CLAIM SUMMARY I RECONSIDERATION FORM 

Claim Number: 

Claimant: 

Type of Claimant: 

Type of Claim: 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: 

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: 

A120 19-0001 

Pacific Marine Salvage Inc. (PMS) 

Corporate 

Removal Costs 

$78,387.92 

On March 28,2012 at 7:15AM, the 70-foot, recreational motor vessel, LOYAL II, sank in its slip 

and discharged diesel oil onto the surface waters of Moss Landing Harbor, a tributary to 

Monterrey Bay and a navigable waterway of the United States. 

Coast Guard Sector San Francisco responded to the incident as the Federal On-Scene 

Coordinator Representative (FOSCR) overseeing the removal of an estimated 40 gallons of 

diesel fuel from the vessel. 

The Coast Guard issued a Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) to the owner of the vessel; Mr. 

as the responsible party (RP) for the discharge. Mr. hired Pacific 

Marine Salvage (PMS or Claimant) of Santa Cruz, CA to remove the oil and raise the vessel. On 

April13, 2012, PMS presented its invoicing to Mr. for services totaling $78,387.92. 

PMS states that Mr. was unable to compensate PMS for its service. 

Initial Claim: 

On November 29, 2012, PMS presented its claim for uncompensated removal costs to the NPFC 

seeking $78,387.92 from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (Fund). Claimant deployed sorbent 

pads around the vessel and its diver plugged the vents and removed fuel oil from the vessel's aft 

tanks. After reviewing all the documentation presented, the NPFC requested that the Claimant 

submit a legible waste manifest. PMS submitted a second copy of the waste manifest which was 

again illegible. 

In an email dated April 21, 2013, PMS argued that it followed the directions from the FOSCR 

and properly disposed of the waste oil. Claimant specifically cited several regulations stating 

that the oil was a non-hazardous waste and that PMS could transport 400 pounds of nonhazardous waste. 1 

1 See Claimant's email to the NPFC dated April21, 2013. 

2 
At the request of the NPFC, the FOSCR agreed to review the claim administrative record for the 

validity ofthe statements made by Claimant. On January 22, 2013, the NPFC received a 

memorandum and event summary from Captain Stowe, the FOSC. The memorandum 

documented specific activities that the Claimant failed to coordinate with the FOSCR therefore 

violating federal and state laws regarding the storage, transportation, and disposal of oil waste 

material. 

On Aprill, 2013, the NPFC denied the claim because the Claimant failed to meet its burden in 

accordance with the governing claims regulations (33 CFR 136.203 and 205), to prove that its 

activities were reasonable, necessary and consistent with the National Contingency Plan. The 

NPFC also denied the claim because the activities undertaken by the Claimant were not directed by 

the FOSC.2 

REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION: 

In an email dated April22, 2013, PMS requested reconsideration of its claim. Claimant asserted 

that it had video and correspondences from state and federal agencies showing that it complied 

with state and federal regulations regarding the labeling, storage, transportation and disposal of 

oil.3 Additionally, the Claimant requested that the NPFC grant additional time so that the 

Claimant could obtain necessary documentation from the FOSC. On May 22, 2013, Claimant 

requested documentation under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) from Coast Guard 

Sector San Francisco. 

Because the Claimant could not determine when it would receive information under the FOIA 

request therefore the NPFC granted the Claimant a 90 day extension until July 22, 2013.4 Upon 

expiration of the original deadline to provide information to the NPFC in support of the 

reconsideration; the NPFC advised the Claimant that she needed to provide an email status 

update every 30 days on the status of her pending FOIA request for documentation. The 

Claimant provided at least two updates to the NPFC. 5 On September 30, 2013, the FOSC 

submitted a Memorandum of Record to the NPFC stating the actions undertaken by the Claimant 

were not consistent with the NCP and as such, the NPFC has moved forward to conclude this 

reconsideration determination. 

DETERMINATION: 

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. The NPFC considered all the documentation submitted by the Claimant. The 

request for reconsideration must be in writing and include the factual or legal grounds for the 

relief requested, providing any additional support for the claim. 33 CFR 136.115( d). 

The NPFC performed a de novo review of the entire claim submission upon reconsideration. 

2 See Memorandum of Capt. FOSC dated January 15,2013. 3 See Claimant's email to the NPFC dated April 21, 2013. 4 See NPFC's email to the Claimant dated April23, 2013. 5 See NPFC's email to the Claimant dated July I, 2013. 

3 
Upon reconsideration, the NPFC focused on: (1) whether the actions taken by Pacific 

Marine Salvage were compensable "removal actions" under OP A and the claims regulations 

at 33 CFR 136 (e.g., actions to prevent, minimize, mitigate the effects ofthe incident); (2) 

whether the actions taken were determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the NCP or 

directed by the FOSC. It is important to note that the Claimant did not coordinate its 

removal activities with the FOSC as stated by the United States Coast Guard Sector San 

Francisco in accordance with 33 CFR § 136.203 and 205. The FOSC determined that the 

removal costs presented were not in accordance with the NCP. 

In a memorandum dated September 30,20136

, Captain , the FOSC for 

Sector San Francisco, determined that the evidence as it relates to this oil spill incident 

evidenced that PMS failed to properly store, manifest, and dispose of all hazardous waste and 

materials recovered from the spill site in accordance with the applicable federal, state and 

local regulations and statutes. The FOSC finds that the actions taken by Pacific Marine 

Salvage were not in accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). 

Based on the foregoing, this claim is again denied on reconsideration because the Claimant 

has again failed to meet its burden tto demonstrate that the actions undertaken by the 

Claimant were determined by the FOSC to be reasonable, necessary and consistent with the 

NCP pursuant to 33 CFR 136.203 and 205. 

Date of Supervisor's review: 10116/13 

Supervisor Action: Denial on reconsideration approved 

Supervisor's Comments: 

6 See Memorandum from FOSC to NPFC dated 30 Sep 2013. 

4