Roberta Burkhart
Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
(TNS)
Aug. 18—It sounds simple: remove harmful chemicals from firefighting foam to both keep public water supplies pure and protect the health of firefighters.
But finding an effective substitute, figuring out how to pay for it and retraining firefighters adds several layers of complexity to a bill currently moving through the state Legislature, says Brian Kokkila, assistant chief for the Pittsburgh Bureau of Fire.
The bill in question aims to prohibit “the manufacture, sale, distribution, and use of firefighting foam that contains toxic PFAS chemicals, per- and polyfluoroalkyl manmade substances that have been linked to a wide range of serious health issues, including cancer,” per a press release issued by Rep. Brian Munroe, D-Bucks.
Munroe, a former firefighter, was the prime sponsor of House Bill 1261, which passed by unanimous vote on July 1.
Removing PFAS chemicals is essential to stop these chemicals from leeching into the ground and water supplies to prevent other areas to become as contaminated as his home district, he told the Post-Gazette on Friday.
Munroe represents a region heavily affected by PFAS contamination because of its heavy use at former and active military bases in his legislative district, notably the former Naval Air Warfare Center Warminster and nearby Naval Air Station Joint Reserve Base Willow Grove.
But for Mr. Kokkila, there are two main worries on his mind as the bill moves to the state Senate for consideration: whether the new foam will work as well as the PFAS-containing varieties and how fire departments will pay for it.
PFAS-containing foams were used for a reason: they were really great at extinguishing liquid fuel-based fires, he said.
Firefighters rely on Aqueous Film-Forming Foam (AFFF), which contains PFAS, to suppress and extinguish flammable liquid blazes — known as Class B fires, such as those fueled by petroleum products, per the U.S. Fire Administration.
The foam works by creating bubbles, which do a couple of things: “They seal off the surface layer of flammable liquids to kind of trap the off-gassing or the flammable vapors that are actually burning. So we’re able to seal them off and encapsulate them,” Mr. Kokkila said.
The bubbles also create a cooling effect, which assists in extinguishing fuel fires.
The reason PFAS foams have been “so, so effective is that the PFAS helps the bubbles maintain their strength when they’re being applied. So it helps resist breaking of the bubbles. It helps them resist the impacts of friction and motion. And, you know, just does a really great job.”
PFAS have been shown to cause various harmful health effects in humans and animals and have been found in water, air, fish and soil across the world, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
The EPA estimates that there are thousands of PFAS chemicals found in a variety of consumer, commercial and industrial products.
Mr. Kokkila said, in his experience, the foams without PFAS don’t work as well.
The bubbles break down faster, requiring more foam to achieve the same effect, he said. He estimated that using the new foams could double the volume of product needed — which could potentially double the price tag of fighting a liquid fuel fire.
As a hypothetical example, if a gasoline tanker truck flipped over within city borders and ignited, he estimated that firefighters would need about two 330-gallon totes of the PFAS-containing foam to fight the ensuing fire. Each tote costs about $15,000.
If the replacement foam works half as well — which is what he says he’s witnessed thus far — the amount of foam doubles as well as the