2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 92001-0001 

Claimant: Guilford County 

Type of Claimant: Local Government 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $1,466.34 

Action Taken: Denial

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

On January 20, 2019 at approximately 2:50 am, the City of Greensboro Fire Department received an 

alarm notification that a tractor trailer’s saddle tank was leaking fuel at the Greensboro Coliseum VIP 

parking lot located at 1921 Westgate Drive in Greensboro, North Carolina. The Fire Department arrived 

on scene at approximately 2:56 am. The fire report indicates that unit E8 responded and Haz Mat unit 71 

assisted and contained the spill at approximately 3:25 am. Unit E8 confined the spill using a catch pool. 

The report states that unit 71 assisted with the containment and clean up and both units departed the scene 

at 4:25 am.1

 The incident was not reported to the National Response Center (NRC) until approximately 

3:55pm via NRC report # 1235779 on January 22, 2019 by Guilford County Environmental Health.2

 The 

Greensboro Fire Department reported that Mr. was identified as the responsible party (RP) 

for the incident.3

Guilford County Department of Health and Human Services (“claimant” or “GCDHHS) received a 

report of the diesel release at the Greensboro Coliseum on January 20, 2019 at approximately 3:34 pm but 

did not report the incident to the NRC until two (2) days later.4

 It is asserted by the claimant that Mr. 

 informed the City of Greensboro Fire Department that his company did not have the funds to 

secure a cleanup company and that the company was having trouble with their insurance.5

 On January 

22, 2019, Guilford County hired ECOFLO to perform cleanup.6

 Guilford County attempted to make 

presentment of its costs to the RP via certified mail on May 16, 2019; May 28, 2019; and again on June 6, 

2019.7

 The clamant provided copies of the USPS tracking for the May 28th and June 6th, 2019 certified 

letters which indicate notices were left but mail was never obtained by the recipient. The claimant notified 

the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) of the incident although the exact date of 

that communication is not known. The Guilford County Emergency Incident Report is signed by an 

USEPA duty officer on September 16, 2019 (almost eight months after the incident).8

Having not received payment from the RP,9

 Guilford County presented its uncompensated removal 

cost claim to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for $1,466.34 on October 10, 2019.10 The 

NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the claim, analyzed the applicable law 

and regulations, and after careful consideration has determined that the claim is denied on the basis that 

 

1 City of Greensboro Fire Report #19-0120020 dated January 20, 2019. 2 NRC Report # 1235779 dated January 22, 2019 and reported by Guilford County Environmental Health.

3 City of Greensboro Fire Report #19-0120020 dated January 20, 2019, section entitled Person/Entity Involved. 4 Guilford County Emergency Response Incident Report, undated.

5 Optional OSLTF Claim Form signed by dated September 30, 2019 6 Guilford County Emergency Response Incident Report, undated. 7 Guilford County demand for payment to RP dated May 16th, 28th and June 6th, 2019. 8 Guilford County Emergency Response Incident Report, undated.

9 A claimant must first present a claim for uncompensated removal costs to the RP. After ninety day, if the RP has 

not settled the claim, the claimant may present it claim to the NPFC. 33 CFR 136.103(c). 10 33 CFR 136.103(c)(2).; Optional OSLTF Claim Form signed by dated September 30, 2019. 

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

4

The claimant’s incident report states that on January 21, 2019, a follow-up site visit was performed 

late in the morning and a sheen was discovered on South Buffalo Creek.22 The claimant contracted with 

ECOFLO to remediate the remaining oil that spilled in the parking lot area with oil dry and additional 

boom replacement for the sheen on surface water.23 The Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC), 

 of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 4 and the National 

Response Center were notified of the incident on January 22, 2019.24 According to ECOFLO’s 

documentation, the cleanup was completed on January 25, 2019.25 The FOSC signed the Guilford 

County Emergency Response Incident Report on September 16, 2019.26

II. CLAIMANT AND RP: 

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

(OPA)27 require all claims for removal costs or damages must be presented to the responsible party before 

seeking compensation from NPFC.28

 The claimant initially submitted their invoice to the RP, Mr. , on May 16, 2019, May 28, 

2019, and June 6, 2019 via certified mail, respectively. To date, the claimant has received no response 

from the RP.29 

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

 When an RP has not settled a claim after 90 days, a claimant may elect to present its claim to the 

NPFC.30 On October 10, 2019, the NPFC received a claim for uncompensated removal costs from the 

claimant dated September 30, 2019. The claim included an invoice from the response contractor, 

ECOFLO, for their labor, equipment, disposal, and supplies totaling $1,466.34.31 The claimant has 

requested compensation for $1,466.34, which was paid in full to ECOFLO on June 27, 2019.32 

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Fund (OSLTF).33 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.34

 

22 Guilford County Emergency Response Incident Report, undated. 23 Guilford County Emergency Response Incident Report, undated. 24 National Response Center Report #1235779 dated January 22, 2019. 25 ECOFLO daily field logs provided in the claim submission. 26Guilford County Emergency Response Incident Report, undated. 27 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. 28 33 CFR 136.103. 29 OSLTF Claim Form signed by dated September 30, 2019. 30 33 CFR 136.103. 31 Guilford County claim submission and supporting documentation dated September 30, 2019. 32 OSLTF Claim submittal from Guilford County received October 10, 2019. 33 33 CFR Part 136. 34 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)).

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

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

other entities.35 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.

36 An RP’s liability is strict, 

joint, and several.37 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.”38 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.”39 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.”40

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

National Contingency Plan (NCP).41 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of regulations 

governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such claims.42 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.43

 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.

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.44

 35 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). 36 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 37 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 38 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). 39 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 40 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 41 See generally, 33 U.S.C. §2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 42 33 CFR Part 136. 43 33 CFR 136.105. 44 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205.