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.

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.

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.

Measure: Enable industry to make a decision to build a new nuclear power plant by 2010 by supporting New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects within the planned scope, schedule, and budget of the program.

Explanation:

Measure: Complete activities necessary, as outlined in the NP2010 COL and Reactor Design Project Milestone Table (May 2008), to enable the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue combined Construction and Operating Licenses (COL) to Dominion Virginia Power for its North Anna Site and to the Tennessee Valley Authority (a member of the NuStart consortium) for its Bellefonte Site, within the planned scope, schedule, and budget of the program.

Explanation:

Measure: Complete activities necessary, as outlined in the NP2010 COL and Reactor Design Project Milestone Table (May 2008), to enable the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue design certifications for the GE-Hitachi Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) and the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor, within the planned scope, schedule, and budget of the program.

Explanation:

Measure: Conduct oversight and monitoring of design certification and licensing activities to enable effective industry partner interactions with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to ensure that activities, schedules, and milestones of the Department's industry partners are in accordance with the terms of the cooperative agreements, and within the planned scope, schedule, and budget of the program.

Explanation:Acronyms for targets: Construction and Operating Licenses (COL);Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR); Final Environment Impact Statement (EIS); Final Safety Evaluation Report (SER); Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA); Design Certification (des cert); Design approval (des app); Dominion (Dom); NRC dockets a design certification or COL application (NRC doc)

Measure: Complete independent reviews of the project cost and schedule baselines for each of the four cooperative agreements for the New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration projects to ensure that the activities, schedules, and milestones of the Department's industry partners are in accordance with the terms of the cooperative agreements, and within the planned scope, schedule, and budget of the program.

Explanation:Acronyms: Dominion (Dom); independent reviews (IR); Westinghouse (West)

Measure: Evaluate cooperative agreement recipient task, schedule and cost performance on the New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration projects through review of monthly earned value reports, quarterly progress reports and conduct of semi-annual project review meetings, to determine industry performance against baselines and performance milestones, provide feedback to DOE-NE and industry senior management, and ensure that activities are within the planned scope, schedule, and budget of the program.

Explanation:Acronyms: Complete all progress reviews and ensure that all agreements have a cost and schedule variance of no more than 10 percent of the 2005 baseline (Com PR cost/sch var); Identify activities that vary +/- 10 percent from the 2005 baseline and establish corrective actions to bring budget and schedule overruns into the threshold (CAP est)

Measure: Complete the review and approval of annual continuation requests and final reports for each of the four cooperative agreements for the New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration projects to ensure that the activities, schedules, and milestones of the Department's industry partners are in accordance with the terms of the cooperative agreements, and within the planned scope, schedule, and budget of the program.

Explanation:Acronyms: Complete review/approval of continuation requests based on the outcome of progress reviews (rev/app cont req); Approve final reports (appr final rep); closeout cooperative agreements (closeout CAs)

Measure: Maintain total administrative overhead costs in relation to total R&D program costs of less than 8 percent within the planned scope, schedule, and budget of the program.

Explanation:

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: The purpose of the Nuclear Power 2010 (NP 2010) program is to support near term technology development and regulatory demonstration activities that advance the National Energy Policy (NEP) goals of long-term energy independence and reliability and expanded contribution of nuclear power to the Nation's energy portfolio. The program, begun in 2002, is focused on reducing the technical, regulatory, and institutional barriers to near-term deployment of new nuclear power plants. Program activities are designed to pave the way for industry decisions by 2010 to build and operate new, advanced nuclear power plants in the United States.

Evidence: The National Energy Policy (May 2001); "A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. by 2010" (October 2001); Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Section 952); National Research Council's "Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program" (October 2007); Nuclear Power 2010 Five Year Program Plan (March 2008).

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

Explanation: The National Energy Policy of 2001 recommends expansion of nuclear energy as a major component of a national energy policy. To help streamline the nuclear plant licensing, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) developed new regulations, including the early site permitting and combined construction and licensing processes. Since no new nuclear plants have been constructed since 1978, significant industry uncertainty associated with NRC's new regulatory instruments, as well as with the certification of standard designs for advanced nuclear plant technologies exists. The NP 2010 program was designed to address these uncertainties by demonstrating the untested regulatory instruments with industry partners, and by supporting design certification of two reactor technologies. The timeline of the program is limited to reducing the technical, regulatory and institutional barriers to enable an industry decision by 2010 to deploy new nuclear power plants in the near term. In addition, the U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan supports nuclear power as a carbon-free source of baseload energy that can help meet climate change goals. In its 2007 study of the Department's nuclear energy R&D programs, the National Research Council study affirmed the specific need for NP2010 to help enable near-term deployment of new nuclear power plants.

Evidence: "National Energy Policy" (May 2001); "A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. by 2010" (October 2001); Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Section 952); U.S. Climate Change Technology Program Strategic Plan (September 2006); National Research Council's "Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program" (October 2007); Nuclear Power 2010 Five Year Program Plan (March 2008); 10 CFR 52, "Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; And Combined Licenses For Nuclear Power Plants"; Nuclear Power Plant Licensing Process, USNRC NUREG BR-0298, Rev. 2, July 2004

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

Explanation: Several independent groups have evaluated the program design of NP2010 and indicated that it is not redundant or duplicative of any Federal, state, local or private effort. In 2001, the Department chartered the Near-Term Deployment Group (NTDG) under Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC) advice to identify the actions to be taken for deployment of new nuclear plants to examine prospects for the near-term deployment of new nuclear plants in the United States and to identify the actions to be taken for deployment of new nuclear plants, obstacles to deployment, and actions for resolution. Established as an independent working group under the NERAC, the NTDG membership included senior and experienced personnel from nuclear utilities, reactor vendors, national laboratories, and academia. The diverse membership of the NTDG was intended to ensure that any on-going Federal, state and industry activities designed to encourage the expansion of nuclear power would be identified and factored into the NTDG's recommendations to implement an industry/government collaboration to refine and demonstrate the process to license new nuclear plant construction and complete the engineering work of several candidate nuclear power plant designs. In addition, a NERAC subcommittee conducted a peer-review of the NTDG's recommendations and approved them in 2001. The Department had two choices following NERAC approval of the roadmap, to either take no action or follow the NERAC-approved guidance in the roadmap, which it did thereby creating NP2010. The NP 2010 program design is specifically is focused on reducing the technical, regulatory, and institutional barriers to near-term deployment of new nuclear power plants. These areas were identified as key gaps that no other governmental entity, Federal or state, were focused on resolving, and that required government intervention. NP 2010 works with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to ensure program actions are consistent with NRC regulations (e.g., providing guidance for COL application development). States' roles do not duplicate NP2010 efforts as they are confined to approving electricity rates and plant siting relative to state natural resources; their activities are not focused on demonstrating federal regulatory process. Since its inception, the NP 2010 program has also worked closely with industry organizations, including the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) to ensure that its activities are not being duplicated within the public or private sector; these relationships also provides the program with an additional forum for better understanding industry concerns with the regulatory process and standard design certification.

Evidence: "A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. by 2010" (October 2001); Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Section 952); Nuclear Power 2010 Five Year Program Plan (March 2008); Nuclear Energy Institute Mission Statement and Activities Summary http://www.nei.org/aboutnei/); Electric Power Research Institute 2008 portfolio and "Advanced Nuclear Technology" Program summary (http://www.epri.com); Nuclear Regulatory Commission (http://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc.html); NEI publication entitled "State Legislation and Regulations Supporting Nuclear Plant Construction" October 2007.

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

Explanation: In 2001, the Near-Term Deployment Group (NTDG) was organized by the Department of Energy to examine prospects for the near-term deployment of new nuclear plants in the United States, and to identify obstacles to deployment and actions for resolution. In October 2001, the NTDG issued a Near Term Development Roadmap Summary Report that "formulated recommendation for actions that can significantly enhance prospects for deployment of new nuclear reactors in the U.S., in this decade [by 2020]." NP2010 did not fully incorporate some of recommendations of the NTDG Roadmap particularly with regard to cost-share funding, scope, schedule activities NP2010 has undertaken since its inception. Specifically, the NTDG summary report recommended that DOE could institute a program that involved cost share agreements that exceed the 50/50 cost share formula applied for regulatory approval, stating "private sector investors are willing to fund design completion at a funding rate significantly above the 50/50 cost share formula applied to Phase I (regulatory approval)." The Department considered these recommendations in concert with discussions with the nuclear industry to determine the best path forward for supporting regulatory licensing activities. Based on this input, the Department determined that a 50-50 cost share was the most effective way of attracting industry participation in the regulatory demonstration project under the Nuclear Power 2010 (NP 2010) program. Evidence was not provided that clearly demonstrated the program's 50-50 cost share approach limits the program's efficiency (in terms of total federal and non-federal resources allocated) or effectiveness.

Evidence: "A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. by 2010" (October 2001);National Research Council's "Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program" (October 2007); NP2010 Additional Funds Above December 2005 Baseline (2007); NP2010 COL Reactor Design Project Milestones

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: The intended beneficiaries of NP2010 are its industry partners. NP2010 utilizes a cost-shared arrangement with industry partners, including power generation companies and reactor vendors to reduce the technical, regulatory, and institutional barriers to near-term deployment of new nuclear power plants. NP2010's solicitation for the ESP and COL demonstration projects required a minimum 50 percent industry cost share for projects. The Department believes this demonstration effort necessitated significant industry investment in the projects since they are the primary beneficiaries. The program targets funding through the defined scope of work in the cooperative agreements to activities that support licensing demonstration activities of the power generation companies and the certification and finalization of standardized new nuclear plant designs by the reactor vendors. Since its inception, the NP 2010 program has worked closely with industry and academic organizations, including the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI), to help ensure that program activities are effectively focused on resolving uncertainties that prevent industry from moving forward with nuclear power. Other utilities may gain future benefit from the NP2010 regulatory demonstration that works to eliminate the licensing uncertainty as well as the economic uncertainties of certifying and completing the new standard plant designs. In addition, power generation companies may benefit in the future by being able to order and build new nuclear power plants and select technologies based the availability of standardized designs for construction. Construction of new nuclear plants will help ensure that carbon-free electricity generating capacity contributes to the Nation's climate change and energy security goals.

Evidence: Early Site Permit Demonstration Project cooperative agreements established with power generation companies: DE-FC07-02ID14411, DE-FC07-02ID14412, DE-FC07-02ID14414; cooperative agreements for New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects: DE-FC07-05ID14635, DE-FC07-05ID-14636, DE-FC07-07ID14778, DE-FC07-07ID14779; Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Sec. 988); Nuclear Power 2010 Five Year Program Plan (March 2008); Energy Information Administration, "Annual Energy Outlook 2008"; FY 2003-2009 NP 2010 Budget Briefings; New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Project Solicitation- DE-PS07-04ID14435; Early Site Permit Licensing Demonstration Project Solicitation - DE-PS07-02ID14305; Energy Policy Act of 2005 Section 988, Research Administration and Operations

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: Since the 2003 PART Assessment, several changes have occurred to the program's scope, schedule, and budget that make the 2003 PART performance measures that have not already been met, obsolete. The program's three long-term goals are focused on the successful completion of the New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects, including the issuance of combined Construction and Operating Licenses (COL) and reactor design certifications by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). The three long-term goals are: 1) Enable industry to make a decision to build a new nuclear power plant by 2010 by supporting New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects and by administering the Department's standby support program, within the planned scope, schedule, and budget of the program; 2) Complete activities necessary to enable the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue combined Construction and Operating Licenses (COL) to Dominion Virginia Power for its North Anna Site and to the Tennessee Valley Authority (a member of the NuStart consortium) for its Bellefonte Site, within the planned scope, schedule, and budget of the program; and 3) Complete activities necessary to enable the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to issue design certifications for the GE-Hitachi Economic Simplified Boiling Water Reactor (ESBWR) and the Westinghouse AP1000 reactor, within the planned scope, schedule, and budget of the program.

Evidence: U. S. Department of Energy Strategic Plan (August 2006); FY 2002-07 Annual Performance Report (Various); FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan; FY 2009 Congressional Budget Request (February 2008); NP2010 Five Year Program Plan (March 2008); Cooperative Agreement for Dominion Virginia Power; NRC Letters Docketing Dominion Virginia Power COL Application (January 2008), Tennessee Valley Authority COL Application (January 2008), GE-Hitachi ESBWR Design Certification Application (December 2005), and Westinghouse AP 1000 Design Certification Application (February 2008); Independent Baseline Reviews for Dominion (August 2007), NuStart (July 2007), GE-Hitachi (March 2008), and Westinghouse (March 2008).

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

Explanation: The program's long-term measure of having an industry decision to build a new nuclear plant by 2010 is an ambitious target, considering that no new nuclear power plants have been ordered since 1978. Further, the 2010 target assumes that industry will most likely make its decision to deploy a new nuclear plant prior to the issuance of a COL and but not before reactor design certification. The program's long-term measures associated with the issuance of COLs (2011 for Dominion Virginia Power; 2012 for Tennessee Valley Authority) and reactor design certifications (2010 for the ESBWR; 2011 for the AP 1000) are based upon NRCs review and approval schedule. These targets and timeframes are ambitious considering that NRC's new processes for licensing new plants have not yet been completely tested.

Evidence: FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan; FY 2009 Congressional Budget Request (February 2008); NP2010 Five Year Program Plan (March 2008); NRC Letters Docketing Dominion Virginia Power COL Application (January 2008), Tennessee Valley Authority COL Application (January 2008), GE-Hitachi ESBWR Design Certification Application (December 2005), and Westinghouse AP 1000 Design Certification Application (February 2008)

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

Explanation: The program is tracking five annual performance measures that represent the federal oversight activities associated with ensuring that progress is made by industry partners toward the program's three long-term measures. The annual measures are described in the PART performance measures. The program will carry out all of its annual performance measures within the planned scope, schedule, and budget of the program.

Evidence: FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan; FY 2009 Congressional Budget Request (February 2008); NP2010 Five Year Program Plan (March 2008); Independent Baseline Reviews for Dominion (August 2007), NuStart (July 2007), GE-Hitachi (March 2008), and Westinghouse (March 2008); Monthly EVMS and Quarterly Progress Reports for FY06-08.

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

Explanation: The program established its initial baseline in December 2005 and in Fall 2007 proposed a new baseline for its annual measures. The program has identified quantified targets for each of its annual measures according to the revised baseline. Targets and timeframes are ambitious considering that to date no applications have been fully processed through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's new licensing procedures.

Evidence: NP2010 Additional Funds Above December 2005 Baseline (2007)

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

Explanation: One of the key long-term goals of the program is to enable industry to make a decision by 2010 to build a new nuclear power plant by supporting New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects. Only one of NP2010's cooperative agreements (Dominion) includes a statement that the industry partner, Dominion, will make a decision on whether to build by a specified timeframe (2009) that falls within the schedule of the program. The other cooperative agreement (NuStart) has no statement about whether an industry partner in the NuStart consortium will make a decision to build and no specified timeframe about any decisions to build.

Evidence: Cooperative agreements: DE-FC07-05ID14635, DE-FC07-05ID-14636.

Are independent 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: Independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality are conducted on a regular basis. Most recently, in 2007, the National Research Council issued an independent review of the program, along with other programs within the Office of Nuclear Energy. The review followed the rigorous guidelines established by the National Academies of Science. The committee was comprised of experts in the nuclear field drawn from industry and academia. The National Research Council's review evaluated the effectiveness of NP2010, its relevance, and provided recommendations for improvements. In addition, independent reviews of industry partner baselines were conducted for the COL projects and reactor vendors in FY 2007 and 2008 by small groups of reviewers (three for the COL projects; four for the reactor projects) who are experienced in the areas of project management, cost and schedule, nuclear power technology, and nuclear power plant licensing and regulation, and who were independent of both DOE and the companies involved in the COL projects under review. No DOE staff participated in these reviews. Corrective actions were identified to assure improvements to project management, execution, and reporting. The reviewers adhered to criteria for project management and baseline development and execution set forth in Department of Energy orders.

Evidence: "Nuclear Power 2010 Program Independent Review Report" (September 2003); "Nuclear Power 2010 Program Annual Assessment" (September 2006); Independent Baseline Reviews for Dominion (August 2007), NuStart (July 2007), GE-Hitachi (March 2008), and Westinghouse (March 2008); National Research Council's "Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program" (October 2007)

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 Office of Nuclear Energy's (NE) budget requests are not reflective of the performance budget requirements outlined in Section 220 of A11. NE and its programs, including NP2010, have not submitted budget requests that explain relationships between annual and long-term performance goals with the costs of specific activities that contribute to the achievement of those goals, or how incremental funding would affect performance.

Evidence: FY 2009 Congressional Budget Request; A11 Section 220 "Preparing and Submitting Performance Budgets"

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

Explanation: Through its oversight of the New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Project cooperative agreements, which includes frequent review of industry activities against established technical, cost and schedule baselines, the program is able to identify and correct strategic planning deficiencies. For example, in 2007, the program restructured the cooperative agreement framework with its industry partners. Previously, reactor vendors worked with the program indirectly, through the program's utility partners. The program determined that this arrangement did not allow for sufficient oversight of reactor vendor activities in achieving program goals, which was considered a significant planning deficiency. As a result, the program established cooperative agreements directly with the two reactor vendors, thus providing the program enhanced oversight over the execution of appropriated funds, including the receipt of timely cost and schedule data to help ensure industry partner effectiveness. The program continues to conduct quarterly reviews of program performance, as well as bi-monthly meetings between NE senior management and senior industry representatives to review strategic issues associated with the achievement of program goals. In addition, independent reviews of industry partner baselines were conducted for the COL projects and reactor vendors in FY 2007 and 2008 by small groups of reviewers (three for the COL projects; four for the reactor projects) who are experienced in the areas of project management, cost and schedule, nuclear power technology, and nuclear power plant licensing and regulation, and who were independent of both DOE and the companies involved in the COL projects under review. No DOE staff participated in these reviews. Corrective actions were identified to assure improvements to project management, execution, and reporting. The reviewers adhered to criteria for project management and baseline development and execution set forth in Department of Energy orders.

Evidence: Cooperative agreements for New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects: DE-FC07-05ID14635, DE-FC07-05ID-14636, DE-FC07-07ID14778, DE-FC07-07ID14779; National Research Council's "Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program" (October 2007); Monthly EVMS and Quarterly Progress Reports for FY06-08; Independent Baseline Reviews for Dominion (August 2007), NuStart (July 2007), GE-Hitachi (March 2008), and Westinghouse (March 2008)

If applicable, does the program assess and compare the potential benefits of efforts within the program and (if relevant) to other efforts in other programs that have similar goals?

Explanation: In conjunction with the Department's annual budget formulation process, NE participates in a Department-wide integrated benefits analysis process to assess the comparable benefits of its programs against other electricity-generating and hydrogen-producing technologies. The Department's annual Congressional budget requests describe potential benefits of nuclear technologies, including carbon mitigation and enhanced energy security.

Evidence: "Prospective Benefits Analysis of the DOE Nuclear Energy Portfolio: NE R&D Program Data Assumptions, Approach, & Results" (Annual Report); DOE Corporate Program Review; Nuclear Power 2010 Five Year Program Plan (March 2008); U.S. Climate Change Technology Strategic Plan (September 2006); FY 2006-2009 Congressional Budget Requests

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

Explanation: The Office of Nuclear Energy's (NE) budget requests are not reflective of the performance budget requirements outlined in Section 220 of A11. NE and its programs, including NP2010, have not submitted budget requests that explain relationships between annual and long-term performance goals with the costs of specific activities that contribute to the achievement of those goals, or how incremental funding would affect performance.

Evidence: FY 2009 Congressional Budget Request; A11 Section 220 "Preparing and Submitting Performance Budgets"

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 program monitors program cost, technical, and schedule performance on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis; this information is used to determine future funding requirements and improve program management and performance. New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Project partners have established performance baselines and submit monthly earned value management system data to the Federal Project Director, who tracks monthly actual costs against planned costs and performance. This data is utilized to manage the program and to identify possible corrective actions when cost and schedule variances are significant (i.e., greater than 10 percent). Standby Support activities are tracked against planned milestones. Progress is reported in quarterly performance reports.

Evidence: DOE FY 2007 Annual Performance Report (February 2008), FY 2008 Annual Performance Plan, Monthly and Quarterly performance reports; Program Information Collection System (PICS) reports; Cooperative agreements for New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects: DE-FC07-05ID14635, DE-FC07-05ID-14636, DE-FC07-07ID14778, DE-FC07-07ID14779; Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Section 638).

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Program partners are defined by the program as industry partners as the program cannot partner with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission given its regulatory role. Under the cooperative agreement framework, the program's industry partners conduct activities in accordance with independently reviewed performance baselines, as well as performance objectives incorporated in program budget guidance. While the program cannot directly influence the regulatory activities carried out by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the program works closely with industry to resolve issues associated with the review of COL and reactor certification applications as they arise. Federal Project Directors within the program manage each cooperative agreement; these activities include assessing project performance against established baselines and other guidance and ensuring compliance with applicable federal guidelines governing cooperative agreements. Industry projects are monitored by Federal Project Directors through monthly and quarterly performance reports, participation in project meetings, and periodic project reviews. Industry partners are held accountable for program cost, schedule, and performance results. If industry progress against established baselines or other guidance is determined to be insufficient or if accountability is not clearly demonstrated, the cooperative agreements can be terminated by the program. However, through the periodic reviews mentioned above, the program works closely with its industry partners to identify potential problems before they can seriously threaten program performance. To this end, program performance goals are also incorporated into the annual personnel performance plans for the federal senior manager and Federal Project Directors. This arrangement helps ensure that both federal and industry participants are held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results, consistent with the cooperative agreement framework.

Evidence: Annual DOE Performance Plan and Performance Appraisal Form example - Attachment 1; Cooperative agreements for New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects Parts III - Statement of Objectives and V Statement of Substantial Involvement: DE-FC07-05ID14635, DE-FC07-05ID-14636, DE-FC07-07ID14778, DE-FC07-07ID14779; NE Quarterly Finance and Performance Report; NE Quarterly Program Management Project Overview Report; NE Monthly Financial Report; Monthly EVMS and Quarterly Progress Reports from Industry Partners FY06-08; Nuclear Power 2010 Five Year Program Plan - Section 3.3 Other Government Agencies and Stakeholders (March 2008)

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

Explanation: Funds are obligated in a timely manner based on requirements established in cooperative agreements and contracts. In FY 2007, the program obligated 100% of its available funds; through March 2008, the program has obligated 76% of its available funds. To help ensure that program funds are spent in accordance with Congressional direction and the established program plan, project invoices must be submitted by industry, to the Federal Project Director for review and final approval and payment. Invoices can be denied by the Federal Project Director if they involve activities that are outside the scope of the cooperative agreements. To help ensure the accuracy of financial reporting, the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) creates monthly budget execution reports for its programs (including NP 2010), and holds finance and performance reviews with NE senior management on a quarterly basis. NE staff also participates in quarterly execution reviews coordinated by the Department's Chief Financial Officer. In FY 2007, the Department received a clean opinion on the annual audit of its financial statements, which indicates that program costs are being accurately reported and recorded.

Evidence: Department of Energy's FY 2007 Audit of Financial Statements; NE NP2010 FY2008 Initial program guidance memo, NE NP 2010 FY 2007 Program Guidance - Final FY Obligations (July 30, 2007) , NE NP 2010 FY 2007 Program Guidance - Restructuring Cooperative Agreements (March 8, 2007); NE NP 2010 FY 2008 Program Guidance - FY 2008 Appropriation (January 14,2008); NE Quarterly Finance and Performance Report; NE Monthly Financial Report; NE Quarterly Program Management Project Overview Report ; Monthly EVMS and Quarterly Progress Reports from Industry Partners; Nuclear Power 2010 Five Year Program Plan (March 2008); Cooperative Agreements for New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects - DOE F 4600.1 Notice of Financial Assistance Award: DE-FC07-05ID14635, DE-FC07-05ID-14636, DE-FC07-07ID14778, DE-FC07-07ID14779; September 2007 and March 2008 Integrated Data Warehouse (IDW) Reports from DOE's financial management system.

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

Explanation: Program activities are conducted through cooperative agreement frameworks, which impose several requirements on the federal government and industry partners to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution. The cooperative agreement implements the appropriate measurement and oversight requirements of DOE Order 413.3, "Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets." Program industry partners have project instructions to guide their implementation of the cooperative agreement requirements, consistent with DOE Order 413.3. Most significantly, the program collects monthly cost, schedule and performance information from industry partners. This information is tracked within an earned value management system (EVMS), and is assessed against established, independently reviewed baselines. This data is disseminated through monthly, quarterly and annual project review meetings with industry to help diagnose the causes of baseline variances that may hinder progress toward program goals. When variances greater than +/- 10 percent from the baseline are found, corrective action plans are put in place and monitored by the program to resolve the issues creating the variance. Following the restructuring of the original cooperative agreements, the program's performance against cost and schedule baselines has improved due in large part to the more timely receipt of data from the reactor vendors. In addition, cost effectiveness is enhanced through the review of project invoices prior to reimbursement. It is important to note that public funds are not expended under the cooperative agreements until the Federal Project Director has determined that activities for which industry partners are seeking reimbursement are within the scope of the cooperative agreement. If not, invoices are rejected. Finally, continuation agreements must be issued annually by the program to continue funding under the cooperative agreements. The continuation of cooperative agreements is dependent upon the ability of industry partners to demonstrate progress toward the program goals in a cost effective manner. In addition to activities conducted under the cooperative agreements, the program also strives to achieve efficiencies in its oversight activities. The program is captured within NE's R&D efficiency measure, which measures the cost of overhead against program dollars. Over the past two years, NP 2010 continues to demonstrate increased overhead efficiencies (7% in FY 2006; 6% in FY 2007). This is significant, considering that the program's annual appropriation increased by 19% from FY 2006 to FY 2007. This indicates that, as the program's appropriation has increased, the percentage of overhead has declined slightly.

Evidence: "A Roadmap to Deploy New Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S. by 2010" (October 2001); Cooperative agreements for New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects: DE-FC07-05ID14635, DE-FC07-05ID-14636, DE-FC07-07ID14778, DE-FC07-07ID14779; "Independent Performance Baseline Review, Dominion COL Demonstration Project" (August 2007); "Independent Performance Baseline Review, NuStart COL Demonstration Project" (July 2007); Independent Performance Baseline Review, GE-Hitachi Nuclear Energies America LLC COL Demonstration Project (March 2008) Need info on WEC baseline reviews - draft or final report titles; Nuclear Power 2010 Five Year Program Plan (March 2008); NE's Monthly Obligation and Cost and Performance Tracking Report; Program Information Collection System (PICS) reports; DOE Order 413.3, "Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets".

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: The program works closely with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to help ensure its activities related to the New Nuclear Power Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects are consistent with NRC plans and schedules. While the program cannot directly influence the regulatory activities carried out by the NRC, the program works closely with industry to resolve issues associated with the review of COL and reactor certification applications as they arise. The program coordinates its work through the industry and NRC AP1000 and ESBWR Design Centered Working Groups (DCWGs), through work with the Nuclear Energy Institute's New Plant Oversight Committee, and through the publication of project lessons learned reports such as the one recently published on Early Sight Permits (ESPs). The program also coordinates with other NE programs, including the Generation IV and Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, to identify areas where cooperation may complement R&D activities in other nuclear technology areas. Similarly, NE works closely with other offices in the Department, including the Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Office of Fossil Energy, Office of Electricity Delivery and Energy Reliability, Office of Science, and Office of Policy and International Affairs, to assess nuclear energy's role in a balanced energy portfolio. All of these relationships help ensure that program-supported activities are effectively targeted to enable an industry decision to deploy new nuclear power plants.

Evidence: "Prospective Benefits Analysis of the DOE Nuclear Energy Portfolio: NE R&D Program Data Assumptions, Approach, & Results," (December 2006); "Report on Lessons Learned from the NP 2010 Early Site Permit Program" (March 2008); NP 2010 Five Year Program Plan (March 2008): NRC RIS 2006-06 (May 31, 2006), NuStart letter responding to NRC RIS 2006-06 (July 17, 2006), Dominion letter responding to NRC RIS 2006-06 (July 17, 2006)

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: The program uses an Earned Value Management System (EVMS) and monitors program cost, technical, and schedule performance against the existing baselines on a monthly, quarterly, and annual basis and uses the information in determining future funding requirements and managing the program and improving performance. In cases where variances from the baseline are found to be greater than +/- 10 percent, the program will establish a corrective action plan to resolve the issues creating the variance. Under the cooperative agreement, industry partners submit invoices for activities conducted within the project scope to the Federal Project Director for review and final approval and payment. This practice was further enhanced through the restructuring of the cooperative agreements in FY 2007 to establish specific agreements with the reactor vendors. This new arrangement allowed the program greater transparency over reactor vendor activities, leading to more effective project oversight and the more timely receipt of invoices. To further assist the program in collecting and disseminating financial management information, the Office of Nuclear Energy (NE) creates monthly budget execution reports for its programs (including NP 2010) and holds finance and performance reviews with NE senior management on a quarterly basis. NE staff also participates in quarterly execution reviews coordinated by the Department's Chief Financial Officer. During these review meetings, any issues that have the potential to impact the program's ability to meet its performance goals are identified. Corrective action plans may be developed to resolve the problem.

Evidence: NP 2010 Annual Reporting for Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act; FY 2007 Departmental Audit of Financial Statements; FY07-08 Program Guidance Memos; Discussion of Baseline Cost Increases for NP 2010 Industry Partners (January 2008) Terms and Conditions incorporated in cooperative agreements for New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects and Part V Earned Value Management System: DE-FC07-05ID14635, DE-FC07-05ID-14636, DE-FC07-07ID14778, DE-FC07-07ID14779; Monthly EVMS and Quarterly Progress Reports from Industry Partners; NE Quarterly Finance and Performance Report; NE Monthly Financial Report; NE Quarterly Program Management Project Overview Report, Monthly EVMS and Quarterly Progress Reports from Industry Partners FY06-08

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

Explanation: While the program has been the focus of formal reviews by independent entities, the most significant management deficiencies have been discovered through regular oversight activities conducted to ensure compliance with the cooperative agreement framework. In the original program design, two cooperative agreements were negotiated with industry consortia, which included reactor vendors. After early experience in the execution of the program, gained through federal oversight applying project management principles, the two existing cooperative agreements were restructured in June 2007 into four agreements to separate the industry combined Construction and Operating License (COL) application scope from the standardized nuclear plant design scope of the reactor vendors. This restructuring resulted in enhanced oversight over the execution of appropriated funds, including the receipt of timely invoice, cost and schedule data to help ensure industry partner effectiveness. In FY 2007 and FY 2008, the program completed independent baseline reviews for its COL partners and reactor vendor partners, respectively. These reviews, which assessed the validity of the baselines established by the programs' industry partners, did reveal some deficiencies. In response, the program created corrective action plans to resolve the issues raised by the independent reviewers. As the NRC began to review reactor designs, questions were raised by NRC that involved several reactor designs. In an attempt to better respond to these common questions, and improve program management and efficiencies, the program helped organize Design Centered Working Groups (DCWGs) consisting of representatives from industry organizations, the utilities, and reactor vendors. The DCWGs, formed in July 2006, continues to address common questions raised by NRC in review of design documents as discussed in NRC Regulatory Issue Summary (RIS) 2006-06. By actively encouraging consistent responses to NRC design questions, the program and its industry partners are attempting to streamline the regulatory process by limiting the number of design differences that NRC must review. The program is planning to implement recommendations from the National Research Council's 2007 review that encourage greater degrees of cooperation between the Department, industry partners, and the NRC to ensure that potential issues are clearly identified and addressed and that design standardization is emphasized.

Evidence: Cooperative Agreements DE-FC07-04ID14533, DE-FC07-05ID14635, DE-FC07-05ID-14636, DE-FC07-07ID14778, DE-FC07-07ID14779; National Research Council's "Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program" (October 2007); Independent Baseline Reviews for Dominion (August 2007), NuStart (July 2007), GE-Hitachi (March 2008), and Westinghouse (March 2008); DOE Order 413.3, "Program and Project Management for the Acquisition of Capital Assets"; NRC RIS 2006-06 (May 31, 2006), NuStart letter responding to NRC RIS 2006-06 (July 17, 2006), Dominion letter responding to NRC RIS 2006-06 (July 17, 2006)

Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment of merit?

Explanation: Cooperative agreements for the Early Site Permit and New Nuclear Power Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects were awarded through a competitive solicitation process, which included a rigorous technical review to ensure applicant suitability. Annual continuation awards are also based on technical review of performance achieved against established milestones, but not competitively awarded.

Evidence: Solicitation DE-PS07-02ID14305 Early Site Permit License Demonstration Project; DOE News press release (November 21, 2003) "DOE Seeks Public-Private Partnerships to Demonstrate 'One-Step Licensing' of New U.S. Nuclear Power Plants; " Cooperative agreements established with power generation companies: DE-FC07-02ID14411, DE-FC07-02ID14412, DE-FC07-02ID14414; Cooperative agreements for New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects Part V Continuation Application and Funding: DE-FC07-05ID14635, DE-FC07-05ID-14636, DE-FC07-07ID14778, DE-FC07-07ID14779

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: To help ensure that industry partners are working toward established program goals, the program designates Federal Project Directors as team leads for each cooperative agreement; this arrangement ensures consistency in program execution through coordination of staff activities. The Federal Project Director monitors monthly actual costs and schedule performance against the baselines through an EVMS system; this information is used to measure project progress, to determine future funding requirements, and to improve overall program management and performance. In addition, project quarterly progress reports are reviewed for and semi annual project review meetings are held to discuss activity, cost and schedule progress, issues and budget status. These meetings involve various levels of management within the Department and industry. Quarterly progress reviews are attended by the program manager, while semi-annual project review meetings are attended by senior executives from NE and industry (e.g., Deputy Assistant Secretary/Vice President level). Issues are elevated on an ad hoc basis to middle and upper management if resolution cannot be reached at the Federal Project Director level. If warranted, corrective action plans are developed to correct problems associated with the execution of the cooperative agreements. Finally, industry partners submit monthly performance data, which is reviewed by program staff to ensure that progress is being made against the established cost and schedule baseline. In addition, program staff conducts site visits semi-annually to review program progress in support of continuing cooperative agreements. Federal Project Directors also monitor NRC activities related to the review and approval of COL applications through periodic meetings with NRC and industry staff. To help address issues arising from NRC's review activities, program staff assisted in the formation of Design Centered Working Groups (DCWGs) consisting of representatives of industry organizations, the utilities, and reactor vendors to improve program management and efficiencies. The DCWGs were formed in July 2006 to promote standardization of COL applications and to facilitate the establishment of a predictable and consistent method for reviewing applications. The intent is that all applicants referencing a particular reactor technology form a DCWG and work together on issues involving standard content. Approximately every 4-6 weeks, the NRC holds public meetings with the DCWGs, which also include the reactor vendors, to discuss and come to resolution on both general and specific issues. Program staff attends these meetings.

Evidence: Monthly EVMS and Quarterly Progress Reports from Industry Partners FY06-08; Cooperative agreements for New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects Part V - Statement of Substantial Involvement: DE-FC07-05ID14635, DE-FC07-05ID-14636, DE-FC07-07ID14778, DE-FC07-07ID14779; Nuclear Power 2010 Five Year Program Plan - Sections 3.3 Other Government Agencies and Stakeholders and 5.0 Program Performance Evaluation (March 2008); NE Quarterly Finance and Performance Report; NE Quarterly Program Management Project Overview Report; NE Monthly Financial Report; NRC RIS 2006-06 (May 31, 2006), NuStart letter responding to NRC RIS 2006-06 (July 17, 2006), Dominion letter responding to NRC RIS 2006-06 (July 17, 2006)

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: The program does collect grantee earned value management performance data on a monthly and quarterly basis, which includes cost, schedule and technical performance against the established baselines. While this data is used annually to determine whether to continue to fund the New Nuclear Demonstration Licensing Projects, the program is unable to make this information available to the public in a transparent manner due to the proprietary nature of the data. Since the program is legally unable to make this information available, this question is not applicable for the program.

Evidence: Monthly EVMS and Quarterly Progress Reports from Industry Partners FY06-08; Cooperative agreements for New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects Part V - Statement of Substantial Involvement: DE-FC07-05ID14635, DE-FC07-05ID-14636, DE-FC07-07ID14778, DE-FC07-07ID14779; Nuclear Power 2010 Five Year Program Plan - Sections 3.3 Other Government Agencies and Stakeholders and 5.0 Program Performance Evaluation (March 2008); NE Quarterly Finance and Performance Report; NE Quarterly Program Management Project Overview Report; NE Monthly Financial Report; NRC RIS 2006-06 (May 31, 2006), NuStart letter responding to NRC RIS 2006-06 (July 17, 2006), Dominion letter responding to NRC RIS 2006-06 (July 17, 2006)

For R&D programs other than competitive grants programs, does the program allocate funds and use management processes that maintain program quality?

Explanation: The program provided funds for the Early Site Permitting demonstration projects and continues to provide funds for the New Nuclear Licensing Demonstration Projects under cooperative agreements which were solicited for competitively, and included a rigorous technical review to ensure applicant suitablity. Annual continuation awards are also based on technical review of performance acheived against established milestones.

Evidence: Solicitation DE-PS-07-02ID14305 Early Site Permit License Demonstration Project; Solicitation DE-PS07-04ID14435 - New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects; Cooperative agreements for New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects Part V Continuation Application and Funding: DE-FC07-05ID14635, DE-FC07-05ID-14636, DE-FC07-07ID14778, DE-FC07-07ID14779

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

Explanation: Since the 2003 PART Assessment, several changes have occurred to the program's scope and schedule. The long-term outcome performance goal of the 2003 PART that relates to the 2008 PART performance measures has been adjusted to accommodate these changes. Two new long-term performance measures have been added in 2008. The program has demonstrated adequate progress in achieving two of its three long-term outcome performance measures: 1) In early FY 2008, under the New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Project, two combined Construction and Operating License (COL) applications referencing different reactor technologies were submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and have been docketed for review; the docketing of these COLs represents a significant milestone toward NRC's issuance of COLs for Dominion Virginia Power and the Tennessee Valley Authority (a member of the NuStart consortium) by 2011 and 2012, respectively; and 2) The design certification applications for GE-Hitachi's ESBWR and Westinghouse's AP 1000 reactor, referenced in the above mentioned COL applications and sponsored under the program, have been submitted to NRC and docketed for review in 2005 and 2008, respectively. However, since these performance measures are newly established and all but 5 of the almost 20 annual targets are scheduled for 2008-2011 targets, there is not adequate information at this time to assess that adequate progress is being made on all of annual measures that reflect the long-term outcome performance goals. Furthermore, one of the key long-term outcome performance goals of the program is to enable industry to make a decision by 2010 to build a new nuclear power plant by supporting New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects. Only one of NP2010's two cooperative agreements (Dominion) includes a statement that the industry partner, Dominion, will make a decision on whether to build by a specified timeframe (2009) that falls within the schedule of the program. The other cooperative agreement (NuStart) has no statement about whether an industry partner in the NuStart consortium will make a decision to build and no specified timeframe about any decisions to build. Given that funding is provided to the NuStart consortium without a commitment that a member of the consortium will make a decision by 2010 on whether to build is a shortfall in terms of NP2010's ability to fully meet one of its three long-term performance measures.

Evidence: Reports and studies on cost, construction, and site issues conducted and published under cost-share with industry and available at http://www.nuclear.gov/np2010; "DOE NP 2010 Construction Schedule Evaluation" (September 2004); Federal Register Notice, "10 CFR Part 950, Standby Support for Certain Nuclear Plant Delays Final Rule" (August 2006); National Research Council's "Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program" (October 2007); FY 2009 Congressional Budget Request (February 2008); FY 2002-07 Annual Performance Reports (Various); Nuclear Power 2010 Five Year Program Plan (March 2008); NRC Letters issuing Early Site Permits: Exelon - Clinton site (April 5, 2007); Entergy - Grand Gulf site (April 5, 2007); Dominion - North Anna site (November 27, 2007); NRC press releases documenting submittal of COL applications and design certification applications; Cooperative agreements: DE-FC07-05ID14635, DE-FC07-05ID-14636.

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

Explanation: Program partners are defined by the program as industry partners as the program cannot partner with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission given its regulatory role. The scheduled annual measures for FY 2005 -2007 have been met; annual measures for FY 2008 are on track to be met. In addition to these annual measures, the program conducted federal oversight activities associated with the management of the cooperative agreements under which work on the New Nuclear Power Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects has proceeded. The annual measures are described in the PART performance measures. However, since the 2003 PART Assessment, several changes have occurred to the program's scope and schedule. The long-term outcome performance goal of the 2003 PART that relates to the 2008 PART performance measures has been adjusted to accommodate these changes. Two new long-term performance measures have been added in 2008. Furthermore, the program has indicated its need to rebaseline within a two year timeframe. The program established its initial baseline in December 2005 and, in Fall 2007, proposed a new baseline for its annual measures. The changes to the measures since 2003 and the indicated need to re-baseline within a short timeframe does not provide an adequate timeframe to thoroughly evaluate performance. Furthermore, this re-baselining is indicative of the need for more effective planning, particularly when the program will draw to a close in 2011-2012. Finally, one of the key long-term outcome performance goals of the program is to enable industry to make a decision by 2010 to build a new nuclear power plant by supporting New Nuclear Plant Licensing Demonstration Projects. Only one of NP2010's two cooperative agreements (Dominion) includes a statement that the industry partner, Dominion, will make a decision on whether to build by a specified timeframe (2009) that falls within the schedule of the program. The other cooperative agreement (NuStart) has no statement about whether an industry partner in the NuStart consortium will make a decision to build and no specified timeframe about any decisions to build.

Evidence: NP2010 Additional Funds Above December 2005 Baseline (2007); Cooperative agreements: DE-FC07-05ID14635, DE-FC07-05ID-14636

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

Explanation: In the original program design, two cooperative agreements were negotiated with industry consortia, which included reactor vendors. After early experience in the execution of the program, the two existing cooperative agreements were restructured into four agreements to separate the industry combined Construction and Operating License (COL) application scope from the standardized nuclear plant design scope of the reactor vendors resulting in enhanced oversight over the execution of appropriated funds, including the receipt of timely cost and schedule data, to help ensure industry partner effectiveness. Improved efficiency in project management was realized by creating a direct oversight role by the program over design finalization activities. At project inception, no other utilities had indicated that they would pursue COLs. With enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 incentives and progress being made on this program, more than a dozen utilities have formally notified the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) of their intent to submit COL applications, some of which will reference the two COL applications sponsored by this program and recently docketed by NRC. In addition, NE tracks the efficiency of its R&D programs (including the NP 2010 program) through an annual efficiency measure. Over the past two years, the program has demonstrated increased efficiencies with respect to appropriated dollars. The program contributes to NE's R&D efficiency measure, which measures program overhead (i.e., salaries and benefits, travel, support services) against overall appropriations. The NE baseline established in FY 2006 is 8 percent, which is among the lowest percentage compared to other applied R&D programs within the Department of Energy. The program has achieved overhead efficiencies significantly below the consolidated rate. NP 2010 continues to demonstrate increased overhead efficiencies (7% in FY 2006; 6% in FY 2007). This is significant, considering that the program's annual appropriation increased by 19% from FY 2006 to FY 2007. This indicates that, as the program's appropriations have increased, its overhead efficiency has increased slightly.

Evidence: FY 2003-09 Congressional Budget Requests; Cooperative Agreements DE-FC07-05ID14635, DE-FC07-05ID-14636, DE-FC07-07ID14778, DE-FC07-07ID14779; FY 2007 Annual Performance Review (February 2008); Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Sections 638 and 1306 and Title XVII; "Nuclear Power Deployment Scorecard" (March 3, 2008); NuStart (TVA) Bellefonte COL application NRC docketing letter (January 18, 2008); Dominion North Anna COL application NRC docketing letter (January 28, 2008); UniStar Calvert Cliffs COL application NRC partial docketing letter (February 27, 2008); Entergy Grand Gulf COL application submittal letter (February 27, 2008); Progress Shearon Harris COL NRC application acknowledgment letter (March 11, 2008); STP COL application NRC docketing (November 29, 2007)

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

Explanation: Program performance can be compared to a variety of other public and private organizations. Within the Department of Energy, there are several other programs pursuing the demonstration of advanced energy technologies for commercial adoption and deployment. The Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy (EERE) and Office of Fossil Energy (FE) are actively engaged with their own industry partners to overcome barriers to commercial deployment. NP2010 has a cost share component that leverages the federal share with matched funding from its program partners. As the program has progressed, the partners' have begun contributing more than 50 percent share of the costs. NP 2010 compares favorably to these other programs with respect to meeting annual measures and demonstrating progress toward long-term goals, as evidence in the Department's Annual Performance Reports. In addition, the near-term focus of the program significantly benefits the overall energy security goals of the Department. In addition to comparing favorably with similar entities within the Department, the utility industry is leveraging the results and output of NP 2010 program activities as they determine whether to deploy new nuclear power plants to meet growing electricity requirements. Aside from the program's partners, other utilities are pursuing combined Construction and Operating Licenses (COLs), many of which are relying on the COL applications and design certification documentation (DCD) submitted with the support of this program as the reference for their applications. As a result of the annual, integrated research and development (R&D) benefits analysis process within the Department of Energy, the nuclear technologies supported by this program are expected to compete well (i.e., be economic and continue to hold a significant market share) with the electricity technologies supported by EERE and FE.

Evidence: "Prospective Benefits Analysis of the DOE Nuclear Energy Portfolio: NE R&D Program Data Assumptions, Approach, & Results" (Annual Report); "Nuclear Power Deployment Scorecard" (March 3, 2008); NuStart (TVA) Bellefonte COL application NRC docketing letter (January 18, 2008); Dominion North Anna COL application NRC docketing letter (January 28, 2008); UniStar Calvert Cliffs COL application NRC partial docketing letter (February 27, 2008); Entergy Grand Gulf COL application submittal letter (February 27, 2008); Progress Shearon Harris COL NRC application acknowledgment letter (March 11, 2008); STP COL application NRC docketing (November 29, 2007); NRC Letters issuing Early Site Permits: Exelon - Clinton site (April 5, 2007); Entergy - Grand Gulf site (April 5, 2007); Dominion - North Anna site (November 27, 2007); GEH ESBWR Design Certification NRC letter on latest schedule (November 27, 2007); AP1000 Design Certification Amendment Application Review Schedule (February 15, 2008)

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

Explanation: In 2007, the National Research Council issued an independent review of the program, along with other programs within the Office of Nuclear Energy. The review followed the rigorous guidelines established by the National Academies of Science. The committee was comprised of experts in the nuclear field drawn from industry and academia. The National Research Council's review evaluated the effectiveness of NP2010, its relevance, and provided recommendations for improvements, The review notes that, "key strategic elements of NP2010 bode well for its success??yet, other activities essential to ultimate success do not seem to have achieved that same focus in planning, let alone implementation." In addition, independent reviews of utility partner baselines were conducted in FY 2007 with corrective actions identified to assure improvements to project management, execution, and reporting. As a result of these reviews, the program accepted the baselines for the licensing demonstration scope under two of the cooperative agreements and is monitoring implementation of the corrective actions. In the first two years of NP2010, the Department's independent advisory committee, Nuclear Energy Research Advisory Committee (NERAC), provided oversight of all program activities. To ensure the program was being executed effectively, an independent assessment was conducted by industry technical experts in 2003. A final report was issued in September 2003 addressing the appropriateness, adequacy, and completeness of the current and planned activities at that time for achieving the NP 2010 program goals and objectives. Subsequently, an independent assessment of program performance toward achieving its goals by another team of industry experts was completed in September 2006.

Evidence: National Research Council's "Review of DOE's Nuclear Energy Research and Development Program" (October 2007); "Nuclear Power 2010 Program Independent Review Report" (September 2003); "Nuclear Power 2010 Program Annual Assessment" (September 2006); "Independent Performance Baseline Review, Dominion COL Demonstration Project" (August 2007); "Independent Performance Baseline Review, NuStart COL Demonstration Project" (July 2007); "Westinghouse Independent Performance Baseline Review Report" (March 10, 2008); "GEH Independent Baseline Review Report" (March 27, 2008); Nuclear Power 2010 Five Year Program Plan (March 2008)