'¦*> /
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Inspector General
At a Glance
September 28, 2005
Why We Did This Review
A complainant expressed
concern regarding the use of
Federal grant money by the
State of Alaska for a cleanup
effort at the River Terrace
Recreational Vehicle Park
(RTRVP), Soldotna, Alaska.
This review addresses issues
based on the complainant's
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region 10
awarded a $3 million earmark
grant to the State of Alaska for
contamination cleanup that had
begun at the RTRVP site. A
dry cleaning facility had been
in operation at the site, and
contamination was detected in
the soil and groundwater. The
site is currently used as a fish
processing facility.
For further information,
contact our Office of
Congressional and Public
Liaison at (202) 566-2391.
To view the full report,
click on the following link:
20050928-2005-P-00029. pdf
Catalyst for Improving the Environment
Review of State of Alaska's Actions for the River
Terrace Recreational Vehicle Park, Soldotna, Alaska
What We Found
We found the following regarding the questions we sought to answer:
Are past costs used for the matching grant share valid?
Alaska's use of its past costs from a separate project to match
Federal funds for the RTRVP grant is unallowable. We concluded
that the matching costs claimed, for a nearby Alaska Department
of Transportation project, should not have been considered a
match for the RTRVP grant because the money was spent on a
different project. EPA Region 10 returned this submission to
Alaska due to a technical issue, and Alaska has not yet
re-submitted the match request.
Is the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation's
practice of selecting contractors for work to be performed on the
project in accordance with allowable contracting procedures?
Alaska followed acceptable contracting practices that sufficiently
allowed for competition and were not sole source.
Are the legal costs incurred and associated with this grant
Charges by Alaska's Department of Law for services related to
certain litigation matters are allowable because they were
incidental to the administration of the grant and not incurred in
litigation with the Federal Government.
Can the grant expiration date be extended beyond its current
expiration date because of additional work?
Extension of the grant funding beyond the current expiration date
of June 30, 2006, is allowable because the grant is not required to
be considered expired until the funds are expended.
What We Recommend
We recommend that the Regional Administrator for Region 10 not
allow the State of Alaska expenditures for the Alaska Department of
Transportation site as match funds for the RTRVP grant. Region 10
did not agree that the match should be disallowed, but we maintain our