Senators irked by dismissal of PFAS-free firefighter gear amendment

Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a class of man-made chemicals that do not break down entirely in the environment, and exposure to their long-lasting presence has been linked to serious and negative health impacts like thyroid disease and kidney cancer.

PFAS are all around us; they are used in non-stick cookware, food packaging, children’s products, carpets, leather goods, ski wax, firefighting foams and more, and they have leached into drinking water supplies and the soil.

The chemicals are also used in firefighter’s turnout gear, as they have thermal stability and resist oil and water, but firefighter organizations, including the Professional Fire Fighters of Massachusetts, have been sounding the alarm for years on the high rates of cancer diagnosis and cancer-related deaths that have spiked among firefighters since PFAS was first used in their gear.

Nantucket is one of the first firefighting communities in the nation to use new turnout gear that has substantially less PFAS. Nantucket’s new “PFAS-Zero” gear has no PFAS in the outer shell, although the moisture barrier still contains PFAS-treated materials in order to conform to national fire-safety standards. Until those standards change, there will be no option for gear completely free of PFAS.

In addition to Moore, Sens. Walter Timilty of Milton, Julian Cyr of Truro, Nick Collins of South Boston, Marc Pacheco of Taunton and Michael Brady of Brockton all rose to offer statements in support of the amendments that had already been laid aside.

Cyr and Pacheco both took the opportunity to promote their own PFAS legislation. Cyr jointly filed a bill (H 4486) with Rep. Kate Hogan to widely ban the toxic chemicals that has 26 co-sponsors in the Senate and 84 in the House – majorities of each branch.

One of Moore’s amendments would have created a PFAS Research and Development Public Safety Fund, to be funded through the state budget, to support the development, testing and purchasing of PFAS-free firefighter turnout gear that meets fire-proof safety standards without the toxic chemicals. The second amendment would have banned the chemical’s use in firefighters’ protective gear by 2027.

Despite having majority and bipartisan support, Moore’s two amendments were taken off the table last Thursday without debate by Senate Democrats who lead the chamber.

Sen. Cindy Friedman, the chair of the Health Care Financing Committee who was the primary author of the health care reform bill, said that the amendments were “beyond the scope of this bill and should be ruled out of order.”

Friedman is also the vice chair of the powerful Ways and Means Committee and considered a member of Senate President Karen Spilka’s leadership team.

Sen. William Brownsberger, president pro tempore of the Senate, quickly agreed from the rostrum and ruled the amendments out of order.

Both amendments had majority support, with 25 and 24 senators signed on to each, and after Brownsberger’s ruling a number of lawmakers stood for seemingly impromptu and unscripted speeches – rare in a legislature where most major decisions are made behind closed doors – to express their disappointment over the decision.

“The leading cause of death for active firefighters is cancer, which is not only a result of the dangerous conditions they see on a daily basis at work, but also from their exposure to PFAS through their equipment,” Moore said. “I understand that this bill before us is related to health care. But one component of health care is preventative action. If we limit firefighter exposure to PFAS, that’s fewer sick firefighters and less of an impact on our health care system.”

A number of other senators also questioned why the amendments were ruled out of the scope of a health care bill, given the link between PFAS and cancer deaths.

Sen. Bruce Tarr, the minority leader, asked Brownsberger why “these amendments which deal directly with the health and safety of many public employees are beyond the scope of a health care bill?”

Brownsberger replied that the bill the Senate was voting on was a hospital oversight bill, not a catch-all for any health care policy.

“This is not a bill about all health matters in the world. This is a bill about the oversight and operation and mechanics of the health care system. That’s the basis of the chair’s ruling,” Brownsberger said.

In a statement to the State House News Service Tuesday, Friedman said, “This legislation strictly concerned the oversight of our health care markets. I am in complete support of the policies included in the amendments related to PFAS research and sunsetting the use of PFAS chemicals in firefighter gear and hope to see those signed into law this session.”

Tarr pointed out that a number of the provisions in the underlying bill had to do with health care equity.

“While we think about trying to ensure accessibility and affordability of health care throughout the commonwealth of Massachusetts, I think it’s unfortunate that we are taking the narrow view that making structural changes relative to the health and safety of a particular group of people who happen to make their life’s profession defending our public safety are outside the scope of this bill,” he said.

Despite widespread agreement among most of the legislature, including some of the most powerful people in each branch, Democrats leading the House and Senate, have shown little interest publicly in that legislation either. With just about a week left in the formal lawmaking session, the bill still sits in the House Ways and Means Committee.

“First responders and a whole host of residents in Massachusetts are exposed to PFAS in the water they drink, in the clothes they wear, in the food that they eat. More than 12 states have taken action related to PFAS, and I’m really, really urging my colleagues and hopeful that we too will take action before the strike the clock strikes midnight, or perhaps 4 a.m. on Aug. 1,” Cyr said.

Pacheco counted the number of days his PFAS bill (S 2053) has sat in Senate Ways and Means: 239 days, as of last Thursday. He offered his bill, to ban PFAS-emitting construction pipes, as a potential vehicle to move forward with Moore’s firefighter gear amendments.

As the other senators rose to speak about their disappointment in not getting to vote on the Moore amendments, Tarr and Friedman sat near the minority desk and spoke quietly.

Tarr then rose and said Friedman had committed to finding another legislative vehicle to pass the firefighter PFAS policy.

“I do want to reflect on the conversation that the gentlelady from Arlington and I just had, to be able to work together with all of us to try to find a vehicle to address this issue before the close of the formal session. I think that’s important to be on the record,” he said.

The legislative session ends in eight days. In that time, the Senate is expected to take votes on a number of large bills, including another health care bill related to long-term care and a supplemental budget, which is often used as a catch-all for policy riders.