What about reprocessing?

Why not just recycle nuclear waste and reuse it forever like scrap metal?

If only it were that simple. Only in science fiction would reprocessing eliminate nuclear waste.

Reprocessing extracts viable nuclear fuel from the waste -- but it doesn't reduce the amount of waste. By removing usable fuel, reprocessing leaves about 25 percent less material for disposal. But eventually, the reprocessed fuel is turned into radioactive waste, too, and must be dealt with.

"From the perspective of waste reduction, it doesn't really give us any benefit," said Felix Killar, senior director of nuclear insurance and fuel supply for the Nuclear Energy Institute, an industry trade group in Washington.

Of the 33 nations that use nuclear power, 12 reprocess nuclear fuel, according to the NEI. Some countries reprocess the fuel as a national policy to reduce the need for importing uranium. Reprocessing nations include France, Japan and the United Kingdom.

The United States attempted nuclear fuel reprocessing in the 1970s but stopped the practice under President Carter out of concern about nuclear proliferation. Reprocessing creates leftover plutonium that, in the wrong hands, could be used to manufacture a crude nuclear weapon. Because mining new uranium is much cheaper, reprocessing never gained traction in this country.

Nuclear reprocessing is no simple task. The process requires the construction of costly chemical plants that require oversight from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The appeal of reprocessing has not faded. Last year, Congress allocated $80 million to pay for research into developing new reprocessing technologies. Some advanced technologies would deplete waste to safe radioactivity levels within a few hundred years. But futuristic reprocessing would also require construction of a new class of nuclear reactors to use the recycled fuel.

No current reprocessing technology can neutralize the radioactivity of the waste. In our age, turning nuclear waste into a harmless byproduct is comparable to other far-fetched proposals for eliminating nuclear waste, such as launching the toxic material into outer space.

STORING RADIOACTIVE WASTE CAN BE RISKY

Here are examples of problems utilities have encountered in storing and moving nuclear waste:

OCONEE NUCLEAR STATION IN SENECA, S.C.

Date: 1996

What happened: Duke Power workers failed to properly place spent fuel rods in the cooling pool's storage racks, about 24 feet under water.

Instead, after fuel inspection, the engineers left the rods for more than three weeks on the spent fuel bridge mast, less than 10 feet under water.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission fined Duke Power $50,000, concluding the company had created a risk of extremely high radiation release had the tank accidentally drained and exposed the bridge mast, leaving the forgotten rods unprotected.

The NRC concluded: "Had an accident scenario involving the standby shutdown facility occurred, requiring water to be supplied from the spent fuel pool, the irradiated fuel assembly could have been uncovered."

POINT BEACH NUCLEAR PLANT, WIS.

Date: 1996

What happened: When a container full of nuclear waste was being welded shut, a spontaneous explosion blew back the 6,400-pound container lid.

The accident caused no injuries or damage but raised questions about build-up of combustible gases that could create hazardous conditions during storage.

The NRC concluded: The seriousness of the problem merited doubling the penalty and fined Wisconsin Electric Co. $25,000.

EDWIN I. HATCH NUCLEAR PLANT, GA.