Environment and natural resources; creating the Oklahoma Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances Act; providing application, liability, and fee assessment for certain waste disposal. Emergency.
SB 271 creates the Oklahoma Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Act and establishes a new state framework for handling PFAS and PFAS-containing aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) waste. The bill defines PFAS, AFFF, and AFFF waste, and then provides civil liability protections for certain “protected passive receivers” of PFAS that provide essential public services, including public water systems, wastewater treatment works, municipalities with stormwater permits, wholesale water agencies, certain contractors, fire-suppression system users, airport sponsors using AFFF under FAA guidance, and solid waste facilities receiving routine municipal waste with incidental PFAS.
The liability exemption is limited. It does not apply when a PFAS release results from a material violation of applicable legal requirements or accepted engineering standards, and it does not shield conduct involving gross negligence or willful misconduct. The bill also directs the Environmental Quality Board to adopt rules governing the receipt, storage, treatment, and disposal of PFAS, including a waste exclusion plan, and requires anyone accepting AFFF waste to demonstrate that its handling is protective of human health and the environment.
SB 271 further requires the Board to establish a fee schedule for applications to dispose of AFFF waste and for disposal itself, with those fees replacing tonnage fees and being deposited into the Department of Environmental Quality Revolving Fund. It also creates an application-and-authorization requirement for any person or entity seeking to receive, store, treat, or dispose of more than 200 pounds of AFFF waste per day, while allowing the Department to waive requirements in limited circumstances where no feasible alternative exists and environmental risk is not increased.
The bill also addresses interstate waste handling by requiring AFFF waste imported from or transported from another state to keep the same classification it would have in the state of origin unless that classification is less protective than Oklahoma’s standards. If the waste is banned from disposal in the state of origin, it is generally banned in Oklahoma as well, subject to a narrow exception for states that are effectively banned only because they lack permitted hazardous waste landfills. The bill declares an emergency, indicating it would take effect immediately upon passage and approval.
Overall, the bill appears aimed at balancing environmental protection with operational certainty for water, wastewater, fire protection, airport, and waste-management entities that may encounter PFAS contamination through routine service activities. The available context shows no recorded votes or committee discussion, so there is no documented public debate in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s structure, the main policy tension is between limiting liability for passive receivers and preserving accountability for improper PFAS handling, while also controlling how PFAS waste is stored, transported, and disposed of in Oklahoma.
SB 271 would add new provisions to Title 27A of the Oklahoma Statutes by creating the Oklahoma PFAS Act, establishing liability protections, regulatory duties, fee authority, and permitting requirements for PFAS and AFFF waste. It would require the Environmental Quality Board and the Department of Environmental Quality to develop rules, criteria, and a fee schedule, and it would create a new authorization process for higher-volume AFFF waste handling. The bill would also affect public utilities, municipalities, wastewater and solid waste operators, airport sponsors, fire-suppression system users, and waste facilities by setting standards for PFAS-related releases and disposal practices.
The bill’s apparent sentiment is generally supportive of environmental management and public-service operations, with a practical focus on clarifying responsibility for PFAS contamination and creating a regulated disposal pathway for AFFF waste. Because no committee transcript or vote record is provided, there is no direct evidence of opposition or support in the legislative record included here. The bill’s emergency clause suggests the sponsor viewed the issue as urgent, likely due to public health and environmental concerns surrounding PFAS contamination.
The main points of contention are likely to center on the scope of liability protection and the burden of new regulatory requirements. Entities such as water systems, wastewater treatment works, municipalities, airports, and solid waste facilities are protected from civil liability only when they are passive receivers acting within legal and engineering standards, while manufacturers remain liable and gross negligence or willful misconduct is not shielded. Another likely issue is the new fee and authorization structure for AFFF waste disposal, which could raise concerns about cost, administrative burden, and whether Oklahoma should accept imported PFAS waste under the bill’s interstate classification rules.