According to a new investigation from ProPublica, the U.S. Forest Service knew for years that firefighters were wearing clothing containing “forever chemicals.” Abe Streep, a reporter at ProPublica, joins us to discuss his story.
Note: The following transcript was transcribed digitally and validated for accuracy, readability and formatting by an OPB volunteer.
Dave Miller: From the Gert Boyle Studio at OPB, this is Think Out Loud, I’m Dave Miller. For years, reporters and wildland firefighters have asked officials at the U.S. Forest Service if the agency’s official gear contained PFAS [per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances.] These so-called “forever chemicals” have been linked to numerous health problems, including cancer. The agency did not answer those questions clearly or directly. But now, finally, because of a Freedom of Information request, we know that the agency did in fact know about the presence of PFAS in pants used by wildland firefighters as early as 2021. Abe Streep is a reporter at ProPublica. He joins us now to talk about all of this. Great to have you on the show.
Abe Streep: Thanks for having me. How are you?
Miller: Doing great. When did firefighter groups first start asking the Forest Service about the possibility of these chemicals in gear that they were given?
Streep: So, a former Forest Service official and researcher named George Broyles reached out to ask about the presence of PFAS in gear in 2022.
Miller: How did the agency respond?
Streep: At that point, the agency did not respond directly to his inquiries, but he subsequently filed a Freedom of Information Act request for correspondence that showed that officials had been aware, as early as the previous year, of a PFAS compound being used in a finish in some of the pants.
Miller: So what was that we now know, because of the production of those documents, what do we know about what was going on behind the scenes in response to those questions?
Streep: What they show is that there’s deliberation, both about what to do about this, but also about whether and how to inform the workforce, the wildland firefighters who are wearing this gear. And at one point, an official asks if they have a duty to inform wildland firefighters, and they did not for years.
Miller: One thing that the Forest Service did do – again, all this is behind the scenes and we now know about it because of this request – they asked the company, one of the companies that was providing gear, in this case, pants, about what the company was doing, what was on the surface of those pants. What did they find out?
Streep: Yeah, so people who work with the equipment had reached out to the company and asked if there was a PFAS presence in the pants in 2021, and they found out that there was. In fact, it was being used in a finish to deter substances, including oil and gasoline.
Miller: What’s the idea behind that? I mean, why would PFAS be put in these pants worn by wildland firefighters?
Streep: Well, I think PFAS compounds have been common until recent years, for a long time in protective gear because of their ability to repel compounds like oil and gasoline. As public awareness of the risks of PFAS have evolved in recent years, and there’s been more scrutiny, there’s been a broad move to move away from that. And that move has started more quickly among structural or municipal firefighting departments than in… I should say, acknowledgement of that issue has started earlier within structural municipal firefighting departments
than within wildland firefighting.
Miller: But I was struck by a quote you got from a professor of textile engineering, chemistry and science in North Carolina. What did he say about the use of PFAS in wildland firefighting gear?
Streep: That’s a quote from Bryan Ormond, who studies these issues at length, and said that, given the choice, that he would prefer to not see PFAS in the gear. I can pull up the precise quote, I’m paraphrasing.
Miller: Yeah, and my recollection is that he preferred that, but he also, it seemed like, he called into question the utility of it. I guess that my recollection is that, even setting aside, and this is a huge thing to set aside, the potential health risks of these chemicals, that it seemed like the reason for putting them in; that there is maybe more of a valid reason in a city firefighting department than in wildland firefighting, where you’re not going to be having oil and gasoline all over you to begin with.
Streep: Well, I think a couple of things about that. I think that, what he said is, “From the wildland fighting perspective, I don’t see a reason to have the PFAS treatments in their gear. They don’t really need the oil repellency. It would be a safer option to not have the PFAS treatment.”
Some might take issue with that, because wildland firefighters do and are in contact with water, and they do use drip torches, which have fuel in them. That said, I think it’s indicative of a broad understanding that there are risks with gear treated with PFAS, and industries and fire departments in general are moving very swiftly away from them.
And I think that something I wanna just circle back to is that, within wildland firefighters, research into their health risks and the specific exposures that they face, have, by and large, they’re catching up, but they haven’t been at the same place as within structure firefighters historically. That has changed within recent years. But the agencies that oversee wildland firefighters have often not responded to concerns about health risks due to a lack of research.
So the response within the labor advocacy groups and wildland firefighting advocates who I was speaking with, there was frustration that the Forest Service’s lack of a clear, transparent and open response to this, when they were asked about it by one of their former employees, was indicative of a historical pattern, and one that they found particularly frustrating.
Miller: I should say that we had an in-depth conversation not long ago, a few months ago, with a New York Times reporter who’s been doing a lot of work on this, in particular, the effects of wildfire smoke on firefighters. And not just the lack of guidance to wear masks, but in some cases the prohibition on wearing masks for wildland firefighters. What has come from a Congressionally-required study looking into PFAS in firefighting gear?
Streep: That was a study from an inquiry that Congress mandated in 2021, and it found that there is PFAS, and this was looking into both structural and wildland firefighting gear. It found in a number of wildland fabrics, low levels of PFAS, but in some of them, there were high levels of PFAS.
Miller: Has the agency said definitively, even to this day, if it is still giving its firefighters gear with PFAS?
Streep: After this story was published, the Forest Service said that after that, it was telling firefighters not to use pants, Kevlar blend pants, which could have contained this finish, that were produced prior to 2023. Furthermore, it said it was directing suppliers that it would not be using PFAS in its gear moving forward.
Miller: Only after your recent article came out?
Streep: Yes, to the best of my knowledge.
Miller: Abe, thanks very much.
Streep: Thank you very much.
Miller: Abe Streep is a reporter at ProPublica.
“Think Out Loud®” broadcasts live at noon every day and rebroadcasts at 8 p.m.
If you’d like to comment on any of the topics in this show or suggest a topic of your own, please get in touch with us on Facebook, send an email to thinkoutloud@opb.org, or you can leave a voicemail for us at 503-293-1983.
