Connecticut 2025 Regular Session

Connecticut Senate Bill SB00884

Introduced
1/22/25  
Refer
1/22/25  
Refer
2/10/25  
Report Pass
2/28/25  
Refer
3/11/25  
Report Pass
3/18/25  
Refer
4/23/25  
Report Pass
4/25/25  
Report Pass
4/28/25  
Refer
5/1/25  
Report Pass
5/5/25  
Report Pass
5/6/25  

Caption

An Act Concerning The Maximum Allowable Concentration For 1,4-dioxane In Household Cleaning And Personal Care Products And Cosmetics.

Summary

SB 884 would set maximum allowable concentrations of 1,4-dioxane in certain consumer products sold in Connecticut. Beginning April 1, 2026, household cleaning products could not contain more than 2 parts per million of 1,4-dioxane, and that limit would tighten to 1 part per million on April 1, 2027. The bill also sets a 10 parts per million limit for cosmetics and a 2 parts per million limit for personal care products starting April 1, 2026, with the personal care product limit also dropping to 1 part per million in 2027. The bill defines the covered product categories broadly, including cosmetics, shampoos, conditioners, soaps, bath gels, and other bathing products, while excluding prescription products. It authorizes the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection to enforce the limits through civil fines of up to $1,000 per day for a first violation and up to $2,500 per day for repeat violations, and to seek injunctive relief against ongoing violations. The bill’s impact would be to amend state law by creating new product-safety standards for 1,4-dioxane contamination in household cleaning, personal care, and cosmetic products. It would place compliance obligations on manufacturers, distributors, sellers, and retailers, and would likely require product reformulation, testing, and supply-chain oversight to meet the phased-in concentration limits. The overall sentiment reflected in the available voting history appears strongly favorable. The bill advanced unanimously out of the Environment Committee and the Finance Committee, and it passed the Judiciary Committee with only limited opposition, suggesting broad support for reducing consumer exposure to a chemical of concern. No committee transcripts were provided, so the record does not identify detailed arguments, but the small number of negative votes in Judiciary indicates some disagreement about the bill’s regulatory or enforcement approach. The main points of contention are likely to center on compliance costs, feasibility of meeting the tighter 2027 limits, and the scope of state regulation over consumer products. Supporters would be expected to emphasize public health and environmental protection, while any opponents may question whether the limits are practical for manufacturers and whether the enforcement penalties are too burdensome.

Impact

This bill would add new Connecticut restrictions on 1,4-dioxane in household cleaning products, cosmetics, and personal care products, effective October 1, 2025 with phased concentration limits beginning April 1, 2026 and tightening in 2027. It would create enforceable product standards applicable to manufacturers, distributors, sellers, and offerors for sale, and would authorize the Commissioner of Energy and Environmental Protection to impose civil penalties and seek injunctions for violations. The bill would not directly regulate prescription products, which are excluded from the definitions of cosmetic and personal care products.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests broad bipartisan support for the bill. It received unanimous or near-unanimous favorable votes in the Environment and Finance committees, and only modest opposition in Judiciary. That pattern indicates the bill was generally viewed as a consumer protection and public health measure, with limited but present concern about regulatory burden or implementation details.

Contention

The likely areas of contention are the strictness and timing of the 1,4-dioxane limits, especially the reduction from 2 parts per million to 1 part per million in 2027 for household cleaning and personal care products. Manufacturers and sellers may be concerned about reformulation costs, testing requirements, and supply-chain impacts, while supporters are likely focused on reducing exposure to a potentially harmful contaminant. The small number of negative votes in Judiciary suggests some concern about enforcement authority, penalties, or the breadth of the product categories covered.

Companion Bills

No companion bills found.

Similar Bills

No similar bills found.