting equipment should attach a written notification that the product contains PFAS.

The bill also proposes to The Department of State Health Services to develop a strategy to assist and advise governmental entities on what kind of firefighting foam and equipment to buy to avoid products that contain PFAS.

The Texas Department of State Health Services published two studies in 2022 and 2023 discussing the potential adverse health effects of consuming fish from a Texas river and a Texas lake, respectively, both contaminated by PFAS. In both reports, AFFF, originating from a nearby former military basis, was the source of contamination.

There is awareness, and discussions have taken place about the dangers of AFFF and PFAS contamination among representatives of public and civic organizations and the private sector in Texas. However, these mainly revolve around the costs and complications of eliminating AFFF, potential lawsuits against manufacturers utilizing and discharging PFAS into the environment, and not that much on the possibilities and potential risks associated with fluorine-free foams.

Fluorine-free foams: are the preferred option but not the safest solution The DOD and state and nonstate organizations have been investing in research to find a suitable fluorine-free foam that can effectively extinguish fuel fires and is a non-toxic, safe alternative to AFFF. There are numerous products on the market, but in terms of cost-efficiency, only one satisfies the upgraded military specifications for PFASfree firefighting foams released by the DOD in January 2023. This is rather a slow development, considering the urgency of the situation and the DOD’s statement that it will phase out AFFF on military bases in 2024.

There is consensus among the involved parties that fluorinefree alternatives are a better option. Still, there is evidence that some PFAS-free firefighting foam products contain chemicals hazardous to the environment and human health. Surfactants and solvents are of concern, among others. Research shows that surfactants may disrupt the body’s hormone system, while long-term exposure to solvents was linked to developing neurological disorders such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s.

The fact that manufacturers are not required to disclose all the chemicals they use adds to the gravity of the situation, especially since some claim to be entirely green and clean, but they are not. Addressing this issue, the nonprofit organization Clean Production Action has launched an eco-label certification program, the “GreenScreen Certified Standard for Firefighting Foams.” The program ensures that the foams tested are free of thousands of chemicals of concern, including PFAS.

While testing of chemicals used in fluorine-free firefighting foam combinations is ongoing, some say that the possibility of substituting one hazardous chemical with a regrettable other, as it has happened before throughout history, is a genuine concern. Another concern is finding a good strategy for transitioning from AFFF to a new fluorine-free foam with different properties and mechanisms. Meanwhile, fire departments should be prepared for the changes and handle replacement foams with awareness and care.

Jonathan Sharp is the Chief Financial Officer at Environmental Litigation Group, P.C., a Birmingham-based law firm specializing in toxic exposure and providing assistance to veterans injured by toxic exposure at military bases across the country.