National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Appendix B: Committee Activities
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Response to Past Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Response to Past Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Response to Past Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Response to Past Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Response to Past Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Response to Past Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Response to Past Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Response to Past Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Response to Past Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Response to Past Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C: Response to Past Studies." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2021. Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/26000.
×
Page 103

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

C Response to Past Studies OVERIEW This appendix will summarize external reviews the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) Office of Environmental Management (EM) over the past 20 years. It will first lay out the NAS series on “Improving Project Management at DOE” which began in the late 1990s and led to a number of findings and recommendations. It will summarize an external review of EM that occurred in 2011 at the request of the Secretary, and will provide an organized review of Government Accountability Office (GAO) studies that have looked specifically at EM and EM projects over that 20-year time frame. All of these reviews and studies will be synthesized into a timeline progression of findings and recommendations unique to EM, which will help lay out issues that seem to have been resolved as well as those that seem to be recurring over the period of assessment. Conclusions will be developed providing the basis for further inquiry. PAST EXTERNAL REVIEWS OF DOE AND EM The purpose of this Appendix is to give some context to past studies examining project and program management practices and success within DOE’s EM organization. The review will briefly cover the past 20 years starting with two National Academies study teams beginning in 1998, which looked at the entirety of project and program management across the DOE capital investment program, including EM. It will summarize an internal independent study commissioned by Secretary Steven Chu in 2011 that looked specifically at EM. It will also summarize GAO reviews of EM’s project management and program management practices that have occurred since 1999, with emphasis on a number of recently published documents. NAS Phase I Study In 1997, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water was concerned about project performance within DOE and directed DOE to engage a respected entity to review project performance. As a result, the National Academies became engaged and released a 1998 report titled “Assessing the Need for Independent Project Reviews in the Department of Energy (Phase I)” which was authored by Lloyd Duscha, NAE. A study committee was formed, chaired by Dr. Ken Reinschmidt, NAE, titled the “Committee to Assess the Policies and Practices of the Department of Energy to Design, Manage, and Procure Environmental Restoration, Waste Management, and Other Construction Projects”. Their charge was to look at policies and practices across all of DOE, including the Office of Science (SC), National Nuclear Security Agency (NNSA), and Environmental Management (EM). Meanwhile, there was essentially an “impound” on spending for DOE project site work pending Congressional review of multiple independent project review reports. The House Appropriations PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION C-1

Subcommittee on Energy and Water remained engaged, with briefings by the National Academies on its deliberations during this period. The committee published its report entitled Improving Project Management in the Department of Energy in June 1999. In this report, the committee outlined that DOE fell far short of best practice in a number of areas, including:  Organization-wide project management policy  Clear definitions of responsibility and accountability  Control of changes in the scope, cost, and definition of projects  State-of-the-art project management systems  Identification, dissemination, and implementation of lessons learned  Preproject and preconstruction planning  Scope definition at the project baseline stage  Assessing and managing project risk  Setting contingency allowances based on risk  Cost estimation and scheduling  Objective performance-based incentives  Performance measurement and progress reports  DOE-wide financial reporting systems  Cost and performance databases and information systems  Selection, training, and qualification of project managers  Project management core competency and organization Before dissolving, the committee also prepared a primer entitled Characteristics of Successful Megaprojects. NAS Phase II Study The FY 1999 Appropriations Act zeroed out the budget for the DOE office that had been handling project and facilities management. DOE moved quickly toward development and publication of Order 413.3 as its project lifecycle management model. Congress also directed additional review to be done by the National Academies. This second NAS committee of experts was formed to do a series of reviews and began its work just as Order 413.3 was being finalized by a newly-formed oversight office (Office of Engineering and Construction Management (OECM) and three new Project Management Support Offices (PMSOs)). This committee was again chaired by Dr. Ken Reinschmidt, NAE, and titled the “Committee for Oversight and Assessment of Department of Energy Project Management.” Meeting from 2000 to 2003, it provided the Deputy Secretary a singular opportunity for independent views of project management practices within DOE to enable best possible decisions. Its scope was to review across all DOE:  Policies, Procedures, Documentation, and Reporting; including review of Order 413.3, its implementation and OECM  Project Planning and Controls  Skills, Selection, and Training of Personnel  Project Reviews  Acquisition and Contracting  Risk Management  Organizational Structure, Responsibility, and Accountability PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION C-2

The committee was prolific in its work and evaluations, publishing the following documents:  January 2001 Interim Letter Report to Secretary Richardson  Progress in Improving Project Management in the Department of Energy: 2001 Assessment  May 2002 Interim Letter Report to Secretary Abraham  Progress in Improving Project Management in the Department of Energy: 2002 Assessment  The Owners Role in Project Management and Preproject Planning, 2002  Progress in Improving Project Management in the Department of Energy: 2003 Assessment  The Owner’s Role in Project Risk Management (in DOE), 2005 Over the course of its 3-year evaluation, it met 14 times, visited DOE Headquarters and 10 DOE field sites, met with over 200 DOE and contractor personnel (some multiple times) and reviewed project information from dozens of projects. Its recommendations to DOE, as summarized in 2003 assessment, were many:  Develop policies and procedures to define the DOE method of managing projects;  Create a project management culture across the agency that supports the consistent implementation of policies and procedures;  Provide leadership that ensures disciplined planning and execution of projects as well as support for continuous process improvement;  Provide a project management champion at the highest level of the department to ensure that a focus on the importance of project management is established and maintained;  Develop competence in fulfilling the owner’s role in front-end project planning, risk management, and project execution;  Apply rigorous project reporting and controls that include earned value systems, link day-to- day management data to periodic reporting, forecast time and cost to complete, and maintain historical data with which to benchmark project performance;  Document processes and performance to support benchmarking and trend analysis;  Invest in human capital by providing training and career development to ensure an adequate supply of qualified, skilled project directors;  Continue, refine, and document a program of external and internal project reviews; and  Employ innovative approaches to capital acquisition and the use of performance-based contracting. As stated the 2004 report, “Most of these (suggested) changes relate to inadequate planning, inadequate risk management, and inadequate monitoring and follow-up.” (2004 NAS report pg. 70). Perhaps prescient, it wrote “The concern of the committee is not so much that Order O 413.3, Manual M 413.3-1, other documents, and the Project Management Career Develop Program (PMCDP) will be rescinded, but rather that they will be circumvented.” (NAS, 2004, p. 3). It is clear that the impact of these two committees fundamentally changed the way DOE has approached projects in the past two decades, with many of its recommendations acted upon within larger DOE complex. Perhaps a poignant reminder of the optimism of the early 2000s was in this Finding in the 2002 Assessment (NAS, 2002, p. 55). Undersecretary Robert Card has enunciated a new strategy for Environmental Management (EM) that stresses earlier completion of site cleanup and remediation and earlier closure of sites or their turnover to private industry. The EM organization is reorganizing to fulfill this new strategy. Although it appears that much of the time reduction will be due to a reevaluation of the necessary end states, which may involve negotiations with stakeholders, the committee considers this initiative an important step toward DOE controlling its projects rather than being controlled by PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION C-3

them, as has been the case. To make progress, it is necessary to believe that projects can be controlled and delivered earlier rather than believing that nothing can be done and that the process will require 70 years to complete. It is too early to determine whether the new EM organization will be successful, but the committee considers active attempts to get projects under control, to define strategic directions, and to align projects with strategy to be superior to passivity. Secretary of Energy EM Review In 2011, a number of projects in the EM portfolio were underperforming. As a result, Secretary of Energy Steven Chu established a DOE committee to perform an external review of EM, with the committee headed by Dan Lehman from the DOE Office of Science. The review committee consisted of current DOE employees, retirees and consultants and was given a short timeframe to perform a review and develop report (April -June 2011). The committee met five times over that period, interviewed over 80 individuals, made site visits to EM Headquarters in Washington, DC, Savannah River National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, and Idaho National Laboratory, and conducted in-depth reviews on four major underperforming EM capital projects at the request of Secretary Chu. The projects included: the Salt Waste Processing Facility at Savannah River National Laboratory; the Sodium Bearing Waste Treatment Facility at Idaho National Laboratory; and the K-25 and U-233 Projects at Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Note that these four projects were not the only underperforming projects in the portfolio but were deemed representative; the committee was specifically steered away from Hanford. The committee’s charge by Secretary Chu was to investigate the following questions: • Are each of the programs and projects organized and aligned to successfully deliver the project? • Do the Federal and contractor project teams have the requisite experience and expertise to effectively manage all aspects of the project? • Are the roles and responsibilities of line management for project requirements, contract deliverables, and funding streams documented, well understood, and effectively executed? • Are mechanisms in place to assure critical, accurate project performance issues/concerns are propagated up and down the chain of command to ensure appropriate and timely corrective action is taken? • Is there consistent, credible, independent review of all aspects of project performance to support EM’s Federal oversight responsibility? • Would replicating SC’s organizational structure, with its program offices and well-defined line management responsibilities and accountabilities, in the EM organization, positively impact EM’s project performance? The findings of this review were distributed across EM via a transmittal memorandum in September 2011 by Daniel Poneman (Poneman 2011, pg. i). The findings of the study were grouped in the following areas: • Accountability. Roles and responsibilities for program and project management are not well understood throughout the EM Headquarters and field organizations. • Decision-making. A clear devolution of authority to responsible program line managers is needed to avoid confusion about roles and responsibilities, delays, and rework at the field level. • Culture. Extraordinary efforts are made to report projects as “Green” (on schedule and on budget) regardless of actual project performance indicators. There is pressure “to color a project Green” with a quick fix. In this mode, efforts to “get to Green” can be detrimental to successful project delivery and has had negative consequences for the EM culture. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION C-4

• Stability. Excessive turnover in EM Headquarters, and Federal and contractor field positions for project management has led to loss of technical capability, program and project leadership skills, and critical project knowledge. • Structure. Delivery of projects is hampered by the lack of appropriately structured and empowered program offices at EM Headquarters. These offices, staffed with program managers with line management authority, should provide strategic policy and guidance, resource allocations, project advocacy and oversight, and enable effective sharing of lessons learned across projects and sites. • Peer Review. Independent, external peer review occurs too late in the project development cycle. Reviews have not encompassed all aspects of project performance (technical, schedule, cost, and management). Peer reviewers do not represent the mix of experience and expertise needed to adequately assess all aspects of the project. • Alignment. Lack of well-defined project management roles and responsibilities and lines of communication contribute to a proliferation of EM Headquarters data calls and information requests. As the committee succinctly noted: “Appropriately constituted program offices with empowered program managers; strong line management with well understood roles and responsibilities; effective peer reviews; stability in organizational structure and personnel; and a culture of open information sharing could address many of EM’s program and project performance issues” (Poneman, 2011, pg. 9). In its report, the review committee “…..encourages top management at DOE and EM to adopt a new mode of leadership realizing that real change is imperative” (Poneman, 2011, pg. 12). In its recommendations, the committee urged EM to: • Transform the culture of EM to one of more open sharing, collaborative problem-solving, and transparency so that open and honest results are communicated and acted upon, resulting in continuous improvements being made to EM. This culture should be proactive in its approach to managing programs and projects, rather than reactive. • Ensure that accountability, responsibility, and authorities for programs and projects are formally documented, effectively communicated, and executed at the right level throughout the EM organization. • Promote EM-wide (Headquarters and field) stability by making every effort to retain experienced, competent, and well-trained staff. Staff turnover at EM Headquarters and the field is problematic and does not allow for stable, consistent, effective decision-making or ownership of the project baselines. • Ensure that peer reviews are performed for capital asset projects regularly throughout the projects’ life-cycle (Critical Decisions 0 through 4). These reviews (tailored to project size/complexity) should be comprehensive, independent project assessments similar to the SC peer review model in scope, including technical, cost, schedule, management; environment, safety and health; and risk evaluations. • Establish EM Headquarters Program Offices (geographic, site, or product line) staffed by program managers with clearly defined roles and strong accountability, authority, and responsibility in their area. These offices would provide strategic policy development and guidance, resource allocations, and project advocacy and oversight. This would also enable effective sharing of lessons learned across projects and sites. • Use technical/management independent advisory committees for advice on program and project performance at the program, site, or large project levels. These advisory committees would be in addition to the Environmental Management Advisory Board (EMAB) and Site-Specific Advisory Boards (SSAB), and would give strategic guidance and assistance. • Reduce and/or eliminate ad hoc or limited-value information requests to only those that are necessary. These EM Headquarters information requests should be aligned to the clarified PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION C-5

responsibilities, authorities, and accountabilities of the EM Headquarters organization requesting the information. • Establish a stronger partnership relationship with the executing contractors. This would recognize EM’s role as a “demanding customer” that rewards strong performance with contract incentives, but also that real project success requires mutual respect and trust, and open and honest communications. GAO Reviews Since 1999 when the first National Academies report on DOE project management was published, the GAO has published 56 reports focused on DOE. Of these 56 reports, 36 are directed specifically at EM (or in some cases EM and NNSA). Some of the reports are focused strictly on technical issues surrounding clean-ups. Others are focused on management and project management activities as identified by project reviews or review of a series of projects within a portfolio or at a site. It is worth noting that 11 of these reports have been published since 2018. The listing of these reports is provided at the end of this Appendix in reverse chronological order. As an example, in December 2019 DOE reported that it faced an estimated $404 billion in future environmental cleanup costs with the total liability roughly tripling during the previous 20 years (DOE, 2019). GAO was asked to examine EM’s operations activities and made several recommendations including that EM should establish cleanup work classification requirements and revise its cleanup policy to follow program and project management leading practices (GAO-19-223). It pointed out that 77% of EM’s FY 2019 budget was classified as operations activities and not subject to outside review, while only 18% contained requirements for oversight as capital asset projects. It further pointed out that EM’s cleanup policy does not follow any of 9 (GAO) selected program management leading practices or 9 of 12 selected project management leading practices. For example, EM’s 2017 cleanup policy does not follow the program management leading practice of conducting risk management throughout the life of a program or the project management leading practice of requiring independent reviews of operations activities. GAO found that EM’s environmental liability does not include the costs of all future cleanup responsibilities. As an example, this liability did not include the cost for completing a known, large waste treatment facility, called the Waste Treatment and Immobilization Plant, at the Hanford site. It pointed out that between “30 to 60 percent” of EM’s cleanup budget goes toward recurring activities necessary to maintain the sites such as physical security and infrastructure maintenance, rather than toward reducing EM’s environmental liability. It also found that EM officials have not analyzed the root causes of the cost growth of environmental liability between 2011 and 2018, despite it increasing $214 billion (GAO-19- 460T). GAO noted that EM does not have a program-wide cleanup strategy and relies primarily on individual sites to locally negotiate cleanup activities and establish priorities, which does not always balance overall risks and costs. For example, it pointed out that the Hanford and Savannah River sites plan to treat similar radioactive tank waste differently, with Hanford’s efforts possibly costing tens of billions more than Savannah River’s. In addition, EM manages most of its cleanup work as operations activities, under less stringent requirements than other environmental remediation projects. Operations activities are not subject to independent oversight outside EM, and therefore DOE cannot hold EM accountable for its performance. As another example, DOE stated in reports to Congress as early as 2007 that it intended to manage demolition of its three former gaseous diffusion plants (GDP) in an integrated manner. A Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) Fund was established by law to pay for the cleanup costs of the GDP sites, allowing EM to coordinate and make trade-offs in its use of resources among the three GDPs. However, EM has managed the cleanup of the three GDPs as three individual sites. In addition, GAO found that EM was not following relevant leading practices that GAO recommends for managing the cleanup as a program (having a program management plan; a reliable integrated master schedule; and PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION C-6

a reliable, integrated, comprehensive life-cycle cost estimate) (GAO 20-63). EM has reported spending a total of about $15.5 billion on GDP cleanup as of fiscal year 2018 with cost estimates of remaining work exceeding the currently allocated $25 billion. It is worth noting that at the present time, EM is asking for relief from following DOE Order 413-3B on the GDP D&D projects. In February 2019, GAO made two recommendations to EM to review and revise its cleanup policy to include project and program management leading practices related to scope, cost, schedule performance, and independent reviews. DOE agreed with GAO recommendations and responded that it intends to replace its current cleanup policy with two separate project and program management policies that will incorporate leading practices related to scope, cost, schedule, and independent reviews, as appropriate. EM expects to issue the new project management policy in spring 2020 and the new program management policy in fall 2020 (GAO-20-285PR). In summary, there are a large number of reports that GAO has published over the past 20 years that have been critical of the way that EM is managing its program and portfolio. A number of recent reports, some identified above, have continued to focus on needed improvements that were identified initially in the late 1990s. Summary Over the past 20 years a number of studies have analyzed the project and program management practices in EM. It should be noted that some progress has been made. The PMCDP program, for instance, helps with relevant training and career progression, as well as qualifies those who are in project management roles. Order 413-3B has set a process in place to assure that some level of consistency and quality control is followed for capital asset projects. Table C.1 lays out recommendations from the final National Academies 2003 Assessment report and indicates whether these issues were recurring in the 2011 Secretarial review, and other recent GAO reports. For example, the first item in Table C.1, “the need for program management and strategic management leadership at headquarters,” elicited the following statements in different reports. “Senior managers should continue to emphasize the importance of improving the project management processes and procedures to assure long-term improvement throughout the organization.” (NAS 2004, pg. 96). “In this context, the committee provides its recommendation in the form of a prospectus—a set of aspirations that senior DOE and EM leadership should be focused on to develop a realistic change initiative to make EM a stable, and consistently high-performing organization” (Poneman 2011, pg. 11). EM’s cleanup policy does not follow program and project management leading practices (GAO 19-460T, pg. 12). In another report it stated “…EM has not followed (i.e., has not met, has minimally met, or has partially met) best practices to ensure that these systems are (1) comprehensive, (2) provide reliable data, and (3) are used by EM leadership for decision-making—which are the three characteristics of a reliable EVM system. Moreover, EM has allowed the contractors to categorize a large portion of their work in a way that limits the usefulness of the EVM data…..EM has not ensured that EVM Systems are comprehensive, provide reliable data, or are used by leadership for decision-making” (GAO 19-223, p. 36). As noted in Table C.1, most of the issues identified in 2003 continue to be issues with project and program management in 2020. Please note that this assessment is not exhaustive, nor representative of all recommendations given by NASEM or GAO. It also does not review responses by EM to these past studies but instead relies on the progression of similar findings over two decades. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION C-7

TABLE C.1 Comparison Trending Over Time Issue NAS Reports Secretary GAO (1998-2003) Report (2011) (2019-2020) References The need for program management and strategic management (NAS 2004, pp. 47, 75-76 and 94-96) leadership at headquarters X X X (Poneman 2011, pg. 6, 11): (GAO 19- 460T, pg. 12-13; GAO 19-223, pg 36) Develop policies and procedures to define the DOE method of (NAS 2003, pp. 71-74)(GAO 19-107, X X managing projects pg. 49) Create a project management culture across the agency that (NAS 2004, pg. 97) (Poneman 2011, X X X supports the consistent implementation of policies and procedures pg.11) (GAO 20-63, pg 45) Provide leadership that ensures disciplined planning and execution (NAS 2004, pg. 71) (Poneman 2011, pp. of projects as well as support for continuous process improvement X X X 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 12); (GAO 19-460T, pg. 12) Provide a project management champion at the highest level of the (NAS 2004, pg. 94) (Poneman 2011, pp: department to ensure that a focus on the importance of project X X 4, 8, 11) (complete, GAO 19-28, pg. 14) management is established and maintained Develop competence in fulfilling the owner’s role in front-end (NAS 2004, pp. 76-78 and 78-82) project planning, risk management, and project execution (Poneman 2011, pg 10-11) (GAO 19- X X X 223, pp. 22, 30; GAO 19-223, pp. 16, 26, 27, 29) Apply rigorous project reporting and controls that include earned (NAS 2004, pp. 74-75) (Poneman 2011, value systems, link day-to-day management data to periodic pg. 8, 10, 23) (GAO 19-223, pp 29, 33, X X X reporting, forecast time and cost to complete, and maintain 36) historical data with which to benchmark project performance Document processes and performance to support benchmarking and (NAS 2004, pp. 83-84) (GAO 19-460T, X X trend analysis pg 14) Invest in human capital by providing training and career (NAS 2004, pg. 85) (Poneman 2011, pg. development to ensure an adequate supply of qualified, skilled X X 5) project directors Continue, refine, and document a program of external and internal (NAS 2004 pp. 88-90) (Poneman 2011) X X X project review (GAO 19-223, pp. 32, 38) Employ innovative approaches to capital acquisition and the use of (NAS 2004 pp 91-94); (GAO 19-28, pg. performance-based contracting X X 28; GAO 20-63, pg. 45; GAO 19-107, pg. 47) PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION C-8

REFERENCES U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). 2019. Nuclear Waste Cleanup: DOE Could Improve Program and Project Management by Better Classifying Work and Following Leading Practices. GAO-19-223. Washington, D.C.: GAO. NAS (National Academy of Science, Engineering and Medicine). 1998. Assessing the Need for Independent Project Reviews in the Department of Energy. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NAS. 1999. Improving Project Management in the Department of Energy. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NAS 2000. Characteristics of Successful Megaprojects. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. (out of print booklet, which is also covered in Appendix C of NAS 1999) NAS. 2001. Interim Letter Report for the Improved Project Management in the Department of Energy (2001). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NAS. 2001. Progress in Improving Project Management at the Department of Energy, 2001 Assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NAS. 2002. Progress in Improving Project Management at the Department of Energy, 2002 Interim Assessment (2002). Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NAS. 2002. The Owners Role in Project Management and Preproject Planning. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NAS. 2003. Progress in Improving Project Management at the Department of Energy, 2002 Assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. NAS. 2004. Progress in Improving Project Management at the Department of Energy, 2003 Assessment. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. NAS. 2005. The Owner’s Role in Project Risk Management. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press. Poneman, Daniel. 2011. Transmittal Letter of Secretarial Review, Report on the Office of Environmental Management Program and Project Organizations, September 9, 2011. REPORTS BY THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE RELATED TO THE OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT WASTE TREATMENT PLANT: DOE Is Pursuing Pretreatment Alternatives, but Its Strategy Is Unclear While Costs Continue to Rise. GAO-20-363: Published: May 12, 2020. Publicly Released: May 12, 2020. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-363 PRIORITY OPEN RECOMMENDATIONS: Department of Energy GAO-20-285PR: Published: Apr 22, 2020. Publicly Released: Apr 29, 2020. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-285PR HANFORD CLEANUP: DOE Should Take Actions to Improve Inspections and Oversight of Contaminated Excess Facilities. GAO-20-161: Published: Jan 21, 2020. Publicly Released: Feb 20, 2020. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-161 NUCLEAR CLEANUP: Actions Needed to Improve Cleanup Efforts at DOE’s Three Former Gaseous Diffusion Plants. GAO-20-63: Published: Dec 17, 2019. Publicly Released: Dec 17, 2019. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-20-63 ENVIRONMENTAL LIABILITIES: DOE Would Benefit from Incorporating Risk-Informed Decision- Making into Its Cleanup Policy. GAO-19-339: Published: Sep 18, 2019. Publicly Released: Oct 18, 2019. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-339 NUCLEAR WASTE CLEANUP: DOE Faces Project Management and Disposal Challenges with High- Level Waste at Idaho National Laboratory. GAO-19-494: Published: Sep 9, 2019. Publicly Released: Sep 9, 2019. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-494 PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION C-9

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: Environmental Liability Continues to Grow, and Significant Management Challenges Remain for Cleanup Efforts. GAO-19-460T: Published: May 1, 2019. Publicly Released: May 1, 2019. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-460T PRIORITY OPEN RECOMMENDATIONS: Department of Energy. GAO-19-311SP: Published: Apr 10, 2019. Publicly Released: Apr 17, 2019. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-311SP NUCLEAR WASTE CLEANUP: DOE Could Improve Program and Project Management by Better Classifying Work and Following Leading Practices. GAO-19-223: Published: Feb 19, 2019. Publicly Released: Mar 5, 2019. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-19-223 HANFORD WASTE TREATMENT PLANT: DOE Needs to Take Further Actions to Address Weaknesses in Its Quality Assurance Program. GAO-18-241: Published: Apr 24, 2018. Publicly Released: Apr 24, 2018. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-241 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: Continued Actions Needed to Address Management Challenges GAO- 18-438T: Published: Mar 14, 2018. Publicly Released: Mar 14, 2018. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-18-438T PLUTONIUM DISPOSITION: Proposed Dilute and Dispose Approach Highlights Need for More Work at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant. GAO-17-390: Published: Sep 5, 2017. Publicly Released: Sep 5, 2017. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-390 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: Continued Actions Needed to Address Management Challenges. GAO- 17-651T: Published: May 24, 2017. Publicly Released: May 24, 2017. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-17-651T NUCLEAR WASTE: Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Recovery Demonstrates Cost and Schedule Requirements Needed for DOE Cleanup Operations. GAO-16-608: Published: Aug 4, 2016. Publicly Released: Aug 4, 2016. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-608 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: Observations on Efforts by NNSA and the Office of Environmental Management to Manage and Oversee the Nuclear Security Enterprise. GAO-16-422T: Published: Feb 23, 2016. Publicly Released: Feb 23, 2016. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-422T DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: Actions Needed to Improve DOE and NNSA Oversight of Management and Operating Contractors. GAO-15-662T: Published: Jun 12, 2015. Publicly Released: Jun 12, 2015. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-662T HANFORD CLEANUP: Condition of Tanks May Further Limit DOE’s Ability to Respond to Leaks and Intrusions. GAO-15-40: Published: Nov 25, 2014. Publicly Released: Dec 16, 2014. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-15-40 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: Observations on DOE’s Management Challenges and Steps Taken to Address Them. GAO-13-767T: Published: Jul 24, 2013. Publicly Released: Jul 24, 2013. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-767T DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: Observations on Project and Program Cost Estimating in NNSA and the Office of Environmental Management .GAO-13-510T: Published: May 8, 2013. Publicly Released: May 8, 2013. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-510T DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: Concerns with Major Construction Projects at the Office of Environmental Management and NNSA. GAO-13-484T: Published: Mar 20, 2013. Publicly Released: Mar 20, 2013. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-484T DOE NUCLEAR WASTE: Better Information Needed on Waste Storage at DOE Sites as a Result of Yucca Mountain Shutdown. GAO-11-230: Published: Mar 23, 2011. Publicly Released: May 5, 2011. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-230 NUCLEAR WASTE: DOE Needs a Comprehensive Strategy and Guidance on Computer Models that Support Environmental Cleanup Decisions. GAO-11-143: Published: Feb 10, 2011. Publicly Released: Mar 14, 2011. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-143 NUCLEAR WASTE: Actions Needed to Address Persistent Concerns with Efforts to Close Underground Radioactive Waste Tanks at DOE’s Savannah River Site. GAO-10-816: Published: Sep 14, 2010. Publicly Released: Sep 14, 2010. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-816 PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION C-10

NUCLEAR WASTE: Uncertainties and Questions about Costs and Risks Persist with DOE’s Tank Waste Cleanup Strategy at Hanford. GAO-09-913: Published: Sep 30, 2009. Publicly Released: Sep 30, 2009. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-913 NUCLEAR WASTE: DOE’s Environmental Management Initiatives Report Is Incomplete. GAO-09- 697R: Published: Jun 2, 2009. Publicly Released: Jun 2, 2009. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO- 09-697R DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY: Contract and Project Management Concerns at the National Nuclear Security Administration and Office Of Environmental Management. GAO-09-406T: Published: Mar 4, 2009. Publicly Released: Mar 4, 2009. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-406T NUCLEAR WASTE: Plans for Addressing Most Buried Transuranic Wastes Are Not Final, and Preliminary Cost Estimates Will Likely Increase. GAO-07-761: Published: Jun 22, 2007. Publicly Released: Jun 22, 2007. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-761 NUCLEAR WASTE: DOE Should Reassess Whether the Bulk Vitrification Demonstration Project at Its Hanford Site Is Still Needed to Treat Radioactive Waste. GAO-07-762: Published: Jun 12, 2007. Publicly Released: Jun 12, 2007. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-762 NUCLEAR CLEANUP OF ROCKY FLATS: DOE Can Use Lessons Learned to Improve Oversight of Other Sites’ Cleanup Activities. GAO-06-352: Published: Jul 10, 2006. Publicly Released: Jul 10, 2006. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-352 NUCLEAR WASTE: Absence of Key Management Reforms on Hanford’s Cleanup Project Adds to Challenges of Achieving Cost and Schedule Goals. GAO-04-611: Published: Jun 9, 2004. Publicly Released: Jul 9, 2004. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-611 URANIUM ENRICHMENT: Decontamination and Decommissioning Fund Is Insufficient to Cover Cleanup Costs. GAO-04-692: Published: Jul 2, 2004. Publicly Released: Jul 2, 2004. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-692 NUCLEAR WASTE CLEANUP: DOE Has Made Some Progress in Cleaning Up the Paducah Site, but Challenges Remain. GAO-04-457: Published: Apr 1, 2004. Publicly Released: Apr 1, 2004. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-457 NUCLEAR WASTE: Challenges to Achieving Potential Savings in DOE’s High-Level Waste Cleanup Program. GAO-03-593: Published: Jun 17, 2003. Publicly Released: Jul 17, 2003. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-593 WASTE CLEANUP: Status and Implications of DOE’s Compliance Agreements. GAO-02-567: Published: May 30, 2002. Publicly Released: Jul 19, 2002. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-02- 567 NUCLEAR CLEANUP: Progress Made at Rocky Flats, but Closure by 2006 Is Unlikely, and Costs May Increase. GAO-01-284: Published: Feb 28, 2001. Publicly Released: Feb 28, 2001. https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-01-284 NUCLEAR WASTE: DOE’s Hanford Spent Nuclear Fuel Storage Project--Cost, Schedule, and Management Issues. RCED-99-267: Published: Sep 20, 1999. Publicly Released: Oct 21, 1999. https://www.gao.gov/products/RCED-99-267. PREPUBLICATION COPY – SUBJECT TO FURTHER EDITORIAL CORRECTION C-11

Next: Appendix D: Acronyms »
Review of Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $50.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and its predecessor agencies have conducted activities to develop atomic energy for civilian and defense purposes since the initiation of the World War II Manhattan Project in 1942. These activities took place at large federal land reservations of hundreds of square miles involving industrial-scale operations, but also at many smaller federal and non-federal sites such as uranium mines, materials processing and manufacturing facilities. The nuclear weapons and energy production activities at these facilities produced large quantities of radioactive and hazardous wastes and resulted in widespread groundwater and soil contamination at these sites. DOE initiated a concerted effort to clean up these sites beginning in the 1980s. Many of these sites have been remediated and are in long-term caretaker status, closed or repurposed for other uses.

Review of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Defense Environmental Cleanup Activities of the Department of Energy's Office of Environmental Management: First Report provides background information on the sites currently assigned to the DOE's Office of Environmental Management that are undergoing cleanup; discusses current practices for management and oversight of the cleanups; offers findings and recommendations on such practices and how progress is measured against them; and considers the contracts under which the cleanups proceed and how these have been and can be structured to include incentives for improved cost and schedule performance.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!