Senate Health committee hears hours of testimony on SB 682 to phase out many PFAS uses

Sen. Ben Allen on behalf of the Senate Committee on Health introduced SB 682, a bill to phase out nonessential uses of per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and require the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) to determine whether certain uses are unavoidable and hence eligible for time-limited exemptions.

Supporters told the committee the bill takes a class-based, science-driven approach to PFAS (a broad family of “forever chemicals” that persist in the environment). Dr. Anna Reade of the Natural Resources Defense Council described PFAS as “associated with numerous health harms, including cancer,” and urged a phase-out where safer alternatives exist. Dr. Max (USC) summarized academic findings tying PFAS exposures to liver disease, increased risk of type 2 diabetes, lower bone mineral density and several cancers, and said cumulative PFAS exposures raise risks beyond single compounds. Jessica Gaugher of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies and numerous water agencies and clean-water and public-health organizations registered support and cosponsored the bill on grounds that reducing PFAS sources will ease burdens on water systems required to test and remediate contamination.

Opponents, including the California Life Sciences Association, the California Chamber of Commerce, the Advanced Medical Technology Association and numerous manufacturing and trade groups, argued the bill as drafted treats all PFAS uniformly despite scientific and functional differences among thousands of PFAS chemistries. They warned the bill’s definition of “intentionally added” and the process for “unavoidable use” exemptions could disrupt medical devices, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, renewable-energy and other supply chains. Jennifer Snyder (California Life Sciences) and Adam Regley (CalChamber) said fluoropolymers and other PFAS chemistries are essential in many life‑saving devices and that supply‑chain components might not be clearly exempted by the bill’s current language. Several industry witnesses urged clearer, supply‑chain‑wide exemptions or narrower, chemistry‑specific regulation.

Sen. Allen said the bill’s goal is to limit unnecessary uses while preserving essential functions through defined exemption criteria: (1) no safer alternatives; (2) the PFAS function is necessary for product operation; and (3) the product is necessary for health, safety or societal functioning. Exemptions would initially last five years and could be extended with demonstrated progress on alternatives; a set of high‑priority manufacturing uses (for example certain semiconductor and fluorinated‑gas uses) would have an extended timeline to 2040. The bill as presented also contains an earlier ban (beginning 2027) for product categories where safer alternatives already exist and other states have enacted restrictions (cookware, certain food packaging, dental floss, juvenile products and other categories listed in the bill).

Committee members pressed both sides on tradeoffs. Sponsors emphasized the burden on public water and sanitation systems and highlighted EPA and state water‑board activity to regulate PFAS in drinking water. Opponents pressed for more precise exemptions and expressed concern that DTSC could be overwhelmed by petitions for exemption if the bill’s unavoidable‑use process generates large numbers of complex determinations. The author accepted committee amendments and said she is willing to work on clarifying supply‑chain language and targeted exemptions in follow‑up amendments.

The bill drew extensive testimony from public‑health researchers, municipal water agencies, environmental and health advocates and a long list of industry trade associations. The committee did not finalize a floor vote in the hearing excerpted here; the author said she will continue negotiations with stakeholders on exemption language and supply‑chain protections.

Ending: Committee members and witnesses agreed to continue technical negotiation. Supporters urged a class‑based, precautionary approach; industry groups urged chemistry‑specific carve‑outs and clearer language exempting finished medical devices and upstream supply‑chain components. The author accepted committee amendments and said she would work further on the exemption and supply‑chain clarifications.