ECA Update: October 1, 2012
Published: Mon, 10/01/12
|
Obama signs 6-month CR to keep government open
Stephen Losey, Federal Times
September 28, 2012
Stephen Losey, Federal Times
September 28, 2012
President Obama on Friday signed a six-month temporary spending bill that will keep the government open -- and further freeze federal pay scales -- until March 27.
Federal employees' pay scales have already been frozen throughout 2011 and 2012, and the freeze was set to expire in January 2013. But Obama last month proposed extending the freeze until Congress passes an actual budget for fiscal 2013. Obama said next year's pay raise -- which he said should be 0.5 percent -- should take effect at the time of the budget's passage and not be retroactive to January.
The two leading federal employee unions -- the American Federation of Government Employees and the National Treasury Employees Union -- have strongly denounced the government's decision to extend the pay freeze. Union leaders pledged to lobby Congress to make next year's pay raise retroactive to January 2013.
The $1.047 trillion spending bill adds 0.6 percent to 2012's spending levels. The House Appropriations Committee said those small increases "are needed to prevent catastrophic, irreversible, or detrimental changes to government programs, or to ensure good government and program oversight."
Those increases include more money to Customs and Border Protection to maintain its current levels of officers and Border Patrol agents, the Veterans Benefits Administration to handle an increase in the disability claims workload, and the Interior Department and Forest Service to fight wildfires.
If the CR or a full budget had not been passed and signed before the fiscal 2012 budget's Sept. 30 expiration, the government would have shut down.
Senators vow to avert sequestration cuts
Sean Reilly, Federal Times
September 26, 2012
Six senators are vowing to work across party lines to head off stiff automatic budgets cuts set to take effect in January.
"We are committed to working together to help forge a balanced, bipartisan deficit reduction package to avoid damage to our national security, important domestic priorities, and our economy," Sens. Carl Levin, D-Mich., John McCain, R-Ariz. and four other lawmakers wrote in a Sept. 21 letter to Senate leaders. "All ideas should be put on the table and considered."
The letter was made public this week.
The cuts -- formally known as sequestration -- are required under last year's Budget Control Act unless lawmakers and the Obama administration agree on a roadmap to reduce future projected budget deficits by $1.2 trillion through 2021.
For fiscal 2013, the sequestration reductions would amount to a $109 billion hit to military and domestic discretionary programs, according to a recent White House analysis based on this year's spending levels. In their letter, the lawmakers underscored the potentially "devastating" impact of the cuts to the Defense Department and agencies such as the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
A deal has so far been out of reach, however, mainly because Democrats and Republicans are fiercely divided on whether to complement spending cuts with new tax revenue. With Congress now on break for the next month-and-a-half, no action is expected until a lame-duck session scheduled to begin Nov. 13.
In their letter, the group urged Senate leaders to move ahead before then with any needed reviews by the Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee on Taxation so bipartisan proposals can be ready for congressional evaluation.
The other four signers were Sens. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., Kelly Ayotte, R-N.H., Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I.
Plan to Militarize Nuclear Security Could Face Legal Obstacles, Critics Say
Douglas P. Guarino, National Journal
September 26, 2012
A Reconstruction-era law limiting the powers of the armed forces on U.S. soil is one of several obstacles that could complicate Rep. Mike Turner's efforts to militarize security at nuclear weapons production sites, skeptics say.
Turner (R-Ohio), chairman of the House Armed Services Strategic Forces Subcommittee, unveiled the plan on Friday in a bill cosponsored by six other Republicans. In a press release, Turner suggested the effort is largely a response to a July incident in which an 82-year-old nun and two other peace activists were able to infiltrate the Y-12 National Security Complex in Tennessee.
According to Turner, "shifting security to the military provides a number of advantages over the current system" in which private contractors provide protection for nuclear weapons production and research facilities overseen by the Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration.
"Our military has the capabilities, training, and cultural mindset needed to secure the nation's most powerful weapons," Turner said, calling the current system for securing nuclear weapons facilities "broken."
Turner's office said that, under his legislation, "the military would provide security for nuclear weapons and special nuclear material at NNSA sites in the same manner as it does for nuclear weapons in military custody. In addition, responsibility for securing transportation of nuclear weapons would also shift to" the Defense Department.
The DOE branch today oversees eight nuclear security facilities, including Y-12 and three national laboratories in New Mexico and California.
One potential roadblock to Turner's plan is a 19th-century law known as the Posse Comitatus Act, skeptics say. The law, which Congress originally passed in 1878 following the 10-year period of post-Civil War Reconstruction, limits the ability of the military to be used for domestic law enforcement. At the time it was passed, the law was considered a reaction to the Army's occupation of former Confederate states during the Reconstruction period.
Peter Stockton, a senior investigator with the Project On Government Oversight, said Congress explored the possibility of using the military to guard nuclear weapons production sites in the past but dropped the issue in part due to potential conflicts with the Posse Comitatus law. Specifically, Rep. John Dingell, D-Mich., former chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, held hearings on the matter during the late 1970s and early 1980s, said Stockton, who at the time worked for the lawmaker.
While the military is responsible for guarding nuclear weapons in its possession, atomic arms production and research sites have been managed by civilians since the end of World War II. Having military guards at these civilian sites could potentially trigger a conflict with the Posse Comitatus law, Stockton and other observers suggested.
Stockton also questioned whether the Defense Department would be necessarily better at securing the NNSA sites than private protective forces.
"The military is lousy at protecting at protecting their own bases," said Stockton, who pointed to a string of incidents at Air Force installations in recent years as examples.
In 2008, at least five Air Force units failed reviews of management of nuclear weapons under their care. One year earlier, personnel at Minot Air Force Base in North Dakota mistakenly loaded nuclear-armed cruise missiles onto an aircraft that flew to another base in Louisiana. Other incidents involving Minot included the Air Force disciplining three ballistic-missile personnel for falling asleep while in possession of launch-code devices and allegations that two officers took classified launch-code devices home with them.
Also in 2007, personnel at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Wyoming mislabeled some nuclear-weapon components that were accidently shipped to Taiwan.
Turner spokesman Thomas Crosson defended the legislation, arguing that NNSA oversight of the nuclear arms complex "has gone from bad to worse" in recent years and that a change is necessary.
"They are failing at warhead [life-extension programs], facility construction, and can't even do their own budget," Crosson argued. "We should not and won't wait for there to be a next time when it's someone more malicious than an 82-year-old nun."
Crosson also rejected suggestions that militarizing NNSA security could create a potential conflict with the Posse Comitatus Act.
"There is no Posse Comitatus concern," said Crosson, who argued that military security at NNSA sites would be no different than existing operations at Navy nuclear bases in Georgia and Washington state.
One congressional staffer who follows the issue also raised concerns that making security at the NNSA sites a military responsibility would strain limited DOD resources that are already stretched thin.
Nickolas Roth, a policy fellow at the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation, cited similar concerns. He estimated Turner's bill would require the military to provide more than 2,000 armed guards at NNSA sites at a cost of about $700 million annually. Roth complained that the legislation does not specify whether the Pentagon or the Energy Department would be responsible for providing these funds.
Roth also noted that the bill does not specify which branch of the military would be responsible for the NNSA security. Like Stockman, he noted that the Air Force has had a poor track record on nuclear security in recent years, but suggested that the Navy has been more successful in protecting its atomic assets.
"It's not clear how it would be implemented," Roth said of the legislation.
The Defense Department declined to comment on pending legislation.
Stockton, meanwhile, suggested that the standard military practice of periodically rotating personnel between sites could create a situation in which there is limited institutional knowledge amongst the security forces at high-risk nuclear facilities.
In addition, Stockton predicted the House Energy and Commerce Committee might oppose the plan, since it could reduce the panel's ability to oversee NNSA security activities. While the committee has jurisdiction over the Energy Department, only Turner's committee would normally have direct say in military matters, Stockton noted.
"I'm not sure this is a realistic suggestion," Stockton said of Turner's plan.
A spokeswoman for the Energy and Commerce Committee did not respond to a request for comment.
Limits on military liability could also be a concern if the armed forces took over security at the civilian-run nuclear weapons facilities, the congressional aide told GSN. The staffer, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to not being authorized to discuss the legislation, said liability protections under the Tort Claims Act could prevent civilians from suing the armed forces if they were harmed as the result of military involvement at the nuclear sites. That, the aide said, could create potential civil liberties issues.
Militarizing NNSA security also appears contrary to the intent of legislative language in the fiscal 2013 defense authorization bill that Turner has championed, Roth suggested.
Roth called the relationship between the two pieces of legislation "curious," arguing that while the goal of authorization language appears to relax federal oversight on NNSA contractors in the interest of increasing efficiency, militarizing agency security would appear to increase, rather than decrease federal involvement at the sites.
Frank Munger: Y-12 security breach heard 'round the world'
Frank Munger, Knox News
September 26, 2012
If there was any doubt that the security breach at Y-12 had made its way to the international stage, Energy Secretary Steven Chu cleared that up last week.
In his speech to the International Atomic Energy Agency's General Conference in Vienna, Chu referenced the July 28 break-in at the Oak Ridge nuclear weapons plant. He called it an "unfortunate incident" and an "important wake-up call" for the entire U.S. weapons complex.
Here's an excerpt from his prepared text:
"And since the 2010 Nuclear Security Summit, the United States has worked with more than a dozen countries to remove approximately 650 kilograms of HEU and plutonium -- enough material to make dozens of nuclear weapons.
"And we are working with our partners in the international community to enhance security at facilities with sensitive nuclear material around the world.
"Even in the United States, we realize that we must always remain vigilant. Last month, when protesters breached the security perimeter of one of our most important nuclear security facilities, we took swift and strong action to redouble security at all of our nuclear sites.
"While they never posed a threat to any sensitive materials, this unfortunate incident was an important wake-up call for our entire complex, and an important reminder that none of us can afford anything but the highest level of vigilance."
PUBLIC AFFAIRS: Jud Simmons, Babcock & Wilcox's public relations
manager at the corporate level, has been brought to Oak Ridge to run the public and governmental affairs shop at B&W Y-12 -- at least for a while.
According to the company's internal announcement, Simmons will be working at Y-12 "for the next several months while the combined Pantex/Y12 contract competition process is completed."
The National Nuclear Security Administration is in the process of combining the management contracts at the two nuclear weapons facilities, one in Texas and one in Tennessee, 1,100 miles apart.
Simmons' background includes a lengthy stint at the Pantex Plant near Amarillo, Texas, working for two different managing contractors at the site.
The announcement of Simmons' assignment was made by Chuck Spencer, who was named B&W Y-12's general manager and president in the wake of the security breach at the Oak Ridge plant.
Alice Brandon, who had served as acting director of public affairs for the past few months, is returning to her old job managing visitor relations and employee programs, Spencer said.
FALLOUT AT ORNL: The security breach at the Y-12 nuclear weapons plant has had an impact at Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
"There's no question that the impacts are being felt across the DOE system," ORNL Director Thom Mason said.
Even though ORNL is not considered part of the nuclear weapons complex, the lab does store some nuclear materials capable of being used in a weapon.
ORNL, with its stockpile of uranium-233, is among sites under scrutiny. Mason said the lab had already received an "extent of condition" review to see if there were any similar circumstances to what took place at Y-12. A more detailed security evaluation is in the offing, he said.
SRS considers furloughs, week-long plant closure
Mike Gellatly, The Aiken Standard
September 29, 2012
Savannah River Site employees may get a rather unwelcome gift this holiday season as budget shortfalls could see the DOE-owned nuclear weapons complex close for one week in November, December and January.
Savannah River Nuclear Solutions, the management and operations contractor at SRS, is currently considering "a variety of actions to mitigate the impact of an expected FY13 budget shortfall," said Barbara Smoak, director of Business, Technical and Employee Communications for SRNS.
Rumors of voluntary furloughs and other cost-cutting measures abounded Friday. SRNS confirmed that furlough discussions of this nature were taking place.
"Employees could choose to utilize their paid vacation benefits or to take time off without pay," Smoak said. "No decision has been made concerning this option, and this is only a consideration at this time."
As well as vacation furloughs, all of SRS may close for week-long periods, Smoak said.
"We are currently discussing the possibility of a plant closing for the weeks during the holidays, beginning with Thanksgiving week, the last week of December and the first week of January," Smoak said. "We are carefully evaluating how this approach would be implemented and its site-wide impact."
This is just the most recent round of discussions relating to thinning the SRS workforce.
On Monday, liquid waste contractor Savannah River Remediation announced it is looking to begin a "workforce restructuring program," citing conclusion of projects and reduced budgets.
Just two weeks ago, SRNS began offering a similar program, which offers a severance package of one week's pay for every eligible year of service.
Work at SRS facility reduces much risk
Dave Olson, Savannah River Remediation President
September 30, 2012
Today, the storied Savannah River Site begins a new chapter in cleaning up from the Cold War by reducing the South Carolina's single greatest environment risk.
At SRS - near Aiken, S.C., next to the Savannah River - we mark what we call the operational closure of two, million-gallon waste tanks. These two tanks once held hundreds of thousands of gallons of high-level liquid radioactive waste, the byproduct of decades of nuclear weapons materials production at SRS.
SRS has been a part of South Carolina lore for more than 60 years. It was the location designated by the federal government to help produce nuclear materials for the weapons stockpile, a mission tied to winning the Cold War. Today, SRS has about 37 million gallons of this waste stored in 47 tanks at SRS. Each tank is so large you could fit a high-school basketball court inside one of them.
DURING THIS SUMMER, the two tanks we call Tanks 18 and 19 were filled with a cementlike grout, never to be used again. Today, we are officially celebrating that closure milestone with employees, stakeholders and others.
This work allows us to protect people and the environment.
The U.S. Department of Energy awarded a contract to the URS Corp.-led Savannah River Remediation in 2009 to disposition the waste and to close the waste tanks. It's an immense challenge, but Savannah River Remediation is making tremendous headway. Our mission is to treat the waste, empty the tanks and prepare them for closure.
The first two waste tanks in the country were closed at SRS in 1997 by a legacy company of Savannah River Remediation. Since that time, nine more tanks have been closed in Idaho, and now two more closures here. We expect the pace to begin to pick up at SRS with two more tank closures next year. That's a testament to the expertise and knowledge shared by all the companies directly involved in the tank closure process across the nation.
It takes technical expertise to safely perform this high-hazard work. That know-how comes from Savannah River Remediation employees, who are the best in the world at what they do. They represent a treasure trove of ability and knowledge.
IN ADDITION, THERE is a team of major national corporations that compose Savannah River Remediation - URS is teamed with Bechtel National; CH2M HILL; and Babcock and Wilcox, along with critical subcontractors AREVA; Energy Solutions; and URS Professional Solutions. These companies give Savannah River Remediation the well-rounded ability to meet the goals of the DOE; the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control; and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
On a personal note, I have been at SRS for 31 years, and I know our employees work safely, cost-efficiently and with a keen eye on protecting the workers, neighbors and our Earth. It's the right thing to do.
Today is a significant day for SRS, the DOE, regulators and employees - all of us who live in this state and in the region surrounding SRS.
We are up to the challenge of continuing to reduce the risk this waste represents. You can count on us.
Los Alamos lab's $425 million for new plutonium facility designs leaves budget questions
Associated Press
September 30, 2012
SANTA FE, N.M. -- The Los Alamos National Laboratory has spent about $425 million on designs for its proposed new plutonium facility without reaching the level of confidence needed to prepare a reliable budget or begin building.
The proposed Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement Nuclear has been delayed at least five years under President Barack Obama's budget proposal for the fiscal year that begins Monday. The budget cut funding for the program.
The Santa Fe New Mexican reports (http://bit.ly/QDg8nM ) that Steve Fong, a member of the federal team managing the project, said the most recent $3.7 billion to $5.8 billion estimates to build the plant still appear valid.
The government has spent about $80 million out of $200 million allocated to close out operations for the delayed facility, Fong said. The rest of the money will be applied to other Department of Energy programs and any decision to restart the project would require new appropriations.
The Obama administration's decision to delay the massive plutonium processing and handling building came in February and has been the subject of a series of political skirmishes. Some lawmakers on both the House and the Senate armed services committees have repeatedly tried to keep the program alive despite support for the cuts from budget committee members.
A DOE plan prepared for Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich., earlier this month would take back the extra $120 million for lab operations and send it back to pay for setup activities and additional plutonium capabilities in the Radiological Laboratory Utility Office Building. That smaller building starts operating in November and will fill part of the gap created by the deferral of the larger nuclear facility.
A letter to Levin from a DOE official said the administration is still evaluating options for building the new plutonium lab.
Levin responded to Joanne Choi's letter by protesting that any delay would add 25 percent to the cost and add another $1 billion in stop-gap expenses. Levin complained that the "sheer size of the cost escalation ... could lead to an inability to construct."
At a meeting last week, the executive director of Nuclear Watch New Mexico challenged an apparent government presumption that new public meetings would not be required if Congress changed its mind about delaying the project.
"A budget request to Congress is going to be well in advance of any startup, so that's the first advance," Fong said. "To reconstitute a design team and get going, it takes years to get to where we were -- it's going to take quite some time to get up to speed again."
Entergy Sues Feds Over Nuclear Waste
Jeff McMahon, Forbes
September 28, 2012
Entergy Nuclear Pallisades sued the United States yesterday for failing to accept nuclear waste from two plants Entergy owns in Michigan, according to published reports.
The operator of the troubled Pallisades Nuclear Plant finds itself in the company of at least 22 environmental groups and several states that have sued the government over continued storage of nuclear waste at reactor sites in the wake of the abandonment of the Yucca Mountain storage facility.
The prior owner of the Pallisades plant, Consumers Energy, won a $120 million settlement last year after filing a similar suit. In 2007, Consumers Energy sold the Pallisades plant and a shuttered plant at Big Rock Point--with spent fuel still on site--to Entergy.
But last year's $120 million settlement just shifted money from one federal account to another, because Consumers Energy owed the federal Nuclear Waste Fund $163 million.
Entergy's suit, first reported yesterday by Bloomberg, seeks to recover that amount and more: the two utilities have paid $274 million into the Nuclear Waste Fund, the suit contends, under a 1983 contract.
The same contract obligated the federal government to begin accepting waste from the two Michigan plants no later than Jan. 31, 1998.
The waste was to have gone to a waste depository, eventually identifeed as the storage site at Yucca Mountain, Nev. But the federal government defunded the Yucca Mountain project in 2011, fulfilling a promise of Obama's 2008 campaign.
Administration officials stated they would keep spent nuclear fuel at reactor sites until at least 2050 while researchers pursue recycling technologies.
Entergy's Pallisades Plant was fingered by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last year as one of the nation's four worst performing nuclear plants after a series of leaks, operating failures and shut downs that have continued into this year.
Nuclear industry slowed by its own waste
Kristi Swartz, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
September 27, 2012
ATLANTA -- Just as the nuclear industry is starting to build reactors after a 30-year drought, it faces another dry spell.
The industry thought it had what it needed for its rebirth: federal loan guarantees; a uniform reactor design; a streamlined licensing process. The nightmares from the 1979 partial meltdown at Three Mile Island, 1,000 new safety regulations and cost overruns would be left in the past, industry officials believed.
But what never came together was a long-term plan for how to store the used radioactive fuel. As a result, judges and regulators have slammed the brakes on new reactor projects -- with two exceptions.
"Waste is an environmental concern, it's a public health concern and it's become a security concern because we live in a different world now," said Sara Barczak, the high-risk energy director for the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy.
Industry officials say the
re is time -- more than 100 years -- until the nation's power plants run out of room to store the radioactive waste on site. But a federal appeals court ruled in June that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission -- the agency charged with making sure utilities build and operate nuclear reactors safely -- could no longer say it had reasonable assurance that a long-term waste-management solution would be created. Because of this, the NRC said it will not approve any new projects for now.
This leaves Atlanta-based Southern Co. and South Carolina's SCANA with the only utilities to win approval to build nuclear reactors from scratch after an almost 30-year gap. Other utilities that have nuclear projects but are further behind in the approval process may face an additional delay of a year or more.
Georgia Power, one of Southern's utilities in the company's four-state territory, is building two new reactors at Plant Vogtle with a group of municipal and cooperative electric companies.
While Southern eventually plans to build more reactors beyond the Vogtle project, that likely won't happen until the next decade, company executives have said.
"This is an issue of political feasibility," said Salo Zelermyer, a former Department of Energy lawyer who now is with Bracewell & Giuliani's environmental strategies group. "You can't store this waste in a region where there's intense local opposition to it."
Efforts were made to find, research and prepare a permanent central repository during the 30-year nuclear hiatus. The federal government planned to start moving used fuel from nuclear plants to Yucca Mountain in Nevada -- which scientists had been researching since the 1970s.
The government signed contracts with utilities, including Southern Co., which owns nuclear plants in Georgia and Alabama, to haul the waste there when the repository was supposed to open in 1998. A protracted approval process, environmental questions, lawsuits and mounting political pressure ground the project to a halt in 2010.
President Barack Obama appointed a bipartisan Blue Ribbon Commission to find alternative plans to Yucca Mountain. The commission supported a central repository but suggested the government secure approval from local communities to prevent the same type of backlash that Yucca Mountain received.
"Scientifically, it was a perfectly good site, but politics caught up to it," said Steven Kraft, a senior director with the Nuclear Energy Institute, a Washington-based policy group for the nuclear industry.
For now, the utilities that own and operate the nation's 104 reactors house the high-level spent radioactive fuel at the power plants. The rods are first cooled in water and then moved to hardened casks made from massive steel and concrete.
"It's kind of like the deficit. Eventually you are going to have to deal with it," said Glenn Sjoden, a nuclear and radiological engineering professor at Georgia Tech. "It's not something you can just let sit in your back yard."
But that's where the used fuel will sit, in the "back yard" of nuclear plants, likely for several years, because of the federal court ruling.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission recently announced it will start a two-year environmental review of temporary waste storage, even as it refuses to grant permits for any new reactors.
"It doesn't change anything we're doing in used fuel management, because we were doing that anyway. But this is a very important procedural step," said Mr. Kraft at the NEI.
Utilities store a total of 2,000-2,300 metric tons of used nuclear fuel a year, according to industry figures. That adds up to about 65,000 metric tons of radioactive waste currently sitting at nuclear plants.
NGA Cooperative Agreement Awarded
DOE Press Release
September 28, 2012
Cincinnati - The Department of Energy today awarded a cooperative agreement to the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) to continue efforts to engage states and to work collaboratively to solve continued challenges posed by waste management and cleanup at DOE sites. Through this cooperative agreement, the NGA Center will continue to provide a forum for states to work directly with DOE on a wide array of subjects including budget and regulatory issues, waste treatment and disposal options, and equitable decisions on waste management. The total value of the cooperative agreement over four years is $1,635,450.00. The project period of the cooperative agreement will be from October 1, 2012, through September 30, 2016.
Hanford contractor earns $3.1M for vit plant; lowest award payment yet
Annette Cary, Tri-City Herald
October 1, 2012
Bechtel National has earned its lowest award payment yet for work on the Hanford vitrification plant, according to information from the Department of Energy.
It was eligible to earn $6.3 million for work on the project for the first six months of this calendar year, but DOE gave its contractor $3.1 million or just less than 50 percent of the possible award payment.
The award was based on ratings for cost and project management, both of which came in at just under 50, or "satisfactory," on a scale of 1 to 100. Any score from 1 to 50 is rated satisfactory.
The low rating "reflects the lack of closure on the path forward to address and correct issues," said Carrie Meyer, spokeswoman for the Department of Energy.
The project management score was brought down by a numerical rating of 5 for engineering and a numerical rating of 45 for nuclear safety.
The cost score was brought down by a numerical rating of 20 for factors that included the estimate at completion, management reserve funds and variances.
"We accept the Department of Energy's fee determination and are working closely with the department on the issues," said Suzanne Heaston, Bechtel spokeswoman.
Bechtel is building and commissioning the $12.2 billion plant to treat up to 56 million gallons of radioactive waste now held in underground tanks for disposal. The waste is left from the past production of plutonium for the nation's weapons program.
Award payments are intended to provide motivation for excellence in contract performance, Meyer said.
The award money recognized an improvement in safety and health performance, which rated 85 or "very good," and positive steps taken in nuclear safety and quality culture, which rated a 65 or "good," Meyer said.
But it also recognized a decline in performance in engineering, quality management and procurement performance, she said.
DOE's Hanford Office of River Protection is working with Bechtel to identify and correct the causes of the low rating," Meyer said.
The previous rating, for the past six months of calendar year 2011, was 71.3, and the cost performance rating was 57, both of them falling in the "good" category. Then Bechtel collected an award payment of almost $3.9 million out of a possible $6.3 million.
Among events in the first six months of 2012, DOE had instructed Bechtel to develop a proposed new cost and schedule estimate for the vitrification plant in February, as it became apparent the current cost estimate of $12.2 billion and planned start of operations in 2019 likely were unrealistic.
Then in June, DOE said the new cost and schedule estimates could not be prepared yet because technical issues that could affect the safe and efficient operation needed to be addressed.
In May, an audit completed by the DOE Office of Inspector General said tanks installed in the vitrification plant did not always meet quality assurance or contract requirements.
In March, DOE sent Bechtel a letter saying it was concerned about the cumulative impact of issues it had identified. That included the most recent issue, DOE's surveillance of the project's management of design and safety margins, which make sure the design has enough conservatism for the plant to operate as required.
However, DOE also said in June that it was encouraged by steps Bechtel National was making to improve its nuclear safety culture, which includes making sure that workers feel free to bring up technical issues that could affect future safe operations of the plant and that those issues are addressed.
DOE Awards Small Business Contract for Los Alamos National Laboratory Waste Handling Services
DOE Press Release
September 28, 2012
Cincinnati - The Department of Energy (DOE) today awarded a contract to Terranear PMC of Irving, TX, a small-disadvantaged business under the Small Business Administration's 8(a) Program for waste handling services at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in Santa Fe, New Mexico. The contract has a one-year performance period with a $2 million approximate value.
The contract will be an Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity (ID/IQ) contract, under which firm-fixed-price task orders will be issued for specific services.
The work to be performed on the task orders include:
Follow-up Audit of the National Nuclear Security Administration's W76 Nuclear Warhead Refurbishment Program
DOE IG
September 26, 2012
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) is refurbishing the aging W76 nuclear warhead with the goal of extending the warhead life by 30 years. However, the W76 Life Extension Program (LEP) has experienced significant delays in startup and in achieving production goals. NNSA may be unable to complete the W76 LEP within established scope, cost and schedule parameters, unless it adopts a more effective approach to reducing unit costs. This concern is exacerbated by the fact that the Program is faced with a relatively flat budget over the next few years, even though its annual scope of work is projected to increase significantly. The Program's budget increases for Fiscal Years (FY) 2013 and 2014, for example, are projected to be only 2.9 percent in each year more than FY 2011 levels. The Program's production schedule, however, shows production increasing 59 percent during the same period. The increase in production appears to be unsustainable given the projected funding. The goal of reducing the unit cost of W76 LEP production appeared to be one of the only paths to keeping the Program on track without adversely affecting other NNSA programs. Although a senior NNSA official expressed confidence that NNSA would achieve the increased production rates within the out-year budget estimates, Program officials could not provide plans detailing actions necessary to achieve the needed cost reductions. Although Program officials disagreed with our methodology for calculating unit cost, in general, they agreed that our analysis, including the risks going forward, were consistent with NNSA's concerns about Program execution in future years.
 |
|
More Information |
|
To help ensure that you receive all email with images correctly displayed, please add ecabulletin@aweber.com to your address book or contact list |
|
ECA Bulletin |
|
Browse previous editions of the ECA Bulletin |