CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 4/19/2010 

Claim Number : 910088-001

Claimant : State of South Carolina 

Type of Claimant : State 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $2,811.00

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: On November 26, 2008, two abandoned 55-gallon drums were 

discovered on the side of the road five-hundred yards from the Ashley River in 

Charleston, South Carolina. The Ashley River empties directly into the Atlantic 

Ocean. Upon further investigation, one drum was found to be leaking material, 

contaminating the surrounding area. 

The incident was reported to the National Response Center (NRC) on the day of the 

incident via report # 891058. Investigation revealed no known source of the spill. 

2. Description of Removal Actions: Because one drum was already leaking material, 

the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) 

found this to be an immediate threat to the river and hired state contractor Moran 

Environmental Services to assist in the cleanup. Moran picked up the drums, 

removed contaminated soils, and cleaned the surrounding area where the leak 

occurred to prevent any material from migrating to the river. 

3. The Claim: The SC DHEC submitted a removal cost claim to the National Pollution 

Funds Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of their uncompensated removal costs 

associated with this incident in the amount of $2,811.00. The claim consisted of 

invoices, proof of payment, SC DHEC Report, NRC Report, contractor dailies, EPA 

FOSC coordination form, vendor rate schedule, and Disposal Manifest.

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) of OPA 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)(1)(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 §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]. 

DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

A. Overview:

1. US EPA provided FOSC coordination via a form dated July 24, 2009.

2. The incident involved the report of a discharge of “oil” and a substantial threat as defined 

in OPA 90, 33 USC § 2701(23) to navigable waterways.
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 on time. 

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

the claim and determined that the majority 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. 

The Claims Manager validated the costs incurred and determined they were reasonable and 

necessary and performed in accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). On that 

basis, the Claims Manager hereby determines that the claimant did in fact incur $2,811.00 of 

uncompensated removal costs in order to remove and further mitigate the substantial threat of 

discharge and that that amount is properly payable by the OSLTF as full compensation for 

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

claim #910088-001. The claimant states that all costs claimed are for uncompensated 

removal costs incurred by the claimant for this incident on November 26, 2008. 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 $2,811.00 as full compensation for 

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

claim 910088-001. All costs claimed are for charges paid for 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: $2,811.00

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 4/22/10

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: