6

presented its uncompensated removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) 

for $11,903.00 on May 12, 2022.24

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

On May 12, 2022 the NPFC received a claim for uncompensated removal costs from Marion 

Environmental Inc. dated May 2, 2022. The claim included the Optional OSLTF Claim form, 

Field Report for April 14, 2021 and April 15, 2021, Boat Response 

Chronology Report, Invoice sent to the RP dated April 30, 2021, follow up letter sent to the RP, 

NRC Incident Report, TEMA Master Incident Form. 

The NPFC requested additional information and the Claimant provided MEI Emergency Fee 

Schedule 2021, RP letter response, email with job positions for employee’s by name on invoice, 

disposal manifests and requested clarification on invoiced costs for disposal manifest #157832. 

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.

V. DISCUSSION: 

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).28 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

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

claims.29 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.30

 

24 NPFC OSLTF Claim Form dated May 2, 2022. 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 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 29 33 CFR Part 136. 30 33 CFR 136.105.

(b) (6)
7

 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.31

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.32

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

incurred and submitted by Marion Environmental Inc. herein are compensable removal costs 

based on the supporting documentation provided. All costs approved for payment were verified 

as being invoiced at the appropriate MEI published rates and all approved costs were supported 

by adequate documentation and were determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the National 

Contingency Plan (NCP).33

 Based on the location of this incident, the FOSC for this incident is the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).34 There is no evidence in the administrative record 

that the FOSC was notified of this incident, and as such, it did not direct any actions. The NPFC 

contacted the FOSC to ascertain whether or not it considered the actions taken to be consistent 

with the NCP. The FOSC found that the actions taken by the claimant were consistent with the 

NCP after reviewing all available incident and response documentation.35 

After a complete review of all documentation and after contacting the FOSC, the NPFC was 

able to corroborate the actions undertaken by the claimant and confirm that the FOSC

determined MEI’s actions to be properly coordinated with the FOSC. The NPFC has determined 

that the invoiced costs were billed in accordance with the rate schedule in place at the time 

services were rendered and the NPFC has determined that the claimant demonstrated proper 

presentment of costs to the RP. 

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

removal costs is $10,083.25 while $1,798.75 are deemed non-compensable for the following 

reasons: 36 

 

 

31 Email from USEPA OSC to NPFC Re Additional Information dated July 25, 2022 acknowledging the actions 

taken by the Marion Environmental Inc. were necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate the effects of the incident 

and were consistent with the National Contingency Plan.

32 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 33Marion Environmental Inc. claim submission dated May 2, 2022 and additional information requested by NPFC on 

multiple dates and an email from USEPA OSC to NPFC Re Additional Information dated July 25, 2022 

acknowledging the actions taken by the MEI were necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate the effects of the 

incident and were consistent with the National Contingency Plan.

34 See generally, 40 CFR 300.120(a)(2). 35 Email from USEPA OSC to NPFC Re Additional Information dated July 25, 2022 acknowledging the actions 

taken by the Marion Environmental Inc. were necessary to prevent, minimize, or mitigate the effects of the incident 

and were consistent with the National Contingency Plan. 36 Enclosure 3 to this determination provides a detailed analysis of these costs.
8

1. MEI invoice number 173323 invoiced N/H Waste Disposal Manifest #157832 at a rate of 

$65.00 for each of the 7 bags disposed of on April 15, 2021. The seven bags at a rate of 

$65.00 each comes to a total of $455.00.37 MEI’s Rate Schedule does not support a 

charge of $65.00 per bag but rather a charge of $3.00 per bag with no provision in the 

rate schedule for the difference as claimed.

38 The NPFC made a request for additional 

information regarding the pricing and the claimant responded stating that the bags are the 

same size as a drum therefore the price for each bag is the same as the price per drum.39 

NPFC is allowing $3.00 per bag in accordance with the MEI rate schedule pricing. 

The claimant explained that since they do their our own disposal at the Aqua Treat Inc. 

facility that is a subsidiary of Marion Inc., the disposal is an internal charge. The MEI 

rate schedule pricing does not support the invoiced amount therefore the NPFC denies the 

price differencial in the amount of $434.00; 

2. MEI charged 1% interest on the $10,538.25 invoice total for thirteen (13) months. 

Because there is no express provision for the payment of interest on a claim, the NPFC 

denies interest in the amount of $1,369.97; and 

3. The claimant has requested a sum certain of $11,903.00 which is inclusive of interest 

added however the invoiced amount of $10,538.25 plus the 1% interest for 13 months 

which comes to the total of $1,369.97, when added together, the total amount comes to

$11,908.22 vice the amount requested of $11,903.00 so the NPFC is crediting the 

($5.22) as an unidentfied difference.

Overall Denied Costs = $1,798.7540

VI. CONCLUSION:

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

the reasons outlined above, Somerset County’s request for uncompensated removal costs is 

approved in the amount of $10,104.25. 

 

37 MEI Invoice 173323 dated April 30, 2021 38 MEI Emergency Fee Schedule for 2021 provided via email dated June 29, 2022. See page 4 of 5, item # X021 

Trash bags.

39 See, email from claimant to NPFC dated August 12, 2021. 40 Enclosure 3 to this determination provides a detailed analysis of the amounts approved and denied by the NPFC.