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: Sen. Gillibrand, Kirsten E. [D-NY]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals exposed to PFAS-contaminated water
Estimated Size: 10000000
- PFAS are chemicals used in a variety of consumer goods and have been found in water supplies around the world.
- Many populations globally rely on water sources that may be contaminated by PFAS due to industrial activities.
- The health effects of PFAS contamination can impact anyone consuming or utilizing affected water.
- The WHO and other agencies have recognized PFAS contamination as a global issue affecting millions of people.
Reasoning
- PFAS contamination in water supplies is a significant concern because it can affect both urban and rural communities that rely on local water sources.
- The policy will primarily impact industrial areas and nearby residential communities where PFAS levels are higher due to manufacturing processes.
- The budget for this policy allows for considerable intervention, but it may still only cover certain regions comprehensively.
- In rural areas where water sources can be less effectively monitored, the policy's impact may be less immediately noticeable to residents.
- People working in industries heavily reliant on PFAS will likely see changes both in regulation compliance costs and potentially in health outcomes.
- Due to the varied geographical distribution of PFAS contamination, some people will experience significant improvements in wellbeing, while others may not notice any change.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (Flint, Michigan)
Age: 32 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about the long-term health effects on her children due to water contamination.
- Believes the policy is necessary to 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 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Chemical Plant Worker (Houston, Texas)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Worried about job security but acknowledges the need for safer environmental standards.
- Hopeful that cleaner standards will improve community health.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired Farmer (Des Moines, Iowa)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 3
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Feels helpless regarding water quality but optimistic about regulation change.
- Supports governmental action to clean local water sources.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 3 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 3 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 3 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 2 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 2 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 1 |
Environmental Scientist (Miami, Florida)
Age: 24 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sees the policy as a victory for science-backed regulation.
- Worried about potential unintended consequences for industrial jobs.
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 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Startup Entrepreneur (San Francisco, California)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Believes the policy will spur innovation in alternative materials.
- Positive about environmental impacts, though anticipates growing pains for some sectors.
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 |
Water Treatment Specialist (Columbus, Ohio)
Age: 40 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sees the policy as essential for public health improvement.
- Worried about the cost implications for local water treatment plants.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Barista (Seattle, Washington)
Age: 28 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- A strong supporter of all policies aimed at environmental protection.
- Hopes this policy sets a precedent for tackling other environmental issues.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 6 |
Nurse (Buffalo, New York)
Age: 59 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 8.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Focuses on the potential health improvements from cleaner water.
- Concerned about the pace of policy implementation and its immediate effects.
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 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Retired Ecology Professor (Burlington, Vermont)
Age: 75 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Feels vindicated by the government's acknowledgment of PFAS issues.
- Believes this is a critical step for environmental remediation.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Industrial Engineer (Riverside, California)
Age: 38 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Concerned about potential job impacts but supports action on health grounds.
- Anticipates increased operational costs but sees long-term benefits.
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 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $400000000, High: $600000000)
Year 2: $450000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $550000000)
Year 3: $450000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $550000000)
Year 5: $550000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $600000000)
Year 10: $600000000 (Low: $500000000, High: $700000000)
Year 100: $1000000000 (Low: $900000000, High: $1100000000)
Key Considerations
- Coordination with state and local water authorities is crucial for effective implementation.
- Potential pushback from industries that utilize PFAS heavily may require negotiations or concessions.
- Balancing environmental benefits with economic impacts, particularly in affected industries, is essential.