Yucca Mountain Project: Information on Estimated Costs to Respond
to Employee E-Mails That Raised Questions about Quality Assurance
(19-JAN-07, GAO-07-297R).
In March 2005, the Department of Energy (DOE) reported the
discovery of a series of e-mail messages written in the late
1990s by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) employees working under a
contract with DOE on the Yucca Mountain Project. These e-mails
alerted DOE that USGS workers may have falsified records for
scientific work on the project and may have been disdainful of
the project's quality assurance program and its requirements. In
March 2006, we reported that DOE was engaged in a detailed review
of these and other project e-mails and was reworking technical
documents to ensure the credibility of the USGS's scientific
analyses, particularly its conclusions on water infiltration. At
Congress' request, we undertook follow-on work to determine the
estimated costs incurred in DOE's response, which also included
additional management and quality assurance training for project
personnel. We briefed Congressional staff on October 23, 2006, on
the results of this work. As Congress requested, we also briefed
Congressional staff on the estimated cost of completing the Yucca
Mountain Project, based on DOE's new schedule for receiving a
license and opening the nuclear waste repository by 2017.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-07-297R
ACCNO: A65025
TITLE: Yucca Mountain Project: Information on Estimated Costs to
Respond to Employee E-Mails That Raised Questions about Quality
Assurance
DATE: 01/19/2007
SUBJECT: Cost analysis
Criminal investigation
Data collection
Data integrity
E-mail
Employee training
Employees
Fraud
Investigations by federal agencies
Program evaluation
Quality assurance
Cost estimates
DOE Yucca Mountain Project (NV)
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-297R
* [1]Enclosure I.pdf
* [2]Yucca Mountain Project: Information on Project Costs
* [3]BackgroundDOE leads federal effort to assess and build a
nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada
* [4]Background (cont.) USGS scientists' e-mails raised concerns
about compliance with quality assurance requirements
* [5]Background (cont.)USGS scientists' e-mails raised concerns
about compliance with quality assurance requirements
* [6]Objectives
* [7]Scope and MethodologyRelied on interviews, reports, agency
cost estimates
* [8]Scope and Methodology (cont.)We relied on interviews, reports,
agency cost estimates
* [9]Limitations
* [10]Limitations (cont.)
* [11]Summary
* [12]Summary (cont.)
* [13]Review of E-mailsIn total, reviews and investigations
estimated to have cost about $4.2 million (FY 2005-2006)
* [14]Review of E-mailsAgency review processes estimated to have
cost about $2.7 million
* [15]Review of E-mailsDOE conducted three types of e-mail reviews
* [16]Review of E-mailsDOE's three types of e-mail reviews examined
database of 14 million e-mails and led to seven new issues
* [17]Review of E-mailsIndependent reviews estimated to have cost
about $530,000
* [18]Review of E-mailsDOE-IG report on e-mail review (DOE/IG-0708)
recommended broader e-mail review and need to address issues ra
* [19]Review of E-mailsCriminal investigation and personnel actions
estimated to have cost about $820,000
* [20]Scientific ReworkScientific rework estimated to cost over $16
million (FY 2005-2006), with an additional $5.1 million planned
* [21]Scientific ReworkFour broad categories of scientific rework
span fiscal years 2005-2006, additional work expected in fiscal y
* [22]Scientific ReworkReplacing original infiltration model
estimated to cost about $10.7 million (FY 2005-2006) with another
$2.2
* [23]Scientific ReworkAssessing and revising other models
estimated to cost about $2.5 million (FY 2005-2006), with at
least $2.9
* [24]Scientific Rework Independent review and oversight estimated
to cost about $2.5 million (FY 2005-2006)
* [25]Scientific ReworkRework of original USGS infiltration model
cost about $420,000 (FY 2005-2006)
* [26]Additional Training CostsDOE and USGS spent about $340,000
(FY 2005-2006)
* [27]Total Estimated Cost of ProjectDOE's best current estimate to
complete Yucca Mountain with a 2017 opening date is about $23
* [28]PDF6-Ordering Information.pdf
* [29]Order by Mail or Phone
January 19, 2007
The Honorable Jon C. Porter
House of Representatives
Subject: Yucca Mountain Project: Information on Estimated Costs to Respond
to Employee E-mails That Raised Questions about Quality Assurance
Dear Mr. Porter:
In March 2005, the Department of Energy (DOE) reported the discovery of a
series of e-mail messages written in the late 1990s by U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) employees working under a contract with DOE on the Yucca
Mountain Project. These e-mails alerted DOE that USGS workers may have
falsified records for scientific work on the project and may have been
disdainful of the project's quality assurance program and its
requirements. In March 2006, we reported that DOE was engaged in a
detailed review of these and other project e-mails and was reworking
technical documents to ensure the credibility of the USGS's scientific
analyses, particularly its conclusions on water infiltration.1 At your
request, we undertook follow-on work to determine the estimated costs
incurred in DOE's response, which also included additional management and
quality assurance training for project personnel. We briefed you and your
staff on October 23, 2006, on the results of this work. As you requested,
we also briefed you and your staff on the estimated cost of completing the
Yucca Mountain Project, based on DOE's new schedule for receiving a
license and opening the nuclear waste repository by 2017. Enclosure I
provides slides that we used in our briefing to you and your staff.
To respond to your request, we collected data provided by DOE; USGS; the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission; the DOE and the Department of the Interior
(DOI) offices of the Inspector General, both of whom have examined aspects
of these matters; as well as other DOI offices, the Nuclear Waste
Technical Review Board, and various contractors working on the Yucca
Mountain Project. We also conducted interviews with staff from these
organizations. Given the time constraints, we did not independently verify
the cost data provided to us. We conducted this work from September 2006
through October 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.
1GAO, Yucca Mountain: Quality Assurance at DOE's Planned Nuclear Waste
Repository Needs Increased Management Attention, GAO-06-313, (Washington,
D.C.: Mar. 17, 2006).
With respect to the review of project e-mail and other relevant documents
to determine the extent and nature of problems similar to those suggested
by the USGS e-mails, the agencies estimated that their efforts cost nearly
$4.2 million. The scientific rework related to the USGS water infiltration
analysis cost an estimated $16 million, while additional management and
quality assurance training for project personnel cost about $340,000. All
three estimates were for expenditures in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. In
fiscal year 2007, DOE plans to spend another $5.1 million on scientific
rework. DOE's preliminary cost estimate to complete and open the
repository to begin receiving wastes by 2017 is about $23 billion
(expressed in fiscal year 2006 dollars), $12.1 billion of which was spent
from fiscal year 1983 through fiscal year 2005. DOE expects to revise its
cost estimate for completing the project in 2007.
We provided DOE with a draft of this report for review and comments. In
its written response, DOE agreed with our overall cost numbers and stated
that it expects to provide updated cost estimates for overall program
costs in 2007. (See encl. II.) DOE also provided technical comments, which
we incorporated as appropriate.
- - - - -
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from
the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to
interested congressional committees and members, the Secretary of Energy,
the Secretary of the Interior, and other interested parties. We will also
make copies available to others on request. In addition, this report will
be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-3841 or by e-mail at [email protected]. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may
be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report
include Richard Cheston, Raymond Smith, Jon Ludwigson, Lee Carroll, and
Kris Massey.
Sincerely yours,
Jim Wells
Director, Natural Resources and Environment
Enclosures
Enclosure I
Yucca Mountain Project: Information on Project Costs
Briefing to the Chairman of the Federal Workforce and Agency Organization
Subcommittee, the Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House of Representatives
October 23, 2006
Background
DOE leads federal effort to assess and build a nuclear waste
repository at Yucca Mountain in Nevada
In 1982, the Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and determined
that the United States should build a national nuclear waste repository
In 2002, the Congress approved Yucca Mountain, Nevada as the site for the
repository
Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for assessing the safety and
performance of the future repository
oDOE has been conducting scientific studies of the long-term
storage of nuclear waste, such as how water moves through the
soil, rock, and other layers of the mountain
DOE work at Yucca Mountain uses contractors including
oBechtel SAIC Company (BSC) and
oU.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
DOE is required to obtain a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC) before starting construction and operating the repository
oDOE is developing the license application, including supporting
scientific assessments of long-term repository safety
oNRC is to evaluate the license application and DOE must meet
NRCstandards
oNuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) reviews scientific
basis of repository
USGS scientists' e-mails raised concerns about compliance with
quality assurance requirements
USGS scientists' e-mails indicated that they may not have adhered to
quality assurance requirements
oDOE's announcement in March 2005 of the discovery of e-mails from
USGS personnel involved in scientific work developing the water
infiltration model for the Yucca Mountain Project (YMP) revealed
that these employees may not have complied with quality assurance
requirements, including thepotential falsification of data
oAgencies reviewed employee e-mails to determine extent and nature
of the potential problems
E-mails raised questions about quality assurance associated with the USGS
water infiltration model
oInfiltration model simulates the top layer of the mountain and
how water moves through that layer
oInfiltration model plays an important role in scientific analysis
of how water moves to and through other layers of the mountain
(which are simulated using other models), including waste storage
tunnels
oWater that reaches the storage areas may affect the integrity
ofwaste packages
USGS scientists' e-mails raised concerns about compliance with
quality assurance requirements
E-mails resulted in investigations and scientific rework
oDOE initiated a projectwidereview of e-mails to determine if the
attitudes and behaviors seen in certain USGS employees were seen
elsewhere in the project
oDOE is overseeing the process of reperformingthe technical work
and preparing supporting scientific documentation associated with
the infiltration rate estimates
oDOE required staff associated with the YMP to complete training
on proper use and handling of e-mails
DOE has delayed its application to the NRC for licensing the Yucca
Mountain nuclear waste repository and announced that the projected best
available opening date is now expected to be 2017
Objectives
1.Identify the estimated cost of various reviews resulting from
the discovery of the USGS emails
2.Identify the estimated cost of reworking scientific research,
data, and associated technical documents to ensure that
conclusions about water infiltration are correct and supportable
3.Identify the cost of additional management and quality
assurancetraining for project personnel resulting from the
discovery of the e-mails
4.Identify the estimated total cost to complete the Yucca
Mountainrepository based on DOE's new licensing schedule and
revised 2017 opening date
Relied on interviews, reports, agency cost estimates
Relied primarily on interviews and review of reports, testimonies, and
other documents identified in interviews
Interviews included:
oSenior YMP officials
oSenior NRC officials responsible for monitoring the license
application process
oSenior officials from DOE and Department of the Interior (DOI)
Inspectors General
oPrivate contractors that undertook substantial work including,
Bechtel SAIC Corporation (BSC) and BoozAllen Hamilton, Inc. (BAH)
We relied on interviews, reports, agency cost estimates
Reviewed documents including:
oReports from YMP
oReports from Inspectors General
oPrior GAO reports
Reviewed cost estimates provided by:
oDOE (Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Office of
the Inspector General)
oDOI (Office of the Inspector General, USGS, and other offices)
oNRC
oPrivate contractors working on the YMP
Work completed September through October 2006 according to generally
accepted government auditing standards
Limitations
Because of time constraints
oWe relied on DOE, DOI, USGS, NRC, and contractor estimates of
cost and our review of documents they identified during interviews
oWe did not verify agencies' cost estimates
oIn most cases, agencies estimated time and costs incurred
oLimited data on actual time and expense
oNo specific accounting or budget codes for some work
oEstimates may reflect work that otherwise would have occurred
oWe had limited opportunity to independently evaluate whether
other activities should be included in the cost estimates
oWe requested that the agencies provide estimates of fully
burdened costs (e.g., including salaries, benefits, and overhead),
but we did not evaluate or verify their methodologies
oNot certain whether agencies' estimates reflected department
overhead (e.g., recruitment), imputed costs, or indirect costs
(e.g., rent and utilities)
oNot all agencies were willing or able to provide estimates for
all activities
oDepartment of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bureau of Investigation, and
USGS
oWe did not evaluate methodology used for selecting and reviewing
e-mails
oWe did not evaluate decisions, or basis for, scientific rework
Summary
Review of e-mail and other documents to determine extent and nature of
problem cost nearly $4.2 million (fiscal years 2005-2006)
Scientific rework related to USGS infiltration model cost about $16
million (fiscal years 2005-2006)
Training and other activities to improve the focus on quality assurance
cost about $340,000 (fiscal years 2005-2006)
Preliminary DOE estimate to meet new licensing schedule and revised
opening in 2017 is about $23 billion (fiscal year 2006 dollars)
o$12 billion spent from fiscal years 1983 to 2005
o$11 billion estimated for fiscal years 2006 to 2017
oDOE expects to provide updated estimates in fiscal year 2007
Review of E-mails
In total, reviews and investigations estimated to have cost about $4.2
million (FY 2005-2006)
Agencies' review of e-mail and other documentation cost about $2.7 million
Criminal investigation and associated personnel actions cost about
$820,000
Independent review of agencies' efforts cost about $530,000
Other efforts, such as responses to media inquiries, cost about $100,000
Source: GAO analysis of estimates provided by DOE, DOI, USGS andNRC
Criminal and
personnel
actions
DOE review of CRs
Agency
reviews
DOE review of e-mail
DOE review of employee concerns
Source: GAO analysis of information provided by DOE, DOI, USGS and NRC
DOE Inspector General
NRC observation/tracking
*Issuance of report has been extended to February 2007
[30]Text Box: Review of E-mails Three categories of actions spanned 2005
through 2007
Agency review processes estimated to have cost about $2.7 million
DOE conducted three types of e-mail reviews
E-mail review included three broad types of reviews
oEvaluated e-mails identified as "relevant" to license application
process
oEvaluated e-mails sent by persons in key positions not identified
as relevant ("nonrelevant")
oEvaluated all e-mails using statistical sampling
959,102 relevant e-mails reviewed two ways
oRandomly sampled and physically read and reviewed
oKeyword search used to identify e-mail content critical of
quality assurance and a random sample of those selected for review
About 13 million nonrelevante-mails reviewed two ways
o32 of 237 key staff selected and all nonrelevante-mails randomly
sampled and reviewed
oRandom sample of all nonrelevante-mails sent by all 237 key staff
reviewed
Population of about 14 million e-mails randomly sampled and reviewed
DOE's three types of e-mail reviews examined database of 14 million
e-mails and led to seven new issues
Totals
About
1 million
Review of relevant e-mails
Source: GAO analysis of estimates provided by DOE
[31]Text Box: 959,102 Identified as relevant
Independent reviews estimated to have cost about $530,000
Congressional review
oDOE and contractors prepared response to congressional request
for documents at a cost of about $414,000
DOE-IG review
oDOE-IG evaluated the adequacy of DOE's process for reviewing
e-mails to identify conditions adverse to quality at a cost of
about $83,000
NRC review
oNRC evaluated the potential impact of e-mail reviews on NRC
review activities at a cost of about $35,000
DOE-IG report on e-mail review (DOE/IG-0708) recommended
broader e-mail review and need to address issues raised in e-mails
Effort
oInterviewed YMP staff and contractors
oReviewed project documentation
oIndependently reviewed e-mails
Found
oThe Archival E-mail Review Team identified and entered no
conditions adverse toquality into the project Corrective Action
Program as required during the process of identifying e-mails as
relevant for inclusion in the Licensing Support Network
oDOE-IG review uncovered e-mails potentially adverse to quality
that had not been identified by prior reviews
Recommended
oExpand review of e-mails to include all e-mails
oEnsure that current and future e-mails potentially adverse to
quality are addressed
oEnsure YMP personnel are instructed in the appropriate
application of the Corrective Action Program
Cost
o5 field staff at 1,196 staff hours
o$82,907 estimated cost
Scientific Rework
Four broad categories of scientific rework span fiscal years 2005-
2006, additional work expected in fiscal year 2007
Sensitivity analysis of infiltration-dependent models (OCRWM/SNL)
USGS model review
INL evaluation of
USGS infiltration model and data
Modification of infiltration-dependent models
(SNL)
Internal review of USGS model (USGS funded)
Rework
USGS model
BSC review of USGS data
Replace USGS infiltration model
(SNL and BSC)
Source: GAO analysis of estimates provided by DOE, BSC, NWTRB, NRC, and
USGS
Independent review and oversight estimated to cost about $2.5 million
(FY 2005-2006)
INL review of software cost about $2.2 million
NRC observation and monitoring cost about $236,400
NWTRB monitoring and evaluation cost about $15,000
NWTRB and the NRC expect to spend additional money in fiscal year 2007 (no
estimate)
Additional Training Costs
DOE and USGS spent about $340,000 (FY 2005-2006)
Total Estimated Cost of Project
DOE's best current estimate to complete Yucca Mountain
with a 2017 opening date is about $23 billion (FY 2006 dollars)
Historical cost, FY 1983-2005: $12.1 billion (in FY 2006 dollars)
Estimated future cost, FY 2006-2017: $11.2 billion (in FY 2006 dollars)
DOE plans to release updated estimates in 2007
oCash flow analysis expected mid-to-late November 2006
oIntegrated project plan expected early 2007
oLife-cycle cost analysis expected early to mid-2007
Source: GAO analysis of data and estimates provided by DOE
Enclosure II
Comments from the Department of Energy
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts newly
released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To have
GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: [email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington,
D.C. 20548
(360781)
*** End of document. ***