Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the PFAS Contamination topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
NMED warns PFAS contamination widespread near military sites; recommends veteran screening and state cleanup funding
Summary
NMED scientists told the advisory council that AFFF use at New Mexico military installations has produced off-site PFAS contamination at locations including Cannon, Holloman and Kirtland; the department cited House Bill 140, state appropriations for immediate assistance, and recommended periodic blood screening for veterans.
Dr. Eric Chapman, science coordinator for the New Mexico Environment Department, and Hazardous Waste Bureau chief (introduced in the agenda as "JD Nance" and speaking as Jay Manance) briefed the Military & Veterans Affairs Advisory Council on Nov. 1 about PFAS contamination tied to historical use of aqueous film-forming foam (AFFF) at military installations.
Dr. Chapman explained that PFAS (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances) are persistent "forever chemicals" used in firefighting foams and many industrial products and that peer-reviewed studies link exposure to several adverse health outcomes, including elevated odds of certain cancers. He cited a 2023 study that found higher serum PFOS concentrations were associated with greater odds of testicular germ cell tumors among Air Force servicemen.
The department outlined site-by-site status: Cannon Air Force Base (confirmed off‑site contamination; remedial investigation under CERCLA and parallel RCRA work urged by NMED), Holloman (Holloman Lake contamination prompted public advisories and closure), Kirtland (remedial investigation underway, no confirmed off-site migration yet), Fort Wingate (investigating sites; no confirmed off-site contamination reported) and White Sands Missile Range/White Sands Test Facility (permitting updated to address PFAS). NMED said eight DOD installations in New Mexico are in the Superfund/CERCLA review process and that 586 DOD sites nationally are proceeding to remedial phases.
State-level actions described by the Hazardous Waste Bureau include passage of House Bill 140 to designate AFFF containing PFAS as hazardous waste under state law, draft rules for the Environmental Improvement Board (informal comment period; petition to EIB planned for December 2025 with a target of final rules in 2026), and two appropriations to support community response: a short-term assistance appropriation to address private-water contamination and a $12 million long-term assistance allocation to connect rural Curry County residents to public water systems. NMED said contractors are procuring filters and moving toward implementation.
On disposal and destruction, the department summarized EPA interim guidance and large-scale options (high-temperature thermal destruction, permitted hazardous-waste landfills, and underground injection) and noted New Mexico lacks class 1 hazardous‑waste underground injection wells, which affects disposal pathways. The department recommended offering PFAS blood‑screening for New Mexico veterans at least once every five years to better understand occupational exposure.
Lawmakers pressed officials on federal funding and timelines. NMED urged continued federal engagement through DOD CERCLA processes but said the state is preparing to use the RCRA framework where possible and is pursuing litigation through the state attorney general's office to recover incurred costs. Committee members also raised concerns about alternative firefighting foams (fluorine‑free F3 products), impacts to families living on base, and broader lifecycle disposal issues for renewable-energy equipment that may contain PFAS.
Next steps: NMED said it will continue community outreach (filter distribution and public meetings), pursue rulemaking under HB140, and work with legislators on funding and permit modifications to accelerate remediation.
