FIRE PROTECTION: Provides relative to Class B fire fighting foam. (8/1/26)
Summary
SB 375 revises Louisiana law governing Class B fire fighting foam containing fluorinated organic chemicals. The bill does not change the general prohibition framework itself, but it expands and clarifies two key definitions used in that law: “testing” and “training.” Under the bill, “testing” includes a broader range of equipment and foam evaluations, such as discharge testing of fixed fire suppression systems, mobile apparatus testing, proportioning system calibrations, and system acceptance testing, while still excluding emergency fire fighting operations.
The bill also adds a new statutory definition of “training,” covering instruction, drills, exercises, demonstrations, and other activities used to familiarize personnel with the deployment, handling, storage, mixing, proportioning, or application of fire fighting foam, including live fire exercises and simulated fire response scenarios. Like testing, training is expressly distinguished from emergency fire fighting operations. The measure is effective August 1, 2026, and amends R.S. 40:1615(A)(4) while adding R.S. 40:1615(A)(5).
Impact
SB 375 affects Louisiana’s fire protection and environmental safety rules by clarifying when Class B foam containing fluorinated organic chemicals may be used for testing or training purposes. The expanded definitions likely provide more operational certainty for fire departments, airports, industrial facilities, and other users of foam-based suppression systems, while preserving the distinction between controlled non-emergency uses and actual emergency response. It amends the existing statutory section on Class B fire fighting foam use restrictions and definitions.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been noncontroversial and received strong support. It passed the Senate unanimously, 33-0, and there is no committee transcript indicating opposition or significant debate. The final action shows it was signed by the Governor as Act 500, suggesting broad acceptance of the clarification it provides to existing foam-use rules.
Contention
No notable substantive contention is reflected in the available record. The only likely policy issue is the scope of permissible testing and training with fluorinated foam, since such foams are associated with environmental and health concerns; however, the bill does not loosen emergency-use restrictions and instead focuses on definitional clarity. Any concern would likely come from environmental or regulatory stakeholders, while fire service and facility operators would likely favor the clearer operational definitions.
Provides relative to costs for certain emergency services provided by fire departments, fire protection districts, and certain nonprofit corporations (EN INCREASE SG EX See Note)