3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1 

Claim Number: UCGP922015-URC001 

Claimant: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $31,420.79 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $31,418.49

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On October 12, 2021 at approximately 10:00 p.m., a fire broke out at the D & C Motor 

Company European Motor Cars [d/b/a D & C Motorz Inc.’s (D & C Motorz)] automotive service 

building in Clackamas County, Oregon. The fire consumed a plastic liner of a 275-gallon 

aluminum framed tote of used oil that was located next to the building, resulting in the discharge 

of its contents.2

 On October 13, 2021, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality 

(ORDEQ) notified the National Response Center (NRC) of an unknown sheen from an unknown 

source that discharged into Kellogg Creek and Kellogg Lake, navigable waterways of the United 

States.3 

Based on the location of this incident, the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) was the 

United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).4 ORDEQ, as the State On Scene 

Coordinator (SOSC) for the incident, determined that the “unknown” sheen stemmed from the 

incident at D&C Motorz the day before. ORDEQ determined the spill to have been caused by 

arson5 at the D & C Motorz property which consumed the plastic liner of the 275-gallon tote and 

caused the tote to fail and discharge its contents.6 The exact volume of oil present in the tote was 

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 Oregon DEQ Pollution Report (POLREP) #1 Initial and Final dated June 9, 2022. 3 National Response Center (NRC) Report # 1319398 dated October 13, 2021.

4 See, 40 CFR 300.120(a)(2). 5 The Clackamas County Sheriff’s Department identified as the individual potentially

responsible for the arson. The Sheriff’s Department stated that this individual is also potentially responsible for other 

related acts of arson as well. Mr. is classified as homeless and could not be located by law enforcement

during the investigation. See, ORDEQ POLREP #1 Initial and Final, under the Enforcement Activities, Identity of 

Potentially Responsible Parties (PRPs) section dated June 9, 2022. See also, Causal Investigation email to ORDEQ 

from Clackamas County Sheriff’s Department dated February 23, 2022. 6 See, ORDEQ POLREP #1 Initial and Final, under the Location, Site and Source Description section, dated June 9, 

2022. 

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
4

unknown, but it was estimated to be nearly full based on observations and conversations with D 

& C Motorz representatives.7

ORDEQ reported the incident to the National Response Center (NRC) and as the State On 

Scene Coordinator (SOSC), responded to the incident beginning on October 14, 2021, and on 

successive dates as needed to evaluate site conditions, effectiveness of containment measures

and other aspects of the response.8

ORDEQ presented its uncompensated removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC) for $31,420.79 on June 29, 2022.9 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all 

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

careful consideration has determined that $31,418.49 of the requested $31,420.79 is 

compensable and offers this amount as full and final compensation of this claim.

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

On October 12, 2021, a fire occurred at the D & C Motorz’s automotive service building and 

consumed the plastic liner of a 275-gallon aluminum framed tote located next to the building. 

The tote discharged its contents of used oil, and the firefighting water moved the oil into a 

nearby storm drain that is managed by the Oregon Department of Transporation (ORDOT).

10

On October 13, 2021 ORDEQ notified the NRC of an unknown sheen from an unknown source 

that was discovered on Kellogg Creek and Kellogg Lake, navigable waterways of the United 

States.11 ORDEQ determined the incident at D & C Motorz caused the sheen that was reported 

on October 13, 2021. 

Responsible Party 

D & C Motorz is the owner of the tote tank that discharged the oil12 and, thus, the RP under 

Oil Pollution Act (OPA).13 

Recovery Operations

On October 13, 2021, ORDEQ personnel responded to the incident and began response 

actions. The SOSC attended the scene on October 14, 2021, and on successive dates as needed to 

evaluate site conditions, effectiveness of containment measures and other aspects of the 

response.14 The SOSC oversaw the response in coordination with the FOSC. 

7 ORDEQ POLREP #1 Initial and Final, under the Location, Site and Source Description section, dated June 9, 

2022.

8 ORDEQ POLREP #1 Initial and Final, under the Response Actions section, dated June 9, 2022. 9 Optional Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) Claim Form dated June 13, 2022. 10 ORDEQ POLREP #1 Initial and Final, under the Response Actions section, dated June 9, 2022. 11 NRC Report Number 1319298 dated October 13, 2021. 12 See, email from D&C Motorz to NPFC dated September 27, 2022 acknowledging ownership of the tank. 13 See, 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32). 14 ORDEQ POLREP #1 Initial and Final dated June 9, 2022.
5

Local city government personnel assisted in the site and source investigation while Oregon 

Department of Fish & Wildlife staff performed monitoring for oiled wildlife and ultimately 

identified a mallard that had been impacted by the oil. The bird was captured and delivered to the 

Audubon Society for rehabilitation.15 Due to the impact to the stormwater conveyance system, 

ORDOT assisted with the coordination of cleanup activities and promptly hired US Ecology to 

contain and remove oil from the storm water conveyance system along with the impacted 

waterways.16 

US Ecology personnel deployed containment and absorbent boom within the creeks and lake 

to prevent the movement of oil into the Willamette River. Cleaning of the source area and within 

the stormwater systems was completed to prevent further movement of oil into the waterway. 

After the cleaning, absorbents were left in the catch basins of the stormwater system to absorb 

any residual oil that might remain. Passive oil collection methods continued over several months 

by leaving the booms in place and relying on anticipated rain events to flush out any residual oil 

to the collection points.17 

On January 4, 2022, given that no additional oil was recoverable from the waterways and 

only very minor sheening was observed entering the lake, the response was deemed complete. 

All booms and absorbents were pulled from the water. In total, 4.98 tons of oily absorbents and 

debris along with approximately 150 gallons of oily water were collected and disposed of during 

the response.18

II. NPFC AND RP:

The NPFC issued a RP Notification letter dated August 17, 2022 to D&C Motorz Inc. A RP

Notification letter notifies the RP that a claim was presented to the NPFC that is 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.19 

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

 On June 29, 2022, the claimant submitted its claim to the NPFC for $31,420.79.20 

On July 25, 2022, the NPFC requested additional information from the claimant, and they 

promptly provided the requisite information to the NPFC on August 10, 2022.21 

15 ORDEQ POLREP #1 Initial and Final dated June 9, 2022. 16 ORDEQ POLREP #1 Initial and Final dated June 9, 2022. 17 ORDEQ POLREP #1 Initial and Final dated June 9, 2022. 18 ORDEQ POLREP #1 Initial and Final dated June 9, 2022. 19 RP Notification Letter dated August 17, 2022. 20 The claim included the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Optional Claim Form dated June 13, 2022; ORDEQ 

POLREP #1 – Initial and Final dated June 9, 2022; Site Location Map; Photo Log of incident photos; Casual 

Invetigation Information from Clackamas Sheriff’s Department; NRC Report # 1319398 dated October 13, 2021; 

Oregon Emergency Response System Incident Report screenprint; and USEPA coordination emails and 

communication; ORDEQ Invoice and ORDEQ personnel listing by date and activity performed. 21 This information included: D & C Motorz Inc. corporate information from the Oregon Secretary of State; ORDEQ 

Costs and Time Log for incident by name and date; FOSC coordination statement dated July 26, 2022, which 

determined their actions were consistent with the NCP; Fiscal Year 2020 indirect rate calculation paperwork;

ORDEQ Personnel Costs and position descriptions; and Clackamas Fire Department statement dated August 3, 2022 

indicating no firefighting foam was used in the fire suppression for the incident.
6

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).22 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.23 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.24 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.25 An RP’s liability 

is strict, joint, and several.26 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.”27 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.”28 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.”29 

22 33 CFR Part 136. 23 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)). 24 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). 25 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 26 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 27 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). 28 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 29 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).30 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

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

claims.31 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.32

 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.33

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.34

The NPFC analyzed each of these factors and determined that the majority of the costs

incurred and submitted by ORDEQ are compensable removal costs based on the supporting 

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

appropriate ORDEQ published rates personnel labor, ORDEQ agency indirect costs, and 

ORDEQ Land Quality Division (LQD) Indirect costs. 

Based on the location of this incident, the FOSC is the United States Environmental 

Protection Agency (USEPA).35 All approved costs were supported by adequate documentation 

and were determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).

36

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

removal costs is $31,418.49 while $2.30 are deemed non-compensable for the following 

reasons:37 

 

1. The claimant requested $9,619.94 for ORDEQ personnel labor costs.

38 However, upon 

adjudication of the individual line items for each person using their respective hourly 

rates and hours claimed, the personnel costs actually total $9,619.87, which is a 

difference of ($0.07). As such, the NPFC denies the difference. 

30 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a)(4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 31 33 CFR Part 136. 32 33 CFR 136.105. 33 Email from FOSC to ORDEQ dated July 26, 2022 acknowledging the actions taken were consistent with the 

National Contingency Plan.

34 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 35 40 CFR 300.120(a)(2). 36 See, ORDEQ claim submission dated June 13, 2022, additional information provided by the claimant, and email 

from FOSC to ORDEQ dated July 26, 2022 acknowledging the actions taken were consistent with the National 

Contingency Plan.

37 Enclosure 3 to this determination which provides a detailed analysis of the amounts approved and denied by the 

NPFC. 38 ORDEQ claim submission dated June 13, 2022, page 30 of 33.