;EPA ,/
Un8t88 -
~~W"- ......
0ffta8 01 Inlll11D1 G...,.
401 M Stnft., SW
"""...;IDR. CC 20480
~
Office of Inspector General
Semiannual Report
ApriJ 1, 1981,
through
'September 30, 1981
r'n.w'" Y .
us [;w,oomnental i'rOll'"I :0;: 4(jency
library Hegiort,~
I fI r' l ,} I -; ~ ?
12GO Sixtl~ Av«nue
Seuulo. WA 9&11)1
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the fifth Semiannual Report to the Congress prepared since
an Office of Inspector (OIG) was established in the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). The reporting requirements, as prescribed by
the Inspector General Act of 1978 (Act) and other applicable legislation,
and the reference to the page where each requirement is addressed are
shown on page v of this report.
ACCOMPLISHMENTS
In the last six months a new more cooperative working relationship
has been established with top Agency officials. Through team participation
EPA has acted to reduce the regulatory burden of its grant regulations
without losing any necessary control to prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.
As part of an Agency Taskforce the OIG is currently working with other
components of EPA to assess the problems on six selected construction
grant projects. Through such efforts, EPA will assess ways in which such
problems can be avoided in the future. Top EPA management has placed
increased emphasis on the need for prompt resolution of audit reports and
has been successful in reducing the number of unresolved reports. In
addition, management officials recognized our overall resource shortages
and took immediate action to provide relief, despite the fact that the
Agency was taking substantial reductions on an overall basis.
During this reporting period, the OIG staff has issued significant
reports on EPA programs, grants, and contracts; has investigated alleged
improprieties and fraud against the Government; and has continued critical
efforts in fraud prevention. Significant results have been achieved
considering the small size of our EPA staff. However, much more needs to
be> done before EPA's Inspector General can fulfill the complete realm of
responsibility encompassed by the Inspector General Act.
Audits
Work on special projects continued. "Project Look" was essentially
completed: final reports were issued on four of the projects reviewed.
Draft reports are being prepared on the remaining ones. We performed
surveys as part of our efforts on four projects initiated for the President's
Council on Integrity and Efficiency. Work was begun on two other special
projects relating to the Wastewater Treatment Works Construction Grants
Program. We issued 908 audit reports, which questioned $142 million of
the $2.9 billion audited. A substantial portion of these monies should be
recovered. Other audit reports identified systems and control deficiencies
and recommended corrective actions to help prevent fraud, abuse, waste,
and mismanagement. Agency officials have put forth a concerted effort to
close outstanding audit reports.
-------
. . OUr audit advisory work included (1) providing traditional audit
supp:>rt to the procurement and contracting process~ (2) assisting
municipalities and accounting firms which were contemplating performing
single audits in accordance with AttachItent P, am Circular A-I02i
(3) working with Agency officials to ensure that necessary safeguards
and controls are established ufXJn implerrentation of the "Superfund"
prOjrami and (4) reviewing various allegations of proprieties on EPA
programs. 'lbese allegations VJere received frem Congress, Office of.
Management and Budget, EPA staff, and the public.
Details of the audit accomplishments are contained in Section I of
this report, which begins on page 1. Appendix 1 summarizes the audit
re{X)rts issued this period ~ Appendix 2 lists all audit re{X)rts. issued
this period ~ and Apperrlix 3 summarizes the actions taken on outstanding
audi t rep:>rts.
Investigations
During the last six m:mths, we opened 47' new investigations and
closed 18. At present there are 114 cases under investigation. Three
indictments and convictions were obtained. In addition, investigative
referrals. resulted in recovery of approximately $229,000 of EPAfunds,
debarment of one contractor, and termination of nine employees. More
specific information on investigative activities is presented in Section
II of this report, which begins on page 38.
Prevention of . Fraud, Waste, and Abuse
",
Considerable OIG staff effort was expended the last six m:mths on
major projects to reduce the {X)tential for fraud, waste, and abuse under
EPA prOjrams. Detailed procedures .fo~ conducting vulnerability-assessments
and internal control assessments were develoPed. In addition, the OIG
continued to work closely with EPA officials in developing suspension
and debarment procedures applicable to grantees, contractors, subcontractors,
and engineers under EPA grants. We initiated actions to strengthen the
utilization of our Hotline, reviewed various pieces of legislation, and
participa ted in reviews of proposed changes to EPA' s grant regulations.
'Ihese activities are discussed rore thoroughly in Section III, which
begins on page 43 of this report.
Support Activities.
The Inspector General has reorganized his office to improve lines of
cammunicationand ensure the effective utilization of available resources.
Despite an overall reduction in EPA staffing, additional positions were
given to the Office of Inspector General. Travel funds cut in previous
years were restored for fiscal 1982. A rore detailed discussion of these
matters is presented in Section IV, which begins on page 49 of this report.
ii
-------
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
The future is a challenge. We have established a cooperative working
relationship with EPA management. The Administrator and other top Agency
officials have actively expressed their support for the Office of Inspector
General. Together we have undertaken several projects to independently
assess the adequacy of Agency operations. Through such cooperation, the
Office of Inspector General and EPA management together can better assure
proper stewardship and utilization of public funds.
Wi th the overall reductions in. Federal resources, the Government is
looking for new, rore effective ways of doing business. Throughout our
efforts, be they audit, investigative, or management advisory services,
the Office of Inspector General will support this process by making
appropriate, constructive recamrendations as to ways in which controls
can be exercised without putting unnecessary burdens on available resources.
Within our own office, improvements in operation are being made. We
plan to better utilize our staff to accanplish the needed audits. In this
regard, a program of vulnerabili ty assessments and internal control
assessments is being undertaken. . These assesSIrents will help us to better
identify the portions of Agency operations JOOSt susceptible to potential
waste, fraud, and abuse. ThrOugh this infonnation, we can help ensure
that available resources are utilized where they are JOOSt needed.
Ways will be found for rore effective, efficient auditing of the
construction grants program. OVerall surveys of several of our largest
grantees will be initiated. Through such surveys, we can determine
whether adequate controls are in effect to safeguard the billions of .
dollars under the grantees' custodianship. In addition, a task force
. will be reviewing the results <;>f final construction grant audits canpleted
in the l::ist several.iyears to identify ways of reducing required audit
efforts without suootantially increasing the risk of not identifying
improper expenditures. We will initiate a program to review proposed
projects at the planning and design stages. By doing so, we hope to
eliminate improper experrlitures before they occur, rather than recover
them later.
The OIG will also strive to be at the forefront of Goverrnnent-wide
initiatives. We will continue to playa leading role in projects initiated
for the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency. We will continue
to work with professional organizations, CMB, and other EPA officials
implementing the single audit concept. New efforts will be initiated to
advise EPA personnel of the existence of the OIG Hotline and to encourage
them to report instances of suspected fraud, waste, mismangement, and
abuse in EPA programs and operations.
iii
-. _... - -.... ..""-
. -,.-.,.«""- . ,.~_._. -.- . -'- .... -. .
h ".'-""- ........ .
-------
In facirg the future, the OIG will keep in mind the environmental
issues and priorities facing the Agency. Through rrore effective utilization
of our resources and a cooperative relationship with Agency officials, we
can better ensure proJ.:er managerrent of available resources and improved
resy;x:>nsiveness to environmental needs.
iv
-------
REPORI'ING REQUIREMENTS
The specific reporting requirements as prescribed in the Inspector
General Act of 1978 are listed below. Also included are new reporting.
requirerrents which resulted fran Public Law 96-304, Supplemental
.Appropriations and Rescission Act of 1980.
Source
Location in This Report
1.
Inspector General Act
Section 4{a) (2)--Review of
Legislation and Regulations
Section III, Part D, Page 46
2.
Section 5{a) {l)--Significant
Problems, Abuses, am
~ficiencies
Section I, Part C, Page 7
3.
Sect ion 5 (a) ( 2 ) --Recamrerrla tions
with Respect to Significant
Problems, Abuses, and
~ficiencies
Section I, Part C, Page 7
4.
Section 5{a) (3)--Prior
Recamrendations Not Yet
Implemented .
Section 5{a) (4)--Matters
Referred to Prosecutive
Authorities
Section I, Part D, Page 25
5.
Section II, Part B, Page 38
1.
6. - Section 5{a) (5) and 6(b) (2)
--Summary of Instances
where Information was Refused
See Note 1 below
7.
Section 5{a){6)--List of Audits
)
Appendix 2, Page 53
Public Law No. 96-304
1.
Senate Report, Page 11,
. Resolution of Audits
Section I, Part F, Page 35
Appendix 3, Page 95
2.
Senate Report, Page 12
~liIXIuent ~bts
Section I , Part F, Page 35
Note 1: '!here have been no instances during this reporting period where
requested information has been refused. Accordingly, we have nothing to
report pursuant to Sections 5{a) (5) and 6(b) (2) of the Inspector General
Act of 1978.
v
~ ,~ . ~-
-------
TABLE OF CONI'ENTS
A. ACCG1PLISHMENI'S
B. RESULTS OF REFERRALS
C. CURREN!' CASES
D. UPrM'E ON A PREVIOOSLY REFORI'ED CASE
E. INVESTIGATIVE WORKLOAD STATISTICS
F. CYl'HER MATTERS
Page
i
v
1
1
4
7
25
31
35
38
38
38
39
40
40
41
43
43 4,."
45
45
46
47
49
49
49
51
EXECUl'IVE SUMMARY
REPORTIN; REQUIREMENTS
SECl'ION I --AUDIT REPORI'S
A. Ac:mtPLISHMENTS
B. SPECIAL PRamerS
C. SIGNIFICANT FINDIN;S AND RECOMMENDATIONS
D. STATUS OF PRIOR AUDIT REcx:MMENDATIONS
E ~ MANAGEr1ENT ADVISORY SERVICES
F. OI'HER REPORI'ING REQUIREMEm'S
SEa'ICN II -- INVESTIGATIONS
SECl'ION III-PREVENTION OF FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE
A.' VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENT' TASK FORCE
B. SUSPENSIONS AND DEBARMENl'S
C. HOI'LINE
D. REVIEWS OF LEX;ISIATION
E. REVIEWS OF PROPOSED REX;UIATIONS
SECl'ICN IV--SUPFORl' AerIVITIES
A. "REDRGANIZATION
B. STAFFIt-K;
C. TRAVEL
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX 1 - SUMMARY OF AUDIT REPORI'S ISSUED
APPENDIX 2 - LIST OF AUDIT REPORl'S ISSUED
APPENDIX 3 - SUMMARY OF UNRESOLVED AUDIT REFORI'S
APPENDIX 4 - ORGANIZATION CHARI'
APPENDIX 5 - STAFFIN; PATI'ERN OF OIG
52
53
91
92
93
vi
-------
SEcrION I -AUDIT RESULTS
'!his section summarizes Office of Insy;:ector General (OIG) audit
activi ties for the six-m:mth y;:eriod eooed September 30, 1981. . Audi t
re{X>rts issued during the y;:eriod are summarized in Apy;:endix 1, which .
begins on page 52, and listed in Appendix 2, which begins on page 53.
Part A of this section contains summary statistics and a brief
description of our reporting categories. Part B discusses briefly a
number of sy;:ecial projects being conducted by our office. Part C. includes
examples of significant audi t reports issued during this reporting y;:eriod.
Part D contains those significant re{X>rts £ran our previous Semiannual
. Reports which are still unresolved. [Parts C and D are required to be
re{X>rted by Sections 5 (a )( 1 ), 5 (a) ( 2 ), and 5 (a) ( 3) of the Insy;:ector
General Act of 1978 (Act).] Part E describes our managerrent advisory
services. Part F contains the new semiannual re{X>rting requirenents
imposed as a result of Public Law 96-304, Supplenental Appropriations and
Rescission Act of 1980.
A.
ACCG1PLISHMENTS .
Durin:J this reporting period, the OIG provided audit coverage which
balanced managenent needs with the nandates of the Act. Top priori ty .
was given to a number of sy;:ecial projects of interest to top EPA and
Office of ManageIrent and Budget (CMB). officials. As a result, roost of
our available resources during the last six rrcnths was sy;:ent:
o
Windi~ up Project IDok;
Initiating a task force review of selected construction grants
to identify major problems and reCaT1lmnd neans by which such
problems can be avoided in the future;
o
o
Developing preliminary surveys and guides for audits to be
undertaken for the President's Council on Integrity and
Efficiency.
The audit staff has also assisted investigations, canpleted internal
audits of EPA oy;:erations, y;:erforrred limited interim and final audits of
EPA grants am contracts, maintained oversight over audits y;:erfor:med by
Indey;:endent Public Accountants (IPAs) and State auditors, provided
rnanagenent assistance services, and reviewed various laws and regulations.
-------
1.
Summary Statistics
Audi t reports issued for this six-rronth. p:riod are summarized below:
Type of. Review
Internal Audits
Construction Grants
Preawards
Interim
Final
Subtotal
Other Grants arrl Contracts
Pre award
Interim
Final
Indirect Coots
Subtotal
TOTAL
Number of
Reports
14
Ibllars
Coots
Audited
-0-
in Millions
Coots
Questioned*
-0-
25
93
237
355
215
27 .
206
91
539
$ 12
1,094
774
$1,880
$ 2
89
24
$115
$
648
57
185
-0-
890
$ 20
1
6
-0-
$ 27
.$142
$
908 .
$2,770 .
The colwm "Coots Questioned" represents. coots whid1 the Office of
Ins~ctor General considered to be unallowable because of (1) noncanpliance
with legal requirements, grant provisions, or contract provisions; or (2)
financial inequities to EPA programs. Final determinations of the
acceptabili ty of coots questioned must be made by appropriate EPA program
officials.
*
Prcductivi ty in the secom half of the fiscal year was up substantially.
The number of audit rep:>rts increased fran ~89 in. the first half of the
year to 908, an increase of 15 ~rcent. Costs questioned increased even
rrore substantially, fran $56.7 million to $142 million (150 ~rcent).
2.
Analysis of Audit Statistics
As shown above, our audit reports are classified according to three
major types: internal reviews of EPA programs and functions, construction
grant audi ts, am other grant arrl contract audi ts.
a.
Internal Audits
The audi ts of EPA programs and functions represent" internal
audits," whid1 are done primarily by OIG auditors. Through these audits,
the OIG staff determines whether EPA is canplying with legal or regulatory
requirements and whether ~rations can be ~rformed rrore effectively,
efficiently, am econanically. These reviews help the Government operate
rrore efficiently and simultaneously act as a deterrent to pcssible fraud,
waste, am abuse. . .
2
-------
Durin;J the last six m:mths, the eIG issued 14 internal audit reports
in the following areas: .
Category
Number of
Reports
Financial Management
Other .
'!UrAL
8
6
--r;r .
b. Construction Grants
EPA's Wastewater Treat:Irent Works Construction Grants Program is
the largest sin;Jle program administered by the Environmental Protection
Agency. Even after adjust:Irents to the fiscal 1981 budget, the construction
grants program represented $2.3 billion of EPA's total $3.7 billion budget.
As of August 31, 1981, $24.5 billion was obligated on 11,680 active con-
struction grant projects.
Audi ts of the construction grants program are perfoDned by eIG staff,
. Independent Public Accountants, State auditors, and other Federal agencies.
. The schedule on the followin;J page shows the construction grants audit
reports ccrnpleted by source.
c .
. Audits
Performed by
EPA Staff
IPAs
. State Audi tors .
Other Federal Agencies
'IDI'AL
. Number of
Reports
Dollars in Millions
Costs Costs
Audited Questioned
46
214
.83
12
.355
$ 217
1,330
318
15
$1,880 .
19
84
11
1
115. .
c. Other Grants and Contracts
EPA also issues many other types of grants and contracts. The
eIG is resJX)nsible for performing all types of audits on these grants and
contracts. The eIG also provides audit counsel on grants and contracts to
contractin;J officers and project officers. Preaward audits may be done
to provide awardin;J officials with infounation on the propriety of costs
proposed and the acceptability of accounting and financial management
systems. Financial arrl ccrnpliance audits may be perfoDned to ascertain
the acceptabili ty of coots claimed or reported.
Like construction grant audits, audits of other grants and contracts
may beperforrned by a number of sources. The schedule on the followiN3
page shows a breakdown of reports issued by source.
3
. -" -.---. --
-------
Audits
Performed by
EPA Staff
IPAs
State Auditors
Other Federal Agencies
'roTAL .
Number of
Reports
19
30
4
486
.539
Dollars in Millions
Coots. Coots
Audited Questioned
$ 22
80
22
766
~
$ 4
1
o
22
."2/".
3.
Recoveries From Audits
. Because of the length of time it takes to dete:rmine ultimate effects,
it is not pcssible to accurately tabulate financial savings resulting
fran our work this period. Moreover, many of our findings may not result
in "savings" in the true sense~ instead, they may result in rore effective
EPA programs arrl operations or they may prevent future frauds or improprieties.
In certain instances, these latter improverrents may be even rore irnp:>rtant,
in te:rms of effectiveness and efficiency of governmental operations, than
cost recoveries. Our Audit Tracking and Control System (ATeS) does identify,
however, the am:>unt of the coots questioned which were sustained by Agency
action officials during the last six ronths.
Due to significant efforts made by the current administration to
close out outstanding audits, EPA clooed 1,463 audit reports, sustaining
$35.9 million of costs questioned, in this reporting period. This represents
$33.4 million which must be recovered by EPA and $2.5 million of coots
avoided due to preaward audits. In addition, we identified $60 million of
coots included in grant requests vtlich we cons idered ineligible for EPA
participation. Agency officials upheld our position, which resulted in
coot avoidances representing a Federal share cf $45 million.. .
B.
sPECIAL PRCUEC!'S
A major portion' of EPA internal resources is devoted to special
projects. Reacting to irquiries from the President's Council on Integrity
am Efficiency, the Administrator, members of the House or Senate, or
internal assessrrents of Agency problems, the Inspector General initiates
special reviews or analyses of areas with potentially significant problems.
Through stich special projects, resources are brought to bear on problems
which need to be assessed nationwide. Throogh these approaches the OIG
gains the coverage necessary to provide rore. rreaningful recatlltendations
to top Agency management. D..1ring the last six ronths, OIG resources
were utilized on the following special projects.
4
-------
1.
Project Look
Under the authority provided by the Inspector General Act of 1978
(Public Law 95-452), in January 1980 EPA's Inspector General initiated
"Project IDok," a canprehensive, in-depth review of EPA' s Wastewater
TreatIrent Works Construction Grants Program. During the last six rronths,
the objectives of Project IDok were essentially canpleted. Final reports
on the first four projects reviewed were issued. (See Part C.2, page 11,
for a synopsis of the major firrlings developed in each of these reports.)
Field work has been completed on the remaining four projects undertaken
We anticipate that draft reports will be issued for review and comm:mt
during the next six rronths.
In our last semiannual report we discussed the highlights of a
canprehensive reIX>rt issued as a result of this evaluation. Agency
officials have initiated actions to deal with the problems discussed in
that rep:>rt. We shall now turn our attention to performing rrore detailed
internal audits of particular problem areas canm:::m to the projects
whidl underwent Project rook review.
2.
Construction Grants Audit Task Force
Up:m learning about Sate of the major problems encountered on SCIre
construction grant projects, the Administrator asked the Inspector General
to dlair a task force to examine these problems. In performing, this work;
task force teams canp:>sed of audi tors and engineers, representing the
Office of Inspector General, Office of Water Programs, and Office of
General Council arrl Enforcement have begun reviewing six grantee projects.
. ~.. '.
As, each review is canpleted; a rep:>rt 'will be prepared identifying
the problems discovered, explaining why the problems occurred, identifying
any breakdowns in EPA or State review procedures, arrl recC1Tl!Tending any
further actions needed on these projects. An overall evaluation will
then be made as a basis for recC1Tl!Tending improvenents needed to prevent
sudl problems fran occurring on future projects.
Field work is currently undetWayon all six projects. We anticipate
that final reports on these projects and overall recamnendations will be
submitted to the Administrator during the first quarter of fiscal 1982.
",
3.
Preliminary Viability Analyses
In reviewing the status of various construction projects acroos the
country, it became clear that significant experrlitures were being made
for projects with serious planning and/or design deficiencies. Accordingly,
it was decided to, implement a program for reviewing projects at an early
stage to prevent sudl unnecessary expenditures.
5
-------
Resp:mding to concerns of the Administrator, the Office of Inspector
General is currently develq>ing guidelines to be used by teams of auditors
am engineers in reviewing the basic viabili ty of construction grant
projects. We anticipate that a short review of selected projects at
completion of the planning or design stages can help identify projects
with significant potential problems. By raising questions at that time,
bad projects can be identified and eliminated or problems can be corrected
before large exp:nditures are made with public funds.
4. President's Council Audits
During. the last six JiOnths, the Office of Inspector General has
worked on four projects for the President's COlD'1cil on Integrity
am Efficiency.
a.
Construction Contract Change Orders
As a member of the project team for this audi t, an OIG
representative helped formulate the audit approach, conducted a survey
of EPA procedures, and assisted in developing the audit program to be
used in the detailed audit.
. As a result of the survey performed, the Inspector General
concluded that a detailed audit of the d1ange order process should be
performed expedi tiously. Although EPA has recently been revising procedures
in this area, our field audits have continued to show major problems in
change order administration.
In performing this audit, major emphasis will be placed on
determining the adequacy of:
o Control systems. to account for change orders and ensure that
they are processed in a timely manner.
o Reviews into the cause and necessity for d1anges.
o Reviews of ccsts propcsed and documentation .of negotiations
performed to ensure that fair prices for d1ange order work
were obtained.
Throoghout this review, we will assess the role of each party
involved and the ways in Tfklid1 the process could be improved. We will
errphasize ways of simplifying the process as much as possible while at
the sane time providing adequate protection for the public interests.
We anticipate that detailed field work on this job will begin in
October or November 1981, and that a consolidated report on EPA's
involvement will be issued in Mayor June 1982.
b.
Unliquidated (])ligations
6
-------
The Office of Inspector General contributed a staff' member to
help initiate \\Ork on this project. The staff member assisted in preparing
a survey guide, performing a survey of unliquidated obligations both at
EPA and other Federal agencies, drafting a survey rerx>rt, and preparing
a detailed audi t guide.
The survey of unliquidated obligations at EPA, limited to
construction grants, identified the following rx>tential problems:
o
'EPA does not terminate or annul grants when projects are
not initiated wi thin established time frames.
o
Funds have not been deobligated on projects which are
essentially canplete. '
o
tata in EPA's grants administration system are not always
accurate.
We plan to pursue these areas further 'in audi ts to be conducted
in our Boston and New York regional offices.
c.
tential for
significant payoffs.
d.
Payroll
OIG, staff 'participated ii;l the survey of this area. vIe do not.:
plan to participate directly in the audit, however, because EPA does not
operate its own payroll system. We plan to perform selective audits of
time card preparation and check distribution as time perrni ts in the
canirg year.
C. SIGNIFICANl' FINDINGS AND RECG1MENDATIOOS
The items included in this sectiuon of the rerx>rt were selected from
audi t reports issued during this reporting period. As these items represent
our rrostsignificant findings, they should not be considered representative
of the overall adequacy of EPA operations or programs. D..1e to the recentness
of sorce of these rerx>rts, final dispcsition or resolution has not been
determined. However, each of these items will be followed up, and instances
where our recamrendations have not, been irnplenEnted will be identified'in
our next' Semiannual Report.
7
-------
Internal Audits
1.
The following findings were selected fran am::>ng our Irost significant
internal audits of EPA programs and functions. .
a.
Reccgnition and Collection of Audit Disallowances
A review of procedures used in eight regional offices to recognize
am collect audi t disallowances showed:
(1)
Deficiencies in Establishing Accounts Receivable
Many regions did not effectively act to ensure that anounts
recoverable fran grantees were properly recorded as accounts receivable.
In four of the eight regions reviewed, established procedures did not
specifically call. for recording and collecting accounts receivable. As
a result, we found that action officials had not notified financial'
mnagerrent offices to establish receivables for 40 percent of the cases
(accounting for $14 million) where regional officials had advised that
. - cost recoveries would be made.
(2)
Deficiencies in Followup Collection Efforts
Q1ce accounts receivable were established the regions were not.
following up with collection efforts. In addition, Ironies owed as a
result of rep:>rt findings were not collected by the regions until the
grantees subtlitted final billings. As a result, at the time of our audit
EPA had not collected Irore than $25 million of costs which regional offices
had determined were due the Agency.
We recanrrended that regional officials ensure that accounts
receivable are established for all amJunts to be recovered; collection
am billing actions are initiated in a timely manner; reports are sul::mitted
on the status of outstanding receivables; and performance standards are
Irodified to hold action officials and financial management officers
accountable for taking prat1pt, adequate actionS to recover Federal funds
due the Government under audi t disallowances.
b.
Pesticides Revolving Fund
Despite congressional intent .~~at the pesticides revolving fund
be as self-supp:>rting as possible, we found that EPA's costs for reviewing
petitions and establishing tolerances far exceeded revenues earned for
such services. However, this deficiency was not apparent because cost
accounting records were not maintained and financial reports were not
accurate.
The fund was only a shell for budgetary purposes. Actual expenditures
were charged to the salaries and expense appropriation. At year end,
expemitures -in an anount only equal to budgeted anounts were transferred,
8
-------
into the revolving fund account. . For fiscal 1980, $580,000 was budgeted
for the revolving fund;. at year end, this amount of expenditures was
transferred into the revolving fund account. However, salary expenses
alone were nearly $1.1 million for pesticide tolerance setting during
the period. Thus, the financial reports prepared and forwarded to the
Office of ManageITent and Budget were significantly in error.
There is a statutory requirenent that EPA charge "such fees as
will in the aggregate. . . be sufficient over a reasonable period of
tiITe to provide, equip, and maintain an adequate service" for the review
of petitions and establishITent of tolerances. EPA was not. in canpliance
with this requirenent, nor with another requirenent that petitions be
processed within 90 days.
We recc.rnmended that the Office of Pesticide Programs coordinate
closely with the Financial Managenent Division to develop necessary .
accounting procedures and controls to ensure the accuracy. of future
financial records am reports. In addition, the Office of Pesticide
Programs should study its petition review and tolerance setting activity
to determine ways to reduce processing costs and then initiate action
to adjust the fee structure to make the fund self sufficient.
c.
Managenent of Intergoverl'1l1ental Personnel Act (IPA) Program
The IPA program in EPA was not fully effective in meeting the
objectives of the IPA Act... In many instances, the agreerrents were vague as
to the assignee's specific duties, am the benefits to be derived by EPA
were not clear. There were many cases where the agreeITent appeared to be:
o
For the convenience am benefit of the employee rather than
EPA;
o
An attempt to augn-ent staff by circumventing Agency hiring
procedures; or
o
An attempt to "farm out" an unwanted emplOyee.
Frequently, there were problems placing EPA employees who returned
fran IPA assignments. SaretiITes their jobs had been filled or the persons
who had sent them on their assi9l'1l1ent were no longer in charge when they
returned. We also noted frequent cases where the EPA employee did not
return due to retirenent or other reasons.
Although the stated purpose of the program was to provide mutual
benefit to EPA and the other organizations, EPA assumed a disproportionate
share of the cost. In 61 percent of the cases EPA, paid 100 percent of
the assignee's salary and frin~ benefits, with no costs being shared by
the other organization. If such assignments were truly of mutual benefit,
the cost sharing arrangenents did not reflect it.
9
-------
These conditions' resulted frcm (1) the decentralization of many
of the IPA program resr;onsibilities wi thin EPA IS Rersonnel Managerrent
Division am:mg the various t;ersonnel staffing offices and to regional
p:rsonnel offices and (2) the lack of written agency guidance to control
IPA agreements ardsp:cify cost sharing lireti tations.
We also found that improverrents were needed in the financial
administration of the IPA program. The Personnel Management Division had
not accurately coded the p:rsonnel master files of IPA assignees to .
irdicate their status. This made it difficult to reconcile financial
and payroll records.
. The Financial. Management Division had not prepared or paid bills
in a timely manner, had not verified the accuracy of invoices prior to
payment, had made nunerous billing errors (both over and under), had not
follC7Ned up on delirquentreceivables, and had made nLIIrerous incorrect
accounting entries. .
We recanrrerded that authority for the final approval of IPA
assignments be assigned to a central r;oint within the Rersonnel Managerrent
Division, that written guidance I:e prcmulgated to ensure that future
IPA assignments truly are of mutual benefit, and that rn::>re equitable cost
sharing arrangements be made. We also recanrrended that the Personnel
Managenent Division and Financial Managerrent Division improve coordination
ard strengthen internal controls to resolve the administrative problems
noted. .
d.
Travel Advances
. In reviewing travel advances made by one of our Washington
financial managenent offices, we found that:
o Records of. advances were not accurate. A sample frcm the
$645,668 of outstanding advances indicated that rn::>re than
50 percent of the balances were inaccurate.
o
Financial officials were not adequately rn::>nitoring and
controlling travel advances. Although semiannual reviews
were supposed to be made of outstanding advances, we found
that 155 travelers had outstanding. balances of $25 or less
whid1 should have been liquidated. Similarly, we found that
12 travelers had continuing advances totaling $10,000 which
could not be justified based on the am::>unt of travel. In
addition, we found $20,092 of outstanding travel advances
due from travelers who had terminated their employm:mt with
EPA.
We recanrrerded that the Financial ~.anagement Division tighten its
controls over travel advances and increase rn::>ni toring ef forts. . Since our
audit, increased attention has been given this area.
10
-------
e.
Approval of Landscaping -
Our review showed that although a State agency had pranulgated
guidance concerning the allowabili ty of landscaping costs under EPA' s
construction grants program, it had not always adhered to this guidance
or to the existing Federal guideiines. . To the contrary, we found that the
. State had approved landscaping features which are considered unallowable
under both the Federal and State guidelines. These guidelines stress
that only reasonable landscaping should be provided, and that the location
of the landscaping should be around the per:i1reter of the treatrrent facili ty.
However, our review of 26 construction projects disclosed that excessive
landscaping had been approved for 19, or 73 percent, of the grants. While
the laooscaping costs represent only a small percentage of the total
construction coots, we estimate that the excessive landscaping coots on
EPA funded -projects in the State could exceed $10 million.
. We recamrended that the State be required to strengthen its
review procedures to ensure that excessive landscaping costs were not
accepted as charges to EPA grants.
2.
Construction Grant Audits
a.
Project IDok ReIXJrts
The following firrlings were selected fran the Irost significant
contained in our Project IDok reIXJrts.
(1)
Report 1
(a) Adequacy of Construction
:'1ajor construct::'on contractors and inspectors. representing thE.:
grantee's consulting engineer did not ensure that sewer lines were
properly constructed in accordance with plans and specifications.
Significant deficiencies were found in installed sewer lines.
o Many of the lines were installed at less than design slopes.
o Many house connections were installed at less than depths
required by plans arrl specifications.
o N1.1Ireroos flexural breaks were caused by an apparent lack of
unifot1Tl continuous bedding.
o Risers arrl "T" connections were not properly encased in concrete.
o Large pieces of asphalt or rocks were frequently directly on
top of or in the imrrediate vicinity of breaks in the lines.
o Class 2400 asbestoo cement pipe had been utilized where class
3300 pipe was required by the specifications.
11
-------
Construction contractors had apparently tried to conceal the nu:rrerous
flexural .breaks fran EPA, State, and grantee officials by gelling the
lines so that they would pass State tests.
Although actions have been taken to correct the known deficiencies,
the adequacy of construction on the remainder of the lines remains in doubt.
To resolve this dilemma, we recararended that EPA either (1) require
reexcavation of selected areas throughout the project so that the adequacy
. of construction can be dlecked or (2) obtain necessaJ:Y safeguards such as TV
ins~ction, extemed warranties, and assurances of cleaning and maintenance.
(b)
Res ident Ins~ction
The grantee's consulting engineering fiz:m did not effectively ins~ct
construction. We found that:
o
Ins~ctors had not identified many of the construction
deficiencies which occurred on the West Windsor project.
o Even in those instances where actual, latent, or potential
deficiencies were identified ,engineering personnel were
ineffective in evaluating' the possible consequences and in
taking necesSaJ:Y corrective action.
o
Ins~ction records contained many inaccuracies. This occurred
even after the engineering firm employees spent considerable
tine checking am redlecking their data.
Because this engineering firm had been terminated, we made no specific
recamremations concerning improvement of ins~ction services on the West
Windsor project. We did, however, recararend that EPA consider whether
such services were sufficiently adequate to support the rrore than $750,000
claimed for resident ins~ction services.
(c)
Change Orders
The grantee's consulting engineer had not adequately handled
change orders. We found that the firm's employees did not prcrnptly
rec:DJl1ize cnanged comi tions am issue resulting change orders. Change
orders which were identified were not adequately reviewed with res~ct to
nature am scope of change or reasonableness of price. In several cases,
data provided to the State were inadequate and incanp1ete. We recannended
that the grantee be required to have its new consulting engineer evaluate
eadl of the change orders previously submitted.
(d)
Federal am State Administration
. EPA and State ~rsonne1 did not always adhere to the requireIrents
in Federal regulations. S~cifically, we found that Federal and State
officials: .
12
-------
o Had apparently authorized full participation in the installation
of.. interceptor sewers larger than those needed to accamrodate
reasonable projections of future growth.
o Approved the construction of a collection system without
obtaining any specific canmi tm:mt as to tiIre fran-es for
connection to the regional treatrrent systems.
o Oid not pr9Vide consistent advice on requests for grant increases.
We recamrended that EPA officials followup to ensure that the
Federal regulations are adhered to.
( 2) Rer:ort 2
(a) Agricultural Irrigation ISronstration Program
We believe that the use. of Step 1 construction grant funds for an
Agricultural Irrigation ~ITOnstration Program (AIOP) was contrary to the
intent of Title II of PL 92-500. The AIDPproject, currently funded at
$2.7 million and expected to exceed $7 million over a nine year period,
pertained to researd1 and developm:mt (R&D) wOrk; in our opinion, such
work should have eeen funded under Title I of PL 92-500. As a result,
we have questioned $2.2 million of AIOP casts incurred to date.
The" State incorrrectly approved the AIOP-related services contributed
by another State agency as grantee force account casts. These casts,
approved in the arrount of $230,000, did not meet the definition of grantee
force account labor and did not qualify as reimbursable casts under 40
CPR 35.945 since they had not eeen paid by the grantee.
(b)
Premature Grant Award
The award of a $36 million Step 3 grant was premature; it should
have been delayed until the grantee was ready to proceed to construction.
The grantee had not initiated construction although over one year had passed
since the date of the grant award. In our opinion, the delays in initiating
construction were identifiable to the grantee's failure to rreet specific
regulatory requirerrents sum as (1) obtaining required petmits, (2) entering
into a final agreement with the u.S. Army for participation in the regional
system, and (3) providing the necessary copies of biddable plans and
specifications. We also concluded that the grantee failed to perform a
required value engineering analysis and was currently in the process of
redesigning significant r:ortions of the project.
(c)
Change Order Procedures
The grantee's change order procedures were not adequate to ensure
that only eHgible change order work would be claiIred for grant participation.
As a result, we questioned and set aside as Ln1allowable for EPA funding-
13
-------
approximately $800,000, or alrrost 55 percent, of the $1.5 million of change
order costs incurred to date. The inadequacy of the change order procedures
is exemplified by the grantee's failure to (1) properly support change order
costs associated with construction contractor force account work, (2) adequately
review the construction contract termination claim before assessing the validity
of the claim, (3) use canpeti ti ve bidding techniques to select a success:>r
contractor for the terminated work, (4) eliminate change order costs associated.
with unnecessary mitigation work, and (5) identify ineligible change order
work in its project records. Additionally, our review disclosed that the
grantee included approximately $600,000 of construction costs whid1 it had
previously determined to be ineligible for Federal participation in its
progress payrrent supp:>rting sdledules.
. (d) . Construction Management
The construction management and inspection procedures utilized
under another grant were not. adequate to ensure that construction was
effectively controlled or accanplished in a timely manner. As a result,
the (1) approved construction contract period of performance, including
. time extensions, had been exceeded by 250 calendar days and construction
was not yet canplete: and (2) grantee incurred significantly rrore inspection
costs than normally experienced for a project of this size. The expenditure
for outside inspection services represented 7.5 percent of the total
construction contract costs. .
Although expenditures for inspection services were significantly above .
average, we noted that: (1) daily construction inspection rep:>rts were not
always prepared: (2) fiI¥li inspections were not always scheduled up:>n the
contractor's ccrnpletion of work; (3) contractor requests for direction or
clarification of construction matters were not acted up:>n in a timely manner:
(4) coordination between the contractor, resident engineer, . and grantee
engineer wi th respect to scheduling and performing inspections was inadequate:
and (5) punch lists were not adequately prepared and controlled.
(e) National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permits
'n1e grantee had not established adequate managenent procedures for
its NPIES permit pro;Jram. As a result, (1) discharge violations occurred
because of illegal diversions or bypasses of wastewater (2) specific NPDES
action dates were not met, and (3) required rronitoring and annual operating
rep:>rts were not always filed on time. Additionally, the grantee had not
repaired a broken outfallUne at its Seaside treatlrent plant although EPA
had initiated a finding of violation on this matter as early as May 1977.
'!he audit also disclosed that Region IX had not initiated appropriate
enforcement actions against the U .5. Atmy although it has been discharging
its effluent onto the beach since the destruction of its outfall in 1958.
(3)
(a)
Rep:>rt 3
Project Eligibili~T
14
-------
We noted the construction of an interceptor line which we believe
was constructed to aid new developmant rather than eliminate a health
problemas stated in the grant application. An evaluation of the tributary
sewer system clearly sho...1ed that excessive infiltration into the system was
res{X)nsible for the overflow of sewage at the pump station during periods
of heavy rain. '!he re{X)rt also indicated that many typical line defects
were encountered during system evaluation. '!he report stated that cost
comparisons of alternate solutions for correcting excessive infiltration/inflow
determined replacement of the entire system to be the Trost cost~ffective
solution. The grantee chose an alternative solution, the construction of
an interceptor line through property now being CCII1m:rcially developed, that
will transp:>rt the excess i ve flow to an interceptor and then to the wastewater
treatment facility.
The solution did correct the overflow of sewage, but failed to
ccrnply with PL 92-500 [Section 201 (g)(3»), which requires the grantee
to prevent excessive infiltration fran entering the sewage system. As
of February 1980, infiltration was still prevalent.
In our opinion, the project failed to meet six requirements:
o Alternate methods. for solving health problems were 'not
considered.
o The project was not part of the 3c plan or the current 201
study (40 CFR 35.912):
o No cost~ffectiveness analysis was made [40 CPR 35.927(a»):
o '!he project did not ccrnply with Section 201(g)(3) of PL 92-500:
o The project did not ccrnply with the requirements' of '40 CPR
35.925-12: and
o . The grant cordi tion requiring an industrial cost recovery
plan has not yet been met.. .
. Our contention that this project is not eligible for EPA
participation is further sUpp:>rted by correS{X)ndence between grantee
officials ard a developer. '!be developer urged the grantee to expedite the
project to take advantage of additional tax revenues that would be generated
by his new developmant. In response, the grantee requested the developer to
pay a portion of the local share because the project benefited his
developmant. .
We recat1IYerded that EPA require the City to return the Federal
funds received on this project.
15
-------
(b)
Treatment Facility
An EPA grant, awarded under Public Law 84-660, provided for 55
p:rcent Federal participation in construction of a m::>dified activated
sludge mechanical treatment plant wi th pumping stations, collectors,
effluent lines, and a protective levee. The grantee was required to initiate
an effective .program to reduce the excessive infiltration, including storm
flow, entering the system. As of February 1980, infiltration was still a
major problem recause heavy rainfall flow to the plant exceeded treatment
capacity. Therefore, sewage was only partially treated prior to discharge.
We recamrended that EPA require the grantee to establish a high
priority program for correcting the infiltration/inflow problem and withhold
further grants for the construction of interceptor lines until the excessive
infiltration is reduced to an acceptable level. Unless the grantee makes
satisfactory progress toward eliminating the infiltration problem within a
reasonable time,EPA should require the grantee to refund the Federal share.
(c)
Change Orders
We found that change orders were used to substantially m::>dify
the materials and construction wethods on three projects. Such changes
tern to diminish the confidence and reliability that can be placed on
procurewents obtained. through the ccmpetitive process. In addition, a
temporary lagoon costil1g $122,960 was added to one project by a change
order. We questioned the temp::>rary lagoon as being ineligible for EPA
participa tion.
We recamremed that EPA require the grantee. to reexamine the
change orders to determine whether the canpetitive asp:cts of bidding
were abused and whether the change order costs were reasonable.
. Apppropriate dOCUIrentation should re provided to EPA for those change
orders in question.
(d)
Certifications
Certifications made by the grantee were unreliable. We found
that site certificates were sutmitted to EPA for easewents and rights-of-way
when a fee-simple ti tie had not been obtained. .
We believe that in sutmitting applications there is an implied
certification by the grantee that adequate institutional, managerial, and
financial resources exist to manage and canplete projects. For pay
requests, the implied certification is that the requests are accurate
and reflect only exp:ndi tures eligible and allowable for Federal
participation. Because the grantee did not have adequate institutional,
nanagerial, and financial capability, it submitted pay requests that
included ineligible am unallowable costs of approximately $2 million.
16
-------
We recanrremed that EPA require the grantee to obtain all easements
and rights-of-way before subnitting site certifications in sUPfX)rt of EPA
Step 3 grants. EPA should also consider conducting preaward surveys before
awarding grants to determine whether grantees have adequate institutional,
managerial; am financial resources. .
(e). Managerial and Technical Staffing
The grantee did not employ sufficient qualified personnel to
effectively manage am control the construction grants. Although. the
. grantee recognized this problem in 1974, it did very little to provide
adequate. staffing. The key ~rsonnel involved in the construction grants
prcgram s~nt approximately ten ~rcent of their time on this activity
and were not knowledgeable of the regulations under whid1 the program
. must operate.
We recanrremed that EPA require the grantee to (I) immediately
establish a staffing, plan CaT1I'!ensurate with grant management needs and
resfX)nsibilities am (2) hire the staff to implement this plan.
(f) . Financial Resources
The grantee had not provided adequate financial resources to
canplete projects cp{X)rtunely. Five projects had been sus~nded and three
not started tecause the grantee had insufficient local funds to provide'
the matching share. As far back as March 1975, the grantee had obligated
local share funds in excess of funds available which resulted in deficits
fran $44,299 to $1,572,258. . 'Ihese excessive obligations were caused, in
part, by the grantee's failure to maintain budgets on funds available
for EPA projects. .
We tecanrremed that EPA require the grantee to provide adequate
local funds to ensure that projects currently in process will be canpleted
in a timely manner. Also, the grantee should be required to provide
definite proof of its financial capability before future EPA-approved
grants are awarded.
(4)
RefX)rt 4
(a) Grantee Management
The grantee did not have a canprehensive plan to ensure that the
55 contemplated contracts were properly coordinated and that the remaining
construction was canpleted in an orderly am timely manner. Neither did
the grantee canply with the standards of ~rformance required by EPA
regulations. Serious shortcanings preventing canpletion of the project
included the lack of: (1) necessary e~rience, organization, technical
qualifications, am facilities; (2) compliance with canpletion schedules;'
(3) accurate financial and pro~rty records; (4) canpliance with EPA
17
-------
procurement regulations; and (5) a satisfactory closeout of a prior EPA
grant. Due to the multitude of contracts in various stages of design
and construction, no one irrlividual or organization could provide the
present status of each of the contracts, an estimated completion date,
and an estimated cost to canplete the project. Therefore, a management
survey was initiated by the grantee to determine the project's status.
We recanI'lerrled that EPA:
o Require the. grantee to canplete the management survey in a
timely manner.
o SubTIi t details of. action to be taken as a result of the
managerrent survey.
.0 Require the grantee, within 90 days after canpleting the
management. survey, to take appropriate action to complete
construction in a timely manner.
(b)
Construction Managerrent
The grantee's construction management techniques needed improvement.
The grantee did not provide realistic construction and material delivery
scheduled to contractors; equipment received was not installed for several
years; material storage was haphazard; and inadequate precautions were
taken to protect equipment. These deficiencies can be attributed to the
grantee's arrl consulting engineer's lack of general contracting e~rtise.
The specifications advertised to obtain bids contained preliminary
cor.struction schedules showing that all 55 contracts were to be bid within
a three rronth ~riod. This schedule also showed the construction work
for JroSt contracts would be ~rforme(l in a 12 rronth p:riod. The
specifications further stated all stages of construction would be awarded
simultaneously. Proo~ctive bidders were encouraged to sul:::mit propcsals
for rrore than one construction contract. However, we foUnd contract
. awards were. rrore than 12 ronths apart and nurrerous contracts were still
not awarded four years later. Contractors awarded two or rrore contracts
could not always provide services on these contracts concurrently as
indicated by the sp:cifications.
The grantee awarded 26. purchase contracts totaling $2,230,793 to
obtain equipn-ent. As of October 1980, only the equipnent applicable to
three of these contracts, valued at $155,539, was canpletely installed.
Significantaroc>unts of equipnent were delivered to the site up to 45 rronths
ago, but had not yet been installed or accepted. The material and equipment
delivered to the \IJOrk site were not always stored in an orderly manner and
adequately safeguarded. The grantee had claiIred significant arrounts to
repair and repaint rusting equiprrent.
18
-------
We recarnrerrled that EPA:
o Require the grantee to ensure construction and material
delivery schedules issued with future contracts are
adequa te to canplete construction in accordance wi th the
revised schedule.
O. Require. the grantee to i.rnIrediately install equipment where
possible and to adequately safeguard equipnent.
o Not participate in costs incurred to rehabilitate materials
arrl equipI1'ent deteriorated because of inadequate storage and
costs incurred due to unapproved construction delays.
(c)
Change Orders
The grantee needed to initiate a change order processing system.
We reviewed 27 of the 44 contracts awarded and estimated that, since 1968,
154 change orders totaling at least $566,000 had not been sub'nitted to EPA
for approval. During this reriod, we found that only three change orders,
valued at about $2,000, were sub'nitted for approval. Further, dOCt.JIrentation
was not available to supp::>rt the necessity of the change orders or the
reasonableness of the costs. Consequently, we questioned $306,000: the
remaining $260,000 ($566,000 - $306,000) has not yet been claimed by the
grantee. .
We recarnrerrled that EPA require the grantee to dOCUI1'ent the
necessi ty arrl reasonableness of change order costs and sub'ni t the change
orders pranptly.
(d)
Contract Overruns
The grantee allowed one contractor, who had been awarded two
contracts, to canplete the contracts on a tiI1'e and materiais basis when
the contractor could not rerform at the original bid price. EPA was not
opp::>rtunely informed of this change in the I1'ethod of ccmpensation. As a
result of the change, we estimated that a cost overrun of $663,783, or 77
rercent of the original contract awards, will occur. It was apparent that
the OITerrun did not result fran changes in the scope of the work, but rather
from inadequate preparation and review of contract srecifications, improper
management of the project, arrl inaccurate estimating arrl bidding procedures.
The contractor's bid for one contract was $874,364 below the
second bid, and an estimate prepared by the consultant in 1975 was less
. than the award am:>unt. This was a significant factor , as evidenced by the
bid discrepancies. The grantee should not have awarded a new agreement
to simplify the problem long before the. looses were incurred.
We recanmended that EPA canprehensively review these contracts
arrl lirni t Federal participation to coots approved under the terms and
corrli tions of the original contracts.
19
-------
(e)
NPDES Petmit
The grantee received a Step 3 construction grant under PL 92-500
to expand the local treatment plant without applying for an NPDES pemit. .
Neither was petmit ever issued for the original treatment plant; constructed
in 1972 under a PL 84-660 grant. During our review, the grantee applied
for a petmi t to operate the treatment plant constructed under PL 92-500.
'n1e grantee's treatment plant had violated secondary treatment standards
almost consistently duri1"XJ the previous 18 m::mths without EPA.'s knowledge.
We recanmended that EPA ensure that grant applicants canp1y with
the requirem:nts of the NPDES program.
b.
Other Construction Grant Audits
(1)
Unused Facilities
(a) Although a grantee constructing a regional treatment system
had spent rrore than $36 million constucting initial };X)rtions of a segnented
project, one local jurisdiction took action to stop further construction.
. Without canpletion of the subsequent };X)rtions of the project, the initial
segnents were not needed. Accordi1"XJly, we questioned the total funds
expended to date pending resolution of interjurisdictional disputes. and
actual. construction of the remaining parts of the project.
(b) Costs of $2,176,772 applying to incinerators were set aside.
The construction of the incinerators has been deferred, and they may not
be constructed. If the incinerators are not constructed, func=ts expended
for that purpose may have to I:e returned to EPA.
( 2) , Excess Capaci ty
The treatment plant built under one construction grant project
was much too large for the present needs of the area and for truly
satisfactory operation. Only one-half of the plant wa~ being used to
treat sewage. 'n1is represented only 2 1/2 percent of capaci ty. Because
a treatment works was needed; we questioned the cost ($543,812) of only the
unused half of the facility. In crldition, we questioned $357,200 related
to interceptor lines constructed to serve only five customers. We did
not believe it reasonable to pay $71,440 per connection to construct
sewers through basically In'ldeveloped larrl.
(3)
Inadequate Construction
.. Construction costs of $49,528,824 were set aside. These costs were
incurred for the construction of the multimedia filter facility. After
its canpletion, several hundred feet of the facility's outer wall of the
east influent channel collapsed. We understand that the consulting
e1"XJineer has agreed to finance the reconstruction of this wall. However,
the costs of the facili ty cannot be accepted until the reconstruction is
fully canpleted.
20
-------
(4) Ornate Facilities
Construction costs of $2,504,035 for an Operations Control Building
were questioned. While EPA had approved participation in a £X)rtion of
cost for an administration building, our engineering staff concluded that
the building was inordinately ornate and had "elegant" construction. As
a result, this building cost $82.31 per square foot as canpared to the
median cost of office space in the area of $34.14 per square foot. In
addition, we found that only 19 percent of the building's space was.
utilized for wastewater treatment personnel.
(5)
Ineligible Grantee
In auditing construction grants, we found that a $1 million
grant ($750,000 Federal share) had been awarded to an ineligible grantee
for activities which were not directly related to construction of a
wastewater treatment works. In this instance, a grant was given to a State
agency for providing liaison with minority business enterprises and women's
business enterprises. Since this State agency did not have authority to
construct or manage treatment works, it was not entitled to a grant under
Section 201 of the Clean Water Act. Accordingly, we questioned the entire
grant.
On September 30, 1981, EPA's Grants Administration Division
ruled that the grantee was ineligible for funding under Section 201 of
the Clean ~ater Act curl advised Regional officials to. terminate the grant
and recover all funds paid for ineligible services.
(6)
Procuren-ent of Professional Services
(a) A preaward audit of a proposed engineering contract for planning
ard design under a construction grant revealed improper noncanpetitive
. procurerrent. Under this project, the grantee had required that the
engineer performing planning subcontract 60 percent of the work with a
particular firm.. Later, when tirre carre to design the facility, the .
grantee chose to use the sarre subcontractor on the basis that it had
worked on the plan, thereby avoiding EPA procurerrent requiren-ents. W:
questioned EPA's participation in the approximately $500,000 of costs
. incurred for planning and des ign.
Regional program officials concurred in our findings and informed
the grantee that no Federal participation would be allowed in such costs.
(b) A grantee wanted to employ an engineering firm to design 27
miles of sewer lines without any apparent competition or consideration
of other firms. '!he proposed firm did not have the necessary staff,
office space, or equipnent. In addition, we noted that tirre estimates
were substantially overstated (74 percent) and that the firm's accounting
system was not adequate to properly account for project costs. We
recannemed that the $776,000 contract not be awarded.
21
-------
(c) Although an engineering firm had obtained sophisticated
labOr-saving, ccrnputerized equiprrent for designing sewer treat:Irent WI::L._,
we found that it did not consider possible savings \o,TIen estimating costs
for nesign. As a result, we found that this firm had received a $391,185
lump sum contract for which the engineer had incurred costs totaling
$184,788. Thus, the firm got a $206,397 profit (111.7 percent). We
recamrerrled that appropriate defective pricing clauses be invoked to
reduce eligible costs to a reasonable level.
(7)
Accounting Deficiencies
(a) Despite repeated audit reports, one major grantee refused
. to take the actions necessary to improve its accounting system. As a
result, the State Auditor found that the grantee's records were inadequate
to ensure the fiscal integrity of grant costs and that the $226 million
in Federal funds paid the grantee were basically unaudi table.
Major problems were found in virtually every area reviewed:
° Project accounting records were not current, accurate, or ccrnplete.
° Systems used did not identify or segregate ineligible, unallowable,
or duplicate costs.
° Costs were not consistently recorded.
° Manual and automated records were not reconcilable.
o
Internal controls were inadequate.
o
Direct labor costs were not properly dOCl.unented.
. . .
° Fringe benefits and indirect cost rates were not updated.
° Fringe benefits am indirect cost recoveries contained items already
apparently d1arged direct.
These problems had been reported on in detail in previous audit
rep::>rts. However, the grantee had not taken the necessary corrective action.
We believed the time had cane when action must be taken.
we rec
-------
(b) On another grant approximately 58 percent of personnel
dlarges made to the project ($5,986,408) was considered unallowable for
EPA participation. We found:
o
. Fringe benefit costs--for holidays, sick leave, and
. annual leave--were charged as direct labor to EPA
jots and were also included in fringe benefits, thus
duplicating the charges;
Individuals. were dlarged to projects on which they were not
working;
o
o Plant operations and maintenance personnel were charged to
EPA construction projects;
o
Force account construction work was charged. to EPA projects
wi thout EPA approval;
o Costs for ineligible/unallowable work--unrelated training
sessions, janitorial work, carpentry, moving costs, etc.--were
charged to. the projects;
o
Resident inspectors were dlarged to the projects long after
the jots. had been canpleted;
o Duplicate reviews were made of shop drawings and test
procedures; am
o The grantee's project officers did not review or approve
changes to projects until the projects had been closed out.
We questioned costs related to such unallowable activities.
(c) payrrents to an engineering firm were not based on costs incurred
in its accounting records or on work actually perfotmed. In auditing
this firm, we found that billings to the grantee for work under an EPA
construction project exceeded costs incurred plus an allowance for profits
by $206,510. An analysis of work actually performed by this firm indicated
that overbillings could approximate as much as $400,000. We recanrnended
that EPA require the grantee to recoup payrrents made in excess of the
value of work actually perforrned.
3.
Other Grant and Contract Audits
AI though few in-house or contract resources were devoted to audi ting
other grants am contracts, we selected the following rep:>rt as being
representative of the rrost significant reports issued.
23
-------
Our previous audit reports disclosed that the grantee's financial
IlBnagerrent system was inadequate, that its financial status reports were
unreliable and unsupported, and that grantee and Federal funds for various
grant programs were canmingled and used contrary to applicable . laws and
regulations. Our review showed that effective action had not been taken
to correct these problems.
Our current audit disclosed that the temporary cost accounting
system installed by the grantee did not provide data necessary to verify
the accuracy of financial transactions. Weaknesses in the financial
rranagerrent system included:
o Accounting records not reconciled with official control
records;
o Supporting data for claims not available for audit;
.0
Rersonnel and fringe benefit costs charged to programs based on
predeterm~ned percentages rather than actual efforts;
o Employees hired under contract not competitively evaluated as
required. under the established personnel process;
o
Inadequate pro~rty records and controls;
o Other costs clained recorded inaccurately;
o Final indirect cost rates not determinable due to the inadequacy
. of the accounting system; and
o Relocation costs exceeded approved EPA allowances.
As a result of these deficiencies, we questioned m:>re than $3.8
million of the $7.6 million of costs claimed by the grantee for fiscal
years 1977, 1978, and 1979 (Federal share $2.5 million).
We recamrended that the grantee be required to:
o
Irnplementan adequate financial IlBnagement system.
o Maintain. source docurrentation in support of its claims.
o Appoint ~rsonnel to positions based on the grantee's
n-eri t system.
o Update and correct property control records.
o Set aside all relocation and building rental costs until
Regional officials determine acceptable and reasonable am:>unts.
24
-------
D.
STATUS OF PRIOR AUDIT. REca1MENDATIONS
EPA Order 2750.2 prescribes uniform requirerrents and procedures for
processing arrlreso1ving audit findings and recanrrendations. It includes
specific procedures for referring unresolved issues to the next highest
organizational level and to the Agency's Audits Resolution Board when
necessary. .
Findings andrecanrrendations which remain unresolved fran our prior
Semiannual Reports are primarily complex issues that warrant further
managerrent review and study.. '!here are, however, sane cases where Agency
officials have not answered our audit reports.
The following schedule shows action taken with respect to the audi t
findings previously reported as significant.
Category
OIG Reports
Covering
10/1/80 - 3/31/81
Previous OIG Reports
'IDmL
Nurrber
of Reports . Number
Included in of Reports
Previous Closed During
Semiannual Reports Period
Number
of Reports
Remaining
Unresolved
20
15
~
16
4
"""10
4
11
~
-
Listed below are items previously reported that require further
action. To facilitate referencing these "open" items to the prior OIG
report, we have identified the pages where these items were previously
presented. This cross-referencing appears in parentheses following the
heading of each prior finding. .
1.
Findings First Reported in Our October 1, 1980, to March 31, 1981
eIG Report
a.
Audit Report No. ElmWO-10-0016-10428
Issued January 1, 1981 (page 8)
Section 204(b) (1) of Public Law 92-500 requires a determination that
the grant applicant has adopted or will adopt a system of charges to ensure
that each recipient of waste treatment services within the applicant's
jurisdiction will pay its proportionate share of the costs of operation
am maintenance (O&M), including rep1acerrent. We reviewed procedures and
practices utilized by three EPA regional offices and one Sta~e agency in
ensuring that the user charge (DC) requirerrents were being fulfilled.
25
- ~ - --
-------
We found that grantee UC systems were not being implemented or maintained
consistent with. the intent of PL 92-500 and the regulations. Neither of
the two major goals of the law were being met by many. grantee systems.
'!he majority of the grantees we reviewed had not established UC systems
in a manner to ensure that (1) each recipient of waste treatment services
was paying its proportionate share of the costs of O&M or (2) sufficient
revenue would be generated to offset the cost of O&M (including replacement).
Other conditions required by the EPA regulations, including periodic
grantee review and maintenance of. accounting records to identify UC
revenue and expenses, were also neglected by many grantees. We attributed
the causes of thesecondi tions to a lack of EPA (1) procedures for reviewing
UC systems, ( 2) resources directed to UC system reviews, and (3) enforceI1ent
authority after grants are closed.
To ensure that the major goals of the law with respect to UC systems
are met, EPA will have to significantly increase the resources devoted to
reviewing UC systems. In addition, EPA will have to develop rrore specific
procedures for reviewing UC systems and find. a means of enforcing canpliance
after a grant is closed. As this approach is quite resource intensive
and may not be the most beneficial use of EPA resources, we believe that
the Administrator should consult with Congress to ascertain whether
continued emphasis on UC systems will best ensure that wastewater
treatment systems constructed with Federal nonies are properly operated
and maintained. .
Although a response was received fran appropriate program officials,
it was not cons idered acceptable because it did not indicate actions which
would I::e taken with respect to all OIG rea::rnm:ndations.
b.
Audit Report Nos. P2cW9-060-0100-10683 and P2cW9-06-0199-10681
Issued March 5, 1981 (page 13). '
In auditing construction grants, we found several grants awarded to
ineligible grantees. We also found projects which were not eligible for
funding under the provisions of the Clean Water Act. For example, bJo
grants with claiIred costs totalinj $2.8 million were awarded to a port
authori ty. Because the port authority did not have jurisdiction over
the disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes, it was
ineligible to receive construction grant funds.
We .have rece i ved no response to these reports.
c.
Audit Report No. E3bW7-o2-o280-10227
Issued November 25, 1980 (page 17)
An OIG review of the administration of the grantee's water supply
program disclosed major problems in the following areas:
26
-------
(1 )
Program Management
The grantee did not adequately implement two major program elements
necessary to reach the grant program's objective of primary enforcement
resfX)nsibili ty for public water system 'supervision programs. First, the
grantee did not obtain the necessary professional staff and supervisory
personnel, laboratory equiprrent, supplies, and renovations in time for a
data m:magerrent system needed for the grantee's laboratories. Regional
officials had evaluated the grantee's program and concluded that the
program had serious problems which could result in the loss of substantial
Federal funds. We recamnended that .EPA continue to rronitor the
grantee's program clooely to ensure that the grantee performed work as
irrlicated its grant award. .
(2)
Financial Management
The grantee did not maintain adequate supporting documentation
for its coots refX)rted to EPA. Instead of refX)rting actual coots, the
grantee simply reported that it had experrled the budgeted arrounts.. The
grantee had not perforrred mny of the improvements called for in its
grant application. When we reviewed available documentation on the costs
actually charged to the grant, we found that grant funds had been used
for other purposes. For example, we found personnel charged to the grant
who had performed similar duties in the grantee for over 20 years. Because
the EPA prCXJram was intended to provide improvements to the grantee program, .
we concluded that such charges represented a substitution of previously,
grantee-funded activi ties with Federal program funds. We also found the
program charged with personnel and equipment which were not included in
the grant budget. Because the grant funds were provided to supplement,
not supplant, grantee program funds and funds were apparently not used
for the purposes intended, we questioned the total costs of the program,
$372,298 (Federal share $270,400).
(3)
Consultants
The grantee claimed consultant costs which were primarily for
activities unrelated to the EPA grant program. A responsible grantee
official advised us that. because of the lack of other funds' to pay con-
sultants, the grantee used $31,975 of EPA program funds although rrast of
the consultant's efforts were not related to the EPA program. The grantee.
had attempted to conceal this action through preparation of contracts 'and
false certifications that the services delivered applied to EPA programs.
Because the personnel involved were no longer with the grantee, we
recamrerrled that Federal funds be recovered.
We have received no resfX)nse to this. refX)rt.
27
." -.-_.. .-.". .
.--. . ."..~_.-
. - .,,-_. -' .. --.-- .-. - .. - ..
-------
2.
Findings Reported in Prior eIG Reports
In the previous eIG Semiannual Reports which covered the period from
April 1, 1979, through September 30, 1980, examples of problems, abuses,
and deficiencies in EPA programs were given and appropriate eIG
recamrenda tions were reported. The following is a report on the status
of unresolved reports of significant recanrrendationsmade by the eIG.
a. Audit Report No. P2bW9-o2-0031-00970
Issued April 1, 1980 (page 20)
An interim audit of construction grant costs totaling $135.8 million
(Federal share $90.9 million) resulted in $2.1 million total costs being
questioned (Federal share $1.4 million). The grantee failed to obtain
prior EPA approval for change orders and incurred costs in excess of the
grant budget. .
. We. recOTlI'Ceooed that regional officials take the necessary steps to
resolve the questioned cost. We have recently received a response on
this report and are evaluating it. .
b. Audit Report No. P2bW9-o3-o335-o1569
Issued July 28, 1980 (page 20)
A review of costs totaling $24.1 million (Federal share $18.1 million)
for upgrading and expanding a sewage treatJrent plant resulted in $2.1
million (Federal share $1.6 million) being questioned. The grantee's
accounting system did not separate eligible and ineligible costs. Costs
claimed for reimbursement included ineligible and unapproved items, as
well as normal operati!'}:J costs that were not a part of construction.
\
We recarnrended. that regional officials take the necessary steps to
resolve the questioned costs. We have recently received a response on
this report and are evaluating it.
c. Audit Report No. E2cW9-09-o104-o1372
Issued June 18, 1980 (page 20)
A review of $4.6 million total construction costs (Federal share $3.4
million) resulted in total costs of $1.3 million (Federal share $1 million)
being questioned. The costs questioned consisted of ineligible
administrative, technical services, construction, and land costs. Also,
interest incane had not been credi ted to the grant.
We recanrrended EPA recover the Federal share questioned. We have
received a response and are evaluating it.
28
-------
d.
Audit Report No. ElbW8-09-ol35-00269
Issued November 21, 1979 (page 21)
An internal and management audi t was conducted in EPA' s Regions I and N
(whichenccrnpass nine States) on the operation and maintenance of publicly
owned wastewater treatment plants.. '!he primary purpose of the audit was
to assess the overall efficiency, effectiveness, and econany of the manner
in which the regions and the States conducted their operation and maintenance
activities. The audit disclosed a number of deficiencies in their activities,
aoo the OIG made appropriate recat11rendations to the regions and the States.
'llie reports concluded that:
o Operation and maintenance inspections were invariably not.
scheduled and performed in accordance with EPA guidelines and
staooards.
o Management of the operation and maintenance activities was
not adequate to ensure, as a general rule, that the publicly
owned treatment plants were being effectively and efficiently
operated and maintained.
o Operation ,and maintenance inspections were not generally
evaluated in a consistent manner or utilized as a management
tool to imprOV'e plant performance.
o Adequate operating procedures were not sufficiently developed
to ensure that the plan of. operation was prepared as required
by EPA guidelines.
o Operation and maintenance manuals used by plant operators
were too broad in nature; they did not address or include
specific examples of operation and maintenance problems
normally incurred or. conditions that ordinarily exist in a
plant, and did not generally provide plant equiprrent
specifications.
o Neither adequate nor timaly action was taken on the prohibition
of industrial discharges into these publicly owned treatment
plants.
o There were no assurances that plant operators were adequately
trained or qualified to maintain plant equipment properly and
to operate the facilities efficiently.
A response. indicating that appropriate corrective actions were being
taken was received fran Region I, and the audit was closed out. The
response has recently been received, and we are evaluating it.
e.
Audit Report No. S2bW7-02-0l96-9l739
Issued July 17, 1979 (page 21)
29
.... .
-------
, An interim audit of $23.8 million in costs clai.rred by the grantee
resulted in our questioning $1.6 million of construction, technical
service, administrative, and legal fees. We noted that the grantee
clairneci costs that were duplicated, erroneous, or ineligible. We also
noted def iciencies in the grantee's method of classifying expendi tures
and allocating costs.
, We recamrended that EPA recover the Federal share of questioned
costs and require the grantee to correct its accounting system. Despite
followup, res};X)nses to this report have not been received.
f.
Audit ReI;X)rt No. E2bW6-Q2-Q04G-91133
Issued April 30, 1979 (page 21)
A review of $193.8 million in costs claimed by the grantee resulted
in our questioning $9.4 million. We discovered weaknesses in the grantee's
accounting and reI;X)rting procedures caused by the grantee's ineffective
coordination, guidance, and procurerrent methods in administering the project.
We recanmended that EPA recover the Federal share of questioned' costs
arrl require the grantee to prOllide resI;X)nsible project personnel with
guidance and direction and, to maintain an adequate cost accounting and
reporting system. Despite followup, res};X)nses have not been received.
g.
Audit Re};X)rt No. P2CW7-Q3-Q297-00773
Issued February 22, 1980 (page 23)
A review, of costs claimed totaling $10.5 million for the construction
of interceptor sewers. and a wastewater treatment plant resulted in
questioned costs of $1.3 million. Costs were incurred to perform work
with construction specifications not approved by EPA. Change order costs
. substantially exceeded amounts previously approved by EPA. In addition,
chan:Je order costs were erroneously claimed and force account construction
equipment was charged for an amount exceeding acquisition costs.
We recamreooed that regional officials adhere to the originally approved
plans and specifications in administering this grant and that they determine
not only the proper costs but also the al10wabili ty of the change orders.
An interim reply has been received fran regional officials. However, this
reply is not a firm position taken by the Region on our recamrendations.
Therefore, the reply is not considered valid pursuant to EPA Order 2750.2.
Despite fo11owup, no satisfactory response has been received.
h.
Audit ReI;X)rt No. E2bWS-Q3-Q047-00705
Issued February 11, 1980 (page 23)
An interim audit of claimed costs totaling $40.7 million resulted in
$2.8 million be ing questioned. The grantee's management procedures were
inadequate in several respects. Also, the grantee's accounting system
did not properly identify project costs that were allowable and allocable.
Finally, d1ange orders were not sufficiently reviewed by the grantee to
determine whether the costs were reasonable.
30
-------
On February 11, 1980, we recannended that regional officials disallow
those costs that were ineligible and unallowable and seek to ensure that
the grantee's management procedures are improved. We have received a
resfX)nse from the Region and are reviewing it.
i.
Audi t Report No. P2bW9-03-0116-Q0500
Issued January 18, 1980 (page 23)
An interim audit of costs totaliDJ $4.9 million resulted in $2.0
million being questioned. Unapproved change orders,. unallowable costs,
ard the failure to obtain prior approval for Federal participation were
the reasons for the amounts questioned.
We recamrended that EPA take the necessary action to resolve
the audit findings. We have received additional information concerning
the Region's resfX)nse aoo are evaluating it.
j.
Audit RefX)rt No. S2cW9-09-Q335-Q0757
Issued February 21, 1980 (page 24)
A review of costs totaling $2.2 million resulted in the entire amount
beiDJ questioned. The grantee claimed ineligible engineering costs and
was unable to furnish the necessary doCl.1Irentation to support the claim
for reimbursement.
On February 21, 1980, we recanmaooed that EPA advise the grantee. that
the total costs claimed will be disallowed and that efforts to recover
the Federal share of costs will be made. We have recently received a
resfX)nse and are evaluating it.
E.
MANAGEMENT ADVISORY SERVICES
1. Implementation of Attachment P, CMB Circular A-I02
In October 1980, CMB designated C03I1izant Federal agencies for
approximately 800 State departments and agencies that are major recipients
of Federal aid. EPA was assigned C03I1izance for 31 of these State
departments and agencies.
CMB 's approach to local. government C03I1izance assignrrents has focused
on the top 1,000 local recipients of Federal aid. CMB contracted with
the International City Management Association (ICMA) to survey the top
300 of this group and rec(]'[U"[EOO cognizance assignnents. Through July,
the ICMA had made recamreooations covering 258 localities. EPA was
recamrended for cognizance over 24 localities, plus 32 depart.m:nts in an
addi tional 28 locali ties. CMB has not yet made formal assignments based
on the ICMA recamrendations.
DuriDJ the last six ncnths, the EPA Office of Inspector General has been
involved in seven audits under the "single audit concept." RefX)rts were
issued on two of these audi ts during the current reporting period. The Federal
31
-------
share of expendi tures under EPA grants during the periods covered by the audi ts
'NaS just over $438,000. There were no questioned costs related to the EPA grants.
Durirg the CUrrent reporting period, we also received one Attachment P
audit rep:>rt from the U.S. Departrrent of Transp:>rtation. The Federal share
of expemitures under the EPA grants included in the audit was $243,868.
There were no questioned costs related to the EPA grants.
We have allocated 900 staff days of effort in our fiscal 1982 workplan
to perform cognizant agency functions. We anticipate that most of the t~
will be used in providing technical assistance. to grantees and their auditors
while audits are in process, review of audit rep:>rts, and audit followups.
2.
Implementation of Superfund
The Canprehensive Environrrental Response, Canpensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (Superfund) provides a package system of notification, resp:>nse,
liabili ty, and canpensation for releases of hazardous substances. EPA' s
Office of ErrErgency and Remedial Resp:>nse (OERR) is currently revising
am pranulgating regulations am procedures to implement Superfund provisions.
The OIG staff is actively involved in the interagency process for
developil1:J these regulations am procedures. We are assisting Irembers of
Superfund workgroups, and have reviewed and cararented on draft regulations
am procedures. The OIG will remain actively involved in reviewing the
program to ensure that the Superfund act is implernented as Congress intended
am that appropriate internal controls are installed at the outset.
The Superfund legislation requires that the OIG submit to Congress an
interim, report one year after the fund is established. OUr interim report
will be sent to Congress on February 25, 1982. (This date was selected
based on a legal' determination rendered by the Special Counsel to the
Inspector General.) To fulfill our resp:>nsibility as called for in the
Superfund act, we have initiated an audit survey of the overall Superfund
program managernent, with particular emphasis on the financial management
systems. The survey sites selected were EPA Headquarters, Region I, and
Region IV. . The purpose of the survey was to (1) identify sensitive areas
for future audi ts am (2) prepare an audi t guide for preparing our interim
rep:>rt to Congress. .
We have also initiated audits of an errergency resp:>nse action and a
remedial action (cooperative agreerrent). An audit of a major reIOC>val
action is now underway. We are reviewirg EPA' s management of the response
and the use of catalogue pricing types of contracts. We' are also performing
a limited audit of the cooperativeagreernent with one State and reviewing
the State's credit toward its cost-sharing requirerrents.
We will continue to work closely with the OERR to rneet the program's
immediate and long-term needs.
32
-------
3.
Inquiries and Allegations
Durin:;r the last six m::mths, the OIG staff has respJnded to five
congressional inquiries shown below:
CorrespJooence
, Date
From
4-24-81
Congressman
D:>wney
4-28 -81
Congressman
Fountain
7-15-81
Congressman
Benedict
8-12-81
9-4-81
Sena tor Roth
Senator Exon
Subject
RespJnse
Date
Termination of temporary
emplo~
5-18-81
Relocation of Analytical
Chemistry Branch personnel
fran Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina, to Las Vegas,
Nevada
5-27-81
Greenbrier COtmty, West
Virginia, sewerage System
7-31-81
Agency travel
9-4-81
Termination of employee on
Intergovernmental Personnel
Act assignment
9-24-81
In addition, the OIG received 37 ccrnplaints alleging waste or abuse
of public funds under EPA pro;rams. CX1r office reviews each ccmplaint
carefully, judges its Jrerits, and refers the matter to applicable officials
for apPropriate corrective action.' '
In the last six m::mths we have closed out action on 18 of the canplaints.
In two cases, our in::ruiries led to the cancellation or postpJnerrent of
grant awards peooing major revisions ,to project scope. ' In another instance,
our review resulted in a regional office requiring that (l) redesign efforts
be coordinated with State agencies respJnsible for ccmplying with a Public
Service Canmission Order~ (2) revised plans and specifications be subjected
to a peer review~ (3) necessary easements be available to ensure that
construction can proceed without unnecessary resources~ and (4) the grantee
dem:mstrate that it has the necessary financial resources and management
systems to properly handle the project.
The remaining 19 canplaints are in various stages of review by
applicable audit,' investigative, or program managernent personnel.
33
-------
4.
Compliance Audit Task Force
Canpliance audi ting of coots clairred by construction grantees is
required to assist program nanagers in administering their programs
and to ensure that we fulfill our res}X)nsibilities under the IG Act. The
current approach to compliance auditing has been a combination of interim
ard final audits. The approach was developed in fiscal years 1972 and
1973 as a result of PL 92-500, which provided billions of dollars in
additional Federal funds, broadened project eligibility, and increased
Federal participation in individual projects to 75 percent of eligible
ccsts. .
OUr current approach has had significant }X)Sitive effects. The
complian~ audits. perforxred since fiscal 1977 have questioned approximately
$395 million in improper grant experdi tures and identified large I1lJI!bers
of projects with inadequate grantee management systems and problems with
respect to design, construction, or operability of facilities. These
compliance audits have also served as an excellent identifier of EPA
administrative problems requiring attention through internal audits.
EPA water program officials have estimated that fiscal 1982 will bring
a large increase in the nUIrber of projects requiring final audit. Although
our approach has had significant pcsitive effects, it is becaning increasingly
obvious that due to this increased workload we will not be able to provide
compliance auditing on the large number of construction grants being completed
and we will have difficulty in providing tirrely res}X)nses to requests for
compliance audits. Over the last several years, Federal fund outlays have
averaged aboot $4 billion per year, while canpliance audi t reports are
covering less than one-half that anr>unt each year. This has resulted in
an unaudited I::acklog in excess of $16 billion. Since annual Federal outlays
are anticipated to continue at rates higher than we are auditing, it is .
. reasonable to aSSLm1e that if we continue using our current approach, these
anr>unts will never be audited.
Much of our compliance auditing is in the form of final audit reports
ini tiated in res}X)nse to Agency program nanagers' requests. We have long
had a goal of issuing the majority of final audits within one year of
request. Current experience indicates that we are slipping significantly
fran the goal, am as many as 50 percent of oor final audits are not being
. issued wi thin one year. This problem will beCOIre rrore acute because the
Office of Water Program Operations has initiated an Agency-wide drive to
close out grant projects and thus substantially increase the number of.
final audit requests during the next few fiscal years.
Accordingly, the Inspector General has created an OIG task force to
review compliance audi ting of construction grants and reCCJm'!end an approach
or alternatives which will:
o . Limit IGresources (contract and in-house) utilized in auditing
construction grants to a level no higher than 50 percent of that
used in fiscal 1981.
34
-------
Identify for audit grants with significant ineligible/unallowable
costs or system/program problems.
o Resp::md (by performing final audi ts or allCMing program managers
to close projects without audit) to 90 percent of all program
managers'final audit requests within 12 ronths.
o
o Provide resources to assist Agency program managers with legitimate
special requests necessitating compliance auditing.
o Annually issue audit rep::>rts on, or determine that insufficient
risks exist to warrant audit of, at least as many construction
grant dollars as are being outlayed annually, . thus preventing the
unaudi ted dollar backlog fran increasing.
Work by this task force is Currently underWay, and completion is
planned for early in calendar year 1982.
F..
.OI'HER REPORI'ING REQUIREMENl'S
1.
Resolution of Audits
Modifications were made to EPA Order 2750.2 to IMke it canply with
CMB Circular A-73. In addition, procedures were established to track
systematic or procedural findings to implementation. .
The new Administration has put major emphasis on the resolution of
outstanding audit reports. As a result, the number of reports in our
audit follCMUp system has declined fran 973 at the start of this rep::>rting
period to 418 .as of September 30, 1981. The number of reports outstanding
rore than six nonths has. decreased fran 645 to 112. ..
The 112 reports outstanding may be broken down as follows:
Cons idered for Referral. to Audits Resolution Board
.Responses Being Reviewed
No Res};X)nse Rece i ved
'IDI'AL
17
78
17
112
In resolving the. rep::>rts, the Agency upheld costs questioned totaling
$35.9 million. This represents 36.5 percent of the costs which were
originally questioned. Of the costs sustained, $33.5 million will require
recovery action fran the grantees. The remaining $2.5 million represents
arrounts which are actually cost avoidances. The OIG was upheld in two
instances where we found that the grantees proposed to use construction
grant funds outSide the scope of the Clean Water Act. As a result of
these decisions, the OIG obtained an additional $45 million in cost
avoidances. Thus, the total cd3t benefit provided by the OIG during the
last six nonths was:
35
-
. . -. ._,. .....~.- ,..- .
-------
Millions of
Ibllars
Cost DisallowedjRecoveries to be Made
Cos t Disallowed/Preawards
Cost Disallowed/PrOfX:Sed Improper Use of Funds
'lUI'AL
$33.4
2.5
45.0
$80.9 .
EPA's accounting records do not accurately track the recovery of .
audit disallowances (see fiming in Section I, part C.l, on page 8 of
this rerx>rt). We anticipate, however, that irnprovenEnts being made in
this area will permit us to begin reporting progress in recovering aJrounts
owed the Federal GoverrutEnt due to audit disallowances in our next
Semiannual Report.
2.
Delinquent Debts
Following is a summary, provided by EPA' s Financial Management Division,
of EPA' s collections and wri teoffs for April 1, 1981, through September 30,
1981, with cumulative totals for the entire fiscal year, and accounts
receivable as of September 30, 1981. 'lhese may not be the Agency's final
figures. Although they reflect the Agency's accounting records as of
September 30, they are preclosing figures (Le., we obtained them before the
clos ing process had been canpleted).
AIrount Collected
April 1, 1981-
September 30, 1981
$23,370,000
End-of-
Year Total
$45,501,000
Amount Written Off,
$.
80,171
$
223,171
Accounts Receivable:
Under 90 Days Old
Over 90 Days Old
Unbilled
Total
$14,477,600
5,318,500 *
3,429,300
$23,225,400 .
* '!he majori tyof the accounts receivable over 90 days old are receivables
being appealed which will not be collected until the appeal process is
ccrnpleted (43 percent), intergoverrutEntal receivables (28 percent), and
audit fimings (21 percent).
During this year, the OIG staff reviewed EPA' s accounts receivable and
. collection procedures. We issued rerx>rts on procedures in finance offices
at Headquarters and four regions. We found that many of the finance
offices still lacked aggressive collection procedures.
36
-------
EPA'sFinancial Managem=nt Division had recognized that it had
significant problems with res{:ect to delirquent debts. Accordingly, it
has taken steps to improve its debt collection position by issuing
detailed procedures to EPA's finance offices to ensure uniform handling
of billings and collections. The Financial Management Manual and the
Accounting Manual were appropriately revised and uPdated. In addition,
the Financial Management Division has improved the accuracy of the recently
implem=nted autanated accounts receivable subsystem.. .
The autanated subsystem identifies and ages individual debts. This
allows the .Financial Management Division to identify overdue accounts and
take cpfX)rtune remedial action. The accounts receivable data on the.
preceding page ccure from the subsystem. Because the subsystem is new,
there are problems with it. For example, it contains negative receivable
arrounts. In addition, the Agency has not yet reconciled the subsystem with
the general ledger. As of September 30, 1981, the subsystem total for
accounts receivable exceeded the general ledger total by $62,700. The
finance offices are working to resolve these discrepancies.
When canputerizing the subsystem, one finance office discovered
$148,600 in accounts receivable which had no sUPFOrting docum=ntation.
The finance office concluded that the amount was received, but not pro{:erly
matched with accounts receivable. Consequently, the accounts receivable
were not reduced by the amount of the receipt. To resolve the apparent
overstatement, the finance office adjusted the general ledger to rexrove
the undocum=nted amount.
The Financial Management Division has clarified the duties of the
EPA Claims Officer. Uncollectable accounts receivable must now be written
off by the EPA Claims Officer. During fiscal 1981, the Claims Officer
wrote off debts amounting to $62,514, or 28 percent of the total written
.. off. The Financial Management Division also emphasized that accounts
receivable uncollected at the end of 90 days, except those established
as a result of information furnished by the Freedom of Information Officer,
must be forwarded to the EPA Claims Officer. The Claims Officer may
canpranise, terminate, or suspend further collection effort on debts.
Forty-two outstanding debts totaling $152,844 referred to the Claims Officer
are currently in an interim status.
37
.-. . ..
-------
SECl'ION II ~ INVESTIGATIONS
This section provides al general overview of investigative operations.
It includes a summary of our work accanplishrrents, the results of matters
, referred to prosecutive authorities, a discussion ofsare cases developed
, in the current period, an up::!ate on previously reported cases, and a
statistical analysis of the investigative workload.
A.
ACCG1PLISHMENTS
Durirg this reporting period we opened ITOre cases but closed fewer than
in the previous reporting period. We have utilized our available resources
on ITOre canplicated cases with the exception of employee cases (see part C,
page 39). The following schedule reflects investigative activities over
the last two reportirg periods:
Category Previous Period Current Period
Cases Opened 27 47
Cases Closed 67 18
Cases Peming 85 114
Cases Referred
to Prosecutors 11 7
In addition, our Security Specialists ccrnpleted 20 Confidential
Business Information security surveys and our investigators closed 42
preliminary iIXIuiries and 19 hotline canplaints. From the 19 hotline
canp1aints received,. 10 investigati<::ms were" opened..
B.
RESULTS OF REFERRAlS
The following schedule surmnarizes referral actions during this
rep:>rting period.
Referrals for Prosecution
Cases Pending as of March 31, 1981
Cases Referred '
Total Cases under Consideration
5
7
-n-
Disposition of Cases
Cases Accepted
Cases ~clined
Cases under Consideration
Total
o
5
7
"""1T" '
38
-------
Actions on Cases
. Indictnents
Convictions
Ibllar Recoveries
3
3
$228,980
rbte 1
Note 1
rbte 2
Note 1: .
The indictmmts and convictions. arose from the case described in
part C.1 below. Although our office participated planning the
investigation, we ~re not part of the arrest. Thus, ~ did not
make referral for prosecution.
Note 2:
The dollar recovery arose from the case described in part D (see
page 43).
Referrals for Mministrative Action
Cases Referred This Period
6
Note 1
Actions Taken on Referrals
Note 2
~bannents
1
9
rbte 3
Employee Terminations
Note 1:
Prior to this reporting period, detailed statistical data on
administrative referrals ~re not maintained. All of the six
referrals in this period remain open as of 9/30/81.
The actions taken on administrative referrals all relate to
referrals made prior to this reporting period.
. Note 3:' In our'Semiannual Rep:>rt for the period ending September 30,' 1980,
we reported the conviction of a contractor. He has since been
debarred .
Note 2:
C.
CURREN!' CASES
1.
Fictitious Travel Vouchers
A representative of the Inspection and Security Branch had information
. indicating that a forner EPA employee intended to submit several fictitious
local travel vouchers for payrrent fran the imprest fund. We later ascertained
that the forner employee had kept her employee identification card when
she left EPA, claiming that she had lost it.,
We devised a plan to.arrest the forner employee up:>n presentation
of the false voucher and payrrent by the imprest fund cashier. Since the
Inspector General has no arrest powers, assistance was obtained from the
Federal Protective Service. The arrest was made following the transaction
as outlined above.
39
-------
The suspect furnished information implicating a current and a second
fomer EPA employee. The current employee was arrested at her work
station, harocuffed, and rem::>ved fran the premises. The second former
employee was arrested at her hare.
All were irrlicted and convicted on two counts of attempted false
pretense. The EPA employee res igned.
2.
T:i1re Card Violations
. . We investigated a number of alleged EPA employee time card violations
this period. Falsification of t:i1re cards is a serious problem, and rranage-
rnent has adopted a stern attitude toward this violation. Generally
speaking, the fraud amounts are small and U.S. Attorneys decline in favor
of administrative action. EPA rranagernent has dismissed nine employees
for t:i1re card violations during this reporting period.
UPDATE ON A PREVIOUSLY REPORl'ED CASE
D.
In our Semiannual Report for the period ending September 30, 1980, we
surrat1a.rized one canplicated case that the Office of Investigations referred
to a U.S. Attorney. This case was involved and, because of the lack of EPA
investigative resources, referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigations.
EPA provided assistance. This case was surfaced by the Office of Audits
when it determined that the contractor subcontracted work out and then
billed the City of Houston, Texas, \for the subcontractor's labor cost,
fringe I.:enefits, and its own overhead rate. In short, the contractor
substituted its overhead rate for the subContractor's overhead rate, which
resulted in an oveq>ayrnent to the contractor of $224,526. The U.S.
Attorney declined prosecution because there was no intent to defraud on
the part of the contractor; however, the contractor agreed to refund the
entire amount to the City.' . . . . .".
E.
INVESTIGATIVE WORKLOAD STATISTIcS
1.
Inventory of Cases
Number
Perrling as of MardI 31, 1981
Opened this period
Closed this period .
Pehding as of September 30, 1981
85
47
(18)
II4~
40
-------
2.
Profile of Pending Cases
Area of Investigation
Conflict of Interest
Legal Corruption
Fraud Against Government
Federal Procurement Fraud
Federal Prcqram Fraud
Government Regulatory Offenses
Administrative Actions
Travel/I'i.Ire am Atterrlance
Misuse of Government Property
Waste am Abuse of Resources
. Personnel Violations
Theft of Government Property
Antitrust
Privacy Act Violations
Other
TarAt
F. arHER MA'lTEPS
1.
Investigative Handbook
Office of
o I P WIA R T A 0 T
A G 0 a i e 0 d t 0
1 t r s x m h t
i e e i i e. a
c r a c n r 1
y r
c
h
1 1 12 14
5 5
2 1 23 5 2 1 34
2 6 2 1 1 12
5 1 6
1 1 2
3 1 4
2 1 2 3 2 4 14
1 1 1 3
1 4 1 1 7
1 1 1 1 1 5
1 1 2
1 1
1 1 2
1 1 1 3
I 9 Il~5 ~65~14.~ 5 11 2 2 1114
Duri~ this. rePJrting period, we canpleted an Investigative Handbook
which ccmprises both ternp:>rary issuances and new procedures. Our handbook
is for internal use only am covers the authority of the Inspector General,
administration, case rnanagerent, investigative procedures, interviews, physical
arrl dOc:::uItentary evidence, investigative rePJrts, Privacy Act and Freedan of
Infonnation Act, andEPA and Office of. Investigations forms. In addition,
the hambc:xJk' s apperrlix includes the Federal Rules of Evidence and the Rules
of Criminal Procedures. The handbook has proved to be an invaluable aid.
2. Automated Case System
Our automated case control system has proved to be all for which we
had hoped. The. system was developed using word processing equipnent,
which is ample for cur needs am less costly than a larger, ITOre canplex
41
-------
system. Of course, no system can provide the necessary data for in-depth
analyses. until sufficient data are developed and fed into the system. We
anticipate that by October 1982 we will have sufficient input to enable
us to make such analyses.
. Our system is canpatible with the codification used by the D:partrrent
of Justice (001). For example, we use the sane codes to identify viola-
tions of Federal. statutes as does the 001. When required, we will be able
to provide 001 officials information on Federal violations.
3.
Management Implications Reports (MIRs)
An investigation often reveals program weaknesses for which the
investigator develops corrective recamrendations. '!he investigative
report is not the vehicle for reporting areas conducive to correction,
so the MIR was adopted .D.lring the past reporting period, we issued 13
MIRs, which are strictly internal rrerrorandums. They are forwarded to the
Assistant. Inspector General for Audi ts. These reports may be used for
example, to identify areas requiring audit or to identify problem areas
when audi ts are perforrred.
In instances where findings have sufficient potential impact on Agency
operations, appropriate recanI'!endations are forWarded. to program officials
. to initiate necessary corrective actions. In this regard, EPA managerrent
has initiated changes in the rrethod of handling tirre cards which should
help to eliminate tirre card violations such as those resulting in the cases
described in part C.2 (see page 40).
42
-------
SECI'ION III-PREVENTION OF FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE
VUINERABILITY ABSESSMEN!' TASK FORCE
A.
The Ins~ctor General Act of 1978 sets forth a number of duties and
resFOnsibilities of the Office of Inspector General. An irnFOrtant part
is to provide leadership and coordination, and recannend policies, to
prevent and detect fraud and abuse in program operations. 'lb carry rot
these duties and resFOnsibilities, we established the Vulnerability
Assessrrent Task Force in January 1981. '!be Task Force, canpcsed of
auditors and investigators, is reSFOnsib1e for providing coordination and
leadership in developing andirnp1errenting an effective program to detect
and prevent fraud, mismanagerrent, waste, and abuse.
Major goals of the Task Force are to (1) establish a neans to assess
the vulnerability ofEPA prCXJt'ams , functions, and organizational entities
to fraud, mismanagerrent, waste, and abuse; and (2) develop appropriate
nethods to neasure the adequacy of internal and management controls for
new and ongoing programs. 'lb irnp1errent these goals, we recently developed
general frameworks for two prCXJt'ams--the Vulnerability Assessrrent PrCXJt'am
and the Internal Control Assessrrent Program. '!be Vulnerabili ty Assessrrent
PrCXJt'am was developed to identify the magnitude of Agency-wide prCXJt'ams
and activities and then evaluate their overall susceptibility to fraud,
mismanagement, waste, and abuse. In contrast, the Internal Control
Assessrrent Program, once irnp1errented, would require EPA program staff to
assess internal controls on key functions following our general guidance.
'!bese programs and their status are discussed below.
1.
Vulnerability Assessrrents
The Vulnerability Assessrrent Program was devel~d in April 1981 to
increase our overall understanding' of EPA organizatlons, programs, and
functions, and to further direct limited audit resources toward prCXJt'ams
and activities that have received little audit attention and/or ap~ar
highly susceptible to fraud, mismanagement, waste, and abuse. OUr assess-
!rent evaluation is carried out essentially by (1) accumulating data on
each EPA program's dollar magnitude, contract and grant activity, prior
audits and investigations, status (new, ongoing, substantially revised),
~ of activities, and canp1exities; (2) identifying and ranking those
organizations and activities appearing rra:;t vulnerable; (3) conducting a
survey of selected O1:ganizations and prCXJt'ams; and (4) surmnarizing the
results of the survey and identifying issues for future audits.
Our preliminary rankings identified several prCXJt'ams that appear
highly vulnerable. Based on this analysis, we selected one program to
be surveyed (Research and Deve1opirent). We will initiate this survey in
October 1981.
43
(..
-------
We believe that the Vulnerability Assessnent Program is an irnFortant
step, not only in. identifying programs and activities that are highly
susceptible to fraud, mismanagement, waste, and abuse, but also in provid-
ing an ongoing, systematic rceans to plan future audits.
2.
Internal Control Assessnents .
We recently established the general frarcework for our Internal Control
Assessnent Program. This program will require Agency staff, following our
general guidance , to assess key pro:;ram functions to determine the adequacy
of internal controls. The principal objectives of these assessnents are
to:
o Evaluate the adequacy of controls in ensuring that
organizational and functional objectives are carried
out in an effective, efficient, and econanical manner: and
o Report on control strengths and weaknesses and recamrend
appropriate actions to eliminate any deficiencies.
This program was developed through close cooperation with the Office
of Inspector General, Departm:mt of Housing and Urban Developrrent (HUD).
Similar programs developed by other Offices of Inspector General, as well
as the U.S. General Accounting Office, were also reviewed and considered .
in develcping our program. . .
The program will be carried out by our office, in concert with various
program offices, identifying and prioritizing key functions to be assessed.
Through oor guidance, the program offices will then select functions to be
assessed during a s~cified tirce frarce.Program personnel selected to
carry out these assessnents will pursue the following steps.
. . ~ . ' .. .
o . Obtain an understanding of the function:
o Canplete the control questionnaires:
o
Identify risks and associated controls, and assess the
adequacy of such controls: and
o Recanrrend. improverrents to correct noted weaknesses.
During the assessnent process, the OIG will be available to provide
. advice and guidance. The OIG will play an advisory role and therefore
will not be supervising the assessnents. Nevertheless, the OIG will be
responsible for overseeing the assessrcent program and periodically report-
ing to the Administrator on the overall status of the program, as well
as to Assistant Administrators, and others on the quality of individual
assessnents. .
44
-------
We recently canpleted a draft guide for conducting Internal Control
Assessrrents. We plan to develop our overall approach to this program .
further during the next six rronths. I)Jring. that tine period, we expect
to finalize our guide and discuss our ap~ch with various EPA offices
(e.g., Financial Management Division). .
B.
SUSPENSIONS AND DEBAR1EN1'S
The OIG staff has continued to work with the Office of General Counsel
(CX3C) to establish suspension and debarnent procedures to be used when grantees,
contractors, subcontractors, or engineers camni t improprieties or perform
grossly inadequate work under the EPA construction grants program. .
1.
Proposed Federal Procurement Policy
We reviewed the proposed {:Olicy letter from the Office of ~curerrent
Policy to the heads of executive deparbrents and establishIrents concerning
debarm:mts and suspensions. . We sup{:Orted the concept of the {:Olicy letter
am the principal significant changes to current practices, i.e., the
Goverrnrent-wide effect of administrative debarnents and suspensions, the
uniform procedures, the increased interagency coordination, and the notion
that it is appropriate to withhold payrrents as a result of fraud or other
miscomuct. We camrented, however, that the policy letter is concerned
solely with debarnent and susJ;:ension for direct. Federal procurements.
We relieve that greater emphasis should be placed on procurements under
Federal grant or other assistance programs. .
2.
EPA-Proposed Procedures
We have reviewed the initial draft of debarnent and sUSJ;:ension procedures
which has been circulated within EPA for internal review. In developing the
'document, it became apparent to the Office of General Counsel'that there'was
a need for a centrally coordinated, . Goverrnrent-wide ap~ch to debarring
am sUSJ;:eooing participants in Federal assistance programs. The Office of
General Counsel sent a letter to the Deputy Director of the Office of Manage-
ment and Budget suggesting that am begin an effort to develop Government-wide
guidance for debarnents and susJ;:ensions under Federal assistance programs
. canparable to the Office of Federal Procurerrent Policy's effort on the
Federal ACXjUisition Regulation. The OIG supported the suggestion made by
CX3C since we also believe that the administration of debarments and sUSJ;:ensions
should be centrally coordinated within the executive branch.
C.
HCYI'LINE
, The Office of Investigations will pranptly initiate actions to
stimulate the use of EPA's hotline. . Although a pamphlet advising EPA
employees, of the existence of the hotline was distributed nationwide in
June 1980, there has been no followup action. Mditional initiatives
under consideration include (1) issuing of additional IreI'!Drandums to
45
. ~ .........
-------
Agency employees; (2) placin;J posters in EPA offices; (3). including
hotline information in EPA standards of conduct briefings; and (4) notifying
grantees, en;Jineers, and contractors. Through such efforts, we expect to
obtain additional allegations or leads to significant violations of law
on EPA programs.
D.
REVIEWS OF LEGISrATION
. Durin;J this reporting period, the Office of Inspector General reviewed
several major pieces of legislation: .
1.
Inspector General Act of 1981 (5. 1327)
This bill would have established new reporting requirements and authorized
the Inspector General to institute civil actions in cases where the Attorney
General declined prosecution. Our office opposed the arrendrrents in this
bill because many provisions were unnecessary and would unduly tax available
resources.
2.
Consultant Reform and Disclosure Act of 1981 (5.719)
This bill would provide additional measures to ensure proper procurement
of consultant services. OUr office supports the general thrust of the bill
to eliminate deficiencies in the procurement of goods and services frcrn
consultants and contractors. However, we made several recaratendations on
needed improvements.
3. Lepa,rtment of Justice. Draft Bill. "To provide an administrative
. mechanism for the recovery of civil penalties and assessments for
false claims involving Federal grants, contracts, and programs"
we reviewed the revised bill and found that-many of our concerns have
been adopted or the reasons for not adopting others have been adequately
explained. Thus, we can now support the bill as written.
Anendments to Federal Property and Administrative Services Act
(HR 2580)
4.
This bill would provide additional requirem:nts for (1) ensuring
that information provided by prcspecti ve contractors is current, accurate,
am canplete; and (2) increasirg audit coverage of negotiated and advertised
contracts. . While we agree with the general thrust of the bill to improve
controls over procurement, we reCC1'T1Irended that several major portions of
the bill concernirg required audits be revised or deleted.
'-
5.
Pending Debt Collection Legislation
The prQPCSed bill would establish uniform debt collection procedures
for all Federal agencies. We generaly supported the bill, but recanmended
that \\Ordin;J be clarified in two areas.
46
-------
E.
REVIEWS OF PROPOSED REGUIATIONS
Duri03 the last six rrcnths, the Environmental Protection Agency has
initiated major efforts to reduce regulatory burden. As a result, all
major regulations governing EPA grant programs are currently being revised
to cut all unnecessary requirenents. '!he Office of Inspector General has
put substantial efforts into the review of proposed changes. Our objective
in such reviews is to cooperate in reducing requirenents while at the same
time maintaining those controls necessary to prevent fraud, waste, and
abuse in EPA programs.
1.
Changes to National Environmental Policy Act Regulations
(40 CPR Part 6)
The proposed changes did an excellent job of simplifying the regulations
without reducing significantly the controls necessary to safeguard the
public's interests.
2.
ProcureJrent Regulations (40 CPR Part 33),
A major effort was devoted to r~vising the procurenent regulations to
conform to am Circular A-l02, Attachment O. 'Ihrough working cooperatively
, with other EPA officials, improvercents were made to:
o Ensure that all contracts detailed a clear scope of work,
tiJre frame for canpletion, and definitive cost estimate.
o Require, for negotiated contracts or change orders, the
submission of cost and pricing data and subsequent adjust-
ments for possible defective pricing.
o Set forth the requirenents applicable to subcontractors.
o Establish necessary procedures for protesting apParent
violations of procurenent regulations.
o Assure necessary access to records for audit or investigative
pUrPOSes.
o Advise grantees of the possible sanctions which might be
. applied for noncanpliance with the established regulations.
wi th these changes, we believe EPA has accanplisheq its goal of .
simplifying procurenent requirenents while at the sametiJre maintaining
those controls essential to permit the Agency to take necessary steps to
prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.
47
.. .. . .-...
.. .. ,,......_n
-------
3.
Construction Grant Regulations (40 CPR Part 35)
. '!be orG has placed considerable effort on the proposed revisions to
the construction grant regulations. We have worked closely with Agency
nanagerrent to ensure that controls necessary to prevent fraud, waste, and
abuse in the program were given appropriate consideration. All of our
major concerns were resolved and are reflected in the proposed regulations.
48
-------
SECl'ION IV-SUPPORI' AcrIVITIES
A.
REORGANIZATICN
Recognizing the emphasis placed on increasing efforts to reduce fraud,
waste, and abuse and the need for rrore effective, efficient utilization of
resources, the Inspector General has reorganized. . A copy of theorganiza tion
chart is shown on Appendix 4, page 92.
U~er the new organization, separate field divisions for audits and
. investigations have reen established. This reorganization. simplifies
the chain of camnand and imprCNes lines of canmunication recause the field
audit and investigation offices rep::>rt directly to the Assistant Inspectors
General for Audits and Investigations. The reorganization also provides
a rrechanism for closer rroni toring of resource utilization and performance.
We relieve this change will prarote improved controls over operations .
and rrore effective use of resources. We are sure that parallel offices
can re operated without reducing the cooperation needed retween our audit
and investigative staffs.
In addition, forrrerly separated quality control functions and
administrative functions have reen consolidated in an Office of Managerrent
and Technical Assessrrent. This office provides systematic studies,
analyses, and assessrrents of OIG programs and operations to assist the
Inspector General in formulating p::>licy, budget, and personnel-related
issues. The reassignrrent of the quality control functions results
in a greater degree of indeperdence in the rronitoring of audits and
investigations for adherence to standards. This office also maintains
and evaluates key management and statistical data to track our success in
fulfilling the ~IG's. mission.
B.
srAFFING
At a time of fiscal austerity in Government, when other parts of EPA
are taking staff cuts, we believe it is very significant that the Office
of Inspector General is not only holding its own but actually increasing
in staff size. A rrore detailed discussion of the staffing situation's
impact on regular EPA operations and Sliperfund is given in the next two
parts. OIG's staffing pattern since fiscal 1980 is depicted graphically
in Apperdix 5, page 93.
1. . Regular Operations.
Workload for our audit and investigative staffs has continued to
increase. On the audit side, we estimate that canp1ete coverage of areas
which should re audited in fiscal 1982 would require resources totaling
916 people. At this tine, we are showing a backlog of 98 work years of
financial audit requests on hard or in process. On the investigative
side, we have rrore than 51 work years of investigations to be perforrred
on preexisting cases.
49
-------
The Agency has reC03T1ized our staffing problem and has taken actions
to help alleviate it. At the end of fiscal 1981, we were given back 22
positions we had lost earlier. Ten of the positions were allocated to the
Office of Investigations. They will be used to strengthen our field investi-
gative staff arrl will provide increased investigative coverage across
the country. Investigators will be assigned to San Francisco and Chicago
arrl will provide coverage to all the regions where we previously had no
lnvestigative staff.
The remaining 12 positions will be used to strengthen our internal
audits branch am our field divisions. The Assistant Administrator for
Mministration is also transferring an additional four positions to our
staff for use in increasing internal audits of Agency o~rations.
We believe the 26 above positions represent a camnitmant by top EPA
managerrent. These pq;itions provide us with a 21 ~rcent increase over
our ceilin:J as of March 1981. In addition, at the sane time we are
receiving these increases, the Agency is being reduced in total size.
We believe the Office of Ins~ctor General must imprOVe its own
o~rations so that audit and investigative coverage can be ~rformed ItDre
effectively arrl efficiently. In the new fiscal year, a considerable
portion of our activity will be devoted to identifying improved ways to
service the needs of the Agency arrl the public. We hope to reduce the
backlCXj of. audit requests on ham and narrow the gap between our workload
am available resources by:
o Guidin:J EPA program staff to self-assess and report on the adequacy
of the internal controls governing program o~rations.
o Conducting vulnerability assessrrents to identify those areas in
greatest need of internal and managerrent audits.
o Conducting internal audits to help identify actions needed to
improve overall Agency managerrent of program operations.
o Formin:J a task force to study and develop new criteria for
streamlining final audits of construction grant projects.
o Reviewin:J construction grant projects at an earlier stage to
prevent or eliminate wasteful or unnecessary expenditures of
. public funds.
2.
Superfund
Staffing needs for the Su~rfund program have been difficult to
estimate. Initially, the Agency planned to have much of the managerrent of
this program ~rform2d by the Corps of Engineers. Since the audit of
that portion of the program could be ~rfC?rmed by the Army Audit Agency
50
-------
and the ~fense Contract Audit Agency, we requested and received 22
positions for auditing Su~rfund. This will ~!Tnit us to ~rfo!Tn internal
audits of EPA activities and to conduct the necessary financial reviews
to re~rt on the validi ty of program e~ndi tures.
C.
TRAVEL
1.
Regular Operations
Our t:eginning budget for travel for regular operations in fiscal 1982
totals $444,800. This represents a slight increase over our beginning
budget last year. We are receivin; an additional $25,000 to cover the
costs of travel related' to the four internal audit positions given us
by the Assistant Administrator for Administration.
This Administration has provided the additional resources necessary
to cover high priority assignments. For example, the Agency provided us
with additional travel m:mey to help finance the cost of the reviews
undertaken for the Construction Grant Audi t Task Force (see Section I,
part B, page 5). We have been assured that necessary resources will be
made available to ~rmit us to canpleteessential assigrurents.
2.
Superfund
Our total budget for travel on Su~rfund audits is $52,800. We are
confident that if additional travel funds are needed top manageIrent will
prOllide relief wherever ~ssible.
51
.' - - M'
. -"-. ._-~ '. -.._.._~
. - -'. .
-------
Appen:Ux 1
~ CF AUDIT R.EFORrs ISSUEn
~R THE PERIOD 4/1/81 - 9/30/81
(IN 'l'HOU31.NIE OF!XJI.IARS RnIDED ro THE NEAREST THOUSAND BY CATECDRY AND IN TOrAI.)..
amER
~
EPA CPA STA'm AGEN:IES '!'OrAL
mrmw. AND ~
Reports Issued 14 -0- -0- -0- 14
CDNSTRJCl'ICN ~
P~
Reports Issued 10 8 2 5 2S
Total Costs Audited 6,478 2,990 979 1,585 12,032
Total Costs <)Jestioned 1,897 388 60 26 . 2,371
Federal Share Audited 5,124 2,402 884 1,429 9,840
Federal Share Questioned 1,418 291 60 26 1,795
INl'ERIM
~s Issued 12 48 23 6 89
Total Costs Audited 84,635 796,725 127,560 6,315 1,015,234
Total Costs QJestioned 2,956 72,001 3,994 763 79,714
Federal Share Audi ted 61,619 554,457 . 95,691 5,775 717,543
Federal Share Questioned 2,112, 58,775 3,007 223 64,116
row. AND ~
Reports Issued 20 158 58 1 237
Total Costs Aurii ted 47,193 529,912 189,601 7,575 774,341
Total Costs r;uestioned 4,734 12,263 1;,726 7 23,730
F'ederal Share Audited 33,763 344,228 121,323 Rl 499,395
E'ederal .Share Questioned . 3,550 12,345 3,670 5 19, 569
?ROJECl' UXI<
Reports Issued 4 -0- -0- -0- 4
Total Costs ,<\udi ted 78,827 -0- -0- -0- 7~,827
Total Costs <)Jestioned 9,288 -0- -0- -0- 9,288
Federal Share ,<\udited 55,147 -0- -0- -0- 55,147
Federal Share QJestioned 1;,942 -4- ~- -0- 6,942
rJmER 1;RA'rt'S .wI) aNl'RACl'S
?REAWARD
~<;ports Issued 2 3 ...,1- 210 215
('otal Costs Audited A21 37,110 -()- 609,595 647,526
Total ,:CSts Questioned 3S 10 -0- 20,437 20 , 482
;~ra1 Share Audited 82:1, 32,673 -0- 609,520 1i43,014
Federal Share OJestioned 35 7 -0- 20,132 20,174
r.rnJm1
~eports Issued 4 1 1 19 25
Total Costs Audited 3,351 520 1,OR6 27,00fi 32,463
C'Otal ':~ts GUestioned 132 2 ...,1- 721 855
~~ral Sha~ Audited 3,516 520 852 26,8'?A 31, 785
.,.:deral ~hare /"1Uesti"nen 267 2 -1)- 719 988
C'r~J:1IL
?eports Issued 3 :1 1 tRIi 206
~~a1 Costs Audited 17,311 42.273 20,917 104,043. 184,744
C'Otal Casts Questioned 3,926 668 -0- ~43 5,537
"''!deral Share Audited 10,267 24,481 9,111 103,457 147,317
Federal Share OJestionen 2,576 428 -0- 1,127 4,131
ATTAOiMEr-rr ?
?.eports Issued -0- -0- -0- 2 2
('otal Costs Audited -0- -0- -()- 24,795 24,795
C'otal Cas ts Ques tioned -0- -0- -J- 5 5
F'ederal Share Audited -0- -()- -0- 574 574
Federal Share Questioned -1)- -0- -0- -0- -0-
OOIRECT
Reports Issued 5 15 2 69 91
'lUl'AL ALL AIJDITS
Reports Issued 79 244 87 498 908
Total Costs Audi ted 239,315 1,409,589 340,143 780,914 2,769,961
Total Costs Questioned 22,968 85,332 10,780 22,901 141,981
i"ederal Share Audited 170,258 958,760 227,862 747,734 2,104,615
Federal Share CUestioned . 16,900 71,847 6,737 22.231 117,715
*Any footirx; r:itfferences nue to t"OUndirq.
(R-716/9/30/81-10/20/R1)
52
-------
, HQR 711
AUDIT CONTAOL. N~"8!R
P2eW00500ZI.1~7~~
P2ew0050011.10791
. .'.
P2CW0050Q~~.107'a
P2cw005028Q.1079)
E3BOIII0008.1~7~4
P2CW1070115.I07~5
EIH01,100ZO.1079.
03AO,01019Q.l07'7
03AOI0]019Z.1~7ge
03AOI03019].I07~9
lJ1
W
U2AW0030]t1.1~8~~
03CA9030021~108~1
01&n,oJOI11.10802
01000030113.1080]
I:
P26W80303q5.10801
03CW1010109.10805
P2CWOO.0187.~080..
PZCH0060163.10801
P2CWOOI0029.10808
PZtw0040219.1~8~9
PZCW90703]4.1~81~
030&1090,31.1081.
03C01030153.1081Z
D1C01010012.10813
.01C01030195.10811
. --_.- . ~.. ..-
...... .' -. -.
~A~~'
.
e~"I.ANNUALA,!U.U R~POR!8. .I.nu!!? '.'.8!~T~~~ .~.
P!~~OO !NOINGI2"~O/8a
AUO.I,TfE'
MT' V'RNDN .I.~
O~~A!UA IL
MAR8Hf1~LO ~~.
.O~ON~110WOC ..~.
NATIONAL "ILO~I'~i'~~O!~Ar~O~
~DLUM8US NIS
AP.'! 'Iorv .
HI GRANT ~!GA~I,ACT10N P~OU~A"
NATI~NAI...A~A9~MY a~'.8cH~~~8
'~RB ASSO~IA!~~ INC
HANDV!R AREA ~OINT aIW~R .. ~A
HITTMAN ASSUCIATta
'CHU~ERENGIN~fR$ INCI
.80~T!~NYIRUN"ENTAL: TE~H
NISC'. HD
URBA~ :8Y8T~"a RESfARCH AN~ ~N~
eORagANA T~
PASADENA TIC'
ORLANDO fLA
~ARD~INA 8'A~H Ne.
PLATTE CITY'MU
AIR ~O~LUTIU~ Tfe '8AN ~~~~o 'C~
HYDR~TECHNI~ ~OR~
IBH ~ORPORA TlUN
HYOROTfCHN~C ~OR~'
OA!~, .~/~O/!~
'I?A !~I ~LO'~~
~~NAL ~~~g~T ~~'~'D'
~~/!./!~
~lIU/" .
4?7I~a/~.
'9"'~1/!!
9"/~1/!!
~"/~1/!!
~~/~2/!!
04/~1/e1
~,'.a/81
~"/OZl~!
~"/!2I!!
~I/~Z/el.
~4/0l/"
!"/!ZI!~
!II/!Z/!!
~1I/~lI81
!4/~Z/81
~Q/!ZI!!
!4/!2I!!
!4/~2/81
!~/~2I!!
!"/!I/!!
~"/0I/8'
!"'~II'I
!4/9U~!
!~/~2/!!
!4/~~/~1
~q/!ZI!!
!Q/~2I!!
!4/~11"
~./!!l/'1
~~/!2/!!
!q/~ZI!!
4?4/Z1/81
~lI07l~1
!~/!2I~!
!II/!ZI!!
!41'!18.
!~/!iI!!
!~/~~/!!
4?1I/!1I~ I
~II/~~/e.
'9Q/~~/~!
!Q/!~/!!
~"/~~/el
~9I~Z/e1
~
5.
t-'.
X
N
~.
-------
HQR 117
AUOXT CONTROL N~"8E~
82BW9t00145.10815
828WOI00034.10816
. . ..
ftHPOII0076.10817
. .
03A01030150.10818
. ..
H1AOIOII0113.10819
0100tIOOOqq.108Z~
03AAI0901J1.108Z1
H3B01080053.I08li
D3COIOJOlb~.~y8lJ
P2cw80S034S.10824
. .
U1
,j::o.
828W0090048.10825
030A1090134.10826
H3BAI080055.1~8Z7
aZAWlot0058.1~828
E28wOOT0351.108Z9
D3AOI09013'.I~eJ~
03DOIOlOO]7.I0831
H3COOOiOl17.108Ji
. .
H3COI040114.10$31
82BWI090011.10814
H'C010!OlZ9.1083S-
HJCDI0502JO.~~'36
H]AOI050tll'.I~e37
HJA01050144.10838
03C01050189.108J9
. .' . .
IfMI.ANNUAL A~UIT RIPOR!S ~SSU~~ '."~!~T~~~ .~
PE~~OO ENDING- ~9/~0/e~
AUO~TE"
BaNN~YLAK' HA elTY c,.
'INAL ~~~~~T~~S~~O
~~/!J/!!
caLLEGl PLACE ,WA CI;Y g,
- "'"." - . . ...
~PA .R!VD~VIN~' ~UND
VERSAR INC'
~~/!J/!!
Y4/!~/!!
Y4/!6/!~
-yq/!1/~~
RESEARCH TR~ANGLEIN'T ~y~. NC
8.TT~LL! H~"aMIAL-'RrCH~ANO NA.
~Q/!7I!! .
~4/!7I~! .
Y4/!7/!!
AIR ~DLLUTIU~TECH8 O~~~U~A'
~~LD~AOD BOU~UER UNIY ~~
JNTE~NAT~ONA~ RESEARCH , !~~H
HILwAUKEE ~UUNTY HSD w~
Y4/!8/~!
94/!8/~~
.UNTA ROSA ~A erry 0':
AIRfSfARCH "~~ PHOENIX A~
~4/!8/!!
yq/!8/!~
CDLO~AOO ay ~NIY 'ORT ~O~~IN8. .
~O'F~N , RI~HARDSON AS~O~
KANSAS CITY~ANSAS
Y"/!8/~~
~4/~9/~!
~1I/!9/~!
!~/~9I~!
~ACOBS !NOJN~~RING PA8ADENA -~~
"aaT~R WHEELE" NY
!~/~9/~!
!"/!9/~ ~ .
A"'ER.I_~AN I.':IN~
fLA SUUUNIY
!"/!9I!!
~~/!9/~!
~80 ~, LOS A~aELfS CTY ~A
.8Iu ~DW4RD'YJa.~! II.,
!~/I~/!!
~~/10/!!
UNIY OF,"N "~NN!APOLJ8 "N
UNIY o".crN~~NNATI QH
'ARH BUREAU ~ULUH8US a~
MEAD TtCH LABS DAYTON ~H
Y"/1.0/~!
~q"o/~~
!""O/!~
PAGI!.
z
OAr~. ~~/~O/!!
~A!E ~LOS~O
!./~)181
!"~II/~~
!8/I8/Ot
!'12~/81
~II/O"81
!"/~7I'1
!4/~!/8I
oll/ye/el
!5/1~/~1
~9/09/81
~'IIY8/Ot
!II/!!/II
!4I/!'18~
!"/!9/81
!T/I./8~
~1I11!18.
~4/1~/1.
94la8/81
06101/81
~9I1~/8~
>(tol
-------
. . -. . . ...
.'- . .-- - _...
. ..n.. ....... . ------,~ '._-,.. -----..... ....- - .... .. _.~ .. - .. .. .. _.' .. -..-
.. - --... .- . -.-. --..-,.. .- ... - - -.. . . ---- - - -~
...-_.. ..-. . .---.-..--
"0 '0 --1
HQR7n
'AUDIT CON!RO~I N~"B~~:
D3AOI'7019J.~~e4~
OSCA80]Ol5J.I~841
OJDD~O~OOZ7.1~8"2;
DseOI0~OI~~.1~8G3..
'D]~090~O"Z~~~~844
'OJDOOO~009,~a~8G"
OSAoaO'0074-a~84~'
oSAoao~oaa9.a~84r
DJAOaO~OaG8.a~848'
OSAOI0~OI~s-a~849'
DJBDIO~0089_~~8'~
Ion
Ion
,patwoa~ooaG.a9851
'P2UHI070040~1~852:
OJAOI0~004~~1985J
'OSAaIO~O~8~.~285~'
OSOOIO~O~9'.~~85S'
OJAOaO~0087.IO~56i
D3Aoa030085.1~857
D]DW80JOI6..a~85~.
DSADI0~008J.~~8'~
D3AOIO'008~.a086!
DJAOIO~0078.1~8.1
DSAOI0~0080.1086a;
DSAaI0~o979.a086J
D3ADI0~OI52.1~864.
. .8IMI-ANNUAL ~~gITR~POR!8 ~8aU!9 '.'.~!~T~~~~
~!~~OO ENDING' 29/~0/8~
AU~ITE~
"~R~~!,KANSA3 elry HO
~~NAL ~~~Q~r ~~8Y'O
!~/19/!~
.8~AWAR~ INrr:R.NATlONALI
.~ACA 0.' itA'
!"/U/!~
~4/U/!!
VERSAR
WAPO~A 'INe .'"0
!"/U/!!
!4/U/!!
~O" ~'WUTON
'F.r:JN HAR~UAR! .AaaO~1 IN~'
9"/U/~!
2411"!!
TRACQR JITCU ~Ne
HSA ~!8EAR~H ~OR~0R.ATr~N
04/13/81
. .. ......
!4/U/!!
!4/1~/!!
[ART~T[~H R~8~AR~H eDR~
.~~NT~C eOR~
!"/l~/!!
!4/U/!~
.REOHQ~DOR,aON C~T" 0"
"URN8 AND M~OUNN~LL; KC' MQ
~II/U/!~
!4/U/~a.
,IHC. ~EO!RA~ 8YST~Ma
;8'1 ~OHSYSr~HO'COR~.IN~ .Nr~~
D¥NA~!CTRON CURP
~~/~4/!!
!~/18/!~
YfR8AR INC'
;UI ~OHSYSr~"', C!JR~;
!"/14/~!
!~/U/!~
,IHER~Y AND ~~~IR
~N'O~HAT1es .IN~
;!4/U/!! .
Y~/~4/!!
~N'D~M'TICS ~NC'
.~OMPU.Tf:R S'CI~N~!' COR~I
~4/U/!! '
~4/14/!! :
:~DMP~TfR' at ~~HCU CORP.
~OMP~T~R S~~~NC!I ~ORP'
~II/~II!!
~q/U/!!
VER8AR INe
!"/I4/!a.
PAU
.,
DA!~"f!/~O/!!
'I?A!~ ~L08~C?
~8/~"el
!4/pl8~
04/U/81
~4/i~/el
~"/q/81
~"/I~/ea
~"/1~/8~
~.1l1l81
aO/~7I~~
~"/p/81
~4/1~/81
~G/'~/~1 .
~41t"/~1
!"I.lfll~
!G/I~i81
IO/h/8~
!"/a~/81
!a/l"/81
~4/~"/8~
~II/14/81
!4/1"/81
~1I.1I/8I
~4/1 '181
-------
HQR 711
. AUDIT CDN!RD~IN~M8~~.
DS~OIO~02~~.'~~6S'
D]BOIO~09S7~~9~6~'
DJ~HIO'OI]6.1~~67
SZBW'OI0084.19~68
a2BHOI~0021.I0869
fJDHIO~OOS~.~~87~
D30000209'3.19871
O]AOIO~O~5~.1~872,
03.010]OI88.1~8'J
. 'D3AOIO~02~4el~67"
D3tOIO~OI72eI087"
111
m
03CO'O~OI~'.I~~76'
.82BWOIYO~6J.I~877
82BWOI90It'el~878.
!2tW",0134el,07' .
P2tWOOOOlb4e'~889
P3DOOO~Olb2.1~881
P3DO'O~O'~9.1~~8i
P2CHI040YJZ.1988J'
P2CW00402l4.1~884.
'03COI o~o 139.1 ~88S'
DSCOIO~0Il9.1~886
H3A010401Z5.10887
HSAOIO~OI26.1~888
P2CWIO~OOZ~.1'889
'~MI.ANNUALA~DIT RfPOR!' ~88U~~. I!~T~~~.~
~!~~DD: ENDING' ~"~O/81
AUDIT!~
.IN'D~"ATlC8 INC'
'INAL
~~~D~T ~~IU!O
~~/IS/!~
~"/III/!~
9"/U/!.
DEHV~R;COLO"AOD ;~NIV!R~I!~ 9':
.8RI.~NTfRNA!~UNL' H~NLO PA~K~~
. WfB8!f~ HA'
IHELTON WA~~!Y 0'
~II/U/!~ '
~~/I'/~~
.~REfh!Y , ~A~3fN
.~AL8~AN ~D~~
9"/~S/!~
'9"/1!i/!!
.COLO;Y & ~N~~RDNH~NT
Y~R'AR INC
~"/U/!!
'9"/171!!
V~R8AR INe
YERSA IN~
9~/t7/!!
~1I1111!!
~~R8AR INe
CITY 0' CEN!~ALIA WA.
9"/17/!!
9~/171!~
.~H£LAN COUN!Y p~u.~:., .WA
H.RR~S8URG0R.~GDN CITY 0':
,'ULP~UR 8P~~~OS TX
9"/17/!!
9"1171!!
941l0/!!
~"IZO/!!
.8 C LAND RESOURCE. CONa~RV .COH~ .
,I C' ~AND R~30URC~SCON~~RVA!I~
~~/~U/!!
~q/ZO/~~
8RUN~IOO~ AL
WASH~NGTON GA
9~/~~/~~
qll/lO/~!
WYL[. LA8SHUN!IVILL! Ah.
WYLE LABS HU~!SVILL! Ah
~lInO/~~
9"nO/~!
RES!ARCH T~IN.GL~ INST R!~ NC .
N!C. eUTE UNIV
9"ll0/~!
~lIliO/!~
CARRBDRO N~
'AGE
4
OA!~. .~/~~/!!.
I?A !~, HU8!D
!III."/~.
!"/I"I'.
04/111/U
~5/H/8.
~4/1~/~&
~./~!/~I
0./191'.
!9/.'/8.
~4/17/81 ..
!1I/17/81
!'/U/8.
~1I11!/'1
05/111/81
06/1118.
08/1~/es
~8/1~/~.
!5/07/11
~,nfl/ea
!51l./~1
05/16/11
- ,
~4n8/81
~".h/U
0"08/1&
-------
. ._". ". -.. . --. ..... --_. ._. U__'_h -- - -
HQR .,~.,'
AUDIT eON!ROL! N~M8~~
P2CW0060.e5.1~89~
DSCO.0~0214.10e9.
D]DOOO~O.7'.1~89Z,
D3.010~OZll.I~89]
D3A010~OIQ9..~894
P3CAb0501~5.~~895'
P3CA9050Z87.1~896
P3CS9050346.10897
P2CW0050399.10898
. P2~W0050.65.1~e9'
PZCWI 050 101.1 0900
- , ,
VI
....,J
N3fOl0bO~8~.1~9~.
PSAOIO~OI~Z.lo'oa
H3A010600e4.1090J
P2CWOO.0110.l~'04
P2CW80~oa6S.10'05'
D38010~0045.1~90~
P2AWIOQO~9..1~9~1
DJCOI0600e7.~~9~~
SSDW909011a.I0909
E2DWOO~O..I.I091~
!2DW90'OOJ2.1~91.
D2CW81~O~l7..~912,
.S28WOI~00'8~1~91~
E2CWOI00091.10914
. ...-.... - - .
. ... - -- -.- _.4 ... "'-"--..,
..__..~"........._.. . .. "--" .."-... - ..--.- -... - - -'"
'8~MI.ANNUAl A~UIT REPOR!S ~'SU~9 '."~E~T~~~,~
~~~~OD !NDING ~9/~9/8~
AUDIT!!.
~R08~E~ TX,
APPLIED HYDNO ACOUSTIO~
:HUTMAN
.LITTUN 810Nf!~CS
,~fNT~R ~OR SYSTEMS & P~O D!~E
INDIANAPOLIS ~PW IN
.~N A~R POLLU!~DNINOIANA'-~L~'
. "RAN~LIN 0".10
MT Y~RNON t/H
RIPON WI
~RAT~O' ~O~N!Y ITHAC~. ~~ .
~O~!~~!NT~A~. TX cqG.
:IT !NVIROSCI~NC!' KNOXVJLL~ TN
.UNIV 0' TX,SYSTEM CANC~R .~TR
ffANG~Ln HU.N('
M~CA~DL!SSTW~.8AN AUT~ '. ~A
~OHNp
~OUC~!' .& AS8~CIATEa' JA~~8DN ~
!!KAI' INITRUM~NT8
.LOS.ANG!LE8 ~A CITY 0"
UPPE~ GWY~~DO . PA
. 'JACKION MS ~~UJ[tT LDO~
UNI'~!D S!W~~AG!AG!Ne~ :Q~: WA ,
Y~N~qUV!~ HA ~lTY 0'
eLA~~ fOOT ,I~ CIYY 0'1
~~NAL ~~P.O~! ~~~~,o
~~IZO/!~
~4/U/!~
~Q/n/!!
~~/~~/~~
~~/i!]/!!
~~/ill/!!
~~/2II/~~
'~1f/a4/!!
~4/U/~~
~4/24/!!
~Sll"!!
~~/~7I~!
!~/~8/!!
~"/a8/!!
9"/~e/!~
Y"'l8/!~
O"1i!8/~H
. . .
~"1i!8/!!
9QIZ8/!!
~"1Z8/~!
9q/n/!~
~"/~9/!!
yq/~O/!!
'!~/~O/!! .
~1f/~~/!!
, I
~ - - . . -...'.- . - - -..,. -. .~.. . - - -- .
'AU
.,.
DA!!, .!/~O/!~
'~A !E' ~LD'~D
~6/0"~1
~4/2~/e.~
~4/i~/81
09l9~/U
~"IZI/8I
~4/a"/81
~J!lIa9/8.
09119/81,
- . -
0412/1/81
!5/~7I8~
!6/U/81
~5Ii6/81 '
~9I.1/81
IO/~7I~.
~91Z8/81
~6I18/81
~7I08/81
10/071'1
~6I1~lIl
. !6/~~II.
961~~/e.1
-------
HDR 181
AUDIT 'CONTROL: N~"8~~
E2AWli~o043.1~'15'
E2DW00901'8.1091~
. -
03000010234.10917
E2AWI0~OOSO.I~918
82AW0040~31.1~9a9'
P2AWIOb006Z.10910
P2CHOI00126.1~'21
P2CWOO~0]71.1~912
P2CW005043~.I~'I~
82~H90~0198.1~9Z~
PS~090~0065.1~~25'
P2CW9020187.10926.
U1
OJ
P28WOOZ0107.1y917
PSC000201J7.10928
. , . ,", . - .
'O!AOI0~OOJS.l~929
H3C00020139.1~9]~
03COI02003].10931
P2cwe640l10.10932
.HJAOIQ40139.1~93]'
P2CW90~OJZO.I~934
~ZBW90~0~~4.~~~3'
030010~OI71.1~936
EZDWOOI0091.1~937
03AOIOJ0199.10918
030010]0097-10939
8~"I.ANNUAL .~gIT R~POR!S ~8aU~~ '.' I!~T~~~ .~
~[~~OD ENDING' ~9/~0/8~
AU~.I.TEE
HURt) UATTL~
'INAL ~~~OMT ~~au~o
9."/30/~~
HONT,REY R~G' "PCA. MONT!R~Y ~A
~ACTORY MUTUAL' REa~ARC~
9~/~0/!~
9"/~0/~~
ALB[~T S"ITZ~~
.~OHN COLfHAN HAY~8
9'/~1/!~
Y'/~4/~~
AIL!!T FENNfR JOLLY MC~L~~LAN~
"HAT~OH eTY WO NO 8 8LAIN! WA
Y"~4/~~
Y"Y4/~~ .
~LEA~ LAKE t1N
!LUAB[TH HN
Y"Y4/~!
9"~4/~!
MARANTON NY
NA UAU SU'P'U~K R!GIONA~' '~~N
9"Y./~~ .
Y"YS/~!
.LOWf~ NJ
IULLIAMSON N~
9"~11I~!
9"~4/~!
PORT AUTHO~I!Y !or.' Ny , N~
rHyS~!N.~[AN~
05104/81
-. ... -..
9"Y4/~!
9"YQ/~!
ALBANY H~OICA~: COLL!G!.
HYOROTECHNIC ~OR~
.~"~4/e!
~!J/~5/~!
.ODUGLA8VILL! II.
~~S!ARCH TRIANGL~ INaT~!~ N~,
~"~!/~~
~'/~7I!~ .
,~ODS~ 'CREEK .~
~.~I(SON "108
2~/~S/!!
~"~'/~~
MMJN~ SA'E~V APPLIANCE ~pt1~AN!
HUT WINOSOH NJ
~"~~/~~
9"06/~~
NATI[JNAL, L!A~UI '~"'CIT,~U
HE8TUN OE81'N~R8
~"06/~~
~A~~;
..
DA!~! J~/~O/!1.
~A !~. '~LU8~0
~1/20/81
OQ/~~III '
~9I99/e.
~9I09/el
10/lt/llt
. 07/98/~1.
~1/0~/81
~9I211/81
~e/pll.
~"~./~a
~6/"/~1
981.!/~.
0!5/U/~1
~!l/~'I'a
~!5/'''8a
-------
lOR U1
,AUDIT CON'ADL1H~MI[~;
D3A010~01&9.1~94~
D3001030Z39.10901
H3C0104019b.l094Z,
03DW10S0Z0~.'~94~
"ZCW00501".1~944
'P3DOU4G07!.1 ~945'
P2CW90~~3~?'~94&
P2CWI070OJ7.'~9U
.H3AOIIOOOIJ.10948
'03AAt0901~~.~~949
'D3A010!01~7.1~9'~
U1
\0
H3AO~0809&~~~~951
H3CA 1080~5ge1 ~9'l.
~~COIO~OZ49.~~9~~
H3AAI0901~8.1~!54,
OJCWI090145.1~95S
'OJAOI0901Q'.1~95~
'D3DOI090148~~99'r
P2CWIO'OllO.~~!S8
82CW01~005..~!95"
H38Dl0~00b~.1~9b~
03CA1090141.1~961
.03AOI 0901 lIi.1 096Z.
D3CA109014}.109b~
DJCAI090141.1~9&4
aIM~.AHHUAL A~DIT'R~~OA!a ~OSU!~.'.8!~T~~~ .~
P[RIDD !HDING' 2'/~0/a~
AU~n!~'
VERaAR INC
W~IT~NGHOUSf! !L!PRIC1.~DR~
.UNIVO' KY HICH FDN
CH2" HILL, ~N~ ~ORVALLla 1M
MU8K'OON CNTY DPW MUaK~GDN "I .
M~CA~L THOMA I [NGR ~RANG'8~' Ii'
£LLO~f~ISC
ANDOVER KS
OREG~N 8TA!~' ~NIY~ORYAL~~'
D~L~R£EN ASIUC 'OSiER ~JTY C~.
TRW ~N~ REDONDO 8EAeH:~A
WYOM.~N~ I!NIV~Hsr'rY OF1.~A~AH.U;;
HATr~NAL A8THMA eTR DE~V~~ ~O
~RAN~LIN IN8r~TUTI
~A U~IYIRSI!Y OF RIVERBID,
~HQrN!ERIN~ l~l[NCEAR~A~IA'~~
ENER~Y & [NY H8CH SANTA ANA '~A.
.8Y8T~H8 CONT~UL PALO A~'O CA
GRAND RAPIDI "N
.. - .
~A (HUR V II! A .80 WASHINGTCN
UTAH RES~ARC~ INST UNJ~ ~~
'ORO A(ROSPA~~ NEWPORT 8CH ~A
ROCKWELL rNT~ 'N!WBURY '~ARK ~A, .
~OCK"EL~ rNtL CANOGA PARK ~A
AIR ~OLLUTION TECH S DIEGU CA
~~NAL' ~~'~~T~~'~!D
~~/!~/!!
~"~6/!~
~9110/~~
~5/~b/~~
!"~./!~
~"!7/~~
~"~7I!~
~!/?1/~~
9!5/~1/~~
~"?7I! ~
~5/?7I!~
~!/?7/~!
~"?7I!~
~5/?11!~
~"?7I!~
~"?7/!!
~"?7I!!
9"~1'!!
~5/!8/!!
~'./~8/!!
~"~8/!!
~"~8/!!
~"?8/!!
~5/?8I!~
~"?8I!~
..I
. _. '~~."-""-.'..--..- - -'"
'AG!
7
I?A!~, !!/~O/!~
~A!~:~LU'~D
~?/~~/e~
?9IU/ea
~"Ob/ea
~5/0fl/~1
09l~!181
~b/~e/~1
0811~/81
~5/07/8a
?9I3~/~1
?9/3?/81
~5/07lal
~5/~7I8a
?5/~7Iaa
?9I3~/8I
?5/07l11
~"~7I~~ .
~9/UI8I
?5/~8/81
~5/~8/81
~5/08/8a
?5I~8I81
05/08/81
-------
t~ .",
AUDIT CONTROL: N~M8~R
030DI09015..19965'
H3CDI0~OO.~.~!'6~
E2BW0040017.I0967
P2CWOt90051.19968
01001090157.10969
. .DI0D~0'0161.~9~7~
OJOOI090169~~~971
HUPI0800U-199U.
03A81090159-19973.
03C08030339_19974~
030010}025Z.I0975
, "
a2BWOI90I11.1997~
03AOI020057.19977
OJAOSOl0049.10978
P2BW90Z0029.19979
£3001020054.10980
." _..
. 03A01010117.10981
D3AWIOIOI18.19982.
03~SI0101S9.1~98~,
03AWSOIOIZO.I098"
03COOO~02b~.19985'
P2AWI~60~60~~~~8.'
H3C0106009].S0987
.. . .
E2AWI010197.10988
03001030092.10989
JE"I.ANNUAL.A~gJT REPOR!" ~a,u~9 .$!~T~~~~
.' PE~,IOD ENDING ~9/)O/8t.
,AUOI,T££
~RC.'DUPS ~U~~ ORANG!I'~A
TEXA~ rE~H UN~V
ORI.A~OO '~A
NETA~T8.0C~AN~IDI,aOO~~~~N
~ACO~SENGIN~~RtNG PA8AD~NA .~~
T~CH~OLOGY 8~H 'SANTA H~Nl~A .C~'
BECH!!L G~OUp' SAN FRAN~ta~o C~'
~OLO~AOO Sf ~NIv'ORT ~OLLINS
RESO~RC! T~~~ 8UPERTIN~ ~A
- .
ASPENS SYUMa
. .. ~
~tNK~RTON ~UH~UT£R'CONaUL!A!N~
DES "DINf~ a~"ER OISTR~~T WA
~YORUT~CHNI~: ~OR~ORATI~N
~COLOGY , I~V~RONMENT
WE8T~HESTERNY
NON FERROUS ~HOC~8SrNG ~O~'
~UTNAM HAy~a ~ 8ARTLET!
,~CA~ORP
~AYT~EON SE~V~Cf c~
~UR~.MCGL~N~UN
'~OST~R ASSOCIATES
DAWSCN'ENGIN~~ERS
UNIV Of' OK~A "~TH ,sc, C~Nr!R
HOWA~O NEEDL~5 TANNER ~ 8~R~A~
INFO~HATlC8 INC
~~NAL ~C~O~T }~8~~D
. ~"~8/~a.
~"II/~~
~"II/~~
~5/U/~~
~"U/!~
9'/1Z1!~
~"~2I~~
~"l~/~~
~5Ill1!~
. 9!S/IZI~a.
951 Ill! ~
~5/U/~~
9!S/13/!a.
9"U/~!
~!S/U/!a.
~'/t:s/!a.
~'J/1II/!!
!"111/~!
.9'114/!!
95/14/!~
~5/14/!!
95/14/!!
~!S/I4/!a.
05/111/81
~5/14/!a.
PAS!
!
DA!I~ !!/~O/!~
I?A!~ ~L08~O
. ~'/~~/8~
~~/a~/et
~./I'/8a
~5/1~/8I
~5/all'!
~5/~~/~1
08/~'/8t
~5/U/81
~5/U/81
~'/UI8I
~6/~9/81
~8/~&/8~
~5/t~/81 .
~5/a~/81
~51111/8a
~"all/81
~5/14/8t
~5/14/81
~8/~1/~~
~b/a"11
~8/1~/8t
~5/14/81
-------
1717'
AUDIT CON!ROL' N~M8!~
H3AOIO'02Z7.1~9'~
03DOI050270-~~9'.1
03001050l~'.109'2
03801050268.1~99~
,H3~01050i6~.1~99~
03A01050248-10995'
" -
,DJ801050U8 -~ ~99~,
'03COI0~Oil6~~~99~'
03AOI 05U~9- ~ ~99a
DJCOOO!OOe3.~~999
'D30010502~~-~IO~~
.12CW'I~0Il'.~I~~1
0'1
......
e; U00090 19~.11 ~~l,
'a2BW~0901~1.11~~3.
03C01030261.11004
030010~Ol~5.II~OS'
ElBW90Q02J5-lioo~
PJC00040094.~I~~7
P30010~005~~II~~~ -
PlCWOO~019~.II009'
M]AOI0502~'.1101~
03A01050249-J1911
D3COI 090 U3.11 OU,
D3COI090164.~101~
0]AOI090165.11014
.I~"I.ANNUAL AuulT REPOA!S XSSU~~ '. S!~T~~~J
~!~~OO !NDING ~"~O/8~
AUDIT!!
~NJV 0" wr.SUPERIoR WI
CH~M~CAL AearRACTS eOL~Ha~8 o~
'LUX DYNe;' MINNEAPOL!8 HN
'LUX DYNE MI~NEAPOL!8 HN
pT ~HrCAGO I.L
8 H ~ COLUH~YI OM
'~Re;D DIBRA .~~ crNCINNA!~ OH.
~~DC~ crNCIN~ATX OH
,~NVI~ODYNE' fN~ !NC CH!~A~O ~L
"IDW~ST RES INST KANSAS~!Y'M~,
'~UN~RD IN~ MI.LWAUKU' ~I
~A8T~f. ROCK WA
'fPA, RE~ION IX SAN f.RAN~IO~O.C~'
'SACRAH~NrO H~~ION cso '~A~rO ~~
aooz ALL~N I HAMILTON
~~NTAUR ASSQ~~ATES INC
.IT P~TERSBUH~ 'L
80UT~fRN DYfSTUFF~HAR~OH' N~'.
nOR~N~E' S~
NIXON TIC
YNIVO" WI'8~~~AJO~ NI
~~DCQ'~INCJNNAT! OH
HARQ~ARDT cu VAN NUYS'~A
.JACOBS !NGIN~~RrNG PASADENA :CA
'JAC08S ENGIN~~RING PASADENA CA
PAGE
- -. ... -, -- -.
,
'-~NAL ~~~O~T ~~8U~D
~"I~/!!
DA!E, ~~/~O/!~
~A!~ '~LD8!D
~6'U/81
~S'I'J/8I
95fIS/!!
~511"~~
~"U/8~
~5/15/81
9'1I5/!!
~5/''/!~
~6/~~/~~
~"U/!!
~I/&II~! :
991!~/'~
9!1/~~/8~
951!~/!!
Y!S/15/!~
9"15/!~
95/U/~1
~5/11181
!!51 iiI!!
!"&~/!! .
~5/~'18~
961l~/81
9!5/18/!!
9'.1&8/!!
Y5/18/~~
!5/18/~~
95/1~/81
~5'18/81
9!i/19/!!
9,/19/!!
10/01/81
9'/l9I!~
~!5I19/!~
~8/~~/'~
96/18/8~
9"19I~~
y" & 9I! ~
!5/19/!!
Y'1t9/!~
!S/I!/8~
~5/1"81
9'1I9/~~
08/011/81
-------
HGIR 1.1
0\
IV
AUDIT'CONTRD~' N~M8~~
D3AOIO~O~.1.11~IS' .
D!AAI080~.8.~I~I.'
8ZCHOt~09.4.11011
'S2~W80902J.-II~I~'
82CH9~90J.1-ll~l!
S]~P90J03~1.1102~
'P28W9090251-1i021
HSCWI080~.9.1r~Z2,
DaAHI1909Q1-110Z~
DSAXI910110.~1~24
D3C01010122.11~2~'
"
DJCWI010121.11~2~
'P28W0020151.~1~11
£2CW00800]8.~1~2~
'P2AWI040088.11029
P28HOI901ZI.ll03~
H3COI0~009~.11~3.
P2CH10~OO.8.110~2..
H3AOI040147.1103].
P2CH0000109-110S4
. ..
. .
P28WOI~0998.11q~5'
!]CW11~O~5..~I~~~
'P2CH903.o225.110J7
P3C00020165.110~8
P28W0020099.11039
.' j.. '.
.8~HI.ANNU~L' A~U~T REPOR!i ~88U~~'. .'E~T~~~.~
P!~IOD ENDING ~9/~O/8~
",UD.I.TEE
'YR8 ~ORPORA'IUN DENVER CD
'INAL ~~~Q~T ~~8~~O
~5I19/!~
AUTO~OTJV!' !~~T LAB AU~ORA~O
~ITV DF' WA,HOUGAL HI.
95119/!~
95/Z0/~!
ROHNgRT PA~K ~A ~ITV O~
:SANTA CRUZ ~A CITV Of':
9"ZO/~!
9"Z~/!!
'~A O~PT 0' A~HICULTURE
.~ARR~8' A8S0~IAT£8 CA
951U/!!
~"Z1/! !
~D~O~ADO D9" U~NVER
~~S HDINES S~"ER DISTR~~~'NA
~~/ZI/!!
95/Z1/!!
~AHP DR[SS~H . H~KEE I~~~
THE MITRE co~~t
'. 95/~2I!!
25. Ii! 21 ! ~
'M~TA SYSTEMS ~HC
ATL",~T1C'COU~TY
95/U/!!
~~IZZI!~
.N ~f~'~RSON ~~D ~V~RGR~~~CO
AHER OJGITAL/~NN~RARJT' ",'SOc
~5/~2I~~
~!l/Z2I!!
'~JBBO& OLSON CEo LONGV~fH WA
~ULFOOUTH ~[S~AR~H INS!
9'Jll2l!~
q5/U/!!
OKAL~OSA CD FLA
RESEARCH TR~A"'GL~ INST RTI" NC
q"~./~~
9"ZO/~~
ATLANTA TX
~G11 ~N~' COQO HAY OREGO~.
~"20/!~
¥"~./!~
.LAN~ COG EUG~NE OR
L~HI~8URi A"~A
05/ZO/IU
..... -.
9!1/Zo/~~
q'1l7l!~
.BRJN~IER & LA~IOS PC
BRIN~!R , LA~10S NY
9!i1l1l!~
PAIn
I!
OATh ~~/~0/!~
~A!~ ~LOS~D
95/19/81
07120181
Obllll81
091211181
081)1'81
- . .
~5/U/81
~5/~I'~1
~5/21/ea
~5I~lIea
051lU81
- . .
O5I2Z/OI .
~5111/81
!1"t,ZIU
!o/l&l/81
qa/lll81
10/19/81
~7/lJ/8I
!5/i.,ll.
~5/~O/8~
~512718.
-------
HQR ,~,
AUDIT'CONTRO~' N~MB!~
P2CMI0701~'.II~O~
P2~N'070231.'I~OI'
03COI050252~I'OQa,.
£2CWII~OO~7.1104J
H3CAII~0050.1104Q'
H3CA11~O~'9.11~4"
H3CA11~O~&O.11~4&
P2CN0070457.11047
DSAOIO'0098~11~48
038NIOIOI04.110Q9,
82CWOI~OO&I~1195'
m
w
E28WIO~OI48.~1951
P2CNI070002.11052.
,82CWOI~OIZ9.11~5~
O]8WI050289.11~54.
HSCPI050Z8r.II~55
DScoI050281.1105.
. ....-.
E2CW009024).11057
, ' -
paCW9030]~~.11058
03COI030213.11~59
PZCWOOJo087.110&O
.. ..
O]COIO~0282.119'1
HSA01050258.1106Z
03AOlo50Z82.IIOb3
, . .
'2CH9030Q~9.11~~O
8~MI.ANNUAL:A~Uli R!POR!8.~08U~~'. 8!~T~~~.~
~!~~OU !NOl~Gi ~9/~~/8~
AU~.I.T[£
CON~p'RD1A ~S
~INAL ~~~O~T ~~SU~D
9'1l8/! a.
:~ON~!JRDtA 1<8
. A.T ~!ARNf' ~"ICAGO IL'
~"Z8/~~
95/18/~~
CAVE' JUNCTJUN OR CITY '~'i
NASH~NGTON UN~V 0' 8[A!rL~
HA8H~NGT9N IrATE UNIV '~U~~HAN,
~"l8/~ ~
951l8/! ~
NA8H~NGTON '!ATE UNIV '~U~LMAN
~5/~8I!~
~5/28/~~
aT. ~nfRS "'D
~ADIA~ ~OR~
'--..
~"~8/!~
~"~8I!~
ARTH~R 0 LI!r~~i
CITY 0' LO~OV~EW "ASHr~GrON
9"18/~~
95/J9/!~
V.~0!J8TA OA
MONUT "0
~'Il!/!~
~"~I/!~
.80AP LAK~' NA ~JT~ 0',
rRI.~OUNTY' R~~' LANSING M~.
9"~1/!!
~6/~1I!~
HI~H~OAN D~H ~ANSING "A
~NVI~ODYNE, ~~~ rNC cHr~A~o ~L
~~/~2I! a.
96/~2I!!
WOODBRIDGE: s~ CA
HILLIAHSPQ~! .' PA
~~/~ZI!!
9"~31~ ~
HITTH.N.AsaU~ INt
8 MIDDLfTON
~~/~3/~a.
~"~J/~~
CQOP~RS.' LYIKAND;
UNIY OF crN~INNATr OH
'~~/~J/!~
~b/~J/~~
~~DC9 CINCINNATI OH
~AST.NORRtTION.PLYMOUT~.~A
~~/~~/~a.
06/01l/tU
-.. -"
'AGI
H
~Ar~, ~~/~O/!~
I?A!! ~LU8~O
~'/U/81
~'/18/81
07/~1/81
~5I~8/~~
~5/U/81 :
IO/I~/~I .
~7Il7/81
09/~1S/81
07llll/81
~b/O"81
o.b/Jo./81
~"ll/81
o.~/o.ZlII
Ob/~Zl81
~./~J./I1
~8/U/81
00101181
Ollli/il
OblO]/81
-------
"QR 111
AUDIT.COyrRO~i N~H8~~.
03BWIO~028'.~I~6S'
H3A01030206.I1066
~ .. '.'
H3AOI0~0156.11~6r
. . 03AOI0~02!54.1t~6~
03DOI0S021Z.11~69
D3AOI070262.11~7~
HSC09040088.Il~71
P2tw0040l~S.~1~7Z.
D3COI0~01Q'.~1~7~
03AOI0401S4.11~74,
0\
~
03CDI04015~.~197"
03AOI0~OIS6.~lq76
NSG010~0151.11071
P2twOO'0156.11~78
P2BWI0~0081.~1~79
.82BWOIOOIIO.II~8~
82CWOOI0008.11981-
P2tw0010102.11082
P2CW0010144.I1083
. . . .
P2CW0010181-lloe4
'2CWOOIOIU;'II085'
. .. .
'2CWOOI0~83-11~86
P2CWOOI0186.11081
P2CW0010222.11088
03401010130-11'89
.8~H~.ANNUAL'A~UJT RIPDR!3,~a8U!9'-' ~!~T~~~.J
P!~IOD. [NOING. ~"~0/8~
Auonu:
DVRPC'
VAPOLVT~CHHJ~' INSTJTUg:
MEDI~AL CO~L~G~' OF VA.
IN~O~I1ATlC8 INC'
~LAY!ON f.e! 8CUTH'I!L~"~
.IV£RORUP & ~AHCELST L~UIS' 110
'~~CR~IA TECH ~f8£ARCH ~N'!
.8WA.I~SBORO GA
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INST .
STATISTICAL ~UN8~LTANT~ '~~N '~I
WYLr;, LABS
NORT~ROP S~HV~C[a RTP ~~'
BREVARD CD '~I
.SOCO~RO Mill
DOHR SA' N~
~ITY OF ~UYA~~UP WA
.SOUTH OARTMUYJH Hi
WII.~ON CT
BRIGHTOI'I vr
YORK SEwER DISTRICT Mr;'
- . . .
HIL'ORD NH
MONT~ELIER'V!
AVER HA
.NARRAGANSEJ! HI
BLA~~8IOE IN~'
~JNAL ~~~O~T ~~~u~~
06/04/01 .
. ........ -..
!~/~"!~
!~/~4/!!
!~/~Q/!!
!b/~4/!~
!b/~4/!~
!6/!5/!~
UCl/OS/IU.
... - .. '....
Ob/05/81
... - -. -.
!6/~5/!!
!~/~5/~!
!6/~5/~~
!6./~5/!~
!b/~5/!!
!~/~5/!~
!b/~5/!~
!~/~5/!~
!6/~5/!~
!b/~5/~!
!~/~5/!!
!b/~5/!!
!bl!5/!!
!6/~5/!~
!b/~5/!!
!b/~5/!!
'PAG!
,~
~A!~~' ~~/~O/!!.
~A!~' ~Loa~D
!6/9"/8&
~'/O"/OI ..
~"911/8i
~9IU/81
~6/~S/I1
~9Il~/~1.
!~/!5/~~
~1I20/el
~Cl/~5/el
~6/9'J/e~
!6/~l/el
09/!!/81
!TlZ~/8i
~./0!I/81
~8/1~/ei
~b/!S/al
o9/ZI/11
~1nllel
06/n/Sl
09/0!/81
~9/JO/81
~./o"el
-------
"taR '"
AUDIT CO~rROL' N~"B!~
, D3C:Olo&OI~ld 1~9~
D3COIOIOI32.IS091
E2AWI050155-11~9Z.
02AWI050~9].II093
828WOt~00.2.llq9Q
P2~WIOQOOa)-tlo95'
D3DOI0~015r.~1~9b,
P3C:WIO~00]8.11~97
H3~010~OJll-I'I'ge
030AI090170eI1,9,
03C:SI0'018Ielll~'
m
U1
03AWI0,0179.111,1
0,AAI09017'.11102, '
0'DOI090177.111'~
P2C:H80~02Q4.111~4
P3DWOObOZI0.1110S'
P3DWI0'0045-1110b,
P'DWI0~OI~5.~11~1
P2twOObOI9Z.lll'~
P2C:WOO~012l.11109
03coaObOl~b.ll11'
0,BOI040158.11111
0300J020083.11112
~2BWql~O'97.1111)'
'P2CWOO)OI01.11114
,a~MI.ANNUAL A~UIT REPOR!. ~SSU~~ '. .8!~T~~~ ~
PE~~OO ENDING, ~9/~O/8~
AUOI.TE~
PINAL ~f~D~T ~~~u~o
~~/~5/!!
MITR~ CO~P
MASS' INS! o~ !~CH
~b/~5/~!
~~/~8/~~
INOO AHERI~A~ EN~ ,GARY ~N
~H2" HILL.IN~: CORVALL!~ :D~
~b/~8/~!
'b/"/~~
HOGU,UH WASHINGTON c.u~ ;o~
,HILL~80RaUGH ~o 'L:
Ob/O""
,-' _. -..
.aOUT~ERN R~~~ARCH ~N8T
TX O~PT WATfRR!BOURC!~
,9~/~9/~!
~b/~9/~~
'r!HP~!, UNI~~~SITY
;8YST~" APPLI~ATION S RA~A!~' ~~'
. ~ACD8S'!NGIN~~RING_PASAOENA CA.
~./~9I!!
~~/~9I!!
~b/~9I~!
'~/~9I!!
.STANfORD UNIV PALO ALT~ ~A
,HAHILTON T~S SYSTEM PH~EN~X Af.
~b/~9/!!
!~/~9I!!
aYST~M APPLI~ATION S RAfA~L: CA.'
HAMPOEN TOWNS~IP SEWER A~rHOR~
. ~~/~~/!!
~bll'/~!
TX D~PT,HA1e~, RESOURCES
'TEXAS oePT WA!ER RESOU~C~8
~b/l~/~a.
~e.1!0/~~
TEXAS DEPT WATER RESOU~~~S
AI.A"~GOROO NH
"b/IO"~!
~b/l0/1!~
.80CO~RO NI4
UNJV' 0' NEW M~XI~O
~~/IO/~!
~~/IO/~~'
,80UT~eRN R~O~ARCH ~N8'
HYOR~TECHNI~ ~OR~
~e./IO/~~
~~/171!~
CITY Of GOLD~NDAL! WA
WEa T~RN poCUtojUS
~e./U/~~
.,'
'AGt'
H
OA!~' .~/~O'!!
I?A !~' ~LU8fD
~./~5/81
~b"~5/8' '
Ob,,08/81
~"I~/el
0../U/81
~'''1'/8I
~~/18/81
~."9!/1~
~b/9~/e~
~8/~lI/el
~e/~"I8~
. ~.Ii!!/'~
~b/~!/8I
!6I~ 1/81
~./lo./e~
0./1~181
oellll/al
-------
HIiIR 117
AUDITCONTRD~~~~"B~~,
P2~W9~'02Z1.11~1" ,
OSC010Z0085.1111.
03A010ioZ43.11117
03CW1090180.11111
01CA1090185.1111,
OSCA1090184.11129
H3CA109018).11121
0,COI050150.11122
S2BW10!0928.~11a~
a2twoo902Q1.111Z~
03tOl070)05.11125'
'"
'"
01tOI050J~.~1112.
E38Al100055.11127'
P2CW10QO~2S.~11Z8
P2~Wl0~O~65.1112'
03C010~OI61.1i1S~
03C01040160.11131
D3C010~01bl.l11]Z
03C010~Olb3.ll1~~
OSC010~OlbQ.11134'
H3AOlobOl~8.lll~5'
P2CH0060il1.1113b
03C01030309.11137
- - '
E1Z0lll00ZZ.11138
03C01090181.11139
.
'8~MI.ANNUAL:A~UIT RfPOR!8 ~e8u~~ '."~E~T~~~,.
PERIOD ENDING !9/~0/8al
AuoqEE
:8~HU~LK ILLH- Y~N
SVRA~use RE5~ARCH CORP
eooz ALLEN' HAMILTON.
~UL~/WESNER/~ULP CAM[R~N~~C~
8CI[~CE APPL~~A ~A'JAL~A'~A
SCIENCE AP~L~~A LA JOL~A ~A
~A UNIV O~ SAN, FRANCIS~O
GENE~AL EL~~ ~O ~INCIN~AT~ OH
9HIN~.8AStN ""0 ~U~AHONGA ~A
COUNTY 0' OfL HaRTE CRtSCfNT ,.
.. . . - - - ,.
OPRA'MAN~AT!AN Ka
REXNORD INt MILWAUKEE, ~I
IDAH~ DEP'T u~ HEALTH , H~~'A~!i
NAPL~S 'L
PORT ORANG~ ~~,
WVLE LABS
tiYLE' LABS,
~NVI~ONMEN!A~; ac, & ENG~
ENVI~ONMENTAL' ac & !NG~
ENVI~ONHENTA~ ac & ENG~
IJHIY 0' OKLA
IT BERNARD 8~"AG~. OI8T'a~~A;
'rRACORJIT~O INC'
TECH~IC-L ~N'URMATJON
SRI INTfRNATIUNL HENLO 'PA~K ~~'
'lNAL ~~~O~T ~~'~ID
06/11/81
.. . .""
~~/19/!!
~~/l0/~!
~b/lO/!~
~~/l0/!~
~~/IO/~!
~bll~/~!
~b/li/!!
~~/q/!!
~~/1I/!!
~6'1I/~!
9~/ll1!!
~blll1~!
~b/l5/!!
ObI15/!!
~b/15/!!
!~/l'/!!
~bI15/!!
ObI15/81
.. ... .
!bI15/!! '
~o/IS/!!
~~/15/!! '
!./15i~!
~o/15/!~
!b/15/~!
P_GE, 'U
~-T~~.~~'~O/!~
~A !~' ,~LUS~~
~./1~/81
~"tO/'.
~"IO/~1
~./l~/81
06110/81
~0/11/81
a~/~~/~~
1011~/~1
00/11/81
~b111/81
!ollll81
!"28/8~
08/03/81
00117/81
- -
~7IZ~/el
071211/81
Obll!/81
~./t!/'.
~0/151~1
-------
"0" 'J"
AUDJT.CON1ROL: N~"B!R
D3~PIO~0Iee.1114~
D3CRI090189.11141
0]CWao90I9~.11142.
D]~Al090191.1114~.
E3BX00109J9.11144
03C090J0211.1114S'
E3~OOO~0049.~114~'
03001050301.11107'
03tOI050~~~.lla48.
0]AOI050~84.1114~
0300109019l.11150
0\
......
03COI09019~.lla51
03CAI090194.11152.
P2~WOO~094~.~115~
P2CWOO~O~81.~1154
P2CW0010Iq8.~115"
P2CWOO~OI59-1115~'
03COI040170.11157
H3A010b0110-11158
0]COI0401'8_1115~
OJCOOOb02~'-111'~
,ZCWOObOI55.11.b.
OaBW105017~.111'i;
H3A01050l59.Il1,J
'. . .
[2ADOO~0248.ll.'4.
.8~"J.ANNUAL A~~JT REPOR!3 183U~~'. .8f~T~~~ I
PE~IDD ENDING ~9/]0/8~'
AUDIH:f
.8RI'~NT!RNA!lUNL HENLO ~A~K t~.
~INAL ~~~O~T ~~S~~D
. ~~/I!I/!~ .
.8Cl~~CE AP~L~~A LA JOL~A ~A
~NT!~STATE f~~CTRON ANAH~~H CA
~'"5/!~
~b/15/!~
AIR ~OLLUTIU~ TE~H S D~~Ga ~A
~A"P DR!8S~H" MCkEE' I~~
~bIl5/!~
~f)/U/!~
HVDRpCAR60N ~~3EARCH IN~"-' VA
DC' D~PT OF ~NVIRO SERV
~bll"~~
~bllbl!~
.NWWA WORTHIN~!ON OH
~NYI~QDYNE ~~~; CHICAGO ~~.
~b/U/!!
9"U/!~
~SEI SOU!H H~~O IN
TURA TECH PUADENACA
9~/U/!~
9~/U/!~
MART~N HARlf1!A DENVER CO
'VST~M8 CON!~UL PALO A~TQ ~A
9bIH1/~~
9bIU/~~ .
.8HAMOKIN-COA~.. PA
NEWVILLE BaR
qb/~11!~
9~/U/!~
MID HONVALL~~
.8PR.1.NGETTS6UR~
9~1I1I!~
9bIl7l!!
"VL! LABS
UNIY OF TXH~A~T~ .ae, C~N!~R
8LAC~ CROW t~DSNfSS/CH~M "J~~'
9~/18/~!
ObIl8/~!
9'/18/!~
9~/18/~~
T~Rf~O COR~ ~ULL~GE 8TA !X
:'AN LEON H~NI UTJL: DI8!;!X
~bll8/~~
9~1I8/!~ .
."ID ~"I~AGC .~~i
UNIY OF Wl8e DUPfRIOR ~I
0&119/81
~b'U/~~
~HlM HILL:
'A~~
'U
DA!~I ~~'~O/!~
~A!~ ~La8(O
~"I"el
~"I~/'1
~bll"81
~bll!51Dl
~6/U/81
~bll~181
~6/U/~1
~b/l&/81
~"1'/81
~""/ll
!"17181
!7IU 101
~6/~8/~.
!7I211'~1
~7I17/81
~8/1~/81
!6'U/81
06/1"'81
. .
-------
IR 7~1
. AUOITeON1RO~N~M8~~
'P2AW0070J~'.111~"
P28WOOI015~.111~~'
P3~OI040057.11167
P2~NI0400'O.1116~
P2CWI0b0061.1116~
03~OI070265.11179
H3COlo50283.t1171
OSC010702e5.11172,
P2~WI190o.~I.~117~
03AOio30258.1117~'
03AOI0302~6.11175'
O't
CD
S28W'090193.11176,
828W0090Uh11177
D3D010~02Q9.11.78,
03A010~0279.11179
03CD10~0335.11180
03C01030330.11181,
03001010111.11182
E3COllI00Z5.1118~,
'D3AOIO!OUTioll184
D3AOI0901".11185'
E28WI090144.11186.
03A01030306-11187
E28W0090257-11188
828w9090194.11189
,a~MJ.ANNUAL A~U~T REPO~!' ~a8~~~ '.'~!~T~~~,~
'PE~~OD ENDING ~9/~~/8~,
AUD~TE~
!RI, ~TAT~ ~H~ HANCHEST~R, ~A
fINAL ~~~Q~r ~~au~o
~~1Z1I! !
AN8D~IA ~T
TRIA~GL! J ~OQ' N~:
~6/lZ/~~
~~/~ZI~!
8ILD~t HS
,8PENNICK PLA~~' HUD' LAP9R! TX
M R ~ K~NSAa ~ITY HQ
~6IlZl!~
~6/U/!!
~fllZlI~ !
~61l2/~!
PURD~! R.F~ W! LAFAYET!~ ~N
,SVERDRUP & PAHCEL 8T L~U~8 MO
~~/ZZl~!
~6/~q/!!
~LAH~ ~O PSD '1 VANtOU~£~ ,WA
'~NVI~O CON!"~~'
~6/Z4/~!
~61l4/!!
Ge:OT~ANS IN~
LIVERMORE.A"AUDR~ .CA
~6/Z4/~!
~6/Z11/~ !
WOODLAND eA ~~TY D~
YERSAR INe
~6/~4/~!
~~/~q/!!
MAXIMA COR~U~ATtON
(OHIAD RESEAR~H ,CORPORAT~ON
!~/~5/!!
~6/Z5/!!
'~YNE~GY IN~
~EIN "ARQUA~! ASSD~tAT!S,
~e.'l5/~!
~b/ZS/~~
HIGRANT LE~A~ ACTION P~D~~AH
INT~SA IHe "~NLO PARK ~A
~tlnS/~~
~6/Z5/!~
~AHA~ TEMPO SANTA 8ARBARA ~A
GUAM' TRU8! !ERRtTORY
~61Z6/!~
~6n9/!!
Y!RSAR INe
~L DORADO lH~. 019T PLA~!~YILL~'
~HIN~ 6A3IN HUNt CA
~tl/Z9/~~
~61Z9I!~
PAG!
~~
OA!fl' ~~/~O/!~
~A!~ ~I.QII~O .
~"~"81
~"~~/8~
~"~1I/~1
01121181
~6nZl81
~tl/2Z1~~
~7/l~/~~
ObnCl/1l1
~ .. .
~tlli/l11l1
tO/p/ll
OIIiO/81
Obll/l1l1
~blZlI/"1
OblZ5/111
. ,
~0/U/81
~6n5/81
~on'I"
~6n"'1
~9/9!'"
-------
. ..-_... - -..
HQft '"
AUDIT CDN!RDL N~"8!~.
D30000)0232.1119~
D30000302b~.11191
01001030317.11192.
D3AOI030294.1119~.
.D3AOIO~021l.1119~.
03A0109019'.11195
D3AAI0'02~0.11196
. D3DOI0902~1.11197.
03D000100b8.111'8
D3C0901007..1119'
D3AaI0'0140.I'2~~
0'1
\0
D3CN'010141.1'Z~'
']8W0070)~7.lla~2,
82CW90~OZ27.IIZO~
82CW00900]9.111~~
.UCWOOCl0I8~.1 U~,.
EaAWI'~0045.'ll~.
P2CH'O~0Iq5.1'2~7
03AO'030292.112~~
DUO' 0103~7.11Z09'
E3Cci"10~3~~~'2'~
02BDOOaOJ'~."211
03COI020~80.IIZI2.
03AOloZ0010.1121)
'82CWOI~0059.1121~
.OtHI.ANNUAL A~uIi ~!POR!8 ~SSU~~.. .a!~T~~~.1
p~~~oo ENDING' 29/~O/8~'
AuonE~
8IOS~HERIC8 . HD
~NVI~ONM~NTA~ILAH'~N8T~!~!~.D~'
MAR.
CAPJ!AL. 8Y8~~"S '~~9UP.
~ATA~YTlC IN~
KV8 ~NC lRVI~~' CA
FORM' 8UBSTANCE' W~8TLAK~ V~A.
~A~O~S !NGIN~~RtNG'PASAO~NA CA
~; C: "c;:JRDAN ~o
META SYSTEMS ~NC
HALt:~ , AL~R~~H
~BF; ~CI!NTI'I~! COR~
MIS80URI DNM
~A8T~RN MWO H~HET ~A
O~AN!! CTY 80 FOUNTAIN VA~'~A
I8LETON CA ~~!Y 0"
O~Y"~IA ~A ~~!Y OF.
RAON~R.HAV~H~URD.HARPL~ 18~~~R
GEOM~T 1fCH
8I08~HE:RIC8
DODD fRA~tE~ ICO
.MAL~QLH' p'r~N~!! INC-
MECHANICAL !~~HNOLOGY .~N~.
ECOLOGY & fNV~RONMENT ~N~
p'IER~E CTY wA~H TACOMA WA.
~~NAL ~~~~~T ~~S~~D
~&/n/!~
~&/~9/!~
~&/n/!!
~61l9l~!
~~/Z9l~!
96/~9I~~
!6/~9/~!
!b/~9/!!
~b/~O/!!
!&/i!b/~!
~~/~O/!~
~.~/~0/!!
!"~O/!~
!~/~O/!!
~6/~O/!.
!~/~~/~!
!1I~1/!!
~7I~U!~
!7I~2I!!
!1I~2I! ~
911U/~!
!1/~ft/!!
!1/~bl!!
~r/~f>/~a.
!1/~f>/~!
. ....~ . -.." ....
PA(i!
H
OA!~! ~~/~O/!!
~A!~' ~I.08~O
!./Z9/a~
06/29/81
- . . .
0fI1Z9/8I
!~/l9/as
!9/~~/ea
UIl'/IS
. !61i!!/81
~6/)~/81
~61l"61
~./]~/e.
~6I)!/8~
~7I!~18~
07/!~/e.
~7I!Zlea
~71& ~/8I
~7IObl'a
~7I~.b/8.
!7/!6/U
-------
HQR 711
AUDIT CONrRq~; N~HB!~
P2~WOOI0IbZ.11~15' .
OJ~01010149.11It6
OJC01010159.11a17
DSCOI0101'1.11218
oJAW101015Z.11Z1"
o3A8101015~.11Zl~
H3C010b0112.11Z21
P2CHOObOlb8.11ZZ2.
P2CHOOb021'.112Z~
o3AOI060118.1122~
03001040082.11225'
-.....I
o
D3A0104018~.~12Z6
H3~010bOI14.11227
P3D090~025b.112a~
P2CH8040214.11229
.a2CW9J90281~1123D
S3COOt00097.11a31
S2CW91~OI]5.112~a;
D3COI0~0~88.11233
EIl00020145.11234
P~CWt04005J.11235'
'P2CW1040012.1121b'
, ,
P2CWtO~OOZ8.t12]7 '
P2CWI0400ZZ.11Z]8
P2CWI0b0049.112~~
.8~Hl.AN~UAL:A~UIT REPOR!S' ~a8U~~ '. ~!~T~~~~.
~E~~OO ENDING: ~9/~O/O~
AUOI.TE~
.8uRqNGTON VI
~lNAL ~~~O~T ~~S~~D
'!! '!8/~ ~ .
'~UrNAM HAY~S , BARTLE!!
:R!SO~RC! P~A~NIN~ A8S0~'
~AHB~IDG£ tULLA80RATIV~
T!MP~! ~ARK~~ & SLOANE
!!/!8I!~
!7I!8/~!
!7I!8/!~
!7I~8/~!
~AHP DRESS~"" H~KE! IN~'
.80UT~WEST F0N. ~OR R~CH & fOU
!1I!8/~!
!7I~e/~~
BULLARD. !)(
DONNA TX
.'
!7I!8/!~
!1I~8/!~
.80UT~WEST AES~AR~HINS!
,STEWART LABS KNOXVILLE !N
.!!/!8/!!
!7I!8/~~
.80UT~[RN R~S~ARCH INST
.UNIV 0' ARKANSAS
!!/!8/!!
!7I!8/!!
TAMPA DEPT SAN1TARY 8!~~~8
~LU~WA TER fL
'!1I!8/~!
!7I!8/!~
~A8T~RN MUD H~HtT .~.
NA OEPT 0' ~~ULO~V DLY~~~A
~7I~8/!!
971!9/!!
.~OHLI.U cn w.
.8YRA~USE R!8~ARCH~ORP~RA!IDN
!7/~9/!~
07/09/U
.. -~. - ,.
~~GION.II. ~u~~EC'IDN P~D~~DUR~
BAH8£RG sc
!7IU/H
!7Il~/!~
PARK!ON' NC'
BLAC~VILLE a~
~71t0/~! .
!7Il~/!~
~T LAUD[RDAL! 'L
BENTUN ARt<
97110/~~
07110/81
. -
PAGE
u.
OAH!' ~9/~O/!!
~At~' ~LUS~D
~7I98/81
911~8/81
07/08/8&
~1I08/~&
~1IY8/U
1012~181
~7/08/81
09/0Cl/81
~81& 0/81
07/08/81
~1I98/8~
~1I98/8~
~8/l5/8'
!7/O!/8~
~8n8/~1
~7/09/81
01llJ/81
~9I0!/8~
09ll8/U
~9IOY/ISI
oenll/llt
-------
"QR U f
AUDIT CONTROL N~"8E~
P2BW90'0404.11~4~
E28WI0902~5~11241
.!3AOI09019b.lli42.
P28W909026Z.lll03'
P2CWOOJOI87.112""
PZCWOO~OI~9.11245'
P2CWOOJo049.llla.
03A01010297.11247
D3A010~0275.IIZ48.
D3COloJOaiS.1124V.
P300b050b8S.112SY
........
I-'
P,000050111.IIZ'1
03CO.050254.11252.
OJAOI05030~.1125]
D3AOI050307.112!4
82BW0090133.11255'
P2CWt0300b8~1125b
S2~W002022~.lla57
82CWOOZ022Q.tl~'8
UCWO.OZ02i!4..11 n9
:82CW0020097.1126Q
82tWO~Z0219.11261
azcw0020~26.1126a,
.12CW0020096.11263
.82CW0020037.11264
SEMI.ANNUAL A~uIT REPDR!S ~8~U~~
PE~~DU ENDING ~9/)0/8~
AUDITEE
~OHN CDLLIN8 ~NGRS TUCSON Al
TRUS!.TfRRI~DRY 0' THE P4~1'1~
~NGI~!E~ING 8~IENCE .AR~A~~A C.
BOYL~; ENGtN~~"-ING CORP ~A
PIGEON CREE~ .' pA:
EYANSBURG . PA
CONyNGHAM . PA
- .
ROY ~. I'jE8TON
RAVEN .SYSTEMS '.RE8!ARE" ~N~'
,BOOI A~LEN HAMILTON
."~8!~RN LAK~ 8UP~RIOR, '~D M~
MINN~SDTA P~A
eATT~LLE COLUMBUS DH
~~DCQ CINCINNATI OH
H R ~' DAYTON UH
~~RE8~O CA ~I'Y O~
,!WP OF LOW~~ "ERION
, HINOA NY
MONTICELLO NY
NEW ~ALTZ NY
GUIL~RLAND NY
ORYD~N Ny
DDLG~VILLE Ny
DUNKIRt< Ny
NEW WINDSOR NY
..
8E~T~Y~ I
'INAL ~~~O~T ~~SU~D
~7I10/!~
~1IIO/~!
91110/~~
~7IIO/~~
~7IU/~~
~7IU/~!
~7IU/~ !
971U/!!
~lIU/!~
!!/H/~!
971U/!!
Y7l~1I/~!
971111/~!
!1I1II/~!
~lIICl/!!
!7IiS/!!
!1116/!!
~7I1~/!!
!7I16/!!
!7I16/!!
!1IU/~~
971U/!!
~1IU/!!
!!/lb/~!
!7IU/!!
.. .. - - . . .. __0. -
'PAlif
19
DA!f. !~/~O/!!
~A!~'~LU3fD
97/19/81
~7/1~/8I
~7I'~/~~
!7/U/ea
!7Il~/e!
!fll~/!1
~7/1Q/81
!7I1'/81
~9/~lI8.
~7I.1I/~1
aO/~~/~~
~8/1~18.
-------
HQR'"
. AUDITeoNTRO~' H~M8~~
:'2CNOOl0211~11265
.. ~ .
:S2~WOO~02Z1.11266
82CWOOaOI~8.11267
S2CWOOZ021~.11268
82CW0020218.1126~
.82CWOOZ01~'.11279
P2800020144.11271
P2CH108~9]Z.11272
8]DOlt90~65.~127]
D3001090ZI7.IIZ7~
D!DOI090Z18.11275
-..J
IV
D3CHI090Z1'.11276
D3AW1090220.IIZ77
D~AAI090Z21.li27~
D3C01090Z22.11279
03001090223.lt28~
03AS10!0224.11~81
03A01090225.11282
P2BW00501~1.11283
03COI050217.IIZ84
030010502'~.1128S
0300t~50257.lli8~
flZ011109~q.~1287
paCW9030Z11.11288
paCW90J0171.11i89
'8~M!.ANN~AL-AYUIT REPOR!S ~88U!D. .~!~T~~~:~
PE~~OOENOING, ~"~0/8~
AUO.I,TE£
~RON~!QUDI! NY
~OLotnE NY
~NOl~OTT NY
fiNE
~DUG~KEEPS~~
ONONDAGA
RONALD LAB~R~f' NY
~ELE~A .HDN!A~A CITY 0" R~!~ON
~EPT Of, EC~LO~Y HASHIN!!DN
,~NTE~8TArE f~~CTRON ANAH~~H C~.
.8PECTRQN DEYL~HT COSTA H~SA C~
,~DN!8 , STOK~8 ASSOt 8ACTO ~A
~ULP/WE8N!~/~ULP SAtRAH~N'D C~
KV8 ~NC IRV~N~. tA
CA INS~.1TUT~ UF; !~~HPASA,?ENA
HAWAJI UNIV~~'!TY Op. H~NCLULU
WDODWARD.CLYD~t CCNSUL~ Sf CA
.SRI INTERNA!IUNL'MENLD ~AHK c~.
DDNO~UE . ASS~' S~!eOYGAN "1
REXNORD INC H~LWAUKEE "1
ErA ~NG.IN~~ WESTHONT XL
.8YST~tH XEN~A OH
~NVI~O A~TIUN FOUNDATI~N ~~'
lOWER ALLEN !UWNSHIP
.LOWE~ ALLEN TWP AUTH
~~NAL ~~~~~T ~~a~!D
~~II~/!~
~7I1~1~!
~7I16/~~
~7I16/~!
~7IU,/~~
~7I1~/~!
~TI.I6/~~
~TIt./!! .
~7/1~/!!
!7IU/!!
~7I17/!!
~7IU/!!
~7I17/~~
!7I~ 7I!!
!7/17/~!
~71171!!
~7I171!!
~7/17/!~
!7I171!~
~7I17/!!
~71171!!
~7Il1l!!
~7I~9/!!
~!/~O/~!
971l0/!~
'PAGE
~!
DA!~~.~~/~~'!!
~A!!' ~L08~D
IO/.9~1I~
08111/11
IOIOb/I!
0111"81 '
0711'1.8& .
. .
o.7Il"~1
!7I~~/8~
!7Ip/8&
!7IP/81
!1117/81
~7II1I.8t
~1117/8&
!'" 7181
0.7/17/11
!'117/11
!7/P/!~
~e1l9/11
-------
HQIII ".,
AUDIT 'CONTROL N~MBER
'D300003.01&9.112'~
03CO~O~0~59.llnl
E2AWIOZOO~I.11Z9a,
D'CS1090Z~8.1IZ9]
03DAI090Z~~.1IZ94
D3CP10902~1.IIZ9$'
. .
03COI09021Z.1129&
D3~OI09021~.11297
03DOI090214.11298
D3AWI090211.11299'
......
w
D3AOI090210.~IJO~
03A8109022~.IIJ~1
!3CW~0900ZZ.11~~Z
D3ASII00068.1130)
. ...
01AOIOb0120.11304
030010Q0181.11305'
D3AOI0303b2.ll~0~'
D3A010~02Sb.IIJ~7
. '03COl030)61.113~B
'HSAOIO~Ol6~.~1~~9
P2CW~O~0082.11~10
P2CW80~OZb8.11311
P2CW9030Z73.113IZ.
P28W90102bO.1131'
P2CHOOI0IZI.11314.
,8~"J.ANNUAL AUUJT RfPORI8 ~88U!~ '..~!~T~~~ ~
PERIOD ENDING ~9/~O/8a
AUOI,T!:!'
'lNAL ~~~O~!~~eU~O
,~r/~~/!! .
,~, HI~ANOA
~ANN~T! ~L~"~NG ~OROOR~
~7I~~/!a.
~7I20/!!
8TON~' BROOK NJ.
.8C8 ~NGINE~K8 LONG. BEA~H ~A
~7I~O/~!
~7IlO/!~
ROCKWELL tN!L CANOGA PARK~A
8C8 ENGINEERS LONG. BEA~H ~A
~7Ii!O/~ ~
Y1l~O/~~
HaM I TZ ALLEN , ASOC OA~I.ANO C~
HOM IT Z ALLEN .' A8CC OA~LANO C~.
HOMITZ ALLEN , A80COA~LAND CA.
~r/2~/~!
~7/l0/~!
T~TRA TE~H ~~~ PASADENACA
;8Y8T~H8 sel ,& 80FT 8 og~o ~A
~7/20/~1
~7I20/~!
~V8 ~NC JR~IN~' CA
ARIZ9,NA DH~ ~HOENJX Al
Y7ll0/~!
~rI20/~!
CHiM HILL ~U~VALLIS OR.
RAD.IAN COR~
~7Ii!O/!!
~7/ll/~!
NDR!~ROP8!H~~CES NC'
AMERICAN 801~~R MANU'A~TY~~R8
~7I~1/~!
~7Ii!1/~!
~C'..INC;
.a~OT! ENVI~UN.MENTAL; TE~H
~7Ill/~1
~7I~1/~!
.~NIV~RSITV'O~ HA~VLANO'
,HAHII.. TONBAN
~1121/~~
~7Ill/~~
LOWE~ PAXTON !HP A~TH .. '~A
.~~T'DF SUN~UH' '.'PA '
21/~1/~!
~7Ill/!~
8AR HARBOR "A
~7I~1/~~
~7IZI/~~
HINCHfNDON I1A
- .-.. "-'. ...
PAn
z~
OA!f8 ~~/~O'!~
~A!t.: ~LOUD
~rlZ~/8~ .
09/11/81
~ .. .
~7Il~/8~
~7IZ~/el
07120/81
- - .
~7/iO/81
~7Il~/81
07110/81
~7Il~/81
~7I20/~1
~9/~O/81
101.~181
~~/i6/~1
~7Il1l81
~7/21/81
-------
HQR 717
AUDIT CONTROL; N~Me~~'
P2BW001016~~il~15' ,
P2CW~OqOOIT.1131~.
PZCW10~004~.~1~17
pa~M~O~Ole9.11~18'
P2CN80~026~.11J'"
P2~W00301b~.~IJZ~'
P2CW0030186.~I~ZI
DJAOI03032T.IIJ2Z
" '
D]A010'0338.II~a3,
P28WOOI0~5q.113Z4
-...J
~
;8ZCHlOqO~5q.lIUS
.03AOI010Ib,.11326
03A01010156.11327
03C010l0157.113i!
03C01010158.113Z9'
D3A01~1~160.11~3~
D3AOlel01bl.tl~31
03COI 0 I 0 155.11 33Z.
, - ,
03COI010159.1IJ3)
03COI010154.113]Q
03COIOb0121.11335
P28W0040049.1133.,
P2BW90~0435.113~T
03001030366.11338
P28w0050198.11339
8~HI.ANN~AI.' A~~IT R~PORIS ,~S8U~~-.
PERIOD ENDING: 09130/8&
. -.. . .......,
AU~I,!E~
'~ORT~AND HA!~" DI8TRIC!
DUN!O!N FLOR,I,OA
"CAL~8TE~ OK~A
t:t~HP~IELO '. ~A
LOHe~ PAXTON !MP AUTH '. ~A
:lTEWARTSTO\llN
ANTR~M TMP ~ flA
'~LEM~NT A88u~IAT!a' INC'
~LEH~NT AS8U~~ATES,
WOQN80CKET HI
~ALL: RIVER "~~~8 caD CA
.ARTH~R D L~T'~E INC'
~OH8~S!IO~ ~~OINEERINO'
rftHNOLO~Y ~ON8ULTING ,~RO~p'
URBAN SYSTEMS RESEARCH
. - ,
HnR~. CORP
~RITICAL. 'LU~D SYSTEMS
PUTNAM HAYES' BARTLET!
PUTNAM HAYES' BARTLET!
PUTNAHHAYES . BARTLET!
~OH ~Hf~ICAL 'REEPOqT !X
HOLLYWOOD f.LA
OIST~ICT O',~~~UM8IA
(jEOHp INC
J C ~IHME~MAN ~R~ENDAL~ w~
I!~'r~~~ "~
~~NAL ~~~O~! ~~SU~O
~7I~1/!~
~7I22/!!
~7I~iI~~
~!/ZZI!! '
07ll2l81
, - -
~7Il2l!~
~7IlU! ~
~1IlV8~
~lIlV!~
~7 /l3/~ ~
~7Il3/~~
~7I~J/!!
~7I~"/!~
~lIzq/!!
~1Illl/!!
~!/ZII/~~
07l1~/!!
~7Ii!II/~!
~1IlII/~!
~7IZI"!~
~1Ii!"/!!
~7IZ4/!!
~1I~4/~~
~1Illl~ &.
~7IlQ/~!
'~A~~. 'U.,
I)A!~' ~O/~~/!~
~A!~ ~LUS~O
~1I18/8'
~"1"'1
~8/~~/81
.~71l4/U
071211181
~7I24/8~
0712~/~~
071ill/U
. ,
07/Z11/81
01l2~/tll
07/2"/81
~"~1I/81
-------
HQR 1'n
AUOITCON!ROL' N~"B~~
P2BWOOS0218.ll~4~
02ewI0503Z~.11141
[28WI050]39.11342
E2BWlo503110.11343
.. .
03BWI050349.ll~44
D3DOI050350.ll~45'
03BWI050351~11~4~
OJDOIO}0098.11JII7
D3AOIO~0~'~.11JII~
D3AOI050~'2-11349
-.I
U1
D3ADI0503~8.~1~5~
03tOI0503~9_113SI
'OJAOj010)11.11~5Z.
.D3AOI0503Z8.~115~
D]AWI050)3~.1115q
03COI0503~1.11~55'
O]COI05033J.IIJ5~'
DJAWI05~~~5-11~57
D3AOI050337.~135~
!3COI050$51.111SQ
- .'..
'P2CH80~03Z0-~13~~
ElI0ItIO~~~-113~1
D3COIOJ0371.ltJ~2
D3COI030278.113~)
D3AOI030324.11364
.8~"I.ANNUAL' A~O!T REPOR!8. ~asu~~ .~. 8!~T~~N:~
PE~10D ENDING. ~~/~O/8~.
AUDITEE
.~RAf~' ANHAL! SCHLOEMER & A8St
'!NAL ~~~O~T ~~8~~D
97/24/!~
"ADI~ON HA~13UN CLEVELAND 0"
KLUG & ~MI!H ~O "ILWAU~~~ W~
971~4/~~
971Z11/~~
DK! ~AL~HE! ~lTY IL
R~XNOR~ IN~ ~KC"HILHAU~~~ WI
NORT~ROP S~MVICES INC ~TPN~'
971~1I/~~
971Z1I/~ !
~7Ii!4/~!
971~1I/!!
R~XNORD .JNC ~HCMJLHAUK~E "I
8~OT! ~NVIRUN~ENTAL TE~H~O~OG!'
EBON RE9EAR~H SYSTEMS
~NVI~ON CT~ ANN ARBOR ~I
971211~ a.
~71271!~
971271! ~
971 i!7 I! ~
B H. I COLUM6~D OH
Q [I ~ CORP ANN ARBOR H~
911~11!~
~7/i7/~ a.
SVERDRUP & PAHCE~ ST LQ~I~:"O.
~RED DEBRA ~O CINCINNA!I OH
971~11!!
97117/!!
A~T~K~A~N~Y ~HICA~O 1~
.8~M..I.. COL~l'IeUS OH
~7IZ7l~~
97/'ll/!!
8~M~~!.~OLUl'le~8 OH
NWWA WORTH1NG!ON OH
~EDC~CJNCIN~ATI OH
971l7l!!
971~71~!
Q-K-I. RCG Cl~~INNAT!O~
HILL~REEK T~P SEHER.AU!H'.' PA
~1/21/~!
Q7lU/!!
lZAA~' WALTON LEA!U~. OF' AM~R~C~.
CENTAUR AS8U~lATE9
97/~11!!. .
97/~7/!!
.SOCIAL RES AP~ CORP
LITTUN 810N~IICS
~71 ~71~!
~1Il.7/~ !
-' -. --. --..-
- -._u--.-
~A!~'
n
. DA!~! I!/~O/!!:
~A!~ ~LOS~O
~7I2"/~1
!7Ilil/ll. .
~7/~~/81
971Z7I'.
07127181
09/01181
971it7l~t
011U/II
07121181
. .
~7/~r/~.
~7127181
!11Z7l~.
~8I~~/1.
071l7l11
- . .
!912~/el
07/21111
-------
HQR 7'"
AUOITCON!ROL N~"B~~,
D]AOI0902Z~.1136'
, "
E3DWI09019~.111~6'
P2CWIOJ0169.11367
P26D0050295.11368
P28D9050299.11369
EIH01060059.11370
.. ,
EIHOIIIOOI3.11371
P2CH8050QQ4.1137Z,
P3CA7050478.1137~
Q3ASI100080.1137~
, -..J
0'\
H3CP II 00081..1 ~75'
H3CAII~0082.IIJ76
DSDOOO~0085.~IJ77
03C010J0233.11378
E2CWOO~0Ie3.IIJ7~
03CAI090233.1138~
03DOI090234.11381
D3CWIO!~2~~.~1~8l,
OJC01030J77.11383
03A010S0329~11384
'P3tWIO'0~87.IIJ85
[ICA009012~.11386
EZCWlt~O~13.~IJ87
OJCOI060IZS.JIJ88
D3C01060126.1t389
,a~"I.ANNUAL A~UIT REPDR!SI88U~~ '.' a!~T~~N~
:PE~~DO ENDING' 29/~~/81:
AU~.~TE~
~NER~Y & ENY!" R~S'SAN! ANA ,~~.
'INAL ~~~~~r ~~3U~D
, q7l~1I~! .
8ROW~ & ~4LDW~LL HALNU!CR CA
WILR9AOS GARD~NS IMP O~8T
C T ~ A~CHI~Aao IL
~7IZ1l~~
q7lZ8/~!
q7lZ8/~!
q71Z8/~ !
,~DNa~ER TOWN8~ND , A8S~~HG I~'
R~YI~W O~ A~~! FORHS
~7IZ8/~ a.
q7lZ9/~!
G'/YAP q9 IPA'8
.~REEN BAY,HETHO WIse
q!/U/~!
qllZ9/~!
HONT~OME~Y ~~HD ,DAYTON ~~
SATT~LLE H~MOHIALRrCH~A~~ MA
NA D~pr ,80~ , HLTH 8ER OLYH'I~
q7lZ9/~ !
q7l~9/!!
NA UNIVE~SI!Y 0' SEATT~~
~ENT~C
qllZ9/~!
q7l~o/H
NATI~~AL A~A~~HY DFSC~~N~Ea
HIGH~ANO VIL~AGE TX
q!/~O/~~
~7I~O/!~
rECHNOLOGY 8V~ ,SANTA H?N~~A c~
AUTOMDTIV! (NY W[STMIN8Tf~ ~A
!7I~O/~!
q7l~O/~!
PLAN R5R~H ~~~.TOUp'S O~A~~~ c~
~[NTAUR ASSU~IAT~!
!!/~~/!~
~7I~O/~~
ROY ~. ~EStUN INCORPaRAr~O
SRaw~ , CALDw~LL WAlN ~R!~~ c~
ARIZONA OH' ~"OENIX AZ
~1I~O/!!
q7/~1/~~
!7IJl/~ ~
!!/~I/!!
~ITY OF, SWI~!HaHE aREG~N
RADIAN CORP TX
!8/U3/tU
qa/~3/~~
RADIAN CORP TII
'An
2!'
9A!~' .~/~O/!~
~A!,!, ~L08~o.
~7Il7l~~
!7I28/81,
07128181
!7/l!/81
!7I'~/8a
!7/~~/81
~9/U/81
!7IS~/81
07/10/81
!7I~!/~~
07130/81
~7/~~/et
09/01181
. ... -.
~8I!~/~1
015/0J/81
-------
HQR'Tn
AUDIT CON!RD~' N~"BER
03CO&O~o&a7.&1~9~
D3AOI040&83.11~91
D1BO.040251.11~92,
P2BW90903~O~II]9~
E2CW00800&~.&1~9~
D3DOI~90238.11~9S
~3C090~O!81.1'~9~
03AOIO]0)25..1J97
03AO&03038~-&'39~
'D3AOIOJ0349~11]99'
03AOI0~O~51-1111~O
.......
.......
01DO&OJ037~-&'4~a
OIAOIO~0]5'-11~~Z
P2BW0090~88.II~O~
03AOIOlog75~&&II04'
P]DOOolot63.11405
Q28W&070]38.'14~6
P2CW00500lJ-11407
03AOt0503~2~114~~
. 03COI050334.U~~9
D3AO.t050phll~ & 0
.03AOIO~035b.&141&
D3A!I~9024&.I&lIll,
03001090242-11413
03AOI0]0348.111114
SEMI-ANNUAL A~OlT REPOR!8 ~88U~~ '. ,8!~T~~N ~
'E~IOD!ND!NG, ~9/JO/8~
AUD.I.TE~
RADIAN CORP TII
'!NAl H~flQR' UlutD.
.... _. .... .... "'.-
~S/~~/!!
~~/~J/!~
~LE"~NTS A880~(SQU R8C~)-
NORTHROP 8~~Y~CES
~8/~3/!!
~8/~3/8~
~EOT~CHNIC'L ~ONS .SANTA AHA CA.
CHEY~NNE WYOH~NG CITY ~~,
~8/~J/!!
~8/~3/!!
AUTOMOTIVE ~NV WESTH!N~!E~ ~A,
~NV ~UALITY BUARD
~8/~1I/!!
~8/~5/!!
Y!R8AR INC'
TRll~JN~ AND ~ENNEOY
98/~5/!!
~8/~5/!!
,SABOTKA &~D I.NC
~RB ASSO~U!~8
98/~5/!!
98/~5/!!
~US ~ORPORAnUN
~OBA'ASSOCIA!~8
9~/~~/!!
98/~Cl/!~
'PINETOP LAK~aIDE SAN D~8! ,AI
'IRS ~OMPANY
98/~7/!~
9t1/~7I!!
,aUI'I'C)LK NY
HNTB KANSAS ~~TV HO
98/~7/!!
~8/~7I!!
KEWA!:!NEE WI
8!M.~. COlU"BUS OH
~8/~7/~!
~8/~7/~!
H~R~~. DAYTUN DH
A!E~8TIL80~ A5SCCDLUM~U' OH
,GANN~TT EL~"~NG ~ORDORY ~A~'
~~/~7I~~
98/~7/!!
8ca ~N~INEENS LONG 8EA~H ~A
~ONE~ & 8TOK~3. AS50~. SA~TO ~A
~8/10/~~
98/10/!!
~NER~Y AND ~N~IRONMENTAL ANAL
~151101~~
. .... .- . . -
. ..... . - ~ - - ..--
'AG!
n
DA!~, .D'~O/!!
~A!~, ~Lua~D
~8/gJ/I5S
~8/~~/D&
08/31181
~'/3~/81
~8/~~/"
~8/~"8S
~0/1"18&
~8/~'''.
08/~'/8&
1O/~'I8&
~8/~~/8.
~8/~7I~1
- ~8I~7I8I
~8/~7I~. :
~S/&O/~&
~81&~18.
~8/~~/~&
-------
HDR "11
AUDIT'CON!ROL; -N~MBE~'
E2AW90~9q~1.1'~t5' .
DS~01040187.11416
03.01~~OI88.114~7
D3AOI0~Ot89.1141~
OSA010001~O.~1419
82BwOt~OO~O.~1429
H3CW1190090.11421
OSOOI0~024~.~1~2~,
P2CW9010~55.11~~~.
P2~W0010157.~1'24
-..J
(XI
P2~W9010~5~.11425
P28W9010Z54.11420.
01C01030Z25.11427
03COq~]0241.11428
.. .
03~01010311.11429
D3C01030~9~.~'43~
03C01030391.1,431
03C01 03039l.1 1432,
03A010bOl]4.114~3
D3A01000l~5.114~~
D3001090244.11435'
P2BW00900b4.~1436
£2CW0080048.11437
P2BW9050J60.11438
PZCNooSoze1.11439
'8~M..ANNUAL A~~~T REPOR!S ~S8U!~ '..8!~T~~~ ~
~E~~OD ENDING' ~9/~~/a~
. AUD.r,T!!'
,BDYL~E~~R ~C
WYLE'LABS
AWAR~INC
~NYI~ON~~NrA~ ,ae & !NG~
.SDUT~WES! ~~8~AR~H INS!
"ICHA!~ K!NN~UY .C! SPO~AN~. MA. !
WA S!ATf SO~ HLTH ,8ERV O~YHPJ~:
~NER~Y & ENV~H RE8CH I~VIN~,CA
8!RA!'~R~ .H
SAca MAINE
STRA!FORO ~!
STRA!FORO ~!
aCOT! [NVIRON T!~H.!Ne:
,aCOTT .[NY!R
SCOTT ENVIR~N.~ENTAL TE~H~~L~G~
-SCOT! ENVI~UN.MENTAL T!~HNOLOG~
.8~O~! ENVIRUN~ENTAL TE~HNOLOG!
.SCOT! ENV!RUN~ENTAL TE~HNOLOG~
£NER~Y RESOU~~ES(WAlK ~AYOEL)
CLfM~NT AS80~' (wALK HA~D~~)
!RACOR H6 USUC ,UN RA~ON CA
~AYH~NDVAl~ ~ ASSOC sACTa CA
BILLINGS MT. CITV OF
CANT~N OH
YPSI~ANTJ H~
'~~NAl' ~~~O~T .~~~U!O
q8/q/!! .
~lI/tl/!!
~8Ittl~!
~lI/tl/!!
~1I/1 tI~~
!8/t1/~!
~lI/tl/!~
q81t II!!
~~/Il/!!
q8/1218!
~~/U/!!
. !~/121!!
q8/12/!!
!a/IU~!
~a/l21H
~8/12I8!
. qeltu!~
~8ItZl8!
~8/U/!!
!~ltll!!
!8/~U!!
!81111~!
q8/U/!!
qe/U/~!
!ISIU/~ !
PAfii!.
ze.
OA!~' ~~/~O/!!
~A!~ ~LOO~O
!e/.1118~
08/11 181
'. .
08/1 tl81
!8/q/a~
08/11181
. . .
~8/11/1!1
!8/1t/e~
!8/U/~~
~8/U/a,
08/11/81
~8/U/81
98/il/11 .
!8/U/a,
08/!Z/81
!8/U/e~
!8/,Z/81.
!8/~~/~1
oa/U/II
- . .
-------
HQR '.'1
AUDIT CON!Ra~' N~MBE~
D3eOl050~~J.114q~
03B01050377.11441
.' .
DJAS1090245.1144l
DJAW1090l4b.11443
03C01090l47.~1~44
E38W905045a.1144"
D3AD1030J79.1S44~
OSC0103034J.1S447'
03AD1030J5!.II~08
H3CW1080~7b..SI44!
-..J
1.0
P2~Wl0bO~14.11450
P2~WI040~55.11451
P2AW10b0073.114!Z
P2CW10.0081.1145J
P2CW1060075.11454
'PZ~W0040l]2.1145S'
P2CW~050280.1145~
03CSI05038~~11457
03AD10~~)4l.11458
D3A010~OS~8.11459
OJA010aOl02.11460
. . ,...
03A~10'01~J.11461
D3API0201~4.1146l, ,
03AD10200b5.11463
PJAWOOlOI5J.SS464
S~MI.ANNUAL!A~UIT REPORr8,IS8~~~ '. ,af~T~~~:~
. PE~10D ENDI~G' ~"~O/al
AU!? lTEE
NOR!~ROP S~HY~CE8 RTP ~~
'NOR!~RO~ SEMYICES RTP ~~
~D~KWELL tN!L NEWBURY '~A~~ ~A
IN'E~8'~TE ~~~CTRaN ANAH~~" c~.
'~R~.!O~PS OHANGE CA
~N H~ARTLAN~ ~C INDIANA~~~I81~
MAR ~NCORPOHA!ED
~[LO~ HAMPTON & A8S0CJA!~8
,~R8 A880CtA!~8 tNC'
MONTANA 8T DO~ [NY SCI H~~~NA,
~DTT'R GAS8Vl~~[' ARt<
ROMEGA
HACK~TT & eA~~'Y
~ULL~N LA
HAUKUMI8 D~L.A
~OMI1~RCE GA
BURTON OH
B, M ~ COLU"6~8 'OH
"!R~~~D4YTUN OH
~RED C HART NY
~RED C HART A3S0~IAT!8'
FRED ~. HAR! ,ASSOCIATES'
ANDE~SON & 8~HOOR INC.
EXXO~ ~ESE~H~H & ENG ~~
I1ALC~~M ~t~N,l~
,'INAL ~~~~~T ~~8U~D
. ~~/U/!1 .
~en~/~~
~8/SII/~!
~8/11/!!
~e/u/!!
~IJ/U/!!
~e/l71!!
~8/171!!
~8/171!~'
~8/~0/!!
~81l0/~!
,~8/20/~!
~81Z0/~!
~8/1~/!!
~eIZO/!~
~8/ZO/~!
98/i!~/!~
~8/20/~!
~8/l0/!!
~81Z II!!
yell&/!!
Y8/Z!/!!
~8121/!~
~8/~&/~!,
Y81l1/a&.
PAGf
17
~A!~' ~~/~O/!~
~A!~ ~L03~D
~8/P/!~
~8/111~1
~812~181'
~8/~~/81
~e/~~/e~
oalZo/es
~e/lO/8S
08/l0/8&
IO/Oi!lU,
~81ZI 181 '
~81ZSl81
~e/~l/e&
-------
HQR ., 1'1
. AUDIT.CONTROLI N~H8E~;
P280~OZ09~7.11~65'
P~8WO 090089..~ t q6~.
PZBW9090l6Q.11467
12CW~090Z~7.IIQ68
'D3AOlo10J10.11469
P2CW~080~58-IIQ1~
03A010JO~78-11~71
H1A090]0118.11472.
D3COIOSO,97-1147P
03C01050198-11474
H3C010So399.1IQ75'
co
o
P2Bwt040060.1147~
P30010~OI~~-~1~77
!tlOtO~OI7S.lt~1~
P2AW1060056..1tQ79
P2CWI060~5.0.11489
P2~WIOb092~.11q81
PlCWtob0020.11482.
. " - .
P28W~09092~.~1~8~.
P2BW90tO~5~.11484
'P28WOOI0059.11465'
. .
E2CWlt~0971.~1~8~.
03AOI0~OS26.11Q87
P2CW9080055.11488
P2ew90~04~7.1t489
. .8~Ml.ANNUAL A~UIT R~POR!S ~aSU!O .. ,S!~T~~N. ~
~E~100 ENDING. ~9/~0/8~
AUOITEE.
~HAR~eS A MAN~ANARO
.8HOW LOW A%~ITV 0'
. NEST~ BRUDIN &8TO~E rN.~..~A
CAReON CITY N.~VAOA
JRB AS80~IA!~S rNCORPO~A!~O
~ALH~R LAK~ 80 COLORAO~
8ION~Tlr.8 ~OR~ORATION
M~OI~AL COL!~~ Of' VAlVA ~~HMO~
8 M 1 COLUM8~SOH
8 M 1 COLUMBUS. OH
'UNIV OF MINNHINN~APOLf~ HN
.G.A"N.EY Be
.ORSANCO
ATHENS GA IM~~ES1 f.UNORE!~V
aTueBS OV!R8~~K .& AS80;'
~AI.H)N ARK
~AHPBELL T~
~EOA~ BAYOR ~A~K u~rLI IX
ENGIN.I!ERING S~IENC~, AR;A~~A c~.
.80UT~ KING8~9N RI
KfNN~8E~ SANl!ARY TREA!M~~r
RDGV~ RIVER OKEGON CIT~ O~
VER8AR tNe
~A~I3PELL' MU~!ANA CITV A'
OIST~ICT D~ ~uLUH81A
~~~AL: ~~~O~T ~~S~~D
~e/21/!~
~8/~1I/~~
~8/~4/~!
~e/~4/~!
~8/l4/8~
~ell~/!!
~8/Z6/~!
~8/Zb/~!
~8/~6/!!
~DIZ~/~!
~8/~~/!!
~e/~b/!!
2~/~~/!!
2~/~~/!!
~8Il~/!!
~~/~6/!!
~e/Z6/~!
~81Z~/!!
28IZfl/!!
~8/Z7/~!
'~8/Z7l!!
98/~7I!!
~81Z7I~!
~8/i8/!!
~8Il8/!!
PAG~'
18
DA!~, ~~/~O/!!
~A!~ ~LDSfO
08/l! 181
08/ill/81
- -' .
. ~8IU/8~ .
~8/l6/~~ .
081l6/8!
~e/Z6/81
!81 l6/e ~
10/01/81
~8Il6/~1
!O/~~/81
08/16181
~e1l7l81
oellUBI
- ."
~8121111~
oa/U/BI
08/211/81
-------
HQR 7'"
AUDIT CON!ROL' N~"BE~
P2BW90~0~~b.11499
03A01030385.11491
03AOI030374.11492
. -. .
£2BOIII000I.1149~
D3AWIOIOI1~.11494
03C01010173.11495
03C01010174.1149b
03AP1010175.1149,
03.COI 0 10 11h11498,
03AOI010177.11499
'03AOI010178.11500
(X)
..... '
03C01010179.11501
03COI010180.115~~.
03CAI010181.11503
03ASI01018l.115~4
03COIOI0183.1150S'
E2~HI190051.115~~
E2CWII~00l9.11507
P28WOO~0Ibb.115~8
'P2BH1090249.11509
EI~OIObOI~1.IISIO
E2AW10601Z8.11511
P2twOO~OIJO.11512
P2AW1040119.11511
H3AOIO~0145.11514
'£MI.ANNUAl'A~OIi REPOR!' ~8SU~~ '. .S!~T~~N ~
P!RIOO ENDING; 09/30/81
.... _. ,.. ...
AUD.l.TE£
'OJ8T~rCT' O~ ~ULUMBIA
'.eYNE~TlCa GHOUP INC
NATIQNAL A~A~~MY OF8C~~~~E8
CG FUND8 USE "ITIG.iro~,.~ CA
.~ C' ~OROAN
TRC'
, .
TRC.
HITR~ ~ORP
0~VE~9PH~N! ,8~~£NeE8
BOLT BERAN~R.~.& NEHMAN
TEMPLE BARK~R. .& .8l0iN!.
TEMPLE BARK~R. .&.SLOANE'
'T!HP~E BARKER & .SLOAN!' .
TEMP~E BARKER & .SLOANE
~NER~Y RESCUR~ES
TEMPLE BAR~f~ & ,SLOAN!
KLIC~ITAT ~UUHTY PUD .1
VAlD~Z ALA8~A CITY OFI
JAMES M MON!~UMERY PASAD~NA;C~'
~NGI~EERIN~ 8~IENCE AR~A~~A'~~
.R.~GI~N VI .IM~HESrFUND
ELLf~S 'ANNIN~ OAKLEV ~H~lr~R
COPP~RAS COV~ TX
'POST BUCKLEY SCHUH JER~I~AN
G.UL' SOUTH HE~EARtH IN'~ .LA
~JNAL ~~~~~T ~~aU~D
081Z8/01
~8/18/~~
~8/Ze/~!
~"/~I/~!
~!/~I/!!
~!/~I/!!
99/~1/!1
~9/~1/~!
9!/~1/!!
99/~1/~a.
~!/~I/!!
~CJ/~a/!1.
~!/~S/~!
~!/~I/!!
99/~1I~!
99/~1/8!
~!/~I/!!
~9/~1/!a.
99/~U!!
~9I~ZI!!
~9/~U~!
~9/~V~!
~9/~ZI!!
~'/~2I!!
~'/~U~!
--- .-. -..------
PAGE
It
OA!~': ~~/~O/!!
~A!~. ~L05~O
~81Z8/~ ~
10/01181
. 40. . .
.09101/81
0'/01181
- . .
10/~7I~1
~9I9J1151
09101/81
~9I~ 1181
~9I~1/81
09/01/81
09101111
09/01/81
~9I9Z/8S
~9I0Z/'1
~9I~Z/81
n/0,/81 .
, , .
-------
HQR 711
AUD!T CON1ROL: N~H8!~'
H'C01060146.115t"
P2CWI0701~4.11516
P2CW10701b7.11517
. . .
P2CW10702Jb-11518
OJD010~Ol51.11519
DJAWI09025Z.115Z0
03C01090Z5~.~15ZI
03COI090254.115ZZ
D3A010~0~87-~15~~
OSAD10Z00'7.11524
.D3COOOiOI4Z.1152S'
CD
il'V
03COIO~~~9q-~15Zb
.82CWOt~004T.11527
D3A010)0423.11528.
D3AOI0JO~14.1152~
82BWOlqO~61.11~~O
!2CWI1~00~1~ll531'
E2AW1040120.1153Z
P2CWI0000S~.ltS3]
P2CW10009J3-11534
D3~OIO~01'3.115~S
EIZ01tl0~42.115~b
E3A01100097-115J7
P2BW70902bl.11538.
03001090255.11539
~~MI.ANNUAL A~DIT R~POA!S~8SU~~'. .a!~T~~~:~
~E~~UD ENDING 29/~~/8~
AUDITEE
~UL~' 80UTHRESEARCH !N~T~A
DUD!O ",,8
ffSTUSltRYSTALI CITY "0
'. - .. .. .
OAKLAWN IH~ D~STRICT
.aca ~NGINEEHSLONG 8EA~H ~A
JAM! ~ON!GOM~"Y t!: PASADENA 'c~
aca ~NGINEEH8 LONG BEA£H ~A
TEKN~KRON R~8~ARCH 8ER~fL~Y c~
WAPO~A INC
.JOHN G' REU'!~H N~
'8YRA~U8E' RES~ARCH' ~ORP~~A!ION.
BI08~HERIC8 ~NCO~PORAT~O
tAMAS w~ Cl!Y O~
~N'O~MATlr.S ~NC
~NVI~O CONTH9L' INC,
LIBE~TYLAKf SEWER'nIS!R.~T w~.
'SPOKANE IU ~pY OF'
~RE!NLEAF/!f~~SCA P[A/~ANM~R
LUHB~RrON p
HounON TX
~OG~5T1CS. MA~AG!MENT I~S!~T~!~'
WSM ~EAS~
KRAMER CHIN & HAYO rNT~
JENKS & HARK1SON
. - ..
DEL' ~RE~N A30~ FOSTER ~I!Y ~A
~~NAL~~~Q~r ~~S~~D
. ~!/~2/!~ .
!'I/~S/~"
~'I/~3/~~
~'/~]/~~
!!/~3/~!
~'/~3/~"
~'I/~3/!!
~9/~]/~~
~!/~q/~~
!!/~Q/!!
~9/~/"!!
~!/~~/!!
q9/~4/8~
!9/~4/~!
~9/~4/~!
!'I/~8/~!
!9/~8/!! .
09/08/!!
q'l/~8/~!
0'1108/81
- .... -...
!!/~8/H
~'I/~9/~!
0"09181
Y"~9/8"
~'II~9/O"
PAGf'
~~
OA!f~ ~~/~O/!!'
~A~. ~LOUD
~9/0ZI81
~9/~~/1I1
~9Ip/lll
oq/U/lI1
09lOJ/81
~9/~O/151
~"~)/III
09/0./151
~9/~"~~
~9/94/81
~9/~1I/151
~9I9"/e.
~9/ge/~'
~9IO!/~.
0910'/81
~9/~'I/81
-------
HQR .,.'
AUDIT CONrRO~' N~HB!~
D3AOI0503ql.~154~
DSAOI0503'~.11541
q]AOI050]'~.115ql,
!Z~H~080~t8.~1543
03A81090l5b.~IS4q
P2~WI0~00b7.115Q5'
03A01040195.1154b
P2twI0QOOb4.115Q1
P3DOIOb0078.IIS48
P2CWI0bO~48.11549
P2~W90~O~Z9.1155~
ex>
w
EtHOIIIOOI5.11551
03COIO!Ol'7.1155i,
D3DOI090i58.1155)
H3AOI070]48.11554
D3C01070357.11S5"
P2BW0010lJ6.IIS56
- .. .
03D010l0l~4.1t551
03COI0IOlqZ.~IS5~
03COIOI0193.11559
03~0I010194.11569
03001010195.11561
'2CWOO)0128.1156i,
P2CW00301l9.lt563
- .
P2tW0030130.11564
,8~MI.ANNUAL.AYOIT REPOR!S ~88U~O '. ~!~T~~N ~
~E~lOO ENDING. ~9/~O/8~
AUDlTEE,
~~O~~ CINCINNATI OH
'INAL ~~~O~T ~~'U~D
09/09181
-...... -.
'~~OC9 tINtINNAT! OH
M R.~ DAYTON UH
~9/~9/8~ .
~'/Y9/~&.
LIND~N CITY ~URP LINDO~ 'Y!A~
,8YST~M sel , 80" .8AN '~J~~O c~
2!/~9I!!
~!/~9I~~
ALBEI1ARLE NC
.80UT~ERN RES~ARCH ~N8T
~!/IO/~~
~'/10/~~
HAYNUVILLf N~
PLANNING & PA~TICJPATI~N ,8Y8.
~9110/~!
~9/10/~~ .
I1ARIpN ARK
HOUSION TEXAS
~9/10/~~
~9110/~!
AP 9! TRAV~~ ADVANCES
ULTRASYSTEM8 ~RVINE CA
~9/10/8!
'!9/10/!!
!~KN~~RON R~S~AR~H 8ER~~~~YC~
WASHINGTON UNIVST LOU~S "0
~!11l/~!
~9/11/!! .
M~R~~. -KANSAS CITY HO
HSSC
~9I1I/~!
~!/11/~!
CAMP DRE8SE~ MCKEE;'
TRC'
~"14/~~
~!/l~/~!
TRC
TRC'
~9/1q/~~
~9/1II/~!
TRC ~NVIR .~D~~~LTAN~a'~N~
KENT tTY .' DEL'
'~9/14/~"
~!/1Q/~~
KENT cn . DEL'
q9/14/~!
9"U/~"
KENT cry. OEL'
. -.. - - . .. .-
.-.- -_.. .--'- .
,A6['
.~~
DA!~,. ~~/~0/!~
~A!~ ~LOS~O
!9I~!/1II
~"/9"DI
~"/~!/III
09118/81
~9/1~/11
10/~!/D1
10/&"151
09110/81
- . .
091&1/8&
~9IU/8~
091111/81
-. - .
~9Il/1/81
~9/1/1/81 '
09/1/1/81
091111181.
-------
HQR78J
AUDIT CONrRO~' N~HB~~
D3COI030381.11~bS' ,
D31:01 0~0C!~~.1156~.
03A010~0424~115&7
'3DW0050315.115&~
E2CW019013l.11569
03A01030429.11570
03C010~0~a3.11571
D3AOI0]0444.11572,
0]A01030405.11513
03COll00100.11574
03A01080084.11575'
co
.t::o
H3CAII~OI~I.1157.
0]COI~90i&8.11577'
03CRI090i~9.11S78
03AS1090l70.1157~
D3001010031.11580
. ,
P28W1010138.11581
P2~WIOI01~~.~158l
P2CWIOI008l.11583
PlCWOOIo21l.11584
. , . . .
P28HI01013S.11585'
P2CW1010083.1158b
03C01030448.11587'
Pltw0080057.11588
'P2CWOI~OI~~.11569
.SEMI-ANNUAL A~~IT RfPDR!8' ~88U~~ ,- .~!~T~~N-~
~E~IOU"!NOING. ~9/~O/8~
AUOUEE
~DNO~O ~OAL O~VELOPHEN! ~O
,INTE~NATIONAL REST & T~CH CO
~ACK~AUCETT A'so~tA;ES' IN~
D!TMOn "A TIE~"SP:I'I!R' O!~~ "I
.8~ATILE If A ~J!Y ;0'
!RACOR JlT~U ~NC'
NU8~OR~ORA!~UN '
JACK FAUCETT ASSOCIATED
. . .' . -.
~NV.I~O CON!R(J~; INC'
BATT~LLE H["O~IAL RICH~AN~"A .
DE.NV~R UNIY~R3ITY 0' CqLOMAOO.
WA ~NJVERSI!Y OF SEATT~!i
T~KN~KRON ~fS~AR~H 8ER~f~~Y ~A.
!EKN~KRON ~fS~AR~H 8ER~EL~Y CA
.ACUR~X CORP MUUNTAIN V~E" CA
~AHP DRESS~H MCKEE' INC.
VILlAGE OF ESSEX JUNCT~ON
W~8T~ORT cr
~88EJ JUNC!~QN Vr
THQI1ASTON CT
THQHASTON C!
WfST~ORT Cr
JNT!~NATI0NA~ RES , TE~H~D""
, ,
HURON SOUT~ ~AKOT A C I T~ .O~ '
FAIR6ANKS ALASKA CITY ~~:
~~NAL ~~~C~T ~~8~~D
~!/14/!!
~!/14/~!
9'l/15/~~
~~/~5I!!
q9/UI/!~ '
q!/l~/!~
~9/1b/!!
9'l/lb/!~
q9/1&/~~
~!/171!!
99/17/~~
99/171!! .
q!lll/!!
~9/Z1/~!
q91Z1/!~
~'l/~2I~!
q'l/ZV~ ~
~!/ZU!!
~!IZU!!
q9IZV~~
q'lIZU!!
~'l/221!!
q9IZV~!
q!IZV~!
q!/2V!1
~A~~
.]i.
~A!~, ~~/~O/!!
~A!~i ~~08~O
~9l14/81
09l14l81
- ,
09lll)/81
!!/.~/~~
~9/U/81
~9I1f)/!'
!9/17/81
!9/111~.
!9nI/8~
09'.21/81
09/Z1/81
. '
0912Z/8I
~9/U"1
09nZ/1i
, . ,
09122/81
, -
09/U/81
09/2Z181
!9/zZ/81
!91ll181
-------
HQA ''''
AUDIT CONTROL' N~M8!~
. 0](;AI090Z7I.115~~
03C010~0149.11591
03401 04010 1..11592,
03AOI0~01'I.11593.
£3000010112.11594
03AOI030450.11595
D]tOloaO~71.IIS9~
02~W9020189.11597
S2CW0020~~J.11598.
a2~W00202~7~11599'
a2two~20202.II~OO
co
U1
,82(;W0020217.116~1
S2CWOO~0212.11602.
,82(;W002020I.1160)
. - . - . , .
.82(;W702005Q.11604
.' ...
a2cw9020il~~116~5'
82CW0020206.11606
.. .
. .82(;W9020iOJ.11607
D3BOI09027~.~16~8
a2BW90902~4.116~~
P3AOIO~02~6.1161~
'P2CW1020059.11611
03AOI020iJo.I1612
D300102013).11613
£2CWI190~17.11~14
8fMI.ANH~AL:A~UIT R£PORYS ~8au~~ '. 8!~T~~~~
PE~~OD 'ENDING ~9/~~/8!
.AUOlTEE
~RO~9N INC [~ MONTE CA
oow ~HE!'11CA\. ~O
~NVJ~ON~~NTA~ at & !NG~
RADIAN CORP
'. -
~LAH~RTY GIA~ARA ASSOC'
~ENN8YLVANJA aTATEUNIV~~'lr~
8rAT~ OF NJ D~~T 0' H!ALr~
ONTA~la NY
~RAMI.NGTON N~
~DTSOAH NY'
LIMA NY
pnT~"ORO HY
~ONE9Y~' ~A~~a NY
ERIE'COUNTY NY
~RIE COUNTY au ,J NY
. . .
BROwNYILLE N~
CAMILLUS NY
. . .
OWLS HEAD .n
.aRI.~NTE~NA~~~NL' "~NLO PARK. C~'
.SAN ~RAN~18~~ CA CITY ~ ~!y o~.
HARR~S AND ASSOt
~ . .
~AHWAY VAL~~Y SEW AUTH
8YRA~~Sf RESEARCH' CORP NY
,URS CO "IJ
. - .
N .ROSE6U~G SA~ D~S! DR
~~NAL ~~PO~T ~~.u~o
. ~!/Z2I!! .
~9/Z2I!~
~91l2l!!
~~IlZl~~
~91l]/!~
~9/Z)/~!
~"/ii!]/!!
~9/U/!!
~9/~]/!~
~9Il3/~!
~9/Z]/!!
~9/ZJ/!!
~9/l3/~!
~9/l1/!!
~91l3/!!
~!1l3/!!
~"'13/!!
~9/n/~!
~91Z1I/!!
~91l1j/!~
~"/Z4/!~
~9/za/~~
. ~!/2S/~!
'~9/lS/~! .
2!/~"~! .
_. .
"A~~
.~!
DA!f!. ~~/~~/~!
~A!! ~LOUD
~9/lZ/II~
nl2Z1111
0912Z/111
09/30/81
nlZ~II'
09IlJ/1II
- -'
~"Il~/DI
~91l~/~1 .
~9IZ~/! ~ .
. ~91ii!~/8~
~9Ia~18 ,
09123/111
0912""1
- . .
~91ii!"/111
~9Iil/'.
~"/~~/~~
-------
HQR "P'
AuotT CO~!ROL' N~MB~R,'
E2CW1'~~07~.11'15 .
03481090214.11616
. .
H3COI090l15.~1'17
P2~w0030235.11618
.82BH00901~~.11'1 9
S2~W9090~~4.11'2~
'82tw0090195~11'ZI
82~W9~90287.116Z2.
01AP1090277.11623
;82~W9.90i~4.11~24 .
ex>
m
82CW9~90l84.11.25'
03C01030382..1626
. .
.82CH0090138..1.27
S2~W0090l74..1628
82CW109005~.11'29'
82CHI0!00.8.1163~'
P2BHOO)Ol~9.~116~1
P2CW90~0219.11632.
P28HOOJOIZl.1163~.
P2CH~0~0024.11'34
P2Cwo030111.11.35'
P2CWOOJ0022.11636
. .. '.
P2CWOO~OlI9.11.37
P2CW0030206.11638.
P2CW90303~2.11639
8~MI.ANNUAL,A~~~T RfPOR!8: ~88U~~'. 8E~T~~~~
..
~E~~9D ENDING ~9/~~/8~
AU~l.TE[
'INAL ~~p'OMT ~~au~o
~"~"~~
ASHTON IDAHU !lTYOF
~AL: ~ORPORA~lUN RICHMO~O ~A
~~1l5/!!
~'nS/!~
'~A U~IVERSI!~ 0' LOs A~G~L~'
BUTLER. PA
~"28/!!
~"Z8/~~
80UT~LAKE TAHOE PUD CA
. .
~XNA~D CA CITY OF
.SAN ~OA~UIN ~A CITY 0'
~91Z8/~ !
~!/Z8/!!
SANTA ANA WAr~RSHEDPRQJ~~T .~~~
ANOE~SON.Nl~~ULS/WRIC~MONO ~~:
~!1l8/~~
~'ll9l~~
~HINq'eA5!N HUN! WO CU~A"CN~A
H~KI~L[VVI~L~, C80 CA
091Z8/!!
~!1Z8/~!
DR J~HPEI AND!J
WINTON ~ANl~A~Y OIST H~NTON C~
q9Il8/~!
~!1i!8/!!
~ARH~L SD CA
,LOS ANG~LES ~ao "HITTI~R ~A
~91l8/t1~
Y9Il8/~!
MODESTO CA Cl!Y 0',
,8US5~)( cry . PEL
~!1C!8/!~
~!/Z8/~~
WN O~ BLOOMSBuRG
HARRISBURG SEWAGE. PA
~!1C!8/!~
99/i!8/~! .
~NI0~ 8EWE~ ' DISP.PA
LANCASTER. ~A
9"i!8/~!
~9/i!8/~!
MUNCY BOR " PA
. .. . -
q91i!9/~!
091Z9/~~
E' HHITELAND '. PA
HOLl~DAYSBUK~ . PA
q91Z9/~!
9!/Z9I~!
TWP OF rlARRISUN'. PA
. .
'An
,)4
~A!~~' !~/~O/!!
9A!~ ~LU8~D
~9/i!5/e.
~,/~~/e.
~9/le/8a
~9IZ!/'a
09li8/81
09/le/81
.. . .
nllfS/et
-------
HQR "P .
AUDIT .CONTROL N~MB!~
P2CW~0~02~5~11~4~
82CW9020207.11641
S2CW00202~O.1 Ib4i!,
82CW0020208.11603
. . .
82~WOOZ02~4.1164q
,82CH002021 SOIl 1 US'
B2CWOOZ0235.1164~
PZC~'030260.116q1
PZCN00302~8.1160~,
'P2CWOoJOi85.11649
. .
00
-...J
P2CW~0~0i!1).lt659
P2Cw9030165.11~51
P2BweOl017..11652
P2CW0010185.11653
. .. .'
P2CW9030222.11654
,P2CWOO~0190.11b55'
P2CW90J0159.11656.
P2CW90303bb.llb57
P2CW90303~1.11658.
02AH1010164.11659
~3DW00101]1.11bb9
D3AS10l0219.11661
'D3AOI 01 OZZO.I 16b2,
. .
D3AOI010221.116b3
03A81010222.11604
- .....,.'-' - ..
. .. . ..".. ." .~_.
. ... - . ".-- - .. _. ., -. -", ." ," - - .' - - .
. - -. -. -"-
8~MI.ANNUALA~Oli RfPOR!8 ~88U~~ .. ~!~T~~~ ~
PE~.ICII) ENDING, ~9/~9/8~'
AUDITEE
JEFHRSON . PA
",'" -.
~~NAL ~~~9~!:~~'~~D
~!/~9/!~
NORTHPORT NY
NORTHPORT NY
~9/~9/1S~
'99/U/It !
,GREEC! NY
~LHI~~ NY
'9!/Z9/81
99/i!9/~!
~[NTHAL 8QYA~~1 NY
N~W ~UAORAN! NY
~!1i!9/!!
~9/~9/1S!
COLUMBIA
;~fFf~1:'50N. PA
99/U/8~ .
~9/19/!!
~A8T!OWN M~N' AUTH,...'A
N LO~DONOE~~~ .. ~A
99/~ClI'!
~!/~9/!!
LACKAWNNA RIVfR 8AS S£~ A~TH..
LISBQN MA
99/n/~!
09/29/81
fLLf~GTON ~!
TREMON'!' HUN
. '. .
091l.9/8 &
.... . -..
LANCASTER ... PA
" - -
~9/]0/~!
9,!/J.0/!!
TRX.80RQ ~~N AUT~
110NT~DHJ~RY TW~' HUN Sf'" A~!H
~9/~~/~&
99/~O/!~
R[ADJNG TW~ H~N AUTH ..' PA
~HAR~E8 J K~A~NO~" AI .
~9/~0/~!
~9I~O/~!
DU'R~8NE H~N~Y £NG
[NER~V .RESOUR£ES CO MA.
~,!/~O/~!
~9/~O/~~
~NER~YRE5aUR~~S HA
ENER~Y RESOU~~ES MA
~!/~O/!!
~9/~0/8!
ENER~Y'RESCU~£ES CO IN~ ~A
~,!/~0/!!
. .. - -'
. ..
'AGI
.)1'
OA!~~ ~~/~O/!!
~A!~ ~LUS~O
09129/81
. . .
~Cl/i9/'"
~91i9/e~
~9129/81
Olln9l8&
~9I~!/el
~9I~~/~a .
~9I~~/8 a
~9I~~/8~
09/30/81
~9I3~/'"
-------
HQR 717
AUDIT CONrRO~ N~MB!~,
03AP10l0lZ3~11~&S' ,
D3CWI0102Z4.11~b~
03A81010la5.11~07'
03A81010ZZ6.116b~
D3tOIOl0lZ9.11009
P2CW10~OOb8.llb70
. .
D3A01000158.11071
P2CW10b008e.l1&72
03AOI600157.1107]
D3A01000155.11074
(»
,(»
D3C010b0154.11b75'
03A010bOI'l.llb7~'
E2Bwt04017~.11071
P2CH10~007Z.11.7~
[IZ011'O~44.~1~79
03AOtO~O~2l.1108~
E2CW80~Oi95.11~81
02BHI050Z~7.1Ib82 '
~]C01050201.1Ib83
D2BWtOS0141.llbS4
02A01050440.llb85'
D3AOI050QJS.l1b80
03C01050444.11687
H3A01050389.11068
D3A010S03Q4.11b89
.(
,SEMI-ANNUAL AUOIT REPORla ~S8U~~ '. S!~T~~~ ~
~ . . .
PE~,IOO ENDING ~q/~0/8~.
AU!! ITEE
A8T' A8S0C tNC MA
HALD~N'RES~A~~H OIV HA
BIOA8SAN Sya!~HS CORP "A
~~A ~DRP Tf~H DIV MA
~NVI~DNHEN!A~ RESA & T~~~ ~NC.
SUHTER NH
SOUTHWEST ~~8~AR~H INS!
MAURI,CE LA
8DUT~W~S! ~f8~ARtH INS!
~AO~AN tORI'
RADIAN CORP
, -
RAOIAN,CORP
~A O~PT NA!U~AL:RE80UR~~a
,SASAKWA MUNt~~PAL' AUTH QK~A
CDLL~CTION O~ AUOIT DI~A~~~W~~
~RC S'fST~M8 I,NC
FRES~O CA ~1!'f 0'
,GL08~TROTT~"S ENG GRUP ~H'O ~~'
MICH~GAN STA!~ U E/LAN~I~~ Ml
c; D MIN~ U08!ON HA
tOM JNC BOSTON HA
. "
BCL' ~OLUI'I8U8 OH
RHAL SOUTH ~~~CAGO IL!
UNIY DFMINN S~ PAUL MN
RALT~CH S,S! MADISON W!
'INAl ~~p'O~T ~~5~~D
, ~9/~O/!!& .
~9/~O/~~
~9/~0/~~
~9/~O/!!~
~!/~~/!~
~9/~O/~~
~9/~O/~~
~9/~~/~!
~9/~~/~~
~9/~O/~~
~~/~O/~~
~!/~~/!~
~9/~0/8~
~9/~O/~~
~!/~O/!~
~~/~~/8~
~!/~O/!~
09/]0/81
... .. --
q9/~O/~~
~!/~O/!~ '
~9/~0/~~
q9/~O/~~
~!/~~/~~
~9/~O/~~
~9/~0/~~
PAGE'
- _.'
u
OA!! ~ ~ ~/~O/!!
~A r~ ~LUSfO
, ~9/~~/81
09/]0/81
~9/]0/81
09130181
~9/3~/1I.
~9/:S~/U
09/10/81,
09/30/81
.... ..... .
10119/81
~9/'~/et
~9/~~/~~
~9I]~/et
~9/:S~/1I1
091]01"1
09110/81
. . ,
~9/~~18~
-------
-. . .. .
HQR n '7
)
ex>
\0
- ..'--
AUDIT .CONTROL N~H8~~
03A01DS0375.11~qO
OJC010S0l1~.~1691
03A01050378.11~92.
03AOI050)92.llb9]
03COS05039b.lt~94
D3A0105040~.llb95'
P3CS70501bl.llb9b
!ZCW80S0437.11b97
'8E"I.ANNUAL'~~UIT~EPOR!S ~SSU~~ .a!~T~~~ ~
PERIOD ENDING 29/~O/8~
AUOITEE
~INAL ~~~O~T~~aU~D
~'/]O/~~
B!M!~..COL~M8US OH
8AJL~YI8 M~RKfTING CIN~ ~~
~!/~O/~!
. Y'/~O/~!
PEOCO CINCINNATI OH
B H I COLU~HU~ OH
~fl/]O/O!
'09/]O/~!
INTEST LAeIN~ HINNEAP~~I' HN
I.IT ~HICAGCJ I~'
~fl/]O/O!
~9/~~/~!
.SHEL8Y~ILLE INDIANA
.SAL~11 INOIANA
Y!/~O/~!
pAn.
.. '- - ..
:n
OA!~' ~~/~O/!~
!?A!~, ~LO:SfD
09/30/81 .
09/10181
. .. .
~9/~~/el
. .
7'/.~;~
..:~~
....
<:{":;....
"-;;"";""
-'.
. ~l
-------
'}
"., i
HOr.r7JU
AUOIT RtPURTs IN FOLlOW.UP S,STEM
AUDIT REPURTs TSSUEU
LE~S THAN SIX MUNTHS
~U~HFR OF REPORTS
FEDERAL SHARE aUFSTIONEO
FEryERAL SHARE SAVINGS
FEryERAl ~HARE FUPGIVEN
b - 12 HnNTHS
~UHUFR UF REPURTS
FEOEPAL SHARE OUFSTInNED
FfOEPAl SHARE SAVINGS
FEDERAL SHARE FURGIVEN .
1.0
o
t'2 - 1/\ MljNTH5
iIU'1dFR OF REPORTS
FEDERAL SHARF qUESTIONED
FEDEQAl SHARE SAVINGS
Ffl)F.IJAl SHARF F(lAGI \lFN
'H'FR 1/\ '10NTH5
NIJ'1BFR OF REPURTS
FEnEPAl SHARE QUEST InNED
FEDERAL SHARE SAVINGS
FEnERAl SHARE FURGIVEN
TOTAL
NIJ~RFR UF REPORTS
FEDERAL SHARE QUFSTInNEn
FEDERAL SHARE SAVINGS
FEDERAL SHARE FORGTVEN
EPA UF~ ICE UF THF AssIST ANT TNSI'EC TUR uE"E~AI FljH AUIII TS
!JAIE 111/17/1:11
SHIIANNIJAL ST6TIIS Ht.pnRT flN HESlJLIJTJUN '.If AlIlIIIS
"'fRTUI! t.NDINGI /'f'i/JU/81
6EGINNItjG
nF
PERUm
o 31 H 18 ,*
H2
32,325,131
209
22,217,bR9
171
17,657,5?}
211
SII,10J,Q18
915
Ilb,Sld,7111
A 110 f1
HEYURP;
IS9UEO
DoPING PEIHUl1
. 9Ui!
111,715,11"'0
. . 'i('B
117,7IS,1I5b
AU!) 11
~t.t"UH I S
CLUStlJ
IIUHINb I'~KIUI!
t.NO
IjF
I'!:Hlt)l!
09/JU/1I 1
bU~
10,.}911,4b1
J'bl/,~lIu
b,77J,U-1
.3\'b
lIJ1,bll~,7f7
H~
2'1,!;IIU,'Ibli
Ib,1I5j,S~b
Dd?l,IISII
S~
II , i! Ij 1 ,7 f t\
llJj
11,6i:'~,bB
.s,b51,lIbd
Hd,.,~,tt>c:.
Itl
.5, 7'i1l, In 'I
jl'J
IIb,S5~,IIU2
.ll,It>9,9I\b
SIl,jfl~,lIlb
')'1
<:'b,b'lIl,lJf.s
1,l/oJ
'I1j,J1!',lIbb
s'),tI'ItI,clU
h~,1151,2110
lOti
III !I , '11 S , q II 1
Qifference in numbers of reports and Federal Share of Costs Questioned between
this report am our previous Semiannual refX)rt resulted. fran corrections made
to data in our Audit Tracking am Control System.
*
~
B.
.....
x
w
-------
f\
HOR no
AI.II'I T R[PlJRT~ IN fOLLOW.UP SYSTEM
\0
.....
. AunlT REPORT~ ISSUEU
LESS THAN SIX MUNTHS
~UM8ER OF REPORTS
FEnER4L SHARE QUFSTIONED
FEOERAL SHARE SAVINGS
F[~ER4L ~H4UE FUPGIVEN
b . 12 MONTHS
~UHHFR UF REPORTS
FEOEPAL SHARE QUESTIONED
FfOEDAL SHAUE SAVINGS
FEOERAl SHARE FUPGIVEN
12 . III MIJNTHS
HUM!3fR OF REPORTS
FEDE~AL SHAUf QUESTIONED
FfrifQAL ~HAUE SAVINGS
Ff.l)fPAL SHAHf. FURGI VF.N
flVFR II' '101llTH5
NOMBFR OF PEPURTS
Ffl)ERAL SH4RE QUESTIONED
FEDERAL SHARE SAvINGs
F[nERALSHARE FURGIVEN
TOTAL
NijM8ER OF REPORTS
Ft:nU~AL SHARE QUESTIONEIJ
FEnEPAI. SHARE SAVING~
FEDERAL SHARf FORGIVEN
EPA uHICE OF THE" ASSI!!TANT INSI'ECIUR (jt.Nt~AI Flit< hUIIIT:)
UA It. 10117/"1
SOI1ANNUAL STA TIIS Ht:pORT nil! HESULUT tUN IJ~ AIJUI' S
PfHTUU t.NnlNGr 1\'i/JO/81
BEGINNING
Of
PERIOU
QJ/31/81
AUOIT
Rf"UHT~
. I saUEO
Dwn.NG PERWO
AUt) II
1It.t'URIS
CL.US~I)
"U~JNb f'HqUIl
t."'0
IIF
...t. H (1)\)
Oq/ju/>ll
H2
32,325,131
9ui!
111.715,11'>'"
0112
lu,3qU,lIb7
..s,ol/,~IIU
0,17.s,2U
}\lo
1'17,011 2,7 "
209
22,271,oR9
.s7~
2'1,~6U,qbll
10,IIS3,sC!0
ud?i,IU8
j~
II,KIII,7/t;
. 171
11,8'571523
IOj
1I,6i:!i,oB
.s,051,1I1>1)
t;,lh~,lh~
It!
5.7'111, 'n 'I
VI
SII,I03,lIn
31'3
IIO,S'>~, till 2
1'1
.to, 0'1.11, II' j
, 973
120,5103,1'11
'i(1/j
117,115,II';b
1,lIbj
'd,.sIlY,'bb
\,>, II 'Iii , ii'U
h~,II<;I,~Llo
lilt!
I'I tI , '11 ~ , II" ,
-------
"
'"
___--m[..
OFF'lCE
OF
AIII>\T
------ ------
operations]
Sta ff
----.-
1.0
N
Internal
Audits Staff
.11 .I~-~~
Eastern Field Hid-Atlantic Southern field Northern Field
Division field Division Division Division
I I- I '----_J ---..-I
-----
OFFICE
OF
INSPECTOR GENEIlAL
OFFICE OF
- MANAGEMENT -
AND TECIIIIICAL
ASSESSMENT
[-
"-_.-
J
,-- ~
14estet'n Field
Division
'-------.I
r-:--C-=C
fastern field 11id-Atlantlc
L .~~~j~I_~_n__1 ~leld Divis lor
I
Southern Field Northern Field
Division Division
L.. --.--J
_J
OFFICE
OF
INV ESTIGA TlONS
-~
Western
Divis
L__- -- ---
i
5-
1-"
X
~
-------
170
160
150
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
o L
. '. STAFFING PATTERN OF THE OIG
134
, ~----
.128 ------
..-- - - - - ......
120
85
20
ApJ:emix 5
169
~
....
....
....
"'... 121
... . 121
~---
--- - _. ......---------
\ 119" 120
Total on-board
Staff
120
. . 87
23
~8
77
113
\
Auditors
/27
1 (j .
\
Inves tigato rs
10/1/80
1/ 31/81
'... 'jC
,
'.
------- -",---- .
10/1/79
.---.--
I
1 /31/ 80
I
6/30/80
93
."'-." _.~ .. - --
3/31/81
1 0 / 1 /81
"-'---'-'-----'",,-_._._~ .----
.---.---- -..-.-.----"--
------- |