You must have once heard of the term called Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF).
In case you didn’t, it is a type of firefighting foam that’s been used for decades to extinguish fires, especially to suppress fuel fires.
Unfortunately, in recent times, this toxic composition has been posing a serious threat to public health as well as the environment across the U.S.
The foam contains per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often called “forever chemicals” – the substances that persist in the environment to potentially contaminate groundwater and affect human health, too.
In recent years, several AFFF spills have raised alarms across the U.S., and these incidents have prompted legislative action, regulatory changes, and public outcry over environmental damage.
Concerning this, the article will explore three such significant AFFF spill incidents and their implications.
Red Hill AFFF Spill
On November 29, 2022, a hazardous release of 1,300 gallons of AFFF concentrate occurred at the Red Hill Bulk Fuel Storage Facility.
An error by a maintenance contractor and insufficient oversight by the Navy contributed to the incident near Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam, Hawaii.
Investigators found that the contractor improperly installed an air vacuum valve, resulting in an uncontrolled discharge of the foam during routine testing.
Notifications regarding the Red Hill incident were sent to the EPA and the Hawaii Department of Health.
When navy groundwater testing showed no violations of PFAS standards, the incident revealed failures in the navy’s quality assurance processes.
The Red Hill facility has faced scrutiny before; just a year prior, a jet fuel leak contaminated the local drinking water supply, affecting thousands.
The navy subsequently began efforts to refuel and permanently close the facility, with Joint Task Force-Red Hill established to oversee these actions.
After the AFFF leak, an investigation began to determine the cause and enhance oversight of contractor maintenance involving hazardous materials, Navy Times reports.
The situation at Red Hill highlights broader issues concerning the military’s use of toxic firefighting foams and their environmental impact.
The Department of Defense has identified numerous contaminated sites across the country. This incident also adds weight to the ongoing nationwide litigation, including the AFFF lawsuit by navy personnel, military families, and civilians.
According to TruLaw, the lawsuit aims to hold manufacturers and government authorities accountable for health risks linked to PFAS exposure.
Plaintiffs seek greater transparency and safety measures when advocating for compensation for medical expenses and damages from AFFF-related environmental contamination.
Do You Know?
The Navy received a patent on its invention in 1966 and by the mid-1960s the 3M Company was manufacturing AFFF for the military.
Brunswick Landing: Legislative Action in Maine
In Brunswick Landing, Maine, over 1,400 gallons of AFFF foam spilled, sparking widespread concerns about water contamination.
The toxic nature of the firefighting foam left residents and leaders demanding more robust preventative measures to avoid future spills.
Many were worried about the potential contamination of local water sources, particularly private wells in the vicinity of the spill site.
The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) reported that the spill had not contaminated public drinking water.
However, the possibility of nearby wells being affected remained a point of contention.
Representatives from the DEP began visiting homes in the area to discuss testing for potential PFAS contamination in drinking water wells.
In response, state lawmakers took action. Rep. Dan Ankeles submitted three placeholder bill titles to the Maine State House to address the use of AFFF foam.
His proposed legislation aims to give authority to remove AFFF from facilities statewide and establish take-back programs for its safe disposal.
It also seeks to collect data on the current usage of AFFF across Maine, as reported by News Center Maine.
This legislative push is vital for addressing public concerns, with Ankeles highlighting the importance of preventing future spills.
However, residents like Haley Bernier, who have been vocal on social media about the dangers of PFAS, continue to call for immediate action.
They urge the shutdown of operations that are still using AFFF until safer alternatives are implemented.
When the proposed bills signal progress, Bernier and other community members argue that prioritizing preventative measures is necessary to keep local water sources uncontaminated.
Spill at Vermont National Guard Facility
On June 20, a notable incident took place at the Vermont Army Aviation Support Facility in South Burlington.
Approximately 800 gallons of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) spilled during late-night operations.
The Vermont National Guard reported that cleanup efforts recovered about 650 gallons of the toxic foam.
However, the remaining substance entered the sewage system, with some reaching the South Burlington wastewater treatment plant.
Col. Jacob Roy, a facilities management officer with the Vermont Guard, confirmed that the cleanup of the drain lines and sewer systems is complete.
Plans are now in place to flush the sprinkler system and implement carbon filtration systems to reduce hazardous waste.
The Pentagon has mandated the discontinuation of these hazardous chemicals in new firefighting foams by October.
However, this incident raises concerns about the ongoing presence of AFFF at military sites.
How does AFFF work?
AFFF functions through a combination of cooling and smothering. The foam creates a barrier that excludes oxygen from the fuel surface, thereby inhibiting combustion.
The water content in AFFF also helps cool the fire. The foam also helps prevent the release of flammable vapors and further enhances its effectiveness in extinguishing fires.
What are some effective alternatives to AFFF for firefighting?
Alternatives to AFFF include fluorine-free foams, which utilize different surfactants to create a film for smothering fires without the harmful effects of PFAS.
Other options include protein foams and Class B foams that are designed specifically for flammable liquids.
What regulations govern PFAS in drinking water?
Regulations regarding PFAS in drinking water vary by jurisdiction. In the United States, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has established health advisory levels for specific PFAS compounds.
The agency is also working toward developing enforceable limits under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Overall, AFFF spills across the U.S. are becoming increasingly visible environmental and public health concerns.
Be it in military facilities, civilian areas, or ecologically sensitive locations, the effects of PFAS contamination are long-lasting and potentially devastating.
Local communities are understandably demanding action, be it through legislative changes, better safety protocols, or alternative firefighting methods that do not rely on PFAS-based foams.
At the same time, these incidents serve as a call to governments and organizations to prioritize environmental safety and the health of their citizens.
Despite progress, including legislative efforts in Maine, more action is needed to effectively address the risks posed by AFFF and similar products.
