23 October is an operating deadline, not the final ban
Commission Regulation (EU) 2025/1988 added a new restriction on PFAS in firefighting foams to Annex XVII of the EU chemicals regulation known as REACH. The restriction entered into force on 23 October 2025 and uses different transition periods for different products and uses. The general prohibition on placing firefighting foam on the market or using it at or above 1 mg/L for the sum of all PFAS applies from 23 October 2030, subject to stated derogations and a separate residual limit for cleaned equipment.
That 2030 date can obscure the more immediate change. From 23 October 2026, continuing in-scope use during the general transition and specified extended uses is subject to operating conditions. Foam may be used only for fires involving flammable liquids, known as class B fires. The user must reduce environmental emissions and direct and indirect human exposure as far as technically and practically possible. Where technically and practically possible, unused stock and PFAS-containing waste, including wastewater from use, must be collected separately and handled for treatment that destroys or irreversibly transforms the PFAS content.
The user must also establish a management plan for each place where the PFAS-containing foam is used. It must record use conditions and volumes, emission controls, collection and treatment, equipment cleaning and maintenance, response to accidental leaks or spills, and a strategy for substitution with fluorine-free foam. The plan must be reviewed annually and retained for at least 15 years for inspection on request. Labelling provisions also apply from 23 October 2026 to relevant foam placed on the market, unused stock and PFAS-containing waste. Portable extinguishers have separate placing-on-the-market and use dates and are excluded from some of these requirements.
The first problem is often evidence, not replacement
Consider a logistics property protected by a fixed foam system and occupied by a tenant. The asset register identifies a foam tank but gives no product formulation, concentration, installation date or change history. Service reports confirm annual maintenance but do not say whether foam was discharged during testing. The lease assigns fire-system maintenance to the tenant, while the owner controls the drainage infrastructure and approves capital alterations.
That file is not ready for the October deadline or for a transaction. The immediate task is to identify the actual user and reconstruct the system record without assuming that a brand name, the term aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF), a safety data sheet or the absence of a warning label proves the current PFAS concentration. Useful evidence can include product and batch details, technical and safety data, supplier confirmation, tank and pipework records, service reports, test and incident logs, drainage and containment plans, waste documentation, previous cleaning, and any analytical evidence used to establish concentration.
Three workstreams should remain separate. The existence of PFAS-containing foam does not prove a release. Equally, replacing the foam does not answer whether one occurred in the past. A decision-ready review should show which propositions are supported by evidence and which remain uncertain.
- Current use and management: establish the relevant transition or derogation, the concentration evidence and whether the user holds a compliant site-specific management plan.
- System conversion: define the required fire performance, suitable fluorine-free alternative, cleaning, modification, testing, approvals, waste handling and downtime.
- Historic environmental evidence: determine whether earlier discharges, training, leaks, uncontrolled tests or disposal routes create a credible source and pathway question for soil, drainage, groundwater or surface water.
A substitution project can move risk instead of removing it
Changing foam is a fire-safety and environmental project, not a simple fluid exchange. Equipment that previously contained PFAS can retain residues. The regulation therefore provides a distinct limit of 50 mg/L for the sum of all PFAS in fluorine-free foam originating from non-portable equipment cleaned using best available techniques. The European Commission must review that derogation by 23 October 2030.
The technical plan should connect the selected replacement foam, system compatibility, cleaning method, verification basis, captured liquids and final waste route. The regulation does not prescribe one universal investigation or conversion design. Those decisions depend on the system, the fire hazard, the foam history and applicable fire-safety requirements. Fire engineers, equipment suppliers, insurers and relevant authorities may all need to confirm parts of the solution.
Containment is critical. Flushing a system into an ordinary drain can turn an equipment change into a new release. The regulation requires adequate treatment that destroys or irreversibly transforms PFAS for the relevant collected material. Its recitals specifically note that ordinary biological wastewater treatment has limited efficiency for PFAS. A contractor's statement that liquid was "disposed of" is therefore not enough for the property file. The record should identify volumes, classification, carrier, receiving facility, treatment route and any verification or residual limitation.
The same discipline applies to tests and incidents. Under the EU restriction, the transition for training and testing ends on 23 April 2027, except for functional testing where all releases are contained. That EU date is not permission to continue an activity prohibited under stricter national rules. Denmark already prohibits the import, sale and use of covered foam concentrate containing more than 1 ppm total PFAS at fire-training sites, subject to the Danish order's scope and exceptions. For a Danish property, both the EU restriction and the existing national regime must therefore be checked.
A management plan should not merely restate the applicable rule. It should map isolation points, collection capacity, emergency actions, drains, external receptors and the evidence retained after an event.
What this means for property decisions
For acquisitions, refinancing and asset management, the 23 October deadline should be treated as an evidence checkpoint. The sequence below keeps the commercial decision aligned with what is actually known.
A property with a defined conversion plan and a complete record may be easier to price than one with newer equipment but no reliable product history. The decisive issue is not the word PFAS in isolation. It is whether the remaining operational, capital and environmental uncertainties are specific enough to manage.
ACED Miljø can help reconstruct the technical evidence, identify credible release pathways and translate unresolved questions into proportionate property actions. Fire-system compliance, legal responsibility and contractual allocation should be confirmed by the relevant specialists, authorities and legal advisers.
- Identify every foam location and the responsible user, including fixed systems, mobile equipment, stored concentrate, waste and wastewater. Reconcile owner, occupier, tenant and contractor roles.
- Establish composition and regulatory route. Record the product, concentration evidence, use, transition date, labelling position and any claimed derogation.
- Review the management plan against the site. Check actual volumes, testing, drains, containment, maintenance and substitution planning.
- Cost the transition as a project. Include engineering review, equipment changes, cleaning, testing, downtime, temporary protection, waste treatment and documentation.
- Screen for a credible historic release. Move to targeted environmental investigation only where the source, pathway and decision consequence justify it. The regulation does not require universal sampling.
- Preserve an auditable completion record covering products, cleaning, captured volumes, the waste chain, test results, approvals and updated system information.
Official sources