3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: UCGP921029-UR001 

Claimant: Harbor Beach Area Fire Department

Type of Claimant: Local Government 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $33,075.00 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $33,020.00 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

On July 25, 2021, a seasonal boater discovered diesel oil in the water at the Caseville Harbor 

Marina and notified the harbormaster.1 Upon the arrival, the harbormaster smelled a strong diesel 

odor and discovered that approximately 90% of an oil slick was sitting at the east end of the 

harbor.2

 The Harbor Beach Area Fire Department (Claimant or fire department) was called to the 

Caseville Harbor Marina in response to a spill.

3

 The fire department arrived and discovered that 

the entire marina was covered in an oily sheen.

4

 The Fire Chief (Chief ) reported the oil 

spill incident to Michigan Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (“Michigan EGLE”),5 who is the 

State On Scene Coordinator (SOSC) for the incident.6 

On July 26, 2021, Michigan EGLE reported the incident to the United States Coast Guard’s 

(USCG) National Response Center (NRC).

7

 USCG Sector Detroit, in its capacity as the Federal 

on Scene Coordinator (FOSC), received notification of a sheen from an unknown source at the 

Caseville Marina via NRC report # 1311787.

8

 USCG Duty Pollution Responders (PR) arrived on 

scene and observed a scattered silver sheen throughout the marina. The USCG PR conducted bilge 

checks of multiple boats in the marina to try and locate the source of the sheen and conducted a 

harbor inspection while aboard the fire department’s response boat and was unable to locate a 

responsible party (RP). The FOSC determined that the sheen remaining on the water on July 26, 

2021 was unrecoverable and would dissipate naturally.9 The FOSC issued the marina chairman, 

Mr. , a Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) 10 however the USCG investigation revealed 

no source could be found. 11

 

1 Email from the harbormaster to NPFC dated October 6, 2021.

2 Email from the harbormaster to NPFC dated October 1, 2021.

3 Harbor Beach Area Fire Department, Incident Report # 202109 dated July 27, 2021.

4

Id. 5 Michigan EGLE is also referred to as Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) at the time of the

incident.

6 Michigan EGLE PEAS Incident report # 27137dated July 25, 2021.

7 NRC Report # 1311787 dated July 26, 2021.

8 USCG Sector Detroit MISLE Case ID: 1270742, Situation Report dated July 26, 2021.

9 Id.

10 USCG Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) was issued to Mr. ( ) dated July 26, 2021. 11 USCG Sector Detroit MISLE Case ID: 1270742, Situation Report (SITREP) dated July 26, 2021, section 2 

entitled Affected Area.

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
4

Harbor Beach Area Fire Department submitted its uncompensated removal costs to the 

National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for $33,075.00.12 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed 

all documentation submitted with the claim, analyzed the applicable law and regulations, and 

after careful consideration, has determined that $33,020.00 is compensable and offers this 

amount as full compensation of this claim.13

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

 On July 25, 2021, the Caseville Harbor Marina harbormaster, Mr. , was 

notified about diesel oil in the water at Caseville Harbor Marina. The harbormaster called 

Harbor Beach Area Fire Department who reported the incident to Michigan Environment, Great 

Lakes and Energy (“Michigan EGLE”)1415 On July 26, 2021, Michigan EGLE reported the oil 

spill incident to the NRC via report # 27137 which then notified USCG Sector Detroit as the 

FOSC for the incident spill into Saginaw Bay, a navigable waterway of the United States. 

Responsible Party

Personnel from USCG Sector Detroit conducted an investigation into suspected 

vessels/operators but was unable to determine a viable source, and as such, no responsible party 

was identified. 

Recovery Operations

On July 25, 2021, the fire department arrived on scene with personnel, a fire engine, 

absorbent boom, two response boats and trucks.16 The fire department launched the response 

boats to deploy the absorbent boom and to investigate the area for a potential source. The 

firefighters pulled up dock boards from the shore to the fuel dock and pressurized the marina’s 

fuel system in search of a leak. Fire Chief sent one of the response boats up Pigeon 

River to look for the source of the spill and to surrounding marinas in search of an RP.17 

 On July 26, 2021, USCG Duty Pollution Responders arrived on scene and conducted bilge 

checks of multiple boats in the marina and conducted a harbor inspection with negative results in 

identifying a source of the spill.

18 The FOSC determined that the sheen remaining in the water 

on July 26th was unrecoverable and would dissipate naturally.19

 

12 33 CFR 136.103(c)(2); Fire Department’s claim submission received on September 28, 2021. 13 33 CFR 136.115. 14 Michigan EGLE is also referred to as Michigan Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). 15 Michigan EGLE PEAS Incident Report # 27137 dated July 25, 2021. 16 Harbor Beach Area Fire Department Incident Report 2021097 dated July 25, 2021 17 Harbor Beach Area Fire Department Time Line. 18 USCG Sector Detroit MISLE Case ID: 1270742, Situation Report dated July 26, 2021. 19 Id.

(b) (6) (b) (6)
5

USCG Sector Detroit agrees that the actions taken by the Harbor Beach Area Fire 

Department were necessary to prevent, minimize or mitigate the effects of the incident and the 

actions taken were consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).20

 

II. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

On September 28, 2021, the NPFC received a claim for uncompensated removal costs from 

Harbor Beach Area Fire Department. The claim included an OSLTF Claim Form, Michigan 

EGLE PEAS Incident Report, NRC Report # 1311787, Harbor Beach Area Fire Department 

Incident Information, USCG NOFI, and the Harbor Beach Area Fire Department invoice # 026 

dated September 28, 2021 in the amount of $33,075.00. 21

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).22 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.23 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.24 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: 

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.”25 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 

 

20 Email from LTJG to the NPFC providing FOSC Coordination dated October 7, 2021. 21 Harbor Beach Area Fire Department claim submission received on September 28, 2021. 22 33 CFR Part 136. 23 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)). 24 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). 25 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).

(b) (6)
6

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.”26 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.”27 

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

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. 

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.31

As part of its claim submission, the claimant submitted the USCG’s NOFI which identified 

Mr. as a potential RP.32 The NPFC sent the fire department an email and an 

acknowledgement letter confirming receipt of the claim submission and to advise the claimant

that they must make proper presentment of costs to the RP, Mr. , before 

submitting their claim to the NPFC.33 On September 30, 2021, the NPFC called the Caseville 

Harbor Marina to inquire about the RP status as it pertained to the marina being identified as the 

potential RP. The harbormaster, Mr. , explained that Mr. is the marina 

chairman and that an RP had not been identified.34 Upon the NPFC’s further investigation into 

the potential RP status, the USCG Situation Report (SITREP) states that the cause of the 

incident is unknown.35 The NPFC called USCG Sector Detroit, and spoke with the FOSC 

regarding the potential RP status of Mr. . The FOSC stated that an RP had not 

 

26 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 27 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 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. 31 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 32 USCG Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) was issued to Mr. ( ) dated July 26, 2021. 33 September 29, 2021 email to Chief with NPFC Acknowledgment Letter advising they must submit their 

claim to the RP before the submission will be deemed a valid claim. 34 September 30, 2021 Phone summary email between Mr. and NPFC. 35 USCG Sector Detroit MISLE Case ID: 1270742, Situation Report dated July 26, 2021

(b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6) (b) (6)
7

been identified.36 On October 7, 2021, the NPFC notified the claimant that it had confirmed 

there was no RP and would move forward with the adjudication of the claim.37 

During review and adjudication of the claim submission, the NPFC made several requests for

additional information summarized and broken down as follows: 

 Information request to the claimant between October 5, 2021 and October 25, 2021: 

(a) Photos taken or available; 

(b) Pay scale for the fire department costs;

(c) Proof of disposal; 

(d) Field Notes associated with onsite response; 

(e) Rate sheet/pricing schedule for fire department costs;

(f) Cost of boom claimed; 

(g) Clarifying information on the number of boats used; and 

(h) Clarifying information on fire department’s budget. 

 Information request to the SOSC / Michigan EGLE on October 5, 2021: 

(a) Requested a copy of the full EGLE PEAS Incident Report # 27137; and 

(b) Requested a copy of the Area Contingency Plan (ACP).

 Information request to the FOSC between October 21, 2021 and October 28, 2021: 

(a) Requested FOSC coordination for the fire department’s actions performed; 

and

(b) Requested clarifying coordination of the number of fire department boats used 

on the response. 

 Information request to the Caseville Harbor Marina on September 30, 2021: 

(a) Requested any photos available; and 

(b) Requested clarification of the RP status as it pertained to the USCG NOFI 

issued to Mr. , the marina chairman. 

In support of the claim submission, the NPFC received the following information resulting 

from its requests for additional information: 

 Information provided by the claimant between October 5, 2021 and October 25, 2021: 

(a) Photos available; 

(b) Proof of Disposal; 

(c) Rate sheet/ pricing schedule for the fire department costs;

(d) Field Notes;

(e) Pay scale for fire department costs;

(f) Boom costs verification; 

(g) Explanation of the fire department budget and process; and 

(h) Explanation and clarifying information on the boats used during the response. 

 Information provided by the SOSC / Michigan EGLE on October 5, 2021: 

 

36 September 30, 2021 email phone summary recap to FOSC. 37 October 7, 2021 email and letter to Harbor Beach Area Fire Department .

(b) (6)
8

(a) A copy of the EGLE PEAS Incident Report # 27137; 

(b) Statement regarding the ACP and lack of information on this document; and 

(c) Clarification on SOSC prescence at the scene.

 Information provided by the FOSC between October 21, 2021 and October 28, 2021: 

(a) FOSC coordination statement for the response actions performed by the fire 

deprtment; and 

(b) FOSC coordination statement for the fire department’s use of two boats 

during the incident response. 

 Information provided by the Caseville Harbor Marina on October 1, 2021: 

(a) Clarification was provided regarding the USCG NOFI and the result of the 

RP investigation results.

In support of the claimed costs and the response activities performed on July 25, 2021 and 

July 26, 2021 the NPFC relied heavily on all of the additional support documentation that was 

provided by the claimant, the Caseville Harbormaster, the SOSC, and the FOSC. The additional 

support documentation that was received by the NPFC and outlined in the determination 

substantiates that pollution mitigation and response actions were reasonable, necessary and have 

been coordinated with the FOSC and determined to be consistent with the National Contingency 

Plan (NCP). Items approved and denied are delineated in the NPFC’s Summary of Costs 

spreadsheet with comments identifying the source of the information used and the NPFC’s 

decision to pay or deny each item listed.

38 

Upon completion of its adjudication, the NPFC has determined that the majority of the 

removal costs incurred by Harbor Beach Area Fire Department, and submitted herein are 

compensable removal costs based on the supporting documentation provided by various entities 

and that the actions taken were properly coordinated with the FOSC and that the actions taken 

were determined to be reasonable, necessary and consistent with the NCP.

The NPFC has denied $55.00 in claimed removal costs because those costs are unidentified 

within the Fire Department’s cost documentation.39 

 The amount of compensable costs is $33,020.00. 

VI. CONCLUSION:

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

the reasons outlined above, Harbor Beach Area Fire Department’s request for uncompensated 

removal costs is approved in the amount of $33,020.00. 

 

38 NPFC Summary of Costs spreadsheet. 39 Id.