Document gD75kNLyYevZRKDDy4jVpkObL

GAO RevieFwolloofwD-uOpDQDureinsktiinognsWoanteArFCFoFnPtarmodinuacntsts (100947) In our prior conversations with Navy officials, we have been told that DOD's AFFF MILSPEC pcasreahpeqlaprlssuleloiafrcnoerosnrmneAteshlFniwasFtttshFotehsfnppefrleuuorceosdielrfueoidecvcdtafsaonhrtrbtoeiolrtascennoinigsnnauutteafratfniegnadrec.ePtaTidFsnhCpatesuss.rmppfoBlaoulaltssoesewroe.iadts"hl eo(sfnrrhocaomolulmhrpapraevogveueinen5dwosoaofadftshtvheereerdsqAeouFcierFuefmFfdeecMtontItoLc):nSon"PtChfEoeorCnmh,ceeitatonlttthrhaeotefs 1. Is the term "fluorocarbon surfactants" in the MILSPEC interpreted as synonymous with PFCs? If not, how is the term interpreted, and where in the MILSPEC does it require AFFF to contain PFCs? PFCs" are "Pt?irfIinorimated In 11th nil ! Ih 'H i I I I ' I I v weltnsflitj oin FFCs and PI:ASi "Perfluorin;ite ( 1<iii'iim / i n i ' III U ill M I >'inn' >eienti iitS use to refer tc the group fciIirFla>'eiili'itrIrhleb>felvsv'uieltrlhoaln"trrhti|iiliucnoaIenInanI'sit'ei(I"nII(CpdIUPehDricFEiarChAfiRIlesl)SAk3atSIlhirUri)iilshae,,initaaOmttIihsieorng,ewcdalIunitLcrdlerIIiyzheliIulais'1ndintgieiPuohtFnoUinnsOii.lunSAtsnh.e>i1aaERrCtanRFBthdCAioa.;.f1:v>n-,)eUF"afoO.mCSinr(dj5.iI0nEj(;dc3III0l'oI htnIhIVNi'iIeeoim'liuintrathoslilhbyierbfotorioc<rl/leOi0Cvly"iO"l(iao-s1lltpeesalouacnirrtsIdiabivest"epitPoaColynFlmolyCdaenflseenlturs"dsoo,ifrrrPioraelaFbnfeleAkdrvSrPlilnsFg)O" tAc F'FQS and the oth sir cII' Il 1Uh alls in this group r1e1vAisC ' ' of thfiebh i'`M)(>ei>ls<mp,i eiinrcbcfmiliintioi lebrotieemail Oilrlibi o(Iilri1il Isb(u';rfaiinindt"a'lipnlihOt"iljdds.ltisoidyrbnueroin"ifyfliOruiron rc'IoIoI ;m.wupiritofahue.ntaPdmR1tIs. In d lii h the upc< Ih inciliid i nil "N iiilli 2. To what extent has DOD/Navy considered revising the MILSPEC to remove the requirement for "fluorocarbon surfactants," provided the performance requirements of tfsRhrueeeremfaMfocoIvtLaainmSngPt (EttFhhC3ae)tcfclhouaauotslerdogbcoseatreiyrlnlb.boTaenbolmsedueatrottf?ea,mcttehaeentrtetrheheqauMsirinelsompteebcnetfeiwrneoauplepdrrfopodurumtctahtnewcifetoharoemuqtuianireftlhumeoerfnolutcsoa.rribnoen- MIL-F-24385F additionally mandates specific chemical and physical requirements to epnrospuorertitohneincgansdysidteamtesfoaanmd fpirreofdiguhcttisngaraepcpoliamnpcaetsib.leTwheithcuerxriesntitngF3mpilriotadruycftosahmave demonstrated problematic issues with regard to their concentrate viscosity, sea water compatibility, their ability to function with non-aspirating nozzles, and will have increased ahcyudtreoctaorxbicointystourafaqcutaantictsliifne cfoormmpsa,rpisaorntictuolaArFlyFfFis.h, due to their higher levels of mbIlieh.iliciii>io'lInnvsK.ildl|i'e1in1re'l,1di1i|.i )iInulI til>ll)M i nilli' 'iIi'' in/'i' l>>>n|kil''I*1tihll,'it iinnn''H' iIll' nil mu' >i>nl Hl>i''I lhlllliiil'l 'i|>)nmniibn''i>ninn'imnnin'mt ml m null US00006371 3. We understand that the Air Force uses high-expansion foam in some of its hangars. a. Is high-expansion foam subject to AFFF MILSPEC requirements, or is it subject to other requirements? No, high-expansion foam is not subject to the AFFF Milspec requirements. There is no other military specification that governs high-expansion foam. High expansion foam is tested and listed to Underwriters Laboratories Standard, UL139. Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) testing of multiple UL-139 listed high expansion foam concentrates in 2004 showed a wide range of extinguishing performance. Hi li>'iil'lh' ii'>i 'hlli,ii liii|li <,'p,in i>'ii I",urn i ' ii"i nil ' II' <in ' Ini' '/ 'inKini limit ,K|'in l"i ,illl Ini' Ii, r, iihI il i,i i ,ii' i hi"i' <i' >III /'llllll i'inn In ,)iMiii"ii IinIi ' ,'i>, in i"ii I", mi i'inn ii'iii' i iih ill'mi " i in ' i "I Inimi,ini' 'in mih Ini' InK| 'I, inKi' i to personnel safety. b. To what extent does high-expansion foam contain PFCs? To our knowledge, the Navy has not conducted any testing to determine if high expansion foam contains PFCs. Available literature on the topic claim that high expansion foam concentrate do not contain PFCs. It is unknown if this claim applies to all products that have been manufactured in the past. Navy officials have also told us there are currently no PFC-free AFFF products that meet the spoemrfoermmaanncuefarcetquureirresmtheanttsarleaidonouDtOinDt'hseAAFFFFFFQMPLIL,SaPnEdCit.aWppeehaarsvethraetviseowmeed othfethwoseebsites of manufacturers (e.g., Solberg, ICL Performance Products) claim to sell firefighting foam products that may not contain PFCs (e.g., "fluorosurfactant-free" and "fluorine-free"). 4. Has the Navy tested any available PFC-free firefighting foam products (or products that claim to be PFC-free) from these or other manufacturers to determine whether they can meet the performance requirements in the AFFF MILSPEC? a. If so, what were the results? NRL is well aware of the Solberg (formerly 3-M Australia) Re-HealingTM foam products, which are non-fluorinated foam with polysaccharide thickeners, which are designed to have mechanical properties to compensate for the lack of film formation. Under a previous Cooperative Agreement with 3-M Australia and with the current Non-Disclosure Agreement between NRL and Amerex Corporation, NRL has been conducting fire testing and laboratory studies to help further investigate the potential possibilities for developing a fluorine-free product that could meet the MILSPEC AFFF Solberg products are superior tfoireotpheerrfoFr3mfaonacmesreteqsuteirdemaet nNtsR.L,Atlhtheoyusgthill the fail to meet the MIL-F-24385F 28 ft2fire performance test at full strength. Since the products have not been successful at the 28 ft2fire performance test at full strength, NRL has not pursued more demanding test requirements that include the 28 ft21/2strength testing, 28 ft2testing (full and 1/2strength) with aged concentrate, 28 ft2testing (full and 1/2strength) with aged solutions, 28 ft2testing for cross-compatibility, 28 ft2quintuple strength test or the requisite 50 ft2fire performance test. In addition, the AFFF MILSPEC has several other key requirements that must be considered, including compatibility among vendors, dry chemical compatibility, burn back, and viscosity. Integration and compatibility with existing installed AFFF systems and equipment will also be a factor. US00006372 Although Solberg has been somewhat successful in the commercial market; the western foreign Navies, USCG military vessels, and the FAA still rely on MILSPEC AFFF and require its use for Class B (flammable liquid) fire applications where rapid extinguishing performance is mandated. If not, why has testing not occurred? N/A. See testing discussion in 4.a. 5. To what extent has the Navy funded (or plans to fund) any research into developing rPIneFleCFaY-sf1ree7de, AFFF products? tahesoSlitcraitatetigoinc Etonvidroenvemloepntaal Rflueoserianrec-hfreaendsuDrfeavcetalonptmfeonrmt uPlraotigornamfo(rSEusReDPin) Aqueous Film Forming Foam (AFFF) fire-suppression operations. Three projects were selected for funding including a proof of concept project led by Naval Air Warfare Center WTLhaebeasoperaoptnorsroyjDe(ci$vtis1s,iw8oMnill (bo$ev2e0inr0iftKoiautfeordryeooanvreesr)y,tehaaenr)dn, eabxytmfNeuwalttii-moyneoaanlrthFpsor.oajmect($le0d.53b2yMtheovNear vtahlreReeyseeaarrsc)h. aIlnsoadcdointitorinbutotetdhe($F2Y,11M7 ,NFRYL1S7-E2R0)DPScpierongcream&,TtheechNnRolLogCyor(eS&6T.2) Research Program has funding to further assist wacitchouthnetsdfeovretlhoepmdeensitreodf elonwvirfouneml peenrtamlleya-fbriielitnydlcyapsuarbfialictytatnhtastfoisr ifnirheefirgehnttinwgitfhoathmes,cuwrhreicnht AFFF formulations. 6. What implications, if any are known, would selecting a PFC-free firefighting foam product (or product that claims to be PFC-free) have on the current infrastructure and systems used to store and use AFFF? The current commercially available PFC-free F3 products have demonstrated problematic issues with regard to their concentrate viscosity, sea water compatibility, their ability to function with non-aspirating nozzles, and will have increased acute toxicity to aquatic life forms, particularly fish, due to their higher levels of hydrocarbon surfactants in comparison to AFFF. Viscosity is a characteristic that is critical in the ability for foam concentrates to work in current AFFF systems and equipment. Even disregarding the known difference in fire extinguishing effectiveness, no existing PFC- free firefighting foam product is known to be a viable drop-in replacement that would be compatible with existing MILSPEC AFFF proportioning systems. Navy research into developing PFC-free AFFF will include integration and compatibility with existing installed AFFF systems and eguipment. Any F3 product would need to be compatible with existing fluorinated Milspec AFFF products. US00006373