CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 8/31/2010 

Claim Number : 910117-001

Claimant : Metropolitan Marine Solutions 

Type of Claimant : Corporate 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $4,550.00 

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On June 3, 2007, a 1981 Syndicate vessel, belonging to Mr. 

 sank due to a mechanical failure. The National Response Center (NRC) Case # 

8375731reports that the incident occurred in the Colorado River near the Laughlin Bay 

Marina, both navigable waterways of the US. Ms. with the Nevada 

Department of Wildlife (NDOW) contacted Mr. with Metropolitan Marine 

Solutions (MMS) to recover the sunken vessel and to remove any oil, fuel and 

contaminants present in the water.2 The vessel was leaking pollutants, and had the 

potential to leak approximately 25 gallons of fuel.3 Mr. was named as the 

Responsible Party (RP). 

MMS did mail an invoice to Mr. , as well as made several attempts to reach him 

via phone (leaving several messages), but he did not return them. The NPFC claims 

manager did attempt to contact the RP; however, the presentment letter sent was returned, 

unopened and undeliverable. 

Description of removal actions performed: The claimant, MMS, arrived on-site on June 

4, 2007. Upon arrival, MMS deployed absorbent boom around the work area of the 

vessel to minimize any pollutants that escaped due to the moving of the vessel. MMS 

then worked to remove the vessel, transporting it successfully from the waterway. 

 The Claim: On June 22, 2010, MMS submitted a removal cost claim to the National 

Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), for reimbursement of removal costs in the amount of 

$4,550.00 for the services provided June 4, 2007. This claim is for removal costs based 

on the rate schedule in place at the time services were provided. A copy of the vendor 

rate schedule is provided in the claim submission. 

This claim consists of copies of the invoicing and associated dailies, a copy of NRC 

Report # 837573, a copy of the NDOW Order to Remove, photographs and internal email 

correspondence. 

The review of the actual cost invoicing and dailies 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 

 

1

 See NRC Case #837573, opened 6/03/2007. 

2

 See NDOW Vessel Report, dated 6/04/2007. 

3

 See NRC Case #837573, opened 6/03/2007. 
were consistent with the NCP or directed by the FOSC, and (4) whether the costs were 

adequately documented. 

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”.

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

§ 2701(23), to navigable waters.

2. 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.

3. The claim was submitted within the 6 year statute of limitations for removal costs.

4. An attempt was made to contact the Responsible Party by the NPFC but the letter was 

returned as undeliverable.

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

the claim and has determined that the claim should be denied.

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. 

The Claims Manager has been unable to confirm whether the costs claimed were reasonable 

and necessary and performed in accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). 

FOSC oversight was not present during this response and the record does not support that the 

salvage response was an appropriate activity.

MMS claims a total of $4,550.00 in uncompensated removal costs. However, there are some 

disparities in this claim. First, the total invoice of $4,550.00 provided with the claim 

submission does not match up with the $11,984.50 revised invoice provided with MMS’s 

additional documentation received by the NPFC on July 11, 2010. Claimant has failed to 

provide proof the revised invoice and associated documentation has been presented to the RP 

as required under OPA. Second, while it could be argued that an OPA event occurred, the 

record does not demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that a discharge or 

substantial threat of discharge occurred nor is there any evidence of how much fuel was 

aboard the vessel at the time of the incident. The claim documentation does not indicate