Are Airports Saying Goodbye to Their Firefighting Mainstay?
Back in the early 1960s (the time when commercial aviation was full rage), the US Navy began partnering with the popular chemical company 3M to develop a firefighting foam suitable for liquid fires. This was the need of the hour, given how fast jet fuel can burn and wreak havoc – at the rate of half feet per second.
After rigorous efforts, researchers struck gold in 1966 when the Navy received a patent for the Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF). The main component of this product, called Per- and polyfluoroalkoxy substances (PFAS), arrests the liquid fire and prevents it from spreading quickly.
However, scientists have raised concerns regarding this substance as early as the 1970s. Since then, the US Environment Protection Agency has discovered at least 180 contamination sites (from its National Priorities List) to be polluted with PFAS.
With the overwhelming research over the years, long-time firefighters are dreading the consequences of literally bathing in AFFFs for decades. In 2021, the Federal Aviation Administration urged airports around the US to limit their use of PFAS to emergency situations.
But, the Department of Defense confirmed that all use of firefighting foams with fluorine will be completely stopped starting in 2024. US civilian airports are also required to meet the military standards, which means it’s time to say goodbye to their firefighting mainstay. What factors contributed to this decision, and how are airports adjusting to the new legislation? Let’s find out.
Importance of AFFF in Aircraft Fire Suppression
Aircraft fires triggered by jet fuel and other highly inflammable chemicals can be particularly toxic and destructive. Let’s take a look at some examples to understand how dangerous a liquid fire can be.
Air Canada Flight 797
On June 2nd, 1983, Air Canada Flight 797’s flight attendants noticed a disturbing scenario (as the aircraft cruised at an altitude of 33,000 feet) – there was a fire emerging from the rear lavatory. For the first eight minutes, the flight crew believed the fire was caused due to a cigarette burning in the trash can.
Just moments later, the electrical circuit ripped off, and they began losing flight controls. The aircraft made a successful emergency landing at Cincinnati Airport 17 minutes after the fire was first spotted. Unfortunately, just after touchdown, the entire plane blew up in flames – out of the 46 people aboard, only 23 made it out alive.
American Airlines Flight 1958
On April 23rd, 2023, American Airlines Flight 1958 made an uneventful departure from the John Glenn Columbus International Airport and was headed to Phoenix. A few minutes into the flight, the aircraft suffered a bird strike which led to an engine blowout.
Mid-flight, the aircraft lost two engines as they caught fire. Given the Mayday situation, the pilots declared an emergency and safely landed back in Ohio. The fire response team quickly assembled to douse the flames.
In each of these scenarios, the first responders and fire suppression teams had hardly two to three minutes to put out the fire. Besides the short response time, firefighters also need to consider how sensitive aviation fuel is to temperature – once vaporized, it can burn at nearly 500 to 700 degrees Fahrenheit.
Aircraft fires are sporadic in nature; firefighting foams are also used to put out fires in the airport structure as well as during airport training programs. Over the decades, they have become aviation’s go-to solution for liquid fires.
In fact, Jeremy Souza, a long-time airport firefighter at the T.F. Green Airport of Rhode Island, remembers that AFFF foams were used for practically everything short of brushing teeth. Besides fire suppression, firefighters also used AFFFs as a degreaser in airplane hangars.
For the Love of People and the Environment
The Interstate Technology Regulation Council (ITRC) conducted a study to understand the life cycle of AFFF foam formulations. The study found that AFFFs were a potential threat to aquatic life, wildlife, as well as humans.
The main concern with AFFF foams was the nature of the carbon-fluorine bond. This chemical bond is considered to be the strongest known by scientists to date. As a result, PFAS are almost unreactive to environmental or physiological breakdown.
In other words, these compounds can literally stay in the soil, water, and the human body indefinitely. While they stay, they cause much harm. Their bioaccumulation can kill entire species of aquatic life and sea birds. As for the human body, there are deadly side effects such as cancers of the bladder, pancreas, breasts, colorectal, liver, uterus, etc. These side effects are confirmed as numerous first responders, service personnel, airport firefighters, etc., have come forward to file a firefighting foam lawsuit. Even retired firefighters (who may have never contracted a disease) are at risk because PFAS stay in the blood forever (they are known as the ‘forever chemicals’ by the EPA).
According to TorHoerman Law, most of the AFFF lawsuits have been filed against the two largest manufacturers of firefighting foams – 3M and DuPont. Other defendants in this multi-district litigation include Kidde-Fenwal and Ansul. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has also established the National Firefighter Registry (NFR) to closely understand the connection between AFFFs and cancer.
With nearly 3300 plaintiffs demanding justice, the US government had to act upon what they have known for decades – AFFF firefighting foams are deadly to the environment, humans, and animal life. As such, the US has proposed to end all firefighting foams containing PFAS from 2024 onwards. Currently, state legislations are in place where the usage of such foams is limited to emergency situations in airports.
Looking Towards a Fluorine-Free Future: Challenges Involved
The Department of Defense has proposed the use of green or fluorine-free firefighting foams to extinguish Class B liquid fires. However, this will hardly be an easy task for researchers. One major problem is that the fluorine used in manufacturing PFAS has no relation whatsoever to the ‘Fluorine’ in the periodic table.
Replicating it in a non-toxic manner is a challenge. Companies such as Dafo Fomtec, BIOEX, and Orchidae, have emerged as new players in the green firefighting foam market. These are lauded for their solid burn-back resistance, but their efficacy in emergency situations is still being monitored.
Another challenge involved with AFFF alternatives is the response time – AFFFs could put out a fast-spreading jet fuel fire within a few minutes. It is difficult to say how its fluorine-free alternatives will perform in high-pressure real-world scenarios. Then there is the fear of the fuel-source reigniting as well as incompatibility issues with existing equipment and training.
Even so, research in PFA-free alternatives has come a long way in the past two decades. As the fluorine-free foams are tested and rolled out, efforts will be made to overcome the challenges involved.
The Key Takeaways
The National Fire Protection Association speculates that new firefighting foams will soon be used by military officials. Once approval is given, the same will likely trigger huge purchases from the US Government for oil refineries, construction sites, and airports.
Will the government allow the use of AFFFs for emergency situations where no other option may seem viable? Likely not, because the new legislation demands a complete ban on the manufacture and distribution of firefighting foams containing PFAS.
The future of aviation has to rely entirely on green firefighting foam products for training, crash sites, structural fires, and more.
