Committee hears bill to ban PFAS in firefighters' turnout gear, supporters say safer alternatives exist

At a hearing of the House Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, lawmakers heard testimony in support of House Bill 5,019, which would prohibit the sale of firefighters’ personal protective equipment containing PFAS beginning on 01/01/2027.

Representative Speakman, the bill sponsor and a professor of political science, told the committee, “This bill, House Bill 5,019, builds on work that we've been doing in this committee and elsewhere on PFAS. It prohibits the sale of firefighters, personnel, protective equipment that contains PFAS beginning in on 01/01/2027.”

Supporters said the change is feasible and needed. “These alternatives are available, so now is the time,” said Representative Speakman, noting jurisdictions including San Francisco, Concord, N.H., and Vancouver, B.C., have adopted PFAS‑free gear. Greg Garrett, a Providence resident, said the bill is “timely” and another witness said municipalities will have time to budget for replacements.

Rex Wilmoth, director of Rhode Island Department of Environment, testified in support and warned about contamination costs: “Water supplies that become contaminated with them are no longer safe for drinking water without costly investments,” he said, adding PFAS are “near indestructible.”

Committee members pressed on municipal costs and long‑term savings from reduced firefighter illness. One member asked whether any analysis had been done of savings from reduced cancer and early retirements; Rep. Speakman said that has not yet been done and “that's obviously something they should look at.”

The sponsor and witnesses also cited ongoing litigation by the International Association of Firefighters and some state attorneys general against manufacturers; Representative Speakman said Rhode Island’s attorney general has joined such suits.

The hearing record shows the bill drew no recorded opposition witnesses in person; written testimony from others was noted as posted to the committee website. Committee action on the bill was not taken at the hearing; the committee convened a procedural vote at the start of the meeting to hold all bills for further study (recorded separately).