Document 1Q984wGVXdn88g6vEk3oYk2BK

'Y From: Commanding Officer, Naval Research Laboratory To: Distribution in befuv pcrtm to 9555 Ser 6180/0394 SEP I 9 2000 Subj: DOD AFFF ENVIRONMENTAL MEETING Enel: (1) Minutes o f subject meeting 1. The Navy Technology Center for Safety and Survivability o f the Naval Research Laboratory hosted the DOD AFFF Environmental Meeting on 2-3 August 2000. The meeting was held to exchange information on environmental issues surrounding AFFF. The meeting was sponsored jointly by The Naval Facilities Engineering Command and the Naval Air Systems Command. 2. Enclosure (1) is a copy o f the minutes of the meeting. 3. The NRL point o f contact for this program is Dr. Frederick W. Williams, Code 6180, (202) 767-2476, email: iwilliam@ccs.nrl.naw.mil. Distribution Authorized to US Government Agencies and their Contractors Only; All other requests shall be forwarded to: Commanding Officer Naval Research Laboratory, Wash. DC. THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. US00000605 Distribution: CNO (Code N-451H Barbeau) (Code N457C Ellis) NAVSEASYCOM (Code 05L4 McCrory, Williams) NAWC/WD (Code 4T310D Bowman) (Code 4T4310D Hoover, Wilson) (Code 4T42EOD Roper) ` MSC ((DCE Parks) HQ/USMC (ASL-38 Bungcayao, Jr) (CSLE-ESE Romero) (LFL-6 Doherty) USACE (CECEW-ETE DiAngelo) USA/SFIM (AEC-EQC Scott) USA/FP (Kochhar) EPA (Dominiak) (Code 6205J Rubenstein) FAA/TC (AAR-411 Bagot) NAVFACENGCOM (Donnally) (Code SF Gott) (Code ESC-421 Lee) (CFPE Ruffini) (CFPE Simone) (F&MS Killen) HQ/AFCESA/CESM (Hansen, Walker) HQ/USAF/CEVQ (Shah) USAF (ARA Dierdorf) MSC (Code N72PC1) NAVAIRSYSCOM (Code 4.3.5.1 Leach) (Code 8.1 Wolfe) NADEP (Code 4,3.4.7 Whitfield) DSC (Code IDA Klein) 2 US00000606 6i80/0394A:FWW September 12, 2000 M inutes O f the DOD AFFF Environm ental M eeting Held at the Naval Research Laboratory Navy Technology Center for Safety and Survivability Washington, D.C. On 2-3 August 2000 Enel (1) to NRL Ltr 9555 6180/0394:FWW Distribution Authorized to US Government Agencies and their Contractors Only; All other requests shall be forwarded to: Commanding Officer Naval Research Laboratory, Wash. DC. THIS INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE. US00000607 Minutes o f DOD AFFF Environmental Meeting Naval Research Laboratory 2-3 August 2000 Summary A meeting to discuss AFFF environmental issues within the Department o f Defense (DoD) was held at the Naval Research Laboratory (NRL), Washington, D.C., on 2-3 August 2000. The meeting was hosted by Dr. Fred Williams, NRL, Director, Navy Technology Center for Safety and Survivability. The meeting was jointly sponsored by the Naval Facilities Engineering Command (NAVFAC) and the Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR). The agenda for the meeting is shown in Appendix (1). A list of attendees is provided in Appendix (2), along with a photo of attendees present at the opening general session on 2 August 2000. To facilitate future exchanges o f information on this subject, Appendix (2) includes mailing addresses, phone numbers and E-Mail addresses for each attendee. Objective The overall objective o f the meeting was to provide a forum for open discussion on AFFF environmental issues within DoD. Additionally, the meeting was called to address three specific objectives: (1) Assist NAVFAC in the development o f a DoD design policy for AFFF systems in aircraft hangars and other shore facilities to minimize adverse environmental impact. (2) Obtain information to assist NAVAIR in finalizing their AFFF Environmental Safety and Health Need Assessment Summary (ESH NAS) and in preparing the follow-on Development Plan. (3) Provide information for attendees on the relevant issues surrounding the decision by the 3M Company to phase-out production of AFFF and other products containing perfluorooctyl sulfonate (PFOS). Background There has been growing concern in the past few years about the potential adverse environmental impact o f AFFF. This concern has been spawned by a number o f factors: - The establishment by EPA in 1994 o f threshold quantities for reporting spills o f AFFF due to the butyl carbitol commonly used as a solvent in AFFF - Inadvertent activations of AFFF systems in hangars and the resultant clean-up and disposal - Reports o f problems created by the discharge o f AFFF to waste water treatment facilities 1 US00000608 - Limitations on overboard discharges o f AFFF by ships under the Uniform National Discharge Standards (UNDS) o f the Clean Water Act - Anecdotal reports o f damage to aquatic life by discharge of AFFF to streams and waterways - Various designations o f AFFF waste, necessitating expensive disposal by specialty contractors - Recognition o f the persistence and limited biodegradability of the fluorocarbon surfactants in AFFF - Publicity surrounding 3M's decision to phase-out production o f AFFF and other chemicals containing perfluorooctyl sulfonate (PFOS) - Claims by vendors o f so-called "environmentally-friendly" AFFF alternatives As a result o f these concerns, the affected Navy Systems Commands have undertaken various actions: - NAVFAC, under the auspices of the DoD Fire Protection Coordinating Committee, has started the development o f design policy for shore facility AFFF systems to minimize discharges and to address environmental issues. - NAVAIR has funded Concurrent Technologies Corporation to draft an ESH Need Assessment Study on AFFF, to be followed by a Development Plan that will recommend future action to alleviate identified problems. - NAVSEA has reduced the frequency o f testing o f shipboard AFFF systems to minimize overboard AFFF discharge in compliance with the UNDS regulations. The meeting was called to share recent information and discuss issues relevant to the above concerns and on-going actions. Meeting Scope/Presentations The meeting consisted o f general session discussions and presentations as well as two specifically focused breakout sessions. Copies o f the general session presentations are provided as Appendices (3) -(1 0 ). Presentations given at the Hangar Facility breakout session are contained in Appendices (11) and (12). Overall summaries o f each breakout session are provided in Appendices (13) and (14). Significant Discussion and Presentation Points There were many important points raised during discussion sessions or contained in formal presentations. Those considered to be the most significant are summarized below (additional details are contained in the appendices): - AFFF is a vital fire fighting agent for controlling and extinguishing flammable liquid fires. Within DoD, it is especially critical for fire scenarios where life safety is paramount, where ordnance is exposed or high value assets are threatened. 2 US00000609 The AFFF military specification (Mil Spec) is considerably more demanding than the applicable UL standard relative to speed o f extinguishment o f a flammable liquid pool fire. The AFFF Mil Spec is widely cited in procurement specifications in the civil sector, especially at municipal airports. There are currently 5 manufacturers that have AFFFs on the Mil Spec Qualified Products List. There are many fire fighting foams that are commercially available. However, no non-AFFFs have been able to match the rapid fire extinguishment performance of AFFF. At present there is no regulation or directive to modify the AFFF Mil Spec. There is no recognized or universally accepted definition o f "environmentally friendly" fire fighting foam. NAVSEA is the designated DoD technical custodian o f the existing AFFF Mil Spec. Only NAVSEA can formally change the Mil Spec, though it may be possible to develop a separate specification just for shore-based applications. Inconsistent policy and guidance have led to expensive and questionable secondary containment designs in recent shore facility projects. 3M is voluntarily phasing-out production o f AFFF because the fluorocarbon surfactant in their AFFF biodegrades to perfluorooctyl sulfonate (PFOS). PFOS has been identified by EPA as environmentally persistent, bio accumulative in blood, and toxic to aquatic life and laboratory animals (the degree varies by species). Levels o f PFOS measured in humans and found in blood banks is not considered to present a heath hazard at present levels. Concern is the potential for build-up over time. Other AFFF manufacturers do not produce AFFF that is currently believed to biodegrade to PFOS. It is not known if other AFFFs have a similar problem. EPA is currently in a fact-finding mode relative to other AFFFs. At present the EPA does not prohibit or limit specifically the manufacturing o f AFFF. A comprehensive review o f federal and local environmental regulations applicable to AFFF (and other foam agents) has just been completed (see Appendix (8)). All fire fighting foams have environmental properties and/or constituents that are regulated. Adverse impact on waste water treatment facilities is a major concern, primarily due to foaming. A "risk based" approach, using the Frequency Vs Severity concepts in Military Standard 882C, has been shown to be feasible for managing AFFF environmental issues in shore facilities. Such an approach may be applicable to other AFFF applications as well. The NAVFAC Facility AFFF Management Working Group will continue development of policy, with a completion goal o f approximately 6 months. 3 US00000610 The next meeting of the NAVFAC Working Group is scheduled for October 12, 2000. NAVAIR will complete the AJFFF Need Assessment Study and prepare the Development Plan to recommend a future course of action. There was a general consensus that a second follow-on DoD meeting should be held (host, location, dates - TBD). Depending on developments between now and the next meeting, a decision could be made to establish a governing charter for a DoD AFFF Environmental Steering Group and perhaps to designate a formal DoD "advocate" for the effort. 4 US00000611 List of Appendices (1) Meeting Agenda (2) List of attendees and photo (3) Presentation: "AFFF Performance Perspective," R, Darwin, Hughes Associates (4) Presentation: "NAVSEA Comments on the AFFF Mil Spec", R. Williams, NAVSEA (5) Presentation: "Hangar Facility AFFF Management Breakout Session Introduction", J, Gott, NAVFAC (6) Presentation: "AFFF Environmental Impact Breakout Session Introduction", J. Hoover, NAWCWD China Lake (7) Presentation: "Issues With 3M 's Withdrawal from the Market", C. Hanauska, Hughes Associates (8) Presentation: "AFFF Environmental Impact Review", W. Ruppert, Hughes Associates (9) Presentation: "AFFF Management - Risk Based Approach", D. Verdonik, Hughes Associates (10) Presentation: "Phasing out a Problem: Perfluorooctyl Sulfonate", M. Dominiak, EPA (11) Presentation: Facilities Background and AFFF Issues", J. Simone, NAVFAC (12) Presentation: "AFFF Risk Assessment", A. Wakelin, Hughes Associates (13) Presentation: "Summary o f Shore Facility AFFF Management Breakout Session", D. Verdonik, Hughes Associates (14) Presentation: "Summary o f AFFF Environmental Breakout Session", J. Hoover NAWCWD China Lake and R. Darwin, Hughes Associates US00000612 APPENDIX (1) Meeting Agenda US00000613 DOD AFFF Environmental Meeting L o c a tio n : Agenda: Building 207 (Chemistry Building) Naval Research Laboratory, 4555 Overlook Ave, Washington DC, 20735 Wednesday August 2nd 0830-0845 Welcome and Introduction - Dr Fredrick Williams, NRL, Director, Navy Technology Center for Safety and Survivability. 0845-0915 AFFF Performance Perspective - Robert Darwin, Senior Engineer, Hughes Associates, Inc. 0915-0925 NAVSEA Comments on the AFFF Military Specification - Robert Williams, NAVSEA Fire Protection and Damage Control Division 0925 - 0935 Hangar Facility AFFF Management Breakout Session Introduction - Joseph Gott, NAVFAC, Director, Navy Facilities Safety and Health Office 0935 - 0945 AFFF Environmental Impact Breakout Session Introduction - Dr. Jim Hoover, NAWCWD, Head, Combustion Research Branch 0 9 4 5 - 1000 Break 1 0 00- 1015 Issues Surrounding 3M Withdrawal from the Market - Chris Hanauska, Senior Engineer, Hughes Associates, Inc. 1015-1100 Presentation of AFFF Environmental Regulatory Aspects - Bill Ruppert, Senior Environmental Engineer, Hughes Associates, Inc. 1100-1130 Summary Presentation on Risk Assessment for Hangar Facilities - Dr. Dan Verdonik, Hughes Associates, Inc. 1130- 1230 Lunch 1230-1600 Breakout sessions Thursday August 3rd 0830 - 0930 3M Withdrawal from Market - Mary Dominiak, EPA, Chemical Control Division, Office of Prevention, Pesticides & Toxic Substances. 0 9 3 0 - 1230 Presentation of Breakout Session Conclusions. Discussion of any further requirements to complete breakout session action items. US00000614 Hangar Facility AFFF Management Breakout Session Session Objectives and Details: The objectives of the Naval Facility Engineering Command (NAVFAC) hangar facility AFFF Management breakout session are: To begin efforts toward developing a policy that details requirements for hangar facilities that will provide "adequate measures" to: (a) prevent an accidental AFFF discharge, (b) limit any adverse environmental impacts from a release. To achieve an agreement on the definition of "adequate measures" and to begin to establish design criteria to meet them. Initial draft design criteria and costs of specific engineering solutions will be presented and discussed as a starting point. Agenda 1230.. 1315 1315 - 1430 1430 - 1600 Facility Background and Issues - Joe Simone, Head Fire Protection Engineer, Naval Facilities Engineering Command Risk Assessment for Hangar Facilities - Alison Wakelin. Fire Protection Engineer, Hughes Associates, Inc. Design Criteria Discussion and Development List of Breakout Session Attendees: D. Verdonik (Chair) J. Gott W. Ruppert A. Wakelin J, Simone V. Donnally T. Ruffini D. Roderique G. Sadler L. Wolf K. Ellis M. Doherty K. Kochar B. Scott R. Talbot R. Hansen J. Shah F Williams US00000615 AFFF Environmental Impact Breakout Session Session Objectives and Details: The objective of this meeting is to share the technical data related to the environmental impact, status and the planned future use of AFFF. NAVAIR will use output from this session to ensure their Environmental Safety and Health (ESH) Need Assessment Summary (the where we are today) is accurate and complete, and to ensure their Development Plan (the where we go from here) is consistent with the need to provide sound fire protection in an environmentally responsible manner. The AFFF Environmental Impact working group will address the following questions: What current and future environmental regulations impact AFFF use and why (data and politics)? What data do we have (or lack) on the environmental impact of AFFF? What technology or products exist that could help reduce AFFF releases into our environment or mitigate the impact of those releases? What technology or products could be applied to recycle or reuse AFFF? What alternatives to AFFF currently exist and how do they compare in effectiveness, cost, environmental impact, availability, etc? List of B reakout Session Attendees: J. Hoover (Chair) R. Darwin J. Scheffey C. Hanauska W. Leach D. McCrory R. Williams S. Wade M. Wade K. Bagot R. Morris B. Parks S.Johnson P. Bungcayo R. Lee R. DiAngelo D. Dierdorf J. LaPoint I. Young US00000616 APPENDIX (2) List of Attendees and Photo US00000617 [B-L] K eith Bagot FM FAA Technical Center AAR-411, Bldg. 296 Atlantic City international Ai Atlantic City, NJ 08405 Phone: 609-485-6383 ' Kathy E llis Air & W astewater Program Manager OPNAV (N45) Chief of Naval Operations, N457C 2211 South Clark Place Rm 644 Arlington, VA 22206 Phone: 703-602-2568 bagot: keith.bagat@ tc.faa.gov elite: Eilis.Kalhy@ HQ.NAVY.MIL Les Bowman NAW CW D China Lake Weapons Division Code 4T310D China Lake, CA 93555-6100 Phone:760-939-8813 Joseph E. Gott Director, Safety & Occupational Health NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command Code SF 1322 Patterson Avenue, SE Phone: 202-685-9323 Paul G Bungcayao Jr USMC HQMC-ASL-38 2 Navy Annex Phone:703-614-1835 Fax: 703-697-7343 Suite 1000 W ashington Navy Yard, DC 20374-5065 gott: GottJE@ navfac.navy.mil W ashington DC, DC 20380 United Stales bungcayao: bungcayaoJRPG@hqmc.usmc.mil C h ristop her P. Hanauska Senior Engineer Hughes Associates, Inc. 3610 Commerce Drive Phone: 410-737-8677 Phone Ext.: 242 Fax: 410-737-8688 Robert L. D arw in Senior Engneer Hughes Associates, inc. 3610 Commerce Drive Phone: 410-737-8677 Phone Ext,: 228 Fax: 410-737-8688 Suite 817 Baltimore, MD 21227-1652 hanauska: hanauska@haifire.com Suite 817 Batttmore, MD 21227-1652 Raymond Hansen Fire Protection Engineer Phone: 850-283-6317 darwin: bdarwin@haifire.com USAF HQ AFCESA/CESM Robert M. DiAngelo C EC E W -E T E Army Headquarters Phone: 202-761 -4803 139 Barnes Drive Suite 1 Tyndall AFB, FL 32403-5319 United States U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Hansen, Ray: Ray.Hansen@AFCESA.AF.MIL Washington DC, MD 20314-1000 diangelo: Robert.M.DiAngelo@HQ02,USAGE.ARMY.MIL Douglas S. Dierdorf Principie Scientist USAF (ARA) 139 Barnes Drive Phone: 850-283-3734 Fax: 850-283-8797 James M. Hoover Commander NAWCWD China Lake Naval A ir Warfare Center Weapons Division 1 Administration Circle Attn:Code 4T4310D, J.M, Hoover China Lake, CA 93555-6100 Phone: 760-939-1645 Phone Ext.: 473 Fax: 760-939-2597 Applied Research Associates Suite 2 hoover: HooverJM@navair.navy.tnil Tyndall AFB, FL 32403 Samuel R. Johnson dlerdorf: Doug.Dierdorf@tyndall.af.mil Environmental Engineer MSC MSC Phone: 202-685-5765 Michael C. Doherty W ater Program Manager USMC Headquarters, U.S. Marine Corps (LFL-8) Phone: 703-695-8541 Fax: 703-695-8550 code N72PC1 Washington Navy Yard Bldg 914 Charles Morris Ct, S.E. Washington DC, MD 20375 2 f^gyy Annex Washington DC, MD 20380-1775 Kiran C. Kochhar Fire Protection Engineer Phone: 540-665-3907 doherty: dohertymc@hqmc.usmc.ml Mary F. Dominiate ERA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington DC, MD 20460 dominiak: Dominiak.Mary@epamail,epa.gov Vincent R. Donnally Design Criteria Manager NAVFAC 1510 Gilbert Streel Norfolk, VA 23511-2699 Phone: 202-260-7768 Fax: 202-260-1096 Army P. 0 . Box 2250 201 Prince Frederick Drive W inchester, VA 22604-1450 kochhar: Kiran.C.Kochhar@ tac01.usace.army.mil _______ John LaPoint Manager Environmental Processes Concurrent Technologies Corp. 9570 Regency Square 8tvd. Suite 400 Jacksonville, FL 32225 Phone: 904-722-2505 lapoirrt: lapointj@ctc.com donnally: DonallyVR@efdlant.navfac.mil US00000618 IL - V] William B. Leach Fire Protection Team Leader NAVAIR Naval A ir Warfare Center A ircraft Division Attn: Bin Leach, Code 4.3.5.1 Bldg 562-3 Highway 547 Lakehurst, NJ 08777-5049 teach: LeachWB@navalr.navy.rrtl Dr. Richard Lee Project Manager NFESC Code ESC421 Naval Facilities Engineering 1100 23rd Avenue Port Hueneme, CA 93043 Phone: 732-323-1184 William H. R uppert Senior Engineer Hughes Associates, Inc. 3610 Commerce Drive Suite 617 Baltimore, MD 21227-1652 ruppert: wruppert@haifire.com Phone: 805-982-1670 Fax: 805-982-4832 George O. Sadler Principal Glenn S Sadler 150 Boush Street Suite 1000 Norfolk, VA 23510 sadler: gosadler@ transystems.com Phone: 410-737-8677 Phone Ext.: 283 Fax:410-737-8688 Phone: 757-627-1112 lee: teert@ nfesc.navy.mil Dennis McCrory NAVSEA Naval Sea Systems Command Attn: Code 05L4 2531 Jefferson Daws Hwy, Arlington, VA 22242-5160 Joseph L. Scheffey Director Hughes Associates, Ine. 3610 Commerce Drive Suite 817 Baltimore, MD 21227-1652 scheffey: joe@ haiftre.com Phone: 410-737-8677 Phone Ext.: 220 Fax: 410-737-8688 mccrory: McCroryDM@NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL Renee Morris Associate Booz, Allen & Hamilton, Inc. 1725 Jefferson Davis Highway Suite 1203 Arlington, VA 22202 Phone: 703-412-7687 Bitty Ray Scott CWA Wastewater Program Manager Army SFIM-AEC-EQC BLDG E-4435 Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21010 scott: Billy.Scott@aec.apgea.army.mil Phone: 410-436-7073 morris: morris_renee@bah.com Braddock L. Parks Damage Control Engineer MSC Military Sealift Command 914 Chartes M orris Court W ashington Navy Yard Washington DC, MD 20398-5540 Phone: 202-685-5764 Parks: Brad.Parks@msc.navy.mil Dawn Roderique TAMS Consultants, Inc. 2101 W ilson Blvd Suite 300 Arlington, VA 22201 Phone: 703-312-1275 roderique: Droderique@TAMSCONSULTANTS.COM R Rubenstein ERA Code 6205 J U.S. EPA 1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW Washington DC, MD 20460 Phone: 202-564-9155 Jay Shah USAF HQ USAF/CEVQ 1260 A ir Force Pentagon Pentagon Washington DC. MD 20330-1260 shah: jayant.shah@pentagon.AF.mil Joseph A. Simone Chief Fire Protection Engineer NAVFAC Naval Facilities Engineering Command 1322 Patterson Avenue SE Suite 1000 Washington DC, MD 20374-5065 simone: SimoneJA@navfac.navy.mil Robert Talbot SVERDRUP 234 South Fraley Blvd. Suite 100 Dumfries, VA 22026 talbot: 9lalborp@ sverdrup.com Phone: 703-607-0120 Phone: 202-685-9177 rubenstein: rubenstein.reve@epa.gov T Rufflnl NAVFAC c/o Chief Fire Protection Engineer 1322 Patterson Ave, SE Suite 1000 W ashington DC, MD 20374-5065 Phone: 202-685-9177 Daniel P, Verdonik Director, Enviromental & Pollution Prevention Prog Hughes Associates, Inc. 3610 Commerce Drive Suite 817 Baltimore, MD 21227-1652 Phone: 410-737-8677 Phone Ext.: 236 Fax: 410-737-8688 verdonik: danv@haifire.com Pnr*#darsif?Si'?O0O f t w a ufo aCTr ter VW3>S US00000619 S. M ichael Wade Contractor ASN (S & S) OASN (ISE) Safety & Suvivabilrty Office Washington Navy Yard Bldg 36 720 Kennon Street, SE Rm 110 Washington DC, MD 20374-5028 Phone: 202-685-6858 Fax: 202-685-6862 wade: wade.stanley@hq.navy.mil Stanley R W afte Jr Senior Engineering Technician M. Rosenblatt & Sons 2341 Jefferson Davis Hwy Suite 500 Arlington, VA 22202-3885 Phone: 703-415-7800 Phone Ext.: 640 Fax: 703-415-7828 Wade, S: swade@mrosenblatt.amsec.com A lison Wakettn Fir Protection Engineer Hughes Associates, Inc. 3610 Commerce Drive Suite 817 Baltimore, MD 212274 United States Phone: 410-737-8677 Phone Ext.: 282 Fax: 410-737-8677 wakelln: awakeln@ haifire.com Fred W illiam s Director NRL NRL Code 6180 4555 Overlook Avenue SE Washington DC, MD 20375 Phone: 202-767-2476 Fax: 202-767-1716 williams: fwilEam@ccs.nrl.navy.mil Robert B. Williams NAVSEA Naval Sea Systems Command, 05L4 2351 Jefferson Davis Hwy. Arlington, VA 22242-5160 williams: WilRamsRB@NAVSEA.NAVY.MIL Phone: 703-602-5552 Phone Ext.: 301 E ric Wilson Materials Manager NAWCWD China Lake Commander 1 Administrative Circle Code 4T4310D (E. W ilson) Ridgecrest, CA 93555 Phone: 760-939-8064 witson: wtlsone@navair.navy-mH Larry Wolfe NAVAIR Code 8.1 NAVAIRSYSCOM Bldg 404 22145 Arnold Circle Patuxant River, MD 20670-1541 Phone: 301-757-2132 wolfe: wolfelg@ navair.navy.mil Iris Young Chemist-Analytical & Environmental Studies Canada National Defense Dept, of National Defense Quality Engineering Test Est. Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A 0K2 Phone: 819-994-1681 Fax: 819-997-4096 young: i.young@debbs.ndhq,dnd.ca ,5, [ W- Y ] Pftrtf ter VAndow!, US00000620 Top Row: C. Hanauska, D. McCrory, J. Simone, L. Wolf, K. Bagot, M. Doherty, B. Parks, J. LaPoint, S. Johnson, R. Hansen, R. DiAngelo Middle Row: W. Ruppert, B. Williams, D. Roderique, J. Hoover, J. Gott, J. Scheffey, D.Verdonik, J. Shah, W. Leach, P. Bungcayo, R. Darwin, K. Kochar, R. Talbot, S. Wade Bottom Row: F. Williams, R. Morris, T. Ruffini, A. Wakelin, D. Dierdorf, B.R. Scott, I. Young, K. Ellis, G. Sandler, R. Lee, M. Wade US00000621 APPENDIX (3) Presentation: "AFFF Performance Perspective" R. Darwin, Hughes Associates, Ine. Baltimore MD US00000622 AFFF Perform ance Perspective Robert L. Darwin, PE Senior Engineer Hughes Associates, Ine. 2 August 2000 US00000623 History o f Foam 1920-40 Chemical Foam 1940-70 Protein Foam (Air Foam) 1970-2000 AFFF AFFF Key Events: 1961 First experiments with fluorocarbon surfactants at NRL 1962 First Mil-Spec (Mil-F-23905, 1 Nov 63) 25 % concentration (fresh water only) Emphasis on twin agent application 1963 Large scale tests at NAS pensacola Led to procurement o f 100 twin agent units 1964 Helo air borne TAU tests at NAS Miramar 1965 6 % concentration developed by 3M (FC-194) 1966 Testing ofFC -194 in airfield crash trucks Selective conversion o f some crash trucks 1967 1967 Flight deck conflagration on USS Forrestal TAUs to aircraft carriers Push to develop seawater-compatible AFFF Seawater -compatible AFFF developed by 3M/NRL 1968 Additional crash truck tests at NAS Miramar 1968 Shipboard equipment tests w/ seawater at NAS Jacksonville First edition o f seawater/AFFF mil spec (Mill-F-24385) 1969 Flight deck conflagration on USS Enterprise . Push to convert ships to AFFF 1970 Navy starts comprehensive conversion o f ship systems and crash trucks 1973 USAF starts converting all USAF crash trucks US00000625 UL Listed Foams (Per UL 162-"Foam Equipment & Liquid Concentrates") AFFF - Aqueous Film Forming Foam FFFP - Film Forming Fluoroprotein FP --Fluoroprotein PF ~ Protein Foam AFFF FFFP FP PF Manufacturers 24 5 12 5 Concentrates 110 16 26 6 US00000626 Mil Spec Qualified Product List (QPL) Ansul Ansulite 3 (AFC-5 A) * Ansulite 6 (AFC-5) * Type 3 Type 6 3M FC-203C FC-203CE * FC-203CF * Type 3 FC-206C FC-206CE FC-206CF * Type 6 Chemeuard C-301MS * Type 3 National Foam Aer-O-Water 3-EM * Aer-O-Water 6-EM * Type 3 Type 6 Aneus Tridol M Type 3 * A lso UL Listed "A pplication D ensity" (D efined as the G allons o f A gent Per U nit A rea o f P ool Fire Size) is the best measure o f effectiveness for a flam m able liquid p ool fire Application Rate = GPM /Sq Ft o f fire area Application Rate x Ext Time = Application Density GPM/Sq Ft x M inutes = Gals/Sq Ft E xam ple Fire Area = 1000 Sq Ft Appl Rate o f Agent = 200 GPM Ext Tim e = 0.5 minutes Appl Rate = 200 GPM /1000 Sq Ft = 0.2 GPM/Sq Ft Appl Density = Appl Rate x Time = 0.2 GPM/SqFt x 0.5 minutes = 0.1 Gals/SqFt US00000628 AFFF Performance Requirements Mil Spec (M il-F-24385t: Max Appl Density 2 gpm/28 sq ft x 30/60 minutes = .036 gal/sq ft 2 gpm/50 sq ft x 50/60 minutes = .033 gal/sq ft Underwriters Laboratory: 2 gpm/50 sq ft x 3 minutes = .12 gal/sq ft (Maximum extinguishment time is 5 minutes for fluoroprotein and protein foam) US00000629 Rapid Extinguishm ent o f Pool Fires is Critical When: Pool fire threatens high value assets (such as an aircraft hangar) Pool fire under an occupied aircraft (must maintain fuselage integrity and rescue occupants) Pool fire exposes weapons to potential "cook o f f ' R elative Performance o f Foam A gents on Pool Fires (Best) (W orse) AFFF (M il-Spec) AFFF (UL listed, non M il-Spec) AFFF (non UL, non M il-Spec) FFFP FP PF Wetting Agents UL Listed W etting A gents (Based on NFPA 18) " A liquid concentrate for addition to water to produce a solution having a greater fire extinguishing efficiency than plain water" Manufacturers: 11 Agents: 13 US00000632 If U se N on-Film Formers: Extinguishment time w ill be slower, unless application rate is increased Higher application rate causes Greater system cost Greater quantity o f agent emitted Must consider possible need for "air aspiration" Replace nozzles Less reach than "non air aspirated" US00000633 AFFF Environmental Issue - 1994 Glycol Ethers (Butyl Carbitol), solvent in most AFFFs, placed on EPA list o f hazardous air pollutants. Since no reporting threshold had been established, a default quantity o f one pound per day was established for required reporting under CERCLA. Because Diethylene Glycol Butyl Ether (DGBE) typically comprises about 20 % o f AFFF, spills o fjust a few gallons o f AFFF had to be reported to the National Response Center and to State and local officials. One pound per day reporting requirement dropped in 1996. Some manufacturers substituted Propylene Glycol for Ethylene Glycol and declared their foam to be "environmentally friendly". US00000634 DOD Uses o f AFFF Shipboard Foam Systems CFR Vehicles at Airfields Aircraft Hangar Foam Systems M isc Shore Facilities Hush Houses Jet Engine Test Facilities Hardened Aircraft Shelters Aircraft Fueling Stations Fuel Farms Foam Sytems on Structural Pumpers DOD AFFF Discharges Fires Training Evolutions System Tests and Maintenance Accidental/M alicious Discharges Research and Development There is a N eed to Quantify and Characterize: All DOD AFFF applications (What precisely do we use it for ?) Precise quantities in service and in reserve stocks (How much do we have ?) Annual emmisions (type and quantity) (How much do we discharge ?) US00000637 APPENDIX (4) Presentation: `NAVSEA Comments on the AFFF Mil Spec" R. Williams, Naval Sea Systems Command US00000638 NAVSEA Comments On the AFFF Military Specification M-F-24385F (Amendment 1 of 8/94) (Talking Points) Presentation to DOD AFFF Environmental Meeting 2 August 2 0 0 0 Robert B . Williams Fire Protection & Damage Control Division Naval Sea Systems Command (Technical Custodian of the AFFF Mil-Spec) US00000639 1 . i w o u l d l i k e t o e x p r e s s appreciation t o N A V F A C a n d NAVAIR f o r s p o n s o r s h i p o f t h i s C o n f e r e n c e . A l s o , I a p p r e c i a t e t h e o p p o r t u n i t y t o e s t a b l i s h t h e NAVSEA p e rsp e c tiv e up f r o n t. 2. T h i s c o n f e r e n c e is i m p o r t a n t a n d t i m e l y : R e c e n tly th e re has been a p r o lif e r a tio n of Navy g ro u p s a c t i v e i n AFFF; u s u a l l y w ith no fo c u s , some s c a t t e r e d and u n c o o r d i n a t e d EPA c o n t a c t s . R e c e n tly th e r e h as been a g g re s s iv e com m ercial m a rk e tin g of s o - c a l l e d " e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y f r i e n d l y f o a m s " ,- y e t t h e r e i s n o established d e f i n i t i o n o f " e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y f r i e n d l y f o a m " . AFFF i s s u b je c t o f c o n s id e r a b le p l a n t s , d a n g e r t o aquatic l i f e , f i r s t born, e t c . hype : e f f e c t on sew age exposure r e s u lts in m utant AFFF s p i l l s a r e m edia f r i e n d l y - v e r y v i s i b l e , m akes f o r g o o d " f i l m s a t 11", p h o t o s p r o v i d e p e r m a n e n t r e c o r d , h e l p s s t i r up env iro n m en tal a c tiv is ts R e a l i s s u e s f r o m my p e r s p e c t i v e : 3M w i t h d r a w a l a n d f a l l o u t r e l a t i v e t o o t h e r QPL A F F F s R e s tr ic tio n s by AHJs; te c h n ic a l b a s is o r not U nknow n f o r t h c o m i n g EPA a c t i v i t y A ll a re on agenda to be a d d ressed 3 . The p ro d u c t I p e r s o n a lly d e s ir e o f t h i s c o n fe re n c e i s s p e c if ic a lly id e n tif y what th e problem s a re re g a rd in g MILSPEC A F F F , a n d p r o b l e m s t h a t a r e i n h e r e n t t o a n y f o a m a lte rn a tiv e (v is ib le , w astew ater tre a tm e n t p l a n t s ) . to A ppears money i s & w ill be d ir e c te d a t AFFF. M y c o n c e r n is t h a t f u n d i n g n e e d s t o b e a t t a c h e d t o a f o c u s on s p e c if ic s th a t a re docum ented as r e q u ir in g r e s o lu tio n . US00000640 Navy labs and contractors see a golden egg out there on this topic; I personally don't want to see them going off into the sunset with a generic task to find an environmentally friendly firefighting agent. (whatever friendly means) . _ The specific problems to be resolved require documentation before charging onto a search for solutions; doesn't always happen in correct order. The agenda appears to support what I hope is the conference objective. 4. A few quick comments about the MILSPEC and shipboard applications: NAVSEA is custodian; only NAVSEA can revise. Self appointed cannot. However, an alternate extinguishing agent specification under someone else's cognizance could be created. For example, it might be feasible to develop a separate specification just for shore facility use (fresh water only, one percent, universal foam, no refractive index requirement, etc). NAVSEA goal regarding the spec: Satisfy environmental requirements without degradation of firefighting effectiveness. If maintaining performance requirements is not possible, then where do we draw the trade-off line in the sand? (fish vs. sailors; national defense vs. environment) MILSPEC contents - shipboard oriented, even though it is essentially the national standard ashore and afloat: AFFF is for two dimensional shallow spill fires, rapid control and extinguishment are essential. No "foam-of-themonth" has matched the performance of mil-spec AFFF. Environmental provisions in spec; fish kill, BOD/COD limits, chemical restrictions. Compatibility: seawater effectiveness, intermixing of products from different manufacturers on QPL. It is an integrated match with our capital investment in hardware: viscosity, corrosion, pipe & tank materials, effect on seals/gaskets, a refractive index, container size & strength. US00000641 5. O u r primary environmental i n v o l v e m e n t h a s b e e n with t h e U n i f o r m National D i s c h a r g e S t a n d a r d s (U N D S) p r o g r a m w h i c h i s r e l a t i v e t o o v e r b o a r d d i s c h a r g e o f liquids; b a s i c a l l y a C lean W ater Act a c tio n item . O u r i m p u t t o E P A , w h i c h h a s b e e n a c c e p t e d t h u s f a r , is d is c h a rg e m anagem ent: New c o n s t r u c t i o n / a l t e r a t i o n s - n o r e p e a t testing, at sea P re v e n ta tiv e M aintenance - r e lia b le h a rd w a re , reduced te stin g p e rio d icity F e w e r ships G eographic r e s t r i c t i o n s : no d is c h a rg e s w ith in 3 m iles o f coast, m u s t b e m a k i n g a t l e a s t 1 0 k n o t s f o r d i s c h a r g e s within 3 - 1 2 m i l e s , p r e f e r e n c e f o r o n l y d i s c h a r g i n g w h e n g r e a te r th an 12 m iles out 6. In c l o s i n g , I p a s s a lo n g t h a t a s c u s t o d i a n o f th e MILSPEC, I h a v e no d i r e c t i o n , p r e s s u r e , o r f o r m a l o r in fo rm al ta sk in g to conduct an en v ironm ental review of M IL S P E C A F F F a s i d e f r o m t h e U N S . A t NFPA a v i a t i o n c o m m i t t e e m e e t i n g s I h a v e q u e r i e d major a i r p o r t f i r e c h i e f s , a l l o f whom s t a t e d no d i r e c t i o n t o p u r s u e an a l t e r n a t i v e t o M ILSPEC A F F F . H o w e v e r , we a t NAVSEA know w hether p o l i t i c a l l y , te c h n ic a lly , o r re g u la to ry d riv en , e n v i r o n m e n t a l r e s t r i c t i o n s o n A F F F may b e c o m i n g . We f u l l y s u p p o r t t h i s c o n f e r e n c e , i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of p r o b l e m s & p o te n tia l problem s, and i n i t i a t i o n o f rem ed ial research /actio n s. US00000642 APPENDIX (5) Presentation: "Hangar Facility AFFF Management Breakout Session Introduction" J. Gott, ' Naval Facilities Engineering Command US00000643 Hangar Facility AFFF Management Breakout Session Introduction (Talking Points) Presentation to AFFF Environmental M eeting 2 August 2000 Joseph Gott D irector, N a v y F a cilities Safety and H ealth O ffice Naval Facilities Engineering Command US00000644 AFFF DOP Meeting Talking Points N eed a consistent D O D position on A F F F m anagem ent I f we are n ot proactive, A FFF w ill b e c o m e our next halon 1301 A FFF is o n ly product on market right n ow that m eets our needs Tim e for the design engineers, and environmental engineers to com e together The services have already done this with the U nified D esign G uidance Group A s past chair o f D O D FPE com m ittee, w e wrote the first tri-service design criteria Fixed containm ent system s are a ffectin g our m ission b ecau se th ey have already caused the om ission o f AFFF from som e hangars resulting in the air w ings inability to perform their m ission This is the beginning o f a working group to address this important issue N eed to g et all the right players N eed to address AFFF m anagem ent from a risk assessm en t approach N eed to dism iss all the m yths and fears and address the facts N eed to give the local regulators som ething to reference as adequate protection N eed to determ ine i f additional research is needed to produce a different AFFF D iscuss changes to N FPA 409 - mandatory drains, reduced AFFF, various protection options N A V F A C has long history in fixed A FFF system s, their behavior, problem s, and design characteristics US00000645 APPENDIX (6) Presentation: "AFFF Environmental Impact Breakout Session Introduction" J. Hoover, Naval Air Warfare Center China Lake CA US00000646 AFFF Environmental Impact Breakout Session Introduction (Talking Points) P r e se n ta tio n to D O D AFFF E n v ir o n m e n ta l M e e tin g 2 A ugust 2000 D r. Jim H o o v er H ead, C om bustion R esearch Branch N A W C W D C hina Lake US00000647 T he p u rp o se o f the AFFF E n viron m en tal Impact B reakout S essio n w ill b e to share technical inform ation w ith in the D o D on AFFF use and en viron m en tal im pact. T his inform ation w ill b e u sed to assist the c o m p letio n o f tw o en v iro n m en ta l p la n n in g d o cu m en ts u se d by th e N a v a l A ir S ystem s C om m an d (N A V A IR ) - an E nvironm ental Safety and H ealth N e e d s A ssessm en t Sum m ary (N A S) and a D ev elo p m en t Plan. T he N A S w ill provide a "snap-shot" of technical issu es surrounding AFFF u se and environ m en tal im pact, and the D ev elo p m en t Plan w ill recom m en d a strategy for future efforts w ith in N A V A IR . B a c k g r o u n d : T h e im p o r t a n c e o f AFFF in p r o t e c t in g N a v y p e r s o n n e l a n d assets m ust n o t be understated. L ikew ise, public safety and com m ercial a sse ts are h ig h ly d e p e n d e n t o n AFFF for fire p ro tectio n . Its fire fig h tin g perform ance rem ains un m atch ed and m uch rem ains u n k n o w n abou t its hum an health and environm ental effects. O ther services and agencies h ave data and experiences w ith AFFF that cou ld assist the N a v y in future d ecision m aking, so a forum for technical inform ation exch a n g e is n eed ed . In p la n n in g for the future, all asp ects of technical k n o w led g e ab ou t AFFF (and all o f its form ulated com p on en ts) sh ould be considered. T hese sh ould in clu d e costs, perform ance/function, hum an health and environm ental effects, availability, inventory, alternatives, etc. Break-out S ession Form at: The follow in g q u estion s w ill be asked of the participants to prom ote discu ssion and inform ation exchange. P articipants w ill be in vited to provide other questions. 1. W hat current and future environm ental regulations im pact AFFF use and w h y (data and politics)? 2. W h a t d a ta d o w e h a v e (or la ck ) o n t h e e n v ir o n m e n t a l im p a c t o f A F F F? 3. W h a t technology or products e x is t th a t c o u ld h e lp r e d u c e AFFF r e le a s e s into o u r e n v ir o n m e n t or m itig a te th e im p a ct o f th o s e relea ses? 4 . W h a t t e c h n o lo g y o r p r o d u c t s c o u ld b e a p p lie d to r e c y c le or r e u s e AFFF? 5. W h a t a lte r n a tiv e s to AFFF cu rren tly e x ist a n d h o w d o th ey c o m p a re in effectiv en ess, cost, en viron m en tal im pact, availab ility, etc? 6. W h at related p lan n in g d ocu m en ts exist w ith other services or agencies? 7. W hat fo llo w -o n strategies sh ou ld be considered? US00000649 APPENDIX (7) "Issues With 3M 's Withdrawal From the Market" C. Hanau ska Hughes Associates, Inc. Baltimore MD US00000650 Issues with 3M 's W ithd raw al from the Market AFFF DoD Meeting i HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC. ILU FIRE SCIENCE & ENGINEERING August 2, 2000 US00000651 Purpose of this Mary Dominiak of EPA will provide more detailed information tomorrow Provide some background for her presentation Frame the issue relative to the subjects of this meeting This presentation is only an executive summary US00000652 PC's are a component of AFFF - O ne o f several com ponents in AFFF - F C 's are difficult and exp en sive to m ake - Form ulators have m inim ized (and attempted to elim inate) the FC content for 30 years - N ecessary for perform ance (especially for CFR) rapid fire knockdow n relatively low application rates US00000653 W hat is an FC? C8F 17-functional group Length of carbon chain varies Fluoronated carbon chain is very stable Functional group gives different properties H US00000654 FC's for AFFF Do Not Fully Biodegrade 3M's FC's => PFOS (Perfluorooctyl Sulfonate) Other FC's => ? Functional group may biodegrade, but something is always left Ultimate fate unknown "Persistent" H US00000655  Found PFOS - in blood banks around the U S - in fish and birds Discovered toxicity issues - reproductive sub-chronic studies "Bioaccumulative" and "Toxic" US00000656 3M Voluntarily Phasing Out PFOS Related Chemicals Scotchguard, Scotchban, industrial uses, AFFF About 2 years for complete halt of production Decision made at highest level of 3M - w ere in discussion w ith E PA at the tim e An unexpected and extreme action H US00000657 If Only 3M PFOS FC 's are a Problem Other non-PFOS FC based AFFF's are on the QPL Possibly a short term supply issue Should not be a major fire concern US00000658 Do Non-PFOS FC's Have a Problem? EPA has asked manufacturers to examine and test What constitutes a "problem" uncertain - "B ioaccum ulative" "T oxic" EPA will do risk/benefit and risk/risk analysis - U nderstanding o f im portance o f A FFF to fire protection H US00000659 Conclusions m No FC specific regulations exist No apparent short term (1 year) problems Mid-term (2-3 years) problems related to supply only JL JL * / - as 3M withdraws from market J Potentially no long term problems (3+ years) Unless other F C 's have significant problems H US00000660 APPENDIX (8) Presentation: "AJFFF Environmental Impact Review" W. Ruppert Hughes Associates, Inc. Baltimore MD US00000661 Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REVIEW Bill Ruppert HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC. FIRE SCIENCE & ENGINEERING 9 US00000662 Background: AFFF Constituents M ILSPEC based on Perform ance, not Constituents M ust be on Q ualified Products List - QPL M ain Ingredients in Firefighting Strength Foam: - W ATER = 98%-99% - Butyl Carbitol (G lycol Ether) = 0 .5 % -l.l% - Fluorosurfactants & Hydrocarbon Surfactants = 0.03% -0.45% - Ethylene G lycol (N ot in all formulations) = 0.34% -0.60% - Urea (N ot in all formulations) = 0.2-0.4% US00000663 Background: AFFF `Environmental' Properties M IL -F-24385F Requirem ents - Chemical Oxygen Demand 3% Concentrate - 1,000,000 mg/L Max 6% Concentrate - 500,000 mg/L Max Calculated Firefighting Strength ~ 30,000 mg/L Max - Biochemical Oxygen Demand (20 Day) =(0.65 X COD) or greater Aquatic Toxicity (LC50, Killiefish) 3% Concentrate - 500 mg/L Min 6% Concentrate - 1000 mg/L Min Calculated Firefighting Strength ~ 16,667 mg/L Min Persistence and Bioaccum ulation - Only Fluorosurfactants - N ot in other constituents - example: Butyl Carbitol log BCF = 0.46 Foams US00000664 Background: AFFF Properties MILSPEC vs. Typical QPL Product Property M IL-F-24385F Requirements Typical QPL Product 3% 6% FF 3% 6% FF Chemical Oxygen Demand (m g/L) 1,000,000 500,000 30,000 750,000 341,000 Max Max Max 22,500 Biochemical Oxygen Demand (m g/L) BOD20 > 0.65 x COD 720,000 274,000 (0.96*COD) (0.80*COD) 21,600 Aquatic Toxicity (Killiefish) (m g/L) 500 M in 1000 16,667 >1000 M in >1000 >16,777 o r >33,333 H US00000665 Codes and Standards Survey Approach Electronic R eview Federal Environmental Regulations - "AFFF" - MILSPEC AFFF Constituents (19) Surfactants Fluorosurfactants Glycol Ethers Urea, etc. - AFFF "Environmental" Properties Biochemical And Chemical Oxygen Demands Aquatic Toxicity Foaming D O D, State And Local Regulations - "AFFF' - MILSPEC AFFF Constituents US00000666 Codes and Standards Survey Federal Environmental Regulations Clean Air Act (CAA) - Air Emissions - Air Discharge Permits Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) - Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) - Chemical Storage and Use Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, & Liability Act (CERCLA) - Superfund Amendments and Re-authorization Act (SARA) - Spills and Clean-up Of Spills Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) - Hazardous Waste Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) - Regulates Contaminants in Treated Drinking Water Clean Water Act (CWA) - Water Discharges - Water Discharge Permits US00000667 Federal Environmental Regulations Results Clean Air A ct (CAA) - Glycol Ethers In AFFF Are Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAPs) - HAP Releases Are Regulated by the Installation Air Permit Major Sources for HAPs Might Have Potential Permit Issue EPCR and TRI - Glycol Ethers are Covered Because CAA Defines them as HAPs - Chemicals Released Above a Reportable Quantity (RQ) Must Be Reported Default RQ was One (1) Pound EPA Established a No RQ - AFFF Discharges Do Not Currently Need to Be Reported Under EPCRA and TRI - Ethylene Glycol Specifically Listed - No Other Constituent is Currently Regulated by EPCRA and TRI H US00000668 Federal Environmental Regulations CERCLA and SA R A Results - Glycol Ethers are Covered Because CAA Defines them as HAPs - Glycol Ethers May Need to Be "Cleaned Up" After a Spill Air Pollutants So Expected to be Volatile - Are not volatile when mixed with water Biodegradable So Might Be "Cleaned Up" Naturally Resource Conservation And Recovery Act (RCRA) - AFFF and Its Constituents are Not Classified as Hazardous Waste - RCRA Does Not Apply Safe Drinking Water Act: - Primary Drinking Water Regulations (Health Properties) Does not regulate AFFF or its constituents - Secondary Drinking Water Regulations (Aesthetic Properties): Foaming Agents <0.5 mg/L in drinking water Do not regulate foaming agents in source water Guideline for State Regulations Only (Not Federally Enforceable) US00000669 Federal Environmental Regulations Results (Continued) Clean Water Act (CW A) - Installations Require Discharge Permits StormWater Treated Sewage from Installation Wastewater Treatment Plant Raw Sewage to Public Wastewater Treatment Plant (Locale Specific) - R egulates W astew ater that: Foam Remove Oxygen From Water Disrupt Wastewater Treatment Plants, etc. - AFFF Persistent Foam Removes High Amounts of Oxygen From Water (High BOD and/or COD) Untreated, Undiluted AFFF Will Disrupt Wastewater Treatment Plant (Even Diluted AFFF Can Disrupt Wastewater Treatment Plant) SDWA H US00000670 Codes and Standards Survey State/Local Environmental Regulations State Regulations Can be More Strict Than Federal - No Specific Instances Found for AFFF - Storm Sewer Regulations Emphasized Nothing Additional in County and City Regulations Representative Jurisdictions - Telephone Surveys - Focused on Jurisdictions In: Virginia Hawaii Florida California Local Anecdotal AFFF `Problems' - Sewage Treatment Plants Becoming `Bubble Baths' - Pump Stations `Bumed-up' - Storm Sewer Overflowing With Foam US00000671 State/Local Environmental Regulations (Continued) Foam ing the Greatest Concern Perception: - Foam Is H ighly T oxic to Everything - N o Concentration is Okay for a W W TP R esults - L ocal Jurisdictions CAN and DO R egulate A FFF by N am e - Have Water Discharge Permit Authority - Local W aste Water Treatment Plants Often Ban AFFF Based on Direct Experience with a Disruption High Oxygen Demand Foaming H US00000672 Environmental Consequences Media Considered - Air - Groundwater - Soil - Surface W ater * V ia storm water V ia wastewater treatment plant Both Constituent Characteristics and AFFF Solution Properties H US00000673 Environmental Consequences Media: Air HAPS: Butyl Carbitol, Ethylene Glycol Low Migration Potential (All Constituents) - H ighly Soluble in W ater Tends to stay with liquid water Not very volatile - If V olatilized, H alf-lives in A ir 4 Hr - 3.5 D ays H US00000674 Environmental Consequences Media: Groundwater C onsequence Varies D epending on Subsurface Conditions Fluorosurfactants: N ot M obile A ll Other Constituents: - Highly Soluble, Highly M obile - Degrades Rapidly in Soil 30% Degradation Over 24 Hour Period D rin k in g W ater W e lls `U n d er the In flu e n c e o f S u rfa ce W ater' Could R eceive Undegraded A FFF Constituents H US00000675 Environmental Consequences Media: Soil Consequence varies depending on soil type Fluorosurfactants and break-down products - Persistent in soil - N o quantified environm ental im pact - E PA w ill discuss further tom orrow Other constituents highly mobile in water, will not adsorb to soil US00000676 Environmental Consequences Media: Surface Water Via Storm Water Foaming: - Aesthetic Concern Oxygen Demand - Robs Oxygen from Water - Usually near water's surface Aquatic Toxicity - Considered `Practically Nontoxic' by the US Fish and Wildlife Service. - Lowest toxicity value in 40 CFR 300 LC50 > 1000 mg/L in concentrate -1 6 0 mg/L in most sensitive species Much Lower Toxicity in Firefighting Strength - Anecdotal Reports of Higher Toxicity Surface Water May influence Groundwater `Environmental' Threat - Depends on Sensitivity of Receiving Water: Worst Cases Kaneohe Bay, HI Risk Analysis "Potential for significant ecological damage ... relatively small" Wetlands - W aterfowl-Fluorosurfactant Interaction being studied in St. Johns River Basin in Florida. US00000677 Environmental Consequences Media: Surface Water Via Direct Discharge to WWTP Disrupts plant through: - Foaming Disrupts mechanical devices Causes `sludge bulking' Causes Froth - High Oxygen Demand Removes all oxygen - killing microorganisms used to treat sewage Causes `sludgebulking'. - Aquatic Toxicity Of lower concern than Foaming and Oxygen Demand May cause `sloughing' of organisms from certain processes Disrupted plant: - Contaminates receiving water - Could cause fish kill - Makes water unfit for: Drinking Recreation, etc. US00000678 Representative Dilution Factors for Treatment of MAX MILSPEC AFFF at a W W TP 600 Foam Solution (Firefighting Strength) 60 J--------------- 1------ --S' BOD20 I60 \ COD Foaming 60 60 : l____ Foaming w/anti-foaming agent Aquatic ToxicityKiliiefish 200 m100 Microbe Toxicity (EC50) Oyster Larvae Toxicity US00000679 Dilution Factors (1:X) Representative Dilution Factors for COD of Foam Solution (Firefighting Strength) 60 60 J 50 40 30 20 10 0 MILSPEC MAX (6%) MILSPEC MAX (3%) QPL (MILSPEC) AFFF (3%) Fluoro-Protein Foam (3%) B Non-MILSPEC AFFF (3%) Baby Shampoo (3%) Protein Foam (3%) US00000680 Summary Under Context o f Current Law s/R egulations, A FFF and all other Foam s R egulated B ased On: - Properties BOD, COD, Foaming and Aquatic Toxicity - "Listed" Chemical Constituents Butyl Carbitol, Surfactants, Ethylene Glycol, Urea, etc. - Water Issues are M ost Prevalent - Foaming is Major Issue for W W TP Potential Environm ental Im pacts G enerally L ow - Impacts Consequence of Foaming 0 2 Demand Aquatic Toxicity - Upset o f W W TP Creates Greatest Impact US00000681 APPENDIX (9) Presentation: AFFF Management - Risk Based Approach" D. Verdonik Hughes Associates, Ine. Baltimore MD US00000682 HUGH ES ASSOCIATES, INC. FIRE SCIENCE & ENGINEERING US00000683  From Environmental R eview - AFFF / Foams have Similar Environmental Impacts Based on the Properties o f Foams in General Worst Impact for WWTP - Hazard Exists - Cannot Alter What Would Happen IF Released Can Reduce the If or Likelihood o f Release - Example - Double Hulled Oil Tankers Hazard Exists from Potential Oil Spill Double Hull Reduces Probability o f Having the Oil Spill Double Hull Does Not Reduce Environmental Impact IF Have Oil Spill Reducing Probability Reduces the Risk to the Environment N eed to Evaluate Probability o f Foam Release Probability + Severity = Risk  Military Standard 882C: System Safety Program Requirements - Define Terms Risk - Combination o f hazard severity AND hazard probability Hazard Probability: A ggregate probability o f the individual events Hazard Severity: Consequences o f worst credible mishap Control: Action to Eliminate Hazard or Reduce Risk - Applicable to A ll DO D System s and Facilities - Identify the Hazards and Impose D esign Requirements and M anagement Controls to Prevent M ishaps - Tailor to Application AFFF/Foam Discharge from Facility Fixed Fire Suppression System Accidental Discharge Pre-planned testing Have Hazard Severity,. Need Hazard Probability - Determine Risk - Risk Decision US00000685  Potential occurrences per unit o f tim e, events, population, item s, or activity - Quantitative probability for potential design generally not possible - Qualitative probability * Derived from research, analysis, and evaluation o f historical data G iven for Specific Individual Item or F leet / Inventory A ssign Probability o f H aving Environm ental C on sequ en ce H4 US00000686 FREQUENT (A) Likely to occur frequently PROBABLE (B) Will occur several times in the life o f an item OCCASIONAL (C) Likely to occur some time in the life o f an item REMOTE (D) Unlikely but possible to occur in the life o f an item IMPROBABLE (E) So unlikely, it can be assumed occurrence may not be experienced H US00000687 MIL-STD-882C 4.5.1 Hazard Severity Hazard Severity Category Definition - Provide Q ualitative M easure o f W orst Credible M ishap - R esult of: Personnel Error Environmental Conditions D esign Inadequacies Procedural Deficiencies System , Subsystem or Com ponent Failure or M alfunction H US00000688 Qualitative Hazard Severity Categories CATASTROPHIC (1) Death, System Loss, or Severe Environmental Dam age CRITICAL M A R G IN A L (2) Severe Injury, Severe Occupational Illness, Major System or Environmental Dam age (3) M inor Injury, Minor Occupational Illness, M inor System or Environmental Dam age NEGLIGIBLE (4) Less Than M inor Injury, Occupational Illness, Less Than Minor System or Environmental Dam age 7 US00000689 1 CATEGORY CATASTROPHIC FREQUENCY 2 CRITICAL 3 MARGINAL I4 I NEGLIGIBLE j II Risk Index - Suggested A cceptance Criteria in M IL-STD -882C Unacceptable: Undesirable: Acceptable w / R eview by M anaging Activity: 1A, IB. 1C, 2A, 2B, 3A ID, 2C. 2D, 3B, 3C Acceptable w/out Review: 8 US00000690 n D esign for m inim um risk - R eview design criteria for inadequate or overly restrictive requirements - D esign to eliminate hazards - If hazard cannot be eliminated Reduce risk to an acceptable level through design selection Interlocks, redundancy, fail safe design, system protection, fire suppression, and protective clothing, equipment, devices, and procedures R ecom m end n ew design criteria supported by study, analyses, or test data 9Kl US00000691 Modify System US00000692 3 Parts to Probability Estimation Probability of foam release Reliability of system controlling foam i movement / Likelihood of environmental consequence 11 US00000693 FIRE PROBABILITY OF FO AM RELEASE NO FIRE NO FOAM SYSTEM ACTIVATION ; : FOAM SYSTEM T ~ * ACTIVATION i i RELIABILITY OF FOAM CONTROL MEASURES l! LIKELIHO O D OF EN VIR O N M EN TAL CONSEQUENCE SYSTEM SUCCESSFUL 1 * , - * SYSTEM FAILURE CONSEQUENCE NO CONSEQUENCE CONSEQUENCE NO CONSEQUENCE H12 US00000694 AIR Sensitive Body of Soil W astew ater W ater Ground Water Treatm ent Plant 1. Sanitary sew er, W W T P EC 2. Seqreqated Storm Sewer EC 3. Pluqqed, Storm Sewer ED 4. Pavem ent, Plugged Storm E D E E E E C E D E S e w e r/d ra in s 5. Pavem ent, Plugged Combined E D E D S e w e r/d ra in s 6. P avem en t, C om bined S ew er E C E C WWTP 7. Pavem ent, Storm Sew er 8. Unlined Pond, Percolates 9. Lined Pond, Pum p O ff-Site 10 Lined Pond, evaporate 11. Lined Pond, M eter W W T P 12. Lined Pond, Meter Storm Sew er 13. Lined Pond, Degrade W W T P 14. Lined Pond, Degrade Storm E E E E E E E E C E E E D C D D E E E E E E E E E E E E D D D D Sewer 15. Tank, Pump Off-Site 16. Tank, Meter W W TP 17. Tank M eter Storm Sew er 18. Tank, Degrade W W TP 19. Tank, Degrade Storm Sewer E E E E E E D C D D E E E E E E D D D D 'r E US00000695 Negligible/Marginal Sensitive Body of Water Marginal Soil Ground Water fAir becomes marginal if foam in WWTP H14 US00000696 1. Sanitary sewer, W W T P 2. Segregated Storm S ew er 3. Plugged, Storm Sewer 4. Pavement, Plugged Storm S e w e r/d ra in s 5. Pavement, Plugged Combined 6. Pavement, Combined Sew er W W TP 7. Pavement, Storm Sewer 8. Unlined Pond, Percolates 9. Lined Pond, Pump Off-Site Sensitive Body of W ater 3C 3C ';4- : Soil ......... ; W astew ater Treatment Plant 2C i: bH w 2D...^ ,- . . mm " 2D llld iM ^ =' 30 W ^ i k S S P 3C ^V:TS*l ;^ :Q v- :-4; :" "':' ""' '.'`v**- ; ' "'; f e i v -t - L''&i ^ - ;-- * : : y&yzitfgi*/-:*:.? & 2C '`^}y 11. Lined Pond. M e te rW W T P 12. Lined Pond, M eter Storm Sew er 13. Lined Pond, Degrade W W T P 15. Tank. Pumo Off-Site 17. Tank M eter Storm Sewer 18. Tank, Degrade WWTP 19. Tank, Degrade Storm Sewer 2D 30 2D 2D 2D ^ S g S ^ g la r S ! .-v T . 2D 3C 2D 2D % ralfefe 2D 15 H US00000697 Control and Management of AFFF Solutions - B ased on R isk o f Environm ental C onsequence Risk D ecision Probability A N D Severity - N o "U nacceptable" R isks from A ccidental D ischarge - "U ndesirable" R isks A void able through D esig n - R em aining O ptions A ll have Equivocal Residual R isk Basis for Design Criteria - Ensure Risk is "Acceptable w / R eview by M anaging A ctivity" Category - M inim izes R isk to the Environm ent - D oes N ot Increase R isk to L ife-S afety/ Fire L oss US00000698 APPENDIX (10) Presentation: "Phasing Out a Problem: Perfluorooctyl Sulfonate" M. Dominiak Environmental Protection Agency US00000699 oozooooosn US00000701 industrial surfactants, acid mist suppressio p c 5 m E W f, US00000702 US00000704 US00000705 US00000706 zozooooosn SOAlJEAIiSp SOdd POJBS li siscfed ui padd^JMpooj uioij itrejaii :3pnpui SDpipqis BMJDpUtl DJBsoiprqs ISlia1fe*6t DJtlOJ DJtlSOdXD DSIDDjd DUI AVOlDf i m o m 1 US00000708 US00000709 3M submitted phase-out plan to EPA on 6/16/2000, amended on 7/7/200< 3M continues aggressive research program US00000710 US00000711 US00000712 US00000713 Initial actions and phaseout apply to PFO S chem icals onlv US00000714 US00000715 US00000716 APPENDIX (11) Presentation: "Facilities Background and AFFF Issues" J. Simone Naval Facilities Engineering Command US00000717 Facilities Background And AFFF Issues Presentation to Hangar Facilities B reakout S essio n D O D AFFF Environmental M eeting 2 August 2000 Joe Simone Naval Facilities Engineering Command US00000718 FACILITIES BACKROUND Facilities that use A FFF - Aircraft Hangars, HAZ/FLAM Buildings, Fire Fighters Test Facilities, Hush Houses, and others Variety of Fire Protection Criteria in the Last 10 Years Variety of Containment Requirements * No Risk Analysis with respect to Environmental Budget Proposals Guess or Don't Address Funding NAVAIR/NAVFAC HANGAR PROJECTS V Evaluated Detector & Sprinkler Response Tim e in Hangars Evaluated Removing A FFF from Overhead Sprinkler Systems - Evaluated Using Lower A FFF Appfication Rate Evaluated New Low Level A FFF Distribution System s Evaluated Variety of Optical Flame Detectors Developed New Fire Protection Criteria 2 DESIGN PREVIOUS DESIGNS Deluge AFFF Sprinklers High Volume AFFF System (20,000 sq .ft => 5,000 gpm AFFF) AFFF is used in the Ceiling and Low Level Systems Full Discharge Testing May or May not have Drainage System CURRENT DESIGNS Closed Head, W ater only Sprinklers Low Volume AFFF System (20,000 sq.ft => 2,000 gpm AFFF & 3,000 gpm water) AFFF is used in the Low Level System only Test Ports for Discharge Testing Drainage Detection Technology Can Include Abort Switches 3 AFFF MANAGEMENT ISSUES Environmental Hazard is N ot Quantified - Toxicity?, Air?, W ater? No Uniform Criteria for A FFF Managem ent (site specific) Current Containment Requirements are Based on Worst Case Cost of Containment Exceeds Project Funding Exceeding Project Funding Results in Removal of Fire Protection Systems from Hangars - impaired Mission CONTAINMENT ISSUES If Containment is Required: * Manual Intervention or Fixed Containment? * How Do You Size Containment (10 minutes of AFFF supply)? ' * Disposal - Is it necessary? . 5 3 US00000721 APPENDIX (12) Presentation: "AFFF Risk Assessment" A. Wakelin Hughes Associates, Ine. Baltimore MD US00000722 For discharges of AFFF from fixed fire protection systems in shore facilities Alison W akelin HUGHES ASSOCIATES, INC. FIRE SCIENCE & ENGINEERING August 2, 2000  Develop physical control options - Perform ance Criteria Probability Estimation Consequence Estimation .1 Risk Assessment US00000724 Modify System US00000725  Foam to the WWTP? Other options for maintaining positive control of foam Hangar Floor Drainage AFFF Discharge No Hangar Floor Drainage Sanitary Drains, Oil Water Separator, etc To WWTP US00000727 Hangar Floor D ra in a g e AFFF Discharge No Hangar Floor D ra in a g e Apron/Pavement US00000728 Diverted from WWTP to? US00000729 Apron/Pavem ent with drainage Evaporate Dilute Into WWTP or Storm System Degrade into WWTP or j Storm System Pump & treat off-8 ite Environm ent US00000730 19 different control options Sufficient number to show range of risks . Three options will be presented - data from all available on request 1. Sanitary sewer with direct access to WWTP 2. Plugged, totally segregated storm sewer 3. Pond, Percolate (drains into soil) US00000732  Detailed investigation of control options What are performance goals of control options? - H ow m uch o f a discharge needs to be controlled? Accidental discharge shut-off in 3 mins? Accidental discharge of all foam? Proposed Foam Control J Conservative approach all foam has drained to beyond diversion point No emergency shut-off 6 min drainage time Single "module" hangar 100 ft by 200 ft ITotal flow - 16 m in @ 2000 gpm = 32,000 gal US00000734 Hangar Bay Floor Drainage Trenches 200 ft by 100 ft US00000735 3 Parts to Probability Estimation Probability of foam release system controlling foam movement Likelihood of environmental consequence US00000736 * FIRE * NO FIRE P R O B A B IL IT Y OF FOAM RELEASE -i------- i* NO FOAM SYSTEM ACTIVATION s * FOAM SYSTEM f ACTIVATION RELIABILITY OF FOAM CONTROL MEASURES : LIKELIHOOD OF ENVIRONMENTAL ; CONSEQUENCE SYSTEM SUCCESSFUL SYSTEM FAILURE * CONSEQUENCE NO * CONSEQUENCE CONSEQUENCE NO CONSEQUENCE US00000737 A FREQUENT Likely to occur frequently B PROBABLE Will occur several times in the life of an item C OCCASIONAL Likely to occur some time in the life of an item D REMOTE E IMPROBABLE Unlikely but possible to occur in the life of an item So unlikely, it can be assumed occurrence may not be experienced US00000738 Foam System Activation FIRE PROBABILITY OF FOAM RELEASE RELIABILITY OF FOAM CONTROL MEASURES LIKELIHOOD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCE NO FIR FOAM SYSTEM ACTIVATION ! - < - . l " - -Jp* Ij II SYSTEM SUCCESSFUL 1 j" : j 1.... -)-* SYSTEM FAILURE * CONSEQUENCE NO CONSEQUENCE CONSEQUENCE NO * CONSEQUENCE US00000739 Foam System Activation Accidental activation of a low level foam system Likely to occur some time in the life of an item => Occasional C  FIRE NO FIRE ... f PROBABILITY OF FOAM RELEASE RELIABILITY OF FOAM CONTROL MEASURES NO FOAM SYSTEM ACTIVATION ,/\ Normal \ \ < Operating Condition,-' FOAM SYSTEM ACTIVATION SYSTEM SUCCESSFUL + SYSTEM FAILURE LIKELIHOOD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCE CONSEQUENCE NO CONSEQUENCE CONSEQUENCE MO CONSEQUENCE US00000741  An engineered design of each control measure is evaluated for: - R eliability Likelihood of Control System Failure is Established * Failure based on com plexity o f system US00000742 1. Sanitary sewer with direct access to W W T P 2. Plugged, totally segregated storm sewer 3. Pond, Percolate (drains into soil) Probable E Occasional US00000743 * FIRE > NO FIRE PROBABILITY OF FOAM RELEASE RELIABILITY OF FOAM CONTROL MEASURES ! LIKELIHOOD OF I ENVIRONMENTAL I CONSEQUENCE NO FOAM SYSTEM ACTIVATION / 'X Normal Operaling \Condition, y FOAM SYSTEM ACTIVATION SYSTEM SUCCESSFUL SYSTEM FAILURE -ij- * CONSEQUENCE I NO r CONSEQUENCE ! ! I* CONSEQUENCE NO CONSEQUENCE US00000744 Successful Foam Control (Risk By Media) AIR Sensitive Body Soil of Water Ground Water 1. Sanitary sewer, W W T P 2. Plugged, Storm S ew er R em ote R em ote Frequent Im prob able Im p ro b ab le Im p ro b ab le 3. Unlined Pond, Percolates R em ote R em ote R em ote Unsuccessful Foam Control (Risk By Media) AIR Sensitive Body Soil of Water Ground Water 1. Sanitary sewer, W W T P 2. Plugged, Storm S ew er 3. Unlined Pond, Percolates R em ote R em ote R em ote Frequent Occasional Occasional R em ote R em ote Occasional W astew ater Treatment Plant Frequent Im p ro b ab le Im p ro b ab le Wastewater Treatment Plant Frequent Occasional Occasional US00000745 -IRE NO FIRE PROBABILITY OF FOAM RELEASE RELIABILITY OF FOAM CONTROL MEASURES s NO FOAM SYSTEM ACTIVATION \ \ Normal \ <' Operating _> \Condition / \/ . FOAM SYSTEM : ACTIVATION SYSTEM SUCCESSFUL L..-- SYSTEM FAILURE : i LIKELIHOOD OF I ENVIRONMENTAL I CONSEQUENCE ! i CONSEQUENCE NO CONSEQUENCE CONSEQUENCE I NO i CONSEQUENCE i US00000746 Option 2: Plugged storm sewer Sensitive body of water FIRE PROBABILITY OF FOAM RELEASE RELIABILITY OF FOAM CONTROL MEASURES LIKELIHOOD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCE NO FIRE NO FOAM SYSTEM ACTIVATION FOAM SYSTEM ACTIVATION OCCASIONAL V Normal Operating ^Condition, SYSTEM SUCCESSFUL IMPROBABLE CONSEQUENCE NO CONSEQUENCE -* SYSTEM FAILURE PROBABLE 'N / O C C A S I O N A L ") y CONSEQUENCE NO CONSEQUENCE H US00000747 Frequency Estimation Suggested Range A FREQUENT X > 10"1 B PROBABLE IO'1> X > 10'2 C OCCASIONAL 10~2> X > 10~3 D REMOTE IO'3> X > 10'6 E IMPROBABLE 10'6> X Probability Estimation Envi ronmental Consequence 1. Sanitary sew er, W W T P 2. Plugged, Storm Sewer 3. Unlined Pond, Percolates AIR Sensitive Body of Soil W astew ater W ater Ground Water Treatm ent Plant EC E C E '- D - E D EE E E US00000749 Negligible/Marginal Sensitive Body of Water Soil Ground Wate WWTP 'Air becomes marginai if foam in W W TP H US00000750 UNACCEPTABLE: UNDESIRABLE: ACCEPTABLE WITH REVIEW: ACCEPTABLE WITHOUT REVIEW: 1D, 20, 2D, 3B, 30 H US00000751 1. S anitary sew er, W W T P 2. P lu g g e d , Storm Sew er 3. Unlined Pond, Percolates AIR Sensitive Body of Soil W ater Ground Water 3C f 'ifi ki sI W astew ater Treatment Plant 2C 2D US00000752 Foam System Activation FIRE PROBABILITY OF FOAM \! RELEASE t RELIABILITY OF FOAM CONTROL MEASURES LIKELIHOOD OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSEQUENCE NO FIRE -- NO FOAM SYSTEM ACTIVATION FOAM SYSTEM ACTIVATION * CONSEQUENCE NO * CONSEQUENCE * CONSEQUENCE NO CONSEQUENCE US00000753 Foam System Testing Should foam control systems be used for testing? Foam system activation becomes probable Reliability improved as testing supervised US00000754 | 1. Sanitary sewer, W W T P 2. Plugged, Storm Sewer 3. Unlined Pond, Percolates I 1. Sanitary sew er, W W T P 2. Plugged, Storm S ew er 3. Unlined Pond, Percolates For Foam Testing AIR Sensitive Body of Soil Water Ground Water .. . 4D 3B 4D For Accidental Release AIR Sensitive Body of Soil Water Ground Water 30 E- 3 _ sm ______ , W astew ater Treatment Plant 2B 2D W astew ater Treatment Plant 20 2D I US00000755 1. Sanitary sewer, W W T P 2. Seqreqated Storm Sewer 3. Plugged, Storm Sewer 4. Pavement, Plugged Storm Sewer/drains 5. Pavement, Plugged Combined Sewer/drains 6. Pavement, Combined Sewer WWTP 7. Pavement, Storm Sewer 8. Unlined Pond, Percolates 9. Lined Pond, Pum p O ff-Site 10 Lined Pond, evaporate 111. Lined Pond. M eter W W T P ( 12. Lined Pond, M eter Storm Sewer 13. Lined Pond, Degrade W W T P 14. Lined Pond, Degrade Storm Sewer 15. Tank, Pump Off-Site 16. Tank, M eter W W T P 17, Tank Meter Storm Sewer I 18. Tank. Degrade W W T P 19. Tank, Degrade Storm Sew er AIR IS M lIOE p fc Sensitive Body of Water 3C 3C 1 SU' KnW ! 3C 4E 1 4E 1 4E 1 4E 1 3C 4E 1 3C 4E J B .pfessaa I 4E 1 3C Soil Ground Water Wastewater Treatment Plant 2C 2D 2D 2C 2D 2D 2D 2D 2D 2D 2D 2D US00000756  Single module, 16 minutes of foam discharge Costs options we have identified are in the $0-20QK range More stringent control criteria can lead to much greater costs However risk of an environmental consequence is not reduced H US00000757 APPENDIX (13) Presentation: "Summary o f Shore Facility AFFF Management Breakout Session" D. Verdonik Hughes Associates, Inc. Baltimore MD US00000758 Summary of Shore Facility AFFF Management Break-Out Session Dan Verdonik 3 August 2000 US00000759 Facility AFFF Management Working Group D e c is io n to `fo r m a liz e ' a W o rk in g G roup - D evelop Facility Policy for AFFF M anagement Changed name from "Hangar" to "Facility" to reflect broader scope Target for Completion: Approximately 6 months - Develop a draft DoDI Staff Through Environmental Side o f Services Present to OSD - Next Meeting Scheduled for October 12 A ccepted-in-Principle the R isk B ased Approach - U se as the Basis for the Policy - N eed to R eview Details and Back-up Information - Report w ill be Provided Prior to N ext M eeting US00000760 Facility AFFF Management Working Group - Membership Service Navy Navy Navy Navy Navy Navy Army Army Army Army USAF USAF USMC USMC Office HQ NAVFAC HQ NAVFAC NAVFAC CNO N457C NAVAIR HQ NAVFAC (Contractor Representative) USAGE USAGE ACSIM F&H USACE/ACE AFCESA HQ USAF ILEV HQUSMC DCS/I&LFL HQUSMC DCS/I&LFF Name Joe Gott Joe Simone Vincent Donnally Ms. Kathy Ellis Larry W olf Kim DePaul Dawn Roderique Bob DiAngelo K.C. Kochhar Bruce Park Billy Ray Scott Fred Walker Jayant Shah Michael Doherty Kevin King A dditional M em bers To B e Identified Prior to N ex t M eeting US00000761 APPENDIX (14) Presentation: Summary o f AFFF Environmental Breakout Session" J. Hoover Naval Air Warfare Center China Lake CA R. Darwin Hughes Associates, Inc. Baltimore MD US00000762 Sum mary Of A F F F Environmental Impact Breakout Session Naval Research Laboratory 3 August 2000 Dr. Jim Hoover Head, Combustion Research Branch NAWCWD China Lake Robert Darwin Senior Engineer Hughes Associates, Inc. US00000763 Purpose o f Breakout Session Share Information on AFFF History, performance, chemical composition Environmental and human health impacts Regulations - current and future Replacement activity and status Future management strategy US00000764 (1) What current and future environmental regulations impact AFFF and why (data and policies)? Current: Different regulations affect different components o f AFFF Presentation by Bill Ruppert yesterday provided good summary Except for UNDS, there are no definitive restrictions at present and no identified directives for change Future: Depends on future EPA assessment o f AFFF as data is reviewed US00000765 (2) What data do we have (or lack) on the environmental impact o f AFFF? Lacking: Component toxicity/BOD/Persistence (Fate)/B io-accumulation A ccurate and appropriate dilution factors when AFFF discharged in open bodies o f water Predictive capability/data regarding releases for estimating potential environmental damage. Must consider where the release occurs (shore hangars, runways, unpaved ground, ship bilges, at sea, etc) US00000766 (3) What technology or products exist that could help reduce AFFF releases into our environment or mitigate the impact o f those releases? Depends on the type and location o f the release Reducing releases: Reduction in system tests, efficiency improvements Spill response/advance planning/preparedness Mitigation: ASH (Air-sparged hydrocyclone) RO (Reverse osmosis) Biological/microbial systems Education and Planning: DOD guidance/standards on prevention, clean-up and disposal, training, intentional discharges US00000767 (4) What technology or products could be applied to recycle or reuse AFFF? Not considered to be feasible or cost effective (reformulation, losses, contamination) US00000768 (5) What alternatives to AFFF currently exist and how do they compare in effectiveness, cost, environmental impact, availability, etc ? None meet performance specification (mil spec) Development o f an AFFF alternative was proposed as project under ONR Future Naval Capability Platform Protection Program Potential SERDP statement o f need Some UK effort on environmentally friendly foam US00000769 (6) What related planning documents exist with other services or agencies? UK is reportedly working on a standard definition o f "biodegradability" EPA presentation mentioned international dialog on AFFF PFOS issue USAF needs included in draft NAYAIR ESH-Needs Assessment US00000770 (7) What follow-on strategies should be considered ? Need accurate quantitative definition o f the problem DOD inventory status How much AFFF in DOD/where used/in-service and reserve stocks/concentrate types DOD AFFF discharges How much released/consumed annually (training, system testing and maintenance, accidental discharges, research, fires) Review current DOD regs and policy Need a definition o f "environmentally friendly" (need "green" definition--what are acceptable thresholds from an environmental standpoint) Biodegradability Persistence BOD/COD B io-accum ulation Toxicity US00000771 Follow-On Strategies (con't) Need for future research SBIR Goals for Universities ONR Need to develop small scale screening tests Develop "SNAP-equivalent" guidance Need for "worst case" transition plan (short/mid/long term) Information distribution to all levels (users, requirers, trainers, regulators, etc) Develop AFFF detection capability (learn method used by 3M) Define hazard protocols and appropriateness o f AFFF (use and response) US00000772 Follow-On strategies (con't) Assess commercial state-of-the-art CBD announcement "Turkey shoot" o f all available AFFF alternatives Quantify performance, chemical and physical properties Obtain EPA endorsement o f screening tests Consider future mods to AFFF mil spec Prioritze requirements Consider trade-offs Establish formal AFFF working group Info sharing Formal charter DOD primary advocate? Future meetings/host/agenda topics Sum mary Of AFFF Environmental Impact Breakout Session Naval Research Laboratory 3 August 2000 Dr. Jim Hoover Head, Combustion Research Branch NAWCWD China Lake Robert Darwin Senior Engineer Hughes Associates, Inc. US00000774 Purpose o f Breakout Session Share Information on AFFF History, performance, chemical composition Environmental and human health impacts Regulations - current and future Replacement activity and status Future management strategy US00000775 (1) What current and future environmental regulations impact AFFF and why (data and policies)? Current: Different regulations affect different components o f AFFF Presentation by Bill Ruppert yesterday provided good summary Except for UNDS, there are no definitive restrictions at present and no identified directives for change Future: Depends on future EPA assessment o f AFFF as data is reviewed US00000776 (2) What data do we have (or lack) on the environmental impact o f AFFF? Lacking: Component toxicity/BOD/Persistence (Fate)/Bio-accumulation Accurate and appropriate dilution factors when AFFF discharged in open bodies o f water Predictive capability/data regarding releases for estimating potential environmental damage. Must consider where the release occurs (shore hangars, runways, unpaved ground, ship bilges, at sea, etc) US00000777 (3) What technology or products exist that could help reduce AFFF releases into our environment or mitigate the impact o f those releases? Depends on the type and location o f the release Reducing releases: Reduction in system tests, efficiency improvements Spill response/advance planning/preparedness Mitigation: ASH (Air-sparged hydrocyclone) RO (Reverse osmosis) Biological/microbial systems Education and Planning: DOD guidance/standards on prevention, clean-up and disposal, training, intentional discharges US00000778 (4) What technology or products could be applied to recycle or reuse AFFF? Not considered to be feasible or cost effective (reformulation, losses, contamination) US00000779 (5) What alternatives to AFFF currently exist and how do they compare in effectiveness, cost, environmental impact, availability, etc ? None meet performance specification (mil spec) Development o f an AFFF alternative was proposed as project under ONR Future Naval Capability Platform Protection Program Potential SERDP statement o f need Some UK effort on environmentally friendly foam US00000780 (6) What related planning documents exist with other services or agencies? UK is reportedly working on a standard definition o f "biodegradability" EPA presentation mentioned international dialog on AFFF PFOS issue USAF needs included in draft NAVAIR ESH-Needs Assessment US00000781 (7) What follow-on strategies should be considered ? Need accurate quantitative definition o f the problem DOD inventory status How much AFFF in DOD/where used/in-service and reserve stocks/concentrate types DOD AFFF discharges How much released/consumed annually (training, system testing and maintenance, accidental discharges, research, fires) Review current DOD regs and policy Need a definition o f "environmentally friendly" (need "green" definition--what are acceptable thresholds from an environmental standpoint) Biodegradability Persistence BOD/COD Bio-accumulation Toxicity US00000782 Follow-On Strategies (con't) Need for future research SBIR Goals for Universities ONR Need to develop small scale screening tests Develop "SNAP-equivalent" guidance Need for "worst case" transition plan (short/mid/long term) Information distribution to all levels (users, requirers, trainers, regulators, etc) Develop AFFF detection capability (learn method used by 3M) Define hazard protocols and appropriateness o f AFFF (use and response) US00000783 Follow-On strategies (con't) Assess commercial state-of-the-art CBD announcement "Turkey shoot" o f all available AFFF alternatives Quantify performance, chemical and physical properties Obtain EPA endorsement o f screening tests Consider future mods to AFFF mil spec Prioritze requirements Consider trade-offs Establish formal AFFF working group Info sharing Formal charter DOD primary advocate? Future meetings/host/agenda topics US00000784