3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: E15522-0005 

Claimant: Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc. 

Type of Claimant: Corporate 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $20,157.73 

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On July 24, 2015, an above ground storage tank owned and operated by Big Sky 

Energy, Inc. discharged approximately 1700 gallons of a brine/crude oil mixture into Big Run Creek, a 

tributary to the Shenango River, a navigable waterway of the U.S.1

 Big Sky Energy, Inc. is the 

responsible party (RP) for this discharge. Big Sky Energy, Inc., was issued a Notice of Federal Interest 

and Notice of Federal Assumption by the US EPA Region V Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) on 

July 24, 2015, but the RP refused to sign the written notice. 2

 The RP was also issued a notice of source 

designation by the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC).3

 

As noted above, Big Sky Energy, Inc., the owner of the above ground storage tank, is the RP for the 

incident. On January 7, 2016, the Claimant presented all invoices and documentation associated with this 

claim to the RP, via USPS in the total amount of $20,157.73. Following receipt of this claim submission 

on June 1, 2017, the NPFC sent an RP Notification Letter to the RP.4

 To date the RP has not paid the 

Claimant or responded to NPFC’s Notification Letter. 

This incident was reported to the National Response Center via Report # 1123722.5

 The discharge 

threatened the water intake of Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc.’s water intake three miles away from the spill site. 

Description of Removal Activities for this claimant: The Shenango River is the source of water for Aqua 

Pennsylvania, Inc.’s Shenango Valley Drinking Water Treatment Plant. USEPA contractors placed hard 

boom and absorbent boom to protect the water intakes. The hard boom was removed on August 31, 2015. 

The Claimant states that they were sampling and testing the water taken into their facility and added 

chemicals to treat the incoming water. Claimant also alleged that they were engaged in boom activities at 

their water intakes.

The Claimant and Claim: Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc. treats river water to provide drinking water for 

Sharon, Pennsylvania. On June 1, 2017, Aqua Pennsylvania, Inc. submitted a removal cost claim to the 

National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of their uncompensated removal costs in the 

amount of $20,157.73.6

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 

 

1 See EPA POLREP #5. 2 See email from Mr , US EPA Region V FOSC, to Ms , NPFC, dated 1/16/2016 

found in NPFC Claim E15522-0001. 3 See NPFC Notice of Designation 7/30/2015. See also NPFC RP Notification Letter dated 1/13/16. 4 See NPFC RP Notification Letter dated June 1, 2017. 5 See National Response Center Report # 1123722. 6 See Claim Package received by the NPFC on June 1, 2017.
4

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.” 

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. EPA FOSC, , oversaw the response for this incident.

7

; 

2. The incident involved the discharge of “oil” as defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. § 2701(23), to 

navigable waters;

 

7 See EPA POLREPS 1 through 5. 
5

3. In accordance with 33 CFR § 136.105(e)(12), the claimant has certified no suit has been filed 

in court for the claimed uncompensated removal costs;

4. The claim was submitted within the six year statute of limitations. 33 U.S.C. § 2712(h)(1); 

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. 

The NPFC has determined that the majority of the costs incurred by the Claimant in this claim are not 

OPA-compensable based on the documentation provided or lack thereof. The NPFC has determined 

that $6,603.32 is supported by the record. The NPFC denies the following amounts as claimed: 

Denied Items: 

1. All labor costs, for a total of $4,735.60. The documentation provided does not provide a 

description of work or start and stop times for . The documentation does not 

provide contemporaneous records corroborating the claim that the work was oil-spill work 

for each employee. There are no records showing start and stop times for oil spill response 

work. The claimant stated that some work was for boom deployment, maintenance and 

removal, but there are no records showing this. Further, the EPA POLREPs state that EPA 

contractors deployed and removed the boom at the Claimant’s intake therefore should the

claimant request reconsideration, it will need to provide evidence by the EPA FOSC that 

they were performing the same actions as captured for the EPA START contractor(s). 

2. The claimed costs of $1,560.72 for soda ash are denied because the claimant could not 

provide any records of the usage and as such, the costs remain unsubstantiated.

8

3. $2,844.48 of the carbon costs are denied because the claimant’s usage records only show 

2,609 lbs being used. At the average price of $0.48 per lb, the NPFC has determined that the 

reimbursable amount is $1,252.32. 

4. The $179.52 for coveralls purchased from Fastenal is denied because the claimant did not 

show the number used, requiring replacement. The claimant’s statement that they were used 

when its employees removed oil-soaked boom is unsubstantiated. The records do not show 

the necessity of coveralls due to the spill response. EPA records show that EPA contractors 

worked with the boom at the claimant’s intake and as such, the claimant will need to obtain 

documentation for the USEPA FOSC to support the charges claimed. 

5. The $157.33 for the nozzle and gasket purchased from Bisnuss Inc. is denied because it has 

not been shown to be required solely for response to the spill. Further, the claimant stated 

that it is now corporate stock and assets. 

6. The newspaper costs of $2,967.69 are denied because newspaper articles and “thank you” 

advertising are not OPA compensable oil spill removal costs.

7. The $106.00 purchase at Tractor Supply Co. is denied as it is an unknown purchase with no 

justification to support the charge. 

8. The Fedex expenses of $597.76 are denied because none of the charges were for shipping 

samples to Cardinal Labs. The costs were for packages shipped to other Aqua locations. 

There are no details of the contents shipped or any records showing that it was related to oil 

spill response.

 

8 See email of July 10, 2017.
6

9. The $405.31 for meals and a purchase at a grocery store are denied because the expenses are 

not justified for employees not on travel and the grocery purchase is an unknown purchase. 

These costs are unsupported by the record. 

The total denied costs are $13,554.41. Should the Claimant decide to request reconsideration of any 

denied amounts, it MUST provide objective evidence demonstrating that the costs were to prevent, 

mitigate or minimize the effects of the oil as directed by or coordinated with the Federal On-Scene 

Coordinator (FOSC). 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $6,603.32 as full compensation for the 

reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim 

#E15522-0005. All costs offered are for charges incurred by the Claimant or for costs expended by 

the Claimant for removal actions as that term is defined in OPA and, are compensable removal costs, 

payable by the OSLTF. 

AMOUNT: $6,603.32 

 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 7/25/17 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: