Document v6xeD2XoyBRm04rv5LKpbYMyb

/)/U 3 - o?7Z CN=Mary Dominiak/OU=DC/0=USEPA/C=US@EPA on 12/20/2000 11:17:53 AM To: fsp1@mindspring.com cc: NCIC OPPT/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Subject: Re: AR-226: Alternatives to PFOS in AFFF Dear Mr. Thames: I'm afraid that I am unable to provide you with contacts to whom you could speak about marketing your AFFF alternative product. We at EPA are not directly involved with conversions from AFFF. Since your previous correspondence, we have published a proposed Significant New Use Rule on PFOS, the constituent chemical in AFFF about which we have concerns. You can review that proposed rule at the following link: http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-TOX/2000/6ctober/Day-18/t26751 .him Although comments on the proposed rule were originally due on November 17, 2000, we extended the comment period to January 1,2001, in response to several requests from concerned parties. If you would like to file comments on the proposed rule, please follow the instructions in the Federal Register notice. All documents which relate to the proposed rule, including correspondence with interested parties and comments submitted on the proposal, can be obtained through the TSCA Non-Confidential Information Center (NCIC) by calling 202-260-7099 between noon and 4:00 PM Eastern time, or by sending email to oppt.ncic@epa.gov. You may wish to request from the TSCA NCIC copies of the indexes to file AR-226 and to docket OPPTS-50639 to determine whether you would like to obtain copies of any of the information which is available on file. Thank you for your continuing interest in this matter. Sincerely, Mary F. Dominiak U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Chemical Control Division (7405) 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Telephone: 202-260-7768 Facsimile: 202-260-1096 Email: dominiak.mary@epa.gov Please respond to fsp1@mindspring.com I rccc-ss~s>>i> CT .-.1 ro 0- a m30 -a oP \ -a o rn --A-- o ro cr> To: Mary Dominiak/DC/USEPA/US@EPA cc: Subject: Re: AR-226: Alternatives to PFOS in AFFF [IMAGE] Hello Ms. Dominiak, I wanted to follow up with you concerning my product FireAde 200 (which I submitted all the information on the product to the address that you provided me with) I would like to find out what is going on to make a change from using 3M's AFFF to a safe alternative. Is Tyco involved with this in anykind of way, and if yes who would be a contact for me to introduce our fire fighting technology to! We are starting to generate a lot of sells from this, where people are change all of their fire fighting agents over to our FireAde 2000! You need to be educated on FireAde 2000 where you will know what you have at your fingertips without having to search everywhere and still come up with a product that is not as good as what I have. Please e-mail me back with any information on who I could talk to concerning my product. And the reason for this we are not a 3M size company but at the same time we have a better fire fighting technology then what these companies have spent multi-millions of dollars trying to develop without developing anything that's far superior than what's already on the market. This is why we are wanting to team up with someone like Tyco, or even introduce our product to 3M where they can add our product to their line of new products to be introduced to the market. Thanks for you time, and I look forward to hearing from you soon. Ronnie Thames Fire Service Plus, Inc. Office: 770-632-0190 Fax: 770-632-0690 P.S. I know at least a 100 fire fighters that are going to their Dr. for a blood test. It's amazing how many people may have been effected over the years by using these toxic, and hazardous products and what really gets me is know one ever listens to what you have to say until they are forced to listen! I-- Original Message----From: Dominiak.Mary@epamail.epa.gov To: fsp1@mindspring.com Cc: oppt.ncic@epamail.epa.gov; Lannon.Karen@epamail.epa.gov Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2000 9:04 AM Subject: AR-226: Alternatives to PFOS in AFFF JL Dear Mr. Thames: My apologies for the delay in responding to you; I came back from a workshop in Berlin, Germany to discover that I had another conference to attend here in the US. EPA is indeed taking a look at the hazard potential of various fluorochemicals, including PFOS in 3M's AFFF products. As part of that review, we are very interested in learning about and assessing available alternatives to fluorochemical-based products, particularly in such critical performance areas as fire fighting. If you would like to submit data on your products, you can direct it to the public Administrative Record we have created for PFOS information at the following address. Please indicate on the first page -- or in the subject line, if you choose to submit information electronically - that your submission is intended for Administrative Record file number AR-226. I have routed this email, including your initial message to me, to be part of this public file. By mail: Document Control Office (7407) Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Electronically: oppt.ncic@epa.gov. E-mailed comments must be submitted as an ASCII file, avoiding the use of special characters or any form of encryption. Do not submit any information electronically that your consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI). If you consider any of the information you wish to submit to be CBI, please contact me first to learn the proper procedures for submitting it so that your business concerns would be protected. Thank you for your interest, and I look forward to learning more about your products and systems. Sincerely, Mary F. Dominiak Chemical Control Division (7405) 3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Telephone: 202-260-7768 Facsimile: 202-260-1096 Email: dominiak.mary@epa.gov fsp1@mindspring.com on 09/15/2000 03:17:56 PM Please respond to fsp1@mindspring.com To: Mary Dominiak/DC/USEPA/US cc: Subject: Hello Ms. Dominiak! Hello Ms. Dominiak, My name is Ronnie Thames with Fire Service Plus, Inc. Our company has been in the fire fighting industry for over 25 years now with the same thing year after year, with no change! I am referring to 3M Foam!! For years and years we have been preaching to the industry about how bad foam is for not only the Environment but for Fire Fighters and Workers handling the material! BEFORE I GO ANY FURTHER I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT JUST ANOTHER E-MAIL MESSAGE FROM SOME COMPANY THAT'S TRYING TO INTRODUCE THEIR AGENT TO YOU, WE HAVE BEEN AROUND A LOT LONGER THEN THESE SO CALLED NEW AND IMPROVED FIRE FIGHTING AGENTS THAT HAVE STARTED TO POP UP EVERYTIME YOU TURN AROUND! We have heard through the industry and from several of our customers that you where behind the study going on or was involved with a meeting in Washington, DC not to long ago concerning Foam! Correct me if I am wrong on this, but this is what we have been told. And that's why I am contacting you. H We have a fire fighting agent that has been proven thousands of times through usage to not only be more effective in over all performance than foam but to be ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE, Non-Toxic, Non-Hazardous, Non-Carcinogenic to users of our Agent FireAde 2000! We spent hundreds of thousands of dollars at Clemson University conducting test after test with our product to have third party certification to prove that our product is what we say it is. These test where done on our old product that we had and now the old product has not only been improved in fire fighting performance but it's been improved even for the environment! Just to name a few examples of what type of effect our product has on the environment and fire fighting! 1. In 1994 in Fayetteville, GA a tanker truck at a Fina Gas Station unloading gasoline. The truck had 9,000 gallons of gasoline onboard at the time. A man ran across four lanes of traffic and hit the valves of the tanker truck with his car. After the truck exploded in flames a total of 5,000 gallons of gasoline ran into the sewer system that ran in all kinds of directions. Fuel on vapor meters where detected 5 miles down the road! To make a long story short when our company arrived explosions started to take place. The EPA/EPD of Georgia had already est. that there was 5,000 gallons of gasoline that had gotten into the sewer system that had ran into creek beds, rock beds, and lakes! Being that our product not only extinguishes the fires it will completely render fuel non-flammable, the Fire Dept.along with the EPD of Georgia decided to add our product into the sewer system to see if it would help to reduce the vapors! Not only did our product reduce the vapors in the sewer system after three weeks of the EPD walking the lines of the sewer and the creeks, and lakes. They did not have to move the 1st grain of dirt from the areas where the gasoline had been spilled and not the 1st fish kill, nor no residue of fuel between rocks, in the soil, ontop of the water nothing! Test samples where taken back to their 5 labs and test clearly showed that our Agent successfully locked up the fuel with no residue. Not only did we save millions of dollars in the clean up part of it, we where able to reserve the environment in the area of 4 miles where the fuel had been spilled, and we saved LIVES! 2. Tire fires have been the most difficult fires in the world today to extinguish! Due to the fact that you have both a Class A fire and B fire all in one, then on top of that you have oil that's been released into the environment. Well no longer with our agent! We have fought hundreds of these fires over the years with nothing but outstanding results utilizing our agent! One tire fire that I had hands on experience with was a tire fire in 12-30-96 in Atlanta, GA. A company by the name of Waste Recovery, Inc. had a small fire the day before, they attempted to extinguish the fire with dry chemical which will not extinguish rubber! The next day to their surprise that piece of rubber that they thought had been extinguished had set in the tire chip pile building back up heat through the night. The next morning there where approx. 200,000 chipped tires on fire! Atlanta was covered in a very dark cloud of very toxic black smoke! Atlanta Fire Dept, was aware of our product and still tried to extinguish the fire with water and foam with no success. Matter of a fact the only thing that they where successful in doing is using hundreds of thousands of gallons of water and thousands of gallons of foam with no success. They also did not dike the area and run off from the fire was going straight into the sewer system that went into our local river the Chattahoochee! By 7:50 A.M. Tom Shillock of the EPD of Georgia arrived on the tire fire. In his report (which I still have to this day) he stated that "By 8:25 A.M. the fire had expanded to a three alarm out of control inferno. Atlanta Fire Dept, was unable to control fire with the use of water cannons. At 9:15 A.M. representatives from Fire Service Plus, Inc. (Our Company) arrived. Agent was issued to the Atlanta Fire Dept, and flames of the fire were contained by 10:00 A.M. By noon equipment was (p able to get close enough to smoldering tires to remove burning surface tire material and inject Agent beneath the surface of the fire. Fire completely out by 11:00 P.M. Cleanup continued through the night." We where 1st told before we started fighting this fire that it would burn for several days or even weeks before they could bury it with dirt. Which that would have done nothing except cause more problems! I also want to mention to you that the EPD told us that the product had done such a good job of breaking up the run off from the fire that there would be very little cleanup in the river and along the banks of the Chattahoochee! I have so much to talk to you about, I know that this is such a long e-mail but I am ready for someone to listen to what we have and what we can do to better fire fighting and the environment! I am determined to get someone to listen now to what we have to say! I our Agent is so far advanced over what's currently available on the market but yet, the people who write all of the specs, have never listened to what we have to say, because we are not Tyco or 3M. Well it's time! Thank you for your time, and I can be reached at the following phone numbers: Ronnie Thames Office: 770-632-0190 E-Mail: fsp1@mindspring.com Cell: 770-294-4958 Applications that our Agent Offers: Class "A' and "B" Fires Flammable Liquid Spill Control Heat Reduction Vapor Reduction Smoke Reduction (This one benefit alone is worth more than anything else) I will explain to you how the product cleans toxins out of smoke! Better Penetration Less Run Off! (Even though the product is Env. Safe the material being extinguished is not, therefore its better when you can extinguish something with less run off!) 7 [IMAGE] (Embedded image moved to file: pic22848.pcx) (See attached file: C.gif) pic22848.pcx