CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 913 069-000 I 

Claimant: State of Washington 

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Remova l Costs 

$6,458.42 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: 

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On April 15, 20 I 0, the MN HERON (WN0327RM) sank in Commencement 

Bay near Browns Point, Tacoma, Washington. The State of Washington Department of Ecology 

(Ecology) responded and found sheening around the vessel. Due to the discharge of fuel oil and 

approximately 50 gallons of diesel remaining on board the vessel, NRC En vironmental Services 

(NRCES) was hired to boom the vessel. The HERON was retloated by the vessel owner and 

boom collected by NRCES on April 16, 2010. 

Commencement Bay is a navigable waterway of the United States. 

Responsible Party: Mr. the Responsible Party (RP), owned the vessel HERON at 

the time of the incident and is determined to be the responsible party under the Oil Pollution Act. 

The National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) sent a RP Notification letter to the RP on June 18, 

20 13. 

Description of Removal Activities: On April 15, 2010, Ecology arrived on scene and interviewed 

the vessel owner. It was determined that the RP did not have the financial ability to take 

mitigating steps to prevent the spread of the spilled fuel. Ecology contacted the USCG Sector 

Pudget Sound and requested that the USCG fu nd the booming of the vessel. After it was 

determined that the USCG was not going to fu nd the boom deployment, Ecology retained the 

services of NRCES to deploy boom around the sunken vessel and apply sorbents within the boom 

to collect the spilled oil. Ecology personne l remained at the scene until booming operations were 

completed. 

Eco logy chose not to have NRCES plug the vessel fuel vents because the diver would not arrive 

on scene before the ebb tide would have the vessel's fuel vents above the water surface and the 

RP would be able to take this preventative step. 

On April 16, 20 I 0, Ecology returned to the scene to monitor the RP's actions to repair and 

dewater the vessel. Ecology depa1ted the scene once the vessel was floated with high tide, hull 

integrity confirmed, and conta inment boom and absorbents was removed by NRCES. 

On April 20, 20 I 0, Ecology gathered the analytical results from NRCES which ca lc ulated the 

recovered oil and oily water to be approximate ly 60.74 ga llons from the HERON. 

The Claim: On June 11, 201 3, State of Washi ngton presented a removal cost c la im to the 

National Po ll ution Funds Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of their uncompensated removal 

costs in the amount of $6,458.42. 

3 
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 inc lude " removal 

costs incurred by any person for acts taken by the person which are consistent with the National 

Contingency Plan" . 33 USC§ 2702(b)(l)(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 (OSL TF), which is admin istered by the NPFC, is availab le, 

pursuant to 33 USC §§ 2712(a)( 4) and 27 13 and the OSLTF claims adjudication regulations at 33 

CFR Patt 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 c laim aga inst the OSLTF may be 

approved or certified for payment during the pendency of an action by the claimant in cowt to 

recover the same costs that are the subj ect of the c laim. See also, 33 USC §27 I 3(c) and 33 CFR 

136.103(c)(2) [claimant election). 

33 U.S.C. §27 13(d) provides that " If a c laim is presented in accordance with this section, 

including a claim for interim, sho1t-term damages representing less than the fu ll amount of 

damages to which the c laimant ultimately may be entitled, and ful l 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 

suppo1t the claim. 

Under 33 CFR 136. 105(b) each claim must be in writing, for a sum ce11ain 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 pe1form a 

reasonableness determination. Specifically, under 33 CFR 136.203, "a c laimant must establish -

(a) That the actions taken were necessary to prevent, minimi ze, 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 detennined by the FOSC to be consistent with the Nationa l 

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 

c ircumstances, removal activities for which costs are being claimed must have been coordinated 

with the FOSC." [Emphasis added]. 

4 
DETERMINA TION OF LOSS: 

A. Overview: 

1. FOSC coordination was provided by USCG Sector Puget Sound. 

2 . The incident involved the discharge of "oil" as defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. §2701 to 

"navigable waters." 

3. In accordance with 33 CFR § 136.105(e)(12), the claimant has certified no suit has been fi led 

in court for the claimed costs. 

4. In accordance with33 U.S.C. § 2712(h)(l), the c la im was submitted within the six year 

statute of limitations for removal costs. 

5. The NPFC Claims Manager thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the claim 

and determined what costs presented were for actions in accordance with the NCP and that 

the costs for these actions were reasonable and allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205. 

B. Analysis: 

NPFC CA reviewed the ach1al cost invoices and dailies to confinn that the claimant had 

incurred all costs claimed. The review focused on: (1) whether the actions taken were 

compensable " remova l 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. 

The Claimant is requesting $60.00 (20 at $3.00 each) for expenses paid to NRCES for Plastic 

Bags used during the incident response. NRCES Contracted Rate Schedule lists the cost for a 

Plastic bag at $2.00 each. The invoiced amount is not per the contTacted rate sched ule. 

Therefore the NPFC detennines that the OPA compensable cost is $40.00 and the remaining 

cost of $20.00 are denied . 

The Claimant is requesting $97.75 for expenses paid to NRCES for the disposal of the 

contaminated waste . The Claimant or NRCES is unable to support this cost with a waste 

manifest. Therefore the NPFC denies the cost of $97.75 as unsubstantiated. 

All other costs were validated and the NPFC has detennined the costs were reasonable, 

necessaiy and performed in accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). 

On that basis, the Claims Manager herby determines that the Claimant did in fact incur 

$6,340.67 of uncompensated removal costs and that amount is payable by the OSL TF as ful l 

compensation for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to 

the NPFC under claim #913069-000 I. The Claimant states that all costs claimed are for 

uncompensated removal costs incurred by the Claimant for this incident on March 15, 2010. 

The Claimant represents that all costs paid by the Claimant are compensable removal costs, 

payable by the OSLTF as presented by the Cla imant. 

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSL TF will pay $6,340.67 as full compensation for the 

reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under c laim 

#91 3069-000 I. All costs claimed are for charges paid for by the Claimant for removal 

5 
actions as that term is defined in OPA and, are compensable removal costs, payable by the 

OSL TF as presented by the Claimants. 

AMOUNT: $6,340.67 

Claim Supervisor:

Date of Supervisor's review: 711113 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor's Comments: 

6