3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 921002-0001 

Claimant: Able Clean-up Technologies, Inc. 

Type of Claimant: Corporate 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $11,703.00 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $10,503.00

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

 At approximately 2000 local time on June 8, 2020, Mr. contacted the United States 

Coast Guard’s National Response Center (NRC) to report the spill.1 Idaho State Communications 

Center received notification from the National Response Center (NRC) via report # 1279191 stating that

on June 8, 2020, oil and diesel fuel was dumped into Sheep Creek, a tributary of St. Marie’s River, a 

navigable waterway of the United States.2

 Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) in its 

capacity as the State On Scene Coordinator (SOSC) identified and 3

 as the 

responsible parties as defined by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA).

4

 

 Fernwood Fire Department responded to the incident and reported that approximately 2 – 5 

gallons of oil was dumped in the creek and boom had been placed around the sheen.5

 United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Region 10 was the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) 

for this oil spill incident.

6

 Additionally, the FOSC determined that IDEQ, in its capacity as the State On 

Scene Coordinator (SOSC), would have lead jurisdiction on the cleanup and agreed that the actions 

undertaken by Able Clean-up Technologies, Inc. (ACT) are consistent with the National Contingency 

Plan (NCP)7

 

Able Clean-up Technologies Inc. (ACT) was contracted by the Responsible Party (RP), Mr. 

, to perform cleanup activities.8 ACT properly presented its invoice to the RP on November 10, 

2020.9

 The RP made a partial payment in the amount of $2,000.00.10 The RP denied the ability to pay 

additional costs.11 ACT presented its uncompensated removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC) for $11,703.00.12 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with 

the claim, analyzed the applicable law and regulations, and after careful consideration, has determined 

that $10,503.00 of the requested $11,703.00 is compensable and offers this amount as full compensation 

of this claim.13

 

1 NRC Report # 1279191 dated June 8, 2020.

2 NRC Report # 1279191 dated June 8, 2020.

3 Benewah County Valuation Summary Sheet dated November 3, 2020 showing property ownership of property 

incident originated.

4 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32).

5 Idaho State Communications Center Hazmat Report # H-2020-00107. 6 USEPA FOSC Coordination Email dated January 19, 2021. 7 USEPA FOSC Coordination Email dated January 19, 2021. 8 ACT Signed Job Order dated June 11, 2020. 9 Email from Claimant to NPFC dated November 10, 2020 Showing Email Presentment of Costs Forwarded to RP 

on November 10, 2020.

10 Copy of RP Payment dated August 2, 2020. 11 RP letter to Claimant dated July 13, 2020, denying all Amounts in excess of $2,000.00. 12 33 CFR 136.103(c)(2); Claim Submission Letter dated October 7, 2020 and Signed by and 

. 13 33 CFR 136.115.

(b) (6) (b) (b) 

(6) (6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) 

(6)

(b) (6) (b) (6)
4

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

 On June 8, 2020, Mr. reported to the NRC via report # 1279191 that an individual 

dumped oil and diesel fuel into Sheep Creek.14 Sheep Creek is a tributary to the St. Marie’s River and is 

.67 miles from the point of the release.15 St. Marie’s River is a navigable waterway of the United States. 

Responsible Party 

 The Responsible Party (RP) and property owners are Mr. and Mrs. of E Sheep 

Creek in Santa, Idaho, Benewah County.16 Idaho Department of Environmental Quality (IDEQ) in its 

capacity as the State On Scene Coordinator (SOSC) identified 17 as the responsible party for 

the incident.18 

Recovery Operations

 On June 9, 2020, Fernwood Fire Department responded to the incident and reported that 

approximately 2 – 5 gallons of oil had been dumped in the creek. The fire department placed boom 

around the sheen until a contractor could respond.

19 

On June 11, 2020, ACT was contracted by the RP to perform cleanup activities which began the same 

day.20 ACT arrived on scene with personnel and equipment on June 11, 2020. ACT deployed petroleum 

absorbent boom and pads to absorb the oil from the surface of Sheep Creek. ACT performed response 

activities on June 11, 16, 18, and 24th of 2020.21 ACT subcontracted with Northern Wildlife Services to 

wash 28 domestic geese.22 

ACT also subcontracted with Eurofins Environment Testing America to test the samples taken at the 

scene.23 A soil sample was collected from the soil adjacent to the creek, where the spill occurred.

24 A 

second sample was collected from the soil approximately twenty (20) feet north of the spill site and 

analyzed.

25 Absorbent material containing oil and water was taken to a disposal facility in Medical Lake, 

Washington.26 

Clean up was completed to the satisfaction of the SOSC and the FOSC.27

 

14 NRC Report # 1279191, dated June 8, 2020. 15 IDEQ CRO Response HAZMAT Report# 2020 – 00107, dated June 9, 2020 through June 24, 2020. 16 Benewah County Valuation Summary Sheet dated November 3, 2020 Showing Property Ownership. 17 Benewah County Valuation Summary Sheet dated November 3, 2020 Showing Property Ownership of Property 

Incident Originated. 18 Idaho State Communications Center Hazmat Report # H-2020-00107, Situation Status section. 19 Idaho State Communications Center Hazmat Report # H-2020-00107. 20 ACT signed Job Order dated June 11, 2020. 21 ACT Job Logs dated June 11, 2020 through June 24, 2020. 22 Northern Wildlife Services Invoice# 2020-030 dated June 18, 2020. 23 Eurofins Invoice # 5900004580 dated July 10, 2020. 24 See, Analytical Results, Sample ID Number TM-C-2, sample date, June 24, 2020. 25 See, Analytical Results, Sample ID Number TM-SAO-1, sample date, June 24, 2020. 26 See, Disposal Ticket # 615662 dated June 26, 2020 and Disposal Ticket # 614771, dated June 17, 2020. 27 USEPA FOSC coordination email dated January 19, 2021.

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)

6

independently by the NPFC, and weighs its probative value when determining the facts of the claim.41

The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, or conclusions reached by other 

entities.42 If there is conflicting evidence in the record, the NPFC makes a determination as to what 

evidence is more credible or deserves greater weight, and makes its determination based on the 

preponderance of the credible evidence.

V. DISCUSSION: 

 An RP is liable for all removal costs and damages resulting from either an oil discharge or a 

substantial threat of oil discharge into a navigable water of the United States.43 An RP’s liability is strict, 

joint, and several.44 When enacting OPA, Congress “explicitly recognized that the existing federal and 

states laws provided inadequate cleanup and damage remedies, required large taxpayer subsidies for 

costly cleanup activities and presented substantial burdens to victim’s recoveries such as legal defenses, 

corporate forms, and burdens of proof unfairly favoring those responsible for the spills.”45 OPA was 

intended to cure these deficiencies in the law. 

 OPA provides a mechanism for compensating parties who have incurred removal costs where the 

responsible party has failed to do so. Removal costs are defined as “the costs of removal that are incurred 

after a discharge of oil has occurred or, in any case in which there is a substantial threat of a discharge of 

oil, the costs to prevent, minimize, or mitigate oil pollution from an incident.”46 The term “remove” or 

“removal” means “containment and removal of oil [...] from water and shorelines or the taking of other 

actions as may be necessary to minimize or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare, including, 

but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private property, shorelines, and beaches.”47 

 The NPFC is authorized to pay claims for uncompensated removal costs that are consistent with the 

National Contingency Plan (NCP).48 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of regulations 

governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such claims.49 The claimant bears 

the burden of providing all evidence, information, and documentation deemed relevant and necessary by 

the Director of the NPFC, to support and properly process the claim.50

 Before reimbursement can be authorized for uncompensated removal costs, the claimant must 

demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence: 

(a) That the actions taken were necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate the effects of the incident;

(b) That the removal costs were incurred as a result of these actions;

 

41 See, e.g., Boquet Oyster House, Inc. v. United States, 74 ERC 2004, 2011 WL 5187292, (E.D. La. 2011), “[T]he 

Fifth Circuit specifically recognized that an agency has discretion to credit one expert's report over another when 

experts express conflicting views.” (Citing, Medina County v. Surface Transp. Bd., 602 F.3d 687, 699 (5th Cir. 

2010)). 42 See, e.g., Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds Center, 71 Fed. Reg. 

60553 (October 13, 2006) and Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds 

Center 72 Fed. Reg. 17574 (concluding that NPFC may consider marine casualty reports but is not bound by them). 43 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 44 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 45 Apex Oil Co., Inc. v United States, 208 F. Supp. 2d 642, 651-52 (E.D. La. 2002) (citing S. Rep. No. 101-94 

(1989), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 722). 46 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 47 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 48 See generally, 33 U.S.C. §2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 49 33 CFR Part 136. 50 33 CFR 136.105.
7

(c) That the actions taken were directed by the FOSC or determined by the FOSC to be consistent 

with the National Contingency Plan.51

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.52

The NPFC analyzed each of these factors and determined the majority of the costs incurred by ACT 

and submitted herein are compensable removal costs based on the supporting documentation provided. 

The NPFC determined all approved costs invoiced were billed in accordance with the rate schedule 

provided.53 All approved costs were supported by adequate documentation which included invoices, 

proofs of payment, and were properly coordinated with the SOSC and determined to be reasonable, 

necessary and consistent with the NCP.54

 The amount of compensable costs is $10,503.00 while $1,200.00 is deemed not compensable because 

the claimant invoiced for a spill response report which is its claim submission.55 Additionally, the report 

is not outlined in the rate sheet and the NPFC does not pay for claim preparation.56 Therefore, $1,200.00 

in ACT costs are denied.

Overall Denied Costs = $1,200.0057

VI. CONCLUSION:

 Based on a comprehensive review of the record, the applicable law and regulations, and for the reasons 

outlined above, Able Clean-up Technologies, INC.’s request for uncompensated removal costs is 

approved in the amount of $10,503.00 

 This determination is a settlement offer,58 the claimant has 60 days in which to accept this offer. 

Failure to do so automatically voids the offer.59 The NPFC reserves the right to revoke a settlement offer 

at any time prior to acceptance.60 Moreover, this settlement offer is based upon the unique facts giving 

rise to this claim and is not precedential.

 

51 The FOSC handed the jurisdictional lead for cleanup oversight to IDEQ as the SOSC. 52 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 53 ACT’s Equipment and Rate Schedule dated July 1, 2020. 54 USEPA FOSC coordination email dated January 19, 2021. 55 Email from ACT to NPFC dated January 19, 2021with ACT Spill Response Report attached. 56 33 CFR Part 136.105€(8). 57 See, Enclosure 3 NPFC Summary of Costs spreadsheet. 58 Payment in full, or acceptance by the claimant of an offer of settlement by the Fund, is final and conclusive for all 

purposes and, upon payment, constitutes a release of the Fund for the claim. In addition, acceptance of any 

compensation from the Fund precludes the claimant from filing any subsequent action against any person to recover 

costs or damages which are the subject of the uncompensated claim. Acceptance of any compensation also 

constitutes an agreement by the claimant to assign to the Fund any rights, claims, and causes of action the claimant 

has against any person for the costs and damages which are the subject of the compensated claims and to cooperate 

reasonably with the Fund in any claim or action by the Fund against any person to recover the amounts paid by the 

Fund. The cooperation shall include, but is not limited to, immediately reimbursing the Fund for any compensation 

received from any other source for the same costs and damages and providing any documentation, evidence, 

testimony, and other support, as may be necessary for the Fund to recover from any person. 33 CFR § 136.115(a).

59 33 CFR § 136.115(b). 60 33 CFR § 136.115(b).