A BILL TO AMEND THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE OF LAWS BY ADDING SECTION 48-6-90 SO AS TO REQUIRE THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS PROHIBITING THE DISCHARGE OF CERTAIN CHEMICALS INTO THE STATE'S WATERWAYS AND DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES.
Summary
H3116 would add a new section to the South Carolina Code requiring the Department of Environmental Services to adopt regulations within 180 days that prohibit the discharge of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), including PFOA and PFOS, into the state’s waterways and drinking water supplies. The bill is aimed at preventing contamination from these persistent chemicals by setting a statewide regulatory prohibition on their discharge into surface water and drinking water sources.
The measure also authorizes the Department of Environmental Services to enforce the new rules under existing water pollution enforcement authority and to coordinate with the Department of Public Health, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Commerce. The act would take effect July 1, 2025, and would expand state environmental regulation by specifically targeting PFAS contamination in water resources.
Impact
This bill would create a new statutory mandate in Title 48 requiring environmental regulators to issue rules addressing PFAS discharges, thereby strengthening South Carolina’s authority over chemical contamination in waterways and drinking water. It would affect regulated entities that discharge into state waters, including industrial and other potential sources of PFAS, and would likely require compliance changes, monitoring, and enforcement actions under existing water quality laws.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the bill appears to be framed as a public health and environmental protection measure with no recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials. The overall sentiment is therefore best characterized as precautionary and protective, focused on reducing exposure to harmful chemicals in drinking water and waterways.
Contention
No specific points of contention are documented in the provided transcripts or voting history. Potential areas of concern, if raised in future debate, would likely involve the scope of the discharge prohibition, the feasibility and cost of compliance for regulated industries, enforcement capacity at the Department of Environmental Services, and how the rule would interact with existing water quality and public health standards.