Senate Health & Welfare considers expanding PFAS consumer‑product rules in H.238
April 19, 2025 | Health & Welfare, SENATE, Committees, Legislative , Vermont
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
The Senate Health & Welfare committee on April 18 reviewed H.238, a bill to consolidate and expand Vermont’s restrictions on PFAS in consumer products and to move provisions from last year’s Act 131 into a single chapter. Committee members, staff and state agency witnesses discussed definitions, enforcement authority, effective dates and requested reports from state agencies before deciding final language.
Committee staff said H.238 would carry definitions and prohibitions from Act 131 into a consolidated subchapter and add three product categories—cookware, dental floss and fluorine‑treated (fluorine‑treated) plastic containers—to the list of consumer products prohibited when PFAS are intentionally added. The draft also lowers the regulated PFAS threshold for textiles from 100 parts per million to 50 parts per million effective July 1, 2027, and adds outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions to the regulated apparel category on July 1, 2028.
The committee discussed the statutory test for when PFAS in a product counts as “intentionally added.” Staff read a proposed attorney general change that would say PFAS shall not be considered intentionally added on the basis of water used in manufacture if the water came from a public water system permitted under state law or a source that does not violate PFAS maximum contaminant levels. The committee declined to change the bill’s first sentence addressing PFAS introduced through a manufacturing product or solvent, keeping the requirement that any PFAS must be both intentionally added and “known or reasonably ascertainable.”
Matt Chapman, Director, Department of Environmental Conservation, told the committee that DEC “doesn’t support the 'currently unavoidable use' exception” being proposed by the attorney general and staff; he suggested aligning implementation timing with Minnesota’s timeline if the committee wanted a later compliance date. Chapman said he would be “fine” with a later date to match Minnesota and recommended a report back to the committee if additional time were considered.
The bill gives the attorney general enforcement tools similar to existing consumer‑protection law, including rulemaking authority and civil penalties for violations. Staff reminded the committee that private rights of action under the consumer‑protection chapter remain available: an individual harmed by a violation may seek equitable relief and damages (including treble damages in certain circumstances) as provided under existing consumer‑protection provisions cited in the draft.
On fluorine‑treated containers, staff explained the draft would prohibit sale or distribution of a consumer product if the product’s container contains PFAS intentionally added, even if the product inside does not. The committee discussed whether the AG’s proposed exception or a compliance mechanism would be preferable and considered moving the container prohibition’s effective date (drafted as Jan. 1, 2030) to 2032 to align with Minnesota. Chapman suggested extending the date to 2032 if the committee preferred more time.
The committee directed the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) and DEC to report back to the legislature by Jan. 15, 2027, with an analysis of other states’ regulatory programs (Minnesota, Maine and others), how they have handled fluorine‑treated containers and complex durable goods, staffing and cost implications, and whether Vermont should establish a regulatory program. Members also asked for interim updates (testimony/presentations) in 2027 and 2029 to track regional activity.
Staff noted effective dates carried from Act 131: many prohibitions adopted last year would take effect Jan. 1, 2026; the three newly added product categories were given two additional years in the draft (effective 2027); cookware was discussed separately and the house had pushed its effective date to July 1, 2028. The committee debated whether to keep the house’s extension for cookware; some members said July 1, 2027, might be a reasonable compromise.
The committee did not take a final vote on H.238 during the session. Members asked staff to incorporate the AG’s written recommendations for the water‑use carve‑out language to the extent the committee preferred them, to add the specific reporting language described on the record, and to return with redlines and additional information on implementation timing at a future meeting.
Next steps: staff will incorporate the committee’s directions and agency report requests into revised draft language and present updated draft language and agency testimony at a subsequent meeting for further decisions.
Committee staff said H.238 would carry definitions and prohibitions from Act 131 into a consolidated subchapter and add three product categories—cookware, dental floss and fluorine‑treated (fluorine‑treated) plastic containers—to the list of consumer products prohibited when PFAS are intentionally added. The draft also lowers the regulated PFAS threshold for textiles from 100 parts per million to 50 parts per million effective July 1, 2027, and adds outdoor apparel for severe wet conditions to the regulated apparel category on July 1, 2028.
The committee discussed the statutory test for when PFAS in a product counts as “intentionally added.” Staff read a proposed attorney general change that would say PFAS shall not be considered intentionally added on the basis of water used in manufacture if the water came from a public water system permitted under state law or a source that does not violate PFAS maximum contaminant levels. The committee declined to change the bill’s first sentence addressing PFAS introduced through a manufacturing product or solvent, keeping the requirement that any PFAS must be both intentionally added and “known or reasonably ascertainable.”
Matt Chapman, Director, Department of Environmental Conservation, told the committee that DEC “doesn’t support the 'currently unavoidable use' exception” being proposed by the attorney general and staff; he suggested aligning implementation timing with Minnesota’s timeline if the committee wanted a later compliance date. Chapman said he would be “fine” with a later date to match Minnesota and recommended a report back to the committee if additional time were considered.
The bill gives the attorney general enforcement tools similar to existing consumer‑protection law, including rulemaking authority and civil penalties for violations. Staff reminded the committee that private rights of action under the consumer‑protection chapter remain available: an individual harmed by a violation may seek equitable relief and damages (including treble damages in certain circumstances) as provided under existing consumer‑protection provisions cited in the draft.
On fluorine‑treated containers, staff explained the draft would prohibit sale or distribution of a consumer product if the product’s container contains PFAS intentionally added, even if the product inside does not. The committee discussed whether the AG’s proposed exception or a compliance mechanism would be preferable and considered moving the container prohibition’s effective date (drafted as Jan. 1, 2030) to 2032 to align with Minnesota. Chapman suggested extending the date to 2032 if the committee preferred more time.
The committee directed the Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) and DEC to report back to the legislature by Jan. 15, 2027, with an analysis of other states’ regulatory programs (Minnesota, Maine and others), how they have handled fluorine‑treated containers and complex durable goods, staffing and cost implications, and whether Vermont should establish a regulatory program. Members also asked for interim updates (testimony/presentations) in 2027 and 2029 to track regional activity.
Staff noted effective dates carried from Act 131: many prohibitions adopted last year would take effect Jan. 1, 2026; the three newly added product categories were given two additional years in the draft (effective 2027); cookware was discussed separately and the house had pushed its effective date to July 1, 2028. The committee debated whether to keep the house’s extension for cookware; some members said July 1, 2027, might be a reasonable compromise.
The committee did not take a final vote on H.238 during the session. Members asked staff to incorporate the AG’s written recommendations for the water‑use carve‑out language to the extent the committee preferred them, to add the specific reporting language described on the record, and to return with redlines and additional information on implementation timing at a future meeting.
Next steps: staff will incorporate the committee’s directions and agency report requests into revised draft language and present updated draft language and agency testimony at a subsequent meeting for further decisions.
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting