Sent VIA Electronic Mail To: Serena@hazmatinternational.com 

 

 

Hazmat International, Inc. 

Attn: Serena Hughes 

2200 East Davis Street 

Conroe, TX 77301 RE:UCGP924014-URC001 

Dear Ms. Hughes: 

The National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) denies payment on the claim number UCGP924014-

URC001 involving the spill associated with the oil spill beside the I-10 roadway in Brookshire, 

Texas, on September 14, 2018. 

This determination is based on an analysis of all the information submitted and the applicable law 

and regulations. Please see the attached determination for further details regarding this decision. 

You may make a written request for reconsideration of this claim. A claim may be reconsidered 

only once; disposition of that reconsideration in writing will constitute final agency action. 

The request for reconsideration must be received by the Director, NPFC within 60 days after the 

date the offer was mailed to you. It must include the factual or legal grounds for the relief 

requested, providing any additional support for the claim. After you request reconsideration, you 

may request, and the NPFC will consider, an extension of time beyond the 60 days to submit 

materials supporting the grounds for reconsideration. If the NPFC grants your request, it will 

require the execution of a tolling agreement. 

All correspondence should include the claim number. Because of the timeliness requirement for 

reconsideration requests, you may email an advance copy of your reconsideration request to our 

HQS-SMB-NPFC-ClaimsInfo@uscg.mil email address. You may also alert us that a 

reconsideration request is in the mail by calling 1-800-280-7118. 

Director

National Pollution Funds Center 

US Coast Guard Stop 7605

2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave SE 

Washington DC 20593-7605 

Staff Symbol: Ca 

Toll-Free: 1-800-280-7118 

Fax: 202-372-8397 

Email: HQS-SMBNPFCCLAIMSINFO@uscg.mil 

5890 

February 15, 2024 
 

2

You must also mail any reconsideration request to: 

 Department of Homeland Security 

CG National Pollution Funds Center (CA) 

 US Coast Guard Stop 7605 

 2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave SE 

 Washington DC 20593-7605 

 Sincerely, 

 Alexander Feliciano 

Claims Manager 

U.S. Coast Guard 

By direction 

Enclosures: (1) Claim Summary / Determination 
 

3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1 

Claim Number: UCGP924014-URC001 

Claimant: Hazmat International, Inc. 

Type of Claimant: OSRO 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: Alexander Feliciano 

Amount Requested: $52,769.30

Action Taken: Denial

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On September 14, 2018, a semi-truck with trailer owned by Sure-Fire Carrier Inc. (“SureFire” or “RP”), was traveling Eastbound on I-10 when it left the main lanes of the interstate and 

struck the guardrail of an overpass in Brookshire, Texas. The truck crashed onto Peach Ridge 

Road below, where it ruptured its saddle tanks and lost its load.2 Hazmat International, Inc. 

(“Hazmat” or “Claimant”), reported that approximately 100 gallons of diesel fuel spilled from 

the ruptured saddle tanks onto the shoulder of the roadway, into a ditch next to the roadway, and 

onto the underpass of the freeway.3 The Claimant asserted that the roadside ditch affected by the 

spill is approximately one (1) mile from the incident location to the Brazos River; a navigable 

waterway of the United States.4

The United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 6 (“USEPA” or “FOSC”) is the 

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

determined that the incident did not pose a substantial threat of discharge into a navigable 

waterway of the United States.5 

On September 14, 2018, the RP hired Hazmat to perform cleanup operations.6 On November 

1, 2018, final disposal actions were completed, and the incident response was complete.7

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

 Hazmat International original claim submission, Incident Response Worksheet, page 3 of 4. 

3

Id. pg. 4 of 4.

4

Id. pg. 3 of 4. 

5

 Email from FOSC to the NPFC dated February 5, 2024. 

6

 Hazmat International original claim submission, Incident Response Worksheet, page 3 of 4. 

7

 Hazmat International original claim submission received November 29, 2023. See, Waste Disposal Manifest, pg. 5 

of 18. 
 

4

On November 29, 2023, Hazmat presented its removal costs claim to the National Pollution 

Funds Center (NPFC) for $52,769.30.8 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 September 14, 2018, a semi-truck with trailer driven by Mr. Abel Hernandez9, and 

owned by Sure-Fire Carrier Inc.10 (“Sure-Fire” or “RP”), was traveling Eastbound on I-10 when 

it left the main lanes of the interstate and struck the guardrail of an overpass in Brookshire, 

Texas. The truck crashed onto Peach Ridge Road below, where it ruptured its saddle tanks and 

lost its load.11 

Hazmat International, Inc. (“Hazmat” or “Claimant”), reported that approximately 100 

gallons of diesel fuel spilled from the ruptured saddle tanks onto the shoulder of the roadway, 

into a ditch next to the roadway, and onto the underpass of the freeway.12 The Claimant asserted 

that the roadside ditch affected by the spill is approximately one (1) mile from the incident 

location to the Brazos River; a navigable waterway of the United States.13

Responsible Party 

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the owner and operator of the semi-truck 

and trailer is the Responsible Party (RP) for the incident.14 Hazmat asserted that the RP for the 

incident was Sure-Fire Carrier, Inc.15 Hazmat provided a copy of an insurance denial dated 

February 6, 2019, that confirms Sure-Fire Carrier, Inc. as the owner and insured for the semitruck and trailer.16

 

Recovery Operations 

 

On September 14, 2018, Hazmat International Inc. (“Hazmat” or “Claimant”) contacted 

Sure-Fire, who ultimately hired Hazmat to perform cleanup operations.17 On September 14, 

2018, the remaining diesel fuel was pumped out of the saddle tanks as requested by Gregory 

8

 Hazmat International original claim submission received November 29, 2023. 

9 See, Insurance Denial letter to Hazmat International dated February 6, 2019, that shows the truck driver as Abel 

Hernandez. 

10 See, Texas Department of Motor Vehicles proof of ownership by Sure-Fire Carrier, Inc. for the semi-truck subject 

of the oil spill incident, page 2 of 5. 

11 Hazmat International original claim submission, Incident Response Worksheet, page 3 of 4. 

12 Id. pg. 4 of 4.

13 Id. pg. 3 of 4. 

14 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32). 

15 Hazmat International original claim submission, Incident Response Worksheet, section Responsible Party 

Information, page 3 of 4. 

16 See, Insurance denial letter dated February 6, 2019, and Texas Department of Motor Vehicles proof of ownership 

by Sure-Fire Carrier, Inc. for the semi-truck subject of the oil spill incident, pages 1-5. 

17 Hazmat International original claim submission, Incident Response Worksheet, pg. 3 of 4. 
 

5

Towing.18 All contaminated debris and multiple bags of spilled diatomaceous earth were placed 

in roll-off containers, while a 130-barrel19 tanker truck was brought in to pump any existing 

water out of the ditch. Evidence does not confirm whether the water in the ditch resulted from 

the cleanup activities or if the water was present in the ditch prior to the incident and ensuing 

response.20

On September 15, 2018, 25-gallons of remediation agent was sprayed on the affected areas to 

assist in the breakdown of petroleum hydrocarbons.21 Cleanup operations continued through 

October 30, 2018, when 4 roll-off boxes were brought to contain “fuel impacted soil.”22

Approximately 85 yards of dirt was excavated, with 4 loads of dirt delivered to replace the 

removed soil. On November 1, 2018, the 4 roll-off loads were removed for disposal and cleanup 

activities ended.23

II. CLAIMANT AND RP: 

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

1990 (OPA)24 require all claims for removal costs must be presented to the responsible party 

before seeking compensation from the NPFC.25 Hazmat submitted its costs incurred as result of 

the September 14, 2018, incident to the responsible party on October 9, 2018, but reported 

receiving no payments from the RP.2627 

The NPFC issued a RP Notification letter to Sure-Fire Carrier, Inc., dated November 30, 

2023.28 An RP Notification letter notifies the owner/operator that a claim was presented to the 

NPFC seeking reimbursement of uncompensated removal costs incurred as a result of a 

discharge of oil to navigable waters of the United States. 

Sure-Fire contacted the NPFC on December 20, 2023, advising that Sure-Fire is no longer in 

business after filing a Chapter 7 bankruptcy in September 2020.29 The RP did not settle the 

claim within 90 days from presentment.30 As such, the NPFC adjudicated the claim. 

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC: 

 When an RP denies a claim or has not settled a claim after 90 days of receipt, a claimant 

may elect to present its claim to the NPFC.31 On November 29, 2023, the National Pollution 

18 Id. pg. 4 of 4. 

19 One barrel is equivalent to 42-gallons. 

20 Hazmat International original claim submission received November 29, 2023. See, Photos, pg. 6 of 9. 

21 Hazmat claim submission received November 29, 2023, with Incident Response Worksheet, pg. 4 of 4. 

22 Hazmat claim submission received November 29, 2023. See, Invoice #18091402-2, pg. 2 of 3. 

23 Hazmat claim submission received November 29, 2023. See, Waste Disposal Manifest, pg. 5 of 18. 

24 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.

25 33 CFR 136.103. 

26 Hazmat claim submission received November 29, 2023, pg. 1 of 4. 

27 See, Insurance denial letter to Hazmat dated February 6, 2019, stating the insurance policy benefits were 

exhausted. 

28 See, RP Notification Letter dated November 30, 2023. 

29 See, Email from NPFC to Sure-Fire detailing Phone Conversation Summary dated December 20, 2023. 

30 33 CFR 136.103(c). 

3133 CFR 136.103. 
 

6

Funds Center (NPFC) received Hazmat’s claim for uncompensated removal costs in the amount 

of $52,769.30.32 In its claim submission to the NPFC, Hazmat provided an executed OSLTF 

Claim Form; a copy of Invoice #18091402-2, information pertaining to Sure-Fire Carrier’s 

Insurance Group, a sample analysis report taken from the spill location, a disposal manifest 

affiliated with the spill incident, and photographs taken on-scene from the spill location.33 

 On November 30, 2023, the NPFC requested additional information from Hazmat.34 On 

December 1, 2023, Hazmat submitted their reply to the NPFC’s request, including the insurance 

denial letter due to the RP’s policy exhaustion.35 On December 11, 2023, the NPFC requested 

additional information, again from Hazmat.36 On December 28, 2023, the NPFC reminded 

Hazmat of the request for additional information,37 and on January 8, 2024, the NPFC contacted 

Hazmat by telephone, further explaining our need for additional information.38

On January 11, 2024, Hazmat submitted their reply to the NPFC’s request with several 

attachments including the soil analysis with vendor invoice, the disposal manifest with vendor 

invoice, affiliated worksheets and narrative reports, the hazmat rate sheet for 2018, the SDS 

sheet for the cargo that impacted the ditch area, and a Google map.39 On January 12, 2024, the 

NPFC notified Hazmat that the evidence submitted does not substantiate that the spill discharged 

into a “navigable waterway” as asserted, therefore a request for evidentiary documentation was 

made.40 On January 12, 2024, Hazmat responded to the NPFC’s request with a document 

showing photographs that display water at the scene of the spill incident location.41

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS: 

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).42 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.43 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

32 See, Optional OSLTF Claim Form dated November 2, 2023, and received by NPFC on November 29, 2023. 

33 Hazmat claim submission received November 29, 2023, with Attachments. 

34 Email from NPFC to Hazmat dated November 30, 2023. 

35 Email from Hazmat to NPFC dated December 1, 2023, with Attachment. 

36 Email from NPFC to Hazmat dated December 11, 2023. 

37 Email from NPFC to Hazmat dated December 28, 2023. 

38 Email from NPFC to Hazmat detailing Phone Conversation Summary dated January 8, 2024. 

39 Email from Hazmat to NPFC dated January 11, 2024, with Attachments. 

40 Email from NPFC to Hazmat dated January 12, 2024. 

41 Email from Hazmat to NPFC dated January 12, 2024, with Attachment. 

42 33 CFR Part 136. 

43 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)).
 

7

or conclusions reached by other entities.44 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.45 An RP’s liability 

is strict, joint, and several.46 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.”47 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.”48 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.”49

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).50 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of 

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

claims.51 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.52

 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; 

44 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). 

45 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 

46 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 

47 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). 

48 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 

49 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 

50 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 

51 33 CFR Part 136. 

52 33 CFR 136.105. 
 

8

(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.53

Based on the location of this incident, the FOSC for this incident is the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).54 There is no evidence in the administrative record 

that the FOSC was notified of this incident, and as such, it did not direct any actions. The NPFC 

contacted the FOSC to ascertain whether or not it considered the actions taken by the claimant to 

be consistent with the NCP.55 

The FOSC found that the actions taken by the claimant were not consistent with the NCP 

because the incident did not discharge into a navigable waterway of the United States, nor did it 

substantially threaten a navigable waterway of the United States.56 Since the FOSC did not 

direct the actions of the claimant nor did the FOSC determine the claimant’s actions were 

consistent with the NCP, the claim must be denied.57 

The NPFC has not specifically adjudicated the specific underlying claimed costs because it 

has denied the claim on the jurisdictional grounds of not being compensable under OPA.58

VI. CONCLUSION: 

 Based on a comprehensive review of the record, the applicable law, and regulations, and for 

the reasons outlined above, Hazmat’s request for uncompensated removal costs is denied. 

 

 

 

Claim Supervisor: Donna M Hellberg 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 2/15/2024 

Supervisor Action: Denial approved

53 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 

54 See generally, 40 CFR 300.120(a)(2). 

55 See, Email from NPFC to EPA FOSC dated November 30, 2023, requesting after-the-fact FOSC coordination for 

the incident and response. 

56 See, Email from USEPA FOSC to NPFC dated February 5, 2024. 

57 See, 33 U.S.C. § 2712(a)(4); 33 CFR 136.205. 

58 Because NPFC has determined that the claimant is not entitled to compensation, NPFC did not adjudicate whether 

these claimed expenses met the other regulatory requirements outlined in 33 CFR Part 136.