Raleigh, NC: (919) 277-9299
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation1 revealed many military installations still stock—and deploy—aqueous foam for combatting fuel fires, despite numerous case studies advising against its use.
AFFF works primarily by creating a barrier between the flammable liquid and the oxygen supply. The foam spreads quickly to knock down the blaze while the film prevents the fuel from reigniting. The synthetic foam “blanket” contains PFAS—per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances—formed from fluorine and carbon atoms. This chemical structure doesn’t break down easily, so it’s ideal for firefighting, but its persistence is toxic to the environment, and it bioaccumulates in humans, causing many types of cancer.
The manufacturers of these foams concealed the risks of their products for decades and knowingly subjected thousands of firefighters to toxic chemicals. Cancer diagnoses and deaths increased in the military due to PFAS exposure, making a challenging occupation even more deadly. After it was revealed that the suppressants were hazardous, AFFF users filed lawsuits against the manufacturers of the hazardous foam. Congress also ordered the switch to AFFF replacements by October 1, 2024.
Unfortunately, the deadline for transitioning to PFAS-free AFFF will likely be extended for two more years. Failing to meet the deadline disheartens anyone with a loved one suffering health effects from firefighting foam.
The GAO assessed the military’s actions to discontinue AFFF thus far and confirmed challenges to eliminating PFAS in military firefighting. The report, published on July 8, 2024, arrives long after the 2020 directive to phase out PFAS in firefighting. Here are the GAO’s findings on the transition progress:
Efforts To Eliminate AFFF on Military Bases
Four years ago military facilities were instructed to phase out PFAS-based fire suppressants, yet the efforts to expel it continue. The GAO report states the Department of Defense uses AFFF at approximately 1,500 facilities and in 6,800 mobile suppression systems. Countless service members remain at risk and history is likely to repeat itself if the chemicals are not eliminated soon.
Though the calls for banning PFAS won’t reverse the damage, there’s still hope that future service members may enjoy safer working conditions. Advocates for firefighters hoped Congress’ directives would bring more changes to the industry, but progress isn’t completely stalled.
Developing Plans To Adopt AFFF Replacements
Military departments began plans for adopting alternative suppressants at land-based facilities. The proposals must address purchasing fluorine-free substitutes, removing and replacing AFFF in mobile assets, disposing of existing concentrates at facilities, and training firefighters to deploy the new suppressants. Certainly, military firefighters are anxious to see years of planning come to fruition, beginning with safety improvements.
Restricting AFFF Use on Land-Based Military Sites
Former firefighters describe having carte blanche over AFFF use, spraying it for practice and training exercises. The military has since restricted the use of AFFF except for fire response. Training must use AFFF alternatives unless complete capture and containment are possible.
Creating Fluorine-Free Mil-Specs
Military tools must be developed according to certain specifications known as Mil-Specs. One of the military’s completed tasks established performance criteria for AFFF alternatives. These new standards were released in January 2023 to guide manufacturers in developing PFAS-free firefighting foams. As of February 2024, two foams have been qualified and made available for purchase.
Roadblocks to Changing to PFAS-Free AFFF Replacements
Though news of the commercially available AFFF replacements seems like the resolution everyone was waiting for, military facilities still face hurdles in making the switch. As delays to changing to PFAS-free foam mount, investigations like this latest one become more important.
Fire Extinguishing Techniques and Training
Everyone expected alternative foams to change firefighting tactics, and many firefighting schools, manufacturers, and civilian departments have begun preparing for this change. The Department of Defense allowed each military department to develop individual training requirements for transitioning to AFFF replacements. However, the slow rollout process seems stuck on costs, benefits, and timelines rather than refurbishing training sites or sending service members to established programs.
Improving safety in the fire industry isn’t easy but it is necessary. Though no one can undo the harm AFFF caused to countless first responders, making changes now can help stop the cycle from repeating in future generations.
____________________
1 See GAO Report.