• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Guest Blogger: Congressman Bart Gordon (D-TN) Responds

    Editor’s Note: On Wednesday, The Heritage Foundation published a blog in The Foundry entitled “Concerns Over Nuclear Waste Importation Should Not Lead to Ban.” You can read it here. Congressman Bart Gordon, a sponsor of the legislation, asked us for the opportunity to respond. While we may have policy differences, an open and transparent debate on these matters is essential to good governance. We welcome Congressman Gordon’s response below.

    Concerns Over Nuclear Waste Importation SHOULD Lead to Ban

    While I was encouraged to see the Heritage Foundation is taking an interest in the Radioactive Import Deterrence Act, the organization’s recent posting on its blog, The Foundry, demonstrates a misunderstanding of the fundamental goals of this legislation.

    Currently, no other nation in the world takes in another country’s nuclear waste for permanent disposal and perpetual monitoring. Every nation has a responsibility to take care of its own waste. Since the Nuclear Regulatory Commission received the initial application for the importation of 20,000 tons of Italian waste, there have been applications to bring in both Mexican and Brazilian nuclear waste. The sites we have licensed in the U.S. were established to dispose of the waste from our own nuclear power plants and other facilities, and we expect that need to grow rapidly with the planned expansion of nuclear power, which I and the bill’s other authors support. The RID Act would set an important precedent.

    We cannot and should not send the message to the world that the U.S. is willing to be their nuclear waste repository. Permanent disposal of another country’s waste is not, nor has it ever been, a part of any agreement on nuclear fuel cycle technology cooperation – agreements that the U.S. has with 41 other countries, including India, China and the United Arab Emirates. Surely, the Heritage Foundation isn’t proposing that we take the nuclear waste from all of those countries! The RID Act prevents the U.S. from becoming a global dumping ground, while offering the President an opportunity to exempt shipments that advance important policy goals.

    The Heritage Foundation’s posting also states – without any evidence – that somehow if the U.S. doesn’t dispose of other countries’ nuclear waste, our companies will lose some sort of competitive edge. Since no other country takes in foreign nuclear waste, that is a false argument. Furthermore, there is nothing to stop a U.S. company from building a waste processing facility in another country and using their technology to treat that country’s waste. At least two companies have already said they intend to do so.

    We already have limited space in our country for the radioactive waste generated by American entities, and it should be preserved for them. I look forward to the Energy and Commerce Committee’s consideration of this important bill, and I hope that my colleagues take the time to consider the important objectives of the bill and its careful protection of our domestic industries.

    Congressman Bart Gordon represents Tennessee’s Sixth Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives where he is the Chairman of the House Science and Technology Committee and a senior member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

    The views expressed by guest bloggers on The Foundry do not necessarily reflect the views of The Heritage Foundation.

    Posted in Ongoing Priorities [slideshow_deploy]

    2 Responses to Guest Blogger: Congressman Bart Gordon (D-TN) Responds

    1. Nicolai Alatzas says:

      Thanks for the clarification – Rep. Bart Gordon

      However should it be implied that policy you are supporting is utilizing contracts for taking waste from Italy and Brazil to support more Nuclear Waste Repositories being constructed in the US for our own use?

      Is this some how tied to Westinghouse's proposed plans for AP1000 nuclear power plants here in the US? Or are these facilities only used for low level radiation?

      Nuclear proponents may want to take a look at the new plants I believe the first to be coming online in China in 2010. These plants no longer rely on combustion engines and pumps to deliver the coolant to keep the reactor from melting down.
      http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/

    2. R. Fred, Midlothian, says:

      For those of us who have little knowledge of Nuclear Waste Disposal;

      1. Can Nuclear waste be effectively and safely disposed of and how long does it take for process to happen i.e. safely neutralized

      2. Does the US have adequate facilities to do this for us and for others and for how long?

      3. What is our incentive to do this i.e. dispose of Nuclear waste for others?

      4. Long Haul; can Nuclear Waste be recycled for secondary uses?

      Just curious.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.

    ×