1. United States
2. Va.
3. Letter

I want to flag something at EPA that's easy to miss under the word "rescission." In May, EPA proposed removing the drinking water limits on four PFAS chemicals, PFHxS, PFNA, GenX, and their combined mixture standard, while separately letting utilities delay the PFOA/PFOS limits until 2031. The agency isn't arguing these chemicals are safe. Its own findings still link them to liver, immune, and developmental harm. The stated reason is procedural: that the 2024 rule skipped steps Congress required under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Maybe that's true. But if the problem is really the process, there's an obvious fix: redo the process properly and land on a rule that protects people just as much, on a real timeline. That's not what's happening. EPA is removing the protection now and offering only a vague promise to maybe revisit it later, no deadline, no requirement that whatever comes next protects people as well as this did. That distinction matters. It's the difference between fixing a typo and shredding the document. And it happens to line up neatly with what the American Chemistry Council was already suing for before this "fix" appeared. I'm asking you to: 1) Submit comments opposing the rescission before the July 20 deadline (Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OW-2025-0654). 2) Press EPA, in hearings if needed, on why it chose full removal instead of a corrected rule with equivalent protections. 3) Support codifying these PFAS limits directly into the Safe Drinking Water Act, so clean water doesn't depend on how a given administration reads agency procedure. Water shouldn't come with an asterisk. Please don't let "we're just following the rules" become the rule that makes the protection disappear.