Comment submitted by Lisa Thompson

AnonymousOpposeIndividual
Summary: A family nurse practitioner and mother opposes the proposed rescission, arguing that it favors corporate interests over public health. The commenter highlights the severe environmental and health impacts of PFAS contamination, specifically citing the Chemours/DuPont facility in North Carolina.
PFAS litigation in 2026 is experiencing a massive surge, with thousands of lawsuits targeting manufacturers like 3M and DuPont for environmental contamination and health issues. Key litigation includes over $11 billion in settlements from 3M and DuPont regarding water supply contamination, alongside growing claims over firefighting foam (AFFF), consumer products, and agricultural damage. Since the mid-1970s the Chemours/DuPont chemical manufacturing facility in Fayetteville NC has produced PFAS contaminating the air and drinking water, food and bodies of water of a 500,000 people. The public was unaware of this until 2017, when high levels of GenX substances were found in the river’s drinking water. This is the same substance that is under this proposed rule.My god-daughter lives in North Carolina with her 2-year old son and her 6-month old daughter. I sent her a water filter for Christmas so she and her family can drink safe water and avoid the tap water. This is horrible. This is the United States of America. What the EPA is doing, under the guise of "re-examination" is siding with big business, once again. HOLD THE POLLUTERS ACCOUNTABLE. The total of sites included in the Known PFAS Contamination Tracker are over 2,000 and the Presumptive PFAS Contamination sites are over 79,000. 40% of sites are associated with waste management, 29% are industrial sites, 20% are military facilities, 4% are associated with municipal firefighting activity, and 4% are airports. Protect the passive receivers. Who are they? That is us folks, we did not introduce PFAS into the environment-- we are current property owners, we depend on wastewater treatment plants that received PFAS-impacted influent, waste disposal facilities that received PFAS-impacted household waste, and drinking water suppliers with PFAS-impacted surface or groundwater supplies. The government should be protecting public health, not corporate interests. -- Submitted by a concerned family nurse practitioner and a mother

View on Regulations.gov