Recommendation: The Secretary of State, in coordination with the Secretary of Energy, should commit to regularly scheduled, substantive briefings for the House Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on all initiatives and negotiations related to nuclear cooperation in order to enhance transparency and establish greater confidence with Congress on nuclear cooperation matters. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: We will update this recommendation after receiving information from State regarding its plans to address it.

Recommendation: The Executive Director for Operations of NRC should ensure relevant NRC program offices develop policy and guidance for when to communicate information on work progress to licensees, such as through communications to licensees at specified timeframes or thresholds. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Directorate for Operations
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2020, in its written response to our report, NRC neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation but did describe actions that it intends to take in response to our recommendation. NRC stated that it will review its current practice of providing information on work progress to licensees and develop or revise any policy and guidance where necessary. We believe our review sufficiently demonstrated that by implementing our recommendation NRC could further enhance transparency and facilitate planning and budgeting for licensees. We will continue to monitor NRC's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Chief Financial Officer of NRC should, in consultation with NRC program offices, develop guidance to ensure NRC staff clearly define what costs—such as project management—are included in its public cost estimates. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Office of the Chief Financial Officer
Status: Open

Comments: In January 2020, in its written response to our report, NRC neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation but did describe actions that it intends to take in response to our recommendation. NRC stated that it will review its current web-based cost estimates to determine if changes are necessary and implement those changes as appropriate. We believe our review sufficiently demonstrated that by implementing our recommendation NRC could further enhance transparency and facilitate planning and budgeting for licensees. We will continue to monitor NRC's actions to address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Administrator of GSA should direct the Office of Government-wide Policy (1) to incorporate into its guidance approaches or practices that agencies could use to assess utilization of and the ongoing need for property—approaches such as recommendations for periodic justifications, data analytics, and utilization reviews—and (2) to develop a plan and timelines for communicating the guidance to agencies government-wide. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: General Services Administration: Office of the Administrator
Status: Open

Comments: As of April 2020, GSA indicated in its 180-day letter that it had published on its website draft guidance in response to the Federal Personal Property Management Act of 2018. In addition, GSA identified several actions it planned to take in the coming months, such as publishing a comprehensive plan and timelines to address GAO's recommendation, publishing a request for information in the Federal Register to seek comments and suggestions, and engaging additional subject matter experts and related associations and standards group to improve upon the draft guidance. GAO will continue to monitor GSA's efforts to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of State should work with IAEA and its member states through the Board of Governors to develop detailed guidelines for prioritizing nuclear security activities. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with this recommendation and it has identified several actions it has taken to implement this recommendation. State also has identified some progress resulting from its actions. Among other actions, State reported in its January 2020 letter to GAO that it is: working with the IAEA to identify ways to better develop and implement strategic planning across the Division of Nuclear Security, potentially including through dedicated staff; conveying to IAEA that it should do more to synthesize information from donor areas of emphasis, member state requests, and the contents of Integrated Nuclear Security Support Plans into a set of inputed priorities; and doing more to coordinate among the larger donors to the Nuclear Security Fund (NSF) to optimize and enhance the way the Division of Nuclear Security prioritizes and carries out its nuclear security activities funded via the NSF. State noted several positive results stemming from these actions, including: (1) an increased emphasis in IAEA's most recent Nuclear Security Report on internal coordination and a more collaborative approach within the IAEA in the implementation of its nuclear security activities, which State believes will help reduce duplication, streamline Agency activities, increase efficiency and effectiveness, and maximize the benefits to IAEA member states; and (2) participation by number of donors to the NSF in a series of informal coordination meetings with the IAEA that included discussing how the Agency views its priorities for its nuclear security activities, which State believes are more likely to result in positive outcomes than priorities negotiated at Board of Governors meetings. GAO will follow up with State in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 to determine the extent to which these efforts lead to more concrete prioritization guidelines for IAEA's nuclear security program.

Recommendation: The Secretary of State should work with IAEA and its member states through the Board of Governors to improve the nuclear security program's performance measures by developing baselines and measurable targets. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with this recommendation and agreed that more could be done by IAEA to define nuclear security program baselines and targets, especially on activities that are mostly or fully within the IAEA's remit. In its January 2020 letter to GAO, State noted that it has advocated for improved program management within the Division of Nuclear Security. State believed the advocacy is having an impact, as is evident in the most recent Nuclear Security Report, which included reference to the continued application of a results-based approach to nuclear security activities which help drive positive outcomes from Agency assistance. State also noted in its letter that it continues to pursue better performance measures during negotiations of the next IAEA Programme and Budget (for 2022-2023) and in the development of the next IAEA Nuclear Security Plan (for 2022-2025). State said that it will continue to encourage IAEA to apply program management best practices, including comprehensively establishing performance measures, documenting baselines, setting clear goals, and measuring outcomes. GAO will follow up with State officials in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 and review the next IAEA Programme and Budget and the 2022-2025 Nuclear Security Plan (which should be issued in September 2021) to assess whether IAEA has improved nuclear security program performance measures, including by incorporating baselines and measurable targets.

Recommendation: The Secretary of State should work with IAEA and its member states through the Board of Governors to improve how the Division of Nuclear Security (DNS) reports to member states by consistently including the results of performance measures in at least one of the reports. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with this recommendation and its January 2020 letter to GAO it indicated that it is working with the IAEA to improve its reporting. Specifically, State reported that in conjunction with its efforts to address recommendation 2, to improve nuclear security program performance measures, it has seen IAEA's Division of Nuclear Security make improvements in an effort to be more consistent and diligent about providing performance measures and reporting results to IAEA member states. In fiscal years 2020 and 2021, GAO will review available IAEA nuclear security reports and will follow up with State to clarify improvements it has observed in IAEA's nuclear security program reporting.

Recommendation: The Secretary of State should work with IAEA and its member states through the Board of Governors to analyze options to stabilize DNS's funding within current fiscal and political constraints to enhance the sustainability of IAEA's nuclear security program. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of State (State) agreed with this recommendation, and in its January 2020 letter to GAO, State noted that the sustainability of the Division of Nuclear Security's budget remains a major area of focus. State noted that many IAEA member states maintain a position of zero real growth in IAEA's budget and are reluctant to reapportion funding to nuclear security activities from other IAEA programs. State reported that it will advocate for priority areas in IAEA budget negotiations, such as nuclear security, to gain a greater share of any agreed budget increases as an alternative to shifting funds from other programs. State noted that this remains a challenge, but that it will continue to identify options to enhance the sustainability of the IAEA's nuclear security program, including how best to also strengthen governance of the Nuclear Security Fund. GAO will follow up with State in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 regarding the options it has identified and pursued to improve the sustainability of the nuclear security program and its funding.

Recommendation: The Secretary of State should work with IAEA and its member states through the Board of Governors to strengthen the agency's central coordinating role by following key practices for collaboration. (Recommendation 5)

Agency: Department of State
Status: Open

Comments: The State Department (State) agreed with this recommendation, and in its January 2020 letter to GAO it generally stated that it is working with IAEA and its member states to improve collaboration among nuclear security stakeholders and strengthen the Agency's central coordinating role. However, State's letter did not specify actions that State is undertaking in this regard. Instead, State's letter reiterated coordinating actions that IAEA had already been undertaking at the time of our report. GAO will follow up with State in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 to better understand the actions, if any, it is taking or has planned to strengthen IAEA's central coordinating role, as well as any actions IAEA is taking independently to improve its coordinating role consistent with key practices for effective collaboration.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of the Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office (CWMD) should ensure that the office regularly collects detailed information from cities on expenditures made using program funds and compares that information to approved purchase plans to ensure that these funds were spent as approved, consistent with program goals, and that the expenditures are in keeping with the objectives of the program. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office
Status: Open

Comments: The Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 2018 requires that CWMD develop an implementation plan for the Securing the Cities program that, among other things, identifies the goals of the program and provides a strategy for achieving those goals. The act requires CWMD to submit this implementation plan to Congress by December 2019. As of June 2020, DHS/CWMD had not yet completed its implementation plan for the Securing the Cities program. Depending on its content, this plan may contain key provisions that could address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of CWMD should more fully assess cities' performance by collecting information from cities on achieving key performance metrics and program milestones and enforcing reporting requirements on performance during exercises. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office
Status: Open

Comments: The Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 2018 requires that CWMD develop an implementation plan for the Securing the Cities program that, among other things, identifies the goals of the program and provides a strategy for achieving those goals. The act requires CWMD to submit this implementation plan to Congress by December 2019. As of June 2020, DHS/CWMD had not yet completed its implementation plan for the Securing the Cities program. Depending on its content, this plan may contain key provisions that could address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of CWMD should analyze risks related to sustaining detection capabilities, work with cities to address these risks, and enforce sustainment planning requirements for future cities. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office
Status: Open

Comments: The Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 2018 requires that CWMD develop an implementation plan for the Securing the Cities program that, among other things, identifies the goals of the program and provides a strategy for achieving those goals. The act requires CWMD to submit this implementation plan to Congress by December 2019. As of June 2020, DHS/CWMD had not yet completed its implementation plan for the Securing the Cities program. Depending on its content, this plan may contain key provisions that could address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Assistant Secretary of CWMD should clearly communicate to cities how the existing program will operate until a new program is developed and implemented. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Homeland Security: Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Office
Status: Open

Comments: The Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction Act of 2018 requires that CWMD develop an implementation plan for the Securing the Cities program that, among other things, identifies the goals of the program and provides a strategy for achieving those goals. The act requires CWMD to submit this implementation plan to Congress by December 2019. As of June 2020, DHS/CWMD had not yet completed its implementation plan for the Securing the Cities program. Depending on its content, this plan may contain key provisions that could address this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should ensure that the Navy provides additional information in the annual President's budget exhibits associated with CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal to facilitate improved transparency and accountability. Additions should, at a minimum, include the CVN 65 funding estimate across the Future Years Defense Program, activities planned or performed for applicable fiscal years, tracking of total cost and high level changes in cost and schedule from the prior year with explanations for changes, and if applicable, contract type, awardee, award value, and award and completion date estimates. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation, stating that the Navy would develop and submit additional cost, schedule, and contract information to supplement existing budget exhibits and continue this reporting through completion of the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. Congress subsequently addressed our recommendation to the department as part of the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act enacted on August 13, 2018. Specifically, the act requires the Secretary of the Navy to include information on each dismantlement and disposal of a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier occurring or planned to occur during the period of the future years defense program submitted to Congress with that budget. For each ship, this includes (1) a summary of activities and significant developments in connection with the dismantlement and disposal; (2) a detailed description of cost and schedule performance against the baseline for the dismantlement and disposal, including a description of and explanation for any variance from such baseline; and (3) a description of the funding amounts requested, or expected to be requested, for the dismantlement and disposal for prior, current, and future fiscal years. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also confirmed that the Navy anticipates developing a schedule of work and requesting funding for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal plans in 2023 if the commercial dismantlement option is selected. If the Navy elects to have the dismantlement performed by the government, these activities will occur at a later date. We will continue to monitor the Navy's activities in order to document any action taken to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should require the Navy to obtain an independent cost estimate, performed by DOD's Office of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation or the Naval Center for Cost Analysis, for both the naval shipyard and full commercial options before choosing a dismantlement and disposal approach for CVN 65. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Navy would obtain independent cost estimates through the Office of Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE) for both the naval shipyard and full commercial CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal options before a final decision is made on which option the Navy will pursue. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also said the Navy is working directly with the Center for Naval Analyses, Puget Sound Naval Shipyard, and CAPE to gather and review independent cost estimates for commercial dismantlement and updated naval shipyard cost estimates. The commercial and naval shipyard estimates will be reviewed and assessed by CAPE prior to the Navy making a decision on which option to pursue. CAPE's written report assessing the commercial and naval shipyard estimates is expected to combine with the ongoing EIS to directly inform the Navy's decision for CVN 65. We will continue to monitor the status of independent cost estimate activities for CVN 65 until the estimates have been completed.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should require the Navy to complete a risk management plan prior to beginning the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. (Recommendation 3)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Navy would prepare a risk management plan for the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal before the award of a contract or the provision of funds. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also confirmed that if the Navy selects the commercial dismantlement option for CVN 65, the Navy anticipates identifying potential risks and mitigations in February 2021 for CVN 65 dismantling to support independent cost estimate development, with risk management plan approval to follow in July 2022. If the Navy elects to have the dismantlement performed by the government, these activities will occur at a later date. We will continue to monitor the Navy's efforts to complete a risk management plan as the department works toward a decision for the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Defense should require the Navy to approve a cost and schedule baseline prior to beginning the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. (Recommendation 4)

Agency: Department of Defense
Status: Open

Comments: The Department of Defense agreed with this recommendation and stated that the Navy would prepare and approve a cost and schedule baseline for the CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal before the award of any contract or the provision of funds for the effort. Congress subsequently addressed our recommendation to the department on August 13, 2018, as part of the Fiscal Year 2019 National Defense Authorization Act. Specifically, the act requires the Secretary of the Navy to provide a report to the congressional defense committees that provides a cost and schedule baseline for the dismantlement and disposal of nuclear powered aircraft carriers approved by Navy leadership. In August 2020, a Naval Reactors official stated that the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) for the carrier disposal will be published in the summer of 2021. The final EIS is planned for fall 2022 with an accompanying record of decision announcing the Navy's intended course of action for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal. The official also confirmed that the Navy anticipates developing a cost and schedule baseline for CVN 65 dismantlement and disposal in 2022 if the commercial dismantlement option is selected. If the Navy elects to have the dismantlement performed by the government, these activities will occur at a later date. We will continue to monitor the Navy's activities in order to document any action taken to implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: The NNSA Administrator should revise the scope of the mission need statement to clarify which mission need it seeks to achieve and, as appropriate, adjust the range of options considered in the analysis of alternatives process. (Recommendation 1)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA disagreed with our recommendation and has not taken steps to implement it. In August 2019, GAO requested an update on the status of the small centrifuge project at Oak Ridge since NNSA officials indicated in May 2019 that the status of the small centrifuge project will impact NNSA's ability to complete the analysis of alternatives (AOA) process by December 2019, as originally planned. Early in calendar year 2020, NNSA announced that completion of the AOA would be delayed to the end of fiscal year 2020. In September 2020, NNSA stated that the COVID-19 pandemic had further delayed the AOA and that the agency had not determined a revised target date for completion. We will continue monitoring the AOA process and will review the AOA once it is completed to determine whether we can close this recommendation at that time.

Recommendation: The NNSA Administrator should--following clarification of the scope of the mission need statement--ensure that the agency's cost estimates for whichever options it considers going forward are aligned with the scope of the mission need that the enrichment capability is intended to fulfill and that they are developed consistent with best practices. (Recommendation 2)

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA disagreed with our recommendation and has not taken steps to implement it. In August 2019, GAO requested an update on the status of the small centrifuge project at Oak Ridge since NNSA officials indicated in May 2019 that the status of the small centrifuge project will impact NNSA's ability to complete the analysis of alternatives (AOA) process by December 2019, as originally planned. Early in calendar year 2020, NNSA announced that completion of the AOA would be delayed to the end of fiscal year 2020. In September 2020, NNSA stated that the COVID-19 pandemic had further delayed the AOA and that the agency had not determined a revised target date for completion. We will continue monitoring the AOA process and will review the AOA once it is completed to determine whether we can close this recommendation at that time.

Recommendation: The Secretary of Energy, working with the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, should include more complete information on the assessments--that is, security plans, vulnerability assessments, independent assessments, and other assessments--used in the annual reports to support the agencies' assessments that DOE and NNSA sites are secure.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: We reported in May 2019 that DOE and NNSA continued to make progress in responding to this recommendation. The draft 2018 annual report contained, as recommended, more complete and uniform information on assessments, though in some cases different terminology was used by programs and sites. As of June 2020, we have requested final 2018, 2019, and 2020 annual reports from NNSA to ensure progress has continued. Once we have received and reviewed the reports, we will update the status of this recommendation.

Recommendation: Additionally, the Secretary of Energy should develop a plan for addressing the physical security infrastructure needs at DOE sites. Similar to a report under development by NNSA, this plan could identify cost and time frames and enable DOE and the Congress to prioritize these projects.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 2020, DOE has not implemented this recommendation. While DOE program offices (Environmental Management, Science, and Nuclear Energy) are individually considering long-term needs, the program offices are not required by Congress to submit the kind of physical security plan that Congress requires of NNSA. In the absence of Congressional direction, we believe it is unlikely that DOE will fully implement this recommendation.

Recommendation: Additionally, the Secretary of Energy should, in future annual security certification reports, inform Congress of the reasons for the delayed implementation of the June 2011 DOE material control and accountability order at some sites, as well as the steps DOE and its sites are taking to implement it. DOE should also provide Congress with information on any vulnerabilities or deficiencies in the security at sites that may potentially exist while the sites complete implementation of the order as well as information on any concomitant adjustment to their security posture that is required.

Agency: Department of Energy
Status: Open

Comments: As of June 2020, we are continuing to monitor actions related to this recommendation. DOE has acknowledged in a classified memorandum the security risks associated with the slow pace of the material control and accountability order. DOE has also developed a plan to implement measures to address these risks in a phased approach with final implementation sometime in the 2020s. Some of the early phases will be complete between 2019 and 2022, but others will extend beyond 2022. As such, it will be important for DOE to continue to report to Congress on residual risk until planned actions are fully completed and their implementation has been verified by the relevant DOE program offices and DOE's Office of Enterprise Assessments. We will update the status of this recommendation once we have we have received and reviewed DOE's classified 2018-2020 annual reports to ensure this action is taken.

Recommendation: To improve the management of the stockpile life extension program, the Administrator of NNSA should direct the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs to develop a realistic schedule for the W76 warhead and future life extension programs that allows NNSA to (1) address technical challenges while meeting all military requirements and (2) build in time for unexpected technical challenges that may delay the program.

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: In past and ongoing work, GAO has identified areas where NNSA's modernization plans may not align with planned funding requests over the Future Years Nuclear Security Plan (FYNSP) and post-FYNSP periods. Based on the FY 2014 Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plan (SSMP), (GAO-14-45) NNSA plans to work on five life extension programs (LEP) or major alterations through 2038. The FY 2014 SSMP states that the LEP workload represents a resource and production throughput challenge that requires improvements in LEP planning and execution. GAO's analysis indicates there is limited contingency time built into the LEP schedules, all of which are technically ambitious. Any delays in schedules could lead to an increase in program costs or a reduction in the number built for any of the LEPs, both of which have occurred in prior and ongoing LEPs. While NNSA has acknowledged issues and identified some steps to improve the LEP process, this recommendation will remain open and unimplemented until NNSA demonstrates successful LEP and refurbishment execution. We reconfirmed this finding in GAO-17-341 where we found the following: In some cases, NNSA's FY 2017 nuclear security budget materials do not align with the agency's modernization plans, both within the 5-year FYNSP for fiscal years 2017 through 2021 and beyond, raising concerns about the affordability of NNSA's planned portfolio of modernization programs. As of June 2020, this situation has not been fully addressed as evidenced by cost increases and likely delays in the B61-12 and W88 ALTV programs; an aggressive schedule in the W80-4 program, and a large scope in the W87-1 warhead replacement. In addition, new programs contained in the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review and the announcement of a new development effort, the W93, may further stress NNSA's program.

Recommendation: To improve the management of the stockpile life extension program, the Administrator of NNSA should direct the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs to ensure that the program managers responsible for overseeing the construction of new facilities directly related to future life extension programs coordinate with the program managers of such future programs to avoid the types of delays and problems faced with the construction and operation of the Fogbank manufacturing facility for the W76 program.

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: A number of Stockpile Stewardship and Management Plans (SSMP) state that the life extension program (LEP) workload represents a resource and production throughput challenge that requires improvements in LEP planning and execution. The officials elaborated that the main area that will be strained is pit production. NNSA's plutonium strategy needs to be resourced fully and implemented successfully by 2030 to support the W87 warhead replacement. Additionally, the officials said that the UPF project and an arrange of associated programmatic efforts need to be operational by 2025 or there will be challenges in completing all of the planned LEPs. In addition, NNSA needs to re-establish depleted uranium operations, construct a new lithium facility and establish a domestic uranium enrichment function for tritium production by the late 2020s to meet stockpile needs. As such, this recommendation remains open and, given the aggressive warhead and bomb modernization efforts proceeding in parallel with infrastructure modernization efforts, will likely remain open for some time.

Recommendation: To improve the management of the stockpile life extension program, the Administrator of NNSA should direct the Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs to ensure that program managers for the construction of new facilities for future life extensions base their schedule for the construction and start-up of a facility on the life extension program managers' needs identified in their risk mitigation strategies.

Agency: Department of Energy: National Nuclear Security Administration
Status: Open

Comments: NNSA has generally improved its management of construction projects, to include requirements setting, Analysis of Alternatives, and independent cost estimates, among other items. However, it is too soon to tell if these positive developments will help--or hinder--LEPs that are underway or are being conducted. Key uranium activities, to include construction and operating funds will not be complete until 2025; key tritium and lithium programs and facilities will not complete until the 2030s; key plutonium activities are underway as well, but will not be complete until the late 2020s. As of June 2020, there are no significant changes related to this recommendation, and it will continue to remain open.