Skip to main content

Nuclear Waste: Action Needed to Improve Accountability and Management of DOE's Major Cleanup Projects

GAO-08-1081 Published: Sep 26, 2008. Publicly Released: Sep 26, 2008.
Jump To:
Skip to Highlights

Highlights

The Department of Energy (DOE) spends billions of dollars annually to clean up nuclear wastes at sites that produced nuclear weapons. Cleanup projects decontaminate and demolish buildings, remove and dispose of contaminated soil, treat contaminated groundwater, and stabilize and dispose of solid and liquid radioactive wastes. Ten of these projects meet or nearly meet DOE's definition of major: costs exceeding $1 billion in the near term--usually a 5-year window of the project's total estimated life cycle. GAO was asked to determine the (1) extent to which the cost and schedule for DOE's major cleanup projects have changed and key reasons for changes, and (2) factors that may hinder DOE's ability to effectively manage these projects. GAO met with project directors and reviewed project documents for 10 major cleanup projects: 9 above the near-term $1 billion threshold, and 1 estimated to cost between $900 million and $1 billion over the near term.

Recommendations

Recommendations for Executive Action

Agency Affected Recommendation Status
Department of Energy So that DOE can better manage its major cleanup projects and more fully inform Congress on the status of these projects, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management to include in its budget request to Congress life cycle baseline cost estimate information for each cleanup project, including prior year costs, estimated near-term costs, and estimated out-year costs.
Closed – Not Implemented
DOE originally agreed to implement this recommendation. In its June 2010 DARTS report, DOE explained that it would provide the recommended information beginning with its fiscal year 2012 budget request. Its September 2010 DARTS report, DOE explained that its budget request included all requested information except for out-year cost estimates, and that this out-year information could be found on its website. With this rationale, DOE closed the recommendation. This answer is not responsive to our recommendation and we will classify the recommendation as "closed not implemented." The budget request for 2012 does not include the recommended near-term and out-year cost information. DOE's budget request continues to only provide prior year costs, the current year estimated cost, and the overall lifecycle cost. This type of reporting perpetuates the lack of transparency that was noted in our report as contributing to DOE's inability to effectively manage its cleanup projects. We continue to believe that clearly distinguishing between near-term and outyear costs in its annual budget requests would substantially improve the transparency and usefulness of performance information for each ongoing cleanup project.
Department of Energy So that DOE can better manage its major cleanup projects and more fully inform Congress on the status of these projects, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management to develop an approach to regularly inform Congress of progress and significant changes in order to improve EM's accountability for managing the near-term baseline and tracking life cycle costs. Similar to the Department of Defense's Selected Acquisition Reports, which include annual information on full life cycle program costs, among other things, EM's report, at a minimum should compare estimated near-term and life cycle scope, cost, and schedules with the original and subsequently updated baselines, and provide a summary analysis of root causes for any significant baseline changes.
Closed – Implemented
In response to this recommendation, in October 2009, DOE issued Standard Operating Procedures for preparing Selected Acquisition Reports for submission to Congress. Consistent with the recommendation, the operating procedures require reporting of current scope, cost, and schedule and baseline changes.
Department of Energy So that DOE can better manage its major cleanup projects and more fully inform Congress on the status of these projects, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management to expand the content of EM performance reports to describe the implications of current performance for the project's overall life cycle baseline, including the near-term baseline cost and out-year cost estimate, using, when appropriate, valid earned value data that conform to industry standards and GAO-identified best practices.
Closed – Implemented
In response to this recommendation, in December 2008, DOE implemented a process to produce monthly and quarterly reports that meet the GAO recommendation. These reports include information on, among other things, near-term baseline costs, out-year estimates, and certified earned value data.
Department of Energy So that DOE can better manage its major cleanup projects and more fully inform Congress on the status of these projects, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management to consolidate, clarify, and update its guidance for managing cleanup projects to reflect (1) current policy regarding independent baseline reviews and (2) the results of DOE's determination of the appropriate means for calculating and budgeting for contingency so that project managers can consistently apply it across nuclear waste cleanup sites.
Closed – Implemented
DOE has taken actions to close both parts of this recommendation. First, DOE's Office of Environmental Management, in 2009 and 2010, reconfigured its cleanup projects into 2 categories--capital asset projects and operating projects. With this reconfiguration, DOE-EM no longer uses the April 2007 protocol referred to in the report (page 36) that was the basis for this part of the recommendation. Second, in response to the recommendation regarding contingency, in May 2010, DOE issued guidance for, among other things, the development and consistent application of government contingency and management reserve.
Department of Energy So that DOE can better manage its major cleanup projects and more fully inform Congress on the status of these projects, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management to consolidate all planned and ongoing program improvements, including those stemming from the Secretary's contract and project management root cause analysis corrective action plan, the Best-in-Class initiative, and the 2007 National Academy of Public Administration report, into a comprehensive corrective action plan that includes performance metrics and completion milestones.
Closed – Implemented
In response to this recommendation, in August 2009, DOE issued the "Consolidated Acquisition and Project Management Corrective Action Plan," which summarized ongoing program improvements including performance metrics and completion milestones. DOE provided a status report to this plan in June 2010.
Department of Energy Because independent baseline reviews have not always provided reasonable assurance of the stability of projects' near-term baselines or the reasonableness of the life cycle baselines, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Director of the Office of Management to assess the Office of Engineering and Construction Management's current approach and process for conducting baseline reviews of EM cleanup projects to identify and implement improvements that will better provide reasonable assurance that project work scope can be completed within the baselines' stated cost and schedule. The Secretary of Energy should consider including in the assessment process an analysis of past lessons learned and reasons for baseline changes, and an assessment of project affordability when conducting baseline reviews.
Closed – Implemented
DOE completed several actions in in June 2009 in response to this recommendation. First, DOE Office of Engineering and Construction Management (OECM), which is responsible for conducting external independent reviews (EIR), updated its standard operating procedure (SOP) for EIRs. The SOP now includes lines of inquiry to assess disconnects between baseline requirements and budget/out-year funding as well as assess the affordability of the project within the program's budget profile. OECM is also initiating an EIR feedback process following completion of EIRs to identify continuous improvement opportunities. In addition, DOE 2008 corrective action plan included actions to strengthen EIRs and internal project reviews to ensure project and contract oversight compliance. Finally, OECM began implementing a corporate clearinghouse for contract and project management lessons learned to avoid or mitigate events that lead to poor performance.

Full Report

Office of Public Affairs

Topics

Cost analysisCost overrunsDecontaminationEnvironmental cleanupsEnvironmental monitoringFuture budget projectionsLand managementLife cycle costsNuclear facilitiesNuclear powerplant constructionNuclear waste disposalProgram evaluationProgram managementRadioactive waste disposalReporting requirementsRisk assessmentRisk managementSchedule slippagesTanks (containers)Waste disposalWaste treatmentWork measurementCost estimatesProgram goals or objectives