An Overview Of Fluorinated Firefighting Foams: Past, Present & Future Presented by: Jerry Back, JENSEN HUGHES FOAM SYSTEM SYMPOSIUM :
Overview Brief History of Foam Standards and Performance State of the Art Updates to Standards What Happens Next Page 2
Overview Originally Developed for liquid fuels suppression Protein Foam (PF) Fluoroprotein (FPF) AFFF Other Variants FFFP, FFF Application (mass flow) rate nozzle flow rate, gallons/minute-ft 2 (gpm/ft 2 ) Extinguishment density mass of foam per unit area required for fire extinguishment, gal/ft 2 Page 3
AFFF Development Naval Research Laboratory 1961 Synthetic surfactant formulated 1963 Patent application, initial spec 1966 Patent award assigned to US Secretary of the Navy 1968 NRL and 3M 6% seawater formulation 1969 Jacksonville, FLA, large and moderate scale test results, Mil-F-24385 Light Water characterized by spreading surface tension/spreading coefficient AFFF = Aqueous FILM Forming Foam Page 4
Main AFFF Uses Somewhat Different Worlds Commercial / Petrochemical Industry (UL 162) Tank Fuel storage Fuel handling systems DoD/ARFF/FAA (MIL-F-24385F) VSAs Hangars Aviation / Crash Page 5
Scenario Comparison Aircraft carrier flight deck <60 seconds Commercial Aviation 60 seconds Aircraft Hangar Military Aircraft 1 min (damageability assessment) Commercial aircraft 2 min Structure several minutes Shipboard spaces Military 1 min desirable 2-5 minutes acceptable in some situations Gasoline Fueling Facility, Sprinklered Liquid Warehouse 1-5 minutes to hours Fixed Protection not always provided Critical application rate needed Genesis / Rationale Page 6
NFPA Standards NFPA 11 Foam Basic foam protection, commercial petrochem, marine & industry 0.16 gpm/ft2 application rate, commercial UL 162 spec NFPA 16 Foam Sprinklers 0.16 gpm/ft2, UL 162 spec NFPA 403 Aircraft Rescue & Firefighting commercial aviation, 1 min Performance-based approach NFPA 409 Hangar Protection Structural protection option 0.16 gpm/ft2 Low level AFFF to protect aircraft 0.10 gpm/ft2 NFPA 412 expansion and drainage measurement and criteria Note all recognize performance advantage of AFFF vs alternatives Page 7
Commercial / Petrochemical Industry UL 162 - Foam Equipment and Liquid Concentrates Listed as a complete package Concentrates, Proportioners, Discharge devices Concentrations regulated (1,3,6% vol) Test parameters defined by manufacturer Application rate (0.04-06 gpm/ft 2 typ) Expansion ratio (discharge devices) Test and Design Requirements in Table 10.1 No compatibility Page 8
DoD / ARFF/ FAA NAVAL RESEARCH LABORATORY MILSPEC (MIL-F-24385F) / QPL ARFF is primary DoD hazard Only concentrate is approved Physical properties regulated for compatibility with DoD hardware Concentrations regulated (3 & 6% vol) Application rates (0.04-07 gpm/ft2 ) Page 9
AFFF MIL SPEC Extinguishing Performance Based on MIL-F-24385F 28 ft 2 fire test Application rate 0.071 gpm/ft 2 Maximum extinguishment time 30s Maximum extinguishment density 0.036 gal/ft 2 50 ft 2 fire test Application rate 0.04 gpm/ft 2 Maximum extinguishment time 50s Maximum extinguishment density 0.033 gal/ft 2 One-half and quadruple strength Burnback resistance Foam expansion and drainage Spreading coefficient Ignition resistance Page 10
Chemical/Physical/Quality Parameters in the MIL SPEC Requirement Refractive index Viscosity ph Corrosivity Total halides/chlorides Environmental impact Accelerated aging Seawater compatibility Interagent compatibility Reduced- and over-concentration fire test Compatibility with dry chemical (PKP) agents Torque to remove cap Packaging requirements Initial qualification inspection Quality conformance inspection (each lot) Rationale Refractive index enables use of refractometer to measure solution concentrations in field; this is most common method recommended in NFPA 412 a Viscosity Ensures accurate proportioning when proportioning pumps are used; for example, balance pressure proportioner or positive displacement injection pumps ph Ensures concentrate will be neither excessively basic or acidic; intention is to prevent corrosion in plumbing systems Limits corrosion of, and deposit buildup on, metallic components (various metals for 28 days) Limits corrosion of, and deposit buildup on, metallic components Biodegradability, fish kill, BOD/COD b Film formation capabilities, fire performance, foam quality; ensures a long shelf life Ensures satisfactory fire performance when mixed with brackish or saltwater Allows premixed or storage tanks to be topped off with different manufacturers agents, without affecting fire performance Ensures satisfactory fire performance when agents are proportioned inaccurately Ensures satisfactory fire performance when used in conjunction with supplementary agents Able to remove without wrench Strength, color, size, stackable, minimum pour, and vent-opening tamperproof seal; ensures uniformity of containers and ease of handling Establishes initial conformance with requirements Ensures continued conformance with requirements a NFPA 412, Standard for Evaluating Aircraft Rescue and Fire-Fighting Foam Equipment, 2003 edition b BOD/COD: Biological oxygen demand/chemical oxygen demand Page 11
Examples of Extinguishment Application Densities of Various Test Standards Max. Ext. Ext. App. Nozzle Movement Test Fuel Application Rate Time Density Permitted gpm/ft 2 sec gal/ft 2 MIL-SPEC 28 ft 2 MIL-SPEC 50 ft 2 Motor gasoline 0.071 Yes 30 0.036 Motor gasoline 0.04 Yes 50 0.033 UL 162 Heptane 0.04 Yes 180 0.12 ICAO B 50 ft 2 Kerosene 0.06 Yes (horizontal plane) 60 0.061 ICAO C 80 ft 2 Kerosene 0.04 No 60 (flickering flame permitted) 0.038 ISO Forceful Heptane 0.06 No 180 0.18 Page 12
The Present How we got here: Started with C8 formulations DoD sticking with AFFF near term (C6 formulations approved) In 2002, 3M ECF AFFF production stopped. In 2003, U.S. EPA banned ECF AFFF from production & importation. In 2006, U.S. EPA initiated PFOA Stewardship Program. Page 13
QPL / MILSPEC C6 Formulations Phos-Chek 3% & 6% AFFF MS Ansulite 3% (AFC-3MS) & Ansulite 6% (AFC-6MS) Chemguard 3% (C306-MS) & Chemguard 6% (C606-MS) FOMTEC AFFF 3%M National 3% (3EM-C6) & National 6% (6EM-C6) Tridol 3% (C6 M3) & Tridol 6% (C6 M6) Solberg Arctic 3% & Solberg Arctic 6% FireAde 3% & 6% MilSpec formulations John P. Farley 202-404-8459 john.farley@nrl.navy.mil NO MILSPEC FFFs Page 14
The Future of MILSPEC Foams Where we re going to end up: Fluorine in the environmental cross-hairs Major FFF research (SERDP and ESTCP) Fluorine Free Foams (FFF) Will need to restart from fundamentals Hazards How good is good enough? New Spec Page 15
State of the Art Dozens of UL 162 listed C6 formulations Some issues associated with C6 formulations 11 UL 162 listed FF formulations FFFs AFFFs FF formulations need additional research Extinguishment mechanisms Fuel compatibility Page 16
NFPA 11 (2020 Revision Cycle) NFPA 11 being revised to address Fluorine Free Foams: Task Group / Working Groups: Group 1: Define variables needed to be included in acceptance testing Group 2: Review NFPA 11 for modification due to new C6 and FF foams, also interface with NFPA 16, 30 and 400 s for consistency Group 3: Develop pager work for NFPA RF funding There is a separate UL 162 working group meeting hosted by UL on 1/17 Page 17
NFPA 11 Subgroup 1 UL / NFPA Test Procedure (264 Tests) Type of tests: Fuels: UL/FM Type III Topside UL/FM Type II for Polar Solvents Heptane Mil-Spec Gasoline IPA (Polar Solvent Test) Fuel Temperature: Standard (60 degrees F + - 10 degrees F) 85 degrees F Densities: Foam Concentrates: Water Type: Foam Quality Manufacturer Recommended (typically 0.06 gpm / ft.) 25% increase above recommended until pass or two increments One Reference AR-AFFF C6 foam UL AR Listing Fluorine Free Foams (3 maximum) Fresh Salt Minimum listed Maximum listed Page 18
NFPA 11 Subgroup 2 NFPA 11 Updates: Key Findings: 6 out of 12 chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10 Including 16 subsections 5 Annex sections (A, B, C, E, G) Will need to review Annex sections and revisit post testing Page 19
NFPA 11 Subgroup 3 NFPA / NFPA Research Foundation Liaison: Develop SOW and RFP for RF solicitation: Completed and out for review by working group Fire Protection Research Foundation POC: Sreenivasan Ranganathan sranganathan@nfpa.org Solicitation will be released early summer Page 20
Task Group Timeline January 11, 2018 March 6, 2018 8-11AM CST June 5, 2018 8-11AM CST September, 2018 October, 2018 December 4, 2018 8 11AM CST January 2, 2019 January 3, 2019 Kickoff meeting 1 st quarter meeting (Host: ExxonMobil Houston) 2 nd quarter meeting TBD Testing 3 rd quarter meeting - Report test results 4 th quarter meeting (review draft report) Face to Face - TBD Final Report submitted as public input Public input closing Page 21
NFPA Timeline January 3, 2019 September 5, 2019 November 14, 2019 July 30, 2020 August 27 2020 October 8, 2020 Public input closing First draft report posting Public comment closing Second draft report NITMAN Closing NITMAN Posting Page 22
Merger of NFPA 11 & 16 NFPA 16 fits easily into NFPA 11 Chapter 1 Administration Chapter 2 Referenced Publications Chapter 3 Definitions Chapter 4 System Components and System Types Chapter 5 Low-Expansion System Design (Tank and Spill Areas) Chapter 6 Low-Expansion System Design (Sprinkler and Spray Systems) Chapter 6 7 Medium and High-Expansion Systems Chapter 7 8 Compressed Air Foam Systems Chapter 8 9 Specifications and Plans Chapter 9 10 Installation Requirements Chapter 10 11 Low-Expansion Foam Systems for Marine Applications Chapter 11 12 Testing and Acceptance Chapter 12 13 Maintenance Page 23
Summary All Foaming Agents Have an Environmental Impact Elimination of Fluorosurfactants is Inevitable Due To Regulatory Pressure Extinguishing effectiveness of current FFFs AFFF Both Fire Extinguishment and Environmental Impact Should Be Performance Based How Good is Good Enough?» Change is underway Page 24
QUESTIONS? Contact Jerry Back +1 410-737-8677 x10202 Questions? jback@jensenhughes.com For More Information Visit jensenhughes.com Page 25 25