Nuclear Security: Property Control Problems at DOE's Livermore Laboratory Continue
RCED-91-141
Published: May 16, 1991. Publicly Released: Jul 09, 1991.
Skip to Highlights
Highlights
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the Department of Energy's (DOE) Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory's (LLNL) claim that it found approximately 99 percent of the inventory it previously reported as missing, focusing on: (1) the accuracy of LLNL claims; (2) whether controls over government-owned property at the laboratory were strengthened; and (3) the adequacy of DOE property control oversight.
Recommendations
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Department of Energy | To ensure full compliance with the recommendation GAO made in its April 1990 report, the Secretary of Energy should direct the San Francisco Operations Office Manager to perform a detailed written analysis of the laboratory's property management policies and compare the levels of control provided by them with the levels of control inherent in federal and departmental property management regulations. This analysis should then be used as a basis for making changes to the laboratory's proposed property management system, consistent with the federal and departmental requirements. |
Closed – Implemented
DOE concurred with the report recommendation. The DOE San Francisco field office and the Livermore Laboratory have reached agreement on a mutually acceptable property management policies and procedures manual in October 1991, which, based on a line-by-line analysis, is consistent with federal and departmental requirements.
|
| Department of Energy | The Secretary of Energy should direct the San Francisco Operations Office Manager to demonstrate, through a risk assessment and cost/benefit analysis, the appropriateness of eliminating accountability controls over the non-capital equipment previously accounted for in the laboratory's property management database. To the extent that this analysis identifies non-capital equipment that should be accounted for and controlled, then the Operations Office should work with the laboratory to ensure proper accountability, such as setting an appropriate dollar threshold and adding the appropriate items to the laboratory's property management database. |
Closed – Implemented
The laboratory performed an in-depth comprehensive study of the property which was dropped from the accountability system and moved appropriate items to the attractive item category, a category for which there is accountability. Further, controls such as etching, trend analysis, purchases and losses, restrictions on acquisition, property passes, and gate searches were put in place.
|
Full Report
Office of Public Affairs
Topics
Contract performanceEquipment inventoriesFederal property managementGOCOGovernment owned equipmentInternal controlsInventory control systemsLaboratoriesNoncomplianceProperty losses