By Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
Feb. 21, 2014
With the National Nuclear Security Administration considering alternatives to the Uranium Processing Facility, project officials are scaling back and restructuring current work on the facility, according to a recent memo from UPF Project Director Carl Strock. The Feb. 12 memo, obtained by NS&D Monitor, suggests that project officials will focus on “high-equity activities that would likely be featured in any alternative selected.” Low-equity activities, which Strock did not describe, will be reduced or suspended, which he said would lead to suspended or reduced hiring and limits on nonessential overtime. Personnel will be shifted to “advancing high-equity design, refining alternatives, planning for the future scope, and other key activities,” Strock said. “Over the next few weeks, we will develop a recommendation on how to proceed in a way that preserves as much of the current design as possible, retains as much of our team as necessary, and puts us in position to execute the selected alternative quickly and effectively once directed by NNSA,” Strock added.
The NNSA is examining alternatives to the project after it was revealed late last year that the facility’s cost would likely exceed $6.5 billion and would not be completed by 2025, when the NNSA needs to be out of Y-12’s 9212 complex. The “alternative mission delivery scenarios” will focus on replacing the Y-12 National Security Complex’s Building 9212 complex, and a ‘Red Team’ led by Oak Ridge National Laboratory Director Thom Mason is expected to complete a review of alternatives by mid-April. The UPF project is also “evaluating alternative designs and will support NNSA as needed,” Strock said. “With the high likelihood that the facility design will change, it is prudent for us to work with our local customer and plan accordingly,” Strock said. “The UPF Federal Project Director instructed me to identify high-equity activities that would likely be featured in any alternative selected. These activities will continue. Other activities, those defined as low equity, will be reduced or suspended.”
CAPE Report Triggered Look at Alternatives
In what appeared to trigger the change of plans on UPF, the Pentagon’s Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation group said late last year that 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. The agency said it 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.
Officials with knowledge of the NNSA’s design plans say the agency could build a smaller facility that would only house the enriched uranium capabilities to replace 9212 rather than 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.
In his memo, Strock also emphasized the continued importance of the project in an effort to reassure employees. “In spite of the challenges we face, there remains unwavering recognition that UPF is vital to our national security and the future of Y-12,” he said. “You are a highly talented team, and you have done a magnificent job in overcoming some incredibly complex technical challenges in designing a fully integrated UPF. I have full confidence that this team successfully navigate this transition.”
Fleischmann Emphatic in Support of UPF
Rep. Chuck Fleischmann (R-Tenn.), who holds a seat on the House Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee, said UPF still enjoys the nation’s full support and he virtually refused to discuss potential cost-saving alternatives being explored by the NNSA. At a Feb. 18 event at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Republican was asked about the agency’s efforts to come up with less-costly alternatives to the UPF. “Well, let me make this clear,” Fleischmann said. “I’ve had discussions with the Secretary [of Energy Ernest Moniz], with the [House Appropriations] Committee. We are committed to UPF, I am committed to the UPF, our great community is committed to the UPF, so we’re going to build the UPF.”
Asked if the cost mattered, the Republican congressman said, “We have got to be fiscally responsible, we all agree. But the key is we’re going to make sure that all the parties involved do their respective jobs. But I want to make it absolutely clear that there is no opposition to UPF being built. It is going to be built. The nation needs it, and it’s going to be built in Oak Ridge.”
Fleischmann Doesn’t Want to Talk Alternatives
There are discussions about possibly building the Uranium Processing Facility in modular form to save money and proceed with construction on an as-needed basis. Fleischmann did not want to discuss alternatives, at least not directly. “I want to see it built the way that it best serves the needs of our nation,” he said. “We’re all committed to that. But, as I say, there is no backing off from the fact that UPF is going to be built. As to the final design, we’re going to want it to do the function that is supposed to do. But the currently facilities need to be replaced. And there is not only a local commitment but there is a national commitment to seeing UPF built.”
Asked if he was opposed to possibly alternatives, he said “Well, the UPF’s mission is critically important right now. What Y-12 is doing is critically important for our nation. We have all got to be fiscally responsible in the way that we do this. I’m not an engineer, I’m not a nuclear physicist, but as an elected representative to the people of this district when after consultation with countless others, it is clear UPF is going to be built and fulfill its mission. Do I want that done in the most cost-effective way? Obviously.”
