2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1 

Claim Number: UCGP923030-URC001 

Claimant: Kirby Inland Marine

Type of Claimant: OSRO

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $3,825.10

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $3,825.10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On May 10, 2023, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) Sector Houston-Galveston (“Sector 

Houston-Galveston” or “FOSC”) received notice from the Kirby Inland Marine (“Kirby” or “Claimant”) 

Greens Bayou Fleet that an unknown sheen, located 250 yards northwest of Proler Industries Dock 

Facility in Houston, Texas, had entered Greens Bayou; a navigable waterway of the United States.2 Sector 

Houston-Galveston notified the National Response Center (NRC), describing the sheen as black in color 

and showing rainbow emulsions.

3 USCG Sector Houston-Galveston, in its capacity as the Federal On 

Scene Coordinator (FOSC) for this incident location, could not identify a responsible party, therefore the 

source of the spill remains a mystery.

Kirby hired American Environmental & Industrial Services, LLC (“AEIS” or “OSRO”) to clean up

the spill.

4 On May 10, 2023, at approximately 1430 hours, AEIS arrived on scene and utilized sorbent 

sweeps, a 55-gallon poly drum and hand tools to aide in mitigation of the spill.5 AEIS disposed of a 

substance-filled sorbent drum before leaving the scene on May 10, 2023, at approximately 2100 hours.6

On August 9, 2023, Kirby presented its removal costs claim to the National Pollution Funds Center 

(NPFC) for $3,825.10.7

 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the claim, 

analyzed the applicable law and regulations, and after careful consideration has determined that all costs 

requested for $3,825.10 are compensable and offers this amount as full and final compensation of this 

claim.

1 This determination is written for the sole purpose of adjudicating a claim against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 

(OSLTF). This determination adjudicates whether the claimant is entitled to OSLTF reimbursement of claimed 

removal costs or damages under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This determination does not adjudicate any rights or 

defenses any Responsible Party or Guarantor may have or may otherwise be able to raise in any future litigation or 

administrative actions, to include a lawsuit or other action initiated by the United States to recover the costs 

associated with this incident. After a claim has been paid, the OSLTF becomes subrogated to all of the claimant’s 

rights under 33 U.S.C. § 2715. When seeking to recover from a Responsible Party or a Guarantor any amounts paid 

to reimburse a claim, the OSLTF relies on the claimant’s rights to establish liability. If a Responsible Party or 

Guarantor has any right to a defense to liability, those rights can be asserted against the OSLTF. Thus, this 

determination does not affect any rights held by a Responsible Party or a Guarantor. 2 USCG SITREP One and Final dated August 10, 2023. 3 National Response Center (NRC) Report #1366903, pg. 2 of 5.

4 Kirby claim submission received August 9, 2023, pg. 2 of 8, question 11. 5 Email from Kirby to NPFC dated August 24, 2023. See, Complete Job File pg. 1 of 2. 6 Email from Kirby to NPFC dated August 24, 2023. See, Complete Job File pg. 1 of 2. 7 Kirby claim submission received August 9, 2023. 

(b) (6)
3

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

On May 10, 2023, Sector Houston-Galveston received notice from Kirby’s Greens Bayou Fleet of an 

unknown sheen, located in the Greens Bayou waterway, approximately 250 yards northwest of the Proler 

Industries Dock Facility.8

 Sector Houston-Galveston notified the NRC, describing the sheen as black in 

color and emitting rainbow emulsions.

9

Kirby’s Greens Bayou Fleet crew members reported seeing a 15” x 5’ clump of the substance resting 

against 2 of their vessels and described the substance sticking to the vessels.

10 Kirby’s Greens Bayou 

Fleet crew members described the sheen was several hundred feet long by 15-25’ wide and moving 

outbound further into the Greens Bayou.11 Sector Houston-Galveston sent their Incident Management 

Division (IMD) Pollution Responder personnel to the scene between approximately 1400 to 1600 hours.12 

Coast Guard personnel noted the sheen to be approximately 100’ long by 8’ wide.

13

Responsible Party

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the owner/operator of the source which caused the 

oil spill is the Responsible Party (RP) for the incident.14 The source of the spill could not be identified.

Recovery Operations

Equipment and vessels owned by Kirby were oiled by the sheen.15 Kirby hired American 

Environmental & Industrial Services, LLC (“AEIS” or “OSRO”) to clean up the spill, as a means to 

prevent further damage.

16 On May 10, 2023, at approximately 1430 hours, AEIS arrived on scene and 

utilized sorbent sweeps, a 55-gallon poly drum and hand tools to aide in mitigation of the spill.17 AEIS 

disposed of a drum containing 120 pounds of oily sorbent material18 before leaving the scene on May 10, 

2023, at approximately 2100 hours.19

II. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

On August 9, 2023, the NPFC received a claim for $3,825.10 from Kirby.20 When the claim was 

received, it included a signed OSLTF Form, 3 photographs taken on-site from the spill location, and AEIS

Invoice 23-274.

21 

8

. USCG SITREP One and Final dated August 10, 2023. 9

 National Response Center (NRC) Report #1366903, pg. 2 of 5. 10 Kirby claim submission received August 9, 2023, pg. 1 of 8. 11 Id. 12 Email from USCG Sector Houston-Galveston to NPFC dated August 23, 2023. 13. USCG SITREP One and Final dated August 10, 2023. 14 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32). 15 Kirby claim submission received August 9, 2023, pg. 1 of 8. 16 Kirby claim submission received August 9, 2023, pg. 2 of 8, and Email from Kirby to NPFC dated August 24, 

2023. See, Complete Job File pg. 1 of 2. 17 Email from Kirby to NPFC dated August 24, 2023. See, Complete Job File pg. 1 of 2. 18 Email from Kirby to NPFC dated August 24, 2023. See, AEIS_20230822_090516 pg. 1 of 2 for Bill of Lading, 

and pg. 2 of 2 for Work Order.

19 Email from Kirby to NPFC dated August 24, 2023. See, Complete Job File pg. 1 of 2. 20 Kirby claim submission dated May 26, 2023. 21 Kirby claim submission received August 9, 2023.
4

On August 10, 2023, the NPFC requested additional information from Kirby.22 On August 24, 2023, 

Kirby submitted their reply to the NPFC’s requests, including proof payment to AEIS for costs affiliated 

with the spill incident, the complete job file, the work order and bill of lading associated with the disposal 

of the sorbent drum and the paid/signed copy of AEIS’s Invoice 23-274.23 

On August 25, 2023, the NPFC requested additional information from Kirby.24 On August 25, 2023, 

Kirby submitted the 2023 AEIS rate sheet in response to the NPFC’s request.25 The NPFC made one final 

request for additional information on September 6, 2023,26 and on September 8, 2023, Kirby submitted an 

explanation of all disposal costs in response to the NPFC’s request.27

III. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Fund (OSLTF).28 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.

 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.29

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

entities.30 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.31 An RP’s liability is strict, 

joint, and several.32 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.”33 OPA was 

intended to cure these deficiencies in the law.

22 Email from NPFC to Kirby, dated August 10, 2023. 23 Email from Kirby to NPFC, dated August 24, 2023, with Attachments. 24 Email from NPFC to Kirby, dated August 25, 2023. 25 Email from Kirby to NPFC, dated August 25, 2023, with 2023 AEIS Rate Sheet. 26 Email from NPFC to Kirby, dated September 6, 2023. 27 Email from Kirby to NPFC dated September 8, 2023, with AEIS Stream Environmental Information document. 28 33 CFR Part 136. 29 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)). 30 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). 31 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 32 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 33 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).
5

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.”34 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.”35

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

National Contingency Plan (NCP).36 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of regulations 

governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such claims.37 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.38

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

demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence:

(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.39

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.40

The NPFC analyzed each of these factors and determined that all costs incurred and submitted by

Kirby herein are compensable removal costs based on the supporting documentation provided. All costs 

approved for payment were verified as being invoiced at the appropriate rate sheet pricing and all costs 

were supported by adequate documentation which included invoices and/or proof of payment where 

applicable.

Based on the location of this incident, the FOSC is the United States Coast Guard Sector HoustonGalveston (“Sector Houston-Galveston” or “FOSC”).

41 All approved costs were supported by adequate 

documentation and were determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan 

(NCP).42

Upon adjudication of the costs, the NPFC has determined that all costs submitted by Kirby in the 

amount of $3,825.10 are compensable and as such, all removal costs claimed are approved.43 

34 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 35 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 36 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a)(4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 37 33 CFR Part 136. 38 33 CFR 136.105. 39 The NPFC coordinated with USCG Sector Houston-Galveston, as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) for 

this incident. After analyzing the incident and the actions taken by Kirby, the FOSC opined that the response actions 

undertaken by Kirby and its subcontractor were consistent with the National Contingency Plan. See, email from 

USCG Sector Houston-Galveston to the NPFC dated August 23, 2023. 40 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 41 40 CFR 300.120(a)(2). 42 Email from USCG Sector Houston-Galveston to the NPFC certifying that all actions and costs were consistent 

with the NCP, dated August 23, 2023. 43 Enclosure 3 provides a detailed analysis of the amounts approved by the NPFC.