2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 921025-0001

Claimant: Washington State Department of Ecology

Type of Claimant: State

Type of Claim: Removal Costs

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $30,081.05

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $29,876.03

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On March 2, 2018 at approximately 4:30 pm local time, United States Coast Guard 

(USCG) Sector Columbia River made a notification to the National Response Center (NRC), via 

report # 1205697 and reported that a fishing vessel (F/V) had discharged an unknown amount of

diesel fuel into the Hoquiam River, a navigable waterway of the United States.

1

Washington State Department of Ecology (“Claimant” or “Ecology”), in its capacity as the 

State On Scene Coordinator (SOSC), responded to the incident and found the F/V LADY 

GRACE actively releasing diesel fuel into the Hoquiam River, a navigable waterway of the 

United States.2

Ecology contacted the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), in its 

capacity as the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) and it was agreed that Ecology would 

handle the response.

3 The SOSC took the lead in the response and operations and contracted 

Global Diving and Salvage (Global) and Cowlitz Clean Sweep (CCS) in order to remove the fuel 

onboard the vessel and in the water.4 Ecology, in its capacity as the State On Scene Coordinator 

(SOSC), oversaw and monitored the removal and cleanup operations performed by Global and 

CCS throughout the response. Ecology and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 

(WDFW) took three environmental samples on March 4, 2018 that contained diesel and lube oils 

that were determined to be a match to the source sample.5

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, . (“Mr. ” or 

“RP”) is identified as the responsible party (RP) 6for the incident that resulted in a discharge of 

oi from the fishing vessel LADY GRACE 7. (“RP), is the owner and 

operator of the vessel and the responsible party (RP) as defined by the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990.8 Global Diving and Salvage (Global), commenced cleanup operations on the water after 

being hired by the SOSC. Ecology presented its uncompensated removal cost claim to the

 

1 NRC Report # 1205697 dated March 2, 2018.

2 Tab W of Claim Submission, Spills Program Investigation Summary Form, p. 4.

3 Tab A, Ecology Original Claim Submission dated July 27, 2021 received July 27, 2021, page 3 of 5.

4 Tab W of Claim Submission, Spills Program Investigation Summary Form, p.6.

5 Tab G of Claim Submission, Ecology Manchester Environmental Laboratory Project Statement dated April 1, 

2018, pages 4-5.

6 33 U.S.C. § 2701.

7 Tab V of Claim Submission, USCG Bill of Sale for LADY GRACE Vessel No. 227284 dated February 2, 2018.

8 Tab V of Claim Submission, USCG Bill of Sale for LADY GRACE Vessel No. 227284 dated February 2, 2018.

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
3

National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for $29,022.85 on July 27, 2021.

9 On August 5, 2021, 

the NPFC received an email from Ecology amending the sum certain for the claim to 

$30,081.05.10 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the claim, 

analyzed the applicable law and regulations, and after careful consideration has determined that

$29,582.28 is compensable and offers this amount as full and final compensation of this claim.

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

On March 2, 2018, Ecology responded to the NRC report regarding an oil sheen on the 

Hoquiam River due to a discharge of diesel fuel from the ninety (90) year old 70-foot woodenhulled vessel, LADY GRACE, (previously a commercial fishing vessel) in the vicinity of 220 

Monroe Street in Hoquiam, Washington. Ecology arrived on the scene and found multiple 

vessels in various stages of disrepair but was unable to locate the reported oil sheen. The SOSC 

responders returned the next day and observed the LADY GRACE listing to starboard and the

vessel owner, ., was attempting to power up the vessel. Due to a faulty 

generator, the vessel’s sump pumps were not operating and the hull had reportedly been 

damaged by a log, causing it to take on water.11

SOSC responders did not find an oil sheen at this time. . was able to pump 

out the vessel’s hold and SOSC responders observed the vessel beginning to stabilize and with 

no visible sheen, the SOSC responders demobilized. Ecology was contacted again at 2218 and 

was informed that the sump pumps were once again inoperable, as the generator on board had 

run out of gas and the LADY GRACE was again taking on water while releasing diesel and 

antifreeze.12

After speaking with the FOSC, Ecology hired Global Diving and Salvage (Global) to conduct 

booming and diving operations in order to remove oil from the sunken vessel’s tanks. Cowlitz 

Clean Sweep (CCS) was hired to provide a vac-truck.13

Recovery Operations

Global deployed a containment boom, soft absorbent boom, and absorbent sweep around the 

vessel. On March 4, 2018, Ecology was on scene monitoring the spill response efforts of Global 

and CCS. A three-man dive team from Global arrived via a Global boat and worked to assess 

the vessel’s condition and recover any fluids found in the six on-board tanks, including hydraulic 

oil, diesel, and possibly vegetable oil. Using the CCS vac-truck, Global removed approximately 

890 gallons of oily water.14

II. CLAIMANT AND RP:

 

9 Tab A, Ecology Original Claim Submission dated July 27, 2021 received July 27, 2021, page 3 of 5.

10 August 5, 2021 email to NPFC amending sum certain for the claim to $30,081.05.

11 Tab W of Claim Submission, Spills Program Investigation Summary Form, page 3.

12 Tab W of Claim Submission, Spills Program Investigation Summary Form, page 3.

13 Tab A, Ecology Original Claim Submission dated July 27, 2021 received July 27, 2021, page 2 of 5.

14 Tab A, Ecology Original Claim Submission dated July 27, 2021 received July 27, 2021, page 4 of 5.

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

Claims for removal costs or damages may first be presented to the Fund by the Governor of a 

State for costs that are incurred by the State.15 On March 3, 2018 while Ecology responders were 

on scene, they witnessed the RP attempting to pump the water out of the vessel. Later that day, 

the RP left the vessel and has not been located since.

16 According to Ecology’s investigation,

they learned on January 25, 2019, that Mr. was in the Hoquiam Jail awaiting release on 

February 1, 2019. Ecology reports that on April 1, 2019, . was found dead in

Hoquiam following an accidental gunshot wound.17

The NPFC sent a Responsible Party Notification Letter on August 5, 2021 to Mr. 

. c/o his father .

18

 A Responsible Party Notification letter notifies 

the owner and/or operator that a claim was presented to the National Pollution Funds Center 

(NPFC) seeking reimbursement of uncompensated removal costs incurred as a result of response 

services performed that resulted from a vessel or facility that was identified as the source of a 

discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of oil to navigable waters of the United States. On 

August 13, 2021, the NPFC received a call from the father of the RP, who verbally confirmed

that Mr. . is in fact now deceased.19

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

On July 27, 2021, the NPFC received a claim for uncompensated removal costs from 

Washington State Department of Ecology in the amount of $29,022.85 dated July 27, 2021. On 

August 5, 2021, the NPFC received an email from Ecology amending the sum certain for the 

claim to $30,081.05.20 The claim included the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Modified Claim 

Form, WADOE Invoice breakdown, WADOE Indirect Costs EPA Agreement, Ecology 

personnel costs, WADOE Costs Invoice for OSRO, Lab Costs and Results, WA Fish and Wild 

Life Invoice, WADOE Global Diving Voucher and Proof of payment, Disposal Manifest 

invoice, Global Diving Invoice, Global Diving Contract, Pacific Northern Environmental and

WADOE Voucher Proof of payment, Cowlitz Clean Sweep Invoice, Pacific Northern 

Environmental - Rate Schedule, Oil Spill Chain of Custody Form, Lab Results, ICS214a-OS p.2-

11, Petroleum Spill Hazard Assessment Worksheet, WADOE Incident Detail Report, Map of 

Spill location, OSRO Global Narrative of job activities, Social Media Post and News Articles 

about incident, Ecology and USEPA email communications, Vessel Owner information, and 

WADOE Spills Program Investigation Summary Form.

Upon review of the submission, the NPFC requested additional information and Ecology 

provided the following: Timesheet Detail for State personnel, Global Diving Labor Costs 

Calculator Excel file, Master Contract for OSROs involved in response, Global Diving and 

Salvage Price list Excel file.

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

 

15 33 U.S.C. §2712 (a) (1) (b).

16 Tab A, Ecology Original Claim Submission dated July 27, 2021 received July 27, 2021, page 4 of 5.

17 Tab A, Ecology Original Claim Submission dated July 27, 2021 received July 27, 2021, page 3 of 5.

18 NPFC RP Notification letter dated August 5, 2021.

19 August 13, 2021 Phone call recap summary between NPFC and Mr. 

20 August 5, 2021 email to NPFC amending sum certain for the claim to $30,081.05.

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
5

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

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

or conclusions reached by other entities. 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: 

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.”21 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.”22 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.”23

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).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;

 

21 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).

22 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31).

23 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30).

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.
6

(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.

27

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.28

 

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

submitted by Ecology 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 published rates and all approved costs were supported by adequate 

documentation and outlined as a joint assessment and response by the FOSC.

 The amount of compensable costs is $29,876.03, while $205.02 was deemed not compensable 

for the following reasons:

1. The Overtime Rate for a Heavy Equipment Operator under Cowlitz Clean Sweep rate 

sheet found attached to a 9/17/21 Email to the NPFC, in a file identified as “DES Master 

Contract Price List,” on Page 2 of 5, is the Cowlitz price sheet and page 1 of 2 of the rate 

worksheet, line H11 identifies the Overtime Rate as $81.00 per hour vice the $101.00 per 

hour charged. As such, NPFC denied $205.00 in excessive costs for this labor rate.29

2. A $.02 denial adjustment has been applied for an unidentified difference in total costs 

claimed and supported. See line 77 of Enclosure 3 for identification of the identified 

discrepancy. 

Overall Denied Costs = $205.0230

VI. CONCLUSION:

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

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

the amount of $29,876.03.

 

27 Email from USEPA dated September 30, 2021 demonstrates the response actions performed by 

Ecology, Global and CCS were determined to be consistent with the NCP. After reviewing all available incident 

documentation, the amounts claimed by Ecology are supported by the record. The FOSCR also confirmed through 

email that the actions performed by the OSRO were determined to be consistent with the National Contingency 

Plan.

28 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205.

29 See, Enclosure (3), line 59 for itemization of the costs charged and adjudicated.

30 See, Enclosure (3), line 79 for itemization of the costs charged and adjudicated.

(b) (6)