Claim Number 

Claimant 

Type of Claimant 

Type of Claim 

Claim Manager 

Amount Requested 

FACTS: 

CLAIM SUMMARY I DETERMINATION FORM 

913088-0001 

Millers Launch, Inc. 

Corporation 

Removal Costs 

$22,864.00 

Oil Spill Incident: On October 29, 201 2, the MN JOHN B. CADDELL was discovered 

aground along Edgewater Street in Staten Island, New York in the vicinity of the Fire 

Department ofNew York's faci lity, Marine Company 9. During the Coast Guard 

investiogation into the grounding, representatives from Coast Guard Sector New York 

discovered a pollution stream originating from the vessel, approximately 1000 gallons of 

fuel and oil in the cargo tanks and engine room and numerous holes in the vesse l. 1 

Responsible Party: Coast Guard Sector New York identified 

as the Responsible Party (RP), who owned/operated the MN JOHN B. 

CADDELL at the time of the incident and is determined to be the responsible party under 

the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). 

Description of Removal Activities for this Claimant: On November 13, 201 3, Millers 

Launch Inc. contacted USCG Response Team 7 and stated that they were retained by 

Mr. of Global West Vessel Specialist to boom the vessel? USCG 

log indicates that Millers Launch Inc. has sent a boat out approximately every day to 

every other day to remove oiled/destroyed sorbent pads and replaced them with new. 

The log also states the original sausage boom was in place since November 5, 20 12.

3 

The Claim: On September 18, 20 13, Millers Launch Inc., presented a removal cost claim 

to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of their 

uncompensated removal costs in the amount of $22,864.00.4 

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) ofOPA 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)(l)(B). 

1 USCG COTP Order I 01- 10 dated November 4, 20 12. 2 USCG Unit Log, ICS 2 14-CG, for Response Team 7, time period 13NOY2012 0600 - 14NOV20 12 0600. 3 USCG Unit Log, ICS 2 14-CG, for Response Team 7, time period II NOV201 2 0600 - 12NOY20 12 0600. 4 Optional OSL TF Claim Form dated August I, 20 13. 

2 
"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 (OSL TF), which is administered by the NPFC, is 

available, pursuant to 33 USC§§ 27 12(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 §27 13(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 

§271 3( c) and 33 CFR 136.1 03( 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-tetm damages representing less than the fu ll 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, inf01mation, and documentation deemed necessary by the 

Director, NPFC, to support the claim. 

Under 33 CFR 136. 1 05(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 Federal on Scene Coordinator (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 (NCP) or were directed by the 

FOSC. Except in exceptional circumstances, removal activities for whi ch costs are being 

claimed must have been coordinated with the FOSC." [Emphasis added]. 

DETERMINA TION OF LOSS: 

3 
A. Overview: 

1. FOSC coordination was provided by USCG Sector New York. 

2. The incident involved the discharge of"oil" as defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. 

§270 1 to "navigable waters. 

3. In accordance with 33 CFR § 136.105(e)(l 2), The Claimant has certified no suit 

has been fi led in court for the claimed uncompensated removal costs. 

4. The claim was submitted within the six year statute of limitations for removal 

costs. 

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

with the claim and determined that the removal costs presented were not for 

actions in accordance with the NCP and that the costs for these actions are not 

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 NPFC has made four attempts

5 to contact the Claimant in order to request 

supporting documentation for their claim submission. As of this date, the Claimant 

has failed to provide the additional information requested by the NPFC. The claims 

manager has attempted to use Coast Guard records to adjudicate the claim but without 

the requested material, the NPFC has been unable to thouroughly evaluate this claim. 

The Claimant has fa iled to provide an authorization to proceed or work contract that it 

has with the responsible party. As such, the NPFC is unable to determine what 

services the Claimant was retained to perform. 

The Claimant has also failed to provide a rate schedule for personnel, equipment and 

materials. Without this rate schedule, the NPFC is unable to verify the invoiced 

costs are consistent with the pricing schedule in place at the time services were 

rendered. 

It is important to note that the Claimant did provide a Daily job report that accounts 

for equipment and materials used as well as personnel hours. However, this report 

does not provide specific response activites performed by responders. Therefore, the 

NPFC is unable to determine if the actions taken on a given day are compensable 

under OPA. 

5 Emails dated Septemer 19 & 23, 201 3 and two voice mails left on October I 0 & 15, 20 13 with Claimants point of 

contact, Mr. .. 

4 
Finally, the Claimant has failed to provide substantiation that the contaminated liquid 

or solid absorbent material generated from this spill was disposed of in accordance 

with the NCP as would be evidenced by disposal manifests. 

C. Determined Amount: 

Based upon the foregoing, the NPFC denies this claim because (1 ) the Claimant failed 

to demonstrate that the actions undertaken were compensable " removal actions" 

under OPA, (2) the Claimant failed to provide proper documentation to support the 

costs claimed, and (3) the contaminated waste products associated with this incident 

have not been shown to have been properly disposed of in accordance with the NCP. 

AMOUNT: $0.00 

Date of Supervisor's Review: 10116113 

Supervisor Action: Denial approved 

Supervisor's Comments: 

5