4

an entitlement to limited liability. Additionally, the NPFC determined that removal costs 

totaling $2,727,526.71 in removal costs in excess of the limit of liability were compensable and 

offered this amount as full and final compensation of this claim9 under the Oil Pollution Act 

(OPA).

10 On February 21, 2020, the NPFC received the Claimants’ timely request for 

reconsideration.11

 

Requests for reconsideration are considered de novo. The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed the 

original claim, the request for reconsideration, all information provided by the Claimants, 

information it obtained independently, and the applicable law and regulations. Upon 

reconsideration, the NPFC concludes that the facts established within the NPFC’s initial 

determination as well as information provided by the Claimants within their request for 

reconsideration support the Claimants’ request for reconsideration and offers to reimburse the 

Claimants $2,880,730.07 for uncompensated removal costs incurred as a result of the oil spill 

incident, as outlined in the original determination and below.

I. CLAIM HISTORY:

On April 29, 2019, the Claimants presented a claim for entitlement to limited liability to 

the NPFC for $2,889,804.08.

12 The NPFC thoroughly reviewed the original claim, all 

information provided by the Claimants or obtained independently, the relevant statutes and 

regulations, and ultimately determined that $2,727,526.71 of the $2,889,804.08 was 

compensable and denied the remainder of the claimed costs.

13 The NPFC’s initial 

determination is hereby incorporated by reference.

On February 21, 2020, the NPFC received the Claimants’ timely request for 

reconsideration.14

II. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION

The regulations implementing OPA require requests for reconsideration of an initial 

determination to be in writing and include the factual or legal grounds for the relief requested, 

along with any additional support for the claim. The claimant has the burden of providing all 

evidence, information, and documentation deemed necessary by NPFC to support the claim.

When analyzing a request for reconsideration, the NPFC performs a de novo review of the entire 

claim submission, including any new information provided by the Claimant in support of its 

request for reconsideration. The written decision by the NPFC is final.

 9 33 CFR 136.115.

10 33 U.S.C. § 2703(a) and 33 U.S.C. § 2704(a). 11 Letter from Claimants to the NPFC dated February 21, 2020, requesting reconsideration of the NPFC’s 

determination dated January 16, 2020.

12 Claim submission cover page dated April 29, 2019 with a sum certain identified as $2,799,357.79. See also, email 

from Claimant to NPFC dated September 5, 2019, citing their payment of a CG issued invoice in the amount of 

$85,848.79 and amending their sum certain to include payment of that invoice to $2,885,206.58. See also, email 

from Claimant to NPFC dated October 29, 2019, citing to their payment of two additional contractor invoices 

totaling $4,597.50 and amending their sum certain to include the payment of those invoices to $2,889,804.08.

13 NPFC determination issued to Samson Tug & Barge with subrogated insurers dated January 16, 2020. 14 Letter from Claimants to the NPFC dated February 21, 2020, requesting reconsideration of the NPFC’s 

determination dated January 16, 2020.
5

On February 21, 2020, the Claimants submitted a timely request for reconsideration and 

provided information in support of costs denied by the NPFC totaling $70,598.09.

15 In 

addition, the Claimants submitted additional uncompensated removal cost invoices and proof 

of payment for costs that were not previously submitted within their original claim 

submission totaling $85,600.11.16 The Claimants described these costs as incurred for 

services provided during their response to the POWHATAN and requested that the NPFC 

consider these additional uncompensated removal costs when adjudicating their claim on 

reconsideration.17 The Claimants also amended their sum certain to $2,975,404.19 to include 

the addition of these new removal costs.18 The NPFC determined that it will consider these 

additional costs within the scope of the original claim. The consideration of removal costs 

previously denied and contested upon reconsideration as well as the removal costs presented 

as new are addressed in the NPFC’s Analysis on Request for Reconsideration section below.

III. ANALYSIS ON REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION:

The regulations implementing OPA require requests for reconsideration of an initial 

determination to be in writing and include the factual or legal grounds for the relief requested, 

along with any additional support for the claim in accordance with our governing claims 

regulations at 33 CFR 136.115(d).

The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed and considered the Claimants’ request for 

reconsideration and because the claimant has met its burden, finds the following previously 

denied costs, reimbursable, as described below.

1. NPFC Initial Determination - Charges in the amount of $48,062.23 for State of Alaska 

Department of Environmental Conservation (ADEC) personnel were denied because the 

labor rates were not supported. As all ADEC personnel costs were denied, all ADEC 

charges in support of ADEC personnel were also denied.

Claimants’ Response - The Claimants provided hourly pay tables for ADEC personnel, 

along with itemized receipts to document ADEC’s travel and expenses and seek 

reimbursement of costs denied by the NPFC within their original determination.19

NPFC Determination upon Reconsideration - ADEC personnel and travel costs in the 

amount of $48,061.77 are approved. The Claimants properly supported the costs upon 

 15 Within their request for reconsideration, the Claimants seek reconsideration of certain costs denied by the NPFC. 

Specifically, the Claimants seek reconsideration of ADEC costs totaling $48,062.23, Polaris costs totaling 

$21,110.86 and O’Brien’s costs totaling $1,425.00. These costs total $70,598.09. 16 Within their request for reconsideration, the Claimants seek reimbursement for uncompensated removal costs not 

previously submitted within their original claim submission. Specifically, the Claimants seek reimbursement for 

Meredith Management costs totaling $14,539.36, SEAPRO costs totaling $67,385.75, and O’Brien’s costs totaling 

$3,675.00. These costs total $85,600.11.

17 Letter from Claimants to the NPFC dated February 21, 2020, requesting reconsideration of the NPFC’s 

determination dated January 16, 2020. 18 Email from the Claimants to the NPFC dated March 2, 2020. For reference, $2,889,804.08 + $85,600.11 = 

$2,975,404.19.

19 Letter from Claimants to the NPFC dated February 21, 2020, requesting reconsideration of the NPFC’s 

determination dated January 16, 2020. See also ADEC personnel hourly pay tables for FY16, FY17 and FY18 

provided as Exhibit 1 to the Claimants request for reconsideration. See also, ADEC itemized receipts provided by 

the Claimants on March 3, 2020. 
6

reconsideration by providing hourly pay tables and itemized receipts. The $0.46 that 

remains denied represents an unidentified difference between what was claimed and what 

was provided by the Claimants upon reconsideration. 

2. NPFC Initial Determination - Charges in the amount of $21,109.91 for Polaris Applied 

Sciences personnel and travel expenses specific to Polaris invoices 4142 and 4151 were 

denied because the Claimants failed to properly support the costs as uncompensated 

removal costs.

Claimants’ Response - The Claimants provided a signed declaration from Mr. 

, Polaris Applied Sciences, in which he described the allocation of time and 

services provided by Polaris personnel specific to Polaris invoices 4142 and 4151 as 

uncompensated removal costs. The Claimants seek reimbursement in the amount of 

$21,110.86 for these costs.

20

NPFC Determination upon Reconsideration - Polaris Applied Sciences personnel and 

travel costs in the amount of $21,109.91 are approved. The Claimants properly identified 

and supported the removal costs associated with Polaris invoices 4142 and 4151 by 

submitting a signed declaration by Mr. in which he described the allocation of 

time and services dedicated to removal operations. The $0.95 that remains denied 

represents an unidentified difference between what was claimed and what was provided 

on reconsideration. 

3. NPFC Initial Determination – Charges in the amount of $1,425.00 for O’Brien’s 

Response Management (O’Brien’s) personnel costs were denied as the Claimants did not 

provide an O’Brien’s rate schedule in support of these costs. 

Claimants’ Response – The Claimants provided an O’Brien’s rate schedule and seek 

reimbursement of costs denied by the NPFC.21

NPFC Determination upon Reconsideration – O’Brien’s personnel costs in the amount of 

$1,425.00 are approved. The Claimants provided an O’Brien’s rate schedule with their 

request for reconsideration.

In addition, the NPFC has thoroughly reviewed and considered the Claimants removal costs 

submitted as new within their request for reconsideration and find the following costs 

reimbursable as described below. 

1. Costs Submitted as New – The Claimants seek reimbursement for retainers applied to 

Meredith Management Group (Meredith) invoices totaling $14,539.36. Specifically, the 

Claimants provided evidence that Meredith was under contract with Great American and 

received an annual credit retainer in the amount of $100,000.00 paid semiannually 

($50,000.00 every six months). Per the terms of this contract, Meredith agreed to bill 

 

20 Letter from Claimants to the NPFC dated February 21, 2020, requesting reconsideration of the NPFC’s 

determination dated January 16, 2020. See also declaration prepared by Mr , Polaris Applied 

Sciences dated February 20, 2020, provided as Exhibit 4 to the Claimants request for reconsideration. 21 Letter from Claimants to the NPFC dated February 21, 2020, requesting reconsideration of the NPFC’s 

determination dated January 16, 2020. See also O’Brien’s rate schedule provided as Exhibit 6 to the Claimants 

request for reconsideration.

(b) 

(6)

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
7

Great American at a 50% discounted rate until their credit retainer balance was $0.00. 

Three Meredith invoices provided within their original claim submission included 

invoices that were partially satisfied by applying the retainer credit. Meredith invoice 

8816 included a retainer credit of $5,298.11 for the balance of the $50,000.00 first half 

retainer. Meredith invoice 8874 included a retainer credit of $4,903.75 and Meredith 

invoice 8901 included a retainer credit of $4,337.50, both of which were applied to the 

$50,000.00 second half retainer. These retainer credits total $14,539.36.22

NPFC Determination - Retainer costs associated with Meredith invoices totaling 

$14,539.36 are approved. The Claimants properly presented the costs as uncompensated 

removal costs and provided a copy of the retainer agreement between Meredith and Great 

American and proofs of payment to Meredith.

2. Costs Submitted as New – The Claimants seek reimbursement for payments made to 

Seapro after final audit totaling $67,385.75. Within their original claim submission, the 

Claimants submitted Seapro invoice 2017R03 seeking reimbursement in the amount of 

$60,731.99. Additionally, the Claimants submitted Seapro invoice 2017R04 seeking

reimbursement in the amount of $61,733.78. Lastly, the Claimants submitted Seapro 

invoice 2017R05 seeking reimbursement in the amount of $46,634.71. Each of these 

invoices were submitted “pending final audit” by O’Brien’s. The removal costs pursued 

by the Claimants for these invoices totaled $169,100.48 and were approved by the NPFC 

for payment within their original determination. Upon reconsideration, the Claimants 

provided O’Brien’s final audit of Seapro invoices 2017R03, 2017R04 and 2017R05 along 

with proof of payments made to Seapro as a result of the audit.23 The final payments 

made to Seapro for invoices 2017R03, 2017R04, and 2017R05 after audit totaled 

$67,385.75. 

NPFC Determination - Seapro invoices 2017R03, 2017R04 and 2017R05 paid after audit 

totaling $64,392.29 are approved as the Claimants properly presented the costs as 

uncompensated removal costs and provided copies of audited invoices, daily reports, 

itemized receipts and proof of payment to Seapro. The $2,993.44 is denied because 

support was either missing or the receipts lacked itemization.

3. Costs Submitted as New – In addition to O’Brien’s invoice auditing costs previously 

denied but approved upon reconsideration above, the Claimants seek reimbursement of 

O’Brien’s personnel costs for contractor invoice auditing work conducted in 2018 

 22 Letter from Claimants to the NPFC dated February 21, 2020, requesting reconsideration of the NPFC’s 

determination dated January 16, 2020. See also Meredith retainer agreement with Great American dated December 

13, 2016, provided as exhibit 2 to the Claimants request for reconsideration. See also, Meredith retainer payment 

from Great American in the amount of $50,000.00 dated December 21, 2016, and Meredith retainer payment from 

Great American in the amount of $50,000.00 dated July 15, 2017, provided as exhibit 3 to the Claimants request for 

reconsideration.

23 Specifically, the Claimants provided the final audit of Seapro invoice 2017R03 with proof of payment to Seapro 

in the amount of $15,578.18. Additionally, the Claimants provided the final audit of Seapro invoice 2017R04 with 

proof of payment to Seapro in the amount of $27,521.05. Lastly, the Claimants provided the final audit of Seapro 

invoice 2017R05 with proof of payment to Seapro in the amount of $24,286.52. See, Letter from Claimants to the 

NPFC dated February 21, 2020, requesting reconsideration of the NPFC’s determination dated January 16, 2020. 

See also, Seapro invoices 2017R03, 2017R04 and 2017R05 with supporting documentation and proof of payment 

provided as Exhibit 5 to the Claimants request for reconsideration.