New Mexico 2020 Regular Session Status: In Committee 1 D cosponsors

HM 21 — TRANSPORT & STORAGE OF RADIOACTIVE WASTE

Last action — action postponed indefinitely

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed House
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2020 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Bill Text

What changed in the latest version

207 added · 183 removed

Plain-language change summary

In the recent amendments to House Memorial 21, the text has been streamlined by removing certain lines that repeated information about the dangers of nuclear waste. Specifically, it cut out a reference to spent nuclear fuel being "useful in a commercial reactor." This change matters because it simplifies the message and focuses on the ongoing issues surrounding nuclear waste management without diluting the urgency of the concerns.

→
Previous
Latest
HOUSE MEMORIAL 21 54TH LEGISLATURE- STATE OF NEW MEXICO - SECOND SESSION, 2020 INTRODUCED BY Matthew McQueen 6 8 10 A MEMORIAL IN OPPOSITION TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE TO, AND STORAGE IN, NEW MEXICO.
HOUSE MEMORIAL 21 TH LEGISLATURE - STATE OF NEW MEXICO - SECOND SESSION , 2020 INTRODUCED BY Matthew McQueen This document incorporates amendments that have been adopted during the current legislative session.
14 WHEREAS, the problem of what to do with nuclear waste is ongoing and largely unanswered;
The document is a tool to show the amendments in context and is not to be used for the purpose of amendments.
and WHEREAS, finding repositories for spent nuclear fuel is a e t 17 concern, as many types of radioactive waste remain dangerously w l n d 18 radioactive for thousands of years after they are no longer = = 19 a l useful in a commercial reactor;
A MEMORIAL IN OPPOSITION TO THE TRANSPORTATION OF HIGH-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE h WASTE TO, AND STORAGE IN, NEW MEXICO.
and i a e r 20 WHEREAS, the Eddy-Lea energy alliance, an alliance of the a t m m 21 cities of Carlsbad and Hobbs and Eddy and Lea counties, was d r e 22 formed to focus on the creation of an "interim" storage c e s k 23 facility for spent nuclear fuel;
g o t hr g e i k WHEREAS, the problem of what to do with nuclear waste is h r i s ongoing and largely unanswered;
and e a n b 24 WHEREAS, Holtec international has applied to the United u [ States nuclear regulatory commission for a license to construct .216434.7 and operate a consolidated interim storage facility on land located between Hobbs and Carlsbad, along United States highway 62/180, and to transport up to one hundred thousand metric tons of high-level radioactive waste, or spent fuel, from ninety-six commercial nuclear reactors in the United States;
and h , t, e u g WHEREAS, finding repositories for spent nuclear fuel is a e b l e e h concern, as many types of radioactive waste remain dangerously n d d i = = o h radioactive for thousands of years after they are no longer l ] b ,d i a º e useful in a commercial reactor;
and r i = r t e w d m a n o WHEREAS, the Eddy-Lea energy alliance, an alliance of the d m :
b e d s º o t n = .216434.7AIC February 4, 2020 (8:49am) s k m e e a n e d r e l u [ A d cities of Carlsbad and Hobbs and Eddy and Lea counties, was formed to focus on the creation of an "interim" storage facility for spent nuclear fuel;
and WHEREAS, Holtec international has applied to the United States nuclear regulatory commission for a license to construct and operate a consolidated interim storage facility on land located between Hobbs and Carlsbad, along United States highway 62/180, and to transport up to one hundred thousand metric tons of high-level radioactive waste, or spent fuel, from ninety-six commercial nuclear reactors in the United States;
and WHEREAS, New Mexico is already the storage site of the nation's nuclear-weapons-defense-related transuranic waste at the waste isolation pilot plant near Carlsbad;
and h WHEREAS, New Mexico is already the storage site of the u » r nation's nuclear-weapons-defense-related transuranic waste at t h g e l i the waste isolation pilot plant near Carlsbad;
and WHEREAS, the transport to New Mexico of high-level radioactive waste by rail from the eastern United States, where e e 17 ninety percent of the nuclear reactors are located, creates an e e n d 18 unacceptable risk for New Mexicans and residents in more than = = l ] 19 forty other states;
and h r i s WHEREAS, the transport to New Mexico of high-level h , e h radioactive waste HENRCº by rail»HENRC from the eastern United t u g e b l e e , gh States, where ninety percent of the nuclear reactors are n d d i = = o h located, creates an unacceptable risk for New Mexicans and l ] b ,d i a º r residents in more than forty other states;
and a l r i 20 WHEREAS, the proposed "interim" storage facility t e a t anticipates a "temporary" storage period of fifty years, but m m 21 e d r e 22 since no permanent repository exists, such "interim" storage c e r c 23 could become permanent;
and e r = t e w d m a n o WHEREAS, the proposed "interim" storage facility d m :
and e a n b 24 WHEREAS, Holtec international's plan to build proposed u [ interim storage of high-level radioactive waste in New Mexico .216434.7 - 2 - has been met with stringent opposition from many sectors;
b r e t º o t n = .216434.7AIC February 4, 2020 (8:49am) s k m e - 2 - e a n e d r e l u [ A d anticipates a "temporary" storage period of fifty years, but since no permanent repository exists, such "interim" storage could become permanent;
and WHEREAS, Holtec international's plan to build proposed interim storage of high-level radioactive waste in New Mexico has been met with stringent opposition from many sectors;
and WHEREAS, the governor also noted that the facility poses unacceptable risk to New Mexicans, who look to southeastern New Mexico as a driver of economic growth in the state, with agricultural industry contributions of approximately three billion dollars ($3,000,000,000) per year to the state's economy, of which three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000) is generated in Eddy and Lea counties, where the proposed facility would be located;
and WHEREAS, the governor also noted that the facility poses unacceptable risk to New Mexicans, who look to southeastern New Mexico as a driver of economic growth in the state, with agricultural industry contributions of approximately three h billion dollars ($3,000,000,000) per year to the state's u » r economy, of which three hundred million dollars ($300,000,000) t h g e l i is generated in Eddy and Lea counties, where the proposed h r i s facility would be located;
and WHEREAS, Commissioner of Public Lands Stephanie Garcia e e 17 Richard also raised concerns with the proposal, stating that e e n d 18 New Mexico is not the right location for high-level nuclear = = l ] 19 storage and that there is no guarantee that high-level nuclear a l r i 20 waste can be safely transported to and through New Mexico or t e a t that the site would truly be "interim";
and h , e h WHEREAS, Commissioner of Public Lands Stephanie Garcia t u g e b l e e , gh Richard also raised concerns with the proposal, stating that n d d i = = o h New Mexico is not the right location for high-level nuclear l ] b ,d i a º r storage and that there is no guarantee that high-level nuclear e r = t e w d m a n o waste can be safely transported to and through New Mexico or d m :
and m m 21 e d r e 22 WHEREAS, existing industrial, agricultural and ranching c e r c 23 businesses that generate more than thirty-eight thousand jobs e a n b 24 and more than three billion dollars ($3,000,000,000) in annual u [ revenues to the state and oil and gas production that generates .216434.7 - 3 - more than two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) in annual tax revenue to the state could be negatively affected by the proposed facility, including that high-level radioactive waste could threaten the land values and marketability of those products;
b r e t º o t n = .216434.7AIC February 4, 2020 (8:49am) s k m e - 3 - e a n e d r e l u [ A d that the site would truly be "interim";
and WHEREAS, existing industrial, agricultural and ranching businesses that generate more than thirty-eight thousand jobs and more than three billion dollars ($3,000,000,000) in annual revenues to the state and oil and gas production that generates more than two billion dollars ($2,000,000,000) in annual tax revenue to the state could be negatively affected by the proposed facility, including that high-level radioactive waste could threaten the land values and marketability of those products;
and WHEREAS, record numbers of visits to state parks, historical sites and museums increased for the seventh consecutive year, with thirty-seven million five hundred thousand trips taken to and around the state in 2018, visitor spending having increased seven percent in 2018 and visitor e e 17 spending sustaining eight and five-tenths percent of all jobs e e n d 18 in New Mexico;
and h WHEREAS, record numbers of visits to state parks, u » r historical sites and museums increased for the seventh t h g e l i consecutive year, with thirty-seven million five hundred h r i s thousand trips taken to and around the state in 2018, visitor h , e h spending having increased seven percent in 2018 and visitor t u g e b l e e , gh spending sustaining eight and five-tenths percent of all jobs n d d i = = o h in New Mexico;
and = = l ] 19 WHEREAS, the creation of a high-level radioactive waste a l r i 20 storage facility in New Mexico jeopardizes the state's existing t e a t industrial, agricultural and ranching businesses, runs counter m m 21 e d r e 22 to the promotion of tourism and the diversification of New c e r c 23 Mexico's economy and threatens the health and safety of New e a n b 24 Mexico residents;
and l ] b ,d i a º r WHEREAS, the creation of a high-level radioactive waste e r = t e w d m a n o storage facility in New Mexico jeopardizes the state's existing d m :
u [ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF .216434.7 - 4 - REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO that the house of representatives oppose the transportation of high-level radioactive waste to, and storage in, New Mexico;
b r e t º o t n = .216434.7AIC February 4, 2020 (8:49am) s k m e - 4 - e a n e d r e l u [ A d industrial, agricultural and ranching businesses, runs counter to the promotion of tourism and the diversification of New Mexico's economy and threatens the health and safety of New Mexico residents;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO that the house of representatives oppose the transportation of high-level radioactive waste to, and storage in, New Mexico;
- 5 - 10 12 14 16 e e 17 e e n d 18 = = l ] 19 a l r i 20 t e a t m m 21 e d r e 22 c e r c 23 e a n b 24 u [ .216434.7
- 5 - » g o » r h t i k l i g t h s , e h t l i w l b l e e , gh n d l h = = b , a l º d i a r e r = , a t e d m a n o d m :
b r e t º o t n = .216434.7AIC February 4, 2020 (8:49am) s k m e e a n e d r e l u [ A d
View plain text versions (2)

Action History

  1. action postponed indefinitely

  2. DO PASS, as amended, committee report adopted

  3. Sent to House Energy, Environment and Natural Resources Committee

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

1 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 111 not signed on

Sponsors (1)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (111)

111 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 111 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

Who sponsors HM 21?
HM 21 is sponsored by Matthew McQueen (Democrat).
What is the current status of HM 21?
This bill died with 2020 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track HM 21?
Track HM 21 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on HM 21

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Stay ahead of HM 21

Last checked for changes 2 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →