3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: N18023-0003 

Claimant: Weavertown Environmental Group 

Type of Claimant: OSRO 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $662,064.48 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $609,576.66 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:: 

In January 2018 the Uninspected Towing Vessel (UTV) GATE CITY sank in the Big Sandy River, a 

navigable waterway of the United States, near Kenova, West Virginia. The UTV ANNA C1 was 

determined to pose a substantial threat of discharge of oil into the Big Sandy River. Both vessels required 

oil pollution response activities and both are relevant to this claim.

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Western Rivers Assets and River Marine 

Enterprises were identified as the responsible parties (RPs) for the GATE CITY.2 Western Rivers Assets 

was identified as the responsible party for the ANNA C.3 Western Rivers Assets and River Marine 

Enterprises are both owned Mr. . 

River Marine Enterprises hired Weavertown Environmental Group (Claimant) to perform oil 

pollution response activities. After performing its activities, Claimant presented its costs to each of the 

RPs.4 Having not received payment from either RP, Claimant presented its uncompensated costs claim to 

the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for $662,064.48.5 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all 

documentation submitted with the claim, analyzed the applicable law and regulations, and after careful 

consideration, has determined that $609,576.66 of the requested $662,064.48 is compensable and offers 

this amount as full and final compensation of this claim.6

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

On December 5, 2017, the Coast Guard issued an Administrative Order to Western Rivers Assets, the 

owner of the GATE CITY and ANNA C identifying both vessels as substantial threats to discharge oil 

into the Big Sandy River, a navigable waterway of the United States near Kenova, West Virginia.7 The 

Order required the owner to take several mitigation actions to avoid an oil pollution incident from its 

vessels. On January 10, 2018, before the owner complied with the Order, the GATE CITY sank at its 

mooring and discharged oil into the Big Sandy River.8

 The ANNA C did not sink, but remained a 

substantial threat of discharge which required response activities to mitigate.

 

1 The ANNA C was renamed JO RENEE on November 7, 2008. However, all of the incident documentation refers 

to the vessel as the ANNA C. This determination will refer to it as such to avoid any potential confusion. 2 Western Rivers Assets was the owner. River Marine Enterprises was the operator. 3 Western Rivers Assets was the owner. There was no discernible operator. 4 Letter from Claimant to River Marine Enterprises and Western Rivers Assets dated March 26, 2019. 

5 33 CFR 136.103(c).

6 33 CFR 136.115. 7 Marine Safety Unit Huntington Administrative Order IMD-001 dated December 5, 2017. 8 SITREP-POL One.
4

Responsible Parties

Western Rivers Assets and River Marine Enterprises are jointly and severally liable under OPA.9 The 

NPFC issued Notice of Designation letters to each of them.10 A Notice of Designation letter notifies the 

owners and/or operators of vessels or facilities that their vessel or facility was designated as the source of 

a discharge or substantial threat of a discharge of oil to navigable waters of the United States.

Recovery Operations

United States Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit (MSU) Huntington was the Federal On-Scene 

Coordinator (FOSC) and oversaw the response and removal operations.11 River Marine Enterprises called 

Weavertown Environmental Group on January 10, 2018 at 9:30am to report that the GATE CITY was 

sinking and spilled oil, after which Weavertown Environmental Group responded to provide emergency 

clean-up and containment services for the GATE CITY.12 

II. CLAIMANT, RPs, and the NPFC: 

Absent limited circumstances, the Federal Regulations implementing the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

(OPA)13 require all claims for removal costs or damages to be presented to the RP before seeking 

compensation from the NPFC.14 When an RP denies a claim or has not settled a claim after 90 days of 

receipt, a claimant may elect to present its claim to the NPFC.15 

The claimant stated that it presented its claim to River Marine Enterprises on February 26, 2018.16 

However, at the time it submitted its claim to the NPFC, it had yet to present to the other designated RP, 

Western Rivers Assets. As a result, the NPFC notified the claimant that it could not adjudicate the claim 

until proper presentment was made to each of the RPs. In July 2019, the NPFC received information that 

neither of the RPs had paid the claim.17 The claimant originally requested $668,872.00 as its sum 

certain.18 On August 19, 2019, the claimant amended its claimed amount to $662,064.48,19 which 

included Claimant’s invoices for its personnel, equipment, materials, subcontracted costs and accrued 

interest on the invoices. 

III. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

The NPFC utilizes an informal process when adjudicating claims against the Oil Spill Liability Trust 

Fund (OSLTF).20 As a result, 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) requires the NPFC to provide a brief statement explaining 

its decision. This determination is issued to satisfy that requirement.

 

9 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 10 Notice of Designation letters to Western Rivers Assets dated January 17, 2018, River Marine Enterprises dated 

August 3, 2018, and Gate City Transportation dated August 3, 2018. 

11 Letter of Delegation – Incident Specific Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC), from CAPT. . 

CG Sector Ohio Valley to CDR. , U.S. Coast Guard dated December 4, 2017. 12 Claimant’s Summary of Initial Response dated January 10, 2018. 13 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. 14 33 CFR 136.103. 15 Id. 16 Claimant’s self-made claim form. Claimant provided Invoice # 7166147B dated February 26, 2018 and Invoice # 

7167253 dated March 23, 2018. All invoices were made out and sent to River Marine Enterprises.

17 Email from Claimant to NPFC dated July 19, 2019. 18 Original OSLTF Claim form, question #3, undated. 19 Email from Claimant to NPFC dated August 19, 2019. 20 33 CFR Part 136.
5

When adjudicating claims against the OSLTF, the NPFC acts as the finder of fact. In this role, the 

NPFC considers all relevant evidence, including evidence provided by claimants and evidence obtained 

independently by the NPFC, and weighs its probative value when determining the facts of the claim.21

The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, or conclusions reached by other 

entities.22 If there is conflicting evidence in the record, the NPFC makes a determination as to what 

evidence is more credible or deserves greater weight, and makes its determination based on the 

preponderance of the credible evidence.

IV. DISCUSSION: 

An RP is liable for all removal costs and damages resulting from either an oil discharge or a 

substantial threat of oil discharge into a navigable water of the United States.23 An RP’s liability is strict, 

joint, and several.24 When enacting OPA, Congress “explicitly recognized that the existing federal and 

states laws provided inadequate cleanup and damage remedies, required large taxpayer subsidies for 

costly cleanup activities and presented substantial burdens to victim’s recoveries such as legal defenses, 

corporate forms, and burdens of proof unfairly favoring those responsible for the spills.”25 OPA was 

intended to cure these deficiencies in the law. 

OPA provides a mechanism for compensating parties who have incurred removal costs where the 

responsible party has failed to do so. 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.”26 The term “remove” or 

“removal” means “containment and removal of oil [...] from water and shorelines or the taking of other 

actions as may be necessary to minimize or mitigate damage to the public health or welfare, including, 

but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, and public and private property, shorelines, and beaches.”27

The NPFC is authorized to pay claims for uncompensated removal costs that are consistent with the 

National Contingency Plan (NCP).28 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of regulations 

governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such claims.29 The claimant bears 

the burden of providing all evidence, information, and documentation deemed relevant and necessary by 

the Director of the NPFC, to support and properly process the claim.30

Before reimbursement can be authorized for uncompensated removal costs, the claimant must 

demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence:

 21 See, e.g., Boquet Oyster House, Inc. v. United States, 74 ERC 2004, 2011 WL 5187292, (E.D. La. 2011), “[T]he 

Fifth Circuit specifically recognized that an agency has discretion to credit one expert's report over another when 

experts express conflicting views.” (Citing, Medina County v. Surface Transp. Bd., 602 F.3d 687, 699 (5th Cir. 

2010)). 22 See, e.g., Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds Center, 71 Fed. Reg. 

60553 (October 13, 2006) and Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds 

Center 72 Fed. Reg. 17574 (concluding that NPFC may consider marine casualty reports but is not bound by them). 23 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 24 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 25 Apex Oil Co., Inc. v United States, 208 F. Supp. 2d 642, 651-52 (E.D. La. 2002) (citing S. Rep. No. 101-94 

(1989), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 722). 26 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 27 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 28 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712(a)(4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 29 33 CFR Part 136. 30 33 CFR 136.105.
6

(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 directed by the FOSC or determined by the FOSC to be consistent 

with the National Contingency Plan.

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.31

The NPFC analyzed each of these factors and determined the majority the costs incurred by Claimant 

and submitted herein are compensable removal costs based on the supporting documentation provided. 

The NPFC determined all approved costs invoiced at the appropriate rate sheet pricing were billed in 

accordance with the rate schedule provided.32 All approved costs were supported by adequate 

documentation which included invoices, proofs of payment, daily work reports and/or FOSC statements.

The amount of compensable costs is $609,576.66, while $52,487.82 was deemed not compensable for 

the following reasons:

1. Accrued interest – The NPFC denies the accrued interest totaling $36,369.00. 

Claimant seeks $36,369.00 for one year of accrued interest on the invoiced costs. Nothing in OPA 

allows the Fund to pay interest on claims for removal costs. Thus, the claim for $36,369.00 in 

accrued interest is denied. 

2. Invoice # 7166147B – The NPFC denies a total of $16,118.82, as follows:

a) On Wednesday, January 10, 2018, two technicians were charged at the $126.00 overtime rate 

for 10 hours. The rate schedule only allows for overtime to be paid for hours worked outside 

of 7:30am to 4:00pm on non-holiday weekdays. These two employees began work at 2:00pm 

and worked for 10 hours. The NPFC will compensate for two hours at standard time (2:00pm 

to 4:00pm) at $84.00 per hour for each technician and eight hours each at $126.00 per hour of 

overtime (4:00pm to 12:00am). The resulting difference of $168.00 is denied because it was 

not invoiced in accordance with the rate schedule. 

b) The NPFC denies the claimed fuel surcharges of $4,015.35. The NPFC denies the fuel 

surcharges because the claimant did not provide documentation to demonstrate how it 

calculated the amount the charged.

c) The claimant charged $40.00 per day for nine rolloff boxes. The rate schedule allows $35.00 

a day per rolloff box. The NPFC denies a total of $45.00 for overcharges on the nine rolloff 

boxes in accordance with the rate schedule.

d) On Thursday, January 11, 2018, the claimant charged for a marine insurance surcharge of 

$19.00/hour for 84.5 personnel labor hours. Only 84 hours of labor were invoiced for this 

date, therefore the NPFC denies $9.50 for the additional half hour charged that is not 

supported by daily records.

e) On Sunday, January 14, 2018, the claimant charged a daily rate of $720.00 each for two 

pontoon boats totalling $1,440.00 . The rate schedule only allows a rate of $95.00 per hour 

for pontoon boats. The NPFC allowed the two pontoon boats at $95.00 per hour. The 

maximum amount of time that any employee worked this day was 5.5 hours. As a result, the 

 31 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 32 Claimant’s 2018 Emergency Response Time and Material Rates.
7

NPFC will compensate for eleven total hours at $95.00 per hour for a total amount approved 

of $1,045.00. The NPFC denies the $395.00 difference in accordance with the rate schedule.

f) On Monday, January 15, 2018, the claimant charged a daily rate of $720.00 each for two 

pontoon boats totalling $1,440.00 . The rate schedule only allows a rate of $95.00 per hour 

for pontoon boats. The NPFC allowed the two pontoon boats at $95.00 per hour. The 

maximum amount of time that any employee worked this day was six hours. As a result, the 

NPFC will compensate for twelve total hours at $95 per hour for a total amount approved of 

$1,140.00. The NPFC denies the $300.00 difference in accordance with the rate schedule.

g) On Monday, January 15, 2018, the claimant charged $35,000.00 for five days of containment 

boom rental for 1,000 feet of boom beginning on January 11, 2018. The claimant had 

already invoiced for the first day of boom rental (January 11) for $7,000.00. Therefore, the 

NPFC denies $7,000.00 for the overcharge for boom rental that was previously allowed for 

January 11, 2018. 

h) On Monday, January 15, 2018, the claimant charged $250.00 for miscellaneous hand tools. 

The rate schedule allows $175.00 per day for hand tools. The NPFC denies the $75.00 

difference in accordance with the claimant’s rate schedule.

i) On Thursday, January 18, 2018, the claimant charged $252.00 for three hours of labor for a 

technician. The daily work report only shows two hours worked. Therefore, the NPFC denies 

$84.00 for the one hour of invoiced labor that was not supported by contemporaneous daily 

work records.

j) On Friday, January 19, 2018, the claimant charged $15,400.00 for 2,200 feet of containment 

boom rental at a rental rate of $7.00 per foot per day. The claimant’s daily records show that 

500 feet of the 2,200 feet of boom had been removed from the water on the previous day. 

Therefore, the NPFC reduced the amount of compensable boom to only 1,700 feet that 

remained in the water on January 19th. At $7.00 per foot, the amount approved is $11,900.00. 

The difference of $3,500.00 is denied since 500 feet of containment boom was removed on the 

previous day.

k) On February 3, 2018, the claimant invoiced $950.00 for a vacuum truck washout. The rate 

schedule only allows $600.00 for a washout. The NPFC denies the $350.00 difference in 

accordance with the rate schedule.

l) On February 19, 2018, the claimant invoiced $607.50 for “solidification, trans[portation], and 

disposal” based on $125.00 per ton for 4.86 tons. The claimant only provided documentation 

of disposal and payment to waste facilities amounting to $358.77. Thus, the NPFC allows the 

documented costs plus the 20% markup allowed by the rate schedule and denies the difference 

of $176.98. 

Overall Denied Costs = $52,487.8233

VI. CONCLUSION:

Based on a comprehensive review of the record, the applicable law and regulations, and for the 

reasons outlined above, Weavertown Environmental Group’s request for uncompensated removal costs is 

approved in the amount of $609,576.66.

 33 Enclosure 3 Summary of Costs spreadsheet.