Committee reviews H.238 changes to PFAS consumer-product ban, flags rulemaking and testing questions

Michael Grady, legislative counsel, told the committee the bill known in draft as H.238 consolidates and restructures the consumer-protection provisions enacted under last year's Act 131 and adds a small set of new products to the PFAS prohibitions.

The bill would prohibit manufacture, sale or distribution in Vermont of consumer products to which PFAS have been intentionally added, and would add cleaning products and dental floss to the list of covered items. It also treats textiles differently by phasing a regulated-PFAS threshold for textile articles from 100 parts per million downward toward 15 parts per million, and it creates separate timing and rules for so-called fluorine-treated containers.

Why it matters: H.238 would change how manufacturers and retailers demonstrate compliance and give the attorney general a chief enforcement role through certificates of compliance. The restructuring also consolidates multiple product-specific sections from Act 131 into a single prohibition, which affects effective dates, exemptions, and the scope of future rulemaking.

Key elements explained to the committee included:

- Scope and new products: The bill consolidates prior, product-by-product sections into one prohibition and adds cleaning products and dental floss to the enumerated consumer-product list. Michael Grady said dental floss and fluorine-treated containers are among the new items explicitly added to the chapter.

- Textiles: For textiles and textile articles, the bill defines "regulated PFAS" and phases a limit that begins at 100 parts per million and moves toward 15 parts per million in later sections of the bill, giving a phased compliance schedule for apparel and other textile articles.

- Fluorine-treated containers: The bill would prohibit sale of products sold in fluorine-treated (fluorinated) plastic containers if PFAS could leach into the product. A later subsection would extend certain container prohibitions to a later date and would allow the attorney general, by rule, to permit a currently unavoidable use if that use is essential for health, safety or functioning of society and no reasonable alternative exists.

- Enforcement and compliance: Grady said the attorney general's primary enforcement tool under the subchapter would be certificates of compliance; manufacturers would be asked to certify compliance and to supply information that allows the attorney general to assess whether PFAS were intentionally added.

Committee members raised implementation and cost questions. Senator Knoebels asked about the cost and feasibility for manufacturers that rely on nonpublic water sources during manufacturing: "I can see where a manufacturer might put in a well specifically for a manufacturing process. If they have to test that and bring it to drinking water standards ... it could be expensive," he said.

Matt Chapman, director of the Waste Management Prevention Division at the Department of Environmental Conservation, told the committee that water testing for PFAS is feasible and not prohibitive: "They're not incredibly expensive tests ... they're down below $200 the last time I checked," Chapman said. He added that treatment is available but costs vary by water use and treatment scale.

On the question of whether fluorine-treated containers include unavoidable uses, agency witnesses and staff said they had received few examples of necessary uses. The Agency of Natural Resources (ANR) and the Department of Environmental Conservation indicated they do not support the broad currently-unavoidable exception as written and recommended caution before embedding that exemption into statute; ANR suggested the committee could request a report or delay the exemption to allow more study.

Timing and reports: Grady outlined effective dates in the draft: most PFAS consumer-product prohibitions would take effect Jan. 1, 2026; cleaning products, dental floss and certain container provisions would take effect July 1, 2027; additional container-related prohibitions would phase in by 2030; and textile phase-down dates are provided in later sections. The bill also directs reports from ANR on complex durable goods and on PFAS used by the Secretary of Agriculture, with reported deadlines discussed during the hearing.

Next steps: Committee members asked staff to collect and review submitted testimony and related materials posted on the committee web site, consider the attorney general's suggested language on water-related exclusions, and return to the bill with revised draft language and a list of decision points. The hearing closed without a vote.