CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number : 912080-0001 

Claimant : State of California

Type of Claimant : State

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $2,692.98 

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On August 4, 2010, California Emergency Management Agency 

received a report of a 5x35 foot sheen coming from a storage tank on Alcatraz Island in 

San Francisco Bay. The person reporting the sheen also stated that a bird was found dead 

and three others were covered in oil. 

California Fish and Game (F&G) Warden(s) responded to the scene off Alcatraz Island 

and were unable to locate any oil sheen. F&G Warden(s) moored their vessel at the 

Island and dropped off personnel to check the surrounding area for dead birds. Two dead 

birds were recovered from the shore line but neither had any visible signs of oil on them.1

Description of Removal Activities for this Claimant: No sheening was observed by 

responding officials and no removal activities were included in the claim package.

The Claim: On July 16, 2012, the State of California, Department of F&G, Office of 

Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) submitted a removal cost claim to the National 

Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) seeking reimbursement of their alleged uncompensated 

removal costs in the amount of $2,692.98. 

APPLICABLE LAW: 

"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 

1 California Fish and Game Arrest/Investigation Report for incident - PCA Code 51989.

 
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. No FOSC Coordination has been established. 33 U.S.C. § 1321(d)(2)(K).

2. The incident involved the report of an alleged discharge of “oil” as defined in OPA 90, 33 

U.S.C. § 2701(23), to navigable waters although no oil was ever witnessed by responding 

parties.

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. 33 U.S.C. § 2712(h)(2).

5. No RP has been determined for this incident. 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32).

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

claim and determined that all alleged removal costs presented were not for actions in 

accordance with the NCP and that the costs for these actions were not proven to be

reasonable or 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.

Upon review of the claim submission, the Claimant has not provided sufficient evidence to 

demonstrate that an OPA event occurred or appropriate documentation to substantiate this 

claim as removal costs. 

C. Determined Amount:

The NPFC hereby denies this claim because (1) the Claimant has failed to demonstrate that 

an OPA event had occurred, (2) the costs presented were not properly documented, and (3) the 

Claimant failed to demonstrate that the actions undertaken were compensable “removal actions” 

under OPA.

Amount: $0.00 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 9/18/12 

Supervisor Action: Denial approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: