Claim umber 

Claimant 

Type of Claimant 

Type of Claim 

Claim Manager 

Amount Requested 

FACTS: 

CLAIM UMMARY I DETERMINATIO FORM 

913065-000 I 

Jackson County Commission 

Local Government 

Removal Costs 

$17,600.00 

Oil Spill Incident: On April I, 2013 , a houseboat sank at its mooring at the Jackson County Park dock on 

the Tennessee River, a navigable waterway of the United States, in Scottsboro, AL. 1 As a result of the 

inking; approximately 20 gallon of gasoline and motor oil were released from the ves el.2 The Jack on 

County Emergency Management Director (EMA), was notified of the sunken ves el, who 

in tum contacted the Alabama Department of Environmental Management (ADEM). 

ADEM infonned park personnel that boom needed to be placed around the vessel to prevent the spread of 

the gasoline and oil. The ational Respon e Center (N RC) was notified and incident number 1042681 

was assigned. The Claimant, Jack on County Commis ion, o er ee park operations and contracted with 

Hazco, LLC to initiate containment and c leanup. ADEM notified the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA) Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) man of the sinking the following morning. 

, the Responsible Party (RP), infonned the Claimant and responding agency that he had no 

insurance on the vessel, but offered that he could alvage the ves el after cleanup was complete. 

ubsequent attempts to contact the RP to remove his ve sel from its dock ide moorage after the cleanup 

was complete were unsuccessful. Therefore, EMA and the park manager elected to contract with a 

salvage company to remove the vessel from the water in order to prevent additional discharge of ga a line 

and oil into the water. Tow Boat US wa contracted to remove the essel and Hazco, LLC remained on 

scene to assess any environmental impact of the vessel 's removal from the waterway. The Claimant 

presented their claim for removal costs to the RP on April 9, 2013 , which to date ha not been answered. 

Description of Removal Actions: Hazco, LLC was contracted by the Jack on County Commission for 

the deployment of containment boom and cleanup of the pi lied ga a line and oi l.3 The spill was initially 

managed through deployment of boom to prevent the spread of gaso line and o il. The fo llowing morning, 

Hazco, LLC returned to the scene to deploy sorbent pads and to continue gasoline and oil cleanup. Tow 

Boat U , at the request of Jackson County Commission, raised the vesse l, placed it on a trai ler and moved 

it to other park grounds. Hazco, LLC remained on scene during this evolution to re pond to any potential 

discharge of gaso line or oi l that may occur as the vessel wa moved.4 

The Claim: Jack on County Commission presented a removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC) in the amount of$17,600.00. 

The cla im consist of OSL TF Optional Claim Fonn, Jackson County Commission memorandum to the 

RP requesting reimbursement for their co ts incurred, RC Report I 042681 , Southern Marine Towing 

and alvage, LLC invoices, Hazco, LLC invoice for ser ices rendered, ADEM pollution incident report, 

I See, 0 L TF Claim Form, dated May 22, 2013 . 2 Ibid. 

3 Ibid. 

4 Ibid. 
Jackson County Commis ion narrative of after-hours ca ll center notification, Claimant's c laim to the RP 

and ev idence of its non-delivery or refusal, and pictures of the incident. 

APPLICABLE LAW: 

Under OPA 90 at 33 USC§ 2702(a), re pon ible partie are liable for removal costs and damage 

resulting from the discharge of oi l into navigable water and adjoining horelines, as described in ection 

2702(b) ofOPA 90. A responsible party's liability will include " removal costs incurred by any person for 

acts taken by the per on which are consistent with the ational Contingency Plan" . 33 USC § 

2702(b )( I )(B). 

"Oi l" is defined in relevant part, at 33 C § 270 I (23), to mean "oi l of any kind or in any form, including 

petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oi l refuse, and oi l mixed with wastes other than dredged poi I" . 

The Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSL TF), which is administered by the PFC, is available, pursuant to 

33 USC §§ 2712(a)( 4) and 27 13 and the OSL TF claims adjudication regu lations at 33 CFR Part 136, to 

pay claims for uncompensated removal costs that are determined to be con istent with the ational 

Contingency Plan and uncompensated damages. Remova l costs are defined as "the costs of removal that 

are incurred after a discharge of oi l has occurred or, in any ca e in wh ich there is a substantial threat of a 

discharge of oi l, the costs to prevent, minimize, or mitigate oil pollution from an incident" . 

Under 33 USC §2713(b)(2) and 33 CFR 136.1 03(d) no claim against the OSL TF 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 subj ect ofthe claim. See also, 33 USC §2713(c) and 33 CFR 136.103(c)(2) [claimant 

election]. 

33 U .. C. §2713(d) provide that " If a claim i presented in accordance with this section, including a 

claim for interim, short-term damages representing less than the fu ll amount of damages to which the 

c laimant ultimately may be entitled, and full and adequate compen ation i unavailable, a claim for the 

uncompensated damages and removal co ts may be presented to the Fund." 

Under 33 CFR 136.1 OS( a) and 136. 1 05(e)(6), the claimant bear the burden of providing to the PFC, all 

evidence, information, and documentation deemed nece ary by the Director, PFC, to upport the claim. 

Under 33 CFR 136.105(b) each claim must be in writing, for a sum certain fo r 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 respon e to the scope of the o il 

pill incident, and the PFC ha the authority and respon ibility to perform a rea onableness 

determination. pecifically, under 33 CFR 136.203, "a claimant must e tablish -

(a) That the action 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 action taken were determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the ational 

Contingency Plan or were directed by the FOSC. ' 

Under 33 CFR 136.205 " the amount of com pen ation a llowable is the total of uncompensated rea onable 

removal costs of actions taken that were determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the ational 

Contingency Plan or were directed by the FOSC. Except in exceptional circumstances, removal activities 

fo r which cost are being claimed must have been coordinated with the FO C." [Emphasis added]. 

2 
DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

Overview: 

Analysis: 

I. FOSC coordination was not properly made by USEPA FOSC . 

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

270 I (23), to navigable waters. 

3. In accordance with 33 CFR § 136.1 OS( 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 statute of limitations. 33 U.S.C. § 

2712(h)(l). 

5. The PFC Claims Manager has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted 

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

with the CP and that the costs for these actions were indeed reasonable and 

allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205. 

NPFC CA reviewed the actual cost invoices to confirm that the claimant had incurred all costs claimed. 

The review focused on: ( I) whether the actions taken were compensable " removal actions" under OPA 

and the claims regu lations 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 action ; (3) whether the actions taken 

were determined by the FOSC, to be consistent with the CP or directed by the FOSC, and (4) whether 

the costs were adequately documented and reasonable. 

The NPFC has determined that some of the removal costs presented and incurred were billed 

inappropriately at the time services were rendered. 

The Jackson County Commission presented response costs in the amount of $10, I 00.00, and vessel 

salvage costs in the amount of$7,500.00. The e costs were commingled across two invoices. Hazco, 

LLC, invoice 13-005 billed $7,500.00 for activities on the date ofthe spill described as, "

, 52 ft. houseboat located at Jackson Co. Park." The invoice was annotated for further activity, 

" Haz Mat crew and all materials used for entire sa lvage operations" from I to 3 April. 

Southern Marine Towing and Salvage, dba TowBoat US Chickamauga Lake, invoice 6052, billed for 

"salvage operation ... raising the boat. .. towing boat to launching ramp ... and loading on ... trailer." Billing 

activities included TowBoat US "Haz Mat crew and materials to clean up ... until the boat was removed 

from the lake" for a I ine item total of $10,100.00. The work performed by Hazco, LLC is listed separately 

as "charges for salvage and removing boat from lake and hauling off charges for Hazco, LLC." Both the 

Hazco, LLC and Southern Marine Towing & Salvage invoices were billed to Jackson County Park & 

Marina. 

Additional documentation to support the claim was requested on 27 September 2013 via email to the 

Claimant, but was not received. Requested documentation included daily work logs for Southern Marine 

and Hazco, LLC, inclusive of employee name, role or job performed, and start/stop times, which were not 

presented. Also requested were standard rate lists for each cleanup vendor, and disposal manifests, which 

were not presented . Finally, proof of payment from Southern Marine Towing & Salvage to Hazco, LLC 

and proof of payment from the Claimant to Southern Marine Towing & Salvage were requested but not 

presented. 

According to the claim documentation, the sunken vessel wa removed from the water, services for which 

were billed to the Claimant and part of the sum certain for this claim. The FOSC for this response, 

3 
, USEPA, wa queried by PFC to offer substantive input regarding the removal of this ve el 

from the water and the consistency of that work with the NCP. As a result, it cannot be determined that 

the actions taken to remove the vessel from the water were con istent with the CP or deemed 

reasonable and therefore are not eligible for reimbursement from the 0 L TF. 

Additionally, because there is duplicative commingled charges across invoices and lack of upporting 

documentation as required by OPA 90, combined with the lack of FOSC coordination for the remo al of 

the vessel from the water, the claim is denied. The burden is on the Claimant to properly document and 

support its claim. 

The PFC did call and speak with the Claimant and further explained the deficiencies in the invoicing, 

pricing, and supporting documentation although to date, the Claimant ha not remedied the lack of proper 

supporting documentation and coordination of actions undertaken. 

Determined Amount: 

Based on the foregoing, this claim is denied because (I) the Claimant ha failed to provide proof of 

payment to all contractors, (2) the Claimant has failed to provide requested upporting documentation, 

and (3) the Claimant has failed to obtain proper FOSC coordination from U EPA for the salvage of the 

vessel associated with this incident and therefore it cannot be determined that the actions were con i tent 

with the ational Contingency Plan (NCP). 

Claim upervisor: 

Date of Supervisor's review: 10129113 

upervisor Action: Denial approved 

4