United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548 Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division B-276642 April 25, 1997 The Honorable Floyd D. Spence Chairman The Honorable Ronald V. Dellums Ranking Minority Member Committee on National Security House of Representatives Subject: Detxrtment of Enerm: Information on the Distribution of Funds for Counterintelligence Programs and the Resulting Exwnsion of These Programs Counterintelligence programs have been created at many Department of Energy (DOE) facilities to identify, understand, and mitigate foreign efforts to gather information on sensitive departmental activities. Prior to fiscal year 1997, funding for these programs was provided entirely from the facilities’ administrative or overhead funds. However, because of concerns over the increasing number of foreign visitors to these facilities and the possibility that the facilities could be targets for foreign countries seeking nuclear weapons- related information, DOE was appropriated an additional $5 million in fiscal year 1997 to expand counterintelligence programs at its nuclear weapons laboratories and other high-risk facilities. As agreed with your offices, this report addresses (1) the distribution of the additional $5 million among DOE facilities for counterintelligence programs and (2) the extent to which funding and staffing for counterintelligence programs at DOE facilities have increa.sed.l In summary, DOE disbursed $3.74 million of the $5 million to eight facilities to expand their counterintelligence programs. The remaining $1.26 million is to be used for counterintelligence analysis and assessment studies. However, the overall funding increase for counterinteIligence programs at the eight facilities was only about $1.6 million-significantly less than the $3.74 million DOE ‘We are currently evaluating DOE’s counterintelligence program as it relates to foreign visitors. A separate report on this work will be provided to the Committee later this year. GAO/RCED-97-12SR DOE’s Counterintelligence Funds B-276642 provided to these facilities-because (1) five facihties reduced or eliminated the funding they previously provided to counterintelligence programs by a total of $0.7 miIIion, and (2) $1.4 million was alIocated to fund facilitywide support costs. The $1.6 miIl.ion resulted in increased staffing for counterintelligence programs at all but one of the eight facilities2 DISTRIEWTION OF FISCAL YEAR 1997 COUNTERINTELLIGENCE FUNDS Prior to fiscal year 1997, DOE did not provide direct funding of counterintelligence programs at its facilities; rather, these programs were funded from facility administrative or overhead accounts. In January 1997, DOE began to provide funds directly to expand existing counterinteIIigence programs by disbursing $3.74 milhon of the $5 million appropriated for this purpose to the contractors operating eight facihties-the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory: the Lawrence Liver-more National Laboratory, the Los AIamos National Laboratory, Mound Plant, Oak Ridge: the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, the Samba National Laboratories, and the Savannah River Site. The additional funds for fiscal year 1997 that each of the eight facilities received are shown in table 1. %!he staffing at the Mound Plant did not increase. This is because the DOE funding replaced the amounts that the plant formerly provided for its counterintelbgence program. 3The Idaho facility has more than one counterintelligence program. The funds were provided to the program conducted by the Lockheed Martin Idaho Technologies Company, which is the operating contractor at the facility. 4This includes ail DOE facilities in the Oak Ridge, Tennessee, area. 2 GAOIRCED-97-128R DOE’s Counterintelligence Funds B-276642 Table 1: DOE’s Distribution of the Fiscal Year 1997 Funds for Counterintelliaence Proarams at Eiaht Facilities Facility Amount Idaho $400,000 Lawrence Livermore 1 ,168,OOO Los Alamos 900,000 Mound 150,000 Oak Ridge 277,500 Pacific Northwest 320,000 Sandia 400,000 Savannah River 120.300 Total 3.735,800 The remaining funds-$1.26 million-are to be used for counterinteUigence analysis and assessment studies. DOE officials told us that such studies wiII examine the risks and threats to specific facilities, as weII as the DOE complex as a whole. Currently, $350,000has been provided to Liver-more and Los AIamos for a combined assessment, and $36,000 has been provided to Samba for a self-assessment. An additional $75,000 is to be spent on audio/visual support. Final decisions on the activities to be conducted with the remaining $803,000have not yet been made. EXPANSION OF COUNTERINTELLIGENCE PROGRAMS Although DOE provided over $3.7 miUion in additional funds to expand counterinteUigence programs at its facihties, the overah increase in funding to these programs has been considerably less. This is because (1) most facilities have reduced or eliminated the funding they previously provided for counterintehigence and (2) facilitywide support charges on DOE’s funding significantly reduced the amount avaiIable for the counterinteIIigence programs. During fiscal year 1996,the eight facilities had provided a total of $1.4 million for counterintelligence. For fiscal year 1997, these facilities, in the aggregate, reduced their support for their counterintelligence programs by over 50 percent, to $680,700. Three facilities, Los Alamos, Sandia, and Savannah River, are maintaining or increasing their funding for counterintelligence programs, while five facilities have reduced their funding. The most significant reductions are at Idaho, which eliminated its previous year’s funding of $170,500, and at Livermore, which reduced its funding 77 percent, from $552,000 in fiscal year 1996 to $125,000in fiscal year 1997. 3 GAO/RCED-97-128R DOE’s Counterintelligence Funds B-276642 Further reducing the $3.74 million available for facilities’ counterintelligence programs is the allocation of over $1.4 million of this funding to facilitywide support charges. These charges are for purposes such as general and administrative activities. These purposes are defined differently Tom facility to facility and may include facilitywide costs not readily identified with a single user or organization, such as security and facility upkeep. As shown in table 2, at some facilities these charges account for almost 50 percent of the additional funding provided for counterintelligence programs. Table 2: Facilitv Sunport Charaes and Net Counterintelliaence Funding at Eight DOE Facilities. Fiscal Year 1997 Dollars in thousands DOE’s Net counter- Facility counter- intelligence support intelligence Facility funding charge funding Idaho $400.0 $95.4 $304.6 Lawrence Livermore 1,168-O 550.0 618.0 Los Alamos 900.0 378.0 522.0 Mound 150.0 69.0 81 .O Oak Ridge 277.5 71.5 206.0 Pacific Northwest 320.0 108.0 212.0 Sandia 400.0 103.4 296.6 Savannah River 120.3 48.4 71.9 Total $3.735.8 $1.423.7 $2,312-l The reduction in funding and the allocation of a portion of DOE’s funding to facility-wide support costs greatly affect the amount of funds actually available in the counterintelligence programs. In this regard, while DOE increased funding by $3.74 million at the eight facilities for fiscal year 1997, the overall increase in the amount available for the counterintelligence programs is considerably less-about $1.6 milLion. Table 3 shows each facility’s funding to its counterintelligence program in fiscal year 1996, the net funding received by the program, and in fiscal year 1997 the overall increase in program funding. 4 GAO/RCED-97-128R DOE’s Counterintelligence Funds B-276642 Table 3: increase in Counterintelliaence Proaram Fundina at Eiaht DOE Facilities, Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997 Dollars in thousands Fiscal year 1996 funding for counter- Fiscal year 1997 funding for intelligence counterintelliaence proarams Overall Facilitv proarams Facility DOEa Total increase Idaho $170.5 0.0 $304.6 $304.6 $134.1 Lawrence Livermore 552.0 $125.0 618.0 743.0 191.0 Los Alamos 100.0 100.0 522.0 622.0 522.0 Mound 81 .Ob 0.0 81 .O 81 .O 0.0 Oak Ridge 36.5b 0.0 206.0 206.0 169.5 Pacific Northwest 115.0 91 .o 212.0 303.0 188.0 Sandia” 253.0 269.3 296.6 565.9 312.9 Savannah River 88.7 95.4 71.9 167.3 78 6 Total $1.396.7 $680.7 $2.312.1 $2.992.8 $1.596.1 aDOE’s funding is a net of the amount DOE is directly funding less facility support charges. bFiscal year 1996 funding at this facility is estimated. The facility did not provide a specific amount to its counterintelligence program during that year. ‘Sandia’s New Mexico facility incurred a reduction of $16,000 in funding for counterintelligence in fiscal year 1997. Sandia’s Livermore facility is receiving $32,300 more in funding for counterintelligence in fiscal year 1997. With the overall funding increase, the facilities have hired, or are planning to hire, additional staff to work in the counterintelligence programs. Staffing for the counterintelligence programs will almost double from the existing 15.0 full- time equivalents (??I’E) to 29.7 FT’Es. For the most part, the additional staff are to be counterintelligence officers, who will conduct briefings, debriefings, analyses, and awareness programs at their respective facilities. Table 4 details the increases in counterintelligence staffing that are expected to occur in fiscal year 1997 at the eight DOE facilities. GAO/RCED-97-128R DOE’s Counterintelligence Funds B-276642 Table 4: Increase in Counterintelliaence Staffina at Eiaht DOE Facilities, Fiscal Years 1996 and 1997 Fiscal year 1996 Fiscal year 1997 Facility staffing staffing Staffina increase Idaho 1.5 3.0 1.5 Livermore 5.5 7.5 2.0 Los Alamos 1.1 5.5 4.4 Mound 1.0 1.0 0.0 Oak Ridge 0.5 2.5 2.0 Pacific Northwest 1 .o 2.8 1.8 Sandiaa 2.8 5.0 2.2 Savannah River 1.6 2.4 0.8 Total 15.0 297 _- A147 “The Sandia staffing is at both its Albuquerque, New Mexico, and Livermore, California, locations. AGENCY COMMENTS We provided a draft of this report to DOE for review and comment. In an April 17, 1997, letter, DOE responded that it had no comment on the facts of the report; however, it believes that the focus on funding overshadows improvements that have been made in the counterintelligence program. DOE suggested that we make it clear that we were addressing only funding issues and that an evaluation of counterintelligence performance will be addressed in a separate report. We revised the report to point out that we are currently evaluating DOE’s counterintelligence program as it relates to foreign visitors. DOE’s comments are included as enclosure I. SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY We conducted our work at DOE headquarters in Washington, D.C., and at DOE and contractor facilities around the country. We obtained and reviewed relevant documents that described the fiscal year 1997 funding provided to DOE and the distribution of the funds by DOE to its contractor-operated facilities. We also contacted each of the facilities receiving direct counterintelligence funding from DOE headquarters and verified through appropriate contractor officials (1) the amount of counterintelligence funds provided directly by DOE and the amount the funds are reduced by facility charges, (2) the amount provided by the facility to its counterintelligence program in fiscal years 1996 and 1997, and (3) the number of counterintelligence personnel funded in fiscal 6 GAO/RCED-9’7-128R DOE’s Counterintelligence Funds B-276642 years 1996 and 1997. Our work was performed during March and April 1997 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report for 7 days. At that time, we will provide copies to the Secretary of Energy, appropriate congressional committees, and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request. Please contact me on (202) 512-3841if you or your staff have any questions. Major contributors to this report include William F. Fenzel, David L. Brack, James C. Charbfue, John R. Schulze, and Frank B. Waterous. Victor S. Rezendes Director, Energy, R ources, and Science Issues Enclosure 7 GAO/RCED-97-128R DOE’s Counterintelligence Funds ENCLOSURE I ENCLOSURE I COMMENTSFROMTHEDEPARTMENTOFENERGY Mr. Victor S. Rezerides Director Energy,Resources and ScienceIssues U.S. GeneralAccountingOfiice Washington,DC. 20548 Dear Mr. Rezendes: The Departmentof Energyappreciatesthe opportunityto review the draft General Accountingoffice report, “‘Departmentof Energy: Information on the Distribution of Fundsfor CounterintelligenceProgramsand the ResultingExpansionof These F’rograms.”We understandthat this report focusesonly on the additional funds that the Congresshasprovidedto mitigate foreign efforts to gatherinformation on sensitiveDepartmentactivities,rather than on the Department’sefforts to (1) mauageforeign visits andassignmentsand (2) improve cotmterintelligence supportto our weaponslaboratories. The Departmenthas no commenton the facts of the report as they are portrayed. ,However,we are concernedthat the numbersdo not tell the whole story. By trqdng performanceissuesseparately,the GeneralAccounting Of& createsan impressionthat demonstrablevalue-addedimprovements,which the Departmenthas made,are lessnoteworthythanthe bottom line. We do not believethat this is the GeneralAccountingOffice’s intent, aud would thereforesuggestadding a phrase reflectingthe f&t that they wiIl addressperformanceevaluationseparately. Sincerely, enuethE. Baker u Acting Director li+ Oflice of Nonproliferation andNational Security . (141038) 8 GAO/RCED-97-128R DOE’s Counterintelligence Funds Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and Master-Card credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders by maib U.S. General Accouuting Office P-0. Box 6015 Gaithersburg, MD 208846015 or visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using fax number (301) 2584066, or TDD (301) 413-0006. Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these lists. For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to: email@example.com or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at: httpdI.gao.gov United States General Accounting Office BUUK Rate Washington, D.C. 20548-0001 Postage & Fees Paid GAO I Permit No. GlOO I Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300 Address Correction Requested
Department of Energy: Information on the Distribution of Funds for Counterintelligence Programs and the Resulting Expansion of These Programs
Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1997-04-25.
Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)