1 .ed Stu..,--,
Environmeriidl Protection
Agency
Office of the Inspector General November 1984
401 M Street, SW
Washington DC 20460
Office of the
Inspector General
Semiannual Report
April 1, 1984
through
September 30,1984
Helping the Environmental Protection Dollar Go Further
-------
Foreword
Last year when I was confirmed by the Senate as the
Inspector General of the Environmental Protection Agency.
I outlined several goals I intended to achieve. Together with
an expanded staff and the cooperation of Agency management
and the Congress, I am pleased that we have made significant
progress in achieving these goals while becoming a recognized
and independent force in the Agency.
My first goal was to improve the operation of the Office of
Investigations and promote the fullest possible compliance with
Federal laws and regulations. To help achieve this goal we
installed a new supervisory management team and recruited 70
percent of our total special agent staff this fiscal year. We have
adopted new policies and procedures to ensure professional
investigative work and have had a major impact on the Agency
by investigating sewer rehabilitation, fraud, and bid-rigging
schemes.
My second goal was to develop a thorough internal audit
program. We implemented an internal and management audit
program for the first time by devoting about 30 percent of our
resources to examining many critical areas which had never
been tested in EPA before. In addition, we adopted new audit
policies, procedures, and quality reviews to assure that our
audits consistently meet high standards.
My third goal was to initiate a program to prevent fraud,
waste, and mismanagement. Progress in this area has been very
visible. We have established an employee awareness program
that is explaining our role as an independent financial and
operational overseer and encouraging the reporting of
wrongdoing to the OIG hotline. This year we participated with
the Administrator in creating the Committee on Integrity and
Management Improvement to initiate Agency- wide
participation in preventing and detecting fraud, waste, and
mismanagement. In addition, we aquired the personnel security
function and brought it current by reducing the case backlog and
improving operating procedures to assure the integrity of EPA
employees.
Agency concern for a strong and independent Office of
Inspector General has been expressed by supporting the
addition of severely needed staff. However, travel is the
lifeblood of an auditing and investigating force and travel
resources have not kept pace with new staffing levels. Without
adequate travel funding, many necessary audits and
investigations cannot be performed. In recognition of this
situation, Agency management is actively working with us to
resolve this problem.
The work of the Office of Inspector General is being
recognized and supported by the Administrator and top Agency
management. This is most obvious in the outstanding work the
Agency has done to resolve audit reports, especially those over
six months old. By resolving audit reports, Agency management
has implemented many improvements and recovered significant
amounts of funds. We look forward to continue working with a
responsive and supportive Agency management staff.
John C. Martin
Inspector General
-------
Contents
Executive Summary 1
Profile of Activities and Results 3
Establishment of the OIG in EPA—its Role and Authority 4
Organization and Staffing 4
Purpose and Requirements of the OIG Semiannual Report 6
Section 1—Significant Problems, Abuses and Recommendations 7
Summary of Audit Activities and Results 7
Agency Management 8
Construction Grants 10
Superfund 13
Section 2—Audit Resolution 15
Audit Followup 15
Previously Reported Items—Action Not Completed 16
Section 3—Prosecutive Actions 17
Summary of Investigative Activities 17
Description of Selected Prosecutive Actions 17
Description of Selected Administrative Actions 18
Section 4—Fraud Prevention and Resource Management 19
Review of Proposed Legislation and Regulations 19
Efforts to Prevent Bid Rigging 20
Suspension and Debarment Activities 21
Committee on Integrity and Management Improvement 22
Personnel Security Program 22
Employee and Public Awareness Activities 23
Hotline Activities 23
Cooperative Efforts 23
Delegations of Authority 24
Travel Fund Limitation 24
Training 25
Section 5—Delinquent Debts 25
Appendix—List of Audit Reports Issued 26
-------
Executive Summary
Section 1—Significant
Problems, Abuses and
Recommendations
1. EPA Regional Offices
Awarded Grants To States
That Did Not Meet Financial
Requirements
Three EPA Regional Offices
awarded about $38 million of
Clean Water Act grants to six
State agencies without
assurance that grant financial
requirements were met. In
addition, the six agencies did
not accomplish a significant
portion of their grant objectives
(page 8).
2. EPA Unable to Resolve
Delinquent Debts Promptly
EPA’s Claims Office did not
always resolve delinquent debts
promptly, and many records
were inaccurate and insufficient
for effective management of the
debt resolution function (page
8).
3. Regional Laboratory Did
Not Control Resources
The EPA Regional Office in
Denver, Colorado, did not
exercise adequate controls over
its Environmental Services
Division )ESD) laboratory to
properly protect or use scientific
resources, valuable materials,
and storage of toxic substances
(page 9).
4. Better Management Is
Necessary To Determine
Whether Facilities Are Needed
And Properly Sized
Ineffective project monitoring
and incomplete or inaccurate
project information resulted in
wastewater treatment plants in
Hawaii that are oversized and
underutilized (page 9)
5. Disregard For Standards Of
Conduct
Employees at EPA’s Research
Triangle Park (RTP), North
Carolina. disregarded the
Agency’s Standards of Conduct
by attending parties and
luncheons given by contractors,
promoting commercial sales to
other employees, and soliciting
gifts from contractors (page 10),
6. Grantee Claims $13.7
Million For Treatment Plant
That Wasn’t Fully Operational
The City and County of
Honolulu, Hawaii, claimed $13.7
million for the Honouliuli
Wastewater Disposal System
that had several component
deficiencies which prevented its
full operation and use at the
time of audit (page 11).
7. EPA Should Not Fund $16.5
Million Project Until
Deficiencies Are Corrected
Lee County, Florida, invested
$16.5 million into wastewater
facilities that do not conform
with approved plans and
specifications (page 11).
8. Grantee Neglects
Wastewater Treatment
System
The East Leflore County Water
and Sewer District, Greenwood,
Missssippi, had three of five
commissioner positions vacant
and seemed unable to
adequately oversee operations
and provide managerial controls.
In addition, there was a very
low level of utilization of the
system in two specific areas of
the district at the time of audit
(page 11).
9. Grantee Bills EPA For
Elaborate And Unnecessary
Administrative Facilities At
Treatment Plant
The City of Austin, Texas,
claimed $234,000 for an
elaborate oversized lobby and
an unnecessary civic room in
the administrative building of a
wastewater treatment plant. In
addition, $617,853 of other
costs claimed were questioned
because the costs were
duplicate claims, unsupported,
or otherwise specifically
ineligible (page 12).
10. Grantee Claims Over
$700,000 Of Ineligible Costs
The Lower Lackawanna Valley,
Pennsylvania, Sanitary Authority
claimed ineligible costs totailrng
$708,000 for unallowable
equipment rentals and by
awarding a contract prior to
obtaining the necessary
right-of-way (page 12).
11. Grantee Overstates Claims
By $646,000
The Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Chicago
claimed $646,000 of
engineering costs which were
not supported by accounting
records (page 13).
12. Over $6 Million Identified
for Recovery In Cleanup At
Love Canal
Over $6 million was identified
for recovery from liable parties
under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 for the costs of
cleaning up hazardous
substances at Love Canal, New
York (page 13).
13. Improvements Needed To
Safeguard Superfund
Operational and accounting
deficiencies in EPA’s Superfund
immediate removal action
program increased the
program’s susceptibility for
incurring unnecessary costs and
premature depletion of the Trust
Fund (page 14).
14. State Agency Claims
Ineligible Expenses in Excess
of $1 Million
The State of Minnesota claimed
costs totalling $1,084,558
related to the Reilly Tar
hazardous waste site that were
not allowable under the
Compre- hensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA)
(page 14).
-------
Section 2—
Audit Resolution
Agency management has
devoted increased attention to
audit follow-up by: stressing
the need for timely resolution of
audits at meetings with Agency
officials, including the status of
unresolved audits in the
strategic planning and
management system, and by
issuing an EPA directive to
assist managers in using audits
as a management tool.
This increased effort has
successfully stimulated the
resolution of audit reports,
especially those over six
months old, reversing a
previous trend. Agency officials
sustained $47.1 million of
questioned costs and recovered
$24.2 million from audit
resolutions of audits from
current and previous periods
(page 15).
Section 3—
Prosecutive Actions
During this period we
concentrated much of our effort
on closing outstanding
investigation cases. We closed
249 cases to reduce our
inventory by 11 percent. We
also increased our emphasis on
long-term major impact
initiatives this period that will
yield significant results in future
periods. A new supervisory
management team initiated
the use of new techniques to
identify indicators of possible
wrongdoing. The OlG has
performed investigations
resulting in the prosecution of
one contractor for false billings
on an EPA contract, and of
another contractor for
misrepresentation as a minority
business enterprise to illegally
obtain subcontracts on EPA
projects. In addition,
investigations of employee and
contractor misconduct resulted
in 25 administrative disciplinary
actions (page 17>.
Section 4—
Fraud Prevention
and Resource
Management
Review of Proposed
Legislation and Regulations
Prior to this semiannual
reporting period, the Office of
Inspector General was only
provided the opportunity to
review and to make
recommendations on a limited
number of selected items. With
the cooperation of Agency
management, in April 1984 the
OlG was afforded the
opportunity to review, comment
and make recommendations on
all legislative and regulatory
items within the Agency. As a
result, the number of items
reviewed by the OIG has
increased from 34 last
semiannual reporting period to
193 this period (page 19).
Actions to Prevent
Bid Rigging
During audit and investigative
reviews conducted in one
region over the past three years
numerous anti-trust violations
were identified and an
environment where bid rigging
may be a “way of life” for many
contractors. We have initiated
an anti bid rigging program and
suggested several ways the
Agency can take more
aggressive steps in attacking
the bid-rigging problem. These
are training of EPA and State
officers, requiring certifications
of noncollusive bidding, and
requiring the retention and
analysis of bid records (page
20).
Committee on Integrity and
Management Improvement
With the participation of Agency
management, the Committee
has undertaken projects in three
significant areas: quality
assurance/quality control,
Agency permits and employee
awareness. The quality
assurance/quality control group
is reviewing ways to strengthen
Agency procedures to minimize
the possibility of fraudulent or
unreliable research results. The
permits group is addressing the
various permit issuance
processes within EPA to
determine if generic permits
might offer improvements in
program effectiveness. A
standing committee was
established on Employee
Awareness in an effort to
increase employee participation
in the Agency’s management
improvement efforts (page 22).
Personnel Security Program
Makes Rapid Progress
The Personnel Security Program
has made significant
improvements and progress in
reducing the case backlog and
ensuring that employment of
personnel complies with Agency
regulations and national security
requirements. During this
reporting period the review of
personnel investigations
identified integrity violations
resulting in the removal of three
employees, the reprimand of
one employee, and the
repayment of a defaulted
student loan by another (page
22).
Hotline Activities
The OIG hotline center received
75 new complaints (a 50
percent increase over the last
semiannual reporting period>,
and processed and closed 75
cases during this reporting
period. Of the 75 cases closed,
62 were not valid and did not
require action while 13 cases
resulted in environmental or
administrative corrective action
(page 23).
Travel Fund Limitation
Impedes Audit and
Investigative Operations
Most of our audits and
investigations are conducted at
contractor or grantee sites, not
at EPA facilities. It is mandatory
that our auditors and
investigators travel to perform
their work. White staffing levels
have increased, no additional
travel resources have been
provided resulting in a severe
shortage. Because of this
shortage we were forced to
assign work based on location
rather than priority in fiscal
1984. We are working with
Agency management to solve
this problem, but if it is not
resolved soon, we will be
unable to perform much needed
work and fraud, waste, and
abuse may go undetected (page
24)
2
-------
Profile of Activities and Results
Audit Operations Amount Total
April 1, 1984 Fiscal 1984
to September 30, 1984
• Questioned Costs* $64 Million $1 13 Million
(expenditures which are not allowable)
• Set-A side Costs* $134 Million $242 Million
(expenditures which are insufficiently supported to
determine their allowability)
• Sustained Costs for Recovery and Savings $46.7 Million $63.1 Million
(costs which EPA management agrees are ineligible and is
committed to recover or offset against future payments)
• Cost Efficiencies or Deobligations $.4 Million 51 .8 Million
(funds made available by implementing recommendations
in OlG internal and management audits)
• Recoveries from Audit Resolutions of Current and Prior $24.2 Milton $37.4 Million
Periods
(cash collections or offsets to future grants)
• EPA Audits Performed by the 010 140 363
• EPA Audits Performed by Another Federal Agency, 648 1.268
State Auditors, or Independent Public Accountants
• Audit Reports Resolved 504 1,382
(agreement by Agency officials to take satisfactory
corrective action)
Investigative Operations
• Fines and Recoveries $91,227 $629,860
• Investigations Opened 212 261
• Investigations Closed 249 338
• Investigations Pending (9,30184) 278 -
• Indictments/Convictions of Persons or Firms 9 25
• Administrative Actions Taken Against EPA Employees 25 39
Fraud Detection and Prevention Operations
• Debarments, Suspensions, Voluntary Exclusions, and 22 61
Settlement Agreements
(actions to deny persons or firms from participating in EPA
programs or operations because of misconduct or poor
performance)
• Hotline Complaints Received 75 126
• Hotline Complaints Processed and Closed 75 141
• Proposed Legislative Items Reviewed 97 103
• Proposed Regulatory Items Reviewed 96 124
Questioned and set-aside costs are subject to reduction pending
further review in the audit resolution process.
-------
The Inspector General Act of
1978 (P.L. 95-452) created the
Office of Inspector General to
consolidate existing
investigative and audit
resources in independent
organizations headed by
Inspectors General.
EPA established its Office of
Inspector General (OIG) in
January 1980. As an Agency
with a massive public works
budget. EPA is vulnerable to
various kinds of financial
abuses. The OIG’s role is to
review EPA’s financial
transactions, program and
administrative activities,
investigate allegations or
evidence of possible criminal
and civil violations, and promote
economic, efficient, and
effective operations within the
Agency. The OIG is also
responsible for reviewing EPA
regulations and legislation.
The EPA Inspector General
reports directly to the
Administrator and the Congress
and has the authority to:
• Initiate and carry out
independent and objective
audits and investigations,
• Issue subpoenas fr evidence
and information,
• Obtain access to any
materials in the Agency,
• Report serious or flagrant
problems to Congress,
• Select and appoint OIG
employees, and
The Office of Inspector General
functions through three major
offices, each headed by an
Assistant Inspector General:
Office of Audit. Office of
Investigation, and Office of
Management and Technical
Assessment.
Nationally, there are six
Divisional Inspectors General for
Audit and five Divisional
Inspectors General for
Investigations who direct staffs
of auditors and investigators and
who report to the appropriate
Assistant Inspector General in
Headquarters.
Field Total
• Enter into contracts.
The Inspector General is
appointed by, and can be
removed only by. the President.
This independence protects the
OIG from interference and
allows it to function as the
Agency’s fiscal and operational
watchdog.
Establishment of Organization
the OIG in EPA—Its and Staffing
Role and Authority
Staffing Distribution—Fiscal 84 Ceiling
Office Headquarters
Inspector General
4
-
4
Audit
26
133
159
Investigations
8
44
52
Management and Technical
Assessment
21
-
21
Total
59
177
236
-------
Office of Inspector General - Who’s Who
Headquarters
Ernest E. Bradley Ill
Assistant Inspector General
Kenneth A. Konz
Deputy
James 0. Rauch
Director
Anna M. Virbick
Director
Roscoe R. Davis
Assistant Inspector General
John C. Jones
Director
Edwin N. Canady
Director
Divisional Inspectors General
Region 4, 6 b 7
Leslie M. Bule, Audit
James F. Johnson, Investigation (Acting)
Boston
Nsw York
Region 1 & 2
Sanford Wolfe, Audit
Robert M. Bymes,
Investigation
Region 3
Paul R. Gandolfo, Audit
Keith G. Logan, Investigations
Headquarters
Steven A. McNamara,
Internal Audit
John C. Martin
Donald E. Kirkendall
John E. Barden
Assistant Inspector General
Region 5 & 7 (Investigation)
Anthony C. Carrollo, Audit
Deirdre M. Tanaka. Investigations
RegIon 7 (Audit). 8, 9, 10
Truman A. Beeler, Audit
Jonathan P. Sweeney,
Investigation
-------
Purpose
and Requirements
of the Office of
Inspector General
Semiannual Report
The Inspector General Act of
1978 (P.L. 95-452 requires the
Inspector General to keep the
Administrator and Congress fully
and currently informed about
problems and deficiencies in the
Agency’s operations and the
necessity for and progress of
corrective action.
The Act further specifies that
semiannual reports will be
provided to the Administrator by
each April 30, and October 31.
and io Congress 30 days later.
Source
The Administrator may transmit
comments to Congress along
with the report, but may not
change any part of the report.
The specific reporting
requirements prescribed in the
Inspector General Act of 1978
are listed below. Also, included
are additional requirements
resulting from Senate Report
No. 96-829 on the Supplemental
Appropriations and Rescission
Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-304
Section
INSPECTOR GENERAL ACT
Section 4(aX2) - Review of Legislation and
Regulations
Section 5(aXl) - Significant Problems,
Abuses, and Deficiencies
Section 5(a)(2) - Recommendations with
Respect to Significant Problems, Abuses
and Deficiencies
Section 5(a)(3) - Prior Significant
Recommendations Not Yet Implemented
Section 5(a)(4 - Matters Referred to
Prosecutive Authorities
Section 5(a) 5) and 6 b)f ) - Summary of
Instances Where Information was Refused
Section 5(a)(6) - Listing of Audit Reports
SENATE REPORT NO. 96-829
Senate Report Page 11, Resolution of
Audits
Senate Report Page 12, Delinquent Debts
4
2
3
*
Appendix
2
5
There were no instances where information or assistance
requested by the Inspector General was refused during this reporting
period. Accordingly, we have nothing to report concerning sections
5(a)(5) and 6(b)(2) of the Inspector General Act of 1978.
6
-------
Section 1 Significant Problems, Abuses and Recommendations
As required by section 5(a)(1)
and (2) of the Inspector
General Act of 1978, this
section identifies significant
problems, abuses, and
deficiencies relating to the
Agency’s programs and
operations along with
recommendations for the
current period. The findings
described in this section
resulted from audits
performed or supervised by
the Office of Audit and
reviews conducted by the the
Office of Investigations.
Because these represent
some of our most significant
findings, they should not be
considered representative of
the overall adequacy of EPA
management.
This section is divided into
four areas: Summary of Audit
Activity and Results; Agency
Management; Construction
Grants; and Superfund.
Summary of
Audit Activities
and Results
Questioned and Set Aside Costs by Type of Audit
‘140
-120
-100
‘80
-60
40
-20
0
Construotion
Set Aside Costs
Questioned Costs
I
Other Grants and Contracts
Distribution of Audit Reports Issued by Source
Distribution of Audit Reports Issued by Type
State Auditor
39 Reports
Total Audits - 788
Superfund
Internal and
10 F aports
1.3%
Superfund
Independant
Public Accountant
3.7%
188 Reports
7
-------
Agency
Management
The Inspector General Act
requires the O/G to initiate
reviews and other activities to
promote economy and
efficiency and to detect and
prevent fraud, waste, and
mismanagement in EPA
pro grams and operations.
Internal and management audits
are conducted to accomplish
these objectives largely by
evaluating the economy,
efficiency, and effectiveness of
operations.
The following are the most
significant internal and
management audit findings and
recommendations.
EPA Regional Offices
Awarded Grants to
States That Did Not
Meet Financial
Requirements
Problem
Three EPA Regional Offices
awarded about $38 million of
Clean Water Act grants to six
State agencies without
assurance that grant financial
requirements were met. In
addition, the six agencies did
not accomplish a significant
portion of their grant
objectives.
We Found That
EPA awards grants under the
Clean Water Act to control
water pollution and administer
functions delegated to the
States under the construction
grants program. To quality for a
grant, the Act and its
regulations require a state to
contribute a portion of its
non-Federal funds at least equal
to the amount that it spent in
specified base years (level of
effort).
Six of the nine State
Agencies receiving about $38
million in grant awards between
fiscal 1981 and fiscal 1983 did
not provide sufficient State
matching funds to earn these
grants. This occurred because
policies and procedures in
Regions 3, 5, and 9 did not have
the necessary controls to
ensure an effective system for
awarding grants. Deficiencies
included:
• Using incorrect and
unsupportable base year
amounts.
• Improperly comparing
planned and actual expenditures
to the base year amounts.
• Performing limited or no
verification of claimed costs.
• Awarding grants without the
necessary approval for
deviations.
In addition, the regions did
not ensure the States
accomplishment of grant award
objectives. During the period
reviewed, the state agencies
only accomplished 56 percent of
the measurable tasks reviewed.
The degree of accomplishment
varied significantly from State to
State and from oblective to
objective. For example,
California issued only 25 percent
of its planned water pollution
control permits while Illinois
accomplished 81 percent of its
plan in fiscal 1983.
Although the regional offices
knew that the State agencies
were not meeting grant
requirements, they did not
institute sanctions to ensure
compliance because they
preferred to encourage State
agency performance through
cooperation and persuasion.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrators of
Regions 3. 5. and 9:
• Institute the necessary
controls to ensure that financial
requirements are met, including
a limited financial review of
costs claimed;
• Recover funds for grants
awarded improperly; and
• Take action to ensure that
State agencies accomplish the
work outputs for which the
grants were awarded.
What Action Was Taken
Final audit reports were issued
to the Regional Administrators
by September 28, 1984. The
Regions generally agreed that
their procedures for awarding
grants and monitoring work
outputs need strengthening but
their responses to our
recommendations to recover
funds differed widely. A draft
consolidated report summarizing
all findings including those from
Region 2 whose report was in
process at the close of the
reporting period, will be issued
to the Assistant Administrator
for Water and the Assistant
Administrator for Administration
during the next semiannual
reporting period.
EPA Unable to
Resolve Delinquent
Debts Promptly
Problem
EPA’s Claims Office did not
always resolve delinquent
debts promptly, and many
records were inaccurate and
insufficient for effective
management of the debt
resolution function.
Background
Delinquent debts are referred to
the Claims Office to (1)
compromise (partially collect),
(2) suspend (postpone)
collection action, (3) terminate
(write off) the debt, or (4(
forward to the Department of
Justice for resolution or
litigation. The Agency’s
accounting records showed that
108 debts amounting to $2.1
million had been referred to the
Claims Office as of January 31,
1984 but remained unresolved.
Over the past several years, the
President and Congress have
emphasized that Federal
agencies should promptly
collect delinquent debts, a
sound financial practice.
We Found That
The Agency’s Claims Office has
not always taken prompt action
to resolve delinquent debts and
many remained unresolved for
extended periods. These delays
not only damage potential debt
collection, but also distort the
Agency’s accounting records.
Additionally, lack of timely
action on debts gives the wrong
impression to the public and
debtors that the Agency is not
concerned with aggressively
collecting or otherwise resolving
these debts. The Office of
General Council (OGC( had not
established criteria for taking
timely action on debts other
than the 6-year time frame
allowed under the statute of
l:mitations for litigating debts.
Senior officials from OGC stated
that the Claims Office’s ability
to resolve debts promptly has
been hindered by competing
priorities and limited staff
-------
resources. However, this should
not relieve the Agency from
aggressively pursuing delinquent
debts.
As of January 31, 1984, 108
debts amounting to $2.1 million
has not been resolved, Our
review of 36 of these debts
disclosed that they had been in
the Claims Office for an average
of 15 months.
We Recommended That
The Deputy General Counsel:
• Evaluate the Claims Offices
workload and priorities and
establish procedures to ensure
that debt referrals are
effectively processed;
• Establish a timeliness
standard of six months for
making final decisions on debt
referrals and incorporate such
standards in employees’
performance agreements;
• Initiate efforts to increase
coordination with the Financial
Management Division; and
• Implement additional controls
to ensure better management
of debt referrals.
What Action Was Taken
The Deputy General Counsel in
response to the draft report
generally agreed with our
recommendations stating that
actions had been or would be
taken to address problems
identified during our review.
Although our recommendations
were focused on the C/aims
Office debt responsibilities,
senior OGC officials believed
that they may also be applicable
to improving the management
of other Claims Office activities.
The audit report was issued to
the Deputy General Counsel on
August 17, 1984. The formal
response to our report is due by
November 16, 1984.
Regional Laboratory
Did Not Control
Resources
Problem
The EPA Regional Office in
Denver, Colorado, did not
exercise adequate controls
over its Environmental
Services Division (ESD)
laboratory to properly protect
or use scientific resources,
valuable materials, and
storage of toxic substances.
We Found That
The inadequacy of controls at
every level over the Denver
Region laboratory compromised
its efficient and effective use of
resources and the safeguarding
of materials. As a result the
laboratory could lose its
certification under the Safe
Drinking Water Act. Specific
deficiencies found at the
laboratory nuluded:
• Some work was performed
that did not benefit the regional
program and analysis continued
long after the need for data was
satisfied;
• Samples were taken that
were unneeded, unwanted, and
unused by the regional program
offices;
• A study was jeopardized by
using untrained staff to take
samples and not coordinating
study requirements with the
responsible program division;
• The management information
system could not identify
workload or use of resources;
and
• Procedures were inadequate
to control employees time,
precious metals or storage of
toxic substances.
We Recommended That
The Denver Regional Office take
immediate actions to control the
functions and operations of the
Environmental Services Division
laboratory by:
• Establishing mission
statements for the
Environmental Services Division
and its laboratory giving first
priority to Regional program
needs;
• Installing and maintaining a
time distribution system to
record hours by project;
• Coordinating workload witn
regional program divisions to
ensure that overall regional
program goals and priorities are
achieved;
• Instituting a system in the
laboratory to accumulate and
report accurate information on
workload accomplishments and
resources used; and
• Complying with prescribed
laboratory procedures for
timekeeping, controls over
precious metals and alcohol,
and storage of toxic substances.
What Action Was Taken
In responding to our draft
report, the Region agreed with
most of the recommendations
and has initiated corrective
actions. The audit report was
issued to the Regional
Administrator, Region 8, on
September 18, 1984. A formal
response to the audit report is
due by December 18, 1984.
Better Management
is Necessary to
Determine Whether
Facilities are Needed
and Property Sized
Problem
Ineffective project monitoring
and incomplete or inaccurate
project information resulted
in wastewater treatment
plants in Hawaii that are
oversized and underutilized.
We Found That
Wastewater treatment facilities,
constructeed with EPA funds in
Hawaii, often operated below
planned capacity. All nine EPA
funded plants constructed in
Hawaii which were in operation
over a year as of June 1982,
operated below planned
capacity. Five of these plants
operated at less than half of
planned capacity. This
significant underutilization
indicates that it may not have
been necessary to spend the
full $86.5 million on these
facilities to obtain the same
pollution control results.
The underutilization occurred
partially because of poor internal
controls by program
management. Program files
were often missing data
supporting decisions for grants
and the applicants ability to
fulfill grant requirements. Also,
the systems for project
managers to monitor grant
progress did not provide timely
or complete information.
We Recommended That
Region 9 strengthen internal
controls during the grant
application and award process
by (1) improving documentaton
and review procedures including
the need for projects, the cost
effectiveness of projects, the
grantees’ ability to perform, and
previous experiences with
grantees; and (2) by developing
a checklist of procedures for
project officers to use in
monitoring grant program.
What Action Was Taken
In response to our draft audit
report, Region 9 generally
agreed with the need to
implement our
recommendations. The Region
acknowledges that unused
capacity exists but believes that
the design capacities of the
plants were determined
according to the best population
and economic growth estimates
available. The Region indicated
that their formal response will
detail plans for implementation
of our recommendations. The
audit report was issued to the
Regional Administrator,
Region 9, on April 25, 1984.
A formal response was due on
August25, 1984. Asof
September 30, 1984, we have
not received a response.
9
-------
Disregard for
Standards of Conduct
Problem
Employees at EPA’s Research
Triangle Park (RTP), North
Carolina, disregarded the
Agency’s Standards of
Conduct by attending parties
and luncheons given by
contractors, promoting
commercial sales to other
employees, and soliciting gifts
from contractors.
We Found That
Based on complaints to the DIG
Hotline and directly to the OlG ’s
Office of Investigations and on
information reported in news
articles, the Office of
Investigations conducted a
series of inquiries at Research
Triangle Park, Norm Carolina,
concerning employee
compliance with EPA’s
Standards of Conduct pursuant
to the Code of Federal
Regulations.
As we interviewed RTP
employees and contractor
personnel concerning violations
of Standards of Conduct, they
named other individuals and
questioned the propriety of their
conduct
Thirty RTP employees
attended parties or accepted
meals and entertainment from
one or more contractors,
principally Northrop Services,
Inc., on a continuing basis from
the mid-i 970’s through 1983.
For example, a number of
employees attended a “victory
celebration” cocktail party
sponsored by Northrop after it
was awarded an EPA contract.
EPA employees solicited
promotional gifts from various
airlines to be given away as
door prizes at the RTP
employee Christmas party.
There was a widespread
practice to solicit retail sales for
such items as cosmetics and
candy on EPA premises during
duty hours.
No single cause for
disregarding the Standards o f
Conduct by employees was
identified. RTP has ii
independent components
reporting to Washington.
Individual interpretation of EPA
policy by the managers of each
component has apparently
caused conflict of interest
regulations to be ignored or
liberally construed. The most
obvious problem is the
appearance of conflict of
interest created by the degree
of association by RIP personnel
with contractors. Employees at
various times have worked for
one or more contractors, or
have children, spouses, and
friends working for them, In
these instances, it is difficult to
separate professional and
personal relationships.
We Recommended That
The Deputy Administrator
reissue the EPA’s Standards of
Conduct regulations to RTP
employees and have the Office
of Inspector General and
General Counsel brief all RTP
employees to ensure that they
understand the Standards of
Conduct. These briefings should
include the following prohibited
items:
• Accepting meals,
entertainment, and party
invitations from EPA
contractors;
• Soliciting or accepting gifts
from firms doing business with
the Government;
• Selling merchandise by
employees on EPA premises;
and,
• Failing to obtain approval of
requests for outside
employment from Deputy
Counselors.
In addition, we recommended
that the Deputy Administrator
have the Office of Inspector
General, Office of General
Counsel, and Contract
Management Staff brief
contractors on Agency policy
and Federal acquisition
regulations.
What Action Was Taken
A management implications
report was issued to the Deputy
Administrator on August 3,
1984. In his response to the
report, the Deputy Administrator
accepted all of our
recommendations and asked
the Assistant Administrators for
Air and Radiation, Research and
Development and
Administration and Resources
Management to work with the
Office of Inspector General and
the General Counsel in carrying
out the recommendations.
Standards of Conduct briefings
have been scheduled for early in
fiscal 1985.
Construction
Grants
EPA’s wastewater treatment
works construction grants
program is the largest single
program the Agency
administers. Under the
provisions of P.L. 92-500, as
amended, the Agency is
authorized to make grants
covering up to 75 or 85 percent
of the eligible costs of
constructing wastewater
treatment facilities. Through
August 1984, $1.3 billion was
obligated on 1,618 construction
project awards this fiscal year.
The construction grants program
represents $2.4 billion or 69
percent of EPA’s total fiscal
1984 budget. As of August
1984, EPA had 6,267 active
construction grants representing
$17.9 billion of Federal
obligations.
-------
Grantee Claims $13.7
Million for Treatment
Plant That Wasn’t
Fully Operational
Problem
The City and County of
Honolulu, Hawaii, claimed
$13.7 million for the
Honouliuli Wastewater
Disposal System that had
several component
deficiencies which prevented
its full operation and use at
the time of audit.
We Found That
EPA awarded three grants to
the City and County of
Honolulu, Hawaii, to construct
the headworks and effluent
chambers to the Honouliuli
treatment plant and two
interceptor sewers. At the time
of audit, information available
disclosed that the treatment
plant would operate at only 50
percent of its design capacity
because not all sewer areas had
been connected to the plant. In
addition, neither interceptor was
fully operational. All claimed
costs not recommended for
recovery ($9.6 million Federal
share) were referred to Region
9 for determination of eligibility.
Included in the grantee’s claim
under one of the grants was
$609,935 (Federal share) of
ineligible costs used for (1) idle
chlorination and effluent
screening facilities which, if
operational, would not be used
in accordance with the grant’s
original intent, and (2)
unallowable administrative and
technical service costs.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator:
• Disallow and recover the
ineligible costs claimed,
• Review the balance of costs
for eligibility, and
• Not close the grant until a
written technical confirmation
that the facilities are fully
operational is received.
What Action Was Taken
The audit report was issued to
the Regional Administrator,
Region 9, on July 12, 1984. A
response to the audit report is
due on October 10, 1984.
EPA Should Not Fund
$16.5 Million Project
Until Deficiencies Are
Corrected
Problem
Lee County, Florida, invested
$16.5 million into wastewater
facilities that do not conform
with approved plans and
specifications.
We Found That
An EPA grant was awarded for
construction of pumping
stations, interceptors, and
pressure lines to transmit
wastewater to an existing
treatment plant. The consulting
engineer issued a qualified
certification of completion of
construction. However, the
certification was revoked when
at the final inspection of the
project, despite repeated
requests by the grantee and the
consulting engineer for
correction of performance
deficiencies, the contractor did
not correct the problems. EPA
should not fund $15 million of
project costs until the project
conforms with approved plans
and specifications.
In addition, $1 .5 million of
costs claimed by the grantee
were unsupported, used for
items outside the scope of the
project, claimed but not paid by
the grantee, generated by
redesign and the grantee’s
delay in obtaining easements,
and for other unallowable
construction and engineering
fees.
We Recommended That
• EPA disallow and recover the
Federal share of $1.5 million of
questioned costs;
• EPA not participate in the $15
million balance unless the
facility conforms with approved
plans and specifications; and
• EPA review the size of the
interceptors to determine if they
were improperly designed, and
if so reduce funding as
necessary.
What Action Was Taken
In response to the draft audit
report, the grantee did not
concur with the costs
questioned and believes that
the audit report cannot be
resolved until al/lawsuits are
settled. The audit report was
issued to the Chief, Facilities
Construction Branch, Region 4,
on September 4, 1984. A
response to the report is due by
February 28, 1985.
Grantee Neglects
Wastewater
Treatment System
Problem
The East Leflore County
Water and Sewer District,
Greenwood, Mississippi, had
three of five commissioner
positions vacant and seemed
unable to adequately oversee
operations and provide
managerial controls. In
addition, there was a very
low level of utilization of the
system in two specific areas
of the district at the time of
audit.
We Found That
The grantee was in violation of
the grant terms which required
it to possess an organization
with adequate managerial
capability to administer the
grant and operate the facility.
The County Board of
Supervisors originally appointed
five commissioners when the
district was established to
manage the operations.
However, seven years later,
three of the five commissioner
positions were vacant. In
addition, the district’s
administrator, who was
overseeing the daily operations,
had resigned. One
commissioner position was
vacant in excess of a year, two
were vacant for at least 10
months, and the administrator
position was vacant for at least
4 months. With only two
commissioners and no
administrator, the grantee is in
violation of the terms of the
grant, which requires the
grantee to possess an
organization with adequate
managerial capacity to operate
the facility over its expected life.
An engineering evaluation of
the system found that about 80
percent of the residences in
two areas were not connected
to the system. In addition,
maintenance was inadequate,
metering equipment was not
operational, and the
construction at one station
needed to be justified.
Therefore, costs totalling
$450,400 were set aside
pending corrective action.
We Recommended That
• EPA and the State require the
grantee to fill the vacancies for
commissioners and
administrator.
• EPA require the Federal
share, $337,800, related to the
engineering problem be
returned unless corrective
action was made within 90
days.
AUDIT PROFILE
Audited Costs I
diestioned & Set Aside Costs
$ MILLIONS
p 2 4 8 10 12 14 16
AUDIT PROFILE
Audited Costs I
Questioned & Set Aside Costs
$ MILLIONS
0 4 8 12 16 21
AUDIT PROFILE
Audited Costs
IOuestloned & Set Aside Costs
$ MILLIONS
0.0 0.4 08 1.2 1.6 .2.0
11
-------
What Action Was Taken
A copy of the draft report was
provided to the grantee for
review and comment on
January 16, 1984. The grantee
did not reply, nor did it request
a time extension. Therefore, we
recommended that EPA require
the grantee to return the
Federal share related to the
above problems. EPA and State
officials are working with the
grantee in an attempt to resolve
all problems. The State issued
an administrative order on
August 29, 1984, which
required the grantee to establish
a plan to connect 100 percent
of the unsewered residences or
businesses by February 22
1985. The audit report was
issued to the Chief, Facilities
Construction Branch, Region 4,
on April 10, 1984. A response is
due by October 10, 1984.
Grantee Bills EPA for
Elaborate and
Unnecessary
Administrative
Facilities at Treatment
Plant
Problem
The City of Austin, Texas,
claimed $234,000 for an
elaborate oversized lobby and
an unnecessary civic room in
the administrative building of
a wastewater treatment
plant. In addition, $617,853 of
other costs claimed were
questioned because the costs
were duplicate claims,
unsupported, or otherwise
specifically ineligible.
We Found That
EPA awarded a $31.2 million
construction grant to the City of
Austin, Texas, for the Walnut
Creek wastewater treatment
plant. An engineering evaluation
of the aesthetic features and
landscaping of the
administration building identified
excessive space and elaborate
design and materials that were
paid for as part of the treatment
facility grant. This excessive
space and elaborate design
included a 1,200-square-foot
lobby with full-length glass
windows, native stone trim, and
a sunken sitting area with a
contemporary design fountain.
In addition, the administration
building contained a
1,200-square-foot civic meeting
room. The audit report
questioned $78,000, one-half
the cost of the lobby, and
$156,000 for the entire meeting
room because the expenditure
of grant funds for such
purposes was unnecessary and
not in the best interest of EPA
or the grantee to abate water
pollution.
The other questioned costs
primarily consisted of $237,000
for claiming a duplicate
reimbursement, $103,000 for
unsupported indirect costs,
$50,000 for a retainer fee which
is specifically ineligible, and
$227,000 in other ineligible
engineering fees.
We Recommended That
EPA not fund the Federal share
(55 percent) of $851,853
questioned costs.
What Action Was Taken
The audit report was issued to
the Assistant Regional
Administrator, Region 6, on April
2 1984. The City of Austin
responded to the audit report by
registering a formal dispute of
questioned costs on July 7,
1984. Region 6 and the Office
of Inspector General are
formulating the position EPA
will take relative to all disputed
items. Our primary concern will
be to insure that elaborate and
unnecessary facilities are not
funded through the EPA grant.
Grantee Claimed Over
$700,000 of Ineligible
Costs
AUDIT PROFILE
Costs I
] Questioned & Set Aside Costs
S MILLIONS
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Problem
The Lower Lackawanna
Valley, Pennsylvania, Sanitary
Authority claimed ineligible
costs totalling $708,000 for
unallowable equipment
rentals and by awarding a
contract prior to obtaining the
necessary right-of-way.
We Found That
The grantee awarded a contract
to install manholes prior to
obtaining the necessary
right-of-way. By the time
right-of-way were obtained, the
contractor lost a subcontractor
and could not supply manholes
at the low bid price. The
additional cost for manholes and
associated interest expenses of
$319,000 is not allowed under
Federal regulations.
The contractor also claimed
$221,000 of ineligible costs
based on rental rates for
-------
equipment that was, in fact,
owned by the contractor.
Equipment costs claimed must
be actually incurred by the
contractor. Other questioned
costs included ineligible
overhead and interest claims.
In addition, $1 55,000 of costs
contained in an arbitration award
for project inspection fees and
increased contractor costs were
referred to EPA for review.
We Recommended That
EPA not participate in the
Federal share of questioned
costs ($335,000) and resolve
the eligibility of the $155,000 of
costs identified.
What Action Was Taken
The audit report was issued to
the Regional Administrator,
Region 3, on May 10, 1984. A
response to the report was
received on September 14,
1984. The Regional
Administrator sustained the
$785,000 of costs. As a result,
EPA requested the grantee to
repay approximately $50,000,
which represented the
difference between allowable
costs and EPA payments made.
Grantee Overstates
Claim by $646,000
Problem
The Metropolitan Sanitary
District of Greater Chicago
claimed $646,000 of
engineering costs which were
not supported by accounting
records.
We Found That
The grantee maintained an
accounting system which failed
to comply with EPA
requirements for a grant to
design a wastewater treatment
facility. The grantee’s
engineering firm for the project
billed EPA, through the grantee,
$646,000 for costs that could
not be supported including
$581 ,300 of sub- contract costs
and $64,700 for fringe benefits.
The grantee’s engineering firm
did not retain the accounting
records applicable to identify
specific costs claimed by its
subcontractors or the rate used
to determine fringe benefit
costs. As a result of these
problems, all nonsupportable
were questioned.
We Recommended That
The Regional Administrator,
Region 5, disallow and recover
the $349,648 Federal share of
costs questioned.
What Action Was Taken
In response to our draft audit
report, the grantee disagreed
with our findings. The audit
report was issued to the
Regional Administrator, Region
5, on September 28, 1984. A
response to the report is due
from Region 5 by December 28,
1984.
Superfund
Program
The Super! und Program was
created by the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA). The act
provides a $1.6 billion trust fund
for removal and remedial
actions, liability, compensation,
cleanup, and emergency
response for hazardous
substances released into the
environment and uncontrolled
and abandoned waste sites. The
parties responsible for the
hazardous substances are liable
for cleaning up the site
themselves or reimbursing the
Government to do so.
States in which there is a
release of hazardous materials
may qualify for assistance from
the Superfund by agreeing to
pay 10 percent of the costs of
remedial actions, or 50 percent
if the source of the hazard was
owned by the State or local
government. Costs claimed by
the State from Super! und must
be clearly eligible and
supported.
Over $6 Million
Identified for Recovery
in Cleanup at Love
Canal
Problem
Over $6 million was identified
for recovery from liable
parties under the
Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 for the costs of
cleaning up hazardous
substances at Love Canal,
New York.
Background
Between 1942 and 1952,
Hooker Electrochemical
Corporation, now Occidental
Chemical Corporation, disposed
of over 21,000 tons of various
chemicals into the Love Canal,
Niagara Falls, New York. The
chemicals have migrated into
the surrounding environment
and have been found in
concentrations far in excess of
acceptable health and
environmental risk levels. Under
CERCLA the Federal
Government is authorized to
initiate legal proceedings against
parties who have released
hazardous substances into the
environment to recover cleanup
expenses. EPA requested the
OIG to conduct and coordinate
audits of expenses related to
agreements, contracts, and
grants involved in remedial
actions at Love Canal.
We Found That
In an audit of two EPA
cooperative agreements with
the New York State Department
of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC), we found that
NYSDEC and its contractors had
incurred $4.4 million in
recoverable cleanup costs. In
addition, other costs claimed
included $1 ,21 1,000 exceeding
budget line items and $185,000
AUDIT PROFILE
Audited Costs
Questioned &
Set Aside Costs
$ MILLIONS
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
AUDIT PROFILE
Audited Costs
] Questioned & Set Aside Costs
$ MILLIONS
0 iP 20 30 40
13
-------
for costs incurred for
subconsultant work not having
written approval. If all costs are
eventually supported, the total
recoverable costs under these
two agreements could total $6.1
million.
In the audit, we also
questioned costs of $306,000
claimed by NYSDEC. These
costs included $110,000 for
amounts withheld from
contractor billings by NYSDEC
pending satisfactory contract
completion and $98,000 for
unliquidated obligations claimed
by NYSDEC for which payment
had not been made.
We Recommended That
EPA require NYSDEC to:
• Comply with 40 CFR 30.610
which requires that prior written
EPA approval for rebudgeting;
• Evaluate the eligibility of (1)
costs incurred prior to CERCLA
budget period, (2) supply costs
not included in the budget, and
(3) costs claimed that exceed
budgeted line items; and
• Delete from the Financial
Status Report’s actual
expenditures line item: (1)
amounts claimed that were
withheld from contractor
payments and (2) unliquidated
obligations, until the amounts
are paid.
What Action Was Taken
The audit report was issued to
the Director, Grants
Administration Division, on June
27, 1984. A response to the
audit report is due by October
25, 1984.
Improvements
Needed to Safeguard
Superfund
Problem
Operational and accounting
deficiencies in EPA’s
Superfund immediate removal
action program increased the
program’s susceptibility for
incurring unnecessary costs
and premature depletion of
the Trust Fund,
We Found That
EPA has accomplished some
improvements in the
management and performance
of the Superfund immediate
removal action program.
However, a number of major
deficiencies identified in
previous audit reports were still
present during this reporting
period.
On scene coordinators at
hazardous substance removal
sites did not meet their
responsibilities consistently
from region to region, or
adequately monitor contractor’s
performance and related
invoices to enssure that EPA
paid for only necessary and
acceptable work. EPA’s
accounting system did not
identify or accumulate all costs
associated with removal actions,
and could preclude the Agency
from recovering appropriate
costs from responsible parties.
For example, $146,315 in
personnel compensation and
contract costs incurred at one
site in Region 3 were not
recorded as site specific. The
approval process to authorize
cleanup actions when an
exemption to statutory limits is
required results in costly delays
and needs to be expedited. In
one case, delays cost the
Agency an additional $160,000.
We Recommended That
The Assistant Administrator for
Solid Waste and Emergency
Response:
• Ensure an authorized Agency
representative is on site to
monitor the cntractor’s
performance and certification of
the contractor’s daily reports
and invoices;
• Establish procedures to
ensure that all site-specific
costs (contract, personnel) are
recorded as such in the financial
management system;
• Transfer fund authority and
the requirement for
enforcement releases to the
regions; and
• Request the Administrator to
discontinue requirements for
approval of exemptions to
statutory limits by Headquarters
offices not directly in the chain
of command and rely on
regional offices for legal and
financial reviews.
What Action Was Taken
A final audit report was issued
to the Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response on June 21, 1984.
We received a response to the
audit report on October 2, 1984.
The Assistant Administrator
generally agreed to take action
on all recommendations.
Corrective actions have been
completed in some areas, and
time frames for completion
have been provided for other
areas where action is still
underway. The Assistant
Administrator’s response and
planned actions are generally
responsive to our
recommendations.
OIG views immediate removal
actions as an area susceptible
to abuse. Accordingly, in
addition to the audit reported
above, we are continuing to
make unannounced visits to
sites where immediate
removals are underway to
evalute financial controls. We
anticipate issuing a consolidated
report on these additional site
visits to Headquarters in
December 1984.
State Agency Claims
Ineligible Expenses in
Excess of $1 Million
II
Problem
The State of Minnesota
claimed costs totalling
$1,084,558 related to the
Reilly Tar hazardous waste
site that were not allowable
under the Comprehensive
Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
We Found That
CERCLA permits States to
receive credit toward their
cost-sharing requirements for
cleaning up hazardous waste
sites. This credit is for
documented, direct,
out-of-pocket, non-Federal funds
expended or obligated for
eligible actions between January
1, 1978, and December 11,
1980. The total ineligible costs
of $1,084,558 include the
construction of a street,
salaries, insurance, and other
costs; amounts used by the
State as a matching share to
obtain funds from another
Federal agency; and funds not
obligated by the cutoff date.
We Recommended That
EPA credit the State of
Minnesota with only $272,945
of the $1,357,503 claimed for
the Reilly Tar site during the
period January 1, 1978, to
December 11, 1980, with the
difference of $1,084,558 being
disallowed.
What Action Was Taken
The audit report was issued to
the Regional Administrator,
Region 5, on June 13, 1984. As
of September 30, 1984, we had
not received a response to the
report that was due on
September 13, 1984.
AUDIT PROFILE
Audited Costs
Ouestioned & Set Aside Costs
$ MILLIONS
00 02 04 0.6 08 10 1.2 14
14
-------
Section 2 Audit Resolution
As required by the Inspector
General Act, this section
describes significant problems
and recommendations
identified in previous
semiannual reports which
remain unresolved. Also, as
required by the Supplemental
Appropriations and Rescission
Acts of 1980 and 1981, this
section includes a summary
of unresolved audits and a list
of officials responsible for
resolving audit findings over
six months old.
EPA top management officials
and the Office of Inspector
General have stressed the need
for timely resolution of audits.
This attention to audit resolution
is beginning to yield noticeable
results in numbers of audit
reports resolved; dollars
sustained, saved, and
recovered; and management
improvements. The number of
audit reports in our followup
system has declined 20 percent,
from 560 reports at beginning of
this reporting period to 446
reports as of September 30,
1984.
During this penod, EPA
management resolved 504
audits and sustained $47.1
million of questioned costs,
including $46.7 million for
recovery and $0.4 million of
cost reductions. Also, EPA
recovered $24.2 million from
audit resolutions of current and
prior periods, including $3.8
million in cash and $20.4 million
of offsets against billings.
Agency Management
Increases Emphasis
on Audit Resolution
To improve the Agency’s
responsiveness to audit
findings, senior Agency
management has devoted
increased attention to audit
followup by including the status
of unresolved audits in the
Administrator’s strategic
planning and management
system to enhance tracking and
oversight. In addition, the
Deputy Administrator has
scheduled audit resolution as a
major topic at meetings with
top Agency officials and plans to
continue doing so in the future.
EPA’s audit followup directive
has been revised to incorporate
the requirements of 0MB
Circular A-50.
In April 1984, EPA issued
Directive 2750, “Management
of EPA Audit Reports and
Followup Actions.” Its principal
objective is to assist managers
in using audits as a
management tool. In general,
this system:
• Clarifies responsibilities of
Agency officials for audit
followup;
• Establishes definitive time
frames for the prompt
resolution of audits;
• Provides ample opportunity
for auditees to submit
information pertaining to a
disputed finding; and
• Uses an Audit Resolution
Board to resolve disagreements
between our office and program
officials on our audit findings
and recommendations.
Followup on Audit Findings
As reported in the prior
semiannual reporting period,
EPA management has
successfully stimulated efforts
to resolve audit reports. Since
March 31, 1984, the number of
unresolved audit reports over
six months old has decreased
significantly reversing the
previous trend.
Unresolved Audits over Six
Months have Decreased
Significantly
EPA’s unresolved audit findings
over six months old have
decreased for the first time in a
reporting period since March 31
1982. These improved audit
resolution statistics indicate a
step in the right direction.
However, Agency management
needs to continue placing
strong emphasis on prompt
resolution of audit findings and
recommendations. By doing so,
EPA officials will be ensuring
that the intent of Congress is
carried out and the Agency will
be recovering funds, avoiding
costs, and improving its
operations.
271
* As of October 22, 1984, 34 of the 125 audit reports over six
months old had been resolved. Our office has received and is
reviewing an additional 40 responses to audit reports over six months
old.
15
-------
EPA Contracts
Director, Procurement and
Contracts Management Division
Chief, Durham Cost Advisory
Branch
EPA Grants Programs
Director. Grants Administration
Division
Regional Administrator
Region 1
Regional Administrator
Region 2
Regional Administrator
Region 3
Regional Administrator
Region 4
Regional Administrator
Region 5
Regional Administrator
Region 6
Regional Administrator
Region 8
Regional Administrator
Region 9
Previously Reported
Items—Corrective
Actions Not Taken
The Inspector General Act
requires that each semiannual
report identify problems
discussed in previous reports
Report Grantee/Contractor
Number
10937 West Windsor, New Jersey
which remain unresolved.
Fifty-one audit reports were
discussed in all previous
semiannual reports; 41 have
been resolved. The 10 audit
reports listed below had not
been resolved as of September
30, 1984.
TOTAL
125 75 50
The numbers in the column represent report responses (1) the OIG
has received and is evaluating, (2) to be referred to Audit Resolution
Board, and (3) in litigation or requiring special study.
Action Officials for Audit Reports
Outstanding more than 6 Months as of
September 30, 1984
Action Officiel Number No or
of Invalid Responses 1
Reports Responses in Process
IssuedStatus
Date
3 - 3
3 3 -
05/06/81 3
11556 Washington Suburban Sanitary 09/11:81 3
Commission, Maryland
5 5 - 20473 Washington Suburban Sanitary 02 1 1/82 3
Commission, Maryland
34 22 12 30324 Jet Line Services, Inc., 1230.82 2
30672 Massachusetts Department of 022883 2
10 10 - Environmental Quality Engineering
31256 EPA Region 9 Survey of Obligations 06.3083 2
11 - 40573 Santa Rosa, California, 01 /30.84 2
19 19 41141 Lafayette, Tennessee 1 06.13.84 1
40506 Atlanta University Center. Georgia 01 1684 3
6 - 6 41288 IT Corporation, Wilmington, California 2 07 23 84
Report reissued at request of program offices to obtain
supplemental data.
2 1 1 2 Report reissued to incorporate the results of a major subcontract
audit.
6 4 2 Explanation of Status Codes
7. No response.
26 11 1 5 2. Response being evaluated.
3. Resolution delayed pending required studies or litigation,
16
-------
Section 3—Prosecutive ’ Actions
The following is a summary
of investigative activities
during this reporting period.
These include investigations
of alleged criminal violations
which may result in
prosecution and conviction,
investigations of alleged
violations of agency
regulations and policies, and
OlG personnel security
investigations. The Office of
Investigations tracks
investigations in the following
categories: preliminary and
regular investigations,
investigations being worked
with another agency, and OlG
background investigations.
Profile of Pending Active
Investigations By Category of
Investigation
Theft or Abuse of Government
Property 9%
Antitrust 4,7%
Other 5.8%
Personnel Securty 4.7%
Administrative and Privacy
Act Violations 4.0 ’o
Conflict of Interest 4.7%-
Profile of Pending Active
Investigations By EPA Office
Unit
Summary of
Investigative
Case Activity
During this period, we closed
249 investigations to reduce our
inventory by 11 percent. At the
same time, we increased our
emphasis on long-term major
impact initiatives.
Pending Investigations
as of March 31, 1984
New Investigations
Opened This Period
Investigations
Closed This Period
Pending Investigations
as of September 30, 1984 278
We expect that several of the
major projects initiated this
period will produce significant
resuits in future periods. For
example, one of these
long-term investigations
required two years of work
before we reported or it. The
Municipal and Industrial Pipe
Services, Inc. IMIPSI case
uncovered a 10 year, S8 mil: on
scheme by the directors of
MIPS to defraud the
Government on EPA-funded
sewer rehabilitation projects.
The investigation led to the
successful prosecution of the
directors of MIP who were
fined and received substantial
prison terms isee page 23 of
the semiannual report for the
period ending March 31. 1984).
Prosecutive and
Administrative
315 Actions
212 In this per!od investigat ve
efforts resulted in six
indictments and three
249 convictions. Fines and
recoveries amounted to
$91,227. A total of 25
administrative actions were
taken as a result of
investigations, broken- down as
follows:
Suspensions
Resignations
Reprimands
Repayment of Funds
Reassignments Demotions
Others
Total
Does not include suspensions ano
debarments resulting from the
Office of In yes tigations activir es
Description of
Selected
Prosecutive
Actions
Below i’s a brief descript on of
some of the prosecutive actions
which occurred during the
reporting period. Some of those
actions resulted from
investigations initiated prior to
April 1, 1984.
Contractor Pleads
Guilty to False Billing
An investigation resulted in an
$80;000 fine of Meredith
Associates, Inc. MAll,
‘A/estport, Connecticut. MIA
waived indictment and pled nob
contendre to an eigth-count
charge of making false
2 statements and causing false
statements to be made to EPA
for contract reimbursements in
5 violation of 18 USC 1001 and 18
3 USC 2. The investigation
stemmed from allegations that
the sole source contract was
— escaiated by $350,000 above
the original estimate of S75,000,
and focused on MIA’s billing
procedures and the falsification
of invoices submitted to EPA.
The OIG interviewed several
MAI employees who stated that
Meredith ordered the overbilling
of EPA for services on the
contract based on employee
timesheets that were altered to
reflect more hours than were
actually worked. In addition,
new timesheets were prepared
to reflect an inflated number of
hours. An examination of MAI
records revealed that inflated
hours were carried forward on
16 of MAI’s 25 invoices paid by
EPA.
Contractor
3° h Misrepresents Itself as
a Minority Business
Murray Paving Company, Inc.,
of Whitesboro, New York, pled
guilty to a five count charge of
mail fraud after fraudulently
receiving EPA subcontracts on a
17
-------
sanitary sewer project in
Whitestown, New York. The
subcontracts w ,ere supposed to
go to a minority business
enterprise in compliance with
Federal funding requirements.
Murray Paving Company
misrepresented its status as a
minority business enterprise to
three different prime contractors
to obtain the $180000 of
subcontracting work. Murray
Paving Company is not and
never has been a certified
minority business enterprise nor
did it ever have a legal
relationship with a certified
minority business enterprise
which would qualify it under
Federal regulations. As a part of
the guilty plea, Murray Paving
Company agreed to accept a
two-year debarment from work
on federally funded contracts,
and could be fined up to $5,000
at the October 18, 1984.
sentencing.
False Claims
An EPA employee, Sheila
Walker, admitted during an
investigation to improperly
receiving $4,590 in
unemployment benefits. The
employee was hired by EPA
three weeks after separation
from another Federal agency,
but collected unemployment
compensaticn benefits totalling
$4,590 by falsely certifying her
unemployment for nine months.
Ms. Walker pled guilty to
making false statements to
obtain unemployment
compensation (18 USC 1919).
On June 28. 1984, she was
placed on three years probation
and was ordered to make full
restitution. Ms. Walker, who
was on temporary appointment,
is no longer with EPA.
Embezzlement of
Government Funds
An unannounced audit of an
EPA imprest fund by regional
staff on March 30. 1984,
revealed a $3,342.92 shortage
in the fund entrusted to Vertie
Lee Rogers, an EPA travel clerk
and cashier. During a
subsequent investigation by the
01G. Rogers admitted
embezzling the money. Rogers
resigned from EPA, effective
April 6, 1984, and made
restitution to the imprest fund in
the amount of $3,342.92.
Rogers was charged with
violating 18 USC 657
(Embezzlement of Government
Funds) on September 13, 1984.
Vertie Lee Rogers pled guilty to
the charge on October 10,
1984.
Description of
Selected
Administrative
Actions
The 0/C investigates and
reports on information,
allegations, and indications of
possible wrong doing or
misconduct by EPA employees
and persons or firms acting in
an official capacity directly with
EPA or through its grantees. In
addition, the Senate Report of
the Supplemental Appropriations
and Rescission Act of 1980
states that appropriate
administrative action is
expected to be taken in cases
where employees have acted
improperly.
Selected administrative
actions taken against EPA
employees or those with an
official re/a fionship with EPA
during the semiannual reporting
period in connection with audits
and investigations are shown
below.
Two EPA Program
Office Attorneys
Violate Standards of
Conduct
One EPA attorney was
suspended for three days and
another was reprimanded for
violating EPA’s Standards of
Conduct by using Agency time
and equipment for personal
activities. The Office of
Inspector General received
information from one of the
attorneys’ clients who was
outraged that these attorneys
conducted a private legal
practice on Government time.
Our investigation revealed
that the two program office
attorneys worked jointly on a
private legal case without
Agency approval for outside
employment. In addition, they
failed to list their outside law
practice on their Confidential
Statements of Employment and
Financial Interests and used
EPA telephones, word
processing, and photocopying
equipment for their private legal
work.
Employee Embezzles
Imprest Fund
An unannounced audit of a
regional imprest fund by the
regional staff on March 30,
1984, revealed a $237 shortage
in the cash box of an EPA
clerk-typist. During a
subsequent investigation by the
OIG, the employee admitted
embezzling the money to make
a deposit on an apartment. The
employee resigned from EPA
effective April 5, 1984, and
made restitution to the imprest
fund in the amount of $237.
Prosecution was declined.
Payroll Abuse
A section chief in EPA
Headquarters submitted a
request to reschedule salary
payment (SF 1166) stating that
he did not receive three
consecutive salary payments
totalling $3,086.99, when in fact
the three payments were
electronically mailed to his credit
union account. The employee
was relieved of his responsibilities
as section chief and was
demoted three grade levels.
Employee Linked to
Leave Violation
An EPA Headquarters official
combined the same week of
annual leave each year and a
seven-day golf tournament with
two days of work in North
Carolina from 1979 to 1983. The
two days of work occurred on
Thursday and Friday of each
year and were followed by a
golf tournament beginning on
Saturday and extending
throughout the next week when
the official was on annual leave.
EPA regulations rohibtt taking
annual leave in conjunction with
official travel except in
emergency or unique situations.
In addition, the employee
violated regulations by earning
and using compensatory time
instead of annual leave while he
was at the maximum level of a
grade 15. The employee was
reprimanded for taking leave in
connection with official travel.
Additionally, the employee’s
annual leave balance was
reduced by 102 hours, valued at
about $3,038, to repay EPA for
the compensatory time. The
employee retired while Agency
action was still pending.
Interest-Free Loan to
City Inspector
A public works inspector for
Portland, Oregon, accepted a
$7,500 interest free loan from a
contractor on an EPA project.
The inspector regularly
examined pipe that was
manufactured by the contractor,
however, the investigation d.d
not establish that the inspector
approved substandard pipe. The
City of Portland informed the
OIG that as a result of the
investigation, the inspector was
suspended for two weeks and
ordered to repay the loan in full
with interest or be terminated.
18
-------
Section 4 Fraud Prevention and Resource Management
This section describes several
activities of the Office of
Inspector General to promote
economy and efficiency and
to prevent and detect fraud,
waste, and abuse in the
administration of EPA
programs and operations.
This section includes
information required by
statute, recommended by
Senate report, or deemed
apropriate by the Inspector
General.
2nd Half FY’84
Review of
Proposed
Legislation and
Regulations
Section 4(a)(2) of the Inspector
General Act of 1978 specifies
that it is the duty and
responsibility of the Office of
Inspector General to review
existing and proposed legislation
and regulations relating to
programs and operations
concerning their impact on the
economy and efficiency or the
prevention and detection of
fraud and abuse.
Prior to this semiannual
reporting period, the Agency did
not fully recognize these duties
and responsibilities of the Office
of Inspector General. As a
result, the Office of Inspector
General was only provided the
opportunity to review and make
recommendations on a limited
number of selected items. How-
ever, with the cooperation of
the Offices of Administration
and Resources Management,
External Affairs, and Policy
Planning and Evaluation, the
Office of Inspector General,
beginning in April 1984, has
been afforded the opportunity to
review, comment, and make
recommendations on all
legislative and regulatory items
within the Agency. The number
of total items reviewed by the
Office of Inspector General has
increased from 34 (6 legislative
and 28 regulatory) last
semiannual reporting period to
193 (97 legislative and 96
regulatory) this period.
The most significant items
reviewed are summarized
below:
[ I 11 Legislation
Regulations
H.R. 3282, “The Water
Pollution Control Act”
We believed that proposed
amendments to the Water
Pollution Control Act contained
provisions which would have
seriously curtailed our efforts to
prevent waste, fraud, and abuse
in the wastewater treatment
construction grants program.
Section 13 of H.R. 3282
would have amended section
203(a) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act to provide
that once the Administrator
approves a grant, EPA will be
obligated to pay all costs
regardless of audit findings. This
would have virtually eliminated
our ability to audit construction
grants and recommend
disallowance of costs.
We felt that the public should
not be expected to pay for
projects or portions of projects
not planned, designed, and
constructed in accordance with
Federal statutes and regulations.
Similarly, the public should not
be expected to reimburse a
grantee for costs which were
improperly incurred or
unallowable under applicable
Federal cost principles.
To protect the public
interests, we suggested that
section 13 be eliminated
entirely. Subsequently, the
proposed bill was amended to
eliminate the exclusion from
audit. Additionally, the proposed
bill was amended to provide
one-quarter of one percent of
the construction grants funded
each year for the exclusive use
of the Inspector General to
conduct audits and
investigations of the programs.
Subsequent to the end of the
reporting period the bill was not
passed by Congress.
EPA Directive,
Security Volume,
Part I—Physical
Security
The Inspector General Act of
1978 established the Office of
Inspector General as an
independent authority
responsible for ensuring the
integrity of the Agency’s
employees and operations by
conducting audits,
investigations, and evaluations.
Although we endorse the
mission and activities of the
physical security program, this
directive does not recognize the
statutory role of the Inspector
General.
This lack of recognition could
cause a conflict of authority in
the investigation of a possible
criminal, civil, or administrative
violation, or circumvent the
potential involvement of the
Inspector General entirely. We
strongly believe that the Chief,
General Services Branch, should
be required to report routinely
any instances of possible
wrongdoing or criminal, civil, or
administrative violations to the
Inspector General. The
Inspector General should be
apprised of the determination to
open an investigation, the
progress of any such
investigation and afforded the
prerogative to initiate an
independent investigation.
Additionally, we believe that the
Inspector General should be
apprised of all reports of theft
with the prerogative for making
an independent investigation.
H.R. 5640, “The
Superfund Expansion
and Protection Act of
1984”
HR. 5640 would amend the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA).
Specifically, this bill would
revise section 111(k) of CERCLA
to include three new reporting
requirements for the Office of
Inspector General.
We believe the requirement
to conduct an annual audit of
payments, obligations.
reimbursements, and other uses
of the fund, including a random
sample of agreements between
EPA and the States, should be
revised. Though we are willing
to perform this audit, we
believe that the term “random
sample” is too limiting. Since
the total number of cooperative
agreements is likely to be quite
small initially, a stratified or
judgmental sample would allow
Legus ation and
Regulation Reviews
by Semiannual
Reporting Period
‘200
160
120
‘80
‘40
0
1st Half FY84
-------
us to better identify problem
areas.
The second provision of the
amended section 11(k) would
require the lG to prepare an
annual report on the status of all
remedial and enforcement
actions undertaken in the
previous fiscal year. We believe
that reporting data on remedial
and enforcement activities is a
program responsibility. Section
9(a) (2) of the Inspector General
Act of 1978 prohibits the IG
from assuming program
operating responsibilities.
The third provision would
require the IG to estimate the
amount of resources the
Administrator would require to
implement all the provisions of
the Act. Again, we believe that
this provision is a program
function which blurs the
independent review function
that was intended for the 1G.
We believe that the
requirement for annual reports
on the status of remedial,
enforcement actions, and
resource requirements might be
more appropriately fulfilled by
the Administrator. The Office of
Inspector General could, in turn,
review these reports for
accuracy and reasonableness.
Elimination of
Unnecessary Reports
to Congress
We specifically disagree with
the elimination of certain
reporting requirements through
the repeal of the Supplemental
Appropriations and Recission
Act of 1980 [ 31 USC 26(b)] as
proposed in title 1, section
101(d), of this draft bill. The
Senate report on this Act
requires the Inspectors General
to report in their semiannual
reports to Congress a summary
of unresolved audits and a list
of officials responsible for
resolving audit findings over six
months old
We firmly believe that this
report of accountability is
necessary to lever
Congressional attention and
Agency responsiveness
concerning the resolution of
deficiencies identified in audit
reports. The independent status
of the Inspector General report
provides a means for the
Agency and its officials to be
held accountable for
implementing recommendations
and taking corrective actions.
H.R. 4233, “Civilian
Travel Expense
Amendments Act of
1983”
This Act would require the
establishment of a flat per diem
rate for all Federal travel and
would abolish the requirement
to present records and receipts
for documentation purposes.
We believe that the
establishment of a flat per diem
rate would definitely reduce the
administrative costs of
processing travel papers.
However, if records and
receipts are not required from
travelers, the potential for fraud
and abuse may offset any
savings accrued. Though travel
fraud and waste occurs under
the present law, it is often
deterred by the requirement to
provide travel expense
documentation.
To guard against flagrant
travel abuses, we believe that at
a minimum, documentation for
overnight lodging should be
required. This would provide
authentication of expenses,
dates, and locations, and
prevent employees from
obtaining alternate lodging while
remaining eligible for full
payment of presumed expenses.
Assistance
Administration
Manual
We believe that the Assistance
Administration Manual chapter
which mandates the awarding
of a fair share of EPA financial
assistance to small minority and
women businesses through
subagreements should be
revised. Though we support and
advocate the awarding of EPA
financial assistance to small
minority and women
businesses, we are concerned
that businesses representing
themselves as small and
disadvantaged actually qualify as
such. Currently, this manual
chapter does not contain any
controls or verification
requirements to reduce the
Agency’s vulnerability to such
misrepresentation. We suggest
that businesses represented as
small and disadvantaged be
required to meet certain
verifiable criteria or conditions,
and that specific controls be
established to verify compliance
with those conditions. Violations
of those conditions or
falsification of representation as
a small and disadvantaged
business should result in the
business being debarred or
suspended from participation
with EPA. Additionally, any
subagreement with a small and
disadvantaged business should
be contingent upon a
verification that such business
has not been debarred or
suspended from doing business
with EPA. As of September 30,
1984, our suggestions for
changes to the Assistance
Administraion Manual were still
being considered through the
Agency review and clearance
process.
S. 2666, a Bill “To
Preclude Changes in
the Federal Regional
Office Structure
Except by Statute”
We believe that the Federal
regional structure should not be
mandated by statute. One
objective of our Government is
to be flexible and responsive to
the people it serves. This
involves decentralized delivery
of Government services based
on the nation’s demographic
characteristics and changes in
its population.
The establishment of a
statutory regional structure
reduces the Government’s
flexibility to respond to the
country’s demographic needs
and changes, and greatly
reduces its ability to adjust
regional organizations to
enhance economic and efficient
operation.
Actions to
Prevent Bid
Rigging — an
Agencywide
Effort
Bid rigging by Contractors doing
business with the Federal
Government is one of he most
flagrant, chronic, and
concealable forms of fraud
against the government. Bid
rigging is the preconceived
agreement between contractors
to illegally influence the
awarding or pricing of
competitively bid contracts. EPA
and its grantees sustain millions
of dollars in losses of
construction grant program
funds. During audit and
investigative reviews conducted
in one region over the past
three years, numerous violations
were identified and an
environment uncovered where
bid rigging may be a ‘way of
life” for many Contractors.
Criminal penalties on the 17
bid rigging convictions to date
include prison sentences of over
16 years and fines of $705000.
Additional indictments have
been filed, and more are
expected. While observations of
bid rigging are based primarily
on activities in one EPA region,
the nature of these activities
indicates they are applicable
nationwide, and aggressive
action is needed to minimize
losses in EPA’s construction
grants. The OIG has extended
its review to other areas of the
country and is attempting to
involve the Agency in a unified,
ongoing effort against bid
rigging.
20
-------
In our previous two
semiannual reports to Congress,
we indicated that the OlD
worked jointly with the Antitrust
Division of the US. Department
of Justice in presenting
seminars titled ‘Efforts to
Prevent Bid Rigging.” We
believe that project was
successful in alerting seminar
participants to the problem. We
believe this served as a starting
point in an anti-bid rigging
program, and recognized a need
to have the Agency take more
aggressive steps in attacking
the bid rigging problem.
Accordingly, we suggested
several action areas to Agency
officials:
• Training EPA and State
project officers in the
prevention, detection, and
reporting of fraud, waste, and
abuse for a solid first line of
defense;
• Requiring all contract bidders
to sign affidavits or certifications
of noncollusive bidding to
emphasize the illegality of the
action and to strengthen the
Government case against bid
rigging; and
• Requiring the grantee and
consulting engineer to retain all
project bid records so critical
documentation is available for
analysis and prosecution.
Program managers have
agreed on the desirability of
these suggestions and are
prepanng an action plan for their
implementation. We plan to
work closely with Agency
management to focus its effort
on preventing, detecting, and
prosecuting bid rigging. As more
knowledge is acquired from our
ongoing audit and investigative
reviews, additional suggestions
will be provided.
EPA’s policy is to do business
only with contractors, grantees,
and persons who are
responsible, honest, and who
comply with applicable rules and
regulations. EPA enforces this
policy by suspending or
debaring any organization or
person for acting improperly,
having a history of substandard
work, or willfully failing to
perform on EPA or other
Federally funded activities.
Suspensions and debarments
deny participation in Agency
programs and activities to those
who represent a risk of abuse
to the Government.
The EPA Grants
Administration Division operates
the suspension and debarment
program in EPA, with the OIG
providing statutory oversight.
Acting by Agency request or by
its own authority, the OlG
conducts audits, investigations,
and engineering studies, obtains
documents and seeks
prosecutive actions necessary
to determine whether there is a
cause for a debarment.
Active Cases
Under Investigation
Under Program or Counsel Review
Proposed for Debarment
Suspended Proposed for
Debarment
Other Pending
Total
Actions to Debar or
Suspend Persons and
Firms
• The A.C. Lawrence Leather
Company, Danvers,
Massachusetts, and five of its
officers and employees were
convicted variously of storing
and disposing hazardous wastes
without a permit, filing false
statements with EPA that
concealed the use of hazardous
wastes, and illegally discharging
raw waste into the Asheulot
River in New Hampshire. In
connection with their EPA
research grant, they were also
convicted of filing false claims
and mail fraud. The company
and all five officers and
employees were debarred from
participation in EPA programs
for the maximum three yearsl
period allowed under EPA
regulations.
• William A. Croft, Madison,
Wisconsin, an assistant
professor at the University of
Wisconsin, was convicted of
converting to his own use the
services of three subordinate
employees whose salaries were
80
funded under an EPA grant.
Subsequently, Mr. Croft was
debarred from participation in
any EPA project for a three-year
period.
• Richard Gordon Newman of
Pierre, South Dakota, was
convicted of embezzling EPA
funds during his tenure as
executive director of the South
Dakota Association of
Conservation Districts.
Subsequently, he was debarred
from participation in EPA
programs for three years.
• Complaints were received
from three employees who had
not received their Davis- Bacon
wages from Bowers Excavating
and Fencing, Inc., Klamath Falls,
Oregon, a contractor on an
EPA-funded project. After
notices of proposed debarment
were issued to the contractor
and two corporate officers,
negotiations were initiated
which resulted in a settlement
agreement. The contractor
agreed to pay the full
Davis-Bacon wages, with
interest, and to accept an
18-month debarment by EPA for
the company and the two
involved officers.
- Summary of Suspension and
Suspension and Debarment Activities
Debarment April 1. 1984,
- September 30. 1984
Activities ___________
Total
Fiscal
1984
Cases Opened
Cased Completed
Debarments
Voluntary Exclusions
Settlements
Cases Dismissed
Cases Closed After Investigation
Total
59 85
9 24
9 16
3 20
17 32
39 93
As of
9/30/84
36
26
17
0
21
-------
Bid Rigging—
Prosecution Resuks
in Debarments
As described in our previous
two semiannual reports and
earlier in this section (Fraud
Prevention and Management
Improvements), the OIG is
continuing its investigation of
evidence that EPA contractors
are rigging bids on wastewater
treatment facilities. As of
September 30, 1984, a total of
17 guilty pleas were entered in
violations of section 1 of the
Sherman Act (15 USC ). Below
are examples of persons and or
firms that were debarred or
suspended from doing business
with EPA based upon
prosecutive action for bid
rigging.
• Steve D. Rothrock and his
company, Rothrock Construction
Company, Murrells Inlet, South
Carolina, were debarred from
doing business with EPA for
three years on May 17, 1984.
The debarments followed the
conviction of Rothrock and his
company for violating section 1
of the Sherman Act (15 USC 1).
In the spring of 1983, Rothrock
and his company pled guilty to
charges that they and
coconspirators submitted
collusive, noncompetitive bids
to the North Carolina Sewer
District Commission. The
collusive bids were submitted to
have one of the conspirators
receive an award of S3,647,697
to work on an EPA-funded
sewer project.
• Frederick M. Young,
President, CFW Construction
Co., Inc., Fayetteville.
Tennessee, reached a
settlement with EPA on March
29, 1984, agreeing to be
voluntarily excluded from doing
business with the Government
for one year. Young had
previously been suspended for
one year on July 19, 1983,
pending debarment action.
Young’s exclusion was based
on his violation of section 1 of
the Sherman Act (15 USC 1).
On December 17, 1982. Young
pled guilty to charges that he
and coconspirators submitted
collusive, noncompetitives bids
on a Chester, South Carolina,
Sewer District project funded in
part by EPA. The collusive bids
were submitted so that CFW
would receive an award of
$2,077,651 to work on the
project. On March 2, 1984,
CFW also pled guilty to a charge
of submitting collusive,
noncompetitive bids on the
project.
Committee on
Integrity and
Management
Improvement
In our last semiannual report we
reported the establishment of
an Agency Committee on Fraud,
Waste, and Mismanagement.
By consensus of the
Committee, the name was
changed to the Committee on
Integrity and Management
Improvement (CIMI) to promote
a more positive image of its
goals and objectives, The CIMI
will coordinate the Agency’s
effort and recommend
appropriate action to the
Administrator relating to policy,
plannning, implementation, and
resource requirements
necessary to curb fraud, waste,
and mismanagement. In
addition, however, it will foster
and review ways to improve
economy and efficiency
throughout the Agency. On
August 9, 1984, EPA Order
1130.1—Committee on Integrity
and Management Improvement
was issued to describe the
purpose, membership, functions
and authority of the Committee.
The Committee on Integrity
and Management Improvement
has undertaken three initial
projects:
Quality Assurance/Quality
Control (QA/QC)
EPA relies heavily on highly
technical data received from
external sources in its regulatory
decision making process. The
QA/OC working group is
reviewing ways to strengthen
Agency procedures to minimize
the possibility of fraudulent or
unreliable research resu)ts and
technical data having a
significant impact on the
regulatory process.
Agency Permits
The permits working group is
addressing the various permit
issuance processes within EPA
to determine if generic permits
(industrywide, etc.) might offer
substantial improvements in
program effectiveness and
efficiency of operations.
Particular emphasis will be
given to the impacts of
permitting on small businesses.
Environmental results derived
from the permits process will
be carefully considered in the
analysis.
Employee Awareness
Subcommittee
The CIMI established a standing
subcommittee on Employee
Awareness. This subcommittee
is attempting to increase
employee participation in the
Agency’s management
improvement efforts through a
revitalized suggestion program
and periodic issuance of
Employee Awareness Bulletins.
The Awareness Bulletins will be
signed to sensitize employees,
and in some instances grant and
contract recipients, to conditions
that have proven to be
indicators of abuse or
wrongdoing in Agency
programs.
Personnel
Security Program
Makes Rapid
Progress
The Personnel Security Program
has made significant
improvements and progress in
reducing the case backlog and
ensuring that employment of
personnel complies with Agency
regulations and national security
reqirements since its transfer to
the OIG in October 1983.
During this semiannual reporting
period the Personnel Security
staff has reviewed 247
investigations and has intiated a
purge of existing security files.
These activities have resulted in
the identification of the
following conditions and
subsequent administrative
actions:
• An employee was removed
from duty after being arrested
for theft and possession of
heroin. Administrative action
had been initiated against the
employee for frequent absences
without leave prior to the arrest.
• Two alien employees were
removed from duty for falsifyng
their non-citizen status. The
Agency is seeking recovery of
two years salary from one of
the aliens.
• An employee had intentionally
defaulted on a Federally insured
student loan. The employee
agreed to accept automatic
salary deductions until the loan
is fully repaid.
• An employee was
reprimanded for falsification of
employment credentials. The
employee falsely claimed to
hold a Masters Degree in Public
Administration.
In addition, the Personnel
Security Program initiated
further actions to improve and
ensure the integrity of Agency
personnel and its contractors
including:
• Coordinating efforts with a
program office to conduct
limited investigations of
contractors who handle
privileged information;
• Working with contractors to
update the Personnnel Security
Information System
(computerized listing of
employees’ security data); and
• Working with program offices
to help them implement
changes in the new Federal
Personnel Manual for
reclassifying the sensitivity of
positions.
22
-------
Employee and
Public Awareness
Activities
A major goal of the Office of
Inspector General is to enhance
its presence among EPA
employees, grantees, firms
participating in EPA programs
and the public.
In this process we are trying
to make these groups aware of
and instill in them a sense of
responsibility to prevent, detect,
and report instances of fraud,
waste, and abuse. We have
found that while most EPA
employees. grantees, and
contractors are conscientious
about the economy, efficiency,
and effectiveness of their work,
they have little knowledge about
the 01G. These groups are often
in the best position to detect,
prevent, and report fraud,
waste, and abuse if they know
how to identify and report it. To
provide information and
encourage participation in
fulfilling the objectives of the
OlG, we have used a variety of
mediums to reach specific
segments of the EPA concerned
population.
Publications
To inform different groups about
OIG operations we have been
working with the EPA Office of
Public Affairs to publish articles
in several different EPA
publications. During this
reporting period articles
conceming the OIG appeared in
the EPA Times, the EPA
Management Memo, and the
EPA Journal. Articles concerning
the OIG were also published in
the journals and news- letters of
several professional associations
and State or local governments.
Semiannual Reports
Over 1.000 copies of our
Semiannual Report to Congress
for the period ending March 31,
1984, were distributed to
employees, citizens, news
services, the Army Corps of
Engineers, and State agencies
administering EPA programs
and projects. The distribution of
these reports to news services
resulted in publication of
additional articles concerning
the 01G. We are particularly
interested in getting State
agencies and grantees more
involved in the prevention and
detection efforts.
Committee on Integrity and
Management Improvement
This newly created group
composed of EPA managers
(described separately in this
section) has established
employee awareness to the
vulnerabilities of fraud, waste,
and abue as one of its primary
concerns. With the OIG serving
in an advisory capacity, an
employee awareness
subcommittee has been formed
and is undertaking several
projects to heighten employee
awareness to specific kinds of
fraud and abuse, and encourage
employee participation in
identifying ways to improve
Agency operations.
Briefings to Management and
Associations
The Inspector General, Deputy
Inspector General and other
managers in the OIG have
participated in a vigorous
schedule of presentations and
briefings to EPA management in
Headquarters and in the field. In
addition, presentations have
been made to many grantees as
well as professional and
governmental associations.
Opportunities for participation
and presentations are always
welcomed. We have also
provided talking papers and
information for presentation by
the Administrator and Deputy
Administrator.
EPA Directive
To more fully describe the role
of the Office of Inspector
General in EPA. an EPA
directive has been produced,
circulated within the Agency for
comment, and is scheduled for
printing and distribution during
November 1984. This directive,
The Functions and Activities of
the Office of Inspector General,
discusses the duties and
independent authority of the
Office of Inspector General. It
particularly describes the
relationship of the OIG to EPA
and other Federal agencies,
departments or offices, and
clearly informs employees of
their responsibility to prevent,
detect, and report instances of
fraud, waste, and
mismanagement.
Hotline
Activities
During this reporting period
some of the effects of the
employee and public awareness
program and hotline publicity
emphasizing the detection and
reporting of instances of fraud,
waste or mismanagement have
been realized through increased
activity in the OIG Hotline. The
number of hotline complaint
cases received and opened
increased by 50 percent this
reporting period. Also, during
this reporting period, access to
the EPA’s OIG toll-f ree hotline
number has been extented to
include Alaska, Hawaii. and
Puerto Rico.
The OIG Hotline Center
received 75 new complaints and
completed and closed 75 cases
during the reporting period. Of
the 75 cases closed, 62 were
not valid and did not require
action while 13 cases resulted
in environmental or
administrative corrective action.
Cases that do not have
immediate validity due to
insufficient information may be
used to identify trends or
patterns of potentially vulnerable
areas for future review.
The following chart shows the
increase in complaints received
80
70
60
50
4
30
20
on the hotline this reporting
period. Of the 75 complaints
received during the period, 22
were from EPA employees, 48
were from the public, and 5
were referred from the U.S.
General Accounting Office.
Of the 13 cases cited, 7
resulted in a management
implications report,
“Responsibility Under EPA’s
Standards of Conduct,” issued
to officials at Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina (see
Section I of this report). The
remaining 6 cases resulted in
corrective actions.
Cooperative
Efforts for
Assistance
Cooperation Among
Federal Auditors
Ensures the Integrity
of Other Federal
Agency Charges to
Superfund
EPA entered into interagency
agreements with other Federal
departments and agencies to
obtain support services for
Superfund. As of June 1984,
obligations under these
agreements exceeded $58
million and cumulative
payments exceeded $28 million.
To ensure the integrity of
payments to the other Federal
agencies, we requested Federal
auditors located within the other
agencies to perform financial
and compliance audits of
Superfund claims made by their
agencies. The purpose of these
audits is to determine if (1)
other Federal agencies are
.adequately accounting for and
. documenting site specific costs
and (2) costs claimed are
allowable, allocable, and
reasonable. Such detailed
accounting is required for EPA
to recover Superfund
expenditures from liable parties.
This project is significant for
two reasons: (1) the protection
afforded Superfund by having
the large amount of claims for
these agencies subjected to
23
Hotline Complaints
Received by
Semiannual
Reporting
Period
1st Half FY’84
10
0
2nd Half FY’84
-------
audit and (2) the cooperation
demonstrated by the various
Federal Inspector General
organizations in completing the
project.
We have requested audits on
10 Federal agencies or
departments including:
Coast Guard
Department of Commerce
Department of Defense
Department of Energy
Department of Health and
Human Services
Department of Interior
Department of Justice
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
Internal Revenue Service
Library of Congress
We have recommended that
EPA disallow any questioned
costs identified as a result of
these audits unless adequate
documentation is subsequently
received. The questioned costs
totalling $30,000 in the
Department of Interior and
Internal Revenue Service
reports have been disallowed by
EPA, and over $1 million
questioned in the Coast Guard
report is still under
consideration in the audit
resolution process.
We will request additional
audits as further claims are
received from these and other
agencies against their
interagency agreements.
Sewer Rehabilitation
Review
The Office of Inspector General
has initiated contacts with the
American Consulting Engineers
Council (ACEC) to formulate a
feasible and cost-effective
approach for reinspection of
sewer rehabilitation work
funded by EPA. The ACEC is a
federation of independent
consultant engineering and land
surveying firms whose purpose
is to develop and follow
professional conduct standards
consistent with the ideals of the
engineering profession. The
assistance of the ACEC
Research and Management
Foundation is being sought as
part of the OIG national review
of EPA-funded sewer
rehabilitation.
24
OIG Acts to
Assure
Administrative
Independence
Section 3(a) of the Inspector
General Act of 1978 states that
the Inspector General shall
report to and be under the
general supervision of the
Administrator or Deputy
Administrator. In this regard, the
Office of Inspector General is
obliged to follow Agency
administrative policies and
procedures and act only with
the authority delegated by the
Administator, as long as the
authority and independence
provided to the OIG by the IG
Act is not compromised,
diminished or interferred with.
During this semiannual reporting
period the OlG has worked with
Agency management to identify
specific Agency administrative
Delegations of Authority to
recognize the OIG’s
independence.
Establishment of SES
Performance Review Board
In accordance with our
independent role and to insure
that OIG employees are not
subjected to performance
review by the same agency
officials they are required to
monitor, we requested that the
Administrator exclude the OIG
from review of its SES
employees by Agency personnel
and establish a separate
Performance Review Board to
review SES performance ratings
and bonus nominations for OIG
employees. Accordingly, a
subcommittee of outside
experts from other Inspector
General offices throughout the
Government was created to
perform the regular duties of
the PRB members concerning
the review of ratings and bonus
nominations for lG employees.
These outside experts will be
accredited as members of the
EPA’s PRB, so their work can
be transmitted as an appendix
to the total PRB report to the
Administrator. However, the
Performance Review Board still
retains the authority to
determine the amount of any
bonus recommended to be
granted, as a part of its overall
submission.
Other existing Delegations of
Authority will be revised to
recognize the independence of
the 01G.
Federal Register
This Delegation of Authority will
recognize the authority of the
OIG to sign and submit certain
types of documents for
publication in the Federal
Register.
Security
This Delegation of Authority will
recognize the transfer of the
Personnel Security Program to
the Inspector General and its
further redelegation to the
Assistant Inspector General for
Management and Technical
Assessment.
Travel Fund
Limitation
Impedes Audit
and Investigative
Operations
Most ot our audits and
investigations are conducted at
contractor or grantee sites—not
at the EPA facilities where our
staff is located. It is mandatory
that our auditors and
investigators travel extensively
to perform these audits and
investigations. Because of travel
fund shortages in fiscal 1984.
we were forced to assign work
based on whether or not it was
close to home instead of on the
relative priority of the job.
Essential training for auditors
and investigators was cancelled
and revisions were made to our
audit and investigative plans,
thus reducing the number of
priority audits and investigations
to be accomplished.
We are working with Agency
management to solve this
problem. However, travel funds
are scarce throughout the
Agency and little progress has
been made so far. Our travel
funds were reduced
substantially in the fiscal 1983
budget, and our staffing was
increased by 45 full-time
equivalents (FTEs) in the fiscal
1984 supplemental budget but,
no additional travel money was
provided to support those
FTEs. In fiscal 1985 staffing was
increased by 20 FTEs and
Agency management provided a
small amount of additional travel
funds. The graph below shows
the dramatic decreases in travel
dollars per FTE in our fiscal
1983 and 1984 budgets, with
only slight relief provided in the
fiscal 1985 budget.
Travel funds provided in the
fiscal 1985 budget are at about
the same level per FTE as we
had in fiscal 1984; we still have
a shortage of $212,000. If we
do not receive some additional
travel funds for fiscal 1985, we
will have to continue to neglect
important audit and investigative
efforts requiring travel and use
our auditors and investigators
on less important work merely
because the jobs do not require
travel. Consequently, priority
requests from Agency
EPA Office of Inspector General
(Travel Dollars per FTE)
3.3
‘
2.8
2.6
2.5
82 83 84
Fiscal Year
-------
Section 5—Delinquent Debts
management will not be
performed; statutes of
limitations will run out on
criminal matters not
investigated; and fraud, waste,
and abuse will go undetected.
We will not be able to
adequately monitor our
independent public accountants
to ensure that their work :s
complete and in compliance
with standards. Preaward.
interim, and final construction
grant audits which provide large
returns of funds to the treasury
will not be done.
Training Stays
Close to Home
The Office of Inspector General
training program, which sought
a new direction by its
formalization and expansion in
fiscal 1984, was handicapped by
a limitation of travel funds.
Most training was confined to
local offerings while many
highly regarded training
opportunities were foregone
Training priorities this period
concentrated on
microcomputers,
communication skills, and
human interaction and relations.
We provided 729 staff days of
training to 108 staff members.
The use of individual
development plans was initiated
to identify training needs and
develop our first annual training
plan.
The limitation in travel funds
resulted in the cancellation of
courses in operational auditing,
successful audit report wriung,
and a number of individual
enrollments, especially in
microcomputer training. Training
was rescheduled whenever
possible to reduce travel
expenses.
The Supplemental
Appropriations and Rescission
Act of 1980 (P.L. 96-304),
requires the Inspector Genetal
to report on EPA’s delinquent
debts and efforts to improve
the collection of such debts.
Review of Collection
Procedures
We reviewed accounts
receivable and collection
procedures in three of the
Agency’s 15 servicing finance
offices ISFOsI. Our review
disclosed that controls were
adequate and aggressive
collection actions were generally
taken.
We also noted that two SFOs
had not reconciled their General
Ledger to the accounts
receivable subsidiary records.
The total differences was $834.
However, these SFOs indicated
that they would correct these
discrepancies.
Claims Office Actions
When SFOs determine that
debts are uncollectible, they are
forwarded to the EPA Claims
Officer for disposition. The
Claims Officer may
compromise, terminate, or
suspend further collection
efforts on debts under $20,000.
Debts over $20,000 must be
forwarded to the General
Accounting Office or the
Department of Justice for
approval of the final resolution
of debts.
For this reporting period, the
Claims Officer 111 terminated 16
debts totaling $363,369; (2)
collected on four debts totaling
$2,891; (3) compromised on nine
debts totaling $1,074,749 for
$1,058,630. Further, during this
period the Claims Officer did
not refer any debts to the
General Accounting Office or
Department of Justice. As of
September 30, 1984, there
were 34 accounts receivable
valued at $1,320,890 in the
Claims Office. Of the $1 .3
million, about $749,000
represents debt amounts
between 1 to 2 years old while
about $524,000 are over 2 years
old. We recently completed a
review of the Claims Office
efforts to promptly resolve
delinquent debts (section 1).
Agency Initiatives
The Office of Inspector General
was requested by the EPA
Claims Office, Office of General
Counsel, to review financial
statements and assess the
ability of six debtors to repay
their debts of $71,245. We
concluded that three debtors
had the ability to repay while
one did not. We are awaiting
additional financial information
from one debtor, and our
assessment for another debtor
is not yet complete.
The Financial Management
Division (FMD) entered into
formal Credit Bureau
Agreements with various credit
bureaus governing the
transmittal of debt information.
The FMD also transmitted to all
SFOs an advance copy of the
Financial Management Manual
Chapter 7—Billings. This chapter
established EPA’s overall billing
policy including assessing
penalty and handling charges.
Agency Collection Efforts
The Financial Management
Division provided the following
summary of EPA’s collection
efforts for the period April 1,
1984, through September 30,
1984, and accounts receivable
as of September 30, 1984.
These may not be the Agency’s
final figures. Although they
reflect the Agency’s accounting
records as of September 30,
they are preclosing figures (i.e.,
we obtained them before the
closing process was completed).
$27,531,360
Collections
Amounts Written off
Interest Assessments
Interest Collections
Accounts Receivable:
Under 90 days old
Over 90 days old
Interagency agreements
Total
$38,627,711
$ 187,405
$715,024
$ 236,764
$ 9,380,609
$1 5,483,1301
$ 2, 668, 6212
Almost 81 percent of this amount constitutes receivables which are
being appealed. Collection actions are suspended until the appeals
process is complete.
2 This amount is for debts owed EPA by other Federal agencies.
Since these debts do not have an impact on the U.S. Treasury, we
have not included them in the regular accounts receivable figures.
However, it is still important to note that these debts impact the
Agency’s budget. Approximately 95 percent of the total in this
category is under 90 days old.
25
-------
Appendix - Audit Reports Issued
The Inspector General Act Requires the identification of each
audit report completed or issued by the OIG during the
reporting period. The following listing categorizes audit
reports by type and region.
Auditee Final Report Issued
1. INTERNAL & MANAGEMENT AUDITS
E1AM4OIOO1Q-41189 FOURTH QUARTER SPENDING REG 06 2784
TOTAL OF REGION 01 = 1
T1DS4020040-41i88 REG 2 OPEN DUMPS & LANDFILLS NY 06 2784
TOTAL OF REGION 02 = 1
E1HW3030326-41615 LEVEL OF EFFORT 106 & 235g GRANTS 09 2784
TOTAL OF REGION 03 =
EIZW4OSOI 35-41 582 LEVEL OF EFFORT 06 & 205g GRANTS 09 2554
TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 1
E1ZM4O601771583 IMPREST FUND REGION 4 TX 092584
TOTAL OF REGION 06 1
2. CONSTRUCTiON GRANT AUDITS
Auditee Final Report Issued
E1ZM4080005-41553 REGION 8 LABORATORY COLORADO 09 1884
TOTAL OF REGION 08 =
E16W2090257-40951 REGION 9 ADMIN OF CONSTR GRANTS 042584
E17M4090118-41348 REGION 9 TRA\ EL OPERATION CA 07 31 84
E1HW40S0097 41623 LEVEL OF EFFORT 106 & 205g GRANTS 092884
TOTAL OF REGION 09 = 3
E1ZM4110024-41432 CLAIMS OFFICE DEL DEBT ACTVY 08 1784
TOTAL OF HEADQUARTERS 1
TOTAL INTERNAL & MANAGEMENT AUDITS 10
E2CW30201 28-40862
£20 W402013 1-4 1296
P2BW1 020020-40940
P2CW3020105-41 150
P2CW30201 29-41486
OCEAN TOWNSHP NJ
NEW WINDSOR NY
PASSA C VALLEY SEWERAGE COM N
TOWN OF POUGHKEEPSIE NY
CUMBERLAND COUNTY VA NJ
040554 P2CW4020016-41603
072384 P2CW4020017-4 1605
04 2384 P2C W4Q2 0073-4 16 06
06 1484 P2CW3020107-41607
083184 P2CW4020 123-41614
TOTAL OF REGION 02 10
Audit Control Number
Audit Control Number
HAWAII
E2CW4010027-40923
MADAWASKA ME
04 1984 S2CW30101280865
ATTLEBORO
040584
E2CW4010086-40994
SOUTH ESSEX SEWERAGE DIST M
Q5 0 84 S2CW3O1 01 50-40878
AMHERST
04 1054
E2CW4010097-41081
MERIDEN CT
052484 S2CW3010163-40879
METRO DIST COMM - FRS MA
04 1084
P2CW3010173-40844
MILTON
0402 34 52CW3010149-40881
HARDWICK MA
04 108-1
P2CW3010187-80877
JAMESTOWN RI
04 1034 S2CW3010161-41380
WEYMOUTH
080684
P2CW3010074-40880
WARNER VLLAGE FIRE DISTR!CT N
04 1084 S2CW3010164-41 588
WILBRAHAM
092684
P2CW3010198-41604
KILLINGLY CT
092684 S2CW3010165-41601
MALDEN MA
09258-2
S2BW3010127-40864
ATTLEBORO MA
040554
TOTAL OF REGION 01 = 15
MARION T OF NY
N CHAUTAUQUA LAKE SD N
BELV DERE TOWN OF NJ
V OF MONTICELLO-THOMPSON NY
GUILDERLAND T NY
092584
09 26 84
092684
09 26 84
0927 84
E2CW20300101 595
KENT COUNTY LEV COURT-DE
09 2 84 P2CW3030275-41 192
LANSDALE-PA
06 28 84
P2CW30301620905
WASHINGTON COUNTY SAN DIST-MD
041884 P2CW3030280-41193
NORTH CORNWALL TWP-PA
062884
P2cw3o3o173-4oBos
WSSC-MD
041884 P2CW303Q176-41249
JANE LEW WATER COMMISSION LW
0711 84
P2CW3030167-40907
ALTAVISTA TOWN-LA
04 1834 P2CW3030329-41250
HOWARD COUNTY DEPT OF WV-MD
07 11 8-1
P2CW3030178-40934
AUGUSTA COUNTY-VA
042354 P2CW3030182-41 251
ALLEGANY COUNTY-MD
07 11 84
P2Cw3o3o328-4o935
CHARLESTON CITY-WV
042383 P2CW3 030207-41273
CHARLESTON-WV
07 1784
P2CW3030330-40936
CHARLESTON CTY-Vv\
042384 P2CW3030365-41315
ALLENTOWN-PA
072584
P2CW3030282-40943
BETHEL BOROUGH-PA
042484 P2CW3030284-41 362
WSSC-MD
080284
P2CW3030274-40944
MCCANDLE SS-PA
0424 84 P2CW3030349-41 363
WSSC-MD
0802 84
P2CW3030384-40945
LARKSVILLE-PA
042484 P2CW3030225-41 364
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY-MD
080284
P2CW3030366-40946
MECHANiCSBURG-PA
092884 P2CW30302161 377
BEN WOOD CITY-LW
080683
P2CW3030268-41013
SHIRLEY TOWNSHIP-PA
05 1334 P2CW3030283-41378
WSSC-MD
080684
P2CW3030385-41014
NEWPORT TOWNSHIP-PA
05 1084 P2CW30301831 379
WSSC-MD
080684
P2CW303026 1015
PENN TOWN MUNICIPAL AUTH-PA
05 1384 P2CW3030185-41410
DERRY TOWNSHIP-PA
08 1484
P2CW30301151016
LOWER LACKAWANNA-PA
051084 P2CW3030224-41424
HARPERS FERRY BOLIVAR PSD-WL
081684
P2CW3030266-41030
CHAMBERSBURG BOROUGH-PA
05 1434 P2CW3030146-41433
BALTIMORE CITY-MD
082084
p2cw3o3o383 - 41o31
LITITZ SEWER AUTHORITY-PA
05 1484 P2CW30301 79-41 434
HAMPTON RDS SANITATION DIST VA
0820 84
P2CW3030273-41032
TREDYFFRIN-PA
05 1484 P2CW30301811513
WSSC-MD
090684
P2CW3030195-41 181
BLACKSBURG VP SAN AUTH-VA
062784 P2CW2030539-41 563
BLUEFIELD SANITARY BOARD-WV
092084
P2CW3030350-41 182
WSSC-MD
062784 P2CW3030267-41584
CAMBRIDGE-MD
09 2684
P2CW3030243-41 183
ROMNEY CITY-Wv
0627 84 P2CW3030353-41589
CARLISLE BOROUGH-PA
09 2084
P2CW3030352-41 190
CRANBERRY TOWNSHIP-PA
062583 P2CW3030262-41616
BALTIMORE COUNTY-MD
0927 84
P2CW4030038-41191
CHARLES COUNTY-MD
062884 P2CW3030276-41617
TOTAL OF REGION 03 = 46
EAST NORRITON PLYMOUTH-PA
092784
E2CW3040181-40883
EAST LEFLORE CO MS
041034 P2CW3040281-41109
JEFFERSON 0000MM AL
060684
E2CW4340042-41045
JACKSONVILLE FL
051884 P2CW3040292-41127
CAMPBELL KENTON CO SD#1 KY
060884
E2cW3040266-41439
ATLANTA GA
082284 P2CW4040004-41 140
PORT ORANGE FL
061384
E2AW4040340-41626
LOUISVILLE KY
09 2884 P2CW4040103-41223
WILSON NC
07 0684
P2CW3040162-40897
MIAMI DADE WATER & SEWER FL
04 1384 P2CW4040109-41224
ALAMANCE CO NC
070684
P2CW3040258-40927
CORBIN UTILITIES COMM KY
042004 P2CW4040077-41270
ELIZ.ABETHTOWN KY
07 1684
P2CW3040279-40928
TALBOTTON GA
04 2084 P2CW404001 1-41350
MIAMI DADE CO WSA FL
0801 84
P2CW3040293-40929
CORDELE GA
042084 P2CW4040045-41 351
MIAMI DADE WSA FL
0801 84
P20\N3040268-40977
NEW HOPE AL
043034 P2CW4040069-41419
PANAMA CITY FL
08 1504
P2BW4040041 -40978
ALEXANDER CITY AL
043084 P2CW4040101-41440
LOGAN VILLE GA
0822 84
P2CW3040297-40983
GWINNETT CO GA
050384 P2CW3040240-4M62
HATTIESBUAG MS
082884
P2CW3040309-40993
MONROEVILLE AL
050484 P2CW4040018-41463
GREENUP COUNTY KY
080684
P2CW3040317-41 008
WiNSTON SALEM CITY CO NC
0507 84 P2BW3040265-41 499
LEE COUNTY FL
090484
P2CW3040219-41019
JEFFERSON COUNTY COMM SSICN AL
05 1084 P2CW4040005-41500
PACE MS
0904-84
P2CW3040298-41020
PRATTVILLE AL
05 1084 P2CW4040084-41558
CLAXEON GA
09 1984
P20W3040299-41021
PRA1TVILLE AL
051084 P2CW3040307-41570
MOBLE WATER & SEWER COMM AL
092484
26
-------
Audit Control Number Auditee
Final Report Issued Audit Control Number
Auditee Final Report Issued
P2CW3040063-41628
S2CW2040336-40882
S2CW3040072-40896
S2CW3040023-40959
E2CW2050296-4091 7
E2CW1 050448-40924
E2CW2050219-40937
E2CW205001 1-40939
E2CW205021 1-40947
E2CW2050095-40952
E2CW205021 7-40953
E2CW4050077-40981
E2CW1 05041 5-40982
E2BW2050154-41 114
E2CW3050432-41 126
E2CW4050245-41 233
E2CW205041 2-41305
E2DW4050289-41 341
E2CW4050304-41 349
E2DW4050309-41 472
E2CW2050515-41482
E2DW4050326-41 510
E2DW4050282-41 541
E2CW20501 90-41579
E2CW4050334-41 580
E2GW4050246-41 596
E2CW1050031-41618
P2CW1 050374-40850
P2CW2050293-40869
P2CW2050636-40870
P2CW2050573-40893
P2CW2050491 -40904
P2CW20501 53-40914
P2CW2050292-4091 5
P2CW2050482-4091 6
P28W2050233-4091 8
P2BW30501 32-40925
P2BW30501 95-40932
P2BW4050046-40933
P2CW2050485-40950
P2CW30501 92-40957
P2CW3050224-40958
P2BW4050099-40968
P2CW1 050411-40976
P2CW1 050299-40984
P2C 1N2050206-40985
P2CW3050257-41 018
P2CW2050191-41 037
P2CW2050421 -41046
E2CW1 0601 01-40846
E2CW306001 7-41267
E2CW3060090-41 269
E2BW4060095-41 484
E2BW2060079-41 629
P2CW30601 78-40851
P2CW30601 89-40852
P2CW30601 94-40853
P2CW2060073-41 074
P2CW30601 40-41202
E2CW207061 5-40903
E2CW2070498-41 076
E2CW2070365-41 147
E2CW2070610-41 176
E2CW3080057-41084
P2CW3080016-41 139
D2CW40901 19-40990
E2CW4090037-41 071
E2CW4090009-41 108
E2CW4090040-41 125
E2CW4090096-41 138
E2CW4090043-41 236
E2CW4090044-41 260
NORTH CHARLESTON SD SC
CLARKSVILLE TN
COPPERH ILL TN
HARTSVILLE TN
WILLIAMSPORT OH
MSD CHICAGO IL
MSD CHICAGO IL
MSD CHICAGO IL
MSD CHICAGO IL
DEERFIELD IL
MSD CHICAGO IL
ST CLAIR CO (PORT HURON) MI
BEAR LAKE MI
MASSILLON OH
MAHONING CO (YOUNGSTOWN ) OH
BUTLER CO (HAMILTON) OH
PARMA OH
ST CLOUD MN
FORSYTH 1WP (GWINN) MI
CITY OF CRANDON WI
COLUMBUS OH
SYLVAN IA OH
SHERIDAN TOWNSHIP (FREMONT) MI
ELK RIVER MN
SWEETSER IN
PLEASANT VALLEY(CHILLICOTHE)OH
MSD CHICAGO IL
GREENFIELD OH
MATFHEWS
SELMA/LIBERTY IN
SANDUSKY OH
LAFAYE1TE OH
ELDORADO OH
DARLINGTON IN
DORA & LEIGHTON TWPS MI
ADA OH
NAPOLEON OH
GRATIOT CO (ITHACA) MI
MMSD MILWAUKEE
WESTERN LAKE SUPERIOR SD MN
CLARK CO (SPRINGFIELD) OH
LINCOLN IL
CRAWFORd MURPHY
JOLIET IL
MWCC ST PAUL MN
MWCC ST PAUL MN
HUNTINGTON IN
MARION WI
HAMPTON 1WP MI
AUSTIN
CHENEWILLE LA
PINE BLUFF/WHITEHALL AR
BROWNWOOD TX
CPI INC
CARLSBAD NM
BAYTOWN TX
GONZALES LA
FRIENDSW000 TX
CAMDEN AR
SEWARD NEBRASKA
WINFIELD KS
WICHITA KS
TONGANOXIE KS
CASPER BOARD OF PUBLIC UTIL WY
EUREKA MT TOWN OF
J MONTGOMERY PASADENA CA
CLAREMONT CA CITY OF
NEWMAN CA CITY OF
TUOLUMNE COUNTY WATER DIST CA
HAWAII CITY OF HI
HONOLULU HI CITY & COUNTY OF
HONOLULU HI CITY & COUNTY OF
09/28/84
04/10/84
04/13/84
04/25/84
TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 39
TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 90
04/19/84
04/20/84
04/23/84
04/23/84
04/23/84
04/24/84
04/25/84
05/02/84
05/03/84
06/07/84
06/07/84
07/09/84
07/25/84
07/31/84
07/31/84
08/29/84
08/31/84
09/06/84
09/13/84
09/25/84
09/25/84
09/24/84
09/28/84
04/03/84
04/09/84
04/09/84
04/12/84
04/17/84
04/18/84
04/18/84
04/18/84
04/19/84
04/20/84
04/20/84
04/20/84
04/24/84
04/25/84
04/25/84
04/25/84
04/30/84
05/03/84
05/03/84
05/10/84
05/15/84
05/18/84
S2CW2040351 -41 075
S2CW4040187-41 141
S2CW4040070-41 387
P2CW1 050211-41068
P2BW30501 57-41087
P2CW1 050048-41097
P2CW3050223-41 098
P2CW3050098-41 099
P2CW3050255-41 100
P2CW3050212-41101
P6DW4050225-41112
P2CW2050203-41 173
P2CW2050202-41 174
P2CW2050205-41 175
P2CW2050300-41 178
P2BW2050508-41 179
P2CW2050204-41 194
P2BW3050357-41 195
P2CW3050380-41 232
P2CW20501 82-41242
P2DW2050543-41 268
P2BW40501 55-41327
P2CW305041 8-41328
P2CW3050300-41 329
P2DW3050096-41333
P2DW30501 01-41334
P2CW1 050372-41343
P2CW20501 14-41344
P2CW3050228-41 345
P2CW2050507-41 346
P2CW3050194-41 347
P2CW3050081-41368
P2CW30501 00-41412
P2CW2050181 -41480
P2CW20501 07-41481
P2DW30501 12-41483
P2BW3050236-41 492
P2CW3050447-41 493
P2BW2050370-41 495
P2CW3050214-41 520
P2DW3050054-41 551
P2CW2050422-41 581
P2CW20501 22-41612
P2CW2050302-41 613
P2CW4050091-41 619
P2CW3050436-41 620
P2BW4050229-41 621
P2CW205041 6-41622
04/02/84 P2CW30601 14-41211
07/13/84 P2CW30601 32-41212
07/16/84 P2CW4060038-41 213
08/31/84 P2CW3060182-41222
09/28/84 P2CW3060205-41 274
04/03/84 P2CW30601 93—41283
04/03/84 P2CW4060098-41 528
04/03/84 P2CW3060076-41630
05/23/84 P2CW3060077-41631
07/02/84
TOTAL OF REGION 06 = 19
04/24/84 E6DW4070073-41 624
05/24/84 P2CW207061 3-41077
06/14/84 P2CW2070530-41 625
06/25/84
TOTAL OF REGION 07 = 7
P2BW3080046-41 469
05/29/84
06/12/84
TOTAL OF REGION 08 = 3
05/04/84
05/22/84
06/05/84
06/07/84
06/12/84
07/09/84
07/12/84
H2BM40901 81-41448
P2CW2090047-41321
S2CW30901 30-40908
S2CW30901 34-40909
S2CW30901 73-40926
S2CW3090040-40975
S2AW3090251-40991
MORRISTOWN TN
LAFAYEUE TN
WAVERLY TN
SHAWANO LAKE SD (SHAWANO) WI
DONAHUE & ASSOC. WI
MEDINA CO OH
LINCOLN IL
CALEDONIA MI
BELPRE OH
DE KALB SD IL
MWCC ST PAUL MN
MWCC ST PAUL MN
MWCC ST PAUL MN
MWCC ST PAUL MN
BERRIEN COUNTY BPW MI
ANTIGO WI
MWCC ST PAUL MN
MWCC ST PAUL MN FORCE ACCOUNT
ERIE CO (SANDUSKY) OH
FARIBAULT MN
ALPENA CO MI
LYNN KI1TINGER AND NOBLE
TRUMBULL CO (WARREN) OH
SANDUSKY OH
TUSCOLA CO MI
MANISTIOUE MI
MILLERSBURG IN
SAGINAW MI
JACKSON CO (FREETOWN) IN
NEORSD CLEVELAND OH
FAIRFIELD
HEART OF THE VALLEY SC WI
BAY CITY MI
LORRAIN OH
SHIPSHEWANA IN
LYNN IN
FRANK A THOMAS (FY 77)
LORAIN OH
FRANK A THOMAS (OH CY 78-81)
LUCAS CO (HOLLAND) OH
COLEMAN WI
LUCAS CO (HOLLAND) OH
LESLIE MI
BERRIEN CO (ST JOSEPH) MI
IRON MOUNTAIN MI
GRAND RAPIDS MI
GRAND RAPIDS (OH FY 78) MI
NORTH SHORE SD IL
WYNNE AR
CLUTE/RICHWOOD TX
LUBBOCK TX
PASADENA TX
HARLINGEN TX
HARRIS CO WCID #21 TX
CORSICANA TX
HARDY AR
REDFIELD AR
PERU KS
OSCEOLA IA
HANNIBAL MO
MESA CO COUNTY OF
DAVIS UNIVERSITY OF CA
GARDNERVILLE RANCHOS GID NV
SAN FRANCISCO CITY & COUNTY CA
SAN FRANCISCO CITY & COUNTY CA
WHEATLAND CA CITY OF
THOUSAND OAKS CITY OF CA
LOS ANGELES CA CITY OF
05/23/84
06/13/84
08/08/84
05/21/84
05/30/84
06/04/84
06/04/84
06/04/84
06/04/84
06/05/84
06/06/84
06/22/84
06/22/84
06/22/84
06/27/84
06/27/84
06/28/84
06/28/84
07/09/84
07/10/84
07/13/84
07/30/84
07/30/84
07/30/84
07/30/84
07/30/84
07/31/84
07/31/84
07/31/84
07/31/84
07/31/84
08/03/84
08/14/84
08/30/84
08/30/84
08/31/84
08/31/84
08/31/84
08/31/84
09/07/84
09/17/84
09/24/84
09/27/84
09/27/84
09/28/84
09/28/84
09/28/84
09/28/84
07/03/84
07/03/84
07/03/84
07/06/84
07/16/84
07/20/84
09/11/84
09/28/84
09/28/84
08/29/84
08/24/84
07/26/84
04/18/84
04/18/84
04/20/84
• 04/30/84
05/04/84
27
-------
Audit Control Number Auditee
Final Report Issued Audit Control Number
Auditee Final Report Issued
S2CW3090025-41 038
S2CW3090244-41 070
S2CW309 0180-4 1083
S2CW4090014-41 133
S2CW3090174-41 142
S2CW3090245-41 149
S2CW30901 72-41166
S2BW3090219-41 292
S2BW3090220-41 293
S2CW4090034-41 322
E2BW2100079-40849
E2CW31 00038-41318
E2DW31 0001 7-41 384
P2CW31 00037-40980
P2CW31 00006-41034
P2CW31 00053-41043
EAST BAY MUD CA
WASCO PUD CA
S SAN LUIS OBISOP COUNTY CA
LAKE COUNTY SANITATION DIST CA
SAN FRANCISCO CITY & COUNTY CA
LAKE COUNTY CA
PLACERVILLE CA CITY OF
JAMES M MONTGOMERY CA
LOWRY & ASSOCIATES CA
RIO DELL CA CITY OF
3. OThER GRANT & CONTRACT AUDITS
05/17/84 S2CW409001 1-41425
05/22/84 S2CW4090020-41 460
05/29/84 S2CW3090250-41 491
06/11/84 S2CW4090102-41 509
06/13/84 S2BW4090134-41517
06/14/84 S2CW409001 0-41550
06/22/84 S2CW3090248-41 562
07/23/84 S2CW3090249-41 565
07/23/84 S2CW3090246-41 586
07/26/84 S2CW4090073-41 627
TOTAL OF REGION 09 = 34
04/03/84 P2CW3100054-41 044
07/25/84 P2CW31 00027-41134
08/06/84 P2CW3100043-41 135
05/01/84 P2CW41 00004-41148
05/14/84 P2CW3100041-41316
05/16/84 P2CW31 00044-41317
TOTAL OF REGION 10 = 12
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION GRANT AUDITS 275
TOTAL OF REGION 01 = 64
TOTAL OF REGION 02 = 21
CONSTRUCTIONEERING NW INC WA
MERIDIAN ID CITY OF
SNOHOMISH WA COUNTY OF
ASOTIN COUNTY WA
MONMOUTE OR
INDEPENDENCE OR CITY OF
05/07/84
07/19/84
09/26/84
04/11/84
05/11/84
05/11/84
05/11/84
05/11/84
05/11/84
05/11/84
05/21/84
OS/2 1/84
05/21/84
05/21/84
0512 1/84
05/21/84
05/21/84
0512 1/84
05/21/84
0512 1/84
06/12/84
06/12/84
06/20/84
06/20/84
07/05/84
07/05/84
07/05/84
07/11/84
07/11/84
07/11/84
07/11/84
07/11/84
D3AM4O1O1 55-41 279
D3AM4 O1O1 59-41 289
D3AM4O1 01 58-41 290
D3AM4O1O1 57-41 291
D3AW4O1 0162-41332
D3AM4010167-41 397
D3DW4O1 01 69-41417
D3DW4O1 01 70-41 418
D3AM4010171-41 421
D3AM4O1O173-41 452
D3AM4010174-41 453
D3AM4O1 0175-414S4
D3AM4O1 0176-41455
D3DM3O1 0157-41485
D3DM4O1 0178-41487
D3AM4O 1 01 79-4 1 522
D3AA401 0183-41523
D3AM4010187-41 566
D3A4401 0195-41567
D3AM4010199-41 568
D3DW4O1 0092-41602
N3GC4O1O100-40912
N3GC4 O1O1O1-4O913
N3GC4010105-41017
N3GC4O1 0122-41072
N3GC4010123-41073
N3GC401O138-41218
N3GC4O 10 137-4 12 19
N3GC4O1 0160-41335
N3GC4010181-41539
N3GC4O1 01 86-41 40
N3GC4O1 0196-41569
C3EC4O1 0104-40995
C3ES4O1 0139-41278
C3EC4O1 0177-41585
D3AH4O1 0095-40888
D3DM3010141-41 023
D3DW4O1 0107-41024
D3AM4O1 01 08-41 02S
D3AM4O1 0109-41026
D3AW4O1O1 10-41027
D3AM4O1O1 11-41028
D3AM4O1O1 12-41050
D3CM4O1O1 13-41051
03CM401O114-41 052
D3AM4010115-41053
D3AM4O1O1 16-41054
D3CM4O1O1 17-41055
D3AM4O1O118-41056
D3CM4O1O1 19-41057
D3CM4O1O12O-41058
D3DM4010121-41 059
D3AM4O10127-41136
D3AM4010126-41 137
D3AM4O1O131-41157
D3CM4010132-41 158
D3DW2O1 0007-41215
D3CM4O 10 140-4 12 16
D3AM4010141-41217
D3DW4O1 0148-41252
D3DW2O1O1 17-41253
D3DW4O1 0147-41254
D3DW4O1 01 49-41 255
D3D W401 01 50-41 256
C3EC40201 63-41385
D3AB40201 06-40871
D3DM4020141-41 092
D3DM40201 58-41257
D3CM4O2O1 75-41423
D3DM40201 79-41468
D3BM40201 89-41488
D3AM4020188-41489
E3AM40201 55-41 330
H3CM40201 59-41258
N3GC40201 15-40941
C3EC40301 66-40874
C3EC40301 77-40969
C3EC4030181-40998
C3EC40301 89-41005
C3EC4030219-41153
C3EC4030252-41 237
C3EC4030298-41 431
C3EC4030304-41 438
C3EC4030343-41 600
D3DM4030161-40845
D3AM40301 62-40860
D3AM40301 63-40861
D3DM4O3O1 64-40872
CHINO BASIN MWD CA
LOS ANGELES CA CITY OF
RIVERSIDE CA CITY OF
RIVERSIDE CITY OF CA
KENNEDY/JENKS ENGINEERS
OAK VIEW SANITARY DISTRICT CA
BAKERSFIELD CA CITY OF
LOS ANGELES CA CITY OF
LOS ANGELES CA CITY OF
LOS ANGELES CA CITY OF
INDEPENDENCE OR CITY OF
GERVAIS OR CITY OF
WINLOCK WA CITY OF
KINGSTON-CATALDO SEWER 0 1ST ID
FREMONT ID COUNTY OF
GRANITE FALLS WA TOWN OF
CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC MA
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS INC MA
PUTNAM HAYES&BARTLETT INC MA
GCA CORP MA
SPRINGBORN BIONOMICS INC.
ARTHUR D LIULE INC MA
FAY SPOFFORDÞDIKE INC MA
SEA CONSULTANTS INC MA
TRC-ENVIRON CONSULT’ INC CT
INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS INC MA
CHARLES RIVER ASSOC INC MA
GCA CORP MA
STONE & WEBSTER MA
DUFRESNE HENRY INC VT
EG&G INTL-MA
TRC ENVIRON CONSULTANTS INC C
GCAITECH DIV MA
RILEY STOKER CORP MA
CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS INC MA
MITRE CORP MA
DUBOIS & KING VT
STAMFORD CT
UNIV OF MASSACF-IUSETrS MA
MIDSTATE REGIONAL PLAN CT
SO WESTERN RPA CT
BERKSHIRE CTY REG’L PLAN COM M
PIONEER VALLEY PLAN COMM MA
SO EASTERN REG PLAN&ECONDD MA
BRIDGEPORT CT
MASSPORT MA
DEPT OF HEALTH SERVICES CT
NEW BRITAIN CT
UNIVERSITY OF PUERTO RICO PR
NJ DEPT OF ENVIRON PROTECT NJ
NJ DEPT OF LAW & PUBLIC SAFE N
NJ DEPT OFHIGHER EDUCATION NJ
NJ GENERAL FUND NJ
SOUTHERN TIER CENTRAL RPDB-NY
HAZEN & SAWYER NY
GORDIAN ASSOC NJ
NJ DEPT OF ENVIRON PROTECTION
HAZEN & SAWYER NY
BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON-MD
ROY F WESTON INC-PA
MINE SAFETY APPLIANCE CO-PA
CLEMENT ASSOC-VA
BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON INC-MD
PEER CONSULTANTS IN-MD
AMERICAN MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS-VA
DYNAMIC INTERNATIONAL-MD
INFORMATICS INC-MD
INFORMATION SYSTEMS-MD
O’CONNOR MANAGEMENT INC-PA
WOODWARD CLYDE CONSULTANTS-NJ
BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTONINC-MD
08/16/84
08/28/84
08/31/84
09/05/84
09/06/84
09/17/84
09/19/84
09/20/84
09/26/84
09/29/84
05/16/84
06/11/84
06/11/84
06/13/84
07/25/84
07/25/84
07/20/84
07/23/84
07/23/84
07/23/84
07/30/84
08/10/84
08/14/84
08/14/84
08/15/84
08/27/84
08/27/84
08/27/84
08/27/84
08/31/84
08/31/84
09/10/84
09/10/84
09/20/84
09/20/84
09/20/84
09/26/84
04/18/84
04/18/84
05/09/84
05/23/84
05/23/84
07/05/84
07/05/84
07/30/84
09/13/84
09/13/84
09/24/84
04/23/84
05/04/84
05/07/84
05/21/84
07/05/84
08/31/84
06/06/84
09/21/84
09/21/84
09/26/84
04/10/84
04/12/84
04/24/84
04/24/84
05/07/84
05/07/84
05/07/84
05/07/84
05/07/84
05/07/84
05/07/84
05/07/84
05/07/84
CT DEPT ENVIRON PROT CT
CONN RESOURCES REC. AUTH CT
MAINE DEPT OF ENVIR PROTECT ME
CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC MA
CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE MA
GREEN INTL AFFILIATES INC MA E
GCA COPR MA
ABT ASSOCIATES INC MA
META SYSTEMS INC MA WCB
ARTHUR D LIULE INC MA
MARSHALL BARTLETT INC MA WCAB
ABT ASSOCIATES INC MA
ABT ASSOCIATES INC MA WCAB
ENERGY RESOURCES CORP INC MA
DYNATREND INC MA
FUTURES GROUP INC CT
PUTNAM HAYES & BARTLEY INC MA
DATA RESOURCES INC MA
FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH COPR M
TEMPLE BARKER & SLOANE INC MA
CONSULTING STATISTICIANS MA
GCA CORP MA
ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH TECH M
FACTORY MUTUAL RESEARCH CORP M
FAY SPOFFORD & THORNDIKE MA
PUTNAM HAYES & BARTLETT MA
GCA CORPORATION MA
FAY SPOFFORDÞDIKE INC MA
METCALF & EDDY MA
METCALF & EDDY INC MA
FAY SPOFFORDÞDIKE INC MA
FAY SPOFFORDÞDIKE INC MA
INTERSTATE SANITATION COMM NY
FRONTIER TECH SERVICES NY
BURNS AND ROE NJ
BURNS & ROE NJ
SYRACUSE RESEARCH CORP NY
ECOLOGY & ENVIRONMENT INC NY
MECHANICAL TECHNOLOGY-NY
CHEM SYSTEMS INC-NY
MALCOLM PIRNIE INC NY
NJ DEPT OFHEALTH NJ
CENTRAL NY REGIONAL P&ID BD NY
HARFORD COUNTY-MD
ANNE ARUNDEL COUNTY-MD
DC DEPT OF ENVIRON SERVICES-DC
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY-VA
SUSSEX COUNTY-DE
STATE WATER CONTROL BOARD-VA
HOWARD COUNTY-MD
FAIRFAX COUNTY-VA
BALTIMORE COUNTY-MD
SKELLY & LOY-PA
CENTEC CORP-VA
ICF INCORPORATED-DC
CLEMENT ASSOC-VA
08/08/84
04/09/84
05/3 1/84
07/11/84
08/16/84
08/29/84
08/31/84
08/31/84
07/30/84
07/11/84
04/23/84
N3GC40201 20-40942
N3GC40201 27-40992
N3GC40201 33-41007
N3GC40201 38-41064
N3GC4020143-41214
N3GC40201 86-41490
P3CM20201 98-41113
P3CM3020023-41 590
P3DM30201 03-41591
P3CX2O2001 7-41608
04/10/84
04/25/84
05/07/84
05/07/84
06/19/84
07/10/84
08/17/84
08/22/84
09/24/84
04/02/84
04/04/84
04/04/84
04/10/84
D3CM40301 65-40873
D3AM40301 71-40889
D3CM40301 74-40948
D3AM40301 75-40949
D3CM4O3O1 78-40996
D3AM40301 79-40997
D3CM40301 82-40999
D3CM40301 83-41000
D3CM40301 84-41001
D3AM40301 85-41002
D3AM40301 86-41003
D3AM40301 88-41004
D3CM40301 87-41006
28
-------
Audit Control Number Auditee
Final Report Issued Audit Control Number
Auditee Final Report Issued
D3BM4030260-41 012
BIONETICS CORP-VA
07/18/84
D3AM4030284-41 405
VERSAR INC-VA
08/13/84
D3CM4030194-41035
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS SERV-DC
05/15/84
D3AM4030285-41406
BOOZ ALLEN & I- AMILTON-MD
08/13/84
D3CM40301 95-41036
ROY F WESTON INC-PA
05/15/84
D3CM4030286-41407
SYSTEX INC-MD
08/13/84
D3DM4030202-41 115
MINE SAFETY APPLIANCE CO-PA
06/07/84
D3CM4030287-414 08
SYSTEX INC-MD
08/13/84
D3AM4030203-41 116
SC&A INCORPORATED-VA
06/07/84
D3DM4030288-41 409
GENERAL RESEARCH CORP-VA
08/13/84
D3CM4030206-41 119
HITTMAN ASSOCIATES-MD
06/07/84
D3CM4030292-41426
WAPORA INC-MD
08/17/84
D3AM4030207-41 120
JACA CORP-PA
06/07/84
D3AM4030293-41 427
DYNAMAC CORP-MD
08/17/84
D3CM4030208-41 121
BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON-MD
06/07/84
D3AM4030294-41 428
CRC SYSTEMS INt-VA
08/17/84
D3AM4030209-41 122
NUS CORP-Mb
06/07/84
D3AM4030296-41429
ENVIRON CORPORATION-DC
08/17/84
D3CM4030210-41 123
WAPORA INC-MD
06/07/84
D3AM4030297-41430
CLEMENT ASSOCIATES INC-VA
08/17/84
D3AM403021 1-41 124
GENE RAL SOFTWARE CORP-MD
06/07/84
D3AM4030302-41 436
WHITESCARVER ASSOC INC-DC
08/21/84
D3AM4030212-41131
HAGLER BAILLY & CO-DC
06/11/84
D3AM4030303-41437
SYNERGY INC-DC
08/21/84
D3AM403021 3-41132
ENERGETICS INC-MD
06/11/84
D3AM4030305-41445
DYNAMAC CORPORATION-MD
08/23/84
D3AM4030217-41 151
VERSAR INC-VA
06/19/84
D3AM4030307-41465
ICF INCORPORATED-DC
08/28/84
D3CM4030218-41 152
WAPORA INC-MD
06/19/84
D3AM4030308-41 466
VERSAR INC-VA
08/28/84
D3CO4030224-41 196
WAPORA INC-MD
06/28/84
D3AM4030309-41 467
PEAT MARWICK MITCHELL & CO-DC
08/28/84
D3DM4030231-41199
CLEMENT ASSOC INC-VA
07/02/84
D3CM4030310-41477
CLEMENT ASSOC INC-VA
08/30/84
D3AM4030232-41 200
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCESDC
07/02/84
D3AM403031 1-41478
ICF TECHNOLOGY-DC
08/30/84
D3CM4030233-41201
WAPORA INC-MD
07/02/84
D3AM4030312-41479
VIAR & COMPANY-VA
08/30/84
D3CM4030234-41 204
WAPORA INC-MD
07/02/84
D3AM403031 9-41505
URBAN INSTITUTE-DC
09/05/84
D3CM4030235-41 205
WAPORA ND-MD
07/02/84
D3AM4030320-41 506
SOBOTKA & COMPANY-DC
09/05/84
D3CM4030236-41 206
WAPORA INC-MD
07/02/84
D3AM4030321-41518
BENDIX FIELD ENG CORP-MD
09106/84
D3AM4030237-41 207
CENTAUR ASSOC-DC
07/02/84
D3AM4030322-41 519
PEER CONSULTANTS-MD
09/06/84
D3CM4030238-41208
GEOMET TECH INC-MD
07/02/84
D3AM4030325-41521
DYNAMAC CORPORATION-MD
09/10/84
D3CM4030239-41 209
WAPORA INC-MD
07/02/84
D3DM4030327-41 529
AMERICAN MANAGEMENT SYSTEM-VA
09/12/84
D3AM4030240-41 234
ENERGY & ENVIRO ANALYSIS-VA
07/09/84
D3CM4030328-41 530
INFORMATICS-MD
09/12/84
D3CM4030241 -41235
SCIENTEX CORP-DC
07/09/84
D3AM4030329-41 531
CENTEC CORP-VA
09/12/84
D3AM4030245-41 241
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW INSTITUTE-DC
07/10/84
D3AM4030330-41 532
ENGINEERING SCIENCE INC-CA
09/12/84
D3AM4030246-41 243
MORCOM SYSTEMS INC-DC
07/11/84
D3AM4030333-41 554
EA ENGINEER-SCIENCE & TECH-MD
09/18/84
03DM4030247-41 244
GKY & ASSOCIATES-VA
07/11/84
D3DM4030334-41 555
ATLANTIC RESEARCH CORP-VA
09/18/84
D3AM4030250-41245
ICF INCORPORATED
07/11/84
D3AM4030335-41 556
HIRT TELECOM CO-VA
09/18/84
D3AM4030251-41246
ICF INCORPORATED
07/11/84
D3AM4030336-41 557
COLUMBUS SERVICES INC-PA
09/18/84
D3CM4030254-41 266
INNOVATIVE SYSTEM RESEARCH-NJ
07/12/84
D3AM4030344-41 577
DDD CO-MD
09/24/84
D3AM4030261-41275
KENDRICK & CO-DC
07/18/84
D3AM4030345-41578
BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON INC-MD
09/24/84
D3AM4030262-41 276
CALCULON CORP-PA
07/18/84
D3AM4030340-41 597
COOPERS & LYBRAND
09/24/84
D3CM4030265-41 303
INNOVATIVE SYSTEMS RESEARCH-NJ
07/25/84
D3DM4030341-41 598
COMPUTER SCIENCES CORP-VA
09/24/84
D3BM4030266-41 319
EARTH TECH RESEARCH CORP-MD
07/26/84
D3AM4030342-41 599
PEER CONSULTANTS-MD
09/24/84
D3AM4030267-41 320
CSC-ATD-VA
07/26/84
E3DM20301 50-41542
WSSC-MD
09/13/84
D3CM4030268-41 338
DYNAMAC CORP-MD
07/30/84
E3DM3030372-41 543
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-DC
09/14/84
D3AM4030269-41 339
MERIDIAN CORP-VA
07/31/84
H3CM4030204-41 117
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
06/07/84
D3AM4030270-41340
EARTH TECHNOLOGY CORP-NJ
07/31/84
H3CM4030205-41 118
GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY
06/07/84
D3AM4030271-41360
BOOZ ALLEN & HAMILTON INC-MD
08/02/84
N3GC4030167-40875
CAMBRIDGE-MD
04/10/84
D3AM4030273-41 381
INFOTEL BUSINESS SYSTEM-PA
08/06/84
N3GC40301 68-40876
ROANOKE-VA
04/10/84
D3AM4030274-41 382
JWK INTERNATIONAL CORP-VA
08/06/84
N3GC4030242-41 238
WILMINGTON METROPOLITAN-DE
07/10/84
D3AM4030275-41383
EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS-PA
08/06/84
N3GC4030243-41239
REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL-MD
07/10/84
D3CM4030278-41 399
ORI INCORPORATED-MD
08/13/84
N3GC4030244-41240
OUEEN ANNE’S COUNTY-MD
07/10/84
D3AM4030279-41400
JRB ASSOCIATES-VA
08/13/84
N3GC4030249-41 247
MONTGOMERY COUNTY-MD
07/11/84
D3AM4030280-41401
ECOLOGICAL ANALYSIS INC-MD
08/13/84
N3GC4030248-41248
CITY OF RICHMOND-VA
07/11/84
D3AM4030281-41 402
JRB ASSOCIATES-VA
08/13/84
N3GC4030272-41 361
HENRICO COUNTY-VA
08/02/84
D3AM4030282-41 403
PEER CONSULTANTS-MD
08/13/84
N3GC4030301 -41435
LEESBURG-VA
08/21/84
D3AM4030283-41404
VIAR AND COMPANY-VA
08/13/84
P3DW1030017-41091
PHILADELPHIA CITY-PA
05/31/84
C3EM4040208-41110
TALLAHASSEE FL
06/06/84
D3AM4040293-41502
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INST AL
C3FM4040209-41 111
TALLAHASSEE FL
06/06/84
D3AM4040299-41 527
PRIEDE SEDGWICK INC FL
C3EM4040223-41 170
CHARLOTTE NC
06/22/84
D3AM4040305-41 575
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INST AL
C3FM4040224-41171
CHARLOTTE NC
06/22/84
D3CM4040314-41576
ENVIRONMENTAL SC & ENGR FL
C3EM4040249-41 355
JACKSONVILLE FL
08/01/84
H3CM4040153-40867
UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA NC
C3FM4040250-41356
JACKSONVILLE FL
08/01/84
H3CU4040165-40974
EAST TENN STATE UNIV TN
C3EM4040272-41 390
DEKALB CO GA
08/09/84
H3CM4040184-41009
RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE NC
C3FM4040273-41391
DEKALB CO GA
08/09/84
H3GE4040194-41089
RESEARCHTRIANGLE INST NC
C3EM4040270-41 573
ATLANTA GA
09/24/84
H3AM4040219-41129
RESEARCH TRIANGLE INST NC
C3FM4040271 -41574
ATLANTA GA
09/24/84
H3AM4040294-41 503
RESEARCH TRIANGLE INST NC
D3DM4040151-40855
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE AL
04/03/84
H3AM4040295-41 504
RESEARCH TRIANGLE INST NC
D3BM4040152-40856
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE AL
04/03/84
N3GM4040149-40854
NEW HANOVER CO WILMINGTON NC
D3AM40401 54-40868
H&R TECHNICAL ASSOC
04/06/84
N3GM40401 47-40866
RALEIGH NC
D3DM40401 56-40887
SOUTHERN RESEARCH AL
04/10/84
N3GM40401 57-40895
BOCA RATON FL
D3BM4040173-40964
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INST AL
04/25/84
N3GM4040159-40899
FLA DEPT OF AGRI FL IG
D3DM4040177-40966
NORTHROP SERVICES NC
04/25/84
N3GM4040160-40900
VOLUSIA COG DAYTONA BCH FL
D3DM4040178-40967
NORTHROP SERVICES NC
04/25/84
N3GM4040161-40901
HIGH POINT NC
D3AM4040185-41010
ENVIRIONMENTAL SC & ENGR FL
05/07/84
N3GM4040172-40963
BREVARD CO FL
D3CM4040216-41128
BRANDON SMITH AND JONES TN
06/08/84
N3GM4040166-40965
SHELBY CO TN
D3CM4040220-41130
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INST AL
06/08/84
N3GM4040181-40979
PASCO CO FL
D3BM4040230-41 163
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INST AL
06/21/84
N3GM4040192-41085
HUNTSViLLE AL
D3DM4040231-41164
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INSTITUTE AL
06/21/84
N3GM4040196-41086
ESCAMBIA CO FL
D3CM4040238-41 203
GEORGiA TECH GA
07/02/84
N3GM40401 93-41 088
GULFORD CO NC
D3CM4040241-41271
SOUTHERN RESEARCH INST AL
07/16/84
N3GM4040195-41090
MECKLENBURG CO NC
D3AM4040248-41272
NORTHROP SERVICES RTP NC
07/16/84
N3GM4040206-41095
KISSIMMEE FL
D3AM4040262-41354
BARRY AVIT OR & ASSOC AL
08/01/84
N3GM4040212-41104
DECATUR TN
D3AM4040278-41442
ENTROPHY ENVIRONMENTALIST NC
08/22/84
N3GM4040227-41 160
OKALOOSA CO FL
D3AM4040287-41443
CONTINENTAL SHELF ASSOC FL
08/22/84
N3GM4040228-41161
ATLANTA REG COM GA
D3CM4040289-41464
GEORGIA TECH GA
08/28/84
N3GM4040229-41 162
NORTH CAROLINA ISTATE OF) NE
TOTAL OF REGION 03 = 128
29
-------
Audit Control Number Auditee
Final Report Issued Audit Control Number
Auditee Final Report Issued
N3GM4040225-41 167
N3GM4040226-41 168
N3GM4040232-41 169
N3GM4040246-41 230
N3GM4040247-41 231
N3GM4040257-41 286
N3GM4040259-41 287
N3GM4040256-41 294
N3GM4040258-41 295
N3GM4040266-41 374
JOHNSON CITY TN
ORANGE CO FL
JACKSON MS
ALA DEPT PUBLIC HLTH AL
SO ALA RPC AL
TUSCALOOSA AL
PINELLAS CO FL
ST PETERSBURG FL
EASTCENTRAL FL
CRAVEN CO NC
06/22/84 N3GM4040268-41 375
06/22/84 N3GM4040267-41 388
06/22/84 N3GM4040269-41 389
07/06/84 N3GM4040274-41 392
07/06/84 N3GM4040275-41 393
07/20/84 N3GM4040276-41 420
07/20/84 N3GM4040280-41 501
07/23/84 N3GM4040279-41 507
07/23/84 N3GM4040290-41 508
08/03/84 N3GM4040300-41 548
TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 78
POLK CO FL
TENN DEPT HLTH & ENVIRON TN
ALA DEPT OF EDUCATION AL
ALABAMA FORESTRY COMM AL
LAKE CITY TN
GWINNETT CO GA
SAVANNAH GA
CHATTANOOGA TN
KY NAT RES & ENV PRO. CAB KY
TENNESSEE TN
C3FC4080045-40986
C3FC4080054-41 221
C3FC4080056-41 282
D3AR4080046-41 063
N3GC4080039-40890
PIKES PEAJ( COG CO
PIKES PEAK AREA COUNCIL GOB CO
DURANGO CITY OF CO
ROGERS & ASSOC SALT LAKE UT
COLORADO DEPT OF HEALTH CO
TOTAL OF REGION 06 = 37
06/27/84
TOTAL OF REGION 07 = 21
05/04/84 N3GC4080038-4C (891
07/05/84 N3GC4080040-4091 9
07/20/84 N3GC408O042-40920
05/21/84 N3GC4080041 -40921
04/12/84 N3GC4080053-41 145
TOTAL OF REGION 08 = 10
C3EC4050292-41 309
XENIA CY 83 OH
07/25/84 D3AB4050288 -41302
C3FC4050293-41310
XENIA CY 83 OH
07/25/84 D3AB4050303 -41326
C3EC4050294-41 311
NOACA FY 82 & 83 OH
07/25/84 D3AB405031 2-41386
C3FC4050295-4131 2
NOACA FY 82 & 83 OH
07/25/84 D3CB405031 6-41398
C3EC4050296-41313
NIPC FY82 & 83 IL
07/25/84 D3AM4050318 -41411
C3FC4050297-41314
NIPC FY B2 & 83 IL
07/25/84 D3AM4050319 -41422
C3EC4050310-41394
MONTGOMERY CO OH CGHD CY82&83
08/09/84 D3CB4050321 -41446
C3FC405031 1-41395
MONTGOMERY CO OH CGHD CY 82/83
08/09/84 D3AM4050329 -41457
C3EC4050330-41475
NW IN RPC (HIGHLAND) CY 80&81
08/30/84 D3AB4050332 -41473
C3FC4050331-41476
NW IN RPC (HIGHLANDI CY 80&81
08/30/84 D3AB4050333-41474
D3C84050167-40847
UOP PROCESS DIVISION IL
04/03/84 D3AM4050336 -41494
D3DB4050168-40848
GLOBETROTTERS ENGINEERING IL
04/03/84 D3AB4050341 -41533
D3C840501 85-40894
BMI COLUMBUS OH
04/13/84 D3AB4050343-41 552
D3BB4050301 -40911
HNT&B MO
07/30/84 H3CB4050206-4101 1
D3CB4050209-41 065
BMI COLUMBUS OH
05/21/84 N3GC40501 64-40857
D3CB4050210-41066
BMI COLUMBUS OH
05/21/84 N3GC4050165-40858
D3CB4050211-41067
BMI COLUMBUS OH
05/21/84 N3GC4050166-40859
D3BW4050214-41 082
HNT&B FY82 INCURRED COSTS
05/25/84 N3GC4050247-41197
D3CB4050222-41105
MICHIGAN TECH INSTITUTE MI
06/05/84 N3GC4050290 -41307
D3CB4050223-41106
BMI COLUMBUS OH
06/05/84 N3GC4050291 -41308
D3CB4050224-41107
BMI COLUMBUS OH
06/05/84 N3GC4050308-41369
D3DW4050227-41154
CH2M HILL 0/H FY81 OR
06/20/84 N3GC4050314 -41 396
D3DW4050228-41155
CH2M HILL
06/20/84 N3GC4050327 -41458
D3DB4050248-41 198
AUTO TESTING LABS OH
06/29/84 N3GC4050328 -41459
D3AB4050285-41 299
NATIONAL WATER WELL OH
07/24/84 N3GC4050337-41 511
D3AM4050286-41300
GENERAL TELEPHONE OF INDIANA
07/24/84 P3DW4050300 -41342
03AB40502B7-41 301
CUSTOM EDITORIAL PRODUCTIONS
07/24/84 P3BW4050284 -41 564
TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 54
C3EM4060111-40960
TX DEPT OF WATER RESOURCESTX
04/25/84 N3GM4060105 -40884
C3FM4060112-40961
TX DEPT WATER RESOURCES TX
04/25/84 N3GM4060114-40898
C3FM40601 20-40971
SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS RPC
04/27/84 N3GM40601 13-40930
C3EM40601 21-40972
SOUTHEAST ARKANSAS RPC AR
04/27/84 N3GM40601 15-40931
C3EM4060135-41 102
SAN ANTONIO TX
06/05/84 N3GM40601 19-40962
C3FM40601 36-41103
SAN ANTONIO TX
06/05/84 N3GM40601 16-40970
C3EM40601 71-41559
SHREVEPORT LA
09/18/84 N3GM40601 23-40973
C3FM40601 72-41560
SHREVEPORT LA
09/19/84 N3GM40601 34-41093
C3EM4060183-41 561
FAYETTEVILLE AR
09/19/84 N3GM4060147 -41 225
D3AM40601 08-40885
RADIAN CORP TX
04/10/84 N3GM40601 48-41226
D3AM4060109-408B6
RADIAN CORP TX
04/10/84 N3GM4060149-41227
D3CM4060153-41352
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INST TX
08/01/84 N3GM40601 50-41 228
D3CM4060154-41353
SOUTHWEST RESEARCH INST TX
08/01/84 N3GM4060151-41229
D3AM40601 64-41372
INTRA TECHNOLOGIES TX
08/03/84 N3GM40601 56-41284
D3AM4060170-41441
SCIENCE RESEARCH SYSTEMS LA
08/22/84 N3GM4060155-41285
D3AM4060181-41571
RADIAN CORP TX
09/24/84 N3GM4060162-41370
D3CM40601 84-41572
CREST ENGINEERING OK
09/24/84 N3GM40601 63-41371
E3AM4060097-40863
NATIONAL RURAL WATER ASSOC TX
04/05/84 N3GM4060180 -41 549
H3CU4060138-41 159
HOUSTON UNIV OF TX
06/21/84
C3FC4070114-41264
DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUAL IA
07/12/84 D3AM4070126 -41413
C3FC4070111-41 265
SENECA CITY OF MO
07/12/84 D3AH4070133 -41 514
C3FC4070120-41323
EL DORADO CITY OF KS
07/26/84 D3AH4070134-41515
C3FC4070132-41471
HUTCHINSON CITY OF KS
08/29/84 N3GC4070107 -41146
C3FC4070140-41535
CHANUTE CITY OF KS
09/12/84 N3GC4070099-41156
C3FC4070143-41538
HAYS CITY OF KS
09/12/84 N3GC4070119 -41280
D3CM4070085-40987
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE MO
05/04/84 N3GC4070124-41337
D3CP4070086-4098B
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE MO
05/04/84 N3GC4070130-41470
D3CM4070087-41 079
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE MO
05/24/84 N3GC40701 41-41 536
D3CM4070088-41 080
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE MO
05/24/84 N3GC40701 42-41537
D3AM4070096-41184
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE MO
OB/03/84
08/09/84
08/09/84
08/09/84
08/09/84
08/15/84
09/04/84
09/05/84
09/05/84
09/17/84
07/24/84
07/30/84
08/08/84
08/10/84
08/14/84
08/15/84
08/24/84
08/28/84
08/29/84
08/29/84
08/31/84
09/12/84
09/17/84
05/08/84
04/04/84
04/04/84
04/04/84
06/29/84
07/25/84
07/25/84
08/03/84
08/09/84
08/28/84
08/28/84
09/06/84
07/31/84
09/19/84
04/10/84
04/16/84
04/20/84
04/20/84
04/25/84
04/27/84
04/27/84
06/01/84
07/06/84
07/06/84
07/06/84
07/06/84
07/06/84
07/20/84
07/20/84
08/03/84
08/03/84
09/17/84
08/14/84
09/06/84
09/06/84
06/14/84
06/19/84
07/20/84
07/30/84
08/29/84
09/12/84
09/12/84
04/12/84
04/19/84
04/19/84
04/19/84
06/14/84
BMI 01-I
LIFE SYSTEMS INC. OH
BMI OH
IGT CHICAGO IL
AMITY UNLIMITED INC. OH
CHAPMAN & ASSOCIATES OH
IGT CHICAGO IL
COLEJON MECHANICAL CORP OH
BABCOCK & WILCOX ALLIANCE OH
BABCOCK & WILCOX BARBERTON OH
FRED B DEBRA CO. CINCINNATI OH
ETA ENGINEERING INC IL
OHIO EDISON COMPANY OH
U OF MN ST PAUL MN
NW MI RPD COMM. MI
MIAMI VALLEY RPC COMM. OH
METRO COUNCIL OF TWIN CITIES M
COLUMBUS ICY 83) OH
IL DEPT OF AGRI FY82 & 83 IL
BLOOMINGTON CY 82 IN
SW IL M&R PC FY 82-83
TRI-COUNTY RPC LANSING CY83 MI
MICHIGAN DEPT OF AG FY 81/82
WI DEPT OF AG TRADE/CPFY81/82
MINNESOTA (STATE) (FY 83)
ENGINEERING CONSULTANTS INC MI
IN STATE BOH INDIANAPOLIS IN
SANTE FE NM
TEXAS DEPT AGRI TX
METROPLAN LITTLE ROCK AR
CORPUS CHRISTI TX
NEW ORLEANS LA
NEW MEXICO HLT & ENVIRONMENT D
CAPITAL REGION PL COMM LA
FT WORTH TX
AUSTIN TX
HOUSTON/GALVESTON TX
EL PASO TX
LUBBOCK TX
ARLINGTON TX
TEXARKANA TX
AMARILLO TX
ALBUQUERQUE NM
HOUSTON GALVESTON TX
SPRINGDALE AR
SELLERS & CO KANSAS CITY MO
BLACK & VEATCH KANSAS CITY MO
MIDWEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE MO
LINCOLN CITY OF NE
MIDAMERICA REGIONAL COUNCIL MO
DEPT OF HEALTH NE
EAST-WEST COORDINATING COUN MO
DEPT OF HEALTH & ENVIRON KS
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY IA
JOINT BD OF HEALTH OF KC KS
SD DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SD
DENVER REGIONAL COG CO
CHEYNNE RIVER SOUIX TRIBE SD
BREMERTON CITY OF WA
CO ST DEPT OF LABOR & EMP CO
30
-------
Audit Control Number Auditee
Final Report Issued Audit Control Number
Auditee Final Report Issued
5. SUPERFUND AUDITS
TOTAL OF REGION 09 = 48
04/17/84
04/18/84
04/19/84
04/25/84
06/14/84
06/14/84
09/06/84
TOTAL OF REGION 10 = 13
TOTAL OTHER GRANT & CONTRACT AUDITS = 474
E5CCH4O1 0102-41210
E5CH4O1 0103-41376
INLAND POLLUTION CONTROL INC
CLEAN HARBORS
07/02/84 E5CH4O1 0133-41547
08/03/84
TOTAL OF REGION 01 = 3
HAZARDOUS WASTE MGMT INC MA
09/14/84
E5BH4020051-41 180
NYSDEC (LOVE CANAL) NY
06/27/84 E5AH40201 54-41331
TOTAL OF REGION 02 = 2
MALCOLM PIRNIE INC NY
07/30/84
05/31/84 E5CM40401 79-41373
06/26/84
TOTAL OF REGION 04 = 3
D5AH4050298-41 324
D5AH4050302-41 325
E5CH3050260-41 078
PRC ENVIRONMENTAL MGMT INC IL
LIFE SYSTEMS INC. OH
MN PCA
07/26/84
07/30/84
06/13/84
TOTAL OF REGION 05 = 5
07/25/84
09/25/84
E5CH4090047-41 288
IT CORPORATION WILMINGTON CA
07/23/84
TOTAL OF REGION 09 = 1
D5BH41 10052-41298
E5EH41 10009-41033
E5BH41 1 0048-41 049
E5EH2110021-41165
H5CH41 10044-41022
H5BH41 10045-41029
H5CH41 10047-41047
H5CH41 10046-41048
ROY F WESTON INC
OERR REVIEW OF CLAIM PROCEDURE
INDIANA UNIV FOUNDATION
OFFICE EMERG REMEDIAL RESPNSDC
RESEARCH TRIANGLE INSTITUTE
INDIANA UNIV FOUNDATION
INDIANA UNIVERSITY FOUNDATION
BIOGENICS INC
06/12/84
05/10/84
05/18/84
06/22/84
05/11/84
05/11/84
05/18/84
05/18/84
TOTAL OF HEADQUARTERS = 15
TOTAL SUPERFUND AUDITS = 29
CENTERS DISEASE CONTROL
RESEARCH FOUND STATE U OF NY
US COAST GUARD
NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS
DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDIT AGENCY
NOM AND NBS
BROOKHAVEN NATIONAL LAB
05/22/84
06/14/84
04/30/84
04/23/84
07/11/84
07/23/84
08/22/84
D3CM4090094-40989
D3CB40901 20-41039
D3DM4090121-41040
D3DM40901 22-4 1041
D3DM40901 23-41042
D3BM40901 26-41060
D3CM40901 24-41061
D3AH40901 25-41062
D3AM40901 27-4 1096
D3AM4090131-4 1185
D3AM4090132-41 186
D3AM4090133-41 187
D3AR40901 54-41261
D3AB40901 55-41262
D3AM40901 56-41263
D3AM4090161-41357
D3CN40901 62-41358
D3AB40901 63-41359
D3CM40901 64-41365
D3AH40901 65-41366
D3AM40901 66-41367
D3AH40901 75-41414
D3AH40901 76-41415
D3CW40901 77-41416
C3FC41 00051-40892
C3FC41 00052-40910
C3FC41 00053-40922
C3FC41 00058-40955
C3FC4100064-41 143
C3FC4100065-41 144
C3FC4100073-41 512
05/04/84
05/17/84
05/17/84
05/17/84
05/17/84
05/21/84
05/21/84
05/2 1/84
06/01/84
06/27/84
06/27/84
06/27/84
07/12/84
07/12/84
07/12/84
08/01/84
08/01/84
08/01/84
08/02/84
08/02/84
08/02/84
08/14/84
08/14/84
08/14/84
TRW REDONDO CA
HAWAII UNIVERSITY OF HI
DAMES & MOORE LA CA
AIR POLLUTION TECH SD CA
STEARNS CONRAD & SCHMIDT CA
ROCKWELL INT CANOGA PARK CA
BECKMAN INSTRUEMENTS INC CA
S-CUBED SAN DIEGO CA
ZONGE ENG & RESEARCH ORG AZ
ACUREX CORPORATION CA
CKY INC REDONDO BEACH CA
ENERGY & ENVIRON RESEARCH CA
TEKNEKRON RESEARCH INC CA
SRI INTERNATIONAL CA
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE INC CA
ENGINEERING-SCIENCE INC CA
DAMES & MOORE LOS ANGELES CA
SRI INTERNATIONAL CA
ENVIRONERGY CO SAN MATEO CA
JACOBS ENGINEERING PASADENA CA
ACUREX CORP MT VIEW CA
JACOBS ENGINEERING PASADENA CA
TETRA TECH INC PASADENA CA
DAMES & MOORE LOS ANGELES CA
WOODLAND CITY OF WA
METROPOLITAN PARK DIST WA
BOONEY LAKE CITY OF WA
EATONVILLE TOWN OF WA
OLYMPIC AIR POLLUTION CTRL WA
OREGON DEO OR
CASTLE ROCK CITY OF WA
D3AB40901 82-41447
D3&A40901 83-41449
D3AW40901 84-41450
D3AM40901 86-41461
D3&A40901 90-41496
D3AB4090191-41497
D3AB40901 92-41498
D3AH40901 94-41524
D3AM40901 95-41525
D3AW4090196-41 526
D3AW4090199-41 544
D3AB4090200-41 545
D3CH4090201 -41546
D3M4090202-41 592
D3CM4090203-41 593
D3CR4090204-41 594
D3AB4090208-41 609
D3AM4090209-41 610
D3M4090210-4161 1
N3GC4090141-41172
N3GC4090142-41 220
N3GC40901 44-41277
N3GC4090185-41451
N3GC4090197-41 534
SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT CORP CA
AEROCOMP INC COSTA MESA CA
EARTH METRICS BURLINGAME CA
EARTH METRICS BURLINGAME CA
ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL CA
ENERGY & ENVIRONMENTAL RES CA
JONES & STROKES SACRAMENTO CA
S-CUBED SAN DIEGO CA
MID WEST RESEARCH INSTITUTE MO
TETRA TECH INC PASADENA CA
ENGINEERING SCIENCE ARCADIA CA
JONES & STOKES ASSOC CA
SRI INTERNATIONAL CA
DAMES & MOORE LOS ANGELES CA
SCS ENGINEERS LONG BEACH CA
SRI INTERNATIONAL CA
WESTEC SERVICES INC CA
ENERGY & ENVIRON RESEARCH CA
PACIFIC ENVIRON SVCS INC CA
SOUTHERN CAL ASSOC OF GOVTS CA
DEPT OF CONSER & NAT RES NV
KERN COUNTY OF CA
COUNCIL OF FRESNO CTY GOVTS CA
SACRAMENTO AREA COG CA
EARTH TECHNOLOGY CORP WA
IDAHO DEPT OF AGRICULTURE ID
PUGET SOUND COUNCIL OF GOVTS W
MUNI OF METRO SEAITLE WA
STATE DEPT OF AGRICULTURE OR
YAKIMA COUNTY WA
08/24/84
08/24/84
08/24/84
08/28/84
08/31/84
08/31/84
08/31/84
09/10/84
09/10/84
09/10/84
09/14/84
09/14/84
09/14/84
09/21/84
09/21/84
09/21/84
09/26/84
09/26/84
09/26/84
06/22/84
07/05/84
07/18/84
08/27/84
09/12/84
09/06/84
04/25/84
04/25/84
07/20/84
07/30/84
08/27/84
D3AB4100082-41516
N3GC41 00057-40954
N3GC41 00059-40956
N3GC41 00072-41281
N3GC41 00075-41336
N3GC41 00080-41456
E5CM40401 80-41094
E5EM4040200-41 177
CHEMICAL WASTE MANAGEMENT FL
PLASTIFAC GULFPORT MS
TRIANGLE RESOURCE ND NC 08/03/84
E5EH4050023-41 304
E5EH4050196-41 587
SF LAB CONTRACTS R5
SF REVIEW OF PLANNING PHASE P
H5BH41 10043-41069
H5CH41 10053-41306
O5EH41 10040-40902
O5EH41 10041-40938
O5BH41 10054-41259
05BH41 10056-41297
O5CH41 10059-41444
TOTAL AUDITS = 788
------- |