The Yucca Mountain project is currently focused on preparing an  application to obtain a license from NRC to construct a repository. In the late 1980s, DOE had been challenged  to fix and develop adequate plans and procedures related to quality  assurance. Currently, in preparing to submit the license  application to NRC, DOE is relying on costly and time-consuming rework  to resolve lingering quality assurance problems with the transparency and  traceability of data and in project design and engineering documents  uncovered during audits and after-the-fact evaluations. DOE Has Had Problems Implementing and Maintaining an Effective Quality Assurance Program

DOE has a long-standing history of attempting to address NRC concerns  about its quality assurance program. NRC found significant problems. DOE Cannot Be Certain Its Efforts to Improve Quality Assurance Have Been Effective Because of Weaknesses in Tracking Progress and Identifying Problems

DOE cannot be certain that it has met continuous improvement goals for  implementing its quality assurance requirements, a commitment DOE  made at the closure of its Management Improvement Initiatives (Initiatives)  in April 2004. At that time, DOE told us it expected that the progress  achieved with the initiatives would continue and that its performance  indicators would enable it to assess further progress and direct  management attention as needed. However, DOE’s performance indicators,  as well as a second management tool—trend evaluation reports—have not  been effective for this purpose. The confusion over roles and responsibilities was undermining  managers’ accountability for results. For  example, in August 2005, the work environment indicator showed good  performance. Determining the Extent of Problems with Relevant Documents Will Delay DOE’s Submission of the License Application

In March 2005, after announcing the discovery of USGS e-mails suggesting  the possible violation of quality assurance requirements, including the  falsification of records, DOE has taken steps to address lingering concerns  about the adequacy of the scientific work related to the flow of water into  the repository and whether similar quality assurance problems are evident  in other e-mails relevant to the licensing application. Requirements  management is the process that ensures the broad plans and regulatory  requirements affecting the project are tracked and incorporated into  specific engineering details. Program complexity and other project characteristics are also likely to  pose challenges to managing quality assurance. Recommendations for Executive Action

To improve the effectiveness of DOE’s efforts to monitor performance in  key areas at the Yucca Mountain project, including quality assurance, we  recommend that the Secretary of Energy direct the Director, Office of  Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, to take the following five actions  to strengthen the project’s management tools:   Reassess the coverage that the management tools provide for the areas  of concern identified in the Management Improvement Initiatives and  ensure that performance in these important areas is effectively  monitored, especially in light of the more recent condition reports and  associated cause analyses, trend reports, and other reviews indicating  continuing problems. Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this review were to determine (1) the history of the Yucca  Mountain project’s quality assurance problems since the project’s start in  the 1980s, (2) the Department of Energy’s (DOE) tracking of quality  problems and progress implementing quality assurance requirements since  our April 2004 report, and (3) challenges that DOE faces as it continues to  address quality assurance issues within the project.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Department of Energy (DOE) is working to obtain a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to construct a nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada. The project, which began in the 1980s, has been beset by delays. In a 2004 report, GAO raised concerns that persistent quality assurance problems could further delay the project. Then, in 2005, DOE announced the discovery of employee e-mails suggesting quality assurance problems, including possible falsification of records. Quality assurance, which establishes requirements for work to be performed under controlled conditions that ensure quality, is critical to making sure the project meets standards for protecting public health and the environment. GAO was asked to examine (1) the history of the project's quality assurance problems, (2) DOE's tracking of these problems and efforts to address them since GAO's 2004 report, and (3) challenges facing DOE as it continues to address quality assurance issues within the project.

What GAO Found

DOE has had a long history of quality assurance problems at the Yucca Mountain project. In the 1980s and 1990s, DOE had problems assuring NRC that it had developed adequate plans and procedures related to quality assurance. More recently, as it prepares to submit a license application for the repository to NRC, DOE has been relying on costly and time-consuming rework to resolve lingering quality assurance problems uncovered during audits and after-the-fact evaluations. DOE announced, in 2004, that it was making a commitment to continuous quality assurance improvement and that its efforts would be tracked by performance indicators that would enable it to assess progress and direct management attention as needed. However, GAO found that the project's performance indicators and other key management tools were not effective for this purpose. For example, the management tools did not target existing areas of concern and did not track progress in addressing them. The tools also had weaknesses in detecting and highlighting significant problems for management attention. DOE continues to face quality assurance and other challenges. First, DOE is engaged in extensive efforts to restore confidence in scientific documents because of the quality assurance problems suggested in the discovered e-mails between project employees, and it has about 14 million more project e-mails to review. Second, DOE faces quality assurance challenges in resolving design control problems associated with its requirements management process--the process for ensuring that high-level plans and regulatory requirements are incorporated into specific engineering details. Problems with the process led to the December 2005 suspension of certain project work. Third, DOE continues to be challenged to manage a complex program and organization. Significant personnel and project changes initiated in October 2005 create the potential for confusion over roles and responsibilities--a situation DOE found to contribute to quality assurance problems during an earlier transition.