EPA's Local Government Advisory Committee
Per-and Polyfluoroakyl Substances (PFAS)
Report-November 19, 2018

From the LGAC's Charter, defining general goals:
The LGAC is a policy oriented- committee. To assist the agency in ensuring that its regulations,
policies, guidance and technical assistance improve the capacity of local governments to carry
out these programs, the LGAC provides advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator.
PFAS contamination is a concern for
all of our communities. As local
officials we look to EPA to provide
leadership on actions necessary to
protect our citizens.
Bob Dixson, Chair of LGAC
Emerging unregulated contaminants pose a threat to
clean and safe water for drinking, irrigation and
recreational use. EPA's leadership, in collaboration
with federal and state partners, is needed to develop
consistent and credible guidance for assessing risk
and mitigating exposure at the local level.
Susan Hann, Chair
LGAC Water Workgroup
One of the most critical aspects of the EPA's role is to protect citizens from
contaminants. As local officials, we see the impact of these substances first hand.
We are pleased that Acting Administrator Wheeler has sought the advice of the
Local Government Advisory Committee and look forward to working with federal,
state and other officials to safeguard citizens' health.
Mayor Karen Freeman-Wilson, Chair
LGAC Revitalizing Communities Workgroup

Table of Contents
Executive Summary
I.	Introduction..............................					..........4
A.	LGAC Charge arid Role....					.......4
B.	The PFAS Issue	5
C.	Public Meetings	5
D.	PFAS Background	5
E.	Public Health		5
F.	Urgency	5
II.	Response to Charge: Findings and Recommendations	6
A.	PFAS Management Plan	6
1.	Solutions
2.	Interagency Coordination
B.	Specific Actions and Tools	8-12
1.	Identifying PFAS
2.	Nationwide Standard
3.	EPA Certification for Labs
4.	Costs and Funding
C.	Critical Risk Communication......					.............12
III.	Growing Solutions
States to Follow
A.	New Hampshire	14
B.	Pennsylvania			.....15
C.	Michigan	16
D.	North Carolina............					.................16
E.	Florida					16
F.	Minnesota	17
IV.	Summary and Conclusion.....								........17
V. Acknowledgements	.17

Executive Summary
The Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC) is a federal advisory committee chartered to
provide recommendations to the EPA Administrator representing the views of local
government stakeholders. On May 29, 2018, the LGAC was charged by the EPA Acting
Administrator Andrew Wheeler to provide recommendations and input on EPA's development
of the National Plan to Manage Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS). Currently, the LGAC
is the only EPA federal advisory committee charged to give advice on PFAS.
In this report, the LGAC presents its findings based on our working experience as local, state
and tribal officials. This issue is urgent to local officials, who are directly engaged in all aspects
of public health and environmental stewardship. Water is a primary resource and must be a
priority for action. In the spirit of cooperative federalism, we must move swiftly together to
assess and manage the emerging contaminant issue, especially with respect to protecting our
nation's drinking water.
This report provides a detailed response to the EPA PFAS charge based on experiences and
concerns facing local, state and tribal officials. There were strong and consistent themes from
diverse stakeholders regarding emerging contaminants such as PFAS.
In the mounting concerns of environmental and public health threat of PFAS, EPA should
prioritize their efforts using a risk-based approach to address PFAS contamination issues. Those
communities at greatest risk and actions to avert that potential harm should be the highest
priority to address in a national management strategy.
Here are the major themes captured in our work:
•	Every American citizen values clean water and a safe environment. These are drivers for
our nation's public health, economic prosperity and quality of life.
•	Finding the resources needed to provide clean water and a safe environment is a
complex issue. Emerging contaminants like PFAS pose a significant health threat to
already financially burdened communities, The ability to pay (on an individual and
community basis) can be a barrier to delivering safe, clean potable water across the
•	Education and risk communication are paramount to ensure that local community
actions are appropriate and effective when managing an emerging contaminant issue
such as PFAS at the local level. Local and tribal government officials are closest to the
public and need the tools to effectively advise their citizens regarding emerging
contaminants such as PFAS.

•	The depth and breadth of the issues presented by PFAS and other emerging
contaminants are enormous and will not be solved in the short-term. However, there is
an urgent need for EPA to take steps now to address PFAS. EPA acting alone cannot
address all of the related issues, and the LGAC encourages EPA to engage and perhaps
lead an interagency effort to address PFAS.
•	New ways of doing business, such as developing partnerships with industry, businesses
and military sectors, with a 'good neighbor' way of thinking will be needed for effective
solutions. And we need to recognize and communicate health risks, testing guidance
and prevention measures for state and local communities as well declare PFAS as
hazardous materials and their maximum contaminant level (MCL).
•	Integrated planning at the local level has been successful under the Clean Water Act,
Opportunities to use an integrated planning approach under the Safe Drinking Water
Act, and other programs such Clean Air Act, CERCLA and RCRA should be explored as
This report is a compilation of our perspectives of local, state and tribal government
representing urban areas, rural and agricultural communities, coastal and port communities,
special districts, border communities, financially struggling communities, and many others.
Many common themes emerged, as well as the urgent need to prioritize key actions such as
setting a national federal standard for drinking water and getting information out to local
communities on communicating risk. Other actions to promote partnerships to assist with
funding and clean-up are also critical, along with longer-term processes and monitoring for
these actions, are also important.
LGAC Charge and Role
The EPA charge outlines the content areas where the LGAC's advice and recommendations are
requested. The public concerns regarding PFAS are increasing with each report of
contamination and inferences linking PFAS to health effects. The LGAC charge relating to this
issue establishes a role for the LGAC to providerecommendations to EPA for the PFAS
Management Plan to identify the most critical tools states and communities need to protect the
public from PFAS contamination. The LGAC will consider the following;
o Identify specific actions and tools that states, local governments and tribal
communities need to address PFAS contamination.

o Identify the critical risk communication needs that state, local and tribal
governments face when addressing the public concerns of PFAS and best
practices that state, local and tribal officials have used to address public health
concerns in the face of uncertainty.
Public Meetings
The EPA held PFAS Community Engagement events to facilitate conversation with impacted
communities and to share PFAS risk and health communication information and receive input
from community members. Meetings were held in Exeter (New Hampshire); Horsham
(Pennsylvania); Colorado Springs (Colorado); Fayetteville (North Carolina); and Leavenworth
(Kansas). Information from community engagement events, the National Leadership Summit
and public input will also be utilized towards development of a PFAS Management Plan
managed by the EPA.
PFAS Background
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a group of man-made chemicals that includes
PFOA, PFOS, GenX, and many other chemicals. PFAS have been manufactured and used in a
variety of industries around the globe, including in the United States since the 1940s. PFOA and
PFOS have been the most extensively produced and studied of these chemicals. Both chemicals
are very persistent in the environment and in the human body - meaning they don't break
down and can accumulate over time. There is evidence that exposure to PFAS can lead to
adverse human health effects. Certain PFAS chemicals are no longer manufactured in the
United States as a result of phase-outs, including the PFOA Stewardship Program in which eight
major chemical manufacturers agreed to eliminate the use of PFOA and PFOA-related chemicals
in their products and as emissions from their facilities. Although PFOA and PFOS are no longer
manufactured in the United States, however, there are many PFAS compounds still used and
many compounds that are still produced internationally and can be imported into the United
States in consumer goods such as carpet, leather and apparel, textiles, paper and packaging,
coatings, rubber and plastics.
Public Health: Preliminary studies show that certain PFAS compounds are persistent in the
environment and is found in the blood of humans and animals worldwide. Most people in the
United States have one or more specific PFAS compounds in their blood, especially PFOS and
PFOA. It is difficult to quantify potential exposure pathways or confirm potential sources due to
the many sources of PFAS. There are many unknowns regarding the health and toxicology
related to PFAS compounds (which some estimate to be about 4,500 compounds). PFAS can
accumulate and stay in the human body for long periods of time. There is evidence that
exposure to PFAS can lead to adverse health outcomes in humans. The most-studied PFAS

chemicals are PFOA and PFOS. Studies indicate that PFOA and PFOS can cause reproductive and
developmental, liver and kidney, and immunological effects in laboratory animals. Both
chemicals have caused tumors in animals. The most consistent findings are increased
cholesterol levels among exposed populations, with more limited findings related to low infant
birth weights, effects on the immune system, cancer (for PFOA), and thyroid hormone
disruption (for PFOS).
Urgency: Emerging unregulated contaminants in the environment are an issue that is gathering
public awareness and concern. Citizens expect and demand that their water is safe to drink and
use for irrigation and recreation. Citizens also expect that the air and land will not be
contaminated. Local officials are not yet equipped to respond to this issue and there is little
definitive guidance for those that are already involved. It is imperative that EPA and its state
and federal partners act quickly to provide the guidance needed at the local level especially
among exposed and vulnerable populations. Both findings are important to evaluate through
interagency collaboration to develop better science exchange between EPA, Health and Human
Services and the Center for Disease Control (CDC).
LGAC Response to Charge
PFAS Management Plan
Coordinated Solutions for Addressing PFAS- PFAS contamination in water, land and air can
create substantial challenges for state, local, and tribal communities. Local governments
advocate for a coordinated effort and dedicated resources to collect and compile federal and
state data and take action to share information on innovative ways to address PFAS
contamination. The LGAC believes that developing solutions for addressing PFAS must be a
cross-program effort. There has been an emphasis on the need for guidance designed to help
communities understand funding options for treatment and monitoring programs, In order to
inform community leaders on the dangers of PFAS and possible solutions to address it, there
needs to be more ways to support decision makers by enabling more ready access to public
health information.
Interagency Coordination: EPA is working with an interagency workgroup to coordinate actions to
address PFAS. An interagency taskforce could potentially provide the unified federal approach on the
risks posed by PFAS substances. This effort could be aimed at providing a foundation of common
knowledge across federal agencies, and to facilitate future information-sharing across federal agencies.
The EPA must work in partnership with other agencies and states as part of a national action
plan to engage and leverage other agencies in identifying resources, utilizing authorities and

providing technical assistance. With the abundance of information available on the internet,
communities and their residents are understandably confused. A coordinated effort must be
undertaken with EPA in a leadership role.
>	The LGAC recommends establishment of an Interagency Task Force that should be
chartered with the mission to provide a unified federal approach on the risks posed by
per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), a class of emerging contaminants that states
and local governments need.
>	The Interagency Task Force would be encouraged to consider an Executive Order aimed
at agency actions to accelerate identifying PFAS contamination; solutions to prevent and
treat contamination; sharing data and communicating risk; and provide innovative
funding to states and communities impacted by PFAS. The interagency group needs to
also include CDC (ATSDR).
>	The Interagency Task Force should include states and local communities in their
meetings on PFAS. States that have already taken action on PFAS should be included on
the task force to ensure coordinated and consistent outcomes. The goal is to convene
federal, state and local partners with appropriate expertise to develop best practices for
responding to emerging contaminant issues.
>¦ The Interagency Task Force should be chaired by EPA and the goal would be an Action
Plan be developed for each of the federal agencies to address PFAS.
>	The Action Plan should build on current programs and activities underway and propose
new actions to strengthen and protect communities from PFAS.
>	The Action Plan should include the following:
~~~ Support for locally led partnerships that include federal agencies, states, tribes,
communities, businesses and citizens.
~~~ increased financial and technical assistance to states, tribes and local
~~~ Assistance to states, tribes and local governments to identify and clean up PFAS
areas of contamination.
~ Health risk education and communication to provide prevention and testing
guidance for state tribal and local communities.
y The Action Plan should build on:
4- Watershed Approach- This approach would utilize land and water connection and the
concept of partnerships to build a set priority for identifying local actions needed.

4- Stewardship-Identification and clean up involves actions of many levels of government
but also industries, businesses, federal facilities and private land. Identification of PFAS
problems will depend on the cooperation of businesses and good stewardship practices
4- Informed Officials and Citizens-Clear and accurate information is the foundation for
accountable actions so that better decisions can be made. An Action Plan calling on
ways to improve information about the health and safety regarding PFAS areas.
>	EPA should work with the Department of Defense and other agencies to identify
potential hotbed areas of PFAS contamination and facilitate partnerships with local
governments and tribes to address individualized site contamination and clean up issues
for groundwater, drinking water, soil, landfills etc.
>	EPA should work on water reuse guidance to assess PFAS issues on water reuse plans
such as land application of sludge, fertilizer, treated stormwater and wastewater, and
other uses.
Specific Actions and Tools
Identifying PFAS in Communities-PFAS is ubiquitous and persistent in the environment.
Identifying sources of contamination pathways is challenging and complex. Currently, there is
no federal mandate to monitor for PFAS compounds, although six PFAS were monitored in
drinking water under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring rule from 2013-2015. PFAS
poses a substantial monitoring challenge because it is a very broad class of compounds.
Communities need technical and financial assistance to enable identification of sources of
contamination and to establish sampling and monitoring protocols for PFAS. Monitoring data
could help to inform future standards for testing and assist local governments in notifying citizens
to reduce the risk of exposure.
SF EPA should immediately identify effective monitoring strategies for PFAS which should be
shared with state, local and tribal partners.
SF At a minimum, EPA should develop a risk-based approach to identify 'at risk' public drinking
water supply systems and/or ground water private wells that should be monitored.
>	States should be required to provide reports to EPA on their findings of PFAS within six
P' There is an urgent need to get MCL for PFAS, testing guidance and costs, risk and health
threats based on current science.

SF EPA should publish a map indicating current monitoring and potential sources of PFAS
contamination and make that available on EPA's website.
> EPA should accelerate efforts to monitor PFAS pursuant to the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rule that requires all large systems serving 10,000 and more
people to be monitored. For small drinking water systems, a representative sample of
small water systems (for about 800 systems across the country) is used to be
representative of the small drinking water systems. This includes monitoring for PFAS
and up to 30 different unregulated contaminants.
Nationwide Standard-There are no federal drinking water rules for PFAS compounds. PFAS
compounds are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The only federal
guideline is a non-enforceable "health advisory level" of PFOS and PFOA in drinking water of 70
parts-per-trillion (ppt). EPA's role is to identify contaminants and regulate when it meets these
1)	The contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons;
2)	The contaminant is known to occur or there is substantial likelihood the contaminant will
occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern;
3)	In the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of the contaminant presents a
meaningful opportunity for health risk reductions for persons served by public water
Currently, there are no actual cleanup standards that state and federal officials can use. States
have taken proactive approaches to develop their own standard. For example, Michigan
established enforceable standards that mirror the EPA advisory level for PFOS and PFOA in
groundwater that is used for drinking water. This state by state approach creates confusion and
a lack of clarity as to what is a safe level of PFAS in drinking water and ground water.
Communities need to know what is safe once this contaminant is detected in water supplies.
However, more information may be needed to develop an effective science-based approach for
a national drinking water standard.
>	EPA must continue to determine health impacts of PFAS and develop levels of toxicity.
The aim should be to promote sound science regarding potential exposures and toxicity
of PFOS and PFOA, among other activities. There is a need for MCL for PFOS and PFOA,
testing guidance and costs, risk and health threats based on current science.
>	Broadened testing methodologies are needed so that screening of public water supplies
and surface water for PFAS can be done easily, readily and at low cost.

>¦ EPA should communicate the health impacts and known toxicity levels to states, tribes
and local communities when the toxic level is established and public health effects are
determined. This will be an important benchmark for states and local governments.
EPA Certification for Laboratories- Many communities have raised issues about local methods
and laboratories that can do the monitoring for PFAS. The LGAC has expressed concerns with
finding consistency in certification with regard to the utilization of laboratories. The EPA is
currently working on new methods to detect contamination in different bodies of water which
can be used for certification purposes.
>	EPA should work on approved methods that provide consistent procedures laboratories
should follow to assure consistent results.
>	EPA should work on laboratory certification programs. Currently there are none, and
this laboratory certification should be consistent.
>	EPA should continue to work on certification programs for soils, rivers, streams,
groundwater and other sources of drinking water.
Cost and Funding -Participants in the PFAS National Leadership Summit stated that funding
discussions should be tied specifically to identification of monitoring goals and priorities. More
sources of funding are needed to address the expanded monitoring that is required for PFAS. It
is suggested that priority areas for the EPA to focus on when it comes to funding are looking at
the relationship between 'regulatory backing' and the ability to fund monitoring efforts. There
also needs to be more funding for private wells, especially because they have been identified as
a current, unfunded gap in monitoring efforts. Participants also brought up a concern with
laboratory capacity as monitoring efforts expand.
Many communities, especially small and low-income communities, lack adequate resources to
meet current needs. Additional assessments, monitoring and treatment for contaminants such
as PFAS would stretch their communities beyond their means. Local governments and officials
are concerned with additional mandates and investments to treat PFAS that can impact our
citizens. At its core, this is an environmental justice issue, in which many residents and
communities who do not have the resources for high-technology water infrastructure could be
left with drinking water that is not clean and safe or other sources of contamination whether it
be soil, air or products that are unsafe.
Local officials question how funding and other resources will be provided to support these
communities. Residents themselves can hardly be expected to cover the full cost of clean-up of
contaminated drinking water or other sources of contamination. Therefore, state and federal
government resources will be needed to deliver the necessities that they require.

Programs such as increased funding and grant opportunities and incentivizing the private sector
to invest at-risk areas are all strong methods that can relieve the financial burden of clean
drinking water on locals. Efforts to identify the source of contamination and making polluters
responsible is also very important aspect of funding clean up. The LGAC also puts forward that
local partnerships are the best way to move forward drive good stewardship aims in funding
clean ups and treatment.
Example: Partnership in Colorado Springs- Amidst the rising cases of PFAS and PFOA
contamination, affected communities have been struggling to not only eradicate or lower
traces of PFAS and PFOA but also to obtain other water supplies. Both the costs of
infrastructure and alternate sources of water supplies have become economic burdens on
communities. The Colorado Springs Security Water District partnered with the United States Air
Force to mitigate the impact of PFAS in the District's source water aquifer that appears to have
originated from the historic use of firefighting foam at the Peterson Air Force Base.
1. The Security Water District provides water service to an unincorporated community
with a population of approximately 19,000 immediately south of Colorado Springs in
south-central Colorado. The District, which was formed in 1954, has been impacted by
PFAS contamination of groundwater supplies, along with the neighboring
unincorporated communities of Stratmoor Hills and Widefield, the City of Fountain as
well as numerous private well owners. Until early 2016, the Security Water District
relied on groundwater supplies for nearly half of its water supply. PFOS and PFOA
contamination from the Peterson Air Force Base exceeded EPA's 2016 Health Advisories.
In response, the Security Water District began to shut down its wells in the spring of
2016. By September 2016, the Security Water
District shut down all 24 wells. Security made up
for the shortfall by purchasing water from other
sources at a substantially higher cost than
drawing from the groundwater supplies. In
addition, it was necessary to construct nearly
two miles of new pipelines and other
improvements in order to utilize additional
surface water available from Colorado Springs
Utilities. Through the end of 2017, the Security
Water District spent more than $6 million to
mitigate groundwater contamination. These
actions created a tremendous ongoing financial burden for the District and its ratepayers.
Photo: Colorado Springs Water Security District

Through further collaborating and negotiating, the Security Water District and the United States
Air Force (USAF) were able to enter agreements in 2018. The United States Air Force and
Security Water District finalized a MOU in which the USAF will attempt to procure alternate
water supplies, including treatment options for groundwater, for Security, The USAF has also
agreed to pay approximately $1 million for summer 2018 costs for additional Southern Delivery
System water to replace water supplies that had historically been supplied by wells. Security
and the USAF have finalized an agreement to pay for future alternate and supplemental water
supply costs after Rapid Response Funds are exhausted. Ideally, this funding will continue until
a treatment system is in place in approximately 2020. Security and the USAF are currently
evaluating groundwater treatment options and developing a plan for implementation. Initial
scoping work has been completed. An additional contract for the construction of the treatment
system will be necessary, which parties are attempting to execute by September 30, 2018.
Security aims to install treatment by 2020 with filter replacement costs.
>	The LGAC recommends that the State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program be eligible to
to address PFAS as a water quality issue, and that the Drinking Water SRF be used to
address PFAS in drinking water systems and wells.
>	An interagency taskforce can be tasked to identify potential grant, loan and other
funding mechanisms to identify, test, monitor and implement actions for PFAS clean up
in water supplies, groundwater, private wells, source water, contaminated soil and
other PFAS contaminated sites.
Critica Risk Communication
Clearinghouse for PFAS Information- Communities need a clearinghouse of definitive and
consistent information regarding PFAS contamination and related health effects.
Communities are struggling with these questions:
o How do we determine if our drinking water is contaminated?
o	How do we determine if our ground water is contaminated?
o	What actions do we need to take if we find contaminants in our drinking water?
o	What actions do we need to take if we find contaminants in our ground water?
o	What are the health effects of exposure?

o What do citizens need to do to minimize future risk and mitigate prior risks?
Answers are needed to address these questions on a regional level, community level and
backyard level, Communities facing these issues are grappling with questions regarding
irrigated sports fields, swimming pools, community gardens and fresh produce from the grocery
store or local grower.
P The EPA Regions should coordinate with the states to identify a single point of contact and
repository of information so communities can easily find the most up to date information
regarding the state of the issue.
P The EPA should develop a template or checklist around key indicators that there may be an issue
- such as presence of a major airport, air force base (give multiple examples)
P The EPA Regions should coordinate with the states to develop a risk "heat map" - that uses a
gradient to indicate likely levels of risk for easy reference for communities, tribes and citizens.
>	EPA should continue to work on current agency actions as well as through its
interagency work to provide the most accurate and best information to date on EPA and
the best ways to share information.
>	There needs to be a clearing house for consistent and simple communication and
information on risk, health impacts and toxicity of PFAS
>	EPA should provide a regional breakout of where PFAS is an emerging issue.
>	EPA should devise a set of options for the best platforms to communicate critical
methodologies for use with PFAS.
>¦ EPA, along with other federal agencies, should design a dashboard that can be made
available so that people can understand in their communities what the level of toxicity is
for each source of contamination.
EPA should continue efforts underway to engage communities across the country impacted
by PFAS contamination; efforts to assist communities that have identified contamination
issues should be focused on immediately.
^ Many local governments are not aware of PFAS and the potential harm to their
communities. EPA's public engagement meetings are a good first start; however, EPA should

accelerate efforts to work with state, local arid tribal governments to notify them of
potential contamination issues and partner on potential solutions.
PFAS —Growing
Growing PFAS Solutions
Information ro
Initiative and
Solutions to the PFAS challenge will take time and with the diligent work of many levels of
government working together. EPA, working with states and local governments, can work on a
tiered approach to address the highest priorities. As local government officials, the highest
priority is the health and well-being of our citizens. Therefore, the most important actions
revolve around getting information out to our citizens to protect them from potential exposure
to PFAS. However, as information is out in the public we must also offer solutions to address
the critical issues so that citizens can be assured and trust that the government at all levels is
working in the best interest of those we serve-our citizens.
States to Follow
Many states are taking action on solutions to PFAS. The LGAC would like to highlight the
following states where contamination has occurred and critical actions have been taken at the
state and local level to address the concerns.
New Hampshire-The state of New Hampshire has taken extensive measures to find the best
treatment options, facilitate effective risk communication and guarantee sources of clean water

to affected communities. At a contaminated site, the state worked with the Air Force to remove
solvent-containing drums, contaminated soil and established pilot groundwater extraction and
treatment plants at different buildings on the site. To manage further site contamination, the
Air Force extracted jet fuel that was floating on the groundwater, utilized vapor extraction and
executed air sparging on subsurface soils. Institutional controls were also implemented to limit
exposure to contaminants through diminished land or resource usage. The current design of
the Pease International Trade port includes a resin and carbon filters. Alongside treatment, the
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services released press releases tracking the
clean-up process, held public meetings with affected communities and presented data and
analysis to city and state officials. The Department of Environmental Services has also provided
guidance on appropriate laboratory certification and how to input data into the Environmental
Monitoring Database. As some communities are still affected by the contamination, some areas
qualify for bottled water delivery. The state also encourages homeowners to install in-home
water filtration devices that use either granular activated carbon or reverse osmosis. The Pease
International Trade port now sits on top of the clean-up Superfund site and boasts 250
businesses and 9,500 employees. Part of the Superfund site has also been transformed into a
wildlife refuge. For more information on the Superfund site, go to:
https://cumulis.epa .gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo,cfm?id=0101213
For more information on the State of New Hampshire PFAS activities go to:
Pennsylvania-The State of Pennsylvania is dealing with two active contamination sites located
at the Naval Air Development Center in Warminster Township and Willow Grove Naval Air and
Air Reserve Station in Horsham. In Warminster Township, the Navy installed water treatment
systems in more than 40 homes and connected over 20 households to public water systems.
The EPA assisted the Navy and added an additional 40 households to a public water system. The
Navy is also collaborating with local municipalities and water authorities to aid residents with
well contamination by testing groundwater and nearby residential wells. Along with providing
cleaner water supplies, the Navy has put in efforts to remove contaminated soil and waste from
disposal sites, trenches, and pits. Erosion controls have also been put in place using vegetated
soil covers to monitor stream sediment. To monitor the clean-up process, the Navy conducts
five-year reviews of their efforts to protect human health and the environment. The Navy is
working with the EPA and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. In
Horsham, treatments have included adding sodium bicarbonate to groundwater to raise the ph.
Lactate is also added as the substrate to provide feed for bugs. Horsham has also established a
bioremediation pilot study. The Pennsylvania Department of Health is piloting a program to
examine resident exposure to PFAS in impacted areas of Bucks and Montgomery counties by
utilizing blood testing, which is funded through a grant from the National Association of State
and Territorial Health Officials. This study will lead to a larger national study and provide
feedback for a toolkit created by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and
ATSDR. For more information go to:
https://cumul is.epa.gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cf m?id=0302466

https://cumulis.epa ¦gov/supercpad/cursites/csitinfo.cfm?id=0303820
Michigan-The State of Michigan was one of the first states to implement maximum limits on
PFAS in drinking water. Michigan also created the first multi-agency action team in the United
States called the Michigan PFAS Action Response Team (MPART). Agencies representing health
and environment work alongside branches of government to locate sources and locations of
PFAS contamination, install protective actions towards safe drinking water and establish
effective risk communication with the public. MPART is also comprised of different committees,
such as the Scientific Advisory Committee and the Local Public Health Advisory Committee.
Consumption guidelines have been placed on certain fish species from specific areas with PFAS
contamination and deer are also being tested for PFAS levels. The Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ) conducts experiments in drinking water, groundwater, lakes and
streams, soils, sediments, wastewater and PFAS foams while also publishing specific PFAS
sampling guidance to prevent cross contamination. The State of Michigan also has
recommended residents to use in-home water filtration systems to lower levels of PFAS.
Michigan's Industrial Pretreatment Program furthers state efforts to maintain PFAS levels by
requiring industrial dischargers to utilize treatment techniques and management practices to
lower or remove completely harmful pollutant discharge to sanitary sewers. For more
information on the State of Michigan efforts go to: https://www.michigan.gov/pfasresponse
North Carolina-After the GenX leak in Cape Fear River, the North Carolina Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) and Health and Human Services (DHHS) collaborated to
investigate contamination and public health issues. The DEQ has been collecting water samples
along the river. As the Chemours facility was found to be discharging GenX, the facility was
instructed by the state to provide bottled water for the households with contaminated wells.
For more information on the Cape Fear GenX issue go to:
https://files.nc.gov/ncdeq/GenX/SAB/FAQ updated 021518.pdf
For more information on the State of North Carolina measures go to: https://deq.nc.gov/
Florida-The State of Florida initiated PFAS investigations after a Facebook group brought attention to a
possible cancer cluster in Brevard County. Water has been tested in monitoring wells of the City of
Cocoa Beach, City of Satellite Beach, and schools in Brevard County. Surgeon General and Secretary,
Celeste Phillip, MD, MPH has released a guidance sheet answering priority and frequently asked
questions residents had towards PFAS. The guidance gave insight on not only what PFAS was and where
it was found, but also information on biomonitoring and the types of water being tested. The Florida
Department of Health is also compiling data from current and former community members who have
concerns that their cancers are related to residing near the Patrick Air Force Base.
http://brevard.floridahealth.gov/programs-and-services/ documents/faq-water-pfas.pdf

Minnesota-The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) collaborated with the state public health
laboratory to study the chemicals in the contaminate water supply after detecting PFAS contamination
in 2002 coming from industrial facilities and waste sites. Upon conducting further investigations, PFAS
was also detected in private wells, which led to the issuing of drinking water advisories and negotiating
with impacted community public water suppliers to implement controls that would lower PFAS
concentrations in residents' drinking water. As Minnesota is one of the first states to address the PFAS
issue, the state is familiar with biomonitoring investigations. Along with biomonitoring, the state has
taken legislative measures to implement groundwater guidance values for PFOA, PFOS, PFBS, and PFBA.
The MDH also has conveyed effective risk communication practices by keeping the language at an eight-
grade level to ensure that people of all educational backgrounds would be able to comprehend the
information presented. This information was released to the press and public.
Summary and Conclusion
The general issue of emerging unregulated contaminants and the specific issue of per and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are challenging the systems and regulations designed to
ensure that citizens have access to clean and safe water. Communities need EPA to provide
leadership in coordinating federal and state expertise to develop guidance for local
governments and utility system operators. These issues are urgent and important to local
governments. Working in partnership with the LGAC, local governments, utility system
operators, tribal governments, states and health experts, the EPA can and should provide the
leadership necessary for a coordinated and comprehensive approach to protect the safety and
well-being of our citizens.
The LGAC wishes to thank EPA Acting Administrator Andrew Wheeler for reaching out to gather our
views and perspectives on PFAS. We express our utmost appreciation for Troy Lyons (Office of
Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations), Peter Grevatt (Office of Groundwater and Drinking
Water) and Eric Burneson (OGWDW). We give the greatest of thanks to EPA OCIR Interns Boebin Park
and Meloddy Gau for their contributions to the report. We would like to especially thank Roy Heald,
Colorado Springs Security Water District for his input and for the many representatives of communities
who have contributed as well. We thank the many local officials and presenters who took time to provide
the various perspectives we have gathered in this report.

The Report is a work product of the Local Government Advisory Committee (LGAC), a formal advisory committee
chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. This work product has been reviewed by EPA but the Report
represents the views of the Committee. The Committee is not responsible for any potential inaccuracies that may
appear in the Report as a result of information conveyed. Mention of case studies or trade names of commercial
products does not constitute a recommendation of use. Moreover, the Committee advises that additional
information and sources be consulted in cases where any concern may exist about statistics or any other
information contained within the Report.