3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1 

Claim Number: UCGPB22012-URC001 

Claimant: Vane Line Bunkering, LLC 

Type of Claimant: Corporate 

Type of Claim: Removal Cost 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $46,693.59 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $46,396.44

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:: 

On September 10, 2022, the United States Coast Guard received a report of an unknown 

amount of dark oil in the water at the Maher Terminal in Port Newark, New Jersey. The 

discharged oil impacted the Elizabeth Channel, a navigable waterway of the United States.2

 

Based on the location of the spill, the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) for this incident 

was the United States Coast Guard, Sector New York. Upon arrival, the Coast Guard Pollution 

Responders identified 11 vessels that had been impacted with oil and estimated the spill size to 

be approximately 100 – 200 gallons. The exact source of the spill could not be determined, so the 

Coast Guard federalized the incident and accessed the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF or 

Fund) via Federal Project Number (FPN) B22012 to hire clean-up contractors. The National 

Response Corporation (NRC), with the help of four subcontractors, was hired to clean up the 

spill and decontaminate the impacted vessels. In addition to the Coast Guard-funded cleanup 

efforts, a few of the impacted vessels activated their vessel response plans (VRP) and hired NRC 

and subcontractors to get their vessels cleaned using their own funds.3 The claimant, Vane Line 

Bunkering, LLC (Vane Line or Claimant) did so for their barges, the DS 507, DS 309, DS 27, 

and DS 57.4

Oil samples were taken from the water and the suspected vessels in the area. The results 

came back from the lab as a heavy fuel oil; however, there were no matches to any of the 

suspected vessels.5 No responsible party was identified for this incident,6 so Vane Line 

Bunkering submitted their claim directly to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for 

1 This determination is written for the sole purpose of adjudicating a claim against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 

(OSLTF). This determination adjudicates whether the claimant is entitled to OSLTF reimbursement of claimed 

removal costs or damages under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This determination does not adjudicate any rights or 

defenses any Responsible Party or Guarantor may have or may otherwise be able to raise in any future litigation or 

administrative actions, to include a lawsuit or other action initiated by the United States to recover the costs 

associated this incident. After a claim has been paid, the OSLTF becomes subrogated to all of the claimant’s rights 

under 33 U.S.C. § 2715. When seeking to recover from a Responsible Party or a Guarantor any amounts paid to 

reimburse a claim, the OSLTF relies on the claimant’s rights to establish liability. If a Responsible Party or 

Guarantor has any right to a defense to liability, those rights can be asserted against the OSLTF. Thus, this 

determination does not affect any rights held by a Responsible Party or a Guarantor. 2 See, SITREP-POL ONE dated September 13, 2022. 3 See, SITREP-POL ONE; See also, MISLE Case Report #1321402. 4 CG Memo from FOSCR dated February 14, 2023. 5 See, MISLE Case Report #1321402 pages 35-51 of 75, See also, MSL Oil Sample Analysis Report. 6 CG Memo from FOSCR dated February 14, 2023. 

(b) (6)

5

cleared to depart on September 10, 2022, at 2105 hrs.

15 Barges DS 309, DS 27, and DS 57 were 

determined to be cleaned and free to depart on September 11, 2022, at 1915 hrs.

16 The response 

and clean up ended on September 13, 2022.17

II. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

On January 26, 2023, the claimant submitted their claim to the NPFC for $47,437.3218and 

later revised the sum certain to $46,693.59, on July 10, 2023.19 On mulitiple occasions, the

NPFC requested additional information from the claimant, and they promptly provided the 

information back to the NPFC, as requested.

20

III. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).21 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.22 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.23 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. 

15 SITREP-POL ONE page 3 of 4 section 2 line V. 16 SITREP-POL ONE page 4 of 4 section 2 line QQ; See also, email from MST1 dated April 

18, 2023 informing what contactors did the additional cleanup.

17 SITREP-POL TWO - FINAL page 2 of 3 section 2 line D. 18 Original claim submission dated January 26, 2023. (The claim included the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund Optional 

Claim Form; Contractor and subcontractor invoices; Gallagher Marine Systems IMT Daily Status Reports with 

photographs; Proof of payment to contractors.) 19 Email from claimant dated July 10,2023 amending sum certain. 20 Additional information included: Schedule B rate sheet for GMS; Revised NRC invoice 777207; NRC T&M Rate 

Sheet 2022-2023; NRC OPA90 OSRO Agreement; ML Daily Ticket 9.10; ML T&M Rate Sheet; Barge 

Time Sheet; GMS Oil Spill Response Services Agreement; GMS Invoice # 127298; GMS Invoice # 126067; ATP 

from Vane Line Bunkering; ACV T&M Rate Sheet 2022-2023; ACV Invoice & Daily Logs; Disposal 

documentation. 21 33 CFR Part 136. 22 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)). 23 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).

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

IV. DISCUSSION: 

An RP is liable for all removal costs and damages resulting from either an oil discharge or a 

substantial threat of oil discharge into a navigable water of the United States.24 An RP’s liability 

is strict, joint, and several.25 When enacting OPA, Congress “explicitly recognized that the 

existing federal and states laws provided inadequate cleanup and damage remedies, required 

large taxpayer subsidies for costly cleanup activities and presented substantial burdens to 

victim’s recoveries such as legal defenses, corporate forms, and burdens of proof unfairly 

favoring those responsible for the spills.”26 OPA was intended to cure these deficiencies in the 

law. 

 OPA provides a mechanism for compensating parties who have incurred removal costs where 

the responsible party has failed to do so. 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.”27 The term “remove” or “removal” means “containment and removal of oil [...] from 

water and shorelines or the taking of other actions as may be necessary to minimize or mitigate 

damage to the public health or welfare, including, but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, and 

public and private property, shorelines, and beaches.”28 

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).29 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

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

claims.30 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.31

 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 (NCP).

32

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.33

24 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 25 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 26 Apex Oil Co., Inc. v United States, 208 F. Supp. 2d 642, 651-52 (E.D. La. 2002) (citing S. Rep. No. 101-94 

(1989), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 722). 27 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 28 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 29 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 30 33 CFR Part 136. 31 33 CFR 136.105. 32 See, CG Memo from FOSCR dated February 14, 2023 acknowledging the actions taken were consistent with the 

National Contingency Plan.

33 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205.

8

rate on ACV’s rate schedule. The NPFC reduced the $153.50 per bale charge to the rate 

schedule amount of $145.00 per bale.40

5. The NPFC denies $2.00 of the $21.00 charged for ACV’s 12” PVC gloves on NRC 

invoice 777207. The reduction is due to the amount charged being above the allowed 

rate on ACV’s rate schedule. The NPFC reduced the $21.00 per pair of gloves to the rate 

schedule amount of $19.00 per pair.41

6. The NPFC denies $4.00 of $38.00 charged for ACV’s 8oz sample jars on NRC invoice 

777207. The reduction is due to the amount charged being above the allowed rate on 

ACV’s rate schedule. The NPFC reduced the $19.00 per jar charge to the rate schedule 

amount of $17.00 per jar.42

7. The NPFC denies $45.20 of the $6,413.75 for the 20% subcontractor markup NRC 

charged on invoice 777207 for the Miller’s Launch and ACV subcontractor costs. This 

reduction is a result of the overall reductions in total subcontractor charges allowed by 

the NPFC.

43

8. The NPFC denies $0.19 of the $3,773.59 claimed for the ESIC fee NRC charged on 

invoice 777207. This charge was based on 9.5% of the toal invoice amount and NRC 

charged $3,773.59 when they should have charged $3,773.40. This reduction is for the 

amount charged above the amount that should have been charged.44

9. The NPFC denies $25.76 of the adjusted amount $3,773.40 for the ESIC fee NRC 

charged on invoice 777207. This charge was based on 9.5% of the toal invoice amount 

and was reduced as a result of the overall reductions in total charges allowed by the 

NPFC.45

Overall Denied Costs = $297.15 46

V. CONCLUSION:

 Based on a comprehensive review of the record, the applicable law and regulations, and for 

the reasons outlined above, Vane Line Bunkering, LLC’s request for uncompensated removal 

costs is approved in the amount of $46,396.44. 

40 Id. 41 See, Revised NRC Invoice page 3 of 8, ACV T&M Rate Sheet page 3 of 10, ACV Invoice & Daily Logs page 8 of 

15. 42 See, Revised NRC Invoice page 3 of 8, ACV T&M Rate Sheet page 8 of 10, ACV Invoice & Daily Logs page 8 of 

15. 43 See, NRC Rate sheet page 16 of 17 indicating subcontractor costs are cost plus 20%. 44 See, Revised NRC Invoice page 2 of 8, NRC Rate sheet page 16 of 17 explaining the ESIC fee. 45 Id. 46 Enclosure 3 to this determination provides a detailed analysis of the amounts approved and denied by the NPFC.