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: 

fax: 

1-888-546-8740 

202-566-2599 

1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Mailcode 2431T 

online: http://www.epa.gov/oig/hotline.htm Washington, DC 20460 
 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 13-P-0370 

September 4, 2013 Office of Inspector General 

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. 

For further information, contact 

our Office of Congressional and 

Public Affairs at (202) 566-2391. 

The full report is at: 

www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2013/ 

20130904-13-P-0370.pdf 

Limited Oil Spill Funding Since the Enbridge Spill 

Has Delayed Abandoned Oil Well Cleanups; 

Emergency Oil Responses Not Impacted 

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-0370 

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 13-P-0370 

Has Delayed Abandoned Oil Well Cleanups; 

Emergency Oil Responses Not Impacted 

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 

Limited Funding Since the Enbridge and Deepwater Horizon Spills 

Allegations About Reimbursement of EPA Oversight Costs 

Lessons Learned From the Enbridge Spill Could Provide 

 Emergency Oil Spill Funding .......................................................................... 5 

 Delayed Abandoned Oil Well Cleanups in Two Regions ............................... 5 

Not Substantiated........................................................................................... 7 

 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 

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 12

Millions of Dollars

Oil Spill Budget Summary

Enbridge

non‐Enbridge

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. 

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. 11-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 Partially Substantiated. The EPA stated it 

oil spill funding in response to its requested additional funding for the Enbridge 

ongoing Enbridge spill costs and other spill. However, the EPA did not request 

uncontrolled oil discharges. 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 Substantiated. The Enbridge spill reduced 

delays at known oil-discharge sites. 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 decisionmaking. 

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/10.7901/2169-3358-2011-1-422. 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 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 

Status of Recommendations and 

Potential Monetary Benefits 

POTENTIAL MONETARY 

RECOMMENDATIONS BENEFITS (in $000s) 

Rec. 

No. 

Page 

No. Subject Status1 Action Official 

Planned 

Completion 

Date 

Claimed 

Amount 

Agreed-To 

Amount 

1 

2 

9 

9 

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. 

O 

C 

Assistant Administrator 

for Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response 

Assistant Administrator 

for Solid Waste and 

Emergency Response 

12/31/2013 

04/30/2011 

O = 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/10.7901/2169-3358-2011-1-422. 

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 riskbased 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