  | ||
  |
FOR
IMMEDIATE RELEASE: MAY 8, 2002 Baca opposes Yucca Mountain on House floor
WASHINGTON, D.C. - Representative Joe Baca (D-Rialto) today opposed the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository proposal calling it dangerous for the Inland Empire on the floor of the House of Representatives chamber. In spite of efforts by Baca, Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV), and many others, the measure overriding the Governor of Nevada's veto of the project passed. The following is Baca's statement: "We need a coherent national strategy for dealing with nuclear waste, but this is also about local control. It is inappropriate for us to be micromanaging the state of Nevada on something so important. We should allow the Governor to do his job, and he has decided that the Yucca Mountain proposal is much too dangerous to pursue any further." "I am concerned about this issue not just as a member of Congress, but as a neighbor to hundreds of thousands of people who could be harmed by a transportation accident." "The Department of Energy has been way too tight-lipped about the transportation routes that waste would travel across the country on its way to Yucca Mountain. But, two things are for certain. ONE: A very, very large percentage of the waste would travel through my district in the Inland Empire. TWO: Accidents will happen while transporting this spent nuclear fuel." "If you look at the maps, virtually all of the rail and road routes that the waste would use run through San Bernardino County, CA - My home! Half of the country saw "Spiderman" this weekend. Well, we are at the center of the nuclear waste transportation web." "The thought of it scares me, and it should scare my colleagues on both sides of the aisle from the Inland Empire. I call on all the members from the Inland Empire and Southern California to come together and oppose Yucca Mountain. Why should our constituents be forced to face so much more of a risk than others do?" "Even the most conservative Energy Department studies say that many accidents will occur, and it's more likely that they will occur at transportation hubs like in my district. Even the slightest risk of such a catastrophe is unacceptable." "With this proposal we will create thousands of moving targets for terrorists. The terrorists won't need to build dirty bombs because we will have thousands of them crawling across the nation just waiting for a fuse to ignite them and kill thousands, hundreds of thousands, even millions." "And, it's outrageous that this plan is being crammed down the throats of those of us who could really suffer from nuclear accidents. Where are the Energy Department's alternatives? Is this bad idea the only one we can come up with?" "We simply cannot have trucks and trains carrying highly dangerous radioactive material traveling on our roads and rails without searching for better alternatives. It is too much of a threat to our children, to our neighbors, and to our communities." # # # |
  |
