DOE/CR-0080-9

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

 for FY 2002

SECRETARY OF ENERGY

SPENCER ABRAHAM
Editor’s Notes

This plan incorporates and identifies revisions resulting from the amended budget request for FY 2002. 

DOE’s Inspector General and the Power Marketing Administrations are included in this plan. However, the

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) has prepared separate GPRA documents. See their web page at:

http://www.ferc.fed.us/oedcfo/oedcfo.htm .

This plan was prepared by the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Office of Strategic Planning and Program

Evaluation with input from all offices within DOE. The DOE point of contact for this document is Suneel Kapur

at (202) 586-0110, suneel.k.kapur@hq.doe.gov or Bill Kennedy at (202) 586-0423, bill.kennedy@hq.doe.gov .

This document will be available on the World Wide Web as part of the Department’s Strategic Management

System found at: http://www.doe.gov/stratmgt .
DOE/CR-0080-9

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

ANNUAL PERFORMANCE PLAN

 for FY 2002

SECRETARY OF ENERGY

SPENCER ABRAHAM
v 

Printed with soy ink on recycled paper.
Table of Contents

Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

GPRA Program Activities

Energy Resources

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Energy Efficiency Programs

Renewable and Distributed Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Building Technology, State and Community Programs. . . . 11

Energy Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Industry Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Transportation Sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Fossil Energy Programs

Domestic Oil and Gas Supply RD&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

High Efficiency, No/Low Emissions Power Systems RD&D 35

Clean Fuels RD&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

FE R&D Crosscutting and Special Activities . . . . . . . . . . 43

Petroleum Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Nuclear Energy Programs

Nuclear Energy Educational Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Nuclear Energy Science Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Nuclear Energy R&D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Nuclear Energy Facilities and Infrastructure . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Other Energy Resources Programs

Energy Information Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

Power Marketing Administrations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 81

National Nuclear Security

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

National Nuclear Security Administration Programs

Defense Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Nonproliferation and Verification R&D. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

International Nuclear Safety and Cooperation . . . . . . . . . . . 107

Arms Control and Nonproliferation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

International Material Protection, Control and Accounting . . 115

Highly Enriched Uranium Transparency Implementation . . . 119

Fissile Material Disposition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

Naval Reactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127

Other National Nuclear Security Programs

Intelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Counterintelligence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

Worker and Community Transition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

Security and Emergency Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139

Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance . . . . . . 145
This page is intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents (Continued) 

Environmental Quality

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149

Environmental Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Civilian Radioactive Waste Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

Science

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

High Energy Physics & Nuclear Physics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

Biological and Environmental Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

Basic Energy Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193

Advanced Scientific Computing Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

Fusion Energy Sciences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

Corporate Management

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

Environmental Safety and Health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209

Departmental Administration & Hearings and Appeals 

Management and Administration . . . . . . . . . . . 217

Chief Financial Officer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Economic Impact and Diversity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225

Policy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 231

International Affairs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235

Office of Inspector General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239

Appendices

Criteria for Performance Plan Measures and Goals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A 1

DOE Office Designations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B 1

Crosswalk of Management Challenges to performance measures . . . . C 1

Crosswalk of General Performance Goals and GPRA Activities . . . . . D 1
This page is intentionally left blank.
i

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

OVERVIEW

This is the Department of Energy’s fifth Annual

Performance Plan. It provides the basis for the

Congress and the public to see the results the

Department proposes to deliver for the requested

FY 2002 budget. Prepared under the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (“GPRA” or

the “Results Act”) and in accordance with Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, this

year’s plan includes four years of performance

information. It has “proposed” performance goals

for FY 2002, “revised final” performance goals for

FY 2001, and related goals for FY 2000 and

FY 1999. The plan is one of the three recurring

documents required by the Results Act, namely the 

Strategic Plan, Annual Performance Plan, and the

Annual Performance and Accountability Report. 

Together, they create a continuing cycle of planning,

program execution, and reporting. 

We have again organized these performance goals

by the programs which fund the work, directly

linking resources to results. 

This year we have taken a significant step in

improving the quality of our performance measures. 

We have established “general performance goals”

which closely map to the long-term strategies in our

Strategic Plan. These general performance goals

give us a basis to separate long-term, “outcome”-

oriented performance indicators from annual,

“output”-oriented performance measures. We expect

to refine this approach further in the future. As in

the past, we appreciate the comments and

constructive feedback we receive from Congress, the

General Accounting Office (GAO), and OMB. We

are committed to making this a useful tool in

managing our work in delivering the products and

services for the taxpayers.

To foster a secure and reliable energy

system that is environmentally and

economically sustainable; to be a

responsible steward of the Nation's

nuclear weapons; to clean up our own

facilities; and to lead in the physical

sciences and advance the biological,

environmental and computational

sciences, and provide premiere

instruments of science for the Nation’s

research enterprise.

The Mission of the

Department of Energy is:

To implement this mission, the

resources requested for FY 2002

are: $ 19.2 Billion.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

ii

INTRODUCTION

Department of Energy

Performance Plan's Hierarchy

GPRA Program Activities (43)

(GPRA "budgeted program activities")

Table 4

General Performance Goals (51)

(GPRA "Strategies/Performance Goals")

Table 3

Strategic Objectives (23)

(GPRA "General Objectives")

Table 2

Business Line Goals (5)

(GPRA "General Goals")

Table 1

DOE Mission Statement

Results for Resources

Our government is becoming more accountable to the

taxpayers through implementation of the Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the “Results

Act”or GPRA). This law requires agencies to develop

long range strategic plans, annual performance plans,

and annual performance reports. This document is the

Department’s fifth annual performance plan and has

been prepared to meet the law’s requirements: (1)

establishing performance goals that include the level of

performance to be achieved written in an objective,

quantifiable, and measurable form; (2) briefly

describing the resources required to meet those

performance goals; (3) describing how performance

will be measured and compared with the goals; and (4)

describing how the Department will verify and validate

the measured results. The President’s Office of

Management and Budget has issued guidance to

agencies for preparing these plans but has provided

flexibility in choosing the appropriate format.

Consistency with the Strategic Plan

and Relationship to the Budget

The Department intends to maintain close

relationships between the Strategic Plan, Annual

Performance Plan, and the Budget. To ensure

consistency with the Strategic Plan, this Annual

Performance Plan begins with the mission from the

Strategic Plan. The mission is accomplished through

five business lines. Each business line has a business

line goal which is supported by strategic objectives.

These are in turn supported by general performance

goals. General performance goals are implemented

through GPRA program activities. The figure at right

shows this relationship. 

The GPRA program activities are aligned with the

Department’s FY 2002 Budget Request and contain

annual performance measures and targets by fiscal

year. This approach allows us to clearly link annual

performance with annual budget resources and the

strategic plan objectives. We believe this method of

linkage allows a clear relationship among budget

resources, performance goals, and the Strategic Plan. 

Tables 1 through 4, located at the end of this

introduction, list the business line goals, strategic

objectives, general performance goals, and GPRA

program activities for the Department of Energy. 

There is a clear hierarchy among these levels from the

Strategic Plan’s mission to the GPRA program

activities. 

As shown in the figure above, the mission is

implemented through 5 business lines. Each business

line is supported by a unique set of 3-6 strategic

objectives. Each strategic objective is implemented

through a unique set of 1-8 general performance goals. 

Work toward the 51 general performance goals is

funded though 43 GPRA program activities. Note that

one program activity may fund work toward multiple

general performance goals.

This hierarchical relationship to the Strategic Plan is

encoded in the reference numbering of each level. 

Business lines are coded with two letters: ER for

Energy Resources, NS for National Nuclear Security,

etc. The strategic objectives are numbered sequentially

within each business line, i.e., ER1, ER2, etc. The

general performance goals are numbered to indicate

the business line, the strategic objective, and the

sequential number of the general performance goal,

e.g., ER1-1. The GPRA program activities are not

numbered because they support multiple general
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

iii

performance goals which can be supporting different

strategic objectives in different business lines.

Organization of this Plan

To meet the GPRA requirements to identify

performance goals for each program activity, the basic

building blocks of this plan are the GPRA program

activities. They are presented in sections by the

business line they primarily support. 

The GPRA program activities are logical groupings of

budget line items which make up the Program and

Financing (P&F) accounts in the President’s budget. 

The logical groupings are formed by aggregating, disaggregating, or both as appropriate to link resources to

a logical set of performance goals.

In the chapters that follow, we associated each GPRA

program activity with the general performance goals

supported by that activity. Then for each general

performance goal we show the expected effort and

annual progress toward achieving the general

performance goal.

Also, in the chapters that follow, each GPRA program

activity has performance measures in support of its

general performance goal or goals. For FY 1999 and

FY 2000, we have included the annual performance

measures and an assessment as whether the program

activity did in fact meet the annual performance goal

for that year.

Note that the Department published a Strategic Plan in

1997. Then, consistent with our legislative mandate,

updated the Strategic Plan in September 2000. Thus,

the performance measures reported for FY 1999 and

FY 2000 refer to the goals that were found in the

previous plan.

Consultation

In preparing this performance plan, we are

incorporating improvements based on the GAO and

Congressional feedback on the FY 1999, FY 2000, and

FY 2001 Annual Performance Plans. The general

format of the plan is same as the FY 2001 plan, which

was developed in consultation with Congressional

Staff. We believe the addition of the general

performance goals significantly improves the

usefulness of this plan and helps our programs focus

more on developing outcome oriented performance

indicators. Consultation with Congress on the content

of this plan will be conducted through the

Congressional review of the budget. 

The Department recognizes that the preparation of this

annual performance plan is an inherently

governmental function. As such, drafting of the plan

was done only by Federal employees and no nonFederal parties made any contribution.

Improvements in the FY 2002 Plan 

We are continuing to build on the improvements made

last year in our FY 2001 annual performance plan. The

key issue GAO noted in their review of our FY 2001

annual performance plan was the difficulty in tracking

performance goals from year to year due to

restructuring the format of our presentation. We see 

that as a one-time issue. Our FY 2002 performance

measures are presented along side the FY 2001,

FY 2000, and FY 1999 measures making the progress

in each area clear and simple to see.

The key improvement in our FY 2002 plan is the

introduction of general performance goals. We believe 

identifying these for each GPRA program activity will

help establish long-term outcome indicators. 

GAO also noted that our objectives and goals in the

science area did not convey a coherent story. We

believe we have made improvements in this area as a

result of our strategic plan update process. DOE is

working with other agencies such as the National

Science Foundation to develop methods that will result

in yet better measures for basic R&D.

This year we are strictly adhering to the criteria that

we have established in previous years for developing

the annual performance measures. We intend that

these performance measures be presidential, specific,

quantified, meaningful, challenging, concise, written

for taxpayers, comprehensive, and auditable. By

adhering to these criteria we have been able to reduce

the number of performance measures from 241 in

FY 2000, to 168 for FY 2001 and 147 for FY 2002.

These criteria are consistent with OMB’s criteria

published in Circular A-11. These criteria are

discussed in the Appendix and comments are invited.

We have continued to assess past performance in same

terms that we used last year as agreed in meetings with

Congressional staff, e.g. EXCEEDED GOAL, MET

GOAL, NEARLY MET GOAL, and BELOW

EXPECTATION. If performance was significantly

above the goal, the term EXCEEDED GOAL is used. 

If performance was less than the goal, but not

significantly less, we used the term NEARLY MET

GOAL. These terms are used in place of simply “met
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

iv

goal” or “did not meet goal” to support management’s

intent to have stretch goals and encourage

performance. 

Next Steps for this Plan

This Performance Plan accompanies the Department’s

FY 2002 performance based budget. Although not

required under the Results Act, but allowed by OMB,

the Department will develop a revised performance

plan for FY 2002 based on the appropriated budget and

submit it as part of the FY 2003 Annual Performance

Plan. The revised performance plan for FY 2002 will

contain the proposed performance goals in this Plan for

those activities that are fully funded and will adjust

those performance goals that are funded at a level

different from the proposed budget.

The Department intends to report to the public semiannually on the status of performance. Additionally,

the Department will report to the Congress annually as

required by the Results Act, Government Management

Reform Act of 1994, Reports Consolidation Act of

2000, and the DOE Organization Act of 1977.

Validation and Verification of

Performance

Validation and verification (V&V) of the Department’s

performance will be accomplished by periodic

guidance, reviews, certifications, and audits. Because

of the size and diversity of the Department’s portfolio,

V&V is supported by extensive automated systems,

external expert analysis, and management reviews. 

Detailed discussions of V&V follow the description of

performance goals and measures for each GPRA

Program Activity in this Annual Performance Plan.

For the overall Agency, GPRA guidance is issued and

conducted in the Spring when the staff begins to report

on the mid-year status. DOE’s end-of-year reporting

process includes certifications by heads of

organizational elements and reviews of records. 

Multiple data sources exist within the program offices

performing the work, the National Laboratories, or our

contractors. The performance reporting process

requires that heads of Departmental elements report

the status of the revised final performance measures

and ensure that the information provided is accurate

and complete. Internal management controls will

continue to be applied to ensure the data quality, and

heads of elements formally certify the accuracy of the

data at the end of the year. 

The Department has been using a computer system

called SOLOMON to collect and present results and

performance assessments for the Secretary’s annual

Performance Agreement with the President. It has

been used since the first Performance Agreement in

FY 1995. SOLOMON is a World-Wide-Web based

system to allow remote data entry, monitoring, and

oversight. Data entry is controlled through a password

system that provides an auditable record of changes.

Program offices and managers directly update results

and performance assessments during the year and the

end of year information is used for analysis and

preparation of the Performance and Accountability

Report. 

In accordance with the Federal Managers’ Financial

Integrity Act of 1992 (FMFIA), the Department will

continue evaluations of its management controls in

effect during the fiscal year. Our evaluations include

an assessment of whether the management controls of

the Department were in compliance with the standards

prescribed by the Comptroller General. The purpose of

these evaluations is to provide reasonable assurance

that the management controls are working effectively,

that program and administrative functions including

the accuracy and reliability of the reporting of

performance results are performed in an economical

and efficient manner consistent with applicable laws,

and that assets were safeguarded against the potential

for waste, fraud, abuse, or mismanagement.

The Department’s reporting of performance and

financial information is audited by the Inspector

General. For FY 1996, FY 1997, FY 1999 and

FY 2000, we received unqualified audit opinions. For

FY 1998 the IG’s opinion was qualified due to

weaknesses in the controls over the Department’s

environmental liabilities estimation process. The

Inspector General continues to note concerns with the

presentation of the overview and quality of our

performance measures. We believe we have made

significant progress in establishing better measures in

the FY 2002 plan. 

Management Challenges

The Department has been identifying for the President,

Congress, and ultimately the public, areas of

vulnerability in the operations of Government. DOE’s

internal control process has been established to identify

Departmental Management Challenges and develop

plans to address them, under FMFIA. In this plan we

have included performance measures for the planned

FY 2001 and FY 2002 milestones, addressing these 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

v

Management Challenges. Performance goals from

corrective action plans for Departmental challenges are

identified in this plan with a “(FMFIA)” annotation on

the page numbers noted with the challenge in the

Appendix. In addition to those performance goals

annotated with “(FMFIA),” programs often have other

actions which are related to a management challenge

but are not annotated because they are not part of the

formal corrective action plan.

Waivers

The Department intends to continue to combine

performance reporting with its financial statements.

The Department’s Performance and Accountability

Report, prepared in accordance with the Reports

Consolidation Act of 2000, will also meet the

requirements for an annual performance report in

accordance with the Results Act. The Department has

made no request for waivers of administrative

requirements to provide managerial flexibility. 

Resource Requirements

The Department will only achieve its established goals

and objectives with adequate financial, human,

infrastructure, and technical resources. Financial

resources appropriated by Congress have supported the

Department’s tradition of scientific excellence as

evidenced by our innovative solution to some of the

most important scientific, national security, energy,

and environmental challenges facing America’s future. 

For FY 2002 the Department is requesting

$19.2 billion. This investment of 3 percent of the total

discretionary Federal spending serves vital National

interests of pushing the frontiers of science for

National Security, Energy, and Environment. Our

programs promote scientific progress; advance peace;

ensure the availability of secure, clean, and efficient

energy resources for the Nation’s economic future;

clean up the legacy of the Cold War; and strengthen

safety and health programs across the DOE complex. 

Our human resources include both Federal and

contractor personnel. The requested funding includes

the cost of 16,329 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Federal

personnel and about 110,000 contractor personnel.

Although employment reductions since 1995 have

netted $669 million in savings to taxpayers, the

Department now faces significant skills gaps within

the scientific and technical areas and an aging

workforce. The Department has identified “Mission

Critical Staffing” as a Departmental Challenge for the

CFO, Security Operations, and the Office of

Nonproliferation and National Security.

In order to meet the Nation's needs for cutting-edge

science, DOE must periodically replace or make major

upgrades to aging or outdated major experimental

facilities. These needs will be weighed against the

benefits from cost-effective modifications to existing

facilities to ensure that the maximum national benefits

are derived from existing infrastructure—this

recognizes, however, that many of these science

facilities have a finite useful life. 

Undoubtedly, the continuing push toward a more

seamless, connected science establishment will be

aided by further advances in computation and

communication. Opportunities for laboratory

collaboration, remote experimentation, scientific

simulation as a potential substitute for more costly

experimentation, and sharing and access to vast

quantities of scientific data and information will

continue to place demands on computation and

communication capabilities within the science

programs. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

vi

Table 1. The Department’s 5 Business Line Goals and requested budget

Business Line Goals FY 2001

Comparable 

Appropriations 

FY 2002

Budget 

Request

Energy Resources (ER): Promote the development and deployment of energy

systems and practices that will provide current and future generations with energy

that is clean, reasonably-priced, and reliable. (EE, FE, NE, PMAs, EIA)

$ 2,477 $ 2,281 

National Nuclear Security (NS): Enhance national security through the military

application of nuclear technology, and reduce global danger from weapons of

mass destruction. (CN, DP, IN, NN, NR, OA, SO, & WT)

$6,991 $7,172 

Environmental Quality (EQ): Aggressively clean up the environmental legacy of

nuclear weapons and civilian nuclear research and development programs at the

Department’s remaining sites, safely manage nuclear materials and spent nuclear

fuel, and permanently dispose of the Nation’s radioactive wastes. (EM, RW )

$ 6,583 $ 6,358 

Science (SC): Advance the basic research and instruments of science that are the

foundations for DOE’s applied missions, a base for U.S. technology innovation,

and a source of remarkable insights into our physical and biological world and the

nature of matter and energy. (SC)

$3,164 $3,169 

Corporate Management (CM): Demonstrate excellence in the Department’s

environment, safety and health practices and management systems to support our

world class programs. (CI, CR, ED, EH, GC, HG, IA, IG, MA, PA, PO, S1)

[The funds shown for Corporate Management include Departmental staff and

support offices, with adjustment for revenues, and for FY 2001 only, funding of

$203M for Cerro Grande Fire Activities.] 

EH $ 161 

Others $ 290 

 

 EH $ 140 

Others $ 93 

Total: $19,666 $19,213 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

vii

Table 2. The Department’s 23 Strategic Objectives

Energy Resources Business Line (ER)

ER1 Promote reliable, affordable, clean, and diverse domestic fuel supplies.

ER2 Promote reliable, affordable, and clean transformation of fuel supplies into electricity and related

products.

ER3 Increase the efficiency and productivity of energy use, while limiting environmental impacts.

ER4 Inform public policy makers, energy industries, and the general public by providing reliable energy

information.

ER5 Cooperate globally on international energy issues.

National Nuclear Security Business Line (NS)

NS1 Maintain and refurbish nuclear weapons in accordance with directed schedules to sustain confidence in

their safety, security, and reliability, indefinitely, under the nuclear testing moratorium and arms reduction

treaties.

NS2 Achieve a robust and vital scientific, engineering, and manufacturing capability that is needed for current

and future certification of the nuclear weapons stockpile and the manufacture of nuclear weapon

components under the nuclear testing moratorium .

NS3 Ensure the vitality and readiness of DOE’s nuclear security enterprise. 

NS4 Reduce the global danger from the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

NS5 Provide the U.S. Navy with safe, militarily effective nuclear propulsion plants, and ensure their continued

safe and reliable operation.

NS6 Ensure that the Department’s nuclear weapons, materials, facilities, and information assets are secure

through effective safeguards and security policy, implementation, and oversight.

Environmental Quality Business Line (EQ)

EQ1 Safely and expeditiously clean up sites across the country that supported nuclear weapons research,

production, and testing and conduct DOE-funded nuclear energy and basic science research in the United

States. After completion of cleanup, continue stewardship activities to ensure that human health and the

environment are protected.

EQ2 Complete the characterization of the Yucca Mountain site and, assuming it is determined suitable as a

repository and the President and Congress approve, obtain requisite licenses, construct and, in FY 2010,

begin acceptance of spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive wastes at the repository.

EQ3 Manage the material and facility legacies associated with the Department’s uranium enrichment and

civilian nuclear power development activities.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

viii

Table 2. The Department’s 23 Strategic Objectives (continued)

Science Business Line (SC)

SC1 Provide the leadership, foundations, and breakthroughs in the physical sciences that will sustain

advancements in our Nation’s quest for clean, affordable and abundant energy.

SC2 Develop the scientific foundations to understand and protect our living planet from the adverse impacts of

energy supply and use, support long-term environmental cleanup and management at DOE sites, and

contribute core competencies to interagency research and national challenges in the biological and

environmental sciences.

SC3 Explore matter and energy as elementary building blocks from atoms to life, expanding our knowledge of

the most fundamental laws of nature spanning scales from the infinitesimally small to the infinitely large.

SC4 Provide the extraordinary tools, scientific workforce, and multidisciplinary research infrastructure that

ensures success of DOE’s science mission and supports our Nation’s leadership in the physical, biological,

environmental and computational sciences.

Corporate Management (CM)

CM1 Ensure the safety and health of the DOE work force and members of the public, and the protection of the

environment in all Departmental activities.

CM2 Manage human resources and diversity initiatives and implement practices to improve the delivery of

products and services. 

CM3 Manage financial resources and physical assets to ensure public confidence.

CM4 Manage information technology systems and infrastructure to improve the Department’s efficiency and

effectiveness.

CM5 Use appropriate oversight systems to promote the efficient, effective, and economical operation of the

Department of Energy.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

ix

Table 3. The Department’s 51 General Performance Goals

Energy Resources Business Line

ER1-1 MAINTAINING AN EFFECTIVE STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

ER1-2 ENHANCING DOMESTIC OIL AND GAS SUPPLIES

ER1-3 ASSURING ADEQUATE LONG TERM SUPPLIES OF CLEAN LIQUID TRANSPORTATION

FUELS

ER1-4 COORDINATING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO ENERGY EMERGENCIES

ER2-1 ESTABLISHING A MORE OPEN, COMPETITIVE ELECTRIC SYSTEM

ER2-2 DEVELOPING LARGE, HIGH EFFICIENCY, ADVANCED POWER SYSTEMS 

ER2-3 CONDUCTING R&D TO INCREASE THE USE OF RENEWABLE, DISTRIBUTED AND

HYBRID ENERGY SYSTEMS

ER2-4 SUPPORTING RESEARCH TO IMPROVE EXISTING POWER PLANTS

ER2-5 RELIABLY DELIVERING FEDERAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER 

ER2-6* APPLYING DOE NUCLEAR EXPERTISE TO SUPPORT USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF

MEDICAL ISOTOPES 

ER2-7* APPLYING DOE NUCLEAR EXPERTISE TO SUPPORT EXPLORATION OF THE PLANETS

ER2-8* PRESERVING THE NATION’S SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING EDUCATIONAL

INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ENERGY TECHNOLOGY

ER3-1 DESIGNING AND DELIVERING THE VEHICLES OF THE FUTURE

ER3-2 IMPROVING THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF BUILDINGS 

ER3-3 IMPROVING EFFICIENCY OF ENERGY INTENSIVE INDUSTRIES

ER3-4* ENSURING ENERGY-RELATED REGULATIONS AND POLICIES PRODUCE ECONOMIC,

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS 

ER 4-1 PROVIDING ENERGY POLICY ANALYSIS

ER4-2 EXPANDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO ENERGY INFORMATION

ER5-1 COOPERATING INTERNATIONALLY TO REDUCE ENERGY RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS 

ER5-2 COOPERATING INTERNATIONALLY TO DEVELOP OPEN AND TRANSPARENT ENERGY

MARKETS

* NE activities under objective ER2 and ER3 were regrouped since the Department’s Strategic Plan was published and

as such do not map one for one with the strategies in the strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

x

Table 3. The Department’s 51 General Performance Goals (continued)

National Nuclear Security Business Line

NS1-1 MAINTAINING STOCKPILE CONFIDENCE 

NS2-1 CONDUCTING CAMPAIGNS

NS3-1 ENSURING ENTERPRISE VITALITY AND READINESS

NS3-2 MANAGING CONTRACTOR WORK FORCE RESTRUCTURING

NS4-1 CONDUCTING NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION R&D

NS4-2 IMPROVING INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY

NS4-3 SUPPORTING ARMS CONTROL AND NONPROLIFERATION POLICIES

NS4-4 STRENGTHENING RUSSIA’S MATERIALS PROTECTION, CONTROL, AND ACCOUNTING

NS4-5 ASSURING TRANSPARENCY IN THE CONVERSION OF RUSSIAN HIGHLY ENRICHED

URANIUM

NS4-6 REDUCING INVENTORIES OF SURPLUS WEAPONS-USABLE FISSILE MATERIALS

WORLDWIDE IN A SAFE, SECURE, TRANSPARENT AND IRREVERSIBLE MANNER

NS5-1 PROVIDING SPECIAL NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY

NS6-1 PROVIDING INTELLIGENCE AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE

NS6-2 PROVIDING SECURITY AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS

NS6-3 CONDUCTING INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE

Environmental Quality Business Line

EQ1-1 COMPLETING GEOGRAPHIC SITE CLEANUP 

EQ1-2 DISPOSING OF WASTE GENERATED DURING PAST AND CURRENT DOE ACTIVITIES 

EQ1-3 STABILIZING NUCLEAR MATERIAL AND SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

EQ1-4 DEVELOPING AND DEPLOYING INNOVATIVE CLEANUP TECHNOLOGIES

EQ2-1 CONTINUING WITH YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE CHARACTERIZATION

EQ3-1 DISPOSING OF THE DEPARTMENT’S DEPLETED URANIUM HEXAFLORIDE AND EXCESS

NATURAL URANIUM INVENTORIES

EQ3-2 MANAGING LEGACIES ASSOCIATED WITH CIVILIAN NUCLEAR POWER DEVELOPMENT

ACTIVITIES
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

xi

Table 3. The Department’s 51 General Performance Goals (continued)

Science Business Line

SC1-1 MAKING ADVANCES IN PHYSICAL SCIENCES IN QUEST FOR CLEAN, AFFORDABLE

AND ABUNDANT ENERGY

SC2-1 DEVELOPING SCIENCE FOUNDATIONS TO PROTECT OUR LIVING PLANET

SC3-1 ADVANCING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF MATTER AND ENERGY

SC4-1 PROVIDING EXTRAORDINARY SCIENTIFIC TOOLS, WORKFORCE, AND

INFRASTRUCTURE 

Corporate Management

CM1-1 INSTITUTING A SOUND ES&H CULTURE 

CM2-1 MANAGING HUMAN RESOURCES

CM3-1 MANAGING FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND PHYSICAL ASSETS

CM3-2 ENSURING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE DEPARTMENT’S CONTRACTUAL

TRANSACTIONS

CM4-1 PROMOTING EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

RESOURCES IN THE DEPARTMENT

CM5-1 PROMOTING THE EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT, AND ECONOMICAL OPERATION OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY THROUGH AUDITS, INVESTIGATIONS, INSPECTIONS AND

OTHER REVIEWS 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

xii

Table 4. The Department’s 43 GPRA Program Activities

 GPRA Program Activity

FY 2002

Budget

Request ($M)

 page

Energy Resources Business Line:

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE) Programs

Renewable and Distributed Energy 279* 5

Building Technology, State and Community Program 369* 11

Energy Management 14 15

Industry Sector 88 19

Transportation Sector 242* 25

Program Direction** 40 -

Total for EE: 1,032 -

Office of Fossil Energy (FE) Programs 

Domestic Oil and Gas Supply RD&D 51 31

High Efficiency, No/Low Emissions Power Systems RD&D 385 35

Clean Fuels RD&D 7 39

FE R&D Crosscutting and Special Activities 80 43

Petroleum Reserves 222 45

Total for FE: 745 -

Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology (NE) Programs

Nuclear Energy Educational Infrastructure 12 51

Nuclear Energy Science Activities 47 55

Nuclear Energy R&D 27 61

Nuclear Energy Facilities and Infrastructure 112 67

Program Direction** 25 - 

Total for NE: 223 -

Other Energy Resources Programs

Energy Information Administration (EIA) 76 73

Power Marketing Administrations (PMAs) 205 79

Total for Energy Resources Business Line: 2,281 -
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

xiii

Table 4. The Department’s 43 GPRA Program Activities (continued)

National Nuclear Security Business Line:

National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) Programs

Defense Programs (DP) 5,300 89

National Nuclear Nonproliferation (NN) Programs:

Nonproliferation and Verification R&D 206 103

International Nuclear Safety and Cooperation 14 107

Arms Control and Nonproliferation 102 111

International Material Protection, Control and Accounting 139 115

Highly Enriched Uranium Transparency Implementation 14 119

Fissile Material Disposition 290 123

Program Direction** 51 -

Adjustments for prior year balances and safeguards and security** (42) -

Total for NN: 774 -

Naval Reactors (NR) 688 127

Office of the Administrator of NNSA** 15 -

Total for NNSA: 6,777 -

Other National Nuclear Security Programs

Intelligence (IN) 41 131

Counterintelligence (CN) 46 131

Worker and Community Transition (WT) 24 135

Security and Emergency Operations (SO) 269 139

Independent Oversight & Performance Assurance (IA) 15 145

Total for Other National Nuclear Security Programs: 395 - 

Total for National Nuclear Security Business Line: 7,172 - 

Environmental Quality

Environmental Management (EM) 5,913 152

Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (RW) 445 165

Total for Environmental Quality Business Line: 6,358 -
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

xiv

Table 4. The Department’s 43 GPRA Program Activities (continued)

Science Business Line:

Office of Science Programs (SC)

High Energy Physics & Nuclear Physics 1,077* 177

Biological and Environmental Research 443 185

Basic Energy Sciences 1,005 193

Advanced Scientific Computing Research 163* 197

Fusion Energy Sciences 248* 201

Program Direction, energy research analysis, technical information

management, safeguards and security, multiprogram energy laboratories-facility

support, less security charge for reimbursable work**

232* -

Total for Science Business Line: 3,169 -

Corporate Management:

Environmental Safety and Health (EH) 140 209

Other (staff offices and revenues)

Management and Administration (MA) 76 217

Chief Financial Officer (CFO) 37 221

Economic Impact and Diversity (ED) 7 225

Policy (PO) 7 231

International Affairs (IA) 9 235

Office of Inspector General (IG) 31 239

Office of the Secretary, Board of Contract Appeals, Congressional and

Intergovernmental Affairs, General Counsel, Public Affairs, and Hearings and

Appeals**

44 -

Subtotal for Other (Staff Offices) 211 -

Adjustments for revenues from FERC, Colorado River Basin, and Cost of Work

for Others**

-118 -

Total for Other (staff offices and revenues) 93 -

Total for the Department of Energy: 19,213 -

Notes: 

* This reflects the amended FY 2002 budget request. 

** These are not treated as GPRA Program Activities, but are listed to complete the budget information. They are primarily

program direction accounts that fund salaries of Federal employees who are responsible for delivering on the results of the GPRA

Program Activities.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 1

ENERGY RESOURCES

Energy is the vital force powering business,

manufacturing, and movement of goods and services

throughout the country. The United States spends over

one-half trillion dollars annually for energy, and our

economic well-being depends on reliable, affordable

supplies of clean energy.

The Energy Resources goal establishes the overarching

purpose of the Department’s energy programs that

reside in seven offices. Focus of three of the offices is

on energy technology R&D: Offices of Fossil Energy

(FE), Nuclear Energy (NE), and Energy Efficiency and

Renewable Energy (EE); three are focused on energy

policy analysis and information: Offices of Policy(PO),

International Affairs(IA), and Energy Information

Administration (EIA); and lastly, the Power Marketing

Administrations (PMAs) are responsible for delivering

Federal hydroelectric power to consumers.

ENERGY RESOURCES GOAL

Promote the development and deployment of

energy systems and practices that will provide

current and future generations with energy

that is clean, reasonably-priced, and reliable.

The Energy Resources goal is supported by the

following five strategic objectives:

ER1: Promote reliable, affordable, clean, and

diverse domestic fuel supplies.

ER2: Promote reliable, affordable, and clean

transformation of fuel supplies into electricity

and related products.

ER3: Increase the efficiency and productivity of

energy use, while limiting environmental

impacts.

ER4: Inform public policy makers, energy industries,

and the general public by providing reliable

energy information.

ER5: Cooperate globally on international energy

issues.

Energy Flow, 1999 (Quadrillion Btu)

Source: EIA Annual Energy Review 1999
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 2

The following table maps the Presidential Budget’s Program and Financing (P&F) accounts and program activities to

the Department of Energy’s offices and GPRA Program Activities. The alignment includes aggregation,

disaggregation, and consolidation of budget decision units. The chart that follows this table shows how the decision

units support the Department’s Strategic Plan objectives for this business line. 

Presidential Budget Program and Financing 

 (P&F) Accounts and Program Activities

FY 2002

Budget

Request($M)

DOE

Office

GPRA Program 

Activity

 270 Energy Supply

Renewable Energy Resources 232* EE Renewable & Distributed Energy

44* EE Transportation Sector (Biofuels)

1 EE Energy Management

Subtotal Renewable Energy Resources 277* 

 250 Energy Programs

 Energy Conservation

Building technology, State and community

programs--non-grant

 58* EE Building technology, State and

community programs--non-grant

Building technology, State and community

programs--grant

311 EE Building technology, State and

community programs--grant

Federal energy management program 13 EE Energy Management

Power Technologies Sector 47 EE Renewable & Distributed Energy

Industrial sector 88 EE Industrial Sector

Transportation sector 198* EE Transportation Sector

Policy and management 40 EE

Subtotal for Energy Efficiency 1,032 

 250 Energy Programs

 Fossil Energy Research and Development

 Clean Coal Technology

Great Plains Project Trust (Interest)

449 

 82 

(8)

FE Domestic Oil & Gas Supply R&D

FE High Efficiency, No/Low

Emissions Power Systems

FE Clean Fuels RD&D

FE FE R&D Crosscutting & Special

Activities

 Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves 17 FE Petroleum Reserves

 Strategic Petroleum Reserve 169 FE

 Elk Hills School Lands Fund 36 FE

Subtotal for Fossil Energy 745 

 270 Energy Supply

Nuclear Energy Research & Development 12 NE NE Educational Infrastructure

 47 NE NE Science Activities

 27 NE NE R&D

112 NE NE Facilities and Infrastructure

 25 NE (Program Direction)

Subtotal Nuclear Energy R&D 223 NE

Energy Information Administration 76 EIA Energy Information Admin.

Power Marketing Administrations** 205 PMA Power Marketing Administrations

TOTAL - Energy Resources $2,281 

Notes: 

* This reflects the amended FY 2002 budget request. 

** Revenues from Colorado River Basin (WAPA) are included under Corporate Management. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 3

The Energy Resources goal is supported by five strategic objectives. Each strategic objective is being pursued through

long-term strategies. In this annual performance plan these long term strategies have been stated in terms of General

Performance Goals against which outcome performance indicators and annual (output) performance measures have

been established. To make the linkage of these outcomes and outputs to the budget resources we have organized the

plan by GPRA Program Activities which are aligned with the budget decision units through aggregation,

disaggregation, and consolidation. The general performance goals and indicators and annual measures and targets are

discussed with the GPRA Program Activities on the following pages. This approach allows us to clearly link annual

performance with annual budget resources and the strategic plan objectives. The chart below gives an overview of the

linkage of budget decision units and strategic objectives for Energy Resources.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 4

This page is intentionally left blank.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 5

President’s Budget Program and

Financing (P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

SubActivities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.($M) FY 2002 

Request

FY 2000 FY 2001 ($M)

270 Energy Supply

Renewable Energy Resources EE 268 325 232*

250 Energy Programs

Power Technologies EE 50 47 47

Total 318 372 279*

* This reflects the amended FY 2002 budget request.

Description of the Program:

The mission of the Renewable and Distributed Energy program is to lead the national effort to develop clean,

competitive, reliable power technologies for the 21st Century and to accelerate their acceptance and use, nationally and

internationally. Within the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EE), the program supports research

and development of clean, reliable renewable and distributed energy technologies and cutting edge power infrastructure

technologies that will improve the performance and efficiency of electric power systems. The EE Office of Power

Technologies (OPT) implements the program activities that support the following general performance goals.

General Performance Goals:

ER1-3 ASSURING ADEQUATE LONG TERM SUPPLIES OF CLEAN LIQUID TRANSPORTATION

FUELS

Develop technologies to produce ultra-clean fuels such as hydrogen from natural gas, oil, coal, and renewable sources

such as biomass. Promote the use of alternative fuel vehicles in selected markets and work with fuel providers and

individual communities to help promote the development of refueling infrastructure and provide incentives for the use

of alternative fuel. Promote the use of non-petroleum and renewable replacement fuels, such as ethanol, as blends in

gasoline and diesel fuel. Promote the use of non-petroleum and renewable replacement fuels, such as hydrogen and

biodiesel for electric generation.. Specific measures and targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that

follows. In addition, EE’s Office of Power Technologies has initiated a feasibility study and conceptual design of a

gasifier based cofiring process in FY 2001 and will initiate testing of as many as four Small Modular BioPower

Systems, with applications domestically and internationally in FY 2002. 

ER2-2 DEVELOPING LARGE, HIGH EFFICIENCY, ADVANCED POWER SYSTEMS

Enhance the economics and environmental performance of electricity generation by expanding the use of multi-product

facilities that can also produce heat, clean fuels, and/or chemical products. Pursue evolutionary improvements in

existing CO2 capture systems and explore revolutionary new greenhouse gas capture and sequestration concepts with a

view toward significant cost reductions. Develop innovative enabling technologies such as high temperature

superconductors to improve efficiency and performance. Develop advanced fossil- and nuclear-based power generation

systems that can meet future environmental goals at reasonable cost. EE supports this goal in the areas of advanced

turbine systems and development of high temperature superconducting electrical transmission cable development. 

Specific measures and targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows. 

ER2-3 CONDUCTING R&D TO INCREASE THE USE OF RENEWABLE, DISTRIBUTED AND HYBRID

ENERGY SYSTEMS

Improve the performance and expand the use of non-hydroelectric renewable energy generating capacity while

maintaining the hydroelectric option in the United States. Develop technologies to increase the amount of the Nation's

GPRA Program Activity: Renewable and Distributed Energy 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1980 1990 2000 2010 2020

Year

RE DER

distributed power (i.e., located at the point of use). Develop hybrid applications such as combined heat and power

systems and power parks. This GPRA activity provides the primary funding for this goal. EE has lead responsibility

for this goal. Specific measures and targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows.

ER5-1 COOPERATING INTERNATIONALLY TO REDUCE ENERGY RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS

EE supports this goal in the area of international renewable energy and joint implementation and is facilitating more

comprehensive information exchange from developed to developing countries on renewable energy and energy

efficiency technologies.

ER5-2 COOPERATING INTERNATIONALLY TO DEVELOP OPEN AND TRANSPARENT ENERGY

MARKETS

EE supports this goal through activities such as leading the Committee on Energy Efficiency, Commerce and Trade

(COEECT).

Performance Indicator: Megawatts of nonhydroelectric renewable generating capacity

The Department’s research, development and

deployment efforts (past as well as current) will help

contribute to1 nearly 25,000 megawatts of nonhydroelectric renewable2 generating capacity by 2015

and to 50,000 megawatts (20% of new capacity

additions between 2000 and 2012) of distributed

energy capacity (located at the point of use and

including distributed renewables such as PV and

biomass) by 2012. As shown in the figure, in 2002

non-hydro renewable capacity is projected to be nearly

11,000 megawatts and distributed energy capacity is

projected to be nearly 20,000 megawatts. This growth

is from a 1997 baseline of 8,300 MW and 14,700 MW

respectively.

Notes: 

1. Other factors other than the OPT program such as production tax credits for renewables, state renewable portfolio standards,

international (especially European) programs also contribute to this goal.

2. This also excludes electricity generated with pulp & paper industry by-products.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 7

The following facing pages show four years of performance measures for 

Renewable and Distributed Energy Program.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 8

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results

! Support the Million Solar Roofs Initiative by

installing 15,000 energy systems. (ER2-3) 2

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Facilitate the installation of 20,000 solar energy systems

in support of the Million Solar Roofs Initiative, bringing

the total number of installed systems to 70,000. (ER2-3)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Develop codes, standards and safety specifications

for residential PV roof systems. (ER2-3)

 (NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Develop a 13 percent efficient stable prototype thinfilm photo-voltaic module. (ER2-3)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Accumulate 750 hours of reliable operation for a

distributed concentrating solar power system.(ER2-

3)

 (EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Demonstrate fully autonomous operation of a 10 kW

dish engine system for off-grid applications. (ER2-3)

(MET GOAL)

! Complete two designs of advanced air-cooled

condensers for geothermal applications. (ER2-3)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Complete design of power plant modifications for cofiring of biomass with coal. (ER2-3)

(MET GOAL)

! Develop an industry-led vision and roadmap for an

integrated bioenergy industry to advance the

development of biomass derived energy and its use in

domestic and global markets. (ER2-3)

 (NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Complete three projects which will be co-firing with

biomass on a regular basis. (ER2-3)

(MET GOAL)

! Establish an Interagency Council and an Advisory

Committee on biobased products and bioenergy. By

April 30, 2000 develop a Strategic Plan for the

development and use of biobased products and

bioenergy as required by Executive Order 13134. 

(ER2-3)

(MET GOAL)

! Establish a United States based commercial firm as

an internationally recognized certification agent

using testing and design review services provided by

the National Wind Technology Center. (ER2-3)

(MET GOAL)

! Install and begin testing of two proof-of-concept

turbines under Next Generation Turbine program

leading to commercial availability of technology

capable of producing electricity at 2 1⁄2 cents per

kWh in 15 mph wind resource by 2003. (ER2-3)

(MET GOAL)

[First industrial high temperature superconducting

electrical transmission cables were installed at

Southwire Plant in Carrollton, Georgia and testing for

system reliability was begun. ]

! Initiate the 8,000 hour test of the gas turbine engine

for the Advanced Turbine System for use in

industrial cogeneration. (ER2-9)

(MET GOAL)

! Demonstrate two advanced industrial turbine system

engines at end-user sites.(ER2-9)

(MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 9

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. ER2-3 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.

FY 2001 Target1 (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Facilitate the installation of 20,000 solar energy

systems, bringing the total number of installed

systems to 90, 000 125,000. (ER2-3)

! Develop a 14 percent efficient stable prototype thinfilm photovoltaic module. (ER2-3)! Reduce manufacturing cost of PV modules to $2.25

per Watt (equivalent to $0.23 per kWh price of

electricity from an installed solar system) (ER2-3)

! Evaluate potential for a small (1-10 kW) dish based

systems to compete in green distributed markets

before 2005. (ER2-3)

! Select industrial partners to build two cost-shared

geothermal power plants using Enhanced

Geothermal System (EGS) technology. (ER2-3)

! Identify and validate two new geothermal reservoirs

with electric power production potential.2 (ER2-3)

! Conduct competitive solicitation and select at least

one partner for innovative biofuels production

technologies and make awards to qualified research

organizations. (ER1-3)

! Move advanced wind hybrid control system

technology developed jointly with USDA

Agricultural Research Center to commercial

availability. (ER2-3)

! Produce 20 cubic meters per hour of hydrogen via

steam reforming of biomass pyrolysis oil in a process

development unit. ((ER1-3)

! Complete designs for full scale prototypes of Next

Generation Wind Turbines targeted at 2004 cost

goal of 3 cents per kWh.2 (ER2-3)

! Construct process development unit of ceramic

membrane system for membrane system tests for

hydrogen production.2 (ER1-3)

! Document 6,000 hours (100% load) operation of the

first successful high-temperature superconducting

power delivery system to power an industrial use.

(ER2-2)

! Install first of a kind superconducting electrical

transmission cables to replace existing delivery to an

urban substation serving 14,000 customers in

Detroit, Michigan and begin testing operation and

reliability. (ER2-2)

! Complete installation, begin operations, and conduct 

 testing of first-ever in service superconducting

electricity transmission cable in Detroit, Michigan;

document operational costs and reliability.2 (ER2-2)

! Complete 5,000 hour durability, performance and

emissions testing of the Mercury 50 advanced

turbine System engine. (ER2-2)

[This measure was proposed under Industry Sector]

! Demonstrate microturbine/chiller package at a

University site. (ER2-3)

Notes: 

1. For the FY 2001 revised set of measures, two measures were revised and two added to reflect new priorities.

2. Measure is consistent with the FY 2002 amended budget request.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 10

Means and Strategies: 

The DOE’s programs contribute to increasing nonhydroelectric renewable and distributed energy

generating capacity by reducing the cost of energy

(COE) for photovoltaic, wind, biomass, geothermal

concentrating solar power, engine, turbine,

microturbine and fuel cell technologies. Reduced

COEs for renewables is achieved by increasing

photovoltaic cell efficiency and increasing U.S.

photovoltaic manufacturing capacity; improving wind

turbine designs and validating advanced wind turbine

performance; increasing the reliability of distributed

concentrating solar power systems; increasing the

availability and payback period of biomass cofiring

systems; reducing the cost of biomass gasification

systems; and decreasing the drilling costs of

geothermal systems. Reduced COEs and lower

emissions for fossil based distributed technologies is

achieved by increasing the efficiency of engine,

turbine, microturbine and fuel cell technologies,

improving fuel processing and power conditioning

designs and validating performance; and increasing the

reliability of distributed systems.

Increasing market penetration of distributed energy

systems is achieved through advances in technology

cost and performance and the implementation of

national standards for interconnecting distributed

power with the grid. Technology advances include: 

increasing ceramic high temperature survival and

material strength and integrating sensors and controls. 

Modernization of the electricity infrastructure is

achieved by: improving the reliability of the system

through development of real time control and

information systems along with fast power electronic

switching; increasing the production of high

temperature superconducting wires; and reducing the

cost and increasing the energy density of energy

storage systems.

Collaboration Activities:

DOE collaborates on its R&D with academia, national

laboratories, and manufacturers of renewable and

distributed technologies. DOE also collaborates with

users of these technologies for technology validation,

system integration and design.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Program funding, the state of the economy and the cost

of competing technologies will affect the installation of

renewable and distributed energy systems. State and

international efforts in renewable and distributed 

technologies also affect the market. Continuation of

federal tax incentives for renewables also will increase

performance. 

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

The National Renewable Energy

Laboratory’s Renewable Energy

Plant Information System (REPIS),

the Energy Information

Administration’s Annual Energy

Review, Renewable Energy Annual

and Annual Energy Outlook, 

Compass Power Systems Research.

Baselines: The baseline for non-hydro, nonpulp and paper renewable

electricity is 8.3 gigawatts (1997).

The baseline for distributed energy

resources is 14.7 gigawatts(1997).

Frequency: Annual.

Data Storage: The Energy Information

Administration and other data

sources stores the data on their

computers.

Verification: A trade association working group

reviews REPIS renewable and DER

data. The EIA uses and verifies the

REPIS database. 

Planned Program Evaluation:

As part of its response to the FY 1999 National

Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council peer

review of the Solar and Renewable Energy Program, 

the Office of Power Technology (OPT) has initiated

both an internal and an external R&D portfolio review. 

The internal review relies upon the extensive data

available as part of the new EERE Strategic

Management Systems. In addition, each technology

program holds program reviews with stakeholders on a

periodic basis. An internal program review for each

individual technology program within the EERE Office

of Power Technologies is conducted annually with the

Deputy Assistant Secretary. OPT has restructured its

collaborative analytic activities to include external

experts from academia, think tanks and industry. 

These experts are developing models to use as part of

the portfolio analysis.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 11

Projected Energy Savings from 

BTS Programs

(Quads)

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2010

FY2002 Funded Programs

Programs Completed in

FY2000 & Anticipated to

be Completed in FY2001

President’s Budget Program and

Financing (P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.($M) FY 2002

Request

($M) FY 2000 FY 2001

250 Energy Programs

Building Technology, State and

Community Programs--non-grant

BTS–non-grant EE 99 104 58*

Building Technology, State and

Community Programs--grant

BTS–grant EE 169 191 311

Total 268 295 369*

* This reflects the amended FY 2002 budget request.

Description of the Program:

In partnership with industry and government, the Office of Building Technology, State and Community Programs

(BTS) develops, promotes, and integrates energy technologies and practices to make buildings more efficient and

affordable and communities more livable. BTS implements the program activities that support the following general

performance goal.

General Performance Goal:

ER3-2 IMPROVING THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF BUILDINGS 

Develop products and strategies to increase the efficiency of new and existing residential and commercial buildings.

Towards this goal the program provides grants to States, District of Columbia, and the territories to conduct state and

local energy programs; and assists communities and businesses to incorporate high performance energy-efficient

technologies and practices. The tables that follow give the specific annual measures and targets for

FY 1999 - FY 2002. 

Performance Indicator: Energy Savings from

BTS Programs

The longer-term BTS goal is to reduce annual energy

consumption by 1 quadrillion btu by the year 2010,

relative to what would have otherwise been consumed. 

This goal is based on successful completion of a variety

of program strategies beginning in FY 2000. The

expected energy savings in 2002 from projects funded

in FY 2002 is 74 trillion btu which is the amount

required to power almost 415,000 households at 1997's

rate of usage. The Energy savings will occur in

residential buildings, commercial buildings and

equipment. 

GPRA Program Activity: Building Technology, State and Community Programs
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 12

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results

! Weatherize 67,845 homes, bringing the total number

of homes weatherized to 4.7 million. (ER3-3)2

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Work with the Federal Trade Commission to allow

manufacturers to add the ENERGY STAR logo to the

yellow and black FTC “Energy Guide” label for

covered products and recruit an additional 1,500

stores to market ENERGY STAR appliances

nationwide. (ER3-3)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Complete 100 homes that are over 50 percent more

efficient than typical homes through the Building

America program, bringing the total number of

homes completed to 700, add five new community

scale projects for building 1000 additional homes in

FY2000, and transfer research recommendations to

the Partnership for Advancing Technology in

Housing (PATH). (ER3-3) 

 (EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Weatherize 68,000 homes, bringing the total number

of homes weatherized to 4.8 million. (ER3-3)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Recruit 5 utility partners to promote ENERGY STAR

products; an additional 500 retail stores to promote

Energy Star products; and 40 window partners to

promote Energy Star Windows. (ER3-3)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! In partnership with Building America, develop more

than 2,000 highly energy-efficient, environmentally

sound, and cost-effective houses and disseminate

results to builders of 15,000 other houses through

Partnership for Advanced Technology in Housing

(PATH). (ER3-3)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Issue final rules regarding energy efficiency

standards for flourescent lamp ballasts and water

heaters and issue proposed rules regarding energy

efficiency standards for clothes washers and central

air conditioners. (ER3-3)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. ER3-3 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 13

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Weatherize 75,350 74,800 homes, bringing the total

number of homes weatherized to 4.8 million. (ER3-

2)

! Recruit 500 400 new ENERGY STAR partners,

bringing the total number of stores marketing

ENERGY STAR appliances up to 6,500. (ER3-2)

! With Building America Partners, complete 3,000

energy-efficient, environmentally-sound high

performance homes. (ER3-2)

! Publish Advance Notice Of Proposed Rulemaking

(ANOPR) concerning standards for commercial

HVAC and water heaters, and distribution

transformers. (ER3-2)

 

! Weatherize nearly 123,000 homes, bringing the total

number of homes weatherized to nearly 5 million. 

(ER3-2)

! Complete at least 850 highly resource-efficient,

cost-effective homes through the Building America

consortia, bringing the total number of homes built

through the program to more than 4,500. (ER3-2)

! Establish a High Performance Buildings Roadmap

implementation framework leading to the goal of

30% more energy efficient new commercial

construction compared to 1996 standard practice. 

(ER3-2)

! Publish proposed rules regarding energy

conservation standards for electric distribution

transformers, commercial air-source central air

conditioners and heat pumps, and packaged terminal

air conditioners and heat pumps, which promise high

levels of energy savings. (ER3-2)

Note: For the FY 2001 revised set of measures, one measure was deleted because it was an activity and a new one (in

shaded text) was added. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 14

Means and Strategies:

Savings in residential buildings will be realized through

research and development focusing on integrating design

and equipment; residential building codes;

weatherization assistance; contributions to the

Partnership for Advancing Technology in Housing

(PATH); and community energy programs. Savings in

commercial buildings will be realized through research

and development targeted towards design, operation, and

maintenance of energy-efficient commercial buildings;

commercial building codes; state energy grants; and all

community energy programs. Equipment savings will be

realized through research on building materials (e.g.,

roofs, walls, windows) and equipment, lighting,

appliances, the development and implementation of

appliance and equipment standards; and promotion of

Energy Star buildings.

Collaboration Activities:

BTS collaborates with the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) and Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD), buildings industries, state and local

governments and organizations and the National

Laboratories in efforts to promote the use of efficiency

technologies and practices, in part through the greater

involvement of the buildings community in research,

development and deployment activities.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Numerous external factors may impact achievement of

BTS’ goals, including changes in the state of the

economy, energy prices, consumer choice, regional

disparities, and overall structural change in the buildings

market. The energy savings goal assumes a robust

construction market to generate the demand for new,

energy efficient housing and commercial space, as well

as demand for remodeling and commercial retrofits to

replace aging and relatively inefficient equipment.

Characteristics of new construction that would tend to

increase energy consumption in residential buildings

would be larger homes, more construction in temperate

climates, and an increase in tele-commuting. Increased

electrification (more computers, printers, fax machines)

and shifts in the relative mix of commercial buildings

(e.g., hospitals versus office buildings) can contribute to a

rise in energy use and intensity in the commercial sector.

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

EIA Annual Energy Review (AER);

Commercial Building Energy

Consumption Survey (CBECS);

Residential Energy Consumption

Survey (RECS); and Annual Energy

Outlook (AEO). US DOC Current

Industrial Reports (CIR). Various

trade publications. Information

collected directly from BTS performer

or partner.

Baselines: Energy savings are based on market

penetration of technologies after the

year 2000. Savings are relative to

what energy consumption would have

been in the absence of this additional

market penetration.

Frequency: Complete revalidation of assumptions

and results can only take place every

3-4 years due to the reporting cycle of

two critical publications CBECS and

RECS. However, updates of most of

the baseline forecast and BTS

program outputs will be undertaken

annually.

Data

Storage:

EIA and DOC data sources are

publicly available. Trade publications

are available on a subscription basis. 

BTS program output information is

contained in various reports and

memoranda.

Verification: Calculations are based on assumptions

of future market status, equipment or

technology performance, and market

penetration rates. These assumptions

can be verified against actual

performance through technical

reports, market surveys, and product

shipments.

Planned Program Evaluation:

Each year, all programs will be evaluated as to

progress towards stated goals and objectives, in terms

of milestones accomplished. More in-depth

evaluations will be performed on selected programs on

a rotating basis. These analyses will gauge actual

performance of technology or practice in the field and

the extent of energy savings based on this performance

and rate of adoption.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 15

President’s Budget Program

and Financing (P&F) Accounts

and Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

250 Energy Programs

Federal Energy Management

Program

Federal Energy

Management 

EE 24 26 13

Renewable Energy Resources Departmental Energy

Management

EE - 2 1

Total 24 28 14

Description of the Program:

The mission of the Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) is to reduce the cost of Federal government by

advancing energy efficiency and water conservation, promoting the use of renewable energy and managing utility costs

in Federal Facilities and operations, including those of the Department of Energy. Through alternative financing

vehicles, technical assistance, and an outreach campaign, FEMP helps Federal customers address their energy

management needs. FEMP aids in the design and construction of energy efficient buildings, effective operation and

maintenance of existing facilities, major retrofits, purchase of energy efficient products, and utility and load

management. FEMP leverages both Federal and private resources to provide technical and financial assistance to

Federal agencies. 

General Performance Goals:

ER2-3 CONDUCTING R&D TO INCREASE THE USE OF RENEWABLE, DISTRIBUTED AND HYBRID

ENERGY SYSTEMS

Improve the performance and expand the use of non-hydroelectric renewable energy generating capacity in the United

States. Develop technologies to increase the amount of the Nation's distributed power (i.e., electric generating systems

connected to the distribution portion of the grid). 

ER3-2 IMPROVING THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF BUILDINGS 

Develop products and strategies to increase the efficiency of new and existing residential and commercial buildings. 

Performance Indicator: Energy Efficiency in Federal Buildings

Discussion: The Federal government has established the goal of increasing energy efficiency in Federal buildings by

20% by 2000, by 30% by 2005, and by 35% by 2010, relative to 1985. The Federal government has achieved its 2000

goal one year early by improving energy efficiency from 1985 to 1999 by 20.7 %. The goal for 2001 is to achieve a

22% improvement in energy efficiency relative to 1985. 

The Federal government also has goals for efficiency improvement in Federal industrial and laboratory facilities of

20% in 2005, and 25% by 2010 compared to 1990 levels. 

The Federal Government also has the goal of obtaining 2.5 percent of its facilities’ electricity needs from renewable

energy sources by 2005.

GPRA Program Activity: Energy Management
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 16

Building Energy Reduction Goals

85,000

90,000

95,000

100,000

105,000

110,000

115,000

120,000

125,000

130,000

135,000

140,000

145,000

85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 01 03 05 07 09

Fiscal Year

Btu/square foot

10% Goal - 1995 (NECPA)

20% Goal - 2000 (EPACT)

30% Goal - 2005

(EO 12902)

Actual Energy Use

20.7% Reduction, 1999 (preliminary data)

35% Goal - 2010

(EO 13123)

Executive Order 13123 established a goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions attributable to Federal buildings energy

use by 30% by 2010 from a 1990 baseline, through cost-effective energy efficiency improvement. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 17

Means and Strategies:

FEMP will achieve the above goals through three

strategies: Project Financing, which focuses on

developing, and helping agencies to implement

alternative methods of financing projects; Technical

Guidance and Assistance, which aims to transfer to

Federal agencies the knowledge and expertise required

to make sound efficiency and renewable energy

technology investment choices; and outreach and 

Interagency coordination which establishes and

promotes the existence of a Federal energy

management, policy and regulatory infrastructure

necessary for consistency.

Collaboration Activities:

FEMP collaborates with states, local governments,

utilities, energy service companies (ESCOs),

associations, and other private sector organizations. 

FEMP collaborates with other agencies on specific

efficiency and renewable energy projects as an integral

part of program delivery strategy. FEMP also

collaborates with EPA on energy efficient procurement

through coordination with the DOE-EPA Energy Star

program.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Reliance on private sector financing for Federal

efficiency exposes the program to risks inherent in the

market -- such as energy price volatility, utility

industry restructuring, and interest rate changes --

which potentially impact the cost and extent of

efficiency improvements and advanced technology

adoption. Environmental policies and regulatory

actions also influence energy management decision

making. The size and composition of the Federal

building stock is outside the control of the program;

inefficient growth can adversely affect goal

achievement and environmental performance.

Validation and Verification:

Data Sources: Annual reports from agencies on

energy use, cost, gross square footage,

and exempt facilities. Annual reports

are supplemented by FEMP’s tracking

& reporting. 

Baselines: Federal energy management goals are

measured from 1985 and 1990 levels. 

Goals are expressed in BTU per gross

square foot, and are not normalized for

other factors.

Frequency: Annual

Data Storage: FEMP maintains a database of reported

information. Agencies maintain their

own, more detailed data.

Verification: No third party verification. Reporting

anomalies are identified and resolved

during annual reporting cycle.

Planned Program Evaluation:

Although no formal program evaluations are planned,

FEMP has built in performance feedback into its

program execution. FEMP conducts customer surveys

for all program elements. Regular meetings are held

with agencies, utilities and ESCOs to receive feedback

and improve performance. FEMP conducts

operational planning activities and is identifying

process improvement opportunities to reduce costs,

improve timeliness of program delivery, and raise

customer satisfaction levels.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 18

This page is intentionally left blank.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 19

President’s Budget

Program and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M) FY 2000 FY 2001

250 Energy Programs

Industry Sector - EE 137 149 88

Description of the Program:

The mission of the Office of Industrial Technologies (OIT) is to improve the energy efficiency, environmental

performance, and productivity of energy-intensive industries by rapidly developing and delivering advanced science

and technology options which will: 1) lower raw material and depletable energy use per unit output; 2) improve labor

and capital productivity; and 3) reduce the generation of wastes and pollutants. OIT implements the program activities

that support the following general performance goals.

General Performance Goal:

ER3-3 IMPROVING EFFICIENCY OF ENERGY INTENSIVE INDUSTRIES

Develop technologies and methods that can significantly improve the efficiency of the Nation's energy intensive

industries and reduce environmental emissions. Specific measures and targets for FY 1999-FY 2002 are listed in the

table that follows.

Performance Indicators: 

! Number of Technologies Commercialized

! Industrial Energy Intensity

! Energy Savings from OIT activities

GPRA Program Activity: Industry Sector
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 20

Cumulative Energy Savings from

Technology Access and Deployment Programs

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

2400

2800

3200

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 (P) 2000 (P) 2002 (P)

Trillion Btu

Technology Deployment

IAC and Best Practices Programs

Cumulative Number of Technologies Commercialized

144

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001

Industrial Energy Intensity

(1990 = 1.00)

0.60

0.65

0.70

0.75

0.80

0.85

0.90

0.95

1.00

1.05

1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

Actual Energy Intensity

25% Goal in 2010

10% Reduction through 1997

Discussion: The Department’s longer-term goal is to

reduce industrial energy intensity (energy consumption

per dollar of output) to 25% below its 1990 level. By

1997 industrial energy intensity was 10% below 1990

levels, which is on track for the 14% target for 2001. 

Annual energy savings from OIT-developed

technologies is estimated to be 190 TBtu in 2002, for a

cumulative savings of 1600 TBtu. Annual energy

savings from the Industrial Assessment Center (IAC)

and best practices programs will be 10.3 TBtu in 2002,

for a cumulative savings for the overall program of

over $8 billion plus additional, more substantial (two

to four times) productivity benefits. Ten OIT

technologies will be commercialized in 2001, bringing

the total number of commercialized technologies to

144. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 21

The following facing pages show four years of performance measures for 

Industry Sector.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 22

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results 

! Complete roadmaps for six of the major energy

intensive industries to achieve each industry vision

and start implementing the resulting R&D to achieve

up to 25 percent reduction of energy consumption by

2010. (ER3-2)2

(MET GOAL)

! Continue support for Industrial Assessment Centers

operating at 30 participating universities that will

conduct approximately 750 combined energy, waste

and productivity assessments. (ER3-2)

(MET GOAL)

! Initiate 12 solicitations with industry in support of

the roadmaps developed in the Industries of the

Future program. (ER3-2)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Continue support for Industrial Assessment Centers

operating at 30 participating universities that will

conduct approximately 750 combined energy, waste,

and productivity assessments. (ER3-2)

(MET GOAL)

! Establish partnerships with 50 Industries of the

Future plants to provide integrated delivery of tools

and technical assistance to target motors, steam,

compressed air, and combined heat and power

system opportunities. (ER3-2)

(MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. ER3-2 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 23

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! One new solicitation will be issued in FY 2001

targeted to the Renewables Vision 2020 for

Agriculture in support of the goals of the President’s

Bio-based Products and Bio-energy initiative. 

(ER3-3)

! Continue support for Industrial Assessment Centers

operating at 30 26 participating universities that will

conduct approximately 750 650 combined 

energy waste and productivity assessments. (ER3-3) 

! Complete 15 Assessments on 5 case studies of major

industrial plants that will document for a variety of

system-focused implemented actions. These will

influence replication of similar energy savings for

other plants. (ER3-3) 

! Commercialize six new energy efficient technologies

in partnership with the most energy intensive

industries. (ER3-3)

! Complete 2 showcase demonstrations, at industry

sights, of advanced energy efficient technologies. 

(ER3-3)

! Continue support for Industrial Assessment Centers

operating at 26 participating universities that will

conduct approximately 320 combined energy, waste,

and productivity assessment days of service to

manufacturing clients. (ER3-3)

! Complete 6 plant site assessments to assist plant

operators in use of industrial process application

tools. These will influence replication of similar

energy savings for other plants. (ER3-3)

! Complete testing and evaluation of prototype boiler

and commercial process heater designs capable of

improved efficiency and producing than 5 ppm NOx

emissions. (ER3-3)

Note: One measure in FY 2001 related to Power Technologies is now presented in the Renewable and Distributed

Energy program activity on page 9. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 24

Means and Strategies:

The above goals will be achieved by developing

technologies with applications in specific industries

and across industries. Strategies for specific industries

include: In the agriculture industry, increasing the

percentage of basic chemical building blocks derived

from plant/crop-based renewables. Reducing unit

energy consumption for primary and secondary

aluminum production. Reducing energy consumption

per pound of chemicals produced. Moving the forest

products industry to being a net producer of electricity. 

Reducing energy requirements for glass melting.

Increasing yield, reducing scrap, and improving

melting efficiency in the metal casting industry. 

Reducing the amount of energy used to crush rock in

the mining industry. Improving the efficiency of 

petroleum refining. In the steel industry, improving

sensing and controls of the major energy intensive unit

processes, and reducing the use of virgin raw

materials. 

Strategies for developing technologies that cut across

industries include: Developing advanced industrial

materials such as intermetallic alloys. Increasing

ceramic application survival and material strength. 

Reducing boiler, burner and heater/furnace specific

fuel consumption. Commercializing sensors and

controls. 

Financial and technical assistance will also help

achieve the goals. Financial assistance through the

NICE3 and Inventions and Innovations programs will

increase the number of technologies in the

marketplace. Technical assistance and training will be

provided through the university based Industrial

Assessment Center program. Industry adoption of best

available technologies and services will be accelerated

through the best practices program. 

Collaboration Activities:

The Department collaborates on its RD&D with the

industries identified above and with universities. The

Department also collaborates with other government

agencies including the National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA), the National Science

Foundation (NSF), and the Departments of Defense

(DOD), Commerce (DOC), Agriculture (USDA), and

Interior (DOI).

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Performance will be affected by the state of the

economy. If the economy grows 50% slower than is

projected then energy intensity in 2010 is estimated to

be only 16% below 1990 levels. Performance will also

be affected by the varying growth across industries and

the value of each industry’s output.

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

Energy intensity is calculated from the

Energy Information Administration’s

(EIA’s) Manufacturing Energy

Consumption Survey and Department of

Commerce data. The number of

technologies and their energy savings is

ascertained through interviews with

technology developers and suppliers. 

Energy savings for the IAC and best

practices programs are estimated.

Baselines: Industrial energy intensity: 1990.

Energy savings and commercialized

technologies: 1976.

Frequency: Data for energy intensity is collected once

every 4 years. Annual estimates can be

made based upon data from Department

of Commerce annual surveys. Data on

energy savings and technologies

commercialized are collected annually.

Data

Storage:

Energy intensity information is contained

on EIA’s computers. Data on energy

savings and technologies commercialized

are stored in OIT’s Impacts Database.

Verification: EIA quality control and outside peer

review of the Manufacturing Energy

Consumption Survey. Data on energy

savings and technologies commercialized

are reviewed by industry representatives.

Planned Program Evaluation:

Annual program and portfolio reviews are conducted

by the individual programs. Vision and roadmaps in

three areas will be evaluated by the RAND

Corporation. The National Academy of Sciences will

be looking at mining opportunities for the future.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 25

President’s Budget Program

and Financing (P&F) Accounts

and Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activity

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M) FY 2000 FY 2001

250 Energy Programs 

270 Energy Supply

Transportation Sector Transportation

Sector

EE 229 255 198*

Renewable Energy Resources EE 38 47 44*

Total 267 302 242*

* This reflects the amended FY 2002 budget request.

Description of the Program:

The mission of the Transportation sector is to support the development and use of advanced transportation vehicles and

fuels which will reduce energy demand, particularly petroleum; reduce criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas emissions;

and enable the United States to sustain a strong competitive position in domestic and world markets. EE implements

the program activities that support the following general performance goals.

General Performance Goals:

ER1-3 ASSURING ADEQUATE LONG TERM SUPPLIES OF CLEAN LIQUID TRANSPORTATION

FUELS

Develop technologies to produce ultra-clean fuels from natural gas, oil, coal, biomass, and hydrogen from a variety of

sources, which can be used with minimal negative environmental consequences. Promote the use of alternative fuel

vehicles in selected markets and work with fuel providers and individual communities to help promote the development

of refueling infrastructure and provide incentives for the use of alternative fuel. Promote the use of non-petroleum and

renewable replacement fuels, such as ethanol, as blends in gasoline and diesel fuel. EE supports this goal in the area of

biofuels and alternative fuels development. Specific measures and targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table

that follows.

ER2-3 CONDUCTING R&D TO INCREASE THE USE OF DISTRIBUTED AND HYBRID ENERGY

SYSTEMS

Improve the performance and expand the use of non-hydroelectric renewable energy generating capacity in the United

States. Develop technologies to increase the amount of the Nation's distributed power (i.e., electric generating systems

connected to the distribution portion of the grid). Specific measures and targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the

table that follows.

ER3-1 DESIGNING AND DELIVERING THE VEHICLES OF THE FUTURE

Develop and deploy advanced vehicles, fuels, and systems that will significantly increase gas mileage and reduce

environmental emissions without compromising safety, comfort, and cost. Specific measures and targets for

FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows.

Performance Indicators:

• Vehicles on the Road with Light-Weight Materials

• New Light Vehicle MPG gains from DOE programs

• Domestic Cellulosic Ethanol Production

GPRA Program Activity: Transportation Sector
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 26

Vehic le s on the Road with Light- We ight 

Ma teria ls

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

6 0,0 0 0 Ve hic le s in 2 0 02

N ew Light Vehicle M P G Gains D ue to P ro grams

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

D omestic Cellulosic Ethano l P ro ductio n

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010

10 millio n gallo ns pro duced in 2002

Discussion: The Department’s goals for the

Transportation Sector are to reduce the growth of U.S.

oil use by 500,000 bpd by 2010, and by 1.5 million

bpd by 2020. Transportation Sector programs are

designed to increase the fuel efficiency of new light

vehicles by 4.2 mpg, to have 7 million vehicles on the

road with light weight materials, and to increase

cellulosic ethanol production to 2000 million gallons

per year. In 2002, 60,000 vehicles will contain light

weight materials, and 10 million gallons of cellulosic

ethanol will be produced. Fuel efficiency gains will

begin in 2002. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 27

The following facing pages show four years of performance measures for 

the Transportation Sector.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 28

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results 

! Support an industrial partner to complete site

preparation and begin construction of industryowned facility to demonstrate first-of-a-kind

cellulosic biomass to ethanol technology from

agricultural crop waste. (ER1-4)2

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Demonstrate conversion of agricultural wastes to

ethanol at a small commercial scale using a

genetically engineered fermentative microorganism.

(ER1-4)

(MET GOAL)

! Expand the Clean Cities program to create

continuous corridors of alternative transportation

fuel availability in and between 10 major urban

centers. (ER1-4) 

 (MET GOAL)

! Build a single cylinder proof-of-concept diesel

engine that delivers up to 55 percent efficiency. 

(ER1-4)

 (NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Launch two projects that will lead to 100 percent

penetration of alternative fuel vehicles in selected

niche applications such as a local taxi fleet or the

busses for a particular school. (ER1-4)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! By September 1999, in cooperation with industry and

other federal agencies, develop a direct injection

power system technical roadmap and a fuel cell

power system technical roadmap to integrate fuels

and lubricants research and development with

development of engine and emissions treatment

technologies. (ER3-1)

 (MET GOAL)

! Complete testing of baseline prototype, 50-volt high

power lithium-ion modules for use in hybrid vehicles.

(ER1-4)

(MET GOAL)

! Work with three domestic automakers to incorporate

the most promising Partnership for a New

Generation of Vehicles (PNGV) technologies in

concept vehicles with up to three times average fuel

economy of 1993 Taurus, Lumina and Concorde

models. (ER3-1)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 are listed here that provide context for measures for

FY 2001 or FY 2002. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. (ER1-4) for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 29

FY 2001 Target 1(Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Conduct competitive solicitation and select at least

one partner for demonstrating the conversion of

cellulosic feedstock at a corn ethanol plant. (ER1-3)

! Develop a prototype yeast capable of fermenting

multiple biomass-derived sugars to meet cost goals

for the ethanol/gasoline blend markets. (ER1-3)

! Support the annual acquisition on 12,000 alternative

fuel vehicles in the Federal Fleet. (ER1-3) 

! Complete initial testing of light trucks with prototype

diesel engines to demonstrate a 35% increase in fuel

efficiency and Tier 2 emissions when integrated into

a vehicle using low sulfur fuel. (ER3-1)

! Complete test and evaluation of a fuel-flexible 50

KW integrated fuelcell power system. (ER2-3) 

! Demonstrate and deliver an advanced 50kW fuel

processor for automotive fuel cell systems. (ER3-1)

! Complete testing of the 276 volt battery aimed at

demonstrating an integrated system having thermal

and electrical controls. (ER3-1)

! Complete development of second generation

Lithium-ion electrochemistry for hybrid power in

vehicles of the future.2 (ER3-1)

! Demonstrate optimized emission control system that

achieves 0.07 g/mile NOx and 0.01 g/mile PM shortterm performance over simulated drive cycle under

real engine operating conditions.2 (ER3-1)

Notes: 

1. For the FY 2001 revised set of measures, one measure was revised to reflect new priorities.

2. Measure is consistent with the FY 2002 amended budget request.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 30

Means and Strategies:

Fuel efficiency gains will be achieved through the

introduction of lightweight materials and more

efficient technologies. The use of lightweight

materials such as aluminum sheets and composites will

be made more economically attractive through DOE

research and development efforts that reduce their

costs. Vehicles with lightweight materials include

electric, hybrid, and fuel cell vehicles. The penetration

of these vehicles in the marketplace will be enhanced

by DOE R&D that: reduces high power battery costs

and battery calendar life for hybrid vehicles; decreases

battery cost and increases battery specific energy for

electric vehicles; and reduces the cost of fuel cell

systems. The production of cellulosic ethanol will be

enhanced by DOE R&D that increases cellulose

enzyme development and reduces the cost of producing

cellulosic ethanol.

Collaboration Activities:

The Office of Transportation Technologies collaborates

with the Big Three automakers, ethanol producers, and

universities in its R&D efforts. It also collaborates with

the Department of Commerce, Department of

Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency

and other federal agencies on the PNGV and other

programs.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Performance will be affected by the state of the

economy, willingness of automakers to incorporate

R&D advances into vehicles, and the continuation of

the ethanol tax credit.

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

Department of

Transportation/National Highway

Safety Administration,

Environmental Protection Agency,

laboratory tests.

Baselines: Fuel efficiency (mpg) gains are

measured from 2001.

Vehicles with lightweight materials

and ethanol production are

measured annually.

Frequency: Annual.

Data Storage: Office of Transportation

Technologies (OTT) Quality

Metrics report. Program analysis

methodology document is prepared

each year and put on the OTT

website for comment and review.

Verification: Review by Arthur D. Little. 

Presented to professionals for

comment.

Planned Program Evaluation:

The National Research Council reviews the PNGV

program each year and makes recommendations. 

Arthur D. Little reviews several programs each year.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 31

President’s Budget

Program and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

250 Energy Programs

Fossil Energy

Research and

Development

Oil Technology FE 56 57* 30

Gas Technology FE 25 39 21

Total 81 96 51

* Includes $12 million transferred from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve account.

Description of the Program:

The Department’s Domestic Oil and Gas Supply Program seeks to ensure the availability of competitively-priced oil

and natural gas supplies to support a strong U.S. economy, and to maximize the Public benefit of the Nation’s oil and

gas resources. The Program’s RD&D activities focus on enhancing the efficiency and environmental quality of

domestic oil and natural gas exploration, recovery, processing, transport, and storage operations. Funding is also

included for activities that foster development and deployment of technologies to enhance reliability and deliverability

of the Nation’s natural gas pipelines and gas storage facilities. FE activities under this program support the following

general performance goal that flows from the Department’s Strategic Plan.

General Performance Goals:

ER1-2 ENHANCING DOMESTIC OIL AND GAS SUPPLIES

Provide policy, legislative, regulatory, and technology options, as well as improved practices to enhance the availability

of domestic oil and natural gas supplies, while minimizing the environmental impacts of production. 

Performance Indicators: Performance indicators for this goal are in development. Specific output measures and

targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows. 

GPRA Program Activity: Domestic Oil and Gas Supply RD&D
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 32

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results

! Demonstrate four advanced production enhancement

technologies that could ultimately add 190 million

barrels of domestic reserves, including 30 million

barrels during FY 1999. (ER1-1) 2

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Complete an online environmental compliance

expert system, developed in cooperation with States,

that will improve oil and gas production economics

by giving producers on-line access to Federal and

State rules and regulations and allowing them to

conduct environmental permitting and reporting over

the Internet, reducing time and costs related to

environmental compliance. (ER1-1)

 (NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Complete demonstration and transfer of seven

advanced secondary and tertiary technologies,

adding 92 million barrels of reserves, increasing the

number of economic wells and reducing

abandonment rates. (ER1-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Complete field testing and monitoring of two

technologies for downhole separation for oil and

water, resulting in reduction in produced water and

potential increase in oil production per well. (ER1-

1)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Complete development of 1 Advanced Drilling,

Completion & Stimulation technology system that

could contribute to an additional 6 TCF of domestic

gas reserves by 2010. (ER2-2)

(MET GOAL)

! Demonstrate a cost effective horizontal well and

advanced exploration and stimulation technologies

in low permeability natural gas formations for

increasing recovery of the 5,000+ TCF of gas in

place in the Greater Green River and Wind River

Basins. (ER2-2)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Identify a site containing gas hydrates suitable for

testing the feasibility of methane recovery. (ER5-2)

(MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. ER1-1 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 33

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Complete demonstration of five advanced secondary

and tertiary technologies. Based on models it is

estimated these technologies will increase near-term

incremental production by 1.1 1.7 million barrels of

oil, and long-term incremental production by over 2

2.4 billion barrels of oil. (ER1-2)

! Demonstrate the field application of a shoulder

mounted, portable video methane leak detection

system that can be used to significantly reduce costs

of leak monitoring at refineries and other facilities

while reducing harmful air emissions. Annual

savings of $500,000 per year per refinery, on

average, would result from regulatory acceptance

and application of this technology. (ER1-2)

! Complete air tracer sampling using a small,

remotely controlled blimp to determine the actual

impact of oil and gas activities on regional pollution

problems in the San Joaquin Valley. (ER1-2)

! Demonstrate safe economic slimhole drilling

technology in actual use under Arctic

conditions. This technology can significantly reduce

cost and environmental impacts. (ER1-2)

! Develop and demonstrate two technologies to detect

and quantify areas of high fracture density in

currently uneconomic low permeability gas

reservoirs. This program has the near-term

commercial potential to double average per-well

productivity. (ER1-2)

! Demonstrate a light-weight composite drill pipe that

will lower overall exploration/production costs. 

(ER1-2)

! Complete laboratory testing and begin field

demonstrations of an improved remedial technology

for storage wells. This program seeks to reduce the

cost of deliverability enhancement by 10% per year

for the gas storage industry by 2007. (ER1-2)

! Quantify a hydrate deposit by correlating core

samples with geophysical and well log data. (ER1-2)

Note: For the FY 2001 revised set of measures, one measure related to demonstration of technologies was deleted

because it did not meet the criteria.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 34

Means and Strategies:

Benefits from demonstrated technologies will be

achieved by expediting technology transfer to

producers, particularly independents, by developing

and demonstrating advanced production technologies

and conducting pilot and field-scale demonstrations of

proven laboratory technologies, and by working with

and supporting industry associations, such as the

Petroleum Technology Transfer Council, to provide

focused technology workshops, information resource

centers, and computer-based information. 

Collaboration Activities:

Field demonstrations are conducted with collaboration

of industry, academia, and others and with input from

National Laboratories. Cost-shared projects improve

chances of success and have a direct technology

transfer component. DOE is collaborating with EPA

and their Common Sense Initiative in order to

demonstrate the environmental and economic

advantages of new leak detection technology. Such a

demonstration is needed to gain regulatory approval of

this advanced technology. 

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Program results may be affected by world oil prices,

corporate mergers and acquisitions, issues related to

access to public lands, and new and evolving

environmental legislation and regulations.

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

DOE fact sheets, project reports, and

published articles (i.e. technical

journals, trade press)

Baselines: Project reports. US Geological

Survey 1995 assessment of oil and

gas resources.

Frequency: Varies by project (quarterly, semiannual, annual)

Data

Storage:

Project contract files maintained at

the NETL

Verification: FE technical review of project reports

and peer review of published articles.

Planned Program Evaluation:

The program and projects contained herein will be

evaluated at periodic Contractor Review Workshops. 

National Research Council review of historic oil and

gas program costs and benefits is being conducted and

will be completed in FY 2001.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 35

President’s

Budget Program

and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

250 Energy Programs

Fossil Energy

Research and

Development

Coal and Power

Systems (C&PS)/ Central

Systems

FE 113 199 211

C&PS/Distributed

Generation Systems

FE 43 53 45

C&PS/Sequestration R&D FE 9 19 21

C&PS/Advanced

Research

FE 23 26 26

Clean Coal

Technology

Clean Coal Technology FE (146) 104 82

Use of PY Balances FE 0 (95) 0

Total 42 302 385

Description of the Program:

The power systems RD&D program addresses the energy and environmental demands of the post-2000 domestic

market, including increasing international pressure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and helps U.S. industry meet

the needs of a currently large and growing export market, while contributing to national energy security. Coal program

is focused on four goals. The first is to develop progressively higher efficiency and cleaner power generation systems

with 10-20% lower busbar electricity costs, which will ultimately evolve into a “Vision 21" fleet of new power and

energy plants with near zero levels of pollutants. The second is to develop super-clean emission control systems for

SO2, NOx, air toxics, and particulate matter that can be applied to existing plants. The third goal is to develop

economically competitive technologies for the production of alternative transportation fuels and chemicals. The fourth

goal is to evaluate economically viable approaches to carbon sequestration to address climate change concerns. Power

Systems includes Central Systems, Distributed Generation Systems, Sequestration R&D, and Advanced Research. FE

activities under this program support the following general performance goal that flows from the Department’s

Strategic Plan.

General Performance Goal:

ER2-2 DEVELOPING LARGE, HIGH EFFICIENCY, ADVANCED POWER SYSTEMS 

Enhance the economics and environmental performance of electricity generation by expanding the use of multi-product

facilities that can also produce heat, clean fuels, and/or chemical products. Pursue evolutionary improvements in

existing CO2 capture systems and explore revolutionary new greenhouse gas capture and sequestration concepts with a

view toward significant cost reductions. Develop advanced fossil- and nuclear-based power generation systems that can

meet future environmental goals at reasonable cost. 

Performance Indicators: Performance indicators for this goal are in development. Specific output measures and

targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows. 

GPRA Program Activity: High Efficiency, No/Low Emissions Power Systems RD&D
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 36

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results 

! Complete full-scale component testing of two

advanced, utility-scale turbines with over 60 percent

efficiency when used in combined cycles (new plants

are currently about 55 percent) and with ultra-low

NOx emissions. Initiate advanced gas turbine full

speed, no load testing with one gas turbine

manufacturer. (ER2-4) 2

(MET GOAL)

! Complete validation testing for critical components

of advanced utility-scale turbines with over 60

percent efficiency (combined cycles mode) and ultralow NOx emissions. (ER2-4)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Complete pilot studies on mercury emission controls

that augment existing pollution control technologies,

and are expected to reduce mercury emissions by

over 50 percent at less than half the cost originally

estimated in EPA's December 1997 report to

Congress on Mercury. (ER2-4)

(MET GOAL)

! Complete the first large scale (600MW) test of

selective non-catalytic reduction, which will allow

coal-fired power plants to satisfy ozone transport

(OTAG) requirements for reduction of emissions of

oxides of nitrogen and also reduce fine particulate

matter. (ER2-4)

(MET GOAL)

! Successfully operate 100 kWe solid oxide fuel cell

for 4000 hours. (ER2-4)

(MET GOAL)

! Begin testing of first market prototype solid oxide

fuel cell for distributed power applications. (ER2-4)

(MET GOAL)

! In support of Vision 21, complete testing of a 250kw

fuel cell/turbine hybrid and deliver a conceptual

design of a 1-MW fuel cell/turbine hybrid powerplant

to facilitate market entry. (ER2-4)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Initiate a coordinated Department wide 

collaborative research program to develop lowercost, environmentally acceptable technology

approaches to carbon capture and sequestration. 

(MET GOAL)

! Issue draft report which identifies key research needs

in several aspects of sequestration and select six

concepts to identify promising sequestration options.

(MET GOAL) (ER5-2)

! Commence 3-4 small scale carbon sequestration

development projects from those selected in the

FY 1998 Novel Concepts solicitation, and feasibility

studies for 1-2 sequestration projects selected under

FE’s August and September 1999 solicitations.

(ER5-2)

(MET GOAL)

! Complete commercial demonstration of one

integrated gasification combined cycle project

(Wabash) and continue operations of two other

gasification projects in order to establish the

engineering foundation leading to new generation of

60 percent efficient, ultraclean, coal powerplants. 

(ER2-4) 

(MET GOAL)

! Complete demonstration of the third integrated

gasification combined cycle project (Pinion Pine)

utilizing air-blown gasification and hot gas cleanup

for improved thermal efficiency, and continue

operations of one other project (Polk) in order to

establish the engineering foundation leading to new

generation of 60 percent efficient powerplants.

(NEARLY MET GOAL) (ER2-4)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or FY 2002 are

presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete description of the results

is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. ER1-1 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to the 1997

strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 37

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Deliver to EPA two years worth of high-quality

PM2.5 ambient monitoring data from the upper Ohio

River Project. (ER2-2)

! Issue request for proposals for the commercial scale

demonstration of technologies to assure the

reliability of the Nation’s energy supply from

existing and new electric generating facilities.

(ER2-2)

! Demonstrate hydrogen and CO2 separation from

syngas to meet the long-term goals of providing lowcost hydrogen for high-efficiency fuel cells and for

providing concentrated CO2 streams for

sequestration. (ER2-2)

! Complete Phase I report characterizing

concentration and composition for ambient PM2.5

emissions as input to the EPA PM2.5 National

Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) review.

This data will identify the impact of emission sources

on air quality. (ER2-2)

! Complete initial tests of the IGCC transport gasifier

to confirm the feasibility of the technology to

significantly improve reliability, cost effectiveness,

and efficiency for producing electricity and other

products. (ER2-2)

! Begin testing of a 300 kW-1MW solid oxide fuel

cell/turbine hybrid commercial prototype for

distributed power applications. (ER2-2)

! Begin construction of a 1MW Solid Oxide Fuel Cell

(SOFC) hybrid. (ER2-2)

! Complete demonstration of a commercial-scale,

250 kW Molten Carbonate Fuel Cell (MCFC) power

plant system. This test will verify the commercial

design for the MCFC technology for the combined

heat and power (CHP) or distributed generation

(DG) market and, if successful will justify the

construction of a MCFC manufacturing facility in

the U.S. (ER2-3)

! Restart and test the 220-kW hybrid solid oxide fuel

cell (SOFC)-microturbine powerplant at the National

Fuel Cell Research Center. If successful, this test

will verify the commercial design for this particular

SOFC technology for DG or CHP applications 

(ER2-3)

! For carbon sequestration, expand the number of

possible cost-effective, collaborative, multi-national

applied R&D options carried to “proof of concept”

stage. Complete multiple field experiments on

promising technologies. (ER2-2)

! Conduct integrated research and field

demonstrations of CO2 sequestration in deep,

unminable coal seams and depleted oil reservoirs

and develop sufficient data to determine reservoir

integrity and fate of injected CO2. (ER2-2)

! Complete design and continue construction of

Circulating Atmospheric Fluidized Bed

demonstration project at Jacksonville, FL. (ER2-2)

! Initiate construction of a fixed-bed slagging

gasification and fuel cell demonstration project

(Kentucky Pioneer Energy Project). (ER2-2)

! Complete construction and start operations of

Circulating Atmospheric Fluidized Bed

demonstration project at Jacksonville, Fl. (ER2-2)

Note: For the FY 2001 revised set of measures, six measures were deleted because they they were either activities or did not meet

the criteria and three new ones were added to reflect new priorities.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 38

Means and Strategies:

The program will continue to promote a strategy in

power systems R&D that incorporates a focused and

collaborative effort between government and industry

to achieve the environmental and economic goals of

the technologies. It will continue its dissemination of

information and data and build on governmentindustry partnerships to commercialize clean coal

technologies. For carbon sequestration, the program

will continue to work with domestic and international

partners to complete field experiments on promising

options.

Collaboration Activities:

FE will continue to collaborate with the Office of

Science, other parts of DOE, and other government

agencies, as appropriate, to meet the carbon

sequestration program goals. For all activities FE will

also work collaboratively with other government and

industry partners, and participate cooperatively with

other countries, for example, through the International

Energy Agency in the Greenhouse Gas (IEAGHG)

R&D Program and the Clean Coal Technology Center.

Significant cost-sharing opportunities are possible

through existing and new research agreements.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Program results may be affected by world prices for

competitive feedstocks and energy technologies, and

from new and evolving environmental regulations, or

any new legislation - in particular, related to CO2 and

air pollutants - that affect coal and gas use. Also,

industry restructuring/deregulation issues and

uncertainties will continue to challenge coal use. 

Program results may be particularly affected by both

evolutionary and revolutionary approaches to carbon

sequestration.

Validation and Verification:

Data Sources: DOE fact sheets, project reports,

and published articles (i.e.,

technical journals, trade press)

Baselines: Project reports

Frequency: Varies by project (monthly,

quarterly, semi-annual, annual)

Data Storage: Project contract files maintained

at the NETL Clean Coal

Compendium of Information

available at www.lanl.

gov/projects/cctc. Carbon

Sequestration Websites. 

Verification: FE technical review of project

reports and peer review of

published articles

Planned Program Evaluation:

The program and projects contained here will be

evaluated at the Annual Contractor’s Meeting.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 39

President’s Budget

Program and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

250 Energy Programs

Fossil Energy

Research and

Development

Coal-Derived

Fuels

FE 20 23 7

Gas-to-Liquids FE 6 6 0

Ultra-Clean Fuels FE 0 10 0

Total 26 39 7

Description of the Program:

Clean Fuels R&D seeks to develop fuels from a variety of sources that can be used with reduced environmental impact. 

This activity includes development of new ceramic membranes that would separate coal gas, biomass-derived gas, or

natural gas into constituents that could be chemically combined to new types of liquid fuels, and development of

premium solid carbon products from coal. FE activities under this program support the following general performance

goal that flows from the Department’s Strategic Plan. 

General Performance Goals:

ER1-3 ASSURING ADEQUATE LONG TERM SUPPLIES OF CLEAN LIQUID TRANSPORTATION

FUELS

Develop technologies to produce ultra-clean fuels from natural gas, oil, coal, biomass, and hydrogen from a variety of

sources, which can be used with minimal negative environmental consequences. Promote the use of alternative fuel

vehicles in selected markets and work with fuel providers and individual communities to help promote the development

of refueling infrastructure and provide incentives for the use of alternative fuel. Promote the use of non-petroleum and

renewable replacement fuels, such as ethanol, as blends in gasoline and diesel fuel.

Performance Indicators: Performance indicators for this goal are in development. Specific output measures and

targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows. 

GPRA Program Activity: Clean Fuels RD&D
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 40

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results

! Complete solicitation for, and selection of, candidate

industrial teams for the Early Entrance

Coproduction Plant (EECP) project in which

innovative alternative fuels will be coproduced along

with electricity and chemical products. (ER1-4) 2

(MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. ER1-4 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 41

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Complete negotiations with industrial teams selected

to implement the Early Entrance Coproduction Plant

(EECP) projects and initiate Phase I of the threephase activity. (ER1-3)

! Complete laboratory evaluation of initial set of 

hydrogen separation membranes. (ER1-3)

! Begin laboratory scale test operations of a novel

syngas ceramic membrane reactor to reduce gas-toliquid fuel conversion costs and initiate construction

of first stage scale-up of the reactor. (ER1-3)

! Complete laboratory scale test operations of novel

ITM-syngas ceramic membrane reactor to reduce

gas-to-liquid fuel conversion costs. (ER1-3)

Note: For the FY 2001 revised set of measures, one measure related to operation of the LaPorte Slurry Phase Reactor

was deleted and one related to hydrogen separation membranes was added.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 42

Means and Strategies:

The program to develop innovative processes, in

partnership with industry and other Government

organizations for the production of ultra-clean fuels

required by the transportation sector in the 21st Century

will be accelerated.

The R&D will continue to stress technologies that 

improve the environment. Specifically, this will be

achieved by reducing and/or eliminating: a) waste

products from coal, petroleum coke, and heavy oil

utilization and/or conversion processes and b) the

emissions of airborne toxic emissions by removing the

precursor elements before they enter the energy

utilization/conversion process and are subsequently

discharged. 

Collaboration Activities:

Criteria essential to setting performance goals and

programmatic content are being obtained through

informational exchanges and meetings with the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the

Department of Commerce, the Department of

Transportation, and the Department of Defense.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Actions taken by the EPA in implementing Tier II

Regulations and/or the transportation sector, in

conjunction with the associated schedule for their

implementation, as well as expected diesel low sulfur

fuel regulations will greatly influence the priority given

to these activities. Program results may be affected by

world prices for competitive feedstocks and energy

technologies. Finally, new and evolving

environmental regulations or any new legislation – in

particular, related to CO2 and air toxics – that affect

coal use, could have an impact.

Validation and Verification:

Data Sources: DOE fact sheets, project reports,

and published articles (i.e.,

technical journals, trade press)

Baselines: Project reports

Frequency: Varies by project (monthly,

quarterly, semi-annual, annual)

Data Storage: Project contract files maintained

at the NETL. Clean Coal

Compendium of Information

available at

www.lanl.gov/projects/cctc

Verification: FE technical review of project

reports and peer review of

published articles

Planned Program Evaluation:

The program and projects contained therein will be

evaluated at the Annual Contractor’s Meeting.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 43

President’s Budget

Program and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activity

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

250 Energy Programs

Fossil Energy

Research and

Development

Program Direction

and Management

Support

FE 75 80 70

Plant and Capital

Equipment

FE 3 4 2

Environmental

Restoration

FE 10 10 10

Cooperative Research

and Development

FE 7 8 0

Fuels Programs FE 2 2 1

Advanced

Metallurgical

Research

FE 5 5 5

Great Plains Project

Trust (Interest) 

FE (1) (1) (8)

Total 101 108 80

Description of the Program:

This GPRA Program Activity includes items that are in the overall FE R&D area but are not part of the main FE R&D

business lines. In particular:

C Program Direction and Management Support provides funding for salaries, benefits and overhead expenses for

management of the FE program at Headquarters, the Federal Energy Technology Center, and the National

Petroleum Technology Office. 

C Environmental Restoration funds activities to ensure protection of workers, the public, and the environment in

performing the FE mission at FE field facilities. 

C Cooperative R&D funds collaborative strategic research at two former FE facilities

C The Fuels Program includes management of the regulatory review of natural gas imports and exports, exports of

electricity, and the construction and operation of electricity lines that cross U.S. international borders

C Advanced Metallurgical Research carries out research concerning the extraction, processing, use and disposal of

mineral substances at the Albany Research Center in Oregon. 

These funds primarily support the salaries and benefits of the Federal staff that manage FE programs or are relatively

small, special activities in FE. Therefore, this group of budget lines does not have performance goals that meet the

criteria for inclusion in this plan. 

GPRA Program Activity: FE R&D Crosscutting and Special Activities
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 44

This page is intentionally left blank.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 45

President’s Budget

Program and

Financing (P&F)

Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

250 Energy Programs

Strategic Petroleum

Reserve (SPR)

SPR Facilities

Development – Crude

Oil Reserve

FE 158 157 161

 Northeast Home

Heating Oil Program

0 8 8

Use of SPR Petroleum

Account

0 (4) 0

Naval Petroleum and

Oil Shale Reserves

0 2 17

Elk Hills School Land

Fund

0 36 36

Transfer from SPR0 0 (12) 0

Total 158 187 222

Description of the Program:

Petroleum Reserves includes the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR), the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve, and the

Naval Petroleum and Oil Shale Reserves (NPOSR). The SPR ensures and maintains the readiness capability to

drawdown and distribute crude oil from the SPR inventory to commercial distribution systems in order to protect the

domestic U.S. economy from the impact of energy supply disruptions. SPR executes U.S. obligations to act

cooperatively with member nations of the International Energy Agency (IEA) to deter or respond to supply disruptions

which would adversely affect member nations. The NPOSR, following the February 1998 sale to the private sector of

Elk Hills, its primary asset, continues to manage, operate, maintain and produce three properties remaining under its

jurisdiction. The program is relatively small, and no performance goals are included in the Performance Plan. Also

included is the Elk Hills School Lands Fund, which was established to settle certain Elk Hills related land claims with

the State of California.

On July 10, 2000, President Clinton directed the Department of Energy to establish a heating oil component of the SPR

in the Northeast to help protect Americans from possible fuel shortages this winter. In the first quarter of FY 2001, the

Department completed its establishment of a two million barrel Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve involving

commercial exchange of crude oil from the SPR for both the heating oil and leased storage tank capacity located in the

Northeast. FE activities under this program support the following general performance goal that flows from the

Department’s Strategic Plan.

GPRA Program Activity: Petroleum Reserves
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 46

General Performance Goals:

ER1-1 MAINTAINING AN EFFECTIVE STRATEGIC PETROLEUM RESERVE

Maintain an effective Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR) to deter and respond to oil supply disruptions and cooperate

with the importing member nations of the International Energy Agency. Ensure achievement of a calculated site

availability of 95% or greater with drawdown capability of 4.2 million barrels per day for a sustained 90 day period

within 15 days notice by the President. Maintain the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve to respond to and mitigate

the regional effects of a severe short-term energy supply disruption in the Northeast. Ensure the capability to complete

drawdown within 12 days of a Presidential notice. 

Performance Indicators: Performance indicators for this goal are in development. Specific output measures and

targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 47

The following facing pages show four years of performance measures for 

the Petroleum Reserves.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 48

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results (Mid-Year)

! Initiate additional SPR infrastructure Life Extension

Program projects, thereby bringing program

implementation to approximately 96% of the $328

million program. Program completion in FY 2000

will increase sustained drawdown capability to 4.1

million barrels per day, compared to 3.7 in FY 1997. 

(ER1-2) 2

 (MET GOAL)

! Complete contracting for the transfer and/or

exchange of 28 million barrels of Federal Royalty

Oil from the Department of the Interior for a net

increase of approximately 23 million barrels in SPR

inventory, with deliveries of a remaining 4 million

barrels in FY 2001. (ER1-2)

(MET GOAL)

! Complete the Life Extension Program to ensure the

long-term reliability, effectiveness, and operational

readiness of SPR facilities and systems. (ER1-2)

(MET GOAL)

! Ensure the achievement of a calculated site

availability of 95% or greater with drawdown

capability of 4.1 million barrels per day for a

sustained 90 day period within 15 days notice by the

President. (ER1-2)

(MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. ER1-2 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 49

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Establish a Northeast Heating Oil Reserve of up to 2

million barrels. (ER1-1)

! Complete the transfer of Federal Royalty Oil to SPR

by November 2000 per the FY 1999 Agreement with

Interior Department. (ER1-1)

! Complete delivery of exchanged Federal Royalty Oil

to SPR that was transferred to DOE in FY1999-2001

per the FY 1999 Agreement with the Interior

Department. (ER1-1)

Note: For the FY 2001 revised set of measures, one new measure was added and one edited to reflect new priorities.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 50

Means and Strategies:

SPR will continue its mission to maintain the

operational readiness of SPR facilities to draw down oil

within 15 days of notice by the President at set

performance levels. Assurance of this readiness

posture will be accomplished through internal

readiness reviews, assessments, exercises and tests. 

Effectiveness of the SPR to mitigate the economic

damage of severe oil supply disruptions on the

economy will be influenced by the SPR’s size

(inventory and capacity) and ability to deliver into the

marketplace. The Department has attempted several

strategies over the years (direct purchase and storage

service agreements with public, private and foreign

entities) to acquire oil to complete SPR fill. A FY

1999 Departmental agreement with the Interior

Department provides for using Federal Royalty Oil to

help fill the SPR. It is anticipated that this will add

nearly 30 million barrels of crude through transfer

and/or exchange, completing in early FY 2002.

Continual monitoring of SPR’s crude inventory for

geothermal heating and gas intrusion has indicated the

necessity for initiating the investment in FY 2002 of

long-term vapor pressure control systems. SPR will

continue to manage the Northeast Home Heating

Reserve and assure readiness to complete drawdown of

the Reserve within 12 days of a Presidential decision.

Collaboration Activities:

DOE coordinates its activities for the SPR with the

White House National Economic Council and the

Departments of the Interior and Treasury as a member

of the Interagency Working Group on Oil and Gas.

Acquisition of oil through Federal royalty-in-kind oil

leases is being coordinated with Interior Department’s

Minerals Management Service. The Defense Contract

Management Administration (DCMA) conducts

quality and inventory control review for heating oil,

stored in DOE’s Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Performance can be affected by petroleum market

conditions and developments in the commercial

distribution system (i.e. pipelines, terminals). 

Continuing royalty-in-kind transfers during FY 2001

and beyond, in addition to those per the FY 1999

agreement, will be contingent on future successful

negotiations with Department of the Interior. 

Performance of the Home Heating Oil Reserve’s

distribution can be affected by pipeline and

transportation ability in the Northeast.

Validation and Verification:

Data Sources: Operations status reports, project

assessment reports, and project and

program reviews. Energy Information

Administration (EIA) oil industry

databases. DCMA reports on Heating

Oil Reserve inventory.

Baselines: Technical project baselines, Operational

Readiness performance criteria, SPR

annual Performance Plan, contractor

annual operating and work authorization

plans, budget baseline and Northeast

Home Heating Oil Reserve Plan.

Frequency: Daily operational status reports, monthly

project reviews and quarterly program

reviews. Annual and monthly EIA data

sources. Monthly DCMA inventory

reports.

Data Storage: Operations and facilities management

data is maintained at SPR field office. 

This includes project assessment and 

M&O contractor performance data. 

Program policy analysis and initiatives,

legislative guidance, and oil industry

research data is maintained at the

Headquarters SPR Program Office.

Verification: Combination of daily field and

Headquarters staff interaction, monthly

and quarterly reporting/reviews, and

online access to performance data

provides a continuous means throughout

the fiscal year to verify and validate

performance data. 

Planned Program Evaluation:

Monthly project reviews and quarterly program

reviews, conducted by Federal and contractor

personnel of the SPR, provide an important means for

evaluating progress against program plans like the

SPR Annual Performance Plan and scheduled project

management activity. Budget formulation/execution

assessments are regularly conducted throughout the

year, including annual budget validations. Other

evaluations include: semiannual M&O contractor

award fee performance assessments against Work

Authorization Directives; on-site reviews each year to

verify operational, maintenance and management

performance data; and, Drawdown Readiness quarterly

reviews.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 51

President’s Budget Program

and Financing (P&F) Accounts

and Program Activities

Program 

Sub-Activities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.($M) FY 2002

Request

FY 2000 FY 2001 ($M)

270 Energy Supply

University Reactor Fuel

Assistance and Support

- NE 12 12 12

Description of the Program:

To retain the capability in the U.S. to conduct research, address pressing environmental challenges, and preserve the

nuclear energy option, DOE must work with U.S. university nuclear engineering programs to maintain the education

and training infrastructure necessary to develop the next generation of nuclear scientists and engineers. The University

Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support program provides funding for U.S. university nuclear engineering programs and

university research reactors, which play a critical role in providing this education and training. While the number of

nuclear engineering programs and research reactors in the United States have declined precipitously since the mid1980s, the Nation’s need for nuclear engineers and nuclear trained personnel is on the rise due to the excellent job

market, the lack of large numbers of recent nuclear engineering graduates, and the increasing number of retirements in

the nuclear field. NE activities under this program support the following general performance goal that flows from the

Department’s Strategic Plan.

General Performance Goal:

ER2-8 PRESERVING THE NATION’S SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING EDUCATIONAL

INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ENERGY TECHNOLOGY

Support and promote the Nation’s university, college, and preparatory technology programs that deliver information

and contribute to learning in science and engineering education; enable advanced educational research opportunities;

build capabilities at educational institutions; and improve educational opportunities for diverse groups. 

Performance Indicators: Performance indicators for this goal are in development. Specific output measures and

targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows. 

GPRA Program Activity: Nuclear Energy Educational Infrastructure
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 52

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results

! Support U.S. universities’ nuclear energy research and

education capabilities by:

S Providing fresh fuel to all university reactors

requiring this service.

S Funding at least 20 universities with research

reactors for reactor upgrades and improvements.

S Partnering with 19 or more private companies to

fund DOE/Industry Matching Grants Program for

universities.

S Increasing the funding for Reactor Sharing by 40

percent over FY 1998, enabling each of the 26

schools involved in the program to improve the use

of their reactors for teaching, training, and

education within the surrounding community. 

(ST4-1)

 2

(MET GOAL)

! Support U.S. universities’ nuclear energy research and

education capabilities by: 

- Providing fresh fuel to all university reactors

requiring this service;

- Providing funding for reactor upgrades and

improvements at least 23 universities;

- Partnering with 17 or more private companies to

fund DOE/Industry Matching Grants Programs for

universities;

- Increasing the funding for Reactor Sharing by 20

percent over FY 1998, enabling each of the 29

schools eligible for the program to improve the use

of their reactors for teaching, training, and

education within the surrounding community. (SC4-

1)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Attract outstanding U.S. students to pursue nuclear

engineering degrees by:

S Increasing the number of fellowships from 14 to

22.

S Increasing the number of Nuclear Engineering

Education Grants from 19 to over 40.

S Providing summer on-the-job training to 29

junior and senior nuclear engineering

scholarship recipients. (ST4-1)

 (MET GOAL)

! Attract outstanding U.S. students to pursue nuclear

engineering degrees by:

S Providing 18-20 fellowships;

S Increasing the number of Nuclear Engineering

Education Grants to 45 existing and new grants;

S Providing scholarships and summer on-the-job

training to approximately 50 sophomore, junior

and senior nuclear engineering and science

scholarship recipients. (SC4-1)

(MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. ST4-1 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 53

FY 2001 Targets (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Targets

! Support U.S. universities’ nuclear energy research

and education capabilities by:

– Providing fresh fuel to all university reactors

requiring this service.

– Funding at least 23 universities with research

reactors for reactor upgrades and improvements.

– Partnering with private companies to fund 17 18

or more DOE/Industry Matching Grants Program

for universities.

– Continue to support Reactor Sharing enabling

each of the 29 schools eligible for the program to

improve the use of their reactors for teaching,

training, and education within the surrounding

community. (ER2-8)

! Support U.S. universities’ nuclear energy research

and education capabilities by: 

– Providing fresh fuel to university reactors.

– Funding approximately 23 universities with

research reactors for reactor upgrades and

improvements.

– Partnering with private companies to fund 18 or

more DOE/Industry Matching Grants for

universities.

– Providing funding for Reactor Sharing with the

goal of enabling each of the 29 schools eligible

for the program to improve the use of their

reactors for teaching, training, and education. 

(ER2-8)

! Attract outstanding U.S. students to pursue nuclear

engineering degrees by:

– Providing 22-24 24 fellowships.

– Increasing the number of Nuclear Engineering

Education Research Grants to approximately 45

50 existing and new grants.

– Providing scholarships to approximately 50

sophomore, junior and senior nuclear

engineering and science scholarship recipients

including the partnering of minority institutions

with nuclear engineering schools to allow these

students to achieve a degree in their chosen

course of study and nuclear engineering. 

(ER2-8)

! Attract outstanding U.S. students to pursue nuclear

engineering degrees by: 

– Providing 20 -24 graduate student fellowships.

– Supporting 50 university Nuclear Engineering

Education Research Grants to encourage creative

and innovative thinking at U.S. universities.

– Providing scholarships and summer on-the-job

training to approximately 50 sophomore, junior

and senior nuclear engineering and science

scholarship recipients. (ER2-8)

Note: For the FY 2001, strikeout and shaded text in the measures indicates revisions.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 54

Means and Strategies:

The University Reactor Fuel Assistance and Support

program supports the Nation’s science and engineering

infrastructure to help meet our future needs for nuclear

scientists and engineers in energy technology, medical

research, and national security. The program provides

fellowships, scholarships, and grants to students

enrolled in nuclear science and engineering programs

at U.S. universities; DOE/Industry matching grants

for participating U.S. universities; and other assistance

to students and U.S. universities in cooperation with

industry. The program also provides fuel assistance

and reactor upgrade funding for university-owned

research reactors.

Collaboration Activities:

The University program draws upon the experience of

university professors through its occasional meetings

with the University Working Group, which helps

coordinate DOE and University efforts to improve

nuclear engineering education in the U.S.

During the past year, several studies have been

completed in an attempt to ascertain the current status

and future outlook for nuclear engineering education in

the U.S. and recommend initiatives to strengthen this

vital sector of the university education curriculum. 

The Organization of Economic Cooperation and

Development/Nuclear Energy Agency conducted a

review of nuclear engineering education in its member

countries and the Nuclear Energy Department Heads

Organization surveyed U.S. industry and universities

concerning manpower requirements. The conclusion

of these two studies was that the enrollment trends of

the 1990's is not encouraging and more students need

to be educated in nuclear engineering to provide the

manpower required today and in the future. A third

study by an expert panel appointed by the independent

Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee

(NERAC) recommended major increases in funding to

maintain the nuclear engineering infrastructure in the

U.S. A three person panel of experts from NERAC is

collecting and assessing information on all university

reactors including their research and training

capabilities and operating costs. By April 2001, this

panel will report back to the Department so a strategy

can be formulated to support the maintenance of vital

university research reactor facilities in the U.S. 

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Industry participation in the DOE Matching Grants

program is essentially to trigger a DOE cost-share for

this activity which supports nuclear engineering

education at 21 U.S. universities.

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

Monthly progress and quarterly

technical reports; quarterly,

semiannual, and annual reviews.

Baselines: Technical baselines are specified in

project plans and contracts.

Frequency: Data is collected periodically–on a

monthly basis for some programs;

quarterly and semiannually for 

others.

Data

Storage:

The headquarters and field

organization managing the project

maintains the data on technical

progress.

Verification: Internal, independent technical

expert, or peer reviews of technical

reports and progress are conducted.

Planned Program Evaluation:

Progress against established plans is evaluated by

periodic internal and external reviews. These reviews

provide an opportunity to verify and validate the

performance data. Monthly, quarterly, semiannual and

annual reviews consistent with specific program

management plans are held to ensure technical

progress, cost and schedule adherence, and

responsiveness to user agencies’ requirements.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 55

President’s Budget Program and

Financing (P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program 

SubActivities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.($M) FY 2002

Request

FY 2000 FY 2001 ($M)

270 Energy Supply

Advanced Radioisotope Power

Systems

NE 29 32 29

Medical Isotopes NE 19 19 18

Total 48 51 47

Description of the Program:

The Nuclear Energy Science Activities program is focused on applying nuclear expertise to support the use and

development of medical isotopes and to support exploration of the planets. The Medical Isotopes Program serves the

national need for a reliable supply of isotope products, services, and related technology used in medicine, industry, and

research by producing and selling isotopes and supporting medical research and education. Medical, industrial, and

research isotopes made at DOE facilities are not produced elsewhere. Through the Advanced Nuclear Medicine

Initiative, the program gives medical isotope research and education grants that are not available from any other federal

source. These efforts support the growth of isotope applications. 

The Advanced Radioisotope Power Systems program supports the development, demonstration, fabrication, testing, and

delivery of power systems required by the United States to support space exploration and special national security

activities. Radioisotope power systems (RPS) are the enabling technology for space and national security applications

that require proven, reliable and maintenance-free power supplies capable of producing up to several kilowatts of power

and operating under severe environmental conditions such as space for many years. Over the past 40 years, 26 space

missions have used 44 of these power systems in a variety of applications, including earth orbit observations, lunar

surface exploration, scientific satellites flying close to the outer planets, and probes on the surface of Mars. Space

exploration will continue as a national priority and many of the future planned space missions cannot be accomplished

without these power systems. National security applications using these systems have also been under way for many

years and will continue in the future. NE activities under this program support the following general performance

goals that flow from the Department’s Strategic Plan.

General Performance Goals:

ER2-6 APPLYING DOE NUCLEAR EXPERTISE TO SUPPORT USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF MEDICAL

ISOTOPES

Conduct medical isotope-based research to broaden and improve the application, type, and effectiveness of new

treatments and diagnoses. Provide a reliable supply of quality isotopes to our customers. 

ER2-7 APPLYING DOE NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY EXPERTISE TO SUPPORT EXPLORATION OF THE

PLANETS

Develop nuclear energy conversion, power generation, and propulsion systems for deep-space missions and/or national

security applications. Provide compact, safe, nuclear power systems and related technologies. 

Performance Indicators: Performance indicators for these goals are in development. Specific output measures and

targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows. 

GPRA Program Activity: Nuclear Energy Science Activities
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 56

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results

! Supply quality stable and radioactive isotopes for

industrial, research, and medical applications that

continue to meet customer specifications and

maintain 95 percent on-time deliveries. (ST2-1) 2

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Initiate construction and commissioning of the Los

Alamos Isotope Production Facility to improve

isotope quality with greater operating efficiency.

(ST2-1)

 (MET GOAL)

! Complete equipment installation necessary for an

emergency backup supply of molybdenum-99, issue

a request for proposals to privatize molybdenum-99

production and business activities by May 1999,

and after evaluation, award a contract by

September 1999 to the most qualified firm. (ST2-1)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

[NOTE: Since the development of this goal, NASA has

changed its mission plans and priorities and has 

deferred the Pluto mission and has asked DOE to

develop and baseline a Stirling Radioisotope Power

System for the 2006 Europa Orbiter mission and

maintain the viability of using spare RTGs and

assembling a spare converter from the Cassini mission

as backups for the Europa Orbiter mission.]

! Supply quality stable and radioactive isotopes for

industrial, research, and medical applications that

continue to meet customer specifications and maintain

95 percent on-time deliveries. (SC2-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Complete at least 40 percent of the construction of the

Los Alamos Isotope Production Facility, which is

needed for the production of short-lived isotopes for

medical research. (SC2-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Invest in two new process development technologies

as requested by researchers that enhance isotope

production, services and delivery application systems.

(SC2-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Implement the Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative

by providing isotopes or financial assistance for at

least five researchers. (SC2-1)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Complete bench scale demonstration of the process to

recover Pu-238 scrap for reuse in power systems for

future missions using radioisotope power systems. 

(SC2-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Execute industrial contract and initiate associated

laboratory efforts to develop small Radioisotope

Thermoelectric Generators (RTGs) for anticipated use

on NASA’s Europa Orbiter and Pluto/Kuiper missions

planned for launch in 2003 and 2004. (SC2-1)

(MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. ST2-1 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 57

FY 2001 Targets (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Targets

! Supply quality stable and radioactive isotopes for

industrial, research, and medical applications

that continue to meet customer specifications no

less than 97 percent and maintain 95 percent ontime deliveries. (ER2-6)

! Complete 90 75 percent of the facility

construction and equipment installation for the

new 100 MeV Isotope Production Facility which

is needed to continue production of short-lived

radioisotopes essential for U.S. medical research. 

(ER2-6)

[Revised to reflect schedule adjustment to meet other

facility needs]

! Provide 5 grants under the Advanced Nuclear

Medicine Initiative. (ER2-6)

! Complete installation of the full scale Pu-238

scrap recovery line to process Pu-238 scrap that

will be required to provide radioisotope power

systems for planned NASA and national security

missions. (ER2-7)

[Revised to reflect delays due to fire and

contamination incident at Los Alamos in 2000]

! Competitively select system integration

contractor to develop a flight qualified Stirling

Radioisotope Power System for future space

exploration missions. (ER2-7)

! Complete initial assessment of special purpose

fission technologies that are focused on concepts

and technologies for space applications. (ER2-7)

! Supply quality stable and radioactive isotopes for

industrial, research, and medical applications that

continue to meet customer specifications no less than 97

percent and maintain 95 percent on-time deliveries. 

(ER2-6)

! Complete 80 percent of the construction of the Los

Alamos Isotope Production Facility, which is needed for

the production of short-lived isotopes for medical

research. (ER2-6)

! Complete research and curriculum development funded

by 14 three-year Advanced Nuclear Medicine Initiative

grants to universities, hospitals and research

institutions. (ER2-6)

! Bring the full-scale scrap recovery line to full operation

and begin processing Pu-238 scrap for reuse in ongoing

and future missions requiring use of radioisotope power

systems. (ER2-7)

! Develop preliminary design of Stirling Radioisotope

Power System suitable for space exploration missions. 

(ER2-7)

! Complete assessment of special purpose fission

technology options required to power advanced

spacecraft to the outer planets and on the surface of

Mars. (ER2-7)

Note: For the FY 2001, strikeout and shaded text in the measures indicates revisions. Two measures were deleted, one

because it did not meet the criteria and one because of change in NASA’s priorities, and two were added as a result of

NASA’s new priorities. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 58

Means and Strategies:

The Department will develop new or improved isotope

products and services that enable medical diagnoses

and therapy, and other applications that are in the

national interest, and encourage private sector

investment in new isotope production ventures and sell

or lease facilities and inventories for commercial

purposes. The Department will develop, demonstrate,

test, and deliver advanced radioisotope power systems

for space and national security missions.

Collaboration Activities:

A panel of recognized experts in the medical isotope

community, developed a report entitled, “Forecast

Future Demand for Medical Isotopes,” prepared for

and endorsed by the Nuclear Energy Research

Advisory Committee (NERAC), that encourages a

more extensive collaborative effort between the

Department and the National Institutes of Health in the

areas of basic medical isotope research. NERAC is

also developing recommendations for the Department’s

long-term isotope research and development plan. In

addition, the Medical Isotope Program has established

cooperative supply agreements with facilities in Russia

and South Africa, and the Medical Isotope Program

will seek additional cooperative supply agreements

with other isotope manufacturers to assure that the

U.S. has a reliable diverse supply of important medical

isotopes.

The Department coordinates with NASA and other

mission agencies in developing radioisotope power

systems and conducting technology assessments of

special purpose fission systems such as those used on

space exploration missions. Coordination is required

to ensure proposed systems and technologies satisfy the

necessary technical requirements for identified mission

scenarios. The Department also conducts small

collaborative efforts with other federal agencies on

technologies having potential benefit for future space

nuclear power system applications.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

The Medical Isotope Program is a user of facilities

operated by other DOE programs. Because of this

parasitic relationship, any unscheduled outage or

change in facility operating schedules negatively

affects the Medical Isotope Program’s construction

activities, isotope production, revenue and expenses,

and results in unfilled customer orders unless other

foreign producers can provide those isotopes. Also, the

market for medical isotopes drives prices, and as such,

directly impacts revenues.

Changing mission requirements from agencies who use

radioisotope power systems and risk associated with

technological developments could affect the

Department’s ability to deliver these systems in a

timely manner to user agencies.

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

Monthly and quarterly technical,

production and business reports;

quarterly, semiannual, and annual

reviews.

Baselines: Production and technical baselines

are specified in production output

and schedule, project/program

plans and contracts.

Frequency: Both financial and non-financial

data is collected periodically–on a

monthly basis for some activities;

quarterly and semiannually for

others.

Data Storage: The headquarters and field

organization managing the project

maintains the data on progress.

Isotope customer responses are

tracked.

Verification: Internal, independent audits and

technical expert, or peer reviews of

business, production, process

improvement, and technical reports

and progress are conducted.

Planned Program Evaluation:

The Medical Isotope Program staff holds an annual

financial and planning meeting, and two site-wide

program managers meetings at various site visits

throughout the year. Conferences such as the Society

of Nuclear Medicine Conference are also attended. At

these conferences, workshops are conducted to meet

with stakeholders and customers that further assists

with gaining knowledge of the needs of the program.

Progress against established plans is evaluated by

periodic internal and external reviews. These reviews

provide an opportunity to verify and validate the

performance data. Monthly, quarterly, semiannual and

annual reviews consistent with specific program
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 59

management plans are held to ensure technical

progress, cost and schedule adherence, and

responsiveness to user agencies’ requirements.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 60

This page is intentionally left blank.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 61

President’s Budget Program and

Financing (P&F) Accounts and Program

Activities

Program 

SubActivities

DOE

Office

Comparable

Approp.($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

270 Energy Supply

Research and Development NE 35 47 27

Advanced Accelerator Applications NE - 34 -

Total 35 81 27

Description of the Program:

The mission of the Nuclear Energy Research and Development program is to continue to expand the benefits of nuclear science

and technology to our Nation by investing in innovative research, in our Nation’s R&D infrastructure, and in our universities

that train the scientists and engineers of the future. Our Nation’s investments in Nuclear Energy R&D are made in response to

the benefits that are now routinely expected and in anticipation of those new benefits that are likely to accrue. Twenty percent

of our Nation’s electricity is produced today using emission-free nuclear power plants. Government, industry, and academia

alike face similar challenges in sustaining the critical nuclear science and technology infrastructures – our research facilities and

human resources – that are required to maintain and expand upon our past success. NE activities under this program support

the following general performance goals that flow from the Department’s Strategic Plan.

General Performance Goals:

ER2-2 DEVELOPING LARGE, HIGH EFFICIENCY, ADVANCED POWER SYSTEMS

Enhance the economics and environmental performance of electricity generation by expanding the use of multi-product facilities

that can also produce heat, clean fuels, and/or chemical products. Develop advanced fossil- and nuclear-based power generation

systems that can meet future environmental goals at reasonable cost. Towards this goal NE will identify innovative nuclear

energy research concepts developed under NERI for further development, and continue the bilateral research programs with

other countries. 

ER2-4 SUPPORTING RESEARCH TO IMPROVE EXISTING POWER PLANTS

Develop technology to improve the performance of older fossil and nuclear power plants, permitting continued operation in an

increasingly competitive and environmentally-constrained industry. As part of this goal, NE will continue ongoing R&D and

initiate new R&D associated with managing the long-term effects of plant aging and improving the reliability and productivity

of existing nuclear power plants. 

ER2-8 PRESERVING THE NATION’S SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING EDUCATIONAL

INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ENERGY TECHNOLOGY

Support and promote the Nation’s university, college, and preparatory technology programs that deliver information

and contribute to learning in science and engineering education; enable advanced educational research opportunities;

build capabilities at educational institutions; and improve educational opportunities for diverse groups. 

Performance Indicators: Performance indicators for these goals are in development. Specific output measures and

targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows. 

GPRA Program Activity: Nuclear Energy R&D
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 62

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results

! Establish a peer-reviewed Nuclear Energy Research

Initiative, initially funded at $19 million, to select and

conduct investigator-initiated innovative scientific

and engineering research that will address the issues

facing the future of nuclear power in the U.S.,

including proliferation concerns, economics, and the

management of nuclear waste. (ER2-8) 2

(MET GOAL)

! Complete Memoranda of Understanding with the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Electric

Power Research Institute (EPRI) to guide future

implementation of the Joint DOE-EPRI Strategic

Research and Development Plan to Optimize U.S.

Nuclear Power Plants. (ER2-7)

(MET GOAL)

! Continue Nuclear Energy Research Initiative

(NERI) research to improve the understanding of

new reactor and fuel cycle concepts, and nuclear

waste management technologies and begin to

develop a preliminary feasibility assessment of the

concepts and technologies. (ER2-8)

(MET GOAL)

! Advance the state of scientific knowledge and

technology to enable incorporation of improved

proliferation resistance, safety and economics in

the potential future design, and development of

advanced reactor and nuclear fuel systems.

(ER2-8)

(MET GOAL)

! Issue the first update to the Joint DOE/EPRI

Strategic Research and Development Plan to

Optimize U.S. Nuclear Power Plants. (ER2-7)

(MET GOAL)

! Implement a cooperative cost-shared R&D program

by working with industry, universities, national

laboratories, and the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, to address technical issues that could

impact continued operation of current nuclear

power plants. (ER2-7)

(MET GOAL)

! Establish a science and engineering based research

program into ATW technology development. 

Commence systems studies to establish and

evaluate technology options and narrow choices. 

Issue a Program Plan for the conduct and

management of the ATW research program.

[Added Measure] (EQ2-4)

(MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. ER2-8 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 63

FY 2001 Targets (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Targets

! Complete funding for the first 3-year phase of Nuclear

Energy Research Initiative (NERI) research and

development and select feasible and important reactor

and fuel cycle concepts for continued development,

and issue approximately 15 new awards. (ER2-2)

! Establish Initiate the International Clean Energy

Initiative/International Nuclear Energy Research

Initiative (I-NERI) to promote bilateral research

programs with other countries to improve the cost,

and enhance the safety, non-proliferation and waste

management of future nuclear energy systems. 

(ER2-2)

! Formally establish the Generation IV International

Forum to assist in identifying and conducting

cooperative R&D. Initiate development of a

Generation IV Technology Roadmap for development

of next generation nuclear energy systems. (ER2-2)

! Establish new international agreement on advanced

accelerator applications programs with at least one

country that significantly leverages financial and

technical resources to the mutual benefit of both

countries particularly in areas such as safety, fuels

and materials development, and facility operations. 2

! Establish a new Advanced Accelerator Applications

university fellowship program and fund 10 new

graduate students in engineering and science. 2

! Complete the first 3-year phase of NERI research

and development. (ER2-2)

! Complete the Near Term Deployment section of the

Generation IV Technology Roadmap, and complete

the draft Generation IV Technology Roadmap for

development of next generation nuclear energy

systems. The Roadmap is to be submitted to

Congress by March 2003. (ER2-2)

Notes:

1. For the FY 2001, strikeout and shaded text in the measures indicates revisions. Two measures were deleted because

they were either activities or did not meet the criteria, one was updated and two new ones added to reflect new

direction.

2. These measures support an appropriation for FY 2001. The Department is not requesting any additional funding for

FY 2002. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 64

Means and Strategies:

The NEPO program supports a key national objective

by conducting the R&D necessary to ensure that most

of the current fleet of 103 operating commercial

nuclear reactors are available beyond their initial 40

year license period by resolving open issues related to

plant aging, and by applying new technologies to

improve plant availability, and productivity. The

program was recommended by the President’s

Committee of Advisors on Science and Technology

(PCAST) Panel on Federal Energy Research and

Development in its November 1997 report. The utility

industry provides cost-sharing of at least 50 percent. 

The NEPO program is guided by an industrygovernment committee - the Coordinating Committee

for the Joint DOE-Electric Power Research Institute

(EPRI) Strategic Research and Development Plan to

Optimize U.S. Nuclear Power Plants (hereafter referred

to as the Coordinating Committee). Oversight is

provided by the NERAC Subcommittee on Operating

Nuclear Power Plant Research, Coordination, and

Planning. The projects for the NEPO program are

conducted at industrial companies, national

laboratories, and universities. The focus of the issue

specific R&D is on developing technologies to increase

the number of years of operation, number of operating

hours per year, and electrical output per hour of

operation for existing nuclear power plants.

The NERI program has been the cornerstone for

renewed interest in nuclear science and technology

development in this country since its introduction in

FY 1999. In FY 2002, the Department will continue to

conduct investigator-initiated, peer-reviewed research

and development at universities, industrial companies,

and national laboratories to address the principal

obstacles to the expanded use of nuclear energy (i.e.,

cost, safety, waste, and non-proliferation), advance the

state of nuclear technology for a competitive

marketplace, and help maintain a nuclear science and

technology infrastructure to meet future challenges. 

NERI has helped return the United States to a key

leadership role in the international exploration of

nuclear technology, prompting the interest and support

of many other nations and leading to expanded

research and development collaboration.

During FY 2002, a process will also be developed to

identify those NERI projects that have successfully

completed the first three-year phase of research and

warrant additional research investment. The

Department will continue the bilateral cost-shared

research in cooperation with other nations initiated in

FY 2001. These cooperative projects are focused on

scientific research and advanced technology

development to improve the cost and enhance the

safety, proliferation resistance and waste management

of advanced nuclear energy systems. Advice on the

conduct of the NERI research and development

program is provided by the NERAC Subcommittee on

Long Range Planning for Nuclear Energy Research.

The goal of the Generation IV Nuclear Power Initiative

is to make, no later than 2030, nuclear energy the most

sustainable, cost-competitive, reliable, and secure

means of generating electricity that advanced nuclear

technology and prior experience can produce. The

goals defined for this program focus not only on the

traditional goals of safety and cost-competitiveness, but

of equal importance, on the fuel cycle and overall

systems aspects that make nuclear energy sustainable in

terms of the consumption of fuel and structural

materials, and its ultimate radioactive waste products. 

The Generation IV Technology Roadmap initiated in

FY 2001 and planned for completion in March 2003

will provide a comprehensive R&D plan to close

existing technology gaps and permit the design and

construction of Generation IV systems. The Roadmap

will include a Near Term Deployment section that will

identify the technological and institutional gaps that

must be closed to enable one or more orders for

commercial nuclear power plants in the United States

by 2005 for deployment by 2010. 

The Department initiated efforts in FY 2001 to assess

improvements needed to Advanced Light Water

Reactor (ALWR) technology to improve economic

competitiveness; assess the feasibility of deploying

small reactors in remote regions; and initiate planning

and implementing activities for commercial

applications of the gas reactor technology being

developed for nuclear weapons material disposition. 

For FY 2001 Congress combined the Accelerator

Production of Tritium (APT) program and the

Accelerator Transmutation of Waste (ATW) program

into a new program program titled the Advanced

Accelerator Applications (AAA). While Congress did

not dictate the specifics of the program , the Congress

required a plan for the development of AAA. The

Department prepared the plan and has submitted it to

Congress.

Collaboration Activities:

The NERI program encourages research and

development collaboration among scientific and
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 65

engineering researchers at universities, national

laboratories and industry to maximize the use of

available talent. In addition, the NERI program

endorses foreign participation by international nuclear

energy research organizations with U. S. participants

to help maintain the nuclear option worldwide and to

leverage research funds.

The Department and the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) coordinate program planning to

assure that their research and development activities

are complimentary, cost-effective, and without

duplication. The Nuclear Energy Research Advisory

Committee (NERAC) provides advice on the conduct

of the Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) and

Nuclear Energy Research Initiative (NERI) research

and development programs, and the Generation IV

Technology Roadmap development.

NEPO is conducted with a minimum 50 percent

cost-share provided by industry consistent with the

“Joint DOE-Electric Power Research Institute Strategic

Research and Development Plan to Optimize U.S.

Nuclear Power Plants”. The projects for NEPO are

conducted at national laboratories, industrial

organizations, and universities.

The Department sponsors innovative research and

development in cooperation with other countries

through the International Nuclear Energy Research

Initiative (I-NERI), focused on advanced technologies

to improve the cost and enhance the safety,

proliferation resistance and waste management of

nuclear energy systems. This research will be

conducted on at least a 50-50 cost-shared basis with

international partners.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

The I-NERI and the Generation IV Nuclear Power

Initiative, including development of the Generation IV

Technology Roadmap, are receiving broad

international cooperation and support, consistent with

the objectives of the programs. On the NEPO

program, as legislatively required, the utility industry,

at a minimum, is matching government funding for the

research and development activities. National energy

policy influences all of the research and development

programs covered in this performance plan.

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

Monthly and quarterly progress

reports, periodic technical reports;

quarterly, semiannual, and annual

reviews.

Baselines: Technical baselines are specified in

project plans and contracts.

Frequency: Data is collected periodically–on a

monthly basis for some programs;

quarterly and semiannually for 

others.

Data Storage: The headquarters and field

organization managing the project

maintain the data on technical

progress.

Verification: Internal, independent technical

expert, or peer reviews of technical

reports and progress are conducted.

Planned Program Evaluation:

Progress against established plans is evaluated by

periodic NE and external reviews. These reviews

provide an opportunity to verify and validate the

performance data. Monthly, quarterly, semiannual and

annual reviews consistent with specific program

management plans are held to ensure technical

progress, cost and schedule adherence, and

responsiveness to user agencies’ requirements. 

NERAC, the NERAC Subcommittee on Operating

Plants, the EPRI Nuclear Power Council, and the

Coordinating Committee assess and evaluate the

NEPO program. Recommendations resulting from

these reviews guide the implementation of the NEPO

program.

NERI, is evaluated by the NERAC Subcommittee for

Long Term R&D. NERI projects require quarterly and

annual progress reports from the principal

investigators, which are reviewed for research progress

against stated goals and milestones. In addition,

periodic project evaluations are conducted in which

principal investigators present to NE the results of

research progress to date, discuss issues encountered

and planned activities. I-NERI is in the program

development stage but will include progress

evaluations similar to NERI and oversight provided by

a bilateral
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 66

committee of NE and members from the participating

countries.

The Generation IV Technology Roadmap project plan

provides for a number of intermediate deliverables

culminating in a complete roadmap by March 2003. 

NE as well as NERAC and the NERAC Subcommittee

on Generation IV Technology Planning, will

periodically review the products and progress of the

Roadmap effort.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 67

President’s Budget Program

and Financing (P&F) Accounts

and Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activity

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.($M) FY 2002

Request

FY 2000 FY 2001 ($M)

270 Energy Supply

Nuclear Facilities Management NE 42 35 31

Infrastructure Maintenance NE 68 78 81

Total 110 113 112

Description of the Program:

Nuclear Energy Facilities and Infrastructure activities are focused on management of the Department’s vital resources

and capabilities at NE-managed sites to assure that the Department can meet its vital mission requirements; and NE

sites are maintained in a safe, secure, environmentally-compliant and cost-effective manner to ensure the protection of

the workers, the public, and the environment. Activities also include carrying out the long-term treatment and

management of DOE’s sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel; further developing electrometallurgical treatment

technology; placing unneeded facilities in industrially safe, stable and environmentally-compliant conditions for lowcost, long-term surveillance and maintenance; and managing and disposing of DOE material legacies associated with

the Department’s nuclear energy activities. NE activities under this program support the following general

performance goal that flows from the Department’s Strategic Plan.

General Performance Goal:

EQ3-2 MANAGING LEGACIES ASSOCIATED WITH CIVILIAN NUCLEAR POWER DEVELOPMENT

ACTIVITIES

Maintain in a safe and stable configuration nuclear energy research facilities that are presently in either shutdown or

standby condition. Continue to develop technologies for electrometallurgical treatment that could resolve problems

with DOE’s spent nuclear fuel. As part of this goal, NE will maintain the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) in a safe,

environmentally-compliant condition while conducting shutdown activities. 

Performance Indicators: Performance indicators for this goal are in development. Specific output measures and

targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows. 

GPRA Program Activity: Nuclear Energy Facilities and Infrastructure 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 68

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results

! Complete the demonstration of the

electrometallurgical spent fuel treatment

technology by the end of FY 1999 using

Experimental Breeder Reactor-II spent nuclear

fuel. (EQ6-2 )

 2

(MET GOAL)

! Complete the conversion and disposition of 100

percent of the secondary sodium coolant from the

Experimental Breeder Reactor-II and 40 percent of

the Fermi reactor sodium coolant in storage at

Argonne National Laboratory-West. (EQ6-2)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Maintain the Fast Flux Test Facility in a safe,

environmentally-compliant standby condition to

permit implementation of an anticipated Secretarial

decision in FY 1999 to deactivate or pursue

potential restart to support a range of national

research requirements. (EQ6-2)

(MET GOAL)

! Complete the conversion and disposition of 100

percent of the secondary sodium coolant from the

Experimental Breeder Reactor-II (EBR-II) and 40

percent of the Fermi reactor sodium coolant in

storage at Argonne National Laboratory-West. (EQ2-

4)

(MET GOAL)

! Initiate draining sodium from EBR-II primary system

and processing it for disposal. (EQ2-4)

(MET GOAL)

! Depending upon the conclusion of the NEPA analysis

currently underway, complete Fuel Conditioning

Facility maintenance and resume sodium-bonded fuel

treatment activities. (EQ2-4)

(MET GOAL)

! Maintain the Fast Flux Test Facility in a safe,

environmentally-compliant standby condition while

implementing a Secretarial decision to conduct a

National Environmental Policy Act review of the

environmental impacts of enhancing the Department’s

nuclear research facility infrastructure. (EQ2-4)

(MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. EQ6-2 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 69

FY 2001 Targets (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Targets

! Complete the conversion and disposition of 100

percent of the Fermi reactor sodium coolant in

storage at Argonne National Laboratory-West. 

(EQ3-2)

! Complete draining the Experimental Breeder

Reactor II (EBR-II) primary system and process 100

percent of all EBR-II sodium in compliance with the

INEEL Site Treatment Plan. (EQ3-2)

! Treat a minimum of 0.6 0.5 MTHM (metric tons of

heavy metals) of EBR-II spent nuclear fuel. (EQ3-

2)

[Revised based on the Record of Decision, September

2000]

! Complete the National Environmental Policy Act

review of the environmental impacts of enhancing

the Department’s nuclear research facility

infrastructure and issue a Record of Decision. 

(EQ3-2)

! Following completion of primary sodium drain,

complete deactivation of Experimental Breeder

Reactor II (EBR-II) and all directly related surplus

facilities by March 2002. (EQ3-2)

! Treat a minimum of 0.5 MTHM (metric tons of heavy

metals) of EBR-II spent nuclear fuel. (EQ3-2)

! Complete upgrades on the Fast Flux Test Facility

(FFTF) Sodium Removal System. (EQ3-2)

! Meet the milestones for legacy waste cleanup at Test

Reactor Area (TRA) in the Voluntary Consent Order

between the State of Idaho and DOE and efficiently

manage resources to limit growth in backlog of

maintenance to no more than 10 percent. (EQ3-2)

! Complete the conceptual design and National

Environmental Policy Act determination for the

Remote Treatment Facility to dispose of highly

radioactive waste at Argonne National LaboratoryWest. (EQ3-2)

Note: For the FY 2001, strikeout and shaded text in the measures indicates revisions. One measure related to FFTF

was deleted based on the Record of Decision in January 2001.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 70

Means and Strategies:

The Department will resolve spent nuclear fuel

disposition problems and address other critical DOE

missions supporting the goal of managing the legacies

associated with civilian nuclear power development

activities. Under this approach, the Department will

complete deactivation of the Experimental Breeder

Reactor-II and apply electrometallurgical treatment in

accordance with the National Environmental Policy

Act reviews and Record of Decision to the disposition

of DOE sodium-bonded spent nuclear fuel. The

Department will also continue the permanent

deactivation of the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF) to

help meet its obligations under a tri-party agreement

with the State of Washington Department of Ecology

and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA -

Region III). Finally, the Department will responsibly

manage and disposition legacy materials generated

from past DOE nuclear energy activities.

The Department will also ensure that essential systems,

resources, and support services are available to conduct

priority missions for the Department and are

maintained and operated in compliance with DOE,

Federal and State safety and environmental

requirements and in a secure and cost-effective

manner.

Collaboration Activities:

None

External Factors Affecting Performance:

If sufficient progress is not demonstrated toward

meeting both near-term and long-term environmental

commitments for the treatment and disposal of highly

radioactive waste and Experimental Breeder Reactor-II

(EBR-II) spent nuclear fuel stored at the Argonne

National Laboratory-West (ANL-W) site, the

Department’s ability to conduct and complete

programmatic activities such as the above and the

EBR-II Shutdown project could be severely restricted

by the State of Idaho. A 1995 Settlement Agreement

and Consent Order signed by the DOE and the State of

Idaho and the Idaho National Engineering and

Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) Site Treatment

Plan Consent Order contain DOE waste and

environmental commitments that are enforceable by

the State of Idaho. Additionally, Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act and other State of

Idaho permits that are requisite for ANL-W site

operations are contingent upon acceptable progress by

DOE in meeting the above commitments, and can be

withdrawn or not renewed by the State, if performance

is unsatisfactory.

External factors for performance of the FFTF

deactivation fall in two inter-related areas: availability

of skilled staff; and ability to meet obligations under

the Tri-Party Agreement on the Hanford Clean-up with

the State of Washington Department of Ecology and

the U.S. EPA.

Over 120 skilled technicians and operators must be

added to the current FFTF staff over several years to

efficiently deactivate FFTF and meet approved

milestones. Certain skills, such as hot cell operator,

are in short supply. Should there be greater than

expected difficulty in hiring in such a skill area, then

deactivation milestones could potentially be impacted. 

Measures will be taken to tap all reasonably available

skill resources, including other laboratories such as

ANL-W, and it is expected personnel needs will be met

for the FFTF deactivation.

The Tri-Party Agreement (TPA) with Washington and

the EPA for the Hanford Site clean-up includes legally

binding FFTF deactivation milestones, which, if not

met would result in Notices of Violation and fines. 

Addressing these would absorb some of the resources

otherwise going toward deactivation activities. TPA

FFTF deactivation milestones are external factors since

they are independent of funding actually appropriated

for the current fiscal year.

For the Idaho Test Reactor Area, if the Idaho

Department of Environmental Quality were to find an

environmental violation requiring immediate

correction, the resultant reallocation of resources

would impact planned performance.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 71

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

Monthly progress and quarterly

technical reports; quarterly,

semiannual, and annual reviews.

Baselines: Technical baselines are specified in

project plans and contracts.

Frequency: Data is collected periodically–on a

monthly basis for some programs;

quarterly and semiannually for

others.

Data

Storage:

The headquarters and field

organization managing the project

maintains the data on technical

progress.

Verification: Internal, independent technical

expert, or peer reviews of technical

reports and progress are conducted.

Planned Program Evaluation:

The Nuclear Facilities Management program staff

discuss progress against established plans at periodic

tele-video conferences with field office and contractor

representatives. For activities at Argonne National

Laboratory (ANL) -West, these conferences will

include the Chicago Operations Office Group

responsible for ANL and ANL-West staff, and for

FFTF deactivation, the Richland Operations Project

Office responsible for the FFTF and Fluor-Hanford

FFTF staff. In addition, semiannual and annual

program reviews are held to verify and validate the

performance data. Finally, the Chicago Operations

Office Group located at the ANL-West site meets

frequently with State of Idaho regulators to review

progress against prescribed commitments in State

permits, Consent Orders, and the 1995 Settlement

Agreement.

The Infrastructure program is closely monitored

through the use of: frequent telephone conference calls

between Headquarters and program staff, the field

operations office, and the contractor; weekly and

monthly reports on technical, cost, and schedule

milestones; and on-site program review meetings

conducted at least twice a year.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 72

This page is intentionally left blank.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 73

President’s Budget

Program and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp. ($M) FY 2002

Request

($M) FY 2000 FY 2001

270 Energy Supply

Energy Information

Administration

- EIA 72 76 76

Description of the Program:

As an independent statistical/analytical agency, EIA has two principal roles. First, its primary responsibility is to

conduct the functions required by statute. This responsibility consists of the development and maintenance of a

comprehensive energy database and the publication of reports and analyses for a wide variety of customers in the public

and private sectors. There are also specific reports which are required by law. Second, EIA responds to inquiries for

energy information. The primary customers of EIA services are public policymakers in the Department of Energy and

the Congress. Other customers include other agencies within the Executive branch and the independent agencies of the

Federal Government, state and local governments, the energy industry, educational institutions, the news media, and

the public. EIA activities under this program support the following general performance goal that flows from the

Department’s Strategic Plan.

General Performance Goal:

ER4-2 EXPANDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO ENERGY INFORMATION

Provide forecasts for energy supply and consumption through the year 2020. Make information more easily accessible

to the general public by designing and issuing on-line products for electronic dissemination. Undertake information

and education programs to familiarize the general public with DOE energy technologies and their applications,

availability, and benefits (e.g., environment, health, economics, and reliability). Specific measures and targets for FY

1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows. 

Performance Indicator: Average number of unique monthly users of EIA’s web site

Discussion: In 1997 EIA, in cooperation with Office of the Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable

Energy (EE), committed to increasing the average number of unique monthly users of it’s web site by 20% annually,

from a baseline of 70,000. In FY 1997, average monthly users sessions for EIA and EE was 71,500 or slightly more

than the agreed upon baseline average for the combined web sites. EIA’s actual contribution to this baseline was an

average of 64,700 unique monthly users. In the following year, EIA averaged 104,700 unique monthly users and for

FY 1999, EIA averaged 152,600 unique monthly user sessions. That growth in the number of customers continues.

During FY 2000, EIA averaged over 322,100 unique monthly users of it’s web site – an increase of over 110% from the

previous year. For the first five months of Fiscal Year 2001, EIA is averaging over 523,600 unique monthly users of its

web site. The average monthly usage of EIA’s web site for FY 2001 is 8 times that experienced in the baseline year of

FY 1997.

GPRA Program Activity: Energy Information Administration
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 74

Average Number of Unique Monthly Users 

(Thousands)

64.7

104.7

152.1

322.1

523.6

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1 997 1 998 1 999 2000 2001

Calendar Year
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 75

The following facing pages show four years of performance measures for EIA.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 76

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results

! Publish domestic and international Annual Energy

Outlooks forecasting energy supply and consumption

through the year 2020. (ER5-1) 2

 (MET GOAL)

! Publish domestic and international Annual Energy

Outlooks forecasting energy supply and consumption

through the year 2020. (ER5-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Achieve a growth rate of at least 20 percent per year

in the average number of unique monthly users of the

Energy Resources Board Web Site (from about

71,000 per month in 1997). (ER5-1)

 (EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Achieve a growth rate of at least 20 percent per

year, through 2002, in the average number of unique

monthly users of the Energy Resources Board Web

Site (from about 71,000 per month in 1997). (ER5-1)

(MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. ER5-1 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 77

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Publish domestic and international Annual Energy

Outlooks forecasting energy supply and consumption

through the year 2020. (ER 4-2)

! Publish domestic and international Annual Energy

Outlooks forecasting energy supply and consumption

through the year 2020. (ER 4-2)

! Achieve a growth rate of at least 20 percent per year

in the average number of unique monthly users of the

Energy Resources Board Web Site (from about

71,000 per month in 1997). (ER 4-2)

! Maintain and improve web-based networks for the

Energy Resources organizations to ensure wide

distribution of information about Energy Resources

programs, such that the average number of unique

monthly users of Energy Resources Web Sites will

continue to grow at least 20 percent per year

through 2005 (from a baseline of about 70,000 per

month in 1997.) (ER 4-2)
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 78

Means and Strategies:

In FY 2002, EIA's program will consist of data

collection necessary to fulfill its statutory requirement

for the maintenance of a comprehensive energy

database, the publication of reports and analyses for a

wide variety of customers in the public and private

sectors, the maintenance of the National Energy

Modeling System for mid-term energy markets

analysis and forecasting, the maintenance of the

Short-Term Integrated Forecasting System for

near-term energy market analysis and forecasting, and

customer forums and surveys to maintain an up-to-date

product and service mix. EIA’s strategy is to make its

broad mix of products and services available to its

customers through the continued use of publications

and an expansion of electronic information

dissemination via the EIA web site, ListServ, and

CD-ROM.

Collaboration Activities:

EIA has a number of different collaborative activities

underway with statistical representatives from other

cabinet agencies. The most important collaboration is

via the Interagency Council on Statistical Policy

(ICSP), composed of the heads of the major statistical

agencies and chaired by the Office of Management and

Budget's Chief Statistician. The ICSP has supported a

number of collaborative activities including: Fedstats –

a website providing data from the major statistical

agencies in a user-friendly environment; the NSF

Digital Government initiative providing funds to

researchers to interact with consortiums of statistical

agencies on issues related to data dissemination,

presentation and collection of large-scale databases on

the web; and the Joint Program in Survey Methodology

(JPSM) – to train college graduates in applied survey

methodology, initiate a summer intern program and

develop other certification alternatives. ICSP is

backing the data sharing legislation that would allow

the agencies to share data and sampling lists and still

protect the confidentiality of respondents.

The longest standing collaboration is through our

membership on the Federal Committee on Statistical

Methodology, a consortium of government experts,

appointed from within the statistical agencies for their

technical abilities. The FCSM undertakes studies of

methodological issues, sponsors conferences for

sharing ideas, problems and research.

Still another example of collaboration is through the

Interagency Confidentiality and Data Access Group, a

special interest group of FCSM, that deals with

confidentiality, privacy and disclosure protection. The

group collaborated and pooled funds to create a user

interface to a census disclosure program. The program

is now readily available on the web. Individual

agencies have provided funds to support the

development of an auditing program for tabular data

that will also be made widely available on the web.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

EIA’s data and analyses are anticipated to become

more visible and critical over the next several years,

because: (1) With the restructuring and deregulation

of the electric and natural gas industries, energy use

and price data, especially at the consumers level, are

much more difficult to obtain from new and emerging

types of suppliers in the evolving energy market. (2)

With the increase in dependence on foreign oil

supplies, Congressional and other customer requests

for current petroleum products’ production, supply,

stocks, price, markets, trend analyses and forecasts will

continue to increase. This type of information are

especially useful to State governments, who are

increasingly relying on EIA data to understand and

effectively manage the current and emerging effects of

energy industry restructuring’s impact on consumers in

their State. (3) The debate on greenhouse gas

emissions, carbon trading permits and global warming

are influencing the United States, as well as other

countries, of the need to assess and understand the

impact from major sources of human generated

emissions. 

Partly as a result of this increasing visibility and

importance, it is critical to maintain the quality of the

data from EIA’s surveys. EIA will face an

unprecedented challenge in maintaining the quality of

its data due to: (1) the increasing amount of work

needed to keep survey response rates high in the

current cultural climate, with respondents increasingly

more difficult to reach and more resistant to

completing surveys. (2) The need for expanded and

more complex energy consumption and expenditures

data collection procedures due to the more complex

energy supply structure caused by natural gas and

electric industry restructuring and markets.

EIA’s ability to provide data and information on the

natural gas industry may be severely challenged by

changes in the regulatory environment and

corresponding industry restructuring. In addition, there

are major segments of activity relating to prices and

volumes for which no information is collected by EIA,
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 79

such as the cost of underground storage, the cost of

transportation, and price and physical transactions at

market centers and market hubs. Since natural gas is

usually the swing fuel in electric generation,

information on these prices is essential in

understanding the fuel decisions made by electric

generator operators and the subsequent impact on

electricity prices.

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

Measure 1: EIA’s Action Tracking

System (ATS)

Measure 2: Web Site Server Logs

Baselines: 1. Not Applicable

2. 1997

Frequency: 1. Annual

2. Continuous

Data Storage: 1. Microsoft Access Database

2. Initial storage on server, later

displaced to CD-ROM

Verification: 1. EIA’s Web Site at: 

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/

2. Software: Webtrends Inc.,

Webtrends 4.1

Planned Program Evaluation:

EIA annually conducts a customer satisfaction survey. 

The results of the customer survey are reviewed by

EIA’s senior management. Often specific survey

questions about EIA’s web site and electronic products

are included in the customer survey. As a result of the

customer survey process, the regular monitoring of

customer comments and concerns, and the rapidly

increasing use of EIA’s web site, EIA has initiated an

ongoing cognitive testing initiative of its web site. EIA

strives to make the site accessible and usable to the

most diverse range of customers, not just those with

technical expertise and knowledge in energy and web

surfing. To do this, users need to easily and quickly be

able to find the data for which they are looking without

being frustrated by jargon or a design that reflects

EIA's organizational structure and/or publication

format or content. The results of this testing have lead

to a redesign of the site to make it easier to use for the

diverse range of users. The redesigned Web site has

been available to the public since late December 1999. 

Monitoring of customer feedback and usage of the

redesigned site will continue and form the basis for

future updates. EIA is also exploring methods for

increasing it’s ability to provide faster and more

reliable energy data and analysis delivery through its

Web site.

EIA’s performance measures are presented to senior

management on a quarterly basis. Included is the

number of unique monthly users of the EIA’s web site

and EIA’s progress in meeting the established goal of

continuously increasing the numbers of customers

accessing and using EIA’s energy data, information

and services.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 80

This page is intentionally left blank.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 81

President’s Budget

Program and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activity

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002 

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

270 Energy Supply

Southeastern Power

Administration

Operation &

Maintenance, SEPA

SEPA 8 4 5

Southwestern Power

Administration

Operation &

Maintenance, SWPA

SWPA 29 28 28

Western Area Power

Administration

Constr, Rehab, Oper

& Maint.

WAPA 193 165 169

Falcon-Amistad O&M WAPA 1 3 3

Bonneville Power

Administration

Bonneville Power

Administration Fund

BPA - - -

Total, PMAs 230 200 205

Colorado River Basin Fund WAPA (21) (21) (26)

Notes:

- In FY 2001 and 2002, Southeastern, Southwestern and Western Power Administrations will fund Purchased Power

and Wheeling activities through the use of revenues from the sale of power and other alternative financing methods

such as net billing and bill crediting.

- The Colorado River Basin Power Marketing Fund and Colorado River Dam Fund (CRDF)-Boulder Canyon Project

are revolving funds and require no appropriations. Net Receipts from the Colorado River Basin Fund are included in

Corporate Management.

- DOE’s Budget Request is considered Discretionary funding. The Bonneville Fund is considered Mandatory funding,

so its expenses are not included in this table.

Description of the Program:

The Power Marketing Administrations’ (PMAs) mission fulfills the requirements of the Bonneville Project Act of 1937,

Section 9 of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, Section 5 of the Flood Control Act of 1944, the Federal Columbia

River Transmission Act of 1974, the Regional Power Act of 1980, and various other acts by marketing and reliably

delivering cost-based Federal hydroelectric power, with preference given to publicly-owned electric utilities and

cooperatives. This is accomplished by charging rates for Federal power that are as low as possible to consumers while

recovering all operating costs and repaying the Federal investment in power facilities in a timely manner.

The PMAs’ programs help achieve the Department’s Energy Resources goal through the strategic objectives of

providing reliable, affordable, and clean supplies of electricity to customers in the West, Mid-West, and Southeastern

United States; and by increasing the efficiency and productivity of energy use while limiting environmental impacts.

GPRA Program Activity: Power Marketing Administrations
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 82

PMA activities support the following general performance goal:

General Performance Goal:

ER2-5 RELIABLY DELIVERING FEDERAL HYDROELECTRIC POWER 

Through the power marketing administrations, market and reliably deliver Federal hydroelectric power with preference

given to public bodies and cooperatives. Specific measures and targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the tables

that follows.

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results (Revised Final)

! Ensure that each power system control area

operated by a Power Marketing Administration

receives, for each month of the fiscal year, a control

compliance rating of “pass” using the North

American Electric Reliability Council performance

standard. (ER1-6) 2

 (MET GOAL)

! Ensure that each power system control area operated

by a Power Marketing Administration receives, for

each month of the fiscal year, a Control Compliance

Rating of “Pass” using the North American Electric

Reliability Council performance standard. (ER1-6)

 (MET GOAL)

! Meet planned repayment of principal on power

investment. (ER1-6)

(NEARLY MET GOAL) 

Bonneville and Southwestern are at "Met Goal" and

Southeastern and Western are "Nearly Met Goal."

! Achieve a safety performance of a 3.3 recordable

accident frequency rate for recordable injuries per

200,000 hours worked or the Bureau of Labor

Statistics’ industry rate, whichever is lower. (ER1-6)

 (MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. ER1-6 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 83

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Receive monthly a control compliance rating of

“pass” using the North American Electric Reliability

Council performance standard. (ER2-5)

! Receive monthly a control compliance rating of

“pass” using the North American Electric Reliability

Council performance standard. (ER2-5)

! Meet planned repayment of principal on power

investment. (ER2-5)

! Meet planned repayment of principal on power

investment. (ER 2-5)

! Achieve a safety performance of a 3.3 recordable

accident frequency rate for recordable injuries per

200,000 hours worked or the Bureau of Labor

Statistics’ industry rate, whichever is lower. (ER2-5)

! Achieve a safety performance of a 3.3 recordable

accident frequency rate for recordable injuries per

200,000 hours worked or the Bureau of Labor

Statistics’ industry rate, whichever is lower. (ER2-5

)
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Energy Resources 84

Means and Strategies:

In order to achieve safety and reliability while staying

competitive, the PMAs will accomplish their missions

with 4,406 Federal employees (BPA 2,867, SEPA 42, 

SWPA 177, and WAPA 1320), $179 million of budget

authority, and use of power revenues and alternative

financing authority. The PMAs accomplish their missions

through five program activities: Operations and

Maintenance, Construction and Rehabilitation, Purchased

Power and Wheeling, Program Direction, and Utah

Reclamation Mitigation and Conservation. (Not every

PMA has every program activity.)

To achieve the first goal of Reliability, the PMAs will

make improvements and perform maintenance on the

transmission, communications, and control systems. They

will also make improvements to their analytic capabilities,

work force skills, and employee retention. To achieve the

second goal of Repayment, the PMAs will utilize sound

business practices and prudent risk management; and to

achieve the third goal of Safety, the PMAs will continue to

train their employees in occupational safety and health

regulations, policies, and procedures and hold safety

meetings at employee, supervisory and mangement levels

in order to keep safety culture strong. Accidents will be

reviewed to ensure that lessons are learned and proper

work protocol is in place.

Collaboration Activities:

The PMAs coordinate their operational activities with the

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation,

International Boundary & Water Commission (IBWC), 

NERC regional electric reliability councils, and their

customers to provide the most efficient use of Federal

assets.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Achieving and maintaining system reliability can be

affected by weather, natural disasters, changes in NERC

operating standards, new load patterns, deregulation of the

electricity market, changing electric industry

organizational structures and additions to other utilities’

transmission systems interconnected to the Federal system.

Achieving and maintaining planned repayment can be

affected by weather, power markets, natural disasters and

other external costs and revenue factors.

Achieving and maintaining safety goals can be affected by

the loss of expertise due to retirements and the ability to

replace the expertise, weather conditions, encroachments to

the right-of-ways, terrain, and location of the equipment

being maintained. 

Validation and Verification(Goal 1-Reliability):

Data Sources: Data on the measures of Area Control

Error variability and magnitude

(CPS1 and CPS2) are provided by

NERC Control Area operators each

month.

Baselines: Control Performance Rating = Pass if

CPS1 >100% and CPS2 > 90%

Frequency: Monthly

Data Storage: Control Area Operators

Verification: Data on the measures of Area Control

Error variability and magnitude

(CPS1 and CPS2) are provided by

NERC Control Area Operators

Validation and Verification(Goal 2-Repayment):

Data Sources: Chief Financial Officers at the PMAs

track and report data.

Baselines: Planned principal payments to the

U.S. Department of Treasury.

Frequency: Annually

Data Storage: Chief Financial Officer

Verification: External auditors

Validation and Verification(Goal 3-Safety):

Data Sources: Injury and illness reports are prepared

by the safety office. Inquiries are

made with managers and employees.

Baselines: Department of Labor statistics

Frequency: Continuous

Data Storage: PMA safety offices.

Verification: Safety committees reviews reports

Planned Program Evaluation:

Annual performance goals are evaluated against NERC

operating standards for the electric utility industry,

repayment standards set forth in DOE Order RA 6120.2,

and the Bureau of Labor Statistics industry safety rate.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 85

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY

The Department of Energy is required by law to

enhance U.S. national security through the military

application of nuclear technology and to reduce the

global danger from the proliferation of weapons of

mass destruction. The National Nuclear Security

Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous

Administration within the Department, carries out

these responsibilities. Established in March 2000

pursuant to Title 32 of the National Defense

Authorization Act for FY 2000 (Public Law 106-65),

NNSA is structured to provide clear and direct lines of

accountability and responsibility for the management

and operation of the Nation’s nuclear weapons, naval

reactors, and nuclear nonproliferation activities.

Three major offices within NNSA carry out the

Department’s national security mission. The Office of

Defense Programs is responsible for maintaining the

safety, security, and reliability of the U.S. nuclear

weapons stockpile. The Office also maintains the

capability to design and produce nuclear weapons and

maintains the capability to resume underground

nuclear testing. The Office of Naval Reactors provides

the U.S. Navy with safe, militarily effective nuclear

propulsion plants. Naval Reactors ensures the safe and

reliable operation of those plants–beginning with

technology development, continuing through reactor

operation, and ultimately, disposing of the reactor

plants. The Office of Defense Nuclear

Nonproliferation is responsible for promoting

international nuclear safety and nonproliferation. The

Office is also responsible for: research and

development of technologies to detect proliferation;

implementing of the Highly Enriched Uranium

Purchase Agreement; elimination of surplus U.S.

weapons and highly enriched uranium; and assistance

to help Russia eliminate its surplus weapons-grade

plutonium.

Four staff offices outside of NNSA retain policy,

oversight, and some national security responsibilities: 

the Offices of Security and Emergency Operations, the

Office of Intelligence, the Office of

Counterintelligence, and the Office of Independent

Oversight and Performance Assurance. The Office of

Worker Transition and Community Assistance, which

is also outside of NNSA, manages programs to

minimize the social and economic impacts of changes

in the Department’s activities.

NATIONAL NUCLEAR SECURITY GOAL

Enhance the national security through the

military application of nuclear technology and

reduce global danger from weapons of mass

destruction.

The funding requested for the National Nuclear

Security Business Line is within the 050 Atomic

Energy Defense Activities account under “Weapons

Activities” and “Other Defense Activities”. The

Weapons Activities account funds the Office of

Defense Program in their efforts to maintain a safe,

secure, and reliable nuclear weapons stockpile utilizing

a science-based approach rather than nuclear weapons

testing. The Other Defense Activities budget account

also provides funds for this business line,

Environmental Quality, and Corporate Management. 

Within the National Nuclear Security Business Line

are the efforts to reduce the danger to U.S. National

Security posed by weapons of mass destruction

(WMD), specifically efforts to prevent the spread of

WMD materials, technology, and expertise. The 050

account also funds efforts of a new, consolidated

Security Office to ensure the security of DOE’s work;

the Offices of Intelligence and Counterintelligence

which address intelligence and counterintelligence

matters; and efforts to minimize the adverse impacts of

program downsizing on those who won the Cold War

and the nearby communities. 

The national nuclear security portion of environment,

safety and health and contract hearings and appeals are

funded in the 050 account, but their performance is

presented under Corporate Management. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 86

The National Security goal is supported by the

following six strategic objectives. 

NS1: Maintain and refurbish nuclear weapons in

accordance with directed schedules to sustain

confidence in their safety, security, and

reliability, indefinitely, under the nuclear

testing moratorium and arms reduction

treaties.

NS2: Achieve a robust and vital scientific,

engineering, and manufacturing capability

that is needed for current and future

certification of the nuclear weapons stockpile

and the manufacture of nuclear weapon

components under the nuclear testing

moratorium .

NS3: Ensure the vitality and readiness of DOE’s

nuclear security enterprise. 

NS4: Reduce the global danger from the

proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

NS5: Provide the U.S. Navy with safe, militarily

effective nuclear propulsion plants, and ensure

their continued safe and reliable operation.

NS6: Ensure that the Department’s nuclear

weapons, materials, facilities, and information

assets are secure though effective safeguards

and security policy, implementation, and

oversight.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 87

The following table maps the Presidential Budget’s Program and Financing (P&F) accounts and program activities to

the Department of Energy’s offices and GPRA Program Activities. The alignment includes aggregation,

disaggregation, and consolidation of budget decision units. The chart that follows this table shows how the decision

units support the Department’s Strategic Plan objectives for this business line. 

 Presidential Budget Program and Financing

 (P&F) Accounts and Program Activities

FY 2002

Budget

Request

($M)

DOE

Office

GPRA Program Activity

 050 Atomic Energy Defense Activities

 National Nuclear Security Administration(NNSA)

Defense Programs

Directed Stockpile Work 1,044 DP Defense Programs

Campaigns 1,996 DP

Readiness in Technical Base and Facilities 1,447 DP

Transportation Safeguards 122 DP

Program Direction 271 DP

 Safeguards and Security 449 DP

Adjustments (29) DP

 Subtotal Defense Programs 5,300 DP Subtotal Defense Programs 

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 206 NN Nonproliferation & Verification R&D

102 NN Arms Control & Nonproliferation

139 NN International Materials Protection,

Control, and Accounting

14 NN International Nuclear Safety

14 NN HEU Transparency

290 NN Fissile Materials Disposition 

Program Direction 51 NN Program Direction

Adjustment for PY Bal., S&S (42) 

Subtotal Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation 774 NN

Naval reactors 688 NR Naval Reactors

NNSA Office of the Administrator 15 NA

 Total for NNSA 6,777 

 Intelligence 41 IN Intelligence and

 Counterintelligence 46 CN Counterintelligence

 Worker and Community Transition 24 WT Worker and Community Transition

 Security and Emergency Operations 269 SO Security and Emergency

Operations

 Oversight Activities 15 OA Independent Oversight and

Performance Assurance

 Total for other Def. Activities 395 

TOTAL - National Nuclear Security 7,172 

The program direction budget lines, i.e., for Defense Programs, Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, and NNSA Office of

the Administrator, are their own Program Activities in the President’s Budget Program and Financing (P&F) schedule

but are not for performance planning purposes. These funds support the management of programs and salaries and

benefits of the Federal staff. Therefore, these budget lines do not have performance goals but manage the performance

goals of their respective programs.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 88

The National Nuclear Security goal is supported by six strategic objectives. Each strategic objective is being pursued

through long-term strategies. In this annual performance plan these long term strategies have been stated in terms of

General Performance Goals against which outcome performance indicators and annual (output) performance measures

have been established. To make the linkage of these outcomes and outputs to the budget resources we have organized

the plan by GPRA Program Activities which are aligned with the budget decision units through aggregation,

disaggregation, and consolidation. The general performance goals and indicators and annual measures and targets are

discussed with the GPRA Program Activities on the following pages. This approach allows us to clearly link annual

performance with annual budget resources and the strategic plan objectives. The chart below gives an overview of the

linkage of budget decision units and strategic objectives for National Nuclear Security.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 89

President’s Budget Program

and Financing (P&F) Accounts

and Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activity

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp. ($M)

FY 2002

Request

FY 2000 FY 2001 ($M)

050, Atomic Energy Defense Activities

Directed Stockpile Work DP 732 915 1,044

Campaigns DP 1,831 2,023 1,996

Readiness in Technical Base and

Facilities

DP 1,313 1,414 1,447

Secure Transportation Asset DP 104 115 122

Program Direction DP 238 251 271

Safeguards and Security DP 394 395 449

Adjustments (49) (43) (29)

Total 4,564 5,069 5,300

Description of the Program:

The DOE Stockpile Stewardship Program maintains confidence in the safety, reliability, and performance of the

nuclear weapons in the Nation’s stockpile without underground nuclear testing. The program develops and maintains

the world class scientific, engineering, manufacturing, and experimental capabilities needed to achieve weapons

stockpile certification for the long term. It ensures the vitality of the DOE national security enterprise, including the

physical and intellectual infrastructure for the three defense national laboratories, (Los Alamos National Laboratory

(LANL), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL), and Sandia National Laboratory (SNL), the Nevada Test

Site, and the Kansas City, Pantex, and Y-12 production plants and Savannah River Tritium facilities. 

Achieving confidence in our ability to certify without underground nuclear testing that the nuclear weapon stockpile

remains safe and reliable for the long term requires capable and experienced people working on significant scientific

and engineering challenges to develop and advance specialized knowledge, tools and techniques. Success requires

appropriate integration and balance of these three elements in meeting current and future mission; carrying out the

directed stockpile workload as well as maintaining the program’s infrastructure and developing capabilities needed in

the future. 

In January 2001, President Bush asked the Secretary of Defense to conduct three reviews to create a new vision for the

role of the Nation’s military in the 21st Century. The first will examine the appropriate national security strategy, force

structure and budget priorities to guide future decision no military spending. The second will examine the

requirements of deterrence in the current security environment. This review will examine the size of the future nuclear

stockpile, and address the Nation’s missile defense needs. The third will examine the overall quality of life for our

military personnel. Completion of these projects could impact the FY 2002 and outyear budgets for defense and

national security-related activities..

GPRA Program Activity: Defense Programs
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 90

General Performance Goals:

NS1-1 MAINTAINING STOCKPILE CONFIDENCE

Conduct a program of Directed Stockpile Work that supports stockpile refurbishment activities; completes surveillance,

maintenance, design, and manufacturing activities necessary for the refurbishment and certification of the stockpile;

and applies improved technologies and tools developed by the Campaigns to achieve Directed Stockpile Work

performance measures. 

NS2-1 CONDUCTING CAMPAIGNS

Conduct a series of science and computing Campaigns pertaining to: certifications of primaries, secondaries and

weapon engineering; materials properties; advanced radiography; weapon performance in hostile environments;

inertial confinement fusion and ignition; and simulation and computing. This includes developing simulation and

modeling tools and capabilities to implement virtual testing of nuclear weapons and components in the absence of

underground nuclear testing. Conduct a series of applied science and engineering campaigns pertaining to: advanced

design and production technologies; enhanced surveillance; and enhanced surety. Also conduct readiness campaigns

pertaining to: pit and secondary manufacturing; high explosives manufacturing and weapon assembly/disassembly;

non-nuclear components; and tritium production. 

NS3-1 ENSURING ENTERPRISE VITALITY AND READINESS

Provide an appropriately-sized, cost effective, safe, secure, and environmentally-sound enterprise for national nuclear

security programs; maintain nuclear test readiness in accordance with Presidential direction; implement

recommendations of the Commission on Maintaining U.S. Nuclear Weapons Expertise; continue restructuring,

modernizing, and implementing integrated safety and security management throughout the national nuclear security

enterprise; and continue construction of new facilities such as the Tritium Extractions Facility, computing facilities,

and the National Ignition Facility (NIF). Maintain the DOE Secure Transportation Asset for safe, secure transport of

nuclear weapons, special nuclear materials, and weapon components. Ensure that the capability to resume

underground nuclear testing is maintained in accordance with Presidential directive through a combined experimental

and test readiness program. Ensure the availability of a workforce with the critical skills necessary to meet long-term

requirements. Maintain robust emergency response assets in accordance with Presidential directive and Executive

Order 12656 and Federal emergency plans.

Performance Indicators: Performance indicators for these goals are in development. Specific output measures and

targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 91

Due to the number of performance goals in this GPRA Program Activity, the performance goals are discussed in three

sections organized by the General Performance Goals that the funding supports. The following facing pages have four

years of performance measures for NS1-1.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 92

General Performance Goal:

NS1-1 MAINTAINING STOCKPILE CONFIDENCE

Conduct a program of Directed Stockpile Work that supports stockpile refurbishment activities; completes surveillance,

maintenance, design, and manufacturing activities necessary for the refurbishment and certification of the stockpile;

and applies improved technologies and tools developed by the Campaigns to achieve Directed Stockpile Work

performance measures. 

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results 

! Report annually to the President that there is no

need or lack of need to resume underground testing

to certify the safety and reliability of the nuclear

weapon stockpile. (NS1-1) 2 

(MET GOAL)

! Meeting all annual weapons maintenance and

refurbishment schedules developed jointly by the

DOE and DoD. (NS1-1)

 (NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Adhere to the schedule for the safe and secure

dismantlement of approximately 275 weapons that

have been removed from the U.S. nuclear weapon

stockpile. (NS4-1) 

(BELOW EXPECTATION: 207 weapons were

dismantled and the difference was due to technical

difficulties.)

! Report annually to the President on the need or lack

of need to resume underground testing to certify the

safety and reliability of the nuclear weapons

stockpile. (NS1-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Meet all annual weapons alteration and modification

schedules developed jointly by DOE and DoD. 

(NS1-1)

(BELOW EXPECTATION: Six of the 11 modifications

were behind schedule. Revised schedules have been

negotiated with DoD that will meet their operational

needs.)

! Adhere to approved schedules for the safe and

secure dismantlement of nuclear warheads that have

been removed from the U.S. nuclear weapon

stockpile. (NS4-1)

(MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. NS1-1 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 93

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Report annually to the President on the need or lack

of need to resume underground testing to certify the

safety and reliability of the nuclear weapon

stockpile.

(NS1-1) 

! Meet all annual weapons maintenance and

refurbishment schedules developed jointly by the

DOE and DoD. (NS1-1)

! Meet annual schedules for the safe and secure

dismantlement of nuclear warheads that have been

removed from the U.S. nuclear weapon stockpile.

(NS1-1)

! Report annually to the President on the need or lack

of need to resume underground testing to certify the

safety and reliability of the nuclear weapon

stockpile. (NS1-1) 

! Meet all annual weapons maintenance and

refurbishment schedules developed jointly by the

DOE and DoD. (NS1-1)

! Meet annual schedules for the safe and secure

dismantlement of nuclear warheads that have been

removed from the U.S. nuclear weapon stockpile. 

(NS1-1)
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 94

Means and Strategies:

In FY 2002 the Department will conduct a wide range

of tests and activities to assess the continuing safety

and reliability of the Nation's nuclear weapon

stockpile. Overall technical reviews by the weapons

laboratories of the stockpile will encompass laboratory

and flight tests of materials and components,

surveillance tests, and hydrodynamic testing of

components. Calculations and computer simulations

of weapons will be used in these assessments. Weapon

analyses will utilize data archived from past

underground nuclear tests. Working through the

weapon production plants and the laboratories, DOE

will make deliveries of limited life and other weapon

components for nuclear weapon stockpile management

and refurbishment according to schedules developed

jointly by the DOE and Department of Defense (DoD). 

Dismantlement activities are also carried out in support

of this objective. Activities will be conducted with

DoD, ranging from training in nuclear weapon field

maintenance to partnerships in research supporting

non-nuclear munitions.

Collaboration Activities:

Some activities will be conducted with DoD, ranging

from training in nuclear weapon field maintenance to

partnerships in research supporting non-nuclear

munitions. Stockpile Stewardship activities are

synergistic with Work for Others activities sponsored

principally by the DoD.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

The Administration’s reviews to create a new vision

for the role of the Nation’s military in the 21st century

have the potential to affect performance goals in

FY 2002 and beyond.

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

Production and Planning Directive

and quarterly reviews

Baselines: Established annually

Frequency: Quarterly

Data Storage: n/a

Verification: DoD

Planned Program Evaluation:

The Stockpile Management Integration Council meets

quarterly to assess progress against major performance

objectives. An outside organization of Management

and Operating (M&O) contractors, the Defense

Programs Advisory Group (DPAG), is also available to

evaluate program performance if requested by the

Deputy Administrator for Defense Programs.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 95

The following facing pages have four years of performance measures for NS2-1.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 96

General Performance Goal:

NS2-1 CONDUCTING CAMPAIGNS

Conduct a series of science and computing Campaigns pertaining to: certifications of primaries, secondaries and

weapon engineering; materials properties; advanced radiography; weapon performance in hostile environments;

inertial confinement fusion and ignition; and simulation and computing. This includes developing simulation and

modeling tools and capabilities to implement virtual testing of nuclear weapons and components in the absence of

underground nuclear testing. Conduct a series of applied science and engineering campaigns pertaining to: advanced

design and production technologies; enhanced surveillance; and enhanced surety. Also conduct readiness campaigns

pertaining to: pit and secondary manufacturing; high explosives manufacturing and weapon assembly/disassembly;

non-nuclear components; and tritium production. 

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results 

! Demonstrated a 3 trillion operations per second

computer system. (NS2-1) 2

 (EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Continue construction of the National Ignition

Facility (NIF) according to the Project Execution

Plan schedules. (NS2-2)

(BELOW EXPECTATION: A new project baseline is

being developed.)

! Conduct two to three subcritical experiments at the

Nevada Test Site to provide valuable scientific

information about the behavior of nuclear materials

during the implosion phase of a nuclear weapon.

(NS2-3)

(MET GOAL)

! Demonstrate a computer code capable of performing

a three-dimensional analysis of the dynamic

behavior of a nuclear weapon primary, including a

prediction of the total explosive yield, on an ASCI

computer system. (NS2-1)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Continue construction of the National Ignition

Facility (NIF) and rebaseline future construction,

total costs, and schedules by June 2000. (NS2-2/

FMFIA)

(MET GOAL)

! Begin execution of the Defense related project

management campaign implementation plan. 

(NS2-2/FMFIA)

(MET GOAL)

! Conduct further subsets of the subcritical experiment

begun in FY 1999 (Oboe) and one additional

subcritical experiment at the Nevada Test Site to

provide data on the behavior of nuclear materials

during the implosion phase of a nuclear weapon.

(NS2-3)

(MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or FY 2002 are

presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete description of the results

is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. NS2-1 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to the 1997

strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 97

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Meet the FY 2001 ASCI Program Plan milestones for

development of modeling and simulation tools and

capabilities required for design and certification of

the nuclear weapons stockpile. (NS2-1)

! Implement the Secretary’s Six Point Plan to improve

project management of the National Ignition Facility

(NIF) project and approve a new baseline. 

(NS2-1/FMFIA-project management)

! Meet FY 2001 milestones in the science campaigns

to achieve scientific understanding of the nuclear

package of weapon systems to sustain our ability to

annually certify the nuclear weapon stockpile

without underground nuclear testing. (NS2-1)

! Perform a prototype calculation of a full weapon

system with three-dimensional engineering features

during FY 2002. (NS2-1) 

! Complete Defense related project management

improvement campaign. (NS2-1/FMFIA-project

management)

! Meet the FY 2002 milestones in the science

campaigns to achieve scientific understanding of the

nuclear package of weapon systems to sustain our

ability to annually certify the nuclear weapon

stockpile without underground nuclear testing. 

(NS2-1)

! Meet the FY 2002 milestones in the production

readiness campaigns to address issues associated

with high explosives, materials, and non-nuclear

technologies. (NS2-1)

! Begin construction of the Tritium Extraction facility

at the Savannah River Site. (NS2-1)

Note: Both FY 2001 measures were revised to be more measurable and a third measure was dropped as unmeasurable. The

additional measure (in shaded text) was based on the FMFIA process.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 98

Means and Strategies:

In FY 2002, the Department will continue with the

"campaigns” approach for activities that address

critical capabilities needed to achieve weapons

stockpile certification. The campaigns are focused

efforts with specific end points, planned and executed

by integrated teams from the laboratories, Nevada Test

Site (NTS) and plants. The campaigns are: (1)

Primary Certification; (2) Dynamic Materials; (3)

Advanced Radiography; (4) Secondary Certification

and Nuclear Systems Margins; (5) Enhanced Surety;

(6) Weapons Systems Engineering Certification; (7)

Nuclear Survivability; (8) Enhanced Surveillance; (9)

Advanced Design and Production Technologies; (10)

Inertial Confinement Fusion and High Yield; (11)

Advanced Simulation and Computing; (12) Pit

Manufacturing and Certification; (13) Secondary

Readiness; (14) High Explosives Manufacturing and

Assembly/Disassembly Readiness; (15) Nonnuclear

Readiness; (16) Materials Readiness; and (17) Tritium

Readiness.

Collaboration Activities:

There are a small number of collaborations with

universities and colleges, mainly associated with the

strategic computing activities and the inertial

confinement fusion research program. 

External Factors Affecting Performance:

The Administration’s reviews to create a new vision

for the role of the Nation’s military in the 21st century

have the potential to affect performance goals in

FY 2002 and beyond.

Validation and Verification:

Data Sources: Campaign

Implementation Plans

and Campaign Program

Plans

Baselines: Established annually in

approved plans. 

Frequency: Quarterly review by DP

program managers

Data Storage: n/a

Verification: Peer and external

reviews.

Planned Program Evaluation:

Federal campaign managers will use the each plan

(above) as a program management tool to manage,

monitor and evaluate progress toward milestones. 

Periodic status reports will be provided to all campaign

managers and quarterly reviews are planned. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 99

The following facing pages have four years of performance measures for NS3-1.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 100

General Performance Goal:

NS3-1 ENSURING ENTERPRISE VITALITY AND READINESS

Provide an appropriately-sized, cost effective, safe, secure, and environmentally-sound enterprise for national nuclear

security programs; maintain nuclear test readiness in accordance with Presidential direction; implement

recommendations of the Commission on Maintaining U.S. Nuclear Weapons Expertise; continue restructuring,

modernizing, and implementing integrated safety and security management throughout the national nuclear security

enterprise; and continue construction of new facilities such as the Tritium Extractions Facility, computing facilities,

and the National Ignition Facility (NIF). Maintain the DOE Secure Transportation Asset for safe, secure transport of

nuclear weapons, special nuclear materials, and weapon components. Ensure that the capability to resume

underground nuclear testing is maintained in accordance with Presidential directive through a combined experimental

and test readiness program. Ensure the availability of a workforce with the critical skills necessary to meet long-term

requirements. Maintain robust emergency response assets in accordance with Presidential directive and Executive

Order 12656 and Federal emergency plans.

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results 

! Ensure that all facilities required for successful

achievement of the Stockpile Stewardship Program

remain operational. (NS3-1) 2

(BELOW EXPECTATION: Enriched Uranium

Operations at the Y-12 Plant were behind schedule.)

! Meet the established schedules for downsizing and

modernizing our production facilities. (NS3-1)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Ensure that the capability to resume underground

nuclear testing is maintained in accordance with

Presidential Decision Directive and safeguard C of

the CTBT. (NS3-5)

(MET GOAL)

! Maintain robust emergency response assets in

accordance with Presidential Decision Directive 39

and Executive Order 12656, and federal Emergency

Plans. (NS3-5)

(MET GOAL)

! Ensure that all facilities required for successful

achievement of the Stockpile Stewardship Program

remain operational. (NS3-1)

(BELOW EXPECTATIONS: Operations at LANL were

severely impacted by the Pu intake accident and the

Cerro Grande fire at LANL.)

! Meet the established schedules for downsizing and

modernizing our production facilities. (NS3-1)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Ensure that the capability to resume underground

nuclear testing is maintained in accordance with

Presidential Decision Directive through a combined

experimental and test readiness program. (NS3-5)

(MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented hers. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. NS3-1 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 101

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Ensure the physical infrastructure and facilities are

operational, safe, secure, compliant and that a

defined state of readiness is sustained at all needed

facilities. (NS3-1)

! Complete the milestones listed in the corrective

action plan for the Departmental challenge of

managing physical assets. (NS3-1/FMFIA)

! Meet established facility operating plans and

construction schedules to ensure the physical

infrastructure and facilities are operational, safe,

secure, compliant and that a defined state of

readiness is sustained at all needed facilities. (NS3-

1)

Note: Three other FY 2001 measures were dropped because they were activities and not measurable. The additional

measure (in shaded text) was developed through the FMFIA process. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 102

Means and Strategies:

In FY 2002, DOE will continue to oversee and

maintain the infrastructure and plant at governmentowned, contractor operated weapons laboratories and

plants according to applicable statutes, laws,

agreements and standards. DP is developing detailed

facility operation plans to assure that specific

requirements for readiness are maintained. DOE will

also maintain appropriate infrastructure, personnel

knowledge and exercised skills necessary to conduct an

underground nuclear test within 2-3 years. DOE will

provide for enhancements to the DOE Secure

Transportation Asset to address vulnerability issues

raised in reviews in FY 1999 and will maintain nuclear

emergency response assets. DOE will identify the

workforce skills necessary to meet long-term stockpile

stewardship requirements and will develop staffing

plans to attract and keep staff to meet requirements. 

Collaboration Activities:

There are a small number of collaborations with

universities and colleges, mainly associated with the

education program. Also, a limited number of

technology partnership efforts with industry may be

continued from FY 2002.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

The DOE weapons complex is a government ownedcontractor operated enterprise. DP works proactively

with its contractors, external regulators, and host

communities to assure that facilities and operations are

in compliance with all applicable statutes and

agreements to minimize unscheduled disruption to

program activities that could affect performance.

The Administration’s reviews to create a new vision

for the role of the Nation’s military in the 21st century

have the potential to affect performance goals in

FY 2002 and beyond.

Validation and Verification:

Data Sources: RTBF Implementation Plans

Baselines: Established in the plans. 

Frequency: Quarterly review by DP program

managers

Planned Program Evaluation:

Each site will have a detailed Readiness in Technical

Base and Facilities (RTBF) Implementation Plan

which will include detailed data sheets on various

activities. Federal RTBF managers will provide status

reports and will host quarterly reviews of the program.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 103

President’s Budget

Program and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activity

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

050 Atomic Energy Defense Activities

Defense Nuclear

Nonproliferation

Nonproliferation

and Verification

R&D

NN 213 245 206

Description of the Program:

The Department of Energy (DOE) Nonproliferation and Verification Research and Development (R&D) Program is

devoted to conducting applied research, development, testing, and evaluation of science and technology for

strengthening the U.S. response to National Security threats and threats to world peace posed by the proliferation of

nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons and special nuclear material diversion. Activities are focused on the

development, design, prototype construction and production of operational sensor systems needed for proliferation

detection, deterrence, nuclear test monitoring, and chemical and biological nonproliferation. NN activities under this

program support the following general performance goal that flows from the Department’s Strategic Plan.

General Performance Goal:

NS4-1 CONDUCTING NONPROLIFERATION AND VERIFICATION R&D

Develop and demonstrate technologies needed to remotely detect the early stages of a proliferate nation’s nuclear

weapons program; improve capabilities to locate, identify, and characterize nuclear explosions; produce operational

satellite-based nuclear explosion monitoring sensor systems; and improve the U.S. capability to detect the proliferation

of chemical and biological agents at an early stage and to minimize the consequences if chemical or biological agents

are used.

Performance Indicators: Performance indicators for this goal are in development. Specific output measures and

targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows. 

GPRA Program Activity: Nonproliferation and Verification R&D
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 104

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results 

Deterring Proliferation

! Complete development and delivery to customers of

two new counter-nuclear-smuggling detection

technologies, one portable/hand-held and the other

for wide area tracking and interdiction. (NS5-1) 2

(MET GOAL)

! Develop improved technologies and systems for

early detection, identification, and response to

weapons of mass destruction proliferation and illicit

materials trafficking. (NS5-3)

(MET GOAL)

Proliferation Detection

! Demonstrate, through airborne field tests, two new

technologies that use chemical detection methods to

remotely characterize weapons of mass destruction

proliferation activities. (NS5-3)

(MET GOAL)

! Launch the Multispectral Thermal Imager (MTI)

small satellite to demonstrate temperature

measurement from space for the passive detection

and characterization of proliferant activities. (NS5-

3)

(MET GOAL)

Nuclear Explosion Monitoring

! Deliver to the U.S. National Data Center for the

Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty the first

half (Release 3) of an operational knowledge base

that can be accessed by automated processing

systems and human analysts to provide monitoring

and verification confidence. (NS5-3)

(MET GOAL)

! Deliver three improved sensor systems for treaty

monitoring to the U.S. Air Force. (NS5-3)

(MET GOAL)

! Deliver to the U.S. National Data Center 60 percent

of an operational knowledge base that can be

accessed by automated processing systems and

human analysts to provide monitoring and

verification confidence. (NS5-3)

(MET GOAL)

Chemical and Biological National Security ! Test first generation prototype hand-held detector

for enhanced detection of chemical agents. (NS5-3) 

(MET GOAL)

! Complete architecture development to protect a

“special event” from biological attacks. (NS5-3)

(MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 are listed here that provide context for measures for

FY 2001 or FY 2002. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. (NS5-1) for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 105

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Test and evaluate a real-time field analytical

sampling system; complete a joint plan on

technology development for domestic defense. (NS4-

1)

! Complete the selection of candidate technologies to

detect fissile material at distances greater than ten

meters. (NS4-1)

! Demonstrate and evaluate the proliferation detection

capabilities of the Multispectral Thermal Imager

(MTI) small satellite launched in FY 2000. (NS4-1)

! Begin physical construction of the Nonproliferation

and International Security Center (NISC) at LANL.

(NS4-1).

! Conduct one flight test of a new airborne radar and

two flight tests of LIDAR technology for measuring

obscured or concealed nonproliferation activities. 

 (NS4-1)

! Complete physical construction for the NISC at

LANL. (NS4-1)

! Conduct Critical Design Reviews for three newgeneration nuclear explosion monitoring sensors

that are proposed for future satellite deployment.

(NS4-1)

! Deliver to the U.S. National Data Center an

operational database to improve ground-based

nuclear explosion monitoring, with calibration data

sets for Asia, the Middle East, North Africa and the

Former Soviet Union. (NS4-1)

! Demonstrate systems to protect key infrastructure

and special events from chemical and biological

attacks. (NS4-1)

! Deploy prototype biological agent detection system,

currently under development, for enhanced public

health response at special events (event to be

determined). (NS4-1)

Note: For the FY 2001 revised set of measures, four measures were deleted, two measures were added, and two

measures were modified to be more specific and to conform with the resources available.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 106

Means and Strategies:

The program goal is to enhance U.S. National Security

through needs-driven research and development. The

emphasis is on developing the requisite fundamental

science and technology to detect and prevent nuclear

proliferation, to meet U.S. treaty monitoring goals, and

to develop and demonstrate chemical and biological

detection and related technologies to enable us to better

prepare for and respond to chemical and biological

attacks.

Collaboration Activities:

The DOE will continue to leverage its considerable

nuclear nonproliferation R&D base to address

important objectives including: nuclear warhead

dismantlement initiatives; countering nuclear

smuggling and terrorism; and applying DOE’s resident

chemical and biological science expertise to support

U.S. preparation for and response to the use of

chemical and biological agents. All activities also

support the timely transfer of tested prototype systems

to other U.S. Government agency users. 

External Factors Affecting Performance:

The pace and nature of treaties and agreements related

to the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction will

influence level and kinds of technologies that DOE

will develop for national security.

Validation and Verification:

Data Sources: Internal and external program

reviews, national laboratories

reviews, interagency liaison

reviews and government

direction.

Baselines: Stated in program plans and

project life cycle plans.

Frequency: Immediate headquarters response

to unexpected events, otherwise

in quarterly reports or as

specified in program plans.

Data Storage: NN-20 maintains an automated

Project Information Management

System (PMIS) which contains

full life cycle plans including

statements of work, milestones,

deliverables and quarterly

reports. NN-20's automated

financial plan is extracted from

the PMIS. 

Verification: Office program and project plans

provide direction for reporting.

Broader reviews are instituted by

Departmental or government

mandate.

Planned Program Evaluation:

Office management, program managers, and

laboratory counterparts continually review project

activities. This, along with Departmental and peer

reviews ensure that appropriate performance measures

and applied and carried out.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 107

President’s Budget

Program and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activities

DOE Office Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

 FY 2000 FY 2001

050 Atomic Energy Defense Activities

Defense Nuclear

Nonproliferation

International

Nuclear Safety

NN 14 19 14

Description of Program:

The mission of the International Nuclear Safety and Cooperation program is to promote nuclear nonproliferation and

national security by providing for international nuclear safety. The goal is to reduce the national security and

nonproliferation risks associated with foreign nuclear power plants and nuclear facilities, especially those in the former

Soviet-Union. The program improves the safety of Soviet-designed nuclear power plants and facilitates shutting down

the most hazardous of these facilities; and assists host countries to develop and implement self-sustaining nuclear safety

infrastructure and improvement programs capable of implementing internationally accepted safety practices. Project

activities address significant nuclear safety issues primarily in Ukraine, Russia, Armenia, and Kazakhstan and

encourage cooperation among these and other participating countries. NN activities under this program support the

following general performance goal that flows from the Department’s Strategic Plan.

General Performance Goal:

NS4-2 IMPROVING INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR SAFETY

Assist countries to reduce the risks from Soviet-designed nuclear power plants and implement self-sustaining nuclear

safety improvement programs capable of reaching internationally accepted safety practices; implement projects in the

areas of operational safety, training and simulators, safety assessments, and fire safety, and other hardware upgrades; 

promote nuclear safety culture improvements internationally by providing strong leadership in international nuclear

safety organizations and centers; and work with other G-7 countries to assist in the safe decommissioning of the

Chornobyl plant, and to stabilize the unit 4 shelter at Chornobyl. 

Performance Indicators: Performance indicators for this goal are in development. Specific output measures and

targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows. 

GPRA Program Activity: International Nuclear Safety and Cooperation 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 108

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results 

! Complete the development and implementation of an

effective reactor plant operator training program at

key plants based on the Systematic Approach to

Training methodology used in the United States and

provide and incorporate plant simulators into the

operator training programs. (NS7-1) 2

 (MET GOAL)

! Complete the installation of Safety Parameter

Display Systems to improve operator response to

emergencies at Leningrad Unit 4 and Novororonezh

Unit 4. (NS7-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Provide preliminary safety assessment results to

determine near-term safety improvements. (NS7-1)

 (MET GOAL)

! Complete a full-scope simulator for Kola Unit 4 and

Balakovo Unit 4 in Russia, and for South Ukraine

Unit 3 in Ukraine. (NS7-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Complete the installation of Safety Parameter

Display Systems to improve operator response to

emergencies in Russia and at South Ukraine Unit 2,

Rivne Unit 3, and Zaporizhzhya in Ukraine. (NS7-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Complete a probabilistic risk assessment for Kola

Unit 4 in Russia and for South Ukraine and Rivne

plants in Ukraine. (NS7-1)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Complete plans for critical asset identification within

the Department and test vulnerability assessment

techniques in two components of the Energy Sector

in countries of the former Soviet Union. (NS7-1)

(BELOW EXPECTATION: This was an unfunded

mandate but significant progress was made.)

! Promote U.S. positions and practices in

international forums that advocate safe reactor

operations.(NS7-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Complete a comprehensive decommissioning

engineering survey of Chornobyl Unit 1. (NS7-3)

(MET GOAL)

! Establish a Ukrainian Center for Nuclear Fuel and

Reactor Core Design and collect information that

will be used to design and test nuclear fuel. (NS7-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Obtain final design approval for the Chornobyl Heat

Plant and complete delivery of major equipment to

the construction site.(NS7-1)

(MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are provided here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. ER2-3 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 109

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Complete full-scope simulator for Ukraine’s Rivne

nuclear plant unit 3 and South Ukraine nuclear plant

unit 1, and for Russia’s Kalinin nuclear plant unit 1. 

 (NS4-2)

! Complete safety parameter display systems for

Ukraine’s South Ukraine nuclear plant unit 3, and

Zaporizhzhya nuclear plant units 2 and 4. (NS4-2)

! Complete in-depth safety probabilistic risk

assessment at Ukraine’s South Ukraine unit 1 and

Rivne unit 1 nuclear plants, and at Russia’s Kola,

Novovoronezh unit 3, and Leningrad unit 2 nuclear

plants. (NS4-2)

! Complete two full-scope simulators for nuclear

power plants in Russia and Ukraine (Kalinin unit 2

and Zaporizhzhya unit 1), and 1 full-scope simulator

upgrade in Slovakia (for Bohunice). (NS4-2)

! Complete two safety parameter display systems for

nuclear power plants in Ukraine (Zaporizhzhya units

1 and 6), one in Russia (Novovoronezh unit 5) and

one in Lithuania (Ignalina Unit 2). (NS4-2)

! Complete in-depth safety assessment at three plants

in Ukraine (South Ukraine, Rivne, and

Zaporizhzhya) and at one plant in Russia (Leningrad

Unit 2). (NS4-2)

! Complete implementation of symptom-based

emergency operating instructions at the Kozloduy

Ignalina plant in Lithuania and at Novovoronezh

plant unit 4. (NS4-2)

! Complete fire protection system upgrades at the

Kazakhstan BN-350 nuclear plant. (NS4-2)

! Complete projects at the International Chornobyl

Center to characterize the condition of spent nuclear

fuel at Ukrainian power plants and to evaluate safe

options for spent fuel management. Complete plans

and safety analyses for the shutdown and

deactivation of Chornobyl units 1, 2 and 3. (NS4-2)

! Complete nuclear service water spray pond cooling

system at Armenia nuclear plant. This system cools

safety-related components and resolves seismic

concerns. (NS4-2)

! Complete construction of heat plant to support longterm decommissioning of the Chornobyl reactors.

(NS4-2)

! For the Ukraine nuclear fuel qualification program,

complete basic technology transfer activities, and

deliver the lead test assemblies. (NS4-2)

! Complete configuration management project at one

pilot plant in Russia (Novovoronezh NPP). This

project coordinates plant drawings with operational

procedures and safety analyses to eliminate safety

problems related to less rigorous controls. (NS4-2)

! Complete three joint projects between the U.S. and

Russia International Nuclear Safety Centers related

to: (1) the application of the RELAP 5 safety

analysis computer code to Soviet-designed reactors;

(2) the use of severe accident management

guidelines; and (3) the sharing of Soviet-designed

reactor safety analysis results with safety centers in

Russia, Ukraine, Lithuania and Armenia. (NS4-2)

! Complete decontamination of in-plant sodium at

Kazakhstan’s BN-350 reactor in preparation for

final draining and decommissioning. (NS4-2)

Note: For the FY 2001 revised set of measures, one measure was deleted and three measures modified (shaded text) to

be more specific and within the resources available.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 110

Means and Strategies:

In FY 2002, the Department will call upon its existing

scientific and engineering expertise and its laboratory

facilities. Because of the nature of the many

international nuclear safety projects, the human and

technological resources employed are by necessity

multi-disciplinary, requiring a diverse technology base. 

The emphasis throughout the international nuclear

safety program is close coordination with internal and

external customers, to ensure responsiveness to their

actual needs. The laboratory facilities will contract

with U.S. companies and host-country organizations to

carry out a set of individual projects.

Collaboration Activities:

DOE coordinates its activities with the Departments of

State and Defense, the U.S. Agency for International

Development, as well as many other international

organizations that are working to improve the safety of

Soviet-designed reactors.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Extremely poor economic conditions in host countries

impact ability to come up with their portion of work on

projects. Customs issues arise periodically impacting

schedules.

Validation and Verification:

Data Sources: Project management reviews and

reports.

Baselines: Technical baselines are specified

in a project work plan.

Frequency: Quarterly technical and financial

reports, and annual project life

cycle plans submitted.

Data Storage: The headquarters, field, and

laboratory/contractor activity

managing the project maintain

data on technical progress.

Verification: Use of fixed price contracts with

payments made only after receipt

of acceptable deliverables. Also,

analytical, and technical activities

have specific reporting periods. 

DOE supplements these with

broader program reviews.

Planned Program Evaluation:

DOE uses a process of extensive internal and external

reviews to evaluate progress against established plans. 

These reviews provide an opportunity to verify and

validate the performance data that the implementing

organizations have provided. Detailed, quarterly

progress reports are received for this program to ensure

technical progress costs and schedules are being met. 

The Government Accounting Office recently

completed reviews of the program in 1996 and 2000.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 111

President’s Budget

Program and

Financing (P&F)

Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activity

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

050 Atomic Energy Defense Activities

Defense Nuclear

Nonproliferation

Arms Control NN 109 149 102

Description of the Program:

The mission of the Office of Arms Control and Nonproliferation is to detect, prevent, and reverse the proliferation of

weapons of mass destruction (WMD) materials, technology and expertise. It is the focal point within the National

Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and the Department of Energy for activities that support the President's

nonproliferation and international security policies, goals and objectives, as well as those activities mandated by statute. 

 The program provides technical expertise and leadership for NNSA and the Department in interagency, bilateral and

multilateral fora involved in nonproliferation and international security matters. The major functional areas of the

program include: Policy and Analysis; Reduced Enrichment Research and Test Reactor (RERTR); International

Safeguards; Export Control Operations; and Treaties and Agreements; and International Security.

General Performance Goal:

NS4-3 SUPPORTING ARMS CONTROL AND NONPROLIFERATION POLICIES

The program’s goal is to detect, prevent and reverse the threat posed by the proliferation of weapons of mass

destruction (WMD) by integrating NNSA and Departmental assets, including those of the National Laboratories, and

bring them to bear on nonproliferation and related international security issues. Part of the mission of the Office of

Arms Control and Nonproliferation is to engage weapons scientists, engineers, and technicians in peaceful projects to

prevent “brain drain” and foster economic diversification; complete ratification and implementation of U.S. protocol for

IAEA “Strengthened Safeguards System” and support U.S. responsibilities for declarations and on-site inspection at

DOE facilities. Conduct analyses and technology development efforts for transparency activities (focusing on verified

warhead dismantlement) to help ensure that nuclear reductions are transparent and irreversible; work with Russian

Customs through the Second Line of Defense program to combat trafficking of illicit nuclear material across border and

control points; and maintain core competency as technical experts to U.S. Government agencies on nuclear export

control initiatives. Support negotiations on the Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty and for the Biological Weapons

Convention negotiations. Provide analytical and technical support in preparation for implementation of agreement and

treaties. Lead, via the Joint Chairmanship, the interagency task force on warhead and fissile material to implement

concepts for warhead elimination. Provide equipment, technologies and expertise to the IAEA to continue

implementation of nuclear verification and monitoring in Iraq. Provide long-term canister monitoring and

maintenance and support IAEA activities at DPRK facility; conduct long-term maintenance training sessions, and

conduct health physics tests. Continue export control initiatives to develop the necessary infrastructure to ensure

control over nuclear and nuclear-related dual-use equipment, material, and technology in Russia and the New

Independent States.

Performance Indicators: Performance indicators for this goal are in development. Specific output measures and

targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows. 

GPRA Program Activity: Arms Control and Nonproliferation
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 112

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results

! Further the Nuclear Cities Initiative promoting

cooperation with the closed cities in the Russian

nuclear weapons complex to improve the prospects

for defense conversion and employment of former

weapons scientists. (NS5-2) 2

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Equip 2-3 Russian sites and conduct 2 joint training

sessions under a Second Line of Defense

Initiative.(NS5-2)

(MET GOAL)

! Cooperate with Russian Federation Customs to block

nuclear smuggling at Russian border posts with

nuclear detection equipment. (NS5-2)

(MET GOAL)

! Engage approximately 2,000 scientists, engineers

and technicians at nuclear NIS institutes, and

approximately 800 scientists, engineers and

technicians at NIS chemical/ biological institutes in

50 projects to provide long-term commercial

employment. (NS5-2)

(MET GOAL)

! Complete the milestones listed in the FMFIA

corrective action plan for the Departmental

Challenge of Mission Critical Staffing. 

(NS5-2/FMFIA)

(MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are provided here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. NS5-1 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan. The Materials Protection, Control, and Accountability work has been separated into its own

program activity and its measures are presented there. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 113

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Engage approximately 2,000 scientists, engineers

and technicians at nuclear NIS institutes, and

approximately 800 scientists, engineers and

technicians at NIS chemical/ biological institutes in

over 40 projects to provide long-term commercial

employment. (NS4-1)

! Complete canning of BN 350 fast reactor spent fuel. 

(NS4-1)

! Complete the milestones listed in the FMFIA

corrective action plan for the Departmental

Challenge of Mission Critical Staffing. 

(NS5-2/FMFIA)

! Sign second line of defense agreement between

NNSA and Russian customs on combating illicit

trafficking in nuclear materials. (NS4-4)

! Equip port and airport of St. Petersburg with

radiation detection equipment to combat illicit

trafficking in nuclear materials. (NS4-4)

! Engage approximately 2,000 scientists, engineers

and technicians at nuclear NIS institutes, and

approximately 800 scientists, engineers and

technicians at NIS chemical/ biological institutes in

over 40 projects to provide long-term commercial

employment. (NS4-1)

Note: For the FY 2001 revised set of measures, eight measures were deleted because they were either activities or not

measurable. An other measure was revised to be measurable. One measure was added (in shaded text) based on the

FMFIA process. Finally, the Materials Protection, Control, and Accountability work has now been separated into its

own decision unit. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 114

Means and Strategies:

In FY 2002 the Department will conduct eight weeks

of negotiations, consultation anticipated to last several

weeks, and maintain technical experts to support

deliberations, studies, and domestic and international

exercises and/or conduct multilateral verification

workshops. Conduct three site visits to assess

monitoring impacts and requirements under a Fissile

Material Cut-off Treaty, continue international

consultations on verification of former military plants

in the nuclear weapons states, and conduct mock

inspection. Conduct multi-agency cooperative

assessment, on-site inspection simulations, and

complex data surveys to support the compilation of

treaty and agreement-mandated declaration

submissions. 

In FY 2002, the Department will work with the

Russian Federation to negotiate legally binding

agreements which allow confirmation that Russian

nuclear weapons are being dismantled and that excess

fissile materials removed from dismantled Russian

nuclear weapons are not reused in the production of

new nuclear weapons. Through WDT efforts,

maintain a technical dialog with Russian scientific and

technical organizations.

Develop and implement an initiative to ensure that the

DOE complex meets all export control statutory

requirements. Provide a leadership role in the

multilateral arena and plan and host the 2001 NSG

Plenary.

DOE will focus on cost-share projects involving U.S.

industry, in order to sharpen its focus on facilitating

commercial outcomes in Initiatives for Proliferation

Prevention. The Nuclear Cities Initiative will continue

to create jobs based on new opportunities and sectors

(e.g., environmental projects), viability evaluations,

and business potential.

Collaboration Activities:

DOE coordinates its negotiation and other activities

with the Departments of State and Defense, and the

National Security Council. In the export control area,

DOE participates in all interagency fora in support of

mandated licensing policy responsibilities.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Unwillingness of threshold states to engage in

negotiations; therefore, the lack of negotiated mandates

for the Conference on Disarmament. Political and

economic uncertainties in the former Soviet Union.

Political uncertainties in the former Soviet Union and

the possible ratification of the Russian Duma may also

affect performance.

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

Project management reviews and

reports.

Baselines: Technical baselines are specified in

a project plan.

Frequency: Quarterly technical and financial

reports, and annual project life

cycle plans submitted.

Data Storage: The headquarters, field, and

laboratory/contractor activity

managing the project maintain data

on technical progress. DOE’s

International Policy and Analysis

Division maintains a project life

cycle summary updated annually,

and detailed quarterly technical and

financial progress reports.

Verification: Analytical and technical activities

have specific reporting periods. 

DOE supplements these with

broader program reviews.

Planned Program Evaluation:

DOE uses a process of extensive internal and external

reviews to evaluate progress against established plans. 

These reviews verify and validate the performance data

that the implementing organizations have provided. 

Detailed quarterly progress reports are received from 

the U.S. laboratories for this program to ensure

technical progress, costs and schedules are being met.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 115

President’s Budget

Program and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activity

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

050 Atomic Energy Defense Activities

Defense Nuclear

Nonproliferation

International Materials

Protection, Control

and Accounting

NN 139 170 139

Description of the Program:

The mission of the International Materials Protection Control and Accounting (MPC&A) program is to secure Russian

weapons and weapons-usable nuclear material by upgrading security where the material is currently located or by

consolidating material at Russian sites where installation of enhanced security systems have already been completed. 

‘Rapid’ and ‘comprehensive’ upgrades significantly improve the security of Russian weapons-usable nuclear material. 

Rapid upgrades include measures establishing controlled areas and limits on personnel access to nuclear material;

implementing a “two-person” rule; conducting baseline inventories; bricking up windows; hardening doors; installing

locks, delay blocks and steel cages; implementing random guard patrols; and improving alarm communications. 

Comprehensive upgrades include rapid upgrades plus hardening of facilities to allow relocation of guard forces closer

to the target; installing interior and exterior detection systems, closed-circuit television (CCTV) monitoring and

assessment systems; implementing electronic access control systems, central alarm monitoring stations, and radio

communications enhancements; and conducting material inventories using advanced measurement equipment and

computerized accounting systems.

General Performance Goal:

NS4-4 STRENGTHENING RUSSIA’S MATERIALS PROTECTION, CONTROL, AND ACCOUNTING

Help Russia to install security upgrades and consolidate currently unsecured nuclear weapons and weapons-usable

material into fewer buildings and sites; convert excess HEU to LEU making it less proliferation attractive; help foster

Russian commitment to the operational sustainability of installed material protection, control, and accounting

(MPC&A) upgrades so that they provide long-term, continuing enhanced security; and track and assess nuclear

smuggling and threat cases. Continue to install MPC&A upgrades for approximately 850 MTs of nuclear material

located at 95 sites in Russia, including Navy, MinAtom Weapons Complex, and Civilian sites. Continue MPC&A

upgrades on approximately 67% of the weapons-usable nuclear material in Russia. Continue sustainability initiative to

ensure continued security of weapons usable material at sites where comprehensive MPC&A upgrades are complete. 

This effort shall include the establishment/continuation of training procedures and full operational testing. 

Performance Indicators: Performance indicators for this goal are in development. Specific output measures and

targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows. 

GPRA Program Activity: International Materials Protection, Control and Accounting
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 116

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results

! Continue to improve and integrate technology

practices, facilities and training for material

protection, control, and accounting for 650 metric

tons of weapons-useable material at 53 locations. 

(NS5-2) 2

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Continue to install MPC&A upgrades in Russia, for

defense-related sites, civilian sites, Russian Navy

projects, and the transportation sector. (NS5-2)

(MET GOAL)

! Begin consolidation of weapons-usable material into

fewer buildings and fewer sites, and eliminate 200

kilograms of weapons-grade nuclear material by

converting it to non-weapons grade form thereby

improving security and reducing overall cost.

(NS5-2)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are provided here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. NS5-2 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 117

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Complete comprehensive upgrades on an additional

8% of 850 MTs of weapons-usable nuclear material

raising the total to almost 21% secured at 95 sites in

Russia. (NS4-4)

! Complete comprehensive upgrades at an additional 

8 of 95 sites, raising the total to 37 sites. (NS4-4)

! Convert an additional 1.2 MTs of highly enriched

uranium (HEU) to low enriched uranium (LEU),

increasing the total amount converted to 2.2 MTs of

weapons-grade nuclear material by converting it to

non-weapons grade, thereby improving security and

reducing overall cost. (NS4-4)

! Complete comprehensive upgrades on an additional

8% of 850 MTs of weapons-usable nuclear material

raising the total to almost 29% secured at 95 sites in

Russia. (NS4-4)

! Complete comprehensive upgrades at an additional

13 of 95 sites, raising the total to 50 sites. (NS4-4)

! Convert an additional 1.8 MTs of highly enriched

uranium (HEU) to low enriched uranium (LEU),

increasing the total amount converted to 4.0 MTs of

weapons-grade nuclear material by converting it to

non-weapons grade, thereby improving security and

reducing overall cost. (NS4-4)

Note: For FY 2001, all three of the measures were added (in shaded text).
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 118

Means and Strategies:

In FY 2002, program will be carried out through an

interlocking set of activities including securing at-risk

material, reducing stocks of material by consolidating

it into fewer buildings and converting excess HEU into

less proliferation attractive LEU. The installation of

security upgrades will occur in a phased approach. 

Rapid upgrades include items such as baseline item

inventories, locks, delay blocks, steel cages, limiting

access, and hardening windows. Comprehensive

upgrades include rapid upgrades plus items such as

detection systems, closed circuit television monitoring

and assessment systems, material measurement

equipment, and computerized accounting systems.

In FY 2002, the program will also continue

implementing an exit strategy whose purpose is to

foster Russian development of indigenous capabilities

and commitments to protect its own sensitive material

in the long term.

In FY 2002, the program will provide assessment and

tracking of nuclear smuggling and nuclear threat cases

and enhances international nuclear emergency early

warning, preparation and response capabilities. U.S.

emergency cooperation programs are designed to

improve international nuclear crisis management

efforts. DOE has increased the effectiveness of

international emergency early warning and notification

systems by enhancing voice and video communication

connections between DOE Headquarters and

MinAtom’s Situation and Crisis Center. Efforts have

also focused on developing emergency procedures,

plans and training programs with Russia’s MinAtom,

the government of Ukraine, other foreign governments,

and international organizations (such as the IAEA,

NEA, EU and the Arctic Council).

Collaboration Activities:

DOE coordinates its negotiation and other activities

with the Departments of State and Defense, and the

National Security Council. In the export control area,

DOE participates in all interagency fora in support of

mandated licensing policy responsibilities.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Unwillingness of threshold states to engage in

negotiations; therefore, the lack of negotiated mandates

for the Conference on Disarmament. Political and

economic uncertainties in the former Soviet Union. 

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

Project management reviews and

reports.

Baselines: Technical baselines are specified in

a project plan.

Frequency: Quarterly technical and financial

reports, and annual project life

cycle plans submitted.

Data Storage: The headquarters, field, and

laboratory/contractor activity

managing the project maintain data

on technical progress. DOE’s

International Policy and Analysis

Division maintains a project life

cycle summary updated annually,

and detailed quarterly technical and

financial progress reports.

Verification: Analytical and technical activities

have specific reporting periods. 

DOE supplements these with

broader program reviews.

Planned Program Evaluation:

DOE uses a process of extensive internal and external

reviews to evaluate progress against established plans. 

These reviews provide an opportunity to verify and

validate the performance data that the implementing 

organizations have provided. Detailed, 

quarterly progress reports are received from 

the U.S. Laboratories for this program to ensure

technical progress, costs and schedules are being met.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 119

President’s Budget

Program and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M) FY 2000 FY 2001

050 Atomic Energy Defense Activities

Defense Nuclear

Nonproliferation

HEU Transparency

Implementation

NN 14 14 14

Description of the Program:

The Highly Enriched Uranium (HEU) Transparency Implementation program is responsible for ensuring that the

nonproliferation objectives of the February 1993 HEU Purchase Agreement between the United States and the Russian

Federation are met. This Agreement covers the purchase over 20 years of low enriched uranium (LEU) derived from at

least 500 metric tons of HEU removed from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons. Under the Agreement, conversion of

the HEU components into LEU is performed in Russian facilities. The purpose of the program is to put into place and

implement those goals agreed to by both sides, that permit the United States to have confidence that the Russian side is

abiding by the Agreement. The program also requires the United States to support comparable monitoring activities by

the Russian Federation representatives at U.S. facilities subject to the Agreement. NN activities under this program

support the following general performance goal that flows from the Department’s Strategic Plan.

General Performance Goal:

NS4-5 ASSURING TRANSPARENCY IN THE CONVERSION OF RUSSIAN HIGHLY ENRICHED

URANIUM (HEU) 

Monitor the contracted quantity of HEU converted from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons into LEU delivered to

USEC, Inc., which is purchasing the material pursuant to the February 1993 Agreement between the United States and

the Russian Federation. Conduct special monitoring inspections in Russian uranium processing facilities and maintain

permanent presence office in Russia to be assured that the LEU being purchased by USEC, Inc. is derived from HEU

removed from dismantled nuclear weapons. Maintain, monitor and retrieve technical data generated by the UF6 flow

and enrichment measurement equipment installed at the blend points at Russian HEU dilution facilities. Compile and

analyze collected data and information to support an interagency review and assessment of confidence with the

nonproliferation objectives of the HEU Agreement. Conduct an annual inventory of natural uranium feed material

returned to Russia for storage per the March, 1999 Feed Agreement. 

Performance Indicators: Performance indicators for this goal are in development. Specific output measures and

targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows. 

GPRA Program Activity: Highly Enriched Uranium Transparency Implementation
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 120

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results 

! Monitor the dilution of 30 metric tons of highly

enriched uranium (HEU) to low enriched uranium

(LEU) from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons for

purchase by the United States Enrichment

Corporation (USEC). (NS4-2) 2

(MET GOAL)

! Monitor the conversion of 30 metric tons of HEU

from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons into LEU

for purchase by USEC. (NS4-2)

(MET GOAL)

! Conduct up to 24 special monitoring visits to four

Russian facilities. (NS4-2)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Install permanent monitoring equipment at the

Zelenogorsk blending facility. (NS4-2)

(BELOW EXPECTATION: Minatom approval still

pending.)

! Maintain and monitor the UF6 flow and enrichment

measurement equipment installed at the blend points

at a Russian HEU dilution facility.(NS4-2)

(BELOW EXPECTATION: Minatom’s approval of the

work was obtained in October 2000. Work continued

into FY 2001.)

! Compile and analyze collected data and information

into an assessment of confidence with the

nonproliferation objectives of the HEU Agreement. 

(NS4-2)

(MET GOAL)

! Conduct Russian technology demonstrations to

further warhead dismantlement or transparency

measures. (NS4-2)

(MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. ER2-3 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 121

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Monitor the conversion of 30 metric tons of HEU

from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons into LEU

for purchase by USEC. (NS4-5)

! Conduct up to 24 special monitoring visits to the

four Russian nuclear processing facilities. (NS4-5)

! Install permanent monitoring equipment at the

Zelenogorsk blending facility. (NS4-5)

! Complete negotiations to open Permanent Presence

Office at Seversk processing facility. (NS4-5)

! Maintain and monitor the UF6 flow and enrichment

measurement equipment installed at the blend points

at Russian HEU dilution facilities. (NS4-5) 

! Monitor the conversion of 30 metric tons of HEU

from dismantled Russian nuclear weapons into LEU

for purchase by USEC. (NS4-5)

! Conduct up to 18 of 24 allowed special monitoring

visits to the four Russian nuclear processing

facilities. (NS4-5)

! Initiate technical discussions with Seversk on BlendDown Monitoring System (BDMS) modifications

leading to equipment installation in 2003. (NS4-5)

! Compile and analyze collected data and information

into an assessment of confidence with the

nonproliferation objectives of the HEU Agreement.

(NS4-5) 

! Conduct annual inventory of natural uranium feed

returned to Russia. (NS4-5)

! Conduct annual inventory of natural uranium feed

returned to Russia. (NS4-5)

Note: In the revised FY 2001 measures, two measures were deleted because they were activities and not measurable,

two measures were added, and one clarified.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 122

Means and Strategies:

In FY 2001 and FY 2002, the Department will conduct

up to 24, and 18 of 24, respectively, allowed special

monitoring visits to the four Russian nuclear

processing facilities in the program. Permanent

presence monitors will conduct transparency

operations at a 40 percent reduced staffing level in

2002 at the Ural Electrochemical Integrated Plant. 

Discussions with Minatom should be initiated to open

and staff a permanent presence office in Seversk. 

Assuming Minatom approval, DOE will work with 

technical experts from Seversk to consider, agree upon,

and implement modifications to the Blend-Down

Monitoring System (BDMS) equipment and plant

facilities prior to installing it in the Seversk blending

facility by 2003 pending funding. DOE will maintain

and collect transparency data from permanently

installed monitoring equipment at 2 of 3 blending

facilities. We will conduct the first annual inventory in

2001 of natural uranium returned to and stored in

Russia, per the March, 1999 Feed Agreement, and

conduct annual inventories thereafter. Technical

analyses of collected transparency data will be

conducted and results reported to interagency working

groups.

Collaboration Activities:

DOE coordinates its HEU Transparency

Implementation operations with the Department of

State. We also provide information to DOD, other

DOE programs, and other agencies conducting

operations at the four Russian facilities in the HEU

Transparency program.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Contract negotiations between the U.S. Enrichment

Corporation and Techsnabexport (Tenex) of Russia

will affect the quantity of HEU converted and resultant

LEU delivered per year within the overall contract. 

New contract negotiations are expected to be

completed in 2001 for deliveries in 2002 and beyond. 

The effectiveness of the HEU Transparency program

could facilitate U.S. national security and

nonproliferation programs and policy implementation.

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

Project management reviews and

reports. Foreign travel trip reports

and technical debriefings by

monitoring teams.

Baselines: 30MT/year of HEU conversion

established by contract between

Tenex (Russia) and USEC (US). 

Monitoring trips established by

bilateral negotiations are currently set

at 6 per site per year.

Frequency: Technical debriefings conducted for

each monitor team visit via

interagency coordinating group. 

Technical analysis of transparency

data continuously updated and

reported at least semi-annually.

Data

Storage:

Automated Data Analysis, Retrieval

and Transfer system is operational

and is used for transparency data and

related documents. An automated

information management system will

be available and routinely updated. 

Access to both systems is closely

managed.

Verification: Program management reviews

confirm progress and modifications to

operations. Special and permanent

monitoring teams provide a report of

activities and technical debriefings to

management and interagency

representatives.

Planned Program Evaluation:

DOE uses a process of extensive program reviews to

evaluate progress against established plans and

milestones. The program also conducts an extensive

data analysis program and reports results to DOE

management and an interagency working group. We

also use a bilateral Transparency Review Committee

process between U.S. and Russian representatives to

modify transparency operations and responsibilities to

match current and planned operations. Cost,

schedules, and program operations are reviewed semiannually in addition to monthly status reporting and

technical reviews.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 123

President’s Budget

Program and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activity

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

050 Atomic Energy Defense Activities

Fissile Materials Disposition NN 190 226 290

Description of the Program:

The Fissile Materials Disposition Program is responsible for implementing a path forward for disposing of surplus U.S.

weapons-usable fissile materials, including highly enriched uranium and plutonium, providing key negotiation and

technical support for efforts to attain reciprocal actions for disposing of surplus Russian plutonium, and storing surplus

U.S. fissile materials pending disposition. These efforts contribute to the Administration’s goal to reduce the nuclear

danger and the threat of proliferation by disposing of U.S. surplus plutonium and highly enriched uranium, and helping

Russia dispose of their surplus plutonium. NN activities under this program support the following general performance

goal that flows from the Department’s Strategic Plan.

General Performance Goals:

NS4-6 REDUCING INVENTORIES OF SURPLUS WEAPONS-USABLE FISSILE MATERIALS

WORLDWIDE IN A SAFE, SECURE, TRANSPARENT AND IRREVERSIBLE MANNER

For U.S. HEU disposition, transfer quantities of surplus U.S. HEU to USEC, Inc. and the Tennessee Valley Authority to

make LEU fuel for commercial reactors and, over time, arrange for disposition of additional lots of surplus HEU

through down-blending and commercial use. For U.S. plutonium, disposition: implement the U.S. hybrid strategy for

plutonium disposition in rough parallel with plutonium disposition in Russia, which includes design, construction, and

operation of U.S. plutonium disposition facilities. However, the design of the Pit Disassembly and Conversion Facility

will continue at a reduced rate and the work on immobilization will be suspended and results documented. For Russian

plutonium disposition, work with Russia in conducting tests and demonstrations of plutonium disposition technologies;

participate in U.S. government efforts to implement the provisions of the bilateral agreement with Russia for the

disposition of Russian weapons-grade plutonium; assist in U.S. efforts to secure international financing to support

plutonium disposition in Russia; and develop advanced reactor technology. A study will be conducted to examine

alternatives aimed at reducing costs n the U.S. and Russia and making greater se of existing facilities and equipment.

Performance Indicators: Performance indicators for this goal are in development. Specific output measures and

targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows. 

GPRA Program Activity: Fissile Materials Disposition 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 124

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results 

! Complete the final Environmental Impact Statement

and issue a Record of Decision on siting plutonium

disposition facilities. (NS4-2) 2

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Initiate design for Pit Disassembly and Conversion

Facility, and the Mixed Oxide (MOX) Fuel

Fabrication facility. (NS4-2)

(MET GOAL)

! Issue the Record of Decision on a site(s) for three

plutonium disposition facilities. (NS4-2/FMFIA)

(MET GOAL: delays in the siting decision will

continue this work into FY 2001.)

! Complete Title I design of the MOX Fuel Fabrication

Facility required for submittal of licence

application to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

(NS4-2)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Complete Title I design of the Pit Disassembly and

Conversion Facility. (NS4-2/FMFIA)

(BELOW EXPECTATION: unexpected delays in

deciding the site caused this work to continue into

FY 2001.)

! Initiate, by the end of FY 1999, negotiations with

Russia on a bilateral agreement for the disposition of

surplus weapons plutonium. (NS4-2)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Begin to implement a bilateral agreement with

Russia for plutonium disposition. (NS4-2/FMFIA)

(MET GOAL)

! Continue transfer of U.S. surplus HEU to the United

States Enrichment Corporation for dilution and

subsequent sale. (NS4-2)

(MET GOAL)

! Ship 4MT (8% of 50MT) of surplus HEU to U.S.

Enrichment Corporation (USEC). (NS4-2)

(NEARLY MET GOAL: intend to catch up in

FY 2001.)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. NS4-2 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 125

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Initiate Title II design of the Pit Disassembly and

Conversion Facility and the MOX Fuel Fabrication

Facility. (NS4-6/FMFIA-surplus fissile materials)

! Complete Title II (detailed) design of the MOX Fuel

Fabrication Facility (MOX FFF). (NS4-6/FMFIAsurplus fissile materials)

! Initiate the design of the Immobilization Facility. 

(NS4-6) 

! Support international financing arrangements for

Russian plutonium disposition activities. (NS4-6)

! Begin facility upgrades for a demonstration-scale

plutonium conversion system in Russia. (NS4-6)

! Initiate designs of industrial-scale plutonium

conversion and MOX fabrication facilities in Russia.

(NS4-6)

! Ship 9 MT (18% of 50MT) of surplus HEU to USEC.

(NS4-6)

! Ship 9 MT (18% of 50MT) of surplus HEU to USEC.

(NS4-6)

Note: For FY 2001, one measure was modified (in shaded text) and three other measures were deleted because they

were activities or because they were inconsistent with new directions.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 126

Means and Strategies:

The Fissile Materials Disposition Program continues

the necessary research and development, facility

design, and site support activities necessary to

implement the Administration’s hybrid strategy for

U.S. plutonium disposition (involving both

immobilization and irradiation of MOX fuel in

reactors). However, the immobilization effort will be

suspended and the design of the Pit Disassembly and

Conversion Facility will continue at a reduced rate. 

The U.S. and Russia are proceeding to implement

roughly parallel programs with comparable, although

not necessarily identical, rates of plutonium

disposition. The Fissile Materials Disposition

Program continues to dispose of surplus highly

enriched uranium by down-blending the material to

low-enriched uranium for peaceful use in commercial

reactors.

Collaboration Activities:

The United States Enrichment Corporation and the

Tennessee Valley Authority are key players in the

success of the highly enriched uranium disposition

effort. The Department provides support to the U.S.

Department of State as the lead for negotiating with

Russia, and for negotiating with the international

community to provide financial support and

multilateral arrangements for plutonium disposition in

Russia.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is responsible for

licensing the MOX fuel fabrication facility and the

commercial reactors that will irradiate MOX fuel. 

The Fissile Materials Disposition Program also relies

on other Department of Energy elements (Defense

Programs and Environmental Management) to use

existing facilities, personnel, and processes to store and

dispose of surplus fissile materials and to minimize

overall Department costs, to shorten the time to

complete projects, and to provide mutually-beneficial

performance results. Uncoordinated changes in those

baseline programs could impact performance of the

Fissile Materials Disposition program.

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

Technical objectives and progress

specified in research and

development reports and

international agreements; cost

performance data generated by

DOE and contractor financial

systems; program/project specified

schedule tracking systems; project

management reviews.

Baselines: Long-term baselines established by

MD Level 1 Master Schedule;

annual scope, cost, and schedule

baselines established via MD

Annual Operating Plan; project

design and construction baselines

established in Project Execution

Plans and contract requirements.

Frequency: MD required cost and schedule

performance reports reviewed

monthly; technical evaluations

conducted at specified review

points; facility design reviews 

conducted at established

increments of design efforts.

Data Storage: Project management data on MD

network server; technical and

design data on contractor projectspecific computer systems.

Verification: Cost data verified by DOE and MD

financial systems. Schedule data

verified by project work scope

managers through receipt and

review of technical products and

reports and accomplishment of

technical milestones.

Planned Program Evaluation:

MD conducts weekly, monthly, and quarterly reviews

at varying levels to monitor progress in implementing

the Administration’s hybrid strategy for plutonium

disposition and for highly enriched uranium

disposition. Reviews will occur more frequently as the

disposition program moves further into the

implementation phases.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 127

President’s Budget

Program and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program 

Sub-Activities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002 

Request 

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

050 Atomic Energy Defense Activities

Naval Reactors - NR 670 688 688

Description of the Program:

Naval Reactors is responsible for all Naval nuclear propulsion work, beginning with technology development,

continuing through reactor operation and, ultimately, reactor plant disposal. The Program’s efforts have ensured, and

continue to ensure, the safe operation of the many reactor plants in operating nuclear powered submarines and aircraft

carriers, and have fulfilled the Navy’s requirements for new reactors to meet evolving national defense demands. NR

activities under this program support the following general performance goal that flows from the Department’s

Strategic Plan.

General Performance Goal:

NS5-1 PROVIDING SPECIAL NUCLEAR POWER SYSTEMS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY

This goal encompasses all Naval nuclear propulsion work, beginning with technology development, continuing through

reactor operation and, ultimately, reactor plant disposal. Through Naval Reactors, a joint DOE/Navy program, the

Department ensures the safe operation of the reactor plants in operating nuclear powered submarines and aircraft

carriers comprising 40 percent of the Navy’s major combatants, and is fulfilling the Navy’s requirements for new

reactors to meet evolving national defense demands. Ensure the safety, performance, reliability, and service-life of

operating reactors. Maintain outstanding environmental performance-- ensure no personnel exceed Federal limits for

radiation exposure and no significant findings result from environmental inspections by State and Federal regulators. 

Performance Indicators: Performance indicators for this goal are in development. Specific output measures and

targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows. 

GPRA Program Activity: Naval Reactors 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 128

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results

! Ensure the safety, performance reliability, and

service-life of operating reactors. (NS6-1)

 (MET GOAL)

! Develop new reactor plants, including the next

generation reactor, which will be 85 percent

complete by the end of FY 1999, and ensure the

safety, performance reliability, and service-life of

operating reactors. (NS6-1) 2

 (EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Develop new reactor plants, including the next

generation reactor, the design of which will be 90

percent complete by the end of FY 2000, and

complete initial development efforts on a reactor

plant for the next generation aircraft carrier. 

(NS6-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Ensure radiation exposures to workers or the public

from Naval Reactors’ activities are within Federal

limits and no significant findings result from

environmental inspections by State and Federal

regulators. (NS6-2)

 (MET GOAL)

! Ensure radiation exposures to workers or the public

from Naval Reactors activities are within Federal

limits and no significant findings result from

environmental inspections by State and Federal

regulators. (NS6-1)

 (MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. NS6-1 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 129

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Ensure the safety, performance, reliability, and

service-life of operating reactors for uninterrupted

support of fleet demands, including maintaining 

utilization factors of at least 90% for test reactor

plants, and 121 million miles steamed for nuclearpowered ships.(NS5-1)

! Ensure the safety, performance, reliability, and

service-life of operating reactors for uninterrupted

support of fleet demands, including maintaining 

utilization factors of at least 90% for test reactor

plants, and 124 million miles steamed for nuclearpowered ships.(NS5-1)

! Develop new technologies, methods and materials to

support reactor plant design, including the next

generation submarine reactor, which will be 93

percent complete by the end of FY 2001, and initiate

detailed design efforts on a reactor plant for the next

generation aircraft carrier. (NS5-1)

! Develop new technologies, methods and materials to

support reactor plant design, including the next

generation submarine reactor, which will be 96

percent complete by the end of FY 2002, and conduct

detailed design efforts on a reactor plant for the next

generation aircraft carrier. (NS5-1)

! Maintain outstanding environmental performance--

ensure no personnel exceed Federal limits for

radiation exposure and no significant findings result

from environmental inspections by State and Federal

regulators. (NS5-1)

! Maintain outstanding environmental performance--

ensure no personnel exceed Federal limits for

radiation exposure and no significant findings result

from environmental inspections by State and Federal

regulators. (NS5-1)

Note: For the FY 2001, shaded text indicates revisions to improve the measure.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 130

Means and Strategies:

The Department uses two government-owned,

contractor-operated laboratories, the Bettis and Knolls

Atomic Power Laboratories (approx. 5,500 people),

which are solely dedicated to Naval nuclear propulsion

work. Through these laboratories and testing

conducted at the Advanced Test Reactor (ATR) located

at the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental

Laboratory (INEEL), the Department will complete

scheduled design, analysis and testing of reactor plant

components and systems and conduct planned

development, testing, examination, and evaluation of

nuclear fuel systems, materials, and manufacturing and

inspection methods necessary to ensure the continued

safety and reliability of reactor plants in Navy

warships. The Department will also accomplish

planned testing, maintenance and servicing at landbased prototype nuclear propulsion plants, and execute

all planned inactivation of surplus, land-based reactor

plants in support of environmental clean-up goals. 

Finally, the Department will carry out the radiological,

environmental and safety monitoring and ongoing

clean-up of facilities necessary to protect people,

minimize release of hazardous effluents to the

environment and comply with all applicable

regulations.

Collaboration Activities:

Naval nuclear propulsion work is an integrated effort

of the DOE and the Navy, who are full partners in the

Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program. This relationship

is set forth in the Executive Order 12344 and Title 42

U.S.C. 7158.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Industry-specific business conditions, outside

technological developments and Department of Navy

decisions all impact the performance of Naval nuclear

propulsion work.

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

The DOE’s Office of Naval Reactors

(NR) maintains an integrated

business and financial management

information system used by

headquarters, field offices and M&O

contractors. This system incorporates

program performance measure data. 

Work outcomes are tracked and

reported at appropriate levels. Both

financial and technical performance

measure accomplishments are

reported and reviewed semi-annually.

Baselines: The baselines are established based

on technical scopes of work and the

associated costs approved by the

Department.

Frequency: Financial performance is updated

monthly. Status of technical

performance is tracked through

various methods, including ongoing

oversight by field offices; periodic, in

depth program reviews; ongoing

audit programs; and formal reports. 

Performance measure status is

reviewed semi-annually.

Data

Storage:

Source documentation is held by the

Office of Naval Reactors.

Verification: Department approval of all work

done at laboratories, close oversight

of M&O contractors, periodic

program reviews, formal audits and

appraisals, and frequent reporting.

Planned Program Evaluation:

DOE uses extensive internal and external reviews to

evaluate progress against established plans. NR plans

semi-annual reviews of performance measure

execution in addition to monthly financial and

technical work reviews with the M&O contractors.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 131

President’s Budget

Program and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

Activity

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

Other Defense Activities

Intelligence Intelligence IN 39 36 41

Counterintelligence Counterintelligence CN 37 45 46

Description of the Program:

The Intelligence Program provides the Department, other U.S. government policymakers, and the Intelligence

Community with timely, accurate, high impact foreign intelligence analyses in the following core areas: nuclear

proliferation and weapons; nuclear energy, safety, and waste; science and technology; and energy security. In addition,

this program provides support to the Department's counterintelligence objectives. The Intelligence Program also

provides quick turnaround, specialized technology applications and operational support to the intelligence, special

operations, and law enforcement communities. 

The Counterintelligence program provides the Department, other U.S. Government policymakers, and the Intelligence

Community with the capability to successfully identify, neutralize, and deter intelligence threats directed at the

Department’s facilities, personnel, information, and technologies. IN and CN activities under this program support the

following general performance goal that flows from the Department’s Strategic Plan.

General Performance Goal:

NS6-1 PROVIDING INTELLIGENCE AND COUNTERINTELLIGENCE

The Intelligence program provides timely, high impact foreign intelligence analyses and inform U.S. nonproliferation

and arms control policy formulation and execution with all-source evaluations of foreign nuclear weapons programs.

The Counterintelligence (CI) program will: (1) administer investigations that support migration of the CI threat and

that identify matters that require further investigation by the FBI; (2) develop threat assessments that identify targeting

of DOE personnel and assets; (3) develop a multi-channel communications program that enhances employee awareness

of CI issues with measurable employee feedback; (4) develop and deploy an enhanced intrusion detection capability for

DOE to address cyber threats; (5) conduct inspections of CI programs that ensure comprehensive and quality effort at

DOE sights; and (6) evaluate employees assigned to high-risk positions. 

Performance Indicators: Performance indicators for this goal are in development. Specific output measures and

targets for FY 1999 - FY 2001 are listed in the table that follows. For FY 2002, we will be reporting against the

general performance goal.

GPRA Program Activity: Intelligence and Counterintelligence 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 132

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results 

Counterintelligence:

! Implement the DOE Counterintelligence Action Plan

pursuant to Presidential Decision Directive-61 to

strengthen controls and protections of sensitive

information, especially at the nuclear weapons

laboratories. (NS3-3) 2

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Complete the Counterintelligence Implementation

Plan’s recommendations. (FMFIA) (NS3-3) 

 (NEARLY MET GOAL)

Intelligence:

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. NS3-3 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 133

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Complete the Counterintelligence Implementation

Plan’s recommendations. (NS6-1/(FMFIA)

! Inform U.S. nonproliferation and arms control policy

formulation and execution with all-source

evaluations of foreign nuclear weapons programs.

(NS6-2)

Note: For FY 2001, a performance measure (in shaded text) for Counterintelligence was a result of the FMFIA process

and a measure was deleted because it was an activity and not measurable. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 134

Means and Strategies:

The Department will produce and disseminate

intelligence analyses assessing the efforts of key

countries, organizations, or individuals to acquire,

develop, or sell nuclear weapons or related materials,

technologies, and expertise. DOE also will produce

and disseminate intelligence analyses evaluating

Russian activities, strategies, intentions, and

requirements with respect to various bilateral and

multilateral nuclear weapons-related treaties and

agreements. 

Collaboration Activities:

In addition to those analyses reflecting the

Department's particular technical expertise and

viewpoints on foreign nuclear weapons programs,

DOE will work with its counterparts in intelligence

analysis of foreign nuclear programs to produce

analyses reflecting common Intelligence Community

positions as well as areas of disagreement on issues of

key policy interest. 

External Factors Affecting Performance:

The availability of credible, high-quality data from

multiple sources will have a direct impact on DOE's

ability to produce solid intelligence analysis on any

given national security issue. In addition, analytic

work on specific countries and topics frequently is

driven by high-profile international developments,

which may influence the mix of coverage in any given

fiscal year. 

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

Quarterly reports and program review

briefings.

Baselines: Established annually in approved

program plans.

Frequency: Quarterly financial progress reports

and annual program reviews.

Data

Storage:

N/A

Verification: Analytic activities have quarterly

reporting periods, which are

supplemented by and expanded upon

in annual program reviews.

Planned Program Evaluation:

Intelligence analytical activities undergo an annual

program review each spring that both reviews progress

and accomplishments in the year to date and 

previews key issues for the upcoming fiscal year.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 135

President’s Budget

Program and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activity

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M) FY 2000 FY 2001

050 Other Defense Activities

Worker and Community

Transition

- WT 24 24 24

Description of the Program:

The mission of the Office of Worker and Community Transition is to minimize the social and economic impacts of

changes in the Department’s activities and encourage disposition of the Department’s unneeded assets. 

The principle functions of the Office are to: (1) establish policy and provide funding for contractor work force

restructuring activities; (2) develop policy for contractor labor relations, oversee the collective bargaining process, and

assist the Department’s Field organizations in labor/management relations; (3) establish policy for community

transition and allocate funding to mitigate economic impacts; (4) provide for the disposition of unneeded properties to

encourage private sector investment for job creation and economic; (5) reduce potential domestic and international

economic impacts caused by disposition of unneeded materials by the Defense National Stockpile Center; and (6)

provide information and opportunities for participation in the decision-making process affecting the contractor work

force and adjacent communities.

General Performance Goal:

NS3-2 MANAGING CONTRACTOR WORK FORCE RESTRUCTURING

Minimize the social and economic impacts to individuals and communities caused by changes in the Department’s

work force and encourage orderly disposition of the Department’s unneeded assets. Develop strategies to limit

increases in unplanned employee attrition at early closure sites to no more than 30 percent, in order to maintain

essential work skills. 

Performance Indicators: Performance indicators for this goal are in development. Specific output measures and

targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows. 

GPRA Program Activity: Worker and Community Transition
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 136

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results 

! Keep involuntary separations between 30 and 60

percent of positions eliminated while assuring

maintenance of essential work force skills mix and

productivity. (NS3-6) 2

 (NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Achieve annual recurring costs savings from

separated workers that is at least three times the one

time cost of separation. (NS3-6)

 (EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Support local community transition activities that

will create, cumulatively, 15,000 to 20,000 new

private sector jobs by the end of FY 1999. (NS3-6) 

 (EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Limit involuntary termination of employment at

Department of Energy defense nuclear facilities

between 30 and 60 percent of positions eliminated. 

(NS3-6)

 (MET GOAL)

! Achieve annual recurring costs savings from

separated workers that is at least three times the one

time cost of separation. (NS3-6)

 (MET GOAL)

! Support local community transition activities that

will create 3,000 to 5,000 jobs during FY 2000,

bringing the total jobs created to between 20,000

and 25,000 by the end of FY 2000. (NS3-6)

(MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. (NS3-6) for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 137

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Develop strategies to limit increases in unplanned

employee attrition at early closure sites to no more

than 30 percent, in order to maintain essential work

skills. (NS3-2)

! Achieve annual recurring costs savings from

separated workers that are at least three times the

one time cost of separation. (NS3-2)

! Support local community transition activities that

will create, cumulatively, between 24,000 and 27,500

new private sector jobs by the end of FY 2001. (NS3-

2)

! Achieve annual recurring cost savings from

separated workers that are at least three times the

one time cost of separation. (NS3-2)

! Support local community transition activities that

will create or retain, cumulatively, between 27,500

and 29,000 private sector jobs by the end of FY

2002. (NS3-2)

Note: For FY 2001, one performance measure was deleted because it was an unmeasurable activity.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 138

Means and Strategies:

The Department will achieve the workforce

restructuring objectives through headquarters oversight

and contractor performance measures that will

encourage cost-effective use of voluntary separation

strategies, manage attrition, and internal placement. 

The community transition goal will be achieved

through financial and technical assistance provided to

community reuse organizations at the affected sites. 

The economic conversion goal will be achieved

through headquarters technical assistance and

oversight to field organizations designed to encourage

the leveraging of underutilized assets to achieve cost

savings.

 

Collaboration Activities:

The Office of Worker and Community Transition

works through Lead Program Offices at Field activities

to coordinate work force planning and restructuring

requirements and strategies in consultation with

interested stakeholders. The community transition

activities work through the Community Reuse

Organizations (CRO) made up of representatives from

each diverse group within the community.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Contracting strategies and mission changes in major

operating programs fundamentally influence the need

for work force restructuring and community transition

assistance. Uncertainties in long-range plans and

resources could adversely impact the ability to meet

program objectives.

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

Annual Report on Contractor Work

Force Restructuring, Field manager

certifications, Community

Transition Semi-Annual Report

(Reports available on web site in

“Data Storage”)

Baselines: Same as above.

Frequency: Annually and semi-annually

Data Storage: Electronic files, WT’s office library,

WT’s web page

http://www.wct.doe.gov/

Verification: Field and CRO representatives and

Planned Program Evaluation:

The Annual Report on Contractor Work Force

Restructuring and independent reviews and audits have

been performed by the GAO and Booz-Allen &

Hamilton, Inc. with anticipated continued external

review and evaluation. Revised community transition

criteria were developed in 1999 in response to GAO

recommendations.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 139

GPRA Program Activity: Security and Emergency Operations

President’s Budget Program

and Financing (P&F) Accounts

and Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

050 - Other Defense Activities

Nuclear Safeguards and

Security

SO 95 117 121

Security Investigations SO 33 33 45

Program Direction SO 83 80 82

Undistributed SO - - 20

Total 210 231 269 

Description of the Program:

The Office of Security and Emergency Operations consolidates functions and budgets from several DOE offices to

develop and promulgate safeguards and security policy, oversee all security-related functions in the Department, and

centralize cyber-security and emergency operations throughout the DOE complex. In FY 2001, safeguards and security

activities are direct funded for the first time in the Department’s history. Funding for the field security activities is

identified as a separate decision units for safeguards and security, but remain in the accounts where those sites are

funded by the landlord program offices.

General Performance Goals:

NS6-2 PROVIDING SECURITY AND EMERGENCY OPERATIONS

Develop and implement policy and guidelines for the protection of the Department’s critical assets. Provide the

capability to successfully address the areas of personnel security, physical countermeasures, cyber security including

forensics analysis capability, nuclear material control and accountability, and policy for hosting foreign visitors. 

Continue to improve and enhance the control and accountability of nuclear materials in the DOE complex through the

development of state-of-the-art technologies, including measurement equipment and core nuclear material accounting

software. 

Direct Department-wide energy sector critical infrastructure protection activities and lead and coordinate Departmental

efforts to work with industry, state, and local governments, and national and international entities. Work with the

national energy sector toward developing the capability required for assuring the Nation’s energy infrastructures,

including the physical and cyber components of the electric power, oil, and gas infrastructures, the interdependencies

among those components, and the interdependencies with the other critical national infrastructures. Identify DOE

technologies that can help assure our Nation’s critical energy infrastructures and facilitate their use by the private

sector and other Federal agencies.

Modernize information security program to analyze and deter major incidents involving the compromise of classified

information. This includes: expansion of information assurance forensics analysis capabilities to support

investigations and prosecutions of unauthorized disclosures of classified information; training for response personnel

on preservation of evidence including electronic media; expansion of the Department’s technical surveillance

countermeasures program; and supporting the development and approval of a comprehensive Cyber Security Program

Plan that describes the implementation of cyber security protection for every DOE site.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 140

Address enhanced protection measures for the most critical nuclear weapon design information as outlined by the

DOD/DOE Joint Policy Group for the Protection of Nuclear Weapons Design and Use Control Information. Provide an

effective system for the tracking and management of foreign visits by the Department of Energy that is supportive of

rapidly changing and growing national security needs.

CM4-1 PROMOTING EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES

IN THE DEPARTMENT

Ensure economical and effective management of information resources to support DOE missions and objectives. Make

effective use of commercial applications and solutions for DOE’s enterprise-wide IT infrastructure; link IT investments

to DOE strategic goals and the needs of business operations; minimize the number of redundant and duplicative

systems; and improve enterprise-wide data sharing. 

Performance Indicators: Performance indicators for these goals are in development. Specific output measures and

targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 141

The following facing pages show four years of performance measures for 

Security and Emergency Operations.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 142

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results

! Accomplish the milestones of the FMFIA corrective

action plan for the Departmental challenge of

unclassified computer security. (formerly MA) 

 (CM5-1) 2

(MET GOAL)

! Complete the milestones listed in the FMFIA

corrective action plan for the Departmental

Challenge of Security. (CM5-1/FMFIA)

 (MET GOAL)

! Complete the milestones listed in the FMFIA

corrective action plan for the Departmental

Challenge of Mission Critical Staffing. 

(CM5-1/FMFIA)

 (MET GOAL)

! Initiate the correction of DOE infrastructure

vulnerabilities identified by the President’s

Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection. 

(NS3-3)

 (MET GOAL)

! Reduce by 15 actions the processing backlog of

requests for classified documents submitted under

the Freedom of Information Act and Executive Order

12958 mandatory review provisions. (CM2-3)

(BELOW EXPECTATION: Additional reviewers were

obtained but the five fold increase in priority reviews

prevented reaching goal this year.)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. CM5-1 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 143

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Complete the milestones listed in the FMFIA

corrective action plan for the Departmental

challenge of security. (NS6-2/FMFIA)

! Complete the milestones listed in the FMFIA

corrective action plan for the Departmental

challenge of mission critical staffing. (NS6-

2/FMFIA)

! Complete the milestones listed in the FMFIA

corrective action plan for the Departmental

challenge of information technology management.

(CM4-1/FMFIA) 

! Demonstrate improvement of a comprehensive

emergency management system to ensure effective

Departmental response to all DOE emergencies.

 (NS6-2)

! Maintain robust emergency response assets in

accordance with Presidential Decision Directives 39,

41, 62, 63, and 67 and the Atomic Energy Act,

Executive Order 12656, and Federal Emergency

Plans. (NS6-2)

! Complete the milestones listed in the FMFIA

corrective action plan for the Departmental

challenge of security. (NS6-2/FMFIA)

Note: The FY 2001 performance plan included several additional measures which do not meet our criteria for inclusion

here, and therefore have been removed in this revision. Strikeouts and shaded text in the measures indicate revisions
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 144

Means and Strategies:

- Work with the private sector and State and local

governments to develop and implement regional

critical infrastructure protection initiatives.

- Refine energy infrastructure vulnerability

assessment methods through conduct of

assessments at 8-10 entities in the natural gas and

nuclear sectors.

- Continue/implement critical infrastructure

protection (CIP) research and development, with a

focus on producing CIP vulnerability assessment

methodology and infrastructure interdependency

analysis capability.

 

Collaboration Activities:

In the area of critical infrastructure protection, the

Department participates in a number of interagency

groups and public-private forums, including:

- The Partnership for Critical Infrastructure Security

(public-private)

- Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP)

CIP Research and Development Working Group

(interagency)

- Communications and Information Sector Working

Group (public-private, led by the Department of

Commerce)

- Energy Infrastructure Assurance Coordination

Group (interagency, DOE-led)

- National Petroleum Council/DOE CIP

Subcommittee (public-private)

- North American Electric Reliability Council CIP

Forum (public-private)

- Critical Infrastructure Coordination Group

(interagency)

- Technical Support Working Group (interagency)

External Factors Affecting Performance:

The CIP program’s indicated performance goals and

associated schedules depend heavily on funding

continuity and sufficiency.

Planned Program Evaluation:

The Office of Critical Infrastructure Protection

conducts monthly, detailed reviews of program

activities, schedules, and expenditures. The Director

and all program managers participate to ensure that

activities are on schedule and within budget.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 145

President’s Budget

Program and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

Other Defense Activities

Oversight Activities - OA 12 15 15

Description of the Program:

The Office of Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance (OA) is a corporate resource that performs

independent oversight to verify that DOE security interests are protected and that DOE can respond to emergencies.

The Office is committed to excellence and continuously strives for improvement by conducting independent oversight

of safeguards and security performance. The hallmark and highest priority of all Independent Oversight and

Performance Assurance activities is daily excellence in the protection of the workers and the Nation. The Office of

Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance activities are concentrated within one GPRA Program Activity:

Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance. OA activities under this program support the following general

performance goal that flows from the Department’s Strategic Plan.

General Performance Goal:

NS6-3 CONDUCTING INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT AND PERFORMANCE ASSURANCE

Conduct safeguards and security evaluations and continuous cyber security inspections at major Departmental sites to

provide an independent assessment of the status of safeguards and security programs and establish a baseline of

findings. Perform regular assessments of emergency management programs at DOE sites. 

Performance Indicators: Performance indicators for this goal are in development. Specific output measures and

targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows. 

GPRA Program Activity: Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 146

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results

! Conduct oversight special reviews, assessments,

evaluations, and inspections of such topics as

emergency management, and safeguards and

security. (CM1-1) 2

 (MET GOAL)

! Conduct oversight special reviews, assessments,

evaluations, and inspections addressing emergency

management, safety management, and accidents.

(CM1-1)

 (MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. CM1-1 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 147

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Conduct safeguards and security evaluations at 20

major sites per year to provide an independent

assessment of the status of safeguards and security

programs for the Secretary and to establish a

baseline of findings in a database designed to track

and measure improvement in these areas at sites

throughout the Department. (NS6-3)

! Perform continuous cyber security inspections and

no-notice reviews at 14 major Departmental sites

per year to improve oversight of cyber security and

establish a baseline of issues through a new function

dedicated solely to cyber security reviews, offsite

monitoring of Internet security, and controlled

attempts to penetrate security firewalls. This new

function represents a substantial increase over

previous efforts to evaluate cyber security within the

Department. (NS6-3)

! Provide for the dedicated oversight of emergency

management issues at Department Headquarters

and 15 major Departmental sites. This function

focuses solely on the effectiveness of the

Department’s emergency management programs and

establish a performance baseline of the status of

these programs throughout the Department. (NS6-3)

! Conduct 3 special complex-wide reviews of topics

such as Wildland Fire Safety and National

Emergency Response Assets to determine their

effectiveness across the complex. Findings and

issues associated with these programs will be

maintained in a database to track corrective actions

and assist in measuring improvement in these

critical areas throughout the Department. (NS6-3)

! Conduct safeguards and security evaluations at 20

major sites per year to provide an independent

assessment of the status of safeguards and security

programs for the Secretary and continue to report the

baseline of findings in a database designed to track

and measure improvement in these areas at sites

throughout the Department. (NS6-3)

! Perform continuous cyber security inspections and

no-notice reviews at 14 major Departmental sites per

year to improve oversight of cyber security. These

inspections results are measures against the baseline

of issues to determine the improvement of cyber

security, offsite monitoring of Internet security, and

controlled attempts to penetrate security firewalls.

This function represents an increase over previous

efforts to evaluate cyber security within the

Department. (NS6-3)

! Provide for the dedicated oversight of emergency

management issues at Department Headquarters and

15 major Departmental sites. This function focuses

solely on the effectiveness of the Department’s

emergency management programs. This oversight is

measured against the baseline of these programs

throughout the Department and provides information

for Department-wide improvement. (NS6-3)

! Conduct 3 special complex-wide reviews of topics

such as Wildland Fire Safety and National

Emergency Response Assets to determine their

effectiveness across the complex. Findings and issues

associated with these programs are maintained in a

database to track corrective actions. These reviews

provide information Department-wide for critical

area improvements. (NS6-3)
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

National Nuclear Security 148

Means and Strategies:

In order for the Office of Independent Oversight and

Performance Assurance (OA) to achieve its mission, it

requires the technical support of national-level experts

that are at least comparable to Federal personnel at the

excepted service level. While Independent Oversight

and Performance Assurance has some unique,

national-level experts, these are insufficient to perform

all necessary oversight activities. Further, because of

the nature of the activities, contract support continues

to be more practical and cost-effective to provide a

surge pool of technical experts than expanding the

Federal oversight staff for a number of reasons:

S Peak loads associated with onsite inspections make

it more effective and efficient to use contractor

personnel who are tasked only when needed.

S The need for evaluators with national-level

expertise in different technical disciplines (ranging

from cyber-security to nuclear material control and

accountability) is more efficiently provided by

contractors. The needs for various technical

expertise are continually evolving and frequently 

change as new needs are identified. Such evolving

needs can best be met through use of contractors as

the Federal staff and personnel systems are unable

to rapidly respond to the continually changing skills

mix.

Similarly, because of the nature of Independent

Oversight and Performance Assurance activities and

the intense scrutiny that Independent Oversight and

Performance Assurance is under, Independent

Oversight and Performance Assurance reviews must be

performed in a manner that is demonstrably unbiased.

Collaboration Activities:

No collaboration activities are anticipated.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

No external factors are envisioned that would affect

OA performance.

Validation and Verification:

Data Sources: Information is collected and

validated at the field sites during

the inspection reviews etc. 

Baselines: Technical baselines have been 

developed for the new program

and are utilized during

inspections. 

Frequency: Reviews occur as appropriate with

approximately 20 major sites

being reviewed annually. 

Data Storage: The Office of Independent

Oversight and Performance

Assurance maintains copies of all

reports. All unclassified reports

are available through the

INTERNET. 

Verification: All findings during reviews are

validated with the site. The site

also reviews the report before

publication.

Planned Program Evaluation:

OA is the highest level of oversight in the Department

for these activities. An extensive peer and program

review process is followed to assure that reports reflect

the highest quality achievable.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Environmental Quality 149

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

The Department of Energy is committed to honoring

the government’s obligation to clean up its sites across

the country that supported the Nation’s production and

testing of nuclear weapons; to dispose of spent nuclear

fuel from civilian nuclear power plants; to dispose of

Department-owned spent nuclear fuel and high-level

radioactive wastes; and to protect human health and

the environment. During the Cold War, the nuclear

weapons complex generated large amounts of waste,

which pose unique problems. There exist vast volumes

of contaminated soil and water, radiological hazards

from special nuclear material, and a large number of

contaminated buildings and structures. Much of this

massive infrastructure, waste, and contamination still

exists.

Despite the complexity and size of the challenge, DOE

has made substantial progress over the past decade in

cleaning up the nuclear weapons complex. At the

beginning of FY 2001, the Department had finished

active cleanup at 71 of the 113 geographic sites,

leaving 42 to be completed.

DOE’s goal is to complete cleanup at as many

additional sites as possible by 2006. At the sites

remaining after 2006, which include our largest sites,

DOE will continue treatment for the

remaining“legacy”waste streams, and manage legacy

nuclear materials (including nuclear material

stabilization and disposition). To protect human health

and the environment, the Department will implement

long-term stewardship activities after active cleanup is

completed at the sites.

In addition to the environmental legacy of nuclear

weapons production, the United States has growing

inventories of commercial spent nuclear fuel currently

stored at reactor sites in 33 States, and spent fuel from

nuclear-powered naval vessels. Geologic disposal is

the national strategy for the ultimate disposition of this

spent fuel and of defense high-level radioactive waste. 

It is also the technical foundation for our international

stance on nuclear nonproliferation, as well as the likely

path forward for other materials such as excess fissile

materials. The Department’s Office of Civilian

Radioactive Waste Management has made substantial

progress in characterizing Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to

determine its suitability as a geologic repository site for

these wastes. Based on the viability assessment

completed in 1998, the Department believes that Yucca

Mountain remains a promising site for a geologic

repository and that work should proceed toward a

decision on whether to recommend the site to the

President. If the site is recommended for development

as the repository site, a final environmental impact

statement will accompany the site recommendation. If

Yucca Mountain is designated as the repository site, a

license application for construction authorization by

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be developed. 

Under current plans, waste acceptance at the repository

would begin in 2010.

ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY GOAL

Aggressively clean up the environmental

legacy of nuclear weapons and civilian

nuclear research and development programs

at the Department’s remaining sites, safely

manage nuclear materials and spent nuclear

fuel, and permanently dispose of the Nation’s

radioactive wastes.

The Environmental Quality goal is supported by the

following three strategic objectives. 

EQ1: Safely and expeditiously cleanup sites across

the country that supported nuclear weapons

research, production, and testing and

conducted DOE-funded nuclear energy and

basic science research in the United States. 

After completion of cleanup, continue

stewardship activities to ensure that human

health and the environment are protected.

EQ2: Complete the characterization of the Yucca

Mountain site and, assuming it is determined

suitable as a repository and the President and

Congress approve, obtain requisite licenses,

construct and, in FY 2010, begin acceptance of

spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive

wastes at the repository.

EQ3: Manage the material and facility legacies

associated with the Department’s uranium

enrichment and civilian nuclear power

development activities.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Environmental Quality 150

The following table maps the Presidential Budget’s Program and Financing (P&F) accounts and program activities to

the Department of Energy’s offices and GPRA Program Activities. The alignment includes aggregation,

disaggregation, and consolidation of budget decision units. The chart that follows this table shows how the decision

units support the Department’s Strategic Plan objectives for this business line. 

President’s Budget Program and

Financing (P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

FY 2002

Request

($M)

DOE 

Office

GPRA Program Activity

050 Atomic Energy Defense Activities

Defense Environmental Restoration

and Waste Management (ERWM)

 

Site/Project Completion 912 EM Environmental Management

Post 2006 Completion 2,108 EM

Program Direction 356 EM

EM Science & Technology 196 EM

Excess Facilities 1 EM

Post 2006 Completion - ORP 812 EM

Safeguards and Security 206 EM

 Subtotal (ERWM) 4,591

 Adjustments (42) EM

Defense Facilities Closure Projects 1,050 EM

Defense Environmental Management

Privatization

142 EM

Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund (420) EM

Defense Nuclear Waste Disposal 310 RW Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

270 Energy Supply 

Non-Defense Environmental

Management

229 EM Environmental Management

Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund 252 EM

Uranium Programs 111 EM

Nuclear Waste Disposal Fund 135 RW Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

TOTAL Environmental Quality 6,358
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Environmental Quality 151

The Environmental Quality goal is supported by three strategic objectives. Each strategic objective is being pursued

through long-term strategies. In this annual performance plan these long term strategies have been stated in terms of

General Performance Goals against which outcome performance indicators and annual (output) performance measures

have been established. To make the linkage of these outcomes and outputs to the budget resources we have organized

the plan by GPRA Program Activities which are aligned with the budget decision units through aggregation,

disaggregation, and consolidation. The general performance goals and indicators and annual measures and targets are

discussed with the GPRA Program Activities on the following pages. This approach allows us to clearly link annual

performance with annual budget resources and the strategic plan objectives. The chart below gives an overview of the

linkage of budget decision units and strategic objectives for Environmental Quality.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Environmental Quality 152

President’s Budget

Program and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program 

Sub-Activities DOE

Office

Comparable

Approp. ($M) FY 2002

Request

($M) FY 2000 FY 2001

Defense Environmental

Restoration and Waste

Management 

- Site/Project Completion

- Post 2006 Completion

- Program Direction

- EM Science & Technology

EM 4,604 5,063 4,591

Defense Facilities Closure

Projects

- Site Closure EM 1,062 1,080 1,050

Defense Environmental

Management Privatization

- Defense EM Privatization EM 127 90 142

Non-Defense

Environmental

Management

- Site Closure

- Site/Project Completion

- Post 2006 Completion

EM 309 279 229

Uranium Facility

Maintenance &

Remediation 

Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund EM 336 393 363

Adjustments Uranium Enrichment D&D Fund

General Reduction for S&S

Prior Year Balances

(420) (419) (462)

Total 5,949 6,266 5,913

Description of the Program

The Environmental Management (EM) program budget structure categorizes projects according to their specific

appropriation – Defense Environmental Restoration and Waste Management, Defense Facilities Closure, Defense

Environmental Management Privatization, Non-Defense Environmental Management, and the Uranium Facilities

Maintenance and Remediation Account. The structure of the EM budget continues to be based on the grouping of

activities into projects at the various Departmental sites, a crucial step in accelerating work and lowering the cost of

carrying out the EM mission. EM’s budget program accounts reflect near-term goals and emphasis on completion:

S Site Closure provides funding for completing cleanup and closing down facilities with no enduring Federal

presence on-site, except for stewardship activities. The Department has established a goal of completing cleanup at

the sites in this account by the end of 2006. 

S Site/Project Completion funds those projects for which EM has established a goal of completion by 2006 at 1) EM

sites where overall site cleanup will not be fully accomplished by 2006; and 2) DOE sites where EM has set a goal

of completion of all EM projects by 2006 (except for long-term stewardship activities), but where there will be a

continuing Federal workforce at the site to carry out enduring non-EM missions. 

S Post 2006 Completion funds projects that are expected to require work beyond 2006 and includes efforts at the

Department’s largest sites, where operations have been carried out over a long period of time and associated cleanup

will take longer to complete. It includes Multi-Site activities, such as Pollution Prevention, Environmental and

Regulatory Activities, Transportation and Packaging, Emergency Preparedness, and National Analytical

Management Program activities. 

S Science and Technology manages and directs investments in research, development, implementation, and

deployment of new technologies.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Environmental Quality 153

71

50

61 66 69 74 75

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

Pre-1997 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Cumulative Site Completions

The EM budget structure includes an account for Program Direction which provides the critical oversight and

management functions for the EM program including federal salaries, travel and other costs. 

General Performance Goals:

EQ1-1 COMPLETING GEOGRAPHIC SITE CLEANUP

Complete cleanup at as many of the Department’s 42 remaining sites as possible by 2006. Continue cleanup at the

remaining sites, including the 5 largest sites, scheduled for completion in the post 2006 time-frame. 

Performance Indicators: 

a.) Number of geographic sites completed – This indicator tracks geographic site completion progress and

supports strategic objective EQ1. A geographic site is an area of land (or series of buildings) where EM has or is

conducting cleanup work. Sites range in size from as small as a football field to larger than the state of Rhode

Island. If EM performance goals are met, 75 of the 113 sites will be completed by FY 2002.

b.) Number of release site cleanups completed – This indicator tracks release site cleanup progress and supports

strategic objective EQ1. Remedial action/release site cleanups are conducted at inactive waste sites or facilities

where releases or spills have occurred and contamination has been released into the environment. If EM

performance goals are met, approximately 5,161 (52 percent) release site cleanups will be completed out of a

total inventory of approximately 9,995 release sites by the end of FY 2002.

c.) Number of facilities decommissioned – This indicator tracks facility decommissioning progress and supports

strategic objective EQ1. Decommissioning involves the decontamination and dismantlement and removal of

nuclear facilities that are no longer active and pose a risk to public health and the environment. 

Decommissioning operations range from small cleanup activities involving portions of buildings to complete

structural dismantlement. If EM performance goals are met, more than 673 (20 percent) facilities will be

decommissioned by the end of FY 2002 out of a total inventory of approximately 3,391 facilities that require

decommissioning.

d.) Number of facilities deactivated - This indicator encompasses activities where the intent is to minimize the

risks, hazards, and associated costs at facilities and to make those facilities available for potential re-use or

eventual decontamination and decommissioning. While these activities can include material handling and

movement activities, the intent of such activity is to remove the material with the goal of readying the
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Environmental Quality 154

facility/system for the preferred end state. Deactivation includes removal of fuel, draining, reconfiguring and/or

de-energizing of nonessential systems such as HVAC, electrical, monitoring, water, heating, and steam, removal

of surplus supplies, chemicals, classified equipment and documents, limited decontamination, and removal of

hazardous, mixed, and radioactive wastes. If EM performance goals are met, 424 (18 percent) facilities will be

deactivated by the end of FY 2002 out of a total inventory of approximately 2,311 facilities that require

deactivation.

EQ1-2 DISPOSE OF WASTE GENERATED DURING PAST AND CURRENT DOE ACTIVITIES 

Safely and expeditiously dispose of waste generated during past and current DOE activities. Continue shipment of

transuranic (TRU) waste for disposal at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP).

Performance Indicator: 

Volume of waste disposed or treated by waste type – These indicators track waste (i.e., high-level waste,

transuranic waste, mixed low-level waste, and low-level waste) disposal progress and support strategic objective

EQ1. Waste disposal is defined as waste emplacement designed to ensure isolation of the waste from the biosphere

with no intention of retrieval for the foreseeable future, and requiring a deliberate action to regain access to the

waste. Waste management disposal activities support completion of the geographic sites and will ultimately enable

many of the EM sites to be made available for other beneficial uses. 

a.) High-Level Waste – High-level waste is highly radioactive waste material resulting from the reprocessing

of spent nuclear fuel, including the liquid waste produced directly in reprocessing and any solid material

derived from such liquid waste that contains fission products in sufficient concentrations, and other highly

radioactive material that is determined, consistent with existing law, to require permanent isolation. The

long-term objective for high-level waste management is disposal in a licensed geologic repository. Highlevel waste is made disposal-ready through treatment to produce canisters of vitrified waste. By the end of

FY 2001, vitrification at the West Valley Demonstration Project in New York is planned to be completed. 

During FY 2002, the Defense Waste Processing Facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina plans

to produce another 150 canisters of vitrified high level waste, bringing the total of number of canisters of

high-level waste produced to 1,576. This will complete about 8 percent of the approximately 19,179

canisters of high-level waste that is currently scheduled to be produced between FY 1996 and life-cycle

completion.

b.) Transuranic Waste – Transuranic waste is radioactive waste containing more than 100 nanocuries of

alpha-emitting transuranic isotopes per gram of waste, with half-lives greater than 20 years, except for, a)

high-level radioactive waste; b) waste that the Secretary of Energy has determined, with the concurrence of

the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, does not need the degree of isolation required by

the 40 CFR Part 191 disposal regulations; or c) waste that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has approved

for disposal on a case-by-case basis in accordance with 10 CFR Part 61. The long-term objective is to

dispose of all defense related transuranic waste at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) in New Mexico. 

The Department initiated disposal operations at WIPP on March 26, 1999. Approximately 98 percent of

DOE’s transuranic waste is stored at six major sites: Los Alamos National Laboratory, Rocky Flats

Environmental Technology Site, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Hanford Site, Idaho National Engineering

and Environmental Laboratory, and the Savannah River Site. If EM performance goals are met, by the end

of FY 2002 more than 8,404 cubic meters of transuranic waste will be shipped to WIPP for disposal. This

will complete about 5 percent of the total volume of transuranic waste (175,600 cubic meters) that requires

disposal between FY 1998 and 2034. (The WIPP legal limit of 175,600 cubic meters is provided as the lifecycle estimate since the expectation is that the full capacity at WIPP will be needed to dispose of EM’s

transuranic waste). 

c.) Mixed Low-Level Waste – The long-term goal for mixed low-level waste disposal is to develop the

capacity needed to dispose of the existing inventory as well as any newly generated waste. The near-term

goal for mixed waste disposal is to complete site selection for facilities. If EM performance goals are met,

by the end of FY 2002 approximately 48,284 cubic meters of mixed low-level waste will be disposed. This
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Environmental Quality 155

will complete about 36 percent of the total volume of mixed low-level waste (134,472 cubic meters) that

requires disposal between FY 1998 and life-cycle completion.

d.) Mixed Low-Level Waste – Mixed low-level waste consists of both hazardous (as defined by the Resource

Conservation and Recovery Act) and radioactive (as defined by the Atomic Energy Act) components and is

not high-level or transuranic waste. The long-term goal for mixed low-level waste is to develop the

necessary treatment of the existing inventory as well as any newly generated waste. The near-term goal for

mixed waste treatment is to optimize the configuration outlined in the site treatment plans. If EM

performance goals are met, by the end of FY 2002 approximately 32,465 cubic meters of mixed low-level

waste will be treated. This will complete about 42 percent of the total volume of mixed low-level waste

(77,997 cubic meters) that requires treatment between FY 1998 and life-cycle completion.

e.) Low-Level Waste – Low-level waste is radioactive waste that is not high-level radioactive waste,

transuranic waste, spent nuclear fuel, byproduct material (as defined under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954)

or naturally occurring radioactive material. The near-term and long-term goals of low-level waste

management are to continue to dispose of low-level waste at a pace to eliminate currently stored low-level

waste and match generation of new waste. If EM performance goals are met, by the end of FY 2002, a total

of 255,534 cubic meters of low-level waste will be disposed. This will complete about 13 percent of the total

volume of low-level waste (1,940,746 cubic meters) that requires disposal between FY 1998 and life-cycle

completion.

EQ1-3 STABILIZE NUCLEAR MATERIAL AND SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

Stabilize nuclear material and spent nuclear fuel by producing safer chemical and/or physical forms of the material,

reduce the level of potential risk to personnel from radiation exposure or to the environment from contamination 

Performance Indicators: 

 a.) Quantity of nuclear material stabilized – This indicator tracks progress on the stabilization of nuclear

material and supports strategic objective EQ1. The Department must stabilize these materials (i.e., produce

a safer chemical and/or physical form of the material) to reduce the level of potential risk such as exposure

to radiation, contamination of people and the environment, and critical events. Stabilization means that

something (i.e., processing from a liquid to a solid form, processing to remove activated waste streams,

repackaging, etc.) must be done to the nuclear material so that they pose significantly less risk to workers,

the public, and/or environment. The following types of nuclear material are reported in this plan: 

kilograms bulk of plutonium residue and containers of plutonium metals/oxides. If EM performance goals

are met, by the end of FY 2002 the Department will stabilize 101,887 kilograms bulk of plutonium residue

and 2,947 containers of plutonium metals/oxides. This will complete approximately 89 percent of the

kilograms bulk of plutonium residue and 39 percent of the plutonium metals/oxides that require stabilization

between FY 1998 and life-cycle completion. 

 b.) Quantity of spent nuclear fuel moved to dry storage - Similar to nuclear materials, spent nuclear fuel

must also be stabilized. The number of metric tons of heavy metal of spent nuclear fuel that is moved to dry

storage is an indicator of stabilization progress. If EM performance goals are met by the end of FY 2002, a

total of approximately 860 metric tons of heavy metal of spent nuclear fuel will be moved to dry storage. 

This will complete 35 percent of the total amount of spent nuclear fuel (approximately 2,484 metric tons of

heavy metal) that will be moved to dry storage between FY 1998 and life-cycle completion.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Environmental Quality 156

EQ1-4 DEPLOYING INNOVATIVE CLEANUP TECHNOLOGIES 

Deploy innovative environmental cleanup, nuclear waste, and spent fuel treatment technologies that reduce cost,

resolve currently intractable problems, and/or are more protective of workers and the environment. 

Performance Indicator: 

Number of New Technologies Deployed: This indicator tracks progress on technology development and

deployment and supports strategic objective EQ1. Deployment is the use of a technology or technology system

toward accomplishment of one or more site-specific DOE EM program cleanup objectives as applied to the actual

waste requiring management at the site. The intent of this indicator is to encourage sites to deploy innovative

technologies to solve cleanup problems and reduce cost. If EM performance goals are met, 250 innovative

technology deployments will be accomplished in FY 2002.

EQ3-1 DISPOSING OF THE DEPARTMENT’S DEPLETED URANIUM HEXAFLORIDE AND EXCESS

NATURAL URANIUM INVENTORIES

Work with State, local, and Federal regulators to ensure that the Department's inventories of depleted uranium

hexafluoride are stored and maintained in a safe and efficient manner. Manage the development and implementation

of a long-term strategy for the conversion and disposition of depleted uranium hexafluoride in a manner that makes

useful and safe conversion products and cost-effectively disposes of the remainder. Effectively manage arrangements

with the United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC, Inc.) on the lease of facilities and electric power supplies, and

reimbursable services. 

Performance Indicator:

Performance indicator for this goal is in development. Specific output measures and targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002

are listed in the table that follows. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Environmental Quality 157

The following facing pages show four years of performance measures for Environmental Management.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Environmental Quality 158

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results 

1a. Geographic Site Cleanup (EQ2-1) 2

EM completed three sites in FY 1999: Ames

Laboratory in Iowa, Sandia National Laboratory in

California, and Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory

in New Jersey.

(MET GOAL)

! Complete remediation at 2 geographic sites, increasing the

total completed to 71 of the 113 geographic sites. 

(EQ2-1/FMFIA)

(MET GOAL) Monticello Remedial Action Project in Utah,

and Columbus Environmental Project-King Avenue in Ohio.

! Monitor field activities and participate in reviews at

Savannah River Operations Office to ensure adherence to

project costs and schedules. This is an FY 2000 FMFIA

milestone. (EQ2-1/FMFIA)

(MET GOAL)

1b. Release Site Cleanup Progress (EQ2-1)

EM completed 161 of the planned 165 release site

cleanups. 

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Complete 252 release site cleanups. This will bring the

total number of completed release site cleanups to 4,730

out of a total inventory of approximately 9,700 release

sites. (EQ2-1)

(NEARLY MET GOAL) 207** release site cleanups

completed Total revised to 4919** and inventory revised to

9995**.

1c. Facility Decommissioning Progress (EQ2-1)

EM decommissioned 92 facilities exceeding the goal

of 80. 

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Complete 82 facility decommissionings. This will bring

the total number of completed decommissionings to 640

out of a total inventory of approximately 3,300 facilities. 

(EQ2-1)

(NEARLY MET GOAL) completed 77 of the 82.

1d. Facility Deactivation Progress Deactivated 30 facilities.

2a. High Level Waste (HLW) Progress – Canisters

 Produced (EQ3-1)

The DWPF produced 236 canisters of HLW and

West Valley produced 12 canisters of HLW,

exceeding the goal of 215 canisters. 

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Produce 200 canisters of HLW at the Defense Waste

Processing Facility (DWPF) at Savannah River Site, and 5

canisters of HLW at the West Valley Demonstration

Project. This will complete about 4 percent of the total

canisters that will be produced from FY 1998 to life-cycle

completion. (EQ3-1)

(EXCEEDED GOAL) EM produced 241 canisters

2b. Transuranic (TRU) Waste Progress – Shipments

to WIPP (EQ3-1)

Approximately 282** cubic meters of TRU waste

were shipped to WIPP for disposal. The plan was to

prepare 700 cubic meters and and ship 100 to 200

cubic meters. Delayed opening of WIPP postponed

the preparation of additional waste for disposal.

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Ship 1,200 cubic meters of TRU waste to WIPP for

disposal. This will bring the total TRU waste shipped to

1,550 cubic meters, which is about 1 percent of the total

TRU waste that requires disposal between FY 1998 and FY

2034. (EQ3-1)

(BELOW EXPECTATION ) Shipped 371** cubic meters of

TRU waste to WIPP for disposal.

! Implement the permit requirements in parallel with the

court challenge and begin Mixed TRU waste disposal

operations at WIPP in FY 2000.

(MET GOAL) (EQ3-1/FMFIA) 

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or FY 2002 are presented

here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete description of the results is in the

Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. EQ2-1 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to the 1997 strategic plan.

3. We also have had to revise some of the results since the Performance and Accountability Report was published due to change control

actions and as such these numbers differ slightly from the numbers in that Report. These are noted with **. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Environmental Quality 159

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Complete remediation at the following 3 geographic

sites increasing the total completed to 74 of the 113

geographic sites:

- Argonne National Laboratory-West in Idaho, 

- Grand Junction Office Site in Colorado, and 

- General Atomics Site in California. (EQ1-1)

! Complete actions addressing safety and health issues

at Paducah from 1990 forward. (Phase I) 

(EQ1-1/FMFIA-safety and health)

! Complete remediation at one additional geographic

site, Weldon Spring Site in Missouri increasing the

total completed to 75 of the 113 geographic sites. 

(EQ1-1)

! Complete 166 183 release site cleanups. This will

bring the total number of completed release site

cleanups to 5,102 out of a total inventory of

approximately 9,995 release sites. (EQ1-1)

! Complete 59 release site cleanups bringing the total

number of completed release site cleanups to 5,161

out of a total inventory of approximately 9,995

release sites. (EQ1-1)

! Complete 46 28 facility decommissionings. This will

bring the total number of completed

decommissionings to 667 out of a total inventory of

approximately 3,391 facilities. (EQ1-1)

! Complete 6 facility decommissionings. This will

bring the total number of completed

decommissionings to 673 out of a total inventory of

approximately 3,391 facilities. (EQ1-1)

! Deactivate 8 facilities bringing the total number of

completed deactivations to 417 out of a total of

approximately 2,311 facilities. (EQ1-1)

! Deactivate 7 facilities bringing the total number of

completed deactivations to 424 out of a total of

approximately 2,311 facilities. (EQ1-1)

! Produce 205 225 canisters of HLW . This will

complete about 7.4 percent of the total canisters that

will be produced from FY 1998 to life-cycle

completion. (EQ1-2)

! Produce 150 canisters of HLW. This will complete

about 8 .2 percent of the total canisters that will be

produced over the program life-cycle. (EQ1-2)

! Ship 3,400 2,425 cubic meters of TRU waste to WIPP

for disposal. This will bring the total TRU waste

shipped to 3,078 cubic meters, which is about 1.8

percent of the total TRU waste that requires disposal

between FY 1998 and FY 2034. (EQ1-2)

! Ship 5,326 cubic meters of TRU waste to WIPP. This

will bring the total TRU waste shipped to 8,404 cubic

meters, which is about 5 percent of the total TRU

waste that requires disposal between FY 1998 and

FY 2034. (EQ1-2)

Note: For the FY 2001, strikeout and shaded text in the measures indicates revisions.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Environmental Quality 160

Annual Performance Measures1 (Continued):

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results

2c. Mixed Low-Level Waste (MLLW) Disposal

Progress (EQ3-1)

 2

(MET GOAL)

! Dispose of 10,000 cubic meters of MLLW. This will

bring the total MLLW disposed to 35,500 cubic meters

which is about 15 percent of the total MLLW that

requires disposal between FY 1998 and FY 2070.

(EXCEEDED GOAL) (EQ3-1)

Disposed 10,933** . Total revised to 32,474.

2d. Mixed Low-Level Waste (MLLW) Treatment

Progress

Treated 6,473 cubic meters of MLLW of the planned 6,973

cubic meters.

2e. Low-Level Waste (LLW) Disposal Progress

(BELOW EXPECTATION) (EQ3-1)

Disposed of more than 49,400 cubic meters of LLW of the

73,000 planned. Contributing factors were: Lack of

agreement with the State of Nevada on cleanup standards;

and lack of NEPA authority to ship stored waste at Oak

Ridge.

! Dispose of 40,000 cubic meters of LLW. This will

bring the total LLW disposed to 116,000 cubic meters

which is about 7 percent of the total LLW that requires

disposal between FY 1998 and FY 2070. (EQ3-1)

(EXCEEDED GOAL) Disposed 50,340** . Total revised

to 126,201.

3a. Nuclear Material Stabilization (Plutonium)

Progress (EQ1-1)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

EM stabilized 31,033 kilograms bulk of plutonium

residues, 16 liters of plutonium solution and 275 containers

of plutonium metals/oxides. Seismic issue and equipment

malfunctions of the stabilization system at Richland

contributed to the shortfall. 

! Stabilize 400 containers of plutonium metals/oxides,

41,000 kilograms bulk of plutonium residues, and 130

handling units of other nuclear material in other

forms. This will complete stabilization of about 10

percent of the containers of plutonium metals/oxides,

70 percent of the kilograms bulk of plutonium

residues, and 3 percent of the handling units of other

nuclear material in other forms that will require

disposal between FY 1998 and life-cycle completion.

(EQ1-1)

(NEARLY MET GOAL) Stabilized 29,460 kg bulk of

plutonium residues and 574 containers of plutonium

metals/oxides, and 224 handling units of other nuclear

materials.

3b. Spent Nuclear Fuel (SNF) Stabilization Progress

 (EQ1-1)

(BELOW EXPECTATION)

In FY 1999, 0.34 MTHM of SNF was stabilized. This was

a result of a criticality issue discovered in the de-watering

system operation that precluded processing Three Mile

Island spent nuclear fuel canisters.

! Move to dry storage 35.1 metric tons of heavy metal

(MTHM) of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) to dry storage. 

This will complete transfer of 2 percent of MTHM of

SNF that will be moved to dry storage between

FY 1998 and life-cycle completion. (EQ1-1)

(BELOW EXPECTATION) Moved approximately 3 tons

of MTHM to dry storage.

4a. Technology Deployment Progress: (EQ2-4)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

125 innovative technology deployments were achieved

exceeding the goal of 60.

! Accomplish 60 innovative technology deployments.

(EXCEEDED GOAL) (EQ2-4)

210 innovative technology deployments were achieved

exceeding the goal of 60.

Disposal of Depleted Uranium Hexafloride:

! Met all commitments made to the Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency and the Defense Nuclear Facilities

Safety Board to ensure the safety of the Department’s

inventory of depleted uranium hexafluoride. (EQ6)

(MET GOAL)

! Meet commitments to the Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency, the Tennessee Department of

Environment and Conservation, and the Defense

Nuclear Facilities Safety Board to ensure the safety of

the Department’s inventory of depleted UF6. (EQ2-4)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

Notes: see page 158 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Environmental Quality 161

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Dispose of approximately 7,500 8,271 cubic meters

of MLLW. This will bring the total MLLW disposed

to 40,745 cubic meters which is about 30 percent of

the total MLLW that requires disposal between FY

1998 and FY 2070. (EQ1-2)

! Dispose of approximately 7,539 cubic meters of

MLLW. This will bring the total MLLW disposed to

48,284 cubic meters which is about 36 percent of

the total MLLW that requires disposal between FY

1998 and FY 2070. (EQ1-2)

! Treat approximately 4,814 cubic meters of MLLW in

FY 2001 . This will bring the total MLLW treated to

29,385 cubic meters which is about 38 percent of

the total MLLW that requires disposal between FY

1998 and FY 2070. (EQ1-2)

! Treat approximately 3,080 cubic meters of MLLW. 

This will bring the total MLLW treated to 32,465

cubic meters which is about 42 percent of the total

MLLW that requires disposal between FY 1998 and

FY 2070. (EQ1-2)

! Dispose of approximately 27,000 47,908 cubic

meters of LLW. This will bring the total LLW

disposed to more than174,109 cubic meters which is

about 9 percent of the total LLW that requires

disposal between FY 1998 and FY 2070. (EQ1-2)

! Dispose of approximately 81,425 cubic meters of

LLW. This will bring the total LLW disposed to

255,534 cubic meters which is about 13 percent of

the total LLW that requires disposal between

FY 1998 and FY 2070. (EQ1-2)

! Stabilize 500 510 containers of plutonium

metals/oxides and 16,000 29,456 kilograms bulk of

plutonium residues. This will complete stabilization

of about 19 percent of the containers of plutonium

metals/oxides, and 83 percent of the kilograms bulk

of plutonium residues that require stabilization

between FY 1998 and life-cycle completion. (EQ1-3)

! In FY 2002, stabilize 1,508 containers of plutonium

metals/oxides and 6934 kilograms bulk of plutonium

residues. This will complete stabilization of about 39

percent of the containers of plutonium metals/oxides

and 89 percent of the kilograms bulk of plutonium

residues that require stabilization between FY 1998

and life-cycle completion. (EQ1-3)

! Move to dry storage 279.57 195 metric tons of heavy

metal (MTHM) of spent nuclear fuel (SNF) to dry

storage. This will complete transfer of 8 percent of

MTHM of SNF that will be moved to dry storage

between FY 1998 and life-cycle completion. (EQ1-3)

! Move to dry storage 662 metric tons of heavy metal

(MTHM) of spent nuclear fuel (SNF). This will

complete transfer of 35 percent of MTHM of SNF

that will be moved to dry storage between FY 1998

and life-cycle completion. (EQ1-3)

! Accomplish 60 200 innovative technology

deployments. (EQ1-4)

! Accomplish 250 innovative technology deployments. 

(EQ1-4)

! Publish the depleted Uranium Hexafluoride

Conversion Services Request for Proposals in

October 2000. (EQ3-1)

! Award the depleted Uranium Hexafluoride

Conversion Services contract. (EQ3-1)

! Complete conceptual designs and begin preliminary

designs for two depleted Uranium Hexafluoride

Conversion facilities and issue a draft

Environmental Impact Statement. (EQ3-1)

Note: For FY 2001, eight measures, three related to studies and reports, two related to assessments, two related to

technology deployments, and one related to pollution prevention, have been deleted from the revised set of measures

because they were deemed to be interim activities, and/or did not meet the significance criteria.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Environmental Quality 162

Means and Strategies

Geographic Site Completion: The Department is

implementing strategies to accomplish the EM

program vision of completing cleanup at as many sites

or projects as possible by 2006. A geographic site is

considered “complete” (or at its end state) when:

S ‘Legacy’ waste (i.e., waste produced by past nuclear

weapons production activities, with the exception of

high-level waste) has been disposed of in an

approved manner;

S Deactivation or decommissioning of all facilities

currently in the EM program has been completed,

excluding any long-term surveillance and

monitoring;

S All releases to the environment have been cleaned

up in accordance with agreed-upon cleanup

standards;

S Groundwater contamination has been contained, or

long-term treatment or monitoring is in place; and

S Nuclear material and spent fuel have been

stabilized and/or placed in safe long-term storage.

The Department will first focus on reducing any

worker or public safety and health risks; then on offsite contamination; prevention of contamination

migration; reduction of on-site contamination;

allocation of resources to effectively maintain essential

infrastructure support; funding for other essential

prudent business management activities; release of

facilities and land to the public for beneficial reuse

where this is deemed appropriate; and finally,

additional characterization efforts to reduce uncertainty

at the various sites in regard to eventual cleanup

approaches.

Cleanup progress is measured by completion of

geographic sites or projects where EM is responsible

for remediation of contaminants and other material. 

Interim progress is demonstrated by cleaning up

portions of the EM geographic sites, referred to as

“Release Sites” and “Facilities”. Cleaning up these

areas ultimately leads to the completion of the entire

geographic site. 

The Department will continue to conduct facility

surveillance and maintenance activities to ensure there

is: (1) no degradation of key plant systems; (2)

retention of authorized basis and configuration control;

(3) maintenance of key staffing, qualifications, and

training; and (4) compliance with Federal and State

safety and environmental regulations.

Waste Management: Waste management programs

will continue to dispose of DOE low-level and mixed

radioactive waste primarily at its current disposal

facilities although the Department, with stakeholder

participation, will consider alternative disposition

paths that are more cost-effective while still protective

of the public and the environment. The Department

will continue to ship transuranic waste to the Waste

Isolation Pilot Plant for disposal, and continue

vitrification operations to produce disposal ready highlevel waste canisters. Operations will minimize

generation of new waste, re-use, and recycle where

possible to accomplish pollution prevention goals. 

In addition, the Department will continue to reengineer waste management practices and strive to

have newly generated wastes disposed as generated. 

Waste management activities will ensure safe handling

and storage of waste in addition to maximizing

isolation to reduce risks. The Department will

integrate waste management programs across the DOE

complex by consolidating waste storage, treatment and

disposal facilities to maximize efficiency, reduce

environmental risks and costs of operations. Efforts

will continue to improve the quality and value of

information on the generation, inventory,

management, and transportation of DOE waste.

Nuclear Material and SNF Stabilization: The

Department will work closely with regulators, the

Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB) and

others to achieve the objective of reducing worker,

public, and environmental risks. Progress is measured

by the amount of nuclear material stabilized and made

disposition ready. Nuclear material will be stabilized

at the F- and H-Areas at Savannah River, at the

Plutonium Finishing Plant at Richland, and in several

facilities at 

the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site. 

Spent nuclear fuel from the West Valley

Demonstration Project and Three Mile Island will be

placed in dry storage at the Idaho National

Engineering and Environmental Laboratory. These

activities have been prioritized so that the most serious

risks are addressed first. 

Technology Development and Deployment: Science

and Technology provides environmental cleanup

technologies and technical solutions on a schedule that

enables achieving cleanup and bringing into

compliance the majority of the DOE complex by 2006. 

Investments in science and technology will continue to

be planned and managed in an interactive,

coordinated, participatory relationship with EM
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Environmental Quality 163

cleanup project managers and stakeholders. The

Science and Technology work scope priorities will be

established through a multi-attribute decision model

that prioritizes EM’s technology needs and drives

investments for science and technology. No activity

will be funded unless it: addresses one of EM’s highest

priority needs; reduces the cost of EM’s costliest

cleanup projects; reduces EM’s technological risk;

accelerates and increases technology deployment by

bridging the gap between development and use; or

contributes to a targeted scientific research agenda. 

EM’s technology development efforts will continue to

concentrate on five major Focus Areas: (1) Mixed

Waste; (2) Radioactive Tank Waste; (3) Subsurface

Contaminants; (4) Deactivation and Decommissioning

and (5) Nuclear Materials (formerly Plutonium

Stabilization).

Disposal of the Department’s depleted UF6

 and Excess

Natural Uranium Inventories: The Department will

continue its efforts to safely maintain its inventory of

depleted uranium hexafluoride and prepare to convert

this material to a more stable form. This includes

maintaining depleted UF6 storage cylinders in an

environmentally responsible manner by conducting

annual storage cylinder inspections and developing and

implementing options to repair cylinders exhibiting

accelerated corrosion. In addition, the Department will

begin procurement activities for the design of

conversion facilities.

Collaboration Activities

< Regulatory Compliance: DOE negotiates and signs

environmental compliance and cleanup agreements

with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

and or the state regulatory agencies, as appropriate. 

Key parameters such as required cleanup levels

must be negotiated with the appropriate regulators

and stakeholders for each site.

< Developing Disposal Options for Mixed Low-Level

and Low-Level Waste: The Department has

conducted numerous meetings with state, tribal, and

stakeholder groups to discuss disposal options for

mixed low-level waste and low-level waste prior to

making final decisions.

< Long-Term Stewardship: The Department will

maintain a presence at most sites to ensure that the

reduction in risk to human health and the

environment is maintained. The extent of longterm stewardship required at a site will reflect the

end state developed in consultation among DOE,

Congress, Tribal Nations, representatives of

regulatory agencies, state and local authorities and

other stakeholders.

< Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB):

EM works with the DNFSB to implement

recommendations relating to activities at the

Department’s defense nuclear facilities affecting

nuclear health and safety. 

< Environmental Management Advisory Board

(EMAB): EM solicits advice and guidance from

the EMAB on a wide variety of topics relating to

the management of the EM program. The EMAB’s

membership consists of state and local government

representatives, technical experts, and stakeholders.

External Factors Affecting Performance

< Cleanup Standards: Decisions made regarding the

extent of cleanup and cleanup levels at EM’s

contaminated sites impact the program’s cost,

schedule, and scope (i.e., it costs more and takes

longer to cleanup a site for residential use than to

clean it up for industrial development). 

< Commercially Available Options for Waste

Disposal: Accomplishment of the environmental

cleanup objectives assumes the continued

availability of commercial options for mixed lowlevel waste and low-level waste disposal.

< Technologically Available Solutions: The

development and deployment of innovative

technologies will help meet national needs for

regulatory compliance, lower life-cycle costs, and

reduce risk to the environment and public health.

< Uranium Programs: The Department assists the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission in preparing

annual reports on the safety status of the diffusion

plants. The Department also performs analysis in

consultation with the uranium industry in support

of the Secretary of Energy’s determination with

regard to the impact of the sale of excess

Departmental uranium on the uranium industries.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Environmental Quality 164

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

Data are based on an aggregation of

Field-generated “actual” and planned

performance results for EM’s

projects. Performance targets are

established based on the current year 

appropriations and the plan year

budget request. 

Baselines: The Operations/Field Offices’

baselines are reported during the

annual update of the Corporate

Database. Planning baselines reflect

cost, schedule, and scope from FY

1997 through life-cycle completion. 

(Life-cycle quantities by PBS are

available from either FY 1997 (i.e.,

release sites, facilities, and canisters

of high-level waste produced) or FY

1998 (i.e., waste, nuclear material,

and spent nuclear fuel) through

2070. Because FY 1997 was the year

that EM transitioned to Project

Baseline Summaries (PBSs), quantity

information by project for FY 1997

is not available for each corporate

performance measure. Where

reliable historical information is

available, pre-FY 1997 performance

measure quantity data are provided at

a summary level only (i.e., not at the

project detail level). 

Frequency: EM collects mid-year and year-end

actual results by PBS for the majority

of the corporate performance

measures. Milestone data are tracked

on a quarterly basis. 

Data

Storage:

Data are entered into the EM

Integrated Planning, Accountability

and Budgeting System-Information

System (IPABS-IS) and are

maintained in the EM Corporate

Database.

Verification: The Operations/Field Office project

managers and the EM Headquarters

Site Leads verify and formally

approve the Project Baseline

Summary (PBS) data. Discussions

between Headquarters and the Field

occur on a continuing basis to ensure

the data reported for both internal

management reviews and to meet

external requirements are accurate

and complete. There are also a

limited number of built-in,

automated checks in IPABS-IS that

flag input errors. EM Headquarters

distributes data quality reports to the

Field and to technical and

programmatic experts within

Headquarters who are responsible for

reviewing and verifying the data

submittal. EM also analyzes and

verifies performance results as part of

the Headquarters/ Field

Management Review process. 

Planned Program Evaluation

The Department evaluates progress and results against

the EM program’s performance during monthly

Headquarters/ Field Management Reviews. The EM

corporate performance measures data are aggregated

by Project Baseline Summary (PBS) to the site level, to

the Operations/Field Office level, and to a total EM

level, as applicable, to provide a complex-wide

assessment of program results. At each level of the

organization, performance goals are tracked, evaluated,

and interpreted to determine corrective actions and to

assess areas requiring improvement.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Environmental Quality 165

President’s Budget

Program and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

050 Atomic Energy Defense Activities

Defense Nuclear Waste

Disposal

Defense Nuclear

Waste Disposal

RW 112 200 310

270 Energy Supply

Nuclear Waste Fund Nuclear Waste

Fund

RW 240 190 135

Total 352 390 445

Description of the Program:

The Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management (RW) implements the Federal policy for permanent disposal of

high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel, in order to protect the public health and the environment. The

Department has made substantial progress in characterizing Yucca Mountain, Nevada, to determine its suitability as a

geologic repository site for these wastes. Based on the viability assessment completed in 1998, the Department believes

that Yucca Mountain remains a promising site for a geologic repository and that work should proceed toward a decision

on whether to recommend the site to the President. This decision will consider the views of the State of Nevada,

affected Indian tribes, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, as required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. In turn,

the President will decide whether to recommend the site to Congress. If the site is recommended for development as the

repository site, a final environmental impact statement will accompany the site recommendation. 

If Yucca Mountain is designated as the repository site, a license application for construction authorization by the

Nuclear Regulatory Commission will be developed. Under current plans, waste acceptance at the repository would

commence in 2010. However, the Department’s schedule remains critically dependent on adequate program funding.

Any additional reductions will impact selected critical near-term milestones for the Yucca Mountain Site

Characterization Project, and possibly the planned 2010 waste acceptance date. In addition to budgetary constraints, the

Department continues to face substantial political opposition and legal challenges in implementing its waste disposal

mandate under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act, as amended.

Performance Goal:

EQ2-1 CONTINUING WITH YUCCA MOUNTAIN SITE CHARACTERIZATION

Complete the scientific and technical analyses of the Yucca Mountain site, and if it is determined to be suitable for a

geologic repository, obtain a license from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Specific measures and targets for

FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows.

Performance Indicator: Program Milestones (see next page).

GPRA Program Activity: Civilian Radioactive Waste Management
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Environmental Quality 166

Yucca Mountain 

Designated by 

NWPAA as Only 

Site to be 

Characterized

Progress of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program

1982 1990 2000 2010

Nuclear 

Waste

Policy Act 

Enacted

Exploratory 

Studies Facility 

Tunneling 

Completed

Submit Site

Recommendation

Issue Final 

EIS

Submit

License 

Application

Receive

Construction

Authorization

Begin Waste 

Acceptance

Three Sites 

Selected for 

Characterization

Draft EIS 

Issued

Public 

Hearings on 

DEIS 

Completed 

Reference 

Repository 

Design 

Selected

Viability 

Assessment 

Issued

Cross Drift 

Excavation 

Completed

Issue Yucca 

Mountain 

Science and 

Engineering 

Report

Site Approval Repository

Operations

Construction

Site Approval Repository

Operations

Construction

Site Characterization

Site Characterization

Yucca Mountain 

Designated by 

NWPAA as Only 

Site to be 

Characterized

Progress of the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program

1982 1990 2000 2010

Nuclear 

Waste

Policy Act 

Enacted

Exploratory 

Studies Facility 

Tunneling 

Completed

Submit Site

Recommendation

Issue Final 

EIS

Submit

License 

Application

Receive

Construction

Authorization

Begin Waste 

Acceptance

Three Sites 

Selected for 

Characterization

Draft EIS 

Issued

Public 

Hearings on 

DEIS 

Completed 

Reference 

Repository 

Design 

Selected

Viability 

Assessment 

Issued

Cross Drift 

Excavation 

Completed

Issue Yucca 

Mountain 

Science and 

Engineering 

Report

Site Approval Repository

Operations

Construction

Site Approval Repository

Operations

Construction

Site Characterization

Site Characterization
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Environmental Quality 167

The following facing pages show four years of performance measures for RW.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Environmental Quality 168

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results 

! Publish a draft Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS). The Nuclear Waste Policy Act requires a Final

EIS to accompany the site recommendation. 

(EQ5-1) 2

(MET GOAL)

! Complete public hearings on the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement which was

published in August 1999. (EQ5-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Complete repository and waste package design

inputs for use in total system performance

assessment for the repository license application. 

(EQ5-1)

 (MET GOAL)

! Complete peer review of the total system

performance assessment to provide formal,

independent evaluation and critique. (EQ5-1)

 (MET GOAL)

! Select the reference design for site recommendation

and license application. (EQ5-1)

(NEARLY MET GOAL) 3

! Select the reference natural systems models for site

recommendation and license application. (EQ5-1)

(MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. EQ5-1 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.

3. The reference design for site recommendation was selected for the preliminary site suitability evaluation, which will

be used for the statutory hearings on site recommendation. The license application design will be selected after

finalization of the EPA radiation protection standard for Yucca Mountain and consideration of comments from

stakeholders, including oversight bodies, such as the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Environmental Quality 169

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final)1 FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Issue a Final Environmental Impact Statement as

required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. (EQ2-1)

! Issue a Final Environmental Impact Statement as

required by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. 

(EQ2-1/FMFIA-nuclear waste management)

! Complete a Yucca Mountain Site Recommendation

Consideration Report the scientific and technical

documents that will provide the technical basis for a

possible Site Recommendation. (EQ2-1)

! Conduct public statutory hearings on in the vicinity

of Yucca Mountain to inform the residents that the

site is under consideration and to receive comments

regarding a possible Site Recommendation

Consideration Report. (EQ2-1)

! Update all process models and conduct a total

system performance assessment for use in the Site

Recommendation. (EQ2-1)

! Finalize a Site Recommendation Statement for the

Secretary of Energy to submit to the President, and

then to the Congress. (EQ2-1)

! Complete safety analyses to support the repository

license application regarding Department-owned

spent nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste;

naval spent nuclear fuel; and plutonium waste forms.

 (EQ2-1)

! Finalize a Site Recommendation Report for the

Secretary of Energy to submit to the President, and

then to the Congress. (EQ2-1/FMFIA-nuclear waste

management)

! Complete and issue Total System Life Cycle Cost and

Fee Adequacy reports. (EQ2-1)

! Update and issue Total System Life Cycle Cost and

Fee Adequacy reports for the Site Recommendation.

(EQ2-1)

! Issue Nuclear Waste Policy Act Section 180© Notice

of Revised Proposed Policy and Procedures for

public comment.2 (EQ2-1)

! Issue draft request for proposals for waste

acceptance and transportation services.2 (EQ2-1)

Notes:

1. Schedule delays have resulted due to a combination of 3 factors: (1) RW's lower-than-expected appropriations over

the past four fiscal years, including FY 2001, contributed to a cumulative funding shortfall of approximately $144

million. (2) Additional work required to respond to technical issues raised by the Nuclear Waste Technical Review

Board, and (3) Release of the Site Recommendation Consideration Report was delayed to accommodate completion of

a pending inquiry by the Department's Inspector General.

2. Contingent on site recommendation and approval in 2001.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Environmental Quality 170

Means and Strategies:

Assuming that Yucca Mountain is recommended and

approved as the repository site, the Department will

focus the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

Program on the activities necessary to proceed with

the Yucca Mountain Site Characterization Project,

complete the safety analyses to support the repository

license application regarding Department-owned spent

nuclear fuel and high-level radioactive waste, naval

spent nuclear fuel, and plutonium waste forms, and

conduct other activities associated with the Federal

government’s waste acceptance obligation.

Collaboration Activities:

The Department is engaged in continued formal and

informal interactions with the Nuclear Regulatory

Commission, the Environmental Protection Agency,

and the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board. In

addition, the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

Program collaborates on technical, policy, and

operational issues with the State of Nevada and

affected units of local government within the State. 

The Program also works collaboratively with several

other nations to address common technical issues

associated with radioactive waste management and

disposal.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

The Program’s indicated performance goals and

associated schedules are contingent on site

recommendation and approval and depend heavily on

funding continuity and sufficiency.

Validation and Verification:

Data Sources: Internal management reviews and

external peer reviews supplement

technical reports.

Baselines: Program technical, cost and schedule

baselines have been established and are

maintained thru a formal change control

process.

Frequency: Program milestones are tracked on a

continuous basis and formal reviews of

Program activities are held bimonthly.

Data Storage: Data are maintained in published

technical reports, on CD-ROM, and on

publicly-accessible Internet web sites.

Verification: Internal reviews and external oversight

activities and audits provide thorough

verification of Program accomplishments

and technical findings.

Planned Program Evaluations:

Complementing external reviews, the Office of Civilian

Radioactive Waste Management conducts bimonthly, indepth reviews of Program activities, schedules, and

expenditures. The Director and all key managers and

supervisors participate to ensure that activities are ontrack and within budget.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 171

SCIENCE

The Department of Energy’s Science Business Line is

the third-largest government sponsor of basic research

in the United States. These programs fulfill the

Department’s science mission, while providing an

essential foundation for DOE’s applied missions in

energy resources, environmental quality, and national

security. With a focus on exploring mysteries of the

natural world, the Science Business Line leads the

nation in its support for the physical sciences and is a

significant contributor in the fields of computation,

biology, and environmental sciences through research

efforts supportive of DOE’s missions. The

Department’s accomplishments in science, along with

those of its predecessor agencies, are partially reflected

through its support to 68 Nobel Laureates from 1934

through 1998.

DOE’s science programs extend the frontiers of basic

knowledge. The Office of Science (SC) conducts

research at universities, national laboratories, and

private research facilities in the areas of materials and

chemical sciences, engineering and geosciences,

energy biosciences, magnetic fusion energy, health and

environmental research, high energy and nuclear

physics, and computational sciences. The

Department’s cadre of large-scale scientific facilities

support the United States’ position as the worldwide

leader in science. The broad variety of world-class

facilities such as our large accelerators, experimental

reactors and detectors, high-precision instruments,

synchrotron light sources, supercomputers, highcapacity networks, and high resolution microscopes

provide the scientific base to support the Nation’s

national security and energy security interests.

The research is performed at national laboratories,

universities, non-profit research centers, and privatesector research institutions. 

SCIENCE GOAL

Advance the basic research and instruments

of science that are the foundations for DOE’s

applied missions, a base for U.S. technology

innovation, and a source of remarkable

insights into our physical and biological world

and the nature of matter and energy. 

The Science goal is supported by the following four

strategic objectives:

SC1: Provide the leadership, foundations, and

breakthroughs in the physical sciences that

will sustain advancements in our Nation’s

quest for clean, affordable and abundant

energy.

SC2: Develop the scientific foundations to

understand and protect our living planet from

the adverse impacts of energy supply and use,

support long-term environmental cleanup and

management at DOE sites, and contribute core

competencies to interagency research and

national challenges in the biological and

environmental sciences.

SC3: Explore matter and energy as elementary

building blocks from atoms to life, expanding

our knowledge of the most fundamental laws

of nature spanning scales from the

infinitesimally small to the infinitely large.

SC4: Provide the extraordinary tools, scientific

workforce, and multidisciplinary research

infrastructure that ensures success of DOE’s

science mission and supports our Nation’s

leadership in the physical, biological,

environmental and computational sciences.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 172

The following table maps the Presidential Budget’s Program and Financing (P&F) accounts and program activities to

the Department of Energy’s offices and GPRA Program Activities. The alignment includes aggregation,

disaggregation, and consolidation of budget decision units. The chart that follows this table shows how the decision

units support the Department’s Strategic Plan objectives for this business line. 

 Presidential Budget Program and Financing 

 (P&F) Accounts and Program Activities

 Budget

Request 

($M)

DOE

Office

 

GPRA Program Activity

 250 Energy Programs

 Science

 High energy physics 716* SC High Energy Physics

 Nuclear physics 361 SC Nuclear Physics

 Biological and environmental research 443 SC Biological & Environmental

 Research

 Basic energy sciences 1,005 SC Basic Energy Sciences

 Office of Advanced Scientific Computing

 Research

163* SC Advanced Scientific 

 Computing Research

 Energy research analyses 1 SC

 Multiprogram energy labs--facility support 30 SC

 Fusion energy sciences 248* SC Fusion Energy Sciences

 Safeguards and Security 55 SC

 Less security charge for reimbursable work (5) SC

 Program direction 142* SC

270 Energy Supply

Technical Information Management 9 SC Technical Information Management

TOTAL - Science 3,169

Note:

* This reflects the amended FY 2002 budget request. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 173

The Science goal is supported by four strategic objectives. Performance measurement for the Office of Science is being

implemented through a set of common performance indicators: Excellence and Relevance, Leadership, Quality and

Safety and Health. In addition we have established annual (output) performance measures for each GPRA Program

Activity. To make the linkage of these outcome indicators and outputs to the budget resources we have organized the

plan by GPRA Program Activities which are aligned with the budget decision units. The performance indicators and

annual performance measures are discussed with the GPRA Program Activities on the following pages. This approach

allows us to clearly link annual performance with annual budget resources and the strategic plan objectives. The chart

below gives an overview of the linkage of budget decision units and strategic objectives for Science. General

performance goals for Science as presented do not provide the next level of specificity in direction as for other business

line goals. We have included them so that: (1) the same definitions and systems are applicable for tracking and

reporting at the Departmental level; and (2) we pursue the development of more specific general performance goals in

future.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 174

Common Performance Indicators

In addition to specific annual output measures for each GPRA program activity (same as the Budget Decision Unit for

SC) the Office of Science is implementing a common set of performance indicators across all SC program activities and

will begin comprehensive reporting on them in FY 2002. These common indicators will ensure DOE science is results

oriented and maintains focus. Specifically these indicators address excellence and relevance, leadership, quality, and

safety and health.

Excellence and Relevance: The overall quality of the research funded by the Office of Science (SC) will be judged

excellent and relevant by external evaluation by peers, and through various forms of external recognition

Leadership: SC will maintain leadership positions in key disciplines that are critical to DOE’s mission and the Nation.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 175

Quality:

(1) Research Projects: At least 80% of all new research projects supported by SC will be peer reviewed and

competitively selected, and will undergo regular peer review merit evaluation. In FY 2000, 96% of new research

projects supported by SC were peer reviewed and competitively selected.

(2) Facility Upgrades and Construction: The Office of Science will keep within 10 percent, on average, of cost and

schedule milestones for upgrades and construction of scientific user facilities. In FY 2000, construction of scientific

facilities were kept within 10%, on average, of cost and schedule milestones.

(3) Operation of User Facilities: The SC scientific user facilities will be operated and maintained so that unscheduled

operational downtime will be kept to less than 10%, on average, of total scheduled operating time. In FY 2000, SC

scientific user facilities operated, on average, 96% of the scheduled time.

Safety and Health: The Office of Science will ensure the safety and health of the workforce and members of the public

and the protection of the environment in all SC program activities.

Meeting Departmental Challenges (FMFIA)

The Office of Science will also report results for FY 2001, on the following performance measure related to

Departmental challenge of Managing Physical Assets. 

 ! Complete the milestones listed in the corrective action plan for the Departmental challenge of managing

physical assets. (SC4-1/FMFIA)
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 176

This page is intentionally left blank.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 177

President’s Budget

Program and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program 

Sub-Activities DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M) FY 2000 FY 2001

250 Energy Programs

High Energy Physics High Energy Physics SC 683 712 716*

Nuclear Physics Nuclear Physics SC 341 361 361

Total 1,024 1,073 1,077*

* This reflects the amended FY 2002 budget request.

Description of the Program:

High Energy Physics (HEP) and Nuclear Physics (NP) programs support basic research that provides new insights into

the nature of energy and matter and operates large world-class scientific facilities for the Nation. High Energy and

Nuclear Physics research is conducted by over 3,000 researchers and over 1,000 graduate students from over 100

universities and the National Laboratories. The research programs supported by the HEP and NP are kept relevant and

outstanding through: independent technical peer evaluations; the High Energy Physics Advisory Panel and the Nuclear

Science Advisory Committee (NSAC); program evaluations; and research needs of the universities, National

Laboratories and international collaborators. 

General Performance Goals:

SC3-1 ADVANCING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF MATTER AND ENERGY

HEP In the area of theoretical research, subject new experimental findings to thorough analysis and interpretation. 

Synthesize new and existing results into an overall coherent view of nature, developing new analytical structures

as necessary. Identify key questions to be resolved by experiment; and in the area of experimental research, put

our theoretical understanding of elementary particles and forces to rigorous experimental tests. Search for any

new particles or interactions that may exist. Investigate astrophysical phenomena, using the knowledge and

techniques of high-energy physics.

NP Conduct a research program of maximum effectiveness at the cutting edge of all major scientific areas in nuclear

physics that will lead to new knowledge and insights on the nature of energy and subatomic matter. The Office

of Science plans to initiate a scientific program using polarized protons within the Relativistic Heavy Ion

Collider (RHIC) and a research program using the BLAST detector at the MIT/Bates Laboratory. 

SC4-1 PROVIDING EXTRAORDINARY SCIENTIFIC TOOLS, WORKFORCE, AND INFRASTRUCTURE: 

HEP Build new and/or modernize existing accelerator facilities as needed in the United States to advance physics and

take a substantial role in building facilities if the scope demands an international effort. Progress in high-energy

physics will require an ever-increasing experimental capability. Accelerator beams must increase in energy,

intensity, and quality; detectors must improve in scope, resolution, and data recording rates, and in the ability to

selectively identify events of interest. These preparations include modifications to existing accelerators and

detectors, R&D aimed at possible new technologies, and the application of existing technologies to improve

beams and detectors. Improvements are needed in the ability to store, transfer, and analyze increasing amounts

of data. International collaborations must share access to these huge data sets.

GPRA Program Activity: High Energy Physics & Nuclear Physics
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 178

NP Conceive, develop, construct, and operate the scientific accelerator, detector and computing facilities that are

needed to address forefront science in a timely and effective manner. In the execution of this responsibility,

together with other Office of Science organizations, act as the Nation's leader in developing management

techniques to optimize construction and operation of facilities in a cost effective, safe, and environmentally

responsible manner. Continue the advanced education and training activities of young scientists to develop the

new skills and concepts that will become the underpinnings of the Nation's broad array of nuclear related

sciences and technologies in the future. Manage the operations of the Nuclear Physics program to high

standards, by ensuring that the processes of planning, reviewing, selecting and managing science projects and

programs are sound and based on peer review and merit evaluation, and reflect input from the NSAC advisory

group in coordinating DOE and NSF activities.

Performance Indicators: High Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics programs will measure the success of their

activities by tracking the following common performance indicators (defined on page 170):

 - Excellence and Relevance

 - Leadership

 - Quality

 - Safety and Health 

In addition to these performance indicators, specific measures and targets for the HEP and NP programs for

FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 179

The following facing pages have four years of performance measures 

for High Energy Physics and Nuclear Physics.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 180

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results 

! Deliver on the 1999 US/DOE commitments to the

international Large Hadron Collider project. 

(ST1-2) 2

(MET GOAL)

! Continue collaborative efforts with NASA on space

science and exploration. (ST1-4)

(MET GOAL)

! Complete construction and begin operation of the

Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at

Brookhaven National Laboratory. (ST1-2)

(MET GOAL)

! Operate the B-factory at the Stanford Linear

Accelerator Center, the Main Injector for the

Tevatron at Fermilab, the Thomas Jefferson National

Accelerator Facility, and the Relativistic Heavy Ion

Collider at Brookhaven National Laboratory, and

deliver on the FY 2000 U.S./DOE commitments to

the international Large Hadron Collider project.

(SC1-2)

(MET GOAL)

! Move the newly upgraded D-Zero and CDF detectors

at Fermilab into position in the Main Injector tunnel

and begin commissioning in the third quarter of the

fiscal year. (SC1-2)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Further the progress on achieving luminosity and

operational efficiency for the Tevtron at Fermilab in

its new mode of operation with the recently

completed Main Injector. (SC1-2)

(MET GOAL)

! Continue collaborative efforts with NASA on space

science and exploration. (SC1-4)

(MET GOAL)

! Advance knowledge from experiments at the

Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider to see possible

evidence of the predicted quark-gluon plasma; a high

temperature, high density state of nuclear matter that

may have existed a millionth of a second after the “Big

Bang”. (SC1-2)

(MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. ST1-2 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 181

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Meet on time and within budget the scheduled U. S.

DOE commitments to the international Large

Hadron Collider project as reflected in the latest

international agreement and corresponding plan. 

(SC4-1)

! Continue construction of the Neutrinos at the Main

Injector project meeting milestones as detailed in

the benchmark plan. (SC4-1)

! Complete fabrication of the BLAST detector at

MIT/Bates in accordance with the project milestones.

(SC4-1)

! Respond to the priorities and recommendations

contained in the long range plan of the DOE/NSF

Nuclear Science Advisory Committee (NSAC) on the

Departments’s Nuclear Physics program. (SC3-1)

! Confirm (or refute) controversial evidence of

neutrino oscillations using the new MiniBOONE

detector and beam line at Fermilab. This experiment

will conclusively decide if earlier reports of neutrino

oscillations from an experiment at Los Alamos are

correct, and thereby provide crucial input to

understanding neutrino properties and whether they

can be accommodated in the Standard Model. 

! Complete a preliminary analysis of the first data

from neutral current interactions from the Sudbury

Neutrino Observatory. These data will provide the

first information regarding possible neutrino

appearance due to neutrino oscillations. All

previous measurements have measured neutrino

deficits. (SC3-1)

! Complete first round of experiments at the

Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider to see possible

evidence of the predicted quark-gluon plasma: a

high temperature, high density state of nuclear

matter that may have existed a millionth of a second

after the “Big Bang”. (SC3-1)
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 182

Means and Strategies:

The High Energy and Nuclear Physics programs will

support innovative, peer-reviewed scientific research to

advance knowledge and provide insights into the

nature of energy and matter. These programs research

the fundamental forces of the natural world that hold

the nucleus of the atom together, and determine the

detailed structure and behavior of atomic nuclei. The

programs also build and support the forefront scientific

facilities and instruments necessary to carry out that

research. All research projects undergo regular peer

review and merit evaluation based on procedures set

down in 10 CFR 605 for the extramural grant program

and under a similar modified process for the laboratory

programs and scientific user facilities, and all new

projects will be selected by peer review and merit

evaluation.

The High Energy and Nuclear Physics programs will

manage its national scientific user facilities to serve

and collaborate with researchers from universities,

national laboratories, Federal agencies, industrial

laboratories, and foreign institutions thus enabling the

acquisition of new scientific knowledge. The programs

also support work at a number of foreign accelerator

facilities. The national scientific user facilities include

the Tevatron at Fermilab, the B-factory at SLAC, the

new Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) at

Brookhaven National Laboratory, and the Thomas

Jefferson National Accelerator Facility (Jefferson Lab),

and four accelerator laboratories. The programs also

support other non-accelerator facilities such as the

new Sudbury Neutrino Observatory (SNO), a large

neutrino detector located 7000 feet below the surface of

the earth in Sudbury, Ontario, Canada. The programs 

formally peer review its scientific user facilities to

assess the scientific output, user satisfaction, and the

overall cost-effectiveness of each facility’s operations

and ability to deliver the most advanced scientific

capability to its user community.

Collaboration Activities:

The High Energy and Nuclear Physics programs are 

closely coordinated with the research activities of the 

National Science Foundation. The major scientific

facilities required by NSF scientists are usually the

DOE facilities. NSF often supports the fabrication of

major research equipment at DOE user facilities. 

The HEP and NP programs collaborate with

researchers from many countries. Large numbers of

foreign scientists, who also provide monetary and

equipment support, heavily utilize High Energy and

Nuclear user facilities, including CDF and D-Zero at

Fermilab, the B-factory at SLAC and RHIC at BNL. 

The programs also promote the transfer of the results

of its basic research to a broad set of technologies

involving advanced materials, national defense,

medicine, space science and exploration, and industrial

processes. High Energy and Nuclear Physics user

facilities are often utilized by other Federal agencies

(e.g., NASA) and industry to carry out important

studies of the effects of particle beams (radiation) in a

variety of materials and for diagnostic purposes. The

involved industry or Federal agency supports such

studies. Hence, High Energy and Nuclear Physics have

extensive spin-off activities with other organizations. 

External Factors Affecting Performance:

External factors in addition to budgetary constraints

that affect the level of performance on these goals

include (1) changing mission needs as described by the

DOE and the Office of Science (SC) mission

statements and strategic plans; (2) scientific

opportunities as determined, in part, by proposal

pressure, scientific workshops, and Long Range Plans;

(3) the results of external program reviews and

international benchmarking activities of entire fields or

subfields such as those performed by the National

Academy of Sciences; (4) program balance and

relevance, including considerations of activities funded

by non-High Energy and Nuclear Physics Program

sources; and (5) strategic and programmatic decisions

made by non-DOE funded domestic research activities

and by major international research centers.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 183

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

Planning and operations documents

and agreements such as MOUs and

research facility Program Advisory

Committee reports. Annual reports

of facility performance, experimental

and research proposals, and

laboratory Program Advisory

committee reports are reported to

headquarters. Project Management

Plans, external peer reviewer

comments, published scientific

papers and Cost, Scope and Schedule

reviews

Baselines: Baselines and timelines that contain

the milestones, rate of activity,

schedules, etc. of facility upgrades

and projects identified in the FY

2001 budget request and project

planning documents. 

Frequency: The High Energy and Nuclear

Physics Programs conduct a

formalized peer review process for

activities at the DOE laboratories

and peer reviews grant applications

on a regular basis. The major

laboratories (Fermilab, SLAC, BNL.

ANL, TJNAF and LBNL) are

reviewed on an annual basis.

Projects are reviewed annually;

university grants are reviewed upon

inception and periodically thereafter,

and High Energy Physics Advisory

Panel and NSAC subpanels are

convened on a 2-4 year basis to

examine progress and direction of

the field.

Data Storage: These documents reside at

headquarters, operations offices, and

at each facility.

Verification: Broad program reviews are

conducted by the High Energy

Physics program and the DOE/NSF

High Energy Physics Advisory Panel

as well as the Nuclear Physics

Program and the DOE/NSF Nuclear

Science Advisory Committee on an

ongoing basis.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 184

This page is intentionally left blank.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 185

President’s Budget

Program and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program 

Sub-Activities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

250 Energy Programs

Biological and

Environmental Research

- SC 416 483 443

Description of the Program:

The mission of the Biological and Environmental (BER) program is to develop the information, scientific “know-how,”

and technology for identification, characterization, prediction, and mitigation of adverse health and environmental

consequences of energy production, development, and use. The research programs supported by the BER program are

be kept relevant and outstanding through: independent technical peer evaluations; Advisory Committee reviews;

program evaluations; and research needs of DOE programs and the scientific community.

General Performance Goals:

SC1-1 MAKING ADVANCES IN PHYSICAL SCIENCES IN QUEST FOR CLEAN, AFFORDABLE AND

ABUNDANT ENERGY 

Utilize the capabilities of the U.S. research community in universities and the DOE national laboratories to provide the

basic research foundation for DOE’s mission in energy through targeted investments in life, environmental and medical

sciences, and related disciplines. Provide new knowledge on microbes that will expand DOE’s options for clean and

affordable energy through research in microbial genomics and bioinformatics. Advance our understanding of key

uncertainties and find solutions for the effects of energy production and use on the environment through research in 

carbon cycle and carbon sequestration.

SC2-1 DEVELOPING SCIENCE FOUNDATIONS TO PROTECT OUR LIVING PLANET 

Utilize the capabilities of the U.S. research community in universities and the DOE national laboratories to provide the

basic research foundation for DOE’s mission in the environment through targeted investments in life, environmental

and medical sciences, and related disciplines. Advance our understanding of key uncertainties and find solutions for

the effects of energy production and use on the environment through research in global climate modeling and

simulation, the role of clouds in climate change, carbon cycle and carbon sequestration, atmospheric chemistry, and

ecological science. Help protect the health of DOE workers and the public by advancing our understanding of the

health effects of energy production and use through basic research in key areas of the life sciences including functional

genomics and structural biology as well as low dose radiation research. Contribute to the environmental remediation

and restoration of contaminated environments at DOE sites through basic research in bioremediation, microbial

genomics, and ecological science. 

SC3-1 ADVANCING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF MATTER AND ENERGY 

Advance our understanding of the key building blocks of life through basic research in functional genomics and

structural biology.

SC4-1 PROVIDING EXTRAORDINARY SCIENTIFIC TOOLS, WORKFORCE, AND INFRASTRUCTURE:

Ensure the greatest return on public investments by utilizing the unique capabilities of the DOE laboratories to advance

the life and environmental sciences, advanced imaging, and medical applications of basic research and through

stewardship of these capabilities to ensure that DOE has the scientific base to meet its technologically challenging

missions.

GPRA Program Activity: Biological and Environmental Research
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 186

Performance Indicators: BER program will measure the success of its activities by tracking the following common

performance indicators (defined on page 170):

 - Excellence and Relevance

 - Leadership

 - Quality

 - Safety and Health 

In addition to these performance indicators, specific measures and targets for the BER program for FY 1999 - FY 2002

are listed in the table that follows.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 187

The following facing pages have four years of performance measures 

for Biological and Environmental Research.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 188

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results

! Complete sequencing of 30 million subunits and

draft sequence of 30 million additional subunits of

human DNA for submission to publicly accessible

databases. (ST1-1) 2

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Determine 70 percent of the DNA sequence of 10

additional microbes with potential use in waste

cleanup or energy production. (ST1-4)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Complete the initial SC/EM Pilot Collaborative

Research Program and, in cooperation with EM,

initiate development of the most promising cleanup

technologies arising from these projects.(ST2-2)

(BELOW EXPECTATION)

! Initiate a new joint Biological and Environmental

Research-Basic Energy Sciences program in

fundamental science that will underpin new

opportunities and technologies in carbon capture.

(ST1-4)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Complete the sequencing of 50 million subunits of human

DNA to submit to publicly accessible databases in FY

2000. (SC1-1)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Complete the genetic sequencing of over 10 additional

microbes with significant potential for waste cleanup and

energy production. (SC1-4)

(MET GOAL)

! Continue Atmospheric Radiation Measurement (ARM)

accomplishments by conducting five intensive operations

periods at the ARM Southern Great Plains site. Data will be

obtained from the second station on the North Slope of

Alaska. The third station in the Tropical Western Pacific,

on Christmas Island, will become operational. (SC3-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Proceed on the development of the next generation coupled

ocean-atmosphere climate model, leading to better

information for assessing climate change and variability at

regional, rather than global scales. This next generation

model will change grid size from the current 300-500

kilometers on a side to less than 200 kilometers on a side. 

(SC1-4)

(MET GOAL)

! In cooperation with NASA, NSF, USDA/Forest Service, and

the Smithsonian Institution, provide quantitative data on the

annual exchange of carbon dioxide between the atmosphere

and terrestrial ecosystem from 25 AmeriFlux sites

representing major types of ecosystem and land uses in

North and Central America. Provide data on environmental

factors, such as climate variation, on the net sequestration

or release of carbon dioxide and the role of biophysical

processes controlling the net exchange. (SC1-6)

(MET GOAL)

! Conduct, with at least 75 patients, Boron Neutron

Capture Therapy (BNCT) Research Phase I/II

clinical trials at reactor sources with neutrons. 

(ST1-5)

(MET GOAL)

! Complete site characterization of the first Natural and

Accelerated Bioremediation Research (NABIR) Field

Research Center, and commence activities necessary to

enable sample collection and distribution to investigators. 

(SC2-1)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or FY 2002 are

presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete description of the results

is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. ST1-1 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to the 1997

strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 189

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! By the end of FY 2001, the DOE Joint Genome

Institute (JGI) will complete the sequencing and

submission to public databases of 100 million

finished and 250 million high quality draft base pairs

of DNA, including both human and mouse. (SC3-1)

! By the end of FY 2002, the DOE Joint Genome

Institute will complete the high quality DNA

sequence of human chromosomes 5 and 19 and

produce 6 million base pairs of DNA sequence from

model organisms to help understand the human

sequence. (SC3-1)

! In close partnership with NIH, develop novel

technology and instrumentation to image single

molecules, genes, cells, organs, and whole organisms

in real time under natural physiological conditions

with a high degree of precision, including Magnetic

Resonance Imaging (MRI), Positron Emission

Tomography (PET), and Single Photon Emission

Computing Tomography(SPECT) Technology and

detector systems will be developed to capitalize on

recent findings of the Human Genome Project that

will enable imaging of gene expression in real time

which will have a critical impact on biomedical

research and medial diagnosis. (SC3-1) 

! Conduct five Intensive Operations Periods (IOPs) on

schedule at the Atmospheric Radiation Measurement

(ARM) Southern Plains site. Obtain data from

second station on the North Slope of Alaska, and

make operational the third station in the Tropical

Western Pacific on Christmas Island on schedule and

within budget in accordance with program plan.

(SC3-1)

! Complete the genetic sequencing of at least two

additional microbes that produce methane or

hydrogen from carbonaceous sources or that could

be used to sequester carbon. (SC2-1)

! Develop and test a fully-coupled atmosphere-oceanland-sea ice climate model that is twice the spatial

resolution of presently available coupled climate

models. Support multi-disciplinary teams of

scientists at multiple institutions using DOE

supercomputers to perform model simulations,

diagnostics, and testing. These efforts will include

producing ensembles of long-term (decade to

century) coupled model simulations that will be

made available to the broader climate research and

assessment communities to enable probability-based

assessments of climate change and variability at

regional resolution. (SC2-1)

! Complete field site characterization and start the

subsurface research at the Field Research Center

(FRC), established at Oak Ridge National

Laboratory for the Natural and Accelerated

Bioremediation Research (NABIR), to provide the

fundamental knowledge for development of

bioremediation methodologies for containment and

clean up of hazardous materials. (SC2-1)

! Complete phase 1 clinical trials of Boron Neutron

Capture Therapy (BNCT) at reactor sources of

neutrons and begin research on accelerator-based

BNCT. This research will provide the basis for

evaluating the efficacy of BNCT and for designing

phase II clinical trials that include reactor and

accelerator-based sources of neutrons. (SC3-1)

! Obtain samples of groundwater and sediments in

support of 20 basic research projects and conduct 2

field-scale experiments in biological immobilization

of uranium in the subsurface at the new NABIR Field

Research Center (FRC) in Oak Ridge. This initial

result will determine the efficacy of injecting

electron donors to remove nitrate (via

denitrification) and to precipitate and, therefore,

immobilize uranium from contaminated soil water

and groundwater. (SC2-1)

Note: For the FY 2001, one new measure (in shaded text) was added.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 190

Means and Strategies:

The Biological and Environmental Research (BER)

program will conduct a peer reviewed, fundamental

research program through the Department's National

Laboratories, leading academic institutions, and

private-sector research institutions. Scientific

personnel include biologists, microbiologists,

engineers, and atmospheric and environmental

scientists, as well as the scientific and technical

program managers. 

The DOE Production Sequencing Facility currently has

a DNA sequencing capacity of 2 million lanes of DNA

sequencing per month or about 920 million bases of

DNA sequence per year. "Difficult to Sequence"

regions are being sequenced at Brookhaven National

Laboratory and "finishing" of the high quality human

DNA sequence is being done at Stanford University.

The "Bringing Genomics to Life" is based on results of

BER genomics and structural biology research. BER

will initiate the "Bringing Genomics to Life " research

program. We will implement this new research as

recommended by BERAC, incorporating and

expanding the Microbial Cell Project.

The three ARM sites are operational and the research

personnel, technical support staff, and equipment are

sufficient to conduct the IOPs. 

The new NABIR Field Research Center (FRC) in Oak

Ridge is operational. Site characterization

methodologies are well developed and research has

been initiated.

Collaboration Activities:

The 1998 DOE/NIH 5-year plan for the U.S. Human

Genome Project was published in the October 26, 1998

issue of Science magazine. It committed to completing

a working draft of the gene rich regions of the human

genome by 2001 and a highly accurate sequence of the

human genome by 2003. Currently 16 centers,

representing the United States, the United Kingdom,

France, Germany, Japan, and China are participating

in the International Sequencing Consortium. Five of

the centers [the JGI/ PSF (DOE), the Sanger Centre

(Wellcome Trust), Washington University (NIH), the

Whitehead Institute at MIT (NIH), and Baylor

University (NIH)] are currently taking responsibility

for more than 80% of the sequencing production. 

Microbial genomics activities are coordinated within

the Department and other Federal agencies. The ARM

IOPs include collaborations with NASA, NOAA,

USDA, and NSF supported scientists on aircraft

operations, ground-based instrumentation, and data

acquisition, distribution, and analysis. 

The FRC will provide a unique research field site for

collaboration within the Department and with other

federal agencies (e.g., NFS supported scientists and

EPA).

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Achieving the sequencing objectives is predicated on

the continued high quality performance of DNA

sequencing machines and on the retention of key

personnel at the DOE Joint Genome Institute. There is

continued pressure on key personnel to join

biotechnology companies for increased financial

compensation, responsibility, and scientific resources.

The individual research projects at the FRC will be

evaluated for potential environmental concerns. Some

projects may not be initiated pending environmental

review.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 191

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

MOU between National Institutes of

Health National Human Genome

Research Institute and DOE and planning

and proposal documents for each project

Baselines: Baseline measures are contained in

Environmental Assessment and on the

websites for the projects referred to

below

Frequency: The Joint Genome Institute will conduct

periodic progress review and field

research center management will report to

NABIR quarterly with yearly on site

reviews

Data

Storage:

Data stored at websites: JGI web-site

(http://www.jgi.doe.gov/); TIGR website

(http://www.tigr.org/); and genome

database website

(http://gdbwww.gdb.org/gdb/gdbtop.html)

Additionally, FRC data will be managed

by a consortia led by Argonne National

Laboratory (ANL) and Lawrence

Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL)

making geochemical, microbiological,

geophysical, and GIS data accessible. 

ARM data are available at the website

(http://www.archive.arm.gov/data/orderin

g.html).

Verification: Data availability and publication of

scientific progress will be monitored. The

sequencing data will be entered in

GenBank and can be verified

independently. The ARM data are being

used by the global climate modeling and

atmospheric research community and can

be verified by peer review. Program peer

review by Office of Biological and

Environmental Research, evaluation by

scientific community and publication of

the sequence summaries in journals.

Oversight of the BER programs will be

conducted by the BER advisory

committee.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 192

This page is intentionally left blank.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 193

President’s Budget

Program and Financing (P&F)

Accounts and Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

250 Energy Programs

Basic Energy Sciences - SC 752 992 1,005

Description of the Program:

The Basic Energy Sciences (BES) program fosters and supports fundamental research in the natural sciences and

engineering to provide a basis for new and improved energy technologies and for understanding and mitigating the

environmental impacts of energy use. As part of its activities, BES plans, constructs, and operates major scientific user

facilities to serve researchers at universities, national laboratories, and industrial laboratories. The research programs

supported by the BES program are kept relevant and outstanding through: independent technical peer evaluations;

Advisory Committee reviews; program evaluations; and research needs of DOE programs and the scientific community. 

General Performance Goals:

SC1-1 MAKING ADVANCES IN PHYSICAL SCIENCES IN QUEST FOR CLEAN, AFFORDABLE AND

ABUNDANT ENERGY 

Foster and support world-class, peer-reviewed research in the scientific disciplines encompassed by the BES mission

areas, cognizant of DOE needs as well as the needs of the broad national science agenda. Provide national and

international leadership in select areas of materials sciences and engineering, chemical sciences, biosciences, and

geosciences.

SC3-1 ADVANCING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE NATURE OF MATTER AND ENERGY 

Establish and steward stable, essential research communities and institutions, particularly those for which BES is the

Nation's primary or sole support.

SC4-1 PROVIDING EXTRAORDINARY SCIENTIFIC TOOLS, WORKFORCE, AND INFRASTRUCTURE

Plan, construct, and operate premier national scientific user facilities for materials research and related disciplines to

serve researchers at universities, national laboratories, and industrial laboratories. Operate facilities to the highest

standards for scientific productivity, efficiency, user needs, and safety. Continue the advanced education and training

activities of young scientists to maintain and renew research communities and institutions. Manage the operations of

the BES program to high standards by ensuring that the processes for planning, reviewing, selecting, and managing

science projects and programs are sound and based on peer review and merit evaluation. As part of this goal Office of

Science is improving U.S. research in neutron science in preparation for the commissioning of the Spallation Neutron

Science by ensuring that BES neutron science facilities are optimally available to the scientific community and by

investing in instrumentation for the future. SC is also continuing the new directions in the areas of nanoscale science,

engineering, and technology research, and is exploring concepts and designs for Nanoscale Science Research Centers.

Performance Indicators: BES program will measure the success of its activities by tracking the following common

performance indicators (defined on page 170):

 - Excellence and Relevance

 - Leadership

 - Quality

 - Safety and Health 

In addition to these performance indicators, specific measures and targets for the BES program for FY 1999 - FY 2002

are listed in the table that follows.

GPRA Program Activity: Basic Energy Sciences
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 194

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results

! Maintain the high quality and relevance of DOE’s

science as evaluated by annual peer reviews and

advisory committees. (SC1-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Begin Title I design activities, initiate subcontracts

and long-lead procurements, and continue R&D

work necessary to begin construction activities of the

Spallation Neutron Source. (ST3-1) 2

(MET GOAL)

! Maintain and operate scientific user facilities to serve

thousands of researchers from universities, national

laboratories, and industry such that the unscheduled

downtime is less than 10 percent of the total scheduled

possible operating time, on average. (SC1-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Continue construction of the Spallation Neutron

Source, meeting cost and timetables as contained in the

Critical Decision II agreement, to provide beams of

neutrons used to probe and understand the physical,

chemical, and biological properties of materials at an

atomic level leading to better fibers, plastics, catalysts,

and magnets and improvements in pharmaceuticals,

computing equipment, and electric motors. (SC3-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Meet the cost and schedule milestones for upgrade and

construction of scientific facilities. (SC1-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Continue Partnerships for Academic-Industrial

Research where peer reviewed grants are awarded to

university researchers for fundamental, high-risk work

jointly defined by the academic and industrial research

partners. (SC1-3)

(MET GOAL)

! Continue fabrication of instrumentation for the shortpulse spallation source at the Manual Lujan Jr. Neutron

Scattering Center at the Los Alamos Neutron Science

Center. (SC3-1)

(MET GOAL) 3

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or FY 2002 are

presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete description of the results

is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. ST3-1 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to the 1997

strategic plan.

3. Fabrication of two instruments in FY 2000 was successfully completed on-track for the short-pulse spallation source at LANSCE. 

This instrumentation enhancement project was undertaken concurrently with an accelerator enhancement project funded by the

Department's Office of Defense Programs. Together, these enhancements result in a world-class short-pulse spallation neutron

source facility. As a result of a BESAC review, LANSCE management improvements in the future will be focused on establishing a

truly world-class user program for this facility that meets the requirements set by BESAC for an interim facility to the SNS at least

as good as the ISIS facility.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 195

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Use expert advisory committees and rigorous peer

review committees to ascertain that the research

performed by investigators in universities and DOE

laboratories is focused and outstanding. Additional

indicator of the success of our scientific research

will be the recognition through the awards received

by our researchers and by the broader scientific

community. (SC4-1)

! Maintain and operate the scientific user facilities so

that the unscheduled downtime on average is less

than 10 percent of the total scheduled operating

time.

(SC4-1)

! Meet the cost and schedule milestones for upgrade

and construction of scientific user facilities,

including the construction of the Spallation Neutron

Source. (SC4-1)

! Continue construction of the Spallation Neutron

Source (SNS), meeting the cost and timetables within

10 percent of the baselines in the construction

project data sheet, project number 99-E-334. Once

completed in mid-2006, the SNS will to provide

beams of neutrons used to probe and understand the

physical, chemical, and biological properties of

materials at an atomic level leading to improvements

in high technology industries. (SC4-1)

! Continue upgrades on the major components of the

SPEAR 3 storage ring at the Stanford Synchrotron

Radiation Laboratory (SSRL), maintaining cost and

schedule within 10 percent of baselines. The

increased brightness for all experimental stations at

SSRL will greatly improve performance in a variety

of applications and scientific studies. (SC4-1)
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 196

Means and Strategies:

To achieve outstanding recognition, BES will support

fundamental, innovative, peer-reviewed research to

create new knowledge in areas important to the BES

mission, i.e., in materials sciences, chemical sciences,

geosciences, plant and microbial biosciences, and

engineering sciences. All research projects will

undergo regular peer review and merit evaluation

based on procedures set down in 10 CFR 605 for the

extramural grant program and under a similar

modified process for the laboratory programs and

scientific user facilities, and all new projects will be

selected by peer review and merit evaluation.

To achieve reliability of facility operating schedules,

BES will manage premier national scientific user

facilities for materials research and related disciplines

to serve researchers at universities, national

laboratories, and industrial laboratories, thus enabling

the acquisition of new scientific knowledge. These

scientific facilities include synchrotron radiation light

sources, high-flux neutron sources, electron-beam

microcharacterization centers, and specialized facilities

such as the Combustion Research Facility. In

managing these facilities BES established baselines for

all performance indicators for each scientific user

facility using an annual survey tool developed in

collaboration with the facility directors and the facility

user coordinators. An integral part of the survey tool is

an assessment of user satisfaction. BES also began

formal peer reviews of its major scientific user

facilities to assess, in the aggregate, the scientific

output and, to the extent possible, the outcomes of

facilities.

To keep within 10 percent of cost and schedule

baselines on the development and upgrade of scientific

user facilities, including the construction of the

Spallation Neutron Source, BES will conduct rigorous

independent reviews using external experts of project

management cost and schedule.

Collaboration Activities:

The BES program in fundamental science is closely

coordinated with, and synergistic to, the activities of

other federal agencies (e.g., NASA, NSF, USDA, DOI,

and NIH). BES also promotes the transfer of the

results of its basic research to contribute to DOE

missions in areas of energy efficiency, renewable

energy resources, improved use of fossil fuels, reduced

environmental impacts of energy production and use,

science-based stockpile stewardship, and future energy

sources. Hence, BES has extensive collaboration

activities with other DOE programs, and collocates

many of its research performers in national

laboratories with the applied researchers of the DOE

technology programs.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

External factors in addition to budgetary constraints

that affect the level of performance on these goals

include changing mission needs as described by the

DOE and the Office of Science (SC) mission

statements and strategic plans, and scientific

opportunities as determined, in part, by proposal

pressure and by scientific workshops. Additionally, 

the results of external program reviews and

international benchmarking activities of entire fields or

subfields such as those performed by the National

Academy of Sciences and program balance and

relevance, including considerations of activities funded

by non-BES sources affect the performance level of the

program office.

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

The planning and operations

documents and agreements, MOUs,

etc., of BES facilities operations. 

Annual reports of facility

performance.

Baselines: Baselines and timelines that

contain the milestones, rate of

activity, schedules, etc. of the BES

facility upgrades and construction

activities identified in the FY 2002

budget request

Frequency: BES conducts a formalized peer

review process for activities at the

DOE laboratories and peer reviews

grant applications as described in

10 CFR 605 on a regular basis at

least once every 3-4 years.

Data Storage: All of these documents reside at

headquarters, operations offices

and at each facility.

Verification: Broad program reviews are

conducted by the Basic Energy

Sciences Advisory Committee on

an ongoing basis.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 197

President’s Budget Program

and Financing (P&F) Accounts

and Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request 

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

250 Energy Programs

Advanced Scientific Computing

Research

- SC 122 166 163*

* This reflects the amended FY 2002 budget request.

Description of the Program:

Advanced Scientific Computing Research (ASCR) program supports research in forefront and diverse applied

mathematical sciences, high performance computing, communications, and information infrastructure which spans the

spectrum of activities from strategic, longer-term, fundamental research to technology research, development, and

demonstration. It links SC's science programs and laboratories to national economic competitiveness by conducting

long-term, high-risk industry relevant research and development projects in critical technology areas. 

General Performance Goals:

SC1-1 MAKING ADVANCES IN PHYSICAL SCIENCES IN QUEST FOR CLEAN, AFFORDABLE AND

ABUNDANT ENERGY 

Promote the transfer of results of advanced scientific computing research to DOE missions in areas such as the

improved use of fossil fuels, including understanding the combustion process; the atmospheric and environmental

impacts of energy production and use, including global climate modeling and subsurface transport; and future energy

sources. 

SC4-1 PROVIDING EXTRAORDINARY SCIENTIFIC TOOLS, WORKFORCE, AND INFRASTRUCTURE 

Foster research to create new fundamental knowledge in areas of advanced computing research important to the

Department, e.g., high performance computing, high speed networks, and software to enable scientists to make

effective use of the highest performance computers available and to support National Collaboratories. Network

enhancements are being made at NERSC and ESnet to improve researchers' access to high performance computing and

software support, and enhancing scientific opportunities by enabling scientists to access and understand greater

amounts of scientific data. SC is also serving researchers at national laboratories, universities, and industry, by

enabling new understanding through analysis, modeling, and simulation of complex natural and engineered systems

and effective integration of geographically distributed teams through National Collaboratories.

Performance Indicators: ASCR program will measure the success of its activities by tracking the following common

performance indicators (defined on page 170):

 - Excellence and Relevance

 - Leadership

 - Quality

 - Safety and Health 

In addition to these performance indicators, specific measures and targets for ASCR program for FY 1999 - FY 2002

are listed in the table that follows.

GPRA Program Activity: Advanced Scientific Computing Research
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 198

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results 

! Provide fundamental research in environmental

sciences, biology, molecular sciences, and

computational modeling that will underpin the

cleanup of contaminated sites. (ST2-2) 2

(MET GOAL)

! Develop advanced computing capabilities,

computational algorithms, models, methods, and

libraries, and advanced visualization and data

management systems to enable new computing

applications to science. (SC2-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Continue to fabricate, assemble, and operate premier

supercomputer and networking facilities that serve

researchers at national laboratories, universities and

industry enabling understanding of complex problems

and effective integration of geographically distributed

teams in national collaborations. (SC2-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Review and select for Phase II funding approximately

80 Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR)

proposals that satisfy proof of concept under Phase I

funding. In a separate competition, select about 200

SBIR proposals for Phase I funding. (SC2-2)

(MET GOAL)

! Initiate about 7 Laboratory Technology Research

projects that address the Department's top priorities

for science and technology, through cost-shared

research partnerships with industry. (SC2-2)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Meet 75 percent of the requirements of computer

facilities and networks users. (SC3-3)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Increase by 25 percent over FY 1999 the availability of

peer-reviewed scientific journal literature, preprints,

and reports to DOE and the public through

collaborations with publishers, data compilers,

exchange partners, and R&D programs using Webbased mechanisms. (SC3-3)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Increase visibility and use of energy-related scientific

and technical information by government, academia,

industry, and the public through electronic Web-based

products that promise scientific advancement, resulting

in 15 percent more customer usage over FY 1999. 

(SC3-3)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. ST2-2 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 199

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Conduct regular peer review and merit evaluation

based on the principles set down in 10 CFR Part 605

for grants and cooperative agreements, with all

research projects reviewed at least once and no

project extending more than four years without

review. (SC4-1)

! Review and select through rigorous peer review for

Phase II funding, 80 Small Business Innovation

Research (SBIR) projects that were determined to be

of the highest quality and to satisfy proof of concept

under Phase I funding. In a separate competition,

select 200 new SBIR proposals for Phase I funding. 

(SC4-1)

! Continue to provide support for the competitively

selected Integrated Software Infrastructure Centers

to address critical computer science and systems

software issues for terascale computers. The teams in

these Centers focus on critical issues including: tools

for analyzing and debugging scientific simulation

software that uses thousands of processors; and the

development of data management and visualization

software capable of handling terabyte scale data sets

extracted from petabyte scale data archives. By the

end of FY 2002 the initial releases of software from

the Centers initiated in FY 2001 will be released to

SciDAC application teams. (SC4-1)

! Support the operation of the IBM-SP computer at

about 3.5teraflops “peak” performance. These

computational resources will be integrated by a

common high performance file storage system that

facilitates interdisciplinary collaborations. By the

end of FY 2002 the users with the largest allocations

will have shifted their computations to this computer

from the previous generation Cray T3E. (SC4-1)

! Operate facilities, including the National Energy

Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) and

ESnet, within budget while meeting user needs and

satisfying overall SC program requirements where,

specifically, NERSC will deliver 3.6 Teraflop

capability by the end of FY 2001 to support DOE’s

science mission. (SC4-1)

! Expand and increase access to published and preprinted scientific and technical information via costeffective, specialized information retrieval systems

resulting in a 25% increase in users served. (SC4-1)

! Support the Computational Science Graduate

Fellowship Program with the successful appointment

of 10 new students to support the next generation of

leaders in computational science for DOE and the

Nation. (SC4-1)

! Operate facilities, including the National Energy

Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC) and

ESnet, within budget while meeting user needs and

satisfying overall SC program requirements. (SC4-

1)
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 200

Means and Strategies:

The Office of Advanced Scientific Computing Research

(ASCR) will support fundamental, peer-reviewed research

to create new fundamental knowledge in areas of advanced

computing research important to the Department of

Energy. To plan, fabricate, assemble, and operate premier

supercomputer and networking facilities, the program will

serve researchers at national laboratories, universities, and

industry, thus enabling both new understanding through

analysis, modeling, and simulation for complex problems

and effective integration of geographically distributed

teams through national collaboratories. All research

projects will undergo regular peer review and merit

evaluation based on procedures set down in 10 CFR 605

for the extramural grant program and under a similar

modified process for the laboratory programs and scientific

user facilities, and all new projects will be selected by peer

review and merit evaluation. 

To continue to develop future generations of scientists with

the breadth of skills required to be effective both in

advanced computing research and in interacting with

disciplinary sciences, the ASCR program supports the

Computational Science Graduate Fellowship program.

The Technical Information Management (TIM) program

will increase the number of researchers and citizens served

with scientific and technical information at a lower cost

per person served; lead/advance the institutionalization of

an electronic, decentralized technical information

collection that contributes to the development of a Virtual

Library of Energy Science and Technology; expand

agreements for DOE’s widespread, electronic access to

U.S. science journals; provide more effective mechanisms

for public access to global information; and provide secure

exchange and preservation of 50 years of the Department’s

classified R&D information managed by the TIM program,

such as PubSCIENCE, PrePrint Networks, and enhance

delivery of DOE scientific and technical report literature

through an information infrastructure that uses tools such

as EnergyLink, the DOE Information Bridge, and the

Energy Science and Technology Database.

Collaboration Activities:

The ASCR research program and facilities have been

closely coordinated with the information technology

research activities of other Federal Agencies ( DARPA,

EPA, NASA, NIH, NSA, and NSF) through the

Computing Information and Communications R&D

subcommittee of the National Science and Technology

Council (NSTC) under the auspices of the Office of

Science and Technology Policy. This coordination will

continue in the future through the newly organized IT

Group of Principals and IT2 Working Group, established

in response to the recommendations of the President’s

Information Technology Advisory Committee. In addition

to this interagency coordination ASCR has a number of

partnerships with other programs in the Office of Science

and other parts of the Department, focused on advanced

application testbeds to apply the results of ASCR research

to mission critical problems in those areas. 

External Factors Affecting Performance:

External factors, in addition to budgetary constraints, that

affect the level of performance on these goals include: (1)

changing mission needs as described by the DOE and the

Office of Science (SC) mission statements and strategic

plans; (2) scientific opportunities as determined, in part, by

proposal pressure and by scientific workshops; (3) the

results of external program reviews and international

benchmarking activities of entire fields or subfields.

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

The planning and operations

documents and agreements, MOUs,

etc. of ASCR

Baselines: Baselines and timelines that contain

the milestones, rate of activity,

schedules, etc. of facilities operations

that reside at headquarters, operations

offices and at each facility; the BES

facility upgrades and construction

activities identified in the FY 2001

budget request

Frequency: A formalized peer review process for

activities at the DOE laboratories and

peer reviews grant applications as

described in 10 CFR 605 on a regular

basis at least once every 3-4 years

Data Storage: Annual reports of facility performance

and progress data are reported to, and

reside at, Headquarters, operations

offices, and at each facility

Verification: verification i.e. broad program review,

advisory committee, surveys etc. 

Planned Program Evaluation:

The Integrated Software Infrastructure Centers (ISICs)

initiated in FY 2001 will undergo a progress review to

ensure effective coupling between the ISICs, and

between the ISICs and application teams in the

Mathematical, Information, and Computational

Science (MICS) Scientific Applications Pilot Projects

efforts and with the Scientific Discovery through

Advanced Computing (SciDAC) teams funded by the

other Programs and SC.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 201

President’s Budget

Program and Financing (P&F)

Accounts and Program Activities

Program

SubActivities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

250 Energy Programs

Fusion Energy Sciences - SC 238 248 248*

* This reflects the amended FY 2002 budget request.

Description of the Program:

The mission of the U.S. Fusion Energy Science (FES) Program is to advance plasma science, fusion science, and fusion

technology—the knowledge base needed for an economically and environmentally attractive fusion energy source. The

research programs supported by the Fusion Energy Science program are kept relevant and outstanding through:

independent technical peer evaluations; Advisory Committee reviews; program evaluations; and research needs of DOE

programs and the scientific community. 

General Performance Goals:

SC1-1 MAKING ADVANCES IN PHYSICAL SCIENCES IN QUEST FOR CLEAN, AFFORDABLE AND

ABUNDANT ENERGY 

Deliver excellent research in plasma science, fusion science and fusion technology, cognizant of DOE mission needs as

well as the needs of the broad national science agenda. Provide national and international leadership in select areas of

plasma science, fusion science, and fusion technology. Be the steward for plasma science, fusion science, and fusion

technology at the DOE laboratory complex and research facilities, and for the scientific and technical workforce,

providing the infrastructure to meet elements of the Nation’s science agenda now and in the future. Ensure that the

fusion research program is effectively integrated to produce results that advance the program’s mission while working

to build effective, mutually beneficial connections with other fields of science. Enhance the effectiveness of available

U.S. funding through mutually beneficial collaborative activities with fusion programs abroad. 

SC4-1 PROVIDING EXTRAORDINARY SCIENTIFIC TOOLS, WORKFORCE, AND INFRASTRUCTURE: 

Manage the fusion program’s human resources and the operations of the national fusion science user facilities to the

highest standards for efficiency, productivity, and safety. Use peer reviews and merit evaluations to plan, select,

implement, and review fusion energy sciences programs. Coordinate with the NNSA’s Office of Defense Programs on

International Fusion Energy (IFE) activities. Continue to educate and train young scientists who will contribute

broadly to the Nation’s progress in many fields of science and technology. 

Performance Indicators: FES program will measure the success of their activities by tracking the following common

performance indicators (defined on page 170):

 - Excellence and Relevance

 - Leadership

 - Quality

 - Safety and Health 

In addition to these performance indicators, specific measures and targets for FES program for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are

listed in the table that follows.

GPRA Program Activity: Fusion Energy Sciences
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 202

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results (Mid-Year)

! Maintain high scientific quality in the Energy

Research Program as judged by the Program

Advisory Committees. (ST3-4) 2

(MET GOAL)

! Maintain high scientific quality in the Energy Research

Program as judged by the Program Advisory

Committees. (SC1-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Operate the DIII-D Tokamak facility to test the

feasibility of using increased radio frequency heating

power and improved power exhaust capabilities to

extend the pulse length of advanced operating modes,

a requirement for future fusion energy sources (SC3-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Operate a novel magnetic fusion confinement device,

the National Spherical Torus Experiment, with 0.5

mega-ampere plasma currents approaching 0.5 second

pulse lengths and 1 mega-ampere, currents for shorter

pulses. (SC1-5)

(MET GOAL)

! Make operational three innovative concept exploration

experiments in fusion science--The LSX field-reversed

configuration and the flow-through Z pinch, both at the

University of Washington and the Pegasus quasispherical toroidal plasma at the University of

Wisconsin -- providing basic scientific understanding

of relevant concept phenomena. (SC1-6)

(MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. ST3-4 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 203

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! By June 2001 enter into a new NSF/DOE

Partnership in Basic Plasma Science and

Engineering to provide continuity after the present

agreement ends, and initiate a new element of the

U.S.-Japan collaborative program by the end of FY

2001. (SC1-1)

! Complete by June 2001 the 6 MW power upgrade of

the DIII-D microwave system and initiate

experiments with it to control and sustain plasma

current profiles, with the goal of maintaining

improved confinement of plasma energy for longer

periods of time. (SC1-1)

! Use the recently upgraded plasma microwave

heating system and new sensors on the DIII-D

tokamak to study feedback stabilization of disruptive

plasma oscillations. This understanding could

permit substantial increases in the effective

containment of plasma pressure within a given

magnetic field. (SC1-1)

! Initiate and meet schedules for dismantling,

packaging, and offsite shipping of the Tokamak

Fusion Test Reactor (TFTR) systems. (SC4-1)

! Complete in a safe manner the Decontamination and

Decommissioning of the Tokamak Fusion Test

Reactor (TFTR) systems. (SC4-1)

! Successfully bring into operation the recently

completed 500 kV Ion Source Test Stand at LLNL,

and start experiments to explore new ion source

configurations to discover improved ways of

producing heavy ion drive beam currents. (SC1-1)
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Science 204

Means and Strategies:

The DIII-D microwave system upgrade will be carried

out under a contract with General Atomics in San

Diego. Also, the Decontamination and

Decommissioning activities of the Tokamak Fusion

Test Reactor at the Princeton Plasma Physics

Laboratory (PPPL) will be completed in a safe manner. 

This includes the removal, shipping, and disposal of

the tokamak and remaining radioactive components

from the test cell and the basement.

Collaboration Activities:

Japanese engineers will collaborate with PPPL during

the Decontamination and Decommissioning (D&D) of

the TFTR. The NSF/DOE Partnership supports basic

plasma physics and engineering efforts through

coordinated review and funding. The U.S. - Japan

collaborative program provides optimum use of

facilities and research staff through coordinated

research activities. 

External Factors Affecting Performance:

The equipment required for the DIII-D microwave

upgrade represents cutting edge technology, which

always presents some risk in implementation. 

External factors which could affect the TFTR D&D are

changes in regulations regarding burial of radioactive

waste.

Validation and Verification:

Data Sources: Progress on the DIII-D microwave

upgrade is described in monthly

progress reports that are submitted

to OFES. PPPL provides regular

reports to OFES, which includes

status reports on TFTR D&D. Data

used for validation and verification

are the D&D project cost and

schedule records

Verification: Participating parties will verify

when signing the new partnership

agreements

Planned Program Evaluation:

The Office of Science obtains validation of the

relevance and quality of its current and new research

efforts through peer review, in addition to the advisory

committees and professional scientific associations

which are involved in providing support and guidance

to the SC programs. The five advisory committees are

composed of industry, university, and government

officials who are qualified in the scientific disciplines

of the program area of the advisory committee. SC

tasks them on various issues to provide advice to

program managers on approaches, relevance of

research portfolio, or strategic planning. In FY 2002

SC will complete the evaluation of the scientific and

programmatic relevance and the optimum design scope

for a possible National Spherical Torus Experimental

project (NSTX) and assessment of those results by

Fusion Energy Science Advisory Committee (FESAC).
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 205

CORPORATE MANAGEMENT

The Department manages an extensive array of energy

programs over a nationwide complex including

headquarters organizations, operations offices, field

offices, national laboratories, power marketing

administrations, special purpose offices, and sites now

dedicated to environmental cleanup. The Department

needs strong corporate management in order to

integrate its diverse portfolio of program missions, its

facilities, and its contractors spread over a large

geographic base. 

This strong corporate culture is also necessary to

complement program managers’ pursuit of program

mission goals. The offices funded under the Corporate

Management goal:

• provide oversight and internal review of policy

issues and budgets, 

• act as honest brokers in decision-making, 

• provide leadership on broad departmental

management issues,

• represent the Department with other Federal

Agencies. 

Corporate Management goal and objectives provide the 

focus for implementing the Secretary’s initiatives to

improve management and accountability while

ensuring the safety and health of the DOE workforce

and members of the public.

CORPORATE MANAGEMENT GOAL

Demonstrate excellence in the Department’s

environment, safety and health practices and

management systems to support our world

class programs.

The Corporate Management goal is supported by the

following five strategic objectives. 

CM1: Ensure the safety and health of the DOE work

force and members of the public, and the

protection of the environment in all

Departmental activities.

CM2: Manage human resources and diversity

initiatives and implement practices to improve

the delivery of products and services. 

CM3: Manage financial resources and physical

assets to ensure public confidence.

CM4: Manage information technology systems and

infrastructure to improve the Department’s

efficiency and effectiveness.

CM5: Use appropriate oversight systems to promote

the efficient, effective, and economical

operation of the Department of Energy.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 206

The following table maps the Presidential Budget’s Program and Financing (P&F) accounts and program activities to

the Department of Energy’s offices and GPRA Program Activities. The alignment includes aggregation,

disaggregation, and consolidation of budget decision units. The chart that follows this table shows how the decision

units support the Department’s Strategic Plan objectives for this business line. 

 Presidential Budget Program and Financing 

(P&F) Accounts and Program Activities

FY2002

Budget

Request 

($M)

DOE

Office GPRA Program Activities

 270 Energy Supply

 Environment, Safety & Health (non defense) 36 EH Environment, Safety & Health

 050 Other Defense Activities

 Environment, Safety & Health (defense) 105 EH Environment, Safety & Health

 Total Environment, Safety & Health 140 EH Environment, Safety & Health

 Other Departmental Support and Staff Offices

 Office of the Secretary 5 S1 Office of the Secretary

 Management and Administration 76 MA Management and Administration

 Chief Financial Officer 37 CFO Chief Financial Officer

 Board of Contact Appeals 1 HG Hearings and Appeals

 Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs 5 CI Congressional and

Intergovernmental Affairs

 Public Affairs 5 PA Public Affairs

 General Counsel 23 GC General Counsel

 Office of Policy 7 PO Office of Policy

 International Affairs 9 IA International Affairs

 Economic Impact and Diversity 7 ED Economic Impact and Diversity

 Cost of Work for others (66)

 Adjustment - Transfer from Other Defense (25)

 Subtotal Departmental Administration 84 Departmental Administration 

 Economic Regulation - Hearings and Appeals 2 HG Hearings and Appeals

 Other Defense Activities - Hearings and Appeals 3 HG Hearings and Appeals

Office of the Inspector General 31 IG Office of the Inspector General

Adjustment - FERC Receipts (26)

Adjustment - Colorado River Basin (26)

Adjustment - NNSA Administration Support 25

 Total - Other Departmental Support and 

 Staff Offices

93
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 207

The Corporate Management goal is supported by five strategic objectives. Each strategic objective is being pursued

through long-term strategies. In this annual performance plan these long term strategies have been stated in terms of

General Performance Goals against which outcome performance indicators and annual (output) performance measures

have been established. To make the linkage of these outcomes and outputs to the budget resources we have organized

the plan by GPRA Program Activities which are aligned with the budget decision units through aggregation,

disaggregation, and consolidation. The general performance goals and indicators and annual measures and targets are

discussed with the GPRA Program Activities on the following pages. This approach allows us to clearly link annual

performance with annual budget resources and the strategic plan objectives. The chart below gives an overview of the

linkage of budget decision units and strategic objectives for Corporate Management.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 208

This page is intentionally left blank.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 209

President’s Budget

Program and Financing (P&F)

Accounts and Program Activities

Program

SubActivities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

270 Energy Supply

Environment Safety and Health (non

defense)

- EH 38 36 36

050 Other Defense Activities

Environment Safety and Health

(defense)

- EH 100 125 105

Total 138 161 140

Description of the Program:

The Office of Environment, Safety and Health (EH) is a corporate resource that provides leadership and Departmental

management excellence to protect the workers, the public, and the environment. EH provides corporate policy,

guidance, and technical expertise to support and advise the Secretary regarding the line management implementation of

environment, safety, and health requirements and programs. EH staff are expert in disciplines such as environmental

protection; industrial hygiene; industrial, chemical, and constructions safety; public health; occupational medicine, and

risk management. EH activities funded under this GPRA activity cover both the “Energy Supply” appropriation and the

“Other EH Defense Activities” appropriation. Under the Energy Supply appropriation EH funds two major activities: 

Policy, Standards and Guidance; and Corporate Programs. This better characterizes EH as a corporate resource to

advance the DOE mission while promoting the establishment of effective and efficient environment, safety, and health

programs. Under the Other EH Defense Activities appropriation EH funds the following four major core activities:

Oversight, Health Studies, and the Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF), and the Gaseous Diffusion Plants

activity. In addition, funding is provided for Exposure Compensation Activities that relate to compensation of workers

across the complex for work related illnesses. The Gaseous Diffusion Plants activity will be completed in FY 2001. No

funding is requested in FY 2002. EH has established the following general performance goal in support of the

Department’s strategic plan. 

General Performance Goal:

CM1-1 INSTITUTING A SOUND ES&H CULTURE 

Integrate and embed risk-based, outcome oriented environment, safety, and health (ES&H) management practices into

the performance of DOE's day-to-day work. Clearly identify and fund ES&H priorities and ensure resources are

appropriately spent on those priorities. Conduct oversight special reviews, assessments, evaluations, and inspections of

such topics as environmental protection, fire protection, safety management implementation, and accidents. Identify

at-risk worker populations and employ appropriate mitigation measures. Continue shift from a reactive approach to

emphasizing excellence and prevention in protecting worker and public safety and health. Specific measures and

targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows.

GPRA Program Activity: Environment, Safety and Health
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 210

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

1996Q3 1997Q1 1997Q3 1998Q1 1998Q3 1999Q1 1999Q3 2000Q1 2000Q3

Cost Index

Upper Control Limit

DOE Avg

Low er Control Limit

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

5.0

1996Q3 1997Q1 1997Q3 1998Q1 1998Q3 1999Q1 1999Q3 2000Q1 2000Q3

Rate (Cases per 200,000 work-hours)

Upper Control Limit

DOE Avg

Low er Control Limit

Performance Indicators: 

EH measures the effectiveness of Integrated Safety Management implementation by tracking five complex-wide

performance indicators: 

S Total Recordable Case Rate;

S Occupational Safety Cost Index; 

S Hypothetical Radiation Dose to the Public;

S Worker Radiation Dose; and

S Reportable Occurrences of Releases to the Environment.

Total Recordable Case Rate: Recordable

Case Rate measures work- related death,

as well as injury or illness that results in

loss of consciousness, restriction of work

or motion, transfer to another job, or

medical treatment beyond first aid.

Occupational Safety Cost Index:

Occupational safety Cost Index is a

measure of the direct and indirect costs

based on the Cost Index formula, due to

safety-related injuries/illnesses.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 211

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Person-rem

Upper Control Limit

DOE Avg

Low er Control Limit

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1997Q3 1998Q1 1998Q3 1999Q1 1999Q3 2000Q1 2000Q3

Upper Control Limit

DOE Avg

Low er Control Limit < 0.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999

Average Measureable Dose per Worker 

(millirem)

Upper Control Limit

DOE Avg

Low er Control Limit

Hypothetical Radiation Dose to the

Public: Hypothetical radiation dose to

public is an estimate of of the collective

radiation dose to the public within 50

miles of DOE facilities due to airborne

releases of radionuclides.

Worker Radiation Dose: Worker

radiation dose is calculated by dividing

the collective total effective dose

equivalent (TEDE) by the number of

individuals with measurable dose.

Reportable Occurrences of Releases to the

Environment: Reportable occurrence of

releases to the environment include releases

of radionuclides, hazardous substances, or

regulated pollutants that must be reported to

Federal, State, or local agencies.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 212

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results 

! Conduct oversight special reviews, assessments,

evaluations, and inspections of such topics as

emergency management, safety management, and

accidents. (CM1-1) 2

(MET GOAL)

! Conduct oversight special reviews, assessments,

evaluations, and inspections of such topics as

emergency management, safety management, and

accidents. (CM1-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Issue an initial status report on the development of a

public health agenda by December 31, 1998 and a

final public health agenda for each site, which

reflects customer and stakeholder input, shall be

issued in FY 2000. (CM2-4)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Propose legislation to Congress that would establish

a program to compensate:

S Current and former Federal and contractor

workers and beryllium vendor employees who are

ill because of beryllium exposure; and 

S Certain workers at the Oak Ridge East Tennessee

Technology Park and the Paducah Gaseous

Diffusion Plant in Kentucky who have illnesses

associated with exposures which occurred during

their employment. (CM1-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Provide medical screening to all DE workers

formerly exposed to beryllium during their

employment at DOE facilities (CM1-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Develop a stronger, more coherent public health

agenda at and surrounding DOE sites. (CM1-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Accomplish the milestone of the FMFIA corrective

action plan to complete the nuclear safety standards

upgrade project. (CM1-1)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. CM1-1 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 213

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Increase the adoption and use of voluntary

consensus technical standards ( e.g. ANSI, ASTM,

ASME) used in DOE Directives and safety

documentation by 20 to 30 to help improve safety

and cost-effectiveness. (CM1-1)

! Make biennial presentations of the results of

epidemiologic surveillance analyses to workers and

management at participating DOE facilities; and

expand public access to the Office of Epidemiologic

Studies through improved web linkages. (CM1-1)

! Fully Implement Integrated Safety Management at

all DOE sites. (CM1-1/FMFIA-safety and health)

! Establish a beryllium registry within one calendar

year of release of the final Beryllium Rule. (CM1-1)

[Final Beryllium rule was released in January 2001.]

! Establish a beryllium registry in January 2002 for

current and former DOE workers who may have been

exposed. (CM1-1/FMFIA-safety and health)

! Publish 10 interim or final international health

scientific and technical reports from the RERF,

Marshall Islands, and Russians to increase our

information defining the relationship between

ionizing radiation dose and its effect on human

health. (CM1-1)

! Publish an additional 10 interim or final

international health scientific and technical reports

from the RERF, Marshall Islands, and Russians to

increase our information defining the relationship

between ionizing radiation dose and its effect on

human health. (CM1-1)

Note: For FY 2001, the added target was based on the FMFIA process.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 214

Policy, Standards and Guidance activities involve the

maintenance of current, up to-date DOE policies,

standards, and guidance while adopting consensus

standards as they apply to the DOE work environment.

DOE regulatory liaison activities include transactions

and participatory relationships with other regulators

(OSHA, NRC and the States) to accommodate their

identified interest and jurisdiction.

Corporate Programs activities provide products and

support in environment, safety, and health that

efficiently use DOE resources when managed centrally

by EH. Such programs include the Department of

Energy Laboratory Accreditation Program (DOELAP),

the Federal Employees Occupational Safety and Health

(FEOSH) program, and the nationally recognized

Voluntary Protection Program (VPP). Environment,

Safety, and Health Performance Analysis activities

include collecting and analyzing DOE performance

data to support policy decisions and focus limited

resources on the most hazardous vulnerabilities.

Corporate programs also include crosscutting

Department-wide functions such as environment,

safety, and health monitoring; programs directed

toward strengthening safety performance and

incorporating it into the routine of daily work;

communication of environment, safety, and health

program guidance and practices; and lessons learned

and the maintenance of an operating experience

database. Management Planning directly supports the

Department’s goal of clearly identifying and funding

environment, safety, and health priorities and ensuring

that resources are appropriately spent on those

priorities. Specific objectives include: (1) ensure all

Departmental sites conduct sufficient work-scope

planning and identify and fund environment, safety,

and health priorities in the FY 2002 budget and

annually thereafter; and (2) monitor annually and

report on environment, safety, and health expenditures

(commitments) and improve related internal controls.

The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

Program provides compliance assurance to DOE line

management by supporting the implementation of the

Department’s NEPA activities. Information

Management provides for the overall management of

environment, safety, and health data and information

for the DOE complex and other stakeholders.

Oversight activities provide information and analysis

needed to ensure that the Department of Energy (DOE)

and contractor management, the public, the Secretary

of Energy, and the Assistant Secretary for

Environment, Safety and Health have an accurate,

comprehensive understanding of the effectiveness,

vulnerabilities, and trends of the Department’s

environment, safety, and health policies and programs.

This data and analysis provide critical information on

how effectively line management is implementing

Integrated Safety Management. The activities to

accomplish this mission include Evaluations, PriceAnderson Amendments Act Enforcement, and the

Departmental Representative to the Defense Nuclear

Facilities Safety Board (DNFSB).

Health Studies activities include Occupational

Medicine (medical surveillance); Epidemiologic

Studies (surveillance and communication of worker

injury and illness); Public Health Activities (health

studies, health education and promotion, etc., at DOE

sites); and International Health Programs (Marshall

Islands program and health studies in the former

Soviet Union and Spain).

Radiation Effects Research Foundation (RERF)

activities support analysis of the medical effects of

radiation with the intention of contributing to the

maintenance of the health and welfare of atomic bomb

survivors and to the enhancement of worldwide

radiation protection practices and standards.

Employee Compensation Initiative is to recognize

special needs of DOE workers who were unknowingly

exposed to dangerous material or who were not

adequately protected from these exposures. When

illnesses force workers into retirement, many are left

with little or no medical and /or wage benefits. The

EH Office of Advocacy will assist DOE workers in

understanding worker compensation opportunities and

requirements, and employer-provided benefits. Where

appropriate, EH will assist in filing compensation

claims. 

Collaboration Activities:

EH maintains close contacts with private industry,

regulatory agencies, independent standard-setting

groups, and national environment, safety, and health

organizations, and facilitating information exchanges

between DOE line management and their counterparts

in the private sector. EH staff also provide corporate

support to DOE managers in developing improved

strategies for including safety and health in planning

and conducting work; applying regulations (guidance

on Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA), the States, and Nuclear Regulatory
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 215

Commission (NRC) regulation); and DOE policy and

guidance.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Specific ES&H events, departmental program

activities, and requests from field sites will affect the

level and deployment of EH’s resources.

Validation and Verification:

Data Sources: The field sites provide their

operating data to EH’s various

reporting systems

Baselines: Technical baselines have been

established using historical data.

Frequency: Data is updated monthly and

reports are issued quarterly and

annually

Data Storage: Data is stored at various sites

and in EH’s data bases.

Verification: Data entry quality control

procedures have been established

by each EH information system

manager.

Planned Program Evaluation:

An extensive peer and program review process is

followed to assure that reports reflect the highest

quality achievable.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 216

This page is intentionally left blank.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 217

President’s Budget

Program and Financing (P&F)

Accounts and Program Activities

Program

SubActivities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

Departmental Administration 

- Management and Administration

MA 81 89 76

Management and Administration: The Office of Management and Administration (MA) provides Department-wide

administrative and management support. It is responsible for administrative services, human resources, training, 

procurement and financial assistance oversight and policy, and other management systems and processes. MA also

provides human resources and procurement services to DOE headquarters staff, manages the headquarters facilities,

and supports DOE missions with a wide range of functions. MA activities support the following general performance

goals.

General Performance Goals:

CM2-1 MANAGING HUMAN RESOURCES

Align programs and policies pertaining to human capital to DOE's mission and integrating human resource

management into DOE's system for planning, budgeting, and program evaluation. Continue to recruit, develop, and

manage our workforce, including entry level positions to sustain world-class programs and operations. Improve

Federal technical workforce capabilities through support of Federal Technical Capability Panel operations for activities

related to the Technical Qualification Program, program reporting and assessments. Continue to conduct

self-assessments to measure organizational performance including evaluating results, measuring trends, and

recommending organizational improvements to DOE leadership. 

CM3-2 ENSURING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE DEPARTMENT’S CONTRACTUAL TRANSACTIONS

Maximize the use of electronic commerce systems in purchasing and personal property sales, and ensure integration

with internal financial management systems as well as external interfaces. Increase the use of performance-based

service contracts by reviewing selected eligible actions for conversion and by conducting training for program and

project managers to continually improve performance-based statement of work, as well as, to ensure evaluation of

contractor performance. Ensure competent organizational workforce by achieving professional certification for the

majority of procurement personnel; and, implement leadership development and succession planning programs. 

Performance Indicators:

Performance indicators for these goals are in development. Specific output measures and targets for FY 1999 - FY

2002 are listed in the table that follows. 

GPRA Program Activity: Departmental Administration - Management and Administration
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 218

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results

! Improve Federal technical workforce capabilities at 

defense sites by implementing the FY 1999 milestones of

the Revised Implementation Plan for DNFSB

Recommendation 93-3. (CM1-3) 2

(MET GOAL)

! Implement a DOE-wide employee accessible automated

personnel system by December 1998. (CM3-3)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Improve workforce skills and reduce training costs by

implementing the FY 1999 milestones in the DOE

Corporate Education, Training, and Development Plan. 

(CM3-3)

(MET GOAL)

! Improve Federal technical workforce capabilities at 

defense sites by implementing the FY 2000 milestones of

the Revised Implementation Plan for DNFSB

Recommendation 93-3. (CM1-3)

(MET GOAL)

! Increase the electronic transfer of documents through

implementation of paperless workflow in CHRIS, reducing

personnel paper transactions by 15 percent. (CM3-3)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Improve workforce skills and reduce training costs by

implementing the FY 2000 milestones in the DOE

Corporate Education, Training, and Development Plan. 

(CM3-3)

(MET GOAL)

! Have 90 percent of contract professionals certified under

DOE professional development standards. (CM4-1)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Convert all management and operating contracts awarded

in FY 1999 to performance-based contracts. (CM4-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Award 50 percent of all management and operating

(M&O) contracts, including three M&O contracts that will

change to Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) contracts

during FY 1999, using competitive procedures. (CM4-1)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Convert all M&O contracts awarded in FY 2000 to a

Performance Based Service Contract (PBSC) using 

government-wide standards [FAR, (48 CFR Part 39) and

Office of Federal Procurement Policy letter 91-2]. 

(CM4-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Convert one support services contract at each major site

to PBSC using the government-wide standards [Federal

Acquisition Regulations, (48 CFR Part 39) and Office of

Federal Procurement Policy letter 91-2]. (CM4-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Complete the milestones listed in the FMFIA corrective

action plan for the Departmental challenge of contract

management. (CM4-1/FMFIA)

(MET GOAL)

! Improve overall efficiency and safety of aviation services

by conducting a comprehensive aviation program study by

July 2000, including an OMB Circular A-76 analysis and

a cost effectiveness evaluation; and, by establishing a

review process for the conduct of charter and contract

aviation services. (CM3-1)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or FY

2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. CM1-3 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 219

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Improve Departmental Human Capital Management by

initiating comprehensive human resources strategies which

will:

S Implement the FY 2001 milestones in the DOE

Corporate Training Plan;

S Increase the electronic transfer of documents in

CHRIS, resulting in 15% of the documents processed

electronically. (CM2-1)

! Complete the milestones listed in the FMFIA corrective

action plan for the Departmental challenge of human

capital management. (CM2-1/FMFIA)

! Improve Departmental Human Capital Management by

initiating comprehensive human resources strategies which

will:

S streamline the DOE hiring process through process

reengineering, automated recruitment, and other

means that reduce the time it takes to fill jobs by at

least 20% at DOE Headquarters;

S increase employee access to mission-related training

by at least 30% through “on-line” and other

technology assisted learning capabilities;

S achieve cost savings and reduce traditional manuallygenerated personnel and training paper records by at

least 20% utilizing the automated Corporate Human

Resources Information System (CHRIS);

S address skills gaps and aging workforce challenges by

hiring at least 15% of new administrative, technical

and professional employees at entry levels;

S reduce managerial layering and shift staffing

resources to front line, mission-critical positions

consistent with Administration guidelines; and

S establish an Agency plan for ensuring the accuracy of

the FAIR Act data for FY 2002 and for completing 

public-private or direct conversion competitions of 5%

of the commercial FTEs listed on that inventory. 

(CM2-1)

! Convert all M&O contracts awarded in FY2001 to PBSC 

management contracts. (CM3-1)

! Award approximately 50% of service contracts as PBSC

using government-wide standards. (CM3-1)

! Select and begin implementation of DOE wide electronic

contracting for large procurements. (CM3-1)

! Complete the milestones listed in the FMFIA corrective

action plan for the Departmental challenge of contract

management. (CM4-1/FMFIA)

! Increase the use of on-line procurement and other

E-Government services and information so that for100%

of acquisitions valued at over $25,000, all synopses for

which widespread notice is required, and all associated

solicitations (unless covered by an exemption in the

Federal Acquisition Regulation), will be posted on the

Government wide point of entry website

(www.FedBizOpps.gov). (CM3-1)

! Increase the use of performance-based contracts so that:

S 60% of total eligible service contracting dollars (over

$100k) will be obligated as performance-based service

contracts;

S 66% of total eligible new service contract actions (over

$100K) will be performance-based service contracts. 

(CM3-1)

! Conduct a comprehensive aviation program study by April

2001, including an OMB Circular A-76 analysis and a

cost effectiveness evaluation; and, establish a review

process for the conduct of charter and contract aviation

services. (CM3-1)

Note: For FY 2001, two targets were added by the FMFIA process.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 220

Means and Strategies:

During FY 2002, The Office of Management and

Administration (MA) will continue serving as the

Department’s primary administrative and management

support organization. It will accomplish this by

focusing on emerging management issues and ensuring

human capital, contract reform, and other major areas

are analyzed and addressed on both a Department-wide

and Headquarters basis. 

MA supports the Administrations’s recent

management reform initiatives and will work with

DOE line managers to develop appropriate

Departmental plans to eliminate unnecessary layers of

management and direct personnel to high priority

missions. We will complete the development and

implementation of a new Subcontract Reporting

System which will eliminate the preparation of paper

reports from contractors, deploy a web-based system

for large contracts and financial assistance awards, and

increase the number of solicitations posted to this

system by 25% from FY 2001. MA will prepare a plan

for expanding A-76 competitions to meet the 5%

target, and provide a more accurate FAIR Act

inventory. The plan will describe functions and

locations of FTEs to be competed or converted under

A-76, as well as training requirements and planned

contract support. 

 

MA will also continue administering the Department’s

Working Capital Fund, a financial management tool

for providing such common services as headquarters

space, nationwide payroll, the telephone and wide area

network systems, mail, and other services delivered by

MA, the Chief Financial Officer, and the Chief

Information Officer. 

Collaboration Activities:

MA coordinates with a broad range of external Federal

agencies including the Office of Management and

Budget, Office of Personnel Management, and the

General Services Administration, Congressional

offices, and numerous private sector companies and

organizations. Due to its administrative and

management role at the Department it also works

closely with all DOE organizations and DOE

Management and Operating contractors.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Administration policies, Congressional guidance,

Departmental activities and requests, and other

external factors could impact MA performance. 

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

Customer, stakeholder, and staff

feedback, Reports to Congress

Baselines: Various baselines established

through the MA Balanced

Scorecard Action Plan utilized

throughout MA

Frequency: Monthly, quarterly, annually

depending on requirements

Data

Storage:

Various MA Tracking Systems

and feedback mechanisms

Verification: Internal Program Reviews,

customer feedback from surveys

and focus groups

Planned Program Evaluation:

MA is utilizing the Balanced Scorecard which is a

structured approach to planning, goal setting,

performance measurement, and performance

management that links MA’s strategic goals to the

activities necessary to achieve desired results. Each

MA organization developed a Balanced Scorecard

Action Plan providing detailed information on how it

will be measured on achieving its commitments. 

Program Reviews are held internally to the

organizations as well as with the Director of

Management and Administration on regular basis to

measure progress. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 221

President’s Budget 

Program and Financing (P&F)

Accounts and Program Activities

Program

SubActivities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

Departmental Administration -

Chief Financial Officer

- CFO 31 35 37

Chief Financial Officer (CFO): The CFO provides centralized direction and oversight of the full range of financial

and planning activities including: strategic planning and program evaluation; project management; budget formulation,

presentation and execution; Department-wide oversight of internal controls; Departmental accounting and financial

policies, procedures and directives; operation and maintenance of the Department's payroll system and financial

information system/Standard General Ledger; and, financial management (accounting, cash management, and

reporting). CFO activities support the following general performance goal.

General Performance Goal:

CM3-1 MANAGING FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND PHYSICAL ASSETS

Continue to streamline and improve operations, improve decision-making, ensure accountability, maximize

departmental resources, and achieve intended results by corporately managing the Department’s mission, functions,

and activities. The Office of the CFO has the lead responsibility for this goal and prepares and publishes the

Department’s strategic plan, annual performance plan, annual performance and accountability report that includes the

Department-wide audited financial statement. CFO is executing the project for implementing the BMIS Phoenix core

financial system including pilots, training, system interfaces, SGL integration and data conversion; CFO is also

managing a Departmental Project Management Tracking and Control System to monitor the status of projects in terms

of cost, schedule, and technical performance. Specific measures and targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the

table that follows.

Performance Indicator:

Independent auditor’s unqualified opinion in the annual audit of the Department’s financial statements.

GPRA Program Activity: Departmental Administration-Chief Financial Officer
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 222

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results 

! Identify functional and technical systems

requirements for developing a Business Management

Information System (BMIS) with a special emphasis

on financial management, and develop business

scenarios for its evaluation (a milestone of a FMFIA

action plan. (CM3-1/FMFIA) 2

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! Verify progress against established project scope,

schedule, and cost baselines on projects valued at $5

million or more. (CM4-2)

(BELOW EXPECTATION: Office of Field Integration

responsible for this goal, was closed out. Beginning in

FY 2000 this function is the responsibility of the CFO.)

! Complete four Energy Systems Acquisitions Advisory

Board (ESAAB) critical actions on required strategic

and major systems. (CM4-2) 

(MET GOAL: Office of Field Integration responsible

for this goal, was closed out. Beginning in FY 2000 this

function is the responsibility of the CFO.)

! Accomplish the milestones of the FMFIA corrective

action plan for the Departmental challenge of

project management. (CM4-2/FMFIA)

(BELOW EXPECTATIONS: Office of Field Integration

responsible for this goal, was closed out. Beginning in

FY 2000 this function is the responsibility of the CFO.)

! Complete the development of requirements and the

creation of a new account structure. Purchase

commercial Core Financial System software for 150

users for a pilot implementation at one of the three

accounting service centers and two of its satellite

sites. Begin implementation solutions for special

DOE requirements. (CM3-1)

(MET GOAL)

! By April 2000, implement new project management

policies and procedures that strengthen the

management of projects, and by July 2000, have

new systems in place to verify progress against

established project scope, schedule and cost

baselines on projects valued at $5 million or more. 

(CM4-2)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

! By September 30, 2000 reestablish the Acquisition

Executive and ESAAB processes for use on critical

decisions for projects of $5 million or more. (CM4-2)

(MET GOAL)

! Complete all planned External Independent Reviews

(EIRs) of projects on schedule, to support both the

needs of the project managers and timely delivery of

EIR reports, with the programs’ corrective action

plans, to the Congress. (CM4-2)

(MET GOAL)

! Complete the milestones listed in the FMFIA

corrective action plan for the Departmental

challenge of project management. (CM4-2/FMFIA)

(NEARLY MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or

FY 2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. CM3-1 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 223

FY 2001 Targets(Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Complete the implementation of the BMIS Phoenix

core financial system at a minimum of one service

center cluster as part of a phased deployment

strategy. (CM3-1) 

! By April 2001 have all ongoing capital asset

acquisition projects, valued at $5 million or more,

fully integrated into the project management

policies, procedures, and systems implementation. 

(CM3-1)

! Recruit and hire additional personnel to address

immediate needs in HQ critical financial functions 

(CM2-1/FMFIA-human capital management)

! Complete all planned External Independent Reviews

(EIRs) of projects on schedule, to support both the

needs of the project managers and the validation of

the performance baselines. (CM3-1)

! Improve External Independent Review procedures

and Statements of Work. (CM3-1/FMFIA-project

management)

! By April 2001 resolve all recommendations from the

National Research Council’s report, “Improving

Project Management in the Department of Energy.” 

(CM3-1)

! Complete the implementation of the BMIS Phoenix

core financial system nation-wide. (CM3-1) 

! Complete all planned External Independent Reviews

(EIRs) of projects on schedule, to support both the

needs of the project managers and the validation of

the performance baselines. (CM3-1)

! Review and revise the Department’s policy on

program and project management for the acquisition

of capital assets and the Project Management

Manual and Practices. (CM3-1/FMFIA-project

management)

Note: For FY 2001, two measures was added based on the FMFIA process.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 224

This page is intentionally left blank.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 225

President’s Budget

Program and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

Departmental

AdministrationEconomic Diversity

-

ED 6.6 6.6 6.7

Office of Economic Impact and Diversity: The Office of Economic Impact and Diversity develops and executes

department-wide policies to implement applicable legislation and Executive Orders that strengthen diversity

requirements affecting the workforce, small and disadvantaged businesses, minority educational institutions, and

historically under represented communities. The Office promotes excellence and equity in the Department’s workforce,

undertakes measures that promote a positive work environment for all employees, addresses unlawful discrimination,

advocates environmental justice, protects whistle blowers, and creates partnerships with small and disadvantaged

businesses and minority educational institutions. The Office includes the Offices of Minority Economic Impact, Civil

Rights and Diversity, Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization, Employee Concerns and the National

Ombudsman. ED activities support the following general performance goals

General Performance Goals:

CM1-1 INSTITUTING A SOUND ES&H CULTURE 

Integrate and embed risk-based, outcome oriented environment, safety, and health (ES&H) management practices into

the performance of DOE's day-to-day work. Identify at-risk worker populations and employ appropriate mitigation

measures. Continue shift from a reactive approach to emphasizing excellence and prevention in protecting worker and

public safety and health.

CM2-1 MANAGING HUMAN RESOURCES

Align programs and policies pertaining to human capital to DOE's mission and integrating human resource

management into DOE's system for planning, budgeting, and program evaluation. Continue to recruit, develop, and

manage our workforce, including entry level positions to sustain world-class programs and operations. As part of this

goal, ED will fully implement the Department’s Minority Educational Institutions Strategy and increase management

accountability in implementing the DOE Strategic Plan and Workforce 21. ED will also develop and administer, in

conjunction with the National Academy of Public Administration, a survey to determine customer knowledge of and

satisfaction with the Department’s employee concerns programs. 

CM3-1 MANAGING FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND PHYSICAL ASSETS

Continue to streamline and improve operations, improve decision-making, ensure accountability, maximize

departmental resources, and achieve intended results by corporately managing the Department’s mission, functions,

and activities. ED supports this goal by securing resources for minority institutions. Specific measures and targets for

FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows.

Performance Indicator: DOE Funding of Higher Education (see next page)

GPRA Program Activity: Departmental Administration - Economic Impact and Diversity
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 226

The following chart illustrates the Department’s funding for minority educational institutions (MEI) in comparison

with all of the Department’s funding for higher education.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 227

This following facing pages show four years of performance measures for Economic Impact and Diversity.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 228

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results 

! Enhance America’s science workforce by ensuring

that minority-serving institutions are afforded and

take advantage of the Federal Research,

development, education and equipment opportunities

for which they are eligible and increasing their

awards by 5% over FY 1998. (CM3-4) 2

(BELOW EXPECTATION : New Policy Statement to be

issued in FY 2000.)

! Commit to specific procurement strategies that will

increase the participation of women-owned small

businesses in the Federal marketplace through a

Memorandum of Understanding with the Small

Business Administration. (CM3-4)

(MET GOAL)

! Publish in the Code of Federal Regulations the DOE

Mentor-Protégée Program. (CM3-4)

(NEARLY MET GOAL: Final action on the proposed

rule is expected in May 2000).

! Determine how well the Department’s diversity goals

are being met by tracking the Department’s

personnel actions on hiring and competitive

promotions against the current Civilian Labor Force

statistics. (CM3-4)

(MET GOAL)

! Ensure equitable opportunities for minority

educational institutions and small, minority, and

women owned businesses to compete. (CM3-4) 

(BELOW EXPECTATION)

The Department did not meet the SBA assigned goal of

5% of total procurement base for prime contracting.

! Increase employee awareness by publicizing DOEwide the scope of the employee concerns program,

the availability of the ombudsman function, and the

DOE employee concerns program offices at the

operations and field offices. (CM3-4)

(MET GOAL)

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 that provide context for measures for FY 2001 or FY

2002 are presented here. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. CM3-4 for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 229

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Achieve the Department’s small business percentage

goals negotiated with the Small Business

Administration and the Office of Federal

Procurement Policy. (CM3-1)

! Implement a DOE-wide “managing diversity”

education strategy to ensure consistency in

approach; and educate top leadership and

employees on the interdependence of key change

initiatives by showing links between managing

diversity and related initiatives such as Workforce

21, Task Force Against Racial Profiling, and the

Hispanic Outreach Initiative. (CM2-1) 

! Achieve annual small business goals and develop

strategies to double small business (SB) prime

contracting from 3% in FY 99 to 6% by FY 03. 

Achieve these objectives by developing enhanced

tracking and accountability mechanisms to monitor

progress in meeting annual prime and

subcontracting goals; an Annual SB Report to the

Secretary which identifies opportunities to maximize

SB contracting over a three-year cycle; a DOE

Order to ensure all elements are complying with

Small Business Act requirements; and innovative

outreach and partnership efforts with SB concerns. 

(CM3-1)
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 230

Means and Strategies:

The Office has 41FTEs and a budget of $7.2 million to

devise and oversee innovative strategies to improve

small business development, economic development,

workforce opportunities, community outreach and

involvement, environmental justice and research

concerns, and minority educational institutions

involvement. These strategies will be carried out by

Diversity Managers, Minority Education Liaisons and

Small Business Program Managers in the

Departmental program and field offices. Current

strategies include: Strategic Plan for Achieving and

Promoting A Workforce that Looks Like America - A

Companion to Workforce 21; Minority Education

Strategies; Employee Concerns Guidance; Small

Business Goals and Department of Energy Acquisition

Regulations Governing the Diversity Contract Clause

and 8A Delegation; Environmental Justice and Public

Participation Strategy; and goals and objectives

regarding improving the business and community

development processes. An integrated information

management system is needed to gather and analyze

data more efficiently and effectively. 

Collaboration Activities:

DOE coordinates its diversity programs with the Small

Business Administration, White House Initiative

Offices on Minority Education, the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission, Council on Environmental

Quality, Environmental Protection Agency, and the

National Environmental Justice Advisory Council. 

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Multiple industry-specific business conditions and lack

of legislation will affect the implementation of

environmental justice strategies. Also, new

procurement guidelines will affect the attainment of

small business goals.

Validation and Verification:

Data Sources: Various Reports Mandated by

Legislation and Executive Orders,

Program office reports,

Procurement Automated Data

System, Diversity tracking systems,

and Affirmative Action Reports. 

Baselines: Workforce– 03-31-99; Business

and Minority Education-1998 

Frequency: Quarterly, semi-annual and Annual

Data Storage: Procurement Automated Data

System, Subcontracting Reporting

System, Diversity Tracking

Systems 

Verification: Annual Reports

Planned Program Evaluation:

The diversity policy of the Department, and its related

programs and initiatives, have been implemented with

performance measures, and should build the increased

representation that we need. The Department still has a

long way to go to achieve the kind of diversity viewed

as ideal. Diversity metrics will be incorporated into

contract performance, personnel performance,

organizational structures and program implementation. 

The Department also has an Executive Steering

Committee charged with reporting to the Secretary on

the progress of workforce diversity goals. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 231

President’s Budget

Program and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

Departmental

Administration-Policy

- PO 6.9 7.4 7.4

Office of Policy: The Office of Policy (PO) is the primary policy advisor to the Secretary and the Department’s senior

management on issues related to the availability, economic efficiency, and reliability of the Nation’s energy sector, and

is the source of accurate and unbiased analysis of existing and prospective energy-related policies. The Policy Office’s

role is to deliver integrated and cross-cutting policy advice to Departmental leadership and represent the Department in

interagency discussions on energy policy. During the last two years, the Office has been directed to: 1) serve as the

R&D Secretariat and lead a Department-wide review and analysis of the energy resources R&D portfolio; 2) coordinate

DOE responses to energy-related emergencies through the newly created Office of Energy Emergencies; and 3)

develop a coordinated, Department-wide program to address nuclear materials stewardship. PO activities support the

following general performance goals that flow from the Department’s Strategic Plan.

General Performance Goals:

ER1-2 ENHANCING DOMESTIC OIL AND GAS SUPPLIES

Provide policy, legislative, regulatory, and technology options, as well as improved practices to enhance the availability

of domestic oil and natural gas supplies, while minimizing the environmental impacts of production. Develop

technologies and improved practices to enhance the reliability and adequacy of the domestic natural gas pipeline and

storage system. Policy Office supports this goal by developing and assessing policy options (1) to spur domestic

production and transport of natural gas,; and (2) to ensure adequate supply of petroleum, through increased domestic

production and transport of oil and oil products.

ER1-4 COORDINATING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT RESPONSES TO ENERGY EMERGENCIES

Coordinate Federal agency responses to regional or national energy supply shortages or other unusual market

disruptions that could adversely impact consumers or the economy. Policy Office coordinates Federal and State

responses to energy emergencies in a manner that anticipates emergencies, and fosters improved responses through

better communication among Federal, State, and industry stakeholders.

ER2-1 ESTABLISHING A MORE OPEN, COMPETITIVE ELECTRIC SYSTEM

Identify policy, legislative, regulatory, and technology options, as well as improved practices, to enhance the

development of competitive electricity markets that result in a more efficient and reliable electric power system, while

also producing consumer savings and environmental benefits. Policy Office conducts analyses of the electric sector

markets and regulation, and restructured electricity markets in order to enable decision makers and legislators to better

address electricity reliability, prices and other related economic issues. In FY 2001, PO will coordinate the

Department's contribution to the efforts of the Energy Policy Development Group to develop and recommend a national

energy policy to the President. (FMFIA)

ER3-4 CONDUCTING POLICY ANALYSIS FOR DEPLOYING ENERGY EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGIES

Ensuring that energy-related regulations and other policies produce economic, energy and environmental benefits. The

Policy Office analyzes the likely effects on energy production and use, including electricity generation, of

environmental regulations that are under consideration, and assess regulatory alternatives that would assure

achievement of environmental objectives, while minimizing any adverse impacts on the energy sector, consumers and

the economy.

GPRA Program Activity: Departmental Administration - Policy
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 232

ER 4-1 ENSURING ENERGY-RELATED REGULATIONS AND POLICIES PRODUCE ECONOMIC,

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

Analyze the likely effects on energy production and use, including electricity generation, of environmental and other

energy-related regulations or policies that are under consideration with the objective of assuring the achievement of

environmental objectives, while also producing benefits for the energy sector, consumers and the economy. 

ER5-1 COOPERATING INTERNATIONALLY TO REDUCE ENERGY RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL

IMPACTS 

Develop U.S. policies and approaches for international environmental agreements that impact energy production,

transportation, and use. Policy Office assists the Administration in the development and analysis of U.S. proposals to

reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to further the cost-effective achievement of any domestic and international

commitments to address global climate change concerns. PO will develop and coordinate U.S. efforts to support

technology transfer as a means of encouraging reductions in greenhouse gas emissions internationally. PO will

continue development of the U.N. Persistent Organic Pollutants agreement, following successful conclusion of the

agreement in 2000. PO will contribute to U.S. efforts at the 9th Session of the U.N. Commission on Sustainable

Development to produce outcomes that reflect U.S. policies on energy, transport, and atmosphere and will support U.S.

efforts at upcoming U.N. Economic Commission for Europe (Convention for Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution)

negotiations on particulates.

CM3-1 MANAGING FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND PHYSICAL ASSETS

Continue to streamline and improve operations, improve decision-making, ensure accountability, maximize

departmental resources, and achieve intended results by corporately managing the Department’s mission, functions,

and activities. Policy Office supports this goal by developing science and technology policies in support of

Departmental missions in fundamental science, mission-driven research and development, laboratory missions and

management, and international science and technology cooperation. PO will also maintain the Nuclear Materials

Stewardship Initiative to ensure the life-cycle management of nuclear materials is safe, environmentally sound,

efficient, cost-effective, and transparent (to meet nonproliferation objectives). PO will issue by September 2001, an

update to the “Multi-year Agenda for the Nuclear Materials Council” contained in the Integrated Nuclear Materials

Management Plan submitted to Congress in June 2000.

Key Accomplishments for FY 2000 and FY 1999

Office of Policy met all its performance targets for FY 1999 and FY 2000. Following are highlights of PO’s

accomplishments for FY 1999 and FY 2000:

S Y2K Transition: The Policy Office successfully coordinated the government and electric power industry’s

preparations for a smooth transition to the year 2000 in the electric power sector.

S Published Powering the New Economy: This report updates the Department’s 1998 Comprehensive National

Energy Strategy, highlights accomplishments and investments, and examines the energy challenges we face in

the 21st century.

S Oil and Gas Security: Following increased volatility in the heating oil market, the President requested DOE to

examine policy options for converting factories and major users from oil to other fuels, which could help

increase future oil supplies for use in heating homes. The resulting report, The Northeast Heating Fuel

Market: Assessment and Options was co-led by the Policy Office. PO significantly contributed to the

Administration’s analysis of gasoline prices in the Upper Midwest to determine the factors contributing to the

tight supplies and led numerous real-time assessments of heating oil supply problems in Northeast.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 233

 S Energy Reliability and Emergencies Response: The Policy Office coordinated and led the Power Outage

Study Team (POST), which was formed to examine power outages and system disturbances that occurred in

the summer of 1999. The team consisted of experts from DOE, the national laboratories, and the academic

community. In March, 2000, POST published, the Report of the U.S. Department of Energy’s Power Outage

Study Team, which examined a number of actions that the federal government can take to avoid future

outages. To address concerns about power outages in 2000, the Policy Office conducted three emergency

exercises with state and local governments to help prepare for potential summer power supply emergencies

and is working closely with the utility industry to gain up-to-date relevant information about potential

grid-related problems as quickly as possible.

 S Electricity Restructuring: The Policy Office led the Department’s assessment of electric industry restructuring

and provided the primary expertise that resulted in the Administration’s proposals to restructure the electric

utility industry. Policy staff continued to examine the effects of restructuring on future energy security,

reliability of supply, costs to consumers and environmental implications.

 

 S Energy and the Environment: The Policy Office led the Department’s effort to assess the potential impacts of

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulatory proposals on motor fuels, utility nitrogen oxide emissions,

and the Toxic Release Inventories. The Policy Office developed recommendations, together with supporting

analysis, that significantly reduced the potential adverse impacts of these regulations on the Nation’s energy

consumers and the energy sector. Policy staff assured balanced consideration of energy issues in the

development of Administration environmental policies by other Federal agencies.

 

 S Climate Change: The Policy Office led the Department’s participation in the development of the

Administration’s climate change policies and provided analytic support of these policies in international

negotiations and other venues. Staff have consistently focused on the design and advocacy of flexible, marketbased mechanisms for limiting global greenhouse gas emissions at modest cost, and on encouraging the full

participation of both developed and developing countries in these efforts.

 

 S R & D Analysis: The Policy Office led the Department-wide review and analysis of the energy resources R&D

portfolio, assessing its adequacy and identifying gaps. Staff contributed to numerous science and technology

policy initiatives, including peer review, recoupment, R&D evaluation, and development of a DOE order on

technology partnering and CRADA policy and procedures.

 

 S Nuclear Materials Management: The Policy Office served as a catalyst for the Department and the National

Laboratories to address a major national security and environmental management issue—nuclear materials

stewardship. Completed the Integrated Nuclear Materials Management Plan, delivered it to Congress, and

undertook a 25-point multi-year action agenda through multi-disciplinary teams. As a result of initiatives led

by the Office of Policy, the Department has established a formal mechanism to resolve cross-cutting issues and

develop department-wide policies and programs that address nuclear materials stewardship. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 234

Means and Strategies:

During FY2002, the Office of Policy will continue to

concentrate on analyzing the impact of competition in

the electric utility sector, strengthening the Nation’s

energy security, and developing Federal policies that

minimize the costs of achieving National

environmental goals and international commitments to

curb greenhouse gas emissions, while avoiding adverse

effects on the reliability of energy supplies. In

addition, PO will continue efforts to coordinate

responses to energy emergencies, lead Departmentwide reviews and analyses of the energy resources

R&D portfolio; and oversee DOE’s stewardship of

nuclear materials.

Collaboration Activities:

PO coordinates with a broad range of external

agencies, congressional offices, business and nongovernmental organizations via interagency and public

fora. It also works closely with all other elements of

the Department.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Global and domestic economic trends, sector-specific

market conditions, Administration environmental and

other energy-related policies, congressional guidance

and Non Governmental Organizations (NGO) issues

and concerns affect the development and deployment

of DOE’s positions on varying energy policy issues. 

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

Customer and internal staff

feedback

Baselines: Anticipated policy outcomes

against which feedback is to be

measured.

Frequency: TBD based on level of effort and

progress made.

Data

Storage:

PO managers and senior

management will develop and

maintain the feedback data on our

progress.

Verification: Anticipate customer surveys and

internal assessment of progress.

Planned Program Evaluation:

PO will use a process of internal and external reviews

and assessments to evaluate progress on these dynamic

and evolving energy policies. PO will document the

number of presentations to public groups on energy

policy issues and measure the number of official

correspondence it has responded to on key energy

policy issues. PO will document the influence of our

analyses within the interagency process. 
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 235

President’s Budget

Program and Financing

(P&F) Accounts and

Program Activities

Program

Sub-Activities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY 2001

Departmental

Administration -IA

- IA 8.0 9.0 9.0

International Affairs: The Office of International Affairs formulates and develops international energy policy; leads

the Department’s bilateral and multilateral cooperation with other nations and international organizations, including 

participation in international negotiations; coordinates the implementation of international cooperative agreements;

advances energy, environmental, and non-proliferation policies in international agreements; promotes positive

relationships with foreign nations that support U.S. policy goals; and, promotes policy and regulatory reforms in

foreign countries that will remove barriers and open markets for U.S. firms abroad. IA also coordinates DOE’s

international energy, science and technology relations with other countries. IA activities support the following general

performance goal.

General Performance Goal:

ER5-2 COOPERATING INTERNATIONALLY TO DEVELOP OPEN AND TRANSPARENT ENERGY

MARKETS

Enhance energy security by increasing the capacity and diversity of international oil and gas producers. Promote open

energy markets and increase the transparency of world oil markets. Promote deployment of clean and efficient energy

systems. IA will work towards increasing U.S. energy-related business internationally by removing policy, legal and

fiscal barriers for U.S. companies by: Implementing with other APEC members and the private sector initiatives to

promote energy sector reform including natural gas and independent power production and reporting results to APEC

ministers and economic leaders; Advancing energy activities in U.S.-China Forum on Environment and development,

and the goals of the joint statement, the “Energy and Environment Cooperation Initiative”; Continuing to lead a

regulatory reform initiative to promote economic growth through private investment in sustainable energy development

and regional integration; Continuing to develop and sustain our African Energy Partnership, including with Angola,

Nigeria and South Africa; Continuing to promote science and technology cooperation and economic growth through

private investment in developing countries as per the President’s Council on Science and Technology (PCAST)

recommendations; Continuing to lead regulatory reform initiative under Binational Commission to promote adoption

by Russian Government of transparent, fair, consistent regulations in the oil, gas and power sectors in order to attract

investment; Continuing to lead Western Hemispheric process of developing a vision of and plans for region’s energy

infrastructure in the 21st century, emphasizing a government-business dialogue and partnership; Continuing

coordination of the Russian-American Fuel Cell Consortium (RAFCO) which has as one of its primary goals, the

opening up of the Russian market to U.S. manufactured fuel cells; Continuing DOE leadership in international energy

initiatives instrumental in developing an effective legal and regulatory framework for private sector energy investment

and policies to encourage diversification of fuel supplies.

GPRA Program Activity: Departmental Administration - International Affairs
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 236

Key Accomplishments for FY 2000 and FY 1999:

Office of International Affairs met all its performance targets for FY 1999 and FY 2000. Following are

highlights of IA’s accomplishments for FY 1999 and FY 2000:

 S DOE continues to work with the new Russian leadership under the U.S.-Russia Joint Commission to obtain a

reaffirmation of the production sharing agreement (PSA) legislation, to ensure the new tax code conforms with

the PSA laws, and to encourage adoption of normative acts (implementing regulations) for the PSA legislation. 

DOE continues to urge that the Federal Energy Commission remain an effective, independent agency. In

FY 2000, the Secretary held a meeting with the Energy Minister to discuss these and other issues. 

 

 S DOE chairs the Energy Working Group under the U.S.-Ukraine Bi-National Commission, whose goal is to work

on a government to government basis urging the Government of Ukraine to develop laws and an environment

conducive to western investment. In FY 2000, the Deputy Secretary participated in a meeting of the U.S.-

Ukraine Bi-National Commission that took place in the U.S. in December. DOE chairs an interagency effort

focused on Black Sea energy development and environmental protection .DOE sponsored a workshop in Odessa

on regional oil spill response planning. In FY 2000, DOE held workshops in Georgia and Romania to further the

work of this initiative. 

 S DOE signed an energy technology cooperative Memorandum of Understanding with the Kingdom of Saudi

Arabia in FY 1999. In FY 2000, technical cooperation agreements were signed with the Egyptians and Israelis

on solar power and fuel cells, and with the PNA on general energy cooperation. DOE is pursuing policies to

encourage energy privatization and U.S. investment in energy projects. In FY 2000, DOE co-sponsored an

electric power conference with the Secretary as the keynote speaker. DOE signed clean energy statements with

Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. DOE signed a technical agreement with Estonia to cooperate on oil shale

development.

 S Eight projects were funded in FY 1999 under the Russian- American Fuel Cell Consortium on the design and

development of advanced catalysts, electrodes, and membranes, advanced separator plates and high temperature

sealants for fuel cells. One of its primary goals is to open the Russian market to U.S. manufactured fuel cells.

 S DOE hosted Fourth APEC Energy Ministers Meeting in San Diego, May 12, 2000. Commitment of all 21

APEC members was obtained to an implementation strategy for initiatives and independent power production. 

 S The International Energy Agency met in Paris May 24-25, 1999 to celebrate its 25th anniversary and to discuss

current issues at its bienniel Governing Board Meeting at the Ministerial Level. Ministers agreed that the IEA

had fulfilled its original purpose of enhancing energy security in the context of the 1970s. Ministers had frank

discussions of climate change issues and the challenge of meeting the Kyoto targets. The U.S. delegation was

headed by U.S. DOE Deputy Secretary, EB Assistant Secretary, and U.S. Ambassador to the OECD.

 S DOE and the State Development Planning Commission co-chair the Energy Policy Working Group under the

U.S.-China Forum on Environment and Development: The Forum and its working groups are working on a

wide range of cooperative programs in energy efficiency, including a pilot Motor Challenge program for China

and a design study for an energy efficient building demonstration in Beijing; a clean energy program through the

U.S. Eximbank; and renewable energy. Activities helped promote China’s signing of a joint U.S.-China

Statement on Cooperation on Environment and Development in May 2000. 

 S DOE is also pursuing regulatory reform efforts in Russia through the Russians Federal Energy Commission and

in efforts aimed at facilitating economic growth in Africa by fostering trade and investment and encouraging

regional market development. A cornerstone of the African Initiative was the U.S.-Africa Energy Ministers

Conference, held in Tucson, Arizona on December 13-15, 1999.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 237

Means and Strategies:

During FY2002, the Office of International Affairs,

serving as the primary policy advisor to the Secretary

and the Department on international energy policy

matters will continue to focus on the following core

mission areas: 1) oil market stability, 2) clean energy

development, 3) regional integration, 4) energy sector

reform, 5) increased U.S. private sector participation

in international markets, and 6) increased leverage for

DOE R&D funds through expanded international

collaboration.

Collaboration Activities:

IA coordinates with a broad range of external

agencies, congressional offices, business and nongovernmental organizations via interagency and

public fora.

External Factors Affecting Performance:

Industry-specific business conditions, Administration

policies, congressional guidance and NGO issues and

concerns affect the development and deployment of

DOE’s positions on varying energy policy issues. 

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

Customer and internal staff

feedback

Baselines: Anticipated policy outcomes

against which feedback is to be

measured.

Frequency: TBD based on level of effort and

progress made.

Data

Storage:

IA issues managers and senior

management will develop and

maintain the feedback data on our

progress.

Verification: Anticipate customer surveys and

internal assessment of progress.

Planned Program Evaluation:

IA will engage in periodic assessments of analysis

and advocacy via program reviews to ensure that

international activities affecting the energy sector are

consistent with national and international energy

policies, as measured by enhanced U.S. energy,

environmental and economic security.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 238

This page is intentionally left blank.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 239

President’s Budget Program

and Financing (P&F)

Accounts and Program

Activities

Program

Sub-Activities

DOE

Office

Comparable Approp.

($M)

FY 2002

Request

($M)

FY 2000 FY2001

270 Energy Supply 

Office of Inspector General - IG 30 31 31

Description of Office:

Major statutory responsibilities of the Office of Inspector General (OIG) under the Inspector General Act of 1978, as

amended, are to detect and prevent fraud, waste, abuse, and violations of law and to promote economy, efficiency, and

effectiveness in the operations of the Department of Energy (DOE), including the National Nuclear Security

Administration (NNSA). In addition to the broad provisions of the Inspector General Act, Congress requested the OIG

to assess the most significant management challenges facing the Department. In response, the OIG initiated an

analysis and issued a special report that focused on those areas that warrant increased emphasis or appear to have

reached a heightened level of urgency. The OIG determined that the most serious challenges facing the Department

today can be categorized as follows:

S Effective Establishment of the NNSA;

S Contract Administration;

S Energy Supply/Demand Technology;

S Environmental Remediation (including radioactive waste storage);

S Human Capital;

S Information Technology;

S Infrastructure;

S Property Controls and Asset Inventories;

S Safety and Health; and

S Security 

General Performance Goals:

CM5-1 PROMOTING THE EFFECTIVE, EFFICIENT, AND ECONOMICAL OPERATION OF THE

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, INCLUDING NNSA, THROUGH AUDITS, INVESTIGATIONS,

INSPECTIONS AND OTHER REVIEWS 

Complete required financial audits by March 1 of each year. Address emerging issues by responding to Departmental

priority requests, answering congressional inquiries, conducting joint reviews with other Federal agencies, testifying

before Congress, and assisting the Justice Department in Qui Tam and other cases. Evaluate the results of the

Department's use of performance measures to monitor programs and operations. Plan the OIG audit, investigation, and

inspection workloads by focusing on the issues that are critical. IG has the lead responsibility for this goal. Specific

measures and targets for FY 1999 - FY 2002 are listed in the table that follows.

GPRA Program Activity: Office of Inspector General
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 240

Annual Performance Measures1:

FY 1999 Results FY 2000 Results

! Render, by designated due date, an opinion annually

on the Department’s consolidated financial

statements, system of internal controls, and

compliance with laws and regulations. (CM6-1) 2

(MET GOAL)

! Complete at least 60 percent of the audits planned

for the year and replaced those audits not started

with more significant audits which identify timesensitive issues needing review. (CM6-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Complete the required annual financial statement

audits by designated due dates in the law. (CM6-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Complete at least 60 percent of the audits planned

for the year and replace those audits not started with

more significant audits which identify time-sensitive

issues needing review. (CM6-1)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Initiate at least 80 percent of inspections planned for

the year and replace those not started with

inspections having greater potential impact. (CM6-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Focus investigations on allegations of serious

violations of Federal law by:

S Obtaining judicial and/or administrative action

on 30 percent of all cases in open status during

the fiscal year;

S Obtaining acceptance of 75 percent of the cases

presented for prosecution. (CM6-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Plan and, on a timely basis, conduct reviews based

on assessment of risk and/or benefit to key

Department programs. (CM6-1)

(MET GOAL)

! Obtain judicial and/or administrative action on at

least 35 percent of all cases investigated during the

fiscal year. (CM6-1)

(EXCEEDED GOAL)

! Obtain at least 75 percent acceptance rate on

criminal and civil cases formally presented for

prosecutorial consideration. (CM6-1)

(BELOW EXPECTATION):

Notes:

1. Only those performance measures for FY 1999 and FY 2000 are listed here that provide context for measures for

FY 2001 or FY 2002. Further, only the assessment of their results, e.g. “MET GOAL” is noted here. Complete

description of the results is in the Department’s Performance and Accountability Report (DOE/CR-0071).

2. The performance goal linkages as noted at the end of each measure, e.g. (CM6-1) for FY 1999 and FY 2000 refer to

the 1997 strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 241

FY 2001 Target (Revised Final) FY 2002 Proposed Target

! Complete the required annual financial statement

audits by March 1 of each year designated due dates

in the law. (CM5-1)

! Complete Initiate at least 60 percent of the audits

planned for the year and replace those audits not

started with more significant audits which identify

time-sensitive issues needing review. (CM5-1)

! Initiate at least 80 70 percent of inspections planned

for the year and replace those not started with

inspections having greater potential impact. 

(CM5-1)

! Complete the required annual financial statement

audits by March 1 of each year designated due dates

in the law. (CM5-1)

! Initiate at least 60 percent of the audits planned for

the year and replace those audits not started with

more significant audits which identify time-sensitive

issues needing review. (CM5-1)

! Initiate at least 70 percent of inspections planned for

the year and replace those not started with

inspections having greater potential impact. 

(CM5-1)

! Obtain judicial and/or administrative action on at

least 35 percent of all cases investigated during the

fiscal year. (CM5-1)

! Obtain at least 75 70 percent acceptance rate on

criminal and civil cases formally presented for

prosecutorial consideration. (CM5-1)

! Complete the milestones listed in the corrective

action plan for the Management challenge of

inadequate audit coverage. (CM5-1/FMFIA)

! Obtain judicial and/or administrative action on at

least 35 percent of all cases investigated during the

fiscal year. (CM5-1)

! Obtain at least 70 percent acceptance rate on

criminal and civil cases formally presented for

prosecutorial consideration. (CM5-1)

! Complete the milestones listed in the corrective

action plan for the Management challenge of

inadequate audit coverage. (CM5-1/FMFIA)

Note: For FY 2001, three targets were changed based on results in FY 2000.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

Corporate Management 242

Means and Strategies:

The Office of Inspector General (IG) continues to focus

its efforts on major issue areas the IG has identified as

most susceptible to fraud, waste and abuse within the

Department of Energy, including the National Nuclear

Security Administration. The OIG annual assessment

identified the following Department management

challenges:

S Effective Establishment of the NNSA;

S Contract Administration;

S Energy Supply/Demand Technology;

S Environmental Remediation (including

radioactive waste storage);

S Human Capital;

S Information Technology;

S Infrastructure;

S Property Controls and Asset Inventories;

S Safety and Health; and,

S Security

External Factors Affecting Performance:

A number of key external factors affect the

achievement of OIG goals and objectives. These

factors have significant impact on assigning workload,

formulating budgets, assessing organizational

structure, evaluating procedures and establishing

priorities.

S Performing annual financial statement audits

required by the Government Management Reform

Act (GMRA) of 1994. 

S Reviewing Department information security

systems, as required by the Government

Information Security Reform Act of 2001.

S Reviewing the Department’s implementation of the

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.

S Reviewing employee whistle blower reprisal

complaints made pursuant to Section 6006 of the

Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994, and

the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Act of

1998.

S Auditing the operation of the value-engineering

program in the Department required by OMB

Circular 131.

S Reporting to the Intelligence Oversight Board

required by Executive Order 12863, “President’s

Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board,” at least

quarterly and “as necessary or appropriate,” and

performing reviews required by Executive Order

12333, “United States Intelligence Activities,” to

ensure the Department’s intelligence activities are

conducted in accordance with existing

requirements. 

S Responding to Departmental Priority Requests,

which can be resource intensive.

S Answering congressional inquiries, which are often

unanticipated, require immediate attention, and

consume significant resources.

S Conducting joint reviews with other Federal

agencies, the number of which are expected to

increase in future years. 

S Testifying at congressional hearings. 

S Assisting the Justice Department in highly

resource-intensive Qui Tam cases.

S Assisting the Department of Justice in prosecutorial

decisions regarding acceptances/declinations and

other judicial actions.

S Reviewing annually Departmental policies and

procedures with respect to the export of sensitive

U.S. military technologies and information to

countries and entities of concern.

Validation and Verification:

Data

Sources:

Semiannual Report to Congress, 

Inspector General Act of 1978, as

amended, GMRA of 1994

Frequency: Semiannually and Annually

Data Storage: OIG Tracking System

Verification: OIG and DOE Annual Performance

Reports

Planned Program Evaluation:

S Organizational Self-Assessment Report

S OIG Semiannual Report to Congress

S DOE and OIG Annual Performance Reports
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

A 1

APPENDIX

Criteria for Performance Plan Performance Measures and Goals

The following criteria guide the development of annual performance measures & targets: 

PRESIDENTIAL (1) a significant budgetary obligation, (2) White House interest has been

demonstrated, or (3) there is Secretarial intent to raise to it to the

Presidential level.

SPECIFIC Plainly state precisely what will be done in this fiscal year. 

QUANTIFIED Clearly state the measurement and target level of performance. Naked

percentages are too vague without specifying the base. Instead, state the

from and to levels with an optional percentage.

MEANINGFUL Each general performance goal must provide a context, and stand alone

without knowledge of last year's Plan or our performance results. State why

it will be done, e.g., the purpose or planned outcome. The “so as to ...”

should be clear for each measure. 

CHALLENGING Performance levels should be set so as to have about an 80% confidence in

meeting the target for the fiscal year. A higher confidence level is under

committing and a lower confidence level is over committing.

CONCISE Descriptions of general performance goals and measures should be short,

direct, and to the point. A general performance goal description or statement

of a measure should be limited to 5 lines (about 40 words). Explanations

should not be included. 

WRITTEN FOR Performance measures should be written in common language, requiring 

TAXPAYERS only a newspaper article level knowledge of DOE and world events.

COMPREHENSIVE The overall plan must reasonably represent the whole of the resources we are

entrusted to apply to the Department's mission in this fiscal year.

AUDITABLE Each performance measure should be based on factual information, so that

the IG and/or GAO will be satisfied if they were to do an audit.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

B 1

APPENDIX

DOE Office Designations

CI Congressional & Intergovernmental Affairs

CN Counterintelligence

CFO Chief Financial Officer

DP Defense Programs

ED Economic Impact & Diversity

EE Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy

EH Environment, Safety & Health

EIA Energy Information Administration

EM Environmental Management

FE Fossil Energy

FERC Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

GC General Counsel

HG Hearings and Appeals

IA International Affairs

IG Inspector General

IN Intelligence

MA Management and Administration

NA Office of the Administrator, NNSA

NE Nuclear Energy, Science & Technology

NN Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation

NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration

NR Naval Reactors

OA Independent Oversight and Performance Assurance

PA Public Affairs

PO Policy and International Affairs

PMAs Power Marketing Administrations

RW Civilian Radioactive Waste Management

S1 Secretary’s Office

SC Science

SO Security and Emergency Operations

WT Worker & Community Transition
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

C 1

APPENDIX

Department’s Major Management Challenges

DOE Management Challenge

Related Business

Line and

Strategic

Objectives

DOE

Offices 

Page

Reference

Last Scheduled

Corrective Action

1. Surplus Fissile Material1, 2 NS4-6 NN 123 2005

2. Environmental Compliance1, 2 EQ1 EM

no actions

in FY2001

or FY2002

2006

3. Nuclear Waste Disposal2EQ2-1 RW 169 2010

4. Safety and Health2 CM1-1

EQ1-1

EH

EM

213

159

2005

5. Project Management1 CM3-1

NS2-1

CFO

DP

223

95

2003

6. Security1, 2 NS6-1

NS6-2

CN

SO

133

143

2001

7. Energy Markets2ER2-1 PO 231 2001

8. Human Capital Management1, 2 CM2-1

MA

CFO

NN

219

223

113

2002

9. Managing Physical Assets2 NS3-1

SC4-1

DP

SC

99

176

2001

10. Information Technology Management2 CM4-1 SO 143 2002

11. Contract Management1, 2 CM3-2 MA 219 2001

12. Inadequate Audit Coverage CM5-1 IG 239 2002

Notes:

 1. General Accounting Office included this challenge in its discussion of Major Management Challenges at the

Department (GAO-01-246).

 2. Also identified by the Inspector General as a Management Challenges at the Department (DOE/IG-0491).
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

D 1

APPENDIX

Crosswalk of General Performance Goals and GPRA Program Activities

Energy Resources Business Line:

General Performance Goals DOE Office - GPRA Program Activities Page 

ER1-1 MAINTAINING AN EFFECTIVE STRATEGIC

PETROLEUM RESERVE

FE - Petroleum Reserves 46

ER1-2 ENHANCING DOMESTIC OIL AND GAS

SUPPLIES

FE - Domestic Oil and Gas Supply RD&D

PO - Policy

 31

231

ER1-3 ASSURING ADEQUATE LONG TERM

SUPPLIES OF CLEAN LIQUID

TRANSPORTATION FUELS

EE - Renewable & Distributed Energy 

FE - Clean Fuels RD&D

EE - Transportation Sector

 5

 39

 25

ER1-4 COORDINATING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

RESPONSES TO ENERGY EMERGENCIES

PO - Policy 231

ER2-1 ESTABLISHING A MORE OPEN,

COMPETITIVE ELECTRIC SYSTEM

PO - Policy 231

ER2-2 DEVELOPING LARGE, HIGH EFFICIENCY,

ADVANCED POWER SYSTEMS 

NE - Nuclear Energy R&D

FE - High Efficiency, No/Low Emissions Power

 Systems RD&D

EE - Renewable & Distributed Energy

 61

 35

 5

ER2-3 CONDUCTING R&D TO INCREASE THE

USE OF RENEWABLE, DISTRIBUTED AND

HYBRID ENERGY SYSTEMS

EE - Renewable & Distributed Energy

EE - Energy Management (FEMP)

EE - Transportation Sector

 5

 15

 25

ER2-4 SUPPORTING RESEARCH TO IMPROVE

EXISTING POWER PLANTS

NE - Nuclear Energy R&D 61

ER2-5 RELIABLY DELIVERING FEDERAL

HYDROELECTRIC POWER 

PMA - Power Marketing Administrations 82

ER2-6* APPLYING DOE NUCLEAR EXPERTISE TO

SUPPORT USE AND DEVELOPMENT OF

MEDICAL ISOTOPES 

NE - Nuclear Energy Science Activities 55

ER2-7* APPLYING DOE NUCLEAR EXPERTISE TO

SUPPORT EXPLORATION OF THE

PLANETS

NE - Nuclear Energy Science Activities 55

ER2-8* PRESERVING THE NATION’S SCIENCE

AND ENGINEERING EDUCATIONAL

INFRASTRUCTURE FOR ENERGY

TECHNOLOGY

NE - Nuclear Energy Educational Infrastructure

NE - Nuclear Energy R&D

 51

 61

* NE activities under objective ER2 were regrouped since the Department’s Strategic Plan was published and as such do not map

one for one with the strategies in the strategic plan.
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

D 2

Crosswalk of General Performance Goals and GPRA Program Activities

Energy Resources Business Line (continued):

General Performance Goals DOE Office - GPRA Program Activities Page 

ER3-1 DESIGNING AND DELIVERING THE

VEHICLES OF THE FUTURE

EE - Transportation Sector 25

ER3-2 IMPROVING THE ENERGY EFFICIENCY

OF BUILDINGS 

EE - Building Technology, State and

Community Program

EE - Energy Management (FEMP)

 11

 15

ER3-3 IMPROVING EFFICIENCY OF ENERGY

INTENSIVE INDUSTRIES

EE - Industry Sector 19

ER3-4 ENSURING ENERGY-RELATED

REGULATIONS AND POLICIES PRODUCE

ECONOMIC, ENERGY AND

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS 

PO - Policy 231

ER 4-1 ENSURING ENERGY-RELATED

REGULATIONS AND POLICIES PRODUCE

ECONOMIC, ENERGY AND

ENVIRONMENTAL BENEFITS

PO - Policy 232

ER4-2 EXPANDING PUBLIC ACCESS TO 

ENERGY INFORMATION

EI - Energy Information Administration 73

ER5-1 COOPERATING INTERNATIONALLY TO

REDUCE ENERGY RELATED

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 

PO - Policy

EE - Renewable & Distributed Energy

232

 6

ER5-2 COOPERATING INTERNATIONALLY TO

DEVELOP OPEN AND TRANSPARENT

ENERGY MARKETS

IA - International Affairs

EE - Renewable & Distributed Energy

235

 6
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

D 3

Crosswalk of General Performance Goals and GPRA Program Activities

National Nuclear Security Business Line:

General Performance Goals DOE Office - GPRA Program Activities Page 

NS1-1 MAINTAINING STOCKPILE CONFIDENCE DP - Defense Programs 92

NS2-1 CONDUCTING CAMPAIGNS DP - Defense Programs 96

NS3-1 ENSURING ENTERPRISE VITALITY AND

READINESS

DP - Defense Programs 100

NS3-2 MANAGING CONTRACTOR WORK FORCE

RESTRUCTURING

WT - Worker and Community Transition 135

NS4-1 CONDUCTING NONPROLIFERATION AND

VERIFICATION R&D

NN - Nonproliferation and Verification 103

NS4-2 IMPROVING INTERNATIONAL NUCLEAR

SAFETY

NN - International Nuclear Safety 107

NS4-3 SUPPORTING ARMS CONTROL AND

NONPROLIFERATION POLICIES

NN - Arms Control and Nonproliferation 111

NS4-4 STRENGTHENING RUSSIA’S MATERIALS

PROTECTION, CONTROL, AND

ACCOUNTING

NN - International Material Protection, Control

and Accounting 115

NS4-5 ASSURING TRANSPARENCY IN THE

CONVERSION OF RUSSIAN HIGHLY

ENRICHED URANIUM (HEU) 

NN - Highly Enriched Uranium Transparency

Implementation 119

NS4-6 REDUCING INVENTORIES OF SURPLUS

WEAPONS-USABLE FISSILE MATERIALS

WORLDWIDE IN A SAFE, SECURE,

TRANSPARENT AND IRREVERSIBLE

MANNER

NN - Fissile Material Disposition 123

NS5-1 PROVIDING SPECIAL NUCLEAR POWER

SYSTEMS FOR NATIONAL SECURITY

NR - Naval Reactors 127

NS6-1 PROVIDING INTELLIGENCE AND

COUNTERINTELLIGENCE

IN - Intelligence

CN - Counterintelligence

131

NS6-2 PROVIDING SECURITY AND EMERGENCY

OPERATIONS

SO - Security and Emergency Operations 139

NS6-3 CONDUCTING INDEPENDENT

OVERSIGHT AND PERFORMANCE

ASSURANCE

OA - Independent Oversight & Performance

Assurance

145
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

D 4

Crosswalk of General Performance Goals and GPRA Program Activities

Environmental Quality Business Line: 

General Performance Goals DOE Office - GPRA Program Activity Page 

EQ1-1 COMPLETING GEOGRAPHIC SITE

CLEANUP 

EM - Environmental Management 153

EQ1-2 DISPOSING OF WASTE GENERATED

DURING PAST AND CURRENT DOE

ACTIVITIES 

EM - Environmental Management 154

EQ1-3 STABILIZING NUCLEAR MATERIAL AND

SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL

EM - Environmental Management 155

EQ1-4 DEVELOPING AND DEPLOYING

INNOVATIVE CLEANUP TECHNOLOGIES

EM - Environmental Management 156

EQ2-1 CONTINUING WITH YUCCA MOUNTAIN

SITE CHARACTERIZATION

RW - Civilian Radioactive Waste Management 165

EQ3-1 DISPOSE OF THE DEPARTMENT’S

DEPLETED URANIUM HEXAFLORIDE AND

EXCESS NATURAL URANIUM

INVENTORIES

EM - Uranium Programs 156

EQ3-2 MANAGE LEGACIES ASSOCIATED WITH

CIVILIAN NUCLEAR POWER

DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES

NE - Nuclear Energy Facilities and

Infrastructure

 67

Science Business Line: 

General Performance Goals DOE Office - GPRA Program Activities Page 

SC1-1 MAKING ADVANCES IN PHYSICAL

SCIENCES IN QUEST FOR CLEAN,

AFFORDABLE AND ABUNDANT ENERGY

SC - Biological and Environmental Research 

SC - Basic Energy Sciences

SC - Advanced Scientific Computing

Research

SC - Fusion Energy Sciences

185

193

197

201

SC2-1 DEVELOPING SCIENCE FOUNDATIONS

TO PROTECT OUR LIVING PLANET

SC - Biological and Environmental Research 185

SC3-1 ADVANCING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF

THE NATURE OF MATTER AND ENERGY

SC - High Energy Physics & Nuclear Physics

SC - Biological and Environmental Research

SC - Basic Energy Sciences

177

185

193

SC4-1 PROVIDING EXTRAORDINARY

SCIENTIFIC TOOLS, WORKFORCE, AND

INFRASTRUCTURE 

SC - High Energy Physics & Nuclear Physics

SC - Biological and Environmental Research

SC - Basic Energy Sciences

SC - Advanced Scientific Computing

Research

SC - Fusion Energy Sciences

177

185

193

197

201
Department of Energy Annual Performance Plan for FY 2002

D 5

Crosswalk of General Performance Goals and GPRA Program Activities

Corporate Management Business Line: 

General Performance Goals DOE Office - GPRA Program Activities Page 

CM1-1 INSTITUTING A SOUND ES&H CULTURE EH - Environmental Safety and Health

ED - Economic Impact and Diversity 

209

225

CM2-1 MANAGING HUMAN RESOURCES MA - Management and Administration

ED - Economic Impact and Diversity 

217

225

CM3-1 MANAGING FINANCIAL RESOURCES

AND PHYSICAL ASSETS

CFO - Chief Financial Officer

ED - Economic Impact and Diversity 

PO - Policy

221

225

232

CM3-2 ENSURING PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE

DEPARTMENT’S CONTRACTUAL

TRANSACTIONS

MA - Management and Administration 217

CM4-1 PROMOTING EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT

OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

RESOURCES IN THE DEPARTMENT

SO - Security And Emergency Operations 140

CM5-1 PROMOTING THE EFFECTIVE,

EFFICIENT, AND ECONOMICAL

OPERATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF

ENERGY THROUGH AUDITS,

INVESTIGATIONS, INSPECTIONS AND

OTHER REVIEWS 

IG - Office of the Inspector General 239