2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: E17309-0002 

Claimant: PA Department of Environmental Protection 

Type of Claimant: STATE

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $24,318.00 

FACTS: 

A. Oil Spill Incident: On May 27, 2017, heavy oil was observed discharging “from an 

outfall from the former J&L Aliquippa Works/Tin Mall facility.”1 On the same evening, 

the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) notified the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection (PDEP) of a large volume of heavy oil reaching 

the Ohio River, a navigable waterway of the US. The area of the Ohio River impacted by 

the spill is located in Aliquippa, Beaver County, PA. The May 27, 2017, PA DEP – 

Emergency Response Incident Report indicates that the suspected outfall pipe contained a 

black coating. Analytical testing reports were generated from samples collected from the 

spill site by the PADEP Bureau of Laboratories The samples confirmed the 

characteristics of #6 fuel oil.2

 Due to the hazards posed by the oil spill incident, PADEP 

hired the oil spill response organization, Weavertown Environmental Group to conduct 

removal actions.3

The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) originally issued a Notice 

of Federal Interest to the current property owner, Betters Real Estate Holdings, LP. By 

letter dated July 6, 2017, a representative from Wallace Pancher Group, 

, responded to the USEPA, stating: 

At this time, it is unknown where the originating source of the oil is. In 

addition, there are off-site discharges (Particularly from SR15) that pass 

through the site and could likely be conveying off-site oils through the 

property. A previously identified discharge was noted coming from SR 51, 

as observed by Mr. and Mr. , PADEP Water 

Quality Specialist earlier this year. 

 The origin of the spill is unknown. “EPA continues to work with the PADEP to 

 determine the source of oil and identification of other responsible parties.” 4

 

B. Description of removal actions performed: On May 28, 2017, Weavertown 

Environmental Group (Weavertown) responded to the oil spill incident, installing 

“approximately 300-feet of containment boom along the length of the contaminated 

shoreline and placed oil-only absorbent booms and pads within the containment area.”5 

 

1 See, Optional OSLTF Claim Form dated June 4, 2018. 2 See, DEP Bureau of Laboratories Analytical Report for Water Quality Protection dated June 3, 2017. 3 See, page 2 of PA DEP – Emergency Response Incident Report dated May 27, 2017. 4 See, page 3 of USEPA Pollution/Situation Report dated October 3, 2017. 5 See, page 2 of PA DEP – Emergency Response Incident Report dated May 27, 2017.
3

In addition, Weavertown maintained the placed boom by utilizing personnel, utility 

vehicles, and protective equipment. Additionally, the oil spill removal organization 

provided proper disposal for all generated oiled materials and other non-hazardous 

waste.6

 Weavertown responded to the spill site from May 28 through June 27, 2017. 

The Region 3 EPA Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC), Ms. , 

provided FOSC oversight for this oil spill incident, including sight visits and oversight of 

removal actions. The FOSC concluded that Weavertown’s response to the oil spill was 

“consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).”7

CLAIM: 

 This claim for uncompensated removal costs was presented to the National Pollution 

 Funds Center (NPFC) on June 14, 2018, by Mr. , on behalf of the 

 Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. The Claimant specifically seeks 

 uncompensated removal costs in the amount of $24,318.00 for costs associated with the 

 oil removal actions conducted by Weavertown Environmental Group.

 

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]. 

 

6 See, Non-Hazardous Waste Manifest dated 6/21/2017. 7 See, email from , FOSC USEPA Region 3, to Mr. , PDEP, dated June 21, 2018.
4

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. Findings of Fact: 

1. Ms. , US EPA Region 3, provided FOSC coordination 33 U.S.C. § 

2702(b)(1)(B) and 2712 (a)(4); 

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

2701(23), to navigable waters; 

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); 

5. The NPFC Claims Manager has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted 

with the claim and determined that the removal costs presented were for actions in