Georgia lawmakers hear bill to shield PFAS ‘receivers’ from suits as residents and regulators warn of contamination costs

Representative Carpenter presented House Bill 2 11 to a Georgia House committee on HB 211, saying the measure aims to “focus attention on these chemical manufacturers” and to protect businesses that received PFAS-containing products from litigation so they can continue to operate.

The bill’s sponsor, Representative Carpenter, told the committee, “Ladies and gentlemen, I come before you today to present house bill 2 11.” He described the proposal as aimed at protecting workers and manufacturing jobs in northwest Georgia and across the state.

Mark Rogers, deputy general counsel for litigation at Mohawk, described the bill to the committee as a way to protect companies that received PFAS products from endless suits. He said the measure “protects people, who are in the second and third categories who received the products and have to clean it up from litigation right now, without willful misconduct.” Rogers also described Mohawk as a large regional employer and provided economic figures for plants in northwest Georgia.

The bill, described by supporters as the “PFAS receiver shield act,” would create a statutory shield for entities that received, applied or otherwise handled PFAS-containing materials, except in cases of willful misconduct as defined in the bill (the sponsor said that definition was modeled on the workers’ compensation willful-misconduct standard). The sponsor and some industry witnesses said the shield is intended to leave personal-injury claims intact and to preserve the Environmental Protection Division’s (EPD) regulatory role.

Opponents told the committee the bill is premature and overly broad. April Lipscomb, senior attorney at the Southern Environmental Law Center, said PFAS are widespread and that “98 percent of Americans have PFAS in their blood,” arguing the legislation could disincentivize manufacturers from stopping use of the chemicals. City and water authority representatives including Andrew Davis told the committee that local governments and ratepayers already face costs for testing and treatment and that immunity for downstream companies could leave communities unable to recover remediation costs from responsible parties.

Residents from Dalton and Whitfield County described personal and property impacts. Amber Fletcher said her family’s creek tested at 7,684 parts per trillion for total PFAS, a dug pond sample tested 81 parts per trillion and on-site soil tested 32,490 parts per trillion; she said the contamination has left her worried about health and property values. Several long-time workers and former employees of carpet mills and textile plants testified about exposure and illnesses they and colleagues have experienced.

Business groups and trade associations urged passage. Britney Hall, vice president for government affairs at the Georgia Association of Manufacturers, and Trey Paris, counsel for the Georgia Paper and Forest Products Association, argued HB 211 would protect thousands of Georgia manufacturing jobs and prevent “meritless lawsuits” from forcing plant closures or job losses. Industry witnesses also said other states’ proposals generally focus on municipal treatment works and landfills, and that extending broad immunity to downstream manufacturers would be unusual.

Legal and procedural questions surfaced in committee exchanges. Several members asked whether the bill would effectively rewrite rights mid-litigation, whether its willful-misconduct standard is too high, and how apportionment or the “empty chair” defense would operate if suppliers remain in litigation while downstream businesses obtain statutory immunity. One outside counsel warned the committee that retroactive or vested-rights issues could arise if the bill reaches pending claims.

Anya Trishinsk, chief of the Watershed Protection Branch at the Georgia Environmental Protection Division, told the committee that EPD is tracking federal actions and preparing to adopt federal drinking-water rules. She said the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency finalized maximum contaminant levels for a narrow set of PFAS in April 2024 and that Georgia, to retain Safe Drinking Water Act primacy, must promulgate consistent rules by April 2026. She also said EPA has proposed methods for PFAS monitoring in wastewater and biosolids and that analytical methods are still evolving.

EPD described current state tools: the agency can enforce using general water-quality criteria and has used consent orders in at least one recent case (a no-penalty consent order tied to protection of the Raccoon Creek watershed near Summerville). Trishinsk said EPD’s monitoring and the EPA surveys have identified roughly 30–40 public water systems that may need treatment or alternate sources because of PFAS detections.

Committee members and lawyers also debated the public-policy trade-offs: supporters said the measure protects legacy manufacturing and the rural jobs those plants supply, while opponents said immunity would reduce incentives for manufacturers and suppliers to stop using PFAS or to pay for cleanup. Several witnesses noted that two long-chain PFAS chemicals (PFOA and PFOS) are no longer manufactured domestically, but that thousands of PFAS-related compounds exist and that some uses remain critical to aviation, medical devices and other sectors.

The committee did not take a vote. Chairman Smith said the session was a hearing only and that members would not vote that day.