Federal Research: Information on DOE's Laboratory-Directed R&D
Program (30-APR-04, GAO-04-489).
The Department of Energy's (DOE) contractor-operated laboratories
perform mission-related research and development (R&D) for DOE
and other federal agencies. In 1992, DOE established the
Laboratory- Directed Research and Development (LDRD) program,
under which laboratory directors may allocate funding to
scientists to conduct worthy independent research. DOE allows
participating laboratories to support their LDRD programs by
including a charge of up to 6 percent of the total project cost
in the indirect costs for R&D performed for DOE and other federal
agencies. GAO was asked to address 11 specific questions on DOE's
LDRD program regarding: DOE's statutory authority for charging
other federal agencies for LDRD, DOE's policies and procedures
for ensuring departmental compliance with statutory requirements
and committee report direction, the extent to which DOE believes
the LDRD program is a necessary tool for recruiting and retaining
laboratory scientists, and the sources and amounts of LDRD
funding that each laboratory received from fiscal year 1998
through fiscal year 2003. In commenting on the draft report, DOE
agreed with its factual accuracy.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-04-489
ACCNO: A09910
TITLE: Federal Research: Information on DOE's
Laboratory-Directed R&D Program
DATE: 04/30/2004
SUBJECT: Laboratories
Research and development
Research and development costs
Research program management
Research programs
Contractors
Personnel recruiting
Policies and procedures
Scientists
Employee retention
DOE Laboratory Directed Research and
Development Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO 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. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-04-489
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
Report to the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives
April 2004
FEDERAL RESEARCH
Information on DOE's Laboratory-Directed R&D Program
a
GAO-04-489
Highlights of GAO-04-489, a report to the Subcommittee on Energy and Water
Development, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives
The Department of Energy's (DOE) contractoroperated laboratories perform
missionrelated research and development (R&D) for DOE and other federal
agencies. In 1992, DOE established the LaboratoryDirected Research and
Development (LDRD) program, under which laboratory directors may allocate
funding to scientists to conduct worthy independent research. DOE allows
participating laboratories to support their LDRD programs by including a
charge of up to 6 percent of the total project cost in the indirect costs
for R&D performed for DOE and other federal agencies.
GAO was asked to address 11 specific questions on DOE's LDRD program
regarding:
o DOE's statutory authority for charging other federal agencies for
LDRD,
o DOE's policies and procedures for ensuring departmental compliance
with statutory requirements and committee report direction,
o the extent to which DOE believes the LDRD program is a necessary tool
for recruiting and retaining laboratory scientists, and
April 2004
FEDERAL RESEARCH
Information on DOE's Laboratory-Directed R&D Program
o By law, when DOE conducts R&D for other federal agencies and uses a
laboratory contractor to carry out the tasks, DOE must recover from the
other agency all costs, including LDRD, DOE owes its contractor in
performing the work.
o DOE has issued a departmental order and clarifying memoranda and
guidance to ensure LDRD program compliance with statutory requirements and
congressional direction. For example, the Secretary of Energy's April 2002
guidance requires that agencies funding work at its laboratories be
notified about the LDRD program, including the laboratory's indirectcost
rate and an estimate of the associated cost. According to senior budget,
legal, and research program officials at six federal agencies that fund
work at the DOE laboratories, inclusion of funding for the LDRD program as
an indirect cost does not limit their agency's ability to comply with
statutory or appropriations requirements.
o Managers at the four DOE laboratories that primarily conduct nuclear
weapons and environmental management R&D told us that LDRD is vital for
recruiting and retaining top scientists, while managers at the five Office
of Science laboratories said that LDRD plays an important, but less vital,
role in recruiting and retaining top scientists.
o From fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003, DOE's
contractoroperated laboratories spent a total of $1.8 billion, or an
average of $296 million per year, on LDRD. DOE accounted for 84 percent
and the Department of Defense and the intelligence agencies, through their
payments to DOE, accounted for 12 percent of the federal support for the
LDRD program in fiscal year 2003.
Federal Funding Support for LDRD, Fiscal Year 2003
Dollars in millions
Laboratory LDRD funding Total operating funds Percentage LDRD
Argonne $21.0 $481.1 4.4
Brookhaven 7.6 413.1 1.8
o the sources and amounts of Idaho 19.8 701.0 2.8
LDRD funding that each Lawrence Berkeley 9.8 403.3 2.4
laboratory received from fiscal Lawrence Livermore 64.3 1,071.6 6.0
year 1998 through fiscal year
2003. Los Alamos 94.8 1,771.0 5.4
In commenting on the draft report, Oak Ridge 15.4 667.5 2.3
DOE agreed with its factual Pacific Northwest 17.2 450.6 3.8
accuracy. Sandia 97.4 1,696.7 5.7
Total $347.3 $7,655.9 4.5
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-489 Source: DOE laboratories.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Anu K. Mittal at (202)
512-3841 or [email protected].
Contents
Letter 1
Questions Posed by the Subcommittee and GAO's Responses 4
Agency Comments 18
Scope and Methodology 19
Appendixes
Appendix
I: Funding Data for DOE Laboratories Participating in the
LDRD Program, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001 21
Appendix
II: Funding Data for DOE Laboratories Participating in the
LDRD Program, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 29
Appendix 40
III: Comments from the Department of Energy
Tables Table 1: Table 2: Table 3: Table 4: Table 5: Table 6:
Table 7: Table 8:
Table 9:
LDRD Funding from Federal Sources by DOE Laboratory,
Fiscal Year 2003
Federal Funding Sources of Each DOE Laboratory's R&D
and Other Operating Costs, Fiscal Year 2003
Federal Sources of LDRD Funding at Each DOE
Laboratory, Fiscal Year 2003
Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Argonne National
Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001
Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Brookhaven
National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001
Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Fiscal Years
2000 and 2001
Total and LDRD Funding by SponsoratLawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001
Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through
2001
Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001
2 17 18 21 22
23 23
24 25 26 27 28
Table 10: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001
Table 11: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001
Table 12: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Sandia National Laboratories, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001
Contents
Table 13: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Argonne National
Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 29
Table 14: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Brookhaven
National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 30
Table 15: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Idaho National
Engineering and Environmental Laboratory, Fiscal Years
2002 and 2003 31
Table 16: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 32
Table 17: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and
2003 33
Table 18: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Los Alamos
National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 34
Table 19: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 35
Table 20: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Pacific Northwest
National Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 37
Table 21: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Sandia National
Laboratories, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 38
Contents
Abbreviations
CFO Chief Financial Officer
DHS Department of Homeland Security
DOD Department of Defense
DOE Department of Energy
DOT Department of Transportation
INEEL Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory
LDRD Laboratory-Directed Research and Development
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NIH National Institutes of Health
NNSA National Nuclear Security Administration
NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission
R&D research and development
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
A
United States General Accounting Office Washington, D.C. 20548
April 30, 2004
The Honorable David L. Hobson
Chairman
The Honorable Peter J. Visclosky
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
In fiscal year 2003, the Department of Energy's (DOE) contractor-operated
laboratories spent more than $7.9 billion on research and development
(R&D) and other operating expenses that supported the department's
national nuclear security, energy resources, environmental management,
and science programs. To foster scientific
excellence at these laboratories,
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and other laws have
authorized DOE laboratories to use a reasonable amount of laboratory
funds to conduct employee-suggested R&D projects selected at the
discretion of the laboratory directors.1 Subsequently, the National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 authorized the contractor-operated
laboratories that receive funding for national security programs
to perform
laboratory-directed R&D of a creative and innovative nature to maintain
the vitality of the laboratories' defense-related scientific disciplines.
In fiscal year 1992, DOE formalized its laboratories' self-initiated R&D
programs by establishing the Laboratory-Directed Research and
Development (LDRD) program. Under this program DOE's contractor
operated laboratories may fund their LDRD programs by including up to 6
percent of an R&D project's total cost in its indirect cost
of doing the work
for DOE, other federal agencies, and nonfederal organizations. Total
1Among the other laws that DOE cites as general authority for LDRD are the
Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, which created the Energy Research
and Development Administration to
carry out general basic research activities; the Energy Research and
Development Administration Appropriation Authorization for Fiscal Year 1977 (codified at
42
U.S.C. S: 5817a), which provided authority for any government-owned, contractoroperated laboratory to
use a reasonable amount of its operating budget to
fund employeesuggested projects up to the pilot stage of development; and the Department of Energy
Organization Act, which placed the Energy Research
and Development Administration's authorities under DOE and directed
DOE to carry out an energy research program. See DOE Order 413.2A.
funding support for the LDRD program grew from $223 million in fiscal
year 1992 to $356 million in fiscal year 2003.2
Table 1 shows the nine contractor-operated laboratories that participated
in DOE's LDRD program in fiscal year 2003. These laboratories include three within the National
Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) that
primarily conduct R&D for the nuclear weapons program, five within
DOE's Office of Science that primarily perform basic research, and one within the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science,
and Technology that
primarily performs research for the environmental management program. DOE's appropriations are
the source of more than 80 percent of
the LDRD funding each year; the remaining funds are reimbursements to DOE that are paid
out of appropriations of other federal agencies, or private organizations, to cover the costs DOE incurred in performing work for these entities, primarily through DOE's Work for Others program.
Table 1: LDRD Funding from Federal Sources by DOE Laboratory, Fiscal Year 2003
Dollars in millions
Laboratory Responsible DOE program LDRD funding
office
Argonne National Laboratory Office of Science $21.0
Brookhaven National Laboratory Office of Science $7.6
Office of Nuclear Energy, $19.8
Idaho National Engineering and Science, and
Environmental Laboratory Technology
Lawrence Berkeley National Office of Science $9.8
Laboratory
Lawrence Livermore National NNSA $64.3
Laboratory
Los Alamos National Laboratory NNSA $94.8
Oak Ridge National Laboratory Office of Science $15.4
Pacific Northwest National Office of Science $17.2
Laboratory
Sandia National Laboratories NNSA $97.4
Source: DOE and DOE laboratories.
Note: DOE's Ames Laboratory did not spend funds for LDRD in fiscal year
2003, although it has had a small LDRD program in prior years.
The nine DOE
laboratories select LDRD projects on their scientific and technical merits without regard to funding origin, provided that the projects will support DOE's national security mission. DOE requires that
2All funding totals in this report are in fiscal year 2003 dollars.
LDRD projects focus on the advanced study of scientific or technical
problems, experiments directed toward proving a scientific principle, or
early analysis of experimental facilities or devices. For example, scientific
knowledge gained from Sandia's LDRD project that created crystalline silicotitanate, a material capable of separating highly radioactive cesium from other wastes, led to the development of new technology that could substantially reduce the costs of cleaning up radioactive waste at DOE's Hanford site. Similarly, Lawrence Berkeley's LDRD
project on advanced neutron generation has aided in the development of a portable neutron generating device that can be used for detecting explosives and nuclear
materials that could be hidden in different types of containers. This device could eventually be used to screen luggage at airports or steel shipping containers at port facilities.
Generally,
scientists at each laboratory independently propose projects that peer review panels and laboratory managers prioritize on the basis of
their assessment of potential scientific and technical merit and potential strategic impact. The laboratory directors use these assessments to make their selections. In accordance with DOE policy, the selected LDRD projects are reviewed and approved by DOE. In general, projects cost
from $100,000 to $300,000 and last 2 to 3 years.
This report addresses the 11 specific questions that
you asked us on DOE's LDRD program. To
answer these questions, we examined the authorizing legislation, DOE's order and memoranda implementing the LDRD program, LDRD program documents, and financial data for each of the nine contractor-operated laboratories that participate in the LDRD program. We
also interviewed cognizant officials at DOE and its nine laboratories. In
addition, we interviewed officials at the Departments of Defense (DOD), Homeland Security (DHS), and Transportation (DOT); the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA); the National Institutes of
Health (NIH), within the Department of Health and Human Services; and
the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). Through their payments to
DOE, these federal agencies were among the primary sources of LDRD
funding generated from R&D performed for non-DOE agencies from fiscal
years 1998 through 2003. We conducted our review from July 2003 through March 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards.
QuestionsPosed by the Subcommittee and GAO's Responses
Question 1: Does DOE have statutory authority that specifically authorizes
it to
spend the funds appropriated to other federal agencies and use those funds for LDRD?
GAO Response
The Strom
Thurmond National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 authorizes DOE to conduct R&D at DOE facilities for "other
departments and agencies of the government . . ."3 The act requires that
when DOE conducts R&D for other agencies, it impose a charge to recover
its costs of conducting the work.4 The charge must include both direct
costs that DOE incurs in carrying out the work and all
associated overhead costs.5 When DOE assesses the charge to recover its costs, the ordering agency transfers amounts from its appropriation to DOE to pay the assessed charge.
An interagency transaction, like that authorized by section 7259a, is not unlike a contractual transaction. Because of a statutory prohibition on transferring funds between two appropriations, federal agencies require specific statutory authority, like section 7259a, to engage in interagency transactions. In other words, federal agencies require statutory authority to
contract with each other. Section 7259a permits other federal agencies to
contract with DOE for R&D. When other agencies transfer amounts to DOE to pay the charge that DOE assesses under section 7259a, and DOE
uses
those amounts to defray the costs it incurred in carrying out the work for
the other agency, DOE is not "spending" funds appropriated to another
agency any more than a private vendor with whom the agency had contracted for services "spends" federal appropriations when it uses amounts received in
payment from the federal agency to defray its
costs of doing business. As in a contractual transaction, when a federal agency transfers amounts to DOE in payment of the section 7259a charge, the funds transferred become DOE funds and are available for the same
purposes and uses as
the other amounts in the DOE appropriation account to which they are credited.
3Pub. L. No. 105-261, div. C, tit. XXXI, S: 3137, 112 Stat. 2248 (1998), codified at
42 U.S.C. S: 7259a.
442 U.S.C. S: 7259a(b).
542 U.S.C. S: 7259a(b)(1)(A), (B).
When DOE agrees to carry out R&D for another agency and conducts the work in one of its laboratories, DOE asks the contractor who operates its laboratory to undertake the R&D
tasks. In that case, the cost to DOE of having its contractor conduct these tasks is a direct cost that DOE is
required by section 7259a to include in the charge that it
assesses the other agency.6 The other agency
is not paying DOE's contractor; in
fact, the other agency has no legal relationship with DOE's contractor.
The amount DOE owes its contractor for this work is determined by the terms of the contract that DOE has with its contractor. Included in the
amounts DOE pays its contractor is an amount for LDRD. The National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 requires DOE to pay its laboratory contractors an amount for LDRD, not to exceed 6 percent of
the amount that DOE pays to the contractor for national security activities.7
Consequently, DOE is not "using" funds appropriated to other federal agencies for LDRD. LDRD is a cost that DOE incurs, both statutorily and contractually, whenever the laboratory's contractor performs work for DOE. When another agency asks DOE to conduct R&D on its behalf, and DOE, in performing that work incurs an LDRD cost, DOE, under section 7259a, properly includes that cost in calculating what it will charge the
ordering agency. Just as a private vendor factors its costs of doing business into the price it charges for services rendered, DOE, under section 7259a, must factor its costs of doing business, including LDRD, into the amount it
charges other agencies. That DOE
might use monies properly transferred from another agency to defray the LDRD amount it owes its laboratory contractor does not mean that DOE is "using" another agency's funds for LDRD any more than a private vendor is using a federal agency's
appropriation when it applies amounts paid by a federal agency for services
rendered to defray its costs of doing business.
642 U.S.C. S: 7259a(b)(1)(A).
7Pub. L. No. 101-510, div. C., tit. XXXI, S: 3132, 104 Stat. 1832 (1990), codified
at 50 U.S.C. S: 2791(c) (formerly cited as 42 U.S.C. S: 7257a(c)).
Question 2: Congressional appropriations laws
must comply with defense and domestic firewalls in Senate budget resolutions adopted by Congress. What mechanism has DOE had in place to ensure that funds appropriated for defense purposes are used only for defense activities and that funds
appropriated for domestic purposes are used only for activities in support of those domestic agencies? This question applies to both LDRD conducted with
DOE funds and LDRD conducted with funds received from other federal
agencies.
GAO Response
As discussed in our response to question 1, DOE's funds support the LDRD programs at participating DOE contractor-operated laboratories-not the appropriations of other agencies. Under the terms of the agreement when another
federal agency asks
DOE to perform work on its behalf, the agency agrees to reimburse DOE all costs that DOE incurs in performing the work.
In funding and carrying out LDRD, DOE and the laboratories must comply
with statutory requirements imposed on them. For example, DOE and its contractor-operated laboratories are required to comply with the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998,8 which requires that when
DOE uses its appropriation for nuclear weapons activities to pay for LDRD, the LDRD must support projects in DOE's national security mission and when DOE uses its environmental restoration, waste management, or
nuclear materials and facilities stabilization appropriation to pay for LDRD, the LDRD must support projects in these mission areas. In addition, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 specifically directs that when DHS orders
work from DOE's laboratories, the laboratories must use the associated LDRD funds only for purposes that benefit DHS missions.9
Officials at each of the laboratories we visited told us that, because LDRD
promotes cutting-edge science and technology, much of the R&D conducted is basic research that, by definition, can result in applications that benefit both defense and civilian agencies. Thus, projects proposed with the intention of supporting a defense mission may lead to crosscutting applications that benefit Homeland Security or other civilian agencies. Specifically, officials at DOE's weapons laboratories cited
8Pub. L. No. 105-85 (1997), codified at 50 U.S.C. S: 2792 (formerly cited
as 42 U.S.C. S: 7257c).
9Pub. L. No. 107-296 (2002), codified at 6 U.S.C. S: 189(f).
examples in sensor research for identifying traces of radiological and biological agents that had benefited both the nuclear nonproliferation and
homeland security missions. They also mentioned LDRD projects that had applications for the NIH's cancer research programs, as well as DHS and DOE.
Question
3: Which federal agencies, in addition to DOE, have a similar process whereby up to 6 percent of funds appropriated to the agency (or any
other federal agency) may be diverted to purposes other
than those for which the Congress appropriated the funds?
GAO Response
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, operated by the California Institute of
Technology, is the only federal laboratory we identified that includes an
assessment on the work performed for other federal agencies to support a laboratory-directed R&D program. In fiscal year 2003, the Jet Propulsion Laboratory Director's R&D Fund received about $91,000 through an assessment of .025 percent on all projects over $250,000 performed for other federal agencies-primarily DOD. The Director's R&D Fund also
received $3.5 million from NASA's research directorates that was pro rated on the basis of their expected R&D funding at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory. Similar to DOE's LDRD program,
the Director's R&D Fund is
designed to promote innovative science and new technology. The fund also encourages collaborative work with the California Institute of Technology,
other universities, other federal laboratories, and industry. The Jet
Propulsion Laboratory's director awards funding to research projects on the basis of peer review of their scientific merits.
The Air Force's Lincoln Laboratory, operated by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, has a Directed Defense Research and Engineering program. However, unlike LDRD,
the Defense budget
provides the Directed Defense Research and Engineering program with about $25 million annually through a direct appropriation from the Congress-Lincoln does not
include an assessment in its indirect-cost rate to finance its program.10
Similar to DOE's LDRD program, Lincoln Laboratory's
director awards funding to research projects on the basis of peer review
of their scientific
10Although Lincoln Laboratory also performs R&D
for the Federal Aviation Administration,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and NASA, funding
from these agencies does
not support Lincoln's Directed Defense Research and Engineering program.
merits. The Army and the Navy also reported that
their In-house Laboratory Independent Research program is fully funded by their appropriations.
NRC's Center for Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses, operated by the Southwest Research Institute, also has a small self-initiated research program. However, NRC's center does not
receive funding support from other federal agencies.
Question
4: What mechanisms has DOE had in place to ensure that the department fully complies with all statutory and report language in
appropriations bills for itself and other federal agencies when DOE spends
funds on their behalf?
GAO Response
DOE has issued a departmental order for the LDRD program and clarifying memoranda and guidance to ensure departmental compliance with
statutory requirements and congressional direction in committee reports. These include the following:
o
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1991 established an annual 6-percent funding limit on LDRD. Subsequently, DOE's Order 413.2A established departmental requirements for the LDRD program, and each laboratory establishes a fixed rate for the LDRD assessment
each year that ensures compliance with the 6-percent funding limit.
DOE officials told us that the department does not need to link the
LDRD funding from non-DOE sources to specific LDRD projects because it treats LDRD as an indirect cost that, under cost accounting standards, must be pooled with other LDRD funds and not tracked back
to a specific funding source. The DOE officials added that LDRD
costs are charged to all laboratory customers at the same rate and are considered a normal cost of doing business.
o
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 limited the use of LDRD
funds (1) originating from nuclear weapons funding to
LDRD projects that support DOE's national security mission and (2) originating from
environmental restoration, waste management, or
nuclear materials and facilities stabilization for LDRD
projects that support these missions. DOE and laboratory LDRD managers told us that they have achieved the act's funding requirements through (1) the identification of areas of emphasis that are likely to benefit DOE's national security and environmental management missions in each
laboratory's annual LDRD program plan and its calls for proposals and (2) the laboratory's LDRD manager's and DOE site office's review of
proposals recommended for funding.
o
The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1998 also required that DOE report to the Congress on the extent to which the LDRD Program has met the
objective of supporting R&D with long-term
application to national security. DOE's most recent report to the Congress stated that, in fiscal year 2003, the laboratories spent about $356 million for LDRD, of which defense customers, through
reimbursement to DOE, provided $243 million and nondefense customers, through reimbursement to DOE, provided $113 million.11
DOE concluded that about $268 million of the LDRD funding supported projects expected to benefit the defense and national security missions and about $283 million of the LDRD funding supported projects expected to benefit the nondefense mission areas.
o The Conference Report accompanying the Energy and Water
Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2002 directs that (1) when accepting funds from another federal agency for work, DOE notify the agency in writing how much will be used for LDRD
and (2) the Secretary of Energy affirm each year that all LDRD
projects support
R&D that benefits the sponsoring agencies' programs and are consistent with their appropriations acts.12
On April 30, 2002, the Secretary of Energy issued a memorandum to the Under Secretary for Nuclear
Security and the Under Secretary for Energy, Science and Environment
that provided guidance directing that all DOE agreements to perform
R&D for other federal agencies provide notice about each participating laboratory's LDRD program, including (1) the applicable indirect-cost rate, (2) an estimate of the associated cost, and (3) an explanation of the LDRD program's purpose. Furthermore, each agreement to perform
work states that DOE will conclude that, by approving the agreement and providing funds, the agency acknowledges that LDRD benefits the
11This total reflects funding from all sources, including nonfederal
organizations. 12H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 107-258, at 110 (2001).
agency and is consistent with its appropriation requirements.13 DOE officials told us that the DOE site office responsible for the laboratory typically sends this notification to the program manager or contracting officer at the sponsoring agency.
o The Homeland Security Act of 2002 requires that DHS funds are
not to be expended for LDRD unless such activities support DHS missions. On February 28, 2003, the Secretary of Energy and the Secretary of
Homeland Security entered into a Memorandum of Agreement that establishes a framework for DHS to access the capabilities of DOE's
national laboratories and production facilities. On April 21, 2003, DOE's Deputy Secretary issued DOE Notice 481.1A, Reimbursable Work for Department of Homeland Security, which provided information on the process by which DHS would place orders for reimbursable work activities at the DOE laboratories. The DOE notice includes provisions
that DOE notify DHS of LDRD charges in the cost proposals and that
DHS acknowledge the benefits of LDRD prior to
final approval. DHS has set up centers at each of the DOE laboratories to facilitate its access,
and DOE and DHS are still formalizing their working relationship.
Question
5: To what extent does the leadership of federal agencies that give funds to DOE for its laboratories to conduct R&D on their behalf fully
understand that up to 6 percent of the funds may be diverted under DOE's LDRD program to purposes that have nothing to do with the purpose for which the Congress originally appropriated the funds? Please detail the written notifications that DOE has issued
in response to the requirement in the Conference Report for the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
Act for Fiscal Year 2002
that DOE notify federal agencies in writing how much of their funds may be diverted to LDRD.
13DOE's pricing policy states: "Consistent with
the Department of Energy's (DOE) full cost recovery policy, DOE
collects, as part of its standard indirect cost rate, a Laboratory
Directed Research and Development (LDRD) cost. Based on the amount of funds
accepted for
this project, $___ represents an estimated amount that will be used for
LDRD efforts.
The Department of Energy believes that LDRD efforts provide opportunities in research that
are instrumental in maintaining cutting-edge science capabilities
that benefit all of the customers at the laboratory. The Department will conclude that by providing funds
to DOE to perform work, you acknowledge
that such activities are beneficial to your organization
and consistent with appropriations acts that provide funds to you."
GAO Response
Senior officials at each of the six federal agencies
we contacted stated that their offices were aware that the DOE laboratories included a charge of up
to 6 percent for LDRD in the costs they are required to reimburse DOE.
Specifically, the senior officials in the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO)
and/or the Office of General Counsel at each
agency told us that the LDRD program's inclusion as an indirect cost does not limit their ability to comply with their agency's statutory or appropriations requirements. Similarly, none of the research managers and/or contracting officers at
these agencies expressed concern about the LDRD program or its funding method.14
In December 2003, at the direction in the Conference Report accompanying
the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year
2002, DOE sent the CFOs of 22 agencies information about the LDRD program and its inclusion in the indirect costs for R&D performed at DOE laboratories. Specifically, DOE provided each CFO office, with the exception of DHS, with a copy of the Secretary of Energy's April 2002 memorandum, an explanation of how the LDRD program is funded, and a description of DOE's notification process.15 However,
DOE did not identify
a point of contact within each agency's Office of the CFO or provide the CFO's room number,
and senior officials in the CFO's office at
Transportation and NRC told us that they did not receive DOE's
information even though they were the appropriate point of contact. These
officials commented on the LDRD program after we provided them with
copies of the DOE materials.
Similarly, research managers and/or contracting officers responsible for
funding R&D at DOE's contractor-operated laboratories for DOD, DHS, DOT,
NASA, NIH, and NRC had differing levels of knowledge about
how the LDRD program functioned and how
it is funded. For example, the DOD,
14NRC officials
did not express concern about the LDRD program and its funding; however,
they suggested that an agency could better determine
whether LDRD benefits its mission if DOE improved its
notification procedure by annually (1) providing a single notification
signed by DOE's CFO and (2) including
information about LDRD activities at those
laboratories where the agency funds work.
15DOE provided
DHS's CFO office with a copy of DOE Notice 481.1A regarding reimbursable
work for DHS that included the February 28, 2003, Memorandum of
Agreement between DOE and DHS, explaining how DHS
work will be funded and conducted at DOE's laboratories.
DHS, and NASA research managers we interviewed had detailed
knowledge of the LDRD program.
In contrast, research managers at DOT were less familiar with the LDRD program and how it is funded. They told us that this was mainly because the department funds relatively little R&D at the DOE laboratories and the decisions to use the DOE laboratories are
made by the departmental agencies.
Question
6: Please identify any instances when another federal agency has refused to pay the LDRD charge assessed by the DOE laboratories on work for other agencies, as well as any instances when the DOE laboratories have voluntarily waived assessment of the LDRD charge on funds received from
another federal agency.
GAO Response
None of the officials at the six agencies we contacted cited any instances when their agencies have refused to reimburse DOE for the LDRD charge or expressed concern about the LDRD expense. In June 1998, DOE and NIH signed a Memorandum of Understanding that clarified the terms and conditions of NIH grants awarded to DOE laboratories.16 Among
other things, the Memorandum of Understanding states that (1) the DOE laboratory contractor may be the awardee organization, (2) DOE will
waive
its 3-percent administrative overhead rate, and (3) while NIH awards will
not include an allowance for LDRD, the DOE laboratories may recover LDRD costs from
the total funding included in grants awarded to DOE laboratory contractors.
Cognizant officials at DOE and its laboratories told us that they are not
aware of any instances in which a federal customer has objected to or stated that they would not reimburse DOE for the LDRD charge. The officials also did not identify any instances in which the DOE laboratories had not charged DOE for the LDRD portion of the work done on another agency's behalf-either
voluntarily or involuntarily. Managers at each of the
nine DOE laboratories told us that their policy is to use the same indirect
cost rate for all R&D and other operations performed at the laboratory.
16The requirements of the Secretary's April 2002 memorandum regarding
notification to other federal sponsors and their
subsequent certifications that LDRD projects benefit their
programs do not apply to grants
performed under the June 1998 Memorandum of Understanding
between NIH and DOE.
Question
7: On April 30, 2002, the Secretary of Energy issued revised LDRD guidance in response to direction provided in the Conference Report
for the Energy and Water Development Appropriations
for Fiscal Year 2002. Subsequently, DOE's National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) and Office of Science issued more detailed guidance to their respective laboratories. What is the status of implementing the changes to the LDRD approval
and reporting process as outlined in this guidance? Do these new
procedures constitute a firewall between LDRD using defense appropriations and LDRD using nondefense appropriations, as some in
DOE have claimed?
GAO Response
DOE has implemented changes to the LDRD approval and reporting process as outlined in the Secretary's memorandum and the NNSA and Office of Science guidance. These changes include having a DOE official
review and concur on all LDRD projects prior to approval by laboratory directors and requiring DOE field officials associated with each laboratory
to certify annually that LDRD projects benefit the programs of the sponsoring agencies. When approving these projects, DOE does not
distinguish whether the projects benefit defense or nondefense activities because, in its view, LDRD projects are new concepts that may benefit more than one area and therefore cannot be categorized in this manner.
DOE officials' role in approving proposed LDRD projects is to ensure that
the projects support DOE's national security mission. However, as stated earlier, DOE's annual report identifies the amounts of LDRD
funding it
receives from defense and nondefense sponsors and the amounts of LDRD funding that support projects expected to have primary benefit to defense or nondefense mission areas.
Question
8: Are the laboratories supplementing their funds for LDRD with funds designated for the Strategic Initiative?
GAO Response
None of the nine DOE laboratories has been supplementing funding for LDRD programs with other laboratory funds, such as Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory's (INEEL) Strategic Initiative, according to officials of DOE's Office of Inspector General; Office of Management Budget and Evaluation; Office of Science; NNSA; Office of Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology; and the nine laboratories. As stated earlier,
DOE's Order 413.2A prohibits DOE's laboratories from using
LDRD funds on projects that will need additional non-LDRD funding to reach their goals.
A May 2003 DOE Inspector General report cited possible misuse of INEEL's
Strategic Initiative Fund for LDRD projects.17 In response, DOE's acting CFO conducted a review of the expenditures in question and determined that
no funds were misused and INEEL had not exceeded its LDRD funding limit. The Inspector General accepted the CFO's findings.
Question
9: What does DOE do to ensure, in advance, that different laboratories do not undertake duplicative LDRD projects? What does
DOE do to ensure that LDRD projects are not duplicative of research in other
federal agencies or in universities?
GAO Response
DOE and its laboratories rely on the scientists, who submit proposals; members of peer review committees; and laboratory managers to ensure
that LDRD projects do not duplicate research at other laboratories or
universities. According to officials at the four laboratories we visited, the chances for duplication among LDRD projects are remote for several reasons. First, the NNSA laboratories (Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia) coordinate their work to ensure there is no duplication.
Second, peer review groups consisting of laboratory, DOE, industry, and university representatives involve themselves in project management and
try to eradicate duplication or other potential wastes of resources. Third, science is a very competitive field, and scientists have strong incentives to
conduct original research and publish or present the results of that
research. Finally, because basic science explores fundamental principles,
scientists may be looking at the same issue, for example, techniques for
sensing ever smaller amounts of an element, but for different reasons or with different approaches. In addition, our September 2001 report
concluded that the LDRD project-selection and review processes that are in
place at the nine DOE laboratories are adequate to reasonably ensure
compliance with DOE's project-selection guidelines.18
17See DOE Office of Inspector General. Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory's Strategic Initiative Fund, DOE/IG-0601
(Washington, D.C.: May 2003).
18U.S. General Accounting Office, National Laboratories: Better
Performance Reporting Could Aid Oversight of Laboratory-Directed R&D
Program, GAO-01-927 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2001).
Question 10: To what extent does DOE believe that the LDRD program is
still a necessary tool to recruit and retain scientists?
GAO Response
Officials at NNSA laboratories told us that LDRD remains a necessary tool
to recruit and retain top scientists because their program work provides
little opportunity for basic scientific research. Similarly, INEEL officials
told us that LDRD plays a major role in attracting and retaining the most
qualified scientists and engineers at their laboratory.
In comparison, officials at Office of Science laboratories believe that LDRD
is important for recruiting and retaining scientists; however, they noted
its role is less
essential for their laboratories because they primarily perform basic
research.
NNSA laboratory managers told us that LDRD is an essential tool for
recruiting and retaining scientists for several reasons. As a recruiting tool,
the LDRD program is vital because the mission of the NNSA laboratories-
to perform applied research to develop nuclear weapons technologies-
does not readily
attract qualified new hires. The LDRD program has served as a stepping stone for the NNSA laboratories to attract and hire many scientists by supporting from nearly one-half to two-thirds of the post
doctoral researchers at the laboratories. For example, one of the three LDRD program components at Los Alamos National Laboratory makes
awards to research proposals specifically targeted at post-doctoral candidates. As a result, 262 (61 percent) of the 427 post-doctoral scientists
charged substantial amounts of time to LDRD. According to NNSA laboratory managers, post-doctoral scientists who work at their
laboratories are more likely to seek permanent employment at the laboratory, and LDRD projects provide opportunities for laboratory managers to evaluate the post-doctoral
scientists for future employment. In
some cases, the LDRD program also provides meaningful work
opportunities at the NNSA laboratories while newly hired scientists wait to receive their security clearances. In addition, the LDRD program provides
opportunities for collaboration with universities and other research organizations, thereby providing a pipeline for new
employees. As a retention tool, LDRD
provides scientists with funding to perform basic and applied research on the cutting edge of their field, improve their technical skills, and make scientific contributions in their fields.
INEEL managers told us that the LDRD program funded 55 percent of the post-doctoral candidates supported by the laboratory in fiscal year 2002.
The managers attributed about 40 percent of the scientists and engineers hired at INEEL in the past 4 years to investments in LDRD.
Managers at the five Office of Science laboratories told us that the LDRD program is important for their efforts to recruit and retain scientists. However, they noted that the LDRD program is less important to their laboratories than it is to the NNSA laboratories, because their laboratories
mainly fund basic research. According to laboratories managers, it is basic research and the opportunity for technological advances-whether performed as LDRD or as program work-that attracts and maintains the interest of the top scientists. As a result, the Office of Science laboratories
typically devote, at most, slightly over 4 percent of their R&D
and other operating funds to LDRD
each year and have substantially smaller LDRD
programs than the NNSA laboratories.
Question 11: How much has each of the nine DOE laboratories spent on
LDRD from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003, and which federal
agencies' funds have been used and in what amounts?
GAO Response
For the 6 years from fiscal year 1998 through fiscal year 2003, DOE's nine laboratories spent a total of $1.8 billion, or an average of $296 million per year, on LDRD. In fiscal year 2003, the laboratories received $7.7 billion from DOE and other federal agencies, through reimbursement to DOE, and spent $347 million, or 4.5 percent, on LDRD. Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory accounted for $257 million, or 74 percent, of the LDRD funds. DOE, DOD, and the intelligence agencies have been the primary sources of LDRD funding, accounting for 96 percent of the federal support in fiscal year 2003.
Table 2 shows that the nine laboratories
received $7.7 billion from DOE and other federal agencies for their R&D and other operating expenses in fiscal
year 2003. Specifically, DOE and DOD provided $7.3 billion, or 96 percent,
of the federal funding that the laboratories received. NIH, NRC, and NASA provided $190 million, or 2.5 percent, of the funding. DOT and DHS
provided only $12.6 million and $9.4 million, respectively, for work at the DOE laboratories.
Table 2: Federal Funding Sources of Each DOE Laboratory's R&D and Other
Operating Costs, Fiscal Year 2003
Dollars in millions
Other
Laboratory DOE DODa NIH NRC NASA DOT DHSb agencies Total
Argonne $422.2 $25.5 $3.7 $12.6 $2.2 c c $14.8 $481.1
Brookhaven 379.3 1.4 10.7 8.9 5.7 c c 6.9 413.1
Idaho 620.1 68.6 c 5.6 c c c 6.7 701.0
Lawrence 341.4 9.8 38.6 c 6.3 c c 7.1 403.3
Berkeley
Lawrence 933.1 115.7 8.5 1.0 2.5 c 6.5 4.3 1,071.6
Livermore
Los Alamos 1,589.6 138.9 18.6 1.9 10.7 1.5 2.5 7.2 1,771.0
Oak Ridge 585.1 46.2 1.5 10.3 7.3 4.8 c 12.2 667.5
Pacific c c c c 450.6
Northwest 358.3 57.6 7.2 27.5
Sandia 1,291.4 358.2 1.0 22.1 3.0 6.3 d 14.6 1,696.7
Total $6,520.5 $821.9 $82.6 $69.6 $37.7 $12.6 $9.0 $101.3 $7,655.9
Percentage 85.2 10.7 1.1 0.9 0.5 0.2 0.1 1.3 100.0
of total
Source: DOE laboratories.
Note: LDRD funding from non-DOE agencies refers to the LDRD portion of the
indirect costs that these agencies reimbursed to DOE for work performed on
their behalf. Totals may not add due to rounding.
aIncludes funding from the Central Intelligence Agency and other
intelligence agencies.
bThe laboratories began tracking DHS funding in fiscal year 2003.
cLess than $1 million.
dDHS provided a total of $412,000 to Sandia in fiscal year 2003. This
funding is included in other federal sources because it was less than $1
million.
Table 3 shows that, in fiscal year
2003, the nine DOE laboratories allocated to LDRD $347 million, or 4.5 percent, of the $7.7 billion they received from DOE and other federal sources, through reimbursement to DOE. Los
Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, and Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory accounted for $257 million, or 74 percent, of
the $347 million. DOE's appropriations accounted for
$293 million, or 84 percent, of the LDRD funding from federal sources, while $54 million, or 16
percent, originated from other federal agencies, through reimbursement to
DOE. DOD and the intelligence agencies accounted for $41 million, or 12
percent. NIH, NRC, and NASA together accounted for $7.5 million, or 2
percent.
Table 3: Federal Sources of LDRD Funding at Each DOE Laboratory, Fiscal Year
2003
Dollars in millions
Other Percent
Laboratory DOE DODa NIH NRC NASA DOT DHSb agencies Total LDRD
Argonne $18.2 $1.4 $0.1 $0.6 $0.1 c c $0.6 $21.0
Brookhaven 7.0 c 0.2 0.2 0.1 c c 0.1 7.6
Idaho 17.6 1.8 c 0.2 c c c 0.2 19.8
Lawrence 8.3 0.2 1.0 c 0.1 c c 0.2 9.8
Berkeley
Lawrence
c
Livermore 56.0 6.9 0.5 0.1 0.2 0.4 0.3 64.3
Los Alamos 85.1 7.4 1.0 0.1 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.4 94.8
Oak Ridge 13.3 1.1 c 0.3 0.2 0.1 c 0.3 15.4
Pacific Northwest 13.3 2.2 c 0.4 c c c 1.3 17.2
Sandia 74.4 20.3 0.1 1.2 0.2 0.4 c 0.8 97.4
Total $293.2 $41.3 $2.9 $3.1 $1.5 $0.6 $0.5 $4.2 $347.3
Percentage 84.4 11.9 0.8 0.9 0.4 0.2 0.1 1.2 100.0
Source: DOE laboratories.
Note: LDRD funding from non-DOE agencies refers to the LDRD portion of the
indirect costs that these agencies reimbursed to DOE for work performed on
their behalf. Totals may not add due to rounding.
aIncludes funding from the Central Intelligence Agency and other
intelligence agencies.
bThe laboratories began tracking DHS funding in fiscal year 2003.
cLess than $50,000.
Appendix 1 provides data on each laboratory's total R&D spending and LDRD spending for DOE and other federal agencies, through reimbursement to DOE, for fiscal years 1998 through 2001, and appendix II
provides more detailed data on each laboratory's total R&D
spending and LDRD spending by subagency for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. The funding amounts for prior fiscal years are presented in fiscal year 2003 dollars.
Agency Comments We provided DOE with a draft of this report
for its review and comment. In written comments,
DOE agreed with the report. (See app. III.) DOE also
provided comments to improve the report's technical accuracy, which we incorporated as appropriate.
Scope and Methodology
To assess DOE's statutory authority for charging other federal agencies for
LDRD, we researched and analyzed statutes and legislative histories and referred to principles of appropriations law. To identify laboratory-initiated research programs similar to LDRD at other federal agencies' laboratories, we interviewed cognizant
officials within DOD, DHS, DOT, NASA, NIH, and NRC. Through their payments to DOE, these federal agencies were among
the primary sources of LDRD funding generated from R&D performed for
non-DOE agencies from fiscal years 1998 through 2003.
To examine DOE's policies and procedures for ensuring that its laboratories spend LDRD funds in ways that benefit the requesting agencies' programs and are consistent with their appropriation acts, we evaluated DOE's implementing order and documents for the LDRD
program and interviewed cognizant officials at DOE and obtained information from its nine contractor-operated laboratories regarding the actions they have taken to improve the program's accountability. In
addition, we contacted cognizant officials in the Office of the CFO and/or
the Office of General Counsel in DOD, DOT, NASA, NIH, and NRC to
determine whether the funding structure of the LDRD program presented issues for their compliance with statutory or appropriations requirements. These five agencies, through their reimbursements to DOE, were among the primary sources of LDRD funding at the nine DOE laboratories from
fiscal years 1998 through 2003. We also contacted cognizant officials in the Office of the CFO and the Science and Technology Directorate in DHS because of its special relationship with DOE's laboratories.
To assess whether the LDRD program is a necessary tool for recruiting
and retaining laboratory scientists, we obtained information from cognizant officials at each of DOE's nine laboratories about the role that LDRD plays in recruiting and retaining scientists and obtained documentation. We also reviewed laboratories' information on the participation of post-doctoral scientists and others in LDRD research.
To
provide data on the sources and amounts of LDRD funding, we obtained data from each laboratory on its operating and LDRD funds for fiscal year
1998 through fiscal year 2003. Specifically, the laboratories provided financial data for each of DOE's major program budgets and for each federal agency that, in a given year, funded more than $1 million in R&D through DOE's Work for Others program. Because the laboratories' prior fiscal
year data were in nominal dollars, we converted their current dollars to
constant fiscal year 2003 dollars using deflators for nondefense from the
Office of Management and Budget's Budget of the United States Government,
Fiscal Year 2005, Historical Tables. We also obtained from
key database officials responses to a series of questions focused on data reliability covering issues such as data entry access, quality control procedures, and the accuracy and completeness of the data. Follow-up questions were added whenever necessary. In addition, we reviewed all data provided by the laboratories, investigated all instances where we had questions regarding issues such as categories or amounts, and made
corrections as needed. Based on this work, we determined that the financial data provided were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of our
report. We did not assess the reliability of the fiscal year 1992 LDRD funding total, which was used for background purposes only.
As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to the Secretary of
Energy, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and other interested parties. We will also make copies available to others on request.
In addition, the report will be available at no charge on
the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841. Key contributors to this report were Richard Cheston, Carol Kolarik, Daren Sweeney, Doreen Feldman, and Hannah Laufe.
Anu K. Mittal Director, Natural Resources
and Environment
Appendix I
Funding Data for DOE Laboratories Participating in the LDRD Program,
Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001
Table 4: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Argonne National Laboratory,
Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001
Dollars in millions
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
1998 1999 2000 2001
Total LDRD Total LDRD Total LDRD Total LDRD
Source of funding fundinga fundinga fundinga fundinga
funding funding funding funding
Department of $425.7 $13.1 $426.0 $16.7 $409.1 $15.3 $411.5 $18.0
Energy
Department of 30.6 1.0 27.9 1.3 27.9 1.3 27.3
Defense
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission 8.0 0.2 6.3 0.3 7.9 0.4 8.4
Department of 1.9 0.1 1.6 0.1 1.4 0.1 1.9
State
Department of
Health and
Human Services b c b c b c 1.5
Environmental Protection
cc c
Agency 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.2
Department of 6.7 0.2 7.7 0.3 7.5 0.3 b
Agriculture
Other federal agencies 7.1 0.3 7.6 0.4 7.7 0.4 12.0
Nonfederal sources 23.6 0.7 23.5 0.8 23.6 0.7 29.2
Total $505.1 $15.6 $501.6 $19.8 $486.3 $18.4 $493.0 $21.5
Source: Argonne National Laboratory. Note: All funding amounts are in
fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding. aIncludes
all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during
the fiscal year. bLess than $1 million in total funding. cLess than
$50,000 assessed for LDRD.
Appendix I
Funding Data for DOE Laboratories
Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal
Years 1998 through 2001
Table 5: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001
Dollars in millions
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
1998 1999 2000 2001
Total LDRD Total LDRD Total LDRD Total LDRD
Source of funding fundinga fundinga fundinga fundinga
funding funding funding funding
Department of $416.1 $2.6 $398.9 $4.6 $391.7 $5.5 $406.0 $5.0
Energy
National Aeronautics and
c cc
Space Administration 2.3 3.1 8.2 13.8
Department of Health and
cc
Human Services 5.2 6.7 9.1 0.1 11.4
c cc
Department of State 6.7 5.8 5.0 7.0
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission 8.6 0.1 8.2 0.1 8.9 0.2 6.6
Environmental Protection
c cc
Agency 2.5 3.3 2.9 1.3
Department of Defense 3.2 c b c b c b
Department of the Interior b c 1.1 c b c b
Other federal agencies 3.5 c 3.5 c 1.6 c 1.9
Nonfederal sources 5.0 c 3.2 c 7.1 0.1 8.3
Total $453.1 $2.8 $433.9 $4.9 $434.4 $6.0 $456.3 $5.5
Source: Brookhaven National Laboratory. Note: All funding amounts are in
fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding. aIncludes
all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during
the fiscal year. bLess than $1 million in total funding. cLess than
$50,000 assessed for LDRD.
Appendix I
Funding Data for DOE Laboratories
Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal
Years 1998 through 2001
Table 6: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Idaho National Engineering
and Environmental Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001
Dollars in millions
Fiscal year 2000 Fiscal year 2001
Source of funding Total fundinga LDRD funding Total LDRD funding
fundinga
Department of Energy $625.8 $3.0 $647.4 $20.9
Department of Defense 58.7 1.4 75.1
Nuclear Regulatory 9.4 0.2 6.7
Commission
Other federal agencies 3.4 0.1 3.8
Nonfederal sources 21.4 0.3 22.2
Total $718.7 $5.1 $755.2 $23.9
Source: Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory.
Note: Data for fiscal years 1998 and 1999 were not readily available. All
funding amounts are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to
rounding.
aIncludes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed
during the fiscal year.
Table 7: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001
Dollars in millions Note: All funding amounts are in fiscal year 2003
dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
1998 1999 2000 2001
Total LDRD Total LDRD Total LDRD Total LDRD
Source of funding fundinga fundinga fundinga fundinga
funding funding funding funding
Department of Energy $291.4 $9.0 $300.4 $9.2 $310.3 $8.5 $326.4 $8.2
Department of Health
and
Human Services 18.4 0.6 20.4 0.6 22.0 0.6 32.9
Department of Defense 7.9 0.2 9.4 0.3 11.1 0.3 8.6
National Aeronautics
and
Space Administration 6.2 0.2 7.2 0.2 4.6 0.1 5.5
Environmental
Protection
Agency 4.9 0.2 5.1 0.2 5.1 0.1 5.0 0.1
Other federal agencies 2.5 0.1 3.2 0.1 1.8 0.1 1.4 b
Nonfederal sources 33.5 1.0 32.1 1.0 31.4 0.9 41.4 1.0
Total $364.9 $11.2 $377.7 $11.5 $386.4 $10.5 $421.2 $10.5
Source: Lawrence
Berkeley National
Laboratory.
aIncludes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed
during the fiscal year. bLess than $50,000 assessed for LDRD.
Appendix I
Funding Data for DOE Laboratories
Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal
Years 1998 through 2001
Table 8: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001
Dollars in millions
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
1998 1999 2000 2001
Total LDRD Total LDRD Total LDRD Total LDRD
Source of funding fundinga fundinga fundinga fundinga
funding funding funding funding
Department of Energy $845.8 $50.7 $823.7 $49.4 $762.1 $30.5 $816.2 $49.0
Department of Defense 65.5 3.9 81.5 4.9 79.5 3.2 65.8
Defense-related 10.4 0.6 11.5 0.7 12.5 0.5 10.5
agencies
Department of Health
and
Human Services 6.3 0.4 6.2 0.4 6.4 0.3 5.4
National Aeronautics
and
Space Administration 3.4 0.2 3.5 0.2 3.7 0.1 2.1
Department of 3.2 0.2 1.8 0.1 b c 1.7
Transportation
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission 1.7 0.1 b c b c b
Other federal agencies 2.9 0.2 4.4 0.3 5.1 0.2 4.8
Nonfederal sources 83.1 5.0 108.8 6.5 41.0 1.6 35.6
$1,022.5 $1,041.4
Total $61.3 $62.5 $910.4 $36.4 $942.2 $56.5
Source: Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory. Note: All funding amounts
are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.
aIncludes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed
during the fiscal year. bLess than $1 million in total funding. cLess than
$50,000 assessed for LDRD.
Appendix I
Funding Data for DOE Laboratories
Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal
Years 1998 through 2001
Table 9: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Los Alamos National Laboratory,
Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001
Dollars in millions
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
1998 1999 2000 2001
Total LDRD Total LDRD Total LDRD Total LDRD
Source of funding fundinga fundinga fundinga fundinga
funding funding funding funding
Department of Energy $1,225.5 $1,274.8 $1,110.2 $1,268.6
$67.0 $72.1 $43.3 $71.2
Department of Defense 55.1 3.0 41.5 2.4 52.4 2.1 60.1
Defense-related agencies 23.0 1.2 28.8 1.6 25.5 1.1 33.8
Department of Health and
Human Services 13.0 0.7 11.5 0.7 11.3 0.4 15.7
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration 9.6 0.5 12.7 0.8 9.3 0.4 7.2
Department of 5.1 0.3 4.9 0.3 4.4 0.2 3.8
Transportation
Department of State 1.9 0.1 2.3 0.1 2.5 0.1 2.8
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission 3.4 0.2 3.3 0.2 2.7 0.1 2.2
Internal Revenue Service 2.5 0.1 b c b c b
Department of Commerce 1.8 0.1 b c b c b
Other federal agencies 1.3 0.1 1.6 0.1 c0.6 0.5
Nonfederal sources 19.3 1.1 20.3 1.2 19.5 0.7 17.7
$1,361.3 $1,401.7 $1,238.4 $1,412.4
Total $74.5 $79.5 $48.4 $79.3
Source: Los Alamos National Laboratory. Note: All funding amounts are in
fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding. aIncludes
all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during
the fiscal year. bLess than $1 million in total funding. cLess than
$50,000 assessed for LDRD.
Appendix I
Funding Data for DOE Laboratories
Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal
Years 1998 through 2001
Table 10: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001
Dollars in millions
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
1998 1999 2000 2001
Total LDRD Total LDRD Total LDRD Total LDRD
Source of funding fundinga fundinga fundinga fundinga
funding funding funding funding
Department of Energy $587.8 $13.3 $578.6 $12.5 $509.4 $13.0 $510.1 $12.9
Department of Defense 27.3 0.8 31.1 0.7 32.4 0.8 30.1
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission 13.7 0.3 11.8 0.2 9.7 0.2 7.5
Department of 11.0 0.1 9.8 0.1 8.7 0.1 6.3
Transportation
Environmental
Protection
Agency 4.1 0.1 5.3 0.1 4.8 0.1 4.6
National Aeronautics
and
Space Administration 3.8 0.1 4.6 0.1 5.5 0.1 4.3
Department of Health and
ccc
Human Services 3.0 2.8 2.5 1.5
U.S. Postal Service 9.0 0.1 7.4 0.1 2.5 c b
National Institute of
Standards
and Technology 2.6 c b c b c b
Agency for
International
Development 1.1 c b c b c b
Federal Emergency
Management Agency 1.5 c 2.2 c 1.3 c b
Other federal agencies 1.9 c 4.2 c 3.4 c 3.6
Nonfederal sources 17.0 0.6 20.5 0.6 27.3 0.7 30.7
Total $683.8 $15.5 $678.4 $14.6 $607.5 $15.2 $598.9 $15.0
Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Note: All funding amounts are in
fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding. aIncludes
all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during
the fiscal year. bLess than $1 million in total funding. cLess than
$50,000 assessed for LDRD.
Appendix I
Funding Data for DOE Laboratories
Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal
Years 1998 through 2001
Table 11: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001
Dollars in millions
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
1998 1999 2000 2001
Total LDRD Total LDRD Total LDRD Total LDRD
Source of funding fundinga fundinga fundinga fundinga
funding funding funding funding
Department of Energy $455.0 $11.3 $431.5 $12.2 $429.7 $10.9 $423.8 $12.6
Department of 40.0 1.1 31.6 1.1 36.6 1.1 40.6
Defense
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission 4.1 0.2 5.0 0.2 5.0 0.2 4.9
Environmental
Protection
Agency 2.1 0.1 2.3 0.1 1.5 0.1 1.2
Other federal 9.7 0.4 10.0 0.5 11.8 0.6 12.1
agencies
Nonfederal sources b c 0.1 c c0.4 0.6
Total $510.9 $13.1 $480.3 $14.1 $484.9 $12.9 $483.1 $14.8
Source: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Note: All funding amounts
are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.
aIncludes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed
during the fiscal year. bLess than $1 million in total funding. cLess than
$50,000 assessed for LDRD.
Appendix I
Funding Data for DOE Laboratories
Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal
Years 1998 through 2001
Table 12: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Sandia National Laboratories,
Fiscal Years 1998 through 2001
Dollars in millions
Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year Fiscal year
1998 1999 2000 2001
Total LDRD Total LDRD Total LDRD Total LDRD
Source of funding fundinga fundinga fundinga fundinga
funding funding funding funding
Department of Energy $1,151.2 $1,160.9 $1,091.9 $1,109.8
$65.8 $67.6 $40.2 $57.7
Department of Defense 202.4 11.5 190.8 11.1 193.9 7.7 226.6 11.2
Defense-related agencies 34.9 2.0 33.7 2.0 37.9 1.5 36.0
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission 10.4 0.6 10.5 0.6 9.9 0.4 7.2
Department of 6.0 0.3 4.7 0.3 5.7 0.2 5.3
Transportation
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration 2.0 0.1 3.7 0.2 5.4 0.2 3.1
Department of the Interior b c b c 1.9 0.1 b
Other federal agencies 7.2 0.4 11.3 0.7 10.9 0.4 10.9
Nonfederal sources 60.4 3.3 64.5 3.7 69.8 2.9 61.7
$1,474.6 $1,479.9 $1,427.2 $1,460.6
Total $84.1 $86.1 $53.7 $75.1
Source: Sandia National Laboratories. Note: All funding amounts are in
fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding. aIncludes
all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during
the fiscal year. bLess than $1 million in total funding. cLess than
$50,000 assessed for LDRD.
Appendix II
Funding Data for DOE Laboratories Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003
Table 13: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Argonne National
Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003
Dollars in millions
Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003
Total LDRD Total LDRD Source of funding fundinga funding fundinga funding
Department of Energy Department of Defense
Counter Intelligence $1.1 $0.1 $1.2 $0.1
Energy Assurance b c 3.5
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 43.2 1.8 41.3
Environmental Management 25.0 0.9 21.9
Fossil Energy 5.3 0.3 5.3
National Nuclear Security Administration 31.7 1.4 30.8
Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology 84.7 4.1 79.2
Radioactive Waste Management 2.4 0.1 2.4
Science 228.7 8.9 232.7
Security 1.8 0.1 d d
DOE relatede b c 2.2
Other DOE sponsors 2.4 0.1 1.8
Air Force 1.5 0.1 1.5 0.1 Army 14.5 0.7 14.2 0.7 Navy 2.7 0.1 3.0 0.2
Defense Nuclear Agency b c 5.7 0.3 Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency b c 1.1 0.1 Other Defense agencies b c 0.1 c Nuclear Regulatory
Commission 9.5 0.5 12.6 0.6 Department of Agriculture 7.6 0.3 6.3 0.2
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 1.2 0.1 2.2 0.1
Environmental Protection Agency 1.4 0.1 1.7 0.1
National Institutes of Health 2.7 3.7 0.1
Department of the Interior 1.1 0.1 1.1 0.1
Department of State 1.6 0.1 3.3 0.1
Other federal agencies 6.1 0.3 2.4 0.1
Nonfederal sources 40.9 1.2 36.3 1.4
Total $517.0 $21.3 $517.4 $22.4
c
Source: Argonne National Laboratory. Note: All funding amounts are in
fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding. aIncludes
all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during
the fiscal year.
Appendix II
Funding Data for DOE Laboratories
Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal
Years 2002 and 2003
bLess than $1 million in total funding.
cLess than $50,000 in LDRD funding.
dIncludes Office of Security funding.
eIncludes work for other DOE laboratories, contractors, and/or facilities.
Table 14: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Brookhaven National Laboratory,
Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003
Dollars in millions
Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003
Total LDRD Total LDRD Source of funding fundinga funding fundinga funding
Department of Energy
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy $6.2 $0.1 $5.8 $0.1
Environmental Management 37.8 0.4 38.5
National Nuclear Security Administration 30.1 0.2 32.1
Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology 3.4 0.1 3.1
Science 288.7 5.4 260.4
DOE relatedb 29.1 0.1 36.1
Other DOE sponsors 1.5 c 3.3
Department of Defense d c 1.4
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7.3 0.2 8.9
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 14.6 c 5.7
Environmental Protection Agency 1.5 c 1.1
National Institutes of Health 11.6 c 10.7
Department of State 7.2 c 3.1
cc
Other federal agencies 2.7 2.8 Nonfederal sources 19.3 0.3 15.7 0.3
Total $461.2 $6.9 $428.7 $7.8
Source: Brookhaven National Laboratory. Note: All funding amounts are in
fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding. aIncludes
all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during
the fiscal year. bIncludes work for other DOE laboratories, contractors,
and/or facilities. cLess than $50,000 in LDRD funding. dLess than $1
million in total funding.
Appendix II
Funding Data for DOE Laboratories
Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal
Years 2002 and 2003
Table 15: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Idaho National Engineering
and Environmental Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003
Dollars in millions
Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003
Total LDRD Total LDRD Source of funding fundinga funding fundinga funding
Department of Energy Department of Defense
Counter Intelligence $1.6 $0.1 $1.5 $0.1
Energy Assurance b c 1.1
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 11.5 0.4 11.7
Environment, Safety, and Health b c 1.1
Environmental Management 470.1 14.8 476.2
Fossil Energy 3.3 0.1 2.7
Intelligence b c 1.1
National Nuclear Security Administration 61.2 2.1 59.0
Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology 15.5 0.4 20.0
Science 5.9 0.2 7.4
Security 1.1 c 1.6
DOE relatedd 23.5 0.8 35.1
Other DOE sponsors 3.4 0.1 1.7
Army 76.8 1.9 49.7 1.3
Navy b c 1.0 c
Other Defense agencies 11.0 0.4 17.8 0.4
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5.7 0.2 5.6 0.2
Other federal agencies 4.5 0.1 6.7 0.2
Nonfederal sources 19.3 0.3 21.7 0.4
Total $714.4 $21.9 $722.7 $20.2
Source: Idaho National Engineering and
Environmental Laboratory.
Note: All funding amounts are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not
add due to rounding.
aIncludes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed
during the fiscal year.
bLess than $1 million in total funding.
cLess than $50,000 in LDRD funding.
dIncludes work for other DOE laboratories, contractors, and/or facilities.
Appendix II
Funding Data for DOE Laboratories
Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal
Years 2002 and 2003
Table 16: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003
Dollars in millions
Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003
Total LDRD Total LDRD Source of funding fundinga funding fundinga funding
Department of Energy Department of Defense
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy $30.7 $1.0 $30.0 $0.8
Environmental Management 6.7 0.2 4.2
Fossil Energy 7.0 0.2 6.9
National Nuclear Security Administration 4.4 0.1 6.1
Science 302.6 7.5 271.2
DOE relatedb 27.5 0.7 22.0
Other DOE sponsors c d 1.0
Army 3.3 0.1 4.6
Navy 1.7 d c d
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 3.2 0.1 3.2 d
Other Defense agencies 2.2 0.1 2.0
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 6.9 0.1 6.3
Environmental Protection Agency 4.4 0.2 4.2
National Institutes of Health 39.7 1.2 38.6 1.0
Other federal agencies 2.1 0.1 2.9 0.1
Nonfederal sources 34.0 1.0 38.2 0.9
Total $477.0 $12.6 $441.5 $10.7
Source: Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. Note: All funding amounts
are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.
aIncludes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed
during the fiscal year. bIncludes work for other DOE laboratories,
contractors, and/or facilities. cLess than $1 million in total funding.
dLess than $50,000 in LDRD funding.
Appendix II
Funding Data for DOE Laboratories
Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal
Years 2002 and 2003
Table 17: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003
Dollars in millions
Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003
Total LDRD Total LDRD Source of funding fundinga funding fundinga funding
Department of Energy Department of Defense
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy $6.3 $0.4 $6.1 $0.4
Environmental Management 42.8 2.6 50.6
National Nuclear Security Administration 689.0 41.3 691.5
Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology b c 1.6
Science 57.2 3.4 53.4
DOE relatedd 83.0 5.0 85.5
Other DOE sponsors 44.8 2.7 44.4
Air Force 10.4 0.6 4.6
Army 17.3 1.0 20.6
Navy 13.0 0.8 8.4
Ballistic Missile Defense Organization 1.2 0.1 1.0
Office of the Secretary of Defense 6.1 0.4 6.2
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 11.9 0.7 13.2
Defense Intelligence Agency 2.6 0.2 1.9 0.1 Defense Threat Reduction
Agency 13.5 0.8 22.8 1.4 National Security Agency 9.4 0.6 4.1 1.4
Other Defense agencies 0.5 1.9 0.1
Defense-related agencies 6.3 0.4 30.8 1.8
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1.1 0.1 b c
Department of State 1.1 0.1 1.1 0.1
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 3.4 0.2 2.5 0.2
e e
c
Department of Homeland Security 6.5 0.4
National Institutes of Health 5.4 0.3 8.5 0.5
Other federal agencies 3.9 0.2 4.2 0.3
Nonfederal sources 29.7 1.8 22.1 1.3
Total $1,059.9 $63.6 $1,093.7 $65.6
Source: Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory.
Note: All funding amounts are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not
add due to rounding. aIncludes all funding that the laboratory billed to
DOE for work performed during the fiscal year.
bLess than $1 million in total funding.
Appendix II
Funding Data for DOE Laboratories
Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal
Years 2002 and 2003
cLess than $50,000 in LDRD funding.
dIncludes work for other DOE laboratories, contractors, and/or facilities.
eDHS began working with DOE's laboratories in fiscal year 2003.
Table 18: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Los Alamos National Laboratory,
Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003
Dollars in millions
Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003
Total LDRD Total LDRD Source of funding fundinga funding fundinga funding
Department of Energy Department of Defense
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy $18.1 $1.0 $15.9 $0.8
Environmental Management 102.2 5.7 89.2
National Nuclear Security Administration 1,296.1 72.3 1,329.8
Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology 31.5 1.8 28.1
Science 78.9 4.4 67.6
DOE relatedb 44.6 2.5 43.6
Other DOE sponsors 11.9 0.7 15.4
Air Force 11.9 0.7 8.1
Army 5.9 0.3 4.3
Navy 5.1 0.3 4.0
Defense Threat Reduction Agency 39.0 2.2 48.2
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 4.2 0.2 4.0
Missile Defense Agency 1.1 0.1 1.6 0.1
Research, Development, and Testing 6.3 0.4 6.7 0.4
Other Defense agencies 0.2 c 0.5 c
Defense-related agencies 39.4 2.2 61.4 3.3
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1.9 0.1 1.9 0.1
Department of Transportation 5.2 0.3 1.5 0.1
National Aeronautics and Space 6.5 0.4 10.7 0.6
Administration
Department of State 4.9 0.3 5.7 0.3
National Institutes of Health 16.9 0.9 18.6 1.0
Department of Homeland Security d d 2.5 0.1
Other federal agencies 0.6 c 1.5 0.1
Nonfederal sources 19.3 1.1 23.5 1.3
Total $1,751.6 $97.6 $1,794.5 $96.1
Source: Los Alamos National Laboratory.
Appendix II
Funding Data for DOE Laboratories
Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal
Years 2002 and 2003
Note: All funding amounts are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not
add due to rounding.
aIncludes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed
during the fiscal year.
bIncludes work for other DOE laboratories, contractors, and/or facilities.
cLess than $50,000 in LDRD funding.
dDHS began working with DOE's laboratories in fiscal year 2003.
Table 19: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003
Dollars in millions
Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003
Total LDRD Total LDRD Source of funding fundinga funding fundinga funding
Department of Energy Department of Defense
Counter Intelligence $1.5 b $1.5 $0.1
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 124.1 2.4 119.6
Environmental Management 32.1 0.9 11.3
Environment, Safety, and Health 2.2 0.1 2.2
Fossil Energy 12.3 0.3 11.9
National Nuclear Security Administration 67.1 1.4 93.0
Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology 20.0 0.6 27.4
Science 215.8 5.9 244.1
Security 5.2 0.3 6.3
DOE-relatedc 64.8 1.6 67.2
Other DOE sponsors 0.7 b 0.6 b
Air Force 1.5 b 4.0
Army 20.0 0.5 16.2 0.4
Navy 1.3 b 4.5 0.1
Defense Threat Reduction Agency 1.7 b 2.9 0.1
Defense Logistics Agency 3.4 0.1 3.7 0.1
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 5.7 0.1 6.8 0.2
Other Defense agencies 1.1 b 8.0 0.2
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7.8 0.3 10.3 0.3
Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration 3.4 0.1 2.7 0.1
Other Transportation agencies 2.9 b 2.2 b
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 4.4 0.1 7.3 0.2
Environmental Protection Agency 4.7 0.1 3.9 0.1
Appendix II
Funding Data for DOE Laboratories
Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal
Years 2002 and 2003
(Continued From Previous Page)
Dollars in millions
Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003
Total LDRD Total LDRD
Source of funding fundinga funding fundinga funding
National Institutes of Health 1.1 b 1.5 b
National Institute of Standards and d b 1.6 b
Technology
Department of State 1.4 b 1.6 b
Federal Emergency Management Agency d b 1.1 b
Other federal agencies 5.0 0.1 4.0
Nonfederal sources 21.6 0.7 23.1
Total $633.1 $15.7 $690.5 $16.1
Source: Oak Ridge National Laboratory. Note: All funding amounts are in
fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding. aIncludes
all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during
the fiscal year. bLess than $50,000 in LDRD funding. cIncludes work for
other DOE laboratories, contractors, and/or facilities. dLess than $1
million in total funding.
Appendix II
Funding Data for DOE Laboratories
Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal
Years 2002 and 2003
Table 20: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Pacific Northwest National
Laboratory, Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003
Dollars in millions
Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003
Total LDRD Total LDRD Source of funding fundinga funding fundinga funding
Department of Energy Department of Defense
Counter Intelligence $14.2 $0.5 $11.8 $0.5
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 26.7 1.0 31.3
Environment, Safety, and Health 1.2 b 1.7
Environmental Management 76.7 3.1 53.8
Fossil Energy 5.3 0.2 7.6
Intelligence 4.9 0.2 3.5
National Nuclear Security Administration 138.2 2.7 135.2
Science 81.4 2.8 112.0
Security 5.8 0.2 3.8
Chief Information Officer c b 2.1
DOE relatedd 50.4 2.1 (5.8)e
Other DOE sponsors 17.3 0.2 1.3
Air Force 9.7 0.4 9.7
Army 21.1 0.9 20.0 0.9
Navy 1.9 0.1 2.7 0.1
Other Defense agencies 6.0 0.2 25.2 0.8
Bonneville Power Administration c b 2.9 0.1
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 4.7 0.2 7.2 0.4
Department of State 3.8 0.2 1.2 0.1
Department of the Treasury/Internal Revenue c b 2.6 0.1
Service
Environmental Protection Agency 1.9 0.1 1.6 0.1
Other federal agencies 14.2 0.6 19.3 1.0
Nonfederal sources 1.3 0.1 2.1 0.1
Total $486.9 $15.9 $452.7 $17.3
Source: Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Note: All funding amounts
are in fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding.
aIncludes all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed
during the fiscal year. bLess than $50,000 in LDRD funding. cLess than $1
million in total funding. dIncludes work for other DOE laboratories,
contractors, and/or facilities.
Appendix II
Funding Data for DOE Laboratories
Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal
Years 2002 and 2003
eNet interlaboratory/intersite transfers at Pacific Northwest for fiscal
year 2003 resulted in a negative number.
Table 21: Total and LDRD Funding by Sponsor at Sandia National Laboratories,
Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003
Dollars in millions
Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003
Total LDRD Total LDRD Source of funding fundinga funding fundinga funding
Department of Energy Department of Defense
Counter Intelligence $2.8 $0.1 $2.7 $0.2
Energy Assurance b c 3.0
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 42.3 2.4 38.6
Environmental Management 49.1 2.8 42.0
Fossil Energy 7.1 0.4 6.8
Intelligence 3.0 0.1 3.3
National Nuclear Security Administration 995.9 53.8 1,071.1
Nuclear Energy, Science, and Technology 2.5 0.1 3.8
Science 39.3 2.2 41.9
Security 10.1 0.5 12.3
DOE relatedd 68.0 3.5 65.3
Other DOE sponsors 0.7 0.1 0.8
Air Force 96.6 4.9 122.9 6.9
Army 66.7 3.5 69.2 4.1
Navy 42.2 2.1 55.3 3.1
Weapons Parts and Assemblies 1.4 0.1 1.8 0.1
Office of the Secretary of Defense 1.1 0.1 1.4 0.1
Strategic Defense Initiative Organization 3.0 0.1 5.3 0.2
Defense Nuclear Agency 24.3 1.2 38.3 2.2
Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 19.2 1.0 17.5 1.0
Other Defense agencies 5.8 0.3 10.8 0.5
Defense-related agencies 43.7 2.0 35.8 2.0
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 12.9 0.6 22.1 1.2
Department of Transportation 7.0 0.4 6.3 0.4
National Aeronautics and Space Administration 4.3 0.2 3.0 0.2
Environmental Protection Agency 2.0 0.1 b c
National Institutes of Health b c 1.0 0.1
Appendix II
Funding Data for DOE Laboratories
Participating in the LDRD Program, Fiscal
Years 2002 and 2003
(Continued From Previous Page)
Dollars in millions
Fiscal year 2002 Fiscal year 2003
Total LDRD Total LDRD
Source of funding fundinga funding fundinga funding
Department of Homeland Security e e 0.4
Department of the Interior b c 1.6
Other federal agencies 15.8 0.8 12.6
Nonfederal sources 48.8 2.5 46.2
Total $1,615.7 $86.0 $1,742.9 $100.0
Source: Sandia National Laboratories. Note: All funding amounts are in
fiscal year 2003 dollars. Totals may not add due to rounding. aIncludes
all funding that the laboratory billed to DOE for work performed during
the fiscal year. bLess than $1 million in total funding. cLess than
$50,000 in LDRD funding. dIncludes work for other DOE laboratories,
contractors, and/or facilities. eDHS began working with DOE's laboratories
in fiscal year 2003.
Appendix III
Comments from the Department of Energy
GAO's Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and to
help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government
for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal
programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is
through the Internet. GAO's Web site
(www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and
testimony and an expanding archive of older products. The Web
site features a search engine to help you locate documents using key
words and phrases. You can print these documents in their
entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence.
GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its Web site
daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have
GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under
the "Order GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is
free. Additional copies are $2 each. A check or money order should be
made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a single
address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548
To order by
Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202) 512-6061
To Report Fraud, Contact:
Web site:
www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htmWaste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]
Federal Programs
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470
Public Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director,
[email protected] (202) 512-4800 U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G
Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548
Presorted Standard
Postage & Fees Paid
GAO
Permit No. GI00
United States
General Accounting Office
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Service Requested
*** End of document. ***