2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1 

Claim Number: J19004-URC002 

Claimant: Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) 

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $13,278.87 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $13,278.87

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

On December 9, 2018 at 10:30 local time, the National Response Center (NRC) received a 

report that the sunken commercial fishing vessel, NORDIC VIKING, discharged black oil into 

Seward Harbor, a tributary of Resurrection Bay, a navigable waterway of the United States.2

 

Upon notification, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) Sector Anchorage Pollution 

Responders (“PR” or “ FOSC”)

3

 conducted a preliminary investigation and interviewed the 

reporting party4

 and determined that the source of the discharge was the capsized commercial

fishing vessel. 

The reporting party described the discharge to the PR as a 60’x1500’ rainbow sheen. The PR

from Sector Anchorage made the determination, in conjunction with the Sector’s duty officer, 

that the NRC report necessitated a response and USCG personnel from Marine Safety 

Detachment (MSD) Seward were dispatched to the incident.5

 The FOSC confirmed a heavy

sheen in Seward Harbor as far down as the campground 1.5 miles south of the vessel.

6

 On 

December 10, 2018, the FOSC opened Federal Project Number (FPN) J19004 and assumed 

control of the response and hired a response contractor and salvage company.7 The State of 

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation Spill Prevention & Response (“ADEC” or 

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 of 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 #1232468 dated 12/9/2018 3 USCG Pollution Responder is also referred to as the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) for the incident and 

the federal authority in charge of the incident response. 4 Mr. of the City of Seward reported the incident to the NRC as documented in NRC Report # 

1232468 

5 USCG SITREP-POL One dated December 11, 2018. 6 USCG SITREP-POL Two dated December 14, 2018 7 See, March 6, 2019, email statement to NPFC providing detailed explanation of incident response and actions 

performed.

(b) (6) (b) (6)
3

“Claimant”) responded to the incident in its capacity as the State On Scene Coordinator (SOSC) 

and worked closely with the FOSC.

8

On September 26, 2023, ADEC presented its removal costs to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC) in the amount of $13,278.87.9 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all 

documentation submitted with the claim, analyzed the applicable law and regulations, and after 

careful consideration has determined that all costs may be paid from the OSLTF. 

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

On December 9, 2018 at 10:30 local time, the National Response Center (NRC) received a 

report that the sunken commercial fishing vessel, NORDIC VIKING, discharged black oil into 

Seward Harbor, a tributary of Resurrection Bay, a navigable waterway of the United States.10 

Upon notification, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) Sector Anchorage Pollution 

Responders (“PR” or “ FOSC”)11 conducted a preliminary investigation and interviewed the 

reporting party12 and determined that the source of the discharge was the capsized commercial 

fishing vessel. 

The reporting party described the discharge to the PR as a 60’x1500’ rainbow sheen. The PR 

from Sector Anchorage made the determination, in conjunction with the Sector’s duty officer, 

that the NRC report necessitated a response and USCG personnel from Marine Safety 

Detachment (MSD) Seward were dispatched to the incident.13 The FOSC confirmed a heavy 

sheen in Seward Harbor and as far down as the campground 1.5 miles south of the vessel.14 

On December 10, 2018, the FOSC opened Federal Project Number (FPN) J19004 and 

assumed control of the response and hired a response contractor.15 The State of Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation Spill Prevention & Response (“ADEC” or 

“Claimant”) responded to the incident in its capacity as the State On Scene Coordinator (SOSC) 

and worked closely with the FOSC.16

8 USCG SITREP-POL One dated December 11, 2018, section 1L entitled Command Status. 9 ADEC claim submission received September 26, 2023. 10 NRC Report #1232468 dated 12/9/2018 11 USCG Pollution Responder is also referred to as the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) for the incident and 

the federal authority in charge of the incident response.

12 Mr. of the City of Seward reported the incident to the NRC as documented in NRC Report # 

1232468 

13 USCG SITREP-POL One dated December 11, 2018. 14 USCG SITREP-POL Two dated December 14, 2018 15 See, March 6, 2019, email statement to NPFC providing detailed explanation of incident response and actions 

performed.

16 USCG SITREP-POL One dated December 11, 2018, section 1L entitled Command Status.

(b) (6)
4

Responsible Party

The Oil Pollution Act identifies the owner or operator of a vessel resulting in an OPA 

incident to be the Responsible Party (RP) for that incident.17 The FOSC and SOSC both 

identified Mr. as the owner of the vessel, NORDIC VIKING, that discharged the 

oil.18 The NPFC issued a Responsible Party (RP) Notification letter dated September 29, 2023 

to Mr .

19 An RP Notification letter notifies the RP that a claim was presented to the 

National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) seeking reimbursement of uncompensated removal 

costs or damages incurred as a result of the incident in which the recipient is the identified or 

suspected RP. 

Recovery Operations

The FOSC and the SOSC oversaw the response, removal, and salvage operations.20 On 

December 9, 2018, the RP hired Storm Chasers to clean up the oil, conduct dive operations, and 

to plug vents in the hull’s fuel tanks.21 On December 9, 2018, the Harbormaster deployed 

absorbent boom and Storm Chasers deployed containment boom. Initially, the containment 

boom failed after the vessel shifted and pulled the boom under.22 Storm Chasers plugged the 

vessel’s fuel tank vents and retrieved the boom then redeployed it.23 On December 11, 2018, the 

FOSC issued Mr. a Notice of Federal Assumption (NOFA) because his actions to abate 

the threat and to remove the oil were unsatisfactory and the RP was unable to provide the FOSC 

confirmation that he possessed pollution insurance.24

On December 12, 2018, Storm Chasers removed the 500-gallon deck tank.25 On December 

13, 2018, the RP’s insurance contracted with Global Diving and Salvage, Inc. (Global) to 

complete salvage operations.26 Alaska Chadux Corporation (Chadux) was hired by the FOSC 

for pollution response.27 Chadux also supported pollution mitigation related to salvage 

operations.28 

From December 19, 2018, to December 21 2018, ADEC staff were onsite to observe the 

salvage and recovery of the vessel and to ensure pollution mitigation.29 USCG considered the 

response complete on December 21, 2018.30

17 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32). 18 USCG SITREP-POL One dated December 11, 2018, and Alaska DEC Situation Report, Four and Final dated

December 21, 2018. 19 See, 33 U.S.C. § 2701. See also, Responsible Party (RP) Notification Letter dated September 29, 2023. 20 USCG SITREP-POL Four and Final dated March 20, 2019, and Alaska DEC Situation Report Four and Final 

dated December 21, 2018. 

21 Alaska DEC Situation Report Four and Final dated December 21, 2018 22 Id. 23 Alaska DEC Situation Report Four and Final dated December 21, 2018. 24See, USCG Notice of Federal Assumption dated December 11, 2018; See, Email statement from FOSC to NPFC 

dated March 6, 2019, outlining incident details. 25 Alaska DEC Situation Report Four and Final dated December 21, 2018. 26 USCG SITREP-POL Three dated December 18, 2018; Alaska DEC Situation Report Four and Final dated 

December 21, 2018. 27 See, Email statement from FOSC to NPFC dated March 6, 2019, outlining incident details. 28 Alaska DEC Situation Report Four and Final dated December 21, 2018. 29 Alaska DEC Situation Report Four and Final dated December 21, 2018. 30 USCG SITREP-POL Four and Final dated March 20, 2019.

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
5

II. CLAIMANT AND RP: 

Absent limited circumstances, the federal regulations implementing the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990 (OPA)31 require all claims for removal costs or damages must be presented to the 

responsible party before seeking compensation from the NPFC.32 

ADEC sent the RP a Letter of State Interest on December 10, 2018.33 ADEC also presented

bills to the RP on March 18, 2019, and April 23, 2019.34 Lastly, ADEC sent an Inability to Pay 

Analysis Results letter to the RP dated October 4, 2019 informing the RP that the financial 

documentation presented in support of his inability to pay has been upheld and as such, ADEC 

will not pursue cost recovery.35 

 

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

On September 26, 2023, the NPFC received a claim for $13,278.87 from ADEC.36 ADEC 

provided the NPFC with an OSTLF form; NRC report; letter of State Interest to the RP; the 

results of ADEC’s ability to pay analysis; several media pieces regarding the spill incident; 

invoices and receipts for the Department staff who responded to the incident and billing rates for 

the staff.37 

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).38 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.39 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.40 If there is conflicting evidence in the record, the 

31 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. 32 33 CFR 136.103. 33 See, State of Alaska claim submission dated September 25, 2023, page 21 of 68. 34 State of Alaska claim submission dated September 25, 2023, pages 45-51 of 68 for copies of bills sent to the RP. 35 See, State of Alaska claim submission dated September 25, 2023, page 44 of 68. 36 State of Alaska claim submission received September 26, 2023. 37 Id. 38 33 CFR Part 136. 39 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)). 40 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).
6

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: 

 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.41 An RP’s liability 

is strict, joint, and several.42 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.”43 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.”44 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.”45 

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).46 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

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

claims.47 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.48

 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. 

41 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 42 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 43 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). 44 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 45 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 46 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 47 33 CFR Part 136. 48 33 CFR 136.105.