2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 916029-0001 

Claimant: Florida Dept of Environmental Protection 

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $147.35 

FACTS: 

 

Oil Spill Incident: On March 17, 2015, the Florida Office of Emergency Response 

(OER) was notified by a citizen of fuel discharging from a private craft located in a canal 

that connects to Ruskin Inlet, located in Ruskin, FL. The Ruskin Inlet flows directly into 

the Little Manatee River, a navigable waterway of the United States. FL OER responded 

to the canal and observed “a silvery sheen, with a very faint diesel fuel odor.”1 In 

addition to a small amount of sheen discovered near the reported private craft, oil sheen 

was observed flowing out of a storm drain outlet. Due to both the absence of large 

patches of sheen near the private craft and no obvious source of discharge near the drain 

system, OER was unable to confirm the source of the discharge. The oil sheen was 

determined to be minor and left to dissipate naturally. 

The Claim: On March 17, 2015, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

(DEP) submitted a removal claim to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for 

reimbursement of their uncompensated removal costs in the amount of $147.35. 

APPLICABLE LAW: 

"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 

 

1 See, optional Claim Form Emergency Response Incident Report dated March 17, 2015.
3

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. MST2 of Coast Guard Sector St. Petersburg provided FOSC coordination. 33 

U.S.C. § 1321(d)(2)(K).

2. The incident involved the 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 within the six year statute of limitations. 33 U.S.C. § 

2712(h)(1). 

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

with the claim and determined that the removal costs presented were for actions in 
4

accordance with the NCP and that the costs for these actions were indeed reasonable 

and allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205. 

B. NPFC 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 NPFC confirmed that the actions undertaken were reasonable and necessary and that the 

services were billed in accordance with the state’s rates for reimbursement and the actions 

were coordinated with the FOSC. On that basis, the Claims Manager hereby determines that 

the Claimant did in fact incur $147.35 of uncompensated removal costs and that that amount 

is payable by the OSLTF as full compensation for the reimbursable removal costs incurred 

by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim #916029-0001. The Claimant states 

that all costs claimed are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by the Claimant for this 

incident on March 17, 2015. 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 $147.35 as full compensation for the 

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

# 916029-0001. 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: $147.35 

 

Claim Supervisor:

Date of Supervisor’s review: February 19, 2015

Supervisor Action: Approved

Supervisor’s Comments: