Earned Value & Resource Burn Calculator
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 26 figures you provided, 11 calculated figures (11 of them independently re-checked), and 20 stated assumptions.
You entered this Calculated from your inputs Calculated, leans on an assumption Assumption (not from your data)
Coverage Statement
Earned-value metrics are not available from the auditor sources underlying this report. The Government Accountability Office’s March 2026 report found that the Department of Energy 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. This data-integrity finding is the precise reason reliable earned-value data does not exist for this program: without an auditor-validated, consistently maintained performance measurement baseline, CPI, SPI, EAC, VAC, TCPI, BCWP, BCWS, ACWP, BAC, and percent complete cannot be reported with confidence. All EVM scalars in this report are therefore set to NA and flagged Critical. The report focuses instead on the cost-range quantification, internal-consistency testing, and data-reliability findings that the auditor sources do publish.
Executive Summary
The pending tank-waste treatment decision carries a published cost range of $480.0M to $1.10B for grouting alone — but the auditor’s finding that DOE headquarters and site offices hold different cost and schedule data for the same work means no reliable earned-value baseline exists to assess performance, and the full cost picture is materially larger once transport and disposal are included.
Highest-leverage finding — data integrity, not cost range: The auditor (March 2026) found DOE cannot fully explain cost increases or schedule delays because headquarters and site offices maintain divergent cost and schedule records for the same work. This is not a reporting gap; it is a systemic control failure that prevents any reliable program-level EVM assessment. Recovery must begin with baseline reconciliation before cost or schedule targets carry any analytical weight.
Treatment-path cost disparity is two orders of magnitude: Vitrification of 3,000,000 of high-activity waste (5% of total volume but more than 70% of total radioactivity, approximately 88,000,000 curies) carries a capital cost of approximately 3,333 per gallon — roughly 166.7 to 74.07 times the $20 to $45 per gallon grouting range. That disparity, not schedule variance, is the primary cost driver facing the committee.
The grouting cost range excludes material items: The auditor-reported $480.0M to $1.10B excludes transport and disposal. Adding liquid transport yields an all-in range of $492.0M to $1.14B; if waste is shipped as grouted solid (which roughly doubles volume), the transport component alone rises to $24.0M to $72.0M, yielding an all-in high of $1.17B. Disposal costs are not published and must be treated as additional.
Portfolio-level cost growth confirms program trajectory: DOE’s Environmental Management office estimated (May 2025, as reported by the auditor) that remaining cleanup across all its sites will exceed $500.00B. Since the auditor’s 2022 review, capital costs rose more than $2.00B and operations costs rose approximately $75.00B. The Waste Treatment Plant, at $18.50B, remains the portfolio’s single most expensive capital asset.
Internal consistency of published figures holds: Four cross-checks confirm the auditor’s unit costs and totals are arithmetically consistent with the stated 24,000,000-gallon volume (see Section 3). This does not validate the underlying estimates — it confirms the figures are internally coherent as published, which is a necessary but not sufficient condition for reliability.
1. EVM Health Scorecard
Note
All ten EVM metrics are rated Critical. The auditor’s data-integrity finding — that DOE cannot reconcile headquarters and site-office cost and schedule records for the same work — means no reliable performance measurement baseline exists. Status reflects the absence of verifiable data, not a computed variance.
Note on NA values: Every EVM metric (BAC through TCPI) is reported as NA because the sources underlying this report — three GAO audits — publish no earned-value baseline. The auditor’s March 2026 finding that DOE headquarters and site offices hold different cost and schedule information for the same work is the reason such data cannot be reliably constructed from external sources. The Risk Exposure Score of 92 out of 100 is a program-level composite reflecting data unreliability, the multi-billion-dollar unresolved cost range, regulatory constraint, and technology maturity risk.
2. Project Health Quadrant
Note
SPI and CPI are NA for all scenarios because no auditor-validated earned-value baseline exists. The quadrant chart is rendered with NA coordinates to make the data absence visible rather than substituting modeled values. Risk scores and BAC proxies are shown for scenario comparison only.
Interpretation: All five scenarios score above 80, reflecting the combination of unresolved technology and cost risk, the auditor’s data-integrity finding, and the absence of a validated EV baseline. The “Re-baseline” scenario carries the lowest risk score (75) because it explicitly addresses the data-control deficiency before committing to a cost trajectory — but it also delivers no schedule recovery.
3. Internal Consistency Check — Published Figures
Note
All four cross-checks reproduce the stated 24,000,000-gallon volume. This confirms the auditor’s published unit costs and totals are arithmetically coherent — a necessary but not sufficient condition for estimate reliability.
The consistency check below applies division to the auditor’s published totals and unit costs to verify they reproduce the stated 24,000,000-gallon target volume. The volume is not derived here; it is published. These are calculations confirming internal coherence.
| Check | Calculation | Result | Published Volume | Consistent? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grout cost (low) | $480.0M ÷ $20/gal | 24,000,000 gal | 24,000,000 gal | ✓ Yes |
| Grout cost (high) | $1.10B ÷ $45/gal | 24,444,444 gal | 24,000,000 gal | ✓ Yes (rounding) |
| Transport (low) | $12.0M ÷ $0.5/gal | 24,000,000 gal | 24,000,000 gal | ✓ Yes |
| Transport (high) | $36.0M ÷ $1.5/gal | 24,000,000 gal | 24,000,000 gal | ✓ Yes |
The high-end grouting check yields 24,444,444 gallons — approximately 444,000 gallons above the stated 24,000,000 — which is consistent with rounding in the published $45/gallon figure. All four checks are consistent with the stated volume. This test validates internal arithmetic, not the underlying engineering estimates.
4. Treatment-Path Cost Comparison
Note
Vitrification’s capital cost per gallon is roughly 166.7 to 74.07 times the grouting range — a difference of nearly two orders of magnitude driven by the concentration of radioactivity, not volume.
Key figures (all from auditor sources, calculations labeled):
- Grouting 24,000,000 gallons from 22 tanks: $480.0M to $1.10B ($20 to $45/gal), excluding transport and disposal
- Adding liquid transport: all-in range of $492.0M to $1.14B
- Adding solid (grouted) transport: all-in range of $504.0M to $1.17B
- Solid transport alone: $24.0M to $72.0M (roughly double liquid, because grouting increases volume)
- Vitrification capital cost: $10.00B for 3,000,000 gallons = 3,333/gallon (calculated: $10.00B ÷ 3,000,000; capital only — operations costs are additional and not published by the auditor)
- Cost ratio: vitrification vs. grouting = 166.7× to 74.07× (calculated)
5. Waste Volume and Radioactivity Profile
Note
3,000,000 of high-activity waste — just 5% of total volume — contains more than 70% of total radioactivity. This asymmetry is the structural driver of the two-path treatment decision.
Secondary waste note: The auditor reports that vitrifying one gallon of high-activity waste produces 1 to 3 gallons of secondary liquid waste that may itself require grouting. On the 3,000,000-gallon high-activity inventory, this implies 3M to 9M gallons of secondary waste that would flow back into the low-activity treatment stream. This secondary volume is not included in the 24,000,000-gallon grouting scope derived from the 22-tank contract solicitation.
6. Recovery Scenario Analysis
Note
Revised EAC and adjusted CPI/SPI are NA for all scenarios because no auditor-validated baseline exists. Schedule recovery estimates are illustrative bounds only, not published forecasts.
Scenario framing: Schedule recovery estimates above are illustrative only — they are not published program forecasts. The auditor found that without a reconciled, reliable baseline, schedule commitments cannot be validated. The “Re-baseline” scenario is the only path that addresses the root cause (data-integrity failure) before projecting recovery; it is rated Medium feasibility because it requires the auditor’s data-integrity findings to be remediated first, which itself has no published timeline.
7. Resource Burn Matrix
Note
Program Controls & Cost Reporting shows the lowest burn rate (42.5%) — precisely the function the auditor found to be failing. This understaffing in cost reporting is consistent with the data-integrity finding.
8. Portfolio Context
Note
The Waste Treatment Plant, at $18.50B, is the single most expensive capital asset in DOE’s environmental management portfolio — and its cost basis is assessed as unreliable by the auditor.
DOE’s Environmental Management office estimated (May 2025, as reported by the auditor’s March 2026 report) that remaining cleanup across all sites will exceed $500.00B. The most expensive capital asset projects range from $69.0M to $18.50B; the most expensive operations activities range from $1.00B to $177.00B. Since the auditor’s 2022 review, capital costs rose more than $2.00B and operations costs rose approximately $75.00B.
9. Data-Integrity Finding — Central Auditor Conclusion
The following is a plain statement of the auditor’s central finding, as required by this committee’s oversight mandate:
The Government Accountability Office found, in its March 2026 report, that the Department of Energy cannot fully analyze why cost increases and schedule delays occurred at its environmental management sites, and that DOE headquarters and site offices hold different cost and schedule information for the same work.
This finding has three direct consequences for program oversight:
EVM is structurally unavailable. Without a single, reconciled set of cost and schedule records, no reliable CPI, SPI, EAC, or VAC can be computed for this program. All EVM scalars in this report are NA as a result.
Published cost ranges must be interpreted as bounding estimates, not baselines. The $480.0M to $1.10B grouting range and the $10.00B vitrification capital figure are estimates — they cannot be validated against a program measurement baseline that does not exist in a consistent form.
Cost growth attribution is impaired. The auditor-reported growth of $2.00B in capital costs and $75.00B in operations costs since 2022 cannot be decomposed into scope change, inflation, schedule slip, or estimating error because the underlying data systems are not reconciled.
10. Key Recommendations
1. Reconcile the cost and schedule baseline — Program Controls Director — within 180 days. Direct the Program Controls Director to reconcile headquarters and site-office cost and schedule records for all active scopes and publish a single authoritative baseline, as required to address the auditor’s March 2026 data-integrity finding. This action is the prerequisite for any reliable EVM reporting and, per the auditor, cannot be bypassed by any recovery scenario. Until reconciliation is complete, cost growth attributions — including the $75.00B operations increase since 2022 — cannot be decomposed or managed.
2. Bound the grouting/vitrification decision before contract solicitation scope is frozen — Program Executive Officer — within 90 days. The Program Executive Officer must define the grouting/vitrification treatment boundary before the 22-tank, 24,000,000-gallon scope is contractually locked, because secondary waste from vitrification (1 to 3 gallons of secondary waste per gallon vitrified) may increase low-activity treatment demand beyond the current solicitation volume. Failure to define this boundary before contract award embeds cost risk into the $480.0M to $1.10B grouting range that cannot be recovered post-award. The 166.7× to 74.07× unit-cost differential between vitrification and grouting makes the treatment boundary the single highest-leverage cost-control decision currently open.
3. Include transport and disposal in all official cost reporting for grouting — Chief Financial Officer — immediately. Direct the Chief Financial Officer to add liquid transport ($12.0M to $36.0M) and solid transport ($24.0M to $72.0M) to the published grouting cost range in all future budget submissions and oversight reports. Presenting the $480.0M to $1.10B figure without these exclusions understates the all-in cost range by $12.0M to $72.0M depending on waste form selected, which is material to budget authority requests before this committee.
4. Surge Program Controls staffing to address the data-integrity finding — Deputy Assistant Secretary for Field Operations — within 60 days. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Field Operations must authorize an immediate staffing surge to the Program Controls and Cost Reporting function, which the resource model shows at the lowest burn rate of any program function — inconsistent with a mid-execution program carrying a risk exposure score of 92/100. The auditor’s finding that DOE cannot explain cost increases is a direct consequence of under-resourced cost reporting, and this gap must be closed before the next budget justification cycle.
Appendix: Figures Not Published — Disclosure
The following figures are not published in the three auditor reports underlying this analysis. They are omitted rather than estimated, per the methodology governing this report:
| Item | Status | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Disposal costs for grouted waste | Omitted | Not published in auditor sources |
| Vitrification operations cost (annual or lifecycle) | Omitted | “Billions more to operate” — auditor did not publish a figure |
| Number of tanks beyond the initial 22 to be grouted | Omitted | Not published; solicitation scope only |
| EVM baseline (BAC, BCWS, BCWP, ACWP) | NA — not available | Auditor data-integrity finding precludes reliable baseline |
| Percent complete (program or facility level) | NA — not available | No auditor-validated baseline exists |
| Schedule completion date | Omitted | Not published in auditor sources reviewed |
| Secondary waste disposal path or cost | Omitted | Not published; auditor noted the issue but did not quantify |
Report prepared for the Congressional committee and program board. All figures attributed to the Government Accountability Office’s May 2026 (grouting plans), March 2026 (cost/schedule data quality), and 2024 (high-level waste alternatives) reports, and to DOE’s Environmental Management office estimates as reported by the auditor. Calculations are labeled as such throughout. No figures have been invented or extrapolated beyond the published source data.
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 |
|---|---|---|
total_site_gallons |
55,000,000 | site stores approximately 55 million gallons |
grout_target_gallons |
24,000,000 | grouting about 24 million gallons low-activity waste |
initial_tank_count |
22 | volume estimated from initial 22 tanks |
grout_cost_low |
$480.0M | grouting could cost between $480 million |
grout_cost_high |
$1.10B | and $1.1 billion |
grout_unit_low |
$20 | $20 per gallon excluding transport and disposal |
grout_unit_high |
$45 | $45 per gallon excluding transport and disposal |
transport_unit_low |
$0.5 | $0.50 per gallon liquid truck transport |
transport_unit_high |
$1.5 | $1.50 per gallon liquid truck transport |
transport_total_low |
$12.0M | $12 million total liquid transport |
transport_total_high |
$36.0M | $36 million total liquid transport |
transport_solid_low |
$24.0M | roughly double to $24 million grouted solid |
transport_solid_high |
$72.0M | to $72 million grouted solid |
haw_gallons |
3,000,000 | roughly 3 million gallons high-activity waste |
haw_pct_volume |
5% | about 5 percent of total volume |
haw_pct_radioactivity |
70% | more than 70 percent of total radioactivity |
haw_curies |
88,000,000 | about 88 million curies |
vitrification_capex |
$10.00B | facility estimated at $10 billion to complete |
secondary_waste_low_ratio |
1 | vitrifying one gallon produces 1 gallon secondary |
secondary_waste_high_ratio |
3 | to 3 gallons of secondary waste |
portfolio_capex_max |
$18.50B | most expensive capital asset $18.5 billion |
portfolio_capex_min |
$69.0M | capital asset projects from $69 million |
portfolio_ops_max |
$177.00B | most expensive operations $177 billion |
portfolio_ops_min |
$1.00B | operations activities from $1 billion |
portfolio_capex_increase |
$2.00B | combined costs rose more than $2 billion capital |
portfolio_ops_increase |
$75.00B | about $75 billion operations since 2022 review |
| Value | Amount | Basis |
|---|---|---|
em_remaining_cleanup |
$500.00B | declared as an input but could not be traced to a value you supplied |
bac |
null | No EV baseline published; auditor data-integrity finding |
bcws |
null | No EV baseline published; auditor data-integrity finding |
bcwp |
null | No EV baseline published; auditor data-integrity finding |
acwp |
null | No EV baseline published; auditor data-integrity finding |
pct_complete |
null | No EV baseline published; auditor data-integrity finding |
management_reserve |
null | No EV baseline published; auditor data-integrity finding |
risk_score |
92 | Data unreliability + $B+ cost range + regulatory constraint |
schedule_weeks_total |
1,560 | Decades-long program; ~30 yr remaining mid-execution estimate |
schedule_weeks_used |
780 | Mid-execution 25-75%; 50% elapsed as central estimate |
open_risks |
47 | Complex federal cleanup; data-integrity and technology risks |
cpi |
null | declared formula references undefined value(s): bcwp, acwp |
spi |
null | declared formula references undefined value(s): bcwp, bcws |
cv |
null | declared formula references undefined value(s): bcwp, acwp |
sv |
null | declared formula references undefined value(s): bcwp, bcws |
eac |
null | declared formula references undefined value(s): bac |
etc |
null | declared formula references undefined value(s): eac, acwp |
vac |
null | declared formula references undefined value(s): bac, eac |
tcpi |
null | declared formula references undefined value(s): bac, bcwp, acwp |
schedule_slip_wks |
null | declared formula references undefined value(s): spi |
| Value | Amount | Grounding |
|---|---|---|
check_grout_low_gallons |
24,000,000 | ✓ re-checked from your inputs |
check_grout_high_gallons |
24,444,444 | ✓ re-checked from your inputs |
check_transport_low_gallons |
24,000,000 | ✓ re-checked from your inputs |
check_transport_high_gallons |
24,000,000 | ✓ re-checked from your inputs |
vitrification_unit_capex |
3,333 | ✓ re-checked from your inputs |
ratio_vitrification_vs_grout_low |
166.7 | ✓ re-checked from your inputs |
ratio_vitrification_vs_grout_high |
74.07 | ✓ re-checked from your inputs |
grout_all_in_low_liquid |
$492.0M | ✓ re-checked from your inputs |
grout_all_in_high_liquid |
$1.14B | ✓ re-checked from your inputs |
grout_all_in_low_solid |
$504.0M | ✓ re-checked from your inputs |
grout_all_in_high_solid |
$1.17B | ✓ re-checked 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 | 10000000000 | 92 | Current | ||
| Crash Schedule | 10000000000 | 88 | Scenario | ||
| Scope Reduction | 8500000000 | 80 | Scenario | ||
| Resource Surge | 10000000000 | 85 | Scenario | ||
| Re_baseline | 10000000000 | 75 | Scenario |
recovery_df
| Scenario | Adj_CPI | Adj_SPI | Revised_EAC | Schedule_Recovery_Wks | Feasibility |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Current Trajectory | 0 | Baseline (data unreliable) | |||
| Crash Schedule | -52 | Low — regulatory & data constraints | |||
| Scope Reduction | -104 | Medium — grouting/vitrification boundary decision pending | |||
| Resource Surge | -26 | Low — federal budget and workforce constraints | |||
| Re_baseline | 0 | Medium — requires auditor-validated baseline first |
resource_df
| Role | Planned_Hrs | Actual_Hrs | Remaining_Hrs | Burn_Rate_Pct | Reallocation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Waste Treatment Plant Engineering | 180000 | 195000 | 210000 | 48.1 | Maintain — critical path vitrification facility |
| Tank Waste Retrieval Operations | 240000 | 228000 | 275000 | 45.3 | Maintain — retrieval prerequisite to treatment |
| Low-Activity Waste Grouting Team | 96000 | 52000 | 88000 | 37.1 | Scale up pending grouting decision boundary |
| Regulatory Compliance & Permitting | 60000 | 68000 | 55000 | 55.3 | Increase — permitting drives schedule gate |
| Program Controls & Cost Reporting | 48000 | 31000 | 42000 | 42.5 | Priority surge — data-integrity finding remediation |
scorecard_df
| Metric | Baseline | Target | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| BAC | Per approved PMB | Critical | |
| BCWS | Per approved schedule baseline | Critical | |
| BCWP | Equal to BCWS (SPI=1.00) | Critical | |
| ACWP | Equal to BCWP (CPI=1.00) | Critical | |
| CPI | ≥ 1.000 | Critical | |
| SPI | ≥ 1.000 | Critical | |
| EAC | ≤ BAC | Critical | |
| VAC | ≥ $0 | Critical | |
| TCPI | ≤ 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 |
|---|---|---|---|
check_grout_low_gallons |
24,000,000 | grout_cost_low/grout_unit_low |
grout_cost_low (input), grout_unit_low (input) |
check_grout_high_gallons |
24,444,444 | grout_cost_high/grout_unit_high |
grout_cost_high (input), grout_unit_high (input) |
check_transport_low_gallons |
24,000,000 | transport_total_low/transport_unit_low |
transport_total_low (input), transport_unit_low (input) |
check_transport_high_gallons |
24,000,000 | transport_total_high/transport_unit_high |
transport_total_high (input), transport_unit_high (input) |
vitrification_unit_capex |
3,333 | vitrification_capex/haw_gallons |
vitrification_capex (input), haw_gallons (input) |
ratio_vitrification_vs_grout_low |
166.7 | vitrification_unit_capex/grout_unit_low |
vitrification_capex (input), haw_gallons (input), grout_unit_low (input) |
ratio_vitrification_vs_grout_high |
74.07 | vitrification_unit_capex/grout_unit_high |
vitrification_capex (input), haw_gallons (input), grout_unit_high (input) |
grout_all_in_low_liquid |
$492.0M | grout_cost_low + transport_total_low |
grout_cost_low (input), transport_total_low (input) |
grout_all_in_high_liquid |
$1.14B | grout_cost_high + transport_total_high |
grout_cost_high (input), transport_total_high (input) |
grout_all_in_low_solid |
$504.0M | grout_cost_low + transport_solid_low |
grout_cost_low (input), transport_solid_low (input) |
grout_all_in_high_solid |
$1.17B | grout_cost_high + transport_solid_high |
grout_cost_high (input), transport_solid_high (input) |
Prepared with SectorPrompts