2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 920028-0001

Claimant: State of Washington

Type of Claimant: STATE

Type of Claim: Removal Costs

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $1,248.67

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $1,248.67

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:: 

On October 25, 2019, a Washington State, Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) 

employee discovered four abandoned used motor oil drums in a state wildlife area parking lot. 

One drum had leaked onto the gravel parking lot adjacent to Vancouver Lake, which discharges 

to the Lower Columbia River. As a rain storm was approaching, which would wash the oil into 

the lake, the WDFW employee contacted the Washington State, Department of Ecology 

(WDOE). Two State On Scene Coordinators (SOSCs) from WDOE responded and cleaned up 

the spill. 

The NPFC reviewed the documentation submitted with the claim and has determined that the 

claim should be paid in full in the amount of $1,248.67. 

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

On Friday, October 25, 2019, a WDFW employee discovered four recently abandoned drums 

of what appeared to be used motor oil/lubrication oil. One drum was on its side and was actively 

leaking fluid onto the ground. The drums were located at the Shillapoo Wildlife Area in 

Vancouver, Washington in a parking lot next to Vancouver Lake. Vancouver Lake discharges 

directly to the Lower Columbia River, a navigable water of the United States. The SOSCs 

determined that in light of current weather conditions, a substantial threat of discharge was 

imminent if the product was not cleaned up prior to the arrival of the incoming storm.

Responsible Party

No responsible party has been identified.

Recovery Operations

The WDFW notified the WDOE of the spill. Two WDOE SOSCs responded to the site. 

They uprighted the fallen drum and staged recovery equipment. Since a rainstorm was 

approaching, they determined that the spilled oil would reach the parking lot stormwater system 

and then discharge to the lake. WDOE personnel performed a field chemical test on the product 

and determined that it was an OPA oil. They transferred all the oil into the two best drums. 

(b) (6), (b)
3

They used sorbent pads to clean up the pooled oil and shovels to excavate the contaminated 

gravel, and placed the contaminated materials into containers. After they cleaned up the spill 

they notified the National Response Center (NRC) of the incident. The United States Coast 

Guard (USCG) Sector Columbia River phoned one of the SOSCs for a briefing and decided that 

a USCG response was not necessary in light of WDOE’s response.

1 WDOE and USCG Federal 

On Scene Coordinator’s Representative (FOSCR) corresponded by email regarding the response 

and disposal. WDOE transported the drums, contaminated sorbents and gravel to Clean Harbors 

Environmental Services for disposal. 

II. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

The claimant is an agency of the State of Washington. As a state, it may submit its claim 

directly to the OSLTF without first presenting it to the responsible party.2 The NPFC received 

the claim seeking reimbursement of $1,248.67 on June 17, 2020. The claimed costs consist of 

labor costs for two WDOE SOSCs who responded and cleaned up the spill, and disposal costs 

paid to Clean Harbors Environmental Services. No responsible party has been identified by 

either the FOSC or the SOSC for this incident.3

III. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).4 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.5 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.6 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.

IV. DISCUSSION: 

 

1 Claimant’s OSLTF Claim Form and WDOE Incident Summary

2 33 U.S.C. § 2713. In this incident, the responsible party has not been identified anyway.

3 Claimant’s OSLTF Claim Form and WDOE Incident Summary

4 33 CFR Part 136.

5 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)).

6 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).
4

 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.7 An RP’s liability 

is strict, joint, and several.8 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.”9 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.”10 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 

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

public and private property, shorelines, and beaches.”11

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).12 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of 

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

claims.13 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.14

 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.15

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

submitted herein are compensable removal costs based on the supporting documentation 

provided. The claimant has provided written email documentation from the FOSCR evidencing 

 

7 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a).

8 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780.

9 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).

10 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31).

11 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30).

12 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712(a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136.

13 33 CFR Part 136.

14 33 CFR 136.105.

15 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205.