Skip to Main Content U.S. Department of Energy
Capability Replacement Laboratory

News & Links Archive

    Inside Energy - Higher costs lead DOE to re-evaluate plans for research facilities at PNNL

    November 20, 2006

    Budget considerations have prompted the Energy Department to reconsider its plan for new research facilities at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Washington State, which would replace space the lab currently occupies at the 300 Area in the Hanford Site.

    In a draft environmental assessment released for public review last week, DOE's Office of Science, which oversees the multi-program science lab, laid out its preferred approach to the facilities. The department proposes to build on a vacant parcel of land at Hanford a federally funded physical sciences facility (PSF) made up of one or more modules or buildings.

    The modules would be constructed in phases over 20 years, according to the EA. Some existing Hanford buildings could be upgraded into state-of-the-art research capabilities, it added. The lab currently occupies about 650,000 square feet of building space in the 300 Area; that represents about 45% of the lab's general space.

    Last year, PNNL said it wanted to build 325,000 square feet of research space for $210 million (IE, 26 Dec, 15). However, because of higher construction costs, the department is now considering retaining some buildings in the 300 Area and developing a total of 240,000 square feet of research space on the lab campus that would host ultra-trace, radiation detection, and materials science and technology research operations.

    "Ultimately, at the end of the 20-year period, the PSF could occupy approximately ... (332,000 square feet) and house about 480 scientific and support staff," the EA says. According to the document, initial construction would begin by early 2008, with occupancy by late 2010.

    The ultra-trace module would house specialized lab space, instrumentation and technical staff that would support U.S. efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear and chemical weapons and fissile materials. The module would have to be isolated from other research areas either physically or by operational controls that would keep out contamination from outside sources, according to the EA.

    The radiation detection module would house analytical chemistry, radiation physics and light, and particle detection capabilities, among other things. The materials science and technology module would evaluate the performance of radioactive material samples in high-radiation and high-temperature environments.

    Future modules could be developed for shield operations, chemistry and processing, subsurface science and certification and dosimetry capabilities. In the meantime, those functions would remain at the 300 Area, which is about two miles from the lab and "would be relocated if DOE decides to construct additional PSF modules in the future," the EA says.

    "Under the initial phase, several serviceable buildings in the Hanford Site 300 Area will ... remain in use for up to 20 years or until any subsequent construction phases are scheduled and budgeted," the EA says.

    However, even though the document addresses the potential for later construction, the department does not have a schedule or budget for it. The possibility is mentioned in the EA in order to provide a "bounding analysis of environmental impact, and to maintain flexibility in long-term planning," the document says.

    The EA comes nearly one year after Deputy Energy Secretary Clay Sell authorized the lab to complete detailed building designs, as well as extended by more than one year the time needed for the lab to completely vacate Hanford, a former nuclear weapons facility. Pacific Northwest was slated to exit Hanford by 2010 in order to accommodate the department's accelerated cleanup schedule.

    DOE's preferred option reflects life-cycle costs and operational efficiency, the EA says. However, the department also investigated four other alternatives, including taking no action. The latter would mean the eventual discontinuation of PNNL research at Hanford.

    There other alternatives would either use exiting federally owned facilities at or near the lab, such as a fuels and materials evaluation facility at Hanford; privately owned facilities at or near the lab, which are limited; or construct new buildings at the lab using line-item funding, which would offer the advantage of consolidating all technical capabilities at one site or within close proximity to the lab, though at a relatively high initial cost, the EA says.

    PNNL several years ago proposed a "Research Campus of the Future" to relocate about 1,000 lab employees now working at the Hanford Site, to four new research facilities by 2010.

    The plan includes a physical science building, which would be paid for by DOE's science office, the Homeland Security Department and the National Nuclear Security Administration, all of which would use the facility. It also calls for separate facilities for computational, biological and life sciences research.

    "The preliminary designs [on the privately funded facilities] have been complete and a proposal is making its way through the federal review process," lab spokesman Greg Koller said. "We should know by spring whether we can proceed with them, and — if so — what the timeline will be. Until then, it's premature to discuss a construction schedule on those."

    Meanwhile, the EA indicates that the environmental impact of the project would be minimal. The site does not contain any sensitive biological resources or critical habitats that would be affected by construction and impacts from facility operations would be small, the document says.

    Comments on the EA are due December 13. DOE will consider them in preparing a final EA and in deciding whether the proposed project would have a significant impact on the environment.

    DOE expects to make that decision by early 2007.

    — Angela Y. Hardin

    Murray visit

    Safety briefing is part of labor leader's visit to PNNL

    Bender photo
    Len Peters, Rick Bender and Mike Lawrence.

    By Tim Ledbetter
    06/20/05

    Rick Bender, president of the Washington State Labor Council, AFL-CIO, visited PNNL June 1. The council represents 430,000 workers across the state.

    Although much of the focus of Bender's visit was on the 300 Area Transition and the Research Campus of the Future — and potential job opportunities and issues for union workers in each project — he was briefed on a variety of topics. Staff gave presentations on PNNL's safety programs, economic development activities, the GridWise™ program, and the Laboratory's high-speed network connection to Seattle.

    "I believe we demonstrated to Rick that PNNL is a vital regional and local asset," said Mike Lawrence, deputy laboratory director for Campus Development.

    Hanford News From WWII-era to nation's 'most modern lab'

    01/16/05

    Hanford News, From WWII-era to nation's 'most modern lab' -- Published: Sunday January 16 2005 Mike Lawrence is a man with a singular mission. Figure out how to get $250 million, use it to replace 700,000 square feet of research laboratory space that houses about 1,000 workers and have it all ready by 2009. Along the way, he'll face the red tape endemic to the federal bureaucracy and a Congress that's struggling to manage a 2005 deficit expected to reach the $330 billion range. As director of campus development at the 3,900-employee Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, he is the point man to bring together all the people and resources needed to build new research labs to replace Cold War-era labs in Hanford's 300 Area. "This is the lab's No. 1 priority this year, and next year," Lawrence said. "And it has to be the community's No. 1 priority. If we lose this and don't replace it, it will have a huge impact on this community." The race is on because the Department of Energy wants the Columbia River corridor at Hanford, which includes 300 Area, cleaned up by 2012.

    Inside EnergyEXTRA - Lab Hires Architect for Expansion - Jan 7, 2005

    Lab hires architect for expansion. The Energy Department's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory in Richland, Wash., Thursday announced its selection of the Princeton, N.J.-based architectural firm CUH2A to develop conceptual designs for 500,000 square feet of facilities that would replace laboratory and office space it currently occupies in the so-called "300 Area" at the nearby Hanford Site. PNNL will have to vacate about 20 buildings, or 700,000 square feet of space, at Hanford by October 2009 in order to accommodate cleanup efforts at the site. The buildings account for about one-third of the lab's research space. "Building these replacement facilities is PNNL's top priority and is critical to the future of the lab," said Mike Lawrence, deputy director of campus development at the lab. Battelle, which manages the lab for DOE, plans to use its own funds as well as those of the federal government and "third parties" to build the new facilities, which would cost an estimated $250 million. With congressional approval, construction could begin in "early 2007," Lawrence said. Congress allocated $10 million in FY-05 for design activities. CUH2A expects to prepare preliminary sketches by late May. PNNL will pay the firm between $1 million and $2 million, a lab spokesman said. Detailed design work could start by summer, he said. That work is not included in the lab's contract with CUH2A.

    Inside EnergyEXTRA - Friday, September 03, 2004

    Plans underway for biomass lab. Washington State University Tri-Cities, in conjunction with Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, plan to begin construction in November 2005 on a biomass laboratory that would enable state-of-the-art research on conversion of agricultural byproducts, such as straw, hulls and manure, into chemicals that can be used in plastics, solvents, fuel additives and other products, a school official said yesterday (Sept. 2). The 57,000-square-foot Bioproducts, Sciences, and Engineering Laboratory, which will cost $24.7 million, will be part of PNNL's Campus of the Future, though it will be located on university property about a half-mile from the DOE lab, Associate Campus Dean Gene Schreckhise said. The university will pay for the construction project through its capital funds and Washington State bonds. PNNL, which will be the lab's long-term tenant, will provide about $10 million in research equipment to outfit the facility, PNNL Program Manager Dennis Stiles said. The facility will be shared by WSU and PNNL researchers and contain teaching labs and a high bay space that will be used to set up equipment that will simulate a factory production process, Stiles said. The facility, which is expected to be finished in July 2007, will consolidate PNNL's biomass researchers under one roof. Currently, those researchers work in buildings located in the so-called 300 Area of DOE's Hanford site, which is adjacent to the lab property. All PNNL offices at Hanford have to be vacated by 2009.

    Intel Shortcomings at Two Labs: IG.

    An inspector general inquiry at the Lawrence Livermore and Pacific Northwest national laboratories has found that while federal and contractor employees were generally in compliance with Energy Department policies and procedures for intelligence activities, only four of 29 intelligence and counterintelligence analysts at the labs interviewed could define a "U.S. person." In a new report, the IG said it also found that the labs' reviews to assess adherence to guidelines on retention of information on U.S. persons were incomplete and that none of the 29 analysts interviewed could correctly describe the process for reporting conduct that would violate a 1981 executive order aimed at ensuring the effectiveness of intelligence and counterintelligence activities. In conducting the review, the IG interviewed DOE and National Nuclear Security Administration officials at the Richland (Wash.) Operations and the Livermore (Calif.) Site offices, and contractor officials at LLNL and PNNL. To remedy the problems, the IG recommended that DOE and NNSA ensure employees receive training familiarizing them with the Executive Order and DOE Procedures for Intelligence Activities. The directors of the DOE and NNSA intelligence officers agreed with the recommendations, and told the IG in an Aug. 6 letter they would "will make a renewed effort to ensure" all pertinent employees "achieve the requisite familiarity" with the department's procedures and the executive order. The report is available at http://www.ig.doe.gov.

    Article from the Tri City Herald - 07-2004

    On Wednesday April 7, DOE and Congressman Doc Hastings announced that PNNL would not be required to vacate the facilities it uses in nearby Hanford's 300 Area until 2009 (a 2007 date had been floated earlier). The announcement triggered some media inquiries, and the Tri-City Herald ran a front-page article (http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/story/4943781p-4872550c.html) on Thursday, and Inside Energy has an article in their April 12 edition.

    PNNL is a regional asset benefiting Washington and Oregon states.

    R&D efforts are our key to prosperity
    Tuesday, August 03, 2004
    ROBERT LANDAUER

    A ll of us prefer prosperity to poverty. We don't want to live in economic dead zones.

    Oregon and Washington haven't been gifted with mother lodes of diamonds, gold or oil. Timber, tourism and agriculture can't sustain us. Opportunity has to be created from another resource -- brain power.

    Research and development inspire new products, processes and services that generate patents, business startups, trade and new jobs. These become niches of competitive advantage that improve a region's quality of life. Information technology R&D, for example, helped sustain job and income levels in Oregon as shares of gross state product from industries such as timber and agriculture have declined.

    The Northwest has both troubling and promising indicators of investment in R&D performed by industry, universities, federal agencies and nonprofit organizations. Low R&D investments eventually translate into fewer new products and processes, fewer state-of-the-art jobs, lower family wages and more vulnerability to cheaper foreign competition, the economic consensus holds. As a result, the gap between regional haves and have-nots would be expected to grow and be reflected in ominous employment and income trends for the losers.

    In 2000, the 20 highest-ranking states in R&D spending accounted for 87 percent of the U.S. total ($265 billion), according to the National Science Foundation. The lowest-ranking 20 states accounted for only 4 percent.

    An update of this report for 2001 placed Washington in that top group: 10th-ranked with $10.37 billion for all R&D and fifth-ranked for ratio of R&D to gross state product (4.65 percent). Oregon, ranked 15th for R&D investment ($5.45 billion), devotes 2.73 percent of its gross state product to R&D. Almost all of Oregon's R&D comes from industry. Federal funding of R&D in Washington dwarfs similar federal funding in Oregon.

    One observation: Oregon is a bit player compared to Washington in R&D pump-priming.

    One conclusion: If you can't match neighbors in R&D spending that produces cutting-edge technology, then collaborate with them.

    There was a glimmer last week that a valuable interstate partnership is forming. Oregon State University and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory jointly sponsored the Micro Nano Breakthrough Conference in Portland. It highlighted work being done at the frontiers of micro and nanotechnology -- work that has potential to spin off entire new industries. Such partnerships need to be nurtured at a level right up to the governors.

    Pacific Northwest National Laboratory is one of five Department of Energy labs devoted to broad science research (in contrast to three weapons labs). The Richland, Wash., facility, with 3,800 employees and a $650 million annual budget, is a big deal nationally in basic and applied research.

    There is broad feeling, though, in Oregon and Washington that the states, their universities, the region's industries and companies and the laboratory have underutilized one another. Dr. Leonard Peters, the laboratory's director, wants to change that. "One of our thrusts is how to work together . . . to build technology-based spinoffs . . (and) promote broader regional economic development."

    Peters came to the laboratory 15 months ago from Virginia Tech, where he was vice provost for research. Before that he was a professor (chemistry) and administrator for almost 20 years at the University of Kentucky. In a wide-ranging conversation last week, he left me with an impression that he is stunned at the lack of collaboration not only among research institutions in Oregon and Washington but even within the states.

    To build partnerships, Peters invited the presidents of five academic research centers (University of Washington, University of Oregon, Washington State University, Oregon State University and Oregon Health & Science University) to meet with him several times a year on an advisory committee.

    If we don't collaborate, we increase risks that we will fall behind in the international competition for new ideas, new industries, stable jobs and a desirable quality of life. Keeping a competitive advantage now requires the focused, efficient, cooperative application of creative brainpower.

    Reach Robert Landauer at 503-221-8157 or robertlandauer@news.oregonian.com
    Original Article (outside website.)

External Capability Replacement Laboratory

FACILITIES

SUPPORT AND OTHER