CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 4/9/2009 

Claim Number : A08033-002

Claimant : NRC Environmental Services Inc 

Type of Claimant : OSRO 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $10,916.80

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: On Saturday, September 13, 2008, Coast Guard Sector San Francisco 

received report of a sunken 125 foot commercial vessel, “Allen Cody,” discharging oil in 

the Field Landing area of Southern Eureka. The vessel was attached to a private pier at 

the time it sank. The pier and the vessel are both owned by Mr. of 

Redwood Forest Products. 

Coast Guard personnel from Marine Safety Detachment, Humboldt Bay immediately 

responded to the scene and began working with the vessel’s owner and contractors to 

control the source of the sheen and begin cleanup operations. Containment boom and 

absorbent pads were placed around the vessel in an effort to mitigate the effects of the oil. 

The vessel sank to the bottom of the bay, in 50-feet of water. 

The Responsible Party (RP), Mr. hired the Claimant, NRCES. See Claim 

Number A08033-001 for RP information. 

This claim is for disposal costs only. NRCES planned to submit a separate claim for 

$10,916.80 for disposal costs that remain in 2X20 roll off bins. 

2. Description of Removal Activities for Claim Number A08033-001: Following is a 

timeline of summarized daily response actions performed by the claimant and based on 

the details of the daily field logs provided by the claimant:

 09/13/08—NRCES arrived on site and met with Mr. and MST1 

 from MSD Humboldt Bay. 

 09/14/08—Crews deploy and additional 1500’ containment boom (totaling 1900’ in 

water). Sorbents are deployed and recovered. Divers were able to significantly slow 

the release from the vessel. 

 09/15/08—NRCES received a newly signed work authorization from RP. Dives on 

the site. Crews bagged and replaced sorbents while installing new material. Eel grass 

was removed from under the wharf. Three vessels were released with crew and a 

driver. 

 09/16/08—Crews continued to tend boom, replace sorbents and recover eel grass. 

Divers installed lift bags. NRCES spoke with Coast Guard regarding cutting the crew 

back to one vessel and one standby (at Eureka yard), Coast Guard concurred. 

Equipment was moved to allow for a second barge deployment off pier. Claimant 

was told that MSSD2 would be arriving on-site to discuss. Divers 

attempted to lift vessels with 16000lb of bags. The Claimant received confirmation 
from MSSD2 that the Coast Guard would be assuming financial responsibility 

of the spill beginning Tuesday, 9/16/08. 

3. Description of Removal Activities for this Claim: Following is a timeline of 

summarized daily response actions performed by the claimant and based on the details of 

the daily field logs provided by the claimant: 

 12/04/08--NRCES collected samples from the site and delivered them to Alpha 

Analytical Laboratories Inc. for analysis. 

 12/19/08—NRCES applied 250 pounds of sorbent (10 twenty-five pound bags of 

Floor Dry) at the site. 

 01/14/09—NRCES picked up the bins and carried them to Willits, CA. 

 01/15/09—NRCES traveled from Willits, CA to Fields Landing, CA to the landfill to 

dump the bins; returned to Alameda yard to unload bins and then returned to Willets, 

CA.

 01/16/09—NRCES traveled to Eureka Yard from Willets, CA and completed final 

administrative matters regarding the spill. 

 Disposal Manifests are included with the claim submission. 

4. Claim A08033-001: On December 11, 2008, NRCES submitted removal cost Claim 

Number A08033-001 to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for reimbursement 

of their uncompensated removal costs in the amount of $75,955.97 for the services they 

provided regarding the sinking of the commercial vessel, “Allen Cody.” NRCES was 

reimbursed by the NPFC in the amount of $75,955.97 for the first phase of this response 

excluding the disposal costs under Claim Number A08033-001. 

5. The Claim: On March 26, 2009, NRCES submitted a removal cost claim to the NPFC, 

for reimbursement of their uncompensated disposal (removal) costs in the amount of $10, 

916.80. 

The claim consists of daily work logs (dailies), invoices for outside services, and a 

weekly revenue sheet. The NPFC’s review of the actual cost invoices and dailies focused 

on: (1) whether the actions taken were compensable “disposal 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 are determined to be consistent with the National 

Contingency Plan (NCP) or directed by the (Federal On-Site Coordinator) FOSC; and (4) 

whether the costs were adequately documented and reasonable. 

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 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. Findings: 

1. The FOSC has provided FOSC coordination and Federal Project was opened for this incident. 

2. The incident involved the 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. The claim was submitted on time. 

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

claim and determined that the 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 as set forth below. 

6. The review of the actual costs, invoices and dailies focused on the evaluation of whether such 

costs qualify as “Compensation Allowable” under 33 CFR§ 136.205.

7. The claimant’s removal costs included rates in accordance with their published vendor rate 

schedule. 

B. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC determines that the OSLTF will pay $10,916.80 as full compensation for 

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

Number A08033-002 for disposal costs. 

 

Claim Supervisor:

Date of Supervisor’s review: 4/9/09 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: