Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments
AdvocacyOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Health risks of pfas
Economic and technical feasibility
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)
EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0654-0001NPRM
Comments
925
Last activity Jul 20, 2026
Deadline
Closed on Jul 21, 2026
Closed Jul 21, 2026
Net supportiSupport minus oppose · campaigns included
-88%
-88% excluding campaigns
Document
Details
The document's own metadata, straight from the source system.
- Title
- 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)
Federal Register for Wednesday, May 20, 2026 (91 FR 29413) [FRL-12843-01-OW]
- Posted
- May 20, 2026
- Comment period
- May 20, 2026 – Jul 21, 2026
- FR Doc
- 2026-10085
- CFR
- 40 CFR Parts 141 and 142
Analysis
Overview
What the public is saying — stance, who's commenting, and the issues they raise.
Include campaigns
Analyzed 768 of 925 comments
83%· analysis in progress
Stance breakdown
-88%
Net support
Support34Oppose710Other24Not yet analyzed157
Aggregates include form-letter campaigns. Excluding them, net support is -88% across organic comments.
Who commented
Breakdown by commenter type.
Individual
632
Government
28
Trade association
14
Advocacy
62
Academic
17
Business
7
Other
8
Not yet analyzed
157
Comments over time
Weekly arrivals, stacked by stance.
Posted May 20, 2026Deadline Jul 21, 2026
May 18Jun 1Jun 15Jun 29Jul 13Jul 20
Support34Oppose710Other24
Support × commenter type
How each type splits across stance.
Support
Oppose
Other
Individual
1%
97%
3%
Advocacy
8%
92%
0%
Government
39%
54%
7%
Academic
0%
100%
0%
Trade association
79%
14%
7%
Other
13%
50%
38%
Business
29%
57%
14%
Issues raised
The docket's canonical issues. Select one to browse its comments.
Oppose rescinding pfas standards606
Health risks of pfas413
Statutory interpretation and backsliding320
Right to clean water102
Economic and technical feasibility89
Incremental costs of treatment upgrades39
Groundwater protection34
Pfas neurotoxicity and dementia risk24
Corporate accountability and inspections9
Data collection requirements5
Position map
Who stands where on each issue?
Every non-silent position is backed by an excerpt from the comment.
Issues shown
Uncheck an issue to choose another.
| Organization | Oppose rescinding pfas standards | Statutory interpretation and backsliding | Health risks of pfas | Economic and technical feasibility | Incremental costs of treatment upgrades |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alliance of Nurses for Healthy Environments AdvocacyOppose Dr. | · | ||||
American Sustainable Business Network Trade associationOppose The American Sustainable Business Network (ASBN) opposes the EPA's proposal to rescind drinking water standards for seve | · | · | |||
Amigos Bravos, Bayou City Waterkeeper, Beaverdam Creek Watershed Watch Group, Cape Fear River Watch, Center for Oil & Gas Organizing, Clean Cape Fear, Clean Water Action, Coastal Carolina Riverwatch, AdvocacyOppose A coalition of 33 environmental and community advocacy organizations opposes the EPA's proposals to rescind PFAS standar | · | · | · | ||
As You Sow AdvocacyOppose Danielle Fugere of As You Sow, a nonprofit organization, opposes the EPA's proposal to rescind drinking water protection | · | · | · | ||
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) Trade associationOther The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) provides a balanced perspective on the proposed rescissio | · | · | |||
Audubon North Carolina AdvocacyOppose Dana Sargent, a director at Audubon North Carolina and former executive director of Cape Fear River Watch, opposes the r | · | · | · | ||
Beyond Pesticides AdvocacyOppose Beyond Pesticides opposes the EPA's proposal to rescind drinking water standards for four PFAS substances and delay comp | · | · | |||
Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper AdvocacyOppose Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper, a regional non-profit organization, opposes the EPA's proposed rule to rescind regulatory d | · | · | |||
Clean Water Action, Pennsylvania AdvocacyOppose Clean Water Action, Pennsylvania, representing approximately 95,000 members, opposes the proposed rescission of PFAS dri | · | · | |||
Environmental Data & Governance Initiative (EDGI) AdvocacyOppose The Environmental Data & Governance Initiative (EDGI) opposes the proposed rescission of regulatory determinations for f | · | · | |||
Environmental Protection Network AdvocacyOppose Marc Boom of the Environmental Protection Network opposes the proposed rescission, arguing that it weakens health protec | · | · | |||
Healing Our Waters - Great Lakes Coalition AdvocacyOppose The Healing Our Waters - Great Lakes Coalition and its member groups oppose the EPA's proposal to rescind drinking water | · | · | |||
Indiana Department of Environmental Management GovernmentSupport The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM) supports the EPA's proposal to rescind regulatory determinatio | · | · | · | ||
Iota Intel LLC BusinessOppose Iota Intel LLC opposes the EPA's proposal to rescind regulatory determinations for four PFAS substances, arguing that th | · | · | · | ||
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community GovernmentOppose The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, a federally recognized Tribal Nation, opposes the proposed rules to extend the PFOA a | · | · | |||
Laurens County Water and Sewer Commission GovernmentSupport The Laurens County Water and Sewer Commission supports the EPA's proposed rescission of regulatory determinations for PF | · | · | · | ||
Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA) AdvocacyOppose The Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA) opposes the proposed rescission of regulatory determinations | · | · | |||
National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) Trade associationSupport The National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) supports the EPA's proposal to rescind certain PFAS regulatory determinati | · | · | · | · | |
New England Water Works Association (NEWWA) Trade associationSupport The New England Water Works Association (NEWWA) supports the proposed rescission of regulatory determinations for certai | · | · | · | ||
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection GovernmentOppose The New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) opposes the EPA's proposal to rescind regulatory determina | · | · | |||
Newburgh Clean Water Project AdvocacyOppose The Newburgh Clean Water Project and a coalition of community members and officials oppose the proposed rescission of PF | · | · | |||
North Carolina Conservation Network AdvocacyOppose Stephanie Bishop Schweickert, representing the North Carolina Conservation Network, submits a petition signed by over 1, | · | · | · | ||
Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration GovernmentSupport The Office of Advocacy within the U.S. | · | · | · | ||
Olivenhain Municipal Water District GovernmentSupport The Olivenhain Municipal Water District supports the EPA's proposal to rescind regulatory determinations for PFHxS, PFNA | · | · | |||
Prairie Hills Audubon Society AdvocacyOppose Nancy Hilding, President of the Prairie Hills Audubon Society, opposes the proposed rescission of regulatory determinati | · | · | |||
Rachel Carson Council (RCC) AdvocacyOppose The Rachel Carson Council (RCC), a national nonprofit organization, opposes the EPA's proposed rescission of regulatory | · | · | |||
Silent Spring Institute AdvocacyOppose The Silent Spring Institute, a non-profit research organization, opposes the proposed rescission of regulatory determina | · | · | |||
Snoqualmie Indian Tribe GovernmentOppose The Snoqualmie Indian Tribe opposes the rescission of regulations for four PFAS substances, arguing that the removal of | · | · | · | ||
Spokane Riverkeeper AdvocacyOppose Spokane Riverkeeper, a non-profit advocacy organization, opposes the EPA's proposed rule to rescind regulatory determina | · | · | |||
The Chemours Company FC, LLC BusinessSupport The Chemours Company FC, LLC supports the EPA's proposal to rescind the 2024 regulations for HFPO-DA (GenX) and other PF | · | · | · | · | |
The U.S. Conference of Mayors; National League of Cities; National Association of Counties Trade associationSupport The U.S. | · | · | · | ||
Trinity River Authority of Texas GovernmentSupport The Trinity River Authority of Texas supports the EPA's proposed rescission of regulatory determinations for four PFAS s | · | · | · | · | |
West Virginia Rivers Coalition, Wild Virginia, Lynnhaven River NOW, Three Rivers Waterkeeper, Chesapeake Legal Alliance, the Piedmont Environmental Council, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, and Center For Coa AdvocacyOppose A coalition of environmental advocacy organizations opposes the EPA's proposed rules to rescind PFAS regulations and ext | · | · | |||
Western Municipal Water District (Western Water) GovernmentSupport Western Municipal Water District, a public water agency, supports the proposed rescission of regulatory determinations f | · | · | · | ||
Willamette Riverkeeper AdvocacyOppose Willamette Riverkeeper, a nonprofit organization, opposes the proposed rule to rescind regulatory determinations for sev | · | · |
American Sustainable Business Network
Trade associationOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Health risks of pfas
Economic and technical feasibility
Amigos Bravos, Bayou City Waterkeeper, Beaverdam Creek Watershed Watch Group, Cape Fear River Watch, Center for Oil & Gas Organizing, Clean Cape Fear, Clean Water Action, Coastal Carolina Riverwatch,
AdvocacyOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Economic and technical feasibility
As You Sow
AdvocacyOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA)
Trade associationOther
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Economic and technical feasibility
Audubon North Carolina
AdvocacyOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Health risks of pfas
Beyond Pesticides
AdvocacyOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Health risks of pfas
Buffalo Niagara Waterkeeper
AdvocacyOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Health risks of pfas
Clean Water Action, Pennsylvania
AdvocacyOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Health risks of pfas
Environmental Data & Governance Initiative (EDGI)
AdvocacyOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Health risks of pfas
Economic and technical feasibility
Environmental Protection Network
AdvocacyOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Health risks of pfas
Healing Our Waters - Great Lakes Coalition
AdvocacyOppose
Health risks of pfas
Economic and technical feasibility
Incremental costs of treatment upgrades
Indiana Department of Environmental Management
GovernmentSupport
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Economic and technical feasibility
Iota Intel LLC
BusinessOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Keweenaw Bay Indian Community
GovernmentOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Health risks of pfas
Laurens County Water and Sewer Commission
GovernmentSupport
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Economic and technical feasibility
Maine Organic Farmers and Gardeners Association (MOFGA)
AdvocacyOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Health risks of pfas
Economic and technical feasibility
National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF)
Trade associationSupport
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
New England Water Works Association (NEWWA)
Trade associationSupport
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Economic and technical feasibility
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection
GovernmentOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Health risks of pfas
Newburgh Clean Water Project
AdvocacyOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Health risks of pfas
North Carolina Conservation Network
AdvocacyOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Office of Advocacy, U.S. Small Business Administration
GovernmentSupport
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Economic and technical feasibility
Olivenhain Municipal Water District
GovernmentSupport
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Economic and technical feasibility
Incremental costs of treatment upgrades
Prairie Hills Audubon Society
AdvocacyOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Health risks of pfas
Rachel Carson Council (RCC)
AdvocacyOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Health risks of pfas
Silent Spring Institute
AdvocacyOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Health risks of pfas
Snoqualmie Indian Tribe
GovernmentOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Spokane Riverkeeper
AdvocacyOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Health risks of pfas
The Chemours Company FC, LLC
BusinessSupport
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
The U.S. Conference of Mayors; National League of Cities; National Association of Counties
Trade associationSupport
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Economic and technical feasibility
Trinity River Authority of Texas
GovernmentSupport
Economic and technical feasibility
West Virginia Rivers Coalition, Wild Virginia, Lynnhaven River NOW, Three Rivers Waterkeeper, Chesapeake Legal Alliance, the Piedmont Environmental Council, Waterkeepers Chesapeake, and Center For Coa
AdvocacyOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Economic and technical feasibility
Western Municipal Water District (Western Water)
GovernmentSupport
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Economic and technical feasibility
Willamette Riverkeeper
AdvocacyOppose
Oppose rescinding pfas standards
Statutory interpretation and backsliding
Health risks of pfas
3 organization-typed comments could not be identified.
Comments
Explorer
Every mirrored comment — filter by stance, campaign, or issue.
Filter:
- Jul 2, 2026Anonymous public commentOpposeIndividualRead comment →
- Jul 1, 2026Comment submitted by Jay DouglasOpposeIndividualRead comment →
- Jul 1, 2026Anonymous public commentOpposeIndividualRead comment →
- Jun 30, 2026Comment submitted by Ruth SzukalaOpposeIndividual
The commenter opposes the proposed rescission of PFAS regulatory determinations, arguing that the action would harm public health and favor corporate polluters. They emphasize the importance of protecting drinking water and maintaining strong protections against "forever chemicals."
Read comment → - Jun 30, 2026Comment submitted by Kathy HayesOpposeIndividualRead comment →
- Jun 29, 2026Comment submitted by Allegra DiNettaOpposeIndividualRead comment →
- Jun 27, 2026Anonymous public commentOpposeIndividualRead comment →
- Jun 23, 2026Comment submitted by Debra DushkoOpposeIndividualRead comment →
- Jun 23, 2026Comment submitted by Elissabeth BanksOpposeIndividual
Elissabeth, a private individual, opposes the EPA's proposal to rescind drinking water protections for four PFAS substances. She argues that these "forever chemicals" pose serious health risks, particularly for immuno-compromised individuals, and calls for the EPA to maintain and expand protections rather than dismantling them.
Read comment → - Jun 22, 2026Anonymous public commentOpposeIndividual
The commenter, writing as a private citizen, opposes the rescission of regulatory determinations for PFAS substances. They argue that the government should not allow water sources to be contaminated by these "forever chemicals" due to their toxicity and persistence.
Read comment →