CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 8/30/2010 

Claim Number : 910123-001

Claimant : Hudson Marine Management Services Inc 

Type of Claimant : OSRO 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $38,836.64

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: On March 23, 2009, Hudson Marine Management Services (HMMS) 

was notified by Captain , Master of the M/V MARIANO LAURO that a 

discharge of oil had occurred while the vessel was conducting bunkering operations at the 

Stapleton Anchorage Area, NY. The M/V MARIANO LAURO was taking on bunkers 

from the Barge DBL-32 at Stapleton Anchorage, NY, when an over flow of heavy fuel 

oil (HFO) 180 from the port and starboard side overflow vents was observed1. An 

estimated amount of 400 gallons of bunker oil was released into the waters of Stapleton 

Anchorage, NY,2

an area of substantial maritime traffic located in the center of New 

York Bay which is a navigable water of the United States. 

Immediately upon receiving notification from the Master, HMMS, the Spill Management 

Team3 made the following notifications in accordance with the Vessel Response Plan 

(VRP)4

; the National Response Center5, and New York Department of Environmental 

Control (NJ DEC), report # 0813847. HMMS notified and mobilized the vessel’s 

contracted Oil Spill Responder (OSRO) National Response Corporation (NRC)6 who 

then activated Miller’s Launch, a local clean up company.

The Claimant made presentment to the RP, M/V MARIANO LAURO, Peninsula 

Enterprise via various emails.7 The NPFC issued a RP Notification letter and to date has 

received no response. 

2. Description of Removal Activities: To mitigate the impact to navigable waters, HMMS 

directed Miller’s Launch to deploy containment boom around the M/V MARIANO 

LAURO and to continue maintenance of the boom through the night. Further, HMMS 

immediately prepared a response assessment. HMMS developed plans in cooperation 

with the OSRO to determine the quickest and most efficient means of containment and 

cleanup, personnel, and material resources needed to carry out the response. HMMS was 

responsible for updating the status of the cleanup effort with all interested parties 

 

1

 Situation Report No. 1 for M/V MARIANO LAURO, Page 3. 

2

 MISILE Case Report # 445621 

3

 Contract regarding professional services rendered by HMMS to MAR SRL 

4

 Vessel Response Plan/SOPEP Services, Page 16, Contract regarding professional services rendered by HMMS to 

 MAR SRL. 

5

 Incident Report # 900729 

6

 National Response Corporation Invoice # 538670, dated 5/22/2009 

7

 Several Emails from Hudson Marine Management Services, S.R.L. to operation@ peninsula. It dated 5/19/10 

 through 7/9/10. 
including the Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) USCG Sector, NY and NY DEC as 

State On-Scene Coordinator (SOSC). Also, HMMS worked with Miller’s Launch to 

develop a disposal plan for all recovered material, overseeing the testing of recovered oil 

to determine status for disposal.8

Miller’s Launch arrived on scene on March 23, 2009 and deployed boom around the 

vessel and barge. They supported the on deck cleanup of the MARIANO LAURO which 

was being conducted by the vessel crew. The support included providing the vessel crew 

with the necessary sorbent material to pick up the oil on deck. The OSRO continued with 

cleanup operations which included the cleanup of oiled riprap by using Hotsy spray units, 

sorbents, and pumps with hoses. Also Miller’s Launch conducted vessel hull cleaning 

operations. 

On March 30, 2009, HMMS and the contractor conducted a final cleanup and 

walkthrough of the scene and continued to lay and maintain sorbent snare which was 

maintained until Monday, April 6, 2009. The snares were required by USCG in order to 

control any residual oil that was exposed during the tidal changes and weather conditions. 

On April 6, 2009 the USCG signed off on the active cleanup operations following an 

inspection and allowed HMMS and the contractor to reduce the resources deployed to the 

scene to maintain a static response effort of the contaminated area.9

3. The Claim: The Claimant, HMMS, who served as Qualified Individual and Spill 

Management Team, submitted a removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC), on July 22, 2010 for reimbursement of the uncompensated removal costs 

in the amount of $38,836.64 that HMMS provided to the MARIANO LAURO, Peninsula 

Enterprise in the New York Harbor from March 23, 2009 through April 6, 2009. This 

claim is for removal costs based on HMMS’ rate schedule in place at the time services 

were provided.

This claim consists of a signed OSLTF Claim Form, HMMS Invoice # 34153, HMMS 

Time Sheets, HMMS Expense Statement, Rental Car Receipts, Gas Receipts, Griffin 

Invoice # 6043591, Griffin Invoice # 6052960, Emails to RP, NRC Report, Situation

Reports MISILE Report, National Response Corporation (NRC) Billing Summary and 

Contract regarding Professional Services Rendered by Hudson Marine Management 

Services, Inc.

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).

 

8

Situation Reports One through Eleven

9

Situation Report # 11
"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. The NPFC has determined that the actions undertaken by the Claimant are deemed 

consistent with the NCP. 

2. The incident involved the discharge and continuing 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. In accordance with 33 CFR § 136.101(2), the claim was submitted within the 6 year 

statute of limitations. 

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 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 “removable 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 consistent with 

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

and reasonable. 

The Claims Manager confirmed that the services provided were billed in accordance with the 

rate schedule in place at the time the services were rendered. The Claims Manager has 

confirmed that all costs have been incurred and are sufficiently supported by the record with 

the exception of the $35.00 wire transfer charge which is unsubstantiated. 

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $38,801.64 as full compensation for 

the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under 

Claim # 910123-001. 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: $38,801.64 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 9/7/10

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: