GAO-07-297R Yucca Mountain Project Cost Estimates 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

January 19, 2007 

The Honorable Jon C. Porter 

House of Representatives 

Subject: Yucca Mountain Project: Information on Estimated Costs to Respond to 

Employee E-mails That Raised Questions about Quality Assurance 

Dear Mr. Porter: 

In March 2005, the Department of Energy (DOE) reported the discovery of a series of 

e-mail messages written in the late 1990s by U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 

employees working under a contract with DOE on the Yucca Mountain Project. 

These e-mails alerted DOE that USGS workers may have falsified records for 

scientific work on the project and may have been disdainful of the project’s quality 

assurance program and its requirements. In March 2006, we reported that DOE was 

engaged in a detailed review of these and other project e-mails and was reworking 

technical documents to ensure the credibility of the USGS’s scientific analyses, 

particularly its conclusions on water infiltration.1

 At your request, we undertook 

follow-on work to determine the estimated costs incurred in DOE’s response, which 

also included additional management and quality assurance training for project 

personnel. We briefed you and your staff on October 23, 2006, on the results of this 

work. As you requested, we also briefed you and your staff on the estimated cost of 

completing the Yucca Mountain Project, based on DOE’s new schedule for receiving a 

license and opening the nuclear waste repository by 2017. Enclosure I provides 

slides that we used in our briefing to you and your staff. 

To respond to your request, we collected data provided by DOE; USGS; the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission; the DOE and the Department of the Interior (DOI) offices of 

the Inspector General, both of whom have examined aspects of these matters; as well 

as other DOI offices, the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board, and various 

contractors working on the Yucca Mountain Project. We also conducted interviews 

with staff from these organizations. Given the time constraints, we did not 

independently verify the cost data provided to us. We conducted this work from 

September 2006 through October 2006 in accordance with generally accepted 

government auditing standards. 

 

1

GAO, Yucca Mountain: Quality Assurance at DOE’s Planned Nuclear Waste Repository Needs 

Increased Management Attention, GAO-06-313, (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 17, 2006). 
With respect to the review of project e-mail and other relevant documents to 

determine the extent and nature of problems similar to those suggested by the USGS 

e-mails, the agencies estimated that their efforts cost nearly $4.2 million. The 

scientific rework related to the USGS water infiltration analysis cost an estimated $16 

million, while additional management and quality assurance training for project 

personnel cost about $340,000. All three estimates were for expenditures in fiscal 

years 2005 and 2006. In fiscal year 2007, DOE plans to spend another $5.1 million on 

scientific rework. DOE’s preliminary cost estimate to complete and open the 

repository to begin receiving wastes by 2017 is about $23 billion (expressed in fiscal 

year 2006 dollars), $12.1 billion of which was spent from fiscal year 1983 through 

fiscal year 2005. DOE expects to revise its cost estimate for completing the project in 

2007. 

We provided DOE with a draft of this report for review and comments. In its written 

response, DOE agreed with our overall cost numbers and stated that it expects to 

provide updated cost estimates for overall program costs in 2007. (See encl. II.) DOE 

also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. 

- - - - - 

As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we 

plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days from the report date. At that 

time, we will send copies of this report to interested congressional committees and 

members, the Secretary of Energy, the Secretary of the Interior, and other interested 

parties. We will also make copies available to others on request. In addition, this 

report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at 

(202) 512-3841 or by e-mail at wellsj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 

Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 

report. Key contributors to this report include Richard Cheston, Raymond Smith, Jon 

Ludwigson, Lee Carroll, and Kris Massey. 

Sincerely yours, 

Jim Wells 

Director, Natural Resources 

 and Environment 

Enclosures 

Page 2 GAO-07-297R Yucca Mountain Project Cost Estimate
Enclosure I

3

Yucca Mountain Pr

Information on Projec

Briefing to the Chairman of the Fed

and Agency Organization Subco

Committee on Government Reform

of Representatives

October 23, 2006
4

BackgroundDOE leads federal effort to assess and build a nucrepository at Yucca Mountain in NevadaIn 1982, the Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act a

United States should build a national nuclear waste reposit

In 2002, the Congress approved Yucca Mountain, Nevada as Department of Energy (DOE) is responsible for assessing the 

of the future repository

• DOE has been conducting scientific studies of the long-term s

as how water moves through the soil, rock, and other layers o

DOE work at Yucca Mountain uses contractors including

• Bechtel SAIC Company (BSC) and• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)

DOE is required to obtain a license from the Nuclear Regulato

before starting construction and operating the repository

• DOE is developing the license application, including supportin

long-term repository safety

• NRC is to evaluate the license application and DOE must mee• Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board (NWTRB) reviews sc
5

Background (cont.) USGS scientists’ e-mails raised concerns about cquality assurance requirementsUSGS scientists’ e-mails indicated that they m

adhered to quality assurance requirements

• DOE’s announcement in March 2005 of the discovery 

personnel involved in scientific work developing the wthe Yucca Mountain Project (YMP) revealed that theshave complied with quality assurance requirements, infalsification of data

• Agencies reviewed employee e-mails to determine ex

potential problems

E-mails raised questions about quality assura

with the USGS water infiltration model

• Infiltration model simulates the top layer of the mounta

through that layer

• Infiltration model plays an important role in scientific a

moves to and through other layers of the mountain (wother models), including waste storage tunnels

• Water that reaches the storage areas may affect the i

packages
6

Background (cont.)USGS scientists’ e-mails raised concerns about cquality assurance requirementsE-mails resulted in investigations and scie

• DOE initiated a projectwide review of e-ma

attitudes and behaviors seen in certain USGseen elsewhere in the project

• DOE is overseeing the process of reperform

work and preparing supporting scientific doassociated with the infiltration rate estimate

• DOE required staff associated with the YM

training on proper use and handling of e-ma

DOE has delayed its application to the NRC f

Yucca Mountain nuclear waste repository athat the projected best available opening dexpected to be 2017
7

Objectives1. Identify the estimated cost of various reviews 

discovery of the USGS emails 

2. Identify the estimated cost of reworking scient

and associated technical documents to ensure about water infiltration are correct and support

3. Identify the cost of additional management an

training for project personnel resulting from the mails

4. Identify the estimated total cost to complete th

repository based on DOE’s new licensing sche2017 opening date
8

Scope and MethodologyRelied on interviews, reports, agency cost estimatRelied primarily on interviews and review of r

testimonies, and other documents identifie

Interviews included:

• Senior YMP officials• Senior NRC officials responsible for monito

application process

• Senior officials from DOE and Department 

Inspectors General

• Private contractors that undertook substant

Bechtel SAIC Corporation (BSC) and Booz (BAH)
9

Scope and Methodology (cont.)We relied on interviews, reports, agency cost estimReviewed documents including:

• Reports from YMP• Reports from Inspectors General• Prior GAO reports

Reviewed cost estimates provided by: 

• DOE (Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste 

of the Inspector General)

• DOI (Office of the Inspector General, USGS• NRC• Private contractors working on the YMP

Work completed September through October 20

generally accepted government auditing stan
10

LimitationsBecause of time constraints

• We relied on DOE, DOI, USGS, NRC, and co

cost and our review of documents they identif

• We did not verify agencies’ cost estimates

• In most cases, agencies estimated time and 

• Limited data on actual time and expense • No specific accounting or budget codes for so

• Estimates may reflect work that otherwise w• We had limited opportunity to independently 

other activities should be included in the cos
11

Limitations (cont.)

• We requested that the agencies provide esti

burdened costs (e.g., including salaries, benbut we did not evaluate or verify their method

• Not certain whether agencies’ estimates 

overhead (e.g., recruitment), imputed cos(e.g., rent and utilities)

• Not all agencies were willing or able to provi

activities

• Department of Justice (DOJ), Federal Bu

and USGS

• We did not evaluate methodology used for 

reviewing e-mails

• We did not evaluate decisions, or basis for, 
12

SummaryReview of e-mail and other documents to 

and nature of problem cost nearly $4.2 years 2005-2006)

Scientific rework related to USGS infiltrati

about $16 million (fiscal years 2005-200
13

Summary (cont.)Training and other activities to improve th

quality assurance cost about $340,000 2005-2006)

Preliminary DOE estimate to meet new lic

and revised opening in 2017 is about $2year 2006 dollars)

• $12 billion spent from fiscal years 1983 to 2• $11 billion estimated for fiscal years 2006 t• DOE expects to provide updated estimates 
14

Review of E-mailsIn total, reviews and investigations estimated to hmillion (FY 2005-2006)

Agencies’ revother docume$2.7 millionCriminal inveassociated peabout $820,0Independent efforts cost aOther efforts, to media inqu$100,000

Criminal Investigation

and Personnel Action, 

$818,247

Agency Review, 

$2,734,371

Independent Review, 

$532,160

Other, $102,732

Source: GAO analysis of estimates provided by DOE, DOI, USGS and NRC
15

Review of E-mailsThree categories of actions spanned 2005 throug

DOE review of employee 

concerns 

Criminal andpersonnel actions

DOE review of CRs

Discovery of e-mails disclosed Criminal investigation (DOE-IG & DOI-IG with DOJ)

March 2006 

DOE review of e-mail 

Agencyreviews DOE development of Condition Re

U

2005 

Independentreviews

Congressional 

hearing

NRC observation/tracking

Congressional data request and hearings

Congressional 

hearing

Con

DOE Inspector General

Source: GAO analysis of information provided by DOE, DOI, USGS and NRC *Issuance of 
16

Review of E-mailsAgency review processes estimated to have cost 

DOE

• Prepara

and Exte(CR) 522

• Review 

$870,00

• Review 

reports c

• Review 

cost abo

USGS

• USGS is 

interviewworkplactoward qhas a co

Source: GAO analysis of estimates provided by DOE and USGS

Review of Email, 

$871,360

Development of CR

5223, $1,710,960

Review of Employee 

Concerns, $89,092

Review of Condition

Reports, $36,824

USGS Review of

Culture, $26,135
17

Review of E-mailsDOE conducted three types of e-mail reviewsE-mail review included three broad types of review

• Evaluated e-mails identified as “relevant” to license ap• Evaluated e-mails sent by persons in key positions no

(“nonrelevant”)

• Evaluated all e-mails using statistical sampling

959,102 relevant e-mails reviewed two ways

• Randomly sampled and physically read and reviewed• Keyword search used to identify e-mail content critica

a random sample of those selected for review

About 13 million nonrelevant e-mails reviewed two 

• 32 of 237 key staff selected and all nonrelevant e-mai

reviewed

• Random sample of all nonrelevant e-mails sent by all 

Population of about 14 million e-mails randomly s

reviewed
18

Review of E-mailsDOE’s three types of e-mail reviews examined dae-mails and led to seven new issues

959,102 

Identified as relevant

Population of 

e-mails sampled

Sample

read

9,000

YMP staf

review

Screening & 

# identified 

Universe 

of e-mails

88 

20,853 Keyword search 178,831 828 

14 million 25,055 198 

237 Key staff

332,447 

Review ofnonrelevante-mails

695 32 Key staff 69,516 e-mails 7 

4,500 14 

Totals

About

14 million

N/A

About

14 million

60,103aaMay include duplicates

1,135 

About

1 million Review 

of relevant e-mails

About 13 

million not 

identified as

relevant

Review of all emails

Source: GAO analysis of estimates provided by DOE
19

Review of E-mailsIndependent reviews estimated to have cost abou

Congressional 

• DOE an

responsrequest about $4

DOE-IG review

• DOE-IG 

of DOE’mails to adverse about $8

NRC review

• NRC ev

impact oreview a$35,000

NRC, 

$35,460

IG, 

$82,907

Congressional Request, 

$413,793

Source: GAO analysis of estimates provided by DOE and NRC
20

Review of E-mailsDOE-IG report on e-mail review (DOE/IG-0708) rebroader e-mail review and need to address issues Effort

• Interviewed YMP staff and contractors• Reviewed project documentation• Independently reviewed e-mails

Found

• The Archival E-mail Review Team identified and entered no c

into the project Corrective Action Program as required during 

mails as relevant for inclusion in the Licensing Support Netwo

• DOE-IG review uncovered e-mails potentially adverse to qual

by prior reviews

Recommended

• Expand review of e-mails to include all e-mails• Ensure that current and future e-mails potentially adverse to q

• Ensure YMP personnel are instructed in the appropriate appli

Program

Cost

• 5 field staff at 1,196 staff hours• $82,907 estimated cost
21

Review of E-mailsCriminal investigation and personnel actions estimabout $820,000

Criminal inve

• DOE an

criminal DOE-IG allegatiomay havquality acost of a

• DOJ par

investigaextent to action shnot prov

Personnel ac

• USGS e

personnat a cost 

Source: GAO analysis of estimates provided by DOE, DOI, and USGS

Criminal Investigation, 

$792,348

Personnel Action, 

$25,899
22

Scientific ReworkScientific rework estimated to cost over $16 milliowith an additional $5.1 million planned (FY 2007)

Replacing the model with a nSandia Nationabout $10.7 mIndependent reabout $2.5 mil

• Idaho N• NWTR• NRC O

Assessing and depend on the cost about $2.Initial effort to cost about $42At least $5.1 mspending plan

Assess and Revise 

Infiltration Dependent

Models, $2,489,019

Independent Review

and Oversight,

$2,475,392

Rework USGS Model,

$421,563

Replacement of Model, 

$10,653,294

Source: GAO analysis of estimates provided by DOE, USGS, NRC, and NWTRB
23

Scientific ReworkFour broad categories of scientific rework span fis2006, additional work expected in fiscal year 2007

March 2005

Sensitivity analysis of infiltrationdependent models (OCRWM/SNL)

USGS model review

INL evaluation of

USGS infiltration model and data

Modific

dep

2006 20

Internal 

(

Prior planned date for

license application

NWTRB and NRC monitoring and review

Independent review and oversight

Replace USGS infiltration model 

(SNL and BSC) Replacement of model

Assess and revise infiltration dependent modelsRework BSC review of USGS dataUSGS model

Source: GAO analysis of estimates provided by DOE, BSC, NWTRB, NRC, and USGS
24

Scientific ReworkReplacing original infiltration model estimated to cmillion (FY 2005-2006) with another $2.2 million p

DOE Technical Project 

Management, $117,210

BSC Review of Data, 

$4,546,887 Replacement of Model, 

$5,989,197

SNL is replacBSC is revieworiginal USGS new SNL moDOE is oversreplacementDOE expects $2.2 million in complete new 

Source: GAO analysis of estimates provided by DOE, BSC, and SNL
25

Scientific ReworkAssessing and revising other models estimated to million (FY 2005-2006), with at least $2.9 million p

Assessing and zone model coInitial sensitivitmodels cost abDeveloping tecimplications of infiltration modcost about $28DOE expects tmillion in fiscal assessing and dependent on model

Source: GAO analysis of estimates provided by DOE 

Sensitivity Analysis, 

$535,450

Development of

Technical Report, 

$277,365

Assess and Revise

Unsaturated Zone 

Model, $1,676,204
26

Scientific Rework Independent review and oversight estimated to co(FY 2005-2006)

INL review of s$2.2 millionNRC observatcost about $23NWTRB monitcost about $15NWTRB and tspend additionyear 2007 (no 

INL Review of Infiltration Software and Data (USGS and

Sandia Models), $2,223,992

NRC Observation of Changes

to Infiltration and Related 

Models, $236,400

NWTRB Oversight of Changes

to Infiltration and Related

Models, $15,000

Source: GAO analysis of estimates provided by INL, NRC, and NWTRB
27

Scientific ReworkRework of original USGS infiltration model cost ab(FY 2005-2006)

BSC investigunderlying da$300,000USGS effort tinfiltration modata cost aboUSGS validatmodel for its $44,000

USGS Work to Verify

Model and Data, 

$81,255

BSC Review of Data, 

$296,308

USGS Validation of 

Original Model, 

$44,000

Source: GAO analysis of estimates provided by BSC and USGS
28

Additional Training CostsDOE and USGS spent about $340,000 (FY 2005-

USGS 

• One-da

assuran

DOE 

• Commu

employhandlin$76,000

• Develo

templatto use i

DOE, $286,652

USGS, $54,100

Source: GAO analysis of estimates provided by DOE and USGS
29

Total Estimated Cost of ProjectDOE’s best current estimate to complete Yucca Mwith a 2017 opening date is about $23 billion (FY Historical cost, FY 1983- 2005: $12.1 billion (in FY 2006 dollars)Estimated future cost, FY 2006-2017: $11.2 billion (in FY 2006 dollars)DOE plans to release updated estimates in 2007

• Cash flow analysis expected mid-to-late November 2006 • Integrated project plan expected early 2007• Life-cycle cost analysis expected early to mid-2007 $-

$200$400$600$800

$1,000$1,200$1,400

FY 1983 FY 1988 FY 1993 FY 1998 

Annual Spending(in millions of 2006 dollars)

Annual Total OCRWM Program (in Millions) 

Source: GAO analysis of data and estimates pro
Enclosure II

Comments from the Department of Energy 

(360781) 

Page 30 GAO-07-297R Yucca Mountain Project Cost Estimate
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to

reproduce this material separately. 
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER