CLAIM SUMMARY I DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 

Claimant: 

Type of Claimant: 

Type of Claim: 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: 

FACTS: 

91 3019-0001 

A Clean Environment 

Corperate 

Removal Costs 

$16,745.38 

Oil Spill Incident: On June 11, 20121

, the Oklahoma City Fire Department reported to 

the Storm Water Quality (SWQ) that a semi truck, operated by H. Gill Trucking2

, had 

punctured its saddle fuel tank. SWQ confirmed that diesel fuel had pooled in a nearby 

storm drain. SWQ provided the semi truck driver with a list of environmental contractors 

for environmental remediation. H. Gill Trucking contracted A Clean Environemnt 

(ACE).3 

Description of Removal Activities for this Claimant: ACE utilized sorbent boom and 

pads to collect any oil products as the area was pressure washed. After washing the area 

twice, Spill Dry absorbent was placed to collect the remaining free liquids. After the 

removal of all free liquids, the Spill Dry was collected and stored and the area was 

washed again. 

Prior to the arrival of ACE, a local business's automated irrigation system turned on 

causing run off that flowed through the contaminated area resulting in the diesel fuel 

contaminating the strom drainage areas. ACE was required to use sorbents and bring in 

fresh water and a vacuum truck to clean approximately a half mile section of the 

contaminated storm water system. 

On June 12, 2012, ACE sent the diesel contaminated water to Muskogee Waste & Water 

Co., Inc. 4 and on June 14, 201 2, the solid waste material was sent to Southern Oklahoma 

Regional Disposal (SORD) Landfill. 5 

The area was dete1mined to be cleaned by SWQ personnel on June 12, 201 2.

6 

The Claim: On December 20, 201 2, A Clean Environmnent, presented a removal cost 

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

uncompensated removal costs in the amount of $16,745.38.

7 

1 Oklahoma City Storm Water Quality Response Form. 2 California tag #VP741 89, USDOT #1917735, VIN 5N393260 

3 Signed contract between A Clean Environment and H. Gill Trucking dated June 11 , 201 2. 4 Muskogee Waste & Water Co., Inc. Invoice #2625. 

5 Southern Oklahoma Regional Disposal (SORO) Landfill Ticket #590667. 6 Oklahoma City Stonn Water Quality Response Form. 7 NFPC Standard Claim Form dated November 13, 2012. 

3 
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) ofOPA 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 (OSLTF), which is administered by the NPFC, is 

available, pursuant to 33 USC§§ 2712(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 §27 l 3(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. §27 13( d) provides that "If a claim is presented in accordance with this section, 

including a claim for interim, short-tenn 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. l 05(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 

were reasonable in response to the scope of the oil spill incident, and the NPFC has the 

authmity and responsibility to perform a reasonableness determ ination. 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 incurred 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." 

4 
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 (NCP) 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. The NPFC has determined that the actions undertaken by the claimant are deemed 

consistent with the NCP. This dete1mination is made in accordance with the 

Delegation of Authority for Determination of Consistency with the NCP for the 

payment of uncompensated removal cost claims and is consistent with the provisions 

of sections 1002(b)(I)(B) and 1012(a)(4) ofOPA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 2702(b)(l)(B) and 

2712(a)(4). 

2. The incident involved the discharge of"oil" as defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. §2701 

to "navigable waters." 

3. In accordance with 33 CFR § 136.105(e)(1 2), the claimant has certified no suit has 

been filed in court for the claimed costs. 

4. In accordance with33 U.S.C. § 2712(h)(2), the claim was submitted within the six 

year statute of limitations for removal costs. 

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

the claim and determined what costs presented were for actions in accordance with 

the NCP and that the costs for these actions were reasonable and allowable under 

OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205. 

B. Analysis: 

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

had incurred 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. 

A Clean Environment Inc. provided a billing invoice to H. Gill Trucking on June 14, 

2012. On August I, 2012, ACE left a voicemail requesting the status of payment. On 

August 16th a message was left with an employee for the owner to contact the 

Claimant. On August 24th ACE spoke with the owner and they report that he stated 

"they were going out of business and he counld not pay". On Austust 27th a message 

5 
was left with the owner's secretay. On August 30th the phone number for H. Gill 

Trucking had been disconnected. 

The Claimant is requesting $300.00 for two chemical analyses8 of an oil sample taken 

during the incident. The testing was performed by Environmental Testing Inc. at a 

rate of $50.00 per test. 9 NPFC calculates the oil analysis to be $100.00 plus 15% 

mark up in accordance with rate schedule. Therefore, the OPA compensable costs are 

$115.00 and the remaining amount of $ 185.00 is denied as unsubstantiated. 

The Claimant is requesting $108.50 for the purchase of 1,550 gallons of fresh water 

to be used for the oil removal process. The water was purchased from the City of 

Wilson at a rate of $50.00 for the first one thousand gallons and $0.05 for each 

additional gallon. 10 NPFC calculates the purchase of 1550 gallons to be $77.50 plus a 

15% mark up in accordance with rate schedule. Therefore, the OPA compensable 

cost is $89.13 and the remaining amount of$19.37 is denied as unsubstantiated. 

The Claimant is requesting $2,475.00 for the disposal of 5,500 gallons of hydrocarbon contaminated water. The liquid waste was disposed of at Muskogee Waste & 

Water Company at a rate of $0.20 per gallon 11

. The Claimant invoiced this cost at 

$0.45 per gallon to the RP. NPFC calculates the disposal of 5,500 gallons to be 

$1, 100.00 plus a 15% mark up in accordance with rate schedule. Therefore, the OP A 

compensable disposal costs are $1,265.00 and the remaining amount of $1,210.00 is 

denied as unsubstantiated. 

The Claimant is requesting $140.00 for the disposal of 1.82 tons of contaminated 

solid waste material. The solid waste was disposed of at the Southern Oklarnhoma 

Regional Disposal (SORD) Landfill at a rate of $24.50 per ton 12

. The Claimant 

invoiced this cost at $35.00 per drum, four total. NPFC calculates the disposal of 

1.82 tons to be $44.59 plus a 15% mark up in accordance with rate schedule. 

Therefore, the OP A compensable disposal cost is $51.29 and the remaining amount of 

$88.71 is denied as unsubstantiated. 

The Claimant is requesting $58.63 in sales taxes for the taxable consumables totaling 

$1,234.25 ( 4. 75%). Since the NPFC has recalculated the compensable cost for the oil 

analysis and the fresh water purchase, the compensable tax on these consumables is 

adjusted accordingly. Therefore, the OPA compensable sales tax is $48.93 and the 

remaining amount of $9. 70 is denied as unsubstantiated. 

All other costs were validated and the NPFC has determined those costs to be 

reasonable, necessary and performed in accordance with the National Contingency 

Plan (NCP). 

8 80218 BTEX analysis and TPH Diseal Range Organics analysis. 9 Environmental Testing Inc. invoice number 60530. 1

° City of Wilson water and sewer rates, Amended Resolution No. 2009-03 (A- 1). 

11 Muskogee Waste & Water Company invoice number 2625. 

12 Southern Oklarnhoma Regional Disposal (SORD) Landfill ticket number 590667. 

6 
On that basis, the Claims Manager herby determines that the Claimant did in fact 

incur $15,232.60 of uncompensated removal costs and that amount is payable by the 

OSLTF as full compensation for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the 

Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim #913019-0001. The Claimant states 

that all costs claimed are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by the Claimant 

for this incident on June 11 , 2012. The Claimant represents that all costs paid by the 

Claimant are compensable removal costs, payable by the OSLTF as presented by the 

Claimant. 

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $ 15,232.60 as full 

compensation for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and 

submitted to the NPFC under claim #913019-0001. All costs claimed are for charges 

paid for by the Claimant for removal actions as that term is defined in OP A and, are 

compensable removal costs, payable by the OSLTF as presented by the Claimants. 

AMOUNT· $15 232 60 

I 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor's review: 1130113 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor's Comments: 

7