Bill Overview
Title: PFAS Reference Standards Act
Description: This bill requires the Environmental Protection Agency to require manufacturers of perfluoroalkyl or polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly referred to as PFAS, to submit an analytical reference standard for each PFAS it has manufactured since ten years prior to the enactment of this bill.
Sponsors: Rep. Sarbanes, John P. [D-MD-3]
Target Audience
Population: People potentially exposed to PFAS substances
Estimated Size: 330000000
- PFAS are used in a wide range of consumer products and have been associated with negative health effects, leading to an interest in standardizing their assessment.
- People living near manufacturing plants that produce PFAS may experience contamination of their water or air, making them a primary population impacted.
- Workers in industries that manufacture or utilize PFAS substances might be directly affected by any regulatory changes affecting these substances.
- Individuals consuming products containing PFAS can be affected by changes in these products' composition or manufacturing processes due to regulation.
- There is growing awareness regarding PFAS contamination in drinking water; thus, individuals reliant on such water sources are concerned parties.
- Public health entities and environmental organizations have an interest in regulation concerning PFAS due to the associated health and environmental risks.
Reasoning
- The PFAS Reference Standards Act mainly impacts individuals in proximity to PFAS production locations, users of contaminated water sources, and workers in affected industries.
- The policy's financial constraints suggest that direct impacts will be gradual and mostly concentrated in high-risk areas initially, with broader environmental and health benefits accruing over time.
- There is a diverse range of exposure to PFAS among Americans; therefore, common individuals might not see immediate or high impacts from the policy.
- The diversity of people's economic, environmental, and occupational contexts will affect their experiences and perspectives on the policy.
- With a long-term budget, effects on public health and improved regulations might be more pronounced over several years, rather than immediately.
Simulated Interviews
school teacher (Fayetteville, NC)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've been worried about the quality of our water here for years.
- Any policy that might help clean up the contamination is a good thing.
- I hope it leads to tangible improvements soon, for our health and our children's future.
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 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
chemical engineer (Pittsburgh, PA)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I understand the need for regulation, but I'm worried about how it could impact my job.
- There needs to be a balance between safety and economic impact.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
retired public health official (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 68 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Regulation is long overdue.
- It's a step towards ensuring safer environments for future generations.
- I hope to see improvements in water quality and public health metrics.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
community organizer (Flint, MI)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is important for communities like mine, who've faced water challenges before.
- I just hope it's enforced properly and adequately funded.
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 | 9 | 5 |
industrial worker (Baton Rouge, LA)
Age: 54 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's scary to think of what happens if the plant closes.
- I support safety regulations but hope there are industry supports in place.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
nurse (Newark, NJ)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring that steps are being taken towards safer products.
- I hope it makes a real difference in health outcomes over time.
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 |
student (Austin, TX)
Age: 23 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's crucial for future climate and health sustainability.
- Regulations like this can spearhead positive changes.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
environmental scientist (Cleveland, OH)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm optimistic – this could improve our understanding of PFAS impact.
- It supports crucial research for public safety.
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 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
tech project manager (Seattle, WA)
Age: 36 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I support regulatory controls though I am minimally affected.
- It feels like a good step for broader environmental safety.
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 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
chemical plant manager (Midland, MI)
Age: 41 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I worry about compliance costs impacting our business and employment.
- However, safeguarding health should be a priority.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $150000000 (Low: $120000000, High: $180000000)
Year 2: $130000000 (Low: $110000000, High: $160000000)
Year 3: $120000000 (Low: $100000000, High: $150000000)
Year 5: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $130000000)
Year 10: $90000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $120000000)
Year 100: $50000000 (Low: $40000000, High: $80000000)
Key Considerations
- The establishment and maintenance of a comprehensive registry and database for PFAS may require substantial initial investments.
- Coordination with manufacturers ensures that accurate and high-quality reference standards are submitted.
- Industries may face compliance challenges, affecting their production processes and cost structures.
- The act could prompt technological innovations to comply with new standards, benefiting public health and the environment.