US EPA Fayetteville, North Carolina PFAS Community Engagement
August 14, 2018
Location: Crown Ballroom
1960 Coliseum Drive, Fayetteville, NC 28306
Listening Session Summary
Welcome and Introduction
Mary Walker, Deputy Regional Administrator, EPA Region 4, welcomed and thanked state and local
officials and community members for their attendance and participation. Ms. Walker emphasized the
importance of the community engagements to EPA's ongoing work.
Congressman Richard Hudson, North Carolina's 8th District, recognized that clean water is not a
partisan issue. Congressman Hudson indicated that it is a priority to help North Carolina get the
assistance it needs to address PFAS.
Michael S. Regan, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NC DEQ), thanked
EPA Region 4 for planning the community engagement and Congressman Hudson for his attendance.
Mr. Regan acknowledged that PFAS is both a North Carolina issue and a national issue and that local,
state, and federal governments must work hand in hand to solve the problem.
Trey Glenn, Regional Administrator, EPA Region 4, recognized Congressman Hudson's constant
attention on this matter and PFAS as a priority for EPA to ensure North Carolina and all the United States
have safe and clean drinking water. EPA continues to work with North Carolina and its local
governments to address concerns in public water systems and private wells. Mr. Glenn indicated that
the community engagement is critical to understanding how EPA can support states and local
governments.
Dr. Peter Grevatt, Director, U.S. EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, indicated that this is
one of several community engagements that EPA is conducting on PFAS and that it is important for EPA
to hear the perspectives of communities as EPA develops the PFAS management plan. Dr. Grevatt briefly
described EPA's commitment:
1.	EPA will initiate steps to evaluate the need for a maximum contaminant level (MCL) for PFOA
and PFOS. We will convene our federal partners and examine everything we know about PFOA
and PFOS in drinking water.
2.	EPA is beginning the necessary steps to propose designating PFOA and PFOS as "hazardous
substances" through one of the available statutory mechanisms, including potentially CERCLA
Section 102.
3.	EPA is currently developing groundwater cleanup recommendations for PFOA and PFOS at
contaminated sites and will complete this task by fall of this year.

-------
4. EPA is taking action in close collaboration with our federal and state partners to develop toxicity
values for GenX and PFBS by this summer.
Dr. Grevatt informed participants that EPA has a docket (http://www.regulations.gov: enter Docket ID
No. EPA-OW-2018-0270) available to provide comments on the development of EPA's National PFAS
Management Plan.
The materials presented at all of the following sessions can be download at the EPA website:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/prodyctiori/files/2018-08/dociiments/r4 combined presentations .pdf This
summary reflects a high-level synthesis of the perspectives participants shared during the community
engagement event and do not imply consensus, endorsement, or agreement on any of the topics.
Science Panel
Scientists from the EPA, NC DEQ, and ATSDR presented basic scientific information about PFAS and
related substances, the ongoing research at their organizations, and upcoming research. The following
scientists presented information at the community engagement:
•	Dr. Andy Gillespie, Associate Director, EPA, Office of Research and Development (ORD)
•	Laurence Libelo, Chief, Science Policy Branch, Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology
Innovation, EPA, Office of Land and Emergency Management
•	Thomas Speth, Associate Director for Science (Acting), EPA, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory
•	Linda Culpepper, Interim Director, North Carolina Division of Water Resources
•	Dr. William (Bill) Cibulas, Director, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR),
Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences
Local Issues Pane! Presentations
This session provided an opportunity for local and state officials to frame local issues resulting from
PFAS contamination. Officials described the identification, characterization, and response to PFAS in
North Carolina including PFOA, PFOS, and GenX. Elevated levels of PFAS were detected in the Cape Fear
watershed as part of a study by the University of North Carolina and the EPA's Office of Research and
Development. The state confirmed the levels and found the wastewater effluent from a Chemours
facility to be a primary source of PFAS, especially GenX. Officials summarized sampling of surface waters,
drinking water, wastewater effluents, and air emissions. They described their responses to the
contamination, and the associated costs, including providing water from a different source and pilot
studies on treatment options. The following officials shared their experiences:
•	Thomas Speth, Associate Director for Science (Acting), EPA, National Risk Management Research
Laboratory
•	Carel Vandermeyden, Director of Engineering, Cape Fear Public Utility Authority
•	Michael M. Borchers, Assistant Director, City of Greensboro Water Resources Department
•	Mike Abraczinskas, Director, North Carolina Division of Air Quality
•	Michael Scott, Director, North Carolina Division of Waste Management
2

-------
Community Presentations
This session provided an opportunity for community groups to share experiences with PFAS.
Representatives from state, county, water utility, and community organizations shared their stories and
experiences with PFAS. The presentations are available at:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-08/documents/r4_combined_presentations_.pdf
The following individuals shared their communities' experience:
•	Kemp Burdette, Riverkeeper Cape Fear River Watch, representing Sierra Club, North Carolina
Conservation Network, North Carolina Coastal Federation and the Southern Environmental Law
Center
•	Emily Donovan, Co-Founder Clean Cape Fear
Community Listening Session
Mary Walker welcomed community members and groups and articulated the importance of the
listening sessions in development of EPA's National PFAS Management Plan. The session was kicked off
with comments from John Szoka, North Carolina House of Representatives, 45th District. Representative
Szoka expressed that the PFAS issue must be addressed at all levels of government. He expressed that
North Carolina is working to provide resources to communities through the NC DEQ and other
mechanisms (e.g., grants, loans).
Additionally, 50 community members shared input during the community listening session. The
following is a synthesized list of themes and points shared during the listening session:
Health Impacts
Community members shared accounts of health impacts on their families, animals, and communities
attributed to PFAS exposure. Commenters expressed their desire to understand how current and past
exposure may impact their family and the potential for future medical problems, including cumulative
impacts from all PFAS. Community members shared how their families and friends have experienced
severe medical impacts, and their frustration that the community was still at risk. Parents urged the EPA
to take action for their children. Commenters identified specific populations, such as firefighters, as
potentially at a higher risk. They recommended EPA identify and address community health impacts of
PFAS, including their desire for these groups to be monitored and given access to medical care and
information.
Location of Community Engagements
Several community members expressed a desire for a community engagement event in Wilmington,
North Carolina. They felt that a community engagement there is necessary to understand the impacts
from PFAS contamination on their community and expressed that the timing and distance of the
Fayetteville-based community engagement made it difficult for community members from Wilmington
to participate.
Risk Characterization
Community members pointed to risk characterization as a critical first step to addressing PFAS in
communities where PFAS have been identified in both finished drinking water and surface water.
Commenters urged the EPA to support development of more analytic methods and tools and
3

-------
recommended that the EPA conduct a more rigorous review of chemicals and their environmental and
health impacts before approval. Commenters expressed frustration at the lack of information provided
to employers and employees near sites where PFAS were discharged. Community members stressed
their desire for the EPA to place a greater emphasis on source water protection.
Risk Communication
Community members felt that basic information about PFAS exposure and impacts to communities is
not successfully reaching people and warned that confusion about PFAS is eroding public confidence.
Commenters expressed frustration at the lack of information on how long the community was expected
to use bottled water, which is an expensive and temporary solution. They also expressed frustration that
there were no signs or communications to protect children wading in the rivers. Commenters
recommended that the EPA move quickly to distribute existing research, process information, and set
deadlines for ongoing work.
Standards/Guidance
Many community members suggested the need for enforceable standards for PFAS to address the
broader family of chemicals. Commenters urged EPA to set an enforceable standard (i.e., MCL) and
move to enact protective mechanisms to avoid PFAS contamination and its associated impacts in the
future. Several commenters were encouraged to see heightened attention to the issue of PFAS
contamination but urged EPA to provide guidance on steps that impacted communities can take today.
Additionally, they recommended that EPA consider classifying PFAS as a hazardous substance and add
the family of chemicals to the toxic pollutant list.
Cost Impacts
Community members spoke of the high cost to communities, utilities, and individuals addressing PFAS
contamination. Commenters spoke of their frustration that they are bearing the cost of monitoring and
treating medical complications due to PFAS exposure and their dissatisfaction that industry had not
been held accountable for cleanup, treatment, and health impact costs. They expressed frustration that
they felt jobs and economic development for industry was weighted more heavily by elected officials
than community health and safety. Commenters recognized that not everyone in their community can
afford bottled water and spoke on behalf of members of the community that work low-income jobs and
pay rent, expressing that many are unable to afford or install protective solutions. Commenters
expressed the need for additional funding for the NC DEQ to help with risk characterization and to
support health monitoring and treatment solutions. They expressed frustration that the polluter is not
assuming responsibility and is not engaging with impacted communities.
Remediation
Community members urged the EPA to focus not only on treating drinking water, but to work on
eliminating additional PFAS discharges. Commenters expressed a sense of urgency for dealing with
cleanup issues and expressed concern about the impacts of PFAS contamination on important
livelihoods, such as the tourism sector near Wilmington. Commenters urged the EPA to identify
industrial polluters as soon as possible. They also expressed the desire to have more information about
the treatment technologies employed to treat PFAS in their drinking water.
4

-------