Quality Assurance Problems Persist at the Yucca Mountain Project

DOE reports that it has implemented almost all of the actions identified in  its 2002 corrective action plan; however, recent audits and assessments  indicate that recurring quality assurance problems have not been  corrected. Collectively, these assessments  found continuing management weaknesses that DOE had identified as root  causes of the recurring problems. In a June 2003 audit, DOE found quality problems in  developing and validating software. In September 2003, DOE quality  assurance auditors found that some data sets were still not qualified or  traceable to their sources. Collectively, these assessments identified  continuing weaknesses in the areas of roles and responsibilities, quality  assurance procedures, and a work environment that did not foster  employee confidence in raising concerns without fear of reprisal. This could result in a large  volume of requests for additional information in some areas which could extend the review  process, and could prevent NRC from making a decision regarding issuing a construction  authorization to DOE within the time required by law.”

	Corrective Action Plan Lacks Measurable Goals

DOE cannot formally assess the overall effectiveness of its 2002 corrective  action plan because the performance goals to assess management  weaknesses in the plan lack objective measurements and time frames for  determining success. For example, the goals do not specify the amount of  improvement expected, how quickly the improvement should be achieved,  or how long the improvement should be sustained before the problems can  be considered corrected. However, the  review also noted the effectiveness of corrective actions under the plan  could not be evaluated because many of the goals in the performance  measurement tool that are linked to the 2002 plan lacked the level of  objectivity and testing needed to measure effectiveness. As NRC has noted, quality assurance problems could  delay the licensing process. We disagree with most of DOE’s comments. Despite the many actions taken to improve the quality  assurance program, the management weaknesses and quality problems  with data, models, and software have continued, indicating that the  corrective actions have not been fully effective. To determine the adequacy of DOE’s plan to measure the effectiveness of  the actions it has taken, we examined the July 2002 corrective action plan  and subsequent project performance measurement documents to  determine how DOE intended to use goals and performance measures to  evaluate the plan’s effectiveness. Role of Quality Assurance in the Licensing Process

After the Department of Energy (DOE) submits its license application to  the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), NRC will review it to  determine whether all NRC requirements have been met and whether the  repository is likely to operate safely as designed.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of Energy (DOE) must obtain a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to construct a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. In licensing, a quality assurance program helps ensure that the information used to demonstrate the safety of the repository is defensible and well documented. DOE developed a corrective action plan in 2002 to fix recurring problems with the accuracy of such information. This report assesses the status of corrective actions and the adequacy of DOE's plan to measure the effectiveness of actions taken.

What GAO Found

DOE has reportedly implemented most of the actions in its 2002 corrective action plan, but recent audits and assessments have identified lingering quality problems with data, models, and software and continuing management weaknesses. Audits revealed that some data sets could not be traced back to their sources, model development and validation procedures were not followed, and some processes for software development and validation were inadequate or not followed. DOE believes these problems have not affected the technical basis of the project; however, they could adversely affect the licensing process. Recent assessments identified continuing management weaknesses in the areas of roles and responsibilities, quality assurance policies and procedures, and a work environment that did not foster employee confidence in raising concerns without fear of reprisal. NRC has acknowledged DOE's effectiveness in identifying quality problems, but recently concluded that quality problems could delay the licensing process. DOE cannot assess the effectiveness of its 2002 plan because the performance goals to assess management weaknesses lack objective measurements and time frames for determining success. The goals do not specify the amount of improvement expected, how quickly the improvement should be achieved, or how long the improvement should be sustained before the problems can be considered corrected. DOE recently developed a measurement tool that incorporates and revises some of the goals from the action plan, but most of the revised goals continue to lack the necessary time frames needed to determine whether the actions have corrected the recurring problems. A recently completed DOE review of the 2002 plan found that the corrective actions have been fully implemented. However, the review also noted the effectiveness of the actions could not be evaluated because many of the plan's goals lacked the level of objectivity and testing needed to measure effectiveness.