CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number : 912048-0001

Claimant : Rhino Services, LLC

Type of Claimant : OSRO

Type of Claim : Removal Costs

Amount Requested : $26,251.79

INCIDENT FACTS: 

At about 11:15am on December 30, 2011, a tanker truck owned by Commercial Waste Management 

was hauling used cooking oil when it rolled over on the highway and spilled about 4,000 gallons of 

the oil onto the road. The cooking oil went into a storm drain and affected a designated wetland. 

Rhino Services, LLC (Rhino or Claimant) responded and provided cleanup services for the highway 

and wetlands. Rhino applied absorbents and neutralizers on the road, and booms at the storm drain 

outfall and in the wetland area. Because of the location and time of the accident, Rhino collected 

the contaminated absorbents and debris from the road, then left the site and returned the next 

morning to perform remediation. EPA Region 4 sent Jordan Garrard to oversee the response.

CLAIMANT AND CLAIM:

Claimant is the Oil Spill Response Organization (OSRO) that was hired to contain and remediate 

the spilled oil at the incident site. During a phone conversation on February 18, 2012, Commercial 

Waste Management, the responsible party for this incident, informed Rhino that it could not pay the 

costs presented. Rhino seeks reimbursement of it uncompensated removal costs for the services it 

provided in response to the spill. 

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 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. 

1
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: 

A. Overview:

1. EPA FOSC oversaw the response.

2. The incident did not involve the report of a discharge or substantial threat of a 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 within the six-year period of limitations for claims. 33 U.S.C. § 

2712(h)(1); 

5. The claim was properly presented to the identified responsible party. 33 U.S.C. § 2713 

6. The NPFC Claims Manager has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the claim 

and determined that the incident is not an OPA incident. 

B. Analysis:

The Claims Manager reviewed the documentation provided by the Claimant and the FOSC in support of the 

uncompensated costs as claimed. The Claims Manager focused on: (1) whether an OPA-incident gave rise 

to the claim (i.e. whether there was a discharge or substantial threat of the discharge of oil into a navigable 

water of the U.S.) (2) whether the actions taken were compensable “removal actions” under OPA and its 

regulations at 33 CFR 136 (e.g., actions to prevent, minimize, mitigate the effects of the incident); (3) 

whether the costs were incurred as a result of these actions; (4) whether the actions taken were determined by 

the FOSC, to be consistent with the NCP or directed by the FOSC, and (5) whether the costs were adequately 

documented and reasonable.

Claimant provided the following documentation to support its claim:

1. Optional OSLTF Claim form with photocopied signature and one with an original signature. 

2. National Response Center report

3. Spill Response Rate Schedule 

4. Waste Manifest

5. Cowart Industrial Services work order for 12/31/11. 

6. Insurance letter denying coverage

7. Copy of claim letter to RP

8. Invoice #11-741 

2