3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1 

Claim Number: UCGP923040-URC001 

Claimant: Northampton County Emergency Management Services 

Type of Claimant: Municipality

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $431.75

Action Taken: Denial

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On February 3, 2022, a tractor trailer owned by ISR Transportation, Inc. (“ISR” or “RP”) traveling 

Northbound on SR512, entered a railroad crossing located at the borders of Bath Borough and East Allen 

Township, Pennsylvania, without the appropriate clearance.

2 The vehicle was struck by a Norfolk 

Southern Railway train traveling westbound on the intersecting railroad tracks, causing the cab and trailer 

to rip apart and positioning the cab upright over a drain.3 Incident command reported approximately 400 

gallons of diesel fuel, engine oils and coolants spilling from the vehicle along with 7 pallets of milk and 

yogurt spilling from the trailer. The spillage entered the Monocacy Creek; a navigable waterway of the 

United States.45

The United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 3 (“USEPA” or “FOSC”) is the Federal 

On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) based on the location of this incident. The FOSC determined that the 

incident posed a substantial threat of discharge of oil into a navigable waterway of the United States, and 

determined all actions taken by the Claimant were consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).

6

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 with 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 Northampton EMS claim submission received September 27, 2023. See, State Police Incident Report pg. 2 of 2. 3

Id. 4 Following the 2023 court ruling in the case titled, Sackett vs. EPA, the United States Environmental Protection 

Agency and United States Army Corps. of Engineers have implemented rules defining navigable waterways under

rules amended by Sackett or the pre-2015 regulatory regime, consistent with Sackett: dependent upon state. For both 

provisions, the agencies will not assert jurisdiction based on the significant nexus standard, will not assert 

jurisdiction over interstate wetlands solely because they are interstate, will interpret “adjacent” to mean “having a 

continuous surface connection,” and will limit the scope of the (s)(3) provision to only relatively permanent lakes 

and ponds that do not meet one of the other jurisdictional categories. Under these provisions, relatively permanent 

waters include tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (typically three 

months); Pre-2015 Regulatory Regime: (a)(5) - Tributaries. See, Sackett v EPA 21-454. 5 Email from EPA Region 3 to the NPFC dated October 13, 2023.

6 Northampton EMS claim submission received September 27, 2023. See, Letter from EPA Region 3 to the NPFC 

dated August 9, 2023.

(b) (6)
4

ISR Transportation, Inc., is the owner of the tractor trailer responsible for the collision and spillage, was 

identified as the responsible party (RP), as defined by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.7

On September 27, 2022, Northampton EMS presented its removal costs claim to the National 

Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for $431.758

 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all documentation 

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

determined that all costs must be denied.

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

On February 3, 2022, a tractor trailer owned by ISR Transportation, Inc. (“ISR” or “RP”), traveling 

Northbound on SR512, entered a railroad crossing located at the borders of Bath Borough and East Allen 

Township, Pennsylvania, without the appropriate clearance.9 The vehicle was struck by a Norfolk 

Southern Railway train traveling westbound on the intersecting railroad tracks, causing the cab and trailer 

to rip apart and positioning the cab upright.10 Upon their arrival on scene, Northampton EMS personnel

found the train engine broad side into the passenger side of the cab of the tractor trailer.

11 The cab was 

separated from the trailer and pushed approximately 500 yards down the railway.12 The cab began leaking 

oil and coolants into the Monocacy Creek; a navigable waterway of the United States.13

Incident command reported approximately 400 gallons of diesel fuel, engine oils and coolants had 

spilled from the vehicle, and 7 pallets of milk and yogurt had spilled from the trailer.14 Due to the food 

and fuel spillage into the navigable waterway, Pennsylvania’s Department of Environmental Protection 

(PA DEP), Pennsylvania’s Department of Agriculture (PA AGR) and Pennsylvania’s Fish & Boat 

Commission (PA FBC) were all notified of the incident.15 

Responsible Party

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the owner of the source which caused the oil spill is 

the Responsible Party (RP) for the incident.16 ISR Transportation, Inc. is the confirmed owner of the 

vehicle at the time when the spill incident occurred.17 As such, ISR is identified as the responsible party 

(RP), as defined by the Oil Pollution Act of 1990.18

Recovery Operations

The East Allen Township and Hanover Township fire companies arrived on scene and aided in 

mitigation and response. They placed a spill pool under the tractor trailer’s passenger side saddle tank, 

7 33 U.S.C. § 2701 (32). 8 Northampton EMS claim submission received September 27, 2023. 9 Northampton EMS claim submission received September 27, 2023. See, State Police Incident Report pg. 2 of 2. 10 Northampton EMS claim submission received September 27, 2023. See, State Police Incident Report pg. 2 of 2. 11 Email from Northampton EMS to NPFC dated October 2, 2023. See, 2022-05 Incident Report pg. 2 of 4. 12 Email from Northampton EMS to NPFC dated October 2, 2023. See, 2022-05 Incident Report pg. 2 of 4. 13 Northampton EMS claim submission received September 27, 2023, pg. 1 of 3. 14 Id. 15 Northampton EMS claim submission received September 27, 2023. See, State Police Incident Report pg. 2 of 2. 16 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32). 17 Northampton EMS claim submission received September 27, 2023, with attachments. 18 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32).
5

placed absorbents atop the drainage point and deployed absorbents into the creek to mitigate the spill and 

to prevent further runoff.19

Northampton EMS personnel arrived on scene at approximately 1012 hours.20 Hazmat and utility 

vehicles were brought on-scene to provide adequate mitigation supplies to aide in mitigation of the spill 

and cease any additional spillage.21 Northampton EMS supplied 4 pieces of 4’ rebar stakes and 1 package 

of 1⁄2” x 25’ All-Purpose Nylon Rope while deploying booms into and across the Monocacy Creek.22

On February 3, 2022, the vehicle was removed from the railway and Norfolk Southern Railway hired 

HEPACO, LLC (“HEPACO” or “OSRO”) to clean up all remaining spillage affiliated with the incident.23

Northampton EMS personnel left the scene on February 3, 2023. The roadway and railroad crossing 

where the incident took place were reopened, all cleanup operations complete and the case officially 

closed by Northampton EMS on February 4, 2022.24 

II. CLAIMANT AND RP: 

Absent limited circumstances, the federal regulations implementing the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

(OPA)25 require all claims for removal costs must be presented to the responsible party before seeking

compensation from the NPFC.26 Northampton submitted all costs incurred as result of the February 3, 

2022 incident to the responsible party via 3 separate invoice billing dates sent on March 7, 2022,27 June

13, 2022,28 and July 14, 2022.29

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

On September 27, 2023, Northampton EMS presented its removal costs claim to the National 

Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for $431.75.

30 When the claim was received, it included Northampton 

EMS’s signed claim, the WebEOC Event Report Log, a second event log titled CAD event log, the 

Northampton County EMS cost fee schedule, EPA Region III’s signed letter to the NPFC, incident 

photographs, all Invoices for costs claimed and mailed to the Responsible Party with dates of submission, 

State Police Incident Report #PA 2022-139506, a Waterway Map specific to the incident location, and a 

copy of Northampton County Council’s Ordinance 308.

31 

On October 2, 2023, the NPFC requested additional information from Northampton EMS.32 On 

October 2, 2023, Northampton EMS submitted their reply to the NPFC’s request, including the Incident 

Report #2022-05, the 2022 Northampton County Fee Schedule, and the 2022-05 event log.

33 On October 

10, 2023, the NPFC requested additional information again from Northampton EMS.34 On October 11, 

19 Northampton EMS claim submission received September 27, 2023, pg. 1 of 3. 20 Email from Northampton EMS to NPFC dated October 2, 2023. See, 2022-05 Incident Report pg. 2 of 4. 21 Northampton EMS claim submission received September 27, 2023, pg. 2 of 3. 22Id. 23 Northampton EMS claim submission received September 27, 2023, pg. 1 of 3. 24 Northampton EMS claim submission received September 27, 2023. See, WebEOC Event Report Log pg. 2 of 7. 25 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. 26 33 CFR 136.103. 27 Northampton EMS claim submission received September 27, 2023. See, Invoices 1.2.3. pg. 1 of 3. 28 Northampton EMS claim submission received September 27, 2023. See, Invoices 1.2.3. pg. 2 of 3. 29 Northampton EMS claim submission received September 27, 2023. See, Invoices 1.2.3. pg. 3 of 3. 30 Northampton EMS claim submission received September 27, 2023. 31 Northampton EMS claim submission received September 27, 2023, with Attachments. 32 Email from NPFC to Northampton EMS, dated October 2, 2023. 33 Email from Northampton EMS to NPFC, dated October 2, 2023, with Attachments. 34 Email from NPFC to Northampton EMS, dated October 10, 2023.
6

2023, Northampton EMS submitted their reply to the NPFC’s request, and included a map of the 

Monocacy Creek.35 On October 11, 2023, the NPFC contacted Northampton EMS by telephone to discuss 

issues concerning a “drain” noted on page 1 of the original claim submission.36 Northampton EMS 

explained that the mention of the “drain” was an administrative error, and verified the spill released 

directly from the cab into the Monocacy Creek.37

The NPFC issued a RP Notification letter to ISR Transportation, Inc. dated September 28, 2023.38 A 

RP Notification letter notifies the RP that a claim was presented to the NPFC that is seeking 

reimbursement of uncompensated removal costs or damages incurred as result of the incident in which the 

recipient is the identified or suspected RP.39 As of the date of this letter, ISR has not responded to the RP 

Notification Letter.

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Fund (OSLTF).40 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.41

The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, or conclusions reached by other 

entities.42 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.43 An RP’s liability is strict, 

joint, and several.44 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.”45 OPA was 

intended to cure these deficiencies in the law.

35 Email from Northampton EMS to NPFC, dated October 11, 2023, with Attachment. 36 Northampton EMS claim submission received September 27, 2023, pg. 1 of 3. 37 Summary of Phone Conversation between NPFC and Northampton EMS, dated October 11, 2023. 38 NPFC letter to ISR Transportation, Inc. mailed on October 4, 2023. 39 See, RP Notification Letter dated September 28, 2023. 40 33 CFR Part 136. 41 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)). 42 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). 43 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 44 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 45 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).
7

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.”46 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.”47

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

National Contingency Plan (NCP).48 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of regulations 

governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such claims.49 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.50

 OPA defines a “claim” to mean a request made in writing for a sum certain for compensation for 

damages or removal costs resulting from an incident.”51 

An “incident” under OPA is defined as any occurrence or series of occurrences having the same 

origin, involving one or more vessels, facilities, or any combination thereof, resulting in the discharge or 

substantial threat of discharge of oil.”52 

OPA defines “oil” as “oil of any kind or in any form, including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, 

and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged spoil, but does not include any substance which is 

specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance under subparagraphs (A) through (F) of section 

101 (14) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (42 USC § 

9601) and which is subject to the provisions of that Act [42 USCA Section 9601 et seq.]”53

CERCLA defines “hazardous substance” broadly.54 However, the definition of “hazardous substance” 

under CERCLA specifically excludes “petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof...”.55

Further, the definition goes on to exclude “natural gas, natural gas liquids, liquefied natural gas, or 

synthetic gas usable for fuel (or mixtures of natural gas and such synthetic gas).”56

Upon review of the evidence submitted by the Claimant, the NPFC opines there is not enough 

evidence to substantiate the product released was exclusively an OPA oil. Furthermore, evidence suggests 

46 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 47 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 48 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 49 33 CFR Part 136. 50 33 CFR 136.105. 51 33 U.S.C. § 2701(14). 52 33 U.S.C. § 2701(14)(emphasis added). 53 33 U.S.C. § 2701(14). 54 “Hazardous substance means (A) any substance designated pursuant to section 311(b)(2)(A) of the Federal Water 

Pollution Control Act, (B) any element, compound, mixture, solution, or substance designated pursuant to section 

9602 of this title, (C) any hazardous waste having the characteristics identified under or listed pursuant to section 

3001 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act [42 U.S.C. 6921] (but not including any waste the regulation of which under 

the Solid Waste Disposal Act [42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.] has been suspended by Act of Congress), (D) any toxic 

pollutant listed under section 307(a) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act [33 U.S.C. 1317(a)], (E) any 

hazardous air pollutant listed under section 112 of the Clean Air Act [42 U.S.C. 7412], and (F) any imminently 

hazardous chemical substance or mixture with respect to which the Administrator has taken action pursuant to 

section 7 of the Toxic Substances Control Act [15 U.S.C. 2606].” 

55 Id. 56 Id.