Nuclear Weapons: National Nuclear Security Administration's Plans for Its Uranium Processing Facility Should Better Reflect Funding Estimates and Technology Readiness
GAO-11-103
Published: Nov 19, 2010. Publicly Released: Nov 19, 2010.
Skip to Highlights
Highlights
Built in the 1940s and 1950s, the Y-12 National Security Complex, located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, is the National Nuclear Security Administration's (NNSA) primary site for enriched uranium activities. Because Y-12 facilities are outdated and deteriorating, NNSA is building a more modern facility--known as the Uranium Processing Facility (UPF). NNSA estimates that the UPF will cost up to $3.5 billion and save over $200 million annually in operations, security, and maintenance costs. NNSA also plans to include more advanced technologies in the UPF to make uranium processing and component production safer. GAO was asked to (1) assess NNSA's estimated cost and schedule for constructing the UPF; (2) determine the extent to which UPF will use new, experimental technologies, and identify resultant risks, if any; and (3) determine the extent to which emerging changes in the nuclear weapons stockpile could affect the UPF project. To conduct this work, GAO reviewed NNSA technology development and planning documents and met with officials from NNSA and the Y-12 plant.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Energy | To improve DOE's guidance for estimating project costs and developing new technologies, the Secretary of Energy should include in the cost estimating policy currently being developed by DOE specific guidance for reconciling differences, if any, between the results of independent cost estimates and other project cost estimates. |
In a memo "Project Management Policies and Principles" (6/8/2015), DOE Secretary Moniz directed DOE to require certain project management practices recommended by GAO or by DOE. Regarding cost estimates, the Secretary directed that cost estimates be developed consistent with best practices detailed in GAO-09-3SP, Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide. GAO-09-3SP recommends as a best practice that program cost estimates be reconciled with the independent cost estimates so that others can understand areas of risk. In GAO-13-686R, Nuclear Weapons: Factors Leading to Cost Increases with the Uranium Processing Facility, we documented NNSA reconciling UPF costs based on a series of cost estimates. In GAO 15-126, Nuclear Weapons: Some Actions Have Been Taken to Address Challenges with the Uranium Processing Facility Design, following a cost estimate conducted by the Department of Defense, we noted that NNSA was in the process of examining alternatives to the single large UPF facility, a process that continues today. Because of the Secretary's direction and observations on NNSA's use of cost estimating practices for UPF, we believe that this recommendation has been implemented. We will, however, continue to monitor DOE programs and projects to ensure this practice is followed in the future.
|
| Department of Energy | To improve DOE's guidance for estimating project costs and developing new technologies, the Secretary of Energy should evaluate where DOE's guidance for gauging the maturity of new technologies is inconsistent with best practices and, as appropriate, revise the guidance to ensure consistency or ensure the guidance contains justification why such differences are necessary or appropriate. |
In a memo "Project Management Policies and Principles" (6/8/2015), DOE Secretary Moniz directed DOE to comply with technology readiness level (TRL) best practices. This requires achieving TRL-4 by Critical Decision 1 (CD-1) and TRL-7 by CD-2. If these levels cannot be achieved by the specified deadlines, justification is required as is Deputy Secretary notification. This policy change is now in effect and will be formally incorporated into DOE Order 413.3B. This change is consistent with our recommendation, and we will monitor its implementation in ongoing and future work.
|
| Department of Energy | To improve NNSA's management of the UPF project, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Administrator of NNSA to ensure that UPF's cost and schedule estimates, and the associated funding plans these estimates are based upon, are consistent with NNSA's future years' budget and spending plan prior to approval of the UPF's performance baseline at critical decision 2. |
NNSA has not yet taken actions sufficient to close this recommendation. In GAO-14-45 NNSA's Budget Estimates Do Not Fully Align with Plans, we noted that NNSA did not include in its budget estimates billions of dollars in planned major construction projects, to include UPF, because officials said these infrastructure plans were too preliminary. We concluded that providing Congress with budget estimates that reflect long-term plans and the expected funding needed to execute these plans, even if preliminary, helps in prioritizing projects and funding and aids in congressional decision making. In GAO 15-126, Nuclear Weapons: Some Actions Have Been Taken to Address Challenges with the Uranium Processing Facility Design, we noted that NNSA in January 2014 was in the process of examining alternatives to the single large UPF facility because of large cost increases. The development of alternatives continues today. As such, NNSA has delayed the Critical Decision-2 (CD-2) milestone from 2014 to 2016 and total UPF and related costs are, according to NNSA's FY 2016 Budget request, TBD. The UPF scope of work now includes several other elements to include repair of existing facilities, new technologies, and depleted uranium. As a result, we will change our focus to looking at the Uranium Program to include all these activities and will close this recommendation as not implemented.
|
| Department of Energy | To improve NNSA's management of the UPF project, the Secretary of Energy should direct the Administrator of NNSA to ensure new technologies being developed for the UPF project reach the level of maturity called for by best practices prior to critical decisions being made on the project. |
In a memo "Project Management Policies and Principles" (6/8/2015), DOE Secretary Moniz directed DOE to comply with technology readiness level (TRL) best practices. This requires achieving TRL-4 by Critical Decision 1 (CD-1) and TRL-7 by CD-2. If these levels cannot be achieved by the specified deadlines, justification is required as is Deputy Secretary notification. This policy change is now in effect and will be formally incorporated into DOE Order 413.3B. This change is consistent with our recommendation, and we will monitor its implementation in ongoing and future work.
|
| Department of Energy | To improve NNSA's management of the UPF project, the Secretary of Energy, in the event technologies being developed for the UPF project do not reach levels of maturity called for by best practices, should inform the appropriate committees and Members of Congress of any NNSA decision to approve a cost and schedule performance baseline or to begin construction of UPF without first having ensured that project technologies are sufficiently mature. |
In a memo "Project Management Policies and Principles" (6/8/2015), DOE Secretary Moniz directed DOE to comply with technology readiness level (TRL) best practices. This requires achieving TRL-4 by Critical Decision 1 (CD-1) and TRL-7 by CD-2. If these levels cannot be achieved by the specified deadlines, justification is required as is Deputy Secretary notification. This policy change is now in effect and will be formally incorporated into DOE Order 413.3B. While this policy does not require Congressional notification, provisions, if fully implemented, for justification and notification within DOE create sufficient accountability. As such, this change is consistent with our recommendation, and we will monitor its implementation in ongoing and future work.
|
Full Report
Public Inquiries
Topics
Best practicesConstruction costsCost analysisCritical technologiesEmerging technologiesFacility constructionFacility transferNatural resource managementNuclear energyNuclear facilitiesNuclear facility decommissioningNuclear facility securityNuclear fuel reprocessingNuclear materialsNuclear powerplant constructionNuclear weaponsResearch and development facilitiesStrategic national stockpileStrategic planningTechnology assessmentUraniumCost estimatesFederal facility planning