2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 921001-0001 

Claimant: OMI Environmental Solutions 

Type of Claimant: OSRO

Type of Claim: Removal Costs

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $63,423.36

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $62,987.04

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On February 11, 2020 at approximately 11:05 pm local time, Witt Obriens made notification 

to the National Response Center (NRC), via report # 1268532 that the fishing vessel MY JULIE

was sinking and discharging diesel fuel into the Sabine Pass waterway, a navigable waterway of 

the United States.

1

 

United States Coast Guard (USCG) Marine Safety Unit (MSU) Port Arthur, in its capacity as 

the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) for this incident was notified by the State On Scene 

Coordinator (SOSC), Texas General Land Office (TGLO) who responded to the scene and 

discovered the motor vessel MY JULIE discharging oil into the Sabine Pass, a navigable 

waterway of the United States.

2

 In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the owner of 

the FV MY JULIE was identified as the Responsible Party (RP) for the incident.

3

 

OMI Environmental Solutions (“OMI” or “claimant”), commenced on-water cleanup 

operations after being hired by the RP.4 On March 12, 20205 and June 18, 20206, OMI presented 

its uncompensated removal costs to the RP. Having not received payment from the RP after 

ninety days, OMI presented its uncompensated removal cost claim to the National Pollution 

Funds Center (NPFC) for $63,423.36 on September 28, 2020.7 The NPFC has thoroughly 

reviewed all documentation submitted with the claim, analyzed the applicable law and 

regulations, and after careful consideration has determined that $62,987.04 of the requested 

$63,423.36 is compensable and offers this amount as full and final compensation of this claim. 

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

On February 12, 2020, the fishing vessel MY JULIE sank while moored at K & B Marine on 

the Sabine Neches waterway. The vessel sank at its mooring and discharged approximately 

 

1 NRC Report # 1268532 dated January 12, 2020.

2 Email from , FOSCR to the NPFC dated October 13, 2020, providing incident information. 3 USCG Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) dated January 13, 2020 and TGLO Letter of State Interest dated January 

12, 2020.

4 OMI Environmental Solutions General Service Agreement dated February 11, 2020. 5 NPFC OSLTF Claim Form dated September 28, 2020, OMI Invoice Number SINV2001875 dated March 12, 2020. 6 NPFC OSLTF Claim Form dated September 28, 2020, OMI Invoice Number SINV2004946 dated June 18, 2020. 7 NPFC OSLTF Claim Form dated September 28, 2020 and received October 1, 2020.

(b) (6) (b) (6)
3

20,000 gallons of diesel from its fuel tanks.8 On January 13, 2020, MSU Port Arthur reported to 

the scene and found the vessel had been boomed and had sank at the dock.9 On January 13, 

2020, the Federal On Scene Coordinator’s Representative (FOSCR) issued a Notice of Federal 

Interest to .

10 TGLO also issued a Letter of State Interest to dated 

January 12, 2020.11

Responsible Party 

St Joseph VII LLC is owned by and is identified as the owner and operator of 

the vessel MY JULIE and was designated the responsible party (RP) for the oil spill incident.12

The NPFC issued a Responsible Party (RP) Notification letter dated October 5, 2020 to Mr. 

.

13 A Responsible Party Notification letter notifies the owner and/or operator that a 

claim was presented to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) seeking reimbursement of 

uncompensated removal costs incurred as a result of response services performed that resulted 

from a vessel or facility that was identified as the source of a discharge or substantial threat of a 

discharge of oil to navigable waters of the United States.

The NPFC used the last known address provided by the claimant.14 The notification was sent 

through United States Postal Service (USPS) certified mail and the USPS confirmed Mr. 

receipt of the RP Notification Letter.

Recovery Operations

On February 12, 2020 the vessel MY JULIE was discharging oil into the Sabine Neches 

waterway. MSU Port Arthur arrived and found the vessel almost fully submerged with rigging 

and partial cabin outside the water.15 OMI was contracted by the RP to perform clean up and 

dewatering operations.16 OMI collected approximately 20,000 gallons of diesel with the sorbents 

used.17 OMI contained the vessel with an absorbent boom and vacuumed diesel and water off the 

vessel in an effort to float the vessel as it was sunk where it was moored.18 After multiple 

attempts to lift and float the vessel, the RP and Mr. were able to float the vessel on February 

14, 2020 by pumping water off the vessel and using a crane.19

 

8 Email from FOSCR to NPFC dated November 12, 2020 regarding OMI actions.

9 Email from FOSCR to NPFC dated November 12, 2020 regarding OMI actions.

10 Notice of Federal Interest dated January 13, 2020 and signed by . 11 TGLO Letter of State Interest to dated January 12, 2020. 12 Notice of Federal Interest dated January 13, 2020 and signed by . 13 NPFC RP Notification Letter dated October 5, 2020. 14 General Service Agreement between OMI Environmental Solutions and St. Joseph LLC signed by 

dated February 11, 2020.

15 Email from FOSCR to NPFC dated November 12, 2020 regarding OMI actions. 16 Email from FOSCR to NPFC dated November 12, 2020 regarding OMI actions. 17 Email from FOSCR to NPFC dated November 12, 2020 regarding OMI actions. 18 Texas General Land Office Case File 2020-0116, Incident Report, Response Chronology for response Officer: 

, page 30. 19 Texas General Land Office Case File 2020-0116, Incident Report, Response Chronology for response Officer: 

, page 32-38.

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) 

(6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
4

On February 14, 2020 the pollution response was determined complete. OMI stayed at the 

scene to oversee the salvage of the vessel.20 After the vessel was salvaged, the cause for the 

sinking was determined to be a rotted 4” sewage water intake pipe.21 The vessel had a lien and 

the insurance company withdrew from the response on January 22, 2020 by issuing a check to 

the RP for $400,000.22 After Mr. fulfilled the policy and received the full amount of the 

policy, Great American Insurance Company (GAIC) was no longer involved in the response.23 

II. CLAIMANT AND RP: 

Absent limited circumstances, the Federal Regulations implementing the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990 (OPA)24 require all claims for removal costs or damages must be presented to the RP 

before seeking compensation from the NPFC.25 

The claimant initially presented its claim in the form of an invoice to St. Joseph VII LLC on 

March 12, 2020 and June 18, 2020, respectively. Throughout the response, the claimant was 

informed that the RP’s insurance company, Great American Insurance Company, had withdrawn 

from the response and disbursed the full policy amount to the RP. OMI invoiced the RP again 

on December 19, 2019.26 

Having not received payment from the RP after ninety days, OMI presented its 

uncompensated removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for 

$63,423.36 on September 28, 2020.27

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

When an RP has not settled a claim after 90 days of receipt, a claimant may elect to present 

its claim to the NPFC.28 On October 1, 2020 the NPFC received a claim for uncompensated 

removal costs from OMI dated September 28, 2020. The claim included the OSLTF claim form, 

initial invoices, contract between the RP and OMI, OMI 2018 Emergency rate schedule, daily 

work activity logs, meals receipts and daily supervisor log. Additional information provided by 

the claimant to the NPFC included OMI’s job files and checklists accounting for equipment and 

staff, resubmission of second invoice to RP. 

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

 The NPFC utilizes an informal process when adjudicating claims against the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).29 As a result, 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) requires the NPFC to provide a 

brief statement explaining its decision. This determination is issued to satisfy that requirement. 

 

20 Email from FOSCR to NPFC dated November 12, 2020 regarding OMI actions. 21 PolRep referenced MISLE Case # 1205591 dated January 12, 2020. 22 PolRep referenced MISLE Case # 1205591 dated January 12, 2020. 23 Texas General Land Office Case File 2020-0116, Incident Report, Response Chronology for response Officer: 

, page 15. 24 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. 25 33 CFR 136.103. 26 PolRep referenced MISLE Case # 1205591 dated January 12, 2020. 27 NPFC OSLTF Claim Form dated September 28, 2020. 28 33 CFR 136.103. 29 33 CFR Part 136.

(b) (6) (b) (6)
5

 When adjudicating claims against the OSLTF, the NPFC acts as the finder of fact. In this 

role, the NPFC considers all relevant evidence, including evidence provided by claimants and 

evidence obtained independently by the NPFC, and weighs its probative value when determining 

the facts of the claim.30 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.31 If there is conflicting evidence in the record, the 

NPFC makes a determination as to what evidence is more credible or deserves greater weight, 

and makes its determination based on the preponderance of the credible evidence.

V. DISCUSSION: 

 An RP is liable for all removal costs and damages resulting from either an oil discharge or a 

substantial threat of oil discharge into a navigable water of the United States.32 An RP’s liability 

is strict, joint, and several.33 When enacting OPA, Congress “explicitly recognized that the 

existing federal and states laws provided inadequate cleanup and damage remedies, required 

large taxpayer subsidies for costly cleanup activities and presented substantial burdens to 

victim’s recoveries such as legal defenses, corporate forms, and burdens of proof unfairly 

favoring those responsible for the spills.”34 OPA was intended to cure these deficiencies in the 

law. 

 OPA provides a mechanism for compensating parties who have incurred removal costs where 

the responsible party has failed to do so. Removal costs are defined 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.”35 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.”36 

 The NPFC is authorized to pay claims for uncompensated removal costs that are consistent 

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).37 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

of regulations governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such 

claims.38 The claimant bears the burden of providing all evidence, information, and 

 

30 See, e.g., Boquet Oyster House, Inc. v. United States, 74 ERC 2004, 2011 WL 5187292, (E.D. La. 2011), “[T]he 

Fifth Circuit specifically recognized that an agency has discretion to credit one expert's report over another when 

experts express conflicting views.” (Citing, Medina County v. Surface Transp. Bd., 602 F.3d 687, 699 (5th Cir. 

2010)). 31 See, e.g., Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds Center, 71 Fed. Reg. 

60553 (October 13, 2006) and Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds 

Center 72 Fed. Reg. 17574 (concluding that NPFC may consider marine casualty reports but is not bound by them). 32 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 33 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 34 Apex Oil Co., Inc. v United States, 208 F. Supp. 2d 642, 651-52 (E.D. La. 2002) (citing S. Rep. No. 101-94 

(1989), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 722). 35 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 36 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 37 See generally, 33 U.S.C. §2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 38 33 CFR Part 136.
6

documentation deemed relevant and necessary by the Director of the NPFC, to support and 

properly process the claim.39

 Before reimbursement can be authorized for uncompensated removal costs, the claimant must

demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence: 

(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 directed by the FOSC or determined by the FOSC to be 

consistent with the National Contingency Plan.40

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.41

 

 Upon receipt of the claim submission, the NPFC requested additional information and 

clarification from the claimant on October 2, 2020.42

After a complete review of all documentation and after contacting the FOSCR and the SOSC 

who were both on scene, the NPFC was able to corroborate the actions undertaken by the 

claimant and confirm that the FOSCR determined OMI’s actions to be properly coordinated. 

The NPFC has determined that the invoiced costs were billed in accordance with the contract and 

rate schedule in place at the time services were rendered and the NPFC has determined that the 

claimant demonstrated proper presentment of costs to the claimant. 

Upon adjudication of the costs, the NPFC has determined that the amount of compensable 

removal costs is $62,987.04 while $436.32 are deemed non-compensable for the following 

reasons: 43 

 

Personnel

1. OMI’s invoice number SINV2001875 charged $95.89 for crew meals for 

February 12, 2020. After reviewing the receipt submitted, NPFC is unable to verify the 

items charged under this receipt. The $19.18 identified as a 20% markup is also denied.

2. OMI’s invoice number SINV2001875 charged $80.21 for crew meals for 

February 13, 2020. After reviewing the receipt submitted, NPFC is unable to verify the 

items charged under this receipt. The $16.04 identified as a 20% markup is also denied. 

3. OMI’s invoice number SINV2001875 charged $150.00 for profiling, manifest 

preparation and load scheduling. This item is denied as the rate schedule does not provide 

pricing. 

4. OMI’s invoice number SINV2004946 charged $75.00 for profiling, manifest 

preparation and load scheduling. This item is denied as the rate schedule does not provide 

pricing. 

 

39 33 CFR 136.105. 40 Email from the FOSCR to NPFC dated October 13, 2020, Re FOSC Coordination, the FOSCR confirmed actions 

performed by OMI were consistent with the National Contingency Plan.

41 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 42 Email from OMI to NPFC dated October 12, 2020. 43 Enclosure 3 to this determination provides a detailed analysis of these costs.