Bill Overview
Title: To require the Comptroller General of the United States to study radiological contamination in Coldwater Creek, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to report on efforts to reduce health impacts from radiological contamination near Coldwater Creek in Missouri. The GAO must install signage to inform residents and visitors of potential exposure risks in the areas where remediation efforts have not been completed.
Sponsors: Rep. Bush, Cori [D-MO-1]
Target Audience
Population: People living in and around Coldwater Creek in Missouri
Estimated Size: 100000
- Coldwater Creek is located in Missouri, within the United States, so the primary target population will be the people living or visiting this area.
- The bill focuses on reducing health impacts from radiological contamination, indicating that those who are at risk of exposure will be directly impacted.
- Radiological contamination may affect all age groups, but children and pregnant women are often more susceptible to harmful effects.
- There has been prior historical concern and assessment of Coldwater Creek area for environmental contamination, indicating the presence of an established population at risk.
- Given that signage and information dissemination is a key aspect of the bill, it indirectly suggests the importance of educating both residents and visitors about the risks.
Reasoning
- The target population is primarily around North St. Louis County, Missouri, which includes cities like Florissant, Hazelwood, and Black Jack. Hence, the primary group affected by the policy will be residents of these areas who are at risk due to radiological contamination from Coldwater Creek.
- Budget considerations involve about $2 million in the first year largely for GAO efforts and signage implementation, with a long-term budget spanning ten years. This indicates the policy may initially focus on awareness and gradually move to comprehensive remediation over time.
- Given the policy's focus, the impact will probably be medium to high for those directly at risk (e.g., individuals living very close to the contamination site) and low to none for those farther away or not frequently exposed.
- A variety of demographics including families, elderly individuals, and workers in the area will help us assess the broader societal implications. The signs aim at raising awareness more than offering immediate physical remediation, so understanding how people interpret this information is crucial.
Simulated Interviews
Nurse (Florissant, Missouri)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've heard about the contamination but was never sure how serious it was. Having official signs will at least let us make informed decisions.
- I'm worried about my kids playing in local parks. If the policy can highlight safe zones, it could ease some concern.
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 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired Military (Hazelwood, Missouri)
Age: 50 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate finally getting some notices. We've been left in the dark for too long.
- As an outdoor enthusiast, I wish there was more direct cleanup like in other contaminant areas.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
School Teacher (Black Jack, Missouri)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As someone involved with children, this policy provides necessary information to keep them safe.
- It’s good to see action, but I fear the signs might just scare parents without further substantial cleanup.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Environmental Scientist (St. Louis, Missouri)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It’s a step forward, but signs aren't enough. We need a thorough assessment and priority on cleanup.
- Education is great but might not change much if root problems stay unsolved.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Factory Worker (St. Ann, Missouri)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The signs are a start but don’t address the health issues already in the community.
- It feels like a band-aid on a bullet hole.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Stay-at-home Parent (Florissant, Missouri)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Information from the signs will be helpful to keep my family as safe as possible.
- It's a small comfort, knowing that they are taking the issue seriously now.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Warehouse Worker (Berkeley, Missouri)
Age: 59 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The thought of contamination bothers me, so anything informative is appreciated.
- Wish they'd offer medical check-ups or some therapy for folks at risk.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Marketing Professional (Nearby County)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I wasn’t too aware of the specifics until now. Signage would definitely keep me cautious when visiting.
- I wonder how widespread the risks are.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Student (University City, Missouri)
Age: 21 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good for public awareness and can kickstart larger initiatives.
- I feel the policy's limited, but as a student, it's educational and sparks local interest.
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 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Retired Teacher (Bridgeton, Missouri)
Age: 70 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We've seen these issues being talked about for decades—action speaks louder than signs.
- I would have loved to see more assurances on cleanup rather than just warnings.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $2000000 (Low: $1500000, High: $2500000)
Year 2: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 3: $1500000 (Low: $1000000, High: $2000000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $750000, High: $1500000)
Year 10: $500000 (Low: $250000, High: $750000)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The primary cost drivers include research and signage installation costs.
- The main savings from the bill are expected through prevention of health-related expenses and improved community outreach.
- It is crucial to balance the immediate fiscal expenditure with long-term public health and informational benefits.
- Potential legal and logistical hurdles in executing signage installation on potentially private or contested land ownership must be considered.