3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number : 917043-0001 

Claimant : Atlantic Coast Marine Group

Type of Claimant : OSRO

Type of Claim : Removal Costs

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested: $15,970.38 

FACTS: 

A. Oil Spill Incident: On September 25, 2016, Atlantic Coast Marine Group (ACMG) was 

working for the Town of Windsor, NC, assisting business owners and residents that were 

damaged as a result of Hurricane Matthew.1 During their response activities, they 

discovered a lube oil spill in the vicinity of 125 North King Street in Windsor, NC. The 

lube oil was observed along a street curb that drained into a storm drain, which leads to an 

outfall, which discharges into the Cashie River, a navigable waterway of the United States. 

Mr. of ACMG contacted MST1 , at USCG MSD Fort Macon 

and informed him of the situation, stating that a sheen was observed on the river. MST1 

 stated that ACMG was a reputable and competent oil spill response contractor 

and maintained a basic ordering agreement (BOA) with CG MSD Fort Macon, ACMG was 

directed by MST1 to take reasonable action to mitigate the substantial threat of 

the lube oil discharging into the Cashie River.2

 Upon completion of his phone call with 

ACMG personnel, MST1 contacted Mr. , a Federal On-Scene 

Coordinator (FOSC) with the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

Region 9 since the spill was in the USEPA’s jurisdiction. MST1 contacted the 

CG National Response Center.3

 

B. Description of removal actions performed: On September 26, 2016, Atantic Coast Marine 

Group (ACMG) and its subcontractor, Eastern Environmental Management LLC (EEM), 

began cleaning up the oil spill. ACMG stated that it and EEM performed response 

activities that included deploying personnel, along with equipment and supplies. Response 

included personnel, dump trucks, vacuum trucks, response trailers, containment boom, 

sorbent materials and a backhoe to perform cleanup of the storm drain and impacted 

surrounding area. Cleanup activities were conducted from September 26, 2016, through 

October 04, 2016. Approximately 2,952 gallons of oily water and 300 pounds of 

nonhazardous petroleum-contaminated debris were collected and disposed of at Eastern 

Environmental Management. 4

C. Presentment to the Responsible Party (RP): It appears that /Bond 

Trucking was initially identified as a potential RP.5 However, the record does not contain 

 

1 See, Letter from Town of Windsor attesting to the activities of Atlantic Coast Marine Group. 2 See, Email dated September 28, 2017 from MST1 to Mr. , NPFC. 3 Id

4 See, Eastern-Environmental manifest dated 09/26/2016 5 See, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality Division of Waste Management “Notice of No Further 

Action” issued to /Bond Trucking dated 06/21/2017.
4

any documentation with a fingerprint analysis that links the spilled oil to any source 

owned or operated by Bond Trucking. In addition, the fact that the oil was found in the 

aftermath of Hurricane Matthew means it could have come from any number of sources. 

Therefore, NPFC has determined that the evidence is insufficient to designate a 

Responsible Party for the incident to which ACMG would have to present its claim. 

D. The Claim: On September 21, 2017, the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) 

received a claim from ACMG for uncompensated removal costs totaling $15,970.38. 

These costs are associated with personnel time and materials, and subcontractor costs

expended from September 26, 2016, through October 4, 2016.6

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 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 

 6 See, claim submitted by Atlantic Coast Marine Group dated 09/21/2017.

6

The NPFC Claims Manager reviewed the documentation provided by the Claimant. 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 claimed 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 receipt of all requested supporting documentation, the NPFC considered the Claimant’s 

published rate schedule that was in place at the time services were rendered and produced as 

part of the claim submission and has determined that it is reasonable in pricing. The NPFC 

finds the personnel labor categories charged by ACMG are consistent with labor categories 

charged by most Oil Spill Response Organizations (OSROs). 

The rate schedule provides a pricing inventory for all items used during the response at issue 

and, with the exception of the items below, this claim’s administrative record establishes by a 

preponderance of the evidence that the rate schedule should be used when determining the total 

amount of uncompensated removal costs incurred by the Claimant. The NPFC reached this 

conclusion after carefully weighing all of the evidence in the administrative record. 

ACMG is seeking costs that it incurred while responding to an oil spill on September 25, 2016. 

The costs claimed include costs ACMG paid to its subcontractor(s) for the disposal of oily 

water, solid waste materials, and other third party costs for materials. The NPFC has 

determined which of the costs incurred by the Claimant were reasonable and necessary to 

mitigate the effects of the incident. Upon review of the information provided by the Claimant, 

the NPFC has determined that the costs it determined to be OPA compensable, were billed in 

accordance with the rate schedule and/or contractual agreement in place at the time the services 

were rendered, unless otherwise indicated below.9 Given the fact that the CG instructed ACMG 

to perform the cleanup and the USEPA FOSC never went on scene to monitor or oversee 

response, the NPFC, pursuant to its Delegation of Authority for determining consistency with 

the NCP, has determined that most of the actions performed were consistent with the National 

Contingency Plan (NCP). 

The Claims Manager reviewed all claim submission documentation. Some of the

documentation provided included ACMG’s BOA and itsincorporated rate schedule, an ACMG 

invoice, an EEM invoice, photographs, a letter from the Town of Windsor, news article, 

Eastern Environmental rate schedule, sample analysis, ACMG daily work sheets and disposal 

documentation. 

However, during the adjudication process, the NPFC Claims Manager requested additional 

information from ACMG on several occasions; specifically, the NPFC requested copies of 

invoices for the disposal of liquids and solid wastes, for which the Claimant requested 

reimbursement.10 Disposal charges claimed are broken down as follows: 

 

9 See, Summary of Costs spreadsheet. 10 See, Emails from Mr. to ACMG dated October 26, 2017 and Email from of ACMG to Ms. 

, NPFC dated December 5, 2017.
7

1. ACMG charge for liquid disposal of 2,950 gals at $.70 per gal for a total of 

$2,066.40.111213

2. Eastern Environmental invoice # 75572. Last item is a charge for disposal of 2,952 

gals of oily water in the amount of $1,328.40. 

3. Eastern Environmental invoice # 75572, Second to last item invoiced is for the 

disposal of straw and debris in the amount of $250.00. 

4. ACMG charge for straw and debris disposal in the amount of $750.00.14

TOTAL DISPOSAL CHARGES: $4,394.80 

NPFC requested information regarding other items claimed on the ACMG invoice. ACMG 

did not provide the requested invoices or responsive documentation supporting certain other 

costs, and as such, the denial of charges are discussed in detail below. The NPFC denies a 

total of $5,624.98 in the claimed costs. A breakdown of items denied are listed below with 

an explanation as to the rationale why the charge(s) are denied:

• Sorbent pads were invoiced by ACMG at a rate of $65.00 per case on 9/26/16 when 

the BOA pricing schedule lists the price at $60.00 a case. As such, the NPFC denies 

the overcharged amount of $10.00.15

• 5x10 Absorbent boom was invoiced by ACMG on 9/26/16 at a rate of $185.00 per 

case when the BOA pricing schedule lists the price at $105.00 per case. As such, the 

NPFC denies the overcharged amount of $160.00 for two cases.

16

• Straw was invoiced by ACMG at a rate of $8.75 a bale for a total of $35.00. This item 

is not listed on ACMG’s BOA pricing list and the Claimant failed to provide a receipt 

for the charges and the Claimant failed to provide a justification of why 4 bales of 

straw were used.17

• Oilo dry was invoiced by ACMG at a rate of $20.00 each with six units billed. This 

item is not on the ACMG BOA pricing list and ACMG did not provide a purchase 

receipt to substantiate the price charged nor did ACMG provide a justification for the 

use of this item.18

• ACMG charged for an Equipment Operator on 9/27/16 in the total amount of $230.00 

to operate the backhoe that was invoiced on this date. The NPFC denies the charge 

for an Equipment Operator as the BOA pricing schedule includes an Operator in the 

backhoe pricing.1920

• ACMG charged mileage for the dump truck on 9/27/16 at a rate of $.54 a mile for 205 

miles in the total amount of $110.70. ACMG’s BOA does not allow separate pricing

for mileage - according to the BOA, it is included in the day rate. ACMG’s BOA only 

 

11 See, Email dated 12/5/17 from to , item #2. 12 See, Eastern Environmental invoice # 75572, last item listed is for the disposal of 2,952 gallons of oily water. 13 See, ACMG Recap Summary Sheet for claim, item #2. The second listed charge is for disposal of 2,952 gals of 

oily water.

14 See, ACMG Recap Summary Sheet for claim, item #3. The third listed charge is for disposal of straw and debris. 15 See, NPFC Summary of Costs spreadsheet, line 15. 16 See, NPFC Summary of Costs spreadsheet, line 16. 17 See, NPFC Summary of Costs spreadsheet, line 20. 18 See, NPFC Summary of Costs spreadsheet, line 21.

19 See, Page 19 of 85 of the ACMG BOA, item # 0005CB1. 20 See, NPFC Summary of Costs spreadsheet, line 28.
8

allows mileage per page 19 of 85. Mileage is allowed for certain vehicles in section 

0008 of the BOA.212223

• Sorbent pads were invoiced by ACMG at a rate of $65.00 per case on 9/27/16 when 

the BOA pricing schedule lists the price at $60.00 a case. As such, the NPFC denies 

the overcharged amount of $10.00 for two cases.

24

• 5x10 Absorbent boom was invoiced by ACMG on 9/27/16 at a rate of $185.00 per 

case when the BOA pricing schedule lists the price at $105.00 per case. As such, the 

NPFC denies the overcharged amount of $160.00 for two cases.

25

• Miscellaneous plastic was invoiced by ACMG on 10/04/16 at a rate of $90.00 each. 

ACMG failed to provide receipts to support the total charge of $135.00, therefore, 

that amount is denied.26

• Disposal charge by Eastern Environmental on Invoice # 75572 for straw and debris in 

the total amount of $250.00. The NPFC denies this charge as ACMG failed to provide 

an explanation and justification for the use of straw and explain what solid debris was 

being disposed of and why.27

• Soil disposal charged by Soil Resources, a subsidiary of Eastern Environmental. 

ACMG charged this on their Recap Summary sheet, but no invoice has been provided 

or explanation as to what soil was disposed of and why and there is no proof of 

payment from ACMG to Soil Resources; therefore, this charge is denied in the 

amount of $400.00.28 

• ACMG charged $2,066.40 for what they have categorized as “Disposal fees – Wet”. 

In an email from Ms of ACMG to Ms. of NPFC, dated 

12/5/17, she explains this charge as being a charge in the amount of $.70 per gallon 

for the 2,952 gallons of oily water disposal when Eastern Environmental also charged 

$.45 a gallon for the disposal of 2,952 gallons of oily water on invoice # 75572. The 

NPFC allowed the charge of $1,328.40 by Eastern since they handled the disposal of 

the oily water. The NPFC deems the charge for disposal by ACMG at a higher price 

as duplicative and not reasonable. ACMG’s disposal charge is denied in the amount 

of $2,066.40.2930

• ACMG charged $750.00 for what they have categorized as “Disposal fees – Dry”. In 

an email from Ms. of ACMG to Ms. of NPFC, dated 

12/5/17, she explains this charge as being an all inclusive charge for the disposal of 

straw and debris that was also billed by Eastern Environmental in the amount of 

$250.00. The NPFC considers this charge unreasonable, unsupported by the record 

and a duplication of charges billed by its subcontractor.3132

 

21 See, NPFC Summary of Costs spreadsheet, line 32. 22 See, ACMG BOA page 19 of 85. 23 See, ACMG BOA page 24 of 85. 24 See, NPFC Summary of Costs spreadsheet, line 35. 25 See, NPFC Summary of Costs spreadsheet, line 36. 26 See, NPFC Summary of Costs spreadsheet, line 49. 27 See, NPFC Summary of Costs spreadsheet, line 50. 28 See, NPFC Summary of Costs spreadsheet, line 54.

29 See, Email dated 12/5/17 from to , item #2. 30 See, NPFC Summary of Costs spreadsheet, line 57. 31 See, Email dated 12/5/17 from to , item #3. 32 See, NPFC Summary of Costs spreadsheet, line 58.