Federal Reports

Continuous Monitoring

The OIG audited the electric system of BVU Authority (BVU), a distributor of TVA power based in Bristol, Virginia. The objective of the audit was to determine compliance with key provisions of the power contract between TVA and BVU for the period July 2008 through June 2010. For fiscal year 2010, BVU provided power to approximately 16,500 customers resulting in electric sales revenue of approximately $49 million. During the period, BVU also operated a water division, wastewater division, and telecommunications division that included broadband, telephone, cable television, and managerial and consulting services. In addition, BVU provided billing services for the garbage collection division of the city of Bristol, Virginia.Our audit found BVU generally complied with the contract provisions for (1) proper reporting of electric sales, (2) nondiscrimination in providing power, and (3) use of electric revenue for approved purposes. We also found BVU's multiple lines of business were adequately segregated, and the cost allocation methodology was reasonable and consistently applied. However, we found improvements were needed in (1) classifying customers, (2) obtaining manufacturing certifications from customers, (3) entering contract demand in the billing system, and (4) documenting rationale for adjustments.BVU and TVA management agreed with our recommendations and have taken corrective actions.

The audit objectives were to determine whether program funds were managed in accordance with the ARC and Federal grant requirements

J-1 Visa Waiver program under the U.S. Department of State guidelines

We audited $9.58 million of costs billed to Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel) and subsequently to TVA by Williams Specialty Services, LLC (WSS) for asbestos abatement and valve refurbishment services at Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 (WBN U2) under a subcontract agreement. We found the costs billed to Bechtel were inflated by at least $624,800 because the hourly rates WSS billed for craft and non-manual labor included overstated cost allowances. The inflated costs included:(1) $274,800 of craft labor billings that resulted because WSS' craft billing rates included overstated allowances for payroll tax costs, and(2) $350,000 for non-manual labor because the non-manual billing rates included excessive wage and burden rates.Additionally, since Bechtel added a 2.5 percent markup when it billed TVA, the actual costs paid by TVA were inflated by $640,420. Accordingly, we recommended TVA management take action to recover $640,420 in inflated craft and non-manual labor costs. Summary Only

Sunset Review Adequacy Phase

Pre-Filing and Pre-Institution of Section 337 Investigations

Physical Security

The OIG evaluated key aspects of TVA's Section 26a process for effectiveness and efficiency. We determined (1) costs may not be fairly and consistently applied and opportunities exist to improve the cost-recovery process, (2) processes could be improved in the examination and use of customer satisfaction survey results, and (3) fee waivers were not properly documented. We also identified two other issues related to the segregation of duties for receiving and refunding application fees. Additionally, we determined that while Land & Shoreline Management has a defined list of estimated ranges for how much an applicant may pay, a listing of predetermined standard fees to be charged, methods for tracking application costs and cycle time and means for assessing customer satisfaction, use of these tools could be improved.We made recommendations for the above to which TVA management agreed.

EAC OIG, through the independent public accounting firm of Clifton Gunderson LLP, audited $52.5 million in funds received by the Arizona Secretary of State under the Help America Vote Act. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the Secretary of State (1) used payments authorized by Sections 101, 102, and 251 of HAVA in accordance with HAVA and applicable requirements; (2) accurately and properly accounted for property purchased with HAVA payments and for program income; and (3) met HAVA requirements for Section 251 funds for an election fund and for a matching contribution except for the requirements for maintenance of a base level of state outlays, commonly referred to as Maintenance of Expenditures (MOE).

EAC OIG, through the independent public accounting firm of Clifton Gunderson LLP, audited $203.6 million in funds received by the Texas Secretary of State under the Help America Vote Act. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the Secretary of State (1) used payments authorized by Sections 101, 102, and 251 of HAVA in accordance with HAVA and applicable requirements; (2) accurately and properly accounted for property purchased with HAVA payments and for program income; and (3) met HAVA requirements for Section 251 funds for an election fund and for a matching contribution except for the requirements for maintenance of a base level of state outlays, commonly referred to as Maintenance of Expenditures (MOE).

EAC OIG, through the independent public accounting firm of Clifton Gunderson LLP, audited $29.0 million in funds received by the Kansas Secretary of State under the Help America Vote Act. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the Secretary of State (1) used payments authorized by Sections 101, 102, and 251 of HAVA in accordance with HAVA and applicable requirements; (2) accurately and properly accounted for property purchased with HAVA payments and for program income; and (3) met HAVA requirements for Section 251 funds for an election fund and for a matching contribution except for the requirements for maintenance of a base level of state outlays, commonly referred to as Maintenance of Expenditures (MOE).

The report highlights some issues related to ARC's voluntary implementation of the Government Performance and results act

Assessment of open grants

Supporting and ARC initiative to assess open grants subject to close

As part of our annual audit plan, the OIG (Office of the Inspector General) audited the Oak Ridge, Tennessee, electric system for compliance with the power contract with the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for the period July 2007 through June 2009. Key contract provisions included (1) proper reporting of electric sales, (2) nondiscrimination in providing power, and (3) use of electric revenue for approved purposes. For fiscal year (FY) 2009, Oak Ridge provided power to approximately 16,000 customers that resulted in electric sales revenue of approximately $52 million. The Oak Ridge electric system is operated as part of the city municipal government rather than as a separate entity.Oak Ridge and TVA management agreed with recommendations to (1) revise the account structure to comply with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) Uniform System of Accounts or prepare and maintain a reconciliation of the current account structure and the prescribed FERC account structure, (2) prepare the distributor annual report using (a) line item reporting guidance contained in the Accountants' Reference Manual and (b) amounts supported by the trial balance, (3) correct the general ledger to properly record the amounts due to the general fund as a payable, (4) correct billing system programming to use entire contract demand amount when classifying General Services Administration (GSA) customers, (5) correct customer misclassifications identified and implement procedures to assist in identifying residential accounts that need to be reclassified as commercial, (6) obtain TVA approval of allocation of joint costs currently being used, (7) obtain and maintain properly executed customer contracts for all GSA Part 3 and higher customers, (8) obtain appropriate approval for customer contracts on file without signatures, (9) obtain certification from customers under manufacturing schedules that meet the requirements of the schedule, and (10) implement a process to ensure all customers with contracts have the appropriate contract demand entered into the billing system and the contract demand values in the system agree with the customer's contract. TVA also agreed to implement process(es) for verifying the accuracy of distributors' annual report information to adequately identify and address reporting errors.Oak Ridge and/or TVA management generally disagreed with recommendations to (1) review retail rates and/or operating costs and revise retail rates and/or operating costs as appropriate, (2) review and revise annual payment in lieu of tax amounts, (3) maintain a reasonable reserve before making payments in lieu of taxes, (4) revise billing system programming to use fractional data obtained from meter readings to classify customers, calculate bills, and report wholesale information to TVA, and (5) review TVA comprehensive services meter accuracy testing standards for tests performed on behalf of the distributor to ensure they comply with the standards stated in the power contract. Although Oak Ridge and TVA management interpreted the facts on which these recommendations were based differently than the OIG, we concur with actions taken and/or planned by Oak Ridge and/or TVA to correct the identified issues. Oak Ridge and TVA management disagreed with the recommendation to replace meters that do not meet accuracy standards. However, TVA management offers a new determination for accuracy of meters tested in the field versus meters tested under more accurate laboratory conditions in their comments to another recommendation in the report. The OIG suggests TVA communicate this new determination to all distributors.

As part of our annual audit plan, we reviewed the inspection and maintenance programs for TVA's transmission lines and structures. Specifically, we identified (1) instances in which transmission lines were not assigned a preventive maintenance inspection interval, (2) improvements that could be made to the manual and system documentation to allow recording of inspection results and additional trending of recurring maintenance issues, and (3) improvements that could be made in scheduling preventive maintenance inspections of tower lighting.TVA management stated they agree with the facts found during the audit and with all of the recommendations. TVA management also provided clarifications related to the OIG's use of the word "assets" versus "locations" when referring to transmission line facilities and how trending of recurring maintenance issues is currently being performed. We revised the report, as necessary, to address these comments.

The OIG audited Sevier County Electric System's compliance with the power contract between the TVA and Sevier, a power distributor based in Sevierville, Tennessee, for the period July 2008 through June 2010. For fiscal year 2010, Sevier provided power to approximately 54,000 customers that resulted in revenues of approximately $134 million.Our audit found Sevier generally complied with the contract provisions for (1) proper reporting of electric sales, (2) nondiscrimination in providing power, and (3) use of electric revenue for approved purposes. However, areas for improvement in contract compliance were noted relating to customer classification and customer contract maintenance. Sevier and TVA management agreed with our recommendations and have taken or are taking corrective actions. The target completion date for all corrective actions is June 2012.

The OIG audited Warren Rural Electric Cooperative Corporation's (WRECC) compliance with its power contract with TVA. WRECC is a power distributor based in Bowling Green, Kentucky. For fiscal year 2010, WRECC provided power to approximately 60,000 customers that resulted in revenues of approximately $157 million. WRECC also owns and/or operates nonelectric businesses including a security system and monitoring service division, a propane sales subsidiary, and a natural gas distribution subsidiary, and partially owns a nonelectric bill processing company. In addition, WRECC provides billing services for a water utility.Our audit found WRECC was generally in compliance with the contract provisions for proper reporting of electric sales and nondiscrimination in providing power. However, we noted instances of noncompliance with other provisions of the power contract. The most important instances were related to use of electric revenues. Other areas for improvement in contract compliance were noted regarding co-mingling of electric and nonelectric funds, customer classification, and metering. We also identified one area where TVA's oversight of the distributor should be enhanced. This issue, regarding the lack of a current joint cost study, has been reported in previous OIG distributor audit reports.WRECC and TVA management generally agreed with our recommendations and have taken or are taking corrective actions, except for our recommendation to create an independent general ledger and corresponding accounts for the security system and monitoring service division. The target completion date for all corrective actions is May 2012.

Marshall Miller & Associates, Inc. (Marshall Miller) was hired by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) to review the sampling and monitoring plans prepared by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) for its Kingston Fossil Plant located in Harriman, Tennessee, following an ash release that occurred on December 22, 2008. Marshall Miller evaluated the adequacy and completeness of TVA's environmental recovery plans to determine whether these plans provide comprehensive and effective measures to adequately monitor the potential short- and long-term impacts to human and ecological receptors. The scope of the review included TVA's environmental recovery plans available through June 2010. In summary, Marshall Miller found no significant deficiencies in the plans or procedures used by TVA or its contractors in characterizing impacts resulting from the ash release or recovery efforts. It should be noted that the assessment of long-term impacts will be an ongoing process during and after the recovery effort.While Marshall Miller did not find any significant deficiencies, early in the recovery process some of the analytical results did not pass prescribed quality assurance/quality control standards, and the data were invalidated. When the deficiency was noted, TVA took appropriate steps to correct the situation, and it does not appear that any decisions regarding the clean-up efforts were affected by the data quality.Marshall Miller noted the following:Bureau Veritas Laboratories used an incorrect analytical method for particulate monitoring from September 2009 to January 2010. This resulted in the Environmental Protection Agency invalidating the Particulate Matter data.There has been limited research on how the ash and the metals associated with ash will affect the various organisms in the river system. Additional investigations by a variety of research organizations are underway, primarily in support of the River System Engineering Evaluation/Cost Assessment.Data from air testing for metals and groundwater testing are not readily available to the public.Due to "legacy" contaminants in the sediment in the lower 1.8 miles of the Emory River (associated with activities at the Oak Ridge National Laboratory) and the difficulty in removing the ash without distributing existing "legacy" and native river sediments, some ash will remain in the river after dredging is complete.TVA management provided additional information on the findings and recommendations in this report. Marshall Miller incorporated TVA management's comments into the report as appropriate and provided additional comments where needed. TVA agreed with Marshall Miller's recommendations and has taken or plans to take action based on the recommendations.

Account Management

Evaluation of controls for the transit subsidy program.

EAC OIG, through the independent public accounting firm of Clifton Gunderson LLP, audited $84.9 million in funds received by the New Jersey Department of State under the Help America Vote Act. The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the Department of State (1) used payments authorized by Sections 101, 102, and 251 of HAVA in accordance with HAVA and applicable requirements; (2) used payments authorized by Sections 101, 102, and 251 of HAVA in accordance with HAVA and applicable requirements; and (3) met HAVA requirements for Section 251 funds for an election fund and for a matching contribution except for the requirements for maintenance of a base level of state outlays, commonly referred to as Maintenance of Expenditures (MOE).

TVA OIG retained Marshall Miller & Associates, Inc. (Marshall Miller) to conduct a peer review of the Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) report on geotechnical exploration and slope stability for the Ash Disposal Areas 2 and 3 at the Johnsonville Fossil Plant. Marshall Miller believes that Stantec's evaluations provide a reasonable assessment of the margin of safety associated with the evaluated conditions, which indicates that the facility is not in danger of imminent failure.In Marshall Miller's opinion, Stantec followed generally accepted practices and arrived at reasonable predictions of exit gradients. With regard to Stantec's development of material shear strengths, Marshall Miller found Stantec arrived at reasonable shear strength properties for the generalized material layers and zones. However, Marshall Miller believes the calculated factors of safety against piping in the heterogeneous fill are overstated because Stantec used high values of critical gradient for the fill relative to its measured in-situ densities. Based on review of Stantec's slope stability analyses, it is Marshall Miller's opinion that Stantec performed stability analyses for static, long-term load conditions using appropriate methodologies and reasonable material properties.

TVA OIG retained Marshall Miller & Associates, Inc. (Marshall Miller) to conduct a peer review of the Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) report on geotechnical exploration and slope stability for the gypsum stack at the Widows Creek Fossil Plant. Marshall Miller believes that Stantec's evaluations of the Widows Creek gypsum stack provide a reasonable assessment of the margin of safety associated with the evaluated conditions, which indicates that the facility is not in danger of imminent failure.Marshall Miller did find that additional analyses and corresponding documentation was needed in order to assess the overall factor of safety of the stack in the midterm and longterm. Marshall Miller also found that Stantec used a model that was 20 feet lower than the final height of the stack which does not reflect the final conditions of the pile. Additionally, Marshall Miller found that Stantec did not (1) perform adequate testing to support reliance on historical data and shear strength characterization of some materials, (2) calculate and document the exit gradient and factors of safety against piping for the 5-year build-out configuration, and (3) perform sufficient investigation of the clay foundation soils.To address this report, TVA management had Stantec review and respond to the findings of this report. Marshall Miller reviewed Stantec's response and concluded that the additional information provided adequately addressed the concerns and recommendations identified in the report.

TVA OIG retained Marshall Miller & Associates, Inc. (Marshall Miller) to conduct a peer review of the Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) documents for proposed improvements to the stability of the Northeast Dike of the Ash Disposal Area No. 2 of the Johnsonville Fossil Plant. Based on Marshall Miller's technical review, Stantec used generally accepted methods and practices to design the stability improvements. Based on the Stantec Calculation Package, Stantec also designed a slope configuration that provides acceptable factors of safety for slope stability under long-term, steady-state seepage conditions.Marshall Miller found the plans for construction prepared by Stantec provide suitable guidance for construction, however, they found the details of the graded filter portion of the stabilization berm do not conform closely with current standards of practice and present constructability issues at locations where the installation condition are more challenging.To address this report, TVA management had Stantec review and respond to the findings of this report. Marshall Miller reviewed Stantec's response and concluded that the additional information provided adequately addressed the concerns and recommendations identified in the report.

This review was initiated because of questions raised during congressional testimony following the Kingston Ash Spill in December 2008. The objectives of this review were to determine whether the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) has (1) performed groundwater monitoring as prescribed by the permits and (2) found levels of constituents monitored that exceeded regulatory limits and, if so, implemented any required corrective actions.During our review, we found that in some instances TVA was not performing monitoring as prescribed by the permits. For calendar years 2008 and 2009, TVA was monitoring for the required constituents and testing within the required time frames at ten coal combustion product (CCP) areas at seven fossil plants. However, TVA was not monitoring for all permit-required constituents at Cumberland and Johnsonville Fossil Plants. TVA has submitted letters to the Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation (TDEC) requesting removal of all constituents that were not being tested from the permit and TDEC stated this would be approved.Additionally, exceedances were found at eight of the nine fossil plants where monitoring is being conducted. TVA has two plants in Tennessee, Cumberland and Gallatin Fossil Plants, that have constituents that exceeded health-based limits and are working through the corrective action process described in Tennessee Rule 1200-1-7. Finally, TVA installed 29 monitoring wells at nine sites in 2010 and has committed to conducting at least one sampling event at each site by the end of fiscal year 2011.We recommended the Senior Vice President, Environment & Technology, continue (1) plans to implement monitoring at all active CCP disposal areas, and (2) with the assessment plans and initiate corrective actions for Cumberland and Gallatin Fossil Plants. TVA management agreed with the recommendations.

The Office of the Inspector General reviewed the IT controls for granting and monitoring non-nuclear contractor access to TVA Assets, including general network access. The OIG found TVA's controls over processes for managing and tracking non-Nuclear contractor logical and physical access need to be strengthened to reduce the risk of loss or compromise of sensitive TVA data and physical assets. Specifically, the OIG found:Three enterprise risks identified by TVA's Enterprise Risk Council could be impacted by weak controls over contractor access identified in this report.The current maturity of TVA's contractor management process is relatively low.Certain contractors had access to sensitive TVA assets without proper background investigation and clearance.TVA's system for assigning physical access to TVA facilities does not clearly identify facilities for which special clearance is needed.TVA does not have a process to require complete and accurate entry for all non-nuclear contractors into the Human Resource Information System.The IT Customer Center does not ensure Virtual Private Network tokens used by contractors are returned when the contractor leaves TVA employment. Summary Only

The audit objectives were to determine whether program funds were managed in accordance with the ARC and Federal grant requirements

Peer Review of FLRA OIG 2011