Activities that had met or  were ahead of the accelerated schedule included packaging nuclear  materials for disposition, disposing of low-level and low-level mixed  waste, and removing buildings. In contrast, DOE was behind its  schedule for key activities that will have a major impact on DOE’s overall  cleanup goals. These activities involve some of the more complex cleanup  activities, including disposing of transuranic waste, treating high-level  liquid waste, and closing tanks that had contained radioactive wastes. Finally, DOE has had  problems with other treatment and disposal activities not reflected in its  performance measures, such as significant delays in shipping plutonium  from sites to final storage locations, and delays in design and construction  of key facilities. Progress Has Been Made on Several Cleanup Activities, Such as Disposing of Low-Level Waste and Removing Buildings

DOE’s cleanup was ahead of its planned accelerated schedule for several  activities, and other activities appeared to be on track. As of March 2005,  DOE was falling behind in three risk reduction measures under two  cleanup categories that account for a significant portion of the potential  cost reductions DOE was expecting—radioactive tank waste and  transuranic waste. DOE Estimates Overstated Potential Cost Reductions

DOE calculated its estimated $50 billion in cost reductions by comparing  its fiscal year 2001 cost estimate for the program—the last cost estimate  before DOE implemented its accelerated strategy—with its fiscal year  2003 cost estimate for the program—the first complete cost estimate  under the new accelerated strategy. DOE estimated that revised contracting strategies would  also result in significant cost reductions. In addition, several of the projects that DOE expects to  complete in less time are already experiencing problems. However, DOE continues to believe it will achieve some  cost reductions with its accelerated strategy. DOE’s Performance Reporting Does Not Clearly Reflect Progress Made toward Achieving the Overarching Goals of the Accelerated Cleanup Plan

DOE’s performance reporting does not present a clear understanding of  progress toward meeting the $129 billion cost target and 2035 completion  date of the accelerated cleanup plan. First, in reporting on its  performance, DOE does not clearly relate cleanup accomplishments with  their associated costs. While DOE has made progress toward its cleanup goals,  important challenges remain and DOE is not likely to achieve its original  goal of $50 billion in estimated cost reductions. Recommendations for Executive Action

To help DOE and the Congress monitor progress toward meeting DOE’s  accelerated cleanup plan cost and schedule goals, we recommend that the  Secretary of Energy take the following two actions:  Improve DOE’s performance reporting so that there is a clearer,  discernable relationship at the activity level between cleanup  accomplishments and the costs incurred in doing the work and  Identify in DOE’s performance reporting to the Congress and others  those performance measures that are the most critical to achieving  cost and schedule goals, and summarize the progress on these  measures and the potential impact of any problems that could affect  achieving accelerated cleanup plan goals.
Why GAO Did This Study

In February 2002, following years of rising costs to its nuclear waste cleanup program, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced a new initiative--the accelerated cleanup plan--and committed to reduce costs of cleanup by $50 billion, shorten the cleanup schedule by 35 years, and reduce risks to human health and the environment. GAO reviewed (1) the progress DOE has made under its accelerated cleanup plan, (2) the likelihood DOE will achieve its estimated $50 billion in cost reductions, and (3) whether DOE's performance reporting allows for a full understanding of progress toward achieving the accelerated plan goals.

What GAO Found

Since implementing its accelerated cleanup plan, DOE's progress in reducing environmental risks has been mixed. By March 2005, DOE was on track or ahead of schedule for many of the 16 cleanup activities it measures, including packaging nuclear materials for disposition, disposing of low-level waste, and removing buildings. In contrast, DOE was behind its accelerated schedule for 3 challenging and costly activities--disposing of transuranic and radioactive tank wastes and closing tanks that had contained radioactive wastes. These three cleanup activities had technical problems, such as developing waste separation technology, or regulatory issues, such as determining when a storage tank is clean enough to close. Furthermore, DOE has had problems with other treatment and disposal activities not reflected in its performance measures, such as delays in shipping plutonium from sites, resulting in additional costs to secure and store the material. DOE is not likely to achieve the full $50 billion estimated cost reduction, a key goal of the accelerated cleanup plan. First, DOE's method of calculating its $50 billion cost reduction likely overstated the potential reductions. Second, DOE based estimated cost reductions on assumed improvements that are highly uncertain, such as technology development, revised contracting strategies, and regulatory requirements. Third, while DOE expected cost reductions to come from most of its sites, key sites are already experiencing delays and, by the end of fiscal year 2004, had incurred cost increases. Recognizing these problems, DOE no longer cites its $50 billion estimate but still expects to achieve some cost reductions. DOE performance reporting does not allow for an adequate understanding of its progress toward achieving overall cleanup goals because of limitations in how DOE uses its performance measures. First, in its performance reporting, DOE does not clearly link accomplishments with the incurred costs. Second, DOE does not clearly highlight critical activities, such as preparing radioactive tank waste for disposal, that have the greatest impact on progress toward meeting overarching cleanup goals.