DOE Advisory Committee Report on Brookhaven Reactor
Yesterday, DOE’s Director of Energy Research, Martha Krebs, issued a press release describing the latest actions regarding Brookhaven’s High Flux Beam Reactor (HFBR.) The release publicizes a new report by DOE’s Basic Energy Sciences Advisory Committee (BESAC), which recommends that the HFBR “be restarted as soon as possible.” The press release also indicates that, contrary to the previously announced schedule, Energy Secretary Federico Pena will not announce a “preferred alternative” for the future of the HFBR early next year. Pena will instead wait for the final Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), expected at the end of 1998 and incorporating public comment, before putting forth any opinion.
The BESAC report, dated November 22, responds to Krebs’ June request that the advisory group review the importance of the HFBR to U.S. neutron research, assess the impact of its shutdown on the field, and consider three options for the HFBR’s future. The committee’s responses to Krebs’ charges are summarized below:
1. “What are the impacts of the current shutdown of HFBR on United States neutron science research?”
The committee found that the HFBR represents anywhere from 14 percent to 50 percent of U.S. capacity in various neutron science techniques. Some HFBR capabilities are unique or are better than those available anywhere else in the world. “It is clear,” the report says, “that the current shutdown is having a profound impact on investigators using neutron scattering methods in their research.” It continues, “the oversubscription of all neutron scattering facilities world-wide means that within a relatively short period researchers will be compelled to switch to other fields, to the long-term detriment of this important area.”
2. “To what extent can other neutron sources in the United States or elsewhere accommodate the scientific users displaced from the HFBR shutdown?”
In situations where HFBR offers unique or world-leading capabilities, BESAC finds, “accommodation by other facilities is not really possible.” It adds, “researchers using techniques not unique to HFBR would...compete on an equal basis with other users for available beam time” on other U.S. neutron source facilities. “The net effect,” the report says, “would be some reduction in the total amount of neutron scattering research done.”
3. Several scenarios for the future of HFBR are presented: (a) restart at 30 MW operation; (b) restart at 30 MW operation, with the intention of eventual operation at 60 MW (the level at which it had operated previously); and (c) shutdown.
Based on assurances that the impact to the rest of the Office of Basic Energy Sciences budget would be “essentially zero,” BESAC recommends the second option, restart with eventual operation at 60 MW.
The Committee goes on to make the following recommendations:
(1) BESAC “strongly recommends” that the HFBR “be restarted as soon as possible.... It should restart at 30 MW, and move to 60 MW in a timely manner.” The report warns that “if the start-up were to be at 30 MW with no clear plan to move to 60 MW, it should not be done.... Resumption of operation at 30 MW without the intention to move expeditiously to the higher power will not, in our opinion, provide a facility that warrants the expenditure of the funds that will be required for the restart.”
(2) BESAC feels “the path to restart should be as expeditious as possible, to aim at a start in 1999.”
(3) DOE should proceed as soon as possible with a full EIS. “We believe that the issue of whether this is formally required or not is irrelevant,” BESAC states. “Reassuring the local community that all care is being taken is of paramount importance.”
(4) The committee urges that “all work that will be required whatever the outcome of the EIS should be undertaken immediately,” such as installation of a liner in the fuel pool, installation of double-wall piping, and resealing the floor joints and penetrations. “In addition,” it says, “planning for the seismic upgrades should be completed while the EIS is in progress.”
(5) Noting that “the leadership in neutron science which the U.S. once enjoyed has been lost,” BESAC states that the closing of any U.S. facilities “is a major issue, because there is now no margin.” The committee requests that, if a decision is made not to restart the HFBR, “we have the opportunity to review the implications for the whole field of neutron-based research in the United States once again.”
The BESAC report on the HFBR is available on the Internet at the following site: http://www.doe.bnl.gov/reports/reports.html
