Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
     Mayer pointed out the NRC’s EIS, and a section that said while there could be up to thirteen accidents amid the shipments, the likelihood of them being severe was “one in ten trillion.” Even in a severe accident the NRC “concluded no release of (spent nuclear fuel) would occur,” according to the EIS.
     Mayer went on to say that “Unsubstantiated is that an accident will harm human health and the environment. It seems disingenuous. If you’re going to put a poll together, it should be a substantiated question. The opposition said each of those accidents will cause a release of radioactive material. That’s just not the case.”
     Opponents, including Southwest Research maintained the project would bring an undue risk to New Mexicans nearby and Americans along the waste transportation routes. That is why opposition was spread across political parties, gender, and ethnicity according to Don Hancock, Nuclear Waste Program Manager at Southwest Research.
     The poll indicated that over half of those surveyed in the region were against the project. Political affiliation had no effect on the poll results. About seventy percent of Democrats opposed Holtec. Fifty one percent of Republicans and fifty five percent of Independents opposed the project.
     When broken down by gender, more men supported the project than women. A majority of Republican men polled were supportive of the project at fifty one percent. Sixty one percent of Republican women were against the project.
     White men were mostly supportive of the project at forty nine percent of those polled while seventy one percent of white women were opposed. Hispanic men and women mostly opposed the project at fifty-one and seventy-eight percent against. Central, northeast and southwest N.M. showed opposition of sixty percent or more. More conservative regions of the southeast and northwest showed fifty-seven and fifty-six percent against, respectively.
     Hancock said that the poll showed that temporary spent nuclear fuel storage was not supported by N.M. voters. He argued that it was opposed through decades of proposals like Holtec’s. He added that, “I’m not surprised by the results because for more than 45 years New Mexicans have strongly opposed high-level waste in New Mexico, whether the waste is proposed for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in the 1970s and ‘80s, for Mescalero Apache land in the 1990s, or by Holtec.”
     Opposition to the Holtec proposal also came from some of N.M.’s highest-ranking state officials and its Congressional delegation. N.M. Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham called the proposal “economic malpractice.” She pointed out that it would endanger nearby oil and gas and agricultural industries.
     U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) co-sponsored a bill introduced in the U.S. Senate last year to block any federal funds from the supporting such a project. At the state level, N.M. Senator Jeff Steinborn (D-36) was a major opponent of Holtec in the Legislature. Texas lawmakers recently passed a bill to ban high-level waste storage in their state. Steinborn said that N.M. policymakers should considers a similar measure to prevent the project from coming to fruition.
    Steinborn said, “From the very beginning this has been a dangerous plan pushed on New Mexico, with real risks for all of our communities, and no end in sight. It’s time for this project to be canceled and be replaced by the federal government committing to a true consent-based siting process for the permanent storage of this waste.”

Ambient office = 78 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 109 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 112 nanosieverts per hour

Blueberry from Central Market = 69 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 102 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 77 nanosieverts per hour

Part 1 of 2 Parts
     A recent poll was conducted in New Mexico to find out how residents feel about storing high-level waste in their state. A New Jersey company hoped to construct a facility to do so near Carlsbad. The results of the poll clearly showed that residents in all parts of the state oppose such a project.
     The poll was commissioned by the Southwest Research and Information Center in collaboration with the Center for Civic Policy. Just over a thousand voters across the state were questioned from December 7th to 14th. Sixty percent of those surveyed were in opposition to the project. Thirty percent supported it, and ten percent were undecided.
     In 2017, Holtec International applied for a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to construct and operate what it referred to as a consolidated interim storage facility (CISF) in a remote part of N.M. near the boarder of Eddy and Lea counties. Last year, the NRC released its final environmental impact statement (EIS), stating that the planned project would have little impact on the environment and recommending that the license be issued.
     The CISF would temporarily store up to one hundred thousand metric tons of spent nuclear fuel rods. The rods would be brought into the site via rail from nuclear power plants around the U.S. through a forty-year license with the NRC.
     The one thousand acre plot of land where the facility would be constructed was owned by the Eddy-Lea Energy Alliance which is a consortium of local leaders from the cities of Carlsbad and Hobbs, and Eddy and Lea counties. The Alliance recruited Holtec and established a revenue-sharing agreement with the company that would go into effect once the CIFS goes into operation. Despite the results of the recent poll, Holtec officials argued that the project was largely supported by N.M. Spokesman Gerges Scott said that Holtec representative had discussed the project with local governments throughout the state.
     Ed Mayer is the Holtec Manager of the CISF. He said that the company had adequate support for the project following meetings that he and other representatives held with local leaders and first responders around the site and along the rail lines that lead to the site.
     He added that, “We are educating the affected populations, not only from the facility perspective in southeast New Mexico, but from a state perspective on the rail lines. They asked very thoughtful questions on the project and how the project would positively or negatively affect their communities. I’m able to address all of their concerns.”
     Leaders from four southeast N.M. governments support the project. They argued that it would bring economic diversity to the oil-and-gas-dependent Permian Basin region.
     Dale Janway is the Mayor of Carlsbad. He supports the project, arguing that the poll appeared biased against Holtec’s proposal after the city’s initial review. He issued a statement that said, “Our preliminary review of this survey certainly indicates that it was highly biased and not an objective method of obtaining feedback.” Mayer questioned the poll’s questions. He was specifically concerned with a section that read, “Experts predict that up to 13 accidents will occur during 10,000 rail shipments.”
Please read Part 2 next

Ambient office = 86 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 99 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 99 nanosieverts per hour

Avocado from Central Market = 126 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 108 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 79 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient office = 80 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 109 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 104 nanosieverts per hour

Tomato from Central Market = 82 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 109 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 98 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient office = 73 nanosieverts per hour

Ambient outside = 115 nanosieverts per hour

Soil exposed to rain water = 111 nanosieverts per hour

Shallots from Central Market = 71 nanosieverts per hour

Tap water = 99 nanosieverts per hour

Filter water = 71 nanosieverts per hour

Dover Sole from Central = 104 nanosieverts per hour