Speaker 1: Hey, Parts per Billion listeners, it's David Schultz here. Just
Speaker 1: wanted to let you know that we're going to be
Speaker 1: moving our environmental coverage to another podcast. It's a show
Speaker 1: called On the Merits. We did can do a huge
Speaker 1: range of legal topics, and now we're gonna be adding
Speaker 1: environmental a lot of that. That also means we won't
Speaker 1: be posting new episodes of Parts for a Billion as much,
Speaker 1: but don't worry, we'll still be putting out great environmental
Speaker 1: episodes on On the Merits. If you're not already, go
Speaker 1: subscribe to On the Merits wherever fine podcasts can be found. Okay,
Speaker 1: now on to today's episode. Firefighters are rethinking their relationship
Speaker 1: with p fasts and with the companies that make it.
Speaker 1: Today on the podcast, we talk about the liabilities that
Speaker 1: fire departments might face and about why it looks like
Speaker 1: firefighters themselves are lowering up. Hello, and welcome back once
Speaker 1: again to Parts per Billion, the environmental podcast from Bloomberg Law.
Speaker 1: I'm your host, David Schultz. We've talked a lot on
Speaker 1: this podcast about the military's use of p fast and
Speaker 1: why that's been so problematic, But today we're looking at
Speaker 1: the civilian side and talking about fire fighters. Fire departments
Speaker 1: used and still use a lot of p fasts also
Speaker 1: known as forever chemicals, and as you'll learn in a bit,
Speaker 1: it's not just in the a triple lef or aqueous
Speaker 1: film forming foam that they spray on fires. As a
Speaker 1: result of this, fire departments might have a significant amount
Speaker 1: of liability. Here in Bloomberg Glower, reporters Andrew Wallander and
Speaker 1: Pat Rizzuto have been examining this emerging legal issue. It'll
Speaker 1: be able to hear from Andrew about the claims individual
Speaker 1: firefighters might file, but first I asked Pat to give
Speaker 1: me a sense of what exactly the liability for fire
Speaker 1: departments might look like. Local fire departments are going to
Speaker 1: be affected in different ways, but they're hit by the
Speaker 1: p FAST conundrum in a whole bunch of ways. They've
Speaker 1: used a triple left, that's the p FAST containing firefighting
Speaker 1: foam um for decades because it was simply the most
Speaker 1: effective way to put out fires, particularly ones that involved
Speaker 1: fuel or chemicals that burned. So you know, they've spread
Speaker 1: the chemicals around, they've gotten the chemicals into their body
Speaker 1: higher levels than your I, and they're likely to have
Speaker 1: old foam on their shelves and have had it in
Speaker 1: their truck. So they're going to have to clean out
Speaker 1: their own trucks. Maybe if their municipal fire department, they'll
Speaker 1: get some taxpayer dollars to do that, or if they
Speaker 1: are a local rural, you know, volunteer fire department, they're
Speaker 1: going to have to have more SPAGHANDI dinners. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: and I wanna just briefly belabor what you just said,
Speaker 1: because there was a lot there. The firefighters themselves are
Speaker 1: could be sick. The trucks, then the fire stations could
Speaker 1: be contaminated. There could be legacy contamination in the water
Speaker 1: near places where they've sprayed this foam. Those are all
Speaker 1: three separate things in the departments have to do with
Speaker 1: all of those. Where is the litigation heading here? Um?
Speaker 1: Because I'm wondering who's getting sued? Are are the fire
Speaker 1: departments getting sued? And if so, how are they handling that? Yes,
Speaker 1: they have been sued. Um. I know of one case
Speaker 1: in New Jersey where a company that had had a
Speaker 1: fire incident suit the tender fire departments that responded to
Speaker 1: it because they used a triple left. Um. That is
Speaker 1: the case is pending but basically attorneys have told me
Speaker 1: that is the future, especially once e p A starts
Speaker 1: regulating two of the common ingredients in a triple left
Speaker 1: as hazardous substances under the super fun law, which has
Speaker 1: said it will do this year. So just to make
Speaker 1: sure I understand, this is someone who there was a
Speaker 1: fire that was put out on their property and they're
Speaker 1: suing the fire department. I mean, I don't want to
Speaker 1: belittle this, this claim of action because as we've talked about,
Speaker 1: p face is very toxic. But still that's a pretty
Speaker 1: remarkable situation. Yeah, it just strikes every unfair chord in
Speaker 1: your body. But yes, they're more and more likely to
Speaker 1: do that the tighter these are regulated because they're hugely
Speaker 1: expensive to clean up. So they're going to be looking
Speaker 1: for other people to help pay the dollar. And um,
Speaker 1: even if down the road e p A or their
Speaker 1: state you know environmental department you know, closes the eye
Speaker 1: because after all, you were saving lives. Um, exactly, we
Speaker 1: kind of want you to do that. You know, you
Speaker 1: don't win a lot of votes by going after you know,
Speaker 1: firefighting heroes. Yes. Um, Still, the private companies that have
Speaker 1: to play pay clean up are going to compete looking
Speaker 1: for dollars. Yeah. Um. And then there's another cost that
Speaker 1: we haven't touched on, but it's also going to be expensive,
Speaker 1: which is replacing the foams with something else that works
Speaker 1: really well. I get the sense that the military is
Speaker 1: pretty far along in doing this and sort of saying, hey,
Speaker 1: we've developed new chemicals that are just as good or
Speaker 1: almost as good as fast, let's replace those. Is the
Speaker 1: is that going to put pressure on fire departments do
Speaker 1: the same thing to replace these chemicals. Absolutely, the Pentagon
Speaker 1: did meet Congress's mandate, and it has developed its requirements
Speaker 1: for for suppressants that can put out the types of
Speaker 1: incidents that it deals with, planes crashing into piles of
Speaker 1: AMMO on land. Um. And it's it's researched the alternatives
Speaker 1: and it says, yes, there are ones that can do
Speaker 1: this just as well or cruel close enough. So it's
Speaker 1: it's put out its requirements. Within a couple of months,
Speaker 1: we're going to start seeing it identifying the specific companies
Speaker 1: and products that it will purchase. Right. However, Um, you
Speaker 1: have reported on this many many times in your career,
Speaker 1: where we replace one toxic chemical with another one, and
Speaker 1: as it turns out, the replacement is also somewhat or
Speaker 1: very toxic itself. Are we potentially running into that situation
Speaker 1: here where the replacements also have their own issues? Um?
Speaker 1: Quite possibly. On. There is at least one state that
Speaker 1: has chosen to provide, at least on a temporary basis,
Speaker 1: fire department with a substitute for the A triple left.
Speaker 1: But the substitute also, according to tests running the European Union,
Speaker 1: also has p fas so um, yes, buy or be aware. Um. However,
Speaker 1: that said, and I need to add this caveat. I've
Speaker 1: been told over and over that fire departments care about performance.
Speaker 1: They just don't think about safety because they want that
Speaker 1: fire out as quickly as possible. That's what they're focused on.
Speaker 1: Get it out. But let's talk about the safety of
Speaker 1: the firefighters themselves, because they've been using p FAST for
Speaker 1: a long time and the damage has been done here. Uh, Andrew,
Speaker 1: you reported that it seems like the Firefighters Union is
Speaker 1: kind of gearing up for a big legal fight over
Speaker 1: p FAST exposure. Um, can you tell me about what
Speaker 1: they're actually doing and why that's significant? Yeah, So this
Speaker 1: this came recently. The International Association of Firefighters announced that
Speaker 1: it's partnering with three law firms to help connect its members,
Speaker 1: UH two lawyers who can help them with potential litigation
Speaker 1: over exposure to p fast if they if they've developed
Speaker 1: cancer and one of the cancers that has been linked
Speaker 1: to p FAST. They've had these three law firms now
Speaker 1: they're gonna be working with those members and they're also
Speaker 1: trying to change things on the regulatory side as well,
Speaker 1: because as things stand, the nfp A standards for Firefighter
Speaker 1: gear currently requires moisture barriers in firefighter gear to be
Speaker 1: UV resistant and p fast is the only thing that
Speaker 1: can meet those requirements. So there's no way right now
Speaker 1: for p fast not to be in firefighters gear. So
Speaker 1: it's worth pointing out. You know, we've talked about on
Speaker 1: this podcast and earlier today, we've talked about exposure through
Speaker 1: p fast from spraying foam that contains p FAST, but
Speaker 1: that's not what you're talking about. You're talking about exposure
Speaker 1: through clothes and protective gear that is coated with p fast.
Speaker 1: Is that does that pose a different risk to the firefighters?
Speaker 1: It does in some cases. I because not everyone uses
Speaker 1: a triple left foam, not not all firefighters do, but
Speaker 1: many firefighters that are working in cities fighting structural fires. Uh.
Speaker 1: They wear what's called turnout gear or bunker gear. UM,
Speaker 1: and that that is where there's a concern that is
Speaker 1: p fast and there so there's potentially more exposure to
Speaker 1: a bigger set of people. I want to circle back
Speaker 1: though to something that you said, which is that the
Speaker 1: Firefighters Union is partnering with law firms. UH. That is
Speaker 1: very different than suing. UM. It doesn't sound like the
Speaker 1: Firefighters Union are filing suits. They're just maybe making these
Speaker 1: firms available to uh their members. What's the distinction there?
Speaker 1: Why is the Firefighters Union not filing suit itself. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's something I asked the president about President of Kelly
Speaker 1: when I when I spoke with him about this, and UH,
Speaker 1: he said that they're keeping their options open right now.
Speaker 1: So it seems like the door is open for a
Speaker 1: potential lawsuit from the Firefighters Union, but at this time
Speaker 1: they're focus more on getting their individual members access to
Speaker 1: filing suit and they're also trying to change those rules
Speaker 1: at the n f P a UM and and put
Speaker 1: the pressure on that way. The main reason why I
Speaker 1: asked about that about the sort of the distinction between
Speaker 1: you know what they're doing is because I know from
Speaker 1: your reporting that this main firefighters Union has a long
Speaker 1: and interesting relationship with p fast makers and with the
Speaker 1: well specifically with the companies that make this gear. Um,
Speaker 1: can you talk a little bit about that. It sounds
Speaker 1: like they've the union has received a lot of money
Speaker 1: from these companies in the past. Right. This was something
Speaker 1: we looked back in early one at and UH did
Speaker 1: a dive into the financial records of the International Association
Speaker 1: of Firefighters and found that, uh, yeah, they had received
Speaker 1: almost half a million dollars from gear makers and manufacturers
Speaker 1: for sponsorships and UH donations. And and one of the
Speaker 1: things that really stuck out to me in reporting that
Speaker 1: story was when I was watching a clip of a
Speaker 1: cancer summit at the Firefighters Union had hosted several years ago,
Speaker 1: and the president of the union at the time introduced
Speaker 1: the conference by thanking DuPont and some of the manual
Speaker 1: factors it re sponsoring this conference, and and you know,
Speaker 1: given what we know today, it was uh sort of
Speaker 1: a questionable sponsorship for for a summit on on cancer.
Speaker 1: So so shortly certainly after that in in I think
Speaker 1: that story came out in January, but they're already conversations
Speaker 1: at the union two break away from these partnerships with
Speaker 1: some of these companies as more was coming out about
Speaker 1: uh P fast and some of the gear well, and
Speaker 1: didn't I think in your reporting you said they went
Speaker 1: even further and that they they ousted the president and
Speaker 1: put in a new president who was sort of had
Speaker 1: a much harsher stance toward these companies, right right, So
Speaker 1: there was an election shortly after that as well, um
Speaker 1: in in early and um so the president who is
Speaker 1: now the president and Kelly one and he's been very
Speaker 1: adamant about p fast as an issue and kind of
Speaker 1: bringing it to the forefront of the union and trying
Speaker 1: to make this something that the health and safety is
Speaker 1: a is a big focus ultimately. And I want to
Speaker 1: wrap up by sort of asking where you think this
Speaker 1: is going. Um you know, I get the sense that
Speaker 1: the I can understand why the Firefighters Union was very
Speaker 1: close with the gear makers because these this protective gear
Speaker 1: is literally life saving, you know, it protects the lives
Speaker 1: of firefighters, but of course it's now we know it's
Speaker 1: also potentially toxic. Do you think that this is going
Speaker 1: to change the way that firefighters think about the risks
Speaker 1: and the trade offs that you know, to save lives,
Speaker 1: we have to expose ourselves to toxic chemicals, and that
Speaker 1: that mindset may be changing. I think it definitely is.
Speaker 1: I mean talking to some of the people who attended
Speaker 1: this conference and and and firefighters, it's something that's very
Speaker 1: much at the forefront of their minds um with with
Speaker 1: the work that they do. And uh, there was a
Speaker 1: moment I wasn't at the training section where this initiative
Speaker 1: with the law firms was revealed, but there was there
Speaker 1: was a moment where, you know, someone asked, do you
Speaker 1: know someone who has been affected by cancer in the
Speaker 1: fire service? And everyone's hands went up. And so it's
Speaker 1: something that's very very present issue for that. So I
Speaker 1: think there's a lot more attention, a lot more firefighters
Speaker 1: are aware of this issue. Now. What I have noticed
Speaker 1: is there's a real difference in the firefighter response to
Speaker 1: the gear issue versus the firefighting foam. And I think
Speaker 1: you just put your finger on it, David. I mean,
Speaker 1: their gear is their lifeboat, it's their submarine. It allows
Speaker 1: them to go into literal hell, it saves their lives,
Speaker 1: and they have such a close relationship with their gear
Speaker 1: um that it's a much more emotional and fervorent um
Speaker 1: feeling of absolute betrayal. The foam its sprayed away from them.
Speaker 1: You know, they know that they were using what they
Speaker 1: were told was the best product out there, and they
Speaker 1: do know what work. It's not an an emotional response.
Speaker 1: That's really interesting. I hadn't thought about the psychological distinction
Speaker 1: between the foam and the gear. That's your right. It's
Speaker 1: on their person, it's on their body, and they they
Speaker 1: you know, there's a difference there. All right, Well, that
Speaker 1: was pat Rizzutto and Andrew Wallander talking about p fasts
Speaker 1: and firefighters and where we're heading. Uh, thank you guys
Speaker 1: so much for talking. And that's it for today's episode
Speaker 1: of Parts Revillion. If you want more environmental news, check
Speaker 1: outur website news Stop Bloomberg Law dot com. Today's Parts
Speaker 1: for Billion is produced by myself, David Schultz. Parts of
Speaker 1: Bilion is created by Jessica Combs and Rachel Dagle and
Speaker 1: is edited by Zack Shrwood and Renee Show. Our executive
Speaker 1: producer is Josh Block. Thanks everyone for listening. Those nine
Speaker 1: justices in Washington can be hard to keep track of.
Speaker 1: That's where we commit on our podcast cases and controversies.
Speaker 1: We give you a week by week accounting of the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, the filings, the arguments, the opinions, and much
Speaker 1: much more. Check in on Fridays with Bloomberg Law's Cases
Speaker 1: and controversies to find out what's coming up on the
Speaker 1: horizon of the Supreme Court. Download and subscribe wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts.