r . --··--·---- ----- ---·--- -··-----------" --- --·-·--- ______ ._,_ __________ -·-)l:----·--------··- -· - ' 

Claim Number: 

Claimant: 

Type of Claimant: 

Type of Claim: 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: 

FACTS: 

.. 

'::.-

CLAIM SUMMARY /DETERMINATION 

913017-0001 

Atlantic Coast Marine: Group, Inc. 

OSRO 

Removal Costs 

$3,020.00 

1. Oil Spill Incident: On April 29, 2012, Coast Guard Sector North Carolina (Coast Guard) 

received a report from the Old Town Yacht Club that a large sheen, 75 yards long and 10 

feet wide, was in the marina. 1 The caller reported that the large rainbow sheen in the 

marina that was approximately 3 to 4 inches thick and was diesel fuel. The marina 

pressured their lines to determine loss of their inventory and determined that there was no 

loss of diesel from the marina. It was then reported by Gillikan Marine Railways Marina 

in Beaufort, North Carolina that tlie sunken vessel, MIV Sabor A Mi, was the ~ource of 

discharging diesel into the Atlantic.Intracoastal Waterway (ICW), a navigable waterway 

of the United States. 

The owner of the marina, , informed the Coast Guard that the vessel had 

been left there at least six years ago and that he tried to call the owner several times, but 

was not successful.2 The Coast Guard responded to find the stem of the vessel had sunk 

and discharged approximately 150 gallons of diesel into the ICW. Mr. began the 

clean-up by deploying hard boom to contain the fuel and absorbent pads to remove the 

fuel from the water. 

2. Description of Removal Activities for this Claimant: On April 29, 2012, Tow Boat U.S. 

deployed eleven cases of absorbent boom to assist Mr. with the clean up. The 

Claimant notes that it was on-scene for 2.5 hours, and it that time also deployed Tow 

Boat Lindsey, Captain , Captain , Laborer , and 

a field clerk for the clean-up. 

3. The Claim: On November 30, 2012, the Claimant submitted a removal cost claim to the 

National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of $3,020.00 for their oil 

spill response. The amount includes $345.00 in personnel costs; $500.00 for vehicle use; 

$975.00 for materials; and $1,200.00 for disposal. However, he owner of the vessel 

remains unknown. 

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 

1 See NRC Report #1009985. 2 See U.S. Coast Guard Witness/Investigator Statement Form, dated May 5, 2012. 

3 
" ~· -- .,.,f ___ --~-·-···- ___ .: ___ ~ __ ,- .,., : 

. ~ ,. . ' . -· 

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 Contingen~y Plan" 33 USC§ 2702(b)(l)(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, slu!fge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes othe:r 

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 co~ts 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) arid 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. Ill 

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 ofthese actions; 

( c) That the actions talcen 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 tal(en 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]. 

4 
-i 

DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

A. Overview: 

·,:· 

-~-: 

·- --"'4,\· 

~:. 

,., 

·r 

1. The NPFC has determined that the actions undertaken by the claimant are deemed 

consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). This determination is maae in 

accordance with the Delegation Authority for Determination of Consistency with 

NCP for the payment of uncompensated removal cost claims under section 

1012(a)(4), Oil Pollution Act of 1990. 

2. The incident involved 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)(l2), 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 tear statute oflimitations for removal costs; 

5. The NPFC Claims Manager has thqroughly reviewed all documentation submitted 

with the claim and determined what removal costs presented were for actions in 

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

allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205 as set forth below. 

B. Analysis: 

The NPFC Claims Manager has 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 OP A and the claims regulations 

at33 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, and ( 4) whether the costs were adequately documented 

and reasonable. · 

During the incident, the Claimant provided clean-up services alongside the marina owner 

in response of the release of diesel fuel discharged from the sunken vessel. Captain 

supervised their efforts, while Captain and Mr. provided labor, 

along with a field clerk, deployed boom using Towboat Lindsey. The towboat was billed 

for 2.50 hours. All personnel billed three hours for their services and noted on their cost 

breakdown that they were on-scene for 2.50 hours. 

The NPFC does note that the Claimant billed the tow boat fot 2.5 hours at the rate of 

$250.00, but listed $500.00 as the total amount claimed. The $500.00 total is consistent 

with the authorized BOA rates listed on their rate schedule at the $200.00 per hour rate. 

The NPFC will reimburse the Claimant at the $200.00 per hour rate for $500.00. 

The disposal of eight drums was handled by Noble Oil Services (Noble). The Claimant 

requested reimbursement of$2,000.00for disposal, at the rate of $150.00 per drum. 

However, per the Claimant's December 7, 2012 e-maiito the NPFC, Noble charged 

5 
l 

I 

I 

~ . 

.,. . "... . ···-· ·-· . . . . ···' . 

.. ... , .~· ... _. -···· ---·- _ ...;._ ~.~ .. . ~-·--- :. .. ---.-·-·: ..~. -...:..- -· ... --,.· ..••... : .... ,.· ....... ,.,,;.,_..;:...,__;, .. ,.., ....... :.:.. .. _... .. _:.: : . 

. $147.00 per.drum for disposai.3 The Cl~mant will be reimblirsed. at tlie rate of$t47.00 

per~ for disposal, for a total of$1,f76.00; denying $24.00. 

On that basis, the Claims Manager·hereby determines that the Claimant did in fact-incur 

$2,996.00 of uncompensated removal costs and that that amount is properly payable by 

·the OSL TF as full dompensation for th&reimbursable removal costs focurred.by the · · 

Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim # 913017-0001. The Claimant states 

that all costs claimed are for uncomperu;ated removal costs incurred by the Claimant for 

this incident on April 29, 2012. The Claimant represents that all costs paid by the 

Claimant are compensable removal costs, payable by the OSL TF as presented by the 

Claimant. 

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC determines that the OSLTF will pay $2,996.00 as full compensation for 

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

Claim Number 913017-0001 for removal costs. · 

AMOUNT ; ,,, II 

Claim Sup - t I 

Date of Supervisor's review: 12114112 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor's Comments: 

3 See e-mail to Felita Jackson from Carol Roop, dated December 7, 2012. 

• 6