3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1 

Claim Number: UCGP924001-URC001 

Claimant: State of Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation 

Type of Claimant: State

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $1,878.51

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $1,878.48 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On December 18, 2017, the National Response Center (NRC) notified United States Coast 

Guard (USCG) Sector Southeast Alaska Incident Management Division (IMD) via NRC Case # 

1199955 of a 40’ recreational vessel identified as the M/V NORTHWIND submerged in Aurora 

Harbor and actively sheening.2

 In its role as Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC), USCG 

Sector Southeast Alaska IMD arrived on scene at the Aurora Harbor and observed a light 

sheening and diesel engine lube oil surrounding the boat.3 The oil entered Aurora Harbor, a 

navigable water of the United States.4 ADEC contracted divers were unable to locate a cause for

the vessel’s sinking.5 

On December 18, 2017, State of Alaska, Department of Environmental Conservation, 

(“ADEC” or “Claimant”) Spill Prevention & Response, Emergency Responder, responded to the 

incident in its role as the State On Scene Coordinator (SOSC) and generated Spill Summary 

Report # 17119935201 confirming a sunken vessel and documented the activities surrounding 

the mitigation of damages to the environment.6

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, a confirmed responsible party/boat owner 

has not been identified involving this case. 

On October 12, 2023, the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) received ADEC’s claim 

submission in the amount of $1,878.51 in removal costs.7 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed 

1 This determination is written for the sole purpose of adjudicating a claim against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 

(OSLTF). This determination adjudicates whether the claimant is entitled to OSLTF reimbursement of claimed 

removal costs or damages under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This determination does not adjudicate any rights or 

defenses any Responsible Party or Guarantor may have or may otherwise be able to raise in any future litigation or 

administrative actions, to include a lawsuit or other action initiated by the United States to recover the costs 

associated this incident. After a claim has been paid, the OSLTF becomes subrogated to all the claimant’s rights 

under 33 U.S.C. § 2715. When seeking to recover from a Responsible Party or a Guarantor any amounts paid to 

reimburse a claim, the OSLTF relies on the claimant’s rights to establish liability. If a Responsible Party or 

Guarantor has any right to a defense to liability, those rights can be asserted against the OSLTF. Thus, this 

determination does not affect any rights held by a Responsible Party or a Guarantor.

2 NRC Report Number 1199955 dated December 18, 2017.

3 State of Alaska Spill Summary # 17119935201. 4 NRC Report Number 1199955 dated December 18, 2017. 5 State of Alaska Spill Summary # 17119935201. P 1/3. 6 See, State of Alaska Spill Summary # 17119935201. 7 See, OSLTF Form, dated October 12, 2023.

(b) (6)

5

line dated December 18, 2017, and an undated memo from USCG Commander (CDR) 

, Chief of Prevention, USCG Sector Juneau.16

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

The NPFC utilizes an informal process when adjudicating claims against the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).17 As a result, 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) requires the NPFC to provide a 

brief statement explaining its decision. This determination is issued to satisfy that requirement.

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

or conclusions reached by other entities.19 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 makes its determination based on the preponderance of the credible evidence. 

V. DISCUSSION: 

Under OPA, an RP 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.20 

An RP’s liability is strict, joint, and several.21 When enacting 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.”22 OPA was intended to cure these deficiencies 

in the law. 

OPA provides a mechanism for compensating parties who have incurred removal costs where 

the responsible party has failed to do so. 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.”23 The term “remove” or “removal” means “containment and removal of oil [...] from 

water and shorelines or the taking of other actions as may be necessary to minimize or mitigate 

16 See, ADEC’s claim submission to the NPFC dated October 12, 2024, page 26 of 26. 17 33 CFR Part 136. 18 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)). 19 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). 20 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 21 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 22 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). 23 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31).

(b) (6)
6

damage to the public health or welfare, including, but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, and 

public and private property, shorelines, and beaches.”24 

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).25 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

of regulations governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such 

claims.26 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.27

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.28

The NPFC analyzed each of these factors and determined that the costs incurred and 

submitted by ADEC are compensable removal costs based on the supporting documentation 

provided.29 All costs approved for payment were verified as being invoiced at the appropriate 

ADEC rates for personnel labor.30

Based on the location of this incident, the FOSC is the United States Coast Guard, Sector 

Southeast Alaska. All approved costs were supported by adequate documentation and were 

determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).31

Upon adjudication of the costs, the NPFC has determined that the amount of compensable 

removal costs is $1,878.48 while $0.03 are deemed unsubstantiated and non-compensable. 

Overall Denied Costs = $0.03 

VI. CONCLUSION:

Based on a comprehensive review of the record, the applicable law, and regulations, and for 

the reasons outlined above, State of Alaska, Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Spill 

Prevention & Response request for uncompensated removal costs is approved in the amount of 

$1,878.48.

24 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 25 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 26 33 CFR Part 136. 27 33 CFR 136.105. 28 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 29 See, NPFC Summary of Costs. 30 See, State Employee Bill Rates, P. 23/26 of Claim Submission. 31 See, Email from USCG Sector Southeast Alaska to NPFC dated January 23, 2024.