Chemguard Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF) concentrates, (click here) when
proportioned at the appropriate rate, form a vapor-suppressing seal for
rapid control of hydrocarbon (diesel, gasoline, kerosene, etc.) spill
fires. Chemguard AFFF concentrates require low energy input to produce a
high-quality foam blanket that floats on and quickly covers the fuel
surface. Our AFFF agents provide rapid control, excellent burnback
performance, and low application rates. Most Chemguard AFFF formulations
contain significantly less fluorine than other UL Listed products on
the market, without compromising fire-extinguishment properties. Because
of Chemguard’s successful synthesis of FCS from telomer-based
fluorocarbons, our AFFF foam concentrates contain no perfluorooctane
sulfonate (PFOS) or perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) ingredients.
AFFF MSDA (click here)
Chemguard 3% AFFF is biodegradable, (click here) low in toxicity and can be treated in sewage treatment plants. Please refer to Chemguard Technical Bulletin regarding foam products and the environment.
What are Perfluorochemicals? (click here)
Perfluorochemicals (PFCs) are a family of manmade chemicals that have been used for decades to make products that resist heat, oil, stains, grease and water. PFCs have unique chemical characteristics which make them especially useful for fire fighting foams. These characteristics help the foam flow across burning petroleum, allow water to form a layer on top of burning debris or liquid petroleum which cools the fire. PFCs also help the foam seal in chemical vapors to prevent fire....
...When PFC-containing AFFF has been repeatedly used in one location over a long period of time, the PFCs can move from the foam into soil and then into groundwater. The amount of PFCs that enter the groundwater depends on the type and amount of AFFF used, where it was used, the type of soil, and other factors. If private or public wells are located nearby, they could potentially be affected by PFCs from the place where AFFF was used....
...MDH is working with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to investigate this issue. In 2008, the MPCA conducted a survey of fire departments and other potential users around the state to identify locations where PFC-containing AFFF has been repeatedly used for training purposes. MDH and MPCA staff have reviewed this information and identified a number of locations where nearby water supply wells should be tested This effort will begin in late 2008, with results available in 2009....
Whether or not an application should be investigated for oil fires from rail cars is a possibility. The Obama EPA have had some excellent chemists within in it's ranks. If there is a potential to chemically alter the polymer to create one that smothers the oil fires while coagulating to prevent environmental contamination is probably a question to pursue. What was the chemical company?
DuPont. (click here)
The EPA has been approachable about applications of chemicals such as Coexit in times of emergency. The application of a form of AFFF could be explored to bring these fires under control. See the train cars probably weren't that badly damaged when the accident first happened, but, progressively got worse as the oil was boiling and continued to degrade the metal, etc.
I hate coexit. I am sure I'd hate any hybrid of AFFF, but, can it be benevolent in these instances?
At any rate, DuPont would be the company with the most information about this chemical, any modification of it and any supplies that might be on hand.
EPA
Is there a risk assessment on PFOA? (click here)
To ensure that the most rigorous science is used in the Agency's ongoing evaluation of PFOA, OPPT submitted in 2005 a draft risk assessment for formal peer review by the Agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB). That draft was preliminary and did not provide conclusions regarding potential levels of concern. The SAB reviewed the information that was available at the time, and suggested that the PFOA cancer data are consistent with the EPA guidelines descriptor "likely to be carcinogenic to humans." Since their review, additional research has been conducted pertaining to the carcinogenicity of PFOA. EPA is still in the process of evaluating this information, and has not made any definitive conclusions at this time. Read more on the PFOA Risk Assessment available here....
...Consumer products made with perfluorochemicals include some non-stick cookware and products such as breathable, all-weather clothing. They are also employed in hundreds of other uses in almost all industry segments, including the aerospace, automotive, building/construction, chemical processing, electrical and electronics, semiconductor, and textile industries. Telomers are used as surfactants and as surface treatment chemicals in many products, including fire fighting foams; personal care and cleaning products; and oil, stain, grease, and water repellent coatings on carpet, textiles, leather, and paper. Consumer products made with fluoropolymers and fluorinated telomers, such as Teflon and other trademark products, are not PFOA. PFOA is used as a processing aid in the manufacture of fluoropolymers and can be also be produced by the breakdown of some fluorinated telomers. The information that EPA has available does not indicate that the routine use of consumer products poses a concern. At present, there are no steps that EPA recommends that consumers take to reduce exposures to PFOA...
Chemguard 3% AFFF is biodegradable, (click here) low in toxicity and can be treated in sewage treatment plants. Please refer to Chemguard Technical Bulletin regarding foam products and the environment.
What are Perfluorochemicals? (click here)
Perfluorochemicals (PFCs) are a family of manmade chemicals that have been used for decades to make products that resist heat, oil, stains, grease and water. PFCs have unique chemical characteristics which make them especially useful for fire fighting foams. These characteristics help the foam flow across burning petroleum, allow water to form a layer on top of burning debris or liquid petroleum which cools the fire. PFCs also help the foam seal in chemical vapors to prevent fire....
...When PFC-containing AFFF has been repeatedly used in one location over a long period of time, the PFCs can move from the foam into soil and then into groundwater. The amount of PFCs that enter the groundwater depends on the type and amount of AFFF used, where it was used, the type of soil, and other factors. If private or public wells are located nearby, they could potentially be affected by PFCs from the place where AFFF was used....
...MDH is working with the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) to investigate this issue. In 2008, the MPCA conducted a survey of fire departments and other potential users around the state to identify locations where PFC-containing AFFF has been repeatedly used for training purposes. MDH and MPCA staff have reviewed this information and identified a number of locations where nearby water supply wells should be tested This effort will begin in late 2008, with results available in 2009....
Whether or not an application should be investigated for oil fires from rail cars is a possibility. The Obama EPA have had some excellent chemists within in it's ranks. If there is a potential to chemically alter the polymer to create one that smothers the oil fires while coagulating to prevent environmental contamination is probably a question to pursue. What was the chemical company?
DuPont. (click here)
The EPA has been approachable about applications of chemicals such as Coexit in times of emergency. The application of a form of AFFF could be explored to bring these fires under control. See the train cars probably weren't that badly damaged when the accident first happened, but, progressively got worse as the oil was boiling and continued to degrade the metal, etc.
I hate coexit. I am sure I'd hate any hybrid of AFFF, but, can it be benevolent in these instances?
At any rate, DuPont would be the company with the most information about this chemical, any modification of it and any supplies that might be on hand.
EPA
Is there a risk assessment on PFOA? (click here)
To ensure that the most rigorous science is used in the Agency's ongoing evaluation of PFOA, OPPT submitted in 2005 a draft risk assessment for formal peer review by the Agency's Science Advisory Board (SAB). That draft was preliminary and did not provide conclusions regarding potential levels of concern. The SAB reviewed the information that was available at the time, and suggested that the PFOA cancer data are consistent with the EPA guidelines descriptor "likely to be carcinogenic to humans." Since their review, additional research has been conducted pertaining to the carcinogenicity of PFOA. EPA is still in the process of evaluating this information, and has not made any definitive conclusions at this time. Read more on the PFOA Risk Assessment available here....
...Consumer products made with perfluorochemicals include some non-stick cookware and products such as breathable, all-weather clothing. They are also employed in hundreds of other uses in almost all industry segments, including the aerospace, automotive, building/construction, chemical processing, electrical and electronics, semiconductor, and textile industries. Telomers are used as surfactants and as surface treatment chemicals in many products, including fire fighting foams; personal care and cleaning products; and oil, stain, grease, and water repellent coatings on carpet, textiles, leather, and paper. Consumer products made with fluoropolymers and fluorinated telomers, such as Teflon and other trademark products, are not PFOA. PFOA is used as a processing aid in the manufacture of fluoropolymers and can be also be produced by the breakdown of some fluorinated telomers. The information that EPA has available does not indicate that the routine use of consumer products poses a concern. At present, there are no steps that EPA recommends that consumers take to reduce exposures to PFOA...
