Relative to prohibiting certain products with intentionally added PFAS and relative to civil actions for PFAS contamination, and relative to settlement of lawsuits against manufacturers of PFAS for impacts to public drinking water systems.
The bill will amend the existing RSA 149-M to include restrictions specifically targeting consumer products with PFAS, thus placing the onus on manufacturers and distributors to ensure compliance. The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services is designated as the enforcement authority and will oversee implementation, which includes establishing regulations, coordinating compliance efforts, and reporting back to the state government on progress. Importantly, the legislation also provides for funding to support these enforcement activities, including the hiring of personnel dedicated to PFAS regulation.
House Bill 1649 aims to prohibit certain consumer products containing intentionally added per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) in New Hampshire. This legislative measure seeks to protect public health and the environment by restricting the use of hazardous chemicals in common consumer items, including cosmetics, rugs, carpets, feminine hygiene products, and food packaging. The bill mandates that these items not be sold or distributed in the state starting January 1, 2027, thereby addressing growing concerns about the environmental impact of PFAS and its accumulation in drinking water supplies.
Noteworthy points of contention surrounding HB 1649 include the extent of its impact on manufacturers and businesses that use PFAS in their products. While supporters hail it as a critical step in safeguarding public health and water systems from toxic substances, opponents fear that the restrictions could lead to increased production costs, potential job losses in affected industries, and challenges regarding the sourcing of PFAS-free alternatives. Another area of debate involves the exemptions outlined in the bill, which provide allowances for certain products already regulated at the federal level, creating concerns about inconsistent regulations across state and federal jurisdictions.