3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 921011-0001 

Claimant: M&G Harbor Services LLC 

Type of Claimant: OSRO 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $25,550.00 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $24,800.00

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

On December 24, 2020, at approximately 0800 local time, the United States Coast Guard 

(USCG) Sector Boston was notified of a sunken vessel, P/C JANE FITZ that sank at its berth at 

Captain’s Cove Marina in the town of Quincy, Massachusetts.1

 The sunken vessel was 

producing a sheen from the onboard fuel oil.2 On December 26, 2020, United States Coast 

Guard Sector Boston’s Federal on Scene Coordinator’s Representative (FOSCR) arrived on 

scene, following inclement weather and high winds the day before, and noticed an odor of fuel 

and saw a weathered sheen at the entrance of the marina. The FOSCR saw the sunken vessel 

which had a sheen surrounding it. The FOSCR noticed “a small bubble of dark oil” releasing 

from the sunken vessel, slowly and intermittently, into Town River Bay, a navigable waterway.3 

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the owner of the P/C JANE FITZ was 

identified as the Responsible Party (RP) for the incident.4 The RP hired Continental Marine 

Services (“Continental) to perform oil pollution response and salvage activities. Continental then 

hired M & G Harbor Services (“M & G” or “Claimant”) to assist with the response and salvage.5 

M & G paid Continental’s invoicing and presented its invoices to the RP.6 The RP did not 

respond to the claimant. The claimant then presented its uncompensated removal costs claim to 

the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for $25,550.00.7 The NPFC has thoroughly 

 

1 National Response Center (NRC) Report 1294915 dated December 24, 2020 and Coast Guard’s Marine 

Information for Safety and Law Enforcement (MISLE) system case number 1246029. While MISLE is an internal 

Coast Guard database whose information is protected from disclosure (see, 

https://www.dhs.gov/publication/dhsuscgpia-008-marine-information-safety-and-law-enforcement-misle). Some of 

the information provided in MISLE is available to the public through CG Marine Information Exchange (CGMIX). 

This case can be found in CGMIX (https://cgmix.uscg.mil/IIR/IIRSearch.aspx) using the activity number 7123887. 

See, Statement from USCG Sector Boston Pollution Responder dated January 15, 2021. 2 USCG Sector Boston Case Activity 7123887, opened December 24, 2020. See, Statement from USCG Sector 

Boston Pollution Responder dated January 15, 2021.

3

Id. 4

 NRC Report 1294915 dated December 24, 2020 and USCG Sector Boston Case Activity 7123887, opened 

December 24, 2020. See, Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) issued to Mr. and dated December 24, 

2020. 

5

 Email from claimant to NPFC dated March 9, 2021 which provided a revised incident narrative statement. 

6

 Email from claimant to NPFC dated March 7, 2021 which provided proof of payment from the Claimant to 

Continental Marine dated March 6, 2021 and the claimant hired the Norfolk County Sherriff’s Department to serve 

Mr. with the two invoices contained within the Sherriff’s Department service package. The claimant 

sent an email to the NPFC dated March 7, 2021 which contained a copy of the Sherriff’s Department package that it 

hand served to Mr. on February 11, 2021. 7

 33 CFR 136.103(c). 

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

4

reviewed all documentation submitted with the claim, analyzed the applicable law and 

regulations, and after careful consideration, has determined that $24,800.00 of the requested 

$25,550.00 is compensable and offers this amount as full and final compensation of this claim. 

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS: 

Incident 

 On December 24, 2020, at approximately 0800 local time, the National Response Center 

(NRC) received a report of a sunken vessel creating a sheen at Captain’s Cove Marina in Quincy, 

MA on the Town River Bay, a navigable waterway of the United States.8 The incident was 

reported by the Harbor Master of Captain’s Cove marina who identified the vessel owner as Mr. 

.

9

 United States Coast Guard (USCG) Sector Boston, in its capacity as the Federal on Scene 

Coordinator (FOSC), notified the Incident Management Division (IMD) and MST3 

, Lead USCG Pollution Responder and FOSCR for the incident, contacted the Harbor 

Master of Captain’s Cove marina, Mr. . The Harbor Master informed the FOSCR 

that the vessel sank overnight and was a 30’ Chris Craft owned by Mr. . The 

Harbor Master further stated that no one was onboard the vessel at the time of the sinking and 

stated that Mr. was known to be quarantining at a friend’s residence due to COVID.10

 During the conversation between the FOSCR and Mr. , he informed the USCG that 

the sheen had dissipated. MST3 issued a Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) to Mr. 

 dated December 24, 2020. The FOSCR also contacted Mr. via telephone 

who stated that he contacted a salvage company. Mr. further stated that due to the 

impending inclement weather and high winds expected for December 25, 2020, the salvage 

company would likely perform response actions on December 26, 2020.11

 On December 26, 2020, the FOSCR and two other USCG Pollution Responders arrived on 

scene and noticed an odor of fuel and saw a weathered sheen at the entrance of the marina. The 

FOSCR saw the sunken vessel and there was a sheen surrounding it. The FOSCR also noticed a 

small bubble of dark oil releasing from the sunken vessel, slowly and intermittently. The Harbor 

Master, , arranged for a salvage company to deploy boom. The FOSCR and 

Pollution Responders observed the deployment of boom. At that time, the FOSCR was unable to 

reach the vessel owner, Mr. , and as such the FOSCR maintained communication with 

the Harbor Master, who was in communication with Mr. .12

Responsible Party 

 

8

 NRC Report # 1294915 dated December 24, 2020. 9 Id. 10 USCG Sector Boston Case Activity 7123887, opened December 24, 2020. See, Statement from USCG Sector 

Boston Pollution Responder dated January 15, 2021. 

11Id. 12Id. 

(b) (6)

(b) (6)

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

5

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the owner of the P/C JANE FITZ is 

identified as the Responsible Party (RP) for the incident.13 The RP, , was identified 

as the owner of the P/C JANE FITZ by the NRC reporting party, Mr. , Captain’s 

Cove Harbor Master and the United States Coast Guard FOSC.14 

Recovery Operations 

On December 24, 2020, personnel from Continental Marine Services and M & G Harbor 

Services personnel arrived on scene and deployed sorbent boom around the sunken vessel as 

witnessed by the United States Coast Guard.15 The claimant reports deploying approximately 

140 ft. of sorbent boom and half a bag of absorbent mats around the sunken vessel on December 

24, 2020 and by 6:00 pm local time, the crew had completed work for the day.16

On December 25, 2020, the claimant arrived on scene at approximately 2:00 pm local time to 

check on the boom and current vessel situation.17 That evening, the claimant began preparing 

equipment for the salvage and cleanup operation the next day. On December 26, 2020, response 

personnel prepared for the vessel lift, moved other vessels out of the way and tended to 

absorbent and mats. The diver arrived and rigs the vessel. The vessel gunnels were cleared and 

responders began pumping out the vessel and plugged the holes. At approximately noon, the 

vessel was stable and absorbents were contained in the vessel. No major sheen was observed 

around the vessel so the vessel sides were cleaned for transport via water. At approximately 4:00 

pm local time, the vessel was officially out of the water and by 4:30 pm, the vessel was 

successfully moved to Continental Marine’s facility.18

II. CLAIMANT AND NPFC

Absent limited circumstances, the Federal Regulations implementing the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990 (OPA)19 require all claims for removal costs or damages must be presented to the RP 

before seeking compensation from the NPFC.20 When an RP denies a claim or has not settled a 

claim after 90 days of receipt, a claimant may elect to present its claim to the NPFC.21 

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC: 

At the time M & G Harbor Services initially submitted its claim to the NPFC, the NPFC 

determined that M & G Harbor Services had yet to establish proper presentment of all costs to 

the RP. On January 28, 2021, the NPFC provided M & G Harbor Services the mailing address 

 

13 NRC Report 1294915 dated December 24, 2020 and USCG Sector Boston Case Activity 7123887, opened 

December 24, 2020. See, Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) issued to Mr. and dated December 24, 

2020. 

14 Id. 15 USCG Sector Boston Case Activity 7123887, opened December 24, 2020. See, Statement from USCG Sector 

Boston Pollution Responder dated January 15, 2021 and Email from claimant to NPFC dated March 9, 2021 which 

provided a revised incident narrative statement 

16 Email from claimant to NPFC dated March 7, 2021 which provided a time line of events for actions performed. 17Id. 18Id. 19 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. 20 33 CFR 136.103. 

21 Id. 

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

6

for the RP and informed M & G Harbor Services that proper presentment of all costs must be 

made before the NPFC could adjudicate the claim.22 In February 2021, M & G Harbor Services 

presented its claim via two invoices containing a date range of January 12, 2021 and February 5, 

2021.23 After ninety days had elapsed without a response from the RP, the NPFC began to 

adjudicate the claim for $25,550.00.24

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS: 

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).25 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.26 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.27 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.28 An RP’s liability 

is strict, joint, and several.29 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.”30 OPA was intended to cure these deficiencies in the 

law. 

 

22 NPFC email dated January 28, 2021 to M & G Harbor Services regarding proper presentment of costs to the RP. 23 The claimant hired the Norfolk County Sherriff’s Department to serve Mr. with the two invoices 

contained within the Sherriff’s Department service package. Note that the invoices totaled $32,550.00; however, the 

claimant is not requesting reimbursement of the Invoice dated February 5, 2021 in the amount of $7,000.00 as it is 

for boat transport and rental/storage fees that were incurred after the threat was mitigated and the vessel removed 

from the waterway. 

24 33 CFR 136.103. 

25 33 CFR Part 136. 

26 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)). 27 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). 28 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 

29 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 30 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).

(b) (6)
 

7

 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.”31 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.”32 

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).33 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of 

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

claims.34 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.35

 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.36

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.37

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

incurred and claimed by M & G Harbor Services and submitted herein are compensable removal 

costs based on the supporting documentation provided. The NPFC determined all costs that it 

has approved as OPA compensable, were invoiced in accordance with the published rates at the 

time services were rendered. 

Upon adjudication of the claim, the NPFC made a few requests for additional information as 

outlined below: 

1. A copy of Continental Marine Invoice dated March 6, 2021 in the amount of 

$3,575.00; 

2. Proof of payment from M & G Harbor Services to Continental Marine in the amount 

of $3,575.00; 

 

31 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 

32 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 

33 See generally, 33 U.S.C. §2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 34 33 CFR Part 136. 

35 33 CFR 136.105. 

36 Email from the FOSC to the NPFC dated April 12, 2021 providing a Certification of Response Actions Being 

Consistent with the NCP Memo from the Commander of Sector Boston to NPFC dated April 8, 2021. 

37 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 
 

8

3. A copy of the Moran Environmental invoicing, manifests for disposal services, and 

proof of payment; 

4. A copy of all applicable rate schedules for pricing; 

5. Proof of presentment to the RP for costs claimed; and 

6. An explanation of Office Administration costs claimed. 

M & G Harbor Services has responded to the requests for information and it has provided the 

following documentation: 

1. A copy of the invoices presented to the RP via the Norfolk Sherriff’s Department 

service; 

2. A copy of the Continental Marine invoice, rate schedule and proof of payment; 

3. A copy of the Moran Environmental invoice, disposal manifests, and proof of 

payment; 

4. A copy of the M & G invoice, narrative, equipment list, and timeline of events for 

response/salvage; and 

5. The name of the USCG FOSC Point of Contact, , from the incident 

response; and 

6. The claimant provided an explanation of the 12 hours invoiced for Office 

Administration as including writing of the bills, phone calls, and emails with people 

involved in the job (i.e. the RP, subcontractors, local authorities and USCG). 

Upon receipt of all information, the NPFC has determined that all costs approved are 

supported by adequate documentation and have been coordinated with the FOSCR who has 

determined that the actions performed are consistent with the NCP.38

 

The amount of compensable costs is $24,800.00, while $750.00 is deemed denied for the 

following reasons: 

1. The claimant invoiced Office Administration costs at $125.00 per hour for a total of 12 

hours between December 24, 2020 and December 26, 2020. The entire response only 

lasted 17 hours total and the invoicing of 12 hours for admin work is excessive. The 

NPFC can only allow administrative time associated with the payment of the Moran 

invoicing, the Continental Marine invoicing and the time it took to create the M & G 

Harbor invoice. On May 2, 2021, the claimant provided a response to the NPFC about 

the duties performed by the Office Administration person and in summary, the claimant 

stated that the hours included writing of the bills, phone calls, and emails with people 

involved in the job (i.e. the RP, subcontractors, local authorities and USCG). Based on 

the overall general description of duties performed, the NPFC denies 50% of the time 

claimed for Office Administration as not an OPA compensable response activity. The 

NPFC denies $750.00 for costs incurred between December 24th and December 26th, 

2020. 

Overall Denied Costs = $750.0039 

 

38 Certification of Response Actions Being Consistent with the NCP Memo from the Commander of Sector Boston 

to NPFC dated April 8, 2021. 

39 See, Enclosure 3 for a detailed analysis of the amounts approved and denied by the NPFC 

(b) (4)
 

9

VI. CONCLUSION: 

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

the reasons outlined above, SCDHEC request for uncompensated removal costs is approved in 

the amount of 24,800.00. 

This determination is a settlement offer,40 the claimant has 60 days in which to accept this 

offer. Failure to do so automatically voids the offer.41 The NPFC reserves the right to revoke a 

settlement offer at any time prior to acceptance.42 Moreover, this settlement offer is based upon 

the unique facts giving rise to this claim and is not precedential. 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 6/17/21 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

 

 

40 Payment in full, or acceptance by the claimant of an offer of settlement by the Fund, is final and conclusive for all 

purposes and, upon payment, constitutes a release of the Fund for the claim. In addition, acceptance of any 

compensation from the Fund precludes the claimant from filing any subsequent action against any person to recover 

costs or damages which are the subject of the uncompensated claim. Acceptance of any compensation also 

constitutes an agreement by the claimant to assign to the Fund any rights, claims, and causes of action the claimant 

has against any person for the costs and damages which are the subject of the compensated claims and to cooperate 

reasonably with the Fund in any claim or action by the Fund against any person to recover the amounts paid by the 

Fund. The cooperation shall include, but is not limited to, immediately reimbursing the Fund for any compensation 

received from any other source for the same costs and damages and providing any documentation, evidence, 

testimony, and other support, as may be necessary for the Fund to recover from any person. 

41 33 CFR § 136.115(a). 

42 33 CFR § 136.115(b). 

(b) (6)

(b) (6)