Extending the Compliance Deadline for the PFOA and PFOS Maximum Contaminant Levels; Notice of Public Hearing

Rev. Dr. Gregory Skiba opposes the proposal to extend the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS maximum contaminant levels. He argues that the government has a moral and religious obligation to protect citizens from PFAS contamination and characterizes the delay as a failure of governance that favors the wealthy over the vulnerable.

The commenter opposes the proposed two-year extension for PFOA and PFOS compliance deadlines, arguing that the delay significantly understates the loss of public health benefits. They express concern that the exemption framework ignores systems with concentrations between 4-12 ppt and lacks rigorous documentation requirements to ensure extensions are only granted for genuine hardships.

The commenter opposes the proposal to extend the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS maximum contaminant levels. They argue that delaying compliance endangers public health and that clean water is a fundamental human right that should not be compromised for industrial interests.

An individual opposes the EPA's proposal to extend the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS maximum contaminant levels. The commenter argues that delays disproportionately harm vulnerable and rural communities and that the agency should focus on enforcing existing standards and holding polluters accountable.

A resident of Nantucket opposes the extension of the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS, arguing that the delay leaves residents at risk. The commenter requests more accurate communication of contaminant levels and asks what interim steps the EPA is taking to mitigate health impacts during the extension period.

The commenter opposes the proposed extension of the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS Maximum Contaminant Levels. They argue that the chemicals are toxic "forever chemicals" that pose a significant risk to human health and that the benefits of an exemption do not outweigh the costs.

A concerned citizen opposes the proposed extension of the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS maximum contaminant levels. The commenter argues that the health risks are well-established and that there is no reason to delay the provision of clean drinking water to the public.

The commenter opposes the proposed extension of the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS maximum contaminant levels. They argue that delays continue to expose the public to toxic chemicals and that the EPA should prioritize rapid implementation of the current deadline to protect public health.

The commenter opposes the EPA's proposal to extend compliance deadlines for PFOA and PFOS drinking water standards. They argue that communities should not be subjected to prolonged exposure to toxic chemicals and urge the EPA to prioritize investments to help water systems meet standards quickly.