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 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.

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.

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.

An individual 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.

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.