Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pfas Containers topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee debates adding pesticides to fluorinated‑container ban with "unavoidable use" exception
Summary
Lawmakers considered an amendment to expand a ban on fluorinated (PFAS‑treated) containers to include certain pesticide containers starting Jan. 1, 2032, while adding an attorney general rule allowing sale if PFAS use is found to be "currently unavoidable;" members urged tailoring the exemption to agricultural needs and requested agency toxicology input.
Committee staff (S2) introduced an amendment to add pesticide containers to a statutory prohibition on fluorinated (PFAS‑treated) containers. Reading from the draft, staff summarized the change: beginning on Jan. 1, 2032, "a manufacturer shall not manufacture, sell, offer for sale, distribute for sale, or distribute for use in the state a fluorinated treated container for any consumer product or pesticides." The amendment also authorizes the attorney general to allow sale or distribution of a pesticide in a fluorinated container if the AG makes a determination that the PFAS use is "currently unavoidable," defined in the draft as essential for health, safety, or the functioning of society and lacking a reasonable alternative.
Members and stakeholders raised concerns that the "functioning of society" language is broad and recommended tailoring the "unavoidable use" test to the agricultural context so it fits pesticide uses. A committee member (S6) suggested the committee "might want to consider language to tailor it toward agriculture," while a stakeholder (S5) noted practical packaging considerations for farm use and reuse of HDPE cage‑totes and asked for clarity about which containers are fluorinated.
S5 also offered background materials about a manufacturer, noting: "Enhanced Technologies is a leading producer of fluorinated containers. EPA ordered the company to change its practices ... Enhanced sued EPA and ultimately won that case," and said they would forward the documents to the committee for context.
Members asked for input from agency toxicologists and regulatory staff; the chair (S1) asked staff to invite a toxicologist and a DHC (or similar) official to weigh in. Committee members did not vote on the amendment during the session; discussion focused on scope, definitions, and whether the exemption should be limited to pesticide uses or remain broader.
