3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: E16313-0001 

Claimant: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $1,782.02 

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On March 21, 2016, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Department of 

Environmental Protection (PADEP), Oil & Gas Management Program (OGMP), received a 

complaint from a private citizen and responded to the incident location to contain the discharge 

of crude oil that was leaking from an oil well at an abandoned on-shore production facility in 

Cherrytree Township, PA. An estimated ten (10) barrels of crude oil discharged from the well, 

flowed overland, through a freshwater wooded wetland area, into an unnamed tributary and 

ultimately into Prather Creek, a navigable waterway of the United States. Of the estimated ten

barrels, approximately half a barrel discharged into the creek.1

 

The land owner, Ms. , (and thus the Responsible Party (RP)) expressed an 

inability to pay directly to EPA via a letter dated May 23, 2016.2

 The National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC) issued an RP Notification letter to Mrs. dated March 1, 2018. 

To date, no response has been received by this office. 

This incident was reported to the National Response Center via Report # 1143455.3

 

Description of Removal Activities for this claimant: The Claimant, PA DEP, responded to 

contain the oil at the spill site, along its path and into the creek. PA DEP personnel placed boom 

and padding to absorb the oily water, as well as built earthen dikes to contain the oil. 

The EPA Region III Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC), Mr. , was able to do 

a site assessment on April 20, 2016. It was at that time that the USEPA took control of the 

project, opened a Federal Project Number (FPN) E16313 in order to continue cleanup and 

removal activities.4

The Claimant and Claim: On February 28, 2018, PA DEP submitted a removal cost claim to 

the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of it uncompensated removal 

costs in the original amount of $1,782.02 for the services provided from March 21 through April 

21, 2016. On March 27, 2018, PA DEP reduced its sum certain to $1,599.65.5 This claim is for 

removal costs based on the rate schedule and invoicing in place at the time services were 

provided. 

 

1 See, USEPA POLREP #1 dated April 22, 2016, which covers the period of 3/21/16 through 4/22/16. 2 See, Letter from Mrs. to Mr. , USEPA OSC, dated 5/23/2016. 3 See, National Response Center Report #1143455. 4 See, USEPA POLREP #1 dated April 22, 2016 which covers the period of 3/21/16 through 4/22/16. 5 See, Email from Mr. , PADEP, to Ms. , NPFC, dated 3/27/2018 at 2:16pm.
4

APPLICABLE LAW: 

Under OPA 90, at 33 USC § 2702(a), responsible parties are liable for removal costs and 

damages resulting from the discharge of oil into navigable waters and adjoining shorelines, as 

described in Section 2702(b) of OPA 90. A responsible party’s liability will include “removal 

costs incurred by any person for acts taken by the person which are consistent with the National 

Contingency Plan”. 33 USC § 2702(b)(1)(B).

"Oil" is defined in relevant part, at 33 USC § 2701(23), to mean “oil of any kind or in any form, 

including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged 

spoil”.

The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), which is administered by the NPFC, is available, 

pursuant to 33 USC §§ 2712(a)(4) and 2713 and the OSLTF claims adjudication regulations at 

33 CFR Part 136, to pay claims for uncompensated removal costs that are determined to be 

consistent with the National Contingency Plan and uncompensated damages. 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”.

Under 33 USC §2713(b)(2) and 33 CFR 136.103(d) no claim against the OSLTF may be 

approved or certified for payment during the pendency of an action by the claimant in court to 

recover the same costs that are the subject of the claim. See also, 33 USC §2713(c) and 33 CFR 

136.103(c)(2) [claimant election]. 

33 U.S.C. §2713(d) provides that “If a claim is presented in accordance with this section, 

including a claim for interim, short-term damages representing less than the full amount of 

damages to which the claimant ultimately may be entitled, and full and adequate compensation is 

unavailable, a claim for the uncompensated damages and removal costs may be presented to the 

Fund.” 

Under 33 CFR 136.105(a) and 136.105(e)(6), the claimant bears the burden of providing to the 

NPFC, all evidence, information, and documentation deemed necessary by the Director, NPFC, 

to support the claim. 

Under 33 CFR 136.105(b) each claim must be in writing, for a sum certain for each category of 

uncompensated damages or removal costs resulting from an incident. In addition, under 33 CFR 

136, the claimant bears the burden to prove the removal actions were reasonable in response to 

the scope of the oil spill incident, and the NPFC has the authority and responsibility to perform a 

reasonableness determination. Specifically, under 33 CFR 136.203, “a claimant must establish -

(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;

(c) That the actions taken were determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the National 

Contingency Plan or were directed by the FOSC.”
5

Under 33 CFR 136.205 “the amount of compensation allowable is the total of uncompensated 

reasonable removal costs of actions taken that were determined by the FOSC to be consistent 

with the National Contingency Plan or were directed by the FOSC. Except in exceptional 

circumstances, removal activities for which costs are being claimed must have been coordinated 

with the FOSC.” [Emphasis added]. 

DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

A. Overview: 

1. OSC of EPA Region 3, was the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) 

for this incident, and he determined that the actions undertaken by the Claimant, 

PADEP, were consistent with the NCP for the payment of uncompensated removal 

costs claims and is consistent with the provisions of sections 1002(b)(1)(B) and 

1012(a)(4) of OPA, 33 U.S.C § 2702(b)(1)(B) and 2712(a)(4);6

 

2. The incident involved a discharge of “oil” as defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. § 

2701(23), to navigable waters. 

3. The claim was submitted to NPFC within the six year statute of limitations. 33 U.S.C. 

§ 2712(h)(1). 

4. A Responsible Party has been identified. 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32). 

5. In accordance with 33 CFR § 136.105(e)(12), the Claimant has certified that no suit 

has been filed by or on behalf of the Claimant in court for the claimed uncompensated 

removal costs.

6. The NPFC Claims Manager has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted by 

the Claimant with the claim and has determined which costs and actions taken by the 

Claimant are determined to be in accordance with the National Contingency Plan 

(NCP), and whether the costs for these actions were reasonable and allowable under 

OPA 90 and 33 CFR § 136.205. 

B. Analysis:

NPFC CA reviewed the documentation provided by the Claimant. The review focused on the 

following: (1) whether the actions taken were compensable “removal actions” under OPA 

and the claims regulations at 33 C.F.R. §136 (e.g., actions to prevent, minimize, mitigate the 

effects of the incident); (2) whether the costs were incurred as a result of these actions; (3) 

whether the actions taken were determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the NCP, and 

(4) whether the costs were adequately documented and reasonable. 

PA DEQ provided a removal cost claim7

 to show the actions it performed were for OPAcompensable costs and that the work they performed mitigated the effects of the oil that was 

released from the well into Prather Creek. Additionally, the US EPA Region III FOSC 

confirmed the actions performed for this incident. Based upon the evidence in this claim 

submission for the actions undertaken by PA DEP, along with the EPA FOSC’s statement, 

 

6 See, EPA Region III POLREP 1 for this incident. 7 The Claimant provided copies of both the 2014 New Pig Invoice # 21303964-00 and the 2017 New Pig Invoice # 

22167488-00, which show that the PA DEP reasonably charged for boom and padding, as the materials are ordered 

in bulk by the State.