Relative to liability for the cost of PFAS blood testing.
If enacted, HB 1707 could significantly impact existing environmental laws in New Hampshire by adding stringent liability measures for PFAS contamination. Particularly, it would amend parts of the New Hampshire Safe Drinking Water Act to ensure that those responsible for contamination are accountable for the health implications of their operations. This means there will be legal expectations for stricter compliance regarding testing and remediation efforts related to PFAS, directly affecting industries and facilities that handle these substances.
House Bill 1707 addresses the liability for the costs associated with PFAS blood testing. This legislation mandates that individuals or entities owning or operating facilities where PFAS has been released, resulting in groundwater or surface water contamination at specified levels, will be held strictly liable for the expenses of blood tests for affected individuals. The bill clearly defines PFAS, establishes liability parameters, and sets out conditions under which individuals are entitled to testing costs, particularly focusing on properties near contaminated sites.
The sentiment surrounding HB 1707 appears to be generally supportive among health advocacy groups and environmentalists who see it as a necessary step toward safeguarding public health. However, there could be some contention from businesses or facilities affected by the liabilities, as they may view this as an additional financial burden. The bill seems to illustrate a growing recognition of the importance of addressing PFAS contamination, which has become a significant public health concern.
Notable points of contention include the determination of what constitutes a PFAS facility and the strict liability clause that could potentially impose heavy financial burdens on facility operators. Critics may argue that this could lead to an undue economic strain on businesses, especially those inadvertently affected by older contamination that predates their ownership. Additionally, the bill does not specify mechanisms for enforcement or administrative support from the state, which raises questions about its practical implementation.