Sununu signs one bill targeting ‘forever chemicals’ but vetoes another • New Hampshire Bulletin

Gov. Chris Sununu signed a bill Friday that bans certain products with intentionally added PFAS from sale in the state starting in 2027 and creates strict liability for PFAS polluters.

He vetoed another measure that would have created liability for PFAS facilities, citing its “broad” definition and the fact that its standard for chemical concentrations that would trigger regulatory action contradicted the other bill he signed. The standard of the vetoed bill was significantly stricter.

PFAS – or or per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances – are linked to a number of health problems, including some cancers, weakened immune systems, high cholesterol, development issues, and more. They are commonly used in industrial and consumer products for their stain- and water-resistant properties.

Sen. Denise Ricciardi, a Bedford Republican who worked on the liability portion of the signed measure, House Bill 1649, called it a “landmark bill” that was “long, long overdue.”

The bill creates a right to civil action for certain PFAS contamination. It also holds facilities “strictly liable” to the state “for containment, cleanup, restoration, or other remediation related to the release or threatened release of hazardous waste or hazardous material in accordance with applicable law and departmental rules.”

Rep. Karen Ebel, a New London Democrat who was the prime sponsor, said she was “ecstatic” for this moment of progress for the state.

“This is a huge step forward for the people of New Hampshire,” she said. “Our state has been burdened so much by PFAS contamination, especially in the southern part of the state. And there really isn’t any way … to effectively tackle the problem if we don’t stop using these dangerous forever chemicals in our products.”

The law bans a number of products with intentionally added PFAS but does not include those with accidental contamination that may happen during the production or shipping processes. The ban will include:

• Carpets or rugs;
• Cosmetics;
• Textile treatments, such as those that add PFAS for stain- or water-resistant properties;
• Feminine hygiene products, such as tampons and pads;
• Food packaging and containers, such as plates, bowls, and bags;
• Products for children under 12, such as high chairs, playmats, and strollers;
• Upholstered furniture; and
• Textile furnishings, such as draperies, bedding, and towels.

The ban exempts medical devices, adult mattresses, personal computers, wireless phones, and some other electronics. It also allows products with at least 85 percent recycled content, the resale of products made before the ban, and replacement parts for products manufactured before 2027.

The bill includes an appropriation of $250,000 to the Department of Environmental Services for “expenses associated with the PFAS restrictions on consumer products.”

The vetoed bill, House Bill 1415, would have held liable PFAS facilities that release such chemicals into the groundwater or surface water in total combined concentrations of 100 parts per trillion or greater. The standard created by the signed bill was much less strict, at 10,000 parts per trillion. 

“This contrary language makes it extremely difficult to administer both and enforce them appropriately,” Sununu wrote. 

He added: “It is extremely important to hold appropriate parties accountable for their actions, but this legislation misses the mark.”

The sponsor of that bill, Rep. Nancy Murphy, a Merrimack Democrat, said she was glad the PFAS products bill was signed, calling it a “good first step,” though one that “greatly needs to be improved.”

On the veto, she said she was “very disappointed” but “not at all surprised.” “Legislation that is less protective of the environment and public health leaves NH citizen taxpayers holding the bag,” she said.

“We don’t have lobbyists at the State House protecting our best interests,” she said. “… That’s our job as state reps, and it’s unfortunate when paid lobbyists for polluters are heard, their voices are heard above that of actual constituents and the people that the government is supposed to be working for.”