Nuclear Waste: DOE's Hanford Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Project--Cost, Schedule, and Management Issues
RCED-99-267
Published: Sep 20, 1999. Publicly Released: Oct 21, 1999.
Skip to Highlights
Highlights
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on the Department of Energy's (DOE) efforts to improve the storage of spent nuclear fuel from its nuclear reactors at DOE's Hanford Site in Washington State, focusing on: (1) its status; (2) what problems might affect achieving cost and schedule estimates; and (3) whether changes have been sufficient to address management weaknesses.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Energy | To ensure that the Department of Energy provides effective leadership and oversight to the project, the Secretary of Energy should immediately take steps to permanently fill the positions of the key day-to-day managers that oversee the project. |
Closed – Implemented
DOE appointed a permanent project director, effective September 29, 1999.
|
| Department of Energy | In addition to establishing a continuity of DOE leadership during this critical time, the Secretary of Energy should take steps to ensure that the Hanford spent fuel project is completed as efficiently and effectively as possible by clarifying the quality assurance standards to be applied to the fuel containers and baskets to minimize the long-term costs of packaging and eventually shipping the fuel to a repository. |
Closed – Implemented
In December 1999, appropriate DOE offices formalized the implementation of quality assurance requirements for the canisters and baskets which should minimize the long term packaging costs and increase the likelihood of eventually shipping the fuel to the repository.
|
| Department of Energy | In addition to establishing a continuity of DOE leadership during this critical time, the Secretary of Energy should take steps to ensure that the Hanford spent fuel project is completed as efficiently and effectively as possible by ensuring that the contractor's performance incentive fees contain the proper balance between the incentives to achieve the interim milestone to begin moving spent fuel and the incentives to achieve efficiencies during the operational period of the project. |
Closed – Implemented
Contract incentives for FY2000 emphasize the importance of beginning to move the fuel from the basins. Contract incentives for FY2001 emphasize fuel movement but also focus on rewarding operational efficiencies.
|
Full Report
Office of Public Affairs
Topics
Contract oversightContract performanceCost overrunsNuclear waste managementNuclear waste storageSchedule slippagesFuel storageEngineeringProject milestonesCost and schedule