(TNS) — 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 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,” 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.

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 cost. Then you’re looking at a $60,000 price tag for just the foam used in that one fire.

A memo circulated by Munroe and co-sponsor Rep. Zachary Mako, R-Northampton and Lehigh counties, appears to contradict Kokkila’s assertion that the newer foams don’t work as well, stating “effective PFAS-free foams have been developed and are commercially available at a competitive price.”

In addition, Munroe on Friday said that, from the conversations he’s had with regional firefighters, there are “other products on the market that are very usable. … I think that there’s plenty of products, according to the industry, that can be used.”

Many fire departments have already made the switch, he said, adding that “obviously, the alternative is to continue having areas like Warminster who have been horrifically affected, medically, environmentally, financially, and so on and so forth. And that’s obviously just not an option, right?”

Another cost that must be considered before any flames erupt, Kokkila said, is if a new foam is introduced, firefighters need to know how it works differently than the past product and be schooled on new tactics to use it effectively.

A product change likely will require a pivot in how firefighters battle the blazes — everything from applying more foam and adding in other fire extinguishing agents to changing the focus and established procedure of attack, he said.

One of the bill’s 35 co-sponsors, Rep. Jeremy Shaffer, R-Allegheny, told the Post-Gazette on Thursday that helping departments pay for the switch to the safer foams is a concern that’s been discussed.

“One of the things this bill does encourage is providing funding for departments to help with that transition,” Shaffer said.

The bill includes financial provisions to assist departments with the cost of disposal of the PFAS-tainted foams, but does not specifically address “long-term cost differences in usage of other foams,” Munroe confirmed.

The memo indicated that funding has been considered, to a point: “It is time we phase out the use of firefighting foam containing PFAS in a responsible way that is sensitive to the needs of firefighters — both their safety and their budgets — while ensuring that the most challenging fires can still be extinguished.”

The bill “would allow fire companies to utilize their state grant funding to mitigate the small cost of disposal of PFAS-laden foam and direct the Office of the State Fire Commissioner to work with the Department of Environmental Protection to ensure the safe handling and disposal of the prohibited foam. Violations of the prohibition would result in fines to benefit firefighter training,” per the memo.

Ultimately, Shaffer said, “it’s going to be a process to get it done, but it’s something that I think everyone agrees needs to be done, and you have to start somewhere, right?”

He expressed confidence that the money to support departments stocking the PFAS-free foam will be found: “There is a state fire commissioner who works with all the departments on policies, and we’ll basically effectuate them through that means.”

Helping to keep firefighters, the general public and our water sources safer were among the main reasons Shaffer supported it, he said.

“[First responders], in many ways, put their own lives, health and safety before the people they’re serving, and we need to step up and make sure they’re in the safest environment possible,” Shaffer said.

Just because the department is looking at the issue from all angles doesn’t mean they’re resisting the switch to the PFAS-free foams, Kokkila was quick to point out.

“One, we absolutely are paying attention and are slowly migrating, as budgets permit, away from the PFAS-laden” products, Kokkila said.

The issue is “fully on our radar,” said Kokkila, adding that the department has already established a multi-year purchase contract for non-PFAS foam, “but the budget impact for that is substantial. It’s not inexpensive.”

This bump in costs was not “reasonably predictable” either, leaving the department scrambling to figure out how to integrate the higher costs, he said. “Finding extra money to accomplish this has been challenging.”