4

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Claim Number : 917008-0001

Claimant : Alpha Omega Training and Compliance Inc. 

Type of Claimant : Corporate 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $37,545.50 

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: On October 8, 2016, Alpha Omega Training and Compliance Inc. 

(“AOTC”) states that the P/C Zubarleen took on water during Hurricane Matthew and was 

partially submerged. Water started entering the fuel tanks, pushing fuel into the Banana 

River Marina located in Merritt Island, FL. Approximately 500 gallons of off road diesel 

were on the vessel prior to it submerging. The Banana River drains directly into the Atlantic 

Ocean, both of which are navigable waterways of the US. 

This incident was reported to the National Response Center via incident #1173737.1

 

2. Description of removal actions performed: On October 8, 2016, the Claimant, AOTC, 

arrived on the scene with a vacuum truck and performed an assessment of the spill. Boom 

had already been placed around the vessel to help contain the spill at the marina. AOTC 

deployed pads and boom into the water to begin cleanup activities where fuel was not heavily 

present. AOTC started pumping petroleum off the surface of the water until it became too 

dark to work. AOTC informed the RP that they would return in the morning with a full crew 

and resume cleanup activities. 

The following day, AOTC deployed additional hard boom to secure the area and ensure no 

petroleum product would reach the Banana River. AOTC continued to skim and pad and 

boom the water until all heavy petroleum product had been removed. AOTC had 3800 

gallons of petroleum impacted water. AOTC also had nineteen (19) drums of petroleum 

contaminated pads and boom, which was to be disposed. 

AOTC finished clean up on October 13, 2016, having hand dug along the river to cleanup 

potential contaminated soil, working the areas within the right of way. Neighbors along the 

street were concerned that their yards had been potentially contaminated. By October 13, 

2016, the final load of petroleum impacted water was delivered to the disposal facility. 

AOTC removed hard boom from the marina on October 17, 2016 and the cleanup was 

deemed complete. 

3. Responsible Party: The owner of the P/C Zubarleen is Mr. . Mr. 

was on scene during the pollution removal activities. Mr. was issued an RP 

 

1

See, NRC Report # 1173737, dated 3/21/2017. 
5

notification letter by the NPFC dated March 2, 2017, notifying him of the subject claim with 

AOTC.2

Mr. subsequently responded to the NPFC by letter dated March 13, 2017. Mr. 

 writes, “My vessel also my home and residence sank due to storm surge from 

hurricane Mathew in October 2016, at that time because the vessel was my residence all my 

belongings were lost or destroyed.” Mr. further states, “the EPA representative and 

 from alpha omega had me convinced the fee was covered by the national disaster fund 

and FEMA . . . At this point I was agreeing with whatever the EPA, and alpha omega said I 

was only trying to help with this disaster . . . Again, I have never signed any agreement nor 

authorized any action on any of the multiple vessels that sank that day in the marina or 

surrounding area . . . I do not believe I am solely responsible for all the fuel in the marina and 

surrounding area during the national disaster of hurricane Mathew.”

3

 

Lastly, Mr. asserts that “$37,545.50 is a gross exaggeration of a small vessel cleanup of less than 300 gallons of fuel, and a great example of price gouging. . .”

In response to Mr. assertion that he “never signed any agreement nor 

authorized any action,” AOTC states, “We were hired by the client 

owner of the vessel Zubarleen. FDEP was on site and gave the RP a list of 

contractors to call and he called Alpha Omega to respond to the spill.” 

THE CLAIMANT AND THE CLAIM:

On March 1, 2017, AOTC submitted a removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC), for reimbursement of its removal costs in the amount of $37,545.50 for the 

services provided from October 8-17, 2016. This claim is for removal costs based on the rate 

schedule in place at the time services were provided. A copy of the vendor rate schedule is 

provided with the claim. 

APPLICABLE LAW: 

Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), 33 USC § 2702(a), each responsible party for 

a vessel or facility from which oil is discharged, or which poses the substantial threat of a 

discharge of oil, into or upon the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines is liable for the 

removal costs and damages described in 33 USC § 2702(b) that result from the incident. The 

responsible party’s liability includes the “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”.

 

2

See, NPFC RP notification letter to Mr. , dated 3/2/ 2017. 

3

See, letter from Mr. , RP, to , USCG NPFC dated 3/13/2017. 
6

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 at 33 USC § 2701(31) 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]. 

Under 33 USC §2713(a), all claims for removal costs or damages must (with certain 

exceptions not applicable here) be presented first to the responsible party or guarantor of the 

designated source of the incident. Then, as provided in 33 U.S.C. §2713(d), “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 Director, 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.”

In addition, 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]. 
7

DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

A. Overview: 

1. The Claimant’s removal actions were coordinated with the FOSC via USCG MSD 

Port Canaveral.4 33 U.S.C. §§ 2702(b)(1)(B) and 2712(a)(4); 

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

2701(23), to navigable waters; 

3. The claim was submitted to NPFC within the six year statute of limitations. 33 U.S.C. 

§ 2712(h)(1); 

4. A Responsible Party has been identified, but has denied responsibility for the costs as 

presented.5 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32); 

5. In accordance with 33 CFR § 136.105(e)(12), the Claimant has certified that no suit 

has been filed by or on behalf of the Claimant in court for the claimed uncompensated 

removal costs; 

6. The NPFC Claims Manager has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted by 

the Claimant with the claim, and additional documentation provided by USCG IMD 

Port Canaveral (FOSC) and the NPFC has determined which of the removal costs 

presented were incurred for removal actions taken by the Claimant in accordance with 

the National Contingency Plan (NCP), and whether the costs for these actions were 

reasonable and allowable under OPA 90 and 33 CFR § 136.205. 

B. Analysis: 

The NPFC Claims Division (CA) reviewed the cost invoices and dailies submitted by the 

Claimant to determine whether the Claimant had incurred all costs claimed. The review 

focused on: (1) whether the actions taken were compensable “removal actions” under OPA 

90 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 were 

reasonable and necessary. 

The Claimant, Alpha Omega Training and Compliance Inc., submitted a claim that 

demonstrates that the actions performed by AOTC were removal actions and the work 

performed by AOTC in fact mitigated the effects of the oil spill that was discharged into the 

Banana River, a navigable waterway of the US. Additionally, the USCG MSD Port 

Canaveral FOSC confirmed the actions claimed were performed by the Claimant in response 

to this incident and determined that all of the Claimant’s response actions were consistent 

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). 

Upon adjudication of the claim, the NPFC verified that the rates charged were billed to the 

RP in accordance with AOTC’s published rates. As such, the NPFC has determined which, 

of the amounts invoiced and paid, were reasonable. 

 

4

See, Email from PO , USCG, to Ms. , NPFC, dated 4/21/2017. 

5

See, letter from Mr. to the NPFC, dated 3/13/2017. 
8

Based on a review of all the supporting documentation and incident information, the Claims 

Manager has determined that the Claimant did in fact incur $37,207.99 in uncompensated 

removal costs that were reasonable and necessary, 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 #917008-0001. Those costs claimed are for 

uncompensated removal costs incurred by the Claimant for this incident for removal actions 

by the claimant from October 8-17, 2016 that are consistent with the NCP. 

Based on billing errors on the part of the Claimant for the liquid disposal costs, $337.51 in 

claimed costs are hereby denied as not supported by the rate schedule. It is important to note 

that the Claims Manager and Claims Supervisor buth made several requests for additional 

information from Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FL DEP) but never 

received any of the requested information at the time of this writing. Based on a 

preponderance of the evidence and after the fact FOSC coordination, the NPFC has 

determined that $37,207.99 is OPA compensable. 

It is also important to note that the Claimant’s OSLTF Claim Form indicated that the account 

had been forwarded to collections and that also a lawyer was reviewing the case to determine 

whether or not a lien could be filed.6The NPFC followed up and contacted the Claimant on 

May 8, 2017 and inquired as to what the status was with respect to the lien and collections. 7

The claimant responded to the NPFC via email on May 19, 2017 and advised that no lien has 

been filed and no action has been taken to initiate a legal action against the RP in this case.8

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $37,207.99 as full compensation for 

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

under claim 917008-0001. All such costs were incurred by the Claimant for removal actions 

as that term is defined in OPA 90 and, are compensable removal costs, payable by the 

OSLTF as presented by the Claimant. The denied costs total $337.51. 

AMOUNT: $37,207.99

 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 5/24/17

Supervisor Action: Approved

Supervisor’s Comments: 

 

6

See, OSLTF Claim Form dated 2/20/17, item #7. 

7

See, May 8, 2017 email from to . 

8

See, May 19, 2017 email from to regarding legal status update.