All Reports

OIG reviewed the Lenoir City Utilities Board (LCUB), a distributor for TVA power based in Lenoir City, Tennessee. LCUB also operates nonelectric businesses that include gas, water, and sewer utilities.

We reviewed the design of a TVA contractor's process for administering subcontracted work for the Watts Bar Nuclear Plant Unit 2 construction project. Specifically, we reviewed the contractor's (1) invoice review process, (2) process for scheduling work, and (3) process for ensuring subcontractor work meets the contractor's specifications. In addition, we made inquiries regarding concerns raised about the management of measuring and testing equipment (M&TE).

The OIG performed a review of the City of Scottsboro Electric Power Board (Scottsboro) which is a distributor for TVA power based in Scottsboro, Alabama. Scottsboro also operates a telecommunications department that offers cable, internet, and telephone services. Also, Scottsboro is one of four distributors to which TVA granted retail rate setting authority. In 2002, TVA Board of Directors approved and made available to distributors six wholesale power contract flexibility options.

As part of our annual audit plan, we audited $35.07 million in costs billed to TVA by a contractor for providing quality control inspections and nondestructive examinations under two contracts. In summary, we found TVA had been overbilled $159,662 under one of the contracts, including (1) $136,030 in overstated payroll taxes, insurance, and related performance fees, (2) $18,228 in ineligible labor costs, and (3) $5,404 in duplicate fees. The contractor agreed with our findings and plans to reimburse TVA for the overbilled costs. Summary Only

This review was the fourth in a series of reviews that will benchmark TVA's performance in key areas and answer the question, "How is TVA doing in regard to environmental performance." In conducting this review we: (1) assessed environmental performance, including key performance measures and, (2) evaluated TVA's performance relative to available benchmark information, and (3) identified key management challenges that could affect how successful TVA is in achieving these strategic objectives.

We performed an audit $3.3 million in payments made by TVA to a contractor for geotechnical services between January 2003 and July 15, 2009.

TVA Office of the Inspector General retained Marshall Miller & Associates, Inc. (Marshall Miller) to conduct a peer review of the report entitled "Report of Geotechnical Exploration and Slope Stability for Dike C," prepared by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. (Stantec) of Lexington, Kentucky. In summary, it is Marshall Miller's opinion that Stantec generally performed a reasonable scope of investigation for the portion of Dike C covered in its report and applied appropriate investigative methods and evaluation techniques.

We reviewed a contractor's tool program for the Watts Bar Nuclear plant (WBN) Unit 2 construction project. Our objective was to assess the procedures and key control activities used to track and account for tools used in the Watts Bar Nuclear (WBN) Unit 2 construction project. Our review of the WBN Unit 2 tool program determined the contractor's inventory controls were not functioning as intended. Currently, there are significant weaknesses related to tools inventory, checked-out tools, and tools received but not entered into the system processes.

The OIG performed a review of the City of Chattanooga Electric Power Board (Chattanooga) which is based in Chattanooga, Tennessee and a distributor of TVA power. Our review of Chattanooga found issues involving customer classification and metering that could impact (1) the proper reporting of electric sales and (2) nondiscrimination in providing power to members of the same rate class. In addition, we found Chattanooga had more than enough cash on hand to cover planned capital projects and provide a cash reserve of about 13 percent.

We audited $9.5 million of costs billed to TVA by a contractor for providing assistance in implementing a Power System Optimization Project. In summary, we found the contractor had overbilled TVA $234,406 including (1) $227,763 in overstated subcontractor costs and (2) $6,643 in unsupported subcontractor costs.