2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 919029-0001 

Claimant: SC Department of Health and Environmental Control 

Type of Claimant: State

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $2,098.50 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $2,098.50

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:: 

On July 11, 2018, a dump truck was involved in a single vehicle accident on I-95 which 

resulted in the truck overturning and releasing approximately 50 gallons of diesel into a trench 

that connects to Bees Creek, a navigable waterway of the United States.1 of 

Zelaya Trucking (Responsible Party or “RP”), is the owner of Zelaya Trucking and the operator 

of the dump truck involved in the incident.2 

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Mr. is identified as the RP 

for the truck.3 The South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control 

(“SCDHEC” or “claimant”), was the State On Scene Coordinator (SOSC) for the incident. 

SCDHEC reported the incident to the United States Environmental Protection Agency 

(USEPA).4 SCDHEC reported the incident to the National Response Center (NRC) on July 13, 

2018.5

United States EPA in its capacity as the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC), 

acknowledged that the response actions directed by the SOSC were perfomed in coordination 

with the FOSC and were consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).6

 On July 12, 

2018, SCDHEC hired Geological Resources Inc. via their contract dated October 23, 2017.7

SCDHEC presented its uncompensated removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC) for $2,098.50 on July 29, 2019.8 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all 

documentation submitted with the claim, analyzed the applicable law and regulations, and after 

careful consideration has determined that $2,098.50 is compensable and offers this amount as 

full and final compensation of this claim.9

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

 

1 OSLTF Claim submission letter dated July 29, 2019.

2 OSLTF Claim submission letter dated July 29, 2019.

3 Mr. of Zelaya Trucking is the owner and operator. S SCDHEC Acknowledgment of Response Actions form dated December 6, 2018.

5 National Response Center Incident Report # 1218297 dated July 13, 2018.

6 SCDHEC Acknowledgment of Response Actions form dated December 6, 2018.

7 SCDHEC Purchase Order # 4600600666.

8 OSLTF Claim submission letter dated July 29, 2019.

9 33 CFR 136.115.

4

payment.19 Once SCDHEC received the invoice from GRI, they tried to contact the RP although 

attempts failed so SCDHEC paid the invoice.

20

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

Since claims for removal costs or damages may first be presented to the Fund by the 

Governor of a State for costs that are incurred by the State21, the NPFC received a claim for 

uncompensated removal costs from SCDHEC dated June 29, 2019.22 The claim included the 

Geological Resources Inc invoice tottaling $2,098.50, proof of payment to the contractor, NRC 

Report, SOSC notes page, email communications, contract with GRI, signed statement of 

response actions between SCDHEC and the FOSC.

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).23 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.24 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.25 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.26 An RP’s liability 

is strict, joint, and several.27 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 

 19 August 29, 2019 email between SOSC and SCDHEC regarding notification to RP that he would be responsible for 

payment of the contractor hired by SCDHEC.

20 October 22, 2018 email from SCDHEC to SCDHEC regarding inability to reach RP. 21 33 U.S.C. § 2713(b)(1)(c). 22 OSLTF Claim submission letter dated July 29, 2019. 23 33 CFR Part 136. 24 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)). 25 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). 26 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 27 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780.
5

favoring those responsible for the spills.”28 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.”29 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.”30

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).31 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

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

claims.32 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.33

 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.34

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.35

The amount of compensable removal costs is $2,098.50. 

Upon adjudication of the claim, the NPFC requested several pieces of information from the 

claimant in support of its submission. The claimant responded and provided the NPFC a copy of 

the rate schedule pricing for the contractor invoice, a copy of the FOSC coordination statement, 

and the NPFC obtained specifics on the product spilled and nexus to the navigable waterway.36

The NPFC confirmed that the services provided by the State’s response contractor, 

Geological Resources, Inc. invoiced its personnel, materials and equipment in accordance with 

 28 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). 29 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 30 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 31 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 32 33 CFR Part 136. 33 33 CFR 136.105. 34 SCDHEC took the lead on the response effort in its capacity as the State On Scene Coordinator. 35 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 36 August 13, 2019 email from SCDHEC to NPFC with attachments and information.
6

the established at the time services were rendered. The NPFC confirmed the nexus to the 

navigable waterway establishing an OPA event and the NPFC obtained confirmation that the 

FOSC coordinated the response actions with SCDHEC ensuring that the response was 

determined to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). Lastly, the NPFC 

confirmed that SCDHEC paid the contractor and substantiated that the costs it claimed were 

uncompensated removal costs. 

VI. CONCLUSION:

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

the reasons outlined above, SCDHEC’s request for uncompensated removal costs is approved in 

the amount of $2,098.50. 

 This determination is a settlement offer,37 the claimant has 60 days in which to accept this 

offer. Failure to do so automatically voids the offer.38 The NPFC reserves the right to revoke a 

settlement offer at any time prior to acceptance.39 Moreover, this settlement offer is based upon 

the unique facts giving rise to this claim and is not precedential.

 

Claim Supervisor

Date of Supervisor’s review: 8/23/19 

Supervisor Action: Offer Approved

Supervisor’s Comments: 

 

37 Payment in full, or acceptance by the claimant of an offer of settlement by the Fund, is final and conclusive for all 

purposes and, upon payment, constitutes a release of the Fund for the claim. In addition, acceptance of any 

compensation from the Fund precludes the claimant from filing any subsequent action against any person to recover 

costs or damages which are the subject of the uncompensated claim. Acceptance of any compensation also 

constitutes an agreement by the claimant to assign to the Fund any rights, claims, and causes of action the claimant 

has against any person for the costs and damages which are the subject of the compensated claims and to cooperate 

reasonably with the Fund in any claim or action by the Fund against any person to recover the amounts paid by the 

Fund. The cooperation shall include, but is not limited to, immediately reimbursing the Fund for any compensation 

received from any other source for the same costs and damages and providing any documentation, evidence, 

testimony, and other support, as may be necessary for the Fund to recover from any person. 33 CFR § 136.115(a). 38 33 CFR § 136.115(b). 39 33 CFR § 136.115(b).