CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 9/14/2009 

Claim Number : 909103-001

Claimant : United States Environmental Services, LLC 

Type of Claimant : Corporate (US) 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $38,581.89

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: On July 2, 2007, a fire at the Covenant Cove Marina (Covenant 

Cove), at 7001 Val Monte Drive, Guntersville, Alabama, damaged and sank 

approximately twelve pleasure vessels of various sizes, causing a discharge of oil (engine 

oil) and creating the potential for additional discharges to occur until the dock and debris 

from the vessels were removed from Guntersville Lake, Guntersville, Alabama. 

Guntersville Lake, a tributary of the Tennessee River, is a navigable water of the United 

States. The incident was reported to the National Response Center (NRC) via report # 

840651. 1

 Boom and absorbents were applied to the inlet of the marina, as well as 

continued efforts to extinguish the structure fire. Due to the gasoline and mixtures of 

gasoline and oil from the vessels, the owner of the Covenant Cove requested hazardous 

materials support, assistance and remediation from the United States Environmental 

Services, LLC (USES). , Director of the Marshall County Emergency 

Management Agency, contacted USES on behalf of the owner. USES was hired for the 

clean up. 

 

2. Description of removal actions: USES began the clean up on July 5, 2007. USES 

contained the oil initially released as a result of the fire. They removed the debris, 

vessels and motors that posed a continuing threat of oil discharge. 

From July 5, 2007 to July 9, 2007, USES deployed a supervisor with at least three 

recovery technicians; two pickup trucks; a work boat; a centrifugal trash pump; and an 

excavator. On the final day, July 10, 2007, the disposal was performed. USES deployed 

a supervisor and one recovery technician; two pickup trucks; Greer Enterprises handled 

disposal; and Saginaw Recycling was used for transportation of the disposal. 

Disposal Manifests are included with the claim submission. 

3. The Claim: On June 19, 2009, the Claimant submitted a removal cost claim in the 

amount of $38,581.89 to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for reimbursement 

for their uncompensated response costs. The claim consists of the USES incident billing 

summary, invoices of work performed and supplies used during the clean up, disposal 

manifests and proof of payment. 

The claimant has communicated with Covenant Cove and submitted the claim to them on 

July 31, 2007. Covenant Cove informed the claimant that the charges were excessive 

 

1

 See, NRC Report # 840651 
despite that fact that the cost was billed in accordance with the rate schedule in place at 

the time the services were rendered. Claimant's follow-up calls to Covenant Cove have 

gone unanswered. 

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. Overview:

1. The NPFC has determined that the actions undertaken by the claimant are deemed 

consistent with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). This determination is made in 

accordance with the Delegation Authority for Determination of Consistency with NCP 

for the payment of uncompensated removal cost claims under section 1012(a)(4), Oil 

Pollution Act of 1990. 

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 some 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.

B. Analysis:

The NPFC Claims Manager has reviewed the actual cost invoices and dailies to confirm 

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

actions taken were compensable “removal 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 

were determined by the FOSC, and (4) whether the costs were adequately documented 

and reasonable. 

The Claims Manager’s review of the cost documentation reveals overtime charges for 

Thursday, July 5, 2007, Friday, July 6, 2007, and Monday, July 9, 2007. According to 

the claimant's rate schedule, straight time rates apply from 0800 to 1700, Monday 

through Friday. Claimant requests compensation for eleven-hour, overtime work days for 

Saturday, July 7, 2007 and Sunday, July 8, 2007. Claimant also requests compensation 

for Tuesday, July 10, 2007 in which the supervisor and the technician worked an eighthour day, but the claimant requests compensation for subsistence for a total of $50.00 for 
the two employees. The claimant will be compensated for removal costs based on the 

rate schedule provided with the claim submission. 

According to the USES daily work report of Thursday, July 5, 2007, , 

 began work at 05:30 and ended their work day at 19:30. Six 

hours of overtime was billed. However, based on the rate schedule, from 05:30 to 08:00 

equates to 2.5 hours of overtime, 08:00 to 17:00 is straight time, and from 17:00 to 19:30 

equates to 2.5 hours of overtime, which yields a total of 5.0 hours of overtime for 

. USES employee A. Farmer worked from 

0:730 to19:30 that day. From 07:30 to 08:00 equates to 0.50 hours of overtime, from 

08:00 to 17:00 is straight time, and from 17:00 to 19:30 equates to 2.5 hours of overtime, 

which yields a total of 3.0 hours of overtime. Therefore, the NPFC has adjusted the 

amount payable for personnel to $3,374.00 from $3,665.00 requested by the claimant, 

denying $291.00. 

The USES daily work report for Friday, July 6, 2007 notes that 

 began work at 07:30 and ended work at 19:00. From 07:30 to 

08:00 equates to 0.50 hours of overtime, 08:00 to 17:00 is straight time, and from 17:00 

to 19:00 equates to 2.0 hours of overtime, which yields a total of 2.5 hours of overtime. 

Therefore, the NPFC has adjusted the amount payable for personnel to $2,236.50 from 

$2,947.50 requested by the claimant, denying $711.00. 

The USES daily work report for Monday, July 9, 2007 notes that

 began work at 07:30 and ended work at 18:30. From 07:30 to 

08:00 equates to 0.50 hours of overtime, 08:00 to 17:00 is straight time, and from 17:00 

to 18:30 equates to 1.5 hours of overtime, which yields a total of 2.0 hours of overtime. 

Therefore, the NPFC has adjusted the amount payable for personnel to $2,118.00 from 

$2,355.00 requested by the claimant, denying $237.00. 

Claimant requested reimbursement for weekend overtime charges of eleven hours for 

Saturday, July 7, 2009 and Sunday, July 8, 2007, Claimant will be compensated for ten 

hours of overtime each day for each employee. As documented on the claimant's 

weekday dailies, the supervisor and technicians took an hour lunch each day, and noted 

on the dailies that they worked eight hours from 08:00 to 17:00. The same rationale 

applies to eleven-hour workdays. Therefore, the NPFC has adjusted the amount payable 

for personnel to $3,385.00 from $3,676.00 requested by the claimant for July 7, 2007, 

denying $291.00; and adjusted the amount payable for personnel to 3,385.00 from 

$3,676.00 requested by the claimant for July 8, 2007, denying $291.00, for a total amount 

denied of $582.00. 

The claimant also requested compensation for per diem at $25.00 each for one supervisor 

and one technician, for a total amount of $50.00 for Tuesday, July 10, 2007. However, 

the rate schedule indicates that this applies when work exceeds twelve hours (when 

overnight accommodations are not required). The July 10, 2007 daily documented the 

hours worked by as eight hours each. The NPFC has adjusted 

the amount payable for personnel to $688.00 from $738.00 requested by the claimant, 

denying $50.00. 

Based on the NPFC's denial of $1,821.00 for personnel charges , the NPFC determines 

that the OSLTF will pay $36,710.89 as full compensation for the reimbursable removal 

costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim# 909103-001.