Department of Energy: Funding and Workforce Reduced, But Spending Remains Stable (Letter Report, 04/24/97, GAO/RCED-97-96)
GAO provided information on changes in the Department of Energy's (DOE)
funding, spending (costs), federal workforce, and contractor workforce
between fiscal years (FY) 1994 and 1996. GAO did not verify the accuracy
of the financial data or data on the workforces; however, GAO shared its
results with DOE officials to obtain their agreement that the data
accurately reflected DOE's actual spending and the size of its
workforces.
GAO noted that: (1) overall funding, spending, and workforce reductions
occurred from FY 1994 to 1996; (2) however, budget cuts did not result
in commensurate reductions in spending; (3) DOE spent almost the same in
FY 1996 as it did in 1994; (4) while congressional funding decreased,
from $19.5 billion to $17.4 billion, or 11 percent, between those years,
spending only decreased from $20.4 billion to $19.9 billion, or slightly
over 2 percent; (5) DOE was directed by the Congress to use its
carryover balances of unspent funds from prior years; (6) thus, it has
recently been able to spend more than provided by its annual funding;
(7) furthermore, use of these carryover balances has resulted in DOE's
receiving less new funding during the last several years; (8) DOE's
overall federal workforce declined from 19,836 workers to 18,608
workers, or over 6 percent, and its contractor workforce declined from
136,192 workers to 109,242 workers, or about 20 percent; (9) about 50
percent of the reductions in the federal workforce occurred at
headquarters, while the other 50 percent occurred in DOE's field
offices; (10) even though overall reductions occurred, some programs had
increases in spending and in their federal workforce; (11) for example,
as the defense nuclear production facilities have been transferred to
the Environmental Program, spending has increased by $682 million, or
about 11 percent, between FY 1994 and 1996; (12) in addition, the
Environmental Program's federal workforce increased by 1,149 workers, or
56 percent; and (13) however, none of DOE's major programs had increases
in their contractor workforce.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: RCED-97-96
TITLE: Department of Energy: Funding and Workforce Reduced, But
Spending Remains Stable
DATE: 04/24/97
SUBJECT: Federal downsizing
Appropriated funds
Reductions in force
Labor force
Contractor personnel
Unexpended budget balances
Budget cuts
Budget outlays
IDENTIFIER: DOE Strategic Alignment and Downsizing Initiative
DOE Environmental Management Program
DOE Civilian Radioactive Waste Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved. Major **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters, **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and **
** single lines. The numbers on the right end of these lines **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the **
** document outline. These numbers do NOT correspond with the **
** page numbers of the printed product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** <info@www.gao.gov> **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
Cover
================================================================ COVER
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development,
Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives
April 1997
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - FUNDING AND
WORKFORCE REDUCED, BUT SPENDING
REMAINS STABLE
GAO/RCED-97-96
DOE's Workforce and Spending
(308686)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
DOE - Department of Energy
FERC - Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
FTE - full-time equivalent
GAO - General Accounting Office
PMA - power marketing administration
Letter
=============================================================== LETTER
B-276392
April 24, 1997
The Honorable Joseph M. McDade
Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy
and Water Development
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
Dear Mr. Chairman:
In fiscal year 1996, the Department of Energy (DOE) had a $17.4
billion budget and a federal and a contractor workforce totaling
127,850 workers. Like many other agencies, DOE has been reducing its
budget and workforce.\1
In a February 1996 report, we presented a baseline of DOE's fiscal
year 1994 financial and workforce data against which changes in the
agency can be measured.\2 Using that baseline, this report identifies
changes in DOE's funding, spending (costs), federal workforce, and
contractor workforce between fiscal years 1994 and 1996. The
attached appendixes provide the details on these changes.
--------------------
\1 Federal workers are reported by DOE as full-time equivalents
(FTE)--a personnel term that represents the number of hours worked
divided by the number of compensable hours in a fiscal year.
Contractor workers are reported to DOE in various measures including
FTEs, year-end employment, and average employment levels.
\2 Energy's Financial Resources and Workforce (GAO/RCED-96-69R, Feb.
28, 1996).
RESULTS IN BRIEF
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :1
Overall funding, spending, and workforce reductions occurred from
fiscal years 1994 to 1996. However, budget cuts did not result in
commensurate reductions in spending. DOE spent almost the same in
fiscal year 1996 as it did in 1994. While congressional funding
decreased, from $19.5 billion to $17.4 billion (or 11 percent)
between those years, spending only decreased from $20.4 billion to
$19.9 billion (or slightly over 2 percent). DOE was directed by the
Congress to use its carryover balances of unspent funds from prior
years.\3 Thus, it has recently been able to spend more than provided
by its annual funding. Furthermore, use of these carryover balances
has resulted in DOE's receiving less new funding during the last
several years.
DOE's overall federal workforce declined from 19,836 workers to
18,608 workers (or over 6 percent), and its contractor workforce
declined from 136,192 workers to 109,242 workers (or about 20
percent). About 50 percent of the reductions in the federal
workforce occurred at headquarters, while the other 50 percent
occurred in DOE's field offices. Even though overall reductions
occurred, some programs had increases in spending and in their
federal workforce. For example, as the defense nuclear production
facilities have been transferred to the Environmental Program,
spending has increased--by $682 million (or about 11 percent) between
fiscal years 1994 and 1996. In addition, the Environmental Program's
federal workforce increased by 1,149 workers (or 56 percent).
However, none of DOE's major programs had increases in their
contractor workforce.
--------------------
\3 DOE's carryover balances are the funds remaining from the
obligational authority that the Congress provided DOE in prior years.
Because DOE has not yet obligated these funds or has not yet incurred
costs, they are carried over into the next fiscal year and called
carryover balances.
BACKGROUND
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :2
The administration and the Congress have encouraged federal agencies
to reduce federal and contractor employment and spending and create a
government that works better and costs less. The Federal Workforce
Restructuring Act of 1994 was enacted to help federal agencies
downsize by allowing non-Defense agencies to offer buyouts to
employees who agreed to resign or retire by March 31, 1995.\4
Furthermore, section 3161 of the National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 1993 was enacted to facilitate the reduction of DOE's
contractor workforce, which was necessitated by the end of the Cold
War. Specifically, this act authorized DOE to minimize the impact of
workforce reductions on contractor employees at defense nuclear
facilities. Under this act, DOE has provided enhanced retirement and
other benefits to help reduce the workforce.
In May 1995, DOE implemented its Strategic Alignment and Downsizing
Initiative, which was designed to reduce its funding by $1.7 billion
over a 5-year period. As we reported in May 1996, DOE's overall
spending and federal workforce reductions in fiscal year 1996 were
consistent with the reduction goals of the Department's Strategic
Alignment and Downsizing Initiative.\5 DOE met its goal to reduce
spending by amending its budget request for fiscal year 1996 to
reflect a planned savings of $208 million. It met its goal to reduce
its federal workforce by reducing employment below its year-end
target of 12,677 workers. This number excluded over 6,000 workers in
the power marketing administrations (PMA) and the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission (FERC), which DOE had hoped to divest.\6
The end of the Cold War also significantly affected DOE's missions.
DOE's primary mission has changed from producing nuclear weapons to
one primarily of managing environmental cleanup at its facilities.
This change has caused the closing and reconfiguring of DOE's nuclear
defense facilities and the downsizing of their federal workforce and
contractor workforce.
--------------------
\4 Agency heads were authorized to defer some employees' separation
until March 31, 1997. Under separate legislation, Defense agencies
can offer buyouts through September 30, 1999.
\5 Energy Downsizing: While DOE Is Achieving Budget Cuts, It Is Too
Soon to Gauge Effects (GAO/RCED-96-154, May 13, 1996).
\6 The goals of the Strategic Alignment and Downsizing Initiative are
reported as end-of-year employment figures, while the numbers we used
for federal employment were reported as FTEs.
LITTLE CHANGE IN SPENDING
DESPITE FUNDING REDUCTIONS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :3
Despite an 11-percent decrease in congressional funding for DOE over
the last 2 fiscal years, DOE's spending has decreased by only 2
percent. From fiscal year 1994 to fiscal year 1996, the Congress
decreased DOE's annual appropriations by $2 billion--from $19.5
billion to $17.4 billion. However, DOE's expenditures for the same
period decreased by only about $460 million--from $20.4 billion to
$19.9 billion. DOE has been able to sustain its fiscal year 1994
spending level because it drew from its $12.9 billion carryover
balance of unspent funds from prior years. In response to our
identifying and reporting on these carryover balances during the last
several years, the Congress has directed that the Department use
these balances and request less new funding.\7 Table 1 shows the
specific funding and spending changes.
Table 1
Reductions in Funding and Expenditures,
Fiscal Years 1994-96
(Dollars in millions)
Fiscal year Change
--------------------------------------
Percenta
1994 1996 Amount ge
------------------------------ -------- -------- -------- --------
Funding (annual $19,505 $17,359 $(2,146) (11.0)
appropriations)
Carryover balance from the 12,900 9,600 (3,300) (25.6)
prior years
Total funds available for 32,405 26,959 (5,446) (16.8)
spending
Expenditures $20,353 $19,893 $(460) (2.3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures are in nominal dollars.
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's data.
--------------------
\7 DOE Management: DOE Needs to Improve Its Analysis of Carryover
Balances (GAO/RCED-96-57, Apr. 12, 1996).
WHILE OVERALL SPENDING
DECLINED, SPENDING INCREASED IN
SOME PROGRAMS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :4
Although overall spending since fiscal year 1994 has decreased, some
program spending has increased. For example, as shown in table 2,
the Environmental Management Program's spending increased by $682
million--from $6.5 billion to $7.2 billion. At the same time,
spending for Defense Programs decreased by $1.2 billion, from $5
billion to $3.9 billion. This spending shift reflects the increasing
focus on environmental cleanup since the end of the Cold War. For
example, DOE has been deactivating its defense nuclear production
facilities and removing nuclear and nonnuclear hazardous materials.
At DOE's Savannah River facility, defense spending decreased about
$779 million, while environmental management spending increased about
$609 million. The increase in environmental spending resulted
primarily from DOE's using its carryover balances from prior years
rather than new congressional funding.
Another change, occurring within the administrative offices and other
program areas within DOE, was the elimination of the Science
Education and Technical Information Program (see app. I, table I.2).
This program, in which we identified major weaknesses in a prior
report,\8
was not funded in fiscal year 1996, thus saving about $77 million.
Table 2
Changes in Spending for Major Programs,
Fiscal Years 1994-96
(Dollars in millions)
Fiscal year Change
------------------ ------------------
Percenta
Program 1994 1996 Amount ge
------------------------------ -------- -------- -------- --------
Environmental Management $6,506 $7,187 $682 10.5
Defense 5,049 3,880 (1,169) (23.1)
Energy Research 2,865 3,029 165 5.8
Nuclear Energy 1,470 1,205 (264) (18.0)
Fossil Energy 1,170 1,134 (36) (3.1)
Efficiency and Renewables 861 1,227 367 42.6
PMAs and FERC 656 614 (42) (6.5)
Administrative and other 646 546 (100) (15.5)
Nonproliferation and Security 507 527 20 4.0
Civilian Radioactive Waste 406 346 (60) (14.8)
Environment, Safety and Health 219 197 (22) (9.9)
======================================================================
Total $20,353 $19,893 $(460) (2.3)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures are in nominal dollars. Totals do not add due to
rounding.
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's data.
--------------------
\8 Precollege Math and Science Education: Department of Energy's
Precollege Program Managed Ineffectively (GAO/HEHS-94-208, Sept. 13,
1994).
DOE'S FEDERAL WORKFORCE HAS
DECREASED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :5
DOE's overall federal workforce has declined. Since fiscal year
1994, DOE's federal workforce has decreased by 1,228 FTEs (or 6
percent). As shown in table 3, DOE made its largest reductions in
Defense Programs by eliminating 806 FTEs. While cuts were made in
most of DOE's programs, the Environmental Management Program
increased by 1,149 FTEs. In large part, this increase resulted from
a DOE agreement with the Office of Management and Budget to replace
support service contractors with federal employees. As discussed in
our earlier reports,\9 this change was made because it was more
economical to have federal workers performing certain tasks, such as
processing personnel security information.
Table 3
Changes in the Federal Workforce for
Major Programs, Fiscal Years 1994-96
(Workforce numbers in FTEs)
Fiscal year Change
------------------ ------------------
Percenta
Program 1994 1996 Amount ge
------------------------------ -------- -------- -------- --------
Environmental Management 2,058 3,207 1,149 55.8
Defense 2,876 2,070 (806) (28.0)
Energy Research 560 466 (94) (16.8)
Nuclear Energy 478 408 (70) (14.6)
Fossil Energy 1,096 941 (155) (14.1)
Efficiency and Renewables 612 630 18 2.9
PMAs and FERC 6,809 6,114 (695) (10.2)
Administrative and other 4,278 3,733 (545) (12.7)
Nonproliferation and Security 427 401 (26) (6.1)
Civilian Radioactive Waste 223 228 5 2.2
Environment, Safety and Health 419 410 (9) (2.1)
======================================================================
Total 19,836 18,608 (1,228) (6.2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's data.
Within this federal workforce reduction, about 50 percent occurred at
headquarters, while the other 50 percent occurred in DOE's field
offices. Virtually no change occurred in the ratio of headquarters
staff to field staff. Headquarters staff accounted for just over 40
percent of DOE's total federal workforce in fiscal year 1994 and
accounted for almost 40 percent (a decrease of less than 1 percent)
in fiscal year 1996.
--------------------
\9 Energy Management: Improving Cost-Effectiveness in DOE's Support
Services Will Be Difficult (GAO/RCED-93-88, Mar. 5, 1993) and Energy
Management: Using DOE's Employees Can Reduce Costs for Some Support
Services (GAO/RCED-91-186, Aug. 16, 1991).
CONTRACTOR WORKFORCE HAS ALSO
DECREASED
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :6
Since the end of fiscal year 1994, DOE's contractor workforce has
been reduced by almost 27,000 workers. The workforce decreased from
136,192 workers to 109,242 workers at the end of fiscal year 1996.
As part of the downsizing of DOE's defense mission, the largest
decrease--over half of DOE's total reduction--occurred in its Defense
Programs, which have been reduced by 14,693 workers. Other decreases
that have occurred as part of the overall downsizing include the
Energy Research (361 workers), Civilian Radioactive Waste (1,346
workers), and Environmental Management (998 workers) programs. Other
miscellaneous and unspecified programs and activities also accounted
for a major reduction of 6,974 workers.
DOE's reductions in its contractor workforce did not occur without
related costs. As we reported earlier this year, about 24,000
separated contractor workers received an average of $25,600 in
benefits.\10 These benefits often exceeded the value of the benefits
the contractors normally would have provided under existing contracts
as well as what would have been provided to federal workers in a
reduction-in-force.
Table 4
Changes in the Contractor Workforce for
Major Programs, Fiscal Years 1994-96
(Number of contractor workers)
Fiscal year Change
------------------ ------------------
Percenta
Program\a 1994 1996 Amount ge
------------------------------ -------- -------- -------- --------
Environmental Management 43,215 42,217 (998) (2.3)
Defense 39,946 25,253 (14,693) (36.8)
Energy Research 13,688 13,327 (361) (2.6)
Nuclear Energy 8,783 8,225 (558) (6.4)
Fossil Energy 2,423 1,981 (442) (18.2)
Efficiency and Renewables 2,350 1,881 (469) (20.0)
Administrative and other 2,925 1,949 (976) (33.4)
Nonproliferation and 2,543 2,329 (214) (8.4)
Security\b
Civilian Radioactive Waste 1,824 478 (1,346) (73.8)
Environment, Safety and 1,066 593 (473) (44.4)
Health\b
Other miscellaneous and 9,522 2,548 (6,974) (73.2)
unspecified programs and
activities
Work for others 7,907 8,461 554 7.0
======================================================================
Total 136,192 109,242 (26,950) (19.8)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a While these numbers reflect the contractor workforce tracked by
DOE, there are additional workers, such as subcontractors, that are
not generally tracked.
\b While many of these workers are functionally assigned to these
programs, many are funded out of other programs that manage the site
at which they work.
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's data.
--------------------
\10 Department of Energy: Value of Benefits Paid to Separated
Contractor Workforce Varied Widely (GAO/RCED-97-33, Jan. 23, 1997).
AGENCY COMMENTS
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :7
We sent a draft of this report to the Department of Energy for its
review and comment. (DOE's comments appear in app. VI.) DOE agreed
with the report that cost and workforce reductions have occurred from
fiscal years 1994 to 1996. The Department also acknowledged that
reductions in costs did not directly track to the reductions in
annual congressional funding. DOE noted that it uses "onboard
strength" (number of employees) to measure workforce reductions.
While we agree that onboard strength is a means to measure workforce
reductions, we used FTEs in this report because FTEs are a better
measure of the personnel costs associated with performing missions or
operating programs.
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
------------------------------------------------------------ Letter :8
To identify changes in DOE's spending, funding, and federal and
contractor workforces, we started with our prior report that had
developed a baseline on this information for fiscal year 1994. To
update the data for fiscal years 1995 and 1996, we obtained cost data
from DOE's Financial Information System. Data on the size of the
federal workforce, measured in FTEs, were obtained from DOE's Energy
Manpower Personnel Resources and Information System. Data on the
contractor workforce were obtained from DOE's reports on Contractor
Employment Distribution by Programs for the quarters ending September
30 in 1995 and 1996. The data on the contractor workforce that were
reported by some contractors represent workforce estimates or
allocations rather than the actual number of employees.
We did not verify the accuracy of the financial data or data on the
workforces; however, we shared our results with DOE officials to
obtain their agreement that the data accurately reflected DOE's
actual spending and the size of its workforces. We also reviewed
relevant budget documents, prior GAO reports, DOE's Strategic
Alignment and Downsizing Initiative, and legislation. We discussed
changes in the data with officials representing the Strategic
Alignment and Downsizing Initiative project. These officials are in
the offices of the Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and
Administration, the Associate Deputy Secretary for Field Management,
and the Chief Financial Officer. Our review was performed from June
1996 through March 1997 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
---------------------------------------------------------- Letter :8.1
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its
contents earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report for
7 days after the date of this report. At that time, we will send
copies to the Secretary of Energy and make copies available to others
on request.
Please contact me at (202) 512-3841 if you or your staff have any
further questions. Major contributors to this report are listed in
appendix VII.
Victor S. Rezendes
Director, Energy, Resources, and
Science Issues
CHANGES IN MAJOR PROGRAMS,
ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES, AND OTHER
PROGRAMS
=========================================================== Appendix I
Table I.1
Costs for Major Programs, Fiscal Years
1994-96
(Dollars in thousands)
Amount of Percentage
change change
between 1994 between 1994
Program 1994 1995 1996 and 1996 and 1996
------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Environmental $6,505,801 $6,619,461 $7,187,405 $681,604 10.5
Management
Defense 5,048,536 4,617,132 3,879,821 (1,168,715) (23.1)
Energy Research 2,864,515 3,124,544 3,029,366 164,851 5.8
Nuclear Energy 1,469,680 1,196,213 1,205,370 (264,310) (18.0)
Fossil Energy 1,169,780 1,093,981 1,133,582 (36,198) (3.1)
Efficiency and 860,780 1,025,665 1,227,436 366,656 42.6
Renewables
Power marketing 656,210 583,088 613,772 (42,438) (6.5)
administrations
(PMA) and the
Federal Energy
Regulatory
Commission
(FERC)\a
Administrative and 646,354 602,853 546,272 (100,082) (15.5)
other\b
Nonproliferation 506,918 502,488 527,401 20,483 4.0
and Security
Civilian 405,688 508,822 345,681 (60,007) (14.8)
Radioactive Waste
Environment, Safety 218,969 192,164 197,252 (21,717) (9.9)
and Health
=========================================================================================
Total $20,353,231 $20,066,411 $19,893,358 $(459,873) (2.3)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures are in nominal dollars.
\a The actual costs of operating the PMAs are greater than shown
here. For the purpose of finance, the Bonneville Power
Administration operates in a way that is similar to a government
corporation with a revolving fund that is separate from DOE's
financial system. Furthermore, some costs of operating and
maintaining PMAs' facilities are financed through the appropriations
of other agencies (e.g., the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the
Bureau of Reclamation) and some costs are recovered by the PMAs
through power revenues.
\b See table I.2 for activities that make up this category.
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's data.
Table I.2
Costs for Administrative Offices and
Other Programs, Fiscal Years 1994-96
(Dollars in thousands)
Amount of Percentage
change change
between 1994 between 1994
Office \a 1994 1995 1996 and 1996 and 1996
------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Congressional, $6,248 $6,487 $5,970 $(278) (4.4)
Public and
Intergovernmental
Affairs\b
Policy 30,402 28,289 22,091 (8,311) (27.3)
Chief Financial 20,683 19,808 18,691 (1,992) (9.6)
Officer
Economic Impact and 7,019 8,037 6,043 (976) (13.9)
Diversity
Field Management 33,336 11,133 10,012 (23,324) (70.0)
General Counsel 18,392 17,676 16,658 (1,734) (9.4)
Human Resources 183,618 163,197 151,868 (31,750) (17.3)
Field Office 109,967 112,442 100,165 (9,802) (8.9)
Departmental
Administration\c
Energy Information 83,106 84,134 78,712 (4,394) (5.3)
Science Education 77,280 69,373 0 (77,280) (100.0)
and Technical
Information
Hearings and 5,893 6,617 4,317 (1,576) (26.7)
Appeals
Inspector General 27,743 27,663 28,280 537 1.9
Other 42,667 47,997 103,465 60,798 142.5
=========================================================================================
Total $646,354 $602,853 $546,272 $(100,082) (15.5)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures are in nominal dollars.
\a These data include both headquarters and field office costs.
\b This office was created during fiscal year 1996, when DOE merged
the Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs with the
Office of Public and Consumer Affairs.
\c These data include all Departmental Administration costs outside
of DOE headquarters.
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's data.
Table I.3
Federal Workforce for Major Programs,
Fiscal Years 1994-96
(Workforce numbers in full-time
equivalents (FTE))
Amount of Percentage
change change
between 1994 between 1994
Program 1994 1995 1996 and 1996 and 1996
------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Environmental 2,058 2,727 3,207 1,149 55.8
Management
Defense 2,876 2,653 2,070 (806) (28.0)
Energy Research 560 512 466 (94) (16.8)
Nuclear Energy 478 432 408 (70) (14.6)
Fossil Energy 1,096 1,021 941 (155) (14.1)
Efficiency and 612 677 630 18 2.9
Renewables
PMAs and FERC 6,809 6,408 6,114 (695) (10.2)
Administrative and 4,278 4,137 3,733 (545) (12.7)
0ther\a
Nonproliferation 427 406 401 (26) (6.1)
and Security
Civilian 223 233 228 5 2.2
Radioactive Waste
Environment, Safety 419 452 410 (9) (2.1)
and Health
=========================================================================================
Total 19,836 19,658 18,608 (1,228) (6.2)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a See table I.4 for activities that make up this category.
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's data.
Table I.4
Federal Workforce for Administrative
Offices and Other Programs, Fiscal Years
1994-96
(Workforce numbers in FTEs)
Amount of Percentage
change change
between 1994 between 1994
Office\a 1994 1995 1996 and 1996 and 1996
------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Congressional, 124 120 105 (19) (15.3)
Public and
Intergovernmental
Affairs\b
Policy 205 214 187 (18) (8.8)
Chief Financial 292 280 259 (33) (11.3)
Officer
Economic Impact and 58 51 50 (8) (13.8)
Diversity
Field Management 86 89 68 (18) (20.9)
General Counsel 213 213 197 (16) (7.5)
Human Resources 1,006 904 797 (209) (20.8)
Field Office 1,156 1,121 1,005 (151) (13.1)
Departmental
Administration\c
Energy Information 462 473 448 (14) (3.0)
Science Education 190 176 143 (47) (24.7)
and Technical
Information\d
Hearings and 88 80 65 (23) (26.1)
Appeals
Inspector General 358 339 324 (34) (9.5)
Other 40 77 85 45 112.5
=========================================================================================
Total 4,278 4,137 3,733 (545) (12.7)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a These data include both headquarters and field offices.
\b During fiscal year 1996, the Office of Congressional and
Intergovernmental Affairs was merged with the Office of Public and
Consumer Affairs to form this office.
\c These data include all Departmental Administration employees
outside of DOE headquarters.
\d This program was terminated during fiscal year 1996. The FTEs
shown for fiscal year 1996 represent those charged to the program
before it was abolished.
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's data.
Table I.5
Contractor Workforce for Major Programs,
Fiscal Years 1994-96
(Number of contractor workers)
Amount of Percentage
change change
between 1994 between 1994
Program 1994 1995 1996 and 1996 and 1996
------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Environmental 43,215 38,654 42,217 (998) (2.3)
Management
Defense 39,946 33,433 25,253 (14,693) (36.8)
Energy Research 13,688 13,958 13,327 (361) (2.6)
Nuclear Energy 8,783 8,529 8,225 (558) (6.4)
Fossil Energy 2,423 2,161 1,981 (442) (18.2)
Efficiency and 2,350 2,722 1,881 (469) (20.0)
Renewables
Administrative and 2,925 4,368 1,949 (976) (33.4)
other\a,b
Nonproliferation 2,543 1,936 2,329 (214) (8.4)
and Security\b
Civilian 1,824 1,362 478 (1,346) (73.8)
Radioactive Waste
Environment, Safety 1,066 591 593 (473) (44.4)
and Health\b
Other miscellaneous 9,522 2,666 2,548 (6,974) (73.2)
and unspecified
programs and
activities\c
Work for others 7,907 7,874 8,461 554 7.0
=========================================================================================
Total 136,192 118,254 109,242 (26,950) (19.8)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a See table I.6 for activities that make up this category.
\b These contractor workers represent a functional allocation of
staff performing work in these types of administrative activities,
and for the most part, they are paid for by other DOE program
offices.
\c DOE's contractor workforce report does not provide a specific
break down by program activity for this category.
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's data.
Table I.6
Contractor Workforce for Administrative
Offices and Other Programs, Fiscal Years
1994-96
(Number of contractor workers)
Amount of Percentage
change change
between 1994 between 1994
Office\a 1994 1995 1996 and 1996 and 1996
---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Chief 2,255 3,469 1,351 (904) (40.1)
Financial
Officer
Human 445 660 396 (49) (11.0)
Resources
Policy 62 132 109 47 75.8
Economic 0 14 3 3 100.0
Impact
and
Diversity
Energy 102 5 1 (101) (99.0)
Informati
on
Science 61 88 89 28 45.9
Education
and
Technical
Informati
on
================================================================================
Total 2,925 4,368 1,949 (976) (33.4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a These contractor workers are located in the field and represent a
functional allocation of staff performing work in these types of
administrative activities. For the most part, these workers are paid
for by other DOE program offices.
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's data.
CHANGES IN OPERATIONS OFFICES
========================================================== Appendix II
Table II.1
Costs for Operations Offices, Fiscal
Years 1994-96
(Dollars in thousands)
Amount of Percentage
change change
between 1994 between 1994
Office 1994 1995 1996 and 1996 and 1996
------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Albuquerque $4,293,202 $3,356,191 $3,608,801 $(684,401) (15.9)
Chicago 2,373,299 2,571,947 2,517,034 143,735 6.1
Idaho 917,143 818,778 707,800 (209,343) (22.8)
Nevada 636,837 499,074 447,469 (189,368) (29.7)
Oak Ridge 3,087,676 2,608,114 2,201,028 (886,648) (28.7)
Oakland 1,506,159 1,544,792 1,700,366 194,207 12.9
Richland 1,868,675 1,835,964 1,710,297 (158,378) (8.5)
Savannah River 1,784,455 1,732,122 1,638,407 (146,048) (8.2)
=========================================================================================
Total $16,467,446 $14,966,982 $14,531,202 $(1,936,244) (11.8)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures are in nominal dollars.
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's data.
Table II.2
Federal Workforce for Operations
Offices, Fiscal Years 1994-96
(Workforce numbers in FTEs)
Amount of Percentage
Change change
between 1994 between 1994
Office 1994 1995 1996 and 1996 and 1996
------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Albuquerque 1,573 1,532 1,482 (91) (5.8)
Chicago 570 577 520 (50) (8.8)
Idaho 462 451 425 (37) (8.0)
Nevada 389 389 375 (14) (3.6)
Oak Ridge 862 727 682 (180) (20.9)
Oakland 400 429 411 11 2.8
Richland 441 544 536 95 21.5
Savannah River 543 571 573 30 5.5
=========================================================================================
Total 5,240 5,220 5,004 (236) (4.5)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's data.
CHANGES IN SITE OFFICES AND
FACILITIES
========================================================= Appendix III
Table III.1
Costs for Site Offices and Facilities,
Fiscal Years 1994-96
(Dollars in thousands)
Amount of Percentage
change change
Office/ between 1994 between 1994
facility 1994 1995 1996 and 1996 and 1996
---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Hanford $1,664,021 $1,492,133 $1,395,950 $(268,071) (16.1)
Site\a
Savannah 1,669,471 1,600,932 1,496,304 (173,167) (10.4)
River\b
Oak 1,575,422 1,346,382 1,270,807 (304,615) (19.3)
Ridge\c
Grand 56,570 58,203 65,736 9,166 16.2
Junction
Kansas 344,218 296,299 333,723 (10,495) (3.0)
City
Mound 162,493 134,273 116,395 (46,098) (28.4)
Plant
Nevada 210,241 184,172 155,159 (55,082) (26.2)
Test
Site\d
Uranium 342,450 438,911 433,997 91,547 26.7
Enrichmen
t,
including
Paducah
and
Portsmout
h
Pantex 266,203 282,051 290,555 24,352 9.1
Plant
Pinellas 103,050 90,527 63,590 (39,460) (38.3)
Plant
Waste 84,260 81,819 83,505 (755) (0.9)
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
================================================================================
Total $6,478,399 $6,005,702 $5,705,721 $(772,678) (11.9)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures are in nominal dollars.
\a These costs are for the entire site and include the Pacific
Northwest Laboratory. The laboratory costs are shown separately in
table V.1.
\b These costs include the Savannah River Plant, the Savannah River
Technology Center, and the Savannah River Ecology Laboratory. The
laboratory costs are shown separately in table V.1.
\c These costs include the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, the Oak
Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant, the Y-12 Plant, and the Oak Ridge
Institute for Science and Education. The Institute and the Oak Ridge
National Laboratory are shown separately in table V.1.
\d These costs exclude those attributable to the Yucca Mountain Site
Characterization Project. See table IV.1 for those costs.
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's data.
Table III.2
Federal Workforce for Site Offices and
Facilities, Fiscal Years 1994-96
(Workforce numbers in FTEs)
Amount of Percentage
change between change between
Office/facility 1994 1995 1996 1994 and 1996 1994 and 1996
----------------------- -------- -------- -------- ---------------- ----------------
Grand Junction 14 21 22 8 57.1
Kansas City 87 85 69 (18) (20.7)
Mound Plant 49 128 131 82 167.3
Nevada Test Site\a 168 153 150 (18) (10.7)
Paducah/Portsmouth 66 26 25 (41) (62.1)
Pantex 76 82 88 12 15.8
Pinellas 29 27 28 (1) (3.4)
Waste Isolation Pilot 52 58 57 5 9.6
Plant
=========================================================================================
Total 541 580 570 29 5.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a These FTEs exclude those attributable to the Yucca Mountain Site
Characterization Project. See table IV.2 for those FTEs.
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's data.
Table III.3
Contractor Workforce for Site Offices
and Facilities, Fiscal Years 1994-96
(Number of contractor workers)
Amount of Percentage
change change
Office/ between 1994 between 1994
facility 1994 1995 1996 and 1996 and 1996
---------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Hanford\a 16,741 13,186 12,636 (4,105) (24.5)
Savannah 19,028 15,625 14,581 (4,447) (23.4)
River\b
Oak 17,462 16,224 14,734 (2,728) (15.6)
Ridge\c
Grand 970 676 616 (354) (36.5)
Junction
Kansas 3,289 3,563 3,696 407 12.4
City
Mound 1,337 1,127 997 (340) (25.4)
Plant
Nevada 4,592 3,929 2,777 (1,815) (39.5)
Test
Site\d
Pantex 2,853 2,985 2,984 131 4.6
Pinellas 999 658 552 (447) (44.7)
Waste 735 637 628 (107) (14.6)
Isolation
Pilot
Plant
================================================================================
Total 68,006 58,610 54,201 (13,805) (20.3)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a These workforce data are for the entire site and include the
Pacific Northwest Laboratory. The laboratory data are shown
separately in table V.2.
\b These workforce data include the Savannah River Plant, the
Savannah River Technology Center, and the Savannah River Ecology
Laboratory. The laboratory data are shown separately in table V.2.
\c These workforce data include the Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
the Oak Ridge, Paducah and Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plants, the
Y-12 Plant, and the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education.
The Institute and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory are shown
separately in table V.2.
\d These workforce data exclude those attributable to the Yucca
Mountain Site Characterization Project. See table IV.3 for that
data.
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's data.
CHANGES IN SPECIAL PURPOSE OFFICES
AND PROJECTS
========================================================== Appendix IV
Table IV.1
Costs for Special Purpose Offices and
Projects, Fiscal Years 1994-96
(Dollars in thousands)
Amount of Percentage
change between change between
Office/project 1994 1995 1996 1994 and 1996 1994 and 1996
----------------------- -------- -------- -------- ---------------- ----------------
Bartlesville Project $14,186 $21,480 $24,487 $10,301 72.6
Office
Fernald Environmental 295,351 291,278 248,908 (46,443) (15.7)
Management Project
Morgantown Energy 361,122 422,507 479,513 118,391 32.8
Technology Center
Naval Petroleum and Oil 17,607 24,996 17,759 152 0.9
Shale Reserves
Naval Petroleum 252,813 169,560 144,830 (107,983) (42.7)
Reserves-California
Pittsburgh Energy 221,408 218,250 303,249 81,841 37.0
Technology Center
Pittsburgh Naval 329,944 359,732 379,203 49,259 14.9
Reactors\a
Rocky Flats 719,274 661,733 543,204 (176,070) (24.5)
Schenectady Naval 312,040 298,965 294,975 (17,065) (5.5)
Reactors\b
Strategic Petroleum 191,091 220,189 211,626 20,535 10.7
Reserve
West Valley 131,387 139,922 111,741 (19,646) (15.0)
Demonstration Project
Yucca Mountain Site 279,713 371,251 249,294 (30,419) (10.9)
Characterization
Project
=========================================================================================
Total $3,125,9 $3,199,8 $3,008,7 $(117,147) (3.7)
36 63 89
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures are in nominal dollars.
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's data.
Table IV. 2
Federal Workforce for Special Purpose
Offices and Projects, Fiscal Years 1994-
96
(Workforce numbers in FTEs)
Amount of Percentage
change between change between
Office/project 1994 1995 1996 1994 and 1996 1994 and 1996
----------------------- -------- -------- -------- ---------------- ----------------
Bartlesville Project 24 27 24 0 0
Office
Fernald Environmental 62 62 (5) (7.5)
Management Project 67
Morgantown Energy 317 293 (38) (11.5)
Technology Center 331
Naval Petroleum and Oil 14 14 13 (1) (7.1)
Shale Reserves
Naval Petroleum 52 49 45 (7) (13.5)
Reserves-California
Pittsburgh Energy 318 298 269 (49) (15.4)
Technology Center
Pittsburgh Naval 79 77 73 (6) (7.6)
Reactors
Rocky Flats 221 280 299 78 35.3
Schenectady Naval 68 66 63 (5) (7.4)
Reactors
Strategic Petroleum 126 120 116 (10) (7.9)
Reserve Office
West Valley 20 25 25 5 25.0
Demonstration Project
Yucca Mountain Site 41 100 98 57 139.0
Characterization
Project
=========================================================================================
Total 1,361 1,435 1,380 19 1.4
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's data.
Table IV.3
Contractor Workforce for Special Purpose
Offices and Projects, Fiscal Years 1994-
96
(Number of contractor workers)
Amount of Percentage
change change
between 1994 between 1994
Office/project 1994 1995 1996 and 1996 and 1996
------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Bartlesville 215 233 196 (19) (8.8)
Project Office
Fernald 2,335 2,208 1,995 (340) (14.6)
Environmental
Management Project
Naval Petroleum and 127 127 112 (15) (11.8)
Oil Shale Reserves
Naval Petroleum 733 525 511 (222) (30.3)
Reserves-
California
Pittsburgh Energy 236 258 158 (78) (33.1)
Technology Center
Pittsburgh Naval 788 724 649 (139) (17.6)
Reactors
Rocky Flats 6,741 4,460 3,535 (3,206) (47.6)
Schenectady Naval 2,972 2,970 2,774 (198) (6.7)
Reactors
Strategic Petroleum 954 930 901 (53) (5.6)
Reserve Office
West Valley 970 957 912 (58) (6.0)
Demonstration
Project
Yucca Mountain Site 567 644 444 (123) (21.7)
Characterization
Project
=========================================================================================
Total 16,638 14,036 12,187 (4,451) (26.8)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's data.
CHANGES IN LABORATORIES
=========================================================== Appendix V
Table V.1
Costs for Laboratories, Fiscal Years
1994-96
(Dollars in thousands)
Amount of Percentage
change change
between 1994 between 1994
Laboratory 1994 1995 1996 and 1996 and 1996
------------------- ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------ ------------
Ames Laboratory $35,499 $32,640 $28,952 $(6,547) (18.4)
Argonne National 546,105 530,239 473,317 (72,788) (13.3)
Laboratory "East"
and "West"
Bettis Atomic Power 323,369 352,081 373,672 50,303 15.6
Laboratory
Brookhaven National 361,946 393,840 400,992 39,046 10.8
Laboratory
Energy Technology 32,807 21,675 14,740 (18,067) (55.1)
Engineering Center
Fermi National 237,912 256,675 271,916 34,004 14.3
Accelerator
Laboratory
Idaho National 681,245 685,887 571,539 (109,706) (16.1)
Engineering
Laboratory\a
Inhalation 13,465 15,073 13,516 51 0.4
Toxicology
Research Institute
Knolls Atomic Power 306,140 293,699 289,549 (16,591) (5.4)
Laboratory
Laboratory of 2,861 2,587 1,483 (1,378) (48.2)
Radiobiology and
Environmental
Health
Lawrence Berkeley 214,060 237,411 290,191 76,131 35.6
Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore 724,766 687,679 737,614 12,848 1.8
National
Laboratory
Los Alamos National 968,082 983,762 942,606 (25,476) (2.6)
Laboratory
National Renewable 203,686 217,401 204,748 1,062 0.5
Energy Laboratory
Oak Ridge Institute 41,801 36,556 30,800 (11,001) (26.3)
for Science and
Education
Oak Ridge National 338,847 326,314 422,999 84,152 24.8
Laboratory
Pacific Northwest 378,289 409,830 374,803 (3,486) (0.9)
Laboratory
Princeton Plasma 107,657 132,727 65,095 (42,562) (39.5)
Physics Laboratory
Sandia National 1,076,392 1,083,579 1,053,855 (22,537) (2.1)
Laboratory
Savannah River 11,757 11,489 8,594 (3,163) (26.9)
Ecology Laboratory
Stanford Linear 158,944 185,477 195,373 36,429 22.9
Accelerator Center
Thomas Jefferson 75,359 77,470 70,691 (4,668) (6.2)
National
Accelerator
Facility\b
=========================================================================================
Total $6,840,989 $6,974,091 $6,837,045 $(3,944) (0.1)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: Figures are in nominal dollars.
\a These costs include Idaho National Engineering Laboratory and all
other reporting facilities except Argonne National Laboratory-West
and the Pittsburgh Naval Reactors. The reactors' costs are shown in
table IV.1.
\b Prior to 1996, this facility was known as the Continuous Electron
Beam Accelerator Facility.
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's data.
Table V.2
Contractor Workforce for Laboratories,
Fiscal Years 1994-96
(Number of contractor workers)
Amount of Percentage
change between change between
Laboratory 1994 1995 1996 1994 and 1996 1994 and 1996
----------------------- -------- -------- -------- ---------------- ----------------
Ames Laboratory 538 551 500 (38) (7.1)
Argonne National 4,502 4,202 3,998 (504) (11.2)
Laboratory "East" and
"West"
Bettis Atomic Power 2,462 2,426 2,374 (88) (3.6)
Laboratory
Brookhaven National 3,083 3,321 3,142 59 1.9
Laboratory
Energy Technology 151 151 102 (49) (32.5)
Engineering Center
Fermi National 2,168 2,133 2,093 (75) (3.5)
Accelerator Laboratory
Idaho National 7,416 5,842 5,512 (1,904) (25.7)
Engineering Laboratory
Inhalation Toxicology 168 157 146 (22) (13.1)
Research Institute
Knolls Atomic Power 2,927 2,933 2,753 (174) (5.9)
Laboratory
Lawrence Berkeley 2,410 2,240 2,423 13 0.5
Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore 6,009 5,680 5,385 (624) (10.4)
National Laboratory
Los Alamos National 7,024 7,145 6,763 (261) (3.7)
Laboratory
National Renewable 913 877 629 (284) (31.1)
Energy Laboratory
Oak Ridge Institute for 644 552 477 (167) (25.9)
Science and Education
Oak Ridge National 6,033 4,330 4,352 (1,681) (27.9)
Laboratory
Pacific Northwest 4,383 3,169 3,039 (1,344) (30.7)
Laboratory
Princeton Plasma 729 559 510 (219) (30.0)
Physics Laboratory
Sandia National 8,458 8,432 8,169 (289) (3.4)
Laboratory
Savannah River Ecology 201 195 202 1 0.5
Laboratory
Stanford Linear 1,292 1,245 1,221 (71) (5.5)
Accelerator Center
Thomas Jefferson 474 524 493 19 4.0
National Accelerator
Facility\a
=========================================================================================
Total 61,985 56,664 54,283 (7,702) (12.4)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Prior to fiscal year 1996, this facility was known as the
Continuous Electron Beam Accelerator Facility.
Source: GAO's analysis of DOE's data.
(See figure in printed edition.)Appendix VI
COMMENTS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF
ENERGY
=========================================================== Appendix V
MAJOR CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT
========================================================= Appendix VII
RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT DIVISION, WASHINGTON,
D.C.
Allen Li, Associate Director
Jeffrey E. Heil, Assistant Director
Carrie M. Stevens
Barbara A. Johnson
Casandra D. Joseph
J. Annette Wright
*** End of document. ***
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
