3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1 

Claim Number: UCGP922012-URC001

Claimant: South Carolina DHEC 

Type of Claimant: State Governement 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $53,136.00 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $42,007.51

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

On June 3, 2019, at 6:15pm local time, the South Carolina Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (“SCDHEC” or “claimant”) was notified of a sunken vessel, identified as 

a 52’ Egg Harbor Sportfisher “Patience”,2 that was actively leaking fuel in Lake Murray, a 

navigable waterway of the United States in South Carolina.3 

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA),4 Mr is identified as 

the owner of the vessel and responsible party (“Responsible Party” or “RP”).5 South Carolina 

Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) reported that it received a notification on June 3, 

2019 at 7:20pm local time that a neighbor’s boat was sinking and leaking diesel fuel. Mr. 

 of SCDNR reported that he would call Sea Tow6 to respond to the incident.7 South 

Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SCDHEC), in its capacity as the 

State On Scene Corrdinator (SOSC) for the incident, arrived on scene at approximately 8:45pm

on June 3, 2019. Sea Tow was already on scene responding to the incident.8

 SCDHEC activated 

its response contractor, A & D Environmental9 who responded as the lead prime contractor and 

 

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 SCDHEC Incident Report dated June 4, 2019, page 5 of 5, June 3, 2019 report entry by . 3 SCDHEC Incident Report dated June 4, 2019, page 1 of 5; National Response Center (NRC) Report #1247744 

dated June 3, 2019; USEPA FOSC coordination statement dated June 5, 2019; and 1977 Navigability Study for 

Uinted States Army Corps of Engineers Charleston District, Saluda River Bason, Report # 14.

4 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32).

5 National Response Center (NRC) Report #1247744 dated June 3, 2019 and SCDHEC Incident Report dated June 

4, 2019, page 1 of 5, under Potential Responsible Party section. 6 According to the South Carolina Secretary of State – Business Entities Online, Sea Tow Lake Murray LLC 

changed its corporate name to Hydro Tech Marine Services LLC effective July 10, 2014. See South Carolina 

Secretary of State – Business Entities Online website at https://businessfilings.sc.gov/BusinessFiling/Entity/Search. 7 SCDHEC Incident Report dated June 4, 2019, page 4 of 5, report entry from Mr. of SCDNR. 8 SCDHEC Incident Report dated June 4, 2019, page 5 of 5, June 3, 2019 report entry by Christopher L. Phillips.

9 SCDHEC Purchase Order dated October 20, 2017 showing A & D as a contracted Response Company to 

SCDHEC.

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

subcontracted with Sea Tow aka Hydro Tech Marine Inc. since Sea Tow was not a contracted 

response contractor with the SOSC. Sea Tow responded beginning on June 3, 2019 and A&D 

Environmental Services Inc. responded beginning on June 5, 2019 for oil removal and boat 

salvage.10 

SCDHEC presented its uncompensated removal costs to the National Pollution Funds Center 

(NPFC) on May 4, 2022 in the amount of $53,136.00.11 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all 

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

careful consideration, has determined that $42,007.51 of the requested $53,136.00 is 

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

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

On June 3, 2019, SCDHEC responded to the report of a sunken vessel leaking oil in Lake 

Murray, a navigable waterway of the United States. SCDHEC, in its capacity as the State On 

Scene Coordinator (SOSC) hired, oversaw, and monitored the removal and cleanup operations 

performed by Sea Tow and A&D Environmental throughout the response.12 The United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) determined 

that SCDHEC, in its capacity as the State On Scene Coordinator (SOSC), would have lead 

jurisdiction on the cleanup and no further USEPA action was required.13 

Responsible Party

 

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the owner and operator of the 52’ Egg 

Harbor Sportfisher “Patience” is the Responsible Party for the incident.14 On May 5, 2022, the 

NPFC issued a Responsible Party Notification Letter to Mr via certified mail.15 A 

Responsible Party Notification letter notifies the RP 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.

Recovery Operations

On June 3, 2019, Sea Tow was dispatched to the incident location by Mr. 

of SCDNR.16 Sea Tow arrived and stated that they have been deployed to the RP’s boat (Egg 

 

10 SCDHEC Incident Report dated June 4, 2019, page 5 of 5. 11 33 CFR 136.103(b)(3). 12 SCDHEC Incident Report, page 5 of 5 13 NRC Report #1247744 dated June 3, 2019 and FOSC coordination statement dated June 5, 2019. 14 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32). 15 NPFC RP Notification Letter sent to Mr. dated May 5, 2022. 16 SCDHEC Incident Report dated June 4, 2019, page 4 of 5, report entry from Mr. of SCDNR.

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

6

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).24 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.25 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.26 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.27 An RP’s liability 

is strict, joint, and several.28 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.”29 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.”30 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.”31 

 

24 33 CFR Part 136. 25 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)). 26 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). 27 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 28 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 29 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). 30 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 31 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).32 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

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

claims.33 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.34

 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.35

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.36

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

SCDHEC and submitted herein are compensable removal costs based on the supporting 

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

appropriate rate sheet pricing and all costs were supported by adequate documentation which 

included invoices and/or proof of payment where applicable. 

The amount of compensable costs is $42,007.51 while $11,128.50 are denied as follows:

1. A&D’s Emergency Response Pickup was invoiced at $76.00 per hr. The A & D rate 

sheet identifies the rate as $75.00 per hr. therefore the difference in pricing is denied 

in the amount of $8.00;37

2. A&D’s labor category for a Field, Emergency Technican was invoiced at a rate of 

$76.00 per hr. The A & D rate sheet identifies the rate as $55.00 per hr. therefore the 

difference in pricing is denied in the amount of $168.00;38

3. A&D invoiced PPE at a Level C PPE rate in the amount of $22.00 per person. The 

NPFC denies the price of Level C PPE as excessive because there is no need for 

breathing apparatus equipment for this response. Level D PPE would be the 

appropriate protection level for this response although the A&D PO rate sheet does 

 

32 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 33 33 CFR Part 136. 34 33 CFR 136.105. 35 FOSC coordination statement dated June 5, 2019. 36 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 37 A&D Invoice #SVC012770; A&D PO rate sheet shows truck price on page 3 of 5; and Summary of Costs 

spreadsheet line 7. 38 A&D Invoice #SVC012770; A&D PO rate sheet shows truck price on page 3 of 5; and Summary of Costs 

spreadsheet line 9.
8

not list Level D PPE as a billable option therefore this item is denied in the total 

amount of $154.00;39

4. A&D invoiced for three cubic yard boxes in the amount of $190.00 each however the 

rate sheet does not identify the cubic yard boxes as part of their pricing schedule and 

no third party receipt was provided to support the cost therefore the total amount of 

$168.00 is denied;40

5. A&D invoiced for the disposal of three non-RCRA cubic yard boxes however the 

A&D pricing schedule does not list this as a billable service nor were there any third 

party receipts provided to support the amount claimed therefore the total amount of 

$570.00 is denied;41 

6. Sea Tow/Hydro Tech invoiced their Laborer category at a rate of $58.50 per hour 

when the rate sheet identifies the rate as $38.50 per hr. The NPFC has reduced the 

rate in accordance with the rate sheet and denies a total of $430.00 in excess of the 

rate sheet pricing;42

7. Sea Tow/Hydro Tech invoiced for Supplies/equipment at a single rate of $100.00 

however the Sea Tow rate sheet does not identify this as a billable item and no third 

party receipt was provided to support the claimed cost and as such, the NPFC denies 

$100.00;43

8. Sea Tow/Hydro Tech invoiced for a one-time demob/decontamination charge 

however the Sea Tow rate sheet does not identify this as a billable charge, therefore 

NPFC denies the total amount of $500.00;44

9. Sea Tow/Hydro Tech invoiced salex tax however the Sea Tow rate sheet does not 

identify sales tax as a billable item nor did they provide a receipt identifying sales tax 

paid in the amount claimed, therefore NPFC denies the total amount of $80.66;45

10. A&D invoiced for a 30% administrative markup on Sea Tow/Hydro Tech invoiced 

amountof $21,398.51 however the A&D rate sheet does not identify an allowance of 

 

39 A&D Invoice #SVC012770; A&D PO rate sheet shows PPE on page 5 of 5; and Summary of Costs spreadsheet 

line 10. 40 A&D Invoice #SVC012770; A&D PO rate sheet does not identify this as an inventory item; and Summary of 

Costs spreadsheet line 13. 41 A&D Invoice #SVC012770; A&D PO rate sheet does not identify this a billable item; and Summary of Costs 

spreadsheet line 15.

42 Sea Tow invoice #986-4144; Sea Tow rate sheet lists a Trained Laborer at a rate of $38.50 per hr; and Summary 

of Costs spreadsheet lines 21,31, and 37. 43 Sea Tow invoice #986-4144; Sea Tow rate sheet lists a Trained Laborer at a rate of $38.50 per hr; and Summary 

of Costs spreadsheet line 27. 

44 Sea Tow invoice #986-4144; Sea Tow rate sheet does not identify demob or decontamination as a billable item; 

and Summary of Costs spreadsheet line 41.

45 Sea Tow invoice #986-4144; Sea Tow rate sheet does not identify sales tax as a billable item; and Summary of 

Costs spreadsheet line 44.