A bill requiring updated labeling requirements for firemen’s personal protective equipment in the state failed on the House floor.
The bill requires labeling for PFAS – substances known as “forever chemicals.”
From helmets to coats to footwear – the cancer-causing agent PFAS can be found head to toe in what firefighters wear every time they gear up for fire and rescue activities.
Currently – South Dakota law does not require a PFAS label notifying the risk of cancer on the PPEs firefighters wear.
Democratic Sen. Liz Larson is the legislator looking to change that. She said the cancer rate of firefighters is a large driver behind the bill.
“We know that two-thirds of firefighters that are fighting fire today, will be fighting cancer tomorrow. Two-thirds, that’s kind of a ridiculous number for an occupation. And we need to start making steps to manage it," Larson. "This isn’t a huge step, it’s a cost-free way manage gear as it gets older, and as new gear becomes available. I’m just trying to make it easier to manage cancer levels in firefighters."
Some offered the law allows fire departments to apply the labels themselves.
Republican Rep. Kevin Van Diepen is on the House Local Government Committee. He said although he supports the intent – it creates a liability concern.
“When you get a label on a garment from a factory, it’s certified that they’re responsible for that label on there. If we did it as a department itself or a local fire department, they’re gonna be responsible if it’s the wrong label that’s a cancer-causing agent. We don’t wanna have anybody liable of local governments," Van Diepen. "We all wanna have our local governments make these decisions, but we don’t want to put them in a liability situation like that."
Van Diepen adds for departments who wish to purchase new equipment without the PFAS chemical – the low end of costs would be around $100,000. He said with budgeting as tight as it currently is, it would be “tough to pass that cost onto them.”
Sen. Larson disagreed – saying there is no cost associated with the bill.
SB 163 narrowly passed committee – 7-6.
It failed on the House floor 13-57.
