Bill Overview
Title: Preventing PFAS Runoff at Airports Act
Description: This act temporarily allows the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to cover 100% of the costs for airports to purchase and deploy equipment to test fire suppression systems that contain perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) without discharging such substances. (PFAS are manmade substances and may have adverse human health effects.) The FAA must also (1) conduct outreach to inform airports of the availability of the increased cost-sharing; and (2) brief Congress on options to reimburse airports that acquired equipment without, or with reduced, federal funding and other matters.
Sponsors: Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
Target Audience
Population: People living near and working at airports dealing with PFAS
Estimated Size: 12000000
- PFAS are used in fire-fighting foams at airports, so direct exposure can occur to both workers handling these foams and individuals living near airports where runoff may contaminate local environments.
- The presence of PFAS in the environment and water supplies has been associated with adverse health effects.
- Airports around the world use fire suppression systems containing PFAS, meaning the legislation could impact airports internationally if similar policies are adopted.
- Communities near airports will benefit from reduced contamination risk.
Reasoning
- The policy aims to address PFAS contamination, which is a critical environmental and health concern due to its persistence and potential to affect a large population through water and soil contamination.
- Target populations include workers directly handling PFAS-contained systems and individuals living near airports, making up a significant portion of the population due to the widespread use of these substances.
- The program is cost-sensitive, requiring efficient allocation of funds across numerous airports while maximizing the reduction of environmental and health risks.
- Given the policy's budget constraints, priority will likely be given to airports with significant PFAS contamination issues or in densely populated areas to ensure the greatest impact on public health.
Simulated Interviews
Airport firefighter (Chicago, IL)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's great that they're finally doing something about PFAS. We've needed better equipment to test these systems for a long time.
- I'm concerned about my health and my colleagues' health due to the exposure.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Resident near the airport (Dallas, TX)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm hopeful that this policy helps reduce contamination in the area.
- It's about time someone does something about this issue.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 3 |
Farmer (Rural part of Pennsylvania)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While this policy addresses part of the issue, I worry it's not enough for rural communities like mine.
- We need more comprehensive solutions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 3 |
Environmental scientist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 28 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This is a significant step forward, but we need policies that extend beyond airports.
- Comprehensive regulation of PFAS is necessary across multiple industries.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Airport maintenance supervisor (Miami, FL)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad to see funding for safer equipment and testing. It will make a big difference for us.
- I hope the policy also encourages better industry practices overall.
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 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Public health advocate (Flint, MI)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like this are crucial for preventing further public health crises.
- Regulating these chemicals at the airport level is a start, but we need nationwide enforcement.
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 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Commercial pilot (Seattle, WA)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's reassuring to see efforts in place to handle PFAS responsibly at airports.
- As someone who travels a lot, knowing airports are becoming safer is a relief.
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 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Airport operations manager (San Diego, CA)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This funding will help us improve our systems significantly and ensure safety without harming the environment.
- It's a necessary change for airports globally.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Chemist working with environmental agencies (Denver, CO)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Addressing PFAS at airports could greatly reduce land and water contamination.
- I'd like to see more funding directed towards PFAS research and removal techniques.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Retired teacher living near airport (Newark, NJ)
Age: 59 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen my community affected by environmental issues for years. This policy provides some hope.
- It's vital for our local government to continue monitoring these issues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $100000000 (Low: $80000000, High: $120000000)
Year 2: $90000000 (Low: $70000000, High: $110000000)
Year 3: $40000000 (Low: $30000000, High: $50000000)
Year 5: $10000000 (Low: $8000000, High: $12000000)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- The bill requires initial significant federal spending, which may impact the federal budget deficit temporarily.
- Addressing PFAS contamination aligns with environmental and public health priorities, potentially reducing long-term liabilities.
- Technology readiness for testing without discharge is crucial for effective implementation; advancements in technology might affect future costs and savings.
- As the policy addresses a federally regulated domain, coordination with state and local agencies will be necessary for effective execution.