Senate committee tables bill that would restrict uranium waste disposal to federally managed underground repositories

The Senate Indian, Rural and Cultural Affairs Committee in Santa Fe voted 3-2 to table Senate Bill 316, a measure that would require uranium waste and mine tailings to be disposed of only in federally managed underground repositories.

The bill drew extensive public comment from residents of Redwater Pond Road and advocacy groups opposing it, and testimony from Navajo Nation officials and technical advocates who said an on‑site reprocessing (ablation) approach could speed cleanup. Committee members split along concerns about moving material between communities, technical feasibility and who would pay for removal.

Senator George Muñoz, the bill sponsor, told the committee that SB 316 “requires uranium waste disposals in federally managed underground facilities,” and opened the hearing with a technical overview of uranium tailings, their health risks and several disposal methods under federal oversight. He told members that regulations and best practices are controlled by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency.

Local residents described long‑term exposure concerns and urged full removal of mine waste from their community. Larry King, a Church Rock resident, said, “I oppose the Senate Bill 3 16. This bill will be very detrimental to our community. It prevents cleanup to our community, which our community have been advocating for many, many years.” Multiple other speakers from Redwater Pond Road reported illnesses and multi‑generation impacts they attribute to nearby mining waste.

Susan Gordon, coordinator for the Multicultural Alliance for a Safe Environment, told the committee that an EPA action memo had authorized moving mine material from the Cuerva/Covera (transcribed as “Cuavera/Covera”) area to the proposed Red Rock Landfill and that EPA had identified approximately $187,000,000 in funding for that project. She said the bill’s current wording could “prevent any uranium mine cleanup in New Mexico from moving forward” and might affect other projects in the state.

Representing the Navajo Nation, Daniel Moquin of the Navajo Nation Department of Justice’s Natural Resources Unit described an alternative approach centered on an ablation reprocessing technology the Nation plans to test. Moquin said the technology was tested by EPA and that “it could take, like, 98% of the uranium out of the soil” and that the Nation expects to begin a scaled test within months. He said removing and reprocessing a portion of material could begin quickly and that revenues from recovered uranium might offset remediation costs.

Environmental groups and legal advocates urged tabling the bill so cleanups could continue under current EPA plans. Eric Jantz, legal director at the New Mexico Environmental Law Center, said the center “opposes Senate Bill 3 16 and asked that the committee table it, for 3 reasons,” including that the bill’s definitions are unclear about what types of waste it covers and that, as written, it would effectively halt remediation because no federal repository currently accepts the kinds of mine waste at issue.

Committee members pressed witnesses on technical details and costs. Moquin and Navajo Nation witnesses estimated an ablation pilot could treat 10,000 tons as a test and suggested ablation costs in the $31 million to $38 million range for one site, while estimating recoverable uranium and vanadium could yield roughly $40 million to $50 million in product value. Witnesses also said licensing or permitting for a new underground repository could take multiple years (witnesses estimated roughly four to six years before a new repository permit and construction could be completed).

Opponents noted other risks: potential for transport accidents, the historic distrust of outside decisions in affected communities, and the possibility that only higher‑value fractions would be removed first while residual material remained near homes. Asa Chavez (title recorded in the transcript as executive director) urged the committee to “stop the environmental racism” and said tribal consultation had been insufficient, while multiple Redwater Pond Road residents pleaded for removal rather than prolonged in‑place capping or transfer to a nearby chapter.

After committee discussion the chair called for a motion. A committee member moved to table SB 316; the motion was non‑debatable under committee procedure. Roll call produced three yes votes and two no votes: Senator Maestas — yes; Senator Sanchez — no; Senator Schaer — no; Senator Solis — yes; Senator Pinto — yes. The committee clerk announced, “The vote is 3 yes and 2 no,” and the chair declared that “Senate Bill 3 16 is tabled.”

The chair also said the committee would roll the remainder of its agenda to the next meeting on Thursday. SB 316 therefore remains tabled and may be returned to the committee at a later date for further consideration or amendment.

Background and next steps: The hearing made clear there is not a single consensus path among affected communities, the Navajo Nation, EPA and environmental groups. The Navajo Nation officials said they will proceed with a planned ablation pilot, while community speakers and statewide environmental groups pressed the committee to avoid language that could delay or foreclose other cleanup options. The committee’s tabling leaves the bill pending; advocates on both sides indicated they expect additional technical briefings, permit discussions and further negotiation before the matter returns to committee.