United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of the
Inspector General
Washington DC 20460
November 1991
Office of the Inspector General
Semiannual Report
to the Congress
April 1,1991 Through
September 30,1991
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Foreword
During this semiannual period, the Office of
Inspector General identified improvements needed
in several of EPA's major environmental programs,
including pesticides, wetlands, and the cleanup of
hazardous waste sites. We continued to find weaknesses
in accounting for Superfund costs.
Procurement and contract management remain a major
concern. We continued our long-term commitment to
improve contracting practices and contractor performance
in EPA. We are focusing more resources on coordinated
audits and investigations to ensure that the Agency is
receiving quality work at reasonable prices and to pursue
legal and administrative actions against unethical
contractors. We also have initiated significant work
toward implementing the Chief Financial Officers Act.
We have become more involved in helping ensure that
scientific data upon which the Agency bases its policies,
programs, regulations, and enforcement actions are
sound and credible. Our investigative work has found
fraud and abuse in a surprisingly large percentage of
laboratories participating in the Superfund Contract
Laboratory Program. An audit found that the Agency had
not identified and taken enforcement actions against
laboratories that violated good laboratory practices
regulations issued under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act.
We are using Total Quality Management (TQM) to
improve our internal operations. Agency management
has always shown a willingness to cooperate with us in
improving program operations. However, through the use
of TQM techniques we hope to work more closely with
individual EPA program offices in the future, especially in
improving their financial and contract management.
John C. Martin
Inspector General
April 1, 1991 through September 30, 1991
-------
rj; - •1 ’
2 -
-
-
, r - -:
4,
- I
• ; f
- - - c_ u• I
• - - •
• *
— I-.’
:-
. .1
-------
Contents
Executive Summary I
Overview of EPA’. Current Challenge. 3
Overview of Significant Trends In EPA of Concern to the OIG 4
Profile of Activities and Results 6
Establishment of the OIG in EPA—Its Role and Authority 7
Organization and Staffing 7
Purpose and Requirements of the OIG Semiannual Report 7
Section I—SIgnificant Problems, Abuses, and Recommendations
Summary of Audit Activities and Results 10
Agency Management 11
Construction Grants 16
Superfund Program 20
Special and Early Warning Reviews 22
Section 2—AudIt Resolution
Status Report on Perpetual Inventory of Audits in Resolution Process
for the Semiannual Period Ending September 30, 1991 26
Audit Followup 27
Status of Management Decisions on IG Audit Reports 30
Resolution of Significant Audits 31
Section 3—Prosecutive Actions
Summary of Investigative Activity 32
Description of Selected Prosecutive Actions 33
Description of Selected Prosecutive and Administrative Actions
Concerning EPA Employees 35
Civil and Administrative Actions To Recover EPA Funds 35
Section 4—Fraud Prevention and Resource Management Improvements
Review of Legislation and Regulations 36
Suspension and Debarment Activities 38
OIG Management Initiatives 40
Employee and Public Awareness 41
Personnel Security Program 41
President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency 42
Committee on Integrity and Management Improvement 42
Hothne Activities 42
Professional and Organizational Development 4.3
Appendices
Appendix 1—Audit Reports Issued 45
Appendix 2--Audits Without Management Decisions 60
A placid scene (photo by Steve
Delaney, EPA)
-------
Executive Summary
Section 1—
Significant Problems,
Abuses, and
Recommendations
1. Effects of Many Inert
Ingredients in Pesticides Are
Unknown.
EPA had not promptly
reviewed the potential toxicity
of most inert ingredients in
pesticides to ensure that
human health and the
environment are adequately
protected (page 11).
2. Improvements Needed To
Protect Wetlands.
Protection of the nation’s
wetlands from the discharge of
dredged or fill material was
undermined by EPA’s
inconsistent program
implementation (page 12).
3. EPA Region 8 Created A
Personal Services
Relationship With Support
Contractor.
Region 8 and EPA
Headquarters did not follow
EPA and Federal guidance
and regulations in managing
support contracts with
Computer Sciences
Corporation (CSC). As a
result, contractor employees
worked without clearly defined
tasks or criteria for measuring
their performance and created
a personal services
relationship between EPA and
CSC (page 12).
4. Stronger Enforcement and
Oversight Needed for Region
8 RCRA Program.
EPA Region 8 had not
provided adequate oversight of
Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA)
enforcement activities nor did
states assess monetary
penalties that considered the
severity of the RCRA
regulation violation or the
economic benefit of
noncompliance (page 13).
5. Problems Continued to
Plague State Vehicle
Inspection and Maintenance
Programs.
Over the years, EPA ’s Office
of Mobile Sources has
identified serious and
continuing weaknesses in state
vehicle inspection and
maintenance (IIM) programs.
Although EPA recommended
corrective actions, in many
instances, the states had not
implemented them (page 14).
6. Greater Efforts Needed to
Improve the Delaware and
Inland Bays Estuaries.
Region 3’s current efforts
under the National Estuary
Program are repetitious of past
attempts to improve the
Delaware and Inland Bays
Estuaries, and the State of
Delaware had not enforced the
Clean Water Act against
polluters that discharge into
these estuaries (page 14).
7. Construction Grant
Obligations Overstated by
$49 Million.
EPA regional offices did not
take timely action to deobligate
nearly $49 million of
construction grant funds that
could have been used for
needed projects (page 15).
8. Los Angeles Claimed
$90.3 Million in Questioned
Costs.
The City of Los Angeles,
California, claimed
$10,871,601 of ineligible
construction, engineering, and
force account costs. An
additional $79,434,029 of
unreasonable project costs
were questioned for a facility
not being used for its intended
purpose (page 17).
9. Monterey, California,
Claimed $58.6 Million of
Ineligible and Unreasonable
Costs.
The Monterey Regional Water
Pollution Control Agency,
Monterey, California, claimed
$7,491,007 of ineligible
construction, engineering,
administrative, and other costs.
An additional $51,118,958 of
unreasonable project costs
were questioned (page 17).
10. Grantee’s $36.8 Million
Project Claim Questioned
After 12 Years of Violating
Discharge Limitations.
The Gary, Indiana, Sanitary
District claimed $36,853,715 of
costs for a wastewater
treatment plant that has
violated its National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
permit since 1978 (page 17).
11. Clark County, Nevada,
Claimed $32.9 Million of
Questioned Costs for
Underutilized Facility.
The Clark County Sanitation
District, Nevada, claimed
$6,851,921 of ineligible costs
and about $26 million of
unnecessary, unreasonable, or
unsupported costs for a
wastewater treatment plant
used at only about half of its
capacity (page 18).
12. Philadelphia Claimed
Over $10.3 Million of
Questioned Costs.
The City of Philadelphia
calmed $9,552,760 of
ineligible force account,
engineering, construction,
indirect and Federal facility
share costs. An additional
$801,546 of unsupported,
unnecessary and
unreasonab!e costs were also
questioned (page 18).
13. Nearly $7.7 Million of
Questioned Costs Claimed
by Indianapolis, indiana.
The City of Indianapolis,
Indiana, claimed $5,245,844 of
ineligible engineering, project
inspection, construction
management, and other costs.
An additional $2,424,093 of
unsupported costs were
questioned (page 19).
14. EPA Unnecessarily
Delays Responsible Parties
From Cleaning Up
Hazardous Sites.
Completions of Superfund
cleanups were unnecessarily
delayed by untimely review of
responsible parties’ (RP) work
products, failure to enforce
stipulated penalties against
RPs for noncompliance with
voluntary agreements, and
inadequate monitoring of
contractors (page 21).
15. Problems With
Superfund Accounting
Continue.
EPA’s accounting for
Superfund costs has been
improved, but as previously
reported, financial reporting
and accounting for
disbursements, obligations,
and receivables contain
inaccuracies (page 21).
16. Inefficient Contracting
Practices May Cost EPA An
Extra $10.7 Million for
Automatic Data Processing
(ADP) Equipment and
Services.
EPA could pay up to $8.4
million over decreasing market
prices for microcomputer
workstations and other ADP
equipment by not modifying an
interim contract and delaying a
competitive award. EPA could
also pay the contractor $2.3
million more than actually
incurred for operating
expenses (page 22).
17. EPA Made Unnecessary
and Improper Procurements
Through Its Waterside Mall
Lessor.
EPA’s Facilities Management
and Services Division
circumvented Federal
acquisition regulations and
Agency procedures to make
improper procurements
through its Headquarters
lessor, resulting in
unnecessary costs in excess
of $138,500 (page 23).
18. Laboratories Not
Properly Targeted For
inspections To Detect
Violations.
EPA failed to identify and take
enforcement action against
laboratories that violated good
laboratory practices regulations
issued under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (page 23).
Apn 1, 1991 through September 30, 1991
-------
19. Arizona And Nevada Had
Not Matched $22 Million of
EPA’s Construction Grant
Funds.
Arizona and Nevada had not
provided required matching
funds for implementing their
State Revolving Fund
programs, resulting in $22.2
million of Federal grant funds
for construction of wastewater
treatment plants remaining idle
(page 24).
20. $1.5 Million Grant
Prematurely Awarded For
Indiana Project Requiring
Modification
EPA awarded a $1.5 million
grant to construct sewers and
a wastewaler treatment facility
even though over one-third of
the structures to be serviced
are in a flood plain and will be
moved or demolished (page
24).
21. $10.4 Million Grant To
Florida County Should Be
Annulled.
Seven years after receiving a
$10.4 million grant,
Hillsborough County, Florida,
still does not have a fully
operable wastewater collection
system (page 25).
Section 2—
Audit Resolution
At the beginning of the
semiannual period, there were
240 audit reports for which no
management decision had
been made. During the
second half of fiscal 1991, the
Office of Inspector General
issued 942 new audit reports
and closed 230. At the end of
the reporting period, 309 audit
reports remained in the
Agency followup system for
which no management
decision had been made. Of
the 309 audit reports, 68
reports remained in the
Agency followup system for
which no management
decision was made within six
months of issuance (page 26).
In four followup audits, the
Office of Inspector General
found that some problems
identified in previous audits
continued to exist (page 27).
However, we have nothing to
report this period with respect
to significant management
decisions with which we
disagree as required by the
1988 Inspector General Act
Amendments.
For the 230 audits closed,
EPA management disallowed
$45 million of questioned costs
for recovery and agreed with
our recommendations that $3.5
million be put to better use
(page 26). In addition, cost
recoveries in current and prior
periods included $4.9 million in
cash collections, and at least
$19.2 million in offsets against
billings (page 6).
Section 3—
Prosecutive Actions
During this semiannual
reporting period, our
investigative efforts resulted in
11 convictions and 18
indictments. Also, this
semiannual period our
investigative work led to $4.5
million in fines and recoveries
(page 32).
A California testing
company pled guilty to making
false claims and false
statements to EPA and was
fined $500,000; a New Jersey
testing company was fined $1
million for false statements; a
New Jersey man pled guilty to
charges that he sold
mislabeled, unregistered
pesticides overseas in violation
of the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide
Act; two employees of a
Superfund cleanup contractor
in Pennsylvania were charged
with fraud; the Government
and the remaining defendants
in the Snapfingor Creek
bidrigging case reached
agreement on a final
settlement of $880,000; and
EPA received $350,000 back
in a case involving contract lab
fraud (page 33).
Section 4—
Fraud Prevention and
Resource
Management
Review of Proposed
Legislation and Regulations
During this semiannual period,
we reviewed 86 legislative and
regulatory items. The most
significant were an Anti-Fraud
Enforcement Bill; a False
Claims Act amendment; a bill
on Federal government
performance standards;
special pay provisions for law
enforcement personnel; and
ethics regulations for Executive
Branch personnel (page 36).
Suspension and Debarment
Activities
We completed 148 cases
during this reporting period,
resulting in 36 debarments, 95
suspensions, 17 settlement
agreements, and 52 cases
closed after investigation.
There were 171 active cases
at the close of the reporting
period (page 38).
OIG Management Initiatives
The OIG has two ongoing
initiatives designed to promote
management and financial
improvements and integrity in
EPA’s operations. These are
major projects to expand the
contr t audit program and
assistance to the Agency in
implementing the Chief
Financial Officers Act (page 40).
Personnel Security Program
During this reporting period,
the Personnel Security Staff
reviewed 466 investigations.
Among the actions taken,
based on these reviews, were
the resignation of two
employees who had falsified
their SF-171s, Application for
Federal Employment, by not
listing previous convictions for
drug trafficking and writing
worthless checks; oral
reprimandsNerbal counseling
of six employees regarding
their failure to report
delinquent taxes and debts
and previous convictions for
driving while intoxicated; and
the decision not to make an
employee a funds certifying
officer and that employee
receiving an oral
admonishment for failure to
disclose financial indebtedness
(page 41).
Hotline Activities
The OIG toll-free Hotline
opened 37 new cases and
closed 27 cases during the
reporting period. Eight of the
closed cases resulted in
environmental, prosecutive, or
administrative corrective action
(page 42).
Professional and
Organizational Development
We approved 308 training
enrollments for a total of 959
days of training and
participation in professional
development seminars and
conferences. For all of FY
1991, we approved 595
enrollments for a total of 1739
days.
The OlG-developed course,
Detection and Prevention of
Fraud, was substantially
revised and presented twice
during the reporting period.
The Inspector General,
Deputy Inspector General, and
26 managers completed the
EPA Executive Course on
Total Quality Management
(page 43).
2
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
An Overview Of EPA’s Current Challenges
This section highlights some of
EPA’s most significant
challenges for restoring and
protecting the quality of the air
we breathe, the land where we
live, and the water we depend
on.
Land
The principal sources of land
waste are:
• Underground Storage Tanks.
An estimated two million
underground storage tanks in
use in the United States
contain petroleum products or
hazardous chemicals.
Approximately 400,000 of
these tanks may be leaking
and are a source of land
contamination that can
contribute to ground-water
contamination.
• Industrial Hazardous Wastes.
The chemical, petroleum,
metals, and transportation
industries are major producers
of hazardous industrial waste,
such as dioxin and benzene
which are known carcinogens.
• Municipal Wastes. Municipal
wastes include household and
commercial wastes, demolition
materials, and sewage sludge.
Solvents and other harmful
household and commercial
wastes are generally so
intermingled with other
materials that specific control
of each is virtually impossible.
• Mining Wastes. A large
volume of all waste generated
in the United States is from
mining coal, phosphates,
copper, iron, uranium, and
other minerals and from ore
processing and milling. Runoff
from these wastes increases
the acidity of streams and
pollutes them with toxic
materials.
Air
The Clean Air Act
Amendments of 1990 address
three major threats to our
nation’s environment and the
health of Americans: urban air
pollution, acid rain, and air
toxics. The 1990 amendments
also establish a national
operating permits program and
an improved enforcement
program to foster better
compliance with the
requirements of the Act.
• Urban Air Pollution. Under
the 1970 Clean Air Act, EPA
established National Ambient
Air Quality Standards for
pollutants posing the greatest
overall threat to air quality.
These “criteria pollutants”
include ozone, carbon
monoxide, airborne
particulates, sulfur dioxide,
lead, and nitrogen oxides. The
1990 amendments require a
new classification of areas
which are not in attainment
with these standards and
establish time frames for
attainment based on the
severity of current pollution
levels. More stringent motor
vehicle emission standards,
use of alternative clean fuels,
clean-fueled fleet vehicles, and
additional controls on industrial
facilities are required.
Acid Rain. Emissions of
sulfur dioxide (primarily from
coal-burning power plants) and
nitrogen oxides (primarily from
motor vehicles and coal-
burning power plants) interact
with sunlight and water vapor
in the upper atmosphere to
form acidic compounds which
can fall as acid rain. This is
recognized as a serious long-
term problem for many
industrial nations. The 1990
amendments establish new
requirements, primarily on
coal-burning power plants,
aimed at reducing emissions of
sulfur dioxide and nitrogen
oxides emissions. Also, these
amendments provide for
banking and trading of
emission allowances among
emission sources to facilitate
reductions of acid rain.
• Air Toxics. Before the 1990
amendments, EPA was
required to establish national
emission standards for
hazardous air pollutants which
would protect public health
with an ample margin of
safety. Because this margin
was difficult to define and was
the sublect of continued
litigation, EPA promulgated
regulations for only seven
pollutants. The 1990
amendments shift from
regulation of individual
pollutants to categories of
sources using technology-
based standards. EPA must
publish a list of industrial
source categories for 189
chemicals specified in the
1990 amendments and
regulate each categoty within
10 years to reduce air toxic
emissions by over 75 percent.
Water
The job of cleaning and
protecting the nation’s drinking
water; oceans, coastal waters,
and wetlands; and surface
waters is made complex by the
variety of sources of pollution
that affect them.
• Municipal Sources.
Municipal wastewater
(primarily from toilets, sinks,
showers, and other uses)
which runs through city sewers
may be contaminated by
organic materials, nutrients,
sediment, bacteria, and
viruses. Toxic substances
used in the home also make
their way into sewers.
• Industrial Sources. The use
of water in industrial
processes, such as the
manufacturing of steel or
chemicals, produces billions of
gallons of wastewater daily.
Statut•
Major Laws Administered by EPA
Toxic Substances Control Act
Provision,
Federal Insecticide. Fungicide,
and Rodénticide Act
Requires that EPA be notified of any
new chemical prior to its manufacture
and authorizes EPA to regulate
production, use, or dispose] of a
chemical.
Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act
Authorizes EPA to register all
pesticides and specify the terms and
conditions of their use, and remove
unreasonably hazardous pesticides
from the marketplace.
Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act
Authorizes EPA in cooperation with
FDA to establish tolerance levels for
pesticide residues on food.
Authorizes EPA to identify hazardous
wastes and regulate their generation,
transportation, treatment, storage, and
disposal.
comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act
Clean Air Act
Requires EPA to designate hazardous
substances that can present substantial
danger and authorizes the deanup of
sites contaminated with such
substances.
Clean Water Act
Authorizes EPA to set emission
standards to limit the release of criteria
pollutants and hazardous air pollutants.
Safe Drinking Water Act
Requires EPA to establish a list of toxic
water pollutants and set standards.
Marine Protection, Research and
Sanctuaries Act
Requires EPA to set drinking water
standards to protect public health from
hazardous substances.
Asbestos School Hazard Abatement Act
Regulates ocean dumping of toxic
contaminants.
Asbestos Hazard Emergency Response
Act
uthorizes EPA to provide loans and
grants to schools with financial need for
abatement of severe asbestos hazards.
Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-know Act
Requires EPA to establish a
comprehensive regulatory framework
for controlling asbestos hazards in
schools.
Requires States to develop programs
for responding to hazardous chemical
releases and requires industries to
report on the presence and release of
certain hazardous substances.
April 1 1991 through September 30, 1991
3
-------
TOverview of Significant Trends In
EPA of Concern to the OIG
• Nonpoint Sources. Nonpoint
sources of water pollution are
multiple, diffuse sources of
pollution as opposed to a
single “point” source, such as
a discharge pipe from a
factory. For example,
rainwater washing over
farmlands and carrying top soil
and chemical residues into
nearby streams is a major
nonpoint source of water
pollution.
Ocean Dumping. Dredged
material, sewage sludge, and
industrial wastes are a major
source of ocean pollution.
Sediments dredged from
industrialized urban harbors
are often highly contaminated
with heavy metals and toxic
synthetic organic chemicals,
such as PCBs and petroleum
hydrocarbons.
Wetlands
• More than half of the
wetlands originally in the
contiguous United States have
been lost and others have
been degraded by pollution
and hydrological changes so
thai they no longer perform
many of their natural functions.
To achieve its “no net loss”
goal, EPA is increasing
enforcement of Federal
restrictions on activities which
destroy or degrade wetlands.
This section of our report
presents the Office of
Inspector General’s (OIG)
perspective orr ignfflcant
vulnerabilities facing EPA.
These items serve to highlight
the crosscutting problems the
OIG believes must be
addressed for the Agency to
conduct its programs and
operations in a more effective,
efflcient and economical
manner. These trends were
derived from an overview of
the common or recurring
conditions identified by OIG
audits, investigations, and
evaluations over time.
Scientific Data Integrity
The accuracy and reliability of
scientific data has always been
crucial to EPA’s mission as a
regulatory agency. Not only is
sound scientific data essential
to EPA’s credibility, it forms
the basis for decisions that
affect all major American
industries and national policies
to prevent hazards and risks to
health and safety. However
audit and investigative work
shows that EPA is not always
getting the research for which
it pays, nor is it always
accurate or objective. EPA is
well aware of its role in
ensuring that laboratories
produce the type of data that
can be relied upon.
The pesticides program is
particularly vulnerable since
the pesticides manufacturers
pay for studies that support
their registration with EPA.
EPA implemented the Good
Laboratory Practices program
to help ensure the integrity of
the data that supports
pesticides registration. The
Agency recognized that this
program had weaknesses,
however, and asked the Office
of Inspector General to look at
alternatives for improving the
program. A recent OlG
special report found that the
same 200 largest laboratories
are inspected over and over,
While another 600 smaller
laboratories are not inspected
at all.
EPA has used independent
laboratories under the Contract
Laboratory Program to test
samples from Superfund sites.
We reported that EPA was not
obtaining and safeguarding all
original documentation
generated by these contract
laboratories. Also, a large
percentage of contract
laboratories were found to
have serious problems with the
integrity of their data and
methods, resulting in criminal
prosecutions, civil recoveries
and debarments.
Contract And Procurement
Practices
Procurement and contract
management concerns
continue to be the subject of
Office of Inspector General
audits, EPA internal control
assessments, and General
Accounting Office reviews.
There is a dangerous tendency
in EPA for the perceived
urgency of program needs to
prevail over sound contract
management. EPA has a
significant reliance on
contractors to perform many of
its functions while contractors
may rely on limited scrutiny or
liberal interpretation of their
claims. Past OlG audits and
investigations have identified
instances of overcharging,
including exorbitant markups
on materials and services;
award fees being given to
contractors for less than
satisfactory work; conflict of
interest involving EPA
employees; and schemes by
contractors to defraud EPA.
We recently reported that in
Region 8s management of a
computer support contract, a
personal services relationship
developed, in violation of
Federal civil service laws and
regulations, because the
regional and national project
officers prepared statements of
work which broadly described
the desired services and did
not ensure the contractor could
perform needed tasks and
services.
In its 1990 letter to the
President, required by the
Financial Managers’ Financial
Integrity Act, the Agency
reported a material weakness
for Superfund because of the
perception that contractors are
assisting the program office
with policy and regulatory
development. Also, EPA’s
Office of Research and
Development reported that
there is a growing inability to
adequately manage extramural
resources, which creates the
potential for fraud, waste and
abuse.
GAO has identified
weaknesses in EPA’s contract
management, in such areas as
cost controls and the quality of
contractors’ performance. In
recent testimony before
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
Congress, GAO stated that
EPA has a large backlog of
requests for audits of its
contracts, with audits of funds
paid to contractors being
delayed for years. As GAO
recommended, the Inspector
General is developing a plan
for auditing contracts and has
requested resources to reduce
the audit backlog and to keep
abreast of future requirements.
Financial Management: Chief
Financial Officers Act
The Chief Financial Officers
(CFO) Act provides for
improvements in financial
management and internal
controls to assure that
agencies produce reliable
financial information to deter
fraud, waste and abuse.
Recognizing the importance of
financial management, the OlG
has over the years performed
a number of audits in the area.
These audits have found that
EPA’s accounting systems do
not provide complete,
consistent, reliable and timely
information for Agency
decision making and control of
assets. In addition, 0MB
considers the Agency’s
accounting system a high risk
area.
In a recently completed
review of fiscal 1990
Superfund obligations and
disbursements, we found that
weaknesses continued to exist
in EPA’s new accounting
system (the Integrated
Financial Management
System), property was not
accurately recorded in the
Agency’s property accounting
system, and accounts
receivable were not properly
recorded and managed.
Concerning Superfund, we
found that 90 percent or $56.9
million of accounts receivable
were classified as delinquent;
$4.6 million were not recorded
timely; and $181,000 of
interest on overdue accounts
receivable had not been
assessed. Also, promised
corrective actions on
receivables were either not
completed or were
considerably delayed along
with progress toward achieving
accurate and complete
accounts receivable records.
In response to the CFO Act
and as a result of these prior
audits, we are continuing our
emphasis on performing audits
in the financial management
area to ensure that necessary
improvements are made in the
Agency’s financial systems
and internal controls.
Superfund
While progress has been
made, OIG audits and
investigations show that further
significant improvements are
needed to improve the cleanup
of Superfund sites. EPA has
emphasized implementing the
needed improvements
identified in the Administrator’s
1989 comprehensive review of
the Superfund program. As a
result, EPA has sought to
focus its limited resources on
addressing the worst problems
at Superfund sites first. Due
to continued problems with
administration of the
Superfund program, the
Administrator directed two task
forces to perform major studies
in the summer of 1991. One
of these focused on
accelerating the program and
improving risk assessment and
management. The other
focused on contracting
problems.
The OlG continues to find
fraudulent analyses, falsified
data, uncalibrated equipment,
backdated analyses, and other
serious problems with the
contract laboratories used to
analyze samples from
Superfund sites. These
problems could call into
question cleanup decisions
made on the basis of
unreliable data analyses and
hamper the recovery of EPA’s
cleanup costs from those
responsible for the
contamination.
Also, EPA has not
adequately monitored the
cleanup activities by
responsible parties under
voluntary agreements. The
Agency is often not timely
reviewing and approving
project plans and other
deliverables, assessing
stipulated penalties for
noncompliance with the
cleanup agreements, or
adequately monitoring Agency
contractors to oversee the
private cleanups. Further,
EPA continued to be unable to
prepare complete and accurate
financial reports. The
Agency’s Integrated Financial
Management System (IFMS)
lacked a reporting function and
the Agency had not updated
the Agency’s accounting
procedures since the
implementations of IFMS. In
addition, we continue to find
problems with the Agency’s
remedial investigation!
feasibility study (RIIFS)
process. Rl/FS reports, which
are key to Superfund site
decision-making, are
sometimes incomplete,
inaccurate, delayed and not
cost effective.
Audit Followup
The Agency’s system for
tracking actions of audit
findings is unreliable and the
Agency’s Semiannual Reports
to Congress on audit followup
activity have been inaccurate.
Since 1989 we have been
assessing the effectiveness of
the Agency’s efforts to carry
out audit followup
responsibilities. When we first
began these reviews, there
was no national system of
audit followup in use. Now,
there is the Management Audit
Tracking System (MATS)
being used by all regions.
However, our more recent
reviews point out that while
there is a national automated
system now in place, the
information in that system is
still not reliable. In our latest
report on audit followup,
issued in September 1991, we
found in just three regions,
almost as much in unreported
recoveries ($7.4 million) as the
Agency reported for all ten
regions ($8.3 million) in its
Reports to Congress for 1990.
As a result of our early
reviews, the Agency reported
audit followup as a material
weakness in its 1989 and 1990
Federal Managers’ Financial
Integrity Act (FMFIA) Reports
to Congress and the President.
Based on information
contained in our latest review,
the Agency is again
considering reporting the same
material weaknesses in its
1991 report. While we have
seen Headquarters program
managers exert considerable
effort to improve the national
automated system and the
audit followup program as a
whole, these efforts were not
uniformly effective in the
regions we reviewed.
April 1 1991 through September 30, 1991
5
-------
Profile Of Activities And Results
Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
April 1, 1991 to
September 30, 1991 Fiscal 1991
(Dollars in Millions)
Recommended Etficiencles(Funds be Put to Better Use)
• Total Efficiencies $183.8
• Federal Share Etficiencies $178.6
- Cost Disallowed to be Recovered
- Federal Share ineligible
- Federal Share Unsupported
- Federal Share Unnecessary/Unreasonable
(costs which EPA management agrees are
unallowable and is committed to recover
or offset against future payments)
- Cost Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
• Federal Share Recommended Efficiencies
(funds made available by EPA management’s
commitment to implement recommendations in
OIG performance or preaward audits)
OTHER AUDITS:
Audits Performed by another Federal Agency or Single Audit Act Audits
- Questioned Costs
• Total Ineligible
• Federal Share Ineligible
• Total Unsupported
- Federal Share Unsupported*
- Total Unnecessary/Unreasonable
• Federal Share Unnecessary/Unreasonable
- Recommended Efflciencles(Funds be Put to Better Use)
• Total Efficiencies $202.7
- Federal Share Efficiencies $202.7
- Cost Disallowed to be Recovered
• Federal Share Ineligible
- Federal Share Unsupported
• Federal Share Unnecessary/Unreasonable
(costs which EPA management agrees are
unallowable and is committed to recover
or offset against future payments)
Questioned Cost: Ineligible, Unsupported and Unnecessary/Unreasonable; and
Recommended Efficiencies (Funds be Put to Better Use) are subject to change
pending further review in the autht resolution process.
• Cost Disallowed as Cost Efficiency
- Federal Share Recommended Efficiencies
(funds made available by EPA management’s
commitment to implement recommendations in
OIG performance or preaward audits)
Agency Recoveries:
• Recoveries from Audit Resolutions of $24.
Current and Prior Periods
(cash collections or offsets to future
payments)**
REPORTS ISSUED:
- 016 MANAGED AUDITS:
- EPA Audits Performed by the 016
- EPA Audits Peformed by Independent
Public Accountants
- EPA Audits Performed by State Auditors
- OTHER AUDITS:
- EPA Audits Performed by another
Federal Agency
- Single Audit Act Audits
TOTAL REPORTS ISSUED
- Audit Reports Resolved 230
(agreement by Agency officials to take
satisfactory corrective action)
investigative Operations
• Fines and Recoveries (including civil)
• Investigations Opened
• Investigations Closed
• Indictments of Persons or Firms
• Convictions of Persons or Firms
• Administrative Actions Taken
Againsl EPA Employees
Fraud Detection and Prevention Operations
• Debarments, Suspensions, Voluntary Exclusions,
and Settlement Agreements (actions to deny
$207.4 persons or firms from participating in EPA
$207.4 programs or operations because of misconduct
or poor performance)
• Hotline Complaints Received
$4.1 • Hotline Complaints Processed and Closed
$0.1 • Proposed Legislative and
$0.0 Regulatory Items Reviewed
• Personnel Security
Investigations Adjudicated
“Information on recoveries from audit resolution is provided from the EPA
Financial Management Division and is unaudited.
April 1, 1991 to
September 30, 1991 Fiscal 1991
(Dollars in Millions)
Audit Operations
016 MANAGED AUDITS:
Audits Performed by EPA, Independent Public Accountants (IPA) and State
Auditors
• Questioned Costs
- Total Ineligible $107.3
- Federal Share Ineligible $80.1
- Total Unsupported $29.0
- Federal Share Unsupported $22.6
• Total Unnecessary/Unreasonable $182.0
- Federal Share Unnecessary/Unreasonable $136.7
$1.2
$33.9
$86
$1.3
$2.3
$150.3
$110.3
$101.1
$76.4
$189.2
$142.1
$237.1
$221.0
$53.2
$14.0
$2.2
$60.9
$8.1
$8.1
$2.3
$2.3
$0.6
$0.6
52
97
16
241
536
942
$8.3
$80.3
100
156
28
366
1,038
1,688
517
$8,189,177
257
284
55
27
49
238
64
47
130
816
$5.4
$5.4
$1.3
$1.3
$0.4
$0.4
$4,541,615
147
153
18
11
38
$1.2
$0.1
$0.0
148
37
27
86
466
6
Office of f he Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
Establishment Of The OIG In EPA—Its Role And Authority
The Inspector General Act of
1978 (Public Law 95-452), as
amended, created Offices of
Inspector General to
consolidate existing
investigative and audit
resources in independent
organizations headed by
Inspectors General.
EPA established its Office of
Inspector General (OlG) in
January 1980. As an agency
with a massive public works
budget, EPA is vulnerable to
various kinds of financial
abuses. The OIG’s role is to
review EPA’s financial
transactions, program
operations, and administrative
activities; investigate
allegations or evidence of
possible criminal and civil
violations; and promote
economic, efficient, and
effective Agency operations.
The QIG is also responsible
for reviewing EPA regulations
and legislation.
The EPA Inspector General
reports directly to the
Administrator and the
Congress and has the
authority to:
• Initiate and carry out
independent and objective
audits and investigations,
• Issue subpoenas for
evidence and information,
• Obtain access to any
materials in the Agency,
• Report serious or flagrant
problems to Congress,
• Select and appoint OIG
employees,
• Fill Senior Executive Service
positions,
• Administer oaths, and
• Enter into contracts.
The Inspector General is
appointed by, and can be
removed only by, the
President. This independence
protects the OIG from
interference by Agency
management and allows it to
function as the Agency’s fiscal
and operational watchdog.
Organization
and Staffing
The Office of Inspector
General functions through
three major offices, each
headed by an Assistant
Inspector General: Office of
Audit, Office of Investigations,
and Office of Management.
Nationally, there are seven
Divisional Inspectors General
for Audit and five Divisional
Inspectors General for
Investigations who direct staffs
of auditors and investigators
and who report to the
appropriate Assistant Inspector
General in Headquarters.
Purpose And
Requirements Of The
Office Of Inspector
General Semiannual
Report
The Inspector General Act of
1978 (Public Law 95-452), as
amended, requires the
Inspector General to keep the
Administrator and Congress
fully and currently informed of
problems and deficiencies in
the Agency’s operations and to
recommend corrective action.
The IG Act further specifies
that semiannual reports will be
provided to the Administrator
by each April 30 and October
31, and to Congress 30 days
later. The Administrator may
transmit comments to
Congress along with the
report, but may not change
any part of the report.
The specific reporting
requirements prescribed in the
Inspector General Act of 1978,
as amended, are listed below.
The Inspector General Act
Amendments of 1988 require
Inspector General Act, as amended
more detailed statistics on the
status of audit reports, their
recommendations and
monetary results.
Source Section and Page
Section 4(al(21, Rev ew of Leg slation and 4 36
Reg u a tions
Section 5(a)(1), Significant Problems, Abuses, 1 10
and Deficiencies
Section 5(a)12), Recommendations with Respect 1 10
to Significant Problems, Abuses
and Deficiencies
Section 5(a113), Prior Significant Appendix 2 60
Recommendations on Which
Corrective Action Has Not Beefl
Completed
Section 5(al(4), Matters Referred to Prosecut ’ 3 32
Authorities
Section 5(aii5l, Summary of Instances Where -
Information Was Refused
Section 51all61, List of Audit Reports Appendix 1 45
Section 5lall7), Summary of Significant Report 1 10
Sect on 5(ali8l, Statistical Table 1- Reports With 2 30
Costs Questioned
Section 5lall9l, Statistical Table 2 - Reports With 2 30
Recommendations That Funds
Be Put To Better Use
Section OlalllOl, Summary of Previous Reports Appendix 2 60
No Management Decisions, an
Explanation of the Reasons Sc
Management Decision Has Nc’
Been Made, and a Statement
Concerning the Desired
T metabIe for Achieving a
Management Decision on Eacn
Such Report
Section 5ialrl 1. Descripton And Explanation o Appendix 2 60
Reused Management Decisior
Section 5la)il2i, Management Deois;ons With -
Which The Inspector General is
in Disagreement
* There were no instances wt ere information or assistance requested
by the Inspector General was refused during this reporting period.
Accordingly, we have nothing to report under section 5(a)(5) of
the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended.
There were no instances of management decisions with which the
Inspector General was in disagreement
Stai ,,, 9 Distribution__Fiscal
1991 CeilIng
Office
Staff & Support
Operations
& Field
Total
inspector General
5
—
5
Audit
31
212
243
investigations
7
64
71
Management
31
—
31
Total
74
276
350
April 1, 1991 through September 30, 1991
7
-------
Headquarters
Office of Inspector General — Who’s Who
Office of Audit
Kenneth A. Konz
Assistant Inspector General
James 0. Rauch
Deputy
Operations Staff
ElIssa R. Karpf
Director
Technical Assistance Staff
Gordon Milbourn
Director
Inspector General
John C. Martin
Deputy Inspector General
Anna Hopkins Virbick
Office of Investigations
Daniel S. Sweeney
Assistant Inspector General
Vacant
Deputy
Office of Management
John C. Jones
Assistant Inspector General
Technical Assessment and
Fraud Prevention Division
Earline Broaden
Director
Administration and
Management Services
Division
Michael Binder
Director
Planning and Resources
Management Staff
Kenneth Hockman
Director
Divisional Inspectors General
RegIon 9 & 10
Truman R. Beeler,
Audit
H. Brooks Griffin
Investigations
Region 5
Anthony C. Carrollo, Audit
RegIon 1 & 2
Paul McKechnie, Audit
Robert M. Byrnes,
Investigations
Region 3
Paul R. Gandolfo, Audit
Martin Squitieri
Investigations
Headquarters
Edward Gekosky,
Internal Audit
Francis C. Kiley
Washington Field Office
Investigations
Region 5, 7, & 8
Alex Falcon, Investigations
Region 4 & 6
Mary Bayer, Audit
James F. Johnson,
Investigations
8
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
r
-ii
-------
Section 1—Significant Problems, Abuses, And Recommendations
As required by sections
5(a)(1) and (2) of the
Inspector General Act of
1978, as amended, this
section identifies significant
problems, abuses, and
deficiencies relating to the
Agency’s programs and
operations along with
recommendations for the
current period. The findings
described in this section
resulted from audits and
reviews performed by or for
the Office of Audit and
reviews conducted by the
Office of Investigations.
Because these represent
some of our most significant
findings, they should not be
considered representative of
the overall adequacy of EPA
management. Audit findings
are open to further review
but are the final position of
the Office of Inspector
General. This section is
divided into five areas:
Summary of Audit Activities
and Results, Agency
Management, Construction
Grants, Superfund, and
Special and Early Warning
Reviews.
Summary of
Audit Activities
and Results
Questioned Costs And Recommended
efficiencies By Type Of Audit
350
C ,,
0
0
150
100
50
Others Superfund
Areas Of Effort By Staff Days
(Total - 18,765 Days)
Performance
5855 31%
Sources Of Reports
(Total Reports - 942)
300
250
200
0
Construction
Federal Questioned
Non-Federal Questioned
Federal Share
Recommended Efficiencies
Non-Federal Share
Recommended Efficiencies
Superfund
Performance
2543 14%
Audits
57%
Superfund-F & C
4082 22%
10
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
Agency
Management
The Inspector Genera! Act
requires the O!G to initiate
reviews and other activities to
promote economy and
efficiency and to detect and
prevent fraud, waste, and
mismanagement in EPA
programs and operations.
Internal and management
audits and reviews are
conducted to accomplish these
objectives largely by evaluating
the economy, efficiency, and
effectiveness of operations.
The following are the most
significant internal and
management audit and review
findings and recommendations.
Eftects Of Many Inert
Ingredients In
Pesticides Are
Unknown
Problem
EPA had not promptly
reviewed the potential
toxicity of most inert
ingredients in pesticides to
ensure that human health
and the environment are
adequately protected.
Background
Under the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA), EPA is authorized to
regulate pesticides. Inert
ingredients are added to
pesticides to serve as a
solvent, thickener, or
propellant to make them more
effective or usable. However,
recognizing that some inert
ingredients may be toxic, EPA
issued an Inerts Strategy in
1987 classifying inerts into four
categories: (1) those of
unknown toxicity (1,300), (2)
those known to be toxic (56),
(3) those potentially toxic (68),
and (4) those generally
recognized as having no toxic
effect (300). There may be an
additional 600 products
containing inert ingredients
which EPA has not adequately
identified.
We Found That
EPA had not reviewed about
1,300 inert ingredients in
pesticides of unknown toxicity
to determine whether they
pose potential adverse effects
to human health and the
environment. The 1987 lnerts
Strategy did not detail how
EPA would address those
inerts of unknown toxicity
although they were the largest
category. At the time of our
review, EPA had started
reviewing the publicly available
information on 500 of these
inerts. However, the Agency
had not finalized plans to
review over 800 remaining
inerts in that category.
As a resuft of EPA actions,
the 56 toxic inert ingredients
identified in the Inerts Strategy
had been removed from most
of the 1,228 products
previously containing these
inerts. However, EPA had not
completed a compliance
monitoring strategy to ensure
that the registrants of the
pesticides actually removed
the toxic ingredients from their
products. Also, EPA had not
completed other actions
intended to reduce the risk
from pesticides containing
toxic inert ingredients, such as:
Requiring registrants to
furnish data on exposure,
ecological effects and
environmental fate for 24 other
pesticide products identified
since 1987 as containing toxic
inerts.
• Acting on registrants’
requests for waivers of data
requirements for 53 products
under review since 1989.
• Completing the review of 68
inerts identified as potentially
toxic for roclassification as
toxic or generally safe. (After 3
years, a work group had
recommended that 19 of these
inerts be reclassified as toxic.)
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrator for
Pesticides and Toxic
Substances:
• Establish action plans to
review all inert ingredients in
pesticides.
• Develop and implement a
compliance monitoring strategy
for determining whether
registrants have removed toxic
ingredients from their products.
What Action Was Taken
The final audit report was
issued to the Assistant
Administrator for Pesticides
and Toxic Substances on
September 27, 1991. A
response to the final report is
due by December 26, 1991.
In response to our draft report,
the Assistant Administrator
outlined corrective actions
which, if properly implemented,
should resolve the report’s
findings.
Harvesting lettuce in California
(photo by Donald C. Schuhart).
April 1, 1991 through September 30, 1991
11
-------
Improvements
Needed To Protect
Wetlands
Problem
Protection of the nation’s
wetlands from the discharge
of dredged or fill material
was undermined by EPA’s
inconsistent program
Implementation.
Background
Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act, as amended, was
intended to reduce the
destruction and degradation of
the nation’s waters, including
valuable wetlands, from the
discharge of dredged or fill
materials. Wetlands are a
particularly valuable and
vulnerable natural resource
which provide many essential
functions, such as maintaining
groundwater quality, protecting
shoreline from erosion, and
serving as habitat for a large
diversity of birds and fish.
Only about 95 million acres of
the original 215 million acres
of wetlands in the contiguous
United States remain today.
We Found That
Significant management
improvements are needed in
EPA’s wetlands protection
program if legislative and
Agency goals are to be
achieved. EPA had not
established measurable goals
and commitments for regional
wetlands activities. Regional
implementation of the basic
wetlands program elements--
enforcement, permitting, and
strategic initiatives--varied in
emphasis and results.
Consequently, wetlands
regulation was inconsistent
and unpredictable and subject
to public distrust and criticism.
Specifically:
Regions did not coordinate
with the Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) to
consistently identify illegal
discharges of dredged or fill
material into regulated waters
and take enforcement against
those violators. Nor did the
regions adequately address
solid waste discharges as EPA
had agreed with the COE to
enforce under its CWA
authority.
Regions did not (1) maintain
sufficient viable data on which
to base regulatory decisions,
(2) implement consistent,
controlled public notice review
processes, (3) properly
exercise EPA’s statutory
responsibilities concerning
jurisdictional determinations
and (4) use available
authorities to resolve
interagency disputes over
permitting.
Regions did not identify and
prioritize wetlands as to value
and vulnerability to target
limited program resources and
inform the public of most
threatened wetlands. Nor did
the region adequately plan
wetlands initiatives, specifically
the advanced identification of
priority wetland areas as
suitable or unsuitable for the
discharge of dredged or fill
material.
We Recommended That:
The Assistant Administrator for
Water:
• Develop and implement long-
term guidance, plans, and
meaningful measures of
accomplishment to ensure
better management
accountability and
achievement of the national
wetlands program goals and
objectives.
• Establish procedures to
monitor the COE enforcement
program to identify major
violations subject to EPA
actions and take a consistent
enforcement approach against
those violators.
• Develop a national approach
for EPA’s public notice review
process addressing
compliance with and the use of
existing authorities to foster a
consistent, predictable
regulatory response.
• Establish a formal approach
with COE to plan joint
initiatives designed to
maximize the long-term
protection of designated
priority wetlands.
What Action Was Taken
The final audit report
(1100434) was issued to the
Assistant Administrator for
Water on September 30, 1991.
A response to the final audit
report is due by December 24,
1991. In responding to our
draft report, the Assistant
Administrator disagreed with
some of our findings and
recommendations. The
Assistant Administrator stated
that (1) EPA’S wetlands
program encompassed more
than the regulatory approaches
emphasized in the audit report,
(2) positions taken regarding
program accountability were
premised on a management
philosophy that she believed
was inconsistent with current
Agency policy, and (3) the
report reflects a misperception
of EPA’S role in wetlands
enforcement. However, these
disagreements were generally
not supported by facts,
documentation, or sources.
EPA Region 8
Created A Personal
Services Relationship
With Support
Contractor
Problem
Region 8 and EPA
Headquarters did not follow
EPA and Federal guidance
and regulations in managing
support contracts with
Computer Sciences
Corporation (CSC). As a
result, contractor employees
worked without clearly
defined tasks or criteria for
measuring their performance
and created a personal
services relationship
between EPA and CSC.
We Found That
EPA Region 8 and
Headquarters did not
implement and enforce sound
contract management controls
for administering CSC contract
activities. CSC employees
performed without approved,
adequate statements of work.
Region 8 personnel generally
were not knowledgeable of
Erecting wood duck nesting box
on edge of deep water marsh in
Minnesota (photo by Russ
Jongewaad, USDA).
12
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
contract terms and were not
held accountable for
performing contractor
oversight. The regional and
national delivery order project
officers (DOPO) did not
develop sufficient plans to
monitor contract progress and
time charges.
Region 8’s administration of
the CSC contracts created a
personal services relationship
between EPA and CSC
contract employees, thereby
violating federal civil service
laws and Federal Acquisition
Regulations. DOPOs prepared
broad statements of work
which were not adequate to
ensure that CSC would
perform needod tasks and
services. Region 8 personnel
extensively supervised CSC
employees to ensure they
performed tasks and services
as intended. CSC employees
were commingled with Region
8 employees, were furnished
principal tools and
equipment; and performed
ongoing services which lasted
more than 1 year and were
expected to continue
indefinitely. Region 8
regarded CSC employees as
an integral part of the Region’s
organization in carrying out
EPA’s mission.
The Region inappropriately
paid CSC for more hours than
its employees worked,
including time spent attending
EPA functions, basic computer
training, and contractor
meetings, ignoring Agency
prohibition against paying for
such charges. In addition,
Region B helped CSC
maximize profits by improperly
upgrading labor categories and
CSC employees. As a result,
EPA incurred $110,354 in
unnecessary charges in fiscal
years 1990 and 1991.
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management:
Require DOPOs to prepare
statements of work which
contain measurable
performance criteria and
develop and implement
appropriate written plans to
monitor contractor progress
and associated costs.
• Require the DOPOs to
reevaluate Region 8’s labor
categories for each CSC
employee and reclassify
positions to meet job skills
required by the Region.
• Ensure Region 8 has
adequate EPA staff available
to perform essential
government services and
eliminate even the appearance
of contractor employees being
improperly used for personal
services.
The Regional Administrator,
Region 8:
• Include contract
administration duties in the
performance standards of
appropriate employees and
require employees who
provide contractor work
assignments or monitor
contract activities to attend the
contract administration and
project officer training courses.
• Discontinue all practices
which give the appearance of
EPA employees supervising
CSC employees.
What Action Was Taken
The final audit report
(1100441) was issued to the
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Administration and
Resources Management and
the Regional Administrator,
Region 8, on September 30,
1991. A response to the final
audit report is duo by
December 29, 1991. The
Agency and the Region
generally agreed with the
findings and the
recommendations in the report
and have committed to take
corrective actions.
Stronger
Enforcement And
Oversight Needed
For Region 8 RCRA
Program
Problem
EPA Region B had not
provided adequate oversight
of Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA)
enforcement activities nor
did states assess monetary
penalties that considered the
severity of the RCRA
regulation violation or the
economic benefit of
noncompliance.
Background
RCRA established the
statutory framework for
regulating solid and hazardous
wastes. EPA may authorize
States to develop and
implement hazardous waste
programs. The Agency
administers RCRA functions in
states which it has not
authorized to administer RCRA
programs. As of September
1990, Region 8 had authorized
all States in the Region,
except Wyoming, to administer
RCRA programs.
We Found That
States had not implemented
strong enforcement programs.
EPA oversight was not
adequate to disclose program
deficiencies or to correct
deficiencies. States had not
imposed strong penalties in
accordance with the
requirements established in
State/EPA agreements or
always documented the basis
for proposed penalties or
negotiated adjustments. As a
result, violators could gain
financially from noncompliance
with the statutory and
regulatory RCRA
requirements.
In 11 instances, Utah and
Colorado assessed penalties
that were an estimated
$233,720 less than justified
and did not consider the
economic benefit of
noncompliance. Montana did
not consider the severity of the
violations in calculating the two
penalties it assessed and later
reduced and suspended the
penalties by $1.5 million. As a
result, violators did not correct
problems and inspectors
repeatedly found the same
hazardous conditions.
Region 8 had not provided
sufficient oversight of State
RCRA enforcement activities
to ensure that States adhered
to the Federal RCRA
enforcement program.
Reviewers did not always
report program review results
and did not establish foUowup
systems to ensure corrective
action.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator,
Region 8:
• Require comprehensive
regional oversight to ensure
States comply with RCRA
enforcement and penalty
regulations and policy.
o Encourage States to develop
a more aggressive policy for
taking enforcement actions
within established guidelines.
What Action Was Taken
The final audit report
(1100428) was issued to the
Regional Administrator, Region
8, on September 30, 1991. A
response to the final report is
due by December 19, 1991.
The Regional Administrator
disagreed with some individual
findings and recommendations
in the draft report, but agreed
that the Region could improve
its administration of the RCRA
program and has committed to
taking corrective actions.
April 1, 1991 through September 30, 1991
-------
Problems Continued
To Plague State
Vehicle Inspection
And Maintenance
Programs
Problem
Over the years, EPA’. Office
of Mobile Sources (OMS)
has identified serious and
continuing weaknesses in
state vehicle inspection and
maintenance (l/M) programs.
Although EPA recommended
corrective actions, in many
instances, the states had not
implemented them.
Background
Motor vehicles are major
sources of carbon monoxide
and ozone two pervasive air
pollutants. Motor vehicles emit
unburned hydrocarbons and
oxides of nitrogen which react
together in the presence of
sunlight to form ozone.
Carbon monoxide impairs the
body’s ability to transport
oxygen to the brain and body
cells. Ozone, a severe irritant,
damages lung tissue,
aggravates respiratory
disease, and makes people
more susceptible to respiratory
infections.
Vehicle l/M programs are
designed to ensure the
effectiveness of emission
control systems on motor
vehicles. The IIM programs
require periodic inspection of
motor vehicles and emission
related maintenance.
Currently, 101 urban areas in
35 States and the District of
Columbia have tIM programs.
We Found That
Fifty-two of 75 inspectors (69
percent) in four states
inspected by the Office of
Mobile Sources (OMS)
improperly tested and passed
vehicles that OMS had
intentionally set to fail the
emission test.
• IIM programs in 2 of 6 states
reviewed were not capturing
necessary test data so that
OMS could determine if
programs were operating
effectively.
• Equipment used to test
vehicles in 5 of 6 states
inspected by OMS was often
unreliable because of
obsolescence or improper
calibration.
• Training of l/ 1 personnel
(inspectors and auditors) in 5
of 6 states inspected by OMS
was inadequate, resulting in
improper testing and
monitoring of l/M activities.
• State enforcement action
against noncomplying station
owners and inspectors in 5 of
6 states inspected by OMS
was ineffective and did not
deter program violations.
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrator for
Air and Radiation improve the
vehicle Ii? 1 programs by:
• Strengthening controls over
decentralized state l/M
programs;
• Improving quality assurance
of state l/M programs;
• Establishing minimum
training requirements for
inspectors and state auditors;
and
• Providing specific guidance
to states on acceptable
enforcement programs.
What Action Was Taken
In his response to the draft
report, the Director, OMS,
generally agreed with our
findings and recommendations
and indicated that OMS was in
the process of revising the
guidance on IIM programs in
accordance with the Clean Air
Act, as amended. The final
audit report (1100359) was
issued to the Assistant
Administrator for Air and
Radiation on August 16, 1991.
A response to the final report
is due by November 14, 1991.
Testing for motor vehicle emission
control system’s effectiveness.
Greater Efforts
Needed To Improve
The Delaware And
Inland Bays Estuaries
Problem
Region 3’s current efforts
under the National Estuary
Program (NEP) are
repetitious of past attempts
to improve the Delaware and
Inland Bays Estuaries, and
the State of Delaware had
not enforced the Clean
Water Act against polluters
that discharge into these
estuaries.
Background
The NEP was established by
the 1987 amendments to the
Clean Water Act (CWA) as a
nationwide demonstration
program that targets selected
estuaries of national
significance for protection and
improvement.
We Found That
Region 3’s efforts to implement
the NEP have restated the
requirements of the relevant
statutes and regulations that
the Agency should already be
enforcing against polluters and
has not implemented many of
the recommendations made in
past studies because the
desired solutions were either
expensive or unpopular.
Further, Region 3 did not
always aggressively enforce
the existing statutes and
regulations against polluters.
Also, the State of Delaware did
not take adequate enforcement
actions against facilities that
violated their National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
perm ifs. Region 3 did not take
enforcement action against
those violators when the State
failed to do so.
14
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator,
Region 3:
Review previous studies that
relate to the Delaware and
Inland Bays estuaries to
analyze impacts and
reevaluate the feasibility of
implementing their
recommendations.
Ensure that other Region 3
program offices more
effectively support the NEP
program to ensure that the two
estuary programs are not
required to complete tasks that
are the responsibility of others.
• Implement an agricultural
initiative to address non-point
source pollution that affect the
Inland Bays estuary program.
• Assure that more timely and
aggressive enforcement is
taken against polluters.
• Ensure that the State of
Delaware assesses penalties
against violators which are
significant enough to deter
noncompliance and initiate
direct Federal enforcement
action when the state fails to
pursue violators.
What Action Was Taken
The final report (1100422) was
issued to the Regional
Administrator, Region 3, on
September26, 1991, anda
response is due by December
26, 1991. in response to the
draft report, the Regional
Administrator generally did not
agree with our audit report.
He stated that many actions
have been taken by EPA,
states, and local agencies to
better focus, accelerate, or
supplement various programs
to solve priority estuary
problems and that the QIG
report recommendations are
part of the actions being
implemented. Also, he
suggested that we recognize
their significant
accomplishments over the
years.
Construction Grant
Obligations
Overstated By $49
Million
Problem
EPA regional offices did not
take timely action to
deobligate nearly $49 million
of construction grant funds
that could have been used
for needed projects.
Background
Title Il of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act, as
amended, authorized EPA to
award grants to communities
for constructing wastewater
treatment projects. Since
creation of the program in
1972, the Agency has provided
over $50 billion to assist in
constructing these projects.
Although 1990 was the last
year funds were authorized for
Title II grants, more than 5,000
grants representing nearly $32
billion have not been closed
out. In 1987, the program was
revised to assist communities
in constructing new and
upgraded wastewater
treatment facilities through
grants to State Revolving
Funds (SRF).
We Found That
Nearly $49 million of the $433
million of unliquidated
construction grant obligations
reviewed in eight regions were
invalid and should have been
deobligated. Also, part of
approximately $82 million of
additional unliquidated
obligations should be
deobligated when the grants
are administratively complete
or terminated.
EPA has issued numerous
policies and procedures
encouraging timely
construction of wastewater
treatment facilities,
administrative completion of
construction grants, and timely
deobligation of excess funds.
For examp’e, when final
payment requests are not
submitted timely, the regions
are required to inform grantees
that their last payment request
will be treated as the final one
unless a final payment request
is received within 90 days.
However, regional officials did
not always follow these
policies and procedures. As a
result, funds not needed to
complete projects remained
obligated when those funds
could have been used to fund
(1) grants to states to
capitalize SRFs, (2) costs of
states’ closing out their
traditional construction grant
programs, and (3) overruns on
existing traditional construction
grants.
We Recommended That
The Acting Assistant
Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management and the Assistant
Administrator for Water have
all regional administrators: (1)
review their respective grants
identified in our sample and
deobligate unneeded funds, (2)
notify the Assistant
Administrators of the actions
taken, and (3) confirm that
funds are being deobligated in
accordance with Agency policy
as part of fiscal 1992 internal
control reviews.
What Action Was Taken
The final audit report
(1100426) was issued to the
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Administration and
Resources Management and
the Assistant Administrator for
Water on September 30, 1991.
A response to the final audit
report is due by December 29,
1991. The Offices of
Administration and Resources
Management and Water told
us that the regions have
completed their reviews of the
grants cited in the report and
are taking the necessary
action to deobligate the
unliquidated obligations.
15
April 1, 1991 through September 30, 1991
-------
Construction
Grants
EPA’S waste water treatment
works construction grants
program is the largest single
program the Agency
administers. Under the
provisions of Public Law
92-500, as amended, the
Agency is authorized to make
grants covering 55 percent
and, in some instances, up to
85 percent of the eligible costs
of constructing wastewater
treatment facilities. During this
semiannual period, $356
million was obligated on 105
new awards and 420 increases
to existing grants. As of
September 30, 1991, there
were 997 active construction
grants, representing $6 billion
in Federal obligations.
Amendments to the
construction grants program
are covered in Title I! of the
Water Quality Act of 1987.
Section 212 creates a new
Title VI in the Clean Water Act,
which addresses the process
of phasing out the construction
grants program by providing
incentives for development of
aftemative funding
mechanisms by the States.
The new Title VI charges EPA
with developing and
implementing a program to
provide grants to capitalize
State revolving funds for
finandng wastewater projects.
During this semiannual
period, $1.4 billion was
awarded for 38 continuation
grants. As of September 30,
1991, EPA had obligated $4.8
billion to 50 States and Puerto
Rico under the State Revolving
Fund program.
16
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
Los Angeles Claimed
$90.3 Million In
Questioned Costs
( iost ies
Questioned
0
20 40 60 80 100 120
Mtlions of Dollars
Federal Non-Federal
Problem
The City of Los Angeles,
California, claimed
$10,871,601 of Ineligible
construction, engineering,
and force account costs. An
additional $79,434,029 of
unreasonable project costs
were questioned for a facility
not being used for its
intended purpose.
We Found That
EPA awarded nine grants
totaling $101,520,254 to the
City of Los Angeles for various
projects, including the design
and construction of a wet
weather water reclamation
plant; the planning, design and
construction of a sludge
processing and disposal
system; portions of the
Hyperion Energy Recovery
System; and various tank
modernization projects. We
questioned $10,871,601 of the
grantee’s final claim as
ineligible, including:
• $5,941,819 of engineering,
force account and construction
costs which were unapproved
as outside the scope of the
project or were inadequately
documented;
• $4,417,052 of grantee force
account costs incurred without
approval prior to the award of
the grants;
• $444,318 of force account
costs allocable to the ineligible
portions of the projects; and
• $68,412 of excessive indirect
costs based on provisional
rates which were in excess of
the approved indirect cost
rates.
I
We also questioned
$79,434,029 of project costs
as unreasonable, $57,928,957
of which was claimed for the
underutilized Tillman
Reclamation Plant. Although
the plant was designed and
constructed as a reclamation
plant, at an increased level of
expenditure and funding, it
was not being used to reclaim
any wastewater.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator,
Region 9, not participate in the
Federal share of ineligible
costs ($8,323,999); determine
the eligibility of the federal
share of the unreasonable
costs ($60,076,899); and
recover the applicable amount
from the grantee.
What Action Was Taken
Three audit reports (1300112,
1300117, and 1300119) were
issued to the Regional
Administrator, Region 9, on
September 25 and 30, 1991.
Responses are due by
December 29, 1991.
Monterey, California,
Claimed $58.6 Million
Of Ineligible And
Unreasonable Costs
I
Monterey
Questioned
0
20 40 60 80 100
Milbons of Dollars
roderal Non-Federal
Problem
The Monterey Regional
Water Pollution Control
Agency, Monterey,
California, claimed
$7,491,007 of ineligible
construction, engineering,
administrative, and other
costs. An additional
$51,118,958 of unreasonable
project costs were
questioned.
We Found That
EPA awarded five grants
totaling $58,298,265 to the
Monterey Regional Water
Pollution Control Agency for
the planning and design of the
North Monterey County
treatment facility and for
constructing interceptors,
pump stations, treatment plant
modifications, an ocean outfall,
and an agricultural irrigation
demonstration project. We
questioned $7,491,007 of the
grantee’s claim as ineligible,
including:
• $3,776,328 of construction,
engineering, administrative,
and other costs in excess of
approved amounts;
• $1,558,787 of construction,
engineering, and other costs
which were questioned in a
prior audit and either sustained
or deferred by EPA, but which
had not been deleted from the
claim;
• $901,481 of engineering and
other costs for redesign work,
in excess of actual amounts,
due to grantee mathematical
error; or not benefiting the
project;
• $370,357 of administrative,
force account, and other costs
allocable to the ineligible
portion of construction;
• $359,368 of administrative
and force account costs
incurred for facility operation
and maintenance;
• $342,362 of revenue
generated from equipment
sales, insurance proceeds,
sublease of facilities and
contributions from other
Federal facilities which were
not credited to the grant; and
• $283,518 of engineering
costs incurred after the
construction completion date.
Also, the grantee did not
claim $101,194 of eligible
engineering and administrative
costs which we deducted from
total ineligible costs. Further,
we questioned $51,118,958 of
project costs as unreasonable.
The audit noted several
matters, including flows
received from Federal facilities
and other municipalities, which
indicated that EPA’s share of
project costs may be
significantly overstated.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator,
Region 9, not participate in the
Federal share of ineligible
costs ($5,621,855); determine
the eligibility of the Federal
share of the unreasonable
costs ($38,348,260); and
recover the applicable amount
from the grantee.
What Action Was Taken
The audit report (1300118)
was issued to the Regional
Administrator, Region 9, on
September 30, 1991. A
response is due by December
29, 1991.
Grantee’s $36.8
Million Project Claim
Questioned After 12
Years Of Violating
Discharge
Limitations
Gary
Audited
Questioned
0 10 20 30 40 50
Millions of Dollars
Federal Non-Federal L 1
Problem
The Gary, Indiana, Sanitary
District (GSD) claimed
$36,853,715 of costs for a
wastewater treatment plant
that has violated its National
Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)
permit sInce 1978.
We Found That
EPA awarded two grants to
GSD for modification of an
existing wastewater treatment
plant and the training of facility
April 1, 1991 through September 30, 1991
17
-------
operators. Because of its
inability to properly operate
and maintain the modified
plant, GSD has consistently
violated its NPDES permit
since 1978. EPA obtained a
final Consent Decree in 1983
requiring GSD to comply with
the effluent limitations
specIfied in Its permit. In 1984,
the United States filed a
Motion to Enforce the Consent
Decree because the grantee
was not complying. EPA filed
an additional complaint in 1986
against the grantee for
violations of the Toxic
Substances Control Act
(TSCA), charging that
excessive concentrations of
PCBs were found in the plant’s
sludge.
To settle the Motion to
Enforce and the TSCA
complaint, EPA entered into a
modified Consent Decree in
1987 requiring several actions
by GSD, including the hiring of
qualified employees to operate
and maintain the plant. At the
completion of our review, GSD
still had not complied with the
modified Consent Decree.
Therefore, we questioned as
ineligible the grantee’s total
claimed costs of $36,853,715.
Should the grantee
eventually comply with the
Consent Decree, we still
questioned $2,492,223 of that
claim as ineligible, including:
• $956,522 of unjustified costs
associated with rescheduling
work under a change order;
• $687,927 of project
inspection and architectural
engineering fees, overhead,
profit, taxes, and bond
premium costs allocable to
other ineligible costs;
• $571,594 of additional
construction costs and
engineering fees outside the
scope of the project, claimed
but not incurred, or exceeding
allowable amounts; and
• $276,180 of costs billed twice
and depreciation on fully
depreciated equipment.
We also questioned
$1,421,332 of unsupported
project inspection and
architectural engineering fees.
We Recommended That
The Chief, Financial
Management Branch, Region 5:
Ensure the grantee operates
and maintains the plant
property and meets its NPDES
permit limitation. If the grantee
does not take the necessary
action, the grants should be
annulled.
• If the grantee properly
operates and maintains its
plant, not participate in the
Federal share of ineligible
costs ($1,869,167); determine
the eligibility of the Federal
share of unsupported costs
($1,066,000); and recover the
applicable amount from the
grantee.
What Action Was Taken
The final audit reports
(1400037 and 1400038) were
issued to the Chief, Financial
Management Branch, Region
5, on September 9, 1991.
Responses are due by
December 9, 1991.
Clark County,
Nevada, Claimed
$32.9 Million Of
Questioned Costs
For Underutilized
Facility
Millions 01 Dollars
— Federal
Problem
Non-Federal
The Clark County Sanitation
District (District), Nevada,
claimed $6,851,921 of
ineligible costs and about
$26 million of unnecessary,
unreasonable, or
unsupported costs for a
wastewater treatment plant
used at only about half of its
capacity.
We Found That
EPA awarded a grant, as
amended, totaling $62,454,745
to the District for constructing
a wastewater treatment plant
for the greater Las Vegas
area. We questioned
$6,851,921 of the grantee’s
claim as ineligible, including:
• $5,335,437 of legal fees to
defend a claim by the
construction contractor which
resulted from grantee caused
delays;
• $806,789 of project costs
paid by the United States Air
Force as its share of the
project for treatment of flows
from Nellis Air Force Base;
• $263,318 of costs for
constructing an electrical
substation that were refunded
by the Nevada Power
Company and miscellaneous
income that were not credited
to the grant;
• $207,687 of administrative
costs incurred for operation
and maintenance, excessive
indirect costs and costs related
to a contractor’s failure to
perform;
• $152,708 resulting from the
grantee’s mathematical error;
and
• $85,982 of construction and
engineering costs in excess of
approved amounts or ineligible
per grantee records.
We also questioned
$688,395 of inadequately
supported engineering,
equipment, and administrative
costs. The grantee also
claimed $25,390,310 of
unnecessary/unreasonable
costs related to the
underutilized and unused
portions of the wastewater
treatment plant. Only 56
percent of the plant capacity
was in use and significant
segments of the facility, such
as the filtration system, were
totally unused.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator,
Region 9, not participate in the
Federal share of ineligible
costs ($5,138,940); determine
the eligibility of the Federal
share of unsupported and
unnecessary/unreasonable
costs ($19,559,029); and
recover the applicable amount
from the grantee.
What Action Was Taken
The audit report (1100436)
was issued to the Regional
Administrator, Region 9, on
September 30, 1991. A final
response is due by December
31, 1991.
Philadelphia Claimed
Over $10.3 Million Of
Questioned Costs
Audited
Questioned
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Millions 0 f Dollars
— Federal
Problem
Non-Federal
The City of Philadelphia
claimed $9,552,760 of
ineligible force account,
engineering, construction,
indirect and Federal facility
share costs. An additional
$801546 of unsupported,
unnecessary and
unreasonable costs were
also questioned.
We Found That
EPA awarded eleven grants
totaling $142,829,885 to the
City of Philadelphia to upgrade
the Southeast Water Pollution
Control Plant to meet National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System permit requirements.
We questioned $9,552,760 of
the grantee’s claimed costs as
ineligible, including:
• $3,645,288 of costs which
exceeded the grant ceiling;
I
Office of the Inspector Genera) Report to the Congress
-------
• $1,831,188 of consulting and
force account engineering
costs incurred after the
construction completion date
or outside the project’s scope;
• $1,796,394 of Federal facility
share costs which should be
paid by the U.S. Navy;
• $1,721,811 of ineligible
construction change orders
and costs previously
disallowed by the State;
• $332,968 of contractor and
City indirect cost rates applied
incorrectly; and
• $225,111 of consulting and
force account engineering
services allocable to the
ineligible portion of the project.
We also questioned
$357,094 for force account,
engineering services, and
indirect costs that lacked
adequate documentation. In
addition, we questioned as
unnecessary $342,213 of
construction costs because the
City did not aggressively
pursue a potential civil claim
for damages from contractors
previously implicated in a bid
rigging scheme. Engineering
costs of $102,239 were
determined to be unreasonable
because they exceeded
generally accepted guidelines.
Nearly $7.7 Million Of
Questioned Costs
Claimed By
Indianapolis, Indiana
Problem
The City of Indianapolis,
Indiana, (City) claimed
$5,245,844 of ineligible
engineering, project
inspection, construction
management, and other
costs. An additional
$2,424,093 of unsupported
costs were questioned.
We Found That
EPA awarded nine grants for a
project the City claimed costs
totaling $222,273,857. The
grants provided funds to plan
and modify the Southport and
Belmont wastewater treatment
plants. The grantee claimed
ineligible costs of $5,245,844,
including:
We Recommended That
The Chief, Financial
Management Branch, Region
5, not participate in the
Federal share of ineligible
costs ($3,565,238); determine
the eligibility of the Federal
share of the unsupported costs
($1,589,503); and recover the
applicable amount from the
grantee.
What Action Was Taken
The audit report (1400047)
was issued to the Chief,
Financial Management Branch,
Region 5, on September 24,
1991. A response is due by
December 24, 1991.
We Recommend That
The Regional Administrator,
Region 3, not participate in the
Federal share of ineligible
costs ($7,164,570) and
determine the eligibility of
unsupported, unnecessary and
unreasonable costs
($601,160).
What Action Was Taken
The final report (1300116) was
issued on September 26,
199 1, to the Regional
Administrator, Region 3. A
response is due by December
26, 1991.
• $3,193,548 of project
inspection and construction
management costs incurred
after the latest EPA-approved
construction completion date;
• $1,707,539 of engineering,
force account, and
administrative costs claimed in
excess of incurred amounts;
• $303,105 of engineering,
administrative, and project
inspection costs applicable to
ineligible construction; and
• $41,652 of equipment costs
for car and truck purchases
which are ordinary operating
expenses.
We also questioned
$2,424,093 of unsupported
project inspection and
engineering costs.
Indianapolis
Audited
1]
Questioned
0 50 100 150 200 250
Millions of Dollars
FederaJ Non-Federal [
April 1, 1991 through September 30, 1991
19
-------
The Superfund program was
created by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA). The
Act provided a $1.6 billion trust
fund to pay for the costs
associated with the cleanup of
sites contaminated with
hazardous waste. Taxing
authority for the trust fund
expired on September 30,
1985. For more than a year,
the Superfund program
operated at a reduced level
from carryover funds and
temporary funds provided by
Congress.
On October 17, 1986, the
Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act of 1986
(SARA) was enacted. It
provides $8.5 billion to
continue the program for 5
more years and makes many
programmatic changes. On
November 5, 1990, the
Omnibus Budget
Reconciliation Act of 1990 was
enacted, authorizing
appropriations for 3 additional
years and extension of the
taxing authority for 4 additional
years.
The parties responsible for
the hazardous substances are
liable for cleaning up the site
themselves or reimbursing the
Government for doing so.
States in which there is a
release of hazardous materials
are required to pay 10 percent
of the costs of Fund-financed
remedial actions, or 50 percent
if the source of the hazard was
operated by the State or local
government.
The enactment of SARA
increased the audit
requirements for the Inspector
General. In addition to
providing a much larger and
more complex program for
which the OIG needs to
provide audit coverage, SARA
gave the Inspector General a
number of specific
responsibilities. Mandatory
annual audit areas include:
• Audit of all payments,
obligations, reimbursements,
or other uses of the Fund;
• Audit of Superfund claims;
• Examination of a sample of
agreements with States
carrying out response actions;
and
• Examination of remedial
investigations and feasibility
studies.
The Inspector General is
required to submit an annual
report to the Congress
regarding the required
Superfund audit work,
containing such
recommendations as the
Inspector General deems
appropriate. The fourth annual
report, covering fiscal 1990,
was issued on September 25,
1991.
In addition, the EPA
Administrator is required to
submit a detailed annual report
to the Congress on January 1
of each year on the progress
achieved in implementing
CERCLA during the preceding
fiscal year. The OIG is
required to review this report
for reasonableness and
accuracy, and the Agency is
required to attach the result of
the OIG review to the
Agency’s annual report. As of
September 30, 1991, the OIG
had not received a final
version of the Agency’s report
for fiscal 1990 for review.
1 ,::-1 tc1 :
‘V.
Superfund
Program
20
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
EPA Unnecessarily
Delays Responsible
Parties From
Cleaning Up
Hazardous Sites
Problem
Completions of Superfund
cleanups were unnecessarily
delayed by untimely review
of responsible parties’ (RP)
work products, failure to
enforce stipulated penalties
against RPs for
noncompliance with
voluntary agreements, and
inadequate monitoring of
contractors.
Background
EPA may negotiate an
agreement with responsible
parties (RP) that are wilhng
and financially able to clean up
a site. EPA oversees the RPs’
activities. RPs are required to
submit certain products to
EPA, such as project site
plans, quality assurance plans
and test results prior to site
cleanup. EPA uses Technical
Enforcement Support (TES)
contractors If technical
assistance is needed in
performing oversight.
We Found That
Superfund cleanups in 3 of 4
EPA regions were
unnecessarily delayed after
EPA reached settlement with
RPs, possibly further
degrading the environment. At
24 of 39 sites reviewed, EPA’s
review and approval of RP
documents and plans took up
to 36 months due to lack of
guidelines for completing
reviews; unauthorized
extensions; multiple revisions
of documents; lack of a
milestone tracking system;
personnel turnover; and RPs
not being responsive.
Also, EPA regions were not
assessing stipulated penalties
for RPs noncompliance with
post-settlement milestone
dates. For 15 sites in
noncompliance, the regions
assessed penalties against
BPs in only three cases
totaling $45,000, failing to
assess potential penalties of
$4,855,500 against RPs in
seven other cases. In two
other cases, potential judicial
sanctions against the RPs
could have totaled $8,125,000,
if EPA had referred t em for
enforcement action. Instead,
the regions generally limited
their enforcement actions to
verbal negotiations or warning
letters, seeking penalties only
in extreme cases because they
believed such actions might
inhibit cleanup progress at the
sites.
Also, EPA was not
adequately monitoring its TES
contractors hired to oversee
RP cleanups by conducting
quality assurance audits,
contractor office reviews, and
field oversight reviews. As a
result, EPA had limited
assurance that the TES
contractors were performing
required work and that their
tests and records were reliable
and accurate.
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response:
• Develop and ensure
compliance with guidance,
including time frames for
reviewing and approving RPs’
submissions.
• Develop and implement a
standard post-settlement
automated tracking system.
• Aggressively monitor TES
contractors’ performance by
establishing guidelines for
scheduling, performing, and
documenting periodic quality
assurance audits, contractor
office reviews, and field
oversight visits.
The Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement:
• Issue guidance for
aggressive pursuit of stipulated
penalties when RPs are
generally in noncompliance
with settlement document
requirements.
What Action Was Taken
The final audit report
(1100431) was issued to the
Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response and the Acting
Assistant Administrator for
Enforcement on September
30, 1991. A response to the
audit report is due by
December29, 1991. EPA
generally agreed with the
findings and recommendations
in the draft report and had
initiated corrective actions.
Problems With
Superfund
Accounting Continue
Problem
EPA’s accounting for
Superfund costs has been
improved, but as previously
reported, financial reporting
and accounting for
disbursements, obligations,
and receivables contain
inaccuracies,
Background
The Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980, as amended,
requires an annual audit of all
payments, obligations,
reimbursements, or other uses
of the Hazardous Substance
Superfund (Superfund). For
fiscal 1990, EPA reported $1.6
billion of obligations and $1.1
billion of disbursements under
the Superfund.
We Found That
The Integrated Financial
Management System (IFMS),
implemented in March 1989,
has not produced adequate,
reliable financial management
reports, a condition previously
reported. EPA continues to
rely on its previous accounting
system to provide financial
reports to EPA management.
In addition, the Agency’s
accounting procedures have
not been updated since IFMS
was implemented in March
1989.
While EPA’s Schedule of
Obligations and Disbursements
were generally fairly
presented, disbursements for
salaries were understated by
$11.3 million. In addition
$13.8 million of nonpayroll
obligations and $8 million of
nonpayroll disbursements were
not adequately supported or
resulted from accounting
errors.
Accounting deficiencies
also led to inaccuracies in EPA
accounts receivable records.
There was an unreconciled
difference of $18.7 million
between the general ledger
control account and the
subsidiary ledger. Further, of
the receivables, $4.6 million
were not recorded timely;
$562,288 were not recorded in
the correct fiscal year; thirteen
were delinquent but not
assessed interest of $181,468;
and $2.3 million of collections
were not recorded against the
correct receivables. Without
accurate records, EPA cannot
effectively manage or pursue
accounts receivable.
We Recommended That
The Acting Assistant
Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management:
• Continue corrective actions
underway for improving EPA’s
accounting system, including
the effective management of
accounts receivable.
• Ensure that all financial
policy and procedures
guidance for recording and
supporting transactions in
IFMS and for reconciling data
in internal and external records
and reports are updated.
• Review and resolve all
questioned obligations and
disbursement transactions and
make appropriate adjustments.
What Action Was Taken
The final audit report
(1100385) was issued to the
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Administration and
Resources Management on
September 16, 1991. A
response to the final report is
due by December 15, 1991.
In response to our draft report,
the former Assistant
Administrator either agreed
with our recommendations or
proposed acceptable
alternative actions.
2t
-------
Special And
Early Warning
Reviews
This section In our semiannual
report describes significant and
potential findings, deficiencies,
and recommendations which
have been Identified through
evaluations, analyses, projects,
and audits. These reviews are
intended to help Agency
managers correct problems
and recognize the potential for
savings before resources are
fully committed.
Special Reviews
Special reviews are narrowly
focused studies of programs or
activities providing
management a timely,
in formative, independent
picture of operations. Special
reviews are not statistical
research studies or detailed
audits. Rather, they are
information gathering studies
that Identify Issue areas for
management attention.
Inefficient
Contracting Practices
May Cost EPA An
Extra $10.7 Million
For Automatic Data
Processing (ADP)
Equipment And
Services
Problem
EPA could pay up to $8.4
million over decreasing
market prices for
microcomputer workstations
and other ADP equipment by
not modifying an interim
contract and delaying a
competitive award. EPA
could also pay the
contractor $2.3 million more
than actually incurred for
operating expenses.
Background
In April 1989, EPA planned to
award two competitive
contracts for 18,000
workstations and other ADP
equipment and services at an
estimated cost of $285 million.
Because of delays in the
procurement and an increased
demand for workstations, EPA
altered its procurement
strategy by splitting the
requirement equally between a
small and disadvantaged firm
under the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA) 8(a)
program and another firm to
be selected competitively. The
8(a) procurement was
subsequently reduced to 5,640
workstations estimated to cost
$67.5 million, and a negotiated
firm-fixed price, indefinite
delivery/indefinite quantity
contract was awarded in July
1990. Also, the value of the
requirement to be made
competitively was reduced to
$206 million.
We Found That
EPA was delayed in
competitively awarding a
contract to procure
workstations and other ADP
equipment having an
estimated value of $206
million. (Even if awarded in
December 1991, as planned at
the completion of our review in
July 1 991, the competitive
award would be 19 months
overdue.) As a result,
assuming full contract
performance, EPA could incur
excess costs of as much as
$8.4 million over the life of an
interim contract awarded to a
small and disadvantaged firm
for such equipment. EPA did
not use all available means to
modify the contract to take
advantage of decreasing
market prices after the interim
contract’s award.
Also, EPA did not perform a
sufficiently thorough analysis
of cost data provided by the
contractor during negotiations
and could pay $2.3 million
more than the contractor
actually incurs for certain
expenses, such as freight,
rent, and insurance. Further,
although no regulations were
violated,, the $67.5 million
award to one firm deprived
EPA of the opportunity of
allowing other qualified 8(a)
firms to participate in the
acquisition, thereby better
advancing the 8(a) program
objectives.
We Recommend That
The Acting Assistant
Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management:
• Issue the competitive
contract for the workstations
and other ADP equipment as
soon as possible, but not later
than December 1991.
• Monitor ADP equipment
market prices, renegotiate
individual contract prices for
items that have decreased
significantly, and not buy
individual items of ADP
equipment if the interim
contractor does not make
equitable price adjustments.
• Strengthen procedures to
ensure that costs agreed to
during negotiations are based
on current cost and pricing
data.
• Improve the Federal
Managers’ Financial Integrity
Act process by establishing an
event cycle specific to the 8(a)
pre.award process and
contract management.
What Action Was Taken
The final special review report
(1400060) was issued to the
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Administration and
Resources Management on
September 30, 1991. In
response to the draft report,
the Acting Assistant
Administrator agreed with
some of our recommendations.
We requested that he
reconsider the remaining
recommendations. A response
to the final report is due by
December 29, 1991.
-I
W
r 1
22
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
EPA Made
Unnecessary And
Improper
Procurements
Through Its
Waterside Mall
Lessor
Problem
EPA’s Facilities Management
and Services Division
(FMSD) circumvented
Federal acquisition
regulations and Agency
procedures to make
improper procurements
through its Headquarters
lessor, resulting in
unnecessary costs in excess
of $138,500.
We Found That
FMSD used the Agency’s
Waterside Mall lessor to
improperly obtain commercial
goods and services, ignoring
Federal acquisition regulations
requirements for sole-source
justification, competition and
determinations of price
reasonableness. Unnecessary
“middleman” (profit and
overhead) payments of
$132,900 were made to the
lessor that could have been
avoided by procuring directly
from commercial vendors. For
example:
• $100,000 paid to the lessor
for end of fiscal year carpet
purchases;
• $31,600 paid to the lessor for
systems furniture installation
and poster framing; and
• $1,300 paid to the lessor for
towels and laundry service,
planters and a microwave
oven.
The lessor was also paid
$5,600 for carpet cleaning
services that had already been
paid to the Internal Revenue
Service in response to a
Notice of Levy against the
vendor.
Convenience and speed
took precedence over
regulatory requirements.
FMSD used the lessor to make
many of those purchases
when the Agency’s
Procurement and Contracts
Management Division (PCMD)
refused. However, the Agency
had not clearly defined or
limited the use of FMSD’s
purchase authority, nor
implemented adequate internal
controls over it.
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management:
• Assign responsibility for all
FMSD procurements to the
Director, PCMD.
• Instruct the Director, PCMD,
to review and ratify or deny all
past purchases made by
FMSD, and take appropriate
action for those purchases that
cannot be ratified.
• Recover the $5,600 duplicate
payment for carpet cleaning
services.
What Action Was Taken
The special review report
(14 00024) was issued to the
Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management on June 20,
1991. In his September 25,
1991, response, the Acting
Assistant Administrator
indicated that significant
changes will be made to their
procurement procedures.
Laboratories Not
Properly Targeted
For Inspections To
Detect Violations
Problem
EPA failed to identify and
take enforcement action
against laboratories that
violated good laboratory
practices (GLP) regulations
issued under the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA).
We Found That
EPA did not assess any civil or
criminal penalties for any
FIFRA GLP violations during
the first 7 years of the
program. This sent a
message to the industry that a
GLP violation results in little or
no penalty for non-compliance.
Reasons for the lack of
enforcement against violators
of the regulations included a
general emphasis on outreach
and the GLP program’s lack
of: (1) a strong enforcement
authority under FIFRA, (2) a
specific GLP enforcement
policy for specific violations ol
the GLP regulations, including
a detailed penalty policy, and
(3) standards necessary to
accept or reject laboratory
studies for specific GLP
violations. Due to ineffective
targeting, the same 200
laboratories have been
inspected repeatedly although
they are not necessarily the
laboratories with the majority
of problems.
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrator for
Pesticides and Toxic
Substances:
• Seek legislation that specifies
a violation of the GLP
regulations is a FIFRA
violation and provides stronger
penalties for FIFRA violators.
• Require the completion of a
GLP enforcement policy that
prioritizes specific GLP
violations and provides for
penalties to be determined
based on the severity of the
violation.
• Develop standards for
accepting or rejecting
laboratory studies based on
violations of GLP regulations.
• Target for inspection
medium- and small-sized
laboratories that have not been
previously inspected. In
addition, examine the
feasibility of extending the
inspection cycle for
laboratories that have
consistently passed GLP
inspections.
What Action Was Taken
The special review report
(1400064) was issued to the
Assistant Administrator for
Pesticides and Toxic
Substances on September 30,
1991. A response to the final
report is due by December 29,
1991. In responding to the
draft report, the Assistant
Administrator generally agreed
with our findings and
recommendations.
AprU 1 1991 through Seplember 30, 1991
23
-------
Construction Grant
Early Warning
System
This program is designed to
identify potential problem
construction projects early in
their life cycle so that EPA
management can take
appropriate corrective action.
The long-range goal of the
construction grants program is
to reduce the discharge of
municipal wastewater
pollutants to improve water
quality and protect public
health. EPA provides grants
to municipal agencies to assist
in financing the construction of
waste water treatment works, a
process which takes 2 to 10
years to complete.
Because audits are
generally performed after the
project is complete, problems
which affect the efficient
design, construction,
management; or operation of a
treatment plant are not
disclosed until thousands or
millions of dollars have been
spenL The OlG early warning
system reviews projects before
construction begins to identify
problems and preclude the
ineffective expenditure of
funds. Our reviews focus on
certain indicators and
attributes that can suggest the
likelihood of a potential
problem.
Arizona And Nevada
Had Not Matched $22
Million Of EPA’s
Construction Grant
Funds
Problem
Arizona and Nevada had not
provided required matching
funds for implementing their
State Revolving Fund (SRF)
programs, resulting in $22.2
million of Federal grant
funds for construction of
wastewater treatment plants
remaining idle.
We Found That
Region 9 awarded SRF
capitalization grants to Nevada
and Arizona before those
states were financially capable
of operating SRF programs.
As a result, $10,912,200 of
fiscal 1989 and $11,294,300 of
fiscal 1990 Federal grant funds
were not available for loans to
state and local governments
for constructing wastewater
treatment plants because
Arizona and Nevada had not
passed legislation to provide
the necessary matching funds
to operate their SRF programs.
If Nevada does not meet its
September 30, 1991, deadline
for funding its state match for
fiscal 1989, $4,577,200 of
fiscal 1989 grant funds will be
available for reallocation to
other states. If Arizona fails to
meet its November 5, 1991,
deadline, an additional
$6,335,000 will be available for
reallocation.
In addition, Nevada did not
have written policies and
procedures for approving the
eligibility of loan recipients or
for monitoring loan
repayments; had not
established a cash
management policy; and did
not have effective controls to
record the time charges of
employees working on SRF
activities.
We
That
The Regional Administrator,
Region 9:
Reallocate the fiscal 1989
SRF grant funds aulhonzed for
Nevada and Arizona if they
miss the state match funding
deadlines of September 30,
1991, and November 5, 1991,
respectively;
• Require Nevada to document
its SRF policies and
procedures and improve its
timekeeping system; and
• Perform proaward reviews of
the states’ capability to operate
a SRF program before
providing additional grant
funds.
What Action Was Taken
The final special review report
(1400051) was issued to the
Regional Administrator, Region
9, on September 26, 1991. A
response to the special report
is due by December26, 1991.
The Region did not agree that
its preaward reviews needed
improvement or that SRF grant
funds should be reallocated
because state match funding
deadlines expire.
$1.5 Million Grant
Prematurely Awarded
For Indiana Project
Requiring
Modification
Problem
EPA awarded a $1.5 million
grant to construct seWers
and a wastewater treatment
facility even though over
one-third of the structures to
be serviced are in a flood
plain and will be moved or
demolished.
We Found That
On September 29, 1990, EPA
awarded the town of English,
Indiana, a grant to design and
construct new conventional
gravity sewers, lift stations with
force mains, and a wastewater
treatment facility. The
project’s service area included
117 structures in a flood plain.
On September 13, 1990, or
about 2 weeks before the
grant was approved, the
English Town Council
condemned about 85 parcels
of land located within the flood
plain and announced plans to
relocate the residents to a
safer area. On June 11, 1991,
the Town Council annexed
about 200 acres of land
outside the approved service
area for the relocation. The
condemnation ordinance was
the Council’s first step toward
a major 3- to 5-year
redevelopment project which
includes:
• Relocating its central
business district and
residences out of a flood prone
area,
• Developing a new town
center boulevard and industrial
park,
• Building low-income housing,
a courthouse, library, town hall
and fire station, and
• Developing recreational
facilities, including a man-
made reservoir, in the flood
prone area.
As a result, the project
which was described and
supported by a September 28,
1990, Facility Plan and
authorized by the grant
probably cannot be built as
conceived. Over one- third of
the structures will either be
relocated or rebuilt in another
location, likely on land
originally outside the planned
service area. Also, there is no
assurance that the original
reason for a new wastewater
treatment system, failing on-
site septic systems, is any
longer valid. Many of the old
failing undersized systems will
be abandoned when residents
are relocated. In addition, the
grantee will not be able to
meet the project completion
dates specified in the grant.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator,
Region 5, suspend, terminate
or annul the grant awarded to
the town.
What Action Was Taken
The special review report
(1400048) was issued to the
Regional Administrator, Region
5, on September 25, 1991. A
response is due by December
25, 1991.
24
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
$10.4 Million Grant
To Florida County
Should Be Annulled
Problem
Seven years after receiving a
$10.4 million grant,
Hillsborough County,
Florida, still does not have a
fully operable wastewater
collection system.
We Found That
Region 4 awarded
Hillsborough County, Florida,
grants totaling $10,393,809 for
the design and construction of
a wastewater treatment facility.
The project is 3 years past its
scheduled completion, $2.7
million over the original project
cost estimate, and only 65
percent complete. The project
has been suspended and
completion is questionable.
Also, because of delays and
cost overruns, the anticipated
capacity and user charge fees
are projected to almost triple
by 1996.
The grant award was based
on the County’s claim that a
hepatitis outbreak was caused
by faulty septic tanks and field
lines that contaminated
groundwater. Tests were
never conducted to determine
if the hepatitis cases were
linked to groundwater
contamination. Although the
County cited health problems
at 27 properties, it planned to
connect only 14 of the
properties to the sewage
collection system and not
correct all the health problems
used to justify the grant.
Also, the County improperly
certified that it had obtained all
property needed to construct
the project in its April 1984
grant application, since it did
not even begin to obtain
easements until January 1989.
Failure to address and resolve
the issue of access to
residents’ property contributed
to the engineer’s inability to
complete project design, and
caused construction delays,
cost overruns, and contract
disputes.
The County did not design
fiberglass tanks before award
of the construction contract.
Responsibility for final design
passed from the County’s
engineer to the tank
installation contractor to a
subcontractor who designed
and manufactured the tanks.
An independent testing
laboratory concluded the
tanks were improperly
designed, manufactured, and
inspected, arid could not be
refitted to meet design
specifications. The County
was faced with not only
abandoning further installation
of the tanks, but also replacing
480 tanks that had already
been installed.
The County did not properly
acquire easements required by
Federal law as the residents
did not receive fair treatment
or just compensation for their
property. Specifically, the
grantee did not (1) inform
property owners of their rights;
(2) furnish appraisals to
property owners; and (3)
acquire easements by
negotiation. The grantee
proceeded with construction
based on incomplete design,
causing significant construction
delays and higher costs than
anticipated.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator,
Region 4, annul the grant and
recover the Federal share
expended ($5,245,731).
What Action Was Tak.n
The special review report
(1400054) was Issued to the
Regional Administrator, Region
4, on September 26, 1991. A
response to the final report is
due by December 26, 1991.
In responding to the draft
report, the Regional
Administrator agreed that the
grantee had not followed site
certification and Uniform
Relocation Act procedures.
However, he disagreed that
the grant award was not
justified, the project was poorly
planned, and the grantee failed
to make substantial progress
without good cause.
Fiberglass tanks (photo by EPA
O1G stall)
April 1, 1991 through September 30, 1991
25
-------
Section 2—Audit Resolution
As required by the Inspector
General Act, as amended,
this section contains a
status report on audits in
the resolution process for
the semiannual period. This
section also summaries OIG
reviews of the Agency’s
followup actions on selected
audits completed in prior
periods. Statistical
information is also
presented on reports issued
during the semiannual
period with questioned
costs and recommendations
that funds be put to better
use. In addition, information
is presented on the
resolution of significant
audits reports issued by the
OIG involving monetary
recommendations.
Appendix 2 summaries the
status of each audit report
issued before the
commencement of the
reporting period for which
no management decision
had been made by the end
of the reporting period.
A. For which no management
decision has been made by
the commencement of the
reporting period
B. Which were issued during
the reporting period
C. Which were issued during
the reporting period that
required no resolution
Subtotals (A + B- C)
D. For which a management
decision was made during
the reporting period
E. For which no management
decision has been made by
the end of the reporting
period
F. Reports for which no
management decision was
made within six months
of issuance
Any d ference n number of reports and amounts of questonec costs or recommended ef c enc es between this
report and our prev:ous semannua [ report resu tS from correct ons made to data n our audo tracbng system
EPA Office Of Inspector General Status Report On Perpetual Inventory Of Audits
In Resolution Process For The Semiannual Period Ending September 30, 1991
Dollar Values (in thousands)
Report Issuance
Audit Resolution
Costs Sustained
Number Questioned Recommended To Be As
Costs Efficiencies Recovered Efficiencies
240 258,990
942 246,479
643 11
539 505,458
230 155,969
309 349,488
68 111,552
58,181
381,344
2,038
437,487
36,571 45,010 3,534
400,917
23,936
26
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
Audit Followup
The Inspector General Act
Amendments of 1988 have
focused increased attention on
Agency responses to the
findings of the Inspectors
General. Agency management
is now required to report
semiannually, in a separate
report to Congress, the
corrective actions taken in
response to the lG’s audits.
The Office of Inspector
General reviews the Agency’s
followup actions on selected
audits. Below are summaries
of four of these reviews.
Significant Problems
Render EPA’s Audit
Followup System
Unreliable
Previous Problems and
Findings
Our September 1989 special
review found that there was
no Agency audit followup
system. Despite a stated
Agency commitment to audit
followup, our second special
review, in August 1990,
identified numerous,
significant weaknesses in
the newly-developed
Management Audit Tracking
System (MATS). Our third
review, completed in
February 1991, identified
inconsistencies in the way
regions tracked
nonmonetary single audit
corrective actions in the
system.
Followup Findings
Our September 1991 report
(1400050), the fourth in a
series assessing the Agency’s
audit followup program, found
that EPA’s MATS continues to
contain incorrect and
incomplete information about
dollars recovered as a result of
Office of Inspector General
audit findings. Further, reports
to Congress and Agency
management produced from
the system were unreliable,
severely underreporting
Agency corrective actions,
recoveries, and writeoffs.
As in 1990, data in MATS
was incomplete and incorrect
due to problems such as (1)
an incomplete universe of
external reports in the system;
(2) inconsistent and uncertain
reporting of writeoffs, offsets,
and recoveries by Agency
Audit Followup Coordinators
(AFC); and (3) regional MATS
data not reconciling with
Headquarters MATS data.
EPA Management’s
Semiannual Reports to the
Congress on Audits for fiscal
1990 were seriously flawed.
There were inaccuracies in the
reported number of audits on
which final corrective actions
had been taken. Also,
reported recoveries as a result
of audit findings were grossly
understated. Our review of
three EPA regions found
unreported recoveries ($7.4
million) were almost as much
as the Agency reported ($8.3
million) for all 10 regions.
Also, an additional $7.4 million
of disallowed costs that were
reduced through the appeals
process in those three EPA
regions were not reported as
writeoffs in either of the 1990
semiannual reports to
Congress. Region 9 alone
failed to report as writeoffs
almost $6 million in reductions
through appeal.
Followup Recommendations
We recommended that the
Acting Assistant Administrator
for Administration and
Resources Management
correct the identified reporting
deficiencies, issue written
guidance to AFCs to eliminate
future reporting problems, and
institute a program of quality
assurance.
What Action Was Taken
In his September 25, 1991,
response to the draft special
review report, the Acting
Assistant Administrator
generally agreed with our
recommendations and cited
several steps already taken to
correct the noted weaknesses.
A response to the final report
is due by December 30, 1991.
Region
Recoveries
Writeoffs
Reported II Actual
I Reported II Actual
1
$1,794,876
$ 2,531,354
$3,974
-0-
4
$1,534,275
$ 4,761,578
-0-
$1,399,433
9
Total
$5,556
$3,334,707
$ 3,441,589
$10,734,521
-0-
$ 3,974
$5,973,607
$7,373,040
includes the $3.3 million in recoveries reported by the
Agency, plus $7.4 million which we identified that was not
reported.
AprU 1, 1991 through September 30, 1991
27
-------
improvements Still
Needed In The
Asbestos School
Hazard Abatement
Act (ASHAA) Loans
And Grants Program
Previous Problems and
Findings
Our September 1987 report
showed that EPA awarded
$11 million in loans and
grants for asbestos
abatement during fiscal 1985
and 1986 to schools that
were not the most financially
needy or with the greatest
health risks. Our September
1989 report showed during
fiscal years 1987 and 1988,
EPA funded applications on
hand which were not
significant enough to
receive funding in the prior
year because the Agency did
not solicit new applications.
Approximately two million
additional asbestos
exposure hours could have
been abated on projects
with major damage if EPA
had funded new
applications.
Followup Findings
Our followup report (1400039)
found that the Office of
Pesticides and Toxic
Substances (OPTS) had taken
significant steps to implement
most recommendations from
our prior reports, such as (1)
revising award procedures for
State minimum requirements
and private Local Education
Agencies (LEAs), (2) improving
the determination of an LEA’s
financial need, 3) soliciting
new applications for the 1989,
1990, and 1991 ASHAA award
cycles, and (4) revising loan
repayment terms for projects
on which work was already
completed. However, we
found other actions taken by
the Agency were inadequate.
Foflowup Recommendations
We recommended that OPTS
(1) revise its definition of
“qualified projects” to include
only projects involving
significantly damaged
asbestos, (2) require States to
participate more in identifying
needy applicants with the most
hazardous projects, and (3)
develop bonding requirements
for public schools that are
recipients of ASHAA loans,
requiring their contractors to
use Treasury-rated bonding
companies.
Also, we recommended that
the Office of Administration
and Resources Management:
(1) document the particular
reasons why any grant
applicant is unable to
undertake and complete its
abatement program with loan
funds, (2) modify the work-in-
progress loan promissory note
for schools that complete their
asbestos abatement within one
year of the award date to
begin repayment more
promptly, and (3) recover
$20,243 in excess grant funds
from the Bureau of Indian
Affairs.
What Action Was Taken
The Agency had either
completed recommended
actions or agreed to take the
recommended actions for most
of our findings. However, (ho
Agency disagreed with our
recommendations that it
document why a grant
applicant cannot complete a
project th a loan, develop
bonding requirements for loan
recipients, and require states
participate more in identifying
the neediest applicants,. The
final special report was issued
to the Assistant Administrator
for Pesticides and Toxic
Substances and the Acting
Assistant Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management on September
12, 1991. We will reevaluate
the recommendations vvith
which the Agency disagreed
after the Agency submits its
response which is due by
December 11, 1991.
Region 9’s Air Grants
Program Deficiencies
Not Corrected
Initial Problem and Findings
In March 1987 we reported
that Region 9’s air grants
program was hindered by
inadequate controls. Air
grants totaling $2.6 million
for fiscal 1983 through fiscal
1985 were identified as
ineligible.
Followup Findings
Our followup report (1400049)
found that although Region 9
had taken adequate corrective
actions on two of the prior
findings, it had not developed
effective procedures to (1)
ensure that grant recipients
meet the statutory
maintenance of effort (MOE)
requirements and (2) monitor
grant performance.
Four of the grantees
discussed in our prior audit still
had not met their required
MOE requirements for all
grants awarded from fiscal
1983 to fiscal 1985, nor had
$1.5 million of the $2.6 million
of ineligible grants made
during the period been
recovered. The Region
encouraged and subsequently
approved the grantees’
reclassification of some
nonrecurrent costs as
recurrent costs so that MOE
requirements were met.
Further, the Region had not
implemented recommended
procedures to prevent the
supplanting of Federal funds
and continued to allow air
pollution grantees to
improperly claim nonrecurrerit
costs as recurrent costs in
order to meet their MOE. As a
result, grantees received about
$1.9 million of ineligible grants.
Also, the Region did not
require year-end performance
evaluations to be completed
within 120 days, as agreed, or
use its data base tracking
system to monitor grant
performance. As a result,
grants were awarded without
assessing whether the
grantees accomplished the
prior year’s program
objectives.
Followup Recommendations
We recommended that the
Regional Administrator, Region
9, (1) advise the grantees that
they were not eligible for air
pollution control grants totaling
$3.4 million for fiscal years
1983 through 1990, (2)
establish effective procedures
to prevent the supplanting of
local funds with grant funds,
(3) closely review grantee
determinations on nonrecurrent
costs to assure that they are
consistent with the intent of the
Act and (4) require year-end
performance evaluations and
retention of workpaper
documentation.
What Action Was Taken
In responding to the draft
followup report, the Regional
Administrator, Region 9,
agreed with some
recommendations, disagreed
with others, and asked for
clarification of several others.
He stated that Region 9 had
tried to implement corrective
actions recommended in the
1987 report and that current
programmatic, administrative,
and financial efforts meet the
intent of Section 105 of the
Clean Air Act. Because
previously agreed to corrective
actions had not been
implemented or were not
effective, we will continue to
track the prior report’s
recommendations.
28
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
Agency Accounts
Receivable Not
Accurate And
Complete; Significant
Improvements Still
Needed
Initial Problem and Findings
In March 1988, we reported
that the Agency Financial
Management System (FMS)
did not have accurate or
complete records of
accounts receivable, nor
were Financial Management
Officers (FMO) aggressively
collecting debts. In March
1 987, of the Agency’s
reported $99 million in
accounts receivable, we
estimated that 25 percent
were understated by more
than $5 million and 14
percent were overstated by
nearly $3 million.
Followup Findings
A special followup review
(1100433) reported that while
the Agency had implemented
or initiated action on most of
the recommendations from the
1988 report, many corrective
actions were completed
substantially later than
originally scheduled. As a
result, the Agency still did not
have accurate or complete
accounts receivable records.
However, the Agency
recently initiated additional
corrective actions that, if
properly completed, should
result in substantially more
reliable and accurate accounts
receivable.
For example, an Agency-wide
accounts receivable
reconciliation was scheduled
for completion by September
30, 1991, and an Accounts
Receivable Task Force was
established to review current
status and make necessary
recommendations to ensure
compliance with current
guidance.
Followup Recommendations
We recommended that EPA
adhere to the requirements of
Resources Management
Directive System 2540,
Chapter 9, for monthly
reconciliations and add
guidance requiring FMOs to
verify and document the
accuracy of reconciliations;
provide training in accounts
receivable policy and
procedures; develop specific
followup and resolution
procedures for all findings and
recommendations of the
Accounts Receivable Task
Force; and require periodic
evaluations of FMOs’ success
in promptly recording new
accounts receivable.
What Action Was Taken
The special foiowup final
review report was issued to
the Acting Assistant
Administrator for
Administration and Resources
Management on Soptember
30, 1991. A response to the
final report is due by
December 29, 1991. In
responding to the draft report,
the Acting Assistant
Administrator generally agreed
with our recommendations.
April 1, 1991 through September 30, 1991
29
-------
Status Of Table 1
Management Inspector General Issued Reports With Questioned Costs
Decisions On IG
Audit Repoers Semiannual Period Ending: September 30, 1991
Dollar_Values jthousand
This section presents statistical Questioned Unsupported
information as required by the _______— . _..._P !L_ _P2 c2sJ
Inspector General Act
A. For which no management decision has 149 258,990 92,642
Amendments of 1988 on the
been made by the commencement of the
status of EPA management reporting period
decisions on audit reports
issued by the OIG involving B. New Reports issued during period 126 246,467 23,901
monetary recommendations.
In order to provide uniformity Subtotais (A + B) 275 505,457 116,542
in reporting between the
various agencies, the C. For which a management decision was 116 155,969 60,773
President’s Council on Integrity made during the reporting period
and Efficiency issued guidance (i) Dollar value of disallowed costs 97 45,01 D 8,670
on reporting the costs under
required statistical tables of (ii) Dollar value of costs not disallowed 76** 110,959 52,102
sections 5(a)(8) and (9) of the
Act, as amended. 0. For which no management decision has 159 349,488 55,769
As presented, information been made by the end of the reporting
contained in Tables I and II period
can not be used to assess
results of audits performed or Reports for which no management 48 111,552 37,376
decision was made within six months
controlled by this office. Many of issuance
of the reports counted were
performed by other Federal Ouestloned costs include the unsupported costs.
auditors or independent public
“On 19 audits management did not sustain any of the $43,623,700 questioned costs. Fitly.stx audits are also
accountants under the Single included In C(il) because they were only partially sustained. Only the costs questioned that were riot sustained in C(i)
Audit Act. EPA OIG staff does are Included in this category.
not manage or control such
assignments. In addition,
amounts shown as costs Table 2
questioned or recommended to inspector Generai issued Reports With Recommendations That Funds Be Put To Better Use
be put to better use contain
amounts which were at the . Semiannual Pcriod Ending: September 30, 1991
time of the audit unsupported
by adequate documentation or Number Dollar Vaiue
records. Since auditees ( in thousands
frequently provide additional A. For which no management decision has been made 25 58,181
documentation to support the by the commencement of the reporting period
allowability of such costs
subsequent to the audit, we B. Which were issued during the reporting period 69 379,306
expect that a high proportion
of unsupported costs will not Subtotals (A + B) 94 437,488
be sustained.
EPA OlG controlled audits C. For which a management decision was made during 23 36,571
resolved during this period the reporting period
resulted in $52.8 million being (i) Dollar value of recommendations that were 10 3,534
sustained out of $65.9 million agreed to by management
considered ineligible in reports
under OIG control. This is an - based on proposed management action n/a n/a
80 percent sustained rate.
- based on proposed legislative action n/a n/a
(ii) Dollar value of costs not disallowed 10 18,190
(iii) Dollar value of non-awards or unsuccessful bidders 8 14,847”
D. For which no management decision has been made 71 400,917
by the end of the reporting period
Reports for which rio management decision was 10 23,936
made within six months of issuance
Five of the audits were the same audits in items C(i) and C(iI). Only the related dollars disallowed were included in
C(i). whereas the dollars which were not disallowed were included in C(ii).
“ThIs amount represents the dollar value of recommendations that funds be put to better use.
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
Resolution of Significant Audits
Resolution of Significant Audits
Report Numb.r/ Grwt.&
Report Date Contractor
Report Issuanc$
FS Questioned/
Recommended
Efficiency
Report Resolution
Federal Share
to be Recovered!
Sustained
Efficiency
Report Number/ Grante.I
Report Date Contractor
Report Issuance
FS Question.d/
Recommended
Efficiency
Report Resolution
Federal Share
to be Recovered!
Sustained
Efficiency
D8AML1-O1 -0045 ABB ENV. SERVICES, INEL 0
INC. ME
INEL
0 P2CWN8-05-0142 ST PAUL MWCC MN
1300015
INEL 675550 INEL 675,550
UNSP 46463 UNSP 46463
1100048 UNSP 0
UNSP
0 REPORT DATE
UNUR 0 UNUR 0
REPORT DATE UNUR 0
UNUR
0 10/31/90
SCOM 0 SUST 0
10/29/90 RCOM 416,728
SUSI
416,728
S2CWL9-01 -01 75 MWRA MA INEL 904,555
1100107 UNSP 534,226
REPORT DATE UNUR 0
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
P2CWN8-05-0214 MUSKEGON CO
692,150 DPW MI
0 1300014
0 REPORT DATE
INEL 76511 INEL 76,511
UNSP 1,213,469 UNSP 1,123,051
UNUR 0 UNUR C
1/22/91 RCOM 0
SUST
0 10/31/90
RCOM 0 SUST 0
P2CWL9-02-0050 NASSAU COUNTY NY INEL 533,556
INEL
477,063 P9AHN1-05-0135 OHM REM
INEL 0 INEL 0
0100481 UNSP 127,363
REPORT DATE UNUR 0
UNSP
UNUR
0 ERCS3 R4 OH
0 1300040
UNSP 0 UNSP 0
9/17/90 RCOM 0
SUST
0 REPORT DATE
UNUR 0 UNUR 0
P2CWL9-02-0312 NASSAU COUNTY NY INEL 129,408
NEL
2/28/91
129,165
RCOM 4,447,864 SUST 1,365,392
1100177 UNSP 128,389
REPORT DATE UNUR 674,684
4/15/91 RCOM 0
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
25,419 P2CWN9-07-0081 METRO ST LOUIS
674,684 SEWER 01ST, MO
0 1300038
INEL 1,239,757 INEL 1,239,757
UNSP 677,531 UNSP 0
P2CW8-03-0178 GREENBRIER NEL 882,455
CO PSD #2 WV
0100536 UNSP 416,213
REPORT DATE UNUR 162,449
9/28/90 RCOM 0
P2CWL9-03-0017 WSSC & FAIRFAX INEL 1,064,863
CITY & DC DC
1100157 UNSP 525,183
REPORT DATE UNUR 0
3/29/91 RCOM 0
P2CWL9-03-0308 HAMPTON ROADS INEL 813,134
SANI DISTRICT v
1100045 UNSP 0
REPORT DATE UNUR 0
10/23/90 RCOM 0
P2CWN9-04-0294 ATLANTA GA INEL 637.366
1300012 UNSP 2.558,305
REPORT DATE UNUR 0
10/24/90 RCOM 0
P9AHP1-04-0100 WESTINGHOUSE- INEL 0
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
INEL
REPORT DATE
688,397 2/28/91
3,562
0 S2BWNO-09-0171 SAN FRANCISCO,
0 C&C WST CA
1300055
1,013,373 REPORT DATE
3/29/91
184,358
0 S2CW6-09-0175 OXNARD,
0 CITY OF CA
1300045
787,041 REPORT DATE
3/25/91
0
0 S2CW*7.09 0116 SAN DIEGO,
0 CITY OF CA
0300038
635.011 REPORT DATE
2.558.305 3\30\90
0
0
0
UNUR 0 UNUR 0
RCOM 0 SUST 0
INEL 1,596,249 INEL 1,190,967
UNSP 0 UNSP 0
UNUR 2.662,422 UNUR 0
RCOM 0 SUST 0
INEL 6.485,975 INEL 5,883,960
UNSP 0 UNSP 0
UNUR 0 UNUR 0
RCOM 0 SUST 0
INEL 10,420,275 INEL 10,420,275
UNSP 0 UNSP 0
UNUR1 7,598,897 IJNUR 0
RCOM 0 SUST 0
HAZTECH GA
1400008 UNSP 0
REPORT DATE UNUR 0
3/6/91 RCOM 1,650.090
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
0
0
919.131
S2CWN8-04-0051 TULLAHOMA TN INEL 249,900
1300026 UNSP 608,164
REPORT DATE UNUR 281,833
1(8/91 RCOM 0
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
249,900
266,324
281,833
0
P2CWL8-05-0282 SUMMIT CO OH NEL 3.553,409
0100490 UNSP 2,467,655
REPORT DATE UNUR 0
9/24/90 RCOM 0
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
3,553,409
2,026.997
0
0
P2CWL9-05-0324 SUMMIT & INEL 233,040
PORTAGE CO’S OH
0100464 UNSP 4,813,935
REPORT DATE UNUR 78,124
8/29/90 RCOM 0
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
233,040
1,055.527
78,124
0
P2CWN6-05-0377 CHICAGO INEL 236,306
MWRDGC IL
1300051 UNSP 240,323
REPORT DATE UNUR 17,410
3/29/91 RCOM 0
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
235,057
240.323
17,410
0
P2CWN7-05-0498 CHICAGO INEL 675,462
MWRDGC IL
1300050 UNSP 356,998
REPORT DATE UNUR 9,309
3/29/91 RCOM 0
INEL
UNSP
UNUR
SUST
524,847
356,998
9,309
0
NOTE:
INEL = INELIGIBLE COST
UNSP = UNSUPPORTED COST
UNUR = UNNECESSARY/UNREASONABLE COST
RCOM = RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES
SUST RECOMMENDED EFFICIENCIES SUSTAINED
April 1, 1991 through September 30, 1991
31
-------
Section 3—Prosecutive Actions
The following Is a summary
of investigative activities
during this reporting period.
These include Investigations
of alleged criminal violations
which may result in
prosecution and conviction,
investigations of alleged
violations of Agency
regulations and policies, and
OIG personnel security
investigations. The Office of
Investigations tracks
investigations In the
following categories:
preliminary Inquiries and
investigations, joint
Investigations with other
agencies, and OIG
background investigations.
Summary Of
Investigative
Activities
Summary Of
Investigative
Activities
Pending Investigations as of
April 1, 1991 198
New Investigations Opened
This Period 147
Investigations Closed This
Period
Pending Investigations as of
September 30, 1991 192
Prosecutive and
Administrative
Actions
In this period, investigative
efforts resulted in 11
convictions and 18
indictments. Fines and
recoveries, including those
associated with civil actions,
amounted to $4.5 million. One
settlement agreement resulted
in a cost avoidance of $3
million. Thirty-eight
administrative actions were
taken as a result of
investigations:
Suspensions 2
Reprimands 19
153 Resignations/Terminations 3
Other 14
* Does not include suspensions
and debarments resulting from
Office of Investigations
activities or actions resulting
from reviews of personnel
security investigations.
Profile Of Pending Investigation By Type
(Total -192)
Superfund
49 2904
EPA Program Area
Waste
32%
Construction
34 18%
Employee
29 15%
Administration
22 11%
Profiles Of Pending InvestIgatIons By
(Total-192)
Water
50 26%
Program Fraud/Other
59 31%
Personnel Security
8 4%
32
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
Description Of
Selected
Prosecutive
Actions
Below is a brief description of
some of the prosecutive
actions which occurred during
the reporting period. Some of
these actions resulted from
investigations initiated before
April 1, 1991.
Superfund Contract
Laboratory Program
Investigation
The Office of Investigations
has a major investigative
initiative underway within the
Superlund program, directed at
fraud in the Contract
Laboratory Program (CLP).
Laboratory analyses under the
CLP are the empirical basis for
the entire Superfund program.
Based on testing for the
presence of hazardous
chemicals by these
laboratories, the Superfund
program decides which
cleanups to initiate and how to
carry them out. Fraudulent
analyses could result in a
danger to the public health and
safety as well as the
unnecessary expenditure of
cleanup funds. In addition,
fraudulent analyses could
hinder the Department of
Justice’s efforts to collect the
cost of cleanups from the
responsible parties.
Several actions resulting
from the contract lab
investigations are described
below.
California Lab Pleads
Guilty, Fined
$500,000, Agrees to
Pay $805,000 More in
Civil Action
In a case involving fraud and
abuse within EPA’s Contract
Laboratory Program, the
Science Applications
International Corporation
(SAIC), La Jolla, California,
pled guilty to charges of
making false statements to
EPA and making false claims
for payment to the
Government. Six of SAIC’s
employees had previously pled
guilty for their roles in the
case. EPA contracted with
SAIC to perform analyses on
samples taken from Superfund
toxic waste sites. The purpose
of these analyses were to (1)
determine the amount and
identity of the toxic chemicals,
(2) establish priorities among
sites so that the most
dangerous sites could be
cleaned up first, and (3) help
in identifying the parties
responsible so that EPA could
obtain reimbursement for the
cleanup costs.
In the contract between
SAIC and EPA, EPA required
that volatile organic analyses
be performed within ten days,
so that certain chemicals
would not dissipate. Penalties
were assessed for lateness.
In addition the contract
required that sample analysis
equipment be tuned and
calibrated every twelve hours
to ensure accuracy. The joint
investigation by the EPA OIG
and the FBI uncovered that
backdating of sample test
results occurred in order to
avoid the penalty. Also, SAIC
manipulated the sample
analysis equipment test data to
fraudulently reflect the
accuracy of analysis
equipment.
The company agreed to
pay a criminal fine of
$500,000. The company’s
guilty plea was a part of the
overall settlement agreement
between SAIC and the
Government, in which SAIC
agreed to pay $805,000 (EPA
$745,000 and the Air Force
$60,000) for the civil claims
arising for the same conduct,
making the total settlement
(both civil and criminal) over
$1.3 million.
Major Testing Firm
Fined $1 Million
United States Testing
Company of Hoboken, New
Jersey, a subsidiary of SGS
North America, Inc., (a part of
the SGS Group, the world’s
largest inspection and testing
company with over 21,000
employees in 140 companies),
pled guilty in April to making
false statements to EPA. The
company was ordered to pay a
$100,000 criminal fine and to
repay the entire contract price
of $869,486.90 as restitution to
the United States.
U.S. Testing admitted to
backdating tests of water and
soil samples at Superfund
sites. U.S. Testing, by speak
shaving” (manual manipulation
of calibration), which violated
the required testing sequence,
sought to disguise its failure to
conduct timely tests.
Missouri Lab
Sentenced
MetaTrace, lnc., Earth City,
Missouri, and two of its former
officers were sentenced after
previously pleading guilty to
submitting false statements to
EPA under the CLP program.
Dr. Carol Byington, former
executive vice president, was
sentenced to five years
imprisonment and a $20,000
fine, Kenneth Baughman, a
vice president, was given live
years probation and was fined
$10,000. The corporation was
put on probation for five years
and was fined $400,000.
Laboratory personnel had
manipulated results for
calibration and check
standards during GC/MS
analysis in order to show that
a group of environmental
sample results were fully
compliant with protocol criteria
when, in fact, they were not.
Unregistered
Pesticides Shipped
Abroad
A New Jersey man has pled
guilty to charges that he sold
mislabeled, unregistered
pesticides to overseas
companies in violation of the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA),
which is administered by EPA.
The case involves Kamal
Salieb Gabra, whose three
businesses -- Liberty
International Agricultural
Products, Nevacide Ltd, and
Hercules Chemicals USA --
were charged with the sale
and shipment of the chemicals
to firms in several Middle
Eastern countries, including
the United Arab Emirates.
Bribes Alleged in
Indiana Sewer Work
An Illinois businessman,
Ronald Randich, has been
indicted for allegedly bribing a
Hammond, Indiana, Sanitary
District (HSD) superintendent.
Randich was indicted under
the provisions of Title 18,
U.S.C., Section 666, for
Apr I 1, 1991 through September 30. 1991
33
-------
allegedly bribing an agent of
an organization or agency
which receives, in any one
year period, benefits in excess
of $10,000 under a federal
program involving a grant,
contract, subsidy, loan,
guarantee, insurance, or other
form of federal assistance.
During the one year period in
which the alleged bribe was
made, HSD received over
$350,000 in EPA grant
monies. The EPA has
awarded HSD over $17 million
in grant money over the three
year period from 1 984 through
1987.
The federal grand jury
indictment charging Randich
with the bribe is a result of an
investigation by the Indiana
State Police in cooperation
with the EPA OiG and the
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management.
A superseding indictment has
added another defendant to a
Pennsylvania pollution case.
Louis Maslow, the chief
executive officer and majority
owner of two former Trainer,
Pennsylvania, firms, Metro
Container Corporation and
Metro-Enterprise Container
Corporation, was indicted on
June 4, 1991. Sidney S. Levy,
President, and one of the
owners of Metro, and Steven
Zubrin, a Metro maintenance
supervisor, were indicted in
August 1990, and charged with
criminal violations of two
Federal environmental
statutes, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery
Act and the Clean Water Act,
and with conspiracy to violate
these two Federal
environmental statutes.
A joint investigation by the
EPA 010, the EPA Office of
Enforcement, and the Federal
Bureau of Investigation was
initiated after a criminal
investigation by thd EPA 010
of another allegation involving
the Superfund program found
evidence of serious
environmental violations.
As part of the joint
investigation, a search was
executed at the site by
members of the EPA’s
National Enforcement
Investigations Center (NEIC).
NEIC personnel excavated
portions of the site where
Metro conducted a drum
recycling business. Using
heavy equipment, NEIC
personnel excavated portions
of the site where the
hazardous waste was believed
to have been buried. Buried
drums were uncovered, and
numerous samples taken from
the site revealed the presence
of hazardous waste in the yard
and in the building. In
addition, the presence of
contaminants was detected in
a pipe leading from the Metro
facility to Stoney Creek, a
tributary of the Delaware River.
Terry Lee Tebben and Daniel
Workman, employees of Gee-
Con, Inc., a Pennsylvania
company, have been charged
with fraud in connection with
the cleanup of a Superfund
site at Bruin Lagoon, Butler
County, Pennsylvania.
EPA funded a $4 million
contr t with Geo-Con to clean
up the lagoon, which was
contaminated with, among
other things, sulfuric and
hydrochloric acid. The
adjacent Bruin Oil Company
had used the lagoon for
disposal of wastes since the
1930’s.
It was anticipated that the
cleanup work would cause the
emission of hazardous gases,
including sulfur dioxide,
creating a potential hazard not
only to the Geo-Con
employees but also to nearby
residents.
The indictment alleges that
Tebben used the finger of a
rubber glove and grease to
cover up the air monitors
required by the contract,
causing them to give false
readings on the amount of
hazardous gases being
released, and thereby
endangering public health and
safety.
Another provision of the
contract required Geo-Con to
treat any water which became
contaminated as a result of the
cleanup. The company was to
be reimbursed at a rate of $.30
per gallon of water treated.
Workman allegedly pumped air
through the water metering
system, leading to $62,000 in
false claims for reimbursement
for water treated.
Minority Business
Claim Faulted
As the result of a joint
investigative effort by the EPA
OlG, the DOT DIG, the GSA
OIG, and the FBI, a
Massachusetts firm and its
president were charged with
conspiracy to defraud the
government in connection with
the Minority Business
Enterprise (MBE) program.
The firm and its president
allegedly used a Rhode Island
MBE firm as a “front company”
so that expenditures on some
federal and federally assisted
construction projects would be
credited towards MBE goals,
when they were, in fact, for the
benefit of the firm.
EPA suspended the firm,
which distributes reinforcing
bars (“rebars”) used to
reinforce concrete for the
construction of roads, bridges,
and treatment plants, and its
president from all government
contracts and assistance, loan,
and benefit programs.
In September 1991, the
U.S. District Court, District of
Massachusetts, dismissed the
criminal charges filed against
the firm and its president. The
U.S. Attorney’s Office is
appealing the dismissal of the
charges.
In 1989, the MBE firm and
its president were convicted of
making false statements on a
minority business certification
application filed with the
Commonwealth of
Massachusetts. This firm and
its president were each fined
$1 0,000. The president was
also placed on 3 years
probation and ordered to
perform 100 hours of
community service to the
minority community.
Duo Admits Guilt in
Timesheet Fraud
Jay Lehr and Keith Leiux,
employees of the National
Water Well Association
(NWWA), Dublin, Ohio, pied
guilty to falsifying timesheets
as part of a claim for payment
under an EPA cooperative
agreement. NWWA’s task was
to develop a national mapping
system of ground water
supplies to be used by EPA in
the control of ground water
contamination from waste
disposal sites, by State and by
region.
Lehr and Lelux were each
sentenced to 6 months
imprisonment and 2 years
probation upon release. Lehr
was also fined $25,000 and
Lelux $5,000.
NWWA subsequently
entered into a settlement
agreement with the
Government, under which it
paid the United States
$203,273.50, double the actual
amount of damages to EPA.
Fraud Alleged at
Company CEO Added Superfund Cleanup
to Indictment For Site
Environmental
Violations
34
Office of the aspector General Report to the Congress
-------
Description Of
Selected
Prosecutive And
Administrative
Actions Concerning
EPA Employees
The OIG investigates and
reports information,
allegations, and indications of
possible wrongdoing or
misconduct by EPA employees
and persons or firms acting in
an official capacity directly with
EPA or through its grantees.
In addition, the Senate Report
of the Supplemental
Appropriations and Rescission
Act of 1980 states that
appropriate administrative
action is expected to be taken
in cases where employees
have acted improperly.
EPA Environmental
Engineer Sentenced
for Perjury
An EPA environmental
engineer who pled guilty to
one count of perjury was
sentenced in May to 6 months
of home detention, 5 years of
probation, and a $50 fine.
While appearing in Federal
court as an expert witness for
EPA in May 1990, the
employee testified that she
had received a Ph.D. in civil
engineering from a state
university when, in fact, she
had not.
Civil And
Administrative
Actions To Recover
EPA Funds
Investigations and audits
conducted by the Office of
Inspector General provide the
basis for civil and
administrative actions to
recover funds fraudulently
obtained from EPA. Through
the Inspector General Division
of the Office of General
Counsel, the OIG uses a
variety of tools to obtain
restitution. These include
cooperative efforts with the
Department of Justice in ffiing
civil suits under the False
Claims Act, the Program Fraud
Civil Remedies Act, and other
authorities; working with
grantees using their own civil
litigation authorities; invoking
the restitution provisions of the
Wctim and Witness Protection
Act during criminal sentencing;
using the Agency’s authority to
administratively offset future
payments and to collect debts;
and negotiating voluntary
settlements providing for
restitution in the context of
suspension and debarment
actions. Civil and
administrative actions to
recover funds usually extend
over several semiannual
reporting periods.
Final Settlement
Reached on
Snapfinger Creek
Case
In May 1991 the Government
and the remaining two
defendants in the Snapfinger
Creek False Claims Act (FCA)
litigation agreed to a final
settlement. In exchange for a
cash payment of $880,000
from Dynalectric Inc., the
Government agreed, with
respect to Dynalectric and
G.W. Waither Ewalt, to dismiss
any and all claims that it might
have arising out of the
Snapfinger Creek bidrigging
conspiracy. Prior to the
settlement with Dynalectric and
Ewalt, the government had
recovered $440,000 from the
Paxson defendants and
$660,000 from Fischbach and
Moore (F&M). The settlement
with Dynalectric and Ewalt
brought to a close the
Government’s attempts to be
made whole for the economic
harm that EPA suffered in
funding the construction of the
Snapfinger Creek wastewater
treatment plant.
The construction costs of
that facility were inflated by the
bidrigging conspiracy of the
prospective electrical
subcontractors, the defendants
in the Government’s FCA
action. Three quarters of the
amount of inflation was paid
for by EPA, which funded 75%
of the project’s construction
costs.
The escalating recoveries,
first $440,000 from the Paxson
defendants, then $660,000
from F&M, and finally
$880,000 from Dynalectric
reflect the Government’s
assessment of (1) the relative
culpabilities of and (2) the
extent of economic gain
realized by the defendants.
Dynalectric, for example, did
virtually no work on the
Snapfinger project, yet realized
an $880,000 profit.
Overall, the Government
has recovered $1,980,000
from the Snapfinger
defendants, $1.3 million of
which has been returned to the
EPA appropriation. This $1.3
million represents the amount
by which the Federal
Government’s monetary
contribution to the Snapfinger
project was inflated as a
consequence of the electrical
contractors’ bidrigging
conspiracy.
Lab Fraud Case
Settled
The Government and Science
Applications International
Corporation (SAIC) reached a
civil fraud settlement in August
1991. The Government’s case
against SAIC arose out of that
laboratory’s willful failure to
comply with the terms of four
of its sample analyses
contracts and its manipulation
and misrepresentation of data
to reflect otherwise.
SAIC defrauded EPA on
the four contracts by filing
claims for complete payment
even though the laboratory
knew of its failure to comply
with certain contractual
requirements and of its
intentional misrepresentation of
relevant information to reflect
that it had complied. Had EPA
been aware of SAIC’s contract
noncompliance, the Agency
would have taken monetary
deductions authorized by the
contracts and would have
reviewed the SAIC data more
critically, rather than relying on
it at face value.
Under the terms of the
settlement, SAIC paid the
government $805,000
($745,000 for EPA, and
$60,000 for the Air Force) for
the fraud that the laboratory
practiced against EPA. Of this
recovery, $350,000 has been
returned to the Agency
appropriation. This amount
represented the full payment
that EPA had made to SAIC
under the tainted contracts.
Suspension Lifted
After $1.1 Million
Settlement
In August 1991, Enseco
Incorporated, Corning Lab
Services, Inc., and Corning
Incorporated (the Corning
entities) paid the Government
$1.1 million. The payment
was part of a settlement under
which EPA agreed to terminate
its June 25, 1991 government-
wide suspension and proposed
debarment of the Corning
entities. The Corning entities
made the payment to settle
allegations that Enseco and its
predecessor, Rocky Mountain
Analytical Laboratory, Inc., had
submitted false claims under 6
EPA Contract Laboratory
Program contracts. The
payment has been returned to
EPA’s Superfund program. In
addition, Enseco agreed to
give up its contract claim
against EPA, which amounted
to approximately $3 million,
including accrued interest.
Finally, the Corning entities
agreed to implement a contract
compliance plan and an ethics
policy to assure EPA that the
Corning entities are presently
responsible to do business
with the Federal Government.
April 1, 1991 through September 30, 1991
35
-------
Section 4 —Fraud Prevention and Resource Management improvements
This section describes
several activities of the
Office of Inspector General
to promote economy and
efficiency and to prevent
and detect fraud, waste, and
abuse in the administration
of EPA programs and
operations. This section
includes information
required by statute,
recommended by Senate
report, or deemed
appropriate by the Inspector
General.
Review Of
— And
Regt ations
Section 4(a)(2) of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, as
amended, dtrects the Office of
Inspector General to review
existing and proposed
legislation and regulations
relating to Agency programs
and operations to determine
their effect on economy and
efficiency and the prevention
and detection of fraud and
abuse. This semiannual
reporting period, we reviewed
5 legislative and 81 regulatory
items. The most significant
items reviewed are
summarized below.
Department of
Justice Draft Anti-
fraud Enforcement
Act of 1991
The provisions of this bill
would assure a more
comprehensive assessment of
damages and evidence in
connection with civil actions
resulting from OlG
investigations. We strongly
supported this draft bill
because we believed it would
provide easier and quicker
access to grand jury material
in the pursuit of civil remedies
that follow criminal prosecutive
actions. Considering the large
number of civil actions that are
brought as a result of OIG
work in EPA, we believe that
this draft bill would have
significant impact on EPA and
the rest of the Federal
Government by improving the
Agency’s ability to more
efficiently and effectively
pursue and obtain civil
recoveries.
Government Energy
Efficiency Act of
1991, S1040
The bill would require each
Inspector General to conduct a
review to determine agency
compliance with Section 543 of
the National Energy
Conservation Policy Act. We
believe this requirement is
unnecessary, and that it
negatively affects our ability to
prioritize our work. The OlG
has an annual audit planning
process that attempts, with
limited resources, to provide
balanced coverage of all
Agency programs. Our
process recognizes the
existence of new requirements
(such as those in the bill), and
we consider these factors
when selecting audit
assignments. We believe that
identifying significant areas for
auditing and directing our
resources to the most
productive efforts should
remain our prerogative.
False Claims Act
Amendment of 1991
We agree with the Department
of Justice that it was not the
intent of Congress to allow
government employees to
benefit financially from the
False Claims Act
Amendments of 1986. We
believe that the proposed
amendment to revise the qui
tam provisions of that statute
is absolutely essential to avoid
substantial losses to the
Treasury and significant
impairment of anti-fraud
efforts.
Federal Government
Performance
Standards
We generally supported the
draft bill regarding Federal
Government Performance
Standards (sponsored by
Senator Graham) and Senate
Bill S.20 (sponsored by
Senator Roth). The
establishment of such
standards and goals would
increase accountability and
ensure that funds are being
spent to effectively accomplish
the desired results. However,
even though no new audits are
mandated for Inspectors
General (lGs), we oppose
certain provisions of Senator
Graham’s bill (Senator Roth’s
bill does not identify the role of
lOs regarding these standards
and goals).
Our first concern relates to
the requirements of Senator
Graham’s bill for lOs to
determine in each audit
conducted, supervised, or
coordinated, whether any
material weaknesses exist.
This requirement goes beyond
what is required by
Government Auditing
Standards and would be
extremely resource Intensive
and would drastically reduce
the number of audits that we
could perform. Secondly, the
bill would require IGs to
investigate any allegation of
fraud or misrepresentation that
occurs related to any interim or
final report or statement
required by the Federal
36
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
Managers’ Financial Integrity
Act. IGs would also be
required to submit a report of
investigation to Congress
within 60 days after receipt of
the allegation in writing.
Reports of investigation
regarding Federal employee
fraud are generally referred to
the Department of Justice for
prosecutive consideration, and
we do not believe it is
appropriate to send them to
Congress on a routine basis.
The bill is also too restrictive in
its requirement for these
investigations because it does
not provide IGs with the
latitude to prioritize their own
work.
We also disagree with the
provisions which would require
that lGs report under the
“Seven Day Letter Notice”, the
failure to meet established
policy objectives and
performance standards. We
believe this is unnecessary
since it duplicates the
requirement for agency
managers to report on their
achievement of performance
standards and goals. This
requirement would only appear
to be appropriate if an IG had
reason to believe that there
was an attempt to deny,
obstruct, or withhold this type
of information.
Proposed Special
Occupational Pay
System for Law
Enforcement Officers
and Protective
Occupations
We generally support the
proposed development of
special pay systems covering
law enforcement officers and
protective occupations. We
recommended that the Office
of Personnel Management
review the findings and
recommendations of the
National Advisory Commission
on Law Enforcement, which
were published in April 1990
by the Office of the
Comptroller General (OCG-90-
2). The information and
analysis obtained through the
work of this Commission
should be considered and
incorporated where possible
into any studies that OPM
conducts on these pay and
classification systems.
Currently there are on-
going discussions between
OPM and the Congress
regarding whether Senior
Executive Service employees
should be included under Title
IV, Section 404, of the Federal
Law Enforcement Pay Reform
Act of 1990. We suggest that
any special pay system
developed under the provision
which provides for locality pay
increases for law enforcement
officers be specific on this
issue.
GSA Interim Rule on
Ethics
We have reviewed and
recommended revisions to the
GSA Interim Rule
implementing 31 U.S.C.
section 1353. It was not clear
who would be the “authorized
agency official” for the purpose
of determining the propriety of
accepting payments. Although
this decision may be left up to
the individual agency to
decide, we believe that it is
important that this official (or
officials) have a legal
background and experience in
ethics determinations. In
addition, our Office of
Investigations would be called
upon to address and resolve
any complaints and allegations
that might arise from any
actual or apparent
improprieties pertaining to this
interim rule. Therefore, we
believe that the initial reviews
and determinations made in
connection with this rule be
conducted by a competent and
knowledgeable agency official
to ensure consistency. We
recommended that the
Designated Agency Ethics
Official, or similarly qualified
person be the only ‘authorized
agency official” to make these
determinations.
We also believe that should
an employee’s attendance at
an event outweigh any
concern with regard to an
appearance of a conflict, then
the agency should seriously
consider paying the expenses
necessary for the employee to
attend, and disregard any offer
of payment from a non-Federal
source. This would protect the
agency and employee from
any problems that could arise
in connection with an actual, or
an appearance of, conflict of
interest.
Proposed Office of
Government Ethics
Regulations for
Employees of the
Executive Branch
We commented on the
proposed revision to 5 CFR
2635.803, Prior Approval for
Outside Employment and
Activities. We believe that
EPA should publish regulations
that require prior approval of
outside employment for certain
categories of employees. The
OlG will submit a request that
would require such prior
approval for our auditors and
investigators, should the
regulations become final.
Under certain
circumstances the proposed
regulations would permit an
employee to use his or her
official title or position in
connection with teaching,
speaking, or writing activity.
We suggested that
supplemental regulations
include language which would
require an agency employee to
sign (for agency records) and
have published (for public
review) a disclaimer of official
endorsement by the
employee’s agency. We
believe this should be done
whenever official titles or
positions are used that could
express or imply official EPA
support or approval of the
work or opinions expressed by
the employee.
Proposed Section
2635.502, Personal and
Business Relationships,
describes one category of
covered relationships as a
person who is a member of
the employee’s household or
who is a relative with whom
the employee has a close
personal relationship. We
believe that it makes more
sense to say that the
employee has covered
relationships with any person
with whom he or she has a
close personal relationship and
not limit this to a relative.
The existing proposed wording
will create a serious problem
for the enforcement of conflict
regulations where persons
outside of a traditional family
relationship are involved.
Chief Financial
Officer Delegation
We recommended revisions to
Delegation 1-16, Agency Chief
Financial OfficerfAccounting
Budgeting, and other Financial
Management Activities.
Specifically we suggested that
language be incorporated
which specified that none of
these delegations should be
interpreted to infringe on the
Inspector General’s
independence or authority to
conduct, supervise and
coordinate audits and
investigations relating to EPA
programs.
We also indicated that,
according to the Integrated
Financial Management System
Charter, September 14, 1990,
two management groups (the
Executive Management Group
and the System Management
Group) are responsible for the
effective management of IFMS,
not the Director of the
Financial Management
Division. The Charter further
states that, overall, the
functional divisions (Financial
Management Division and
Budget Division) are
responsible for all functional
aspects of IFMS life cycle
management. In addition, the
Administrative Systems
Division is responsible for
software management;
therefore, we do not believe
this authority can be
redelegated to the Director of
Financial Management
Division.
In addition, we
recommended that the
authorities regarding audit
findings and the Federal
Managers’ Financial Integrity
Act should be rodelegated to
the Resource Management
Division and not the Financial
Management Division.
April 1 1991 through September 30, 1991
37
-------
Final EPAAR Rule on
Oral Purchase Orders Suspension And
Debarment
We recognized that the
Agency’s proposed change
increasing the oral ordering
limit of $25,000 will permit
more oral orders to be placed,
thereby reducing procurement
lead time and costs associated
with processing purchase
orders. However, the
increased dollar limit also
increases the Agency’s
vulnerability to abuse or
mismanagement.
The OlG believes that the
Procurement and Contracts
Management Division (PCMD)
should carefully review its
internal controls to ensure that
they are adequate to prevent
misuse of this authority.
The OlG also believes that
individuals placing oral
purchase orders should be
specifically authorized to do so
by their respective Assistant
Administrators, Regional
Administrators, or equivalent,
and certified through training
by the PCMD. Additionally, we
believe that any Contracting
Officer with this authority
should have (at a minimum) a
limited background
investigation for a moderate
risk position to ensure his or
her suitability for a position of
public trust.
Activities
EPA’s policy is to do business
only with contractors and
grantees who are honest and
responsible. EPA enforces
this policy by suspending or
debarring contractors or
grantees from further EPA
contracts or assistance if there
has been a conviction of, or
civil Judgment for:
• commission of a fraud or a
criminal offense in connection
with obtaining, attempting to
obtain, or performing a public
contract or subcontract;
• violation of Federal or State
antitrust statutes relating to the
submission of offers;
• commission of
embezzlement, theft, forgery,
bribery, falsification or
destruction of records, making
a false statement, or receiving
stolen property; or
• commission of any other
offense indicating a lack of
business integrity or business
honesty that seriously and
directly affects the present
responsibility of a Government
contractor or subcontractor.
A contractor may also be
debarred for violating the
terms of a Government
contract or subcontract, such
as willful failure to perform in
accordance with the terms of
one or more contracts, or a
history of failure to perform, or
of unsatisfactory performance
on one or more contracts. A
contractor may also be
debarred for any other cause
of so serious or compelling a
nature that it affects the
present responsibility of the
contractor. Thus, a contract or
need not have committed fraud
or been convicted of an
offense to warrant being
debarred. Debarments are to
be for a period commensurate
with the seriousness of the
cause, but are generally not to
exceed 3 years.
The effectiveness of the
suspension and debarment
(S&D) program has been
enhanced by regulations that
provide all Federal agencies a
uniform system for debarring
contractors from receiving
work funded by Federal grants,
loans, or cooperative
agreements. The system,
required by Executive Order
12549, provides that a
nonprocurement debarment or
suspension by one agency is
effective in all aaencies and
requires the General Services
Administration (GSA) to
publish monthly a ‘List of
Parties Excluded from Federal
Procurement or
Nonprocurement Programs.’
Formerly, a nonprocurement
debarment was effective only
in the programs administered
by the debarring agency, and
each agency maintained Its
own list The EPA Grants
Administration Division
operates the S&D program at
EPA. The OIG supports the
EPA S&D program by
conducting audits,
investigations, and engineering
studies; obtaining documents;
and providing information and
evidence used in determining
whether there is a cause for
suspension or debarment.
The OlG’s Suspension and
Debarment Unit works with the
Grants Administration Division
to further educate and inform
State and local governments
and environmental interest
groups about the effective use
of suspensions and
debarments.
Suspension/Debarment Activities
FY89 - FY91
r250
200
•i50
-100
-50
0
Summary of
Suspension and
Debarment Activities
The following is a summary of
S&D actions taken during this
reporting period:
April 1, 1991 to
September 30, 1991 FY 1991
Cases opened
during period 190
Cases completed
• Suspensions
• Debarments
• Settlements
276
95 120
36 79
17 39
Subtotal —
S&D action 148 238
Closed after
investigation 52 102
Total cases
completed 200 340
Active cases as of
September 30, 1991
• Under OIG investigation
• Under program review
• Under OGC review
• Proposed for debarment
Total open cases
22
59
16
74
171
FY89 FY90 FY91
Includes suspensions. debarmen ts, and voluntary settlements
38
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
EPA’s continuing concern to
protect the public has led to
an even greater expansion
of its traditional suspension
and debarment efforts.
Environmental polluters are
beginning to realize the hard
way that it just doesn’t pay
to spoil the environment.
The day of stiff jail
sentences, fines, and
suspensions and
debarments for
environmental violations is
here.
The Agency’s aggressive
pursuit of environmental
crimes has resulted in a
dramatic increase of
suspension and debarment
actions. The following are
examples of suspension and
debarment actions resulting
from direct OIG involvement:
An OIG proactive
investigation which reviewed
documents concerning effluent
monitoring reports required
under the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) revealed that
fraudulent documents were
being submitted to the State of
North Carolina. John G.
Mason, a contract wastewater
treatment operator, was found
guilty as charged and was
sentenced to jail and fined.
Mason was also debarred from
all Federal procurement and
non-procurement programs for
three years.
• Dr. Vinh Iran, an employee
of an EPA Superfund
contractor, Western Analytic
Laboratory, was convicted for
filing false statements with the
Agency on soil and water
tests at Superfund sites
throughout EPA’s Region Ill.
Based on the conviction, EPA
debarred her for six months.
• Chem-TLE Environmental
Services, Inc. (Chem-TLE), the
EPA Emergency Response
Cleanup Services Zone
Contractor responsible for
cleaning up a dioxin site in
Lexington, Kentucky, was
charged with submitting false
claims to the EPA. EPA
suspended and subsequently
debarred Chem-TLE from all
future assistance, loan and
benefit programs and direct
Federal procurement for three
years. EPA also debarred
B.F. Rippy Jr., Chem-TLE’s
operations manager, and
Thomas L. Ewing, the
President of Chem-TLE.
• Dominic Nicassio, Inc. (DNI),
Dominic Nicassio, Western
Pennsylvania Minority
Enterprises Inc. (WPME), and
Eugene Minard all allegedly
participated in a scheme to
fraudulently obtain EPA-funded
sewer construction contracts
totaling millions of dollars by
misrepresenting that WPME
was a legitimate minority
business enterprise. EPA has
suspended WPME, Minard,
DNI and Dominic Nicassio.
• Russell Taylor, an employee
of Kansas Tunneling and
Boring, Inc., (Kansas
Tunneling), transported and
handled explosives while
Kansas Tunneling was a
subcontractor on an EPA
construction grant to Olathe,
Kansas. Taylor pled guilty to
improperly handling
explosives, was convicted,
fined $900, and debarred by
EPA from Federal procurement
and non-procurement
programs for three years.
These cases reflect OIG
assistance in obtaining
necessary documents to
support a S&D action for the
Agency:
EPA debarred Martha C.
Rose Chemicals, Inc., Kansas
City, Missouri, and several
Rose Chemicals officials
(Sharon Hayes, Dwight E.
Thomas, Jr., James B.
Carolan, and Christopher
Grosch) on June 18, 1991, for
three years, following their
convictions on charges of
conspiracy to defraud EPA,
and making false statements
pertaining to the level of PCB’s
in the retention pond at Rose
Chemicals, Holden, Missouri.
The court also ordered the
defendants to comply with
EPA regulations and pay a
$74,200 balance due on an
EPA Consent Decree.
William Windham, the former
superintendent of utilities at
the wastewater treatment
facility in Big Springs, Texas,
was found guilty of violating
the Clean Water Act by
fraudulently altering effluent
data reports which exceeded
the plant’s National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination Systems
permit. Windham was
sentenced to five months in
prison and fined. EPA
subsequently debarred
Windham for three years from
participating in Federal
procurement and non-
procurement programs.
Mark lrby, former plant
manager for the Lower Reedy
Wastewater Treatment Plant in
Greenville County, South
Carolina, was convicted of
violating the Clean Water Act
and tampering with
representative samples
required to be submitted under
the facility’s National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System
permit. Irby was the first
individual in South Carolina to
be tried on charges of violating
Federal environmental laws.
EPA debarred Irby for three
years based on his conviction.
Thomas Cappozziel and his
company, Bridgeport Wrecking
Company, Inc.,
Bridgeport, Connecticut, were
convicted for violating the
Clean Air Act regarding the
removal and handling of
asbestos from buildings being
demolished. EPA debarred
both the company and the
owner from Federal
procurement and non-
procurement programs for
three years, based on these
convictions.
• Angelo Paccione, Anthony
Vulpis, John McDonald, and
W&W Properties were
convicted under the Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (RICO) for
operating an illegal 70 acre
landfill on Staten Island, New
York, and sentenced to prison
for twelve years, seven
months. Based on these
convictions, EPA debarred
them until July 18, 2006.
Apri’ 1 1991 through September 30, 1991
39
-------
OIG
Management
Initiatives
This section discusses two
initIatives by the Office of
Inspector General to promote
management and financial
improvements and integrity in
EPA’S operations.
OIG Expands Its
Contract Audit
Program
During this semiannual period,
the OIG continued the long-
term efforts to expand its
contract audit program, while
strengthening its relationship
with DCAA. The efforts
consisted of assuming audit
cognizance of major EPA
contractors, conducting
contract audits, and developing
plans and policies for timely,
comprehensive, and
aggressive audit and
investigative coverage.
The OlG issued formal
policy guidance describing how
the Offices of Audit and
Investigations should
coordinate their efforts with
other EPA and Federal
agencies. Oversight
responsibility for major EPA
contractors was assigned to
OlG field divisions to: monitor
and track the status of all
audits and investigations of
their assigned contractors;
identify and refer indicators of
fraud, and abuse to the Office
of Investigations; and, use
those results to help plan
future audits or investigations
of a particular contractor, other
contractors, or an internal and
management audit of EPA
programs.
The OlG continued to work
closely with DCAA to transfer
audit cognizance of major EPA
contractors from DCAA to
EPA. The OIG and DCAA are
revising a Memorandum of
Understanding for audit
services and preparing
guidance for DCAA auditors
auditing Superfund contracts.
The Office of Audit initiated
a comprehensive analysis of
all contractors with EPA
contracts not administratively
closed to identify (1) the
contractors for which the OIG
could assume audit
cognizance, (2) the contractors
for which the cognizant agency
should provide more
comprehensive or expedient
coverage of EPA contracts,
and (3) contracts whose age
and low dollar amounts
warrant closing without audit.
The Office of Audit also
began developing a detailed
implementation plan for
contract audit efforts. The
plan, to be issued during the
first quarter of fiscal 1992, will
address the EPA contractor
analysis, resource-related
activities, training, the
development of policy in
various contract audit areas,
and the assumption of audit
cognizance for additional
contractors. By September 30,
1991, the OIG had assumed
audit cognizance for 12 firms,
including six major Superfund
contractors.
Examples of significant
contract audit reports
performed and issued under
the OlG’s direction during this
period follow:
A contractor who submitted a
$73 million proposal for an
emergency response cleanup
contract was financially weak,
could not support its indirect
cost calculations, proposed
labor rates exceeding actual
costs, and could not properly
account for equipment use.
We recommended that the
contracting officer not award a
contract to this firm.
Of the $627,150 of other
direct costs claimed by O&R
Management Corporation,
$300,164 were ineligible and
$228,506 were not adequately
supported. The ineligible costs
consisted of vehicle lease
costs reimbursed by EPA but
never paid to the leasing
company; labor costs
exceeding those actually
incurred; and other costs
incurred before the contract,
covered by other portions of
the contract, or not allowable
per contract terms.
An interim audit of the $5.7
million of costs claimed by
Guardian Environmental
Services, Inc. under two
Superfund contracts concluded
that $406,443 was ineligible
and $1,181,840 was not
supported. The unallowable
costs involved equipment,
materials, and personnel costs
not authorized by EPA;
unallowable items included in
overhead rates; labor costs
calculated through incorrect
rates; and duplicate costs.
The unsupported costs
included equipment, personnel,
and material charges without
supporting documentation. In
addition, the audit identified
contractor internal control
weaknesses such as
inadequate segregation of
duties, lack of written
accounting procedures, and
the failure to maintain an
accounting system which
identified and segregated
unallowable costs.
OIG Continues To
Work with Agency to
Implement the Chief
Financial Officers Act
The Chief Financial Officers
(CFO) Act was enacted to
bring about much needed
improvements in Federal
financial management. The
Act provides another
mechanism for the OlG and
EPA management to promote
improvements in financial
systems and internal controls
that deter fraud, waste and
abuse, and to develop useful
financial information for
evaluating programs and
making management
decisions. To accomplish
these objectives, the OIG’s
Office of Audit is co-chairing
with the Agency’s Financial
Management Division an
Agency-wide CEO
implementation task force.
The task force has met several
times to explain to Agency
personnel the requirements of
the Act; to discuss the
proposed delegation of
authority for the CFO; and to
request performance data
related to the Agency’s trust
and revolving funds.
Working with the Financial
Management Division, we
have also established four
Agency-level CEO task force
workgroups to address areas
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
critical to the successful
implementation of the CFO
Act. The four work groups and
their objectives are: (1)
financial reporting - to develop
a format for the annual report,
including identification of
performance indicators to be
reported; (2) financial
systems -to identify new
systems or enhancements to
existing systems that will be
needed to meet the
requirements of the CFO Act;
(3) personnel issues - to assist
the CFO in ensuring high
quality in financial
management personnel and
organizations; and (4) user
fees - to address the CEO
requirement to perform
biennial reviews of fees and
charges.
Employee And
Public Awareness
A continuing priority of the
Office of Inspector General is
to enhance awareness of its
presence among EPA
employees, grantees, firms
participating in EPA programs,
and the public. In this
process, we are trying to make
these groups aware of their
responsibility to prevent,
detect, and report instances of
fraud, waste, and abuse. We
have found that while most
EPA employees, grantees, and
contractors are conscientious
about the economy, efficiency,
and effectiveness of their work,
they have little knowledge
about the Office of Inspector
General. We have also found
that while many Agency
employees and managers are
concerned about the possibility
of fraud and abuse in EPA and
sincerely want to learn how to
detect or prevent it, several
others appear naive to its
existence or even reject the
possibility of it happening.
Although they may not be in
violation of law, employees
who maintain anything but a
strictly arm’s-length
relationship with any
contractor, and any contractor
that performs with anything
less than good faith, represent
a risk to the integrity of the
competitive procurement
process and what EPA gets for
its money. Also any
contractor, grantee, or
employee who claims funds in
excess of or for other than the
approved purpose is in
violation of the law. We
believe that EPA employees
are in the best position to
detect, prevent, and report
fraud, waste, and abuse if they
can recognize it.
We have used a variety of
media to provide information
and encourage specific
segments of the concerned
population to recognize and
report conditions or actions
that threaten EPA’s resources
or mission. OlG-developed
publications, videotapes,
presentations, and training
help prepare EPA project or
program managers and
employees to identify and
report suspected indicators of
fraud that otherwise may have
gone unnoticed.
Semiannual Report
Over 1,800 copies of each
semiannual report to Congress
are distributed to members of
Congress on EPA-related
committees, top EPA
managers, news media
(including wire services), State
agencies administering EPA
programs, State attorneys
general, citizens, EPA libraries,
and selected environmental
groups.
Personnel
Security Program
The personnel security
program is one of the
Agency’s first-line defenses
against fraud. The program
uses background
investigations and National
Agency Checks and Inquiries
to review the integrity of EPA
employees and contractors.
During this semiannual
reporting period, the Personnel
Security Staff reviewed 466
investigations. The following
conditions were identified and
administrative actions taken:
• 2 employees resigned prior
to administrative removal for
falsifying their SF-i 71 s,
Applications for Federal
Employment, by not listing
previous convictions for drug
trafficking and writing
worthless checks.
• 6 employees received oral
reprimands/verbal counseling
regarding failure to report
delinquent taxes, delinquent
debts, and previous
convictions for driving while
intoxicated (DWI).
• 1 employee was not placed
in a position as a funds
certifying officer and received
oral admonishment for failure
to disclose financial
indebtedness.
• 1 employee was removed as
an imprest fund cashier and
received a letter of warning for
failure to list previous felony
charges.
• 2 employees received written
reprimands for falsifying their
SF-i 71 s by not listing previous
terminations and convictions.
• 1 employee was terminated
for failing to list a previous
conviction for theft on the SF-
171 used to gain employment
with EPA.
• 1 employee received a 14-
day suspension for not listing
prior convictions for numerous
DWI charges.
April 1, 1991 through September 30, 1991
41
-------
• 1 employee was placed on a
“last chance agreement” by his
supervisor in lieu of being
terminated for failure to list a
previous termination. Under
the agreement, the employee’s
conduct will be closely
monitored.
• 11 employees had to submit
corrected SF1 71s for failure to
list minor offenses.
• 1 contractor employee was
denied access to Confidential
Business Information because
of failure to list a previous
conviction for embezzlement.
President’s
Council On
Integrity And
Efficiency
The Office of Inspector
General participates in the
activities of the President’s
Council on Integrity and
Efficiency (PCIE), which was
established by Executive Order
in March 1981 to attack fraud
and waste, and to improve
management in the Federal
Government The PCIE
coordinates interagency
activities involving common
issues, and develops
approaches and techniques to
strengthen the effectiveness of
the entire Inspector General
community. The PCIE is
headed by the Deputy
Director, Office of
Management and Budget, and
includes the statutory
Inspectors General and other
key Federal officials.
Committee On
Integrity And
Management
Improvement
The Committee on Integrity
and Management Improvement
(ClMl) was established in 1984
by EPA Order 1130.1. The
purpose of CIMI is to
coordinate the Agency’s effort
to minimize the opportunities
for fraud, waste, and
mismanagement in EPA
programs and to advise the
Administrator on policies to
improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of EPA programs
and activities. The Committee
is composed of senior EPA
program and regional officials
and is chaired by the Inspector
General.
Public Service Recognition
Week
To communicate support and
appreciation to EPA
employees at all levels, CIMI
sought an opportunity for the
Agency to speak out and show
its commitment to human
resources. As a result, ClMl
developed and coordinated a
series of special events during
Public Service Recognition
Week. The program, hosted
by EPA’s Administrator,
William Reilly, was highlighted
by speeches from Brigadier
General Evelyn Foote, former
commanding general of Fort
Belvoir, Virginia, and District of
Columbia Mayor Sharon Pratt
Dixon.
Hotline Activities
The OIG Hothne Center
opened 37 new cases and
completed and closed 27
cases during the reporting
period. Of the cases closed 8
resulted in environmental,
prosecutive, or administrative
corrective action, while 19 did
not require action. Cases that
did not have immediate validity
due to insufficient information
may be used to identify trends
or patterns of potentially
vulnerable areas for Future
review. The Hotline also
referred 2,836 telephone
callers to the appropriate
program office, State agency,
or other Federal agency for
assistance.
The following are examples
of corrective action taken as a
result of information provided
to the OIG Hothne Center.
• A complainant alleged that a
manufacturing company had
dumped chemical wastes In or
near water supplies. A review
of the complaint disclosed
illegal activity which resulted in
a joint investigation by EPA’s
Chicago Criminal
Investigations Division, the
Federal Bureau of
Investigations, and the U.S.
Army Criminal Investigation
Division. As a result, a federal
grand jury in Michigan indicted
six individuals for conspiracy:
unlawful treatment, storage
and disposal under RCRA; and
failure to report a release
under CERCLA.
• A complainant alleged
continuing contamination of
residential soil and a nearby
harbor from gasoline leaks. A
review of the complaint
disclosed that an underground
gasoline storage tank had
leaked, and that some
contaminated soil had been
removed by the responsible
party. As a result of the
complaint, ground water
samples were collected and a
device to detect gasoline
vapors was provided. Two
State agencies are collecting
information to determine the
42
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
impact of past underground
storage tank releases on the
residential area.
New Hotline Poster
During this semiannual
reporting period, we designed
and began distribution of 300
new OIG Hothne posters to all
EPA facilities. An example of
this new design is printed on
the back cover of this report.
We hope that by periodically
updating the look and
distribution of the Hotline
poster, EPA employees and
on-site contractors will be
encouraged to call the OlG
Hotline when they suspect any
possible fraud, waste, or
abuse.
Professional And
Organizational
Development
For the semiannual period
ending September 30, 1991,
we approved 308 traIning
enrollments for a total of 959
days of training and
participation in professional
development seminars and
conferences. For all of fiscal
1991, we approved 595
enrollments and a total of 1739
days. Contract and in-house
courses conducted by the OIG
are summarized below.
OIG-Developed Courses
• Detection and Prevention of
Fraud. Although this course
was developed to prepare
independent public
accountants doing work for the
EPA OlG to detect and refer
possible instances of fraud to
the OlG for criminal
investigation, it also increases
the awareness of EPA
managers and supervisors.
During this reporting period,
the course was substantially
revised and was presented
twice, to the majority of new
OIG auditors.
• Superfund and the Role of
the 01G. This course was
developed to provide OlG
staffers with an understanding
of the Superfund program and
the role of the OlG in the
program. The development of
this course, coordinated by the
OIG employee development
specialist, was a combined
effort of all three primary
components of the 01G. The
course consists of six units:
(1) history of Superfund, (2)
major concepts of the
Superfund program, (3)
Superfund program
organizations and resources,
(4) auditing cooperative
agreements, (5) auditing
Superfund contracts, and (6)
internal (management) audits.
• Effective Briefing
Techniques. This course was
designed to prepare auditors,
investigators, and managers to
give effective and persuasive
presentations, deal with
confrontational situations, and
improve OlG relations with
affected organizations or
individuals. The course
includes sections on effective
oral communication, visual
imagery, confrontational
management, and a video
workshop. It stresses the
importance of teamwork
between OIG employees and
Agency management. The
course was presented twice
during this reporting period to
mid-level and senior staff.
OIG Contracted Courses
• Introduction to Government
Auditing. This course was
designed to enhance the new
auditor’s ability to understand
the requirements of Federal
Government auditing and to
provide the individual with the
skills necessary to meet these
requirements.
• Behavioral Aspects of
Government Auditing. This
course was designed for
auditors, audit field
supervisors, and audit
managers who have contacts
with personnel in organizations
being audited; have contacts
with affected organizations or
individuals; or manage audit
organizations. The course
contains the basics of
communication methods that
are intended to make the audit
work more productive for both
auditor and auditee.
• Contract Auditing. This
course was designed for
auditors and audit supervisors
who are responsible for the
performance and review of
contract audits.
• Compliance
Auditing/Questioned Costs.
The course analyzes policies,
standards, and practices to
enhance the auditor’s ability to
identify, document, and report
questioned costs in a
governmental audit and to
participate in their resolution.
Total Quality Management
The Office of Inspector
General fully supports and
participates in EPA’s
commitment to Total Quality
Management (TQM). As a first
step toward implementing
TQM as the way of life within
the OIG, the Inspector
General, the Deputy Inspector
General and 26 managers
participated in the EPA
Executive Course on Quality
during this reporting period.
GAO “Yellow Book”
Standards
The OIG fully complies with
the General Accounting Office
“yellow book” requirements for
training. These standards
require anyone performing or
managing Government audits
to receive at least 80 hours of
continuing professional training
every 2 years, including at
least 24 hours directly related
to Government auditing.
Management Development in
OIG
EPA has implemented an
annual management
development program that
requires 40 hours of
management development
training for each supervisor
and manager. The goals of
the management development
program are to build
leadership and management
skills, highlight their
importance in the way we
select, develop, appraise and
reward managers, and provide
the required resources. OlG
supervisors have received
training in developing individual
development plans that will
ensure this training is received.
A workshop for the OlG
Support Staff was held in
Arlington, Virginia, May 14-16.
The objective of the workshop
was to enhance secretaries’
job performance by developing
strategies for them to use to
more effectively assist
supervisors.
Apri 1, 1991 through September 30. 1991
43
-------
Gary Chin Award Presented
Janet Kasper, second from the
left, and Donna Witherspoon,
second from the nght, were
presented the Gary C. Chin Award
during OIG Week ceremonies in
May. Also present were (left to
right), Anthony Carrollo, Division
Inspector General for Audit,
Northem Division, Kasper’s
supervisor; Dr. Allan Chin and
Elaine Twiner, uncle and sister of
Gary Chin; Letha Roache, mother
of Mrs. Witherspoon; and John C.
Martin, Inspector General The
award will be given annually to
those OlG employees who best
exemplify the qualities of the late
Gary C. Chin—perseverance and
dedication. (photo by Tom
Maloney).
44
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
Appendix 1 Audit Reports Issued
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT REQUIRES A LISTING, SUBDIVIDED ACCORDING TO SUBJECT MATTER, OF EACH AUDIT REPOIRT ISSUED BY
THE OFFICE DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD AND FOR EACH AUDIT REPORT, WHERE APPLICABLE, THE DOLLAR VALUE OF QUESTIONED
COSTS AND THE DOLLAR VALUE OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT FUNDS BE PUT TO BETTER USE.
Questioned Costs
Recommended
Audit Control Auditee Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies
Number Issued Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs To Better Use)
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation
E1KAFO-03-0269-1100359 VEHICLE INSPECTION/MAINTENANCE 8/16/91
Assistant Administrator for Administration and Resources Management
P1SFFO-11-0032-1100385 SUPERFUND TRUST FUND AUDIT - 9/16/91
FISCAL 1990
E1XMG1-13-0036-1400050 AUDIT FOLLOWIJP - EXTERNAL AUDITS 9/26/91
E1SFG1-05-0018-1400046 CONTRACTOR PROPERTY OVERSIGHT 9/27/91
E1AME9-11-0041-1100426 UWLIQUIDATED OBLIGATIONS IN 9/30/91
CONSTRUCTION GRANTS
E1AMG1-11 -6000-1100433 ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE FOLLOWUP 9/30/91
E1XMF1-O8-OO33-1100441 REGION 8 MANAGEMENT OF COMPUTER 9/30/91
SCIENCES CORPORATION CONTRACT
ACTIVITIES
E6EMPO-15-0O39-140006O MANAGEMENT OF THE INTERIM COMPUTER 9/30/91
WORKSTATION CONTRACT
E6AMG1-13-0035-1400024 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT PROCUREMENTS 6/20/91
Assistant Administrator for Pesticides and Toxic Substances
E1EPG1-O3-6000-1400039 ASHAA FOLLOWUP AUDIT 9/10/91 20,243
E1EPF1-05-0117-1100378 PESTICIDES INERTS 9/27/91
E1EPG1-11-OO21-1400064 QA/QC PROCEDURES UNDER THE GOOD 9/30/91
LAB PRACTICE PROGRAM
E6APGO-15-0034-1400026 PESTICIDES SYSTEMS 6/28/91
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
E1SHGO-O4-0103-1400028 EMERGENCY WAIVER CRITERIA 8/14/91
E1SKE9-11-OO47-1100411 CONTROLS OVER THE SUPERFUND 9/24/91
CONTRACT LAB PROGRAM
E1SJEO-O2-0157-1100431 SUPERFUND POST-SETTLEMENT 9/30/91
ACTIVITIES CDNSC DATED AUDIT
Assistant Administrator for Water
E1HWEO-D4-0291-1100434 CWA SECTION 404 (WETLANDS) 9/30/91
CONSOLIDATED AUDIT
Financial Management 0ffice Las Vegas
E1AMA1-O9-0134-1100439 REVIEW OF DISBURSEMENT FUNCTION 9/30/91
AT LAS VEGAS
Office of Information and Resources Management
E1RMG1-15-OO41-1400061 REVIEW OF EPA’S MAJOR INFORMATION 9/30/91
SYSTEMS
Region 1
E1SGG1-O1-0184-1400025 SUPERFUND-DEOBLIGATIONS 6/18/91
Region 2
E1HWG1-02-6000-1400041 WPDES FOLLOWUP 9/12/91
Region 3
E1HWAO-O3-O4O8-1100422 DELAWARE BAY & INLAND BAYS 9/26/91
ESTUARY PROGRAM
E1SHT1-O3-O396-1400059 SPECIAL REVIEW OF SUPERFUND SITE 9/27/91
CLEANUP DOCUMENTS
E1SGG9-14-O012-1400053 SUPERFUWD RI/FS REVIEW OF 9/26/91
SOUTHERN MARYLAND WOOD TREATING
April 1 1991 through September 30, 1991 45
-------
Audit Control
Number
Audit..
Questioned Costs
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/
Issued Costs Costs Unreasonable
Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Put
To Better U ..)
Region 1
E1AMG1-04-0388-1400023 IMPREST FUND - REGION 4
6/ 7/91
Region 8
E1DSC1-08-0049-1100428 REGIONAL ADMINISTRATION OF
GRANTS
Region 9
E1KAG1-09-6094-1400049 FOLLOWIJP REVIEW - REGION 9 AIR
PROGRAM
E1HTG1-D9-0156-1400051 REGION 9 IMPLEMENTATION OF STATE
REVOLVING FUND
TOTAL INTERNAL & MANAGEMENT AUDITS
2. CONSTRUCTION GRANT AUDITS
TOTAL OF REGION 01 = 8
TOTAL OF REGION 02 = 11
E2CWLO-03-0108-1 100259
E2CWM9-03-0209- 1200020
E2CWMO-03-0145- 1200021
E2CWT- 03-0269-1200026
P2CW*7 03 0282 1200014
P2CW*7 O3 0342 1200030
P2CW*B 03 0299. 1200017
P2CW*8 03 0282 1200018
P2C l9-03-0175- 1200019
P2CWMO-03-01 15-1200022
P2C 49-03-0176- 1200023
P2C 49-03-0259- 1200024
P2CW*8 03-0049-1200028
P2CWMO-03-0231 -1200032
P2CWMO-03-0034- 1200034
P2CWM9-03-0238- 1200037
P2CWMO- 03-0232-1200038
P2CWN9-03-0244- 1300061
P2DW*8 03 O174 1300105
P2CWN9-03-0383 1300109
P2CWW O-03-0322-1300 116
TOTAL OF REGION 03 = 21
PITTSVILLE TOWN OF
GARRETT CTY SANITARY CONM
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY
SALTSBURG BOROUGH OF
SHICKSHINNY SANITARY
LEONARDTOWN TOWN
BALTIMORE COUNTY
BALTIMORE COUNTY
BOTETOURT COUNTY
ELMHURST TOWNSHIP
BATH COUNTY SERVICE AUTH
HERMITAGE MUNI AUTH
WASHINGTON CTY SANI DIST
OF
BEL AIR TOWN OF
PEPPER’S FERRY TRMT AUTH
GARRETT COUNTY SANI DIST
BERRYVILLE TOWN OF
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY
PHILADELPHIA CITY OF
WHEELING
PHILADELPHIA CITY OF
668,695 1,900,486
4,351,005 9,170,238
0
2,366,711
5,245,731
E2AWT1 -01-0047- 1400021
P2CW*7 O1 -0179- 1100271
S2CWLO-O1 -0106-1100234
S2CWLO-O1 -0074-1100274
S2CWLO-01 -0071-1100277
S2CW*8 O1 -0365-1100280
S2C WLO-O1-O1O8-1100281
S2CWL9-O1 -0112-1100360
NANTTUCKET EWS
EAST WINDSOR
LOWELL
NORTHAMPTON
SOUTHBR lOGE
LOWELL
LOWELL
MANSFIELD
0
108,991
438,336
0
0
13,499
71, 243
36,626
0
0
664,172
0
0
449,581
150,127
636,606
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P2CWL9-O2-0209- 1100161
P2CWL9-O2-O312- 1100177
P2CWL9-O2-O321 -1100178
P2CWLO-O2-0O98- 1100228
P2CWL9-O2-O164- 1100270
P2CWL9-O2-O267- 1100275
P2CWL9- 02-0266-1100276
P2CWLO-O2-OO38- 1100278
P2CWL9-O2-O235-1 100304
P2CWLO-O2-OO32-1100424
P2CWL9-O2-OO36- 1100425
WESTCHESTER COUNTY
NASSAU COUNTY
WESTCHESTER COUNTY
NASSAU COUNTY
SAND LAKE
PRASA
PRASA
ROCKLAND
ROCKLAND COUNTY SD NO. 1
CAMDEN COUNTY MUA
CAMDEN CNTY
1,083,074
4,508,544
0
129,408
128,389
674,684
45,547
859,711
0
1,339,316
2,864,704
1,636,565
580,617
0
0
4,292
0
0
8,651
0
0
33,615
0
0
777,066
134,044
0
75,155
551,531
0
274,264
123,315
55,462
RCRA 9/30/91
9/25/91
9/26/91
= 28
MA 5/22/91
CT 6/27/91
MA 5/30/91
MA 7/ 1/91
MA 7/ 1/91
MA 7/ 1/91
MA 7/ 1/91
MA 8/21/91
NY 4/ 2/91
NY 4/15/91
NY 4/15/91
NY 5/22/91
NY 6/27/91
PR 7/ 1/91
PR 7/ 1/91
NY 7/ 1/91
NY 7/ 9/91
NJ 9/27/91
NJ 9/27/91
MD 6/19/91
MD 6/ 7/91
MD 6/11/91
PA 6/27/91
PA 4/11/91
MD 8/22/91
MD 5/31/91
MD 6/ 3/91
VA 6/ 4/91
PA 6/17/91
VA 6/20/91
PA 6/24/91
MD 7/ 2/91
MD 8/22/91
MD 9/11/91
VA 9/12/91
MD 9/30/91
VA 9/30/91
MD 4/19/91
PA 9/12/91
WV 9/23/91
PA 9/26/91
NC 4/19/91
NC 4/29/91
SC 6/25/91
SC 7/ 1/91
GA 7/25/91
NC 4/29/91
FL 7/17/91
FL 9/26/91
100,600
61,733
59,441
135,426
136, 303
42”, 6 5
73,594
47,679
236,349
92,662
66,390
216,858
49,379
427,655
104, 174
164,571
165,060
37,317
54,810
196,729
7,164,570
9,591,302
108,292
19,962
162,867
9,454
6,873
44,113
0
206,119
6,900
0
3,000
0
177,964
0
47,402
0
6,083
52,925
56,104
0
177,964
2,985
0
17,238
0
78,647
789
267,929
924,085
4,562
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
163,504
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
163,504
0
3,159
0
0
0
0
333,339
500,002
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,052,880
E2CWM8-04-O243- 1200015
E2C I1 -04-0069-1200016
E2CWMO-04-O353- 1200025
E2CWM1-04-0415-1200027
E2CWM1 -04-0445-1200029
E2CWN8-O4-O122- 1300062
E2CWN1 -04-0052-1300086
E2AWP1-04-O11O- 1400054
AULANDER
KENLY
BERKELEY CO WSA
EDGE F I ELD
LYONS
LEXINGTON
HILLSBOROUGH CTY
HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY
46
Office of the inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
Questioned Costs
Audit Control
Number
Auditee
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/
Issued Costs Costs Unreasonable
Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Put
To Better Use)
TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 17
TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 13
TOTAL OF REGION 06 = 4
TOTAL OF REGION 07 = 4
P2CW*8 08 009O 12D0035 SARATOGA, CITY OF
P2CW*8 08 01O9 12OO036 BISMARCK, CITY OF
TOTAL OF REGION 08 = 2
TOTAL OF REGION 09 = 8
P2CW*8 10 D057 11OO419
P2CW*8 10-0022-1100420
P2CW*7 10-0095-1200033
P2CW*7 10-0046-1200039
P2EWPO- 10-0086-1400058
RAYMOND, CITY OF
SITKA, CITY OF
CLALLAM, COUNTY OF
BRISTOL BAY, BOROUGH
WASHINGTON ST REVOLVING FUND
TOTAL OF REGION 10 = 5
3,887,615 1,324,816
32,583.860 1,848,869
282,872 79,128
49,324 0
5,289,851 5,245,731
21,951,937 2,000,464 120,736,373
0 1,831,225
4,272,877
4,272,877
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION GRANT AUDITS
3. OTHER GRANT AUDITS
= 93
75,230,750 17,553,927 136,661,107 11,349,833
P2CWNO-O4-OO18- 1300064
P2CWND-04-0048- 1300065
P2CWNO-04-0020- 1300091
P2CWN9-D4-0391 -1300102
S2CWN9-04-0195- 1300073
S2CWNO-04-0O40- 1300092
S2CWN8-O4-03D9- 1300093
S2CWN9-04-0123- 1300099
S2CWN8-O4-0425- 1300104
MAYODAN
ATLANTA
WILL ISTON
ST. PETERSBURG
JONESBORO,
MT JULIET
MEMPHIS
LA VERGNE
MURFREESBORO
41,347
149,403
10,921
83,858
364,450
440,284
2,192,930
40,653
212,208
0
0
292,689
0
0
0
1,016,314
11,251
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
236,971
0
0
E2AWT1-05-01 16-1400048
E2AWT1 -05-0391-1400063
P2CWN8-05-D509- 1300059
P2CWW9-05-D064- 1300076
P2CWN9-05-O037- 1300084
P2CWN8-05-0273- 1300090
P2CWND-05-0086- 1300115
P2CWP9-05-0O75- 1400037
P2CWP8-05-0D26- 1400038
P2CWPO-O5 -0346-1400042
P2CWP8- 05- 0594-1400043
P2CWP9-D5-007O- 1400047
P2CWPO-05-0420- 1400057
ENGLISH EWS
LOOGOTEE EWS
COLUMBUS
MIAMI CD
STRONGSVI LLE
LAKE CD DPW
GAL ION
GARY SD
GARY SD
CASS CD
DUPAGE CO
INDIANAPOLIS
LAKEW000
1,472,130
359, 095
NC 5/ 7/91
GA 5/ 7/91
SC 8/ 2/91
FL 9/ 4/91
TN 6/ 4/91
TN 8/ 2/91
TN 8/ 2/91
TN 8/14/91
TN 9/12/91
IN 9/25/91
IN 9/30/91
OH 4/ 2/91
OH 6/10/91
OH 7/ 8/91
IL 7/30/91
OH 9/26/91
IN 9/ 9/91
IN 9/ 9/91
MI 9/19/91
IL 9/20/91
IN 9/24/91
OH 9/27/91
TX 9/23/91
LA 5/10/91
NM 6/ 4/91
LA 6/19/91
MO 4/11/91
IA 6/ 4/91
IA 6/19/91
MO 7/17/91
WY 9/25/91
ND 9/27/91
188,636
0
0
227,584
0
0
79,719
132,515
0
314,854
31,937
0
95,620
49,948
0
2,833,075
0
0
24,807,211
0
0
2D7,485
42,866
D
144,463
2,100
0
3,565,238
1,589,503
0
119,975
0
0
E2CWN9-06-OO34- 13D01O8
P2CWN8-06- 0094-1300067
P2CWN9-06-0145- 1300073
P2CWN9-06-0081- 1300079
AUSTIN
VINTON
CLOVIS
NEW IBERIA
P2CWN8-07-0D52- 1300060
P2CWN8-D7-0130- 1300074
P2CWN9-D7-01 15-1300078
P2CWN8-07- 0207-1300087
INDEPENDENCE
NEWTON
DES MOINES POLK CO.
0’ FALLON
E2AWP1 -09-0184-1400062
P2CW*8 09-0026-1100421
P2BWLO-09-D175- 1100436
S2CW*8 09 D157 13DO1 12
S2CWN9-09-OO39-13001 17
SZCWN9-O9-O032- 1300118
S2CW*8 O9 0156 13OO1 19
S2CWN9-O9-0171-130012O
D
49,324
652,941
18,717
0
45,670
60,115
10,993
5,172
0
7,239,343
0
0
0
717,328
76,280
7,239,343
12,639
9,275
237,614
23,344
0
0
0
79,128
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5,138,940
542,720
6,098,282
5,621,855
1,862,904
2,687,236
0
516,296
1,484,168
0
0
0
0
611,722
19,042,733
0
7,460,741
38,348,260
51,135,450
4,137,467
D
0
WATSONVILLE, CITY OF
GLOBE, CITY OF
CLARK COUNTY SD
LOS ANGELES, CITY OF
LOS ANGELES, CITY OF
MONTEREY REG WATER POLL
LOS ANGELES, CITY OF
TRACY, CITY OF
CA
AZ
NV
CA
CA
CON CA
CA
CA
9/30/91
9/25/91
9/30/91
9/25/9 1
9/30/9 1
9/30/9 1
9/30/9 1
9/30/9 1
9/25 /9 1
9/25 /9 1
9/11/91
9/30/91
9/27/91
WA
AK
WA
AK
34,891
211,666
403,577
226,764
0
0
0
0
0
885,157
17,895
125,250
0
0
0
1,146,812
229,561
528,827
C3HVK1 -01-0180-1500694
C3HVK1-D1-0181-1500695
C3HVK1 -01-0179-1500696
C3HVK1-01-D193-150 08D1
C3HVK1-O1-O243-1501039
G3HVK1 -01-0127-1500522
G3HVK1-O1-0122-1500523
MERIDEN
MERIDEN
MERIDEN
PITTSFIELD
CHICOPEE
HATFIELD
RYE
CT 5/22/91
CT 5/22/91
CT 5/22/91
MA 6/27/91
MA 9/27/91
MA 4/ 3/91
NH 4/ 3/91
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
April 1 1991 through September 30, 1991
47
-------
Audit Control
Number
Auditee
Questioned Costs
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/
Issued Costs Costs Unreasonable
Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Put
To Bettor Use)
G3HVK1 -01 -0121 -1500524
G3HVK1-O1- 0112-1500536
G3HVK1 -01 -0132-1500687
G3HVK1 -01-0130-1500688
G3HVK1 -01 -0147-1500690
G3HVK1-01 -0148-1500691
G3HVK1 -01-0149-1500702
G3HVK1 -01 -01 76-1500703
G3HVK1-01-0175-1500704
G3HVK1 -01 -0174-1500705
G3HVK1 -01 -0177-1500706
G3HVK1 -01 -0183-1500714
G3HVK1 -01 -0182-1500775
G3HVK1-01-0172-1500776
G3HVK1 -01-0173-1500777
G3HVK1 -01-0189-1500800
G3HVK1-01 -0190-1500802
G3HVK1 -01 -0195-1500900
G3HVK1 -01-0196-1500901
G3HVK1 -01 -0197-1500903
G3HVK1 -01 -0220-1500945
G3HVK1 -01-0222-1500948
G3HVK1 -01-0223-1500949
G3HVK1 -01 -0221 -1500951
N3HVK1-01 -0077-1500521
N3HVK1 -01 -0087-1500535
N3HVK1-01-0108-1500537
N3HVK1-01 -0107-1500540
N3HVK1-01 -0078-1500634
N3HVK1 -01 -0126-1500635
N3HVK1 -01 -0086-1500686
N3HVK1 -01-0109-1500689
N3HVK1-01-0167-1500715
N3HVK1 -01 -0163-1500723
N3HVK1 -01 -0188-1500724
W3HVK1 -01-0106-1500771
N3HVK1 -01-0198-1500904
N3HVK1 -01 -0217-1500905
N3HVK1 -01-0144-1501018
W3HVK1 -01-0186-1501019
N3HVKO-01 -0270-1501040
SANDWICH
DOVER
CONCORD
BRISTOL
CHARLES RIVER POLL. DIST.
ORLEANS, BREWSTER, EASTHAM
HART FORD
NARRAGANSETT BAY COMM
NARRAGANSETT BAY COMM
NARRAGANSETT RAY COMM
NARRAGANSETT BAY COMM
WI NCHESTER
MA WATER RESOURCES AUTHOR.
MA WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITYMA
MA WATER RESOURCE AUTHORITY MA
WEBSTER MA
MAINE MUNICIPA; BOND BANK ME
CHELMSFORD MA
EXETER NH
SOUTH ESSEX SEWAGE DIST.
SPENCER MA
FAIRHAVEN MA
WARREN MA
BRIDGEWATER MA
NASHUA NH
HARTFORD CT
METRO AREA PLNG. COUNCIL MA
ROCKINGHAM PLNG. COMM. NH
BERKSHIRE CNTY. REG. PLMG. MA
MONTACHUSETT REG. PLNG. COMMMA
DANBURY CT
MANCHESTER NH
BARNSTABLE COUNTY MA
BROCKTON , MA
BARNSTABLE COUNTY MA
NEW HAMPSHIRE, STATE OF NH
PIONEER VALLEY PLANNING CON MA
NORTHERN MIDDLESEX COUNCIL MA
INDIAN TOWNSHIP TRIBAL GOVTME
SACO ME
SOUTHEASTERN REG PLANNING MA
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL OF REGION 01 = 48
3,828,912
0 0
G3HVK1 - 02-0091-1500546
G3HVK1 -02-0103-1500656
G3HVK1 -02-0105-1500679
G3HVK1 -02-0107-1500758
G3HVK1 -02-0108-1500759
G3HVK1 -02-0116-1500778
G3HVK1 -02-0140-1500975
N3HVK1 -02-0077-1500605
N3HVK1 -02-0098-1500614
N3HVK1 -02-0099-1500615
N3HVK1 -02-0100-1500654
N3HUK1 -02-0101-1500655
N3HVK1 -02-0102-1500678
N3HVK1 -02-0081 -1500757
N3HVKO-O2- 0207-1500976
N3HVKO-O2-O289- 1500977
N3HVK1 -02-0063-1500978
N3HVK1 -02-0141-1500979
N3HVK1 -02-0142-1500984
N3HVK1 -02-0106-1501001
N3HVK1 -02-0143-1501002
N3HVK1 -02-0137-1501037
BYRON
LANDIS SA
GREAT NECK WPCD
GLOVERSVILLE-JOHNSTOWN JT
CAPE MAY COUNTY HUA
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMM
LANCASTER
NASSAU COUNTY
CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY
MI LLVI LLE
CHAUTAUQUA COUNTY
RESEARCH FOUNDATION OF SUNY
R IVERHEAO
WASHINGTON COUNTY
GOUVERNEUR
LOGAN
ROCKLAND
YORKTOWN
DEXTER
WEST SENECA
SCHUYLERVI LLE
KINGSTON
NY 4/ 8/91
NJ 5/ 7/91
NY 5/13/91
NY 6/17/91
NJ 6/17/91
NY 6/25/91
NY 8/14/91
NY 4/23/91
NY 4/29/91
NJ 4/29/91
NY 5/ 7/91
NY 5/ 7/91
NY 5/13/91
NY 6/17/91
NY 8/14/91
NJ 8/14/91
NY 8/14/91
NY 8/14/91
NY 8/16/91
NY 8/26/91
NY 8/26/91
NY 9/17/91
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
184,250
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL OF REGION 02 = 22
0 184,250
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
NH 4/ 3/91
NH 4/ 4/91
MA 5/20/91
CT 5/20/91
MA 5/21/91
MA 5/21/91
VT 5/30/91
RI 5/31/91
RI 5/31/91
RI 5/31/91
RI 5/31/91
NH 6/ 5/91
MA 6/24/91
6/24/91
6/24/91
6/27/91
6/27/91
7/19/91
7/19/9 1
7/23/91
8/ 6/91
8/ 6/91
8/ 6/91
8/ 6/91
4/ 3/91
4/ 4/91
4/ 4/91
4/ 4/91
5/ 1/91
5/ 1/91
5/20/91
5/21/91
6/ 5/91
6/11/91
6/20/91
6/19/91
7/23/91
7/23/91
9/ 4/91
9/ 4/91
9/ 27/9 1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3,828,912
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C3HVK1-O3-O067-150055O
CARROLL COUNTY 6/90
MD
4/ 9/91
0
0
C3HVK1-O3-0183-1500603
FAIRFAX COUNTY
VA
4/22/91
0
0
C3HVK1-O3-O271-1500794
WASHINGTON COUNTY 6/90
M D
6/26/91
0
0
C3HVJ1-O3-O315-1500952
VA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL
VA
8/ 6/91
0
4,847
G3HVK1-O3-O152-1500552
OAKLAND TOWN OF
MD
4/ 9/91
42,020
0
G3HVK1-O3-0153-1500553
OAKLAND TOWN OF
MD
4/ 9/91
0
0
G3HVK1-O3-O154-1500554
OAKLAND TOWN OF
M D
4/ 9/91
332,955
0
G3HVK1-O3-O18O-1500563
INTERSTATE CON POTOMAC RIVERMD
4/11/91
0
0
G3HVK1-03-O190-1500598
BUCKINGHAN TOWNSHIP
PA
4/22/91
0
0
48
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
Questioned Costs
Audit Control
Number
Auditee
Recommended
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/ Efficiencies
Issued Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs To Better Use)
TOTAL OF REGION 03 = 43
489,899 868,847
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
G3HVK1-O3-0189-1500599
LAKE CITY MUNICIPAL SEWER PA
4/22/91
0
0
G3HVK1-O3-0188-1500600
LAKE CITY MUNICIPAL SEWER PA
4/22/91
0
0
G3HVK1-O3-O187-15006O1
LAKE CITY MUNICIPAL SEWER PA
4/22/91
0
0
G3HVK1-O3-O186-15006O2
LAKE CITY MUNICIPAL SEWER PA
4/22/91
0
0
G3HVK1-03-O240-1500712
LANESBORO PA
6/ 4/91
0
0
G3HVK1-03-O239-1500713
LEE COUNTY VA
6/ 4/91
0
0
G3HVK1-O3-O276-1500815
BEAR CREEK WATER SHED AUTHO PA
7/ 1/91
0
864,000
G3HVK1-O3-O277-1500817
GREEN VALLEY GLENW000 Wv
7/ 1/91
0
0
G3HVK1-O3-O279-1500818
NEW HOLLAND BOROUGH AUTHORITPA
7/ 1/91
0
0
G3HVK1-03-O28O-1500872
MILFORD CITY OF DE
7/11/91
0
0
G3HVK1-03-O281-1500873
BELLEFONTE BOROUGH AUTH PA
7/11/91
0
0
G3HVK1-03-O292-1500874
GARRETT COUNTY MD
7/11/91
0
0
G3HVK1-03-0293-1500875
ST. MARY’S COUNTY MD
7/11/91
0
0
G3HVK1-O3-0317-1500946
WAYNESBURG BOROUGH OF 12/90 PA
8/ 6/91
0
0
G3HVK1-03-0319-1500950
PLUM BOROUGH SEWER AUTH PA
8/ 6/91
114,924
0
G3HVK1-03-0320-1500953
ALTOONA CITY AUTHORITY PA
8/ 6/91
0
0
G3HVK1-O3-0323-1500954
SAINT THOMAS TOWNSHIP PA
8/ 6/91
0
0
G3HVK1-03-0316-1500958
WAYNESBURG BOROUGH OF 12/88 PA
8/ 6/91
0
0
N3HVJ1-O3-O108-1500551
WYOMING COUNTY WV
4/ 9/91
0
0
N3HVK1-03-0O78-1500584
WASHINGTON COUNCIL OF GOVT DC
4/18/91
0
0
N3HVK1-O3-0185-1500585
FREDERICK CITY OF MD
4/18/91
0
0
N3HVK1-O3-OO79-1500586
ALLEGHENY COUNTY PA
4/18/91
0
0
N3HVKO-O3-O417-1500597
DC DEPT OF PUBLIC WORKS DC
4/22/91
0
0
N3HUJ1-03-O142-1500816
UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA VA
7/ 1/91
0
0
N3HVK1-03-0151-1500819
NATIONAL COUNCIL OF SENIOR DC
7/ 1/91
0
0
N3HUJ1-03-O147-150082O
VA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY VA
7/ 1/91
0
0
N3HVKO-03-0355-1500821
BALTIMORE CITY OF MD
7/ 1/91
0
0
N3HVJ1-03-0184-1500829
VIRGINIA POLYTECHIC INSTIT VA
7/ 1/91
0
0
N3HVJ1-03-O018-150083O
VA DEPT OF ARGICULTURE & CO VA
7/ 1/91
0
0
N3HVK1-03-0135-1500871
ERIE COUNTY PA
7/11/91
0
0
N3HUK1-03-O318-1500947
UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH PA
8/ 6/91
0
0
N3HVK1-03-0314-1500955
HOWARD COUNTY MARYLAND MD
8/ 6/91
0
0
N3HVK1-O3-0326-1500956
EMMITSBURG TOWN OF MD
8/ 6/91
0
0
N3HVJ1-03-O236-1500957
VA DEPT OF HEALTH VA
8/ 6/91
0
0
C3HVK1-O4-0142-15005O8
NASHVILLE & DAVIDSON COUNTY TN
4/ 5/91
0
C3HVK1-O4-O228-1500526
AL DEPT ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT AL
4/ 3/91
11,880
C3HVJ1-O4-0157-1500621
JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSION AL
4/29/91
0
C3HVJ1-04-O16O-1500622
JEFFERSON COUNTY COMMISSION AL
4/26/91
0
C3HVK1-04-0158-1500651
FT. LAUDERDALE FL
5/ 6/91
0
C3HVK1-04-0269-1500766
JEFFERSON COUNTY FISCAL COURKY
6/18/91
0
C3HVK1-04-O27O-1500767
TALLAHASSEE FL
6/18/91
0
C3HVK1-04-0281-1500797
LEXINGTON-FAYETTE COUNTY KY
6/27/91
0
C3HVJ1-O4-0276-1500798
MONTGOMERY COUNTY AL
6/27/91
0
C3HVK1-04-0391-15O1O34
JACKSONVILLE FL
9/11/91
0
C3HVK1-O4-04O3-15O1035
PENSACOLA FL
9/11/91
0
G3HVK1-O4-0229-1500525
MOUNT CARMEL TN
4/ 3/91
0
G3HVK1-O4-O145-1500544
ASHFORD AL
4/ 8/91
0
G3HVK1-O4-O146-1500545
ASHFORD AL
4/ 8/91
0
G3HVK1-O4-0143-1500559
BAILEY NC
4/11/91
0
G3HVK1-O4-0144-1500561
BAILEY NC
4/11/91
0
G3HVK1-O4-0148-15006O9
CHOCOWINITY NC
4/29/91
0
G3HVK1-04-0152-150061O
BOILING SPRINGS NC
4/29/91
0
G3HVK1-04-0151-1500611
CLAYTON AL
4/29/91
0
G3HVK1-04-0150-1500612
CHICKAMAUGA GA
4/29/91
0
G3HVK1-O4-0149-1500613
CHICKAMAUGA GA
4/29/91
0
G3HVK1-O4-0174-1500643
LEIGHTON AL
5/ 3/91
0
G3HVK1-O4-0165-1500644
JONESVILLE NC
5/ 3/91
0
G3HVK1-04-O161-1500646
HOPE MILLS NC
5/ 3/91
0
G3HVK1-O4-0162-1500647
HOPE MILLS NC
5/ 3/91
0
G3HVK1-04-O164-1500648
CONYERS GA
5/ 3/91
0
G3HVK1-04-O181-1500658
ROBERSONVILLE NC
5/ 7/91
0
G3HVK1-04-0180-1500659
ROBERSONVILLE NC
5/ 7/91
0
G3HVK1-O4-0182-150066O
ROBERSONVILLE NC
5/ 7/91
0
G3HVK1-O4-0183-1500661
PHIL CAMPBELL AL
5/ 7/91
0
G3HVK1-O4-0184-1500662
PHIL CAMPBELL AL
5/ 7/91
0
G3HVK1-04-O188-1500665
STALLINGS NC
5/ 9/91
0
G3HVK1-O4-O196-1500667
SPARTA NC
5/ 8/91
0
G3HVK1-04-O198-1500668
SPARKS GA
5/ 8/91
0
G3HVK1-04-O197-1500669
SPARTA NC
5/ 8/91
0
G3HVK1-04-0199-1500670
SALEMBURG NC
5/ 8/91
0
G3HVK1-04-0191-1500674
WHITE LAKE NC
5/10/91
0
G3I4VK1-04-019O-1500675
WHITE LAKE NC
5/10/91
0
G3HVK1-04-0168-1500676
HANCEVILLE AL
5/10/91
0
G3HVK1-04-0189-1500677
WHITE LAKE NC
5/10/91
0
G3HVK1-04-0237-1500716
BLOWING ROCK NC
6/ 5/91
0
0
April 1 1991 through September 30, 1991
49
-------
Audit Control
Number
Audite.
Questioned Costs
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported
Issued Costs Costs
Unnecessary/
Unreasonable
Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds B. Put
To Better Use
G3HVK1 -04-0240-1500717
G3HVK1 -04-0241 -1500718
G3HVK1 -04-0179-1500725
G3HVK1 -04-0244-1500726
G3HVK1 -04-0396-1500727
G3HVK1 -04-0266-1500728
G3HVK1 -04-0254-1500729
G3HVK1 -04-0247-1500730
G3HVK1 -04-0243-1500731
G3HVKI -04-0245-1500732
G3HVK1 -04-0242-1500733
G3HVK1 -04-0262-1500736
G3HVK1 -04-0204-1500745
G3HVK1 -04-0203-1500746
G3HVK1 -04-0337-1500747
G3HVK1 -04-0194-1500748
G3HVK1 -04-0202-1500749
G3HVK1 -04-0275-1500765
G3HVK1 -04-0215-1500780
G3HVK1 -04-0214-1500781
G3HVK1 -04-0218-1500782
G3HVK1 -04-0217-1500783
G3HVK1 -04-0280-1500786
G3HVK1 -04-0282-1500786
G3HVK1 -04-0284-1500787
G3HVK1 -04-0219-1500795
G3HVK1 -04-021!- 1500796
G3HVK1 -04-0298-1500822
G3HVK1 -04-0297-1500823
G3HVK1 -04-0301-1500824
G3HVK1 -04-0302-1500825
G3HVK1 -04-0300-1500826
G3HVK1 -04-0304-1500827
G3HVK1 -04-0306-1500844
G3HVK1 -04-0293-1500848
G3HVK1 -04-0308-1500849
G3HVK1 -04-0294-1500850
G3HVK1 -04-0327-1500863
G3HVK1 -04-0325-1500864
G3HVK1 -04-0326-1500865
G3HVK1 -04-0324-1500866
G3HVK1 - 04-0329-1500887
G3HVKI -04-0328-1500888
G3HVK1 -04-0331-1500890
G3HVK1 -04-0239-1500891
G3HVK1 -04-0238-1500895
G3HVK1 -04-0335-1500896
G3HVK1 -04-0234-1500897
G3HVK1 -04-0232-1500899
G3HVK1 - 04-0261-1500906
G3HVKI -04-0285-1500907
G3HVK1-04-0286-1500908
G3HVK1 -04-0260-1500912
G3HVK1 -04-0271-1500916
G3HVK1 -04-0279-1500917
G3NVK1 -04-0344-1500918
G3HVK1 -04-0346-1500919
G3HVK1 -04-0251-1500980
G3HVK1 -04-0250-1500981
G3HVK1-04-0384-1500988
G3HVK1 -04-0364-1500990
G3HVK1 -04-0363-1500991
G3HVKI -04-0255-1500992
G3HVK1 -04-0235-1500994
G3HVK1 -04-0303-1500995
G3HVK1 -04-0305-1500996
G3HVKI -04-0372-1500997
G3HVK1 -04-0336-1500998
G3HVK1 -04-0371-1500999
G3HVK1-04-0375-150’006
G3HVK1 -04-0376-1501007
G3HVK1 -04-0369-1501008
G3HVK1 -04-0252-1501020
G3HVK1 -04-0390-1501021
G3HVK1 -04-0389-1501022
G3HVK1 -04-0358-1501023
G3HVK1 -04-0394-1501024
G3HVK1 -04-0368-1501027
ELKTON KY
ELKTON KY
NAHUNTA GA
FREEPORT FL
ABBEVILLE AL
ABBEVILLE AL
HIGH SHOALS NC
FLEMINGSBURG KY
CORINTH MS
FRANKLIN WATER & SEWER AUTH NC
CORINTH MS
LEXINGTON NC
BARNWELL SC
BARNWELL SC
LAKE LURE NC
ASHEBORO NC
BARNWELL SC
LAKELAND FL
FORT DEPOSIT AL
FORT DEPOSIT AL
HALEYVILLE AL
HALIFAX NC
MOUWDVILLE AL
QUITMAN GA
ROWLAND NC
LENOIR NC
EDENTO$I NC
HUNTSVILLE TN
LOUISVILLE & JEFFERSON CO SDKY
MS
MS
KY
KY
MS
GA
MS
MS
#KY
NC
NC
MS
AL
AL
SC
NC
NC
FL
KOSCIUSKO
KOSCIUSKO
I NEZ
VINE GROVE
LAUREL
WARRENTON
HARRISON COUNTY WASTEWATER
liT! CA
BOYD & GREENUP COUNTIES SD
MICRO
MICRO
PEARL
CHATAM UTILITIES BOARD
CHATAI4 UTILITIES BOARD
NEWBERRY CTY WATER & SEWER
STAR
STAR
WEST MELBOURNE
PRICHARD WATER WORKS & SEWERAL
SPENCER NC
LYONS GA
LAKE LORMAN UTILITY 01ST MS
LAKE LORMAN UTILITY DISTRICTMS
LYONS GA
PLANT CITY FL
PUCKETT MS
SANFORD FL
SALTILLO MS
FULTON KY
FULTON KY
COLLIER COUNTY FL
CLAYTON AL
REIDSVILLE GA
HAINES CITY FL
OLD FORT NC
VINE GROVE KY
VINE GROVE KY
ATMORE AL
LOUISVILLE MS
ARCADIA FL
WAVELAND REGIONAL WUMO MS
RINCON GA
SACREMENTO KY
FULTON KY
HICKORY NC
HICKORY NC
DOTHAN AL
DALTON WATER LIGHT & SINKINGGA
JASPER WATERWORKS & SEWER SDAL
6/5/91
0
0
0
6/5/91
0
0
0
616/91
0
0
0
6/10/91
0
0
0
6/11/91
0
0
0
6/10/91
0
0
0
6/10/91
0
0
0
6/10/91
0
0
0
6/7/91
0
0
0
6/10/91
0
0
0
6/7/91
0
0
0
6/12/91
0
0
0
6/12/91
0
0
0
6/12/91
0
0
0
6/12/91
0
0
0
6/12/91
0
0
0
6/12/91
0
0
0
6/18/91
0
0
0
6/25/91
0
0
0
6/25/91
0
0
0
6/25/91
0
0
0
6/25/91
0
0
0
6/25/91
0
0
0
6/25/91
0
0
0
6/25/91
0
0
0
6/27/91
0
0
0
6/27/91
0
24,351
0
7/1/91
0
0
0
7/1/91
0
0
0
7/1/91
0
0
0
7/1/91
0
0
0
7/1/91
0
0
0
7/1/91
0
0
0
7/2/91
0
0
0
7/3/91
0
0
0
7/3/91
0
0
0
7/3/91
0
0
0
7/10/91
0
0
0
7/10/91
0
0
0
7/10/91
0
0
0
7/10/91
0
0
0
7/17/91
0
0
0
7/17/91
0
0
0
7/17/91
0
0
0
7/17/91
0
0
0
7/18/91
0
0
0
7/18/91
0
0
0
7/18/91
0
0
0
7/18/91
0
0
0
7/23/91
0
0
0
7/23/91
0
0
0
7/23/91
0
0
0
7/24/91
0
0
0
7/24/91
0
0
0
7/24/91
0
0
0
7/24/91
0
0
0
7/24/91
0
0
0
8/14/91
0
0
0
8/14/91
0
0
0
8/22/91
0
0
0
8/22/91
0
0
0
8/22/91
0
0
0
8/22/91
0
0
0
8/22/91
0
0
0
8/22/91
0
0
0
8/22/91
0
0
0
8/22/91
0
0
0
8/22/91
0
0
0
8/22/91
0
0
0
8/27/91
0
0
0
8/27/91
0
0
0
8/27/91
0
0
0
9/5/91
0
0
0
9/5/91
0
0
0
9/5/91
0
0
0
9/5/91
0
0
0
9/6/91
0
0
0
9/6/91
0
0
0
50
Ottice ot the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
Questioned Costs
G3HVK1-04-0530- 1501029
N3HVK1-04-0113- 1500558
N3HVJO-04-0391 -1500560
N3HVK1 -04-0103-1500623
N3HvK1-04-0166- 1500636
N3HVK1 -04-0167-1500637
N3HVK1-04-0175- 1500652
N3HVK1 -04-0176- 1500653
N3HVK1 -04-0084-1500657
N3HVK1-04-0195- 1500666
N3HVK1-04-0045- 1500671
N3HVK1-04-0171-150 0711
N3HVK1 -04-0192-1500743
N3HVK1-04-0193- 1500744
N3HVK1 -04-0295-1500779
N3HVK1-04-0283- 1500785
N3HVK1-04-0292- 1500799
N3HVJ1 -04-0256-1500828
N3HVJ1 -04-0257-1500837
N3HVJ1 -04-0287-1500839
N3HVK1-04-0107- 1500841
N3HVK1 -04-0177-1500843
N3HVK1 -04-0312-1500846
N3HVK1 -04-0313-1500847
N3HVKO-04-0245- 1500854
N3HVK1-04-0085- 1500855
N3HUK1 -04-0342-1500861
N3HVK1-04-0101-15 0 0862
N3HUK1-O4-0087- 1500867
N3HVK1-04-0330- 1500889
N3HUK1 -04-0334-1500898
N3HVJ1 -04-0453-1500909
N3HVK1-04-0178- 1500910
N3HVK1 -04-0430-1500911
N3HVK1 -04-0170-1500913
N3HUK1 -04-0366-1500989
N3HVK1-04-0264- 1500993
N3HVK1 -04-0382- 1501000
N3HUK1-04-0370- 1501025
N3HVK1 -04-0406-1501026
NICEVILLE FL
BUNCOMBE COUNTY NC
AL GEOLOGICAL SURVEY AL
RALEIGH NC
HYDE COUNTY NC
HYDE COUNTY NC
PAMLICO COUNTY NC
PAMLICO COUNTY NC
SALISBURY NC
STALLINGS NC
WASHINGTON NC
NAHUNTA GA
ASHEBORO NC
ASHEBORO NC
ORLANDO FL
QUITMAN GA
WARRENTON GA
GA DEPT. OF EDUCATION GA
GA DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE GA
GA DEPT NATURAL RESOURCES GA
LANCASTER KY
PAMLICO COUNTY NC
OWENTON KY
OWENTON KY
MEMPHIS TN
WINSTON-SALEM NC
RESEARCH TRIANGLE PARK NC
VALDOSTA GA
CLEMSON UNIVERSITY SC
OAKGROVE KY
GEORGIA, UNIVERSITY OF GA
GEORGIA FORESTRY COMMISSION GA
NEW HANOVER COUNTY NC
BRISTOL TN
NEW HANOVER COUNTY NC
WEST GEORGIA COLLEGE GA
UNION COUNTY NC
HUNTSVILLE AL
LOUISVILLE UNIVERSITY OF KY
NORTHERN KENTUCKY UNIVERSITYKY
TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 159
9/10/91
4/11/91
4/11/91
4/25/91
5/ 1/91
5/ 1/91
5/ 6/91
5/ 6/91
5/ 7/91
5/ 9/91
5/ 9/91
6/ 4/91
6/12/9 1
6/12/91
6/25/91
6/25/91
6/27/91
7/ 1/91
7/ 2/91
7/ 2/91
7/ 2/91
7/ 2/91
7/ 3/91
7/ 3/91
7/ 9/91
7/ 9/91
7/10/91
7/10/91
7/10/91
7/17/91
7/18/91
7/23/91
7/24/91
7/24/91
7/24/91
8/22/91
8/22/91
8/22/91
9/ 6/91
9/ 6/91
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2.928
0
0
14,808 24,351
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Audit Control
Number
Auditee
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported
Issued Costs Costs
Unnecessary/
Unreasonable
Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Put
To Better Use)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C3HVJ1-05-O374 -15009O2
CANTON FY 88
OH
7/22/91
0
0
C3HVJ1-05-O396-1500983
ILLINOIS EPA FY 89/90
IL
8/15/91
0
0
C3HVK1-05-O432-1501O17
GRAND RAPIDS FY 90
MI
9/ 3/91
0
0
C3HVK1-05-O423-15O1O45
LANSING FY 90
MI
9/30/91
0
G3HVJ1-05-O227-1500541
MARKLEVILLE FY 88/89
IN
4/ 5/91
0
6,681
0
G3HVK1-O5-0226-1500542
LE SUEUR FY 89
MN
4/ 5/91
0
0
G3HVK1-05-0230-1500543
STEWARTVILLE FY 90
MN
4/ 5/91
0
0
G3HVK1-05-O233-1500562
MANTORVILLE FY 90
MN
4/11/91
0
0
G3HVK1-O5-0252-1500573
W CHICAGO FY 90
IL
4/17/91
0
0
G3HVK1-O5-O249-1500574
CAMPBELLSPORT FY 90
WI
4/17/91
0
0
G3HVJ1-O5-0250-1500575
FT BRANCH FY 90
IN
4/17/91
0
0
G3HVJ1-O5-O251-1500576
SHIRLEY FY 88/89
IN
4/17/91
0
0
G3HVJ1-05-0248-1500578
WILMINGTON FY 89
OH
4/17/91
0
0
G3HVK1-O5-O254-1500588
HEWITT FY 90
MM
4/19/91
0
0
G3HVJt-O5-O258-150063O
WAUSEON FY 89
OH
4/29/91
0
0
G3HVK1-O5-O269-1500631
G3HVK1-O5-O268-1500632
ROYALTON FY 89
ULEN FY 89/90
MN
MN
4/29/91
4/29/91
0
0
0
0
G3HVK1-05-0266-1500633
G3HVJ1-05-O293-1500698
HUBBARD SD FY 90
CYNTHIANA FY88/89
WI
IN
4/29/91
5/29/91
0
0
0
0
G3HVK1-05-0299-1500699
G3HVK1-O5-0300-15007O1
BROWNTON FY 90
SILVER LAKE FY 90
MM
MN
5/29/91
5/29/91
0
0
0
0
G3HVK1-O5-O3O1-15007O9
G3HVJ1-05-O294-150071O
G3HVJ1-05-O311-1500734
G3HVK1-O5-0312-1500735
G3HVK1-05-O318-1500805
G3HVJ1-05-O330-1500806
G3HVK1-05-0370-1500883
G3HVK1-05-O362-1500884
G3HVJ1-05-O314-1500886
G3HVJ1-05-O336-1500914
G3HVK1-O5-O371-1500933
G3HVK1-O5-O337-1500934
G3HVK1-05-O372-1500935
G3HVK1-05-O376-1500936
MAYNARD FY 90
CHANDLER FY 88/89
SHARPSVILLE FY 88/89
MONROE CITY FY 90
PIPESTONE FY 90
PETERSBURB FY 90
BARTLETT FY 90
NAPPANEE FY 90
NILES FY 89
MARIETTA FY 86
SPRINGFIELD FY 90
DODGE CENTER FY 90
LONG PRAIRIE
LOWELL FY 90
MM
IN
IN
MI
MM
IN
IL
IN
OH
OH
MN
MN
MN
MI
6/ 3/91
6/ 3/91
6/11/91
6/11/91
6/28/91
6/28/91
7/15/91
7/15/91
7/15/91
7/19/91
8/ 1/91
8/ 1/91
8/ 1/91
8/ 1/91
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,200
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
192,805
0
0
April 1 1991 through September 30, 1991
51
-------
Questioned Costs
Audit Control
Number
Auditee
Recommended
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary! Efficiencies
Issued Costs Costs Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs To Better Use)
TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 53
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
199,486 0
C3HVKI -07-0183-1500969
G3HVK1 -07-0107-1500527
G3HVK1 -07-0108-1500528
G3HVK1 -07-0109-1500529
G3HVK1 -07-0110-1500530
G3HVK1 -07-0112-1500531
G3HVKI -07-0113-1500532
G3HVK1 -07-0114-1500533
G3HVK1 -07-0115-1500534
G3HVK1 -07-0116-1500538
G3HVK1 -07-0117-1500539
G3HVK1 -07-0122-1500572
G3HVK1-07 -O11 1-1500595
G3HVK1 -07-0130-1500719
G3HVK1 -07-0147-1500737
G3HVK1 -07-0146-1500738
G3HVK1-07-0145-1500739
G3HVK1 -07-0132-1500741
G3HVK1 -07-0131-1500742
G3HVK1 -07-0133-1500753
CEDAR RAPIDS
MARYVI LIE
STORY CITY
ST. PETERS
SALEM
KIMBERLING CITY
DIAMOND
VALENT INE
ALLIANCE
ALL lANCE
WEBB CITY
LAJ4OWTE, CITY OF
SALEM
MENLO
NORTHEAST PUBLIC SEWER DIST
CITY OF OSAWATCi4IE
MACOW CITY OF
VILLAGE OF I4ORRILL
DUCKETT CREEK SEWER DIST
CITY OF LIBERTY
CO 8/12/91
MO 4/ 3/91
IA 4/ 3/91
NO 4/ 3/91
MO 4/ 2/91
MO 4/ 3/91
MO 4/ 3/91
NE 4/ 4/91
NE 4/ 4/91
NE 4/ 4/91
MO 4/ 4/91
MO 4/16/91
MO 4/19/91
IA 6/ 6/91
M C 6/12/91
KS 6/12/91
6/12/91
NE 6/12/91
MO 6/12/91
MO 6/13/91
G3HvK1-O5-O375-1500937
PARK RAPIDS FY 90 MM
8/ 1/91
0
G3HvK1-O5-04O4-1500940
PINCKNEY FY 91 MI
8/ 1/91
11,414
G3HVK1-O5-O4O5-1500941
S ST PAUL FT 90 MN
8/ 1/91
0
G3HVK1-05-O398-1500942
N HOUGHTON CUS MI
8/ 1/91
0
G3HVK1-05-0406-1500965
NEORSD FY 90 OH
3/ 8/91
0
G3HVJ1-05-O413-1500971
U LEBANON FT 88/89 IN
8/12/91
2,947
G3HVK1-05-0418-1500985
RUSSELL FY 90 MN
8/16/91
0
G3HVK1-05-O417-1500986
LA CRESCENT FY 90 MM
8/16/91
0
G3HUJ1-05-042O-1500987
NEW LONDON LSD FY 90 OH
8/16/91
0
N3HVKI-05-0273-1500684
WHITE EARTH RESERVE Fl 89 MN
5/16/91
0
N3HVJ1-05-0196-1500685
LANCASTER FT 88 OH
5/16/91
0
N3HVJ1-05-0255-1500722
MICHIGAN DPH FT 88/89 MI
6/ 7/91
0
N3HVJ1-05-O199-1500751
CUYAHOGA CO FY 89 OK
6/13/91
0
N3HVJ1-05-0333-1500807
LANCASTER FT 90 OH
6/28/91
0
N3HUK1-D5-O331-15008O8
LOYOLA U FY 89/90 IL
6/28/91
0
N3HVJI-O5-0332-1500885
OHIO ST U Fl 88 OH
7/15/91
0
N3HVK1-O5-0231-1500938
MENOMINEE IT FY 90 WI
8/ 1/91
0
N3HVK1-05-0270-1500939
ONEIDA TRIBE FY 90 WI
8/ 1/91
0
15,561
C3HVJ1-O6-O094-1500583
ARKANSAS DEPT OF P01. CONTR.AR
4/18/91
0
0
0
C3HVK1-O6-0095-1500624
SAN ANTONIO TX
4/29/91
0
0
0
C3HVK1-O6-O102-1500664
SHREVEPORT LA
5/ 9/91
0
0
0
C3HVK1-O6-O14O-1500880
ARKANSAS DEPT. OF POLLUTION AR
7/12/91
0
0
0
C3HVK1-06-O145-1501028
WICHITA FALLS TX
9/ 9/91
0
0
0
G3HVK1-06-OO89-1500548
CLUTE TX
4/ 9/91
0
0
0
G3HVK1-O6-0O90-1500549
CLUTE TX
4/ 9/91
0
0
0
G3HVK1-06-O092-1500555
TEXARKANA TX
4/11/91
0
0
0
G3HVK1-06-0O93-1500582
DERIDDER LA
4/18/91
0
0
0
G3HVK1-O6-DO98-1500596
KINGFISHER OK
4/19/91
0
0
0
G3HVK1-06-O100 -1 500645
CLEBURNE TX
5/ 3/91
0
0
0
G3HVK1-06-O101-1500663
TEXARKAP4A TX
5/ 8/91
0
950
0
G3HVK1-06-O128-1501O13
SLATON TX
8/30/91
0
0
0
G3HVK1-06-O125 1501014
NEW DEAL TX
8/30/91
0
0
0
G3HVK1-06-O126-1501015
NEW DEAL TX
8/30/91
0
0
0
G3HVKI-06-0127-15O1O16
MAGNOLIA SEWER SYSTEM AR
8/30/91
0
0
0
G3HVK1-06-0148-1501O32
TEXHOMA PUBLIC WORKS AUTH. OK
9/11/91
0
0
0
N3HVK1-06-OO85-1500514
ST. MARY PARISH OF LA
4/ 2/91
0
0
0
N3HVK1-06-0080-1500515
TAOS NM
4/ 1/91
0
0
0
N3HVK1-06-0O84-1500516
ORANGE TX
4/ 2/91
0
0
0
N3HVK1-06-0083-1500517
ESPANOLA NM
4/ 2/91
0
0
0
N3HVK1-06-O082-1500519
PECOS MM
4/ 2/91
0
0
0
M3HVK1-06-0081-1500520
EL PASO TX
4/ 2/91
0
0
0
N3HVK1-06-OO91-1500556
OKLAHOMA CITY OK
4/11/91
0
0
0
N3HVKO-O6-O200-1500557
LAREDO TX
4/11/91
0
0
0
N3HVJO-06-014O-1500692
N3HVJO-06-O237-1500697
N3HVK1-06-0117-1500707
OKLAHOMA, STATE OK
OKLAHOMA, STATE OF OK
TARRANT COUNTY TX
5/21/91
5/22/91
6/ 3/91
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N3HVKO-06-O236-15007O8
NM DEPT OF HEALTH & ENVIRONNMM
6/ 3/91
0
0
0
N3HVK1-06-0149-1501O3O
NEW MEXICO HEALTH & ENVIRONMNM
9/11/91
0
0
0
N3HVK1-06-0147-1501031
OSAGE NATIONS OF OKLAHOMA OK
9/11/91
0
0
0
N3HVK1-06-0146-1501033
GALVESTON COUNTY HEALTH DEPTTX
9/11/91
0
0
0
N3I4VK1-06-O152-1501O36
POJOAQUE PUEBLO NM
9/16/91
0
0
0
N3HVJ1-06-0156-1501038
LOUISIANA STATE OF LA
9/24/91
0
0
0
TOTAL OF
REGION 06 = 34
4
950
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
52
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
Questioned Costs
Audit Control
Number
Auditee
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessaryl
Issued Costs Costs Unreasonable
Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Put
To Better Use)
G3HVK1-O7-0150- 1500754
G3HVK1 -07-0151-1500756
G3HVK1 -07-0156-1500760
G3HVK1 -07-0134-1500768
G3HVK1-O7- 0157-1500770
G3HVK1 -07-0168-1500814
G3HVK1 -07-0169- 1500852
G3HVJ1 -07-0172-1500925
G3HVK1 -07-0171-1500927
G3HVK1-07-0174- 1500928
G3HVK1 -07-0175-1500929
G3HVK1 -07-0181-1500961
G3HVK1 -07-0180-1500962
G3HVK1 -07-0179-1500967
N3HVK1 -07-0106- 1500511
W3HVK1 -07-0104-1500512
N3HVK1 -07-0105-1500513
M3HVJ1-O7-01 19-1500547
N3HVK1 -07-0123-1500566
H3HVKO-07-0182- 1500587
N3HVKO-07-0195- 1500589
N3HVKO-07- 0257-1500590
N3HVKO-07-0258- 1500591
N3HVJO-07-0283- 1500592
N3HVK1 -07-0124-1500593
N3HVK1 -07-0125-1500594
P43HVK1 -07-0126-1500672
N3HVK1 -07-0127-1500673
N3HVJO-07-O228- 1500700
N3HVJ1 -07-0129-1500720
N3HVK1 -07-0148-1500752
N3HVK1 -07-0149-1500755
N3HVK1 -07-0154-1500761
N3HVJ1-07-0155- 1500762
N3HVK1 -07-0152-1500763
N3HVK1 -07-0153-1500764
N3HVJ1 -07-0158-1500769
N3HVJ1 -07-0128-1500845
N3HVK1 -07-0137-1500930
W3HVJ1 -07-0176-1500931
N3HVK1 -07-0182-1500960
N3HVK1 -07-0187-1500982
ORRICK CITY OF
CITY OF JACKSON
CITY OF RIDGEWAY
ROCK CREEK PUBLIC SEWER
EMPORIA
FULTON
CHELSEA, CITY OF
LINEVILLE
DAKOTA CITY
OLATHE
ANNAPOLIS
KEARNEY
DODGE CITY
LA WEREN CE
COLUMBIA
LIBERAL
AMES
IOWA DEPT. OF
DOUGLAS COUNTY
TOPEKA
LIWN COUNTY
JOHNSON COUNTY OF
SEDGWICK, COUNTY OF
NEBRASKA DEPT OF HEALTH
LII4N COUNTY
CROWDER COLLEGE
OMAHA
OMAHA
KANSAS, STATE OF
IOWA DEPT OF PUBLIC HELATH
MARYVILLE R-II SCHOOL 01ST
SIOUX CITY
CITY OF NEOSHO
IOWA DEPT OF PUBLIC HEALTH
STATE OF KANSAS
SEDGWICK COUNTY
KNOXVILLE
KIRKW000 COMMUNITY COLLEGE
SUMNER
IOWA, STATE OF
TOPEKA
JOHNSON COUNTY
TOTAL OF REGION 07 = 62
G3HVK1 -08-0068-1500639
G3HVKI -08-0069-1500640
G3HVK1 -08-0070-1500641
G3HVK1 -08-0071-1500649
G3HVK1 -08-0078-1500693
G3HVK1 -08-0080-1500740
G3HVK1 -08-0028-1500831
G3HVK1 -08-0092-1500920
G3HVJ1 -08-0091 -1500921
G3HVJ1 -08-0090-1500922
G3HVK1 -08-0089-1500923
G3HVJ1 -08-0088-1500924
G3HVK1 -08-0093-1500926
G3HVK1 -08-0084-1500932
N3HVK1 -08-0066-1500604
N3HVK1 -08-0067-1500616
N3HVK1 -08-0073-1500617
N3HVJ1 -08-0074-1500627
143HUK1 -08-0075-1500642
N3HUJ1 -08-0072-1500650
W3HVK1 -08-0081-1500750
N3HVJ1 -08-0029-1500832
N3HVJO- 08-0082-1500833
W3HVKO-08-O079- 1500834
N3HVJO-08-01 11-1500835
N3HVJO-O8-O1 12-1500836
N3HVKO-O8-O 62- 1500838
N3HVK1 -08-0062-1500840
N3HVKO-O8-0054- 1500842
N3HUK1 -08-0104-1500959
N3HVK1 -08-0096-1500966
N3HVJ1 -08-0100-1500968
DIST. WY
MT
WY
MT
MT
MT
WY
CO
SD
BAGGS WY
COLORADO WATER & POWER ATHORCO
TEN SLEEP WY
LONGMONT CO
EUREKA SD
UTE INDIAN TRIBE UT
ROSEBUD SIOUX TRIBE SD
CASPER COLLEGE WY
NORTH DAKOTA DEPT. OF AGRC. ND
WYOMING, UNIV. RESEARCH CORPWY
WEST FARGO PUB. SCH. DIS #6 ND
ASSINIBOINE AND SIOUX TRIBESMT
BURLINGTON TOWN OF WY
CASS COUNTY ND ND
DENVER REG COUNCIL OF GOVTS CO
COLORADO STATE OF CO
MONTANA STATE OF MT
MISSOULA COUNTY MT
TURTLE MT BAND CHIPPEWA ND
MISSOULA COUNTY MT
WY UNIV RESEARCH CORP WY
PUEBLO CITY OF CO
ND DEPT OF HEALTH & LABS ND
ASPENS WATER & SEWER
MISSOULA, CITY OF
CASPER, CITY OF
BEARCREEK,TOWN OF
LAKESIDE COUNTY SEWER
TOWN OF BEARCREEK
CASPER, CITY OF
METRO WASTEWATER 01ST
BURKE SCHOOL DIST 26-2
MO 6/13/91
MO 6/13/91
MO 6/17/91
MO 6/18/91
KS 6/18/91
MO 71 1/91
IA 7/ 8/91
IA 7/25/91
IA 7/29/91
KS 7/29/91
MO 7/29/91
MO 8/ 7/91
KS 8/ 7/91
KS 8/12/91
MO 4/ 2/91
KS 4/ 2/91
IA 4/ 2/91
IA 4/ 9/91
NE 4/15/91
KS 4/19/91
IA 4/19/91
KS 4/19/91
KS 4/19/91
NE 4/19/91
IA 4/19/91
MO 4/19/91
NE 5/ 9/91
NE 5/ 9/91
KS 5/29/91
IA 6/ 6/91
MO 6/13/91
IA 6/13/91
MO 6/17/91
IA 6/17/91
KS 6/17/91
KS 6/17/91
IA 6/18/91
IA 7/ 2/91
MO 7/29/91
IA 7/29/91
KS 8/ 7/91
KS 8/14/91
5/ 2/91
5/ 2/91
5/ 2/91
5/ 3/91
5/21/91
6/12/91
7/ 2/91
7/25/91
7/ 25/9 1
7/25/91
7/25/91
7/25/91
7/29/91
7/29/91
4/23/91
4/29/91
4/29/91
4/29/91
5/ 2/91
5/ 3/91
6/13/91
7/ 2/91
7/ 2/91
7/ 2/91
7/ 2/91
7/ 2/91
7/ 2/91
7/ 2/91
7/ 2/91
8/ 7/91
8/12/91
8/12/91
NATURAL RESC.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
C
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
a
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
O
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
01ST.
TOTAL OF REGION 08 = 32
April 1, 1991 through September 30, 1991
53
-------
Questioned Costs
Audit Control
Number
G3HVK1 -09-0166-1500721
G3HVJ1 -09-0179-1500793
G3HVK1 -09-0201 -1500915
N3HVK1 -09-0116-1500509
N3IIVK1 -09-0118-1500510
N3HVK1 -09-0121-1500565
N3HVK1 -09-0124-1500568
N3IIVK1 -09-0125-1500569
N3HVK1 -09-0126-1500570
N3IIVK1 -09-0127-1500571
N3HVK1 -09-0128-1500577
N3HVK1 -09-0129-1500579
N3HVK1 -09-0130-1500580
N3HVK1 -09-0131-1500581
N3HVK1 -09-0135-1500606
N3HVK1 -09-0136-1500607
N3HVK1 -09-0137-1500608
N3HVK1 -09-0140-1500618
N3HVK1 -09-0141 -1500619
N3HVK1 -09-0142-1500620
N3HVK1 -09-0143-1500625
N3HVK1 -09-0144-1500626
N3HVK1 -09-0146-1500628
N3HVK1 -09-0147-1500629
N3HVK1 -09-0151-1500680
N3HVK1 -09-0152-1500681
N3HVK1 -09-0153-1500682
N3HVK1 -09-0172-1500772
N3HVK1 -09-0173-1500773
N3HVK1 -09-0050-1500788
N3HVK1 -09-0065-1500789
N3HVK1 -09-0176-1500790
N3HVK1 -09-0177-1500791
N3HVK1 -09-0178-1500792
N3HvK1 -09-0181-1500803
N3HVK1 -09-0182-1500804
N3HVKO-09-0228- 1500813
N3HVK1 -09-0186-1500851
N3HuK1 -09-0187-1500856
N3HVK1 -09-0188-1500857
N3HVKO-09- 0280-1500860
N3HVK1 -09-0190-1500868
N3HVK1 -09-0189-1500869
N3HVKO-09-0275- 1500876
N3HVK1 -09-0049-1500877
N3HVK1 -09-0192-1500878
N3HVK1 -09-0191 -1500879
N3HVK1 -09-0194-1500881
N3HvK1 -09-0195-1500882
N3HVK1 -09-0197-1500892
N3HUK1 -09-0196-1500893
N3HVK1 -09-0198-1500894
N3HVK1 -09-0205-1500944
N3HVK1 -09-0207-1500963
N3HVK1 -09-0208-1500964
N3HVK1 -09-0213-1500970
N3HVK1 -09-0214-1500972
N3HVK1 -09-0215-1500974
N3HVK1 -09-0202-1501003
N3HVK1 -09-0221-1501005
N3HVK1 -09-0222-1501009
W3HVK1-09-0224-15O1010
N3HVK1 -09-0225-1501011
N3HVK1 -09-0234-1501041
N3HVK1 -09-0235-1501042
N3HVK1 -09-0236-1501043
CARSON CITY
MONTESANO, CITY OF
MAUI, COUNTY OF
FERNDALE, CITY OF
WASHO€ COUNTY NEVADA
MONTEREY REGNL WATER
AMADOR, COUNTY OF
SHASTA COUNTY OF
EAST BAY MIJNI UTIL 01ST
SONOMA, COUNTY OF
FRESNO, CITY OF
LIVE OAK, CITY OF
STANISLAUS, COUNTY OF
TULARE, COUNTY OF
MANTECA, CITY OF
MERCED, COUNTY OF
NV 6/ 6/91
WA 6/26/91
HI 7/24/91
CA 4/ 1/91
NV 4/ 1/91
POLL CTCA 4/12/91
CA 4/15/91
CA 4/15/91
CA 4/15/91
CA 4/15/91
CA 4/17/91
CA 4/17/91
CA 4/17/91
CA 4/17/91
CA 4/23/91
CA 4/23/91
4/23/91
CA 4/29/91
CA 4/29/91
CA 4/29/91
CA 4/29/91
CA 4/29/91
CA 4/29/91
CA 4/29/91
CA 5/15/91
CA 5/15/91
CA 5/15/91
CA 6/21/91
CA 6/21/91
CA 6/26/91
CA 6/26/91
FEDERATED STATES MICRONESIA FM
WOODLAND, CITY OF
GRASS VALLEY, CITY OF
SAN JOAQUIN, COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES CTY. SAN. DIS
SOUTH COAST AIR QUAL. MGMT.
SAN DIEGO ASSN. OF GOVT.
TRACY, CITY OF
PETALUMA, CITY OF
SANTA BARBARA, COUNTY OF
VALLEJO SAN AND FLOOD CTRL
KINGS, COUNTY OF
SAN JUAN BAUTISTA, CITY OF
FORT MOJAVE INDIAN TRIBE
ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GVT
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Put
To Better Use)
TOTAL OF REGION 09 = 66
G3HVKO- 10-0029-1500518
G3HVK1 - 10-0052-1500564
G3HVK1 - 10-0054-1500638
G3HVK1 - 10-0057-1500683
G3HVK1 - 10-0067-1500943
G3HVK1 -10-0068-1500973
G3HVK1 - 10-0074-1501012
N3HVKO- 10-0040-1500774
N3HVJ1-10-0O11-1500809
FAIRBANKS NORTH STAR BOB. AK
COEUR D’ALENE, CITY OF ID
NEWBERG, CITY OF OR
TROY, CITY OF ID
METRO WASTEWATER MONT COMM OR
HOMER, CITY OF AK
SPRINGFIELD, CITY OF OR
ANCHORAGE, MUNICIPALITY OF AK
CHEHALIS, CITY OF WA
4/ 2/91
4/11/91
5/ 2/91
5/15/91
8/ 2/91
8/13/91
8/29/91
6/21/91
6/28/91
356,565 0
Audit..
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessary/
Issued Costs Costs Unreasonable
Costs
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
355,763
0
0
0
0
802
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
CA 6/26/91
CA 6/26/91
CA 6/26/91
CA 6/27/91
CA 6/27/91
CA 6/28/91
CA 7/ 8/91
CA 7/ 9/91
CA 7/ 9/91
CA 7/ 9/91
CA 7/11/91
CA 7/11/91
MODESTO, CITY OF
SANTA MONICA, CITY OF
SANTA CRUZ, CITY OF
ORANGE COUNTY OF
SAN MATEO, COUNTY OF
INDIO, CITY OF
LA DEPT. OF WATER & POWER
UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SF
FRESNO, COUNTY OF
LOS ANGELES, CITY OF
CORNING, CITY OF
BOLINAS COMMUNITY P.U.D.
CLARK COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICTNV
GILA RIVER INDIAN COMMUNITY AZ
SOUTH TAHOE PUD CA
ASSN OF MONTEREY BAY AREA CA
RURAL COMMUNITY ASSIST CORP CA
WASHOE COUNTY NV
BOULDER CITY, CITY DF NV
PIMA COUNTY COMM COLLEGE DI AZ
YAP STATE GOVERNMENTS FM
EASTERN MUM. WATER DISTRICT CA
SAN DIEGO, COUNTY OF CA
SAN FRANCISCO, CITY & COUNTYCA
WEOTT COMMUNITY SVCS. 0 1ST. CA
POHNPEI, STATE OF FM
CLARK COUNTY HEALTH DISTRICTNV
L.A. DEPT OF WATER & POWER CA
SAN DIEGO, CITY OF CA
PLACER, COUNTY OF CA
GERBER-LAS FLORES CON SVCS CA
BAY AREA AIR QTY MONT 01ST CA
INTERTRIBAL COUNCIL OF AZ AZ
WHITE MOUNTAIN APACHE TRIBE AZ
SAN JOAQUIN VLYWIDE AIR POLLCA
7/11/91
7/11/9 1
7/11/9 1
7/11/9 1
7/12/9 1
7/12/91
7/17/9 1
7/17/91
7/17/91
8/ 2/91
8/ 7/91
8/ 7/91
8/12/91
8/13/91
8/13/91
8/27/91
8/27/91
8/29/91
8/29/91
8/29/91
9/27/91
9/27/9 1
9/27/91
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
54
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
Questioned Costs
Audit Control
Number
N3HVK1 - 10-0027-1500810
N3HVJ1 -10-0008-1500811
N3HVKO- 10-0074-1500812
N3HVK1 -10-0065-1500858
N3HvK1 - 10-0066-1500859
N3HVJ I - 10-0003-1500870
N3HVJ1-10-0071-1501004
N3HVK1 - 10-0082-1501044
EUGENE, CITY OF
CAMAS, CITY OF
MULTNOMAH COUNTY
ANCHORAGE, MUNICIPALITY OF
POCATELLO, CITY OF
LYNNW000, CITY OF
SPOKANE COUNTY
SHOSHONE-BANWOCK TRIBES
TOTAL OF REGION 10 = 17
TOTAL OTHER GRANT AUDITS
5. SUPERFUND GRANTS
E5FGL1-O1-O083-1100313 RI COOP. REVIEW RI
E5FGL1-O1-O114-110043O NEW HAMPSHIRE COOP AGREEMENTNH
P5BGLO-O1-O155-1100383 MADEP-PSC RESOURCES MA
P5BGLO-O1-0154-1100384 MADEP-I4ULTISITE COOP MGMNT MA
TOTAL OF REGION 01 = 4
P5BGLO-02-O196-1100423 NYS LOVE CANAL REMEDIAL PROJNY
TOTAL OF REGION 02 = 1
E5CGL1-04-O055-1100175 SF DAVIE LANDFILL
E5BFN1-O4-O224-1300113 SUPERFUND COOP AGREEMENTS
TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 2
= 536
7/11/91
9/30/91
9/13/91
9/16/91
4,705,749 1,277,884
13,017 162,842
9/27/91 1,389 921,394
1,389 921,394
4/10/91 304,323
9/26/ 91
304,323 0
0
P5GFNO-O6-O116-1300069 LA DEPT OF ENV QUALITY
P5BFNO-O6-021O-130008O TX WATER COMMISSION
LA 5/20/91 524
TX 6/19/91 3,022,423
O 0
O 0
TOTAL OF REGION 06 = 2
3,022,947
0 0
H5BFL1- .1-0034-1100393
I I5BFL1-11-O037-1 100429
M5BFL1 -11-0032-1100387
M5BFL1-11-0O33-1100392
M5BFL1-11-0038-1100427
M5BFL1-11-0O18-1100438
FY87-89 HHS ATSDR DC
FY87-89 HHS NAT INST OF HLTH
FY89 001-OF OF SECRETARY
FEMA AD.PERM/TEMP RELOC. DC
FY 89 IRS REIN. SF COSTS DC
SF IAG-DOJ FY 89
9/16/91
9/30/91
9/16/91
9/16/91
9/30/91
9/30/91
TOTAL OF REGION 11 = 6
TOTAL SUPERFLJND GRANTS
8. OTHER CONTRACT AUDITS
= 16
3,472,439 3,571,480
0
D8AML1-01-O110-1100162
D8CML1-O1-0125-1100179
DBAML1-O1-O162-1100232
D8CML1-O1-O165-1100233
D8AML1-O1-O169-1100238
D8AML1-O1-O17O-1100239
DBAML1 -01-0168-1100243
D8AML1 -01-0207-1100326
D8AML1 -01-0208-1100327
D8AML1-O1-0210-1100337
D8AML1 -01-0209-1100338
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS INC.
CAMP DRESSER AND MCGEE
EASTERN RESEARCH GROUP
MITRE CORPORATION
ANEPTEK CORP
ABB ENVIRON. SERV.
ERC FIELD SERVICES CORP
SYNETICS CORP
EASTERN RESEARCH GROUP
CADMUS GROUP
METCALF & EDDY INC.
MA 4/ 3/91
MA 4/18/91
MA 5/30/91
MA 5/30/91
MA 5/31/91
ME 5/31/91
MA 6/ 5/91
MA 7/23/91
MA 7/23/91
8/ 6/91
8/ 6/91
*The dollar value of contract audits have not been shown.
Public disclosure of the dollar value of financial recom-
rnendations could prematureLy reveal the Goverrsnent’s
negotiating positions or release of this information is
not routinely avaiLable under the Freedom of Information
Act. The nuTl er of these reports and dollar value of the
findings have been included in the aggregate data displayed
below. Such data individualLy excluded in this listing will
be provided to the Congress. The transmitted data will
contain appropriate cautions regarding disclosure.
TOTAL OF REGION 01 = 11
D8AML1-02-O136-1100335
D8AAL1 -02-0139-1100341
DBBML1 -02-0148-1100369
P8AXL1-O2-0133-1100432
ECOLSCIENCES INC
MATHTECH INC
LEONARD G. BIRNBAUM
ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT
NJ 7/29/91
NJ 8/ 8/91
NJ 9/ 3/91
NY 9/30/91
TOTAL OF REGION 02 = 4
D8AML1-03-O161-1100163
D8AML1-O3-O162-1 100164
D B OML1-O3-0163-1100165
D8AML1-03-O164-1100167
DEOML1 -03-0165-1100171
GANNETT FLEMING INC
TECHNICAL RESOURCES INC
ROY F. WESTON
DYNAMAC CORPORTAT ION
UNISYS CORPORATION
PA 4/ 4/91
MD 4/ 4/91
PA 4/ 4/91
MD 4/ 4/91
VA 4/ 9/91
Auditee Final Report
Issued
Ineligible
Costs
Unsupported
Costs
Unnecessary/
Unreasonable
Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Put
To Better Use)
OR
6/28/91
0
0
0
WA
6/28/91
0
0
0
OR
6/28/91
0
0
0
AK
7/9/91
0
0
0
ID
7/9/91
0
0
0
WA
7/11/91
0
0
0
WA
8/27/91
0
0
0
ID
9/27/91
0
0
0
0
13,017
162,842
0
FL
SC
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
P5CGNO-1O-OO11-1300066
WASHINGTON
DEPT OF ECOLOGY WA 5/ 7/91 130,763 2,487,244 0
TOTAL
OF
REGION 10 =
1 130,763 2.487,244 0
Apri 1, 1991 through September 30, 1991
55
-------
Questioned Costs
Audit Control
Number
Auditee
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported Unnecessaryl
Issued Costs Costs Unreasonable
Costs
Recommended
Efficiencies
(Funds Be Put
To Better Use)
D8AML 1- 03-0166- 1100172
D8EML1 -03-0167-1100173
D8AML1-03- 0168-110 0174
D8AML1 -03-0203-1100182
D8AML1 -03-0202-1100183
DBAML1-03-0201-1100184
D8AML1 -03-0200-1100185
D8AML1 -03-0199-1100186
D8AI4L1 -03-0198-1100187
D8AML1 -03-0197-1100188
D8A 14L1-03-0196-1100189
D8AML1-03-0195-1100190
D8AML1-03-O194-1100191
D8AIIL1 -03-0193-1100192
DBAML1 -03-0192-1100193
D8AML1-03-0191-1100195
D8AML1 -03-0209-1100196
D8AML1 -03-0208-1100197
D8AML1 -03-0207-1100198
D8AML1 -03-0206-1100199
D8AML1 -03-0205-1100203
D8AML1-03-02041 100204
D8EML1 -03-0210-1100205
D8AML1-03-02t1-11002O6
08*1411-03-0212-1100207
D8AML1-03-0213-11002 09
D8AML1 -03-0214-1100210
D8A14L1 -03-0215-1100211
D8AML1-03-0216-1100212
D8AML1-03-0217-1100213
D8AML1-03-0218-1100215
D8ANL1 -03-0219-1100216
D8EML1 -03-0220-1100217
D8AI4L1-O3-0221- 1100218
D8DML1 -03-0222-1100219
D8AML1 -03-0223-1100220
DM1411 -03-0245-1100260
D8CML1 -03-0248-1100261
D8CI4L1 -03-0250-1100262
D8AML1 -03-0255-1100263
D8EML1 -03-0261-1100264
D8AI4L1 -03-0266-1100265
D8AML1 -03-0265-1100266
D8AML1-03-0251-1100267
D8AML1 -03-0243-1100268
08*1411-03-0263-1100269
08*1411-03-0267-1100287
D8AML1-03-0268-1100288
DBAML1 -03-0269-1100289
D8AIIL1-03-0272-1100290
DM1411 -03-0273-1100291
D8A14L1 -03-0264-1100296
D8AML1-03-0262-110 0297
D8CML1 -03-0260-1100298
08*1411-03-0291- 1100299
08*1411 -03-0287-1100300
DM1411 -03-0288-1100301
D8AML1 -03-0289-1100302
D8AIIL1 -03-0290-1100303
D8AML1 -03-0286-1100305
D8OML1 -03-0259-1100306
D8CML 1-03-0258-1100307
DM1411 -03-0274-1100308
DM1411 -03-0270-1100309
D8DMLI -03-0257-1100316
0801411-03-0256-1100317
D881411 -03-0246-1100318
08*1411-03-0247-1100319
D8AI4LI -03-0244- 1100320
DM1111 -03-0254-1100321
D&ML1 -03-0249-1100322
DM1411 -03-0285-1100323
08*1411 -03-0284-1100324
D8A14L1 -03-0283-1100325
D804L1 -03-0301-1100331
D8DML1 -03-0331-1100355
DM1411 -03-0330-1100356
D8EML1 -03-0332-1100357
SCIENCE POLICY ASSOCIATES
SCIENCE POLICY ASSOCIATES
RI I
VIAR & COMPANY
SRA TECHNOLOGIES INC
GENERAL SCIENCES CORP
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND
VIAR & COMPANY
MARASCO NEWTON GROUP
JACA CORPORATOW
SOFTWARE AG FEDERAL
JAMES MARTIN GOVERNMENT CON
GREENHORNE & O’MARA INC
VIGYAN INC
SOLUTIONS BY DESIGN INC
TECHNOLOGY APPLICATION INC
WALCOFF & ASSOCIATES
ICF INC
LABAT ANDERSON INC
ROY F. WESTON
UNISYS CORPORATION
COMPUTER SCIENCES CORP.
ANALYSIS CORPORATION
ANALYSAS CORPORATION
C.C. JOHNSON & MALHOTRA
C C. JOHNSON & MALNOTRA
RESOURCE APPLICATIONS INC
SYCOM INC
PRC INC INFORMATION MANAGE
ROW SCIENCES INC
8DM INTERNATIONAL INC
AEPCO INC
CSC APPLIED TECHNOLOGY DIV
HEALTH SYSTEMS MRKT & 0EV
UNI SYS CORPORATION
8DM INTERNATIONAL
RESOURCE APPLICATIONS INC
MAR INC
DYNAMAC CORPORATION
NYMA INC
BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON INC
NMI SYSTEMS INC
RAY COMMUNICATIONS
PACIFIC ENVIRONMENTAL SERV
ASCI CORPORATION
T. HEAD AND COMPANY ZONE 2
NMI SYSTEMS INC
PRC INC
CENTEL FEDERAL SYSTEMS INC
GENERAL SCIENCES CORP (GSC)
CONTEL FEDERAL SYSTEMS INC
COMPUTER DATA SYSTEMS INC MD
T.HEAD AND COMPANY ZONE 1 VA
DYNAMAC CORPORAT ION
IRIS CORP M D
GANNET FLEMING INC PA
JACK FAUCETT ASSOC INC MD
JACK FAUCETT ASSOC INC MD
SOBOTKA AND CO INC DC
SYSTEMS RESEARCH & APPLICA VA
PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERS PA
ROY F. WESTON INC PA
ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPVA
I-NET INC MD
VIAR AND COMPANY VA
RAVEN SERVICES CORPORATION VA
NUS CORPORATION MD
S. COHEN VA
ROY F. WESTON INC PA
UNISYS GOVERNMENT SYSTEMS VA
WORLD WILDLIFE FUND DC
COMPUTER BASED SYSTEMS INC VA
DYNAMAC CORPORATION MD
DYNAMAC CORPORATION MD
ARC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GRMD
DYNCORP/PRI PROGRAM RESOJRCEMD
VIAR AND COMPANY VA
CDM- FEDERAL PROGRAMS 14*
DC 4/ 9/91
DC 4/ 9/91
MD 4/ 9/91
VA 4/24/91
VA 4/24/91
MD 4/24/91
DC 4/24/91
VA 4/24/91
VA 4/24/91
PA 4/24/91
VA 4/29/91
VA 4/29/91
MD 4/29/91
VA 4/29/91
VA 4/29/91
VA 5/ 1/91
VA 5/ 1/91
VA 5/ 1/91
VA 5/ 1/91
PA 5/ 1/91
VA 5/ 2/91
VA 5/ 2/91
DC 5/ 2/91
DC 5/ 2/91
MD 5/ 2/91
MD 5/ 7/91
VA 5/ 7/91
VA 5/ 7/91
VA 5/ 7/91
MD 5/ 7/91
VA 5/ 8/91
MD 5/ 8/91
VA 5/ 8/91
DC 5/ 8/91
VA 5/ 8/91
VA 5/ 8/91
VA 6/25/91
MD 6/25/91
MD 6/25/91
MD 6/25/91
MD 6/25/91
VA 6/26/91
PA 6/26/91
VA 6/26/91
VA 6/26/91
6/26/91
7/ 3/91
7/ 3/91
7/ 3/91
7/ 3/91
7/ 3/91
7/ 3/91
7/ 3/91
7/ 3/91
7/ 8/91
7/ 8/91
7/ 8/91
7/ 8/91
7/ 8/91
7/ 9/91
7/10/91
7/10/91
7/10/91
7/10/91
7/19/91
7/19/91
7/19/91
7/19/91
7/19/91
7/22/91
7/22/91
7/22/91
7/22/91
7/22/91
7/25/91
8/15/91
8/15/91
8/15/91
VA
VA
VA
VA
MD
VA
56
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
Questioned Costs
Audit Control
Number
Auditee
Final Report Ineligible Unsupported
Issued Costs Costs
Recommended
Unnecessary/ Efficiencies
Unreasonable (Funds Be Put
Costs To Better Use)
DBBML1 -03-0353-1100386
D8AML1-03-0352-1 100388
D8AML1-03-0351-1100389
D8EML1 -03-0345- 1100390
DSEML1 -03-0341-1100391
DB OML1-03-0344-1100395
DSCML1 -03-0346-1100396
DBBNL 1-03-0349-1100397
D8AIIL1 -03-0354-1100398
D8DML1 -03-0359-1100399
DBOML 1-03-0360-1100400
D8AML1 -03-0363-1100401
DBAML1 -03-0364-1100402
D8AML1 -03-0365-1100403
DBAML1 -03-0366-1100404
D8BML1 -03-0342-1100405
DSAML1-03-0371-1100406
D8AML1 -03-0370-1100407
D8AML1 -03-0369-1100408
DBAML1 -03-0367-1100409
D8EML1 -03-0362-1100412
DBEML1 -03-0361-1100413
D8EML1-03-O348- 1100414
D8AML1 -03-0350-1100416
D8AML1 -03-0368-1100417
P8BMN1-03-0125-1300100
SRA TECHNOLOGIES VA
COMPUTER BASED SYSTEMS VA
JUK INTERNATIONAL VA
COMPUTER SCIENCES CORPORAT VA
COMPUTER SCIENCES CORP VA
UNISYS GOVERNMENT SYSTEM VA
ARC PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GRMD
UNISYS DEFENSE SYSTEMS
DIVERSIFIED TECHNOLOGY
COMPUTER SCIENCE CORP
COMPUTER SCIENCE CORP
WESTAT INC
INFORMATION SYS & NETWORK
VERSAR
KEYDATA SYSTEMS INC
CONSOLIDATION COAL
DYNAMAC CORPORATION
ETS INTERNATIONAL
JACK FAUCETT ASSOCIATES
COMSIS CORPORATION
COMPUTER SCIENCE CORP
COMPUTER SCIENCE
CSC APPLIED TECHNOLOGY DIV
NMI SYSTEMS INC
RI!
0 & R MANAGEMENT CORP
9/16/91
9/16/91
9/16/91
9/16/91
9/16/91
9/17/91
9/17/91
VA 9/17/91
VA 9/17/91
VA 9/17/91
VA 9/18/91
MD 9/18/91
M D 9/18/91
VA 9/18/91
MD 9/18/91
PA 9/20/91
MD 9/20/91
VA 9/20/91
MD 9/20/91
MD 9/20/91
VA 9/24/91
VA 9/24/91
VA 9/24/91
VA 9/24/91
MD 9/24/91
MD 8/23/91
TOTAL OF REGION 03 109
D8CML1 -04-0289-1100200
D8AML1 -04-0288-1100201
D8ANL 1-04-0387-1100244
D8AML1 -04-0354-1100245
D8AML1 -04-0352-1100246
D8AML1 -04-0386-1100248
D8AML1 -04-0355-1100249
DBAML1 -04-0353-1100250
DBAML1 -04-0402-1100257
DBAML1 -04-0444-1100310
DBCML1-O4-O442- 1100311
DBAML1-O4-O443-1100312
D8DML1 -04-0487-1100336
DSAML1-04-O51 1-1100351
D8CML1 -04-0513-1100352
D8AML1-04-O512-1100353
D8AML1 -04-0519-1100354
DBAMLO- 04-0403-1100358
D8AML1 -04-0526-1100363
D8AML1 -04-0525-1100364
D8BML1 -04-0524-1100365
DBDML1-04-0541 -1100377
D8EML1-O4-O549-1100418
HBAML1 -04-0385-1100247
H8AML1 -04-0508-1100350
H8AML1 -04-0527-1100366
H8AAL1-O4-0542- 1100376
P8ABN1-O4-O483-1300111
BUILDING SVCS UNLIMITED
ENTROPY ENVIRONMENTALISTS
EC/R INC
EDWARD AUL & ASSOC, INC.
EDWARD AUL & ASSOC., INC.
RESEARCH & EVAL ASOC
ENVIRONMENTAL INVESTIGATION NC
EC/R INCORPORATED NC
RESEARCH & EVALUATION ASSOC NC
INTEGRITY PRIVATE SECURITY TN
MANTECH ENVIRONMENTAL NC
S JTHERN RESEARCH INST ITUT AL
MANTECH ENVIRONMENTAL TECH NC
RESEARCH & EVALUATION ASSOC NC
CONTINENTAL SHELF ASSOCIATESFL
RESEARCH & EVALUATION ASSOC NC
ZEDEK CORPORATION NC
KBN ENGINEERING & APPLIED SCFL
TRANSCONT I NENTAL ENTERPR I SESNC
RESEARCH & EVALUATION ASSOC NC
CONTINENTAL SHELF ASSOC FL
MANTECH ENVIRONMENTAL TECH NC
ADVANCED SYSTEMS TECHNOLOGY GA
RESEARCH TRIANGLE INST NC
RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE NC
UNIVERSITY OF NC AT CHAPEL NC
RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE NC
EHRT-LEXINGTON KY
FL 5/ 1/91
NC 5/ 1/91
NC 6/ 5/91
NC 6/ 5/91
NC 6/ 5/91
NC 6/ 5/91
6/ 5/91
6/ 5/91
6/18/91
7/10/91
7/10/91
7/10/91
8/ 2/91
8/14/91
8/14/ 91
8/14/91
8/15/91
8/15/91
8/29/91
8/29/91
8/29/91
9/11/91
9/25/91
6/ 5/91
8/13/9 1
8/29/91
9/11/91
9/23/91
TOTAL OF REGION 04 28
D8DML1 -05-0235-1100169
DBOML1-O5-O236-110017O
D8AML1-05-031O-1100254
D8CML1 -05-0309-1100255
D8CML1 -05-0308-1100256
D8AML1 -05-0368-1100328
D8CML1 -05-0369-1100329
DBCML1 -05-0377-1100330
D8DML1-O5-0388-1 100332
D8GML1 -05-0389-1100333
D8GML1-05-0382-1100334
D8CML1-O5-0414-1 100347
DBGML1-05-O424-1100348
D8GML1-05-O425-1100349
D8AML1- 05-0445-1100379
DBAML1-05-O439-1 100380
E8AXN1 -05-0279-1300072
P8AAP1 -05-0280-1400027
AUTO TESTING LAB FY 89
AUTO TESTING LAB FY 89
ANDERSEN CONSULTING
CHEMICAL ABSTRACTS SERVICE
BATTELLE
EXPERIENCE INC
BATTELLE
BATTELLE
AUTO TESTING LAB
BATTELLE
VECTOR RESEARCH INC
BATTELLE
BATTELLE
BATTELLE
LIFE SYSTEMS INC
COLEJON MECH
PRC EM!
EOM (AIR)
OH 4/ 5/91
OH 4/ 5/91
IL 6/12/91
OH 6/12/91
OH 6/12/91
MN 7/18/91
OH 7/18/91
OH 7/20/91
OH 7/25/91
OH 7/25/91
MI 7/25/91
OH 8/ 9/91
OH 8/12/91
OH 8/12/91
OH 9/12/91
OH 9/12/91
IL 6/ 3/91
OH 8/ 2/91
ApnI 1. 1991 through September 30, 1991
57
-------
Au C=. I
Numbsr
Qu on.d Coets
Final Rsport Inaligible Unsupported
su ed Coets Cost
Unnec e c*sry/
Unrs.sonable
Coets
Recommended
(Funds B. Put
To Better U..)
P8AAP1-05-0295-1400029 EON
P8AXP1-05-0354-1400033 OHM REM INTERIOR
TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 20
OH 8/13/91
OH 9/ 5/91
D8AML1 -06-0096-1100180
D8&AL1 -06-0097- 1100181
D8AHL1 -06-0099-1100194
D8AML1-06-0107-1100214
D8AML1-06-011O-1100224
D8ANL1-06-0111-1100225
D8AML1-06-0112-1100226
D8AAL1-06-0114-1100227
D8AAL1-06-0115-1100231
D8AAL1-06-0118-1100242
DSCAL1 -06-0129-1100292
D8CAL1 -06-0130- 1100293
D8CAL1 -06-0131-1100294
D8CAL1 -06-0132- 1100295
D8CML1 -06-0143-1100362
D8BML1 -06-0150-1100381
D8BML1-06-0151-1100382
D8BML1-06-0153- 1100394
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH IMSTITUTETX
RADIAN CORPORATION TX
GEO-MARINE INCORPORATED TX
INTERA INC. TX
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INST ITUTETX
ENTERPRISE ADVISORY SERVICESTX
ETC ENGINEERS INC. AR
EG&G AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH TX
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTETX
RADIAN CORPORATION TX
EG&G AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH INCTX
EG&G AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH TX
EG&G AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH TX
EG&G AUTOMOTIVE RESEARCH INCTX
RADIAN CORPORATION TX
RADIAN CORPORATION TX
RADIAN CORPORATION TX
RADIAN CORPORATION TX
4/18/91
4/18/91
4/30/91
5/ 7/91
5/20/91
5/20/91
5/20/9 1
5/21/91
5/29/91
6/ 4/91
7/ 3/91
7/ 3/91
7/ 3/91
7/ 3/91
8/29/91
9/13/91
9/13/91
9/16/91
TOTAL OF REGION 06 = 18
D8AML1-O7-0161-1100284
D8DML1 -07-0163-1100285
D8ABL1-O7-O164-1100286
D8FWL1-O7-0185-1100340
D8ABN1 -07-0160-1300081
D8ABN1 -07-0159-1300082
DBABN1 -07-0162-1300083
D8ABN1-07-O173- 1300088
D8ABN1-07-0177- 1300089
D8DMN1 -07-0184-1300095
D8ABN1 -07-0186-1300096
D8ABN1-07-O178- 1300097
MRI MO
DEVELOP PLAN & RESEARCH ASOCKS
WILSON LABS KS
SVERDUP & CORP MO
MRI MO
MRI MO
PSI/HALL KIMBRELL MO
DEVELOP PLANNING & RESEARCH KS
UNIVERSITY OF IOWA HYGIENIC IA
BLACK & VEATCH MO
MRI MO
MRI MO
7/ 2/91
7/ 2/91
7/ 2/91
8/ 7/91
7/ 2/91
7/ 2/91
7/ 2/91
7/25/91
7/29/91
8/ 7/91
8/ 7/91
8/12/91
TOTAL OF REGION 07 = 12
D8AMW1-O8-0O77-1300070 NFT INC., GOLDEN
TOTAL OF REGION 08 = 1
Co 5/21/91
D8DML1-09-0117- 1100160
D8DML1 -09-0138- 1100222
D8CML1 -09-0139-1100223
DBAAL 1-09-0158-1100235
D8CML1- 09-O16O-1100236
D8CML1 -09-0161-1100237
D8CAL1 -09-0162-1100240
D8CAL1 -09-0163-1100241
D8OML1-09-O164-1100251
D8DML I-09-0165-1100252
D8ANL1 -09-0170-1100258
D BAML1-09-O180-1100272
D8ANL1-O9-O183-1100273
D8BML1 -09-0193-1100314
DBAI4L1- 09-0206-1100342
D8CML1-09-021O-1100343
D8CML1 -09-0211-1100344
D8AML1-09-02 09-1100345
D8AI4L1-09-O212-1100346
D8BML1 -09-0220-1100361
D8DML1 -09-0227-1100368
D8AML1 -09-0230-1100372
D8AML1-09-0229-1100373
D8AML1-09-0231-1100375
D8CAL1-09-O233-110041O
DBAML1-O9 U237-1100435
D8AML1-09-0238-1 100437
D8CML1-09-0240-1 100440
D8CML1-09-0241-1100442
D8CML1 -09-0242-1100443
D8AMN1 -09-0145-1300068
D8DMN1 -09-0159-1300071
DBAI4N1 -09-0169-1300077
GEO/RESOURCES CONSULTANTS CA
ROCKWELL/ROCKETDYNE, CANOGA CA
AEROSPACE CORP., EL SEGUNDO CA
ENERGY ENVIR RESEARCH CORP CA
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTL CA
ACUREX CORP CA
ENERGY & ENVIRN. RES. CORP CA
ACUREX CORP
ENGINEERING SCIENCE, INC CA
ENGINEERING SCIENCE,INC CA
GENERAL ATOMICS CA
URIBE & ASSOCIATES CA
STERLING FEDERAL SYSTEMS CA
IT CORP CA
S-CUBED CA
ACRUEX CORP CA
ACUREX CORP CA
SIERRA TECH SERVICES INC CA
SIERRA TECH SERVICES INC CA
IT CORP CA
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE, INC. CA
SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTL CA
LEE ASSOCIATES CA
STEINHOFF AND SADLER, INC CA
ENERGY & ENVIR. RES. CORP. CA
VISTA RESEARCH, INC CA
IT CORP CA
ACUREX CORPORATION CA
ACUREX CORP CA
ENERGY & ENVIRON REAEARCH
JACOBS ENG GRP. PASADENA CA
SCS ENGINEERS
GENERAL ATOMICS CA
4/ 1/91
5/16/91
5/16/91
5/30/91
5/30/9 1
5/30/91
5/31/91
5/31/91
6/ 6/91
6/ 6/91
6/19/ 91
6/27/91
6/27/91
7/12/91
8/ 8/91
8/ 8/91
8/ 8/91
8/ 8/91
8/ 8/91
8/26/91
8/29/91
9/ 6/91
9/ 6/91
9/ 9/91
9/20/91
9/30/91
9/30/91
9/30/91
9/30/91
9/30/91
5/16/9 1
5/30/91
6/19/91
TOTAL OF REGION 09 = 33
58
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
Questioned Costs
Audit Control
Number
D8AAL1 -10-0078-1100371
D8AMN1 -10-0079-1300103
P8AXL1-10-0034-1100168
P8AXL1 -10-0037- 1100202
PBAXL1-10-0050-1100315
P8AXN1 -10-0036-1300098
OMNI ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES OR
0MW! ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES OR
RES-ROCKY FLATS DOE PREAWARDOR
CH2M HILL DOE/MTN MAR PREAW OR
CH2M HILL DOE RFP 9xS1-Q42570R
RES NAVY PRE-AWARD
9/ 6/91
9/ 6/91
4/ 4/91
5/ 1/91
7/18/91
8/13/91
TOTAL OF REGION 10 = 6
TOTAL OTHER CONTRACT AUDITS
9. SUPERFUND CONTRACTS
P9AHL1-O2-O11O-110037O S&D ENGINEERING SERVICES NJ
TOTAL OF
E9BGP1 -03-0333-1400055
P9AKN1 -03-0327-1300094
P9BHNO- 03-0382-1300101
P9AKW1 -03-0355-1300106
P9AKN1 -03-0356-1300107
P9DXN1-03-O387-1300114
TOTAL OF
D9AHL1 -04-0309-1100208
P9BHNI -04-0317-1300110
REGION 02 = 1
CDM FEDERAL PROGRAMS CORP
CLEMENT INTERNATIONAL INC
GUARDIAN ENVIRONMENTAL SVC
CLEMENT INTERNATIONAL
ICF INC
ICF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
REGION 03 = 6
GEOPHEX LTD.
ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 2
E9AKN 1-05-0206-1300063
E9FFP1 -05-0442-1400056
P9DGLO-O5-O265-1100166
P9AHt41 -05-0191-1300085
P9DHPO-O5-O378- 1400030
P9BHPO-05-0292- 1400031
P9BHPO-05-0293- 1400032
P9AHP1 -05-0281-1400034
P9AHP1 -05-0313-1400035
P9AHP1 -05-0313-1400036
P9DHP1 -05-0285-1400040
P9AHP1 -05-0297-1400044
P9AHP1 -05-0296-1400045
P9FGP1-O5-0411-1400052
PRC EMI
ENG FMR
tM ENG FY 89
OHM REM ERCS3 Ri
OHM REM FY 89
OHM REM ERCS2 Z1 FY 89
OHM REM ERCS2 Z2 FY 89
OHM REM ERCS3 R5
OHM REM ERCS3 R2
OHM REM ERCS3 R2
OHM REM FCOM Fl 89
MAECORP ERCS3 R5
MAECORP ERCS3 R5
DONOHUE ARCS R5 FMR
TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 14
D9AKL1-O6-O124-1100279 LOCKHEED ENGINEERING & SCIENTX
TOTAL OF REGION 06 = 1
URIBE & ASSOC
D9AHL1-O8-0O83-1100282
D9AKL1 -08-0082-1100283
GREYSTOWE ENVIRONMENTAL SERVCO
TOTAL OF REGION 08 = 2
P9EGL1-10-0040-1100367 CH2M HILL CAS DIS ADEQUACY OR
= 242 1,002,451
9/ 6/91
NC 5/ 3/91
KY 9/23/91
IL 5/ 1/91
MI 9/27/91
MI 4/ 4/91
OH 7/ 9/91
OH 8/19/91
OH 8/19/91
OH 8/19/91
OH 9/ 6/91
OH 9/ 6/91
OH 9/ 6/91
OH 9/11/91
IL 9/20/91
IL 9/23/91
WI 9/26/91
7/ 1/91
CO 7/ 2/91
7/ 2/91
8/29/91
425,122 203,689,419
HDQ 771 - - REPORTS ISSUED BY TYPE AUDIT AND REGION
SEMI-ANNUAL PERIOD ENDING 9/30/91
Audltss Final Report
Issued
Inoligibi.
Costs
Unsupported
Costs
Unnecsss .ry/
Unrssson.bl.
Costs
Rscommond.d
Efficiencies
(Funds 8. Put
To Better Us.)
OR
VA
VA
DE
VA
VA
VA
9/27/ 91
8/ 7/91
8/29/91
9/13/91
9/16/91
9/26/91
228,506
0 0 0 0
1,080,621 1,268,752 0 166,284,436
85,492,010 23,900,549 137,086,229 381,323,688
TOTAL OF REGION 10 =
TOTAL SUPERFUND CONTRACTS
TOTAL AUDITS = 942
= 27
AprU 1 1 991 through September 30, 1 991
59
-------
Appendix—2 Audits Without Management Decision
D8AML1-04-0030-1100011 RESEARCH & EVALUATION ASSOC NC 10/12/90
Summay CONTRACTOR WiLL NOT INCUR MAJORI1Y OF OPTION PERIOD ONE
COSTS PROPOSED.
• EXPlANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PROBLEMS HAVE BEEN ENCOUNTERED IN REDUC11ON OF SCOPE OF
WORK IN ORDER TO DECREASE THE COST OF PERFORMANCE.
- DES IRED TiMETABLE FOR ACHIEViNG A MANAGEMENT DECISION: RESOLUTION
IS EXPECTED BY 11J3C 91.
16 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: [ 1J
PROCUREMENTS CONTRACTS MANAGEMENT DIViSION
Financial Analysis Section
P9AHN9-05-0347 .0300036 OH MATERIALS (PR EQ RATES) OH 3/27/90
Summary: WE HAVE RECOMMENDED REDUCTIONS OF $670,000 TO PROPOSED
F iXED HATES FOR EQUIPMENT PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF ERRORS IN UT1UZATION
METHODS, ADJUSTMENTS FOR FULLY DEPRECIATED EQUIPMENT, AND
UNSUPPORTED ESTIMATES AND ASSUMPTIONS BY THE CONTRACTOR.
- EXPLANATION OF ThE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN AWARDED YET. NEGOTIATIONS ARE STILL PENDING
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOILOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: 1j
P9AHNO .05-0260-0300047 OH MATERIALS (PR EQ RATES) OH 4/27/90
Summary: WE RECOMMENDED $182,049 IN EFFICIENCIES DUE TO PROPOSED
EQUIPMENT RATES 1) EXCEEDING CONTRACT CEIUNG RESTRICTIONS, 2) BEING
DEVELOPED USING ESTIMATED COSTS, AND 3) BEING DEVELOPED USING
INFORMATION OTHER THAN COST DATA
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISiON HAS NOT BEEN
MADE
CONTRACT HAS NOT BEEN AWARDED YET. NEGOTIATIONS ARE STILL PENDING.
- DESiRED TiMETABLE Foil ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISiON:
(6 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: (1)
AsSIgnment Control Title
Number
PROCUREMENTS CONTRACTS MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Washington Cost Advisory Branch
P9AHNI•10-0022-1300052 RES-ERCS REGION IV PREAWARD OR 3/27/91
Summary PROPOSED LABOR AND EQUIPMENT RATES ACCEPTED. DEFICIENCIES
IN ACCOUNTING SYSTEM WITH PREPARATION OF INVOICES, RECORDING
EQUIPMENT COSTS,
ACCOUNTING FOR BID AND PROPOSAL COSTS AND PREPARATION OF
PROPOSALS.
- EXPLANATION OF ThE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
FINAL RESOLUTION WAS COMPLETED ON 9/2/91.
6 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: 111 DIG RECEIVED THE ABOVE EPA
STATUS ON 10/29/91. HOWEVER, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE SUMMARY OF
NEGOTIATION AS OF 10/3 91.
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, REGION 5
E2AWTO-05-0223 .0400020 SELLERSBURG EWS IN 6/14/90
Summary: REGION 5 AWARDED A $5.5 MI WON STEP 2+3 GRANT TO
SELLERSBURG,IN FOR A PROJECT WHICH DID NOT MEET THE EUGIBIUTY
REQUIREMENTS FOR A STEP 2+3 GRANT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER HAS BEEN SENT TO 0(0, AND THE DIG IS REViEWING
CONTESTED ISSUES FOR POSSIBLE SUBMISSION TO THE AUDIT RESOLUTION
BOARD.
16 FOILOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: 16]
E2AWTO-05-0224-0400045 W TERRE HAUTE EWS IN 9/28/90
Summary REGION 5 AWARDED A STEP 2+3 GRANT OF $5,275,325 TO WEST
TERRE HAUTE, IN FOR A PROJECT WHICH DID NOT MEET THE EUGIBIUTY
REQUIREMENTS FOR A STEP 2+3 GRANT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER HAS BEEN SENT TO 01G. AND THE DIG IS REVIEWING
CONTESTED ISSUES.
16 FOLLOWIJP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: 161
E2AWT1-05 -0134-1400007 S HENRY RSD EWS IN 2/25/91
Summary: REGION 5 AWARDED A STEP 2+3 GRANT OF $4,461,060 TO SOUTH
HENRY REGIONAL WASTE DISTRICT, IN FOR A PROJECT WHICH DID NOT MEET
THE EUGIBIUTY REQUIREMENTS FOR A STEP 2+3 GRANT.
• EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER HAS BEEN SENT TO DIG, AND THE OIG IS REViEWING
CONTESTED ISSUES.
16 FO(.LOWIJP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: 161
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT REQUIRES A SUMMARY OF EACH AUDIT REPORT ISSUED BEFORE THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE
REPORTING PERIOD FOR WHICH NO MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE END OF THE REPORTING PERIOD (INCLUDING THE
DATE AND TITLE OF EACH SUCH REPOR1), AN EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS SUCH MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN MADE, AND
A STATEMENT CONCERNING THE DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION ON EACH SUCH REPORT. (The IG
provides the summary, the date and title of each such report. The Agency provides the explanation of the reasons such management decision has
not been made, and a statement concerning the desired timetable for achieving a management decision on each such report.)
10 Followup Status Codes of Agency’s Response at 9/30/90:
1. No Response
2. Incomplete Response Received
3. Proposed Response Received Awaiting Final Determination
4. Proposed Response Received in Review Process
5. Final Response Received ii Review Process
6. In Pre-ARB Referral Process
Assignment Control Title Final Report Final Report
Number Issued Issued
PROCUREMENT CONTRACTS MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Cost Policy and Rate Negotiation Section
P9DHLS1O -0110-1100108 RES FY86 INDIRECT COSTS OR 1/24/91
Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
THE DIG ASKED THAT NEGOTIATIONS BE SUSPENDED PENDING THE RESOLUTION
OF OTHER ISSUES THAT MAY IMPACT THE OUTCOME OF THIS AUDIT.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
16 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9(30(91: [ 1]
PROCUREMENTS CONTRACTS MANAGEMENT DIVISION
Durham Cost Advisory Branch
DBAPLOO2-0340-1100007 SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORP NY 19/12/90
Summary: WE RECOMMENDED FUNDS TO BE RECOVERED AS EFFICIENCIES
BASED ON REDUCTION OF THE ESTIMATED COST INCLUDED IN THE
PROPOSAL
• EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: FINAL
DECISION WAS MADE ON 9/39/91. 016 IS AWAITING NOTIFICATION TO CLOSE
AUDIT.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9(30(91: (lj (NO CHANGE IN FO(IOWUP STATUS AT
10/25/91.
60
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
AssIgnment Control TILIG Final Report
Plumber Issued
Grants Financial Management RegIon 5
P2CWN9 O5-O336-O300076 WELLSVILLE OH 8/6/90
Summary: OVER $1.9 MILLION QUESTIONED BECAUSE OF THE GRANTEE’S
FAILURE TO REHABIUTATE ITS SEWERS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: FINAL DETERMINATION CANNOT BE MADE UNTIL SOURCE SYSTEM
EVALUATION SURVEY IS COMPLETE. GRANTEE HAS SIGNED A CONSENT
DECREE.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE
SOURCE SYSTEM EVALUATION SURVEY WILL BE SUBMITTED ON 7(1(92.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: [ 1)
N3HMKOO5-0143-0500671 WAYNE CO FY 88 MI 3/20/90
Summary: COUNTY MAY HAVE EARNED AND RETAINED $12,060 IN INTEREST ON
EXCESSIVE FEDERAL FUNDING OF $186,000.
• EXPLANATiON OF ThE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER WAS ISSUED TO THE GRANTEE DURING SEPTEMBER
1990. IN A RECENT MEETING, THE LOCAL OIG AGREED TO INVESTIGATE WHY
THIS SINGLE AUDIT HAS NOT BEEN CLOSED IN THE IG TRACKING SYSTEM.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: [ 2)
P2C WN7-05-0492-1 300049 CHICAGO MWRDGC IL 3 /29(91
Summary: MWRDGC, IL CLAIMED $1,233,148 OF INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION AND
ENGINEERING COSTS. AN ADDITIONAL $146,862 OF UNSUPPORTED FORCE
ACCOUNT ENGINEERING COSTS WERE CLAIMED.
• EXPLANATiON Of THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
SINCE INTERCHANGEABLE COSTS EXIST BETWEEN THIS GRANT AND ANOTHER
GRANT, RESOLUTION OF THE QUESTIONED COSTS IS DEPENDED UPON AUDIT OF
GRANT NUMBER C175321-01.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS CURRENTLY BEING COORDINATED BETWEEN THE
REGION AND THE 01G. ISSUES SHOULD BE RESOLVED IN THE FIRST QUARTER
OF FY 1992.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: [ 2)
G3HVKI-05-0081-1500189 CINCINNATI MSD FY 89 OH 12/12/90
Summary: GRANTEE CLAIMED $383,000 IN INEliGIBLE CHARGE ORDER COSTS.
ALSO THE GRANTEE DID NOT HAVE APPROVED COST ALLOCATION PLANS
AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT $383,000 IN OVERHEAD COSTS CLAIMED FOR THE
YEARS APPUCABLE TO THE GRANT PERIODS.
• EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER WAS SENT ON 7/17/91.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: [ 1) NO CHANGE IN FOLLOWUP STATUS
ON 10/25/91.
P2CWN4-06-0183-5100159 EUCLID OH 7/12/85
Summary: WE QUESTIONED THE ENTIRE GRANT AWARD OF ALMOST $14.3
MIWON. THE GRANTEE FAILED TO MEET GRANT CONDITION NO. 3 AND OPERATE
THE PLANT SUFFICIENTLY TO MEET IT NPDES PERMIT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: AS A
RESULT OF LITIGATION, A CONSENT DECREE WAS SIGNED GIVING THE GRANTEE
UNTIL 1996 TO COMPLETE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: 131
P3DWL1-05-0360-5100559 PRC ENG CT FY 80/81 IL 9/25/85
Summary: WE RECOMMENDED OVERHEAD RATES OF 145.36 PERCENT AND 131.73
PERCENT FOR FISCAL YEARS 1981 AND 1980, RESPECTIVELY.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: PREUMINARY DETERMINATION HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE REGION IS
AWAITING LEGAL ADViCE FROM REGIONAL COUNSEL
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: TARGETED
FINAl. DETERMINATION DATE IS SECOND QUARTER FY 1992.
IS FOL.LOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: [ 2)
AsSignment Control TItle Final Report
Number Issued
P2C WN4-05-0357-61 00389 DETROIT WSD MI 8/25/86
Summary: THE CITY OF DETROIT, MI CLAIMED OVER $169,000 OF UNREASONABLE
ENGINEERING COSTS.
• EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: REGIONAL
COUNSEL IS CURRENTLY PREPARING A LEGAL OPINION ON THE ALLOWABIUTY
OF TIME EXTENSIONS RETROACTIVELY APPROVED BY THE WATER DIVISION FOR
THE VARIOUS CONTRACTS FUNDED BY EPA UNDER THE SEVERAL GRANTS.
UPON RECEIPT OF THE LEGAL OPINION, REGION WILL ISSUE A PRELIMINARY
DETERMINATION TO 01G.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: [ 2)
P2G WN4 -05-0264-61 00390 DETROIT WSD MI 8125/86
Summary: WE QUESTIONED INEUGIBLE FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS OF $20,872
INCURRED PRIOR TO THE GRANT AWARD. IN ADDITION, UNSUPPORTED FORCE
ACCOUNT COSTS OF $36,370 INCURRED AFTER THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION
COMPLETION DATE WERE QUESTIONED.
• EXPLANATION OF ThE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
• DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: REGIONAL
COUNSEL IS CURRENTLY PREPARING A LEGAL OPINION ON THE ALLOWABIUTY
OF TIME EXTENSIONS RETROACTIVELY APPROVED BY THE WATER DIVISION FOR
THE VARIOUS CONTRACTS FUNDED BY EPA UNDER THE SEVERAL GRANTS.
UPON RECEIPT OF THE LEGAL OPINION, REGION WILL ISSUE A PRELIMINARY
DETERMINATION TO 01G.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30191:
P2CWN4-05-02636100391 DETROIT WSD MI 8125/86
Summary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED UNREASONABLE FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS OF
$286,000. THE GRANTEE ALSO CLAIMED INEUGIBLE COSTS OF $15,000.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: REGIONAL
COUNSEL IS CURRENTLY PREPARING A LEGAL OPINION ON THE ALLOWABIUTY
OF TIME EXTENSIONS RETROACTIVELY APPROVED BY THE WATER DIVISION FOR
THE VARIOUS CONTRACTS FUNDED BY EPA UNDER THE SEVERAL GRANTS.
UPON RECEIPT OF THE LEGAL OPINION, REGION WILL ISSUE A PRELIMINARY
DETERMINATION TO 01G.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: 121
P2CWN4-05-0280-6100574 DETROIT WSD MI 9/30/86
Summary: WE QUESTIONED INELIGIBLE COST OF $293,000 MOSTLY FOR CHANGE
ORDERS. WE ALSO QUESTIONED UNNECESSARY COST OF $399,000 FOR FORCE
ACCOUNT AND GRANTEE DELAYS. CHANGE ORDER COSTS OF $14800 WERE
UNSUPPORTED.
- EXPLANATiON OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: REGIONAL
COUNSEL IS CURRENTLY PREPARING A LEGAL OPINION ON THE ALLOWABIUTY
OF TIME EXTENSIONS RETROACTIVELY APPROVED BY THE WATER DIVISION FOR
THE VARIOUS CONTRACTS FUNDED BY EPA UNDER THE SEVERAL GRANTS.
UPON RECEIPT OF THE LEGAL OPINION, REGION WILL ISSUE A PRELIMINARY
DETERMINATION TO 01G.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9(30/91: 121
P2CWN4 -05-0265-6100575 DETROIT WSD WI 9/30/86
Summary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED INEUGIBLE AND UNSUPPORTED
CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF $559,000. THE GRANTEE ALSO CLAIMED
UNREASONABLE ENGINEERING COSTS OF $374,000.
• EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: REGIONAL
COUNSEL IS CURRENTLY PREPARING A LEGAL OPINION ON THE ALLOWABIUTY
OF TIME EXTENSIONS RETROACTIVELY APPROVED BY THE WATER DIVISION FOR
THE VARIOUS CONTRACTS FUNDED BY EPA UNDER THE SEVERAL GRANTS.
UPON RECEIPT OF THE LEGAL OPINION, REGION WILL ISSUE A PRELIMINARY
DETERMINATION TO 01G.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9(30(91: (21
April 1, 1991 through Seplember 30, 1991
61
-------
Assignment Control Title Final Report
Number Issued
P2CWNS-05-0242-7000034 DETROIT WSD MI 10 / 6/86
Summaty WE QUESTIONED INEUGIBLE CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING
COSTS OF $20006. IN ADDITION, WE QUESTIONED UNSUPPORTED ENGINEERING
COSTS OF $40,495 INCURRED AFTER THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION
COMPt.ETION DATE.
• EXPLANA11ON OF ThE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEViNG A MANAGEMENT DECISION: REGIONAL
COUNSEL IS CURRENTLY PREPARING A LEGAL OPiNION ON THE ALLOWAB1UTY
OF TIME EXTENSIONS RETROACTIVELY APPROVED BY THE WATER OMSION FOR
THE VARIOUS CONTRACTS FUNDED BY EPA UNDER THE SEVERAL GRANTS.
UPON RECEIPT OF THE LEGAL OPINION, REGION WiLL ISSUE A PRELJMINARY
DETERMINATION TO 0(3.
IG FOILOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: (2)
P2CWN5O5-0246-7000044 DETROIT WSD MI 10/ 7/86
Summary THE GRANTEE CLAIMED UNREASONABLE FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS OF
$330,000.
- EXPLANATION OF ThE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
• DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
REGIONAL COUNSEL IS CURRENTLY PREPARING A LEGAL OPINION ON THE
ALLOWABILITY OF TIME EXTENSIONS RETROACTIVELY APPROVED BY THE WATER
DMSION FOR THE VARIOUS CONTRACTS FUNDED BY EPA UNDER THE SEVERAL
GRANTS. UPON RECEIPT OF THE LEGAL OPINION, REGION WILL ISSUE A
PREUMINARY DETERMINATION TO 01G.
IG FOLLOWIJP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: (2)
P2GWN5 .05-0275-7000045 DETROIT WSD MI 10/ 7/86
Summaly: WE QUESTIONED $80,000 OF INEUGIBLE ENGINEERING AND
CONSTRUCTION COSTS. ENGINEERING COSTS OF $112,000 INCURRED AFTER
THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE WERE NOT SUPPORTED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
- DESIRED TiMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: REGIONAL
COUNSEL IS CURRENTLY PREPARING A LEGAL OPINION ON THE ALLOWABILITY
OF TIME EXTENSIONS RETROACTIVELY APPROVED BY THE WATER DMSION FOR
THE VARIOUS CONTRACTS FUNDED BY EPA UNDER THE SEVERAL GRANTS.
UPON RECEIPT OF THE LEGAL OPINION, REGION WiLL ISSUE A PREUMINARY
DETERMINATION TO 0(3.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: (2)
P2CWN5-05-0247-7000049 DETROIT WSD MI 10/ 8186
Summary: WE QUESTIONED UNREASONABLE TECHNICAL SERVICES AND
CONSTRUCTION COSTS OF $559,000.
- EXPLANATION OF ThE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
13 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: (2)
P2CWN5 .05 .0276-7000050 DETROIT WSD MI 19/8186
Summary: WE QUESTIONED $59,000 OF INEUGIBLE ENGINEERING COSTS.
ENGINEERING COSTS OF $433,600 INCURRED AFTER THE APPROVED
CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE WERE NOT SUPPORTED.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: REGIONAL
COUNSEL IS CURRENTLY PREPARING A LEGAl. OPINION ON THE ALLOWABIUTY
OF TIME EXTENSIONS RETROACTIVELY APPROVED BY THE WATER DMSION FOR
THE VARIOUS CONTRACTS FUNDED BY EPA UNDER THE SEVERAL GRANTS.
UPON RECEIPT OF THE LEGAL OPINION, REGION WILL ISSUE A PREUMINARY
DETERMINATION TO 01G.
43 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/39/91: (2)
E2BWL5-05-0136-7000980 SAUGET IL 3/31/87
summary: SAUGET, IL WAS AWARDED FEDERAL FUNDS IN EXCESS OF $7 MI WON
FOR INELIGIBLE AND UNNECESSARY PROJECT COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE PEASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: AUDIT REPORT HAS COMPLEX ISSUES WITH TOTAL QUESTIONED AND
UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF $15,323,316. THE REGION IS SEEKING GUIDANCE
FROM REGIONAL COUNSEL AND WATER DMSION. A DEVIATION REQUEST IS
PENDING IN EPA HEADQUARTERS.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: (2)
Assignment Control Title Final Report
Number Issued
P2GWN5-05-0132-8000464 DETROIT WSD MI 1/20/88
Summary: DETROIT CLAJMED INEUGIBLE COSTS OF ALMOST $2.6 MIWON
RESULTING FROM ITS FAILURE TO HONOR A CONTRACT. WE ALSO QUESTIONED
UNSUPPORTED COSTS OF ALMOST $2.1 MIWON.
• EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
REGIONAL 3 COUNSEL IS CURRENTLY PREPARING A LEGAL OPINION ON THE
ALLOWABIUT’( OF TIME EXTENSIONS RETROACTIVELY APPROVED BY THE WATER
DIVISION FOR THE VARIOUS CONTRACTS FUNDED BY EPA UNDER THE SEVERAL
GRANTS. UPON RECEIPT OF THE LEGAL OPINION, REGION WILL ISSUE A
PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION TO 0 (3.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: (2]
P2C WN7.05-0237-81 00724 DETROIT WSD MI 8129/88
Summary: DETROIT, MI CLAIMED OVER $274,000 OF INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION
COSTS. WE ALSO QUESTIONED UNSUPPORTED ENGINEERING AND FORCE
ACCOUNT COSTS OF $662,000.
• EXPLANATiON OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: REGIONAL
COUNSEL IS CURRENTLY PREPARING A LEGAL OPINION ON THE ALLOWABIUTY
OF TIME EXTENSIONS RETROACTIVELY APPROVED BY THE WATER DIVISION FOR
THE VARIOUS CONTRACTS FUNDED BY EPA UNDER THE SEVERAL GRANTS.
UPON RECEIPT OF THE LEGAL OPINION, REGION WILL ISSUE A PRELIMINARY
DETERMINATION TO 0(3.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: (2)
P2GWN5-05-0169-8100774 DETROIT WSD MI 9/1/88
Summary: WE QUESTIONED INELIGIBLE CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERING
COSTS OF $96,520. ENGINEERING COSTS OF $992,430 INCURRED AFTER THE
APPROVED CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION DATE WERE NOT SUPPORTED.
- EXPLANATION OF ThE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
• DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: REGIONAL
COUNSEL IS CURRENTLY PREPARING A LEGAL OPINION ON THE AIIOWABIUTY
OF TIME EXTENSIONS RETROACTIVELY APPROVED BY THE WATER DIVISION FOR
THE VARIOUS CONTRACTS FUNDED BY EPA UNDER THE SEVERAL GRANTS.
UPON RECEIPT OF THE LEGAL OPINION, REGION WILL ISSUE A PRELIMINARY
DETERMINATION TO 0(3.
13 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: (2)
OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
E1NMBO-15-0021-1100152 IBM 3090 OPERATIONS AT NCC 3/29/91
Summary: EPA DID NOT FORECAST ITS COMPUTER REQUIREMENT, OR MATCH
ITS NEEDS TO AVAILABLE RESOURCES. ALSO, AN ESTIMATED $ 5.3MIL WAS
UNNECESSARILY SPENT ANNUALLY DUE TO COMPUTER OPERATIONS/USE,
SOFTWARE APPUCATIONIDESIGN AND DATA STORAGE/RETRIEVAL
• EXPLANATiON OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: OARM RESPONDED TO THIS AUDIT ON 6/14/91. AFTER RECEIPT OF THAT
RESPONSE, THE OIG REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. THIS INFORMATION
WAS FURNISHED 10/1/91.
• DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: FINAL
DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ISSUED BY THE END OF NOVEMBER 1991.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: (2)
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, REGION 3
P2CW8-03-0152-1100147 YORK COuNTY OF VA 26/91
Summary: RECOMMENDED COST RECOVERY INCLUDES INEUGIBLE ($1,109,034) AE
BASIC OTHER AE AND PROJECT INSPECTION FEES, ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES.
AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS; AND UNSUPPORTED ($1,136,703) OF AE BASIC,
OTHER AE AND PROJECT INSPECTION FEES, ADMIN EXP, AND
CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
• EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: DUE TO THE COMPLEXITIES OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED, SEVERAL
CONSULTATIONS WITH VARIOUS PARTIES WERE REQUIRED. A DRAFT FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER HAS BEEN SENT TO THE 04G. ADDITIONAL MEETINGS
ARE NOW BEING HELD WITH THE ENGINEERING SCIENCE UNIT OF THE OIG TO
DISCUSS THESE ISSUES.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: PROPOSED
COMPLETION DATE IS DECEMBER 15, 1991.
IG FOIIOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: (4)
62
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
Assignment Control Title Final Report
Number Issued
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, REGION 4
E2CWN7-04-0302-0300054 SYLACAUGA UTILITIES BD AL 5/10/90
Summary: THE GRANTEE TERMINATED THE ORIGINAL CONTRACTOR FOR
CONVENIENCE AND DID NOT HOLD THE CONTRACTOR AND/OR THE BONDING
COMPANY RESPONSIBLE FOR CHANGED SITE CONDITIONS AND INCREASED
COSTS OF $1.6 MILLION.
• EXPLANATiON OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: REGION AND THE LOCAL OIG CANNOT REACH AN AGREEMENT ON A
MANAGEMENT DECISION. CIG MAY REFER THIS AUDIT TO EPA’S AUDIT
RESOLUTION BOARD.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: [ 2] NO CHANGE IN FOLLOWUP STATUS
AS OF 10/25/91. THE ACTION OFFICIAL HAS NOT ADDRESSED AU. THE ISSUES OF
THE AUDIT REPORT.
E2CWNO-04-0176-1300034 JEFFERSON COUNTY AL 2/12191
Summary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED $663,971 OF INEUGIBLE CONSTRUCTION, AND
ENGINEERING EXPENSES AND $1,730 OF UNSUPPORTED ADMINISTRATIVE
EXPENSES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE REGION
PROViDED THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER TO THE 040 ON 9/30/91.
APPROVAL BY THE 016 IS EXPECTED BY 10/31/91.
IG FO1.LOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: [ 31
S2CWN8-04-0251-1300043 LEBANON TN 3/13/91
Summary: COSTS QUESTIONED REPRESENTS ENGINEERING FEES ADJUSTED FOR
OVERHEAD RATES, DUPLICATION OF FRINGE BENEFITS, CONTRACTS EXCEEDED
AND INSPECTION INCURRED AFTER SCHEDULED COMPLETION. ALSO,
CONSTRUCTION COSTS QUESTIONED FOR FAILURE TO RETAIN BID BOND OF
LOW BIDDER.
• EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: (NO REASONS WERE GIVEN WHY NO RESPONSE WAS MADE TO THE
AUDIT UNTIL IT WAS OVER 6 MONTHS PAST THE REPORT ISSUE DATE)
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER WAS ISSUED 9/30/91, AND THE 040 CLOSED THE AUDIT
ON 10/9/91.
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: 151
G3HWKI-04-0078-1500307 CAVELAND SANITATION AUTHOR. KY 1/29/91
Summary:
• EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
(NO REASONS WERE GIVEN WHY NO RESPONSE WAS MADE TO THE AUDIT
UNTIL IT WAS OVER 6 MONTHS PAST THE REPORT ISSUE DATE)
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER WAS ISSUED ON W27/91, AND OIG CLOSED AUDIT ON
10/8/91.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: [ 5J
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, REGION 2
P2CW8 -02-0028.0100129 NYC - SPRING CREEK NY 1(29(90
Summary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED TOTAL UNALLOWABLE COSTS OF $2,944,029
FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A RETENTION BASIN.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSERVATION PREPARED A FINAL DETERMINATION WHICH WAS NOT
ACCEPTED BY THE 04G. THE 010 HAS REQUESTED ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
TO SUPPORT THE ALLOWABLE COSTS.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A FINAL
DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ISSUED DURING THE FIRST QUARTER OF FY 1992.
IG FOIIOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: [ 21
P2CW*7.02.0228 0100139 WESTCHESTER CO NY 2/ 1/90
Summary: THE GRANTEE CLAIMED TOTAL UNALLOWABLE COSTS OF $6,404,317
TO UPGRADE A WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT.
• EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE AUDIT RESOLUTION PREPARED BY NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT
OF ENViRONMENTAL CONSERVATION HAD BEEN PENDING A DECISION ON THE
GRANTEE’S NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE USER CHARGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CLEAN WATER ACT.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: FINAL
DETERMINATION IS PLANNED DURING THE FIRST QUARTER OF FY 1992.
PG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30191: [ 3j
Assignment Control Title Final Report
Number Issued
P2CWL9-02-0246-1100136 WESTCHESTER CO - PEEKSKILL NY 3 /4/91
Summary: GRANTEE CLAIMED $4,111,482 UNSUPPORTED COSTS AND $52,012 OF
INELIGIBlE COSTS. THE GRANTEE HAS NOT IMPLEMENTED THEIR USER CHANGE
SYSTEM.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE AUDIT RESOLUTION PREPARED BY NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION HAD BEEN PENDING A DECISION ON THE
GRANTEE’S NON-COMPLIANCE WITh THE USER CHARGE REQUIREMENTS OF THE
CLEAN WATER ACT.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: FINAL
DETERMINATION IS PLANNED DURING THE FIRST QUARTER OF FY 1992.
13 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: 131
C3HMK1-02.0070-1500306 EQB PR 1/29/91
Summary: THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY BOARD OF PUERTO RICO CLAIMED
$101,263 IN INEUGIBLE COSTS INCLUDING $1,413 OF INELIGIBLE PAYROLL COSTS
AND $99,850 OF UNSUPPORTED COSTS DUE TO LACK OF DOCUMENTATION FO
VARIOUS EPA PROGRAMS.
• EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE GRANTEE SUBMITTED AN EXTENSIVE FORMAL RESPONSE WHICH
WAS RECEIVED ON 9/15/91.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE REGION
PLANS TO ISSUE FINAL DETERMINATION DURING THE FIRST QUARTER OF FY
1992.
13 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9(30/91: [ 11
E2C WL9-02-0063-91 00508 NYSDEC 205 G NY 9/29/89
Summary: NYSDEC’S ADMINISTRATION OF THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (205 (G)1 WAS NOT ADEQUATE TO ENSURE THE PROPER
CONTROWNG AND REPORTING OF PROGRAM EXPENDITURES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION’S REVIEW OF THE LATEST NYSDEC DOCUMENTATION
DISCLOSED UNALLOWABLE LABOR COSTS. 043 REQUESTED MORE
DOCUMENTATION TO EXPLAIN LABOR COSTS DISTRIBUTIONS. NYSDEC HAS
AGREED TO SUBMIT ALL REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: FINAL
DETERMINATION IS EXPECTED DURING THE FIRST QUARTER OF FY 1992.
0 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: [ 21
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, REGION 9
S5BG8-09-O202-0300037 CA DEPT OF HEALTH CA 3/30/90
Summary: COSTS OF $2,419,415 QUESTIONED AS INELIGIBLE AND $1,639,629 AS
UNREASONABLE INEUGIBLES RELATED TO FORCE ACCOUNT AND CONTRACT
COSTS UNREASONABLE RELATED TO CONTRACT COSTS. GRANTEE’S FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DETERMINED INADEQUATE. MOST INEUGIBLE COST
WERE THE RESULT OF THIS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: ALTHOUGH INITIALLY DELAYED BY SEVERAL COMPLEX ISSUES, THE FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER WAS APPROVED BY THE 010 ON 6/17/91 AND SENT TO
THE STATE ON 7/29/91. DUE TO REORGANIZATION OF THE STATE’S
ENVIRONMENTAL DEPARTMENT, THE STATE HAS REQUESTED AN ADDITIONAL
OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
PG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: [ 21 (THE REGION’S FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER DEFERS ISSUES WITHIN THE AUDIT REPORT AND IS
NOT CONSIDERED A COMPLETE RESPONSE.)
S2CW8-09-01 17-0300077 SCOTtS VALLEY, CITY OF CA 8/7/90
Summary: INELIGIBLE COSTS OF $533,500 REPRESENT NE FEES OF $123,960
INCURRED PRIOR TO APPROVAL $389,804 IN EXCESS OF APPROVAL $1,445 AFTER
COMPLETION $28,561 OF INEUGIBLE COSTS, ($10,275) ADDITIONAL
CONSTRUCTION AND $44,975 OF UNREASONABLE IN EXCESS OF GRANT AMOUNT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER WAS APPROVED BY THE
010 ON 3/29/91. DEVIATION REQUESTS ON SEVERAL DETERMINATIONS WERE
SUBMITTED AND APPROVED ON 9/24/91.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY THE END OF THE FIRST QUARTER FY
1992.
10 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30191: [ 21
ApnI 1 1 991 through September 30, 1991
63
-------
Assignment Control Title Final Report
Number Issued
E2CW ’8-0900240300090 HONOLULU CITY & COUNTY OF HI 9/19/90
Sunwnwy INELIGIBLE COST QUESTiONED OF $279208 CONSISTED OF $247,009
OF UNALLOWABLE FORCE ACCOUNT/ADMINISTION COSTS AND $31,649 FOR
INEliGIBLE CONSTRUCTION COST. $3,786,208 OF UNREASONABLE COSTS
RELATED TO INCOMPLETE STEP I GRANT AND UNDERUTILIZED FACILITY.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DEC1S 1ON HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION HAS RECEIVED A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER
FROM THE STATE. SOME OF THE DETERMINATIONS WERE UNACCEPTABLE TO
THE REGION. THE TOPICS WERE DISCUSSED BETWEEN THE STATE AND EPA
SENIOR MANAGERS.
• DESIRED tiMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE FiNAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY MID FY 199Z
IG FOILOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30 (91: [ 1)
E2CWN9 .09-0033-0300091 HONOLULU, CITY & COUNTY OF HI 9/19(90
Summy INELIGIBLE COST QUESTIONED OF $1,106,980 CONSISTS OF $446,176
OF UNDOCUMENTED ADMINISTRATION COST AND $660,744 FOR CONSTRUCTION
COSTS RELATED TO PERMITS. UNREASONABLE COSTS OF $5,298,871 RELATED
TO UNDERUTILIZED FACILITIES.
- EXPLANATION OF ThE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION HAS RECEIVED A DRAFT FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER
FROM THE STATE. SOME OF THE DETERMINATIONS WERE UNACCEPTABLE TO
THE REGION. THE TOPICS WERE DISCUSSED BETWEEN THE STATE AND EPA
SENIOR MANAGERS.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY MID FY 199a
13 FOILOWUP STATUS AS OF 9f30 91: 1J
E2CWB-09-0037 .0300092 HONOLULU, CITY & COUNTY OF HI 9/ 19/90
Summaly: INELIGIBLE COSTS QUESTIONED OF $16,269,686 CONSISTED OF
$552,471 OF UNAllOWABLE ADMIN/FORCE ACCOUNT COSTS, $734,663 FOR
UNALLOWABLE NE FEE $14,982,872 FOR INEUGIBLE CONSTRUCTION COSTS;
ADDITIONALLY $2,493,500 FOR UNNECESSARY COSTS FOR EQUIPMENT NOT IN
USE BY GRANTEE.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION HAS RECEIVED A DRAFT ANAL DETERMINATION LETTER
FROM THE STATE. SOME CF THE DETERMINATIONS WERE UNACCEPTABLE TO
THE REGION. THE TOPICS WERE DISCUSSED BETWEEN THE STATE AND EPA
SENIOR MANAGERS.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEViNG A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE FINAL
RESOLUTION OF THIS AUDIT IS NOT EXPECTED UNTIL THE END OF FY 1992.
IG FOILOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/39/91: 1J
558KN9-09-0267-0300098 SOUTH BAY MULTI-SITE CA 9/28/90
Summary: COSTS OF $2,903,899 WERE QUESTIONED AS UNSUPPORTED BY
ADEQUATE SOURCE DOCUMENTATION.
• EXPLANATION OF ThE REASONS MANAGEMENT DEC1S 1ON HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE O4G APPROVED A PROPOSED ANAL DETERMINATION LETTER IN A
MEMORANDUM DATED 9/19/91. THE LETTER WAS ISSUED TO THE STATE WATER
RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD ON 9/27/91. THE REGION IS WAITING FOR ITS
RESPONSE.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE AUDIT
SHOULD BE CLOSED BY THE END OF THE FIRST QUARTER FY 1992.
13 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/39/91: 121 (THE REGION’S ‘FiNAL
DETERMINATION LETTER’ DEFERS ISSUES WITHIN THE AUDIT REPORT AND IS
NOT CONSIDERED A COMPLETE RESPONSE.)
E2CW ’7-09O1 92-1 300053 SUN VALLEY WATER & SAN DIST NV 3/29/91
Summwy INELIGIBLE COST QUESTIONED OF $6 ,221,120 CONSISTS OF 1152 FOR
NOT MEETING / 3 RULE $995,653 FOR UNALLOWABLE NE; $116,120 FOR
UNALLOWABLE ADMINISTRATION AND $4,300 OF l/E CO’S ALSO $2,437,748
QUESTiONED FOR UNDERUTILIZATION OF FACILITIES.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGION WORKED WITH THE STATE TO DRAFT A PROPOSED
DETERMINATION LETTER. FT WAS SENT TO THE OIG PRIOR TO 9/30.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: FINAL
DETERMINATION SHOULD BE ISSUED IN THE FIRST HALF OF FY 1992
16 FOILOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/39/91: ill EPA SUBMITTED THE STATE’S
RESPONSE. HOWEVER, 043 DID NOT CONSIDER THIS TO BE ACCEPTABLE AS
EPA’S POSITION.
Assignment Control Title Final Report
Number Issued
E2AWP9-09-0189-1400006 EARLY WARNING - MONTEREY CA 2/11/91
Summary: REGION 9 AWARDED $6.1 MIWON GRANT AMENDMENT WHICH DID NOT
MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CLEAN WATER ACT OR THE EPA
REGULATIONS. IN ADDITION THE U.S. ARMY OVERPAID $6.2 MI WON FOR ITS
SHARE OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: ThIS AUDIT IS LINKED TO THE MARINA EARLY WARNING AUDIT (9400043).
THE REGION HAS BEEN TRYING TO RESOLVE ISSUES COMMON TO BOTH AUDITS
WITH THE 04G. WATER DIViSION MET WITH 046 ON 9/16/91.
• DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: FINAL
RESOLUTiON IS EXPECTED BY SECOND QUARTER OF FY 1992.
13 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: flJ
E2AWPI .09.0059-1400018 GUALALA COMM SER 01ST. IEWR CA 3128 /91
Summary: REGION 9 CIRCUMVENTED EPA REGULATIONS IN AWARDING A $8.7
MI WON YEAR-END GRANT TO THE GUALALA COMMUNITY SERVICES DISTRICT
FURTHER POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS OF AT LEAST $162 MIWON NEED TO BE
CONSIDERED BY THE REGION.
-EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: DRAFT DETERMINATION LETTER WAS SUBMITTED TO 016 ON 6(14/91, BUT
WAS NOT APPROVED. AS A RESULT, TWO DEVIATION REQUESTS WERE
FORWARDED TO HEADQUARTERS.
- DESIRED TiMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: 121 (THE REGION’S ‘FINAL
DETERMINATION LE1TER DEFERS ISSUES WITHIN THE AUDIT REPORT AND IS
NOT CONSIDERED A COMPLETE RESPONSE.)
N3HMK1-09-0108-1500445 SANTA CLARA VALLEY WTR 01ST CA 3112/91
Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF ThE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
REGION HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE STATE TO CHANGE THE PRACTICE
CONTESTED BY AUDIT. 043 HAS RECEIVED THE STAFFS PROPOSALS TO REViSE
THE PROCESS FOR SUBMITTAL OF FEDERAL CASH TRANSACTION REPORTS.
REGION IS NOW AWAITING DIG RESPONSE.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
13 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: 111 DIG RECEIVED RESPONSE ON 10/21/91
AND CLOSED OUT THE AUDIT ON 19/21/91.
E2AWP9-09-0065-9400025 HOMELAND EARLY WARNING CA 3/31/89
Sunvnary SPECIAL REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION GRANT OF WASTEWATEA
TREATMENT PLANT FOUND $3,737,139 IN FEDERAL SHARE COSTS QUESTIONED.
AN EARLY WARNING LETTER ADVISED THAT COSTS FOR THE COLLECTION
SYSTEM PORTION OF THE PROJECT DID NOT QUALIFY FOR FUNDING BECAUSE
OF THE ‘2/3 RULE.
- EXPLANATION OF ThE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: RESOLUTION OF THIS AUDIT HAS BEEN REFERRED TO THE AUDIT
RESOLUTION BOARD. A CLARIFICATION OF NATIONAL POLICY IS BEING
PAEPARED BY THE OFFiCE OF WATER THAT IS EXPECTED TO HELP IN
RESOLVING THE AUDIT.
• DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
13 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: [ 51
E2AWP9-09-0230-9400043 EARLY WARNING-MARINA CWD CA 9/26(89
Summary: SPECIAL REVIEW OF GRANT TO BUY CAPACITY RIGHTS FROM
REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT RESULTED IN AN EARLY WARNING
LETTER TO EPA MANAGEMENT THAT THE AWARD VIOLATED 40 CFR3S 2250 AND
THAT TOTAL COSTS QUESTIONED OF $1,694,000 (F.S. $931,700) WOULD CAUSE
‘WINDFALL’.
- EXPLANATION OF ThE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THIS AUDIT IS LINKED TO MONTEREY EARLY WARNING AUDIT (1400006).
REGIONAL PROGRAM STAFF HAVE BEEN TRYING TO RESOLVE ISSUES COMMON
TO BOTH AUDITS WITH THE 04G. REGION’S WATER DIVISION MET WITH 016 ON
9/16(91.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: BASED ON
THAT MEETING, FINAL RESOLUTION IS EXPECTED BY THE SECOND QUARTER OF
FY1992.
13 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: 161
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
Assignment Control Title Final Report
— Issued
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, REGION 6
E2CWN8-06-00370300055 BARTLESVILLE OK 5111/90
Summary: AUDIT OF CONSTRUCTION GRANTS C-400690-O1,02,03,12,13 & 14
QUESTIONED COSTS OF $10,974,785 (FEDERAL SHARE $8,189,026). THE GRANTEE
FAILED TO UPDATE FACIUTY PLANS AND COST EFFECTIVE ANALYSIS EVEN
ThOUGH DESIGN INCREASED CONSTRUCTION COSTS FROM $3.1 N TO $9.8 N.
• EXPLANA11ON OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: A REQUEST FOR A DEViATION FOR THE CITY OF BARTLESVILLE ON
PROJECT PERFORMANCE WAS SUBMITTED TO EPA HEADQUARTERS ON 5131/91.
FURThER ACTION IS PENDING THE OUTCOME OF THE DEVIATION REQUEST.
- DESIRED 11METABLE FOR ACHIEViNG A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
16 FOWY,VUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: 131
P5BFNO-06-0117-1300041 OKLA DEPT OF HEALTH OK 3/9/91
1ummar
- EXPLANATION OF ThE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: OIG DISAGREED WiTH PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETIER. IT
WAS REVISED AS OF 9/30/91 AND IS CURRENTLY BEING REViEWED BY THE
OFFICE OF REGIONAL COUNSEL
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: APPROVAL
IS ANTICIPATED DURING THE FIRST QUARTER FY 1992.
16 FOILOWUP STATUS AS OF 9(30/91: (21
P5BGNO-06-0118-1 300042 OKLA DEPT OF HEALTh OK 3/9(91
Summary:
• EXPLANATiON OF ThE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: OIG DISAGREED WITH PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER. IT WAS
REVISED AS OF 9(30/91 AND IS CURRENTLY BEING REVIEWED BY THE OFFICE OF
REGIONAL COUNSEL
- DESIRED TIME1 ABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: APPROVAL
IS ANTICIPATED DURING THE FIRST QUARTER FY 1992.
16 FOU.OWUP STATUS AS OF 9(30/91: 121
G3HWKI-06-0079-1 500502 KOUNTZE TX 3/28/91
Summarr
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: GRANTEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH GRANT CONDITIONS AND HAD NO
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AS REQUIRED BY EPA REGULATIONS.
EViDENCE OF CI1YS CORRECTIVE ACTION IN PROGRESS HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY
TEXAS WATER DEVELOPMENT BOARD. FINAL DETERMINATION TO BE ISSUED
WHEN CORRECTIVE ACTIONS COMPLETED.
• DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
16 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: (11
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, REGION 7
G3HWK1-07-0058-1500384 CHILLICOTHE MO 2/25/91
Summary:
• EXPLANATiON OF ThE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
THIS AUDIT IS CLOSED.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: A Final
etenalnation Letter was received and the audit was closed out on October 21, 1991.
IGFOLLOWUPSTATUSASOF 9/30/91: [ 11
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, REGION S
E2CW7 -08-0036-0100418 THREE LAKES WATER & SANIT CO 7/31/90
Summary: THREE LAKES WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT, GRAND LAKE, CO
DID NOT PROCURE CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR THE BUILDING OF THEIR NEW
$14 MIWON WASTEWATER TREATMENT WORKS BASED ON THE LOW
COMPETITIVE BID. IN ADDITION, THE CLAIMS FILED WITH EPA COULD NOT BE
SUPPORTED.
- EXPI.ANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: EPA REGION 8 OFFICE PREPARED A MANAGEMENT DECISION LETTER ON
10/24/90 TO THE 0 16. oN 11/21/90 A DEVIATION REQUEST WAS SENT TO EPA /HO
FOR REVIEW. IT WAS APPROVED ON 8/21/91.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED BY THE END OF THE FIRST QUARTER OF
FY1992.
6 FOUOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: 1 1J
Assignment Control Title Final Report
Number Issued
PSBHN9O8-0092-0300096 SO. ADAMS COUNTY WSD CO 9/27/90
Summary: SOUTH ADAMS COUNTY’ WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT (SACWSD) DID
NOT PROVIDE CONTRACTS FOR ITS WATER TREATMENT FACIUTY IN A MANNER
THAT ASSURES A REASONABLE PRICE OR THAT THE BEST OFFERORS ARE
AWARDED CONTRACTS. SACWSD ALSO APPROVED UNNECESSARY CHANGE
ORDERS.
• EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE REGIONAL OFFICE PREPARED A MANAGEMENT DECISION 1.ETrER ON
12/20/90. ON 1/23/91, A DEViATION REQUEST WAS SENT TO EPNHQ FOR REVIEW.
IT WAS APPROVED ON 6/3/91. A PROPOSED FINAL DETERMINATION WAS SENT
TO THE OIG ON 10/3/91 AND SHOULD BE ISSUED DURING THE FIRST QUARTER FY
1992.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE FIRST
QUARTER FY 1992.
16 FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: 141
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR, REGION 10
P5CHN9 10-0151-0300095 OREGON DEQ OR 9/27/90
Summary:
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: THE PROJECT OFFICER SENT A RESPONSE TO THE OIG ON 2/14/91. OIG
ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON 3/18/91. PROGRAM OFFiCE IS
PREPARING THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: AUDIT
SHOULD BE CLOSED BY THE END OF THE FIRST QUAATER FY 1992.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30191: (11
E2AWPO -1O-00174400012 ELBE WATER DIST EARLY WARN WA 3/30/90
Summary: THE ELSE WATER & SEWER DIST PROPOSED TO CONSTRUCT A $2.2
MILLION MODIFICATION OR REPLACEMENT TO SERVE 39 HOUSES (ABOUT $60,000
PER HOUSE). HOWEVER, THE PROJECT WAS NEITHER COST EFFECTIVE NOR DID
IT QUALIFY AS A MODIFICATION OR REPLACEMENT PROJECT.
• EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: A TECHNICAL REVIEW TO DETERMINE IF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE
AUDIT WERE CAUSED BY A FAILURE IN DESIGN IS STILL IN PROCESS. THE
REGION’S WATER DIVISION AND THE OIG ARE WORKING TO GET THE REVIEW
COMPLETED.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: FINAL
DETERMINATION IS EXPECTED BY THE END OF NOVEMBER 1991.
IG FOIIOWtJP STATUS AS OF 9/30/91: Ii )
P5CG8-10-0076-1100146 WASHINGTON DEPT OF ECOLOGY WA 3/20/91
Summary: COSTS QUESTIONED FOR IMPROPER PROCUREMENT, PERSONNEL
SERVICES AND INDIRECT COSTS.
- EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: AUDIT HAS BEEN SENT TO THE GRANTEE AND THE PROJECT OFFICER
FOR COMMENT. - DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A
MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED TO
BE ISSUED BY THE END OF THE FIRST QUARTER F? 1992.
IG FOLLOWUP STATUS AS OF 9(30 /91: (ii
P5CG*8.10.0084 1100156 ALASKA DEPT OF ENV CONSER AK 3/29/91
Summary: COSTS QUESTIONED AS INEUGIBLE FOR SUBCONTRACTOR SERVICES
NOT PERFORMED, EXCESS PROFIT AND ENGINEERING SERVICES PERFORMED
ON SITES OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT.
• EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE: DUE TO TURNOVER OF KEY PERSONNEL FINAL ACTION HAS BEEN
DELAYED.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: THE FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS ANTICIPATED BY THE END OF THE FIRST QUARTER
F? 1992.
16 FOILOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/30(91: (11
P5CHN9-10-0155-1300047 WASHINGTON DEPT OF ECOLOGY WA 3/26/91
Summary:
• EXPLANATION OF THE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
THIS AUDIT HAS BEEN SENT TO THE PROJECT OFFICER AND TO THE GRANTEE.
THE ISSUANCE OF THE FINAL DETERMINATION LETTER WAS DELAYED BY THE
LOSS OF KEY PERSONNEL IT IS EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED BY 11/30/91.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION: FINAL
DETERMINATION LETTER IS EXPECTED TO BE ISSUED BY 11/30/91.
IG FOLLOWIJP STATUS AS OF 9(30/91: (11
April 1,1991 through September 30, 1991
65
-------
Co fill. A I Repo
E3BGI-10-0066-8100761 MOSES LAKE IAR & REHAB DIST WA 8(31/88
Sumniwy INTERIM AUDIT OF DEMONSTRATION GRANT TO RESTORE MOSES LAKE
AND TO CONTROL NON-POINT POLLUTION SOURCES FOUND TOTAL COSTS
QUESTIONED CF $2,439,103 (F.S. $1,205,039). GRANTEE USED STANDARD
METHOLOGY INSTEAD OF DEVELOPING NEW INNOVATIVE TECHNIQUES.
- EXPLANATiON OF ThE REASONS MANAGEMENT DECISION HAS NOT BEEN
MADE:
ThIS AUDIT IS CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED BY ThE AUDIT RESOLUTION
BOARD.
- DESIRED TIMETABLE FOR ACHIEVING A MANAGEMENT DECISION:
IG FOILOWUP STATUS AS OF 9/3 91: (6J
TOTAL AUDITS ISSUED BEFORE REPORTING PERIOD FOR WHICH NO
MANAGEMENT
DECISION WAS MADE DURING THE REPORTING PERIOD: 65
- Agency procedixes do nd requwe the IGs apixoval on Agencys Management
Decision on an auc t (other than a preaward an internal and management
i ) with the Federal share o( queedoned coats nt less than $100,000.
Theretore, we have not provided a summary ot the aude.
Office of the Inspector General Report to the Congress
-------
Mailing Address and Telephone Numbers • OlG HOTLINE (800) 424-4000 or (202) 260-4977
Headquarters
Office of Inspector General
401 M Street, S.W. (A109)
Washington, DC 20460
(FTS or 202) 260-3137
Atlanta
Office of Inspector General
1375 Peachtree Street, NE
Suite 276
Atlanta, GA 30309
Audit (404)347-3623 FTS 257-3623
Investigations: (404) 347-2398
FTS 257-2398
Boston
Office of Inspector General
JFK Federal Building OIG 521
Boston, MA 02203
Audit (617) 565-3160 FTS 835-3160
lnvestigations:(61 7) 565-3928
FTS 565-3928
Chicago
Office of Inspector General
77 West Jackson Boulevard
13th Floor
Chicago, IL 60604
Audit (FTS or 312) 353-2486
Investigations: (FTS or 312) 353-2507
Dallas
Office of Inspector General
1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733
AUdit (214) 655-6621 FTS 255-6621
Investigations: (214) 655-6610
FTS 255-6610
Denver
Office of Inspector General
999 18th Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80205-2405
Audit (303) 294-7520 FTS 330-7520
Investigations: (303) 293-1650
FTS 330-1650
Kansas City
Office of Inspector General
726 Minnesota Avenue
Kansas City, KS 66101
Audit (913) 551-7824 FTS 276-7824
New York
Office of Inspector General
90 Church Street, Room 802
NewYork,NY 10007
Audit (FFS or 212) 264-5730
Investigations: (FTS or 212) 264-0399
Philadelphia
Office of Inspector General
841 Chestnut Street
13th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19107
Audit (FTS or 215) 597-0497
Investigations: (FTS or 215) 597-9421
Research Triangle Park, NC
Office of Inspector General
EPA Administration Building
Alexander Drive, Room 113
Research Triangle Park, NC 27711
Audit (919) 541-1028 FTS 629-1028
Investigations: (919) 541-1027
FTS 629-1027
Sacramento
Office of Inspector General
8011 Street, Room 466
Sacramento, CA 95814
Audit (916) 551-1076 FTS 460-1076
San Francisco
Office of Inspector General
75 Hawthorne St (1-4)
19th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Audit (415) 744-2445 FTS 484-2445
Investigations: (415) 744-2465
FTS 484-2465
Seattle
Office of Inspector General
1111 3rd Avenue, Suite 350
Seattle, WA 98101
Investigations: (206) 442-1273
FTS 399-1273
-------
IGNORING
FRAUD
WON’T
MAKE
IT
ABUSE
AWAY!
REPORT IT TO THE
INSPECTOR
GENERAL
HOTLINE
• INFORMATION IS CONFIDENTIAL
800-424-4000 or
202-260-4977
WASTE
OR
JJ;.I
GO
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTiON AGENCY • OFFICE OF ThE INSPECTOR GENERAL • 401 N STREET S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 0
------- |