CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 4/22/2010 

Claim Number : 910093-001

Claimant : WEG Environmental Group 

Type of Claimant : Corporate 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $14,623.76 

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: On October 10, 2009, approximately 200 gallons of fuel oil spilled 

into Hardin Run Creek, a tributary of the Ohio River, a navigable waterway of the United 

States. The incident was reported to the National Response Center (NRC) on October 

16, 2009 at approximately 13:57 pm local time via report # 920807 by Mr. 

 the named Responsible Party (RP).1

 Mr. entered into a contract for 

containment and removal with Weavertown Environmental Group (WEG) on October 16, 

2009, at which point WEG responded on-scene to the spill. 

2. Description of removal actions performed: The claimant, WEG, arrived at the spill site 

on October 16, 2009. WEG began clean-up efforts at the discharge point by constructing 

underflow dams at various points along the creek, using absorbent boom and pads. The 

team also utilized a vacuum truck to remove fuel from the creek. The spill originated at 

3906 Hardin Run Road and was contained at 3317 Hardin Run Road. General 

maintenance was performed on October 19, 23 and 30, 2008. The dams were replaced 

with new absorbent boom and pads, with the oil-soaked pads and boom being packed for 

disposal. The waste from the clean-up activities was disposed of on November 24, 

2009.2 

3. The Claim: On April 19, 2010, WEG submitted a removal cost claim to the National 

Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), for reimbursement of removal costs in the amount of 

$14,623.76 for the services provided from October 16 through October 30, 2009. This 

claim is for removal costs based on the rate schedule in place at the time services were 

provided. A copy of the vendor rate schedule is provided in the claim submission. 

This claim consists of copies of the invoicing and associated dailies, a copy of NRC 

Report # 920807, a copy of WEG’s contracted rate schedule, copies of Waste 

Management Disposal of Non-Hazardous Waste Manifests, a copy of WEG’s Contract 

for Containment and Clean-Up, signed by the RP, and internal email correspondence. 

The review of the actual cost invoicing and dailies 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 

 

1

 See NRC Report # 920807, dated 10/16/2009 

2

 See WEG Claim Submission explanation letter and the Waste Management Non-Hazardous Waste Manifest, both 

submitted with the claim by WEG to the NPFC on 4/19/2010 
were consistent with the NCP or directed by the FOSC, and (4) whether the costs were 

adequately documented. 

APPLICABLE LAW: 

Under OPA 90, at 33 USC § 2702(a), responsible parties are liable for removal costs and 

damages resulting from the discharge of oil into navigable waters and adjoining shorelines, as 

described in Section 2702(b) of OPA 90. A responsible party’s liability will include “removal 

costs incurred by any person for acts taken by the person which are consistent with the National 

Contingency Plan”. 33 USC § 2702(b)(1)(B).

"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 

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 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 on time.

5. Presentment of costs to the RP was made by the claimant, prior to the submission of the 

claim. The NPFC also made presentment of costs to the RP and to date the NPFC has 

received no response.

6. The NPFC Claims Manager has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the 

claim and determined that all removal costs presented were for actions in accordance with the 

NCP and that the costs for these actions were indeed reasonable and allowable under OPA 

and 33 CFR § 136.205.

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 Claims Manager validated the costs incurred and determined they were reasonable and 

necessary and performed in accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).

On that basis, the Claims Manager hereby determines that the claimant did in fact incur 

$14,623.76 of uncompensated removal costs and that that amount is properly payable by the 

OSLTF as full compensation for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the claimant and 

submitted to the NPFC under claim #910093-001. The claimant states that all costs claimed 

are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by the claimant for this incident from October 

16 through 30, 2009. The claimant represents that all costs paid by the claimant are 

compensable removal costs, payable by the OSLTF as presented by the claimant.
C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $14,623.76 as full compensation for 

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

claim 910093-001. 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. 

DETERMINED AMOUNT: $14,623.76

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 4/22/10

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: