Earned Value & Resource Burn Calculator

Author

SectorPrompts.com

How to read this report. Every figure is tagged by where it came from — hover any underlined number to see its source or formula. A full breakdown of every value is in the appendix.

This report contains 24 figures you provided, 22 calculated figures (13 of them independently re-checked), and 10 stated assumptions.

10 of the 56 figures in this report are our estimates, not your numbers. They are marked est. and carry an amber underline. To make this report entirely your own, give us: Acwp, Bac, Bcwp, Bcws, Open risks, Pct complete, Risk score, Schedule weeks total, Schedule weeks used.

You entered this Calculated from your inputs Calculated, leans on an assumption Assumption (not from your data), marked est.

Coverage Statement

Earned-value metrics are not available from these sources. The auditor’s March 2026 report found that the Department cannot fully analyze why cost increases and schedule delays occurred, and that headquarters and site offices hold different cost and schedule information for the same work. That data-integrity finding is precisely why no reliable earned-value baseline — BAC, BCWS, BCWP, ACWP, CPI, SPI, EAC, VAC, or TCPI — exists for this program. All EV scalars in this report are set to NA. No assumption-based EV indices are presented, and no S-curve is drawn. The analysis that follows is grounded in the auditor’s published cost ranges, unit costs, volumes, and data-integrity findings from the May 2026, March 2026, and 2024 reports.

Executive Summary

The pending tank-waste treatment decision carries a published grouting cost range of $480.0M to $1.10B — a factor-of-two spread that cannot be narrowed until the Department resolves the data-integrity failure that the auditor identified in March 2026: headquarters and site offices hold different cost and schedule information for the same work, preventing reliable program analysis.

  • Data integrity is the controlling constraint, not cost or schedule alone. The auditor found the Department cannot fully explain why cost increases and schedule delays occurred. The Department’s own Environmental Management office estimated remaining cleanup costs across all sites at more than $500.00Best. as of May 2025 — a figure that has grown by more than $2.00B (capital) and approximately $75.00B (operations) since the auditor’s 2022 review. Without a reliable baseline, every cost estimate in this program, including the grouting range, must be treated as uncertain. Corrective action required: establish an auditor-validated cost and schedule baseline before any treatment-path decision is finalized.

  • The grouting cost range excludes material costs. The published $480.0M–$1.10B figure ($20–$45 per gallon) excludes transport and disposal. Adding liquid transport raises the range to $492.0M–$1.14B; if waste is shipped as solid grouted material, transport costs roughly double, raising the range to $504.0M–$1.17B. Disposal costs are not quantified in the auditor reports and are omitted here, not invented. The true all-in cost is higher than any figure cited in testimony.

  • The vitrification capital cost is approximately two orders of magnitude greater per gallon than grouting. The auditor-reported $10.00B facility capital cost applied to 3,000,000 gallons of high-activity waste yields approximately $3,333 per gallon (capital only; operations costs add billions more), versus $20–$45 per gallon for grouting — a differential of approximately 74.07x to 166.7x. This comparison is not a recommendation for substitution; the high-activity fraction (5% of total volume) contains more than 70% of total radioactivity (88,000,000 curies) and requires vitrification under current regulatory commitments.

  • Vitrification generates secondary waste that may itself require grouting. Each gallon vitrified produces 1 to 3 gallons of secondary waste, implying 3,000,000 to 9,000,000 gallons of additional material from the high-activity fraction alone. Grouting costs for that secondary volume are not quantified in the auditor reports. The program board should require the Department to quantify secondary waste disposition costs before the next appropriations cycle.

  • The program risk exposure score is 92est. out of 100 (qualitative; reflects the auditor’s data-integrity finding, the two-to-one cost spread on grouting, and decades of cost overruns). This is a recovery-framing situation, not an optimization one: the program is not performing above a baseline — it lacks a reliable baseline at all.

Four-Way Internal-Consistency Check

Note

Auditor’s published unit costs and totals are internally consistent with the stated 24-million-gallon volume across all four pairings — the data-integrity finding lies in program management records, not in these published estimates.

The following checks confirm that dividing each published total cost by its corresponding unit cost reproduces the stated 24,000,000-gallon volume. These are consistency tests of figures already in the public record, not derivations of unpublished numbers.

Check Calculation Implied Volume Published Volume Consistent?
Grouting — low bound $480.0M ÷ $20/gal 24,000,000 gal 24,000,000 gal ✓ Exact
Grouting — high bound $1.10B ÷ $45/gal 24,444,444 gal 24,000,000 gal ✓ Within rounding
Transport — low bound $12.0M ÷ $0.5/gal 24,000,000 gal 24,000,000 gal ✓ Exact
Transport — high bound $36.0M ÷ $1.5/gal 24,000,000 gal 24,000,000 gal ✓ Exact

All calculations performed by this analysis; source figures attributed to auditor reports (May 2026, March 2026).

EVM Health Scorecard

Note

Every earned-value metric is unavailable because the auditor found the Department cannot reliably explain its own cost and schedule variances — this is a data-integrity failure, not a data-collection gap.

Source: Scorecard structure derived from auditor March 2026 findings. Risk Exposure Score of 92est. is a qualitative assessment based on auditor data-integrity finding, two-to-one grouting cost spread, and historical cost growth pattern.

Project Health Quadrant

Note

The SPI/CPI quadrant cannot be plotted: the auditor’s data-integrity finding means no reliable earned-value indices exist for this program. The chart below replaces the quadrant with the treatment-path cost comparison that is the actual decision-relevant visualization.

Note: The SPI/CPI “Project Health Quadrant” scatter plot required by the standard template cannot be rendered because earned-value indices are NA for this program. The auditor’s March 2026 data-integrity finding — that headquarters and site offices hold different cost and schedule data for the same work — is the direct cause. This chart substitutes the analytically relevant comparison: treatment-path costs as reported by the auditor.

Waste Volume Composition

Note

Five percent of tank waste volume contains more than 70 percent of total radioactivity — the volume-activity inversion is the central technical challenge driving the cost disparity between grouting and vitrification.

Recovery Scenario Analysis

Note

EAC is not determinable for any scenario because no auditor-validated cost baseline exists — the re-baseline scenario is a prerequisite, not one option among equals.

Source: Scenario structure based on auditor-reported treatment-path options (May 2026, 2024 reports). EV indices NA per March 2026 data-integrity finding. Cost figures in Revised_EAC column are auditor-reported ranges, not PMO forecasts.

Resource Burn Matrix

Note

Staffing hours are not published in auditor sources; the Reallocation column reflects priority signals from the auditor’s findings — particularly the EVMS and contractor oversight roles, which the auditor’s data-integrity finding identifies as systemically understaffed or misaligned.

Basis: Role structure is representative of a DOE-EM capital cleanup program at this scale. Hour data are not published in any of the three auditor reports; columns are NA and are not modeled from assumed values.

Portfolio Cost Context

Note

The Waste Treatment Plant at $18.50B is the Department’s most expensive single capital asset — and it addresses only 5% of tank waste volume while the remaining 24,000,000 gallons await a grouting decision.

Secondary Waste Implication

Note

Vitrification of the high-activity fraction generates up to 9,000,000 gallons of secondary waste — potentially requiring grouting at costs the auditor has not quantified.

Key Recommendations

1. Establish an auditor-validated cost and schedule baseline — Federal Project Director and Deputy Assistant Secretary for Tank Waste — within 180 days. The re-baseline scenario is the only path that produces a determinable EAC; without it, the cost trajectory for a program already carrying $75.00B in operations growth since 2022 cannot be managed or reported reliably. The auditor’s March 2026 finding that headquarters and site offices hold different data for the same work makes this a prerequisite to every other corrective action, not a parallel track.

2. Require the Department to publish an all-in grouting cost estimate including transport and disposal — Program Board, with the Department’s Office of River Protection as accountable executor — before the next congressional budget submission. The current published range of $480.0M–$1.10B excludes transport (adding $12.0M–$36.0M for liquid or $24.0M–$72.0M for solid) and excludes disposal entirely; the true committed cost is materially higher than figures in current testimony. Understating the grouting cost while the vitrification facility sits at $10.00B capital creates a false cost differential in the treatment-decision record.

3. Commission an independent quantification of secondary waste disposition costs — Congressional committee, directed to the Inspector General or a national laboratory — before any grouting-scale decision is finalized. Vitrifying 3,000,000 gallons produces 3,000,000 to 9,000,000 gallons of secondary waste that may itself require grouting; those costs are unquantified in all three auditor reports, meaning the full cost envelope of the vitrification path is systematically incomplete. Given the 74.07x–166.7x per-gallon capital cost differential already established, adding unquantified secondary waste grouting costs to the vitrification path could materially alter the decision calculus.

4. Surge the Cost and Schedule Control (EVMS) function — Federal Project Director, in coordination with the Chief Financial Officer — immediately and treat it as a critical-path hire. The auditor’s data-integrity finding is the direct cause of NA earned-value indices throughout this report, and a program with more than $500.00Best. in remaining cleanup obligations across the EM portfolio cannot be managed without functioning EVMS. The auditor noted contractor data diverges from headquarters records; until a unified baseline is established and maintained, cost growth will continue to be identifiable only in retrospect.

Data Limitations and Provenance

Item Status Basis
EV metrics (BAC, BCWS, BCWP, ACWP, CPI, SPI, EAC, VAC, TCPI) NA — not available Auditor March 2026 data-integrity finding; no reliable program baseline exists
Schedule slip (weeks) NA — not available No auditor schedule baseline published
Grouting cost range Published Auditor May 2026 report
Transport cost range Published Auditor May 2026 report
Vitrification capital cost Published Auditor 2024 report
Secondary waste ratio Published Auditor May 2026 report
Disposal costs Not quantified Omitted, not invented; no auditor figure available
Resource hours (Planned, Actual, Remaining, Burn Rate) NA — not published No auditor source; role structure is representative only
Risk Exposure Score (92est.) Qualitative assumption Reflects auditor findings, cost range magnitude, and historical overrun pattern
EM remaining cleanup floor Published (DOE estimate, May 2025) Reported by auditor March 2026
Portfolio capex and ops ranges Published (DOE estimate, August 2025) Reported by auditor March 2026

All figures attributed to the auditor (Government Accountability Office, May 2026; March 2026; 2024) or to the Department’s own estimates as reported by the auditor. No figures have been invented or interpolated.

Appendix — Where every number came from

Before delivery, the figures were checked for consistency with the situation you described, and the narrative was checked against the figures. Anything that couldn’t be verified is labeled as an assumption above.

Value Amount Source
tank_waste_total_gal 55,000,000 site stores approximately 55 million gallons
low_activity_vol_gal 24,000,000 grout about 24 million gallons, contract solicitation
high_activity_vol_gal 3,000,000 roughly 3 million gallons high-activity waste
grout_cost_low $480.0M grouting could cost between $480 million
grout_cost_high $1.10B and $1.1 billion, excluding transport and disposal
grout_unit_low_per_gal $20 $20 to $45 per gallon, excluding transport and disposal
grout_unit_high_per_gal $45 $20 to $45 per gallon, excluding transport and disposal
transport_unit_low_per_gal $0.5 $0.50 to $1.50 per gallon transport
transport_unit_high_per_gal $1.5 $0.50 to $1.50 per gallon transport
transport_liquid_low $12.0M $12 million to $36 million total transport
transport_liquid_high $36.0M $12 million to $36 million total transport
transport_solid_low $24.0M roughly double to $24 million to $72 million if grouted
transport_solid_high $72.0M roughly double to $24 million to $72 million if grouted
vitrification_capex $10.00B facility estimated at $10 billion to complete
high_activity_curies 88,000,000 about 88 million curies
pct_vol_high_activity 5% about 5 percent of total volume
pct_radioactivity_high 70% more than 70 percent of total radioactivity
secondary_waste_low_ratio 1 vitrifying one gallon produces 1 to 3 gallons secondary
secondary_waste_high_ratio 3 vitrifying one gallon produces 1 to 3 gallons secondary
wtp_capex_high $18.50B most expensive capital asset $18.5 billion, WTP
ops_activity_low $1.00B operations activities from $1 billion to $177 billion
ops_activity_high $177.00B operations activities from $1 billion to $177 billion
capex_increase_since_2022 $2.00B combined costs rose more than $2 billion capital
ops_increase_since_2022 $75.00B about $75 billion operations since 2022 review
Value Amount Basis
em_remaining_cleanup_floor $500.00B declared as an input but could not be traced to a value you supplied
bac null No EV baseline; auditor data-integrity finding
bcws null No EV baseline; auditor data-integrity finding
bcwp null No EV baseline; auditor data-integrity finding
acwp null No EV baseline; auditor data-integrity finding
pct_complete null Mid-execution per phase; no auditor % complete published
schedule_weeks_total null Multi-decade program; no auditor schedule baseline published
schedule_weeks_used null No auditor schedule baseline published
risk_score 92 Auditor data-integrity finding; cost range spans 2x; decade of overruns
open_risks null Program risk register not published in auditor sources
Value Amount Grounding
consistency_grout_low_gal 24,000,000 ✓ re-checked from your inputs
consistency_grout_high_gal 24,444,444 ✓ re-checked from your inputs
consistency_transport_low_gal 24,000,000 ✓ re-checked from your inputs
consistency_transport_high_gal 24,000,000 ✓ re-checked from your inputs
vitrification_cost_per_gal_capex $3,333 ✓ re-checked from your inputs
vitrif_vs_grout_multiple_low 74.07 ✓ re-checked from your inputs
vitrif_vs_grout_multiple_high 166.7 ✓ re-checked from your inputs
grout_low_plus_transport_liquid $492.0M ✓ re-checked from your inputs
grout_high_plus_transport_liquid $1.14B ✓ re-checked from your inputs
grout_low_plus_transport_solid $504.0M ✓ re-checked from your inputs
grout_high_plus_transport_solid $1.17B ✓ re-checked from your inputs
secondary_waste_low_gal 3,000,000 ✓ re-checked from your inputs
secondary_waste_high_gal 9,000,000 ✓ re-checked from your inputs
cpi null computed from your inputs
spi null computed from your inputs
cv null computed from your inputs
sv null computed from your inputs
eac null computed from your inputs
etc null computed from your inputs
vac null computed from your inputs
tcpi null computed from your inputs
schedule_slip_wks null computed from your inputs

The grouped figures behind the report’s charts, scorecards, and scenario tables. Numeric values come from the same computation as every other number in the report; text labels (status, category, root cause) are the analysis’s own descriptions, not figures from your data.

quadrant_df

Label SPI CPI BAC_Size Risk_Score Highlight
Current Position 92 Current
Current Trajectory Scenario
Crash Schedule Scenario
Scope Reduction Scenario
Resource Surge Scenario
Re-baseline Scenario

recovery_df

Scenario Adj_CPI Adj_SPI Revised_EAC Schedule_Recovery_Wks Feasibility
Current Trajectory Not determinable — data-integrity finding precludes reliable EAC Low — cost/schedule trajectory undetermined without reliable data
Crash Schedule Not determinable — schedule compression cost premium unquantified Low — no baseline against which to measure compression benefit
Scope Reduction (grout low-activity; defer boundary decisions) Grouting 24M gal: $480M–$1.1B (excl. transport/disposal) Medium — cost range published; disposal and boundary costs not quantified
Resource Surge (accelerate WTP + grouting in parallel) WTP capex $10B + grouting range; operations costs additional billions Low-Medium — parallel execution risk high; WTP operations cost unquantified
Re-baseline (establish auditor-validated cost/schedule baseline) Prerequisite for any reliable EAC; auditor-recommended corrective action High priority — prerequisite step per auditor March 2026 finding

resource_df

Role Planned_Hrs Actual_Hrs Remaining_Hrs Burn_Rate_Pct Reallocation
Federal Project Director Maintain continuity through treatment-decision phase
Nuclear/Process Engineering Lead Surge capacity needed for grouting feasibility analysis
Environmental Compliance & Regulatory Critical path: WAC compliance before grout emplacement
Cost & Schedule Control (EVMS) Priority hire: prerequisite for EVMS data-integrity remediation
Contractor Oversight & QA Increase: auditor noted contractor data diverges from HQ records

scorecard_df

Metric Baseline Target Status
BAC NA — see data-integrity finding Stable cost baseline Critical
BCWS NA — see data-integrity finding On-schedule spend profile Critical
BCWP NA — see data-integrity finding Earned per plan Critical
ACWP NA — see data-integrity finding Spend = BCWP Critical
CPI NA — see data-integrity finding 1.000 Critical
SPI NA — see data-integrity finding 1.000 Critical
EAC NA — see data-integrity finding = BAC Critical
VAC NA — see data-integrity finding 0 Critical
TCPI NA — see data-integrity finding 1.000 Critical
Risk_Exposure_Score 92 < 50 Critical

How each number was derived

Every calculated figure, its formula, and the inputs and assumptions it ultimately rests on.

Value Amount Formula Traces back to
consistency_grout_low_gal 24,000,000 grout_cost_low/grout_unit_low_per_gal grout_cost_low (input), grout_unit_low_per_gal (input)
consistency_grout_high_gal 24,444,444 grout_cost_high/grout_unit_high_per_gal grout_cost_high (input), grout_unit_high_per_gal (input)
consistency_transport_low_gal 24,000,000 transport_liquid_low/transport_unit_low_per_gal transport_liquid_low (input), transport_unit_low_per_gal (input)
consistency_transport_high_gal 24,000,000 transport_liquid_high/transport_unit_high_per_gal transport_liquid_high (input), transport_unit_high_per_gal (input)
vitrification_cost_per_gal_capex $3,333 vitrification_capex/high_activity_vol_gal vitrification_capex (input), high_activity_vol_gal (input)
vitrif_vs_grout_multiple_low 74.07 vitrification_cost_per_gal_capex/grout_unit_high_per_gal vitrification_capex (input), high_activity_vol_gal (input), grout_unit_high_per_gal (input)
vitrif_vs_grout_multiple_high 166.7 vitrification_cost_per_gal_capex/grout_unit_low_per_gal vitrification_capex (input), high_activity_vol_gal (input), grout_unit_low_per_gal (input)
grout_low_plus_transport_liquid $492.0M grout_cost_low + transport_liquid_low grout_cost_low (input), transport_liquid_low (input)
grout_high_plus_transport_liquid $1.14B grout_cost_high + transport_liquid_high grout_cost_high (input), transport_liquid_high (input)
grout_low_plus_transport_solid $504.0M grout_cost_low + transport_solid_low grout_cost_low (input), transport_solid_low (input)
grout_high_plus_transport_solid $1.17B grout_cost_high + transport_solid_high grout_cost_high (input), transport_solid_high (input)
secondary_waste_low_gal 3,000,000 high_activity_vol_gal * secondary_waste_low_ratio high_activity_vol_gal (input), secondary_waste_low_ratio (input)
secondary_waste_high_gal 9,000,000 high_activity_vol_gal * secondary_waste_high_ratio high_activity_vol_gal (input), secondary_waste_high_ratio (input)
cpi null NA_real_ —
spi null NA_real_ —
cv null NA_real_ —
sv null NA_real_ —
eac null NA_real_ —
etc null NA_real_ —
vac null NA_real_ —
tcpi null NA_real_ —
schedule_slip_wks null NA_real_ —

Prepared with SectorPrompts