Office of Inspector General
Semiannual Report
to the Congress

October 1,  1993
through March 31, 1994


foJf *M
                    -^jthsoy/Canolalnti on paper that
                    »a!teae« 50% rec^^^^^,,

                     '   '

-------
On the cover: A tranquil scene
along the Potomac at Alexandria,
VA (photo by Christine
Baughman, OIG Financial Audit
Division)

-------
   Foreword
                                             The Vice President's National Performance Review recommended
                                      that all Inspectors General place a greater emphasis on working
                                      cooperatively  with managers to promote greater efficiency and integrity of
                                      government programs.  The President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency
                                      established a task force, of which I was a member, to develop an
                                      "Inspectors General Vision Statement." This statement, which was
                                      unanimously adopted by all Inspectors General, is included in Section 4 of
                                      this report.

                                             We believe that the OIG has always taken a cooperative approach
                                      with management in conducting our audits and investigations.  But we have
                                      begun to place even greater emphasis on building relationships with Agency
                                      program managers based on a shared commitment to improving program
                                      operations.  The OIG has taken a number of initiatives to enhance this
                                      cooperation including: soliciting input from Agency managers to ensure that
                                      our strategic work plans focus on critical areas of Agency concern; directing
                                      more OIG resources to conducting performance audits to analyze  how well
                                      programs are meeting their goals and to recommend needed changes; and
                                      producing reports that, where possible, identify corrective actions and
                                      expand on examples of successful program practices that can  be adapted in
                                      other Agency programs.

       We have also developed a plan for implementing the President's orders on streamlining our internal operations
and have nearly completed our process of staffing to our approved ceiling, with minorities and women accounting for
73 percent of our hires and promotions during this reporting period

       These changes, along with the leadership shown by the Administrator and a spirit of cooperation  with Agency
management, are resulting in decisive actions to resolve the systemic causes of long term Agency problems.  While
this report summarizes new and existing problem areas  identified by our work, it also highlights many of the corrective
actions that the Agency management is taking.  Long time problems will require  long term solutions.  However, I am
extremely encouraged that the success of the cooperative efforts between the Office of Inspector General and Agency
management will result in a more efficient and effective  EPA
                                                  John C. Martin
                                                  Inspector General
                                                                          U.S. Er.vk
-------
   Contents
Executive Summary	1
EPA's Progress in Improving High Risk Areas	4
Profile of Activities and Results  	    6
Establishment of the OIG in EPA-lts Role and Authority   .	7
Organization and Resources	7
Purpose and Requirements of the Office of Inspector General
       Semiannual Report   	7

Section 1-Significant Findings and  Recommendations
Cost and  Benefits  	9
Information Resources Management and Financial Management   	10
Extramural Resources Management   	14
Other Agency Management  	20
Construction Grants	25
Superfund	27

Section 2--Report Resolution
Status Report on Perpetual Inventory  of Reports in Resolution Process
 for the Semiannual Period Ending March 31, 1994	33
Audit Followup  	33
Status of Management Decisions on IG Reports	34
Resolution of Significant Reports	36

Section 3-Prosecutive Actions
Summary of Investigative Activity  	37
Description of Selected Prosecutive and Administrative Actions  	38

Section 4-Fraud Prevention and Management Improvements
Review of Legislation and Regulations	39
Suspension and Debarment Activities  	40
OIG Management Initiatives  	42
President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency  	43
Committee on Integrity and Management  Improvement	44
Hotline Activities   	44

Appendices

Appendix  1-Reports Issued  	45
Appendix  2--Reports Issued Without Management Decisions	56

-------
   Executive Summary
 Section 1-
 Significant Findings
 and Recommendations

 1. EPA's Information
 Resources Management
 (IRM) Program  Needs Top
 Management Attention.

 EPA was not maximizing the
 usefulness of information in
 implementing the Agency's
 environmental programs. The
 Agency's IRM problems were
 basically attributable to EPA
 not treating information as a
 valuable, strategic resource.
 (page 10).

 2. Follow Through Is  Key to
 EPA Resolving Financial
 Management Issues.

 Differing views and
 perceptions have made it
 difficult for EPA to effectively
 carry out its  financial
 management activities.
 Although appropriate initial
 steps have been taken to
 improve these activities,  EPA
 needs to follow  through to
 ensure that the  serious
 concerns evident throughout
 the Agency are  adequately
 addressed (page 11).

 3. Improvements Still
 Needed in EPA's Financial
 Reporting.

 During the past  year, EPA
 improved its  financial
 reporting.  However, additional
 improvements are needed
 before unqualified opinions
 can  be rendered on all of the
 Agency's financial statements,
 and  EPA can have more
 confidence in the financial
 information used in managing
 its programs (page 12).

 4. Limited Competition for
 Many EPA Contract Awards.

 Most of EPA's contracts were
 awarded using competitive
 procedures.  However,  many
of the awards were made
when only one proposal was
within the Agency's acceptable
technical and cost range
(competitive  range)
Therefore,  EPA could not be
assured that it was receiving
the highest quality products
and services at the lowest
costs (page 14).

5. Most Large Contracts
Awarded To ICF Had Limited
Competition.

There was limited  competition
in EPA's award of over half of
the larger contracts to ICF,
Inc., and in ICF's award of
subcontracts.  In addition,
EPA did not  evaluate ICF's
performance on cost-plus-
award-fee  contracts timely.
As a result, EPA did not
receive the full benefits of
competition,  such as
potentially  lower prices and
higher quality products
(page 15).

6. Over $17.8 Million of
Questionable In-Kind Costs
Claimed Under Contracts.

Due to the absence of
appropriate guidance, the
Agency accepted over $17.8
million  in potentially
questionable costs as part of
contractors' proposed cost
share contribution.  Also, EPA
did not require contractors to
submit adequate
documentation with their
invoices for evaluating the
reasonableness of claimed
charges under cost sharing
contracts (page 16).

7. EPA Agrees to Improve
Controls Over Corvallis
Laboratory's Extramural
Research  Program.

EPA's Environmental
Research Laboratory,
Corvallis, Oregon,  did not
have adequate internal
controls over its extramural
research program to ensure
that grants, cooperative
agreements, and interagency
agreements (lAGs) were used
appropriately, projects were
managed effectively, and IAG
costs were monitored properly
(page 17).

8. Improvements Needed in
Gulf Breeze Laboratory's
Management and Control of
Assistance Agreements.

EPA's Environmental
Research Laboratory, Gulf
Breeze,  Florida, did not
effectively  manage, control,
and document the award and
use of assistance agreements
to ensure the proper and
efficient  use of extramural
funds (page 18).

9. Good Management
Practices Exercised Over
Extramural Resources at
Ann Arbor Laboratory.

EPA's National Vehicle and
Fuel Emissions Laboratory,
Office of Mobile Sources, Ann
Arbor, Michigan,  generally was
following good practices in
managing its contracts, grants,
cooperative agreements,
interagency agreements,
imprest fund,  and integrity
program to prevent conflicts of
interest (page 19).

10. Continued Efforts
Needed  to Improve EPA's
Pesticide Program.

For years EPA's pesticide
program has had significant
problems in managing its
programs, maintaining
information systems, and
developing and revising
regulations, policies,  and
procedures.  As a result, EPA
cannot be assured that the
public and the environment
are being effectively protected
from potentially harmful
pesticides (page 20).

11. Greater Emphasis
Needed  by EPA Offices on
Implementing the Federal
Managers' Financial
Integrity Act.

The Offices of Water and
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response had not always
ensured that managers
scheduled and conducted
evaluations  necessary for
properly assessing and
improving management
controls over resources
available for accomplishing
their missions (page 21).

12. Operations and
Usefulness of EPA Advisory
Council Questioned.

The National Advisory Council
for Environmental Policy and
Technology's (NACEPT)
recommendations were often
too broad to be tracked to
implementation, so the impact
of the Council's advice was
difficult to assess.  Further,
NACEPT's member
organizations sometimes
received EPA funds under
noncompetitive assistance
agreements to implement
NACEPT committee
recommendations (page 22).

13. EPA Improving the
Adequacy and Availability of
Data Supporting its Quality
Assurance  Materials.

In a survey  at the
Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory in
Cincinnati, Ohio (EMSL-Cin),
we identified several instances
of inadequate analytical  data
supporting the quality of
materials distributed for
calibrating and testing sample
analysis instruments.  EMSL-
Cin initiated immediate and
appropriate  corrective  actions
(page 22).

14. Noncommunity Water
Systems in EPA Region 2
Need Closer Attention.

Region 2 and the States of
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994

-------
New York and New Jersey
were effectively enforcing Safe
Drinking Water Act
requirements  for community
public water supply systems
that serve the vast majority of
the year round residential
population. However, more
attention was needed on
enforcing those requirements
for smaller noncommunity
systems (page 23).

15. Over $44.4 Million in
Questioned Costs Claimed
by Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.

The City of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, claimed
$10,959,010 of ineligible force
account, engineering,
construction, and indirect
costs for the expansion of an
existing wastewater treatment
facility. An additional
$32,663,495 of unsupported
costs and  $794,684 of
unnecessary costs were
questioned (page 26).

16. Over $7.2 Million of
Ineligible Costs Claimed for
Woodstock, New York,
Project.

The Town of Woodstock, New
York, claimed $7,207,865 of
ineligible  architectural
engineering, construction,
force account, and innovative
and alternative technology
costs for the construction of a
wastewater treatment facility.
(page 26).

17. Westchester County,
New York, Claimed  Over
$4.1  Million of Questioned
Costs.

Westchester County, New
York, claimed $3,945,961  of
ineligible  architectural
engineering and construction
costs for the Port Chester
Sanitary District project.  An
additional  $214,203 of
unsupported costs were
questioned (page 26).
18. EPA Taking Actions to
Improve Critical Superfund
Data Quality.

EPA Headquarters and
Regions are implementing
actions that could effectively
correct persistent problems
with the accuracy and
reliability of data in the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System
critical to the implementation
of the Superfund (page 27).

19. Agreed Upon
Improvements Could
Accelerate Superfund Site
Assessment and Cleanup.

While final program guidance
for the Superfund Site
Inspection  Prioritization
program was delayed, some
regions implemented the draft
guidance inconsistently and
did not always  ensure that the
worst sites were given priority
for cleanup.  EPA has initiated
a state deferral pilot  program
that may reduce the  National
Priorities List backlog
(page 29).

20. Improvements Would
Enhance Superfund
Revitalization  Program's
Chances of Success.

EPA conducted some
innovative  pilot projects with
the potential for reducing both
time and cost for cleanups.
However, the Agency did not
sufficiently  publicize  pilot
project success to encourage
use of the  new techniques,
nor did the  Regions always
adequately  plan for using
available funds (page 30).

21. Superfund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM)  Pilot
Project Succeeding in
Oklahoma.

Using the SACM, Region 6
had accelerated the cleanup
process at the  National Zinc
hazardous waste site in
Bartlesville, Oklahoma
(page 31).

Section 2-Report
Resolution

At the beginning of the
semiannual period, there were
326 reports for which no
management decision had
been made.  During the first
half of fiscal  1994, the Office
of Inspector General issued
730 new reports and closed
807. At the end of the
reporting  period, 249 reports
remained in the Agency
followup system for which no
management decision had
been made.  Of the  249
reports, 124 reports remained
in the Agency followup system
for which no management
decision was made within 6
months of issuance  (page 32).

For the 273 reports closed
that required agency action,
EPA management disallowed
$44.9 million of questioned
costs for  recovery and agreed
with our recommendations that
$.8 million be put to better use
(page 33). In addition, cost
recoveries in current and prior
periods included $3.5 million
in cash collections, and at
least $26.9 million in offsets
against billings (page 6).

Section 3-Prosecutive
Actions

During this semiannual
reporting  period, our
investigative  efforts resulted  in
7 convictions and 8
indictments.  Also, during this
semiannual period, our
investigative  work led to  $1.6
million in fines and recoveries
(page 37).

A bribery attempt resulted in a
$1 million  fine; a  North
Carolina man was sentenced
for illegally writing insurance
contracts on an EPA-funded
project; an EPA Region 4
employee pleaded guilty to
defrauding the Agency; two
men were sentenced in a case
involving false claims for
asbestos removal; and a
battery company owner
pleaded guilty to making  false
statements to EPA (page 38).

Section 4-Fraud
Prevention  and
Resources
Management

During this semiannual period,
we reviewed 6 legislative
and 45 regulatory items.
The most significant were
comments on the proposed
Federal Acquisition
Streamlining Act of 1993, an
OMB  policy letter on
management oversight of
service contracting, and
reauthorization of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (page 39).
The Office of Grants and
Debarment completed  action
on 44 OIG suspension and
debarment cases during this
reporting period, resulting in
28 suspensions,  10
debarments, and 6 compliance
agreements  (page 40).

The EPA Committee on
Integrity and Management
Improvement (CIMI), chaired
by the Inspector  General,
developed and distributed a
leaflet to heighten employee
awareness of microcomputer
security and a bulletin  to
inform employees about  the
Program Fraud Civil Remedies
Act (page 44).

Twenty-one  Hotline cases
were opened and 29 were
closed during the reporting
period.  Of the closed cases,  6
resulted in environmental,
prosecutive,  or administrative
corrective action (page 44).
                                                                                        OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
   Major Laws Administered by EPA



   Statute

   Pollution Prevention Act




   Toxic Substances Control Act
   Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
   and Rodenticide Act
   Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
   Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
   and Solid Waste Disposal Act

   Comprehensive Environmental Response,
   Compensation, and Liability Act
   Clean Air Act
   Clean Water Act
   Safe Drinking Water Act
   Marine Protection, Research and
   Sanctuaries Act

   Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act
   and Asbestos Hazard Emergency
   Response Act

   Emergency  Planning and Community Right-
   to-Know Act
   Oil Pollution Act of 1990
   Environmental Research, Development, and
   Demonstration Authorization Act

   National Environmental Education Act
Provisions

Provides that pollution should be prevented or reduced at the source,
recycled safely when not preventable, treated safely when not
preventable or recyclable, and as a last resort,  disposed of or
otherwise released into the environment in a safe manner.

Requires EPA notification  of any new chemical prior to its
manufacture and authorizes EPA to regulate production, use, or
disposal of a chemical.

Authorizes EPA to register afi pesticides, specify the terms and
conditions of their use, and remove unreasonably hazardous
pesticides from the marketplace.

Authorizes EPA in cooperation with FDA to establish tolerance levels
for pesticide  residues on food.

Authorizes EPA to identify hazardous wastes and regulate their
generation, transportation, treatment,  storage, and disposal.

Requires EPA to designate hazardous substances that can present
substantial danger and authorizes the cleanup of sites contaminated
with such substances.

Authorizes EPA to set emission standards  to limit the release of
criteria pollutants and hazardous air pollutants.

Requires EPA to establish a list of toxic water pollutants and  set
standards.

Requires EPA to set drinking water standards to protect public health
from hazardous substances.
Regulates ocean dumping of toxic contaminants.

Authorizes EPA to provide loans and grants to schools for abatement
of asbestos hazards and to establish a comprehensive regulatory
framework for controlling asbestos hazards in schools.

Requires States to develop programs for responding to hazardous
chemical releases and requires industries to  report on the presence
and release of certain hazardous substances.

Makes EPA responsible for oil spill prevention, preparedness,
response, and enforcement activities associated with non-
transportation-related onshore oil facilities.

Authorizes all EPA research and development programs.

Provides for a program of education on the environment through
activities in schools, institutions of higher education and related
educational activities, and to encourage students to pursue careers
related to the environment.
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994

-------
   EPA's Progress  in  Improving  High Risk  Areas
This section of our report
presents the Office of
Inspector General's (OIG)
perspective on significant
problems which the Agency
must continue to address to
ensure its programs are
conducted in an effective,
efficient, and economical
manner.  The  OIG's
semiannual report for the
period ended September 30,
1993, presented the OIG's
perspective on five major
areas which EPA had not yet
sufficiently addressed:
Management of Extramural
Resources, Information
Resources Management,
Financial Management,  Data
Integrity, and Enforcement.
These areas continue to be of
concern to the OIG and
Agency management.

OIG and EPA  personnel have
cooperated extensively  to
address these problems.  The
Agency has also taken  a
number of actions either
independently or in prompt
response to our reports to
improve its operations.  EPA's
most significant problems
were created over a long
period of time, and resolution
will require long term
commitments  and constant
attention throughout the
Agency.  Therefore, it is too
soon to determine  whether
EPA management's corrective
actions will fully solve the
problems.

The following presents  the
areas that are still  of
significant current concern to
the OIG, and some of EPA's
actions taken  during  this
semiannual reporting period
to address them.
Management of
Extramural Resources

OIG Concerns

EPA relies extensively on
contractors and other outside
entities to assist in carrying
out its mission to clean up
past pollution problems,
develop national policy, and
set the environmental agenda
for the future.  Commercial
firms have contracts with EPA
to  provide goods and services.
Public organizations, such as
universities or State and local
organizations,  are funded by
EPA to pursue areas of
mutual environmental concern
through cooperative
agreements.  Other Federal
agencies may provide
assistance through
interagency agreements.

The pervasive nature of EPA's
resource management
problems, which detract from
the effectiveness of EPA's
programs, is shown by the
following significant issues
identified from our  recent
work.

• Contract Award  Process

EPA officials did not always
ensure that contracts were
awarded in the best interest of
the government. There were
many  instances where large
dollar  contracts were awarded
without adequate competition,
and incumbent contractors
appeared to receive
preferential treatment in the
award of some follow-on
contracts.

• Cooperative Agreements
(CAs) and Interagency
Agreements (lAGs)

Numerous instances were
found  where EPA
organizations improperly used
CAs and lAGs. One Office of
Research and Development
(ORD) laboratory shifted on-
site contractor staff to off-site
cooperative agreement  staff,
allowing the people to stay on-
site doing the same work, to
appear to comply with an ORD
Headquarters mandate  to
reduce on-site support
personnel.  Even when  used
appropriately, some offices
frequently awarded CAs with
little or no competition.

• Conflicts of Interest

Some ORD laboratory
officials, with possible conflicts
of interest, participated  in a
panel to award a contract,
increasing the possibility for
favoritism in the award.

Agency Actions

In response to previous
criticisms of its contract
management practices, the
Agency established a
Standing Committee on
Contracts Management (now
called the Resource
Management Committee). In
June 1992, the committee
made 40 recommendations
to address EPA's
contracting problems. EPA
reports that it has
completed action on 22 of
those recommendations,
and is in the process of
completing actions on the
others.

The Agency has also taken
a number of other actions to
address concerns in this
area.  For example, in  a
recent OIG survey of an
Office of Air and Radiation
(OAR) laboratory, we found
that OAR had assessed its
own contracting activities
and that this laboratory was
following good practices in
managing its extramural
resources. In another case,
the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Research
and Development responded
to our report on extramural
resources management by
one of ORD's laboratories
by stating that many of the
corrective actions to our
recommendations should be
implemented office-wide. In
numerous other cases, EPA
has responded promptly to
our concerns and
recommendations regarding
extramural resources
management.

Information  Resources
Management (IRM)

OIG Concerns

IRM is critical to the success
of all program activities.  For a
number of years, EPA's  IRM
program has been hampered
by numerous problems,
including data quality
deficiencies;  significant cost
overruns and delays in
developing information
systems; development of
duplicate information  systems;
uneconomical management of
mainframe storage devices;
exposure of the Agency's
most sensitive information
systems to access by
unethical users; and lack of
assurance  that ADP support
services contracts are
implemented effectively,
efficiently,  and at the lowest
cost to the government.
These problems materially
impact the effectiveness of
EPA's programs.

In response to a
Congressional request, during
this period we conducted a
broad, top-level review of
EPA's IRM program.   Working
cooperatively as a team  with
Agency personnel, we
cataloged all significant
causes of EPA's problems in
this area, the most important
being  that  EPA did not treat
information as a valuable,
strategic resource.  We also
jointly developed
                                                                                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
recommendations to the
Administrator for effective
solutions.

Agency Actions

In response to this review,
Agency officials are taking a
number of far-reaching
corrective actions, such as
designating a Data
Administrator and creating a
strong Executive Steering
Committee for IRM. EPA's
steps are very positive and,
in time, should dramatically
improve its IRM program.

Financial Management

OIG Concerns

As with IRM, we responded to
a Congressional request by
performing a broad, top-level
review of EPA's financial
management program.
Working cooperatively as a
team with Agency personnel,
we cataloged all significant
causes of EPA's problems in
this area, such as a
widespread lack of
understanding of the
importance of good financial
management, and a lack of
appropriate data and reporting
tools managers need to
effectively run their programs.
We also jointly  developed
recommendations to the
Administrator for effective
solutions.

During this period we
completed our audits of EPA's
second set of financial
statements prepared in
accordance with the Chief
Financial Officers Act.  While
there were some
improvements from fiscal
1992, we still noted many
concerns in fiscal 1993, with
accounting for such things as
Superfund accounts receivable
and Agency property.

We will continue performing
audits in the financial
management area and
working closely with the
Agency to ensure that an
effective organization is
established that provides the
Chief Financial Officer with the
responsibility and authority to
correct EPA's longstanding
financial management
problems.

Agency Actions

EPA has taken appropriate
initial steps to improve its
financial management
activities, such as improving
the timeliness of its
financial reporting,
establishing goals for
improving Agency-wide
accountability and service,
and reorganizing the Office
of Administration and
Resources Management to
improve management
accountability.  If EPA
aggressively implements its
plans and new initiatives,
financial management
should be improved
throughout the Agency.

Data Integrity

OIG Concerns

The accuracy and reliability of
scientific, programmatic, and
management data have
always been crucial to  EPA's
mission, because they form
the basis for decisions that
affect all major American
industries  and national policies
to prevent hazards and risks
to human health and the
environment.  Accurate,
reliable,  timely data play a key
role in the effectiveness of
EPA's programs.

However, our audits have
continued  to show that various
kinds of EPA data systems,
such as the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability
Information  System
(CERCLIS)  and the
information  systems in the
pesticides program, frequently
contain incomplete, inaccurate
data; duplicate other systems;
and are not integrated.  During
this period we also found that
some data supporting the
quality  of materials EPA
distributed  for calibrating and
testing  analytical instruments
were inadequate.

Agency Actions

EPA has recognized its
overall data integrity
problems.  In response to
OIG reviews during this
period, the Office of Solid
Waste  and Emergency
Response, the Office of
Pesticides  Programs, and
the Environmental
Monitoring Systems
Laboratory in Cincinnati,
Ohio, are all taking
substantive actions to
address our concerns.

Enforcement

OIG Concerns

During  the past 2 years, OIG
audits of EPA's water,
pesticide, hazardous
materials, and Superfund
programs have reported
continuing  instances of
ineffective  Federal and State
enforcement.  During  this
period,  we found problems
with enforcement of Safe
Drinking Water Act
requirements in small,
noncommunity water systems
in Region 2.

Agency Actions

In response to our report,
Region 2 agreed to work
with the affected  State to
improve its overall
enforcement of these water
systems.
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994

-------
     Profile of  Activities and  Results
   Office of Inspector General
                                  October 1, 1993, to
                                      March 31, 1994
Audit Operations

OIG Managed Reviews:

- Reviews Performed by EPA, Independent
  Public Accountants and State Auditors
  - Questioned Costs
    -  Total                              $90.8 Million
    -  Federal Share *                     $65.7 Million

  - Recommended Efficiencies
    (Funds be Put to Better Use)
    -  Total Efficiencies*                    $2.1 Million
    -  Federal Share Efficiencies*            $2.1 Million

  - Cost Disallowed to be Recovered
    -  Federal Share (costs which EPA
      management agrees are unallowable
      and is committed to recover or
      offset against future payments)       $42.9 Million

  - Cost Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
    -  Federal Share (funds made available
      by EPA management's  commitment to
      implement  recommendations in OIG
      performance and preaward audits)     $0.0 Million

Other Reviews:

- Reviews Performed by another
  Federal  Agency or Single Audit Act Auditors
  - Questioned Costs
    -  Total                               $4.5 Million
    -  Federal Share *                     $4.5 Million

 - Recommended Efficiencies
   - Total Efficiencies*                    $6.0 Million
   - Federal Share Efficiencies*            $6.0 Million

  - Cost Disallowed to be Recovered
    -  Federal Share                       $2.0 Million

  - Cost Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
    -  Federal Share                       $0.8 Million
                                  October 1, 1993, tc
                                      March 31, 1994
Agency Recoveries:

- Recoveries from Audit Resolutions of
  Current and Prior Periods (cash collections
  or offsets to future payments)**            $30.4 Millior

Reports Issued:

- OIG Managed Reviews:
  - EPA Reviews Performed by the OIG              6/
  - EPA Reviews Performed by Independent  Public
    Accountants                                   35
  - EPA Reviews Performed by State Auditors          f
- Other Reviews:
  - EPA Reviews Performed by
    another Federal Agency
  - Single Audit Act Reviews

Total Reports Issued
                                                20!
                                                40!

                                                73(
Reports Resolved (agreement by Agency officials   27:
to take satisfactory corrective action)***
Investigative Operations
                                          $1.6 Millioi
                                                 13
                                                 14
  -  Fines and Recoveries (including civil)
  -  Investigations Opened
  -  Investigations Closed
  -  Indictments of Persons or Firms                   i
  -  Convictions of Persons or Firms
  -  Administrative Actions Against EPA Employees     1

Fraud Detection and Prevention Operations

  -  Debarments, Suspensions and Compliance
    Agreements                                    4
  -  Hotline Cases Opened                           2
  -  Hotline Cases Processed and Closed              2
  -  Personnel Security Investigations Adjudicated    66
   •Questioned Cost (Ineligible, Unsupported, and Unnecessary/Unreasonable) and Recommended Efficiencies (Funds be Put to Better
   Use) are subject to change pending further review in the audit resolution process.
   "Information on recoveries from audit resolution is provided from the EPA Financial Management Division and is unaudited.
   ***Reports resolved are subject to change pending further review.
                                                                                  OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
   Establishment  of  the OIG  in  EPA-lts  Role And  Authority
The Inspector General Act of
1978 (Public  Law 95-452), as
amended, created Offices of
Inspector General to
consolidate existing
investigative and audit
resources in independent
organizations headed by
Inspectors General.

EPA established its Office of
Inspector General (OIG) in
January 1980.  As an agency
with a massive public works
budget,  EPA  is vulnerable to
various kinds of financial
abuses. The OIG's role is to
review EPA's financial
transactions,  program
operations, contracts, and
administrative activities;
investigate allegations or
evidence of possible criminal
and civil violations; and
promote economic, efficient,
and effective  Agency
operations. The OIG is also
responsible for reviewing EPA
regulations and legislation.

The EPA Inspector General
reports directly to the
Administrator and the
Congress  and has the
authority to:

• Initiate and carry out
independent and objective
audits and investigations,
• Issue subpoenas for
evidence and information,
• Obtain access to any
materials in the Agency,
• Report serious or flagrant
problems to Congress,
• Select and appoint OIG
employees,
• Fill Senior Executive Service
positions,
• Administer  oaths, and
• Enter into contracts.

The Inspector General is
appointed  by, and can be
removed only by,  the
President.  This independence
protects the OIG from
interference by Agency
management  and allows it to
function as the Agency's fiscal
and operational watchdog

Organization and
Resources

The Office of Inspector
General functions through
three  major offices,  each
headed by an Assistant
Inspector General:  Office of
Audit, Office of Investigations,
and Office of Management.
Nationally, there  are eight
Divisional Inspectors General
for Audit and seven Divisional
Inspectors General for
Investigations  who direct staffs
of auditors and investigators
and who report to the
appropriate Assistant
Inspector General in
Headquarters.

For fiscal 1994, the Agency
was appropriated
$6,658,927,000 and
authorized 18,625 full time
equivalent (FTE) positions to
conduct the environmental
programs authorized by
Congress to restore and
protect the environment. As a
separate appropriation
account, the Office of
Inspector General (OIG)
received $44.6 million to carry
out the provisions of the
Inspector General Act of 1978,
as amended   Nearly $163
million of the OIG's
appropriation  was derived
from the Hazardous
Substance Superfund trust
fund and $669,100 was
derived from the  Leaking
Underground  Storage Tank
trust fund. The OIG has a
funded staffing level of 449
FTE positions. The funding
and FTE available to the OIG
represent 0.7 percent and 2.4
percent, respectively, of the
Agency's totals.
Purpose and
Requirements of the
Office of Inspector
General Semiannual
Report

The Inspector General Act of
1978 (Public Law 95-452), as
amended, requires the
Inspector General to keep the
Administrator and Congress
fully and currently informed of
problems and deficiencies in
the Agency's operations and
to recommend corrective
action.
                The IG Act further specifies
              that semiannual  reports will be
              provided to the Administrator
              by each April 30 and October
              31, and to Congress 30 days
              later.  The Administrator may
              transmit comments to
              Congress along with the
              report, but may not  change
              any part of it.

                The specific reporting
              requirements prescribed in the
              Inspector General Act of 1978,
              as amended, are listed below.
   Source                                   Section/Page
   Inspector General Act, as amended.
   Section 4(a)(2)

   Section 5(a)(1)


   Section 5(a)(2)



   Section 5(a)(3)



   Section 5(a)(4)


   Section 5(a)(5)


   Section 5(a)(6)

   Section 5(a)(7)

   Section 5(a)(8)


   Section 5(a)(9)



   Section 5(a)(10)
Review of Legislation and Regulations

Significant Problems, Abuses, and
Deficiencies

Recommendations with Respect to
Significant Problems, Abuses, and
Deficiencies
                                                       39
                               1
Prior Significant Recommendations on
Which Corrective Action Has Not
Been Completed            Appendix 2

Matters Referred to Prosecutive
Authorities                        3

Summary of Instances
Where Information Was Refused

List of Audit Reports          Appendix 1

Summary of Significant Reports         1

Statistical Table 1-Reports With
Questioned Costs                  2

Statistical Table 2-Reports With
Recommendations That Funds Be Put
To Better Use                     2
Summary of Previous Audit
Reports Without Management
Decisions
                                         Appendix 2
   Section 5(a)(11)   Description and Explanation of Revised
                 Management Decisions        Appendix 2

   Section 5(a)(12)   Management Decisions with Which the
                 Inspector General Is in Disagreement     **
                                  * There were no instances where information or assistance requested
                                  by the Inspector General was refused during this reporting period.

                                  " There were no instances of management decisions with which the
                                  Inspector General was in disagreement.
56


37





45

 1


34




35




56



56
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994

-------
Headquarters
                             Office of Inspector General-Who's Who
                                      Inspector General
                                      John C. Martin

                                      Deputy  Inspector General
                                      Anna Hopkins Virbick
        Office  of Audit

        Kenneth A. Konz
        Assistant Inspector General

        Janes 0.  Rauch
        De
uty
                           Office of Management

                           John C. Jones
                           Assistant Inspector General
Office of  Investigations

Daniel S.  Sweeney
Assistant  Inspector General

Michael J.  Fitzsinoons
Deputy
            Acquisition & Assistance
               Audits
            Elissa R. Karpf

            Internal  and Performance
               Audits
            Michael D. Simmons
                               Program Management Division
                               John T. Walsh

                               Resources Management  Division
                               Michael J. Binder
             Planning and Resources Management
             Kenneth 0. Hockman

             Engineeering & Science
             Walter 6. Gilbert

             ADP  Audits & Support
             Craig Silverthorne
Divisional Inspectors General
Regions 9 & 10
Truman R. Beeler,
Audit

H. Brooks Griffin
Investigations
          GUAM
              HAWAII
                                                    Region 5
                                                    Anthony C. Carrollo, Audit


                                                    Region S, 7, & 8
                                                    Allen P. Fallin, Investigations
                                                                                 MAINE
                              Regions 7 & 8
                              Nikki Tinsley, Audit
                                                                                  Region 1 & 2
                                                                                  Paul McKechnie, Audit
                                                                                  Robert M. Byrnes,
                                                                                  Investigations

                                                                                  Region 3
                                                                                  Paul R. Gandotfo, Audit
                                                                                  Martin Squitieri,
                                                                                  Investigations
                                                                                  Headquarters
                                                                                  Edward Gekosky
                                                                                  HQs Audit Division

                                                                                  Melissa M. Heist
                                                                                  Financial Audit Div.

                                                                                  Francis C. Kiley
                                                                                  Washington Field Div
                                                                                  Investigations

                                                                                  Emmett D. Dashiell
                                                                                  Procurement Fraud
                                                                                  Div., Investigations
                                                           Regions 4 & 6
                                                           Mary Boyer, Audit
                                                           James A  Atwood, Acting,
                                                                                   OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
  Section  1 -- Significant Findings and  Recommendations
As required by sections 5(a-)(1) and (2) of
the Inspector General Act of 1978, as
amended, this section identifies significant
problems, abuses, and deficiencies relating
to the Agency's programs and operations
along with recommendations for the current
period. The findings described in this
section resulted from audits and reviews
performed by or for the Office of Audit and
reviews conducted by the Office of
Investigations. Because these represent
some of our most significant findings, they
should not be considered representative of
the overall adequacy of EPA management.
Audit findings are open to further review but
are the final position of the Office of
Inspector General. This section is divided
into six areas: Costs and Benefits,
Information Resources and Financial
Management, Extramural Resources
Management, Other Agency Management,
Construction Grants, and Super-fund.
            COST BENEFITS OF TOTAL AUDIT EFFORTS
           OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
(IG AUDIT BUDGET, AUDIT RESULTS, AND EPA MANAGEMENT DECISIONS)
                        FEDERAL COSTS
                        QUESTIONED
                                       EPA DECISIONS TO
                                       RECOVER FUNDS
                     BENEFITS FROM OIG MANAGED REVIEWS
                      FISCAL 1991 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                        MILLIONS OF DOLLARS
                        120
                               $110.3M
                               1991
     1992
1993    1994 (6 Months)
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994

-------
Information
Resources
Management and
Financial
Management
The OIG and others have
reported extensively on the
Agency's problems in the
areas of information
resources management and
financial management, both
of which are critical to the
successful implementation
of Agency programs and
operations.  Despite
considerable effort by the
Agency over the last several
years to effect
improvements, problems
persist in  these areas.
Summaries follow of the
most significant review
findings and
recommendations reported
by the OIG during this
semiannual period relating
to information resources
management and financial
management.
EPA's Information
Resources
Management (IRM)
Program Needs Top
Management Attention

Findings in Brief

EPA was not maximizing the
usefulness of information in
implementing the Agency's
environmental programs.
The Agency's IRM problems
were basically attributable to
EPA not treating information
as a valuable, strategic
resource.

Background

In a letter  dated September
27, 1993, the Chairman and
Ranking Minority Member  of
the Senate Subcommittee on
Superfund, Recycling, and
Solid Waste Management,
Committee on Environment
and Public Works, requested
the Inspector General (IG) to
perform a comprehensive
management review of EPA's
information systems.   The
review was conducted by a
joint OIG/Agency team which
relied heavily on interviews
and focus groups to identify
the root causes of EPA's IRM
problems.

We Found That

Sound, efficient,  and
responsive information
systems are critical to EPA's
achievement of its mission.
For example, EPA's
information systems must
provide accurate and reliable
data on management  and
oversight of the Superfund
program and on nationwide  air
and water quality.

EPA has had significant IRM
problems concerning the
quality, integrity, and
completeness of its data and
its usefulness in addressing
cross-media pollution
problems due to weaknesses
in four key areas.

• IRM Management and
Organizational Structure.
EPA staff perceived upper
management as not
recognizing the criticality of or
being accountable for IRM.
The IRM Steering Committee
has not fulfilled its important
role as an executive-level
decision-making body, and
EPA's formal lines of authority
and communication for IRM
matters are confused.  Also,
the organizational placement,
numbers, and apparent
qualifications of the EPA
employees with  significant
IRM responsibiliiies are
inconsistent among
Headquarters program offices.
• Resource Planning and
Performance Measurement.
The Agency has neither an
Agency-wide IRM Strategic
Plan nor a "Business Plan,"
although both are currently
being developed. Not
integrating its long-term IRM
planning with its single-year
budgeting process has
historically contributed to
funding shortages for systems
development projects.  IRM
planning is greatly complicated
by EPA's unbalanced
emphasis on short-term vs.
long-term results. EPA's  IRM
is generally reactive  as a
result of continually  changing
congressional information
needs,  new and changing
environmental regulations, and
poor communications with
congressional staff.   Also,
EPA's information systems do
not have the capability to
measure environmental
successes, accomplishments,
and economic benefits.
Further, EPA cannot account
for its IRM expenditures on a
system-by-system basis.

• Information System
Development.  Developers of
EPA's systems do not always
work effectively with  EPA
program officials, Congress,
and the States  (their users
and customers) to understand
the programs and define their
information  needs.  Most
national systems appear
designed to meet
Headquarters needs, but  are
not very useful and  "friendly"
to the Regions and the States
and cannot answer some valid
questions by the Congress
about Agency
accomplishments. In addition,
EPA offices usually do not use
a standard software
development approach,
primarily due to the extensive
use of  many contractors with
widely  varying methodologies
which do not always meet
 Federal requirements.
• Data Management.  Data
sharing is crucial to the
Administrator's four top
priorities: ecosystems
protection, pollution
prevention, environmental
justice, and partnership
development.  Yet, EPA does
not have the IRM "structure"
to  link or share data Agency-
wide,  due partly to insufficient
resources and EPA's media-
based organizational structure.
Data quality problems in many
EPA information systems are
often due to frequently
changing definitions of data
and lack of data "ownership"
by those who input it.

We Recommended That

The Administrator:

• Establish a separate Chief
Information  Officer at the
Assistant Administrator level
with authority and
responsibility  for the Agency s
IRM program  and strengthen  a
number of components of the
IRM program.

• Closely link  the IRM planning
process with EPA's Business
Plan and integrate it with the
Agency's budget process.

• Strengthen EPA's process
for developing information
systems and increasing  user
involvement during the
development  process.

• Develop an  Agency-wide
data architecture and data
standards and establish a
centralized data administration
function.

What Action Was Taken

Agency officials generally
agreed with our findings and
recommendations and
indicated they would take a
number of far-reaching actions
to address our concerns.  For
example, EPA plans to
designate a Chief Information
 10
                                                                                    OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
Officer and a Data
Administrator, to create a
strong Executive Steering
Committee for IRM, and to
make a commitment to strong
leadership and sound
management in this area. The
Agency also plans to establish
key data standards, upgrade
its IRM training program, more
completely consider users'
needs when developing
systems, establish
performance measurement
criteria for the IRM program
and IRM initiatives, and take
many other actions we have
recommended.  The final
report  (4400038) was issued
to the Administrator on March
25, 1994. A response to the
final report is due by June 23,
1994.
Follow Through Is Key
to EPA Resolving
Financial Management
Issues

Findings In Brief

Differing views and
perceptions have made it
difficult for EPA to carry out
effectively  its financial
management activities.
Although appropriate initial
steps have been taken to
improve these activities,
EPA needs to follow
through to ensure that the
serious concerns evident
throughout the Agency are
adequately addressed.

Background

On September 27, 1993, the
Senate Committee on
Environment and Public
Works, Subcommittee on
Superfund,  Recycling, and
Solid Waste Management
requested a comprehensive
review of EPA's financial
management  program, with  as
much attention as possible to
the Superfund program.
Working cooperatively with
EPA's Financial Management
Division (FMD), we highlighted
current issues and developed
solutions based on input from
representative  EPA managers
and staff through a series of
focus group meetings and
extensive interviews.  We also
analyzed over 130 OIG
reports and over 60 General
Accounting  Office reports to
identify financial management
concerns.

We Found  That

Although the Chief Financial
Officer position was created to
raise the visibility of financial
management throughout the
Agency, this has not yet been
fully realized.   EPA financial
management in the program
offices and  regions suffered
from:  (1) a widespread lack of
understanding of the
importance of financial
management; (2) lack of the
data and reporting tools that
managers needed to manage
their programs effectively; (3)
a weak  link between budgeting
and planning; and (4) too
many financial  codes with
interpretations that are
confusing to program staff.

Agency  personnel are
concerned about the principal
EPA finance and reporting
systems.  The Agency's
Integrated Financial
Management System (IFMS)
cannot always be relied on to
meet their financial
management requirements
effectively.  Overall, there is a
lack of integration and
incompatibility of financial and
reporting systems.  Duplicate
or alternate personal computer
based systems were
developed locally to meet
regional financial management
needs not provided by the
Agency's systems.

EPA financial policies and
procedures are often difficult
to locate, out of date,
incomplete, and confusing and
therefore difficult to use.  As a
result, many policies and
procedures are not always
effective or conducive for good
Agency-wide financial
management.

With respect to Superfund
activities, cost recovery from
responsible parties for  the
cleanup  of hazardous waste
sites is not always given  the
support  or resources needed
and is viewed as secondary to
the mission of cleaning up
hazardous waste sites. The
Agency  does not have
information readily available to
determine a  feasible target or
amount  for cost recovery.
Further,  the Agency does not
routinely analyze results to
compare recoveries against
established targets.  Some
costs are not allocated to their
specific sites, preventing the
Agency from tracking and
recovering the  costs later from
responsible parties.  These
costs are often recorded
differently  in IFMS and the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System
(CERCLIS), sometimes
leading Headquarters to ask
the Regions to collect data
manually for external reports.

EPA does not regularly  offer
courses essential for training
Agency employees to
accomplish their financial
management responsibilities
effectively.  This has resulted
in  inexperienced and untrained
personnel  performing financial
management duties.

We Recommended That

The Administrator:

•  Identify and implement best
or benchmark practices  for
financial management
operations Agency-wide to
help set standards of service
and performance.

•  Establish a joint effort
between FMD and the
program offices with
client/customer teams to work
out the interface problems
associated with IFMS and
other Agency finance and
reporting systems.

•  Review, update and
consolidate EPA's financial
management policies and
procedures electronically and
make them more user friendly.

•  Ensure that clear and
consistent EPA cost recovery
goals and targets are
established and assign a
higher priority to Superfund
financial management,
specifically cost recovery.
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                            11

-------
• Have FMD establish an
Agency-wide core of training
courses that are mandatory for
Agency employees involved  in
financial management
activities.

What Action Was Taken

When EPA aggressively
implements the
recommendations  in our  report
and its own established plans
and new initiatives, financial
management should be
improved throughout the
Agency. The special review
report (4400042) was issued
to the Administrator on March
31,  1994.  A response to the
final report is due by June 30,
1994.
Improvements Still
Needed in  EPA's
Financial Reporting

Findings In Brief

During the past year, EPA
improved its  financial
reporting. However,
additional improvements are
needed before  unqualified
opinions can be rendered
on all of the Agency's
financial statements, and
EPA can have more
confidence in the financial
information used in
managing its programs.

Background

The Chief Financial Officers
(CFO) Act requires EPA to
prepare financial statements
for the Superfund, Leaking
Underground  Storage Tank
(LUST) and Oil  Spill Trust
Funds, the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) and
Tolerance Revolving Funds,
and the Asbestos Loan
Program.  Fiscal 1993 was the
second year for which EPA
prepared these  statements.

We Found That

The Agency used experience
gained last year and better
supporting documentation to
improve its financial reporting.
This allowed preparation of
fiscal 1993 financial
statements during December
1993, 3 months earlier than
the fiscal 1992 financial
statements.  Following are the
results of our audits of the
financial  statements for each
of the funds described above.

Superfund Trust Fund.  A
determination could not be
made of whether the financial
statements for this fund were
fairly presented primarily
because:
• EPA personnel did not fully
comply with the policies and
procedures for recording  and
reconciling accounts
receivable.  As a result, at the
regions audited: (1) $57
million of valid accounts
receivable were not recorded
in the Agency's accounting
system; (2) 26 receivables
totaling $15 million (from a
non-statistical sample of  52
receivables totaling $208
million) were not recorded
timely; and (3) at two regions,
there was a $37 million
overstatement of accounts
receivable because the
regions recorded the total
amount due from states even
though EPA had not
performed the activities that
entitled EPA to payment.
Finally, an increase of $153
million to the allowance for
uncollectible  accounts was
needed to provide for
potentially uncollectible
Superfund receivables.  These
recommended adjustments
were made to the financial
statements.

• EPA does not have an
integrated property system
with complete historical cost
data and  other information
needed to support capitalized
property recorded  in the
accounting system.

• At four finance offices
audited, accruals for grant
expenses for recipients that
used the  Automated Clearing
House payment system were
not recorded.

• During the fiscal 1992
financial statement audit,  EPA
did not have an adequate
method for determining the
costs incurred under signed
agreements with states to
share in the cost of a
Superfund site cleanup.  This
would enable recorded
receivables and corresponding
deferred  revenue to  be
properly liquidated.  During
fiscal 1993, Region 2 began a
pilot program to develop such
procedures.  Based on
information provided by
Regions 2, 5 and 9, the
Agency recorded $35 million
in adjustments for fiscal 1993
and prior years to show the
deferred revenue that had
been earned in these regions.
The amount of adjustments
needed at other regional
finance offices was not
determined.

LUST Trust Fund. We
qualified our opinion on the
Statement of Financial
Position and disclaimed an
opinion on the other financial
statements for this fund
primarily because:

• Accruals for expenses of
grant recipients paid through
the Automated Clearing House
payment system were not
made.

• EPA's accounting system did
not correctly disclose the
components of net position
due to  problems in the
automated year-end closing
process.

OH Spill Fund. The fiscal
1993 Statements of Financial
Position and Cash Flow for
this fund were fairly presented.
However, we qualified our
opinion on the Statements  of
Operations and Changes in
Net Position and Budget and
Actual  Expenses for the year,
because we did not audit
costs allocated from other
Agency appropriations due to
the substantial audit effort
required.

FIFRA Fund.  We were able
to  issue a qualified opinion on
the Statement of Financial
Position for the fund as a
result of actions taken by the
Agency and the expanded
scope  of our audit work. We
were, however, unable to audit
the $533,000 property balance
12
                                                                                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
shown in this statement due to
the Agency's procedures for
capitalizing property
purchased with FIFRA and
other Agency funds not
identifying all property which
should be capitalized.   In
addition, property that is
capitalized cannot be uniquely
identified. Consequently,
when items of property are
transferred, replaced  or lost,
the changes cannot be
reflected in EPA's accounting
system.  We disclaimed an
opinion on the statements of
Operation and Changes in Net
Position, Cash Flows,  and
Budget Actual Expenses
because we could not audit
the Statement of Financial
Position as of September 30,
1992.

Tolerance Fund. We could
not determine  if the financial
statements were fairly
presented because:

• Weaknesses in controls in
the Office of Pesticide
Programs' fee tracking  system
resulted in significant errors in
the office's tolerance  fee
records.  For example,  in the
sample of records we
reviewed, $457,700 of fees
and $9,800 of earnings were
recorded twice; $163,800 of
earnings were recorded even
though the fees had been
refunded; and $288,100 of
fees were refunded without
adjusting the balance shown
in the system

• Adequate supporting
documentation was not
available for $24.3 million of
adjusting entries.

Asbestos Loan Program.
We qualified our opinion on
the Statement of Financial
Position and disclaimed an
opinion on the other financial
statements  primarily because
EPA's accounting system did
not correctly disclose the
components of net position
due to problems in the
automated  year-end closing
process.

Tests of compliance with
laws and regulations. EPA
complied with applicable
provisions that would
materially affect the financial
statements. However, during
fiscal  1992 and 1993, EPA did
not perform required  biennial
reviews of  user fees to identify
those which EPA could
increase  to help finance EPA's
programs.  For example,
during  fiscal 1993,  EPA
collected only $1.5 million for
processing  tolerance petitions
for raw agricultural  products
while the Agency spent $3.2
million  performing this activity.
Performing  these reviews
would be consistent with the
Vice President's National
Performance Review which
recommends increasing the
use of fees.

We Recommended That

The Chief Financial Officer

•  Work with the Offices of
Enforcement and Solid Waste
and Emergency Response to
improve coordination between
the Offices  of Regional
Counsel and Financial
Management Offices  so that
Superfund  accounts receivable
are more accurately and
timely recorded and an
adequate allowance for
uncollectible receivables is
established.

•  Modify policies and
procedures for recording
accounts receivable arising
from Superfund state
contracts.

•  Issue guidance for
calculating  and  recording
accounts payable and accrued
liabilities  for grant expenses.

•  Ensure  that finance offices
consistently follow the year-
end closing procedures for
recording accounts payable
and accrued liabilities.

• Develop or revise
procedures for documenting
adjusting entries and
capitalizing property.

• Include timely review of user
fees as one of the financial
management  performance
measures used to evaluate
program offices.

The Director,  Office of
Pesticide Programs:

• Strengthen controls used to
track tolerance fees by
revising procedures for
recording fee transactions.

• Reconcile the Office's
tolerance fee records with
records maintained in the
accounting system.

• Include the fee tracking
system  in  Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act reviews.

What Action  Was Taken

In response to the draft
reports, the Chief Financial
Officer agreed in  principle with
most of the reports'
recommendations. He
indicated that his  staff had
already begun to  take
appropriate actions to resolve
the reported issues.  The final
report on the  Superfund  Trust
Fund, Leaking Underground
Storage Tank Trust Fund, and
the Asbestos  Loan Program
(4100231) was issued to the
Chief Financial Officer on
March 31, 1994.  The final
report on the  Pesticides
Revolving  Funds and the Oil
Spill Trust Fund (4100230)
was issued to the Chief
Financial Officer,  the Assistant
Administrator  for Prevention,
Pesticides and Toxic
Substances, and the Assistant
Administrator  for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response on
March 31, 1994. Responses
to the final reports are due by
June 29, 1994.
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                              13

-------
Extramural
Resources
Management
Over the past several years,
the OIG has repeatedly
identified problems in the
Agency's award and
administration of contracts,
interagency agreements,
and cooperative agreements
at various EPA offices and
facilities.  During this
semiannual reporting period,
the OIG conducted reviews
to examine the competitive
process used by the Agency
to award its contracts.
Independent audits of the
records and performance of
individual contractors were
also conducted in
accordance with the General
Accounting Office  standards
for audits of governmental
organizations, programs,
activities, and functions.
These audits determine
whether costs claimed by
the contractors are eligible,
supported by
documentation, necessary,
and reasonable. Additional
reviews were also
conducted of the
management of extramural
resources by our Office at
three Agency laboratories.
Summaries follow of the
most significant review
findings and
recommendations  reported
during this semiannual
period.
Limited Competition
for Many EPA Contract
Awards

Findings in Brief

Most of EPA's contracts
were awarded using
competitive procedures.
However, many of the
awards were  made when
only one proposal was
within the Agency's
acceptable technical and
cost range (competitive
range).  Therefore, EPA
could not be  assured that it
was receiving the highest
quality products and
services at the lowest costs.

We Found That

EPA often used competitive
procedures as defined in the
Competition in Contracting Act
of 1984 (CICA) to award its
contracts.  As a result, EPA
has consistently reported that
a large percentage of its
contracts were awarded using
competitive procedures, and
competition was obtained for
many of the Agency's
contracts that we reviewed.
The Superfund program and
the Office of Air Quality,
Planning and  Standards
generally received more
competitive proposals to their
solicitations for offers than
other  reviewed EPA offices.

However, EPA awarded a
significant number of contracts
to provide goods or services
when only one proposal  made
the competitive range. The
contracting office prepares the
competitive range
determination that identifies
those firms or individuals that
have  a reasonable chance of
award based  on their technical
and cost proposals.  For 140
contracts in our sample, 39
contracts were awarded  when
only one proposal made the
competitive range.  The
maximum potential value of
the 39 contracts was
approximately $327 million, or
22 percent of the total
maximum value of the
contracts in our sample.
Repeat contracts, in which the
incumbent won the follow-on
award,  comprised the majority
of the total dollar value of
these 39 contracts.

Several factors contributed to
a lack of competitive
proposals for some EPA
contracts, including using
large, level of effort contracts
with  diverse  statements of
work and having technical
evaluation criteria that placed
heavy emphasis on personnel
experience and availability.   In
some instances, several of
these conditions existed,
thereby limiting the number of
proposals received for a
particular solicitation.  Many
firms believed these conditions
favored incumbent contractors
and therefore these firms were
reluctant to submit proposals
since they perceived their
chance of winning the award
as being remote.

Also, the composition of
technical evaluation  panels
(TEP) that evaluate and score
contract proposals created an
appearance  of partiality  in
scoring proposals and the
potential for bias in the award
of follow-on  contracts.  This
was due to TEPs often being
chaired by project officers who
administered the prior contract
and TEPs being composed
entirely of officials from the
program offices acquiring the
contract services.

In addition, the Agency's
Competition Advocacy
Program established and
monitored goals to ensure that
a high percentage of Agency
contracts were awarded
competitively.  The Program
has been successful in limiting
the number of sole-source
awards. However, similar
monitoring was not in place to
determine  the extent of actual
competition (number of
proposals) for contracts
awarded under competitive
procedures.

We Recommended That

The Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management:

• Evaluate large, complex
contracts for the possibility of
splitting them into smaller
contracts.

• Better publicize future  EPA
contracting opportunities  to the
contracting community.

• Monitor and evaluate
request-for-proposal
evaluation criteria to ensure
that incumbent contractors are
not given an unfair competitive
advantage.

• Revise EPA policy to
require at least one TEP
member be from an
organization other than the
procuring office  and at least
two TEP members be from
outside the procuring office
when there are five or more
panel members

• Strengthen the Competition
Advocacy Program's  review
and evaluation of competition
for contracts awarded under
full and open competition
 procedures.

What Action Was Taken

 The final report (4100232) was
 issued to the Assistant
 Administrator for
 Administration and Resources
 Management on March 31,
 1994.  In  responding to the
 draft report, the Agency
 generally  agreed with our
 recommendations and
 provided substantive planned
 or  already initiated actions to
 14
                                                                                     OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
correct the identified
weaknesses.  These actions, if
properly implemented,  should
substantially resolve the
issues presented in this report.
As a result, we closed  out this
audit in our tracking  system
and all corrective actions  will
now be tracked  in the
Agency's Management Audit
Tracking  System
Most Large Contracts
Awarded to ICF Had
Limited Competition

Findings in Brief

There was limited
competition in EPA's award
of over half of the larger
contracts to ICF, Inc., and in
ICF's award of subcontracts.
In addition, EPA did not
evaluate ICF's performance
on cost-plus-award-fee
contracts timely. As a
result, EPA did not receive
the full benefits of
competition, such as
potentially lower prices and
higher quality products.

Background

As of March 1992, ICF, along
with  its subsidiary,  Clement
Associates, was the Agency's
second largest contractor and
had 25 active contracts
potentially worth  $388 million.
EPA uses ICF to support
various activities of Agency
program offices,  including
policy and technical analysis
services for the Office of
Ground-Water Protection;
economics support for
regulatory actions by the
Office of Toxic Substances;
evaluation of the energy,
economic, and environmental
trade-offs  of Government
policies and regulations by the
Office of Air and Radiation;
and analytical and planning
services regarding the
management of Resource
Conservation and Recovery
Act-regulated wastes by the
Office of Solid Waste.

We Found That

EPA complied with Federal
regulations when soliciting
competition for contracts
awarded to ICF, and adequate
competition existed in the
award of most of the smaller
ICF contracts.  However, the
level of competition lessened
as the value of the contract
reached $10 million.  In three
of the eight contracts
exceeding $10 million, ICF
was awarded the contract
because its price and
technical  proposals were more
favorable than those of its
competitors.  However, in the
other  five awards, ICF was the
only firm to either submit a
proposal or have its proposal
make the competitive range.
On  two of the five awards with
potential values of $14 4
million and  $125 million, EPA
solicited proposals from 120
and 88 firms, respectively.
Yet only ICF, the incumbent,
submitted a proposal.  Both of
these procurements were
umbrella contracts, i.e.,
contracts with large and
diverse statements of work,
which we believe discourages
competition. In two of the
three  cases in which ICF
alone made the competitive
range, ICF was the incumbent
contractor.  As a result, EPA
did  not receive the full benefits
of competition  in the award of
these contracts.

There was little evidence of
competition in the award of
subcontracts by ICF under its
three  largest EPA prime
contracts  ICF routinely
awarded subcontracts  on a
sole source basis, and EPA
contracting  personnel had
various interpretations  of what
constituted  competition in
regard to the assignment of
work to subcontractors
assembled  by ICF to work on
the  contracts.

EPA's management of the
award fee process was
inadequate.  In the four ICF
cost-plus-award-fee contracts
we  reviewed, EPA
experienced difficulty and
delays, ranging from less than
2 months to more than 2
years,  in evaluating ICF's
performance. However, rather
than improve its administration
of the award fee process, EPA
converted three of the
contracts into cost-plus-fixed-
fee contracts.  We analyzed
the largest of the converted
contracts and estimated that
ICF received approximately
$300,000 more fee under the
fixed fee method.

We Recommended That

The Assistant Administrator for
Administration  and Resources
Management have the
Director, Office of Acquisition
Management:

•  Issue guidance  instructing
Contracting Officers to
conduct post-award  efforts to
determine reasons why only
one proposal made the
competitive range.

•  Require the  Contracting
Officer to review the awards of
all significant subcontractors
under EPA prime  contracts to
ensure selection on a
competitive basis.

•  Require prime contractors to
obtain Contracting Officer
approval of all significant
subcontractor budgets and
any subsequent budget
revisions.

•  Emphasize to the EPA
personnel involved in the
award fee process that
completing timely  evaluations
is essential to the objectives of
the process.

•  Inform Contracting Officers
that the type of contract
should be changed only when
justifiable, rather than  simply
to remedy administrative
problems.

What Action Was Taken

The final report (4100233) was
issued to the Assistant
Administrator for
Administration  and Resources
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                             15

-------
Management on March 31,
1994.  In responding to the
draft report,  the Agency
generally agreed with our
recommendations and
provided substantive planned
actions to correct the identified
weaknesses. These actions, if
properly implemented, should
substantially resolve the
issues presented in  this report.
As a result, we closed out this
audit in our tracking system,
and all corrective actions will
now be tracked in the
Agency's Management  Audit
Tracking System.
Over $17.8  Million of
Questionable  In-kind
Costs  Claimed Under
Contracts

Findings In Brief

Due to the absence of
appropriate guidance, the
Agency accepted over $17.8
million in potentially
questionable costs as part
of contractors' proposed
cost share contribution.
Also, EPA did not require
contractors to submit
adequate documentation
with their invoices for
evaluating  the
reasonableness of claimed
charges under cost sharing
contracts.

Background

Under a cost-sharing contract,
the Government and
contractor agree to share in
the costs of a project. A
contractor may share contract
costs  by not seeking
reimbursement for incurred
costs  or for the value of
property or other contributed
items (in-kind costs). A cost-
sharing  contract may be used
when  a  contractor has the
opportunity  to acquire
technology, expertise, or other
benefits after the contract is
completed.  Federal
regulations  prohibit a
contractor from making a profit
on a Government  cost-sharing
contract.

We Found  That

EPA did not have guidance  to
ensure that cost-sharing
contracts were awarded and
administered in the most
efficient and economical
manner.  Our review of the
Agency's two largest active
cost-sharing contracts
disclosed that  over $17.8
million of the $18.5 million
which EPA accepted as the
contractors' share of the
projects' costs were
questionable.  Nearly all of
these costs represented
estimates of avoided costs
which EPA would have
incurred if the contract had
been awarded  to a company
that did not already have
property to be  used in
completing the contract. In
our view, avoided costs do not
meet the Federal Acquisition
Regulation requirement for
shared costs.  Further,  EPA
did not determine the original
cost, book value, or salvage
value of equipment that
contractors provided as their
in-kind cost contribution and
did not require that contractors
report in-kind costs as they
were contributed.

Also, EPA paid contractor
invoices without obtaining
adequate supporting
documentation to evaluate
whether contractor  charges
were reasonable.  For
example, EPA paid over $8
million  for an item that was
only described as "services."
In addition, EPA  improperly
allowed a contractor to award
a wholly-owned subsidiary a
fixed-price contract to provide
engineering services under its
cost-sharing  contract with the
Agency.  The subsidiary will
realize a  profit on the contract
if it has correctly  estimated its
costs to provide the services.

We Recommended That

The Assistant Administrator  for
Administration  and  Resources
Management require the
Director, Office of Acquisition
Management, to  establish
policies to ensure that in-kind
costs are adequately
monitored; develop guidance
for awarding and administering
cost-sharing  contracts;  and
issue policies and procedures
needed to ensure that cost-
sharing invoice costs are
reasonable and adequately
supported as illustrated in
EPA's Contract Administration
Handbook.

What Action Was Taken

On February  1, 1994, the
Agency issued draft cost-
sharing  guidance. This
guidance, if properly
implemented, should
substantially correct the
deficiencies identified in  this
report.   Agency officials  also
indicated they will initiate
action for requiring a standard
contract clause to be included
in  future cost-type contracts,
including non-cost-sharing
contracts, to help ensure that
adequate invoice
documentation is obtained for
Agency personnel's  use  in
evaluating the reasonableness
of  contractor  charges before
they are paid. The final  report
(4100221) was issued to the
Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management and the Acting
Assistant Administrator for
Research and Development
on March 25, 1994.  A
response to the final report is
due by June 23, 1994.
16
                                                                                        OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
EPA Agrees to Improve
Controls Over Corvallis
Laboratory's
Extramural Research
Program

Findings in Brief

EPA's Environmental
Research Laboratory,
Corvallis, Oregon (ERL-C),
did not have adequate
internal controls over its
extramural research
program to ensure that
grants, cooperative
agreements, and
interagency agreements
(lAGs) were used
appropriately, projects were
managed effectively, and
IAG costs were monitored
properly.

Background

ERL-C is one of the Office of
Research and Development's
12 laboratories, performing
research in terrestrial and
watershed ecology and
assessing major
environmental threats to inland
ecological resources. ERL-C
is dependent on extramural
support to accomplish its
mission.

We Found That

ERL-C did not always comply
with provisions of the Federal
Grant and Cooperative
Agreement Act and Agency
guidance on the proper use of
grants, cooperative
agreements, and lAGs.  In 12
of 18 cases reviewed, ERL-C
did  not have adequate support
for using assistance
agreements instead of
contracts to help accomplish
its research mission.  Seven
of these 12 agreements (five
were awarded directly to non-
Federal recipients and two
were awarded by other
Federal agencies under lAGs
with EPA) should have been
contracts because the projects
were to provide a direct
benefit to the Government.
For example, ERL-C entered
into a $2.1  million cooperative
agreement  with a state
university, the results of which
were to be  used to establish
the statistical base for the
Agency's Environmental
Monitoring  and Assessment
Program design and analysis
activities.

tn addition,  2 of the 18
agreements had been
inappropriately used.   In one
case, a cooperative
agreement  was used
improperly  to fund an
Intergovernmental Personnel
Act assignment with a state
university faculty member
having expertise in terrestrial
ecology. In another case,
under an IAG, a  grant was
awarded to a nonprofit
organization for the purchase
of a computer system  used by
an ERL-C contractor.

The scope  of work  for 3 of 6
lAGs reviewed were for
multiple projects, instead of
distinct, independent projects
as required by EPA guidance.
As a result, the project officers
were unable to monitor
adequately  the work being
performed and could not
locate some required  project
deliverables.

ERL-C did  not recover all
costs  incurred under
reimbursable lAGs, and EPA
may have overpaid for the
work done  by other agencies.
This was due to ERL-C not
having systems to ensure that
all costs of  work EPA
performed for other agencies
were billed,  and that costs
billed to EPA by other
agencies were actually
incurred and correctly
reflected progress being made
on the projects.
We Recommended That

The Acting Assistant
Administrator for Research
and Development instruct the
Director,  ERL-C to:

• Ensure that appropriate
funding instruments  are
selected  and that the basis for
the selection is adequately
documented.

• Ensure that grants,
cooperative  agreements, and
lAGs are appropriately used.

• Ensure that each IAG is for
an independent, distinct
project with  a clearly defined
objective.

• Improve monitoring of lAGs
by providing training to project
officers, establish a  system to
capture all costs incurred
under reimbursable  lAGs so
that other agencies are
properly  billed, and require
project officers to review
detailed costs billed  by other
agencies under lAGs before
approving invoices for
payment.

What Action Was Taken

In responding to our draft
report, the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Research
and Development concurred
with all the recommendations
and agreed to correct all of
the deficiencies noted in the
report.  The Acting Assistant
Administrator said that he
found the recommendations  to
be constructive and  that
corrective actions in response
to many of them  should be
designed not solely for ERL-C
operations but for Office  of
Research and Development-
wide operations.  He indicated
he will provide us an action
plan that defines
responsibilities and
establishes deadlines for
completing the corrective
actions to be taken on our
recommendations.  The
Assistant Administrator for
Administration  and Resources
Management questioned our
conclusion that five of the
ERL-C grants and cooperative
agreements should have been
awarded as contracts.
However, he stated that the
Grants Administration Division
was developing new guidance
for determining whether a
proposed project should be
funded as a grant, cooperative
agreement,  or  contract.  The
final audit report (4100214)
was issued to the Assistant
Administrator for
Administration  and Resources
Management and the Acting
Assistant Administrator for
Research and  Development
on March 21, 1994.  A
response to the final report is
due by June 21,  1994.
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                            17

-------
Improvements Needed
in Gulf Breeze
Laboratory's
Management  and
Control of Assistance
Agreements

Findings In  Brief

EPA's Environmental
Research Laboratory, Gulf
Breeze, Florida (ERL-GB),
did not effectively manage,
control, and document the
award and use of assistance
agreements to ensure the
proper and efficient use of
extramural funds.

We Found That

ERL-GB's insufficient
oversight and misapplication
of regulatory requirements for
assistance agreements
resulted in the following
questionable or ineffective
management actions:

•  Inappropriate Use of
Cooperative Agreements
(CA).  ERL-GB used CAs to
acquire property and services
when  a competitive contract
was appropriate.  This was
due, in part,  to inadequate
Agency guidance and the
laboratory's practice of
awarding CAs to  educational
and nonprofit institutions
without proper consideration of
the principal  purpose of the
research  to  be performed.

•  Insufficient Use of Free
and Open Competition in CA
Awards.  ERL-GB limited the
competition  process for CA
awards,  creating  the
appearance of favoritism  in its
funding process for extramural
research.

•  Potential Conflict of
Interest (COI). Possible  COIs
for review panel members and
other  irregularities in the
award process increased the
potential  for  favoritism in the
award of both competitive  and
noncompetitive CAs.  The
pervasive influence of the
prospective project officer  over
the review process also
represented a significant
management control
weakness.

• Questionable Use of Off-
Site CAs to Reduce On-Site
Extramural Services.  ERL-
GB project officers  improperly
influenced  off-site  cooperators
to hire and retain certain on-
site contractor  employees  and
related services, increasing
the original  assistance budget
costs by $857,043 for on-site
employees.

• Improvements Still Needed
in Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity Act
(FMFIA) Management
Control Process.  Although
ERL-GB has made progress in
identifying  and documenting
critical event cycles, control
objectives, and control
techniques for  laboratory
operations,  improvements  are
still needed in  its
implementation of FMFIA.

• Management Decisions
Not Adequately Documented
and Critical Records Not
Protected.  ERL-GB did not
consistently document critical
organizational functions and
management decisions and
properly protect critical
records related to  CAs and
other laboratory operations to
avoid loss of valuable
corporate knowledge and
protect Government interests.

We Recommended That

The Acting Assistant
Administrator for Research
and Development  direct the
Gulf Breeze Laboratory
Director to:

• Strengthen oversight and
control over the award and
use of assistance  agreements

EPA's Gulf Breeze Laboratory is located in the scenic Florida
Panhandle (photo by DIG staff).
and the activities performed
under such agreements to
ensure effective use of
Agency resources, attainment
of assistance objectives, and
adherence to pertinent laws,
regulations, and policies.

• Clearly document decisions
for using each cooperative
agreement and the principal
purpose of the  proposed
project.

• Improve  implementation of
ERL-GB's  management
control process consistent with
applicable  Agency guidance

• Establish a records
management system that
assures the proper creation,
protection,  and retention of
official laboratory records in
accordance with current
Agency policies.

What Action Was Taken

In responding to the draft
report, the Agency concurred
with the  report's findings and
recommendations; however, a
corrective  action plan with
specific actions and
milestones for completion was
not provided.  The Agency has
already drafted needed
definitive guidance on the
proper uses of contracts and
assistance agreements. The
final report  (4100237) was
issued to the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Research
and Development on March
31, 1994.  A response to the
final report  is due by June 30,
1994.
18
                                                                                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
 Good Management
 Practices Exercised
 Over Extramural
 Resources at Ann
 Arbor Laboratory

 Findings in Brief

 EPA's National Vehicle and
 Fuel Emissions Laboratory,
 Office of Mobile Sources
 (QMS), Ann Arbor, Michigan,
 generally was following
 good practices in managing
 its contracts, grants,
 cooperative agreements
 (CA), interagency
 agreements (IAG), imprest
 fund, and integrity program
 to prevent conflicts  of
 interest.

 We Found  That

 In March 1992, the Office of
 Air and Radiation (OAR)
 initiated an assessment of the
 effectiveness of management
 controls over its contracting
 activities and identified a
number of improvements that
could be implemented
immediately.  OAR also
formed a Quality Assessment
Team (QAT) to review its
contracting  processes which
found several contract
management practices that
were working well and should
help safeguard Government
funds, including (1) preparing
evaluations and furnishing
feedback to contractors on
their performance, (2) having
a level of effort coordinator in
each office  to assist work
assignment managers, and (3)
favoring specificity over
flexibility  in preparing
statements  of work.

QMS ensured that all of its
staff, including the Ann Arbor
Laboratory's staff, had filed
mandated confidential financial
disclosure statements and
carefully  reviewed the
statements  for potential
conflicts of interest.  In
addition,  the Ann Arbor
Laboratory properly
administered its imprest fund
and used blanket purchase
agreements, as suggested in
the Federal Acquisition
Regulation, to acquire such
items as cylinder gases and
automotive parts.

Isolated conditions requiring
management attention
included contractors  not
submitting detailed
documentation to support
invoices and a project officer
not documenting a claim that
a subcontractor applied  an
overpayment to additional
testing

What Action Was Taken

In response to
recommendations by the QAT,
EPA's Office of Acquisition
Management (OAM), Office of
Administration and Resources
Management, provided two
training seminars for project
officers on the review process
for invoices and approvals
needed for voucher payment.
The Director,  OMS, was very
responsive to our report.  On
January 12, 1994, the Director
issued a policy requiring that
staff be trained before their
assignment as project officers
and that project officers take
the recertification course
timely and be provided training
being developed  as soon as it
can be scheduled.  The
Director's January 12 policy
statement  also requires open
communication between
project officers and
appropriate OAM personnel
and directs OMS managers to
ensure that project officers
document  significant matters,
particularly any changes in
contract costs. The final
special review report
(4400020) was issued to the
Director, OMS, on January 25,
1994. The corrective actions
taken by the Agency, if
properly implemented, should
substantially  resolve the
issues presented in the report.
As a result, we closed out this
audit in  our tracking system
upon issuance of the  final
report so no response is due
from the Agency.
Testing of automobile emissions is a major function of the Ann Arbor laboratory (photo by John T.
White, EPA)
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                            19

-------
Other Agency
Management
The Inspector General Act
requires the OIG to initiate
reviews and other activities
to promote economy and
efficiency and to detect and
prevent fraud, waste, and
mismanagement in EPA
programs and operations.
Internal and performance
audits and reviews are
conducted to accomplish
these objectives largely by
evaluating the economy,
efficiency, and effectiveness
of operations. The following
are the most significant
internal audit,  performance
audit, and special review
findings and
recommendations of other
Agency activities resulting
from our efforts during this
semiannual reporting period.
Continued Efforts
Needed to Improve
EPA's Pesticide
Program

Findings In  Brief

For years EPA's pesticide
program has had significant
problems in managing its
programs, maintaining
information  systems, and
developing and revising
regulations, policies, and
procedures. As a result,
EPA cannot be assured that
the public and the
environment are being
effectively protected from
potentially harmful
pesticides.

Background

Pesticides are used to control
unwanted plants, insects,
fungi, rodents, or bacteria,
help increase agricultural
production, and improve public
health. However, many
pesticides pose acute and
chronic human health and
environmental risks.  EPA
regulates pesticides under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act and the
Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act. Since 1988,
the OIG and the General
Accounting Office have issued
23 reports on pesticide
programs.

We Found That

During the 1980's, decreases
in funding and staffing,
coupled with increases in
responsibilities, led the
pesticide  program to
emphasize short-term
solutions  to problems, instead
of addressing some
fundamental  program
activities, making it more
difficult and costly to manage
the program  over the long
term.  Significant problems
include the following:

• Pesticide program
managers were often aware of
significant problems, but did
not always take corrective
actions.  Also, the program
often missed target dates that
Congress and the program
itself had established  in such
areas as reregistration,
registration, and the
development of regulations.
This  resulted  in uncorrected
deficiencies and missed target
dates becoming accepted
practices.

• The pesticide program had
many computerized
information  systems that often
contained inaccurate and
incomplete data,  duplicated
other systems, and were not
integrated.  These problems
were due to the pesticide
program  not having adequate
systems  development
practices and quality
USDA personnel take groundwater samples to measure the
effect of tillage methods on the movement of pesticides into
groundwater (USDA photo by Tim McCabe),
assurance procedures. As a
result, EPA often relied upon
inaccurate,  incomplete data
when making decisions on
pesticides and had difficulty
coordinating work on the  same
pesticides within  various
program offices.

• The program's regulations,
policies, and procedures  need
substantial  improvement.
Some regulations did not
reflect what the  program  was
actually requiring registrants to
include on pesticide labels,
creating confusion for the
registrants.  Also, the absence
of policies and procedures
contributed  to the sale in the
United  States of unregistered
pesticides.  Other procedures
did not ensure that statements
on some pesticide labels
adequately  protected  humans
and the environment from
unnecessary risks.

What Action Was Taken

The Agency has recently
made diligent efforts to
improve the management of
the pesticide program, and
has stated that it will continue
to emphasize management
accountability in the future.  In
responding to the draft report,
the Assistant Administrator for
Prevention, Pesticides, and
Toxic Substances agreed to
take action to correct all  of our
findings. In 1992, the
pesticide program developed a
strategy to improve
information management and
in 1994 funded several
projects under that strategy.
The  pesticide program also
committed to reviewing its
regulations, policies, and
20
                                                                                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
procedures to identify and
prioritize those needing
revision.  The final report
(4100205) was issued to the
Assistant Administrator on
March 11, 1994.  We closed
out this audit in our tracking
system upon issuance of the
final  report so no response is
due from the Agency.

Greater Emphasis
Needed by EPA Offices
on Implementing the
Federal Managers'
Financial Integrity  Act
(FMFIA)

Findings in Brief

The Offices of Water (OW)
and Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(OSWER) had not always
ensured that managers
scheduled and conducted
evaluations necessary for
properly assessing and
improving management
controls over resources
available for accomplishing
their missions.

Background

FMFIA requires agencies to
evaluate the adequacy of their
accounting and administrative
control systems and report
their conclusions  annually to
the President and Congress,
citing any material
weaknesses in their control
systems.  OW and OSWER
are among the 22 major
organizational components
responsible for administering
FMFIA at EPA.

We Found That

OW and OSWER trained
managers and properly
included management control
responsibilities  in their
performance standards,
making them aware of
FMFIA's requirements.
Several managers properly
used strategic plans, work
plans, and priorities to identify
vulnerabilities and schedule
control evaluations. Also,
OSWER and OW managers
planned and tracked corrective
actions for weaknesses
reported in annual assurance
letters and established
validation strategies to ensure
reported weaknesses  were
corrected.

However, OW and OSWER
had not organized control
evaluation efforts so that
managers assessed
vulnerabilities for all programs
and functions and then
scheduled control  evaluations
based on vulnerabilities.
Several OSWER managers
appropriately used
environmental goals from
strategic plans to assess
vulnerability.  But, most
OSWER and OW managers
were confused as to how
vulnerability assessments,
management control plans,
and control evaluations
related.  As a result,
managers did not properly
assess and improve
management controls  in
accordance with the FMFIA
process.  OW and OSWER
could  not be fully assured that
their missions were being
accomplished most effectively
and efficiently by properly
safeguarding and using their
available resources.

In addition,  OW  and OSWER
did not properly  document
oversight of regional
operations to ensure overall
mission accomplishment  OW
and OSWER had not worked
with the regions  to develop
and document management
processes with model  event
cycle documentation,  control
objectives, and control
techniques that would ensure
that the regions  are fulfilling
OW and OSWER strategic
plans and program goals.
Also, OW and OSWER had
not obtained the regions'
management control
evaluation results and used
their oversight reviews to
determine if program-wide
problems and potential
weaknesses existed that could
affect successful mission
accomplishment.

We Recommended That

The Assistant Administrators
for OW and OSWER:

•  Establish procedures to
ensure that all managers
integrate  FMFIA requirements
into management activities,
identify best practices, and
encourage managers to share
them.

•  Require managers to
assess annually the
effectiveness of their
management control systems
and document the results.
Advise managers to consider
all programs and functions
when assessing controls.

•  Obtain  the results of
regional management control
assessments to identify
potential Agency-wide
weaknesses and advise
regions and other program
offices when appropriate.  For
potential Agency-wide
weaknesses, strengthen
controls in written policies and
procedures

What Action Was Taken

In responding to the draft
reports, OW and OSWER
explained that they would
begin work on our
recommendations after the
Agency issues guidance on
the  newly revised FMFIA
process   OW identified two
factors that affect their FMFIA
implementation:  their
programs are decentralized to
give Regions and States more
freedom to administer them,
and they identified problems
and provided management
direction and oversight outside
the existing FMFIA process.
OW and OSWER expressed
commitment to continued
improvement in management
integrity.  The final audit
reports (4100224 and
4100236) were issued to the
Assistant Administrators,
OSWER and OW on March
28, 1994, and March 31,
1994, respectively.
Responses to the OSWER
and OW final reports are due
by June 28, 1994, and July 1,
1994, respectively.
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                          21

-------
Operations and
Usefulness of EPA
Advisory Committee
Questioned

Findings In Brief

The National Advisory
Council for Environmental
Policy and Technology's
(NACEPT) recommendations
were often too broad to be
tracked to implementation,
so the  impact of the
Council's advice was
difficult to assess. Further,
NACEPT's member
organizations sometimes
received EPA funds under
noncompetitive assistance
agreements to implement
NACEPT committee
recommendations.

Background

NACEPT is an EPA advisory
committee which provides
independent advice and
counsel to the EPA
Administrator.  It is supported
by EPA's Office of
Cooperative Environmental
Management (OCEM).

We Found That

Many recommendations  in the
14 reports issued by NACEPT
since its inception in 1988
were too broad for their  impact
on Agency issues to be
assessed. For example,
NACEPT's Technology
Innovation and Economics
Committee recommended in
an April 1993 report that EPA
work with the States to
encourage and develop
pollution prevention
enforcement initiatives.
Tracking these types of  broad
recommendations to final
resolution  is difficult.
Furthermore, some
recommendations duplicate
existing Agency objectives;
therefore crediting  NACEPT
for the  advice would be
misleading.

When NACEPT
recommendations could be
tracked, most implementation
actions did not require the
award of contracts or
assistance agreements.
However, 13 actions to
implement recommendations
did involve assistance
agreements,  with 12 of these
being awarded to NACEPT-
related organizations  without
competition.  Also, since fiscal
1989, OCEM awarded 30
assistance agreements, 21 of
which were awarded
noncompetitively to NACEPT-
related organizations.  After
establishing a NACEPT
relationship,  17 organizations
that had previously received
no direct Agency funding
received Agency contracts or
assistance agreements
exceeding $11 million.

The Federal Advisory
Committee Act states that the
Congress and the public
should be kept informed with
respect to the number,
purpose, membership,
activities, and cost of advisory
committees.  EPA's fiscal
1992 annual report to the
General Services
Administration (GSA) indicated
that NACEPT's annual
operating costs were $1.7
million and it had 50
members.  However, we
determined that  NACEPT's
1992 operating costs were
about $2.2 million and, as of
July  1993, there were 275
members of the Council,
including 6 committees, and
11 subcommittees.

In the 5 years since its
inception, NACEPT's
operational costs have
averaged $2.1 million
annually. Of 26 advisory
committees whose costs were
identified in GSA's 1992 report
to the President, only one
other than NACEPT cost  more
than $2 million annually.
During this 5-year period,
NACEPT produced 14 reports,
making the average cost per
report approximately
$750,000.

We Recommended That

The Administrator's Chief of
Staff:

•  Require that the role and
function of NACEPT be
evaluated periodically  and
complete such an evaluation
for the Administrator.

•  Evaluate the role and
function of OCEM in
supporting  NACEPT and
adjust resources and
organizational alignment to
respond to NACEPT needs.

•  Require Agency officials
implementing NACEPT
recommendations through
assistance agreements to
compete the awards to the
maximum extent practicable.

• Accurately determine the
total number of NACEPT
members and annual
operating costs for reporting to
GSA.

•  Establish and track
appropriate NACEPT
performance measures.

What Action Was Taken

In a March 10, 1994, response
to our draft report, the
Associate Deputy
Administrator agreed that the
Administrator needs to
evaluate the effectiveness and
efficiency of NACEPT, but
suggested that it should be
done every 2 years when the
Council's charter  is up for
renewal so its role and
function can be monitored and
evaluated against changing
needs and priorities.   Further,
she stated that EPA plans to
institute a better feedback
mechanism to committee
members regarding their
recommendations and will
ensure that adequate controls
and procedures are in place
so that all assistance awards
are made on the basis of
merit. The final special review
report (4400043) was issued
to the Administrator's Chief of
Staff on March 28, 1994.  A
response to the final report is
due by June  27, 1994.

EPA Improving the
Adequacy and
Availability of  Data
Supporting its Quality
Assurance Materials

Findings in Brief

In a survey at the
Environmental Monitoring
Systems Laboratory in
Cincinnati, Ohio (EMSL-Cin),
we identified several
instances of inadequate
analytical data supporting
the quality of materials
distributed for calibrating
and testing sample analysis
instruments. EMSL-Cin
initiated immediate and
appropriate  corrective
actions.

Background

In response to Federal
regulations requiring testing
for hazardous chemicals in the
environment, EPA began
developing and distributing the
materials needed to calibrate
and test instruments used by
the regulated community to
analyze samples for these
hazardous chemicals.  EMSL-
Cin contracted with two
companies to provide these
materials without charge to
qualified users.  Later, EMSL-
Cin entered into Cooperative
Research and Development
Agreements  (CRADAs) with
five companies for the
development and sales of
"EPA Certified" quality
22
                                                                                    OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
assurance (QA) materials.

We Found That

In certain instances, QA
materials manufactured under
contract (pre-CRADA
materials) lacked
manufacturing  criteria and
supporting data, did not meet
manufacturing  standards and
protocol requirements, and
were approved by EPA
officials  despite questionable
test results.  Further,
thousands of users of QA
materials, who had obtained
these materials through EPA's
free distribution program
before the CRADAs were
established,  may still have the
materials in  stock.  However,
these users  may not be aware
that the materials can no
longer be relied upon to
calibrate and test their
instruments  used to analyze
samples for  hazardous
chemicals in the environment.

We Recommended That

The Acting Assistant
Administrator for Research
and Development direct the
Director, EMSL-Cin, to:

• Revise the current
manufacturing  and  testing
protocols in anticipation of
new alternate QA materials
certification  and establish a
plan for completion; and

• Notify  QA materials users
who may still have  older, pre-
CRADA materials in inventory
that the quality of these
samples may no longer be
reliable.

What Action Was Taken

In responding to our concerns,
the Acting Assistant
Administrator for Research
and Development generally
agreed with our findings and
recommendations.  He
indicated that EMSL-Cin will
retain manufacturing and test
data in the future  and
laboratory project officers will
review QA materials'
certificates of analysis.  In a
February 24, 1994, letter, the
Laboratory Director advised
quality assurance officers that
EPA QA materials distributed
free before CRADAs were
established  should no longer
be used for environmental
analysis.  EMSL-Cin also
agreed to conduct stability
tests on a fixed schedule
based on the manufacturing
dates of the  QA materials.
Finally, EMSL-Cin is now
requiring  each CRADA firm to
provide the date of
manufacturing  of the sample
and to include on all data
packages the date of analysis.
By reaching  early agreement
on our concerns, EPA was
able to take  quick corrective
action, and  both EPA and the
OIG  saved significant
resources by not proceeding
through the full audit process.
The final  report (4700007) was
issued to the Acting Assistant
Administrator on February 7,
1994.  A response to the final
report is due by May 7, 1994.
Noncommunity Water
Systems in EPA
Region 2 Need Closer
Attention

Findings in Brief

Region 2 and the States of
New York and New Jersey
were effectively  enforcing
Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) requirements for
community public water
supply systems (PWSS) that
serve the vast majority of
the year round residential
population.  However,  more
attention was needed on
enforcing those
requirements for smaller
noncommunity systems.

Background

The SDWA was enacted in
1974 to protect the nation's
water supply from various
contaminants.  Most
Americans take the availability
of safe drinking water for
granted.  In the United States
over the past decades
outbreaks  of cholera and
typhoid have virtually  become
extinct.  However, outbreaks
of waterborne diseases  such
as giardiasis continue to
occur, resulting in illness and
death.

We Found That

There were relatively  few
significant noncompliers  with
the SDWA requirements  in
both New Jersey and New
York during our review period,
all of which were the  smaller
noncommunity systems,
serving non-residential
populations. While violations
of SDWA requirements by
community systems did  occur,
they did not persist.  However,
there were the following
problems relating primarily to
the smaller noncommunity
systems.
New Jersey imposed strong
penalties against SDWA
noncompliers  using a fair,
structured system that
escalated with size and
recurrence of violations, but all
the referrals to the
Enforcement Division that we
reviewed were untimely
according to EPA guidance.
New York imposed only
minimal penalties and
attempted to expedite action
against SDWA violators, yet
formal  action was not always
timely and appropriate.

New Jersey's nitrate
monitoring and public
notification of system
noncompliance need
improvement.  Both
community and noncommunity
systems did not always
monitor for nitrates as
required. The lack of public
notification was primarily a
noncommunity system
problem. New Jersey needs
written procedures to assure
adequate protection of public
health  by monitoring and
public notification.

New York did not adequately
track PWSS compliance with
Administrative  Order milestone
dates.  The State's Bureau of
Public Water Supply
Protection relied  on the 47
county health units to track
milestone dates without any
standardized procedures.
New Jersey's four
Enforcement Division field
offices had an automated
system available  to track
milestones, yet only one of the
four used the compliance
schedule computerized
tracking system.

We Recommend That

The Regional  Administrator,
Region 2:

•  Encourage New York to
implement a SDWA penalty
policy based on New Jersey's
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                            23

-------
 system.

 • Discuss with EPA
 Headquarters ways to
 accelerate the dissemination
 of information on significant
 noncompliers.

 • Encourage New Jersey to
 develop and implement
 policies and procedures to
 assure community  and
 noncommunity PWSS
 compliance with nitrate
 monitoring requirements.

 • Encourage both states to
 monitor systems' compliance
 with formal  sanctions more
 closely.

 • Direct the Water
 Management Division to
 follow-up more actively with
 the states on data verification
 audit recommendations.

 What Action Was Taken

 In responding to the draft
 report, the Region agreed to
 recommend that New Jersey
 refer significant noncompliers
 to the Enforcement Division
 within the established time
 frame, encourage the state to
 maintain  separate files on
 such systems and address
 noncommunity systems'
 compliance with nitrate
 monitoring requirements,
 continue its enforcement
 actions, and support New
 Jersey's unannounced visit
 initiative for noncommunity
 systems. However, the
 Region did not agree to act on
 the other report
 recommendations, generally
 because the Region maintains
that the states are already
 sufficiently performing the
 recommended functions and
 have adequate policies,
 procedures, and systems in
 place  to accomplish the
 recommended actions. The
final report (4100234) was
 issued to the Regional
Administrator, Region 2, on
Lack of public confidence in municipal water supplies has led to increased sales of bottled water
(photo by Steve Delaney, EPA).


March 31,  1994.  A response
to the final report is due by
June 29, 1994.
24
                                                                                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
 Construction
 Grants
                                                                                                             V*
 EPA's wastewater treatment
 works construction grants
 and State Revolving Fund
 (SRF) programs are the
 largest programs the
 Agency administers.  Under
 the provisions of Public Law
 92-500, as amended,  the
 Agency was authorized to
 make construction grants
 covering 55 percent and, in
 some instances, up to 85
 percent of the eligible costs
 of constructing wastewater
 treatment facilities.  During
 this semiannual period, $7.2
 million was obligated on
 four new construction grant
 awards and 51 increases to
 existing grants. As of
 March 31, 1994, there were
 1,746 grants involving $14.4
 billion which were
 potentially subject to audit.
 Of this total, there were 352
 active construction grants,
 representing $3.4 billion in
 Federal obligations.

 Amendments to the
 construction grants program
 are covered in Title II of the
 Water Quality Act of 1987.
 Section 212 created a new
 Title VI in  the Clean Water
 Act, which addresses the
 process of phasing out the
 construction grants program
 by providing incentives for
 development of alternative
 funding mechanisms by the
 States. The new Title VI
 charges EPA with
 developing and
 implementing a program to
provide grants to  capitalize
 State revolving funds for
financing wastewater
projects.  During this
semiannual period, $39.9
million was awarded for two
 continuation SRF grants.
As of March 31, 1994, EPA
had obligated $8.6 billion  to
50 States and Puerto Rico
under the State Revolving
Fund program.

One of the Agency's goals
is to substantially close out
the construction grant
program by September 30,
1997. The OIG is committed
to assisting the Agency
accomplish this goal as
expeditiously as possible
within its budget and
workload constraints.
Summaries of several audits
of construction grants with
significant issues follow.
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                       25

-------
Over $44.4 Million in
Questioned Costs
Claimed by
Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania

Findings In Brief

The City of Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, claimed
$10,959,010 of ineligible
force account, engineering,
construction, and indirect
costs for the expansion of
an existing wastewater
treatment facility. An
additional $32,663,495 of
unsupported  costs and
$794,684 of unnecessary
costs were questioned.

We Found That

EPA awarded eight grants
totalling  $291,817,947 to the
City of Philadelphia to upgrade
and expand the Southwest
Water Pollution Control  Plant.
The grantee claimed
$10,959,010 of ineligible costs
under the grant, including:

• $4,053,066  of construction
costs associated with
inoperable or  abandoned
systems and equipment and
change orders that had been
previously disallowed by the
Pennsylvania  Department  of
Environmental Resources;

• $2,566,031  of engineering
and force account costs
incurred after the construction
project completion date and
considered outside the scope
of the approved project;

• $2,344,986 of indirect costs
applied incorrectly due to  not
using EPA approved
negotiated rates;

• $1,215,158 of design costs
which exceeded the  allowable
limits established in the
contract; and

• $792,883 of costs
associated with a Federal
facility share and
supplemental  costs claimed
for a grit and ash transfer
station that was not covered
by supplemental funding.

The grantee supported force
account and consulting
services costs totaling $13,114
which were not claimed and
were offset against the
ineligible costs questioned.
We also questioned
$32,663,495 of unsupported
costs, including supplemental
funding for projects not
complying  with special grants
conditions, unapproved
contracts, unaudited indirect
cost rates, unused or
inoperable plant equipment,
costs associated with change
orders which had not been
reviewed, force account costs
claimed as direct and indirect
charges, and other
miscellaneous costs.

Additionally, we questioned
$794,684 of claimed costs as
unnecessary primarily
because the grantee (1) did
not hold contractors to their
scheduled completion dates
for sludge facilities, resulting
in the bid opening for a
transfer station being delayed
and its  construction costs
escalating, (2) approved a
change order that significantly
increased the cost of backfill
without conducting a cost or
pricing  analysis of the cubic
yard price, (3) had concrete
poured-in under the plant's
perimeter fence, and (4)
claimed indirect costs related
to unnecessary construction.

We Recommended That

The Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 3, not
participate in  the Federal
share of ineligible costs
($8,446,212),  determine  the
eligibility of the Federal share
of unsupported costs
($25,666,270) and
unnecessary costs ($596,129),
and recover the applicable
amount from the grantee.

What Action Was Taken

The audit report (4300032)
was issued to the Acting
Regional Administrator,
Region 3, on March 30, 1994.
A response to the audit report
is due by June 28, 1994.

Over $7.2 Million of
Ineligible Costs
Claimed for
Woodstock,  New York,
Project

Findings In Brief

The Town of Woodstock,
New York, claimed
$7,207,865 of ineligible
architectural engineering,
construction, force account,
and innovative and
alternative technology costs
for the construction of a
wastewater treatment
facility.

We Found That

EPA awarded a grant to the
Town of Woodstock, New
York, for the construction of a
wastewater treatment facility
and small diameter sewers to
convey septic tank effluent  to
the treatment facility, and for
correction  of deficiencies of
the on-site disposal system.
The grantee claimed ineligible
costs of $7,207,865 under the
grant, including:

• $4,612,086 of
administration, engineering,
and construction costs claimed
for innovative and alternative
technology in excess of
authorized amounts;

• $1,603,402 of engineering
and data collection costs
allocable to other grants, costs
exceeding the approved
contract amount, and costs
resulting from application of an
incorrect eligibility factor;

• $853,313 of bid items
determined ineligible at the
time of grant award,
understated approved change
orders, and change orders in
excess of approved amounts;

• $139,064 of legal costs
associated with  easements,
condemnation, bonding, and
local financing.

We Recommended That

The Acting Regional
Administrator, Region 2, not
participate in the Federal
share of ineligible costs
($2,408,042).

What Action Was Taken

The final audit report
(4100209) was issued to the
Acting Regional Administrator,
Region 2, on March 11, 1994.
A response to the audit report
is due by June 10, 1994.

Westchester County,
New York, Claimed
Over $4.1 Million of
Questioned  Costs

Findings In Brief

Westchester County,  New
York, claimed $3,945,961 of
ineligible architectural
engineering and
construction costs for the
Port Chester Sanitary
District project.  An
additional $214,203 of
unsupported costs were
questioned.

We Found That

EPA awarded a construction
grant to Westchester County
to upgrade the 6 million
gallons per day (MGD)
primary Port Chester
Wastewater Treatment Plant
to a 6 MGD secondary
26
                                                                                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
treatment plant and the
construction of effluent and
sludge force mains. The
grantee claimed $3,945,961  of
ineligible costs under the
grant, including:

• $3,378,092  of construction
costs determined by the  New
York State Department of
Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) to  have been
outside the scope of the
approved project at the time of
grant award and change
orders which exceeded
amounts approved by
NYSDEC; and

• $567,869 of engineering
fees which were due to the
application of  an eligibility
percentage or which exceeded
the NYSDEC's approved
amount.

We also questioned $214,203
of unsupported construction
costs, including  undocumented
costs and an unapproved bid
overrun that was not covered
by a separate approved
change order.

We Recommended That

The Acting Regional
Administrator,  Region 2,  not
participate in the Federal
share of ineligible costs
($2,959,471) and determine
the eligibility of the Federal
share of unsupported costs
($160,652).

What Action Was Taken

The final report (4100191) was
issued to the Acting Regional
Administrator,  Region  2,  on
February 24, 1994.  A
response to the report is due
by May 23, 1994.
Superfund
The Superfund program was
created by the
Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA).  The
Act provided a $1.6 billion
trust fund to pay for the
costs associated with the
cleanup of sites
contaminated with
hazardous waste.  Taxing
authority for the trust fund
expired on September 30,
1985.  For more than a year,
the Superfund program
operated at a reduced level
from carryover funds and
temporary funds provided
by  Congress.

On October 17, 1986, the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA) was enacted.  It
provided $8.5 billion to
continue the program for 5
more years and made many
programmatic changes.  On
November 5,  1990, the
Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990
was enacted, authorizing
appropriations for 3
additional years and
extension of the taxing
authority for 4 years.

The parties responsible for
the hazardous substances
are liable for cleaning up the
site or reimbursing the
Government for doing so.
States in which there is a
release of hazardous
materials are required to pay
10 percent of the costs of
Fund-financed remedial
actions, or 50 percent if the
source of the hazard was
operated by the State or
local government.

The enactment of SARA
increased the audit
requirements for the
Inspector General.  In
addition to providing a
much larger and more
complex program for which
the OIG needs to provide
audit coverage, SARA  gave
the Inspector General a
number of specific
responsibilities. Mandatory
annual audit areas include:

• Audit of all payments,
obligations,
reimbursements, or other
uses of the Fund;

• Audit of Superfund claims;

• Examination of a sample of
agreements with States
carrying out response
actions; and

• Examination of remedial
investigations and feasibility
studies.

The Inspector General is
required to submit an
annual report to the
Congress regarding the
required Superfund audit
work, containing such
recommendations as the
Inspector General deems
appropriate.  The seventh
annual report, covering
fiscal 1993, must be issued
by September 1994.
EPA Taking Actions to
Improve Critical
Superfund  Data Quality
Findings in Brief

EPA Headquarters and
Regions are implementing
actions that could
effectively correct persistent
problems with the accuracy
and reliability of data in the
Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability
Information System
(CERCLIS) critical to the
implementation of the
Superfund program.

Background

CERCLIS maintains
information about activity at
Superfund sites. Information
is usually entered by regional
staff, using a program  called
WasteLAN, and is  used to:
compare regions'
accomplishments with  targets;
measure performance  as
required for the Chief
Financial  Officer's financial
statement report; and monitor
progress in implementing the
program.  CERCLIS must
contain complete, current, and
accurate information.

We Found That

Eighty-six percent of our
sample of fiscal 1993
Superfund accomplishments
and settlements recorded in
CERCLIS by EPA Regions 1,
5, 6 and 7 were correct.
Subsequent actions by
Agency program officials
increased the percentage of
correct entries in that sample
to 90 percent and actions
were taken to prevent similar
errors from recurring.   The
questioned accomplishments
and settlements in  our sample
either were not in compliance
with criteria  in the program
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                       27

-------
                                                                                             implementing corrective
                                                                                             actions including providing
                                                                                             training,  issuing standard
                                                                                             operating procedures,
                                                                                             documenting and testing data,
                                                                                             and delegating approval
                                                                                             authority.
Drums containing paint solvents and organic solvents at the Seymour, Indiana, Superfund site
(photo by John Frisco, EPA).
office manual, duplicated other
reported accomplishments,
were not supported by
settlement documents, or
lacked compliance by
responsible parties.

Our review of internal controls
over CERCLIS data entry and
quality in EPA Regions  1, 5, 6
and 7 showed the risk of
material data errors, which
would not  be promptly
detected, varied from low to
moderate.   The location with
the weakest controls,
Lexington  Laboratory, Region
1,  had the largest number of
accomplishments recorded in
CERCLIS that did not meet
Agency criteria.   Region 5 had
improved its internal controls,
after our review of CERCLIS
data entry and Superfund
accomplishments recorded for
fiscal 1992 and  had a low rate
of questioned
accomplishments for fiscal
1993. Also, Region 7 officials
took corrective action on
problems during  our review of
fiscal 1993 data.

Still a problem, at the national
level, WasteLAN programming
allowed individuals to attempt
entry into the system an
unlimited number of times,
unnecessarily exposing its
data to modification  or
destruction.  In addition, some
of the estimated  settlement
amounts related to
enforcement actions were not
adequately documented.

We Recommended That

The Assistant Administrator  for
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response install an intruder
lockout system in WasteLAN
and establish milestone dates
for issuing guidance on
preparing and documenting
the estimated settlement
amounts for responsible
parties.

The Regional Administrators,
Regions 1 and 6, continue to
improve controls and correct
erroneous information  in
CERCLIS.

What Action Was Taken

We issued our final  audit
report (4100229) on March 30,
1994, to the Assistant
Administrator  for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response.
Prior to its issuance, OSWER
officials agreed that intruder
lockout should be considered
for WasteLAN and that
guidance was needed
concerning  estimated
settlement amounts  In
addition, OSWER is
implementing  a corrective
action plan  in response to
recommendations in our
consolidated audit report on
fiscal  1992  data (3100392)
issued on September 29,
1993. This plan also
effectively addresses some of
the problems  identified in the
fiscal  1993  audit.  The plan
provides for furnishing
guidance to the regions to
improve CERCLIS data
quality, visits from
Headquarters staff, improved
training in the regions, an on-
line help facility for the entry of
accomplishment data, and
increased regional
participation in developing
accomplishment definitions.
Regional officials  are also
28
                                                                                       OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
Agreed Upon
Improvements Could
Accelerate Superfund
Site Assessment and
Cleanup

Findings in Brief

While final program
guidance for the Superfund
Site Inspection Prioritization
(SIP) program was  delayed,
some regions implemented
the draft guidance
inconsistently and  did not
always ensure that the worst
sites were given priority for
cleanup. EPA has  initiated a
state deferral pilot  program
that may reduce the National
Priorities List (NPL) backlog.

Background

EPA uses the site assessment
process to identify the highest
priority sites posing  threats to
human health and the
environment for listing on the
NPL and to ensure
accomplishment of EPA's
policy to clean up "worst sites
first." The process consists of
determinations of the nature
and  extent of hazardous waste
at a  site and if the site
qualifies for Federal
participation.  The SIP
program is one step in the site
assessment process and
involves reevaluating nearly
6,500 hazardous waste sites
for possible inclusion on the
NPL. These sites were
initially evaluated  prior to the
implementation of the revised
Hazard Ranking System.

We Found That

EPA did not issue SIP
program guidance until August
1993, almost 2 years after
implementation of the program
was begun.  Although the
August 1993 guidance
reiterates EPA's December
1991 policy to propose listing
worst sites first on the NPL,
the guidance does not provide
a planned implementation
approach with  measurable
goals.

Information about program
results input into
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Information System,
the Superfund  program's
automated information system,
was incomplete and could not
be relied upon to assess
national accomplishments.
Federal Managers' Financial
Integrity Act documentation
did not include adequate
control techniques to  ensure
national consistency in
program implementation.

Despite its efforts to
accelerate site assessment
and cleanup, EPA had not met
the Comprehensive
Environmental  Response,
Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) goal to list sites
on the NPL within 4 years of
site discovery and will likely  be
unable to meet this goal in the
near future.  Further,  the SIP
program is expected to  identify
thousands of sites that qualify
for  inclusion  on the NPL,
which presents significant
funding problems:

• Cleanup of thousands of
backlog NPL sites will cost
billions of dollars.  Although
extremely important to the
public, Congress, and
responsible parties, EPA does
not include information on the
estimated cost of cleaning up
potential NPL sites in its
annual Superfund report to
Congress.

• EPA may have to reevaluate
sites that remain in the
backlog for an  extended time
period, further  increasing the
cost of making these  NPL
decisions.

As one possible solution, EPA
initiated a State deferral pilot
program that may reduce the
NPL backlog, conserve site
assessment resources,
accelerate site cleanups, and
help EPA meet CERCLA site
assessment goals. States are
allowed to clean up sites that
otherwise would be candidates
for listing on the NPL.  EPA
had previously proposed a
deferral policy but had not
responded to prior public and
state comments.

We Recommended That

The Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response:

• Ensure that  regions  conduct
SIPs on high priority sites and
follow guidance and account
for SIPs consistently;

• Analyze the resources
required to  meet the
CERCLA's site assessment
goals and report to Congress
the estimated cost of cleaning
up those sites that, upon
completion  of the SIP
program, will likely be  listed on
the NPL; and

• Consider elements identified
by EPA and State officials as
essential to a successful
deferral policy and determine
the proper Federal role when
establishing oversight
responsibilities before
implementing  a broader
deferral policy.

What Action Was Taken

The Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
(OSWER) has taken or agreed
to take actions that, if properly
implemented,  will resolve our
findings.  OSWER agreed to
implement recommended
improvements  to the SIP
program, more fully disclose
the cost of Superfund to
Congress, provide an analysis
of why  it is  unable to meet
CERCLA timeliness goals, and
pursue deferral of sites to
States  and responsible parties
cautiously.  We issued our
final audit report (4100180) to
the Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response on January 31,
1994.   A response to the final
report is due by
May 2, 1994.
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                           29

-------
Superfund
Administrative
Initiatives

In July 1993 the Deputy
Administrator, EPA, and the
Inspector General testified
before the House Ways and
Means Committee on the
pace and cost of the
Superfund cleanups.  At the
conclusion of the testimony,
the Deputy Administrator
announced the Agency's
plan to improve the
Superfund program within
current statutory authority.
The plan, Known as the
"Superfund Administrative
Improvements" (SAI),
focuses on enhancing:

• Enforcement fairness and
reducing transaction costs.

• Cleanup effectiveness and
consistency.

• Meaningful public
involvement

• The states' role in the
Superfund program.

Each of the four areas
contains individual
initiatives to bring about
improvements in the
program and provide
information for CERCLA
reauthorization scheduled
for September 1994. At the
conclusion of the 1993
testimony, the Deputy
Administrator and the
Inspector General were
asked to return in 1 year to
update the House
Committee. The Inspector
General is expected to
testify on the SAI's impact
on  the Superfund program
and the proposed legislative
changes to CERCLA.  Two
reviews completed of SAI
during this reporting period
are summarized below.
Improvements Would
Enhance Superfund
Revitalization
Program's Chances of
Success

Findings in Brief

EPA conducted some
innovative pilot projects
with the potential for
reducing both time and cost
for cleanups.  However, the
Agency did not sufficiently
publicize pilot project
success to encourage use
of the new techniques, nor
did the Regions always
adequately plan for using
available funds.

Background

EPA Headquarters requested
the Regions to submit
proposals  for pilot  projects for
making site cleanup more
effective, efficient,  and
equitable.  The pilot projects
were to demonstrate
innovative ways to accomplish
this objective and the
approaches were to be
transferable to other sites.
Headquarters was reluctant to
exert too much control which
could stifle regional creativity.
This review included only
enforcement pilot projects.

We Found That

Some enforcement pilot
projects showed promise for
speeding up the Superfund
program and reducing costs.
For example,  Region 1
developed a pilot project
which may accelerate the
design process for site
cleanup by reducing the
number of plans and reports
required from responsible
parties for EPA's review. And
Region 8 developed a pilot
which saved 1 year and
approximately  $250,000 by
using a Superfund  removal
tool (the Engineering
Evaluation/Cost Analysis) and
Clean Water Act authorities,  in
lieu of a Remedial
Investigation/ Feasibility
Study. Both pilot projects
benefitted from greater
potentially  responsible  party
(PRP) participation in the
decision-making process.

However, managing
enforcement pilot projects was
a developing process needing
some improvements  to help
ensure more efficient and
effective use of project results
and limited  resources.

• Communications of pilot
successes were limited to
media, such as regional
briefings at national
conferences and distribution  of
periodic progress reports.  As
a result, regional Remedial
Project Managers did not
receive  adequate, usable
information  to implement the
improved approaches.

• The Regions did not always
adequately  plan for the use of
the funding provided for the
pilot projects. Region  1
allowed $100,000, or 50
percent of its funding, to
remain unused for 1  year
before returning it to
Headquarters.  And Region 8
used its entire initial  allotment
of $100,000 on non-pilot
project activities,  later
receiving another $65,000 to
perform pilot projects.

• The Regions did not report
some important pilot project
activity to Headquarters.
Region 1 used its pilot project
approach at a second site,
and Region 8 discontinued its
pilot project activities, both
without notifying
Headquarters.

•  Region 8 did not receive
"credit" for a major Superfund
accomplishment because the
pilot project's results did not
meet any criteria for an official
accomplishment, which could
be a disincentive for regional
participation  in the program.

We Recommended That

The Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste  and Emergency
Response:

•  Determine the best way to
disseminate  pilot project
results.

•  Coordinate briefings by
regional personnel at Agency
conferences  on the
implementation  of pilot project
approaches.

•  Consider alternative regional
goals to recognize comparable
credit for successful innovative
approaches.

•  Discuss with Region 8 the
possibility of selecting sites,
nationwide, to carry out the
PRP incentives pilot project.

•  Request the Regions to,
among other things, report to
Headquarters the status of
extramural funds when
reporting pilot projects'
progress and significant pilot
project activity,  such as site
changes.

What Action Was Taken

In response  to our draft
reports, the  Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response
generally agreed with our
findings and recommendations
and described actions taken to
implement some of the
recommendations.  These
actions included holding  a
national pilot project
conference for regional staff;
requesting the regions to
document cost estimates,
report annually on
expenditures of funds, consult
with Headquarters regarding
reprogramming of funds  and
proper reporting of
 30
                                                                                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
approaches used at non-pilot
project sites; as well as
continuing Headquarters'
efforts to provide assistance to
the regions in documenting
cost/time savings and  re-
evaluating the regional goal
setting process.  Final reports
were  issued to the Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency Response on
March 9, 1994 (4400037), and
the Acting Regional
Administrators, Regions  1 and
8, on December 21, 1993
(4400017), and January 31,
1994 (4400024),  respectively.
The report to the Acting
Regional Administrator,
Region 1, was closed  upon
receipt of the  Region's
response. Responses to the
final reports issued to  the
Assistant Administrator for
Solid  Waste and  Emergency
Response and the Acting
Regional Administrator,
Region 8, are due by June 7,
1994, and May 2, 1994,
respectively.
Super-fund Accelerated
Cleanup Model (SACM)
Pilot Project
Succeeding in
Oklahoma

Findings in Brief

Using the SACM, Region 6
had accelerated the cleanup
process at the National Zinc
hazardous waste site in
Bartlesville, Oklahoma.

Background

The Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
launched the SACM pilot
project as one of several
Superfund revitalization
initiatives to accelerate and
increase the efficiency of
cleanups.  This review of the
National Zinc site  was
conducted to determine
whether Region 6 effectively
executed the objectives of the
SACM.  The site consisted of
an area of about 8 square
miles surrounding a smelter
facility used for the extraction
of zinc from secondary
sources since 1907.  Surface
soils in the areas were
contaminated and high levels
of lead and cadmium were
found in the blood of
residents.

We Found That

It was premature to determine
whether the overall goal of
SACM will be met at  the
National Zinc site.  However,
Region 6's actions to date for
the  site  indicate that the
initiative may successfully
accelerate and increase the
efficiency of cleanups.

During August 1993,  Region
6's  Emergency Response
Branch completed initial
removal actions at 41
contaminated sites in the
Bartlesville  area, including 30
contaminated high access
locations such as schools, day
care facilities and
playgrounds, and residences
of children with elevated blood
lead level.  In September
1993, additional removals
were authorized to clean up
residential sites having surface
soil contamination of more
than 3 times those included  in
the initial removal action.

Region 6 appears to have
been successful  in overcoming
major failures of similar
previous endeavors to
accelerate the cleanup of
contaminated sites by  using a
Regional Decision Team
(RDT).  An RDT is composed
of representatives from the
removal, remedial, site
assessment, enforcement,
community relations, regional
counsel, and state agencies.
Unlike  in the past, where site
evaluations, sampling,  and
testing were performed
sequentially under both the
removal and remedial
programs, Region 6 used the
RDT concept to effectively
coordinate the simultaneous
collection and use of data for
multiple purposes.  The data
collected was about 90
percent of that required to
complete the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study
(RI/FS), which identifies
cleanup options. To further
expedite the cleanup process,
the Region intended to
perform the Remedial  Design
(engineering design of the
selected cleanup option)
concurrent with the RI/FS.

Also, Region 6 appropriately
identified and got meaningful
participation from potentially
responsible parties early in the
cleanup process.  In the area
of public relations,  Region 6
fostered community interest  by
conducting several meetings
to address citizen concerns.
What Action Was Taken

The final audit report
(4400011) was issued to the
Assistant Regional
Administrator for Management,
Region 6, on December 10,
1993. Because the report did
not make recommendations,
no response is due from the
Agency.
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                            31

-------
   Section  2  --  Report Resolution
As required by the Inspector
General Act, as amended,
this section contains
information on reports in the
resolution process for the
semiannual period.  This
section also summarizes
OIG reviews of the Agency's
followup actions on selected
reports completed in prior
periods. In addition,
information is presented on
the resolution of significant
reports issued by the OIG
involving monetary
recommendations.

Current Period

As of March 31,  1994, EPA
had 249 OIG reports requiring
resolution-24 percent less
than the 326 unresolved
reports at the beginning of this
6-month period.  At first this
seems to indicate increased
resolution action by EPA,
however, the total number of
reports requiring resolution
was more than 12 percent
fewer than in the prior period.
Further, the number of reports
for which responses were past
due (over 6 months from
report issue date) rose 24
percent from 100 to 124
during  the period.  On
September 30, 1993, the
number of reports for which
responses were  past due
represented 30 percent of the
reports to be resolved,
compared to 50  percent of the
reports in the follow-up system
as of March 31,  1994.

The costs questioned on OIG
reports for which management
decisions were past due on
March  31 represented 84
percent of the total unresolved
questioned costs.  Of these
questioned costs, $104 million,
or 76  percent, were ineligible
costs that are likely to be
sustained for recovery based
on our experience over the
past several years when EPA
has sustained approximately
    REPORTS  REQUIRING  RESOLUTION
       AT END OF REPORTING PERIOD
  PAST DUE
  RESPONSES
  TO AUDIT

  REPORTS  50%
              INELIGIBLE
              COSTS
              TO BE
              RESOLVED
                             76%
            50%
LESS THAN 6
MONTHS OLD
      NUMBER OF REPORTS
 LESS THAN 6
 MONTHS OLD

INELIGIBLE DOLLARS
QUESTIONED
                                                  24%
80 percent of the ineligible
costs we have questioned.

EPA needs to resolve these
reports and recover the
misspent dollars more
expeditiously.  The OIG
recognizes that it takes more
time to reach a management
decision on some reports than
on others.  However, monies
not collected results in the
U. S. Treasury having to
borrow funds to finance
Agency operations.  The
annual interest on 80 percent
of previously mentioned
$104 million financed at the
current Treasury bill rate of
3.25 percent would be about
$3 million.

During this reporting period
some  EPA action officials
made  good efforts in resolving
reports timely while others
were not as successful.  Eight
EPA action officials-the
Assistant Administrator  for Air
and Radiation; Assistant
Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management; Assistant
Administrator for Solid Waste
and Emergency  Response;
and Regions 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7-
-made at least 70 percent of
their management decisions
within the  180-day Office of
          Management and Budget
          (OMB) Circular A-50, Audit
          Followup, time frame.  The
          Grants Administration  Division
          and Regions 2, 3, 8, and 9
          were considered untimely in
          their resolution  efforts because
          they made less than 50
          percent of their management
          decisions on reports within the
          180-day time frame.

          Agency officials provided
          individual explanations why
          follow-up had been  delayed
          and projected resolution dates.
          These explanations raise
          issues of the complexity of
          report resolution, state
          delegation for resolution, and
          the changing mix of types of
          OIG reviews (see Appendix 2).

          Trends

          Our analysis of unresolved
          reports from September 30,
          1990, through March 31,
          1994, continues to show a
          disturbing trend. While the
          number of reports requiring
          resolution averaged
          approximately 300 at the end
          of each semiannual reporting
          period, the  number with past
          due management decisions as
          of September 30, 1990,
          increased from 19 percent to
50 percent as of March 31,
1994. In addition, during the
3-year period, almost half of
the final management
decisions were not made
within 180 days. Further, the
number of initial responses
180 days past report issuance
from EPA managers during
the individual six-month
periods increased from a low
of 32 percent to a current
period high of nearly 44
percent. EPA must take
immediate steps to  ensure
that report resolution is timely
and the growing backlog of
past due reports is reduced.
32
                                                                                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
Status Report On Perpetual Inventory of Reports in Resolution Process For The Semiannual Period Ending March 31, 1994
(Dollar Values in Thousands)
                                          Number
A. For which no management decision has been
   made by the commencement of the
   reporting period*                        326
B. Which were issued during the reporting
   period
           730
C. Which were issued during the reporting period
   that required no resolution                534
   Subtotals (A + B - C)
           522
D. For which a management decision was made
   during the reporting period                273

E. For which no management  decision has been
   made by the end of the reporting period   249

   Reports for which no management decision was
   made within six months of issuance        124
                                Report Issuance

                        Questioned   Recommended
                            Costs    Efficiencies
477,081



 70,189


  2,544

544,726



133,839


410,887


345,160
42,071


 8,051


 1,553

48,569


19,439


29,131


25,150
                                       Report Resolution
                                       Costs Sustained
                                    To Be      As
                                  Recovered     Efficiencies
                                                           44,915
797
   * Any difference in number of reports and amounts of questioned costs or recommended efficiencies between this report and
   our previous semiannual report results from  corrections made to data in our audit tracking system.
Audit Foliowup

The Inspector General Act
Amendments of 1988 requires
Agency management to report
semiannually, in a separate
report to Congress, the
corrective actions taken in
response to the OIG's
reviews.  The Office of
Inspector General reviews the
Agency's followup actions on
selected reviews.  Through
other means, the OIG also
learns of Agency actions
taken in response to IG work
which go beyond
implementing those specific
recommendations made in
review  reports.
Agency Actions In
Response To Other
OIG Reports

The OIG's reports and
cooperative efforts with
program officials  frequently
have positive impacts that
reach beyond the
implementation of specific
report recommendations.
These impacts are not
normally verified  by formal
OIG followup reviews.  For
example, during this reporting
period the OIG learned of the
following Agency actions:

•  Because of our recent
review in Region  9 of the
Leaking Underground Storage
Tank (LUST) program, Region
8 decided  to review its own
State LUST programs to
determine  whether problems
similar to those we identified
in Region  9 existed in  its
      region.  In a letter to EPA's
      national program director,
      Region 8 stated that:  "The
      reviews were patterned  after
      the EPA OIG audit that was
      done in Region 9." Region
      8's reviews identified problem
      areas and recommended ways
      to make improvements.
      Region 8 plans to incorporate
      its findings into the State
      workplans and identify a
      corrective action  process that
      needs to be  improved or
      further analyzed.

      • In October 1993 OIG  staff
      met with the Navajo EPA
      Administrator. During the
      meeting, the OIG staff told the
      Administrator about
      agreements that Region 9 had
      made with the Pacific Islands
      to address environmental
      problems.  OIG staff
      suggested that the Navajos
      have many of the same types
                       of problems as the Pacific
                       Islands, and that some of
                       Region 9's solutions for the
                       Pacific Islands' problems
                       might also be
                       applicable to the Navajos'
                       problems.  Three months later
                       Region 9 officials met with the
                       Navajos to discuss a possible
                       tribal/EPA agreement  similar
                       to those with the Pacific
                       Islands.  This could greatly
                       enhance EPA/Navajo
                       relations.
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                                   33

-------
Status  of
Management
Decisions on  IG
Reports

This section presents
statistical infomiation as
required by the Inspector
General Act Amendments of
1988 on the status of EPA
management decisions on
reports issued by the OIG
involving monetary
recommendations. In order to
provide uniformity in reporting
between the various agencies,
the President's Council on
Integrity and Efficiency issued
guidance on reporting the
costs under required
statistical tables of sections
5(a)(8)  and (9) of the Act, as
amended.

As presented, information
contained in Tables 1 and 2
cannot be used to assess
results  of reviews performed
or controlled by this office.
Many of the reports counted
were performed by other
Federal auditors or
independent public
accountants under the Single
Audit Act.  EPA OIG staff
does not manage or control
such assignments.  In
addition, amounts shown as
costs questioned or
recommended to be put to
better use contain amounts
which were at the time of the
review unsupported by
adequate documentation or
records.  Since auditees
frequently provide additional
documentation  to support the
allowability of such costs
subsequent to report
issuance, we expect that a
high proportion of
        unsupported costs will not be
        sustained.

        EPA OIG controlled reports
        resolved during this period
        resulted  in $ 24.9 million
        being sustained out of $ 30.6
        million considered ineligible  in
        reports under OIG control.
        This is a 81 percent sustained
        rate.
Table 1  - Inspector General Issued Reports With Questioned

Semiannual Period Ending:  March 31, 1994
                           Costs
                                                                 Dollar Values(thousands)
                                                                  Questioned*  Unsupported
                                                          Number    Costs          Costs
A.    For which no management decision has been made by
the commencement of the reporting period**

B.    New Reports issued during period

      Subtotals (A + B)

C.    For which a management decision was made during
      the reporting period

      (i)    Dollar value of disallowed costs
      (ii)    Dollar value of costs not disallowed

D.    For which no management decision has been
      made by the end of the reporting period

      Reports for which  no management decision was
      made within six months of issuance
                             149

                              68

                             217


                              98

                              72
                           68***


                             119


                              69
          477,081

           67,645

          544,726


          133,839

           44,915
           88,924


          410,887


          345,160
122,728

 31,016

153,744


 33,524

 18,047
 15,477


120,221


 89,241
      Questioned costs include unsupported costs.

      Any difference in number of reports and amounts of questioned costs or recommended efficiencies between this report and
      our previous semiannual report results from corrections made to data in our audit tracking system.

      On 26 reports management did not sustain any of the $10,270,816 questioned costs.  Forty-one reports are also included in
      C(ii) because they were only partially sustained. Only the costs questioned that were  not sustained in C(i) are included in this
      category.
34
                                                                                       OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
Table 2 -- Inspector General Issued Reports With Recommendations That' Funds Be Put To Better Use

 Semiannual Period Ending: March 31, 1994
                                                      Number    Dollar Value
                                                               (in thousands)
 A.  For which no management decision has been made by
   the commencement of the reporting period*

 B.  Which were issued during the reporting period

   Subtotals (A + B)

 C.  For which a management decision was made during  '
          the reporting period

   (i)  Dollar value of recommendations that
48

19

67


36
42,071

 6,498

48,570


19,439
were agreed to by management
based on proposed management action
based on proposed legislative action
(ii) Dollar value of Recommendations that were
not Agreed to by Management
(iii) Dollar value of non-awards or unsuccessful
bidders
D. For which no management decision has been made by
the end of the reporting period
Reports for which no management decision was
made within six months of issuance
6
n/a
n/a
10**
21
31
20
797
n/a
n/a
12,387
6,255"*
29,131
25,150
    Any difference in number of reports and amounts of questioned costs or recommended efficiencies between this report and our
    previous semiannual report results from corrections made to data in our audit tracking system.

    One report was included in C(i) and C(ii).  Only the related dollars disallowed were included in C(i), whereas the dollars which
    were not disallowed were included in C(ii).

    This amount represents the dollar value of recommendations that funds be put to better use.
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                                 35

-------
Resolution of Significant Reports
Report Resolution
Report Issuance Federal Share
Report Number
Report Date
S2CWL2-01-0028
3100255
REPORT DATE
6/21/93
E2CWL2-02-0078
3100204
REPORT DATE
6/ 3/93
E2CWMO-02-0302
3200048
REPORT DATE
6/ 2/93
E2CWM1-02-0096
3200051
REPORT DATE
6/14/93
P2BW*8-02-0017
2100449
REPORT DATE
7/ 5/92

P2CWL1-02-0017
3100388
REPORT DATE
9/28/93
P2CWL9-02-0175
3100196
REPORT DATE
6/ 1/93
N3HVH3-03-0376
4500103
REPORT DATE
11/10/93
P2CWNO-03-0032
3300049
REPORT DATE
5/27/93
P2CWNO-03-0339
3300047
REPORT DATE
5/24/93
P2CWN9-03-0256
3300026
REPORT DATE
3/25/93
P2CWN9-03-0384
3300050
REPORT DATE
5/28/93
P6DWNO-03-0261
2300046
REPORT DATE
3/31/92
D9BGL2-04-0368
2100587
REPORT DATE
9/ 9/92
E2CWL3-05-0121
3100141
REPORT DATE
3/26/93
Grantee/
Contractor
SALISBURY
MA


GREAT NECK
WPCD NY


SUFFOLK
COUNTY NY


LIBERTY NY



NYC -
NORTH
RIVER NY


CHEMUNG
COUNTY NY


ROCKAWAY
VALLEY REG
SA NJ

BALTIMORE
CITY MD


BALTIMORE
CITY MD


BALTIMORE
CITY MD


BALTIMORE
CITY MD


BALTIMORE
CITY MD


DISTRICT
OF
COLUMBIA

VESTA
TECHNOLOGY
LTD PL

CLEVELAND
NEORSD OH


FS Questioned/
Recommended
to be
Efficiency
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM

INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
1,969



1,343
44


139
4,718


1,326



1,463
4,652



1,014



7
658


892



1,137
534


340
131


2,375
547


3,805
1,401


2, 047
6,372


523
264


1,154
9, 044
27,664

, 835
0
0
0
,546
,743
0
0
,054
,571
0
0
, 705
0
0
0
,727
,173
0
0

,508
0
0
0
,883
,878
0
0
,791
0
0
0
,312
,358
0
0
,265
,428
0
0
,678
,496
0
0
, 897
,747
0
0
,749
,885
0
0
,722
,259
0
0
,591
,816
,633
0
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST

INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
Recovered/
Sustained
Efficiency
1,969,



1,339,
3,


139,
4,718,


1,326,



489,




805,




656,


892,



1,133,
373,


340,
99,


1,423,
21,


3,805,
397,


2,021,
1, 150,


523,
264,


1,154,
9,044,
1,

8Jb
0
0
0
906
527
0
0
054
571
0
0
705
0
0
0
651
0
0
0

413
0
0
0
0
761
0
0
791
0
0
0
818
430
0
0
265
856
0
0
855
356
0
0
897
924
0
0
118
676
0
0
722
039
0
0
591
816
970
0
Report Number
Report Date
P2CWN5-05-0132
8000464
REPORT DATE
1/20/88
P2CWP7-05-0079
3400038
REPORT DATE
3/29/93
E2CWN1-06-0155
3300025
REPORT DATE
3/24/93
S2CWN9-09-0028
3300010
REPORT DATE
2/ 1/93

NOTE : INEL
UNSP
UNUR
RCOM
SUST







































Report Resolution
Report Issuance Federal Share
FS Questioned/ to be
Grantee/ Recommended
Contractor Efficiency
DETROIT INEL 1,945,127 INEL
USD MI UNSP 1,556,780 UNSP
UNUR 0 UNUR
RCOM 0 SUST
FLINT MI INEL 891,778 INEL
UNSP 189,244 UNSP
UNUR 11,640 UNUR
RCOM 0 SUST
KENNER LA INEL 962,313 INEL
UNSP 22,697 UNSP
UNUR 0 UNUR
RCOM 0 SUST
SACRAMENTO INEL 1,049,052 INEL
RCSD CA UNSP 0 UNSP
UNUR 1,968,584 UNUR
RCOM 0 SUST

INELIGIBLE COST
= UNSUPPORTED COST
= UNNECESSARY/UNREASONABLE COST
= RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES
Recovered/
Sustained
Efficiency
1,945,127
674,955
0
0
870,393
106,908
11,640
0
962,313
8,699
0
0
692,886
0
98,457
0





= RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES SUSTAINED














































































36
                                                                          OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
  Section 3 -  Prosecutive Actions
The following is a summary
of investigative activities
during this reporting period.
These include investigations
of alleged criminal violations
which may result in
prosecution and conviction,
investigations of alleged
violations of Agency
regulations and policies,
and OIG personnel security
investigations.  The Office
of Investigations tracks
investigations in the
following categories:
preliminary inquiries and
investigations, joint
investigations with other
agencies, and OIG
background investigations.
Summary Of
Investigative
Activities
Pending Investigations as
of September 30, 1993   196

New Investigations
Opened This Period     137

Investigations Closed
This Period            144

Pending Investigations as
of March 31, 1994      189
Prosecutive and
Administrative Actions

In this period, investigative
efforts resulted in 7
convictions and 8*
indictments. Fines and
recoveries, including those
associated with civil actions,
amounted to $1.6 million.
Nineteen administrative
actions** were taken as a
result of investigations:

Reprimands            9
Resignations/Removals    7
Restitutions            1
Other                 2

      TOTAL        19
* Does not include indictments obtained
in cases in which we provided
investigative assistance

** Does not include suspensions and
debarments resulting from Office of
Investigations activities or actions
resulting from reviews of personnel
security investigations
                             Profiles of Pending Investigations by Type
                                            (Total-189)
           General EPA Programs     Superfund and  Lust
              Procurement  Fraud
                  47      \
                                       Construction
                                               17
                              Procurement Fraud
                                        \          31
           Emp.
           Integrity
              28
                          Program
                          Integrity
                             30
                                         Program
                                         Integrity
                                             18
                  Total Cases: 137
                                 Total Cases: 52
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                          37

-------
Description of
Selected
Prosecutive and
Administrative
Actions

Below is a brief description of
some of the prosecutive
actions which occurred during
the reporting period.  Some of
these actions resulted from
investigations initiated before
October 1, 1993.
Bribery Attempt
Results  in  $1  Million
Fine

Environmental Health,
Research,  and Testing, Inc,
(EHRT), of Lexington,
Kentucky, was fined $1 million
in January 1994 as part of a
settlement from an earlier
guilty plea.  The firm was
charged with offering a bribe
to an EPA official to obtain
information on the amount bid
by competitors on a building to
be constructed for EPA at
Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina.

North Carolina Man
Sentenced in Insurance
Case

Warren H. Berkle, Jr., of Elon
College, North Carolina, was
sentenced to 5 years
probation and ordered to pay
restitution of $203,195 and
$150 in special assessments
in February 1994 after
pleading guilty to wire fraud
and mail fraud in an insurance
scheme involving the
construction of an EPA-funded
wastewater treatment plant in
Florham Park, New Jersey.
Berkle conspired  to illegally
write insurance contracts for
asbestos and other high risk
liabilities for Florham Park
without adequate reserves to
pay claims and without
approval from the State of
New Jersey.

Region 4 Employee
Guilty of Defrauding
EPA

Angela Fields, a former
supervisory accountant in the
EPA Region 4 office in
Atlanta, pleaded guilty in
March 1994 to defrauding EPA
of $28,000 in 1991 and 1992

Fields admitted that she
entered false information  into
EPA's Integrated Financial
Management System. As a
result  of her false entries, she
received 23 U.S. Treasury
checks which she later
deposited into her credit union
account.  After receiving the
funds, Fields then made
entries into the system that
made  various  financial reports
appear to balance.

Fields' employment was
terminated by EPA when  the
fraudulent payments were
discovered in November 1992.

Two  Sentenced in
False Asbestos
Removal Claims
Another Pleads Guilty

Russell Curtis and Dean Curtis
were sentenced in January
1994 after pleading guilty to
causing the Fairbury,
Nebraska, public schools to
submit a false claim to EPA
for expenses related  to
asbestos removal. In 1989
the school system had been
awarded a grant of $281,176
and a 20 year no-interest loan
for asbestos removal under
the Asbestos School Hazard
Abatement Act.  The
government charged Russell
Curtis, Dean Curtis, and
Stanley Peters with causing
the school system to submit
false invoices for change
orders for additional asbestos
work not covered in the
original asbestos removal
contract.  The money, in fact,
was to be used to pay for
renovation of the Fairbury
Central Elementary School,
which was outside the scope
of the EPA grant and loan,
and related fees of the firms
operated by the  Curtises and
others.

Russell Curtis and Dean Curtis
were each sentenced to 6
months home confinement, 5
years probation,  restitution of
$153,476 to EPA, and a
special assessment of $50.

On December 21, 1993,
Stanley Peters was found
guilty of one  count of
conspiracy, three counts of
making a false and fraudulent
claim, and one count of theft
of Government money.

The case was jointly
investigated by the DIG and
the Federal Bureau of
Investigation.

Battery Company
Owner Pleads Guilty

Charles L Guyton, owner of
C&R Battery, Inc., Richmond,
Virginia, pleaded guilty in
November 1993  to making a
false statement to EPA.  He
concealed personal assets
from EPA in  connection with
his potential  liability for the
costs, related to the Superfund
cleanup program, of
contamination at the battery
company location.
38
                                                                                      OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
   Section  4 -- Fraud  Prevention  And  Management  Improvements
This section describes
several activities of the
Office of Inspector General
to promote economy and
efficiency and to prevent
and detect  fraud, waste, and
abuse in the administration
of EPA programs and
operations. This section
includes information
required by statute,
recommended by Senate
report, or deemed
appropriate by the  Inspector
General.
Review of
Legislation and
Regulations

Section 4(a)(2) of the
Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended, directs the
Office of Inspector General to
review existing and proposed
legislation and regulations
relating to Agency programs
and operations to determine
their effect on economy and
efficiency and the prevention
and detection of fraud and
abuse. This  semiannual
reporting period, we reviewed
6 legislative and 45 regulatory
items.  The most significant
items reviewed are
summarized  below.

Federal Acquisition
Streamlining Act of
1993

Although we  supported the
proposed Federal Acquisition
Streamlining  Act of 1993,  a
comprehensive procurement
reform bill designed to
streamline the Federal
acquisition process and carry
out the recommendations  of
the National  Performance
Review, we recommended a
number of revisions to
strengthen this legislation.

The proposed definition of
covered contracts appeared to
include only prime contracts.
We believed  that exempting
flexibly-priced subcontracts
was neither equitable nor in
the best interest of the
Government.   Accordingly, we
recommended that
subcontracts  awarded under  a
covered prime contract be
included in the definition of
covered contracts if the
subcontract is other than  fixed
price without  incentives and
for an amount over $500,000
A provision would repeal
Section 24 of the Office of
Federal Procurement Policy
Act concerning travel
expenses of Government
contractors.  While we
recognized the intent of this
section was to abolish the
requirement that contractors
claim travel costs at the
Government rate, it would be
inappropriate to repeal the
entire section.  We suggested
revising it to allow contractors
to claim the coach fare for
transportation used, while
retaining the  existing
limitations on per diem rates
and other amounts.

We recommended that the
language authorizing
Government representatives to
inspect plants and audit the
records of contractors
performing various types of
contracts be  revised to
specifically include fixed-price
contracts

We disagreed with eliminating
the  Government's authority to
inspect the plants and audit
the  records of contractors who
are awarded  contracts under
$100,000.  Circumstances
could arise to warrant the
examination of a small
contractor's books or records.

OMB Policy Letter on
Management Oversight
of Service Contracting

We reviewed proposed
changes to Office of Federal
Procurement Policy Letter
93-1 /'Management Oversight
of Service Contracting."  The
proposed revisions resulted
from an Office of Management
and Budget review of service
contracting programs at 17
major Executive Branch
departments  and agencies
which concluded that service
contracting practices and
capabilities were uneven
across the Executive Branch
and that various common
management problems
needed to be addressed. The
Policy Letter was developed to
promote a more "results-
oriented" approach for
managing and administering
service contracts, provide
specific guidance on what
constitutes good management
practice  in the use of such
contracts, and to help ensure
that its users obtain the
services they need. While we
agreed that  the proposed
revisions appeared to be in
keeping  with the intent of the
National Performance
Review's (NPR) efforts to
provide guiding principles
rather than rigid rules, we
expressed significant
concerns

The proposed revisions to
Section 8, Responsibilities,
seemed  to generalize
responsibilities  to such an
extent that the findings from
the OMB review may not be
corrected. Specifically, the
original Policy Letter required
each agency to designate a
Senior Management Official to
be accountable for assuring
compliance  with its provisions.
Each agency was also
required to establish written
procedures  outlining (1)  the
official's  oversight
responsibilities  pertaining to
review and approval of
requests for services and (2)
the process to correct and
document noncompliance with
these procedures. It also
listed a series of objectives
these procedures should
achieve  and described the
senior official's responsibilities
regarding several areas  that
were specifically discussed as
weaknesses in OMB's review
report.  However, the
proposed supplement deletes
mention  of a senior
accountable official as well as
his/her specific
responsibilities.  Also, the
section describing the duties
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                         39

-------
of the Contracting Officer
should be retained.
Finally, we recommended
clarification  of the introductory
section, regarding revisions to
the  responsibilities of
Inspectors General, because  it
could be misinterpreted to
mean that an OFPP Policy
Letter is an appropriate
mechanism for limiting the
work of an IG.

Safe Drinking Water
Act Reauthorization

We reviewed the Agency's
draft legislative language
regarding the reauthorization
of the Safe  Drinking Water
Act, and  expressed the
following concerns:

  (1) Authorization of the use
of up to 10  percent of Public
Drinking Water System
Supervision  monies for Fund
Administration appeared
inconsistent  with the 4 percent
limitation imposed on States
under the Clean Water Act's
State Revolving Fund.

   (2) Language in Section 4,
Water Source Protection,
addressing  the consequences
of a State not submitting an
acceptable  Source Water
Protection Program, could be
interpreted  very broadly. We
recommended reconsideration
of the language in this section.

   (3) It was unclear why an
EPA review  of each State's
Source Water Protection
Program would  be required
every two years even though
States would be required to
submit a status report every
two years as well.  We
recommended that the
language be amended to
make the EPA review
discretionary.

   (4) The section providing
for  a grant program to
establish State Source Water
Protection Programs should
specify that grant funds will be
audited in accordance with the
Single Audit Act of 1984.
Energy Efficiency and
Water Conservation at
Federal Facilities

We commented on a proposed
Executive Order entitled
"Energy Efficiency and Water
Conservation at Federal
Facilities."  The objective of
the Order is to promote more
efficient use of natural
resources; increase energy
efficiency and water
conservation at Federal
facilities; and make the
Federal Government a leader
in purchasing energy-efficient
and water-conserving
products.

While we concurred with the
general philosophy of the
proposed Order, we were
concerned that Section 309
appeared to require an annual
audit by the Inspector General
of an agency's compliance
with the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act, as
amended by the Energy Policy
Act of 1992 (Act),  and the
proposed Order.  An annual
audit is not warranted. We
recommended including
language similar to that in
section  160(c) of the  Act,
which encourages the
Inspector General to conduct
periodic reviews of agency
compliance with the Act and
other laws relating  to energy
consumption.

Proposed  Modification
to Delegation  1-4-B,
Real Property

We did  not concur with a
proposed  redelegation of
authority to acquire and
dispose of real property
(buildings,  grounds,
improvements, etc.) to the
Branch Chief level.  It
concerns us that delegation of
a broad authority to acquire or
dispose of real property to that
level could result in a lack of
consistency in application
within Headquarters and
among  regional offices.
Because proper
implementation of this
authority is dependent upon
knowledge and understanding
of the complex laws and
regulations pertaining to real
property, we recommended
that the redelegation authority
be limited  to the Deputy
Assistant Administrator  and
Assistant Regional
Administrator level.

Suspension and
Debarment
Activities

EPA's policy is to do business
only with contractors and
grantees who are honest and
responsible. EPA enforces
this policy by suspending or
debarring  contractors or
grantees, or individuals within
those organizations, from
further EPA contracts or
assistance if there has been a
conviction  of, or civil judgment
for:

   •  commission of a fraud
     or a criminal offense in
     connection with
     obtaining, attempting to
     obtain, or performing a
     public contract or
     subcontract;

   •   violation of Federal or
      State antitrust statutes
     relating to the
     submission of offers;

   •  commission of
     embezzlement, theft,
      forgery, bribery,
      falsification  or
      destruction of records,
     making a false
      statement,  or receiving
      stolen property; or

   •  commission of any
      other offense indicating
      a lack of business
      integrity or business
      honesty that seriously
      and directly affects the
      present responsibility  of
      a Government
      contractor or
      subcontractor.
A contractor may also be
debarred for violating the
terms of a Government
contract or subcontract, such
as willful failure to perform in
accordance with the terms of
one or more contracts, or a
history of failure to perform,
or of unsatisfactory
performance on one or more
contracts.  A contractor may
also be debarred for any
other cause of so serious or
compelling a nature that it
affects the present
responsibility  of the
contractor.  Thus, a contractor
need not have committed
fraud or been convicted  of an
offense to warrant being
debarred.  Debarments are' to
be for a period  commensurate
with the seriousness of the
cause, but generally do not
exceed 3 years.

The effectiveness of the
suspension and debarment
(S&D) program has been
enhanced by regulations that
provide all Federal agencies a
uniform system for debarring
contractors from receiving
work funded by Federal
grants, loans, or cooperative
agreements.  The system,
required by Executive Order
12549, provides that a
nonprocurement debarment or
suspension by one agency is
effective  in all agencies  and
requires the General Services
Administration (GSA) to
publish monthly "Lists of
Parties Excluded from Federal
Procurement or
Nonprocurement Programs."
Formerly, a nonprocurement
debarment was effective only
in the programs administered
by the debarring agency, and
each agency maintained its
own list.  The EPA
Suspension and Debarment
Division (SDD)  in the  Office of
Grants and Debarment
operates the S&D program at
EPA.   The OIG assists the
EPA S&D program by
providing information from
audits, investigations,  and
engineering studies; and
obtaining documents and
 40
                                                                                         OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
evidence used in determining
whether there is a cause for
suspension or debarment.

The OIG's Suspension and
Debarment Unit works with
SDD to further educate and
inform State and local
governments and
environmental interest groups
about the effective use of
suspensions and debarments.

During this period cases  with
direct OIG involvement led to
28 suspensions,  10
debarments, and 6
compliance agreements,  a
total of 44 actions.

The following are examples:

   • On March 30, 1994,
EPA's Debarring  Official
approved a Compliance
Agreement with Edward H.
Pechan and E.H. Pechan &
Associates, Inc. (EHPA).   In
the Compliance Agreement,
Mr. Pechan and EHPA
admitted that they engaged in
a conflict of interest which
compromised  the integrity of
EPA's procurement and
assistance activities in
connection with an EPA grant
and cooperative agreement
awarded to the Center for
Earth Resource Management
Applications, Inc. (CERMA).
While serving as the treasurer
of CERMA, Mr. Pechan
reviewed  and approved the
invoices submitted by EHPA,
his own company, and then
signed and issued checks
from  CERMA to EHPA.

   In the Compliance
Agreement, EHPA and
Pechan agreed to implement a
number of remedial measures
to ensure that EHPA's future
performance and
administration of Federal
contracts  and federally-funded
contracts  under assistance will
be fully consistent with all
applicable laws and
regulations.  In addition,  EHPA
agreed to repay the
Government for any costs
associated with Pechan's
conflict of interest that are
disallowed during  EPA's
resolution of the OIG audit of
the CERMA grant and
cooperative agreement.
CERMA paid EHPA over
$47,800 under the grant and
the cooperative agreement.
Under the terms of the
Compliance Agreement, EPA
terminated the December 13,
1993, suspension  of EHPA
and Pechan, but left in place
the suspension of CERMA.

   • On March 30, 1994 EPA's
Debarring Official  approved a
Compliance Agreement with
Dantec Measurement
Technology,  Inc. (Dantec).  In
the Compliance Agreement,
Dantec agreed to  reimburse
EPA $10,000 for the costs of
the OIG investigation that led
to Dantec's agreement to
plead guilty to  four counts of
making criminal false
statements, in  violation of 18
U.S.C.  1001, in connection
with Dantec's performance
under several EPA purchase
orders.

In the Compliance Agreement,
Dantec also agreed to
implement a number of
remedial measures designed
to ensure that  Dantec's future
performance and
administration  of Federal
contracts and federally-funded
contracts under assistance will
be fully consistent with all
applicable laws and
regulations.

   • On January 28, 1994,
EPA debarred  Robert E.
Caron for 3 years. Mr. Caron
was formerly employed as
chief of the Emergency
Response and Preparation
Section and as an on-scene
coordinator at hazardous
waste sites for actions
governed by the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act. Over an eight-
year period, Mr. Caron falsely
represented his educational
qualifications on numerous
occasions.  In his  guilty plea,
Mr. Caron admitted to making
false declarations  for purposes
of Federal employment and
security clearances.  On
October 2, 1992, the U. S.
District Court for the District of
Maryland convicted Mr.  Caron
on one count of making false
declarations. The Court
sentenced Mr.  Caron to home
confinement for three months
followed by three years
probation and a $2,000  fine.

   • On February 14, 1994,
EPA debarred Gerald L.
Wright, a superintendent with
the Sequoyah County Utility
Service Authority (SCUSA), for
3 years.  SCUSA operates a
wastewater treatment plant in
Vian, Oklahoma.  Mr. Wright
was found guilty of making
false statements.  From 1988
to 1989, Mr. Wright submitted
certain monthly  plant
operational reports to EPA
knowing that the reported
turbidity data was  not the
result of proper analysis.

   • On March  9, 1994,  EPA
debarred  National
Environmental Testing (NET)
Gulf Coast Inc., (except its
Baton Rouge, Louisiana,
laboratory) for 25 years. Also,
EPA debarred two of its
managers, Joan Lutkenhaus
and Cynthia Placko-Moore, for
50 years.  NET Gulf Coast
Inc., pleaded guilty to making
false, fictitious,  and fraudulent
claims under EPA's contract
for laboratory analyses of
inorganic compounds.  The
two managers accepted
responsibility for knowing of
and participating in the crime,
which involved  fraudulently
manipulating data  and
instructing subordinates to "cut
and paste" data on Contract
Laboratory Program  (CLP)
sample analyses that would
meet EPA CLP criteria.

   • On February 15, 1994,
EPA debarred a Computer
Sciences Corporation
employee, Teck Ming Chen,
for 3 years for making
unauthorized telephone calls
of more than $4,000. Mr.
Chen's access capabilities and
position as a local area
network supervisor raised
concerns about the security of
confidential business
information on file at the Office
of Regional Counsel,
Region 5

   • On February 24, 1994,
EPA proposed to debar Rex
Wilson Robinson.  Mr.
Robinson pleaded guilty to
falsely impersonating an
officer and/or employee of
EPA.  Mr.  Robinson, while
identifying himself as an agent
of EPA, made several
telephone  calls to and met
with officials of Corporate
Services, Inc., a subsidiary of
the Michigan Farm Bureau of
Lansing, Michigan.

•  On February 28, 1994,
EPA debarred Sohail Jahani, a
supervisor with Nanco
Laboratory, Inc.  based on a
conviction  of one count  of
conspiracy for falsifying
statements to EPA.  On March
19, 1994 EPA proposed to
debar Arund Gaind, President
of Nanco,  and an affiliate
company,  Arund Gaind and
Associates. The two
individuals set back dates on
computer systems to make it
appear as if laboratory
analyses were performed in a
timely manner when, in fact,
they  had not been done in the
required holding times.

•  On March 29, 1994,  EPA
suspended Ricards
International, Inc. (Rll),  its
President, Richard Salvatierra,
and two top officials,  Sonny
Bloom and Edsel Billingy,
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                           41

-------
along with an affiliated
company,  Potomac Leasing,
Inc, based on evidence that
Rll officials repeatedly directed
employees to charge time to
EPA contracts fraudulently.
OIG Management
Initiatives


Training

OIG Developed Courses

•  EPA Contract Audit
   Issues

This course was developed to
help the participants identify
the most challenging contract
audit issues facing  EPA today,
research the issues, develop
audit positions on those
issues, and evaluate those
positions.

•  Statistical Sampling
   Training

This course was designed to
provide guidelines for the use
of statistical sampling in  EPA
audits. The emphasis is on
instructions for auditors who
need to carry out elementary
sampling procedures in
connection with their auditing
activities, with some additional
direction  for those who
encounter more difficult
sampling problems and need
references to more complete
sources.

• Effectively Selling Audit
and Investigative Findings

This course, previously called
Effective Briefing Techniques,
has been restructured to
emphasize ways of building a
cooperative relationship with
auditees and agency officials
through effective
communications and a
participatory approach.  The
course stresses the need for
gaining credibility and trust by
encouraging and recognizing
corrective actions.  Most
importantly, the course
presents methods of selling
change through positive,
constructive  images and by
demonstrating  problems as
needs or opportunities for
action.  Class participants
gave several presentations
that were video taped and
evaluated by the entire  class.
This course was presented to
our Northern Audit Division
staff in Chicago. IL.

• Detecting and Preventing
Fraud in EPA

This course was developed to
help prepare independent
public accountants doing work
for the  OIG,  OIG auditors and
EPA program and contract
managers detect, prevent and
report possible fraud to the
OIG Office of Investigations.
The purpose of the course is
to raise the consciousness of
the participants to the
elements, types,
characteristics  and indicators
of fraud.  During this reporting
period the course was revised
and presented  to OIG staff in
Washington, D.C.  We also
assisted several other Offices
of Inspector  General develop
or revise similar courses.

•  Superfund  Orientation for
   Auditors

This course was developed to
provide OIG personnel with an
understanding  of the
Superfund program, and the
overall role of the OIG in
Superfund.  The course
includes a history of
Superfund,  major concepts of
the Superfund  program,
Superfund program
organizations and resources,
auditing cooperative
agreements, auditing
Superfund contracts, and
internal (management)  audits.

•  OIG New Employee
   Orientation

The orientation for OIG new
employees was held in
Arlington, Virginia, March 1-3.
The objective of the
orientation was to help new
employees become familiar
with the functions and
organization of the OIG and
quickly become a part of the
OIG team.

OIG Contracted Courses

•  Contract and
   Procurement Fraud

The course taught the
participants how to investigate,
detect, and prevent contract
and procurement fraud.

•  Fraud & Governmental
   Auditing Standards

This course was designed  for
the government auditor, and
was divided into three major
segments and included
financial statement frauds,
compliance auditing,  and
financial statement frauds

•  Audit Report Review
   Clinic

This course was designed  to
help managers evaluate the
accuracy and appropriateness
of the audit communication
and communicate  review
comments to auditors in
developing skills for future
audit reporting.

The Brown Bag Institute  of
Learning

As part of our effort to do
more in-house training, we
initiated a lunchtime training
program called the Brown  Bag
Institute of Learning.  This
program, hosted each month
by various OIG managers,
features video tapes, case
studies, discussions, and
presentations by experts on
subjects pertinent  to OIG
work.

During this reporting period,
there were two presentations.
Dr. Gilbert Mayhugh, Senior
42
                                                                                          OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
Laurence Groner, Superfund Division, Office of Enforcement,
speaks to a Brown Bag gathering (photo by Michael J. Binder).
Executive on loan to the
Federal Quality Institute from
GAO, presented training on
"Confronting Today's Changes
Successfully."  Mr. Laurence
Groner, Senior Attorney for
the Office of Enforcement,
Superfund Division, focused
his training session on the
Superfund Reauthorization
(Liability).
Reinventing  Offices of
Inspector General

The EPA OIG has begun the
process of reinvention, in
accordance with the following
vision statement adopted by
the Inspectors General:  "We
are agents of positive change
striving for continuous
improvement in  our agencies'
management and program
operations and in our own
offices."  In fulfilling this vision
and carrying out the mission
responsibilities  set forth in the
Inspector General Act, the IGs
have pledged to:

• work with  management and
the Congress to improve
program management.

• use our investigative and
program compliance reviews
to  improve the effectiveness of
program operations, increase
Government integrity,  and
recommend improved systems
to  prevent fraud, waste, and
abuse.

• be innovative and question
existing  procedures and
suggest improvements.

• build relationships with
program managers  based on
a shared commitment to
improve program operations.

• continue to improve  the
quality and  usefulness of our
products.

• work together to identify and
address Government-wide
issues.

OIG managers convened in
Annapolis, Maryland, for 3
days in December 1993 to
develop approaches for
implementing the new vision.
President's Council
on Integrity and
Efficiency

The Office of Inspector
General participates  in the
activities of the President's
Council on Integrity and
Efficiency (PCIE), which was
established by Executive
Order 12301 in March 1981 to
attack fraud and waste,  and to
improve management in the
Federal Government. The
PCIE was re-established by
Executive Order 12805 on
May 11, 1992. The  PCIE
coordinates interagency
activities involving common
issues  and develops
approaches and techniques to
strengthen the effectiveness  of
the entire Inspector General
community.  The PCIE is
headed by the Deputy Director
for Management, Office of
Management and Budget, and
includes all civilian
Presidentially  appointed
Inspectors General and  other
key Federal officials.
Inspector General John  C.
Martin  chairs the Internal
Operations Committee of the
PCIE.  The EPA Office of
Inspector General is leading  a
PCIE government-wide review
of applications software
maintenance involving nine
Federal agencies

Mr. Martin is also representing
the PCIE on an OMB task
force dealing with audit
followup and semiannual
reporting requirements.
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                          43

-------
Committee  on
Integrity and
Management
Improvement


The Committee on Integrity
and Management
Improvement (CIMI) was
established in 1984 by EPA
Order 1130.1.  The purpose of
CIMI is to coordinate the
Agency's effort to minimize the
opportunities for fraud, waste,
and mismanagement in EPA
programs and to  advise the
Administrator on  policies to
improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of EPA
programs and activities.  The
Committee is composed of
senior EPA program and
regional officials  and is
chaired by the  Inspector
General.

Microcomputer Security

Many microcomputers  and
terminals are either networked
together or connected to a
mainframe  sharing data,
information,  software, and
operating systems, all capable
of accessing vast quantities of
data.  As a result of this ease
of access, CIMI developed this
leaflet to inform EPA
employees of the threats  and
vulnerabilities involving
microcomputer security with
emphasis on the individual's
role in safeguarding
microcomputer equipment and
information. The Agency  has
spent millions of dollars on
computer hardware to enable
employees to work efficiently
and effectively, and each
individual has a responsibility
to protect these investments.
Computer crime  costs billions
of dollars annually.  While
deliberate computer crime is a
significant concern, wasteful
and abusive practices,
accidents, and errors by
individual users are even more
prevalent.  Microcomputer
security is a serious concern
and CIMI believed that this
leaflet would be beneficial in
minimizing computer-related
losses  to EPA's programs and
activities.

Program Fraud Civil
Remedies Act

Congress enacted the
Program Fraud Civil Remedies
Act (PFCRA) to provide the
Federal Government with an
additional remedy to deter
fraud resulting from false
claims  and false statements.
CIMI believed it was important
for EPA employees to be
aware  of this law. Therefore,
the committee developed a
bulletin to highlight how it is
used to bring administrative
actions to prosecute relatively
small false claims (up to
$150,000) and false
statements after obtaining
Department  of Justice
approval.  Any person who
knowingly submits a false,
fictitious, or  fraudulent claim or
written  false statement to the
Agency is liable for penalties
up to $5,000 per false claim or
false statement,  and may be
required to pay an
assessment of up to double
the amount falsely claimed.
CIMI emphasized that, for  this
law to  be effectively used in
supporting EPA's important
mission, employees must
make continual  efforts to
detect  and report fraud.
Hotline  Activities
The OIG Hotline opened 21
new cases and completed and
closed 29 cases during the
reporting period.  Of the cases
closed, 6 resulted in
environmental, prosecutive,  or
administrative corrective
action, while 23 did not require
action. Cases that did not
have immediate validity due to
insufficient information may be
used to identify trends or
patterns of potentially
vulnerable areas for future
review. The Hotline also
referred 2,112 telephone
callers to the appropriate
program office, State agency,
or other Federal agency for
assistance.

The following are examples of
corrective action  taken as a
result of information provided
to the OIG Hotline.

• A complainant alleged  that a
manufacturing company in
Troutdale, Oregon was
polluting a nearby river with
toxic material from a smelter.
A review of the complaint
disclosed significant pollution,
and EPA officials in Region 1'0
determined that the site was a
high-priority  candidate for the
National Priorities List.  As a
result, Region 10's Superfund
Regional Decision Team sent
a Hazardous Ranking System
package to EPA  Headquarters
for expedited review.

• A complainant alleged that
EPA funds were  wasted in the
procurement and disposal of
office furniture in Region 6.  A
review of the complaint
disclosed that a breakdown in
communications  precluded
information regarding excess
systems furniture inventory
from reaching the Competition
Advocate. Funds were used
to buy out leased systems
furniture rather than use
furniture in inventory, causing
unnecessary expenditures of
$627,600.  As a result,  several
internal control procedures
were implemented to ensure
that proper coordination and
communication takes place
between the various sections
involved in a major
procurement.
44
                                                                                          OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
  Appendix  1  - Reports  Issued
APPENDIX 1 - REPORTS ISSUED

     THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT REQUIRES A LISTING, SUBDIVIDED ACCORDING TO SUBJECT MATTER, OF EACH REPORT
ISSUED BY THE OFFICE DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD AND FOR EACH REPORT, WHERE APPLICABLE, THE DOLLAR VALUE OF
QUESTIONED COSTS AND THE  DOLLAR VALUE OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT FUNDS BE PUT TO BETTER USE.
Recommended
Questioned Costs Efficiencies
Assignment Control Number
Title
Final Report
Issued
Ineligible
Costs
Unsupported
Costs
Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs To Better Use)
 1.  INTERNAL & MANAGEMENT ASSIGNMENTS

 Office of the Administrator

 E1SKG3-15-0098-4400038  SPECIAL REVIEW OF EPA'S
                      INFORMATION SYSTEMS PROGRAM

 E1SFG3-11-0026-4400042  SPECIAL FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
                      REVIEW
                                                     3/15/94


                                                     3/24/94
 E1XMG3-13-0056-4400043   REVIEW OF THE NATIONAL ADVISORY
                       COUNCIL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY
                       AND TECHNOLOGY                   3/25/94

 Assistant Administrator for Communications,  Education and Public Affairs

 E1EPE2-05-0015-4100205   EPA'S PESTICIDES PROGRAM          3/11/94

 E1XMG3-18-0047-4400045   NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL EDUCATION
                       AND TRAINING FOUNDATION           3/30/94

 Office of Acquisition Management

 E1BMF3-11-0027-4100181   ADVISORY AND ASSISTANCE           1/31/94

 Office of Mobile Sources

 E1KAG3-05-0217-4400020   MANAGEMENT OF EXTRAMURAL RESOURCES
                       ANN ARBOR LABORATORY             1/25/94

 Assistant Administrator for Administration Resources Management

 E1SFF3-11-0020-4100111   COMPETITION IN CONTRACTING       12/ 7/93

 E1XMG3-11-0028-4400026   RESTRICTIONS ON LOBBYING          2/ 1/94

 E1JBF3-24-0023-4100221   COST SHARING CONTRACTS, POLICIES
                       AND PROCEDURES                   3/25/94

 E1BMF3-24-0027-4100232   COMPETITION IN CONTRACTING -
                       CONSOLIDATED REPORT              3/31/94

 E1SKF3-03-0161-4100233   AWARD OF ICF CONTRACTS            3/31/94

 E1AML3-20-7001-4100230   PESTICIDES/OIL SPILL FINANCIAL
                       STATEMENTS AUDIT - FY 93          3/31/94

 P1SFL3-20-8003-4100231   SUPERFUND/LUST/ASBESTOS FINANCIAL
                       STATEMENTS AUDIT                 3/31/94

 Assistant Administrator for Research and Development

 E6EBP3-11-0019-4400047   LABORATORY ANALYTICAL DATA REVIEW  2/10/94

 E1FBF3-10-0069-4100214   MANAGEMENT OF ASSISTANCE AND INTER-
                       AGENCY AGREEMENTS, EPA RESEARCH
                       LABORATORY - CORVALLIS            3/21/94

 E1JBF2-04-0386-4100237   MANAGEMENT OF ASSISTANCE AGREEMENTS
                       AT ORD'S GULF BREEZE LABORATORY   3/31/94
 Assistant Administrator  for Solid Waste and Emergency Response


                                                      1/31/94
E1SFF3-08-0021-4100180  SUPERFUND SITE ASSESSMENT AND
                      CLEANUP
 E1SJG3-01-0138-4400037  SUPERFUND REVITALIZATION
                      ENFORCEMENT PILOTS               3/ 9/94

 E1SFE3-07-0101-4100224  FMFIA IMPLEMENTATION - OSWER      3/28/94

 E1SFF3-11-0029-4100229  SUPERFUND PERFORMANCE MEASURES/
                      CERCLIS DATA - FY 93             3/30/94

 Assistant Administrator for Water

 E1AME4-07-0024-4100236  FMFIA IMPLEMENTATION - WATER      3/31/94
   OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                           45

-------
Assignment
Control Number
                         Title
                                    Final Report
                                        Issued
                         Ineligible
                           Costs
                                                                                         Questioned Costs
                              Unsupported
                                   Costs
                               Unnecessary/
                               Unreasonable
                                      Costs
                                      Recommended
                                          Efficiencies
                                        (Funds be Put
                                       To Better Use)
 Regional  Administrator - Region 1

 E1SJG3-01-0138-4400017
 E1SFL4-01-0032-4100212


 Regional Administrator

 E1DSD2-02-0053-4100128

 E1HHD3-02-0018-4100234


 E1SGGO-14-0010-4400018

 Regional Administrator

 E1SFL4-05-0017-4100196


 E1SGF2-05-0269-4100218
 SUPERFUND REVITALIZATION
 ENFORCEMENT PILOTS

 SUPERFUND PERFORMANCE MEASURES  -
 FY 93 - REGION 1

- Region 2

 RCRA STATE ENFORCEMENT MONITORING

 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SAFE
 DRINKING WATER ACT  - REGION  2

 VINELAND CHEMICAL COMPANY

- Region 5

 SUPERFUND PERFORMANCE MEASURES  -
 FY 93 - REGION 5

 MANAGEMENT OF MICHIGAN SUPERFUND
 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS - REGION 5
 Regional Administrator - Region 6

 E1SGG3-06-0097-4400011
                         SACM PILOT  - NATIONAL ZINC
                         REGION 6
 E1SFL4-06-0033-4100213
                         SUPERFUND PERFORMANCE  MEASURES -
                         FY 93 - REGION  6
 Regional Administrator - Region 7

 E1SFL4-07-0015-4100201
                         SUPERFUND  PERFORMANCE MEASURES -
                         FY 93 - REGION  7
 Regional Administrator - Region 8

 E1SJG3-01-0138-4400024
 Regional Administrator

 E1SGG3-14-0008-4400014

 E1SKG3-09-0258-4400025

 Regional Administrator

 E1SGG3-14-0009-4400032
 SUPERFUND REVITALIZATION
 ENFORCEMENT PILOTS

- Region 9

 PURITY OIL RI/FS REVIEW

 ESAT CONTRACT USE -  REGION 9

- Region 10

 FRONTIER HARD CHROME RI/FS
      12/22/93


       3/18/94



      12/15/93


       3/31/94

       2/ 4/94




       3/ 3/94


       3/23/94




      12/10/93


       3/21/94




       3/ 3/94




       1/31/94



      12/21/93

       1/31/94



       2/24/94
               TOTAL INTERNAL & MGMT  ASSIGNMENTS
 2.  CONSTRUCTION GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
 S2CWL1-01-0158-4100059
 S2CWL1-01-0024-4100179
 S2CWL1-01-0137-4100195
 S2BWL1-01-0234-4100202
 GREATER LAWRENCE  SEWER DIST.MA
 SPRINGFIELD                  MA
 LYNN                         MA
 LYNN WATER & SEWER           MA
               TOTAL OF REGION  01  =
 P2CWL9-02-0176-4100051
 P2CWL9-02-0135-4100093
 P2CWLO-02-0233-4100104
 P2CWL3-02-0012-4100191
 P2CWLO-02-0230-4100203
 P2CWL3-02-0103-4100209  WOODSTOCK

               TOTAL OF REGION  02  =
 FRANKLIN                     NJ
 KEANSBURG                    NJ
 TRENTON                      NJ
 WESTCHESTER-PORT  CHESTER SD NY
 EAST HANOVER                 NJ
                              NY
 E2CWM1-03-0229-4200003
 P2CWM2-03-0029-4200005
 P2CWM1-03-0300-4200006
 P2CWM2-03-0026-4200008
 P2CWM1-03-0155-4200009
 P2BWN3-03-0077-4300032
 SOMERSET  COUNTY SANI DIST
 CHARLES COUNTY
 CECIL COUNTY  COMM OF
 ANNE ARUNDEL  COUNTY
 OAKLAND TOWN  OF
 PHILADELPHIA  CITY OF
MD
MD
MD
MD
MD
PA
               TOTAL OF REGION 03
 E2CWM3-04-0061-4300014
 P2CWN3-04-0092-4300001
 LEXINGTON-FAYETTE URBAN CO  KY
 ORLANDO                      FL
               TOTAL OF REGION 04  =
 E2CWM1-05-0467-4200010
 E2CWM2-05-0232-4200011
 ASHLAND
 ZANESVILLE
OH
OH
                                                            36
      ll/ 4/93
       1/31/94
       2/28/94
       3/ 4/94
      ll/ 1/93
      11/26/93
      12/ 3/93
       2/24/94
       3/ 4/94
       3/11/94
1/11/94
2/ 1/94
2/ 3/94
2/10/94
2/15/94
3/30/94
      12/15/93
      10/14/93
3/ 2/94
3/ 3/94
                 336,082
               2,507,248
                 205,754
                 540,709

               3,589,793

               1,862,924
                 984,939
                 759,659
               2,959,471
               1,758,305
               2,408,042

              10,733,340
  375,
  521,
  227,
1,661,
  393,
8,446,
618
533
966
558
078
212
                                                                            11,625,965
                  101
                  299
      663
      205
                                                                               400,868
               TOTAL OF REGION 05
                                                                                34

                                                                                42
      ,652
      093
   537,483
         0
         0

   537,483

         0
         0
         0
   160,652
         0
         0

   160,652

         0
    77,410
   197,118
 1,164,480
    65,373
25,666,270

27,170,651

         0
         0
      0
      0
      0
      0
      0
596,129

596,129

      0
      0
   46
                                                                                                    OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
                                                                                   Questioned Costs
                                                                                                                Recommended
Assignment
Control Number
P2CWP2

E2HTN3
P2CWN3

P2CWN1

E2CWN1
E2CWP3
P2CWN1

E2CWM1
E2CWM1
E2CWM2
E2CWM3
E2CWN1
E2AWT3
S2CWN1
S2CWN2

P2CWN2

-23

-06
-06

-07

-08
-08
-08

-09
-09
-09
-09
-09
-09
-09
-0323

-4400009
TOTAL OF
-0183-4300024
-0075

-0194

-0062
-0069
-0063

-0091
-0076
-0068
-0063
-0175
-0138
-0119
-09-0126

-10


-0068

-4300015
TOTAL OF
-4300029
TOTAL OF
-4300030
-4400006
-4300005
TOTAL OF
-4200001
-4200002
-4200004
-4200007
-4300027
-4400029
-4300012
-4300023
TOTAL OF
-4300013
TOTAL OF
Title
DECATUR SD
REGION 23 = 1
LDEQ STATE REVOLVING FUND
BEAUMONT
REGION 06 = 2
COLUMBIA
REGION 07 = 1
CASPER
BROOMFIELD
SOUTH VALLEY
REGION 08 = 3
CRESTLINE SAN DIST
MINDEN-GARDNERVILLE SD
HONOLULU, C&.C OF
LAKE COUNTY SD
TRUCKEE SAN DIST
CALIFORNIA SRF USAGE
LOS ANGELES CSD
MODESTO, CITY OF
REGION 09 = 8
WASILLA, CITY OF
REGION 10 = 1

IL

LA
TX

MO

WY
CO
UT

CA
NV
HI
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA

AK

Final Report
Issued
12/ 3/93

1/13/94
12/16/93

2/17/94

2/23/94
11/15/93
10/25/93

10/25/93
11/22/93
1/19/94
2/10/94
2/14/94
2/14/94
12/15/93
1/13/94

12/15/93

Ineligible
Costs
407,
407,

238,
238,
94,
94,
2, 037,
142,
2,444,
4,624,

71,
198,
18,
778,

64,
184,
1,315,
260,
260,
990
990
0
780
780
363
363
830
422
389
641
0
981
292
095
867
0
256
079
570
343
343
Unsupported
Costs
367,833
367,833
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
347, 721
1, 161, 015
1,508,736
82,744
82,744
Unnecessary/ Efficiencies
Unreasonable (Funds be Put
Costs To Better Use)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
732,348
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
732,348
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
             TOTAL CONSTRUCTION GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
                                                       36
                                                                     33,334,398
                                                                                    29,828,099
                                                                                                    1,328,477
3.  OTHER GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
G3HVK3- 01 -0253 -450000 9
G3HUK3- 01 -0252 -4500018
G3HVK3- 01 -0257 -4500077
G3HVK4- 01 -0051-4500193
G3HVK4- 01 -0057 -4500245
G3HVK4- 01 -006 0-45 00248
G3HUK4- 01 -0065 -45 00267
N3HVK2- 01 -0326 -4 500011
N3HVK3- 01 -0107 -4 500138
N3HVK4-01-0022-4500141
N3HVK4-01-0046-4500178
N3HVK3- 01 -0235 -45 00266
TOTAL OF
C3HVK4- 02 -0006 -450 0044
G3HVK4- 02 -0004 -45 00019
G3HVK4-02-0022-4500083
G3HVK4- 02 -0045 -45 00147
G3HVK4-02-0047-4500210
G3HVK4- 02 -0065 -45 00224
G3HVK4-02-0064-4500231
G3HVK4- 02 -0070 -4500263
G3HVK4-02-0073-4500277
G3HVK4-02-0088-4500305
G3HEK4- 02 -0111-45 003 92
N3HVK3-02-0195-4500020
N3HVK4-02-0024-4500088
N3HUK3-02-0186-4500096
N3HUK4-02-0028-4500100
N3HVK4-02-0021-4500101
N3HUK4-02-0027-4500102
N3HUK3- 02 -0151 -4 500109
N3HUK3- 02 -018 0-4 500127
N3HUK3-02-0181-4500128
N3HUK4-02-0036-4500129
N3HVK3- 02 -0200 -4 500145
N3HVK4-02-0046-4500148
N3HVK3- 02 -0144 -45 00150
N3HUK4-02-0049-4500156
N3HVK3-02-0019-4500279
N3HVK4-02-0074-4500280
N3HVK1-02-0131-4500306
N3HVK2-02-0146-4500307
N3HUK4-02-0087-4500308
N3HVK4-02-0005-4500309
N3HVK4-02-0048-4500317
N3HVK4-02-0091-4500334
N3HUK3- 02 -0110 -4 500335
N3HUK3-02-0086-4500342
N3HUK3-02-0210-4500357
N3HUK3-02-0211-4500358
ORLEANS, BREWSTER, & EASTHAMMA
WOODS HOLE RESEARCH CENTER MA
ROCKPORT, TOWN OF ME
MANCHESTER, CITY OF NH
BENNINGTON, TOWN OF VT
CT HAZARDOUS WASTE MGT SERVCT
HEALTH EFFECTS INSTITUTE MA
BARNSTABLE MA
BARNSTABLE, COUNTY OF MA
SOUTHEASTERN REG. PLANNING MA
BERKSHIRE COUNTY REG PLAN COMA
UNIV. SYSTEM OF NH . NH
REGION 01 = 12
BINGHAMTON NY
HIGHLAND FALLS NY
ALEXANDRIA NY
DELAWARE RVR BASIN COMM NJ
LOVE CANAL AREA REVTLZN AGCYNY
THERESA NY
THERESA NY
FALLSBURG NY
EFC NY
FALLSBURG NY
ADIRONDACK LAKES SURVEY CORPNY
ST REGIS MOHAWK TRIBE NY
CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY NY
RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF SUNY NY
NATIONAL URBAN LEAGUE NY
CHEEKTOWAGA NY
ENGRS RESRCH i ED COOP TRUSTDC
CLARKSON UNIV NY
UNIVERSITY OF PR PR
UNIVERSITY OF PR PR
UNIVERSITY OF PR PR
MONROE COUNTY NY
ELIZABETH NJ
NEW YORK STATE NY
PRINCETON UNIVERSITY NJ
RENSSELAER COUNTY NY
RENSSELAER COUNTY NY
ONONDAGA COUNTY NY
ONONDAGA COUNTY NY
ROCKEFELLER UNIVERSITY NY
WESTCHESTER COUNTY NY
SUFFOLK COUNTY NY
ERIE COUNTY NY
COLD SPRING HARBOR LAB NY
HEALTH RESEARCH INC. NY
BOYCE THOMPSON INST. NY
BOYCE THOMPSON INST. NY
10/ 5/93
10/ 7/93
ll/ 1/93
1/21/94
2/14/94
2/16/94
2/24/94
10/ 6/93
12/ 3/93
12/14/93
1/10/94
2/24/94

10/20/93
10/ 8/93
ll/ 2/93
12/21/93
1/28/94
2/ 3/94
2/ 3/94
2/23/94
2/25/94
3/ 7/94
3/28/94
10/ 8/93
ll/ 3/93
ll/ 5/93
11/10/93
11/10/93
11/10/93
11/15/93
12/ 1/93
12/ 1/93
12/ 1/93
12/20/93
12/21/93
12/22/93
12/28/93
2/25/94
2/25/94
3/ 7/94
3/ 7/94
3/ 7/94
3/ 7/94
3/10/94
3/15/94
3/15/94
3/16/94
3/22/94
3/22/94
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0

                                                                              0

                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                           ,746
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
                                                                              0
  OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                               47

-------
                                                                          Questioned Costs
Recommended
Assignment
Control Number
N3HUK4- 02 -0094 -450 0359
N3HUK3-02-0183-4500387
TOTAL OF
C3HVK4- 03 -0181 -4500236
C3HVK4-03-0244-4500385
C3HVK4-03-0245-4500386
G3HVK4- 03 -002 8 -4500051
G3HVK4- 03 -002 9-4 500052
G3HVK4- 03 -0034 -4500053
G3HVK4- 03 -0035 -4 500054
G3HVK4- 03 -0037 -4500055
G3HVK4- 03 -0033 -4500056
G3HVK3- 03 -04 03 -4500106
G3HVK4-03-0036-4500113
G3HVK4- 03 -0032 -4500114
G3HVK4- 03 -0161 -4500211
G3HVK4- 03 -0162 -4500212
G3HVK4- 03 -0166 -45 00230
G3HVK4- 03 -0167 -4500232
G3HVK4-03-0168-4500233
G3HVK4- 03 -0199 -4 500271
G3HVK4- 03 -02 00 -4500272
G3HUK4- 03 -02 02 -4500275
G3HVK4-03-0206-4500282
G3HVK4-03-0207-4500283
G3HUK4-03-0218-4500298
G3HVK4- 03 -022 0-450 0326
G3HVK4- 03 -022 1-450 0327
G3HVK4- 03 -0242 -45003 82
G3HVK4- 03 -0243 -45003 83
G3HVK4-03-0252-4500408
G3HVK4- 03 -0253 -4 500409
N3HUK4-03-0030-4500049
N3HUK4- 03 -0027 -4500050
N3HVH3- 03 -0376 -4500103
N3HVJ3- 03 -04 04 -4500104
N3HVK3- 03 -0262 -4500105
N3HUK3- 03 -0265 -4500107
N3HUK4- 03 -0040 -4500108
N3HUK3-03-0405-4500158
N3HUK3-03-0406-4500159
N3HUK3- 03 -026 9-4500160
N3HVK3- 03 -034 0-4500161
N3HUK3- 03 -034 1-4500162
N3HUK3- 03 -0342 -4500163
N3HVK3- 03 -03 97 -4500164
N3HUK3- 03 -03 99-4500165
N3HUK3- 03 -0402 -4500166
N3HVK4- 03 -0163 -45002 13
N3HUK4- 03 -0164 -4500214
N3HUK4- 03 -0165-4500228
N3HVK4- 03 -016 9 -4500234
N3HUK4- 03 -0170 -4500235
N3HVK4-03-0203-4500276
N3HVK4- 03 -0204 -4500278
N3HVK4- 03 -02 05 -4500281
N3HVK4-03-0208-4500284
N3HVK4- 03 -0216 -45002 96
N3HVK4- 03 -0217-4 500297
N3HVK4- 03 -0222 -450032 8
N3HUK4- 03 -0240 -4500380
N3HUK4-03-0241-4500381
N3HUK4-03-0248-4500405
N3HUK4-03-0249-4500406
N3HUK4- 03 -0251 -4 500407
TOTAL OF
C3HVK3- 04 -0355 -4500057
C3HVK4-04-0048-4500121
C3HVK4- 04 -0049 -4500135
C3HVJ4- 04 -0105 -45002 92
C3HVK4- 04 -0131-4500371
G3HVK3- 04 -0326 -4500001
G3HVK3- 04 -0353 -4500111
G3HVK4- 04 -0054 -45 00133
G3HVK4- 04 -0050 -4500134
G3HVK4- 04 -006 3 -4500155
G3HVK4- 04 -008 0-4500190
G3HVK4- 04 -0086 -4500191
G3HVK4- 04 -0081 -45 00192
G3HVK4- 04 -0106 -450 0220
G3HVK4- 04 -0102 -4500221
G3HVK4- 04 -0103 -4500240
G3HVK4- 04 -0125 -4500311
G3HVK4- 04 -0133 -45003 12
G3HVK4- 04 -0108 -45003 13
G3HVK4- 04 -0124 -4500325
N3HVK3-04-0327-4500002
N3HVK3- 04 -03 03 -4500025
Title
HEALTH RESEARCH INC. NY
RPI NY
REGION 02 = 39
CHESTERFIELD COUNTY VA
HARFORD COUNTY MD
FAIRFAX COUNTY VA
ELKTON TOWN OF MD
WELLSBORO MUNICIPAL AUTH PA
VA RESOURCES AUTHORITY VA
CENTERVILLE BOROUGH SANITARYPA
CENTERVILLE BOROUGH SANITARYPA
MD WATER QUALITY FA MD
INDIAN HEAD TOWN OF MD
CENTERVILLE PA
WESTFIELD BOROUGH PA
SUSQUEHANNA RIVER BASIN PA
STRASBURG VA
WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITAT PA
WEST PIKE RUN TOWNSHIP PA
WEST PIKE RUN TOWNSHIP PA
RIDGELY MD
CAMBRIDGE MD
RESOURCES FOR THE FUTURE INCDC
WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANIT PA
GREATER GREENSBURG SEWAGE PA
AMERICAN ACADEMY ENVIRONMENTDC
ROCK HALL TOWN OF MD
DELAWARE REIVER BASIN COMM PA
WYOMING VALLEY SANITARY AUTHPA
CALVERT COUNTY MD
WESTMINSTER MD
FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP MUA
OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH FDN DC
PA STATE UNIVERSITY PA
BALTIMORE CITY OF MD
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA VA
MARYLAND STATE OF MD
PUBLIC TECHNOLOGY INC. DC
CENTER FOR MARINE CONSERVATIDC
LEHIGH UNIVERSITY PA
PITTSBURGH UNIVERSITY PA
UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND MD
FREDERICK COUNTY MD
UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE DE
INT INSTITUTE ENERGY CONSERVDC
HAGERSTOWN CITY OF MD
ST. VINCENT'S COLLEGE PA
GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY DC
DELAWARE STATE DE
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SENIORS DC
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITYDC
DC DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS DC
AMERICAN STATISTICAL ASSOC VA
ERIE COUNTY PA
ALLEGHENY COUNTY PA
ALLEGHANY COUNTY VA
LOUDON COUNTY VA
METRO WASHINGTON COG DC
LEE COUNTY VA
FREDERICK CITY MD
URBAN INSTITUTE DC
NATURE CONSERVATORY VA
JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY MD
ST VINCENT'S COLLEGE PA
AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY DC
REGION 03 = 62
DEKALB COUNTY GA
COLUMBIA SC
PENSACOLA FL
JEFFERSON COUNTY AL
LEXINGTON FAYETTE URBAN COUNKY
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER DISTFL
MIAMI DADE WATER & SEWER AUTFL
MACON WATER AUTHORITY GA
RINCON GA
GRAND STRAND WATER 5c SEWER SC
CAVELAND SANITATION AUTHORITKY
SNEEDVILLE TN
SPARTANBURG SANITARY SEWER SC
RICHLANDS NC
SALEMBURG NC
OAK GROVE KY
CHOCOWINITY NC
HARRISON COUNTY WASTEWATER MS
HARRISON COUNTY WASTEWATER MS
CHOCOWINITY NC
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER DISTFL
BROWARD COUNTY FL
Final Report
Issued
3/22/94
3/28/94

2/ 3/94
3/25/94
3/25/94
10/25/93
10/25/93
10/26/93
10/26/93
10/26/93
10/26/93
11/12/93
11/19/93
11/19/93
1/28/94
1/28/94
2/ 3/94
2/ 3/94
2/ 3/94
2/25/94
2/25/94
2/25/94
2/25/94
2/25/94
3/ 3/94
3/11/94
3/11/94
3/25/94
3/25/94
3/31/94
3/31/94
10/25/93
10/25/93
11/10/93
11/10/93
11/12/93
11/12/93
11/12/93
12/30/93
12/30/93
12/30/93
12/30/93
12/30/93
12/30/93
12/30/93
12/30/93
12/30/93
1/28/94
1/28/94
2/ 3/94
2/ 3/94
2/ 3/94
2/25/94
2/25/94
2/25/94
2/25/94
3/ 3/94
3/ 3/94
3/11/94
3/25/94
3/25/94
3/31/94
3/31/94
3/31/94

10/26/93
11/26/93
12/ 2/93
3/ 1/94
3/23/94
10/ 4/93
11/16/93
12/ 2/93
12/ 2/93
12/23/93
1/19/94
1/19/94
1/19/94
2/ 2/94
2/ 2/94
2/ 7/94
3/ 7/94
3/ 7/94
3/ 7/94
3/11/94
10/ 4/93
10/13/93
Ineligible
Costs
0
0
1, 746
0
0
0
0
c
c
c
c
c
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
892, 791
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
3
D
0
0
0
0
0
892,791
0
0
0
0
0
3, 014
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies
Costs Unreasonable (Funds be Put
Costs To Better Use)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
933,222
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
933,222
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48
                                                                                   OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
                                                                           Questioned Costs
Recommended
Assignment
Control Number
N3HVK3- 04 -0263 -4500035
N3HVK3-04-0139-4S00036
N3HUJ3- 04 -033 9 -4500115
N3HUJ3- 04 -034 1-4500116
N3HUK3- 04 -0354 -45 00153
N3HUK3- 04 -0338 -4500154
N3HVK4- 04 -0026 -4500167
N3HVK4- 04 -0078 -4500172
N3HVK4- 04 -0079 -4500173
N3HVJ3-04-0309-4500174
N3HVK4-04-0101-4500222
N3HVK3- 04 -0300-45002 8 9
N3HVK4- 04 -0083 -45002 90
N3HVK4- 04 -0082 -45002 91
N3HUK4- 04 -0084 -45003 00
N3HUK4- 04 -0052 -45003 01
N3HUK4- 04 -0051 -45003 02
N3HVK4- 04 -0136 -4500333
N3HVK4-04-0148-4500368
N3HVK4-04-0145-4500369
N3HVK4-04-0137-4500370
N3HVK4-04-01S3-4500372
N3HVK4-04-0147-4500373
N3HVK4- 04-0152-4500410
N3HUK3-04-0332-4500411
N3HVK3-04-0336-4500412
TOTAL OF
C3HVK3- 05 -0371 -4500023
C3HVJ3- 05 -0373 -4500033
C3HVJ4- 05 -0076 -4500208
C3HVK4- OS -0108 -4500241
C3HVK4- 05 -0116 -45002 99
C3HVK4- 05 -0118 -4500318
C3HVK4-05-0124-4500331
G3HVK3- 05 -038 0-45 00029
G3HVK3- 05 -0369 -4 500030
G3HVK3-05-0361-4500031
G3HVJ3- 05 -0382 -4 500046
G3HVK3- 05 -0385 -4 500067
G3HVK3-05-0390-4500068
G3HVK3- 05 -0377-4500070
G3HVJ4-05-0029-4500071
G3HVJ4-05-0038-4500072
G3HVK4-05-0039-4500073
G3HVJ4- 05 -0031 -45 00074
G3HVJ4- 05 -003 0-4500075
G3HVJ3- 05 -03 86 -4500076
G3HVJ4-05-0046-4500093
G3HVK4- 05 -0020 -450 0112
G3HVK4-05-0098-4500184
G3HVJ4-05-0058-4500186
G3HVK4-05-0066-4500187
G3HVK4-05-0096-4500207
G3HVJ4-05-0100-4500247
G3HVK4-05-0102-4500249
G3HVK3-05-0190-4500295
G3HVK4- 05 -0184 -4500329
G3HVJ4- 05 -0125 -4500330
G3HVJ4- 05 -0127 -4500332
G3HVJ4-05-0141-4500343
G3HVJ4- 05 -0142 -450034 5
G3HVJ4- 05 -0143 -450034 6
G3HVJ4-05-0140-4500347
G3HVJ4-05-0148-4500348
G3HVJ4-05-0145-4500349
G3HVJ4-05-0128-4500350
G3HVJ4- 05 -0144 -45 00351
G3HVK4- 05 -0131-45 00353
G3HVJ4-05-0139-4500355
G3HVJ4- 05 -0154 -450 0363
G3HUK4-05-0092-4500364
G3HVJ4- 05 -0136 -4500366
G3HVJ4-05-0134-4500367
G3HVJ4-05-0153-4500374
G3HVJ4-05-0159-4500375
G3HVJ4-05-0160-4500376
G3HVJ4-05-0161-4500377
G3HVJ4-05-0164-4500378
G3HVJ4-05-0165-4500379
G3HVJ4-05-0150-4500388
G3HVJ4-05-0151-4500389
G3HVJ4-05-0152-4500390
G3HVJ4-05-0166-4500399
G3HVJ4-05-0176-4500400
G3HVJ4-05-0179-4500401
G3HVJ4-05-0180-4500402
N3HVJ3- 05 -0158 -45 00024
N3HVK3- 05 -0345 -4500032
N3HVK3-05-0319-4500045
N3HUK3-05-0335-4500069
Title
GAINESVILLE FL
GAINESVILLE FL
MISSISSIPPI STATE UNIVERSITYMS
SOUTHERN MISSISSIPPI UNIVERSMS
CENTRAL CAROLINA TECHNICAL SC
FISK UNIVERSITY TN
DADE COUNTY FL
BELHAVEN NC
WASHINGTON NC
FLORIDA, STATE OF FL
HYDE COUNTY NC
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY FL
MECKLENBURG NC
FORSYTH COUNTY NC
ALABAMA UNIVERSITY OF HUNTSVAL
ALABAMA UNIVERSITY OF AL
AUBURN UNIVERSITY OF AL
SOUTH FULTON TN
STANLY COUNTY NC
WINSTON SALEM NC
FAYETTEVILLE NC
COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTSKY
BUNCOMBE COUNTY NC
COUNCIL OF STATE GOVERNMENTSKY
MOREHOUSE SCHOOL OF MEDICINEGA
SOUTH CAROLINA STATE OF SC
REGION 04 = 48
OTTAWA CO FY 92 MI
ILLINOIS EPA FY 91/92 IL
HAMMOND FY 92 IN
KENT FY 92 MI
RACINE FY 92 WI
KALAMAZOO FY 92 MI
AKRON FY 92 OH
BETHEL FY 92 MN
GRANT TWP FY 93 MI
PINCKNEY FY 93 MI
GARY CSC FY 91/92 IN
AHMEEK FY 93 MI
BAY CO FY 92 MI
CINCINNATI MSD FY 92 OH
FRANCESVILLE FY 92 IN
GOOD LAND FY 91/92 IN
N SHORE SD FY 93 IL
DUPONT FY 91/92 IN
DUPONT FY 90 IN
W LEBANON FY 90/91 IN
DECATUR FY 93 IN
MN SRF FY 93 MN
GREENWOOD FY 91/92 IN
ADDISON FY 93 IL
NEWAYGO FY 93 MI
SYCAMORE FY 93 IL
STEUBEN LAKES RWD FY 92 IN
FRANKLIN FY 93 MI
AMA FY 90/91 IL
PORTAGE LAKE FY 93 MI
REMINGTON FY 92 IN
JEFFERSONVILLE FY 92 IN
NEW POINT FY 91/92 IN
SILVER LAKE FY 91/92 IN
LAGRANGE FY 91 IN
SELLERSBURG FY 91/92 IN
WINSLOW FY 91/92 IN
JASPER FY 92 IN
DARMSTADT FY 91/92 IN
MACOG FY 93 IN
NIPC FY 93 IL
ENGLISH FY 91/92 IN
CLAYPOOL FY 91/92 IN
CHICAGO AOS FY 93 IL
KOSCIUSKO CO FY 91/92 IN
INDIAN BOUNDARY CD FY 91/92 IN
FOUNTAIN CITY FY 91/92 IN
GREENTOWN FY 91/92 IN
TRI-LAKES RSD FY 91/92 IN
LITTLE RACCOON RWD FY 91/92 IN
MARKLE FY 91/92 IN
WILKINSON FY 91/92 IN
EVANSVILLE FY 92 IN
LAKE ELIZA ACD FY 91/92 IN
ORLEANS FY 91/92 IN
HOLTON FY 91/92 IN
ROSSVILLE FY 91/92 IN
WHITE OAK CO FY 92 IN
CHURUBUSCO FY 91/92 IN
OHIO ST OF FY 91 OH
EAU CLAIRE FY 92 WI
OAKLAND CO FY 92 MI
AKRON U OF FY 91/92 OH
Final Report
Issued
10/14/93
10/14/93
11/22/93
11/22/93
12/23/93
12/23/93
12/30/93
I/ 6/94
I/ 6/94
I/ 6/94
2/ 2/94
3/ 1/94
3/ 1/94
3/ 1/94
3/ 3/94
3/ 3/94
3/ 3/94
3/14/94
3/23/94
3/23/94
3/23/94
3/24/94
3/24/94
3/31/94
3/31/94
3/31/94

10/12/93
10/13/93
1/27/94
2/ 9/94
3/ 3/94
3/10/94
3/11/94
10/13/93
10/13/93
10/13/93
10/21/93
10/28/93
10/28/93
10/28/93
ll/ 1/93
ll/ 1/93
ll/ 1/93
ll/ 1/93
ll/ 1/93
ll/ 1/93
ll/ 4/93
11/19/93
1/13/94
1/13/94
1/13/94
1/27/94
2/14/94
2/16/94
3/ 3/94
3/11/94
3/11/94
3/11/94
3/16/94
3/16/94
3/16/94
3/16/94
3/16/94
3/17/94
3/17/94
3/17/94
3/17/94
3/17/94
3/22/94
3/22/94
3/22/94
3/22/94
3/24/94
3/24/94
3/24/94
3/24/94
3/24/94
3/24/94
3/28/94
3/28/94
3/28/94
3/30/94
3/30/94
3/30/94
3/30/94
10/12/93
10/13/93
10/21/93
10/28/93
Ineligible
Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3, 014
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
131,037
6,100
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies
Costs Unreasonable (Funds be Put
Costs To Better Use)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12,898
0
12,898
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                     49

-------
                                                                              Questioned Costs
Recommended
Assignment
Control Number
N3HVJ3- 05 -0364 -45000 92
N3HVJ3- 05 -0375 -45000 94
N3HVK3- 05 -0344 -45000 95
N3HVK3-05-0368-4500181
N3HUK3- 05 -033 1-4 500215
N3HVJ4- 05 -0082 -450024 6
N3HVJ3-05-0196-4500337
N3HUH4-05-0113-4500352
N3HUK4- 05 -0109-4 5003 54
N3HVJ4- 05 -0037 -4500365
N3HVK3- 05 -0198 -4500384
TOTAL OF
C3HVK4- 06 -0034 -45 00010
C3HVJ4- 06 -0087 -450 0336
G3HEK4-06-0023-4500003
G3HVK4-06-0037-4500014
G3HVK4- 06 -003 8 -4500016
G3HVK4- 06 -0050 -4500119
G3HVK4- 06 -0059-450014 6
G3HVK4- 06 -0064 -4500171
G3HVK4- 06 -0066 -45 00225
G3HVK4-06-0068-4500227
G3HVK4- 06 -0076 -4500320
G3HVK4- 06 -008 0-450 0321
G3HVK4- 06 -008 1-450 0322
G3HVK4- 06 -0082 -4500323
G3HVK4- 06 -0083 -4500324
N3HVK4- 06 -0027 -4 500004
N3HVK4- 06 -0024 -4 500005
N3HVK4-06-0025-4500006
N3HVK4- 06 -0026 -4500007
N3HVK4-06-0028-4500008
N3HVK4- 06 -003 6 -4500012
N3HVK4- 06 -004 0-4500021
N3HVK4- 06 -004 1-45 00022
N3HVK4- 06 -0051 -45 00117
N3HUK4- 06 -0052 -45 00118
N3HVK4- 06 -0055 -4500136
N3HVK4- 06 -0054 -4500137
N3HVK4- 06 -0058 -450 0142
N3HVK4- 06 -0057 -4500143
N3HVK4-06-0063-4500168
N3HVK4- 06 -0062 -4500169
N3HVJ4- 06 -006 1-4500170
N3HUK4- 06 -0067 -4500226
N3HVJ4-06-0069-4500229
N3HVK4-06-0079-4500319
TOTAL OF
C3HVK3- 07 -014 8 -4500110
G3HVK3- 07 -0141-45 00015
G3HVK4-07-0016-4500058
G3HVK3- 07 -0167 -450006 3
G3HVK4- 07 -0017 -4500064
G3HVK4-07-0018-4500065
G3HVK3- 07 -013 1-450006 6
G3HVK4- 07 -0021 -4 500130
G3HVK3-07-0163-4500189
G3HVK4- 07 -0031 -450019 6
G3HVK4- 07- 0019 -450019 9
G3HVK4-07-0028-4500204
G3HVK4- 07- 0033 -450024 3
G3HVK4- 07- 0041-4500257
G3HVK4- 07 -0029-450025 8
G3HVK4- 07 -004 8 -4500260
G3HVK3- 07 -0166 -450028 5
N3HVK3- 07 -0149 -4500013
N3HVK3- 07- 0150 -450002 6
N3HVK3- 07 -0142 -4500 027
N3HVK3-07-0136-4500028
N3HVJ3- 07 -0137 -450005 9
N3HVJ3- 07 -014 0-4500060
N3HVJ3- 07 -0128 -4500061
N3HVK3- 07 -0165 -45 00175
N3HVK4- 07 -003 0-450017 6
N3HVK4- 07 -0027-450017 7
N3HVK4-07-0039-4500200
N3HVK3-07-0160-4500201
N3HVK3- 07 -0158 -4500202
N3HUK3- 07 -0159-4500203
N3HUK4- 07 -0026 -4500242
N3HVJ3- 07 -016 1-4500244
N3HUK4- 07 -0025 -45003 03
N3HVK4-07-0020-4500304
N3HVJ4-07-0042-4500314
N3HVK4- 07- 0043 -4500315
N3HVK4- 07- 0044 -4500316
Title
INDIANA DNR FY 92 IN
MN STATE OF FY 92 MN
MUSKEGON CO FY 92 MI
GLS TRIBAL COUNCIL FY 92 MI
TOLEDO U FY 92 OH
E CHICAGO FY 92 IN
MARION FY 90 IN
MACALESTER COLL FY 93 MN
SAGINAW VALLEY ST U FY 92 MI
MICHIGAN DOE FY 90/91 MI
CHIPPEWA IND SSMT FY 91 MI
REGION 05 = 74
NORTH LITTLE ROCK AR
TULSA COUNTY OK
SOLID WASTE RESEAR OK
PINELAND TX
PINELAND TX
EL PASO PSB TX
GROUND WATER PROTECTION COUNOK
TAHLEQUAH OK
BIG WELLS TX
NASH OK
DEVINE TX
TRINITY BAY CONSERVATION DISTX
TRINITY BAY CONSERVATION DISTX
DENVER CITY TX
DENVER CITY T
PUEBLO OF ACOMA NM
HOUSTON TX
PECOS NM
CHICKASAW NATION OK
PUEBLO OF ACOMA NM
LOWER RIO GRANDE DEVELOPMENTTX
THRALL TX
THRALL TX
WALNUT SPRINGS TX
BAYLOR COLLEGE OF MEDICINE TX
AUSTIN TX
CHEROKEE NATION OK
PUEBLO OF ISLETA NM
CHEYNNE-ARAPAHO TRIBE OK
HOUSTON-GALVESTON AREA COUN TX
POJOAQUE PUEBLO NM
ARKANSAS DEPT OF HEALTH AR
UNIVERSITY OF OKLA HEALTH OK
STATE OF OKLAHOMA OK
ALBUQUERQUE NM
REGION 06 = 35
KANSAS CITY KS
DEXTER MO
PUBLIC WATER SUP DIST tt 1 MO
LOUP CITY NE
BIRCHTREE MO
BIRCH TREE MO
CHEROKEE COUNTY KS
FAIR GROVE MO
BOUNCETON MO
PURDY MO
METRO ST LOUIS SEWER DIST MO
FORSYTH MO
MONTGOMERY COUNTY KS
WEST UNION IA
LAMAR MO
AINSWORTH NE
WABAUNSEE COUNTY KS
ST. LOUIS SCIENCE CENTER MO
IOWA CITY IA
SEDGWICK COUNTY KS
TOPEKA KS
MISSOURI MO
IOWA IA
KANSAS KS
MARION COUNTY KS
WASHBURN MO
MOBERLY MO
WICHITA KS
SO CENTRA OZARK COUNCIL GOVTMO
SELIGMAN MO
UNIV OF MISSOURI SYSTEM MO
KU CENTER FOR RESEARCH KS
NEBRASKA NE
CROWDER COLLEGE MO
MERAMEC REG PLANNING COMM MO
MARSHALLTOWN IA
OMAHA NE
DBS MOINES IA
Final Report
Issued
ll/ 4/93
ll/ 4/93
ll/ 4/93
I/ 7/94
1/28/94
2/14/94
3/15/94
3/17/94
3/17/94
3/22/94
3/25/94

10/ 5/93
3/15/94
10/ 4/93
10/ 7/93
10/ 7/93
11/23/93
12/20/93
I/ 5/94
2/ 3/94
2/ 3/94
3/10/94
3/10/94
3/10/94
3/10/94
3/10/94
10/ 5/93
10/ 5/93
10/ 5/93
10/ 5/93
10/ 5/93
10/ 6/93
10/ 8/93
10/ 8/93
11/23/93
11/23/93
12/ 2/93
12/ 2/93
12/15/93
12/15/93
I/ 3/94
I/ 3/94
I/ 3/94
2/ 3/94
2/ 3/94
3/10/94

11/15/93
10/ 7/93
10/26/93
10/26/93
10/26/93
10/26/93
10/26/93
12/ 1/93
1/14/94
1/21/94
1/21/94
1/21/94
2/11/94
2/18/94
2/18/94
2/18/94
2/25/94
10/ 6/93
10/13/93
10/13/93
10/13/93
10/26/93
10/26/93
10/26/93
I/ 7/94
I/ 7/94
I/ 7/94
1/21/94
1/21/94
1/21/94
1/21/94
2/11/94
2/11/94
3/ 4/94
3/ 4/94
3/ 7/94
3/ 7/94
3/ 7/94
Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies
Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds be Put
Costs To Better Use)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
137,137
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4,646
7, 173
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
(
(
(
(
           TOTAL OF REGION  07 =
                                38
                                                                     11,819
50
                                                                                       OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
                                                                            Questioned Costs
                                                                                                        Recommended
Assignment
Control Number
C3HVJ4- 08 -0023 -4 500195
G3HVK3- 08 -0104 -450004 3
G3HVJ4- 08 -003 0-4500261
N3HVK3- 08 -0113 -4500017
N3HVK3-08-0125-4500047
N3HVK3- 08 -0126 -4500048
N3HVJ3- 08 -0094 -4500 062
N3HVK3- 08 -0124 -4500097
N3HVK3- 08 -0105 -4500120
N3HVK3- 08 -0108 -4500131
N3HVK3- 08 -0109 -4500132
N3HVJ3- 08 -0073 -450018 8
N3HVJ3- 08 -0123 -4500194
N3HUK3- 08 -012 0-45001 97
N3HVJ3- 08 -0099 -4500198
N3HVK4- 08 -002 9 -4500256
N3HVJ4- 08 -003 1-4500286
N3HUK4- 08 -0037 -4500287
N3HVK4- 08 -0038 -45002 88
N3HVK4- 08 -0022 -450 0356
TOTAL OF
C3HVK4- 09 -0096 -4500310
G3HVK3- 09 -0254 -4500040
G3HUK3- 09- 0120-45 00078
G3HVK3- 09-0265-4500090
G3HVK3- 09 -0213 -450014 9
G3HVK4- 09 -0066 -4500157
G3HVK3- 09 -018 0-4500183
G3HVK4- 09 -0070 -4500205
G3HVK4- 09- 0087 -4500216
G3HVK4- 09 -0086 -45 00217
G3HVK4- 09 -0064 -4500237
G3HVK4- 09 -0098 -450023 9
G3HVK4- 09 -0097 -4500254
G3HVK4-09-0081-45002S5
G3HVK4- 09- 00 99 -4500264
G3HVK4- 09- 0112 -4500268
G3HVK4- 09- 0120 -450033 9
G3HVK4- 09- 0103 -4500340
G3HUK4- 09- 0110 -4500360
G3HVK4- 09- 0109 -45003 96
N3HVK3- 09 -0229 -450003 9
N3HVK3- 09 -0056 -450007 9
N3HVK3- 09 -0266 -4 500123
N3HVK3- 09 -0252 -4500124
N3HVK3- 09- 0199-4500126
N3HVK4- 09 -0050 -450013 9
N3HVK4 -09- 0052-4500140
N3HVJ3- 09 -0034 -4 500151
N3HVK4- 09-0051-4500152
N3HVJ3- 09 -0223 -4500179
N3HVK3- 09- 0168 -4500206
N3HVK4-09- 0084 -4500250
N3HVK4- 09- 0038 -4500251
N3HVK4- 09- 0106 -4500252
N3HVK4- 09 -0040 -4 500253
N3HVK4-09-0115-4500293
N3HVK4- 09 -0056 -4500294
N3HVK4- 09 -0108 -450033 8
N3HVK4- 09- 0111-4500361
N3HVK4 -09- 0121-4500362
N3HVK3-09- 0219-4500394
N3HVK4 -09- 0085-4500395
N3HVK4- 09- 0119-4500404
TOTAL OF
G3HVK3- 10- 0155 -4500 037
G3HVK3-10-0156-4500038
G3HVK3-10-0164-4500041
G3HVK3- 10 -0170 -4500 042
G3HUK3- 10 -016 9 -4500085
G3HVJ3- 10 -0175 -4500086
G3HVK3- 10 -0157 -4 500091
G3HVK3- 10- 0149 -4500098
G3HVK3- 10 -0166 -4500099
G3HVK4- 10 -0012 -4500122
G3HVJ4- 10 -0028 -4500180
G3HVJ4- 10 -0029 -4500182
G3HVJ4- 10 -004 1-4 500209
G3HUK4- 10 -0043 -4 500223
G3HVK4-1 0-0042 -4 50023 8
G3HVJ4-10-0051-4500259
G3HVK4- 10 -0052 -4500262
G3HVJ4- 10 -0053 -4500265
G3HVK4-10-0057-4500269
G3HVK4- 10 -007 0-4500341
G3HVK4-1 0-0071 -45003 97
G3HVK3- 10 -0112 -45003 98
G3HVK3-10-0092-4500403
Title
DEFT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITWY
ETHAN SD
RAMSEY COUNTY ND
GRAND FORKS ND
NATIVE AM FISH & WILDLIFE SD
NATIVE AM FISH & WILDLIFE SD
SOUTH DAKOTA SD
LOWER BRULE SIOUX TRIBE SD
DENVER CO
SHOSHONE & ARAPAHO TRIBES
SHOSHONE Sc ARAPAHO TRIBES WY
NORTH DAKOTA ND
PENNINGTON COUNTY SD
UNIV. OF DENVER CO
UTAH UT
YANKTON SIOUX TRIBE SD
WY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTUREWY
CASPER COMM COLLEGE DIST WY
PUEBLO CO
WESTERN GOVERNORS ASSOC CO
REGION 08 = 20
HONOLULU, CITY AND COUNTY OFHI
L.A. DEPT OF WATER & POWER CA
RURAL COMMUNITY ASSIST CORP CA
SAN JOAQUIN VLYWIDE AIR POL CA
BAY AREA AIR QTY MGMT DIST CA
SEDONA, CITY OF AZ
MONTEREY BAY U.A.P.C. DIST CA
GERBER LAS FLORES COMM SERV CA
EAST BAY MUNI UTILITY DIS CA
WEOTT COMM. SVCS . DIST. CA
SANTA ANA WATERSHED PROJ AUTCA
AVONDALE, CITY OF AZ
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CITY OFCA
HAWAII, COUNTY OF HI
BOULDER CITY, CITY OF NV
EMERYVILLE, CITY OF CA
ASSN OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENT CA
MONTEREY BAY U.A.P.C. DIST CA
RURAL COMMUNITY ASSIST CORP CA
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SAN DIST CA
SAN FRANCISCO, CITY & COUNTYCA
COLORADO RIVER INDIANS TRIBEAZ
SAN DIEGO, COUNTY OF CA
HOPI TRIBE AZ
NEVADA, STATE OF NV
WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE AZ
CW OF NOR MARIANA ISLANDS MP
ARIZONA STATE OF AZ
QUECHAN INDIAN TRIBE AZ
PIMA COUNTY AZ
PALAU, REPUBLIC OF PW
DUNSMUIR, CITY OF CA
PYRAMID LAKE PAIUTE TRIBE NV
DUNSMUIR, CITY OF CA
PYRAMID LAKE PAIUTE TRIBE NV
SANTA BARBARA, COUNTY OF CA
SANTA BARBARA, COUNTY OF CA
SANTA CRUZ, CITY OF CA
MODESTO, CITY OF CA
LAKE, COUNTY OF CA
OAKLAND, CITY OF CA
FEDERATED STATES MICRONESIA FM
STANISLAUS, CITY OF CA
REGION 09 = 43
LANE REG AIR POLLUTION AUTH OR
LANE REG AIR POLLUTION AUTH OR
NESKOWIN REG SANITARY AUTH OR
OAKRIDGE, CITY OF OR
PAC NORTHWEST POL PREV RES WA
MONTESANO, CITY OF WA
COEUR D'ALENE, CITY OF ID
KETCHIKAN, CITY OF AK
NESKOWIN REG SANITARY AUTH OR
HOMER, CITY OF AK
PORT ANGELES, CITY OF WA
BLACK DIAMOND, CITY OF WA
YAKIMA, CITY OF WA
ANCHORAGE CHAMBER OF COMM AK
BOARDMAN, CITY OF OR
RAYMOND, CITY OF WA
POST FALLS, CITY OF ID
LANGLEY, CITY OF WA
SALEM, CITY OF OR
EUGENE, CITY OF OR
PORTLAND, CITY OF OR
PORTLAND, CITY OF OR
LEWISTON, CITY OF ID
Final Report
Issued
1/21/94
10/19/93
2/18/94
10/ 7/93
10/21/93
10/21/93
10/26/93
ll/ 5/93
11/24/93
12/ 1/93
12/ 1/93
1/14/94
1/21/94
1/21/94
1/21/94
2/18/94
2/25/94
2/25/94
2/25/94
3/18/94

3/ 7/94
10/14/93
ll/ 1/93
ll/ 3/93
12/21/93
12/28/93
1/12/94
1/26/94
2/ 1/94
2/ 1/94
2/ 3/94
2/ 4/94
2/17/94
2/17/94
2/23/94
2/24/94
3/15/94
3/15/94
3/22/94
3/29/94
10/14/93
ll/ 1/93
11/29/93
11/29/93
11/29/93
12/ 3/93
12/ 3/93
12/22/93
12/22/93
1/10/94
1/26/94
2/16/94
2/16/94
2/16/94
2/16/94
3/ 1/94
3/ 1/94
3/15/94
3/22/94
3/22/94
3/29/94
3/29/94
3/30/94

10/14/93
10/14/93
10/18/93
10/18/93
ll/ 2/93
ll/ 2/93
ll/ 3/93
ll/ 9/93
ll/ 9/93
11/29/93
1/11/94
1/12/94
1/27/94
2/ 2/94
2/ 4/94
2/18/94
2/18/94
2/23/94
2/24/94
3/15/94
3/29/94
3/30/94
3/30/94
Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies
Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds be Put
Costs To Better Use)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
47, 647
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
48,828
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
96,475
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15,032
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                       51

-------
                                                                                       Questioned Costs
Recommended
Assignment
Control Number
G3HVJ4
G3HVK3
G3HVK3
G3HVJ3
N3HUK3
N3HVK3
N3HVK3
N3HVK3
N3HVK3
N3HVJ3
N3HVJ3
N3HVJ4
N3HVJ3
N3HVK4

-10-
-10-
-10-
-10-
-10-
-10-
-10-
-10-
-10-
-10-
-10-
-10-
-10-
-10-

0073-4500413
0036-4500414
0127-4500415
0132-4500416
0101-4500034
0144-4500081
0162-4500082
0143-4500084
0117-4500087
0025-4500089
0107-4500125
0014-4500218
0133-4500219
0040-4500270
TOTAL OF
Title
SEATTLE, METROPOLITAN
LANE COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
POCATELLO, CITY OF
CAMAS, CITY OF
BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY

WA
OR
ID
WA
ID
UMATILLA IND RES, CONF TRIBEOR
CHEHALIS RES CONF TRIBES
COLVILLE RES, CONF TRIBES
SWINOMISH TRIBAL COMM
ALASKA, STATE OF
WASHINGTON, STATE OF
EVERETT, CITY OF
OREGON, STATE OF
ANCHORAGE, MUNICIPALITY OF
REGION 10 = 37
WA
WA
WA
AK
WA
WA
OR
AK

TOTAL OTHER GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
Final Report
Issued
3/31/94
3/31/94
3/31/94
3/31/94
10/13/93
ll/ 1/93
ll/ 1/93
ll/ 2/93
ll/ 2/93
ll/ 3/93
11/29/93
2/ 1/94
2/ 1/94
2/24/94

408
Ineligible
Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15, 032
1, 158, 014
Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies
Costs Unreasonable (Funds be Put
Costs To Better Use)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
946, 120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5. SUPERFUND GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
E5BGN3
E5BGN3
E5BGN3
P5BGL2

P5BGL2

S5DGN2
S5AGP4

M5BFL4
M5BFL4
M5BFL4
MSBFL4
M5BFL4
M5BFL4
-06-
-06-
-06-
-06-

-08-

-09-
-09-

-11-
-11-
-11-
-11-
-11-
-11-
0083-4300006
0182-4300011
0090-4300026
0193-4100017
TOTAL OF
0089-4100167
TOTAL OF
0047-4300033
0147-4400046
TOTAL OF
0013-4100164
0011-4100165
0012-4100166
0017-4100188
0018-4100189
0019-4100190
TEXAS WATER COMMISSION
MIDLAND PRODUCTS COOP AGREE
OSDH COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
TX WATER COMM
REGION 06 = 4
STATE OF COLORADO
REGION 08 = 1
CA DEPT OF HLTH ICRP
ACCOUNTING SYSTEM - DTSC
REGION 09 = 2
SF-IAG DOJ FY 92
SF IAG-FEMA FY92
SF IAG-ARMY FY 92
SF-IAG ARMY FY92
SF-IAG DOI FWS FY 91-92
SF-IAG DOI RECLAMATION FY92
TX
AR
OK
TX

CO

CA
CA







11/15/93
11/30/93
2/ 2/94
10/15/93

I/ 4/94

3/31/94
3/31/94

I/ 4/94
I/ 4/94
I/ 4/94
2/22/94
2/22/94
2/22/94
16, 058
23,481
0
0
39,539
309,554
309,554
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20,602
62, 020
15, 939
98,561
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
              TOTAL OF HDQ - HAD AUDITS
              TOTAL SUPERFUND GRANT ASSIGNMENTS
                                                          13
                                                                            349,093
                                                                                             98,561
8 .  OTHER CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS
D8DML3-
D8DML3-
D8EML3-
D8DML4-
D8BML3-
D8AML3-
D8CML3-
D8CML4-
D8AMN3-
D8AMN3-
D8EML3
D8DML4
D8DML3
D8DML2
D8EML4
D8EML4
D8CML3
D8EML4
D8DUL2
D8DUL2
D8BML3
D8AMN4
D8AMN4
D8AMN4
D8AMN4
D8AMN4
P8AXP3
P&AXP4
01-0263-4100002
01-0262-4100003
01-0278-4100004
01-0019-4100008
01-0074-4100056
01-0244-4100057
01-0271-4100193
01-0087-4100217
01-0266-4300007
01-0243-4300009
         TRC COMPANIES INC.
         TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULT.
         INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS INC.
         WPI INC.
         FAY SPOFFORD & THORNDIKE
         FEV
         THE MITRE CORPORATION
         RAYTHEON SERVICE COMPANY
         ABT ASSOCIATES
         FEV MOTERENTIECHNIK
                            CT
                            CT
                            MA
                            MA
                            MA
                            MA
                            MA
                            MA
                            MA
                            MA
              TOTAL OF REGION 01 =
                                     10
•02-0212-
-02-0016-
•02-0201-
•02-0109-
•02-0038-
•02-0039-
-02-0137-
-02-0052-
-02-0104-
-02-0104-
-02-0164-
-02-0026-
•02-0026-
•02-0026-
-02-0026-
-02-0026-
-02-0208-
-02-0031-
4100005
4100054
4100058
4100103
4100127
4100150
4100151
4100171
4100192
4100194
4100216
4300017
4300018
4300019
4300020
4300025
4400005
4400023
HYDRAQUAL INCORPORATED      NJ
FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION  NJ
ACRES INTERNATIONAL CORP.   NY
HYDROQUAL INC.              NJ
FOSTER WHEELER CORPORATION  NJ
EBASCO SERVICES INC.        NY
SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORP      NY
EBASCO SERVICES INC.        NY
CORNELL UNIVERSITY I/C RATE NY
CORNELL UNIVERSITY I/C RATE NY
HYDROQUAL INCORPORATED
GRUZEN SAMTON ARCHITECTS
GRUZEN SAMTON ARCHITECTS
GRUZEN SAMTON ARCHITECTS
GRUZEN SAMTON ARCHITECTS
GRUZEN SAMTON ARCHITECTS
ECOLOGY &. ENVIR
ECOLOGY 4 ENVIR
              TOTAL OF REGION  02  =    18
D8AWL3-03-0396-4100001
D8AWL3-03-0294-4100022
D8AML3-03-0384-4100023
D8AWL3-03-0363-4100025
                  TECHNOLOGY AND MANAGEMENT
                  SRA TECHNOLOGIES
                  TOMCO
                  APOGEE RESEARCH
NJ
NY
NY
NY
NY
NY

NY
                                     MD
                                     VA
                                     MD
                                     MD
      10/ 4/93
      10/ 4/93
      10/ S/93
      10/ 7/93
      ll/ 3/93
      ll/ 3/93
       2/24/94
       3/23/94
      11/15/93
      11/15/93
         *The dollar value of contract audits have not been shown.
          Public disclosure of the dollar value of financial recom-
          mendations could prematurely reveal the Government's
          negotiating positions or release of this information is
          not routinely available under the Freedom of Information
          Act.   The number of these reports and dollar value of  the
          findings have been included in the aggregate data displayed
          below.  Such data individually excluded in this  listing will
          be provided to the Congress under separate memorandum  within
          30 days of the transmittal of the semiannual report to the
          agency head.  The transmitted data will contain  appropriate
          cautions regarding disclosure.
10/ 5/93
ll/ 3/93
ll/ 4/93
12/ 3/93
12/14/93
12/28/93
12/28/93
 1/10/94
 2/24/94
 2/24/94
 3/23/94
12/28/93
12/28/93
12/28/93
12/28/93
 1/25/94
11/10/93
 1/25/94
                                   10/ 4/93
                                   10/19/93
                                   10/19/93
                                   10/19/93
   52
                                                                                                 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
                                                                            Questioned Costs
Assignment
Control Number
D8AWL3-03-0364-4100026
D8APL3-03-0440-4100029
D8AML3- 03 -0385-4 100030
D8AWL3- 03 -0361-4 100052
D8AML3- 03 -0423 -4100053
D8APL3- 03 -0439-4 100055
D8APL3- 03 -03 90-4 100063
D8BML2-03-0396-4100079
D8BML2-03-0395-4100089
D8BML2- 03 -0296 -4100095
D8CML2- 03 -0586 -4 100096
D8BML3-03-0140-4100097
D8AML3- 03 -0208 -4 100098
D8CAL3- 03 -0303 -4 100099
D8CAL2- 03 -0479 -4 100105
D8BML3- 03 -0433 -4100107
D8CPL2- 03 -0441 -4100108
D8ABL3- 03 -04 12 -4100109
D8BML2- 03 -02 97 -4100112
D8AML3- 03 -02 10 -4100113
D8BML3- 03 -0027 -4 100114
D8BML3- 03 -0146 -4 100115
D8BML3-03-0144-4100117
D8AWL4- 03 -0017 -4100118
D8AML4- 03 -0088 -4100119
D8AML4- 03 -0061 -4100120
D8BML3-03-0152-4100121
D8AWL3-03-0393-41Q0122
D8BML3-03-0218-4100123
D8BML3- 03 -0320 -4100124
D8DML2- 03 -0059-4 100132
D8BML3- 03 -0163 -4 100135
D8CBL3- 03 -0332 -4 100137
D8CML4-03-0103-4100139
D8CML3- 03 -0255 -4 100141
D8BML2- 03 -0582 -4 100148
D8CBL4-03-0015-4100153
D8BML4- 03 -0145-4100155
D8CML2-03-0351-4100157
D8CAL2-03-0129-4100158
D8EML3-03-0300-4100159
D8BML3- 03 -014 5 -4100160
D8BML4-03-0147-4100161
D8BML2- 03 -0388 -4100162
D8CAL3- 03 -0389 -4 100163
D8AML3- 03 -0446 -4 100174
D8AWL3-03-0392-4100175
P8BML2- 03 -0507 -410016 8
P8EMN2-03-0509-4300022
TOTAL OF
E8AML3 -22 -0445 -4100037
E8AZN3-22-0435-4300004
TOTAL OF
D8BML4- 04 -0024 -4 100006
D8AML3- 04 -0342 -4 100007
D8BML4- 04 -002 9-4 100015
D8CML3-04-0347-4100047
D8CML3- 04 -0323 -4 100050
D8EML3- 04 -0321 -4 100060
D8CML4- 04 -0025 -4 100102
D8AML4- 04 -0058 -4100170
D8CML4- 04 -0027 -4 100177
D8CML4-04-0028-4100178
D8EML4- 04 -0122 -4 100197
D8EML4- 04 -0121 -4 100199
D8BML4- 04 -0120 -4100200
E8AZN4- 04 -0134 -43 00031
E8AZP4- 04 -0042 -44 00007
H8AML3-04-0298-4100018
TOTAL OF
D8AML3-05-0349-4100012
D8AML3- 05 -033 9 -4100035
D8AML3- 05- 0338 -4 100036
D8CML4- 05 -0063 -4 100061
D8AML3- 05 -0366 -4100062
D8CML4- 05 -006 9-4 100075
D8CML4- 05 -0068 -41 00076
D8AML4- 05 -004 7-4 100133
D8CML3- 05 -023 0-4 100152
D8AML4-05-0114-4100208
D8CML3- 05 -0328 -4 100211
E8AZP4-05-0146-4400033
E8EZP4- 05 -0071 -44 00041
E8AZP4-05-0186-4400044
Title
BRUCE COMPANY DC
SRA TECHNOLOGIES INC. VA
RII INFORMATION MANAGEMENT MD
MARASCO NEWTON GROUP VA
LISBOA ASSOCIATES, INC. DC
DYNAMAC MD
UNIVERSAL SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGYVA
ROY F WESTON PA
ROY F WESTON PA
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY INCVA
SF & G INC, (MERCURY) VA
SOBOTKA & COMPANY, INC. DC
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATIONS, INC .VA
TRACOR JITCO, INC. D/B/A MD
BETHLEHEM STEEL CORPORATION PA
JACA CORPORATION PA
KENDRICK & COMPANY DC
SIEMENS AUTOMOTIVE VA
BIOLOGICAL RESEARCH FACULTY MD
HYDROGEOLOGIC VA
GANNET FLEMING PA
SYSTEMS INTERGRATION GROUP MD
PROGRAM RESOURCES, INC. VA
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INSTITUTE DC
BIONETICS CORPORATION VA
VERSAR VA
BIONETICS VA
CLARKSON SYSTEMS ANALYSIS VA
THE BIONETICS CORPORATION VA
FU ASSOCIATES, LTD.
JWK INTERNATIONAL VA
WILSON HILL ASSOCIATES, INC.VA
GENERAL SCIENCES CORP. MD
PROGRAM RESOURCES, INC. VA
PROGRAM RESOURCES, INC. VA
UNISYS GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS VA
BIONETICS VA
UNIVERSITY RESEARCH CORP. MD
MAXIMA CORPORATION MD
PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICVA
PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL VA
LABAT-ANDERSON VA
ENVIRONMENTAL TECHNOLOGY INCVA
FU 4 ASSOCIATES MD
PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERV. VA
KENNEDY KRIEGER RESEARCH IN.MD
ISSI, INC. VA
ASCI CORPORATION VA
ASCI VA
REGION 03 = 53
ASCI C300378T1
ICF-DERP0192DP70067 VA
REGION 22 = 2
J. A. JONES MGMT SERVICES NC
KBN ENGINEERING FL
ENVIRONMENTAL SCI & ENG FL
INTEGRATED LABORATORIES NC
GENERAL OFFSHORE CORP. FL
MANTECH ENVIRON RESEARCH NC
ENTROPY ENVIRONMENTALISTS NC
MANTECH ENVIRON RESEARCH NC
MANTECH TECHNOLOGY NC
MANTECH TECHNOLOGY NC
ADVANCED SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY GA
OAK RIDGE RESEARCH INSTITUTETN
ENTROPY ENVIRONMENTALISTS NC
WESTINGHOUSE REMEDIATION SVCGA
WESTINGHOUSE GA
RTI NC
REGION 04 = 16
AUTO TESTING LAB OH
FEV ENG TECH MI
FEV ENG TECH MI
BATTELLE OH
SYSTEMS CONTROL IL
ELECTROCOM GARD FY 91 IL
ELECTROCOM GARD FY 90 IL
SKIDMORE O&M DC
BABCOCK & WILCOX FY 89 OH
BATTELLE OH
BATTELLE FY 92 OH
PRC EMI (USA) IL
PRC EMI (BILLING REVIEW) IL
PRC EMI DACA83-93-C-0001 01 IL
Final Report
Issued
10/19/93
10/19/93
10/19/93
ll/ 2/93
ll/ 2/93
ll/ 3/93
ll/ 9/93
11/19/93
11/23/93
11/30/93
11/30/93
11/30/93
11/30/93
11/30/93
12/ 6/93
12/ 6/93
12/ 6/93
12/ 6/93
12/ 8/93
12/ 8/93
12/ 8/93
12/ 8/93
12/ 8/93
12/ 9/93
12/ 9/93
12/ 9/93
12/10/93
12/10/93
12/10/93
12/10/93
12/17/93
12/21/93
12/21/93
12/21/93
12/21/93
12/22/93
12/29/93
12/29/93
I/ 3/94
I/ 3/94
I/ 3/94
I/ 3/94
I/ 3/94
I/ 3/94
I/ 3/94
1/12/94
1/12/94
I/ 5/94
1/11/94

10/21/93
10/15/93

10/ 7/93
10/ 7/93
10/14/93
10/26/93
10/29/93
ll/ 4/93
12/ 2/93
I/ 7/94
1/24/94
1/24/94
3/ 2/94
3/ 2/94
3/ 2/94
3/23/94
11/22/93
10/15/93

10/13/93
10/21/93
10/21/93
ll/ 4/93
ll/ 4/93
11/18/93
11/18/93
12/20/93
12/29/93
3/10/94
3/16/94
3/ 1/94
3/23/94
3/25/94
Recommended
Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies
Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds be Put
Costs To Better Use)




















































































          TOTAL OF REGION 05  =
                               14
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                       53

-------
                                                                                       Questioned Costs

Assignment
Control Number

E8BZP3 -23 -0007-44 00021
E8BZP3 -23 -0007-44 00022
TOTAL OF
D8AML3- 06 -0185 -410003 9
D8CML3-06-0203-4100088
D8AML4- 06 -003 9 -4100101
D8CML4-06-0032-4100110
D8CML4- 06 -0029 -4100129
D8CML4- 06 -0031 -410016 9
D8EML4- 06 -007 0-4100183
D8AML4- 06 -0065 -4 100198

Title


OHM REM (IT JV)
OHM REM (IT JV)
REGION 23 = 2
AUTOMATION IMAGE
RADIAN CORPORATION
FTN ASSOCIATES LTD
RADIAN CORPORATION
RADIAN CORPORATION
RADIAN CORPORATION
LEE WILSON S. ASSOCIATES
LOCKHEED ENVIRONMENTAL




OH
OH

TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
TX
NM
TX

Final Report
Issued

1/21/94
1/21/94

10/21/93
11/22/93
12/ 2/93
12/ 7/93
12/15/93
I/ 7/94
2/15/94
3/ 2/94
Recommended
Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies
Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds be Put
Costs To Better Use)











              TOTAL OF REGION 06 =    8

D8CAL4-07-0012-4100204  MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE  MO

              TOTAL OF REGION 07 =    1
              TOTAL OF REGION 09 =
                                     23
D8EMP3-10-0113-4400010
D8FMP4-10-0020-4400030
E8ABL3-10-0147-4100046
CH2M REV CAS STMT 6/3/93    OR
CH2M CAS 11/1/93            OR
ECOLOGICAL PLANNING & TOXIC OR
                                   3/ 4/94
D8APL3- 09- 0260-4100020
D8CML3- 09 -0145-4100034
D8CML4- 09 -0060 -4100100
D8CML4- 09- 0022 -4100125
D8CML4-09-0023-4100126
D8CML4- 09- 0021-4100143
D8CBL4- 09 -0020 -410014 5
D8CML4- 09 -0019 -4100147
D8CWL3-09-0239-4100176
D8BML4- 09 -0044 -4 100182
D8BML2- 09 -0219-4 100184
D8BML3- 09 -0109 -4 100185
D8CBL4- 09- 008 9-4 100186
D8CML4- 09 -0062 -4100187
D8CBL4-09-0117-4100206
D8ABL4- 09 -0093 -4 100207
D8BML2- 09-0159-4100215
D8CWL4- 09 -0078 -4100238
D8EMN4- 09- 0032 -43 00002
D8EMN4- 09- 0033-4300003
D8AMN4- 09- 0088-4300028
D8EMP4- 09- 0037 -4400012
D8EMP4- 09 -0076 -44 00016
ACUREX PA
KVB FC
RI FC
EERC FC
EERC FC
RI FC
RI FC
RI FC
TETRA FC
ACUREX CI 1990
ACUREX OH & DC FY'91
ACUREX OH & DC FY' 92
RI FC
S- CUBED FC
RI-ROCKETDYNE FC
JACOBS PA
ES CI 1989
SAIC FC
OGDEN FL
CET FL
SAIC PA
ACUREX CAS
EERC MS
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
10/15/93
10/20/93
11/30/93
12/10/93
12/10/93
12/22/93
12/22/93
12/22/93
1/19/94
2/10/94
2/15/94
2/15/94
2/16/94
2/17/94
3/ 8/94
3/ 8/94
3/22/94
3/31/94
10/14/93
10/14/93
2/16/94
12/14/93
12/22/93
12/ 3/93
 2/23/94
10/26/93
              TOTAL OF REGION 10 =
              TOTAL OTHER CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS
                                                      =  150
                                                                          1,063,383
                                                                                                                          4,145,833
9. SUPERFUND CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS

D9AFN3-01-0275-4300008  INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS
P9DGL2-01-0247-4100227  ALLIANCE TECH. CORP.

              TOTAL OF REGION 01 =    2

P9EGP1-02-0157-4400031  ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT

              TOTAL OF REGION 02 =    1
D9AKL3- 03 -0292 -4 100024
D9AKL3- 03 -0375-4100027
D9AKL3- 03 -0380 -4100028
D9AJL3-03-0441-4100064
D9EFL3- 03 -0074 -4100065
D9EFL3- 03 -0186 -4100066
D9EFL3-03-0184-4100067
D9EFL3-03-0185-4100068
D9EFL3- 03 -0187-4100069
D9EFL3- 03 -0183 -4100070
D9BFL2- 03 -0275 -4100071
D9EFL3- 03 -0188 -4 100072
D9EFL2- 03 -0098 -4100073
D9EFL2- 03 -0100-4100074
D9EFL3- 03 -0128 -4100077
D9DFL2-03-0398-4100078
D9EFL3- 03 -0143 -4100080
D9EFL3-03-0296-4100081
D9EFL2- 03 -0099-4100082
D9BFL2- 03 -0146 -4100083
D9EFL2- 03 -0135 -4100084
D9BFL2- 03 -0272 -4100085
D9BFL2- 03 -0274 -4100086
D9EFL3-03-0182-4100087
D9BFL4- 03 -0104 -4 100090
BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON
SCICOMM INC.
PEER CONSULTANTS
HYDROGEOLOGIC INC.
ROY F WESTON
ROY F. WESTON
ROY F. WESTON
ROY F. WESTON
ROY F. WESTON
ROY F. WESTON
ROY F WESTON
ROY F. WESTON
ROY F WESTON
ROY F WESTON
ROY F WESTON
ROY F WESTON
ROY F. WESTON
ROY F. WESTON
ROY F WESTON
ROY F WESTON
ROY F WESTON
ROY F WESTON
ROY F WESTON
ROY F. WESTON
ROY F. WESTON
                            MA
                            MA
                            NY
                                                    MD
                                                    MD
                                                    MD
                                                    VA
                                                    PA
                                                    PA
                                                    PA
                                                    PA
                                                    PA
                                                    PA
                                                    PA
                                                    PA
                                                    PA
                                                    PA
                                                    PA
                                                    PA
                                                    PA
                                                    PA
                                                    PA
                                                    PA
                                                    PA
                                                    PA
                                                    PA
                                                    PA
                                                    PA
11/15/93
 3/29/94
                                   2/24/94
                                  10/19/93
                                  10/19/93
                                  10/19/93
                                  ll/ 9/93
                                  11/15/93
                                  11/15/93
                                  11/15/93
                                  11/15/93
                                  11/15/93
                                  11/15/93
                                  11/15/93
                                  11/15/93
                                  11/15/93
                                  11/15/93
                                  11/19/93
                                  11/19/93
                                  11/19/93
                                  11/19/93
                                  11/19/93
                                  11/19/93
                                  11/19/93
                                  11/19/93
                                  11/19/93
                                  11/19/93
                                  11/24/93
   54
                                                                                                 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
                                                                                        Questioned Costs
                                                                                                                       Recommended
Assignment
Control Number
D9EKL4-
D9CKL4 -
D9BKL4-
D9BFL3-
D9EFL3-
D9BFL3-
D9EFL3-
D9EFL3-
D9BFL2-
D9EFL3-
D9EFL4-
D9EFL3-
D9BFL2-
D9BFL2-
D9EFL4-
D9CKL2-
P9DFN3-

D9AKL3 -
D9DKL4 -
D9DKL4 -
D9DKL4-
D9DKL4-
D9AKL4-

D9AKL3 -
D9AKL3 -
D9AFL3 -
E9EKL3-

E9AKP3-
E9EHP3-
E9EHP3-
E9EHP3-
P9AHP2-
P9AHP2-
P9BHP2-
P9DGP3-
P9BGP3-
P9BGP3-
P9BGP3-
P9DGP3-

D9AKL3-
D9AKL4 -
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03

04
04
04
04
04
04

05
05
05
05

23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23

06
06
-0106-4100091
-0105-4100092
-0109-4100094
-0302-4100106
-0175-4100116
-0319-4100130
-0367-4100131
-0054-4100134
-0203-4100136
-0138-4100138
-0102-4100140
-0295-4100144
-0235-4100146
-0460-4100156
-0150-4100173
-0316-4100228
-0126-4300021
TOTAL OF
-0312-4100011
-0038-4100041
-0039-4100042
-0040-4100043
-0041-4100044
-0117-4100235
TOTAL OF
-0330-4100009
-0333-4100010
-0362-4100172
-0174-4100210
TOTAL OF
-0013-4400004
-0004-4400008
-0008-4400027
-0008-4400028
-0022-4400001
-0021-4400002
-0405-4400003
-0287-4400034
-0309-4400035
-0309-4400036
-0133-4400039
-0132-4400040
TOTAL OF
-0153-4100049
-0072-4100220
Title
ROY F. WESTON
ROY F. WESTON
ROY F. WESTON
ARTHUR YOUNG AND COMPANY
TECHLAW, INC.
BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
VIAR
CHEMICAL WASTE MGT . INC .

PA
PA
PA
DC
VA
VA
VA
WV
GENERAL SCIENCES CORPORATIONMD
VIAR
RESOURCE APPLICATION, INC.
ROY F. WESTON
UNISYS
VA
VA
PA
VA
LAWRENCE JOHNSON & ASSOCIATEMD
VIAR
VIAR
GUARDIAN
REGION 03 = 42
KIBER ENVIRONMENTAL
INSTITUTE TECH. DEVELOPMENT
INSTITUTE TECH. DEVELOPMENT
INSTITUTE TECH DEVELOP.
INSTITUTE TECH. DEVELOPMENT
MANTECH RESEARCH
REGION 04 = 6
PSARA TECH
RE WARNER
BATTELLE
PRC EMI S/S
REGION 05 = 4
OHM REM RREL-CI
OHM REM FAR NC
OHM REM D/S Al
OHM REM D/S Al
OHM REM ERCS2 Z2 FY 90 EQ
OHM REM ERCS2 Zl FY 90 EQ
OHM REM ERCS2 Z2 FY 91
DONOHUE FY 91
DONOHUE FY 88-91
DONOHUE FY 88-91
WW ENG ARCS1 FY 92
WW ENG ARCS1 FY 92
REGION 23 = 12
LOCKHEED ENV. SYSTEMS
LOCKHEED ENVIRONMENTAL
VA
VA
DE

GA
MS
MS
MS
MS
NC

OH
OH
OH
IL

OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
OH
WI
WI
WI
MI
MI

TX
TX
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies
Issued Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds be Put
Costs To Better Use)
11/24/93
11/24/93
11/30/93
12/ 6/93
12/ 8/93
12/17/93
12/17/93
12/21/93
12/21/93
12/21/93
12/21/93
12/22/93
12/22/93
I/ 3/94
1/10/94
3/30/94
I/ 5/94

10/13/93
10/22/93
10/22/93
10/22/93
10/22/93
3/31/94

10/12/93
10/12/93
1/10/94
3/18/94

10/15/93
12/ 3/93
2/ 4/94
2/ 4/94
10/ 1/93
10/ 7/93
10/13/93
3/ 4/94
3/ 4/94
3/ 4/94
3/18/94
3/18/94

10/27/93
3/24/94
              TOTAL OF REGION  06
D9BJL3-07-0144-4100045  DPRA
D9AGL3
D9AGL3
D9BGL4
D9BGL4
D9BGL2
D9BGL4
D9BGL2
D9BGL2
D9AGL3
D9AGL3-
D9AGL3-
D9BHP3-
E9EGP3-
P9EGLO-
P9FGL2-
P9AGL2-
P9CGL2-
              TOTAL OF REGION  07  =
      -09-0226-4100013  ENERGY  &  ENVL  RESEARCH PA
-09-0227-4100014
-09-0031-4100016
-09-0035-4100019
•09-0223-4100021
•09-0036-4100031
•09-0217-4100032
•09-0218-4100033
 09-0250-4100040
SAIC P.A.
MWA CI FY'89
MWA CI GY'90
BECHTEL C I  FY'90
AEROSPACE CI FY'91
EERC CI FY'90
EERC CI FY'91
IT  P.A.
                                                     KS
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
CA
              TOTAL OF REGION  09
10-0119-4100038   CFS  P.A.                     ID
10-0033-4100142   CH2M LAB  RATES CATALOG PRICEOR
10-0093-4400019   CET  IN                      WA
10-0111-4400013   RES  REVISED CAS STMT        OR
10-0037-4100219   SUPERFUND BILLING SYSTEM    OR
10-0123-4100222   RES  BILLING SYSTEM          OR
10-0089-4100225   CH2M ARCS IV TERM STLMT     OR
10-0127-4100226   CH2M REGION IV ARCS         OR

       TOTAL OF REGION 10  =    8

       TOTAL SUPERFUND CONTRACT ASSIGNMENTS
                                                           10/25/93
10/13/93
10/13/93
10/14/93
10/15/93
10/18/93
10/19/93
10/19/93
10/19/93
10/21/93
                                   10/21/93
                                   12/21/93
                                    1/19/94
                                   12/20/93
                                    3/23/94
                                    3/25/94
                                    3/28/94
                                    3/29/94
              TOTAL AUDITS =
                               730
                                                                       790,058       1,293,062


                                                                    36,694,946      32,165,842
                                                                                           0        3,905,389


                                                                                   1,328,477        8,051,222
  OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                                       55

-------
      Appendix 2  -  Reports  Issued  Without Management  Decision
   THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT REQUIRES A SUMMARY OF EACH REPORT ISSUED BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE REPORTING
   PERIOD FOR WHICH NO MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE END OF THE REPORTING PERIOD (INCLUDING THE DATE
   AND TITLE OF EACH SUCH REPORT), AN EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS SUCH MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE, AND A
   STATEMENT CONCERNING THE DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION ON EACH SUCH REPORT.  (The IG
   provides the summary, the date and title of each such report. The Agency  provides the explanation of the reasons why such management
   decision has not been made, and a statement concerning the desired timetable for achieving a management decision on each such report.)

    IG Followup Status Codes of Agency's  Response at 9/30/93:

    1. No Response
    2. Incomplete Response Received
    3. Proposed Response Received Awaiting Final Determination
    4. Proposed Response Received in Review Process
    5. Final Response Received in Review Process
    6. Resolution Under Negotiation in Headquarters
Assignment Control
Number      	
Title
 Final Report
	 Issued
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation

E1KAF1-03-0329-3100384  OZONE PROTECTION PROGRAM         9/24/93
 Summary:  EPA NEEDS BETTER CONTROL OVER THE PRODUCTION OF CARBON
TETRACHLORIDE AND INTERNATIONAL TRADES OF CFC PRODUCTION
ALLOWANCES.  ALSO, EPA NEEDS TO DEVELOP A SYSTEM FOR MONITORING
THE EXPORT OF OZONE DEPLETING CHEMICALS.

•  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:   THE STRATOSPHERIC PROTECTION DIVISION HAS REQUESTED
ASSISTANCE BUT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO UTILIZE CUSTOMS BUREAU DATA
REGARDING EXPORTS AND IMPORTS. EPA INTENDS TO USE CENSUS BUREAU
DATA BY MAY 15, 1994.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY MAY 15, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]  A management decision was
received and this report was closed on April 14. 1994

Deputy Administrator

E6EMG3-13-2055-3400094  OCEM                            9/29/93
 Summary:  THE OFFICE OF COOPERATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT,
WHICH PROVIDES SUPPORT TO AN EPA FEDERAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE,
INAPPROPRIATELY OBTAINED AND  IMPROPERLY USED INTERGOVERNMENTAL
PERSONNEL ACT ASSIGNMENTS, COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS, INTERAGENCY
AGREEMENTS, AND CONSULTANTS.

-  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:   THE DIG AND MANAGEMENT REACHED RESOLUTION ON THIS AUDIT
APRIL 5,  1994.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

Grants Administration Division

N3HVJ3-10-0109-3501001  IDAHO DEPT OF LABOR & IND SVID   9/30/93
 *Summary:

-  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:   THE OFFICE RECEIVED THIS AUDIT REPORT FROM REGION 10 IN
JANUARY 1994.  THE OFFICE HAS REVIEWED THE AUDIT REPORT AND IS
DRAFTING A LETTER TO THE RECIPIENT.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
RESOLUTION BY JUNE 30, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]
Assignment Control
Number	
                                                                 Title
Final  Report
      Issued
                                        M5BFL2-11-0025-3100040  SF-IAG FY90 DOT-COAST GUARD DC   12/ 1/92
                                         *Summary:

                                        • EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                        THE OFFICE IS  AWAITING ORGANIZATIONAL  AND COAST GUARD COMMENTS
                                        REGARDING AUDIT  FINDINGS.  THE OFFICE  CONTINUES TO WORK  WITH THE
                                        DIG ON RESOLUTION  OF AUDIT FINDINGS.

                                        = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:   EXPECTS
                                        RESOLUTION BY  JULY 29, 1994.
                                        IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

                                        M5BFL3-11-0014-3100046  SF IAG DOI  USGS
                                         *Summary:
                                                                      12/  3/92
                                        - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                        THE OFFICE IS WORKING WITH THE EPA OIG AND DEPARTMENT OF  INTERIOR
                                        (DOI) OIG TO RESOLVE AUDIT ISSUES.

                                        = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:   EXPECTS
                                        RESOLUTION BY  JULY  31,  1994.
                                        IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

                                        M5BFL2-11-0045-3100059  SF-IAG FY91 DOI
                                         *Summary:
                                                                       I/  4/93
                                        - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                        THE OFFICE IS WORKING WITH THE EPA OIG AND DEPARTMENT OF  INTERIOR
                                        (DOI) OIG TO RESOLVE AUDIT  ISSUES.

                                        = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:   EXPECTS
                                        RESOLUTION BY  JULY  31,  1994.
                                        IG  FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

                                        M5BFL2-11-0045-3100158  SF-IAG FY91 DOI
                                         *Summary:
                                                                       3/31/93
                                        - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                        THE OFFICE IS WORKING WITH THE EPA OIG AND DEPARTMENT OF  INTERIOR
                                        (DOI) OIG TO RESOLVE AUDIT  ISSUES.

                                        = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:   EXPECTS
                                        RESOLUTION BY JULY 31,  1994.

                                        IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]
    56
                                                                                            OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
Assignment Control
Number	
Title
 Final  Report
	Issued
Office of Acquisition Management (0AM)

P9BGL2-04-0046-3100015  WESTINGHOUSE HAZTECH        GA  10/28/92
 Summary:  COSTS QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE REPRESENTS THE
APPLICATION OF THE INCORRECT GENERAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE RATE.
UNSUPPORTED COSTS WERE FOR MATERIALS BILLED AT A FIXED-RATE NOT
PROVIDED FOR IN THE CONTRACT AND NO OTHER DOCUMENTATION WAS
ALLOWABLE TO SUPPORT UNIT PRICE USED.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE DIG IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE CONTRACTOR'S ADDITIONAL
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION FOR FIXED RATE MATERIALS.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
RESOLUTION BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

0AM Contracts Management Division - Cincinnati

D9AKL3-02-0245-3100387  FOSTER WHEELER US CORP.     NJ   9/24/93
 Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)

• EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE MANAGEMENT DECISION TO DETERMINE THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER
IS SCHEDULED FROM APRIL 15, 1994.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
RESOLUTION BY APRIL 22, 1994.
Assignment Control
Number	
Title
 Final  Report
	Issued
                                         -  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         THE OFFICE RECENTLY COMPLETED PREAWARD NEGOTIATIONS.  THE FILE IS
                                         IN THE REVIEW PROCESS.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  AWARD IS
                                         EXPECTED BY APRIL 15, 1994.

                                         IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

                                         D8AML3-03-0310-3100345  TECHNICAL RESOURCES. INC.    MD   8/26/93
                                          Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)

                                         -  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         THE OFFICE RECENTLY COMPLETED PREAWARD NEGOTIATIONS.  THE FILE IS
                                         IN THE REVIEW PROCESS.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  AWARD IS
                                         EXPECTED BY APRIL 15, 1994.
                                         IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

                                         P9AKN3-03-0067-3300045  ICF-INC.
                                          Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
                                                                      VA   5/21/93
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

D8AML3-06-0152-3100313  TECHNICIAN'S CO.
 Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
                         TX   8/13/93
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE MANAGEMENT DECISION TO DETERMINE THE SUCCESSFUL BIDDER
IS SCHEDULED FROM APRIL 25, 1994.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
RESOLUTION BY MAY 6, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

0AM Contracts Management Division - Research Triangle Park

D8CPL2-03-0432-2100620  MIRANDA ASSOCIATES INC      DC   9/16/92
 Summary:  DCAA QUESTIONED $278,979 DUE TO 1) THE LIMITATIONS OF
FUNDS CLAUSE, 2) OVERSTATED OVERHEAD COSTS, AND 3) A COMPUTATIONAL
ERROR.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE OFFICE IS UNDER NEGOTIATION WITH THE CONTRACTOR
REGARDING QUESTIONED COST AND FIXED FEE EARNED (LEVEL OF EFFORT
PROVIDED).  THE OFFICE HAS ALSO REQUESTED A LEGAL REVIEW OF THE
FILE.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
RESOLUTION BY JULY 1, 1994.
                  - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                  THIS REPORT  PROVIDED COMMENTS ON THE  PROPOSED COST EFFECTS OF  A
                  CHANGE IN THE CONTRACT SCOPE OF WORK (ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS).   A
                  REVISED PROPOSAL WAS SUBMITTED IN JANUARY 1994.  NEGOTIATIONS BEGAN
                  ON  MARCH  24,  1994.

                  = DESIRED TIMETABLE  FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:   EXPECTS
                  RESOLUTION  BY  MAY 31,  1994.

                  IG  FOLLOWUP  STATUS  AS OF   3/31/94   [1]

                  D8BML3-04-0272-3100202  INTEGRATED LABORATORY SYSTEMNC    6/ 2/93
                  *Summary:

                  - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                  THE OFFICE IS REQUESTING THE CONTRACTOR TO PROVIDE A CREDIT VOUCHER
                  AND CHECK  FOR  THE QUESTIONED  AMOUNT OR  PROVIDE  EVIDENCE  OF PRIOR
                  CREDIT ON A  PREVIOUS VOUCHER.

                  = DESIRED TIMETABLE  FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:   EXPECTS
                  RESOLUTION  BY  JUNE  1,  1994.

                  IG  FOLLOWUP  STATUS  AS OF   3/31/94   [1]

                  D8BML3-04-0282-3100207 SYSTEMS RESEARCH &  DEVELOP.  NC    6/ 4/93
                  *Summary:

                  - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                  THE OFFICE  IS  ATTEMPTING  TO  RESOLVE,  WITH THE CONTRACTOR, THE
                  REPORTED  COST  QUESTIONED  ON  TWO CONTRACTS DURING  CALENDAR YEAR
                  1988.

                  = DESIRED TIMETABLE  FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:   EXPECTS
                  RESOLUTION  BY  JUNE  1,  1994.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

D8AML3-03-0336-3100327  WESTAT
 Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
                         MD   8/25/93
                  IG  FOLLOWUP  STATUS  AS  OF   3/31/94    [2]

                  D8CML3-04-0247-3100249 MANTECH
                   *Summary:
                                                                                             NC    6/18/93
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE OFFICE IS REVIEWING THE PREAWARD PROPOSALS.  THE OFFICE
HAS NOT YET ESTABLISHED THE COMPETITIVE RANGE.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  AWARD IS
EXPECTED BY AUGUST 15,  1994.
                                         -  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         THE OFFICE IS  DISCUSSING,  WITH THE  CONTRACTOR,  THE REPORTED  COST
                                         OVERRUN.

                                         =  DESIRED  TIMETABLE  FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:   EXPECTS
                                         RESOLUTION BY  JUNE 1,  1994.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

D8AML3-03-0309-3100342  BOOZ ALLEN HAMILTON
 Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
                         MD   8/26/93
                  IG  FOLLOWUP  STATUS  AS  OF   3/31/94    [1]

                  D8CML3-04-0261-3100310 MANTECH
                   *Summary:
                                                                                             NC   8/12/93
   OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                                      57

-------
Assignment Control
Number	
   Title
 Final  Report
	  Issued
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE OFFICE IS DISCUSSING, WITH THE CONTRACTOR, THE REPORTED
COST OVERRUN.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
RESOLUTION BY JUNE 1, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

D8AML3-04-0299-3100311  ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY MGMT.  TN   8/13/93
 Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE OFFICE IS REVIEWING THE PREAWARD PROPOSALS.  THE OFFICE
HAS NOT YET ESTABLISHED THE COMPETITIVE RANGE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
EXPECTED BY AUGUST 15, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]
                                  AWARD  IS
D8CML3-04-0288-3100380
 *Summary:
RESEARCH & EVALUATION ASSOC.NC   9/20/93
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE OFFICE IS HOLDING DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CONTRACTOR TO
RESOLVE THE REPORTED COSTS QUESTIONED.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION BY MAY 1, 1994.
                                  EXPECTS
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

D8AML3-23-0283-3100308  EQM (AIR)
 Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
                            OH   8/10/93
•  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE OFFICE COMPLETED PREAWARD NEGOTIATIONS ON MARCH 14,
1994.  THE FILE IS IN THE REVIEW PROCESS.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  AWARD IS
EXPECTED BY APRIL 15, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

P8CMP2-23-0180-3400071  PEI ASSOC                   OH   8/25/93
 Summary:  UNSUPPORTED LABOR AND TRAVEL COSTS OF $332,746 WERE
QUESTIONED DUE TO INADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION.  WE ALSO QUESTIONED AS
INELIGIBLE $513 BECAUSE OF LACK OF SUPPORT FOR INTER-COMPANY
STRANSACTIONS.

-  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE OFFICE HAS ADVISED THE CONTRACTOR OF COSTS QUESTIONED.
THE CONTRACTOR HAS 30 DAYS TO RESPOND OR PROVIDE SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION.  THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DECISION WILL BE MADE
AFTER CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACTOR RESPONSE.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
RESOLUTION BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [3]

P8CMP2-23-0176-3400072  PEI ASSOC                   OH   8/26/93
 Summary:  WE QUESTIONED $839,416 OF LABOR AND TRAVEL COSTS THAT
COULD NOT BE SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE DOCUMENTATION.

-  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE OFFICE HAS ADVISED THE CONTRACTOR OF COSTS QUESTIONED.
THE CONTRACTOR HAS 30 DAYS TO RESPOND OR PROVIDE SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION.  THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DECISION WILL BE MADE
AFTER CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACTOR RESPONSE.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [3]
                                  EXPECTS
Assignment Control
Number	
                                                                       Title
Final Report
      Issued
                  P8CMP2-23-0183-3400073   PEI  ASSOC                   OH    8/27/93
                   Summary:  INADEQUATE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM RESULTED  IN COST QUESTIONED
                  INELIGIBLE OF $381.  WE  ALSO  QUESTIONED $70 OF INELIGIBLE INDIRECT
                  COSTS  CLAIMED.

                  - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS  MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                  THE  OFFICE HAS  ADVISED  THE CONTRACTOR OF COSTS  QUESTIONED.   THE
                  CONTRACTOR HAS  30  DAYS  TO RESPOND  OR  PROVIDE SUPPORTING
                  DOCUMENTATION.  THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DECISION  WILL BE MADE AFTER
                  CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACTOR  RESPONSE.

                  = DESIRED TIMETABLE  FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
                  RESOLUTION BY JUNE 1,  1994.

                  IG FOLLOWUP  STATUS AS OF 3/31/94    [3]

                  P8CMP2-23-0181-3400074   PEI  ASSOC                   OH    8/27/93
                   Summary:  QUESTIONED UNSUPPORTED LABOR AND TRAVEL OF  $40,498 DUE
                  TO MISSING DOCUMENTATION.  WE ALSO QUESTIONED AS  INELIGIBLE $254
                  DUE  TO LACK  OF  SUPPORT  FOR  INTERCOMPANY  TRANSACTIONS.

                  - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS  MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                  THE  OFFICE HAS  ADVISED  THE CONTRACTOR OF COSTS  QUESTIONED.   THE
                  CONTRACTOR HAS  30  DAYS  TO RESPOND  OR  PROVIDE SUPPORTING
                  DOCUMENTATION.  THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DECISION  WILL BE MADE AFTER
                  CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACTOR  RESPONSE.

                  = DESIRED TIMETABLE  FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
                  RESOLUTION BY SEPTEMBER 30,  1994.

                  IG FOLLOWUP  STATUS AS OF 3/31/94    [3]

                  P8CMP2-23-0177-3400077   PEI  ASSOC                   OH    9/ 1/93
                   Summary:  INADEQUATE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM RESULTED  IN COST QUESTIONED
                  INELIGIBLE OF $20,359.   MISSING  DOCUMENTATION RESULTED  IN
                  $1,863,579 OF UNSUPPORTED COSTS.   WE  ALSO QUESTIONED  $1,992 AS
                  INELIGIBLE DUE  TO  LACK  OF SUPPORT  FOR INTERCOMPANY TRANSACTIONS.

                  - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS  MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                  THE  OFFICE HAS  ADVISED  THE CONTRACTOR OF COSTS  QUESTIONED.   THE
                  CONTRACTOR HAS  30  DAYS  TO RESPOND  OR  PROVIDE SUPPORTING
                  DOCUMENTATION.  THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DECISION WILL BE MADE AFTER
                  CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACTOR  RESPONSE.

                  = DESIRED TIMETABLE  FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
                  RESOLUTION BY SEPTEMBER 30,  1994.

                  IG FOLLOWUP  STATUS AS OF 3/31/94    [1]

                  P8CMP2-23-0179-3400082   PEI  ASSOC                   OH    9/ 3/93
                   Summary:  INADEQUATE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM RESULTED  IN COST QUESTIONED
                  INELIGIBLE OF $35,443.   MISSING  DOCUMENTATION RESULTED  IN
                  UNSUPPORTED  COSTS  OF $512,794.

                  - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS  MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                  THE  OFFICE HAS  ADVISED  THE CONTRACTOR OF COSTS  QUESTIONED.   THE
                  CONTRACTOR HAS  30  DAYS  TO RESPOND  OR  PROVIDE SUPPORTING
                  DOCUMENTATION.  THE CONTRACTING OFFICER DECISION WILL BE MADE AFTER
                  CONSIDERATION OF CONTRACTOR  RESPONSE.

                  = DESIRED TIMETABLE  FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
                  RESOLUTION BY SEPTEMBER 30,  1994.

                  IG FOLLOWUP  STATUS AS  OF 3/31/94    [1]

                  0AM  Cost Advisory  and  Financial  Analysis Division
                  Cost Review  and Rate Negotiation BrancR
                                            D8DML2-02-0121-2100404
                                             *Summary:
                                          MALCOLM PIRNIE INC
                                                    NY   6/10/92
                  -  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                  THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR'S LABOR PRACTICE SUIT HAS BEEN RESOLVED.
                  EPA EXPECTS DCAA TO ISSUE A SUPPLEMENTAL AUDIT BY APRIL 29, 1994.
                                            = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
                                            RESOLUTION BY JUNE 30, 1994.
                                                                                                                             EXPECTS
    58
                                                                                                 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
Assignment Control
Number	
Title
Final  Report
      Issued
16 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [2]

D8DML2-02-0122-2100405  MALCOLM PIRNIE INC          NY   6/10/92
 *Summary:

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR'S LABOR PRACTICE SUIT HAS BEEN
RESOLVED.  EPA EXPECTS DCAA TO ISSUE A SUPPLEMENTAL AUDIT BY APRIL
29, 1994.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
RESOLUTION BY JUNE 30, 1994.
Assignment Control
Number	
Title
Final  Report
      Issued
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [2]

D9BKL3-04-0034-3100010  EHRT
 *Summary:
                         KY  107 9/92
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE DIG RECOMMENDED THAT THE COST POLICY AND RATE
NEGOTIATION BRANCH USE ITS DISCRETION IN NEGOTIATING THE COSTS OF
RECENT INVESTIGATORY FINDINGS.  THE OFFICE ELECTED TO SUSPEND
NEGOTIATIONS.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

P9DGL1-05-0123-3100184  DONOHUE ARCS1 FY 88/89      WI   5/12/93
 Summary:  THE CONTRACTOR DISAGREED WITH QUESTIONING 
-------
Assignment Control
Number
Title
                        Final
Report
Issued
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:   EXPECTS
RESOLUTION BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

P8BMP1-23-0335-2400073  PEI ASSOC FY 85             OH   9/ 9/92
 Summary:  THE REVIEW FOUND $224,781 OF INELIGIBLE AND $195,886 OF
UNSUPPORTED COSTS.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE CONTRACTOR OFFICER IS REVIEWING THE QUESTIONED DIRECT
COSTS. THE QUESTIONED DIRECT COSTS WILL NOT BE RESOLVED UNTIL
CLOSE OUT AUDITS ARE COMPLETE.  THE DIG CLOSE OUT AUDITS ARE IN
PROGRESS.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

P8BMP1-23-0339-3400050  PEI ASSOC FY 89             OH   5/13/93
 Summary:  THE QUESTIONED COSTS DO NOT REFLECT AN ADJUSTMENT FOR
INDIRECT COSTS.  INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $284,000 ARE DUE TO AN
INADEQUATE BILLING SYSTEM.  UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF $530,000 WERE DUE
TO INTER-COMPANY TRANSFERS.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE CONTRACT OFFICER IS REVIEWING THE QUESTIONED DIRECT
COSTS. THE QUESTIONED DIRECT COST WILL NOT BE RESOLVED UNTIL CLOSE
OUT AUDITS ARE COMPLETE.  THE DIG CLOSE OUT AUDITS ARE IN
PROGRESS.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

P8BMPO-23-0175-3400053  PEI ASSOC FY 86             OH   5/14/93
 Summary:  WE HAVE QUESTIONED INELIGIBLE $940,755, 53% WAS DUE TO
COST BILLED IN EXCESS OF WHAT WAS INCURRED.  THE REMAINING 47% WAS
THE ADJUSTMENT OF INDIRECT RATES TO ACTUAL.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE CONTRACT OFFICER IS REVIEWING THE QUESTIONED DIRECT
COSTS. THE QUESTIONED DIRECT COST WILL NOT BE RESOLVED UNTIL CLOSE
OUT AUDITS ARE COMPLETE.  THE DIG CLOSE OUT AUDITS ARE IN
PROGRESS.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

P8BMPO-23-0177-3400062  PEI ASSOC FY 87/88          OH   6/14/93
 Summary:  WE QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE $759,941 OF COST BILLED BUT
NOT INCURRED.  WE ALSO QUESTIONED AS UNSUPPORTED $1,224,486, 48%
OF WHICH WAS DUE TO USING CATALOG PRICES.  COSTS WERE NOT ADJUSTED
FOR AUDITED INDIRECT RATES.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE CONTRACT OFFICER IS REVIEWING THE QUESTIONED DIRECT
COSTS. THE QUESTIONED DIRECT COST WILL NOT BE RESOLVED UNTIL CLOSE
OUT AUDITS ARE COMPLETE.  THE DIG CLOSE OUT AUDITS ARE IN
PROGRESS.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]
Assignment Control
Number
                                                                                               Title
 Final  Report
	Issued
0AM Cost Advisory and Financial Analysis Division
Financial Analysis Branch
D9BFL2-03-0367-2100622  COMPUTER SCIENCE CORP       VA   9/17/92
 Summary:  DCAA QUESTIONED 7,692 LABOR HOURS IN EXCESS OF THOSE
AUTHORIZED IN THE CONTRACT.  DCAA WAS UNABLE TO DETERMINE IF HOURS
BILLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DOPO'S MEMORANDUM.
                                         -  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         THE CONTRACTING OFFICER REQUESTED DCAA TO REVIEW THE CONTRACTOR'S
                                         RESPONSE ON SEPTEMBER 15,  1993. THE CONTRACTING OFFICER EXPECTS THE
                                         DCAA AUDIT REPORT BY JUNE 30,  1994.
                                                                                                  EXPECTS
           = DESIRED TIMETABLE  FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
           RESOLUTION BY DECEMBER 30,  1994.

           IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

           P8BMN1-03-0146-2300014  O&R MANAGEMENT CORPORATION  MD  III 5/91
            Summary:  WE QUESTIONED $557,442 OF OTHER DIRECT COSTS. ONE
           HUNDRED PERCENT OF THE CONTRACT WAS QUESTIONED BECAUSE O&R DID NOT
           MAINTAIN RECORDS.

           - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
           THE CONTRACTING OFFICER  IS  WRITING A DECISION ON THE DISALLOWANCE
           OF COSTS CLAIMED  BY THE  CONTRACTOR.  RESOLUTION HAS BEEN DELAYEC
           DUE TO THE COMPANY NO LONGER BEING IN BUSINESS.
                                                                                                  EXPECT!
           = DESIRED TIMETABLE  FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
           RESOLUTION BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

           IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

           D8CML2-09-0319-2100524  GEO RESOURCE CONSULTANTS FN CA   8/12/9!
            *Summary:

           -  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
           THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FORWARDED THE SETTLEMENT POSITION TO THI
           CONTRACTOR ON APRIL  30,  1993. NEGOTIATIONS ARE ONGOING WITH
           CONTRACTOR'S ATTORNEY.

           - DESIRED TIMETABLE  FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECT:
           RESOLUTION BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

           IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

           D8BML3-09-0151-3100164  GEO/RESOURCE DC FY89-91     CA   4/19/9:
            Summary: THE AUDIT REPORT  CONTAINS QUESTIONED COSTS OF $26,584 o
           WHICH $23,665 REPRESENTS THE VARIANCES BETWEEN THE RECORDED AND
           BILLED COSTS, AND $2,919 REPRESENTS THE RECORDED COSTS IN EXCESS 0
           CLAIMED COSTS.   THE CONTRACTOR'S INTERNAL CONTROLS ARE ALSO NOT
           ADEQUATE.

           -  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
           THE CONTRACTING OFFICER PROVIDED DOCUMENTATION SHOWING CONTRACTO
           CREDITED PUBLIC VOUCHER NUMBER 109 FOR $23,665.   THE OFFICE SENT
           CLOSEOUT LETTER TO THE OIG ON APRIL 7, 1994.

           = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECT
           RESOLUTION SHORTLY.

           IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

           E9BHP2-10-0024-3400095  RES-SELF INSURANCE          OR   9/29/9
            Summary:  THE CONTRACTOR BILLED THE GOVERNMENT $3,709,794 IN
           EXCESS OF  ACTUAL COST FOR POLLUTION LIABILITY  INSURANCE.

           -  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
           THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE  IS IN LITIGATION WITH CONTRACTOR. THE
           DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WILL RESOLVE THE AUDIT.  THE TRIAL IS
           EXPECTED DURING FY 1994.

           = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
           RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.
                                         IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

                                         P9AHN9-23-0347-0300036  OH MATERIALS (PR EQ RATES)
                                          Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
                                                                                                                        OH   3/27/5
                                         - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADI
                                         THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IS  NEGOTIATING THE CONTRACTOR'S EQUIPMEf
                                         UTILIZATION RATES FOR 1987-1990.
    60
                                                                                                 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENEFiAL

-------
Assignment Control
Number	
Title
 Final  Report
	Issued
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
RESOLUTION BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

P9AHN1-23-0143-2300024  OHM REM ERCS2 Zl FY 89      OH  12/27/91
 Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE CONTRACTING OFFICER IS NEGOTIATING THE CONTRACTOR'S
EQUIPMENT UTILIZATION RATES FOR 1987-1990.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
RESOLUTION BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

P8BMPO-23-0422-2400046  PEI ASSOC FY 90             OH   6/ 2/92
 Summary:  REVIEW OF INCURRED COSTS is INCOMPLETE BECAUSE AUDITED
INDIRECT  RATES HAVE NOT BEEN FINALIZED AND APPLIED.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE AUDIT IS INCOMPLETE AS IT DID NOT INCLUDE AN ASSIST
AUDIT FOR THE CORPORATE ALLOCATION.  FINAL ACTION CANNOT BE TAKEN
UNTIL THE CORPORATE ALLOCATION AUDIT IS COMPLETE.  PER DCAA, THE
AUDIT REPORT WILL BE ISSUED IN JULY 1994.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
RESOLUTION BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

P9BHP2-23-0459-3400087  OHM REM ERCS2 Zl FY 91      OH   9/17/93
 *Summary:

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  AS A RESULT IN THE TURNOVER OF CONTRACTING OFFICERS AND
HIGHER PRIORITIES, NO ACTION AS BEEN TAKEN.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
RESOLUTION BY JUNE 30, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

0AM Cost Advisory and Financial Analysis Division
Washington Cost Advisory Branch

D9AJL3-01-0156-3100275  HYDRAULIC & WATER RESOURCES MA   7/15/93
 Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE PENDING.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.
Assignment Control
Number	
Title
Final  Report
      Issued
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

D8AML3-01-0150-3100294  METCALF & EDDY
 Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
                         MA   8/ 3/93
-  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE PENDING.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

E9AJP3-01-0155-3400064  TRC ENVIRONMENTAL CORP      MA   II 2/93
 Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)

-  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE PENDING.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.
                                         IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

                                         D9AJL3-03-0241-3100232  JOHN HEMENWAY ASSOCIATES    PA   6/16/93
                                          Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)

                                         -  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE PENDING.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
                                         ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

                                         IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

                                         D9AJL3-03-0273-3100233  LAW OFFICE OF CLAUDIA BARBERMD   6/16/93
                                          Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)

                                         -  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE PENDING.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
                                         ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.
                                         IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

                                         D9AJL3-03-0240-3100340  HYDROGEOLOGIC, INC.
                                          Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
                                                                      VA   8/25/93
                                         -  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE PENDING.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
                                         ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.
                                         IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

                                         D9AJL3-03-0244-3100341  ISSI INC.
                                          Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
                                                                      VA   8/25/93
                                         -  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE PENDING.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
                                         ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.
                                         IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

                                         D9AJL3-03-0239-3100343  TECHLAW INC.
                                          Summary:   (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
                                                                      VA    8/26/93
                  -  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                  CONTRACT  NEGOTIATIONS ARE PENDING.

                  =  DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
                  ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT  BY SEPTEMBER 30,  1994.

                  IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

                  D8AML3-03-0249-3100347  RESOLVE,  INCORPORATED        DC    8/26/93
                  Summary:   (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)

                  -  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                  CONTRACT  NEGOTIATIONS ARE PENDING.

                  =  DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
                  ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT  BY SEPTEMBER 30,  1994.
                                         IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

                                         D8AML3-03-0345-3100351  PREMIER,  INC.
                                          Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
                                                                      VA    8/26/93
                                         -  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE PENDING.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
                                         ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT  BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.
   OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                                      61

-------
Assignment Control
Number	
Title
                        Final
Report
Issued
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

E9AJP3-05-0212-3400048  PRC EMI (RIO ENF SUPP)      IL
 Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
-  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT
MADE:  CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE PENDING.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT BY SEPTEMBER  30, 1994.
                              5/ 3/93


                              BEEN
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

E9AJP3-05-0233-3400051  PRC EMI (R08 ENF SUPP)
 Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
                         IL
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT
MADE:  CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE PENDING.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT BY SEPTEMBER  30,  1994.
5/13/93


BEEN
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

E9AJP3-05-0234-3400052  PRC EMI (R09 ENF SUPP)
 Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
                         IL
-  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT
MADE:  CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE PENDING.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT BY SEPTEMBER  30, 1994.
5/13/93


BEEN
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

E9AJP3-05-0257-3400057  PRC EMI (R02 ENF SUPP)
 Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
                         IL
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT
MADE:  CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE PENDING.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.
6/ 1/93


BEEN
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

E9AJP3-05-0258-3400058  PRC EMI (R05 ENF SUPP)
 Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
                         IL
-  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT
MADE:  CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE PENDING.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.
6/ 1/93


BEEN
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

D9AJL3-07-0124-3100209  DPRA INC.
 Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
                         KS
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT
MADE:  CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE PENDING.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

D9AJL3-08-0072-3100208  AGEISS ENVIRONMENTAL CORP.  CO
 Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT
MADE:  CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE PENDING.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.
6/ 4/93


BEEN
                              6/ 4/93


                              BEEN
Assignment Control
Number	
                                                                    Title
 Final Report
	Issued
           IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

           D9AJL3-08-0078-3100212  AGEISS ENVIRONMENTAL CORP
            Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
                                                    CO   6/ 7/9
           - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
           CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE PENDING.

           = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
           ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

D9AHN3-09-0143-3300053  INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
 Summary:  (PREAWARD AUDIT UNDER NEGOTIATION)
                                                                                             CA   6/29/9
                                         -  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
                                         CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS ARE PENDING.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
                                         ANTICIPATE AWARD OF CONTRACT  BY SEPTEMBER 30,  1994.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94

Regional Administrator - Region 1
                                                                             [1]
S2CWLO-01-0073-3100161  SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DIST   MA   4/13/S
 Summary:  THE GRANTEE CLAIMED FEDERAL SHARE OF $16,388,803. WE
RECOMMEND  THAT REGION 1 NOT PARTICIPATE IN FUNDING INELIGIBLE
COSTS OF $101,428 AND UNNECESSARY/UNREASONABLE COSTS OF $1,834,75

-  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADI
REGION IS REVIEWING DIG MEMO OF FEBRUARY 28, 1994.  REGION HELI
PRELIMINARY MEETING WITH DIG ON MARCH 16, 1994.  DIG CURRENTLY
REVIEWING ISSUES TO EITHER ACCEPT PROPOSED DETERMINATION LETTER C
REFER TO HEADQUARTERS OIG.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [2]

G3HVK3-01-0164-3500781  MASS WATER RESOURCES AUTHO. MA   7/12/<
 Summary:  THE REPORT  QUESTIONS $22,986 IN INDIRECT COSTS CLAIM!
WITHOUT AN APPROVED INDIRECT COST RATE; AND $439,532 IN COSTS
CLAIMED RELATED TO UNAPPROVED CHANGE ORDERS.

-  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MAD
THE OIG DID NOT APPROVE OF THE COST ALLOCATION PLAN. THE REGION
ISSUING A MEMO THE WEEK OF APRIL 11, 1994  ASKING THE OIG TO REVII
THE PROPOSED PLAN.
                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
                                         RESOLUTION BY JUNE 30, 1994.
                                                                    EXPEC
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94

Regional Administrator • Region 2
                                                                             [1]
P2CWL1-02-0104-3100118  NYCDEP                      NY   3/ 2/
 Summary:  THE CITY OF  NEW YORK CLAIMED UNALLOWABLE PROJECT COS
OF $13,953,725 FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF 8 DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION WATER POLLUTION CONTROL FACILITIES AN
APPURTENANCES.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MAC
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION  IS THE
DELEGATED AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR DRAFTING THE FINAL DETERMINATI
LETTERS FOR FOUR OIG MEGA-AUDITS OF NEW YORK CITY COVERING 26
GRANTS, $1.4 BILLION CLAIMED COSTS AND $96 MILLION QUESTIONED
COSTS.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPEC
RESOLUTION BY 4TH QUARTER FY 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]
    62
                                                                                                 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
Assignment Control
Number  	
Title
 Final  Report
	Issued
P2CWL1-02-0104-3100169  NYCDEP                      NY   4/29/93
 Summary:  THE CITY OF NY, NY CLAIMED QUESTIONED COST OF
$38,829,195 CONSISTING OF $20,431,575 INELIGIBLE COSTS,
$14,635,447 UNSUPPORTED COSTS AND $3,762,173
UNREASONABLE/UNNECESSARY COSTS FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF
THE REDHOOK WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT AND APPURTENANCES.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION IS
THE DELEGATED AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR DRAFTING THE FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTERS FOR FOUR OIG MEGA-AUDITS OF NEW YORK CITY
COVERING 26 GRANTS, $1.4 BILLION CLAIMED COSTS AND $96 MILLION
QUESTIONED COSTS.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
RESOLUTION BY 4TH QUARTER FY 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

P2CWL1-02-0104-3100374  NYCDEP                      NY   9/14/93
 Summary:  THE CITY OF NEW YORK, NEW YORK CLAIMED UNALLOWABLE
PROJECT COSTS OF $65,169,354 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NORTH
RIVER SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT AND A RECREATIONAL PARK.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION IS
THE DELEGATED AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR DRAFTING THE FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTERS FOR FOUR OIG MEGA-AUDITS OF NEW YORK CITY
COVERING 26 GRANTS, $1.4 BILLION CLAIMED COSTS AND $96 MILLION
QUESTIONED COSTS.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
RESOLUTION BY 4TH QUARTER FY 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

E2AWT3-02-0016-3400002  EARLY WARNING-RED HOOK WPCP NY  10/28/92
 Summary:  OUR REVIEW OF THE NEW YORK CITY RED HOOK WPCP DISCLOSED
THAT LABORATORY FACILITIES WERE NOT IN USE AND HAD NOT BEEN
UTILIZED SINCE  CONSTRUCTION WAS COMPLETED. IN ADDITION, THE
COMPUTERIZED CONTROL ROOM WAS UNFINISHED.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION IS
THE DELEGATED AGENCY RESPONSIBLE FOR DRAFTING THE FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTERS FOR FOUR OIG MEGA-AUDITS OF NEW YORK CITY
COVERING 26 GRANTS, $1.4 BILLION CLAIMED COSTS AND $96 MILLION
QUESTIONED COSTS.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
RESOLUTION BY 4TH QUARTER FY 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

Regional Administrator - Region 3

P2CWN1-03-0123-2300062  PHILADELPHIA CITY OF        PA   7/23/92
 Summary:  THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA WATER DEPARTMENT CLAIMED MORE
THAN $20 MILLION OF INELIGIBLE COSTS INCLUDING $8.7 MILLION OF
COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH ABANDONED SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE SIZE AND COMPLEXITY OF THIS MEGA-AUDIT, INVOLVING
SEVERAL GRANTS, HAS REQUIRED SIGNIFICANT TIME TO RESOLVE.
MEETINGS AND CORRESPONDENCE WITH GRANTEE ARE ONGOING.  THE REGION
IS AWAITING THE RESULTS OF INDIRECT COSTS NEGOTIATION, EXPECTED TO
BE COMPLETED BY MID APRIL.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED MAY 15, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

P2CWN8-03-0220-3300041  ELK PINCH PSD               WV   5/ 6/93
 Summary:  ELK PINCH PUBLIC SERVICE DISTRICT CLAIMED COSTS IN
EXCESS OF $3.4 MILLION.  INELIGIBLE COSTS WERE CLAIMED PRIMARILY
FOR EXCESSIVE PAVING FOR A SEWER LINE TRENCH.
Assignment Control
Number	
Title
 Final  Report
	Issued
                                         - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         THE OIG DID NOT ACCEPT THE REGION'S PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION
                                         LETTER OF JANUARY 15, 1994.  THE REGION IS AWAITING THE OIG'S FINAL
                                         REPORT OF ITS OIG HEADQUARTER ENGINEERING REVIEW.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
                                         RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY APRIL 30, 1994.

                                         IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [2]

                                         E5CFP3-03-0308-3400060  SUPERFUND COOPERATIVE AGREE VA   6/ 8/93
                                          Summary:  VIRGINIA DID NOT ACCOUNT  FOR THEIR COSTS IN ACCORDANCE
                                         WITH  FEDERAL REGULATIONS AND DID NOT HAVE ADEQUATE SUPPORT FOR THE
                                         COSTS CLAIMED.  AS A RESULT, SIGNIFICANT PORTIONS OF THE COSTS
                                         CLAIMED WERE UNSUPPORTED. ($2,806,575 UNSUPPORTED AND $2.66
                                         INELIGIBLE).

                                         - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         THE OIG DID NOT ACCEPT THE REGION'S PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION
                                         LETTER OF MARCH 31, 1994.  THE REGION IS AWAITING A MEETING WITH
                                         THE OIG TO RESOLVE THE DIFFERENCES.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
                                         RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY MAY 15,  1994.
                                         IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94

                                         Regional Administrator - Region 5
                                                      [2]
                                         P2CWP6-05-0298-2400004  W LAKE SUPERIOR             MN  12/12/91
                                          Summary:  THE GRANTEE CLAIMED $8,595,588 OF INELIGIBLE
                                         CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS, AND $166,834 OF
                                         UNSUPPORTED COSTS.

                                         - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         THE OIG DID NOT ACCEPT THE REGION'S PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION
                                         LETTER OF JANUARY 7, 1992.  THE AUDIT HAS BEEN ELEVATED TO THE
                                         HEADQUARTERS OIG AND PROGRAM OFFICE ON JULY 24, 1992 TO RESOLVE
                                         OUTSTANDING ISSUES.   THE  OIG AND THE OFFICE OF GENERAL COUNSEL MET
                                         AND DETERMINED THAT THE OUTSTANDING ISSUES ARE REGULATORY AND THAT
                                         THE OIG IS RESEARCHING THE REGULATION  IN  PLACE AT THE TIME OF THE
                                         AWARD.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
                                         RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.

                                         IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [6]

                                         E2CWL9-05-0262-3100397   FLINT                       MI   9/30/93
                                          Summary:  FLINT CLAIMED $2.8 MILLION UNNECESSARY/UNREASONABLE
                                         COSTS  INCURRED  TO RENEGOTIATE A CONTRACT.  FLINT CLAIMED
                                         $10,416,828 UNSUPPORTED COSTS FOR ADMINISTRATION, ENGINEERING AND
                                         CONSTRUCTION. WE QUESTIONED $415,339 INELIGIBLE ENGINEERING COSTS
                                         INCURRED AFTER CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE.

                                         - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         DUE TO THE COMPLEXITY OF ISSUES IN RESOLVING THE $13 MILLION IN
                                         QUESTIONED COSTS, THE REGION PROVIDED THE CITY WITH ADDITIONAL TIME
                                         TO PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION. DUE TO RELATED  LEGAL  ISSUES, THE REGION
                                         REQUIRED THE ASSISTANCE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
                                         RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.

                                         IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [3]

                                         E2BWL5-05-0136-7000980   SAUGET                      IL   3/31/87
                                          Summary:  WE QUESTIONED OVER $7 MILLION  FOR INELIGIBLE AND
                                         UNNECESSARY PROJECT COSTS.

                                         - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         THE REGION ISSUED A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE OIG ON
                                         MARCH 22, 1994.   THE OIG AND REGION ARE  IN DISAGREEMENT ON $3.1
                                         MILLION IN DISALLOWED COSTS.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:   THIS
                                         AUDIT IS BEING REFERRED TO THE HEADQUARTER'S OIG FOR RESOLUTION.
   OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                                      63

-------
Assignment Control
Number
Title
Final  Report
      Issued
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [4]

E2AWT3-05-0354-3400093  CLEVELAND NEORSD (EWS C/0)  OH   9/27/93
 Summary:  OHIO EPA HAS NOT TIMELY FINALIZED CHANGE ORDER REQUESTS
ON A GRANT AWARDED TO THE NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT
(NEORSD).  IN TURN NEORSD HAS NOT FILED TIMELY FINAL CLAIMS ON
THREE GRANTS RELATED TO  CONSTRUCTION OF THE WESTERLY FACILITY.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  DUE TO SIGNIFICANT AND COMPLEX TECHNICAL ISSUES, THIS AUDIT
IS STILL UNDER REVIEW BY THE STATE AGENCY.  THE REGIONAL HAS BEEN
DELAYED IN DETERMINING WHETHER IT AGREES WITH THE AUDITORS'
RECOMMENDATIONS.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

Regional Administrator • Region 6

P2CWN2-06-0189-3300055  PORT NECHES                 TX   II 1/93
 Summary:  GRANTEE DID NOT MAINTAIN ADEQUATE RECORDS TO SUPPORT
CLAIMED COST TOTALING $150,612.  GRANTEE ALSO CLAIMED INELIGIBLE
CHANGE ORDER COSTS AMD IMPROPERLY CALCULATED THE DESIGN ALLOWANCE
WHICH RESULTED IN AN ADDITIONAL $25,008 OF COST QESTIONED.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE REGIONAL COUNSEL REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD ENGINEERS.  THE REGION FORWARDED THE
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE DIG ON APRIL 7, 1994.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION WAS REACHED ON APRIL 7, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [3]

Regional Administrator • Region 8

E2CWN7-08-0139-3300028  CASPER                      WY   3/29/93
 Summary:  GRANTEE OVERESTIMATED REQUIRED WASTEWATER TREATMENT
CAPACITY VALUED AT $6.1 MILLION.  THE GRANTEE DID NOT BASE ITS
PROJECTED NON-RESIDENTIAL FLOWS ON ACTUAL MEASURED FLOW
INFORMATION EVEN THOUGH THE INFORMATION WAS INCLUDED IN THE
FACILITY PLAN.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE MANAGEMENT DECISION WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF A LACK OF
RESOURCES TO ADDRESS AUDIT RESOLUTION.  A FINAL DETERMINATION
LETTER WAS ISSUED ON MARCH 29, 1994.
= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION WAS REACHED ON APRIL 5, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [6]  (The response was received by
the DIG and the report was closed on April 5. 1994)

P5BGN2-08-0019-3300033  DEPT OF HEALTH & ENVIR SCI  MT   3/31/93
 Summary:  WE QUESTIONED $12 MILLION OF UNSUPPORTED SUPERFUND
CONTRACT COSTS.  THE STATE DID NOT HAVE ADEQUATE CONTROLS OVER
SUPERFUND CONTRACTS.  IN  ADDITION, MDHES DID NOT HAVE AN
ACCEPTABLE LEAVE ALLOCATION METHOD OR AN EFFECTIVE AUDIT
RESOLUTION PROCESS.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE MANAGEMENT DECISION WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF A LACK OF
RESOURCES TO ADDRESS AUDIT RESOLUTION.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY APRIL 8, 1994.
Assignment Control
Number
                                                                                               Title
Final Report
      Issued
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94
by the DIG on April 8. 1994)
         [1]  (A draft response was received
E2BWN2-08-0052-3300054  HUGHES COUNTY               SD   6/30/93
 Summary:  PROJECT NOT ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT PARTICIPATION.
                                         - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         THE MANAGEMENT  DECISION WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF A  LACK OF RESOURCES
                                         TO ADDRESS AUDIT RESOLUTION.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  A FINAL
                                         DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY APRIL 8,  1994.

                                         IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [2]  (No change in status as of
                                         4/21/94 )

                                         G3HVK3-08-0059-3500437  LAKE ANDES                  SD   3/16/93
                                          Summary:  THE CITY RECEIVED AN ADVERSE OPINION ON ITS FINANCIAL
                                         STATEMENTS DUE TO CONTROL AND PROCEDURAL DEFICIENCIES AND ERRORS
                                         AND OMISSIONS IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.  LAKE ANDES DID  NOT HAVE
                                         A SUFFICIENT FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO QUALIFY FOR A GRANT.

                                         • EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
                                         THE MANAGEMENT  DECISION WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF A  LACK OF RESOURCE!
                                         TO ADDRESS AUDIT RESOLUTION.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  A FINA1
                                         DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY APRIL 29, 1994.
                                         IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

                                         G3HVK3-08-0093-3500889  TRIPP
                                          *Summary:
                                                                     SD   8/13/9:
                                         - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
                                         THE MANAGEMENT  DECISION WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF A  LACK OF RESOURCE!
                                         TO ADDRESS AUDIT RESOLUTION.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  A  FINAI
                                         DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY MAY 13,  1994.
                                         IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

                                         N3HVK3-08-0107-3500932  ROCK SPRINGS
                                          *Summary:
                                                                     WY   9/ 1/9.
                                         -  EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
                                         THE MANAGEMENT  DECISION WAS DELAYED BECAUSE OF A  LACK OF RESOURCE
                                         TO ADDRESS AUDIT RESOLUTION.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  A  FINA
                                         DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY MAY 13,  1994.
                                         IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94

                                         Regional Administrator - Region 9
                                                     [1]
                 S2CW*8-09-0157-1300112  LOS ANGELES. CITY OF        CA   9/25/9
                  Summary:  INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $723,627 INCLUDED: $650,255 OF
                 UNALLOWABLE FORCE ACCOUNT (F/A) COSTS; AND  $73,372 FOR UNALLOWABL
                 ENGINEERING COSTS. UNREASONABLE COSTS INCLUDE $879,630 OF
                 UNDOCUMENTED F/A AND $1,099,261  ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING COSTS
                 INCURRED UNDER PROHIBITED CONTRACT METHOD.

                 - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
                 THE OIG HAS REVIEWED THE DRAFT PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTE
                 DRAFTED BY THE  STATE BUT THE REGION HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE OFFICU
                 PROPOSED FINAL  DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE  OIG.  DUE TO OUTSTAND1N
                 ISSUES, THE OIG HAS DEFERRED DISCUSSION OF  THIS AND THREE OTHER LC
                 ANGELES DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTERS UNTIL AFTER MARCH 31,
                 1994.

                 = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING  A  MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECT
                 FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

                 OIG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94    [1]

                 S2CWN9-09-0039-1300117  LOS ANGELES, CITY OF        CA   9/30/!
                  Summary:  INELIGIBLE COSTS INCLUDED $4,004,695 FOR COST INCURRI
                 PRIOR TO APPROVAL $3,659,407 IN EXCESS OF APPROVAL ADDITIONAL /
                 QUESTIONED $3,999,353 RELATED TO REPLACEMENT OF BAS ENGINES WT
                 ELECTRIC MOTORS AND $5,275,186 FOR  INADEQUATELY DOCUMENTED FORI
                 ACCOUNT COSTS.
    64
                                                                                                  OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
Assignment Control
Number     	
Title
 Final  Report
	Issued
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE DIG HAS REVIEWED THE DRAFT PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION
LETTER DRAFTED BY THE STATE BUT THE REGION HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE
OFFICIAL PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE DIG.  DUE TO
OUTSTANDING ISSUES, THE DIG HAS DEFERRED DISCUSSION OF THIS AND
THREE OTHER LOS ANGELES DRAFT PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTERS
UNTIL AFTER MARCH 31, 1994.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

S2CWN9-09-0032-1300118  MONTEREY REG WATER POLL CON CA   9/30/91
 Summary:  THE STATE CLAIMED $7,491,007 OF INELIGIBLE
CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING, ADMINISTRATIVE, AND OTHER COSTS.
ADDITIONAL $51,118,958 OF  UNREASONABLE PROJECT COSTS WERE
QUESTIONED.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE DIG DISAGREED WITH FOUR AUDIT ISSUES OF THE PROPOSED
POSITION PAPERS AND HAS ASKED TO DEFER DISCUSSION UNTIL DISCUSSION
ON FOUR LOS ANGELES AUDITS ARE CONCLUDED.  THE REGION HAS NOT
SUBMITTED THE OFFICIAL PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE
DIG.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

S2CW*8-09-0156-1300119  LOS ANGELES. CITY OF        CA   9/30/91
 Summary:  INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $2,483,872 INCLUDED $2,039,554 OF
CONST- RUCTION AND FORCE ACCOUNT (F/A) COST OUTSIDE SCOPE OF
APPROVED PROJECT; $444,318 OF F/A ALLOCABLE TO INELIGIBLE
CONSTRUCTION; UNREASONABLE COSTS OF $68,150,598  RELATED TO
EXCESSIVE LANDSCAPING, F/A AND UNUSED FACILITIES.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE DIG HAS REVIEWED THE DRAFT PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION
LETTER DRAFTED BY THE STATE BUT THE REGION HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE
OFFICIAL PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE OIG.  DUE TO
OUTSTANDING ISSUES, THE OIG HAS DEFERRED DISCUSSION OF THIS AND
THREE OTHER LOS ANGELES DRAFT PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTERS
UNTIL AFTER MARCH 31, 1994.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [2]

S2CWN1-09-0228-2300044  LOS ANGELES, CITY OF        CA   3/13/92
 Summary:  INELIGIBLE COSTS INCLUDED $1,400,564 FOR UNUSED
EQUIPMENT ITEMS;  $202,058 FOR UNALLOWABLE ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING
(A/E) FEES; AND $572,354 FOR UNALLOWABLE FORCE/ACCOUNT (F/A);
UNREASONABLE COSTS OF $1,010,586 FOR EXCESSIVE A/E AND F/A;
ADDITIONAL  $11,188,321 BECAUSE PLANT WAS NOT OPERATING IN
ACCORDANCE WITH PLANT CONCEPTS.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE OIG HAS REVIEWED THE DRAFT PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION
LETTER DRAFTED BY THE STATE BUT THE REGION HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE
OFFICIAL PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE OIG.  DUE TO
OUTSTANDING ISSUES, THE OIG HAS DEFERRED DISCUSSION OF THIS AND
THREE OTHER LOS ANGELES DRAFT PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTERS
UNTIL AFTER MARCH 31, 1994.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

E1SG*7-09-0219-2300063  REGION 9 MGMT OF STNGFELLO  CA   7/30/92
 Summary:  REGION 9 HAS NOT EFFECTIVELY MANAGED THE STRINGFELLOW
SUPER FUND  COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.   PROBLEMS WITH ACCURACY OF
LABORATORY ANALYSES;  DELAY IN COMPLETION OF RI/FS; DELAY IN
Assignment Control
Number	
Title
Final  Report
      Issued
                                         COMPLETION AND STARTUP OF INTERIM PRETREATMENT FACILITY; AND REVIEW
                                         OF STATES ROLE.

                                         - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         RESOLUTION WAS DELAYED UNTIL THE OIG'S CONCERNS COULD BE  ADDRESSED
                                         VIA ADDITIONAL TECHNICAL AND LEGAL SETTLEMENT EFFORTS. ADDITIONAL
                                         COMMITMENTS  ARE  BEING SOUGHT FROM THE GRANTEE BY THE OFFICE OF
                                         REGIONAL COUNSEL.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE  FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:   EXPECTS
                                         FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY JUNE 30,  1994.

                                         IG FOLLOWUP  STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [2]

                                         E2CWN1-09-0092-2300082  RUSSIAN RIVER CSD           CA    9/25/92
                                          Summary: COSTS OF $8,344,066 HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE,
                                         INCLUDING INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND FORCE ACCOUNT
                                         COSTS.  AN ADDITIONAL $18,297,400 HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED  AS
                                         UNNECESSARY  BECAUSE THE PLANT WAS NOT FULLY UTILIZED.

                                         - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         THE STATE IS CURRENTLY REVIEWING THE OIG'S COMMENTS ON THE STATES
                                         POSITION PAPERS.   THE REGION HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE OFFICIAL
                                         PROPOSED FINAL  DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE OIG.   THERE  WERE 15
                                         ISSUES NONCONCURRED ON BY OIG.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE  FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:   EXPECTS
                                         FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY DECEMBER 31, 1994.

                                         IG FOLLOWUP  STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

                                         S2CWNO-09-0262-2300089  SAN FRANCISCO,  CITY & CO    CA    9/30/92
                                          Summary:  INELIGIBLE COST INCLUDE $50,015 OF UNALLOWABLE
                                         ARCHITECT/ ENGINEERING (A/E) COSTS AND $271,092 FOR COSTS ALLOCABLE
                                         TO OTHER FEDERAL FACILITIES RELATED TO UNSUPPORTED CONSTRUCTION A/E
                                         FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS.

                                         - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         THE OIG CONTINUES TO QUESTION THE USE OF COMPUTER TAPE  DATA IN
                                         PLACE OF TIMECARDS.   THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL  BOARD AND
                                         THE OIG CONTINUES TO HOLD MEETINGS ON THIS ISSUE.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE  FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:   EXPECTS
                                         FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

                                         IG FOLLOWUP  STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

                                         S2CWM9-09-0192-3200056  SAN FRANCISCO,  CITY & CO    CA    9/30/93
                                          Summary: THE AUDIT QUESTIONED COSTS OF $137,651  AS INELIGIBLE AND
                                         $257,228 AS  UNSUPPORTED.

                                         - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         THE REGION SUBMITTED A DRAFT PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER
                                         WAS SENT TO  THE  OIG ON MARCH 8, 1994.  THE OIG OBJECTED TO THE
                                         FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS.  THE REGION HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE  PROPOSED
                                         FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE OIG.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE  FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:   EXPECTS
                                         FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY JULY 31,  1994.

                                         IG FOLLOWUP  STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

                                         S2CWNO-09-0073-3300036  SAN FRANCISCO,  CITY & CO    CA    4/26/93
                                          Summary: INELIGIBLE COST OF $493,315 INCLUDES $3,112 OUTSIDE THE
                                         SCOPE OF PROJECT  AND $490,203 NORMAL COST OF GOVERNMENT.
                                         UNREASONABLE COST OF $2,872,442 FOR RECONSTRUCTED FORCE ACCOUNT
                                         COSTS NOT SUPPORTED BY ACTUAL SOURCE DOCUMENTATION.

                                         - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD SENT DETAILED DOCUMENTATION
                                         ON HOW TO ADDRESS THE FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS ISSUE TO THE OIG ON MARCH
                                         2, 1994.  THE EPA REGION HAS NOT SUBMITTED AN OFFICIAL  PROPOSED
                                         FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE OIG.
                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE  FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
                                         FINAL DETERMINATION  LETTER BY JULY 31, 1994.
                                                                           EXPECTS
   OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                                      65

-------
Assignment Control
Number	
Title
Final Report
      Issued
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

S5BGN1-09-0132-3300037  SAN GABRIEL VALLEY MWD      CA   4/27/93
 Summary:  INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $212,920 INCLUDES:  $145,896 OF
UNSUBSTANTIATED SALARY COSTS; $30,752 FOR UNALLOWABLE CONTRACTUAL
SERVICE COSTS; AND $36,452 RELATED TO AN OVERPAYMENT OF FUND AMD
INTEREST.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE DIG RESPONDED MARCH 1, 1994 THAT THEY DISAGREED WITH
THREE DETERMINATIONS AND DEEMED A FOURTH INCOMPLETE BASED ON THE
REGION'S DRAFT PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER DATED FEBRUARY
15, 1994.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  THE
REGION EXPECTS TO ISSUE ITS MANAGEMENT DECISION BY JUNE 30, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [2]

E2CWNO-09-0247-3300063  SEWER AUTH. MIDCOASTSIDE    CA   9/14/93
 Summary:  INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $581,489 CONSISTED OF $8,405 FOR
EXCESSIVE  INDIRECT COSTS; $64,815 OF CONTINGENCY RELATED COSTS;
$187,095 FOR REDESIGN  $27,425 PAST COMPLETION DATE; $286,720
ALLOCABLE TO INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION AND  $7,029 IN EXCESS OF
APPROVAL.

• EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD IS REVIEWING
ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION RECENTLY SUBMITTED BY THE GRANTEE.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

E2BWL3-09-0190-3300072  SAN DIEGO, CITY OF OUTFALL  CA   9/29/93
 Summary:  CITY OF SAN DIEGO CLAIMED $9.1 MILLION OF INELIGIBLE
CONSTRUCTION, ENGINEERING, AND ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS.  ANOTHER
$122,810 OF COSTS WERE NOT SUPPORTED AND WERE ALSO QUESTIONED.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD SENT THE REGION
POSITION PAPERS ON MARCH 11, 1994.  UPON APPROVAL, THE REGION WILL
SUBMIT A PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE DIG.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

S2CWNO-09-0050-3300078  SAN FRANCISCO, CITY AND CO  CA   9/30/93
 Summary:  INELIGIBLE COST OF $281,859 REPRESENT COST IN EXCESS OF
THE  APPROVED AMOUNT.  UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF $43,598 RELATE TO
FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS NOT SUPPORTED BY ORIGINAL SOURCE
DOCUMENTATION.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE STATE SENT POSITION PAPERS TO THE DIG ON MARCH 2, 1994.
THE DIG OBJECTED TO THE FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS.  THE REGION HAS NOT
SUBMITTED THE OFFICIAL PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY APRIL 29, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

S2CWNO-09-0076-3300080  LAS VIRGENES MWD            CA   9/30/93
 Summary:  INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $5,091,815  INCLUDES: $42,564 FOR
CONSTRUCTION COSTS NOT INCURRED; $912,643  OF INTEREST EARNED;
$647,791 FOR UNALLOWABLE ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING AND ADMINISTRATIVE;
$1,226,989 FOR ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING AND CONSTRUCTION OUTSIDE
SCOPE OF PROJECT. $2,289,573 RELATED TO EXCESS CAPACITY AND
$757,976 UNREASONABLE ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING COSTS.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD IS REVIEWING THE
ENGINEERING AND TECHNICAL ISSUES.  BASED ON THIS REVIEW, THEY WILL
Assignment Control
Number
Title
 Final  Report
	Issued
                                         ISSUE A POSITION PAPER FOR REGION AND OIG REVIEW.  THE REGION HAS
                                         NOT SUBMITTED AN OFFICIAL PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TC
                                         THE OIG.
                                                                                                  EXPECTS
                 = DESIRED TIMETABLE  FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
                 FINAL DETERMINATION  LETTER BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

                 IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

                 E2AWT2-09-0333-3400016  LAKEPORT SD MIDDLETOWN      CA   1/21/92
                  Summary:  THE LAKE  COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT SEWER PROJECT
                 CONSTRUCTED IN MIDDLETOWN, CALIFORNIA DID NOT MEET THE EFFLUENT
                 DISPOSAL OBJECTIVE  OF ITS $7.2 MILLION CONSTRUCTION GRANT.

                 - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
                 BEFORE THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER CAN BE PREPARED, THE GRANTEE
                 MUST FIRST COMPLETE SEVERAL STATE-REQUESTED TESTS SCHEDULED FOR THE
                 SUMMER OF 1994.
                                                                                                  EXPECT!
                 = DESIRED TIMETABLE  FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
                 FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

                 IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [2]
                                         E2AWT3-09-0082-3400037  SAN DIEGO, CITY OF          CA   3/29/9!
                                          Summary:  THE CITY  OF  SAN DIEGO HAS CONSTRUCTED AN $11.8 MILLIOI
                                         LAND OUTFALL WHICH WILL NOT BE USED BY THE CITY FOR THE INTENDEI
                                         PURPOSE OF  THE GRANT NOR WILL IT BE USED IN THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE

                                         - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
                                         THE REGION  IS AWAITING THE COURT DECISION ON CONSENT DECREE ISSUES
                                                                                                  EXPECT:
                 = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
                 FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

                 IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [2]

                 E2AWP9-09-0065-9400025  HOMELAND EARLY WARNING      CA   3/31/8'
                  Summary:  SPECIAL REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION GRANT OF WASTEWATER
                 TREATMENT PLANT FOUND $3,737,139 IN FEDERAL SHARE COSTS QUESTIONED
                 AN EARLY WARNING LETTER ADVISED THAT COSTS FOR THE COLLECTION
                 SYSTEM PORTION OF THE  PROJECT DID NOT QUALIFY FOR FUNDING BECAUSI
                 OF THE "2/3 RULE".

                 - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
                 THE REGION REQUESTED ASSISTANCE FROM THE AUDIT RESOLUTION GROUP I
                 RESOLVING THIS AUDIT.   THE OFFICE OF WATER PROPOSED A POLICY
                 CLARIFICATION ON  THE 2/3 RULE.  THE OFFICE OF WATER AND THE OIG AR
                 WORKING TO REACH AGREEMENT ON THIS POLICY CLARIFICATION.

                 = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  WHEN
                 AGREEMENT IS REACHED THE REGION WILL APPLY THE CLARIFICATION TC
                 REACH RESOLUTION.

                 IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [5]

                 E2AWP9-09-0230-9400043  EARLY WARNING-MARINA CWD    CA   9/26/8
                  Summary:  SPECIAL REVIEW OF GRANT TO BUY CAPACITY RIGHTS  FROM
                 REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT RESULTED IN AN EARLY WARNIN
                 LETTER TO EPA MANAGEMENT THAT THE AWARD VIOLATED 40 CFR 35 2250 AN
                 THAT TOTAL COSTS  QUESTIONED OF $1,694,000 (F.S. $931,700) WOUL
                 CAUSE "WINDFALL".

                 - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE
                 RESOLUTION OF THIS AUDIT IS LINKED TO THE MONTEREY EARLY WARNIN
                 AUDIT.  THE REGION AND OIG ARE DISCUSSING ISSUES TO  HELP REACH
                 RESOLUTION.

                 = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECT
                 FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

                 IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [2]

                 Regional Administrator • Region 10

                 P2CWL9-10-0002-2100669  PIERCE COUNTY UTILITIES DEP WA   9/30/<
                  Summary:  THE GRANTEE CLAIMED TOTAL QUESTIONABLE COSTS OF
    66
                                                                                                  OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
Assignment Control
Number	
Title
 Final  Report
	Issued
$4,496,181  FOR REIMBURSEMENT UNDER ERA'S CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
PROGRAM.  COST CLAIMED OF $2.179,647 WERE FOUND TO BE INELIGIBLE
AND CLAIMS FOR $2,316,534 WERE UNNECESSARY AND UNREASONABLE.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE REGION IS REVIEWING 16 GRANTS AND CONSIDERABLE
DOCUMENTATION TO RESOLVE ISSUES RAISED BY THE DIG.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  THE
REGION EXPECTS TO ISSUE A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE
DIG ON MAY 31, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

P2CWN1-10-0042-2300088  NEWBERG, CITY OF            OR   9/30/92
 Summary:  INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $8,998 RELATED COSTS IN EXCESS OF
APPROVAL; $151,758 FOR COSTS NOT SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE SOURCE
DOCUMENTATION; AND $15,480,301 UNREASONABLE RELATED TO UNUSED
FACILITIES AND EXPIRED NPDES PERMIT.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE REGION SENT A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE
DIG ON OCTOBER 4, 1993.  BASED ON DIG COMMENTS, THE REGION WILL
ISSUE A NEW DRAFT LETTER TO THE DIG BY APRIL 30, 1994.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

P2CWN9-10-0107-2300091  FED WAY WATER AND SEW       WA   9/30/92
 Summary:  INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $1,304,725 CONSISTED OF $67,287 FOR
UNALLOWABLE CONSTRUCTION COST, $61,048 RELATED TO INELIGIBLE
CONSTRUCTION PERCENTAGE; $21,243 OF UNAPPROVED
ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING COSTS; AND $1,155,147 RELATED TO EXCESS
CAPACITY.  ALSO QUESTIONED WERE $2,242,049 AS UNSUPPORTED.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE REGION IS ATTEMPTING TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE OF GRANT
ELIGIBLE COSTS FOR A 30 YEAR PLAN VS A 20 YEAR PLAN.  BECAUSE THE
PROJECT IS VERY OLD, RESOLUTION IS TIME CONSUMING.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  THE
REGION EXPECTS TO ISSUE A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE
OIG BY MAY 31, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

E6EWN2-10-0020-3300012  REVIEW OF ADEC SOW PROGRAM  AK   2/10/93
 Summary:  PROCEDURAL WEAKNESSES IN THE ALASKA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL  CONSERVATION'S (ADEC) SAFE DRINKING WATER PROGRAM
RESULTED IN COSTS THAT WERE UNAUDITABLE.  ALSO, ADEC FAILED TO
EITHER COMPLETE TIMELY OR DOCUMENT COMPLETION FOR SIX WORK PLAN
OBJECTIVES THAT WE REVIEWED.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE REGION SENT A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE
OIG ON SEPTEMBER 30, 1993.  AS A RESULT, THE REGION IS MEETING
WITH THE STATE TO NEGOTIATE ADDITIONAL CORRECTIVE ACTIONS FOR A
FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  THE
REGION EXPECTS TO ISSUE A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY APRIL 30,
1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [2]

P2CWNO-10-0008-3300030  CHEHALIS,  CITY OF           WA   3/29/93
 Summary:  TOTAL INELIGIBLE COSTS QUESTIONED OF $119,184 INCLUDES
$6,770 OF UNALLOWABLE  ADMINISTRATIVE AND ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING
(A/E); $22,986 OF COSTS OUTSIDE SCOPE OF APPROVED PROJECT;
$13,038 FOR REPAIR WORK; $43,390 FOR UNSUBSTANTIATED FIXED ACCOUNT
AND A/E COSTS.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  ALTHOUGH THE AUDIT FINDINGS ARE UNDER THE $100,000 FEDERAL
SHARE QUESTIONED CUTOFF, THE REGION IS HOLDING ISSUANCE OF THE
Assignment Control
Number	
Title
 Final  Report
	Issued
                                         FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER AS A COURTESY TO THE OIG.  THE REGION
                                         WILL SUBMIT A DRAFT LETTER TO THE OIG BY APRIL 15, 1994.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
                                         RESOLUTION BY MAY 30, 1994.

                                         IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [2]

                                         P2CWN2-10-0016-3300067  PETERSBURG,  CITY OF         AK   9/21/93
                                          Summary:  INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $215,898 INCLUDES:  $8,064 OF
                                         UNALLOWABLE  ADMINISTRATIVE; $43,473 OF INELIGIBLE
                                         ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING COSTS; AND $164,356 OF INELIGIBLE
                                         CONSTRUCTION COSTS.  COSTS OF $21,877 NOT SUPPORTED BY SOURCE
                                         DOCUMENTATION.

                                         - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         THIS IS THE OLDEST CONSTRUCTION SITE IN THE REGION AND HAS BEEN
                                         INVOLVED IN EXTENSIVE LITIGATION. THE REGION IS ATTEMPTING TO
                                         OBTAIN SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO ISSUE A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION
                                         LETTER BY APRIL 30, 1994.

                                         - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  THE
                                         REGION EXPECTS TO ISSUE A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY JUNE 15,
                                         1994.

                                         IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

                                         P2CWNO-10-0052-3300069  SEATTLE                     WA   9/29/93
                                          Summary:  INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $162,801 INCLUDES: $6,904 ALLOCABLE
                                         TO INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION, $155,897 COSTS OUTSIDE SCOPE OF
                                         APPROVED PROJECT.  COSTS OF $290,076 NOT SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE
                                         SOURCE DOCUMENTATION.

                                         - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         THE REGION IS OBTAINING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR INCLUSION IN THE
                                         DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  THE
                                         REGION EXPECTS TO ISSUE A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY MAY 31,
                                         1994.

                                         IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

                                         P2CWN1-10-0048-3300071  EUGENE, CITY OF             OR   9/29/93
                                          Summary:  INELIGIBLE COST OF $142,437 INCLUDES,- $41,370 FOR
                                         UNALLOWABLE  ADMINISTRATIVE; $8,803 FOR UNALLOWABLE
                                         ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING (A/E); $34,863 FOR A/E IN  EXCESS OF APPROVED
                                         AMOUNT; AND $94,401 FOR FORCE ACCOUNT INSPECTION COSTS PAST
                                         APPROVED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT COMPLETION DATE.

                                         - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         THE REGION SENT A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE OIG ON
                                         JANUARY 4, 1994.  BASED ON OIG COMMENTS, THE REGION WILL LOCATE
                                         ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTATION AND ISSUE A NEW LETTER TO THE OIG BY MAY
                                         6, 1994.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
                                         RESOLUTION CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.

                                         IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [2]

                                         P2CWN1-10-0044-3300075  PORTLAND. CITY OF           OR   9/29/93
                                          Summary:  INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $93,739 INCLUDES: $1,305 OF
                                         UNALLOWABLE  INTEREST COSTS; $52,434 OF ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING
                                         ADMINISTRATIVE AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS ALLOCABLE TO INELIGIBLE
                                         CONSTRUCTION; COSTS OF $709,917 NOT  SUPPORTED BY ORIGINAL SOURCE
                                         DOCUMENTATION.

                                         - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE:
                                         THE REGION HAS BEEN GATHERING INFORMATION AND COMMENTS FROM THE
                                         CONTRACTING OFFICER AND THE STATE.  THE REGION WILL SUBMIT A DRAFT
                                         FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE OIG BY APRIL 15, 1994.

                                         = DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  THE
                                         REGION EXPECTS TO ISSUE A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY MAY 30,
                                         1994.
   OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                                      67

-------
Assignment Control                                 Final  Report     Assignment Control                                  Final Report
Number	Title	Issued     Number	Ti tl e	Issued

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]
                                                                    * = Agency procedures do not require the 16's approval on Agency's
P2CWN1-10-0049-3300076  SEASIDE. CITY OF            OR   9/30/93    Management Decision on an audit (other than a preaward or an
 Summary:  INELIGIBLE COST OF $97,155 INCLUDES $71,889 OF           internal and management audit) with the Federal share of questioned
UNALLOWABLE FORCE ACCOUNT AND $89,266 OF CONSTRUCTION COSTS         costs of  less than $100,000.  Therefore,  we  have not provided a
RELATED TO SERVICE LATERALS, COSTS OF $188,202 NOT SUPPORTED BY     Summary of the audit.
SOURCE DOCUMENTATION.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE REGION HAS BEEN OBTAINING INFORMATION AND COMMENTS FROM
THE STATE.  THE REGION WILL SUBMIT A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION
LETTER TO THE DIG BY APRIL 30, 1994.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:   THE
REGION EXPECTS TO ISSUE A FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER BY JUNE 15,
1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

P2CWN1-10-0041-3300077  METROPOLITAN WASTEWTR. MGT. CA   9/30/93
 Summary:  INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $2,511,772 INCLUDES: $26,970 OF
MISCELLANEOUS COSTS,  $107481 OF INSURANCE PREMIUMS, $181,830
ALLOCABLE TO INELIGIBLE PERCENT;  $2,195,491 OUTSIDE SCOPE OF
PROJECT $6,657,189 NOT SUPPORTED BY ADEQUATE  SOURCE DOCUMENTS.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  BECAUSE OF VERY COMPLEX ISSUES, THE REGION IS SEEKING
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND DOCUMENTATION FROM THE PROGRAM OFFICE, THE
STATE AND FROM THE WASTEWATER COMPANY.  THE REGION WILL ISSUE A
DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE DIG BY SEPTEMBER 30, 1994.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
RESOLUTION DATE CANNOT BE DETERMINED AT THIS TIME.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [1]

P2CWN9-10-0173-3300079  ST  MARIES. CITY OF         ID   9/30/93
 Summary:  INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $77,977 INCLUDED $46,321 FOR
UNALLOWABLE LEGAL COSTS;  $21,078 FOR UNALLOWABLE
ARCHITECT/ENGINEERING (A/E) COSTS; AND $10,578 FOR ADMINISTRATIVE
AND A/E COSTS ALLOCABLE TO  INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION; COSTS OF
$5,206 NOT SUPPORTED BY SOURCE DOCUMENTATION.

- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE REGION SENT A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE
OIG ON JANUARY 10, 1994.  BASED ON DIG COMMENTS, THE REGION WILL
ISSUE A NEW DRAFT LETTER TO THE OIG ON APRIL 15, 1994.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:  EXPECTS
RESOLUTION BY MAY 30, 1994.

IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [2]

E3BG*6-10-0066-8100761  MOSES LAKE  IRR & REHAB DIST WA   8/31/88
 Summary:  INTERIM AUDIT OF DEMONSTRATION GRANT TO RESTORE MOSES
LAKE AND  TO CONTROL NON-POINT POLLUTION SOURCES FOUND TOTAL COSTS
QUESTIONED OF $2,439,103 (F.S. $1,205,039).  GRANTEE USED STANDARD
METHODOLOGY INSTEAD OF DEVELOPING NEW  INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES.

 - EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:  THE DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR GENERAL AND REGIONAL OFFICE COULD
NOT RESOLVE ISSUES  IN THIS  AUDIT.

= DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
HEADQUARTERS  IS AWAITING  INFORMATION  FROM THE OFFICE OF WATER  TO
RESOLVE  THE AUDIT.

 IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF  3/31/94   [6]


TOTAL AUDITS  ISSUED BEFORE  REPORTING  PERIOD FOR WHICH NO
MANAGEMENT DECISION WAS MADE DURING THE REPORTING  PERIOD:     124
    68                                                                                            OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

-------
PIG  MAILING ADDRESSES and TELEPHONE NUMBERS
PIG  HOTLINE  (800) 424-4000 or (202)  260-4977
Headquarters
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
401 M Street, S.W. (2441)
Washington, DC  20460
(202) 260-3137

Atlanta
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1475 Peachtree Street, NE
Suite 1100
Atlanta,  GA 30309-3003
Audit: (404) 347-3623
Investigations: (404) 347-2398

Boston
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
JFK Federal Building (OIG)
(office at 1 Congress St)
Boston,  MA 02203
Audit: (617) 565-3160
lnvestigations:(617) 565-3928

Chicago
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
77 West Jackson  Boulevard
13th Floor (IA-13J)
Chicago, IL  60604
Audit  (312) 353-2486
Investigations: (312) 353-2507

Cincinnati
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
4411 Montgomery  (MS Norwood)
Cincinnati, OH 45268-7001
Audit: (513)  366-4360
Investigations: (312) 353-2507 (Chicago)

Dallas
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General (60IG)
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, TXs  75202-2733
Audit:  (214)  655-6621
Investigations: (404) 347-2398 (Atlanta)

Denver
Environmental Protection Agency
Office  of Inspector General
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver,  CO  80202-2405
Audit: (303)  294-7520
Investigations: (312) 353-2507 (Chicago)
Kansas City
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
726 Minnesota Avenue
(office at 630 Minnesota Ave)
Kansas City, KS 66101
Audit: (913) 551-7878
Investigations' (312) 353-2507 (Chicago)

New York
Office of Inspector General
90 Church Street, Room 802
New York, NY  10007
Audit: (212) 264-5730
Investigations  (212) 264-0399

Philadelphia
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
841 Chestnut Street,  13th Floor
Philadelphia, PA  19107
Audit: (215) 597-0497
Investigations: (215) 597-9421

Research Triangle Park, NC
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
Catawba Building
Highway 54, Mail Drop 53
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Audit: (919) 541-2204
Investigations: (919) 541-1027

Sacramento
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
650 Capitol Mall,  Suite 6309
Sacramento, CA 95814
Audit: (916) 551-1076
Investigations: (415) 744-2465 (SF)

San Francisco
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
75 Hawthorne St (1-1)
19th  Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Audit: (415) 744-2445
Investigations: (415) 744-2465

Seattle
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
1111 3rd Avenue, Suite 1460
Seattle, WA98101
Audit: (206) 553-4403
Investigations: (415) 744-2465 (SF)
OCTOBER 1, 1993 THROUGH MARCH 31, 1994
                                                                                                               69

-------