Bill Overview
Title: PFAS Firefighter Protection Act
Description: This bill prohibits, under the Toxic Substances Control Act, the manufacture, import, processing, or distribution in commerce of any aqueous film forming foam for use in training and firefighting that contains a perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substance, commonly referred to as PFAS. These substances are man-made and may have adverse human health effects. No later than October 5, 2024, the bill also requires the prohibition of the use of fluorinated chemicals in firefighting foam at airports.
Sponsors: Rep. Kildee, Daniel T. [D-MI-5]
Target Audience
Population: people exposed to PFAS firefighting foams, including firefighters
Estimated Size: 3000000
- PFAS substances are used globally in firefighting foams, particularly in scenarios involving flammable liquid fires, which are common in aviation and certain industrial settings.
- Studies have shown that PFAS substances can leach into water sources and are linked to significant health risks, including cancer and hormonal disruption. Thus, their restriction will protect general public health beyond firefighting personnel.
- Transitioning away from PFAS-based foams will impact manufacturers of these chemical compounds globally as they will need to reformulate products or cease production.
- Firefighting personnel worldwide will be directly impacted as they will need training and resources to switch to alternative foams.
- Firefighters using PFAS foams are directly exposed, and thus limiting these substances will lessen their long-term health risks.
Reasoning
- The primary population impacted consists of firefighters who are directly exposed to PFAS foams. The general public benefits indirectly as water sources become less contaminated over time.
- Firefighters will need retraining to use new foams, which could initially lead to a learning curve and affect confidence and effectiveness temporarily.
- The policy would particularly affect professionals near airports and chemical industries that use PFAS foams, as their occupational safety and health would improve.
- Socioeconomic variables might cause variations in how different communities are affected; communities near airports with high PFAS use may see greater environmental health benefits.
- The budget constraints suggest an emphasis on initial training and public awareness campaigns about the benefits of changing foams.
- High impact is anticipated on firefighters' health and wellbeing given direct contact, while manufacturers may face challenges due to transitioning production lines.
- Expect variance based on geographical regions; urban areas with larger firefighting infrastructures might see smoother transitions due to better resources.
- People in rural or less industrial settings (where the use of PFAS foams is minimal) may not perceive a significant immediate change.
- The prohibition may lead to increased research and development efforts in the chemical industry, potentially creating new jobs.
Simulated Interviews
Firefighter (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see this change; we've known for a while about how bad these chemicals can be, especially for our health.
- Switching to new foams will require some adjustment, but it's worth it for our safety in the long run.
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 | 9 | 5 |
Foam manufacturing plant manager (Dallas, TX)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The ban will significantly impact our current production, and we'll need to pivot to alternative products.
- It's a blow to us in the short term but might open up new business opportunities eventually.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Volunteer firefighter (Phoenix, AZ)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We don't use much PFAS foam here, so I don't expect a huge impact on my day-to-day work.
- If it helps our health and the environment, I'm all for it.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Airport environmental health officer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 52 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Reducing PFAS levels in local water will significantly improve public health.
- The transition period might be challenging, but the environmental pay-off is worthwhile.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Airport firefighter (Newark, NJ)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about my exposure to these chemicals, so this policy is reassuring.
- Training on new foams will be essential but manageable with proper support.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Chemistry researcher (Miami, FL)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a great step forward, aligning with my research interests.
- I'm hopeful this will lead to more funding for safer alternatives.
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 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Retired chemical engineer (Chicago, IL)
Age: 62 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Having worked with these chemicals, I understand the concerns, though it comes late for my generation.
- It's an essential change for protecting future workers.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Environmental lawyer (Raleigh, NC)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This law could prompt more activism and stricter regulations across other sectors.
- I'm eager to see how it gets enforced and what precedents it sets.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Community health advocate (Boulder, CO)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a victory for public health, particularly for vulnerable communities.
- There needs to be an emphasis on educating these communities about the changes.
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 | 9 | 5 |
Airport ground crew member (Boston, MA)
Age: 30 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I wasn't aware of how harmful these foams might be.
- Happy to hear about healthier alternatives but didn't feel directly impacted.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $55000000 (Low: $33000000, High: $77000000)
Year 3: $57500000 (Low: $34500000, High: $80500000)
Year 5: $60000000 (Low: $36000000, High: $84000000)
Year 10: $65000000 (Low: $39000000, High: $91000000)
Year 100: $75000000 (Low: $45000000, High: $105000000)
Key Considerations
- The need for retrofitting existing firefighting infrastructure to accommodate alternative agents may increase implementation costs.
- Health benefits from reduced PFAS exposure, such as lower cancer rates, will provide intangible human benefits and substantial economic savings over time.
- The transition period will require care to ensure effective firefighting capabilities are maintained, minimizing any potential risks during emergencies.