2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: E16312-0001 

Claimant: Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection 

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $39,650.06 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $39,110.06 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

On February 24, 2016, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Environmental 

Protection (PADEP or Claimant), Oil & Gas Management Program (OGMP), Crawford County 

Office of Emergency Services (OES), notified the National Response Center (NRC) of a 

discharge of an estimated 3-4 barrels (126-168 gallons) of crude oil that overflowed from a 210 

barrel above ground storage tank (AST) into a secondary containment that posed a substantial 

threat of discharge into Conneaut Creek, a tributary of Lake Erie, a navigable waterway of the 

United States.1

 The source of the discharge was determined to be an on-shore production facility 

(Jackson Unit 1) comprised of an oil/gas production well and tank installation.2 The Responsible 

Party (RP) and owner of the facility is identified as Mr. .

3

 PADEP presented 

its uncompensated removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for 

$39,650.06 on January 3, 2019.45 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all documentation 

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

consideration has determined that $39,110.06 of the $39,650.06 is compensable and offers this 

amount as full and final compensation of this claim.6

 

 

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS: 

 

Incident 

On February 24, 2016, PADEP responded to the discharge of an estimated 3-4 barrels (126-

168 gallons) of crude oil that overflowed from a 210 barrel above ground storage tank (AST) 

into a secondary containment that posed a substantial threat of discharge into Conneaut Creek, a 

tributary of Lake Erie, a navigable waterway of the United States.7

 

 

Responsible Party 

 

1

 United States Environmental Protection Agency Region III PolRep #1, dated March 20, 2016 from 

, Page 1, Section 1.1.2.2 Description of Threat. 2

 United States Environmental Protection Agency Region III PolRep #1, dated March 20, 2016 from 

, Page 1, Section 1.1.2 Site Description. 

3

 United States Environmental Protection Agency Region III PolRep #1, dated March 20, 2016 from 

, Page 1, Section 1.1.2.2 Description of Threat. 4

 PADEP claim submission.. 

5

 33 CFR 136.103(b)(3). 

6

 33 CFR 136.115. 

7

 United States Environmental Protection Agency Region III PolRep #1, dated March 20, 2016 from 

, Page 1, Section 1.1.2.2 Description of Threat. 

 

4

contractor, Environmental Coordination Services & Recycling (ECS&R). Howard Drilling LLC 

was hired by PADEP to plug the well.16 Howard Drilling performed well plugging actions from 

July 31, 2016 through August 7, 2016.17

II. CLAIMANT 

 The National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) received a claim for uncompensated removal 

costs from PADEP for a sum certain amount of $39,650.06 on January 3, 2019.18 The Claimant 

provided an Optional OSLTF Claim Form; Voucher Period 2/24/16 – 9/13/2017 showing a 

Voucher Total Expense of $39,650.06. The claim submission consisted of PADEP employee 

daily sheets for $2,229.97 (intermittently dated from February 24, 2016 to May 16, 2016); 

PADEP equipment costs sheets (for $110.57 and $29.52 respectively); ECS&R invoice # 161850 

in the amount of $4,740.00; June 14, 2016 receipt of $4,740.00 payment to ECS&R; Howard 

Drilling LLC $32,000.00 invoice to PADEP; Proof of $32,000.00 outgoing payment from 

PADEP to Howard Drilling LLC; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania pay schedule (effective July 

1, 2014). 

 On April 23, 2019, the Claimant sent an email to the NPFC amending its Voucher Period 

2/24/16 – 9/13/2017, showing a Voucher Total Expense of $40,190.06, after revising the Howard 

Drilling amount from $32,000.00 to $32,540.00, but it is important to note that when adding the 

claimed expenses of $2,229.97 for PADEP personnel, $140.09 for PADEP equipment, $4,740.00 

for ECS&R invoicing, and $32,540.00 for Howard Drilling, the total equates to $39,650.06 and 

not $40,190.06.19 Since the Claimant never officially requested a sum certain change in writing 

to the revised voucher total of $40,190.06, the NPFC is adjudicating the claim using the original 

sum certain amount of $39,650.06. It is also important to note that the Claimant provided proof 

of payment to Howard Drilling in the amount of $32,000.00 and not $32,540.00. The Claimant 

did provide a copy of a payment to Howard Drilling in the amount of $40.00 but the document 

shows it is associated with Longs #2 well site and not the Jackson Unit well therefore that 

document is not associated with the incident subject of this claim submission.20

III. DETERMINATION PROCESS: 

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).21 As a result, 5 U.S.C. § 555 (e) requires the NPFC to provide a 

brief statement explaining its determinations. This determination is issued to satisfy that 

requirement for the Claimant’s claim against the OSLTF. 

 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 

 

16 ECS&R quote to PADEP dated March 31, 2016 and Howard Drilling LLC quote to PADEP dated July 27, 2017. 

17 Howard Drilling daily resource reports from July 31, 2016 through August 7, 2016. 

18 Optional OSLTF Claim Form signed by and dated January 3, 2019. 

19 April 23, 2019 email from PADEP to NPFC with claim voucher breakdown of costs. 

20 PADEP payment summary to Howard Drlling with a payment date of 9/11/17. 21 33 CFR Part 136. 
 

5

the facts of the claim.22 The NPFC may rely upon, but is not bound by the findings of fact, 

opinions, or conclusions reached by other entities.23 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 finds facts and makes its determination based on the preponderance of the credible 

evidence. 

IV. DISCUSSION: 

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

with the National Contingency Plan.24 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of 

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

claims.25 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.26 

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. 

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.27 

Upon initial review of the claim submission, the NPFC made a request for additional 

information to the Claimant as described below:28

1. Requested a detailed description of how far the oil traveled when it breached the 

secondary containment, and also its location when eventually contained and 

cleaned up, and a detailed description of the nexus from the overflowed tanks to 

the Conneaut Creek; 

2. Requested a detailed disposal explanation and reasoning as to why the oil disposal 

method was chosen; 

3. Requested a rate/pricing schedule, daily field logs, descriptions of actions 

undertaken, and disposal manifests from ECS&R, and the rate/pricing schedule, 

invoicing, daily field logs, and descriptions and reasoning of actions undertaken 

by Howard Drilling; 

 

22 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). 23 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). 24 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a)(4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 

25 33 CFR Part 136. 

26 33 CFR 136.105. 

27 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 

28 Email from 

(b) (6)

 to dated February 14, 2

(b) (6)

019. 

 

7

July 27, 2017 Howard Drilling bid paperwork in which PA DEP was quoted a total projected 

cost estimate of $32,000.00 for plugging the well and its associated cleanup.32

The evidence demonstrates that ECS&R submitted a winning bid and was hired to dispose of 

the contaminated material that was collected throughout the response, and also that Howard 

Drilling, LLC submitted a winning bid and was hired to plug the well to prevent any future 

accidental discharges. The FOSC noted in its PolRep #2 that PADEP met with contractors to 

obtain cost estimates for these particular jobs.33 

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

by PADEP and submitted herein are compensable removal costs based on the supporting 

documentation provided. The NPFC has determined that the costs invoiced were billed in 

accordance with the quoted rates between the parties. All costs approved for payment were 

verified as being invoiced at the appropriate pricing, including but not limited to, all third party 

or out of pocket expenses. All approved costs were supported by adequate documentation which 

included invoices/quotes and proofs of payment. 

 The amount of compensable costs is $39,110.06, while $540.00 was deemed noncompensable for the following reasons:

1. The Howard Drilling LLC quote dated July 27, 2017 was for $32,000.00 to 

perform well plugging actions on the Jackson Unit 1. Proof of payment from 

PADEP was provided in the amount of $32,000.00 with a system pay date of 

August 23, 2017.34 Based on this information, when PADEP sent an email to the 

NPFC dated April 23, 2019 revising the amount for Howard Drilling to 

$32,540.00, the NPFC denies the additional amount of $540.00 because (1) it is 

not inaccordance with the written quote and (2) PADEP did not provide the NPFC 

with proof of payment for the additional amount of $540.00. PADEP did provide 

a copy of system payment for Howard Drilling in the amount of $40.00 but that 

system prinout shows it is for the Longs 2 well site and not the Jackson Unit 1 

well site. As a result, the total PADEP denied costs are $540.00. 

V. CONCLUSION: 

 Based on a comprehensive review of the record, the applicable law and regulations, and for 

the reasons outlined above, the Claimant’s request for uncompensated removal costs is approved 

in the amount of $39,110.06. 

Because this determination is a settlement offer35, the claimant has 60 days in which to 

accept; the failure to do so automatically voids the offer.36 The NPFC reserves the right to revoke 

 

32 Email from to , dated April 24, 2019 

33 United States Environmental Protection Agency Region III PolRep #2, dated July 19, 2017 from , 

Page 2, Section 1.1.3 Preliminary Removal Assessment/Removal Site Inspection Results. 

34 PADEP proof of payment system printout for Howard Drilling LLC dated August 23, 2017. 

35 Payment in full, or acceptance by the claimant of an offer of settlement by the Fund, is final and conclusive for all 

purposes and, upon payment, constitutes a release of the Fund for the claim. In addition, acceptance of any 

compensation from the Fund precludes the claimant from filing any subsequent action against any person to recover 

(

b