Why import nuclear waste?

Italy has some great imports -- pointy shoes, beautifully designed sports cars, a wide variety of wines and fancy leather products, to name a few. But the United States should draw the line at Italian nuclear waste. Why accept foreign nuclear waste when we can't handle our own?

Plans to import 20,000 tons of nuclear waste through either the port of Charleston or New Orleans have properly drawn a congressional challenge. A bill approved by the House this week would halt plans to bring low-level radioactive waste from Italy to Tennessee, where it would be processed for eventual disposal at a desert location in Utah. About 1,600 tons would be buried there.

Supporters say disposal space in the United States should be retained for domestic use. Certainly the availability of that space has been a problem. Indeed, our state once provided the disposal solution for much of the nation.

Fortunately, South Carolina wised up nine years ago and worked out an arrangement to create a multi-state compact with two other small states, thereby leaving most of the available space at the Barnwell landfill for our long-term use.

The compact system is the only way that states with a disposal site can limit the importation of domestic low-level radioactive waste across their borders.

South Carolinians have another reason to be balky about the Italian waste. It could be transported from our port across the state. We're confident that the port's personnel could handle the material safely, but why should the U.S. accommodate the unwillingness of the Italians to handle their own nuclear garbage?

Of course, the larger waste disposal issue is for the highly radioactive by-products created by nuclear power plants. Despite a legal mandate, Congress has stalled on a waste disposal site for high-level waste. Billions have been spent to develop a federal repository at Nevada's Yucca Mountain.

However, since Harry Reid became Senate majority leader, plans for its completion have been on hold. And unfortunately, President Obama has taken Sen. Reid's part in the controversy, effectively ensuring that dozens of ad hoc high-level waste sites will continue to exist throughout the nation.

It's difficult to understand how the administration expects to include nuclear power in an energy policy aimed at reducing the nation's carbon footprint and its dependency on foreign oil, when, at the same time, it stymies the most suitable site for high-level waste disposal.

The House's willingness to address the foreign waste issue is encouraging. The Senate should do the same.

Next, Congress should take up the more daunting task of domestic high-level waste, which must precede any serious discussion of new nuclear power plants -- no matter how badly they might be needed.