3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: N20041-0001 

Claimant: Port of Corpus Christi Authority 

Type of Claimant: Local Government 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $65,491.14 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $50,130.72

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

On August 21, 2020, it was reported that an uninspected dredge, WAYMAN L. BOYD (O.N. 

261512), struck a submerged propane pipeline while transiting the main ship channel in Corpus 

Christi Inner Harbor, resulting in a fire onboard the vessel.1 The fire burned for over (8) hours as 

the remaining fuel in the line was consumed. The WAYMAN L. BOYD experienced extensive 

damage and continued to smolder until finally breaking into two and sinking in the channel. The 

sinking then caused the vessel to begin discharging oil into the Inner Harbor, a navigable 

waterway of the United States.2

 United States Coast Guard (USCG) Sector Corpus Christi was 

the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC).3

 

Orion Marine Group (“Orion” or “RP”), is identified as the owner/operator of the 

WAYMAN L. BOYD (O.N. 261512), and is the responsible party (RP) as defined by the Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990.4 The Claimant, Port of Corpus Christi Authority (“Port” or “Claimant”), 

provided the Ortiz Center as the location of the Unified Command after initial discussions with 

the FOSC.

5 The Port presented its uncompensated removal costs to the RP.6

 After ninety days 

following presentment and having not reached a settlement with the RP, the Port presented its 

uncompensated removal costs claim to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for 

$65,491.14.7 

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

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

$50,130.72 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

 

1 United States Coast Guard (USCG) Captain of the Port Order (COTP) #119-20 dated August 21, 2020. 2 USCG SITREP-POLREP One dated August 24, 2020. 3 Id.

4 United States Coast Guard (USCG) Captain of the Port Order (COTP) #119-20 dated August 21, 2020. 5 June 10, 2021 email from FOSC to NPFC explaining how the Claimant’s Ortiz Center was used as the Unified 

Command (UC) location for this incident. See item #2 of this email.

6 The Port provided proof of presentment for invoices totaling $65,491.14. See, claim submission documents and 

Claimant’s Counsel cover letter to Orion Marine Construction, Inc. dated February 5, 2021. 7 The Port of Corpus claim submission received May 20, 2021.

(b) (6)
4

On August 21, 2020, the National Response Center (NRC) received two separate reports via 

reports # 128523 and # 1285164, which the first report stated that a fire was seen in the Corpus 

Christi Ship Channel when a dredging operation hit a 16” submerged steel transmission pipeline 

and the second report stated that there was an explosion at the Port earlier in the day and the fire 

was extinguished however the vessel then re-ignited causing the vessel to sink and discharge 

diesel fuel into the water. United States Coast Guard (USCG) Sector Corpus Christi was the 

Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC).8

Ultimately, the pipeline was secured and the vessel fire was extinguished. Diesel from the 

vessel discharged into the ship channel and threatened to discharge a potential of 6000 gallons of 

fuel that was onboard. 

Responsible Parties

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the owner/operator of the WAYMAN L. 

BOYD (O.N. 261512), is the Responsible Party (RP) for the incident.

9

 On May 25, 2021, the 

NPFC issued a Responsible Party Notification Letter to Orion Marine Construction, Inc. via 

certified mail.

10 A Responsible Party Notification letter notifies the RP that a claim was 

presented to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) seeking reimbursement of 

uncompensated removal costs incurred as a result of response services performed that resulted 

from a vessel or facility that was identified as the source of a discharge or substantial threat of a 

discharge of oil to navigable waters of the United States. 

Recovery Operations

The Claimant incurred response costs for providing services as a member of the Unified 

Command and under the direct oversight of the FOSC. The costs include the services of third 

parties engaged by the Claimant who were directly involved during the removal activities. The 

Claimant called out the Refinery Terminal Fire Company to assist with the fire response.11 In 

addition, the Corpus Christi Area Oil Spill Control Association was called out to assist with the 

resulting spill response. The Claimant provided use of its “Ortiz Center” as the location of the 

Incident Command Post. During the initial Command Post meeting, it was determined that the 

“Ortiz Center” would be the best place to stand up the Command Post because that location was 

the only location that would work considering required social distancing protocols for COVID 

19.12 

II. CLAIMANT AND RP: 

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

1990 (OPA)13 require all claims for removal costs or damages must be presented to the RP 

 

8 The Port of Corpus Christi claim submission received May 20, 2021. 9 USCG SITREP-POLREP One dated August 24, 2020. 10 NPFC RP Notification Letter sent to Orion Marine Construction, Inc dated May 25, 2021. 11 The Port of Corpus claim submission received May 20, 2021. 12 June 10, 2021 email from the FOSC to the NPFC whereby it states the Unified Command agreed the Claimant’s 

Ortiz Center would be used as the Incident Command Post (ICP).

13 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq.
5

before seeking compensation from the NPFC.14 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.15 

The initial claim to the NPFC came in confirming that the claimed costs were presented to 

the RP.16 The NPFC also made notification of the claim to the RP, to which it responded 

directly, requesting a copy of all the claimed costs.17 

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC: 

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.18 Claimant presented to the owner and the operator of 

the vessel. The owner, Orion Marine Construction Inc. (Orion), failed to settle the claim within 

the 90 days provided under OPA. On May 20, 2021, the Claimant submitted its claim to the 

NPFC for $65,491.14. 

The Port broke down its claim via the following invoicing/costs: 

1. Spectra (Ortiz Center), $15,726.46; 

2. RTFC Invoice # ER 20-221, $28,715.14; 

3. CC Oil Spill Invoice # 5340, $9,023.80; 

4. Gillian Cox APRN FNP-C Invoice # 08-2020-1, $1,000.00;

5. Port Personnel Overtime, $2,329.42; 

6. Food and Beverage, $8,696.32. 

 

Total claimed costs: $65,491.14 

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).19 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.20 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

 

14 33 CFR 136.103. 15 33 CFR 136.103. 16 The Port provided proof of presentment for invoices totaling $65,491.14. See, claim submission documents and 

Claimant’s Counsel cover letter to Orion Marine Construction, Inc. dated February 5, 2021. 17 NPFC Email to RP with Claim documents dated June 2, 2021. 18 33 U.S.C. § 2713(a-c). 19 33 CFR Part 136. 20 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)).
6

or conclusions reached by other entities.21 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.

V. 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.22 An RP’s liability 

is strict, joint, and several.23 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.”24 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.”25 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.”26 

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).27 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

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

claims.28 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.29

 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;

 

21 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). 22 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 23 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 24 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). 25 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 26 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 27 See generally, 33 U.S.C. §2712(a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 28 33 CFR Part 136. 29 33 CFR 136.105.
7

(c) That the actions taken were directed by the FOSC or determined by the FOSC to be 

consistent with the National Contingency Plan. 

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.30

 

 Upon review of the claim, the Port of Corpus Christi responded to each part of the disaster, 

engaging both the Refinery Terminal Fire Company (RTFC) and Corpus Christi Oil Spill 

Control Association (CC Oil Spill), as well as facilitating third-party food and beverage vendors 

at its Ortiz conference center.31

Corpus Christi Spill Control Association was activated by the Port to pre-position assets in 

anticipation of a spill from the pipeline and/or dredge. CC Oil Spill activated four people from 

its shop as well as five additional contractors to assist on-scene. It also provided two vessels, a 

24’ and 20’ boat, to respond immediately when given the all clear. Approximately 1,200 feet of 

boom at the Bulk Material Docks, 1,200 feet of boom at the Citgo Dock 3 location and 1,300 feet 

of boom at a Magellan site on the East side of Navigation Boulevard at the Ship Channel. CC

Oil Spill also hooked up and removed tarps from three trailers at its shop, with each holding 

3,000 feet of containment boom. Its 30’ Barge Boat was prepared for launching if needed as 

well. The 20’ boat was used to survey the shorelines, both North and South and from the Bulk 

Material Docks to the Resins Dock further to the West.32 

RTFC prepared a team to deploy to the fire early the morning on August 21, 2020. RTFC 

initially responded with foam, a tractor, a skid pump and a hose tender. A full call out was 

requested by the Command of Brush 1, Utility 4 and Special Unit 2 to also respond for assistance 

with the grass fire and skid pump operations. The crews worked to extinguish the grass fire 

around the affected areas. Additional RTFC personnel assisted with the grass fire operations.33

RTFC was called out again later that evening to assist with two structures that were either 

connected to or on the barge that started to drift away, attempting to stop the structures before 

heading out further into the channel. A few hot spots on the grass area around the dock were put 

out at this time as well.34 Third-party food and beverage costs/vendors were provided by the 

Claimant to the members of the Unified Command. 

Upon adjudication of the claim, the NPFC determined which of the costs incurred and 

submitted herein were compensable removal costs based on the supporting documentation 

provided. The NPFC determined that all approved costs were invoiced at the rate sheet pricing 

and were billed in accordance with the rate schedule(s) provided. All approved costs were 

supported by adequate documentation, which included invoicing, relevant IAPs for this incident

and FOSC statements.

 The amount of compensable costs is $50,130.72, while $16,144.42 is deemed not 

compensable for the following reasons: 

 

30 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 31 Claimant Letter to Orion, dated February 5, 2021. 32 Email from Claimant, date July 22, 2021. 33 RTFC Incident Report # 2020413. 34 Id.