2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1 

Claim Number: UCGPJ19009-URC001 

Claimant: Alaska Department of Conservation 

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $2,309.47 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $2,309.47

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

 

 On June 13, 2019, at approximately 15:08 local time, the National Response Center (NRC) 

received a report of a sunken vessel that was discharging oil into Icy Passage, a navigable 

waterway of the United States.2

 The Gustavus Fire Department was the first to respond to the 

scene and verified that the vessel sank at the mooring buoy 100-200 yards offshore and released 

fuel, causing a 100’ sheen on the surrounding water. Staff from the Alaska Department of 

Conservation (“ADEC” or “Claimant”), in their role as the State On Scene Coordinator (SOSC), 

were called by the local Fire Marshall and alerted to the spill.3

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) Sector Juneau, in its capacity as the Federal On 

Scene Coordinator (FOSC), opened Federal Project Number UCGPJ19009 in the amount of 

$50,000 and hired Global Diving and Salvage (GDS) to perform removal actions. 

The Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) identified ; owner/operator 

of F/V OCEANRAIDER, as the responsible party (RP), as defined by the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990.4 

ADEC submitted its uncompensated removal cost claim to the National Pollutions Funds 

Center (NPFC) in the amount of $2,309.47 on May 31, 2023. The NPFC has thoroughly 

reviewed all documentation submitted with the claim, analyzed the applicable laws and 

regulations, and after careful consideration has determined that $2,309.47 is compensable and 

offers this amount as full and final compensation of this claim.

 

1 This determination is written for the sole purpose of adjudicating a claim against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 

(OSLTF). This determination adjudicates whether the claimant is entitled to OSLTF reimbursement of claimed 

removal costs or damages under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This determination does not adjudicate any rights or 

defenses any Responsible Party or Guarantor may have or may otherwise be able to raise in any future litigation or 

administrative actions, to include a lawsuit or other action initiated by the United States to recover the costs 

associated this incident. After a claim has been paid, the OSLTF becomes subrogated to all of the claimant’s rights 

under 33 U.S.C. § 2715. When seeking to recover from a Responsible Party or a Guarantor any amounts paid to 

reimburse a claim, the OSLTF relies on the claimant’s rights to establish liability. If a Responsible Party or 

Guarantor has any right to a defense to liability, those rights can be asserted against the OSLTF. Thus, this 

determination does not affect any rights held by a Responsible Party or a Guarantor.

2 NRC Report # 1248808 dated June 13, 2019. 3 Original Claim Submission dated May 31, 2023, page 3 of 23, Spill Cleanup Actions. 4 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32).

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

4

II. CLAIMANT AND RP: 

On July 31, 2019, ADEC presented the RP with the invoice for $2,309.47, representing their 

costs associated with the spill incident. ADEC did not get a response, or payment, and on May 

31, 2023, sent the RP another invoice, including late fees.15 

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

 

On May 31, 2023, the NPFC received a claim for $2,309.47.16 ADEC provided the NPFC 

with an OSLTF claim form, ADEC Spill Summary Report #19119916401, Invoices (SPR156106), ADEC RP Notification letter dated July 2, 2019, photos, various emails, disposal 

documentation, and NRC Report # 1248808.17

On June 12, 2023, the NPFC requested additional information from ADEC relative to their 

costs claimed.18 On June 13, 2023, ADEC replied to the NPFC’s request, providing their billing 

rates for the costs claimed and an explanation of where to obtain impound documentation.19

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

 The NPFC utilizes an informal process when adjudicating claims against the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).20 As a result, 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) requires the NPFC to provide a 

brief statement explaining its decision. This determination is issued to satisfy that requirement.

 When adjudicating claims against the OSLTF, the NPFC acts as the finder of fact. In this 

role, the NPFC considers all relevant evidence, including evidence provided by claimants and 

evidence obtained independently by the NPFC, and weighs its probative value when determining 

the facts of the claim.21 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.22 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.

15 Original Claim Submission dated May 31, 2023, Optional OSLTF Claim Form. 16 ADEC claim submission to received May 25, 2023. 17 ADEC claim submission to received May 25, 2023. 18 NPFC email to Claimant dated June 12, 2023. 19 ADEC email to NPFC dated June 13, 2023. 20 33 CFR Part 136. 21 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)). 22 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).
5

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.23 An RP’s liability 

is strict, joint, and several.24 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.”25 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.”26 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.”27 

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).28 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

of regulations governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such 

claims.29 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.30

 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;

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

consistent with the National Contingency Plan; 

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.31

23 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 24 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 25 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). 26 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 27 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 28 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 29 33 CFR Part 136. 30 33 CFR 136.105. 31 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205.