Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
1/17/2014
The National Nuclear Security Administration has begun to take the first steps toward scaling back its plans for the Uranium Processing Facility, saying this week that it is developing “alternative mission delivery scenarios” that focus on replacing the Y-12 National Security Complex’s Building 9212 complex. In a statement, NNSA spokeswoman Keri Fulton said the agency would continue to develop a “credible cost and schedule estimate” for the complete Uranium Processing Facility as it had planned, but the alternative scenario being developed would address the “highest mission risk” at Y-12: replacing 9212’s enriched uranium capabilities. Late last year, the Department of Defense’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation group estimated that the UPF could cost as much as $19 billion, forcing the NNSA to reconsider its plans, and language in the Fiscal Year 2014 omnibus appropriations bill approved by lawmakers this week referenced DOE’s “recent decision to consider additional alternatives to meet the uranium infrastructure needs at Y-12 that might save costs and lead to a replacement facility for Building 9212 in a shorter period of time.”
The bill provided $309 million for the project in FY 2014, a $16 million cut from the Administration’s $325 million request, and prevents any site preparation from being done on the footprint of the facility. A Congressional aide said other site readiness activities, like some demolition, building a haul road and relocating Bear Creek Road and preparing electricity and water for the site, can continue under the bill.
Alternative to Stay Within Latest Estimate
Fulton said the alternative scenarios that will be examined will focus on replacing 9212 by 2025 within UPF’s original cost range of $4.2 to $6.5 billion. Officials with knowledge of the NNSA’s design plans say that could be achieved by building a smaller facility that would only house the enriched uranium capabilities to replace 9212 rather than building a larger facility that would also include room for capabilities currently contained in Building 9215 and Beta-2E. The agency had already decided to push back moving capabilities in those facilities to save money.
Last month, NNSA officials said they would continue to push toward reaching the 90 percent design threshold for UPF despite the CAPE report that suggested the facility could cost billions more than the agency’s previous estimate. The CAPE report said the facility could cost between $10 and $12 billion—and as much as $19 billion under a worst case scenario—and recommended the NNSA take a new look at the path forward for the multi-billion-dollar project. “When we get to the 90 percent level and if it turns out we’re going to be too rich for what any reasonable budgetary projection is, we’re going to have to rescope and rethink,” acting NNSA Administrator Bruce Held said last month. “In that rethinking there has to be a very firm position because we can’t slip this thing to the right eternally.” DNFSB members several times raised concerns at the meeting about when the NNSA will be able to move out of 9212, which was built in the 1940s. The NNSA is currently planning to complete the move in 2025, but none of the scenarios suggested in the CAPE report had the move being completed any sooner than 2030.
Smaller and Cheaper—For Now
Simply replacing the 9212 capabilities represents a natural solution for the agency. According to officials with knowledge of the project, a 300,000-square foot building would be needed to replace the 9212 capabilities, instead of the 700,000-square foot facility currently envisioned to house 9212 as well as 9215 and Beta-2E, which had already been jettisoned from the first phase of the project. “It turned out 50 percent of the building would be empty ‘til 2035 at the least,” the official said. “Now they’re focusing on just replacing 9212 capabilities.”
Because of the way the facility is designed, scaling down the size of the building won’t be difficult, one official suggested. The facility is designed with various processes occupying their own quadrants, so moving to a smaller sized building won’t present the same amount of problems at UPF as it did at the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement-Nuclear Facility, which has been replaced by a modular plutonium strategy. “Depending on available funding they can modify the design by taking out any one of those quadrants,” the official said. “The building itself is much more modular than CMRR was.” Such a design would also mean that it would not be significantly expensive to scale back the facility, though cost estimates of a redesign are not available. The facility has already gone through one recent costly redesign: space/fit issues forced project officials to raise the roof of the facility by 13 feet, thicken the concrete foundation slab by a foot, and increase the thickness of the walls from 18 inches to 30 inches. The redesign cost about $540 million. “They wouldn’t have to throw away all the work they’ve done to date and start from scratch,” the official said. “It would be a matter of picking which of the capabilities they want in a smaller footprint building. It would add time and money, but it will only be a fraction of the cost to redesign based on a smaller building.”
