Since our May 2002 report on nuclear smuggling, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has reported 481 additional confirmed cases of the smuggling of nuclear and/or radiological materials. One of these cases involved nuclear material suitable for use in a nuclear weapon. The majority of new cases IAEA reported involved radiological sources, which could be combined with conventional explosives to create a “dirty bomb.” According to IAEA, the majority of all reported incidents with radiological sources involved criminal activity, most frequently theft. Radiological sources and devices in which they are used can be attractive for thieves because of their perceived high resale value or the value of their ability to shield or encapsulate illegally shipped materials within legal shipments of radioactive materials. Some of the reported cases indicate a perceived demand for radioactive materials on the black market, according to IAEA. From 2003 to 2004, the number of incidents reported by IAEA substantially increased. IAEA indicated that improved reporting may, in part, account for this increase. As of December 2004, 82 of IAEA’s Member States were participating in contributing to the database. Detecting actual cases of illicit trafficking in nuclear material is complicated because one of the materials of greatest concern—highly enriched uranium—is among the most difficult materials to detect because of its relatively low level of radioactivity. Uranium emits only gamma radiation so detection equipment, which generally contains both gamma and neutron detection capabilities, only detects uranium from the gamma detector. However, gamma radiation emissions can be shielded by encasing nuclear material within another high density material, such as lead. Another nuclear material of great concern is plutonium, which emits both gamma and neutron radiation. However, shielding nuclear material generally does not prevent the detection of neutron radiation and, as a result, plutonium can be detected by neutron detectors regardless of the amount of shielding from high density material. According to DOE officials, neutron radiation alarms are only caused by man-made materials, such as plutonium, while gamma radiation alarms are caused by a variety of naturally occurring sources including commercial goods such as bananas, ceramic tiles, and fertilizer, in addition to dangerous nuclear materials, such as uranium and plutonium. The most common types of radiation detection equipment are radiation portal monitors; handheld equipment, including both survey meters and radioactive isotope identification devices; and radiation pagers. The radiation detection equipment that U.S. programs provide to foreign countries is commercially available, off-the-shelf technology. Radiation portal monitors are stationary pieces of equipment designed to detect radioactive materials being carried by vehicles, pedestrians, or railcars. Radiation portal monitors currently being provided by U.S. agencies have the ability to detect both gamma and neutron radiation, which is important for detecting highly enriched uranium and plutonium, respectively. According to DOE, radiation portal monitors with both gamma and neutron detectors cost between about $28,000 and $55,000, plus the additional costs associated with installing the equipment and communication systems necessary to operate it. Figure 1 shows a picture of radiation portal monitors with both gamma and neutron detectors. In 2002, we reported that some U.S. agencies, primarily State, provided radiation portal monitors that did not have the ability to detect neutron radiation to foreign governments. Because this equipment is capable of detecting only gamma radiation, it is less effective in detecting certain nuclear material, such as plutonium that has been shielded with high density material. Replacement cost for similar equipment (capable of detecting only gamma radiation), is about $5,000, not including installation costs, according to DOE officials. Figure 2 shows an example of such a radiation portal monitor. Handheld radiation detection equipment, such as survey meters and radioactive isotope identification devices, are used by customs officials and border guards to conduct secondary inspections, the aim of which is to localize the source of an alarm and determine the nature of the material present. Survey meters can be used to detect the level of radiation by providing a count of the radiation level in the area. Radioactive isotope identification devices, commonly known as RIIDs, identify the specific isotope of the radioactive source detected. In addition, U.S. programs often provide radiation pagers, which are small radiation detection devices worn on belts by border security personnel to continuously monitor levels of radiation in the area. Pagers are considered personal safety devices and, therefore, should not be relied upon to implement secondary inspections. Since fiscal year 1994, DOE, DOD, and State have spent about $178 million to provide radiation detection equipment to 36 countries as part of the overall U.S. effort to combat nuclear smuggling. However, because some U.S. agencies provide radiation detection equipment to foreign countries on an as needed basis, future U.S. government spending requirements for such assistance are uncertain. DOE has spent about $131 million to provide radiation detection equipment and training to 12 countries and to maintain certain types of equipment previously installed by other U.S. agencies in 23 countries. DOD has also spent almost $22 million to provide radiation portal monitors, handheld radiation detection devices, and radiation detection training to 8 countries in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Similarly, State has spent about $25 million to provide various types of radiation detection equipment and related training to 31 countries. (See table 1.) Since fiscal year 1998, DOE has spent about $130 million through its SLD- Core program to provide radiation detection equipment and training at 83 border sites in Russia, Greece, and Lithuania and to maintain certain types of equipment previously installed by State and other U.S. agencies in 23 countries. DOE recently signed implementing agreements with the governments of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Slovenia, and Ukraine and will begin work in those countries in fiscal year 2006. Through its SLD-Core program, DOE currently plans to install radiation detection equipment at a total of about 350 sites in 31 countries by 2012 at an estimated total cost of $570 million. In addition, DOE spent about $1 million to provide radiation detection equipment to nine countries through its Cooperative Radiological Instrument Transfer project (CRITr), which began in 2004. Through CRITr, DOE refurbishes previously decommissioned handheld radiation detection equipment located at various DOE sites and provides this equipment to foreign law enforcement officers. DOE plans to provide handheld equipment to six additional countries through the CRITr project in fiscal year 2006. Through the end of fiscal year 2005, DOD had spent about $22 million through two programs to provide handheld radiation detection devices to eight countries in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and to install fixed radiation portal monitors in Uzbekistan. Specifically, through its Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation Prevention Initiative (WMD- PPI), DOD spent about $0.2 million to provide various types of handheld radiation detection equipment to three countries and about $6.4 million to install radiation portal monitors at 11 sites in Uzbekistan. DOD plans to complete installation at 6 more sites in Uzbekistan by the end of fiscal year 2006 and to finish all associated radiation detection work in Uzbekistan by fiscal year 2009 at a total cost of about $54 million. In fiscal year 2006, DOD plans to transfer responsibility for maintenance of the equipment it has provided to Uzbekistan to DOE’s SLD-Core program. Through its International Counterproliferation Program (ICP), DOD has spent about $15 million to provide handheld radiation detection equipment and training on weapons of mass destruction proliferation prevention to 6 countries in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. In addition, DOD has provided a variety of training on weapons of mass destruction proliferation to 17 additional countries. Through ICP, DOD plans to continue to provide limited amounts of handheld radiation detection equipment to other countries in the future. The Department of State, through three programs—the Export Control and Related Border Security program (EXBS), the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund (NDF), and the Georgia Border Security and Law Enforcement program (GBSLE)—has spent about $25 million since fiscal year 1994 to provide radiation detection equipment and related training to 31 foreign countries. State’s EXBS program has spent approximately $15.4 million to provide radiation portal monitors, various types of handheld radiation detection devices, X-ray vans equipped with radiation detectors, and training on how to use this equipment to 30 countries mainly in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. Similarly, through NDF, State spent about $9.1 million from fiscal year 1994 through 2001 to, among other things, install portal monitors in countries other than Russia, provide handheld radiation detectors, and provide vans equipped with X-ray machines to countries, including Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. Lastly, through its GBSLE program, State spent $0.2 million in 1999 to provide border guards and customs officials in the Republic of Georgia with 137 radiation pagers. State has not provided any additional radiation detection equipment assistance through NDF since 2001 or through its GBSLE program since 1999. Because some U.S. programs provide radiation detection equipment to foreign countries on an as needed basis and DOE has yet to gain agreements with all of the countries where it would like to install equipment, future U.S. government spending requirements for radiation detection assistance remain uncertain. For example, although DOE is the primary U.S. agency responsible for installing radiation portal monitors in foreign countries, State selectively funds projects to provide radiation portal monitors to foreign countries through its EXBS program. State officials told us that State coordinates its work in this area with DOE to avoid duplication, and it conducts these projects on an as needed basis to provide a quick response to emerging nuclear smuggling threats. For example, in December 2005, State installed portal monitors and provided handheld radiation detection equipment to one site in Armenia at a cost of about $0.5 million, in part because it believed that the threat of nuclear smuggling warranted immediate installation of this equipment. State officials we spoke with told us that they coordinated with DOE to ensure State’s work in Armenia is consistent with overall U.S. goals and that the specific equipment installed met minimum detection standards. Furthermore, State officials also told us that the newly installed radiation portal monitors at this site in Armenia provide a redundant layer of security with DOE’s planned work to install equipment on the opposite side of the border in the Republic of Georgia. Because State selectively funds portal monitor projects through its EXBS program to provide a quick U.S. government response to emerging security threats of nuclear smuggling, it is uncertain how many other projects State will fund in this area, in what countries these projects will be conducted, or how much they will cost. Additionally, State officials also told us that they have yet to determine whether or not they will fund any future projects to provide radiation detection equipment assistance to foreign countries through the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund or the Georgia Border Security and Law Enforcement program. As a result, it is uncertain how many other projects State will fund through either of these two programs or how much they will cost. DOE currently plans to install equipment at a total of about 350 sites in 31 countries by 2012 at an estimated cost of $570 million based on a strategy that analyzes and prioritizes countries for receiving installations. However, it cannot be certain which countries will be included in the SLD-Core program until it signs the necessary agreements with these countries’ governments. For example, DOE planned to complete installations in Georgia, Kazakhstan, Slovenia, and Ukraine in fiscal year 2005. However, installations in Georgia, Slovenia, and Ukraine will not be completed until at least fiscal year 2006 because of delays in signing implementing agreements with these countries. Additionally, DOE is still in the process of trying to reach agreement with Kazakhstan. In fiscal year 2004, DOE reallocated a portion of its funding to directly fund its planned work at certain border sites in Kazakhstan. However, difficulty in reaching agreement with Kazakhstan continues to delay this work. If DOE continues to experience delays in signing agreements with foreign countries, or cannot reach agreements with all of the countries where it currently plans to install equipment, it may need to alter its planned scope of work and overall cost estimates for the program. Furthermore, once DOE reaches agreement with a certain country, it still needs to conduct individual site assessments to determine at which sites providing radiation detection equipment will be cost-effective, as well as the amount of equipment each site will require. Therefore, DOE is limited in its ability to determine the total cost of the SLD-Core program until it signs implementing agreements with the governments of countries where it plans to work and conducts assessments to determine which specific sites within those countries require radiation detection equipment and in what amounts. U.S. programs that provide radiation detection equipment to foreign governments face a number of challenges that affect the installation and effective operation of radiation detection equipment, including: the threat of corruption of border security officials in some foreign countries, technical limitations of radiation detection equipment previously deployed by State and other agencies, inadequate maintenance of some handheld equipment, and the lack of infrastructure necessary to operate radiation detection equipment and harsh environmental conditions at some border sites. DOE, DOD, and State have taken some steps to address these challenges, such as providing multitiered communications systems to mitigate corruption so that alarm data can be simultaneously viewed at several levels of authority and supplying protective casings for radiation portal monitors to prevent damage from vandals or extreme heat. According to U.S. and foreign government officials, corruption is a pervasive problem within the ranks of border security organizations. Specifically, because foreign border guards are often poorly paid and geographically isolated, there are concerns that foreign officials could be bribed and turn off the radiation detection equipment and allow nuclear smuggling to occur. For example, an official might turn off the equipment to allow a nuclear smuggler to pass through a border crossing. According to a Russian press report, in October 2004, a Russian customs agent at a site in western Russia was fired because he was aiding a smuggling ring. Additionally, in July 2005, after the newly elected President of Ukraine took office, he reorganized many agencies within the government, including the Customs Service, because of concerns about corruption. DOE, DOD, and State officials told us they are concerned that corrupt foreign border security personnel could compromise the effectiveness of U.S.-funded radiation detection equipment by either turning off equipment or ignoring alarms. As a result, U.S. programs that provide fixed radiation portal monitors are taking some steps to evaluate the degree to which corruption is present in the countries and regions where they are working or plan to work. For example, DOE’s SLD-Core program commissioned three studies to better understand corruption and the challenges that it could bring to the program. Additionally, DOE includes countrywide corruption assessments as part of its efforts to help program officials prioritize countries to include in the SLD-Core program. In addition, DOD and State also include anticorruption courses as part of the radiation detection training they provide to foreign border security personnel. Some U.S. programs also have taken or plan to take other specific steps to mitigate the threat of corruption, such as (1) providing multitiered communications systems so that alarm data can be simultaneously viewed at several levels of authority, (2) implementing programs to combat some of the underlying issues that can lead to corruption through periodic screening of border security personnel, and (3) installing radiation portal monitors on both sides of a particular border if there are concerns about corruption of personnel in these countries. For example, DOE and DOD are deploying communication systems that link the activities at individual border sites with regional and national command centers. By doing so, alarm data can be simultaneously evaluated by officials both at the site and up the chain of command, thus establishing redundant layers of accountability for responding to alarms. As a result, if a local official turns off the radiation detection equipment at a site, higher level officials can quickly be made aware of the incident and investigate the reasons for the alarm. Additionally, DOD plans to implement an Employee Dependability Program in Uzbekistan that includes background checks, personal interviews of applicants, monitoring of performance and behavior, and annual refresher training to combat some of the underlying issues that can lead to corruption among border security personnel. DOE officials told us that they are considering implementing such a screening program in some countries where the SLD-Core program works. Lastly, U.S. programs are installing radiation portal monitors on both sides of some borders to create redundant coverage to increase the likelihood of detection and interdiction. In fiscal year 2006, DOE plans to install radiation portal monitors at a number of sites in Georgia. At one site in Armenia, across the border from a planned DOE installation, State installed radiation portal monitors in December 2005, in part, because of concerns about corruption on both sides of the border at this location. DOE is also considering employing this type of redundant coverage at other locations throughout Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. While DOE has taken steps to determine the level of corruption in some countries and regions where it works and includes countrywide corruption assessments as part of its prioritization model, DOE is still in the process of determining in what countries it will provide specific anticorruption measures and how much it will cost to do so based on its analysis of the corruption threat. For example, DOE estimates that it will spend about $1 million to provide radiation detection equipment and related communications systems at a typical foreign border crossing. DOE officials noted that the standard communication systems the SLD-Core program provides with radiation portal monitors have some anticorruption value because radiation alarms require more than one official to review and close out before the system can be reset. However, DOE has not included the costs associated with other specific anticorruption measures in the long- term cost estimates for its SLD-Core program. In 2002, DOE assumed responsibility for maintaining some radiation detection equipment previously installed by State and other U.S. agencies in 23 countries in the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. However, DOE has not upgraded any of this less sophisticated equipment, with the exception of one site in Azerbaijan. Through an interagency agreement, DOE assumed responsibility for ensuring the long-term sustainability and continued operation of radiation portal monitors and X-ray vans equipped with radiation detectors that State and other U.S. agencies provided to these countries. Through this agreement, DOE provides spare parts, preventative maintenance, and repairs for the equipment through regularly scheduled maintenance visits. Through the end of fiscal year 2005, DOE had conducted maintenance and sustainability activities for equipment in 21 of the 23 countries where equipment had been provided. DOE officials told us that, although Belarus received a significant amount of radiation detection equipment from DOD, DOE is currently prohibited from maintaining this equipment by restrictions placed on U.S. assistance to Belarus. As a result, the maintenance status of the 38 portal monitors and almost 200 pieces of handheld radiation detection equipment DOD provided to Belarus is unknown. Additionally, at the request of the Turkish government, DOE no longer maintains 41 portal monitors and over 150 pieces of handheld radiation detection equipment State previously provided to Turkey. As we originally reported in 2002, at some sites in foreign countries, State and other U.S. agencies installed portal monitors that contained only gamma radiation detectors, which are less effective in detecting certain nuclear material, such as plutonium, than detectors with both gamma and neutron detection capability. Although State’s current policy is to install radiation detection equipment with both gamma and neutron detection capability, according to DOE officials, because of their configuration and sensitivity, these older portal monitors are less likely to detect small quantities of highly enriched uranium or nuclear material that is shielded, for example, by a lead container or certain parts of a vehicle. When it assumed responsibility for maintaining this equipment, DOE conducted an initial assessment of these portal monitors to determine whether they were functional and what maintenance was required. During the course of this analysis, DOE found that much of the equipment was damaged and required total replacement or major repairs. In such cases, DOE installed similar equipment with gamma radiation detectors but chose not to upgrade the equipment with newer portal monitors that would be capable of detecting both gamma and neutron radiation. DOE’s policy was to replace this equipment in-kind and wait to upgrade the equipment as part of a countrywide deployment through the SLD-Core program. However, according to SLD-Core program officials, DOE did not have funds earmarked for upgrading the equipment in the absence of a countrywide deployment through the SLD-Core program. Additionally, SLD-Core program officials stated that DOE would need to sign new agreements with the appropriate ministries or agencies within the governments of the countries where State and other agencies had previously installed equipment before DOE could invest “substantial resources” to upgrade the equipment. DOE officials noted that replacing the less sophisticated portal monitors with similar equipment usually costs less than $5,000, plus installation costs, while deploying a comprehensive system comprised of portal monitors that can detect both gamma and neutron radiation, associated communication systems, and related training can cost up to $1 million per site. The agreements are important because they exempt DOE from payment of host government taxes, customs duties, or other charges per congressional guidance. In addition, these agreements require the host government to provide DOE with data on detections of illicit trafficking in nuclear materials gathered as a result of assistance DOE provided through the SLD-Core program. Though the SLD-Core program has signed agreements with some countries where the less sophisticated equipment was installed, such as Ukraine, DOE has yet to upgrade any of the equipment in these countries, with the exception of one site in Azerbaijan, primarily because the details of the countrywide installations are still being determined. According to DOE officials, as countries with older equipment sign agreements with DOE to implement the full SLD-Core program, sites in these countries with less sophisticated equipment will be upgraded. In November 2005, DOE completed an assessment of the maintenance activities it performs on equipment provided by other U.S. agencies. DOE found that equipment failures at many of these sites go unattended, often for months. DOE determined that its maintenance of X-ray vans previously provided by State was not critical to the mission of the SLD-Core program. As a result, DOE is planning to phase out its maintenance of X-ray vans after fiscal year 2007. According to DOE officials, the budget of the SLD- Core program cannot sustain what DOE considers “non-mission critical work.” In fiscal year 2005, DOE bore the full financial responsibility for all maintenance activities because State provided no funding to DOE for this work. In addition to the X-ray vans, DOE evaluated the sites where portal monitors were previously installed by State and other agencies and identified those monitors that should no longer be supported by the SLD- Core program. DOE assessed each location where less sophisticated portal monitors are maintained and prioritized which sites should receive upgraded equipment. DOE plans to work with State to upgrade selected sites and decommission some sites that have equipment that is not being used or is beyond repair. DOE and State signed an interagency agreement in 2002 giving responsibility for maintaining most radiation detection equipment previously installed by State and other U.S. agencies to DOE. However, this agreement did not make DOE responsible for maintaining handheld radiation detection equipment previously deployed by these agencies. State has also not assumed responsibility for maintaining about 1,000 handheld radiation detectors provided by its programs that are vital to border officials for conducting secondary inspections of vehicles and pedestrians, and, as a result, much of this equipment is in disrepair. For example, at one site in Georgia, we observed border guards performing secondary inspections with a handheld radiation detector, previously provided by State, which had not been calibrated since 1997 (see fig. 3). According to the detector’s manufacturer, yearly recalibration is necessary to ensure that the detector functions properly. Furthermore, DOE officials we spoke with told us that—similar to radiation portal monitors—handheld radiation detection devices require periodic maintenance checks and recalibration to ensure that they remain operable and continue to meet minimum detection standards. Batteries used in some handheld radiation detection equipment typically need to be replaced every 2 years and some types of handhelds are fragile and can be easily broken, requiring that replacement devices or spare parts be readily available. At the request of State, DOE is currently evaluating the costs associated with maintaining this handheld equipment. Specifically, DOE has asked its contractor currently responsible for maintaining the portal monitors and X-ray vans in these countries to develop a proposal for assuming responsibility for maintenance of the handheld equipment as well. According to DOE officials, maintenance of handheld equipment could be conducted during regularly scheduled visits for maintenance of portal monitors and X-ray vans. As a result, DOE officials believe that no additional travel funds would be required for this activity. However, DOE officials also told us that if they were to assume full responsibility for maintaining the handheld equipment at sites where they are maintaining radiation portal monitors installed by State and other agencies they would need additional funding for labor and to provide replacement equipment and spare parts. Limited infrastructure and harsh environmental conditions at some foreign border sites create challenges to the installation and operation of radiation detection equipment. For example, many border sites are located in remote areas, which often do not have access to reliable supplies of electricity, fiber optic lines, and other infrastructure needed to operate radiation portal monitors and associated communication systems. Prior to providing radiation portal monitors, U.S. programs typically perform site assessments to determine the details surrounding how radiation detection equipment will be installed at a given site. The assessment includes the operational needs of the equipment depending on the infrastructure available at the site. To address the needs identified, DOE, DOD, and State provide generators at some sites to supply electricity to the radiation detection equipment because the electric power supply shuts down periodically or may be very low at these remote sites. Additionally, the communication systems that are provided to report activities from the radiation detectors require fiber optic cabling for their operation. If no cabling exists, underground cabling or radio wave operated communication systems must be installed to perform this function. Finally, at some border sites, the radiation portal monitors are located significant distances from the control and communication system center. U.S. program officials we spoke with expressed concern that theft could occur because of the remote location of this equipment. To prevent such interference with the equipment, antitampering measures such as protective cages are used to protect the integrity of the portal monitors (see fig. 4). Additionally, environmental conditions at some sites, such as extreme heat, can compromise the effectiveness of radiation detection equipment. Extreme heat can accelerate the degradation of components within radiation detection equipment and, as a result, can affect the performance and long-term sustainability of the equipment. DOD placed a protective casing around the radiation portal monitors it installed in Uzbekistan as a heat shield to ensure the effective long-term operation of the equipment (see fig. 5). State coordinates U.S. radiation detection equipment assistance overseas through an interagency working group and in-country advisors. However, its ability to carry out its role as lead interagency coordinator is limited by deficiencies in the strategic plan for interagency coordination and by its lack of a comprehensive list of all U.S. radiation detection assistance. Specifically, the interagency strategic plan lacks key components, such as overall program cost estimates, projected time frames for program completion, and specific performance measures. Additionally, State has not maintained accurate information on the operational status and location of all radiation detection equipment provided by U.S. programs. As the lead coordinator of U.S. radiation detection equipment assistance overseas, State has taken some steps to coordinate the efforts of U.S. programs that provide this type of assistance to foreign countries. State’s coordination takes place primarily through two methods: an interagency working group and State’s in-country advisors. The main coordination mechanism for U.S. radiation detection assistance programs is the interagency working group, chaired by State, which consists of program representatives from DOE, DOD, State, and DHS. According to State, this working group holds meetings about once every 2 months to coordinate the activities of U.S. programs that provide radiation detection equipment and export control assistance overseas. These interagency meetings attempt to identify and prevent overlap among the various U.S. programs through discussion of such issues as funding, upcoming program activities, and recent trips to countries receiving U.S. assistance. Meetings are attended by program managers responsible for overseeing and implementing radiation detection equipment assistance programs in foreign countries. While DOD and DOE officials we spoke with told us that these interagency meetings are somewhat beneficial, they stated that meetings primarily facilitate coordination at a high level and typically lack the specific detail necessary to identify and prevent program overlap within countries and regions where multiple U.S. programs provide radiation detection equipment assistance. Through this working group, State also maintains an interagency schedule that provides information on planned activities, training, and site visits of U.S. programs. State also coordinates U.S. programs through in-country advisors, stationed in more than 20 foreign countries. While State funds these advisors, State officials told us that they work on behalf of all U.S. programs that provide nuclear detection assistance in their respective countries. According to State officials, these advisors serve as the on-the- ground coordinators of U.S. export control and border security assistance and are the primary sources of information concerning past and present provision of U.S. radiation detection equipment assistance in their respective countries. State officials also noted that frequent informal coordination takes place between program managers at State and their counterparts in Washington, D.C., at other federal agencies. In addition to State’s coordination efforts, DHS recently created the Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO) with responsibilities including coordinating nuclear detection research and developing a global nuclear detection architecture. According to DHS, though DNDO is principally focused on domestic detection, its coordinating work will enhance U.S. efforts overseas through the design of a global nuclear detection architecture implemented under current agency responsibilities. Equally, while detection technologies developed by DNDO will be directed primarily by operational requirements for domestic applications, many technologies developed could have application in overseas radiation detection equipment assistance programs. However, DOE, DOD, and State officials we spoke with were unclear on what specific future role DNDO would play in coordinating activities of U.S. programs that provide radiation detection equipment assistance to foreign countries. These agencies are working with DNDO to clarify the future role that the office will play. In 2002, we reported that U.S. efforts to help other countries combat nuclear smuggling needed strengthened coordination and planning to link U.S. programs through common goals and objectives, strategies and time frames for providing assistance, and performance measures for evaluating the effectiveness of U.S. assistance. State, as the lead coordinator of U.S. nuclear detection assistance overseas, led the development of a governmentwide interagency strategic plan to guide the efforts of U.S. programs that provide this assistance. The plan broadly defines a set of interagency goals and objectives, establishes minimum technological standards for radiation detection equipment that U.S. programs provide, and outlines the roles and responsibilities of each agency. However, the plan does not include several elements necessary to effectively link U.S. programs together, prevent duplication, and guide their efforts toward completion. While the plan provides U.S. agencies with a broad framework for coordinating this type of assistance by defining a set of interagency goals and outlining the roles and responsibilities of each agency, it does not include specific performance measures, overall program cost estimates, or projected time frames for program completion. Without incorporating these key elements into its plan, State will be limited in its ability, as lead coordinator, to effectively link U.S. programs and guide their efforts toward achieving interagency goals. For example, a primary goal in its plan is that recipient countries possess a comprehensive capability to detect and interdict illicitly trafficked nuclear and radiological material. However, without incorporating specific performance measures into its plan, State has no transparent way to effectively measure the performance of U.S. programs in this regard or to determine the degree to which they are reaching this or other interagency goals discussed in its plan. Finally, without incorporating overall program cost estimates and time frames for program completion into its plan, State cannot effectively determine the amount of U.S. government resources that will be required to achieve interagency goals and objectives or under what time frames these resources will be required. If State does not take steps to include these key elements in its plan, it will continue to be limited in its ability to effectively track the progress of U.S. programs, measure their performance toward achieving interagency goals and objectives, and determine the amount of funding required to achieve these goals and under what time frames these resources will be needed. State, in its role as lead interagency coordinator, has not maintained accurate information on the operational status and location of all the handheld radiation detection equipment previously provided by U.S. programs. While DOE has taken responsibility for maintaining information on previously deployed U.S.-funded radiation portal monitors, State primarily works through its in-country advisors and its interagency working group to gather and maintain information on handheld radiation detection equipment provided by U.S. programs. State, through its EXBS program, assumed direct management of the in-country advisors from DHS in February 2005. As part of their duties, State’s in-country advisors are required to maintain a record of the transfer of all U.S.-provided export/border control equipment, including radiation detection equipment, within their respective countries and to follow up to ensure it is at the locations specified by the recipient government and is properly maintained. However, four of the nine advisors we spoke with, who are stationed in countries that have received a combined total of about 1,000 pieces of handheld radiation detection equipment from U.S. programs, acknowledged that they did not have up-to-date information regarding the present operational status or location of this equipment. Additionally, five of nine advisors we spoke with were unaware that, as part of their duties, they are required to maintain a record of all U.S.-provided equipment within their country. However, some advisors we spoke with stated that they attempt to determine this information but are sometimes limited in their ability to do so because other U.S. programs have not always coordinated with them before providing equipment in their country. As a result, it is necessary for some advisors to follow up with the host government to determine the status and location of U.S.-provided radiation detection equipment. According to some advisors, however, host governments may not always provide accurate information on what equipment has been provided in the past, where it is currently located, and its current operational status. According to State officials, there is no comprehensive interagency list of radiation detection equipment that has been previously provided to foreign governments by U.S. programs. In 2002, we recommended that State, as the lead interagency coordinator, work with DOE and DOD to develop such a list. Officials we spoke with at DOE and DOD stated that having access to accurate information on past provisions of all radiation detection equipment provided by U.S. programs is essential to interagency coordination, preventing overlap among programs, as well as appropriately assessing a specific country’s equipment needs. During the course of our review, program officials at DOE, DOD, and State provided us with lists of radiation detection equipment their programs had provided to other countries. According to information we received from program managers at DOE, DOD, and State, more than 7,000 pieces of handheld radiation detection equipment, including radiation pagers and radioactive isotope identification devices, had been provided to 36 foreign countries through the end of fiscal year 2005. Because much of this equipment was provided to the same countries by multiple agencies and programs, it is difficult to determine the degree to which duplication of effort has occurred. For example, since fiscal year 1994, a total of 17 different countries have received handheld radiation detection equipment from more than one U.S. agency. However, although DOE, DOD, and State programs each maintain their own lists of radiation detection equipment provided to foreign countries, officials at these agencies told us that they do not regularly share such information with each other. Without the development of a comprehensive interagency list of U.S.-funded radiation detection equipment, program managers at DOE, DOD, and State cannot accurately assess the equipment needs of countries where they plan to provide assistance, may unknowingly provide duplicative sets of equipment, and cannot determine if the equipment is being used for its intended purpose or is in need of maintenance and repair. Since the mid-1990s, DOE, DOD, and State have spent about $178 million to provide a variety of radiation detection equipment to countries around the world, and it is important that this equipment be properly maintained so that it can be effectively used to combat nuclear smuggling overseas. Since taking over responsibility for maintaining portal monitors deployed by other agencies in 2002, DOE has worked to ensure that this equipment is functioning and being used as intended. However, because DOE’s interagency maintenance agreement with State did not include maintaining handheld radiation detection equipment previously provided by State and other agencies, much of this equipment may not be properly functioning. Handheld radiation detection equipment is vital for border officials to conduct secondary inspections of vehicles or pedestrians. Without taking steps to ensure that all previously provided radiation detection equipment, specifically handheld equipment, is adequately maintained and remains operational, State cannot ensure the continued effectiveness or long-term sustainability of this equipment. Because corrupt officials could undermine the effectiveness of U.S. radiation detection assistance programs overseas by turning off radiation detection equipment or not properly responding to alarms, it is important for U.S. programs to employ anticorruption efforts, such as multitiered communication systems for radiation alarms, training, employee dependability programs, and redundant installations of equipment when providing such assistance. While we are encouraged that DOE, DOD, and State employ some corruption mitigation measures in their programs, DOE is still in the process of determining in which countries it will provide these specific anticorruption measures and how much such assistance would cost to implement. In addition, though DOE has maintained less sophisticated radiation portal monitors previously deployed by other agencies since 2002, it has not upgraded the equipment at any of these sites. As a result, border sites with less sophisticated radiation portal monitors are more vulnerable to nuclear smuggling than sites with equipment that can detect both gamma and neutron radiation. We originally reported on this problem in our May 2002 report. In its official comments on that report, DOE stated that these less sophisticated monitors “are not as reliable [as monitors with both gamma and neutron radiation detection capabilities], and have limited or no ability to detect shielded plutonium.” Although it is encouraging that DOE has recently undertaken an assessment of the equipment it maintains that was installed by other U.S. agencies, DOE has not yet improved the neutron detection capabilities of any of these less sophisticated monitors, with the exception of one site in Azerbaijan. As a result, these sites remain just as vulnerable to certain types of nuclear smuggling as they were when we first reported this deficiency in May 2002. Finally, we believe that, unless key components such as overall program cost estimates, projected time frames for completion, and specific performance measures are incorporated into the interagency strategic plan, State will be limited in its ability to determine the amount of resources and time needed to achieve the broader interagency goals discussed in its plan or to effectively measure U.S. programs’ progress toward achieving these goals. Furthermore, without accurate information on the current status and location of radiation detection equipment previously provided by U.S. programs, State cannot effectively fulfill its role as interagency coordinator of U.S. assistance. Because there are at least seven U.S. programs at three federal agencies that provide radiation detection equipment to foreign countries, program managers at DOE, DOD, and State need access to a “master list” that shows the status and location of all U.S. radiation detection equipment assistance to more accurately determine the needs of specific countries and to avoid duplication of effort among U.S. programs. Without such a list, the potential exists for programs to provide duplicative sets of radiation detection equipment to the same country. To strengthen program management and effectiveness, we recommend that the Secretary of Energy, working with the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, take the following two actions: Integrate projected spending on specific anticorruption measures into the long-term cost estimates for the SLD-Core program. Upgrade less sophisticated portal monitors previously installed by other U.S. agencies where DOE has determined this to be appropriate as soon as possible and include funding to accomplish this in DOE’s planning and budgeting process. To strengthen accountability of U.S. radiation detection equipment assistance programs, we recommend that the Secretary of State, working with the Secretaries of Defense and Energy and the Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, take the following three actions: Ensure continued maintenance of all radiation detection equipment provided to foreign governments, including all handheld equipment previously provided by State and other agencies. Strengthen the Strategic Plan for Interagency Coordination of U.S. Government Nuclear Detection Assistance Overseas by including in the plan (1) specific performance measures to more effectively track and measure the progress U.S. programs are making toward achievement of interagency goals and objectives and (2) overall cost estimates and projected time frames for completion of U.S. radiation detection equipment assistance efforts to determine the amount of U.S. government resources required to achieve interagency goals and objectives and under what time frames these resources will be required. To the extent possible, account for all U.S.-funded radiation detection equipment provided to foreign governments, especially handheld equipment, by creating, maintaining, and sharing among all agencies a comprehensive list of such assistance. DOE and State agreed in general with our conclusions and recommendations. DOD had no written comments on our report. DOE, DOD, and State provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. In its comments, DOE wrote that it does not believe that our report adequately reflects the department’s efforts to maintain handheld radiation detection equipment provided by State and other agencies because DOE has a process in place to identify and replace handheld equipment used at sites where DOE maintains radiation portal monitors installed by State and other agencies. However, we believe that the extent of DOE’s program is fairly presented because this effort does not cover all handheld equipment previously provided by State and other agencies—only equipment at the selected sites visited by DOE’s maintenance teams is maintained. Further, the current operational status of the vast majority of handheld radiation detection equipment previously deployed by State and other agencies cannot be determined, in large part, because State has not maintained a comprehensive list of such equipment. In its comments, State disagreed with our lack of emphasis on the “informal coordination role played by the department’s front-line country program officers.” State considers informal consultations between these officials and their interagency counterparts to be the “primary means of coordination of its efforts concerning radiation detection equipment provisions.” State believes that such informal coordination is “much more important than coordination through the interagency working group or with State’s in-country advisors.” We have added language to our report noting the role of informal coordination in these programs. However, State’s emphasis on them as its primary means of coordinating radiation detection assistance programs conflicts with its own planning documents. In its Strategic Plan for Interagency Coordination of U.S. Government Nuclear Detection Assistance Overseas, State claims that “a standing sub- working group, the International Nuclear Detection Interagency Working Group, will routinely coordinate nuclear detection, interdiction, and investigation assistance provided by U.S. government agencies.” State’s plan emphasizes the role of the interagency working group and states that such coordination is “vital to the overall success of U.S. nuclear detection assistance efforts.” State’s plan does not, however, emphasize or even mention informal coordination mechanisms as a method for State’s coordination of U.S. radiation detection assistance programs. State also believes that its in-country advisors are unfairly criticized for not maintaining comprehensive lists of radiation detection equipment in countries where they are responsible. State cited competing claims on the advisors’ time, their many responsibilities within the EXBS program, and the limited resources at their disposal. However, State’s own guidance to its in-country advisors states that the advisors’ “general duties include…maintaining a record of the transfer of all U.S. government- provided nonproliferation export/border control equipment, and following- up to ensure that it is operational, being used for intended purposes at the locations previously specified by the recipient government, and in accordance with U.S. laws and policies.” As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date. We will then send copies of this report to the Secretary of Energy; the Secretary of Defense; the Secretary of State; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Administrator, National Nuclear Security Administration; the Director, Office of Management and Budget; and interested congressional committees. We also will make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be made available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or aloisee@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs can be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report include R. Stockton Butler, Julie Chamberlain, Nancy Crothers, Chris Ferencik, Gregory Marchand, and Jim Shafer. We performed our review of U.S. programs that provide radiation detection equipment assistance to foreign countries at the Departments of Energy (DOE), Defense (DOD), Homeland Security (DHS), and State (State) in Washington, D.C.; Los Alamos National Laboratory in Los Alamos, New Mexico; and Sandia National Laboratories in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Additionally, we also visited a “nonprobability” sample of six countries (Georgia, Greece, Macedonia, Russia, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan) where U.S. agencies have provided radiation detection equipment. We visited these six countries to observe U.S.-funded radiation detection equipment in operation and to discuss the implementation of U.S. programs with foreign officials. We determined which specific countries to visit based on several criteria, such as historic U.S. government spending to provide radiation detection equipment within that country; countries receiving radiation detection equipment from multiple U.S. agencies and programs; countries receiving significant amounts of handheld equipment; countries with an in- country advisor stationed at a U.S. Embassy; countries where DOE maintains radiation detection equipment previously installed by State and other U.S. agencies; the current political environment within the country; and our ability to travel from country to county within a reasonable amount of time. To address the progress U.S. programs have made in providing radiation detection equipment assistance to foreign countries, we reviewed documents and had discussions with officials from DOE’s Second Line of Defense “Core” (SLD-Core) program, Cooperative Radiological Instrument Transfer project, and International Nuclear Export Control program; DOE’s Office of General Counsel; and DOE’s private sector contractors—SI International, Tetra Tech/Foster Wheeler, Bechtel-Nevada, TSA Systems, and Miratek. We also reviewed documents and interviewed relevant officials from DHS’s Customs and Border Protection; State’s Export Control and Related Border Security (EXBS) program, Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund, and Georgia Border Security and Law Enforcement program; DOD’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation Prevention Initiative (WMD-PPI), International Counterproliferation Program (ICP), and Defense Threat Reduction Agency; DOD’s private sector contractor—Washington Group International; Los Alamos National Laboratory; Sandia National Laboratories; and Oak Ridge National Laboratory. In addition, in October 2004, we visited Greece and Macedonia to interview Greek and Macedonian officials and to see U.S. radiation detection assistance provided in each country. In August 2005, we visited Georgia, Russia, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan to see where U.S. agencies have provided radiation detection equipment, to observe U.S.-funded radiation detection equipment in operation, and to discuss the implementation of U.S. programs with foreign officials. We also visited Belgium to meet with officials from the European Union to discuss radiation detection equipment assistance provided to foreign countries by that organization. During our visit to Greece, we spoke with Greek officials from the Greek Atomic Energy Commission; the Greek Ministry of Economy and Finance; and Customs Directorate General (Greek Customs Service). While in Greece, we toured two border crossings where DOE had installed radiation detection equipment through the SLD-Core program, SLD-Core installations at Athens International Airport, and a small research reactor in Athens that received physical security upgrades from DOE prior to the 2004 Olympic Games. While in Macedonia, we interviewed Macedonian officials and toured one border site where radiation detection equipment had previously been provided by the International Atomic Energy Agency and the Department of State. While in Russia, we spoke with officials from the Federal Customs Service of Russia, ASPECT (a Russian company that develops radiation detection equipment), and DOE officials responsible for implementing the SLD-Core program in Russia. During our visit to Russia, we toured DOE installations at three airports and one seaport, the Federal Customs Service Central Command Center where Russian Customs officials gather and respond to portal monitor alarm data, and the Federal Customs Service Training Academy in Saint Petersburg. While in Uzbekistan, we spoke with officials from DOD’s WMD-PPI program, Washington Group International, State and DOD officials at the U.S. Embassy in Tashkent, Uzbekistan’s Institute of Nuclear Physics, and the Uzbek State Customs Committee. While in Uzbekistan, we toured the Tashkent Airport and a land border crossing where DOD had provided radiation detection equipment assistance through the WMD-PPI program. We also toured a small research reactor in Uzbekistan that previously received physical security upgrades from DOE, such as barbed-wire fences and video surveillance cameras. During our visit to Georgia, we spoke with officials from State’s Georgia Border Security and Law Enforcement program, Department of Georgian State Border Defense, Georgia Border Security Coordinating Group, and Georgia’s Andronikashvili Institute of Nuclear Physics. We toured a land border crossing where State had previously provided radiation detection equipment and visited the Georgian Border Guard Training Academy. While in Ukraine, we spoke with DOE, DOD, and State officials at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine’s Border Security Coordinating Group, Ukraine’s Border Guard Service, and toured a land border crossing where State had previously provided radiation detection equipment that DOE currently maintains. We discussed coordination issues with U.S. in-country advisors stationed in countries receiving U.S. assistance, including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Malta, Moldova, Poland, Romania, and Ukraine. We developed a structured interview guide with a standard set of questions, which we asked all of our interviewees. We designed our interview guide with the assistance of a GAO methodologist. The practical difficulties of asking questions may introduce other types of errors. For example, differences in how a particular question is interpreted or the sources of information available to respondents can introduce unwanted variability into the responses, so we included steps to minimize such errors. We pretested the content and format of the interview guide with two individuals and made minor changes as appropriate. We chose which specific in-country advisors to interview based on several criteria that include advisors who are stationed in the countries we would be visiting, advisors who are stationed in countries receiving significant amounts of radiation detection equipment from multiple U.S. agencies and programs, and advisors who are stationed in countries where DOE maintains radiation detection equipment previously installed by State and other U.S. agencies. Once we determined which specific advisors to interview, we created a list, which we then randomly ordered to provide an unbiased approach to conducting our interviews. Our goal was to talk with all the advisors on the list, but we knew that circumstances might prevent that so we used a randomized list to provide the order of contacting the advisors. We initiated contact with each advisor from this list, but if we could not establish contact with that advisor, we attempted to establish contact with the next advisor on our list. In some instances, we slightly modified our list due to unforeseen developments. For example, during our visit to the Republic of Georgia, we became aware of a Department of State project to install radiation detection equipment in Armenia opposite the Georgian border. Since this met our criteria for including a country in our pool of interviewees, we agreed it was appropriate, for the purposes of this review, to add Armenia. We then contacted the in-country advisor stationed in Armenia to learn more about this project. In addition, we removed the responses from the advisor in Russia from our total list of advisors because he failed to respond to more than half of our questions and stated that his role in coordinating this type of assistance in Russia is nonexistent because DOE, through its SLD-Core program, conducts and coordinates radiation detection assistance provided to Russia. Lastly, we interviewed the advisor responsible for overseeing implementation of U.S. assistance to the Republic of Georgia because Georgia has received radiation detection equipment in the past from multiple U.S. programs. To obtain responses to our structured interview questions, we generally used e-mail and phone interviews. However, during our visits to Georgia and Ukraine, we were able to meet with the in-country advisors to obtain responses to our questions. To assess the current and expected future costs of U.S. programs that provide radiation detection equipment assistance to foreign countries, we reviewed documents from DOE, DOD, State, and DHS detailing program expenditures, projected costs, and schedule estimates. We reviewed contract data for expenditures through the end of fiscal year 2005 and met numerous times with officials from DOE, DOD, State, and DHS to discuss the data. We obtained responses from key database officials to a number of questions focused on data reliability covering issues such as data entry access, internal control procedures, and the accuracy and completeness of the data. Follow-up questions were added whenever necessary. Caveats and limitations to the data were noted in the documentation where necessary. For example, in our discussions with the DOD official who manages its financial database, she stated that program support costs were prorated between WMD-PPI’s projects based on usage. Therefore, the expenditure amount added for the program support cost for Uzbekistan is a reasonable approximation but may not be exact. We determined that the data we received were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report based on work we performed. To identify challenges U.S. programs face in deploying and operating radiation detection equipment in foreign countries, we examined documents and spoke with officials from DOE, DOD, State, DHS, Los Alamos National Laboratory, Sandia National Laboratories, Washington Group International, and several nongovernmental entities, including the Transnational Crime and Corruption Center at American University. Additionally, during our visits to Georgia, Greece, Macedonia, Russia, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan we spoke with various foreign officials to better understand the challenges they face in operating radiation detection equipment provided by U.S. programs. We also attended a National Academies of Science conference on nonintrusive technologies for improving the security of containerized maritime cargo and the National Cargo Security Council conference on radiation detection and screening. To understand the steps U.S. programs take to coordinate radiation detection equipment assistance provided by multiple U.S. programs, we met with program officials from each of the agencies providing assistance and reviewed pertinent documents, including individual agency’s assistance plans and State’s Strategic Plan for Interagency Coordination of U.S. Government Nuclear Detection Assistance Overseas. We also assessed coordination through the interagency group headed by State and met with the lead official of that effort—the Director of Export Control and Cooperation—and members of his staff. We discussed coordination issues with U.S. advisors stationed in countries receiving U.S. assistance including Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Malta, Moldova, Poland, Romania, and Ukraine. Several of these advisors were responsible for tracking assistance efforts in more than one country. For example, the advisor stationed in Poland is also responsible for Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Finally, we relied on our previous reviews of the U.S. nonproliferation programs within DOE, DOD, and State. At State, we interviewed the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe and Eurasia and met with officials from the Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation. We also relied on related prior GAO reports. We performed our review from April 2005 to February 2006 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. The Department of Energy’s (DOE) Second Line of Defense “Core” program provides comprehensive radiation detection equipment packages to foreign countries to combat nuclear smuggling. Its associated maintenance program focuses on maintaining equipment previously provided by the Department of State and other U.S. agencies. In addition, DOE implements another program within its Office of Global Threat Reduction that provides handheld radiation detection equipment to foreign countries. In 1998, DOE established the Second Line of Defense “Core” (SLD-Core) program, which has primarily worked to help Russia detect illicit nuclear materials trafficking by providing radiation detection equipment to the Federal Customs Service of Russia. DOE recently expanded its efforts in the SLD-Core program to include countries other than Russia. SLD-Core activities focus on providing radiation detection equipment, software and hardware communications equipment and support, and training/processes to foreign countries’ border sites. The radiation detection equipment DOE provides is U.S.-made, except in Russia where Russian-made equipment is installed. The communication systems DOE installs provide important information on the radiation detector alarms, such as the radiation profile of the substance detected. In addition to training at sites where equipment is installed, DOE provides other training courses at the Hazardous Materials Management and Emergency Response training center at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Through the end of fiscal year 2005, DOE’s SLD-Core program had completed installation of radiation portal monitors at 83 sites in Greece, Lithuania, and Russia at a cost of about $130 million. In fiscal year 2005, DOE planned to complete 29 sites in seven countries: Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Slovenia, and Ukraine. However, due to delays in signing implementing agreements with the governments of some of these countries, many of these sites were not completed. As of December 2005, DOE had signed implementing agreements with Azerbaijan, Georgia, Slovenia, and Ukraine, and plans to commence work in these countries in fiscal year 2006 (see fig. 6). Additionally, the SLD-Core program will be installing radiation detection equipment at some foreign ports, referred to as “feeder” ports, to assist the work done by DOE’s Megaports Initiative. DOE has been cooperating with the Federal Customs Service of Russia since 1998, and, coupled with the large number of sites where Russia has installed equipment on its own, the nature of DOE’s work through the SLD- Core program in Russia is evolving. DOE is transitioning its activities in Russia from installation of new equipment to sustainability of equipment it has previously installed. DOE and the Federal Customs Service of Russia signed an agreement in April 2005 that details plans for the long-term sustainability of radiation detection equipment DOE has provided to Russia. DOE is also now supporting other activities in Russia, such as regional radiation alarm response exercises and rechecks of previously installed equipment. Through the end of fiscal year 2005, DOE spent about $66 million installing radiation portal monitors at 78 border sites in Russia, 4 sites in Greece, 1 site in Lithuania, and to conduct preliminary site assessments in other countries. DOE spent about $50 million on various program integration activities, which are costs not directly associated with installing equipment at a particular site within a specific country. Of this amount, about $15 million was spent on advanced equipment procurement activities, which include the purchase and storage of portal monitors and associated spare parts for use at future installations. DOE also spent almost $16 million on program oversight activities, such as program cost and schedule estimating, technical assistance provided by participating national laboratories, and translation services. In addition, DOE spent over $5 million to develop and maintain its prioritization model for the SLD-Core program, maintained by Los Alamos National Laboratory, which is used to rank foreign countries, as well as specific sites within a country, in terms of their attractiveness to a potential nuclear material smuggler. DOE also spent about $4 million on equipment testing and evaluation to test the effectiveness and performance of the radiation detection equipment that it provides through the program. DOE spent over $8 million on the development of materials and curricula for training foreign customs agents on the use of radiation detection equipment. Finally, DOE spent almost $2 million on other program integration activities. See figure 7 for more information on program integration expenditures. Other countries ($5.4) Program oversight ($16.1) Maintenance ($8.4) Other ($1.8) Equipment testing and evaluation ($3.9) Prioritization model ($5.1) Program integration costs ($50.2) Training ($8.4) Russia, Greece, and Lithuania ($65.5) Advanced equipment procurement ($15.0) In 2002, DOE assumed the responsibility for maintaining certain radiation detection equipment, such as radiation portal monitors and X-ray vans with gamma radiation detection capability, previously installed in 23 countries by State and other U.S. agencies (see fig. 8). Through the end of fiscal year 2005, DOE has successfully conducted maintenance and sustainability activities for this equipment in 21 of 23 countries. DOE contractors service these radiation portal monitors annually and X-ray vans biannually. Since 2002, DOE has spent about $8 million to provide spare parts, preventative maintenance, and repairs for this equipment. DOE anticipates that the future scope of the maintenance program will be reduced as the SLD-Core program expands into countries where equipment was previously installed by other U.S. agencies. If DOE is notified that there are problems with the radiation portal monitors in a certain country, they will add this repair onto a scheduled maintenance trip of a nearby country. According to the DOE maintenance contractor, this occurs 5-6 times a year. However, DOE officials often are not made aware of specific problems with equipment prior to arriving at the site to conduct regular servicing. As a result, DOE’s maintenance teams must be equipped with a wide variety of components in the event that major repairs are required. At times, maintenance teams have had to improvise temporary repairs for equipment due to a lack of necessary replacement parts. For example, during our visit to a border site in Ukraine, DOE’s maintenance team discovered that a truck had struck and damaged a pole holding the wiring for the radiation detection equipment’s communication systems. The truck’s impact caused the wiring to snap in numerous places. Because the maintenance team was unaware of this damage prior to our arrival at the site, it had to repair the cable using connectors rather than replacing the entire wire as they would have preferred to do. DOE officials told us that, during the next scheduled maintenance visit to this site, the wiring will be replaced. In 2004, DOE established the Cooperative Radiological Instrument Transfer project (CRITr) within its Global Threat Reduction Initiative. In this project, DOE partners with Interpol, which provides knowledge of foreign law enforcement to determine the countries to select for assistance and coordinates all CRITr training logistics within its member countries. Through the CRITr project, DOE collects and refurbishes handheld radiation detection devices deemed surplus by DOE national laboratories and provides this equipment to first responders in foreign countries. The handheld radiation detection equipment DOE provides through CRITr consists mostly of survey meters and does not include radiation pagers. In addition to providing radiation detection equipment through the CRITr project, DOE provides training for foreign officials on how to use the equipment. DOE originally provided assistance through the CRITr project in Greece by providing over 100 handheld radiation detection devices prior to the Olympic Games in 2004. According to DOE officials, in fiscal year 2004, with Interpol’s assistance, DOE selected seven additional countries to receive assistance through the project: Croatia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Poland, Romania, Turkey, and Uzbekistan (see fig. 9). DOE also provided radiation detection equipment to Tanzania in fiscal year 2005. Through the CRITr project, DOE spent almost $0.5 million in fiscal year 2004 and almost $0.6 million in fiscal year 2005, according to DOE officials. DOE has budgeted almost $0.4 million for fiscal year 2006 to supply instruments and training to law enforcement officials in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Serbia and Montenegro, and Uganda and to provide additional equipment to Tanzania. The Department of Defense (DOD) implements two programs that assist other countries in combating nuclear smuggling: the Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferation Prevention Initiative (WMD-PPI) and the International Counterproliferation Program (ICP). As figure 10 shows, DOD spent about $22 million on these programs between fiscal years 1994 and 2005. WMD-PPI was created as a project within the Cooperative Threat Reduction Program and is implemented by DOD’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency with oversight and policy guidance from the Office of the Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. In the 2003 National Defense Authorization Act, the Congress created WMD-PPI with a $40 million budget to prevent the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) and related materials and technologies from the former Soviet Union. WMD-PPI seeks to accomplish this mission through three projects: the Uzbekistan Land Border project, the Caspian Sea Maritime Proliferation Prevention project in Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, and the Ukraine Land and Maritime Border projects. In Uzbekistan, DOD is installing radiation portal monitors at 17 sites; 11 of which were completed by the end of fiscal year 2005. To date, WMD- PPI has spent over $6 million to install radiation portal monitors in Uzbekistan. However, this spending total is misleading because DOD has obligated over $19 million to three contracts for program costs associated with installing radiation detection equipment, such as communication systems and training. Because DOD only executes spending on these contracts after all work has been completed, these contracts were not paid in fiscal year 2005. DOD projects that the Uzbekistan Portal Monitoring project will cost about $54 million and be completed in fiscal year 2009. Once these portal monitors are installed in fiscal year 2006, DOE will maintain the equipment within its Second Line of Defense “Core” program. The Caspian Sea project focuses on improving command and control, surveillance, detection and interception of WMD, operation, and sustainability along the Caspian Sea border by providing training and associated equipment, including handheld radiation detection devices. In Azerbaijan, the project’s cost is estimated at $63.4 million and, in Kazakhstan, it is estimated at $60.6 million. In Ukraine, WMD-PPI is implementing a similar project along the Black Sea border. The Maritime Border Security Project in Ukraine is expected to cost over $39 million and will be finished in fiscal year 2009. The Ukrainian Land Border Forces Proliferation Prevention project focuses on securing the points of entry and the green border—border that is not a formal crossing point between countries—between Moldova and Ukraine. It seeks to improve Ukraine’s capabilities to detect and interdict WMD and related materials by providing equipment and training. Radiation detection equipment, such as pagers, is included in this equipment assistance. DOD expects this project will cost over $51 million and be completed in fiscal year 2008. The 1995 National Defense Authorization Act directed DOD and the Federal Bureau of Investigation to establish a program to improve efforts to deter the possible proliferation and acquisition of WMD and related materials across the borders and through the former Soviet Union, the Baltic region, and Eastern Europe. Similarly, the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act directed DOD to work with U.S. Customs to carry out programs to assist customs officials and border guards in those regions in preventing unauthorized transfer and transportation of WMD and related materials. DOD established ICP in response to these requirements. The program is implemented by the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. According to DOD officials, ICP policy guidance comes from DOD’s Eurasia Department because of its strong ties and contacts within the regional scope of the program. Through ICP, DOD provides a range of law enforcement and border security training and equipment, including handheld radiation detection equipment, to foreign law enforcement officials in participating countries. According to an ICP official, the program does not currently provide much radiation detection equipment because, in many countries, other U.S. programs have already provided such equipment. ICP coordinates with the Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct training of foreign government personnel. In some participating countries, ICP provides both equipment and training, and in others it provides only training, depending upon the needs of the country. Through the end of fiscal year 2005, DOD had spent over $14 million to provide radiation detection equipment and radiation detection training to foreign countries through ICP. Of this amount, DOD spent over $0.5 million to provide handheld radiation detection equipment to six countries (see fig. 12). The remaining funds were spent on a variety of training related to radiation detection, WMD interdiction, and crime scene investigation. Figure 13 shows the flowchart of training DOD provides to participating countries through ICP. According to ICP officials, the program has worked in 23 countries, including Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan. In the National Defense Authorization Act of Fiscal Year 2005, DOD was given permission by the Congress to expand ICP’s scope outside of the original region. According to a DOD official, ICP plans to initiate programs in Malaysia, Singapore, and Pakistan. Since fiscal year 1994, the Department of State (State) has provided various types of radiation detection equipment assistance to 31 foreign countries. State has provided this assistance, primarily through three programs (1) the Export Control and Related Border Security program (EXBS), (2) the Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund (NDF), and (3) the Georgia Border Security and Law Enforcement program (GBSLE). As figure 14 shows, State spent about $25 million from fiscal year 1994 through fiscal year 2005 on radiation detection equipment assistance to foreign countries. State’s Export Control and Related Border Security program, which began in 1998, is a comprehensive U.S. government effort to help foreign countries improve their export controls and border security capabilities. The program provides a broad array of assistance to foreign countries, such as workshops to assist foreign countries draft and implement new export control laws and regulations, as well as various types of equipment and training for foreign border control agencies. Assistance provided through the program focuses on five core areas: (1) laws and regulations, (2) licensing, (3) enforcement, (4) government and industry cooperation, and (5) interagency cooperation and coordination. While the original focus of the program was to provide assistance to potential “source countries” in the former Soviet Union or to countries that produce munitions or dual-use items, State later expanded the program’s focus to include states on potential smuggling routes in Eastern and Central Europe, East Asia, Central Asia, the Caucasus, Latin America, and Africa, as well as potential “source countries” in South Asia and countries with major transshipment hubs in the Mediterranean, Middle East, and Southeast Asia. Through the end of fiscal year 2005, State has spent $15.4 million to provide a variety of radiation detection equipment assistance to 30 countries (see fig. 15). In addition, State also provided funding to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Customs and Border Protection (formerly known as U.S. Customs) to implement certain types of radiation detection equipment assistance on behalf of its Export Control and Related Border Security program. Specifically, from fiscal year 1999 through 2005, DHS and its predecessor organizations spent about $10.5 million to provide radiation detection equipment and training to 30 countries. This equipment included, among other things, radiation pagers that border officials wear on their belts and radioactive isotope identification devices. Training provided by DHS included assistance in operating the X-ray vans equipped with radiation detectors, hands-on instruction in using radiation detection equipment to detect nuclear smuggling, teaching techniques for investigating smuggling operations, and tracking the movements of smugglers between ports of entry. In addition, DHS also stationed 22 in- country advisors covering 25 countries, on behalf of the program, to assist in implementing and coordinating U.S. government assistance in these countries. In February 2005, State, through its EXBS program, assumed direct responsibility of the in-country advisors from DHS. According to State officials, this management change was done to better address coordination and responsiveness issues in the advisor program. In addition to providing radiation detection equipment assistance to foreign countries, State has also provided other types of assistance designed to better ensure the effectiveness of radiation detection equipment previously provided to foreign countries through U.S. programs. Specifically, in fiscal year 2005, State, through its EXBS program, spent about $1.5 million to fund construction of a national command center for the Federal Customs Service of Russia. Through this project, portal monitors located at various Russian border sites can be directly linked to a national command center, located at Federal Customs Service headquarters in Moscow. By doing so, alarm data can be simultaneously evaluated by Russian officials both at the site and up the chain of command, thus establishing redundant layers of accountability for responding to alarms. For example, when a portal monitor alarms at a specific land border site, airport, or seaport, information will immediately be sent from the site directly to the command center enabling Russian officials to identify which specific site an alarm occurred at, quickly analyze it, and respond appropriately. Prior to the initiation of this project, the Federal Customs Service did not have an effective way to coordinate and integrate all of the information at its borders. While the total scope of work to be done at the command center has not been clearly defined yet, State officials told us that the primary activity will be to maintain and respond to alarm data from the various border sites. State officials we spoke with stated that linking alarm data from the local alarm station at individual border sites to a centrally located command center will enhance Russia’s ability to (1) ensure that U.S. provided equipment is being properly operated, (2) mitigate the possibility of corruption or other nefarious acts being committed by its border guards, and (3) effectively respond to any alarms and/or seizures of illicitly trafficked nuclear or radiological materials. State’s Nonproliferation and Disarmament Fund spent approximately $9.1 million, from fiscal year 1994 through 2001, to provide various types of radiation detection equipment assistance to 21 countries (see fig. 16). This assistance included vehicle portal monitors, mobile vans equipped with X- ray machines and radiation detection equipment, handheld radiation detectors, dosimeters, and radiation pagers. For example, in fiscal year 2001, State approved a $1.3 million NDF project to install vehicle portal monitors at 16 sites in one country, and a $0.5 million project to assist another country’s upgrading its domestically produced portal monitors in order to better detect nuclear material. State also provided $0.8 million to DHS to provide radiation detection equipment and training to seven countries under a project called “Project Amber.” Of this amount, DHS spent $0.6 million to implement the project in these countries. In fiscal year 2001, State began to consolidate its assistance provided to foreign countries for the purposes of combating nuclear smuggling under its EXBS program. However, State officials told us that they have not yet determined whether or not they will fund any future projects to provide radiation detection equipment to foreign countries through NDF. As a result, it is uncertain how many other projects State will fund through NDF, in what countries these projects will be conducted, or how much they will cost. State’s Georgia Border Security and Law Enforcement program focuses on developing the Republic of Georgia’s border infrastructure by assisting the Georgian Customs Administration and Georgian Border Guards in gaining control of the country’s borders and seacoast and strengthening its border security against any type of crime. The program primarily focuses on establishing a transparent land border regime with Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Turkey and strengthening border security against nuclear smuggling. As such, the program has provided assistance to enhance the Georgian Border Guards’ capabilities to prevent, deter, and detect potential weapons of mass destruction smuggling. Through the program, State has provided a limited amount of radiation detection equipment assistance. Specifically, in fiscal year 1999, State spent $0.2 million to provide 137 radiation detection pagers to Georgia. According to State officials, no radiation detection equipment has been provided through the program since fiscal year 1999. However, State officials also told us that they have not yet determined if they will provide any additional radiation detection equipment assistance through the program to the Republic of Georgia in the future. As a result, it is uncertain what additional equipment State might provide or how much it will cost. Combating Nuclear Smuggling: DHS Has Made Progress Deploying Radiation Detection Equipment at U.S. Ports of Entry, but Concerns Remain. GAO-06-389. Washington, D.C.: March 14, 2006. Combating Nuclear Smuggling: Efforts to Deploy Radiation Detection Equipment in the United States and in Other Countries. GAO-05-840T. Washington, D.C.: June 21, 2005. Olympic Security: U.S. Support to Athens Games Provides Lessons for Future Olympics. GAO-05-547. Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2005. Preventing Nuclear Smuggling: DOE Has Made Limited Progress in Installing Radiation Detection Equipment at Highest Priority Foreign Seaports. GAO-05-375. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2005. Weapons of Mass Destruction: Nonproliferation Programs Need Better Integration. GAO-05-157. Washington, D.C.: January 28, 2005. Customs Service: Acquisition and Deployment of Radiation Detection Equipment. GAO-03-235T. Washington, D.C.: October 17, 2002. Nuclear Nonproliferation: U.S. Efforts to Combat Nuclear Smuggling. GAO-02-989T. Washington, D.C.: July 30, 2002. Nuclear Nonproliferation: U.S. Efforts to Help Other Countries Combat Nuclear Smuggling Need Strengthened Coordination and Planning. GAO- 02-426. Washington, D.C.: May 16, 2002.

Summary: According to the International Atomic Energy Agency, between 1993 and 2004, there were 662 confirmed cases of illicit trafficking in nuclear and radiological materials. Three U.S. agencies, the Departments of Energy (DOE), Defense (DOD), and State (State), have programs that provide radiation detection equipment and training to border security personnel in other countries. GAO examined the (1) progress U.S. programs have made in providing radiation detection equipment to foreign governments, including the current and expected costs of these programs; (2) challenges U.S. programs face in this effort; and (3) steps being taken to coordinate U.S. efforts to combat nuclear smuggling in other countries. Since fiscal year 1994, DOE, DOD, and State have provided radiation detection equipment to 36 countries as part of the overall U.S. effort to combat nuclear smuggling. Through the end of fiscal year 2005, these agencies had spent about $178 million on this assistance through seven different programs. Primary among these programs is DOE's Second Line of Defense "Core" program, which has installed equipment mostly in Russia since 1998. U.S. efforts to install and effectively operate radiation detection equipment in other countries face a number of challenges including: corruption of some foreign border security officials, technical limitations of some radiation detection equipment, inadequate maintenance of some equipment, and the lack of supporting infrastructure at some border sites. DOE, DOD, and State officials told us they are concerned that corrupt foreign border security personnel could compromise the effectiveness of U.S.-funded radiation detection equipment by either turning off equipment or ignoring alarms. In addition, State and other agencies have installed equipment at some sites that is less effective than equipment installed by DOE. Since 2002, DOE has maintained the equipment but has only upgraded one site. As a result, these border sites are more vulnerable to nuclear smuggling than sites with more sophisticated equipment. Further, while DOE assumed responsibility for maintaining most U.S.-funded equipment, some handheld equipment provided by State and DOD has not been maintained. Lastly, many border sites are located in remote areas that often lack infrastructure essential to operate radiation detection equipment. As the lead interagency coordinator of all U.S. radiation detection equipment assistance overseas, State has taken some steps to coordinate U.S. efforts. However, its ability to carry out its role as lead coordinator is limited by shortcomings in the strategic plan for interagency coordination. Additionally, State has not maintained an interagency master list of all U.S.-funded radiation detection equipment overseas. Without such a list, program managers at DOE, DOD, and State cannot accurately assess if equipment is operational and being used as intended; determine the equipment needs of countries where they plan to provide assistance; or detect if an agency has unknowingly supplied duplicative equipment.