Massachusetts Bans PFAS in Firefighting Gear

Massachusetts is one of the first states, along with Connecticut, to ban the use of per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in firefighting turnout gear, including fireproof jackets, pants, shoes, gloves, helmets, and respiratory equipment. 

In August, Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey signed “An Act relative to the reduction of certain toxic chemicals in firefighter personal protective equipment.” The bill forbids turnout gear manufacturers from selling PFAS-containing gear to any county, city, town, fire district, regional fire protection authority, or special purpose district that provides firefighting services, as of January 1 of 2027. By 2025, any turnout gear that is knowingly manufactured with PFAS must be labeled with a warning, and manufacturers must notify the buyer of the reason the equipment contains PFAS chemicals, and the specific PFAS chemicals in the product. 

Kyla Bennett, Director of Science Policy at the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), a nonprofit organization that protects public employees who are fighting for a higher standard of environmental accountability within their agencies, said the legislation is a good first step on the road to ridding the Commonwealth of PFAS. But she said that, for many firefighters, “the ban is too little, too late.”

Meanwhile, a bill to holistically ban PFAS in the Commonwealth, titled “An Act to protect Massachusetts public health from PFAS,” sponsored by the Joint Committee on Public Health, was recommended in June to be passed and referred to the committee on House Ways and Means. The bill is yet to be voted on and passed.

Deemed “forever chemicals” because of their ability to persist in the environment and bioaccumulate in animals and humans, PFAS are a class of fluorinated organic chemicals that are ubiquitous in manufacturing processes. They are used in water and fire resistant materials, food wrappings, non-stick cookware, and a broad range of personal care products. “I am thrilled that the Massachusetts legislature took control [when it came to the turnout gear], however, I am very disappointed that this overarching PFAS bill did not get voted on,” Bennett said. “The state pulled together a PFAS task force, they put out a report outlining their plans, and they didn’t act.”

Bennett worked with members of the Nantucket Fire Department, including Nate Barber, who was diagnosed with testicular cancer in 2019, to rid their department of PFAS-containing gear. Bennett spoke to some of the Nantucket firefighters following the recent bill to ban PFAS in turnout gear, and while she said they are pleased, there is still a lot of work to be done in protecting public servants from PFAS. “I think the reason this bill passed is because firefighters are some of the most respected people in this country — it would be impossible for legislators to deny them this very basic protection,” Bennett said. “Firefighters will be protected from gear made with PFAS, but those very same people are still going to be exposed to PFAS in their shampoo, their food, their cleaning products.” 

Currently, Bennett said PEER is turning its attention toward advocating for the banning of all nonessential uses of PFAS. Bennett said she is concerned that chemical manufacturers are sending lobbyists to state and municipal governments to stop or water down more comprehensive PFAS bans. She referred to a study conducted by Food and Water Watch that found that, from 2019 to 2022, PFAS manufacturers spent more than $55 million lobbying on PFAS and other issues, and the American Chemical Council spent an additional $58.7 million on lobbying on PFAS and other issues during that period. “Lobbyists from these companies and organizations are using these fear mongering tactics, saying that these PFAS bans will stifle innovation and hurt the economy; well, I am willing to sacrifice my waterproof mascara if it means that people will no longer be dying of cancer from these chemicals,” Bennett said.

When the Environmental Protection Agency issued new Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for PFAS in drinking water in April, Bennett said, those regulations were based on the assumption that Americans get 20% of overall PFAS exposure from drinking water. “That means that 80 percent is coming from other sources, and that’s really concerning,” Bennett said. “I am now shifting my attention toward EPA’s failure to regulate this family of chemicals.” 

Right now PEER is suing the EPA for not establishing federal limits for PFAS in biosolids, and is also suing over EPAs failure to regulate PFAS leaching from fluorinated plastic containers. “These kinds of products that are laden with PFAS are nonessential; they’re spread across so many different realms of production and manufacturing,” Bennett said, “and we can stop that, but it’s going to take a village.”

View the Massachusetts bill banning PFAS in firefighting gear here.