Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pfas Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Industry warns House Joint Memorial 3 could conflict with PFAS Protection Act; department urges rulemaking process
Summary
House Joint Memorial 3, asking the Environment Department and Environmental Improvement Board to reexamine PFAS rulemaking, drew opposition from the American Chemistry Council for alleged inaccuracies; the department said rulemaking is scheduled and the EIB has statutory authority to consider labeling under the PFAS Protection Act.
House Joint Memorial 3, which asks the Environment Department and the Environmental Improvement Board (EIB) to reexamine implementation of the PFAS Protection Act, prompted a split in the subcommittee between industry concern and agency assurances.
Jason Espinosa, speaking for the American Chemistry Council, testified in opposition and said the memorial as drafted contains "inaccuracies and inconsistencies with house bill 212, which enacted the PFAS Protection Act," and warned those drafting differences could influence active rulemaking and implementation. "These inconsistencies matter because the EIB is currently about to engage in active rulemaking," he told the subcommittee.
The Environment Department secretary responded that the department and the EIB have the authority granted by the PFAS Protection Act to consider labeling where necessary and that active rulemaking is scheduled to begin Feb. 23 and run through March 6. The secretary framed the departments proposed rules as an effort to implement the legislatures intent and said the memorial requests a reassessment in light of federal regulatory changes.
Senator Lopez moved for a due‑pass recommendation for the memorial; the subcommittee recorded its recommendation and will forward it to the full committee for a formal vote. Committee discussion noted potential impacts to rural communities where PFAS contamination has affected water and agricultural operations.
The subcommittees record preserves both the industrys concerns about statutory interpretation and the departments view that rulemaking and the EIB process are the proper avenue for resolving technical issues.
