Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been a topic of concern due to their persistence in the environment and health risks. Among the various applications of PFAS, one of the most significant is in aqueous film-forming foams (AFFF), particularly in firefighting. However, state governments across the United States are increasingly moving to restrict or outright ban the use of PFAS-based AFFF.
This article explores the reasons behind this trend and its implications.
What are PFAS and AFFF?
PFAS are a class of man-made compounds found in various sectors and consumer goods. They are valuable for resisting water, grease, and oils. AFFF are firefighting compounds used to swiftly extinguish flames containing combustible liquids like oil and gasoline. PFAS-based AFFF has been widely employed in military and civilian firefighting operations due to its efficiency in suppressing such flames.
Why are State Governments Ruling Out PFAS-based AFFF?
According to Toxic-Free Future, 11 states in the US, including California, Connecticut, Illinois, and others, have banned the sale of PFAS-based AFFF. There are many reasons behind the ban, such as:
Health Concerns
The toxic and accumulative nature of PFAS chemicals has led to growing evidence linking PFAS exposure to various health problems. For instance, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry states that PFAS exposure is associated with:
- Cancers
- High cholesterol levels
- Changes in liver enzymes
- A slight decrease in infant birth weight
- Pregnancy-induced hypertension
- Lower antibody response to certain vaccinations, etc.
Firefighters, in particular, are at heightened risk of exposure to PFAS due to their frequent use of AFFF. There are also a growing number of lawsuits against AFFF manufacturers filed by firefighters and other exposed individuals. According to TruLaw, there are around 8,061 pending cases in the AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL).
If exposed, you could also file an AFFF foam lawsuit to seek compensation for your damages. Medical expenses are typically a primary concern, covering everything from emergency care to ongoing treatment and rehabilitation. Lost wages, pain and suffering, emotional trauma, and loss of quality of life are some other things for which you can be compensated.
Concerns about the potential health risks associated with PFAS exposure have prompted state governments to take action to protect public health.
Environmental Contamination
PFAS are notorious for their persistence in the environment. As the Environmental Working Group states, PFAS are chemicals that do not break down easily. This leads to accumulation, contaminating water, soil, and other environmental factors.
EPA data shows that close to 900 documented spills or usage reports have occurred in the past 30 years. These spills have accounted for thousands of gallons of AFFF spilled in water bodies, leading to widespread contamination.
State governments are increasingly concerned about the long-term environmental impact of PFAS-based AFFF. This is especially true in areas where firefighting training sites or incidents have significantly contaminated soil and water sources.
Regulatory Pressure
In recent years, there has been increased regulatory scrutiny of PFAS compounds at both the state and federal levels. PFAS’s widespread impact led to this pressure.
An NCBI study was conducted on the data of over 10,000 patients from the University of North Carolina Healthcare System. The study concluded that four PFAS chemicals were found in water sources serving at least one zip code.
Therefore, several states have implemented or proposed regulations to limit PFAS contamination in drinking water, air, and soil.
Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued health advisories for certain PFAS compounds. It also considers regulatory action to address PFAS contamination more comprehensively. State governments may preemptively ban PFAS-based AFFF from aligning with emerging regulations and standards to reduce PFAS exposure and contamination.
Availability of Alternatives
Advancements in firefighting technology have led to the development of alternative firefighting agents that are effective against flammable liquid fires. These alternatives, such as fluorine-free foams (F3) and protein-based foams, offer comparable performance to PFAS-based AFFF while posing fewer risks.
Moreover, advancements in technology are increasing the effectiveness of these alternatives. For instance, a Springer Journal study shows that the effectiveness of F3 foams has increased significantly since they were launched. Although they are not as effective as AFFF, they offer an ideal alternative, inspiring governments to make this decision.
As the availability and efficacy of non-PFAS firefighting agents improve, state governments may see less justification for continuing to use PFAS-based AFFF.
Implications of the Ban
The banning of PFAS-based AFFF by state governments has significant implications for firefighting operations, regulatory compliance, and environmental remediation efforts:
Firefighting Operations
Fire departments and emergency responders must transition from PFAS-based AFFF to alternative firefighting agents. This may require training personnel on properly using and handling non-PFAS foams and updating firefighting equipment and protocols.
Regulatory Compliance
Entities subject to state regulations governing the use and disposal of PFAS-based AFFF must ensure compliance with the new requirements. This may involve conducting assessments of existing firefighting equipment and facilities to identify PFAS contamination and implementing measures to mitigate risks.
Environmental Remediation
State governments may allocate resources to remediate sites contaminated with PFAS from firefighting activities. This could involve soil and water testing, cleanup efforts, and monitoring to prevent further spread of PFAS contamination.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is Every PFAS Molecule Equally Harmful?
Not all PFAS chemicals are equally harmful; perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) are some of the most hazardous. While certain PFAS compounds are more hazardous, there is growing concern that many PFAS chemicals represent comparable health and environmental hazards.
Can PFAS Contaminants Be Eliminated From Soil and Water?
The persistence of PFAS chemicals makes remediation of damaged locations difficult. Various procedures, including activated carbon filtration, soil excavation, and chemical treatments, can help to lower PFAS levels, but total removal is challenging.
What Are Some Alternatives to PFAS-Based AFFF?
Alternatives to PFAS-based AFFF include fluorine-free foams (F3), protein-based foams, and other specialized firefighting chemicals. These solutions have equivalent efficacy in extinguishing flammable liquid flames while causing fewer environmental and health hazards.
How Do Firefighters Protect Themselves Against PFAS Exposure?
Firefighters can reduce their exposure to PFAS by wearing proper personal protective equipment (PPE). They can also employ firefighting chemicals responsibly and adhere to established safety standards while handling hazardous products.
To sum up, state governments’ ruling out of PFAS-based AFFF reflects a growing awareness of the environmental and health risks of PFAS. By transitioning to alternative firefighting agents and implementing stricter regulations, states aim to promote sustainable firefighting practices. While the ban on PFAS-based AFFF presents challenges for firefighting operations and regulatory compliance, it also opens opportunities for innovation and advancement.
