Todd Jacobson
NS&D Monitor
4/25/2014
In a new 23-page follow-up to a 2010 report that raised concerns about lagging development and validation of technologies planned for the multi-billion-dollar Uranium Processing Facility, the Government Accountability Office has identified some additional risks associated with the technology efforts. The GAO, at the request of Congress, is providing regular reports on the UPF and related issues. “It is encouraging that NNSA has taken some steps to management the development of these technologies,” the GAO said in its new report, released late last week. “However, as we have detailed in this and other reports, we are concerned that, nearly a decade after the project started, the UPF project continues to face key technology-related risks, including the potential transition risks associated with NNSA’s recent decision to consider alternatives to a new uranium purification technology.”
Microwave casting of enriched uranium has again grabbed GAO’s attention. The GAO noted that an August 2013 independent peer review team on UPF concluded that the microwave casting technology had not been demonstrated in a “relevant environment,” which is reported to be a requirement “to reach a key technology maturity milestone.” The report said the NNSA plans to address this issue by accelerating the procurement and environmental testing of a microwave casting prototype.
Insulation Material Issues Threatening Uranium Casting
The report also says a key insulation material planned as a nuclear safety control during uranium casting failed a series of performance tests in FY 2013. “According to UPF contractor representatives, this risk is now the project’s most significant technological risk,” the GAO said. In order to address the risk, the UPF team is reportedly trying to identify a replacement material for the insulation while exploring the possible use of a different safety control.
A decision to reconsider a uranium purification technology, going from saltless direct oxide reduction to direct electrolytic reduction and electrolytic refining, also could force a redesign of processing areas and equipment and delay the installation of the technology, the GAO said. The report also addresses some technology funding concerns. “Instead of using UPF project funds,” the new report says, “NNSA has primarily funded UPF technology development activities from a limited research and development program. As a result of budget constraints in this program, for fiscal year 2014, 7 of the 19 technology projects the UPF contractor considered priority were not funded.”
GAO: Big or Small UPF, Tech Still Key Issue
The National Nuclear Security Administration is taking some actions to address three of the five UPF technology risks that were identified by GAO staff, according to the report. The NNSA also is making development plans or “programmatic decisions” that could potentially address the other two risks, the report said. In its conclusions, the GAO noted the state of flux on the big project and the potential for a new approach, but noted that technology is still going to be a critical part of decision-making. “NNSA is currently reevaluating the UPF project and may decide to construct a facility that is smaller and contains only select enriched uranium processing capabilities,” the report states. “Whether NNSA continues with the UPF project or chooses to undertake a smaller project, the facility will likely cost billions of dollars, and its ability to meet critical national security needs will depend on successful development and deployment of new technologies.”
