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)

United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548

Resources, Community, and
Economic Development Division


April 25, 1997

The Honorable Floyd D. Spence
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

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
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


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
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.


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

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
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
  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
  Northwest                    115.0         91 .o       212.0             303.0                188.0
 Sandia”                       253.0        269.3        296.6             565.9                312.9
  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

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
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,


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.


 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

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


7                                   GAO/RCED-97-128R   DOE’s Counterintelligence   Funds
ENCLOSURE I                                                                       ENCLOSURE       I


       Mr. Victor S. Rezerides
       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.


                                              enuethE. Baker
                                             Acting Director
                                       li+   Oflice of Nonproliferation
                                              andNational Security      .


       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:


or visit    GAO’s World    Wide Web Home Page at:

United States
General Accounting Office                   BUUK Rate
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           Postage & Fees Paid
                                  I     Permit No. GlOO     I
Official Business
Penalty for Private   Use $300

Address Correction    Requested