Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 Project Set-Up and Management Issues Affected Cost and Schedule

The WBN Unit 2 construction project has experienced significant schedule and cost overruns. The project was originally expected to be completed in October 2012 at a cost of just under $2.5 billion. However, TVA will not meet these targets. On April 5, 2012, TVA announced an additional $1.5 billion to $2 billion would be required to complete the project with an estimated time of completion between September and December 2015. TVA's Board of Directors approved the revised schedule and budget on April 26, 2012.Since TVA began construction on Watts Bar Nuclear Plant (WBN) Unit 2 in October 2007, the OIG has had staff assigned to attend meetings at the project site in order to keep abreast of management challenges as the OIG conducts its various reviews. During meetings attended by the OIG at the WBN Unit 2 project site, construction issues discussed were characterized by management as recoverable or normal construction problems. Each project schedule, based on its associated assumptions, showed how everything was on track for meeting the early target finish date. Additionally, pertinent information critical of the project's performance was not provided to the OIG by former TVA management when requested by our office. These actions made it harder to identify the extent and potential consequences of the problems on the project. However, in 2010, it became evident many of the issues raised in meetings were symptomatic of much broader problems that increased the risk of exceeding the project's schedule and budget. As a result, we began this review. In mid-2011, we met with TVA executives to brief them on our concerns surrounding the project. In August 2011, we briefed the Audit, Risk, and Regulation Committee on our concerns and the preliminary findings of this report.We conducted this review to (1) assess TVA's schedule and cost performance on this project and (2) identify any weaknesses in the project's set-up and management and recommend actions to improve schedule and cost performance on this and future projects. We found two primary reasons for the schedule and cost overruns. Based on our assessment of the individual issues raised in various meetings, discussions with WBN Unit 2 and TVA personnel, and reviews of project documentation, we determined that the poor performance experienced at WBN Unit 2 was attributable primarily to (1) deficiencies in project set-up and (2) ineffective management oversight as discussed below.Problems with the original project set-up included the following: (1) the detailed scoping, estimating, and planning study was not as in-depth as it should have been; (2) inability to implement prime subcontractors' agreements contributed to project delays; (3) Bechtel was the American Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) certification holder, limiting TVA's ability to remove them from the project if problems occurred; and (4) construction began before adequate engineering had been completed.Project management in key areas was also ineffective. Specifically, TVA management did not: (1) perform effective oversight of the engineering, procurement, and construction contractor; (2) address certain warning signs that the project was in trouble; and (3) adequately mitigate known problems related to staffing, work order packages, timeliness and quality of information provided to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the procurement of materials that require a long lead time to obtain.TVA recognizes the problems associated with the construction of WBN Unit 2 and has publicly acknowledged them. In addition, TVA has taken several actions to address the problems identified at WBN Unit 2 and offer an accurate reflection of the progress of the project, engage and improve the relationship with the project workers, and promote transparency. Further, Nuclear Construction and TVA Corporate's planned actions include a review of the accuracy of the Bellefonte estimate, restructuring the independent Project Assurance Organization, and developing a contracting strategy for various project classifications. TVA's actions are positive and should help to improve the process for WBN Unit 2 and future projects.TVA management agreed with our recommendations to: (1) develop a consistent and thorough approach for planning and estimating nuclear construction projects including, but not limited to, a range of estimates with probabilities, key risk assumptions, and contingency amounts; (2) develop contingencies for supplementing contractors' expertise in case they are unable to provide qualified resources; (3) develop contingencies for obtaining the American Society of Mechanical Engineers certifications for future projects as applicable; (4) require design engineering to be substantially complete before starting construction on nuclear projects; (5) establish controls over the development and reporting of project performance data and provide for independent verification of the data; (6) assess the cultural climate to determine if the actions of certain former key management have affected the organizational culture and provide a venue for WBN unit 2 personnel to voice their concerns; (7) evaluate project incentives to ensure they will deliver the desired results; (8) address aging nuclear workforce issues by developing a program for transferring knowledge; and (9) work collaboratively with TVA's Board of Directors to evaluate the benefits of retaining the services of nuclear construction experts to monitor large nuclear construction projects' progress and report results directly to the Board.