Firefighting Gear Opens a New Front in PFAS Legal War

the biggest environmental problems of the last few years. For those not in the know, p FASS is an abbreviation that stands for per and polyfloral alkyl substances. And while these chemicals are great for some things like quickly putting out fires or making nonstick fabrics, they have a bit of a fatal flaw. Many p fast chemicals almost never break down the environment. They just build up in soil and water, and most troubling in the human body, where

they can cause a host of health issues. That's why they have the nickname forever chemicals. There's a ton of litigation over pfas out there, a lot of which we've talked about on this very podcast. And a lot of it has had to do with the spraying of firefighting foam that contains pfas, especially on airports and military bases. However, in recent months, a new front in the p FAT legal wars has opened up, and it has to do

with clothing, specifically the protective clothing that is worn by firefighters. Yes, those gloves and jackets and pants contain p fasts, and now firefighters who say their gear has made them sick

are taking the chemical makers to court. Andrew Wallander and Fatima Hussein, to legal reporters here at Bloomberg Law recently did a deep dive into this litigation and why it's different than what we've seen before, and they say it's also created some surprising rifts within the community of firefighters themselves. I started off by asking Andrew and Fatima exactly what type of firefighting gear is at issue here. So we're

talking about turnout or bunker gear for firefighters. So think of the big, bulky jacket and pants that you would see a firefighter responding to a fire with, so you know, the heavier stuff that's that's water repellent and keeps them safe from from the heat and fire. When they're when they're fighting a fire. So this gear is coded in P fast. Is that what it is? Yes, that's the argument that we're seeing, especially in court documents that have

been filed. So let's talk about these lawsuits here. And we have firefighters who say they were injured by the gear that was coded in P fast. You know, one of them actually is filed by former Parts Rebellion guest Rob Blot, who you may have seen in the movie Theaters. In the movie Dark Waters, he was portrayed his the story of his life was portrayed by Oh my god, what's his name? Mark Ruffalo? Thank you? Wow? I couldn't I couldn't remember his name, Mark Ruffalo? How could you forget?

So so, you know, we have a lot of lawsuits, one of them, as I mentioned, filed by Rob Bolot, kind of P fast celebrity so to speak. Fatima, tell me about these suits. What are they alleging, where are they filed and what stage are they at. So the big one that we were referring to comes out of Ohio and it's a proposed class action that the lot brought on behalf of a firefighter named Hardwick, and he is alleging that Hardwick was exposed to very high levels of p fass not just in the foam, but also

in his turnout gear or his firefighter gear. The class action also calls on anyone in America who has high levels of p fas in their blood to be plaintiffs in this very large class action. And in a conversation I had with mister Bilot, he mentioned that it's likely that there could be millions of people who could become plaintiffs in this class action. It's not just limited to firefighters. But I think the fact that he mentioned the gear in this lawsuit is material to our story as well.

So who are the defendants here? Is it the you know, fire fighting are the companies that make this gear? Or is it the companies that make P Fast? Like who's being sued the companies that make p Fast? So three M is the major defendant, and then there are a group of other smaller companies that are also named as defendants in the lawsuit. So, Andrew, one of the really interesting things about your story is that the firefighting unions and the firefighters here are not really on the same page.

This was really surprising to me. You know, it seems like I would think that the firefighting unions would be backing these firefighters who are filing these suits one hundred perc. But that doesn't seem like it's the case. What what's going on here? Yeah, So I think there's a few things there. We talked to the union and they said they stressed that they're waiting for all of the research

to be out there. They want to make sure they're very sure of what they're going to say when they say it, and so they actually have three studies going themselves that they're looking at different aspects of p FAST and gear. So they're looking at the gear itself, testing for the presence of p fast chemicals in the gear.

They're looking at the dust and fire stations to see, if you know, is p fast being brought into the firehouse by the gear maybe shedding, and or is it something that the firefighters are being exposed to at the side of fires. And then also looking at the blood of firefighters as well to see if they have elevated levels of p fasts in their blood. But I think one other part to look at with this as well is that the union does have a good relationship with

a lot of the manufacturers they're making this gear. So they've actually received hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years from these manufacturers sponsoring their annual conferences, providing a revenue for their magazine that they put out the union puts out, And so I think that kind of factors into the first part as well, making sure that they have all the research there before they say anything and

perhaps alienate some of the partners that they have. Yikes. Well, that's a complicated relationship there between the unions and the gear makers, but it sounds like overall, I get the sense that, you know, the unions want to take a much more deliberate approach. Is there another reason why, you know, I'm thinking maybe they're worried that a premature ruling will make it harder to win cases down the line. Is that another factor here? Yeah, Yeah, that I'm that I'm

not so sure about. I think that they're you know, also being being very careful about what they say because there is no alternative right now to what gear is available, and so there has been a push to kind of educate firefighters about you know, not wearing the gear at all times, don't bring it to school events or community fairs. Just where when you're you know you're going to be responding to a fire, don't keep it in the in the cab of your of your car, where you know

the chemicals can come off and expose others. Yeah, that was another part of your story that I that really caught my attention was that, you know, the firefighters have to weigh the risks of getting sick maybe ten twenty years down the line versus you know, needing that gear to work right now. And it sounds like based on what you guys reported, and you know, this actually kind of jives with what we've heard a lot in the past, is that there's no real alternative to p fast that

is as effective. You know, can you talk about that a little bit, Fatima that you know, one of the reasons why this product, this issue is so hard to solve, is that there's just no there's no other alternative, right right. That was something we've heard from a lot of the

sources that we conferred with. But in the interim right now, there are several states, including California, Minnesota, Kentucky, and Virginia that have begun to find a work around to the fact that there aren't alternatives by creating legislation that compels manufacturers to notify or to create some sort of notification requirement to firefighters to let them know that there is this chemical that could create some long term hazards to them.

I spoke with Senator Ben Allen in California who gave me a really great interview and explained that this is something that is the only viable alternative by just notifying firefighters while we search for better alternatives that would prevent people from burning to death as they try to, you know, serve their communities and help people. All right, let's sort of talk about the policy angles here, and Fatima, this

is kind of your your Baileywick firefighters. Now it seems like have to use gear that has that you know has pfascened. It seems like that's unavoidable. Does this become a worker safety issue? And if so, does that mean that OSHA is going to get involved. I'm not super familiar with how OSHA works or all the laws there. Can you talk about how this works when you know it seems like firefighters are exposed to an unavoidable hazard.

That's a great question. OSHA is an agency that is funded very strategically, so that it's difficult to get resources allocated or legislation created that would in one way or another protect workers. There's still conversation about how to protect people during COVID nineteen, and that's what is the big

conversation right now. In terms of protecting firefighters. OSHA hasn't necessarily been as involved here, and I think that's why we're seeing states past their own sort of legislation, even if it's just to notify these workers that there is a major hazard in their midst that they're not totally

aware of. OSHA is in many ways responsible for worker safety right now, but in terms of what they're able to do in policies that they want to create, I mean, we're still talking about lead poisoning and other very hazardous substances that haven't been regulated in many, many, many years. So the fact that this is such a new issue is really it will take some time for OSHA to be able to catch up funded very strategically. That's a very interesting adjective that you are, adverb that you chose

to use. So last the last question, either either of you can sort of feel this, you know, it sounds like OSHA has a lot on its plate, and you know, has a lot of other issues that have been around for a lot longer than p FAST that it's still struggling to deal with. But do you see that the agencies stance on this changing now that we have a new administration that may want to make OSHA a lot more aggressive than it has been in the past. Let's assume that the Senate turns blue and there will be

complete democratic power. Having covered OSHA for the several years that I have, at this point, I think there are some policy issues that they've been trying to get past that haven't yet, And I don't think that the regulation of PFAST is a priority for OSHA right now. It seems like in talking to former OSHIA officials and current OSHIA officials that getting an emergency temporary standard for COVID nineteen will be the major priority now. But again, because

this issue is so brand new. And Andrew and I in our research discovered that most people want to talk about foam and when it comes to the gear, that's a that's such a brand new topic. OSHA exploring that would be really beneficial to this important group of people who save individuals lives. But ultimately I don't see that agency taking this issue as a priority. You know, other than OSHA, there are some other agencies in government bodies

that are looking at this as well. So you have within the CDC, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. They've been looking at this issue. And then you have the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which is a non regulatory lab within the government, and they've been kind of researching the issue of PFAC and firefighter gear. That's it for today's episode of Parts Pavilion. If you want more environmental news, check us out on Twitter. We use

the handle at environment. That's all you need to know at Environment. I'm at David B. Schultz if you want to send me any early Hanukah gifts. Today's episode of Parts per Billion was produced by myself and Josh Block. Parsper Billion was created by Jessica Coons and Rachel Daegel. The music of today's episode is a message by Jazarre and City of God by Lewis Edwards and Henry Parsley that were used under a Creative Comments license. Thanks everyone

for listening. This is Adam Allington. I'm a senior podcast producer at Bloomberg Law and I'm Lisa Helen, Executive editor for Strategic Initiatives, and we're here to announce a new season of Uncommon Law, a narrative podcast series from Bloomberg Law. As last summer's protests against police violence and systemic racism continue to reverberate, we'll focus our attention on how those events are impacting the world of large corporate law firms.

We're calling this first series Black Lawyers Speak, Stories of the past, hopes for the future. And while there's been renewed attention on diversity and inclusion in these last six months, big Loss track record in this area remains very much a work in progress. Many of our graduates go into spaces in which they are one of the only African American lawyers. They may be the only African American lawyer.

The thing that always gets me about racism is how much money white people are willing to give up to prop it up. You'll hear a range of voices from across the legal community, including associates and partners, law school deans as well as general counsel. We will very regularly look at those metrics because there may be firms that do well for a year or two, but then fall behind. We'll also hear from some pathbreaking African American attorneys in

corporate law. How have they dealt with issues of inclusion and what changes are they hoping to see in the profession. When I first started teaching at nineteen eighty six years to have to spend the time the first half an hour of subdiversity and discussion convincing people that diversity was an important goal. You don't have to do that anymore. But the problem is they haven't beene a huge amount of progress. It's not fair, But what can be better than being on the front lines of helping to make

this country better for all of us? If not us, who? If not now? When? If you'd like to learn more about how the business of law intersects with the issues of social justice and corporate culture, then this is the podcast for you. Just search for Uncoming Law wherever you get your podcasts.