3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number : 918023-0001 

Claimant : State of California Department Fish & Wildlife, 

 Office of Spill Prevention and Response 

Type of Claimant : State

Type of Claim : Removal Costs

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $3,500.45 

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: The USCG Station Noyo River reports1 that on February 13, 2017, it 

received notification that the P/V San Juan had sunk in its mooring in Noyo Harbor. Noyo 

Harbor is located along the Noyo River, which drains directly into the Pacific Ocean. Both 

the Noyo River and the Pacific Ocean are navigable waterways of the US. 

USCG Station Noyo River called out the State of California Department Fish & Wildlife, 

Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) personnel to the scene, where they observed 

that the most of the vessel was under water. OSPR personnel also saw a visible petroleum 

sheen on the water coming from the P/V San Juan and smelled the strong odor of diesel fuel. 

It was estimated that 5-10 gallons of diesel fuel had been released into the Noyo River. 

The owner, (and thus the Responsible Party (RP) under the Oil Pollution Act 

(OPA)) had given up trying to keep the vessel afloat, as it was sinking quickly and the water 

pump large enough to do the job, was too expensive. Upon receipt of the claim submission, 

the NPFC issued a RP Notification Letter dated February 1, 2018 to Mr. via 

certified mail.2

This incident was reported to the National Response Center via Report # 1171011.3

 

2. Description of removal actions performed: The Claimant, OSPR, responded on-scene, and 

oversaw cleanup and removal activities. Containment boom and padding was set up around 

the P/V San Juan and absorbent pads were placed inside of the boom to collect the petroleum 

contamination. The Claimant continued to monitor the site through February 17, 2017.

THE CLAIMANT AND THE CLAIM:

The Claimant is the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Office of Spill Prevention 

and Response (OSPR). It seeks reimbursement of its uncompensated response costs related 

to the personnel time, vehicle costs, sample analysis costs and animal rescue contractor costs 

that it expended in order to respond to the incident. The Claimant requests reimbursement in 

the total amount of $3,500.45 for the services provided February 13, 2017. This claim is for 

 

1 See, NRC Report # 1171011 dated February 13, 2017. The USCG is the reporting party for the incident. 2 See, RP Notification Letter dated February 1, 2018. 3 See, NRC Report # 1171011 dated February 13, 2017.

, NRC Report # 1171011, opened 2/13/20173 See, NRC Report # 1171011, opened 2/13/2017.
4

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: 

"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 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 -
5

(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]. 

DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

A. Overview:

1. The Claimant’s removal actions were coordinated with Station Noyo River. 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. 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 further documentation provided by USCG Station 

Noyo River, and 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 Manager reviewed the documentation provided by the Claimant. 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. 

The NPFC hereby determines that $2,699.22 of the Claimant’s costs represent OPA compensable 

response actions that were performed in accordance with the NCP, and that the rates charged by 

the Claimant were in accordance with the Claimant’s published rates at the time services were 

provided.