Rhode Island, a state renowned for its picturesque coastline and vibrant communities, has recently made headlines for an unexpected reason. It has removed 98,120 pounds of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) from its fire stations. This decision has sparked discussions regarding environmental responsibility, firefighting practices, and the broader implications of chemical usage in emergency response.
In this article, we delve into the reasons behind Rhode Island’s choice and explore the significance of this action.
The Emergence of AFFF Firefighting Foam
The emergence of Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) as a significant tool in firefighting represents a pivotal advancement in fire suppression technology. AFFF foam is a specially formulated solution to extinguish fires, particularly those involving flammable liquids. Its effectiveness lies in its ability to smother and suppress flames by forming a stable blanket over the fuel surface.
The development of AFFF can be traced back to the mid-20th century. It was driven by the need for more effective methods to combat fires in industrial and military settings involving flammable liquids. According to ITRC, the legacy AFFF foams were first introduced in marine in 1964. They were first listed on the Qualified Product List on May 15, 1970.
Traditional methods, such as water-based suppression, proved inadequate for such scenarios, often exacerbating the situation by spreading the fire. Thus, there was a demand for a firefighting agent capable of addressing the unique challenges of liquid fuel fires.
AFFF was born from extensive research and experimentation to create a versatile and reliable fire suppressant. Its formulation typically consists of water, hydrocarbon surfactants, fluorosurfactants, and other additives that enhance its performance and stability.
The Environmental Impact of AFFF
AFFF contains per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a group of synthetic chemicals known for their persistence in the environment and potential health risks. PFAS do not break down easily and can accumulate in soil, water, and living organisms, posing long-term threats to ecosystems.
Several studies have established the presence of PFAS in water bodies near AFFF manufacturing units or military bases. A Wisconsin Public Radio article mentions a study that found the presence of PFAS in Lake Michigan. The PFAS chemicals found were identical to those in the Tyco Fire Products in Marinette.
Around 17 out of the 26 chemicals researchers were trying to find were found within 4 kilometers of the shoreline. The concentrations found were up to 250 parts per trillion, more than what’s found in Lake Michigan. Moreover, it is three times the standard Wisconsin drinking water level of 70 parts per trillion.
The Health Impact of AFFF
Besides the environmental impact, AFFF is also known to have several health concerns. As stated in an NCBI study, exposure to PFAS in AFFF may increase firefighters’ risk of developing many types of cancers.
According to TorHoerman Law, firefighters and military personnel are more vulnerable to bladder, breast, colon, kidney, and other forms of cancers. Due to this increased exposure, many individuals have already filed AFFF firefighting foam cancer lawsuits.
If you or a loved one has been exposed, you can also file an AFFF firefighting foam cancer lawsuit. If you hire an experienced attorney and win the case, you may be entitled to compensation for your sufferings. This may include medical expenses, lost wages, punitive damages, loss of quality of life, etc.
Rhode Island’s Proactive Approach
Due to the growing AFFF concerns, necessary steps are taken at the federal level. Heavy investments are being made to research and find suitable alternatives. Several alternatives have been found, like fluorine-free foams (F3), protein foams, dry chemical agents, etc. However, they are less effective than AFFF when suppressing fires caused by flammable liquids.
In response to increasing evidence of PFAS contamination in water sources and ecosystems, Rhode Island has taken proactive measures to mitigate risks. They started by finding the primary sources of these substances. Fire stations were one of the confirmed sources of PFAS contamination.
In December 2019, the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) conducted a collection search to find AFFF. Four such collections have been conducted to date, and a total of 98,120 pounds of AFFF were removed. According to ecoRI News, this equals 49 tons or 11,000 gallons of AFFF. The operation cost taxpayers $200,000.
By removing nearly 100,000 pounds of AFFF from its fire stations, the state demonstrates a commitment to environmental stewardship and public health. This decision aligns with broader efforts to address PFAS pollution and reduce exposure to harmful chemicals.
Challenges and Considerations
While removing AFFF represents a positive step towards environmental responsibility, it also poses challenges for firefighters and emergency responders. As stated above, alternative firefighting methods like F3 are less effective or require additional training and resources.
According to FAA.gov, F3s do not contain the film-forming properties found in AFFF. Thus, they cannot create a stable blanket over the flames to suppress oxygen reach. The blanket formed by F3s cannot reseal after being disturbed, making it less effective than AFFF.
Balancing the need for fire suppression with environmental concerns requires careful consideration and collaboration among stakeholders. It will take time, but technological advances and research will likely find an appropriate alternative method.
Frequently Asked Questions
Why Is AFFF Considered Harmful?
AFFF contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), synthetic chemicals known for their environmental persistence and potential health risks. These chemicals have been linked to various health issues, including cancer and immune system disorders.
What Are the Alternatives to AFFF?
Several alternatives to AFFF are being explored, including fluorine-free foams, protein-based foams, and compressed air foam systems (CAFS). These alternatives aim to provide effective firefighting capabilities without the use of PFAS-containing chemicals.
How Will the Removal of AFFF Impact Firefighting Operations?
Removing AFFF may require adjustments in tactics and training to accommodate alternative firefighting foams. Fire departments may need to invest in new equipment and undergo additional training to ensure a seamless transition to safer firefighting practices.
What Steps Can Other States Take to Address the Issue of AFFF Contamination?
Other states can follow Rhode Island’s example by implementing policies to phase out the use of AFFF and other PFAS-containing products. Investing in research and developing alternative firefighting foams can also help accelerate the transition to safer firefighting practices nationwide.
Are There Any Regulations Governing the Use of AFFF?
While no federal regulations specifically target AFFF, some states have implemented restrictions on using PFAS-containing firefighting foams. Additionally, ongoing efforts at the federal level are being made to regulate PFAS chemicals and address their environmental and health impacts.
To conclude, Rhode Island’s decision to remove 98,120 pounds of AFFF from its fire stations represents a significant milestone in addressing PFAS contamination. The state sets a precedent for other regions by prioritizing public health and sustainability. Continuing collaboration among stakeholders, investment in research and innovation, and community engagement will be essential in building a safer, healthier future.