Coming off the heels of Connecticut Attorney General William Tong filing two lawsuits against industrial giants 3M and DuPont, the State’s Environment Committee voted in favor of a bill that would greatly limit and regulate the manufacture and sale of per and polyfluorinated substances (PFAS).
PFAS, colloquially known as ‘forever chemicals’ because of their slow rate of natural decomposition, are a class of chemicals that are used in the production of a wide variety of consumer goods as a result of their water-repellent properties. Unfortunately, PFAS are also recognized by the EPA as carcinogens and hormone disruptors, linked to various forms of cancer, thyroid disease, liver damage and bowel disease. PFAS have also been found to be detrimental to both immune and reproductive health.
In 2023, several Connecticut water authorities discovered PFAS contamination in their water supplies, and lawsuits like the one Attorney General William Tong filed earlier this year have been raised nationwide in an attempt to hold PFAS producers accountable for contaminations across the country.
“I believe that PFAS is something that we have to address in this state; it’s pervasive, there’s significant health concerns, there’s significant environmental concerns and I hear from my constituents [about it] on a daily basis, I think all of us do,” said Sen. Stephen Harding (R- Brookfield). “We have to tackle the issue. I think this is a good step in tackling that issue and that’s why I’ll be voting in support of the bill today.”
The bill, SB 292, stipulates that manufacturers of products that intentionally contain PFAS would have to submit reports to the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection including details about the product, the amount and purpose of the PFAS it contains, and any other information requested by the Commissioner. These reports must be updated and revised whenever significant changes are made to the product, or upon the Commissioner’s request.
The bill aims to wean the state off of PFAS products entirely. Any clothing, carpets, cleaning products, cookware, cosmetics, dental floss, fabric treatments, children’s products, menstruation products, ski wax, furniture or textile furnishings containing PFAS will be banned by 2026. Sellers of rainproof apparel containing PFAS, like raincoats or boots, will be required to disclose that their product contains PFAS beginning in 2026, and will be banned from selling them in 2028. By 2032, the bill aims to ban PFAS-containing products entirely, with exceptions being made for products that the Commissioner deems essential for the product’s use.
In order to streamline the reporting and testing requirements process for manufacturers, the bill also allows the commissioner to waive information requirements if the required information is already publicly available. It also allows product manufacturers to seek approval for categories of similar products together, instead of requiring them to seek approval for each similar product individually.
The bill also makes distinctions between intentionally and unintentionally added PFAS in products. The bill only requires testing and reporting for products that have intentionally added PFAS, or items in which it is added deliberately to perform a specific function. The bill stipulates that the Commissioner will reserve the right to require companies to test products for PFAS and submit reports if they think a product contains intentionally added PFAS that hasn’t yet been disclosed. Furthermore, the bill will add reporting fees to PFAS manufacturers that will go towards the implementation costs of the bill. The bill will also establish a fund to be used for the increased testing of PFAS in municipal water supplies.
Committee Chair Sen. Rick Lopes (D-New Britain) said that the bill has taken inspiration from similar bills passed in Minnesota and Maine, and legislators have incorporated changes made to those bills since their passage that would allow for Connecticut’s bill to be implemented as smoothly as possible. Lopes said that the bill still needs small tweaks, such as the inclusion of additional exemptions for auto-manufacturers. Several Committee members shared their own concerns with the bill and proposed ways in which it could be improved.
Rep. Tom O’Dea (R-New Canaan) was concerned with the impact that the reporting requirements could have on smaller Connecticut-based manufacturers.
“I’m going to vote yes I think, I want to listen to the rest of the debate, but I would hope that we can address the reporting requirements because from what I’ve heard there are some smaller manufacturers particularly biotechs from Minnesota and Maine that have been impacted adversely by the reporting requirements,” said O’Dea. “I understand the reporting requirements, but I’m just wondering how we can make them more friendly for our small businesses and biotechs.”
Lopes assured O’Dea that the bill has built in reporting exceptions for the usage of PFAS in the aerospace, biotech and medical sectors.
Sen. Harding, despite speaking in support of the bill, echoed O’Dea’s concerns and said he looks forward to working with the committee and proponents of the bill on the Senate floor to make the implementation of the bill as easy as possible on the state’s manufacturers. Rep. Piscopo (R-Burlington) also showed concern for the impacts it could have on state manufacturers but appreciated the willingness of the committee to try and make the bill as manufacturer-friendly as possible.
Rep. Doug Dubitsky (R-Canterbury) presented an amendment to the bill that would ban the use, sale or offering for sale of PFAS containing biosolids or “municipal sludge,” terms denoting fertilizer made of sewage from waste-water treatment plants that contain PFAS.
“I do think to the extent that’s reasonable, we need to limit the amount of PFAS that gets into the environment,” Rep. Doug Dubitsky (R-Canterbury). “Biosolids or municipal sludge that contain PFAS is one of the significant contributors to PFAS solution in the environment in the state.”
The Committee voted in favor of the amendment. Rep. David Michel (D-Stamford) also recommended that moving forward, lawmakers look to implement language that would phase out PFAS in firefighting gear as much as possible. In 2021, Governor Ned Lamont signed Public Act 21-191, which enacted a law prohibiting PFAS from being used in firefighting foam and food packaging. PFAS is currently used in the protective coats and pants of firefighters, as well as firefighting foam, putting firefighters at an elevated risk of cancer. Chair Lopes noted Michele’s recommendation and agreed that further discussion on the topic would be necessary.
Ultimately, the Committee voted unanimously in favor of the bill. As a result, it will be moved to the Senate floor, where further deliberation and amendments can be made, and a vote to pass or deny the law will be held.
Was this article helpful?
Republish our articles for free, online or in print, under a Creative Commons license.
