Bill Overview
Title: Clean Water Standards for PFAS 2.0 Act of 2022
Description: This bill directs the Environmental Protection Agency to develop requirements to (1) limit the discharge of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) into certain waters of the United States, and (2) publish human health water quality criteria for 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. Pappas, Chris [D-NH-1]
Target Audience
Population: People exposed to PFAS through water contamination
Estimated Size: 110000000
- PFAS are widely used in many industrial applications and consumer products, leading to extensive environmental contamination.
- The potential health impacts of PFAS, including cancer, hormone disruption, and immune system effects, suggest a broad population risk.
- Many communities rely on bodies of water that may become contaminated with PFAS through various discharges, meaning residents near industrial sites or military bases are particularly affected.
- Globally, the widespread use of PFAS in manufacturing and consumer goods suggests that a significant portion of the world's population is exposed.
- The legislation aims to mitigate these risks by setting water quality standards, potentially improving health outcomes for those exposed.
Reasoning
- PFAS exposure is a considerable issue across the United States, affecting diverse populations including those in rural, urban, and industrial regions.
- The policy aims to mitigate exposure through regulation, potentially reducing health risks associated with PFAS.
- Those living near sites with higher PFAS discharge will likely experience greater direct benefits from reduced contamination.
- Immutable factors like systemic pollution and varying state participation in enforcing standards may lead to uneven policy impacts.
- The specified budget must be managed across multiple levels including research, enforcement, and community support, which will limit the immediate scope of the policy.
Simulated Interviews
Environmental Scientist (Ann Arbor, Michigan)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I believe stricter regulations on PFAS will significantly improve public health.
- As someone working in environmental science, I see this policy as a crucial step forward.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
High School Teacher (Fayetteville, North Carolina)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I am worried about what contaminants like PFAS could mean for the health of my family.
- I hope the new policy will lead to cleaner water and less worry about health risks.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Software Developer (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 33 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 18/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I wasn't really aware of PFAS before this policy.
- I trust that the government will manage things properly, but I wasn't very concerned to begin with.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Retired Nurse (San Diego, California)
Age: 62 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been concerned about things like PFAS for years, and finally, action is being taken.
- It's too late for some of us, but this policy will protect future generations.
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 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 3 |
Chemical Plant Worker (Houston, Texas)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While the policy is a step in the right direction, PFAS is essential in my industry.
- I hope the policy doesn't overly restrict my job but ensures safer work environments and nearby communities.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Freelance Graphic Designer (Portland, Oregon)
Age: 27 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 16/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm very supportive of any progressive policies focused on cleaning our environment.
- It's refreshing to see these chemicals being addressed at a national level.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Community Organizer (Flint, Michigan)
Age: 39 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- My community knows all too well the dangers of contaminated water.
- This policy is a vital effort towards ensuring safety, but it must be executed effectively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Healthcare Administrator (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania)
Age: 44 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic that the regulations will reduce health issues associated with water contamination.
- This should eventually lessen healthcare burdens, but it's a long-term game.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Fisherman (Wilmington, North Carolina)
Age: 51 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Fish stocks and water health go hand in hand, so PFAS regulation is directly beneficial.
- Good water means good fishing; I hope this policy makes a real difference.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Retired Chemical Engineer (Sacramento, California)
Age: 73 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm certainly aware of the risks given my past work, and this policy is long overdue.
- It may take many years to see the full benefits, but it's a positive direction.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $120000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $150000000)
Year 2: $120000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $150000000)
Year 3: $120000000 (Low: $90000000, High: $150000000)
Year 5: $130000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $160000000)
Year 10: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 100: $200000000 (Low: $150000000, High: $250000000)
Key Considerations
- The extent and variability of PFAS contamination across different states and regions.
- The differing technological capabilities and resources available to industries for compliance.
- The potential public resistance or advocacy pressures that may arise with the implementation of such regulations.