3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1

Claim Number: UCGPB22012-URC002

Claimant: Syracuse Marine Ltd.

Type of Claimant: Corporate

Type of Claim: Removal Cost

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $53,792.87

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $42,117.85

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:: 

On September 10, 2022, the National Response Center notified United States Coast Guard 

Sector New York of an unknown amount of dark oil in the vicinity of the CONTSHIP LEO, 

moored at the Maher Terminal in the Elizabeth Channel of Port Newark. Elizabeth Channel is a 

navigable waterway of the United States.2 The exact source and quantity of oil discharged are 

both unknown but estimated to be between 100 - 200 gallons. When Coast Guard pollution 

responders arrived on scene, they identified 11 vessels that had been impacted by the spill. They 

were unable to determine the source of the oil, so they federalized the incident and accessed the 

Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF or Fund) to hire clean-up contractors. National Response 

Corporation (NRC), with the help of four subcontractors, was hired to clean up the spill and 

decontaminate the vessels. In addition to the Coast Guard-funded cleanup, a few of the impacted 

vessels activated their vessel response plans and hired NRC and subcontractors to get their 

vessels cleaned using their own funds. The claimant, Syracuse Marine Ltd. (Syracuse or 

Claimant) did so for their vessel, the CONTSHIP LEO.3

Oil samples were taken from the water and the suspected vessels. The results came back from 

the lab as a heavy fuel oil; however, there were no matches to any of the suspected vessels.4 No 

responsible party was identified for this incident,5. Syracuse submitted its claim directly to the 

OSLTF for reimbursement of claimed costs totaling $53,792.87.

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

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

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 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 See, SITREP-POL ONE dated September 13, 2022.

3 CG Memo from FOSCR dated February 22, 2023

4 See, MISLE Case Report #1321402 pages 35-51 of 75, See also, MSL Oil Sample Analysis Report.

5 See, SITREP–POL TWO and Final dated September 13, 2022.

(b) (6)
4

$42,117.85 of the requested amount is compensable and offers this amount as full and final 

compensation of the claim.

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

On September 10, 2022, at 0614 hrs, the National Response Center notified United States 

Coast Guard Sector New York of an unknown amount of dark oil in the vicinity of the 

CONTSHIP LEO, moored at the Maher Terminal in the Elizabeth Channel of Port Newark. 

Elizabeth Channel is a navigable waterway of the United States. The exact source and quantity 

of oil discharged are both unknown but estimated to be between 100 - 200 gallons.6

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.7 No responsible party has been 

identified for this incident.8

Recovery Operations

When Coast Guard pollution responders arrived on scene, they identified 11 vessels that had 

been impacted by the spill. The pollution responders were unable to determine the source of the 

oil, so they federalized the incident and accessed the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF or 

Fund) to hire clean-up contractors. National Response Corporation (NRC), with the help of four 

subcontractors, was hired to clean up the spill and decontaminate the vessels. In addition to the 

Coast Guard-funded cleanup, a few of the impacted vessels activated their vessel response plans 

and hired NRC and subcontractors to get their vessels cleaned using their own funds.9 The 

claimant, Syracuse Marine Ltd. (Syracuse or Claimant) did so for their vessel, the CONTSHIP 

LEO.10 Claimant’s vessel was cleared to depart on September 11, at 0018hrs.

11 The response 

ended on September 113, 2022.12

II. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

On March 21, 2023, the claimant submitted their claim to the NPFC for $53,792.5713. On a 

couple of occasions, the NPFC requested additional information from the claimant, and they 

promptly provided the information back to the NPFC, as requested.14

6 See, SITREP-POL ONE; See also, MISLE Case Report #1321402.

7 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32). 

8 See, SITREP–POL TWO and Final dated September 13, 2022.

9 See, SITREP-POL ONE; See also, MISLE Case Report #1321402.

10 CG Memo from FOSCR dated February 22, 2023.

11 MISLE Case Report #1321402 at p.5 of 75.

12 See, SITREP–POL TWO and Final dated September 13, 2022..

13 Original claim submission dated March 20, 2023.

14 Additional information included: Letter authorizing HMMS to represent Syracuse Marine, and a June 6, 2023 

email explaining the nature of the services provided by Freehill, Hogan & Mahar and Martin-Ottaway.
5

III. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).15 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.16 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.17 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.18 An RP’s liability 

is strict, joint, and several.19 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.”20 OPA was intended to cure these deficiencies in the 

law. 

 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.”21 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.”22

15 33 CFR Part 136.

16 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)).

17 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).

18 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a).

19 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780.

20 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).

21 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31).

22 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30).
6

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).23 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of 

regulations governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such 

claims.24 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.25

 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 (NCP).

26

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.27

The NPFC analyzed each of these factors and determined that the majority of the costs 

incurred and submitted by the claimant are compensable removal costs based on the supporting 

documentation provided. All costs approved for payment were verified as being invoiced at the 

appropriate contractors’ published rate schedule for personnel, equipment, and materials.

Based on the location of this incident, the FOSC is the United States Coast Guard Sector New 

York.28 All approved costs were supported by adequate documentation and were determined by 

the FOSC to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP), while denied costs did not 

meet these criteria.

29

Upon adjudication of the costs, the NPFC has determined that the amount of compensable 

removal costs is $42,117.85 while $11,675.02 are deemed non-compensable for the following 

reasons:30 

1. The claimed costs of $7,536.79 for legal services provided by Freehill, Hogan & Mahar 

LLC (FHM) are denied in full. The claimant has not shown that the claimed legal costs 

were necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate the effects of the incident. Despite the 

23 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136.

24 33 CFR Part 136.

25 33 CFR 136.105.

26 Via Memo dated March 22, 2023 and in a telcon with the NPFC on April 18, 2023, the FOSCR for the incident 

confirmed that the work of Hudson Marine Management Services, NRC, ACV Enviro and Miller’s Launch

complied with this requirement.

27 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205.

28 40 CFR 300.120(a)(2).

29 See, Original claim submission dated March 20, 2023; See also, MISLE Case Report; Oil Sample Analysis; 

SITREP-POL ONE; SITREP-POL TWO-FINAL; CG Memo from FOSCR dated March 22, 2023 acknowledging 

that the actions taken by the vessel’s Qualified Individual were consistent with the National Contingency Plan; and 

Email from MST1 dated June 16, 2023 affirming that the actions of the attorneys and surveyor 

were not required or directed by the FOSC.

30 Enclosure 3 to this determination provides a detailed analysis of the amounts approved and denied by the NPFC.

(b) (6)

8

8. The NPFC denies $59.50 of $1,235.50 charged for ACV’s absorbent boom on NRC 

invoice 779743. The reduction is due to the amount charged being above the allowed 

rate on ACV’s rate schedule. The NPFC reduced the $176.50 per bale charge to the rate 

schedule amount of $168.00 per bale.38 

9. The NPFC denies $59.50 of $1,074.50 charged for ACV’s absorbent sweep on NRC 

invoice 779743. The reduction is due to the amount charged being above the allowed 

rate on ACV’s rate schedule. The NPFC reduced the $153.50 per bale charge to the rate 

schedule amount of $145.00 per bale.39 

10. The NPFC denies $6.00 of $63.00 charged for ACV’s 12” PVC gloves on NRC invoice 

779743. The reduction is due to the amount charged being above the allowed rate on 

ACV’s rate schedule. The NPFC reduced the $21.00 per pair of gloves to the rate 

schedule amount of $19.00 per pair.

40

11. The NPFC denies $4.00 of $38.00 charged for ACV’s 8oz sample jars on NRC invoice 

779743. The reduction is due to the amount charged being above the allowed rate on 

ACV’s rate schedule. The NPFC reduced the $19.00 per jar charge to the rate schedule 

amount of $17.00 per jar.

41

12. The NPFC denies $131.23 of the $4,487.16 of markup NRC charged on invoice 779743

for the Miller’s Launch and ACV subcontractor costs. This reduction is as result of the 

overall reductions in total subcontractor charges allowed by the NPFC.42 

13. The NPFC denies $74.80 of the $2,675.24 for NRC’s Energy, Security, Insurance and 

Compliance fee charged, based on the NRC invoice 779743 total costs. This reduction is 

a result of the net reductions of the amounts NPFC allowed in its adjudication of NRC’s 

invoiced costs.43 

Overall Denied Costs = $11,675.02 44

V. CONCLUSION:

 Based on a comprehensive review of the record, the applicable law and regulations, and for 

the reasons outlined above, Syracuse Marine Ltd.’s request for uncompensated removal costs is

approved in the amount of $42,117.85.

38 See, NRC Invoice page 3 of 6, ACV T&M Rate Sheet page 2 of 10, and ACV Billing T&M page 2 of 2.

39 Id.

40 See, NRC Invoice page 3 of 6, ACV T&M Rate Sheet page 3 of 10, and ACV Billing T&M page 2 of 2.

41 See, NRC Invoice page 3 of 6, ACV T&M Rate Sheet page 8 of 10, and ACV Billing T&M page 2 of 2.

42 See, NRC Rate sheet page 16 of 17 indicating subcontractor costs will be charged at cost plus 20%.

43 See, NRC Invoice page 2 of 6, NRC Rate sheet page 16 of 17 explaining the ESIC fee.

44 Enclosure 3 to this determination provides a detailed analysis of the amounts approved and denied by the NPFC.