3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 918036-0001 

Claimant: MPLX Terminals, Mt. Vernon, IN Terminal 

Type of Claimant: Corporate 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $21,845.89 

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident:

On May 3, 2018, a substance appearing to be red dyed diesel fuel was observed on the Ohio 

River at mile marker 830.6, at the MPLX Terminal in Mount Vernon, Indiana. The material 

created a sheen on the surface of the Ohio River, a navigable waterway of the United States. The 

sheen, which measured approximately 6’ x 50’ in diameter appeared after heavy thunderstorms 

passed through the area and collected in and around the MPLX barge loading terminal.

1

MPLX personnel discovered the sheen and made telephone notifications as required for reporting 

an oil spill.2 They also activated their oil spill response organization, Summit Environmental 

Services, Inc. (Summit) who responded to conduct pollution containment and removal 

operations.34 Lastly, they obtained a sample of the material from the Ohio River for analysis at 

their research lab for verification that the material was a red dyed diesel fuel.5 

The State On-Scene Coordinator (SOSC) Mr from the Indiana Department 

of Emergency Management (IDEM) also responded to the oil spill incident and provided 

oversight of the pollution removal activities.6

Description of Removal Activities for this Incident:

Summit personnel responded to the oil spill with an emergency response trailer, personnel, light 

plants, skirt boom, boats, skimmers, and a vacuum truck to contain and recover product.7 8

Skirt boom was placed on both the upstream and downstream sides of the MPLX dock to contain 

the red dyed diesel from getting upstream and to contain any liquid from emerging from the 

bank. Summit also stretched ten-inch and five-inch absorbent booms across the water to contain 

 

1 See CG Sector Ohio Valley SITREP dated 041236Z May 2018 2 See CG National Response Center (NRC) Report #1211046 dated May 3, 2018. See also Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management Emergency Response Incident Report #80911 dated May 3, 2018.

3 See Optional OSLTF Claim Form submitted by MPLX dated June 29, 2018. 4 MPLX Terminals LLC and Summit Environmental Services, Inc., entered into contract with each other on 

September 28, 2017. Contract No. CW2228239.

5 See Intracompany Correspondence, dated May 9, 2018 submitted as part of the claim submission. 6 See Indiana Department of Environmental Management, Emergency Response Incident Report # 80911 dated May 

3, 2018.

7 See, Summit Environmental Invoice # 23730. 8 See, Mr. email to Mr. dated Thursday, May 3, 2018, provided by the Claimant.
4

the oil. All saturated booms and pads were eventually removed and a vacuum truck and boat 

were used to remove the remaining pockets of red dyed diesel fuel from the river. 

Cleanup began May 3, 2018 and continued through May 9, 2018 and all waste generated during 

the response was disposed of at Central Ohio Oil, Inc. by MPLX as part of their recycling 

program. As such, the disposal costs associated with this response are not part of the removal 

claim.

91011 MPLX paid Summit’s invoice # 23730 in full on July 3, 2018, for all work performed 

on May 3, 2018, May 4, 2018, May 5, 2018, May 6, 2018, and May 9, 2018.12 

Claim:

On July 17, 2018, the NPFC received a removal costs claim from MPLX Terminals (MPLX or 

Claimant), Mt. Vernon, IN Terminal for reimbursement of their uncompensated removal costs 

paid to Summit Environmental Services for personnel, materials, and equipment, in the total 

amount of $21,845.89.13 The Claimant provided an Optional OSLTF Claim Form, Indiana 

Department of Environmental Management Emergency Response Incident Report # 80911, 

Intracompany Correspondence regarding the oil spill analysis, dated May 9, 2018, straight Bill of 

Lading for the water sample dated, May 3, 2018, Summit Environmental Services Invoice # 

23830 in the amount of, $21,845.89, and email correspondence between MPLX personnel 

regarding the sample analyses performed by MPLX personnel of the material recovered from the 

Ohio River and subject to their uncompensated removal costs claim.. 

 

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”. 

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 

 

9 See, Summit Environmental Invoice # 23730. 10 See letter from Mr. , Marathon Petroleum Company, to Ms. , NPFC, dated 

September 7, 2018. 11 See, Straight Bill of Lading, Shipper’s No. 6518-MTV, dated June 6, 2018. 12 See, Wire Transfer # 2000024571. 13 See, OSLTF Claim Form signed and dated, June 29, 2018.
5

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]. 

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. Overview:

1. The NPFC has determined that the actions undertaken by the Claimant are deemed 

consistent with the NCP. This determination is made in accordance with the Delegation 

of Authority for Determination of Consistency with the NCP for the payment of 

uncompensated removal cost claims and is consistent with the provisions of sections 

1002(b)(1)(B) and 1012(a)(4) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 2702(b)(1)(B) and 2712(a)(4).

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

2701(23) to navigable waters;

3. A Responsible Party was not determined. 33 U.S.C.§ 2701(32);

4. The claim was submitted within the six year statute of limitations. 33 U.S.C.§2712(h)(1);

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.




10

As there was not a responsible party associated with this oil spill, the Claimant was asked to 

provide evidence that the discharge of red dyed diesel fuel did not originate from their facility. 

In addition, the Claimant was asked to provide evidence that the material recovered from the 

Ohio River was an oil. 

Regarding the source of the discharge, the tote containing the red dye as well as the tank 

containing the undyed diesel fuel were both inspected and determined to be not leaking as 

confirmed by MPLX personnel and the site inspection conducted by SOSC on the 

day of the event. In addition, both MPLX personnel and SOSC inspected the Ohio 

River in the vicinity of the oil spill and were of the opinion that the oil spill originated upstream 

of the facility. Lastly, MPLX provided information that documented the design of the drainage 

associated with the facilities loading rack, the distance from the loading rack to the Ohio River

and the means associated with draining the underground storage tank associated with the loading 

rack which reinforced their claim that red dyed diesel fuel could not have escaped from the truck 

loading rack and discharged into the Ohio River. 

As such and based upon the preponderance of credible evidence, it is more likely than not, that 

the red dyed diesel from the facility’s loading rack was not the source of the subject oil spill as 

there was no evidence of escape from the loading rack to the Ohio River and the underground 

storage tank associated with the drainage of the loading rack was only capable of being emptied 

via a tank truck. 

Regarding the sample analysis performed by MPLX personnel of the material collected from the 

Ohio River on the day of the oil spill, analysis of the material suggested it to be an emulsion of 

red-dyed and bio-blended diesel fuel. Specifically, the analysis provided that the sample’s 

reddish colored top layer was comprised of a diesel emulsion. Relative amounts of nheptadecane (n-C17) and pristine compared to fresh 95% diesel/5% biodiesel reference indicates 

a possible release to the environment within the past five years. The observed presence of fatty 

acid methyl esters (FAME) indicate the diesel is bio-blended. The material is suspected of 

containing a red-dyed diesel, but conclusive verification is not achievable with the provided 

sample amount. 

As such and based upon the preponderance of credible evidence, it is more likely than not that 

the material sampled from the surface of the Ohio on the day of the oil spill and subject to this 

claim was a red dyed and bio-blended diesel fuel.

NPFC Adjudication 

NPFC CA reviewed all documentation provided. The review focused on: (1) whether a 

discharge or substantial threat of a discharge to a navigable water waterway occurred; (2) 

whether the actions taken were compensable “removal actions” under OPA and the claims 

regulations at 33 CFR 136 (e.g., actions to prevent, minimize, mitigate the effects of the 

incident); (3) whether the costs were incurred as a result of these actions; (4) whether the actions 

taken were determined to be consistent with the NCP; (5)whether the costs were adequately 

documented and reasonable.