POGO Raises Concerns About Lack of Information on UPF
NS&D Monitor
11/7/2014
The Project on Government Oversight, a long-time Department of Energy watchdog group, this week said it has “serious concerns” about the lack of information being made publicly available on the multibillion-dollar Uranium Processing Facility and called for greater transparency on the national security project as it moves closer to construction. “We’re very concerned that the NNSA is keeping the public in the dark about this questionable project,” POGO Senior Investigator Peter Stockton said in a statement. “There has not been an updated cost estimate or timeline released to the public and there are still questions about what mission capabilities will be required of the proposed UPF.”
The National Nuclear Security Administration has been tight-lipped on details of how the project is being revamped to meet some recommendations of the Red Team review conducted earlier this year and has declined to release information on some of the procurement activities. Stockton also expressed dismay about the recent announcement that Consolidated Nuclear Security, NNSA’s managing contractor at Y-12 and Pantex nuclear weapons facilities, would be subcontracting much of the UPF work to its parent company, Bechtel National. “I don’t have much confidence that this project is going to get any better if Bechtel is involved and being supervised by one of its subsidiaries,” Stockton said.
POGO Calls UPF ‘Yet Another Multibillion-dollar DOE Boondoggle’
POGO also released copies of a letter the group sent last month to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees raising questions and concerns about the Uranium Processing Facility. The letter was sent to House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson (R-Idaho) and ranking member Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) as well as Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee Chairman Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and ranking member Lamar Alexander (D-Tenn.).
UPF “has become yet another multibillion-dollar DOE boondoggle,” POGO Executive Director Danielle Brian said in the Oct. 8 letter. “The UPF project was originally intended to consolidate enriched uranium operations, including assembly, disassembly, and dismantlement of nuclear weapons components but it is likely the project will be scaled back,” Brian wrote. “Not only is it over budget and behind schedule, there may not even be sufficient mission to justify its construction at all.”
The letter notes that “In addition to the UPF’s escalating cost, the building will not be fully operational until at least 2030, twelve years behind schedule.” The NNSA has said it expects to have operations effective by 2025. POGO said some of the production justifications for proceeding with UPF may be misguided. While noting one of the reasons for building new facilities at Y-12 is for remanufacture of canned subassemblies, Brian wrote, “Unfortunately, the NNSA refuses to publically release information on how many CSAs will require manufacturing or remanufacturing in the coming years and therefore what capacity will actually be required of the multibillion-dollar facility.”
UPF Gets Positive Marks from Peer Review Team
Meanwhile, UPF Project Director Brian Reilly recently told employees that the project had received a positive review from an NNSA-appointed Peer Review Team. According to Reilly’s message to UPF employees, the review team noted, “The project appears to be on an appropriate trajectory to establish a baseline that delivers the required capability within the defined costs and schedule constrains, and to perform that within that baseline.”
CNS spokesman Jason Bohne said the review team’s report on UPF was not releasable. Reilly’s statement indicated that the review team did a four-day “comprehensive” review of the project and he thanked employees for their work in gaining the positive results. “The review team, formally called the NNSA Peer Review Team, was chartered by the NNSA Deputy Administrator and consisted of 30 federal and contractor subject matter experts from many different locations in the DOE complex,” he wrote. “These Peer Reviews are part of our customer’s process to evaluate the various critical aspects of the project, with the goal of answering a series of charge questions from NNSA management related to the project’s ability to achieve its goals. The conclusions of the review team were very positive and we received several suggestions to consider as we move forward with the work, all of which we will evaluate and determine actions for in the coming weeks. The Team’s overall assessment is best summed up in their own words.”
He added: “Several of the review team members were part of the Peer Review that was done approximately one year ago, and they remarked that the project had a different ‘vibe’ to it, that people seemed focused and heading in the direction laid out by the leadership team. They came to this conclusion by speaking with many of you, and that’s the most exciting and rewarding aspect of the feedback for me. And for that I want to thank each one of you for remaining focused and committed to our work under demanding circumstances.”
Reilly said the feedback gives “encouragement” to the UPF team that it is on the “right path” for moving the project forward. Bohne said the UPF review team was “populated by subject matter experts from different locations across the complex,” including federal and contractor employees. “The review was independent from UPF and CNS employees,” Bohne said.
