Inspection of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Professional Research or Teaching Leave
BACKGROUND
In March 1999, while conducting other Inspection work, the Department of Energy, Office of Inspector General determined that officials at the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (Livermore) had authorized and paid 24 months of “Professional
Research or Teaching Leave” for two Livermore employees. These employees were
research scholars at a local area university during this 24 month period. Professional
Research or Teaching Leave is defined as leave to promote the continuing professional
growth and competence of employees.
In March 1999, while conducting other Inspection work, the Department of Energy, Office of Inspector General determined that officials at the Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (Livermore) had authorized and paid 24 months of “Professional
Research or Teaching Leave” for two Livermore employees. These employees were
research scholars at a local area university during this 24 month period. Professional
Research or Teaching Leave is defined as leave to promote the continuing professional
growth and competence of employees.
On October 19, 1998, you asked that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) undertake a review
of the Department of Energy’s aircraft activities. You also requested that I report back to you
within 90 days. We have gathered information concerning the number of aircraft, the level of
utilization, and the cost of the Department’s aircraft operations. We have also briefly summarized
four issues that, in our judgment, may require management attention.
Prior to your request, the OIG had initiated a separate audit of aircraft and air service
management programs at the Albuquerque Operations Office, which accounts for the largest
percentage of the Department’s total expenditures on aircraft activities. Based on this audit, we
concluded that Albuquerque could reduce the overall cost of its aircraft activities. We also found
that the Operations Office could discontinue air service between Albuquerque and Amarillo,
Texas, if it relied on currently available commercial air services. We issued the draft report to the
Albuquerque Operations Office on December 4, 1998. Although taking exception to some of the
tentative audit conclusions, Albuquerque agreed to take aggressive actions to reduce the cost of
aviation services and to cancel the shuttle service between Albuquerque and Amarillo.
Discussions are proceeding to resolve any substantive differences between this office and
Albuquerque.
of the Department of Energy’s aircraft activities. You also requested that I report back to you
within 90 days. We have gathered information concerning the number of aircraft, the level of
utilization, and the cost of the Department’s aircraft operations. We have also briefly summarized
four issues that, in our judgment, may require management attention.
Prior to your request, the OIG had initiated a separate audit of aircraft and air service
management programs at the Albuquerque Operations Office, which accounts for the largest
percentage of the Department’s total expenditures on aircraft activities. Based on this audit, we
concluded that Albuquerque could reduce the overall cost of its aircraft activities. We also found
that the Operations Office could discontinue air service between Albuquerque and Amarillo,
Texas, if it relied on currently available commercial air services. We issued the draft report to the
Albuquerque Operations Office on December 4, 1998. Although taking exception to some of the
tentative audit conclusions, Albuquerque agreed to take aggressive actions to reduce the cost of
aviation services and to cancel the shuttle service between Albuquerque and Amarillo.
Discussions are proceeding to resolve any substantive differences between this office and
Albuquerque.
The U.S. Department of Energy's Audit Follow-up Process
Audit follow-up is an integral part of good management. According to Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) Circular A-50, corrective action taken by Departmental officials on audit findings and
recommendations is essential to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Government operations. Over
the past several years, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) has issued reports addressing a variety of
Departmental challenges. Management is responsible for taking prompt and effective corrective action on
those issues where Departmental concurrence has been obtained. The objective of this audit was to
determine if the Department has made progress in correcting weaknesses previously disclosed through audit.h
(OMB) Circular A-50, corrective action taken by Departmental officials on audit findings and
recommendations is essential to improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Government operations. Over
the past several years, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) has issued reports addressing a variety of
Departmental challenges. Management is responsible for taking prompt and effective corrective action on
those issues where Departmental concurrence has been obtained. The objective of this audit was to
determine if the Department has made progress in correcting weaknesses previously disclosed through audit.h
Inspection of the Chem-Bio Facility at ORNL
Approval of Title X Remediation Claims
From 1943 to 1970, most of the uranium ore in the Untied States was milled under contract between the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission and private companies. In the 1960s and 1970s, after these contracts ended, many of the uranium mills closed down
and left large quantities of waste, such as uranium mill tailings and abandoned buildings at the sites. Numerous scientific studies determined that the abandoned mill sites were a potential health hazard. In response to this health hazard, the U.S. Congress passed the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. Subsequently, Congress determined that the
Federal Government had a responsibility to pay for part of the sites reclamation costs. Consequently, a reimbursement methodology was established and codified as Reimbursement for Costs of Remedial Action
at Active Uranium and Thorium Processing Sites (10 CFR 765). This regulation allowed for mining companies to submit remediation claims to Department of Energy (DOE) for review, approval, and reimbursement. However, the claims had to be supported by reasonable documentation in order to be eligible for payment. The objective of the audit was to determine if Title X--Remedial Action and Uranium Revitalization (Title X) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 remediation claims were properly supported and approved for payment.
and left large quantities of waste, such as uranium mill tailings and abandoned buildings at the sites. Numerous scientific studies determined that the abandoned mill sites were a potential health hazard. In response to this health hazard, the U.S. Congress passed the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978. Subsequently, Congress determined that the
Federal Government had a responsibility to pay for part of the sites reclamation costs. Consequently, a reimbursement methodology was established and codified as Reimbursement for Costs of Remedial Action
at Active Uranium and Thorium Processing Sites (10 CFR 765). This regulation allowed for mining companies to submit remediation claims to Department of Energy (DOE) for review, approval, and reimbursement. However, the claims had to be supported by reasonable documentation in order to be eligible for payment. The objective of the audit was to determine if Title X--Remedial Action and Uranium Revitalization (Title X) of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 remediation claims were properly supported and approved for payment.
Hanford Site Cleanup Objectives Inconsistent With Projected Land Uses
The cleanup of the Hanford Site (Hanford) is estimated to take over 50 years at a cost close to $100 billion.
Prior reviews have shown that unrealistic land use assumptions
can increase cleanup costs. Therefore, the objective of this audit was to determine if the Richland
Operations Office (Richland) was cleaning Hanford consistent with projected land uses.t=0; h
Prior reviews have shown that unrealistic land use assumptions
can increase cleanup costs. Therefore, the objective of this audit was to determine if the Richland
Operations Office (Richland) was cleaning Hanford consistent with projected land uses.t=0; h