2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number : 915097-0001 

Claimant : District Department of the Environment

Type of Claimant : Corporate 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $32,450.00 

INCIDENT:

The Washington, DC District Department of the Environment (DDOE) reports that on 

August 7, 2014 (and several times thereafter), it responded to an oil sheen/odor in Hickey 

Run (near the intersection of Bladensburg Road and New York Avenue in Northeast DC). 

Hickey Run is a tributary of the Anacostia River, a navigable waterway of the US. DDOE 

states that during these ongoing responses, lubricating oil and low sulfur diesel were 

discovered. It is believed to be from a large underground source as discharges usually appear 

approximately 2-3 days after heavy rains. 

This incident was reported to the National Response Center (NRC) via report # 1091645. As 

of the time of this determination, no Responsible Party has been identified. 

CLAIM AND CLAIMANT: 

The Claimant, DDOE, hired Tetra Tech/Miller Environmental for cleanup and removal 

activities for the recurring incident.

1

 Actions included placing boom and sorbent pads, 

providing personnel and equipment to vacuum leaking petroleum from the storm drain catch 

basin and disposing of the oiled water and debris at an approved disposal facility. United 

States Coast G uard (USCG) Sector Baltimore assisted the Claimant by providing/assisting 

with oil spill analyses. 

On July 15, 2015, DDOE presented its removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC), for reimbursement of its uncompensated removal costs in the total amount of 

$32,450.00 for its ongoing response to a mystery spill of oil on or about August 7, 2014 to 

the present time. 

The NPFC’s review of the actual cost invoice and related documents focused on: (1) whether 

the actions taken were compensable removal actions under OPA and the claims regulations at 

33 CFR Part 136 (e.g. whether the actions were taken to prevent, minimize, and mitigate the 

effects of the incident; (2) whether the costs were incurred as a result of these actions; (3) 

whether the actions taken are determined to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan 

(NCP) or directed by the FOSC; (4) whether the costs were adequately documented and 

reasonable, and (5) whether the Claimant’s submitted costs were uncompensated. 

 

 

1 The Claimant provided by email on 8/04/2015 invoices for the following dates: 8/8-8/13/2014, 9/12/2014, 

9/18/2014, 11/04/2014, 12/08/2014, 2/12/2015, 2/28/2015, 4/06/2015, 5/11/2015 and 6/09/2015.
3

APPLICABLE LAW: 

"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”.

“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”. 33 USC § 2701(31).

Removal costs referred to in 33 USC 2702(a) include any removal costs incurred by any 

person for acts taken by that person which are consistent with the National Contingency Plan. 

33 USC 2702(b)(1)(B).

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. 

With certain exceptions all claims for removal costs or damages shall be presented first to the 

responsible party of the source designated under 2714(a). 33 U.S.C. § 2713(a). If the claim is 

not settled by any person by payment within 90 days after the date the claim was presented, 

the claimant may elect to commence an action in court against the responsible party or 

present the claim to the Fund. 33 U.S.C. §2713(c)(2).

“Claimant” means “any person or government who presents a claim for compensation under 

this subchapter.” 33 USC § 2701(4).

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 136.203, the claimant bears the burden to prove the removal costs 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 
4

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. The FOSC coordination has been established via a signed statement from MST 

 of Sector Baltimore dated July 23,, 2015, as the FOSCR for this 

incident, determined that the actions undertaken by the Claimant are deemed 

consistent with the NCP. 33 U.S.C. §§ 2702(b)(1)(B) and 2712(a)(4);2

2. The incident involved the report of a discharge of “oil” as defined in OPA 90, 33 

U.S.C. § 2701(23), to navigable waters. 

3. The claim was submitted within the six year statute of limitations. 33 U.S.C. § 

2712(h)(1) 

4. A Responsible Party has not been determined. 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32). 

5. 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. 

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

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

accordance with the NCP, and if the costs for these actions were indeed reasonable 

and allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205. 

B. NPFC Analysis:

DDOE states in its claim that all costs claimed are for uncompensated removal costs incurred 

for this incident. It represents that all costs presented to the Fund are compensable removal 

costs, payable by the OSLTF. 

The NPFC Claims Manager reviewed DDOE’s actual cost invoicing and dailies to ensure 

that the Claimant had incurred all costs claimed and that the costs were adequately 

documented and reasonable. Pursuant to 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. 

Based on a preponderance of the evidence, while te\he Claimant was able to obtain

coordination from the FOSC/Sector Baltimore, the claim is ultimately denied because (1) the 

Claimant has not provided proof of payment to its contractors/subcontractors to demonstrate 

it has actually incurred uncompensated removal costs, and (2) it has not provided 

documentation for $2,325.07 in claimed costs. While it did provide invoices and supporting 

documentation for $30,124.93 of the claimed $32,450.00,3 the Claimant was asked to 

provide proof of payment for its contractor costs on numerous occasions,4 but has failed to 

respond and provide the requested information. As such,, the NPFC is unable to determine 

whether or not the Claimant has uncompensated removal costs, as is required by the 

governing claims regulations.5

 

2 See Email from MSTCS USCG, to Ms. NPFC, dated 7/23/2015. 3 See email from Mr. DDOE, to Ms. NPFC, dated 8/04/2015. 4 See emails from the NPFC to Mr. DDOE, dated 7/16/2015, 7/20/2015, 8/05/2015 and 8/15/2015. 5 See 33 CFR 136.205. 
5

Should DDOE choose to request reconsideration of its claim, it would need to provide 

documentation to support all claimed costs, as well as provide proof of payment of all thirdparty invoicing. Based on the foregoing, this claim is denied.

C. Determined Amount: $0.00

The NPFC hereby determines this claim is denied because (1) the Claimant failed to provide 

evidence that it has incurred uncompensated removal costs pursuant to 33 CFR 1036.205, (2) 

the Claimant failed to produce all evidence, information, and documentation deemed 

necessary to support the claim pursuant to 33 CFR 136.105(a) and 136.105(e)(6), (3) the 

Claimant failed to produce evidence of proper disposal in accordance with the National 

Contingency Plan (NCP), and (4) the Claimant failed to produce evidence that the product 

was an OPA oil therefore this claim is denied.

 

 

Claim Supervisor:

Date of Supervisor’s review: 8/28/15 

Supervisor Action: Denial approved

Supervisor’s Comments: