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

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.

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.

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.

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.

The commenter opposes the extension of the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS maximum contaminant levels, arguing that the EPA's cost analysis fails to account for significant public health and environmental damages. They contend that the proposed "control measures" are insufficient and that the deadline should remain as originally scheduled to protect water safety.

Dr. Mike Lengefeld opposes the proposed PFOA/PFOS Compliance Extension Rule, arguing that it delays essential drinking water protections and shifts the burden of contamination onto residents. He specifically highlights that the rules disproportionately harm Tribal communities by reducing funding, increasing administrative burdens, and removing protections that are difficult for Tribes to replace independently.