ExpectMore.gov


Detailed Information on the
Environmental Management Assessment

Program Code 10001176
Program Title Environmental Management
Department Name Department of Energy
Agency/Bureau Name Department of Energy
Program Type(s) Capital Assets and Service Acquisition Program
Assessment Year 2003
Assessment Rating Adequate
Assessment Section Scores
Section Score
Program Purpose & Design 100%
Strategic Planning 80%
Program Management 96%
Program Results/Accountability 24%
Program Funding Level
(in millions)
FY2007 $6,681
FY2008 $6,153
FY2009 $5,990

Ongoing Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments
2004

Program managers will continue to work with federal and state regulators to resolve outstanding issues with revised cleanup plans.

Action taken, but not completed EM has entered all enforceable agreement commitments into its centralized database that will enhance the ability to identify and report potential compliance issues as far in advance as possible. Where technical issues and other obstacles to compliance arise, EM actively engages its regulators to develop mutually acceptable alternative commitments and schedules.

Completed Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments
2004

The Department of Energy will validate program baselines approved by the Assistant Secretary and develop annual cost and schedule measures by September 2004.

Completed Environmental Management gave direction to the sites to develop near-term baselines that were aligned with the Environmental Management Five Year Plan funding profiles. The sites have re-sequenced work in order to align the work scope and schedules to comply with these funding profiles. Each site has undergone either an internal or external independent review (depending on the total cost of the near-term baseline) that will certify the scope, cost, and schedule for each project.
2005

EM will continue to improve its implementation of the program's earned value management system to link performance to cost.

Completed Environmental Management has focused on the program??s earned value management system (EVMS) to serve as a link between performance and cost for all near-term baselines.This may be seen in the Monthly Project Status Reports that are prepared for the Deputy Secretary by the Office of Engineering and Construction Management. These reports, provide the current performance status of the active EM projects provide discussions of current project performance and earned value of the EM program.

Program Performance Measures

Term Type  
Long-term/Annual Efficiency

Measure: Overall cost variance of cleanup projects.


Explanation:The goal is to remain within the limits of no greater than a 10% negative cost variance for the overall cost -weighted mean cost and schedule performance indices for the projects that are baselined and under configuration control.

Year Target Actual
2006 -10% or less less
2007 -10% or less less
2008 -10% or less
Long-term/Annual Efficiency

Measure: Overall schedule variance of cleanup projects.


Explanation:The goal is to remain within the limits of no greater than a 10% negative schedule variance for the overall cost -weighted mean cost and schedule performance indices for the projects that are baselined and under configuration control.

Year Target Actual
2006 -10% or less less
2007 -10% or less less
2008 -10% or less
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: Number of Geographic Sites completed


Explanation:

Year Target Actual
2001 74 74
2002 75 75
2003 77 76
2004 77 76
2005 79 78
2006 86 83
2007 86 86
2008 89
2009 91
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: Number of the 6,045 certified DOE storage, treatment, & disposal containers (3013 or equivalent) of plutonium metal or oxide packaged and ready for long-term storage


Explanation:Measure completed in FY 2005 at 6,314 containers.

Year Target Actual
2002 1,484 1,484
2003 4,354 4,549
2004 6,169 6,169
2005 6,314 6,314
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: Number of certified containers of enriched uranium packaged ready for long-term storage


Explanation:

Year Target Actual
2003 2,130 2,054
2004 3,055 3,228
2005 3,944 5,541
2006 6,159 6,479
2007 6,972 6,960
2008 7,278
2009 7,300
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: Plutonium or uranium residues packaged for disposition (kg of bulk material)


Explanation:Measure Completed in FY 2005 at 107,739 kg.

Year Target Actual
2003 107,600 107,659
2004 107,678 107,738
2005 107,754 107,789
2006 107,781 107,817
2007 107,828 107,828
2008 107,828
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: Spent Nuclear Fuel packaged for final disposition (metric tons of heavy metal)


Explanation:

Year Target Actual
2003 1,446 1,446
2004 2,094 2,094
2005 2,123 2,127
2006 2,129 2,127
2007 2,127 2,128
2008 2,128
2009 2,128
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: Depleted and other Uranium packaged for disposition (metric tons)


Explanation:

Year Target Actual
2003 4,915 7,651
2004 7,651 9,057
2005 9,057 11,307
2006 11,493 11,804
2007 11,855 11,860
2008 11,860
2009 29,371
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: Liquid waste eliminated (millions of gallons);


Explanation:

Year Target Actual
2003 0.7 0
2004 1.3 0
2005 1.9 0
2006 0 0
2007 0.7 0
2008 0.7
2009 1.4
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: Number of liquid tanks closed.


Explanation:

Year Target Actual
2004 9 2
2005 9 n/a
2006 2 n/a
2007 5 n/a
2008 9
2009 9
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: Canisters of high-level waste packaged for final disposition


Explanation:

Year Target Actual
2003 1,742 1,727
2004 1,992 1,987
2005 2,242 2,244
2006 2,492 2,489
2007 2,675 2,649
2008 2,835
2009 3,021
Long-term Outcome

Measure: Number of nuclear facilities completed


Explanation:

Year Target Actual
2003 20 22
2004 28 33
2005 42 59
2006 77 76
2007 81 87
2008 89
2009 92
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: Number of radioactive facilities completed


Explanation:

Year Target Actual
2003 130 148
2004 193 192
2005 248 236
2006 285 287
2007 322 338
2008 352
2009 362
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: Number of industrial facilities completed


Explanation:

Year Target Actual
2003 611 671
2004 780 931
2005 1,107 1,106
2006 1,255 1,311
2007 1,417 1,462
2008 1,480
2009 1,503
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: Number of material access areas eliminated


Explanation:

Year Target Actual
2003 7 7
2004 8 7
2005 10 9
2006 11 11
2007 11 11
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: Low-level/mixed low-level waste disposed (m3)


Explanation:

Year Target Actual
2003 527,414 601,842
2004 691,657 814,747
2005 782.593 950,712
2006 1,026,416 995,018
2007 987,249 1,004,537
2008 1,035,030
2009 1,049,410
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: Number of the release sites that are remediated.


Explanation:

Year Target Actual
2003 5,146 5,191
2004 5,391 5,491
2005 5,822 5,585
2006 6,023 6,256
2007 6,546 6,541
2008 6,747
2009 6,868
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: Transuranic waste dispositioned (cubic meters)


Explanation:

Year Target Actual
2007 n/a 43,703
2008 53,608
2009 63,738

Questions/Answers (Detailed Assessment)

Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design
Number Question Answer Score
1.1

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The Environmental Management (EM) program, created in 1989, is responsible for the cleanup of the legacy created by over 50 years of nuclear weapons production and energy research.

Evidence: FY 2004 Congressional Budget Justification.

YES 20%
1.2

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Fifty years of nuclear weapons production and nuclear energy research produced large volumes of nuclear materials, spent nuclear fuel, radioactive waste, and hazardous waste, resulting in contaminated facilities, soil, and groundwater at 114 geographic sites.

Evidence: FY 2004 Congressional Budget Justification.

YES 20%
1.3

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: EM manages and funds almost all cleanup activities with limited cost sharing from the private sector or foreign countries.

Evidence: FY 2004 Congressional Budget Justification.

YES 20%
1.4

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: The February 2002 Top-to-Bottom-Review of the EM program concluded that many of its business processes do not allow the program to efficiently and effectively accomplish its mission. The Top-to Bottom Review served as a catalyst that initiated EM's reevaluation of previously accepted cleanup strategies. EM is implementing a number of significant management reforms which will enable the program to more readily accelerate risk reduction and site closure, thereby reducing cost and schedule.

Evidence: FY 2004 Congressional Budget Justification; Top-to-Bottom Review of the EM Program: Status of Implementation, Report to Congress (August 2003); Progress in Improving Project Management at the Department of Energy, 2002 Assessment.

YES 20%
1.5

Is the program effectively targeted, so program resources reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: EM's accelerated risk reduction cleanup initiatives are premised on four principal management reforms that have been implemented: a human capital revitalization, an improved acquisition strategy, a strict configuration management system, and a revised budget structure. The new budget structure complements the management reform initiatives by focusing on completion, clearly delineating how resources will be utilized (i.e., for direct cleanup activities versus other activities in the program that only indirectly relate to on-the-ground cleanup). The new structure also establishes three time-dependent accounts (2006, 2012, and 2035) to target resources to expected completion timeframes, thereby establishing accountability. These four reform initiatives, along with the establishment of new corporate performance measures, help ensure that program resources are focused on direct, on-the-ground cleanup activities, which lead to accelerated risk reduction and site closure.

Evidence: FY 2004 Congressional Budget Justification; Top-to-Bottom Review of the EM Program: Status of Implementation, Report to Congress, (August 2003).

YES 20%
Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design Score 100%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning
Number Question Answer Score
2.1

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: As part of the commitment to accelerating risk reduction and site closure, EM has taken on the long-term challenge of reducing life-cycle costs and the time to complete cleanup by more than $50 billion and 35 years, respectively. The long-term goals will be met when EM: 1) reduces its life-cycle cost reported in the Department's FY 2001 Performance and Accountability Report by $50 billion (in comparable dollars); 2) cuts the completion time for the EM mission from 2070 to 2035; and 3) demonstrates the ability to execute cleanup activities consistent with accelerated cost and schedule baselines. EM has successfully stopped the program's recent history of annual cost estimate increases and schedule slippages.

Evidence: FY 2004 Congressional Budget Justification; Performance and Accountability Reports; Top-to- Bottom Review of the EM Program: Status of Implementation, Report to Congress (August 2003).

YES 10%
2.2

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: EM has established ambitious long-term cost and schedule goals. New site baselines approved by the Assistant Secretary reflect the aggressive accelerated risk reduction and closure strategies found in each site's Performance Management Plan (PMP) or accelerated strategy. EM's new corporate performance measures were established in early FY 2003 to provide the basis for measuring both near-and long-term performance against the site baselines. The new measures are under strict change control and monitoring of these key performance measures facilitates a high level of confidence that the program's long-term goals can be met.

Evidence: FY 2004 Congressional Budget Justification; Top-to- Bottom Review of the EM Program: Status of Implementation, Report to Congress (August 2003).

YES 10%
2.3

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term measures?

Explanation: The EM program is in the process of developing performance measures that are logically linked to and demonstrate progress toward long-term cost and schedule goals. However, the Assistant Secretary has established a new set of sixteen corporate performance measures that demonstrates how the program is eliminating or reducing risk, not just managing them. The new measures are under strict change control, thereby establishing accountability to annual performance targets established by each Operations/Field Manager.

Evidence: Environmental Management Performance Measures (DOE/IG-0561, June 2002); FY 2004 Congressional Budget Justification; Top-to-Bottom Review of the EM Program: Status of Implementation, Report to Congress (August 2003).

NO 0%
2.4

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets and timeframes for its annual measures?

Explanation: To support the development of cost and schedule targets, existing baselines, where appropriate, are undergoing changes in FY 2003 to reflect a site's PMP or accelerated closure strategy. To ensure that acceleration goals depicted in a new resource-loaded site baseline are equally ambitious and achievable, each site's new baseline is to undergo a rigorous review, validation, and approval process. Once approved, certain elements (e.g., corporate performance measures, cost and schedule projections) of the baseline will be placed under strict change control. Regular senior management reviews between Headquarters and the Field are held on at least a quarterly basis to monitor progress toward achieving its annual performance targets.

Evidence: FY 2004 Congressional Budget Justification.

NO 0%
2.5

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: The contractors EM uses to carry out its mission commit to executing programs to achieve long-term goals as a condition of their contracts. EM contractors have developed site PMPs or accelerated strategies which are consistent with the goals of accelerating risk reduction, reducing costs, and accelerating cleanup schedules.

Evidence: Top-to- Bottom Review of the EM Program: Status of Implementation, Report to Congress (August 2003).

YES 10%
2.6

Are independent and quality evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The General Accounting Office (GAO) regularly evaluates the EM program as part of its performance and accountability reports, issued every two years, covering major management challenges and program risk in each cabinet department. In addition, the February 2002 Top-to-Bottom Review (conducted under contract) was the first major, comprehensive evaluation done by the Department. This evaluation resulted in a significant refocusing of the EM program to assure accelerated risk reduction and cleanup. In addition,

Evidence: GAO 2003 Performance and Accountability Series and High Risk Update; Top-to-Bottom Review of the EM Program: Status of Implementation, Report to Congress (August 2003).

YES 10%
2.7

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: The EM budget reflects current program goals, with the annual budget request derived by estimating what is needed to accomplish the annual performance measures in the context of long-term goals. The corporate performance measures that appear in the budget are directly tied to accelerated site baselines, which reflect PMPs/accelerated closure strategies. The corporate measures are under strict change control. Additionally, the EM budget includes separate accounts supporting the goal of completing as many sites as possible by 2006, 2012, and 2035. Within these three time-dependent accounts, individual projects are identified that tie funding to performance. For these projects, the impact of funding and other changes such as new environmental requirements can be assessed.

Evidence: FY 2004 Congressional Budget Justification; Top-to- Bottom Review of the EM Program: Status of Implementation, Report to Congress (August 2003).

YES 10%
2.8

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The February 2002 Top-to-Bottom Review concluded that many of EM's business processes do not allow the program to efficiently and effectively accomplish its mission. As a result of this review EM has aggressively implemented a number of management reforms to correct these deficiencies. Additionally, EM has also created Integrated Project Teams (IPTs) for 10 key initiatives identified in the top-to-bottom report. Whereas PMPs were developed for individual sites, the IPTs will be formulating corporate-level initiatives to accelerate risk reduction in a much -improved, more cost effective manner.

Evidence: FY 2004 Congressional Budget Justification; Top-to-Bottom Review of the EM Program: Status of Implementation, Report to Congress (August 2003).

YES 10%
2.CA1

Has the agency/program conducted a recent, meaningful, credible analysis of alternatives that includes trade-offs between cost, schedule, risk, and performance goals and used the results to guide the resulting activity?

Explanation: In addition to the aggressive implementation of reforms as a result of the February 2002 Top-to-Bottom Review and creation of 10 integrated project teams, existing site baselines, where appropriate, are undergoing changes in FY 2003 to reflect a site's PMP or accelerated closure strategy. Reflected in the PMP/accelerated closure strategy and site baseline are the results of recent analysis of possible alternatives which take into consideration various reassessments of program cost, schedule, and performance goals.

Evidence: FY 2004 Congressional Budget Justification; Top-to-Bottom Review of the EM Program: Status of Implementation, Report to Congress (August 2003).

YES 10%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning Score 80%
Section 3 - Program Management
Number Question Answer Score
3.1

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: EM's new corporate performance measures enable the program to more comprehensively track progress in risk reduction and closure. Sites input targets and actual performance data in the Integrated Planning, Accountability, and Budgeting System (IPABS). Each Field Manager is accountable for the performance data entered into the system. Based on an analysis of the performance data, management may decide to adjust program priorities in order to ensure annual targets are met. On a monthly basis, EM also enters earned value data for selected projects found in the Department's Project Assessment and Reporting System (PARS). As new site baselines are approved, other cleanup projects for a site will be entered into PARS. Once baselines are completed for all sites, approximately 80% of EM's life-cycle costs will be captured in projects found in PARS for which earned value data will be reported.

Evidence: Resource Management: Configuration Management Change Control Process for the Environmental Management Program (December 2002); Memorandum for the Assistant Secretary for Environmental Management from the Deputy Assistant Secretary Office of Policy, Planning, and Budget re: Configuration Control Board Mid-Year Report (May 2003).

YES 12%
3.2

Are Federal managers and program partners (grantees, subgrantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, etc.) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: In FY 2003, the EM program required that Field and Headquarters managers have in their performance plans activities that could be measured for which they are accountable. The measures have been benchmarked to the recommendations of the FY 2002 Top-to-Bottom Review; managers will be evaluated against these critical few elements on October 1, 2003. As an example, targets were established by each operations/field office manager using the new corporate performance measures. The FY 2003 targets, which are under change control, are in each manager's performance plan. Each Manger's performance against those targets will be evaluated.

Evidence: Department of Energy Senior Executive Service Performance Appraisal (DOE F 331.2).

YES 12%
3.3

Are all funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Funds are obligated consistent with the overall EM program plan, with timeframes established for obligation of the funds that are reported in the Department's financial accounting system.

Evidence: FY 2004 Congressional Budget Justification; Department of Energy Performance and Accountability Reports.

YES 12%
3.4

Does the program have procedures (e.g., competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, approporaite incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The EM program performs almost all of its cleanup activities through contracts. EM has recently increased the use of performance-based contractor fees as an incentive to improve program execution. However, the FY 2002 Top-to-Bottom Review recognized the need to utilize performance-based contracts by focusing fees on measurable results. As a result, procedures are being put in place to improve the acquisition and administration processes for performance-based contracts. This will require EM contractors to make significant improvements in efficiencies and cost effectiveness.

Evidence: Top-to-Bottom Review of the EM Program: Status of Implementation, Report to Congress, (August 2003).

YES 12%
3.5

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The EM program is the only program responsible for cleaning up the legacy of waste and contamination from past DOE operations.

Evidence: FY 2004 Budget Congressional Justification.

NA 0%
3.6

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: In 1998, DOE received a qualified opinion due to EM's weakness in the documentation supporting its environmental liabilities. This problem was corrected in 1999 and since then EM has received unqualified opinions through FY 2002.

Evidence: DOE Performance and Accountability Reports.

YES 12%
3.7

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: The February 2002 Top-to-Bottom Review concluded many of EM's business processes do not allow the program to efficiently and effectively accomplish its mission. As a result of the review, EM is implementing significant reforms to the program. EM has made in significant progress in addressing issues related to its acquisition strategy, contract management, and regulatory agreements.

Evidence: Top-to-Bottom Review of the EM Program: Status of Implementation, Report to Congress, (August 2003).

YES 12%
3.CA1

Is the program managed by maintaining clearly defined deliverables, capability/performance characteristics, and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation: Management reforms (i.e., a new budget structure, human capital revitalization, revised acquisition strategy, improved contract management, and strict change control) have been developed. In addition, site PMPs or accelerated cleanup strategies have been developed which describe end-states, strategies, and milestones that will achieve site cleanup faster and cheaper than originally anticipated. EM is using and managing the acquisition process as one tool to drive contract performance. Performance-based contracts are being implemented to establish more focused performance incentives and to restructure projects to accelerate risk reduction and site closure, thereby reducing life-cycle costs. EM has established a Contract Management Advisory Council that reviews contracts from a corporate perspective. Most contracts have been reevaluated and either renegotiated or announced for a new competitive procurement.

Evidence: FY 2004 Congressional Budget Justification; Top-to-Bottom Review of the EM Program: Status of Implementation, Report to Congress, (August 2003).

YES 12%
Section 3 - Program Management Score 96%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability
Number Question Answer Score
4.1

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term outcome performance goals?

Explanation: The EM program's accelerated cleanup strategies are being incorporated into site cost, schedule, and performance baselines. EM has aggressively implemented management reforms and initiatives that have resulted in a significant downward revision of program life-cycle cost and schedule estimates. The EM program needs to demonstrate it can actually execute to these aggressive cost and schedule baseline and achieve the projected savings.

Evidence: FY 2004 Congressional Budget Justification; Top-to-Bottom Review of the EM Program: Status of Implementation, Report to Congress, (August 2003).

SMALL EXTENT 6%
4.2

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The EM program is in the process of developing annual performance measures and targets aligned with its long-term cost and schedule goals. However, the EM program has developed new corporate performance measures that align with EM's new approach of accelerated cleanup and risk reduction. Mid-year performance measure data indicate that EM is presently on track to achieve most of its annual risk reduction targets.

Evidence: FY 2004 Congressional Budget Justification; Third Quarter Corporate Performance Measures Report (July 2003).

NO 0%
4.3

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program performance goals each year?

Explanation: The EM program is implementing numerous reforms to improve program performance. These initiatives include, for example, revising cleanup and closure strategies such as risk-based treatment and disposal of radioactive waste; consolidating overhead activities for several small cleanup sites into a single service center; and implementing performance-based contracts.

Evidence: Top-to-Bottom Review of the EM Program: Status of Implementation, Report to Congress, (August 2003).

SMALL EXTENT 6%
4.4

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., that have similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: There are no programs with similar purpose and goals for comparison.

Evidence:  

NA 0%
4.5

Do independent and quality evaluations of this program indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: The GAO also continues to identify the EM program as a major performance and accountability challenge. Also, the February 2002 Top-to-Bottom Review (conducted under contract) was the first major, comprehensive evaluation done by the Department. The review indicated that EM is not as effective at achieving results as it should be. In FY 2003, EM is aggressively changing the approach to its risk reduction and cleanup mission in order to achieve greater risk reduction faster, accelerate site closure schedules, and reduce life-cycle costs.

Evidence: GAO 2003 Performance and Accountability Series and High Risk Update; A Review of the Environmental Management Program (February 2002); Top-to-Bottom Review of the EM Program: Status of Implementation, Report to Congress, (August 2003).

SMALL EXTENT 6%
4.CA1

Were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation: Based on EM's latest data, the EM program is projecting significant cost and schedule reductions as a result of major changes made in the program since the February 2002 Top-to-Bottom Review. However, the recent $1.4 billion (+33 percent) increase in the baseline for the Hanford Waste Treatment Plant indicates continuing problems in achieving program results within budgeted costs.

Evidence: Top-to-Bottom Review of the EM Program: Status of Implementation, Report to Congress, (August 2003); Congressional Notification (May 2003).

SMALL EXTENT 6%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability Score 24%


Last updated: 09062008.2003SPR