In 1966, the Navy’s partnership with the 3M chemical corporation led to the development of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), a firefighting solution capable of quickly extinguishing fuel fires. By the early 1970s, AFFF’s efficiency made it a staple on US military bases at home and abroad.
What made the foam uniquely adept at combating hydrocarbon fuel blazes were the per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) it contained. PFAS are a group of over 12,000 synthetic carbon-fluorine compounds used in many consumer products, from food packaging and textiles to furniture and cosmetics, to name only a few. Due to their artificially strong molecular makeup, which prevents natural decay, PFAS are more commonly known as ‘forever chemicals.’
When AFFF was originally manufactured, the PFAS subtypes used as surfactants were perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS). Even though the companies who manufactured the foam firmly stood by their claims that their product’s ingredient posed no threat to human health, internal documents show that not only were manufacturers aware of PFOA and PFOS’ potential hazards for decades, they kept this information hidden from both consumers and federal authorities.
Over the last twenty years, a growing body of research found that both compounds are persistent contaminants, highly mobile in the environment, very difficult to remove, and bioaccumulate in the bloodstream. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), a branch of the CDC, had linked chronic PFAS exposure to greater cancer risks (kidney, testicular), changes in liver enzymes, increased cholesterol, smaller birth weights, and preeclampsia in pregnant women.
Being none the wiser to the chemical hazards present in the foam it employed, the armed forces’ persistent use of AFFF would lead to ‘forever chemical’ contamination being confirmed or suspected on over 700 US military bases, including on 62 installations across the Golden State.
After PFAS’ adverse effects were better understood, the EPA released non-regulatory lifetime health advisories in 2016, limiting acceptable PFOA and PFOS levels in drinking water to just 70 parts per trillion (ppt).
Testing conducted by the Department of Defense (DoD) found that several active and closed military installations in Northern California had PFAS groundwater concentrations that vastly surpassed the EPA’s recommendations, including Rancho Cordova’s Mather AFB (910,000 ppt), Fairfield’s Travis AFB (712,000 ppt), the Bay Area’s NAS Alameda (336,000 ppt) and Treasure Island Naval Station (10,750 ppt), and the Military Ocean Terminal in Concord (13,500 ppt).
As a result of AFFF manufacturers’ disingenuous cover-up of PFOA and PFOS’ links to adverse health effects, both compounds’ enduring toxicity was overlooked by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) for decades. As such, while the VA currently acknowledges PFAS’ health hazards per the ATSDR’s description, it doesn’t consider exposure as a presumptive service-related factor which would automatically grant veterans access to disability benefits and compensation.
Veterans seeking help for PFAS-related conditions are required to follow the VA’s cumbersome bureaucratic process of demonstrating their disease’s service connection. However, this isn’t easily achievable, as military records going back decades may be challenging to come by, and the evidence of PFAS’ causal relation to many diseases isn’t considered categorical enough yet to be listed on most medical diagnoses.
For many veterans, the adoption of the bipartisan PACT Act in August 2022 promised to solve a wide range of service-related toxic exposure issues. Although the bill was the catalyst for significant and overdue developments, it doesn’t fully address the lasting hazards that ’emerging contaminants’ like PFAS represent.
While over 20 new diseases were granted presumptive service-connection status under the PACT Act, conditions that can arise from PFAS exposure, like prostate and thyroid cancer, weren’t included. Furthermore, a stand-alone proposal that was part of the bill’s original draft and would’ve required the VA to manage a registry of PFAS-exposed veterans didn’t make it into the PACT Act’s final form.
Despite these setbacks, the greater awareness surrounding PFAS’ hazardous potential has nevertheless prompted important measures to reduce and combat exposure. The DoD has adopted improved military specifications for fluorine-free firefighting foams as it seeks to discontinue AFFF use by October 2024. Significantly, PFAS investigations and remediations have been undertaken on several bases in Northern California, including at NAS Alameda, Mather AFB, and in areas close to Travis AFB.
Even though the PACT Act doesn’t include provisions regarding PFAS exposure, it serves as a major impetus for similarly-minded legislative proposals that seek to remove stifling bureaucratic obstacles and grant veterans access to vital benefits and compensation. In May 2023, the PFAS Registry Act was resubmitted, followed by the double submission of the VET PFAS Act proposal to the House and Senate in June and July 2023, respectively.
Perhaps the most crucial development comes from the EPA, which proposed the first national standards for PFAS in drinking water in March 2023. Per the agency’s proposals, acceptable PFOA and PFOS concentrations would be capped at 4 ppt.
About the Author
Miguel Leyva is a case manager with the San Diego-based paralegals at Atraxia Law, helping individuals injured by hazardous substances gather and organize the records and documents required to support their toxic exposure claims against liable manufacturers.
Be First to Comment