Bill Overview
Title: PROTECT Act of 2022
Description: This bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency to (1) issue a final rule adding perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) with at least one fully fluorinated carbon atom to the list of hazardous air pollutants, and (2) revise the list of air pollution sources within 365 days after issuing the rule to include categories and subcategories of major sources and area sources of PFAS. PFAS are man-made and may have adverse human health effects. A variety of products contain the compounds, such as nonstick cookware or weatherproof clothing.
Sponsors: Rep. Stevens, Haley M. [D-MI-11]
Target Audience
Population: individuals potentially affected by PFAS emissions
Estimated Size: 250000000
- PFAS are widely used in various industries and can be found in a wide range of consumer products, suggesting widespread exposure.
- The chemical properties of PFAS mean they persist in the environment and can accumulate in the human body over time, leading to potential long-term health effects.
- Studies have shown PFAS exposure is linked to adverse health effects such as cancer, liver damage, and immune system effects.
- PFAS contamination is a global issue, affecting air, water, and soil and thus potentially impacting populations worldwide.
- Although PFAS are primarily an environmental concern, anyone using products containing these substances or living near sources of PFAS emissions could be impacted.
Reasoning
- The target population for the policy is large given the widespread use and exposure to PFAS in the U.S., affecting potentially up to 250 million people as estimated from various consumer products and industrial emissions.
- The budget for the policy, with a sizable total over 10 years, will focus on monitoring and regulation which should create a positive, albeit varied, impact on wellbeing across different regions and demographics depending on their proximity to PFAS sources.
- Since exposure levels vary significantly based on location and lifestyle, individuals living near PFAS emitting industries or using PFAS-heavy products are likely to experience a higher impact from policy implementation.
- Implementing this policy will likely affect both those directly in contact with PFAS sources and the general population in terms of environmental and health benefits.
- We anticipate a range of opinions based on personal health, work, and environmental safety views gathered through simulated interviews.
Simulated Interviews
School Teacher (Parkersburg, West Virginia)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm worried about how PFAS might affect my family's health long term.
- Currently, I feel we are not getting enough information about the safety of our environment.
- I support the PROTECT Act because we need regulations to reduce exposure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Retired Engineer (Midland, Michigan)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe this policy is long overdue for the safety of future generations.
- I developed health issues possibly related to PFAS, and regulation is crucial.
- I am hopeful the policy will bring cleaner air regulations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 2 |
Marketing Specialist (Austin, Texas)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am somewhat concerned about the chemicals I might be exposed to at home.
- The PROTECT Act makes me feel a bit more secure about product safety.
- I think we need more education on PFAS in everyday items.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Environmental Scientist (Raleigh, North Carolina)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy aligns with my advocacy work, and I'm excited to see its impact.
- As a scientist, I am concerned about the long-term effects of PFAS.
- We must ensure policies like this are implemented efficiently.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Fisherman (Long Beach, California)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fishing and environmental health are directly linked for my work.
- I support the policy as cleaner waters mean better fish safety.
- My family's health is my top priority; anything improving it is welcome.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 2 |
Healthcare Administrator (Columbus, Ohio)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy is a step in the right direction for public health.
- We need more surveillance of chemical exposures to guide healthcare efforts.
- I believe reduced emissions will positively affect community health.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Restaurant Worker (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 24 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I like knowing more rules are there to protect the environment.
- I am not worried day-to-day about PFAS, but I want cleaner air.
- The policy seems useful, but I hope it is well enforced.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Freelance Writer (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The PROTECT Act reflects my values around sustainability.
- There needs to be ongoing public engagement in these types of initiatives.
- I'm cautiously optimistic about the impact on urban areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Construction Worker (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this policy improves safety standards in our industry.
- There's a lot of talk, but action speaks louder than words.
- I'm supportive but reserve full trust until results are seen.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 2 |
Tech Entrepreneur (San Francisco, California)
Age: 30 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Innovation in policy and tech can advance environmental goals.
- I'm optimistic but want to see measurable impacts from such policies.
- I believe public and private sector collaboration is essential.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $70000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $90000000)
Year 2: $75000000 (Low: $55000000, High: $95000000)
Year 3: $77500000 (Low: $57000000, High: $97000000)
Year 5: $80000000 (Low: $60000000, High: $100000000)
Year 10: $85000000 (Low: $65000000, High: $105000000)
Year 100: $120000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $150000000)
Key Considerations
- The policy requires a complex interplay between federal and state agencies, necessitating thorough coordination.
- Public health benefits are significant considerations, but they may take years to fully materialize.
- Industry pushback and potential legal challenges could delay implementation and increase costs.
- Effective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms are critical for the policy's success.