CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Date : 2/13/2011 

Claim Number : 911010-0001 

Claimant : County of Dauphin Emergency Management Agency 

Type of Claimant : Local Government 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $16,496.17 

FACTS: 

On October 19, 2010, the Dauphin County Emergency Management Agency (DCEMA) 

received a call concerning a mystery oil spill in the Susquehanna River, located in 

Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, a navigable waterway of the US. Dauphin County 

Emergency Management Agency notified the NRC while conducting initial response. 

Harrisburg Fire Department (HFD) requested a DCEMA representative to command the 

response. The area was searched but the source of the spill could not be found. 

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) was the State On Scene 

Coordinator (SOSC) for this incident and Mr. provided guidance to 

the Harrisburg Fire Department as they performed response actions deploying boom in 

order to mitigate any effects from the incident. PADEP’s inspection report comments 

dated October 19, 2010, stated a sheen was seen on the river at several locations by 

Dauphin County Hazmat patrol boats. PADEP further reported that at the southernmost 

location, a petroleum sheen was noticed and the area of McClay and Front Streets had an 

odor of heating oil/diesel fuel. The odor was reported to be intermittently strong and 

weak. The patrol boat did not notice any petroleum contamination along the river bank 

north of the intersection of Emerald and Front Streets. Contamination was only noticed 

on the Eastern Shore of the Susquehanna River. 

Dauphin County Hazmat Teams deployed booms at three locations: (1) The intersection 

of McClay and Front Street; (2) Beneath the Market Street Bridge; and (3) Beneath the 

PA Turnpike Bridge. 

THE CLAIM:

On November 15, 2010, the County of Dauphin Emergency Management Agency 

presented a removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for their 

uncompensated removal costs associated with this incident in the amount of $16,496.17. 

The claim consisted of the National Response Center (NRC) report, chronology report 

from the claimant, itemization of costs, PADEP Inspection Report Comments, media 

reports, pricing schedule for services billed, and PADEP’s Emergency Response Form 

ICS 201-2. It is important to note that the Claimant was advised by PADEP once the 

response was concluded, that the boom could be discarded as residual waste. 

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION:

On December 7, 2010, the NPFC issued its initial determination for this claim. The 

NPFC denied the claim on the premise that the Claimant failed to perform proper 

disposal (by way of manifest) and was therefore a violation of the National Contingency 
Plan (NCP). On January 25, 2011, the Claimant made an official request for 

reconsideration via email to , NPFC. The Claimant provided a detailed 

request for reconsideration along with a letter dated January 24, 2011, from the Federal 

On Scene Coordinator (FOSC), Mr. of the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA) Region III. The FOSC confirmed that the response actions 

were appropriate and consistent with the NCP as well as the disposal was performed in 

accordance with state regulations since the NCP, ACP, and RCP do not specifically 

describe disposal requirements, therefore the FOSC affirms that the disposal was in fact 

in accordance with 25 PA Code § 299 which requires the person or municipality that 

generates residual waste as a result of a spill or emergency to notify the Pennsylvania 

Department of Environmental Protection (PADEP) prior to the disposal of residual 

waste. The Claimant did notify PADEP and PADEP did approve emergency storage of 

the residual waste at the dumpster located at the Harrisburg Fire Department Station 2. 

The FOSC further stated that the dumpster was transported to the Harrisburg Incinerator 

and the contents incinerated. In this type of situation, PADEP does not require the 

manifestation of residual wastes from the generator to the storage and/or disposal facility 

therefore the FOSC concluded that the response actions, including the storage and 

disposal of the residua wastes generated from this cleanup, were in accordance with the 

state regulations and policies of the PADEP and therefore in accordance with the NCP. 

DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

A. Overview: 

1. FOSC coordination has been provided for this claim (after the fact) via a letter from 

Mr. , USEPA FOSC, dated January 24, 2011. 

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

2701(23), to navigable waters. 

3. 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.

4. The claim was submitted within the six year statute of limitations. 

5. The NPFC Claims Manager has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted 

with the claim and the applicable law and governing regulations. 

 

B. Analysis:

NPFC CA reviewed the actual cost invoices and dailies to confirm that the claimant had 

incurred all costs claimed. The review focused on: (1) 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); (2) whether the costs were 

incurred as a result of these actions; (3) whether the actions taken were determined by the 

FOSC, to be consistent with the NCP or directed by the FOSC, and (4) whether the costs 

were adequately documented and reasonable. 

The NPFC has determined that the costs incurred were reasonable and necessary in order to 

mitigate the affects of the incident. The costs were billed in accordance with the rate 

schedule in place at the time the services were rendered and upon reconsideration, the NPFC 

has determined the disposal was performed in accordance with state regulations and PADEP 

policy therefore consistent with the NCP. 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $16,496.17 as full compensation for 

reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim 

# 911010-0001. All costs claimed are for charges paid for by the Claimant for removal 
actions as that term is defined in OPA and, are compensable removal costs payable by the 

OSLTF as presented by the Claimant.

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s Review: 2/14/11 

Supervisor Action: Offer on reconsideration approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: