HB 1389 establishes a specific liability and cleanup framework for PFAS facilities. It defines PFAS and related chemical terms in state law and provides that an owner or operator of a PFAS facility is subject to federal closure and decommissioning requirements when a PFAS release results in groundwater or surface water contamination at or above 500 parts per trillion for PFAS compounds with established ambient groundwater standards. The bill also applies these requirements to persons who owned or operated the facility at the time of the release.
The bill directs that the federal regulations in 40 CFR 265.111 and 265.114 govern the closure, removal from service, or decommissioning of tanks, piping, containers, manufacturing equipment, waste or wastewater treatment infrastructure, air pollution control devices, and building surfaces associated with PFAS handling. It also clarifies that the new language does not limit existing liability provisions in RSA 147-B:10 and RSA 147-B:10-a for PFAS releases otherwise covered by those sections.
Impact
HB 1389 would amend RSA 147-B by adding and revising PFAS definitions and by creating a more explicit statutory basis for PFAS facility liability tied to contamination thresholds and federal hazardous-waste closure standards. The bill would affect owners, operators, and former owners/operators of PFAS facilities, as well as facilities that handle PFAS-containing materials or wastes. It would expand the state’s regulatory and enforcement framework for PFAS contamination by linking state liability to federal decommissioning and cleanup requirements.
Sentiment
Based on the available information, the bill appears to have a generally protective, enforcement-oriented purpose rather than a controversial policy reversal. The sponsorship pattern suggests support from multiple House and Senate members, and the Judiciary Committee referral indicates the bill is being considered as a legal-liability measure. No votes or committee transcript excerpts were provided, so there is no recorded floor or committee sentiment beyond the bill’s apparent intent to strengthen PFAS accountability.
Contention
The main likely point of contention is the scope of liability imposed on PFAS facility owners and operators, especially the inclusion of former owners/operators at the time of release and the use of a 500 parts per trillion contamination threshold. Another possible issue is the bill’s incorporation of federal closure and decommissioning rules into state law, which may raise concerns about compliance costs, cleanup obligations, and the breadth of facilities and infrastructure covered. Supporters are likely to emphasize public health and groundwater protection, while opponents may focus on regulatory burden and retroactive or expanded liability exposure.
Limiting breast surgeries for minors, relative to residential care and health facility licensing, and relative to the collection and reporting of abortion statistics by health care providers and medical facilities.
Requiring licensure of outpatient substance use disorder treatment facilities and relative to complaint investigation of treatment facilities by the department of health and human services office of the ombudsman and making an appropriation therefor.
Relative to parental access to a minor child's medical records, relative to refusal of consent to testing to determine alcohol concentration and penalties for aggravated driving while intoxicated, defining pre-sequestration timber tax revenue, establishing a moratorium on carbon sequestration and establishing a commission to study the effects of carbon sequestration in New Hampshire forests upon state and local tax revenue, effective forest management, and the health of New Hampshires logging industry.