Vermont firefighters urge caution on PFAS ban timeline, lawmakers weigh revisions to H.238

Lawmakers heard sharply divided testimony on the portion of H.238 that would restrict PFAS in firefighter personal protective equipment and stationwear, with volunteer and career firefighters asking for more time and study and health advocates urging a ban. The committee’s current draft would require manufacturers to notify purchasers about PFAS beginning in the mid-2020s and would bar certain PFAS-containing PPE and stationwear beginning July 2029.

The choice facing the committee is whether to keep the existing timeline in place, slow implementation to allow more study and market development, or add review provisions. That decision matters because witnesses said the timeline affects department budgets, the availability and durability of alternative gear, and firefighter safety on the fireground.

Fire service representatives said uncertainty about alternatives, cost and wearability is the practical problem. “Our goal is not to stop the ban of PFAS, but to slow down the firefighter gear switching until we can have more data, as to the safety of [what] is going to take its place, and a cost of that gear,” said Dean Gilmore, past assistant chief and governmental affairs committee chair for a firefighters association. David DiBiase, chief and second vice president of the Vermont State Firefighters Association, said volunteers in many towns lack the budget to replace gear on current schedules and want more evidence about longevity and safety of replacements. “We don't have the knowledge or understanding of really the benefits or the downfalls,” DiBiase said.

Health advocates and researchers told the committee the science tying PFAS exposures to health risks in firefighters is a serious concern, even as uncertainties remain about which specific compounds and replacement chemistries pose the greatest long-term risks. The president of the Firefighter Cancer Foundation, who identified herself as a longtime researcher and instructor in firefighter health and safety, said her organization supports a ban but urged care about replacement materials and adequate medical monitoring. “We do believe that PFAS should be banned. We also are looking very closely at what is there to replace it,” she said.

Witnesses described market and technical developments on both sides. A national supplier, Milliken, was cited as having a PFAS-free vapor barrier that passes current burn testing, but several speakers said those tests go only to 600 degrees and may not reflect the higher temperatures firefighters encounter. A presenting researcher and advocates warned that some alternative chemistries used elsewhere had produced different health problems, and one witness said research and validation work by federal partners had slowed. Witnesses also reported shortened expected service life for some outer shell materials—from a prior industry estimate of seven to eight years to studies showing three to five years under current laundering and wear conditions.

Committee staff described the bill’s current timeline: manufacturers would be required to provide notice to purchasers about PFAS in gear in the mid-2020s, and a prohibition on specified PFAS-containing PPE and stationwear would take effect in July 2029. Several firefighting witnesses asked the committee either to slow the statutory ban date or to build in a formal review process so the fire service, the fire academy and subject-matter experts can report back with recommendations before a prohibition takes effect. One chief suggested the committee could revisit the issue in the next legislative session or assign an out-of-session panel to gather information and return guidance.

Industry and some fire service voices urged lawmakers not to extend the timeline too long, saying a delay could lead manufacturers to offload PFAS-containing inventory to jurisdictions that do not require removal. A committee participant warned of that “fire sale” risk and urged keeping an aggressive timetable to avoid inferior surplus gear entering the market.

The committee chair said staff and counsel will review testimony and consider revisions to section 10 of the draft to address timing and implementation questions, and that the committee will invite the Agency of Natural Resources and outside subject-matter witnesses back for follow-up on definitions and technical issues. Witnesses were asked to submit written testimony to the committee for consideration.

No formal motion or vote occurred during this hearing; the committee did not adopt legislative changes on the record. Members said they will consult legal counsel and consumer- and safety-experts as they redraft language and schedule follow-up testimony.