3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 918029-0001 

Claimant: Rhode Island Dept of Environmental Management 

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $9,802.80 

FACTS: 

At about 1030 Wednesday, March 8, 2017, the Harbor Master of the Port of Galilee notified the Rhode 

Island Department of Environmental Management (RIDEM) of a diesel spill behind Rhode Island Engine. 

The harbor master had already deployed boom along the bulkhead. He requested assistance in cleaning 

up the spill. When the RIDEM responder arrived, he observed emulsified red diesel in the water. He 

contacted Newton B Washburn LLC (NBW), an oil spill response contractor (OSRO) to contain and clean 

up the spill. They deployed absorbents, a vac truck and a barge to remove the diesel. The Coast Guard 

responders arrived and took samples of the oil. NBW completed the cleanup on March 9, 2017. The CG 

responders returned that day to verify that the cleanup was complete. No responsible party was identified. 

CLAIMANT AND CLAIM: 

The Claimant is the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management. It seeks reimbursement of 

its uncompensated “response costs” related to the personnel time and vehicle costs, and OSRO contractor 

costs that it expended in order to respond to the incident. The Claimant requests reimbursement in the 

total amount of $9,802.80. 

APPLICABLE LAW: 

"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. 
4

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: 

A. Overview: 

1. The NPFC has determined that the actions undertaken by the Claimant were coordinated with 

the USCG FOSC (MST1 a from East Providence, Sector Southeastern New England) 

and are consistent with the NCP. This determination is made in accordance with the 

provisions of sections 1002(b)(1)(B) and 1012(a)(4) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 2702(b)(1)(B) and 

2712(a)(4). 

2. The incident involved a discharge of “oil” as defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. § 2701(23), to 

navigable waters.

3. The claim was submitted to NPFC within the six year statute of limitations. 33 U.S.C. § 

2712(h)(1). 

4. In accordance with 33 CFR § 136.105(e)(12), the Claimant has certified that no suit has been 

filed by or on behalf of the Claimant in court for the claimed uncompensated removal costs.

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

Claimant with the claim, and has determined which of the removal costs presented were 

incurred for removal actions taken by the Claimant in accordance with the National 

Contingency Plan (NCP), and whether the costs for these actions were reasonable and 

allowable under OPA 90 and 33 CFR § 136.205. 

B. Analysis:

The NPFC Claims Division (CA) reviewed the cost invoices and dailies submitted by the Claimant to 

determine whether the Claimant had incurred all costs claimed. The review focused on: (1) whether the 

actions taken were compensable “removal actions” under OPA 90 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, and were reasonable and 

necessary.

The Claimant amended its claim via emails in response to NPFC’s requests for information. On May 1, 

RIDEM raised the amount of vehicle miles claimed to 137 from the 104 miles initially claimed. This 

increase was due to the Claimant’s calculation using Google Maps that showed actual miles traveled