The Search for a Safe Alternative to Toxic Firefighting Foams

Are PFAS Free Firefighting Foams Actually Safer

The hunt is on for a safe alternative to PFAS-containing firefighting foam, which has been used so much that traces of it can be found in most water supplies in the country, as well as the bodies of most Americans.

Also known as “forever chemicals,” per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) have been used for decades in a range of products, including non-stick pans, stain-resistant fabrics, and food packaging. They’re favored for their durability, as well as their “slick” resistance to surface tension.

But they’re also deadly.

At high enough levels, these chemicals can cause immune problems, birth defects, thyroid disorders, and cancer. One of the most common uses of PFAS is in firefighting foams, particularly in airports and military facilities throughout the country.

Hundreds of military bases have been confirmed as PFAS contamination sites, and the Department of Defense has estimated the cleanup process will cost billions of dollars and last decades. Noting the headwinds, some state and local governments have already moved to ban PFAS-containing firefighting foams.

The Hunt for a New Foam

Regardless of when, how, or if PFAS is banned, there remains an honest need for safe and effective firefighting foams — specifically, a replacement for Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF). AFFF is primarily used to douse and control fuel fires, which is why they’re so common at military bases and airports.

The challenge is in making sure the replacement also does not end up poisoning people and wrecking the environment.

“We have a history of substituting one hazardous chemical with another that may not be any better,” Philippe Grandjean, an epidemiologist at the University of Southern Denmark, told Environmental Health News (EHN).

A number of companies in both Europe and North America are pushing research and development teams to find a suitable alternative. While some such foams already exist, their effectiveness is not quite up to snuff.

Moreover, when it comes to private industry, there’s little guarantee that a product is safe or environmentally friendly just because a company says it is. Dupont and 3M, for example, knew about the dangers of PFAS chemicals as early as the 1950s but continued to promote them as safe well into the 2000s.

For its part, the U.S. Department of Defense has also pledged some funds for finding a safe PFAS alternative.

The Foreseeable Future

Clearly, there is a need for an independent organization that can scientifically assess the safety of any potential alternatives. To service that need, a U.S. nonprofit called Clean Production Action launched a certification program for PFAS-free firefighting foams.

The GreenScreen Certified Standard for Firefighting Foams will ensure that PFAS-free foams are in fact free of PFAS, as well as a host of other harmful chemicals. Since launching, dozens of companies have joined to promote any of more than 100 different PFAS-free foams.

Such a certification could go a long way in driving purchase decisions for airports, fire departments, and military sites.

“We want to make sure we don’t do any additional harm to the environment or firefighters,” said Randy Kraus, a fire chief at Seattle’s Sea-Tac International Airport, as quoted by EHN. “As a purchaser, we want to make sure a product is tested by an independent third party. That gives us confidence.”

In the meantime, some sites of known contamination will continue to use AFFF for the foreseeable future.

Despite some state and local bans, airports are federally regulated, and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) currently requires all airports in the country to use PFAS-based firefighting foams — at least until it completes its own review of the substances. Additionally, the military has until 2024 to phase out the use of PFAS-containing foams.

So, at least for the next few years, PFAS-containing firefighting foams may continue to leach into groundwater and other sources of drinking water.

Author:Sokolove Law Team
Sokolove Law Team

Contributing Authors

The Sokolove Law Content Team is made up of writers, editors, and journalists. We work with case managers and attorneys to keep site information up to date and accurate. Our site has a wealth of resources available for victims of wrongdoing and their families.

Last modified: September 17, 2020

View 12 Sources
  1. Environmental Health News, “PFAS-free firefighting foams: Are they safer?” Retrieved from https://www.ehn.org/pfas-free-firefighting-foam-2645972099.html. Accessed on July 9th, 2020.

  2. U.S. Department of Defense, “DOD Funds Firefighting Foam Research for a PFAS-Free Alternative.” Retrieved from https://www.defense.gov/Explore/News/Article/Article/2018096/dod-funds-firefighting-foam-research-for-a-pfas-free-alternative/. Accessed on July 9th, 2020.

  3. GreenScreen, “GreenScreen Certified Standard for Firefighting Foam.” Retrieved from https://www.ehn.org/pfas-free-firefighting-foam-2645972099.html. Accessed on July 9th, 2020.

  4. Environmental Working Group, “PFAS Contamination of Drinking Water Far More Prevalent Than Previously Reported.” Retrieved from https://www.ewg.org/research/national-pfas-testing/. Accessed on July 9th, 2020.

  5. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “PFOA, PFOS and Other PFASs: Basic Information on PFAS.” Retrieved from https://www.ehn.org/pfas-free-firefighting-foam-2645972099.html. Accessed on July 9th, 2020.

  6. Environmental Working Group, “MAPPING PFAS CHEMICAL CONTAMINATION AT 206 U.S. MILITARY SITES.” Retrieved from https://www.ewg.org/research/pfas-chemicals-contaminate-us-military-sites. Accessed on July 9th, 2020.

  7. Military Times, “Here’s an updated map of military sites where DoD found cancer-causing chemicals in the drinking water.” Retrieved from https://www.militarytimes.com/2019/07/14/heres-an-updated-map-of-military-sites-where-dod-found-cancer-causing-chemicals-in-the-drinking-water/. Accessed on July 9th, 2020.

  8. McClatchy DC, “Military bases with possible PFAS water contamination rise. Is yours on the list?” Retrieved from https://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/national-security/article241226536.html. Accessed on July 9th, 2020.

  9. National Law Review, “Expert Focus: US States Outpace EPA on PFAS Firefighting Foam Laws.” Retrieved from https://www.natlawreview.com/article/expert-focus-us-states-outpace-epa-pfas-firefighting-foam-laws. Accessed on July 9th, 2020.

  10. New York Times, “E.P.A. Says It Pressed 3M for Action on Scotchgard Chemical.” Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2000/05/19/business/epa-says-it-pressed-3m-for-action-on-scotchgard-chemical.html. Accessed on July 9th, 2020.

  11. Star Tribune, “Documents show 3M knew of dangers of PFAS chemicals, activist group says.” Retrieved from https://www.startribune.com/documents-show-3m-knew-of-dangers-of-pfas-chemicals-activist-group-says/558585852/?refresh=true. Accessed on July 9th, 2020.

  12. Environmental Working Group, “FDA Studies: ‘Short-chain’ PFAS Chemicals More Toxic Than Previously Thought.” Retrieved from https://www.ewg.org/news-and-analysis/2020/03/fda-studies-short-chain-pfas-chemicals-more-toxic-previously-thought. Accessed on July 9th, 2020.