Claim Number: 

Claimant: 

Type of Claimant: 

Type of Claim: 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: 

FACTS: 

CLAIM SUMMARY I DETERMINATION 

918022-0001 

California OSPR 

STATE 

Removal Costs 

$1,546.16 

Oil Spill Incident: On October 5, 2016, the State of California's Office of Spill Prevention and 

Response (OSPR) was notified of"a sinking 27-foot motor vessel in Morro Bay State Park 

Marina." 1 The Morro Bay State Park Marina is located on Morro Bay, a navigable waterway of 

the United States. Morro Bay Harbor Patrol responded to the incident, reporting a 27-foot motor 

vessel, the MISS KIMMY, had submerged near its slip at the marina.2 The M/V MISS KIMMY 

reportedly released a teaspoon of fuel into Morro Bay, creating a sheen around the sunken vessel. 

The USCG Federal On-Scene Coordinator's Representative (FOSCR), MST2 

(MST2 ), made contact with the owner of the MISS KIMMY, Mr. (Mr. 

r), on October 5, 2016. Mr. indicated that "there was approximately 75 gallons of 

gasoline in the vessel's fuel tank. "3 

Description of Removal Activities for this Claimant: OSPR Fish and Game Warden, Mr. . 

(Mr. ), responded to the oil spill site on October 5, 2016, observing the MN MISS 

KIMMY submerged at the dock with its bow and stem lines still attached. The harbor patrol 

responded to the oil spill incident by placing absorbent boom around the vessel. The following 

morning, Mr. again responded to the incident site, assisting in the supervision of the 

contracted Oil Spill Removal Organization (OSRO), Global Diving Service (Global), that 

planned to attach lift bags to the sunken vessel for the purpose of removing it from the water. 

Subsequent to the vessel being lifted to the surface, Global pumped out the bilge and fuel tank by 

utilizing a 120-barrel vacuum truck. "Pumping operations were completed by 1550hrs and 

approximately 120 gallons of fuel/oily water mixture was removed."4 The MISS KIMMY was 

completely removed from the water and towed later that afternoon. 

Presentment to the Responsible Party: By letter dated October 5, 2016, the USCG Marine 

Safety Detachment (MSD) Santa Barbara issued Mr. a Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) 

for an Oil Pollution Incident, identifying Mr. as a potential responsible party for the oil spill 

incident. Subsequently, the State of California OSPR presented Mr. with its incurred costs 

in the amount of$1,605.69 which includes all amounts presented to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC) for personnel and vehicle usage, as well as an administrative cost not requested 

of the NPFC in the amount of $36.24. OSPR alleges that this amount is directly related to 

personnel and transportation costs resulting from their response to this incident. 

1 See page 2 of the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife Narrative/Supplemental form WPD 6a dated 

October 5, 2016. 

2 Jd. 

3 See page 3 of the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife Narrative/Supplemental form WPD 6a dated 

October 5, 2016. 4 ld. 
The Claim and Reconsideration: On January 24, 2018, OSPR submitted a removal cost claim 

to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of its uncompensated removal 

costs for state personnel and equipment costs in the amount of $1,546.16. 5 This amount excludes 

the original $36.24 in administration costs and $23.29 in additional personnel costs originally 

presented to the RP. Specifically, OSPR is claiming $1,434.80 in personnel costs and $111.36 in 

vehicle usage costs. 

On February 8, 2018, the NPFC issued an offer to the Claimant in the full amount requested and 

it was not until after the offer was issued, that the NPFC realized that the claim consisted of 

$328.44 in "Federal ICRP 29.68%" markup that was applied to personnel labor costs in this 

claim. Upon the realization of indirect costs claimed and included, the NPFC called the Claimant 

and left a voice message for Ms. and also followed the call up with an email advising 

that the offer extended inadvertently included the approval of unsubstantiated indirect rates and 

as such, the NPFC asked the Claimant to respond if it agreed to a reconsideration so that the 

NPFC could issue a proper offer for compensation. 67 

DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

A. Overview: 

1. MST2 provided FOSC coordination8 33 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(l)(B) and 2712 

(a)(4); 

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 oflimitations. 33 U.S.C. § 

2712(h)(l); 

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 

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

and allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205. 

B. Reconsideration 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 

re,asonable. 

5 See, California Department of Fish and Wildlife OSPR Incident Billing form dated January 10, 2018. 6 See, Email dated February 8, 2018 from , NPFC to , CA OSPR. 7 See, Email dated February 12, 2018 from , CA OSPR to , NPFC 8 See, USCG Notice of Federal Interest for an Oil Pollution Incident dated October 5, 2016. 
The NPFC has confirmed that the rates charged by the Claimant are in accordance with the 

state's published rates at the time services were rendered but also included unsubstantiated 

indirect rates for overhead on personnel hours. The NPFC has denied the indirect rates in the 

total amount of $328.44 as they are unsubstantiated and therefore not an OPA compsnable cost. 

All other claimed costs however are supported by the record and based on the Federal On Scene 

Coordinator's direction and oversight, the response was determined to be reasonable, necessary 

and performed in accordance with the NCP and as such, is approved. 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSL TF will pay $1,217. 72 as full compensation for the 

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

918022-0001. 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 OSL TF as 

presented by the claimant. 

AMOUNT: $1,217.72 

Claim Supervisor:

Date of Supervisor's review: 2114118 

Supervisor Action: Reconsideration Approved 

Supervisor's Comments: