BARKING SANDS — The U.S. military has reported two releases of a toxic chemical in Hawai‘i in the past two years. Both incidents, the last of which occurred in February, were located at the U.S. Navy Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kaua‘i’s Westside.
AFFF, or aqueous film forming foam, is an extinguishant deemed mission-critical by the Pentagon because it swiftly puts out petroleum-based fires. But AFFF formulas contain chemicals called per- and polyfluoroalkyls, or PFAS.
These substances, often referred to as “forever chemicals,” are known for their likely impact on human health.
“PFAS chemicals don’t biodegrade,” local activist Kip Goodwin said in a recent interview. “If they enter the environment, as may have happened when 3,000 gallons of foam fire retardant was released at PMRF … this chemical with known adverse health impacts could impact the whole island.”
Goodwin announced PMRF’s most-recent use of AFFF in a letter to the editor, published by The Garden Island in mid-April.
In the letter, Goodwin termed the occurrence a “spill,” while making a broader argument against the proposed Homeland Defense Radar-Hawai‘i. The facility’s list of potential locations includes PMRF.
But PMRF’s latest reported discharge of AFFF was not unintentional: It was used following an on-base helicopter crash that killed four civilian crewmembers on Feb. 22. Responders used 3,000 gallons of AFFF foam to extinguish the blaze.
Two years prior, the facility accidentally discharged 600 gallons of AFFF foam in February 2020. Some 90% of that total was contained within a grated drain system in the hangar floor, while approximately 60 gallons entered a grassy sump adjacent to the facility.
That incident was due to a pipe failure in the PMRF hangar, according to a base spokesperson, who reported all AFFF material was removed and the fire-suppression system was dismantled in fiscal year 2021.
“PMRF has an Oil and Hazardous Substances Spill Contingency Plan. It is a 200-page document that addresses what our protocols are,” PMRF’s Thomas Clements told The Garden Island. “Aside from the document itself, I can state that the response and mitigation efforts for both the unintended release in 2020 and the firefighting efforts this past February went above any requirements.”
Both the 2020 and 2022 incidents were reported to the U.S. Department of Defense, which provides congressional notification of reportable AFFF releases and develops annual summaries. These summaries are publicly available upon request.
PMRF also provided information to the U.S. Fire Administration’s National Fire Incident Reporting System, following each release.
However, there is no external reporting requirement regarding AFFF, as it is not yet federally regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency.
On Kaua‘i, the Lihu‘e Airport also utilizes AFFF in cases of emergency.
According to the state Department of Transportation, 957 gallons of AFFF are stored in 5-gallon pails and 55-gallon drums under cover in the airport’s parking bay.
The Kaua‘i Fire Department has not purchased AFFF for several years.
“KFD made the switch to a universal extinguishing foam that is fluorine-free,” KFD Chief Steven Goble said in a written statement issued by a Kaua‘i County spokesperson. “The foam is effective on all types of fires, from regular combustibles like you would find in a house fire, to flammable-liquids fires. The change was made to address the health and safety concerns for the community, our first responders and the environment.”
National response
Approximately 5,000 types of PFAS chemicals exist in the world today.
Commercial and consumer use of these synthetic chemicals, which have long been the subject of scrutiny and litigation, began in the 1950s. They can now be found nearly anywhere: In water, soil and firefighting foam, to food, food packaging and household and beauty products.
A 2015 report published by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found PFAS in 97% of Americans.
The EPA and CDC say certain levels of specific PFAS exposure may be harmful to human health.
Both agencies cite scientific research indicating PFAS exposure may decrease fertility in pregnant women, decrease vaccine response in children, interfere with the body’s natural hormones and increase risk of kidney or testicular cancer, among other potential effects.
Perfluorooctane solfonate (PFOS) and perfluorotanoic acid (PFOA) were the most-produced PFAS chemicals in the U.S., until their production and use began to decline in the early 2000s. (Many industries have swapped PFOS and PFOA for newer, less-researched PFAS.)
In 2016, the EPA established a health advisory for PFOS and PFOA in drinking water of 70 parts per trillion. Such health advisories are non-enforceable and non-regulatory.
The Pentagon’s PFAS Task Force, formed in 2019, is currently conducting PFAS assessments at 700 U.S. military installations, including PMRF.
Nearly 700 U.S. military sites are known or likely to have discharged PFAS chemicals, according to the nonprofit Environmental Working Group.
The investigation at PMRF is expected to be completed by the end of September 2023, and will be publicly available when published.
The military has used PFOS- and PFOA-containing firefighting foam since the 1970s. But updated U.S. Department of Defense specifications require new supplies of AFFF to contain significantly lower levels of PFOS or PFOA.
This new foam was used following the Feb. 22 helicopter crash in a 3% concentrate to water formula, the Naval Facilities Engineering Systems Command of Hawai‘i told The Garden Island.
The DOD is currently researching PFAS-free alternatives to AFFF that meet military specifications. The secretary of the Navy is required to publish new specifications for fluorine-free foam at all military installations by Jan. 31, 2023, and ensure new fluorine-free foam is available for use by Oct. 1, 2023.
An FAA advisory, issued last autumn, reported the aviation administration and the Pentagon had identified several safety concerns when testing candidate fluorine-free products.
The concerns documented by the FAA included notably longer extinguishment time, failure to maintain fire suppression and possible incompatibility with other firefighting agents and existing equipment, training and strategy.
