3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: J18001-0001 

Claimant: City of Unalaska 

Type of Claimant: Local Government 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $2,680.00 

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On October 05, 2017, the Derelict vessel, F/V AKUTAN, which was 

abandoned in Captains Bay, AK broke free from its moorings due to heavy weather and 

was dragging anchor. The City of Unalaska Harbor Master dispatched a tug to secure the 

F/V AKUTAN which was then towed farther into Captains Bay. The Coast Guard, 

Marine Safety Detachment (MSD) Dutch Harbor, in its capacity as the Fedederl On 

Scene Coordinator (FOSC), opened FPN J18001 to address the substantial threat of oil 

discharge into Captains Bay, a US navigable waterway.1

Description of Removal Activities for this claimant: The City of Unalaska Harbor 

Master dispatched the Tug SARATOGA to retrieve the F/V AKUTAN which had broken 

free from its moorings due to high winds and was dragging anchor in Captains Bay, AK. 

The Tug SARATOGA took the F/V AKUTAN undertow and towed it back to its original 

moorage and anchored it preventing the substantial threat of an oil discharge.2

Responsible Party: The Responsible Party (RP) is Klawock Oceanside Inc. The Claimant 

has asserted that they submitted the invoice to the RP on October 26, 2017 and did not 

receive a response.

34

 The NPFC issued an RP Notification Letter dated August 30, 2017. 

To date no response has been received as of yet.5

The Claim: On February 08, 2017, the NPFC received a removal cost claim from the 

City 0f Unalaska for reimbursement of their uncompensated removal costs in the amount 

of $2,680.00.6 The claim is based on invoice #254325 from Dunlap Towing Co. in the 

amount of $2,680.00.7

 

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 

 

1 See, POLREP # ONE J18001 dated October 07, 2017. 2 See, City of Unalaska, Department of Prts and Harbors Incident Report dated October 5, 2017. 3 See, NPFC OSLTF Claim Form, question # 5, dated January 26, 2018. 4 See, City of Unalaska Invoice # 10262017 dated October 26, 2017 invoiced to RP, Klawock Oceanside, Inc. 5 See, NPFC RP Notification Letter dated February 08, 2018. 6 See, Claimant’s OSLTF claim submission received by NPFC on February 08, 2018. 7 See, City of Unalaska Payment Authorization #27449 as part of claim submission received on February 08, 2017.
4

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.”
5

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. MSTC , Marine Safety Detachment Duth Harbor, was the Federal On-Scene 

Coordinator’s Representative (FOSCR) for this incident and has determined that the 

actions undertaken by the City of Unalaska were consistent with the NCP for the 

payment of uncompensated removal costs claims and is consistent 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);8

2. The incident involved the substantial threat of 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 to the Fund within the six year period of limitations for 

removal costs claims. 33 U.S.C. §2712(h)(1); 

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

with the claim and determined which of the 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. 

B. Analysis:

NPFC CA reviewed the actual cost invoices 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, to be 

consistent with the NCP or directed by the FOSC, and (4) whether the costs were adequately 

documented and reasonable. 

In reviewing the claim, the NPFC considered the Claimant’s evidence which consisted of the 

City of Unalaska’s Payment Authorization form #27449 in the amount of $2,680.00, City of 

Unalaska Incident Report, copy of check payable to Dunlap Towing for its invoice # 254325, 

and invoice #10262017 from the City of Unalaska issued to the to the RP on October 26, 

 

8 See, Email from MSTC dated February 14, 2018.