The oil depot fire raged for three days. “Wherever you looked, you could see devastation. The windows of the buildings were blown out and all the cars were damaged,” recalls Wayne Crossman, a 43-year-old firefighter from London who attended the scene.
Crossman was among 250 firefighters deployed to the Buncefield oil depot in Hemel Hempstead early on a Sunday morning in December 2005. The explosion of the first oil tank was so intense it measured 2.4 on the Richter scale and ignited 20 more. Over 250,000 litres of firefighting foam was used to extinguish the flames, creating huge volumes of contaminated runoff.
The cause of Crossman’s myeloid leukaemia is not known and there is currently a lack of evidence to link it to PFAS, but he suspects it was the firefighting foam and his personal protective gear that has caused him harm.
“Every day I was prepared to risk my life for a total stranger. I never expected the stuff we’re using or the kit we’re wearing to have health implications. At no point was I told that I could end up with cancer.” Crossman’s rare form of cancer is difficult to treat, and he has had to retire early due to ill health.
Among the key ingredients in firefighting foams and PPE are the “forever chemicals” PFAS, the name of a family of 10,000 compounds, none of which break down in the environment, may be toxic and build up in the body. Two PFAS have been linked to a wide range of diseases, including kidney and testicular cancer. Crossman is one of a group of firefighters in the UK and abroad who believe their contact with the chemicals may have made them seriously ill.
“This is the highest issue on our agenda,” says the Fire Brigades Union’s (FBU) Riccardo la Torre. He’s scathing about what he says is a lack of policy and inaction at all levels, from the National Fire Chiefs Council to government ministers. “They’re asleep at the wheel. Unlike in other countries, we don’t have health screening, and decontamination practices are only getting better because of the FBU’s campaign.”
Firefighters already suffer an increased risk of cancer from exposures to chemicals released from fires, according to researchers at the University of Central Lancashire. “They have a greater ratio of cancers, including rare cancers like leukaemia,” says Anna Stec, professor of fire chemistry and toxicity.
Her ongoing health research includes a number of toxins that firefighters are exposed to in the line of duty, including PFAS. “We know they’re exposed, but we don’t know by how much or what impact it’s having, which is one of our research objectives.”
The government is aware of the concerns. The Home Office says the “health and safety of firefighters is of great importance and the emerging research indicating they are being exposed to increased risks of cancer, including by forever chemicals, is very concerning”. It says it will “consider recently published studies to understand their conclusions”.
“This is a hot area for research right now,” says Dr Linda Birnbaum, toxicologist and former head of the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences in the US. “We know that firefighters tend to have higher rates of cancer and some other health conditions than the general population. So, people are looking to see whether some of these effects are associated with their PFAS levels.”
It’s not just the firefighters who were exposed to PFAS from the Buncefield disaster. The chemicals from the firefighting foams washed into rivers via drains, water treatment plants, by wind and rain, and leached through the soil into the groundwater, to eventually come out of people’s taps.
Groundwater around St Albans was tested for PFAS after the fire. The Drinking Water Inspectorate (DWI) said no samples were “in excess of guidance”, which at the time was 3,000ng/l. But guidance has now been slashed to 100ng/l and the drinking water did exceed these. From 2006-7, 28 samples contained concentrations up to 5,910ng/l – 59 times higher than the current limits. Today, water companies would have been required to reduce the levels in the water before it reached people’s homes.
The DWI said the nearest drinking water abstraction point to Buncefield was removed from supply until 2009, from which point it was regularly monitored and did not exceed 3,000ng/l for PFOS, one of the regulated substances. It said it was removed from supply again in 2016 for sustainability reasons.
“Were people drinking that PFAS? Of course they were. They didn’t have the same safety … system,” said Dr Cecilia MacLeod, programme leader for wastewater and environmental engineering at the University of Greenwich. MacLeod was working for the Arcadis consultancy at the time of the fire and was brought in by the Environment Agency as an expert observer. MacLeod said she flagged up immediately that PFAS contamination of the water supply would be a problem.
For decades fire departments internationally had used foam manufactured by the US company 3M. But in 2000, 3M announced it would phase out PFOS, saying the substance accumulated in human tissue and could be a “risk to human health and the environment”.
“By 2006 we in the UK should have known and we should have been prepared,” says MacLeod.
It is not known to what extent the Buncefield PFAS may be affecting the water supply today. Working with the University of Greenwich and Manchester Metropolitan University, Watershed Investigations tested tap water in St Albans and found it had levels of PFOS in it between 11 and 21 nanograms per litre (ng/l). The DWI states that for levels above 10ng/l, the water company should “consult with local health professionals” and “monitor levels in drinking water”.
Today’s DWI’s guidelines are high compared with other parts of the world such as Denmark, where the limit is 2ng/l. The current health advisory standards in the US are 0.004ng/l for PFOA and 0.02ng/l for PFOS.
The water company for the area, now Affinity Water, said its processes to remove PFAS have been in place since 1997. “We monitor for PFAS weekly and have done since 2009,” it said. “There are several raw water sources that feed into the water treatment works supplying St Albans area and the blending of these raw waters ensures the concentration in the final water going into supply does not exceed 0.1 μg/l of any PFAS.
Ian Cousins, a professor of environmental science at Stockholm University, warns against the use of chemically similar alternatives to PFOS and PFOA in firefighting foam. “These alternative PFAS will be in the environment for a very long time in the future. So, we shouldn’t use them,” he said. “There are good alternatives which are biodegradable. Of course, the industry will say that it’s not as effective, but they’re good enough.”
Crossman believes it is too late for his generation. He says he and his fellow firefighters were kept in the dark about potential health issues and not enough protections were put in place. It’s only in the past 10 years that changes are starting to happen, he says.
“I have a son, George, who is 10 years old and if he wants to be a firefighter we’re fighting to make him safer and save him from cancer. As much as I loved what I did, I’m 43 now and having these health conditions I would try to discourage him unless policies are changed.”
Angus Fire and the National Fire Chiefs Council did not respond to requests for comment.
A Defra spokesperson said: “PFAS represent a group of thousands of chemicals, with hundreds present in products used across industry and society. Since the 2000s, we have taken action to increase monitoring and support a ban or highly restrict PFAS chemicals both domestically and internationally. This action has included issuing revised Drinking Water Inspectorate guidance for water companies on PFAS limits, as a precautionary measure.
“Following the Buncefield fire in December 2005, the nearest drinking water abstraction point Bow Bridge was removed from supply. Independent tests carried out in May 2006 showed no evidence of drinking water being contaminated as a result of the fire. Bow Bridge was returned to supply in 2009 and continues to be regularly monitored.”
