3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1

Claim Number UCGPJ20009-URC001 

Claimant: State of Alaska Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Spill Prevention 

& Response 

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $1,571.22

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $1,571.21 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:: 

On April 11, 2020 at approximately 8:00 am local time, the National Response Center (NRC) 

was notified by the Port of Homer, of a vessel that was sinking and was releasing diesel fuel in 

the Homer Harbor, a tributary of Kachemak Bay, a navigable waterway of the United States.2

 

The spill was first discovered on April 8, 2020 by the Deputy Harbormaster when he observed an 

oily bilge water leak coming from the abandoned vessel NORTH PACIFIC GOLD.

3

 

The United States Coast Guard (USCG) Sector Juneau was identified as the Federal On 

Scene Coordinator (FOSC) for the incident. In its capacity as the FOSC, Sector Juneau

federalized the incident and hired a contractor for remediation activities. State of Alaska Dept. of 

Environmental Conservation, Spill Prevention & Response (“ADEC” or “Claimant”) as the State 

on Scene Coordinator (SOSC) communicated with the FOSC and sent a Letter of State Interest 

to the owner of record and responsible parties, and City of Homer & Harbor.

4

Alaska DEC presented its uncompensated removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC) for $1,571.22 on September 22, 2023. The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all 

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

careful consideration has determined that $1,571.21 is compensable and offers this amount as 

full and final compensation of this claim.

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 National Response Center Incident Report # 1275399 dated April 11, 2020. 3 Original Claim submission dated September 21,2023 received on September 22, 2023, page 3 of 37, Spill 

Summary Report 20239909801. 4 See, Original Claim submission dated September 21,2023 received on September 22, 2023, pages 6 through 9 of 

37, Letters of State Interest dated April 15, 2020, respectively; and USCG Investigator Statement of MST2 

 dated August 5, 2020.

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


6

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).27 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.28 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.29 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: 

 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.30 An RP’s liability 

is strict, joint, and several.31 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.”32 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.”33 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.”34 

27 33 CFR Part 136. 28 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)). 29 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). 30 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 31 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 32 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). 33 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 34 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30).
7

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

consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).35 The NPFC has promulgated a 

comprehensive set of regulations governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and 

adjudicating such claims.36 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.37

 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.38

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.39

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

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

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

of AK, Dept. of Environmental Conservation, Spill Prevention & Response published rates and 

all approved costs were supported by adequate documentation and were determined by the FOSC 

to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).

Based on the location of this incident, the FOSC for this incident is USCG Sector Juneau. 

The administrative record demonstrates that ADEC communicated with the FOSC for this 

incident during the response and ongoing removal operations performed by Global under the 

direction of the FOSC. 

After a complete review of all documentation, the NPFC has determined that the invoiced 

costs were billed in accordance with the rate schedule in place at the time services were rendered 

and the NPFC has determined that the claimant demonstrated proper presentment of costs to the 

RP.

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

removal costs is $1,571.21 while $.01 is deemed non-compensable for the following reason: 

1. Invoice # SPR-171273 dated September 20, 2020 totals $96.82, there is an unsupported 

difference of $0.01 and the invoice items actually total $96.81. The NPFC has adjusted 

the total to coincide with the correct sum of all invoiced items. 

Overall Denied Costs = $0.0140

35 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712(a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 36 33 CFR Part 136. 37 33 CFR 136.105. 38 In conjunction with the FOSC, ADEC was involved in the RP notification process. 39 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 40 Enclosure 3 to this determination provides a detailed analysis of the amounts approved and denied by the NPFC.