Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
4/25/2014
The Red Team that analyzed alternatives to the Uranium Processing Facility planned for the Y-12 National Security Complex also weighed in on management of the multi-billion-dollar facility, and NS&D Monitor has learned that the team recommended a major management change for the project. The recommendations of the team, led by Oak Ridge National Laboratory Director Thom Mason, have not been released, but officials with knowledge of the team’s report said the team recommended stripping the National Nuclear Security Administration’s Office of Acquisition and Project Management of its management responsibility for the project and moving the project back under the agency’s weapons program. “The reason we’re in this pickle is the management issues,” one official told NS&D Monitor, summarizing the report’s findings. “Project management of UPF is not badly done. But the people setting requirements have to be the ones that own the project, or there’s a disconnect between the mission and what’s really needed.”
Such a move would be similar to the way projects are run in the Department of Energy’s Office of Science, and would address accountability issues that the team suggested have plagued UPF. The estimated price tag for the project ballooned in recent months to possibly more than $10 billion, forcing the NNSA to reconsider scaling back the facility. Notably, Mason has a long history with the Office of Science and it was Mason that led ORNL’s Spallation Neutron Source project, which was completed on time and on budget for $1.4 billion.
Previous reports analyzing problems on UPF have not focused on the management problems. A root-cause analysis completed by experts from Bechtel and Babcock & Wilcox blamed a rush to begin construction for a major space/fit problem that added more than $500 million to the project’s price tag. A separate report by Parsons that was completed for the NNSA said officials on the project encouraged a “coercive” management style, creating a chilled work environment that muffled or ignored important communication on the developing problems with the design of the building.
A Disconnect Between Mission, Project?
As expected, the Red Team supported a move to a smaller facility that would allow the NNSA to move enriched uranium operations out of Y-12’s aging Building 9212, according to officials, but its criticism of the management of the project appear to be among the team’s most significant recommendations. The NNSA’s Office of Acquisition and Project Management was created in 2011 to help the agency get a handle on rising costs and delays to major construction projects, but officials have said the Red Team suggested APM has had an opposite effect, at least on UPF, separating management of the project from the program that is ultimately responsible for paying for the facility and running it.
That has created a disconnect between the facility’s requirements and the rising cost of the project, officials with knowledge of the report said. The report is believed to suggest that APM could still play a significant role as a major advisor to the NNSA’s weapons program on major construction projects, but the final say on decision-making should rest with the weapons program. Similarly, projects that are “owned” by other offices, like the Office of Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation’s Mixed Oxide Fuel Fabrication Facility currently in limbo at the Savannah River Site, would be managed by that office.
More Peer Review Recommended
The report is also believed to have recommended more peer review on major projects like UPF, which would also mimic the Office of Science model. “There is heavy peer review of every element of Office of Science projects and the same guys come back every six months,” the official said. “There’s nowhere to hide.” Peer review is a common cultural element at the national laboratories, but isn’t as common in industry, another official with knowledge of the report noted. The report suggests that obstacles to peer review need to be overcome. “No one has built these things before,” the official said. “Use the best talent available. There are people around the world that have expertise in this, and you can do it without getting someone upset.”
Earlier this month, Mason confirmed that the members of the Red Team had reached a “strong consensus” on a potential alternative to the all-inclusive UPF model. The goal was to come up with a plan that allows Y-12 to get out of its 9212 uranium complex by 2025 and complete the necessary upgrades within acceptable risks by spending no more than the project’s stated cost rank of $4.2 billion to $6.5 billion. Mason said the main part of the report is about 20 pages long, but the appendices, which includes bios on all the team members and other supplementary information, add about 100 pages to the report. The report is expected to be a major topic at an April 30 Senate Energy and Water Appropriations Subcommittee hearing with new NNSA Administrator Frank Klotz.
