Federal inspector: Tighten Yucca Mountain credit card use

Tuesday, Aug. 25, 2009 | 4:25 p.m.

Yucca Mountain

Yucca - More stories, blogs, photos and video on the proposed nuclear waste facility

A federal inspector recommended tightening how staff of the Yucca Mountain Project Office use federal credit cards after reviewing two years worth of purchases.

"We concluded that operation of the Yucca Mountain Project's purchase card programs was not consistent with applicable policies and procedures and contained weaknesses that could expose the department to the risk of fraud, waste or abuse," wrote Herbert Richardson, principal deputy inspector general in the 18-page report completed Aug. 20.

The project has offices in Washington, D.C., and Las Vegas. The Energy Department's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management and a contractor at the time, Bechtel SAIC LLC, were scrutinized by the inspector general's office from January 2007 to February 2009.

The Yucca Mountain Project's mission is to oversee the proposed first high-level nuclear waste repository at Yucca Mountain, 90 miles northwest of Las Vegas.

The inspector general's review discovered that Yucca Mountain credit card holders had purchased $3.6 million worth of goods and services, including paying the monthly power bill of roughly $360 per month for a total of $4,370 a year.

The OCRWM acting director, Christopher A. Kouts replied that the project should have a contract to pay the electric bill by Dec. 1.

During interviews with seven of nine cardholders, the inspectors learned that four of them did not get approval before making purchases on their cards.

In reviewing all cardholders' accounts from June 2008 through January 2009, about 56 percent of the statements totaling $76,218.35 had not been reviewed by a designated approval official by the required date. Some reviews did not occur for seven months and several had not been reviewed at all.

One of three OCRWM approving officials had not completed required certification training. OCRWM said that as of May 7, 2009, that official's approval authority had been suspended.

Two cardholders said that they had shared credit card numbers with co-workers, although that is not federal policy.

A Bechtel cardholder has also split a purchase of $8,400, paying $2,800 and then two days later buying $5,600 in order to overcome the $5,000 single-purchase limit.

Kouts replied to the inspector's report and said that all recommendations and changes had been implemented.

Comments
Print
E-mail
Share
- Facebook
- Fark
- Digg
- Reddit
- Stumble
Tweet

Discussion: comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

No trusted comments have been posted.

By marcuspsmithers

Aug. 25, 2009

6:47 p.m.

Flag

Sorry, but you can't have your cake and eat it, too. If you want fiscal responsibility, then you need to have some leniency.

During the many layoffs over this period of time, the Procurement Department was understaffed, and some employees were given cards in an effort to reduce the amount of time spent on menial goods/services.

For instance, if you ever want to know why a $12 hammer ends up costing the government $100, just look at their purchasing processes. To have a purchasing agent spend time working on requests below a certain dollar level becomes fiscally irresponsible, because the amount of time it requires for it to be prepared, submitted, and reviewed by all the signatories in the process adds to a hidden cost of doing business.

While I'm certain there's probably opportunities for improvement, this is ultimately what happens when somebody is told to do more with less.
By mrb

Aug. 25, 2009

6:55 p.m.

Flag

This story is such a joke. It is totally obvious that, rather than publish articles with detailed discussion of the scientific and engineering attributes of the site, and whether it will meet regulatory criteria, the Sun prefers to attempt to smear the project with silly articles like this.

Shame on you - you are so blatantly obvious in your pusuit of killing this project it makes one ill.