THE DEVIL THEY KNEW — STATMENT JULY 22, 2019
The Devil They Knew: PFAS Contamination and the Need for Corporate Accountability
The Greatest Deception Ever.
July 22, 2019
House Committee on Oversight and Reform
Subcommittee on Environment
2247 Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
Dear Chairman Rouda,
Ranking Member Comer,
Members of the Committee,
Regarding: The Devil They Knew — PFAS Contamination and the Need for Corporate Accountability
Dear Distinguished Members,
This will be quite long. You’ve never heard from our community.
We welcome the opportunity to introduce this issue to you. Our sincere thank you for reading our testimony today.
My name is Diane Cotter, my husband is a 28 year veteran of the Worcester MA fire department. On September 19, 2014 my husband was promoted to Lieutenant, after 28 years on Rescue 1. It was not a decision he wanted to make, but one that would better our family. When he learned he passed the Lt exam he told me his heart sank. One month later, on November 15th my husband’s career was over. He was diagnosed with cancer. Cancer is rampant in the fire service. In the fire service, we have been groomed by leading manufacturers, DuPont, 3M, and others, that our cancers are the result of products of combustion, diesel exhausts, exposure to ‘soiled gear’.
While these exposures are a fact, they left out something.
That is the chemicals used to make our turnout gear contain staggering amounts of the PFAS chemicals. When I say staggering, I mean at a minimum, 10,000 to 100,000 times the new MRL for PFOA. DuPont is one of the makers of the fabrics and coatings used in the outer shell portion of turnout gear.
For years 3M, DuPont, and others have been immersed in every aspect of Firefighter cancer, from funding firefighter cancer research, guiding student thesis’s on ‘soiled gear’ to funding many fire labor and fire cancer symposiums. The take a way is always the same. Wash your gear. Mitigate risks, wear your SCBA during overhaul, purchase extractors for your gear and diesel exhaust systmes for your rigs. Clean Cab protocols, safe handling for gear after fire, are now common.
The only thing DuPont and 3M never mentioned was their dirty secret.
Their mega-million/billion dollar industrial chemical, the ‘forever chemical’, that was found in our AFFF (aqueous film-forming foam) and, on the coatings of our ‘turnout gear’. Now, to be clear, we are not talking about amounts used for coatings that get put on an umbrella or a raincoat. We are talking about amounts more in line with construction material. Tyvek roofs, think ‘superdome’.
DuPont, 3M, and others, deny ever using PFOA. They use slick language to stating ‘they never have used PFOA in the process of making PPE’.
They tell us if it is there, it will be in ‘trace amounts, as a by-product of production’.
Those words play on the ignorance of the fire service who does not yet understand that the PFAS chemicals used then degraded to form PFOA. And who now believe ‘trace amounts’ are not enough to harm us. The ‘short-chain PFAS chemicals used now are of concern as well, but we can’t find out what is used. That’s proprietary. Oh, we have tried. In 2016 when I began my dive into the greatest deception ever, I sent many emails to the makers of our gear, it was a circle dance of epic proportions. I then enlisted help from other firefighters who received the exact same responses I did. They literally told us we could not have the chemical composition of the fibers or the coatings as that was proprietary information. They thyough we would be happy with the knowledge taht our gear was made from Kevlar, Nomex, and PBI.
Turnout Gear literature in the fire service will show our manufacturers discussing their gear is the best possible prevention method for particle penetration, water resistance, cancer prevention. In the fire service, it’s all about cancer prevention. Firefighter cancer prevention is spoken about 24/7. Firefighter cancer statistics are shocking with 67% of firefighters receving a diagnosis. But, we can’t discuss the chemicals that our gear is made from. Any inquiries will receive the standard ‘proprietary’ information reply from these same corporations who fund, teach, preach, to firefighters about ‘products of combustion’. They refuse to discuss the PFAS chemicals used as coatings in our gear and minimize and villainize the advocacy work of my peers and myself.
In January 2018, my husband and I received results from our own independent study as performed by Professor of Physics, Graham Peaslee of Notre Dame University, that confirmed our suspicion that long chain PFCs were found in new, never-worn turnout gear. What we weren’t prepared for, was the amounts used. That these chemicals have been used for almost 20 years in the fire service, and they have been degrading in our stations for that long. To acquire these results I went to the extreme length of purchasing a set of ‘new, never-worn’ turnout gear. I followed the instructions of nuclear physicist Dr Graham Peaslee of Notre Dame, and send him multiple samples of fabric. This is where we learned the fabric contained so much PFAS it had to be counted in ‘volume’ as opposed to the usual ‘ppm or ppb or ppt’ method.
On June 25th,2018, at the first in the nation EPA Panel on PFAS Community Engagement, after the release of the much-contested PFAS Toxicological Profile, the group Testing for Pease and Toxics Action Center hosted a community event. I gave the following statement:
Thank you Testing for Pease and Toxics Action Center for the opportunity to share the plight of this nation’s fire service in this catastrophe. Thank you EPA and CDC for hearing us.
After placing the 2004 gear on the stage (it was placed in a see-through bag as I was concerned about the amounts of PFOA/PFNA):
Thank you Organizers and EPA Panel Members for allowing me this opportunity to speak.My name is Diane Cotter, I am here with my husband, Lt Paul Cotter, retired, 28 year veteran, Worcester Fire Department . And cancer survivor.
My community is the 1.3 million firefighters in this nation who have been completely overlooked in this PFAS catastrophe. America’s firefighters have been on the front line of PFAS exposure since 1983 using it in AFFF, being sprayed in our faces, wading in it, having turnout gear soaked in it, and exposing our families to it after bringing gear home.
We were not aware how toxic this substance was. This turnout gear I have is from 2004, it is new and never worn or ‘contaminated’ as the fire service would say. Jan of 2018 our grassroots effort acquired Professor of Physics Graham Peaselee, of Notre Dame Univ to test it for PFAS content. Just the ‘fraction of the potential’ that is in this gear tested at 157 ppb PFOA and 257 PFNA.
THAT IS 14, 000 times the newly set recommended limit of PFOA.
Turnout gear has been impregnated with PFOA since 1999 (at least) to meet NFPA water repellent STANDARDS. We were never made aware. We do not know how much. Only our gear manufacturers have that information. We sweat in this gear, our body temperature rises and our skin absorbs these toxins. We start our careers in our childbearing years. PFOA and PFOS are designated by California Prop65 as causing ‘reproductive cancers’.
In 2006 the European Chemical Agency (ECHA) notified gear manufacturers they would be restricting PFOA in ‘textiles’. One of those textiles is firefighter PPE. By 2012 PFOA was designated a Substance of Very High Concern there. Gear manufacturers were made aware of the decision to restrict the amount of PFOA in turnout gear to 25ppb and ‘precursors’ to 1 ppm. To date they have not advised the US of this issue. While the manufacturers are discussing and teaching about the issue in Europe, they have not mentioned it here.
They minimized the issue when it came up recently in a firefighting trade magazine published by ‘Station Pride’ titled ‘The Real Cancer in Your Gear’. https://station-pride.com/2017/03/28/the-real-cancer-in-your-gear/ We are in a particularly high-risk exposure setting as our gear has been degrading in our fire stations where we work, eat, sleep, since 1999. The coating degrades in UV lighting, in many stations, our gear is stored in open lighting next to apparatus in bays. Paul’s station had 80 sets of gear rotating through his station in one week. The gear is designed to be used for 10 years. Over 20 years we have had thousands of sets releasing particles of PFOA into our stations.
The new short-chain coatings are also a concern. NH State Rep and Enviro Scientist Mindi Messmer wrote an article on this issue titled Firefighter Cancer Quadfecta. https://www.firefighternation.com/…/firefighter-cancer-quad… ; From trade magazine FireFighter Nation: “The replacements, termed “short-chain PFCs” were sported as better for the environment and public health. However, scientific studies conducted in laboratory animals indicate that the short-chain replacements could be more toxic to humans since they accumulate longer in organs than the long-chain legacy compounds. This may be the cause of cancer incidence in younger firefighters”. “I have been advocating for a national health study specifically focused on firefighters to assess the health outcomes because they are highly exposed. It is often difficult to tie causation with cancer or other chronic diseases. Focusing on the highly exposed populations is more likely to carefully evaluate possible negative health outcomes for exposures to PFCs. This should include, at a minimum, thorough cancer screening and annual serum PFC monitoring of firefighters to provide longitudinal data to assess health outcomes (see Table 2). It is not enough to have a cancer registry, we have to prevent cancer by taking proactive steps to identify and prevent exposures in while firefighting, in fire stations, and in the turnout gear before they make firefighters sick.” Mindi Messmer
To date there has not been a PFAS dust study done in our stations. Yet, biomonitoring has shown firefighters PFOA serum tested in ranges from 243 ng/mL to 423 ng/mL from a ‘yet unknown source’. The ‘DuPont Water Works’ plant workers were considered high at 32 ng/mL.
(originally written in 2018, with our grassroots efforts we have again asked Dr Graham Peaslee to assist with dust studies. Those are in the works with his peers.)
Adding to this concern is the October 2, 2017 NH DES letter to every fire station in NH that of 6 of 7 New Hampshire fire stations water wells tested at ‘elevated’ levels of PFAS:
https://www4.des.state.nh.us/…/Fire_Department_H20Sample.pdf
There is no group or organization keeping track of civilian fire stations that have been found to elevated PFOA levels in well water. Only myself. A firewife. I maintain the only civilian (non-military) list of fire stations that I find from the EWG PFAS Tracker and daily news articles.
In 1992 DuPont’s own scientist learned their PFOA caused testicular cancer. Testicular cancer is the number one cancer in the fire service. . DuPont is a manufacturer of our gear. They have yet to tell us about this. They are immersed in every aspect of firefighter cancer research, and teaching prevention methods.
In 2006 they notified shareholders that ‘any attempt to regulate PFOA would impact their bottom line’. They never shared that with us either. In 2005 the United Steelworkers Union advised W.L. Gore. also a turnout gear manufacturer, and DuPont, to notify the end-user of the harmful effects of PFOA. Neither did: https://www.cleanlink.com/…/Steelworkers-Union-Warn-of-Harm…
In 2005 AND 2006 the DuPont workers in many eastern states formed a group called ‘DuPont Shareholders for Fair Value’. The commissioned Esquire Sanforn Lewis of Massachusetts to investigate securities liabilities as they (the workers who were represented by the United Steel Workers Union) were afraid that DuPont Shareholders were being lied to by omission. Omission that there were health concerns with PFOA being used/made at the factories they worked in.
Please view both reports here. It is imperative you understand the scope of what was known by DuPont at this time. Remember, this is 2005… the gear I sent to Dr Graham Peaslee was 2004. It was NEW, AND NEVER WORN. It contains 14,000 times the MRL of PFOA for water. That is just the ‘fraction of the potential’ as this method was a ‘methanol swipe’.
( It will be another year of pro-bono work by Dr Graham Peaslee, in 2018–2019 ], and the efforts of our grassroots advocacy along with no financial assistance from the government, that we would provide the material for a span of 20 years worth of new, never worn turnout gear. We would then match that new gear with decommissioned gear. The gear would be sent to Professor of Physics, Dr Graham Peaslee at Notre Dame where he would test for fluorine content by way of mass spectrometer, then for independent verification, he would send the samples to a commercial lab. How would we fund this? Well, the American way. We held car washes, bake sales, held yard sales, and by the grace of God a grant from Last Call Foundation Honoring Firefighter Michael Kennedy also with assistance from Notre Dame, that we a group of firefighter families and concerned allies would find the 30-year secret, the greatest deception ever.)
https://www.healthandenvironment.org/uploads-old/DuPont_Shareholders_Know_More.pdf
http://www.ohiocitizen.org/campaigns/dupont_c8/marketreport.pdf
Background on DSFV DuPont Shareholders for Fair Value (DSFV), the publisher of this report, is an informal group of DuPont shareholders organized by the United Steelworkers (USW) and concerned with proper disclosure and accountability on the issues relative to PFOA. USW is a DuPont shareholder, and also represents approximately 1,800 DuPont employees in New York, New Jersey, Delaware and Kentucky. DSFV includes Amalgamated Bank, United Steelworkers, Sisters of Mercy, Merion Regional Community, Merion, PA and Green Century Capital Management. Collectively this group holds over 411,000 shares of DuPont stock. Some members of DuPont Shareholders for Fair Value have filed complaints with the Securities and Exchange Commission regarding the failure of DuPont management to disclose information historically and recently known to the company regarding the financial, health and environmental risks associated with PFOA. Disclosure of such information may have better-informed shareholders regarding the extent to which the management’s adherence to PFOA chemistry has harmed shareholder value. Some members of DSFV have also filed shareholder resolutions for annual meetings in 2005 and 2006 related to disclosure of issues related to PFOA. Author Background Sanford Lewis, the author of this report, is an attorney and expert on corporate environmental disclosure issues, including requirements for disclosure under the securities laws. The author wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Nathaniel Johnson, Shawn Gilchrist and April Dreeke in the preparation of this document.
(After finding these articles I contacted the originator, Attorney Sanford Lewis. It had been some time since he thought of PFOA as many years had gone by. I discussed the work I was doing and he provided me contact with an environmental advocacy group that was interested in hearing more of our efforts. )
On September 5, 2017, Environmental Attorney Robert Bilott, C8 Science panel’s Dr Paul A Brooks, and Fire Chief Jeff Hermes have demanded testing and studies of the EPA, CDC/ATSDR, and US Attorney General on behalf of all first responders US due to their exposure from foam and gear. https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3988104-Firefighter-Letter.html
With NO regulations for these chemicals, manufacturers are under NO obligation to tell us what we are wearing, or spraying. They defiantly refuse to give us that information citing ‘proprietary information’. They have even lobbied for and win the right to NOT put warning labels in our turnout gear.
Our manufacturers sit on NFPA committees deciding safety standards of gear, from the balance of a helmet to the width of reflective tape. but are under no obligation to advise of the chemicals in our gear. They never did. Not once. The newly released PFAS study mentions FF occupational and high risk of exposure numerous times.
Yet the fire service has been omitted from the multi-million dollar PFAS Study award. We respectfully ask Senator Shaheen and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren to immediately add these nations fire fighters to the PFAS Registry along with the already chosen active military and veterans.
The EPA and NIOSH have been kicking this issue of occupational exposure and setting limits down the road for over 40 years. Last week I shared a 1977 NIOSH report titled “ Criteria for a recommended standard — occupational exposure to DECOMPOSITION PRODUCTS of FLUOROCARBON POLYMERS” . Here in 2018, we are seeing the same thing.
https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/19394/cdc_19394_DS1.pdf
Under both Democratic and Republican leadership, the EPA and CDC have been a catastrophic failure to the fire service. Hasn’t anyone wondered about the firefighter they see covered head to toe in A-tripleF?
After 40 years of indecisiveness, the fire service took matters into its own hands. Washington State Council of Fire Fighters and Toxic Free Future passed SB 6413 limiting the use PFAS in AFFF and requiring labels be added advising the wearer of PFAS exposure in turnout gear. The Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts, in support with Toxics Action Center, has voted unanimously last week to make PFAS legislation a priority.
The fire service can do this state to state to protect ourselves and fellow citizens. And we WILL get it done. But isn’t that your job?
Sincerely,
Diane Cotter
That was my statement from June 2018. As mentioned we have been very busy with our own testing of firefighter turnout gear. The manufacturers of our gear are going out of their way to minimize this issue. The gear that Dr Peaslee has tested will show that we are wearing staggering amounts of PFOA. So much so that I am very worried about the minuscule amounts of PFOA that we now know effect the liver.
Just this week Dr Philippe Grandjean released this paper discussing the recent findings that show at .1 ppt the pancreeas is effected adversely. The coatings on turnout gear are 10,000 to 100,000 times greater than that. In 1992 DuPont knew PFOA was causing adverse effects to livers, testes, mammy tumors in lab animals. Yet, they have remained silent … silent at every single firefighter cancer symposium. They are hiding in plain sight. And the fire service is drunk on their money.
HTTPS://WWW.HSPH.HARVARD.EDU/NEWS/FEATURES/CURBING-THE-USE-OF-FOREVER-CHEMICALS/?FBCLID=IWAR1I8I4JJXNAWIOZIRZIE2P5GVA7PYUUKQLVHEZYRRXA8HD2ENMDHAVETNW
When the researchers developed a dose-response assessment, they found that pancreatic tumors developed even at very low concentrations of PFOA, suggesting that the lifetime human exposure limit for this type of PFAS should be only 0.1 parts per trillion. But the EPA’S current guideline, which isn’t even legally binding, is 70 parts per trillion — 700-fold too high.
Dr Peaslee is in the process of writing his peer-reviewed paper of his discovery of the PFAS chemicals used over a 20 year period in our turnout gear. Till that time., I wish to provide you with a compilation of our advocacy and to impress on you how the lack of regulations has led the CEO’s of DuPont, Chemours, 3M, etc., to immerse themselves in our world, coming in as sheep but truly behaving as the deadly wolf. Please see these blogs that have discovered great deception. Mainly, beginning and ending with the NFPA (National Fire Protection Association) the ‘neutral’ organization that our manufacturers embed themselves in as voting members of every aspect of turnout gear and AFFF, keep secrets, tell lies, and omit knowledge, all without consequence. Securing their products in a global footprint for their corporations and the side chicks they serve. By that I mean, the CEO’s of DuPont, Chemours, 3M, etc., sit on the BOD’s of each of the peripheral ‘partners’ within their NFPA community.
For example:
In October 2018, Attorney Robert Bilott would file a nationwide class action against 3M, DuPont, Chemours and others: http://liblog.law.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/Hardwick-v-3M-et-al-S.D.OhioE_.Div-no.18-01185-COMPLAINT-Thu4Oct2018.pdf
His plaintiff is Fire Chief Kevin Hardwick. Chief Hardwick was exposed to PFAS in his AFFF and his PPE.
While 3M, DuPont, Chemours, etc., are yearly sponsors of the International Association of Firefighters Cancer Symposium. This makes for strange bedfellows when you take a look at the PFOA/PFOS timeline and we realize how deeply embedded these corporations have been in the fire service for decades as they omit, minimize and trivialize the toxic chemicals we are wrapped in and literally drenched in the foam.
http://www.fluoridealert.org/wpcontent/pesticides/effect.pfos.class.timeline.htm
What makes the irony of 3M, DuPont, Chemours etc all the more maniacal for being immersed in our cancer symposiums is this May 13, 2019 response to Hardwick vs 3M DuPont, Chemours et al., where they say that Attorney Bilott cannot prove Chief Hardwick’s elevated PFOA blood serum, or his cancer or potential future cancers are from their PFAS.
Please read the defendants response to Chief Hardwicks complaints here: https://medium.com/@kaiserc.cotter15_20335/reply-in-support-of-defendantsjoint-motion-to-dismiss-101a0a02002a
The research of this subject has cost me 10,000 hours of my life. To say I became consumed is an understatement. It was clearly visible to anyone who had the hours to dedicate to this issue that we have been lied to for 40 years in the fire service. Here is a series of articles I have written that connect the dots. By seeing who the players are in DuPont and 3M you can see how their reach and dastardly connections have kept us in the dark. From March 2019 :
EPA and the ‘pinky swear’
In 2005 DuPont formed a statement about findings from the ERB (Epidemiology Review Board re PFOA )from which the scholars of this board objected to DuPont’s formed statement. The scholars were distinguished physicians from independent academic halls. Read their objections here:
The details of the tasks of the ERB committee can be found here in this 2008 EWG article:
In February 2006, DuPont’s Susan Stalnecker (DuPont VP and Treasurer sent this ‘urgent’ email to DuPont people regarding ‘scripting’ she wished to convey to the EPA. https://www.industrydocumentslibrary.ucsf.edu/chemical/docs/?fbclid=IwAR19PD3Y5XpbFATkScapovzjsys2X4rMzp38y4KgZI_aOQbKW8M5pa2Bjxg#id=jppw0228
This concerns me gravely. It states she will be asking ‘Chad’ to reach out to ‘Steve Johnson’.
Steve Johnson was Administrator of the EPA from 2005 to 2009.
The familiarity of a DuPont executive to send an urgent letter to advise the EPA what to say about PFOA is astonishing. If the EPA did heed the script I do not know.
At the same time, in 2006, these DuPont Comments in Response to Proposition 65 give their perspective on why PFOA should not be designated the Prop 65 label.
Remember, in 2005, DuPont was aware of the health concerns of the scholars of the ERB Committee.
DuPont’s Prop 65 statement of 2006 is very concerning to me.
‘THE PINKY SWEAR OF 2006 ‘
Why did EPA launch the PFOA Stewardship Program? https://www.epa.gov/assessing-and-managing-chemicals-under-tsca/fact-sheet-20102015-pfoa-stewardship-program
EPA launched the PFOA Stewardship Program in January 2006because of concerns about the impact of PFOA and long-chain PFASs on human health and the environment, including concerns about their persistence, presence in the environment and in the blood of the general U.S. population, long half-life in people, and developmental and other adverse effects in laboratory animals.
Well looky here… look who wrote this letter to EPA !!! Gosh darn it lol !! If it isn’t Susan Stalnecker !!! January 25, 2006 :
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-08/documents/dupontresponse.pdf
(oh silly trace amounts… now we get it…. trace amounts lol !!!) PFOA is found in trace amounts in some fluorotelomer products as an unintended byproduct of the manufacturing process.
You see the problem here. In January 2006 Susan Stalnecker was writing the pinky swear letter to EPA promising DuPont would behave. In February of 2006, not even a month later, Susan Stalnecker sounds the alarm to contact
EPA…. to tell them what to say about PFOA…. and… at the same time, as fingers are crossed behind their back in pinky swear to EPA, DuPont tells Cali not to put PFOA in Prop 65 CAUSE THERE ARE NO STUDIES… but there were studies… http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/pesticides/effect.pfos.class.timeline.htm)..
Is it me? Asking for 1.4 million friends who are wearing ‘trace amounts’ of PFOA.
Step back now and look at how a CEO of Chemours, can rise to the ranks of VP to CEO., then hold BOD positions on all of the central corporations in the chemical and fire service industry, is something like peeling back the layers of an onion…. while still never notifying the very fire service to whom they swear it has their back .. literally. They make our turnout gear ‘fibers’ and our protective coatings.
April 2019:
BOD/ACC, BOD/Johnson Controls, JohnsonControls/NFPA, and PFOA, & DuPont/BOD of FFFC, BOD/NSC
There is no doubt in my mind that the PPE rep coming to your station to talk about gear had any notion about chemical additives. They could not have known. They were told the same thing(s) you were., ‘trace amounts’, ‘by-products of combustion’., safe for humans, no know humans harmed, new chemistry is safe., etc. But, those at the top absolutely knew about the concerns of PFOA and the lesser-known PFAS chemicals that are endocrine disruptors, reproductive cancer-causing carcinogens, etc.. It’s in all the SEC Filings for the company for years. The problem is the top tier of management is forced to keep the BAU statements of ‘new chemistry is safe’. But that’s not true. We don’t know it is. This is concerning because the top tier of management, like Mike Vergnano, sit as Board of Directors of American Chemistry Council, ACC is the lobbying group for FFFC Fire Fighting Foam Coalition, sits as Board of Director for Johnson Controls, and Johnson Controls was just added as Board of Directors for NFPA.
So, if someone that thinks the new chemistry is safe, is sitting on all these BOD for the companies that have such a hold in the fire service, is it concerning that he/they think you don’t need to be warned about theses chemicals, or told what exactly is used, or the amounts thereof?
You had every right to be warned. To be told the coatings contained PFAS chemicals that would degrade to PFOA. Especially when manufacturers knew your gear is made to last for years.
Mark Vergnano, is CEO of Chemours. Chemours is the spin-off of DuPont. Some say DuPont spun off Chemours to protect the mother ship, DuPont, from the many legal awards given after the PFOA lawsuits, in particular after Rob Bilott’s 671 million dollar lawsuit for the citizens of WV. It didn’t work though. Both DuPont and Chemours have to split the cost of the settlement 50/50.
https://www1.salary.com/Mark-Vergnano-Salary-Bonus-Stock-Options-for-CHEMOURS-CO.html
https://www.linkedin.com/in/markvergnano
2003:
http://www2.dupont.com/Media_Center/en_US/news_releases/2003/nr04_15_03.html
DuPont Affirms Position that PFOA Does Not Pose Undue Risk
Supports EPA Position On Continued Use of Consumer Products
April 15, 2003 — DuPont today affirmed its position that there is no evidence indicating adverse human health effects related to low levels of exposure to perfluorooctanoate (PFOA), an essential processing aid used by DuPont and others to manufacture fluoropolymers. The company also said it fully supports the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) position that EPA “does not believe there is any reason for consumers to stop using any consumer or industrial related products” because of concerns about PFOA.
The company said that cookware sold under the Teflon® brand does not contain PFOA. Although PFOA is a processing aid used to make the Teflon® branded fluoropolymers, it is removed in the manufacturing process. PFOA is not used to produce telomers, a different family of chemicals used to make soil, stain and grease repellants for paper, apparel, upholstery and carpet.
http://www2.dupont.com/Media_Center/en_US/news_releases/2003/nr06_05_03.html
DuPont Reaffirms Support for Science-Based EPA Regulatory Process on PFOA
WILMINGTON, Del., June 05, 2003 — DuPont today reaffirmed its support for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) plans to conduct a science-based risk assessment for perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) and to convene a technically informed Scientific Advisory Board to evaluate the risk assessment’s findings.
DuPont believes that the process, which may lead to regulation, should assure the public’s health and safety while allowing the continued use of PFOA.
PFOA, a processing aid used by DuPont and others to manufacture fluoropolymers, is currently an unregulated compound. EPA is holding the first of several public meetings on PFOA on June 6 in Washington, D.C., following issuance of a preliminary risk assessment on PFOA in mid-April. In addition to manufacturing and using PFOA for fluoropolymer manufacture, DuPont also manufactures telomers, products in which it has been suggested trace amounts of PFOA may be present.
“DuPont remains confident that in 50 years of use of PFOA by DuPont and others, there have been no known adverse human health effects associated with this material,” said Dr. Uma Chowdhry, global vice president for DuPont Central Research & Development. “However, we recognize that EPA and others have raised questions about PFOA and, as a science-based company, we support further study to address those questions. We also very much respect the rights and insistence of consumers around the world to know that the products they purchase, use and rely upon are safe.”
In written comments submitted to EPA in advance of the public meeting, DuPont emphasized that the regulatory process should be based on high-quality, credible scientific data, and should include a complete characterization of all past and current PFOA exposure routes.
2007 https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/30554/000135740607000016/dsfvreport1.txt
POTENTIAL CONSUMER LIABILITY: CLASS ACTION AND “DUTY TO WARN”
NOTICES
Companies receiving notices of a potential legal duty to warn
consumers of PFOA exposure included Rug Doctor, Stanley Steemer,
Conagra Foods, McDonalds, Taco Bell, Levi Strauss, GAP, W. L.
Gore, Wal-Mart, Sears, Mannington, Mohawk Industries, and Shaw
Industries.
Retailers and manufacturer purchasers of PFOA-containing products
are being made aware of potential liabilities associated with
sales of those products. Consumer protection laws in many states,
including statutory and common law, provide that sellers of
products may have a duty to warn consumers if they are exposing
them to products that pose an unreasonable risk to health or
safety.
In addition, consumer-related liability notices have been spread
throughout the array of consumer-oriented markets where PFOA-
related products are sold. On August 9, 2005, the United
Steelworkers (USW) union released a statement saying they had
sent letters to major carpet cleaning retailers and wholesalers,
fast food chains, and major retail clothing companies, informing
them that they may have “a legal duty to warn” their customers
about potential health risks associated with exposure to products
that contain PFOA. These letters informed recipients that they
could face legal liability in the event that consumers sue and
prove harm to their health./38/
On December 21, 2005, the United Steelworkers released another
statement, reporting that they had mailed advisory information on
potential PFOA-related health hazards to over 4,500 retail carpet
dealers and to the CEOs of 35 carpet manufacturing companies. “We
sincerely hope that our efforts will encourage carpet
manufacturers and retailers to provide warnings and thereby
protect the public,” said Ken Test, Chair of the USW DuPont
Council, a coordinating body for 1,800 USW members at
DuPont. “Carpet company employees who may have the highest
exposure to PFOA must also be warned and protected.”/39/ USW
reports that it has sent about 40,000 “duty to warn” letters to
various firms that may be buying PFOA-containing products.
<PAGE>
The companies who have received duty to warn notices from USW
read like a Who’s Who of household consumer products. According
to USW press releases, some of the thousands of companies
receiving the notices included Rug Doctor, Stanley Steemer,
McDonalds, Taco Bell, Papa John’s, Pizza Hut, KFC, California
Pizza Kitchen, Levi Strauss, Conagra Foods, GAP, W.L. Gore, Eddie
Bauer, J. Crew, Wal-Mart, Sears, Nordstrom, Dillard’s, Dalton
Carpet Outlet, Carpet Giant, Carpet Land, Mannington, Mohawk
Industries, and Shaw Industries.
2007: http://stockproinfo.com/doc/2007/US2635341090_2007_20071231_US_1I.pdf
Mark Vergnano was VP of DuPont Safety and Protection from July 2005 to October 2009
That’s important to me. Why? Because he was driving the bus. He knew PFOA was a issue within DuPont. He was VP of ‘Safety and Protection’. No labels in your gear to warn you of PFAS. So that you could decide and research what these ‘PFAS’ chemicals are. By omitting it completely you knew nothing. But they knew.
Page 36: Major markets, Protective Apparel
2016? 2017? UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, MARK VERGNANO, and MARK NEWMAN, Defendants. Case No.: DRAFT CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
****************************************************************************
http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/Complaints/Chemours_Complaint.pdf
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ________________, Individually and On Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated, Plaintiff, v. THE CHEMOURS COMPANY, E. I. DU PONT DE NEMOURS AND COMPANY, MARK VERGNANO, and MARK NEWMAN, Defendants. Case No.: DRAFT CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL SECURITIES LAWS JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NATURE OF THE ACTION AND OVERVIEW 1. This is a class action on behalf of persons or entities that acquired Chemours securities between June 19, 2015 and June 2, 2016, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). 2. Chemours is a provider of performance chemicals and has three reporting segments: Titanium Technologies, Fluoroproducts, and Chemical Solutions. The Titanium Technologies segment produces titanium dioxide (TiO2), a premium white pigment used to deliver whiteness, brightness, opacity and protection in a variety of applications. The Fluoroproducts segment provides fluoroproducts, such as refrigerants and industrial fluoropolymer resins. Finally, the Chemical Solutions segment is a provider of industrial and specialty chemicals used in gold production, oil refining, agriculture, industrial polymers, and other industries. 3. Chemours was created through a separation from E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company (“DuPont”). Chemours consists of DuPont’s former Performance Chemicals reporting segment, and certain other assets and liabilities which formerly belonged to DuPont. The Law Offices of Howard G. Smith CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 2 separation was completed by way of a distribution of all of the then-outstanding shares of common stock of Chemours to holders of DuPont common stock. 4. On June 2, 2016, Citron Research published a report on Chemours demonstrating that Chemours is a business “designed for bankruptcy.” The report disclosed that Chemours is potentially subject to massive liabilities relating to its manufacturing of C8 — also known as PFOA — and that DuPont created Chemours to distance DuPont from the potential environmental liability. The report also pointed out that the Company was over-leveraged with nearly $4 billion in debt on its books. 5. On this news, Chemours stock price fell $0.41 per share, or more than 4.6%, to close at $8.25 per share on June 3, 2016, on unusually heavy trading volume. 6. Throughout the Class Period, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements, as well as failed to disclose material adverse facts about the Company’s business, operations, and prospects. Specifically, Defendants made false and/or misleading statements and/or failed to disclose: (1) that Chemours is potentially subject to massive liabilities relating to its manufacturing of C8 — also known as PFOA; (2) that DuPont created Chemours to distance DuPont from the potential environmental liability; (3) that, as such, Chemours is a company “designed for bankruptcy”; and (4) that, as a result of the foregoing, Defendants’ statements about Chemours’ business, operations, and prospects, were false and misleading and/or lacked a reasonable basis. 7. As a result of Defendants’ wrongful acts and omissions, and the precipitous decline in the market value of the Company’s securities, Plaintiff and other Class members have suffered significant losses and damages.
2016: http://keepyourpromisesdupont.com/news-sentinel-dupont-critics-slam-190m-gift/
“It is shameful and dishonest for CEO (Mark) Vergnano to mischaracterize the special indemnification and to downplay DuPont’s gift of $190 million to prop up the failing company,” said Dr. Paul Brooks, an adviser to Keep Your Promises. “Chemours’ directors and officers are securing their lifeboats on a sinking ship while thousands of C8 victims are suffering and dying.”
Brooks’ company, Brookmar, organized the testing in the original C8 Health Project created in a settlement of the C8 lawsuits against DuPont. C8, also known as PFOA, was used at the Washington Works Plant and has appeared in numerous local water systems and water systems in other states.
C8 exposure has been linked to kidney cancer, testicular cancer, ulcerative colitis, thyroid disease, pregnancy induced hypertension, including preeclampsia and hypercholesterolemia.
DuPont prepaid Chemours $190 million for goods and services anticipated in the next 12 to 15 months, according to a presentation in the fourth-quarter earnings conference on Wednesday.
“Chemours is committed to meeting all its environmental and legal obligations that have been ongoing at its Washington Works facility, in keeping with local, state and federal regulatory guidelines,” a statement from Chemours said on Wednesday. “We have addressed issues related to liabilities in our public financial disclosures.”
2018:
The Chemours Company President And CEO Named New Officer Of ACC
WASHINGTON, DC (February 12, 2018) — The American Chemistry Council (ACC) announced today that The Chemours Company President and Chief Executive Officer, Mark Vergnano, became the Council’s newest officer, effective January 1, 2018.
As its newest officer, Mr. Vergnano will first assume the role of Vice Chairman of the Board and chair of the Council’s Board Finance, Audit and Membership Committee. He’ll serve in this capacity for one year, followed by a one year term each as Chairman of the Executive Committee and Chairman of the Board. Mr. Vergnano was first elected to ACC’s board of directors in 2015.
February 2018: The Chemours Company President and CEO Named New Officer of ACC
WASHINGTON, DC (February 12, 2018) — The American Chemistry Council (ACC) announced today that The Chemours Company President and Chief Executive Officer, Mark Vergnano, became the Council’s newest officer, effective January 1, 2018.
NOTICE OF ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING OF SHAREHOLDERS WEDNESDAY, MARCH 7, 2018 THE MERRION HOTEL, 24 UPPER MERRION STREET, DUBLIN 2, IRELAND NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the 2018 Annual General Meeting of Shareholders of Johnson Controls International plc will be held on March 7, 2018 at The Merrion Hotel, 24 Upper Merrion Street, Dublin 2, Ireland at 3:00 pm, local time for the following purposes: Ordinary Business 1. By separate resolutions, to elect the following individuals as Directors for a period of one year, expiring at the end of the Company’s Annual General Meeting of Shareholders in 2019: (a) Michael E. Daniels (b) W. Roy Dunbar © Brian Duperreault (d) Gretchen R. Haggerty (e) Simone Menne (f) George R. Oliver (g) Juan Pablo del Valle Perochena (h) Jürgen Tinggren (i) Mark Vergnano (j) R. David Yost (k) John D. Young 2. To ratify the appointment of PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP as the independent auditors of the Company and to authorize the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors to set the auditors’ remuneration. Special Business 3. To authorize the Company and/or any subsidiary of the Company to make market purchases of Company shares. 4. To determine the price range at which the Company can re-allot shares that it holds as treasury shares (special resolution). 5. To approve, in a non-binding advisory vote, the compensation of the named executive officers. 6. To approve the Directors’ authority to allot shares up to approximately 33% of issued share capital. 7. To approve the waiver of statutory pre-emption rights with respect to up to 5% of issued share capital (special resolution). 8. By separate resolutions to approve (a) the reduction of Company capital and (b) a clarifying amendment to the Company’s Articles of Association to facilitate the capital reduction (special resolutions). 9. To act on such other business as may properly come before the meeting or any adjournment thereof. This notice of annual general meeting and
NFPA appoints Johnson Controls to BOD:
NFPA Board of Directors appoints new members to Standards Council
March 9, 2018 — The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Board of Directors has appointed two new members to the NFPA Standards Council: Jack Poole of Poole Fire Protection Inc., and Rodger Reiswig of Johnson Controls. Poole and Reiswig are each serving a three-year term effective January 1, 2018.
NFPA also announced that current members Patricia Gleason of Safety Equipment Institute (SEI), Chad Beebe of the American Society of Healthcare Engineering and Gary Keith of FM Global were each reappointed for a second three-year term. Current member Daniel O’Connor of JENSEN HUGHES was also reappointed for a two-year term extension. All reappointments began January 1, 2018.
The NFPA Standard Council, a 13-member body appointed by the Board of Directors of NFPA, is charged with overseeing the NFPA codes and standards making process. Generally, the duties of the Council include supervising activities related to NFPA codes and standards development, acting as administer of rules and regulations, and serving as an appeals body.
Founded in 1896, NFPA is a global, nonprofit organization devoted to eliminating death, injury, property and economic loss due to fire, electrical and related hazards. The association delivers information and knowledge through more than 300 consensus codes and standards, research, training, education, outreach and advocacy; and by partnering with others who share an interest in furthering the NFPA mission. For more information visit www.nfpa.org. All NFPA codes and standards can be viewed online for free at www.nfpa.org/freeaccess.
Mark Vergnano is also on the Board of Trustees of the National Safety Council https://www.nsc.org/company/nsc-board
We could do our own research, and stop taking the word of the manufacturers that tell us the ‘chemical coatings are safe’. Maybe they are not. Maybe your cancers are not just from ‘products of combustion’, maybe they are from products of deception.
In March of 2019 I wrote of how 3M, DuPont, Chemours etc can hide in NFPA as voting members of this all-powerful organization and not whisper a word that they have a chemical cocktail that causes testicular cancer, kidney cancer, and other health concerns:
How is it 3M, DuPont and others can sit on NFPA and not disclose toxins in equipment knowing if they did it impacts their bottom line?
This may not make a whole lot of sense to non fire/military people and the acronyms won’t be familiar to non-first-responders. But it’s an important look into what we in the fire service take for granted. When we see something is marked ‘meets NFPA standards for …’ (National Fire Protection Agency), we instantly think, “well it has to be safe, it meets NFPA standards!”
NFPA will call themselves a neutral organization. That’s not for me to decide. But they are the body that oversees every aspect of fire protection. From a sprinkler head to the drag device on PPE. Everything goes through NFPA committees for review, discussion, public comments, first draft, second draft, reports, technical committees, and final revisions and publication every for years of the fire service bible. It is extremely tedious and tremendous efforts and hours of research are put in by these committees. You’d have to open up the latest edition of NFPA 11 on FOAM to understand the scope of the work these committees are tasked with. The committees are made up of voting and non voting members. Those members include an array of manufacturers, special experts, scientists, firefighters, and NFPA Staff Liason.
Now, I know at this second I’m gonna be taking many hits from people in NFPA that will find this article outrageous. So be it. This is what I, an outsider, a fire-wife whose husband had career-ending cancer, sought answers to.
The question I had was, “how can manufactures that know they are using products that contain a known carcinogen sit on these committees without whispering a word to anyone that they have a secret?”
The answer was they have no legal, or moral obligation to.
In the case of 3M., they began sitting on NFPA 11, the committee for AFFF or aqueous film forming foam, as far back as 1972. They may have been there longer but those records are archived. Along with 3M, was the Navy.
If 3M knew in 1972 that their AFFF was toxic, they said nothing to NFPA about it. And if the military knew, they too said nothing in those years.
So what’s the big deal about NFPA?
Because, every purchase order for AFFF for the military, or for most/all municipal and rural fire houses, all 58,000 of them, are stating their AFFF must ‘meet NFPA standard for FOAM’’.
By 3M and others hiding in NFPA, they literally shape the outcome of their company. They understand that by having their product meet NFPA standards for AFFF, for their military spec AFFF, they have a golden egg. The AFFF that meets NFPA standards becomes the stamp of approval for every airport and fire station in the nation, and beyond. It’s not just the USA that goes by the NFPA standard. It’s also the standard for many other countries.
And, same with our turnout gear…. DuPont immersed itself in NFPA 1971 for Structural Firefighting PPE. The organization that sets the standard for the flow of purchasing their product on a global platform.
DuPont never once mentioned they had a problem with PFOA. Or that the chemicals used to coat our gear will degrade to form PFOA. Or, that Europe told them they are going to have to remove it by 2020 from turnout gear. They remained silent to the same NFPA committees that determine every aspect of turnout gear. If you’re in the fire service you understand how much our manufacturers are involved in our cancer prevention research, programs, teachings, and symposiums. You also understand that in NFPA, the testing of turnout gear examines everything from the ‘particle size down to the micron that can permeate the fabrics in PPE’, to the width of reflective tape, to the balance of the helmet. But they never wanted to test the chemical coatings, or for that matter, the chemicals used in the manufacturer of our turnout gear.
They do want to talk a lot about POCs though. Products of combustion.
Manufacturers will not give us the chemical content in PPE information when asked. We were told that information is CBI or ‘confidential business information’.
To that end we have had to fund the testing of turnout gear ourselves. The Last Call Foundation Honoring Firefighter Michael Kennedy has already funded over $20,000.xx to test 20 years worth of ‘new, never-worn’ and some decommissioned gear of the same manufacturer and years.
The problem with all of this, is, we may never know if our cancers were caused from this PFOA. But for those of us who have lost loved ones, lost careers, struggle with insurance, lose insurance, are sued by insurers for getting cancer, fight for legislation only to lose over and over again, it’s a real kick in the teeth to know that while CEO’s knew of their chemicals causing cancers in lab animals, they were securing billions in contracts in the military and beyond. And sitting across the table with us talking about cancer. Watching us bury our dead at the NFFF memorial every year. Sponsored by some of these same manufacturers.
Here’s a look at the last 45 years into NFPA 11 Committee on Foam.
Us Navy Labs present from day 1.
Why is this important? Because there are documents showing the US military knew in the 70’s that AFFF was toxic.
1972 NFPA Foam
https://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/11/1973_TCR-11-11B.pdf
In 1972 they were printing the entire NFPA codes as one 1500 hundred page
(approx) publication. FOAM is on page 735 to page 777. No discussion on FF safety.
I see no AFFF manufacturers sitting on this NFPA committee for foam yet.
https://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/AboutTheCodes/11/NFPA_TCR_A1972.pdf
1974 Report of the Foam Committee (still no AFFF manufacturers I recognize).
https://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/11/1974_TCR-11-11B.pdf
In 1975 3M appears:
https://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/11/TCRA-1975-11.pdf
1976:
https://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/11/TCRA-1976-11-11A.pdf
(beginning on page 13 of 28 pg pdf): Part II Standard for High Expansion Foam Systems (Expansion Ratios from 100:1 to 1000:1)
11 A-8 J HGH EXPANSION FOAM SYSTEMS
I-7 Personnel Safety. 1–7.1 Hazards to Personnel. Tile discharge of large amounts of high expansion foam may inundate personnel, blocking vision, making hearing difficult, and creating some discomfort in brc,~thing. This breathing discomfort will increase with a reduction in expansion ratio of tile foam and also under the effect of sprinkler discharge.
1–7.1.1 Personnel working in a hazmat area and with no responsibility for fire fighting shall be instructed to immediately vacate the area in the event of fire, if possible. If personnel are unable to vacate and are trapped so that their lives are endangered by smoke or heat, they may enter the foam. Instructions shall be given to move the hand over the nose and mouth to minimize discomfort in breathing within tile foam. I-7.1.2 Where possible the relative location of foam discharge points to building exits shall he arranged to facilitate evacuation of personnel. I-7.1.3 To re-enter a foam-filled building, a coarse water spray may be used to cut a path in the foam. Personnel shall not enter the foam. The foam is opaque, and it is impossible to see when one is submerged. It is dangerous to enter a build- • .,~ ………………….. a …… one ………….. 1–7.1.4 Caution. A canister type gas mask shall not be worn in the foam. The chemicals of the canister will react with the water of the foam and cause suffocation. If emergency reentry is essential, self-contained breathing apparatus shall be used in conjunction with a life line.
1978
3M still there
https://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/11/TCRA-1978-11.pdf
Still nothing about toxicity unless I’m missing it completely.
1982 3m, Ansul,
https://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/11/TCRA-1978-11.pdf
Page 2 of 30 in this pdf. There is discussion about favoritism being shown to AFFF and there is discussion about the industry referring to all foam as AFFF which others on the committee are in agreement with.
Chapter 4 ~ 4~ Objective: (a) This Chapter is totally biased in favor~ of AFFF and ignores more than 20 years of successful u,.;e of regular foam and compatible ‘dry chemical and 15 years use of fluoroproteion foam and other dry chemicals. (b) Inclusion of this Chapter as describing “Systems” doesn’t fit the Standard (nor did it really•fit lIB) because combined agent equipment is generally used as portable. “Recommendation: Either delete the Chapter or completely rewrite to include recognition of other effective agent combinations.
Page 3 has a lot of input from 3M.
1987 Report of Committee on Foam
https://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/11/TCRF-1987-11-11A.pdf
Discussion about AFFF vs AFFP among other things.
1993
https://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/11/TCRF-1993-11-11A.pdf
2002 https://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/AboutTheCodes/11/11-A2002-rop.pdf
This was the year the ‘personal note’ came from one of the committee members that called AFFF a death sentence. That story broke in 2017 and called for Congressman Brian Fitzgerald to ask for a “DoD investigation into who knew what and when did they know it..”
2004 This the first reference to environmental safety that I found. It is in the Annex…. If it was in the previous Annex’s I didn’t go looking. There is discussion of ‘environmental issues’.. but nothing to warn the first responder using the equipment of how toxic it is/was. NFPA 11 is not the organization for safety operating instructions. Those are set by the manufacturer. I then asked three colleges who know foam very well, ‘who determines if the foam is safe to use?’ Is that NFPA?
All said no… and that UL is the 3rd party that tests the NFPA standards… but still no answer on how a product is determined safe to use… I have since learned that a product can be brought to NFPA to make sure it meets the NFPA 11 requirements. But there is no organization like FDA that stamps approval on the item. Only if the item were later found hazardous would it be looked at more closely.
page 46 of 52
https://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/AboutTheCodes/11/11-F2004-ROP.pdf
Annex F Foam Environmental Issues This annex is not a part of the requirements of this NFPA document but is included for informational purposes only. F.1 Overview. Fire-fighting foams as addressed in this standard serve a vital role in fire protection throughout the world. Their use has proven to be essential for the control of flammable liquid fire threats inherent in airport operations, fuel farms and petroleum processing, highway and rail transportation, marine applications, and industrial facilities. The ability of foam to rapidly extinguish flammable liquid spill fires has undoubtedly saved lives, reduced property loss, and helped minimize the global pollution that can result from the uncontrolled burning of flammable fuels, solvents, and industrial liquids. However, with the ever increasing environmental awareness, recent concern has focused on the potential adverse environmental impact of foam solution discharges. The primary concerns are fish toxicity, biodegradability, treatability in wastewater treatment plants, and nutrient loading. All of these are of concern when the end-use foam solutions reach natural or domestic water systems. Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has highlighted a potential problem with some foam concentrates by placing glycol ethers and ethylene glycol, common solvent constituents in some foam concentrates, on the list of hazardous air pollutants under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments. The purpose of this annex is to address the following: (1) Provide foam users with summary information on foam environmental issues (2) Highlight applicable regulatory status (3) Offer guidelines for coping with regulations, and provide suggested sources for additional information (4) Encourage planning for foam discharge scenarios (including prior contact with local wastewater treatment plant operators) It should be emphasized that it is not the intent of this annex to limit or restrict the use of fire-fighting foams. The foam committee believes that the fire safety advantages of using foam are greater than the risks of potential environmental problems. The ultimate goal of this section is to foster use of foam in an environmentally responsible manner so as to minimize risk from its use
F.2 Scope. The information provided in this section covers foams for Class B combustible and flammable liquid fuel fires. Foams for this purpose include protein foam, fluoroprotein foam, film-forming fluoroprotein foam (FFFP), and synthetic foams such as aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). Some foams contain solvent constituents that can require reporting under federal, state, or local environmental regulations. In general, synthetic foams, such as AFFF, biodegrade more slowly than protein-based foams. Protein-based foams can be more prone to nutrient loading and treatment facility “shock loading” due to their high ammonia nitrogen content and rapid biodegradation, respectively. This section is primarily concerned with the discharge of foam solutions to wastewater treatment facilities and to the environment. The discharge of foam concentrates, while a related subject, is a much less common occurrence. All manufacturers of foam concentrate deal with clean-up and disposal of spilled concentrate in their MSDS sheets and product literature.
F.3 Discharge Scenarios. A discharge of foam water solution is most likely to be the result of one of four scenarios: (1) Manual fire-fighting or fuel-blanketing operations (2) Training (3) Foam equipment system tests (4) Fixed system releases These four scenarios include events occurring at such places as aircraft facilities, fire fighter training facilities, and special hazards facilities (such as flammable/hazardous warehouses, bulk flammable liquid storage facilities, and hazardous waste storage facilities). Each scenario is considered separately in F.3.1 through F.3.4.
F.3.1 Fire-Fighting Operations. Fires occur in many types of locations and under many different circumstances. In some cases it is possible to collect the foam solution used; and in others, such as in marine fire fighting, it is not. These types of incidents would include aircraft rescue and fire-fighting operations, vehicular fires (i.e., cars, boats, train cars), structural fires with hazardous materials, and flammable liquid fires. Foam water solution that has been used in fire-fighting operations will probably be heavily contaminated with the fuel or fuels involved in the fire. It is also likely to have been diluted with water discharged for cooling purposes. In some cases, the foam solution used during fire department operations can be collected. However, it is not always possible to control or contain the foam. This can be a consequence of the location of the incident or the circumstances surrounding it. Event-initiated manual containment measures are the operations usually executed by the responding fire department to contain the flow of foam water solution when conditions and manpower permit. Those operations include the following measures: (1) Blocking sewer drains: this is a common practice used to prevent contaminated foam water solution from entering the sewer system unchecked. It is then diverted to an area suitable for containment. (2) Portable dikes: these are generally used for land-based operations. They can be set up by the fire department personnel during or after extinguishment to collect run-off. (3) Portable booms: these are used for marine-based operations, which are set up to contain foam in a defined area. These generally involve the use of floating booms within a natural body of water
F.3.2 Training. Training is normally conducted under circumstances conducive to the collection of spent foam. Some fire training facilities have had elaborate systems designed and constructed to collect foam solution, separate it from the fuel, treat it, and — in some cases — re-use the treated water. At a minimum, most fire training facilities collect the foam solution for discharge to a wastewater treatment facility. Training can include the use of special training foams or actual fire-fighting foams. Training facility design should include a containment system. The wastewater treatment facility should first be notified and should give permission for the agent to be released at a prescribed rate.
F.3.3 System Tests. Testing primarily involves engineered, fixed foam fireextinguishing systems. Two types of tests are conducted on foam systems: acceptance tests, conducted pursuant to installation of the system; and maintenance tests, usually conducted annually to ensure the operability of the system. These tests can be arranged to pose no hazard to the environment. It is possible to test some systems using water or other nonfoaming, environmentally acceptable liquids in the place of foam concentrates if the authority having jurisdiction permits such substitutions. In the execution of both acceptance and maintenance tests, only a small amount of foam concentrate should be discharged to verify the correct concentration of foam in the foam water solution. Designated foam water test ports can be designed into the piping system so that the discharge of foam water solution can be directed to a controlled location. The controlled location can consist of a portable tank that would be transported to an approved disposal site by a licensed contractor. The remainder of the acceptance test and maintenance test should be conducted using only water.
F.3.4 Fixed System Releases. This type of release is generally uncontrolled, whether the result of a fire incident or a malfunction in the system. The foam solution discharge in this type of scenario can be dealt with by event-initiated operations or by engineered containment systems. Event-initiated operations encompass the same temporary measures that would be taken during fire department operations: portable dikes, floating booms, and so forth. Engineered containment would be based mainly on the location and type of facility, and would consist of holding tanks or areas where the contaminated foam water solution would be collected, treated, and sent to a wastewater treatment facility at a prescribed rate.
F.4 Fixed Systems. Facilities can be divided into those without an engineered containment system and those with an engineered containment system.
F.4.1 Facilities without Engineered Containment. Given the absence of any past requirements to provide containment, many existing facilities simply allow the foam water solution to flow out of the building and evaporate into the atmosphere or percolate into the ground. The choices for containment of foam water solution at such facilities fall into two categories: event-initiated manual containment measures and installation of engineered containment systems. Selection of the appropriate choice is dependent on the location of the facility, the risk to the environment, the risk of an automatic system discharge, the frequency of automatic system discharges, and any applicable rules or regulations. “Event-initiated manual containment measures” will be the most likely course of action for existing facilities without engineered containment systems. This can fall under the responsibility of the responding fire department and include such measures as blocking storm sewers, constructing temporary dikes, and deploying floating booms. The degree of such measures will primarily be dictated by location as well as available resources and manpower.” The “installation of engineered containment systems” is a possible choice for existing facilities. Retrofitting an engineered containment system is costly and can adversely affect facility operations. There are special cases, however, that can warrant the design and installation of such systems. Such action is a consideration where an existing facility is immediately adjacent to a natural body of water and has a high frequency of activation.
F.4.2 Facilities with Engineered Containment. Any engineered containment system will usually incorporate an oil/water separator. During normal drainage conditions (i.e., no foam solution runoff), the separator functions to remove any fuel particles from drainage water. However, when foam water solution is flowing the oil/water separator must be bypassed so that the solution is diverted directly to storage tanks. This can be accomplished automatically by the installation of motorized valves set to open the bypass line upon activation of the fixed fire-extinguishing systems at the protected property. The size of the containment system is dependent on the duration of the foam water flow, the flow rate, and the maximum anticipated rainfall in a 24- hour period. Most new containment systems will probably only accommodate individual buildings. However, some containment systems can be designed to accommodate multiple buildings dependent upon the topography of the land and early identification in the overall site planning process. The specific type of containment system selected will also be dependent upon location, desired capacity, and function of facilities in question. They include earthen retention systems, belowground tanks, open-top inground tanks, and sump and pump designs (i.e., lift stations) piped to aboveground or inground tanks. The earthen retention designs consist of open-top earthen berms, which usually rely upon gravity-fed drainage piping from the protected building. They can simply allow the foam water solution to percolate into the ground or can include an impermeable liner. Those containing an impermeable liner can be connected to a wastewater treatment facility or can be suction pumped out by a licensed contractor. Closed-top, belowground storage tanks can be the least environmentally acceptable design approach. They usually consist of a gravity-fed piping arrangement and can be suction pumped out or piped to a wastewater treatment facility. A potential and often frequent problem associated with this design is the leakage of ground water or unknown liquids into the storage tank. Open-top, belowground storage tanks are generally lined concrete tanks that can rely on gravity-fed drainage piping or a sump and pump arrangement. These can accommodate individual or multiple buildings. They must also accommodate the maximum anticipated rainfall in a 24-hour period. These are usually piped to a wastewater treatment facility. Aboveground tanks incorporate a sump and pump arrangement to closed, aboveground tanks. Such designs usually incorporate the use of one or more submersible or vertical shaft, large capacity pumps. These can accommodate individual or multiple buildings.
F.4.3 New Facilities. The decision to design and install a fixed foam water solution containment system is dependent on the location of the facility, the risk to the environment, possible impairment of facility operations, the design of the fixed foam system (i.e., automatically or manually activated), the ability of the responding fire department to execute event-initiated containment measures, and any pertinent regulations.
AFT New facilities might not warrant the expense and problems associated with containment systems. Where the location of a facility does not endanger ground water or any natural bodies of water, this can be an acceptable choice, provided the fire department has planned emergency manual containment measures. Where conditions warrant the installation of engineered containment systems, there are a number of considerations. They include size of containment, design and type of containment system, and the capability of the containment system to handle individual or multiple buildings. Engineered containment systems can be a recommended protective measure where foam extinguishing systems are installed in facilities that are immediately adjacent to a natural body of water. These systems can also be prudent at new facilities, where site conditions permit, to avoid impairment of facility operations. F.5 Disposal Alternatives. The uncontrolled release of foam solutions to the environment should be avoided. Alternative disposal options are as follows: (1) Discharge to a wastewater treatment plant with or without pretreatment (2) Discharge to the environment after pretreatment (3) Solar evaporation (4) Transportation to a wastewater treatment plant or hazardous waste facility Foam users, as part of their planning process, should make provisions to take the actions necessary to utilize whichever of these alternatives is appropriate for their situation.
Section F.6 describes the actions that can be taken, depending on the disposal alternative that is chosen. F.6 Collection and Pretreatment of Foam Solutions Prior to Disposal. F.6.1 Collection and Containment. The essential first step in employing any of these alternatives is collection of the foam solution. As noted above, facilities that are protected by foam systems normally have systems to collect and hold fuel spills. These systems can also be used to collect and hold foam solution. Training facilities are, in general, designed so that foam solution can be collected and held. Fire fighters responding to fires that are at other locations should attempt, insofar as it is practical, to collect foam solution run-off with temporary dikes or other means. F.6.2 Fuel Separation. Foam solution that has been discharged on a fire and subsequently collected will usually be heavily contaminated with fuel. Since most fuels present their own environmental hazards and will interfere with foam solution pretreatment, an attempt should be made to separate as much fuel as possible from the foam solution. As noted in F.4.2, the tendency of foam solutions to form emulsions with hydrocarbon fuels will interfere with the operation of conventional fuel-water separators. An alternative is to hold the collected foam solution in a pond or lagoon until the emulsion breaks and the fuel can be separated by skimming. This can take from several hours to several days. During this time, agitation should be avoided to prevent the emulsion from reforming. F.6.3 Pretreatment Prior to Discharge. F.6.3.1 Dilution. Foam manufacturers and foam users recommend dilution of foam solution before it enters a wastewater treatment plant. There is a range of opinion on the optimum degree of dilution. It is generally considered that the concentration of foam solution in the plant influent should not exceed 1700 ppm (588 gal of plant influent per gallon of foam solution). This degree of dilution is normally sufficient to prevent shock loading and foaming in the plant. However, each wastewater treatment plant must be considered as a special case, and those planning a discharge of foam solution to a wastewater treatment facility should discuss this subject with the operator of the facility in advance. Diluting waste foam solution 588:1 with water is an impractical task for most facilities, especially when large quantities of foam solution are involved. The recommended procedure is to dilute the foam solution to the maximum amount practical and then meter the diluted solution into the sewer at a rate which, based on the total volume of plant influent, will produce a foam solution concentration of 1700 ppm or less. For example, if the discharge is to be made to a 6 million gal/day treatment plant, foam solution could be discharged at the rate of 7 gpm (6,000,000 gal/day divided by 1440 minutes/day divided by 588 equals 7 gpm). The difficulties of metering such a low rate of discharge can be overcome by first diluting the foam solution by 10:1 or 20:1, permitting discharge rates of 70 or 140 gpm respectively. Dilution should also be considered if the foam solution is to be discharged to the environment in order to minimize its impact. F.6.3.2 Defoamers. The use of defoamers will decrease, but not eliminate, foaming of the foam solution during pumping, dilution, and treatment. The foam manufacturer should be consulted for recommendations as to the choice of effective defoamers for use with a particular foam concentrate. F.6.3.3 Method for Determining the Effective Amount of Antifoam Apparatus. The effective amount of antifoam is determined by using the following apparatus: (1) Balance — 1600 gram capacity minimum — readability 0.2 gram maximum (2) One 2 L beaker or similar container (3) One 1 gal plastic or glass jug with cap (4) Eyedropper (5) Optional — 10 ml pipette F.6.3.3.1 Procedure. Proceed with the following instructions to determine the effective amount of antifoam: (1) In the 2 L beaker, weigh out 1 gram (1 ml) of antifoam using an eyedropper or the pipette. (2) Add 999 grams of water. (3) Mix well. (4) Weigh out 1000 grams of the solution to be defoamed and place it in the gallon jug. (5) Add 10 grams (10 ml) of the diluted antifoam to the gallon jug using the eyedropper or pipette, cap it and shake vigorously. (6) If the solution in the jug foams, go back to step 5 and repeat this step until little or no foam is generated by shaking the jug; keep a record of the number of grams (ml) that are required to eliminate the foaming. (7) The number of grams (ml) of diluted antifoam required to eliminate foaming is equal to the number of parts per million (ppm) of the antifoam as supplied that must be added to the solution to be defoamed. (8) Calculate the amount of neat antifoam to be added as follows: Volume of solution to be defoamed = V (U.S. gal) ppm of antifoam required = D Lb of antifoam required = W 8.32 V × D ÷ 1,000,000 = W F.6.3.3.2 Example. 10,000 gal of foam solution require defoaming. The procedure above has determined that 150 ppm of antifoam are needed to defoam this solution 8.32 × 10,000 × 150 ÷ 1,000,000 = 12.48 lb. (9) The amount of antifoam to be added will normally be quite small compared to volume of the solution to be defoamed. The antifoam must be uniformly mixed with the solution to be defoamed. It will aid in the achievement of this objective if the antifoam is diluted as much as is practical with water or the solution to be defoamed prior to addition to the solution containment area. The solution in the containment area must then be agitated to disperse the antifoam uniformly. One method of doing this is to use a fire pump to draft out of the containment area and discharge back into it using a water nozzle set on straight stream. Alternatively, if suitable metering equipment is available, antifoam as supplied or diluted antifoam can be metered into the solution discharge line at the proper concentration
. F.7 Discharge of Foam Solution to Wastewater Treatment Facilities. Biological treatment of foam solution in a wastewater treatment facility is an acceptable method of disposal. However, foam solutions have the potential to cause plant upsets and other problems if not carefully handled. The reasons for this are explained in F.7.1 through F.7.4.
F.7.1 Fuel Contamination. Foam solutions have a tendency to emulsify hydrocarbon fuels and some polar fuels that are only slightly soluble in water. Water-soluble polar fuels will mix with foam solutions. The formation of emulsions will upset the operation of fuel/water separators and potentially cause the carryover of fuel into the waste stream. Many fuels are toxic to the bacteria in wastewater treatment plants. F.7.2 Foaming. The active ingredients in foam solutions will cause copious foaming in aeration ponds, even at very low concentrations. Aside from the nuisance value of this foaming, the foaming process tends to suspend activated sludge solids in the foam. These solids can be carried over to the outfall of the plant. Loss of activated sludge solids can also reduce the effectiveness of the wastewater treatment. This could cause water quality problems such as nutrient loading in the waterway to which the outfall is discharged. Because some surfactants in foam solutions are highly resistant to biodegradation, nuisance foaming may occur in the outfall waterway. F.7.3 BOD (Biological Oxygen Demand). Foam solutions have high BODs compared to the normal influent of a wastewater treatment plant. If large quantities of foam solution are discharged to a wastewater treatment plant, shock loading can occur, causing a plant upset. Before discharging foam solutions to a wastewater treatment plant, the plant operator should be contacted. This should be done as part of the emergency planning process. The plant operator will require, at a minimum, a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) on the foam concentrate, an estimate of the five-day BOD content of the foam solution, an estimate of the total volume of foam solution to be discharged, the time period over which it will be discharged, and, if the foam concentrate is protein-based, an estimate of the ammonia nitrogen content of the foam solution. The foam manufacturer will be able to provide BOD and ammonia nitrogen data for the foam concentrate, from which the values for foam solution can be calculated. The other required information is site-specific and should be developed by the operator of the facility from which the discharge will occur.
F.9.1 Toxicity of Surfactants. Fire-fighting agents, used responsibly and following Material Safety Data Sheet instructions, pose little toxicity risk to people. However, some toxicity does exist. The toxicity of the surfactants in fire-fighting foams, including the fluorochemical surfactants, is a reason to prevent unnecessary exposure to people and to the environment. It is a reason to contain and treat all fire-fighting foam wastes whenever feasible. One should always make plans to contain wastes from training exercises and to treat them following the suppliersʼ disposal recommendations as well as the requirements of local authorities. Water that foams when shaken due to contamination from fire-fighting foam should not be ingested. Even when foaming is not present, it is prudent to evaluate the likelihood of drinking water supply contamination and to use alternate water sources until one is certain that surfactant concentrations of concern no longer exist. Suppliers of fire-fighting foams should be able to assist in evaluating the hazard and in recommending laboratories that can do appropriate analysis when necessary.
F.7.4 Treatment Facilities. Foam concentrates or solutions can have an adverse effect on microbiologically based oily water treatment facilities. The end user should take due account of this before discharging foam systems during testing or training. F.8 Foam Product Use Reporting. Federal (U.S.), state, and local environmental jurisdictions have certain chemical reporting requirements that apply to chemical constituents within foam concentrates. In addition, there are also requirements that apply to the flammable liquids to which the foams are being applied. For example, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the guidelines in E.8.1 through E.8.4 must be adhered to. F.8.1 Releases of ethylene glycol in excess of 5000 lb are reportable under U.S. EPA Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation & Liability Act (CERCLA), Sections 102(b) and 103(a). Ethylene glycol is generally used as a freeze-point suppressant in foam concentrates. F.8.2 As of June 12, 1995, the EPA issued a final rule 60 CFR 30926 on several broad categories of chemicals, including the glycol ethers. The EPA has no reportable quantity for any of the glycol ethers. Thus foams containing glycol ethers (butyl carbitol) are not subject to EPA reporting. Consult the foam manufacturersʼ MSDS to determine if glycol ethers are contained in a particular foam concentrate. F.8.3 The EPA does state that CERCLA liability continues to apply to releases of all compounds within the glycol ether category, even if reporting is not required. Parties responsible for releases of glycol ethers are liable for the costs associated with cleanup and any natural resource damages resulting from the release. F.8.4 The end user should contact the relevant local regulating authority regarding specific current regulations. F.9 Environmental Properties of Hydrocarbon Surfactants and Fluorochemical Surfactants. Fire-fighting foam agents contain surfactants. Surfactants or surface active agents are compounds that reduce the surface tension of water. They have both a strongly “water-loving” portion and a strongly “water-avoiding” portion. Dish soaps, laundry detergents, and personal health care products — such as shampoos — are common household products that contain hydrocarbon surfactants. Fluorochemical surfactants are similar in composition to hydrocarbon surfactants; however a portion of the hydrogen atoms have been replaced by fluorine atoms. Unlike chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and some other volatile fluorocarbons, fluorochemical surfactants are not ozone depleting and are not restricted by the Montreal Protocol or related regulations. Fluorochemical surfactants also have no effect on global warming or climate change. AFFF, Fluoroprotein Foam, and FFFP are foam liquid concentrates that contain fluorochemical surfactants. There are environmental concerns with use of surfactants that should be kept in mind when using these products for extinguishing fires or for fire training. These concerns are as follows: (1) All surfactants have a certain level of toxicity. (2) Surfactants used in fire-fighting foams cause foaming. (3) Surfactants used in fire-fighting foams can be persistent. (This is especially true of the fluorine containing portion of fluorochemical surfactants.) (4) Surfactants can be mobile in the environment. They can move with water in aquatic ecosystems and leach through soil in terrestrial ecosystems. F.9.1 through F.9.5 explain what each of these properties mean and what t
2009 https://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/AboutTheCodes/11/11-F2009-ROP.pdf
2011https://www.nfpa.org/Assets/files/AboutTheCodes/11/11_FOM-AAA_F2014_FDBallotFinal.pdf
We need to make sure from here on in that if a manufacturer is aware of any toxic chemical used in the manufacting of, or that may degrade to form a toxic chemical, they need to tell us. The case of DuPont / Chemours is exactly the same in the PPE side of the issue. Take a look at the CEO of Chemours. Mark Vergnano. He came up through the ranks in DuPont. He made it to VP of DuPont Personal Protection. Then made his way over to Chemours as CEO.
TOXIC TRIFECTA: PFOS, PFOA,PFNA
YOUR TURNOUT GEAR AND PFOA·SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 11, 201853 Reads
I am deeply troubled thinking of the toxic soup the fire service has been fed for 40 years. While no one said nothing to you, these same companies that profess to have FF Cancer at the core of all they do is the most maniacal thing I’ve ever seen. 3M HID the toxic research from the EPA for 30 YEARS… DuPont/Chemours….. where do I begin… http://www.fluoridealert.org/wp-content/pesticides/effect.pfos.class.timeline.htm
If you are in the fire service, you understand the depths of this great omission. If you are not in the fire service, imagine the tobacco makers preaching lung cancer prevention to it’s customers, telling them their cancer is from air pollution or asbestos or anything but their cigarettes. YES it’s that obscene. DuPont is in everything FF Cancer related, our research, our FF cancer out-reach, even sponsoring the IAFF’s FF Cancer Symposium this year as well .. the list goes on and on..
The testing of samples of 2004 new, and never-worn turnout gear turned up 6 PFAS chemicals. The method used by Professor Peaslee could only tell us just the fraction of the potential that was in the samples.. read that again.. just the fraction is all it could tell us. That fraction had over 14,000 times the new PFOA MRL recommended by the 2018 CDC PFAS Toxilogical Profile FOR DRINKING WATER.. we’re not even close to talking about textile limits. Albeit the EPA has been ‘seeking PFOA comments since 2003’. They are still seeking comments. The testing also showed 279 ug/mL of PFNA or, C9. Again, that’s just the ‘fraction of the potential’ in the samples tested. https://station-pride.com/2018/02/18/fire-gear-laboratory-test-results/
PFNA concerns me as well, due to the nature of it’s effects on the spleen. So, what exactly have we been subjected to? When is the testing going to start, and when can we get answers to what we are wearing?
So, between the AFFF that is used in training and practical incidents (that we just saw the first Prop 65 ‘reproductive cancer warning’ on Viking 3% AFFF, and ., the PFOA/PFNA ., in PPE, what have we been subjected to really?
The list of fire stations with water wells testing elevated due to years of training with AFFF has not even been looked at. And yes we have sounded the alarm. Almost weekly we’re emailing EPA, CDC, IAFF, NFPA politicos and high ranking officials.
Nov 10, 2018. 90 days since Attorney #RobertBilott notified CDC/ATSDR that firefighters have earned that spot on the Pease AFB PFAS Concept Plan. Didn’t the firefighters on that base drink/shower/cook wash engines, hose down hangars, train with, the water too? We do not have another day to waste waiting for CDC and EPA to do something. They’ve been wringing their hands and asking for PFOA comments for over a decade, KNOWING YOU ARE WADING IN THIS STUFF. https://www.federalregister.gov/…/proposed-data-collection-…
What about the AFFF the FF’s are/were exposed to?
This is horrifying to me. The CDC is managing your FF Cancer Registry, and has omitted you from the PFAS concept plan. Where is the outrage fire service???
https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/firefighters/health.html
While we’re at it. The FOX study showed FF’s serum higher in PFOA and PFNA….. check out the results again from Professor Peaslee’s testing….. Remember, in 2015 we had no idea how much PFOA and PFNA was in our PPE. It wasn’t even a blip on the radar.
Biomonitoring in California Firefighters Metals and Perfluorinated Chemicals
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4274322/
Perfluorinated chemical multivariate models (Tables (Tables66 to to8)8) identified significantly higher (PFOSA) concentrations in firefighters aged 50 years or older. Monthly or more frequent responses to commercial fires were associated with higher PFHpA concentrations. Those who responded to hazardous materials incidents at least monthly had higher concentrations of 2-(N-methyl-perfluorooctane sulfonamido) (N-MeFOSAA) than those who did not, whereas any hazardous materials response was associated with significantly higher PFNA values. PFNA and PFOA were also significantly higher in firefighters whose turnout gear had not been professionally decontaminated within the last year. Participants who used Class A firefighting foam had significantly higher PFHpA concentrations than those who did not use any class of foam. Conclusions: Perfluorodecanoic acid concentrations were three times higher in this firefighter group than in NHANES adult males. Firefighters may have unidentified sources of occupational exposure to perfluorinated chemicals.
PFNA:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4283221/
https://www.ewg.org/sites/humantoxome/chemicals/chemical.php?chemid=100306
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5204304/ :
PFOS, PFNA, and PFOA Sub-Lethal Exposure to Embryonic Zebrafish Have Different Toxicity Profiles in Terms of Morphometrics, Behavior and Gene Expression
http://www.healthvermont.gov/sites/default/files/documents/pdf/ENV_DW_PFAS_HealthAdvisory.pdf
Yet still, we can’t get you studies for PFAS exposure…. stunning.
Toxological Profile 2018 CDC/ATSDR
https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiles/tp200.pdf
p. 536, ATSDR Tox Profile
Occupational Exposure:
“Individuals who perform jobs that require frequent contact with perfluoroalkyl-containing products, such as individuals who install and treat carpets or firefighters, are expected to have occupational exposure to these substances
Still, we’re not able to get doctors to write scripts to test our serum levels for pfas. Nor are we able to get any direction from the EPA OR CDC. They continue to run tests.. solicit comments… and they do not reply to emails with ANY plan for the fire service.
Diane Cotter
I’d like to close out my statement today with this statement from Dr Graham Peaslee. In January of 2019 I spoke at the Massachusetts DES Stakeholders meeting to set a MRL for PFOA in water. I wanted to express how much PFOA there is in one set of turnout gear. Here is our discussion:
My January 16, 2019 Stakeholder Statement at MassDEP PFAS MRL Petition by Toxics Action Center and Conservation Law Fund.
Good Morning,
I’m Diane Cotter, and I advocate for firefighters PFAS exposures.
Regarding AFFF: October 2nd, 2017 the NH DES sent every fire station in the NH a letter advising them to test their water, as recent findings showed 6 of 7 stations tested elevated for PFOA/PFOS. This was an accidental discovery brought on by construction next to a fire station. Soil samples required by nearby building construction discovered high levels of PFOA at the firehouse.
There are 58,000 fire stations in the USA. It would be wise to test every station.
Yesterday I was told by a 30 year Massachusetts firefighter that years ago they would wash the walls of the station with AFFF, wash their turnout gear, their trucks, and bring their gear home for wives to wash. Then, they would discharg their tanks in the nearby reservoir.
We applaud the Mass initiative to collect old AFFF to be disposed of properly and ask that this program continue.
Today I’m here to talk to you about the staggering amounts of PFAS used in the manufacturing of firefighter turnout gear. Textiles make up over 30% of the fluoro-industry footprint.
It was not the manufacturers of our gear, or NFPA, OSHA, CDC, EPA, or ACC that made this discovery and notified us. It was the diagnosis of my firefighter husband’s career-ending cancer that led to this discovery.
Searching for information on chemicals used in the manufacturing of gear was hopeless. Manufacturers cited propriety CBI. These same manufacturers are immersed in every aspect of firefighter cancer research, prevention, and outreach. But they will not discuss the chemicals used in the gear.
I went to the extreme length of purchasing ‘new never-worn’ turnout gear, with the hopes of finding a scientist who would be willing to test it for us. And I found him, I found Profess of Physics, Graham Peaslee of Notre Dame University. He relayed the initial fluorine results were so high in fluorine the amounts had to be read in ‘volume’ not the usual ppb/ppm. Further testing would reveal PFOA thousands of times higher than the new MRL, as well as PFNA, PFDA, and PFHxS…
PFOA causes testicular cancer. PFOA is the number one cancer in the fire service. DuPont is a manufacturer of our gear. DuPont knew in 1992 PFOA causes testicular cancer. DuPont has never told us about the PFOA in turnout gear.
Professor Peaslee is now testing 20 years worth of new, never-worn turnout gear. We are funding this research through private fundraising, car washes, bake-sales, and grants given by Boston’s own Last Call Foundation Honoring Fire Fighter Michael Kennedy, as well as Fire Maul Tools of Chicago. Professor Peaslee is working pro-bono. It’s the commercial testing that is extremely expensive.
Please allow me to read this brief explanation of concern from the Professor:
Question:
Professor, I’ve requested to give an oral statement tomorrow at this event and wish to shed light on the amount of long-chain PFAS in the PPE degrading in landfills for years…
Answer:
Diane, we don’t know how much of the PFAS coating in a jacket will degrade into PFOA, and how much will degrade into other PFAS unfortunately. I do know the timescale on textiles like turnout gear will be on the order of a decade or two before it all decomposes. And I do know from literature (attached) that the majority of clothing will decay in PFOA compared to other PFAS…maybe 50–60% will end up as PFOA. This leads to a scary amount of PFOA in a typical landfill leachate.
So to get you something more concrete, I went back to the measurement of the new turnout gears, that had 116 ppm of PFOA that was readily available from the material on the jacket. I am guessing 95+ % remain on the jacket, but this was what would come off immediately if you soaked the jacket in water for a couple days. I went to the internet and looked up how much material is in a men’s jacket, and it is about 3 yards x 45 in wide fabric or 1620 inches squared. Then I weighed a piece of jacket fabric in my lab from Boston FD, and I calculate about 730 g of fabric per jacket. (This is under 2 lbs, which seem a little light, but there is a lt of reinforced cloth and buckles on a typical jacket that probaly gives it a few more pounds, but no more PFAS.) If there are 730 g of fabric per jacket and there are 116 ppm PFOA per gram, then you end with about 85 mg of free PFOA per jacket. This may not seem like much, but if you tossed two jackets into an Olympic-sized swimming pool (with 660,000 gallons of water), this amount of PFOA would exceed the 70 parts per trillion EPA standard for drinking water! This is without decaying in a landfill 20 years. Imagining pants are about the same as a jacket, that means one set of new turnout gear tossed into water would produce enough waste PFOA to contaminate a full-sized swimming pool. Then if you let it decay in a landfill for 10–20 years you would probably get enough PFOA to contaminate 100 times that much…but the exact ratio of PFOA to to other PFAS isn’t known in decaying fabric, and the total amount of fluorochemicals applied to the clothing isn’t known exactly by anybody but manufacturers, so it will be hard to say whether it is 100x or 500x. But the bottom line is that these heavily treated textiles will contaminate 300,000 gallons of water per item readily, and maybe 100 times that over a couple of decades in the landfill…which is a lot of water.
There are some assumptions in here…but this is why I am concerned about the end-of-life disposal of turnout gear…like carpets, they represent a significant source of PFAS for a few generations to come.
…………………………………
From Diane;
A few comments to consider. Gear is replaced every 5 to 10 years. The NFPA standard is every 10 years (with more frequent use some will be replaced sooner). NFPA annex recommends 2 sets of gear for every firefighter. There are 1.5 million firefighters in the USA. There are approximately 15,000 firefighters in Massachusetts. Our best guess is the chemicals began their use in turnout gear in the 80’s or 90’s. We’re not exactly sure.
We are now told by our manufactures that C6 is now used in place of C8. But the manufacturers didn’t tell us that PFOA was in our old gear to begin with. We have a trust issue here.
For the protection of the health of the citizens of the Commonwealth, and for the protection of the citizens who may be forced to pick up remediation costs, we ask that PFAS be classed as a group.
Thank you.
Review of the fate and transformation of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFASs) in landfills…
Environ Pollut. 2018 Apr;235:74–84. doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2017.12.030. Epub 2017 Dec 21. Review
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27095439
Our sincere thank you to the Committee for your time today.
Very Truly Yours,
Diane and Paul Cotter
37 Delton Drive
Rindge, NH
Please see our social media page Your Turnout Gear and PFOA for and our website www.yourturnoutgearandpfoa.com updates on this issue.