On July 29, 1967, a huge fire engulfed the aircraft carrier USS Forrestal. The blaze killed 134 sailors and left 161 injured.
The tragic loss of lives forced the U.S. Navy to rethink firefighting protocols on its vessels.
Developed over several years, scientists worked with M3 Corporation and patented PFAS-containing fire-suppressing foam in 1966. By the late 1960s, Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) became widely used on all U.S. Navy vessels.
Because of its fire suppressant capabilities, local fire departments added AFFF firefighting foam to their arsenal of firefighting toolkits. Unfortunately, years of testing and studies would prove the U.S. Navy backed the wrong horse.
AFFF and PFAS Exposure
AFFF exposure on its own isn’t dangerous. It does however contain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS). Also known as forever chemicals, PFAS have been linked to cancer, birth defects and heart disease.
Chemical manufacturers are now facing legal action in a firefighter foam lawsuit. This comes after government agencies announced the phasing out of firefighting foams because of its cancer-causing risks.
Since its introduction to the market, it’s been a long tough road to get AFFF banned altogether. Now, manufacturers are looking for safer alternatives to PFAS-containing firefighting foam.
Increased Cancer Risk
It wasn’t until a 2015 study by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health found that firefighters were at increased risk of certain types of cancers when exposed to AFFF.
The study wasn’t the only evidence that alluded to the higher cancer risk hypothesis. Blood tests done on 911 first responders found they had twice as much PFAS in their blood than the general population.
PFAS contamination is a huge problem in the U.S., resulting in many AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits being filed over the issue, says TorHoerman Law.
The National Cancer Institute warned that PFAS exposure puts those working with the chemicals at higher risk of kidney cancer and testicular cancer. Communities living close to contaminated drinking water are also in danger.
Transitioning from Firefighting Foam
The U.S. Defense Department (DOD) has been tasked with phasing out firefighting foam containing PFAS. The directive is that the toxic chemicals be discontinued by October 1, 2024.
In response to the regulation, the DOD listed challenges that might slow the transition.
According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the pursuit to find a firefighting foam replacement has proven difficult. DOD also noted an estimated transition cost of more than $2.1 billion.
GAO did however find that the U.S. military is taking steps to eliminate AFFF by developing a fluorine-free foam as a PFAS-free alternative.
During its 2024 Solutions Summit, Environment + Energy Leader discussed synthetic fluorine-free alternatives (SFFF). The environmental agency praised the benefits of SFFF. These were heightened safety measures, reduced environmental footprint, and cost savings.
Possible Hurdles
Because forever chemicals persist for longer in the environment, they take longer to break down.
The Navy identified 20 sites suspected of PFAS contamination near Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam. GAO reported that cleanup could take decades to complete.
Another report found that the ban on PFAS firefighting foam in the U.K. has produced another set of problems. The country currently has 1.69 million liters of toxic firefighting foam stockpiled. This brings into question how they will safely dispose of it.
Feasible Alternatives to PFAS
While SFFF could be the sustainable option in the long run, National Institute of Standards and Technology researcher Rick Davis has a more tactical approach.
His solution is simple. Forever chemicals are often found in high concentrations in firefighting turnout gear. Davis argues that if one were to change to a non-PFAS water repellent on the outer shell, PFAS would be eliminated from that layer.
The PFAS Alternatives Act was introduced by Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick in 2023. If the Act is legislated into law, Davis believes it could accelerate the implementation of PFAS-free turnover gear. But this would need further research, development and testing.
There’s also the issue of turnover gear manufacturers shifting the responsibility of inspecting the gear to firefighters. The North Carolina State Firefighters Association said they didn’t know if there was a definitive replacement for the gear they currently wear. Like Davis, they too added that more research was needed.
Until a safer alternative can be found, thousands of families are still feeling the effects of exposure to PFAS.
Hopefully, the outcome of the AFFF firefighting foam lawsuits and AFFF firefighting foam MDL can provide some comfort and answers from the defendants 3M, DuPont and several other companies.