AFFF's Legacy: Why Fire Chiefs Should Start the PFAS Conversation

For decades, firefighters across the country relied on aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) to combat some of the most dangerous fuel fires imaginable. Whether responding to emergencies involving flammable liquids or conducting live-fire training exercises, fire departments used the tools they were trained to use and that manufacturers, regulators, and industry standards endorsed. No one told firefighters that those same products contained chemicals that could harm them and remain in the environment for generations.

Today, many fire departments are discovering that the legacy of AFFF extends far beyond the fireground. Because per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) from AFFF spread through soil and water over time, contaminating many water sources, initial discussions focused primarily on drinking water utilities. Now, as understanding of PFAS continues to evolve, fire departments and firefighter training facilities are beginning to face new operational, financial, and legal challenges related to past AFFF use.

Even where fire chiefs are not the officials charged with environmental remediation or funding those efforts, they are often among the first to understand how AFFF was used, where it was used, and what practical challenges departments now face. As trusted advisors to municipal and county leadership, chiefs are in a unique position to help ensure their communities understand both the risks and the options available.

The Problem Fire Departments Didn't Create

PFAS, often referred to as "forever chemicals," are a family of synthetic compounds valued for their ability to resist heat, water, and oil. These properties made them a critical ingredient in AFFF for decades because they enabled the foam to quickly suppress flammable liquid fires while preventing reignition. Fire departments did not choose AFFF because it was inexpensive or convenient. They used it because it worked and because it was widely recommended, and in many cases required, for certain firefighting applications. Manufacturers also reassured them that the foam was biodegradable and completely safe for humans and the environment—a claim later revealed to be false. It would be many years before regulatory authorities and the public learned of the associations between PFAS compounds and serious health and environmental concerns, including certain cancers, immune system effects, thyroid disorders, elevated cholesterol, developmental impacts, and contamination of drinking water supplies.

Many historical firefighter training practices reflected the knowledge available at the time. Live-fire exercises often occurred on open training grounds where foam was allowed to infiltrate soil. Equipment was routinely tested, cleaned, and flushed. Fire departments were never warned that PFAS compounds could eventually contaminate groundwater or nearby surface waters, unknowingly creating long-term environmental liabilities.

Why This Matters Today

The regulatory landscape surrounding PFAS has changed dramatically over the past several years. Federal drinking water standards have been established, several states have adopted their own PFAS regulations, and investigations into contaminated sites continue to grow. In 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency designated two PFAS compounds commonly found in AFFF—PFOA and PFOS—as hazardous substances under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), creating potential liability in locations where AFFF was used. For fire departments, this changing landscape means that historical training grounds and emergency response locations may receive increased scrutiny, particularly if contamination is discovered nearby.

The Costs Have Already Begun

When many people think about PFAS contamination, they picture expensive environmental cleanup projects years into the future. In reality, many agencies have already started spending money. Across the country, fire departments are replacing legacy AFFF inventories with fluorine-free alternatives where appropriate, purchasing new foam supplies, modifying training protocols, evaluating equipment compatibility, and properly disposing of legacy foam stocks. Departments may also need to clean or replace equipment previously used with PFAS-containing foam, conduct site investigations, or perform groundwater and soil sampling. These costs arise regardless of whether contamination has yet been confirmed.

Should future investigations identify PFAS contamination associated with historical AFFF use, municipalities and counties could also face expenses related to environmental assessments, remediation planning, long-term monitoring, consultant services, and legal compliance. While the timing and scope of these obligations will vary from one community to another, the financial implications can be significant—particularly for smaller communities operating under already constrained budgets.

Liability Questions Continue to Evolve

One of the most challenging aspects of PFAS is that the legal landscape continues to develop. The EPA has indicated through its PFAS Enforcement Discretion and Settlement Policy that it generally does not intend to pursue passive receivers such as water utilities, airports, or landfills for certain CERCLA enforcement actions. However, this policy does not eliminate the possibility of actions brought under state law or by private parties, nor does it remove the costs associated with investigating or responding to contamination. For local governments that own firefighter training facilities, this creates understandable uncertainty.

Questions that many local governments are beginning to ask include:

• What costs have we already incurred because of PFAS?

• Will we need to investigate historical training areas?

• Could contamination affect nearby groundwater or drinking water supplies?

• How will future regulatory requirements impact our budgets?

• Who should ultimately bear these costs?

These are no longer hypothetical questions. They are becoming part of long-term local government planning discussions nationwide.

Why Some Municipalities And Counties Are Exploring Litigation

Rather than leaving taxpayers to fund investigation, remediation, and other PFAS-related expenses, many public entities are seeking to recover current and anticipated costs from the companies that manufactured and marketed these products through litigation. Their central argument is straightforward: manufacturers knew for decades about the environmental persistence and potential health risks associated with certain PFAS chemicals but failed to adequately warn the organizations that relied on their products.  

The ongoing AFFF multidistrict litigation (MDL) provides one avenue through which eligible entities are pursuing these claims. Litigation in the MDL has already resulted in multibillion-dollar settlements for public drinking water providers to help fund PFAS treatment and related costs. Many municipalities and counties are now filing similar claims over impacts to fire training facilities and other publicly owned properties affected by AFFF contamination. Such claims are anticipated to be settled by future settlements or litigation, which may not provide payments to fire departments that have not filed lawsuits. Importantly, these cases are not about assigning blame to firefighters or departments, who used widely recommended products to protect lives and property without being warned of any danger. The focus instead is on whether the financial burden of managing contamination should fall on local taxpayers or on the manufacturers that produced and sold the products.

The Fire Chief's Role

Most fire chiefs are not responsible for deciding whether their municipality or county files a lawsuit. But they can help ensure that the right conversations happen before important opportunities are missed. Chiefs often possess historical knowledge that no one else has. They know where training occurred, how frequently AFFF was used, when foam was transitioned, and what operational changes have already been implemented. That information can be invaluable to those evaluating litigation options.  

Just as importantly, chiefs are well-positioned to educate elected officials about the operational realities departments are facing. Local government leaders may not realize that the transition away from AFFF is already affecting departmental budgets or that historical training practices—conducted in accordance with accepted standards at the time—may have created environmental issues that require attention today. By initiating those conversations early, fire chiefs can help ensure that their municipalities or counties evaluate every available funding source, understand evolving regulatory requirements, and make informed decisions that protect both public safety and local taxpayers.

Looking Ahead

The fire service has always adapted to new challenges, whether advancing protective equipment, improving firefighter health and safety, or adopting new suppression technologies. PFAS presents another challenge—but this one extends beyond the fireground. The decisions local governments make today may influence future environmental responsibilities, financial obligations, and community confidence for years to come. Firefighters did not create the PFAS problem, nor did they have the information necessary to avoid it decades ago. Yet many local governments are now shouldering the consequences.

For fire chiefs, the most important step may simply be starting the conversation. By engaging city managers, county executives, counsel, and elected officials now, departments can help ensure their communities understand the challenges ahead, evaluate available funding options, and make informed decisions that protect both the public and the long-term financial health of their municipality or county.