PFAS or perfluoroalkyl and poly-fluoroalkyl are synthetic chemicals dangerous to human health.
Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) worked towards a ban on these products, there are no firefighting foams as effective as PFAS-based foams.
To address this issue, the PFAS Alternatives Act 2023 proposes to fund efforts for research and development of new firefighting turnout gear and reduce health risks to firefighters.
A total of $25 million is proposed for research and testing of new equipment, while an additional $2 million per year is attributed to training programs.
However, this bill has not yet been enacted, while in the U.S., only two states have completely banned PFAS-based firefighting gear.
Ohio’s Approach
Ohio is one of the few states with a complete plan for collecting and disposing of PFAS based firefighting foams.
However, although this plan has been developed in line with EPA guidance, there are currently no measures to address the issue of PFAS in firefighting gear.
Moreover, although Ohio’s drinking water sources show no contamination with PFAS due to using PFAS-based firefighting foams, the risk to firefighters remains substantial.
Over 13 diseases are directly linked with PFAS exposure. Research conducted on firefighter populations demonstrates that these conditions occur more frequently in this group.
One explanation for this is firefighters’ constant PFAS exposure because of their turnout gear.
As PFAS do not degrade naturally but rather accumulate over time, with repeated exposure, firefighters have significant levels of PFAS in their blood.
An investigation conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology looking into the PFAS content of firefighting turnout gear from 20 US-based producers found 2,000 micrograms of PFAS per kilogram in each component of this gear.
For reference, the EPA allows only 4 parts per trillion in drinking water. Notably, while there is no nationwide ban on PFAS yet, companies producing or/and selling firefighting gear and foams are mandated to disclose any PFAS content in their products.
When this does not happen, these companies become liable, with several manufacturers already being sued for damages.
Although the PFAS Alternatives Act is not yet made law, manufacturers should note that a legal precedent may be established here.
As a result, manufacturers may want to update their warning labels and invest in alternative gear to avoid liabilities for firefighters’ health.
Concomitantly, firefighters unknowingly exposed to corporate negligence may choose to pursue legal action.
Jonathan Sharp
CFO of Environmental Litigation Group