! UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
'/ WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
JAN 2 4 1989
OFFICE OF
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Audit Report No. M5BFL9-11-0022-9100168
Audit of Interagency Agreements with
the Department of Energy for Superfund
Activities - Fiscal 1987
FROM: Kenneth D.
Divisional Inspector General for Audit
Internal Audit Division (A-109)
TO: Harvey G. Pippen, Director
Grants Administration Division (PM-216)
Gary M. Katz
Director, Financial Management Division
At our request the Office of Inspector General, Department of
Energy, performed the subject audit. The Department's summary
report and individual reports are attached. The reports discuss
problems with ( 1 ) costs incurred after the period of performance
for an agreement had expired, (2) not accounting for Superfund
costs separately, and (3) costs incorrectly charged to one agree-
ment. The report also discusses differences in fiscal 1987
expenditures between EPA and Department of Energy records for
six interagency agreements. We believe that Financial Management
Division personnel should verify EPA records for amounts expended
during fiscal 1987 and contact the Department of Energy to resolve
any remaining discrepancies . Accordingly, we are making the
following recommendations .
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend that the Director, Grants Administration Division:
1. Amend the period of performance for Interagency
Agreement DW8993070901 to cover costs incurred during
fiscal 1987.
2. Include, in future interagency agreements, requirements
for the Department of Energy to account for Superfund
costs separately and maintain documentation necessary
for cost recovery actions .
-------
3. Not reimburse the Department of Energy for $2,035 of
costs incorrectly charged to Interagency Agreement
DW8993173901.
We recommend that the Director, Financial Management Division
verify fiscal 1987 expenditures for the six subject interagency
agreements and work with the Department of Energy to resolve any
discrepancies.
ACTION REQUIRED
In accordance with EPA Directive 2750, the action official is
required to provide this office with a copy of the proposed
determination on the findings within 150 days of the audit report
date. The Director, Grants Administration Division, is the action
official for this report.
Should your staff have any questions concerning this report,
please have them contact John Walsh on 475-6753.
Attachment
-------
APPENDIX
DISTRIBUTION OF REPORT
Chief, Financial and Administrative Management
Section, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response (WH-548D)
Director, Financial Management Division (PM-226)
Director, Procurement and Contracts Management
Division (PM-214)
Chief, Grants Information and Analysis Branch (PM-216F)
Regional Administrator, Region 1
Divisional Inspector General for Audit, Eastern Division
Regional Counsel, Region 1
Agency Followup Official (PM-208)
Agency Followup Official (PM-225)
Attn: Resource Management Division
-------
I r U2S i
nited States Government Department of Energy
nemorandum
DATE: October 28, 1988
1YTO
TNOf: IG-34
Summary Report on "Superfund Costs Claimed by the Department
of Energy Under Interagency Agreements with the Environmental
Protection Agency - Fiscal Year 1987"
T0 Letter Report No.: CR-L-89-1
Controller
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthor1zat1on Act of 1986
(SARA) requires the Departmental Inspectors General to
annually audit and report on Superfund payments, obligations
and reimbursements.
Although the Department of Energy (DOE) has not received a
direct Superfund appropriation, 1t has received approxi-
mately $2.7 million as of Fiscal Year (FY) 1987 through
Interagency agreements with the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
The purpose of our review was to determine (1) 1f Interagency
agreement obligations of Superfund monies were recorded
correctly on DOE records and (11) whether costs claimed by
DOE under Individual Interagency agreements were fair and
reasonable, adequately supported, equitably allocated, and
met generally accepted accounting principles and standards.
The scope of the audit was limited to reviewing the
accounting records and other documents supporting FY 1987
Superfund obligations and related costs claimed by DOE. The
audit was conducted 1n accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards and included such tests of the
data and records and other procedures as were considered
necessary to satisfy the scope of audit. We reviewed
selected controls over Interagency agreements, but did not
review internal control systems of the Department or Its
Integrated contractors. Technical aspects of the integrated
contractors' contract performance were also evaluated. Since
our review was limited, 1t would not necessarily disclose all
Internal control deficiencies that may exist.
The audit Included Headquarters and the Chicago, Oak Ridge,
and Richland DOE Operations Offices, involving work at
Argonne National Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory,
and Pacific Northwest Laboratory. Individual reports were
Issued to each operations office (see Attachment 1). These
reports address local findings and make recommendations to
DOE management. This report summarizes the results of the
reports to the operations offices and our work at
-------
Headquarters on the Department's use of EPA Superfund monies
during FY 1987.
Background
Interagency agreements are cost reimbursable contracts used
by an agency to acquire goods or services from another
agency. In FY 1987, EPA entered Into 18 Interagency
agreements with DOE to acquire environmental services such as
assessing contamination, testing materials, disposing of
contaminated material, and certifying sites as decontam-
inated. These agreements Involved approximately $2.7 million
of obligations and $1 million of claimed costs.
Most of the Interagency agreements Involved only Superfund
activities. Some, however, Included a mixture of both
Superfund and non-Superfund work. Since DOE Headquarters
does not centrally manage or control Interagency agreements,
EPA enters Into the agreements directly with DOE field
offices.
Results of Audit
Our audit of 12 out of the 18 Interagency agreements
disclosed no material problems with the recording of about
$2.2 million of obligations on DOE records. These agreements
claimed costs of $930,019. Of this amount $680,539 was
acceptable, $122,226 was questioned, and $127,254 was
unresolved.
The questioned costs of $122,226 Involved agreements where
work was performed by Oak Ridge and Argonne National
Laboratories. Of this amount, $120,191 was questioned because
the Oak Ridge National Laboratory accounting procedures for
EPA interagency agreements were not adequate to document
claimed costs. The remainder of the questioned costs
resulted because Argonne National Laboratory had Incorrectly
posted travel costs totaling $2,035 to the wrong agreement.
The $120,191 of claimed costs at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory was questioned because the Operations Office did
not (1) have adequate controls to accurately accummulate and
bill the employee time costs to the specific tasks worked on
and (11) retain records of employee time charges to support
costs incurred against Interagency agreements. Four of five
Interagency agreements we audited under the Oak Ridge
Operations Office Included Superfund and other EPA program
obligations within the same agreement. Supporting records do
-------
not show the actual cost of Superfund activities 1n the four
agreements. Consequently, we could not determine the actual
costs. Costs were accumulated and billed against the
agreements' oldest funding source rather than against the
specific program funding source to which they applied.
Thus, the Oak Ridge Operations Office's systems
did not acccurately accumulate and bill the cost of each EPA
obligation separately within each Interagency agreement.
Also, documentation of Individual Internal time-cards
should be retained for 3 years to support claimed costs for
Superfund. See Attachment 2 for further details on Superfund
obligations, claimed costs, and results of audit.
The unresolved costs of $127,254 were Incurred at Pacific
Northwest Laboratory. Of this amount, $121,692 were
unaudited subcontract costs and will be Included in future
reviews. The remaining unresolved costs of $5,562 were
Incurred after the agreement had expired.
Full Cost Recovery
The full costs of services and materials for DOE's Superfund
activities were not being billed and collected by the three
DOE Operations Offices. DOE charged EPA for the materials
and services costs Incurred, but failed to collect an
additional 7 percent for depredation and 16 percent for its
administrative costs. DOE Order 2110.1A on pricing of
materials and services requires full costing of the materials
and services when the customer 1s outside the Federal
Government. The current agreements with EPA do not recognize
that Superfund work 1s ultimately charged to organizations
outside the Federal Government. If full cost pricing were
used, an additional 23 percent ($214,099) of the claimed
costs ($930,867) would have been collected during FY 1987 at
the three locations we audited.
In passing legislation authorizing Superfund, the Congress
Intended that all Superfund expenditures be recovered
whenever possible from the non-Federal Government
organization responsible for the environmental pollution.
When the EPA conducts the clean-up operation, 1t collects all
the costs of cleaning up the pollution from the responsible
non-Federal Government organization. Those organizations, not
EPA, benefit from and are liable for the costs of services
and materials provided. The operations offices should comply
with DOE's order by charging the full costs for Superfund
work.
-------
The operations offices are not recognizing that Superfund
work Is different from other EPA work because the current
Interagency agreements do not indicate that these costs are
going to be passed on to non-Federal Government
organizations. Audit reports issued to the individual DOE
operations office managers discussed the need to charge full
costs for Superfund work on EPA's Interagency agreements.
This issue is being addressed through the Department's audit
resolution process.
The-results of our review were discussed with the Deputy
Controller on October 6, 1988. If you wish additional
details on the audit, please contact David Broadwell,
Assistant Manager, Capital Regional Office, at 586-8937.
ni i i i a in u w i 11 d u v * i
Manager, Capital Regional Office
Office of Inspector General
Attachments
-------
Attachment 1
Department of Energy
Inspector General Reports On
Superfund Costs - Fiscal Year 1987
ER-CC-88-30, Interim Audit of Costs Claimed by the Department
of Energy Under Interagency Agreements No. DW8993024601 and
DW8993173901 for Work Performed by Argonne National
Laboratory, dated June 24, 1988.
ER-CC-88-31, Interim Audit of Costs Claimed by the Oak Ridge
Operations Office on Selected Interagency Agreements with the
Environmental Protection Agency for Work Performed by Martin
Marietta Energy Systems, dated July 12, 1988.
WR-0-88-6, Audit of Costs Incurred on EPA Superfund
Interagency Agreements With The U. S. Department of Energy
Richland Operations Office - October 1, 1986 through
September 30, 1987, dated September 1, 1988.
-------
Attachment 2
Summary of Superfund Obligations, Claimed Costs
and
Laboratory*
Agreement Number
*DW8993034101
*DH8993079301
*DW8993147501
*DW8993200201
*DW8993214701
IDW8993024601
#DW8993173901
+DW8993055001
+DW8993070901
+DW8993090101
+DW8993104301
+DW8993137701
Total
Results of Audit
Available
Fundl ng
$ 40,000
19.000
19.980
450,000
315,000
44,000
205,880
55,860
5,701
955
72,894
960,956
$2,190,226
for Fiscal
Claimed
$ 8,152
0
19,639
107.226
0
8,427
133,052
30,919
5.562
0
23.859
594,183
$930,019
Year 1987
Costs
Unresol ved
$
5.562(3)
121,692(4)
$127,254
Questlone
$ 8,15211
(1
14,541(3
97.498C
C
2.035C
0
$122.226
* ORNL - Oak Ridge National Laboratory
# ANL - Argonne National Laboratory
+ PNL - Pacific Northwest Laboratories
(1) The interagency agreements at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory used an arbitrary process of charging the oldest
funds first. Consequently, we were unable to determine the
correct amount of claimed costs for agreements with multiple
sources of funds.
(2) Travel costs were Incorrectly posted and claimed by
Argonne National Laboratory.
(3) Costs were Incurred by Pacific Northwest Laboratory after
the interagency agreement expired.
(4) The subcontract costs of Pacific Northwest Laboratory
will be audited In the future.
-------
REPORT NUMBER: ER-CC-88-31
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF AUDITS
EASTERN REGIONAL OFFICE
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
Interim Audit of Costs Claimed
by the Oak Ridge Operations Office
Under Selected Interagency Agreements
With the Environmental Protection Agency
for Work Performed by
Martin Marietta Energy Systems, Inc.
October 1, 1986 to September 30, 1987
Contractor information contained in this audit report nay be
confidential. The restrictions of 18 USC 1905 should be
considered before this information is released to the public.
This report may not be released to anyone outside the Department
of Energy without the approval of Headquarters Office of Audits,
except to an Agency involved in negotiating or administering the
contract. Furthermore, the information contained in this report
should not be used for purposes other than those intended without
prior consultation with the Department of Energy's Office of
Inspector General regarding its applicability.
Prepared By: Irving Burton Associates, Inc.
Date: July 12. 1988
-------
REPORT NUMBER: ER-CC-88-31
INTERIM AUDIT OF COSTS CLAIMED
BY THE OAK RIDGE OPERATIONS OFFICE
UNDER SELECTED INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS
WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOR WORK PERFORMED BY
MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.
OCTOBER 1, 1986 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1987
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Purpose and Scope 1
Circur.stances Affecting the Audit 2
Audit Results 2
Recorjr.endat ions 4
Management Reaction 4
Auditor Comments 5
Statement of Amounts Obligated, Costs Claimed,
and Audit Results - Exhibit A 6
Statement of Superfund Costs Claimed and
Audit Results - Exhibit B 7
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF AUDITS
EASTERN REGIONAL OFFICE
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37630
INTERIM AUDIT OF COSTS CLAIMED
BY THE OAK RIDGE OPERATIONS OFFICE
UNDER SELECTED INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS
WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOR WORK PERFORMED BY
MARTIN MARIETTA ENERGY SYSTEMS, INC.
OCTOBER 1, 1986 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1987
REPORT NO: En-CC-88-31 JulV 12» 198B
FVF.FOSE AND SCOPE
As required by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act cf 1986, we have performed an interim audit of costs incurred
under five interagency agreements betveen the Department of
Energy's (DOE) Oak Ridge Operations Office (ORO) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Martin Marietta Energy
Syster.s (Energy Systems) performs the work requested in these
agreements under the existing contract with ORO. The five
anteragency agreements and related work descriptions are:
Aareerent Description
DW8993034101 Assistance in genetic toxicology studies.
DW8993079301 Technical assistance in implementing a new
analytical methodology for health risk
assessments. • .
* . •
DW8993147501 Information support to EPA's Office of Waste
Programs Enforcement. ^ r
DW8993200201 Establishment of preanalytical holding tines
for environmental samples.
DWB993214701 Assist EPA in risk assessment activities
under the Toxic Substances Control Act.
-------
The purpose of the audit was to determine the allowability
of costs that were allocated to the superfund obligation within
these agreements and claimed for the period October 1, 1986 to
September 30, 1987. Allowable costs are costs incurred that are
reasonable, allocable, and in accordance with the terms of the
interagency agreements, applicable cost principles, lavs and
regulations, and generally accepted accounting principles and
practices appropriate to the particular circumstances.
The audit scope was limited to reviewing the accounting
records and other documentation supporting Energy Systems'
claimed costs. Specific transactions were tested. However,
Energy Systems' entire cost control system and technical aspects
of Energy Systems' performance were not evaluated.
As defined in the above scope, the audit was conducted
according to the sections of the generally accepted Government
auditing standards that applied and included tests of the
contractor's data and records and other audit procedures
considered necessary in the circumstances. The contract between
OHO and Energy Systems, the DOE Acquisition Regulations, and the
terns and conditions of the agreements were used as criteria to
evaluate costs.
CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING THE AUDIT
Four of the five interagency agreements audited included
superfund and other EPA program obligations within the same
agreement. Energy Systems accumulated and billed costs for the
total interagency agreement rather than the individual program
obligations. Billed costs were applied to the individual EPA
prograr. obligations on a first-in, first-out basis. For example,
the earliest EPA program obligation received must be completely
exhausted before costs are applied to the next obligation. EPA
did not require ORO and Energy Systems to account separately for
superfund costs incurred. Consequently, Energy Systems' records
do not show the actual cost of superfund activities for four of
the five agreements audited.
We did not perform technical reviews of the interagency
agreements. Accordingly, our recommendations for acceptance of
cost are qualified pending the contracting officer's technical
review of Energy Systems' performance.
AUDIT RESULTS
We determined that Energy Systems' records reflect superfund
obligations received and costs claimed against these obligations
that either agreed with or could be reconciled to EPA records.
Exhibit A contains detailed information by interagency agreement.
As the result of the failure to accumulate superfund costs
separately, as discussed in the special circumstances affecting
the audit, we were unable to determine or audit the actual cost
-------
incurred for four of the five agreements with superfund
activities. Instead we elected to audit the $135,017 reported as
incurred and disclose that this amount was based on applying
total interagency agreement costs to the individual EPA program
obligations on a first-in, first-out basis. Costs totaling
$120,191 are questioned because:
o , Employee internal time distribution cards were not
available to support labor costs. Although we did not
evaluate the entire cost system at Oak Ridge National
Laboratory we noted that a January 1988 Internal Audit
report disclosed significant weaknesses in the labor
distribution system in effect during Fiscal Year 1987.
o A portion of indirect costs is based on direct labor.
o Costs charged to interagency agreement No. DW8993034101
could not be identified by cost elements. All costs
billed against the EPA superfund obligation were
incurred in September 1987. Total costs for this
agreement in September 1987 were $23,662 and were split
between a non-superfund and superfund EPA program
obligation. This split was done in total, not by cost
element.
The $14,826 balance of costs for the remaining agreements
are recommended for acceptance. Exhibit B contains detailed
inforration by interagency agreement.
On a test basis we examined payroll attendance records for
er.ployees included in costs billed to the EPA superfund
obligation. These records were not considered a substitute for
time distribution source documents because they only show that
the employee was present, not how time was spent.
DOE Order 2110.1, Pricing of Departmental Materials and
Services, establishes DOE policy for pricing materials and
services provided to organizations outside DOE. Other Federal
agencies (OFA) are charged at the Department's full cost less
depreciation and added factor, except when the OFA passes the
cost to an organization outside the Federal Government.
Superfund expenditures related to cleaning hazardous sites are
often recovered from the private organization responsible for the
environmental problem. Current superfund expenditures incurred
by Energy Systems are not site specific; however, the costs
billed to EPA may be treated as superfund overhead and recovered
from organizations outside the Federal Government. Therefore,
charging EPA the Department's full cost recovery rate would be
appropriate. If EPA recovers DOE cost from an organization
outside the Federal Government, an additional 7 percent for
depreciation and an additional 16 percent for Department
administrative costs (added factor) should be billed. We found
no evidence indicating that either ORO or Energy Systems
recognized that EPA may not be the ultimate customer.
-------
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. We recommend that the Manager, Oak Ridge Operations
Office, require Energy Systems to:
a. Accumulate and bill the cost of each EPA program
obligation, such as superfund, separately within
the same interagency agreement.
b. Retain for 3. years individual internal time
distribution cards signed by the employee to
support superfund costs claimed.
2. We also recommend that the Manager, Oak Ridge
Operations Office, require appropriate staff members to evaluate
future superfund tasks to identify instances where the ultimate
customer is an organization outside the Federal Government and
arrange with EPA to recover depreciation and Departmental added
factor.
MANAGEMENT REACTION
The Manager, Oak Ridge Operations Office (ORO), responded to
the report. His comments are summarized below.
Eecor.rendation 1
Management concurred in Part A of the recommendation. ORO
presently cannot determine which program obligations (superfund
or nonsuperfund) are to be accounted for separately within an
interagency agreement. This determination must be made by the
EPA. Upon accepting future work, ORO will request the EPA to
segregate on each funding authorization document those superfund
activities where the cost will be passed on to the private
sector. If EPA agrees, ORO will then direct Energy Systems to
accumulate and bill the costs in accordance with the guidelines
on each funding authorization document.
Management nonconcurred in Part B of the recommendation and
stated that there is no requirement for signing and retaining
time cards in DOE's contract with Energy Systems, and that the
present systems contains sufficient internal controls to produce
accurate and reliable cost distribution reports. Also, Energy
Systems is moving to an electronic input system which will do
away with all time cards for labor distribution purposes.
Recommendation 2
Management stated that upon accepting future work, the EPA
will be requested to segregate superfund and non-superfund tasks.
After this is done, recovery factors for depreciation and
Departmental administrative costs can be added to the other costs
billed.
-------
AUDITOR COMMENTS
Management's comments are responsive to recommendations l.a.
and 2.
With respect to recommendation l.b., we believe that labor
costs billed under EPA superfund agreements are not adequately
supported under the current system without time distribution
cards signed by the employees. With respect to management's
comment that the present system contains sufficient internal
controls to produce accurate and reliable cost distribution
reports, recent reviews by Energy System's internal auditors have
disclosed significant weaknesses in the labor distribution
system. Furthermore, the planned electronic input system should
have adequate controls and supervisory review to assure the
accuracy of the labor distribution.
Irving Burton Associates, Inc.
Accepted Bv:
-------
Inhibit *
O»k Ridge Operations Office
C>» Internqency Agreement!
Statement of Amounts Obligated, Cost* Claimed, snd Audit Results
October 1. 1986 to September 30, 1987
Co* 11 C I • lined
• yfbvr ___
OW899J034101
DU899J079J01
DWB993200201
OU699S2U701
TOTAl
Quest lontd by Audit (1)
••I «net
io«;i_
» 125.500
64,000
19.980
450.000
630Aogo
•1.289,480
Super f und
t 40.000
19.000
19,980
450,000
_3i5Agog
tB43.9BO
__fot •! _
« 94.016
11.5JJ
19.639
207.226
•653.606
••••*•••
Super fund
» 8, 152
19.619
107,226
«135,017
1Z0.191
» 14.826
••••••••
(1)
Notef:
(1) Details by agreement are shown In exhibit I.
-------
•t»ptr
ER-CC-88-3 1
Inhibit •
Oak tidqe Operations Office
Statement of Super fund Co^tS Clulmrd and Audit
October 1. 19r16 to September 50. 19rU
Agreement Number
DU89930U101
Direct labor
Materials
Subcontract I
Other Direct
Total Direct
Indirect Cost*
total Co*tt
Audit.*«sultt
Questioned by Audit:
'•Mure to Identify
Super fund Cottt Elements (3)
Direct labor (t)
Indirect Cotti (5)
Total Oueitioned Cotti
••lance
18.1)2(1)
8.152
-0-
t -0-
OW8993HH01
S11.200
5.061
614
212
15.127
_ 44512
S19.619
OUB99J20070I DUS99S214f'01 tOfAL
11.200
» 5,098
*r»r i=>
__2A003
82.381
2tt8O_
S107.226
74.909
_224589
S 9,728
•0-(2) S135.017
8.152
86.109
_120t191
< U.B26
Motet:
fll lh« flrtt-ln. flrtt-out •wthod of •(locating cottt to IPA prograM obllgttlons wat applied on a total-cost batlt rathtr than
by Individual c*tt clcawnta.
(2) The flrat-ln. f(rat-out method of allocating cotta to obllgatlona resulted In no cottt being charged to thlt agreement.
(3) total coata for Agreement No. OW8993034101 In September 1987 were S23.662 and were tptlt between a non- super fund and
tuperfund (f>* program obligation on a total cott batlt. A breakdown of the SB. 152 luperfund portion by cost element la
unavailable. We did not* that total coat were primarily labor.
(4) Direct labor cotta art quettloned because employee Internal time dlatrlbutlon cards, which are the supporting source.
documentt. were not retained, labor houra could not be traced beyond summary report! of time distribution.
(5) Indirect cotta quettloned were bated on direct labor questioned.
7
-------
Report Number: ER-CC-83-30
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF AUDITS
EASTERN REGIONAL OFFICE
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
Interim Audit of Costs Claimed
by the Department of Energy
Under Interagency Agreements No. DW8993024601 and DW8993173901
With the Environmental Protection Agency
for Work Performed by
Argonne National'Laboratory,
Chicago, Illinois
October 1, 1986 to September 30, 1987
Contractor information contained in this audit report may be
confidential. The restrictions of 18 USC 1905 should be
considered before this information is released to the public.
This report may not be released to anyone outside the Department
of Energy without the approval of Headquarters Office of Audits,
except to an Agency involved in negotiating or administering the
contract. Furthermore, the information contained in this report
should not be used for purposes other than those intended without
prior consultation with the Department of Energy's Office of
Inspector General regarding its applicability.
Prepared By: Irving Burton Associates, Inc.
Date: June 24, 1988
-------
Report Number: ER-CC-88-30
INTERIM AUDIT Of COSTS CLAIMED
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
UNDER INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS NO. DW8993024601 AND DW8993173901
WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOR WORK PERFORMED BY
ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY,
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
OCTOBER 1, 1986 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1987
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paae
Purpose and Scope 1
Audit Results 2
Management Reaction 2
Statement of Amounts Obligated, Costs Claimed,
and Audit Results - Exhibit A 3
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF AUDITS
EASTERN REGIONAL OFFICE
Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830
INTERIM AUDIT Of COSTS CLAIMED
BY THE DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
UNDER INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS NO. DW8993024601 AND DW8993173901
WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
FOR WORK PERFORMED BY
ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY,
CHICAGO, ILLINOIS
OCTOBER 1, 1986 TO SEPTEMBER 30, 1987
REPORT NO: ER-CC-88-30 June 24, 1988
PURPOSE AND SCOPE
As required by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986, we have performed an interim audit of costs incurred
under interagency agreements DW8993024601 and DW8993173901
between DOE's Chicago Operations Office (CH) and the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Argonne National
Laboratory (ANL) performed the work projects set forth in these
agreements under its cost-type contract with CH. Agreement
nur.ber DW8993024601 requested that certain samples of
contaminated materials that EPA sent to ANL be tested at an
outside lab and/or maintained in protective storage. Agreement
number DW8993173901 requested that DOE direct and monitor
decontamination of a site in Lansdowne, Pennsylvania, provide
certification required for the disposal of the contaminated
material, and conduct a radiological assessment and/or
decontamination certification.
The purpose of the audit was to determine the allowability
of S141,479 of costs claimed for the period October 1, 1986, to
September 30, 1987. Allowable costs are cost incurred which are
reasonable, allocable, and in accordance with the terms of the
interagency agreements, applicable cost principles, laws and
regulations, and generally accepted accounting principles and
practices appropriate to the particular circumstances.
The audit scope was limited to reviewing the accounting
books and records and other documents supporting the ANL's
claimed costs. Specific transactions were tested. However,
ANL's total internal control system and technical aspects of the
ANL's performance were not evaluated.
-------
As defined in the above scope, the audit was conducted
according to the sections of the generally accepted Government
auditing standards that applied and included tests of the
contractor's data and records and other audit procedures
considered necessary in the circumstances. The contract between
CH and ANLf the DOE Acquisition Regulations, and the terns and
conditions of the interagency agreements were used as criteria to
evaluate costs.
AUDIT RESULTS
The audit results are summarized below. Details of claimed
costs and audit results are contained in exhibit A.
Questioned Costs $2,035
The audit results were discussed with Al Nisius, ANL Chief
of Accounting, who agreed with our findings.
MANAGEMENT REACTION
Management concurred with the questioned costs and stated
that a correcting entry has been made.
Irving Burton Associates, Inc
Accepted Bv;
-------
REPORT NUMBER:ER-CC-88-30
Exhibit A
Page 1 of 3
Environmental Protection Agency Interagency Agreements
Amounts Obligated and Costs Claimed
Fiscal Year 1987
Agreement
Number
DW8993024601
DK8993173901
Total
Amount Responsible Cost Claimed
Obligated DOE Office by DOE
Results of Audit
Notes
S 44,000 CH Operations $ 8,427
205,880 CH Operations 133,052
$249,880 $141,479
Note 1 - This agreement requested the performance of a number of
different projects. Only the work related to
protective storage of hazardous waste samples or
certain lab fees was chargeable to the EPA Superfund
appropriation. However, the monthly interagency
billing to the EPA's Cincinnati Finance Office shows a
total charge for all projects in the agreement.
Detailed monthly reports submitted by ANL are used by
the EPA Project Officer to track costs on specific
projects, but these amounts could not be reconciled to
amounts allocated to the Superfund appropriation from
the monthly billing. Our review indicated that the
costs amounts in the monthly reports were generally
valid.
-------
REPORT NUMBER: ER-CC-88-30 Exhibit A
Page 2 of 3
Statement of The Department of Energy's Claimed Costs
and Audit Results
Interagency Agreement Number DW8993024601
Fiscal Year 1987
.-,
Audit Results
DOE's Questioned Unresolved
Claimed Costs Costs Costs
Direct Labor $ 1,188
Other Direct 5,702
Total Direct $ 6,890
Indirect Costs 1,537
Total Costs $ 8,427 $ -0- § -0-
-------
REPORT NUMBER: ER-CC-88-30
Exhibit A
Page 3 of 3
Statement of The Department of Energy's Claimed Costs
and Audit Results
Interagency Agreement Number DW8993173901
Fiscal Year 1987
Audit Results
Direct Labor
Material
Other Direct
Total Direct
Indirect Costs
Total Costs $133,052
DOE's Questioned Unresolved
Claimed Costs Costs Costs Notes
$ 38
5
65
$108
24
,307
,056
,411 $1,664
,774 1,664
,278 371
1
2
3
$2,035
-0-
Note 1 - Effort distribution reports prepared by nonscientific
personnel in two cost centers had not been retained and
were not available for audit. Total direct labor costs
charged to the interagency agreement by these cost
centers were $20,199 in Fiscal Year 1987. Alternative
procedures were used to determine the reasonableness of
the charges.
Note 2 - Travel costs were posted incorrectly. The interagency
agreement account number was very similar to the
correct account number.
Note 3 - Indirect cost applicable to questioned travel costs
($1,664 X 22.32 percent).
-------
ORT NO.
0-88-6
U.S. Department of Energy
Office of Inspector General
Release Date:
September 1, 1988
ADDIT OP COSTS INCURRED ON EPA
SDPERFUND INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS
WITH THE D.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
RICHLAND OPERATIONS OFFICE
OCTOBER 1, 1986 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1987
-------
REPORT NO: WR-0-88-6
0.S. DEPARTMENT.OF ENERGY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF AUDITS
WESTERN REGION
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO
AUDIT OF COSTS INCURRED ON EPA
SUPERFUND INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS
WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
RICHLAND OPERATIONS OFFICE
OCTOBER 1, 1986 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1987
-------
REPORT NO: WR-0-88-6
AUDIT OF COSTS INCURRED ON EPA
SDPERFDND INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS
WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
RICHLAND OPERATIONS OFFICE
OCTOBER 1, 1986 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1987
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1
RESULTS OF AUDIT 2
Full Cost Recovery 2
Expired Agreement 3
Subcontract Costs Claimed 3
RECOMMENDATIONS 3
MANAGEMENT REACTION 4
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Exhibit C
Exhibit D
Exhibit E
Exhibit F
Exhibit G
Page 1
Page 2
Amounts Obligated and Costs Claimed
Statement of Claimed Costs and Audit Results
EPA Interagency Agreements with the Richland
Operations Office
Statement of Claimed Costs and Audit Results
EPA Interagency Agreement Number DW8993055001
Statement of Claimed Costs and Audit Results
EPA Interagency Agreement Number DW8993070901
Statement of Claimed Costs and Audit Results
EPA Interagency Agreement Number DW8993090101
Statement of Claimed Costs and Audit Results
EPA Interagency Agreement Number DW8993104301
Statement of Claimed Costs and Audit Results
EPA Interagency Agreement Number DW8993137701
Statement of Subcontracts EPA Interagency
Agreement Number SW8993137701
-------
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
OFFICE OF AUDITS
WESTERN REGION
ALBUQUERQUE, NEW MEXICO
AUDIT OF COSTS INCURRED ON EPA
SUPERFUND INTERAGENCY AGREEMENTS
WITH THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
RICHLAND OPERATIONS OFFICE
OCTOBER 1, 1986 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1987
Report No: WR-0-88-6 September 1, 1988
Section III or cne superrund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986 requires annual audits of payments, obligations,
reimbursements, and other uses of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Superfund appropriations to assure that the fund is
being properly administered. The Department of Energy (DOE)
expends Superfund monies through a series of interagency
agreements with EPA.
DOE Richland Operations Office (RL) had five open agreements
with EPA during Fiscal Year (FY) 1987. Exhibit A contains data
relating to amounts obligated and claimed during the year.
Work performed on the open agreements was accomplished by
Battelle Memorial Institute through RL's prime contract Number
DE-AC06-76RL01830. Under that contract, Battelle manages and
operates DOE's Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) .
The purpose of the audit was to determine the allowability
of costs that were allocated to the superfund obligation within
these agreements and claimed for the period October 1, 1986 to
September 30, 1987. Allowable costs are costs incurred that are
reasonable, allocable, and in accordance with the terms of the
interagency agreements, applicable cost principles, laws and
regulations, and generally accepted accounting principles and
practices appropriate to the particular circumstances.
The scope of the audit included evaluating PNL's accounting
books and records and other supporting documentation on which the
claimed costs were based. A study and evaluation of PNL internal
accounting control was not made because internal accounting con-
-------
trol is studied and evaluated as a part of other audits of PNL.
The results of prior internal accounting control study anc
evaluation established a basis for reliance thereon and for the
determination of the extent to which auditing procedures were tc
be restricted. Technical aspects of the effort were not
evaluated. We also reviewed RL's application of the added factoi
to the work performed under the interagency agreements.
The audit was completed according to generally accepted
government auditing standards and included such tests of the
contractor's data and records and such other auditing procedures
as were considered necessary.
This report may not be released to anyone outside of DOE 01
EPA without the approval of DOE Inspector General, Office oi
Audits, except to an agency involved in negotiating 01
administering the contract.
RESULTS OF AUDIT
The Richland Operations Office did not follow the DOE regu-
lations requiring full cost recovery for services and materials
provided to non-DOE organizations. As a result, RL underrecov-
ered $130,250 on its EPA agreements during FY 1987. In addition,
PNL procedures were not followed, resulting in PNL incurring
$5,562 of unresolved cost on an agreement that had expired.
Unaudited subcontract costs of $101,735 and related PNL costs of
$19,957 have been classified as unresolved. We consider $527,269
of the $654,523 claimed cost acceptable.
a
Cust Rcoove-E
eider 2T10.1, Pricing of Departmental Material and
Services, dated February 16, 1984 establishes DOE policy for
pricing materials and services provided to non-DOE organizations
either directly or through operating contractors. The Order
requires that other Federal agencies be charged the Department's
full cost less depreciation and added factor, except when the
other agency passes costs to organizations outside the Federal
Government. Under those circumstances, the charge for materials
and services shall be the Government's full cost.
Based upon the principle that "the polluter should pay", the
Superfund Act authorizes enforcement action and cost recovery
from those responsible for a hazardous waste problem. These
recoveries, plus tax revenues, are the main source of funds for
cleaning up hazardous waste sites. Recoveries may play a major
role in replenishing the Supjerfund.
"We found "that RL was not recovering the full 'c6st incurred
for the EPA agreements as required by DOE Order 2110.1. Current
-------
superfund expenditures incurred by^PNL generally do not relate to
a specific contaminated site. However, the costs billed to EPA
are treated as superfund overhead and may be recovered from
organizations outside the Federal Government. Under those
circumstances, charging EPA the Department's full cost recovery
rate would be appropriate. For FY 1987 the full cost recovery
rates for work performed at PNL were 2.9 percent for
depreciation and 17 percent for the Department's added factor
(administrative costs) . Thus, the underrecovered amount based on ]
FY 1987 costs ($654,523) was $130,250. O—^
Expired Agreement
The period of performance for agreement DW8993070901 was
from March 1, 1984 through September 30, 1985. Although the
agreement was never extended, PNL incurred costs and was
reimbursed $49,531 in FY 1986 and $5,562 in FY 1987.
_
We sampled the costs incurred during FY 1987 and found them
to be adequately supported and incurred for purposes of
accomplishing the work scope. In addition we noted that EPA has
obligated sufficient funds to cover expenditures. Nevertheless,
we believe the agreement should be modified to assure contract
compliance.
. . --. 'TV-'
Subcontract Costs Claimed
~C(_
'
A-6-Ghown-—tn tixniort—&, we are classifying $121,692 in
subcontract related costs as unresolved. PNL entered into
subcontract agreements with several firms to accomplish the work
scope of agreement number DW899313.7701. We have not audited the
costs incurred ($101,735) by the subcontractors listed on Exhibit
G page two. Our tests did, however, include PNL's indirect
($10,651) and service charge ($9,306) costs related to those
subcontracts. Those tests indicated that PNL applied appropriate
indirect and service charge rates and we would recommend those
costs for acceptance if the base cost is determined to be
allowable.
9-^
RECOMMENDATIONS^
I\\J«L. Cf^fe- cfa v
f ' t*e recommendxthat the Manager, Richland Operations Office:
A^JX*—
Ofr "* -—
-Evaluate each existing and future Superfund task to
identify instances where the ultimate customer is an organization
outside the Federal Government and arrange with EPA to recover
Departmental depreciation and added factor.
..^
-Monitor agreements more closely to assure that costs are
not incurred on agreements which have expired.
-------
/I
RL' agreed with our finding that costs were incurred on an
interagency agreement whose period of performance had expired and
agreed that interagency agreements should be monitored to assure
that costs are not incurred on expired agreements. •
RL stated that they were unable to determine why the
agreement was not formally extended. They stated that PNL's
practices and procedures are designed to identify, in a timely
manner, work orders with periods of performance about to expire
or budgets nearly expended. As the work orders are identified,
actions are taken to extend the time period or request additional
funding
£. •
fc;
did not agree with otrr finding and recommendations
concerning full cost recovery for the following reasons.
— Full cost recovery policy does not apply to work performed
under an interagency agreement. Further, they contend that
work performed under these agreements is not for a non-
federal third party.
— Full cost recovery may be charged when the Statutor;
authority for an agreement with another federal agency i:
other than the Economy Act of 1932. The agreements in thj
report are authorized under the Economy Act.
use full cost
Federal agency
cost recovery rules
or services to be
Federal government. The
establish standards and
to EPA
Financial Management and
these costs will be
on to responsible parties
W« agreej that it is DOE's policy not to
recovery when the work performed is for another
only. However, it is DOE policy to use full
when the charges become part of the cost
provided to organizations outside the
primary work under these agreements is __
criteria which relate to future projects. According
officials and their draft "Superfund Fin •-1 "
Recordkeeping Guidance for Federal Agencies ,
i-r*»ai-pd as overhead and will be passed on to
treated
outside
as
of
EPA.
DOE Order 2110.1, which contains the full cost recovery
policy, relates to interagency agreements funded under the
Economy Act. The policy also states that full cost recovery rules
can apply to agreements funded under other authorities.
At the exit conference, RL officials informed us that they!
would submit a decision paper to the DOE Controller on the full'
cost recovery issue.
-------
Exhibit A
Agreement
Number
DW8993055001
DW8993070901
DW8993090101
DW8993104301
DW8993137701
EPA and Richland Operations Office
Interagency Agreements
Amounts Obligated and Costs Claimed
Amount Obligated
Costs Claimed
FY 1987
$ 25,000
-0-
-0-
60,000
250,000
Cumulative
$ 546,700
130,900
228,800
110,000
1,164,100
FY 1987
$ 30,919
5,562
-0-
23,859
594,183
Cumulative
$ 521,759
130,761
227,845
60,965
797,327
$335,000 $2,180,500 $654,523 $1,738,657
NOTE
PNL carries unobligated amounts to subsequent fiscal years,
-------
Exhibit B
Statement of Claimed Costs and Audit Results
EPA Interagency Agreements with
the Richland Operations Office
Fiscal Year 1987
Claimed Recommended For Unresolved
Cost Element Costs Acceptance Costs Notes
Salaries & Fringe
Benefits $169,209 $166,678 $ 2,531 1
Overhead 113,516 112,158 1,358 1
Materials . 33,889 33,865 24 1
Subcontracts 101,735 -0- 101,735 2
Other Direct 72,022 62.714 9,308 1&2
Total Direct $490,371 $375,415 $114,956
Indirect 164,152 151,854 12,298 3
Total Costs $654,523 $527,269 $127,254
NOTES
1. These costs were incurred after the agreement had expired.
The agreement had not been extended by modification; however,
sufficient funds had been obligated to cover claimed costs.
(See Exhibit D)
2. PNL entered into subcontracts with several firms to
accomplish the work scope on one agreement. None of the
subcontracts have been audited by us. The service charge
costs related to administrating those subcontracts are also
classified as being unresolved. (See Exhibit G)
3. Indirect costs are comprised of service assessment costs and
General Administrative (G&A) costs for PNL operations.
Service Assessments are Hanford-wide costs, such as Hanford
security forces, which are assessed by DOE to each contractor
on the reservation. These costs are assessed on total cost
including G&A. The service assessment rate was 4.7 % through
March 29, 1987 and 7.0% thereafter. The G&A rate was 35.9% of
the "value added" base. Cost elements included in the value
added base are generally all costs except materials,
subcontracts, and indirect costs. Unresolved indirect costs
were calculated by applying the appropriate rates to the
unresolved direct costs.
-------
Exhibit C
Statement of Claimed Costs and Audit Results
EPA Interagency Agreement Number DW8993055001
With The Richland Operations Office
Fiscal Year 1987
Cost Element
.-.
Salaries & Fringe
Benefits
Overhead
Materials
Subcontracts
Other Direct
Total Direct
Indirect
Total Costs
Claimed
Costs
$ 8,611
6,599
379
-0-
6,269
$21,858
9,061
$30,919
Recommended For
Acceptance
$ 8,611
6,599
379
-0-
6,269
$21,858
9,061
$30,919
-------
Exhibit D
Statement of Claimed Costs and Audit Results
EPA Interagency Agreement Number DW8993070901
With The Richland Operations Office
Fiscal Year 1987
Claimed
Cost Element Costs
Salaries & Fringe
Benefits $ 2,531
Overhead 1,358
Materials 24
Subcontracts -0-
Other Direct 2.
Total Direct $3,915
Indirect 1,647
Total Costs $5,562
NOTES
Recommended For
Acceptance
$ -0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
-0-
Unresolved
Costs Notes
$ -0-
$ 2,531
1,358
24
-0-
2.
$3,915
1.647
$5,562
1
1
1
These costs were incurred after the agreement had expired.
The agreement had not been extended by modification; however,
sufficient funds had been obligated to cover claimed costs.
Indirect costs are comprised of service assessment costs and
General Administrative (G&A) costs for PNL operations.
Assessments are Hanford-wide costs, such as Hanford security
forces, which are assessed by DOE to each contractor on the
reservation. These costs are assessed on total cost
including G&A. The service assessment rate was 4.7 % through
March 29, 1987 and 7.0% thereafter. The G&A rate was 35.9%
of the "value added" base. Cost elements included in the
value added base are generally all costs except materials,
subcontracts, and indirect costs. Unresolved indirect costs
were calculated by applying the appropriate rates to the
unresolved direct costs.
-------
Exhibit E
Statement of Claimed Costs and Audit Results
EPA Interagency Agreement Number DW 8993090101
With The Richland Operations Office
Fiscal Year 1987
No costs were obligated, incurred or invoiced during FY 1987
-------
Exhibit F
Statement of Claimed Costs and Audit Results
EPA Interagency Agreement Number DW 8993104301
With The Richland Operations Office
Fiscal Year 1987
Claimed
Cost Element Costs
Salaries & Fringe
Benefits $ -0-
Overhead -0-
Materials 10,861
Subcontracts -0-
Other Direct 8,272
Total Direct $19,133
Indirect 4,726
Total Costs $23,859
Recommended For
Acceptance
$ -0-
-0-
10,861
-0-
8,272
$19,133
4,726
$23,859
-------
Exhibit G
Page 1
Statement of Claimed Costs and Audit Results
EPA Interagency Agreement Number DW 8993137701
With The Richland Operations Office
Fiscal Year 1987
Claimed Recommended For Unresolved
Cost Element Costs Acceptance Costs Notes
Salaries & Fringe
Benefits $158,067 $158,067 $ -0-
Overhead 105,559 105,559 -0-
Materials 22,625 22,625 -0-
Subcontracts 101,735 -0- 101,735 1
Other Direct 57,479 48,173 9,306 2
Total Direct $445,465 $334,424 $111,041
Indirect 148,718 138.067 10.651 3
Total Costs $594,183 $472,491 $121,692
NOTES
1. None of the subcontract costs have been audited by us.
2. Other direct costs are service charge costs PNL incurs
administrating subcontracts.
3. Indirect costs are comprised of service assessment costs and
General Administrative (G&A) costs for PNL operations.
Service Assessments are Hanford-wide costs, such as Hanford
security forces, which are assessed by DOE to each contractor
on the reservation. These costs are assessed on total cost
including G&A. The service assessment rate was 4.7 % through
March 29, 1987 and 7.0% thereafter. The G&A rate was 35.9%
of the "value added" base. Cost elements included in the
value added base are generally all costs except materials,
subcontracts, and indirect costs. Unresolved indirect costs
were calculated by applying the appropriate rates to the
unresolved direct costs.
-------
Exhibit G
Page 2
Statement of Subcontracts
EPA Interagency Agreement Number DW 8993137701
With The Richland Operations Office
Fiscal Year 1987
Number Subcontractor
BQ 1336 Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center
BQ 1316 Fred Hutchinson Cancer
Research Center
BQ 1315 R. Craig Schnell
BG 8294 Westjet Air Center
BL 3002 Battelle Conference Center
BQ 8283 James J. Morgan
$101,735
FY 1987
Amount
$ 75,903
30,145
1,817
758
662
(7.5501
Contract
Ceiling Notes
$132,038
30,726
9,060
900
—
7,600
1
2
NOTES
1. Subcontract sets rates for conference room rental.
2. Negative figure is reversal of FY 1986 accrual.
-------
Department of Energy
Washington, DC 20545
November 22, 1988
Mr. Ernest E. Bradley, III
Assistant Inspector General for Audit
Office of the Inspector General (A-109)
Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
Dear Mr. Bradley:
We conducted an audit of the Fiscal Year (FY) 1987 Superfund costs claimed
by the Department of Energy (DOE) on interagency agreements. The
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) entered into the agreements with
various DOE field offices for the performance of specific services. The
agreements were assigned to DOE contractors for actual performance. After
reviewing the contractors' invoices for work performed, the appropriate DOE
field offices obtained reimbursement from EPA.
Our audit reviewed 12 agreements with claimed costs of $930,019 of which
$680,539 was acceptable, $122,226 was questioned, and $127,254 was
unresolved. Details are in the enclosed reports. Please note that these
reports may contain proprietary information.
An additional observation during the audit was that we could not reconcile
FY 1987 DOE and EPA obligation and cost records for 6 of the 12 interagency
agreements. (See Exhibit A.) The exhibit shows DOE's obligation was
approximately $463,000 more than EPA records indicate. Also, DOE's cost
records indicate approximately $270,000 more than EPA records.
Our August 24, 1987 letter to you suggested that future interagency
agreements specifically require the accumulation and reporting of Superfund
costs. We believe that a better audit trail is needed for Superfund
interagency agreements. For example, some current Interagency agreements
include both Superfund work and non-Superfund work in the same agreement.
As a result, DOE is not always maintaining separate records on the specific
use of the Superfund funds.
-------
If you wish additional details of the audit, or have questions about
release of the attached reports, please contact David Broadwell, Assistant
Manager, Capital Regional Office, at 586-8937.
Sincerely,
)Fdon W. Harvey
Assistant Inspector General
for Audits
Office of Inspector General
4 Enclosures
-------
Exhibit A
Unreconciled EPA and DOE Superfund
Interagency Agreements -
Agreement Number
DW8993055001
DW8993070901
DW8993090101
DW8993104301
DW8993137701
DW8993024601
Total
Agreement Number
DW8993055001
DW8993070901
DW8993090101
DW8993104301
DW8993137701
DW8993024601
ObHgatl
DOE Records
$ 55,860
5,701
955
72,894
960,956
44,000
$1,140,366
Costs
DOE Records
$ 30,918.93
5,561.80
0
23,859.03
594,182.99
8,427.00
Fiscal Year 1987
on Balance
EPA Records
$ 20,056
11,828
894
15,851
561,707
66,604
$676,940
Cl aimed
EPA Records
$ 20,056.61
11,688.96
- 60.28
15,851.57
311,707.28
34,104.14
Difference
$ 35,804
-6,127
61
57,043
399,249
-22,604 (1)
$463,426
Di f ference
$ 10,862.32
- 6,127.16
60.28
8,007.46
282,475.71
- 25,677.14
Total
$662,949.75
$393,348.28
$269,601.47
(1) This agreement is with the Chicago Operations Office. All the
other agreements are managed by the Richland Operations Office.
(1)
------- |