US EPA Kansas PFAS Community Engagement
September 5, 2018 12:00pm-4:30pm
Listening Session
Riverfront Community Center
123 S. Esplanade St
Leavenworth, KS
Listening Session Summary
Welcome and Introduction
James B, Guiliford, Administrator, EPA Region 7, welcomed arid thanked the community for their
participation. Mr. Guiliford explained that the listening session was held in Leavenworth, Kansas due to
the nearby military installation and the discovery of PFAS in well water.
Jennifer McLain, Deputy Director, EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, recognized the
widespread use of PFAS and emphasized the importance of partnerships in addressing contamination.
Ms. McLain thanked participants for coming to the session and briefly described the ongoing work at
EPA on PFAS including:
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.
PFAS Introduction and Stakeholder Perspectives
The following sessions provided an opportunity for stakeholders, including state, tribal, and federal
entities to share their experiences with PFAS. The presentations are available at
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-
09/documents/final epa pfas leavenworth kansas presentations September 5 2018.pdf (9.3 MB).
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.

-------
PFAS 101
During this session, EPA provided an introduction to PFAS, an EPA research update, and a Region 7 PFAS
overview, including an account of the detection of PFOA and PFOS at Fort Leavenworth and the steps
taken by the Army to connect the post to the town of Leavenworth's public water supply.
•	Dr. Marc Mills, Environmental Engineer, EPA, Office of Research and Development
•	Mary Mindrup, Chief, Drinking Water Management Branch, EPA Region 7
Perspectives from Stakeholders
This session provided an opportunity for state, tribal, and federal entities to offer their perspectives to
the EPA as it prepares a national management plan for PFAS.
•	Leo Henning, Director of Environment, Kansas Department of Health and Environment (KDHE),
stated that Kansas supports EPA's four PFAS initiatives. KDHE will work cooperatively with EPA
and thinks it is important to have a consistent approach across the country. KDHE is convening a
stakeholder group by the end of the year to examine approaches to dealing with PFAS in Kansas.
•	Carey Bridges, Deputy Director Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Quality, discussed PFAS testing done in the state of Missouri and the associated
cost. No community water systems were above the Health Advisory Level. Missouri does not
think a national MCL for PFOA and PFOS is necessary. Missouri does support the other three
PFAS initiatives EPA is pursuing.
•	Dianne Barton, Chair, National Tribal Toxics Council (see slides)
•	Dr. William (Bill) Cibulas, Director, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR),
Division of Toxicology and Human Health Sciences (see slides)
Identifying Solutions for PFAS - Lessons Learned
This session reviewed conversations and themes that emerged during the day and summarized key ideas
from similar PFAS engagement events held by EPA in recent weeks across the country.
•	James B. Gulliford, Administrator, EPA Region 7, summarized the information presented
throughout the afternoon. He recognized the importance of research to addressing PFAS
exposure, as well as the importance of working with our partners and learning from their
different perspectives. He acknowledged the need to look at multiple exposure pathways and to
consider our most vulnerable populations.
•	Jennifer McLain, Deputy Director, EPA, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, thanked
presenters and spoke to the interrelated nature of the information presented today with earlier
sessions across the US. Ms. McLain expressed appreciation for the commitment states have
demonstrated in addressing PFAS and reducing risk and acknowledged the challenges involved
in monitoring for these chemicals including complexity and cost.
2

-------
Community Listening Session
During the community listening session three community members shared input. The following is a
synthesis from the input shared during the listening session:
Remediation Technology
During the listening session, one commenter spoke to the importance of technological advancements,
such as granular activated carbon and ion exchange resins, to remove PFAS compounds, such as PFOA
and GenX from drinking water.
Cost Impacts
Commenters expressed frustration that consumers and the community bear the majority of cost
impacts associated with PFAS exposure, such as healthcare and treatment, and urged the EPA to
consider the costs of healthcare in their analyses.
Source Control
A commenter suggested a buyback program for aqueous film forming foam (AFFF) to remove it from
use. Expired AFFF has been used in training activities as a means of disposal.
Comprehensive Risk Assessment
Commenters focused on the need for PFAS testing and monitoring beyond drinking water to fish,
wildlife and other potential exposure pathways. They also spoke to the need to address PFAS exposure
through an environmental justice and equity framework, focusing on minorities and low-income
communities that may be geographically closer to industrial discharge and PFAS activity, and less
financially-equipped to deal with the impacts of PFAS contamination.
3

-------