Firefighters Will Be Suing, Getting Sued Over PFAS

subscribe to On the Merits wherever fine podcasts can be found. Okay, now on to today's episode. Firefighters are rethinking their relationship with p fasts and with the companies that make it. Today on the podcast, we talk about the liabilities that fire departments might face and about why it looks like firefighters themselves are lowering up. Hello, and welcome back once again to Parts per Billion, the environmental podcast from Bloomberg Law.

I'm your host, David Schultz. We've talked a lot on this podcast about the military's use of p fast and why that's been so problematic, But today we're looking at the civilian side and talking about fire fighters. Fire departments used and still use a lot of p fasts also known as forever chemicals, and as you'll learn in a bit, it's not just in the a triple lef or aqueous film forming foam that they spray on fires. As a result of this, fire departments might have a significant amount

of liability. Here in Bloomberg Glower, reporters Andrew Wallander and Pat Rizzuto have been examining this emerging legal issue. It'll be able to hear from Andrew about the claims individual firefighters might file, but first I asked Pat to give me a sense of what exactly the liability for fire departments might look like. Local fire departments are going to be affected in different ways, but they're hit by the

p FAST conundrum in a whole bunch of ways. They've used a triple left, that's the p FAST containing firefighting foam um for decades because it was simply the most effective way to put out fires, particularly ones that involved fuel or chemicals that burned. So you know, they've spread the chemicals around, they've gotten the chemicals into their body higher levels than your I, and they're likely to have old foam on their shelves and have had it in

their truck. So they're going to have to clean out their own trucks. Maybe if their municipal fire department, they'll get some taxpayer dollars to do that, or if they are a local rural, you know, volunteer fire department, they're going to have to have more SPAGHANDI dinners. Yeah. Well, and I wanna just briefly belabor what you just said, because there was a lot there. The firefighters themselves are could be sick. The trucks, then the fire stations could

be contaminated. There could be legacy contamination in the water near places where they've sprayed this foam. Those are all three separate things in the departments have to do with all of those. Where is the litigation heading here? Um? Because I'm wondering who's getting sued? Are are the fire departments getting sued? And if so, how are they handling that? Yes,

they have been sued. Um. I know of one case in New Jersey where a company that had had a fire incident suit the tender fire departments that responded to it because they used a triple left. Um. That is the case is pending but basically attorneys have told me that is the future, especially once e p A starts regulating two of the common ingredients in a triple left as hazardous substances under the super fun law, which has

said it will do this year. So just to make sure I understand, this is someone who there was a fire that was put out on their property and they're suing the fire department. I mean, I don't want to belittle this, this claim of action because as we've talked about, p face is very toxic. But still that's a pretty remarkable situation. Yeah, it just strikes every unfair chord in your body. But yes, they're more and more likely to do that the tighter these are regulated because they're hugely

expensive to clean up. So they're going to be looking for other people to help pay the dollar. And um, even if down the road e p A or their state you know environmental department you know, closes the eye because after all, you were saving lives. Um, exactly, we kind of want you to do that. You know, you don't win a lot of votes by going after you know, firefighting heroes. Yes. Um, Still, the private companies that have to play pay clean up are going to compete looking

for dollars. Yeah. Um. And then there's another cost that we haven't touched on, but it's also going to be expensive, which is replacing the foams with something else that works really well. I get the sense that the military is pretty far along in doing this and sort of saying, hey, we've developed new chemicals that are just as good or almost as good as fast, let's replace those. Is the is that going to put pressure on fire departments do

the same thing to replace these chemicals. Absolutely, the Pentagon did meet Congress's mandate, and it has developed its requirements for for suppressants that can put out the types of incidents that it deals with, planes crashing into piles of AMMO on land. Um. And it's it's researched the alternatives and it says, yes, there are ones that can do this just as well or cruel close enough. So it's

it's put out its requirements. Within a couple of months, we're going to start seeing it identifying the specific companies and products that it will purchase. Right. However, Um, you have reported on this many many times in your career, where we replace one toxic chemical with another one, and as it turns out, the replacement is also somewhat or very toxic itself. Are we potentially running into that situation here where the replacements also have their own issues? Um?

Quite possibly. On. There is at least one state that has chosen to provide, at least on a temporary basis, fire department with a substitute for the A triple left. But the substitute also, according to tests running the European Union, also has p fas so um, yes, buy or be aware. Um. However, that said, and I need to add this caveat. I've been told over and over that fire departments care about performance. They just don't think about safety because they want that

fire out as quickly as possible. That's what they're focused on. Get it out. But let's talk about the safety of the firefighters themselves, because they've been using p FAST for a long time and the damage has been done here. Uh, Andrew, you reported that it seems like the Firefighters Union is kind of gearing up for a big legal fight over p FAST exposure. Um, can you tell me about what they're actually doing and why that's significant? Yeah, So this

this came recently. The International Association of Firefighters announced that it's partnering with three law firms to help connect its members, UH two lawyers who can help them with potential litigation over exposure to p fast if they if they've developed cancer and one of the cancers that has been linked

to p FAST. They've had these three law firms now they're gonna be working with those members and they're also trying to change things on the regulatory side as well, because as things stand, the nfp A standards for Firefighter gear currently requires moisture barriers in firefighter gear to be UV resistant and p fast is the only thing that can meet those requirements. So there's no way right now for p fast not to be in firefighters gear. So

it's worth pointing out. You know, we've talked about on this podcast and earlier today, we've talked about exposure through p fast from spraying foam that contains p FAST, but that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about exposure through clothes and protective gear that is coated with p fast. Is that does that pose a different risk to the firefighters? It does in some cases. I because not everyone uses a triple left foam, not not all firefighters do, but

many firefighters that are working in cities fighting structural fires. Uh. They wear what's called turnout gear or bunker gear. UM, and that that is where there's a concern that is p fast and there so there's potentially more exposure to a bigger set of people. I want to circle back though to something that you said, which is that the Firefighters Union is partnering with law firms. UH. That is very different than suing. UM. It doesn't sound like the

Firefighters Union are filing suits. They're just maybe making these firms available to uh their members. What's the distinction there? Why is the Firefighters Union not filing suit itself. Yeah, that's something I asked the president about President of Kelly when I when I spoke with him about this, and UH, he said that they're keeping their options open right now.

So it seems like the door is open for a potential lawsuit from the Firefighters Union, but at this time they're focus more on getting their individual members access to filing suit and they're also trying to change those rules at the n f P a UM and and put

the pressure on that way. The main reason why I asked about that about the sort of the distinction between you know what they're doing is because I know from your reporting that this main firefighters Union has a long and interesting relationship with p fast makers and with the well specifically with the companies that make this gear. Um, can you talk a little bit about that. It sounds like they've the union has received a lot of money

from these companies in the past. Right. This was something we looked back in early one at and UH did a dive into the financial records of the International Association of Firefighters and found that, uh, yeah, they had received almost half a million dollars from gear makers and manufacturers

for sponsorships and UH donations. And and one of the things that really stuck out to me in reporting that story was when I was watching a clip of a cancer summit at the Firefighters Union had hosted several years ago, and the president of the union at the time introduced the conference by thanking DuPont and some of the manual factors it re sponsoring this conference, and and you know, given what we know today, it was uh sort of a questionable sponsorship for for a summit on on cancer.

So so shortly certainly after that in in I think that story came out in January, but they're already conversations at the union two break away from these partnerships with some of these companies as more was coming out about uh P fast and some of the gear well, and didn't I think in your reporting you said they went even further and that they they ousted the president and put in a new president who was sort of had a much harsher stance toward these companies, right right, So

there was an election shortly after that as well, um in in early and um so the president who is now the president and Kelly one and he's been very adamant about p fast as an issue and kind of bringing it to the forefront of the union and trying to make this something that the health and safety is a is a big focus ultimately. And I want to wrap up by sort of asking where you think this

is going. Um you know, I get the sense that the I can understand why the Firefighters Union was very close with the gear makers because these this protective gear is literally life saving, you know, it protects the lives of firefighters, but of course it's now we know it's also potentially toxic. Do you think that this is going to change the way that firefighters think about the risks and the trade offs that you know, to save lives, we have to expose ourselves to toxic chemicals, and that

that mindset may be changing. I think it definitely is. I mean talking to some of the people who attended this conference and and and firefighters, it's something that's very much at the forefront of their minds um with with the work that they do. And uh, there was a moment I wasn't at the training section where this initiative with the law firms was revealed, but there was there was a moment where, you know, someone asked, do you know someone who has been affected by cancer in the

fire service? And everyone's hands went up. And so it's something that's very very present issue for that. So I think there's a lot more attention, a lot more firefighters are aware of this issue. Now. What I have noticed is there's a real difference in the firefighter response to the gear issue versus the firefighting foam. And I think you just put your finger on it, David. I mean,

their gear is their lifeboat, it's their submarine. It allows them to go into literal hell, it saves their lives, and they have such a close relationship with their gear um that it's a much more emotional and fervorent um feeling of absolute betrayal. The foam its sprayed away from them. You know, they know that they were using what they were told was the best product out there, and they do know what work. It's not an an emotional response.

That's really interesting. I hadn't thought about the psychological distinction between the foam and the gear. That's your right. It's on their person, it's on their body, and they they you know, there's a difference there. All right, Well, that was pat Rizzutto and Andrew Wallander talking about p fasts and firefighters and where we're heading. Uh, thank you guys so much for talking. And that's it for today's episode of Parts Revillion. If you want more environmental news, check

outur website news Stop Bloomberg Law dot com. Today's Parts for Billion is produced by myself, David Schultz. Parts of Bilion is created by Jessica Combs and Rachel Dagle and is edited by Zack Shrwood and Renee Show. Our executive producer is Josh Block. Thanks everyone for listening. Those nine justices in Washington can be hard to keep track of. That's where we commit on our podcast cases and controversies.

We give you a week by week accounting of the Supreme Court, the filings, the arguments, the opinions, and much much more. Check in on Fridays with Bloomberg Law's Cases and controversies to find out what's coming up on the horizon of the Supreme Court. Download and subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.