• 

CLAIM SUMMARY I DETERMfNATlON 

Claim Number: 

Claimant: 

Type of Claimant: 

Type of Claim: 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: 

FACTS: 

913020-0001 

Texas General Land Office 

State 

Removal Costs 

$600.42 

Oil Spill Incident: On January 5, 2012, a report was made to the National Response 

Center (NRC) by the Port of Houston Authority via report# 999705 stating that while 

conducting bunkering operations, the tank was overfilled on the MN AMELIA. The 

report also stated that the product was being transferred from the T/B BUFF ALO ST AR. 1 

United States Coast Guard (USCG) Sector Houston I Galveston investigators responded 

to the incident upon notification from the NRC. Invetsigators arrived on scene at 

approximately 1830 hours and observed the path of discharge and evidence of Heavy 

Fuel Oil was seen draining down the side of the vessel's hull. USCG reports that 

approximately 150 gallons of heavy fuel oil 180 entered the Houston Ship Channel, a 

navigable waterway of the US. 

USCG investigators report that upon arrival, there was sorbent boom placed in the water 

from the barge. After further investigation, USCG reported that the crewof the MN 

AMELIA did not take any tank soundings during the bunker transfer as per their safety 

management system.2 The Master of the vessel did not make notification to the vessel's 

Qualified Indivdiual (QI) to initiate response actions as listed in the Vessel's Response 

Plan (VRP). The USCG had to open the Vessel Response Plan (VRP) and find who the 

QI contact was so the agent could make contact and initiate response. The USCG issued 

a Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) to the M/V AMLEIA via Transship Management 

B.V. 

Descr.iptio11 of Removal Activities for this claimant: 

Included in the Coast Guard MISLE case were witness statements from Buffalo Star 

tankermen, as well as the Amalia's Chief Engineer's and the Master. The statements 

from the Amalia's crew members indicated that when they became aware of the spill, 

they stopped what they were doing and took actions to clean up the spill. The witness 

statements confirmed the type of oil and location of spi 11. 

The Texas General Land Office (TGLO) designated the operator of the vessel, Transship 

Management, B.V as the Responsible Party for the spill. The response officer 

coordinated with the responsible party, the USCG, and the cleanup contractor Garner 

1 See NRC Report # 999705. 

2 See, Witness Statement ofMST2 Cody Koch. 

3 
• 

Environmental, to ensure that the clean-up was consistent with the ational Contingency 

Plan (NCP). All invoices were sent to the Responsible Party via ECM Maritime 

Services but to date no payments have been made to TGLO for their costs incurred. 

The Claim: On or about 13 December 2012, TGLO presented a removal cost claim to the 

ational Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of their uncompensated 

removal costs in the amount of $600.42 

TGLO is claiming state personnel expenses of $320.42, and state equipment expenses of 

$280.00. 

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 ational Contingency Plan" . 33 USC§ 2702(b)(l)(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 (0 LTF), 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 ational 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]. 

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 

4 
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. FOSC coordination was made by Tyson Muniz, United States Coast Guard, Sector Houston. 

2. The incident involved the 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. 

4. The claim was submitted within the six year statute of limitations for removal costs. 

5. A Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) was issued by the U.S. Coast Guard on 5 January 2012 

advising the owners of the Vessel of their liabilities and responsibilities under the Jaw. 

6. The NPFC Claims Manager has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the 

claim and determined that the removal costs presented were for actions in accordance with 

the NCP and that the costs for these actions were indeed reasonable and allowable under OPA 

and 33 CFR § 136.205 . 

AMOUNT: 

B. Analysis 

NPFC CA 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, to be consistent with the NCP or directed by the FOSC, and (4) whether the costs 

were adequately documented and reasonable. 

5 
The claims manager validated the costs incurred and the NPFC detem1ined the costs were 

reasonable, necessary and performed in accordance with the National Contingency Plan as 

confirmed by the FOSC. The claims manager also determines that the response actions were 

properly documented in order to support the charged billed. The NPFC sent a Responsible 

Party otification Letter to ECM dated January 15, 2013. 

The Claims Manager herby determines that the Claimant did in fact incur $600.42 of 

uncompensated removal costs and that that amount is payable by the OSL TF as full 

compensation for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to 

the NPFC under claim number 913020-0001. The Claimant states that all costs claimed are 

for uncompensated removal costs incurred by the Claimant for this incident oner about 5 

Jaunary 2012. The Claimant represents that all costs paid by the Claimant are compensable 

removal costs, payable by the OSLTF as presented by the Claimant. 

DETERMINED AMOUNT: $600.42 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor's review: 16 January 2013 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

6