Cleanout guidance for AFFF to fluorine-free foam transition

“There was never really a reason to contain Aqueous Film Forming Foams (AFFF), because everyone thought it was similar to soap,” says Jill Greene, CDM Smith principal and an expert in hazardous waste and hydro­ge­o­logic inves­ti­ga­tions.

Since the late 1960s, AFFF became ubiquitous as a highly effective fire­fight­ing tool. Today, they are a common cause of PFAS cont­a­m­i­na­tion throughout the world.

“How do you decon­t­a­m­i­nate people and equipment that have come in contact with AFFF?” said Greene. “No one has really had to do this before.” 

F3 transition

On Jan. 6, 2023, the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) released new military spec­i­fi­ca­tions for fire­fight­ing foams. This has allowed U.S. commercial airports and other businesses to have access to fluorine-free fire­fight­ing (F3) foams, which can effectively extinguish fires without the use of PFAS.

However, there is currently no standard practice for effectively removing PFAS compounds from pumps, tanks, trucks and hangar fire suppression systems. Individual components, if not the entire foam delivery system, may need to be replaced to be compatible with the new product.

With new information on how AFFF can linger within aircraft rescue and fire-fighting vehicles (ARFF), our experts have piloted a new method of cleanout.
 

Fate and transport 

The DOD has completed thousands of inves­ti­ga­tions of potentially cont­a­m­i­nated sites at more than 700 active military instal­la­tions, with many more inves­ti­ga­tions on the horizon to implement remediation programs. The current challenge faced by the DOD is to analyze all of the data to develop short- and long-term effective remediation programs.

Dr. Charles Schaefer leads research efforts at the Bellevue Testing and Research Laboratory has been leading research to assess and validate analytical tools that provide information critical to overall PFAS mass discharge, perflu­o­roalkyl acid formation potential and organic fluorine mass balance. Research teams at CDM Smith continue to study the behaviors of PFAS in the environment and search for new treatment solutions, working with agencies like the Water Research Foundation (WRF), agencies like the US Air Force Civil Engineer Center (AFCEC), as well as research arms SERDP and ESTCP:

• PFAS Leaching at AFFF-Impacted Sites: Insight into Soil-to-Groundwater Ratios
• Char­ac­ter­iz­ing PFAS in Groundwater: Assessment of Tools and Fluorine Balances
• Inves­ti­gat­ing Elec­tro­chem­i­cal and Reductive Approaches for Treatment of Perflu­o­roalkyl Substances in Groundwater
• Tools and Sensors for Char­ac­ter­iz­ing PFAS Source Zones

Treatment

The latest health advisories for PFAS call for extremely low levels, measured in the parts-per-trillion. That means an increased likelihood of aggressive remediation of PFAS from discharges of AFFF to the environment, down to an almost non-detectable level.

Only the most aggressive and energy-intensive tech­nolo­gies are capable of breaking down PFAS. Therefore, cost-efficient treatment options for large volumes of cont­a­m­i­nated water rely on coupling tech­nolo­gies that first separate and concentrate PFAS to reduce the volumes and make destructive treatment tech­nolo­gies viable.
 

It is important to take a physical tour of your facilities and record all products that can potentially pollute the environment upon release. Develop a foam inventory and stock tracking system documenting the foam composition, brand and manu­fac­turer. “The first step of a prevention plan is knowing what you need to prevent,” Greene says. “Document what you have and get rid of anything expired or obsolete.

Eliminate the use of AFFF products and other fluorinated “Class B foams for training and testing of foam systems and equipment” whenever possible. Provide containment, treatment and proper disposal of foam solution. Avoid direct release to the environment to the greatest possible extent.