Firefighters face multi-billion dollar bill to replace toxic gear

A conflict over who pays for new protective equipment has emerged as the primary obstacle to removing potentially toxic chemicals from fire gear. Fire departments across the United States are currently wearing turnout gear that contains per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS. These man-made chemicals are designed to resist heat and fire, but studies have linked them to cancer. The cost of replacing this equipment with PFAS-free alternatives is estimated in the billions of dollars, creating a financial burden that many local municipalities claim they cannot afford.

The scale of the financial gap is stark. A baseline set of pants and jacket costs up to $3,000. When helmets and gloves are added, the total per firefighter reaches between $5,000 and $8,000. For a department with 200 members, the expense is substantial for any local government. A national survey found that half of the responding fire chiefs had not switched to new gear because their towns and cities lack the funds. This leaves first responders in a holding pattern, waiting for a solution that has not yet arrived.

The push for replacement is driven by health data. The International Association of Fire Fighters identifies cancer as the leading cause of line-of-duty deaths for firefighters. Chris Albani, a firefighter and Connecticut fire union representative, noted that the risk is long-term. He stated, “It’s not about if I get cancer, it’s when.” A 2020 study from Notre Dame confirmed high levels of PFAS in both new and used turnout gear, showing the chemicals can leach out and soak into skin. Despite this data, hundreds of thousands of firefighters are still wearing the affected equipment.

Legal action is now attempting to shift the cost to manufacturers. Jennifer Sclar, an attorney representing fire unions and municipalities, is part of a team suing more than a dozen companies. These firms manufacture the gear or the materials used to make it. The lawsuit claims these companies knew about the health risks associated with PFAS for decades but told firefighters the gear was safe. Sclar said, “The defendants have long understood what the dangers of PFAS were and are.” Five class action lawsuits filed by various cities have been consolidated into a single case in Minnesota.

Internal documents support the claim of long-standing knowledge. Records cited in the suit show that 3M and DuPont labeled PFAS as “toxic” as early as the 1960s and 1970s. By the 1980s, both companies moved women of child-bearing age away from assignments with high PFAS exposure. In the 1990s, their own scientists found links between the chemicals and cancer. Ed Kelly, who leads the International Association of Fire Fighters, wants manufacturers to pay for the replacement. “We want to make sure that these manufacturers.. are paying for this gear that we need to replace,” Kelly said.

Trust in manufacturers has eroded significantly. In 2025, the Quincy, Massachusetts fire department paid millions for new gear labeled as PFAS-free. Independent tests that same year found high levels of the chemicals. Mayor Thomas Koch called the discovery “outrageous.” The manufacturer stated it had eliminated PFAS from textiles the same year Quincy purchased the gear and argued the levels found were not intentional. This incident has made some fire leaders cautious about switching to alternatives without independent testing.

The manufacturers have largely remained quiet on the matter. 3M and DuPont did not comment on the consolidated suit. In legal filings, 3M argued it did not manufacture the gear and that no direct link to physical injuries was proven. DuPont previously told another media outlet that the complaints were without merit. The litigation seeks to make these companies foot the bill for the replacement of the toxic equipment currently in use.

Firefighters are altering their daily routines while waiting for a resolution. Albani, who has been in the field for 15 years, tries to avoid touching his jackets and pants until necessary. He noted that the mindset in the profession has shifted from a concern about potential risk to a certainty of long-term exposure. The goal of the current legal actions is to get firefighters out of the old gear and into equipment that has been independently tested to ensure it is free of harmful chemicals.