FINAL

Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, 

Louisiana

Perfluorooctane-Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic 

Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites

ARNG Installations, Nationwide

February 2019

Prepared for:

Army National Guard Headquarters

111 S. George Mason Drive

Arlington, VA 22204

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Baltimore District

2 Hopkins Plaza

Baltimore, MD 21201

Prepared by:

AECOM

12420 Milestone Center Drive, Suite 150

Germantown, MD 20876

aecom.com

Contract Number: W912DR-12-D-0014

Delivery Order: W912DR17F0192
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

i

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................1

1. Introduction........................................................................................................................5

1.1 Authority and Purpose ..............................................................................................5

1.2 Preliminary Assessment Methods .............................................................................5

1.3 Report Organization..................................................................................................6

1.4 Facility Location and Description...............................................................................6

1.5 Facility Environmental Setting...................................................................................7

1.5.1 Geology .........................................................................................................7

1.5.2 Hydrogeology.................................................................................................8

1.5.3 Hydrology.......................................................................................................8

1.5.4 Climate...........................................................................................................9

1.5.5 Current and Future Land Use.........................................................................9

2. Fire Training Areas...........................................................................................................13

3. Non-Fire Training Areas ...................................................................................................15

3.1 Camp Minden Fire Stations.....................................................................................15

3.2 Landfills ..................................................................................................................15

4. Emergency Response Areas............................................................................................16

5. Adjacent Sources.............................................................................................................17

6. Conceptual Site Model.....................................................................................................18

6.1 AOI 1 - LSU FETI....................................................................................................18

7. Conclusions .....................................................................................................................21

7.1 Findings..................................................................................................................21

7.2 Uncertainties...........................................................................................................21

7.3 Potential Future Actions ..........................................................................................22

8. References ......................................................................................................................24
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

ii

Figures

Figure ES-1 Summary of PA Findings

Figure ES-2 Conceptual Site Model

Figure 1-1 Facility Location

Figure 1-2 Groundwater Features

Figure 1-3 Surface Water Features

Figure 2-1 Fire Training Area

Figure 6-1 Area of Interest

Figure 6-2 Conceptual Site Model

Figure 7-1 Summary of PA Findings

Tables

Table 7-1 PA Findings Summary

Appendices

Appendix A Data Resources

Appendix B Preliminary Assessment Documentation

B.1 Interview Records

B.2 Visual Site Inspection Checklists

B.3 Conceptual Site Model Information

Appendix C Photographic Log
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations

AECOM AECOM Technical Services, Inc.

AFFF aqueous film forming foam

amsl above mean sea level

AOI area of interest

ARNG Army National Guard

ARNG-ILE Army National Guard Environmental Programs Division

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Act

CMTS Camp Minden Training Site

CSM conceptual site model

FETI Fire and Emergency Training Institute 

FTA fire training area

IED Installations and Environment Division

LDEQ Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality

LAAP Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant

LAARNG Louisiana Army National Guard

LMD Louisiana Military Department

LNG

LSU

Louisiana National Guard

Louisiana State University

LTC Lieutenant Colonel

NG/L

NPL

PA

nanograms per liter

National Priority List

Preliminary Assessment

PFAS per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances

PFOA perfluorooctanoic acid

PFOS perfluorooctanesulfonic acid

SI Site inspection

SSGT Staff Sergeant

US United States

USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers

USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency

WWTP waste water treatment plant
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

1

Executive Summary

The United States (US) Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Baltimore District on behalf of the

Army National Guard (ARNG)-Installations & Environment Division, Cleanup Branch contracted

AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) to perform Preliminary Assessments (PAs) and Site

Inspections for Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA)

Impacted Sites at ARNG Facilities Nationwide. The ARNG is assessing potential effects on

human health related to processes at facilities that used per- and poly-fluoroalkyl substances

(PFAS) (a suite of related chemicals), primarily in the form of aqueous film forming foam (AFFF)

released as part of firefighting activities, although other PFAS sources are possible.

AECOM completed a PA for PFAS at Camp Minden Training Site (CMTS) in Webster and

Bossier Parishes, Louisiana, to assess potential PFAS release areas and exposure pathways to

receptors. Ownership of CMTS, formerly the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant (LAAP), was

transferred to the State of Louisiana in 2004. The installation is currently managed by the

Louisiana Department of the Military (LMD) for use as a regional training center; and, several

former LAAP production lines are leased to commercial/industrial tenants. One tenant, the

Louisiana State University Fire and Emergency Training Institute (LSU FETI), operates a fire

training area (FTA) in the southwest portion of the installation.

The performance of this PA included the following tasks:

 Reviewed data resources to obtain information relevant to suspected PFAS releases

 Conducted a 1-day site visit on 10 April 2018

 Interviewed personnel associated with CMTS/LAAP activities during the site visit including

the Bossier Parish Fire Chief, retired LAAP Environmental Manager/Safety Officer and the

Manager of the LSU FETI.

 Incorporated input received from Louisiana Department of the Military (LMD) personnel,

who obtained operational information directly from their CMTS tenants.

 Completed visual site inspection at a suspected PFAS release location and documented

with photographs

Sampling of the three installation potable water wells for PFAS compounds was conducted by

the ARNG in April 2017. With one exception, no detections were reported in the sample results.

The exception was 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate (FTS) which was detected in Well 22 at an

estimated concentration of 5.72 nanograms per liter. The laboratory qualified the result with a “J”

flag because the detected concentration is less than the method reporting limit. This compound

is included in the EPA Method 537 suite. Due to its unknown toxicity, a screening level has not

been developed for this compound.

One area of interest (AOI) related to potential PFAS releases was identified at CMTS based on

PA data. The AOI is shown on Figure ES-1 and described below:

Area of Interest Name Used by Release Dates

AOI 1 LSU FETI Fire Training Area LSU FETI 2007 to 2013

This PA Report documents the known FTA operated by the LSU FETI. No other locations where

PFAS may have been stored or released into the environment at CMTS were identified during

the PA.
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

2

Based on potential AFFF releases at this AOI, there is potential for exposure to PFAS 

contamination in surface water and sediment for all receptors via ingestion, and in shallow 

groundwater for all receptors due to the comingling of surface water and shallow groundwater in 

the vicinity of Camp Minden and due to the existence of nearby drinking water wells. No other 

sources of PFAS were identified in the local area surrounding Camp Minden through interviews 

or review of previous investigations. The Conceptual Site Model for Camp Minden is shown on 

Figure ES-2. 
Surface 

Water

Impoundment

Highway 164

AOI 1 

Unnamed Ditch

22B91-buila-00313

22B91-buila-00839

22B91-buila-00841

22B91-buila-00842

22B91-buila-00843

22B91-buila-00844

22B91-buila-00845

LSU FETI

Offices

LSU FETI Warehouse

- AFFF Storage

Tank Farm Fire

Training Area

0 125 250 500

Feet

Figure ES-1

Summary of PA Findings ­ CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Preliminary Assessment for PFAS at Camp Minden, LA

12/11/2018

12/11/2018

12/11/2018

MS

SS

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,

USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,

12/11/2018

1:3,000

Q:\Projects\ENV\GEARS\GEO\ARNG PFAS\900-CAD-GIS\920-GIS or Graphics\MXD\LA\Minden\Fig_ES-1_Minden_Summary.mxd

Legend

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

3
/

Media

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

Louisiana

State

University

(LSU) Fire

Training

Area (FTA)

Training Activities PFAS in

Surface Soil

Human

Activities

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne Soil

Particulate

Surface Soil

at AOI

Surface

Water/

Sediment

Subsurface

Soil

Shallow

Groundwater

Source Release

Mechanism Media Transportand Migration Media ExposureRoutes

Inhalation of

Dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Human Receptors:

Current/ Future

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial / Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Complete Pathway

Site

Worker

Construction

Worker

Off-Site

Resident

Recreational

User

Site

Worker

Construction

Worker

Off-Site

Resident

Recreational

User

LEGEND

/ /

Figure ES-2

Conceptual Site Model

Camp Minden Training Site

Potential

Off-Facility

Source Not

under

Control of

ARNG

/

/

/ /

/ / /

/ / /

/ /

/

/ /

/

/

/

4
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

5

1. Introduction

1.1 Authority and Purpose

The United States (US) Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Baltimore District on behalf of the 

Army National Guard (ARNG)-Installations & Environment Division (IED), Cleanup Branch 

contracted AECOM Technical Services, Inc. (AECOM) to perform Preliminary Assessments 

(PAs) and Site Inspections for Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic acid 

(PFOA) Impacted Sites at ARNG Facilities Nationwide under Contract Number W912DR-12-D0014, Task Order W912DR17F0192, issued 11 August 2017. The ARNG is assessing potential 

effects on human health related to processes at their facilities that used per- and poly-fluoroalkyl 

substances (PFAS) (a suite of related chemicals), primarily releases of aqueous film forming 

foam (AFFF) although other sources of PFAS are possible. In addition, the ARNG is assessing 

businesses or operations adjacent to the facility (not under the control of ARNG) that could 

potentially be responsible for a PFAS release. 

PFAS are classified as emerging environmental contaminants that are garnering increasing 

regulatory interest due to their potential risks to human health and the environment. PFAS 

formulations contain highly diverse mixtures of compounds. Thus, the fate of these PFAS 

compounds in the environment varies. The regulatory framework at both federal and state levels 

continues to evolve. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) issued Drinking Water 

Health Advisories for PFOA and PFOS in May 2016, but there are currently no promulgated 

national or State of Louisiana standards regulating PFAS in drinking water. In the absence of 

federal maximum contaminant levels, some states have adopted their own drinking water 

standards for PFAS.

This report presents findings of a PA for PFAS at Camp Minden Training Site (CMTS) (formerly 

the Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant [LAAP]) in Webster and Bossier Parishes, Louisiana in 

accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act 

(CERCLA), as amended, the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency 

Plan (40 Code of Federal Regulations Part 300), and USACE requirements and guidance.

This PA Report documents the known Fire Training Area (FTA) operated by the Louisiana State 

University Fire and Emergency Training Institute (LSU FETI) where PFAS-containing materials 

have historically been stored and used and therefore have the potential to be released into the 

environment at CMTS. No other locations where PFAS may have been stored or released into 

the environment at CMTS were identified during the PA. The term PFAS will be used throughout 

this report to encompass all PFAS chemicals being evaluated, including PFOS and PFOA, 

which are key components of AFFF.

1.2 Preliminary Assessment Methods

The performance of this PA included the following tasks: 

• Reviewed data resources to obtain information relevant to suspected PFAS releases

• Conducted a 1-day site visit on 10 April 2018

• Interviewed personnel associated with CMTS/LAAP activities during the site visit including

the Bossier Parish Fire Chief, retired LAAP Environmental Manager/Safety Officer and

Manager of the LSU FETI.

• Incorporated input received from Louisiana Department of the Military (LMD) personnel,

who obtained operational information directly from their CMTS tenants.
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

6

· Completed visual site inspection (VSI) at a potential PFAS release location and

documented with photographs

· Developed a conceptual site model (CSM) to outline the potential release and pathway of

PFAS for the area of interest (AOI) identified

1.3 Report Organization

This report has been prepared in accordance with the USEPA Guidance for Performing

Preliminary Assessments under CERCLA (USEPA, 1991). The report sections and descriptions

of each are:

· Section 1 – Introduction: identifies the project purpose and authority and describes the

facility location, environmental setting, and methods used to complete the PA.

· Section 2 – Fire Training Area: describes the known FTA at the facility identified during

the site visit.

· Section 3 – Non-Fire Training Areas: notes no other locations of potential or suspected

PFAS releases at the facility were identified.

· Section 4 – Emergency Response Areas: notes no areas of suspected or potential AFFF

release at the facility (i.e., in response to emergency situations) were identified.

· Section 5 – Adjacent Sources: notes no other locations of potential or suspected PFAS

releases were identified adjacent to the facility not under the control of ARNG.

· Section 6 – Conceptual Site Model: describes the pathways of PFAS transport and

receptors at the facility.

· Section 7 – Conclusions: summarizes the data findings and presents the conclusions and

uncertainties of the PA.

· Section 8 – References: provides the references used to develop this document.

· Appendix A – Data Resources

· Appendix B – Preliminary Assessment Documentation

· Appendix C – Photographic Log

1.4 Facility Location and Description

CMTS includes approximately 15,268.8 acres of land in Webster and Bossier Parishes

(Figure 1-1). The installation is bounded by U.S. Highway 80 and I-20 to the north, U.S.

Highway 164 to the south, Dorcheat Bayou to the east, and Clarke Bayou to the west. The cities

of Shreveport and Bossier City are approximately 22 miles west of the installation and the towns

of Dixie Inn and Minden are nearby to the northeast. Private parcels (off-facility) surround

CMTS. The Village of Doyline and surrounding rural areas border the site to the south and the

unincorporated community of Goodwill borders the site to the north (URS, 2016).

The administrative and residential facilities occupy approximately 154 acres, commercial

production lines and LMD mission support facilities occupy 2,970 acres, and 12,142.8 acres are

woodlands. The operational range area consists of 18 ranges used by the Louisiana Army

National Guard (LAARNG) for tactical training for Army National Guard troops. Current training

includes both non-live-fire and live-fire activities. The non-operational area is composed of 27

small parcels scattered throughout the west-central portion of the installation.
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

7

Several former LAAP production lines are used by either commercial/industrial tenants or are 

unused, locked, and secured from entry. Currently, LAARNG staffs approximately 244 people at 

CMTS. Fewer than 222 people work in the areas leased to tenants. 

The following is an overview of the various areas comprising CMTS reported in the Five Year 

Review (URS, 2016): 

Location Size Structures

Area A Administration area 54 acres 33 buildings

Area B Maintenance area 58 acres 43 buildings

Lines C, D, E, G, H, J, K, and S 565 acres 312 buildings

Storage facilities L and M 238 acres 246 buildings

Part operation areas Y and N 110 acres 43 buildings

Miscellaneous areas O, P, W, and STP 1 22 acres 13 buildings

Test areas: Central Proving Ground (CPG), T-7, and EWI 28 acres 6 buildings

Burning grounds BG-5, BG-8, and DA-9 102 acres 7 buildings

3 Landfills 7 acres 0 buildings

The U.S. Government acquired the site in 1941 for use as a U.S. Army Armament, Munitions, 

and Chemical Command installation. In 1996, all production ceased at LAAP and the facility 

was placed in modified caretaker status (LAAP, 2001). In 1989, LAAP was added to the National 

Priority List (NPL). In 2004, legislation authorized the U.S. Army to convey LAAP to the State 

of Louisiana. In accordance with the Deed of Transfer, approximately 14,949 acres were 

transferred to the State of Louisiana by and through the LMD. As described in the Finding of 

Suitability for Transfer (LAAP, 2004a) and separate Finding of Suitability for Early Transfer 

(LAAP, 2004b), the State is expected to use the majority of the property for military training

activities, with the remaining area used for commercial/industrial purposes and the U.S. 

Army retains the responsibility for ensuring that CERCLA selected remedies, as established 

in Records of Decision, remain protective of human health and the environment. In 2005, 

the site was renamed CMTS. 

Contract listings and expiration dates for CMTS real property agreements applicable to the 

scope of this PA are included in Appendix A. 

1.5 Facility Environmental Setting

CMTS is located in the Upper West Gulf Coast Plain region. Most of CMTS has flat terrain, and 

the major landform is the ancient Red River floodplain. Elevations throughout CMTS range from 

145 feet (ft) to 225 ft above mean sea level (Shaw, 2005). 

1.5.1 Geology

The geology of CMTS is characterized by unconsolidated continental and marine sediments, 

ranging in age from Eocene to Pleistocene. Pleistocene terrace deposits derived from the 

ancestral Red River cover the surface and generally grade from clays and silts at the surface to 

sand and gravel at depth. The terrace deposits are divided into Upper and Lower Terrace sands. 

The Sparta Sand Formation lies directly below the Terrace deposits, but is limited to the far 

eastern portion of CMTS (i.e., east of Boone Creek). The Sparta Sand Formation origin is 

fluvial-deltaic, deposited by the ancestral Mississippi River, and consists of non-marine massive 

sands, silty sands, and occasional lignite shale. The Cane River Formation is a low-permeability 

marine clay unit separating the overlying Terrace and Sparta Sands and the underlying Wilcox-
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

8

Carrizo Sand. The Cane River Formation varies in thickness from 200 to 300 feet. The WilcoxWilcox Group and Carrizo Sand underlie the Cane River Formation. The Upper Wilcox Group 

consists of massive continuous sand beds and subcrops beneath the western quarter of the site 

up to thicknesses as great as 550 feet (Shaw, 2005).

1.5.2 Hydrogeology

Three water-bearing units are present at the facility, listed in order from shallow to deep: Upper 

Terrace, Lower Terrace/Sparta Sand, and the Wilcox-Carrizo; one confining unit (Cane River 

Formation) overlies the Wilcox-Carrizo. The shallow groundwater system includes the Upper 

Terrace aquifer and the Lower Terrace/Sparta Sand aquifer, while the deep groundwater system 

is made up of the Wilcox-Carrizo aquifer. The deep groundwater within the Wilcox-Carrizo is 

confined by the overlying beds of the Cane River Formation. On the west side of CMTS, the 

Cane River Formation is absent, and the Lower Terrace sands rest unconformably on the 

Wilcox-Carrizo sands. The Sparta Sand is absent west of Boone Creek (Shaw, 2005). 

The stream erosional valleys truncate the Lower Terrace / Sparta Sand aquifers. Clarke Bayou 

on the west and Bayou Dorcheat on the east form effective flow boundaries for the Upper 

Terrace aquifer, and to some extent the Lower Terrace/Sparta Sand aquifer. As shown on 

Figure 1-2, groundwater flow within the Terrace units generally follows the topography and 

discharges to surface water drainage features (URS, 2016). There is some component of 

downward groundwater flow from the Upper Terrace to the Lower Terrace. The deep WilcoxCarrizo aquifer is an important drinking water and industrial use aquifer in northwest Louisiana. 

The aquifer is recharged from rainfall in the outcrop areas and from the overlying alluvial 

sediments. 

Camp Minden has three installation potable water wells, well numbers 4A, 18 and 22 which 

draw from the Wilcox aquifer. The total depths of these wells are 420, 691 and 612 feet below 

ground surface, respectively (URS, 2017). 

Under the Installation Restoration Program, the ARNG completed an inventory of nearby water 

supply wells. In addition to the three installation potable water wells, the inventory identified two 

public water supply wells north of the installation which draw from the Terrace aquifer (Village 

water system); public wells south of the installation (four Doyline water system, one Jenkins 

water system and one Horseshoe Road water system) which draw from the Wilcox-Carrizo

aquifer; and numerous private residential wells south of the installation which draw from both 

the Wilcox-Carrizo aquifer and from the overlying Terrace aquifer. These well locations and 

other groundwater features are shown on Figure 1-2. 

Sampling of the three Camp Minden installation potable water wells for PFAS compounds was 

conducted by the ARNG in April 2017. With one exception, no detections were reported in the 

sample results. The exception was 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate (6:2 FTS) which was detected in 

Well 22 at an estimated concentration of 5.72 nanograms per liter (NG/L). The laboratory 

qualified the result with a “J” flag because the detected concentration is less than the method 

reporting limit. This compound is included in the EPA Method 537 suite. Due to its unknown 

toxicity, a screening level has not been developed for this compound. The tabulated sampling 

results are included in Appendix A. Appendix A also includes a Fomtec product fact sheet 

which includes additional information regarding 6:2 FTS. 

1.5.3 Hydrology 

All surface water runoff from the installation exits along the southern boundary by four natural 

streams that originate north of CMTS. Bayou Dorcheat forms the eastern boundary of the 

installation, and Clarke Bayou forms the western boundary (Figure 1-3). Boone Creek and its 
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

9

tributaries drain the eastern and central portions and flow into Bayou Dorcheat. Caney Branch 

and a manmade unnamed ditch drain the western portions, and then flow into Clarke Bayou. 

Both Clarke Bayou and Bayou Dorcheat flow south into Lake Bistineau. The streams on CMTS

receive both surface runoff as well as groundwater discharge from the Upper and Lower Terrace 

aquifers. The installation’s active wastewater treatment plant discharges to Boone Creek near 

the southern installation boundary (URS, 2016). 

1.5.4 Climate 

Prevailing southerly winds provide a moist subtropical climate. Climate data are reported for the 

nearby city of Minden, where average annual temperatures range from 52.3 degrees Fahrenheit 

(°F) to 75.6°F. January is the coldest month with average temperatures from 33oF to 56°F. The 

warmest month tends to be July, with average monthly temperatures from 72oF to 93°F. Average 

annual rainfall in Minden is 55.43 inches. The wettest months are November and December, 

with the least rainfall during August and September (U.S. Climate Data, 2017).

1.5.5 Current and Future Land Use

Based on the Finding of Suitability for Early Transfer (LAAP, 2004b), current and future land 

uses for CMTS are limited to commercial, industrial, and military activities, with limited 

residential areas. Specific CMTS land use by area is currently as follows:

Area A – LMD administration, Youth Challenge Program, Force Protection Headquarters, 

Regional Training Institute/DFAC (Louisiana National Guard [LNG])), All Ranks Club, staff 

housing

Area B – Unit Training Equipment Site (LNG), LMD Maintenance Shop, Forestry, Webster 

Parish Prison, Fire Station (Bossier Parish Fire Department), and commercial tenants GATX 

and East Camden Highland Railroad

Area C – Three buildings are leased by commercial explosive tenant, Expal (a Division of 

Maxim Corporation), the remainder is unoccupied

Areas D, E, K and P – Currently unused and secured from entry

Area F – Minimal use by commercial tenant, T.G. Mercer, for pipe storage

Area G – Commercial explosive tenant, Goex, a Division of Hogdon Powder

Area H – Commercial explosive tenant, BST, a Division of Orica Corporation

Area I – Commercial explosive tenant, ESI

Area J – Commercial explosive tenant, Nyles Acquisitions LLC

Areas L-1, L-2, L-3, L-4, L-5 and L-6 – Explosive storage magazines

Area M-1, M-2, M-3, M-4 – Inert storage warehouses used by LMD, LNG, and commercial 

tenants

Area N – LMD salvage yard

Area O – East Camden Highland Railroad

Other – LSU FETI
CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

MS

SS

9/21/2018

9/21/2018

NOTES Preliminary Assessment for PFAS at Camp Minden, LA

1:253,440

9/21/2018 ­ Figure 1-1 PM RG 9/21/2018

Q:\Projects\ENV\GEARS\GEO\ARNG PFAS\900-CAD-GIS\920-GIS or Graphics\MXD\LA\Minden\Fig_1-1_Minden_Facility_Location.mxd

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Facility Location

^_

Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, USGS,

Intermap, increment P Corp., NRCAN, Esri Japan, METI,

0 2 4 8

Miles

Legend

Facility Boundary

Camp Minden

10
!5

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P

!5

!P

!5!P

!P

!5

!5

!P !P

!P !P!P

!P!P

!P

!P !P

!P!P

!P

!P!P A!

A!

A! A!

A!

!P

!P

!P !P

A!

A!

A!

!P

A!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!P

!P!P

!P

!P

!P

A!

!P

A!

A!

!P

!P

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!P

!P

!P

!P!P!P

!P

!C(

A!

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P!P

!5

!P

!C(

!C(

A!!

A!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!5

!5

!P

!5

!5

!P

!P !P

!P

!P

!P!P

!5

A!

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!C(

!P

!P

!5

!5

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P

!P!P!P!P

!P

!P!P

!C(

!P !P

!P!P!P

A!A!

!P!P!P

!C(

A!

A!A!

A!

A!

A!A!

!P

!P

A!

A!

A!

!C(

A!

A!

A!

!C(

!P !P

!C(

A!

A!

!P

!P

A!

A!

A!

A!

!P

!P

!P

!C(!C(

A! A!

A!

A!

A!

!P

!P

!P

P!

A!

A!

A!

A!

!5 !P

!P

!P

!P!P

!C(

!5 !P

!5

A!

A!!

A!

!5

AA!!!

!5

!5

!5

!P

!5

!P

!P

!P!P

!P

!5

A!

!5

&<

&<

&<

r B hsu C y

ree k

Mile Creek

Bo one Cr ee k

Cl arke Ba you

P

mr a

er Cs er k e

Coo el y Bar n ch

Ca neyBranch

Brush Cy r eek

Prair ei Bayou

Mi el Cre ek

CaneyBranch 18

22

4A

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

Canal/Ditch

River/Stream

Inferred Groundwater

Flow Direction

Geology

Clay or Mud

Sand

Sandstone

Wells

!P Domestic

!5 Industrial

!C( Public Supply

!5 Irrigation

A! Monitoring

A! Unknown

&<

Installation Potable

0 0.75 1.5 3

Miles

Groundwater Features

Figure 1-2

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

2/13/2019 MS

SS

2/13/2019

2/13/2019

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

TITLE

PROJECT Preliminary Assessment for PFAS at Camp Minden, LA

Q:\Projects\ENV\GEARS\GEO\MAES 2012 Unrestricted\Fort Meade\E. Data Management\GIS\MXDs\Chisholm_6th\March2017\ Fig_1-2_Minden_Groundwater_Features.mxd

PM RG 2/13/2019 Sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,

USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

1:95,040 ­ 12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Unnamed Ditch

Lake 

Bistineau

Dorcheat

Bayou

Clarke Bayou

Boone Creek
Cooley Branch

Watershed

Lower Clarke

Bayou Watershed

Doyline-Lake Bistineau

State Park Watershed

Upper Clarke

Bayou Watershed

Minden-Bayou

Dorcheat Watershed

Foxskin Bayou

Watershed

Boone Creek

Watershed

Brushy Creek

Watershed

Lake Bistineau

Watershed

u

r B

hs

Cy

er ke

Foxski nBayou

Mil e

Creek

Boone Creek

Co o el y Branch

P a mr er Cs re ke

C lark eBayou

Ca ney Branch

P gi eo n Roost Bayou

Prair ei Bayou

Mi el C eer

k

Caney

Branch

Lake

Bistineau

Legend

Facility Boundary

Water Body

Wetland

Canal/Ditch

River/Stream

Surface Water Flow

Direction

0 0.75 1.5 3

Miles

Surface Water Features

Figure 1-3

CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

2/13/2019 MS

SS

2/13/2019

2/13/2019

ARNG

GIS BY

CHK BY

TITLE

PROJECT Preliminary Assessment for PFAS at Camp Minden, LA

Q:\Projects\ENV\GEARS\GEO\MAES 2012 Unrestricted\Fort Meade\E. Data Management\GIS\MXDs\Chisholm_6th\March2017\ Fig_1-3_Minden_Surface_Water_Features.mxd

PM RG 2/13/2019 Sources: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,

USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community

1:110,880 ­ 12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

Unnamed Ditch

Dorcheat

Clarke Bayou

Bayou

Boone Creek
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

13

2. Fire Training Areas

With the exception of the LSU FETI, no FTAs were identified at CMTS during PA interviews. In 

cases of emergencies, responses are provided by the Bossier Parish Fire Department which 

maintains its own training facility several miles west of CMTS. 

As shown on Figure 2-1 (inset), the LSU FETI is located on the southwest portion of CMTS, 

within CMTS’ security controlled perimeter fence. The geographic coordinates are 

32°32'18.31"N and 93°26'13.14"W.

LSU FETI is an active facility that began operations in 2007 (Figure 2-1). Their FTA includes a 

mock petroleum fuel above ground storage tank (AST) “farm” situated within an approximate 

850 square feet bermed concrete containment area located in an approximate 19-acre clearing. 

A 0.9-acre surface water impoundment is adjacent to the FTA. LSU FETI offices and warehouse 

space are located approximately 1⁄4-mile west of the training area.

Since 2007, propane is used to simulate fuel fires inside the bermed mock AST farm for the 

purpose of industrial brigade training performed approximately 3 to 4 times per year. Currently 

such training uses Micro Blaze Out, a firefighting concentrate, procured by staff in LSU’s Baton 

Rouge headquarters from Verde Environmental. Prior to 2013, a different material, Fomtec, was 

used for training. Safety data sheets (SDSs) for Micro Blaze Out and Fomtec appear in 

Appendix B. PFAS is excluded from the chemical composition reported for the product Micro 

Blaze Out. All current Fomtec formulations are described as containing fluoroproteins or 

fluorocarbons with some fluorine free formulations available that are referred to as 3F. Earlier 

formulations of Fomtec cannot be confirmed. Fomtec is manufactured by Dafo Fomtec AB, a 

privately owned Swedish company. For training exercises conducted at the mock AST farm, the 

firefighting concentrate is diluted in water at a one percent (1%) concentration. Fluids generated 

during training are contained from within a bermed area. The bermed area drains to the nearby 

surface impoundment through conveyance piping and then via open ditch. Construction details 

for the impoundment and ditch were not available; therefore these features are presumed to be 

unlined. 

Transfer of the firefighting concentrate liquid, from 150-gallon storage totes to 5-gallon eductors, 

is performed inside the enclosed warehouse building west of the FTA. No spills were reported; 

however standard procedure reported by LSU FETI staff calls for use of sorbent material to 

clean liquid spills within the warehouse, which is subsequently disposed of per applicable 

requirements. 

Water, supplied by CMTS’ water supply well network, is used for all other training conducted at 

the LSU FETI.
Surface 

Water

Impoundment

Highway 164

Unnamed Ditch

LSU FETI

Offices

LSU FETI Warehouse

- AFFF Storage

Tank Farm Fire

Training Area

22B91-buila-00313

22B91-buila-00839

22B91-buila-00841

22B91-buila-00842

22B91-buila-00843

22B91-buila-00844

22B91-buila-00845

0 125 250 500

Feet

Figure 2-1

Fire Training Area ­ CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Preliminary Assessment for PFAS at Camp Minden, LA

12/11/2018

12/11/2018

12/11/2018

MS

SS

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,

USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,

12/11/2018

1:3,000

Q:\Projects\ENV\GEARS\GEO\ARNG PFAS\900-CAD-GIS\920-GIS or Graphics\MXD\LA\Minden\Fig_2-1_Minden_Fire_Training_Area.mxd

Legend

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

14
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

15

3. Non-Fire Training Areas

PA interviews did not identify other areas at CMTS with a history of use or release of materials 

potentially containing AFFF. All buildings at CMTS equipped with fire suppression systems use 

water only. With the exception of LSU FETI described in Section 2, former LAAP staff and 

current LMD personnel have reported that to the best of their knowledge, LAAP and all CMTS 

tenants (listed in Section 1.5.5) do not currently use and did not historically use materials 

potentially containing PFAS.

3.1 Camp Minden Fire Stations 

The original LAAP fire station (in Area A behind the Military Police Station), operated from 

approximately 1941 until 1992. It was replaced with a new station (Area B), which operated from 

approximately 1992 until 1996 when all equipment was liquidated. The LAARNG staffed the 

newer station on a volunteer basis from approximately 2005 until 2013, when volunteer 

operations ceased. Since 2013 that station is used exclusively by the Bossier Parish Fire 

Department. Former LAAP and current LMD staff and the Bossier Parish Fire Chief have 

reported that to the best of their knowledge, PFAS-related materials have never been used or 

stored at either fire station. 

3.2 Landfills

Camp Minden currently maintains one active landfill used exclusively for construction debris. 

Closed landfills are located in Area P, DA 9 and BG-8. 

Landfills are not usually a primary release area of PFAS, but materials disposed of in landfills 

may create a secondary source of contamination. Such materials, to name a few, may include 

sludge from a WWTP that processes PFAS-laden water, used AFFF storage containers, or 

products associated with waterproofing uniforms or boots. At Camp Minden, no information 

obtained indicates PFAS-related materials were disposed of in any landfill.
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

16

4. Emergency Response Areas

Explosions have occurred in the past at CMTS (in 1968, 2005, 2006, 2012 and 2015), however 

there were no associated fires reported at the site of the explosion. LMD personnel with 

knowledge of the incidents report water was used exclusively for suppression of all secondary 

fires of timber surrounding the site of the explosion. Similarly during LAAP operations, 

firefighting protocol specified use of high pressure water in case of an emergency at production 

lines and other facilities. 
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

17

5. Adjacent Sources

No off-site PFAS sources adjacent to the CMTS were identified during the PA. 
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

18

6. Conceptual Site Model

Based on the PA findings, the LSU FETI FTA was identified as an AOI (Figure 6-1). A CSM 

identifies three components necessary for potentially complete exposure pathways: (1) source, 

(2) pathway, (3) receptor. If any of these elements are missing, the pathway is considered

incomplete.

In general, the potential PFAS exposure pathways are ingestion and inhalation. Dermal contact 

is not considered to be a potential exposure pathway as studies have shown very limited 

absorption of PFAS through the skin (NGWA, 2018). Receptors at CMTS include site workers, 

construction workers, in-holding residents, residents outside the facility boundary to the south, 

and recreational users. The CSM for the LSU FETI indicates which specific receptors could 

potentially be exposed to PFAS. 

6.1 AOI 1 - LSU FETI

Based on the documented current formulation and unknown earlier formulations of Fomtec used 

at LSU FETI before 2013 (when it was replaced with Micro Blaze Out), potential releases of 

AFFF to soil, surface water, sediment and groundwater may have occurred at the LSU FETI 

between 2007 and 2013. The area surrounding the AOI is well-vegetated minimizing fugitive 

dust emissions; however, ground-disturbing activities at the AOI could result in site and 

construction worker exposure to potential PFAS contamination via inhalation of dust or ingestion 

of soil or shallow groundwater. 

In their anionic forms, PFAS are water soluble and can migrate readily from soil to groundwater 

or surface water via leaching and run-off. Given the length of time since the AFFF release and 

the average precipitation at the facility, it is possible that potential PFAS contamination at the 

LSU FETI AOI has migrated from the soil and surface water impoundment via over land surface 

water flow and into the groundwater via infiltration. Caney Branch lies west of the CACTF and 

drains this AOI. From the LSU FETI AOI, surface water primarily drains to the surface water 

impoundment. Minor drainage may flow north or south to nearby tributaries of Caney Branch

which flow west to intercept Caney Branch. Caney Branch flows south, then east, eventually 

discharging to Lake Bistineau. Therefore, potentially complete exposure pathways for surface 

water and sediment via ingestion exist for site and construction workers, residents, and 

recreational users of Caney Branch and associated surface water bodies such as Lake 

Bistineau (e.g., fishing).

Previous investigations completed at CMTS indicate that infiltrating precipitation entering the 

shallow groundwater system discharges to surface water bodies (i.e., Caney Branch on the 

western portion of CMTS and Boone Creek on the central and eastern portions of CMTS). 

However, a small fraction of infiltrating precipitation may enter a deeper groundwater flow 

system. Precipitation which infiltrates and reaches deeper groundwater may bypass streams 

and be intercepted by on-Post wells and downgradient public and private residential wells in the 

Doyline area. Therefore, due to the existence of nearby drinking water wells and the comingling 

of surface water and groundwater in the vicinity of Camp Minden, a potentially complete 

pathway for groundwater exists via ingestion for all receptors (site and construction workers, 

residents and recreational users) (URS, 2017).

The CSM for the LSU FETI AOI is shown on Figure 6-2. 
Surface 

Water

Impoundment

Highway 164

AOI 1 

Unnamed Ditch

Lower Clarke

Bayou Watershed

22B91-buila-00313

22B91-buila-00839

22B91-buila-00841

22B91-buila-00842

22B91-buila-00843

22B91-buila-00844

22B91-buila-00845

LSU FETI

Offices

LSU FETI Warehouse

- AFFF Storage

Tank Farm Fire

Training Area

0 125 250 500

Feet

Figure 6-1

Area of Interest ­ CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Preliminary Assessment for PFAS at Camp Minden, LA

12/11/2018

12/11/2018

12/11/2018

MS

SS

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,

USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,

12/11/2018

1:3,000

Q:\Projects\ENV\GEARS\GEO\ARNG PFAS\900-CAD-GIS\920-GIS or Graphics\MXD\LA\Minden\Fig_6-1_Minden_AOI.mxd

Legend

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

Surface Water Flow Direction

Inferred Groundwater Flow Direction

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

19
/

Media

SOURCE PATHWAY RECEPTOR

Louisiana

State

University

(LSU) Fire

Training

Area (FTA)

Training Activities PFAS in

Surface Soil

Human

Activities

Precipitation/

Run-Off

Leaching/

Infiltration

Airborne Soil

Particulate

Surface Soil

at AOI

Surface

Water/

Sediment

Subsurface

Soil

Shallow

Groundwater

Source Release

Mechanism Media Transportand Migration Media ExposureRoutes

Inhalation of

Dust

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Ingestion

Human Receptors:

Current/ Future

Flow-Chart Continues

Partial / Possible Flow

Flow-Chart Stops

Incomplete Pathway

Potentially Complete Pathway

Complete Pathway

Site

Worker

Construction

Worker

Off-Site

Resident

Recreational

User

Site

Worker

Construction

Worker

Off-Site

Resident

Recreational

User

LEGEND

/ /

Figure 6-2

Conceptual Site Model

Camp Minden Training Site

Potential

Off-Facility

Source Not

under

Control of

ARNG

/

/

/ /

/ / /

/ / /

/ /

/

/ /

/

/

/

20
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

21

7. Conclusions

One AOI related to PFAS releases was identified at CMTS, specifically the LSU FETI

(Figure 7-1). 

7.1 Findings

Based on potential AFFF releases at the LSU FETI AOI, there is potential for exposure to PFAS 

contamination in soil, surface water, sediment and groundwater: via ingestion and inhalation by 

site workers, construction workers and visitors; via ingestion by offsite residents using 

groundwater for drinking water; and, via ingestion by recreational users of surface water. No 

evidence of other accidental or incidental spills or leaks from AFFF storage containers/areas 

were identified during the VSI. No other areas at CMTS were identified to have historically 

stored or used AFFF. 

Sampling of the three installation potable water wells for PFAS compounds was conducted by 

the ARNG in April 2017. With one exception, no detections were reported in the sample results. 

The exception was 6:2 FTS which was detected in Well 22 at an estimated concentration of 

5.72 NG/L. The laboratory qualified the result with a “J” flag because the detected concentration 

is less than the method reporting limit. This compound is included in the EPA Method 537 suite. 

Due to its unknown toxicity, a screening level has not been developed for this compound. 

7.2 Uncertainties

Available information sources were investigated during this PA to determine the potential for 

PFAS-containing materials to have been present, used, or released at the facility. Historically, 

documentation of PFAS use was not required because PFAS were considered benign. 

Therefore, records were not typically kept by the facility or available during the PA on the use of 

PFAS in training, firefighting, or other non-traditional activities, or on its disposition. 

The conclusions of this PA are predominantly based on the information provided during 

interviews with personnel who had direct knowledge of PFAS use at the facility. Sometimes the 

provided information was incomplete. Gathered information has a degree of uncertainty due to 

the absence of written documentation, the limited number of personnel with direct knowledge 

due to staffing changes, the time passed since PFAS was first used (1969 to present), and a 

reliance on personal recollection. Inaccuracies may arise in potential PFAS release locations, 

dates of release, volume of releases, and the concentration of AFFF used. There is also a 

possibility the PA has missed a source of PFAS, as the science of how PFAS may enter the 

environment continually evolves.

In order to minimize the level of uncertainty, readily available data regarding the use and 

storage of PFAS were reviewed, current personnel were interviewed and potential source areas 

were visually inspected. 

The following table summarizes the uncertainties associated with the PA:

Area of Interest Source of Uncertainty

AOI 1 LSU FETI staff does not have information regarding previous 

formulations of AFFF used at the facility. The quantity of AFFF used 

in fire training exercises was not known, nor were drawings of 

piping conveying fluids away from the mock AST farm available. 

The PA relied on the recollections of interviewed personnel. Input 

was not received from all CMTS tenants. 
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

22

7.3 Potential Future Actions

Based on the documented absence (2007-present) of the release of PFAS-containing materials

at the LSU FETI warehouse and offices on CMTS, evidence does not indicate that current or

former LSU FETI activities contributed PFAS contamination to soil, groundwater, surface water,

or sediment at the LSU FETI warehouse and offices. LSU FETI warehouse and offices will not

move forward in the CERCLA process.

Interviews (covering 2007 to present) indicate that former LSU FETI activities may have resulted

in potential PFAS releases at the LSU FETI FTA AOI identified during the PA. Based on the

CSM developed for the AOI, there is potential for receptors to be exposed to PFAS

contamination in soil, groundwater, surface water, and sediment at the AOI. Table 7-1

summarizes the rationale used to determine if the AOI should be considered for further

investigation under the CERCLA process and undergo a Site Inspection (SI).

ARNG evaluates the need for an SI at the LSU FETI FTA at CMTS based on the presence of a

PFAS release, possible receptors, and the migration potential of PFAS contamination to

receptors.

Table 7-1 PA Findings Summary

Area of Interest AOI Location Rationale Potential Future Action

AOI 1: LSU

FETI FTA

32°32'18.31"N

and

93°26'13.14"W

Fire training at LSU FETI

began in 2007 and occurs

three to four times per year. A

one percent solution of

Fomtec was used from 2007

to 2013; however, it is 

unknown whether the product

used at that time contained

PFAS.

Proceed to an SI, focus

on soil, groundwater,

surface water and

sediment.
Surface 

Water

Impoundment

Highway 164

AOI 1 

Unnamed Ditch

22B91-buila-00313

22B91-buila-00839

22B91-buila-00841

22B91-buila-00842

22B91-buila-00843

22B91-buila-00844

22B91-buila-00845

LSU FETI

Offices

LSU FETI Warehouse

- AFFF Storage

Tank Farm Fire

Training Area

0 125 250 500

Feet

Figure 7-1

Summary of PA Findings ­ CLIENT

REVISED

SCALE

PROJECT

ARNG

Preliminary Assessment for PFAS at Camp Minden, LA

12/11/2018

12/11/2018

12/11/2018

MS

SS

RG

GIS BY

CHK BY

PM

Base Map: Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO,

USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan,

12/11/2018

1:3,000

Q:\Projects\ENV\GEARS\GEO\ARNG PFAS\900-CAD-GIS\920-GIS or Graphics\MXD\LA\Minden\Fig_7-1_Minden_Summary.mxd

Legend

Area of Interest

Potential PFAS Release

No Suspected Release

Facility Boundary

Water Body

River/Stream

12420 Milestone Center Drive

Germantown, MD 20876

23
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

24

8. References

Louisiana Army Ammunition Plant (LAAP). 2001. Installation Action Plan for Louisiana Army 

Ammunition Plant. March 2001. 

LAAP. 2004a. Finding of Suitability for Transfer for the Former Louisiana Army Ammunition 

Plant. September.

LAAP. 2004b. Finding of Suitability for Early Transfer. For the Former Louisiana Army 

Ammunition Plant. December.

National Ground Water Association. 2018. Groundwater and PFAS: State of Knowledge and 

Practice. January 2018.

Shaw Environmental, Inc. 2005. Follow-on Remedial Investigation for Soils and the Site-wide 

Ground Water Operable Unit, prepared for U.S. Army Environmental Center, September.

URS. 2016. Final Five Year Reviews Camp Minden: Fifth Five Year Review OU-001, OU-002, 

OU-004, OU 005 and OU-007; Third Five-Year Review OU-008; Second Five Year Review OU 

009 and OU-010; First Five Year Review OU-011, prepared for U.S. Army National Guard and 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. August.

URS. 2017. Data Summary Report, Groundwater and Surface Water Sampling, Camp Minden 

LA, prepared for U.S. Army National Guard and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. May.

U.S. Climate Data. 2017. Minden, LA, https://www.usclimatedata.com/climate/minden/louisiana, 

accessed 22 September 2017.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 1991. Guidance for Performing Preliminary 

Assessments under CERCLA. September.
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

Appendix A

Data Resources
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

Data resources will be provided separately on CD. Data resources for Camp Minden Training

Site include:

Camp Minden Leases and Agreements

· Cooperative Agreement and Amendment - Pine Country Education Center District and

The Louisiana Military Department

· Memorandum of Understanding – Louisiana State University Fire and Emergency

Training Institute and Pine Country Education District

Camp Minden PFAS Release Information

· Fomtec Data Sheet

· Fomtec Updated Fact Sheet

Camp Minden In Holding Well Sampling Results

· 11August2017 Well Sample Results









Fomtec® FFFP 3%

foam concentrate

Fomtec®is a trademark of Dafo Fomtec AB Revised: 04.05.2016

The independent alternative | Dafo Fomtec AB | P.O. Box 683 | SE-135 26 Tyresö | P: +46 8 506 405 66 | F: +46 8 506 405 29 | www.fomtec.com

Description

Fomtec FFFP 3% is a film forming fluoroprotein foam 

concentrate (FFFP) containing hydrolysed protein and 

preservatives, together with a blend of fluorinated 

surfactants to achieve the maximum synergistic effect. The 

blend of fluorochemicals selected is effective in reducing 

the surface tension of water as well as the interfacial 

tension between water and oil sufficiently low to give 

stable film on the surface of the fuel and as a result it gives 

fire extinguishing rates superior to those obtained with 

synthetic based compounds. Incorporation of protein in the 

formulation produces a thick visible blanket which has 

exceptional burnback resistance.

Fomtec FFFP 3% should be used as a 3% proportioned 

solution in fresh or sea water. The correct proportioning 

or mixture ratio is 3 parts of concentrate and 97 parts of 

water.

Application

Fomtec FFFP 3% is intended for use on B class 

hydrocarbon fuel fires such as oil, petroleum and aviation 

fuels. Fomtec FFFP 3% can be applied directly onto the fire 

surface and is also suitable for subsurface injection. It is 

compatible with all dry powders and can be used in dry 

powder/foam twin agent systems. 

Fire Performance & Foaming

The fire performance of this product has been measured 

and documented according to "International Approvals" 

stated in this document. The foaming properties are 

depending on equipment used and other variables such as 

water and ambient temperatures. Average expansion 7:1, 

average 1⁄4 drainage time 03:30 minutes using UNI 86 test 

nozzle.

Proportioning

Fomtec FFFP 3% can easily be proportioned at the correct 

dilution using conventional equipment such as:

 Inline inductors

 Balanced pressure, variable flow proportioning systems

 Bladder tanks

 Around the pump proportioning systems

 Water turbine driven foam proportioners

 Self inducting branch pipes and nozzles

The equipment should be designed to the foam type.

Compatibility

Contact one of the Fomtec sales team with questions.

Technical data

Appearance Dark brownish liquid

Specific gravity at 20°C 1,17 +/- 0.01 g/ml

Viscosity at 20°C ≤ 30 mPas

pH 6,5 – 8,5

Freezing point -15°C

Recommended storage temperature -15 - 49°C

Suspended sediment (v/v) Less than 0,2%

Surface tension ≤ 18,5 dynes/cm

Environmental impact

Fomtec FFFP 3% is formulated using raw materials specially 

selected for their fire performance and their environmental 

profile. Fomtec FFFP 3% is biodegradable. The handling of 

spills of concentrate or foam solutions should however be 

undertaken according to local regulations. Normally 

sewage systems can dispose foam solution based on this 

type of foam concentrate, but local sewage operators 

should be consulted in this respect. This product contains 

NO PFOS or PFOA.

Full details will be found in the Material Safety Datasheet 

(MSDS).

Storage / Shelf life

Stored in original unbroken packaging the product will have 

a long shelf life. Shelf life in excess of 10 years will be found 

in temperate climates. As with all foams, shelf life will be 

dependent on storage temperatures and conditions. If the 

product is frozen during storage or transport, thawing will 

render the product completely usable.

We recommend following our guidelines for storage and 

handling ensuring favourable storage conditions.

Packaging

We supply this product in 25 litre cans and 200 litre 

drums. We can also ship in 1000 litre containers or in bulk.

Litres per piece Packaging Part no

25 litres Can 13-3029-01

200 litres Drum 13-3029-02

1000 litres Container 13-3029-04

Bulk Special request

International Approvals

 EN 1568 part 3

 MED Module B

 IMO MSC/Circ.670

 GOST Approval, Russia
Fact Sheet

on

C6 Fluorinated Surfactants

Author: Dr. Jan-Erik Jönsson

Dafo Fomtec AB

P.O. Box 683, SE-135 26 Tyresö, Sweden

www.fomtec.com | info@fomtec.com
Dafo Fomtec AB Telephone Fax E-mail

P.O. Box 683, SE-135 26 Tyresö, Sweden +46 8 506 405 66 +46 8 506 405 29 info@fomtec.com

Fact Sheet on C6 Fluorinated Surfactants

More than a decade after 3M stopped production of PFOS-based AFFF agents; there is continued 

discussion within the fire protection industry on the environmental impact and efficacy of fire fighting

foams. The discussion of environmental impact is usually focused on foams that contain 

fluorochemicals, while the discussion of efficacy is usually focused on foams that do not contain 

fluorochemicals. The first part of this fact sheet is in content and wording based on Fire Fighting Foam 

Coalitions fact sheet to provide you with accurate, up-to-date information about these issues. More 

information can be obtained from www.fffc.org. The last pages cover our own view point when it 

comes to efficiency and environmental friendliness of different foam types.

Key facts

 All modern AFFF agents (except some produced in China) contain telomer-based 

fluorosurfactants.

 Telomer-based AFFF agents are the most effective foams currently available to fight flammable 

liquid fires in military, industrial, aviation, and municipal applications. They provide rapid 

extinguishment, burnback resistance, and protection against vapour release.

 Fire test results presented at the 2011 SUPDET conference and 2013 Reebok conference showed 

that AFFF agents are significantly more effective at extinguishing flammable liquid fires than 

fluorine-free foams.

 Telomer-based foams do not contain or break down into PFOS (per fluorooctane sulfonate) or 

homologues of PFOS such as PFHxS (perfluorohexane sulfonate).

 Telomer-based foams do not contain or break down into any chemicals that are currently listed 

as persistent organic pollutants (POPs) under the Stockholm Convention.

 Telomer-based foams are not made with PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid) or any PFOA-based 

products.

 Telomer-based foams are not made with any chemicals that are currently considered by 

environmental authorities to be persistent, bioaccumulative, and toxic (PBT). 

 Telomer-based foams are not banned or restricted from use. We are aware of no pending 

legislation to regulate telomer-based foams in Australia, Canada, Europe, Japan, or the United 

States.

 The C6-based fluorosurfactants that have been the predominant fluorochemicals used in telomerbased AFFF for the last 25 years are low in toxicity and not considered to be bioaccumulative or 

biopersistent.

 Foam manufacturers are in the process of transitioning to the use of pure C6-based 

fluorosurfactants in response to the US EPA PFOA stewardship program.

Fluorinated Surfactants

All AFFF firefighting agents contain fluorinated surfactants (fluorosurfactants). They are key 

ingredients that provide AFFF with the required low surface tension (15 to 17 mN/m) and positive 

spreading coefficient that enables film formation on top of lighter fuels. It is this film formation 

capability that gives AFFF its name and its effectiveness against flammable liquid fires. The chemicals 

used to produce fluorosurfactants can be manufactured by different processes and have different 

chemical structures. The fluorosurfactants used in AFFF have historically been produced from 

fluorochemicals manufactured by two methods: electrochemical fluorination and telomerization. AFFF 

agents manufactured by 3M contain fluorosurfactants produced by electrochemical fluorination. All 

other AFFF agents contain fluorosurfactants produced by telomerization. 
Dafo Fomtec AB Telephone Fax E-mail

P.O. Box 683, SE-135 26 Tyresö, Sweden +46 8 506 405 66 +46 8 506 405 29 info@fomtec.com

PFOS

In 2002, 3M voluntarily stopped production of a number of products including AFFF agents because 

they contain and degrade into perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). PFOS is considered by environmental 

authorities to be persistent, bioaccumulative and toxic (PBT). Regulations in the United States, 

Canada, European Union, Australia, and Japan act as a ban on new production of PFOS-based

products including foams. These regulations do not currently restrict the use of existing stocks of 

PFOS-based foam in the US, Australia, or Japan. In the EU and Canada, existing stocks of PFOS-based 

foam must be removed from service in 2011 and 2013, respectively. Production and sale of PFOS 

foams continues in China.

Telomers

All modern AFFF agents (except some produced in China) contain telomer-based fluorosurfactants. 

Telomer-based AFFF agents do not contain or break down into PFOS and have about 30 - 60% less 

fluorine than PFOS-based AFFF. Telomer-based AFFF agents are not made with any chemicals that are 

currently considered by environmental authorities to be PBT. The US Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) has indicated that some telomer-based fluorochemicals can break down in the environment into 

perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) or other perfluorocarboxylic acids (PFCAs). Further, EPA states that 

their concern is focused on long-chain perfluorinated chemicals (LCPFCs) containing eight carbons or 

more (C8, C10, C12). Existing data shows that shorter-chain compounds (C6 and below) have a lower 

potential for toxicity and bioaccumulation. 

EPA PFOA Stewardship Program 

Under the EPA 2010/15 PFOA Stewardship Program eight fluorochemical manufacturers have 

voluntarily agreed to reduce by 95% by year-end 2010 and work to eliminate by year-end 2015 both 

plant emissions and product content of PFOA, PFOA precursors, and related higher homologue 

chemicals. EPA intends to propose a regulation in 2012 that would close any loopholes in the 

Stewardship Program such as treated article imports.

Efficacy

At the 2011 SUPDET Conference, the Naval Research Laboratories (NRL) presented the results of fire 

testing of AFFF agents and fluorine-free foam1. Although the testing was limited in scope, it provided 

clear evidence of the importance of film formation to foam performance. Extinguishment times for 

AFFF agents on 28 ft2(c:a 2.6 m2) pool fires tested at full strength were on average 77% faster for 

gasoline, 88% faster for methyl cyclohexane (MCH), and 70% faster for heptane when compared to 

fluorine-free foam. For isooctane, where the tested AFFF agents were unable to form a film, fluorinefree foam extinguished the fire about 10% faster (Table 1). AFFF agents extinguished all gasoline and 

heptane fires in less than 30 seconds, the time required to pass the United States military specification 

(MilSpec). The fluorine-free foam was unable to extinguish any gasoline or heptane fire in less than 30 

seconds. Foam agents must meet the requirements of the MilSpec in order to be listed on the US 

Department of Defence qualified products database (QPD) and used for military applications2. The 

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) requires all US airports to carry AFFF agents that meet the 

MilSpec and are listed on the QPD3. 

 Foam Type Heptane Gasoline MCH Isooctane

AFFF (3%) 25 21 19, 20 32, 33

AFFF (6%) 23, 28 22 22, 23 32, 33

Fluorine-free (6%) 43 34, 41 33, 46 29, 30

Table 1: Extinction Times (seconds)
Dafo Fomtec AB Telephone Fax E-mail

P.O. Box 683, SE-135 26 Tyresö, Sweden +46 8 506 405 66 +46 8 506 405 29 info@fomtec.com

In addition many national authorities outside of the US require the use of AFFF agents that meet the 

MilSpec, including the Australia Department of Defence. At the 2013 Reebok Foam Conference, a 

paper was presented by Manuel Acuna of VS Focum summarizing his company’s development of a 

fluorine-free foam agent4. The presentation contained side-by-side test data done at the same facility 

under the same conditions comparing the fire performance of AFFF agents and fluorine-free foams. 

The results showed that AFFF agents performed significantly better than fluorine-free foams in spray 

extinction tests (0.785 m2) and pan fires ranging in size from 0.25 m2 to 7.06 m2(Table 2 and 3).

Environmental Impact

The environmental impact of AFFF-type fluorosurfactants has been extensively studied and a large 

body of data is available in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. The bulk of this data continues to 

show that C6-based AFFF fluorosurfactants and their likely breakdown products are low in toxicity and 

not considered to be bioaccumulative or biopersistent. Groundwater monitoring studies have shown 

the predominant breakdown product of the short-chain C6 fluorosurfactants contained in telomerbased AFFF to be 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate (6:2 FTS)5

. A broad range of existing data on 6:2 FTS 

indicate that it is not similar to PFOS in either its physical or ecotoxicologicalproperties6,7,8,9. Recent 

studies on AFFF fluorosurfactants likely to break down to 6:2 FTS show it to be generally low in acute, 

sub-chronic, and aquatic toxicity, and neither a genetic nor developmental toxicant. Both the AFFF 

fluorosurfactant and 6:2 FTS were significantly lower than PFOS when tested in bio-persistence 

screening studies that provide a relative measure of bio up-take and clearance10. Aerobic 

biodegradation studies of 6:2 FTS in activated sludge have been conducted to better understand its 

environmental fate11. These studies show that the rate of 6:2 FTS biotransformation was relatively 

slow and the yield of all stable transformation products was 19 times lower than 6:2 fluorotelomer 

alcohol (6:2 FTOH) in aerobic soil. In particular, it was shown that 6:2 FTS is not likely to be a major 

source of perfluorocarboxylic acids or polyfluorinated acids in wastewater treatment plants. 

Importantly neither 6:2 FTOH nor PFHpA (perfluoroheptanoic acid) were seen in this study. PFHxA is a 

possible breakdown product and contaminant that may be found in trace quantities in telomer based 

AFFF. Extensive data on PFHxA presented in 2006 and 2007 gave a very favourable initial toxicology 

(hazard) profile12,13,14. Testing was done on four major toxicology end points: sub-chronic toxicity in 

rats, reproductive toxicity in rats, developmental toxicity in rats, and genetic toxicity. Results show 

that PFHxA was neither a selective reproductive nor a selective developmental toxicant. In addition it 

was clearly shown to be neither genotoxic nor mutagenic. In 2011 results were published from a 24-

month combined chronic toxicity and carcinogenicity study, which demonstrated that under the 

conditions of this study PFHxA is not carcinogenic in rats and its chronic toxicity was low15. 

 Foam Type Heptane Gasoline Jet A-1

AFFF (1%) 1:03 0:38 0:22

AR-AFFF 1x3 2:11 1:25 1:25

Fluorine-free (1%) 2:14 3:36 3:12

Fluorine-free (1%) 2:21 2:21 3:21

Fluorine-free (3%) None None 1:00

Table 2: Spray Extinction Times (minutes)

 Foam Type 0.25 m2 0.785 m2 4.52 m2 7.06 m2

AFFF (1%) 0:35 1:19 2:16 2:06

Fluorine-free (1%) 0:50 1:55 2:21 None

Table 3: Spray Pan out Extinction Times (seconds)
Dafo Fomtec AB Telephone Fax E-mail

P.O. Box 683, SE-135 26 Tyresö, Sweden +46 8 506 405 66 +46 8 506 405 29 info@fomtec.com

Conclusions

Telomer-based AFFF agents are the most effective agents currently available to fight class B, 

flammable liquid fires. They do not contain or breakdown into PFOS and are not likely to be a 

significant source of long-chain perfluorochemicals. They do contain fluorosurfactants that are 

persistent, but are not generally considered to be environmental toxins. AFFF and fluorochemical 

manufacturers are in position to meet the goals of national stewardship programs with pure shortchain fluorosurfactants that provide the same fire protection characteristics with reduced 

environmental impacts.

References

1 Extinguishment and Burnback Tests of Fluorinated and Fluorine-free Firefighting Foams with and without Film Formation, 

Bradley Williams, Timothy Murray, Christopher Butterworth, Zachary Burger, Ronald Sheinson, James Fleming, Clarence 

Whitehurst, and John Farley, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC, presented on March 25, 2011, at the SUPDET 

Conference.

2 United States Department of Defense Military Specification, Mil-F-24385, “Fire Extinguishing Agent, Aqueous Film Forming 

Foam”

3 FAA Advisory Cautionary Non-directive (CertAlert), Aqueous Film Forming Foam meeting MIL-F-24385, No. 06-02, February 8, 

2006 and Federal Aviation Administration, National Part 139 CertAlert No. 11-02, Identifying Mil-Spec Aqueous Film Forming 

Foam (AFFF), February 15, 2011

4 A New High Performance Newtonian Fluorine-Free Foam, Manual Acuna, VS Focum, presented on March 19, 2013 at the 5th 

Reebok International Foam Conference.

5 Quantitative Determination of Fluorotelomer Sulfonates in Groundwater by LC MS/MS, Melissa M. Schultz, Douglas F. Barofsky 

and Jennifer Field, Environmental. Sci. Technol. 2004, 38, 1828-1835

6 DuPont 2007a. H-27901: Static, Acute 96-Hour Toxicity Test with Rainbow Trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Unpublished report, 

DuPont-21909.

7 DuPont 2007b. H-27901: Static, Acute 48-Hour Toxicity Test with Daphnia magna. Unpublished report, DuPont-21910

8 DuPont 2007c. H-27901: Static, 72-Hour Growth Inhibition Toxicity Test with the Green Alga, Pseudokirchneriella subcapitata. 

Unpublished report, DuPont-22048.

9 DuPont 2007d. H-27901: Early Life-Stage Toxicity to the Rainbow Trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss. Unpublished report, DuPont 

22219

10 Serex, T. et al, 2008. Evaluation of Biopersistence Potential Among Classes of Polyfluorinated Chemicals using a Mammalian 

Screening Method. SOT 2008 Poster #958

11 6:2 Fluorotelomer sulfonate aerobic biotransformation in activated sludge of waste water treatment plants, Ning Wang, 

Jinxia Liu, Robert C. Buck, Stephen H Korzeniowski, Barry W. Wolstenholme, Patrick W. Folsom, Lisa M. Sulecki, Chemosphere 

2011, 82(6), 853-858

12 Chengalis, C.P., Kirkpatrick, J.B., Radovsky, A., Shinohara, M., 2009a A 90-day repeated dose oral gavage toxicity study of 

perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) in rats (with functional observational battery and motor activity determinations). Reprod. 

Toxicol. 27, 342-351

13 Chengalis, C.P., Kirkpatrick, J.B., Myers, N.R., Shinohara, M., Stetson, P.I., Sved, D.W., 2009b Comparison of the 

toxicokinetic behavior of perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) and nonafluorobutane -1-sulfonic acid (PFBS) in monkeys and rats. 

Reprod. Toxicol. 27, 400-406

14 Loveless, S.E., Slezak, B., Serex, T., Lewis, J., Mukerji, P., O’Connor, J.C., Donner, E.M., Frame, S.R., Korzeniowski, S.H.,

Buck, R.C., Toxicological evaluation of sodium perfluorohexanoate. Toxicology 264 (2009) 32–44

15 A 24-Month Combined Chronic Toxicity/Carcinogenicity Study of Perfuorohexanoic Acid (PFHxA) in Rats, H. Iwai, M. 

Shinohara, J.Kirkpatrick, J.E. Klaunig, Poster Session, Society of Toxicologic Pathology, June 2011

Our own experience

Dafo Fomtec has worked for many years developing both AFFF-type of foam concentrates as well as 

fluorine free types (FFF-types). In this work we have gained a lot of experiences on how these kinds 

of foam works – both regarding fire performance and environmentally aspects. 

In our mind fire performance is paramount in order to save life, assets and environment. A fire is a 

very dangerous situation that can change from small and controllable to a huge uncontrolled firestorm 

within a blink of an eye. In a fire scenario people’s life are at risk both civilians trapped in the flames 

and firefighters combating the fire. A fire is destroying assets for huge values – the longer the fire is 
Dafo Fomtec AB Telephone Fax E-mail

P.O. Box 683, SE-135 26 Tyresö, Sweden +46 8 506 405 66 +46 8 506 405 29 info@fomtec.com

allowed to continue the higher the value is literarily spoken going up in smoke. Moreover, a fire is a 

heavy pollutant, unless it is a controlled fire where it is optimised to give a more or less full 

combustion at high temperatures – like a power plant where the chemical reaction yielding more or 

less water and carbon dioxide. I fire is on the contrary often going on with depletion of oxygen –

incomplete combustion (pyrolysis) – and forms severe pollutants. Just a few examples, polycyclic 

aromatic hydrocarbons (i.e. benzopyren) that are mutagenic and carcinogenic are formed from 

incomplete combustion of organic materials. One of the most utilized plastics, PVC, is forming dioxins 

(to be more accurate: polychlorinated dibenzodioxin) when combusted – also a well know 

environmental pollutant. Hence, the longer a fire is ongoing, the more pollutants are formed –

generating thick black smoke that spreads widely. It is also worth to point out that a lot of these 

pollutants are contaminating the run-off water used for extinguishing the fire. This is just another 

reason it is important to extinguish as fast as possible – to minimize run-off water that needs to be 

collected afterwards.

There has been a lot of focus on the environmental aspect of fluorine containing foam concentrates, 

like in AFFF-type and fluorine free foam concentrates. In literature we have seen commercials where 

firefighters are shooting flowers from their foam generators, plants are flourishing and are greener 

than ever. This is, however, to simplify things too much. It is not that simple, just taking out one 

component makes things environmentally friendly. As has been shown above, the new short chain 

fluorosurfactants have a very good environmental, health and safety profile. They and their 

breakdown products have been proven to be virtually non-toxic. They are not considered 

bioaccumulative or persistent. On the other hand they add incredible fire performance to a foam 

concentrate. 

 

Figure 1 The above diagrams represents the difference in composition between an average AFFF-type foam and a FFF-type of 

foam. The major part of the composition is water and just minor parts are surfactants. Note that the hydrocarbon surfactants 

are at a much higher level in the FFF-type compared to the AFFF-type.

Looking at general representation of the compositions of the two foam types as concentrates in figure 

1, there are three striking things to note (i) the major part is water, (ii) there are no fluorosurfactants 

present in the FFF-type of foam and (iii) the amount of hydrocarbon surfactant is a lot higher 

compared to an AFFF-type of foam. It is not possible to take away the fluorosurfactants without any 

kind of compensation to keep fire performance at a decent level. 

However, this is in the concentrate, but this is not how it is used. It is diluted with water to a premix, 

and that changes the situation dramatically. In figure 2 below show the composition of the above 

foam types as premixes. Even though the additions are minute, they are crucial for the fire 

performance – for both types of foam.
Dafo Fomtec AB Telephone Fax E-mail

P.O. Box 683, SE-135 26 Tyresö, Sweden +46 8 506 405 66 +46 8 506 405 29 info@fomtec.com

Figure 2 The composition of a ready to use premix of water and foam concentrate. Note that all active ingredients are less than 

1% of the composition. 

Fire performance

If we consider fire performance between the two types of foam our experience is the following. A 

good FFF-type of foam can pass the EN1568-3 test with good fire rating. Our Enviro 3x3 Ultra have 

Class IB, which means that it extinguish within three minutes and pass the burnback test with more 

than 15 minute. Looking at a good AFFF-type of foam we also achieve Class IB, but with one huge 

difference. In the former case the extinction is just at the end of the 3-minute mark but with the 

AFFF-type we extinguish within the first 11⁄2 minute, more or less half the time. The burnback remains 

the same but the crucial part – fast and efficient extinguishment is a lot different. 

A fire test according to UL 162 Type III is often conducted with two different foam qualities – one 

with low expansion around 4 and with higher expansion around 7. When we do a comparative test 

between an AFFF-foam and a FFF-foam, we see very clear differences between these at low foam 

qualities. A high performing AFFF-foam was tested at expansion ratio of 3.8 and application flow rate 

at 7.6 l/min during 3 min. application time. In this case, the extinction was reached after 2:14 min. 

The FFF-foam with expansion ratio of 4.3 using a flow rate of 11.4 l/min and application time during 5 

min reached extinction after 3:24 min. From these results we can calculate how much foam premix is 

needed to reach extinction. The calculation gives that the AFFF needs 17.0 l premix while the FFFneeds 38.8 l, corresponding to 2.3 times more. When conducting burnback tests on these two foams, 

the AFFF passed without any problem. For the FFF-foam the situation was very different. When the 

burnback pipe was lifted, the fire spread along the edges of the pan and went successively into the 

pan and after about 1 min. the whole pan was re-engaged in fire. 

The same test at higher expansion ratios around 7, we once again see differences In extinction 

performance. Using the same calculation method mentioned above, we can calculate that the FFFfoam needs 1.9 times more foam that the AFFF type. On the other hand, during burnback in this case 

the FFF-type self-extinguished the fire when the burnback pipe was lifted.

It is no doubt that FFF-type foams are good and they do pass the fire tests. However, again and again 

we see a difference in performance against a AFFF type. There is a factor of 2 in fire performance that 

appear time after time. Moreover, the results clearly imply that special care needs to be taken while 

selecting a FFF-foam for an existing application. It is not only to look at fire rating and fire 

performance but also consider if the foam suits the system when it comes to expected expansion. The 

question arises, how good are the FFF-foams on real big fires? 
Dafo Fomtec AB Telephone Fax E-mail

P.O. Box 683, SE-135 26 Tyresö, Sweden +46 8 506 405 66 +46 8 506 405 29 info@fomtec.com

At the end this means that an AFFF-type of foam is about twice as fast as FFF-type in extinction. In a 

real situation this means that at least double amount of water and foam concentrate will be needed, 

resulting in a lot more of contaminated run-off water to collect that needs to be cleaned. This brings 

us in to the environmental discussion. 

Environmental Impact

As have been demonstrated above the fluorosurfactants based on C6-telomers are not considered as 

toxic, bioaccumulative or persistent according to POP. There are not much that differ these 

surfactants from ordinary hydrocarbon surfactants in this respect. In fact, there are hydrocarbon 

surfactants that are a lot worse in this respect, not too far from PFOS – but these are surprisingly 

never discussed in this context. As an example of such hydrocarbon surfactant we can take 

ethoxylated nonylphenols. These types degrades to nonylphenol which is persistent, bioaccumulative 

and not biodegradable. But worst of all, nonylphenol is endocrine disruptor an mimics the hormone 

oestrogen causing feminization of organisms. It is worth to point out that nonylphenol surfactants are 

strongly restricted to be used in Europe but it is still possible to buy. Dafo Fomtec has never used 

such kind of surfactants.

As we have touched earlier FFF-foams are frequently marketed with highly exaggerated statements 

making the world a lot better place just because they are fluorine free. As we have seen, it is not 

necessarily giving the full picture. Real life is much more complicated than just the presence or not of 

one substance in a formulation. Instead of arguing about this, let’s have a look at real figures 

regarding aquatic toxicity and see how this correlates to the components in the formulation. Data like 

this has been published in literature and we decided to do our own investigation where we can 

correlate the results to the components in the formulation. The aquatic toxicity was determined with 

Rainbow Trout at a independent lab. The foams selected were a high performing FFF-type, high 

performing ARC- and AFFF-types, an ordinary AFFF-type and a Class A type. The latter for class A fires 

for porous and fibrous materials.

Figure 3 Toxicity vs the concentration of fluorosurfactants in the 

formulations.

In figure 3 the aquatic toxicity is shown as a function of the amount of fluorinated surfactants in the 

formulation. In order to interpret the results correctly it is important to know that a high value is 

better. Then one can add more of the substance before it affects an aquatic population. In this case 
Dafo Fomtec AB Telephone Fax E-mail

P.O. Box 683, SE-135 26 Tyresö, Sweden +46 8 506 405 66 +46 8 506 405 29 info@fomtec.com

we measure the LC50-value – which means the concentration (in mg/litre) needed to kill 50% of the 

population. As can be seen there are no correlation at all. 

Figure 4 shows the aquatic toxicity plotted versus the concentration of hydrocarbon surfactants in the 

formulation. In this case we can see a very strong correlation between the aquatic toxicity and HCsurfactants. The more HC-surfactants that are present in the formulation the lower the value for 

aquatic toxicity. This indicates strongly that it is the hydrocarbon surfactants and not the 

fluorosurfactants that are responsible for the aquatic toxicity. Note that the one of the highest LC50-

values obtained was with a formulation containing the highest concentration of fluorosurfactants.

Figure 4 Toxicity vs the concentration of hydrocarbon surfactants in the 

formulations.

Conclusively, components that are always present in any formulation regardless if they are fluorine 

free or not are the most problematic ones regarding fish toxicity. These hydrocarbon surfactants are 

necessary in order to give the foam its main properties regarding expansion and drainage time. 

Hence, we cannot be without them. And as we discussed above, the FFF-type of foams (Class A foam 

is also fluorine free) have a lot higher concentration of HC-surfactants.

Remember, the LC50-values presented above were on the foam concentrates as is. This is not how 

they are used. All concentrates are diluted with water to a premix that is the ready-to-use solution. 

Roughly, the concentrates are diluted 100 times. That means that we roughly can estimate the LC50-

value of the premixes from the values on the concentrates – simply speaking they will be about 100 

times higher. This means that even the foam concentrate with the lowest LC50-value will increase from 

around 40 mg/litre to 4000 making it ranked from slightly toxic to relatively harmless according the 

classification used world-wide, see table below. 
Dafo Fomtec AB Telephone Fax E-mail

P.O. Box 683, SE-135 26 Tyresö, Sweden +46 8 506 405 66 +46 8 506 405 29 info@fomtec.com

This rises a relevant question, which LC50-values shall be used? The values determined on the 

concentrates or the values of the premixes? It makes a huge difference on the assessment. Logically, 

it would be most relevant to use the values on the premixes since this is the intended formulation 

when used. The only reason to use the values on the concentrates itself is when there is an accidental 

release of the concentrate in nature and especially into a water system.

To wrap things up, we can summarize the fire performance and the environmental performance in a 

graph where we plot the different foam types with arbitrary units, see figure 5.

Figure 5 Arbitrary plot of fire- and environmental performance for some selected foam 

types.

This plot ranks all fluorosurfactants containing formulations higher than fluorine free formulations. 

This is based on LC50-values measured on the concentrates. If we instead look at LC50-values for 

premixes they will be on more or less the same level, about 100 times higher due to the dilution, and 

only fire performance will differ.
Dafo Fomtec AB Telephone Fax E-mail

P.O. Box 683, SE-135 26 Tyresö, Sweden +46 8 506 405 66 +46 8 506 405 29 info@fomtec.com

Dafo Fomtec Statement on Perfluorinated Surfactants

Perfluorinated surfactants are used in AFFF and AFFF-AR foam concentrates in order to decrease 

surface tension and ultimately give the foam film forming properties. In recent years the firefighting 

foam business has transformed their use of perfluorinated surfactants to use only C6 short-chain 

prepared by so called telomerization. This means that the perfluorinated surfactants do not contain 

any PFOS or any substances that can be degraded to PFOS. The telomerization process may in some 

cases yield in trace amounts of PFOA, but in very small amounts if any.

Dafo Fomtec AFFF and AFFF ARC foams are formulated using specially selected raw materials, 

selected for their fire performance and their environmental profile. Our AFFF and AFFF ARC foams 

contains only C6 short-chain fluorotelomers produced by the telomerization process. 

Our AFFF and AFFF ARC foam concentrates formulated with C6 short-chain fluorinated surfactants 

have been tested by independent laboratories for PFOS and PFOA impurities. The results shows that 

the level of PFOS and PFOA in our foam concentrates are below the detection limit of 20 ppb of the 

analysis method. This means that these foam concentrates are in accordance with US EPA 

Stewardship Programme 2010/15, EU Directive 2006/122/EC and amended Council Directive 

76/769/EEC and Commission Regulation 2017/1000 amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 

1907/2006. They are also in compliance with the C6 purity compliant definition in the Queensland 

Department of Environmental and Heritage Protections Operational Policy on the Environmental 

Management of Firefighting Foam.
Table A-1

Camp Minden Well Sampling Results - Supply Wells 4A, 18 and 22

SAMPLE ID #

SAMPLE

COLLECTION

DATE

(DD/MMM/

YY) ANALYTE NAME

CONCEN

TRATIO

N LEVEL

RESULT

UNIT OF

MEASURE

MENT

MINIMUM

REPORTABLE

LEVEL CLP FLAGS

ANALYTICAL

METHOD Notes

W-LA-MIND-001-12APR17 04/12/2017 6:2FTS 5.72 NG/L 9.42 J 537 Sample Time: 0905 From Spigot Water Well 22

W-LA-MIND-DUP-12APR17 04/12/2017 6:2FTS NG/L 9.66 U 537 Sample Time: 0935 From Spigot Water Well 18 Duplicate sample

W-LA-MIND-002-12APR17 04/12/2017 6:2FTS NG/L 9.57 U 537 Sample Time: 0930 From Spigot Water Well 18

W-LA-MIND-003-12APR17 04/12/2017 6:2FTS NG/L 10.2 U 537 Sample Time: 0950 From Spigot Water Well 4A MS/MSD

W-LA-MIND-003-12APR17 04/12/2017 8:2FTS NG/L 10.2 U 537 Sample Time: 0950 From Spigot Water Well 4A MS/MSD

W-LA-MIND-002-12APR17 04/12/2017 8:2FTS NG/L 9.57 U 537 Sample Time: 0930 From Spigot Water Well 18

W-LA-MIND-DUP-12APR17 04/12/2017 8:2FTS NG/L 9.66 U 537 Sample Time: 0935 From Spigot Water Well 18 Duplicate sample

W-LA-MIND-001-12APR17 04/12/2017 8:2FTS NG/L 9.42 U 537 Sample Time: 0905 From Spigot Water Well 22

W-LA-MIND-001-12APR17 04/12/2017 N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid (NEtFOSAA) NG/L 14.1 U 537 Sample Time: 0905 From Spigot Water Well 22

W-LA-MIND-DUP-12APR17 04/12/2017 N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid (NEtFOSAA) NG/L 14.5 U 537 Sample Time: 0935 From Spigot Water Well 18 Duplicate sample

W-LA-MIND-002-12APR17 04/12/2017 N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid (NEtFOSAA) NG/L 14.4 U 537 Sample Time: 0930 From Spigot Water Well 18

W-LA-MIND-003-12APR17 04/12/2017 N-ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid (NEtFOSAA) NG/L 15.3 U 537 Sample Time: 0950 From Spigot Water Well 4A MS/MSD

W-LA-MIND-003-12APR17 04/12/2017 N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA) NG/L 15.3 U 537 Sample Time: 0950 From Spigot Water Well 4A MS/MSD

W-LA-MIND-002-12APR17 04/12/2017 N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA) NG/L 14.4 U 537 Sample Time: 0930 From Spigot Water Well 18

W-LA-MIND-DUP-12APR17 04/12/2017 N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA) NG/L 14.5 U 537 Sample Time: 0935 From Spigot Water Well 18 Duplicate sample

W-LA-MIND-001-12APR17 04/12/2017 N-methyl perfluorooctane sulfonamidoacetic acid (NMeFOSAA) NG/L 14.1 U 537 Sample Time: 0905 From Spigot Water Well 22

W-LA-MIND-001-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) NG/L 1.88 U 537 Sample Time: 0905 From Spigot Water Well 22

W-LA-MIND-DUP-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) NG/L 1.93 U 537 Sample Time: 0935 From Spigot Water Well 18 Duplicate sample

W-LA-MIND-002-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) NG/L 1.91 U 537 Sample Time: 0930 From Spigot Water Well 18

W-LA-MIND-003-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) NG/L 2.04 U 537 Sample Time: 0950 From Spigot Water Well 4A MS/MSD

W-LA-MIND-003-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) NG/L 2.04 U 537 Sample Time: 0950 From Spigot Water Well 4A MS/MSD

W-LA-MIND-002-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) NG/L 1.91 U 537 Sample Time: 0930 From Spigot Water Well 18

W-LA-MIND-DUP-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) NG/L 1.93 U 537 Sample Time: 0935 From Spigot Water Well 18 Duplicate sample

W-LA-MIND-001-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorobutanesulfonic acid (PFBS) NG/L 1.88 U 537 Sample Time: 0905 From Spigot Water Well 22

W-LA-MIND-001-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) NG/L 0.942 U 537 Sample Time: 0905 From Spigot Water Well 22

W-LA-MIND-DUP-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) NG/L 0.966 U 537 Sample Time: 0935 From Spigot Water Well 18 Duplicate sample

W-LA-MIND-002-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) NG/L 0.957 U 537 Sample Time: 0930 From Spigot Water Well 18

W-LA-MIND-003-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorobutanoic acid (PFBA) NG/L 1.02 U 537 Sample Time: 0950 From Spigot Water Well 4A MS/MSD

W-LA-MIND-003-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) NG/L 1.02 U 537 Sample Time: 0950 From Spigot Water Well 4A MS/MSD

W-LA-MIND-002-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) NG/L 0.957 U 537 Sample Time: 0930 From Spigot Water Well 18

W-LA-MIND-DUP-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) NG/L 0.966 U 537 Sample Time: 0935 From Spigot Water Well 18 Duplicate sample

W-LA-MIND-001-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDA) NG/L 0.942 U 537 Sample Time: 0905 From Spigot Water Well 22

W-LA-MIND-001-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) NG/L 1.88 U 537 Sample Time: 0905 From Spigot Water Well 22

W-LA-MIND-DUP-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) NG/L 1.93 U 537 Sample Time: 0935 From Spigot Water Well 18 Duplicate sample

W-LA-MIND-002-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) NG/L 1.91 U 537 Sample Time: 0930 From Spigot Water Well 18

W-LA-MIND-003-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) NG/L 2.04 U 537 Sample Time: 0950 From Spigot Water Well 4A MS/MSD

W-LA-MIND-003-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) NG/L 2.04 U 537 Sample Time: 0950 From Spigot Water Well 4A MS/MSD

W-LA-MIND-002-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) NG/L 1.91 U 537 Sample Time: 0930 From Spigot Water Well 18

W-LA-MIND-DUP-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) NG/L 1.93 U 537 Sample Time: 0935 From Spigot Water Well 18 Duplicate sample

W-LA-MIND-001-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) NG/L 1.88 U 537 Sample Time: 0905 From Spigot Water Well 22

W-LA-MIND-001-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) NG/L 1.88 U 537 Sample Time: 0905 From Spigot Water Well 22

W-LA-MIND-DUP-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) NG/L 1.93 U 537 Sample Time: 0935 From Spigot Water Well 18 Duplicate sample

W-LA-MIND-002-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) NG/L 1.91 U 537 Sample Time: 0930 From Spigot Water Well 18
Table A-1

Camp Minden Well Sampling Results - Supply Wells 4A, 18 and 22

W-LA-MIND-003-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorohexanesulfonic acid (PFHxS) NG/L 2.04 U 537 Sample Time: 0950 From Spigot Water Well 4A MS/MSD

W-LA-MIND-003-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) NG/L 2.04 U 537 Sample Time: 0950 From Spigot Water Well 4A MS/MSD

W-LA-MIND-002-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) NG/L 1.91 U 537 Sample Time: 0930 From Spigot Water Well 18

W-LA-MIND-DUP-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) NG/L 1.93 U 537 Sample Time: 0935 From Spigot Water Well 18 Duplicate sample

W-LA-MIND-001-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) NG/L 1.88 U 537 Sample Time: 0905 From Spigot Water Well 22

W-LA-MIND-001-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) NG/L 1.88 U 537 Sample Time: 0905 From Spigot Water Well 22

W-LA-MIND-DUP-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) NG/L 1.93 U 537 Sample Time: 0935 From Spigot Water Well 18 Duplicate sample

W-LA-MIND-002-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) NG/L 1.91 U 537 Sample Time: 0930 From Spigot Water Well 18

W-LA-MIND-003-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorononanoic acid (PFNA) NG/L 2.04 U 537 Sample Time: 0950 From Spigot Water Well 4A MS/MSD

W-LA-MIND-003-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) NG/L 3.05 U 537 Sample Time: 0950 From Spigot Water Well 4A MS/MSD

W-LA-MIND-002-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) NG/L 2.87 U 537 Sample Time: 0930 From Spigot Water Well 18

W-LA-MIND-DUP-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) NG/L 2.90 U 537 Sample Time: 0935 From Spigot Water Well 18 Duplicate sample

W-LA-MIND-001-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) NG/L 2.83 U 537 Sample Time: 0905 From Spigot Water Well 22

W-LA-MIND-001-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) NG/L 1.88 U 537 Sample Time: 0905 From Spigot Water Well 22

W-LA-MIND-DUP-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) NG/L 1.93 U 537 Sample Time: 0935 From Spigot Water Well 18 Duplicate sample

W-LA-MIND-002-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) NG/L 1.91 U 537 Sample Time: 0930 From Spigot Water Well 18

W-LA-MIND-003-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluoropentanoic acid (PFPeA) NG/L 2.04 U 537 Sample Time: 0950 From Spigot Water Well 4A MS/MSD

W-LA-MIND-003-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeA) NG/L 1.02 U 537 Sample Time: 0950 From Spigot Water Well 4A MS/MSD

W-LA-MIND-002-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeA) NG/L 0.957 U 537 Sample Time: 0930 From Spigot Water Well 18

W-LA-MIND-DUP-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeA) NG/L 0.966 U 537 Sample Time: 0935 From Spigot Water Well 18 Duplicate sample

W-LA-MIND-001-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTeA) NG/L 0.942 U 537 Sample Time: 0905 From Spigot Water Well 22

W-LA-MIND-001-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTriA) NG/L 1.88 U 537 Sample Time: 0905 From Spigot Water Well 22

W-LA-MIND-DUP-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTriA) NG/L 1.93 U 537 Sample Time: 0935 From Spigot Water Well 18 Duplicate sample

W-LA-MIND-002-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTriA) NG/L 1.91 U 537 Sample Time: 0930 From Spigot Water Well 18

W-LA-MIND-003-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluorotridecanoic Acid (PFTriA) NG/L 2.04 U 537 Sample Time: 0950 From Spigot Water Well 4A MS/MSD

W-LA-MIND-003-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) NG/L 2.04 U 537 Sample Time: 0950 From Spigot Water Well 4A MS/MSD

W-LA-MIND-002-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) NG/L 1.91 U 537 Sample Time: 0930 From Spigot Water Well 18

W-LA-MIND-DUP-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) NG/L 1.93 U 537 Sample Time: 0935 From Spigot Water Well 18 Duplicate sample

W-LA-MIND-001-12APR17 04/12/2017 Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUnA) NG/L 1.88 U 537 Sample Time: 0905 From Spigot Water Well 22

NG/L = Nanograms per liter

J = estimated concentration

U = undetected

FTS = 6:2 fluorotelomer sulfonate
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

Appendix B

Preliminary Assessment Documentation
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

Appendix B.1

Interview Records
PA Interview Questionnaire - Environmental Manager Facility:_CMTS

Interviewer:___Packer/Stinger

Date/Time:___10 Apr 2018

Interviewee:__Doyle Williams

Title:_Retired Environmental Manager/LAAP

Safety Officer

Phone Number:_

Email:_

Can your name/role be used in the PA Report? Y

Can you recommend anyone we can interview? N

1. Roles or activities with the Facility/years working at the Facility.

Retired Environmental Manager for Army Environmental Command (2005-2008)

Former LAAP Safety Officer (1969-2005)

2. Where can I find previous facility ownership information?

Records available

3. What can you tell us about the history of PFAS including aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) at the

Facility? Was it used for any of the following activities, circle all that apply and indicate years of active

use, if known? Identify these locations on a facility map.

No history of PFAS use at LAAP. It may have been stored on Parish Fire Department trucks but never used

at LAAP/CMTS. PFAS-containing materials were never used in LAAP plating operations.

4. Fill out CSM Information worksheet with the Environmental Manager.

Records available

5. Are any current buildings constructed with AFFF dispensing systems or fire suppression systems?

What are the AFFF/suppression system test requirements? What is the frequency of testing the

AFFF/suppression system? Do you have “As Built” drawings for the buildings?

Fire suppression systems in plant buildings used high speed water deluge systems to protect workers for

egress during emergency. Nozzle testing used food coloring diluted with water.

6. Are fire suppression systems currently charged with AFFF or have they been retrofitted for use of

high expansion foam? If retrofitted, when was that done?

No

7. How is AFFF procured? Do you have an inventory/procurement system that tracks use?

AFFF not used at LAAP/CMTS.

All LAAP records were archived, current location unknown.

8. What type of AFFF has been/is being used (3%, 6%, Mil Spec Mil-F-24385, High Expansion)?

Manufacturer (3M, Dupont, Ansul, National Foam, Angus, Chemguard, Buckeye, Fire Service Plus)?

N/A
PA Interview Questionnaire - Environmental Manager Facility:_CMTS

Interviewer:___Packer/Stinger

Date/Time:___10 Apr 2018

9. Where is the AFFF stored? How is it stored (tanks, 55-gallon drums, 5-gallon buckets)? What

size are the storage tanks? Is the AFFF stored as a mixed solution (3% or 6%) or concentrated

material?

N/A

10. How many FTAs are/were on this facility and where are they? Locate on a map. How many FTAs

are active and inactive? For inactive FTAs, when was the last time that fire training using AFFF

was conducted at them?

N/A

11. When a release of AFFF occurs during a fire training exercise, now and in the past, how is the

AFFF cleaned and disposed of? Were retention ponds built to store discharged AFFF? Was the

AFFF trickled to the sanitary sewer or left in the pond to infiltrate?

N/A

12. Can you recall specific times when city, county, and/or state personnel came on-post for training? If so,

please state which state/county agency or military entity? Do you have any records, including

photographs to share with us?

No

13. Did military routinely or occasionally fire train off-post? List the units that you can recall used/trained

at various areas.

No

14. Did individual units come with their own safety personnel, did they also bring their own AFFF? Was

training with AFFF part of these exercises? How were emergencies handled under these circumstances?

No history of AFFF use at LAAP.

15. Are there specific emergency response incident reports (i.e., aircraft or vehicle

crash sites and fires)? If so, may we please copy these reports? Who (entity) was

the responder?

History of building explosions, foam not used during responses:

1968: light switch open, 1 fatality

2005/2006: After LAAP shutdown, Explo tenant had explosion at E-Line. The vendor was reclaiming

TNT on AMC contract. Criminal negligence charges were filed. A series of explosions over 1-2 hours

occurred. No injuries resulted.
PA Interview Questionnaire - Environmental Manager Facility:_CMTS

Interviewer:___Packer/Stinger

Date/Time:___10 Apr 2018

16. Do you have records of fuel spill logs? Was it common practice to wash away fuel spills with

AFFF? Is/was AFFF used as a precaution in response to fuel releases or emergency runway

landings to prevent fires?

No records, no use or storage of AFFF at CMTS. All fire responses used water.

17. Was AFFF used for forest fires or fire management on-post/off-post? If so, please describe what

happened and who was involved?

No

18. Are there mutual aid/use agreements between county, city, and local fire department? Please list, even

if informal. If formalized, may we have a copy of the agreement?

No specific knowledge

19. Can you provide any other locations where AFFF has been stored, released, or used (i.e. hangars,

buildings, fire stations, firefighting equipment testing and maintenance areas, emergency response

sites, storm water/surface water, waste treatment plants, and AFFF ponds)?

No

20. Are you aware of any other creative uses of AFFF? If so, how was AFFF used? What entities were

involved?

No

21. Are there past studies you are aware of with environmental information on plants/animals/

groundwater/soil types, etc., such as Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plans or Integrated

Natural Resources Management Plans?

Multiple studies conducted for LAAP under CERCLA available in Administrative Record.

22. What other records might be helpful to us (environmental compliance, investigation records, admin

record) and where can we find them?

See above

23. Do you have or did you have a chrome plating shop on base? What were/are the years of operation

of that chrome plating shop?

Yes plating conducted at Y-Line during LAAP operations. No use of AFFF/PFAS during those

operations.
PA Interview Questionnaire - Environmental Manager Facility:_CMTS

Interviewer:___Packer/Stinger

Date/Time:___10 Apr 2018

24. Do you know whether the shop has/had a foam blanket mist suppression system or used a fume

hood for emissions control? If foam blanket mist suppression was used, where was the foam

stored, mixed, applied, etc.?

See above

25. How is off-spec AFFF disposed (used for training, turned in, or given to a local Fire Station)? If

applicable, do you know the name of the vendor that removes off-spec AFFF? Do you have copies of

the manifest or B/L?

N/A

26. Do you recommend anyone else we can interview? If so, do you have contact information for them?

No
PA Interview Questionnaire – Fire Station Facility:_CMTS

Interviewer:_Packer/Stinger

Date/Time:_10 Apr 2018

Interviewee:_Robert Roe

Title:__Chief Bossier Parish Fire Department

Phone Number: 318.949.9440___

Email:__rroe@bpfd1.org__

Can your name/role be used in the PA Report? Y

Can you recommend anyone we can interview?

N __________________________

1. Roles or activities with the Facility/years working at the Facility.

Chief for 3 years. Administrator of separate Fire District for prior 10 years. Minden had full time Fire

Department prior to ~2007 when LA ARNG took control of the installation Bossier Parish keeps a small

supply of fire fighting foam for their training center on Highway 80 in Bossier (offpost several miles to the

west), but it has not been used, nor stored at CMTS.

2. What can you tell us about the history of AFFF at the Facility? Was it used for any of the following

activities, circle all that apply and indicate years of active use, if known? Identify these locations on a

facility map.

Not used or stored at CMTS

3. Are any current buildings constructed with AFFF dispensing systems or fire suppression systems?

What are the AFFF/suppression system test requirements? What is the frequency of testing at the

AFFF/suppression systems?

No

4. Are fire suppression systems currently charged with AFFF or have they been retrofitted for use of

high expansion foam?

No

5. How is AFFF procured? Do you have an inventory/procurement system that tracks use?

Not used or stored at CMTS

6. What type of AFFF has been/is being used (3%, 6%, Mil Spec Mil-F-24385, High Expansion)?

Manufacturer (3M, Dupont, Ansul, National Foam, Angus, Chemguard, Buckeye, Fire Service Plus)?

Bossier Parish Fire Dept (BPFD) purchases foam from lowest priced vendor and stores on trucks at their

station off post.

7. Is AFFF formulated on base? If so, where is the solution mixed, contained, transferred, etc.?

Not used or stored at CMTS
PA Interview Questionnaire – Fire Station Facility:_CMTS

Interviewer:_Packer/Stinger

Date/Time:_10 Apr 2018

8. Where is the AFFF stored? How is it stored (tanks, 55-gallon drums, 5-gallon buckets)? What

size are the storage tanks? Is the AFFF stored as a mixed solution (3% or 6%) or concentrated

material?

Not used or stored at CMTS. Bossier Parish uses foam for flammable liquid fires (e.g., fuel, gas,

diesel). They use Class A foam with soap. They rarely used AFFF. It was stored in 2-gallon

buckets on their fire trucks. Every 3-4 years was rotated out and taken to their Haughton facility

for training. Most of their responses onpost have been for wood/grass fires, but occasionally in

production areas where only water is used. The water pressure on post is good so they have not

needed anything else.

9. How is the AFFF transferred to emergency response vehicles, suppression systems, flightline

extinguishers? Is/was there a specified area on the facility where vehicles are filled with AFFF and

does this area have secondary containment in case of spills? How and where are vehicles storing

AFFF cleaned/decontaminated?

Not used or stored at CMTS. No history of spills at BPFD however if spills were to occur their

procedure is to use concentrated cleaner and allow to evaporate

10. Provide a list of vehicles that carried AFFF, now and in the past, and where are/were they located?

Not used or stored at CMTS

11. Any vehicles have a history of leaking AFFF? Do you/did you test the vehicles spray patterns to

make sure equipment is working properly? How often are/were these spray tests performed and can

you provide the locations of these tests, now and in the past?

Testing not done with foam, nozzle operation checked with water.

12. How many FTAs are/were on this facility and where are they? Locate on a map. How many FTAs

are active and inactive? For inactive FTAs, when was the last time that fire training using AFFF

was conducted at them?

None.

13. What types of fuels/flammables were used at the FTAs?

N/A

14. What was the frequency of AFFF use at each location? When a release of AFFF occurs during a fire

training exercise, now and in the past, how is/was the AFFF cleaned and disposed of? Were

retention ponds built to store discharged AFFF? Was the AFFF trickled to the sanitary sewer or

left in the pond to infiltrate?

N/A
PA Interview Questionnaire – Fire Station Facility:_CMTS

Interviewer:_Packer/Stinger

Date/Time:_10 Apr 2018

15. Are there mutual aid/use agreements between county, city, local fire department? Please list, even if

informal. If formalized, may we have a copy of the agreement? Can you recall specific times when city,

county, state personnel came on-post for training? If so, please state which state/county agency,

military entity? Do you have any records, including photographs to share with us?

N/A

16. Did individual units come on-post with their own safety personnel, did they also bring their own AFFF?

Was training with AFFF part of these exercises? How were emergencies handled under these

circumstances?

BPFD is primary responder on CMTS. They can call adjoining departments as needed for response. During

the 2010 explosion, no fire occurred in the building. However nearby trees were extinguished with water.

17. Did military routinely or occasionally fire train off-post? List units that you can recall used/trained at

various areas.

N/A

18. Are there specific emergency response incident reports (i.e., aircraft or vehicle crash sites and fires)? If

so, may we please copy these reports? Who (entity) was the responder?

No

19. Do you have records of fuel spill logs? Was it common practice to wash away fuel spills with

AFFF? Is/was AFFF used as a precaution in response to fuel releases or emergency runway

landings to prevent fires?

N/A

20. Was AFFF used for forest fires or fire management on-post/off-post? If so, please describe what

happened and who was involved?

No – only water used.

21. Can you provide any other locations where AFFF has been stored, released, or used (i.e. hangars,

buildings, fire stations, firefighting equipment testing and maintenance areas, emergency response

sites, storm water/surface water, waste water treatment plants, and AFFF ponds)?

No
PA Interview Questionnaire – Fire Station Facility:_CMTS

Interviewer:_Packer/Stinger

Date/Time:_10 Apr 2018

22. Are you aware of any other creative uses of AFFF? If so, how was AFFF used? What entities were

involved?

No

23. How is off-spec AFFF disposed (used for training, turned in, or given to a local Fire Station)? If

applicable, do you know the name of the vendor that removes off-spec AFFF? Do you have copies of

the manifest or B/L?

Only used for training offpost approximately 8 miles to the west

24. Do you recommend anyone else we can interview? If so, do you have contact information for them?

State owned Fire Training Facility in southwest corner of CMTS. Contact Nick Palmer the Manager of the

Pine Country Education Center.

Former LAAP Fire Chiefs include Jack Roberson – deceased and Dale Martin, retired Shreveport Fire

Chief.
PA Interview Questionnaire – Fire Station Facility:LSU FTA

Interviewer:_Packer/Stinger

Date/Time:_10 Apr 2018

Interviewee:___Nick Palmer______

Title:_Manager, LSU Fire & Emergency

Training Center at Pine Country_

Address: 214 Dutch Harbor, Minden, LA 71055

Phone Number:_ 318.371.3385 (O)

225.202.3717 (C)

Email:_ npalme3@lsu.edu

______________________________

Can your name/role be used in the PA Report? Y

Can you recommend anyone we can interview? N

1. Roles or activities with the Facility/years working at the Facility.

Pine Country Training Center is satellite to main facility in Baton Rouge. He has been manager at Pine

Country Center since facility opened in 2007.

2. What can you tell us about the history of AFFF at the Facility? Was it used for any of the following

activities, circle all that apply and indicate years of active use, if known? Identify these locations on a

facility map.

Facility uses propane to simulate fires inside concrete foundation/bermed tank farm for industrial brigade

training approximately 3 to 4 times per year since 2007.

3. Are any current buildings constructed with AFFF dispensing systems or fire suppression systems? What

are the AFFF/suppression system test requirements? What is the frequency of testing at the

AFFF/suppression systems?

No - N/A

4. Are fire suppression systems currently charged with AFFF or have they been retrofitted for use of

high expansion foam?

N/A

5. How is AFFF procured? Do you have an inventory/procurement system that tracks use?

Supplies procured by staff in LSU training headquarters in Baton Rouge. Micro Blaze Out is purchased from

Verde Environmental, 9223 Estex Frwy, Houston TX (703) 691-6468.

6. What type of AFFF has been/is being used (3%, 6%, Mil Spec Mil-F-24385, High Expansion)?

Manufacturer (3M, Dupont, Ansul, National Foam, Angus, Chemguard, Buckeye, Fire Service Plus)?

Microblaze used at 1% strength since 2013 (see attached info sheet photo).

Previously (before 2013) used Fomtec Film Forming Fluoro Protein Foam (FFFE) described as a hydrolyzed fluorinated surfactant. Attached Fomtec SDS obtained from website.

7. Is AFFF formulated on base? If so, where is the solution mixed, contained, transferred, etc.?

As needed, material is transferred inside warehouse to 5-gallon tote.
PA Interview Questionnaire – Fire Station Facility:LSU FTA

Interviewer:_Packer/Stinger

Date/Time:_10 Apr 2018

8. Where is the AFFF stored? How is it stored (tanks, 55-gallon drums, 5-gallon buckets)? What size

are the storage tanks? Is the AFFF stored as a mixed solution (3% or 6%) or concentrated material?

150-gallon tote of Microblaze Out Class A & B 1% (currently 25% full as used for last 5 years) is

stored inside former LAAP building on concrete floor.

Unused Fomtec supply was shipped back to Baton Rouge when switched to Microblaze.

Buckets of dry chemical used for refilling extinguishers. Use Plus Fifty C dry chemical MgAl

silicate NaCO3.

9. How is the AFFF transferred to emergency response vehicles, suppression systems, flightline

extinguishers? Is/was there a specified area on the facility where vehicles are filled with AFFF and does

this area have secondary containment in case of spills? How and where are vehicles storing AFFF

cleaned/decontaminated?

No record of spills. Standard protocol would apply to spills such that absorbent material would be used.

10. Provide a list of vehicles that carried AFFF, now and in the past, and where are/were they located?

N/A

11. Any vehicles have a history of leaking AFFF? Do you/did you test the vehicles spray patterns to

make sure equipment is working properly? How often are/were these spray tests performed and can

you provide the locations of these tests, now and in the past?

No

12. How many FTAs are/were on this facility and where are they? Locate on a map. How many FTAs

are active and inactive? For inactive FTAs, when was the last time that fire training using AFFF

was conducted at them?

1 FTA use from 2007 to current

13. What types of fuels/flammables were used at the FTAs?

Propane

14. What was the frequency of AFFF use at each location? When a release of AFFF occurs during a fire

training exercise, now and in the past, how is/was the AFFF cleaned and disposed of? Were

retention ponds built to store discharged AFFF? Was the AFFF trickled to the sanitary sewer or left

in the pond to infiltrate?

Approximately 3-4 times per year, industrial brigade training would be conducted where propane used

to simulate tank farm fire. Foam would be sprayed inside concrete containment which drains via above

ground piping to nearby surface pond.
PA Interview Questionnaire – Fire Station Facility:LSU FTA

Interviewer:_Packer/Stinger

Date/Time:_10 Apr 2018

15. Are there mutual aid/use agreements between county, city, local fire department? Please list, even if

informal. If formalized, may we have a copy of the agreement? Can you recall specific times when city,

county, state personnel came on-post for training? If so, please state which state/county agency, military

entity? Do you have any records, including photographs to share with us?

Mr. Palmer described a mutual aid agreement exists for the LSU facility through the Bossier Parish police

jury.

16. Did individual units come on-post with their own safety personnel, did they also bring their own AFFF?

Was training with AFFF part of these exercises? How were emergencies handled under these

circumstances?

During other training exercises, Dawn (liquid soap) has been used.

17. Did military routinely or occasionally fire train off-post? List units that you can recall used/trained at

various areas.

N/A

18. Are there specific emergency response incident reports (i.e., aircraft or vehicle crash sites and fires)? If

so, may we please copy these reports? Who (entity) was the responder?

N/A

19. Do you have records of fuel spill logs? Was it common practice to wash away fuel spills with

AFFF? Is/was AFFF used as a precaution in response to fuel releases or emergency runway

landings to prevent fires?

N/A

20. Was AFFF used for forest fires or fire management on-post/off-post? If so, please describe what

happened and who was involved?

N/A

21. Can you provide any other locations where AFFF has been stored, released, or used (i.e. hangars,

buildings, fire stations, firefighting equipment testing and maintenance areas, emergency response

sites, storm water/surface water, waste water treatment plants, and AFFF ponds)?

N/A

22. Are you aware of any other creative uses of AFFF? If so, how was AFFF used? What entities were

involved?

No

23. How is off-spec AFFF disposed (used for training, turned in, or given to a local Fire Station)? If

applicable, do you know the name of the vendor that removes off-spec AFFF? Do you have copies of

the manifest or B/L?

As noted above, used material shipped back to Baton Rouge headquarters.
PA Interview Questionnaire – Fire Station Facility:LSU FTA

Interviewer:_Packer/Stinger

Date/Time:_10 Apr 2018

24. Do you recommend anyone else we can interview? If so, do you have contact information for them?

No






PA Interview Questionnaire - FacilityManager Facility:________________ 

Interviewer:________________ 

Date/Time:________________ 

Interviewee: GOEX POWDER, INC. 

 ANITA VINCENTI 

 GOEX’ responses in BLUE 

Title:__LOGISTICS MANAGER______ 

Phone Number:__(318) 382-9300 X226_____ 

Email:_avincenti@goexpowder.com________ 

Can your name/role be used in the PA Report? Y or N 

Can you recommend anyone we can interview? 

Y or N __________________________ 

1. Roles or activities with the Facility/years working at the Facility. 

Tenant / GOEX POWDER, INC. since 01January 2009 

2. Where can I find previous facility ownership information? Presently State of Louisiana. Past 

ownership was US Army.

3. What can you tell us about the history of PFAS including aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) at the 

Facility? Was it used for any of the following activities, circle all that apply and indicate years of active 

use, if known? Identify these locations on a facility map. 

Maintenance 

Fire Training Areas 

Firefighting (Active Fire) 

Crash 

Fire Suppression Systems (Hangers/Dining Facilities) 

Fire Protection at Fueling Stations 

Non-Technical/Recreational/ Pest Management 

Metals Plating Facility 

Waterproofing Uniforms (Laundry Facilities) 

Other 

4. Fill out CSM Information worksheet with the Environmental Manager. NA 

5. Are any current buildings constructed with AFFF dispensing systems or fire suppression systems? 

What are the AFFF/suppression system test requirements? What is the frequency of testing the 

AFFF/suppression system? Do you have “As Built” drawings for the buildings? 

GOEX POWDER, INC. USES H2O DELUGE SYSTEM AND SPRINKLER SYSTEM. 

GOEX POWDER, INC. ALSO MAINTAINS/USES FIRE EXTINGUISHERS. 

 
PA Interview Questionnaire - FacilityManager Facility:________________ 

Interviewer:________________ 

Date/Time:________________ 

6. Are fire suppression systems currently charged with AFFF or have they been retrofitted for use of 

high expansion foam? If retrofitted, when was that done?

7. How is AFFF procured? Do you have an inventory/procurement system that tracks use? 

8. What type of AFFF has been/is being used (3%, 6%, Mil Spec Mil-F-24385, High Expansion)? 

Manufacturer (3M, Dupont, Ansul, National Foam, Angus, Chemguard, Buckeye, Fire Service Plus)?

9. Where is the AFFF stored? How is it stored (tanks, 55-gallon drums, 5-gallon buckets)? What 

size are the storage tanks? Is the AFFF stored as a mixed solution (3% or 6%) or concentrated 

material?

10. How many FTAs are/were on this facility and where are they? Locate on a map. How many FTAs 

are active and inactive? For inactive FTAs, when was the last time that fire training using AFFF 

was conducted at them? 

 
PA Interview Questionnaire - FacilityManager Facility:________________ 

Interviewer:________________ 

Date/Time:________________ 

11. When a release of AFFF occurs during a fire training exercise, now and in the past, how is the 

AFFF cleaned and disposed of? Were retention ponds built to store discharged AFFF? Was the 

AFFF trickled to the sanitary sewer or left in the pond to infiltrate? 

12. Can you recall specific times when city, county, and/or state personnel came on-post for training? If so, 

please state which state/county agency or military entity? Do you have any records, including 

photographs to share with us? 

13. Did military routinely or occasionally fire train off-post? List the units that you can recall used/trained 

at various areas. No

14. Did individual units come with their own safety personnel, did they also bring their own AFFF? Was 

training with AFFF part of these exercises? How were emergencies handled under these circumstances? 

NO

15. Are there specific emergency response incident reports (i.e., aircraft or vehicle 

crash sites and fires)? If so, may we please copy these reports? Who (entity) was 

the responder? Camp Minden has annual emergency response training for different 

types of catastrophes. All emergency agencies are involved. 

 
PA Interview Questionnaire - FacilityManager Facility:________________ 

Interviewer:________________ 

Date/Time:________________ 

16. Do you have records of fuel spill logs? Was it common practice to wash away fuel spills with 

AFFF? Is/was AFFF used as a precaution in response to fuel releases or emergency runway 

landings to prevent fires?

17. Was AFFF used for forest fires or fire management on-post/off-post? If so, please describe what 

happened and who was involved? 

18. Are there mutual aid/use agreements between county, city, and local fire department? Please list, even 

if informal. If formalized, may we have a copy of the agreement? There is a mutual aid agreement with 

Bossier Parish Fire Dept.

19. Can you provide any other locations where AFFF has been stored, released, or used (i.e. hangars, 

buildings, fire stations, firefighting equipment testing and maintenance areas, emergency response 

sites, storm water/surface water, waste treatment plants, and AFFF ponds)? 

20. Are you aware of any other creative uses of AFFF? If so, how was AFFF used? What entities were 

involved? 

 
PA Interview Questionnaire - FacilityManager Facility:________________ 

Interviewer:________________ 

Date/Time:________________ 

21. Are there past studies you are aware of with environmental information on plants/animals/ 

groundwater/soil types, etc., such as Integrated Cultural Resources Management Plans or Integrated 

Natural Resources Management Plans? No

22. What other records might be helpful to us (environmental compliance, investigation records, admin 

record) and where can we find them? N/A

23. Do you have or did you have a chrome plating shop on base? What were/are the years of operation 

of that chrome plating shop?

24. Do you know whether the shop has/had a foam blanket mist suppression system or used a fume 

hood for emissions control? If foam blanket mist suppression was used, where was the foam 

stored, mixed, applied, etc.?

25. How is off-spec AFFF disposed (used for training, turned in, or given to a local Fire Station)? If 

applicable, do you know the name of the vendor that removes off-spec AFFF? Do you have copies of 

the manifest or B/L? 

 
PA Interview Questionnaire - FacilityManager Facility:________________ 

Interviewer:________________ 

Date/Time:________________ 

26. Do you recommend anyone else we can interview? If so, do you have contact information for them? 
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

Appendix B.2

Visual Site Inspection Checklist
Visual Site Inspection Checklist

Names(s) of people performing VSI: Packer/Stinger

Recorded by: Stinger

ARNG Contact: Packer

Date and Time: 10-Apr-18

Method of visit (walking, driving, adjacent): Driving/walking

Source/Release Information

Site Name / Area Name / Unique ID:

Historic Site Use (Brief Description):

Current Site Use (Brief Description):

Physical barriers or access restrictions:

1. Was PFAS used (or spilled) at the site/area? Suspected PFAS-containing material used

1a. If yes, document how PFAS was used and usage time:

2. Has usage been documented?

2a. If yes, keep a record (place electronic files on a disk):

verbal

3. What types of businesses are located near the site?

3a. Indicate what businesses are located near the site

4. Is this site located at an airport/flightline? N

4a. If yes, provide a description of the airport/flightline tenants:

Site / Area Acreage:

LSU Pine Country Education District Fire and Emergency

Training Institute

Simulated tank farm containment area approximately 850

square feet, pond approximately 0.9 acre, located within

approximate 19-acre clearing in southwest portion of CMTS.

Used as FTA since 2007

Used as FTA since 2007

Inside CMTS perimeter fence with security guarded entrance

gate.

Material used at site prior to 2013 referenced as Foamtec, which is currently

advertised to not contain PFAS. However previous formulation not confirmed.

The LSU FTA is located within CMTS which is a regional military training facility

which also hosts several commercial/industrial tenants. Highway164 is south of the

CMTS southern perimeter with residential areas beyond.

Page 1 of 4
Visual Survey Inspection Log

1. Does the facility have a fire suppression system? N

1a. If yes, indicate which type of AFFF has been used:

1b. If yes, describe maintenance schedule/leaks:

1c. If yes, how often is the AFFF replaced:

1d. If yes, does the facility have floor drains and where do they lead? Can we obtain an as built drawing?

Transport / Pathway Information

1. Does site/area drainage flow off installation? Y

1a. If so, note observation and location:

Surface water in the vicinity of the LSU FTA drains to the south to Caney Branch

2. Is there channelized flow within the site/area? N

2a. If so, please note observation and location:

3. Are monitoring or drinking water wells located near the site? Y

3a. If so, please note the location:

4. Are surface water intakes located near the site? N

4a. If so, please note the location:

5. Can wind dispersion information be obtained? N

5a. If so, please note and observe the location.

6. Does an adjacent non-ARNG PFAS source exist? N

6a. If so, please note the source and location.

6b. Will off-site reconnaissance be conducted? N

Other Significant Site Features:

Migration Potential:

None onsite, monitoring wells side gradient. Drinking water wells suspected

downgradient.

Page 2 of 4
Visual Survey Inspection Log

1. Has the infrastructure changed at the site/area? N

1a. If so, please describe change (ex. Structures no longer exist):

2. Is the site/area vegetated? Y

2a. If not vegetated, briefly describe the site/area composition:

3. Does the site or area exhibit evidence of erosion? N

3a. If yes, describe the location and extent of the erosion: 

4. Does the site/area exhibit any areas of ponding or standing water? Y

4a. If yes, describe the location and extent of the ponding: 

Receptor Information

1. Is access to the site restricted? Y

1a. If so, please note to what extent:

2. Who can access the site?

2a. Circle all that apply, note any not covered above:

3. Are residential areas located near the site? Y

3a. If so, please note the location/distance:

4. Are any schools/day care centers located near the site? N

4a. If so, please note the location/distance/type:

5. Are any wetlands located near the site? Y

5a. If so, please note the location/distance/type:

Significant Topographical Features:

Site Workers / Construction Workers / Trespassers /Recreational Users / Ecological

Page 3 of 4
Visual Survey Inspection Log

Additional Notes

Photographic Log

Photo ID/Name Photograph DescriptionDate & Location

Page 4 of 4
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

Appendix B.3

Conceptual Site Model Information
Preliminary Assessment – Conceptual Site Model Information

Site Name: Louisiana State University Fire Emergency Training Institute’s Fire Training Area Camp

Minden TS_LA

Why has this location been identified as a site? Foam used for petroleum fire training since 2007

Are there any other activities nearby that could also impact this location? No

Training Events

Have any training events with AFFF occurred at this site? yes

If so, how often? 3 to 4 days per year

How much material was used? Is it documented? Not documented. Has used ~110 gal (75% of 150 gal

tote) for training over last 5 years.

Identify Potential Pathways: Do we have enough information to fully understand over land surface

water flow, groundwater flow, and geological formations on and around the facility? Any direct

pathways to larger water bodies? Yes. Reference Five Year Review (URS, 2016) and multiple RI and

LTM reports.

Surface Water:

Surface water flow direction? North and south to tributaries leading to Caney Branch

Average rainfall? Average annual rainfall is 55 in.

Any flooding during rainy season? Yes

Direct or indirect pathway to ditches? Direct/indirect

Direct or indirect pathway to larger bodies of water? Direct/indirect to surface impoundment on site

Does surface water pond any place on site? Pond

Any impoundment areas or retention ponds? Yes

Any NPDES location points near the site? Not reported

How does surface water drain on and around the flight line? Surface water drains north and south to

tributaries leading to Caney Branch.
Preliminary Assessment – Conceptual Site Model Information

Groundwater: Reference 2015 Remedial Action Monitoring Report (URS, 2017)

Groundwater flow direction? Shallow groundwater appears to flow west discharging to Caney Branch

Depth to groundwater? Approximately 30 feet below surface (ft bgs) based on monitoring well GO288

gauging data 10/3/2017. GO288 is located SW of the LSU FETI FTA along the installation’s southern

boundary. This 2-inch diameter well has a total depth of 168 ft bgs, and reportedly screened from

158-168 ft bgs.

Uses (agricultural, drinking water, irrigation)? Drinking and industrial uses onsite. Drinking and

agricultural uses off-site

Any groundwater treatment systems? No

Any groundwater monitoring well locations near the site? GO288 is over 1⁄2-mile southwest

Is groundwater used for drinking water? Yes

Are there drinking water supply wells on installation? Yes

Do they serve off-post populations? No

Are there off-post drinking water wells downgradient? Yes Drinking water wells located over 1⁄2-mile

south-southeast

Waste Water Treatment Plant:

Has the installation ever had a WWTP, past or present? Yes, the WWTP discharges to Boone Creek.

If so, do we understand the process and which water is/was treated at the plant? Yes

Do we understand the fate of sludge waste? Yes

Is surface water from potential contaminated sites treated? No

Equipment Rinse Water

1. Is firefighting equipment washed? Where does the rinse water go? No washing reported.

2. Are nozzles tested? How often are nozzles tested? Where are nozzles tested? Are nozzles cleaned after

use? Where does the rinse water flow after cleaning nozzles? (see above – nozzle test w/ foam odd years)

Nozzle testing by LSU FETI conducted with Dawn detergent.

3. Other?
Preliminary Assessment – Conceptual Site Model Information

Identify Potential Receptors:

Site Worker Y

Construction Worker Y

Recreational User Y-offsite

Residential Y-offsite

Child Y-offsite

Ecological Y

Note what is located near by the site (e.g. daycare, schools, hospitals, churches, agricultural, livestock)?

Rural area residences, agricultural/livestock and churches are offsite, south of the installation.

Documentation

Ask for Engineering drawings (if applicable). None available

Has there been a reconstruction or changes to the drainage system? When did that occur? No
PFAS Preliminary Assessment Report

Camp Minden Training Site, LA

Appendix C

Photographic Log
Preliminary Assessment Report 

Camp Minden Training Site 

Perfluorooctane-Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and 

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites 

ARNG Installations, Nationwide 

AECOM

APPENDIX C – Photographic Log 

Army National Guard, Preliminary 

Assessment for PFAS Camp Minden Training Site Bossier and Webster Parishes, 

Lousiana 

Photograph No. 1 

Description: 

LSU FETI’s mock petroleum 

fuel above ground storage tank 

farm, facing southeast. 

Date: 10 APR 2018

Photograph No. 2 

Description: 

LSU FETI’s mock AST tank 

on concrete with precipitationfilled concrete containment 

berm, facing southwest. 

Date: 10 APR 2018
Preliminary Assessment Report 

Camp Minden Training Site 

Perfluorooctane-Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and 

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites 

ARNG Installations, Nationwide 

AECOM

APPENDIX C – Photographic Log 

Army National Guard, Preliminary 

Assessment for PFAS Camp Minden Training Site Bossier and Webster Parishes, 

Lousiana 

Photograph No. 3 

Description: 

LSU FETI surface water 

impoundment, facing west. 

Date: 10 APR 2018

Photograph No. 4 

Description: 

LSU FETI offices entrance, 

facing north. 

Date: 10 APR 2018
Preliminary Assessment Report 

Camp Minden Training Site 

Perfluorooctane-Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and 

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites 

ARNG Installations, Nationwide 

AECOM

APPENDIX C – Photographic Log 

Army National Guard, Preliminary 

Assessment for PFAS Camp Minden Training Site Bossier and Webster Parishes, 

Lousiana 

Photograph No. 5 

Description: 

View from LSU FETI offices 

toward the FTA, facing east. 

Date: 10 APR 2018

Photograph No. 6 

Description: 

LSU FETI FTA mock AST 

containment berm in 

foreground with vertical pipe 

that conveys water from berm 

to open ditches, facing west. 

Date: 10 APR 2018
Preliminary Assessment Report 

Camp Minden Training Site 

Perfluorooctane-Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and 

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites 

ARNG Installations, Nationwide 

AECOM

APPENDIX C – Photographic Log 

Army National Guard, Preliminary 

Assessment for PFAS Camp Minden Training Site Bossier and Webster Parishes, 

Lousiana 

Photograph No. 7 

Description: 

LSU FETI propane tanks used 

to fuel fire during training at 

the FTA. 

Date: 10 APR 2018

Photograph No. 8 

Description: 

Micro Blaze Out storage tote 

(150-gallons) staged in LSU 

FETI warehouse. 

Date: 10 APR 2018
Preliminary Assessment Report 

Camp Minden Training Site 

Perfluorooctane-Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and 

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites 

ARNG Installations, Nationwide 

AECOM

APPENDIX C – Photographic Log 

Army National Guard, Preliminary 

Assessment for PFAS Camp Minden Training Site Bossier and Webster Parishes, 

Lousiana 

Photograph No. 9 

Description: 

Micro Blaze Out product label 

Date: 10 APR 2018

Photograph No. 10 

Description: 

Micro Blaze Out shipping 

label showing supply vendor 

information. 

Date: 10 APR 2018
Preliminary Assessment Report 

Camp Minden Training Site 

Perfluorooctane-Sulfonic Acid (PFOS) and 

Perfluorooctanoic Acid (PFOA) Impacted Sites 

ARNG Installations, Nationwide 

AECOM

APPENDIX C – Photographic Log 

Army National Guard, Preliminary 

Assessment for PFAS Camp Minden Training Site Bossier and Webster Parishes, 

Lousiana 

Photograph No. 11 

Description: 

Plus Fifty C Dry Chemical 

used by LSU FETI for 

recharging fire extinguishers. 

Date: 10 APR 2018