Bill Overview
Title: Federal PFAS Research Evaluation Act
Description: This bill requires various studies and reports on the exposure, hazards, and management of perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances, commonly referred to as PFAS. These substances are man-made and may have adverse human health effects. A variety of products contain the compounds, such as nonstick cookware or weatherproof clothing. Specifically, the bill requires the National Science Foundation (NSF) to enter into an agreement with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM) to conduct a two-phase study and report on the research and development needed to advance human exposure estimation and toxicity hazard estimation of individual or total PFAS. The bill also requires the NSF and the Environmental Protection Agency to jointly enter into an agreement with NASEM to conduct a study and submit a report on the research and development needed to advance the understanding of the extent and implications of environmental contamination by PFAS, how to manage and treat such contamination, and the development of safe alternatives. Finally, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy must submit an implementation plan for federal PFAS research, development, and demonstration activities, taking into account the recommendations of the NASEM reports.
Sponsors: Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
Target Audience
Population: People exposed to PFAS
Estimated Size: 320000000
- PFAS are widely used in a variety of consumer products such as nonstick cookware, stain-resistant fabrics, and food packaging, meaning many people are potentially exposed.
- PFAS contamination is a concern for communities near manufacturing plants, as well as those relying on contaminated water sources.
- Health impacts from PFAS include risks of cancer, liver and immune system effects, thyroid disorders, and developmental impacts. These risks can affect anyone exposed to PFAS.
- The bill aims to understand and manage PFAS contamination better, implying a focus on public health as well as environmental safety.
Reasoning
- With an estimated 320 million Americans potentially exposed to PFAS, policies focused on research and management of these substances could have varying levels of impact depending on proximity to contamination and level of exposure.
- The budget allows for significant initial research and development, though outcomes will depend heavily on subsequent policy measures resulting from findings.
- By simulating a range of individuals from different parts of the country and different socioeconomic backgrounds, we can predict how the policy might affect self-reported wellbeing scores.
- People living near industrial PFAS sites or those who notice health improvements from regulatory changes may report the highest impacts.
Simulated Interviews
Professor (Ann Arbor, MI)
Age: 54 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy is a crucial step to address a significant environmental health issue.
- I've been educating about PFAS for years, and government action has been slow, but this seems hopeful.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 5 |
Chemical engineer (Wilmington, NC)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As an engineer, I understand the need for balance between innovation and safety.
- I'm hopeful this policy leads to better industry standards.
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 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Stay-at-home parent (Rural Michigan)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I’m worried every day about the safety of our water and what it means for my kids' future.
- This bill seems like a step in the right direction, but we need action soon.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 4 |
Retiree (New Brunswick, NJ)
Age: 62 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've seen neighbors struggle with health problems, and there's suspicion about what's in our water.
- It’s encouraging to see the government taking this seriously.
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 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 3 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 3 |
Public health researcher (Burlington, VT)
Age: 40 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy could be transformative for public health research.
- Bringing awareness to these issues is as important as legislative action.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Elementary school teacher (Flint, MI)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- We've seen too much here to easily trust policy changes.
- I'll remain hopeful but vigilant.
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 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Chef (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's good to see attention towards health risks associated with everyday items like cookware.
- Anything that helps reduce potential health hazards is welcome.
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 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Journalist (Chicago, IL)
Age: 31 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The study and reporting aspect of the legislation could offer much clearer guidelines for public awareness and safety.
- Looking forward to covering progress in this area.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
College student (New York, NY)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policies like these directly impact my future field and motivate continued education and awareness.
- This foundation could enable better technologies and materials to replace harmful ones.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Community health worker (Charleston, WV)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's time that government initiatives align with what health workers see on the ground.
- Pragmatic steps towards addressing contamination could support community efforts significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 2: $60000000 (Low: $50000000, High: $70000000)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Funding will primarily focus on research and studies, so immediate economic or health benefits might not be apparent.
- PFAS issues have wide public health implications, providing a necessitation for comprehensive research for effective policy formulation.
- The implementation plan from the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy will be crucial in directing future PFAS management policies.