It's good to have a solid plan when you're working with billion-dollar budgets and dangerous radioactive materials.

But a new report by the Government Accountability Office suggests the National Nuclear Security Agency's plans for the production of nuclear bomb cores, called pits, at Los Alamos National Laboratory have been sketchy. The report says the agency has mixed pit-production costs with the costs of other programs, with the net effect being a lack of "clear, consistent goals."

In 2002, NNSA told the lab to be able to make 10 pits per year, including one "war reserve pit," for a Navy sub by 2007. NNSA estimated the cost for that work at about $1.55 billion.

In 2007, the lab delivered 11 pits, including eight Navy war reserve pits, and the cost of the entire project came in at about $260 million less than the original estimate, according to NNSA.

But there's a catch, according to the GAO.

"NNSA's cost baseline did not include almost $300 million in costs for a number of activities, such as conducting plutonium experiments to certify LANL-produced pits, which were directly associated with the pit manufacturing and certification," said the report, written by GAO Director Gene Aloise.

NNSA Associate Administrator for Management and Administration Michael Kane, in his response to the report, said the costs weren't included "because those facilities (used in pit production) and their capabilities were required to address other program requirements, regardless of the presence of the project."

Because facilities at the lab are used for a variety of projects, not just pit production, the costs of the work were already covered, he said.

"No additional funds were required to expand those facilities to meet the objectives of the pit manufacturing and certification project," Kane said in his reply.

The report also found that NNSA's plans to expand production at the lab to up to 80 pits a year will probably be held back because of limitations at the current building used to make them, called the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research, or CMR building, which was constructed in the early 1950s and isn't equipped to handle large amounts of plutonium.

That building is used not only to make pits but for a variety of other operations at the lab.

Plans for production will also be held back because of limited storage space for pits and pit waste, and because a solid timeline and cost estimate doesn't exist for NNSA's planned replacement facility for the CMR, called the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement building, or CMRR, the report said.

"NNSA has not established a reliable cost and schedule baseline to support its projected efforts," the report said. "Using the best available data, we estimate that NNSA's plans would entail spending about $1.5 billion over the next 5 years to continue funding activities associated with the Pit Manufacturing and Certification campaign and up to $500 million to install a second pit manufacturing line."

GAO also identified another $4 billion that NNSA is planning to spend on support for pit production, including the CMRR, which is "the largest single cost."

"While NNSA has not established a cost and schedule baseline for the construction of this facility, NNSA estimated in its fiscal year 2009 budget request that this project could cost over $2 billion," the report said.

And all that has Greg Mello, executive director of the Los Alamos Study Group, wondering why NNSA wants to build all these pits in the first place.

"What leaps out of these pages is great uncertainty among senior officials about pit production," Mello said. "There are no clear answers as to when NNSA believes production should occur, how many pits NNSA believes are needed — let alone how many pits DOD (Department of Defense) has tasked NNSA to make, if any — what kinds of pits are 'needed,' and what all this may cost."

The GAO report recommended NNSA establish a cost and schedule baseline for future pit manufacturing.

NNSA didn't comment to GAO on the recommendations, but explained that costs for pit manufacturing are often associated with support facilities used in other programs, and so they often fall in other budget areas.

Contact Sue Vorenberg at 986-3072 or svorenberg@sfnewmexican.com.