Claim Number: 

Claimant: 

Type of Claimant: 

Type of Claim: 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: 

FACTS: 

CLAIM SUMMARY /DETERMINATION 

917016-0001 

Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association 

CLAIMANT TYPE 

Removal Costs 

$5,035.75 

A. Oil Spill Incident: On August 18, 2016 , at approximately 1 :20pm local time, Mr. 

the Security Officer for Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association 

(TKPOA) and Mr. , Aquatic Invasive Species Weed Coordinator responded 

to a call from a property owner located at , South Lake Tahoe, CA. A 

spill that resulted in a sheen approximately 200 ft long by 50 ft wide was located in the 

Tahoe Keys Starboard Cove Lagoon, 1 

a navigable water of the U.S. Mr. notified 

the California Office of Emergency Services (OES). OES notified the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) regarding the incident. 

B. Description of removal actions performed: The Claimant, Tahoe Keys Property 

Owners Association (TKPOA) deployed absorbent booms around the affected area, 

located near 2158 Inverness, to contain oil sheen. The California Department of Fish and 

Wildlife Game Warden instructed TKPOA staff to isolate the spill for 24 hours to see if 

it would dissipate over the course of the night and next day. TKPOA hired H20 

Environmental, Inc. (H20) to dispose of absorbent boom materiai2. 

C. Presentment to the Responsible Party: A Responsible Party was not identified. 

D, The Claim: On May 12, 2017, the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) received 

TKPOA's claim for reimbursement of its uncompensated removal costs in the total 

amount of $5,035.75 for the costs of its personnel time and materials expended, plus the 

costs of H20's services on August 18, 2016. 

APPLICABLE LAW: 

Under OPA 90, at 33 USC § 2702(a), responsible parties are liable for removal costs and 

damages resulting from the discharge of oil into navigable waters and adjoining 

shorelines, as described in Section 2702(b) of OP A 90. A responsible party's liability 

will include "removal costs incurred by any person for acts taken by the person which are 

consistent with the National Contingency Plan". 33 USC§ 2702(b)(l)(B). 

1 See, Tahoe Keys Property Owners As ociation Optional Claim form dated April 27, 2017 2 See, H20 Environmental Inc. Invoice #008404087 Dated 10/2112016 

3 
"Oil" is defined in relevant part, at 33 USC § 270 I (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 (OSL TF), 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 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]. 

33 U.S.C. §2713(d) provides that "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 3 3 CFR 136. l 05(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 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." 

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 

4 
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. Mr. of the EPA served as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) 

and was aware of incident; however, the response was primarily handled by the State of 

California Fish and Wildlife Game Warden. The Warden coordinated with the FOSC. 3 

The NPFC hereby determines that the actions undertaken by TKPOA and its 

subcontractors were consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). 33 U.S.C. §§ 

2702(b)(l)(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 oflimitations. 33 U.S.C. § 

2712(h)(l). 

4. A Responsible Party has not 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. 

The NPFC Claims Manager has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted by the 

Claimant, and has determined which claimed costs were incurred for removal actions taken 

in accordance with the NCP, and whether the costs for these actions were reasonable and 

allowable under OPA 90 and 33 CFR § 136.205. 

B. Analysis: 

NPFC CA reviewed the documentation provided by the Claimant and independently obtained 

by the NPFC. 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 claimed 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 has determined that the majority of the costs incurred by the Claimant in this 

claim submission were reasonable and necessary to mitigate the effects of the incident. The 

actions undertaken were overseen by either the State On Scene Coordinator, or the State of 

California Fish and Wildlife OSPR warden, and were coordinated with the EPA FOSC. 

Under OPA, TKPOA is entitled to its reasonable costs of oil spill response. TKPOA 

submitted this claim seeking costs paid to H20 to dispose of the oiled absorbent materials, 

and it also seeks its own costs for responding to the incident. 

3 See, May 16, 2017 email from EPA FOSC to Claims Manager . 

5 
The NPFC reviewed the documentation of claimed costs provided by TKPOA and H20. The 

documentation supporting H20's costs included H20's invoice for $1,566.00, H20's rate 

schedule and service agreement, and disposal documentation. NPFC finds that all of the 

H20 costs were necessary and reasonable for the response and, thus, are reimbursable to 

TKPOA. 

Regarding TKPOA's claim for its own costs, it seeks reimbursement for absorbent boom it 

expended at $257 per bag4 for 12 bags of boom totaling $3,084.00. TKPOA is not an Oil 

Spill Response Organization. It is a property owners' association that has been providing 

first response duties in its local waterway. Since TKPOA is not an OSRO, it is not entitled to 

charge OSRO prices when seeking reimbursement from the OSL TF. It is only entitled to be 

reimbursed for its uncompensated costs of responding to the oil spill. That means it can only 

be paid for costs expended, with no allowance for markup. Since TKPOA is not an OSRO, 

NPFC requested documentation ofTKPOA's purchase costs of the boom. In return, TKPOA 

provided invoices from New Pig Corporation for boom purchased by TKPOA. The invoices 

from New Pig provided prices of $115.00 per bag for 3 bags of boom, and $106.00 per bag 

for 16 bags.5 

TKPOA expended and had to replace 12 bags in this response. Therefore, the NPFC will 

reimburse TKPOA for its costs to replace the 12 bags. NPFC will allow 3 bags at $115.00 

and 9 bags at $106.00 based on the prices paid to New Pig as listed on their invoices. For the 

purpose of compensating the claimant, we employed Last-In-First-Out accounting for 

inventory replacement costs since we do not know how many bags from the prior inventory 

remained in stock beyond the 12 used for this spill. The total allowed at these rates is 

$1.299.00. The difference results in $1,785.00 of the claimed amount for disposable 

absorbent boom being denied. 

Claimant also seeks labor totaling $385.75 based on a work order dated August 26, 2016. 

However, attached to TKPOA's June 5, 2017 letter, Claimant provided a spreadsheet with a 

list of employees with their work times and rates for the response. The total labor hours were 

reduced from 23.5 as listed on the work order to 19 on the spreadsheet, and the number of 

workers was reduced from 7 to 6. NPFC has applied the data from the spreadsheet versus the 

work order because the data on the spreadsheet is more detailed and lists actual start and stop 

times, whereas, the work order only lists number of hours. Two of the employees listed on 

the work order did not appear on the spreadsheet, but a different employee was added. The 

resulting labor expense as stated by TKPOA is $313.80 as opposed to the initial claimed 

amount of $385.75. Therefore, the $71.95 difference is denied due to the reduction in labor 

costs as stated by the claimant in the supplemental documentation provided . 

The NPFC finds that $3, 178.80 is compensable to TKPOA, and the remaining $1,856.95 is 

denied for the reasons stated above. Should TKPOA continue to respond to oil spills and 

seek to be paid OSRO-level fees from the OSLTF in the future, it must ensure that its 

employees are HAZWOPER-certified so that they follow proper response procedures and 

4 The $257 per bag rate appears on the TKPOA published rate for spill cleanup assistance dated 1/1/2016. 5 New Pig Vendor invoice #4686107-03 dated 05/06/16 lists absorbent boom at $106.00 per bag for 16 bags and 

New Pig invoice#4686107-04 dated 08115/16 lists absorbent boom at $115.00 per bag for 3 bags. 

6 
follow key provisions of the National Contingency Plan, and related federal regulations 

regarding oil removal. 

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $3,178.80 as full compensation for the 

claimed removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim 917016-

0001. 

AMOUNT: $3,178.80 

Claim Supervisor: Mr. 

Date of Supervisor's review: 06/22/2017 

Supervisor Action: fl p prov-L J, 

Supervisor's Comments: 

7