Q: Uh, Do you have any experience with any other DoE facilities besides Idaho?

A: Well I'm also been, with the Snake River Alliance which is a community activist, community grass roots organization that sort of Watch dogs the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory facility. And they happen to be a member of a large organization that is the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability and that is formally known as the Military Production Network. Um, I've been on the board for the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability slash Military Production network for about four or five years now so I am fairly familiar with the entire Military Production complex and all of its facilities though that work.

Q: And have you had any experience with Rocky Flats and Colorado?

A: I am currently living Colorado in Denver. I lived Boulder for a little while and uh recently moved there and have become quite familiar with all the issues around Rocky Flats relative to WIPP and waste in that area and particularly transportation which is a very key component of the WIPP aspect in Colorado. Colorado is real interested in the transportation. So, I've - fairly familiar with the entire complex through the Alliance for Nuclear Accountability through living in Idaho and through living in Colorado.

Q: OK and I would like one sentence saying that I'm - I've lived in Idaho and I've lived in Colorado and I am familiar with those just in case.

A: Yes, I'm actually familiar with two sites in particular. Um, the complex wide, Idaho the Nat- Engineering Laboratory and the Rocky Flats, I'm fairly familiar with both of those because I've lived in both of those places.

Q: And Dallas how did you come to be an activist?

A: Um, I guess I've been an activist most of my life in one way or another whether its indigenous rights or environmental activism and in particular the last ten year I've been heavily focused on activism around the Nuclear Weapons complex.

Q: Was there one thing that you that spurred you to do this?

A: Primarily the - becoming familiar with the facility in Idaho, the Engineering, the National Engineering Laboratory and working with the Snake River Alliance which is a grass roots organization in Idaho and that was the primary thing that spurred me on to become in that.

Q: We're going to talk a little bit about the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. Tell us, do you see any problems with WIPP?

A: (Chuckle) There's uh, where to begin with problems with WIPP? Uh, there's a number of problems with WIPP um, first of all the facility itself is flawed. It isn't the best, biggest one, big hole in the ground for a lot of the waste. It's been promoted as one of the things that's going to help clean up the weapons complex, and it is not in fact going to clean up the weapons complex. It will only remove 2%, less than 2% actually, of the entire existing waste from the weapons complex. And the two places that I am familiar with in Idaho at INEEL. And it will only remove 13% of the waste, existing waste, in Idaho and 9.3% from Rocky Flats.

Q: Uh, so if the - if WIPP doesn't remove or take care of the waste from say the facilities. What good is it? What does it do?

A: It's my estimation that its uh, actually a political answer to a scientific problem and really it doesn't do much for the clean up and in fact it takes away money, valuable money, that should be being spent on actual environmental remediation and environmental restoration - the clean up. And this money needs to be actually put into those resources doing the clean up and not focusing on opening WIPP because it is not the scientific answer. There is, we haven't located the one best hole in the ground and the salt caverns at WIPP are not that. There's a number of geologic reasons for that. Um, and it doesn't remove the waste. It doesn't get the waste away from the facilities.

Q: Well, isn't it true though that if you take the waste that is going to WIPP uh to WIPP then uh, the facilities would be in a position to be cleaner and to then to address the other waste.

A: Lets take the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory for an example. There are 2 million cubic feet of buried waste in unlined open pits sitting above the Snake River aquifer which is one of the largest aquifers, freshwater aquifers in North America. There are, there's plutonium found in that aquifer within the last couple years. So, there are migrations and leaks of plutonium that is getting into the aquifer. Some of that's tru waste, its buried but it's not been characterized. There are hundred thousand drums that are sitting in rickra approved storage facilities at this at I now that are supposedly on their way to WIPP. Now these are in rickra approved storage facilities. They're actually fine where at and the citizens around the facility, that I've worked with are comfortable with them there and what they really would like to see done is the waste removed from the ground, the buried waste. That is what is causing the problem. I don't-

Q: And the waste in the ground is not going to be taken to WIPP?

A: That's that's a question. That's not really been answered because the waste in the ground in these 24, two dozen pits, is uncharacterized. Now strong belief that a lot of that is transuranic waste and much of it is going to be mixed transuranic waste. But without a true characterization of what that waste is I imagine a significant number of that would go to WIPP, but what we really need to do is get it out of the ground because it is contaminating the aquifer. This is a freshwater aquifer that's used by farmers, ranchers, and people living in the area.

Q: Tell us, will WIPP clean up the mess in Idaho?

A: I don't believe that it will clean up the mess in Idaho. And what we are concerned about in Idaho is making sure that the buried waste that's there gets out of the ground and characterized and put in a safe place. It's only removing 13% of the waste from Idaho of the total existing waste.

Q: I'm sorry would you mind saying WIPP rather than it.

A: I don't believe that WIPP will take care of the waste at Idaho. What we're concerned about, I'm really concerned about, what many of the citizens of Idaho are concerned about is getting the waste out of the ground. The buried waste that's uncharacterized and that's apparently contaminating the aquifer. There are a hundred thousand barrels with the word WIPP stenciled on the side that I have seen in storage facilities that are federally approved and they're safe. They're safe where they are at and the citizens aren't worried about those. What their worried about is the waste that's in the ground currently leaking into the aquifer contaminating the aquifer.

Q: And will that waste go to WIPP?

A: Since the waste in the ground, the buried waste remains uncharacterized, that remains a big question, and the is one of the things that we are concerned about. But the plutonium that is currently in the aquifer, in this freshwater aquifer, that is one of the largest in the country, we don't know. It needs to be characterized. It needs to removed, contained, characterized, some of it could be transuranic waste that's destined for WIPP some of it might not be.

Q: What have the DoE plans for taking care of that waste? Are they going to wait til after WIPP is closed or do they have plans for right now for taking that waste out of the ground?

A: Right now it seems like the DoE's policy is to play the shell game with the waste and take some of it. And it's sort of a smoke screen, it looks like a smoke screen to me. That it is only going to remove only a small percentage of the entire existing waste. And the compasity of WIPP is a concern. It appears that some of the waste could go there. There are barrels that are sitting ready to go that I've seen WIPP stenciled on it. But we're not really worried about that waste as we are the waste that is contaminating the aquifer.

Q: You said that you were concerned about transportation of the waste. Can you give us some since of what your concerns are of transportation of waste from Rocky Flats or Idaho to the WIPP facility?

A: Coloradans, having lived in Colorado most recently, Coloradans are very focused and keyed on the transportation issue because both I-70 and I-25 intersect in Denver. And much of the WIPP waste that's going to come from Hanford Facility in Washington and the Idaho facility is going to go right down I-25. It has a overnight stop at the Rocky Flats facility. The 9% of the waste that's targeted for WIPP out of Rocky Flats will go down I-25 and Coloradans on the corridor are very concerned about that. There's been a number - a couple of mark the route days that citizens have trying to let people know that this is a radioactive transportation corridor. And Coloradans are very concerned about that.

Q: You had an experience with a dry run with a WIPP truck. Can you just tell us a little about that.

A: Yes, one of the things that I've done since I've been Colorado is a number of activists got together and went up to the Wyoming border on a day that they were doing a mock shipment. What the DoE called a mock shipment. And that shipment came out of Idaho, traveled down through Wyoming, Utah, and Id - Colorado. And we met it at the border at Wyoming. And when we met it at the border, we got there and waited for it at one o'clock in the morning. About three o'clock, 2:30 or 3:00 it came by the truck stop that we were at and uh we identified it and followed it. And it was traveling at about 75 miles and hour which is faster than the environmental impact statement said that they are supposed to be going. And went down to the port of entry and their first stop was the first port of entry in Colorado. And we actually waited their at the port of entry um, with the truck for about 6 or 7 hours. I'm not sure what the hold up was. I had an opportunity to talk with a couple of the port of entry staff people while they were doing the routine checks um on the truck. But um, that was another day that a lot of activists wanted to get out to the public that this is a transportation cored or, radioactive waste is coming down this corridor - this transportation way.

Q: Was 6 or 7 hours delay at one of these places your understanding of how this should work?

A: Um, I'm not, it was hard to get information about why there was a 7 hour delay at the port of entry. I did talk to one of the state patrol officers and evidently the truck had recognized we were, the vehicle we were following with talked about this being a radioactive waste truck that we were following we had signs on the side of the truck. Um, and they were concerned about us and had actually called the state patrol and waited there and thought, I supposed, that we were going away and we were just citizens witnesses at the time. And so we didn't go away and they finally moved on, but they were, I guess nervous about being followed and bringing attention to the radioactive, the mock radioactive truck traveling down the highway.

Q: So the tension between the witnesses and the um, trucks.

A: Um, I believe so, I believe the truck drivers were not expecting, were not expecting the publicity and the notoriety by driving the truck.

Q: Tell us a little bit about the transportation, um, your concerns about accidents and emergency responders.

A: Well, I'm real concerned about a number of things relative to the transportation. Hospitals, whether hospitals are equipped and ready to handle radioactive contamination, uh, injury victims. Whether the first responders are equipped and trained I don't - The DoE believes that the training is adequate and I - it really needs to be proved to me better that it is adequate having been on a volunteer fire department while for the tribe in Montana I understand that most volunteer role areas do not have the equipment nor the training to handle this type of radioactivity. And it's not just radioactive waste. Many of the shipments will be mixed radioactive waste which means that they have a number of, any number of a hundred different chemicals that are very dangerous. And I just don't believe that that the training's there and I'm very concerned about that. Most of the Colorado people that I've talked to are very concerned about that as well.

Q: What about the safety of the trupact containers. The containers that will carry the waste. Are you satisfied that the nuclear regulatory commission has uh, tested them and that they are safe to contain the waste?

A: I'm not convinced at all. No, I believe that the nuclear regulatory commission um, is, has not tested the containers adequately. There are two primary issues relative to that. The nuclear regulatory commission standards are date back to the 1960's. There is not updated standards. They did a burn test to 1,450 degrees. There are 28 chemicals on the highways today that burn over 3000 degrees so a burn test at 1,450 degrees does not explain or tell or give any indication of how this might react at a burn at 3000 degrees. We have no idea. The casts, the trupacts, have not been crush tested as well, um, I'm not convinced.

Q: Ok, can you talk about the danger that you see for the citizens of Denver particularly with these WIPP trucks going through.

A: Well the WIPP trucks will travel down I-25 and I-25 goes through the heart of Denver, through residential areas through neighborhoods. And it goes through the infamous mousetrap which is noted for it's traffic jambs and traffic problems. And it travels through the Denver for about 30 miles or more. The transportation problems of Denver are not solved by any means. They are under construction a lot and its just a seems like a very unsafe route to take and that is that's been the approved route.

Q: So what you're concerned about as well as accidents is also delays and this radioactive truck sitting it the middle of traffic. Could you say something about that?

A: Right, I think that there will be a lot of delays in traffic jambs and we're talking three trucks a year for the next 30 years. What time of the day will they be coming through? They're unescorted

Q: Did you mean three times a day?

A: Yes, is that what I said. We'll try that again. Yeah, I'm very concerned about the transportation through Denver down I-25. It's a 30 mile cored or through the heart of Denver, through residential neighborhoods and schools, it goes through the mouse trap which is an infamous traffic jamb, they will be sitting there, these trucks are unescorted. What time of the day are they going to be coming through? How long are they going to be sitting there? A lot of these questions haven't been answered. There going, their shipments are three times a day for the next 30 years. What's the exposure that people are going to be exposed to while the trucks are sitting there for an hour or two hours in a traffic jamb?

Q: Is there radiation that comes from the truck even though it hasn't been in an accident that releases radiation?

A: I'm not convinced that there isn't, I haven't been

Q: I thought you knew that. I don't want to ask you something you don't know. How do you, OK we've covered why clean up problems, whether WIPP will clean up the facilities and the transportation problems. How else does the waste, nuclear waste problem and WIPP effect the general public?

A: I believe that the WIPP, the WIPP waste and the general clean up and waste management affects the general public in significant ways. The capacity of WIPP has got uh, 2/3 of it, well, more than 60%

Q: Lets cut. I didn't ask it very well. Dallas, these facilities that are supposed to send waste to WIPP are located around the county in isolated areas. WIPP has been explained as the solution to the contamination at those facilities. There are some significant environmental justice problems that uh, occur if these facilities aren't cleaned up and I know that the DoE is said that WIPP is supposed to do that. Do you see um, how WIPP might help or how it might not help these communities and could you address yourself to the environmental justice issue?

A: The WIPP facility and the DoE 's, Department of Energy's, plan for the WIPP facility appears to me to be just another misguided boondoggle on cleaning up the waste. Because one, it does not clean up the waste from the facilities and two the site itself has a lot of significant problems. When we're talking about transportation corridors? Um, Transportation corridors if you look, tend to go through low income communities. That's where they build freeways in this country. There's an environmental justice issue. Uh, I see two primary environmental justice issues around WIPP. One is that it again, it seems that it is a political solution to a scientific problem and they're not using science to do. There's ju - environmental justice relative to western states. Politically we western states, we want to look for a, DoE would like to look for a big, one big hole in the ground. Out of sight out of mind in a politically weak state. Another environmental justice issue is that in the west many times where these places are located are located on or near indigenous lands. Frankly the building of the bomb itself is built, has been built on the backs of indigenous people on the backs of Native Americans. The uranium mining and milling at the Navaho, using Navaho and Hopi workers on Navaho and Hopi lands. The test site, the Nevada test site on western Shoshone land, on Shoshone land, on Pyute land, um, another violation of treaties, of the ruby valley treaty, um, testing the weapons. So the uranium mining, the uranium milling, the testing of the these weapons and now the indigenous people are being asked to store the waste, store the legacy of the Cold War and store the legacy of the bomb. And there are 30 some odd facilities around the country that they would like to put this waste. At the Goshoots, at the Rickra Apache, um, at the Nevada test site, at Yuca Mountain. So, there's a huge environmental Justice issue that I think is not getting to the public. And the WIPP facility is near indigenous people that have been for years and years.

Q: OK is this an issue that is contained in New Mexico or does it affect people across the nation?

A: This, the WIPP issue and the general clean up and the transportation of waste and the waste issue itself, the nuclear waste issue itself is not just a New Mexico issue. There are facilities all across the country. In Georgia, in Tennessee, in Washington, in Idaho, all across the country and what the WIPP facility does not do is look at an envi- an waste management program. It does not take a creditable look at what we need to do with the legacy of the waste. We have only been dinking with plutonium for about 50 years. And much of this waste is going to be with us for 250 thousand years. And we really need to take a strong serious look at taking responsibility for the legacy of the Cold war and for the waste that's been produced from the weapons complex.

Q: And WIPP does not do this?

A: WIPP does not do this. WIPP is again a political answer to a scientific problem . They're not taking a look at good science. In Idaho we're not concerned about the drums that are in federally approved contained facilities. We're interested in seeing it cleaned up. And I think the money, the 30 billion dollars that's going to be spent on WIPP is better spent getting the contamination out of the ground that is buried at these facilities. And not just Idaho and not just Rocky Flats but all over the country. This is money misspent at WIPP.

Q: So the question is, is it a local New Mexico issue?

A: The opening of the WIPP facility is not a local New Mexico question. There are serious transportation questions that affects 22 states or more, there are facilities all across the countries in Idaho, Washington, Savannah River, Georgia, Tennessee, that are all affected by this and what WIPP is doing, is not doing what it said it was going to do. It is not cleaning up. It's only cleaning up 1. 9% of the all of the waste complex wide. 30 billion dollars is being spent on WIPP. We in Idaho and Colorado would like to see that spent on removing the existing contamination from the ground. It's poisoning the aquifers in these areas. WIPP is not, is not the cleanup, is not the cleanup answer. And what we would really like to see happen is a waste management process and program that is actually creditable and WIPP is not that.

Q: That was really good. What absurdities have you witnessed DoE - what absurd things from a citizens point of view, I mean you're a citizen, your not um at this point an environmental scientist although you have been, your just working as a citizen. What kind, from a citizens point of view, what is the view of a couple of the things that the Department of Energy has done that just seem absurd to you?

A: The Department of Energy has uh, I guess, in my estimation has conducted a lot of absurdities. The building of weapons of mass destruction is the primary one. It seems to be kind of an absurd project, but currently I think that there is a sentiment in my estimation, in the general public that much of the policies and much of the way that the Department of Energy is spending their money is quite absurd. 30 - excuse me - 50 million dollars spent on pit 9 to actually, and nothing was extracted from pit 9. This is one

Q: Where is pit 9?

A: This is one of those pits at the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory that I'm talking about that has buried waste that is uncharacterized. And its radioactive contaminated waste that we would like to see out of these pits and in safer storage facilities. Now they spent 50 million dollars to build the building on wheels that never turned one spoonful of dirt and the building sits empty. Because of cost over runs um, contractor actually lost the contract on that, but non the less 50 million dollars of government money went in to that. Another absurdity is that the WIPP facility has always promised and listed at least a dozen times in the environmental impact statement that they would not open unless they had a resource conservation and recovery act permit, a recra permit, they don't have a recra permit at WIPP right now. And so consequently then in the desperation to get the first barrel shipped to WIPP hopefully from Idaho they spent a million dollars to try to locate in a 150 excuse me in a hundred-
 
Q: Dallas, tell us in your opinion, will WIPP really contribute to helping these people at these facilities get the cleanup that they want?
 
A: I don't believe that WIPP is going to help get the cleanup at the facilities. In fact I believe that WIPP is going to take away from cleaning up at the facilities. I know in Idaho, we are very concerned that the 30 billion dollars that are being spent at WIPP is going to take away from the environmental management, or the cleanup, actual cleanup work that is going to, need to happen at the Idaho facility. I just don't see that its going to be cleaned up and I don't see that WIPP is going to help. It's only removing 13% of the total existing waste at the Idaho facility. It doesn't take a nuclear physicist to figure out that the barrels that are contained and stored in these approved buildings are not the barrels that are leaking into the aquifer. It's the buried waste that is uncharacterized that we know little about. That really needs to be cleaned up and frankly I would like to see that 30 billion dollars put into cleanup. And this is just one of 30 facilities that are contaminated in this way.
 
Q: Can you tell us a little bit about these sites that are supposed to contribute to WIPP. Where they were built and what kind of people - who lives around these sites that's going to be affected by them not being cleaned up?
 
A: There's two issues there. There's the issue of transportation.
 
Q: Wait, there's two issues there.
 
A: I see two issues of environmental justice or environmental racism that WIPP is not addressing. Many of the transportation corridors, many of the freeways that have been targeted as routes for the WIPP shipments go through impoverished areas. So you have an environmental justice issue there. I know that's true in Denver. The other issue is that many of these sites are located near impoverished areas so there's another environmental justice issue. And frankly in the west many of these facilities are on indigenous lands or sacred lands of Indian people. And I think that that, part of the environmental justice issue has not been talked about . Indian people tend to believe, I'm from a reservation in North, Northern Montana, and we tend to believe that the earth is not a resource to be exploited, it's a being that's to be loved and respected and to um, to be this disrespectful to the earth and to the peoples who have lived on these lands near these facilities for thousands years is an environmental justice and environmental racism issue that the WIPP facility is not taking a hard look at and it really needs to be talked about. It really needs a good dialog which isn't happening.
 
Q: Can you talk about the hypocrisy of WIPP being advertised as cleanup?
 
A: That is another one of the cases where the DoE seems to be talking out of both sides of their mouth. They say that this is needed to clean up. Frankly in Idaho and in, at Rocky Flats facility in Colorado, its not going to clean up the site. The waste that's there needs to be removed from the ground, the existing waste. And the barrels that are ready to go WIPP are fine where their at. And the people are not particularly worried about those. Certainly, well, cut that.
 
Q: You said that a hundred times.
 
A: I feel that part of my responsibility in this whole process of taking responsibility for the waste that's been created. I um, the weapons complex, the folly of the weapons complex is that uh, a lot of my people, a lot of the Lakota people, the Lakota people believe that we are to make decisions that are in such a way that they are respectful of seven generations into the future. So, that is part of the way that I try to contribute as well and I don't believe that the waste problem, the nuclear waste problem from the nuclear weapons complex is being addressed that way. I think that politics is driving the issue and good science is not. And uh, we're, shouldn't be in that big of a hurry to try to find the one biggest one best hole in the ground. I mean we've only been dinking with plutonium for 50 years. And in Native American peoples perceptive and in my perspective shouldn't have begun dinking with plutonium in the first place. Now that we have, we've created this waste and we need to step back and take a look at it, there is no hurry to try to find the one best hole in the ground. This stuff will be around for 250 thousand years. And in order to pass on a much better legacy to seven generation in the future, we need to take a step back and take a look at what the responsibility is for having done the damage to the environment and to mother earth that um, has been done by the weapons complex all over the country.

Q: What do you mean by take a step back? A wider view?
 
A: I believe that my responsibility or part of my responsibility, to the future is to uh, take a look at this thing and at the waste management problem in a meaningful way and in a more holistic way. Uh, my people believe that we need to make decisions as to how its going to effect seven generations into the future. That's the way I was taught. And we really, it seems the federal government is in a big hurry to solve this in a political way and not in a credible, scientific way. And we really don't need to be in a big hurry to find the one biggest, best hole in the ground for the waste. The legacy and the cleanup, excuse me, the legacy of the Cold War has contaminated waste and we don't have a decent nuclear waste policy. We really need to take a look at it. And I don't think we need to be in a very big hurry to try to figure out how to fix what we've, the problems that we've created in trying to create weapons of mass destruction. I think that there's time. There's time for us to really evaluate what we would like to see as a nation as a people in a waste policy and frankly to speed ahead on a fast track for WIPP is not, in my estimation, not, that's not the answer.
 
Q: Because we are taking waste from numerous facilities and contaminating others.
 
A: Without having a meaningful debate about a nuclear waste policy, and we do not have a meaningful nuclear waste policy. There is no need to speed ahead on a fast track with WIPP and take contaminated waste from a number of different facilities all across the country, endanger the lives of people and the transportation corridors and bring it yet another facility that is so far, relatively uncontaminated. We don't need to contaminate another facility. This is not taking a look at seven generations in the future. We do not need to pollute another area of the country just because we are trying to find a fast political solution to this and we'd like the problem to away.
 
Q: yes. Oh, wait. Take two on the shell game.
 
A: What I think the DoE, since we don't have a credible environmental or nuclear waste policy, it just appears that the DoE is playing this shell game with waste. We'll take some from Idaho and move it to New Mexico and Nevada. We'll take some from Savannah River and move to - so their shuffling around all the waste, now you see, now you don't. And then if they, if the DoE believes they can find a, the one best place for this, for instance the WIPP facility, they would like to see it go away. Out of sight out of mind. And the public, I think, is catching on to that shell game and I think that if it were up to me, if I were king, I think the transportation of this stuff all over the country should stop and we really need to take a look at what our waste policy is. Much of the stuff is safe where it's at. Many people in Idaho find that much of the waste that's targeted for WIPP is fine where it's at. What they're concerned about is the uncharacterized buried waste that's leaking into the aquifer. The shell game needs to stop. The public is catching on to it.
 
Q: Do you see either a relationship between WIPP and proliferation issues?
 
A: Well, it seems to me that there is a relationship between the WIPP facility and proliferation issues and the production of new nuclear weapons. At the Los Alamos laboratory is uh, which is the place they are going to be producing the triggers or pits that used to be produced at Rocky Flats, um, they're going to be the only facility that is going to be creating the transuranic waste that is going to be targeted for WIPP. Then if you look at the carrying compasity of WIPP um, over sixty percent of the waste that WIPP could hold is seemingly being reserved for new waste. So what does that say? That tells me that its waste that they're reserving for the production of new weapons. And I think that is not something the public would be interested in seeing happen. But it's not something that DoE is telling us about. They're not being quite up front about what types of waste and whether it going to be new production waste that they're really looking at for WIPP.
 
Q: Ok. The question is: is there any relationship between new bombs and proliferation and the WIPP facility?
 
A: I believe that there is a relationship between new production and proliferation and the WIPP facility. It seems to me that about a third of the facility has been set aside for existing waste. That leaves 2/3 of the facility for waste that has not yet been produced. So where does is that waste coming from? At the Los Alamos laboratories uh, they are going to be producing the pits, or the triggers for the bombs. These are the triggers of the pits that have been produced formerly and the Rocky Flats facility. When they produce those pits at the Los Alamos laboratory they'll also be producing waste that could be targeted for WIPP. So that links the WIPP facility to the production of the weapons and the 2/3 of the facility that seems to be set aside for new waste and I don't believe the public is interested in seeing our government produce any more nuclear weapons. The cold war is over and it seems to be unnessecary. And so I think there is an inequity about the use of the WIPP facility. It's only, as we stated before, cleaning up 1.9% of the whole waste complex wide and yet 2/3 of the facility has been reserved for new waste.
 
END INTERVIEW