Facilities review old AFFF systems as PFAS scrutiny grows

Kord Fire Protection is urging facility owners and industrial operators to review legacy AFFF fire suppression systems as PFAS regulations, lawsuits, and replacement planning accelerate. The company says the first step is documenting what foam is on site, how the system is connected, and what risks could emerge during testing, discharge, or disposal.

Why it matters: - Older AFFF systems can create PFAS exposure, environmental liability, and disposal challenges for warehouses, hangars, fuel sites, plants, laboratories, and other industrial properties. - Facilities reviewing legacy foam systems now face compliance, operational, and replacement decisions, not just fire suppression performance questions. - The shift affects fire protection planning, building infrastructure, and long-term maintenance budgets.

What happened: - Kord Fire Protection released guidance for facility owners, property managers, and industrial operators reviewing older AFFF fire suppression systems. - The guidance comes as more businesses assess potential PFAS exposure and plan for long-term replacement. - AFFF, or aqueous film-forming foam, has been widely used for decades in Class B fire suppression for flammable liquids, aircraft operations, industrial sites, and high-risk storage areas. - Many legacy foam concentrates contain PFAS, a group of persistent chemicals now facing growing health, environmental, regulatory, and legal scrutiny.

The details: - Facilities are now asking what foam is stored on site, whether the foam contains PFAS, how a discharge would be contained, how testing is performed, and how to move toward fluorine-free alternatives. - California SB 1044 restricted the manufacture, sale, distribution, and use of PFAS-containing Class B firefighting foam, with some industry-specific exceptions and delayed timelines for certain fuel-related facilities. - The FAA has published a transition plan for aircraft firefighting foam after congressional direction. - PFAS contamination tied to firefighting foam has been the subject of major lawsuits, including public cases involving foam manufacturers and alleged contamination near training or defense sites. - Recent reporting has covered a Wisconsin settlement involving Tyco Fire Products and PFAS contamination allegations, as well as Australia’s lawsuit against 3M over firefighting foam-related PFAS contamination at defense bases. - A professional review should identify the foam concentrate in use, whether the product contains PFAS, the system’s age and condition, the protected hazard, manufacturer data, testing history, containment conditions, drainage pathways, and any prior discharge or accidental release concerns. - Facilities should also evaluate links to fire alarms, power supplies, pumps, controls, emergency shutoffs, detection equipment, and mechanical or electrical systems. - Foam fire suppression systems often depend on detection circuits, releasing panels, emergency power, control wiring, alarms, shutdown relays, and monitoring pathways. - Kord Fire Protection says commercial electrical systems, industrial electrical services, emergency power systems, and electrical infrastructure upgrades become especially relevant when foam system modernization affects control equipment, backup power, or life safety coordination. - The transition from AFFF to fluorine-free foam, often called F3, may require engineering review, revised design assumptions, compatibility checks, updated discharge devices, recalculated application rates, storage changes, and new testing procedures. - NFPA’s Fire Protection Research Foundation has published roadmap work on the transition from legacy fluorinated foams to fluorine-free alternatives. - Kord Fire Protection advises facilities to identify the foam type, determine whether specialized disposal is needed, and check local, state, and federal requirements before draining, flushing, replacing, or testing a legacy system.

Between the lines: - The issue is shifting from a narrow fire-safety question to a broader risk-management problem that touches compliance, environmental exposure, and infrastructure planning. - Facilities with older systems may be able to delay replacement, but they still need documentation and a transition plan to avoid surprises during testing, maintenance, or a discharge event. - Southern California properties with industrial, aviation, fuel, manufacturing, utility, or special hazard operations may face added pressure to review legacy systems early. - Kord Fire Protection is positioning AFFF review as part of a wider coordination effort between fire suppression and electrical infrastructure teams.

What’s next: - Facility teams are expected to continue auditing legacy foam systems and evaluating whether upgrades, replacements, or containment changes are needed. - Kord Fire Protection says it will continue supporting inspection planning, documentation review, and transition guidance for foam-based fire protection systems. - Owners should work with qualified fire protection professionals before making changes to older AFFF systems.

The bottom line: - PFAS concerns are forcing facilities to treat old AFFF systems as a documentation and compliance issue first, and a replacement issue next.