Cows in Clovis are euthanized after being contaminated with PFAS laced water.
On Tuesday NMED Secretary Kenney's gave a presentation at the Radioactive and Hazardous Materials Interim Committee meeting where he announced that the agency would be pursuing legislation to ban the non-essential use of PFAS in New Mexico and seek funding to continue the state's legal fights to ensure the federal government cleans up the military's contamination of a number New Mexico communities.
Why is the Secretary determined to ban non-essential uses of PFAS in New Mexico, and to force the federal government to cover the costs of cleanup? Because PFAS is so hazardous, so detrimental to human health, and so costly and difficult to remove once dispersed into the environment that prevention is far more prudent (for health, for environmental resilience, and for economic efficiency). One tablespoon of PFAS can make two times the entire capacity of the Elephant Butte Reservoir exceed the 4 ppt limit for drinking water set by the EPA. One pound of PFAS can cost between $50 and $100 to manufacture but cost between $2.7 million and $18 million to remove from municipal wastewater systems.
And if it is not removed? The health impacts highlighted in the Secretary's presentation include:
Secretary Kenney has shared his dismay at the grisly task of euthanizing 3600 cows at a dairy in Clovis and carefully disposing of their bodies as hazardous waste because every effort to help those cows flush the PFAS from their systems failed. The Secretary may be unpleasantly surprised to learn that the Clovis dairy farmer affected is not alone. PFAS from a mix of municipal and industrial waste sludge called biosolids, often used as fertilizer for produce and dairy feed crops, is likely to be continuing the contamination of more than 70 million acres of farmland and dairies across the country. Farms found to be contaminated have been prohibited from ever again being used for agriculture. Some states have just stopped testing farms for PFAS because of the "economic effects," a head-in-the-sand approach that doesn't solve anything. As Secretary Kenney noted, "we must prevent PFAS from getting into our water system."
Just six of the more than 15,000 PFAS were targeted in the EPA's new drinking water regulations. It is a travesty that the rest of this deadly class of chemicals are still being used with impunity in consumer goods, agriculture and industrial products across the country. Despite the EPA's new drinking water guidelines, neither the U.S. EPA or NMED have established numerical PFAS standards for groundwater, and the chemical industry continues to pump out new Short Chain PFAS that are still dangerous to human health and up to 70% more expensive to remove and destroy compared to “long-chain” PFAS that have been the target of most regulations.
Industry will only stop poisoning us if we hold them accountable.
WE AGREE WITH SECRETARY KENNEY - PREVENTION IS KEY AND THE POLLUTER MUST PAY. THAT IS WHY WE ARE SUPPORTING A RULE BANNING PFAS IN OIL AND GAS DRILLING WITH CHEMICAL DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENTS.
The oil and gas industry is a known perpetrator of PFAS contamination. Physicians for Social Responsibility documented the following uses of one type of PFAS, PTFE, in fracking operations in New Mexico from 2013 to 2022:
Physicians for Social Responsibility "Fracking with Forever Chemicals in New Mexico" pg 10
One pound of PFAS is equal to just over one cup. One cup could contaminate the capacity of 34 Elephant Butte reservoirs! The potential environmental and health impacts of oil and gas PFAS contamination are staggering. Every barrel of affected flowback and fracking waste sludge from these wells is hazardous waste, and every ground and surface water source nearby potentially contaminated. A 2021 USGS study, for example, detected high levels of PFAS in the Pecos River downstream of Permian oil and gas operations and noted "Some undeveloped areas where minimal PFAS detections would be expected had PFAS detections. Outliers in the undeveloped category for frequently sampled sites included Pecos Artesia with 24.9, 15.5, and 12.9 ng/L."
We can prevent further PFAS contamination from the oil and gas industry. Colorado has banned PFAS in O&G operations and required chemical disclosure - we can too! The Oil Conservation Commission will decide whether to prohibit the use of PFAS in oil and gas operations in New Mexico at a hearing in November. We need your help to ensure they make the right decision. Sign up below to make public comment at the hearing. If you're unable to make comment in person you can click the link to send an email with your comments to the Commission.
Comments