The Yucca Mountain  project is currently focused on preparing an application for a license from  NRC to construct a repository. DOE Has a Long History of Quality Assurance Problems at Yucca Mountain

DOE has had a long history of quality assurance problems at the Yucca  Mountain project. In the project’s early stages, DOE had problems assuring  NRC that it had developed adequate quality assurance plans and  procedures. As DOE prepares to submit the Yucca Mountain project license  application to NRC, it is relying on costly and time-consuming rework to  ensure that the documents supporting its license application are accurate  and complete. DOE Cannot Be Certain Its Efforts to Improve Quality Assurance Have Been Effective Because of Weaknesses in Tracking Progress and Identifying Problems

DOE’s management tools for the Yucca Mountain project have not enabled  it to effectively identify and track progress in addressing significant and  recurring quality assurance problems. In April 2004, DOE told us it expected that the progress achieved with its  Initiatives for improving quality assurance would continue and that its  performance indicators would enable it to assess further progress and  direct management attention as needed. Another shortcoming of the panel was that frequent changes to the  indicators hindered the ability to identify problems for management  attention and track progress in resolving them. It was not created for December 2004 through February 2005,  and it has not been created since August 2005. According to DOE, a second management tool, the project’s quarterly  trend evaluation reports, captured some aspects of the Initiatives’ areas of  concern and their associated effectiveness indicators that were not  represented in the performance indicators. DOE’s New Path Forward to Submitting a License Application Faces Substantial Quality Assurance and Other Challenges

In pursuing its new path forward, DOE faces significant quality assurance  and other challenges, including (1) determining the extent of problems and  restoring confidence in the documents supporting the license application  after the discovery of e-mails raising the potential of falsified records, (2)  settling the design issues and the associated problems with requirements  management, and (3) replacing key personnel and managing the transition  of new managers and other organizational challenges. The early 2005 discovery of USGS e-mails suggesting possible  noncompliance with the project’s quality assurance requirements has left  lingering concerns about the adequacy of USGS’s scientific work related to  the infiltration or flow of water into the repository and whether other  work on the project has similar quality assurance problems. In addition, DOE is conducting an extensive review of  approximately 14 million e-mails to determine whether they raise  additional quality assurance concerns. Finally, DOE continues to be challenged to effectively manage a changing  and complex program and organization. The significant project changes  initiated under the new path forward create the potential for confusion  over accountability as roles and responsibilities change—a situation DOE  found to contribute to quality assurance problems during an earlier  transition period. Unless these quality assurance problems are  addressed, further delays on the project are likely.
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 2004, GAO raised concerns that persistent quality assurance problems could further delay the project. Then, in 2005, DOE announced discovery of employee e-mails suggesting quality assurance problems. 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. This testimony, which summarizes GAO's March 2006 report (GAO-06-313), provides information on (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 earlier problem areas, such as confusion over roles and responsibilities, to reoccur.