SAN DIEGO (Legal Newsline) - While docked in San Diego, the USS Bonhomme Richard caught fire and burnt, preventing the vessel from embarking on its mission to launch F-35Bs from aboard. It wasn’t until the fourth day of the continuous flames that military officials decided to use the fire-suppressant called Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AAAF) to assist in extinguishing the fire and protecting firefighters.
“During the first three days the Navy was battling the fire aboard the USS Bonhomme-Richard, no AFFF was employed, and the fire was fought primarily with San Diego Bay water,” said Lt. Cmdr. Nicole Schwegman, a U.S. Navy spokeswoman. “In line with Department of Defense (DoD) policy, the decision to use AFFF was allowed for this emergency response situation and the on-scene commanders made the necessary decisions regarding how and when to use AFFF.”
As previously reported, PFAS are man-made chemicals that can be found in common products, such as AFFF.
“The Department of the Navy is committed to protecting the health of our Service members, their families, and the surrounding communities, and that includes minimizing the risk of exposure to PFAS chemicals,” Schwegman said in an interview.
So, on Wednesday, July 15, and Thursday, July 16, Schwegman told Legal Newsline, the Navy employed AFFF in a strategic fashion to extinguish the most persistent hot spots.
“The Department of Defense has stopped all uncontrolled and land-based use of AFFF in training, testing and maintenance, only using AFFF at our installations if required during an emergency to prevent catastrophic loss of life or property,” said Schwegman.
Of the Auxquima that was employed to save the USS Bonhomme Richard, 3% was AFFF with a nominal amount of FireAide of which 6% AFFF was used, according to Department of Navy data.
“The Navy has worked with the regulatory agencies since the beginning of the fire and are coordinating efforts to ensure compliance with the applicable requirements,” Schwegman said.
Byproducts of the firefighting efforts are being collected by a large barge on site along with firefighting water contained in the vessel so that it can be properly disposed of, according to Schwegman.
“DoD uses a number of industrial and consumer products that contain PFAS because they increase resistance to heat, stains, water, and grease,” she said. “Uses include keeping food from sticking to cookware, making sofas and carpets resistant to stains, and making clothes and mattresses more waterproof.”
Earlier this year, the PFAS Action Act, also known as H.R. 535, was passed by the House but the Senate is not expected to discuss it anytime soon given the pandemic.
H.R. 535, if eventually passed by the Senate, would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to designate manmade chemicals, such as perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS), as hazardous 12 months after the legislation is enacted and within five years all other PFAS chemicals could potentially be deemed hazardous as well.
In the meantime, the DoD created a secretariat-level PFAS Task Force to proactively address PFAS chemicals throughout the agency.
“One of the PFAS Task Force’s priorities is researching a fluorine-free firefighting alternative to meet the lifesaving performance requirements of AFFF and DoD has devoted significant resources to that end,” said Schwegman.
Until then, she said, the Navy will use AFFF-containing PFAS for emergency responses until a viable alternative is developed and available for purchase and use.