An Act amending the act of October 18, 1988 (P.L.756, No.108), known as the Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act, in preliminary provisions, further providing for definitions and providing for disaster emergen . . .cy declaration and for testing requirement, duty to report and public access; in powers and duties, further providing for powers and duties of department; and, in liability and settlement procedures, further providing for responsible person.
HB574 would amend Pennsylvania’s Hazardous Sites Cleanup Act to expand and clarify how the Commonwealth responds to hazardous substances and emerging contaminants, with a particular focus on PFAS and drinking water contamination. The bill adds PFAS and related perfluorinated substances to the act’s hazardous substance definition, authorizes the Governor to declare a municipality a “special drinking water resource-impacted community” in certain contamination emergencies, and allows the Governor to set temporary alternative drinking water and cleanup standards for those communities.
The bill also creates a reporting and public disclosure framework for public water suppliers. Municipalities would be allowed to require testing for PFAS in local water supplies by ordinance, and affected water suppliers would have to report monthly averages and 12-month rolling averages of detected PFAS compounds to the Department of Environmental Protection, which must post the data publicly. In addition, the bill directs the department to determine within 12 months whether newly regulated drinking-water contaminants should also be designated as hazardous substances under state law.
HB574 would materially broaden the scope of Pennsylvania’s hazardous substance and cleanup laws by expressly including PFAS and by creating a mechanism for the state to respond more quickly to drinking-water contamination emergencies. It would give the Governor new authority to declare impacted communities, establish temporary standards, and make those communities eligible for PENNVEST grants of up to $1 million per impacted water source for treatment, interconnections, alternative water supplies, and related infrastructure. The bill also imposes new testing, reporting, and public-access obligations on public water suppliers and limits liability for municipalities, municipal authorities, and water suppliers when PFAS is present in certain treatment residuals or wastes due to source water or discharge conditions.
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or formal support/opposition in the supplied materials. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a public-health and drinking-water protection bill, with an emphasis on emergency response, transparency, and funding for affected communities. The overall tone of the legislation is proactive and remedial rather than punitive.
The main likely points of contention are the bill’s expansion of the hazardous substance definition to include PFAS, the Governor’s authority to impose temporary standards and declare emergency-impacted communities, and the new reporting obligations placed on public water suppliers. Environmental and public-health advocates would likely support these provisions, while municipalities, water authorities, and regulated entities may be concerned about compliance costs, liability exposure, and the practical effects of state-imposed standards before federal or permanent state limits are finalized. The liability exemption for certain PFAS found in sludge, residuals, or spent media may also be a point of interest because it narrows responsibility for public water entities under specified conditions.