Return to Transcripts main page

CNN Live Sunday

Interview With MIT's Allison MacFarlane

Aired February 10, 2002 - 17:07   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: What do you do about nuclear waste? President Bush is expected to endorse an Energy Department recommendation to store all high level radioactive nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. A proposed underground storage facility there would provide a place for some 77,000 metric tons of waste produced by nuclear plants from around the country.

If the president endorses the proposal, as expected, Nevada can reject the recommendation. The governor has already said he has serious doubts about the plan. For more now on this proposed nuclear waste site, we are joined by Dr. Allison MacFarlane. She's co- director of the Yucca Mountain Project at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a leading authority on nuclear waste issues. Thanks for joining us.

DR. ALLISON MACFARLANE, MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY: Hi.

WHITFIELD: Well, is this a good idea? Why the Yucca Mountain facility? Why would this be an option?

MACFARLANE: Well, originally the government thought that it was an area where there was low population, and it was dry. And so, there wouldn't be much water that would contact the nuclear waste over long periods of time.

WHITFIELD: And how do you go about storing or concealing nuclear waste of this magnitude?

MACFARLANE: You put it underground. You basically build a big mine.

WHITFIELD: How deep?

MACFARLANE: It's about 1,000 feet below the surface of the mountain, and about 1,000 feet above the water table.

WHITFIELD: And this is -- the argument is this is still safe enough for the environment, for wildlife, for people?

MACFARLANE: Exactly. The argument is that the Energy Department's argument is that this will be safe for 10,000 years.

WHITFIELD: What has to take place in this argument? Nevada could still say, no way, we don't want it. What kind of recourse does the federal government have, does the president have if he endorses the idea?

MACFARLANE: Once -- and I assume this is going to happen -- once Nevada says, no way, we don't want it, the decision goes to Congress, and Congress votes on it. And basically, they need a majority vote to make it go ahead. And then, the decision goes to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, which has to issue a license.

WHITFIELD: And how long of a process are we talking about?

MACFARLANE: Well, Nevada has 60 days to issue its notice of disapproval, and Congress has 90 days to vote on it. And then, the Department of Energy has about another 90 days to submit its license application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Then they can take up to four years to decide.

WHITFIELD: So in general, would you be privy to what options there were? Why Yucca Mountain? What was it being compared to in terms of other possible sites?

MACFARLANE: That's a great question. And that's actually part of the problem right now is that there isn't anything to compare it to. It's sort of being decided in a vacuum. But it was originally compared to sites in Texas and Washington.

WHITFIELD: And what happened with those options?

MACFARLANE: Basically, Congress started balking at the price tag of characterizing three sites simultaneously, and so they voted in 1987 to just look at one site, and try to decide whether that site was suitable. And that's where we are right now. The Department of Energy has decided that the site is suitable.

WHITFIELD: All right. Thanks very much, Dr. Allison MacFarlane. Of course, we will all be listening to see if indeed the president does endorse the Energy Department's recommendation tomorrow.

MACFARLANE: Thank you.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com