Nuclear Waste

The Energy Department (DOE) in 1991 hired a contractor---at an estimated cost of $1 billion over 10 years--to engineer, develop, and manage a system for permanently disposing of highly radioactive waste. The centerpiece of this disposal system is a geological repository for disposing of waste. One of DOE's original objectives for hiring this contractor was to reduce the number of participants working on the disposal program, including consolidating under the contractor much of the program work and the investigation of the suitability of Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as a repository site. This report examines whether DOE is effectively using the contractor--TRW Environmental Safety Systems, Inc., a subsidiary of TRW, Inc.--to manage the project. Specifically, GAO reviews DOE's efforts to consolidate participants' activities, streamline decision-making, and cut costs at the repository project. GAO also assesses DOE's recent initiative to reorganize project management.

GAO found that: (1) DOE has not used the management contractor to manage the repository project and has retained its authority to direct each participant's work, including that of the management contractor; (2) DOE has not consolidated project work as originally planned and has missed opportunities to streamline the decisionmaking process and reduce project costs; (3) project participants have used one-third of project funds for management, coordination, and related support activities because of the complex distribution of project work and the duplication of contractor responsibilities; (4) an evaluation team recommended that DOE replace its cost-reimbursable management and operating contracts with a combination of competitively awarded fixed-price contracts and performance-based management contracts; (5) after reviewing the management contractor's performance, DOE decided to continue its contract for the full contract term; (6) DOE plans to hold discussions with project participants about assigning the management contractor a larger management role; and (7) this initiative will not achieve DOE contract reform objectives or consolidate project activities under fewer contractors.