vvEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agencv
Office of the Inspector General
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Office of the
Inspector General
Semiannual Report
April 1, 1982,
through
September 30, 1982
$508 Million
$370 Million
OIG ACCOMPLISHMENTS
DURING FISCAL 1982
$13 Million
OIG
EXPENDITURES
COSTS
QUESTIONED
COST
EFFICIENCIES
-------
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL SEMIANNUAL REPORT
APRIL 1, 1982, THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30, 1982
-------
—1—
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This is the seventh semiannual report to the Congress prepared since
an Office of the Inspector General (OIG) was established in the Environuental
Protection Agency (EPA). The reporting requirements, as prescribed by
the Inspector General Act of 1978 arrl other applicable legislation, and
a reference to the page where each requirement is a1dressed are shown on
page iv of this report.
A. ACCCtIPLISHMENTS
In the last six nonths, the OIG surpassed all previous acxxnplishments.
During this period, the OIG staff issued significant reports questioning
TrEre than $465 million. Agency officials concurred in many of our findings
and indicated that act ion would be taken to deobligate, avoid, or recover
approximately $323 million of Federal funds. During all of fiscal 1982,
we questioned $508 million; Agency officials have cai itted themselves to
deobligate, avoid, or recover $370.5 million. Most of these funds will be
used to support other needed projects authorized under the wastewater
treatment works construction grants program.
In dit ion, efforts of our investigative staff to get rrüre involved
with major cases began to bear fruit with the indictment and conviction
of several EPA contractors for antitrust violations and the arrest and
indictment of EPA employees for drug trafficking.
Considering the small size of our OIG staff, the rk accomplished
in this period surpassed our greatest expectations. however, much nore
needs to be ãne before the OIG can truly fulfill the ccmplete realm of
responsibilities set forth in the Inspector General Act.
1. Audits
brk on several major special projects was completed. çase studies
were issued on task force reviews of six selected construction grants.
Based on these studies, a surrunary report was prepared which contained
recaTutendat ions for improving management of the construct ion grants
• pioram. A nationwide audit of change orders under construction grants
was completed. This report will be used as part of a Government-wide
analysis of change otde r procedures performed for the Pres i 3ent’ s Council
on Integrity and Efficiency. An audit of unliquidated obligations in one
region resulted in a canmitment to deobligate nore than $300 million of
construction grant funds. In total, we issued 947 audit reports which
questioned $465 million of the $3.86 billion audited. Agency officials
have continued their concerted efforts to close outstanding audit reports
and have cci ut itted thestselves to deobligate, avoid, or recover $323
million of the costs questioned.
-------
—11--
L tails of the audit acccanplishnents are contained in section I of
this report, which begins on page 1. Apperr3ix 1 provides definitions for
many of the tern used in this report; appendix 2 surrmarizes the audit
reports issued this period; appendix 3 lists all audit reports issued;
and appendix 4 suni arizes the actions taken on outstanding audit reports.
2. Investigations
During the last six months, s cçened(, 6 new invest ations and
closed 47. At present 178 cases are under investigatio J Many of the
investigations in prcx ss are significant cases which require extended
examination. txlring the period, had seven indictnents and convictions,
which resulted in fines totaling $320,000, and other àDllar recoveries
of $9,345. C i the administrative side, investigative efforts resulted in
five terminations and one suspension. ?bre specific information on
investigative activities is presented in section II of this report, which
begins on page 35.
3. Prevention of Fraud, Waste, and 1 buse
Consider leOIQ staff effort was expended during this reporting
period on major pr6jects’ o reduce the potential for fraud, waste, and
abuse under EPA program }The OIG developed questionnaires and briefed
prcxram officials performing vulnerability assessments of their offices.
The OIG is guiding and overseeing this process. Final suspension and
debarment regulations were prcxnulgated, and administrative actions i ave
been initiated. Calls to the hotline have increased suhetantially. In
addition, have reviewed and suggested modifications to propose iegis-
lation and regulations. These activities are discussed more thoroughly
in section III, which begins on page 39 of this report.
4. Support Activities
The OIG is faced with the responsibility for handling a large work-
load with vety limited resources. While better use of resources and
more effective work scheduling have permitted us to fuiction satisfactorily
to date, a large increase in requiren nts for final construction grant
audits may force us to give up other iir portant activities. We have
requested additional travel and contract funds to help us cope with
construction grant audits in the caning year. l½pçerdix 5 analyzes the
audit workload, and appendix 6 analyses OIG staffing.
B. FtYIURE DIRECTICt S1
The future is a challenge. Given our limited resources, wa must
ntin to loc c for new, more effective ways of doing busthess In this
respect, a new approach to construction grant audits has been ë re1oped.
This approach will be less resource intensive and should permit the Agency
to close out many of the construction grant projects without significant
accountability risks.
-------
—111—
Faced with a growing backlog of old construction grants requiring
closeout, the Mministrator established an P ency goal for eliminating
this backlog. The [ j)IG’s grtion of this goal is to canpiete the required
audits of these projectS within one year of their requestr Accordingly,
have made this our highest priority for fiscal 1983. We plan to
acccmplish this goal even if it means reducing or eliminating audits in
other vital areas of management.
The OIG will also strive to he at the forefront of other Government-
wide initiatives. If resources are available, we will continue to s rk on
projects for the President’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. We will
continue to rk with professional organizations, the Office of Management
and Budget, and other EPA officials to implement the single audit concept.
Continued emphasis will be placed on detecting and preventing fraud,
waste, mismanagement, and abuse in EPA programs and operations.
In facing the future, the OIG will keep in mind the environmental
issues and priorities facing the P ency. Through more effective use of
our resources and a cooperative relationship with Agency officials, we
can better ensure proper management of available resources and iiupro’ied
responsiveness to environmental needs.
-------
—iv --
REEORTING REQ(JIRF2 1EN’IS
The specific reportirx requirements prescribed in the Inspector
General Act of 1978 are listed below. Also included are the reFortir
requir nts which resulted fran Public Law 96—304, the Su lemental
Appropriations and Rescissii n Act of 1980.
source Location in This Report
Inspector General Act
1. Section 4(a)(2)—Reviewof Section III, Part D,
Legislation and Regulations Page 42
2. Section 5(a)(1)—Sigriificant Section I, Parts B and C,
Problems, Abuses, and Deficiencies Pages 6 and 19
3. Section 5(a) (2)—Recaiimendations Section I, Parts B and C,
with Respect to Significant Pages 6 and 19
Problems, Abuses, and Deficiencies
4. Section 5(a)(3)—-Prior Section I, Part D, Page 25
RecaTmendatiorLs Not Yet
Implemented
5. Section 5(a) (4)—Matters Section II, Part B, Page 35
Referred to Prosecutive
Auttori ties
6. Section 5(a)(5) and 6(b)(2)— See Note 1 below
Stittnary of Instances
Where Information was Refused
7. Section 5(a) (6)——List of Audits Appendix 3, Page 50
Public Law No. 96—304
1. Senate Report, Page 11— Section I, Part E, Page 32
Resolution of Audits Appendix 4, Page 89
2. Senate Report, Page 12— Section I, Part E, Page 32
Delir Jt Ent Debts
Note 1: There have been no instances durir this report ir period where
requested information has been refused. l cording1y, . — _ have
noththg to report pursuant to sections 5(a)(5) and 6(b)(2) of
the Inspector General Act of 1978.
-------
-v-
TABLE OF CCt TEN’IS
Page
EXEX2tJ IVE JMMARY i
RE1 RTI 3 REXJJIREMENTS iv
SECrIa I--AUDITS 1
A. ACCOMPLISHMENTS 1
B. SPECIAL P1 DJEC S 6
C. SIGNIFICANT FIND]NS AND R4FNtA TICNS 19
D. STA OF PRICI AUDIT REOt4NENDATIONS 25
E. cYTHER REPORTIN3 RE UIRENEN’IS 32
SECTI II--INVESTIGATIO 35
A. ACGMPLISHMEN’IS 35
B. RE JITS OF REFERRALS 35
C. CURRENT EFFORTS 36
D. INVESTIGATIVE WORKLOAD STATISTICS 37
SEX TIC1 II 1--PREVENTI (1 CF FRAUD, STE, AND ABWE 39
A. IMPLE JTATICt J OF 4B CIRCULAR A-123 39
B. SUSPENSICt AND rEBAI 1ENTS 39
C. H(YILINE 40
D. REVIEWS OF PIOPOSED LEGISLATICX’ AND RE ULATICNS 42
SECtt IV--StJPPORT ACTIVITIES 43
A. S FFI1’13 43
B. TRAVEL 44
C. (X TRACTS 44
APPENDIXES
APPENDIX 1--rEFINITICt J CF TEI 4S USED IN SEMIANNUAL 45
REPORT
APPENDIX 2--SUMW RY OF AUDIT REPORTS IS JED 49
APPENDIX 3--LIST OF AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED 50
APPENDIX 4--SEMIANNUAL S’Th’flJS CF REPORT (1 1 RE9DLAJrICJ 89
OF AIJDTTS
APPENDIX 5--ANALYSIS (F AUDIT WORKLQ D 90
APPENDIX 6--ANALYSIS OF OIG PEI 1ANENT FULL-TIME 91
STAFFINU
-------
—1—
SEC I I--AUDITS
A. AC EPLISHME TS
Durirg this reporting period, the Office of the Inspector General
(OIG) provided coverage which balanced management needs with the mandates
of the Inspector General Act. I Dp priority continued to he given to a
numher of special projects of interest to top EPA and Off ic of Management
and Budget (C IB) officials. As a result, significant resources during
the last six—months wsre spent:
o Canpieting the task force review of six selected construction
grant projects undertaken to identify major problems and
reccmmend means by which such problems can be avoided in
the future;
o Canpie ting reports on EPA’ s port ion of the President’ s
Council on Integrity and Efficiency’s (PCIE) Government—
wide review of construction contract change orx3ers; and
o Participating in other PCIE projects.
Our audit staff also assisted in investigations, canpieted internal
audits of EPA operations, performed limited interim and final audits of
EPA grants and contracts, oversaw audits performed by Independent Public
1 ccountants (IPAs) and State auditors, reviewed various laws arid regulations,
and participated in various projects to help identify arid prevent fraud,
waste, arid abuse in EPA programs.
1. Sunnary Statistics
Audit reports issued for this six—month period are summarized on
page 2.
2. Aualysis of Audit Statistics
(Xir audit reports are classified according to three major types:
internal and management audits of EPA operations; construction grant
audits; arid other grant and contract audits.
-------
—2—
JMMARY (P NJDIT RER)RI’S ISSUED BETWEEN
APRIL 1 AND SEP E74BER 30, 1982
Federal Share
Nunber of ( DDllars in Millions)
Type of I view 1 ports Audited iestioned Set Aside
Internal ar i Managenent
Audits 17 $744 $386
Construction Grant
Audits
Preaward 12 8 0 $3
Interim 36 313 19 17
Final 190 418 14 18
Subtctaj. 238
Otber Grant or Contract
Audits
Preaward 332 2,197 37 171
Interim 52 73 0 2
Final 225 105 9 0
Indirect Ccsts 83 0 0 0
Subtotal 692 2,375 46 173
Total 4/1/82-9/30/82 3,858
Total Prior 6 nonths 704 932 43 30
Total Fiscal 1982 1,651 $3,790 $508 $241
-------
—3—
a. Internal aixi Management A its
The audits of EPA prarams and functions represent internal and
management audits which are done primarily by OIG auditors. These audits
are cons iilered nost valuable in that they pr ride the mechanism for
assessing and improving overall EPA administration. Through such audits,
the OIG staff detetmines whether EPA is cauplying with legal or regulatory
requirements and whether operations can be performed nore effectively,
efficiently, and econanically. These reviews help EPA erate nore
efficiently and simultaneously act to deter p s ible fraud, waste, and
abuse.
During the last six nonths, the OIG issued internal and management
audit reports in the following areas:
Construction Grants 7
Financial Management 10
Total 17
O r office did not attempt in the past to quantify the cc t
benefits of our internal and management audits. In this reporting
period, towever, to becane nore consistent with PCIE reporting
requirements, we began to implement a system for tracking benefits of
internal and management audits. As a result, we identified nore than
$304 million of ccEt efficiencies resulting fran internal and management
audit reports issued during this six—nonth period. The specific cc t
efficiencies are quantified below and discussed in nore detail in part
C.1 of this section (see page 20).
Au unt Discussion
(Millions)
$301.40 i obligations of construction
grant funds based on audit of
obligations in Region 2.
1.35 Deobligations of $1.35 million
in construction grant funds
based on audit of anounts made
available for contingencies in
Region 4. Implementation of
our recanmeixiations will also
save approximately $192,500
of interest annually.
2.00 Recovery being sought on duplicate
payments to one grantee.
Total $304.75
-------
—4—
b. Construction Grant Audits
EPA ’s was tewater treatment works construction grants program is the
largest single program administered by the Environmental Protection
Agency. In the Agency’ s fiscal 1983 budget, the construction grants
program represented $2.43 billion of EPA’s total $3.68 billion budget
(66 percent). As of August 1982, $21.6 billion was obligated on 10,183
active construction grant projects.
Audits of the construction grants program are performed by OIG
staff, IPAs, State auditors, and other Federal agencies. The following
schedule shws the construction grants audit reports caiipleted by source.
Federal Share
Ntinber of ( ODilars in Millions)
Audits Performed by F ports Audited Questioned Set Aside
OIG Staff 73 $121 $ 3 0
IPAs 115 309 12 $29
State Auditors 46 309 18 9
Other Federal Agencies 4 0 0 0
Total 4/1/82-9/30/82 739
Total Prior 6 nonths 260 605 36 28
Total Fiscal 1982 $1,344 $69 $66
c. Other Grant or Contract Audits
EPA also issues many other types of grants and contracts. The OIG
is responsible for performing all types of audits on these grants and
contracts. The OIG also prcwides audit counsel on grants and contracts
to contracting officers and project officers. Pre award audits may be
cbne to prcwide awarding officials with information on the propriety of
costs proposed and the acceptability of accounting and financial management
systems. Fiscal and canpliance audits may be performed to ascertain
the acceptability of costs claimed or reported.
-------
—5—
Like construction grant audits, audits of other grants and contracts
may be perfornied by a niuifrr of sources. The following schedule shows a
breakdown of reports issued by source.
Federal Share
Number of ( tbllars in Millions)
Audits Performed by I çorts Audited iestioned Set Aside
OIG Staff 51 $ 68 $ 9 $ 7
IPAs 28 58 1
State Auditors 2 4 0 0
Other Federal 1 gencies 611 2,245 36 165
Total 4/1/82—9/30/82 692 2,375
Total Prior 6 nonths 422 327 7 2
Total Fiscal 1982 1,114 $2,702 $ $i7
We ant icirate that n t of our future audits of other grants will
be performed by auditors working for our grantees as pert of the single
audit approach called for under Attachrrent P to CX ’IB Circular A—102.
Accordingly, we have planned to perform no such audits with EPA resources
during fiscal 1983. ‘lb date, however, this program still appears to be
in its infancy. t*.irirg the last six rronths, we issued 5 reports on
Attathirent P audits where we were the cognizant agency. In aldition, we
received 17 reports where other Federal agencies were oz nizant. In
these reports, Federal funds totaling nore than $135 million were audited,
but only $16,000 of costs were questioned. This ratio is far lower than
that normally encountered on Federal audits.
3. Cost Benefits of Financial and Coir liance Audits
Because of the length of tirr it takes to resolve audit reports, we
cannot acurately tabulate financial savings which may result fran our
work in this period. breover, many of our findings may not result in
“savings” in the true sense; instea3, they may result in a nore effective
and efficient EPA program operation, or they may serve to prevent future
instances of possible fraud or other irregularities. In many instances,
these latter improvements are even rrore important than cost recoveries.
Cur audit tracking and control system ( a’CS) does identify, however, the
axTount of costs questioned and sustained during the last six nonths.
to the sustained emphasis on closing out audit reports during
this six—nonth period, EPA closed out an edditional 886 audit reports,
sustaining $19.2 million of costs questioned. This represents $18.4
million for which Agency management has indicated it is establishing
accounts receivable and is initiating recovery action, and $0.8 million
of cost efficiencies resulting fran reductions made in contract or grant
awauds as the result of preawarti audits.
-------
—6—
B. SPECIAL PI )IJECPS
A major port ion of the OIG’ s internal resources is devoted to special
projects. I acting to inguiries from the President’s Council on Integrity
arid Efficiency, the Alministrator, other top Agency officials, members
of the House or Senate, or internal assessments of Agency programs, the
Inspector General may initiate special reviews or analyses of areas with
potentially sigeificant problems. Through such special reviews, resources
are brought to bear on problems which need to be a3dressed nationwide.
In this manner, the OIG gains the knowledge necessary to provide irore
meaningful reccma ri3ations to top Agency management. airing the last
six nonths, OIG resources s re utilized on the following special projects.
1. Construction Grants Ai idit Task Fbrce
1 co iizing potential problems in the construction grants program,
the Aäiiinistrator of EPA established a task force to review selected
construction grant projects. This task force, c*iafred by the Inspector
General, included EPA’s Assistant Pdministrator for Water; Director, Office
of Water Program Operations; arid Associate Adeinistrator for Legal arid
&iforcement Counsel. Under this task force, teams composed of auditors
arid engineers representing the Office of the Inspector General, Office
of Water Program Operations, arid Office of Legal Counsel arid Enforcement
ccsnpleted a review of six selected construction grants. The purpose of
the reviews was to identify the major problems which ocairred on each
project, ascertain tie reasons the problems occurred, arid identify any
breakdowns in EPA or State review procedures which siDuld have identified
and prevented such problems. iile the bulk of the rk on these projects
was completed by SeptBther 30, 1982, the final r orts on these reviews
wsre not transmitted until late in November. ¶L E results of five of the
six task force reviews are suninarized below. The other review involved a
project currently under litigation.
a. Three Lakes Water arid Sanitation District, Grand lake, Colorado
The village of Grand Lake was served by a collection system and
treabnent works with an outfall into Shadow Mountain lake. This facility,
originally built in 1953, was rebuilt and updated in 1971 with EPA construction
grant assistance, converting the existing trickling filter plant to an
extended aeration treatnent system. This facility had a history of poor
operation arid an eff1t nt of unacceptthk quality.
I tier than improve the existing treatment rks again, the grantee
offered to construct a regionwide system. The project as built was not
the least-cost alternative considered, arid adeguate justification for
this project was not den nstrated. Segirentation of the project was not
seriously considered.
-------
—7—
This project, which cc8t over $16 million, was to serve a resident
population of sine 380 persons and an estimated total population of up
to 8,000 persons during the sunui r recreational season. Exporting the
was tewater out of the lake’s drainage area contributed greatly to the
project costs when existing studies showed that secondary effl nt
discharges to the lake waters would not violate established water quality
standards.
Team obeervat ions of sele cted collection lines--previously determined
to be eligible for EPA perticipetion--indicated that less than two—thirds
of ne tracts were inhabited • In one area, the extension of the system
to provide service to eight houses appeared not to be ccet effective.
Citizen allegations that the system charges were inequitable were
noted, and examination of the circumstances seemed to support the
allegations in two areas: (1) inequitable fees levied and (2) credits
allcMed sane users in lieu of user charges.
b. Thayne, Wyaning
Thayne, Wyanirrg, a nal1 agricultural cannunity of about 200, is
located in the upper Star Valley in the n untainous region of west central
Wyaning about 60 miles south of Jackson, Wyaning. Agriculture in this
valley is largely dependent upon dairy farming. A construction grant was
awarded to Thayne in July 1973 for $341,925 as the Federal share of a
wastewater collection and treatment works estimated to cost $455, 900.
This facility was primarily to treat the wastes fran a cheese plant
located just outside the tc in boundaries, since 96 percent of the organic
loading and 93 percent of the flow volume were fran this source.
In the spring of 1974, the contract for construction was let to the
1c es t bidder of five contractors offering bids. During construction,
the contractor declared benkruptcy. The construction was of poor quality
and was incanplete. The town cpted to accept a cash settlement fran the
bonding canpeny rather than require that it ccmplete the project. The
anount accepted was in 3equate to a ier required work. During the
construction period, EPA increased the grant anount to $392,000 as the
project costs increased to $522,000.
The cheese plant began discharging wastewater to the system in 1975
without any written agreement between perties concerning the volume or
strength of the discharge. About the time the discharge began, the
ownership of the cheese plant changed, as did its product. The new
operations resulted in a tenfold increase in the pollutional load,
resulting in severe odors and operational -failure.
-------
—8—
Pdditional funds were provided in 1978 for system improvements,
resulting in a project cost of $1.1 million. EPA increased its grant by
an additional $317,325, and the Econanic Development Pi.Ininistration
awarded a $300,000 grant for correction of deficiencies ineligible for
EPA participation.
It became abundantly evident that the dischatges fran the cheese
plant were excessive and the nodified system would be inoperable.
Therefore, in August 1980 the town disconnected the industry fran the
treatment system.
Our review of this project showed that:
Management was faulty at all levels. The town of Thayne
failed to enter into a written areement with the cheese
plant on discharge limitations and dk3 not adequately nonitor
construct ion, maintain proper accounting and contract records,
or operate the facility properly. The State justification
for the project was faulty, and the State took no action to
require the cheese plant to limit its discharge to the treatment
system. EPA f 5ed a municipal project to solve an industrial
problem and accepted a lower level of treatment than was
previously required.
o The original justification for the project was inadequate.
It was based on State osrtification that Thayne’s septic
systems could potentially cause a health hazard, but no effort
had been made to correct the t or three systems causing the
potential.
o The project no longer treated the industrial waste which
created the prime need for the facility. Ou August 6, 1980,
Thayne disconnected the cheese plant fran the treatment system
after it became evident that the cheese plant’s excessive
discharge would make the repaired system inoperable and the
two parties could not readi agreement on discharge limits.
o Construction was poor. Sewer lines were built with leaking
joints and breaks in the pipe; poor canpact ion of soil at the
blower building resulted in cracks in the building wall; the
pond liner was improperly installed; and the irrigated area
was inadequately graded.
o The design contained features which led to severe operational
problems. These features included poor evaluation of the
quantity and quality of wastewater to be treated, an extended
holding period for partially treated cheese plant wastewater
in the pump wet well (resulting in severe odors), and poor
control over the aeration function in the aeration tank.
-------
—9—
c. North and South Shenango Joint Municipal Authority, Pennsylvania
North and South Shenango are in a small, sparsely p ulated, ncstly
rural area in northwestern Pennsylvania. The facilities built at Shenango
were quite extensive and covered a large acreage. There were over 70
miles of collecting sewer pipes and ier 7 miles of interceptor sewer
pipes. These lines used 22 pumps, and all fed to one treatment plant.
This $15 million was tewater treatment facility consisted of 15
constructkn or supply contracts, 14 of sthich were classified as grant
eligible. However, the review team found:
o The need for wastewater collection and central treatment was
not a3equately established.
o Eligibility reguireinents for the collector and interceptor
sewers were not adeguately evaluated by EPA Region 3 or
Pennsylvania prior to grant awards. Significant aitounts of
vacant land were sewered. Therefore, the entire grant appeared
ineligible for Federal participation because of nonccxripliance
with 40 CFR 35.925—13, Sewage Collection System, arid appendix
Ato4OCFR35,subpartE.
o The metk d of was tewater treatment to be afforded was not
sufficiently analyzed as to type, quantity of flow, size of
plant, segmenting and sequancing of construction, or cost
effectiveness.
o The grantee did not have at the time it applied for the
grant, nor did it have during our review, the capability of
canplying with 40 CFR 30.340, Resronsthle Grantee, or 35.925—5,
Funding and Other Capabilities.
Notwithstanding the above shortcanings, a grant was awarded arid a
wcr s tem was built. Yet, because of flawed pipe joints, a majority
of the sewer lines leaked, causing massive infiltration which led to
sewer overflows arid excessive pump wear. The overflows were a pDllut ion
s uroa which did not exist before the system was constructed. As a result
of this deficiency, cartain loans were not obtained, and the North and
South Shenango Joint Municipal Autbority filed for bankruptcy.
-------
—10--
d. Detroit, Michigan
Between 1968 and 1981, Detroit received over $400 million in Federal
grants for the planning, design, and construction of regional wastewater
treatment facilities in the Detroit metropolitan area.
(1) Planning
Our review identified a nuirber of significant weaknesses and
concanitant planning deficiencies ‘.tiid resulted fran a lack of effective
planning regulations and guidance fran EPA arr3 the State of Michigan
prior to the passage of Public Law 92—500. Detroit’s administration of
the planning process also was deficient due to managerial and financial
weaknesses and the inability of Detroit’s consultants to apply today’s
good planning practices and iretlodologies.
We found that the plans developed in 1964 and 1966, s thich were the
basis for the design and construction of aln st all major interceptors
and treatment facility imçrovenents, only provided a basic frame rk, in
sharp contrast to today’s detailed facilities planning documents. These
plans failed to evaluate the cost effectiveness of alternatives, develop
priorities and schedules for achieving pollution control requirements,
and identify project management and financial arrangements catmensurate
with effectively implementing such a xinplex, extensive regional program.
¶I adverse impacts of these planning deficiencies--unnecessary
capacity in sane areas, insufficient treatment capabilities in others,
inoçerable facilities, and delays in canpliance with effluent and water
qi lity requirements——were specific indicators of weaknesses in Detroit’s
program. We found that specific corrective actions resulted fran a
series of “new” planning reports, produced since pranulgation of EPA’s
planning regulations in 1974. Ibwever, we concluded that a mixture of
positive and negative aspects was associated with these planning efforts,
whith in’ olved over $25 million in EPA grants. The positive aspect was
that EPA, the State, and the city realized cons i 3erable savings by avoiding
the design and construct ion of unnecessary projects, based on a reevaluation
of data on population projections, costs, and envirorinental impacts.
The negative aspects included the voluminous nature of planning reports
and their failure to address the problems of intetgovernnental cooperation
and of financing the recatinended construction.
-------
—11—
(2) Design and Construction
From this limited review, we were only able to identify major design
and construction deficiencies. We found specific design deficiencies
associated with bath liquid- ard solids—processing units at the treatment
plant, and both design and construction deficiencies associated with the
East Arm interceptor system. As a result of these deficiencies, the
capacity of the treatment plant h been reduced, the East Arm system
did not function as originally intended, and the useful life of the
interceptors could not be assured.
During our review, the capacity of the Detroit was tewater treatment
plant was restricted to a flow substantially below that for which it was
originally intended, due to design deficiencies arx a diange in the
definition of secondary treatment • The n t serious deficiency was the
poor design of the secondary clarifiers. Other design deficiencies
included out-of-sequence construction of process units, a malfunctioning
scum incinerator, and a lack of prcçer equipment to control flows and to
nonitor operations.
In its final 15 miles, the East Arm interceptor, constructed at a
ccst of over $60 million, was oversized, and the interceptor h not
been connected to the treatment plant. This lack of a connection required
separate sanitary sewage from Detroit’s newer suburbs to be transported
in cathined sewers after entering the city of Detroit, and as a result
large anounts of this previously separate sewage were discharged to the
Detroit River during wet weather overflows.
‘I sections of interceptors coll sed in the East Arm interceptor
system. At the request of EPA, the U.S. Army Cot:ps of Engineers analyzed
the second co1l se and concluded that design and construction deficiencies
contributed to that collapse and that potential safety and construction
problems may exist elsewhere in the system as a result of similar design
and construction practices on the entire East Arm system. A subsequent
inspection of the East Arm system identified tw a]ditional areas where
corrective act ions were recommended.
(3) Grantee Management
Before 1977——at which time over 50 percent of Detroit’s existing
facilities were inoperable-—Detroit was not effectively managing its
was tewa ter treatment prcgram; however, due primarily to EPA enforcement
action in 1977 and a change in program aãninistrators in 1979, Detroit
ma3e substantial progress in imprcwirr its management capabilities. As
of June 1981, Detroit was, for the first time, in compliance with its
secondary effluent requirements. Although Detroit rna:le substantial
progress--especially in the areas of funding, staffing, and training--our
survey identified certain problems——funding, preventive maintenance, and
the accounting system--where a ditiona1 corrective actions were needed.
Our survey also ixientified certain items which warranted an in-depth
review, audit, or pcesible investigation.
-------
—12—
e. Washington, D.C., Metropolitan Area
Considering that itore than $1 billion ($770 million Federal share)
had been expended on planning, designing, and constructing treatment
works in the Washington area, one would have expected that the area
would be well on its way to resolving its wastewater treatment problems.
Unfortunately, this was not the case.
(1) Planning
The lack of a regional Ixx y with authrity to manage wastewater
treatment ross jurisdictional lines hampered the planning process:
o Regional planning efforts did not succeed in recanmerxling
a cept l treatment facilities for the Washington metropolitan
area.
o Planning efforts were not successful in dealing with local
governments’ opposition to proposed sitings for wastewater
treatment works and sludge facilities.
o Negotiations with parties involved failed to ensure that
solutions proposed on even a case—by—case basis were
appropriate or accept le to all involved parties.
As a result, public f rx3s were wasted, and time and Tioney were lost
in extensive and costly litigation efforts.
Even in tlxse instances where there was apparent agreement on needed
regional facilities, sare local camiunities later cthanged their positions
and blocked cons truct ion. In sane instances, this resulted in nil lions
of dollars being spent in constructing facilities rendered virtually
valueless by local cximtinities refusing to (x)nstruCt canponent parts of
regional facilities already started.
Througlxut this process, Region 3 officials diligently tried to
negotiate and settle differences between parties, but did not use avail le
regulatory powers. When roadblocks arose which prevented acceptance of
previous planning efforts or slowed construction of needed facilities,
Region 3 apprcwed further planning efforts. Mditional planning efforts,
however valu le in tl iiselves, have not resolved the basic problem:
lack of regional cooperation.
-------
—13—
(2) Unused Facilities
About $50 million of public funds had been expended for facilities
Which were not being utilized as intended. In addition, an administrative
building constructed partially with grant funds was unnecessarily ornate.
These situations occurred because respnsthle parties did not properly
irr plement their planning and design decisions. FurthenTore, When grantees
elected not to canpiete the rk on segmented projects for Which substantial.
expenditures had already been made, neither the State nor EPA exerted
sufficient leverage to get the projects satisfactorily canpleted.
(3) Operation and Maintenance
At the tine of our review, the Blue Plains treatment plant was
running with several major operating cx)nstraints:
o A lack of adequate information as to flows through the plant;
o Major portions of the facility—west bank of primaries and
multimedia filters——out of service; and
o Inadequate facilities to handle even the District of Coluithia’s
—-much less the suburbs’ ——share of sludge.
1 ecords si-owed that Blue Plains had violated its disthar e permit.
Previous reviews at Blue Plains indicated that the plant was overloaded
and was discharging pollutants in excess of the established legal limits.
By taking full advantage of the operational capabilities of the facilities
remaining in service and using chemical additives, Blue Plains operators
were achieving a remarkable level of treatment. However, once the primaries
are renc:vated and full flow through the plant is resumed, such levels of
treatment will not be p sible.
The lack of appropriate operation and maintenance had long been a
problem at Blue Plains. Slxrtages of staff severely reduced or eliminated
preventive maintenance prorams. Shortages of repair parts led to
cannibalization and shutdown of operating units or processes. Worn out
or defective equipment was not always replaced in a tiiiely manner. At
the time of our review, major safety questions were being raised with
respect to the digester gas collection and storage system and the chlorine
system. These apparent operation and maintenance problems could represent
a disaster just waiting to occur.
-------
—14—
(4) Financial Management
Improied financial management controls were needed both at the
District of Columbia and the Washingthn..Suburban Sanitary Ccimiiss ion
(WSSC). Previous OIG audits showed that project accounting records and
controls must be strengthened to:
o Differentiate between eligible and ineligible costs (D.C.
and ‘ESC);
o Ensure that direct charges for work actually performed by
the grantee were made to the appropriate projects (D.C.); and
o Substantiate the merit of and relative responsibility for
claims (D.C. and SC).
As a result of these kinds of weaknesses, recent OIG reports
questioned or set aside nore that $20 million of costs claimed under EPA
grant projects.
Imprwements were also needed to ensure that sufficient finds to
operate and maintain the District’s wastewater treatment facilities were
generated by means of an equitable cost distribution system.
f. Si.rui ary I port
Based on analysis of these reviews and cons ii3eration of the broader
aspects af the cons truct ion grants program, the Construct ion Grants Audit
Task Force drafted a sununary report recaTunending actions the qency
should take to improve management of the construction grants process.
This report set forth eight proposed principles to guide management
decisions on existing and future grant projects:
(1) The Pqency will r t divert resources fra n needed projects to
fund measures to redress poor performance of previously
ft.nded projects.
(2) Program resources will be directed toward projects which
offer the greatest actual water quality improvement at the
lowest cost.
(3) Program resources will be directed toward projects which
focus on ahateirent of existing pollution problems.
(4) The 1 qency will work to foster orderly improvement in sewage
treatment technology.
(5) The Pi ency will require evidence of grantee financial
management capability.
-------
—15—
(6) The ency will enforce strict stardards of cost eligibility.
(7) The Agency will enforce statutory powers with all resources
available.
(8) The ? gency will not prcwide grant assistance to replace,
through reconstruction or ubs, treatnent s rks
that were built with Federal assistance that fail prior to
initiation of o erat ion or do not neet project çerformance
standards due to imprc er design, poor construct ion, or
grantee mismanagement.
The Office of Water will emphasize these principles throughout the
various phases of the construct ion grants program management process.
For example, these principles will pr ride a foundation for developnent
of future guidance cbcurrents. Also, these management principles will be
dressed in the annual evaluation of regional office water programs and
the çeriodic assessments by EPA regional offices of State—managed
construction grants.
2. Change Order Audits
(Xir office issued a final audit report (El l—ll—O038—2l57l) on the
ac ninistration of change orders under EPA’s construction grants program.
This review was conducted as an integral part of a Government-wide
evaluation of construction contract change orders undertaken at the
request of the Presix ent’s Council on Integrity and Efficiency. The
audit included a review of 26 grantees in Regions 3, 5, 9, and 10, with
247 construction contracts valued at $1.4 billion and 2,318 related
change orders cumulatively valued at irore than $58 million. The report
concluded:
.the former regulations requiring EPA apprcwals of
change orders didn’t rk... .under “Adequacy of Review,”
we delnDnsftated that EPA officials were apparently
“rubber stamping” the provals of change orders and
in some instances even waiving the regulatory requirements.
We also found that only a few grantees ha3 EPA on-site
reviews çe rformed on their procurement systems.
-------
—16—
Many of the previously “approved” change orders were
found to contain thar es which we believe are not
legitimate ccEts in which EPA should be required to
participate. ‘ lb illustrate, of the 346 change orders
we reviewed at a value of $40,647,000, 147 change
orders (valued at ($6,025,000) potentially related to
design deficiencies attributable to the A/E [ ardiitect/
engineering] firms. In 5dition, 88 change orders
(valued at $22,620,700) were for differing site
corxlitiors. In our opinion, many of these change
orders possibly occurred because of inadequate work by
the grantee, A/E firms or construction contractors.
In our opinion, EPA’s relaxation of regul3tions did
ncthing to impede the proper management and control
of change order ccsts. The final responsibility for
acouptanos and payment of charge orders has always been
with the grantee. If the grantee properly reviews change
order requests, identifies the reason that change orders
are required, holds all involved parties responsible for
the aiequacy of their work, reviews cost and pricing data
against independent estimates and cost , and
meaningfully negotiates and cbcuments the negotiation
process, few exceptions should arise to change orders.
The question is how EPA can best ensure that charge
orders are thoroughly reviewed. With grantees only
financing a snail portion of the cost of a project
(generally 10 to 25 çerosnt), it is questionable how
many grantees will fully consider the total cost
impact of the change orders they are evaluating. In
this situation, it would be quite easy to rationalize
that payment of a change order would be less costly
than potential litigation. Under the proram as it
currently exists, we can only reca mend that EPA:
1. E nphasize to its grantees that they:
a. are ultimately responsible for ensuring the propriety
and accaptability of costs under charge orders.
b. need to obtain training for their grants pers nnel or
hire the necassary expertise to throughly review charge
orders.
c. will be held responsible for failing to properly review
and evaluate change orders; i.e., EPA will not participate
in costs related to ineligible or unallowable activities.
-------
—17—
2. Encourage grantees to initiate time extension change
orders as szon as possible once the necessity and
rea ns for such extensions can be determined.
3. Evaluate the benefits resulting frai i the use of
construction managers to review and evaluate change
orders. If such assistance prcwides an effective
mechanism for i nprc ving qrantee managerrent of change
orders, EPA should cons icier requiring such services on
major grant projects or major change orders.
4. Review the various estimating guides in use to:
a. determine the validity and acceptability of their use
for estimating costs under EPA ’s construction grants
program; and
b. prcvide guidance on the proper use or application of
guides.
5. Ensure that delegated State agencies closely scrutinize
change orders which necessitate any grant amendments to
ensure that only meritorious changes are funded which are:
a. within the scope of the project;
b. not caused by the grantee’s mismanagement; and
c. not caused by the grantee’s vicarious liability for the
irnprope r act ions of others.
n alternative to this approach might be to decline to
pert icipate in the cost of change orders substantially
in excess of the amount normally encountered in construc-
tion projects. EPA grant awards generally contain a
three to five percent contingency to cover such items
as change orders. If EPA did not perticipate in
changes beyond this amount, grantees would have an
increased burden to ensure that all changes were, in
fact, necessary. Additionally, grantees would be
encouraged to ascertain whether or not their engineers
or construction con tractors were at fault and hold
them responsible for any increase in costs caused by
their inadequate performance. In our opinion, such
an approach could also do much to imprGJe the overall
quality of design and inspection efforts. If the agency
believes that this approach might be appropriate but
lacks necessary statutory authority to implement such
changes, we believe the agency should cons ii3er seeking
the necessary legislative changes.
-------
—18-
The Off i of Water basically concurred with our findings and
irthca tel that act ion was undetway to implement our recarrmerdations.
3. President’s Council Projects
1) rir the last six nonths, the Office of the Inspector General has
worked on several major projects for the President’s Council on Integrity
aid Efficiency.
a. Performance Evaluation Comnittee
The Performance Evaluation Catii ittee is res xnsib1e for devising
a system for evaluating the effectiveness of the Inspectors General.
1)iring the last six rionths, the Performance Evaluation Carunittee, chaired
by EPA Inspector General Matthew N. Novick, has worked with CI4B aid the
IGs of cther agencies to finalize the reprting categories aid definitions
used for the PCIE’s semiannual sumary report. The foous in this effort
was to:
o Identify thDse measures of output arK] results which can
Iwst meaningfully be quantified; aid
o Provide necessary rationale aid constraints regarding each
resorting element so that the readers of the rerxrt can better
understand the informat ion provided.
Final recaruiendations on regrting categories have been distributed
to all PCIE me thers. We anticipate that these categories will be adopted
at the next PCIE meeting arid used for the sulTinary reFort covering
October 1, 1982, thrcugh March 31, 1983.
Staff menters working for the caiinittee also drafted:
o Imput arid workload measurements. Such measurements
would ovide a nore consistent basis for determining
an IG’ s workload arid resource requirements.
o Quality standards for the Offices of Inspector General.
These standards set forth the expectations with which a good
Office of Inspector General is expected to cauply.
-------
—19--
These drafts are currently under review by the Cari’nittee members
aitl 0MB prior to distribution for canment.
b. Unliquidated Obligations
The final report on our unliquida ted obligations audit in Region 2
was issued (see section C.l.a).
C. SIGNIFICANT FINDfl S AND RECCt4MENDATIC S
rthe items discussed in this section were extracted fran audit
reports issued during this reporting period. As these items represent
our most significant findings, they should not be considered representative
of the cwerall adequacy of EPA operations or programs. Due to the recentness
of sate of these reports, final disposition or reslution has not been
determined. However, each of these items will be followed up, and instances
where our reccxruiendat ions have not been impleitented will be identified
in our next semiannual report.
1. Internal and Management Audits
The following findings were selected fran among our most significant
internal and management audits of EPA programs, activities, and functions.
a. tJnliquidated Obligations, Audit Report Elvw2—02—0029—2l443,
August 1982
By far EPA’s latt est program in terms of expenditures is the waste—
water treatment works construction grants program. Because of a continuing
history of failure by *iie grantees to initiate work on their projects,
EPA has had to initiate controls to ensure that projects move fo ard to
coretuction air] are ccE p1eted in a tiitely manner. Accordingly, section
35.935—9 of EPA’s construction grant regulations states that, if construction
of a step 3 project is not initiated within one year after award, grant
assistance will be terminated. However, a regional administrator may
defer (in writing) the annulment or termination for not more than six
additional months if:
(1) The grantee has plied for and justified the extension in
writing to the regional administrator;
(2) The grantee has given written notice of the request for
extension to the National Rllutant Discharge Elimination
Sy tern pe imii t autiDri ty;
(3) The regional administrator determines that there is good
caise for the delay in initiation of project construction;
and
(4) The State agency concurs in the extension.
-------
—20—
Should grant funds be deobligated, they can then be used for other
projects within the State, consistent with the State project priority
system.
To determine the validity of construction grant obligations in
Region 2, we reviewed a sample of 54 grants with unliquidatec3 obligations
totaling $727 million. The auditors concluded that $381 million of
these obligations should have been deobligated. This included 24 grants
totaling $272 million where work had not been started as of July 15, 1981
(these grants were awarded up to 61 nonths before our review), and 12
grants tx)taling $109 million for which no progress payments had been
made in riore than 2 years.
Regional officials generally concurred with our findings and indicated
that appropriate act ions would be taken to deobligate the inappropriate
obligations and to install procedures to prevent such occurrences in the
future. In September, the Region had terminated and/or deobligated
grants totaling $300 million. Upon learning of the results of one audit
in Region 2, EPA’s 1 dminis tra tor transmitted a copy of the report to all
other regional administrators and requested them to review the validity
of their construction grant obligations and deobligate any inappropriate
obligations in their regions.
b. Payments under Grant to Spokane, Washington, Audit Report
ElhW2—lO—007l—209l9, May 1982
In response to a request frcm Region 10’s General Counsel, we
reviewed payments made under EPA grant C530580. In addition to double
claiming the $100,964 of design costs questioned in audit report
E2cW1—lO-0001—1153l, the grantee also double claimed the total costs of
grant segment 01. This resulted in a duplicate payment to the grantee
of $2,079,291. We reccxtmended that the Region recover this overpa nt.
Regional officials concurred and indicated that recc ery would be initiated.
c. Contingency Allowances under Constructon Grants, Audit Report
ElzWl—04—0087—2l093, June 1982
A contingency allowance is a reserve included in the project budget
to c ier diange orders and cost overruns. Canntn practice has been to
allow a 10 percent contingency allowance at the time of grant award and
to adjust it to between 3 and 5 percent of construction cost after receipt
of bids.
In Region 4, we reviewed 68 projects and found that 34 (50 percent)
hal contingency allowances in excess of the 5 percent limit contained
in EPA’ s Construction Grants Handbook of Procedures . We recairnended that
EPA reduce the obligations on these grants and institute procedures to
ensure that obligations were appropriately adjusted in the future.
-------
—21—
Regional officials generally concurred with our findings and deobligated
$1.35 million of construction grant funds. This action should save the
Goverruient an esti nated $192,500 of interest costs each year.
2. Construction Grant Audits
The following fin 3ings were selected fran the most significant
construction grant audit reports.
a. Payments for Inoperable Facilities
(1) Audit Report E2cW2—07—0065—20946, Williamsburg Sewer
District, Fulton, Missouri
A final audit was performed on a grant awarded to the Williamsburg
Sewer District, Fulton, Missouri, for construction of a lift station, a
waste treatment plant, and three interceptors. The project was estimated
at $563,400, with a Federal share of $422,500. Through June 1974, the
grantee had been reintursed $294,600 in Federal funds. A final inspection
by EPA on Noventer 13, 1974, found that construction was essentially
ccuiplete, but that there were no hockups. Consequently, EPA recatu nded
no further payment. A second inspect ion was canpie ted on January 23, 1980.
At that time, the facility was found to be canpletely aban&ned. The
inspection report stated: “Neither water nor electrical sewice was ever
brought to the plant. Many of the pipe related structures have had the
fill material erxled away by flash flcxx s and are toppled over or are
disjointed. The prefabricated metal building has been shot with rifle
bulk ts numerous times. The nearest res ii3ence to the treatment plant is
sate five miles away and the only improvements within the District’s
boundaries are those which were EPA funded; i .e., collect ion, interceptor,
and treatment facilities.” The auditors confirmed that the grantee had
failed to canply with grant terms in that the facility was inc erable.
¶Llerefore, the auditors recanmended recovery of all Federal funds paid to
the grantee, $294,600.
(2) Audit Report P2cWO—03—02l6—2l301, Accident, Maryland
A final audit was performed on a grant awarded to the town of Accident,
Maryland, for the construction of a sewage treatment plant and interceptor
sewer lines. The auditors noted serious structural problems in the
system which prevented the treatment plant fran operating as it was
designed. Among the problems reported by the auditors:
o Maitioks located in the storm drain path did not have water-
proof lids.
° A portion of the sewer line was crushed due to rocks in the
backfill.
o Sane of the sewer lines were found to contain horizontal
cracks.
-------
—22—
As a result of these problems, the grantee did not fulfill the grax .
requirement to construct and maintain an operable system in accordance
with the plans and specifications. Until the sewer system is repaired,
none of the $610,000 claimed by the grantee can be accepted.
b. Pa nents for Ineligible Claims
(1) Audit r port P2cWO—03—0117-20929, Hagerstown, Maryland
A final audit was performed on a grant awarded to Hagerstc .in, Matylard.
The auditor found that the grantee hal requested reiirbursement for the
costs of constructing sewer lines through large areas of undeveloped
lard. These sewer lines were apparently constructed for ineligible,
specuiati lard developnent rather than for the pre ntion, control, or
at nt of sewage-caused pollution. The auditors questioned $1.1
million of construction ccsts aix] $100,000 of related engineering fees.
(2) Audit 1 port P2cW1—03—0173 -21146, Mount Union Municipal
Authority, Pennsylvania
A final audit was çerfotmed on a grant awar 3ed to the Mount Union
Municipal Authority, Pennsylvania, for the preparation of plans and
specifications, the construction of sewer lines, and the up ra:iing of a
sewage treatnent plant. The auditors found that the municipal authority
clain ] reiithurseiuent for engineering fees which were not canputed in
accordance with EPA guidelines. The improper canputation of engineering
fees caused the auditors to question $84,000 claimed by the authority.
In a ]dition, the auditors noted that the authority contracted for both
e1igib1 and ineligible construction work for one contractor. Ik ver,
the contractor diarged higher unit prices for eligible items than for
identical ineligib ).e items, resulting in cweral 1 higher costs to the
Federal Go rnnent and lower costs to the municipal authority.
(brsequently, the auditors set aside $112,000 in construction costs
until the municipal authority aix ] contractor justify the difference in
unit price for identical items. As a result of the audit, the municipal
authority was requested to repay the Federal Government $135,364.
(3) Audit 1 port P2cW2—10—0036—21469, Valdez, Alaska
In a final audit of grants awarded to Valdez, Alaska, auditors
questioned $392,150 claimed for the construction of three lift stations.
‘Il-e stations h 3 been specifically identified as ineligible when EPA
apprcwed the contract.
-------
—23—
(4) Audit Report S2cWO—09-0223--2l437, North San Mateo
County Sanitation District, California
In a final audit of grants awarded to the North San Mateo County
Sanitation District, California, auditors questioned (1) $658,335 which
hai been clain 3 but not incurred, and for which no su çorting documentation
existed; and (2) $783,666 which ha been erroneously claimed because the
grantee did not reduce claimed costs by the project’s eligibility factors.
(5) Audit Report E2bW1—09—0240—2103l, Petaluma, California
An interim audit was performed on the EPA construction grant awarded
to the city of Petaluma to plan, design, and construct a punp station,
force main, oxidation ponds, and an outfall as an &5dition to the grantee’s
existing wastewater treatment facilities. At the time of audit, the
grantee hal claiii d $6,216,181 ($4,662,136 Federal share), and the audit
disclosed question&,le expenditures of $729,973 ($547,480 Federal share).
The costs qi s tioned cons is ted principally of (1) construct ion bid items
declared ineligible by program officials and (2) technical service costs
allocable to ineligible construction and incurred after the scheduled
construct ion canpiet ion date. The grantee’s response to the draft report
indicated reservations on a position pend ir g further evaluation.
c. Ina ropriate Claims
(1) Audit Report S2bW2—09-0213—2l160, Victor Valley
Wastewater Reclamation Authority, California
An interim audit of the EPA construction grant showed that the
grantee hal entered into a sewage utility agreement in which an Air Force
base h agreed to pay a connection charge of approximately $2.4 million
as its share of the costs of constructing the sewerage project. As of
the close of field work, the grantee hed actually collected $1.9 million
of this amount. The grantee ha not, however, appropriately reduced
grant costs by the $1.9 million prcvided by the Air Force. In responding
to the audit, the grantee indicated that there was sane question as to
whether or not there was sufficient capacity available to permit connection
of the Air Force base. It is our opinion that if the Air Force base is
not connected, the Air Force will be entitled to a full refund of amounts
paid.
-------
—24--
(2) Audit Report P2bW1—04—0121—21323, Sanitation District
No. 1 of Campbell and Kenton Counties, Kentucky
An interim audit was performed on grants awarded to Sanitation
District Nuither 1 of Campbell and Kenton Counties, Kentucky, for
construction of a treathent plant, pimp stations, interceptor sewers,
and force mains. The grantee received $625,000 ($458,000 Federal share)
fran a bid bond forfeiture when the low bidder failed to perform. The
grantee did not reduce the project ccsts by the incczie received. The
item was cxnitted by the grantee since the grantee believed its grant was
reduced by the an unt of the bid bond forfeiture. EPA had intended to
reduce tie anount of the grant to the grantee, but through administrative
error the bond forfeiture lcst its identity.
(3) Audit Report P2cW1—03—0144—21302, Willistown ¶Ibwnship
Municipal Auttority, Pennsylvania
In a final audit of an EPA construction grant, the auditors noted
that the grantee claimed reiirburseuent under this grant for payments made
to two other townships for its share of ccets of unrelated additional
wastewater treatment facilities. The other t townships were recipients
of EPA grants aid were cons tructir a joint conveyance and treathent
facility which would cannodate Wihistown ¶Ibwnship as well as themselves.
In effect, Wihistown Thwnship attempted to thtain reintursement for its
share of ccsts on other EPA projects. The questioned ccets of $991,448
were 20 percent of the total claimed by the grantee.
d. Elaborate Construction
(1) Audit Report P2bW1—06—0070—2l501, Dallas, Texas
An interim audit was performed on a grant awarded to the city of
Dallas, Texas. Under the prcwisions of CuB Circular A-87, which states
that allowable ccsts must be “necessary aid reasonable for proper and
efficient administration of the grant prcgram,” the auditors questioned
$110,094 claimed for an outdoor display fountain aid $446,512 claimed for
laidscapirrj. In the same report, the auditors also q .estioned $731,939
of claime for a variety of ineligible technical services.
-------
—25—
3. Other Grant or Contract Audits
The following findings were selected fran the most significant
audit reports on other grants or contracts.
a. Audit Report E5c02—1O--0076—21089, Departn nt of Ecology,
Washington
The State of Washington had claimed a credit of $7,132,503 against
its share of any costs incurred uncèr the Ccmprehensive Environmental
ResporEe, Canpensation, and Lithility Act (cannonly known as superfund)
for CaTulEncement Bay, Washington. EPA auditors concluded that none of
the purposes for which the $7,132,503 had been incurred met the criteria
set forth in section 111(a) of the autiDrizing legislation, PL 96—510.
The grantee disagreed with the conclusion.
b. Audit Report E5cH2—04—0185—2l504, State of North Carolina
The State of North Carolina had claimed a superfund credit of $493,113
for cleaning up polychlorinated biphenyls which had leen discharged along
211 siDulder miles of roadway. The auditors questioned $44,536 which had
been claimed under other EPA grants and $141,556 claimed for land originally
purchased for a lardfill but not used in that capacity.
D. STA!IUS OF PRIOR AUDIT RECCt4MENnkTIC S
EPA Order 2750.2 prescribes uniform requirements and procedures for
processing and resolving audit findings and recannendations. It includes
specific procedures for referring unresolved issues to the next highest
organizational level and to the Agency’s Audit Resolutions Board when
necessary.
Findings and recannerx3ations which remain unresolved f ran our prior
semiannual reports are primarily canplex issues that warrant further
management review and study. There are, however, sane cases where Pi ency
officials have not answered our audit reports.
-------
—26—
¶It following schedule slxws actions talcen with respect to the audit
firx3irigs previously reported as significant.
Number of Number of Number of
Reports Included Reports Reports
in Previous Closed r ring Rerraining
Category Sen iannual Reports Period Unresolved
0iJ3 Report Coc ering
10/1/81—3/31/82 19 15 4
Previous OIG Reports 14 7 7
¶Lttal II
a S —
Listed belc are items previously reported that require further
action. ‘I\D facilitate referencing these “open” items to the prior OIG
report, we have identified the pages where these items were previously
presented. This cross-referencing pears in parentheses following the
healing of eath prior finding.
1. Findings First Reported in Our Outober 1, 1981, to March 31, 1982,
OIG Semiannual Report
a. Aixlit Report P2bWl—03—043&-20472, Issued February 11, 1982,
Washington Suburban Sanitary Cciwnission (Page 14 )
As part of a segn nted project, one Maryland canmunity installed a
108-inch outfall on a sewage treati ent plant which was to be later
expanded. The caiumnity subsequently decided that it did not want to
expand the plant to treat sewage fran other caimunities in the region.
Accordingly, the canmunity took action both to preclude connection with
other treatnent plants in the area and to prevent expansion. We questioned
the $3.6 million of extra cost incurred to increase the plant’s outfall
to 108 inches.
A response was received f ran Region 3 officials. This response
was not considered a cept le, however, because although the regional
officials basically agreed with our findings, they indicated that no
corrective actions would be initiated until ongoing planning efforts
were ccrnple ted.
b. Audit Report E2aW1—09—0406—2047l, Issued February 10, 1982,
Eureka, California (Page 14 )
EPA prcwided nore than $24.9 million to one regional water authority
to construct a regional wastewater treatiTent system to serve five catinunities.
After further evaluation, the involved camnunities decided they did not
want a regional system. Iastea , three of the carinunities elected to
build their c n individual systems.
-------
—27—
lb accanplish this, the total remaining funds fran the regional
project were transferred to one of the cxinmunities. This canrnunity was
to subgrant noney to the other carinunities for their port ions of the
project. In auditir this project, we concluded that these actions were
not in conformance with EPA regulations.
In addition, we found that the individual canmunities ha:1 spent
nore than $4.2 million in replanning and redesigning the proposed systems.
As EPA had already financed its portion of the planning and design costs
of the regional system and the decision not to ahead with that system
was the thoice of the local canirunities, we do not believe that the
Federal Government is reguired to participate in these replanning and
redesign costs. Furthernore, we believe that overall Federal part ici-
cation in projects in this area should be limited to $24.9 million (the
Federal grant for constructing the regional system).
We have not yet received a response to this report. We understand
that regional officials are working closely with the Office of General
Counsel and the State to realve the questions raised by our report.
c. Aix1it 1 port P2cW1—06—0fl6—20503, Issued February 18, 1982,
Urania and Tullos, Louisiana (Page 15 )
In touririj a treatment plant constructed with EPA funds, we noted
that:
Muth of the plant was corroded to the point of near collapse;
o ither the grit renoval unit, the carininutor, nor the effluent
flow meter was functioning; and
o Excess 1ids were floating in the aeration basins.
The grantee and its consulting engineer told us that the problem
had existed since the plant began operating, that a lawsuit had been filed
against the plant’s general contractor, and that final payment to the con-
tractor had been withheld. Cbnsidering the condition of the plant and the
litigation involved, we set aside the entire cost of the plant, $348,770.
We have received no response to this report.
d. Andit Report S2bW9—09—0406—20471, Issued February 10, 1982,
San Bernardino, California (Page 15 )
Over $1 million of costs were questioned on the San Bernardino project
because the sludge disposal system was inoperthle. This system was shut
down in August 1975 because of operational problems.
-------
—28—
We have not received a response to this report.
2. Findings Reported in Prior OIG Reports
In the previous OIG semiannual reports which covered the period frai
April 1, 1979, through Septerrber 30, 1981, examples of problems, abuses,
and deficiencies in EPA programs were given and appropriate OIG recannenda—
tions were reported. The following is a report on the status of audits
discussed in those semiannual reports which remain unresolved.
a. Andit Report E1ZOO—09—0196—11002, Issued May 18, 1981,
State of California (Page 20 )
Our review slowed that alti -ough a State agency had pranulgated
guidance concerning the allowability of landscaping costs under
EPA’ s construction grants program, it had not always adhered to this
guidance or to the existing Federal guidelines. ‘lb the contrary, we
found that the State had approved landscaping features which were
considered unallowable under both the Federal and State guidelines.
These guidelines stressed that only reasonable landscaping should be
provided, and that the landscaping should be located around the çerineter
of the treatnent facility. }bwever, our review of 26 construction projects
disclosed that excessive landscaping had been approved for 19, or 73
percent, of the grants. While the landscaping costs represented only a
small percentage of the total construction costs, we estimated that the
excessive landscaping costs on EPA-funded projects in the State could
exceed $10 million.
We recanmended that the State be required to strengthen its review
procedures to ensure that excessive landscaping costs were not accepted as
charges to EPA grants.
In reviewing the response, we noted that Region 9 had not definitely
decided its final course of action. Accordingly, we are continuing to
carry this report c n in our audit tracking and control system.
b. Audit Report E2dWO—02--0092—10937, Issued May 6, 1981,
West Windsor, New Jersey (Page 20 )
(1) iiequacy of Construction
Major construct ion contractors and inspectors representing the
grantee’s consulting engineer did not ensure that sewer lines were properly
constructed in accordance with plans and specifications. Significant
deficiencies were found in installed sewer lines.
o Many of the lines were installed at less than design slopes.
o Many house connections were installed at less than depths
required by plans and specifications.
-------
—29--
o Numerous flexural breaks were caused by an apparent lack of
.riiform, continucus bedding.
o Risers ark 1 “T” connections were not pr erly encased in
concrete.
o Large pieces of as -ialt or rocks were freqt ently directly on
top of or in the immediate vicinity of breaks in the lines.
o Class 2400 asbestos cement pipe ha3 been used where class
3300 pipe was required by the specifications.
Construct ion contractors h 3 apparently tried to conceal the numerous
flexural breaks from EPA, State, aixi grantee officials by gelling the
lines so that they uld pass State tests.
Although actions ha been taken to correct the known deficiencies,
the aiequacy of construction on the remair ier of the lines remained in
doubt. Tb resolve this dilerrina, we recarmended that EPA either (1)
require reexcavation of selected areas throughout the project so that the
adequacy of construct ion can be checked or (2) obtain necessary safeguards
such as TV inspections, exterded warranties, ard assurances of cleaning
ard maintenance.
(2) Resident Inspection
The grantee’s consulting engineering firm did not effectively inspect
construction. We found that:
o Inspectors h 3 not identified many of the construction
deficiencies which ha occurred on the project.
o Even in those instances where actual, latent, or potential
deficiencies were identified, engineering personnel were
ineffective in evaluating the possible conseq nces an3 in
taking necessary corrective action.
o Inspection records contained many inaccuracies. The
inaccuracies remained even after the engineering firm
employees spent cons iderab]e time checking ard rechecking
their data.
Because this engineering firm ha3 been terminated, we made no
specific recctiirendations concerning improvement of inspection services
on the proj ect. We did, however, recatm erd that EPA consider whether
such services were adequate to support the nore than $750,000 claimed
for resident inspection services.
-------
—30—
(3) Change Orders
The grantee’s consulting engineer had not adequately handled change
orders. We found that the firm’s employees did not pxinptly recognize
changed conditions and issue change orders. Change orders which were
identified were not adequately reviewed with respect to nature and scope
of change or reason ]eness of price. In several cases, data prcNided to
the State were inadequate and incanpiete. We recaiutended that the grantee
be required to have its new consulting engineer evaluate each of the
change orders previously subnitted.
(4) Federal and State Pdministration
EPA and State personnel did not always adhere to the requirements in
Federal regulations. Specifically, we found that Federal and State
officials:
o Had apparently authorized full participation in the installation
of interceptor sewers larger than those needed to accannodate
reason ].e projections of future grcMth.
o Had approved the construction of a collection systet without
obtaining any specific canmitment as to time frames for
connection to the regional treatment systems.
o Did not prcwide consistent advice on requests for grant
increases.
We have evaluated 1 g ion 2’s preliminary response to this report.
n overall assessment of the adequacy of West Windsor’s sewer line is
ix 5er review, and litigation has been initiated to require contractors
to take appropriate corrective actions. Until these actions have been
canpieted so that a final determination can be made, we will maintain
this report as active in our audit tracking and control system.
c. ix1it I port P2bWO-03—0236—11556, Issued Septenter 11, 1981,
Washington Suburban Sanitary CaTinission (Page 24 )
Although a grantee constructing a regional treatment system had
spent nore than $36 million constructing initial portions of a segmented
project, one local jurisdiction tcx* action to stop further construction.
Without canpietion of the subsequent portions of the project, the initial
segments were not needed. accordingly, we questioned the total funds
expended to date pending resolution of interjurisdictional disputes and
actual construction of the remaining parts of the project.
A response was reosived fran regional action officials. This
response was rot considered acceptable because, although the regional
officials basically agreed with our findings, they indicated that no
corrective actions would be initiated until ongoing planning efforts
were canpieted.
-------
—31—
d. Audit Report P2bW9—03—0436—fl490, Issued August 28, 1981,
District of Columbia (Page 24 )
Construction costs of $2,504,035 for an cperations control building
were questioned. While EPA ha approved participation in a portion
of the cost of an athninistration building, our engineering staff concluded
that the building was inordinately ornate and ha3 “elegant” construction.
As a result, this building cost $82.31 per square foot as canpared to
the median cost of office space in the area of $34.41 per square foot.
In a dition, we found that only 19 percent of the building’s space was
used by wastewater treatnent personnel.
Regional action officials and the Office of the Inspector General
could not agree on certain major aspects of this problem. Actions are
currently underway to develcp a national policy with respect to aesthetic
features and their eligibility for Federal participation.
e. Audit Report S2cWO—01—0008—11081, Issued June 5, 1981,
Dartmouth, Massachusetts (Page 25 )
AltiDugh an engineering firm h 5 obtained sophisticated, labor-
saving, caiputerized eguipitent for designing sewage treatnent rks, we
found that it did not cons kier possible savings when estimating costs
for design. As a result, we found that this firm ha received a $391,185
lump sum contract for which the engineer h incurred costs totaling
$184,788. Thus, the firm got a $206,397 profit (111.7 percent). We
recanmended that appropriate defective pricing clauses be invoked to
reduce eligible costs to a reasonable level.
We have not received a response to this report.
f. Audit Reports P2cW9—06—0l00—10683 and P2cW9—06—0199—
10681, Issued March 5, 1981, Port of New Orleans (Page 28 )
¶E D grants with claimed costs totaling $2.8 million were awarded to
a port aitFxrity. Because the port autFority did not have jurisdiction
over the disposal of sewage, industrial wastes, or other wastes, it was
ineligible to receive construction grant funds under the provisions of
the Clean Water Act.
We have received no response to these reports. We understand that
Region 6 sutmitted this matter to the Office of General Counsel for a
ruling.
-------
—32—
E • CuBER REBJR ING REQUIRE 1ENTS
1. 1 solution of Audits
‘Itp management at EPA has continued to emphasize the resolution of
outstanding audit retorts. As a result, even though our rerort output
was up nore than 200 audits, there was no corres orr 5ing increase in the
number of unresolved audit rerorts. While there were 947 repDrts issued
to EPA officials in this six—rronth period, 886 were resolved. The number
of outstanding reports nore than six nonths’ old remained virtually
constant, 68 as of March 31, 1982, a ix] 71 as of Septerber 30, 1982.
These reports may be classified as follows:
For r ferra1 to Audits I solut ion Board 13
I sp)nses Received, Being Reviewed 11
Valid Responses t Received 47
‘Itta]. 71
In resolving 886 reports during the riod, EPA officials sustained
$19.2 million of costs questioned. ency officials indicated that
accounts receivable would be established for the recovery of $18.4
million which h 3 alrea y been paid to our grantees or contractors. The
remaining $0.8 million represents cost avoidances resulting frc reductions
in grant or contract awards due to costs questioned aix] sustained on
preaward audits.
The Office of the Ins ctor General thes not ke track of the
recovery of audit disallowances. Inste 1, the Agency has established a
procedure whereby accounts receivable are established when Agency
officials concur with our questioned costs. The Financial Management
Division then tracks aix] collects these receivables along with the other
receivables due EPA. Procedures have been established to reconcile the
costs questioned and sustained with the accounts receivable established
by Financial Management. This serves to ensure that the receivables are
established prcperly. Furtheimore, interest accrues on these receivables
from the date the grantees or contractors are first notified of EPA’S
determination on the audit.
Taking into account the $47.2 million sustained during the first half
of the fiscal ar, OIG efforts have potentially resulted in $66.4 million
of cost benefits to the Federal Goverment on grants arK] contracts alone
in fiscal i982. As an a3ditional $304.1 million was made available for
use through internal arK] management audits, the OIG produced measurable
benefits totaling $370.5 million.
-------
—33—
2. Delinquent debts
We have completed a limited review of EPA’s accounts receivable and
collection procedures in 9 of the Agency’s 15 servicing finance offices
(SEOs). During the period from April 1, 1982, through September 30, 1982,
EPA collected $2,867,000 and wrote off $11,798. As of September 30, 1982,
accounts receivable totaled $13,872,295. EPA’s Financial Management
Division has continued to concentrate on improving the Agency’s collection
activities. (Air review showed that all nine of the SRJs were performing
necessary followup actions on delingi.ent debts. In addit ion, all were
assessing interest against delinquent debts. We found that EPA had
assessed $735,987 in interest on overdue accounts and had collected
$597,056 of this amount. We noted that two of the SFOs were experiencing
difficulty when making collections from sate States.
The autaiiated accounts receivable subsystem, which identifies and ages
individual debts, should agree with the general ledger control accounts.
We noted that three SFOs had not reconciled their accounting records.
In t cases, the accounts receiv le subsystem exceeded the general
ledger control accounts by insignificant amounts. In the other SF0, the
general ledger accounts exceeded the subsystem by $4,788. The SF0s are
rkirrg on resolving the discrepancies.
When delinquent debts are determined to be uncollectthle, they are
forwarded to the EPA claims officer. The claims officer may compromise,
terminate, or suspend further collection efforts on debts under $20,000.
Any debt over $20,000 must be forwarded to the General Accounting Office
or the Department of Just ice for approval of the final resolution of debt.
The claims officer has authorized a writeoff on seven debts totaling
$48,581. In addition, he has referred two debts amounting to $6,621 to
the General Accounting Office and has referred one debt to Department of
Justice for evaluation of a canpranise. The Department of Justice agreed
to xinpranise a $20,797 debt for a $2,000 payment.
EPA management has taken a number of steps to improve the delinquent
debt sithation. These steps include coordinating activities among the
Agency’s program offices, finance offices, and claims office. Specifically,
the following directives were issued:
A guidance memorandum which directed all ) gency managers on
collection procedures to be used for Freedom of Information
?ct requests. C e growing problem was the collection of
these small but numerous debts. The new procedure will
require advance payment for fees in excess of $10. Mvance
payment will eliminate the need to record a debt in the
accounting system.
-------
—34—
° T directives which gave SFOs detailed instructions on
handling accounts receivable recor 3s arxI resolving delinguent
debts. Q -ie of the directives dealt with improving the process
for managing debt collection; the other gave detailed, step—
by—step ins truct ions designed t increase debt collection
efficiency.
EPA’ s Financial Management Division prcwided the following sunrnary
of EPA’s collections ar L1 writeoffs for April 1, 1982, through September 30,
1982, an accounts receivabk as of Sept ther 30, 1982. These may not be
the Agency’s final figures. Although they reflect the Agency’s accounting
recouis as of Septather 30, they are preclos ing figures (i.e., we obtained
them before the closing process was ca ipleted).
Notes
Mount Collected $ 2,867,000
Mount Written Off $ 11,798
Pccounts 1 ceivthle
Urx er 90 Days’ Old $ 2,761,018
Over 90 Days’ Old 6,949,030 1
Inte r overrinenta1
Agreements 4,162,247 2
Total $13,872,295
Note 1: The major part of this figure, 71 percent, constitutes receivables
which are being appealed. They will not be collected until the
peal process is ccinpleted.
Note 2: This atount is for debts owed EPA by other Federal agencies.
Since these debts do not have an impact on the U.S. Treasury, we
have rot included them in the regular ac nts receivable figures.
Ibwever, it is still inçortant to note that these debts impact
the Agency’s budget. Approximately 17 percent of the total in this
category is over 90 days’ old.
-------
—35—
SECTION II--INVESTIGNrIONS
A. ACCOMPLISHMENTS
airing this reporting period, we opened 32 irore cases and closed
18 irore cases than in the previous reporting period. The following
schedule reflects investigative activities.
Category Previous Period Current Period
Cases C ened 54 86
Cases Closed 29 47
Cases Pending 139 178
Cases Referred
to Prcsecut ion 16 15
During this reporting period, our office canpieted a review of the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act confidential business information
security manual and reccii nded changes. Mditionally, we conducted a
security inspection of the Office of Pesticide Programs to determine the
cause of two unlawful disclcsures of confidential business informat ion
which occurred in the past few ntrnths. It was determined that both
disclosures were the result of human error. Pdditions and safeguards
designed to strengthen the security of confidential business information
have been implenente3 by the Office of Pesticide Programs.
B. RESULTS OF REFERRALS
The following schedules sunii arize referral actions during this
reporting period.
Referrals for Prosecution
Cases Pending as of March 1982 15
Cases Referred This Period 15
Total Cases 30
Disposition of Cases
Cases Accepted 8
Cases Declined 5
Cases under Cons i eration 17
Total Cases 30
-------
—36—
Actions on Cases
Ir 1ictments* 7
Convictions 7
Dollar Reccveries $9,345
Fines $320,000
Referrals for Administrative Action
Pending fran Previous Periods 6
New Referrals This Period 6
Total under Cons iderat ion 12
Decisions Made This Period 7
Perdiri End of Period 5
Actions Taken on Administrative Referrals
Personnel Act ions
Terminations 5
Suspensions I
Total Personnel Actions 6
Other Actions
Debarinents 1
Total 1
*Three of these cases were handled through criminal infonnations
(i.e., the offenses were punishable by one year or less in jail).
C. QJRRENr EFFORtS
1. Increase in Caseload
t jrir this r ortir period, the Office of Investigations opened 32
mre cases than were opened in the prior reprting period. This increase
is thE to an increase in personnel ard the resultant increased visibility
of Inspector General investigative personnel within the Agency and U.S.
Attorneys’ offices.
2. Antitrust Activities
As a result of an investigation conducted in North Carolina, evidence
was oktained to slxw that t EPA contractors conspired to restrain
interstate tra5e and aimnerce. This violation was related to the construction
of water treatuent plants, sewer lines, and puu ing stations. In this
case, our office, in conjunction with the Antitrust Division of the U.S.
DepartitEnt of Justice, obtained three indictments, three convictions,
and fines totalir $300,000.
-------
—37—
In another Grand Jury case, we are working with the Antitrust
Division on a project in Virginia. This project involves allegations of
bid rigging by contractors in EPA’s construction grants program throughout
the State of Virginia.
3. Public Corruption
As a result of a Grand Jury investigation conducted with the Federal
Bureau of Investigation and the Internal Revenue Service, we have developed
evidence to sFow that local public officials received kickbacks in return
for fa’ oritism in Government contracts. It is anticipated that this
investigation will result in numerous indictments in the near future.
4. Bribery
In a joint investigation with the Federal Bureau of Investigation,
we obtained evidence of a contractor’s attempt to bribe an EPA employee
to receive a $3 mu lion contract. This investigation has been concluded,
and an indictment is inininent.
5. L barment
In Cincinnati, Ohio, we investigated, for a Federal Grand Jury,
an EPA contractor accused of defrauding the Government through false
billings. As a result of this investigation, the contractor has been
debarred.
6. Trafficking in Narcotics
Based on information received fran an EPA Region 5 employee concerning
Federal employees suspected of dealing in narcotics, a joint investigation
was initiated in Chicago by the EPA Office of the Inspector General, the
Federal Protective Service, and the Internal Revenue Service. The investi-
gation uncovered a widesprea conspiracy involving employees of several
Federal a ncies to distribute marijuana, cocaine, and phencyclidine
(PCP) over a three—year period. An undercover agent and videotape camera
were used to document Federal employees buying and selling narcotics
fran their work stations. As of September 30, 1982, one EPA employee
ha] been indicted. Since that time, another five individuals have been
indicted. We expect eight or nine aditional indictments in the near
future.
D. INVESTIGATIVE )RKLO1 D STATISTICS
1. Inventory of Cases Ntinber
Pending as of Marth 31, 1982 139
Opened This Period 86
Closed This Period ( 47 )
Pending as of September 30, 1982 178
-------
—38—
2. Profile of Pending Cases
Area of Investigation
Office of
A
I
P
W
A
R
S
T
A
0
T
D
G
0
A
I
E
0
0
D
T
0
M
L
T
R
S
L
X
M
H
T
I
I E
E
I
I
I E A
N
C
R
A
D
C
N
R
L
I
Y
R
S
S
C W
T
H A
R
S
A
T
T
E
0
R
Conflict of Interest
r o(Bl Corruption
Fraud Agair t the Gov’t
Fe:1eral Proairanent Fraud
F&eral Prcxjram Fraud
Gov’t gu1athry Offerses
Adninistrative Act lorE
Travel, Time, & Attendance
Misuse of Gov’t Prc erty
Waste & Abuse of 1 sources
Personnel Viola tiors
Theft of Go r’t Prcperty
Antitrust
Privacy Act/Confidential
Business Info rmation
Other
¶1 tal
1
1
7
2
112
3
3
47
2
3
355
1
3
1
11
1
19
1
26
27
11
2
1
1
1
14
4
2
4
1 1
3
1
16
2
2
1
5
32
21
8
1
1
13
1
2
3
18
18
3
3
2
3
1
2
210
8
1
5
116
10
7 4
10
8
9 178
-------
—39—
SECTIC III—PREvEr TrION OF FRAUD, WASTE, AND ABUSE
A. I L4E TATI I OF 0MB CI1 UL R A-123
In March 1982 the Administrator designated the Inspector ( neral
as the Agency official responsible for ensuring EPA cai p1iance with CMB
Circular A—123. The Circular requires that vulnerability assessments be
cord ucted of all Agency prcgrams and administrative functions by Decerrber
31, 1982. The Audit Operations Staff ccmpleted the Agency’s plan for
conducting vulnerability asses ents throughout EPA in early April. The
Administrator sul:initted the plan to 0MB in canpliance with the Circular’s
requi reitents.
The Agency plan required self—asses nents of program and administrative
functions by EPA management, with technical assistance and oversight
prcwided by the 01G. Each EPA region and headquarters office was required
to cori:3uct an assessment of its programs and administrative functions.
i)iring May through July, the Audit C erations Staff met with the heads of
all EPA offices and presented an overview of the assessment. In addition,
they met with staff fran e h office to explain the detailed procedures
involved. Each office was given 60 days to ccmplete its assessment, so
that all asses nts were to be xinplete3 by Septeiber 30. The Audit
Operations Staff and divisional audit staffs were available throughout
the 60-day period to answer questions and resolve issues. Divisional
audit staffs reviewed all regional office assessments for obvious aniss ions
and errors before transmitting them to Headquarters.
As of September 30, only 4 of EPA’s 29 offices had not canpleted
their ses nents, although most were in the final stages of canpletion.
¶ftp Agency management officials have assured us that all vulnerability
asseseiients will be o nple ted and data will be available so that the OIG
n cauplete its rk and issue its overall analysis to the Administrator
on time before December 31. The report will recanmend programs and
administrative functions in need of internal control reviews. By January
31, 1983, the Administrator will have reviewed the report and its
recaiii ndations arxi will issue directives to conduct internal control
reviews.
B. SUSPE SI0MS AND DEBA1 1EI fl’S
In this six-month period, the Agency issued its final suspension and
debarment regulations. Under these regulations, EPA can take steps to
safeguard its grants programs against grantees, contractors, consultants,
engineers, suppliers, etc., who are found to have violated laws, caunitted
inproprieties, or been responsible for a willful or serious failure to
perform adequately. We believe that the adoption of these regulations
pro r ides the Agency with a valuable tool for ensuring that needed facilities
are built at a reasonable ccet.
-------
-40-
The Agnncy has already initiated action under these regulations
to susrerd six firms and/or individuals and to debar another one. We
anticipate that in the caning period, significant efforts will be expended
to identify and take act ions against many contractors who have been
found guilty of bid rigging or antitrust violations on Department of
Transportation contracts. The extent of OIG efforts to initiate reviews
of potential poor performance cases related to EPA construction grant
projects will, of course, be dependent on the resources which can be
made available for this vital task.
C. HCIrLINE
This reporting period was marked by a dramatic increase in
canplaints received by our hotline office. Qie hundred twelve
cases were lo d in, against totals of 19 and 11 in the previous two
reporting periods. The parent reasons for this increase wsre:
(1) The installation in March 1982 of a nationwide, toll—free
“8O0 hotline riinter, whicth now is the source of a majority of
all hotline canplaints. We previously offered only a Federal
Teleccmnuiications System (FTS) hotline for Federal employees.
(2) A menorandum fran the EPA ? ministrator informing all EPA
employees of the existence of the hotline and urging its use.
(3) A message on the pay stubs of all EPA employees publicizing
the hotline numbers.
(4) Publicity given all Federal agency hotline nuirbers in the
pcpular tabloid press.
The following table stows a sumary of hotline cases by origin:
“800’ . ¶D11—Free Nationwide Number 52
FTS or Local Telephone 23
Mail 16
referred fran General Accounting Office 17
1 ferred fran Agency Other than GAL) 3
In Person 1
112
-------
—41—
We anticipete that this growth in hotline activity will continue
during the next six rronths. The Administrator of EPA has authorized our
office immediately to begin the implementation of a program of cash awards
for disclosures which result in cost savings. Publicity relating to
this program, including the distribution to EPA offices throughout the
country of originally designed “Hotline” posters, should help maximize
this potential.
The following tthle shows the disposition and current status of
hotline complaints received since April 1. The largest number (36) re
closed administratively following preliminary inquiry. Assignments to
audit accounted for 15; program unit referrals accounted for 35; and
investigative referrals, 13.
Status of Fbtline Complaints as of September 30, 1982
Closed Open Total
Corrective
Unsubstantiated Action Taken
Assigned to Audits 2 13 15
Assigned to Investigations 3 10 13
Referr 3 to EPA Program Unit 8 3 24 35
Referred to Other Agency 2 2 4
Assigned to Office of Management
and Technical Assessi nt 1 1.
Assigned to Hotline Office 1 1
Closed A ninistratively Following
Preliminary Inquiry 29 7 36
Still in Preliminary Inquiry Stage 7 7
42 12 58 112
It is too early to assess the effectiveness of the hotline office in
terms of audit rec iery pruduced or indictments and convictions. Most
cases which appear to have the potential for significant results remain
open and unresolved.
( the other hand, approximately 20 percent (12) of the 54 cases
closed during the penal resulted in sare form of corrective action.
For example:
o Steps were taken to eliminate seepage from a gypsum pile;
o An improper job vacancy announcement was cancelled and
rewritten;
o Action was taken to correct the dumping of raw sewage;
o The site of a proposed meeting was changed to effect economies.
-------
—42—
D. REVI S OF PIOR)SED IEGISLATICtJ AND REGtJLATI JS
t*iririj this reporting period, EPA reg sted our review of a bill
deleting various congressional reporting rejuiren nts. We saw no rc*)leTI
with the proposed bill. C a Go ierrinent—wide basis, we reviewed a revised
bill to protect thistlthlc rs” (contributors of infonTlation concerning
waste, fraud, at 3 abuse) fran reprisal. This bill would encourage nployees
of grantees ar i contractors to report possible waste, fraud, or abuse on
GoverrilEnt projects. While we agreed cxrnpletely with the intent of the
bill, we opposed its enactment because:
o It would inevitably increase worklo ] substantially without
necessarily providing a concanitant increase in resources;
and
o By placing undue priority on review of allegations, it would
renove vital work-planning responsibilities fran the control
of the Inspector General.
The OIG reviewed nore than 20 proposed regulations. In this process,
greatest em thasis and time were spent on reviewing and working with EPA’s
grant regulations. We believe efforts expended in this direction are
ii ortant in ensuring adequate controls are in place to see that the
G ierrinent receives full value for its expenditures.
-------
—43—
SECTION IV--SUP ORT ACTIVITIES
A. STAFFING
Througlout fiscal 1982, thile other cai onents of EPA were declining
in size, the Office of the Inspector General not only held its own, but
actually increased in size. The P ency’s fiscal 1983 budget pr iides
for continued operation at near—current levels of staffing.
Both our audit and irwestigative staffs, however, are faced with
workloads substantially in excess of their available resources. Fbr
exairple, the Office of Audits has an estimated workload of 868.9 staff
years and has available approximately 163 staff years of resources to
perform this work (see appendix 5 on page 91 of this report). ir
investigative staff is similarly short—handed.
Throughout the year, our staff has worked to streamline procedures,
identify the relative priority of work, and shift resources to accanrrodate
changes in workload. ‘lb a great extent, this year we have been successful
in keeping up with major audit and investigative requiremants. The burden,
however, is getting heavier.
On the audit side, major efforts are underway to close out the large
backlo of final construction grant audits. The Administrator has given
us the goal of ensuring that these projects are pranptly audited so that
closeout actions can be expedited. While this goal can be acccmplished,
it will necessitate the aanrnitrnent of the vast majority of our available
audit resources to this one task. Thus, staff will not be available to
perform other needed audits, and flexibility will not be available to
undertake even e ergency audits in other areas.
On the investigative side, similar problems are arising. Our case-
load has increased fran 114 at the beginning of the fiscal year to 178
at the year’s end. The canposition of the caseload has thar ed even irrre
dramatically. Significant efforts are underway in both antitrust and
fraud cases • These cases take substantially nore time than many of the
lesser cases investigated in the past.
Workload grows as we do a better job of identifying possible instances
of fraud, waste, abuse, and misrnanageirent. Shifting resources and ranking
work can only go so far in dealing with increasing workloads. 1 sources
available for audits and investigations of EPA operations, functions,
and activities have simply never been enough. For a breakdown of available
OIG permanent full—tixre resources, see appendix 6 on page 92.
-------
—44--
B. TRAVEL
Fr uent travel is inherent—aiti mar 3atoty—in audit and investigative
rk. Our fiscal 1983 lxzlget provided the OIG with $442,000 of travel
ftrids. This was approximately $150,000 less than the level in our fiscal
1982 operating plan. We have rsjuested an a3ditional $100,000 of travel
fuxis in fiscal 1983 primarily for use in accuuplishing the P ministrator’s
goal of conducting final audits of construction grants.
C. ( XVrRAC1’S
Mcst audits of construction grants are perfonned by independent
public accountants under contract with the 01G. Our fiscal 1983 bu3get
provided the OIG with $2.2 million of contract funds. This was approximately
$1.1 mihii n less than the level in our fiscal 1982 operating plan. We
have rested that our bu3get be restored the $1.1 million for use in
accordance with the Mninistrator’s goal to increase the number of final
construction grant audits initiated in fiscal 1983.
-------
—45--
Appendix 1
DEFINITION OF TERMS USED
IN SEMIANNUAL REPORT
A. TERMS USED IN SECTION I—AUDITS
1. Types of Audits
a. Internal and Management Audits
These are independent reviews of Agency rograms and operations
designed to determine whether: (1) desired results and objectives are
being effectively; achieved; (2) resources are managed and used economically
and efficiently; (3) operating procedures are effective and are being
carried out; (4) applicable laws and regulations have been complied
with; (5) financial operations are conducted properly; and (6) financial
reports are resented fairly. A given management audit may include
review of a particular activity (such as finance or procurement) at one,
sai , or all Agency organizations responsible for that activity. When
the purpose of the audit is to assess the equacy of aspects of overall
program acininistration, a management audit might also encompass a top—to-
bottom review of the a3ministration of a program or portions of a program
at Federal, State, and local governmental or nongovernmental levels.
b. Grant and Contract Audits
These are independent reviews of the records and performance of
individual grantees and contractors ma5e in accordance with the U.S.
General Accounting Office standards for audit of governmental organizations,
programs, activities, and firictions. These audits are made as a means
of ascertaining the fairness of presentat ion of financial statements and
the degree of compliance with statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions
of the agreements under which Federal funds re made available. These
audits also assess the reasonableness and allowability of costs clai ed
or reported under the agreement and may provide Agency management with
information on the a equacy of grantee systems to efficiently, effectively,
and economically carry out their responsibilities under the signed agreements.
Grant and contract audits include:
(1) Preaward Audits
A review and evaluation conducted to determine whether cost data
sutntitted re current, accurate, and complete, and to assess the adequacy
of the grantee’ s or contractor’s system to manage the grant or contract.
-------
• —46—
(2) Interim and Final Cost Audits
A review and evaluation cork3ucte:i to assess, at minimum, the
reasDnableness and allowability of costs claimed or reported under the
grant or contract and ensure canpliance with applicable statutes, regulations,
and terms and conditions of the award. These audits include a review of
incurred costs a ix ] ovetheal (indirect costs) and contractors’ policies,
procedures, and practices which influence and control grant and contract
costs.
(3) Indirect Cost Audits
A review and evaluation conducted to determine whether a grantee’s
or contractor’s indirect cost prcposal prcçerly allocates costs allowable
under Federal cost principles on the basis of relative benefits received.
At EPA, we break grant aix] contract audits into two major categories:
“construction grants audits” include all audits performed of grants made
under EPA’s wastewater treatment works construction grants program; all
other grant or contract audits are reported under the category “other
grant or contract a.idits.”
2. Cost Categories
The following cx t categories are applicable primarily to grant aix]
contract audits. AIt Dunts reported may reflect the total proposed or
actual expenditures or only the Federal share.
a. Costs Audited
Costs audited reflect the expenditures prc.çosed, claimed, or reported
by a prospective or actual grantee or contractor.
b. Costs Questioned
Costs questioned represent the portion of costs which the auditor
has concluded should not be incurred or should be recovered because the
expenditures are not al lowabk under the prociis ions of applicable laws,
regulations, policies, cost principles, or terms of the grant or contract.
c. Costs Set Aside
Costs set asi 3e represent the portion of costs for which the grantee
or contractor does not have sufficient doctmentat ion to support a determi-
nation of allowability or eligibility. These costs may reguire suhiiission
of iditional information aix] eligibility determinations by responsible
/ ency program officials.
-------
—47—
d. Costs iestioned and Sustained
Costs ques tione3 and sustained represent EPA management’s decision
with respect to costs questioned on grant and contract audits. This
means that Agency officials have reviewed the questioned costs in detail
and provided a written response identifying the actions iich will be
taken on the cost a justnents recanmended in the audit report. When
questioned costs are classified as sustained, Agency management has
agreed with the auditor and stated that as a result of the audit
recaiimendat ions, the questioned costs will be either avoided or recovered.
(1) Costs Avoided
The Agency has decided that either the grant or contract in its
entirety or a portion of costs under the grant or contract will not be
awarded.
(2) Costs to be Recovered
The Agency has recovered or is canmitted to recovering the questioned
airKunt through billing and collecting fran the grantee or contractor or
through offsetting against payments under existing and future grants or
contracts.
3. Reports Issued
This category reflects the nuither of audit reports issued by the
Off ice of the Inspector General during the six—nonth reporting period.
This category includes:
a. OIG Audits
These audits are performed by the Office of the Inspector General ‘s
own audit staff.
b. Contract Audits
These audits are performed for the Office of the Inspector General under
contract by another Federal agency, State auditor, or Independent Public
Accountant. Under such arrangements, the OIG normally requests the audit,
reviews the report, and authDrizes payment for the audit.
c. Initiated by Others
These are audits of Federal programs initiated by the grantee or
others receiving Federal funds. Under such arrangements, entities contract
directly for audits of Federal funds with IPAs. When audits are canpleted,
they are su1ir itted to the 01G. This category ala includes single audits
of grantees performed under Attachment P to CX 4B Circular A-102.
-------
—48—
4. 1 ports Closed
This category refers to the nuirber of audit reports issued to ency
managenent officials which have been properly resolved in this reporting
period. ‘lb resolve an audit report, Agency officials must respond in
writing by identifying actions to be taken to resolve the issues and
cost adjustments recam erded in the report. OIG officials must then agree
that these actions are satisfactory. At the time a report is classified
as closed, Agency management officials may or may not have canpie tely
implemented the necessary corrective actions.
B. ‘ lEF 4S USED IN SECI’1a4 II—INVF TIG1TICt IS
1. Case
Case” is the term used administratively to control information
relating to irregularities requiring investigative action or allegations
of violatiorE of Federal statutes or regulations.
2. Cases Opened
A case is core idere open when sufficient information concerning an
allegation is avail de which, if proven, would constitute a violation.
When a case is open, managers are notified not to take administrative
action without consulting the 01G.
3. Cases Closed
A case is considered closed when all issues have been resolved; all
legal, civil, or a ninistrative action has been canpieted at the initial
level of adjudication; a final report on the investigation has been
issued; or no action is reguired and, therefore, the case has been closed
by OIG administrative a t ion.
4. Cases Pendir
Cases are core L3ered pending fran the time they are opened until they
are closed. Thus, a case may be pending (1) while awaiting assignment
of an investigator, (2) while undergoing investigation, and (3) while in
the judicial or administrative review process.
-------
—49--
?ç.çerxllx 2
JMMAPY (F AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED
FOR ThE PERIOD APRIL 1, 1982 THJOUG{ SEPPEMBER 30, 1982
(IN THOtE NL OF IX)LLARS I )UNDEE) 1O ThE NEAREST THOtEAND*)
Other
Federal
Type of Audit EPA IPA State Agency Total
Internal arri Management
Number of Reports Issued 17 0 0 0 17
Federal Share Audited $744,341 0 0 0 $ 744,341
Federal Share Questioned 385,610 0 0 0 385,610
Construct ion Grants
— Preawati s
Number of Reports Issued 1 8 0 3 12
Federal Share Audited $ 90 $ 7,618 0 $ 612 $ 8,320
Federal Share Questioned 14 238 0 7 259
Federal Share Set Aside 45 3,210 0 70 3,325
— Interim
Number of Reports Issued 6 18 11 1 36
Federal Share Audited $ 15,255 $110,953 $187,174 0 $ 313,382
Federal Share Questioned 990 6,865 11,717 0 19,572
Federal Share Set Aside 183 12,896 3,904 0 16,983
— Final
Number of Reports Issued 66 89 35 0 190
Federal Share Audited $105,171 $190,381 $122,700 0 $ 418,252
Federal Share Questioned 1,645 5,220 6,874 0 13,739
Federal Share Set Aside 295 12,967 4,808 0 18,069
Other Grants ard Contracts
— Preawards
Number of Reports Issued 22 13 0 297 332
Federal Share Audited $ 42,501 $ 44,867 0 $2,109,313 $2,196,681
Federal Share Questioned 194 1,005 0 36,059 37,258
Federal Share Set Aside 4,698 1,549 0 164,580 170,827
— Interim
Number of Reports Issued 5 0 2 23 30
Federal Share Audited $ 5,031 0 $ 3,843 $ 37,410 $ 46,284
Federal Share Questioned 19 0 77 151 247
Federal Share Set Aside 1,602 0 0 0 1,602
- Final
Nult)er of Reports Issued 15 11 0 199 225
Federal Share Audited $ 11,970 $ 12,470 0 $ 80,600 $ 105,040
Federal Share Questioned 7,615 389 0 757 8,761
Federal Share Set Aside 312 75 0 81 468
- Attachment P
Number of Reports Issued 5 0 0 17 22
Federal Share Audited $ 8,370 0 0 $ 17,562 $ 25,932
Federal Share Questioned 0 0 0 16 16
Federal Share Set Aside 0 0 0 0 0
— Irk irect Costs
Number of Reports Issued 4 4 0 75 83
Total
Number of Reports Issued 141 143 48 615 947
Federal Share Audited $932,729 $366,289 $313,717 $2,245,497 $3,858,232
Federal Share Questioned 396,087 13,717 18,668 36,990 465,462
Federal Share Set Aside 7,135 30,697 8,712 164,731 211,275
*p, y foot ir difference due to roundirrj.
-------
NOR 717
SEflX-A1* JAL A IT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PAGE
PERIOD ENDING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
AL*)IT CONTROL NUP EP AUDITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
D3A02060106-20703 RADIAN CORP (CONSAD RSCK CP)TX 04/01/82 06/07/82
P2CW1060077-20704 TRINITY RIVER AUTh/COPPELt. TX 04/01/82 05/05/82
N3G02060102-20705 TULSA (CITY OF) 04/01/82 04/01/82
E1UW2 I00014—20706 REGION X 04/01/82
03A02090131-20701 CLAREMONT ECONOMICS INSTI l CA 04/01/82 04/01/82
03A02010123-20709 TEMPLE BARKER $ SLOANE INC MA 04/02/82 04/02/82
03A02010124-20710 POLICY ANALYSIS INC P tA 04/02/82 04/02/82
03A02010125-20711 INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS INC PtA 04/02/82 04/02/82
D3C02010126-20712 UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP CT 04/02/82 04/02/82
03C02010127-207 13 UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP CT 04/02/82 04/02/82
D3A02010128-20714 ARThUR 0 LITTLE INC MA 04/02/82 04/02/82
D3A02030176-20715 ECOLOGICAL ANALYSTS INC.-NO 04/05/82 04/05/82
D3A02030195-20716 CRC SYSTEMS-VA 04/05/82 08/24/82
03A02030191-20717 COMSAD RESEARCH CORP-PA 04/05/82 04/05/82
03C02030094-20718 CAMP DRESSER MCKEE INC-MA 04/05/82 04/05/82
03CO2030194-20719 EDWARD ROBBINS-DC 04/05/82 04/05/82
D3A02030212-20720 ICF INCORPORATED—DC 04/05/82 04/05/82
E5AH2050131—20721 INLAND WATERS PCI ECORSE MI 04/05/82 04/22/82
E5AN2050141-20722 ACTION CONSTRUCTION HUGO PRI 04/05/82 04/22/82
03C02050337-20723 A I KEARNEY CHICAGO IL 04/05/62
D3A02050282-20724 JONES & HEFJ Y ENGRS TOLEDO OH 04/05/82 06/23/82
E5AH2050132-20725 MARINE PC DETROIT MI 04/05/82 04/22/62
03C02090130-20726 SRI IHTERtIATIONL MENLO PARK CA 04/05/82 04/05/82
03C02080059-20727 AUTOMOTIVE TEST LABS AURORA CO 04/05/82 04/05/82
D3C02080060-20726 AUTOMOTIVE TEST LABS AURORA CO 04/05/82 04/05/82
-------
HQR 717
SEMI-MI UAL AWIT REPORTS ISSUED — SECTION I PAGE 2
PERIOD EP1 ING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
ALfl)IT CONTROL IUIBER AWITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
D3A02030208 -20729 POLICY RESEARCH 6ROUP INC-DC 04/05/82 04/05/82
D3A02030210-20730 BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON INC-MO 04/05/82 04/05/82
D3A02020066—20732 SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORP NY 04/06/82 04/06/82
D3A02080062-20733 ENGY & RESRCE CONS BOULDER Co 04/07/82 04/07/82
D3CA2D80063- 0734 AUTOMOTIVE TEST LABS AURORA CO 04/07/82 04/07/82
D3B02090133-20735 LUCY 8 ENVIR RESCH IRVINE CA 04/07/82 04/07/82
D3AIf2090134-2 0736 ROCKWELL INTL NEWBURY PARK CA 04/07/82 04/07/82
E5AH2010070-20737 NEW ENGLAND MARINE COWl 04/06/82 04/14/82
D3002020060-20738 MAThTECH INC NJ 04/08/82 04/08/82
03A02020049-20739 FOSTER IIIEELER 0EV CORP NJ 04/08/82 06/29/82
D3A02020052-20740 HYDROTECHNIC CORP NY 04/08/82 04/08/82
U ,
D3A02020054-20741 GERAGHTY 8 MILLER INC NY 04/08/82 04/08/82 ‘if
03C02020051-2 0742 JACK FAUCETT ASSOC 04/08/82 04/08/82
D3002020053-2 0743 BURNS & ROE CORP NJ 04/08/82 04/08/82
03A02020108-2 0744 ECOLOGY 8 ENVIROIIIENT NY 04/08/82
D3A02020107-20745 ECOLOGY $ ENVIRONMENT NY 04/08/82
D3C02020005-2 0746 FRED C HART ASSOC NY 04/08/82 04/08/82
P2CW0010213—20747 SOPIERSWORTh 1*1 04/09/82 09/17/82
P2BW1010218-20748 5OMERSWOTR p 04/09/82 04/09/82
P2BW1O1O18Ô-20749 STAFFORD CT 04/09/82 09/30/82
P2CW1010185-20750 STAFFORD CT 04/09/82 08/23/82
P2CW1010144-20751 STAFFORD CT 04/09/82 05/19/82
E1Z02010119-2 0752 FINANCIALPIGIIT BRANCH REG I HA 04/09/82 04/09/82
S2CW009025 0—20753 CA DEPT CORRECTION-DEUEI. TRACY 04/12/82
E2CW2090015-20754 CRESCENT CITY CA 04/12/82 09/01/82
-------
HQR 717
SEMI-AIIUAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PAGE 3
PERIOD ENDING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
AUDIT CONTROL NL1 ER AUDITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
E2CW1090264—20755 TRANQUILITY PUD CA 04/12/82 09/23/82
H3AO2O50306-2O7 P.M OF MI DE $ IN At*1 ARBOR MI 04/12/82
D3002090070-20757 AIR POLWTION TECH S DIEGO CA 04/13/82 04/13/82
D3A02100056—2 0758 SHAPIRO & ASSOCIATE SEATTLE WA 04/13/82 04/13/82
03A02100057-20759 CH2M HILL CORVALLIS OR 04/13/82 04/13/62
03A02030180-20761 .JRB ASSOCIATES-VA 04/14/82 08/24/82
D3A02030173-20762 JRB ASSOCIATES INC-VA 04/14/82 05/25/82
D3A02030178-20743 GAMIETT FLEMING CORDORT CAR-PA 04/14/82 04/14/82
D3C02030113-2 0764 INFORMATICS INC 04/14/82 04/14/82
03C02030217-20765 IWFOR 1ATICS INC-Pm 04/14/82 04/14/82
D3A02030188-2o766 GAIIIEU FLEMING CORDORY CAR-PA 04/14/82 05/10/82
03C01030037—2o7$7 APPLIED SCIENCE ASSOC—PA 04/14/82 07/23/82
E2CN1090204-2 0766 SAN JOAQUIN CO MTY OF STOCKTON 04/14/82
E2BW1090239-20769 ItIRPHYS SD 04/14/82 06/23/82
D3C02040144-2 077 0 BREEDLOVE ASSOCIATES INC FL 04/15/82 05/04/82
D3A02040145-20771 CLAUDE TERRY & ASSOCIATES GA 04/15/82 08/16/82
S2CW1040046-20772 CHATTANOOGA TN 04/15/82 05/05/82
P2CW2040014—20773 RIVIERA BEACH FL 04/15/82 04/16/82
P2CW1040132—20774 JEFFERSONTOWN KY 04/15/82 07/22/82
D3A02060114-20775 RADIAN CORPORATION 04/15/82 05/20/82
P3CW0060235-2 0776 TX DEPT HEALTh WATER SUPPLY 04/15/82 04/27/82
P2CW0060201-2077 DALLAS TX 04/15/82 05/17/82
EZCWOO3OI65-20778 ELEANOR tOWN-WV 04/16/82 04/30/82
D3A02030225-20779 INFORMATICS INC-Pm 04/19/82 04/19/82
03002030057-20780 JACA CORPORATION 04/19/82 05/10/82
-------
HQR 717
AUDIT CONTROL IMIBER
D3A02030207—20781
03002030117-20782
D3A02030200-20783
D3AS2020061—20784
D3A020201 16—20785
D3AS2020062—20786
03A02020058-20787
S2CW0090242-20788
S2CW1090150-20789
H3C020501 05—20790
H3A 02040163-20791
P2CW1060012—20792
P2CW1060104—20793
P2CW2060046-20794
E5AH2090037—20795
E1UW2090038—20796
03AA20 50379-2 0797
03002070380—20798
D3D02070375—20799
E2CW 2090098—20800
03002030246—20801
03C02010165—20802
03C02010166-20803
03802070383—20804
03802070382—20805
SEMI-ANHtJAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED
PERIOD ENDING 09/30/82
AUDITEE
AMERICAN MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS-VA
SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECH INC
ENVIRONMENTAL LAN INSTITUTE-DC
LOUIS BERGER & ASSOCIATES NJ
MAThTECH INC NJ
LOUIS BERGEN & ASSOCIATES NJ
FRED C HART ASSOCIATES INC NY
CAMSRIA COM 1UNTY SERV 01ST CA
JACKSON CA CITY OF
PURDUE UNIV N/LAFAYETTE IN
RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE NC
GLENIIORA LA
GRETNA LA
FORDYCE ARK
IT CORPORATION WILMINGTON CA
REGION IX-CHANGE ORDER REVIEW
CHARLES RIVER ASSOC BOSTON MA
MIDWEST RES INST KANSAS dY P lO
MIDWEST RES INST KANSAS CTY PlO
CRESCENT CITY CA
BURNS & ROE INDUSTRIAL SERV-NJ
YORK RESEARCH CORPORATION CT
CONGUSTIOW ENGINEERING INC CT
MIDWEST RES INST KANSAS CITY 11
MIDWEST RES INST KANSAS CYTY 11
FINAL REPORT ISSUED
04/19/82
04/19/82
04/19/82
04/19/82
04/19/82
04/19/82
04/19/82
04/20/82
04/21/82
04/20/82
04/20/82
04/20/82
04/20/82
04/20/82
04/20/82
04/20/82
04/21/82
04/21/82
04/21/82
04/21/82
04/21/82
04/21/82
04/21/82
04/22/82
04/22/82
4
10/23/82
- SECTION I
PAGE
DATE:
DATE CLOSED
04/19/82
06/03/82
04/19/82
04/19/82
06/15/82
08/17/82
04/19/82
09/23/82
10/07/82
06/15/82
04/20/82
06/23/82
04/20/82
08/18/82
08/16/82
04/21/82
04/21/82
06/15/82
07/01/82
09/29/82
04/22/82
04/22/82
Ln
-------
HQR 717
SEMI-AIIJJAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PACE 5
PERIOD ENGING 09/30/62 DATE: 10/23/82
ALDIT CONTROL PU ER AUDITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
03802070381-20806 MIDWEST RES INST KANSAS CITY $ 04/22/82 04/22/82
D3802070364-20807 MIDWEST RES INST KANSAS C Y lO 04/22,62 04/22/62
03C02070350-20808 IIIOWEST RES INST KANSAS CITY tI 04/22/82 04/22/82
D3C02050277-20809 FRED DEBRA CINCII* ATX OH 04/22/82 04/22/82
03C02070328-20810 MIDWEST RES IPIST KANSAS CITY N 04/22/82 04/22/62
D3A02050317-20611 ETA ENGINEERING IN WESThONT XL 04/22/82 04/22/82
D3A02050338 -20812 PEDCO ENVIRON CINCIP1IATX 04/22/82 04/22/62
P2CW1050046 -20813 MARSHALL tIN 04/22/82
03A02060120-20814 BAKER LAWSON/DAN SHERWOOD TX 04/22/82 06/16/82
E1Z02060105-20815 REG VI REVIEW OF DELIN DBTS TX 04/22/62 08/16/82
E1ZW I100064-20816 DELAYS IN CLOSING COPIST GRANTS 04/22/82 04/22/82
E3C02100055-20817 ALDER CREEK WATER COMPANY OR 04/22/82 04/22/82
P2C141030135-20818 MANCHESTER PA 04/23/82 09/24/82
D3B02030254—20819 GAPIIETT FLEMING INC-PA 04/23/82 09/10/82
03C02030255-20820 BOOZ ALLEN & A}IMILTOH INC-tV 04/23/82 04/23/82,
D3A02030247-20821 FUN MARQUART ASSOCIATES-tV 04/23/82 10/14/82
D3C02030003-20822 ROY F WESTON 04/23/82 04/23/82
D3D00030246-20823 SRAC — DC 04/23/82 05/24/82
D3C01030262-20824 SYSTEMS SCIENCES 04/23/82 04/23/82.
D3C01030235-20825 MAR INC 04/23/82 04/23/82
H3CW1050098-20826 MICHIGAN DON LANSING PU 04/23/82 10/07/82
P5AH2020123—20827 CECOS INTERNATIONAL INC NY 04/23/82 09/16/82
P5AH2020125-20828 CECOS INtERNATIONAL INC NY 04/23/82 04/28/82
P5AH2020124-2ó829 RESOURCE CONSERVATION PM 04/23/82 09/16/82
P2CW1020012-20830 IIXODLETOWN 5* NJ 04/23/82 09/15/82
-------
HQR 717
AUDIT CONTROL I&* ER
D3C02020 128—20831
E5AH2 050140-20832
D3A02050324-20833
D3C02050315-20834
H3A02050331-20835
H3A0205031 9-20836
D3A02070320—20837
P2CW204003 -Z0838
P3C00040 021-20839
E2CW2080021—20840
P2CW2080038-20841
D3A02090 139-20842
D3CA2090140-20843
D3CA2090 141—20844
D3AH2090142-20845
D3A02090143—20846
D3C02 090144-20847
03A02090145-20848
03002090146—20849
03A0 2090 147-20850
D3C02 090148-20851
D3A02090149-20852
D3A02090 150-20853
03A02090151-20854
D3A02 100065-20855
SEtII-AIIUAL AUDIT. REPORTS ISSUED
PERIOD END NG 09/30/82
AUDITEE
SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORP NY
COtIRP PUMP IP4CIN HISHLAM) IN
MONSANTO RES CORP DAYTON OH
BATTELLE COLUMBUS LAB OH
U OF IllS SUPERIOR WI
ST OLAF COLLEGE NORTHFIELD III
DEVLP PLNG & RES MAIIiAT1AN KS
WEST SMIThFIELD SANIT 01ST NC
NC DEPT HU1IAN RESOURCES
GRAM) JUNCTION CO CITY OF
BOZEMAN MONTANA CITY OF
JONES & STOKES ASOC SACTO CA
PACIFIC ENVIR SERV S MONICA CA
PACIFIC ENVIR SERV S MONICA CA
CALSCIENCE RESCH HUNT BEACH CA
W000WARD-CLYDE CONSULT SF CA
PACIFIC ENVIR SERV S MONICA CA
DAVID DORNBUSCH £ CO SF CA
CAL RECOVERY 515 RICHMOI CA
ENGINEERING SCIENCE ARCADIA CA
METEOROLOGY RESCH ALTANTA CA
TETRA TECH INC PASADENA CA
ROCKWELL iNTL NEWBURY PARK CA
SOBOTKA & CO SAN RAFAEL CA
EVS CONSULTANT tIERCER 151 WA
FINAL REPORT ISSUED
04/23/82
04/26/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
0 4/2 7/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
6
10/23/82
- SECTION I
PAGE
DATE:
DATE CLOSED
04/23/62
09/16/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
06/15/82
04/27/82
05/04/82
08/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/62
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
04/27/82
06/17/82
L u
-------
NOR 717
SEMI-AtI4UAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED
- SECTION I
PAGE
7
PERIOD EWOING 09/30/82
DATE:
10/23/82
AUDIT CONTROL NUP ER
AUDITEE
FINAL
REPORT ISSUED
DATE CLOSED
03A02100066—20856
ALSID SHOWOEN ASOC BELLEVUE WA
04/27/82
04/27/82
D3A02100067-20857
ENTRANCO ENGINEERS BELLEVUE WA
04/27/82
04/27/82
03A02100068-20858
KAHN/IIORTIPIER ASOC SEATTLE WA
04/27/82
04/27/82
D3A02100069-20859
PARAIIETRIX INC SUMNER CA
04/27/82
04/27/82
E2CW2080068-20860
BEULAH HO CITY OF
04/28/82
04/28/82
03000010119—20861
WALDEN RESEARCH DIV OF ABCOR Ii
04/28/82
04/28/82
D3002010103-20862
BARRY LAWSON
04/28/82
04/28/82
D3AW2010167-20863
WOODS HOLE OCEANOGRAI’HIC INSMA
04/28/82
04/28/82
05AH2010168-20864
05AH2010169-20865
JBF SCIENTIFIC CORP MA
ARTHUR 0 LITTLE INC NA
04/28/82
04/28/82
04/28/82
04/28/82
03CA2010170 -20866
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH TEC HA
04/28/82
04/28/82
03CA2010171-20867
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH TEC tIA
04/28/82
04/28/62
D3CA2010172-20865
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH TEC MA
04/28/82
04/28/82
03A02010173 -20869
CHARLES RIVER ASSOC INC MA
04/28/82
07/12/62
03A02010174 -20870
ADVANCED FUEL RESEARCH INC CT
04/28/82
04/28/82
03CA2010175-20871
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH TEC PtA
04/28/82
04/28/82
D3AW2010176-20872
ARThUR 0 LITTLE INC MA
04/28/82
04/28/82
D3AW2010177-20873
URBAN SYSTEMS RESEARCH ENG PtA
04/28/82
04/28/82
03C02010178-20874
ABCOR INC WALDEN RES DIV PtA
04/28/82
04/28/82
05AH2010179-20875
CAMP DRESSER MCKEE INC MA
04/28/82
04/28/82
D3C00050366-20876
BATTELLE HE ll INST COLUMBUS OH
04/29/82
04/29/82
03AH2020129-20877
RECRA RESEARCH INC NY
04/30/82
D3AW2020127-20878
GERAGHTY $ MILLER NY
04/30/82
06/15/82
03A02020126—20879
FRED C HART NY
04/30/82
04/30/82
03A02010181-20880
TRC ENVIRONPIENTAI. CONS CT
05/03/82
05/03/82
0 ’
-------
HQR 717
SEMI-AMIJAL M. IT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PAGE 8
PERIOD EM ING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
ME lT CONTROL IU ER AEITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
03CA2010162-20881 ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH TEC MA 05/03/82 05/03/82
03C02030202-20882 HITThAH ASSOCIATES INC-t1 05/03/82 05/03/82
E5A02060111-20883 I BROMI CONSTRUCTION INC P . 11 05/03/82 06/25/82
03AA2090157-20864 TEKNEKROH RESEARCH BERKELEY CA 05/03/82 05/03/82
03CH20901 56-20885 SCS ENGINEERS LONG BEACH CA 05/03/82 05/03/82
03002090159-20886 BECHTEL CORP SAN FRANCISCO CA 05/03/82 05/03/82
03A02090158-20887 SCS ENGINEERS LONG BEACH CA 05/03/82 05/03/82
P2B111030455-20888 GREEHBRIER COUNTY P 50 *2 05/04/82
P3C02040171-20889 NC DEPT OF AGRICULTURE NC 05/04/82 08/03/82
03D02060123-20890 CR5 GROUP ENGINEERS INC TX 05/04/82 05/07/82
D3C02060124-20891 WALK HAYDEL & ASSOC 05/04/82 Li
H3C02050378-20892 P(AU)UE UNIV 11 LAFAYETTE IN 05/04/ 2 05/04/82
S28W0090175-20893 SACRAMENTO REGION CS0 SACTO CA 05/04/82
52CW0090217-20894 LOS ANGELES CO CSD WHITTIER 05/04/82 07/13/82
E2CW2090113-20895 ANGELS CA CITY OF 05/04/82
03A02020122-20896 UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER N T 05/04/82 06/21/82
E1ZO111004O-20897 11-4 WIThHOLDING ALLOWANCE 05/05/82 05/05/82
D3DD103O100-2089 ICF INC-DC 05/05/82 06/07/82
D30o1o3o182—2o899 ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSI 05/05/82 05/05/82
03002030270—20900 PRC SYSTEMS-VA 05/05/82 07/23/82
D3A02030249-20901 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE—DC 05/05/82 05/05/82
03C01030323-20902 CAMP DRESSER I MCKEE 05/05/82 05/05/82
03C02030267-20903 BOOZ ALLEM a HA1IILTOP4-NG 05/05/82 05/05/82
S2C110090302—20904 LOS ANGELES CSD WHITTIER CA 05/05/82 05/21/82
52CW0090336—20905 LOS ANGELES CO CSD WHITTIER 05/05/82 06/03/82
-------
HQR 717
SEMI-A IIIJAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PAGE 9
PERIOD E ING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
ALA)IT CONTROL I .R18ER AUDITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
E3008050023-20906 1150 CHGO XL 05/05/82 05/05/82
D3A02050376-20907 BATTELLE NEIl INST COLUMBUS OH 05/06/82 09/01/82
E2CU9030070-2 0908 AMITY TOI*ISHIP-PA 05/06/82 09/28/82
E25W9030108-20909 BLUEFIELO SANITARY BOARD-WV 05/06/82 09/28/82
E2CW9030068-20910 BLUEFIELD SANITARY BOARD-WV 05/06/82 09/14/82
E2CW9030130—20911 BLUEFIELD SANITARY BOARD-WV 05/06/82
E2CW9030069-20912 BLUEFIELD SANITARY BOARD-WV 05/06/82 09/14/82
S2CW0090225-20913 LOS ANGELES CO CSD WHITTIER 05/06/82 10/21/82
D3A02100075-209 14 SHAPIRO £ ASSOCIATE SEATTLE WA 05/06/82 05/06/82
H3C02080074-20915 COLORADO UNIVERSITY OF DENVER 05/06/82 05/06/82
H3C02080075-E0916 NAT JEW HOSPT RESCH DENVER CO 05/06/82 05/06/82
D3CW2080076-20917 DENVER UNIVERSITY OF CO 05/06/82 05/06/82
D3AH2090163-20918 TRW INC REDOMDO BEACH CA 05/06/82 09/21/82
E IHWZI00071-20919 REGION X WA 05/06/82 09/01/82
D3A02030209-20920 SOBOTKA& CO INC-DC 05/07/82 06/08/82
D3C02030271—20921 APPLIED SCIENCE ASSOC-PA 05/07/82 05/07/82
H3CO2030039—20922 TEMPLE UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE 05/07/82 05/07/82
03A02030231—20923 INFORMATICS INC—MD 05/07/82 05/07/82
D3A02030278-20924 CLEMENT ASSOCIATES IN-DC 05/07/82 06/08/82
03CB2010111-20925 RAYThEON CO 05/10/82 05/10/82
03CW2010187-20926 RAYThEON COMPANY II 05/10/82 05/10/82
03A02010186-20927 SCA/TECHNOLOGY DIV MA 05/10/82 05/10/82
D5AH2010185—20928 E C JORDAN CO INC ME 05/10/82 05/10/82
P2CW0030117—20929 HAGERSTOWN - M D 05/10/82
02AW2050309-20930 AA MAThEWS HOUSTON TX 05/10/82 10/07/82
-------
HQR 717
SEMI-ANNUAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PAGE 10
PERIOD ENDING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
AUDIT CONTROL NUMDER AUDITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
D3C02030465-20931 VERSAR INC-VA 09/08/82 09/08/82
03A02050373-20932 MONSANTO RESEARCH DAYTON OH 05/10/82
E2CW2080055-20933 FREEMAN SD CITY OF 05/10/82 05/10/82
D3CO2050377-20934 SYSTECH CORP ZENIA OH 05/11/82 05/11/82
H3CP2050396-20935 PURDUE UNIVERSITY IN 05/11/82 09/08/82
D3C02030264-20936 NUS CORPORATION-MD 05/11/82 05/11/82
D3A02030192-20937 COMPUTER SCIENCES CORP-VA 05/11/82 08/24/82
D3AO2030227-20935 COMPUTER SCIENCE CORP-VA 05/11/82 10/18/82
D3002030283-20939 TRITON CORPORATION-DC 05/11/82 07/13/82
D3C00030061—20940 HALIFAX ENGINEERING 05/11/82 05/11/82
03001030342-20941 ASSOC ANALYTICAL CHEM-VA 05/11/82 07/13/82 3 ’
‘ 0
D3CA2090164-2Q942 SRI INTERNATIOHL MENLO PARK CA 05/11/82 05/11/82
D3C02090166-Z0943 PACIFIC ENVIR SERV S MONICA CA 05/11/82 05/11/82
S2CW1O9O1SZ—t0944 KETTLEMAN CA CITY OF 05/12/82
E5AH2050136—20945 SPILL RECOVERY INDIANAPOLIS IN 05/12/82 09/16/82
E2C142070065-20946 WXLLIAIISBURG SOTP MO 05/13/82 07/28/82
52CW1090095-20947 ThOUSAND OAKS CA CITY OF 05/13/82 06/03/82
H3A02050333-20948 CASE WESTERN RESERVE U CLEVE 0 05/13/82 10/07/82
E2CW2080031-20949 TOOELE CITY CORPORATION UT 05/14/82
D3002050083-20950 ESEI SOUTH BEND IN 05/17/82 05/17/82
D300205040 5-20951 REXHORD INC MILWALEEE WI 05/17/82 05/17/82
H3A02050332—20952 U OF MICHIGAN ARBOR MI 05/17/82 09/28/82
D3A02030228—2 0953 SCIENCE tIANAGEIIENT CORP-MD 05/17/82 09/17/82
D3A02030250-20954 ENERGY & ENVIRON ANALYSIS-VA 05/17/82 09/02/82
D3A02030272—20955 PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT INS-DC 05/17/82 05/17/82
-------
HQR 717
5EflX-A1I’$JAL At IT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION 1 PAGE 11
PERIOD EIWING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
M IT CONTROL. PU ER AUDITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE ClOSED
E2CM2060031-20956 CORPUS CHRISTI TX 05/18/82 08/16/82
EECWZO6006S-20957 CORPUS CHRISTI TX 05/18/82
P2AW2060017—20958 MEHLDImGER TAMIER REP HAM ASSO 05/18/82 07/22/82
P20 12060027-20959 DIDDINGS TX 05/18/82 06/14/82
P2CW2060047- O960 EL DORADO ARK 05/18/82 06/23/82
E2CW1040197-20961 FULTON CO.GA 05/18/82 09/28/82
E3A02040166-20962 IT ENVIROSCIENCE INC. TN 05/17/82
E2C1 11100095 -20963 TILLAIIOOK OREGON CITY OF 05/18/82 08/13/82
D3C02090115-20964 SRI INTERNATIONL MENLO PARK CA 05/18/82 05/18/82
D3CA2090167-20965 PACIFIC ENVIR SERV S MONICA CA 05/18/82 05/18/82
03C02090168-20966 PACIFIC ENVIR SERV S MONICA CA 05/18/82 05/18/82
0 ’
D3C02090169-*0967 PACIFIC ENVIR SERV S MONICA CA 05/18/82 05/18/82
03AH2090170-20968 ACtMEX CORP MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 05/18/82 05/18/82
D3CA2090171-20969 AIR POLLUTION TECH S DIEGO CA 05/18/02 05/18/82
03CA2090172-20970 AIR POLLUTION TECH S DIEGO CA 05/18/82 05/18/62
03CA2090 173-20971 AIR POLLUTION TECH S DIEGO CA 05/18/82 05/18/82
D3CA2090114-20972 AIR POLLUTION TECH S DIEGO CA 05/18/82 05/18/82
H3A02090175-20973 CA UNIV OF DAVIS 05/18/82 05/18/82
03C02090176—20974 PACIFIC EtIVIR SERV S MONICA CA 05/18/82 05/18/82
03C02090177-20975 SCS ENGINEERS LONG BEACH CA 05/18/82 05/18/82
D CO2090178-2O976 SCIENCE APPLICATION LA JOLA CA 05/18/82 05/18/82
D3B02030262-20977 CATALYTIC INC-PA 05/19/82 05/19/82
E2CW2080050-20978 CORVALU COUNTY SEWER DIST MT 05/19/82 05/19/82
03001010100-20979 METCALF & EDDY INC MA 06/11/82 08/16/82
E2CW2080071-20980 PUEBLO CO CITY OF 05/20/82 05/20/82
-------
HQP 717
SEMI-ANNUAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PAGE 12
PERIOD ENDING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
AUDIT CONTROL NUMBER AUDITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
C3E02060135-20981 WICHITA FALLS 05/20/82 05/21/82
C3F02060134-20982 WICHITA FALLS 05/20/82 05/21/82
C3E02040189-20983 TALLAHASSEE FL 05/20/82 05/21/82
C3F02040188-20934 TALLAHASSEE FL 05/20/82 05/21/82
D3A02040184-20985 ENVIRONMENTAL SC & ENGR FL 05/20/82
D3A02060133-20986 RADIAN CORPORATION 05/20/82 08/20/82
03B02020151—20987 ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT NY 05/20/82
D3A02020150-20988 ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT NY 05/20/82
03002020134-20989 CAISFAN CORP 05/20/82 05/20/82
05AH2020131-20990 CONESTOGA ROVERS & ASSC LTD 05/20/82 05/20/82
D3AO2050323-20991 TENECH ENVIRO ENGR SO BEND IN 05/20/82 06/24/82
D3A02050398-20992 UNIV OF DAYTON OH 05/20/82 05/20/82
03A02070374-20993 MIDWEST RES INST KANSAS CITY 11 05/20/82 05/20/82
03CO1070442-20994 K. TOOMER CPA MARYLAND HTS MO 05/20/82 06/23/82
E2CW2100058—20995 QUILEUTE TRIBAL COUNCIL WA 05/21/82 05/21/82
E5AH2050133—20996 MIDWEST PCI MT PLEASANT til 05/21/82 09/16/82
P2AW2050256-20997 HERBERT S WHYTE ASSOC IN 05/21/82
P3DW1020013-20998 CTY OF NASSAU PUBLIC WORKS NY 05/24/82 05/24/82
P2AW1020135-20999 LOZIER INC NY 05/24/82
D3C02020018-21000 BELJKERS LAB INC NY 05/24/82 09/08/82
05AH2020159-21001 COt1ESTOGA ROVERS & ASSOC LTD 05/24/82 05/24/82
P2AW1020140-210 02 EROMAN ANTHONY LOZIER NY 05/24/82
P2AW1020134-2 1 003 ERDMAH ANJHONY ASSOCIATES NY 05/24/82
H3CO2050307-21004 U OF WI MADISON WI 05/25/82 05/25/82
03AO2030259-21005 BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON INC-MB 05/24/82 05/24/82
-------
HQR 717
SEMI-A *8JAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PAGE 13
PERIOD ENDING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
AUDIT CONTROL PU ER AUDITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
03802030294-21006 BOOZ ALLEN & HAtIILTON INC-t 05/24/82 05/24/82
H3C01050380-21007 HEIDELBERG COLLEGE TIFFIN 0*4 05/24/82 10/07/82
D3A02050386-21008 MIDLAND ROSS CORP CLEVELAND OH 05/25/82 05/25/82
03*02050404-21009 PEOCO ENVIRON CINCINNATI OH 05/25/82 06/23/82
03*02090179-21010 TRW INC REDONDO BEACH CA 05/25/82 05/25/82
D3AH2090180-21011 TRW INC REDONDO BEACH CA 05/25/82 10/21/82
P2C141010022-21012 GLASTONBURY COt*I 05/27/82
D3AS2010196—21013 GCA CORPORATION 11* 05/27/82 05/27/82
D3C02010197-21014 I.RIITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP CT 05/27/82 05/27/82
03C02010198-21015 UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORP CT 05/27/82 05/27/82
03*02010199-21016 ARTHUR 0 LITTLE INC MA WCAS 05/27/82 05/27/82
a’
P2CW1030134—21017 LY1* NP SEWER AUTH 05/27/82 09/16/62
P2CW1030140-21018 TLftIKHAM4OCK-PA 05/27/82 09/21/82
N3G02040191-21019 SEMINOLE COUNTY FL 05/25/82 05/28/82
N3G02040190-21020 BREVARD CO FL 05/25/82 05/28/82
E2CW2040124-21021 OELRAY BEACH FL 05/25/82 09/07/82
D3C02060132-21022 RADIAN CORPORATION 05/25/82 05/28/82
D3A02040186—21023 0 P ASSOCIATES 05/25/82 09/20/82
03*02 040167-21024 INTERNATIONAL INCINERATORS GA 05/25/82
P2AW2060038-21025 0 RALPH CAFFERY ASSOC LA 05/25/82 07/08/82
P2CW1040179-21026 PAUl BEACH FL 05/25/82 06/30/82
E2cW1040017-21027 BOThTON & DELRAY BCH FL 05/28/82 09/15/82
N3002060139-21028 PEG PL COMM JEFF ORL ST BER LA 05/25/82 08/13/82
E3CW0050153-21029 NOACA CLEVELAND C l i 05/27/82 10/07/82
E2CW2100007-21030 SHELTON WASHINGTON CITY OF 05/28/82 05/28/82
-------
NQR 717
SEMI-AIW*I. AL IT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PAGE 14
PERIOD ENDING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
AI IT CONTROL NLJtVER AUDITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
E28W1090240-21d31 PETALLRIA CA CITY OF 06/01/82
E2CW2090084-21032 ELKO COUNTY JACKPOT NEVADA 06/01/82 07/20/82
D3CA2090181-21033 PACIFIC ENVIR SERV S MONICA CA 06/01/82 06/01/82
03CA2090182-21034 PACIFIC ENVIR SERV S MONICA CA 06/01/82 06/01/82
D3CA2090183-21035 PACIFIC ENVIR SERV S MONICA CA 06/01/82 06/01/82
N3002060140-21036 ASSOCIATION OF OI&LA GOVTS OK 06/01/82 06/03/82
P2CW9040334-21037 NEWTON NC 06/01/82
N3G02 040197-21038 ATLANTA REGIONAL CO t1ISSION GA 06/01/82 06/03/82
S2CW0040182-21039 METRO GOVT NASHVILLE DAVIDSON 06/01/82 10/13/82
E1Z02060030—21040 PEG VI II*IOVATIVE & ALTERNATIV 06/01/82 06/02/82
P2CW1 03 0177.-21041 PIVERBENO P50-WV 06/02/82 07/28/82
P2CW1O3O IZ1—21042 CAMPBELL COUNTY—VA 06/02/82 07/29/82
D3DW2050418-21043 E 1A INC ST PAUL 1*1 06/02/82 06/02/82
P2BW2050013-21044 TROY II 06/02/82 06/02/82
H3A0205044 0 -21 045 UNIV OF CINCINNATI OH 06/02/82 07/29/82
03A02030245-21046 VERSAR INC-VA 06/03/82 06/03/82
D3C02030301-21047 NAT’L ASSOC OF COUNTIES-DC 06/03/82 06/29/82
03A02030296—21048 COMPUTER DATA SYSTEMS INC-MO 06/03/82 09/17/82
D3C02060138-21049 SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INST 5.A.TX 06/03/82 06/03/82.
03C02040195-21050 WILE LABORATORIES 06/03/82 06/12/82
E3A02060086-21051 NO TX STATE UNIV (PETRA) T 06/03/82 10/12/82
03A02090194-21052 HARDING LAWSON ASOC NOVATO CA 06/03/82 06/03/82
03C02030236-2 1053 GANNETT FLEMING CORD & CARP-PA 06/04/82 06/04/82
D3C02030251-21054 CALCULON CORPORATION-PA 06/04/82 06/04/82
03D02030316—21055 WAPORA INC—MD 06/04/82 08/13/82
-------
HQk 717
SEMI-AIIIUAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PAGE 15
PERIOD ENO NG 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
AUDIT CONTROL PU ER AUDITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
03A02030256-21056 MITED ENGINEERS-TN 06/04/82 10/20/82
D3A02030257-21057 PRC GOVERNMENT INFO SYSTEMS-VA 06/04/82 08/31/82
E2CW2100045-21058 WESTPORT WA CITY OF 06/04/82 09/07/82
E2CW1080082-2 1059 HAPEINSON NO DAKOTA CITY OF 06/04/82
E2CW1080083-21060 GREAT FALLS MONTANA CITY OF 06/04/82
D3A01020064-21061 AMERICAN SOCIETY CIVIL ENG NY 06/04/82
D3C02020161-21062 BOI.1IE TIME SHAPING INC NY 06/04/82
D3C02020162-21063 ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT NY 06/04/82
O3DO203031 21064 VERSAR INC-VA 06/07/82 07/13/82
D3D02030313-21065 HALIFAX ENGINEERING-VA 06/07/82 09/03/82
D3A02030315-21066 ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS FC4V 06/07/82 09/17/82
D3A02030321—21067 ENVIRONMENTAL LAN INSTITUTE-DC 06/07/82 06/07/82
D3A02030275-21068 ROY F WESTON-PA 06/07/82 06/07/82
D3CO2050394-21069 MEAD TECHNOLOGY LAB DAYTON OH 06/07/82 06/07/82
D3C02050442-2 1070 MTL SYSTEMS INC DAYTON OH 06/07/82
82CW1090070-21071 LOS ANGELES CSD $2 CA 06/07/82
S2CW1090083-21072 LOS ANGELES CSD $2 I*IITTIER CA 06/07/82 06/07/82
D3A02030274-21073 JACK FAUCETT ASSOCIATES-tN 06/08/82 09/14/82
03CO2030306—21074 CALCULON CORPORATION-PA 06/08/82 06/08/82
D3CO2030307-21075 CALCULON CORPORATION-PA 06/08/82 06/08/82
03C02030308-21076 CALCULON CORPORATION-PA 06/08/82 06/08/82
D3C02030309-21077 CALCULON CORPORATION-PA 06/08/82 06/08/82
D3A02030258-21078 ARTHUR YCIJNG & CO-DC 06/08/82 06/08/82
D3AO2030322-21079 AMERICAN MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS-VA 06/08/82 06/08/82
03002030320—21080 MINE SAFETY APPLIANCE CO-PA 06/08/82 07/22/82
-------
HQR 717
SEMI—ANNUAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PAGE 16
PERIOD EP ING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
AUDIT CONTROL NUMBER AUDITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
D3C02090195-21051 PACIFIC ENVIR SERV S MONICA CA 06/08/82 06/08/82
D3C02100082-21082 AIR POLLUTION SYSTEMS KENT WA 06/08/82 06/08/82
D3A02100083-21083 BOEING COMPUTER SER SEATTLE WA 06/08/82 06/08/82
H3CP1050409-21084 PURDUE UNIV U/LAFAYETTE IN 06/08/82 10/07/82
S2CW0090219-21035 BLYTHE CA CITY OF 06/08/82
S2CW2090 1 00-21 086 EASTERN MUD HEIIET CA 06/08/82
S2CW2090102-21087 KERN COUNTY CA 06/08/82 09/21/82
D3A0209 0197-z1c5a ROCKWELL INTL NEWBURY PARK CA 06/10/82 06/10/82
E5CH21 00076-21089 ECOLOGY DEPT OF WA 06/10/82 10/07/82
E3CW2040016-21090 CHARLOTTE HARBOR WATER ASSOCFL 06/10/82
D3A02040202-2109 1 ENTROPHY ENVIRO (P11) NC 06/10/82 06/30/82
P2CW2040048-21092 BROWAPD CO FL 06/10/82 09/02/82
E1ZW1040087-21093 CG OBLIGATIONS & EXPEt’4)ITURES 06/10/82 08/16/82
H3CO204O194-21o UNIV OF MISSISSIPPI MED CTh MS 06/10/82 06/12/82
D3C02010058-21095 YORK RESEARCH CORP 06/10/82 06/10/82
02AW2010201—21096 WCH INDUSTRIES INC MA 06/10/82 06/10/82
D3C02050303-21097 lIT RESEARCH INST CHGO XL 06/14/82 06/14/82
D3C02050446—21098 BATTELLE PIEM INST COLUMBUS OH 06/14/82 06/14/82
E5CH2070314—21099 BROSKI BROS KANSAS CITY MO 06/14/82
P28W1100091-2 11 00 RUPERT IDAHO CITY OF 06/14/82
N3G02040199-211Q1 KENTUCKY DEPT NATURAL RES KY 06/15/82
D3D02040203 -211 02 NORTHROP SERVICES 06/15/82 07/08/82
H3A02040204—21103 RESEARCH .TRIA.NGLE INSTITUTE NC 06/15/82 09/02/82
N3602040205-21104 GEORGIA DEPT NATURAL RES GA 06/15/82 08/12/82
N3002040209-21105 WEST FLORIDA PEG PL COUNCIL FL 06/15/82 06/15/82
-------
HQR 717
SEMI-AMIJAI. AL IT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PAU 17
PERIOD ENOING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/62
AL IT CONTROL PU ER AI ITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
03C02060146—21106 RESOLMCE CONVERSION SYSTEMS TX 06/15/82
D3C02010073-21107 ASCOR INC 06/15/82 06/15/82
03002090198-21108 TECHNOLOGY $ERV S MONICA CA 06/15/82 06/15/62
P3Ai42020120—21109 PASSERO-SCARDETTA ASSOC NY 06/15/62
P2AW2020145—21110 PSJESER RUTLEDGE JOHNSTON NY 06/15/82
P3AW2020119-21111 JOSEPH C W PE NY 06/15/82
D3A02030265-21112 COMPUTER SCIENCE CORP-VA 06/16/82 09/17/62
D3A02030299-21113 SYNECTICS GROUP INC-DC 06/16/82 06/16/82
D3001030220-21114 ACOR JITCO INC 06/16/82 06/24/82
03*02030273-21115 SOBOTKA A CO. INC-DC 06/16/62 09/21/82
03C02030330-E1116 AUTOMATION LABORATORIES-MO 06/16/82 06/16/82
a’
03002030331-21117 AMER INST OF BIOLOGICAL Sd-VA 06/16/62 08/11/82
03002030332-21118 GENERAL ELECTRIC CORP-PA 06/16/82 06/24/82
D3C02030333-21119 MINE SAFETY APPLIANCE CO-PA 06/16/82 06/16/82
E5AH2010068-21120 SCA CHEMiCAL SERVICES 06/16/82 06/16/82
03802010121—21121 CAMORIOGE DIAGNOSTICS INC MA 06/16/82 09/24/82
03C02010210-21122 TRC RESEARCH CORP OF NE CT 06/16/82
E2CW110007S—21123 LYII*’IOOD WA CITY OF 06/16/62 06/16/82
E2CW2080084-21124 SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION UT 06/16/82 06/16/82
H3A02050391—21125 IfrUVER OP WI SUPERIOR HI 06/17/82
03A02060148-21126 RADIAN (PERFORIIAHCE 0EV XNS)TX 06/17/82 09/28/82
03001060153-21127 TERECO CORP 06/17/82 08/16/82
03C02060147-21126 TERECO CORPORATION 06/17/82 07/09/82
P2CW2040069-21129 VERSAILLES KY 06/17/82
D3A02090199 -21130 SRI INTERNATIONL MENLO PARK CA 06/17/82 06/17/82
-------
HQR 717
AUDIT CONTROL PU ER
03002090200—2 1131
03001010075—21132
03AW2010211—21133
D3AW20102 12—2 1134
P2CW1030067-21 135
D3D 142020006—2 1136
P3CA1020021—21 137
P3C 02020 160-2 1138
03002090201-21139
03D02090202-’2 1140
P2CW1030142—21 141
030141050345-21142
S2C 142090126—21 143
E2AW2090138-21 144
030142050355-21145
P2CW1030173—21 146
03*02010213—21147
03802010214—21148
D3C 020102 15-2 1149
03*02010216—21150
03*02010217—21151
D3002030343-2 1152
03002050400—21153
030 142050354-21 154
P28142050014-21155
SEPII-A1flIUAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED
PERIOD ENDING 09/30/82
AUDITEE
HAWAII UNIVERSITY OF HONOLULU
YORK RESEARCH CORP CT
URBAN SYSTEMS RESEARCH&ENG MA
URBAN SYSTEMS RESEARCH ENG MA
SWOYERSVILLE MUll. AUTH
OMJtI ROTFELD CA
HUDSON REGIONAL HEALTH COtti NJ
NEW YORK CITY TAXI COtIM NY
JONES & STOKES ASOC SACTO CA
ROCKWELL INTL ThOUSAND OAKS CA
WALNUTPORT SEWER AUTHPA
POLYTECH INC CLEVELAND OH
LOS ANGELES CSD 12 WHITTlE CA
RICHGROVE COMM SER 01ST CA
HNRI4 INC CHICAGO IL
MOUNT UNION MUNICIPAL AUTH-PA
CORTEX CORP MA
MASS INSTITUTE OF TECH MA
ABCOR INC WALDEN RESEARCH DI N
SPRINGBORN GROUP INC CT
MASS INSTITUTE OF TECH MA
BROOKINGS INSTITUTUION-DC
CR5 GROUP INC HOUSTON TX
WENDELL CAXIPDELLASSOC CHICAGO
PORTAGE TOWNSHIP P11
FINAL REPORT ISSUED
06/17/82
06/18/82
06/18/82
06/18/82
06/21/82
06/21/82
06/21/82
06/21/82
06/21/82
06/22/82
06/23/82
06/23/82
06/23/82
06/23/82
06/24/82
06/24/82
06/24/82
06/24/82
06/24/82
06/24/82
06/24/82
06/24/82
06/24/82
06/24/82
06/24/82
18
10/23/82
— SECTION I
PAGE
DATE:
DATE CLOSED
06/17/82
09/13/82
09/24/82
06/18/82
06/21/82
06/21/82
06/22/82
09/21/82
06/23/82
06/23/82
06/24/82
09/27/82
08/16/82
06/24/82
06/24/82
06/24/82
06/24/82
06/29/82
06/24/82
06/24/82
06/24/82
—1
-------
HQR 717
SEMI-ANNUAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PAGE 19
PERIOD ENGING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
AUDIT CONTROL PftJPiBER AUDITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
P2CW1050044-21156 PORTAGE COUNTY 8CC RAVENWA OH 06/24/82
H3B02080085-21157 WYOMING UNIVERSITY OF LARA1IIE 06/25/82 06/25/82
E3AH2090160-21158 IT CORP WILMINGTON CA 06/25/82 06/25/82
P2CW1030056-21159 LOWER SALFORD TWP AUTh 06/28/82
S2BW2090213-21160 VICTOR VALLEY NW REC AUTh CA 06/28/82
D3CO2010220-21161 BARRY LAWSON ASSOCIATES INC MA 06/28/82 06/28/82
03CW2010221-21162 E C JORDAN CO INC tIE 06/28/82 06/28/82
E3DW2090129-21163 EAST BAY PU4I UTILITY 0 1ST CA 06/25/82 06/25/82
P2CH1030191-21164 POINT MARION PU’IICIPAL.AUTh-PA 06/28/82
P2CW1060147-21165 GILBERT LA 06/28/82
03C02040215-21166 STEWART LABORATORIES KNOX TN 06/28/82 06/30/82
P2AW2060048-21167 BOULDER ENGR CORP 06/28/82 08/17/82
D3A02040216-21168 PRIEDE—SEDGWICK INC JAX FL 06/28/82 06/30/82
P2CW1060141—21169 SHREVEPORT LA 06/28/82 09/30/82
P2CW1060137-21170 MANY LA 06/28/82 08/25/82
P2CW2060019-21171 DEVERS TX 06/28/82 09/02/82
H3CO2060151-21172 TEXAS A&M UNIVERSITY CS TX 06/28/82 10/13/62
D3CO2040220-21173 WYLE LABORATORIES AL 06/28/f 2 07/22/62
E5AH2050389-21174 BERLEKAIIP CONST GREEN SPRINGS 06/29/82 09/23/82
D3AO2030266-21175 CRC SYSTEM—VA 06/29/82 06/29/82
03802030342-21176 ATRIS ASSOCIATES IHCORP-NO 06/29/82 06/29/82
D3A02090219-21177 SDC-SERVICES GROUP S MONICA CA 06/29/82 10/05/82
D3002060154-21178 LOCKHEED UGR $ MGMT SVC CO TX 06/30/82 09/28/82
D3CO2060155-21179 SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INST IX 06/30/82 07/01/82
03AO2050407—21180 UNIV OF IL 06/29/82
-------
HQR 717
SEMI-ANNUAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PAGE 20
PERIOD ENDING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
AUDIT CONTROL NUMBER AUDITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
D3C02030261—21181 VERSAR INC-VA 06/30/82 06/30/82
D3C02030345-21182 MINE SAFETY APPLIANCE CO-PA 06/30/82 06/30/82
03002030347-21183 NATIONAL CENTER RESOURCE-DC 06/30/82 08/04/82
P2CWO I00005-21184 WRANGELL ALASKA CITY OF 06/30/82 10/05/82
D3CO2090221— 1185 SRI INTERNATIONL MENLO PARK CA 06/30/82 06/30/82
ESEH2L10005—21186 HEADQUARTERS SUPERFUND 07/01/82
D3A02030285-21187 VIAR & CO-VA 07/01/82 09/17/82
D3C02030344-21188 AUTOMATION INDUSTRIES INC-MD 07/01/82 07/23/82
E5AH2030141-21189 SAVAGE CONSTRUCTION CO-WV 07/01/82 09/14/82
03602080086-21190 DENVER UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO 07/01/82 07/01/82
S2BW0090174-21191 SACRAMENTO REGION CSD SACTO CA 07/01/82
S2CW0090199-21192 SAN FRANCISCO CA CITY & CTY OF 07/01/82
S2CW2090215-21193 SAN FRANCISCO CITY & COUNTY CA 07/01/82
EZCW2100008-21194 SW SUBURBAN SEWER DISTRICT WA 07/01/62 07/01/82
D3AO2030260-2 1195 CRC SYSTEMS INC-VA 07/02/82 08/31/82
D2AW2040)34-21196 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES GROUP 07/02/62 07/08/82
E5C02040198-21197 SCA SERVICES INCORPORATED SC 07/02/82 10/13/82
D3002030346-21198 CHECCHI AND COMPANY-DC 07/07/82 08/11/82
D3C02030038-21199 JACA CORPORATION-PA 07/07/82 07/07/82
03C02030353-21200 JACA CORPORATION-PA 07/07/82 07/07/62
D3D02010226-21201 META SYSTEMS INC P tA 07/07/82 07/07/82
D3B02010227-21202 PIETA SYSTEMS INC MA 07/07/82 07/09/82
E2CW2100009-21203 SKAGIT C SEWER 01ST NO 2 WA 07/07/82 07/07/82
03CA2090227-21204 AEROSPACE CORP EL SEGUNDO CA 07/08/82 07/08/82
P2CW2100037-21205 FAIRBANKS ALASKA CITY OF 07/08/82
-------
HQR 717
PAGE 21
DATE: 10/23/82
DATE CLOSED
07/08/82
07/08/82
07/08/82
07/08/82
07/15/82
07/14/82
09/28/82
09/17/82
07/26/82
07/12/82
07/12/82
07/12/82
07/12/82
07/15/82
0 7/15/82
07/15/82
07/13/82
SEMI-AMIUAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED
— SECTION I
PERIOD ENDING 09/30/82
AUDIT CONTROL NUP ER
AUDITEE
FINAL
REPORT ISSUED
P2CW1050106-21206
KENTW000 MI
07/08/82
P2CW1050077-21207
SWANTON OH
07/08/82
P2CW1050158-21208
CLINTON SD IL
07/08/82
C3E02060115-21209
SAN ANTONIO
07/08/82
C3F02060116—21210
SAN ANTONIO
06/08/82
P2CW0050391—21211
TROY IL
07/08/82
P2CW1050030—21212
LAPEL IN
07/08/82
P2CW1OSO1OB-21213
HANCOCK MI-PORTAGE TOI44SHIP
07/08/82
C3EO2060157-21214
METROPLAN
07/09/82
C3F02060158-2 1215
METROPL.AN
07/09/82
P2CW2040070-21216
HENDERSON KY
07/09/82
D3A02040226-21217
NORTHROP SERVICES (ENV SC) NC
07/09/82
E5AO2060112-21218
US POLLUTION CONTROL INC OK
07/09/82
E IHO11100 I I—21219
AP-99 BILLINGS a RECEIVABLES
07/09/82
E1Z01110037—21220
IMPREST FUND-BELTSVILLE
07/09/82
E1H01070153-21221
I&M FINANCIAL IINGtIT REGION VII
07/09/82
E5AH2030142—21222
SHENANDOAH ENVIRON SERVICES-VA
07/12/82
N3GW2050473-21223
MIAMI VALLEY PEG PLG DAYTON OH
07/12/82
D3C02050471-21224
BATTELLE MEN INST COLUMBUS OH
07/12/82
D3C02050406-21225
A I KEARNEY ALEXANDRIA VA
07/12/82
H3CA2080088-21226
UTAH UNIV OF SALT LAKE CITY CA
07/12/82
N3Goa040228-21227
BERKELEY CHARLESTON DORCHES SC
07/12/82
N3G02040230—21228
VOLUSIA (DUNCIL OF GOVTS FL
07/12/82
H3C02040229-21229
WAKE FOREST (BOWMAN GRAY) NC
07/12/82
D3002090228-21230
ROCKWELL INTL CANOGA PARK CA
07/13/82
0
-------
HQR 717
SEMI-AtHJAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PAGE 22
PERIOD ENDING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
AUDIT CONTROL tU ER AWITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
E2CW2100010-21231 OAK HARBOR WASHINGTON CITY OF 07/12/82 07/12/82
P2CW1040107—21232 BURLINGTON NC 07/13/82
E30D2040173—21233 IT ENVIROSCIENCE 07/13/82 07/15/82
P2CW0030215-21234 POUND — VA 07/14/82
03002090229-21235 JONES & STOKES ASSOC SACTO CA 07/14/82 07/14/82
P2CW2070045—21236 ESThERVILLE IA 07/14/82 09/02/82
H3AO2O50390 t1237 UNIV OF CINCII*IATI 07/15/82
H3A02050456-21238 REGENT U OF MXIII MIIIIEAPOLIS 11 07/15/82 07/15/82
E2CW2050210-21239 1150 CHICAGO IL 07/15/82 07/15/82
E2CH2050220-21240 1150 CHICAGO IL 07/15/82 07/15/82
03C02020171-21241 SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORP NY 07/15/82 07/15/82
03CO20Z0166-21242 LJRBACH KAHN WERLIN PC NY 07/15/82 07/15/82
03002020169-21243 ONTARIO RESEARCH FOUNDATION CD 07/15/82 07/15/82
03C00020020-21244 MATHTECH INC NJ 07/15/82 07/15/82
03AA2020172-t)245 FOSTER I*IEELER ENERGY CORP NJ 07/15/82 10/15/82
D3A02020177-21246 MATHTECH NJ 07/15/82 09/20/82
E2CW2100064-21247 COWLITZ COUNTY KELSO HA 07/14/82 07/14/82
H3GW2050478-21248 COUNTY OF IIIUIAUKEE MI 07/15/82
E2CW2050216—21249 1150 CHICAGO IL 07/15/82 07/15/82
D3C02030116-21250 BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON INC-ND 07/16/82 07/16/82
D3C02090231-21251 SRI INTERNATIOHL MENLO PARK CA 07/16/82 07/16/82
03001030154-21252 INSTIT FOR DEFENSE ANAL—VA 07/16/82 09/23/82
D3C01030216-21253 PIUS CORPQJ ATION-t1D 07/16/82 07/16/82
D3C02030213-21254 JACK FAUCETT ASS0CIATES- 07/16/82 07/16/62
D3A02030327-21255 INFORMATICS INC-MO 07/16/82 09/17/82
-------
HQR 717
AUDIT CONTROL PPJ ER
D3A02030336—21256
D3C02030337-21257
03A02030357-2 1258
03002030378-21259
52CW1000162—21260
S2BW9090143—21261
P2BW9090339—2 1262
P2B 141090 167-2 1263
03C02 09 0232—21264
D3CW2 09 0233—2 1265
D3C02090234-21266
D3CW2090235-2 1267
D3CW209 0236—21268
D3CW2090237—21 269
03CW2090238—21270
03C02090239—21271
03C02090240—21272
D3A02090241—21273
D3002090242-21274
D3AA2090243-21275
03C02010229—21276
03CW2010230—21277
E2CW21 00074—21278
E2CW2 050218—21279
E2CW2050224—21280
SEMI-AMIUAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I
PERIOD ENGING 09/30/82
AUDITEE FINAL
GENERAL SOFTWARE CORP-PS
JACK FAUCETT ASSOCIATES-PS
AMERICAN PIANAGEtIENT SYSTEM-VA
AMERICAN MANAGEMENT SYSTEM-VA
GRIDLEY CA CITY OF
LOS ANGELES CA CITY OF
HARDING-LAWSON NOVATO CA
GEOTECHNICAL CONS SANTA AMA CA
SCIENCE APPLICATION LA JOLA CA
CULP/WESNER/CULP CAMERON PI( CA
CULP/WESNER/CULP CAMERON PK CA
CULP/I4ESHER/CULP CAMERON PK CA
CULP/WESNER/CULP CAMERON M C. CA
CULP/WESNER/CULP CAMERON PlC. CA
CULP/WESHER/CULP CAMERON PlC. CA
CULP/WESNER/CULP CAMERON PK CA
CULP/WESNER/CULP CAMERON PlC. CA
SOC-SERVICE GROUP S MONICA CA
INTERSTATE ELECTRON ANAHEIM CA
AEROCOMP INC COSTA MESA CA
EGIG MASON RESEARCH INST MA
EIC CORP
KING COUMTY WA
MSO CHICAGO IL
PISO CHICAGO IL
REPORT ISSUED
07/16/82
07/16/82
07/16/82
07/16/82
07/19/82
07/19/82
07/19/82
07/19/82
0 7/19/82
07/19/82
07/19/82
07/19/82
0 7/19/82
07/19/82
07/19/82
07/19/82
07/19/82
07/19/82
07/19/82
0 7/19/82
0 7/19/82
07/19/82
07/19/82
0 7/19/82
07/19/82
PAGE 23
DATE: 10/23/82
DATE CLOSED
0 7/16/82
0 7/16/82
0 7/16/82
09/21/82
07/19/82
07/19/82
07/19/82
07/19/82
0 7/19/82
07/19/82
07/19/82
07/19/82
07/19/82
07/19/82
07/19/82.
0 7/19/82
0 7/19/82
07/19/82
0 7/19/82
0 7/19/82
-------
HQP 717
AUDIT CONTROL IJJPIBEP
03C02070487-21281
03A02050488-21282
P2CWI 050076-21283
E2CW2050213—2 1284
D3A02050455-2 1285
E2CW1 100040—21286
E3B021 10029-21287
E2CW2050025—21 288
D3C02050441-2128
D3A090201 34—21290
D3C 09020236—2 1291
P5AH201020 0—21292
H3C02060161—21293
E2CW2040179-2 1294
P2CW2040066—21295
P2CW1060133-2 1296
E2CW2050215—2 1297
03*02030406—21298
03C01030355-21299
03001030291—21300
P2CW0030216—21301
P2CW IO3O 144—2 1302
P2CW IO3O 133—2 1303
N3GW2 O 10231—2 1304
D3C02060247—21305
SEMI-ANNUAL AUDIT’ REPORTS ISSUED
PERIOD ENDXNG 09/30/82
AUDITEE
MIDWEST RES INST KANSAS CITY P1
BATTE LIE hEM INST COLUMBUS OH
HASKINS OH
MSD
MIDWEST RES INST KANSAS CITY P1
ST CHARLES IDAHO CITY OF
STATE CONTROLLERS OFFICE-CA
P150 CHICAGO IL
SVERDRUP & PARCEL ST LOUIS MO
EXXON RES & ENGINEERING CONJ
CALSPAN CORPORATION NJ
JET-LINE SERVICES INC. hA
GULF SOUTH RESEARCH INST LA
JACKSONVILLE
MORGANTON N C
ORANGE CO WCID *3
MSD CHICAGO IL
BORRISTON LABORATORIES INC-MO
ROMAR CONSULTANTS INC-PA
HITTPIAN ASSOCIATES-P lO
ACCIDENT - MD
WILLISTOWN NP HUN AUTH-PA
HILLTOWN hIP SEWER AUTH-PA
HE CONNECTICUT PP AGENCY CT
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE AL
FINAL REPORT ISSUED
07/19/82
07/19/82
07/20/82
07/21/82
07/21/82
07/21/82
07/22/82
07/22/82
07/22/82
07/22/82
07/22/82
07/22/82
07/22/82
07/22/82
07/22/82
07/22/82
07/22/82
07/23/82
07/23/82
07/23/82
07/23/82
07/23/82
07/23/82
07/26/82
07/28/82
24
10/23/82
— SECTION I
PAGE
DATE:
DATE CLOSED
07/19/82
07/19/82
07/21/82
07/21/82
07/21/82
07/22/82
07/22/82
07/22/82
07/22/82
07/22/82
07/22/82
07/22/82
09/13/82
07/22/82
07/23/82
07/23/82
08/31/8 2
09/21/82
-------
HQR 717
SEMI-A)iAL A( IT REPORTS ISSUED — SECTION I PAGE 25
PERICO ENGING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
AL IT CONTROL MJ ER AUDITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
H3A02040248-21306 RESEARCH TRIANGLE IHSTIWTE NC 07/26/82 10/18/82
P2CI11060082-21307 BAYTOWN TX 06/26/82 09/28/82
E2CW2050026—21308 MSD CHICAGO IL p7/26/82 07/26/82
E2CW2050221—21309 MSD CHICAGO XL 07/26/82 07/26/82
P2cW1030137—21310 OIL CITY GENERAL AUTh—PA 07/27/82
D3A02030348-21311 DYNAIIIC CORPORATION—MD 07/27/82 07/27/82
E5AH2020176—21312 SlID ENGINEERING SERVICES NJ 07/28/82
D3001030219-21313 GANNETT FLEMING I CORDRY—PA 07/28/82 08/30/82
E5AH2010218-21314 GHR ENGINEERING CORP MA 07/28/82 10/15/82
D3A02030335-21315 SCIENCE MANAGEMENT CORP-MD 07/28/82 09/17/82
D3C02030186-21316 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCE-DC 07/28/82 07/28/82
03C02030407—21317 HITThAN ASSOCIATES—MD 07/28/82 07/28/82
P5A112020178—21318 LIRS INC NY 07/28/82 10/18/82
P5AH2020163-21319 ROLLINS ENVIRONNENTAL SER NJ 07/28/82 07/28/82
P5AH2010184-21320 RECYCLING INDUSTRIES INC MA 07/28/82 09/24/82
P3CW0020079-21321 NEW JERSEY DEPT ENV PROT NJ 07/28/82
E1Z02100080—21322 REGION X WA 07/29/82 07/29/82
P2BW1040121-21323 CAMPBELL KENTON COS KY 07/29/82
P2CW0040323-21324 DALLAS CO AL 07/29/82
H3CO2050257-21325 U OF MICHIGAN ANN ARBOR MI 07/29/82 07/29/82
D3A02030329-21326 COMPUTER DATA SYSTEMS-MD 07/29/82 10/18/82
P5AH2050463-21327 EMI CHICAGO IL 07/29/82 07/29/82
P5AH2050465-21328 PRC CONSUER TOWNSEND CHGO XL 07/29/82 10/13/82
P5AH2050464-21329 D II TACOMA CHICAGO IL 07/29/82 10/04/82
D3A02060164-21330 RADIAN CORPORATION 07/30/82
-------
HQR 717
SEPtI-Ml JAL AL IT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PAGE 26
PERIOO Et’ ING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
AUDIT CONYROL IUIBER AUDITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
03002040251-21331 SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE AL 07/30/82 10/13/82
E5AH2090217 —21332 ENGINEERING SCIENCE ARCADIA CA 07/30/82 07/30/82
D5A1i2050475-21333 HARZA ENGINEERING CHICAGO IL 07/30/82 07/30/82
E5AH2090218-21334 ENGINEERING SCIENCE ARCADIA CA 07/30/62 07/30/82
03000020134—21335 FRED C HART ASSC INC NY 06/02/82 08/02/82
D3CA2020181—21336 CHEMICO AIR POL CONT NY 08/02/62 08/02/82
D3A00020230-21337 HYOROQUAL INC NJ 08/02/82 09/27/82
D3A01020038—21338 GERAGHTY a MILLER INC NY 08/02/82 08/02/82
D3A01020245-21339 NYC DEPT OF ENV PROT NY 08/02/82 08/02/82
03001020018—21340 5YRACUSE RESEARCH CORP NY 08/02/82 08/02/62
03A01020076-21341 PRINCETON AQUA SCIENCE NJ 08/02/82 08/02/82
D3A00020063-21342 CORNELL UNIVERSITY NY 08/02/82 08/02/82
03C01020063-21343 CALSPAN CORP NT 08/02/82 08/02/82
D5AH2050476—21344 HOWARD NEEDLES KANSAS CITY P lO 08/02/82 08/02/82
D3B02090251-21345 ACUREX CORP MOUNTAIN VIEW CA 08/02/82 08/02/82
05AH2090252-2 1346 JACOBS ENGINEERING PASADENA CA 08/02/82 10/05/82
E5AH2090216-21347 ENGINEERING SCIENCE ARCADIA CA 08/02/82 08/02/82
D3AA2090253-21348 PACIFIC ENVIR SERV S MONICA CA 08/02/82 10/21/82
D3C02090254-21349 HITACHI SHIP & ENGERING JAPAN 08/02/82 08/02/82
D3CO2030430-21350 JACA CORPORATION-PA 08/03/82 08/03/82
03002030432-21351 HAZLETON LABORATORIES INC-VA 08/03/82 08/11/82
P 5AH2020182-21352 URS COMPANY INC NY 08/03/82 08/03/82
05AH2030380-21353 CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC-MA 08/04/82 10/08/82
D5AH2030383-21354 DYNAMIC CORPORATION-MD 08/04/82 08/04/82
D5AH2030384-21355 ENVIRON CORPORAtION-DC 08/04/82 08/04/82
-------
HQR 717
5ENI-A t8JAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PAGE 27
PERIOD EP IHG 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
AUDIT CONTROL IU ER AUDITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
D5AH2030387-21356 ICF INC-bC 08/04/82 08/04/82
D5AH2030388-21357 JRB ASSOCIATES-VA 08/04/82 10/04/82
D5AH2030390-213 58 NUS CORPORATION-DC 08/04/82
05AH2030392-2 1359 PEER CONSULTANT INC-MD 08/04/82 08/04/82
D5AR2030393-2 1360 PLAM4XNG RESEARCH CORP 08/04/82 10/08/82
D5AH2030394-21361 SIIC MARTIN-PA 08/04/82 10/04/82
05AH2030395-21362 VERSAR INC-VA 08/04/82 10/04/82
05AH2030398-21363 ROY F WESTON INC-PA 08/04/82 10/04/82
D5AH2030399-21364 ROY F WESTON INC-PA 08/04/82 10/04/82
D5AH2030400-2136$ ICF INC-DC 08/04/82 08/04/82
D5AH2030402-21366 ROY F WESTON INC-PA 08/04/82 10/05/82
05AH2030431-21367 5MC MARTIN INC-PA 08/04/82 10/04/82
D3C02090256—t1368 ROCKWELL INTL CANOGA PARK CA 08/04/82 08/04/82
05AH2100094-21369 CHZM HILL INC CORVALLIS OR 08/04/82 08/04/82
D5AH2090258-21370 SCS ENGINEERS LONG BEACH CA 08/04/82 08/04/82
D5AH2090259-21371 SCS ENGINEERS LOtU BEACH CA 08/04/82 08/04/82
05AH2090260-21372 TETRA TECH INC PASADENA CA 08/04/82 08/04/82
D5AH2090261—21373 TETPA TECH INC PASADENA CA 08/04/82 08/04/82
D5AH2090262-21374 TETRA TECH INC PASADENA CA 08/04/82 08/04/82
D5AH2090263-21375 PACIFIC ENVIR SERV S MONICA CA 08/04/82 10/05/82
D3A02030367-2 1376 DYNAIIAC CORPORATION-MD 08/05/82 08/05/82
03002030060—21377 BIOSPHERICS INC—MD 08/05/82 09/09/82
D5AH2010234-21378 GCA CORP MA 08/05/82 08/05/82
D3A02010235-21379 RILEY STOKER CORP MA 08/05/82
D3A02010236-21380 RILEY STOKER CORP MA 08/05/82 10/15/82
-------
HQR 717
SEtII-ANIIUAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PAGE 28
PERIOD ENDING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
AUDIT CONTROL NIJIIBER AUDITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
D3C02010237-21381 ARThUR 0 LITTLE INC MA 08/05/82 08/05/82
P2CW1010077-21382 GLASTONBURY CT 08/05/82
D5AH2050474-21383 SVERDRUP & PARCEL ST LOUIS MO 08/05/82 10/13/82
52CW1090097-21384 SACRAMENTO CA COUNTY OF 08/05/82
D3B02080089 -21385 DENVER UNIVERSITY OF CO 08/05/82 08/05/82
05AH2090264-21386 PRC ENVIR MANAGEMENT MCLEAN VA 08/05/82 10/12/82
03CO2090265-21387 CULP/WESNER/CULP CAMERON PK CA 08/05/82 08/05/82
03CW2090266-21388 CULP/WESNER/CULP CAMERON PK CA 08/05/82 08/05/82
P2CW0100074-21389 LINCOLN OR CITY OF 08/05/82
E2CW2100016-21390 LAKEHAVEN SEW 01ST FED WAY WA 08/05/82 10/05/82
E2CW2100051-21391 PARKER ID CITY OF 08/05/82
S2CW0010209-21392 PAY)fllAII PtA 08/06/82
03AW2010233-21393 E C JORDAN CO tIE 08/06/82 08/06/82
D3AW2010239-21394 E C JORDAN CO ME 08/06/82 08/06/82
D5Afl2100096-21395 SHAPIRO AP ASOC SEATTLE WA 08/06/82 08/06/82
03*02090267-21396 ENSY $ ENVIR RESERCH IRVINE CA 08/06/82 08/06/82
D3AO2090268-21397 ENGY & ENVIR RESERCH IRVINE CA 08/06/82 08/06/82
D3A02090269-21398 ENGY $ ENVIR RESERCH IRVINE CA 08/06/82 08/06/82
D3A02090270-21399 ENGY & ENVIR RESERCH IRVINE CA 03/06/82 08/06/82
05AH2030396-21400 WAPORA-tID 08/09/82 10/04/82
05AH2030401-21401 WAPORA INC-MO 08/09/82 10/04/82
P3CA2020063-21402 HUDSON REGIONAL HEALTh COtIPI NJ 08/09/82 08/09/82
05AH2020194-21403 ECOLOGY 1. ENVIRO1 IENT INC NY 08/09/82 08/09/82
05AH2020193-21404 ECOLOGY & ENVIRONIIENT NY 08/09/82 10/18/82
D5AH2020197-21405 BARRY LAWSON ASSOC INC MA 08/09/82 08/09/82
-------
HQR 717
SEMI-AIIIJAL AL IT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION PARE 29
PERIOD EI XNG 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
At IT CONTROL. PU ER AUCITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
03C02020175-21406 SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORP NY 08/09/82 08/09/82
D3A02020186-21407 HYDROTECHNIC CORP N T 08/09/82
D5AH2020189—21408 ENERGY RESOURCES INC NY 08/09/82 10/15/82
D5AH2020187—21409 ECOLOGY & ENVIROMIENT NT 08/09/82 10/18/82
05AH2020190-21410 STONE & WEBSTER ENGR PR 08/09/82 08/09/82
D5A}12020191—21411 GCA CORP MA 08/09/82 08/09/82
D5AH2020188 —21412 RECRA RESEARCH INC NY 08/09/82 08/09/82
05AH2020195-21413 RECRA RESEARCH INC NY 08/09/82 10/18/82
D5AH2020196—21414 METCALF £ EDDY INC MA 08/09/82 10/18/1 .
E2CW2040107-21415 POMPANO BEACH FL 08/09/82
D5AO2040252—2141 LAW ENGINEERING TESTING CO GA 08/09/82 10/04/82
-4
05A02040253—21417 ENVIRON SC $ ENGINEERING FL 08/09/82 10/04/82
D5A02040255-21418 ENVIROMIENTAL SC & ENGR AL 08/09/82 10/15/82
P2CW2060053-21419 WALKER LA 08/09/82 09/02/82
D5A02060169-21420 BROI’OI & ROOT DEVELOPMENT TX 08/09/82
D5A02060170-2*421 INTERA ENVIRONMENTAL CONSUL TX 08/09/82 10/15/82
D3A02090271—21422 S-CUBED SAN DIEGO CA 08/09/82 08/09/82
D5AH209027Z-21423 ROCKWELL INTL NEWBURY PARK CA 08/09/82 10/05/82
D5AH2090273-21424 ROCKWELL INTL NEWBURY PARK CA 08/09/82 10/05/82
D5AH2090274-21425 RALPH K PARSONS CO PASADENA CA 08/09/82 06/09/82
D5AH2090275-21426 RALPH 11 PARSONS CO PASADENA CA 08/09/82 08/09/82
05AH2090276-2 1427 DAMES & MOORE LOS ANGELES CA 08/09/82 08/09/82
S2CN2090092-21428 .JULIAN SA)I 01ST SAN DIEGO CA S 08/10/82
03A02090277-21429 BECHTEL GROUP SAN FRANCISCO CA 08/10/82 08/10/82
D3002090278-21430 HOtIITZ ALLEN & ASOC OAKLAND CA 08/10/82 08/10/82
-------
HQR 717
AUDIT CONTROL P1Ut ER
05AH2 090279-2 1431
D3CA2O 10240-21432
D3C020 10241—2 1433
D3CO2010242-2 1434
D3C 02010243-2 1435
D3002030439 -2 1436
S2CWOO 902 23—2 1437
52CW109026 1—2 1438
S2BW2090045-21439
S2CW2 O 90 190—2 1440
D3A02030440-2 1441
03DO2 030441-2 1442
E IVW2 020029—2 1443
03CA2090282—21444
E2CW2100063—2 1445
D3A 2030404-2 1446
D3AW2090283-2 1447
P2CWO1 00049-21448
E2CW2040034 -2 1449
E2CW10402 12—2 1450
E2C W2040089-2 1451
D3D W20 10193—2 1452
D3C020 10244—21453
E5CH2050286-2 1454
D3C02070537—2 1455
SEMI-AtUJAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED
PERIOD ENDING 09/30/82
AUDITEE
ROCKWELL INTL NEWBURY PARK CA
TRC-EHVIRONMENTAL CONSULT. CT
ARTHUR 0 LITTLE INC MA
ARTHUR D LITTLE INC MA
ARTHUR D LITTLE INC MA
AMERICAN INST OF BIO Sd-VA
NO SAN MATEO SAN DIST CA
CALPELLA CNTY WTR 01ST CA
LIVERMORE CA
BIGGS CA CITY OF
Et1VIROH CORPORATION-DC
KENDRICK & COMPANY-DC
REGION II NY
ENGERING & RESEARCH GAR0EHA CA
WALLAWALLA WATER 01ST NO 2 WA
ROY F WESTON INC-PA
JACOBS ENGINEERING PASADENA CA
DOUGLAS COUNTY ROSEBURG OREGON
JACKSONVILLE FL
NEWTON GA
TRENTON NC
TIGHE & BOND/SCI MA
TEMPLE BARKER & SLOANE INC MA
GREAT LAKES ENV
1IIDWESTRESINSTKANSASCITYMO
- SECTION I
FINAL REPORT ISSUED
08/10/82
08/10/82
08/10/82
08/10/82
08/10/82
08/11/82
08/11/82
08/11/82
08/11/82
08/11/82
08/11/82
08/11/82
08/12/82
08/12/82
08/12/82
08/12/82
08/13/82
08/13/82
08/16/82
08/16/82
08/16/82
08/16/82
08/16/82
08/16/82
08/16/82
PAGE 30
DATE; 10/23/82
DATE CLOSED
10/05/82
08/10/82
08/10/62
08/10/82
09/22/82
08/11/82
08/11/82
08/12/82
08/12/82
08/13/82
08/16/82
08/16/82
08/16/82
08/16/82
-------
HQR 717
SEMI-ANNUAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION i PAGE 31
PERIOD ENDING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
AUDIT CONTROL IMISER AUDITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
D3C02070538-2 1456 MIDWESTRESINSTKANSASCITThO 08/16/82 08/16/82
03A02050539-21457 POCKY PITH ANALYT LAB CHGO HTS 08/16/82 09/17/82
D5A02060175-21458 SOUThWEST RESEARCH INST TX 08/17/82 10/15/82
H3A02060174-21459 EAST CENTRAL UNIV FDN INC OK 08/17/82 09/28/82
N3G02040263-21460 METRO DADE COUNTY 08/17/82
C3E02060177-21461 1IETROPLAN COG LITTLE ROCK AR 08/17/82 10/04/82
C3FO2060176-21462 METROPLAN COG LITTLE ROCK AR 08/17/82 08/17/82
S2BW2010191-21463 CHARLES RIVER POLLUTION CON PIA 08/17/82
S2CW2090068-2 1464 ATWATER CA CITY OF 08/18/82
03A02050486-21465 COLEJOHN MECH COP CLEVELAND OH 08/19/82
D3D02050540-21466 REXHORD INC PIILNAUKEE WI 08/19/82 08/19/82
D3CO2050551-21467 UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA IL 08/19/82 08/19/82
E2CW1100078-21468 OPOVILLE WASHINGTON TONM OF 08/20/82
P2CW2100036-21469 VALDEZ ALASKA CITY OF 08/20/82
H3C02040254-21470 UNIV OF ALA BIRMINGHAM AL 08/20/82 08/20/82
P2CW2060075-21471 HOPE ARK 08/20/82 09/28/82
P2CW2040075-21472 HAVELOCK N C 08/20/82
D3A02040265-21473 ENVIRONMENTAL SC $ ENGR FL 08/20/82 10/13/82
E2CW2080032-21474 ThOMPSON NO CITY OF 08/23/82 08/23/82
E2CW2080048-21475 N DAVIS CTY SEWER DISTRICT UT 08/23/82 08/23/82
E2CW2100040-21476 MAUPIN OR CITY OF 08/23/82 08/23/82
E2CW2080033-21477 PIOBRIDGE SD CITY OF 08/23/82
P2BW1090149-21478 KENNEDY J€P (S ENGINEERS SF CA 08/23/82
D2BW2050410-21479 GLOBETROTTERS ENS 08/23/62 08/23/82
03AA2020203-2 1480 METEOROLOGICAL EVAL NY 08/23/82 06/23/82
-------
1QR 717
AUDIT CONTROL ‘U ER
E2CW2070 193-2 1506
P2CW1030 126—2 1507
S2cW0 090194—21508
D3A02050458-2 1509
E2BWO O2O 166—2 1510
E5CH2110023—2151 1
E5CH211 0022—2 1512
03CA2080091—21513
D3D02090289-2 1514
D3A0209 0290-21515
D3AR2090291—21516
03CW2090292-21517
E3C01030033-21518
S3BW1030138-21519
D3A02020205—21520
N3GW2050570-2 1521
D3C02030371-21522
03002030486-21523
E2CW2090293—21524
03002090294—21525
D3A02090295—21526
D3AS2090296—21527
D3C0209 0297-21528
E5BH2030026—2 1529
D5AH2030466—21530
BUTLER MO
ABINGOOM TOI*4-VA
ORANGE CIT SO F0 MTAIN VAL CA
AUTO TESTING LAB I LIBERTY OH
JOSEPH S WARDS & ASSOC NY
T&A EXCAVATING & HAULING-SF-VA
CHEMICAL CLEAN-SUPERFt 1D-VA
H E CRAIIEP CO SALT LAKE CTY UT
TRW INC REDONDO BEACH CA
!NGY & ENVIR RESERCH IRVINE CA
ENGY & ENVIR RESERCH IRVINE CA
CULPAPIESNER/CULP EL DOPADO CA
INGUSTRIAL GAS CLEANING INS-VA
PA DEPT OF ENVIRO RESOt CES
10CR! ENGINEERS NY
EAST-WEST GATEWAY ST LOUIS 110
IB M CORPORATION-MI)
HYDROTECHNIC CORP-NY
EAST BAY MUD OAKLAND CA
LOCKHEED ENGR & MGMT SER TEXAS
KVB INC IRVINE CA
1Q18 INC IRVINE CA
SCIENCE APPLICATION LA JOLA CA
REGION III SUPERFUND PA
PRC/ENVIROtIIENTAL MG1IT INC-VA
REPORT ISSUED
08/30/82
08/30/82
08/30/82
08/30/82
08/31/82
09/01/82
09/01/82
0 9/0 1/82
09/01/82
09/01/82
09/01/82
09/01/82
09/01/82
09/01/82
09/02/82
09/02/82
09/07/82
09/07/82
09/07/82
09/07/82
09/07/82
09/07/82
09/07/82
09/08/82
09/08/82
PAGE 33
DATE: 10/23/82
DATE CLOSED
09/01/82
09/01/82
09/01/82
09/01/82
09/01/82
09/22/82
09/02/82
09/07/62
09/07/82
09/07/82
09/07/82
0 9/0 7/82
09/07/82
10/13/82
SEPII-At* JAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I
PERIOO ENDING 09/30/82
AUDITEE FINAL
08/30/82
I-J
-------
HQR 717
SEMI-AMPJAL M IT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PAGE 32
PERIOD ENGING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
AUDIT CONTROL NIJ ER AU)ITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
03*142020199-21481 FRONTIER TECH ASS0C NY 08/23/82 06/23/82
D3A02020201-21482 FRED C HART NY 06/23/82
D3AW2020204-21483 FRONTIEE TECH ASSOC NY 06/24/82 08/24/82
P2CW1030123-21464 MCKE IIEY TOI*4-VA 08/25/82
D3A02030349-Z1465 BIOHETICS CORPORATION-VA 08/25/62 10/18/82
03C02030311-21486 WESTON ROY F-PA 08/25/82 09/14/82
03A02030436-21487 ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEI1S-P 08/25/82 09/17/82
E2B142090001—21488 SAN FRANCISCO CA CITY & CTY OF 08/25/82
P2C141030139-21489 PURl BOROUGH-PA 08/26/82
P2BW2030232—21490 Pull BOROUGH-PA 08/26/82
P2CW1030055-&1491 YOUNGSTOWN BOROUGH-PA 08/26/62
E1ZO2040129-21492 PEG XV REVIEW OF DELIN 0813 GA 08/26/82 06/26/82
D3A02040271—21493 ENVIRONMENTAL SC & ENGR FL 08/26/82
D5A02040274-21494 ENVIRONMENTAL SC & ENGR FL 08/26/82 10/15/82
03CO2040275-21495 EAST TEPGI STATE UNIV TN 08/26/82 08/27/82
P2CH1030 172-21496 WESThINSTER-t 08/26/82
E2CW2100024-21497 CONCOPJLLY WA CITY OF 08/26/82 08/26/82
P3CSOO2O11S-21498 NEW JERSEY DEP NJ 08/26/82
E2BW0020167-21499 JOSE A CALDERON S ASSOC PR 08/26/82
D3C0203006 5-21500 AJIERICAN PUGLIC HLTN ASSN-DC 08/24/82 09/09/82
P25141060070-21501 DALLAS TX 08/27/82
P2 8 1 40040247-21502 VALDOSTA GA 08/27/82
P2CW2040068—2 1503 PADUCAH K 08/27/82
E5CA2040185-21504 NORTh CAROLINA (STATE OF) NC 08/27/82
D3C02010246-21505 ARThUR 0 LITTLE INC PtA 08/27/82 08/27/82
-------
HQR 717
SEIII-APNJAL AI IT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PAGE 34
PERIOD ENDING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
AL*)IT CONTROL &*1BER AIrnTEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
03A02030453-2 1531 SOBOTKA a COMPANY-DC 09/08/82
03502030485-21532 HYOROTECHNIC CORPORATION-NY 09/08/82 09/08/82
D3C02030476-21533 BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON INC-ND P9/08/82 09/08/82
53BW9030339-21534 SUSDUEHANNA Ply BAS COtti — PA 09/08/82 09/08/82
D30W2050408-21535 6REELEY A} HANSEN ENGRS IL 09/08/82 10/21/82
S2CW1090121-21536 KINGS CA COtRITY OF 09/08/82
C3F02040256-21537 DEKALB COUNTY 09/09/82 09/09/82
P2CW1040092—21538 PLANT CITY FL 09/09/82
P26W1040193—21539 LOGANVILLE GA 09/09/82
H3C02040293-21540 FLA DEPT HLTH $ REHAB SVCS Fl. 09/09/82 09/09/82
P2CW2060074-t1541 HATFIELD ARK 09/09/82
P2CW2060029-?1542 HILL CREEK PI LIC I (S AUTh OK 09/09/82
P2CW2060022—21543 STILLWATER OKLA 09/09/82
P2CW2060107—21544 LAMAR ARK 09/09/82
D3AO2040288-21545 RESEARCH 7 EVALUATION ASSOC NC 09/09/82
D3A02040289-21546 RESEARCH 7 EVALUATION ASSOC NC 09/09/82
S2CW1090153-21547 SEWER AUTH MID-COASTSID HP$ CA 09/09/82
H3802080095-21548 NAT JEW HOSPT RESCH DENVER CO 09/09/82 09/09/82
P2CW1030054-21549 MIDLA} PU4ICIPAL AUTH-PA 09/10/82
P2CW1030178-21550 MILLERSTONN JN AUTH-PA 09/10/82
P2BWO1001O5—21551 PACIFIC CITY SD OREGON 09/10/82
E5CH2100090—21552 ENV EMERGENCY SERVICES OP 09/10/62
E3B$’12090222-21553 JOHN PIJIR IN$TIIUTE NAPA CA 09/10/82 09/10/82
D3A02030462-21554 JACK FAUCETT ASSOCIATES INC-ND 09/13/82 09/13/82
D3A02030488-21555 ENERGY & ENVIROIUIENTAL ANAL-VA 09/13/82 09/13/82
-------
HQR 717
SEflI-A)W.JAL AL IT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION i PAGE 35
PERIOO ENOING 09/30/12 DATE: 10/23/82
A1 XT CONTROl. IU ER AIX)ITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
03C02030487-21556 SYSTEM SCIENCES INC-MD 09/13/82 09/13/82
D3002030463-21557 I MIRANGA & * 5 5CC-MD 09/13/82
03C02030461-21558 ARThUR YOIR4G & CO-DC 09/13/82 09/13/82
D3C02030356-21559 IBM CORPORATION-MD 09/14/82 09/14/82
03*02030361-21560 FEIN-MARQUART ASSOCIATES-MD 09/14/82 10/14/82
D3A02030373-21561 CENTEC-VA 09/14/82 09/14/82
D5AH2030389-21562 JRB ASSOCIATES-VA 09/14/82 10/13/82
03*02030423-21563 BENOIX FIELD ENGINEERING-MD 09/14/82 09/14/82
E2CW1100052-21564 COLFAX WA CITY OF 09/14/82
03C02030302-21568 O.R.I. INC.-PC 09/14/82 10/03/82
03*02030377-2 1566 CENTEC CORPORATION-VA 09/14/82 09/14/82
03*02030403-21567 JACA CORP-PA 09/14/82
03*02030455-21568 CLEMENT ASSOC INC—VA 09/14/82 09/14/82
03*02030458-21569 AIIERICAN MONT SYSTEMS-VA 09/14/82 09/14/62
03*02030360-21570 NATIONAL DEMO WATER PROJECT-DC 09/14/82
21UW1110038—21571 CHANGE ORDERS UPCER CON GRANT 09/21/82 09/21/82
03*02010255-21572 CRITICAL FLUID SYSTEMS INC PtA 09/15/82 09/15/82
03AA2010256-21573 SCA CORP TECHNOLOGY DIV P1* 09/15/82 09/15/82
03*02010237-21574 ENERGY RESOURCES CO INC MA 09/15/82
03*02010258-21575 ARTHUR D LITTLE INC NA 09/15/82 09/15/82
D3C02010259-21576 A 0 LITTLE INC 11* 09/15/82 09/15/82
03A02010260-21577 STONE & WEBSTER ENGR CORP MA 09/15/82 09/15/82
03AA2O10261-21578 ATUNTIC HVIROt81ENTAL ASSOC P1 09/15/82
03*02010262-21579 ENVIROPIIENTAL RESEARCH TECH PtA 09/15/82
52CW0090140-21580 FAIRFIELD CA CITY OF 09/15/82
-------
HQR 717
SEMI-A1 1UAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PAGE 36
PERIOD ENDING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
AUDIT CONTROL JJt ER ALJDITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
E5C02040223-2 1581 RESOURCE RECYCLING TECH TN 09/15/82
H3C02060183-21582 TEXAS TECH UNIV LUBBOCK TX 09/15/82 09/15/82
P2CW20600’.5-21583 POTTSBORO TX 09/15/82
E2CW2040175-21584 LARGO FL 09/15/82
H3C02040297-21585 MED UNIV OF SOUTH CAROLINA SC 09/15/82 09/15/82
03A02030489-21586 CLEMENT ASSOCIATES-VA 09/16/82 09/16/82
H3C02060182-21587 TEXAS TECH UNIV LUBBOCK TX 09/15/82 09/16/82
S2BW9090312-21588 VENTURA REGIONAL CSD CA 09/16/82
P2CW20401 13-21589 RUSSELLVILLE 09/16/82
E3CH2090226-21590 CALIF SWRCB SACRAMENTO CA 09/16/82
D3AA2080098-21591 DENVER UNIVERSITY OF DENVER 09/16/82 09/16/82
L u
D3C02030379-2 1592 SCOTT ENVIRONMENTAL TECH-PA 09/16/82 09/16/82
D3A02030438-21593 PAThOLOGY ASSOCIATES INC-MD 09/17/82 09/17/82
03AW2020218-21594 ASSOCIATED INDUST 09/17/82 09/17/82
D3AO2020217- 21595 BURNS & ROE NJ 09/17/82 09/17/82
D3D02010263—21596 MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS CENTER MA 09/20/82 09/20/82
O3BW2010264-21597 NO MIDDLESEX AREA CC it t MA 09/20/82 09/20/82
D3B02010265-21598 RDP INC MA 09/20/82 09/20/82
E1UW2030025-21599 REGION III CONTRACT C.O.—PA 09/22/82
D3B02030323-21600 SYNERGY INC—DC 09/29/82 09/29/82
D3AO2090306—21601 ENGY & ENVIR RESERCH IRVINE CA 09/21/82 09/21/82
D3CO2090307—21602 ENGINEERING SCIENCE ARCADIA CA 09/21/82 09/21/82
D3A02080099—21603 EXCEL SERYICES PARKER CO 09/21/82 09/21/82
S2BW9090313-21604 VENTURA REGIONAL CSD CA 09/21/82
S2BW9090350-21605 VENTURA REGIONAL CSD CA 09/21/82
-------
HQR 717
SEMI-At*IUAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION i PAGE 37
PERIOD ENDING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
AUDIT CONTROL tU ER AUDITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
52CW0090137-21606 VENTURA REGIONAL CSD CA 09/21/62
D3A02030464-21607 I4ITESCARVER ASSOC INC-VA 09/21/82
03A02030405-21608 ROGERS GOLDEN HALPERN-PA 09/22/82 09/22/82
D3C02030510-21609 VERSAR INC-VA 09/22/82 09/22/82
03A02030511-21610 VERSAR INC-VA 09/22/82 09/22/62
D3C02050592-21611 FORD MOTOR CO DEARBORN MI 09/22/82 09/22/82
D3C02050593-21612 RALTECH SCIENTIFIC MADISON WI 09/22/82 09/22/82
D3A02050594-21613 BATTELLE MEMORIAL COLUMBUS OH 09/22/62 09/22/82
03CO2030162-21614 INFORMATICS INC 110 09/23/82 09/23/82
D3A02060187-21615 SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INST TX 09/23/82
P2CW2060023-21616 HOT SPRINGS SEWER IMP 01ST ARK 09/23/62
P2CW2060018-21617 BELL CO WCIO *1 09/23/82 09/23/82 1
D3A02070560-21618 MIDWEST RES INST KANSAS CrY P lO 09/23/82
03AO2050556-21619 BATTELLE MEM INST COLUMBUS OH 09/23/82 09/23/82
S2BW2090298-21620 VENTURA REGIONAL CSD CA 09/22/82
S2CW2090135-21621 ARCATA CA CITY OF 09/23/82
03A02090319-21622 ROCKWELL INTL NEWBURY PARK CA 09/23/82 09/23/82
P26141090062-21623 HARDISON & KO 1IATSU SAN FRAN CA 09/23/82
P3CW0090116-21624 VENTURA REGIONAL CSO CA 09/23/82
P2BW2050015-21625 PORTAGE LAKE l ISA 111 09/24/82
D3C09020028—21626 EXXON RESEARCH&ENGINEERING NJ 09/24/82 09/24/82
P3C02020014-21627 INTERSTATE SANITATION COPEI NY 09/24/82 09/24/82
P3CW1020066-21628 INTERSTAtE SANITATION COP9I NY 09/24/82 09/24/82
P2CW1OIOO9Z-21629 BRUMSWICK SEWER 01ST ME 09/27/82
D3C02010267-21630 BOLT BERANER NEWMAN INC MA 09/27/82 09/27/82
-------
HQR 717
SEPtI-AM JAL AL )XT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PAGE 38
piR Ioc EtULNG 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
ALX)IT CONTROL PIJ ER A% ITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
03C02010268-21631 BOLT BERAHER NEWMAN INC NA 09/27/82 09/27/82
E3C02030071—21632 ASSN OF METRO SEWERAGE—DC 09/27/82 09/27/82
E3DW9050529-2 1633 HARRY 0 HEFTER ASSOCIATES INC 09/27/82
P2CW1050053-21634 HYIIERA IN 09/27/82
S2CW1090043-21635 RAINBOW PIWO FALLBROOK CA 09/27/82
03AA2020230-21636 FOSTER WMELLER NJ 09/27/82 09/27/82
P2CW1030141-21637 lULL BOROUGH 09/27/82
D3A02030456-21638 JRB ASSOC-VA 09/28/82 09/28/82
D3A02030495-&1639 OMEGA GROUP-DC 09/28/82
P30W1050223—21640 WILLIAMS & WORKS BR RAPIDS MI 09/28/82
03D02050599-21641 HARZA ENGINEER COCHICAGO IL 09/28/82 09/28/82
P2CW1050065-2 1642 OtIRO WI 09/28/82
P3D01050183-21643 J.C.ZIPIMERMAN GREEWOALE WI 09/28/82 09/28/82
P30W1050219-21644 WILLIAMS $ WORKS BR RAPIDS MI 09/28/82
52BW0090323-21645 SANTA MARIA CA CITY OF 09/28/82
52CW1090071-21646 CONTRA COSTA CSD 115 CA 09/28/82
P2BW1090272-21647 GILLETT-HARRIS-DURANCEAU YC CA 09/28/82
P2CW2040156-21648 CLARKSDALE MS 09/28/82
P2CW2040098-21649 SOUTHHAVEN UTILITY DISTRICT MS 09/28/82 09/28/82
E5B02040212-21650 MIAMI DRUM — MIAMI 09/28/82
D3502040314-21651 CLAUDE TERRY & ASSOC GA 09/28/82 09/28/82
03D02040315-21652 CLAUDE TERRY & ASSOC GA 09/28/82
D3A02060197—21653 RADIAN CORP TX 09/28/82
D3002060200-21654 K W BRO*1 & ASSOCIATES TX 09/28/8Z
H3C02060199-21655 UNIV OF ARKANSAS AR 09/28/82 09/28/82
-------
HQR 717
SEPII-A*PJAL AUDIT REPORTS ISSUED - SECTION I PAGE 39
PERIOD ENDING 09/30/82 DATE: 10/23/82
AUDIT CONTROL IUSER AUDITEE FINAL REPORT ISSUED DATE CLOSED
P2CW1040213-21656 ALBANY GA 09/28/82
N3G02060181-21657 NO CENTRAL TEXAS COG TX 09/28/82 09/28/82
E2CW1100073-21658 UNION GAP WA CITY OF 09/29/82
-------
—89—
Arpendix 4
SENI NUAL STM JS RE ORP ON
RESJLU ICN CF AUDITS
PERIOD ENDING SEP ENBER 30, 1982
Audit I xrts in Fbliowup System Beginning Audit 1 ports Audit 1 ports End
of Period Issued airing Closed airing of Period
( 4/1/82*) Period Period ( 9/30/82)
Less Than Six Months
Nuither of lèports 217 953 669 284
Federal Share Questioned $20,872,982 $79,851,552 $ 14,798,414 $65,275,728
Federal Share Sustained 2,426,231
Federal Share Fbn iven 12,372,183
6—12 t bnths
Nunber of 1 ports 35 196 40
Federal Share Questioned $55,636,946 $24,930,980 $12,860,300
Federal Share Sustained 12,239,474
Federal Share Fbrgiven 12,691,506
12—18 t bnths
Nuther of I ports 10 4 12
Federal Share Questioned $ 5,205,595 $ 7,680,933 $40,384,500
Federal Share Sustained 3,772,014
Federal Share Fbrgiven 3,908,919
Over 18 M3nths
Nunber of 1 ports 26 17 19
Federal Share Questioned $ 7,587,546 $ 4,266,674 $ 8,526,467
Federal Share Sustained 798,386
Federal Share Fbrgiven 3,468,288
¶ [ tal
Number of Reports 288 953 886 355
Federal Share Questioned $ 98,303,069 $79,851,552 $51,677,001 $127,046,995
Federal Share Sustained 19,236,105**
Federal Share Fotgiven 32,440,896
*Auy difference in numbers of reports and Federal share of ccEts
questioned between this report and our previous semiannual reports
results fran corrections made in data in our audit tracking and
control system.
** The Federal share of ccEts questioned and sustained may be broken down
as follows:
Antunts to be F covered $18,418,161
Cc t Avoidances 817,944
Thta1 $19,236,105
-------
—90—
Appendix 5
ANALYSIS OF AUDIT WD1 WAD
¶]Y)ta l
Workload
Type of Audit ( Estimated Staff Years Needed )
Internal and Management 188.3
Construction Grants
Preawards 3.6
Interims 368.1
Finals 215.2
‘Ibtal Construction Grants 586.9
Contracts and Otter Grants
Preawards 2.6
Interims 3•7
Finals 33.6
Indirect Cost 24.1
Total Contracts and Otter Grants 64.0
Superfund
Internal 10.8
Preward 12.8
Interims 3.6
Finals 2.5
Total Superfund 29.7
Total Years of Workload 868.9
AUDIT RESOURCES AVAILBLE
Staff Years
EPA Staff (Direct) 104
Part—Tire/Intermittent 14
Contract Services 45
Total 163
-------
c janization
Office of the Inspector General
I*IAT,YSIS a’ 0 10 PEIWi4ENT FUUrTIPE SI .FVItE
AS CW Septentx r 3 1, 1982
010 f sources
Serves Direct Staff Ir irect Staff
6
Authorized C i-l3oard
S..ççort Staff* - Staff 10/11
3 4 4
J ió [ Management 1 dpnlca1
1
1
2
2
Anseasment
Mninietratb,n Branub
3
3
3
Quality Control—Audits
4
4
4
Qua lityContro l——Investigations
Subtotal • Office of Management
1
1
1
a,xl
‘fl chni a1 Assesmient
5
1
4
10
10
office of Audits
ik1quarte
10
3
3
16
15
Internal Audits
lle x3q Iarters Audits
13
1
2
16
15
i xjfons 1, 2, , VI’,
Nil, W , CF, RI, NJ,
18
1
2
21
21
J stern_Division
NY, PR, VF
Region 3, PA, L*, MD,
Mid—Atlantic Division
VA, WV, DC
Rejions 4, 6, KY, IN,
NC, SC, GA, FL, AL,
P , AR, IA, OK, TX,
10
1
1
12
12
Southern Division
P 1 1
Regions 5, 7, CM, IN,
MI, IL, WI, 1*1, IA, MD,
15
1
2
18
18
Iorthern Division
KS, NE
21
1
1
23
20
Regions 8, 9, 10, HP,
SD, NV, WY, W, hF, AZ,
W I, OR, ID, NV, CA, AK,
III, Qiam, Amer. S va,
Western_Division
Trust 1 rritories
17
1
1
19
19
I
Subtotal, Office of Audits
104
9
12
125*
120**
Office of investigatiore
—______
ReglonsT, 2, PE, VT,
Nil, PP. Cr, R I, NJ, NY,
2
3
5
4
lestern l)ivision
PR, VI
Fk usrters, Region 3,
3
1
4
2
.
hid—Atlantic Division
PA, OK, hID, VA, WV, DC
10
1
1
12
12
RecJI i 4, 6, KY, IN,
NC, SC, GA, FL, AL, t 5,
Southern Division
Afl, LA, OK, TX, P14
4
1
5
Regions 5, 7, Cal, IN,
MI, IL, Wi, Pt4, IA, MD,
Northern Division
KS, NE
3
1
4
_____________________
4
Regions 8, 9, 10, ND, SD,
NT, WY, (I), hr, AZ, WI, OR,
ID, NV, CA, AK, I II, Guam,
Western_Division -
Subtotar, Office or
Sama, Trust I rritories
2
1
3
3
Invest 9 ons
Petal, office oTthe
22
131
7
JR
— 4
23
—
33
J7
29
] JA*
Insfector General
C D
: 14
Tnc1ur1ec i f*x ) positiorn.
**j ,j q 21 su ?rfund px ltiori .
-------
TI Mninistrator of EPA has determined that the publication of
this eriodica1 is necessary in the transaction of the public business
required by law of this Agency. Use of funds for printing this reriodical
has been apprcwed by the Director of the Office of Management and Budget
through April 1, 1987.
------- |