Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) is a firefighting chemical that has been used by the military for a long time, especially for fuel fires. Nonetheless, the military is under pressure to identify safer substitutes because of mounting health and environmental concerns about its chemical components. The presence of per and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in AFFF makes them harmful to humans and the environment.
It is imperative to switch from AFFF to greener alternatives. However, the procedure is not simple at all. This change is complicated by a number of issues that call for a careful balancing act between safety, performance, and logistics.
Ensuring Firefighting Effectiveness
The main challenge in abandoning AFFF is to locate substitutes with comparable firefighting efficacy. Since AFFF responds quickly to fuel-based flames, which are especially deadly in military settings, it has been employed extensively. Any replacement must operate in an equivalent manner with the same degree of equipment and worker safety.
The ability to suppress large fires quickly and efficiently is a significant requirement. However, many available alternatives have not yet demonstrated equivalent effectiveness in real-world scenarios.
For instance, Fluorine-Free Firefighting Foams (F3) have been the closest alternatives to AFFF. However, as stated by the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), there are several restrictions and complications associated with F3’s efficacy.
These fluorine-free foams are novel products with distinct features and firefighting techniques; they are not a drop-in substitute for AFFF. The new foams function “reasonably well,” but because of their distinct characteristics, the switch from AFFF will be trickier.
What is the suggested effective mixture of AFFF with water to produce a foam?
The concentrates are combined with water, often in the ratio of 97:3, to make it extremely effective at creating the foam. Additional ratios are utilized to create the premix, particularly 94:6 (6% concentrate) and 99:1 (1% concentrate).
Addressing Environmental and Health Concerns
The effects of AFFF on the environment and human health are the main factors driving the move away from it. PFAS, sometimes called “forever chemicals,” degrade slowly in the environment. As stated in a study from The Lancet, PFAS chemicals have been associated with numerous health concerns. Some of the major diseases associated with them are:
- Several types of cancers
- Reduced immunity
- Developmental delays in children exposed while in their mother’s womb
In fact, treating these conditions can be extremely costly. The cost of these diseases in the USA can be between $5.5 billion and $62 billion annually.
Therefore, TruLaw states that many individuals who developed any health problem due to AFFF exposure have filed lawsuits. These plaintiffs allege that the manufacturers of these products didn’t warn them about the potential health impacts of AFFF. Most of these plaintiffs are firefighters, military personnel, or people staying in areas where AFFF is used or dumped.
As many as 9,576 cases were pending in the AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL) as of September 2024. The plaintiffs are seeking fair compensation for medical expenses, pain and suffering, and other economic and non-economic factors. If you develop any condition after being exposed, you can also connect with a lawyer and file an AFFF lawsuit.
It is due to such harmfulness of AFFF that there’s been growing pressure to stop using them. A problem with implementing alternatives, though, is making sure they are indeed safer. While some substitutes declare themselves to be free of PFAS, there may be additional environmental dangers.
Evaluating the long-term effects of novel compounds is essential to prevent making the same mistakes twice. Consider the example of F3, which is supposed to be one of the best alternatives to AFFF.
An ACS Publication study shows that F3s have generally lower persistence in the environment compared to AFFF. However, there’s still a potential aquatic toxicity concern with the use of these alternatives. Thus, although it may not be as harmful as AFFF, F3 cannot be cited as non-toxic to the environment or even to humans.
How does AFFF affect the environment?
Because PFAS do not readily decompose in the environment, streams, animals, or human bodies, AFFF is extremely problematic. They can build up in the environment and endanger people, animals, and plants since they don’t break down. In actuality, because PFAS are found in tap water, the majority of Americans are genetically exposed to them.
Navigating Regulatory and Compliance Issues
Regulatory restrictions further hinder the military’s move away from AFFF. Government organizations like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are still setting guidelines for appropriate substitutes, even with the desire to phase out AFFF.
There are situations where state, federal, and international legislation pertaining to PFAS diverge, resulting in a complicated legal landscape. The military has to anticipate future restrictions in addition to adhering to the ones that are in place now. It might be difficult to strike a balance between changing rules and pressing demands, particularly when handling international operations.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has created a transition plan and shared it to help the military make the transition. Congress asked the FAA to develop this plan through its Omnibus Spending Bill in 2022. However, there’s nothing concrete yet, as many US states have not yet banned the use of PFAS. On the other hand, states like Arkansas and Louisiana have created strict regulations around the use and disposal of AFFF.
Managing the Costs of Transition
The cost of updating AFFF throughout the military’s extensive infrastructure is another difficulty. According to the US Government Accountability Office (GAO), it may cost an estimated $2.1 billion to transition from AFFF to alternatives. Moreover, there’s a cost factor associated with transitioning before the deadlines.
It will cost more than just money to buy new firefighting products when AFFF is phased out. New machinery, employee training programs, and cleanup efforts for pre-existing PFAS contamination are also required. Due to budgetary limitations and the magnitude of military activities, this procedure will need a substantial time commitment.
What is the lifespan of AFFF foam?
When stored in their original, unopened shipping containers and according to the manufacturer’s instructions about temperature limitations, AFFF often has an extended shelf life. For instance, properly maintained AFFF-LF and AFFF concentrates should have a shelf life of 10–20 years. Thus, decomposing them will also be costly for the government.
For the military, switching to AFFF substitutes is an essential yet difficult task. While there is a pressing need to address environmental and health issues, it takes time to identify solutions that are equally effective.
Planning carefully, collaborating across agencies, and continuing research expenditures will be necessary to manage the technological, budgetary, and regulatory obstacles. Nonetheless, the long-term advantages of a better firefighting chemical that safeguards human health and the environment make this work worthwhile.