3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 920022-0001 

Claimant: Intercontinental Terminal Company, LLC 

Type of Claimant: Corporate 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $62,201.68 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $58,234.68

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:: 

 On April 24, 2020 at approximately 1045 local time, the United States Coast Guard (USCG) 

Sector Houston/Galveston Incident Management Division (IMD) received notification that an oil 

sheen was observed at the Intercontinental Terminal located in Deer Park, Texas and visible in 

the Houston Ship Channel, a navigable waterway of the United States. 1 Pollution Response 

Team personnel from Sector Houston/Galveston arrived on scene at about noon along with a 

State On Scene Coordinator (SOSC) from the Texas General Land Office (TGLO).2 The 

incident was reported to the National Response Center (NRC) by a crew member of the tank 

vessel STENA PERFORMANCE while docked at the ITC terminal.

3

 The Pollution Investigator, 

MSTC , in his capacity as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator’s Representative 

(FOSCR) performed a joint investigation with TGLO and determined that the T?V STENA 

PERFORMANCE, while moored at the ITC terminal performing cargo transfer ops, was 

determined to be a potential Responsible Party (RP) for the incident.4

 

 In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the owner of the T/V STENA 

PERFORMANCE was identified as a potential Responsible Party (RP) for the incident as was 

the terminal owner, Intercontinental Terminal Company, LLC (ITC).

5

 ITC took the lead to 

handle response efforts until such time as a definitive RP could be identified; they hired US 

Ecology/NRC Gulf Environmental Services (NRC) to perform oil pollution response activities in 

order to minimize potential vessel delays as they were expecting two vessels inbound for the 

terminal.6

 NRC presented its invoices to ITC who paid the costs.7 The Claimant then presented 

its uncompensated removal costs claim to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for 

$62,201.68.8

 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the claim, 

analyzed the applicable law and regulations, and after careful consideration, has determined that 

$58,234.68 of the requested $62,201.68 is compensable and offers this amount as full and final 

compensation of this claim. 

 

1 USCG MISLE Case # 1215545 dated April 24, 2020.

2 FOSC statement to NPFC from MSTC dated May 17, 2020. 3 NRC Report # 1275998 dated April 24, 2020.

4 FOSC statement to NPFC from MSTC dated May 17, 2020. 5 USCG Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) dated April 24, 2020 was issued to both ITC and the operator of the T/V 

STENA PERFORMANCE.

6 FOSC statement to NPFC from MSTC dated May 17, 2020. 7 Email from Claimant providing proof of payment for the US Ecology/NRC invoicing dated April 29, 2020.

8 33 CFR 136.103(c). 

(b), (b) (6) (b), (b) (6) (b), (b) (6) (b), (b) (6) (b), (b) (6)

5

facility. The FOSCR also issued a Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) to the operator of the 

vessel on April 24, 2020 as an added potential Responsible Party (RP) for the incident.

19 

Ultimately the FOSCR and the SOSC performed a joint investigation and determined that 

because they could not identify a path of discharge, and that no RP could be identified and 

therefore declared the incident a mystery spill.20 

II. CLAIMANT AND NPFC: 

ITC presented its uncompensated costs claim to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) 

for $62,201.68.21

ITC’s claim consisted of US Ecology/NRC Gulf Environmental Service invoice # 237986 

dated April 29, 2020 for response work performed from April 24, 2020 through April 27, 2020:22

Total claimed costs: $62,201.68 

III. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).23 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.24 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.25 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.

IV. DISCUSSION: 

 The NPFC is authorized to pay claims for uncompensated removal costs that are consistent 

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).26 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

 

19 USCG Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) dated April 24, 2020 was issued to the operator of the T/V STENA 

PERFORMANCE as a potential RP.

20 FOSC statement to NPFC from MSTC dated May 17, 2020. 21 33 CFR 136.103(c). 22 See, Enclosure (3) for a detailed breakdown of claimed costs. 23 33 CFR Part 136. 24 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)). 25 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). 26 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a)(4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136.

(b), (b) (6)
6

of regulations governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such 

claims.27 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.28

 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.29

 

 The NPFC analyzed each of these factors and determined the majority of the costs incurred by 

ITC and submitted herein are compensable removal costs based on the supporting documentation 

provided. The NPFC determined all approved costs invoiced at the appropriate rate sheet pricing 

were billed in accordance with the rate schedule provided.30 All approved costs were supported 

by adequate documentation which included the invoice, proof of payment, daily field log 

description of duties performed and/or FOSCR statement. 

 The amount of compensable costs is $58,234.68 while $3,967.00 was deemed not 

compensable for the following reasons:

1. The US Ecology/NRC invoiced for six instances of double billing whereby on April 25, 

2020 three employees were billed for two shifts each that overlapped the initial shift that 

constituted double billing in the total amount of $2,920.50.31 The NPFC has identified the 

personnel and shift hours that overlapped for each person and shift.32 Therefore, 

$2,920.50 in US Ecology/NRC costs are denied as double billing. 

2. The US Ecology/NRC invoiced for 7 personnel on April 24, 2020 at 1 hour of ST and 9 

hours of OT and one person with 2 hours of OT. According to the rat sheet, normal ST 

hours are from 8am to 4pm and any hours outside of that Mon-Fri would constitute OT. 

Based on the rate sheet, the NPFC has adjusted the approved hours at 1 hr ST and 8 hrs of 

OT for seven people and there is 1 hour of ST and one hour of OT for the last person. As 

such, the NPFC has denied $244.50 in improper billing.33

3. The US Ecology/NRC invoiced for a pressure washer up to 3,000 psi at a day rate of 

$649.00 when the NRC rate schedule identifies the costs as $210.00 vice $649.00 

 

27 33 CFR Part 136. 28 33 CFR 136.105. 29 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 30 NRC Service Agreement dated March 22, 2019 and associated rate sheet from January 2019. 31 See, Enclosure 3 Summary of Costs spreadsheet via lines # 32. 33, 34, 36, 37, and 38. 32 See, Enclosure 3 Summary of Costs spreadsheet. 33 See, Enclosure 3 Summary of Costs spreadsheet via lines # 3 through 10.