# A \
l W.'
v
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL
Limited Oil Spill Funding
Since the Enbridge Spill
Has Delayed Abandoned Oil
Well Cleanups; Emergency Oil
Responses Not Impacted
Report No. 13-P-0370
September 4, 2013
Scan this mobile
code to learn more
about the EPA OIG.

-------
Report Contributors:	Brooke Shull
Steve Hanna
Chad Kincheloe
Tina Lovingood
Abbreviations
EPA
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
FY
Fiscal Year
GAO
U.S. Government Accountability Office
OEM
Office of Emergency Management
OIG
Office of the Inspector General
OSC
On-Scene Coordinator
OSLTF
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
OSWER
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Cover Photo: An excavation of oil-contaminated soil from the overbank area at the
Enbridge spill site. (EPA photo)
Hotline
To report fraud, waste, or abuse, contact us through one of the following methods:
email: OIG Hotline@epa.gov	write: EPA Inspector General Hotline
phone: 1-888-546-8740	1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
fax:	202-566-2599	Mailcode 2431T
online:
http://www.epa.gov/oiq/hotline.htm
Washington, DC 20460

-------
y°"X
i O '*
W
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency	13-P-0370
Office of Inspector General	September 4,2013
At a Glance
Why We Did This Review
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of
Inspector General, received an
anonymous hotline complaint
about the EPA's management
of emergency oil spill funding
for the Enbridge pipeline spill.
On July 26, 2010, the
Enbridge pipeline spill released
more than 800,000 gallons of
oil into the Kalamazoo River in
Michigan. The responsible
party, Enbridge Energy
Partners, LLC, is cleaning up
the spill.
As of February 24, 2013, the
EPA's costs to oversee the
cleanup totaled more than
$50 million. These costs are
reimbursed by the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund, which is
administered by the U.S. Coast
Guard.
This report addresses the
following EPA Goals or
Cross-Cutting Strategies:
•	Cleaning up communities
and advancing sustainable
development.
•	Protecting America's waters.
Limited Oil Spill Funding Since the Enbridge Spill
Has Delayed Abandoned Oil Well Cleanups;
Emergency Oil Responses Not Impacted
For further information, contact
our Office of Congressional and
Public Affairs at (202) 566-2391.
The full report is at:
www.epa.aov/oia/reports/2013/
20130904-13-P-0370.pdf
What We Found
We reviewed hotline allegations that: (1) the EPA failed to request additional oil
spill funding in response to its ongoing Enbridge pipeline spill costs and other
uncontrolled oil discharges; (2) the EPA headquarters told regions there would be
a shortage of emergency funding through 2014; (3) limited funding resulted in
cleanup delays at known oil-discharge sites; (4) the EPA's administrative orders
lacked required language specifying which costs can be recovered by the
government; and (5) the EPA had not submitted requests for reimbursement of
its Enbridge spill oversight costs. Our findings partially substantiated allegation 1
and substantiated allegation 3, but did not substantiate allegations 2, 4 and 5.
Also, according to EPA staff, the Enbridge spill has not impacted the EPA's ability
to respond to classic emergency spills, such as tanker truck rollovers and
pipeline breaks. However, EPA Regions 2 and 4 staff said limited funding due to
the spill has caused delays and impacted their ability to respond to abandoned oil
wells in their regions. Regions 2 and 4 have identified abandoned oil well sites
that have leaking wells that impact or threaten surface waters. Cleanup delays at
these sites could result in further contamination, posing a threat to wildlife, fish,
and underground sources of drinking water. Although the EPA's Office of
Emergency Management staff were aware of the risks, the OEM prioritized its
limited funding for classic emergency oil spills. The OEM has not coordinated
with Regions 2 and 4, or other regions, to develop a nationwide plan to address
abandoned oil wells. Agency staff said they requested additional funding for the
Enbridge spill. However, the EPA did not request additional funding for
abandoned oil well removals.
We also found that the EPA lacks technical guidance on oil spills, which results in
emergency responders using their discretion to develop and execute response
actions. While this may be adequate and sufficient for typical emergency oil
spills, the large-scale release of tar sands oil in the Enbridge spill had not been
encountered before by the EPA. Oil spill guidance or a more robust application of
lessons learned from major oil spill cleanups could provide essential information
for other EPA regions to use in future spills of this nature.
Recommendations
We recommend that the OEM establish risk-based priority criteria for use by the
regions in their requests to EPA headquarters for Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
funding and in implementing oil spill responses. We also recommend that the
OEM develop a process for sharing lessons learned from large or unprecedented
oil spills such as Enbridge. OEM agreed with both recommendations. One
recommendation is complete, both are resolved, and no further response to the
final report is needed from the agency.

-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
September 4, 2013
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Limited Oil Spill Funding Since the Enbridge Spill Has Delayed
Abandoned Oil Well Cleanups; Emergency Oil Responses Not Impacted
Report No. 13-P-037<~>
FROM: Arthur A. Elkins Jr.
TO:
Mathy Stanislaus, Assistant Administrator
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
This is our report on the subject review conducted by the Office of Inspector General of the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. This report describes issues the OIG identified and makes
recommendations to address these issues. The report represents the opinion of the OIG and does not
necessarily represent the final EPA position.
Action Required
You are not required to provide a written response to this final report, because you agreed to all
recommendations and provided corrective actions and completion dates that meet the intent of the
recommendations. The first recommendation is resolved and open with corrective actions ongoing,
and the second recommendation is resolved and completed.
Should you choose to provide a response to this final report, we will post your response on the OIG's
public website, along with our memorandum commenting on your response. You should provide your
response as an Adobe PDF file that complies with the accessibility requirements of Section 508 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as amended. We will post this report to our website at
http://www.epa.gov/oig.
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please contact Assistant Inspector General
for Program Evaluation Carolyn Copper at (202) 566-0829 or copper.carolyn@epa.gov. or Director for
Land Cleanup and Waste Management Tina Lovingood at (202) 566-2906 or lovingood.tina@epa.gov.

-------
Limited Oil Spill Funding Since the Enbridge Spill
Has Delayed Abandoned Oil Well Cleanups;
Emergency Oil Responses Not Impacted
13-P-0370
	Table of Contents	
Purpose		1
Background		1
Enbridge Oil Spill		1
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund		2
Scope and Methodology		3
Prior Reviews 		3
Review Results		3
Funding for the Enbridge Spill Did Not Impact the EPA's Response to
Classic Oil Spill Emergencies		4
No Evidence of EPA Communications About Shortages of
Emergency Oil Spill Funding		5
Limited Funding Since the Enbridge and Deepwater Horizon Spills
Delayed Abandoned Oil Well Cleanups in Two Regions		5
Allegations About Reimbursement of EPA Oversight Costs
Not Substantiated		7
Lessons Learned From the Enbridge Spill Could Provide
Valuable Information for Future Oil Spill Cleanups		7
Conclusion		9
Recommendations		9
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation		9
Status of Recommendations and Potential Monetary Benefits		11
Appendices
A Agency Response to Draft Report and OIG Comments	 12
B Distribution	 16

-------
Purpose
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Inspector General, received
an anonymous hotline complaint that raised questions about the EPA's
management of emergency oil spill funding for the Enbridge pipeline spill. We
examined the following allegations: (1) the EPA failed to request additional oil
spill funding in response to its ongoing Enbridge spill costs and other
uncontrolled oil discharges; (2) the EPA headquarters told regions there would be
a shortage of emergency funding through 2014; (3) limited funding resulted in
cleanup delays at known oil-discharge sites; (4) the EPA's administrative orders
lacked required language specifying which costs can be recovered by the
government; and (5) the EPA had not submitted requests for reimbursement of its
Enbridge spill oversight costs.
Background
Under the Clean Water Act, the Oil Pollution Act, and the National Oil and
Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, the EPA is authorized to
respond to actual or threatened oil discharges into the waters of the United States.
The EPA is the lead federal response agency for oil spills occurring in inland
waters. When an inland oil spill occurs, a regional EPA official is assigned to
monitor or direct the response as the federal on-scene coordinator. Every year, the
EPA manages or oversees responses to about 300 oil spills affecting U.S. inland
waters.
Enbridge Oil Spill
On July 26, 2010, a 30-inch pipeline carrying tar sands oil ruptured near
Marshall, Michigan, releasing more than 800,000 gallons of oil. The release
entered Talmadge Creek and flowed 30 miles down the Kalamazoo River—a
Lake Michigan tributary. The EPA issued an administrative order under its Clean
Water Act authority, directing Enbridge Energy Partners, LLC, the responsible
party, to conduct removal actions.
On October 3, 2012, the EPA notified Enbridge that more work was needed in
Michigan's Kalamazoo River. To date, more than 1.1 million gallons of oil have
been collected, and almost 200,000 cubic yards of soil and debris have been
disposed. As of February 24, 2013, the agency's oil spill costs total more than
$50 million. The cost ceiling authorized by the U.S. Coast Guard is approximately
$56 million. Figure 1 shows the portion of EPA's Enbridge cleanup funding
compared to its overall oil spill response budget. When Enbridge spill costs are
excluded, total funding for other oil spills decreased beginning in fiscal year 2010.
13-P-0370
1

-------
Figure 1: The EPA's annual oil spill budget, fiscal years 2008-2012
Oil Spill Budget Summary
50
45
40
35
30
l/l
J2 25
o
° 20
0
10
1	15
I 10
5
0
FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12
Source: The EPA's Office of Emergency Management budget data and
Enbridge spill situation reports.
Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund
The 1990 Oil Pollution Act provides funding for oil cleanups using the Oil Spill
Liability Trust Fund. The OSLTF, which consists of a Principal Fund and an
Emergency Fund, can provide up to $1 billion per oil spill incident. The
Emergency Fund is available for federal OSCs to respond to discharges, and for
federal trustees to initiate natural resource damage assessments. A $50 million
annual Emergency Fund apportionment occurs at the start of each fiscal year and
money is drawn down for the rest of the year until the fund is depleted.
To the extent that $50 million is inadequate, the Maritime Transportation Security
Act of 2002 granted authority to advance up to $100 million from the Principal
Fund for removal activities. The Principal Fund is used to pay claims and to fund
the administration of the Oil Pollution Act by federal agencies. The EPA receives
an annual oil spill appropriation from the Principal Fund, which is used for oil
spill planning and support functions, including personnel and equipment.
The U.S. Coast Guard administers the OSLTF and manages the cost-recovery
process for OSLTF-funded cleanups. As outlined in a 2012 Memorandum of
Understanding with the Coast Guard, the EPA provides documentation of all
removal costs to receive reimbursement from the OSTLF. Once the Coast Guard's
National Pollution Funds Center has ensured that the EPA has the appropriate
documentation to support the charges, the Coast Guard then bills the responsible
party on behalf of the EPA. The Coast Guard carefully monitors ceilings for
ongoing removal efforts to ensure that the OSLTF has adequate funds to cover all
costs. Payments made by the responsible party are deposited into the OSLTF
Principal Fund.
I Enbridge
I non-Enbridge
13-P-0370
2

-------
Scope and Methodology
We conducted our review from September 2012 to June 2013, in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that
we plan and perform our review to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to
provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for
our findings and conclusions based on our objectives.
To determine whether limited oil spill funding since the Enbridge spill has
impacted other regions, we interviewed staff in the EPA's Office of Emergency
Management, and emergency response staff in all 10 EPA regions. We reviewed
reimbursement of the EPA's oversight costs for the Enbridge spill, as well as oil
spill funding allocations to each region from FY 2008 through FY 2012. Finally,
we reviewed the EPA and Coast Guard rules, policies, and guidance related to oil
spill funding and cost reimbursement.
Prior Reviews
We reviewed the following EPA OIG and U.S. Government Accountability
Office reports on the OSLTF and the Enbridge oil spill response:
•	EPA OIG Report No. 1 l-P-0527, EPA 's Gulf Coast Oil Spill Response
Shows Need for Improved Documentation and Funding Practices,
August 25, 2011.
•	EPA OIG Report No. 11 -P-0273, EPA Actively Evaluating Effectiveness
of Its BP and Enbridge Oil Spill Response Communications,
June 23,2011.
•	GAO Report No. GAO-10-795T, Cost of Major Spills May Impact
Viability of Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, June 16, 2010.
•	GAO Report No. GAO-08-357T, Major Oil Spills Occur Infrequently, but
Risks Remain, December 18, 2007.
Review Results
According to EPA staff, the EPA's work on the Enbridge oil spill has not
impacted the agency's ability to respond to classic emergency oil spills. However,
two regions reported backlogs of planned removals at abandoned oil wells
because of insufficient funding since the Enbridge spill. According to EPA
regional staff, planned actions for abandoned wells commonly involved
responding to oil discharges that were impacting or threatening surface waters.
The allegation that the EPA has not requested reimbursement for its Enbridge
spill oversight costs was not substantiated. The agency has submitted and received
cost reimbursement for all bills sent to the Coast Guard for the Enbridge Oil Spill
through September 2012. The Clean Water Act provides authority for the
13-P-0370
3

-------
recovery of all government costs incurred and additional detail on cost-recovery
language was not necessary in the administrative orders.
Finally, the agency staff explained that the EPA lacks technical guidance on oil
spills, and relies on National Contingency Plan requirements and the expertise of
the EPA's OSCs to guide oil response actions. Oil spill guidance and a more
robust application of lessons learned from major spills such as the Enbridge spill
could assist EPA staff in identifying appropriate and cost-effective response
actions for similar spills. Table 1 below summarizes the allegations addressed in
our review and our findings.
Table 1: Allegations reviewed by OIG
OIG hotline allegation
Finding
(1) The EPA failed to request additional
oil spill funding in response to its
ongoing Enbridge spill costs and other
uncontrolled oil discharges.
Partially Substantiated. The EPA stated it
requested additional funding for the Enbridge
spill. However, the EPA did not request
additional funding for abandoned oil well
removals.
(2) EPA headquarters told regions there
would likely be a shortage of
emergency funding through 2014.
Not substantiated. We found no evidence of
such communications. The communications
from EPA headquarters addressed the need
to redirect unspent oil spill funding to the
Enbridge cleanup at the end of FY 2010.
Headquarters also discussed limited funding
for abandoned oil well removals in Region 4.
(3) Limited funding resulted in cleanup
delays at known oil-discharge sites.
Substantiated. The Enbridge spill reduced
the overall amount of available reimbursable
OSLTF funding. Limited funding impacted
planned oil well cleanups in two regions.
However, all regions stated they were able to
respond to classic oil spill emergencies.
(4) The EPA's administrative orders
lacked required language specifying
which costs can be recovered by the
government.
Not substantiated. The Clean Water Act
provides authority for the recovery of all
government costs incurred and additional
detail on cost-recovery language was not
necessary in the administrative orders.
(5) The EPA had not submitted
requests for reimbursement of its
Enbridge spill oversight costs.
Not substantiated. The EPA submitted
reimbursement requests and was reimbursed
for its costs through September 2012.
Source: OIG analysis of hotline complaint allegations and interviews with EPA staff.
Funding for the Enbridge Spill Did Not Impact the EPA's
Response to Classic Oil Spill Emergencies
From FY 2010 through FY 2012, the EPA was able to maintain a small portion of
its oil response funds in the agency's headquarters reserve each year as a
contingency for an emergency spill. Consequently, agency staff confirmed that
the EPA's work on the Enbridge spill has not impacted its ability to respond to
13-P-0370
4

-------
other classic emergency spills. Examples of classic emergency spills are tanker
truck rollovers, oil pipeline breaks and significant spills at oil storage facilities.
Although regional managers we interviewed said the Enbridge and Deepwater
Horizon1 oil spills reduced the overall amount of available reimbursable OSLTF
funding, the OEM staff said they prioritized funding for classic emergency spills.
All of the regions confirmed that they had enough funding to respond to all classic
oil spill emergencies.
No Evidence of EPA Communications About Shortages of
Emergency Oil Spill Funding
The OIG hotline complaint alleged that the EPA headquarters told regions there
would likely be a shortage of emergency funding through 2014. The EPA's
regional oil spill program managers did not recall or have documentation of
communications from the EPA headquarters warning about funding shortages.
These managers further indicated that discussions about funding shortages were
largely limited to the EPA headquarters asking regions to identify unspent
funding that could be redirected to the Enbridge cleanup. These discussions
occurred shortly after the Enbridge spill at the end of FY 2010, and the regions
reported these communications did not impact their oil spill programs.
In addition, after the Enbridge spill, Region 4 staff said they were told by EPA
headquarters that there was insufficient funding for abandoned oil well removals.
However, Region 4 did not describe or provide documentation of warnings about
funding shortages through 2014, and the communications from EPA headquarters
did not apply to classic oil emergencies.
Limited Funding Since the Enbridge and Deepwater Horizon Spills
Delayed Abandoned Oil Well Cleanups in Two Regions
The OIG hotline complaint alleged that limited funding resulted in cleanup delays
at known oil-discharge sites. Regions 2 and 4 confirmed that they had to delay oil
cleanups because of insufficient and incremental funding after the Enbridge and
Deepwater Horizon spills. Both regions said the delayed cleanups were for
planned removal actions at abandoned oil well sites rather than typical oil
emergencies. The leaking oil wells were likely leaking into or threatening surface
water.
Region 4 has a program to clean up thousands of abandoned oil wells in remote
areas of Kentucky.2 Regions 2, 3 and 6 are also dealing with abandoned oil wells.
Leaking abandoned oil wells are a legacy of the oil production industry prior to
the development of stringent requirements to plug wells that are no longer in use.
1	The Deepwater Horizon oil spill, also known as the BP oil spill, occurred from April 20, 2010, through July 15,
2010, when a mobile offshore drilling unit exploded releasing approximately 4.9 million barrels of oil into the Gulf
of Mexico.
2	Region 4 also has abandoned oil wells in Alabama, Mississippi, and Tennessee.
13-P-0370
5

-------
Many of the wells are decades old, with some dating back to the late 1800s. For
many of these wells, there are no clear responsible parties to properly plug and
close the wells. According to Region 4, these are not classic emergency spills, but
oil wells that are no longer in use and pose a large and chronic environmental
problem for the region.
Region 4 staff explained that human health risks posed by the leaking wells are
limited since most abandoned well sites in their region are in remote locations.
However, delayed cleanups, particularly at high-priority sites identified by the
EPA regions, increase the risk of further environmental contamination.
For example, at the Oaks Community Leaking Oil Wells Area C site in
Ohio County, Kentucky, EPA Region 4 estimated that the 31 leaking abandoned
wells at the site would discharge between 620 and 1,240 gallons of crude oil
daily. The wells are impacting or threatening surface waters, and pose a threat to
adjoining shorelines, wildlife, fish and underground sources of drinking water
An abandoned oil well site in Kentucky. (EPA photo)
Regions 2 and 4 have not had problems receiving the Coast Guard's approval to
conduct the abandoned well removals, but were not allocated sufficient funding
by the EPA's headquarters. Region 4 staff said they received less funding than
requested in FYs 2011 and 2012, which contributed to a backlog of oil well
removals. According to the OEM, Region 4 budgeted and requested $5.5 million
for oil removal funding in FY 2012 and only received $3.8 million. The number
of oil removals completed in Region 4 decreased from 100 in FYs 2009 and 2010
13-P-0370
6

-------
to 64 in FY 2011 and 79 in FY 2012. Region 4 managers also said that
incremental oil funding has made it difficult to manage their program.
Since the Enbridge spill, the EPA's headquarters started authorizing partial
funding multiple times throughout the year, rather than lump-sum funding at the
beginning of the year or every 6 months. As a result, Region 4 managers said they
were limited to working on a few oil wells at a time, rather than a large-scale
cleanup. Region 4 managers said that with additional funding they would have
prioritized planned oil well cleanups. Likewise, Region 2 had to postpone some
planned removal actions because of insufficient funding after the Enbridge spill.
The removals eventually were completed once additional funding was authorized.
Staff in one EPA region said they had not received all of the funding requested
from the OEM for abandoned well removals, but in light of the fact that funding
was limited after the Enbridge and Deepwater Horizon spills, the OEM had
prioritized classic emergency spills over the planned well removals. The OEM
staff explained that they try to give regions as much funding as the regions
request, but the OEM still has to operate within the funding ceiling approved by
the Coast Guard, and the OSLTF apportionment approved by the Office of
Management and Budget.
Although the EPA successfully received approval to increase oil spill funds for
the Enbridge spill, the OEM staff did not believe they would receive approval to
increase funds for oil well cleanups. These cleanups are not considered classic
emergencies, and the OEM did not seek additional funding for them. Region 4
managers reported that incremental funding has continued into FY 2013, and this
has affected their ability to plan future removals at oil well sites. EPA staff said
the agency does not yet have a nationwide plan to address abandoned wells sites.
Allegations About Reimbursement of EPA Oversight Costs
Not Substantiated
The OIG hotline complaint alleged that the EPA's administrative orders lacked
required language specifying which costs could be recovered by the government,
and that requests for reimbursement had not been submitted by the agency. The
Clean Water Act provides authority for the recovery of all government costs
incurred and additional detail on cost-recovery language was not necessary in the
orders. The EPA has requested and received reimbursement for all of its Enbridge
costs through September 2012.
Lessons Learned From the Enbridge Spill Could Provide
Valuable Information for Future Oil Spill Cleanups
During this review, we learned that the OEM lacks technical guidance specific to
oil spills. According to OEM managers, the EPA relies on the requirements
outlined in the National Contingency Plan to guide its oil response actions, as well
13-P-0370
7

-------
as the expertise of the EPA's OSCs. The determination of technical requirements,
evaluation techniques, and the level of monitoring used when the EPA oversees
oil spill cleanups are made at the discretion of the OSC. This allows OSCs the
flexibility to address the unique nature and circumstances of each spill.
However, oil spill guidance and a more robust application of lessons learned from
major spills such as Enbridge could better assist discretionary actions and support
effective and efficient oil spill cleanups. The need for this is illustrated by the
EPA's comments in their April 22, 2013, response to the U. S. Department of
State concerning the Keystone pipeline: "We have learned from the 2010
Enbridge spill of oil sands crude in Michigan that spills of diluted bitumen (dilbit)
may require different response actions or equipment from response actions for
conventional oil spills. These spills can also have different impacts than spills of
conventional oil."
To assist EPA regions with any future cleanups of this type, documentation of
lessons learned would be beneficial to regional cleanup efforts. Better
documentation of lessons learned could clarify appropriate response techniques
and monitoring requirements for similar oil spills in the future. Documenting
lessons learned could also aid agency discretion, and potentially lead to more
transparent and predictable EPA decisions that could benefit interactions and
outcomes with responsible parties.
The EPA's experience directing and overseeing the Enbridge spill cleanup
presents an opportunity for sharing and applying lessons learned. Region 5 led a
hot wash, or performance review, of its Enbridge response on March 22-23, 2011.
The review sought feedback from all personnel who supported the Enbridge oil
spill response in both on-site and off-site capacities. Comments from EPA
Region 5 staff and personnel from 23 participating agencies provided feedback on
response operations, and the structure and effectiveness of the EPA's Incident
Command System. Region 5 and the OEM can use this review to identify areas of
success, as well as areas in need of improvement when responding to future
emergencies.
In addition, Region 5 can share its unique experience developing new techniques
to remove submerged oil. After the Enbridge spill, cleanup crews initially
responded by skimming oil from the surface—a technique commonly used for
most types of oil. Within 1 month of the Enbridge spill, cleanup crews discovered
that some of the heavy tar sands oil was submerged in the bottom of the river. The
following spring, an EPA-directed reassessment found a moderate-to-heavy
contamination covering more than 200 acres of the river bottom. This required
dredging and excavation of oil from the riverbed, and led the EPA to develop new
methods for detecting and recovering submerged oil. Among the advances made
during the Enbridge cleanup were techniques used to agitate submerged oil from
the riverbed so that the oil could be contained and collected from the surface.
13-P-0370
8

-------
A summary of best practices for handling submerged oil would be valuable for
addressing future spills of this nature. Documentation of best practices could
assist other responders in identifying appropriate and cost-effective cleanup
strategies for future responses to submerged oil.
Conclusion
According to EPA staff, limited funding since the Enbridge spill has impacted the
agency's ability to respond to abandoned leaking oil wells in two regions, but it
has not impacted classic oil spill emergencies. Regional managers indicated that
limited and incremental oil funding to the regions may further delay work at
abandoned well sites and may affect future large-scale oil removals that are not
considered classic emergencies. EPA staff said the agency does not yet have a
nationwide plan to address abandoned wells. In addition, since the EPA lacks
technical guidance on oil spills, emergency responders currently use their
discretion to develop and execute response actions. The development of oil spill
guidance, as well as a more robust application of lessons learned from major oil
spills such as Enbridge, could support effective and efficient cleanups.
Recommendations
We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency
Response:
1.	Establish risk-based priority criteria (e.g., imminent threat, emergency
response and non-emergency response abandoned oil well work) for use
by the regions in their requests to EPA headquarters for OSLTF funding
and in implementing responses.
2.	Develop a process for sharing lessons learned from large or unprecedented
oil spills such as Enbridge, to assist EPA staff nationwide in responding to
similar events in the future and to provide transparency in EPA decision-
making.
Agency Response and OIG Evaluation
The Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response did not agree with our
wording of recommendation 1, but provided an alternative that the OIG finds
acceptable, including a corrective action plan with milestone dates. We therefore
agree on this recommendation. OSWER will develop risk-based priority criteria
for use by regions in their requests for funding. This will provide an opportunity
for regions to identify and prioritize abandoned oil well cleanups using defined
risk-based criteria, and will support increased OSLTF funding requests if
warranted by the defined workload and potential environmental risk. Based on the
agency's response, this recommendation is resolved and open with corrective
actions underway.
13-P-0370
9

-------
OSWER agreed with recommendation 2 and provided milestone dates for actions
that have already occurred. One of these actions, a presentation by Region 5 staff
at the 2011 International Oil Spill Conference, is available online at
http://ioscproceedings.org/doi/pdf/10.7901/2169-3358-2011-l-422. Additionally,
OEM indicated that OSC reports completed at the end of a removal action provide
another process for sharing lessons learned from oil spills. If completed, such a
report may provide additional valuable information on lessons learned. This
recommendation is considered resolved and completed.
Appendix A contains OSWER's response to our draft report and planned actions
to address our recommendations. We reviewed OSWER's technical comments
and made revisions to the report as appropriate.
13-P-0370
10

-------
Status of Recommendations and
Potential Monetary Benefits
RECOMMENDATIONS
POTENTIAL MONETARY
BENEFITS (In $000s)
Rec.
No.
Page
No.
Subject
Status1
Planned
Completion
Action Official	Date
Establish risk-based priority criteria (e.g., imminent
threat, emergency response and non-emergency
response abandoned oil well work) for use by the
regions in their requests to EPA headquarters for
OSLTF funding and in implementing responses.
Develop a process for sharing lessons learned
from large or unprecedented oil spills such as
Enbridge, to assist EPA staff nationwide in
responding to similar events in the future and to
provide transparency in EPA decision-making.
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Assistant Administrator
for Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Claimed
Amount
Ag reed-To
Amount
12/31/2013
04/30/2011
0 = Recommendation is open with agreed-to corrective actions pending.
C = Recommendation is closed with all agreed-to actions completed.
U = Recommendation is unresolved with resolution efforts in progress.
13-P-0370	11

-------
Appendix A
Agency Response to Draft Report
and OIG Comments
MEMORANDUM
SUBJECT: Response to Office of Inspector General Draft Report No. OPE-FY12-24 "Review
of Hotline Complaint Regarding the EPA's Management of Emergency Oil Spill Funding for the
Enbridge Pipeline Spill," dated June 14, 2013
FROM: Mathy Stanislaus
Assistant Administrator
TO:	Carolyn Copper
Office of Program Management
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the issues and recommendations in the subject draft
audit report. Following is a summary of the Agency's overall position, along with its position on
each of the report recommendations. For the report recommendation with which the Agency
agrees, we have provided high-level intended corrective actions and estimated completion dates
to the extent we can. For the report recommendations with which the Agency does not agree, we
have explained our position and proposed an alternative to the recommendation. For your
consideration, we have included a Technical Comments Attachment to supplement this response.
OIG Response: The OIG reviewed the technical comments and made revisions to the report as
appropriate.
AGENCY'S OVERALL POSITION
The Agency agrees with the identified need to develop a process for sharing lessons learned from
large incidents such as Enbridge. In fact, since 9/11 the Agency has utilized an informal process
for developing and sharing lessons learned from responses to diverse large incidents. The
Agency does not agree with the report recommendation to develop a national plan to prioritize
and address abandoned oil wells. Currently, Regional oil programs prioritize resources to address
both emergencies and their specific needs.
13-P-0370
12

-------
AGENCY'S RESPONSE TO REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Agreements
No.
Recommendation
High-Level Intended
Corrective Action(s)
Estimated Completion by
Quarter and FY
2
Develop a process for sharing
lessons learned from large or
unprecedented oil spills such as
Enbridge, to assist EPA staff
nationwide in responding to
similar events in the future and
to provide transparency in EPA
decision-making.
1.1 Evaluate the
emergency response
phase of an incident via a
hot wash, meeting, or
other appropriate
mechanism.
Completed: March 2011
(Enbridge)
Process to be continued
for future unprecedented
oil spills.
1.2 Identify strengths,
weaknesses, areas for
further development, and
follow-up action as
appropriate.
Completed: March 2011
(Enbridge)
Process to be continued
for future unprecedented
oil spills.
1.3 Communicate the
lessons learned through
the emergency response
program leadership (i.e.,
Superfund Division
Directors, Removal and
Oil Program Managers);
to, with, between, and
among OSCs; standing
meetings (i.e., Superfund
Division Directors and/or
Removal Managers); and
at national meetings, as
appropriate.
Completed: International
Oil Spill Conference
April 2011 (Enbridge)
Process to be continued
for future unprecedented
oil spills.
OIG Response: The agency agreed with the recommendation and provided a corrective-action
plan based on past actions. We located and reviewed the 2011 International Oil Spill Conference
presentation referenced under Corrective Action 1.3 at
http://ioscproceedings.org/doi/pdf/10.7901/2169-3358-2011-l-422.
In further discussions, OEM staff noted that OSC reports completed at the end of a removal
action provide another process for sharing lessons learned from oil spills. According to OEM,
OSC reports are generated upon completion of a removal activity from a major discharge of oil;
a major release of a hazardous substance, pollutant or contaminant; or when requested by the
national response team or regional response team. The OSC report documents the situation as it
developed, the actions taken, the resources committed, and the problems encountered. An OSC
report on the Enbridge spill, once cleanup is completed, may provide additional valuable
information on lessons learned.
This recommendation is resolved with actions completed.
13-P-0370
13

-------
Disagreements
No.
Recommendation
Agency Explanation/Response
Proposed Alternative
1
Develop a nationwide
plan to prioritize and
address abandoned oil
wells that can be
remediated using
OSLTF funding. This
plan should include
an option to request
an increase in funding
from the Coast Guard,
if warranted by the
workload and
potential
environmental risk.
The Agency's highest priority is to
respond to classic emergencies via
Regional execution utilizing OSLTF
funding, which the USCG
administers. Statutorily, the Regions
use the OSLTF based on an On Scene
Coordinator's (OSC's) determination
for oil removal response actions to
address various threats to navigable
waters, including those to abandoned
on-shore and/or off-shore oil
production facilities. Specifically
abandoned oil well threats can vary
significantly based on multiple
factors, including number of wells
within the former facility, well
pressure, volume of discharge, depth
to oil, interconnection with
groundwater, and proximity to
surface water. These non-emergency
oil removal response actions may also
be implemented to compliment
and/or supplement existing state/local
activities. However, not every Region
response to abandoned oil wells, and
each Region prioritizes its funding to
address specific needs beyond classic
emergencies. Therefore, a nationwide
prioritization plan would have limited
benefit and may actually adversely
impact Regional flexibility to address
threats.
Working with Regions,
HQ will ensure that risk-
based priority criteria
(e.g., imminent threat,
emergency response and
non-emergency response
abandoned oil well
work) are established for
use by the Regions in
their requests to HQ for
OSLTF funding and in
implementing responses.
By end of 1st Quarter
FY14.
OIG Response: The agency disagreed with the recommendation and suggested an alternative
recommendation and corrective action. The agency agreed that EPA headquarters staff would
work with regions to ensure that risk-based priority criteria are established for use by the regions
in their requests to EPA headquarters for OSLTF funding and in implementing responses by
December 31, 2013. OEM staff clarified that by establishing risk-based criteria, regions will
have an opportunity to identify and prioritize abandoned oil well cleanups to support increased
OSLTF funding requests if warranted by the workload and potential environmental risk. We
believe that the proposed alternative and corrective actions meet the intent of the
recommendation. Based on the agency's comments, the revised recommendation is: "Establish
risk-based priority criteria (e.g., imminent threat, emergency response and non-emergency
13-P-0370
14

-------
response abandoned oil well work) for use by the regions in their requests to EPA headquarters
for OSLTF funding and in implementing responses."
This recommendation is resolved and open with agreed-to corrective actions pending.
CONTACT INFORMATION
If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Gilberto Irizarry, Director, Program
Operations and Coordination Division on (202) 564-7982 or Joshua Woodyard, Director, Business
Operations Center on (202) 564-9588.
13-P-0370
15

-------
Appendix B
Distribution
Office of the Administrator
Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Agency Follow-Up Official (the CFO)
Agency Follow-Up Coordinator
General Counsel
Associate Administrator for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations
Associate Administrator for External Affairs and Environmental Education
Regional Administrator, Region 5
Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 5
Director, Office of Emergency Management, Office of Solid Waste and
Emergency Response
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response
Audit Follow-Up Coordinator, Region 5
13-P-0370
16

-------