3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 917033-0001

Claimant: Guilford County Department of Health and Human Services 

Type of Claimant: Local Government 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $1,818.60

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On July 06, 2017, Guilford County Department of Health and Human 

Services was notified by the City of Greensboro, NC of a discharge of motor oil into a 

storm drain along S. Benbow Street. The oil made its way into an outfall that flows into 

S. Buffalo Creek, a tributary to the Cape Fear River, a navigable waterway of the United 

States.1 Guilford County notified the National Response Center (NRC) 2and hired A&D 

Environmental Services to conduct removal actions. 

Description of Removal Activities for this claimant: A&D Environmental Services 

personnel responded and conducted removal actions on July 06, 2017. The response 

concentrated on removing oil from the outfall using a vacuum truck, oil sorbent boom, 

sorbent pads, and personnel.3

The Claim: On August 14, 2017, the NPFC received a removal cost claim from Guilford 

County for reimbursement of their uncompensated removal costs in the amount of 

$1,818.60.

4

The claim is based on invoice #038362 from A&D Environmental Services 

in the amount of $1,818.60.

5

APPLICABLE LAW: 

"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”.

 

1

See Claimant’s OSLTF claim submission received by NPFC on August 14, 2017.

2

 See NRC Report # 1183284 

3

 See Contractor daily. 

4

See Claimant’s OSLTF claim submission received by NPFC on August 14, 2017.

5

 See A&D Environmental Services invoice 038362 dated July 14, 2017. 
4

Under 33 USC §2713(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. §2713(d) provides that “If a claim is presented in accordance with this section, 

including a claim for interim, short-term 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 136.105(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 

authority and responsibility to perform a reasonableness determination. 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.”

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 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]. 
5

DETERMINATION OF LOSS:

A. Overview: 

1. , USEPA, was the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) for this 

incident and has determined that the actions undertaken by A&D were consistent with 

the NCP6

for the payment of uncompensated removal costs claims and is consistent 

with the provisions of sections 1002(b)(1)(B) and 1012(a)(4) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 

2702(b)(1)(B) and 2712(a)(4);7

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

2701(23), to navigable waters; 

3. In accordance with 33 CFR § 136.105(e)(12), the claimant has certified no suit has 

been filed in court for the claimed uncompensated removal costs;

4. The claim was submitted to the Fund within the six year period of limitations for 

removal costs claims. 33 U.S.C. §2712(h)(1); 

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

with the claim and determined which of the removal costs presented were for actions 

in accordance with the NCP and that the costs for these actions were indeed 

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. 

In reviewing the claim, the NPFC considered the Claimant’s evidence which consisted of 

proof of payment, A&D Environmental Servives invoice, daily field log, rate schedule of 

prices for A&D Environmental Services, photos, and disposal manifests. The NPFC 

requested additional information and explanation of costs and actions throughout the 

adjudication process. 

Based on its review, the NPFC has determined that the costs incurred by Claimant are 

compensable under the OPA. The costs were reasonable and necessary to mitigate the effects 

of the incident and were determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the NCP. Upon 

review of the information provided by the Claimant, the NPFC has determined that the 

payable costs were billed in accordance with the contractor rate schedule at the time the 

services were rendered. Disposal of contaminated materials was conducted in accordance 

with all applicable laws and regulations.

 

6

 See,email from , USEPA to , NPFC dated August 15, 2017. 

7

See Claimant’s OSLTF claim submission received by NPFC on August 14, 2017.
6

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $1,818.60 as full compensation for 

the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under 

claim # 917033-0001. All costs claimed are for charges incurred by the Claimant for 

removal actions as that term is defined in OPA and, are compensable removal costs, payable 

by the OSLTF as presented by the Claimant. 

AMOUNT: $1,818.60

 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 8/25/17

Supervisor Action: Approved