Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pfas Waiver topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reviews proposed time‑limited waiver for banned fluorinated containers
Summary
Agency staff proposed a statutory waiver process allowing time‑limited exemptions (up to 10 years) for certain industrial uses of fluorinated containers; stakeholders urged more review time and shorter terms, and committee agreed to include the language in the next draft.
The Senate Natural Resources committee reviewed new draft language that would create a regulated, time‑limited process for manufacturers to seek exemptions from an upcoming ban on certain fluorinated containers.
Matt Adam, speaking for the record, outlined a procedure that would let manufacturers apply to the agency of natural resources for an "unavoidable use" waiver, subject to notice-and-comment and an appeals process, and limited to terms the agency sets (the draft allows waivers up to 10 years). "This is a process statute," Adam said, adding that it is intended as a bridge until alternatives are available and that the agency and attorney general are aligned on the approach.
Committee members asked how many entities would likely apply; Adam said he did not expect hundreds and pointed to precision manufacturing and semiconductor uses as the most likely applicants. He also confirmed waivers would be time‑bound and that the agency could set shorter durations.
Paul Burns, introduced for the record as "Paul Burns, executive director," told the committee he received the draft within the previous 24 hours and urged more time for national expert consultation. He said that because the ban phases take effect in 2030 and 2032, the committee could consider refinements during the next biennium, and suggested a shorter waiver term—five years rather than 10—would be more appropriate.
Others on the committee said they valued certainty for industry as well as environmental protections and that the waiver is narrow and contingent on a showing that no alternative exists. The chair said the draft language will be included in the next version circulated to the committee; no vote was taken.
The committee also discussed consistency with other chapters that regulate per‑ and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), and the attorney general's request to align enforcement tools (certificate-of-compliance provisions) across those chapters. The review will continue when the committee reconvenes and a new draft is posted.
