수성막포(AFFF) 소화약제에 의한 과불화화합물(PFAS) 환경오염문제에 관한 연구

The problem of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) contamination is drawing significant attention worldwide due to its harmfulness and widespread nature. Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) fire suppressants using perfluorinated compounds have been widely used worldwide as fire suppressants for oil fires since their development in the United States in the 1960s. However, when the harmfulness of perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA), representative perfluorinated compounds, became widely known in the late 1990s, environmental pollution and damage caused by AFFF fire suppressants made from these substances began to emerge one after another. Currently in the United States, there is a flood of civil lawsuits regarding health damage to firefighters exposed to AFFF, health damage to local residents who received tap water from groundwater and rivers contaminated with PFOS or PFOA due to AFFF discharge, and costs for cleanup and restoration of contaminated water sources and the environment. The United States, which first developed and widely used AFFF, is currently taking broad judicial, legislative, and administrative measures to address the resulting environmental pollution problems. AFFF was mandatorily installed and used for a long time at military bases, airports, ships, and petroleum and other fuel handling facilities. It appears that nearby rivers and groundwater have been contaminated with perfluorinated compounds, particularly around areas where this product was used for training or firefighting operations. The United States has already conducted large-scale investigations of contaminated areas, establishing response standards, and actively engaging in research and development for problem-solving and restoration of contaminated areas. As a result of the U.S. Department of Defense's investigation activities, U.S. forces in Korea also discovered contamination far exceeding standard levels at several U.S. military bases. South Korea has also been importing and using perfluorinated compound-based AFFF from 3M in the United States since the 1980s. Given that South Korea has numerous U.S. military bases and developed heavy and chemical industries, there would have been high demand for AFFF, and since the country has localized AFFF manufacturing technology for production, distribution, and consumption, it appears that numerous cases of perfluorinated compound contamination by AFFF have occurred. According to national health survey results, perfluorinated compounds are being detected in the blood of South Korean citizens at even higher concentrations than in American citizens. Nevertheless, unlike in the United States or Europe, there is virtually no response to perfluorinated compound contamination in South Korea. Even now, it is necessary to assess the actual state of AFFF and perfluorinated compound contamination and implement comprehensive countermeasures. AFFF is differentiated from general perfluorinated compound regulations in that it is a specific product that causes perfluorinated compound contamination. Within legislation that encompasses all PFAS that have been developed for countless diverse uses and used extensively, identifying the unique problems of AFFF as an individual product category and presenting necessary legal and institutional measures would be meaningful work. However, research on individual product category regulations should be conducted while considering connections to PFAS in general. Studying regulatory measures for AFFF in the United States, which plays a leading role in PFAS regulation, will provide us with many insights. This paper examines the U.S. response to problems surrounding AFFF contamination, including the phase-out of legacy AFFF containing harmful perfluorinated compounds including PFOS/PFOA, the development and dissemination of environmentally friendly AFFF (Fluoro-Free-Foam, F3), investigation and restoration of AFFF-contaminated areas, and handling and treatment standards for legacy AFFF, and reviews the implications for South Korea.