Rescission of Regulatory Determinations and Removal of Related Provisions for Four PFAS Substances (PFHxS, PFNA, HFPO–DA (GenX), and the Mixture of These Three PFAS Plus PFBS)

The commenter, identifying as a United Methodist Creation Justice Ambassador, opposes the rescission of regulations on four PFAS substances. They argue that these chemicals cause significant health issues and express concern for the safety of water and the health of future generations.

The commenter, an individual, strongly opposes the proposed rescission of regulatory determinations for four PFAS substances. They argue that these "forever chemicals" are toxic, persist in the human body, and cause severe health issues like cancer and developmental problems.

Lindsay Savelli, a resident of North Carolina, opposes the proposed rescission of regulatory determinations and the extension of compliance deadlines for PFAS substances. The commenter argues that these chemicals pose significant health risks and that maintaining the 2024 regulations is necessary to protect public health and ensure access to safe drinking water.

Debra F. Lett, a Registered Nurse, strongly opposes the EPA's proposal to rescind the 2024 Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for four PFAS substances. She argues that the standards are based on decades of scientific evidence regarding health risks and that rescinding them would leave millions of people unprotected and hinder cleanup efforts at contaminated sites.

The commenter opposes the proposed rescission of regulatory determinations for four PFAS substances, arguing that these chemicals cause severe health issues, including developmental diseases and cancers. They urge the EPA to maintain existing standards and address the economic and societal costs of PFAS exposure.

Zac, a concerned parent, opposes the rescission of PFAS health guidelines, arguing that they are essential for protecting public health and identifying contamination. He highlights the personal impact of PFAS exposure on his son and urges the EPA to uphold and strengthen these protections based on scientific evidence.

Dana Sargent, a director at Audubon North Carolina and former executive director of Cape Fear River Watch, opposes the rescission of regulatory determinations for four PFAS substances. She argues that the proposed action weakens existing regulations and urges the EPA to instead impose strict limits at the source of production to protect human health and the environment.

An individual parent opposes the rescission of PFAS health guidelines, citing personal experience with their child's high PFAS blood levels. They argue that weakening these protections endangers public health and that the EPA should instead uphold and strengthen the existing guidelines based on scientific evidence.

Meg, a parent, opposes the EPA's proposal to rescind drinking water standards for certain PFAS chemicals and extend compliance deadlines for PFOA and PFOS. She argues that these "forever chemicals" pose significant health risks to children and that the EPA should prioritize public health over industry convenience.

Paula Hillery opposes the EPA's decision to rescind regulatory protections for GenX, PFNA, PFHxS, and PFBS. She argues that these chemicals pose serious health risks and urges the EPA to enforce drinking water limits and ban PFAS chemicals at their source.