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

A scientist with 35 years of experience in toxicology and pollution research opposes the extension of the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS. The commenter argues that the US should accelerate restrictions on PFAS to protect public health, reduce long-term costs, and maintain the competitiveness of American products in international markets.

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.

Dr. Sue Fenton, a professor at North Carolina State University and a PFAS health effects expert, opposes the proposed delay of PFOA and PFOS drinking water standards and the withdrawal of standards for other PFAS like GenX and PFHxS. She argues that these chemicals pose severe health risks, particularly to children, and that the proposed actions would undermine public health protections and leave communities vulnerable to contamination.

M. Douglas Speight II, CEO of AxNano, opposes the EPA's proposal to delay the PFOA and PFOS drinking water standards and withdraw standards for other PFAS chemicals. He argues that regulatory certainty is essential for maintaining investment, innovation, and the declining costs of PFAS treatment technologies.

Timothy M. Barbera, a U.S. Air Force veteran, opposes the EPA's proposal to delay the implementation of PFOA and PFOS drinking water standards and rescind standards for other PFAS chemicals. He argues that these chemicals pose significant health risks, particularly to military families, and that the proposed actions would violate the Safe Drinking Water Act's anti-backsliding provision.

Beyond Pesticides opposes the EPA's proposal to rescind drinking water standards for four PFAS substances and to extend the compliance deadline for PFOA and PFOS. The organization argues that the EPA should instead strengthen protections for all PFAS using the broader OECD definition and transition toward organic agricultural practices.

A group of 6,493 individual commenters is urging the EPA not to weaken or delay limits on PFAS in drinking water. They argue that rolling back these safeguards would leave communities with less protection from chemicals linked to serious health risks like cancer and developmental effects.