Page 1 of 6

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 10/01/2010 

Claim Number : 910138-0001

Claimant : State of Florida

Type of Claimant : State 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $142.27 

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On June 5, 2010, Jacksonville Fire and Rescue responded to a 

report that a heavy sheen was on the waters of Fishing Creek, a tributary of the 

Ortega River, a navigable waterway of the U.S. Florida Fish and Wildlife (FWC) 

made contact with the fire department and while using FWC’s vessel, they 

observed the sheen and searched for its source. 

FWC decided that the source of the sheen could not be located and the sheen was 

not recoverable because the sheen would dissipate on the tides. No further 

investigation or action was taken and FWC’s Officer Roland coordinated his 

report with USCG Sector Jacksonville. 

Description of Removal Activities for this claimant: FWC did not clean up this 

discharged oil as it was determined to be unrecoverable but an initial assessment 

and investigation was conducted. The United States Coast Guard Sector 

Jacksonville was advised of the sheen, the investigation, and the outcome. 

The Claim: On September 22, 2010, the Florida Department of Environmental 

Protection (DEP) submitted a removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of their uncompensated removal costs of State 

personnel, equipment, and administrative costs in the amount of $142.27. 

Florida DEP is claiming $84.40 in State personnel expenses, $35.87 in State 

equipment (vehicle and clothing) expenses and $22.00 in State administrative 

documentation/photo fees. 

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). 
Page 2 of 6

"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.”
Page 3 of 6

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 provided by USCG Sector Jacksonville on June 23, 

2010.

2. The incident involved the 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 within the six year statute of limitations.

5. The NPFC Claims Manager has thoroughly reviewed all documentation 

submitted with the claim and determined that the removal costs presented 

were for actions in accordance with the NCP and that the costs for these 

actions were indeed reasonable and allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 

136.205. 

B. Analysis:

NPFC CA 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, to be consistent with 

the NCP or directed by the FOSC, and (4) whether the costs were adequately 

documented and reasonable. 

On that basis, the Claims Manager hereby determines that the claimant did in fact 

incur $142.27 of uncompensated removal costs and that the amount is payable by 

the OSLTF as full compensation for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by 

the claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim #910138-0001 for the 

assessment and investigation costs. The claimant states that all costs claimed are 

for uncompensated removal costs incurred by the claimant for this incident on 

June 5, 2010. The claimant represents that all costs paid by the claimant are 

compensable removal costs, payable by the OSLTF as presented by the claimant.
Page 4 of 6

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $142.27 as full 

compensation for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and 

submitted to the NPFC under claim # 910138-0001. All costs claimed are for 

charges paid for 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. 

AMOUNT: $142.27:

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 10/4/10

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: