Claim Number 

Claimant 

Type of Claimant 

Type of Claim 

Claim Manager 

Amount Requested 

FACTS: 

CLAIM SUMMARY I DETERMINATION FORM 

912085-0001 

Hull & Associates, Inc. 

Corporate (US) 

Removal Costs 

$56,899.57 

Oil Spill Incident: On August 11 , 2011 the City of Oregon, OH Engineering Department 

discovered an oil discharge into the city's storm sewer system. The Oregon Fire 

Department (OFD) was requested to respond to the spill in order to provide assistance in 

locating the source and provide containment. The spill was traced to a private residence 

owned by a Mr. , responsible pruty (RP), located at 610 North Stadium 

Street, Oregon, Ohio. At that location a strong petroleum odor was found and light red 

fuel was found in the residence basement sump. Based on the recommendations from 

OFD, Hull & Associates Inc. was called by the RP to provide professional engineering 

services to address the situation. 1 

The source of the oil was found to be from an abandoned underground heating oil tank 

located on the property that had become· compromised. The heating oil had migrated 

from the tank through the ground and accumulated in the basement's sump where it was 

being discharged directly into the catch basin in front of the residence and then into the 

city's storm sewer system. 

Additionally, the State of Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OH EPA) and USCG 

Marine Safety Unit (MSU) Toledo, OH responded to the incident. The OH EPA 

maintained contact with Hull & Associates Inc. through the emergency phase of the 

response, which ended on August 19, 2011 . MSU provided an initial response to the 

incident. The USCG determined the spill to be outside the jurisdiction of the USCG 

because the incident did not impact or threaten a navigable waterway2. 

Description of Removal Activities for this Claimant: Hull & Associates Inc. and its 

subcontractor's activities included the removal of oil and oily water mixtures, removal of 

the tank, removal of contaminated soil, and the flushing and cleaning of the storm sewer 

lines. An oil-water separator was temporarily installed in-line of the basement sump to 

prevent future discharges of oil into the storm sewer system. 

During the site remediation, approximately 150 gallons of oil3

, 2,850 gallons of oily 

water

4

, and 64 cubic yards of fuel oil impacted soil5 had been removed. All contaminated 

waste was disposed of. The compromised oil tank was emptied, cleaned, excavated, and 

disposed of as scrap. 

1 Hull & Associates Cover Lener to NPFC dated August 14, 201 2. 2 Email from MST I , USCG, to dated May 3 1, 2012. 3 Hull & Associates 30 Day Report, Section 3.0, dated October 3, 201 l. 4 Hull & Associates 30 Day Report, Section 3 .0, dated October 3, 20 I I. 5 Environmental Management Specialists lnvoice #499 dated August 30, 20 11. 
It is noted that the OFD provided initial spill containment by placing absorbent booms 

and pads in the sewer catch basin in front of the RP home, absorbent pads in the catch 

basin across the street, and absorbent bQom in the main sewer outflow approximately 

1400 feet no1ih of the spill source. OFD also placed a temporary plug in the RP' s 

discharge pipe in the catch basin in front of the home.6 

The Claim: On August 15, 2012, Hull & Associates Inc. presented a removal cost claim 

to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of their 

uncompensated removal costs in the amount of $56,899.57. 

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)(l)(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 (OSL TF), which is administered by the NPFC, is 

available, pursuant to 33 USC§§ 27 12(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 

6 Hull & Associates Cover Letter to NPFC dated Aug ust 14, 20 12. 
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 incmTed 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. No FOSC coordination has been established. 33 USC §1321(d)(2)(K). 

2. The Claimant has failed to demonstrate how the spill posed a substantial threat of 

discharge to a navigable waterway. 

3. In accordance with 33 CFR § 136.105(e)(l2), 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 for removal 

costs. 

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

with the claim and determined that the removal costs presented were not for 

actions in accordance with the NCP and that the costs for these actions were not 

allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205. 

B. Analysis: 

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

incuJTed 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 Claimant has provided documentation that shows there was oil within the storm 

sewer system piping in the immediate area of the residence but has failed to 

demonstrate how this incident posed a substantial threat to a navigable waterway. 

There is no documentation of any oil found in any waterway or tributary. The USCG 

MSU reported to the NPFC that there was no impact to a navigable waterway7. The 

OH EPA Investigation Report stated there had been no impact to the downstream 

tributary and an additional information inquiry

8 to them, from NPFC, stated that fuel 

did not reach the open tributary. Hull & Associates Environmental Impact analysis 

7 Email from MSTJ USCG, to NPFC dated August 30, 20 12. 8 Email from Mr. , OH EPA, dated September 6, 20 12. 
within their 30 Day Report states that no navigable waterway was affected and the 

spill was contained within the property boundaries. 

The Claimant did not obtain FOSC coordination for this incident and as such, the 

Claimant has failed to meet their burden pursuant to the governing claims regulations 

found at 33 CFR 136.203 and 136.205 to demonstrate that any actions undertaken by 

them were detem1ined by the FOSC to be reasonable, necessary and consistent with 

the National Contingency Plan (NCP). 

C. Determined Amount: 

Based upon the foregoing, the NPFC denies this claim because the Claimant has 

failed to demonstrate that the spill posed a substantial threat of discharge into or upon 

a navigable waterway and that no FOSC coordination was obtained from the Federal 

on Scene Coordinator (FOSC) to ensure the response was conducted in accordance 

with the National Contingency Plan. 

AMOUNT: $0.0 

Claim Superviso

Date of Supervisor's Review: 1013112 

Supervisor Action: Denial approved 

Supervisor's Comments: