Risk mitigation strategies for the fire service must include changing over to a fire-tested F3 foam as soon as possible for public safety.
As Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) continues to fall from its status as the “gold standard,” environmental testing, changing regulations, public education, and lawsuits will keep the pressure on the more toxic firefighting foams.
Many US state collection programs have finished the initial removal of PFAS/AFFF firefighting foams. Past programs covered AFFF products produced before 2003.
The PFAS-containing C6 firefighting foams, which came out as AFFF replacements, contain even higher PFAS levels. C6 products need to be removed to stop further contamination of water resources.
As the Authority Having Jurisdiction (AHJ) and usually the first-line risk manager, the fire service is on the front line of making the firefighting foam decisions.
The US Environmental Protection Agency does not approve firefighting foams. The EPA does maintain a listing of foams, usually intended for “spills.”
The fire service might assume that firefighting foams listed by the EPA are environmentally approved when, in fact, they are not. According to the EPA, there is no safe level of PFAS.
The AHJ should have full access to fire testing reports. If the products are fire-tested, companies should be pleased to share the results.
The US Department of Defense has requested an additional two years for their transition process, managed in two one-year extensions, to change over to the accredited F3s.
The insurance industry has historically added exclusions to product liability policies, and risk management should be made aware.
US fire departments can be fined for using PFAS firefighting foams. Since the fines are paid by citizen taxpayers, this may result in a loss of public trust and reputation for your department.
US fire chiefs are making the correct choice by changing over to F3. Ideally, new apparatus should be obtained for the new firefighting foams, but cost-wise and due to production issues, that is impractical. “Cleaning” is a misnomer since PFAS are difficult to remediate.
F3 foam markets should continue to increase while the industry shifts from AFFFs. Insurance pressure, regulatory changes, and litigation actions will keep driving the process.
Fire departments should be aware of insurance and litigation impacts as these increase overall costs. In the UK, a secret 2003 report, which was never made public, aimed to form a policy to minimize environmental harm from firefighting foams.
New firefighting foam products should be tested if there is any question about toxicity. In the US, cancer costs are estimated to be as much as $62.6 billion.
If the fire service had been properly advised of AFFF toxicity, decisions might have been quite different over the past several decades. Your public is now becoming well-educated about PFAS.
The widow of Fire Chief Michael Quint, EFO, Vicki Quint uses her past experiences in risk management and paralegal work in researching firefighter exposures.
Vicki is the Co-Chair of The Foam Exposure Committee, whose bulletins are written for the fire service have proven useful to others: including academics, attorneys, environmental groups, risk managers, and regulators.
The 2025 Influencers Special Edition of Fire and Safety Journal Americas is a collection of some of the most influential voices across the fire and safety industry.
Together, they provide a comprehensive overview of the latest developments, challenges, and forward-looking insights shaping the global fire and safety sector.
Read all 20 influencer articles in the digital magazine now.
