Hawaii House Bill HCR209

Hawaii 2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/8/24
• Refer: 3/14/24

Caption

Urging Every State Agency That Monitors Environmental Toxins And Pollutants To Follow Certain Procedural And Substantive Requirements For The Establishment And Modifications Of Environmental Action Levels.

Impact

If adopted, HCR209 would enforce a structured approach for state agencies, mandating that any changes to EALs must be scientifically justified and allow for public comment and hearings. This resolution promotes accountability and emphasizes the public's right to be informed about environmental risks. Additionally, by mandating these changes, it aims to align Hawaii's toxin monitoring practices with best scientific practices and regulations observed at the federal level. The resolution also calls for the inclusion of mechanisms that will permit residents to petition for modifications in EALs, thereby fostering a participatory approach in environmental health governance.

Summary

HCR209 is a House Concurrent Resolution introduced in the State of Hawaii's Thirty-second Legislature in 2024, aimed at urging state agencies, particularly the Department of Health, to adopt specific procedural and substantive standards when establishing and modifying environmental action levels (EALs) for monitoring toxins and pollutants. The resolution highlights that there are currently no standardized requirements for these actions, which raises concerns about potential increases in pollution without appropriate public transparency or justification. A notable instance cited involved the 2023 increase of EALs for certain per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) without prior public notice or scientific explanation, illustrating a lack of procedural safeguards in place.

Contention

While supporters view HCR209 as a necessary step to enhance public health and environmental safety, potential opposition could arise from those concerned about the impact on the flexibility of state agencies to respond swiftly to environmental threats. The proposal may also face scrutiny regarding the balance between regulatory rigor and the efficiency of environmental management. Critics might argue that strict procedural requirements could hinder rapid modifications necessary to address urgent public health or environmental concerns.