Use and Potential Impacts of AFFF Containing PFASs at Airports (2017)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

A-1 A p p e n d i x A Survey Methodology and Findings

A-2 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... A-3 II. RESEARCH METHODS............................................................................... A-5 III. FINDINGS ................................................................................................. A-10 ATTACHMENT A: SURVEY INSTRUMENT ATTACHMENT B: DETAILED DATA TABULATIONS FOR ALL RESPONDING AIRPORTS ATTACHMENT C: VERBATIM TRANSCRIPTIONS OF OPEN-ENDED RESPONSES1 ATTACHMENT D: STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT CROSSTABULATIONS BY COUNTRY ATTACHMENT E: STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT CROSSTABULATIONS BY AIRPORT SIZE 1 Attachment C is not published herein but is available upon request from Cooperative Research Programs Senior Program Officer Joe Navarrete, at jnavarrete@nas.edu.

Survey Methodology and Findings A-3 A-2 I. INTRODUCTION The research findings presented in this report derive from a survey of North American airports that was commissioned by Dillon Consulting on behalf of the Airport Cooperative Research Program and conducted by JD Franz Research of Sacramento. Encompassing 167 completed interviews, the survey commenced on December 7, 2015 and was concluded on February 18, 2016. One additional airport was contacted as late as March 7 due to a miscommunication, and that final interview was completed. The primary purpose of the survey was to determine how airports manage Aqueous Film- Forming Foam, or AFFF. Primary areas of inquiry were as follows: • Criteria for the procurement of AFFF • Nature of the places AFFF is stored • Manner in which AFFF is removed from firefighting equipment or systems • Extent and nature of foam tests at airports • Use and disposition of AFFF during foam tests • Circumstances under which AFFF is replaced • Manner of disposing of AFFF • Manner of handling AFFF • Prevalence of firefighter training at airports • Use and disposition of AFFF during firefighter training • Protective gear used in handling AFFF • Best management practices for preventing spills of AFFF • Use of AFFF in actual airport firefighting • Extent to which airports have histories of known contamination from firefighting • Nature and outcomes of the contamination • Prevalence, nature, and results of environmental studies relative to the release of AFFF into the environment • Awareness and use of alternative formulations of AFFF • Additional comments Following this Introduction, the report is divided into two additional sections. Section II contains a detailed discussion of the Research Methods used in conducting the survey, while Section III presents and discusses the Findings. For reference, there are also five attachments. Attachment A contains a copy of the Survey Instrument that is was used in conducting the research, while Attachment B includes Detailed Data Tabulations for All Responding Airports. Attachment C presents Verbatim

A-4 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-3 Transcriptions of Open-Ended Responses to all of the survey’s questions of this nature.2 Attachment D contains Statistically Significant Cross-Tabulations by County, and Attachment E includes Statistically Significant Cross-Tabulations by Airport Size. 2 Attachment C is not published herein but is available upon request from Cooperative Research Programs Senior Program Officer Joe Navarrete, at jnavarrete@nas.edu.

Survey Methodology and Findings A-5 A-4 II. RESEARCH METHODS Instrument Design The instrument that was used to conduct this survey was designed by the President of JD Franz Research in consultation with representatives of Dillon Consulting and Mead & Hunt. After several rounds of review and revision, the instrument was tested at three airports by Dillon and Mead & Hunt personnel. As these test interviews did not reveal any major problems, the final draft of the instrument was accepted for implementation. During subsequent interviewing, it became apparent that one question was not necessarily clear to respondents. This question was then modified for clarification, but not to the extent that the meaning was altered. The final questionnaire contained 42 questions, 16 of them open-ended. The average interview length was 21 minutes. Sample Selection The sample for the survey was provided by Dillon and was based on the population information included in the Amplified Work Plan for the project prepared in August, 2015. (National Academy of Sciences: Airport Cooperative Research Program. Amplified Work Plan – ACRP 02-60: Use and Potential Impacts of AFFF Containing PFASs at Airports, Page 12.) Consistent with the proposed approach that emphasized larger airports, the sample included all of the airports in ARFF Categories C (90 airports), D (28 airports), and E (30 airports). The overall sample was then rounded out by adding proportional samples of airports in Categories A and B to create a total sample of 229. After the sample was adjusted by the call center administering the interviews to account for duplications, the net sample was 225. Interviewer Training All of the staff conducting the survey were experienced business-to-business interviewers with Pacific Market Research (PMR) in the Seattle area. PMR has an extensive airport interviewing background, both as a subcontractor to JD Franz Research and as the data collection contractor for the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport. Interviewer training at PMR includes instruction in interviewing techniques, orientation to the mechanics of sample selection and recording, use of the firm’s Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) software, and comprehensive practice with survey instruments as well as with a systematic approach to answering respondents’ inquiries. The

A-6 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-5 briefing for this particular survey, which included an in-depth introduction to the subject matter as well as a question-by-question review of the instrument, was conducted by the President of JD Franz Research. Survey Implementation Interviewing for the survey was conducted from PMR’s centralized, CATI-equipped, and fully monitored facility. All of the interviewing took place under the ongoing oversight of full-time supervisors. Calls were placed during regular business hours, local airport time, unless a potential respondent requested otherwise. Customary calling hours were 6:45 a.m. to 1:45 p.m. Pacific time. Upon completion of each interview, a supervisor checked it for accuracy, clarity, and completeness. Further review was subsequently undertaken by the President of JD Franz Research (qualitative results) and the firm’s Vice President & Data Analysis Manager (quantitative data). In cases where there were problems or concerns, respondents were called back for clarification or amplification. Up to 17 attempts were made to reach a potential respondent at each airport in the sample. When respondents referred interviewers to another individual for the answers to one or more of the survey questions, attempts were also made to contact and interview these individuals. From the 225 unduplicated cases with viable telephone numbers, 167 interviews were completed. Given a total population of 580 airports, the margin of error for the survey at the 95 confidence level is + 6.4 percent. The response rate for the survey based on the net sample size of 225 is 74 percent, which is generally viewed as being very good to excellent. Only eleven of the airport representatives who could be contacted actually refused to cooperate and complete the interview; three people terminated the interview before they finished it. This level of breakoffs is also a very good result. Distribution of the Completed Interviews Table 1 shows the distribution of the survey responses by country. As this chart indicates, most of the interviews were completed in the United States, and the response rate for that country was also higher. In both countries, however, the level of response exceeded the 50 percent rate that is the mathematical limiting case and that also represents the majority of the sample. Assuming the sample is representative, it is reasonable to conclude with a majority response that the results are representative as well.

Survey Methodology and Findings A-7 A-6 Table 1 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES BY COUNTRY Unduplicated Valid Sample Completed Interviews Percent of Sample United States 199 149 75% Canada 26 18 69% Total 225 167 74% Table 2 portrays the distribution of the responses by airport size. Here again, all of the response rates are majorities, with the largest, perhaps not surprisingly, representing the smallest airports. Even among the largest airports, however, more than half of those sampled participated. The largest absolute number of airports can be found in Category C; the smallest number is in Category E. Table 2 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES BY AIRPORT SIZE CATEGORY Unduplicated Valid Sample Completed Interviews Percent of Sample Category A 48 40 83% Category B 29 22 76% Category C 90 69 77% Category D 28 19 68% Category E 30 17 57% Total 225 167 74% Finally, Table 3 depicts the distribution of the responses by country and airport size. As would be expected, by far the majority of the results consists of United States airports. According to the data presented in the Amplified Work Plan for the project, 9 percent of the target audience of airports is Canadian; the result is actually slightly greater at 11 percent. Airports in Category C predominate in the United States; those in Category B predominate in Canada, although the Canadian numbers are small enough that differences are not particularly meaningful. In the United States, the smallest group of airports is found in Category E; in Canada, there is almost no differentiation among categories.

A-8 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-7 Table 3 DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONSES BY COUNTRY AND AIRPORT SIZE CATEGORY United States Canada Combined Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Frequency Percent Category A 37 22% 3 2% 40 24% Category B 17 10% 5 3% 22 13% Category C 65 39% 4 2% 69 41% Category D 16 10% 3 2% 19 11% Category E 14 8% 3 2% 17 10% Total 149 89% 18 11% 167 100% Data Coding, Tabulation, and Analysis Coding Coding of the survey’s closed-ended questions was accomplished by the interviewers as they conduct the interviews. Coding of the survey’s open-ended questions was then undertaken by the President of JD Franz Research, who reviewed all of the responses to each question, developed the appropriate codebooks, and coded the responses. Thirty percent of this coding was then checked and validated by the Vice President and Data Analysis Manager. Given that the number of “other” responses is relatively small, it was not deemed necessary to undertake a common next step, namely of attempting to add new codes and decrease the proportions of “other.” For reference in the event the reader is interested, however, all of the responses to each of the open-ended questions can be found in Attachment C3. Interpretation of the Coded Data As the reader is reviewing the coded data, it is important to bear in mind that the open- ended questions in this survey were extremely broad in nature and had the potential to encompass a wide variety of subtopics. In addition, there were no specific probes interviewers were instructed to use if all possible subtopics were not addressed. Although this approach posed some challenges, it was an intentional aspect of the research design for two reasons: first, because no one on the research team knew with any precision what all of the possible answers might be (a prerequisite for constructing more 3 Attachment C is not published herein but is available upon request from Cooperative Research Programs Senior Program Officer Joe Navarrete, at jnavarrete@nas.edu.

Survey Methodology and Findings A-9 A-8 closed-ended items), and second, because alternative designs would have greatly added to an already lengthy interview. As a result, some people addressed one aspect of a question while others addressed a different one. A few of the data tables could therefore be a bit misleading in a purely quantitative sense. This is particularly true of Table 8 (processes and solutions for removing AFFF from firefighting equipment or systems), where some respondents explained the manner of offloading the foam, others talked about where the resulting foam was stored, and still others mentioned the ultimate disposition of the foam. This suggests that the percentages in the table are not the kinds of absolute values one might find in a purely quantitative design, but rather the more relative values of a qualitative formulation. Tables 11 and 16 were structured somewhat differently in an attempt to overcome this challenge by developing subcategories of responses, but even these subcategories are likely only quantitatively valid in comparison with one another. In all of these instances, then, we would encourage the reader to review the verbatim responses in Attachment C4, which tend to give a more thorough picture of what is actually transpiring in the field. We also believe that if truly quantitative data are needed to understand airport practices in areas such as these, additional study may be required. Analysis of the Data by Country and Airport Size In order to understand how practices and experiences might differ in the two participating countries (the United States and Canada) and across airport size categories, all of the quantitative data were cross-tabulated by these two sets of independent variables and tested for statistical significance using the chi-square technique.5 All of the statistically significant results (p<.05) were then further examined to identify results with managerially or practically important differences and to exclude those with extremely small sub-sample sizes. The results of this analysis are presented in the following section of this report following the discussions of the main findings for the applicable questions. All of the statistically significant cross-tabulations can be found in Attachment D (country) and Attachment E (airport size). 4 Attachment C is not published herein but is available upon request from Cooperative Research Programs Senior Program Officer Joe Navarrete, at jnavarrete@nas.edu. 5 Although it is possible to cross-tabulate qualitative survey findings, the statistical techniques have in our opinion yet to be perfected. In addition, the results are difficult to interpret and commonly of limited utility.

A-10 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-9 III. FINDINGS Findings from the survey are presented here in the same order in which the questions were posed to airport representatives. Readers who are interested in the precise phrasing of the inquiries are invited to consult the copy of the survey instrument that can be found in Attachment A. AFFF Procurement Criteria Table 4 displays airports’ answers when they were asked about their most important procurement criteria for the acquisition of AFFF. By far the most prominent criterion mentioned is complying with government regulations. This is followed by cost or price, the use of an external purchasing agency or organization, the availability of sufficient quantities, and the use of a required list of vendors. Table 4 MOST IMPORTANT CRITERIA FOR AFFF PROCUREMENT Frequency Percent Compliance With Government Regulations (FAA, Transport Canada, Mil Spec, Three Percent, Regulation 139) 109 65.7 Cost Or Price/Have A Budget To Meet/ Request Prices From Three Vendors/Have To Take Winning Bid/Product Is Expensive 61 36.7 Handled By A Purchasing Agent/Other Agency/ Other Organization 13 7.8 Availability Of Sufficient Quantities 12 7.2 Required To Use A List Of Vendors Provided By The Military/DOD/State/City 12 7.2 Consistency Of Brand To Avoid Mixing Brands And Resulting Compatibility Issues 7 4.2 Availability In A Timely Manner 5 3.0 Environmental Considerations 3 1.8 Other 21 12.7 Don’t Know 2 1.2 Characteristics of AFFF Storage Figure 1 presents the mean existence of various characteristics of the places where AFFF is stored on a four-point scale where one equals none and four equals all. As this graphic indicates, storage areas are most likely to be enclosed, be covered, and have a cement or

Survey Methodology and Findings A-11 A-10 concrete floor. Least likely to characterize the places where AFFF is stored are double containment, underground storage tanks, and earth or gravel floors. The extent to which the places where AFFF is stored are enclosed varies by country, as shown in Table 5. Enclosed storage is substantially more common in the United States than it is in Canada. Table 5 EXTENT TO WHICH AFFF STORAGE IS ENCLOSED BY COUNTRY US Canada Percent None .7 11.1 Some .7 5.6 Most 3.4 5.6 All 95.3 77.8 (p=.003) Figure 1 MostNone Some All

A-12 Use and Potential Impacts of AFFF Containing PFASs at Airports A-11 The extent to which double containment is used for AFFF storage varies by airport size, as Table 6 indicates. While the relationship is not linear, the larger airports are more likely than the smaller ones to use double containment. The total absence of double containment is most likely to be the case among Category B airports and least likely to be the case among those in Category D. Table 6 EXTENT TO WHICH AFFF STORAGE IS DOUBLE CONTAINMENT BY AIRPORT SIZE Category A Category B Category C Category D Category E Percent None 82.5 90.9 84.1 57.9 70.6 Some 5.0 - 4.3 21.1 5.9 Most - - - - 5.9 All 12.5 9.1 11.6 21.1 17.6 (p=.048) The extent to which the places where AFFF is stored have earth or gravel floors varies by country, as Table 7 demonstrates. Canadian airports are more likely than American airports to have such floors in their storage areas. Table 7 EXTENT TO WHICH AFFF STORAGE AREAS HAVE EARTH OR GRAVEL FLOORS BY COUNTRY US Canada Percent None 99.3 88.9 Some - 5.6 All .7 5.6 (p=.003) Processes and Solutions for Removal of AFFF from Equipment or Systems Table 8 portrays the processes or solutions airports said they use when AFFF needs to be removed from firefighting equipment or systems. Most prevalent among the responses is noting that the foam is drained or pumped into containers. This is followed by pumping the foam out with an unspecified type of pump, draining it out by using gravity, and pumping it with a mechanical or electric pump.

Survey Methodology and Findings A-13 A-12 Table 8 PROCESSES AND SOLUTIONS FOR REMOVING AFFF FROM EQUIPMENT OR SYSTEMS Frequency Percent Drained Or Pumped Into Containers (Training Pit, Trailer, Holding Tank, Drums, Barrels, Totes) 89 53.3 Pumped From The Truck – Mechanism Not Specified 70 41.9 Drained From The Truck/Gravity Fed From Truck 30 18.0 Pumped By Mechanical Or Electric Pump From The Truck 24 14.4 Have Never Done This 13 7.8 Use The Nozzles On The Truck 7 4.2 Flushed And Treated As Runoff/Diluted With Water 7 4.2 Pumped By Hand From The Truck 6 3.6 It Is Flushed Out And Contained 4 2.4 Other 14 8.4 Don’t Know 5 3.0 Conduct of Foam Tests As shown in Figure 2, almost all airports conduct foam tests, meaning tests of both the AFFF foam mixture and the equipment. Only two percent do not.

A-14 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-13 EXTENT TO WHICH AIRPORTS CONDUCT FOAM TESTS Yes 97.6% No 2.4% Figure 3 indicates that a majority of the airports that conduct foam tests do so between every six months and once a year; the second largest group conducts such tests every four to six months. When these figures are summed, they total almost nine in ten airports (88 percent). Figure 2

Survey Methodology and Findings A-15 A-14 The frequency of foam testing varies by country, as illustrated in Table 9. Almost all Canadian airports conduct these tests between every six months and once a year. In the United States, the frequency of testing is considerably more variable. Table 9 FREQUENCY OF FOAM TESTING BY COUNTRY US Canada Percent Once A Month 9.7 - Once Every Two To Three Months 4.1 - Once Every Four To Six Months 36.6 5.6 Between Every Six Months And Once A Year 49.7 94.4 (p=.005) Foam testing frequency also varies by airport size, as portrayed in Table 10. With the exception of airports in Category E, testing between every six months and once a year decreases with increasing size, while testing once every four to six months increases with increasing size. Figure 3 Once A Month Once Every Two To Three Months Once Every Four To Six Months Between Every Six Months And Once A Year Percent

A-16 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-15 Table 10 FREQUENCY OF FOAM TESTING BY AIRPORT SIZE Category A Category B Category C Category D Category E Percent Once A Month 10.0 - 10.4 10.5 6.3 Once Every Two To Three Months - - 4.5 15.8 - Once Every Four To Six Months 22.5 38.1 38.8 42.1 18.8 Between Every Six Months And Once A Year 67.5 61.9 46.3 31.6 75.0 (p=.039) As illustrated in Figure 4, only seven percent of airports conduct tests of hangar foam systems. More than nine in ten do not. EXTENT TO WHICH AIRPORTS THAT CONDUCT FOAM TESTS TEST HANGAR FOAM SYSTEMS Yes 7.4% No 92.6% Among airports that conduct hangar foam system tests, as demonstrated in Figure 5, about nine in ten test both the sprinkler system and the foam generation system. The remaining about ten percent test only the sprinkler system. No airports test only the foam generation system. Figure 4

Survey Methodology and Findings A-17 A-16 NATURE OF HANGAR FOAM SYSTEM TESTS Sprinkler System 8.3% Both 91.7% Figure 6 shows that over two-thirds of airports discharge the AFFF used in foam tests onto the ground. Only about a third discharges it into an engineered containment system. Table 11 presents airports’ descriptions of the engineered containment systems that are used in collecting the AFFF used in foam tests. For clarity, these responses have been DISPOSITION OF THE AFFF USED IN FOAM TESTS Discharged 69.3% Containment System 30.7% Figure 5 Figure 6

A-18 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-17 subdivided into two categories: those that relate to capture and containment and those that address disposition. The latter category is quite small and does not appear to suggest any particularly prominent practices. With respect to the former, the leading answers are capture in a small or non-permanent vessel and capture in a more durable facility. In third place is the use of some type of separator. Table 11 ENGINEERED CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS USED FOR COLLECTING AFFF FROM FOAM TESTS Frequency Percent Capture and Containment: Captured In Container/Bucket/Inflatable Pool/ Tub/Specimen Cup 18 36.0 Captured In Collection Facility/Containment Basin/Collection Tanks/Concrete Tub/Wash Pit/ Fire Pit/Training Pit 14 28.0 Use Separator (Water/Foam, Oil/Water)/ Scrubbing System 10 20.0 Sprayed Onto A Target/Contained Area 4 8.0 Disposition: Released To Sewer System 3 6.0 Someone Else Handles This/Another Organization Handles This 3 6.0 Goes To Treatment Plant/Sanitary System 2 4.0 Other 10 20.0 Don’t Know 2 4.0 Disposal of AFFF Figure 7 displays the proportions of airports that indicated they replace AFFF under various circumstances. As this chart illustrates, all of the listed circumstances lead to replacement at the majority of airports. Most likely to prompt replacement are use of AFFF during emergency situations, use of AFFF in testing or maintaining equipment, and loss due to spills.

Survey Methodology and Findings A-19 A-18 Figure 8 indicates that close to one in five airports replace AFFF in circumstances other than those listed in the previous question. These circumstances are depicted in Table 12. Chief among them are providing AFFF in mutual aid to another agency and situations in which the AFFF fails testing or doesn’t work. Figure 7 Percent Yes Consumed During Training Activities Consumed During Emergency Incidents Past Its Expiration Date Lost Due To Leaking Containers Used In Testing Or Maintaining Equipment Lost Due To Spills

A-20 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-19 Table 12 OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH AFFF IS REPLACED Frequency Percent Given To Another Agency When They Needed It 5 17.2 Foam Fails Testing Or Doesn’t Work 5 17.2 Breakdown Of Equipment With Foam Loss Or Contamination 3 10.3 Inventory Goes Below Required Minimum 3 10.3 Foam Gets Contaminated 3 10.3 Bad Batch/Manufacturer Buyback/Manufacturer Recall 2 6.9 Used In An Emergency 2 6.9 Other 6 20.7 Figure 9 shows the mean extent to which airports dispose of spent or unused AFFF in various ways. The data in this figure are calculated on a scale of one to five where one equals never and five equals always. As this graphic illustrates, none of the listed disposal methods EXTENT TO WHICH AFFF IS REPLACED IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES Yes 17.4% No 82.6% Figure 8

Survey Methodology and Findings A-21 A-20 even achieve the level of “rarely,” and half are closer to the level of “never.” Most prominent are using a wastewater management contractor and letting it infiltrate into the soil. The use of wastewater management contractors varies by country, as portrayed in Table 13. Airports in the United States are substantially less likely than their counterparts in Canada to use such services. Table 13 USE OF WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT CONTRACTORS BY COUNTRY US Canada Percent Never 71.8 33.3 Rarely 5.4 11.1 Sometimes 6.0 11.1 Usually 1.3 11.1 Always 15.4 33.3 (p=.006) Figure 9 Using An On-Site Wastewater Management System Using A Wastewater Management Contractor Transporting It To A Landfill Letting It Infiltrate Into The Soil Incinerating It Using A Municipal Sewer System Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Means

A-22 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-21 Handling Materials That Come Into Contact With AFFF Figure 10 illustrates the mean degree to which airports handle containers and other materials that come into contact with AFFF in various ways. Here again, the scale contains five points ranging from one for never to five for always. In this instance, one of the approaches – storing the materials on-site – almost achieves the level of “sometimes,” and another – using a hazardous waste disposal facility – is above the level of “rarely.” The remaining three strategies are below, although close to, the level of “rarely.” On-site storage of materials that come into contact with AFFF varies by country, as Table 14 indicates. United States airports are noticeably more likely never to do so but also somewhat more likely always to do so. Answers of never and rarely total close to half (45 percent) in the United States versus a third (33 percent) in Canada. Responses of usually or always sum to about two-fifths (42 percent) in the United States and the majority (56 percent) in Canada. Thus it would appear that, overall, this practice is more prevalent in Canada than it is in the United States. Figure 10 Never Rarely Sometimes Usually Always Means Storing Them On-Site Using Them Again Including Them As Part Of General Waste Disposal Using A Hazardous Waste Disposal Facility

Survey Methodology and Findings A-23 A-22 Table 14 EXTENT TO WHICH AIRPORTS HANDLE MATERIALS THAT COME INTO CONTACT WITH AFFF ON-SITE BY COUNTRY US Canada Percent Never 40.9 27.8 Rarely 4.0 5.6 Sometimes 12.8 11.1 Usually 4.0 22.2 Always 38.3 33.3 (p=.044) Firefighter Training As depicted in Figure 11, close to nine in ten airports have held firefighter training on their premises at some point in time. Of these, as illustrated in Figure 12, the majority have used AFFF in selected training exercises. Almost a quarter, on the other hand, have not used AFFF in any training exercises. EXTENT TO WHICH AIRPORTS HAVE HELD FIREFIGHTER TRAINING Yes 88.6% No 11.4% Figure 11

A-24 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-23 EXTENT TO WHICH AFFF HAS BEEN USED IN TRAINING EXERCISES No Exercises 23.0% Selected Exercises 72.3% All Exercises 4.7% Figure 13 shows that by far the majority of the airports using AFFF in firefighter training discharge it onto the ground. Slightly over one in five discharge it into engineered containment systems. DISPOSITION OF THE AFFF USED IN TRAINING Discharged 78.9% Containment System 21.1% Table 15 portrays the manner in which the AFFF discharged during training has been handled. The most prevalent response is that it is discharged onto the ground and left to Figure 12 Figure 13

Survey Methodology and Findings A-25 A-24 evaporate, dissolve, or dissipate. This is followed by discharging the material onto the ground where it is left to soak in or infiltrate and by discharging it onto the ground and diluting it. Table 15 MANNER IN WHICH THE AFFF DISCHARGED DURING FIREFIGHTER TRAINING IS HANDLED Frequency Percent Discharged Onto The Ground And Left To Evaporate, Dissolve, Or Dissipate 32 35.6 Discharged Onto The Ground/Soil And Left To Soak In Or Infiltrate 23 25.6 Discharged Onto The Ground And Diluted 16 17.8 Sent To Or Handled By Hazardous Waste Treatment 6 6.7 Discharged Onto The Ground And Contained Or Cleaned Up 6 6.7 Discharged Onto The Ground – No Specifics of Outcome 5 5.6 Discharged Into A Fire Training Pit 2 2.2 Discharged Into Wastewater Treatment System 2 2.2 It Is Environmentally Safe 2 2.2 Other 6 6.7 Don’t Know 2 2.2 Table 16 displays airports’ descriptions of the engineered containment systems that are used in collecting the AFFF used in firefighter training. Here again, these responses have been subdivided into two categories: those that relate to capture and containment and those that address disposition. As previously, the second category contains relatively few responses. Leading practices appear to be sending the foam to a retention pond or tank and dispersing the foam in a way that is not detailed, although the numbers involved here are so small that they should be treated with considerable caution. In the first category, the most prominent answers are capturing the material in a collection facility or training pit and using some type of separator.

A-26 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-25 Table 16 ENGINEERED CONTAINMENT SYSTEMS USED FOR COLLECTING AFFF FROM FIREFIGHTER TRAINING Frequency Percent Capture and Containment: Captured In Collection Facility/Training Pit 16 66.7 Use Separator (Water/Foam, Oil/Water)/Water Reclamation System 9 37.5 Dispersed Onto A Paved Surface 2 8.3 Disposition: Goes to Retention Pond/Tank 4 16.7 Dispersed or Released – Unclear Where 3 12.5 Vacuumed Up With Vacuum Truck 2 8.3 Taken Away By Contractor 2 8.3 Goes To Treatment Plant/Sanitary System 2 8.3 Other 3 12.5 Staff and Trainee Handling of AFFF Figure 14 illustrates the extent to which staff and trainees who handle AFFF wear various types of protective gear when doing so. As this illustration indicates, almost all airports outfit those handling AFFF with work gloves and eye protection; strong majorities provide safety boots, turnout gear, and fire-retardant clothing. Substantially less likely to be used are nitrile or other one-time-use gloves.

Survey Methodology and Findings A-27 A-26 Best Management Practices for Preventing Spills during AFFF Handling Table 17 presents airports’ assessments of the best management practices for preventing spills during the handling of AFFF. The two leading practices, mentioned by equal numbers of airports, are taking one’s time or using caution and using some form of containment or containers. These are followed by providing thorough training on procedures, making sure connections are correct or tight, and actually following procedures. Figure 14 Eye Protection Work Gloves Nitrile Gloves Safety Boots Fire-Retardant Clothing Turnout Gear Other One-Time-Use Gloves Percent Yes

A-28 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-27 Table 17 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR PREVENTING SPILLS Frequency Percent Use Caution/Be Careful/Take Your Time/Pay Attention/Attend To Detail 36 21.6 Use Containment/Containers 36 21.6 Provide Thorough Training On Procedures 27 16.2 Make Sure Connections Are Correct/Are Tight 26 15.6 Follow Procedures 26 15.6 Use Pumps 20 12.0 Have Clear Procedures/Checklists 20 12.0 Use The Right Equipment/Make Sure Equipment Is Set Up Properly 19 11.4 Do Not Do It Alone/Involve Multiple People 17 10.2 We Have Never Had An Issue or Problem/We Don’t Spill 14 8.4 Use Safety Gear 13 7.8 Work In A Contained Area/ Closed Area/Safe Area 13 7.8 Put Safety First/Make Safety A Priority/Use Safety Precautions 8 4.8 Maintain Trucks Well/Maintain Equipment Well 7 4.2 Make People Aware That The Goal Is Not To Have A Spill 7 4.2 Use A Closed System 6 3.6 Have Absorbent Material Available 6 3.6 Make Sure Spill Containment Is Available If Needed 2 1.2 Make People Aware Of The Foam’s Cost 2 1.2 Other 37 22.2 Don’t Know 2 1.2 Experiences with AFFF in Firefighting Figure 15 demonstrates that close to three-quarters of airports have used AFFF for actual firefighting purposes. Of these, as shown in Table 18, the largest proportion has used AFFF in firefighting between six and ten times. The second largest groups have used it two times and more than ten times. Use of AFFF in firefighting five or fewer times represents the majority (61 percent).

Survey Methodology and Findings A-29 A-28 EXTENT TO WHICH AFFF HAS BEEN USED AT AIRPORTS FOR FIREFIGHTING PURPOSES Yes 71.3% No 28.7% Table 18 NUMBER OF TIMES THIS HAS OCCURRED IN THE PAST TEN YEARS Frequency Percent 1 15 12.6 2 18 15.1 3 17 14.3 4 7 5.9 5 15 12.6 6 To 10 29 24.3 More Than 10 18 15.0 The extent to which AFFF has been used for actual firefighting purposes varies by airport size, as illustrated in Table 19. Here, the trend is virtually linear, with the largest airports having the highest frequency of use and the smallest airports having the second lowest. The lowest use is seen in Category B airports, although the difference between Categories A and B is not substantial. Figure 15

A-30 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-29 Table 19 USE OF AFFF IN ACTUAL FIREFIGHTING BY AIRPORT SIZE Category A Category B Category C Category D Category E Percent Yes 57.5 50.0 78.3 78.9 94.1 No 42.5 50.0 21.7 21.1 5.9 (p=.005) Figure 16 indicates that only three percent of the airports that have used AFFF in firefighting have a history of known contamination as a result of these activities. Almost all do not. EXTENT TO WHICH AIRPORTS HAVE A HISTORY OF KNOWN CONTAMINATION AS A RESULT OF FIREFIGHTING ACTIVITIES Yes 2.5% No 94.1% Don't Recall 3.4% Verbatim descriptions of what happened during instances of contamination are presented below. As these responses represent only three airports, they do not suggest any themes. • One time we had a fuel spill and they did ground testing and they removed the soil that was contaminated by the spill. • When it was discharged onto the field at the airport, the environmental group was contacted and they scraped of the topsoil and took it to a landfill. • There was a fire and we knew some AFFF got on the soil. Figure 16

Survey Methodology and Findings A-31 A-30 Figure 17 demonstrates that none of the airports with a known history of contamination as a result of firefighting activities changed their AFFF management practices as a result of these incidents. Thus none were offered the opportunity to discuss any changes they might have made. Environmental Site Investigations As shown in Figure 18, only about one in ten airports have conducted environmental site investigations relative to AFFF that specifically relate to the release of AFFF into the environment. Of these, as depicted in Figure 19, the majority have conducted only a single such investigation. EXTENT TO WHICH AIRPORTS' MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WERE CHANGED AS A RESULT OF THESE INCIDENTS No 100.0% Figure 17

A-32 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-31 EXTENT TO WHICH AIRPORTS HAVE CONDUCTED ANY ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES RELATIVE TO AFFF Yes 10.8% No 89.2% The extent to which airports have conducted environmental site investigations relative to the release of AFFF into the environment is a function of airport size, as illustrated in Table 20. Figure 18 Figure 19 Percent

Survey Methodology and Findings A-33 A-32 Here, the relationship is virtually linear, with Category E airports being most likely to say they have and Category B airports being most likely to say they have not. Category A airports are somewhat more likely to say yes than Category B airports, but the difference represents only a single airport. Table 20 EXTENT TO WHICH AIRPORTS HAVE CONDUCTED ENVIRONMENTAL SITE INVESTIGATIONS RELATIVE TO THE RELEASE OF AFFF BY AIRPORT SIZE Category A Category B Category C Category D Category E Percent Yes 2.5 - 13.0 21.1 23.5 No 97.5 100.0 87.0 78.9 76.5 (p=.028) Figure 20 indicates that among those who have conducted such an investigation, the majority do not know what UCMR 3 is.6 Almost all of the remainder does not know how many of the investigations were conducted in accordance with this regulation. A single airport reported a UCMR 3-compliant investigation. NUMBER OF INVESTIGATIONS CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH UCMR 3 Does Not Know UCMR 3 52.9% Do Not Know How Many 41.2% One 5.9% 6 This question was asked only of American airport representatives, as Canadian airports are not subject to UCMR 3. Figure 20

A-34 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-33 Figure 21 displays the extent to which the airports’ environmental site investigations relative to AFFF have included various activities. As this graphic illustrates, the activities most likely to be included are an environmental risk assessment, a human health risk assessment, specialized field methods for sampling for PFAS, specialized analytical methods for testing for PFAS, and measurement of the prevalence of PFAS in soil. Figure 22 demonstrates that the majority of airports do not know whether their investigations led to analyses of remedial options or not; only one in ten (two airports) said they did. The descriptions these airports offered of the options that were considered and recommended are presented below. Figure 21 Specialized Field Methods - Sampling For PFAS Specialized Analytical Methods - Testing For PFAS Measurement Of PFAS In Soil Measurement Of PFAS In Surface Water Measurement Of PFAS In Groundwater Measurement Of PFAS In Sediment Environmental Risk Assessment Human Health Risk Assessment Percent Yes

Survey Methodology and Findings A-35 A-34 EXTENT TO WHICH THE INVESTIGATIONS LED TO ANALYSES OF REMEDIAL OPTIONS Yes 11.1% No 33.3% Don't Know 55.6% As shown in Figure 23, one of the two airports actually implemented the remedial options that were considered and recommended. This airport’s description of what was implemented can be found below. Figure 22

A-36 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-35 EXTENT TO WHICH THE REMEDIAL OPTIONS WERE ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED Yes 50.0% No 50.0% • The analysis, everything was implemented was the way we handled that. To isolate whenever we test or flow AFFF for training or testing. It is flowed into a contained area where it can be contained. Alternative Formulations of AFFF Figure 24 indicates that about a quarter of airports are aware of alternative formulations of AFFF; the majority is not. Table 21 presents these airports’ descriptions of the alternatives of which they are aware. As this graphic indicates, most of these descriptions are vague or admittedly uncertain. The leading category of comments is knowing that there are alternatives but not being able to be specific or state what their names are. Figure 23

Survey Methodology and Findings A-37 A-36 AWARENESS OF ALTERNATIVE FORMULATIONS OF AFFF Yes 23.4% No 76.6% Table 21 ALTERNATIVES OF WHICH AIRPORTS ARE AWARE Frequency Percent There Are Different Types/Manufacturers – Not Specific, Can’t Remember Names 13 34.2 Mentions Unique Specific Types or Names 9 23.7 Alcohol-Based Product/Alcohol-Resistant Product 5 13.2 Fluorine-Free Foams/Fluoride-Free Agent/PFAS and PFOA Free 5 13.2 Environmentally Friendly Foams/Bio-Friendly Foams 5 13.2 Training Foams 5 13.2 Mentions Europe or European 4 10.5 Other 4 10.5 Among those who are aware of alternative formulations of AFFF, as illustrated in Figure 25, about a quarter actually uses alternatives. Verbatim reasons for using these alternatives among the nine airports that do so are presented below. Reasons for not doing so are Figure 24

A-38 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-37 displayed in Table 22. Chief among these is that the alternatives are not in compliance with government regulations. USE OF THESE ALTERNATIVES Yes 23.1% No 76.9% Reasons for Using Alternatives to AFFF: • Alcohol AFFF on Ethanol, you can't use the non-alcohol-based on fuel. • You have multi-million dollar planes and it causes less damage to the plane. • Just to reduce the amount of AFFF we use. It's environmentally friendly and can be only used in testing and training. • Just different types of hazards that are in our response district. • We use AFFF, it is alcohol resistant and works on ethanol. • There are different applications for fires, like an engine fire or a fuel spill. We don't want to use the wrong agent for a specific application. • We use the various foams due to cost of mitigation. • We also do municipal firefighting, but not at the airport. • For two railroad tracks that carry crude oil. We use if for any kind of alcohol fires. Figure 25

Survey Methodology and Findings A-39 A-38 Table 22 REASONS FOR NOT USING ALTERNATIVES TO AFFF Frequency Percent They Do Not Conform To Specifications/They Are Not In Compliance With Regulations/They Are Not Mil Spec 19 63.3 We Are Using What We Have Always Used 4 13.3 AFFF Is Compatible With Our Equipment/What We Already Have 4 13.3 We Are Looking At Alternatives For Future Procurements/We Have Just Received Approval To Use An Alternative 3 10.0 Alternatives Are More Expensive 3 10.0 Other 2 6.7 Don’t Know 2 6.7 Concluding Comments At the close of the interview, respondents were asked, “Before we conclude this conversation, is there anything you would like to add about the procurement, storage, handling, use, or mitigation of AFFF?” As shown in Table 23, by far the majority of airports answered this by saying either “None,” “Nothing,” or something similar. Two far smaller groups indicated that they had never had any problems with AFFF and that AFFF is needed for safety or effectiveness. The remaining comments follow. Table 23 CONCLUDING COMMENTS Frequency Percent We Have Never Had Any Problems 5 3.0 We Need AFFF For Safety Or Effectiveness/The Product Is Effective 3 1.8 None/Nothing 143 85.6 Other 17 10.2 • At our airport we have a contracted environmental engineer who monitors the water, but I'm not sure they look for AFFF. • I have been in this industry for 30 years and we are heavily regulated. I do believe that there are suitable agents that are not AFFF. The AFFF has to have the foam encapsulate, the product to eliminate the release of foam and there are others that are not foam. Australia banned AFFF and went to foam-based. There is one called

A-40 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-39 Cold Fire, it bonds with a molecular level, but it's not a foam. It nerves the fuel molecule and you cannot light it. I believe it is safer. I also believe air pressure water would be effective. • We don't go through a lot of it here. We have less than 500 gallons on site and have minimal use for it with an airport our size. • We would like to use AFFF at the airport in case of fires with alcohol and ethanol. On procurement, I would like to see FAA fund more in regards to the foam. • As aviation improves for small and medium airports, it would seem like we should have the industry look at other standards for safety. • We don't train with it often enough because of the expense, and our new recruit hasn't been able to use the foam. It's just for fires only. • Just that I think personally it is extremely hazardous to someone's health when you come in contact with it. Just by reading and researching online myself, I think it needs to be explored. • Understanding the regulatory regulations of the US and Canada. I'm familiar with the ACRP and Dillon Consulting. I want to make sure it addresses regulatory differences in AFFF. I notice they are geared toward the US side and don't address the Canada side, I find that quite weak. They are not recognizing that there are different regulatory requirements. It might not be much, but they don't acknowledge that. If it's an American document, it should state this is an American requirement and not sure if it is applicable in Canada. It should say this is an American or Canadian document upfront, clarified for the reader. • They are working on a procurement for all the airports to work together to buy from a central location. I think it could probably be beneficial. • Trying to follow all the rules. Federal, state, and all the government rules. And try to keep it off the floor because it eats paint. We don’t want any leaks. • We are required by FAA to make sure that it is all Mil Spec. • We don't routinely use AFFF at our airport for training, we use water. For our actual fire training we use the Chicago Airport. • Whatever the price comes in the lowest is what we are going to buy, and we don't mix brands. We don't want to mix two manufacturers together, you can't be sure the formula is the same. • I do know the technology in the new fire trucks allows to test the foam without having to discharge it. • I would just make sure as a Firefighter Agency or Operator make sure they have the approval from their Environmental Division to handle the AFFF in the event there is a release, just approval of local Environmental Agency. • We need to begin to move from Fluorine foam and concentrate on something less toxic. • Make it cheaper. I would recommend that a lot of airports won't train with it because it is so expensive. That's why we do it only once a year.

Survey Methodology and Findings A-41 A-40 ATTACHMENT A Survey Instrument

A-42 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-41 AIRPORT COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAM SURVEY ABOUT THE USE OF AQUEOUS FILM-FORMING FOAM (AFFF) AT NORTH AMERICAN AIRPORTS Respondent Selection IF RESPONDENT NAME IS PROVIDED, ASK FOR RESPONDENT BY NAME. IF NO NAME IS PROVIDED, ASK TO SPEAK TO THE FOLLOWING. YOU ARE LOOKING FOR SOMEONE WHO IS FAMILIAR WITH THE AIRPORT’S USE OF AFFF AND CAN REPRESENT THE AIRPORT ON THAT TOPIC. • Fire Chief, Fire Captain, Deputy Fire Chief, or Deputy Fire Captain • Public Safety Chief or Director • Environmental Manager or Director • Director of Operations • Airport Manager or Director • Assistant Airport Manager or Director • Manager or Director of Tenant Operations Introduction Mr./Ms. ___________________, this is YOUR FULL NAME calling on behalf of Dillon Consulting, which is undertaking a research study for the Airport Cooperative Research Program of the Transportation Research Board. We are conducting a survey among representatives of North American airports to explore the use of aqueous film-forming foam, commonly referred to as A-Triple F and used in firefighting. The results of this research will be used to develop best management practice guidelines for use by facility operators and managers. All of the results will be

Survey Methodology and Findings A-43 A-42 reported in the aggregate; individual responses will be kept strictly confidential and will not be attributed to particular airports. Is this a convenient time to talk for about XX minutes? YES – THANK AND CONTINUE NO – ACCEPT AND RESCHEDULE Interview 1. Thinking first about the acquisition of AFFF (“A-Triple-F” HERE AND HEREAFTER), what are your airport’s most important procurement criteria? PROBE FOR CLARITY AND SPECIFICS. PROBE FOR OTHER CRITERIA: What else? 2. Considering all of the places where AFFF is stored at your airport, would you say that all, most, some, or none of them _______________? How about _________________? ALL MOST SOME NONE are enclosed 4 3 2 1 are covered 4 3 2 1 are single containment 4 3 2 1 are double containment 4 3 2 1 have a cement or concrete floor 4 3 2 1 have an earth or gravel floor 4 3 2 1 are an underground storage tank 4 3 2 1

A-44 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-43 3. When AFFF needs to be removed from firefighting equipment or systems, what processes and solutions do you use? PROBE FOR CLARITY AND SPECIFICS. PROBE FOR OTHER THINGS: What else? 4. Does your airport ever conduct foam tests, by which we mean tests of both the AFFF foam mixture and the equipment? 1 YES (CONTINUE) 2 NO (SKIP TO Q10) IF YES, ASK: 5. And about how often do you conduct these tests? _______________________________________________ 1 ONCE A MONTH 2 ONCE EVERY TWO TO THREE MONTHS 3 ONCE EVERY FOUR TO SIX MONTHS 4 BETWEEN EVERY SIX MONTHS AND ONCE A YEAR 5 LESS OFTEN THAN ONCE A YEAR 6. Do you ever conduct tests of hangar foam systems? 1 YES (CONTINUE) 2 NO (SKIP TO Q8)

Survey Methodology and Findings A-45 A-44 IF YES, ASK: 7. During hangar system tests, do you test the sprinkler system, the foam generation system, or both? 1 SPRINKLER SYSTEM 2 FOAM GENERATION SYSTEM 3 BOTH 8. Is the AFFF used in the foam tests discharged onto the ground or collected in an engineered containment system? 1 DISCHARGED (SKIP TO Q10) 2 ENGINEERED CONTAINMENT SYSTEM (CONTINUE) IF ENGINEERED CONTAINMENT SYSTEM, ASK: 9. Could you please describe the engineered containment system that is used for collecting AFFF from foam tests? PROBE FOR CLARITY AND SPECIFICS.

A-46 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-45 10. Now turning to the disposal of AFFF … Do you replace the AFFF at your airport when ________________? How about _____________? YES NO it is consumed during training activities 1 2 it is consumed during emergency incidents 1 2 it is past its expiration date 1 2 it is lost due to leaking containers 1 2 it is lost due to spills 1 2 it is used in testing or maintaining firefighting equipment 1 2 11. Are there other circumstances under which you replace AFFF? 1 YES (CONTINUE) 2 NO (SKIP TO Q13) IF NO TO ALL OF Q10 AND TO Q11, SKIP TO Q14. IF YES, ASK: 12. And what would those be? PROBE FOR CLARITY AND SPECIFICS. PROBE FOR OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES: What else?

Survey Methodology and Findings A-47 A-46 13. Does your airport always, usually, sometimes, rarely, or never dispose of spent or unused AFFF by ______________? How about ______________? ALWAYS USUALLY SOMETIMES RARELY NEVER using an on-site wastewater management system 5 4 3 2 1 using a municipal sewer system 5 4 3 2 1 using a wastewater management contractor 5 4 3 2 1 transporting it to a landfill 5 4 3 2 1 Incinerating it 5 4 3 2 1 letting it infiltrate into the soil 5 4 3 2 1 14. (IF THERE IS DISPOSAL OF AFFF: And) does your airport always, usually, sometimes, rarely, or never handle containers and other materials that come into contact with AFFF by ______________? How about ______________? ALWAYS USUALLY SOMETIMES RARELY NEVER using them again 5 4 3 2 1 storing them on-site 5 4 3 2 1 including them as part of general waste disposal 5 4 3 2 1 using a hazardous waste disposal facility 5 4 3 2 1 15. Now thinking about firefighter training … Has firefighter training ever been held at your airport? 1 YES (CONTINUE) 2 NO (SKIP TO Q20)

A-48 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-47 IF YES, ASK: 16. And has AFFF been used in all of the training exercises, in selected training exercises, or in no training exercises? 3 ALL EXERCISES (CONTINUE) 2 SELECTED EXERCISES (CONTINUE) 1 NO EXERCISES (SKIP TO Q20) 9 VOLUNTEERED: ALTERNATIVE FOAMS ARE USED (CONTINUE) 17. Has the AFFF used in the training been discharged onto the ground or collected in an engineered containment system? 1 DISCHARGED (CONTINUE) 2 ENGINEERED CONTAINMENT SYSTEM (SKIP TO Q19) IF DISCHARGED, ASK: 18. How has the AFFF been handled after it is discharged? PROBE FOR CLARITY AND SPECIFICS.

Survey Methodology and Findings A-49 A-48 IF ENGINEERED CONTAINMENT SYSTEM, ASK: 19. Could you please describe the engineered containment system that is used in collecting the foam used in training exercises? PROBE FOR CLARITY AND SPECIFICS. 20. When staff (IF THERE IS TRAINING: or trainees) are handling AFFF for whatever reason, do they wear _____________? How about ___________________? YES NO eye protection 1 2 work gloves 1 2 nitrile gloves 1 2 other one-time-use gloves 1 2 safety boots 1 2 fire-retardant clothing 1 2 turnout gear 1 2

A-50 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-49 21. From your perspective, what are the best management practices for preventing spills during the handling of AFFF? PROBE FOR CLARITY AND SPECIFICS. PROBE FOR OTHER THINGS: What else? 22. Now I would like to talk about your experience with the use of AFFF. Has AFFF been used at your airport, either on the airport proper or on tenant properties, for actual firefighting purposes? 1 YES (CONTINUE) 2 NO (SKIP TO Q29) IF YES, ASK: 23. And how many times has this happened in the past 10 years? ____ ____ 24. Does the airport have any history of known contamination as a result of these firefighting activities? 1 YES (CONTINUE) 2 NO (SKIP TO Q29) 3 NOT SURE (SKIP TO Q29)

Survey Methodology and Findings A-51 A-50 IF YES, ASK: 25. Could you please describe what happened? PROBE FOR CLARITY AND SPECIFICS. 26. And what was done as a result? PROBE FOR CLARITY AND SPECIFICS. PROBE FOR OTHER ACTIONS: What else? ASK Q26 IF NOT ANSWERED IN Q25. 27. Were any of the airport’s AFFF management practices changed as a result of (this incident) (these incidents)? 1 YES (CONTINUE) 2 NO (SKIP TO Q29)

A-52 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-51 IF YES, ASK: 28. And what was changed? PROBE FOR CLARITY AND SPECIFICS. PROBE FOR OTHER THINGS: What else? 29. Now I would like to ask you about any environmental studies you may have conducted relative to AFFF. Has your airport ever conducted an environmental site inspection specifically related to the release of AFFF into the environment? 1 YES (CONTINUE) 2 NO (SKIP TO Q37) IF YES, ASK: 30. And how many such investigations has your airport conducted? ___ ___ ASK Q31 IF IN THE UNITED STATES. IF IN CANADA, SKIP TO Q32. 31. How many of these investigations have been conducted in accordance with UCMR 3? ___ ___ 98 DOES NOT KNOW WHAT UCMR 3 IS 99 DOES NOT KNOW HOW MANY

Survey Methodology and Findings A-53 A-52 32. Did (this investigation) (any of these investigations) include _______? How about _________________? YES NO DON’T KNOW specialized field methods for sampling for P- F-A-S 1 2 3 specialized analytical methods for testing for P-F-A-S 1 2 3 measurement of the prevalence of P-F-A-S in soil 1 2 3 measurement of the prevalence of P-F-A-S in surface water 1 2 3 measurement of the prevalence of P-F-A-S in groundwater 1 2 3 measurement of the prevalence of P-F-A-S in sediment 1 2 3 environmental risk assessment 1 2 3 human health risk assessment 1 2 3 33. And did (this investigation) (any of these investigations) lead to an analysis of remedial options? 1 YES (CONTINUE) 2 NO (SKIP TO Q37) 3 DON’T KNOW (SKIP TO Q37) IF YES, ASK: 34. What options were considered and recommended? PROBE FOR CLARITY AND SPECIFICS. PROBE FOR OTHER THINGS: What else?

A-54 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-53 35. Were any of the options actually implemented? 1 YES (CONTINUE) 2 NO (SKIP TO Q37) IF YES, ASK: 36. And what options were implemented? PROBE FOR CLARITY AND SPECIFICS. PROBE FOR OTHER THINGS: What else? 37. Are you aware of any alternative formulations of AFFF? 1 YES (CONTINUE) 2 NO (SKIP TO Q42) IF YES, ASK: 38. And what alternatives are you aware of? PROBE FOR CLARITY AND SPECIFICS. 39. Do you use any of these alternatives? 1 YES (CONTINUE) 2 NO (SKIP TO Q41)

Survey Methodology and Findings A-55 A-54 IF ALTERNATIVES ARE USED, ASK: 40. And why do you use them? PROBE FOR CLARITY AND SPECIFICS. PROBE FOR OTHER REASONS: Why else? IF ALTERNATIVES ARE NOT USED, ASK: 41. Could you please tell me why you do not use them? PROBE FOR CLARITY AND SPECIFICS. PROBE FOR OTHER REASONS: Why else? 42. Before we conclude this conversation, is there anything you would like to add about the procurement, storage, handling, use or mitigation of AFFF? THANK RESPONDENT!

A-56 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-55 RECORD AIRPORT CODE: ____ ____ ____ RECORD AIRPORT CLASS: 1 I 2 II 3 III 4 IV NAME OF RESPONDENT: ____________________________ TITLE OF RESPONDENT: ____________________________ DATE COMPLETED: ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___ INTERVIEWER: _____________________________

Survey Methodology and Findings A-57 A-56 ATTACHMENT B Detailed Data Tabulations for Responding Airports

A-58 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-57 Country Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 US 149 89.2 89.2 89.2 2 Canada 18 10.8 10.8 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Sample Group Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 SAMPLE GROUP1 - CAT E AIRPORTS 17 10.2 10.2 10.2 2 SAMPLE GROUP2 - CAT D AIRPORTS 19 11.4 11.4 21.6 3 SAMPLE GROUP3 - CAT C AIRPORTS 69 41.3 41.3 62.9 4 SAMPLE GROUP4 - CAT B AIRPORTS 22 13.2 13.2 76.0 5 SAMPLE GROUP5 - CAT A AIRPORTS 40 24.0 24.0 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 $Q1 Thinking first about the acquisition of AFFF, what are your airport's most important procurement criteria? Responses Percent of Cases (166)N Percent $Q1 Compliance With Government Regulations - FAA, Transport Canada, Mil Spec, Three Percent, Regulation 139 109 44.5% 65.7% Consistency Of Brand To Avoid Mixing Brands And Resulting Compatibility Issues 7 2.9% 4.2% Availability Of Sufficient Quantities 12 4.9% 7.2% Availability In A Timely Manner 5 2.0% 3.0% Required To Use A List Of Vendors Provided By The Military - DOD - State - City 12 4.9% 7.2% Cost Or Price - Have A Budget To Meet - Request Prices From Three Vendors - Have To Take Winning Bid - Product Is Expensive 61 24.9% 36.7% Handled By A Purchasing Agent - Other Agency - Other Organization 13 5.3% 7.8% Environmental Considerations 3 1.2% 1.8% Other 21 8.6% 12.7% Don’t Know 2 .8% 1.2% Total 245 100.0% 147.6%

Survey Methodology and Findings A-59 A-58 Q2A. Considering all of the places where AFFF is stored at your airport, would you say that all, most, some, or none of them are enclosed? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 NONE 3 1.8 1.8 1.8 2 SOME 2 1.2 1.2 3.0 3 MOST 6 3.6 3.6 6.6 4 ALL 156 93.4 93.4 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q2B. How about are covered? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 NONE 5 3.0 3.0 3.0 2 SOME 2 1.2 1.2 4.2 3 MOST 5 3.0 3.0 7.2 4 ALL 155 92.8 92.8 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q2C. How about are single containment? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 NONE 38 22.8 22.8 22.8 2 SOME 10 6.0 6.0 28.7 3 MOST 6 3.6 3.6 32.3 4 ALL 113 67.7 67.7 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q2D. How about are double containment? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 NONE 134 80.2 80.2 80.2 2 SOME 10 6.0 6.0 86.2 3 MOST 1 .6 .6 86.8 4 ALL 22 13.2 13.2 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0

A-60 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-59 Q2E. How about have a cement or concrete floor? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 NONE 7 4.2 4.2 4.2 2 SOME 2 1.2 1.2 5.4 3 MOST 2 1.2 1.2 6.6 4 ALL 156 93.4 93.4 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q2F. How about have an earth or gravel floor? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 NONE 164 98.2 98.2 98.2 2 SOME 1 .6 .6 98.8 4 ALL 2 1.2 1.2 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q2G. How about are an underground storage tank? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 NONE 161 96.4 96.4 96.4 2 SOME 1 .6 .6 97.0 3 MOST 1 .6 .6 97.6 4 ALL 4 2.4 2.4 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0

Survey Methodology and Findings A-61 A-60 $Q3 When AFFF needs to be removed from firefighting equipment or systems, what processes and solutions do you use? Responses Percent of Cases (167)N Percent $Q3 Drained From The Truck - Gravity Fed From Truck 30 11.2% 18.0% Pumped By Hand From The Truck 6 2.2% 3.6% Pumped By Mechanical Or Electric Pump From The Truck 24 8.9% 14.4% Pumped From The Truck – Mechanism Not Specified 70 26.0% 41.9% Use The Nozzles On The Truck 7 2.6% 4.2% Drained Or Pumped Into Containers - Training Pit, Trailer, Holding Tank, Drums, Barrels, Totes 89 33.1% 53.3% Flushed And Treated As Runoff - Diluted With Water 7 2.6% 4.2% Have Never Done This 13 4.8% 7.8% It Is Flushed Out And Contained 4 1.5% 2.4% Other 14 4.5% 8.4% Don’t Know 5 1.9% 3.0% Total 269 100.0% 161.1% Q4. Does your airport ever conduct foam tests, by which we mean tests of both the AFFF foam mixture and the equipment? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 163 97.6 97.6 97.6 2 NO 4 2.4 2.4 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q5. And about how often do you conduct these tests? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 ONCE A MONTH 14 8.4 8.6 8.6 2 ONCE EVERY TWO TO THREE MONTHS 6 3.6 3.7 12.3 3 ONCE EVERY FOUR TO SIX MONTHS 54 32.3 33.1 45.4 4 BETWEEN EVERY SIX MONTHS AND ONCE A YEAR 89 53.3 54.6 100.0 Total 163 97.6 100.0 Missing System 4 2.4 Total 167 100.0

A-62 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-61 Q6. Do you ever conduct tests of hangar foam systems? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 12 7.2 7.4 7.4 2 NO 151 90.4 92.6 100.0 Total 163 97.6 100.0 Missing System 4 2.4 Total 167 100.0 Q7. During hangar system tests, do you test the sprinkler system, the foam generation system, or both? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 SPRINKLER SYSTEM 1 .6 8.3 8.3 3 BOTH 11 6.6 91.7 100.0 Total 12 7.2 100.0 Missing System 155 92.8 Total 167 100.0 Q8. Is the AFFF used in the foam tests discharged onto the ground or collected in an engineered containment system? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 DISCHARGED 113 67.7 69.3 69.3 2 ENGINEERED CONTAINMENT SYSTEM 50 29.9 30.7 100.0 Total 163 97.6 100.0 Missing System 4 2.4 Total 167 100.0

Survey Methodology and Findings A-63 A-62 $Q9 Could you please describe the engineered containment system that is used for collecting AFFF from foam tests? Responses Percent of Cases (50)N Percent $Q9 Captured In Container - Bucket - Inflatable Pool - Tub - Specimen Cup 18 27.3% 36.0% Captured In Collection Facility - Containment Basin - Collection Tanks - Concrete Tub - Wash Pit - Fire Pit - Training Pit 14 21.2% 28.0% Sprayed Onto A Target - Contained Area 4 6.1% 8.0% Use Separator - Water - Foam, Oil - Water - Scrubbing System 10 15.2% 20.0% Released To Sewer System 3 4.5% 6.0% Goes To Treatment Plant - Sanitary System 2 3.0% 4.0% Someone Else Handles This - Another Organization Handles This 3 4.5% 6.0% Other 10 10.6% 20.0% Don’t Know 2 3.0% 4.0% Total 66 100.0% 132.0% Q10A. Do you replace the AFFF at your airport when it is consumed during training activities? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 143 85.6 85.6 85.6 2 NO 24 14.4 14.4 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q10B. How about when it is consumed during emergency incidents? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 161 96.4 96.4 96.4 2 NO 6 3.6 3.6 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q10C. How about when it is past its expiration date? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 112 67.1 67.1 67.1 2 NO 55 32.9 32.9 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0

A-64 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-63 Q10D. How about when it is lost due to leaking containers? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 147 88.0 88.0 88.0 2 NO 20 12.0 12.0 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q10E. How about when it is lost due to spills? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 153 91.6 91.6 91.6 2 NO 14 8.4 8.4 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q10F. How about when it is used in testing or maintaining firefighting equipment? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 159 95.2 95.2 95.2 2 NO 8 4.8 4.8 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q11. Are there other circumstances under which you replace AFFF? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 29 17.4 17.4 17.4 2 NO 138 82.6 82.6 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0

Survey Methodology and Findings A-65 A-64 $Q12 And what would those be? Responses Percent of Cases (29)N Percent $Q12 Given To Another Agency When They Needed It 5 17.2% 17.2% Foam Fails Testing Or Doesn’t Work 5 17.2% 17.2% Breakdown Of Equipment With Foam Loss Or Contamination 3 10.3% 10.3% Inventory Goes Below Required Minimum 3 10.3% 10.3% Foam Gets Contaminated 3 10.3% 10.3% Bad Batch - Manufacturer Buyback - Manufacturer Recall 2 6.9% 6.9% Used In An Emergency 2 6.9% 6.9% Other 6 20.6% 20.7% Total 29 100.0% 100.0% Q13A. Does your airport always, usually, sometimes, rarely, or never dispose of spent or unused AFFF by using an on-site wastewater management system? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 NEVER 140 83.8 83.8 83.8 2 RARELY 2 1.2 1.2 85.0 3 SOMETIMES 9 5.4 5.4 90.4 4 USUALLY 2 1.2 1.2 91.6 5 ALWAYS 14 8.4 8.4 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q13B. How about by using a municipal sewer system? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 NEVER 145 86.8 86.8 86.8 2 RARELY 7 4.2 4.2 91.0 3 SOMETIMES 4 2.4 2.4 93.4 4 USUALLY 2 1.2 1.2 94.6 5 ALWAYS 9 5.4 5.4 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0

A-66 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-65 Q13C. How about by using a wastewater management contractor? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 NEVER 113 67.7 67.7 67.7 2 RARELY 10 6.0 6.0 73.7 3 SOMETIMES 11 6.6 6.6 80.2 4 USUALLY 4 2.4 2.4 82.6 5 ALWAYS 29 17.4 17.4 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q13D. How about by transporting it to a landfill? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 NEVER 163 97.6 97.6 97.6 2 RARELY 3 1.8 1.8 99.4 3 SOMETIMES 1 .6 .6 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q13E. How about by incinerating it? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 NEVER 162 97.0 97.0 97.0 2 RARELY 3 1.8 1.8 98.8 3 SOMETIMES 1 .6 .6 99.4 5 ALWAYS 1 .6 .6 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q13F. How about by letting it infiltrate into the soil? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 NEVER 102 61.1 61.1 61.1 2 RARELY 15 9.0 9.0 70.1 3 SOMETIMES 21 12.6 12.6 82.6 4 USUALLY 12 7.2 7.2 89.8 5 ALWAYS 17 10.2 10.2 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0

Survey Methodology and Findings A-67 A-66 Q14A. And does your airport always, usually, sometimes, rarely, or never handle containers and other materials that come into contact with AFFF by using them again? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 NEVER 114 68.3 68.3 68.3 2 RARELY 15 9.0 9.0 77.2 3 SOMETIMES 13 7.8 7.8 85.0 4 USUALLY 11 6.6 6.6 91.6 5 ALWAYS 14 8.4 8.4 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q14B. How about by storing them on-site? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 NEVER 66 39.5 39.5 39.5 2 RARELY 7 4.2 4.2 43.7 3 SOMETIMES 21 12.6 12.6 56.3 4 USUALLY 10 6.0 6.0 62.3 5 ALWAYS 63 37.7 37.7 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q14C. How about by including them as part of general waste disposal? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 NEVER 111 66.5 66.5 66.5 2 RARELY 16 9.6 9.6 76.0 3 SOMETIMES 14 8.4 8.4 84.4 4 USUALLY 2 1.2 1.2 85.6 5 ALWAYS 24 14.4 14.4 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q14D. How about by using a hazardous waste disposal facility? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 NEVER 98 58.7 58.7 58.7 2 RARELY 13 7.8 7.8 66.5 3 SOMETIMES 16 9.6 9.6 76.0 4 USUALLY 8 4.8 4.8 80.8 5 ALWAYS 32 19.2 19.2 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0

A-68 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-67 Q15. Has firefighter training ever been held at your airport? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 148 88.6 88.6 88.6 2 NO 19 11.4 11.4 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q16. And has AFFF been used in all of the training exercises, in selected training exercises, or in no training exercises? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 NO EXERCISES 34 20.4 23.0 23.0 2 SELECTED EXERCISES 107 64.1 72.3 95.3 3 ALL EXERCISES 7 4.2 4.7 100.0 Total 148 88.6 100.0 Missing System 19 11.4 Total 167 100.0 Q17. Has the AFFF used in the training been discharged onto the ground or collected in an engineered containment system? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 DISCHARGED 90 53.9 78.9 78.9 2 ENGINEERED CONTAINMENT SYSTEM 24 14.4 21.1 100.0 Total 114 68.3 100.0 Missing System 53 31.7 Total 167 100.0

Survey Methodology and Findings A-69 A-68 $Q18 How has the discharged AFFF been handled? Responses Percent of Cases (90)N Percent $Q18 Sent To Or Handled By Hazardous Waste Treatment 6 5.9% 6.7% Discharged Into A Fire Training Pit 2 2.0% 2.2% Discharged Into Wastewater Treatment System 2 2.0% 2.2% Discharged Onto The Ground And Diluted 16 15.7% 17.8% Discharged Onto The Ground And Left To Evaporate Or Dissolve Or Dissipate 32 31.4% 35.6% It Is Environmentally Safe 2 2.0% 2.2% Discharged Onto The Ground – No Specifics of Outcome 5 4.9% 5.6% Discharged Onto The Ground - Soil And Left To Soak In Or Infiltrate 23 22.5% 25.6% Discharged Onto The Ground And Contained Or Cleaned Up 6 5.9% 6.7% Other 6 5.9% 6.7% Don’t Know 2 2.0% 2.2% Total 102 100.0% 113.3% $Q19 Could you please describe the engineered containment system that is used in collecting the foam used in training exercises? Responses Percent of Cases (24)N Percent $Q19 Captured In Collection Facility - Training Pit 16 37.2% 66.7% Use Separator - Water - Foam, Oil - Water - Water Reclamation System 9 20.9% 37.5% Dispersed Onto A Paved Surface 2 4.7% 8.3% Goes to Retention Pond - Tank 4 9.3% 16.7% Vacuumed Up With Vacuum Truck 2 4.7% 8.3% Taken Away By Contractor 2 4.7% 8.3% Dispersed or Released – Unclear Where 3 7.0% 12.5% Goes To Treatment Plant - Sanitary System 2 4.7% 8.3% Other 3 2.3% 12.5% Total 43 100.0% 179.2%

A-70 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-69 Q20A. When staff or trainees are handling AFFF for whatever reason, do they wear eye protection? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 154 92.2 92.2 92.2 2 NO 13 7.8 7.8 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q20B. How about work gloves? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 159 95.2 95.2 95.2 2 NO 8 4.8 4.8 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q20C. How about nitrile gloves? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 63 37.7 37.7 37.7 2 NO 104 62.3 62.3 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q20D. How about other one-time-use gloves? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 68 40.7 40.7 40.7 2 NO 99 59.3 59.3 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q20E. How about safety boots? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 147 88.0 88.0 88.0 2 NO 20 12.0 12.0 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0

Survey Methodology and Findings A-71 A-70 Q20F. How about fire-retardant clothing? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 132 79.0 79.0 79.0 2 NO 35 21.0 21.0 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q20G. How about turnout gear? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 136 81.4 81.4 81.4 2 NO 31 18.6 18.6 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 $Q21 From your perspective, what are the best management practices for preventing spills during the handling of AFFF? Responses Percent of Cases (167)N Percent $Q21 Use Caution - Be Careful - Take Your Time - Pay Attention - Attend To Detail 36 10.5% 21.6% Put Safety First - Make Safety A Priority - Use Safety Precautions 8 2.3% 4.8% Use Safety Gear 13 3.8% 7.8% Do Not Do It Alone - Involve Multiple People 17 4.9% 10.2% Use Containment - Containers 36 10.5% 21.6% Use Pumps 20 5.8% 12.0% Use The Right Equipment - Make Sure Equipment Is Set Up Properly 19 5.5% 11.4% Use A Closed System 6 1.7% 3.6% Make Sure Spill Containment Is Available If Needed 2 .6% 1.2% Make Sure Connections Are Correct - Are Tight 26 7.6% 15.6% Have Clear Procedures - Checklists 20 5.8% 12.0% Provide Thorough Training On Procedures 27 7.8% 16.2% Follow Procedures 26 7.6% 15.6% Maintain Trucks Well - Maintain Equipment Well 7 2.0% 4.2% Make People Aware That The Goal Is Not To Have A Spill 7 2.0% 4.2% Make People Aware Of The Foam’s Cost 2 .6% 1.2% We Have Never Had An Issue or Problem - We Don’t Spill 14 4.1% 8.4% Have Absorbent Material Available 6 1.7% 3.6% Work In A Contained Area - Closed Area - Safe Area 13 3.8% 7.8% Other 37 10.5% 22.2% Don’t Know 2 .6% 1.2% Total 344 100.0% 206.0%

A-72 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-71 Q22. Now I would like to talk about your experience with the use of AFFF. Has AFFF been used at your airport, either on the airport proper or on tenant properties, for actual firefighting purposes? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 119 71.3 71.3 71.3 2 NO 48 28.7 28.7 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q23. And how many times has this happened in the past 10 years? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 15 9.0 12.6 12.6 2 18 10.8 15.1 27.7 3 17 10.2 14.3 42.0 4 7 4.2 5.9 47.9 5 15 9.0 12.6 60.5 6 8 4.8 6.7 67.2 7 3 1.8 2.5 69.7 8 3 1.8 2.5 72.3 9 1 .6 .8 73.1 10 14 8.4 11.8 84.9 12 4 2.4 3.4 88.2 15 1 .6 .8 89.1 20 2 1.2 1.7 90.8 25 1 .6 .8 91.6 30 3 1.8 2.5 94.1 40 1 .6 .8 95.0 50 4 2.4 3.4 98.3 75 1 .6 .8 99.2 100 1 .6 .8 100.0 Total 119 71.3 100.0 Missing System 48 28.7 Total 167 100.0 Q24. Does the airport have any history of known contamination as a result of these firefighting activities? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 3 1.8 2.5 2.5 2 NO 112 67.1 94.1 96.6 3 NOT SURE 4 2.4 3.4 100.0 Total 119 71.3 100.0 Missing System 48 28.7 Total 167 100.0

Survey Methodology and Findings A-73 A-72 Q27. Were any of the airport's AFFF management practices changed as a result of (this incident) (these incidents)? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 2 NO 3 1.8 100.0 100.0 Missing System 164 98.2 Total 167 100.0 Q29. Now I would like to ask you about any environmental studies you may have conducted relative to AFFF. Has your airport ever conducted an environmental site inspection specifically related to the release of AFFF into the environment? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 18 10.8 10.8 10.8 2 NO 149 89.2 89.2 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0 Q30. And how many such investigations has your airport conducted? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 12 7.2 66.7 66.7 2 4 2.4 22.2 88.9 5 1 .6 5.6 94.4 10 1 .6 5.6 100.0 Total 18 10.8 100.0 Missing System 149 89.2 Total 167 100.0 Q31. How many of these investigations have been conducted in accordance with UCMR 3? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 1 .6 5.9 5.9 98 DOES NOT KNOW WHAT UCMR 3 IS 9 5.4 52.9 58.8 99 DOES NOT KNOW HOW MANY 7 4.2 41.2 100.0 Total 17 10.2 100.0 Missing System 150 89.8 Total 167 100.0

A-74 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-73 Q32A. Did this investigation include specialized field methods for sampling for PFAS? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 6 3.6 33.3 33.3 3 DON'T KNOW 12 7.2 66.7 100.0 Total 18 10.8 100.0 Missing System 149 89.2 Total 167 100.0 Q32B. How about specialized analytical methods for testing for PFAS? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 5 3.0 27.8 27.8 3 DON'T KNOW 13 7.8 72.2 100.0 Total 18 10.8 100.0 Missing System 149 89.2 Total 167 100.0 Q32C. How about measurement of the prevalence of PFAS in soil? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 5 3.0 27.8 27.8 2 NO 2 1.2 11.1 38.9 3 DON'T KNOW 11 6.6 61.1 100.0 Total 18 10.8 100.0 Missing System 149 89.2 Total 167 100.0 Q32D. How about measurement of the prevalence of PFAS in surface water? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 4 2.4 22.2 22.2 2 NO 2 1.2 11.1 33.3 3 DON'T KNOW 12 7.2 66.7 100.0 Total 18 10.8 100.0 Missing System 149 89.2 Total 167 100.0

Survey Methodology and Findings A-75 A-74 Q32E. How about measurement of the prevalence of PFAS in groundwater? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 4 2.4 22.2 22.2 2 NO 2 1.2 11.1 33.3 3 DON'T KNOW 12 7.2 66.7 100.0 Total 18 10.8 100.0 Missing System 149 89.2 Total 167 100.0 Q32F. How about measurement of the prevalence of PFAS in sediment? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 2 1.2 11.1 11.1 2 NO 3 1.8 16.7 27.8 3 DON'T KNOW 13 7.8 72.2 100.0 Total 18 10.8 100.0 Missing System 149 89.2 Total 167 100.0 Q32G. How about environmental risk assessment? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 7 4.2 38.9 38.9 2 NO 1 .6 5.6 44.4 3 DON'T KNOW 10 6.0 55.6 100.0 Total 18 10.8 100.0 Missing System 149 89.2 Total 167 100.0 Q32H. How about human health risk assessment? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 6 3.6 33.3 33.3 2 NO 1 .6 5.6 38.9 3 DON'T KNOW 11 6.6 61.1 100.0 Total 18 10.8 100.0 Missing System 149 89.2 Total 167 100.0

A-76 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-75 Q33. And did this investigation lead to an analysis of remedial options? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 2 1.2 11.1 11.1 2 NO 6 3.6 33.3 44.4 3 DON'T KNOW 10 6.0 55.6 100.0 Total 18 10.8 100.0 Missing System 149 89.2 Total 167 100.0 Q35. Were any of the options actually implemented? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 1 .6 50.0 50.0 2 NO 1 .6 50.0 100.0 Total 2 1.2 100.0 Missing System 165 98.8 Total 167 100.0 Q37. Are you aware of any alternative formulations of AFFF? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 39 23.4 23.4 23.4 2 NO 128 76.6 76.6 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0

Survey Methodology and Findings A-77 A-76 $Q38 And what alternatives are you aware of? Responses Percent of Cases (38)N Percent $Q38 Alcohol-Based Product - Alcohol-Resistant Product 5 10.0% 13.2% Fluorine-Free Foams - Fluoride-Free Agent - PFAS and PFOA Free 5 10.0% 13.2% Environmentally Friendly Foams - Bio-Friendly Foams 5 10.0% 13.2% Training Foams 5 10.0% 13.2% There Are Different Types - Manufacturers – Not Specific, Can’t Remember Names 13 26.0% 34.2% Mentions Unique Specific Types or Names 9 18.0% 23.7% Mentions Europe or European 4 8.0% 10.5% Other 4 4.0% 10.5% Total 50 100.0% 131.6% Q39. Do you use any of these alternatives? Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 1 YES 9 5.4 23.1 23.1 2 NO 30 18.0 76.9 100.0 Total 39 23.4 100.0 Missing System 128 76.6 Total 167 100.0 $Q41 Could you please tell me why you do not use them? Responses Percent of Cases (30)N Percent $Q41 They Do Not Conform to Specifications - They Are Not In Compliance With Regulations - They Are Not Mil Spec 19 51.4% 63.3% We Are Using What We Have Always Used 4 10.8% 13.3% We Are Looking At Alternatives For Future Procurements - We Have Just Received Approval To Use An Alternative 3 8.1% 10.0% AFFF Is Compatible With Our Equipment - What We Already Have 4 10.8% 13.3% Alternatives Are More Expensive 3 8.1% 10.0% Other 2 5.4% 6.7% Don’t Know 6 2.7% 6.7% Total 37 100.0% 123.3%

A-78 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-77 $Q42 Is there anything you would like to add about the procurement, storage, handling, use or mitigation of AFFF? Responses Percent of Cases (167)N Percent $Q42( a) We Have Never Had Any Problems 5 3.0% 3.0% We Need AFFF For Safety Or Effectiveness - The Product Is Effective 3 1.8% 1.8% None - Nothing 143 85.1% 85.6% Other 17 10.1% 10.2% Total 168 100.0% 100.6% a Group

Survey Methodology and Findings A-79 A-78 Date of Interview Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 20151207 12 7.2 7.2 7.2 20151208 11 6.6 6.6 13.8 20151209 13 7.8 7.8 21.6 20151211 5 3.0 3.0 24.6 20151214 7 4.2 4.2 28.7 20151215 7 4.2 4.2 32.9 20151216 4 2.4 2.4 35.3 20151217 3 1.8 1.8 37.1 20151218 4 2.4 2.4 39.5 20151221 4 2.4 2.4 41.9 20151222 5 3.0 3.0 44.9 20151223 2 1.2 1.2 46.1 20151228 5 3.0 3.0 49.1 20151229 3 1.8 1.8 50.9 20160104 5 3.0 3.0 53.9 20160105 4 2.4 2.4 56.3 20160106 5 3.0 3.0 59.3 20160107 5 3.0 3.0 62.3 20160108 4 2.4 2.4 64.7 20160111 3 1.8 1.8 66.5 20160112 2 1.2 1.2 67.7 20160113 7 4.2 4.2 71.9 20160114 2 1.2 1.2 73.1 20160115 4 2.4 2.4 75.4 20160118 1 .6 .6 76.0 20160122 2 1.2 1.2 77.2 20160125 3 1.8 1.8 79.0 20160126 7 4.2 4.2 83.2 20160127 4 2.4 2.4 85.6 20160129 2 1.2 1.2 86.8 20160201 1 .6 .6 87.4 20160202 1 .6 .6 88.0 20160203 4 2.4 2.4 90.4 20160205 4 2.4 2.4 92.8 20160208 1 .6 .6 93.4 20160210 2 1.2 1.2 94.6 20160211 1 .6 .6 95.2 20160212 1 .6 .6 95.8 20160217 4 2.4 2.4 98.2 20160218 2 1.2 1.2 99.4 20160307 1 .6 .6 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0

A-80 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-79 Length of Interview Frequency Percent Valid Percent Cumulative Percent Valid 6 1 .6 .6 .6 7 1 .6 .6 1.2 8 2 1.2 1.2 2.4 10 2 1.2 1.2 3.6 11 1 .6 .6 4.2 12 7 4.2 4.2 8.4 13 5 3.0 3.0 11.4 14 8 4.8 4.8 16.2 15 10 6.0 6.0 22.2 16 11 6.6 6.6 28.7 17 15 9.0 9.0 37.7 18 8 4.8 4.8 42.5 19 5 3.0 3.0 45.5 20 12 7.2 7.2 52.7 21 6 3.6 3.6 56.3 22 10 6.0 6.0 62.3 23 5 3.0 3.0 65.3 24 7 4.2 4.2 69.5 25 6 3.6 3.6 73.1 26 9 5.4 5.4 78.4 27 11 6.6 6.6 85.0 28 5 3.0 3.0 88.0 29 3 1.8 1.8 89.8 30 4 2.4 2.4 92.2 31 3 1.8 1.8 94.0 33 3 1.8 1.8 95.8 36 1 .6 .6 96.4 37 1 .6 .6 97.0 41 1 .6 .6 97.6 42 1 .6 .6 98.2 48 1 .6 .6 98.8 50 1 .6 .6 99.4 59 1 .6 .6 100.0 Total 167 100.0 100.0

Survey Methodology and Findings A-81 A-80 ATTACHMENT C Verbatim Transcriptions of Open-Ended Responses (Note: Attachment C is not published herein, but is available upon request from Cooperative Research Programs Senior Program Officer Joe Navarrete, at jnavarrete@nas.edu.)

A-82 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-81 ATTACHMENT D Statistically Significant Cross-Tabulations by Country

Survey Methodology and Findings A-83 A-82 Q2A. Considering all of the places where AFFF is stored at your airport, would you say that all, most, some, or none of them are enclosed? * Country Crosstab Country Total1 US 2 Canada Q2A. Considering all of the places where AFFF is stored at your airport, would you say that all, most, some, or none of them are enclosed? 1 NONE Count 1 2 3 % within Country .7% 11.1% 1.8% 2 SOME Count 1 1 2 % within Country .7% 5.6% 1.2% 3 MOST Count 5 1 6 % within Country 3.4% 5.6% 3.6% 4 ALL Count 142 14 156 % within Country 95.3% 77.8% 93.4% Total Count 149 18 167 % within Country 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 13.688(a) 3 .003 Likelihood Ratio 7.976 3 .047 Linear-by-Linear Association 12.863 1 .000 N of Valid Cases 167 a 5 cells (62.5%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .22.

A-84 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-83 Q2F. How about have an earth or gravel floor? * Country Crosstab Country Total1 US 2 Canada Q2F. How about have an earth or gravel floor? 1 NONE Count 148 16 164 % within Country 99.3% 88.9% 98.2% 2 SOME Count 0 1 1 % within Country .0% 5.6% .6% 4 ALL Count 1 1 2 % within Country .7% 5.6% 1.2% Total Count 149 18 167 % within Country 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 11.655(a) 2 .003 Likelihood Ratio 6.549 2 .038 Linear-by-Linear Association 5.820 1 .016 N of Valid Cases 167 a 4 cells (66.7%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .11.

Survey Methodology and Findings A-85 A-84 Q5. And about how often do you conduct these tests? * Country Crosstab Country Total1 US 2 Canada Q5. And about how often do you conduct these tests? 1 ONCE A MONTH Count 14 0 14 % within Country 9.7% .0% 8.6% 2 ONCE EVERY TWO TO THREE MONTHS Count 6 0 6 % within Country 4.1% .0% 3.7% 3 ONCE EVERY FOUR TO SIX MONTHS Count 53 1 54 % within Country 36.6% 5.6% 33.1% 4 BETWEEN EVERY SIX MONTHS AND ONCE A YEAR Count 72 17 89 % within Country 49.7% 94.4% 54.6% Total Count 145 18 163 % within Country 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 13.009(a) 3 .005 Likelihood Ratio 16.489 3 .001 Linear-by-Linear Association 9.120 1 .003 N of Valid Cases 163 a 2 cells (25.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .66.

A-86 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-85 Q13C. How about by using a wastewater management contractor? * Country Crosstab Country Total1 US 2 Canada Q13C. How about by using a wastewater management contractor? 1 NEVER Count 107 6 113 % within Country 71.8% 33.3% 67.7% 2 RARELY Count 8 2 10 % within Country 5.4% 11.1% 6.0% 3 SOMETIMES Count 9 2 11 % within Country 6.0% 11.1% 6.6% 4 USUALLY Count 2 2 4 % within Country 1.3% 11.1% 2.4% 5 ALWAYS Count 23 6 29 % within Country 15.4% 33.3% 17.4% Total Count 149 18 167 % within Country 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 14.386(a) 4 .006 Likelihood Ratio 11.724 4 .020 Linear-by-Linear Association 9.073 1 .003 N of Valid Cases 167 a 5 cells (50.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .43.

Survey Methodology and Findings A-87 A-86 Q14B. How about by storing them on-site? * Country Crosstab Country Total1 US 2 Canada Q14B. How about by storing them on-site? 1 NEVER Count 61 5 66 % within Country 40.9% 27.8% 39.5% 2 RARELY Count 6 1 7 % within Country 4.0% 5.6% 4.2% 3 SOMETIMES Count 19 2 21 % within Country 12.8% 11.1% 12.6% 4 USUALLY Count 6 4 10 % within Country 4.0% 22.2% 6.0% 5 ALWAYS Count 57 6 63 % within Country 38.3% 33.3% 37.7% Total Count 149 18 167 % within Country 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 9.810(a) 4 .044 Likelihood Ratio 6.731 4 .151 Linear-by-Linear Association .550 1 .458 N of Valid Cases 167 a 3 cells (30.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .75.

A-88 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-87 ATTACHMENT E Statistically Significant Cross-Tabulations by Airport Size

Survey Methodology and Findings A-89 A-88 Q2D. How about are double containment? * Size Crosstab Q2D. How about are double containment? Size Total CAT E CAT D CAT C CAT B CAT A 1 NONE Count 12 11 58 20 33 134 % within Size 70.6% 57.9% 84.1% 90.9% 82.5% 80.2% 2 SOME Count 1 4 3 0 2 10 % within Size 5.9% 21.1% 4.3% .0% 5.0% 6.0% 3 MOST Count 1 0 0 0 0 1 % within Size 5.9% .0% .0% .0% .0% .6% 4 ALL Count 3 4 8 2 5 22 % within Size 17.6% 21.1% 11.6% 9.1% 12.5% 13.2% Total Count 17 19 69 22 40 167 % within Size 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 21.136(a) 12 .048 Likelihood Ratio 15.367 12 .222 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.945 1 .163 N of Valid Cases 167 a 13 cells (65.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .10.

A-90 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-89 Q5. And about how often do you conduct these tests? * Size Crosstab Q5. And about how often do you conduct these tests? Size Total CAT E CAT D CAT C CAT B CAT A 1 ONCE A MONTH Count 1 2 7 0 4 14 % within Size 6.3% 10.5% 10.4% .0% 10.0% 8.6% 2 ONCE EVERY TWO TO THREE MONTHS Count 0 3 3 0 0 6 % within Size .0% 15.8% 4.5% .0% .0% 3.7% 3 ONCE EVERY FOUR TO SIX MONTHS Count 3 8 26 8 9 54 % within Size 18.8% 42.1% 38.8% 38.1% 22.5% 33.1% 4 BETWEEN EVERY SIX MONTHS AND ONCE A YEAR Count 12 6 31 13 27 89 % within Size 75.0% 31.6% 46.3% 61.9% 67.5% 54.6% Total Count 16 19 67 21 40 163 % within Size 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 21.841(a) 12 .039 Likelihood Ratio 23.464 12 .024 Linear-by-Linear Association 1.126 1 .289 N of Valid Cases 163 a 9 cells (45.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is .59.

Survey Methodology and Findings A-91 A-90 Q22. Now I would like to talk about your experience with the use of AFFF. Has AFFF been used at your airport, either on the airport proper or on tenant properties, for actual firefighting purposes? * Size Crosstab Q22. Now I would like to talk about your experience with the use of AFFF. Has AFFF been used at your airport, either on the airport proper or on tenant properties, for actual firefighting purposes? Size Total CAT E CAT D CAT C CAT B CAT A 1 YES Count 16 15 54 11 23 119 % within Size 94.1% 78.9% 78.3% 50.0% 57.5% 71.3% 2 NO Count 1 4 15 11 17 48 % within Size 5.9% 21.1% 21.7% 50.0% 42.5% 28.7% Total Count 17 19 69 22 40 167 % within Size 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 15.089(a) 4 .005 Likelihood Ratio 15.878 4 .003 Linear-by-Linear Association 11.833 1 .001 N of Valid Cases 167 a 1 cells (10.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 4.89.

A-92 Use and potential impacts of AFFF Containing pFASs at Airports A-91 Q29. Now I would like to ask you about any environmental studies you may have conducted relative to AFFF. Has your airport ever conducted an environmental site inspection specifically related to the release of AFFF into the environment? * Size Crosstab Q29. Now I would like to ask you about any environmental studies you may have conducted relative to AFFF. Has your airport ever conducted an environmental site inspection specifically related to the release of AFFF into the environment? Size Total CAT E CAT D CAT C CAT B CAT A 1 YES Count 4 4 9 0 1 18 % within Size 23.5% 21.1% 13.0% .0% 2.5% 10.8% 2 NO Count 13 15 60 22 39 149 % within Size 76.5% 78.9% 87.0% 100.0% 97.5% 89.2% Total Count 17 19 69 22 40 167 % within Size 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% Chi-Square Tests Value df Asymp. Sig. (2-sided) Pearson Chi-Square 10.836(a) 4 .028 Likelihood Ratio 13.286 4 .010 Linear-by-Linear Association 9.480 1 .002 N of Valid Cases 167 a 4 cells (40.0%) have expected count less than 5. The minimum expected count is 1.83.