Detailed Information on the
Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative Assessment

Develop improved performance measures that are more meaningful, measurable, and outcome based. Ensure annual measures demonstrate comparable year-to-year progress. Program currently relies upon more process-oriented, output-based metrics that do not adequately indicate whether the program is successful or demonstrating meaningful progress.

Develop guidance that specifies a consistent framework for analyzing the costs and benefits of research and development investments, and using this information to guide budget decisions.

Provide funding of $46.254 million in 2005 to support this important research.

Establish a formal evaluation plan for AFCI by March 31, 2004.

The Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) will commission the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to undertake a comprehensive, independent evaluation of NE program's goals and plans, and process for establishing program priorities and oversight (including the method for determining the relative distribution of budgetary resources). The evaluation will result in a comprehensive and detailed set of policy and research recommendations and associated priorities (including performance targets and metrics) for an integrated agenda of research activities within the scope of available resources that can best advance NE's fundamental mission of securing nuclear energy as a viable, long-term commercial energy option to provide diversity in energy supply. The report will provide alternative strategies, models, and recommendations for how the R&D programs can be restructured to advance more efficiently and effectively NE's fundamental mission, goals, and objectives. The review will also evaluate the management and integration of NE's R&D programs and the Idaho Facilities Management program (including the Ten Year Site Plan), as well as the role of the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) in the process. The final report will include findings, conclusions, and recommendations for the NE program.

Measure: Conduct spent fuel treatment and transmutation technology research and development and provide input to the Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management on the technical need for a second geologic repository.

Explanation:The intermediate term goal of AFCI is to enable a decision on delaying or eliminating the need for a second repository by the statutory limit of January 1, 2010.

Measure: Complete laboratory-scale "hot" testing of the UREX+ advanced aqueous spent fuel separations process. (Target refers to separation purity.)

Explanation:Reaching this target will provide the baseline data required to bring final resolution to the flowsheet for the UREX+ process and aid in the verification of a key computer modeling program.

Measure: Cost-weighted mean percent variance from established cost and schedule baselines for Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative activities.

Explanation:

Measure: Complete 100 percent of the first irradiation experiment that will demonstrate the integrity of at least one oxide fuel form containing 5 percent plutonium.

Explanation:

Measure: Complete fabrication of advanced light water reactor proliferation-resistant fuel samples and initiate irradiation

Explanation:

Measure: Demonstrate a laboratory scale separation of americium and curium as well as cesium and strontium from spent nuclear fuel to support the development of advanced fuel cycles for enhanced repository performance.

Explanation:

Measure: Complete fabrication of proliferation resistant transmutation fuel samples and commence irradiation in the ATR beginning in FY 2004.

Explanation:

Measure: Demonstrate a laboratory scale separation of plutoinium and neptunium as well as cesium and strontium from other actinides and fission products to support the development of advanced fuel cycles for enhanced repository performance.

Explanation:

Measure: Successfully manufacture advanced transmutation non-fertile fuels and testing containers for irradiation testing in the Advanced Test Reactor.

Explanation:

Measure: Demonstrate separation of uranium from spent nuclear fuel at a level of 99.9 percent using the Uranium Extraction (UREX) process to support the development of advanced fuel cycles for enhanced repository performance.

Explanation:

Measure: Complete laboratory-scale "hot" testing of the UREX+ advanced aqueous spent fuel separations process.

Explanation:

Measure: Establish with at least one country a new international agreement on advanced accelerator applications programs that significantly leverages financial and technical resources, to the mutual benefit of both countries particularly in areas such as safety, fuels and materials development, and facility operations.

Explanation:

Measure: Demonstrate the integrity of at least one oxide fuel form containing 5 percent plutonium.

Explanation:

Measure: Maintain total administrative overhead costs in relation to total R&D program costs of less than 8 percent.

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative (AFCI) is to develop technologies that can reduce significantly the volume and toxicity of spent nuclear fuel generated by commercial nuclear power plants and thereby reduce the costs of waste disposal.

Evidence: National Energy Policy; Appropriation Language;Secretary Abraham Statements; AFCI Report to Congress (January 2003), Report of the U.S./Russian Joint Working Group on Advanced Nuclear Technologies (July 2002);Reports of the Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) Advanced Nuclear Transformation Technology (ANTT) Subcommittee (April 2002 and January 2003); FY 2004 Budget Request; and the AFCI Ten-Year Program and Program Management Plans.

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

Explanation: DOE's plan addresses size and cost of repository, proliferation risk and toxicity of spent fuel. It also will develop fuel cycle technologies for Generation IV reactor systems. National Energy Policy Report recommends addressing program issues.

Evidence: National Energy Policy; Secretary Abraham Statements; Annual AFCI Report to Congress (January 2003); Report of the U.S./Russian Joint Working Group on Advanced Nuclear Technologies (July 2002); Reports of the NERAC ANTT Subcommittee (April 2002 and January 2003); AFCI Ten-Year Program Plan.

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

Explanation: This is a unique initiative that does not duplicate any other Federal or non-Federal program.

Evidence: AFCI Report to Congress (January 2003); Report of the U.S./Russian Joint Working Group on Advanced Nuclear Technologies (July 2002); Reports of the NERAC ANTT Subcommittee (April 2002 and January 2003); FY 2004 Budget Request

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

Explanation: The program has been designed with extensive government, industry, academia and international collaboration to achieve the program objectives. Considerable analysis has been and continues to be devloted to identifying the most efficient and effective technology options for accomplishing program objectives.

Evidence: Secretary Abraham Statements; AFCI Report to Congress (January 2003), Report of the U.S./Russian Joint Working Group on Advanced Nuclear Technologies (July 2002);Reports of the NERAC Advanced Nuclear Transformation Technology (ANTT) Subcommittee (April 2002 and January 2003); FY 2004 Budget Request; AFCI Ten-Year Program and Program Management Plans; FY 2003 AFCI Comparison Report.

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

Explanation: The program targets resources to accomplish the program purpose to reduce significantly the volume and toxicity of spent nuclear fuel generated by commercial nuclear power plants and thereby reduce the cost of waste disposal. The program will support development of advanced fuel cycles for Generation IV reactor systems, contributing signficantly to the continued future viability of nuclear energy.

Evidence: AFCI Ten-Year Program and Program Management Plans; AFCI Report to Congress (January 2003); FY 2003 AFCI Comparison Report; FY2004 Budget Request; Reports of the NERAC ANTT Subcommittee (April 2002 and January 2003)

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: The program has developed and included in the AFCI Program Plan specific long-term performance measures that will guide program planning, budget and performance management.

Evidence: AFCI Report to Congress (January 2003); AFCI Ten-Year Program and Program Management Plans; Reports of the NERAC ANTT Subcommittee (April 2002 and January 2003); FY 2004 Budget Request; Goal 4.2 of the Draft DOE Strategic Plan; FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan; FY 2003 Joule. (See the "Measures" section of this PART.)

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

Explanation: Ambitious baselines and quantified targets have been developed to support accomplishment of the long-term measures. These ambitious targets are based on the AFCI's need to provide a comprehensive basis for a Secretarial decision on the technical need for a second repository as early as CY 2007.

Evidence: AFCI Report to Congress (January 2003); AFCI Ten-Year Program and Program Management Plans; FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan; FY 2003 Joule. (See the "Measures" section of this PART.)

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

Explanation: Specific, quantifiable and measurable annual program performance measures have been developed that will clearly indicate whether progress toward long-term goals is being achieved.

Evidence: AFCI Report to Congress (January 2003), AFCI Ten-Year Program and Program Management Plans. (See the "Measures" section of this PART.)

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

Explanation: Annual performance baselines and targets have been established to measure performance. These ambitious targets are based on the AFCI's need to provide a comprehensive basis for a Secretarial decision on the technical need for a second repository as early as CY 2007.

Evidence: AFCI Report to Congress (January 2003), AFCI Ten-Year Program and Program Management Plans.

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: Participant performance goals and measures are established in contractors' guidance letters and work packages that support program performance goals. They are monitored monthly through performance reports and follow-up reviews of these reports. Quarterly Program Reviews are conducted.

Evidence: AFCI Report to Congress (January 2003), AFCI Ten-Year Program and Program Management Plans; 5-year agreements with French & Swiss; program guidance memoes and associated Statements of Work for DOE contractors. Monthly 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 NERAC Advanced Nuclear Transformation Technology Subcommittee (ANTT) Subcommittee conducts reviews and analyses of the program at least annually and reports its recommendations to DOE. The last review was conducted on December 2, 2002, and the next is scheduled for September 18, 2003.

Evidence: NERAC ANTT meeting reports

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 budget requests for FY 2004 and prior years have not done so; however, the AFCI program maintains a detailed program plan, initially developed early in 2003, that is updated on an as-needed basis to accommodate budget changes. This document makes fully transparent the adjustments in program priorities, costs, schedules, and achievement of long- and short-term performance measures to meet budget requirements. It is also the document used to set priorities on which future budget requests are based.

Evidence: FY 2004 Budget Request; AFCI Ten-Year Program and Program Management Plans; Draft 17 of DOE Strategic Plan General Goals.

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

Explanation: NERAC's ANTT Subcommittee provides close review and oversight of program activities. The AFCI Ten-Year Program and Program Management plans address specific strategic plannning goals.

Evidence: Charter for the NERAC ANTT Subcommittee and associated meeting reports;AFCI Ten-Year Program and Program Management Plans

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

Explanation: The program has continually re-examined, analyzed and assessed its potential benefits, most recently in the AFCI Report to Congress and the FY 2003 AFCI Comparison Report. The independent NERAC ANTT (as well as independent reviewers at such universities as MIT) have reviewed the AFCI Report to Congress, and the ANTT will review the FY 2003 AFCI Comparison Report, which specifically compares benefits in addition to costs.

Evidence: Charter for the NERAC ANTT Subcommittee and associated meeting reports; AFCI Report to Congress (January 2003); FY 2004 Budget Request; FY 2003 AFCI Comparison Report, which specifically compares benefits in addition to costs.

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

Explanation: The program priorities are defined in AFCI Program and Program Management Plans and the AFCI Report to Congress. The ANTT Subcommittee of NERAC provides close oversight of program activities and assists in prioritizing program activities and recommending funding levels.

Evidence: Charter for the NERAC ANTT Subcommittee and associated meeting reports; AFCI Report to Congress (January 2003); AFCI Ten-Year Program and Program Management Plans; NERAC ANTT Subcommittee Report (January 2003)

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: Program performers prepare monthly progress and earned value reports covering cost, schedule, and technical performance. Reports are reviewed monthly with the performers and corrective actions, as needed, are determined and implemented.

Evidence: FY 2004 Budget Request; Annual DOE Performance Plan and Performance Appraisal Form; Quarterly updates to the Annual Performance Plan; monthly program participant performance controls review; formal change control process

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

Explanation: Program performance goals are incorporated into the annual performance plans for the federal senior manager and federal program manager. Program performance goals are also incorporated into the contractor's annual performance plan and program guidance.

Evidence: Annual DOE Performance Plan and Performance Appraisal Form; NE program guidance memos and associated Statements of Work; Performance Based Incentives in M&O contracts.

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 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; AFCI Ten-Year Program and Program Management Plans

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: Contractor performance is judged against project costs, schedule and technical baselines. Decisions to continue funding are based on these evaluations. Incentives are included in participants' contracts but not on a program-specific basis. Costs relative to baseline are measured on a monthly basis using Earned Value Reporting.

Evidence: NE program guidance memos and associated Statements of Work; NE's Monthly Obligation and Cost and Performance Tracking Report (including earned value reporting); AFCI Ten-Year Program and Program Management Plans. Contracts and Award Fee Determinations for program participants.

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The program is coordinated with other DOE nuclear energy and waste management programs, including the Generation IV Nuclear Energy Systems Initiative, the Nuclear Power 2010 Initiative, and the Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program (RW). The Ten-Year AFCI Program and Program Management Plans clearly articulate interfaces with these programs, including RW. The Nuclear Energy (NE) program and RW worked closely on the AFCI Report to Congress and are involved in ongoing program planning and monitoring pursuant to a memorandum of understanding.

Evidence: National Energy Policy; AFCI Report to Congress (January 2003), NERAC ANTT Subcommittee meeting reports, FY 2004 Budget Request; AFCI Ten-Year Program and Program Management Plans; Draft NE/RW MOU (still under negotiation)

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Internal controls are used in the execution of the program. Program performers prepare monthly progress and earned value reports covering cost, schedule, and technical performance. Reports are reviewed monthly with the performers and corrective actions, as needed, are determined and implemented.

Evidence: Annual Reporting for Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act. FY 2004 Budget Request; Annual DOE Performance Plan and Performance Appraisal Form; Quarterly updates to the Annual Performance Plan; monthly program participant performance controls review; formal change control process.

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

Explanation: No management deficiencies have been identified. Program performance goals are incorporated into staff and contractor annual performance plans and progress against these goals are monitored. The Department uses this information to evaluate contractor performance and resulting award fees. Specific deliverables and their related costs and schedules are tracked via monthly participant reports and corrective or remedial action determined in monthly review conferences; in addition, program direction, costs and schedules are tracked and calibrated in Quarterly Program Reviews.

Evidence: FY 2004 Budget Request; AFCI Ten-Year Program and Program Management Plan; AFCI Report to Congress (January 2003). Monthly participant reports and management review conferences; Quarterly Program Reviews.

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: The program incorporates both merit-based competitive awards and national laboratory-directed awards based on technical capabilities and facilities.

Evidence: FY 2004 Budget; AFCI Ten-Year Program and Program Management Plans; AFCI Report to Congress (January 2003); Procedure for Selection of Laboratory Contractors for AFCI R&D Activities.

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: The program is relatively new but is currently on track in achieving its long-term performance goals. Annual performance measures and targets established to support the long-term perfomance and targets are being achieved.

Evidence: AFCI Report to Congress (January 2003). AFCI Ten-Year Program and Program Management Plans; FY 2003 Performance and Accountability Report; NERAC ANTT Subcommittee Reports. FY 2004 Budget Request.

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

Explanation: All annual performance goals have been achieved. Annual measures and targets are tracked on a monthly basis.

Evidence: FY 2004 Budget Request; Performance documented in monthly performance reviews and annual contractor evaluations; FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan; FY 2003 Joule; FY 2002 DOE Performance and Accountability Report.

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

Explanation: The program has been in operation for four years. During each year there has been a steady improvement in both management systems and technical achievements. Through foreign collaborations (including obtaining vital irradiation data from France) the program has avoided R&D costs of approximately $10 million annually over a 10+ year period beginning in 2000. DOE contracts do not reward program-specific efficiencies, but the AFCI program monitors and collects information on contractor efficiency on a quarterly basis through program reviews and also annually through 360?? performance reviews. The program inputs the results of these reviews into the various contractors' award fee determinations at the Departmental level. The program has not presented detailed evidence of improvements in efficiency or cost-effectiveness.

Evidence: Improvements are documented in the annual contractor performance reviews and in the monthly cost and schedule performance reviews. AFCI-specific, task-related Performance Based Incentives.

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

Explanation: Foreign programs with very similar objectives and goals have been in operation for several decades; however, no comparative evaluations have been conducted. In four years, the U.S. program has achieved a technical maturity of sufficient stature that international interest in establishing cooperative programs with the United States has grown annually. There is no similar domestic program.

Evidence: French/U.S. cooperative programs in transmutation technology were established in 2001, followed by a multinational program based in Switzerland. Opportunities for cooperation with Russia, Japan and South Korea are currently under consideration. Cooperative agreements have been signed by the French, Swiss and European Union.

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

Explanation: The NERAC ANTT Subcommittee chaired by Nobel Laureate Burton Richter conducts ongoing external reviews and semi-annual oversight of the program. These evaluations have confirmed that the program is effective in achieving program goals.

Evidence: NERAC ANTT Subcommittee meeting reports. The latest evaluation conducted in December 2002; the next one is scheduled for September 2003.

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

Explanation:  

Evidence: