Specifications for fire-fighting foam excludes ‘forever chemicals’

| January 13, 2023

The Department of Defense provided new specifications for the Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF). Navy veterans, who were stationed aboard ships, and other military specialties that have to put out fires, are familiar with this foam. Now the new system should be more “environmentally friendly”.

From the military Times:

The Defense Department is officially requiring any new firefighting foam it buys to be made without per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, also known as PFAS, toxic chemicals associated with a host of health issues and known to have contaminated the ground water of dozens of military bases.

The Pentagon published a new military specification on Jan. 6 — part of the 2023 National Defense Authorization Act — which also required the department to stop buying PFAS-containing aqueous film-forming foam by October, with another year to eliminate its use entirely.

“The DoD invented AFFF and for decades was one of the world’s most prolific PFAS polluters,” Melanie Benesh, vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group, said in a press release Thursday. “The new standard marks critical progress toward finally eliminating this source of PFAS contamination from military installations.”

The EWG published a report in December of DoD water analysis data, revealing more than two dozen bases that have contaminated groundwater well above Environmental Protection Agency standards — just some of more than 700 bases known to have some level of contamination.

A Pentagon PFAS task force stood up in 2019 has been charged with assessing the extent of the contamination, searching for fire-fighting foam alternatives and leading efforts to clean up bases.

The Military Times provides additional information.

Category: Big Pentagon

10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Hack Stone

And in a totally unrelated event, senior Biden – Harris Administration officials have dumped their stock in PFAS manufacturing companies and moved their investments into companies that coincidentally make the approved foam.

KoB

Yep! And let’s not forget this little stumbling block that was in the article;

“The rate of progress is defined primarily by the rules that govern our physical world. Physics, chemistry, science,”

Can’t snap your fingers and expect instant gratification. This is not like safely getting stains out of a blue dress.

A Proud Infidel®™

NAAAAAH, say it isn’t so, politicians making money off of insider information?

Mason

Take a look at the list of facilities tainted by PFAS. Anyone who served in any capacity in the last 50 years was exposed to this stuff. This could end up bigger than Agent Orange or the burn pits.

Fyrfighter

Agreed Mason, This stuff is bad news, and it’s even used in some “protective” gear. Various Fire Service organizations have come out against this, and are working to find safer alternatives. For once, I believe the DoD is actually making a good decision here.

jeff LPH 3 63-66

we used protein foam aboard the Okie 3 which stunk like hell with the animal blood and other stuff in it. Also had it on Hose 1 until we used it up. A triple F is over rated in mho. We used it in another Dept I was a member of along with fluroprotein foam if I remember and is a better product.

Fyrfighter

Gotten to play with both Jeff, and yeah, protein stuff smells like hell. Agree with you on other points as well.

AW1Ed

Does it still actually extinguish fires?

MustangCryppie

Please, AW1! Get with the program! We have to be more concerned about the IMPORTANT stuff!

Fyrfighter

It does. sometimes. But there’ actually better options out there now. With the ethanol in gasoline, AFFF (standard version, there are specialty ones) is less effective, and that effectiveness drops as the percentage of ethanol increases, to the point that it’s useless on E-85 fuel