2

CLAIM DETERMINATION

Claim Number: UCGP922015-RPD004

Claimant: D and C Motor Company 

Type of Claimant: RP

Type of Claim: Defense to Liability, Act or Omission of a 3rd Party

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $14,287.76 

Action Taken: Offer in the Amount of $14,287.76 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On October 12, 2021, at approximately 10:00 p.m., a fire broke out in a storage shed adjacent 

to the D and C Motor Company (“D and C Motor” or “Claimant”) automotive service building in 

Milwaukie, Oregon.1 The fire consumed a 275-gallon plastic tote containing used motor oil 

located next to the storage shed, resulting in the discharge of the tote’s contents.2

 The oil entered 

a storm drain and travelled via the storm water conveyance system into Kellogg Lake, a 

navigable waterway of the United States.3 D and C Motor personnel responded and placed 

sandbags and sorbent boom around the perimeter of their property to prevent oil from further 

migrating off their property.4 

On October 13, 2021, black oil was observed on the surface of Kellogg Lake by a Clackamas 

County Water Environmental Services (CWES) employee and reported to the Oregon 

Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ).5 ODEQ personnel responded6 and reported the 

oil spill to the U.S. Coast Guard (CG) National Response Center (NRC).

7 The United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) had authority as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator 

(FOSC)8 but relied upon ODEQ personnel to provide oversight of the removal activities.9 

Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) personnel also responded and hired a contractor 

to respond to the oil spill on Kellogg Lake and adjoining tributaries as well as the storm water 

conveyance system impacted by the oil spill.10 D and C Motor personnel hired River City 

Environmental, Inc. (River City) to remove oil from their property and from the oil impacted 

catch basin located at the southwest corner of their parking lot.11 An investigation into the cause 

of the fire conducted by the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Department revealed a transient person 

had started the fire that resulted in the destruction of D and C Motor’s 275-gallon plastic tote and 

subsequent discharge of oil.12 

1 Oregon DEQ Pollution Report (POLREP) #1 Initial and Final dated June 9, 2022, page 1.

2 Id.

3 Id.

4 Letter from D and C Motor Company to the CG National Pollution Funds Center dated June 21, 2023, pages 5 and 

21-24. 5 Oregon DEQ Pollution Report (POLREP) #1 Initial and Final dated June 9, 2022, page 2.

6 Id.

7 NRC Report Number #1319398 dated October 13, 2021.

8 See, 40 CFR 300.120(a)(2). 9 Oregon DEQ consulted with USEPA FOSC, in the planning of initial response actions and throughout the full term 

of the response. See, Oregon DEQ Pollution Report (POLREP) #1 Initial and Final dated June 9, 2022, page 2. 10 Id. 11 Letter from D and C Motor Company to the CG National Pollution Funds Center dated July 19, 2023, page 1. 12 Oregon DEQ Pollution Report (POLREP) #1 Initial and Final dated June 9, 2022, page 3. 

(b) (6)
3

On January 4, 2022, ODEQ personnel determined that the spill response was complete.13 

 On January 18, 2022, D and C Motor personnel hired River City to remove all oil 

contaminated soil from around their leased property and conduct soil restoration.14

On April 18, 2023, D and C Motor submitted a claim for entitlement to a defense to liability, 

based on an act or omission of a third party15 to the CG National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) 

and seek reimbursement of removal costs incurred under the defense in the amount of 

$14,287.76.16 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the claim, 

analyzed the applicable law and regulations, and concluded that D and C Motor has 

demonstrated an entitlement to a defense to liability. Additionally, the NPFC has determined that 

$14,287.76 is compensable and offers this amount as full and final compensation of this claim17

for its uncompensated removal costs and damages under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA).18 

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND: 

A. D and C Motor Company, The Fire and Resulting Oil Spill, and Removal Activities 

D and C Motor leased property located at 13690 SE McLoughlin Boulevard in Milwaukie, 

OR., that included a portion of a building used as single car repair garage and the adjoining 

parking lot.19 D and C Motor also maintained a 275-gallon aluminum framed plastic oil tote on 

the parking lot used for the collection of used motor oil.20 The plastic oil tote was situated on the 

parking lot adjacent to D and C Motor’s leased building and located approximately 2-4 feet from 

a storage shed.21 The storage shed was not part of D and C Motor’s lease with the property owner 

and was not used for storage by D and C Motor personnel.22 D and C Motor’s 275-gallon 

aluminum frame plastic tote was locked,23 labeled “Used Waste Oil”,24 and stored within a 

plastic secondary containment designed to prevent oil from being discharged onto the ground in 

the event of an accidental overflow.25 Security measures employed by D and C Motor personnel 

included a four-foot wooden fence enclosing the backside of the property,26 a six-foot chain link 

fence with locked gate at the entrance to the property,27 motion activated security lights 

13 Id. Oregon DEQ consulted with the FOSC throughout the entirety of the response. See, Oregon DEQ Pollution 

Report (POLREP) #1 Initial and Final dated June 9, 2022, page 2. 14 Letter from D and C Motor Company to the CG National Pollution Funds Center dated July 19, 2023, page 4. 15 33 U.S.C. § 2703(a)(3). 16 D and C Motor Company claim submission with a sum certain of $21,186.50 dated April 18, 2023, page 2. See 

also letter from D and C Motor Company to the CG National Pollution Funds Center amending their sum certain to 

$14,287.76 dated June 21, 2023, page 9. 

17 33 CFR 136.115. 18 33 U.S.C. § 2703(a). 19 Letter from D and C Motor Company to the CG National Pollution Funds Center dated June 21, 2023, page 1. 20 Id. 21 Id. 22 Id. 23 Id. 24 Letter from D and C Motor Company to the CG National Pollution Funds Center dated June 21, 2023, page 2. 25 Letter from D and C Motor Company to the CG National Pollution Funds Center dated June 21, 2023, page 3. 26 Letter from D and C Motor Company to the CG National Pollution Funds Center dated June 21, 2023, page 12. 27 Id.

5

Lake to prevent the movement of oil into the Willamette River.47 Cleaning of the source area and 

within the stormwater systems was completed to prevent further movement of oil into the 

waterway.48 After the cleaning, absorbents were left in the catch basins of the stormwater system 

to absorb any residual oil that might remain.49 Passive oil collection methods continued over 

several months by leaving the booms in place and relying on anticipated rain events to flush out 

any residual oil to the collection points.50 

On October 19. 2021, D and C Motor personnel hired River City to pressure wash oil from 

the asphalt parking lot surrounding their building, remove all oil contaminated debris around 

their parking lot and to remove the oil from the oil impacted catch basin located at the southwest 

corner of their parking lot.

51

On January 4, 2022, ODEQ personnel declared the cleanup complete as there was no 

additional oil recoverable from the waterways and only very minor sheening observed entering 

Kellogg Lake.52 In total, 4.98 tons of oily absorbents and debris along with approximately 150 

gallons of oily water were collected and disposed of during the response.53

On January 18, 2022, D and C Motor personnel hired River City to remove all oil 

contaminated soil from around their leased property and conduct soil restoration.54

B. Investigation into the Fire at D and C Motor Company 

On October 12, 2021, at approximately 6:22 p.m., a security camera mounted on the backside of 

D and C Motor’s automotive service building and directed into their parking lot recorded an 

individual scaling the four-foot wooden fence surrounding the backside of the property.55 Once on 

premise, the individual entered a storage shed located adjacent to D and C Motor’s automotive 

service center building and 275-gallon plastic tote containing used motor oil.56 Security camera 

footage recorded the individual entering and then departing the storage shed on several occasions 

between 6:22 p.m. and 9:40 p.m. and recorded the individual on one occasion departing the storage 

47 Oregon DEQ Pollution Report (POLREP) #1 Initial and Final dated June 9, 2022, page 2. 48 Id. 49 Id. 50 Oregon DEQ Pollution Report (POLREP) #1 Initial and Final dated June 9, 2022, page 2. 51 Letter from D and C Motor Company to the CG National Pollution Funds Center dated July 19, 2023, page 1. See 

also email from Mr. to the CG National Pollution Funds Center dated October 25, 2023, wherein 

he confirmed that the actions taken by D and C Motor personnel in response to the oil spill were necessary to 

prevent, minimize, or mitigate the effects of the oil spill. Additionally, Mr. confirmed that the response 

actions of D and C Motor personnel were consistent with the National Contingency Plan.

52 Oregon DEQ Pollution Report (POLREP) #1 Initial and Final dated June 9, 2022, page 3. 53 Id. 54 Letter from D and C Motor Company to the CG National Pollution Funds Center dated July 19, 2023, page 4. See 

also email from Mr. o the CG National Pollution Funds Center dated October 25, 2023, wherein 

he confirmed that the actions taken by D and C Motor personnel in response to the oil spill were necessary to 

prevent, minimize, or mitigate the effects of the oil spill. Additionally, Mr. confirmed that the response 

actions of D and C Motor personnel were consistent with the National Contingency Plan.

55 Security camera footage from 6:22 p.m. - 6:25 p.m. dated October 12, 2021, provided by the claimant with their 

original claim submission dated April 18, 2023.

56 Id. See also letter from D and C Motor Company to the CG National Pollution Funds Center dated June 21, 2023, 

page 1.

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

shed with an open flame and then re-entering the storage shed with an open flame.57 Smoke was 

recorded exiting the storage shed on numerous occasions during this time period.58 The individual 

was last recorded exiting the storage shed and departing the property at 9:40 p.m.59 Heavy smoke 

was recorded exiting the storage shed and flames from the fire originating from within the storage 

shed were first recorded at 9:50 p.m.60

An investigation conducted by the Clackamas County Sheriff’s office confirmed the individual 

recorded on the security video was the person responsible for the fire that originated from within the 

storage shed.61 The investigation also revealed the identity of that individual but efforts to locate and 

charge them as the party responsible for the fire were unsuccessful as the individual is believed to be 

transient and without a home address.62

C. Responsible Party and the Claim 

D and C Motor owned the 275-gallon plastic tote containing used motor oil at the time of the 

incident63 and is the responsible party (RP).64 

On April 19, 2023, D and C Motor submitted a claim for entitlement to a defense to liability, act 

or omission of a third-party65 claim to the NPFC requesting compensation of removal costs incurred 

on October 19, 2021, for the removal of oil from their parking lot and catch basin located at the 

southwest corner of the parking lot and on January 18, 2022, for the removal of oil contaminated soil 

and soil restoration under the defense in the amount of $14,287.76.66 

II. DISCUSSION: 

The NPFC utilizes an informal process when adjudicating claims against the OSLTF.67 As a 

result, 5 U.S.C. § 555 (e) requires the NPFC to provide a brief statement explaining its 

determinations. This determination is issued to satisfy that requirement for the Claimant’s claim 

against the OSLTF. 

57 Security camera footage from 6:22 p.m. - 6:25 p.m. dated October 12, 2021, provided by the claimant with their 

original claim submission dated April 18, 2023. See also, security camera footage 7:20 p.m. - 7:34 p.m. provided by 

the claimant with their original claim submission dated April 18, 2023. See also, security camera footage 8:09 p.m. 

- 8:10 p.m. provided by the claimant with their original claim submission dated April 18, 2023. See also, security 

camera footage 8:40 p.m. - 8:58 p.m. provided by the claimant with their original claim submission dated April 18, 

2023. See also, security camera footage 9:15 p.m. - 9:23 p.m. provided by the claimant with their original claim 

submission dated April 18, 2023. See also, security camera footage 9:38 p.m. - 9:54 p.m. provided by the claimant 

with their original claim submission dated April 18, 2023.

58 Id. 59 Security camera footage 9:38 p.m. - 9:54 p.m. provided by the claimant with their original claim submission dated 

April 18, 2023.

60 Id. 61 D and C Motor Company claim submission dated April 18, 2023, page 19. 62Id. See also summary of conversation between the CG National Pollution Funds Center and Clackamas County 

Sheriff’s Department dated May 1, 2023.

63 D and C Motor Company letter to the CG National Pollution Funds Center dated June 21, 2023, pages 2-3. 64 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32)(B). 65 33 U.S.C. § 2703(a)(3). 66 D and C Motor Company claim submission with a sum certain of $21,186.50 dated April 18, 2023, page 2. See 

also letter from D and C Motor Company to the CG National Pollution Funds Center amending their sum certain to 

$14,287.76 dated June 21, 2023, page 9.

67 33 CFR Part 136. 
7

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.68The NPFC may rely upon, but is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, or 

conclusions reached by other entities.69 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 finds 

facts and makes its determination based on the preponderance of the credible evidence. 

III. DETERMINATION PROCESS: 

A responsible party 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.70 A 

responsible party’s liability is strict, joint, and several.71 When enacting the Oil Pollution Act (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.”72 OPA was intended to cure these 

deficiencies in the law.

Notwithstanding the above, under limited circumstances the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, 

administered by the NPFC, may reimburse a responsible party for its uncompensated removal costs 

and damages when the responsible party establishes an entitlement to a defense to liability under 33 

U.S.C. § 2703. 

Under the plain meaning of 33 U.S.C. § 2708(a), a responsible party must demonstrate that a 

defense under 33 U.S.C. § 2703 applies before the OSLTF can reimburse removal costs or damages. 

Consistent with this statutory requirement, the OSLTF’s claims regulations also require all claimants 

to carry the burden of proving an entitlement to reimbursement.73 Therefore, as with any other 

claimant, a responsible party must prove an entitlement under the OPA before receiving 

reimbursement from the OSLTF. If a responsible party fails to introduce evidence in support of any 

of the elements necessary to establish entitlement to compensation from the OSLTF or fails to 

establish each of the elements by a preponderance of the credible evidence, the NPFC must deny the 

claim.74

68 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). 69 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). 70 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 71 See, H.R. Rep. No. 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 72 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.). 73 See, 33 CFR 136.105(a)(“The claimant bears the burden of providing all evidence, information, and 

documentation deemed necessary by the Director, NPFC, to support the claim.”); and 33 CFR 

136.105(e)(6)(Requiring that each claim include evidence to support the claim). 74 OPA’s legislative history makes it clear that a responsible party has the burden of showing an entitlement to 

OSLTF compensation under 33 U.S.C. § 2708. As explained in the House Conference Report on OPA: 
8

The third-party defense under the OPA is “narrowly construed.”75 A defendant must demonstrate 

that “the release or threatened release was caused solely by an unrelated third party.”76 In order to 

prevail on its defense, D and C Motor must establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

discharge of oil and the resulting damages or removal costs were caused solely by an act or omission 

of a third party77 and that it 

(a) exercised due care with respect to the oil concerned, taking into consideration the 

characteristics of the oil and in light of all relevant facts and circumstances and 

(b) took precautions against foreseeable acts or omissions of any such third party and the 

foreseeable consequences of those acts or omissions.78

The claimant has satisfied its burden on each of these statutory requirements. 

A. “... evidence that the discharge of oil and the resulting damages or removal costs were caused 

solely by an act or omission of a third party” 

The Clackamas County Sheriff’s Department investigated the fire that originated within the 

storage shed adjacent to D and C Motor’s 275-gallon plastic used oil tote.79 Their investigation 

confirmed that the person recorded in D and C Motor’s security video started the fire that resulted in 

the loss of D and C Motor’s 275-gallon plastic used oil tote.

80 However, efforts to locate that

individual and charge them as the party responsible for the fire were unsuccessful as the person is 

believed to be transient and without a home address.81

The NPFC asked D and C Motor if the person identified by the Clackamas County Sheriff’s 

Department was a current or former employee of D and C Motor Company.82 D and C Motor 

personnel responded that the person identified by the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Department was 

Section 1008 of the House bill allows a responsible party..., or a guarantor for that responsible party... to assert a 

claim for removal costs and damages only if the responsible party... can show that the responsible party...has a 

defense to liability or is entitled to a limitation of liability. 

H.R. Conf. Rep. 101-653 at 110 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 788 (emphasis added). See also, Apex, 

208 F.Supp.2d 642 (claimant failed to carry its burden of proof with respect to the “act of God” defense); 

International Marine Carriers v. OSLTF, 903 F.Supp. 1097 (S.D. Tex. 1994) (claimant must show elements of a 

third party defense by a preponderance of the evidence); Water Quality Insurance Syndicate v. United States, 632 

F.Supp.2d 108, 113-114 (D. Mass. 2009) (holding that a responsible party has the burden of showing an entitlement 

to OSLTF compensation under 33 U.S.C. § 2708). 

75 Xiamen Ocean Shipping Co. v. United States, 2012 WL 12882375, *7 (D. Haw. 2012). See also, Int'l Marine 

Carriers v. Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, 903 F.Supp. 1097, 1105 (S.D. Tex. 1994). 76 United States v. A & N Cleaners & Launderers, Inc., 854 F.Supp. 229, 239 (S.D.N.Y. 1994); see, Shore Realty 

Corp., 759 F.2d 1032, 1044–45 & n. 17; United States v. Stringfellow, 661 F.Supp. 1053, 1061 (C.D. Cal. 1987) 

(third-party defense applies “only where a totally unrelated third party is the sole cause of the release or threatened 

release of a hazardous substance”). 

77 33 U.S.C. § 2703(a)(3). 78 Id. See also, “[The statute] ... requires a showing that the responsible party exercised due care with respect to the 

spilled oil and that it took precautions against the foreseeable acts or omissions of the third party to whom it is 

attempting to shift liability.” Buffalo Marine Servs. Inc. v. United States, 663 F.3d 750, 752 (5th Cir. 2011). 79 Letter from D and C Motor Company to the CG National Pollution Funds Center dated June 21, 2023, page 3. 80 D and C Motor Company claim submission dated April 18, 2023, page 19. 81 Summary of conversation between the CG National Pollution Funds Center and Clackamas County Sheriff’s 

Department dated May 1, 2023.

82 Email from the CG National Pollution Funds Center to D and C Motor Company dated May 8, 2023.
9

not a current or former employee of D and C Motor Company.83 The NPFC also asked D and C 

Motor if they ever had any know interactions with the person identified by the Clackamas County 

Sheriff’s Department and if so, what were those interactions.84 D and C Motor personnel responded 

that they had never had any known interactions or contact with the individual identified by the 

Clackamas County Sheriff’s Department.85

The NPFC finds that D and C Motor has met its burden under this portion of the statute in that 

the damages to D and C Motor’s 275-gallon plastic used oil tote were caused solely by an act or 

omission of a third party. 

B. “... evidence that the responsible party exercised due care and took precautions against 

foreseeable acts” 

Due care has been described by the courts as being “derived not only from statutory standards, 

but also from the dictates of reasonableness and prudence under the given circumstances of a case.”86

As a result, D and C Motor was required to take reasonable precautions to prevent both intentional 

and accidental spills in light of all the relevant facts and circumstances. When interpreting OPA’s 

predecessor statute, the U.S. Court of Claims held that “... a claimant cannot recover, even if a 

vandal or third party immediately caused the spill, if the claimant does not prove that reasonable 

action had been taken to prevent or forestall such intervention by the third party.”87 

The NPFC asked D and C Motor to provide evidence that it exercised due care with respect to the 

oil and took precautions against foreseeable acts or omissions of a third party.88 In response, D and C 

Motor personnel explained the precautions taken to safeguard their 275-gallon plastic tote of used 

motor oil.

89 Specifically, their 275-gallon plastic tote was constructed within an aluminum frame 

and locked,90 labeled “Used Waste Oil”,91 and stored within a plastic secondary containment 

designed to prevent oil from being discharged onto the ground in the event of an accidental 

overflow.92

Additionally, D and C Motor personnel provided the security measures employed to protect their

property.93 Specifically, the property was enclosed by a four-foot wooden fence surrounding the 

backside of the property,94 and a six-foot chain link fence with locked gate at the entrance to the 

property.95 D and C Motor also maintained motion activated security lights throughout the 

83 Letter from D and C Motor Company to the CG National Pollution Funds Center dated June 21, 2023, page 6. 84 Email from the CG National Pollution Funds Center to D and C Motor Company dated May 8, 2023. 85 Letter from D and C Motor Company to the CG National Pollution Funds Center dated June 21, 2023, page 6. 86 Baby Oil, Inc. v. United States, 938 F. Supp. 2d 640, 646 (E.D. La. 2013) (citing Coumou v. United States, 107 

F.3d 290, 295–96 (5th Cir. 1997), withdrawn and superseded in part on reh'g by Coumou v. United States, 114 F.3d 

64 (5th Cir. 1997)). 

87 Union Petroleum Corp. v. United States, 228 Ct. Cl. 54, 73, 651 F.2d 734, 745 (1981) (citing Chicago, 

Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific R.R. Co. v. United States, 216 Ct. Cl. 155, 159, 575 F.2d 839, 841 (1978). Cf., United 

States v. HVI Cat Canyon, 314 F.Supp.3d 1049 (C.D.Cal. 2018) 88 Email from the CG National Pollution Funds Center to D and C Motor Company dated May 8, 2023. 89 Letter from D and C Motor Company to the CG National Pollution Funds Center dated June 21, 2023, page 2. 90 Id. 91 Letter from D and C Motor Company to the CG National Pollution Funds Center dated June 21, 2023, page 3. 92 Id. 93 Letter from D and C Motor Company to the CG National Pollution Funds Center dated June 21, 2023, page 12. 94 Id. 95 Id.
10

parking lot,96 and mounted security cameras on the roof of their building directed into their 

parking lot.97 D and C Motor also maintained a warning sign in their parking lot alerting 

trespassers of video surveillance.98

Lastly, D and C Motor employed Metro Protection Services to conduct daily in-person patrols of 

their property.99 Specifically, Metro Protection Services conducted two nightly drive-through patrols 

of the property between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. The timing of the patrols was 

randomized throughout the night to maximize effectiveness.100 To demonstrate the effectiveness of 

these patrols, D and C Motor personnel provided Metro Protection Services response reports 

documenting past successes of locating and re-directing transients from D and C Motor’s property as 

part of their security service patrols.101 

In sum, the security measures employed by D and C Motor represent noteworthy examples of its 

due care and its reasonable precautions taken to prevent intentional or accidental releases of oil. 

As such, the NPFC finds that D and C Motor has met its burden under this portion of the statute 

in that they exercised due care with respect to the oil concerned and took precautions against 

foreseeable acts or omissions of any such third party and the foreseeable consequences of those acts 

of omissions. 

IV. OSLTF COMPENSIBLE RESPONSE COSTS 

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

the National Contingency Plan.102 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of regulations 

governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such claims.103 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.104

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.105

96 Id. 97 Id. 98 Id. 99 Letter from D and C Motor Company to the CG National Pollution Funds Center dated June 21, 2023, page 4. 100 Id. 101 Letter from D and C Motor Company to the CG National Pollution Funds Center dated June 21, 2023, pages 13-

20.

102 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a)(4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 103 33 CFR Part 136. 104 33 CFR 136.105. 105 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205.