1 

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 10/29/2008 

Claim Number : P05005-150

Claimant : The Marwide Shipping Company, LTD 

Type of Claimant : Corporate (US) 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $2,197.55

BACKGROUND: 

Oil Spill Incident: On 26 November 2004, the Cypriot-flagged tank vessel ATHOS I struck a 

submerged anchor as it approached the CITGO Asphalt Refining Company terminal at 

Paulsboro, New Jersey. The anchor punctured the hull and caused the release of Venezuelan 

crude oil into the Delaware River. The FOSC issued a Notice of Federal Interest designating the 

vessel’s owner, Frescati Shipping Company Limited, as the Responsible Party (RP). The RP 

denied all claims under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA). The NPFC advertised for claims 

relating to the oil spill, so claimants do not have to submit claims to the RP prior to submitting 

them to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC). 

Claimant: The Marwide Shipping Company, Ltd. (Marwide) is the owner of the M/V MAKRA 

which it time-chartered to STX Pan Ocean Co. Ltd. (STX), under a charter party executed on 

September 2, 2004. The vessel was operating under this time charter and unloading cargo at the 

Camden Marine Terminal at the time of the oil spill. 

Claim Description: The claimant alleges that, as a result of the ATHOS I oil spill, the MAKRA 

was oiled and required cleaning. After the first cleaning, the master felt the vessel was not 

sufficiently cleaned. To prove it to the FOSC, the claimant hired a surveyor to document the 

remaining contamination of the hull. The surveyor’s fee is the subject of this claim.

Related Claim: The claimant has a lost profits claim (P05005-151) pending on reconsideration 

with the NPFC. 

MAKRA Facts: November 26, 2004-December 9, 2004 - Delaware River port call 

The MAKRA arrived in the Delaware Bay at 1830 on November 26, 2004 and docked in port at 

Camden, NJ after 0100 on November 27, 2004, not long after the ATHOS I spill occurred, 

affecting the area where the vessel was docked. The vessel remained docked in Camden while it 

discharged its cargo of steel through November 30, 2004, when it would have been ready to 

leave port. (See MAKRA deck logs). At that time, the Coast Guard had ordered that all vessels 

be inspected and cleaned before being allowed to leave port. On November 30, the USCG vessel 

evaluation team inspected the vessel and determined that decontamination was necessary. (See 

Barwil Statement of Facts/Port Log for Camden, email correspondence between STX and 

Barwil, and USCG Sitreps). The Coast Guard maintained a list of all vessels delayed by the 

spill. The MAKRA appeared on the list. As evidenced by the Coast Guard’s Vessel 

Inspection/Decontamination Priority List and Vessel Decon List, the vessel was cleaned on 

December 4, 2004 at which time it was cleared to sail. However, the master observed that oil 

still clung to the hull and needed further cleaning. After the vessel’s Protection and Indemnity 

Surveyor photographed the hull and presented the pictures to the USCG, the CG agreed that 

further cleaning was necessary, rescinded its clearance decision and returned the vessel to the 

decontamination list. The vessel was cleaned again on December 8th. The vessel was not 
2

completely and satisfactorily cleaned until 1435 on December 9, 2004 (See Barwil Statement of 

Facts for Camden). The vessel left port at 1515 on the same day. 

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 -
3 

(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: 

The claimant has met its burden of providing evidence that its vessel was contaminated by the oil 

spill, that it required two cleanings, and that a surveyor’s services were required to ensure the 

vessel was completely decontaminated. The NPFC obtained emails between the vessel charterer 

and the port agent, which discuss the surveyor and how the pictures convinced the FOSC to 

rescind his decision that the vessel was clean and clear to sail. Based on the photographs the 

FOSC required a second cleaning of the vessel. The claimant provided copies of the 

photographs, a statement of facts/port log, and the surveyor’s invoice to show the necessity of 

this expense as a removal cost. However, the claimant has not provided proof that it paid the 

surveyor for his services. The NPFC requested this proof by letter dated February 19, 2008, by 

email July 11, 2008, by email August 12, 2008, and by email September 23, 2008. The claimant 

has not yet provided such documentation. Additionally, the NPFC contacted Alla Tsiring of 

Martin, Ottaway, Van Hemmen & Dolan, Inc. (the surveyor company). Ms. Tsiring stated that 

their firm had not been paid for the services provided for the MAKRA, which are the subject of 

this claim. The claim must be denied for this reason. 

AMOUNT: $0.00

DETERMINATION: 

The claimant failed to provide proof that it paid for this removal cost. Therefore, the claim must 

be denied. 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 

Supervisor Action: 

Supervisor’s Comments: