Description of removal actions performed: On August 27, 2009, AMR arrived on-scene 

to deploy boom and contain the spill site, observing and replacing it as necessary over the 

next couple of weeks. As the vessel continued to leak out fluids in and around the 

outside of the boom, it became necessary to boom out a larger area.7

Two weeks after sinking, the RP stopped communication with AMR. Therefore, on 

September 8, 2009, the USCG opened the pollution fund and federalized the spill under 

Federal Project Number J09033.8

 At the time this determination was written, the project 

was still open and removal activities were still being performed. 

3. The Claim: On November 16, 2009, Alaska Marine Response submitted a removal cost 

claim to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), for reimbursement of removal 

costs in the amount of $37,319.93 for the services provided August 27 through 

September 8, 2009. This claim is for removal costs based on the rate schedule in place at 

the time services were provided. A copy of the vendor rate schedule is provided in the 

claim submission. 

This claim consists of copies of the invoicing and associated dailies, copies of M/V 

Sound Developer POLREPS 1- 7, a copy of NRC Report # 916159, a copy of the NOFI 

issued by MSTC , a copy of MSTC PI Statement, a copy of 

MST3 PI Statement, a copy of the interim IRAT from MSU Valdez, dated 

12/15/2009, a copy of the Pollution Statement for AMR written by MSTC , 

photographs and internal email correspondence. 

The review of the actual cost invoicing and dailies 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 consistent with the NCP or directed by the FOSC, and (4) whether the costs were 

adequately documented. 

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). 

"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 

 

7

 See, AMR Activity Reports, submitted with the claim on 11/16/2009 

8

 See, Pollution Statement, written by MSTC , dated 10/12/2009, submitted by the claimant, PI 

Statement, written by MSTC , dated 12/15/2009, and the interim IRAT, dated 12/21/2009 
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 FOSC coordination has been established via MSTC , USCG MSU 

Valdez.9

2. The incident involved the report of a discharge of “oil” as defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. § 

2701(23), to navigable waters. 

 

9

 See, Statement written by MSTC to AMR, dated 10/12/2009, submitted with the claim on 11/16/2009 

and email from MSTC to Ms. , NPFC, dated 11/27/2009 
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 on time. 

5. Presentment of costs to the RP was made by the claimant, prior to the submission of the 

claim. The NPFC also made presentment of costs to the RP and to date the NPFC has 

received no response. 

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

claim and determined that all 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. 

The Claims Manager confirmed that USCG MSU Valdez did in fact perform a site 

assessment on August 27, 2009. The Claims Manager validated the costs incurred and 

determined they were reasonable and necessary and performed in accordance with the 

National Contingency Plan (NCP). 

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

$37,319.93 of uncompensated removal costs and that that amount is properly payable by the 

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

submitted to the NPFC under claim #J09033-001. The claimant states that all costs claimed 

are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by the claimant for this incident from August 

27 through September 8, 2009. The claimant represents that all costs paid by the claimant 

are compensable removal costs, payable by the OSLTF as presented by the claimant. 

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $37,319.93 as full compensation for 

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

claim J09033-001. 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: $37,319.93

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 

Supervisor Action: 

Supervisor’s Comments: