4

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number : A15011-0001 

Claimant : State of California Department Fish & Wildlife, 

 Office of Spill Prevention and Response 

Type of Claimant : State

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $15,981.79 

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: The USCG Sector San Francisco Command Center (SCC SF) reports1

that on February 10, 2015, it received a notification from the NRC regarding a mystery sheen 

in the Alameda Marina. The reporting party stated that a sheen was observed from an 

unknown source with a strong diesel odor. SCC SF briefed the Incident Management 

Division (IMD) and District 11 (D11). D11 briefed Security on base as well as the base 

Officer On Duty (OOD). The OOD investigated the Base, as well as the cutters moored and 

no discrepancies were found. Alameda Fire Battalion 1 arrived on scene and saw a very light 

sheen throughout the Alameda Marina and estuary, but could not find the source. SCC SF 

briefed IMD on the information from Battalion 1, and IMD stated it would follow up. 

On February 13, 2015, SCC SF received notification from IMD that the OSRO, National 

Response Corporation (NRC), finalized the demobilization of its resources. Cleanups were 

considered complete at this time.

This incident was reported to the National Response Center via incident #1162655.2

 

2. Description of removal actions performed: The Claimant, OSPR, responded on-scene, 

sampling the release, as well as alerting the public via various sources of media—news, radio 

and social media. 

THE CLAIMANT AND THE CLAIM:

The Claimant is the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Office of Spill Prevention 

and Response (OSPR). It seeks reimbursement of its uncompensated response costs related 

to the personnel time, vehicle costs, sample analysis costs and animal rescue contractor costs 

that it expended in order to respond to the incident. The Claimant requests reimbursement in 

the total amount of $15,981.79 for the services provided February 10 through 13, 2017. 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 with the claim. 

APPLICABLE LAW: 

 

1 See, Case Report 716267, dated 2/11/2015. 2 See, NRC Report # 1107844, dated 2/10/2015.
5

"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 at 33 USC § 2701(31) 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]. 

Under 33 USC §2713(a), all claims for removal costs or damages must (with certain 

exceptions not applicable here) be presented first to the responsible party or guarantor of the 

designated source of the incident. Then, as provided in 33 U.S.C. §2713(d), “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 Director, 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.”
6

In addition, 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 Claimant’s removal actions were coordinated with the Sector San Francisco 

FOSC via Sector San Francisco Case Report # 716267.3 33 U.S.C. §§ 2702(b)(1)(B) 

and 2712(a)(4).

2. The incident involved a discharge of “oil” as defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. § 

2701(23), to navigable waters.

3. The claim was submitted to NPFC within the six year statute of limitations. 33 U.S.C. 

§ 2712(h)(1).

4. A Responsible Party has not been identified. 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32).

5. In accordance with 33 CFR § 136.105(e)(12), the Claimant has certified that no suit 

has been filed by or on behalf of the Claimant in court for the claimed uncompensated 

removal costs.

6. The NPFC Claims Manager has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted by 

the Claimant with the claim, and further documentation provided by USCG Sector 

San Francisco, and has determined which of the removal costs presented were 

incurred for removal actions taken by the Claimant in accordance with the National 

Contingency Plan (NCP), and whether the costs for these actions were reasonable and 

allowable under OPA 90 and 33 CFR § 136.205.

B. Analysis:

The NPFC Claims Manager reviewed the documentation provided by the Claimant. 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 NPFC hereby determines that $10,762.08 of the Claimant’s costs represent OPA 

compensable response actions that were performed in accordance with the NCP, and that the 

rates charged by the Claimant were in accordance with the Claimant’s published rates at the time 

services were provided. Further, the third party wildlife rescue contractor’s costs and activities 

were reasonable and necessary and properly documented. $1,513.89 of the claimed costs are 

denied. The costs related to the Information Officer totaling $1,309.50 for labor and $204.39 for 

travel expenses are not OPA removal costs. They are not costs for minimizing or mitigating the 

 3 See, Case Report 716267, dated 2/11/2015.
7

effects of an oil discharge. Additionally, $3,705.82 in claimed Environmental Scientists and 

equipment/material costs related to them are also denied because there is no documentation in 

the record demonstrating that their presence on scene or their activities performed during the 

response were associated with the removal of oil. Should the claimant seek reconsideration of 

these denied costs, it would need to provide the proper support/documentation for them. Please 

see the attached NPFC Summary of Costs spreadsheet for further itemization of the denied 

costs.4

 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $10,762.08 as full compensation for the 

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

#A15011-0001. All reimbursable costs are for charges incurred 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. Of the claimed costs, a total of $5,219.71 are denied. 

AMOUNT: $10,762.08

 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 7/17/17

Supervisor Action: Approved

Supervisor’s Comments: 

 

4 See, NPFC Summary of Costs spreadsheet.