Q&A on New Brookhaven National Laboratory Contractor
On the morning of November 25, DOE held a press conference to announce its selection of Brookhaven Science Associates (BSA) as the new contractor to run Brookhaven National Laboratory (see FYI #145 .) Later that day, DOE held a call-in question-and-answer session for reporters. Those participating on the DOE side included: DOE Office of Energy Research Director Martha Krebs; the executive manager of DOE’s BNL Group, Dean Helms; and the incoming lab director, John Marburger. Some of that Q&A is condensed and summarized below. These are not actual, word-for-word quotes.
Q: Are there any signals that Congress is not happy with the new contractor decision?
KREBS: She could not speak to Congress’s satisfaction with DOE’s choice, but she did not believe there were problems either with the selection process or the outcome. Krebs had spoken to New York Senator Al D’Amato (R) and Rep. Michael Forbes (R) and felt they were pleased.
Q: How will the new management affect the future of the High Flux Beam Reactor (HFBR)?
KREBS: She said that Energy Secretary Federico Pena is committed to the process laid out for making a decision on whether to restart the HFBR. He is expected to announce a “preferred alternative” in early 1998. A draft Environmental Impact Statement is expected to be available for public comment by mid-1998, with a final version completed by the end of 1998. The Secretary will then make his decision in January or February of 1999.
MARBURGER: If a decision is made to restart the HFBR, he noted that it will require an extensive period of time after that decision (another year or more) till the reactor could be restarted.
Q: How long will the tritium leak (in the HFBR spent fuel storage pool) take to clean up?
HELMS: He reported that there are approximately 5 curies in the groundwater, and the leak is totally contained on site. DOE estimates it will take several years to clean up.
Q: How big a factor was the tritium leak in selecting the winning management team?
KREBS: She explained that the ability to manage Environment, Health and Safety was an important criteria, as were science and community involvement. She added that both bidders were very competitive. (The other bid was submitted by ITT Research Institution of Chicago.)
Q: Can you give an analysis of what happened to the previous contractor (Associated Universities, Inc.)?
MARBURGER: The conditions under which science is performed, he explained, are different than when the lab started 50 years ago. He said the expectations of the community have changed, but the lab did not keep up. It failed to maintain communication with the community. He agreed that DOE acted appropriately to send a dramatic message to the community, the lab management, and the science community, that times have changed.
Q: Will changes be made in the research at BNL?
MARBURGER: He felt that the major thrusts, in basic physics and basic energy sciences, will continue. At the same time, there are opportunities for expansion in areas like biology, imaging, advanced materials, etc. He saw an augmentation of the science mission based on existing strengths.
Q: The House Science Committee recently criticized DOE’s oversight. Have any new controls been implemented along with the award of the contract?
MARBURGER: The most important controls were spelled out in the Request for Proposals, he stated. BSA will be held to very high standards in those areas where the lab has been criticized in the past.
Q: How important is the HFBR and what is its impact on BNL?
MARBURGER: All BNL facilities are important to science nationally and internationally, he claimed. To some extent, all BNL’s lab facilities are complementary. Studies have to be provided to the Secretary before a decision is made on restart of the HFBR.
