CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 2/23/2010 

Claim Number : 910042-001

Claimant : State of California 

Type of Claimant : State 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $67,407.28

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: On February 20, 2008 a Renner Petroleum truck trailer, carrying 3, 

953 gallons of red dye diesel fuel, overturned downstream of the 11.38 mile marker 

of Highway 199 in Del Norte County, California. The accident caused the fuel tank 

on the trailer to rupture, discharging the fuel on the north shoulder of the road. The 

discharge of the fuel reached the Smith River. The Smith River is a navigable 

waterway of the United States. The State on Scene Coordinator (SOSC), 

, arrived at the site and noted that as a result of the accident, he could 

smell a strong odor of diesel and could see small pools of the fuel in the ditch on the 

north side of the road. The California Department of Fish and Game (California 

DFG) acted as the trustee agency for the resources in the Smith River. The California 

Highway Patrol (CHP) was the lead responder due to the incident involving a 

discharge on the highway. See NRC Report number 862913. 

 

, the responsible party (RP), hired NRC of Eureka, California for 

the clean up, as well as the clean up consulting firm, Winsler & Kelly. The NPFC 

issued a RP Notification Letter to the potential responsible party on February 22, 

2010 and to date, no response has been received. 

2. The Claim: On December 29 2009, the Claimant submitted a removal cost claim in 

the amount of $67,407.28 to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for 

reimbursement for their uncompensated State response costs. The claim consists of a 

billing summary, invoices, State investigation reports, personnel time records, 

receipts, photographs, and USCG MISLE Case Report. 

According to the claimant, even after multiple written and verbal requests for 

payment, the RP refuses to pay the claim. 

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 

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 Contingency Plan” 33 USC § 2702(b)(1)(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, 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 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]. 

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. 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 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.”

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. FOSC coordination was made with MSD Humboldt Bay and USCG MISLE case # 

393197 was generated by Sector San Francisco. PO was present 

at the Unified Command and received regular updates as response to the incident 

occurred. 

2. The incident involved the substantial threat of 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)(12), the claimant has certified no suit has 

been filed in court for the claimed uncompensated removal costs. 

4. The claim was submitted on time. 

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

with the claim and determined that the majority of the 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 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, and (4) whether 

the costs were adequately documented and reasonable. 

Based upon the review of the Incident Action Plans provided by the claimant which 

were generated in the Unified Command and based on the affirmation of activities 

performed as noted in the United States Coast Guard’s MISLE Case, the actions taken 

were deemed consistent with the NCP and determined reasonable. USCG reported 

that the claimant was the lead agency for this incident. 

Upon review of the claim, the Claims Manager hereby determines that there are 

discrepancies with regards to the reimbursement requested and the cost 

documentation provided by the claimant. Under the Personnel Costs billing portion, 

Staff Environmental Scientist, , billed for seven hours on March 4, 

2008. However, the corresponding time record notes that she worked 6.5 hours that 

day. Claimant billed a total of 94 hours at $70.20 per hour for the work of Ms. 

 for a total of $6,598.80. However, the claimant will be compensated for 

93.5 hours at the same rate for a total of $6,563.70, for a total denied amount of 

$35.10. With regards to reimbursement for Travel Expenses, claimant requests a total 

of $4,777.52. However, per the claimant’s e-mail correspondence of February 17, 

2010, Industrial Hygienists, and did not “code” their 

work hours on their monthly time reports, and therefore there is no official financial 

record that documents their hours worked. Based on that information, the 

reimbursement for travel expenses of $166.40 for Mr. and $462.44 for Mr. 

 are denied, for a total of denied amount of $628.84. Claimant will be 

reimbursed $4,148.68 for travel expenses. 

 
Therefore, the NPFC has adjusted the amount payable to $66,743.34, for a total 

denied amount of $663.94.

Based on the NPFC's denial of $663.94, the NPFC determines that the OSLTF will 

pay $66,743.34 as full compensation for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by 

the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim# 910042-001.

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC has determined that the OSLTF will pay $66,743.34 as full compensation 

for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the 

NPFC under claim# 910042-001.

AMOUNT: $66,743.34

Claim Supervisor:

Date of Supervisor’s review: 3/8/10 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: