The Path to PFAS-Free Firefighting Gear w PPE Specialist Jeff Knobbe and Nantucket Fire Department Local 2509 Captain Sean Mitchell hosted by EWG’s Scott Faber
8.26.2020
Scott: Hi, thanks for joining us. For a Facebook Live event on ‘The Path for PFAS FREE Firefighting Gear’ with experts Sean Mitchell and Jeff Knobbe. My name is Scott Faber and I’m the Senior Vice President for Government Affairs for the Environmental Working Group.
We have two great experts to share their insights with you today. First will be Sean Mitchell who’s a sixteen year veteran of the fire service. Sean’s originally from Worcester and now resides on the island of Nantucket (MA). And, after we hear from Sean we’ll hear from Jeff Knobbe. Jeff was a reserve firefighter with the Alameda County (CA) Fire Department for twenty years, from 1998 to 2019. He’s also worked in the PPE care and maintenance business of firefighting turnouts for the past ten years. Jeff’s also currently a PPE Specialist
with a fire department in northern California and has been a tireless advocate for protecting our firefighter from PFAS contamination in their gear.
We’ll hear first from Sean and then from Jeff, and then we’d like to hear from you. We’d like to take your questions — if you have a question, just add them to the comment bar on your Facebook page, we’ll get to them after our presentation. So now I’ll turn it over to Sean Mitchell.
Sean: Hi Scott, thank you for inviting me on today, I appreciate you allowing me to be here. So, ah, our story really began about three years ago. Sometime in 2017 we received a random Facebook message from someone named Diane Cotter. And so Diane was telling us that our turnout gear contained a toxic chemical called PFOA.
So, at the time I had no idea what that meant. Ah, I didn’t know PFOA was, or what PFAS were. Um, but, she seemed to be pretty knowledgeable, and she was passionate,
so we reached out to the people who sell us the gear. And we were happy to hear back that our gear, our PPE, was in-fact, safe. We were told that, “this chemical had been phased out, and was only found in ‘legacy’ gear, so there was nothing to worry about”.
So, we didn’t worry, and we didn’t change the way we operate. We didn’t handle our gear any differently. We continued to wear it into schools, to shovel snow, and in many other instances outside of just fire response. Nobody ever suggested that firefighters like us should train on how to handle our gear, or that we should minimize our exposure to it. Or that even, supposedly clean gear that had been washed may still present an exposure risk. They just said there was nothing to worry about.
So nothing changed till early this year (2020) in January 2020 a group of firefighters met to discuss some health and safety issues. We spoke about many things, including A-tripple-F (AFFF) and one of the, one of the members of that team who met is Captain Nate Barber. And Nate was out of work at the time of that meeting because he was recovering from testicular cancer. And so, he was telling us about AFFF and PFOA, and all that he had learned about the exposures from it. And then the conversation turned to our turnout gear, and the fact that we had um, been made aware in the past, that there may have been PFOA in our legacy turnout gear.
So again we reached out to textile and gear manufacturers for more information. We were sent about a half dozen letters and documents which vaguely that PFOA had been used somewhere in the process of making our turnout gear — and the use of PFOA had been phased out around 2014 or 2015, and they said that PFOA was replaced with chemicals that were deemed ‘harmless and completely safe for firefighters’.
So, it turned out that when we were told in 2017 it was only in legacy turnout gear, the word ‘legacy’ actually only meant about two years, because it had been phased out only about two years prior. So we decided given the unknowns about PFAS chemicals in general, we would submit a letter to our and our town administration requesting that they replace all of our turnout gear manufactured prior to 2016 because it seemed that the newer gear was not toxic.
So, we were happy to hear back very quickly that the town had agreed to our proposal — that they were gonna make some funding available for the replacement of our turnout gear. The town recognized that this was a health and safety issue or potential health and safety issue and ah, as did we.
So, at that point, I had to figure out what to do next. So I started to research everything I could find out about turnout gear and PFAS. Not just PFOA but all PFAS chemicals and it turned out to be more challenging than I ever could of imagined. So, over about the last six months I’ve spoken with representatives from almost every textile and gear manufacturer.
Some of those conversations have been helpful, while others have not. The companies I’ve spoke to can be placed into two categories. Those who are unwilling to change, and those who are unable to change. The unable claim that they could provide us with safe alternatives that contain no PFAS chemicals, but those textiles are unable to pass the NFPA certification process — making them unable to be sold.
The unwilling believe that PFAS chemicals are not all bad. And that they happen to be using the good ones. When pressed further for information they explain that PFOA — also known as C8 — had been replaced by C6, which is just another PFAS chemical. But they say it’s been well studied and is extremely safe.
When I asked for data that supports these claims, they cite studies that all have one thing in common; they’ve either been funded by chemical companies, or they’ve been actually conducted by employees of DuPont, Chemours, and other associated chemical companies.
There are some who admit there may be an environmental impact years down the road — but they continue to state that there is no risk to firefighters. They choose to base these claims on studies done by the very people who make and benefit from the sale of these chemicals.
During this time, that I was doing this research, I responded to a fire and I spent about 3 hours in turnout gear that was manufactured in 2009 because my newer set was being washed. So that gear was certainly made using PFOA. Later that day I spoke with someone from a company that manufactured one of the layers of the gear that I was wearing earlier that day — and instead of explaining why PFOA was phased out — or how I should handle the gear, I was sent a document claiming that PFOA exposure was considered insignificant, and there was no risk in being exposed to it. So I researched that document and found out that it was based on a study conducted by employees from Dupont and Chemours — the the lead author of that study, is a defense expert who has testifed on behalf of DuPont in numerous lawsuits. So I did not, and I do not consider that to be unbiased research.
I had a recent call with someone from the industry and the first question they asked was, “what are you gonna say on Wednesday?” meaning what would I say today in this (EWG FB Live) conversation. And, as the conversation ended they said, “don’t make us look bad”.
And I know some in the industry including those people that I spoke to recently mean no harm, and they’re just passing along this information that they’re given from above, but we need them to stop doing that. We need them to start researching the things that they’re telling us — and if there’s no unbiased science to support their claim- then it shouldn’t be said. I don’t want to continue to be told that “they don’t there is a risk” because they have no idea if there is, or there isn’t. And this is the most upsetting part, because history is clearly repeating itself right before our eyes — and it’s recent history. First they said PFOA was safe. Then they said GenX was safe — and we know both of those are not. Now they say that CX, sorry, C6 is safe — and we’ve yet to see any unbiased proof. How can they be sure there’s no risk to firefighters from these chemicals that are contaminating entire communities around the world? Look in the past at Parkersburg, West Virginia or recently in Cape Fear, North Carolina. They claim that these chemicals are safe, but they’re filling our sinks with toxic chemicals.
So at the moment we’re hopeful that there are at least two manufacturers working toward creating PFAS free outer shell for our turnout gear. The companies who produce the moisture barrier say they’re unable to pass the strict certification requirements of the NFPA with anything other than a moisture barrier that’s made with Teflon.
For now we’re continuing to research, and since I’m here I’d like to let firefighters know that when we hear of the subject of PFAS exposure from our turnout gear, we cannot simply ask the manufacturers or the suppliers for information — because that information is often biased, it’s misleading, and it’s confusing and it doesn’t explain the entire story.
So we need to start asking difficult questions — see if they have the answers. And then we need to research their answers and find out for ourselves where the truth lies.
I’ve been told three separate times that as we consider using PFAS free PPE, we have to be careful not to make a decision based on emotion. And they’re partially right, there is a lot of emotion behind this — but I think that’s a good thing because it’s the emotion that is driving people like us to demand answers and honesty.
I’m in a small town, on a small fire department, and I can name about ten firefighters, both active and retired who are sick. And the illnesses are all the same ones that have been linked to PFAS exposure. I have two young boys, Thomas and Patrick, and I wanna be around for them. And I don’t want to get sick because of a unnecessary exposure to PFAS chemicals. So there’s a reason to be emotional and there’s a reason to fight for change. I’m confident that we’re moving forward in the right direction and we’re hopeful that other fire departments are gonna join and demand honesty from the industry. We want to know what’s in our gear. We want to know in what amount, and what the alternatives might be.
There are some who say the industry needs to police themselves. But the firefighters are the ones who need to police the industry. As of today we have no alternatives to heavily fluorinated gear — and I know this is just one source of exposure in a long list that firefighters face every day. But I believe this is an unnecessary one and it’s one that we can and should change.
Scott: Thank you Sean. Next we’ll hear from Jeff Knobbe. Before we turn to Jeff, I just want to remind folks that if you have questions for Sean or Jeff just put them in the comments and we’ll get to them after, after we hear from Jeff.
Jeff take it away.
Jeff: Alright. Thank you Scott. That was some pretty compelling statements from Sean. It, it is very unfortunate that members of the fire service are having to do such in-depth research. And I commend Sean for, for doing that. Alot of the times firefighters just believe what the manufacturer tells them cause they are the ‘experts’. They don’t necessarily have or are provided the correct information from the upper echelons of where they’re getting their information from. So great job Sean.
So what I’d like to kind of review now is what are some of the possible links to PFAS exposure. Now whether this is through AFFF, from a firefighter who got exposed to it on their turnouts, on their bodies, or its contaminated their drinking source — either their wells or their city water supply, or the occupational exposure on fabrics on firefighting gear that contain a fluorinated finish.
Some of those ailments are increased cholesterol level, a decreased vaccine response in children, increased risk of high blood pressure, preeclampsia in pregnant women, increased risk of kidney or testicular cancer. Now, I’m not saying that there’s a direct correlation — but right now, the number one cancer in the fire service is — for men, is testicular cancer. Now, is that a possible longterm exposure to PFAS, or , is it a combination of PHA’s from fire-ground contaminates and the PFAS exposures? We don’t know. But studies do have to be done.
So, next question is what can firefighters do to protect themselves from the longterm continued exposure over; ten, fifteen, twenty or even thirty-five years of wearing gear? One thing you need to ask yourself is — do the ‘risk benefit’ analysis. Do I need to wear turnouts on this ems call? There’s no risk of thermal exposure, so, do I want to knowingly expose my, my skin and my body to a chemical that is proven it’s in the gear, that was used up until 2014, 2015, continually expose myself to that product? That’s the first question you have to ask. You’re not concerned with it? Then unfortunately you’re gonna continue to wear it. But if you don’t need to wear the gear (don’t) wear it.
Some people in the industry are saying that our committee (LCF )is telling firefighters not to wear PPE. That is not true. That is their way of trying to discredit what we’re saying. There’s no alternative right now, as Sean said, there’s no alternative to (for) PFAS free PPE. If you need to wear it, please wear it. It’s there for your safety and it works.
Now, let me ask you the last time that you moved your gear, whether it be from your PPE locker room, or your personal vehicle, or wherever and touched that gear and always had medical gloves on? More than likely not. And then if you did touch it, did you go and wash your hands right away? Maybe, maybe not. Then what you get to is, if you touched the gear, or you’re using the gear at public education events and you’re bringing it to schools and you’re letting the kids, the 2nd, 3rd, or 5th graders wear your gear, you’re getting those possible second-hand exposures not only to the possible carcinogens that are on the gear from fire if it’s not completely clean, but now the PFAS exposure — potential exposure, and health risks that are associated with that. So, you just want to be cognizant of that and you probably don’t want to have firefighting gear in schools or available for kids to try on anymore. Until more studies are done or there’s a fluorine-free finish on the gear.
So, what — what can you do? Again, wear gloves. Do you actually need to wear it? If not, then don’t. When you’re transporting this gear in your personal vehicle, whether you’re working a overtime shift, or you’re a volunteer, just don’t throw your stuff in the inside back seat or in the trunk, cause that finish, over time, through UV degradation, through chemical and high heat in fires, does come off. And there are studies that are out there and more studies that are gonna come that proves that that finish does degrade and it falls off and attaches to the dust. That dust gets kicked up in your car or your trunk, and then you have what the industry has called, is ‘inadvertant ingestion’ of the dust which contains PFAS. Now, one exposure, dependant upon how heavy or how light it is, is probably not gonna be a big deal. But continued long term exposure to those dusts, weather it's in your vehicle, your trunk, your PPE room where you store all your gear, ah, the apparatus, when you get there in the morning time, you open up the door, you throw your boots and your pants inside, you throw your jacket up on the dash or the dog house, and there it sits until you need to wear it. You turn on the air conditioner, it starts throwing all that dust around, more inadvertant ingestion. So, you need to make sure that you keep the gear as clean as possible and out of the apparatus compartment — the cab, as much as possible.
When you need to clean either a PPE room, or an apparatus, don’t use a leaf blower, don’t use an air-hose — cause all you’re doing is kicking all of that potentially PFAS contaminated dust in the air and now you’re breathing it in to your respiratory system. So you want to either wet the floor down with water and squeegee it out, or use a pressure washer. If you’re cleaning out the apparatus, wet down the surface and then wipe it down,at all times making sure you’re wearing safety gloves, and also a N-95 mask to protect yourself against any respiratory exposures.
So, a lot of the times we’ve been talking about this finish on ‘outer shells’. Ah, but I would like to bring up one particular situation where there is one manufacturer that’s out there, that also uses this fluorinated finish, not only on the outer shells that they offer, but they also have it on their liners. The thermal liners. And this is done as part of their ‘moisture management system’, that having that finish on the liner, prevents that thermal liner from soaking up water, or sweat — as their sales pitch goes. Ah, now again, fluorinated finishes were stopped being used 2014, 2015. So if you have one of these moisture management systems from this one particular company — you will have that gear and be wearing it at least until 2024 or 2025, if your department does retire at the mandate — NFPA — of ten years. That’s what’s considered the ‘legacy’ gear. Although they are using the C8 fluorine free finish now on the outer shells, but — it’s still on the thermal liner and it’s the C6 chemical — but it still is a PFAS chemical.
Now, some people are saying that the ‘polymers’ the PFAS polymers — are the size of a volleyball — and those ‘volleyballs’ are too big to actually enter your body and enter into your bloodstream.
Now, on the surface that is true. But, what we’re dealing with is either the UV or chemical degradation of those finishes — either on your thermal liner or on your outer shells degrade, and they fall off — and those C6 have side-chain polymers that do break off into smaller pieces that can enter your body. And this call be all confirmed through studies that are out there and some research that Graham Peaslee from Notre Dame has done. So, don’t always believe what the industry is telling you about the ‘volleyball’ terminology of polymers.
There are some companies out there that are touting the Oeko Tex Standard 100.
Ah, it’s a European standard that certifies fabric don’t contain particular PFAS. Well, the problem is, from my understanding — the Oeko Tex Standard only focuses on the old C8 — which we acknowledge, is not being used anymore. They do not test the C6 PFAS or the C4 compound. OK, so just because someone says, ‘our fabric meets Oeko Tex Standard — it doesn’t necessarily mean anything to us today because C8 isn’t used. And, they only test BRAND NEW fabric —“ cause when I ask the questions of, “well what about after five washes, or five months of usage?” “Can you confirm that that fabric is still PFOA free?”. That side-chain polymer that wasn’t there before is now there. ‘We’re only concerned with new unused fabric (Oeko Tex).
So, in — in a short while of time, you now have PFOA back on the gear through those polymers that are breaking off and forming side-chain polymers.
Ah, so like Sean was saying, I’ve been in constant conversations with manufacturers, fabric manufacturers and mills there’s one particular manufacturer that’s out there, that they do have a fully certified composite — to NFPA and UL. And that’s a company called Safety Components. And it’s their PF Zero outer shell — or PF Zero finish.
Ah, whether it’s the fluorine-free or the fluorinated — the actual base fabric is identical. It’s no different. They just choose to put a fluorinated or non-fluorinated finish — and they’ve been testing that stuff.
Um, you gotta remember fluorinated finishes have been around for decades. So they know what’s gonna happen. How good it is — and it is really good, it keeps everything out — almost everything out of the fabrics. So now they’re trying to get a product that’ll work just as good without all those harmful PFAS chemicals in it. So I’m, I’m presuming that they’re trying to do all their research and ask many questions and put that fabric through as many scenarios as possible that could come up on a fire call, or vehicle accidents, or chemical spills — and then test those theories out to see how well their fluorine-free finishes do. Um, that’s what I would do if I was in the manufacturing business. You gotta ask all the questions so you know all the answers.
From my understanding the hope is this fabric will be available from Safety Components and also the manufacturers that actually cut and sew the gear- ah, will be available sometime in the first quarter of 2021. Now that sounds like a long way away but we’ve waited all these years but at least we’re getting somewhere.
Some manufacturers — some mills, don’t think that the market is asking for this product yet — the fluorine-free product. Not the people that I’ve talked to. Ah, a lot of people want it.
And then one last thing I’ll go over. If you wanna understand what PFAS is and what it can do to a person’s health — then I suggest you go look at two videos that are on, that are available on Netflix and Amazon Prime.
The first one is a documentary that was put out in 2018. It’s called ‘The Devil We Know’. It’s a documentary about the DuPont plant in the Parkersburg, West Virginia water source contamination — back, for many, many, many, decades and the outcome of that.
Ah, the attorney that took on DuPont and for lack of a better term, sued the crap out of em and won
— ah, they made a movie about him also, and that came out in 2019. And that’s called ‘Dark Waters’ and its produced by a company called Participant Media.
Very, very good movie and the documentary is very good also. So if you want to learn how bad this PFAS is watch those two and it’ll open your eyes up to what this chemical can do.
That’s my five-minute spiel.
SF: Great thanks Jeff. Ah, we do have a few questions for both of you and just a reminder to folks who are watching us that if you do want to ask a question for Sean or Jeff you can just put it in the comment box.
One of the questions, great to hear both of you, what your take is — Is, how do I find out if our new generation PPE does not pose such an exposure risk? And I think it’s sort of a question just understanding what are the risks, newer generation gear you may have already bought, how do I investigate that question?
I know Sean and Jeff you both tried to figure this out yourselves, through your own conversations. Maybe help some of our viewers kind of understand how they can try to answer that question. Sean do you want to go first?
SM: Sure, so um, I would say the first you should do is — do what I’ve been doing, and what Jeff does — is call the textile companies, call the gear manufacturers and ask them these questions. But in order to know what questions to ask you’re gonna have to do some research. And so watching those videos — those movies — that Jeff mentioned is a good start. It’ll give you a basis for what we’re talking about. Um, and then I think when this is over we’ll put some comments in the Facebook feed with some starting points and some documents that I’ve used here to begin my research — cause I’ve been doing this now for about eight months and I feel like I’ve just barely scratched the surface.
And so um, it’s unreasonable to think that firefighters around the country are gonna have the time or the ability to sit down and research this as deeply as they may have to, um, to figure out the answers. So things like that can help them along the way. But then make those phone calls and see what they say and like I said earlier don’t just take what they say at face value, we have to continue to do research and see what they’re basing it on.
Jeff: Well then on top of that I would just say there’s no fluorine-free finish for PPE right now. It’s not available. They’re still working on it. So all you have to do now is ask yourself; do I need to wear this gear- yes or no? Right? does the situation that I’m going into warrant me wearing this gear? If you do then during and after you need to just make sure you have safe handling practices and good hygiene after handling that gear.
Scott: One thing I will also just quickly mention is that Congress is considering a provision of a bill that accelerate some government studies of PPE — PFAS free alternatives — that would ask the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST) and NIOSH to begin to study and ultimately certify PPE (PFAS) free gear. So that’s just something to keep an eye on.
Senator Shaheen, from New Hampshire, has been championing that in the Senate and two members of the House, Congressman Dan Kildee and Congressman Perlmutter — Congressman Kildee from Michigan and Congressman Perlmutter from Colorado, have been championing those proposals.
Another question we’re getting and this might be one for you Jeff — is help us understand a little bit more about how PFAS and the side chain polymers might be absorbed through the skin. How much ultimately gets through the skin?
Jeff: Great question. And there are studies that are going on as we speak.
So you can get — whether it’s skin absorption, or inhalation — they just don’t know. And most of the studies that are out there like Sean said are — are studied by DuPont or Chemours or any associated companies to one of those two. So you have to take those studies with a grain of salt.
You need a fully independent — not associated at all with a chemical company of any kind — or a sponsorship to do that study from any one of those chemical companies.
And it’s tough. And I believe that they are — they are doing some tests right now — on skin absorption, on lab rats.
Scott: We did post some studies in the comments box that have been done, that have looked at other forms of skin absorption — through other uses of PFAS that might be interesting to some of the viewers.
I think I know the answer to this one, we’ve gotten a couple of questions about, whether Nomex uses PFAS, which I believe is being used by the Forest Service to fight fires in California right now. Ah, Jeff what’s the answer to that?
Jeff : So, if a particular fabric is certified to the (NFPA) 1971, or I believe it’s the (NFPA) 1951 which is ‘Tech Rescue’ those garments — those NFPA guides, have a water absorption requirement. If they have that requirement then there’s gonna be a finish on there to prevent the water — to reduce the water from being absorbed.
So if a particular fabric — most likely is only certified to (NFPA) 1977 — which is a standard for ‘Wildland’ gear — they don’t have that water absorption testing requirement — therefore there would not need to be a finish on it.
However, in some cases — an outer shell material that is certified to (NFPA) 1971- is actually used in the (NFPA) 1977 Wildland certified garment.
They're not gonna make two different finishes for that same fabric. So you now have like a seven-ounce Nomex, seven-and-a-half ounce Nomex that’s made to the Structural (firefighter PPE) standard — that is used in a yellow color, or a green color for Forest Service that will most likely have the finish on it.
And a good way that you can tell is that if you take your garment, and you take a bottle of water and you spritz some water on it, and if it beads up like mercury, there’s most likely a finish on it.
Um, we have in our department, we have some newer Wildland pants that are certified to only 77 (NFPA 1977). You pour the water on it, within a few seconds it’s soaked right through like you’re draining water out of a funnel. No finish. That’s a good way to see if it’s on there. You’ll be amazed. I’ve put water on some outer shells — I’ve left it there for forty-eight hours, probably half-a-tablespoon or so, forty-eight hours, there is no absorption. Take that shake it right off it’s as dry as when I started.
Scott: I think we have time for one more question and Sean we’ve gotten a couple of Nantucket specific questions — wondering about the question of water contamination on the island — from the airport and just a little bit more background on why your city council or county council so quickly decided to pay for replacing turnout gear. A little bit more background on that will be helpful.
Sean: Sure so the second part I’m not sure I can answer but I think you know, if you’ve done some research into PFAS and you understand how bad it can be and the exposure risks and that there’s so much unknown still about it, I think when we made a presentation to them, they understood. And so they made that move pretty quickly. And we commend them for that because — you know, that’s not happening anywhere else that I know of. And it should — so we commend them for acting quickly and seeing what we saw.
Ah, as far as the water contamination — we do have an airport here and it was recently discovered just like airports and military bases around the world, that there is some groundwater contamination around the airport. So that, it’s concerning as it is for everybody. It’s concerning to me cause I’m a resident here and I live near the airport and my water comes from a well. So I’m concerned about that. But as a firefighter I’m also very concerned about our colleagues at the airport fire department because they’ve worked for decades being told A-triple-F (AFFF) — Class B foam, ‘is as safe as soap’.
And so just like everywhere else it was treated as soap. That’s what they were told. And so now they find out that it’s not and you know, people are getting sick and there’s probably a link there. And so to add to that maybe the only thing geeping that AFFF from being absorbed, or taking it home with them was their turnout gear and now we’re told turnout gear also contains PFAS chemicals and no-one was told about that either. So um, that’s really the most concerning part for me.
SF: Well thank you both of you, Sean and Jeff for joining us and thanks for all of our viewers for joining us. Defiantly check out the comments bar, we’ll make sure to post some of the studies that Jeff and Sean had talked about if you’re looking for more information.
Have a great day.