Nuclear Weapons: NNSA Needs to Determine Critical Skills and Competencies for Its Strategic Materials Programs
Released: 2017-11-14T00:00:00

Letter

Background

NNSA’s strategic materials programs include a broad range of activities. The programs often include (1) building unique new facilities, (2) modifying and repairing existing facilities and equipment, and (3) developing and deploying new technologies for processing and producing strategic nuclear materials. The programs may involve multiple NNSA and DOE sites and multiple facilities at a given site. For example, since the days of the Manhattan Project, a large portion of the nation’s uranium mission has been executed at the Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, with uranium production and associated operations housed in several nuclear facilities within the complex. These facilities are in some cases more than 60 years old. NNSA’s uranium program is coordinating efforts to build the UPF, invest in the infrastructure of existing facilities to extend their lives, and develop and deploy several new technologies that are expected to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of uranium processing. Collectively, these uranium program activities may take more than 2 decades to implement and cost several billion dollars.

NNSA’s 2017 future-years nuclear security program estimate projected that NNSA would need about $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2018 to carry out its annual activities associated with the management of these strategic materials programs (see table 1). NNSA documents indicate that the agency expects to spend about $7.7 billion over the next 5 years on activities related to managing its strategic materials. This spending, which would represent about 12 percent of the approximately $63 billion NNSA expects to spend on all weapons activities over this same time period, includes: $4.8 billion for costs related to construction of facilities and other capital equipment purchases that will be used to support the strategic materials mission; and $2.9 billion for program costs related to general activities such as reducing risk and ensuring sufficient supply, as well as the consolidation, disposition, tracking, and accounting of nuclear materials.

Program managers are an important part of the federal government’s workforce. They interact with the managers of individual projects to provide support and guidance on those projects but also must take a broad view of the overall objectives of programs and an agency’s organizational culture. According to leading practices outlined by the Project Management Institute, organizations develop program plans, capture and understand stakeholder needs, and establish processes for maintaining program management oversight, among other activities. Recognizing the importance of improving program management, in December 2016 the President signed the ‘‘Program Management Improvement Accountability Act” that required the Office of Management and Budget to, among other things, adopt and oversee implementation of government-wide standards, policies, and guidelines for program and project management for executive agencies and assess the quality and effectiveness of program management for these agencies. We have previously reported on DOE’s and NNSA’s program management challenges.

In March 2009, we found that NNSA and the Department of Defense (DOD) established unrealistic schedules, did not establish consistent cost baselines, and did not effectively manage technical risks in some of their nuclear weapon life extension programs. These problems resulted in delays, additional expenditures, difficulties tracking the cost of the programs, and difficulties in meeting all of NNSA’s and DOD’s technical objectives. We recommended that NNSA develop and use consistent budget assumptions and criteria for the baseline to track costs over time, among other actions. NNSA agreed with our recommendations and made changes to its cost estimating procedures.

In November 2014, we found that the lack of requirements for programs meant that DOE could not ensure that it was developing fully credible cost estimates for programs. We recommended that DOE revise its program management directives to require that programs develop life-cycle cost estimates in accordance with our 12 cost-estimating best practice steps. DOE agreed with our recommendation but has not yet incorporated the best practice steps into its program management directives.

In February 2016, we found that the B61-12 life extension program, the most complex such program NNSA has undertaken to date, faces ongoing management challenges in some areas, including staff shortfalls and an earned value management system that has yet to be tested. We did not make any recommendations but reiterated previous recommendations such as those already mentioned.

In November 2016, we found that DOE and NNSA had not established organization-wide policies or practices addressing leading practices related to program management, and we recommended that DOE do so. DOE did not agree or disagree with this recommendation. NNSA, however, in late 2016 instituted a training program for program management.

NNSA’s stockpile stewardship program has established strategic materials as one of the major elements to sustain the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile. According to NNSA budget documents, the strategic materials programs help ensure the sustainment of nuclear material processing capabilities and fund the stabilization, consolidation, disposition, tracking, and accounting of nuclear materials. Strategic materials are generally not available, or are available only in limited quantities, from commercial suppliers because of their specific properties and use in nuclear weapons or for other national security purposes. NNSA named strategic material program managers in 2014 and 2015 to integrate, oversee, plan, and execute material strategies for uranium (including domestic uranium enrichment), plutonium, and tritium.

In addition to the general program management challenges highlighted above, we have also reported previously on challenges facing NNSA’s strategic materials programs: In July 2015, we found that NNSA had identified various challenges in its lithium production strategy that may impact its ability to meet demand for lithium in the future. These challenges included insufficient supply of lithium material and constraints facing NNSA’s efforts to replace the aging lithium production facility. We recommended that NNSA objectively consider all alternatives, without preference for a particular solution, as it proceeds with its analysis of alternatives process. NNSA neither agreed nor disagreed with our recommendation but did undertake a formal analysis of alternatives in 2017, according to NNSA officials.

In August 2016, we found that NNSA had not documented important requirements for its plutonium program at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. We recommended that, among other things, NNSA should update its program requirements. NNSA outlined actions taken and planned to address this recommendation.

NNSA Has Defined Strategic Materials Program Requirements, Including Roles and Responsibilities for Program Managers

NNSA’s Office of Defense Programs has set program requirements for the strategic materials programs and has established the roles and responsibilities of the programs’ managers. NNSA defined these program requirements in two documents issued in 2016 and 2017. Collectively these documents set documentation requirements as well as established the roles and responsibilities of the strategic materials program managers. According to NNSA officials, these requirements apply to each of the programs, including the lithium program. These requirements are outlined below.

Program Execution Instruction (2016) – In January 2016, NNSA approved a Program Execution Instruction that defines requirements for carrying out NNSA defense programs, such as the strategic materials programs. This instruction outlines a series of requirements that vary based on the categorization—and therefore the rigor—of management applied to a program. Of the four categories outlined in the instruction—Standard Management, Enhanced Management A, Enhanced Management B, and Capital Acquisition Management—NNSA has generally designated the strategic materials programs as “Enhanced Management B,” the most rigorous designation applicable to this type of program, according to NNSA officials. The “Enhanced Management B” programs are required to have the following elements documented: a program plan, a work breakdown structure that details the work elements necessary to organize the total work scope with cost estimates, a decision analysis, an integrated master schedule that includes the entire scope of work required for the program’s successful execution, a performance management approach, and a lessons learned/best practices review. According to the instruction, if the scope, cost, and schedule of a program are more complex, moving to a more rigorous program management category is often required. According to the instruction, when enhanced complexity and risk are associated with a program, among other things, “Enhanced Management B” is the appropriate designation. The instruction also allows for programs to “tailor,” or modify, the application of certain requirements depending on risk and other factors.

Program Management Policy for Weapons and Strategic Materials Programs (2017) – NNSA issued a program management policy in January 2017 that defines general roles and responsibilities for all four strategic materials program managers. This policy broadly outlines the managers’ authority and responsibilities for managing the strategic materials; these responsibilities include developing program documentation and managing risk. According to NNSA officials we interviewed, the policy is based on NNSA’s experience in implementing the uranium program in 2014. The policy requires each of the strategic materials programs to develop a number of guidance documents, including a mission strategy, mission requirements, and a technology development plan. For each program, the policy also requires the formation of a strategic materials mission working group that is comprised of the key stakeholders involved in the program.

NNSA Officials Reported Progress in Meeting Strategic Materials Program Requirements but Challenges from Staffing Shortages

NNSA officials told us that they are making progress in implementing the program requirements outlined for each of the strategic materials programs, although some are further along than others. However, these officials said that relatively few staff had been assigned to these programs, which has challenged implementation efforts.

Progress Reported in Implementing Program Requirements

For its two strategic materials programs established in 2014—uranium and domestic uranium enrichment—NNSA officials told us that they are generally meeting the strategic materials program management requirements outlined in the Program Execution Instruction and the Program Management Policy for Weapons and Strategic Materials. NNSA officials identified documents for each program, including mission strategy, mission requirements, program plan, and work breakdown structure. For the other programs, according to agency officials, NNSA is still working to meet these requirements, though the tritium program met all requirements during the course of this review. More specifically, according to agency officials:

The plutonium sustainment program has met some of the Program Execution Instruction requirements to date, including having in place a program plan, work breakdown structure, and decision analysis, but not an integrated master schedule (although one is being developed, according to agency officials). The plutonium program also has a mission strategy in place, as called for by the Program Management Policy for Weapons and Strategic Materials, but has not yet met the other strategic materials program management requirements. According to agency officials, those requirements are being developed.

The tritium sustainment program has recently met the Program Execution Instruction requirements as well, including having a program plan, work breakdown structure, integrated master schedule, and performance management approach in place. Additionally, the program recently updated documentation to meet the Program Management Policy requirements including revising its Strategic Material Mission Working Group in 2017, according to agency officials.

The lithium program is early in its development, and no program manager has been appointed yet, pending senior NNSA leadership decisions. NNSA has a lithium mission strategy, a mission requirements matrix, and a technology development plan in place, as required by the Program Management Policy for Weapons and Strategic Materials, but the rest of the strategic materials program management requirements are still in the process of being developed, according to agency officials. NNSA officials said that even though the lithium program is not subject to the same requirements, they intend for it to meet all of the same requirements as the other strategic materials programs.

Staffing Challenges Reported

Officials from the Office of Defense Programs, including the strategic materials program managers themselves, said that a shortage of staff has presented a challenge in terms of implementing the requirements of the strategic materials programs and meeting their missions. According to NNSA officials, all of the strategic materials programs have been assigned relatively few federal staff to implement the programs. The officials also said that while they plan to have all five strategic materials programs fully meet the requirements and operate as cohesive programs, the lack of staff has hampered their efforts to do so. For example, the plutonium manager said more staff were needed to successfully implement the program, and the lithium lead point of contact said that at least two full-time staff members would be required to accomplish the work needed to make the lithium program meet program requirements. Specifically, according to agency officials as of October 2017, in addition to contractor support: the uranium program had the program manager and two federal staff assigned; the domestic uranium enrichment program had the program manager and one federal staff assigned; the plutonium program had the program manager and one federal staff member; the tritium program had the program manager and no dedicated staff, relying instead on staff in other programs such as a federal program manager from a different program who acts as staff for this program; and the lithium program had the lead point of contact and no dedicated staff, although a contracted senior technical advisor provides some support.

NNSA officials cited competing agency priorities and current perceived staffing limits as the primary impediments to assigning more staff to these programs. First, according to agency officials, the relative newness of the strategic materials programs and competing agency priorities to modernize the nuclear weapons infrastructure and modernize and extend the lives of current nuclear weapons have meant that federal staff are in high demand across the agency. This concern is consistent with issues we have identified in our past work as well. For example, in April 2017, we noted NNSA’s ambitious, costly, decades-long effort to modernize the nation’s nuclear security enterprise. In addition to ongoing and planned infrastructure modernization, some of which is associated with the strategic materials programs, this modernization includes four ongoing expensive weapons refurbishments and efforts to improve the agency’s research, development, testing, and evaluation capabilities by, for example, continuing efforts in advanced modeling, simulation, and computing. Similarly, we found in September 2016 that the competing agency priorities for infrastructure modernization and weapons refurbishments had negatively affected another NNSA program: the Enhanced Surveillance Program.

Second, NNSA officials said that they have limited flexibility when it comes to increasing federal staff levels. Specifically, in each year that the total number of federal employees at NNSA exceeds 1,690, the Administrator is required by law to submit to the congressional defense committees a report justifying such excess. In the NNSA Administrator’s testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development in June 2017, he stated that since 2010, NNSA’s program funding had increased 28 percent, while its federal staffing levels had decreased by 17 percent. He said that initial results from a yet-to-be- completed study by the Office of Personnel Management in support of the Reform of Government Initiative indicate the need for a 20 percent increase in federal staff at NNSA.

We have also previously reported that staffing shortages have affected NNSA’s efforts to improve management capability. For example, we reported in October 2014 that NNSA determined that inadequate levels of federal staff had contributed to management problems with the UPF project. As a result, NNSA increased staffing levels for the UPF project office from 9 full-time equivalents in 2012 to more than 50 as of January 2014. According to NNSA officials, the additional staff enabled NNSA to conduct more robust oversight of the contractor’s design efforts than was previously possible. Similarly, in 2016, we found that the B61-12 life extension program, the most costly and complex such program undertaken to date, successfully requested that NNSA enlarge its program office staff from 3 to 8 full-time equivalent staff to provide more management capability. However, we found that even with this increase in federal staff, some NNSA and DOD officials said that they believe that NNSA needs two to three times more personnel in the federal program manager’s office to ensure sufficient federal management and oversight.

One area that we noted in this review is that with regard to the strategic materials programs, NNSA has not conducted a workforce needs assessment. Strategic materials program officials acknowledged that they had neither specifically assessed the number or skills of staff needed to manage the strategic materials programs, nor did they have current plans to do such an assessment. Our prior work on strategic human capital management has identified certain activities or practices that can help an agency strategically manage its human capital. These activities include determining the critical skills and competencies that will be needed to achieve the programs’ missions and developing strategies to address gaps in the number, deployment, and alignment of staff needed. NNSA officials said that individual offices have attempted over time to assess resource and skill needs but that these efforts have been hampered by, among other things, a lack of staff. By determining the critical skills and competencies needed to achieve each strategic material program’s mission and using this determination to develop strategies to address any gaps in the number, deployment, and alignment of staff needed, NNSA may find it has better information to justify increased staffing levels for its strategic materials programs.

Conclusions

Since 2014, NNSA has taken steps to establish programs to maintain and modernize the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile, including appointing federal program managers for four of the five strategic materials programs, as well as steps to establish and organize the programs according to internal program management requirements. This is a significant step given the importance, cost, and complexity of these strategic materials programs. However, NNSA has made varying progress implementing these strategic materials programs, in part because these programs may not have been allotted staff and management capacity commensurate with their cost and scope of work.

Although strategic materials program officials acknowledged staffing limitations, they have not determined the critical skills and competencies that will be needed to meet program requirements and, ultimately, achieve the programs’ missions. By determining the critical skills and competencies needed to achieve each strategic materials programs’ missions and using that determination to develop strategies to address any gaps in the number, deployment, and alignment of staff needed, NNSA may find it has more information to justify increased staffing levels for its strategic materials programs.

Recommendation for Executive Action

The NNSA Administrator should determine the critical skills and competencies that will be needed for the strategic materials programs and use this determination to develop strategies for addressing challenges, if any, related to the number, deployment, and alignment of program staff (Recommendation 1).

Agency Comments

We provided a draft of this report to DOE and NNSA for their review and comment. NNSA provided written comments, which are reproduced in full in appendix II, as well as technical comments, which we incorporated in our report as appropriate. In its comments, NNSA agreed with our recommendation and stated that the recommendation is consistent with the programs’ current evolution. NNSA further stated that it recognizes the need to define the range of skills and competencies necessary to execute the programs' critical missions and that it plans to identify the complete set of core competencies needed for these programs by December 31, 2018.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Energy, the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or trimbled@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.

Appendix I: Strategic Nuclear Materials Managed by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

Appendix I: Strategic Nuclear Materials Managed by the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA)

NNSA has established programs for ensuring the supply of each of the following strategic materials as well as the capability to process them:

Uranium – National security needs for uranium are met using a large existing inventory of previously enriched uranium. Although NNSA has estimated that stocks are sufficient for projected needs, existing uranium needs to be purified, machined, and recovered from existing operations. The Y-12 National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, is the NNSA site for conducting enriched uranium activities, producing uranium-related components for nuclear warheads and bombs, and processing feedstock for nuclear fuel for the U.S. Navy. In 2004, NNSA decided to construct a new Uranium Processing Facility (UPF) that consolidated the functions of four separate uranium facilities into a single building. In 2014, NNSA, on the advice of a peer review team, decided to pursue a uranium program that includes a smaller UPF and, among other program elements, modifications to existing uranium buildings and capabilities to include several new uranium processing technologies. Construction on the UPF continues at the Y-12 site, and NNSA continues to request funds for that project. Fiscal year 2018 funds are to be used for construction of some related subprojects. According to NNSA officials, the UPF is expected to be complete by 2025 and cost no more than $6.5 billion. NNSA estimates that additional investments needed to upgrade existing uranium facilities will cost about $20 million per year for the next 20 years.

Domestic Uranium Enrichment – To produce tritium, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) must use unobligated uranium in certain nuclear reactors, under an interagency agreement between Department of Energy (DOE) and TVA. The United States has not had a sustained uranium enrichment capability since the 2013 closure of the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, which was originally constructed in 1952. In 2014, NNSA created the domestic uranium enrichment program manager position with responsibility to sustain the agency’s supply of low-enriched uranium for tritium production.

We currently have ongoing work reviewing the program’s plan to ensure supply through 2060. NNSA estimated that over the next 5 years alone, these activities will likely cost more than $400 million.

Plutonium – A set of aging facilities at Los Alamos National Laboratory provides the backbone of NNSA’s plutonium work, such as certifying the safety of existing nuclear weapons’ plutonium pits and producing new pits to extend the life of nuclear weapons in the stockpile. NNSA conducts plutonium analysis in the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research facility, which was built in the 1950s, but NNSA plans to cease programmatic operations in this facility by 2019 because of its aging infrastructure and because it sits on a seismic fault line. NNSA produces pits and conducts pit surveillance in the 38- year-old high-hazard, high-security Plutonium Facility 4 at Los Alamos. Other important plutonium activities, such as NNSA’s plutonium disposition efforts and the processing of plutonium used to provide heat sources for space missions, are not included in the plutonium manager’s portfolio because other program offices are responsible for these activities, according to NNSA officials. Officials said that these program offices coordinate capability and facility needs with the plutonium program manager.

In August 2014, DOE cancelled plans to construct the nuclear facility that was part of the overall Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement (CMRR), which was approved in 2005 to replace the aging Chemistry and Metallurgy Research facility. In its place, DOE approved the implementation of the first part of NNSA’s new plutonium strategy: the revised CMRR project, which includes a subproject to remove contaminated equipment no longer in use in Plutonium Facility 4, install new plutonium analysis equipment, and modify an existing building to handle higher quantities of plutonium. NNSA estimated that the CMRR project would cost from $2.4 billion to $2.9 billion and be completed by 2024. In addition, in November 2015, DOE approved the mission need for the implementation of the second part of the strategy: building modular nuclear facilities to add high- hazard, high-security laboratory space at Los Alamos (the Plutonium Modular Approach) to meet plutonium pit production requirements. NNSA estimated that the Plutonium Modular Approach could cost from $1.3 billion to $3.0 billion and be completed by the end of 2027.

Tritium – NNSA has relied on tritium produced many years ago; recycling and recovery of existing tritium is currently the source of most of the tritium in the stockpile, according to NNSA officials. However, tritium decays relatively rapidly, and in 2015 NNSA identified a need to produce additional tritium. To produce tritium, lithium target rods—called tritium-producing burnable absorber rods— are irradiated in TVA’s reactors. The irradiated rods are transported to DOE’s Tritium Extraction Facility at the Savannah River Site in South Carolina, where they are processed in a specialized facility to extract and then prepare the tritium for nuclear warheads. NNSA requested $9.8 million in design funds in fiscal year 2018 for construction of a new tritium production capability. In its fiscal year 2018 budget request, NNSA estimated that this facility would cost about $425 million and be approved for operations in 2027.

Lithium – Lithium is a key component of nuclear weapons and is essential for their refurbishment. NNSA has a sufficient supply of enriched lithium-6 (the isotope used in refurbishments and for tritium production), but that lithium is stored in another form and must undergo complex processing before it can be used for these purposes. NNSA halted certain aspects of its lithium processing operation—conducted at its Y-12 site in Oak Ridge, Tennessee—in May 2013 due to the condition of the site’s 72-year-old lithium production facility. Currently, NNSA is relying on a less complex but also less efficient process that results in a loss of approximately 50 percent of material. In 2013, NNSA developed a lithium production strategy that proposed a new lithium production facility, which the agency estimated would cost more than $500 million. NNSA plans to request $30.4 million in fiscal year 2019 for construction of this facility. This strategy includes sustaining current infrastructure and deploying new technologies to sustain lithium production.

Appendix II: Comments from the National Nuclear Security Administration

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the contact above, Jonathan Gill (Assistant Director), Alisa Beyninson, Antoinette Capaccio, Jeff Larson, Cynthia Norris, and Kiki Theodoropoulos made key contributions to this report.

Related GAO Products

Modernizing the Nuclear Security Enterprise: A Complete Scope of Work Is Needed to Develop Timely Cost and Schedule Information for the Uranium Program. GAO-17-577. Washington, D.C.: September 8, 2017.

Program Management: DOE Needs to Develop a Comprehensive Policy and Training Program. GAO-17-51. Washington, D.C.: November 21, 2016.

DOE Project Management: NNSA Needs to Clarify Requirements for Its Plutonium Analysis Project at Los Alamos. GAO-16-585. Washington, D.C.: August 9, 2016.

Modernizing the Nuclear Security Enterprise: NNSA’s Budget Estimates Increased but May Not Align with All Anticipated Costs. GAO-16-290. Washington, D.C.: March 4, 2016.

Modernizing the Nuclear Security Enterprise: NNSA Increased Its Budget Estimates, but Estimates for Key Stockpile and Infrastructure Programs Need Improvement. GAO-15-499. Washington, D.C.: August 6, 2015.

DOE Project Management: NNSA Should Ensure Equal Consideration of Alternatives for Lithium Production. GAO-15-525. Washington, D.C.: July 13, 2015.

DOE and NNSA Project Management: Analysis of Alternatives Could Be Improved by Incorporating Best Practices. GAO-15-37. Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2014.

Project and Program Management: DOE Needs to Revise Requirements and Guidance for Cost Estimating and Related Reviews. GAO-15-29. Washington, D.C.: November 25, 2014.

Nuclear Weapons: Some Actions Have Been Taken to Address Challenges with the Uranium Processing Facility Design. GAO-15-126. Washington, D.C.: October 10, 2014.

Nuclear Weapons: Technology Development Efforts for the Uranium Processing Facility. GAO-14-295. Washington, D.C.: April 18, 2014.

Plutonium Disposition Program: DOE Needs to Analyze the Root Causes of Cost Increases and Develop Better Cost Estimates. GAO-14-231. Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2014.

Nuclear Weapons: Information on Safety Concerns with the Uranium Processing Facility. GAO-14-79R. Washington, D.C.: October 25, 2013.

Nuclear Weapons: Factors Leading to Cost Increases with the Uranium Processing Facility. GAO-13-686R. Washington, D.C.: July 12, 2013.

Nuclear Weapons: National Nuclear Security Administration’s Plans for Its Uranium Processing Facility Should Better Reflect Funding Estimates and Technology Readiness. GAO-11-103. Washington, D.C.: November 19, 2010.