3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION

Claim Number: 913029-0001 

Claimant: Pacific Marine Salvage Inc. 

Type of Claimant: Corporation 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $19,781.75 

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On November 8, 2011, the 28.6 foot, commercial fishing vessel 

ANDIAMO (CF9863AM) sank at its mooring in Moss Landing Harbor, CA. The sinking 

of the vessel created an oil sheen on the water’s surface. Initially, estimates indicated

that the vessel had approximately 30 gallons or less of fuel on board. The Federal On 

Scene Coordinator (FOSC) then met with the vessel owner and the estimate of fuel was 

determined to actually be less than 1 gallon.1 The FOSC consulted with on scene 

personnel from California Department of Fish and Game, the State On Scene Coordinator 

(SOSC), and it was determined that the vessel did not present a significant threat to the 

environment and the SOSC remained on scene to observe the salvage procedures of the 

vessel.2 The sheen was contained with boom and any residual product was collected 

utilizing absorbent pads. 

Moss Landing Harbor is a tributary to Monterrey Bay, a navigable waterway of the 

United States.

Responsible Party: Mr. , the Responsible Party (RP), owned the F/V 

ANDIAMO at the time of the incident and is determined to be the responsible party 

under the Oil Pollution Act. The National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) sent a RP 

Notification letter to the RP on January 29, 2013. 

Description of Removal Activities for this Claimant: Pacific Marine Salvage Inc. (PSI) 

responded to the scene and entered into a contract with the vessel owner to “...relieve the 

property from its present difficulties and PSI agrees to use their best efforts to salvage the 

items, her cargo and/or other property and to deliver them afloat or ashore at...” on 

November 8, 2011.3

 PSI mobilized a response crew and deployed 200 feet of 

containment boom around the sunken vessel and made preparations for salvage 

operations. 

On November 9, 2011, PSI personnel commenced raising the vessel utilizing lift bags. 

The vessel was refloated and made fast to the dock where dewatering pumps were used to 

remove the remaining water from the vessel. The F/V ANDIAMO was then moved to 

shore and place in the boat yard where all remaining contaminates were removed. 

Demobilization of personnel and equipment were completed.4

 

1 USCG MISLE Case Report Number 575683.

2 FOSCR Witness Statement, MST1 .

3 Pacific Marine Salvage Inc. Contract.

4 Details acquired from Pacific Marine Salvage Inc. Time Log for this incident.
4

On November 11, 2009, PSI disposed of two drums, one each of solids and liquids, of 

contaminated waste to Clean Harbors of San Jose LLC.5

The Claim: On January 29, 2013, Pacific Marine Salvage Inc. (PSI), presented a 

removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds Center (NDFC) for reimbursement of 

their alleged uncompensated removal costs in the amount of $19,781.756

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. 

 5 Hazardous Waste Manifest Number 001449760.

6 NFPC Standard Claim Form dated January 17, 2013.
5

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. FOSC coordination has been provided by U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco for 

response actions undertaken on day one only. The coordination is not applicable to 

salvage operations which were undertaken beginning on day two.

2. The incident involved the discharge of “oil” as defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. §2701 

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 costs.

4. In accordance with33 U.S.C. § 2712(h)(1), the claim was submitted within the six 

year statute of limitations for removal costs.

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

the claim and determined which of the costs presented were for actions in accordance 

with the NCP and that the costs for these actions were 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.
6

PSI and the RP agreed to the terms of a contract for the salvage of the vessel on 

November 8, 2011. Despite the fact that the contract was for the primary purpose of 

the vessel’s salvage, PSI did deploy boom and mobilized other removal equipment to 

the scene for the purpose of oil removal actions. The NPFC approves all invoiced 

costs of $5,323.507 incurred on the initial date of response based on the eight-hour 

minimum call out time in accordance with the contract for services.

8

PSI is also requesting $11,752.50 for personnel costs incurred for a 

Salvage/HAZMAT Master, two Environmental Technicians, three Dive Masters, and 

a Diver for field operations that occurred on November 9, 2011.9

 All operations that 

occurred on November 9, 2011 supported vessel salvage operations with exception of 

the hours of 1:45pm - 5:15pm (3.5 hours)10 when removal activities were performed 

after the vessel was removed from the water. These activities included the removal of 

absorbent pads (diapers) and boom from the water and the demobilization of removal 

equipment. Therefore, the NPFC has determined that 3.5 hours are compensable for 

the Salvage/HAZMAT Master and the two Environmental Technicians totaling 

$1,347.50 and the remaining $10,405.00 are denied as salvage and not OPA 

compensable.

PSI requested $3,167.00 for the following equipment used on November 9, 2011: lift 

bags, ratchet loop strap, shackles, compressor, air manifold, air hoses, 3” pacer pump, 

explosion proof pump, VHS radios, underwater comms system, and polypropylene 

line.11 The NPFC has determined that this equipment was utilized for the salvage 

operation and as such is not an OPA compensable cost. One hundred feet of the 

polypropylene line was approved to maintain the boom established around the spill 

site. Therefore, the equipment cost of $50.00 is approved and the remaining 

$3,117.00 is denied.

PSI requested $1,030.00 for vessel costs which consisted of a 24 foot response boat 

and an 18 foot inflatable boat for field operations that occurred on November 9, 2011. 

All operations that occurred on this date supported vessel salvage operations with the 

exception of the 3.5 hours of removal activities performed after the vessel was 

removed from the water, as stated previously in this determination. The NPFC has 

determined that two hours of operational time is reasonable to support the removal of 

the boom and absorbent pads (diapers) from the water. Therefore, vessel costs of 

$250.0012 are approved and the remaining $780.00 is denied.

PSI requested $207.00 for personal protective equipment (PPE)13 for field operations 

that occurred on November 9, 2011. The NPFC has approved PPE for the 

Salvage/HAZMAT Master and the two Environmental Technicians. PSI invoiced the 

 7 PSI Invoice Number 72 dated November 8, 2011.

8 PSI Rate Schedule signed by RP. 9 PSI Invoice Number 73 dated November 9, 2011.

10 Documented in PSI Time Log. 11 PSI Invoice Number 73 dated November 9, 2011. 12 18’ inflatable boat used to set boom so the same vessel used to calculate compensation, 2 hrs @ $125 = $250. 13 Gloves Outer, Posi Wear Disposable Suit, and Ear Plugs.
7

cost of the Posi Wear Disposable Suits at $38.0014 each but the rate schedule lists

each suit cost at $32.00. Therefore, the PPE costs of $147.00 are approved and the 

remaining $60.00 is denied as exceeding the agreed upon rate schedule pricing and 

for the reduction of three sets of gloves which the NPFC determines to be associated 

with salvage operations.

PSI requested $1,479.00 for three HAZMAT drums, labels and their disposal at Clean 

Harbors of San Jose, Inc. PSI provided a Uniform Hazardous Waste Manifest that 

only lists two drums for disposal, one with solid waste and one with liquid waste.15 

PSI did not provide any documentation that any oily/water waste was collected from 

the water’s surface and that the only oily/water recovered was from the vessel after it 

was removed from the water. Once the vessel was placed on shore, with the vessel’s 

hull and tank(s) intact, there was no substantial threat of discharge to the waterway

and as such, any liquids removed from the vessel at this point in time are not deemed 

OPA compensable. The NPFC has approved the cost of one documented drum which 

contained solid waste material and has disapproved all disposal costs because there is 

no evidence that PSI has incurred the disposal costs by way of proof of payment to 

the disposal facility or that the liquid waste disposed of was generated from the 

water’s surface as opposed to coming from the vessel once it was removed from the 

waterway as opposed to being generated from the salvage operations. Therefore, one

drum of solids and affiliated label costs in the amount of $108 are approved and the 

remaining $1,371.00 in disposal costs are denied.

PSI requested $104.50 for lunch cost on November 9, 2011. In order for meals (per 

diem) to be compensable, the incident location must be greater than 50 miles from the 

base location. The NPFC calculated this distance to be less than 25 miles therefore 

allowance for meals is not authorized.

16 Also, PSI did not provide proof that it 

actually incurred the meal cost. Therefore, the lunch costs of $104.50 are denied.

PSI requested $522.50 for personnel costs for an Environmental Technician to clean 

and restock equipment on November 10, 2011.17 The NPFC has approved half of 

these costs since this response included both salvage and removal actions. As such,

personnel costs of $261.25 are approved and the remaining $261.25 are denied.

PSI requested $500.00 for personnel costs associated with administrative time for the 

Salvage/HAZMAT Master on November 11, 2011.18 The NPFC has approved half of 

the administrative costs since this response included both salvage and removal 

actions. Personnel costs of $250.00 are approved and the remaining $250.00 is 

denied.

PSI requested $760.00 for personnel costs for an Environmental Technician to 

transport waste material to Clean Harbors of San Jose, Inc. on November 11, 2011.19 

 14 PSI Invoice Number 73 dated November 9, 2011. 15 Manifest Number 001449760. 16 Based on Google Maps, 624 Windham Street, Santa Cruz, CA to Moss Landing Harbor, CA is 23.7 miles. 17 PSI Invoice Number 74 dated November 10, 2011. 18 PSI Invoice Number 75 dated November 11, 2011.

19 PSI Invoice Number 75 dated November 11, 2011.
8

PSI invoiced for eight hours of time but the PSI Daily Check List records four hours 

of time expended. Based on the contemporaneous field record, personnel costs of 

$380.00 are approved and the remaining $380.00 is denied. 

All other costs were validated and the NPFC has determined the costs were 

reasonable, 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 a total of $9,353.00 in OPA compensable removal costs and that amount is 

payable by the OSLTF as full compensation for the reimbursable removal costs 

incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim #913029-0001. 

Furthermore, PSI provided documentation that the RP made a down payment of 

$5,000.00 and two additional payments totaling $1,300.00 for a grand total of 

$6,300.00 in payments by the RP and as such, the NPFC has deducted the amount 

paid by the RP to the PSI from the OPA determined removal costs and the balance is 

what the NPFC will offer to PSI. The Claimant states that all costs claimed are for 

uncompensated removal costs incurred by the Claimant for this incident on 

November 8-9, 2011. 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 $3,053.0020 as full 

compensation for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and 

submitted to the NPFC under claim #913029-0001. 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: $3,053.00

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 4/4/13 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: 

 

20 $9,353.00 minus $6,300.00 equals $3,053.00.