Claim Number: 

Claimant: 

Type of Claimant: 

Type of Claim: 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: 

I. INCIDENT 

CLAIM SUMMARY I DETERMINATION 

105003-0025 

IMC Shipping Co. Pte. Ltd., Ayu Navigation Sdn Bhd 

CLAIMANT TYPE 

Limit of Liability 

$2,832,010.08 

The MN SELENDANG A YU (the vessel) was on a voyage from Seattle to China when, 

on the morning of December 6, 20041 while operating in adverse weather conditions, the 

crew shut down the main engine as a result of a casualty to the No. 3 cylinder. The 

vessel drifted toward Unalaska Island and eventually grounded on December 8 on a 

rocky shelf on the north shore of Unalaska Island, northeast of Spray Cape. The 

grounding ruptured the vessel's bottom tanks, releasing approximately 330,000 gallons2 

of bunkers into the waters off Unalaska Island. 

II. CLAIMANT AND CLAIM 

The Claimants are the OPA responsible parties and their insurers. Ayu Navigation Sdn 

Bhd was the owner of the vessel and IMC Shipping Co. Pte. Ltd. was the operator of the 

vessel. Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forenging (The Swedish Club), members of the 

International Group of Protection and Indemnity Clubs ("International Group"), and the 

International Group's re-insurers were their subrogated underwriters. 

III. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND: 

Pursuant to 33 U.S.C. § 2708(a)(2) Claimant presented a claim to the Oil Spill Liability 

Trust Fund (OSLTF or the Fund) seeking a limit on its liability for the incident. At the 

time of the incident the applicable limit per ton was $600; the gross tonnage for the 

Selendang was 39,755 gross ton; therefore, its limit on liability, if granted, was 

$23,853,000.00. The Claims Adjudication Division conducted an analysis of evidence 

and facts and determined that IMC Shipping Co. Pte. Ltd, et al demonstrated entitlement 

to its limit ofliability on 27 January 2012. 

IV. REMOVAL COST CLAIM 

Claimant asserts that it incurred approximately $148,651,185.13 in removal costs and 

hired 153 vendors to conduct the removal actions. The removal actions at the site ended 

on or about 23 June 2006, per a Pollution Report (PolRep) #110 dated 27 June 2006 

issued by the FOSC for this incident. As required by 33 CFR 136.203, the RP worked 

1 See, Claimant Submission, Attachment 24, Government's Videotape Deposition Vol I, 00074. 2 See, Claimant's submission letter, page 3, paragraph 3. 

------------------------------------------------------- _____ 2 __ ~---~------- ------~---------------------
closely with the FOSC throughout the response; MSO Anchorage provided FOSC 

coordination. 

Based on the magnitude of the costs associated with this response, the NPFC anticipated 

that adjudication of this claim will be lengthy. Claimant and the NPFC agreed to 

adjudicate the costs on a phased basis. The NPFC separated the claim into smaller claims, 

based on vendors. Each smaller claim bears a separate claim number and after 

adjudication the NPFC will offer an amount for that claim. Claimant may accept the offer 

or request reconsideration pursuant to the Claims Regulations at 33 CFR Part 136. 

V. TWELFTH REMOVAL COSTS CLAIM DETERMINATION3 

The NPFC adjudicated this twelfth claim (J05003-0025) in the amount of $2.83M. The 

RP, through its legal representative, provided 67 binders of invoices to document the 

$2.83M in removal costs claimed in this twelfth determination package for costs 

associated with various third party contract suppliers in support of the response actions 

undertaken in this incident. This claim includes only the invoices paid by the RP to the 

various contract suppliers, who provided good and services in support of the cleanup 

actions undertaken by all response contractors. The NPFC claims manager reviewed 

each and every submitted invoice as well as every "daily" sheet submitted to substantiate 

the invoices. Additionally, the NPFC claims manager reviewed the payment record 

against the claimed costs for each invoice. 

An offer was made on the claim on 16 July 2013 in the amount of $2,555,041.36. 

VI. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION4 

3 The NPFC adjudicated the first removal cost claim, Claim Number J05003-001, in the amount of$24,500,453.89. 

The NPFC deducted the statutory limit on liability of$23,853,000.00 and offered $546,484.54 as full and fmal 

compensation on or about May 21, 2012. Claimants accepted the offer on June 7, 2012. The NPFC adjudicated the 

second removal claim, Claim Number J05003-003, and offered$ 2,168,445.20 to the Claimants on June26, 2012. 

Claimants accepted the offer on August 6, 2012. The NPFC adjudicated the third removal claim, Claim Number 

J05003-0004, and offered $3,668,595.70 to the Claimants on July 3, 2012. Claimants accepted the offer on August 

6, 2012. The NPFC adjudicated the fourth removal claim, Claim Number J05003-0015, and offered $23,103,264.96 

to the Claimants on August 20, 2012. Claimants accepted the offer on September 11, 2012. The NPFC adjudicated 

the fifth removal claim, Claim Number J05003-0016, and offered $15,611,776.98 to the Claimants on October 17, 

2012. Claimants accepted the offer on December 6, 2012. The NPFC adjudicated the sixth removal claim, Claim 

Number J05003-0017, and offered $9,565,222.57 to the Claimants on November 20, 2012. Claimants accepted the 

offer on November 28, 2012. The NPFC adjudicated the seventh removal claim, Claim Number J05003-0018, and 

offered $8,230,390.17 to the Claimants on December 13, 2012. Claimants accepted the offer on December 17, 

2012. The NPFC adjudicated the eighth removal claim, Claim Number J05003-0019, and offered $5,004,635.21 to 

the Claimants on February 19, 2013. Claimants accepted offer on February 27, 2013. The NPFC adjudicated the 

ninth removal claim, Claim Number J05003-0022, and offered $2,166,024.24 to the Claimants on March 21, 2013. 

The NPFC adjudicated the tenth removal claim, Claim Number J05003-0023, and offered $6,120,304.42 to the 

Claimants on April 02, 2013. Claimants accepted the offer on May 24, 2013. The NPFC adjudicated the eleventh 

removal claim, Claim Number J05003-0024, and offered $2,099,476.94 to the Claimants on April 9, 2013. 

Claimants accepted the offer on May 15, 2013. 

4

The Claimant requested reconsideration via a letter dated 5 August 2013. The Claimant provided nine pages of 

supporting documentation. 

_____________ 3 __________________________ _;_ ____ --~-----------
On August 5, 2013, the Claimant sent a request for reconsideration to the NPPC stating 

they would like the NPPC to reconsider the claim. The Claimant provided nine pages of 

supporting documentation for the amount requested on reconsideration along with their 

rationale for the request. 

NPFC Determination on Reconsideration 

Under 33 CPR 136.105(a) and 136.105(e)(6), the claimant bears the burden of providing 

to the NPPC all evidence, information, and documentation deemed necessary by the 

Director, NPPC, to support the claim. Under 33 CPR§ 136.233, a claimant must 

establish loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity and that the loss was due to the 

destruction or injury to real or personal property or natural resources. The NPPC 

considered all the documentation submitted by the Claimant. 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 CPR 136.l 15(d). 

The NPFC performed a de novo review of the entire claim submission upon 

reconsideration. 

Upon review of all of the Claimant's new information, the NPPC has determined that the 

majority of costs requested by the Claimant on reconsideration in this twelfth claim 

determination were reasonable and necessary to mitigate the effects of the incident and 

properly supported. Upon review of the information provided by the Claimant, the NPFC 

has determined that the following costs are again denied on reconsideration: 

City of Unalaska-The Claimant requested reconsideration of the double credit 

that was inadvertently taken by the NPFC in its original determination. After 

reviewof the information, the NPFC has determined the Claimant is correct and 

the NPFC has removed the double credit. 

Grand Aleutian-The Claimant has requested reconsideration of $5,615.46. The 

NPFC has determined that it will approve $4,820.35 and $795 .11 remains denied 

which are for costs associated with food/drinks on lodging bills whereby the 

underlying receipts were not provided. 

VII. SUMMARY 

All costs determined payable included in this determination have been reviewed and 

determined to be compensable as presented and in accordance with 33 USC§§ 2712(a)(4) 

and 2713 and the OSLTF claims adjudication regulations at 33 CFR Part 136.203 and 

--------------------------------------------A _________ --------------------~---------------·---~ 
136.205. The costs determined to be payable are for uncompensated removal costs that are 

determined to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan. 

The NPFC hereby determines that the NPFC offers, and the OSLTF is available to pay, 

$2,677,168.01 as full compensation for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the 

Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim# J05003-0025. · 

AMOUNT: $2.677,168.01 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor's review: 817113 

Supervisor Action: Reconsideration Approved 

-·--·----------- ----------------·---··------------·- ----- __________ c_. ___ 5 _____ -·---·---~- ----~------------------------- ___ _