ECA Update: October 26, 2012
Published: Fri, 10/26/12
|
In interview, Obama foretells 'grand bargain' will avoid cuts
John T. Bennett and Marcus Weisgerber, Federal Times
October 24, 2012
John T. Bennett and Marcus Weisgerber, Federal Times
October 24, 2012
President Barack Obama is wading further into efforts to avoid deep cuts to national defense and domestic spending, telling an Iowa newspaper he is "absolutely confident" a deal that pares the deficit by $4 trillion will be passed.
After months of criticism about his absence in avoiding a so-called "fiscal cliff," Obama first inserted himself into the sequestration fray Oct. 22 during the final presidential debate by saying that $500 billion in cuts to planned defense spending "will not happen."
In an off-the-record conversation with the Des Moines Register, Obama expanded on his vision for how those cuts, which would be done under a process called sequestration, would be avoided. (The White House decided to make the conversation on the record and a transcript was released the following day.) With middle-class tax cuts passed during the George W. Bush era set to expire at year's end and the twin $500 billion cuts to domestic and defense spending also set to kick in, Obama said he believes Congress and the White House will feel so much pressure they will strike a massive deficit-reduction bill, while also keeping the tax cuts in place.
But, likely to the dismay of the defense industry and other sectors of the U.S. economy, the president seemed to suggest such a "grand bargain" will come during the first six months of the next presidential term, which will begin in late January.
"So when you combine the Bush tax cuts expiring, the sequester in place, the commitment of both myself and my opponent -- at least Gov. [Mitt] Romney claims that he wants to reduce the deficit -- but we're going to be in a position where I believe in the first six months we are going to solve that big piece of business," Obama said, according to the transcript.
Though Obama is talking about avoiding the cuts for the first time, that's not good enough for House Armed Services Committee Chairman Howard "Buck" McKeon, R-Calif.
"On Monday, the president promised America's military that sequestration will not happen," McKeon said in a statement provided through a spokesman. "The very next day, when he thought the world wasn't listening, the president admits that he doesn't plan to address the issue until his next term, after [sequestration] goes into effect.
"What the president doesn't seem to understand is that these cuts will devastate the military in ways that he cannot fix after the fact," McKeon said. "By telling the American people on one day that sequestration will be fixed, and the next day saying he fully intends to allow it to happen, he continues to fuel uncertainty about hundreds of thousands of jobs."
Several groups of senators from both political parties have quietly been talking behind closed doors about how to tailor legislation that would void the defense and domestic cuts.
It appeared for months that there was no such effort going on among House members. But Sen. Chris Coons, D-Del., said during an Oct. 23 television interview that members "from both parties, both houses" of Congress are talking about how to structure a deal that would avoid the spending cuts.
Economists and lawmakers of all political stripes say if the sequestration cuts occur on Jan. 2, and if the Bush tax cuts are allowed to expire, the still-stumbling U.S. economy will plunge into a deep recession during 2013.
That won't happen, Obama told the Iowa newspaper, which is owned by the parent company of Federal Times.
"It will probably be messy. It won't be pleasant," Obama said. "But I am absolutely confident that we can get what is the equivalent of the grand bargain that essentially I've been offering to the Republicans for a very long time, which is $2.50 worth of cuts for every dollar in spending, and work to reduce the costs of our health care programs."
Obama is setting his hopes for coming efforts to avoid the cuts very high, while congressional and budget sources in recent weeks have predicted that a small bargain, including bits and pieces of what would be in a grand bargain deal, is most likely.
"We can credibly meet the target that the Bowles-Simpson Commission established of $4 trillion in deficit reduction, and even more in the out-years," Obama said. "We can stabilize our deficit-to-GDP ratio in a way that is really going to be a good foundation for long-term growth. Now, once we get that done, that takes a huge piece of business off the table."
A key defense industry lobbying group on Oct. 24 applauded Obama's debate comments, and called for immediate White House-congressional talks to form a framework for a plan to avoid the sequester cuts.
Marion Blakey, president and CEO of the Aerospace Industries Association, called for compromise on both sides of the political aisle once formal negotiations begin. Over the past year, Blakey has been one of the most vocal opponents of sequestration and her organization has said the cuts would result in the loss of 2 million jobs.
"Obviously this is something that we find encouraging," Blakey said during an Oct. 23 conference call with reporters. "[H]is comments were certainly a good step forward because if sequestration is not to happen, it has to be on basis of compromise, on the part of leadership both within the Congress, as well as with the administration."
There's agreement in Washington on one thing: As Obama said, the coming negotiations will be noisy.
Obama is engaging on the issue after months of criticism from GOP lawmakers that he was not doing enough to avoid the fiscal cliff. Obama's debate comments spawned questions about whether he had lost some of his bargaining power for talks that will start after lawmakers return in early November from a recess that began in September.
"I don't think it will hurt the president because I read it more as a prediction, not a promise," Todd Harrison, a Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments analyst, told Defense News on Oct. 23. "It's also consistent with what [Obama] administration officials have been saying for a while, and with what senior Pentagon officials have told me when I've pressed them about why they aren't planning for the sequestration cuts."
But Lawrence Korb, a former Pentagon official now with the Center for American Progress, believes the comment will come back to haunt Obama.
"It does undermine the president's bargaining power because [his then-budget chief] proposed the sequester first," Korb said the same day. "The problem now for Obama is the Republicans can say, if Obama and the Democrats continue insisting on more federal revenues, 'We won't accept that because we know you're really not going to let these defense cuts go through.'"
White House holds back on sequester details
Meghan McCarthy and Fawn Johnson, Government Executive
October 25, 2012
There's a funny thing happening at federal agencies. When it comes to the details of the looming $1.2 trillion cut to their budgets, agency officials find themselves unable to explain just how those cuts would affect myriad programs on the ground. Instead, they have a unified message: talk to the Office of Management and Budget.
From the Agriculture Department to the Pentagon to the Social Security Administration, more than a dozen agencies have given National Journal the same stock response, redirecting reporters to OMB. (The exception was Justin Hamilton at the Education Department, who responded to a query with a link to Carly Simon's "Anticipation.")
Not that OMB, which has the task of making sure that President Obama's vision is implemented throughout federal agencies, is willing to offer any more details. When asked why federal agencies have been told not to discuss sequester details, OMB press officers told NJ to review Deputy Director Jeffrey Zients's July memo to agencies, telling them to continue normal spending. OMB also pointed to a 394-page report in September that estimates how much federal programs would have to be cut to meet the $1.2 trillion goal.
Obama's own comments on the sequester offer insights on the administration's motives for keeping a tight lid on the details of the potential cuts: The White House is hopeful Congress can reach an agreement during the postelection lame-duck session to head off the reductions. Obama said so himself at his third debate with Mitt Romney on Monday. In an interview with The Des Moines Register this week, Obama described the sequester as a "forcing mechanism" that could help motivate a polarized Congress to strike a broad deal on deficit reduction.
The lobbying community is getting the same nonanswers from agencies, even though they historically have better relationships with their individual agencies than OMB. Take the aviation community, which is obviously nervous because the Federal Aviation Administration could take a $1 billion hit. But the FAA is mum. "It's a little scary because I don't think the agencies know. Can the FAA wall off air-traffic control? It's all up to OMB, and they never tell anybody anything," said Jane Calderwood, vice president of federal affairs for the Airports Council International.
The National Air Traffic Controllers Association, whose members could be directly affected by sequestration, won't talk to the media about its concerns. A written statement from NATCA spokeswoman Sarah Dunn said this: "NATCA is talking to members of Congress and others in the aviation industry about its concerns that the sequester could harm the efficient functioning of the U.S. aviation system."
Lobbyists across a vast range of industries are in the dark about the details.
Julius Hobson, a lobbyist at Polsinelli Shughart who represents physician groups and long-term-care facilities, said he's not surprised agencies have been mum ahead of the election--they want to avoid any information that could hurt Obama's reelection bid. The sequester was mandated under the 2011 Budget Control Act, which was agreed to by both Democrats and Republicans. But if the administration were to detail where the budget knife would actually fall, Obama could end up getting stuck with a greater share of the blame for the cuts.
"I'd be surprised if we saw any kind of information about sequestration before Election Day," Hobson said in an interview. "The only reason we have anything about sequestration now is because Republicans pushed through the Sequestration Transparency Act, and that forced OMB to put out the September report. That's all we've got, and there's not going to be anything else, at least not before the election."
Hobson said that the flurry of letters sent by Republican members to federal health agencies like the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Health and Human Services Department seeking details on health program cuts would also go unanswered.
The same is true in the defense world, where concerns over the potential impact of the $500 billion in extra reductions to Pentagon accounts have reached a feverish pitch. Sean O'Keefe, the CEO of EADS North America, a major defense contractor, told NJ in an interview this month he has not gotten any details from the Pentagon on sequestration.
"I've had plenty of discussions over there. I've met with several members of the leadership in the Pentagon over the course of the last several months. I've been honored to be invited by Secretary [Leon] Panetta himself to engage in industry debates about this question," O'Keefe said. "I have not had any discussion with anyone about any individual program and how it would be affected by it."
Contrast this to the furor that the FAA and the aviation community drummed up last year when Congress was on the brink of partially shuttering the agency. The FAA told anyone who would listen that $2.5 billion in contracting money would be held hostage by a partial FAA shutdown and 4,000 employees would be furloughed. The agency provided detailed lists of the projects and offices that would be most affected by the shutdown. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood took over a White House press conference to beg Congress not to let it happen.
There is a big difference between then and now. One could argue that the DOT tactics didn't work the last time around. Congress let the FAA close anyway, almost egged on by the administration's outrage, and it cost the Treasury millions in uncollected airline tax fees.
Now the only thing that has been made public is the OMB's analysis. While those numbers are a starting place, they don't give a full picture of how the cuts will work on the ground. For example, $2.5 billion would come from the National Institutes of Health. But that doesn't give any indication of which research projects, grant programs, and labs will be cut, or by how much. On top of this, agencies and OMB can shuffle around the cuts to hit programs they think are inefficient and protect those with Obama administration approval.
With the cuts coming in just over two months, shouldn't the agency be getting ready? Yes, say federal budget experts, but there are plenty of political reasons not to spill exactly how the cuts would work.
"Folks in the administration very much want the sequester to be averted," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, former head of the Congressional Budget Office, in an interview. "Then you should try to ensure for as long as possible that everything is at risk."
In other words, giving specific details on what gets cut means lobbying groups and advocates representing programs that are lucky enough to avoid the sequester's ax could stop pressuring members and the White House to turn off the automatic cut.
"When you have details, that also tells you what's not going to get cut ... if you try to have maximum pressure to get the sequester undone, that doesn't help," Holtz-Eakin said.
In addition to keeping the pressure on, having the Obama administration pick which programs it is most willing to cut risks handing Republican budget hawks some future targets. You can hear the talking points: If you were willing to give this up first under the sequester, why not do it now?
Should Congress fail to head off the sequester, final decisions on the cuts would be made between OMB and congressional appropriators, says Dan Mendelson, an associate director for health at OMB during the Clinton administration.
"Ultimately it will be like a mini-negotiated round of appropriations with the Congress," Mendelson said in an interview. "And if you want to do some big deficit-reduction bill down the road, you have to make sure you aren't angering the very people you need as allies."
This is precisely the tactic that the American Association of Port Authorities is taking as terminal operators look at the variety of cuts to port-security programs that they could face under sequestration. AAPA President Kurt Nagle said he is spending most of his lobbying energy on Capitol Hill because he knows it is lawmakers who must act to avert the automatic cuts. "They obviously are going to need to come up with a deal that still cuts the budget, probably even more so in that scenario," he said. "We continue to talk to the leadership in both the House and the Senate, and certainly in terms of importance of our programs."
That sounds a lot like an appropriations negotiation: Don't cut us, we're too important.
Here's another excuse for the "I don't know" response. What gets cut will ultimately rely on the election. Here's one example from Mendelson: If President Obama gets a second term, some health programs could be more likely to get cut, because 30 million uninsured people are expected to get insurance coverage. If Mitt Romney wins, in theory, fewer health programs would suffer cuts because he would try to repeal the health care law.
Fiscal 'cliff' might look more like a gradual, downward slope
Eric Katz, Government Executive
October 25, 2012
A former budget chief in both the legislative and executive branches said Thursday the United States might not be headed for a fiscal "cliff" at all, because the effects of sequestration and tax cut expirations likely would be felt slowly over time.
Jim Nussle, Office of Management and Budget director under George W. Bush and a former Republican congressman from Iowa, said at a town-hall event hosted by Government Executive Media Group that the fiscal events at the turn of the New Year may not end up being as dramatic as they have been forecasted to be.
"People are suggesting it's almost like Wile E. Coyote, you go over the cliff and down like a poof of smoke," he said. "That's not what this might look like . . . there is some leeway if you will, or some flexibility."
Nussle added this increases the likelihood of Congress simply "kicking the can down the road" by delaying the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts and the automatic cuts from sequestration.
He warned against this tactic, however, and said the threat of sequestration still might be enough to force a deal.
"I believe that at 62 percent of debt to [gross domestic product] our country is on an unsustainable path and we should use this opportunity to fix the debt and fix the situation we're in," he said. "Congress and the president need action-forcing events and this is a pretty good one."
In approaching a "grand bargain," as a potential bipartisan deal to avoid the "cliff" has been called, Nussle said both sides should come into negotiations with four things in mind.
First, he said, nothing should be taken off the table. He also pointed to entitlement reform as a place for savings, and said revenues -- though not necessarily taxes -- must be increased. Finally, he stressed the importance of lowering the debt-to-GDP ratio.
As agencies prepare for possible budget cuts, Nussle's advice was simply to carry on, as federal employees have not had much "predictability" during the last five or six years.
"You haven't had the ability to plan and make the programmatic decisions that are necessary if you're going to be effective as public servants," Nussle said.
He added, however, that agencies should begin to think about the looming budget cuts, as "anyone assuming sequestration will not happen is making a bad assumption."
Nussle, who served 16 years in Congress, including six as House Budget Committee chairman, said he used to be among the politicians who derided federal bureaucrats. After becoming one, however, he now empathizes with them.
"Just like politicians, there are a few bad ones," he said. "But most are very good at what they do, they care enormously about the job they try to accomplish every day, they're very professional about it and they're very worried about the future of their own program, let alone the future of their job and their co-worker's job."
NRC chief says agency prioritized lessons from Japan disaster
Charles S. Clark, Government Executive
October 25, 2012
In one of her first wide-ranging interviews since assuming office in July, the chairwoman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on Thursday outlined priority lessons from the March 2011 nuclear meltdown in Japan and provided an overview of work-life at an agency known both for leadership tensions and high employee satisfaction.
Allison Macfarlane, who came over from George Mason University to become the first geologist to lead NRC, said during an interview at the Center for American Progress that the meltdown of three plants in Fukushima and the release of radiation were a "wake-up call" for other countries and the nuclear industry.
But unlike the U.S. response in 1979 after the near-meltdown of the Pennsylvania nuclear plant at Three Mile Island, Macfarlane said, NRC -- acting before her arrival -- issued a report that assigned clear priorities to the preventive steps that regulators will require of American nuclear licensees.
NRC "said let's make sure a Fukushima event doesn't happen again. But before we jump on recommendations, let's think about Three Mile Island, where lots of changes were made wholesale without a broader plan. Some were useful, some not so useful. So let's take a breath before jump in hand and feet," Macfarlane said.
As a result, the agency is completing work on the first of three tiers of reforms for better preparations for a nuclear power blackout, Macfarlane said. They include requiring more backup power generators on- and off-site; better venting of boiling water reactors to allow the escape of gasses; better temperature-measuring instrumentation on spent-fuel pools, and more detailed emergency communications and staffing plans.
"Energy is the issue of the 21st century-- how we get it, what we do with it and how it affects the environment," Macfarlane said. "If we plan badly, we will be in big trouble as a country -- look at Japan, which lost 30 percent of its electricity supply."
With 104 U.S. nuclear plants in operation -- and four more under construction in South Carolina and Georgia -- nuclear facilities produce 20 percent of U.S. electricity, she noted. The biggest cost factor is construction, not fuel or maintenance, which is why the Energy Department is working with the industry on loans for new plants.
"Regulations don't come about overnight," she told moderator Carol Browner, former head of the Environmental Protection Agency. "But it's essential to have a strong regulator and enforcer of those regulations. We get public input, and we work with our licensees so they know what's coming and have opportunity for input."
Among her chief policy concerns are the impact that climate change can have on nuclear plant safety and a coming shortage of nuclear engineers in countries such as Germany that are phasing out nuclear power. There is great interest, she added, in "small, modular" nuclear plants that are built underground for greater safety.
Macfarlane described the governing structure of the five-member NRC, noting there are two Republican appointees and two Democratic ones, plus a chairperson picked by the president. The commission must have a quorum of three to take a majority rule decision. As a "collegial body," the members, who have different areas of expertise, vote "notationally," meaning on paper and in public before they do any debating, in compliance with sunshine laws. After reviewing the written votes, they meet for another round and rework the majority's position into language for their final decision.
NRC's staff of 4,000, largely made up of nuclear and mechanical engineers, is adequate in size, Macfarlane said, noting after the Japan disaster, staff were moved into a special directorate to deal with it. Each nuclear plant is covered by two inspectors, working out of one of four regional offices. "We rotate them every seven years because, to borrow a term from anthropology, we don't want inspectors going native," she said. They're not allowed to eat or fraternize with the licensee, and they take an oath to fulfill the safety mission. Macfarlane said her biggest surprise was observing how dedicated staffers are to their mission. "The NRC works hard to make sure the inspectors are happy and have what they need," she added. "That's why it is rated a top agency to work at."
Macfarlane also said she is impressed by NRC's "attention to growing people, rotating them to different parts and providing leadership development. They are attentive to the careers of people." The workforce is aging, she acknowledged, but "we have a pretty strong program to bring people in at the entry level and shape them."
Stimulus funding was boon to Oak Ridge facilities; created 3,800 jobs
Frank Munger, Knox News
October 25, 2012
OAK RIDGE -- The value of the government's economic stimulus program has been a hot topic of debate, particularly during this political season, but -- not surprisingly -- the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act gets warm reviews in Oak Ridge.
The Department of Energy's Oak Ridge office received about $1.9 billion from the 2009 Recovery Act. About $1.2 billion of that windfall was designated for projects -- ranging from environmental cleanup to construction of new research facilities -- to be carried out in Oak Ridge. Now into the fourth year of the program, DOE still holds tens of millions of dollars to be spent in 2013.
While the precision of stimulus job counts has been questioned by the Government Accountability Office and others, DOE spokesman Mike Koentop said a total of 3,863 jobs had been created or saved in Oak Ridge as of the end of July. At that time, there were still 424 workers supported by Recovery Act funding, Koentop said.
Much of the Recovery Act work in Oak Ridge has been carried out with subcontracts, which end as projects are completed and don't impact the regular contractor workforce at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Y-12 National Security Complex and other federal facilities. Because the work was spread out over four years, there haven't been the huge employment spikes -- followed by steep layoffs -- seen at other DOE sites with a lot of stimulus money to spend.
"The economic benefit has been huge," Oak Ridge Mayor Tom Beehan said. "It's spilled over into retail and housing and the services industry. It's had a dynamic effect."
ORNL Director Thom Mason said the lab received about $500 million, which supported a broad range of projects at DOE's largest and most diverse science lab.
One of the biggest projects was construction of a new Chemical and Materials Science Building, a stylish three-story, 160,000-square-foot facility with modern wet labs and research office space. Of the building's $96 million price tag, about $60 million came from the lab's Recovery Act funding.
It's now fully occupied with ORNL research scientists and visiting collaborators.
"I walked through a couple of weeks ago, and they're really delighted with the new and improved research infrastructure," Mason said. "It's going to be a great resource to the lab for decades to come."
The chemical sciences facility had been on the drawing board for a few years and was being proposed for multiyear funding as a capital project in the federal budget. The timing of the Recovery Act worked out almost perfectly for ORNL, allowing the work to be accelerated by at least a couple of years, maybe more. Because design was virtually complete, the project was deemed "shovel ready" and eligible for a jobs creation initiative.
Construction of another new building, the Maximum Building Energy Efficiency Research Lab, is nearing completion at ORNL. The 20,000-square-foot MAXLAB will be used to test the energy efficiency of emerging building technologies.
ORNL also used stimulus money to hire extra staff in several areas, including the lab's scientific computing programs and nuclear science and technology.
Perhaps the biggest use of Recovery Act money in Oak Ridge has been environmental cleanup.
Dozens of old and radioactively contaminated buildings at ORNL and Y-12 have been demolished and removed over the past couple of years, with some cleanup work still under way.
Steven Wyatt, a federal spokesman at Y-12, said the stimulus funding helped "transform" the nuclear weapons production site. Seven Y-12 projects created about 2,000 jobs, demolished about 150,000 square feet of old buildings, and got rid of about 74,000 cubic meters of waste, he said.
The Recovery Act work at Y-12 also meant about $50 million in procurements for small businesses, Wyatt said.
Several of the Y-12 projects were completed ahead of schedule and under budget, and the savings are being used to support additional "buy back" projects, which will focus primarily on reducing mercury pollution at the plant, he said.
Matt Murray, professor of economics at the University of Tennessee and associate director of the Center for Business & Economic Research, said one of the reasons the stimulus programs have been a political football nationally is that it's difficult to conclusively show how the programs positively affected the economy.
"We can't see what (would have) happened without the money," Murray said. Critics have noted that unemployment continued to rise, in some cases, despite the infusion of stimulus money, he said.
Murray said he would argue that unemployment would have gone even higher without the stimulus.
In Oak Ridge, there's no question the spending has had a positive impact, at least for the short term. It's also likely that some of the investments -- such as construction of new facilities at ORNL -- could have a long-range impact as well, he said.
NRC to increase its oversight of Richland nuclear power plant
Annette Cary, Tri-City Herald
October 26, 2012
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will increase oversight of Energy Northwest's nuclear power plant near Richland after investigating an emergency preparedness issue.
The NRC confirmed Thursday that two inspection findings for the Columbia Generating Station's emergency preparedness program were "white," meaning they had a low to moderate safety significance. The findings were reported as preliminary earlier in the year.
At issue were faulty calculations made in the 1990s, said Mark Reddemann, Energy Northwest chief executive, at a board meeting Thursday in Kennewick.
The inputs into the calculations were incorrect, and the problem compounded for several years, said Brad Sawatzke, chief nuclear officer for the plant.
That resulted in the Quick Emergency Dose Projection System including values that would have overestimated or underestimated the potential radiation offsite in an emergency, according to the NRC.
The inaccurate data would have caused a delay by Columbia Generating Station in recognizing an emergency requiring precautionary actions to protect the public or a more serious emergency with conditions that threatened the public, according to an NRC report.
The conditions existed between 2000 and 2011.
Last year, the problem was found by Energy Northwest during a self-assessment and fixed, according to Energy Northwest.
During that time, there was no emergency, Reddemann said.
Energy Northwest also has other methods it would rely on in an emergency to determine the emergency level and the protective actions needed, Sawatzke said. That includes direct readings from monitors, he said.
But when a piece of the emergency preparedness program "is not working appropriately, it is taken seriously," he said.
The NRC "white" inspection findings were for failure to maintain the plan to appropriately characterize emergency action levels, and failure to maintain adequate methods for assessing and monitoring actual or potential offsite radiation releases.
The NRC evaluates regulatory performance at commercial nuclear power plants with a color-coded process that classifies findings as either green, white, yellow or red in order of increasing safety significance.
The two white findings move the nuclear plant into the "degraded cornerstone" column of the NRC's action matrix, resulting in a higher level of NRC scrutiny. It's the third-highest level of NRC oversight, and the Energy Northwest plant joins seven other nuclear plants in that category.
Energy Northwest will remain at that oversight level until at least spring.
Energy Northwest has investigated and found no similar issues. It also has taken steps to prevent a recurrence, Sawatzke said.
A more rigorous review of calculations for emergency preparedness are done now with an additional level of oversight, he said.
DOE to extend MSA Hanford contract 3 years
Annette Cary, Tri-City Herald
October 23, 2012
Richland -- The Department of Energy has notified Mission Support Alliance that it will extend its contract to provide support services across the Hanford nuclear reservation for three more years.
The contract extension is valued at an estimated $950 million.
Mission Support Alliance began work under a five-year contract, with a three-year and then a two-year extension option for a total of 10 years.
The initial five-year contract period ends May 25, 2014.
With about a year and a half left on the five-year contract award, DOE needed to either start work on rebidding the support services contract or on exercising its option for the first extension.
"Clearly, MSA is doing a very good job," Doug Shoop, deputy project manager for the DOE Hanford Richland Operations Office, said Monday. MSA is a limited liability company formed by Lockheed Martin, Jacobs Engineering Group and WSI, formerly Wackenhut Services.
DOE is pleased with MSA's good safety record and the numerous efficiencies it has found to provide services across the state, he said.
MSA told employees in a memo Monday that it had saved the federal government more than $110 million.
MSA holds a first-of-a-kind contract for the entire DOE complex, DOE officials have said.
As Fluor Hanford's contract expired, DOE broke its assignment into two projects, hiring CH2M Hill Plateau Remediation Co. to take over central Hanford cleanup and groundwater operations and hiring MSA to provide sitewide services.
That includes utilities, roads, information technology, operation of the HAMMER training center, security, fire services, site business management, information management and portfolio management.
DOE wanted to have a contractor solely focused on such infrastructure matters to match the right size of infrastructure to the work being done and improve processes, Shoop said.MSA found efficiencies, such as creating a central warehousing system rather than having each Hanford contractor run a separate warehouse system, Shoop said.
Fewer people now are needed to store and distribute supplies and equipment than previously, he said.
MSA also has focused on information technology improvements, including transitioning to a computer system that relies on the cloud and small computer desktop components called "thin clients" that communicate with a centralized server.
Information no longer is stored or processed on personal computers with the new system.
The new system reduces hardware costs and improves energy efficiency.
In addition, MSA has switched Hanford to a voice over internet protocol, or VOIP, system to replace its antiquated phone system.
That's allowed some buildings to be shut down and increases energy efficiency. Shoop said.
More cost savings are expected from a recent switch of some work done by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory to MSA, Shoop said.
All 10 areas that MSA has taken over -- such as dosimetry, cultural resources and environmental and other monitoring -- will be done at the same cost or at less cost by MSA, said Frank Armijo, MSA president.
"We reduced the active footprint and ensured critical services like water, power, roads and sewer services are right-sized and appropriate for 2015 and beyond," Armijo said in a memo of thanks and congratulations to employees.
MSA has made changes as DOE prepares to complete most environmental cleanup of the land along the Columbia River by 2015.
Part of the goal of shrinking the size of Hanford is to save money on infrastructure, including roads, water, fire protection and electrical service.
MSA expects to retain the same number of firefighters but could close two of its four fire stations, Armijo said.
At the same time it will need to modernize services such as water supplies and increase power for future cleanup operations, such as the start of operations at the vitrification plant, he said.
Some of the site's infrastructure is 50 or 60 years old, Armijo said.
MSA recently began operating a new sewage treatment center in central Hanford, which includes the 200W Biosolids Handling Facility and Evaporative Lagoon.
The portfolio management of the MSA budget is continuing to mature, Shoop said.
MSA is assigned to break Hanford work into discrete pieces to help DOE with "what if" scenarios as it looks at how to manage its annual budgets.
MSA is proud not only of reducing energy use, but also of reducing the number of vehicles in its fleet and using more than 20 percent hybrid vehicles, he said.
Part of MSA's success has come from developing a customer service culture that employees have adopted with innovation and teamwork, he said.
It's used the Lean Six Sigma program to take a look at how work is done, finding the steps that are not valuable and streamlining work, he said.
MSA started work at Hanford with 2,100 employees, which grew to 2,200 employees as MSA supported contractors doing work with $1.96 billion of economic stimulus money.
Current employment now is 1,700 to 1,800 workers, Armijo said.
MSA also was one of the new Hanford contractors that have provided new employees a 401(k)-style retirement plan rather than the more expensive Hanford pension plan under terms of its contract with DOE.
Details of the contract extension will not be worked out until the final six months of the five-year contract period.
No major changes to the contract terms under the extension are anticipated, Shoop said.
More than 800 claims for ill Hanford workers to get new look
Annette Cary, Tri-City Herald
October 24, 2012
More than 800 previously denied or pending claims for ill Hanford workers are being reconsidered or put on a fast track for a decision after federal compensation rules were recently eased.
All those claims are for cancers covered by a newly designated special exposure cohort for workers at Hanford from July 1972 through 1983. Workers received that designation if inadequate information existed to estimate their radiation exposure.
The classification allows workers or their survivors to claim $150,000 in compensation plus medical coverage without an estimate showing they received enough radiation to likely cause the cancer. They also may be eligible for up to an additional $250,000 for impairment and wage loss.
Workers at Hanford before June 30, 1972, already were covered by the eased rules.
Tuesday, the Department of Labor held morning and evening town hall meetings in Pasco to provide more information on compensation programs for ill Hanford workers, with about 80 people attending the morning session.
To be eligible for compensation without an estimate of the radiation dose received, workers must have spent 250 days working at Hanford. If they have fewer days, the time may be combined with work at another site covered by the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program.
Workers at the 700 Area, now the Federal Building in Richland, must show they spent 250 days out of the office and at Hanford.
Preliminary decisions already have been made on some of the 800 previously denied claims for workers from July 1972 through 1983, said Carol Campbell, Department of Labor unit branch chief.
Letters were sent out to those with claims being reviewed. However, some people at the Pasco meeting Tuesday said they thought their claim was eligible for the new eased rules but they had not been notified their case was being reconsidered. They were told to check with the Hanford Resource Center.
The cancers covered by the eased rules include bone cancer, renal cancer, some leukemias, lung cancer, multiple myeloma, some lymphomas and primary cancer of the thyroid, breast, esophagus, stomach, pharynx, small intestine, pancreas, bile ducts, gall bladder, salivary gland, urinary bladder, brain, colon, ovary or liver.
There are some restrictions for some of the cancers. For example, liver cancer may not be covered if hepatitis B was a factor.
The eased rules for workers also should help those who develop cancer in the future qualify for compensation.
The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, which recommended that rules be eased for Hanford workers through 1983, will review whether easing rules for more recent workers also should be considered.
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health experts have not identified any reason that radiation exposure cannot be accurately estimated for later workers, said Sam Glover, a NIOSH research health scientist. However, NIOSH experts are keeping an open mind and will work with the board, he said.
The rules were eased for Hanford workers from July 1972 to 1983 because workers' internal exposure to neptunium, thorium, uranium 233 and highly enriched uranium could not be adequately estimated.
Hanford produced plutonium for the nation's nuclear weapons program from World War II through the Cold War. Other specialized research and production work with radioactive materials also was done at Hanford.
The compensation program has paid out $776 million in compensation and medical benefits to Hanford workers or their survivors. In addition, the program has paid almost $140 million to Pacific Northwest National Laboratory workers or their survivors.
For more information, including to check on the status of a claim or to file a claim, call the Hanford Resource Center at 946-3333 or 888-654-0014. Even if workers don't have one of the 22 cancers covered by the eased rules, they still may be eligible for compensation. Claims also may be filed for diseases other than cancer caused by exposure to hazardous chemicals or radiation at Hanford if they resulted in wage loss or impairment.
Former Hanford workers also may be eligible for a free medical exam to check for beryllium disease and other health problems. For more information, call 783-6830.
One of the Largest Pieces of Processing Equipment Removed from Plutonium Finishing Plant
DOE Press Release
October 25, 2012
RICHLAND, WASH. - U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) contractor CH2M HILL Plateau Remediation Company (CH2M HILL) announced today the successful removal of one of the largest, most complex pieces of equipment from the Plutonium Finishing Plant (PFP) at the Hanford Site in southeast Washington State.
This week, CH2M HILL removed a 10-ton, two-story piece of contaminated equipment from the facility. The equipment, called a glovebox, was used in the 1960s to store plutonium.
As a contractor for the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), CH2M HILL is preparing the PFP, the most complex and hazardous facility at Hanford, for eventual demolition. From 1949-1989, the PFP produced plutonium oxides and metals. Hanford produced nearly two-thirds of the plutonium used in the country's nuclear weapons program. With the last of that material removed in November 2009, work is focused on decontaminating and decommissioning hundreds of pieces of equipment and preparing the PFP complex for demolition.
"This is one of the most complex gloveboxes we have worked on to date. It took a lot of preparation and a dedicated support team to safely execute the work. The PFP work teams are very disciplined and exceptional in accomplishing this high risk work safely and in a timely matter," said Larry Romine the DOE Federal Project Director of PFP.
Gloveboxes are large, sealed, stainless steel pieces of equipment - ranging in size with the smallest starting at several cubic feet. During the plutonium production era beginning in the1940s, protective gloves attached to ports in the glovebox walls allowed workers to safely handle materials for plutonium production and processing.
For even the most standard glovebox, the removal is very complex. Removal of this large glovebox posed a greater challenge due to its location within the facility, the size, the contamination and the equipment needed to safely execute the work.
CH2M HILL engaged workers in the work process as it was planned.
"The crews came up with several innovations to prepare for this high hazard work including a full-scale mockup box, which enabled workers to practice with the tools and techniques to ensure the work was deployed right the first time, protecting our workers and saving time and money," said Jerry Long CH2M HILL Vice President of the PFP Closure Project.
During the removal process, workers isolated the glovebox from electrical and ventilations system and decontaminated it to the extent possible. It was disassembled in order to get it out of the facility.
The glovebox will be taken apart at Perma-Fix Northwest in Richland. The most hazardous pieces of the glovebox will then be shipped for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, N.M., and parts containing only low-level contamination will be disposed at Hanford's Environmental Disposal Facility located at the center of the site.
CH2M HILL plans to remove a total of 232 gloveboxes from the PFP complex; so far workers have removed 177 gloveboxes, or 76 percent.
 |
|
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 Board
Election Notice
ECA Executive Committee elections will be held on December 12, 2012.
If you would like to nominate someone or if you are interested in running for a position, please contact Bob Thompson (BThompson@ci.richland.wa.us), Amy Fitzgerald (AFitzgerald@cortn.org), or Pam Brown-Larsen (PBrown@ci.richland.wa.us).
Current ECA Board Nominations
Chair: Mayor Tom Beehan, Oak Ridge
Vice Chair: Council Member Chuck Smith, Aiken County
Secretary: Nominee needed
Treasurer: County Councilor Fran Berting, Los Alamos |