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

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 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.

Andrea Amico, representing the community action group Testing for Pease, strongly opposes the EPA's proposal to delay the compliance deadline for PFAS drinking water standards. She argues that the delay will increase costs for communities and continue to expose people to dangerous chemicals, urging the EPA to maintain the original 2029 deadline.

The commenter opposes the proposed blanket extension for the PFOA and PFOS compliance deadline, arguing that systems capable of compliance should do so immediately. They advocate for more targeted water treatment methods and criticize the administration for failing to include health costs in the cost-benefit analysis.

Barbara L. Walsh, a hydrogeologist, opposes the proposal to extend the compliance deadline and increase the allowable concentrations for PFOA and PFOS in drinking water. She argues that the delay poses significant risks to public health due to the chemicals' toxicity and bioaccumulation, and that the costs of compliance are far outweighed by the long-term healthcare and environmental impacts.

As You Sow, a nonprofit organization representing shareholders, opposes the EPA's proposal to rescind drinking water protections for several PFAS compounds and extend compliance deadlines for PFOA and PFOS. They argue that weakening federal standards creates regulatory uncertainty, increases long-term financial risks for investors, and shifts the costs of contamination onto the public.

The Environmental Protection Network (EPN) opposes the proposed two-year extension of the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS drinking water standards. They argue that the EPA has not provided sufficient evidence of new obstacles to compliance and that the delay will increase public health risks and environmental contamination.

Nancy Hilding, President of the Prairie Hills Audubon Society, submits comments regarding the proposed extension of the PFOA and PFOS compliance deadline. While the organization does not oppose reasonable extensions for constrained systems, it argues that such extensions must be paired with strong interim protections, lower risk thresholds, prompt public notification, and accountability for polluters.