Detailed Information on the
Nuclear Power 2010 Assessment

Supporting two industry cost-shared agreements demonstrating the new combined Construction and Operating License process and completing demonstrations of the Early Site Permitting process.

The Administration is providing $10.246 million NP2010 in 2005 to cost-share with industry demonstration of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC's) Early Site Permit and combined Construction and Operating License processes.

Establishing an "Earned Value Management System," certified by the Defense Contract Management Agency, for each of the two NP 2010 projects to ensure effective cost and schedule management control.

Measure: Achieve an industry decision by January 2005 to order and build at least one new advanced nuclear power plant that will begin commercial operation by 2014.

Explanation:

Measure: Increase the amount of industry cost share funding for Nuclear Power 2010 program activities from 44 percent in FY 2003 to a minimum of 80 percent of available program budget funding by 2005.

Explanation:

Measure: Demonstrate for the first time the combined Construction and Operating License (COL) process. (2004 - Solicit Industry Proposals; 2005 - Prepare COL application)

Explanation:

Measure: Following a competitive process, award at least one industry cost-shared cooperative agreement for technology development and regulatory demonstration activities.

Explanation:

Measure: Support at least two Early Site Permit (ESP) applications for commercial reatcor sites to the NRC. (2003 - ESP Applications Submitted)

Explanation:

Measure: Complete at least two cooperative agreements with U.S. power generating companies to jointly proceed with at least two Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) Early Site Permit applications for specific DOE and/or commercial sites.

Explanation:

Measure: Complete and issue the government/industry roadmap to build new nuclear power plants in the United States by 2010.

Explanation:

Measure: Program direction as a percentage of total R&D program funding.

Explanation:The program is still developing a baseline for this measure.

Measure: Complete engineering and licensing demonstration activities necessary to implement the NP 2010 program in accordance with the principles of project management and ensure that program performance goals are achieved on schedule and within budget.

Explanation:The program will provide the cost and schedule baseline for this measure and it will be tracked over time.

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the program is to expand U.S. nuclear power generation as recommended in the National Energy Policy. The actions outlined in the FY 2005 Budget request implement the recommendations of the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) in the Near-Term Deployment Roadmap.

Evidence: National Energy Policy, FY 2005 Budget request and "A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. by 2010." (DOE, Oct. 31, 2001), Nuclear Power 2010 Program Plan (June 2003)

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

Explanation: The National Energy Policy recommends expansion of nuclear energy as a major component of a national energy policy.

Evidence: "National Energy Policy," May 2001; "A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. by 2010." (DOE, Oct. 31, 2001), Nuclear Power 2010 Program Plan (June 2003)

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

Explanation: The Program is based on the detailed "Roadmap" recommendations of the Near-Term Deployment Group, an independent industry, academia and laboratory group, and approved by NERAC. Program activities are coordinated with industry organizations such as NEI and EPRI and the the regulator -- NRC, to ensure there is no duplication. Implementation of program activities are cost-shared with specific industry organizations including power generation companies. Nuclear Energy Programs have discrete objectives. The near-term deployment of existing technologies falls under the Nuclear Power 2010 initiative. The deployment of next-generation technologies from 2015-2030 falls under Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative.

Evidence: "A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. by 2010." (DOE, Oct. 31, 2001), Nuclear Power 2010 Program Plan (June 2003).

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

Explanation: The NP2010 program is designed to address the regulatory and technical risks affecting near-term deployment of new nuclear power plants in the United States.. The program design is based on input from industry, academia, and national laboratories as documented in the near-term deployment roadmap. A major portion of the Program activities are cost-shared with nuclear industry participants (e.g. nuclear utilities, reactor vendors and architect engineers/constructors) to maintain overall program effectiveness and efficiency.

Evidence: "A Roadmap to Deploy new Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. by 2010." (DOE, Oct. 31, 2001); FY 2005 Budget request; Nuclear Power 2010 Program Plan (June 2003). Three cost-shared cooperative agreements for Early Site Permit regulatory demonstration projects have been established with three nuclear power companies. An additional cost-shared cooperative agreement for a constructabiliy assessment of advanced reactor designs has been established with a joint team of 3 power companies. Lastly, the Department is in the process of establishing an additional industry cost-shared cooperative agreement with the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) for generic regulatory activities related to the combined Construction and Operating License (COL) regulatory demonstration. The NP 2010 industry cost-shared activities avoids duplication of effort and integrates industry input and cost-shared resources focused on achieving a common objective.

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

Explanation: The program targets funding to only those activities which have direct support of power generation companies because only these companies would order and build new nuclear power plants.

Evidence: Cooperative agreements established with power generation companies: DE-FC07-02ID14411; DE-FC07-02ID14412; DE-FC07-02ID14414; DE-FC07-03ID14492; Solicitation for New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects

Does the program effectively articulate potential public benefits?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

If an industry-related problem, can the program explain how the market fails to motivate private investment?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

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: Program goals are established in budget and program documents and are consistent with the recommended activities and actions outlined in the Roadmap.

Evidence: "A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. by 2010." (DOE, Oct. 31, 2001); FY 2005 Budget request; NP2010 Program Plan (June 2003), FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan, FY 2003 Joule.

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

Explanation: Program goals are established in budget and program documents consistent with the recommendations of Roadmap. Targets and timeframes are ambitious considering that no new nuclear power plant has been ordered in the past 30 years and Nuclear Regulatory Commission's new processes for licensing new plants have never been tested.

Evidence: "A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. by 2010." (DOE, Oct. 31, 2001); FY 2005 Budget request; NP2010 Program Plan (June 2003), FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan, FY 2003 Joule.

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 program's established annual performance goals demonstrate a clear path to achieving long-term goals. Performance measures, timelines, definitions of success are provided.

Evidence: A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. by 2010. (DOE, Oct. 31, 2001); FY 2005 Budget request; NP2010 Program Plan (June 2003).

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

Explanation: The program's established annual performance goals demonstrate a clear path to achieving long-term goals. Performance measures, timelines, definitions of success are provided. The annual targets are ambitious considering that the Early Site Permit applications will be the first-ever to be submitted to the NRC which is still in the process of developing review guidance.

Evidence: A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. by 2010. (DOE, Oct. 31, 2001); FY 2005 Budget request; NP2010 Program Plan (June 2003).

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: Government and industry are actively supporting program planning and execution. Industry is committing to the program on an incremental basis consistent with the program schedule. For example, cost-shared Early Site Permit (ESP) cooperative agreements have been established with three utility partners who are well on their way to completing the first-ever ESP applications scheduled to be submitted to NRC in FY 2003; a constructability study has been initiated with three utility partners to independently evaluate construction schedules for candidate advanced reactor plant designs. Projects are monitored through monthly and quarterly performance reports, participation in project meetings, and periodic project reviews. The contracts and cooperative agreements can be terminated if the progress is not sufficient or accountability is not demonstrated.

Evidence: "A Roadmap to Deploy new Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. by 2010." (DOE, Oct. 31, 2001: pp. 36-42). DOE Press Release # PR-02-032, "The Business Case for New Nuclear Power Plants" (DOE, July 2002), Cooperative agreements:DE-FC07-02ID14411; DE-FC07-02ID14412; DE-FC07-02ID14414; DE-FC07-03ID14492; Monthly and Quarterly performance reports .

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 Department's independent advisory committee, Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC), provides oversight of all NP 2010 program activities. NERAC subcommittees have held in-depth reviews of the NP 2010 program activities, however, NERAC was inactive throughout Fiscal Year 2003. To ensure the program is being executed effectively, an independent assessment being conducted by industry technical experts was initiated in August.

Evidence: The charter for NERAC authorized oversight of NP 2010 program activities. The oversight of the NP 2010 is documented in NERAC meeting minutes. Also, the Independent Program Review Assessment, described in the NP 2010 Program Review Plan, is underway and is scheduled for the assessment report to be completed by September 15, 2003.

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: Departmental budgets to date have not done this.

Evidence: FY 2003 and FY 2004 Budgets.

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

Explanation: The Department plans to adopt a format for its FY 2005 Budget Request that will clearly link budget and performance data in the context of its overall strategic plan.

Evidence: Draft FY 2003 Strategic Plan; draft FY 2005 budget request format.

If applicable, does the program assess and compare the potential benefits of efforts within the program to other efforts that have similar goals?

Explanation: This is the only program that seeks to achieve near-term deployment of new nuclear plants to reverse the trend over last 30 years. The program is working with industry in a cost-shared effort to demonstrate for the first time new licensing processes and development of advanced nuclear technologies which can compete in a deregulated market. There are no other programs with similar goals.

Evidence: FY 2005 Budget request; Nuclear Power 2010 Program Plan (June 2003); "A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. by 2010" (October 2001).

Does the program use a prioritization process to guide budget requests and funding decisions?

Explanation: A clear set of time-phased priorities has been established for the NP2010 program outlined in the Roadmap and carried forward into the Program Plan. The endorsement of the Roadmap by DOE's independent Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee and continuing oversight by NERAC will help maintain program focus and priorities.

Evidence: A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. by 2010. (DOE, Oct. 31, 2001); NP2010 Program Plan (June 2003) ; NERAC meeting reports.

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: The Department monitors program cost, technical, and schedule performance on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis and uses the information in determining future funding requirements and managing the program and improving performance.

Evidence: FY 2003, FY 2004 Budgets and FY 2005 Budget request; Nuclear Power 2010 Program Plan (June 2003); Annual DOE Performance Plan and Performance Appraisal Form; Quarterly updates to the Annual Performance Plan, Reports from project performers.

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

Explanation: All program participants are held accountable for program cost, schedule, and performance results. Program performance goals are incorporated into the annual performance plans for the federal senior manager and federal program manager. Performance objectives for each activity are incorporated in the appropriate guidance memoranda, cooperative agreements and contracts. Projects are monitored through monthly and quarterly performance reports, participation in project meetings, and periodic project reviews. The contracts and cooperative agreements can be terminated if the progress is not sufficient or accountability is not demonstrated.

Evidence: Annual DOE Performance Plan and Performance Appraisal Form; NE program guidance memos and associated Statements of Work; Cooperative Agreements and contracts. Monthly and Quarterly performance reports

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

Explanation: Funds are obligated in a timely manner and the program is executed in conformance with Congressional language and established program plan.

Evidence: NE program guidance memos and associated Statements of Work; NE's Monthly Obligation and Cost and Performance Tracking Report; Nuclear Power 2010 Program Plan (June 2003)

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 majority of program activities are competitively awarded and require industry cost share. Activities requiring unique national laboratory capabilities will not be competitively selected. However, incentives are included in participants' contracts although not on a program-specific basis.

Evidence: Nuclear Power 2010 Program Plan (June 2003) ; "A Roadmap to Deploy new Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. by 2010" (October 2001). Contracts and award fee determinations for program participants.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: NP2010 is coordinated with other NE programs including the Generation IV and Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative. NE has solicited extensive industry (including NEI, EPRI) and interagency Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) collaboration.

Evidence: A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. by 2010. (DOE, Oct. 31, 2001); FY 2005 Budget request; NP2010 Program Plan (June 2003).

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Internal controls are used in the execution of the program. The Department monitors program cost, technical, and schedule performance on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis and uses the information in determining future funding requirements and managing the program and improving performance.

Evidence: Annual Reporting for Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act, Monthly Fin Plans, Guidance Memos, terms and conditions incorporated in cooperative agreements and contracts.

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

Explanation: No management deficiencies have been identified. DOE's independent Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee has provided close oversight of all NP2010 program activities. However, for Fiscal Year 2003 NERAC was not active. To ensure that the program does not have any management deficiencies, program managers enlisted a panel of industry experts to perform an Independent Program Assessment for FY 2003. The panel's purpose is to assess the Program's progress against established goals and industry developments.

Evidence: The charter for NERAC authorized oversight of NP 2010 program activities. The oversight of the NP 2010 is documented in NERAC meeting minutes. The Department monitors the program's cost, technical activities and schedule of performance on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis and uses the information in determine future funding requirements, management of the program and to improve performance. In addition, an Independent Program Assessment (refer to the NP2010 Program Review Plan) was initiated in August with a completion date of September 15, 2003.

Does the program allocate funds through a competitive, merit-based process, or, if not, does it justify funding methods and document how quality is maintained?

Explanation: Program plan and budget requests clearly indicate that competitive cost-shared procurements for industry activities will be used. Prioritization and resource allocations of program activities are documented in the Program Plan, which is revised annually, and are to be evaluated in planned annual assessments.

Evidence:  

Does competition encourage the participation of new/first-time performers through a fair and open application process?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

Does the program adequately define appropriate termination points and other decision points?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

If the program includes technology development or construction or operation of a facility, does the program clearly define deliverables and required capability/performance characteristics and appropriate, credible cost and schedule goals?

Explanation:  

Evidence:  

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

Explanation: Although program is in an early stage, measurable progress has been made. The program is on track in achieving its long-term performance goals. Annual performance measures and targets are being achieved to a large extent.

Evidence: "A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. by 2010' (DOE, Oct. 31, 2001); Early Site Permit (ESP) scoping studies for commercial and federal sites, cooperative agreements with power generation companies for ESP demonstration and for schedule and constructability assessment of candidate advanced plant designs; "The Business Case for New Nuclear Power Plants" (July 2002), Solicitation for New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects, Nuclear Power 2010 Program Plan (June 2003), Annual Performance and Accountability Reports.

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

Explanation: FY 2002 performance goals have been met and FY 2003 goals are expected to be met. For FY 2003, a goal regarding competitively awarding at least one cooperative agreement for technology development and regulatory demonstration activities has been postponed to FY 2004. Since the industry has not yet made a technology selection for the next nuclear plant, DOE management has made a decision to delay the solicitation and only support the development of those designs that utilities are willing to build. A solicitation has been finalized and will allow the award to be made in FY 2004.

Evidence: Roadmap was issued. Cooperative agreements established with industry for ESP projects, Solicitation for New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration project has been finalized. FY 2002 Annual Performance Plan; FY 2002 DOE Performance and Accountability Report; and FY 2003 Joule Performance Measures Tracking System .

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

Explanation: Improvements in program efficiency have not yet been demonstrated.

Evidence:  

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 comparable programs with the goal of stimulating the implementation of Gen III nuclear power generation. The program is coordinated with other nuclear energy R&D programs including the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative and Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative to capitalize on existing synergies and to ensure no duplication of effort.

Evidence: Insufficient Information for comparison

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

Explanation: None completed to date.

Evidence: NERAC maintained independent oversight and consistent evaluation of the program from the inception of the Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. by 2010 through the initial implementation of the Nuclear Power 2010 program through FY 2002. However, in FY 2003 NERAC was inactive, (Refer to the NERAC meeting minutes) To ensure the NP 2010 program is being executed effectively, an independent panel of technical experts was formed by the program office to evaluate and assess the program beginning in August 2003. This expert panel is charged to address the appropriateness, adequacy and completeness of current and planned activities for achieving the NP 2010 program goals and objectives. The final report and recommendations is scheduled to be completed by September 15, 2003. (Refer to the NP 2010 Program Review Plan)

If the program includes construction of a facility, were program goals achieved within budgeted costs and established schedules?

Explanation:  

Evidence: