SUPERFUND

Status of EPA’s 

Efforts to Improve Its 

Management and 

Oversight of Special 

Accounts

Report to the Ranking Member, 

Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, U.S. Senate

January 2012

GAO-12-109

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-12-109, a report to the 

Ranking Member, Committee on Environment 

and Public Works, U.S. Senate

January 2012

SUPERFUND 

Status of EPA’s Efforts to Improve Its Management 

and Oversight of Special Accounts

Why GAO Did This Study

Under the Superfund program, EPA 

has the authority to enter into 

agreements with potentially 

responsible parties for them to conduct 

a cleanup at hazardous waste sites or

compel potentially responsible parties 

to do so. EPA can also conduct 

cleanups itself and then seek 

reimbursement. EPA is authorized to 

retain and use funds received from 

settlements with these parties in 

interest-earning, site-specific special 

accounts within the Trust Fund. These 

accounts provide resources in addition 

to annual appropriations to clean up 

sites. The number of accounts grew 

slowly until 1995 when EPA 

encouraged their greater use. After 

1995, their number and dollar value

increased. EPA headquarters is 

responsible for overseeing its regions’ 

management of special accounts. In 

two reports issued in 2006 and 2009, 

the EPA IG made recommendations to

EPA to better manage these accounts. 

As requested, this report examines the 

(1) status—that is, balances, locations, 

and recent and planned uses—of 

Superfund special accounts, and (2) 

extent to which EPA’s headquarters 

and regions have implemented

processes and policies to improve the 

monitoring and management of these 

accounts. GAO analyzed EPA 

Superfund program data, guidance, 

and strategies, and interviewed EPA 

officials. 

GAO is not making recommendations 

in this report. GAO provided a draft of 

this report to EPA for review and 

comment. EPA provided technical 

comments that were incorporated into 

the report, as appropriate. 

What GAO Found

From fiscal year 1990 through October 2010, the Environmental Protection 

Agency’s (EPA) 10 regions collected from potentially responsible parties almost 

$4 billion in funds that were placed in special accounts. Nearly half of these funds

are still available to be obligated for future Superfund cleanup; the remaining 

funds have already been obligated, but not all of these obligated funds have 

been disbursed. According to GAO’s analysis of EPA data, EPA has plans to 

obligate almost all of the available funds in special accounts over the next 10

years. However, EPA regional officials told GAO that special account funds that 

are planned to be obligated are estimates rather than commitments, and the 

planned use of funds often changes as site circumstances warrant. As of October 

2010, of the $1.9 billion funds that EPA had obligated for Superfund cleanup 

expenses, $1.6 billion had been disbursed. 

According to GAO’s review of EPA documents and interviews with agency 

officials, EPA has taken steps, including implementing strategies and guidance, 

in the last few years to better monitor and manage special accounts. EPA took 

these steps in response to the EPA Inspector General’s (IG) findings and 

recommendations, as well as EPA officials’ own recognition that the agency 

needed to provide better oversight of the special accounts process. These steps 

include the following: 

• processes to better plan for the use of special account funds by adding a 

screen in the agency’s Superfund database that enables EPA regions to 

enter special account planning data into specific data fields and create 

reports, so that officials can monitor the special account balances against 

planned obligations for ongoing and future site-specific response activities; 

• increased oversight of special accounts, including designating a national 

special accounts coordinator who, among other things, conducts annual and 

midyear reviews and holds discussions with regional staff to evaluate their 

plans to allocate special account funds, and establishing a Special Accounts 

Senior Management Committee that meets semiannually to provide overall 

management oversight and monitor the status of special accounts; and 

• strategies and guidance on how to plan for using special accounts, including 

an agencywide strategic plan, overall guidance for the regions on the proper 

use and planning of special accounts funds throughout the cleanup process, 

detailed guidance on the reclassification process, and a model memorandum 

for transferring funds from a special account to the Hazardous Substance 

Superfund Trust Fund (Trust Fund) and closing out a special account. 

View GAO-12-109. For more information, 

contact Carolyn L. Yocom at (202) 512-7114

or yocomc@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-12-109 Superfund

Letter 1 

Background 4

About Half of the $3.7 Billion that EPA Has Collected in Special 

Accounts Is Available for Future Superfund Cleanup 14

EPA Has Implemented Processes and Policies in Recent Years to 

Better Monitor and Manage Superfund Special Accounts 23

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 32

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 33

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 35

Tables

Table 1: Open Superfund Special Accounts and Sites, Including 

NPL Sites, by EPA Region, as of October 2010 15

Table 2: Open Superfund Special Accounts Grouped in Categories 

by Unobligated Balance, as of October 2010 15

Table 3: Special Accounts Obligations Planned for Fiscal Years 

2011-2070, by Type of Cleanup Activity, Enforcement, and 

Federal Facilities 18

Table 4: Special Account Funds Planned for Reclassification, Fiscal 

Years 2011-2013, as of October 2010 21

Table 5: Special Account Funds Planned for Transfer to the Trust 

Fund, Fiscal Years 2011-2013, as of October 2010 21

Table 6: Number of Sites with Special Accounts in Each Phase or 

Milestone of the Superfund Cleanup Process, as of 

October 2010 22

Figures

Figure 1: EPA’s 10 Regions 5

Figure 2: Phases of the Typical Superfund Site Cleanup Process 8

Figure 3: EPA’s National Planned Uses for $1.8 billion in Special 

Account Funds, Beginning Fiscal Year 2011 17

Contents
Page ii GAO-12-109 Superfund

Abbreviations

CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

 and Liability Act

CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 

 and Liability Information System

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

IG Inspector General

NPL National Priorities List

PRP potentially responsible party

TCE Trichloroethylene

Trust Fund Hazardous Substance Superfund Trust Fund

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-12-109 Superfund

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

January 18, 2012

The Honorable James M. Inhofe

Ranking Member

Committee on Environment and Public Works

United States Senate

Dear Senator Inhofe:

The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and 

Liability Act (CERCLA) of 1980, commonly referred to as “Superfund,” 

was enacted to protect human health and the environment from the 

effects of hazardous substances. Under CERCLA, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) has the authority to enter into agreements with 

potentially responsible parties (PRP) for them to conduct the cleanup at 

hazardous waste sites,1

EPA is also authorized by CERCLA to retain and use funds received from 

settlements with a PRP, and EPA may hold these funds in interestearning, site-specific accounts called “special accounts.”

or compel PRPs to clean up sites. In addition, 

EPA can clean up the sites itself and then seek reimbursement from the 

PRPs. EPA’s primary source of funds for EPA-led cleanups of Superfund 

sites is its annual appropriations by Congress from the Hazardous 

Substance Superfund Trust Fund (Trust Fund), which receives a transfer 

from the general fund of the Treasury.

2

 

1

Under CERCLA, PRPs generally include current or former owners and operators of a site 

or the generators or transporters of the hazardous substances. 

These special 

accounts are interest-bearing subaccounts within the Trust Fund that are 

generally used for future cleanup actions at the sites associated with a 

specific settlement or to reimburse appropriated funds that EPA had 

previously used for response activities at these sites. These accounts 

help EPA respond to and clean up sites by providing resources in addition 

to EPA’s annual appropriations. In 1990, EPA had five special accounts 

totaling about $1.9 million. Over the next few years, the number of special 

accounts increased slowly. However, beginning in 1995, EPA issued 

2

CERCLA section 122(b)(3) was added in 1986, establishing EPA’s authority to retain and 

use funds from an agreement with PRPs, which EPA has implemented through the use of 

special accounts. 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-12-109 Superfund

memorandums and guidance encouraging greater use of special 

accounts. Since that time the number and dollar value of these accounts 

has steadily increased. EPA’s regional offices are primarily responsible 

for establishing and managing special accounts for the Superfund sites 

located in their region, and EPA headquarters offices are responsible for 

overseeing the regional offices’ management of these accounts.

In two reports, issued in 2006 and 2009, the EPA Inspector General (IG) 

made recommendations to improve the management of Superfund 

special accounts.3 In 2009, for example, the IG stated that EPA needed to 

assign a central management official to be responsible for developing an 

action plan to ensure that the management accountability and related 

issues regarding special accounts that the IG had identified were 

addressed. The IG recommended that this action plan include, among 

other things, (1) an annual planning process to aid in monitoring special 

accounts, (2) more guidance or a policy that addresses how special 

accounts should be implemented and used, and (3) plans for developing 

complete reports with accurate special accounts data from EPA’s 

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 

Information System (CERCLIS) database to manage the program and 

improve its performance.4

In this context, you asked us to examine EPA’s Superfund special 

accounts. Specifically, our objectives were to (1) describe the status—

including balances, locations, and recent and planned uses—of 

Superfund special accounts and (2) examine the extent to which EPA’s 

headquarters and regions have implemented processes and policies to 

improve the monitoring and management of Superfund special accounts.

To conduct this work, we reviewed relevant law and EPA guidance and 

interviewed senior officials at EPA’s headquarters and regional offices. 

Specifically, to describe the status of special accounts, we obtained and 

analyzed data regarding all special accounts from EPA’s CERCLIS 

 

3

EPA Office of Inspector General, Evaluation Report: EPA Can Better Manage Superfund 

Resources, Report No. 2006-P-00013, Feb. 28, 2006. EPA Office of Inspector General, 

Evaluation Report: Improved Management of Superfund Special Accounts Will Make More 

Funds Available for Clean-ups, Report No. 09-P-0119, Mar. 18, 2009.

4

CERCLIS is EPA’s automated inventory of site information for all potential or confirmed 

Superfund sites. It contains information on hazardous waste site assessment and 

remediation from 1983 to the present.
 

Page 3 GAO-12-109 Superfund

database, as of October 2010.5

We conducted this performance audit from October 2010 to January 2012

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

To assess the reliability of the CERCLIS 

data, we reviewed relevant documentation, examined the data to identify 

obvious errors and inconsistencies, and interviewed knowledgeable 

agency officials to see if there were any known problems with the data 

and to learn more about their procedures for maintaining the data. We 

determined that the data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this 

report. To examine the extent to which EPA’s headquarters and regions 

are implementing processes and policies to improve the monitoring and 

management of Superfund special accounts, we analyzed documents 

and interviewed officials from EPA headquarters offices, including the 

Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, the Office 

of Site Remediation Enforcement, and the Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer. We also interviewed EPA’s IG officials regarding their 2006 and 

2009 reports on EPA’s management of special accounts. According to 

these officials, all recommendations from these two reports were closed 

out based on EPA’s response. In addition, we conducted interviews with 

officials in EPA’s 10 regional offices to determine how each region 

managed and monitored its special accounts and coordinated with EPA 

headquarters. We also obtained from the regional offices relevant 

supporting documentation, including detailed information on 20 of 285 

special accounts. We selected 20 accounts on the basis that EPA 

headquarters had either raised questions about them with the regions or 

recommended that the regions take further actions on issues relating to 

them that arose during EPA’s fiscal year 2010 annual review of the 

regions’ planning data for special accounts. We reviewed data on these 

20 accounts to determine how and to what extent regional offices had 

addressed these issues. These 20 special accounts were chosen from a 

random nonprobability sample of the 285 accounts and therefore cannot 

be generalized to all special accounts. A more detailed discussion of our 

scope and methodology is presented in appendix I.

 

5

Unless otherwise stated, all EPA data collected are as of October 2010—the most 

current available data at the time of our review. 
 

Page 4 GAO-12-109 Superfund

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.

CERCLA, often referred to as the “Superfund” law, gave the federal 

government the authority to respond to actual and threatened releases of 

hazardous substances, pollutants, and contaminants that may endanger 

public health and the environment. EPA established the Superfund 

program to carry out these responsibilities. Data as of September 2011— 

the most current data available—show that there were 13,856 sites in 

EPA’s CERCLIS active site inventory, which may require attention under 

EPA’s Superfund program. Management of these sites, including the 

special accounts associated with them, has historically been the 

responsibility of the EPA region in which a site is located. EPA has 10 

regional offices, each one responsible for the execution of EPA programs 

within several states and, in some regions, territories. Figure 1 shows the 

states included in each of the 10 regions.

Background 
 

Page 5 GAO-12-109 Superfund

Figure 1: EPA’s 10 Regions
 

Page 6 GAO-12-109 Superfund

This section discusses (1) EPA’s process for cleaning up Superfund sites, 

(2) EPA’s enforcement process for site cleanup, (3) the Trust Fund 

established under CERCLA, (4) EPA’s use of special accounts for 

Superfund cleanup, and (5) the EPA IG’s recommendations for better 

management of these special accounts.

EPA’s Superfund cleanup process can be lengthy, sometimes taking 

decades to clean up contamination to the standards selected for a site. 

The cleanup process involves a series of steps during which specific 

activities take place or decisions are made. The first step occurs when the 

Superfund program is notified of a potential site through various 

mechanisms, including receipt of citizens’ petitions, and referrals or 

notifications from states, tribes, and other federal agencies. Following 

notification, a site undergoes a minimal screening process, called a preCERCLIS screening, to determine whether a site assessment process is 

appropriate. Sites deemed appropriate are added to the CERCLIS active 

site inventory. During the site assessment process, EPA and states 

collect data to identify, evaluate, and rank hazardous waste sites based 

on Hazard Ranking System criteria.6

EPA or a PRP will begin the remedial process by conducting a two-part 

study of the site: (1) a remedial investigation to characterize site 

Using these criteria, EPA and/or its 

state and tribal partners conduct a preliminary assessment and, if 

warranted, a site inspection or other more in-depth assessment to 

determine whether the site warrants short- or long-term cleanup attention. 

Sites that EPA determines are among the nation’s most seriously 

contaminated hazardous waste sites are placed on the National Priorities 

List (NPL) for attention under the federal Superfund program. Cleanup 

work under CERCLA generally involves two categories of actions: shortterm removal actions that address immediate threats to human health and 

the environment, and long-term remedial actions that aim to permanently 

or significantly reduce contamination. Only sites on the NPL are eligible 

for Trust Fund-financed remedial actions, but sites not listed on the NPL 

may be remediated with private funds, in some instances with EPA 

oversight. EPA conducts removal actions at both NPL and non-NPL sites.

 

6

The Hazard Ranking System is a numerically based screening system that uses 

available information—such as from initial, limited investigations—to assess the relative 

potential for releases of hazardous substances at sites to pose a threat to human health or 

the environment. 

EPA’s Process for Cleaning 

Up Superfund Sites
 

Page 7 GAO-12-109 Superfund

conditions and assess the risks to human health and the environment, 

among other actions and (2) a feasibility study to evaluate various options 

to address the problems identified through the remedial investigation. The 

culmination of these studies is a record of decision, which identifies the 

selected remedy for addressing the site’s contamination and a cost 

estimate for implementing the remedy. EPA or the PRP may develop 

preliminary estimates of construction costs and, as the site moves from 

the study phase into the remedial action phase, a more accurate cost 

estimate may be developed. The method of implementation for the 

selected remedy is then developed during remedial design and 

implemented during the remedial action phase, when actual cleanup of 

the site occurs.

When all construction of the cleanup remedy at a site is finished, all 

immediate threats have been addressed, and all long-term threats are 

under control, EPA generally considers the site to be “construction 

complete.” Sites where additional work is required after construction is 

completed then enter into the postconstruction phase, which includes 

actions such as operation and maintenance and conducting 5-year 

reviews.7

 

7

CERCLA regulations require reviews every 5 years of the integrity of the remedy at a site 

where hazardous substances remain on-site above levels that permit unrestricted use and 

unlimited exposure, even after deletion from the NPL.

When EPA in consultation with the state determines that no 

further site response is appropriate, then EPA may delete the site from 

the NPL. Figure 2 illustrates the typical Superfund process for cleaning up 

a site.
 

Page 8 GAO-12-109 Superfund

Figure 2: Phases of the Typical Superfund Site Cleanup Process

Thus, EPA may incur a variety of costs in implementing the Superfund 

program at particular sites. EPA may spend funds to investigate and 

clean up sites, including short-term removals at any site, and long-term 

remedial actions at NPL sites. EPA may also incur costs for oversight 

associated with a site cleanup where a private party is conducting and 

funding the cleanup.

EPA may enter into agreements with PRPs for those parties to conduct 

cleanups, compel site cleanups by PRPs, or conduct cleanups itself and 

seek reimbursement for its costs from those parties. EPA’s enforcement 

of environmental cleanup at Superfund sites begins with the identification 

of the PRPs, usually early in the cleanup process; continues throughout 

site cleanup; and often does not conclude until after the site is declared 

construction complete. EPA identifies PRPs by, among other actions, 

reviewing documentation related to the site; conducting interviews with 

government officials or other knowledgeable parties; performing historical 

research on the site; sampling soil or groundwater at the site; and 

requesting additional information from relevant parties. In addition to 

identifying PRPs, EPA attempts to obtain information on the type and 

amount of hazardous substances shipped to a site by each party and any 

financial constraints faced by the identified parties.

EPA may begin a cleanup process before it has identified PRPs. 

However, once it identifies PRPs, it typically seeks to reach a settlement 

EPA’s Enforcement 

Process for Superfund 

Site Cleanup
 

Page 9 GAO-12-109 Superfund

with them on their cleanup responsibilities and/or their payment for 

cleanup costs that EPA incurs. These negotiations generally may take 

place at any time throughout the site cleanup process. We have 

previously found that in reaching these settlements, EPA’s and the PRPs’ 

decisions are influenced by site-specific characteristics and other key 

considerations, such as the expected cost of site cleanup, the strength of 

EPA’s evidence of PRP liability, and the number and type of other PRPs.8

CERCLA established the Trust Fund to support Superfund program 

activities. EPA generally can use appropriated monies from the Trust 

Fund for short-term cleanups and for long-term cleanups of NPL sites.

For example, EPA may elect to use such funds at sites for which the 

parties responsible for site contamination cannot be found or are unwilling 

or unable to clean up a site, to initiate work pending settlement, or in an 

emergency.9 Historically, the Trust Fund received revenue from four 

major sources: taxes on crude oil and certain chemicals, as well as an 

environmental tax assessed on corporations based on their taxable 

income;10 transfers via appropriations from the general fund of the 

Treasury; fines, penalties, and recoveries from PRPs; and interest earned 

on the balance of the Trust Fund. In 1995, the authority for the taxes 

expired and, as of November 2011, had not been reinstated. As of 2011, 

the Trust Fund’s primary source of revenue is the transfer from the 

general fund of the Treasury. At the end of fiscal year 2010, the Trust 

Fund had total assets and liabilities of $3.74 billion, with nearly 55 percent 

of that total in special accounts.

 

8

GAO, Superfund: Litigation Has Decreased and EPA Needs Better Information on Site 

Cleanup and Cost Issues to Estimate Future Program Funding Requirements, 

GAO-09-656 (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2009). 

9

EPA may use Trust Fund monies on remedial actions at a site only if that site is listed on 

the NPL, but EPA can use Trust Fund monies for removal actions at any nonfederal site. 

This funding restriction does not apply to cleanup actions funded with special account 

funds.

10The Trust Fund may receive an occasional corporate tax payment from an amended tax 

return. However, the petroleum and chemical taxes expired on December 31, 1995, and 

the corporate environmental income tax expired for taxable years commencing after 

December 31, 1995.

The Trust Fund 

Established Under 

CERCLA 
 

Page 10 GAO-12-109 Superfund

Section 122(b)(3) of CERCLA allows EPA to retain and use funds 

received pursuant to an agreement with a PRP for purposes of carrying 

out an agreement. EPA retains those funds in subaccounts of the Trust 

Fund called “special accounts.” As part of the settlement, those funds 

placed in a special account may be used for that specific site or may be 

transferred by EPA to the general portion of the Trust Fund. EPA’s goal in 

establishing special accounts is to preserve the use of annual 

congressionally appropriated funds for cleanup at sites without a viable 

PRP. EPA regions are encouraged to create and use special accounts as 

an incentive to secure PRP cleanups and to fund EPA’s cleanup when it 

has lead responsibility. EPA officials said that they believe that PRPs are 

more willing to settle when assured that their settlement money will 

generally be used at the site where they hold liability, rather than at 

another site.

According to EPA guidance, regions should strive to use model 

(standardized) settlement language to establish special accounts. The 

model language is intended to allow EPA flexibility in deciding for what 

specific response actions special account funds can be used and 

therefore when to use these funds. It allows EPA to use the funds for a 

response action at the site associated with the account, and EPA 

guidance states that special account funds are site-specific and are 

generally not available for EPA to use at other sites. The model language 

also retains EPA’s authority to transfer funds from a special account to 

the general portion of the Trust Fund for future appropriation by 

Congress. EPA guidance notes that the language of the actual agreement 

governs EPA use of a particular special account’s funds.

Generally, funds may be deposited in a special account regardless of 

whether the settling party is performing the work. According to EPA, the 

agency typically receives funds as a result of agreements entered when 

the PRPs are unable or unwilling to perform the response action, as is the 

case in a bankruptcy or an “ability to pay” settlement for parties facing 

financial difficulties. EPA may also determine that the hazardous 

substance contributed by a particular PRP was minimal in amount and 

toxicity compared with other substances at a site and therefore allow that 

party a de minimis settlement.11

 

11To qualify parties as de minimis, CERCLA authorizes EPA to use its judgment as to 

whether the hazardous substances contributed by parties are minimal in amount and 

toxicity in comparison with other substances at the site. CERCLA requires EPA to offer 

settlements to such parties.

In addition, PRPs who are conducting 

EPA’s Use of Special 

Accounts for Superfund 

Cleanup 
 

Page 11 GAO-12-109 Superfund

some response actions may make payments to EPA to address past or 

future response actions. EPA’s costs of overseeing the PRPs’ 

implementation of the work are usually included in future response costs. 

These payments may be made for the estimated amount of oversight or 

on a periodic basis. However, under its guidance, EPA is only to establish 

a special account for a site where future cleanup work remains at a site. 

According to EPA officials, they prefer to establish one centralized special 

account per site because this generally allows them to more easily 

manage funds for a site, but certain situations may require more than one 

account for a site. For example, multiple special accounts for one site 

may be established for amounts that EPA will provide or disburse to 

PRPs who agree to perform the response work (serving as a settlement 

incentive for the PRPs to perform the work), or for each separate 

operable unit or different response action at a site.12

Once settlement proceeds are deposited in a special account, EPA 

regional staff enter plans for the use of those funds into CERCLIS. 

According to EPA guidance, regional staff, such as the sites’ regional 

remedial project managers, are to evaluate the planned uses of special 

account funds on an ongoing basis, as warranted by site activity, to 

ensure that these resources are used efficiently and effectively and make 

corresponding changes to their planned use as appropriate. The regional 

staff are to consider both the short- and long-term plans for the site; thus 

they often plan several fiscal years in advance. According to the 

guidance, estimates of EPA’s future response costs at a site should be 

based on the best information available at a given point in time and the 

best professional judgment of regional staff. Various EPA groups, 

including regional counsel, regional program management, regional 

finance, and headquarters staff are all involved in this planning process.

In general, according to EPA guidance, special account funds should be 

used prior to annual congressional appropriations. This guidance 

establishes priorities for the use of special account funds, referred to as 

the General Hierarchy of Special Account Use. According to this 

hierarchy, funds in special accounts should be

 

12An operable unit commonly refers to a geographical area, contaminated medium, or 

chronological phase of a cleanup. The division of a site into multiple operable units serves 

to better inform stakeholders of the manner in which EPA expects to manage the cleanup 

of a site. 
 

Page 12 GAO-12-109 Superfund

• used to facilitate settlement with PRPs for response actions;

• used to fund EPA’s costs for response actions;

• reclassified to reimburse previous EPA site expenditures made from 

annual congressional appropriations; reclassification is available when 

an EPA region reasonably estimates that the special account contains 

more funds than are needed to address all known and potential future 

work at the site.13

• transferred to the general portion of the Trust Fund, when 

reclassification has already been considered and is not appropriate, 

and the special account balance exceeds the estimated known and 

potential future cleanup costs at that site.

Funds made available from reclassification may be 

used by EPA at another Superfund site for the same category of 

expenditure as the costs being reimbursed; and

14

Typically, EPA closes special accounts when (1) all site work has been 

completed; (2) no funds are left in the account, and no future deposits are

anticipated; or (3) EPA does not anticipate incurring any additional costs 

at those sites. To close an account, the remaining funds in the special 

account, if any, are then transferred to the general portion of the Trust 

Fund to increase the balance available for future appropriation for 

cleanups.

In contrast to reclassified 

funds, transferred funds require a future congressional appropriation 

to make the funds available for use by EPA.

In March 2009, EPA’s IG reported on EPA’s management of special 

accounts, finding that, if EPA had had better management controls in 

place at that time, more funds would have been available for Superfund 

cleanup. According to the 2009 IG report, EPA had a decentralized 

management control structure for overseeing the use of special accounts.

Management oversight was fragmented—no single office at headquarters 

 

13The reclassification of special account funds is intended to put EPA in the same position 

it would have been in if the PRP settlement proceeds had been received prior to the 

expenditure of Superfund appropriation resources at that site.

14Generally funds that are not used for future response work at a site are reclassified or 

transferred to the general portion of the Trust Fund, rather than returned to PRPs, unless

it is specifically written into the settlement that they should be returned to PRPs.

EPA IG’s 

Recommendations for 

Better Management of 

Special Accounts
 

Page 13 GAO-12-109 Superfund

or the regions was responsible for managing, overseeing, and 

coordinating special accounts work. In addition, the IG found that EPA 

headquarters did not have a structured approach for following up on 

regional plans to use special account funds to ensure that they were 

being managed correctly and that EPA lacked detailed guidance and 

policy on the proper use, management, and monitoring of special 

accounts funds. As a result, among other things, the IG recommended 

that EPA designate a central management official for special accounts 

with responsibility for developing an action plan to ensure that 

management accountability and related issues regarding special 

accounts were addressed. The IG stated that this action plan should 

include, among other things, (1) a process for ensuring completed 

CERCLIS reports with accurate special accounts data to manage the 

program and improve performance; (2) an annual planning process—

including a determination that regional special account funds will be used 

consistent with the General Hierarchy—to aid in monitoring special 

accounts; (3) development of headquarters and regional controls that 

include follow-up to make sure planned or requested uses (e.g., 

reclassifications and transfers to the Trust Fund of special account funds) 

were conducted; and (4) establishment of guidance and policy that 

addresses the proper application and amount of special account funds 

that should be reserved for future use. In addition, the IG recommended 

that EPA regularly analyze the “oldest accounts” for opportunities to 

better use special account funds.
 

Page 14 GAO-12-109 Superfund

From fiscal year 1990 through October 2010, EPA collected from PRPs 

over $3.7 billion that it placed in 1,023 special accounts.15 Nearly half of 

these funds—$1.8 billion—are still available to be obligated for future 

Superfund cleanup; and the remaining funds—$1.9 billion—have already 

been obligated, but not all of these obligated funds have been 

disbursed.16 In addition, for fiscal years 1990 through 2010, all EPA 

regions reclassified about $131 million from 96 special accounts to pay 

for previous EPA site expenditures, transferred about $14 million from 39 

accounts to the general portion of the Trust Fund, and closed 76 

accounts.

As of October 2010, of the $3.7 billion that it placed in 1,023 special 

accounts, EPA held nearly $1.8 billion in unobligated funds in 947 open 

accounts—accounts that have funds available for use in future cleanup 

responses at specific sites—at 769 Superfund sites;17 503 of these sites 

are currently on the NPL. The number of special accounts increased 

significantly from 2001 through 2010: 854 of the 1,023 accounts, or 83 

percent, were established during this period. Table 1 shows these 

accounts by region, with the number of open accounts, sites, NPL 

designation, and unobligated funds.

 

15The $3.7 billion includes approximately $378 million in accrued interest that has been 

earned on all special accounts since the inception of the program. Interest begins to 

accrue from the date that the special account is established and is calculated each month 

based on the average daily balance within each special account. Interest rate for special 

accounts is approximately the same as the Trust Fund interest rate, which was 2.24 

percent in fiscal year 2010. 

16EPA considers special account funds that have been reclassified to be disbursed. 

Transfers to the general portion of the Trust Fund represent a reduction in the amount of 

receipts and interest earned that are available for obligation.

17Ninety-nine Superfund sites have multiple special accounts. 

About Half of the $3.7 

Billion that EPA Has 

Collected in Special 

Accounts Is Available 

for Future Superfund 

Cleanup 

Status of Unobligated 

Funds in EPA Special 

Accounts 
 

Page 15 GAO-12-109 Superfund

Table 1: Open Superfund Special Accounts and Sites, Including NPL Sites, by EPA Region, as of October 2010

Dollars in millions

EPA 

region

Number of 

open special 

accounts

Percentage of 

special accounts 

by region 

Number of sites 

with special 

accounts

Number of sites with 

special accounts on 

the NPL a

Percentage of sites

with special accounts 

on the NPL 

Total unobligated 

funds in special 

accounts

1 66 7.0% 62 55 88.7% $121

2 94 9.9% 93 80 86.0% 192

3 116 12.2% 103 86 83.5% 75

4 68 7.2% 68 35 51.5% 61

5 212 22.4% 180 93 51.7% 195

6 63 6.7% 45 22 48.9% 100

7 68 7.2% 63 28 44.4% 319

8 72 7.6% 55 30 54.5% 262

9 93 9.8% 62 51 82.3% 330

10 95 10.0% 38 23 60.5% 140

Total 947 100% 769 503 65.4% $1,795

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

a

The majority of available special account funds are concentrated in a 

small number of special accounts. As of October 2010, 33 open accounts, 

or 3 percent, had a total of $1 billion available, or 61 percent of the total 

amount available in special accounts. Table 2 below shows the number of

open accounts that have an available balance of less than $500,000, from 

$500,000 to $10 million, and greater than $10 million.

Sites may have more than one special account.

Table 2: Open Superfund Special Accounts Grouped in Categories by Unobligated Balance, as of October 2010 

Dollars in millions

Open accounts Unobligated balance

Unobligated balance Number Percentage Sum Percentage

Greater than $10 million 33 3% $1,102 61

From $500K to $10 million 292 31% $605 34

Less than $500K 622 66% $88 5 

Total 947 100% $1,795 100

Source: EPA.

As of October 2010, EPA had plans to obligate 99.8 percent of the $1.8 

billion available in special accounts, according to our analysis of EPA 

CERCLIS data. EPA tracks plans for unobligated special account funds in 
 

Page 16 GAO-12-109 Superfund

CERCLIS by three categories: (1) planned obligations; (2) additional 

reserved uses (estimated costs) not captured as planned obligations; and 

(3) amounts for work parties (e.g., generally PRPs who have agreed to 

conduct response work under a settlement agreement) that are included 

in settlements but have not yet been distributed to them. Specifically:

• Planned obligations are costs anticipated by EPA to be incurred in 

association with specific site response actions. Planned obligations 

are grouped into five categories: removal and removal support, 

pipeline operations,18 remedial action, enforcement, and federal 

facilities.19

• Additional reserved uses are regional staff’s estimated costs for 

possible or long-term future actions. This category includes 14 

different types of potential uses, such as 5-year reviews.20

• Amounts for work parties refers to funds promised in settlements to 

parties performing the cleanup work at the site; these are amounts 

that were used as a settlement incentive in negotiations with potential 

work parties.

Reclassifications and transfers to the Trust Fund are also included in 

this category, but EPA prefers to break out this information separately 

for the purpose of evaluating the data in management reviews.

Figure 3 shows, as of October 2010, how EPA planned to use 

unobligated funds in special accounts.

 

18According to EPA documentation, the category “pipeline operations” contains all other 

planned special account obligations that fall under Superfund’s remedial program, 

including investigations, oversight, etc., and the category “remedial action” includes all 

planned special account obligations for removal, remedial action, long-term response 

action, and one 5-year review under Superfund’s remedial program. 

19These five categories in CERCLIS are used by EPA to categorize funding for the 

purpose of the program’s budget structure process. 

20Only one 5-year review can be entered as a planned obligation in CERCLIS. This 

category may be used to enter estimates for subsequent 5-year reviews, also referred to 

as outyear 5-year reviews.
 

Page 17 GAO-12-109 Superfund

Figure 3: EPA’s National Planned Uses for $1.8 billion in Special Account Funds, 

Beginning Fiscal Year 2011

Note: The total percentage exceeds 100 percent due to the rounding of the values.

Planned obligations were made for 64.9 percent—$1.16 billion—of the 

$1.8 billion in unobligated funds at the beginning of fiscal year 2011, 

according to our analysis of EPA data. Funds designated for remedial 

action and pipeline operations made up the largest portions of the $1.16 

billion. Approximately $671 million, or 58 percent of these funds, were 

planned for remedial action, and $418 million, or 36 percent of these 

funds, were planned for pipeline operations.

According to EPA headquarters officials, in some instances, funds for 

anticipated long-duration Superfund cleanup actions may be planned as 

much as 40 or 50 years in advance, when there are enough funds in an 

account to plan that far in advance. Regional data indicate that, of the 

available special account resources that have planned obligations, more 

than half are planned to be obligated from fiscal years 2011 through 2013 

and, according to EPA officials, 95 percent will be obligated by fiscal year 

2022. However, EPA regional officials told us that the special account 

planned obligations are estimates rather than commitments. According to 

headquarters and regional officials, planned funds may not be used for 

their original planned use or may not be used in the originally designated 

fiscal year for a number of reasons, such as unforeseen issues that arise 
 

Page 18 GAO-12-109 Superfund

with Superfund cleanups, especially during the remedial investigation and 

remedial actions; EPA regional staff responding to national and regional 

emergencies; or site schedule changes. EPA regional staff must either 

delete or move forward plans to use special account funds into a 

subsequent fiscal year when special account obligations for a prior fiscal 

year are not obligated as previously planned. Table 3 shows CERCLIS 

information on the number of special accounts and associated obligations 

planned by type of EPA cleanup activity, enforcement, and federal 

facilities for fiscal years 2011 through 2070.

Table 3: Special Accounts Obligations Planned for Fiscal Years 2011-2070, by Type of Cleanup Activity, Enforcement, and 

Federal Facilities 

Dollars in millions

Removal and 

removal support Pipeline operations Remedial action Enforcement Federal facilities

Fiscal 

year

Number 

of 

accounts Value

Number 

of 

accounts Value

Number 

of 

accounts Value

Number 

of 

accounts Value

Number 

of 

accounts Value Total

2011-

2013 44 $62.80 398 $208.37 173 $437.34 12 $5.47 14 $2.65 $716.63

2014-

2016 6 3.22 151 82.95 78 205.29 2 0.15 1 0.13 $291.74

2017-

2019 1 0.23 69 38.94 13 26.93 1 0.05 0 0 $66.15

2020-

2022 1 0.15 42 34.14 6 1.76 0 0 0 0 $36.04

2023-

2025 0 0 29 15.66 0 0 0 0 0 0 $15.66

2026-

2070 0 0 25 38.14 0 0 0 0 0 0 $38.14

Total 52 $66.40 714 $418.19a 270 $671.32 15 $5.67 15 $2.78 $1,164.36

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

a

Additional reserved uses made up 32.6 percent—or $585 million—the 

second largest portion of the national planned uses for all special account 

funds in fiscal year 2011. According to EPA officials, they have not yet 

entered these estimates as specific planned obligations in CERCLIS 

because the planning of these funds is more challenging to predict or in 

some cases, there are limitations for how obligations can be entered into 

CERCLIS. For example, only one 5-year review can be entered as a 

planned obligation in CERCLIS as a site financial transaction. The 

The total in this column does not add up due to the rounding of the values.
 

Page 19 GAO-12-109 Superfund

“outyear five year review” field may be used to enter estimates for 

subsequent 5-year reviews. Other funds under this category represent 

such items as potential EPA work takeover from a PRP where the PRP 

does not have adequate or liquid financial assurance and anticipated 

costs prior to determination of the final remedy for cleanup. This category 

also includes special account funds that are planned for reclassification or 

transfer to the Trust Fund, which we discuss in greater detail later.

Amounts for work parties were approximately $42.2 million—or about 2.4 

percent of the $1.8 billion in unobligated special account funds—as 

promised in settlements, as of the beginning of fiscal year 2011, 

according to EPA regions’ planning documents. These funds will be 

disbursed to work parties as they submit claims for reimbursement to 

EPA, in accordance with milestones established in the settlement 

documents.

The unassigned remaining balance was approximately 0.2 percent of 

special account funds, or approximately $3 million, as of October 2010. 

According to the national special accounts coordinator, EPA headquarters 

generally permits a small amount of the total balance of unobligated 

special account funds to remain unplanned. However, according to an 

EPA official, headquarters staff question regions when the unassigned 

remaining balance of a special account is generally more than 10 percent 

of its available balance, more than 10 percent of the total available funds 

for the region, or more than $100,000 per account.

As of October 2010, of the total accumulated receipts of $3.7 billion in 

1,023 special accounts, about $1.9 billion had been obligated for site 

specific response work, according to our analysis of EPA data.21

Furthermore, EPA regions have not disbursed any funds from 240 of the 

947 open special accounts with a total of $228 million available in these 

accounts. Twenty-five of these 240 accounts include unliquidated 

Of this 

total, EPA had disbursed approximately $1.6 billion for Superfund cleanup 

expenses; the remaining $247 million in obligations had not yet been

disbursed (i.e., unliquidated obligations).

 

21Obligations in this report refer to funds that have been disbursed, as well as unliquidated 

obligations, which are obligations incurred but not yet paid for.

Status of Obligated Special 

Account Funds
 

Page 20 GAO-12-109 Superfund

obligations. According to officials from regions that had large numbers of 

special accounts with no disbursements, there are numerous reasons for 

not having disbursed any funds from these accounts for site cleanup. For 

example, one regional official stated that funds are often deposited in 

special accounts early in the Superfund site cleanup process, sometimes 

years before cleanup at the site actually begins. Also, regions often retain 

funds in special accounts for contingency purposes if cleanup plans 

change (e.g., potential EPA work takeover at a later date). Another 

regional official stated that numerous special accounts in the region had 

recently received sizeable deposits from a large bankruptcy settlement, 

and the funds have been planned for but not obligated as of the time of 

our review.

Historically, EPA has conducted few reclassifications or transfers of funds 

to the general portion of the Trust Fund. Recently, however, EPA regions 

have begun to reclassify more funds from open special accounts. While 

all EPA regions reclassified about $131 million from 96 special accounts 

during the 20-year period from fiscal years 1990 through 2010, about 

$111 million, or about 85 percent, of this amount was reclassified during 

the last 3 years of this period. In addition, since fiscal year 1990, EPA has 

transferred about $14 million from 39 special accounts to the Trust Fund.

According to EPA guidance, for reclassification and transfer, regions 

should provide planning estimates for the current fiscal year, as well as 

the two subsequent fiscal years. According to EPA data, for fiscal years 

2011 through 2013, about 4.1 percent—$74 million—of the total $1.8 

billion in unobligated special account funds were designated for 

reclassification or transfer to the Trust Fund. Of the $74 million, EPA 

regions plan to reclassify about $61 million, or about 82 percent, from 

special accounts and to transfer the remaining $13 million. EPA’s plans to 

reclassify or transfer funds may change as a result of changing site 

conditions throughout the Superfund cleanup process. For example, in 

fiscal year 2010, EPA planned to reclassify $43 million and transfer about 

$4 million; however, at the end of the fiscal year, EPA actually had 

reclassified only $26 million and transferred about $3 million. Tables 4 

and 5 show, by region, the number and value of special accounts planned 

for reclassification and transfer for fiscal years 2011 to 2013, as of 

October 2010.

Status of Reclassification, 

Transfer of Funds, and 

Closure of Special 

Accounts 
 

Page 21 GAO-12-109 Superfund

Table 4: Special Account Funds Planned for Reclassification, Fiscal Years 2011-2013, as of October 2010

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year 2011 Fiscal year 2012 Fiscal year 2013

Region

Number of 

accounts

Reclassification 

amount

Number of 

accounts 

Reclassification 

amount

Number of 

accounts 

Reclassification 

amount

1 3 $2.5 0 $0 0 $0

2 5 3.8 4 1.9 0 0 

3 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 

4 14 8.1 4 2.3 1 1.1

5 7 7.8 1 1.9 0 0 

6 5 6.4 0 0 0 0 

7 7 1.1 4 1.0 1 0.2

8 0 0 0 0 0 0 

9 3 12.8 0 0 0 0 

10 4 1.6 4 7.8 0 0 

Total 49 $44.6 17 $14.9 2 $1.3

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

Table 5: Special Account Funds Planned for Transfer to the Trust Fund, Fiscal Years 2011-2013, as of October 2010

Dollars in millions

Fiscal year 2011 Fiscal year 2012 Fiscal year 2013

Region

Number of 

accounts

Transfer 

amount

Number of 

accounts

Transfer 

amount

Number of 

accounts

Transfer 

amount

1 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

2 4 0.6 2 2.3 0 0 

3 6 0.9 0 0 0 0 

4 2 0.9 0 0 0 0 

5 18 6.0 1 0.05 0 0 

6 4 0.8 0 0 0 0 

7 2 0.5 0 0 0 0 

8 1 0.2 2 0.001 0 0 

9 1 0.5 0 0 0 0 

10 1 0.005 1 0.01 0 0 

Total 39 $10.2a 6 $2.4 0 0 

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.

a

The total in this column does not add up due to the rounding of the values.
 

Page 22 GAO-12-109 Superfund

EPA guidance states that reclassifications and transfers to the Trust Fund 

should not take place until it can be reasonably estimated that the special 

account contains more funds than are needed for remaining response 

actions at the site. Therefore, according to EPA officials, it is generally 

easier for the regions to determine if special account funds can be 

reclassified or transferred once response actions at a site are 

substantially complete. EPA officials said that they consider “Construction 

Complete,” “NPL Delete,” and “Post Construction” to be the three phases 

in the Superfund cleanup process when a site most likely can be 

considered substantially complete and, therefore, the funds in a special 

account may be considered for reclassification or transferred to the Trust 

Fund. As of October 2010, the cleanup activities at 297 of the 769 

Superfund sites with open accounts were considered substantially 

complete, according to our analysis of EPA data, and therefore more 

likely to have funds eligible to be reclassified or transferred than sites in 

the earlier stages of the cleanup process. Table 6 presents the number of 

Superfund sites with special accounts in each phase or milestone of the 

cleanup process, from the remedial investigation/feasibility study to 

deletion from the NPL, as of October 2010.

Table 6: Number of Sites with Special Accounts in Each Phase or Milestone of the 

Superfund Cleanup Process, as of October 2010

Cleanup phase or milestone

Number of 

sites with 

special 

accounts

Remedial investigation/Feasibility 

study

b

Remedial assessment not begun 40

Study under way 169

Study complete 11

Record of decision Remedy selected a 22

Remedial design Design under way 52

Design complete 2 

Remedial action Construction under way 45

Remedial action complete 9 

Miscellaneous (other responses, such as the removal process) 122

Construction completea 2 

Postconstruction 263

Deletion from NPLa 32

Total sites 769

Source: GAO analysis of EPA data.
 

Page 23 GAO-12-109 Superfund

a

These steps are considered “milestones” in the Superfund cleanup process.

b

EPA requires special accounts to be closed when (1) all site work has 

been completed, (2) no funds are left in the account and no future 

deposits are anticipated, or (3) EPA does not anticipate incurring any 

additional costs at those sites. As of October 2010, EPA had closed 76 

special accounts since the beginning of the program; these accounts 

were open an average of 7 years. According to our analysis of EPA data, 

EPA closed 9 special accounts from fiscal years 2000 through 2005 and 

67 accounts from fiscal years 2006 through 2010, including 33 in fiscal 

year 2010. According to EPA officials, the steady increase in closures has 

occurred because the regions are improving their management of special 

accounts and closing accounts where no funds remain or funds are no 

longer needed for future work.

The site designations that are noted here are based on the action at a site associated with a special 

account that is least advanced in the Superfund cleanup process. Other actions may be taking place 

at these sites that are more advanced in the Superfund cleanup process.

In response to the IG’s findings and recommendations, 22 as well as EPA 

officials’ own recognition that the agency needed to provide better 

oversight of the special accounts process, EPA has implemented the 

following processes and policies in the last few years to better monitor 

and manage special accounts: (1) processes to better plan the use of 

special account funds, (2) increased oversight of special accounts by 

designating a national special accounts coordinator, and a Special 

Accounts Senior Management Committee, and (3) strategies and 

guidance on how to plan for using and monitoring special accounts.

To facilitate regional management and headquarters planning and review 

of special accounts, in 2008, EPA established a process to better track 

planned uses for special account funds. That is, it established a section in 

CERCLIS—referred to as the Special Account Management Screen (or 

planning screen)—that enables EPA regions to see and enter special 

account planning data into specific data fields and create reports so that 

 

22According to EPA, it has closed out all recommendations from the two IG reports. The 

IG has not conducted a follow-on review to the 2009 report to determine the sufficiency of 

all of EPA’s responses.

EPA Has 

Implemented 

Processes and 

Policies in Recent 

Years to Better 

Monitor and Manage 

Superfund 

Special Accounts

EPA Has Implemented 

Processes to Better Plan 

for Use of Funds in 

Special Accounts
 

Page 24 GAO-12-109 Superfund

both EPA headquarters and regional officials can monitor the special 

account balances against planned obligations for ongoing and future sitespecific response activities. According to EPA officials, reports based on 

data entered into fields on this screen have allowed both EPA 

headquarters and regional staff to review the data to assure that, among 

other things, the agency maximizes opportunities to use, reclassify, or 

transfer these resources to the general portion of the Trust Fund over 

time.

In the first few years of using this new planning screen, regional staff 

noticed that some funds did not easily fit into the specified categories in 

the screen, and they had to place the funds under other catchall fields, 

according to EPA headquarters officials. As a result, in December 2010, 

EPA added four new fields under the reserved use section and combined 

two categories into one. These changes are intended to allow EPA 

headquarters staff to better track the regions’ funding plans and to comply 

with guidance issued in September 2010 clarifying how special account 

funds are to be planned and used. For example, EPA headquarters 

created a new field for funds reserved for a potential EPA takeover of the 

work if one or more PRPs who are performing the site cleanup work 

become insolvent; in such cases, EPA might have to fund necessary work 

with special account funds. According to officials we spoke with in one 

EPA region, these changes have helped reduce the number of questions 

and concerns from headquarters during its reviews of regions’ plans to 

allocate funds.

Before the IG’s 2009 report, EPA had recognized that it needed to better 

oversee the regions’ management of special accounts, according to an 

EPA headquarters official. In 2008, an EPA staff person in the Office of 

Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation—with assistance 

from staff from other offices such as the Office of Site Remediation 

Enforcement and Office of the Chief Financial Officer—was permanently 

assigned to coordinate the management of special accounts with the 

regions. This headquarters staff person—the national special accounts 

coordinator—conducts annual and midyear reviews and holds 

discussions with regional staff to evaluate regions’ plans to allocate 

special account funds, among other things. Specifically, every August, in 

preparation for the annual review of these funds, the coordinator analyzes 

planning data on all open special accounts using monitoring reports 

developed from CERCLIS data to ensure that regions are entering quality 

data into CERCLIS, complying with special account guidance, and 

effectively managing special accounts.

EPA Has Increased 

Oversight for 

Special Accounts
 

Page 25 GAO-12-109 Superfund

The coordinator told us that she focuses on particular details of a special 

account in the annual review that may indicate a potential for special 

account management problems. In particular, the coordinator examines 

accounts that (1) disbursed no funds, and (2) have a large amount of 

funds remaining although construction is complete or the site has been 

deleted from the NPL, and (3) those accounts that are 10 years old or 

more. In addition, the coordinator stated that she looks closely at certain 

types of special accounts on a regular basis, such as the following:

• Accounts with balances over $10 million. The coordinator examines 

these accounts—which make up 61 percent of available special 

account balances—to see the types of actions that have occurred. For 

example, the coordinator told us that she checks whether planned 

funding for prior fiscal years was actually obligated and disbursed as 

planned.23

• Accounts that had planned reclassifications, transfers to the Trust 

Fund, or planned closures. The EPA coordinator told us that she 

regularly examines whether these actions have occurred. For 

example, according to EPA data, in fiscal year 2010, regions planned 

to reclassify $43.1 million from 75 accounts at the beginning of the 

year; however, the coordinator found that regions had actually 

reclassified $26.2 million from 41 accounts by the end of that fiscal 

year. For those 34 accounts where reclassification was not 

completed, 20 accounts had their planned reclassifications moved to 

future fiscal years, 10 accounts were identified as needing funds for 

further work at the site, and 4 had their planned reclassified funds 

transferred instead to the Trust Fund.

Specifically, she looks for any indications that a region 

might be continually shifting the same planned obligated funds from 

one fiscal year to the next and, if so, investigates the reasons for this 

shift.

In addition, according to the coordinator, beginning in fiscal year 2011, 

EPA focused on reviewing those special accounts with available balances 

less than $10,000 to help ensure that funds are used as quickly as 

 

23According to EPA officials, neither headquarters nor the regions systematically tracks all 

special accounts to see whether planned funds in a prior fiscal year were actually 

obligated and disbursed as planned. Headquarters and the regions see these planning 

estimates as targets rather than commitments. Therefore, to make the most efficient use 

of EPA resources in overseeing special accounts, the coordinator focuses more often on 

how accounts with larger planned amounts are being managed by the regions, as well as 

accounts that have available funds to reclassify or transfer to the Trust Fund.
 

Page 26 GAO-12-109 Superfund

possible so that the accounts can be closed. According to the coordinator, 

this review allows the regions to focus their workload efforts on managing 

the larger special accounts rather than the many accounts with relatively 

few funds.

According to the coordinator, during this annual review, she may pose 

questions regarding the regions’ planning estimates and suggest certain 

actions to ensure better management of specific special accounts. For 

example, the coordinator might suggest that the regions (1) use the funds 

in a special account as an incentive for future settlements with PRPs, (2) 

reclassify or transfer to the Trust Fund unneeded funds and close the 

account when a site cleanup is completed or near completion, (3) correct 

and update the account (such as entering funds in the proper planning 

category), (4) use special account funds before using appropriated funds, 

or (5) move previously planned obligated funds that have not yet been 

obligated in a previous fiscal year to a future fiscal year. For example, 

during the special account fiscal year 2011 annual review conducted in 

2010, the coordinator asked questions regarding the regions’ planning 

estimates on 285 special accounts. Based on our analysis of these 

planning data, we identified 65 questions or suggestions related to 

whether there was potential to reclassify or transfer to the Trust Fund 

some or all account funds or close an existing account. The remaining 

questions or suggestions identified a variety of subjects, including 

whether the planned funding was put in the wrong category on the special 

accounts planning screen in CERCLIS, and whether special account 

funds could be used as an incentive for the PRP to do the work.

During the annual review, regional staff agree to make changes or 

adequately explain the reasons why the coordinator’s suggestion should 

not be taken at that time. According to EPA regional officials we spoke 

with, all of the coordinator’s questions during the fiscal year 2011 annual 

review were addressed before the next midyear planning sessions 

conducted in the spring of 2011. However, according to a regional official 

and the coordinator, a question from a previous planning session may be 

asked again in subsequent planning sessions if it was not entirely or 

sufficiently addressed. In some cases, the coordinator stated she wanted 

to obtain more detailed information from the region to ensure that funds 

were planned for use in the most effective and efficient way possible. In 

other cases, while funds were planned in accordance with guidance, the 

regional officials and the coordinator had a difference of opinion on the 

best planned use of funds.
 

Page 27 GAO-12-109 Superfund

To examine this process in more detail, we sampled 20 accounts from 

EPA headquarters’ 2010 annual planning review of 285 accounts about 

which the coordinator had questions. For all of these accounts, the 

regions addressed all the coordinator’s questions or took the 

recommended action requested or suggested by the coordinator. For 

example, the coordinator questioned $989,000 in special account funds 

that were placed in the “Other” field without a detailed explanation on 

when the determination for use of these funds would be made. As a result 

of discussions with EPA headquarters and a change to the planning 

screen, these funds were moved to a new field created in December 

2010—”Protectiveness Contingencies.” According to EPA documentation, 

this field should be used when current site information indicates there is 

reasonable potential that a remedy will not be protective in the future. For 

the account in question, EPA regional officials determined that available 

special account funds for the site would still be needed to protect nearby 

residences from the effects of a hazardous chemical contamination—

Trichloroethylene (TCE).24

According to the coordinator, once the planning discussions take place, 

the regions are expected to make any corrections to planned special 

account funds in CERCLIS. The coordinator then reviews the data again 

and uses this information to establish a baseline for fiscal year planning. 

In addition, the coordinator provides an annual work planning review 

report to EPA management in December. In March of the following year, 

the coordinator conducts midyear reviews to follow up on regional issues 

and to monitor planned actions previously identified.

The remedy chosen for this TCE

contamination in the groundwater—an underground drainage system—

had not resulted in lower contamination levels, and EPA had found vapor 

intrusion in the crawl spaces of houses located at the site. EPA 

determined that it would need the special account funds to assess 

whether new migration systems need to be installed to prevent inhalation 

of TCE from the crawl spaces.

EPA headquarters holds bimonthly national conference calls with regional 

officials to discuss any special accounts issues that have arisen and to 

discuss possible changes to the special accounts process to make it 

 

24TCE, a degreasing agent in metal cleaning that has been used widely in Department of 

Defense industrial and maintenance processes, has been documented at low exposure 

levels to cause headaches and difficulty concentrating. High-level exposure may cause 

dizziness, headaches, nausea, unconsciousness, cancer, and possibly death.
 

Page 28 GAO-12-109 Superfund

more efficient. Several regional officials we spoke with stated that, 

between the conference calls, and other events, such as the annual 

Superfund Special Accounts National Meeting and Cost Recovery 

Training Conference,25

In 2009, in response to the IG’s recommendation that a central 

management official in headquarters for special accounts be established 

to ensure management accountability, EPA established a Special 

Accounts Senior Management Committee. Unlike the coordinator, who 

has daily responsibility for special accounts, the committee has broader 

responsibilities. It meets semiannually to provide overall management 

oversight and monitor the status of special accounts. The IG had 

recommended that a single office in headquarters be responsible for the 

management of special accounts, but EPA officials told us that the 

agency did not think this was a workable arrangement because the 

management of special accounts requires the involvement of, and 

coordination among, several EPA offices, including the regional offices. 

The committee consists of directors from EPA headquarters offices 

involved in the special accounts process, including the Office of 

Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, the Office of Site 

Remediation Enforcement, and the Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 

as well as directors of relevant Superfund divisions from the regions. 

Regional representation is rotated among regions every 2 years. A 

committee charter lists the responsibilities of each office in managing 

special accounts.

staff are provided with the information they need 

to effectively manage special accounts.

According to several EPA regional officials we spoke with who have 

responsibilities for special accounts, the level of coordination and 

transparency in managing special accounts between headquarters and 

the regions has improved over the last few years. For example, one 

regional official stated that the high level of coordination is evident from 

headquarters’ review of regional planning data and related meetings to 

discuss potential issues with specific special accounts. Another regional 

official stated that headquarters has been very responsive, sharing 

information and obtaining policy viewpoints from the region, and 

implementing ways to streamline and improve the process.

 

25At the time of our discussions with the regions, EPA held the Superfund Special 

Accounts National Meeting and Cost Recovery Training Conference annually. Recently, 

EPA has made the decision to hold this meeting bi-annually instead of annually. 
 

Page 29 GAO-12-109 Superfund

EPA has issued new strategy and guidance documents to help manage 

special accounts in response to the IG’s recommendations and EPA 

headquarters’ own recognition that the agency needed to provide a more 

nationally consistent approach to managing and monitoring special 

accounts. Specifically, EPA established the Superfund Special Accounts 

Management Strategy in 2009. This strategy sets forth the agency’s plan 

to improve the use, management, and monitoring of special accounts to 

help support Superfund site cleanups. According to EPA documentation, 

this strategy serves as a road map for EPA regional and headquarters 

personnel who are responsible for overseeing and managing special 

accounts. The Special Accounts Senior Management Committee is 

responsible for implementing this strategy. The strategy focuses on four 

main areas: (1) coordination and transparency, such as intraagency 

coordination between the EPA offices that are responsible for managing 

special accounts; (2) special account use and planning efforts, such as 

effective regional planning and use of the CERCLIS special account

planning screen; (3) monitoring special accounts, such as annual regional 

work planning and midyear reviews; and (4) regional support, guidance, 

and training.

EPA has also issued guidance on the (1) planning, use, and monitoring of 

special account funds and (2) reclassifying special account funds, 

transferring funds to the Trust Fund, and closing special accounts.

Planning, use, and monitoring of special account funds. EPA’s special 

account guidance, issued in 2010, updated and expanded previous EPA 

guidance that was originally published in 2001 and 2002. This newer 

guidance provides specific information on the proper use and planning of 

special account funds throughout the cleanup process. For example, EPA 

generally expects that planning for the use of special account funds 

occurs within 3 months after establishing a special account, and planning 

should be updated on a regular basis during the year. According to EPA 

regional officials we spoke with, they try to plan for the use of special 

account funds as soon as possible. However, according to some regional 

officials, various circumstances can affect whether planning can occur 

within 3 months. For example, they noted, large special accounts usually 

are associated with large, complex cleanup sites and therefore it is likely 

to take longer to plan how funds will be used. At the same time, officials 

said, these accounts are often a priority because of the hazards involved. 

The workload required to plan and manage accounts with large balances 

may result in less time available to plan for accounts with smaller 

balances.

EPA Has Issued Strategies 

and Guidance on Managing 

Special Accounts
 

Page 30 GAO-12-109 Superfund

EPA also issued a detailed Monitoring Plan for Special Account Planning 

Data in 2009, which EPA updated in November 2010. This plan describes 

the process that EPA headquarters and the regions should follow to 

monitor special account planning data, including the scheduled times 

when middle of fiscal year and end of fiscal year final planning data 

should be reviewed and discussed with the regions, made final, and 

reported to the Special Accounts Senior Management Committee.

Reclassifying special account funds, transferring funds to the Trust Fund, 

and closing special accounts. EPA headquarters issued detailed 

guidance on the reclassification of special account funds in 2009, 

including when EPA regions should consider doing a reclassification and 

a step-by-step description of the reclassification process the regions 

should follow. At the same time, it also issued a model memorandum for 

transferring funds from a special account to the Trust Fund and closing 

out a special account. In this guidance and memorandum, EPA states 

that regions must notify headquarters when they plan to reclassify funds, 

transfer funds to the Trust Fund, or close out an account. The regions 

must submit a draft memorandum to headquarters staff in the Office of 

Site Remediation Enforcement and the Office of Superfund Remediation 

and Technology Innovation to discuss any potential issues with the action 

prior to proceeding with the action. However, regional officials we spoke 

with stated that the process for reclassifying funds has been complex and 

that the requirements for conducting a reclassification were resource 

intensive and time consuming. For example, regions had to submit a 

memorandum with detailed information on the special account—no matter 

how small the amount of funds to be reclassified. As a result, in April 

2011, EPA headquarters issued revised model notifications to streamline 

the process and accelerate the review process for reclassifications of 

funds, transfer of funds to the Trust Fund, and closing of a special 

account. According to EPA officials, the most significant change 

eliminates the requirement for a formal memorandum for those 

transactions that involve $200,000 or less. For those transactions, EPA 

regions now only need to send an e-mail to headquarters staff informing 

them of the intended action and provide the appropriate assurances in 

accordance with guidance (e.g., if an account is to be closed, the region 

does not anticipate any future deposits). For transactions involving 

$200,000 or more, regions still need to send formal notification 

memoranda to headquarters. However, these actions can now be 

included in the same memorandum, rather than separate memorandums 

if (1) a transfer of funds to the Trust Fund or closeout occurs at the same 

time or immediately following a reclassification or (2) a closeout occurs at 
 

Page 31 GAO-12-109 Superfund

the same time or immediately following a transfer of funds to the Trust 

Fund

Several regional officials we spoke with stated that, overall the increased 

guidance has been helpful, and that EPA headquarters has done a 

thorough job of establishing any needed special accounts policy and 

guidance documents, addressing all major aspects and issues relating to 

the management of special accounts. In addition, officials from EPA 

regions 3, 5, and 9 stated that their regions have added management 

tools specific to their regions to enhance those available from 

headquarters, including a special accounts regional database, intranet 

site page, and guidance specific to their regions, respectively. An EPA 

headquarters official stated that an increased emphasis has been made 

in the last few years in headquarters to better manage the regions’ 

special account process, particularly the “back end” of the process 

involving special account reclassifications, transfers to the Trust Fund, 

and account closures. However, EPA headquarters officials told us that 

the agency has recognized it may need to be more involved in the “front 

end” of the special accounts process, when regions are deciding whether 

to establish a special account. EPA headquarters is evaluating whether it 

is efficient for the regions to open special accounts for small amounts, or 

for those sites that may be further along in the cleanup process, because 

regions need to spend time and staff resources monitoring these new 

accounts. An EPA official stated that EPA’s Superfund Special Accounts 

Senior Management Committee has approved a review of the policy for 

establishing special accounts. The committee plans to begin this study in 

fiscal year 2012 and, if needed, develop further guidance on the opening 

of special accounts.

Furthermore, according to several of these regional officials, the changes 

to notifications and revised model memorandum have made the 

reclassification and transfer processes easier by minimizing the number 

of staff who need to prepare and approve reclassifications and transfers 

while saving time by eliminating extensive preparation and headquarters 

review of notifications. The revised processes allow special account funds 

to be reclassified and transferred faster. In addition, in June 2011, EPA 

issued two fact sheets to regional special accounts staff that provide 

supplemental information on special account reclassifications, as well as 

specific steps required to close out a special account.
 

Page 32 GAO-12-109 Superfund

We provided a draft of this report to EPA for review and comment. EPA 

provided technical comments that we incorporated into the report, as 

appropriate. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate 

congressional committees, Administrator of EPA, and other interested 

parties. The report also will be available at no charge on the GAO website

at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-7114 or yocomc@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the 

last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix II.

Sincerely yours,

Carolyn L. Yocom

Director

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 33 GAO-12-109 Superfund

This appendix provides information on the scope of the work and the 

methodology used to (1) describe the status of special accounts—

including balances, locations, and recent and planned uses—of 

Superfund special accounts and (2) examine the extent to which the 

Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) headquarters and regions are 

implementing processes and policies to improve the monitoring and 

management of Superfund special accounts.

To describe the status of the 1,023 special accounts, we obtained and 

analyzed data from EPA’s Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation, and Liability Information System (CERCLlS) database. 

Specifically, for information on special accounts balances; locations; and 

recent and planned uses, including funds that had been obligated and 

disbursed, as well as funds reclassified, transferred to the Superfund 

Trust Fund, or closed, we analyzed spreadsheets obtained from officials 

with EPA’s Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation. 

For those funds that were planned to be obligated and reserved for future 

use, as well as reclassified and transferred, we analyzed spreadsheets of 

planned funds derived from EPA’s CERCLIS special accounts planning 

screen, as of October 2010. We also obtained data and interviewed 

officials at EPA’s headquarters and the Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer regarding the makeup and current status of funds in the Trust 

Fund.

To assess the reliability of the data from EPA’s CERCLIS database used 

in this report, we analyzed related documentation, examined the data to 

identify if there were any obvious errors or inconsistencies, and 

interviewed knowledgeable agency officials about the data to see if there 

were any known problems with the data and to learn more about their 

procedures for maintaining the data. We determined the data to be 

sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

To examine the extent to which EPA’s headquarters and regions are 

implementing policies and procedures to improve the monitoring and 

management of Superfund special accounts, we analyzed documents 

and interviewed officials from EPA headquarters offices, including the 

Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, the Office 

of Site Remediation Enforcement, and the Office of the Chief Financial 

Officer. Specifically, we obtained and reviewed strategies and guidance 

issued by EPA headquarters to the regions on the special accounts 

process, as well as available EPA regional documentation on the use of 

management tools unique to EPA’s regions. We also analyzed 

documents and interviewed officials from EPA’s Office of Inspector 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 34 GAO-12-109 Superfund

General (IG) regarding their 2006 and 2009 reports on EPA’s 

management of special accounts. We also conducted interviews with 

officials in each of EPA’s 10 regional offices and collected supporting 

documentation to determine how the regions managed and monitored 

their special accounts and coordinated with EPA headquarters and, if 

needed, conducted follow-up interviews to obtain additional data as a 

result of our analysis. During these interviews, we also obtained 

information on how EPA regions addressed EPA headquarters questions 

or recommendations for actions on their special accounts that arose 

during EPA’s fiscal year 2011 annual review of the regions’ planning data. 

Specifically, we discussed and obtained data on 20 special accounts (2 

special accounts from each region) taken from a sample of 285 accounts 

about which EPA had questions or recommendations for actions. These 

accounts were chosen from a random nonprobability sample and 

therefore cannot be generalized to all special accounts.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2010 to January 2012

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 

the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 35 GAO-12-109 Superfund

Carolyn L. Yocom, (202) 512-7114, yocomc@gao.gov

In addition to the individual named above, Vincent P. Price, Assistant 

Director; Greg Carroll; Laina Poon; and Amy Ward-Meier made key 

contributions to this report. Elizabeth Beardsley, Cindy Gilbert, Julia 

Kennon, Ruben Montes de Oca, and Carol Herrnstadt Shulman also 

made important contributions.

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(361239)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.