Staff Reports
NS&D Monitor
7/11/2014
The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability, a network of activist, advocacy and watchdog organizations at sites around the nuclear weapons complex, is calling on the National Nuclear Security Administration to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act and do another site-wide Environmental Impact Statement for the Y-12 National Security Complex. The ANS says a new EIS—or at least a supplement to the existing one—must be done because of the government’s change in strategy for modernizing Y-12’s uranium operations. In a letter this week to NNSA Administrator Frank G. Klotz, the ANA said the NNSA’s acknowledged plan to adopt the recommendation of the recent Red Team report is evidence that there’s been a substantial change in a major project to qualify for a redo of the EIS. In addition, the activists say there have other changes to the Y-12 conditions, such as the discovery of radioactive debris near the proposed UPF construction site, since the Record of Decision for the project was issued in 2011 based on the site-wide EIS at Y-12. The NNSA has not received the letter from the ANA and declined to comment, according to spokesman Steven Wyatt.
Earlier this year, then-Acting NNSA Administrator Bruce Held asked Oak Ridge National Laboratory Director Thom Mason to assemble and head a Red Team to review the uranium operations at Y-12 and come up with an alternative to the Uranium Processing Facility that would be affordable—somewhat between $4.2 billion and $6.5 billion—and enable Y-12 to vacate the aged 9212 complex by 2025.The original UPF plan was to consolidate all of Y-12’s uranium activities in one giant facility, which the Red Team characterized as a “big box.” But that strategy came under strong criticism because of design problems and spiraling cost estimates. The Red Team report recommended a modular approach that scaled down the amount of new construction, instead putting more reliance on the use of existing buildings (with some considerable refurbishment).
New EIS Would Need Public Input
If a new environmental impact statement is required, the National Nuclear Security Administration apparently would have to go through the process of holding public hearings and considering other alternatives before proceeding with construction and other activities associated with the former UPF project. The Alliance for Nuclear Accountability praised the NNSA for backing away from earlier plans, but said that did not mean the agency could proceed with the new strategy. “Consistent with NEPA’s provisions, NNSA must announce an early date for a scoping hearing to receive and record public comments on the Red Team plan and all reasonable alternatives,” the ANA letter to Klotz states.
Ralph Hutchison, coordinator of the Oak Ridge Environmental Peace Alliance, one of the members of the ANS, said, “We understand the NNSA is pushing forward with plans to implement the Red Team proposal. But a sense of urgency does not allow them to ignore the law. … It is important they begin this process before they lock themselves into a plan they cannot revise. That’s what happened last time, and it cost taxpayers nearly a billion dollars.”
NNSA’s ‘Track Record’ Should ‘Compel Careful Deliberation’ of Projects, Group Says
In the letter to Klotz, the ANA said, “Beyond due diligence compliance with NEPA, NNSA has a troubling track record that should compel careful deliberation before undertaking any new construction project. Failure to execute a successful design of the UPF in the first, flawed attempts has already cost taxpayers nearly a billion dollars. Further mistakes in the project could cause significant safety risks and more wasted taxpayers dollars.” In conclusion, the group said, “Mr. Klotz, you take the reins at NNSA at an important time. NNSA faces valid criticisms for its failure to deliver on major construction projects. … We urge you to take the time to fully investigate the range of possibilities, even beyond the Red Team’s recommendations, to set a course that will best serve the nation, not only by saving money but by preparing to meet future mission requirements in the most effective and efficient way.”
