CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 1/12/2009 

Claim Number : P05005-154

Claimant : Logan Generating Company LP 

Type of Claimant : Corporate (US) 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $49,644.37

I. Background: 

Oil Spill Incident: On 26 November 2004, the Cypriot-flagged tank vessel ATHOS I struck a 

submerged anchor as it approached the CITGO Asphalt Refining Company terminal at 

Paulsboro, New Jersey. The anchor punctured the hull and caused the release of Venezuelan 

crude oil into the Delaware River. The FOSC issued a Notice of Federal Interest designating the 

vessel’s owner, Frescati Shipping Company Limited, as the Responsible Party (RP). The RP 

denied all claims under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). The NPFC advertised for claims 

relating to the oil spill, so claimants do not have to submit claims to the RP prior to submitting 

them to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC). 

Claimant: The claimant operates a coal-fueled, 218 megawatt (MW) cogeneration facility on 

the Delaware River. The power plant provides electricity to Atlantic City Electric (ACE) – and 

provides steam to Ferro Corp. Uncommitted capacity and energy beyond ACE’s requirements 

are made available in the regional wholesale market. The facility is 9.9 miles downriver from 

the location of the incident, and is within the area affected by the oil. 

Claim Description: The claimant alleges that the ATHOS I oil spill necessitated a mitigation 

strategy to prevent and minimize the effects of oil on its facility. The activities included 

booming, redirecting intake water, and monitoring/analysis. 

Related Claims: The NPFC received one package of claimed costs. They were broken down 

into property damage and lost profits, with added assessment costs. The NPFC recognized that a 

portion of the claimed lost profits (extra expenses) were more appropriately characterized as 

removal costs. Therefore, the NPFC divided the claims into three separate claims as follow: 1) 

P05005-137-Lost Profits, 2) P05005-138-Property Damage, and 3) P05005-154-Removal Costs. 

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: 

The claimant seeks reimbursement for the costs of its mitigation strategy, which was 

implemented to prevent oil from getting into the plant’s cooling system. Normally, the plant 

draws cooling water straight from a subsurface intake at the end of its pier in the Delaware River. 

After the spill, the claimant devised a strategy to prevent oil from being taken into the cooling 

water system. This strategy involved diverting water into an onsite rainwater basin where the 

water could be observed and oil could be separated and decanted. On pages 7 and 8 of the 

claimant’s submission binder, the claimant stated that “the mitigation strategy seemed to work 

effectively” and the alternate feed water pumping system was “continuing to function well.” 
The costs claimed of $47,110.04 include the supplies and equipment used to implement the 

diversion and oil separation system. The claimant characterized these costs as extra expenses as 

a subcategory of its lost profits claim. The NPFC determined that these costs are actually 

removal costs which were necessary to prevent, minimize and mitigate the effects of the oil spill 

incident on the power plant. The claimant provided photographs, maps, schematics, and a 

Unified Command report to show that the oil required it to engage in mitigation. The NPFC 

finds that most of these costs are compensable removal costs under OPA. The costs that are not 

compensable are detailed in the attached spreadsheet. The reasons for denial of certain costs 

include lack of documentation (e.g. missing proof of payment), not spill-related, and the fact that 

several items became company assets that are still used. 

There were also estimated costs of $2,534.33 for extra fuel expenses. These extra fuel expenses 

are denied because there is no supporting documentation or proof that they are spill-related. The 

claimed amount is based on a calculated average gallons delivered per month by Ross Fogg. The 

monthly fuel expenses are variable and even if we had the documentation to show the fuel 

purchases it would not be clear that the expense was higher than normal and caused by the spill. 

Assessment costs are not authorized under OPA or its regulations for costs related to oil spill 

removal, prevention or mitigation, but are only authorized for damages. Since this is a claim for 

removal costs, any related assessment costs are denied. Additionally, the claimant does not owe 

the Claims Assessment Group for assessment costs unless the Fund pays them to the claimant. 

(See Certification at bottom of Lighthouse Technical Consultants invoice #2007-CAG201 dated 

13 Feb 2007). Therefore, the claimant is entitled to payment for the removal costs it has proven 

in the amount of $43,029.22. 

AMOUNT: $43,029.22

RECOMMENDATION: 

The claimant has shown that its mitigation strategy was necessary and reasonable to mitigate the 

effects of the oil spill on it s power plant. Therefore, the claim should be paid in the 

compensable amount of $43,029.22.

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 

Supervisor Action: 

Supervisor’s Comments: 
U.S. Department of 

Homeland Security

United States

Coast Guard

Director

United States Coast Guard

National Pollution Funds Center

NPFC CA MS 7100

US COAST GUARD

4200 Wilson Blvd. Suite 1000

Arlington, VA 20598-7100

Staff Symbol: (CA)

Phone: 2

E-mail: @uscg.mil

Fax: 202-493-6937

5890

02/10/2009 

CERTIFIED MAIL – RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED 

Number: 7007 2680 0002 9613 4997

Logan Generating Company LP 

ATTN: James Sousa 

76 Route 130 

Swedesboro, NJ 08085-9300

Re: Claim Number P05005-154

 

Dear Mr. Sousa: 

The National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), in accordance with the Oil Pollution Act (OPA) 

(33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), has determined that $43,029.22 is full compensation for OPA claim 

number P05005-154.

This determination is based on an analysis of the information submitted. Please see the attached 

determination for further details regarding the rationale for this decision. 

All costs that are not determined as compensable are considered denied. You may make a 

written request for reconsideration of this claim. The reconsideration must be received by the 

NPFC within 60 days of the date of this letter and must include the factual or legal basis of the 

request for reconsideration, providing any additional support for the claims. Reconsideration 

will be based upon the information provided and a claim may be reconsidered only once. 

Disposition of the reconsideration will constitute final agency action. Failure of the NPFC to 

issue a written decision within 90 days after receipt of a timely request for reconsideration shall, 

at the option of the claimant, be deemed final agency action. All correspondence should include 

corresponding claim number. 

Mail reconsideration request to: 

 Director (ca) 

 NPFC CA MS 7100 

 US COAST GUARD 

 4200 Wilson Blvd, Suite 1000 

 Arlington, VA 20598-7100

If you accept this determination, please sign the enclosed Acceptance/Release Form where 

indicated and return to the above address. 
If we do not receive the signed original Acceptance/Release Form within 60 days of the date of 

this letter, the determination is void. If the determination is accepted, an original signature and a 

valid tax identification number (EIN or SSN) are required for payment. If you are a Claimant 

that has submitted other claims to the National Pollution Funds Center, you are required to have 

a valid Central Contractor Registration (CCR) record prior to payment. If you do not, you may 

register free of charge at www.ccr.gov. Your payment will be mailed or electronically deposited 

in your account within 60 days of receipt of the Release Form. 

If you have any questions or would like to discuss the matter, you may contact me at the above 

address or by phone at 

Sincerely, 

Eric Bunin 

Claims Manager 

ENCL: 1. Claim Summary/Determination Form 

2. Acceptance/Release Form