The California State Legislature last month introduced Senate Bill 682 (SB 682), which would eventually prohibit the sale and distribution of products that contain intentionally added PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances), including most f-gas uses in 2033.
State Senator Ben Allen (Democrat, Senate District 24) introduced the bill on February 21, and it is scheduled to be heard by the Senate Environmental Quality Committee on April 2. If enacted the bill would be one of the most aggressive regulations on PFAS pollution in the U.S., along with regulations set by Maine and Minnesota.
PFAS as a class, which includes more than 10,000 substances, are known as “forever chemicals” for their persistence and durability. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established drinking water regulations for some PFAS last year and declared two PFAS, PFOA and PFOS, to be hazardous chemicals. PFOA and PFOS have been linked to a number of adverse health impacts, including certain cancers, reproductive issues, developmental problems, and immune system effects. The EPA under the new Trump administration appears to be reassessing its approach to PFAS regulation.
California’s SB 682 would, beginning January 1, 2027, prohibit targeted PFAS-containing products such as cleaning products, cookware, dental floss, juvenile products, food packaging and ski wax. This bill would also, beginning January 1, 2033, more broadly prohibit the sale and distribution of any other product that contains intentionally added PFAS unless the department has made a determination that the use of PFAS in the product “is a currently unavoidable use, the prohibition is preempted by federal law, or the product is previously used.”
The 2033 prohibition would cover most uses of f-gases such as HFO-1234yf and HFO-1234ze(E) that fall under the definition of PFAS used by California, other states and the EU (but not the EPA). This definition states that PFAS “means a class of fluorinated organic chemicals containing at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom.” It would also include trifluoroacetic acid (TFA), an atmospheric by-product of certain f-gases, notably HFO-1234yf, which undergoes 100% conversion to TFA in a few weeks. TFA, which has been found in human blood, is considered a potentially harmful chemical.
“I’m hopeful the bill will go further this year than last year.”
Anna Reade, NRDC
Beginning January 1, 2040, the bill would prohibit sales and distribution of certain PFAS refrigerant uses not covered in the 2032 bans: refrigeration below −50°C (−58°F); laboratory test and measurement equipment; and a refrigerated centrifuge. The 2040 ban would also cover fluorinated gases used for the maintenance and refilling of installed equipment for heating, venting and air-conditioning products.
The 2040 prohibitions target refrigerant uses identified by the EU in its consideration of PFAS regulations “to need a longer time to transition,” said Anna Reade, Senior Scientist & Director, PFAS Advocacy, for the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a U.S.-based environmental advocacy group that is working with the California government on SB 682. These products may also be exempted if they are determined to be a currently unavoidable use, preempted by federal law, or previously used.
In 2022, California enacted regulations, AB 1817 and AB 2771, that banned sale and distribution of PFAS-containing textile articles and cosmetic products, respectively, beginning January 1, 2025.
As the most populous U.S. state with more than 39 million residents, California has an outsized impact on the U.S. economy, and its environmental regulations are often viewed as a standard for other states to emulate. In 2020 California finalized ambitious HFC regulations that limit many new applications to a 100-year GWP of 150. It updated the regulations in 2022.
Lowering costs
Last year California’s legislature considered a bill, SB 903, that was similar to SB 682 but was not passed. One issue was the implementation cost that would be borne by California’s Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). “We have been working with the Department of Toxic Substances Control since last year on cost-saving measures to lower implementation burden on DTSC,” said Reade. “I’m hopeful the bill will go further this year than last year.”
Last year’s bill also faced considerable industry opposition. To counter that factor, proponents of SB 682 have obtained the support of the American Sustainable Business Network (ASBN). “More and more businesses have come to understand that PFAS chemicals are a class of chemicals that are threatening our environment and public health and therefore threatening our economy,” wrote David Levine, Cofounder and President of the ASBN, in a letter sent to the California Environmental Quality Committee on March 13.
The bill also has the endorsement of the California Association of Sanitation Agencies and a few health groups and “we hope to build on this as the bill progresses,” said Reade. Stakeholders who wish to support the bill can contact Reade at nrdcinfo@nrdc.org.
