On Aug. 19, approximately 1,450 gallons of aqueous firefighting foam (AFFF) containing forever chemicals were spilled at the Brunswick Executive Airport in Maine.

The foam, which contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, mixed with 50,000 gallons of water and entered the town’s public sanitary sewer system, as well as a wastewater treatment facility that discharges into nearby waterways, according to an Oct. 3 update from the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.

The spill was the largest of its kind in state history, risking water contamination for Brunswick's nearly 22,000 residents. 

Following the incident, the state invested in regular water testing for the presence of PFAS. Local authorities also said they were “researching options for an alternative that is safe and effective,” rather than continuing to use AFFF laden with forever chemicals.

The incident is one example of why state and federal governments are pushing to rid firefighting foam of forever chemicals. The material, one of the most notorious uses of PFAS in the country by airports and the military for emergencies and training, can seep into groundwater and then drinking water. 

More than 20% of residents in the contiguous U.S. may rely on drinking water supplies that contain detectable levels of PFAS, according to an Oct. 24 U.S. Geological Survey report. 

“The use of AFFF, in general, is very robust in the realm of the [Department of Defense],” said Danielle Nachman, senior staff scientist at Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory. “These foams that contain the PFAS, because of the strong carbon fluorine bonds, have very, very high heat capacity, and they're very good at forming a layer over the fuel or over a fire that helps choke out the fire.” 

As regulators across the country crack down on the use of PFAS, including in AFFF, manufacturers are pushing to develop safer alternatives. But creating an equal alternative that passes military muster is proving both time-consuming and expensive. 

How PFAS-based AFFF became so widespread

The Naval Research Laboratory collaborated with 3M, one of the first companies to manufacture PFAS, in the 1960s to develop a firefighting foam with fluorocarbon surfactants, according to the company’s PFAS website. The Navy patented the foam in June 1966.

A year later, disaster struck the military branch overseas when a Naval ship off the coast of Vietnam caught fire after a fuel tank ruptured. 

The disaster killed 134 people and destroyed 21 aircraft. As a result, the Navy ordered all ships to carry AFFF because of its ability to smother jet fuel fires.

The Department of Defense soon followed suit. The agency began using the PFAS-made foam in the 1970s to fight fuel fires. By 1979, civilian fire departments were also using the forever chemicals-made foam, according to the Naval Research Laboratory.

“These foams have been very heavily used for good reason,” Nachman said. “They prevent the spread of fires, and they help save lives and so that is really important. But now, knowing the downside of PFAS, there's been a push to find alternatives that do not have PFAS.”

Who is pushing to ban PFAS in firefighting foam?

As of Dec. 11, 23 states, including Maine, have adopted 29 various policies restricting or banning AFFF that contain forever chemicals, according to the environmental health organization Safer States. 

Chemical manufacturers including 3M, DuPont de Nemours, BASF and Tyco Fire Products are also facing class-action lawsuits over claims regarding negative health ramifications from PFAS water contamination, including supplies tainted by AFFF. 

The suits will face a major milestone next October, when nine cases will head to court over claims that PFAS-laden AFFF led to various cancers and other diseases, according to a Nov. 5 DuPont securities filing. 

The International Association of Fire Fighters reported that 72% of line-of-duty deaths last year were due to occupational cancer. Firefighters are also two times more at risk of getting testicular cancer versus the general population, according to the Firefighter Cancer Support Network.

At the federal level, lawmakers ordered the U.S. military and airports in 2020 under the National Defense Authorization Act to phase out their use of PFAS-laden foam by Oct. 1, 2024. However, they were unable to fully transition the 1,500 facilities and 6,000 mobile assets by the deadline and received a one-year extension. 

Going PFAS-free presents challenges for military

The Department of Defense estimates it will need to remove over 2 million gallons of PFAS-laden firefighting foam from across its facilities nationwide, including aircraft hangars and firefighting trucks.

While the DOD has made progress on finding alternatives, including approving three PFAS-free products, a July audit by the Government Accountability Office found several challenges that kept the agency from meeting the deadline to fully transition away from PFAS-based foams. 

Part of the reason for the slow progress is the difficulty in meeting military specifications for the foam, which go above commercial standards.

The specifications include compatibility with certain firefighting systems, which require foam to be premixed with water before use, a capability that many PFAS-free foams lack, according to a 2023 study published in the “Fire Safety Journal.”

“Another issue too with the multiple products is you can't mix different alternatives together, you have to sort of pick one,” said Alissa Czyz, director of defense capabilities and management at the GAO. “It’s hard to switch providers.”

Czyz added that the DOD will need more money to make the transition. Military-grade fluorine-free foams are more expensive than PFAS forms, according to the GAO audit. For example, a 55-gallon drum of fluorine-free foam costs $1,908, 16% more than foams made with forever chemicals.

A higher quantity of fluorine-free foam is also needed to complete the same job as PFAS-made AFFF, which could lead to supply constraints, Czyz said.

“Officials anticipate it will take approximately 2 years before supply and demand and product costs stabilize and DOD will be positioned to enter into these long-term contracts,” the agency wrote in the audit.

Despite the challenges, Czyz said the defense department is making a concerted effort to make the switch.

“I want to underscore that they are, they're taking it seriously, but it's just kind of the challenge of the industry right now," Czyz said. “They don't have a lot of good alternatives yet, but they want to move away from PFAS because they know that that's harmful.”

PFAS-free alternatives take significant time and money

The GAO estimates it will cost more than $2.1 billion to replace foam used in the military.

Military uses, however, aren't the only ones that need funding — airports are also facing an uphill funding battle to transition away from PFAS-based foam. 

The Federal Aviation Administration will provide up to $350 million in grants to airports with aircraft rescue and firefighting for its PFAS replacement program over the next five years, thanks to the FAA Reauthorization Act. The money will help the agency make progress on its 2023 transition plan to phase out PFAS-based foam. 

Testing alternatives also takes time. The DOD needs between 90 and 120 days to test foam alternatives to determine military specification qualification, according to an October 2023 FAA presentation. 

The FAA's transition plan, meanwhile, does not offer a completion timeline.

And at the state level, many entities are failing to meet chemical phase-out deadlines. For example, California gave airports a Sept. 13, 2024 deadline to transition to fluorine-free foam. A report from The New Lede found that of the 30 California airports that were required to make the change, only four confirmed they had done so as of August.

Could soy-based foam be the future?

Georgia-based Cross Plains Solutions is one of the fluorine-free manufacturers under evaluation by the DOD for a firefighting foam alternative made from soybeans, Chief Technology Officer and managing partner Dave Garlie said.

The biodegradable material is made from the non-lipid portion of soybeans after soybean oil has been removed, creating “soybean meal,” according to Garlie. 

The meal is then milled to particle size and classification before going into the soy foam product. 

Other federal agencies are also interested in the product, including the U.S. Forest Service, as well as the oil and gas market. 

Founded in 2012, Cross Plains Solution began developing the soy foam in 2022 when the agricultural association United Soybean Board approached the company about a request for firefighting training foam for the New York City Fire Department, CEO Alan Snipes said in an email to Manufacturing Dive. 

“They wanted something that was non-toxic and biodegradable that they could use,” Snipes said.

One of the biggest challenges Cross Plains Solutions faces as it further develops the soy foam is extending its shelf life, Garlie said. A 2019 study in the “Journal of Occupational Environmental Medicine” stated AFFF typically has a shelf life of up to 25 years, but Cross Plains Solutions' testing thus far only shows a lifespan of up to seven years.

Snipes added that the foam does not negatively impact the environment. 

“One of the things is that when this product breaks down at the end of its life, it actually becomes a slow-release nitrogen,” Snipes said. “So it's actually a fertilizer that goes back into the end of the ground. That's just one of the benefits of being able to work with the soy products.”

Visuals Editor Shaun Lucas contributed to this story.