Committee advances memorial asking agencies to review PFAS exemptions amid active rulemaking
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
House Joint Memorial 3 asks state agencies to study whether PFAS exemptions in the PFAS Protection Act are safe for people and the environment. Industry groups warned the memorial's draft could conflict with the statute and influence active rulemaking; the committee advanced the memorial 8–2.
Representative Guerrilla presented House Joint Memorial 3 asking state agencies to review statutory exemptions and related materials to determine whether existing exceptions in the PFAS Protection Act and related law are protective of public health and the environment. The memorial seeks a stakeholder‑informed review and report back to the legislature.
Why it matters: The item arises amid active rulemaking and after passage last session of the PFAS Protection Act. Sponsors said the memorial would earmark department resources and convene stakeholders to ensure legislators receive robust information before any further action.
Industry and public responses: Jason Espinosa of the American Chemistry Council opposed the memorial’s current draft, warning it contains language inconsistent with the statute (for example, suggesting mandatory labeling where the statute gives discretionary authority to the Environmental Improvement Board) and could create regulatory confusion during active EIB rulemaking. Other speakers, including teachers and affected members of the public, urged study and better data on sources and health impacts of PFAS and related microplastics.
Committee debate and action: Committee members debated whether a memorial was necessary versus a committee request or interim review; departmental staff argued a memorial ensures resources and a coordinated stakeholder kickoff and deliverable before year‑end. The committee voted 8–2 to advance the memorial with a do‑pass recommendation.
What remains unresolved: Stakeholders asked for careful, science‑based, multi‑stakeholder processes and for clarifications so the memorial does not prejudge regulatory outcomes or conflict with existing statute. The department committed to a transparent process and to report back before the end of the calendar year.