A new project baseline for the Savannah River Site’s Salt Waste Processing Facility (SWPF) is expected in the next few months, according to the Department of Energy and contractor Parsons.
The new baseline, which DOE requested in a March 7 notice of concern to Parsons SWPF Project Manager Frank Sheppard, should include a new projected date for beginning of operations at the facility. In the letter to Parsons, DOE officials acknowledged startup would not happen by the December 2018 date the agency had been pushing for since construction was completed in June 2016.
The baseline, which is essentially a cost and schedule estimate for projects, should also include strategies for Parsons to complete testing and commissioning the facility in a timely manner, such as putting personnel in positions to better supervise at SWPF and performing multiple tasks simultaneously to cut time off the schedule.
For the last decade, the Savannah River Site has treated its salt waste using a pilot facility operated by liquid waste contractor Savannah River Remediation (SRR). The Salt Waste Processing Facility is expected to increase waste processing from 1.5 million gallons per year to 6 million. The facility will separate salt waste from other materials, and the final product would be placed in storage facilities at SRS for permanent disposal.
The baseline approved in 2014 called for Parsons to carry out construction, design, testing, and startup of the facility by January 2021 at a total cost of $2.3 billion, not including one year of operations by the contractor. But DOE and Parsons have been pushing for a December 2018 startup.
Sheppard and Pamela Marks, the federal project director for the facility, discussed the matter Thursday in a telephone interview with Weapons Complex Monitor. The interview came after the publication obtained two letters between DOE and Parsons.
The first was the March 7 notice in which Marks and Samuel Stewart, a contracting officer with DOE’s Savannah River Operations Office, told Sheppard that Parsons’ performance on the project was deteriorating. The two highlighted several personnel and safety concerns, and requested the company submit a “return to green” plan for resolving those issues.
Sheppard responded in writing on April 6, saying Marks and Stewart had mischaracterized Parsons’ role in issues with SWPF, and that some of the problems cited in the original letter stem from the Energy Department deviating from the contract. For example, DOE limited the amount of work Parsons could perform while implementing a corrective action plan for hazardous energy control, then took longer than the alloted 30 days to review the plan, Sheppard wrote.
Sheppard also requested that the notice of concern be rescinded, but Marks confirmed in Thursday’s interview that would not occur.
Still, the two on Thursday avoided further aggravating tensions. Regarding the assertions made in the notice, Sheppard said, “We are moving forward with very productive dialogue with DOE.” He and Marks said both sides are working to fix any concerns related to the SWPF, and to determine how soon they can get it up and running.
Parsons inked a deal with the Energy Department in 2002 to design and build the SWPF, plus one year of operations. That contract, valued at about $2 billion, expires on Sept. 30, 2020.
Marks said the December 2018 startup projection was a best-case scenario. “It was based on our very aggressive schedule, and we recognized at the time that risks could emerge during the startup process,” she said. The department’s padded schedule includes allotments for risks and potential complications that would allow startup as late as January 2021.
The SWPF is the first of its kind. That means issues were likely to emerge, Sheppard said. One major one is the need to replace 460 valves at the facility because a manufacturer Parsons uses no longer supports a valve controller that needed to be upgraded. Sheppard said Parsons should receive the new valves by July, and is working to determine how long the replacement work will take.
Other issues that DOE believes were within Parsons’ control are being worked out between the department and the contractor. Per the notice from Marks and Stewart, these include: failure to implement an effective fire control program; bringing hazardous chemicals to the facility without first providing hazardous materials training for employees; and general mismanagement of the project.
Marks and Sheppard said Thursday no workers have been terminated as a result of these issues, and that no financial penalties have been imposed.
