Detailed Information on the
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program: Yucca Mountain Project Assessment

Preparing a high-quality License Application for initial repository operations for submittal to the NRC in 2008.

Preparing a Capital Asset Plan and Business Case Summary (OMB Exhibit 300), including at least three viable alternatives, in addition to current baseline, i.e., the status quo.

Acquiring certification of Program's EVMS by the Defense Contract Management Agency (DCMA) or equivalent entity.

Measure: Begin acceptance of spent nuclear fuel & high-level radioactive waste at the Yucca Mountain repository by 2017.

Explanation:This performance measure represents DOE's over-arching long-term goal for Yucca Mountain, the nation's only proposed geologic repository for safely storing nuclear waste. 2017 is a best-achievable date that relies on a number of factors such as: enactment of pending legislation proposed by the Administration; access to funding contained in the Nuclear Waste Fund (NWF) by 2009; receiving a construction authorization from the NRC by 2011, completing construction of Yucca Mountain repository by 2017, and completing the national transportation system by 2017.

Measure: Receive Yucca Mountain Construction Authorization from Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by 2011.

Explanation:Before DOE can construct and operate the Yucca Mountain geologic repository, it must first obtain a construction authorization from the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The license application (LA) is the formal document an applicant submits to the NRC to present proposed activities. It also documents the safety analyses. The Licensing Support Network (LSN) provides the public and potential parties access to information relevant to the licensing of Yucca Mountain prior to submittal of the LA. Opening Yucca Mountain for waste receipt by 2017 depends on completing the LSN by 2007, the LA by 2008, and receiving the NRC's construction authorization by 2011.

Measure: Design and construct the national and Nevada transportation system to ensure safe, secure, and dependable delivery of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain.

Explanation:The safe and secure transport of nuclear waste is a key component of DOE's plans for Yucca Mountain. Over the last 40 years, an exemplary safety record has been established by transporting approximately 3,000 shipments of spent nuclear fuel safely over America's highways, waterways, and railroads. DOE strives to continue this safety record by incorporating safety as a priority into the design and construction of the transportation system. The rail alignment environmental impact statement (EIS) will first be published followed by rail construction, first delivery of waste, and commencement of national transportation operations in time for Yucca Mountain opening and receiving waste in 2017.

Measure: Construct the Yucca Mountain repository.

Explanation:The 2017 opening date of Yucca Mountain depends upon enactment of funding and regulatory reforms and the receipt of construction authorization from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as well as construction being completed in time. Design work has already occurred with the provision of Transport, Aging, and Disposal (TAD) canister specifications in 2006. Construction will begin after DOE receives authorization from the NRC, followed by submitting the Receive and Possess License Application (R&P LA) for the Initial Operating Capability (IOC) to the NRC in 2013; completing construction of aging pad 'K' in 2015; and the determination that the IOC (including the Initial Handling Facility, Wet Handling Facility, Canister Receipt and Closure Facility-1, and Aging Pad 'K') is operational by 2017.

Measure: Maintain total administrative overhead costs in relation to total program costs of less than 22%.

Explanation:This performance measure tracks efficiency in the use of taxpayer dollars within Yucca Mountain's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM), part of DOE. OCRWM has reduced costs over the past three years and strives to maintain the ratio of overhead costs to program costs within 22% for the next two years.

Measure: Demonstrate progress toward completion of a high-quality License Application (LA) consistent with the established schedule and content requirements.

Explanation:This performance measure tracks the completion of all LA sections to submit the LA itself to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by June 30, 2008.

Measure: Complete processing of documents and emails dated June 30, 2007 or earlier to be ready for the LSN.

Explanation:This performance measure evaluates the review of all records for enhanced coding to result in complete processing of documents and emails dated June 30, 2007 or earlier to be ready for the LSN.

Measure: Publish Rail Alignment Environment Impact Statement (EIS) for public comment.

Explanation:This measure centers on transportation requirements and collaborative planning of transportation activities with key stakeholders. Accomplishment will be met by Federal Register notice or equivalent, and publicly available document.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (OCRWM) Program is to implement the Federal policy for the siting, licensing, construction, operation, and decommissioning of repositories for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, including the transportation of such wastes to the repositories. This is stated in Section 111(b) (1)-(4) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA) as follows: Sec. 111(b) Purposes. The purposes of this subtitle [42 U.S.C. 10131 et seq.] are?? (1) to establish a schedule for the siting, construction, and operation of repositories that will provide a reasonable assurance that the public and the environment will be adequately protected from the hazards posed by high-level radioactive waste and such spent nuclear fuel as may be disposed of in a repository; (2) to establish the Federal responsibility, and a definite Federal policy, for the disposal of such waste and spent fuel; (3) to define the relationship between the Federal Government and the State governments with respect to the disposal of such waste and spent fuel; and (4) to establish a Nuclear Waste Fund, composed of payments made by the generators and owners of such waste and spent fuel, that will ensure that the costs of carrying out activities relating to the disposal of such waste and spent fuel will be borne by the persons responsible for generating such waste and spent fuel. [42 U.S.C. 10131]

Evidence: The purpose of the program is articulated in Section 111(b) (1)-(4) of the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA). This purpose is reflected in OCRWM's mission statement, which is presented in OCRWM's Program Manual, Final - Phase 3 (DOE/RW-0555), April 2003.

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Radioactive waste requires safe and environmentally acceptable methods of disposal, that the accumulation of such waste has created a national problem. The NWPA clearly states the problem, interests and needs in Section 111(a) (1)-(7): Sec. 111 (a) (1) radioactive waste creates potential risks and requires safe and environmentally acceptable methods of disposal; (2) a national problem has been created by the accumulation of (A) spent nuclear fuel from nuclear reactors; and (B) radioactive waste from (i) reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel; (ii) activities related to medical research, diagnosis, and treatment; and (iii) other sources; (3) Federal efforts during the past 30 years to devise a permanent solution to the problems of civilian radioactive waste disposal have not been adequate; (4) while the Federal Government has the responsibility to provide for the permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste and such spent nuclear fuel as may be disposed of in order to protect the public health and safety and the environment, the costs of such disposal should be the responsibility of the generators and owners of such waste and spent fuel; (5) the generators and owners of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel have the primary responsibility to provide for, and the responsibility to pay the costs of, the interim storage of such waste and spent fuel until such waste and spent fuel is accepted by the Secretary of Energy in accordance with the provisions of this Act [42 U.S.C. 10101 et seq.]; (6) State and public participation in the planning and development of repositories is essential in order to promote public confidence in the safety of disposal of such waste and spent fuel; and (7) high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel have become major subjects of public concern, and appropriate precautions must be taken to ensure that such waste and spent fuel do not adversely affect the public health and safety and the environment for this or future generations. Currently there is an administrative limit of 70,000 metric tons of heated metal (MTHM) of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and high level radioactive waste (HLW), which can be emplaced in the geologic repository. The materials may include about 63,000 MTHM of commercial SNF (90 percent of the repository capacity); 2,333 MTHM of Department of Energy (DOE) SNF to include Naval Reactors (3 percent of the repository capacity); and 4,667 MTHM of DOE HLW (7 percent of the repository capacity).

Evidence: Section 111(a) (1)-(7) of the NWPA articulates the interests, problems, and needs addressed by the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program. Secretary Abraham's February 14, 2002, letter to President Bush, forwarding the Yucca Mountain Site Recommendation. President's letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate, February 15, 2002.

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: The Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program is a single-purpose Federal program. There is no other Federal, state, or local program to address the permanent disposal of high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel. The need for a secure facility in which to dispose of radioactive wastes has been known in this country at least since World War II. As early as 1957, a National Academy of Sciences report to the Atomic Energy Commission suggested burying radioactive waste in geologic formations. Beginning in the 1970s, the United States and other countries evaluated many options for the safe and permanent disposal of radioactive waste, including deep seabed disposal, remote island siting, dry cask storage, disposal in the polar ice sheets, transmutation, and rocketing waste into orbit around the sun. After analyzing these options, disposal in a mined geologic repository emerged as the preferred long-term environmental solution for the management of these wastes. Congress recognized this consensus 20 years ago when it passed the NWPA. The Global Nuclear Energy Partnership's (GNEP) plans to recycle spent nuclear fuel from commercial reactors have the potential to decrease the toxicity and volume of waste requiring disposal. However, under all strategies and scenarios for the future of nuclear power, the U.S. will still need a permanent geologic repository to deal with radioactive wastes resulting from the operation of nuclear power plants. GNEP has important implications for the proposed repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Such increased efficiency would ensure that even with expanded use of nuclear energy, the U.S. would need only one geologic repository.

Evidence: Section 302(d) of the NWPA defines the authorized activities of the Program. Section 304(b) of the NWPA assigns to the Director, OCRWM, the responsibility for carrying out the functions of the Secretary of Energy under the NWPA. Yucca Mountain Site Recommendation Final Environmental Impact Statement for Management of Commercially Generated Radioactive Waste, DOE/EIS-0046, 1980. Information related to GNEP: http://www.gnep.energy.gov/gnepMinimizeNuclearWaste.html

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The Program faces challenges to implementation due to the manner in which it is currently funded. The Program is funded out of two accounts: Nuclear Waste Disposal and Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal. The Nuclear Waste Disposal account appropriates monies from the Nuclear Waste Fund, which is funded by a one mil per kilowatt-hour fee ($0.001/kWh) on the generation and sale of nuclear power by utilities. The fee is intended to cover the cost of the transport, packaging and disposal of spent nuclear fuel discharged by civilian power generators. Fee collections are deposited into the Nuclear Waste Fund and either appropriated to the Program or invested in Treasury securities. With regard to the Federal budget, the fee collections are classified as mandatory, but the appropriations are discretionary; therefore even though the Department collects approximately $750 million per year in fees, in order for the Program budget to increase to meet the demands of repository construction, it must compete with other Departmental programs within discretionary funding caps. With long-lead procurements and parallel construction of the repository facilities, the Nevada rail line, and the national transportation system, our financial analyses have identified the need for access to the Nuclear Waste Fund at significantly increased levels over historical funding levels. The Administration has recently proposed reclassifying mandatory receipts as discretionary offsetting collections through legislative proposals. On March 6, 2007 the Administration submitted a legislative proposal entitled "Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act". The major features of the legislation provide for the permanent withdrawal of land at Yucca Mountain from public use, provide for the elimination of the statutory 70,000 metric ton cap on disposal capacity, ensure the licensing process takes place in a timely manner, allow for the construction of a new line rail line, and provide funding reform. This would allow Program appropriations from the Nuclear Waste Fund to increase up to the amount of fees collected without being scored against discretionary budget caps.

Evidence: OCRWM Budget Projection FY 2009 - 2023 (dated March 2007). Legislative proposal entitled "Nuclear Fuel Management and Disposal Act."

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: Program expenditures are effectively and specifically targeted, in that they are statutorily limited to the activities authorized in Section 302(d) of the NWPA. Diversion of Program resources for purposes not specifically authorized by the NWPA would be a violation of the statute. Per Section 302(d), Nuclear Waste Fund monies can be used for the following purposes: (1) the identification, development, licensing, construction, operation, decommissioning, and post-decommissioning maintenance and monitoring of any repository, monitored retrievable storage facility, or test and evaluation facility constructed under this Act; (2) the conducting of non-generic research, development, and demonstration activities under this Act; (3) the administrative cost of the radioactive waste disposal program; (4) any costs that may be incurred by the Secretary in connection with the transportation, treating, or packaging of spent nuclear fuel or high-level radioactive waste to be disposed of in a repository, to be stored in a monitored retrievable storage site, or to be used in a test and evaluation facility; (5) the costs associated with acquisition, design, modification, replacement, operation, and construction of facilities at a repository site, a monitored retrievable storage site, or a test and evaluation facility site and necessary or incident to such repository, monitored retrievable storage facility, or test and evaluation facility; and (6) the provision of assistance to States, units of general local government, and Indian tribes under sections 116, 118, and 219 Expenditure of Program funds for their intended purposes is independently audited each year by a certified public accounting firm. As stated on page 2 of OCRWM's FY 2004 Annual Financial Report dated September 30, 2004, technical cost and schedule baseline through Construction Authorization were established for the Yucca Mountain Project, the National Transportation Project, and Nevada Transportation Project. The Program has received unqualified ("clean") auditors' opinions from inception through Fiscal Year 2004. Receipt of FY 2005 and FY 2006 audited financial statements has been delayed due to Department's implementation of a new financial system STARS in FY 2005. However, OCRWM is anticipating unqualified reports for both fiscal years.

Evidence: Section 302(d), NWPA. Independent auditors' opinions on OCRWM's financial statements since 1985. A copy of the Office Of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Annual Financial Report, September 30 2004 is provided.

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: OCRWM has four meaningful long-term measures to track program success. The first measure, "Begin acceptance of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste at the Yucca Mountain repository by 2017" embodies DOE's overarching long-term goal for Yucca Mountain. The second long-term measure, "Receive Yucca Mountain Construction Authorization from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) by 2011" represents the culmination of OCRWM's near-term efforts in completing the Licensing Support Network and submitting a high-quality License Application to the NRC. The third long term measure "Design and construct the national and Nevada transportation system to ensure safe, secure, and dependable delivery of spent nuclear fuel and radioactive waste to Yucca Mountain" gauges the program's progress in providing a safe and secure ability to transport nuclear waste. The fourth long term measure "Construct the Yucca Mountain repository by 2016" assesses progress by noting the realization of interim targets. These measures capture the most important aspects of program purpose and support the Department's strategic goals. Goal 4.2 of DOE's 2006 Strategic Plan states, "A geologic repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada, is vital for moving temporarily stored legacy materials from former nuclear weapons sites to a safe, central storage location. The repository is also necessary for preserving the nuclear option for electricity generation which provides approximately 20 percent of the Nation's electricity supply (nuclear energy is also addressed in Strategic Goals 1.1 and 1.2). Integral to attaining this goal is the near-term licensing, subsequent construction, and operation of the permanent repository for nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain authorized under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act."

Evidence: OCRWM's 2007 PART performance measures. 2006 DOE Strategic Plan, Strategic Theme 4: http://www.energy.gov/media/2006StrategicPlanSection8.pdf. DOE FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request. OCRWM Budget Projections, Capital and Operating, FY 2006-2023. Milestones cited in director's statement, FY 2008 Appropriations Hearings, Project Decision Schedule 2007, and DOE order 413 CD processes that follow OMB circular A-11.

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The Program's targets and timeframes for its long-term performance goals are ambitious. As shown in the 2007 PART performance measures, OCRWM has four long-term measures representing goals for waste receipt, construction authorization, transportation, and repository construction. The annual targets listed under each of the four measures represent deliverables that OCRWM must undertake to achieve waste receipt at the repository. These activities provide the foundation for the Yucca Mountain Project's schedule and are used to monitor progress. As project milestones, the annual targets are straightforward and verifiable through the presence of completed and published documents and construction of physical assets and capabilities. Due to the qualitative nature of project annual targets, OCRWM's four long-term measures do not have quantitative baselines. However, the current status of each measure is evident through the annual targets that have been previously set for years 2002 and 2006. All four of these measures are long-term; the tracked time spans range from seven to sixteen years. The annual targets and timeframes are ambitious and are set at a level that promotes continued progress. As evidenced in the long-term transportation measure, missing one annual target (2006 draft EIS) will result in set backs for the future annual targets. Continuous failure in meeting annual targets will result in the long-term goals not being met and slippage in the Yucca Mountain opening date. Furthermore, the annual targets represent the best achievable schedule. The schedule after the Department submits the License Application is predicated on appropriations consistent with the Administration's requests and passage of proposed legislation entitle the "Nuclear Fuel Management Disposal Act", and an NRC construction authorization decision that is consistent with the timelines contained in the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. The end target for the construction authorization measure is 2011; end targets for the other three long-terms measures are 2017. Once initial waste receipt and emplacement are achieved, progress will be measured in terms of the amounts of waste received and emplaced annually.

Evidence: OCRWM's 2007 PART performance measures. Report to Congress on Reassessment of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program, November 1989 (DOE/RW-0247). Director's statement, FY 2008 Appropriations Hearings. Milestones cited in Project Decision Schedule.

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: As shown in the 2007 PART performance measures, OCRWM has several annual performance measures that all support the long-term measures of the program. The first annual measure tracks the completion of LA sections with the goal of developing and reviewing 100% of the sections by 2008 in order to complete and send a high-quality License Application to the NRC. The sections address general information and a Safety Analysis Report. They go into detail to give a general description of the repository and its operation, schedules for construction, receipt, and emplacement of waste, a description of the material and accounting program to be implemented, a pre-closure safety analysis, post-closure safety analysis and long term performance assessment, and programmatic portions which address topics such as quality assurance, organization and training, records and reports, and maintenance and testing. The second annual measure monitors the processing of documents and emails dated June 30, 2007 or earlier to be ready for the Licensing Support Network (LSN). The LSN is an electronic database established by the NRC to support the agency's licensing proceeding for the nation's first spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. NRC's regulations for the Yucca Mountain licensing proceeding requires that all parties make their relevant documentary material publicly available on the LSN and certify their collections. DOE currently plans to certify its LSN collection not later than December 21, 2007. A third measure monitors progress toward publishing Rail Alignment Environment Impact Statement (RA EIS) for public comment. The RA EIS centers on transportation requirements and collaborative planning of transportation activities with key stakeholders. There is also an efficiency measure that tracks OCRWM's use of taxpayer dollars to meet Yucca Mountain project goals and milestones. Since 2004, OCRWM has reduced costs by at least 10 percent each year. Starting in 2007, OCRWM will calculate efficiency using an overhead costs to program costs ratio. This slight change represents OCRWM's participation in OMB and DOE efficiency measure standardization efforts. OCRWM uses this efficiency measure to track annual progress in continued improvement within achievable efficiencies. This measure demonstrates that OCRWM is committed to meet its long-term goals for Yucca Mountain while striving for effective use of taxpayer dollars in program operations.

Evidence: OCRWM's 2007 PART performance measures. LA subproject-CD-1. Contractual Special Emphasis Areas. Contractual Performance Based Incentives.

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: The Program has definable baselines and targets and has determined timeframes for all its annual measures. All measures have quarterly check points to determine if the target is on schedule to be met. Verification will be determined by supporting documentation backed by signed memos for all data submitted. By the 4th quarter, progress toward completion of a high-quality License Application consistent with the established schedule and content requirements is defined as five completed LA sections, 20 LA sections 90% completed and six LA sections 50% completed. The annual measure tracking processing of documents to be ready for the LSN requires 47.5% of the documents to be reviewed for enhanced coding at the end of the 2nd quarter and 100% of the documents to be reviewed for enhanced coding at the end of the 3rd quarter. The measure that tracks the draft rail alignment EIS also requires quarterly progress. At the first quarter Notice of Intent Scoping Meetings has to be complete. At the end of the 2nd quarter field work will be finished. A preliminary draft RA EIS will be submitted to the Management Council for approval by the end of the 3rd quarter and the draft RA EIS will be published for public comment by the 4th quarter.

Evidence: OCRWM's 2007 PART performance measures. The DOE FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request, page 8, Annual Performance Results and Targets Table. The JOULE tracking process and DOE Performance and Accountability Reports. License Application CD-1 Performance Baseline, Product Baseline. Monthly Operating Reports.

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The Program's Management and Operating (M&O) contractor is committed by the Statement of Work in its contract to integrate the efforts of all Program participants toward accomplishment of the Program's goals. Annual goals are established through the business planning process that occurs at both the line manager and Program levels. Work required to achieve these goals is outlined in contractors' annual work plans and office directors' performance commitment statements. Contractors are held accountable for performance through Performance Evaluation Plans by which fee determinations are made. Monthly progress against the goals and deliverables is measured through cost performance reports. Grantees (e.g., local governments in Nevada, associations of state governmental agencies) understand the goals of the program and submit work plans to the Program describing their activities and how they contribute to key goals.

Evidence: Deputy Secretary's memo, February 2007, CD-1 Approval memo, July 2007, Performance Evaluation and Measurement Plan November 2006, Statement of Work, December 2006, Statement of Work for Technical Support Services, BSC Funding Letter.

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Over the last five years numerous independent and quality evaluations have been conducted on the Program. Many of these have been conducted by parties outside of the Department (Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, Government Accountability Office, Nuclear Energy Institute, independent contractors), while others have been conducted by other offices within DOE (Office of Inspector General, Office of Performance Assurance, Carlsbad Field Office). Independent Cost Estimates and External Independent Reviews performed by the Office of Engineering and Construction Management are conducted prior to major Program milestones (e.g., Critical Decision -2) with a focus on capital project management and execution. These reviews, many with different areas of focus, have resulted in a comprehensive picture of the Program's strengths and weaknesses and recommended areas for improvement. The Director has recently commissioned several independent reviews by parties outside the Program to determine the level of progress and effectiveness in three key areas: the license application, quality assurance, contracting, and overall nuclear culture of the organization. These reviews are ongoing, but when completed will constitute the progress to date and the critical next steps needed for OCRWM to become a high-performing nuclear organization. With regard to quality assurance, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has routinely conducted surveillances and audits of OCRWM repository design, modeling, and planning efforts and issues reports documenting findings and recommendations. OCRWM's Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-approved quality assurance (QA) program is designed to comply with the regulations for serves to identify and track adherence to 10 CFR Part 63. Other external parties conduct reviews of the Program on a routine basis, including the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB), which reviews of the Project's technical and scientific information on the anticipated operation and performance of the repository. Recommendations contained in NWTRB reports require a formal Departmental response. The GAO and DOE IG conduct frequent topical audits and reviews of Program activities. External nuclear industry organizations (e.g., Nuclear Energy Institute) assess QA activities, Program adequacy, compliance, and effectiveness. Peer reviews of technical work are conducted on an as-needed basis.

Evidence: GAO, IG, NEI, OCRWM, and other internal and external reports. Quality Assurance Management Report, Integrated Safety Management System Reports, NWTRB Reports, Peer Reviews, and other reports.

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The Program has recently issued the OCRWM Budget Projection FY 2009 - 2023 (dated March 2007) in order to tie budget requests with near-term and long-term goals. This document, along with the President's FY 2008 budget request address the resources required to submit a docketable License Application in 2008, construct a branch rail line through Nevada, and begin repository operations in 2017. OCRWM emphasizes presenting a complete and transparent budget request to Congress - including descriptions of direct and indirect costs (or full costs) that affect the operations and performance of the program in achieving performance goals. The Program has made significant strides in aligning the budget request to the major Program elements and the actual way the Program elements are executed. The relationship between the Program's Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and goals and the Department's budget requests are essentially concurrent. The WBS elements below correlate to line items in the budget request and Program work packages.

Evidence: FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request. Program Work Breakdown Structure. Resource schedule, available upon request.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The Program has taken steps to strengthen its strategic planning by establishing strategic objectives aligned to accomplish the goals of the Program and instituting Monthly Program Reviews to measure progress. The Program has hired a Director with extensive industry experience, and made several changes in senior management. As a result the organization has been restructured. The Program has developed strategic objectives to implement the President's priorities. Progress is reviewed on a monthly basis. It also supports legislation that the Administration has submitted to the Congress that will facilitate the licensing and construction of Yucca Mountain and that addresses funding reform. The Program has also received approval of License Application (LA) Project Critical Decision-1 (CD-1) which addresses the new clean canister based approach. The strategic objectives are: ?? Submit a high-quality and docketable License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) no later than Monday, June 30, 2008; ?? Design, staff, and train the OCRWM organization such that it has the skills and culture needed to design, license, and manage the construction and operation of the Yucca Mountain Project with safety, quality, and cost effectiveness; ?? Address the Federal Government's mounting liability associated with unmet contractual obligations to move spent nuclear fuel from nuclear plant sites; and ?? Develop and begin implementation of a comprehensive national transportation plan that accommodates State, local, and Tribal concerns and input to the greatest extent practicable. OCRWM has also instituted annual business planning for each line organization. Managers are responsible for writing an annual business plan and establishing goals and performance indicators that align with OCRWM's strategic objectives.

Evidence: Monthly Operating Reports. License Application CD-1 Submitted legislation: http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/info_library/newsroom/documents/2007bill.pdf Director's testimony before Congress and Strategic Objectives: http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/info_library/program_docs/testimonies/July_19_Sproat_testimony.pdf

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals, and used the results to guide the resulting activity?

Explanation: In accordance with the Department's Project Management System, the OCRWM recently completed a major reassessment of alternatives and proposed a new fuel handling approach where most commercial Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) would be loaded in disposable canisters at the utilities, minimizing subsequent bare fuel handling at the Yucca Mountain Project (YMP). Any bare fuel handling at YMP would be in a water pool, consistent with industry practice. On July 7, 2006, the Deputy Secretary of Energy as the Acquisition Executive approved the following aspects of the revised "Alternative Selection and Cost Range (CD-1)" for the YMP as reviewed by the Department's Energy Systems Acquisition Advisory Board (essentially the DOE Level 0 Change Control Board). o A canister-based approach for handling commercial spent nuclear fuel o The change to major nuclear surface facilities resulting from the canister-based approach. For Initial Operating capability (IOC), the approved facilities include a Canister receipt and Closure Facility, a Wet Handling Facility, an Initial Handling Facility, and supporting surface and subsurface facilities o The revised cost range to attain full IOC of $8.0B-$10.5B, with full IOC operations beginning in 2017 o The definition of IOC as the ability to receive and emplace high level waste and all types of spent nuclear fuel These elements form the technical, cost and schedule components of the YMP baseline against which performance will be measured.

Evidence: Deputy Secretary's approval memo dated July 7. 2006.

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The Program regularly collects performance data arrayed in Monthly Operating Reports. Line organizations and contractors regularly submit Monthly Operating Reports where cost, schedule and performance data is reviewed by Senior Management at Monthly Program Reviews. The M&O contractor and Lead Laboratory submit monthly Cost Performance Reports that measure cost and performance against milestones and work packages which are included in the Monthly Operating Reports. Updating the Capital Asset Management Plan and having a certified EVMS will enhance public confidence in this data. The OCRWM M&O contractor is currently working on their earned value management system (EVMS) certification process with the DOE Office of Engineering and Construction Management (OECM). The initial evaluation was completed by OECM in November 2006. The M&O contractor has developed corrective action plans in response to evaluation findings and has completed many actions to address these recommendations. The one remaining issue from the OECM evaluation is the size of some of the work packages. The M&O contractor is currently working this issue with OECM. Prior to issuing the EVMS certification, OECM generally requires a three month reporting period utilizing the accepted approach for their recommendations. EVMS certification is required prior to CD-2 submittal. However, OCRWM is committed to completing the certification process as soon as possible.

Evidence: Monthly Operating Reports

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: The Program has established a process where it identifies Federal managers as Single Point Accountability (SPA) for issues arising from design reviews and other management meetings. Progress toward resolving or addressing those issues is monitored at monthly project review meetings. Contractors are held accountable by incorporating appropriate award fee instruments - Special Emphasis Areas (SEAs) or Performance Based Incentives (PBIs) into their contracts where monetary award is paid commensurate with contractor performance. Line organizations and contractors are held accountable in Monthly Operating Reports where cost, schedule and performance data is collected and reviewed by Senior Management at Monthly Program Reviews. Additionally OCRWM managers are held accountable for results in their annual performance plans. Annual performance plans are tied to goals and objectives established in annual business plans. Annual work planning is coordinated with established deliverables for the coming year. Contractor achievement is measured against these work plans and award fees are based on this achievement as established in their contracts with OCRWM.

Evidence: Monthly Operating Reports. Contractual special emphasis areas and performance based incentives for performance monitoring to tie earned fees to accomplishment.

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: The Program obligates funds in a timely manner, as they are made available. Milestones and the critical path are taken into account and funds are obligated to support the timing of these efforts. Work packages are established and in Annual Work Plans and correspond with Program milestones. Obligated funds are sequenced with the scheduled work. The total amount of unobligated funds at the end of FY 2006 was less than 1% of the total Program budget. The Program is audited annually by an independent public accounting firm and has secured an unqualified audit opinion from inception through FY 2004. The Program anticipates unqualified reports for FY 2005 and FY 2006.

Evidence: DOE financial system STARS, and year-end reconciliations for FY 2006. FY 2004 KPMG, LLP OCRWM audit report and pending FY 2005 and FY 2006 audit reports.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The Program applies several approaches to measuring and achieving efficiencies and effectiveness in Program execution. First, the Program practices zero-based budgeting, wherein major efforts are reflected as projects and funded to accomplish major deliverables and/or milestones. Second, the Program uses its earned value management system to track monthly progress and find efficiencies in execution of specific efforts (i.e., projects that are achieving results at lower than expected costs) in order to reprioritize funds and drive results in other areas. Third, over the years, the Program has undertaken modest benchmarking efforts to ensure that project costs in specific areas are within acceptable ranges compared to other DOE sites/projects or other capital projects generally. Finally, for major competitive procurements, the Program develops government independent cost estimates in order to effectively evaluate bidders' cost proposals. OCRWM's annual efficiency measure has a baseline, targets and timeframes. As shown in the DOE FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request, page 8, Annual Performance Results and Targets Table, the starting baseline ratio for this efficiency measure was set at .274 (27.4 percent). For 2005 and 2006, OCRWM reduced its ratio of overhead costs by 10 percent each year from the previous year's baseline. Through participation in OMB and DOE efficiency measure standardization efforts, success will be measured by staying within the overhead ratio of 22% for 2007 and 2008. For 2009 and subsequent years, OCRWM will rely on access to additional monies held within the Nuclear Waste Fund to meet Yucca Mountain project goals and milestones. If access to these monies is granted, OCRWM will receive a substantial increase in funding. Ambitious targets for efficient operations with Nuclear Waste Fund monies are still being considered, and therefore have not yet been entered into PART. OCRWM's efficiency measure is aggressive. The annual targets are both challenging and realistic for OCRWM to achieve. In 2004, OCRWM reduced costs by 15 percent. In 2005, the overhead baseline of 27.4% was established, and costs were reduced by 10% in both 2005 and 2006. OCRWM has earnestly set 2007 and 2008 targets of 22% as it submits a high quality license application to the NRC and begins to prepare for transportation and repository construction. Once OCRWM attains access to additional funding held in the Nuclear Waste Fund (anticipated for 2009), new ambitious efficiency targets will be set.

Evidence: 413.3 Program Management for the acquisition of Capital Assets, 430.1 Project Controls, 430.1A Life Cycle Asset Management, 200.1 Software Engineering Methodology, & 414.1 Management Assessment and Independent Assessment Guide. OCRWM's 2007 PART performance measures. The DOE FY 2008 Congressional Budget Request, page 8, Annual Performance Results and Targets Table. The JOULE tracking process.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The Program collaborates and coordinates effectively with related programs inside and outside the Department of Energy. For example, the Program has Memoranda of Agreements in place with the DOE Office of Environmental Management and the US Navy regarding the acceptance, transport, and disposal of defense related wastes, and meets regularly with those organizations to ensure adherence to quality assurance standards, coordinate on planning bases, and exchange technical information. The Program also collaborated recently with the US Air Force regarding planning for the branch line rail corridor through Nevada and its proximity to Nellis Air Force Base. The Program coordinates with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission on a number of issues. A new Director of QA with extensive nuclear quality experience has been appointed and commissioned to improve coordination with NRC, the line organizations, and participating organizations in resolving QA issues. In addition, the Program coordinates with the NRC on the Licensing Support Network, working with NRC to ensure that all licensing-relevant materials are available over the Internet in advance of the licensing process. QA is chartered is to improve coordination with NRC on other aspects of the license application process, issues, and to drive the OCRWM Program towards excellence. The Program collaborates and coordinates with state government organizations on transportation planning, including shipping protocols, routes, and security measures. Through the Environmental Impact Statement process, the Program has been soliciting feedback from, and coordinating with, local governments in Nevada on planning for construction of the branch rail line.

Evidence: NEI, February 14, 2007; Audit Report, Quality Improvement Plan; Memoranda of Agreements- DOE Office of Environmental Management and the US Navy

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The annual independent audit of the Program has resulted in an "unqualified" opinion and has not revealed any material internal control weaknesses. Similarly, the Program's annual internal control reviews conducted under the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act have not disclosed any internal control weaknesses. However, these audits provide little information on the financial management practices of the M&O contractor upon whom the program is heavily dependent. The Program completed the first phases of implementing the requirements of OMB Circular A-123, regarding the integrity of financial information and the systems employed to generate that information. With regard to information provided to Departmental financial statements (Spent Fuel Liability and Environmental Liability), the Program's assessment found no material weaknesses. The processes used to generate this information were tested for consistency with established protocols and documentation requirements. The Program will be further implementing A-123 requirements over the next two years, including regarding additional internal financial processes and organizational processes and characteristics required to ensure the integrity of financial information.

Evidence: Audit report for FY 2004 by KPMG, LLP, dated 11/17/04. OCRWM Director's Annual Assurance Memorandum to the Secretary of Energy for FY 2004, FY 2005 and FY 2006. Semi-annual meetings of the OCRWM Audit Committee request reports from and attendance by the OCRWM M&O Internal Audit Manager. September 2006 OCRWM A-123 Implementation Plan, Status Report, and Assurance Memorandum.

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The Program has focused activities on a limited set of strategic objectives, one of which is to "Design, staff, and train the OCRWM organization so that it has the skills and culture to design, license, and manage the construction and operation of the Yucca Mountain Project with safety, quality, and cost effectiveness. The Program has taken a number of steps, including (1) realigning the organization in May 2006, bringing in senior management with nuclear licensing and quality assurance expertise, (2) additionally implementing several specific management improvement initiatives, such as linking individual Performance Plans to annual Business Plan goals (3) implementing a "Safety Conscious Work Environment," with annual employee surveys (4) developing Program Element Business Plans that address the business situation in terms of recommended and assigned projects, goals, tasks, funding requirements, and performance indicators, in order to correct, maintain, and improve the Program the business situation (December 2006), (5) Additionally, the Project has established a risk management plan and procedures that identify and handle risks and uses a database system to track risks and remediation and trends identified through management reviews, (6) the Program is developing an amended integrated acquisition strategy for the Program's various projects and supporting activities, which is key to successful achievement of its long-term goals.

Evidence: New OCRWM organization chart: www.ocrwmgateway.doe.gov. OCRWM Four Strategic Objectives, Deputy Secretary of Energy, Clay Sell Memorandum, OCRWM Amended Acquisition Strategy, dated July 7, 2006, Training Manual for Safety Conscious Work Environment." OCRWM Annual Assurance Memorandum to the Secretary of Energy for FY 2006.

Is the program managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: The Program has outlined targets, deliverables, and timeframes for its long-term performance goals. These goals include: ?? Certification of the Licensing Support Network: December 2007 ?? Submission of License Application to NRC: June 2008 ?? Receipt of Construction Authorization from NRC: September 2011 ?? Rail Access in Service: June 2014 ?? Begin waste acceptance: March 2017 Within each of these key milestones, there are discrete contributing deliverables and goals. For example, completion of the rail line requires issuance of the rail alignment Final Environmental Impact Statement in 2008 and award of contracts for rail construction in 2009. The Director recently outlined the funding requirements for constructing surface facilities at Yucca Mountain and system operations for the first six years. The estimated funding required is approximately $26 billion (YOE$) through 2023 and includes transportation system development (equipment, rail line, initial operations), repository subsurface construction, construction of all repository surface facilities, and six years of repository operations. In previous years, the Program developed a Capital Asset Management Plan, consistent with the requirements in OMB Circular A-11, to document the key milestones and spending required to reach initial operating capability of the waste management system. This document is being updated this year to reflect updated an updated schedule and planning bases.

Evidence: OCRWM Budget Projections, Capital and Operating, FY 2009 - FY 2023. OCRWM Capital Asset Management Plan (November 2004). Project Decision Schedule.

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The long-term goal of the Program is to accept, transport, and dispose of spent nuclear fuel and high level waste from the nation's civilian nuclear power facilities and nuclear weapons complex facilities. The Program has achieved significant milestones in its history, most notably completing the characterization of a geologic repository site at Yucca Mountain, Nevada and having that site recommended by the President and approved by the Congress in 2002. Since that time, the Program has experienced technical and scientific difficulties in line with a project of this scope and complexity. The design of surface facilities has undergone a major redesign, away from the handling of bare spent fuel in air to a canister-based system that reduces exposure to workers and streamlines packaging of waste for final disposal. Quality assurance concerns have been raised based on correspondence of some employees associated with the project; these concerns prompted a major rework of some technical information supporting long-term models of repository performance. In addition, the Program has experienced funding shortfalls on the order of $800 million over the last ten years. In aggregate, these occurrences have forced the Program to adjust its priorities year after year, deferring planned work to future fiscal years. The Program is currently organized around submitting a License Application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2008 and beginning initial operations in 2017. The Program remains on schedule for submittal of the License Application. The 2017 start date for initial operations is a best achievable schedule and subject numerous events and conditions outside the Program's control.

Evidence: FY 1995 - FY 2007 OCRWM budget requests versus FY 1995- FY 2007 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bills. The Secretary of Energy's site recommendation report can be found on the DOE web site: www.doe.gov. House Joint Resolution 87, signed by President Bush on 23 July, 2002, designates Yucca Mountain as the repository site.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The Yucca Mountain Project has met all its annual performance measures for FY 2005 and FY 2006 with the exception of publishing the draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) due to management decisions. The EIS was delayed due to consideration of another rail route. On May 4, 2006, the Walker River Paiute Tribe (WRPT) informed DOE that it would not object to DOE studying the feasibility of transporting nuclear materials across the reservation. In response, DOE completed a feasibility study concluding that the Mina Corridor appears to offer potential advantages relative to other corridors considered in the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Based on these early observations, DOE determined that the Mina Corridor warranted further evaluation. On October 13, 2006, DOE issued the "Amended Notice of Intent (ANOI) To Expand the Scope of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Alignment, Construction, and Operation of a Rail Line to a Geologic Repository at Yucca Mountain, Nye County, Nevada" (71 FR 60484). The expanded SRC&RA EIS is entitled the Supplemental Yucca Mountain Rail Corridor and Rail Alignment EIS (DOE/EIS-0250F-S2 and DOE/EIS-0369). In that notice, DOE announced its intent to incorporate the analyses for a new Mina Corridor. The additional analyses supplements the corridor analyses in the Final Environmental Impact Statement for a Geologic Repository for the Disposal of Spent Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste at Yucca Mountain, Nye County Nevada (DOE/EIS-0250F).

Evidence: Office of Management, PARTWEB website. 71 FR 60484.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: In a constrained funding environment, the Program has remained focused on developing a high quality license application that will be docketed by the NRC by reprioritizing funding from important, but not critical path, program elements (site operations, transportation planning). The program's EVMS, which would provide a basis for such demonstrations, is not yet certified. However, progress is toward interim targets and measures are monitored and vetted in organizational monthly program review. The EVMS certification was slowed when OECM changed contractors during the process of certification. The OCRWM M&O contractor is currently working on their earned value management system (EVMS) certification process with the DOE Office of Engineering and Construction Management (OECM). The initial evaluation was completed by OECM in November 2006. The M&O contractor has developed corrective action plans in response to evaluation findings and has completed many actions to address these recommendations. The one remaining issue from the OECM evaluation is the size of some of the work packages. The M&O contractor is currently working this issue with OECM. Prior to issuing the EVMS certification, OECM generally requires a three month reporting period utilizing the accepted approach for their recommendations. DOE O 413.3A requires EVMS certification prior to CD-2. However, OCRWM is committed to completing the certification process as soon as possible. As shown in the 2007 PART performance measures, OCRWM has one annual performance measure. This annual measure tracks efficiency in OCRWM's use of taxpayer dollars to meet Yucca Mountain project goals and milestones. Since 2004, OCRWM has reduced costs by at least 10 percent each year. Starting in 2007, OCRWM will calculate efficiency using an overhead costs to program costs ratio. This slight change represents OCRWM's participation in OMB and DOE efficiency measure standardization efforts. OCRWM uses this efficiency measure to track annual progress in continued improvement within achievable efficiencies. This measure demonstrates that OCRWM is committed to meet its long-term goals for Yucca Mountain while striving for effective use of taxpayer dollars in program operations.

Evidence: Monthly Operating Reports. OCRWM's 2007 PART performance measures.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The OCRWM Program has made the most progress toward geologic disposal of spent fuel and high-level waste among similar programs around the world. A report was produced by the World Nuclear Association's Waste Management Working Group that discusses international progress in nuclear waste management. The report, Worldwide Advances in Radioactive Waste Management, presents a world-wide review of significant progress made in radioactive waste management. As compared to other large scale capital projects (e.g., in public infrastructure or the oil and gas industry), the Program has struggled with similar issues of design control and configuration, acquisition, and finance. Likewise, within DOE, the Program has faced similar challenges and delays as other projects, such as the Defense Waste Processing Facility (Savannah River), National Ignition Facility (Lawrence Livermore), and the Waste Treatment Plant (Hanford). With regard to key functions (nuclear facility design and program support) the costs of the Program are comparable to other DOE sites/programs. The Program has recently focused on maturing its acquisition strategy to focus more on targeted, specialized support and less on generalized programmatic support. For example, the Program is breaking up its support services contracts into three contracts to focus on transportation, licensing, and program management. Similar efforts are underway in other parts of the Program. This approach will bring specialized, best-in-class industry expertise to the Program to accomplish specific goals. Likewise, this approach will also support performance-based contracting with incentives to accomplish high-priority program objectives.

Evidence: CD-1. Contractual special emphasis areas (example provided for period October 1 2007 through March 31, 2007) and performance based incentives for performance monitoring to tie earned fees to accomplishment (example provided for period of performance April 1, 2007 through March 31, 2008 - also provided as evidence in 3.2). Worldwide Advances in Radioactive Waste Management report - http://www.world-nuclear.org/waste/report2002/index.html

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Evaluations by independent reviewers like GAO, DOE IG, NEI, and others have been critical of program strategy, management, and quality implementation and effectiveness. Plans and activities have been initiated to improve quality and drive towards excellence. These efforts have received high-level support and emphasis. Recent reviews of the Quality Assurance program by NRC, GAO and others have led to renewed emphasis on quality assurance protocols through staff education and training. The incident involving e-mails by USGS personnel led to development of a root cause analysis that found that while disregard for quality assurance requirements is not widespread in the Program, continued vigilance in this area is required to ensure the integrity of scientific and technical work. Previous reviews in the areas of program management have found that goals did not align well with organizational elements, leading to a lack of accountability among line managers. The Program has undertaken steps to address this by developing business plans at the line management level wherein managers show how their activities contribute in concrete, measurable ways to overall program success.

Evidence: "Yucca Mountain DOE's Planned Nuclear Waste Repository faces Quality Assurance and Management Challenges," GAO-06-550T, April 25, 2006; "Yucca Mountain Quality Assurance at DOE's Planned Nuclear Waste Repository Needs Increased Management Attention" GAO-06-313, March 2006; "Yucca Mountain Project Independent Quality Assurance Review,"; "NEI, February 14, 2006; "Audit Report: The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management's Corrective Action Program," DOE IG-0736, August 2006; and various other independent assessments. GAO, IG, NEI, OCRWM, and other internal and external reports. Quality Assurance Management Report, Integrated Safety Management System Reports, NWTRB Reports, Peer Reviews, and other reports.

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: The Program has achieved its goals within budgeted costs and established, if revised, schedules. The Program remains on track to submit a docketable license application to the NRC in June 2008. This requires a number of supporting actions, also currently on schedule, including completion of repository facility designs (November 2007), certification of the Licensing Support Network (December 2007), and issuance of the Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (May 2008). The Program has experienced severe funding shortfalls, a changed facility design, and has experienced some quality assurance concerns. This has forced the Program to readjust its priorities, and to defer planned work to future fiscal years. In spite of the funding shortfall, the Program achieved a key programmatic objective by submitting a Yucca Mountain site recommendation report, and is currently on target to submit a license application for a repository construction authorization to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in 2008.

Evidence: FY 1995 - FY 2007 OCRWM budget requests versus FY 1995- FY 2007 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bills. The Secretary of Energy's site recommendation report can be found on the DOE web site: www.doe.gov. House Joint Resolution 87, signed by President Bush on 23 July, 2002, designates Yucca Mountain as the repository site.