4

Wood County EMA Director and updated him on the situation and the SOSC advised him that he 

was going to contact the Perrysburg Township Fire Department. 

 At 2:10pm, the SOSC’s Supervisor approved his request to respond to the incident and at 

2:12pm, the SOSC contacted the Quanex Plant Manager, Mr. who advised him that 

the response contractor, Safety Kleen, had activated Clean Harbors who was now on scene 

responding. The SOSC was also updated that the Fire Department responders were in the process 

of checking the fuel migration in the retention pond. At 2:30pm, the SOSC departed for the spill 

location.3

State status actions resulting from the incident:

Ohio Environmental Protection Agency issued a Notice of Violation (NOV) to Pawa 

Trucking, on October 20, 2016 for the oil spill incident. On October 31, 2016, Pawa Trucking 

was issued a Resolution of Violation (ROV) by Ohio Environmental Protection Agency because 

it was determined by the State of Ohio that all violations that were discovered on October 20, 

2016 response had been resolved. 

Ohio Revised Code (ORC) 6111 – Water Pollution Control, Unauthorized Release to Waters 

of the State had been satisfied, at the state level, because the migration of diesel fuel was stopped 

from entering the waterways, the fuel and contaminated debris from the spill site and waterways 

was removed, the waste generated was disposed of in accordance with State and Local Laws and 

Regulations, and according to the document written on October 31, 2016, the RP provided Ohio 

EPA with all documentation regarding clean-up actions were taken. 

Discharge and pathway to navigable waters: 

The retention pond flows into a drainage ditch that runs parallel to Oregon Road, (State Road 

795). The ditch then runs north to its confluence with Dry Creek. The migration path from Dry 

Creek flows north and east until it meets Crane Creek, west of Billman Road, in Ottawa/Lucas 

County. Crane Creek then flows north and east to Cedar Creek which flows to the navigable 

waters of, Lake Erie.4 5

 It is important to note that the NPFC reached out to the SOSC and requested a detailed 

description and explanation of the substantial threat that existed to the naivagble waterway and 

also requested a description of the nexus from the retention pond to the navigable waterway. As 

an initial matter, the SOSC advised the NPFC that at the time of the oil spill incident, and during 

cleanup operations, heavy winds and rain pushed the oil away fro the time of the oil spill 

incident, and during cleanup operations, heavy winds and rain pushed the oil away from the 

discharge point of the retention pond that was located in the northeast corner of the retention 

pond although oil sheen was m the discharge point of the retention pond that was located in the 

northeast corner of the retention pond although oil sheen was detected in the retention pond, it 

also was detected downstream of the containment material that had been installed, and as such, 

 

3 See, State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency District Office Investigations Report (DOIR) dated October 

20, 2016, page 3 of 4.

4 See, Wood County Engineers Office email to NPFC Claims Manager, , dated March 07, 2018. 5 See, Diagram of the retention pond, provided by Wood County Engineers office.
5

the surface water flow in the road side drainage ditch was moving so high and fast that it was 

actually not possible to see the sheen once in the ditch.6

 

 On March 5, 2018, the SOSC and NPFC had several email transmissions back and forth 

regarding the discharge description of the oil product and it was in this email transmission that 

the SOSC affirmatively answered that the oil did escape the retention pond and was traveling 

towards the navigable waterway.7

Description of Removal Activities for this Incident: 

The immediate goals of the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, (OH, EPA) was to stop 

the migration of diesel fuel to and from the retention pond; remove all fuel from the surface 

waters and from any nexus (i.e, drainage ditch) that leads to the navigable waterway; remove any 

contaminated debris from the spill site and affected surface waters; and then properly dispose of 

all waste that was generated in accordance with Ohio State and local laws and regulations, 

provide Ohio, EPA with all documentation on clean-up actions taken.8

Safety-Kleen, was the initial response contractor on the scene who deployed boom on the 

retention pond until such time as it was determined that more assets were needed to perform 

cleanup and then Safety Kleen contacted Cleans Harbors.9 Clean Harbors (Claimant) was then 

contracted by Quanex to perform oil spill response operatons.10 . The team of oil spill responders 

(OSROS) utilized absorbent materials and barriers to contain the oil and mitigate further 

damages. 

Marine Pollution Control (MPC), subcontractor to Clean Harbors, arrived with vacuum 

trucks and worked to siphon out the contaminated water in the storm drains and retention pond.11 

Clean Harbors also provided field personnel, absorbent materials, boom, vehicles, miscellaneous 

tools, and waste disposal equipment. Cleanup operations began October 20, 2016 and continued 

until October 21, 2016. Based on the disposal manifests, all disposals were properly managed in 

accordance with National Contigency Plan (NCP).12 Clean Harbors and its subcontractors 

worked under the direction of the State On-Scene Coordinator. 

Responsible Party and Presentment: 

The Responsible Party under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) is Pawa Trucking, Inc. The 

Responsible Party has refused to pay Clean Harbors for the services rendered in October 2016. 

Pawa Trucking’s attorney, Mr. , Jr., sent Clean Harbors a letter, dated April 10, 

 

6 See, Ohio EPA SOSC email to dated March 6, 2018. 7 See, Email trail of communications between Mr. and personnel at the NPFC dated March 5, 2018. 8 See, State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Emergency Response Section – District Office Investigation 

Report (DOIR) dated October 20, 2016, Spill ID # 1610-87-2054, pages 1 – 4. 9 See, State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Emergency Response Section – District Office Investigation 

Report (DOIR) dated October 20, 2016, Spill ID # 1610-87-2054, page 1, paragraph 2. 10 See, Clean Harbors Emergency Response Agreement dated and executed on October 20, 2016 with Quanex. 11 See, Claimant and SOSC pictures that were provided demonstrating the response actions. 12 See, Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest Numbers 008778806 FLE and 1556-MPC
6

2017 stating, “...the guilting party is Quanex Building Products.”13 On June 1, 2017, Ms. 

, Clean Harbors’ Senior Collections Specialist, sent Pawa Trucking an inquiry as 

to the payment status of open, unpaid, invoices.14 On June 5, 2017, Clean Harbors received 

another letter from Mr. stating, “...Clean Harbors is not going to get paid by Pawa 

Trucking, Inc.”15

The National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), Claims Manager, sent a certified letter to Mr. 

, indicating the NPFC was in receipt of Clean Harbors’ invoices and if the NPFC pays this 

claim, it may seek to recover from, Pawa Trucking, any compensation paid by the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) as well as all costs incurred by the Fund.16 Mr. sent the 

NPFC a reply, via letter, dated March 26, 2018, stating Quanex is responsible because it was out 

of compliance with the applicable stormwater retention rules. In the same letter, Mr. 

admits that Pawa’s contracted truck was the original source of the leak.17 The NPFC sent Pawa 

Trucking a certified RP notification letter, directly to them, on April 16, 2018. The NPFC has 

received the return receipt demonstrating Pawa Trucking has received the letter however, as of 

the date of this Determination, the NPFC has not heard directly from Pawa Trucking. 

Claim and Claimant: 

On February 23, 2018, the Claimant, Clean Harbors, submitted a pollution removal cost 

claim to the NPFC for reimbursement of its uncompensated pollution removal costs totaling, 

$40,932.16 for the services they provided to Quanex for the oil spill incident that occurred at the 

Quanex facility in Perrysburg, OH.18 

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 

 

13 See, letter to Clean Harbors, dated April 10, 2017. 14 See, email from to Pawa Logistics, dated, June 1, 2017. 15 See, letter to Clean Harbors, dated June 5, 2017. 16 See, RP Notification letter to Pawa Trucking C/o Mr , dated February 26, 2018. 17 See, Letter to , Claims Manager, United States Coast Guard, dated March 26, 2018. 18 See, Optional OSLTF Claim Form from Clean Harbors to NPFC, dated February 23, 2018.
7

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.”

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. NPFC has determined that the actions undertaken by Clean Harbors, and its associated 

subcontractors, are deemed consistent with the NCP. This determination is made in 
8

accordance with the Delegation of Authority for Determination of Consistency 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); 

2. The incident involved the substantial threat of discharge of “oil” as defined in OPA 90, 

33 U.S.C. §2701 to “navigable waters;” 

3. The claim was submitted to the Fund within the six year period of limitations for removal 

costs claims. 33 U.S.C. §2712(h)(1); 

4. The NPFC Claims Manager thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the 

claim and determined which of the costs claimed were associated with OPA compensable 

removal actions in accordance with the NCP and that costs for these actions were 

reasonable and allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205.19

B. NPFC Analysis

NPFC CA reviewed Clean Harbors’ invoiced costs to confirm that the claimant had 

incurred all costs claimed. The review focused on: (1) whether the actions taken were 

compensable “removal actions” under OPA and the claims regulations at 33 CFR 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 to be 

consistent with the NCP, and (4) whether the costs were adequately documented and 

reasonable.

During the NPFC’s adjudication of the claim, the NPFC obtained evidence that payment 

had been made by the Claimant to all of its third party contractors.20 21 The NPFC made 

several requests for information to substantiate the claim submission and based on all 

information provided, the NPFC was able to determine that the majority of costs were billed 

in accordance with the rate schedule pricing at the time the services were provided and that 

proper disposal was performed in accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). 

Oversight was provided by Mr. , in his capacity as the SOSC for this 

incident. The NPFC has determined that most of the costs that were incurred by Clean 

Harbors were reasonable and necessary to mititage the affects of the incident. The NPFC has 

determined that the payable costs were billed in accordance with or equitable to industry 

stand and were determined by the SOSC and the NPFC to be consistent with the NCP. 

The NPFC has denied a total of $1,929.23 of costs not properly supported by the record 

and they are as follows: 

1. 10/20/16 – 30 HP Boiler Unit in the total amount billed of $1,600.00. This 

item is not on any contemporaneous daily field log nor is it on any rate 

schedule and as such, the use of this item is not properly supported and 

denied; 

 

19 See, Encl (1) NPFC Summary of Costs spreadsheet. 20 See, Proofs of Payment for Spill Tek, Enviro Solids, Marine Pollution Control Corp, from , Field 

Administration Manager, Clean Harbors.

21 See, Citizens Bank Commercial Account Statement, provided by Clean Harbors.