3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 911094-0001 

Claimant: Groton Pacific Carriers Inc. 

Type of Claimant: Corporate (US) 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $107,265.63 

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: On March 30, 2010, the Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur 

made the initial report to the National Response Center (NRC) that there was a discharge 

of unknown oil from the Tank Vessel Glenross (T/V Glenross), currently moored at 

Sunoco Logistics Partners, LP (Sunoco) Dock #5 in Nederland, Texas.1 

At the time of the incident, it was reported that the vessel was discharging cargo and the 

oil was observed coming from the port side of the vessel. About an hour later, the 

incident was reported to the NRC by Beaumont Federal Reserve Fleet informing that an 

unknown dark black sheen, 500 feet long and 300 feet wide, was discovered in the 

Neches River.2 And again, shortly after the incident had been reported the second time, 

the NRC received a third report of the incident informing that there was an unknown 

sheen in the water, the cause was unknown, and the incident was being investigated.3

 

The Neches River is a navigable waterway of the United States. The discharge that 

caused the sheen on the Neches River was identified as crude oil. The vessel was 

chartered to AET at the time of the incident. 

The Coast Guard (USCG) arrived on-scene and started their investigation of the incident. 

Under the direction of O’Brien’s Response Management Incorporated (O’Brien’s), 

Garner Environmental Services, Incorporated (Garner) responded to the incident. Garner 

had deployed boom around the vessel and the dock, causing most of the oil to be trapped 

within the boom next to the vessel.4 Sunoco Environmental and Emergency Response 

Specialist, , informed the USCG that at about 12:02, he was contacted by 

their Duty Foreman, , regarding the incident.5 

According to Mr. , he contacted the terminal’s fire chief to deploy containment 

boom and contacted the Texas General Land Office (TGLO). He also contacted 

of O’Brien’s and was informed that O’Brien’s corporate office had deployed an 

OSRO to the incident. TGLO’s State On-Scene Coordinator (SOSC), , was 

on-scene and reported that the pipeline had been shut down and that clean-up was 

underway. The Federal On-Scene Coordinator Representative (FOSCR), MST2 

 

1 See NRC Report #935577.

2 See NRC Report #935589.

3 See NRC Report #935597.

4 US Coast Guard Witness Statement, dated April 20, 2010. 5 US Coast Guard Witness Statement, dated April 5, 2010.
4

, worked with the SOSC to create a Unified Command (UC) to devise a 

sampling plan and to get the clean-up response underway. 

2. Description of Removal Activities for this Claimant: On March 30, 2010, ship manager 

International Tanker Management Holding (ITM) immediately reported the incident. 

ITM had entered into a contract for oil spill response services for tank vessels with 

O’Brien’s on March 8, 2009.6 Per the Claimant, O’Brien’s was the spill management 

team for the incident.7 Garner carried out the clean-up. As operations manager, 

Alongside Port Service (Alongside Port) assisted with the response, and hired vendors 

Marine Chemists Incorporated of Texas (Marine Chemists), Diver Dan Diving Services 

(Diver Dan), and Associated Marine Services, Incorporated (Associated Marine) to 

provide additional assistance regarding the incident. Vendors Viswalab and the 

American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) were brought in on the clean-up operations by ITM. 

On March 31, 2010, Marine Chemists performed the survey of the vessel with regards to 

fire protection and issued a survey certificate. On March 31, 2010 and again on April 1, 

2010, Diver Dan’s dive team inspected the sea chests to find the location of the oil 

release. On April 2, 2010, Associated Marine provided launch boat services that 

transported ABS’ for pollution investigation. On March 31, 2010 and April 

1, 2010, Alongside Port picked up fuel samples at the incident site and delivered them to 

Viswalab for testing. Viswalab received the samples on March 31, 2010 and tested the 

samples on April 1, 2010. On April 2, 2010, ABS conducted a vessel survey regarding 

damage for the pollution investigation of the incident. 

On June 1, 2011, the USCG Hearing Office dismissed the civil penalty, without 

prejudice, against the Claimant. The Hearing Office concluded that there was 

insufficient evidence to find that they were responsible for the oil spill.8

 Then, on June 

17, 2011, TGLO dismissed their case against the Claimant. TGLO also concluded that 

there was insufficient evidence to prove that the Claimant was the responsible party for 

the incident.9 

The responsible party has not been determined. 

3. The Claim: The Claimant, Groton Pacific Carriers LTD, as agents for the vessel, worked 

in conjunction with ship manager ITM for the clean-up responsibility. On July 6, 2011, 

the Claimant submitted a removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds Center 

(NPFC) for reimbursement of $88,428.05 for cost incurred due to the oil spill response, 

as they were not the responsible party. 

 

6 Contract for Oil Spill Response Services for Tank Vessels between ITM Limited and O’Brien’s, dated March 8, 

2009.

7

 Electronic Mail from to re O’Brien’s as spill management team, dated May 24, 2012. 8 Letter from , Coast Guard Hearing Office to , Benckenstein & Oxford, LLP re dismissal 

of charge, dated June 1, 2011.

9

 Letter from , TGLO to , Benckenstein & Oxford, LLP re final determination dismissal, 

dated June 17, 2011.
5

The Claimant’s October 28, 2011, Proof of Payment memorandum to the NPFC 

presented a new sum certain amount of $109,815.63.10 In that memorandum, the 

Claimant provided detailed information regarding each payment made, as well as if the 

payment was made by Groton Pacific or ITM. The memo also included additional costs 

of $2,550.00 from Benckenstein & Oxford, LLC (B&O) that noted that Groton Pacific 

made the payment to the West of England P&I Club for the services of the law firm; 

informed that $8,850.00 was actual costs invoiced and paid for the services of Diver Dan 

Diving Services (Diver Dan), instead of $8,825.00 requested in the original claim 

submission; and that the costs paid for the services of Viswalab was $956.00, instead of 

the $2,000.00 originally requested. In that same memo, the Claimant also added costs for 

the services of MTI Network for $3,200.00, paid by ITM; and Freehill, Hogan & Mahar 

LLP for $16,764.17, paid by the West of England P&I Club. 

On June 19, 2012, the NPFC e-mailed the Claimant to request additional information and 

confirmation of the new sum certain amount requested in the amount of $109,815.63.11 

The NPFC informed the Claimant that the proof of payment documents were reviewed 

and that the added B&O costs for $2,550.00 appeared to be regarding a spill that occurred 

on September 27, 2009 and not related to the claim. The Claimant responded by e-mail 

on June 22, 2012 to confirm that $107,265.63 was the new sum certain requested, after 

deducting the $2,550.00 B&O costs that were submitted by mistake.12 

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 OPA 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)(1)(B). 

"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 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.” 

 

10 Groton Pacific Carriers Inc. memorandum to the NPFC re proof of payment dated October 28, 2011. 11 Electronic Mail from , NPFC to , Groton Pacific requesting sum certain confirmation 

and additional information, dated June 19, 2012. 

12 Electronic Mail reply from , Groton Pacific to , NPFC re sum certain confirmation 

and additional information, dated June 22, 2012.
6

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 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 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 

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. Federal On-Scene Coordinator representation was provided by MST2 

of the United States Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Port Arthur. 

2. The incident involved a discharge of “oil” as defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. § 

2701(23), to navigable waters. 

3. In accordance with 33 CFR § 136.105(e)(12), the claimant has certified no suit has 

been filed in court for the claimed uncompensated removal costs. 
7

4. The claim was submitted within the six-year statute of limitations for claims. 33 

U.S.C. § 2712 (h)(1). 

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

with the claim and determined whichof the removal costs presented were for actions 

in accordance with the NCP and that costs for these actions were indeed reasonable 

and allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205 as set forth below.

B. Analysis:

The NPFC Claims Manager has reviewed the actual cost invoices and dailies to confirm 

that the claimant had incurred all costs claimed. 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, and (4) whether the costs were adequately documented 

and reasonable. 

The NPFC obtained a copy of the Coast Guard MISLE case and associated 

documentation regarding the incident. 

The Claimant has requested reimbursement for all vendors involved in the incident. 

However, the OSLTF is available to reimburse Claimants for the actual removal costs 

associated with the incident. Therefore, any vendor costs that were not directly related to 

the actual oil response, are deemed not OPA compensable removal costs.

For services provided by vendor London Offshore Consultants Incorporated Americas 

(LOC), the Claimant requested reimbursement. LOC billed the Claimant a total of 

$41,933.08 for providing oversight of the response on behalf of the Owners and P&I 

Club. The surveyors were billed at $225.00 per hour, in which ten hours of work was 

billed as a full day of work. 

LOC Invoice Number 7900 (Invoice 7900), dated June 16, 2010, billed M/T Glenross, in 

care of B&O, $27,020.51 for their professional services performed from March 30, 2010 

to June 15, 2010. Per the invoice, this amount consisted of 116 hours of personnel time 

and $929.51 in travel, lodging, and communications expenses. LOC Invoice Number 

8262 (Invoice 8262), dated December 13, 2010, billed $14,912.57 for professional 

services performed regarding the incident. This amount consisted 62 hours of personnel 

time and $962.57 in travel, lodging, and communications expenses. LOC surveyors, 

Andre L. LeGoubin and David Ireland, noted in their Summary of Hours Worked Job 

Timesheet Reports that the work they performed was on behalf of the owners and the 

P&I Club.

On the timesheet for Invoice 7900, for services performed from March 30, 2010 to June 

15, 2010, the surveyors documented their attendance on board the vessel to investigate 

the incident and to “provide technical and marine advice to all parties on behalf of 
8

Owners & P&I.”13 The Invoice 8262 timesheet, for services performed from October 25, 

2010 to November 30, 2010, recorded Mr. s time spent reviewing 

documentation and preparing responses and affidavits, as well as attending a meeting 

with the TGLO to again “provide marine technical advice to all parties on behalf of 

vessels P&I interests.”14 Based on the information provided by the Claimant, the 

vendor’s actions were associated with the legal interests of the Claimant and not the 

actual removal management and the hiring of resources for removal response as that 

function was being performed by O’Brien’s. Therefore, the NPFC denies the $41,933.08 

requested by the Claimant for the services of LOC. 

The same applies regarding the legal services provided by B&O. On July 20, 2010, the 

law firm billed $22,523.72 via Invoice Number 44306 for professional services rendered 

described as “M/T Glenross and observation of oil pollution at Sunoco Berth 5, 

Nederland, Texas, March 30, 2010.”15 B&O billed for $121.22 in disbursements 

regarding travel and communications and $22,402.50 in legal services rendered by 

(AGS), (HOIV), and from March 30, 

2010 to June 30, 2010. 

Attorney services, billed at $225.00 per hour for 55 hours, were

documented on the invoice. His services included telephone conferences with various 

entities involved with the Glenross – B&O’s Hubert Oxford, of Freehill, 

Hogan, International Tanker Management Holding Limited’s (ITM) , 

charterer’s agent Norton Lilly’s , charterer’s boarding agent 

, Owner’s Agent of Alongside Port Service (Alongside 

Port), and O’Brien’s ; and retain LOC’s and receive e-mail 

advice from him. 

Attorney services, billed at $150.00 per hour for 62.85 hours, included 

travel to and attend spill site; communicate with United States Coast Guard (USCG) and 

TGLO personnel; review and respond to e-mails regarding the spill. And, Attorney 

, also billed at $150.00 for 4 hours, noted research regarding pipelines 

in the vicinity of the Sunoco Berth No. 5 as the services he performed. The NPFC denies 

the Claimant’s legal fee costs of $22,523.72, as those costs are not pertaining to the actual 

removal management and response. 

 attended a TGLO meeting in Austin, Texas from October 28, 2010 to 

October 29, 2010. The Claimant agreed to pay his costs of $1,330.51 to represent the 

Owners at the meeting regarding the March 30, 2010 incident.16 These costs are also 

denied, as they are not directly related to the actual response and clean-up of the incident. 

 

13 LOC Americas - Houston Summary of Hours Worked Job Timesheet Report for Invoice Number 7900 for the 

period March 30 – June 15, 2010, dated June 16, 2010. 14 LOC Americas – Houston Summary of Hours Worked Job Timesheet Report for Invoice Number 8262 for period 

October 25 – November 30, 2010, dated December 13, 2010. 15 Benckenstein & Oxford, LLP Invoice #44306, dated June 30, 2010. 16 Electronic Mail reply from to re sum certain confirmation and additional 

information, dated June 19, 2012. 
9

Again, as noted above, in his June 22, 2012 e-mail reply, the Claimant also explained that 

MTI Network was hired to assist due to the number of Coast Guard personnel, TGLO 

personnel and others onboard the Glenross for almost three days, the incident had the 

potential to escalate. MTI Network billed ITM $3,200.00, at the rate of $320.00 per hour 

for 10 hours of executive time, on Invoice 7252, dated May 4, 2010. The services 

provided by were noted on the invoice as professional media response 

services in relation to the ITM vessel Glenross from March 31, 2010 to April 2, 2010.17 

The costs for professional media are also denied by the NPFC as not response related. 

Finally, the Claimant requested reimbursement of $16,764.17 for attorney fees incurred 

by hiring Freehill Hogan from March 30, 2010 to June 27, 2011. This amount consists of 

Interim Invoice Numbers 130426, 131715, 133611, and Final Invoice 134314. The fees 

were billed to the Owners of Glenross in care of The West of England Insurance Services 

(Luxembourg) S.A. (West of England). Interim Invoice Number 130426 for $4,907.50, 

dated May 6, 2010, billed for services provided by , at the rate of $325.00 

per hour for 15.10 hours. services included teleconferences with O’Brien’s, 

Owner’s Manager , B&O, and ; review and respond to emails; and prepare status reports to West of England.18

Interim Invoice Number 131715 for $6,439.66, dated October 13, 2010, billed for 

services from May 7, 2010 to October 12, 2010. The billed amount consisted of 

$6,435.00 for 19.80 hours of attorney time at the rate of $325.00 per hour and $4.66 for 

digital reproduction and postage expenses. Mr. services included review and 

prepare e-mail responses to West of England, , B&O, O’Brien’s, 

Operations Manager , ; teleconferences with B&O, ; 

review TGLO Notice of Violation; and prepare e-mail report to West of England.19 

Interim Invoice Number 133611, dated April 29, 2011, billed $4,059.01 for attorney 

services from October 13, 2010 to April 29, 2011. billed for 12.40 hours at the rate 

of $325.00 per hour and $29.01 for digital reproduction and telephone expenses. 

services included review e-mail exchanges between B&O, and 

regarding USCG fine; review file regarding TGLO and USCG fines; 

teleconference with B&O regarding retaining a chemist; attend office conference with 

LOC expert Captain ; and prepare report to West of England.20

Final Invoice Number 134314 for $1,358.00, dated June 28, 2011, for Mr. services 

from May 7, 2011 to June 28, 2011. The firm billed for 4 hours at the rate of $325.00 per 

hour and $58.00 for digital reproduction, postage expenses, and telephone expenses. His 

services included his tasks of preparing status e-mail to B&O, , and West of 

England; reviewing e-mails from B&O and ; review favorable decisions of 

USCG and TGLO; and review e-mail from regarding possibility of filing 

claim with NPFC.21

 

17 Marine Technical International Inc. Invoice 7252, dated May 4, 2010. 18 Law Offices of Freehill Hogan & Mahar LLP Interim Invoice Number 130426, dated May 6, 2010. 

19 Law Offices of Freehill Hogan & Mahar LLP Interim Invoice Number 131715, dated October 13, 2010. 20 Law Offices of Freehill Hogan & Mahar LLP Interim Invoice Number 133611, dated April 29, 2011. 21 Law Offices of Freehill Hogan & Mahar LLP Final Invoice Number 134314, dated June 28, 2011.
10

The services provided by Mr. were legal advice and assistance to B&O and the 

West of England. The Claimant’s request for reimbursement of these legal fees in the 

amount of $16,764.17 is denied. 

Therefore, based on the NPFC’s denial of $85,751.48, the NPFC determines that the 

OSLTF will pay $21,514.15 as full compensation for the reimbursable removal costs 

incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim # 911094-0001. 

 

 

C. Determined Amount:

The NPFC determines that the OSLTF will pay $21,514.15 as full compensation for the 

reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under 

Claim Number 911094-001 for removal costs. 

 

AMOUNT: $21,514.15

 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 3/14/13 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: