GENE: NEW MEXICO HEALTH OFFICIALS JUST GOT SOME  HELP IN THEIR FIGHT AGAINST TOXIC PFAS CHEMICALS.

TH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, OR EPA,  RECENTLY GRANTED GOVERNOR MICLLE LUJAN GRISHAM’S   REQUEST LISTING FOR TYPES OF PFAS SUBSTANCES  ARE HAZARDOUS WASTE, UNDER A FEDERAL POLLUTION   LAW.

ENVIRONMENT CORRESPODENT LAURA PASKUS  CAUGHT UP WITH SECRETARY JAMES KENNEY OF THE   STATE’S ENVIRONMENT DEPARTMENT, TO FIND OUT WHY  THAT ONE SIMPLE CHANGE COULD ALTER THE DYNAMIC   WITH THE U.S. MILITARY, WHICH USED THESE CHEMICALS  IN FIREFIGHTING FOAMS AND CONTAMINATED GROUNDWATER   NEAR CANNON AND HOLLOMAN AIR FORCE BASES.

LAURA: Secretary Kenney, welcome   back to New Mexico in Focus.

KENNEY: Thank you for having me.

LAURA: So, we're once again talking about  PFAS contamination from military bases here   in New Mexico.

Just to remind viewers once again  what are PFAS, and, you know, kind of, what are   the problems?

Why are we concerned about them?

KENNEY: Yeah.

So, PFAS are a chemical that are,   that are typically used in firefighting  foams, but they can be used in other household   products.

Things like stain, fabric protection.

Think of your Goretex clothing and things like   that.

Anything that's water repellent may have  PFAS as the active ingredient that made it water   repellent.

But, in New Mexico, the biggest  problem that we have here is with the, with the   fire-fighting foams at, typically, our military  bases.

But, the concerns about PFAS are growing,   growing every day, as the science continues to  evolve.

It's clear that the health studies show   that PFAS can cause things like high  cholesterol.

They can cause things like,   certain types of cancers, certain  types of diabetes and things like that.

There's about 9,000 chemicals here.

So, it's  kind of hard to say which one causes what,   but generally speaking they cause  those kinds of health ailments,   chronic and acute health problems.

So, the  federal government, the U.S. Environmental   Protection Agency, the agency that's kind of  in charge of setting drinking water and sort of   regulatory frameworks for states and Tribes, they  have not set an actual limit for PFAS exposure in   drinking water.

They have set a health advisory.

LAURA: How does that lack of a federal regulation   make things hard for states like New Mexico?

KENNEY: Well, it's a great question.

And, it   makes it hard, because you don't know what a safe  level is and whether you're drinking water from a   municipal water system, where most  many New Mexicans get their water from,   or whether you're drinking it from a private well,  you can test for PFAS, you'll get a result and   hopefully it's non-detect… zero… but if there is  a detection of PFAS, then the next question is,   what's safe?

And a lack of a federal standard  for many years now has hampered states and Tribes   from determining how to work with communities,  to not only protect them, but enforce against   those standards being exceeded.

Fortunately, now,  there's some commitment to developing that, that   drinking water standard.

Under the current  administration and from the U.S. EPA.

So,   hopefully we'll see that soon.

LAURA: So, here at New Mexico PBS,   we focused a lot on groundwater contamination from  Cannon Air Force Base and Holloman Air Force Base   and earlier this year the governor petitioned the  EPA to list four of these thousands of types of   PFAS as hazardous waste, under a federal cleanup  law.

Can you talk a little bit about that issue   and how that affects, or might affect New Mexico?

KENNEY: Yeah, absolutely.

So,   I'm gonna try to avoid using the legal  terminology and just speak more in plain English,   but the state of New Mexico, just maybe a little  bit of a backstory here, the state of New Mexico   asked the Department of Defense to  clean up PFAS at Cannon Air Force Base,   under the hazardous waste rules of the  state, which are the same as the Feds.

The Department of Defense said no,  we're not going to do that.

And then   sued the state of New Mexico to prevent  us from doing that.

That started in 2019.

We feel as though the EPA now agrees  with us, that those chemicals,   once they're in the groundwater, are a waste and  they're hazardous.

They're a hazardous waste,   but we needed to petition the EPA to say, do  you agree with the state of New Mexico and   effectively that's what we did.

And, clearly,  the EPA concurred, by saying that we're going   to partially grant the governor's petition.

And, by partially granting that they just said,   we're going to do it for these chemicals, these  four chemicals, as opposed to the 8964 other ones.

So, that was a big win for the  state, that the federal government,   EPA agrees with the state of New Mexico.

LAURA: So, what does that mean for, for like   the Environment Department moving forward?

What  can you do, that maybe you couldn't do before?

KENNEY: Well, I think what we could do  before, we did.

And, we said, when an   entity like the U.S. government, or a private  company spills or discards PFAS on the ground,   you can't do that.

That's illegal.

That's  dumping of hazardous waste, pure and simple.

The authority that we, that has been concurred by  EPA just further bolsters that we were right and   the Department of Defense is, I think, who really  needs to understand that.

The rest of the Biden   administration is now agreeing with the state of  New Mexico and they're the ones that are out of   line with their interpretation of these hazardous  waste laws.

So, I think they the Department of   Defense need to come in line with the rest of the  federal government, the state of New Mexico and   actually play ball here.

I mean, this is where  they do business.

This is the communities they   work with and in these are the people they employ.

And this is where their service men and women   are.

To say that they don't have to take  responsibility for the waste that they   got into our groundwater is absolutely ridiculous.

No other entity in the state of New Mexico has   that ability to do that and neither do they.

LAURA: Right.

So, PFAS is not, unfortunately, you   know… it's not just a New Mexico problem.

Other  states have these, these contamination issues as   well.

The EPA’s partial granting of this petition  will have national implications, do you think?

KENNEY: Absolutely, and since the petition was  granted, we're being contacted by, you know,   everything from, everyone from law firms to  NGOs to talk about the national significance   of the governor's petition and EPA granting that.

And, in fact, whether you're in Tucson, Arizona,   who is struggling with their own PFAS issues  in their drinking water, or you're in Michigan,   with similar issues, the governor's petition  kind of reset the landscape around the way   New Mexico's position, or put New  Mexico's position out there and gave   other states that tool to say, “Hey, when you  spill PFAS and disregard it and don't clean it up,   that's actually a violation of state  and federal law.” So, again, we open the   door for other states to follow in our lead.

Laura: The state released some study results   recently, testing 55 wells in Curry and Roosevelt  Counties, for 28 of these different compounds and   I'd like to talk about the study a little bit,  because the results show that the levels in these   wells are below this EPA health advisory we talked  about.

But, I know that scientists recommend that   you have no exposure to PFAS over the course  of your lifetime.

There's no safe level.

So, can we talk a little bit about what you  found, which seems like good news, but also,   you know, what are people being exposed to?

KENNEY: It's a good question and it is a little   confusing, but that 70 health advisory level  that EPA published, that's something we go by,   but it's not the only thing we go by.

And what  we do in our department, when we look at any PFAS   test result, especially for drinking water is, we  look at what all states have promulgated as their   drinking water standards.

So, there's some pretty  aggressive standards out there in states who have   taken a leadership role, to make sure that their  drinking water is safe, by promulgating low,   low standards.

So, whenever we get a test result  back, we first look at that 70 and then we say,   “Well, how does it compare to other states?

Vermont, Michigan… the list goes on and on   and what I can say about those 55… I think it's  55 test results that we received, not only are   they below the EPA threshold, but they're  below other state drinking water thresholds.

It doesn't mean that the water is completely  free of PFAS and just saying that it is below   those other state standards as well, that  are science-based, drinking water standards,   to protect public health.

LAURA: So, this study, you know,   the Air Force notified the state  of the contamination in 2018,   but it doesn't seem like we have a good sense yet  still of where the plume is and how it's moving.

To my knowledge, the Air Force has not done those  studies, have not delineated the plume.

Do these   survey results help the state understand  where the plume is and how it's moving?

KENNEY: Yeah, so we're not just relying on  people's wells to under, you know, to figure out   where the plume is and how and how quickly it's  moving and where it's moving.

We're also doing our   own remedial investigation, but the results you're  speaking of, that are in drinking water wells,   those do help us understand how quickly the  plume is moving as well.

So, there's a lot   of that integration of the scientific information  we get, from looking at the source area and then   going out and looking at people's drinking  water wells.

And the drinking water area.

The drinking water provider in Clovis,  EPCOR is also monitoring their wells for   PFAS, so we feel we have a good safety net and we  want to make sure that that plume is remediated   before it hits any of those other wells.

LAURA: So, we've been talking about Holloman   and well, we've mentioned Holloman.

I've  been talking about Cannon Air Force base.

The Pentagon released a report more than a year  ago saying that there was the potential for PFAS   contamination at Fort Wingate, the Army National  Guard Armories in Rio Rancho and Roswell,   the Army Aviation Support Facility in  Santa Fe and White Sands Missile Range.

Has the state heard anything about these studies?

Have you received these studies?

Do you know   if these studies have even been initiated?

KENNEY: Yeah, so what you're getting a slice,   or a view of, with respect to the conversation  we're having is some of the real targeted and most   important PFAS work we're doing in the state, with  respect to those bases.

But, as you point out,   it's not the only PFAS work we're doing.

And in those particular instances,   those particular sites that you just mentioned, we  are working with different agencies, if you will,   different organizations to make sure that  if there is PFAS at those locations that   we're aware of it.

We're regulating it.

I can  give you an example.

As a result of what happened   at Cannon and then thinking about the Rio  Rancho site that you mentioned, we're looking   at all our groundwater discharge permits to  make sure that, if one of those facilities,   like Cannon or the Rio Rancho site, if they need  a PFAS limit or they need to do PFAS monitoring   before they discharge, are associated with  their discharge.

That they are doing that.

So,   we, I think we have about 25 permits out  of 700 now, discharge permits, in the state   of New Mexico that have PFAS monitoring  requirements.

And the work we're doing,   with, particularly, the Rio  Rancho site is kind of influencing   that outcome.

So we know there's PFAS.

We're  working to make sure that it's monitored.

We're working to make sure that those other  sites are brought into the fold as well.

So there's litigation, there's disagreement… LAURA: What is the, what is your sense of   transparency from DOD?

What is communication  like?

How do New Mexicans, how can we be reassured   that important conversations are occurring?

KENNEY: Yeah, that's a great question.

So, we publish… let me just always give  you this information, that we publish   all the data on our website.

So, as soon as we  collect a sample and we have that information,   we put it right on our website.

So, we try  to make it as transparent as possible.

And   our different programs, our drinking  water bureau, our hazardous waste bureau,   we work with communities to help them.

Understand  the results, because it can get complicated.

So, we're working with individual communities.

But, all that information is on our website.

The conversations that we're having with federal  agencies like the department of energy, we had a   great conversation with them about the mixed waste  landfill at Sandia, saying that PFAS has become a   concern.

Since the time that that landfill was put  in place and we want you to start monitoring for   PFAS.

And they're doing it.

They're doing it right  now and those results will go up on our website.

I think it's the Department of Defense that is  lacking, not only transparency with New Mexicans,   but lacking communication with the environment  department.

I, as well as members of my staff,   jump on their Zoom calls to give community updates  of what they're doing on base, which is not   what they're doing off base, because what's  happening off base is nothing.

That's everything   that the environment department is doing and  that New Mexico taxpayers are paying for.

So, you can rest assured that our department  is trying to put as much information out about   PFAS as possible and we're having the important  conversations with federal agencies like DOE,   who's very responsive on this topic.

And  DOD, who is using the court system to   not have the conversation.

LAURA: It seems so interesting to me,   because from administration to administration,  environmental policy often changes.

We see   that with the direction that lots of different  federal agencies have taken, including the EPA.

And yet, on the PFAS issue, in  particular, the DOD seems to remain   the same, regardless of administration.

I'm  curious, is that normal?

Do you do you see   hope for DOD coming around to this issue of PFAS  contamination and remediation in New Mexico?

KENNEY: I'm hopeful every day.

And we're sending  a letter to the Department of Defense this week,   saying that, in light of EPA's clarification  and an agreement with the state of New Mexico,   that we would like you to do what we asked and  continuing to litigate against the state of New   Mexico is unconscionable, actually, at this point.

But, I'm hopeful and optimistic that we'll see   real leadership at the Department of Defense that  will say, we do business in New Mexico.

We are,   have, we are part of the community and we want  to do the right thing.

It's, I… it's never too   late to do the right thing and that's what we  hope the DOD will realize and give us a call.

LAURA: I just wanted to circle back to  the EPA.

We mentioned the health advisory   versus the drinking water standard.

EPA has  said it's moving forward with its PFAS action   plan.

Do you have any sense of when EPA will  potentially announce a drinking water standard,   or how long it could take for one to be in place?

KENNEY: So, under their recent announcement,   which is now the PFAS road map… just to that…  I think they're distinguishing the road map   from the action plan, because there's more  movement now in the, in their PFAS actions,   but I don't have any great sense on when they're  going to set a drinking water standard, but I'm   optimistic that it'll be under two years.

I think  the urgency by which, not only New Mexicans,   but anyone from this country is dealing with PFAS,  demands that it should be as soon as possible,   because we really can't wait.

We need to get PFAS  out of our groundwater, out of our drinking water,   and treat it in a way that actually contains  it and doesn't just shift it to another,   you know, to the air, to the land, anywhere  else.

So, I'm hoping it's sub-two years,   but I'm really hoping it's sooner than that even.

LAURA: Well, Secretary Kenney, thank you so much.

KENNEY: Thank you for having  me.

Really appreciate it.