QUINCY, Mass. — Quincy firefighters are criticizing the City Council after it declined to move a request for $2.6 million in new gear out of committee.
The firefighters’ union said the current gear contains cancer-causing chemicals, while councilors said they still have questions about the plan, CBS Boston reported.
| READ NEXT: A new age of PPE: PFAS, restricted substances and turnout gear
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, are synthetic chemicals that persist in the environment and have been linked to cancer. The International Association of Fire Fighters says recent studies found PFAS in all three layers of firefighter turnout gear, calling the chemicals an unnecessary and serious occupational hazard.
Last summer, Quincy firefighters announced that independent testing found alarming levels of PFAS in their protective gear, despite the manufacturer’s claim that it was PFAS-free. Union President Tom Bowes and the department then began searching for replacement gear advertised as PFAS-free and sought testing to confirm those claims.
The department is seeking $2.6 million to buy two sets of new gear for all firefighters. But in a 5-4 vote on March 16, that drew shouts from the crowd, the City Council declined to advance the funding request out of committee.
“The science is changing so fast that we could get two sets of gear and three years, be back here talking about another chemical,” Councilor Anne Mahoney said during the discussion that rapidly evolving science could mean the city replaces the gear now, only to face new concerns about other chemicals in a few years.
Graham Peaslee, a University of Notre Dame physicist known for testing PFAS in firefighting gear, acknowledged that concern but said firefighters still need protective equipment to safely respond to fires.
CBS News Boston reached out to the five councilors who voted against the measure. Councilor Maggie McKee said in a statement that the science is evolving quickly and that non-PFAS gear may come with performance and safety tradeoffs that should be carefully considered before purchasing two full sets.
Jason Burns, a Fall River fire lieutenant and executive director of the Last Call Foundation, the nonprofit that helped facilitate testing of Quincy’s gear, said firefighters face the cancer risk now and cannot afford further delays.
The City Council is expected to revisit the issue on March 23.
Should departments move quickly to replace PFAS-containing turnout gear despite evolving science and cost concerns, or take more time to evaluate alternatives?
FireRescue1 readers respond:
- Absolutely. While the Quincy council is entitled to their opinion regarding advancements in chemical analysis, the problem confronting Quincy firefighters and all the fire service is the presence of known carcinogens in present-day turnouts. Quincy may unknowingly be setting themselves for litigation in the future.
- As a veteran firefighter of 39 years and following the LODD of firefighters with cancer, I’m a firm believer that the more firefighters can be shielded away from any cancer-causing issues, the better.
- $2.6 million is a lot of money, but it is likely a small amount compared to the cost of treating a firefighter for cancer that could have been prevented. Much depends on usage, i.e., number of runs per shift and types of runs. Some firefighters are in their PPE for more hours of the day than they are out of it, and some types of fires may cause more PFAs release than others. I would advise the firefighters to save copies of the minutes of the meeting where their request was denied, as well as any media coverage of the situation for future reference. Hopefully, through cooperative negotiations, a solution can be reached that protects the firefighters and doesn’t explode the city’s budget.
- We have taken the initiative in my municipality to move forward and purchased PFAS‑free bunker gear. PFAS is a known harmful chemical, and if we can remove it from our equipment and help protect the long‑term health of our firefighters, then it is a step we are proud to take. Transitioning to PFAS‑free gear demonstrates our commitment to safety, innovation, and the well‑being of our team. By making this change now, we are reducing unnecessary exposure, setting a higher standard for protective equipment, and leading by example within our industry. Protecting lives is at the core of everything we do, and this is one more way we can honor that responsibility.
- Yes, departments should move quickly to replace gear with non-PFAS gear. We know it has cancer-causing chemicals that Firefighters should not be exposed to when then is an alternative. Ask the council what they would want if they had to wear the gear every day they worked!
- I think the tiny risk of fire-retardant PF materials in turnout gear is a tiny risk compared to the many real risks of the job.
- The threat from PFAS in turnout gear and other PPE pales in comparison to the smoke and other particulates wafting through the fireground. Typically, SCBA is not donned on the active fireground despite the massive threat from breathing in dangerous chemicals. Also, residual contamination of PPE logically contains a much more severe threat than PPE fabrics that use PFAS in the finish. Better to focus on the more imminent and obvious threats...
- More should be done to investigate the COGM for PFAS-free gear. I hate to say it, but I feel the manufacturers are capitalizing on the push to rid ourselves of PFAS-laden gear and it is reflected in their pricing. Meanwhile, with departments like Quincy, which seek to provide two sets of gear to their firefighters, these manufacturers could still profit handsomely even if they reduced the unit cost per set of gear. Yes, science is evolving, but when firefighters have already been and continue to be exposed to carcinogenic compounds while municipalities sort out how to pay for it all, pressure needs to be put on manufacturers to justify their pricing.,Sure, EMS experience counts for something, only slightly more than none whatsoever. Fire Commissioner MUST have some degree of firefighting experience aside from standing around manning rehab unit. This selection is most definitely an intentional DEI hire, haven’t we learned already from these mistakes? This is appalling.
- Pathetic. A short-sided viewpoint that shows their lack of education regarding the Fire Service and their needs. Publicly release records of where the City IS spending its money if not on public safety. A liberal Democrat board that is destroying families.
