CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 6/24/2010 

Claim Number : 910112-001

Claimant : NRC Environmental Services 

Type of Claimant : Corporate 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $6,400.88 

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: The United States Coast Guard Sector Los Angeles/Long Beach Case 

# 490324,1reports that on January 22, 2010, they were notified that the P/C CF# 0747EE 

(vessel) sank at its slip, discharging approximately one gallon or less of transmission 

fluid and forming a sheen at the Dolphin Marina at Marina Del Ray Harbor, which is a 

tributary of Santa Monica Bay, both navigable waterways of the US. 

The incident was reported to the National Response Center (NRC) on January 21, 2010 

via report # 929479 by Mr. owner of the vessel and the Responsible Party 

(RP).2

 The report described the incident as a release of materials from a sunken vessel.3 

Upon arrival, the USCG observed that there was a visible sheen contained in sausage 

boom in the water surrounding the vessel. The vessel’s stern was submerged in the 

water. It was also observed that there was no working bilge pump on-board, as repairs 

were being made on the vessel.4

 PO issued a Notice of Violation to 

Mr. on January 22, 2010, and USCG AUX , USCG Sector Los 

Angeles/Long Beach, issued a Notice of Federal Interest and an Enforcement Summary 

on January 24, 2010, indicating that Mr. was the RP.5

 AUX 

contacted NRC Environmental Services (NRCES) on January 23, 2010 for the cleanup 

and removal of the oil. 

Mr. did receive monies from his insurance company, Progressive Insurance 

(Progressive), which issued a check in the amount of $11,400.88 (as the RP submitted the 

NRCES invoice to Progressive for payment). Mr. chose to use the insurance check 

to pay attorney’s fees owed to his son and for the destruction of the sunken vessel.6

Description of removal actions performed: On January 23, 2010, NRCES arrived at the 

spill site and, after contacting the RP, began removal activities. Hard boom and soft 

boom were placed around the berth, with absorbent boom placed inside to recover fuel 

and oil. Three drums of sorbent material saturated with fuel were recovered. Warren 

Diving commenced diving around 1400 hours, floating the vessel by approximately 1700 

hours. Boom was placed around the vessel and watched overnight.7

 

1

See Sector Los Angeles/Long Beach’s Coast Guard Case # 490324, opened 2/11/2010.

2

 See NRC report # 929479 dated 1/21/2010.

3

 See NRC report # 929479 dated 1/21/2010. 

4

 See PI Statement, written by MST3 , dated 1/22/2010. 

5

 See Notice of Violation, dated 1/22/2010, signed by MST3 , and the Notice of Federal Interest, 

dated 1/24/2010, signed by AUX . 

6

 See NRCES Presentment of Costs Letter, dated 4/21/2010. 

7

 See NRCES Hazardous Materials Response Report, submitted with the claim on 6/10/2010. 
The next day, January 24, 2010, Warren Diving continued operations with the vessel 

pump-out and hydrocarbon recovery. Once operations were complete, more hazardous 

materials were collected and removed. Once site operations were complete, the hard 

boom was removed and equipment loaded. 

3. The Claim: On June 10, 2010, NRC Environmental Services submitted a removal cost 

claim to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), for reimbursement of removal 

costs in the amount of $6,400.88 for the services provided January 23 through January 

24, 2010. This claim is for removal costs based on the rate schedule in place at the time 

services were provided. A copy of the vendor rate schedule is provided in the claim 

submission. The USCG FOSCR consisted of AUX and PO J 

This claim consists of copies of the invoicing and associated dailies, a copy of MISLE 

Case # 490324, a copy of NRC Report # 929479, copy of the NOFI issued by AUX 

, a copy of MST3 ’s PI Statement, a copy of the NOV issued by MST3 

, a copy of the IAP written by AUX , a copy of NRCES Hazardous 

Materials Emergency Response Report, a copy of CEMA Hazardous Materials Spill 

Report # 10-0628, a copy of the Disposal of Non-Hazardous Waste Manifests, a copy of 

the Letter of Cost Presentment to Mr. from NCES, photographs and internal email 

correspondence. 

The review of the actual cost invoicing and dailies 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 consistent with the NCP or directed by the FOSC, and (4) whether the costs were 

adequately documented. 

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) of OPA 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)(1)(B).

"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 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. The FOSC coordination has been established via Sector Los Angeles/Long Beach’s Case 

Report # 490324.

8

2. The incident involved the report of a 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 on time.

5. Presentment of costs to the RP was made by the claimant, prior to the submission of the 

claim. The NPFC also made presentment of costs to the RP and to date the NPFC has 

received no response.

 

8

See Sector Los Angeles/Long Beach’s Coast Guard Case # 490324, opened 2/11/2010.
6. The NPFC Claims Manager has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the 

claim and determined that all 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. 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 Claims Manager confirmed that the claimant did in fact perform a site assessment with 

USCG Sector Los Angeles/Long Beach on January 23, 2010 and subsequently performed 

response actions as requested initially by the USCG. The Claims Manager validated the 

costs incurred and determined they were reasonable and necessary and performed in 

accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). The claimant billed all costs in 

accordance with the contract pricing schedule in place at the time services were rendered 

On that basis, the Claims Manager hereby determines that the claimant did in fact incur 

$12,301.48 and the claimant made payments in the amount of $5,900.60 leaving an unpaid 

amount of $6,400.88 in uncompensated removal costs and that that amount is properly 

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

the claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim #910112-001. The claimant states that 

all costs claimed are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by the claimant for this 

incident from January 23 through January 24, 2010. 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 $6,400.88 as full compensation for 

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

claim 910112-001. 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: $6,400.88

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 6/29/10

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: