Jonathan Sharp, guest columnist
For some time now, perfluoroalkyl and poly-fluoroalkyl (PFAS) chemicals have been a growing concern for public health as these substances are linked with several human diseases and environmental destruction.
Since their development in the 1940s, PFAS have been used in various consumer products, including stain-resistant carpets, nonstick cookware and raincoats. Yet one of their most common uses is in the firefighting industry, where they make up the bulk of the materials used for turnout gear and firefighting foams. While PFAS are now slowly removed and replaced from consumer markets, alternatives have been slow to develop for firefighting purposes.
Turnout gear and firefighting foams need to comply with specific standards and requirements that would enable firefighters to safely carry out their duties without any risks of fire escalations. Because of this, developing any new materials that would comply with these standards requires research and development.
In this sense, a new legislative initiative, the PFAS Alternatives Act 2023, aims to prompt these developments by providing funding that would enable investigations into alternatives to PFAS. This is a much-needed initiative, as presently, firefighters are among the highest at-risk populations for developing several conditions associated with PFAS exposure, including various types of cancers and endocrine problems.
PFAS use in Texas
Presently, Texas has no enacted statewide legislation specifically addressing PFAS in firefighting gear or in fire-suppressant foams containing PFAS, also known as aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF). However, Texas does follow the EPA imposed regulation on PFAS levels in drinking water.
Ellis County in Texas is home to 30 fire departments employing well over 1,000 people as the 6th largest firefighting force in the state. Each day, these people are exposed to significant risks as by the nature of their profession, they come in contact with PFAS-based equipment frequently.
Notably, in Texas, firefighters are not the only ones at risk. When AFFFs are used, these can infiltrate groundwater and contaminate local drinking water wells. In line with data provided by EPA for PFAS content in sites tested in Texas, PFAS were detected in 50% to 75% of all samples taken from drinking wells in the city of Waxahachie in Ellis County. Levels here reach 7-11 ppt, far exceeding EPA limits.
Legal battles against chemical giants 3M and DuPont continue to escalate. By early 2025, over 11,000 lawsuits have been filed under multidistrict litigation (MDL), with major cases added in recent months. This wave of legal action follows years of growing pressure from affected communities. Some municipalities have secured settlements, while many still await justice. These lawsuits are shaping the legal landscape, setting critical precedents for those seeking accountability and compensation.
Alternatives to PFAS contamination
If enacted, the PFAS Alternatives Act of 2023 would grant $25 million over four fiscal years (2024-2028) to fund the research, creation, and testing of new firefighter gear that does not contain PFAS. In addition, the act would also provide an annual fund of $2 million to be used for training initiatives that would ensure the newly developed gear is safely and effectively used.
Two primary organizations will oversee the initiatives funded by the act. The U.S. Fire Administration, a division of FEMA, will handle the distribution of grants to qualified entities. EPA will provide scientific guidance on PFAS-free materials and work closely with manufacturers, researchers, and other relevant parties to identify and assess safer alternatives.
Although the Act is a crucial step toward improving firefighter safety, it does not directly fund fire departments for purchasing the new PFAS-free gear, nor does it specify a timeline for phasing out the existing equipment that contains these harmful substances. This is a significant gap in the proposed bill because these costs can be substantial. Currently, the U.S. firefighting force has over 1 million people, and equipping just one of these costs around $9,000. If the cost of new equipment is to be kept at the same level, replacing this equipment for the whole firefighting force would cost around $9 billion, not including any costs for replacing and neutralizing current AFFF stocks.
Jonathan Sharp is the CFO at Environmental Litigation Group, P.C. in Birmingham, Alabama. He manages case assessments, financial analysis, and asset handling for individuals impacted by toxic exposure.
