Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
4/11/2015
As the National Nuclear Security Administration pivots toward a smaller and cheaper way of maintaining its uranium processing capabilities at the Y-12 National Security Complex, acting NNSA chief Bruce Held acknowledged this week that about half of the $1.2 billion that has been spent on the Uranium Processing Facility has been wasted. Appearing before the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Held was grilled by subcommittee Chairman Rep. Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) on the troubled project, with Rogers taking issue with the large amount of wasted money. "Some of it is just gone," Held said. "We need to be frank and honest about that. The M&O contractor who was designing it made some mistakes, so some of that is gone." Rogers responded, expressing his disgust. "That’s awful," he said. "We strongly support the need to replace the decrepit uranium facilities at Y-12, but it seems like NNSA and DOE has once again failed the nation on this large contract," Rogers said.
Held said he had asked a Red Team headed up by Oak Ridge National Laboratory Director Thom Mason to use as much of the existing design and to "profit from as much of the U.S. taxpayer investment as possible as we look for a smarter and faster way to proceed." The Red Team is expected to deliver its report next week, and it is widely expected to recommend a scaled back approach to UPF that would be cheaper and get the NNSA out of the 1940s era Building 9212 by 2025. "The big-box strategy has not worked for us," Held said. "We are finding that the better-sooner rather than perfect-later [strategy] is the way to go. That seems to be working effectively, shows great promise in the plutonium reprocessing facilities up at Los Alamos. And that is the reason why we are taking the same approach down at Oak Ridge with uranium."
Lawmakers Seek Accountability
Rogers also pressed Held on what NNSA officials had been held accountable for the problems on UPF—and what project management changes were being made at the agency—repeating concerns outlined in a letter to Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz from Rogers and House Armed Services Committee Chairman Rep. Buck McKeon (R-Calif.) last month. "We are concerned that the Department expects Congress to allow it to reset and restart this project with no significant accountability or change to how the Department undertakes major construction projects," Rogers and McKeon wrote. "There is a term, Mr. Secretary, for trying the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result and there is no place for it when it comes to critical national security capabilities."
Held noted that the top Y-12 federal manager and the UPF Federal Project Director had been replaced in 2012, with Steve Erhart taking the helm of the combined Y-12/Pantex Nuclear Production Office and John Eschenberg replacing Harry Peters on the UPF project after Peters retired. He also said the new Y-12/Pantex contract won by Bechtel-led Consolidated Nuclear Security would help drive accountability. "We’ve selected a new M&O contractor down at Oak Ridge, and we will be driving that contract to performance excellence," he said.
Lawmakers Pushing Cost Cap
In their letter, Rogers and McKeon also asked Moniz to direct that the mandate for the Red Team examining UPF be updated to reflect the $4.2 billion cost cap established by Congress in the FY 2013 Defense Authorization Act. The $4.2 billion figure is the low end of previous cost estimates for the project, which had been projected to cost up to $6.5 billion, though those estimates have been surpassed by newer data suggesting the project could cost more than $10 billion."While we applaud the Department for its commitment to finding an affordable alternative that will be operational by the critical 2025 date, it must not proceed down a road that is inconsistent with Congressional direction," the lawmakers wrote.
The lawmakers also asked for an analysis of the remaining appropriated funds for the project and plans for that money before an alternative is presented to Congress as well as information on "structural reforms" that will be put in place to guarantee the project meets the cost-capped 2025 deadline. "We firmly share the Administration’s position that the United States must have a viable and modernized uranium processing capability in place by 2025," the lawmakers wrote. "However, we have little confidence in the DOE or NNSA to deliver that capability. Time and again, failures within DOE and NNSA of basic management and oversight have jeopardized the long-term viability of the nuclear deterrent. We stand willing to work with you to determine how this critical uranium capability can be provided for the nation."
Sen. Alexander Supportive of Red Team Process
The Red Team hasn’t even delivered its report, but Tennessee Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander wants the approach used on other Department of Energy projects. "Maybe it will turn out to be something we want. But I like the process," Alexander said during an exchange with Moniz at Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee hearing April 9.
Alexander suggested that the Red Team approach, championed in years passed by the DOE Office of Science, could be used on other major projects, like the Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility and efforts to maintain Los Alamos National Laboratory’s plutonium capabilities, as well as on the NNSA’s life extension programs. "I may see light at the end of the tunnel on this way for us to do a better job of these massive construction projects that are eating up billions of dollars," Alexander said. He said he wanted to call a hearing on the Red Team’s findings after it delivers its report. "We’re glad the uranium facility will be creating so many good jobs in Tennessee in a safer working environment," he said. "But Tennesseans pay taxes too. We want to get a handle on the cost of these big, complex projects."
