CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 3/22/2010 

Claim Number : 910076-001

Claimant : Marion Environmental, Inc.

Type of Claimant : Corporate 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $19,400.45 

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: On December 4, 2009, Marion Environmental, Inc. (MEI) was 

contacted by Mr. and the Hamilton County (TN) Haz-Mat Team to respond 

to the sinking of a pleasure craft belonging to Mr. The boat sank in the inlet 

between Lake Site Marina and Harbor Lights Marina, discharging an unknown amount of 

diesel fuel into the Tennessee River, a navigable waterway of the US. The incident was 

reported to the National Response Center (NRC) on December 4, 2009 at approximately 

13:25 pm local time via report # 925264 by Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency.1 

2. Description of removal actions performed: The claimant, MEI, arrived on site 

December 4, 2009. They deployed hard river boom and absorbent boom around the area 

of the boat. On December 5, 2009, MEI returned to the spill site to maintain the 

containment and assist in the recovery of the craft from the water. Starting December 8, 

2009 through December 10, 2009, MEI began pumping the fuel tanks into 55-gallon 

drums for disposal, as well as maintaining the boom. As of December 10, 2009 and 

December 14, 2009, all of the diesel fuel had been properly removed and disposed.2 

3. The Claim: On February 22, 2009, MEI submitted a removal cost claim to the National 

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

$19,400.45 for the services provided December 4 through December 10, 2009. 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 # 925264, a copy of MEI’s contracted rate schedule, copies of Holden 

Environmental Services Disposal of Non-Hazardous Waste Manifests, 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 

were consistent with the NCP or directed by the FOSC, and (4) whether the costs were 

adequately documented. 

 

1

 See NRC Report # 925264, dated 12/04/2009 

2

 See letter to Mr. from MEI, dated 12/22/2009 
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 NPFC has determined that the actions undertaken by the claimant are deemed consistent 

with the NCP. This determination is made in accordance with the Delegation of Authority for 

Determination of Consistency with the NCP for the payment of uncompensated removal cost 

claims and is consistent with the provisions of sections 1002(b)(1)(B) and 1012(a)(4) of OPA, 

33 U.S.C. §§ 2702(b)(1)(B) and 2712(a)(4).

2. The incident involved the report of 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.

4. The claim was submitted on time.

5. Presentment of costs to the RP was made by the claimant, prior to the submission of the 

claim. The NPFC also made presentment of costs to the RP and to date the NPFC has 

received no response.

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

claim and determined that all 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.

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 validated the costs incurred and determined they were reasonable and 

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

On that basis, the Claims Manager hereby determines that the claimant did in fact incur 

$19,400.45 of uncompensated removal costs and that that amount is properly payable by the 

OSLTF as full compensation for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the claimant and 

submitted to the NPFC under claim #910076-001. The claimant states that all costs claimed 

are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by the claimant for this incident from 

December 4 through December 10, 2009. The claimant represents that all costs paid by the 

claimant are compensable removal costs, payable by the OSLTF as presented by the 

claimant.
C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $19,400.45 as full compensation for 

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

claim 910076-001. All costs claimed are for charges paid for by the Claimant for removal 

actions as that term is defined in OPA and, are compensable removal costs, payable by the 

OSLTF as presented by the Claimant. 

AMOUNT: $19,400.45

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 3/11/10

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: