CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number : J09011-0002

Claimant : Water Quality Insurance Syndicate

Type of Claimant : Corporate

Type of Claim : Limit of Liability

Amount Requested: $1,897,299.99

I. INTRODUCTION

This claim involves costs associated with the removal of oil and mitigation of a substantial 

threat of oil discharge when the offshore supply vessel MONARCH (MONARCH) sank in the 

Central Cook Inlet, Alaska. Ocean Marine Services, Inc. (OMSI) owned and operated the 

MONARCH and was therefore determined to be the responsible party under the Oil Pollution 

Act, 33 U.S.C.A. 2701 et seq. Water Quality Insurance Syndicate (WQIS or Claimant) insured 

the vessel and paid for oil pollution response costs. WQIS now brings this claim under 

reconsideration for uncompensated removal costs that exceed the vessel’s statutory limit of 

liability.

II. INCIDENT AND REMOVAL ACTIVITY: 

The offshore supply vessel MONARCH allided with the Granite Point Oil Platform in 

Central Cook Inlet, Alaska at 0545 on January 15, 2009, and discharged oil.1

 The vessel 

subsequently sank to the bottom of the inlet in approximately 80 feet of water. Approximately 

35,000 gallons of diesel fuel and oil were onboard the vessel at the time of the allision. 

Upon notification of the incident, OMSI activated their Oil Spill Response Organization 

(OSRO) Alaska Chadux, who initiated mobilization of pollution removal resources and Incident 

Management Team to the location. The motor vessel VIGILANT (VIGILANT) was also 

diverted from a tow in Nikiski and responded to provide assistance. However, by the time the 

VIGILANT arrived on-scene, the MONARCH was on her side alongside the platform and 

sinking. A light sheen was observed emanating from the back of the vessel. The MONARCH 

sank shortly after the arrival of the VIGILANT. Global Diving Services and Stirling Salvage 

were also contacted and mobilized in anticipation of the complex activities associated with the 

survey, salvage and removal of oil from the sunken vessel. Global Diving personnel deployed 

onboard the motor vessel SAND ISLAND (SAND ISLAND) in anticipation of diving on the 

sunken vessel.2

Attempts to locate the vessel over the next several days were limited due to the strong 

currents and ice flow. Side scanning sonar operations were conducted off the motor vessel 

CHAMPION (CHAMPION) as well as the Granite Point platform with limited results. On 

January 21, 2009, Global Diving personnel on the SAND ISLAND stood down and de-mobilized 

from the scene. On January 22, 2009, side scanning sonar operations located the MONARCH 

and determined that the vessel had come to rest on the bottom of Cook Inlet at the base of the 

Granite Point platform. Recognizing the danger and complexity of continuing response 

 1 See Disposition of Wreck provided by the Claimant on August 5, 2013, p. M000040-43. 

2 See Disposition of Wreck provided by the Claimant on August 5, 2013, p. M000045-46.
4

operation in the heavy ice, the Unified Command consisting of CG Sector Western Alaska, AK 

Department of Environmental Conservation, and OMSI developed, signed and implemented an 

Ice Season Monitoring Plan (ISMP) which established numerous objectives. The ISMP was 

scheduled to remain in effect until April, 1 2009.3 The ISMP’s objectives included:

- Monitor the stability and status of the vessel;

- Minimize the environmental impact of the incident;

- Platform personnel and service vessels to monitor and report ice conditions and maintain 

a lookout or any pollution or debris that may be liberated from the wreck;

- Routine flights to monitor for pollution and debris;

- Pollution response equipment and materials to remain staged and available onboard the 

CHAMPION and at the Offshore Systems Kenai (OSK) facility in Kenai, AK.

For the remainder of January and through the month of February, heavier than normal ice 

flows severely hampered efforts to better document the position and condition of the 

MONARCH. An Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) was deployed from the Granite 

Point platform to measure loads being placed on the hull of the MONARCH and a high 

resolution multibeam sonar was deployed from the towing vessel GLACIER WIND (GLACIER 

WIND). On February 18, 2009, the Unified Command reached consensus that the risk of 

pollution needed to be mitigated prior to any attempts to determine the fate of the wreck. As 

such, the issue of determining a final plan and ultimate disposition of the MONARCH would 

remain open pending a comprehensive evaluation after ice conditions permitted an underwater 

survey and assessment. Side scanning sonar was discontinued and de-mobilized on February 27, 

2009. 4

Ice conditions continued to thwart sonar deployment throughout the month of March and into 

April. The ISMP was extended through May 1, 2009, when weather and ice condition 

moderated and Global Diving personnel could commence underwater operations to ascertain 

damage to the vessel, her position on the bottom of Cook Inlet, and options to mitigate the 

pollution from the sunken vessel.5

On May 1, 2009, Global Diving personnel mobilized and deployed on the SAND ISLAND 

from Nikiski to evaluate the condition of the MONARCH. Over the next 14 days, Global Diving 

personnel conducted a total of 34 dives on the wreck and determined the exact position of the 

wreck; damage incurred to the wreck during its allision and sinking; and a fuel/oil distribution 

within the wreck. Based upon their fuel/oil distribution assessment, Global Diving personnel 

estimated that approximately 3550 gallons of diesel fuel/oil were lost from the port fuel oil day 

tank and port hydraulic oil tank onboard the MONARCH during its allision with the Granite 

Point platform. But as there was no other apparent damage to any of the remaining fuel tanks 

onboard the vessel, approximately 31,500 gallons of diesel fuel/oil remained onboard the sunken 

vessel.6

 3 See Disposition of Wreck provided by the Claimant on August 5, 2013, p. M000057-58.

4 See Disposition of Wreck provided by the Claimant on August 5, 2013, p. M000061-65.

5 See Disposition of Wreck provided by the Claimant on August 5, 2013, p. M000068-69.

6 See Disposition of Wreck provided by the Claimant on August 5, 2013, p. M000073-79.
5

Defueling operations were scheduled to start during the summer months of 2009. The first 

phase of defueling involved the utilization of the motor vessel PERSERVERANCE as the 

operational platform for the defueling. Global Diving mobilized personnel and equipment to the 

PERSERVERANCE and the PERSERVERANCE departed Nikiski on June 11, 2009, to anchor 

off the Granite Point platform and begin dive operations. Dive operations began on June 13, 

2009, and divers were able to successfully dive on the MONARCH and remove approximately 

1,000 gallons of diesel fuel from one of the vessel’s fuel tanks. However, the starboard anchor 

on the PERSERVERANCE dragged and released on the evening of June 13, 2009, which 

resulted in a near allision with the Granite Point platform. Due to the strong currents and 

vessel’s inability to continually idle its main engines, the PERSERVERANCE was released from 

further operations and the Unified Command began assessing other vessels better equipped to 

conduct fuel removal operations from the MONARCH.7

The next phase of recovery involved the SAND ISLAND which wouldn’t permanently 

anchor over the wreck but would instead anchor well away from the wreck and shift into location 

during periods of a slack tide and tie off to the legs of the platform during diver operations. 

During this phase, Global Diving personnel were tasked with analyzing the best approach to 

access each of the MONARCH’s fuel tanks and make preparations which included:

- Clearing the wreck of entanglement hazards;

- Using underwater burning equipment to cut away bulwarks obstructing access to fuel 

tank openings;

- Removing MONARCH debris in way of fuel tank openings;

- Cutting away frames and other obstructions limiting access to tank vents and fill pipes.

The SAND ISLAND with Global Diving personnel conducted these operations through July 

1, 2009.8

The final phase of the recovery involved the landing craft POLAR BEAR (POLAR BEAR) 

which was determined to be better suited for the conditions as it had a flat bottom, shallow draft 

and open afterdeck. Global Diving personnel also developed a four point anchoring system for 

the POLAR BEAR making it better equipped for the strong currents and would prevent anchor 

release and near misses with the Granite Point platform as experienced by the 

PERSERVERANCE. Preparations for deployment began on July 19, 2009, and the POLAR 

BEAR departed for the Granite Point platform on July 29, 2009. The SAND ISLAND joined the 

POLAR BEAR as it was loaded with oil spill recovery materials and would serve as a secondary 

oil spill response vessel as well as the dive safety vessel and platform for USCG personnel. The 

PERSERVERANCE was again engaged as the primary oil spill response vessel. Over the next 

12 days, Global Diving personnel dove on the wreck on a three tide dive cycle to remove diesel 

fuel and oil remaining onboard the MONARCH. In all, a total of 12,445 gallons of diesel fuel 

and oil were recovered from the vessel, 860 gallons were determined to be unrecoverable and 

21,958 gallons were unaccounted for and assumed lost during the sinking of the vessel. With the 

removal operations complete, the POLAR BEAR departed for her home port of Homer, AK, on 

 7 See Disposition of Wreck provided by the Claimant on August 5, 2013, p. M000083-85.

8 See Disposition of Wreck provided by the Claimant on August 5, 2013, p. M000086-87.
6

August 13, 2009. All of the diesel fuel and oil recovered from the MONARCH was transferred 

to a shore facility for recycling and proper disposal.9

 Final disposition options of the wreck were considered and included removing the wreck 

intact; removing the wreck in sections; scrapping the wreck in situ; moving the wreck away from 

the Granite Point platform into deeper water or leaving it in place. After considering all of the 

risks involved with removing the wreck and confirming that the wreck hadn’t moved from its 

initial resting place next to the base of the Granite Point platform for over a period of 12 months, 

a recommendation was made to leave the wreck in place.10 To date, the MONARCH remains at 

the bottom of Cook Inlet at the base of the Granite Point platform. 

III. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM HISTORY

 On January 11, 201211, Claimant submitted a claim to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 

(OSLTF or the Fund) that was assigned Claim J09011-0001. On behalf of OSMI, Claimant 

asserted entitlement to the statutory limit of liability, stating that they expended $2,697,299.99 in 

uncompensated removal costs. The applicable statutory limitation of liability of the responsible 

party at the time of the incident was $800,000.00; therefore, Claimant sought reimbursement of 

$1,897,299.99.12 The NPFC reviewed the documentation submitted by the Claimant in support 

of the asserted entitlement to a limitation on liability and documentation independently gathered 

by the NPFC. 13 

 On June 30, 2014, the NPFC denied claim J09011-0001 in accordance with 33 U.S.C. § 

2704(c)(1)(a) on the grounds Claimant was not entitled to a statutory limitation of liability 

because the incident was proximately caused by the gross negligence of the responsible party.

 On August 11, 2014, the Claimant through its legal representative, Mr. of 

Rubin, Fiorella & Friedman LLP, requested reconsideration of claim J09011-0001 via email to 

Mr . Mr. requested a 90 day extension of time to submit further factual 

and legal support and rebuttal. 4

 On August 12, 2014, the NPFC advised Counsel that he needed 

to provide the factual or legal grounds for the request in order for the NPFC to properly consider 

a request for reconsideration.15On August 12, 2014 at 4:59pm, Mr. responded to the 

NPFC outlining his intention to submit a request for reconsideration. Although in compliance 

with the governing claims regulation for requesting reconsideration, 33 C.F.R. §136.115(d), the 

 

9 See Disposition of Wreck provided by the Claimant on August 5, 2013, p. M000091-95.

10 See Disposition of Wreck provided by the Claimant on August 5, 2013, p. M0000169-191.

12 In their original claim submission, the Claimant asserted that they expended $2,698,159.59 in removal costs 

before the $800,000.00 limit of liability and were seeking $1,898,159.59 in reimbursement. After a mistake in the 

cost documentation was identified, the Claimant changed their sum certain to $2,697,299.99 before the $800,000.00 

limit of liability and was seeking $1,897,299.99 in reimbursement. See email from Claimant to Mr. 

 NPFC dated July 7, 2017.

13 See Claim submitted by WQIS dated January 11, 2012. 

14 See Claimant’s initial request for reconsideration dated August 11, 2014.

15 See NPFC email to Mr. dated August 12, 2014.
7

request only included a sampling of the grounds for reconsideration.16 On August 13, 2014, the 

NPFC granted the Claimant’s request for extension of the deadline to provide a fully supported 

request for reconsideration. A December 1, 2014 due date was provided to the Claimant.17 On 

December 1, 2014, the Claimant sought reconsideration, arguing that the NPFC had misapplied 

the law as there was no evidence supporting the NPFC determination that the incident was 

caused by the gross negligence of the responsible party.18

On May 29, 2015, the Claimant filed a Complaint against the United States of America in the 

United States District Court of Columbia, seeking a judicial review of the decision and final 

agency action of the USCG National Pollution Funds Center denying their claim pursuant to the 

Oil Pollution Act for reimbursement from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund for removal 

expenses paid by the Claimant associated with the oil spill from the MONARCH.19

On July 21, 2015, the NPFC denied the Claimant’s request for reconsideration of claim 

J09011-0001 on the grounds that under 33 U.S.C. § 2704(c)(1)(a) the Claimant was not entitled 

to a statutory limitation of liability because the incident was proximately caused by the gross 

negligence of the responsible party.20

On December 21, 2015, the Claimant filed a Motion for Summary Judgment against the 

United States of America in the United States District Court of Columbia, Civil Action No. 15-

789.21 On December 22, 2016, the United States District Court of Columbia granted the 

Claimant’s Motion for Summary Judgment and remanded claim J09011-0001 back to the NPFC 

for adjudication consistent with its ruling.22 

In response to the court’s order, the NPFC commenced adjudication of the claim, assigned it 

claim number J09011-0002, and treated it as an ordinary removal cost claim. After careful 

review of Claimant’s documents, the NPFC determined that a significant amount of claim 

J09011-0002 was not supported by adequate documentation, such as work descriptions, dailies, 

or other third-party, objective evidence demonstrating that the items and personnel billed were 

related to oil pollution response. Accordingly, on February 24, 2017, the NPFC requested 

additional information concerning sixteen subject areas of Claimant’s submissions. The NPFC 

gave the Claimant a deadline of April 3, 2017 to address the concerns and to provide the 

additional information.

 16 See Claimant’s email outlining factual basis for reconsideration along with a 90 day extension of time to submit 

official request and supporting documentation dated August 12, 2014.

17 See NPFC email granting extension to submit fully supported request for reconsideration dated August 13, 2014.

18 See Claimant’s request for reconsideration dated December 1, 2014.

19 See Claimants Complaint filed with the United States District Court for the District of Columbia Order, Civil 

Action No. 15-789 dated May 29, 2015.

20 See NPFC determination on reconsideration dated July 21, 2015.

21 See Claimants Motion for Summary Judgment filed with the United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia Order, Civil Action No. 15-789 dated December 21, 2015.

22 See United States District Court for the District of Columbia Order, Civil Action No. 15-789 dated December 22, 

2016.
8

 On March 31, 2017, Mr. , the spill manager working on the project and on behalf 

of Claimant23, requested a 60 day extension of the deadline. The NPFC denied the request, but 

advised that Mr. should provide what he had by the April 3rd deadline, and that he could, on 

that day, seek an extension if he needed. 

 On April 3, 2017, Mr. did request more time and on April 4, 2017, the NPFC granted 

an extension until May 25, 2017. On May 18, 2017, Mr made a third request for an 

extension. The NPFC granted the request and the new deadline was set for June 25, 2017. 

 On June 23, 2017, the NPFC requested clarification of some of the information that had been 

provided to date and as it pertained to Claimant’s Invoice Log24, listing all eleven 

vendors/payees that Claimant had paid over the course of the response and for which it sought 

reimbursement. NPFC highlighted the specific problems with the documentation as it related to 

this Invoice Log. 

 On July 7, 2017, Mr. answered the NPFC’s latest request only in part as he was still 

awaiting more information. The NPFC advised the Claimant that it was moving forward with full 

adjudication, but that the Claimant could respond any time with new information up until the 

time the adjudication was completed. On July 14, 2017, Mr. provided additional 

information in support of their claim submission. 

IV. INITIAL DETERMINATION 

The NPFC reviewed all documentation submitted with the claim which included an analysis 

of the actual cost invoices and dailies in an effort to determine whether Claimant had shown that 

it actually incurred the claimed costs. Relying on its review, the NPFC determined that the 

majority of the claimed costs were reasonable and necessary to mitigate the effects of the 

incident. Specifically, after analyzing $2,697,299.99 in claimed costs, the NPFC determined that 

a total of $1,832,519.35 were OPA compensable removal costs. The remaining $864,780.64 

were determined not to be compensable as the Claimant failed to demonstrate how those 

remaining claimed costs satisfied OPA’s criteria for compensable removal costs. After 

deducting the $800,000.00 statutory limit of liability from the allowable $1,832,519.35, the 

NPFC concluded that the OSLTF was eligible to reimburse $1,032,519.35 to the Claimant. 

On August 11, 2017, the NPFC issued a determination on claim J09011-0002 to the Claimant 

offering $1,032,519.35 for their OPA compensable removal costs.25 The determination provided 

a detailed description of the $864,780.64 in denied costs as well as a cost summary spreadsheet 

that accounted for every claimed expenditure either approved or denied. 

 

23 Claimant hired the Maritime Alliance Group Inc. (“MAGI”) to conduct spill management services on its behalf. 

Mr. oversaw the spill management services for this particular project, and, as will be discussed in greater 

detail, was NPFC’s primary point of contact during the adjudication process. 

24 See OSV MONARCH Invoice Log. This document was submitted by Claimant in its initial claim. The Invoice 

Log included identification of the vendor, the invoice number and date, the amount paid and date paid, and the 

check number associated with the payment. The total amount on the Invoice Log was $2,698,159.59 but Claimant’s 

actual claim was $1,898,159.59 ($2,698,159.59 less the $800,000 limit of liability). On July 7, 2017, Claimant 

amended its sum certain to $1,897,299.99 due to a mathematical error in one of its cost submissions. 

25 See NPFC J09011-0002 determination dated August 11, 2017.

10

Under 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a)(4), the Fund shall be available to the President for the payment 

of claims for uncompensated removal costs in accordance with 33 U.S.C. § 2713. Additionally, 

33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a)(4) limits reimbursement to those removal costs determined by the President 

to be consistent with the NCP. Removal costs include “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 ...” 33 U.S.C. §2701(31). 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.” Id. at §2701(30). 

OSLTF claims regulations specifically provide what a claimant must show in order to obtain 

reimbursement for removal costs. Before OSLTF reimbursement can be authorized, the claimant 

must show that “the actions taken were necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate the effects of 

the incident” and that “the removal costs were incurred as a result of these actions”. 29 A removal 

cost claimant must also show “[t]hat the actions taken were determined by the FOSC to be 

consistent with the National Contingency Plan or were directed by the FOSC.”30

The regulations also control how much OSLTF compensation is allowable for a removal cost 

claim. Only reasonable and uncompensated removal costs can be reimbursed. The applicable 

regulation explains:

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.31

Accordingly, the Claimant must show that the specific costs claimed were incurred as a result 

of “removal actions” under OPA and the claims regulations at 33 CFR 136 (e.g., actions to 

prevent, minimize, mitigate the effects of the incident). Claimant must also show that the costs 

were reasonable and uncompensated. 

b. The NPFC adjudication process for payment of removal cost claims.

When adjudicating claims against the OSLTF, the NPFC utilizes an informal process 

controlled by 5 U.S.C. § 555.32 As a result, 5 U.S.C. § 555 (e) requires the NPFC to provide a 

 

29 33 C.F.R. § § 136.203 (a) and (b). 

30 33 C.F.R. § 136.203 (c).

31 33 C.F.R. § 136.205. 

32 The court in Bean Dredging, LLC v. United States, 773 F. Supp. 2d 63, 75 (D.D.C. 2011), characterized the 

informal adjudication process for OSLTF claims with the following: “[W]hile the OPA allows responsible parties to 

present a claim for reimbursement to the NPFC, they do not confer upon such parties a right to a formal hearing, a 

right to present rebuttal evidence or argument, or really any procedural rights at all, see 33 U.S.C. §§ 2704, 2708, 
11

brief statement explaining the basis for a denial. This determination is issued to satisfy that 

requirement.

 During the adjudication of claims against the Fund, the NPFC acts as the finder of fact. In 

this role the NPFC considers all relevant evidence and weight its probative value when 

determining the facts of the claim. If there is conflicting evidence in the record, the NPFC will 

make a determination as to what evidence is more credible or deserves greater weight, and finds 

facts based on the preponderance of the evidence. 

c. Request for Reconsideration 

 Once an adjudication has been made, the claimant may request reconsideration of the 

initial determination. The request for reconsideration must be in writing and include the factual 

or legal grounds for the relief requested, providing any additional support for the claim.33 When 

analyzing a request for reconsideration, the NPFC performs a de novo review of the entire claim 

submission, including new information provided by the claimant in support of its request for 

information. The NPFC provides a written notification of the decision within 90 days after 

receipt of the request for reconsideration. This written decision is final.34 If the claimant fails to 

accept the settlement offer provided in the written decision within 60 days after it was mailed to 

claimant, this settlement offer will be automatically void. The NPFC’s Director reserves the 

right to revoke this settlement offer at any time.35

2. The determination on reconsideration.

 The NPFC’s August 11, 2017 determination described in detail the Claimants’ burden of 

proving their claim against the OSLTF under 33 U.S.C. § 2708. Specifically, the NPFC’s 

August 11, 2017 determination concluded that the Claimant satisfied their burden on the issue of 

limited liability and entitlement to certain allowable pollution removal costs as determined by the 

NPFC. That discussion is incorporated by reference, and will not be repeated herein. Thus, the 

central focus of the determination on reconsideration is whether Claimant has provided 

satisfactory evidence to support compensation for those costs that were previously denied. 

During the adjudication of this claim on reconsideration, the NPFC considered Claimant’s 

initial submissions as well as its additional information submitted in support of the request for 

reconsideration. Claimant’s additional information, however, only represented and supported a 

portion of the costs the NPFC previously denied. Accordingly, any cost previously denied and 

not addressed in the additional information, remain denied. The additional information provided 

by the Claimant is addressed below.

Declaration of Mr. 

 2713, an entirely unremarkable fact given that Congress’ overarching intent in enacting the OPA was to ‘streamline’ 

the claims adjudication process . . . .”

33 33 C.F.R. §136.115(d). 34 33 C.F.R. §136.115(d). 35 33 C.F.R. 136.115 (b). See also, Smith Property Holdings v. United States, 311 F.Supp.2d 69, 83 (D.D.C. 2004). 
12

Mr. was an attorney retained by the Claimant to represent its pollution interests in the 

Nikiski Command Post and to ensure proper resources were available for the pollution response 

associated with the sinking of the MONARCH. Mr. addressed his response activities 

while working at the Nikiski Command Post from January 15, 2009 – January 21, 2009 and 

provided both travel and lodging receipts in support of his billed expenditures. 

After reviewing his declaration and travel receipts, the NPFC approves the following costs: 

• travel totaling $1,860.00 for January 15 and 16, 2009; 

• Hourly rate for work in the Command Post totaling $2,060.00 for January 18 and 22, 

2009; 

• and the travel and lodging costs totaling $1,899.96 as supported by his travel receipts. 

 However, personnel costs in the amount of $487.51 are denied. These costs include 

researching the Alaskan Administrative Codes for possible penalties on January 23, 2009, 

discussing manifests with the hull surveyor, and food receipts on January 29, 2009. 36 Mr. 

’s investigation into Alaska’s penalties does not constitute “removal costs”, as this work 

has nothing to do with the containment and removal of oil. Nor does it pertain to minimizing or 

mitigating damage to the public health or welfare. Rather, this work likely pertains to 

investigation and/or legal work on issues of pollution liability. Similarly, the evidence regarding 

Mr “discussion with hull surveyor” concerning manifests is inadequate. The invoice 

has only a one line refrence to this discussion and no details as to manifesting, etc. In fact, the 

discussion occurred in January, but disposal did not actually begin until May 2009. Finally, 

Claimant did not provide itemized food receipts for some of Mr. ’s meal expenses, and 

those items are therefore denied. 

Mr. also attested to the pollution removal activities of Mr. , of Alaska 

Chadux who served as the Section Planning Chief in the Incident Command, from January 16, 

2009 – January 20, 2009. Mr. questioned the denial of Mr. ’s personnel charges 

totaling $2,645.61 during this time period. The NPFC referred back to Alaska Chadux Invoice 

R09-001 and verified that all of Mr. s time from January 15, 2009 – January 20, 2009 

had prevously been approved by the NPFC. 

It appears that Mr. confused his dates and Alaska Chadux invoices. Specifically, the 

NPFC had denied $2,645.61 on the Alaska Chadux invoice R09-016 for dates May 26, 2009 – 

June 1, 2009. The denied costs consisted of personnel charges for Mr. totaling 

$2,375.00 for his role as Planning Chief; $237.50 in administrative costs associated with the 

denied personnel costs; and $33.11 in meal costs. Mr was not in the Command Center to 

attest to Mr. ’s pollution removal activities from May 26, 2009 – June 1, 2009. Thus, 

Claimant has still failed to provide additional information to support these costs, and the costs 

remain denied.37 

 

36 See Invoice #020309 as a tab on the NPFC master cost summary spreadsheet for better 

detail. 37 See Alaska Chadux Invoices #R09-001 and R09-016 as tabs on the NPFC master cost summary spreadsheet for 

better detail.