CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Date : 3/30/2011 

Claim Number : 911023-0001 

Claimant : State of California

Type of Claimant : State

Type of Claim : Removal Costs

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $783.35 

FACTS:

1. Oil Spill Incident:

On the June 4, 2005 at 3:43 PM, a citizen reported to the National Response Center (NRC) that he 

observed an unknown quantity of diesel sheen and identified the source of the discharge as the 

recreational vessel, LADY IRMA.

1

 The report gave the location of the spill at Third Street, near green 

marker 17, on the San Rafael Canal in Marin County, CA. The San Rafael Canal is a tributary of San 

Pablo Bay and a navigable waterway of the United States. 2

The NRC reported that the San Rafael Fire Department responded to this spill and placed boom around 

the vessel until it could be raised on June 5, 2005.

3

2. Claimant:

The claimant is the California Department of Fish and Game (DFG), Office of Oil Spill Prevention and 

Response (OSPR). OSPR has primary authority to direct removal, abatement, response, containment and 

cleanup efforts for any spill in State waters.

3. Claim:

The claimant requested compensation from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) for the 

uncompensated removal costs associated with the monitor and assessment for this incident. The claimant 

submitted the NPFC OSLTF Claim Form with an invoice in the sum certain of $783.35.4

Personnel Costs were $513.30, equipment costs were $212.40 for use of a DFG four wheel drive vehicle 

and admin costs of $57.65 were presented. Support documentation included a copy of Warden Sutton’s 

Attendance and Labor Distribution Report for June 2008, two Daily Activity Reports for labor and 

mileage (6-hours & 183 miles for June 4 and 5-hours, 177 miles June 5) and a copy of OSPR’s Cost 

Recovery & Legal Review Request (PCA Code F1167) indicating that the responsible party for the oil 

spill could receive a demand letter for the cost of the incident. The claims manager requested DFG’s 

2005 labor and equipment rate sheet.

4. Responsible Party: 

1 See NRC report # 761001 in file 2 See the MISLE case number 242214 3 See the OSPR Activity Report for June 5, 2005

4 See DFG Incident Billing, Summary of Costs (pg 1)

 
The Responsible Party is identified as Sausalito, CA 

94965.5

5. Description of Removal Actions Performed:

On June 4, 2005, Fish & Game Warden was assigned to investigate this pollution incident. 

He noted in his Daily Activity log that he phoned USCG before driving two hours to San Rafael en route 

to a sunken vessel. He arrived on scene at 550 Canal Street and met with the vessel owner, 

and someone from the USCG and noted that the vessel was boomed and being salvaged. In his 

investigation Game Warden cited Mr. with two violations.6

 Game Warden stayed 

overnight in San Rafael and departed the June 5, after the vessel was salvaged and secured.

7

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 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 because 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:

5 See DFG Case Report PCA Number N300/F1167 dated 6/7/05 

6 See OSPR Pollution Investigation Report CFV LADY IRMA 6/405 N300/F1167 dated 6/7/05 7 See OSPR Daily Activity Report 6/4/05 & 6/5/05

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

the NCP. This determination is made in accordance with the Delegation of Authority for 

Determination of Consistency with the NCP for the payment of uncompensated removal cost 

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). 

2. DFG-OSPR Game Warden was on scene acting on behalf of the State's interests and 

overseeing the removal of oil by the San Rafael Fire Department and met with the responsible 

party and USCG personnel.8

3. The incident involved the report of a discharge of “oil” as defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. § 

2701(23), to navigable waters.9

4. 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.10

5. Under OPA 1013(a)(1)(C) the state may submit its claim directly to the Fund for compensation 

without having to present its claim to the responsible party. 

6. The claim was submitted within the statute of limitations under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. 

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

and determined that all 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:

The claims manager reviewed the DFG costs as presented by the claimant and confirmed that the 

costs were within the rates provided by the state for 2005. While reviewing the daily activity 

reports and invoices provided by the claimant, the claims manager focused on the following 

issues:

(1) Whether the actions taken were compensable "removal actions" under OPA and its governing 

claims regulations at 33 CFR 136 (e.g., actions to prevent, minimize, mitigate the effects of eh 

incident).

(2) Whether the costs were incurred as a result of these actions. 

(3) Whether the actions taken were determined by the FOSC. 

(4) Whether the costs were adequately documented and reasonable. 

The claimant’s invoice shows personnel cost of $513.30 as the largest component representing 

10- hours of service. Based on OSPR’s 2005/ 2006 rate sheet, the daily rate for a Fish & Game 

Warden (RGB) is $51.33/hr ($51.33 x 10hrs = $513.30). DF&G invoiced the use of a 4x4 

vehicle and 360 miles traveled. The OSPR 2005/2006 rate sheet provides $0.59 per mile (360m x 

$.059 = $212.40).11 OSPR invoiced its administrative cost total $57.65. The admin cost is within 

the guidelines for fiscal year '05/'06 (see memorandum dated August 9, 2005 effective July I, 

2006 showing 20.08% department overhead rate). 

The Claims Manager hereby determines that there are no discrepancies regarding reimbursement 

or cost documentation provided y the claimant and finds the invoice costs are reasonable and 

compensable under OPA. The Claims Manager hereby determines that the claimant did in fact 

incur $783.35 of uncompensated removal costs under claim 9110023-0001. 

8 See CA DFG OSPR Incident Report # 58391, dated 5/14/2008

9 See NRC Report #761001

10 See NPFC SF-1080 (#7) 11 See OSPR 2005/2006 rate sheet in file mileage + use of vehicle 

 
C. Determined Amount:

The NPFC finds that all costs claimed are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by the 

claimant for this incident from June 4 through June 5, 2005. The $783.35 is properly payable by 

the OSLTF as full compensation of reimbursable removal costs.

AMOUNT: $783.35 

Claim Supervisor:

Date of Supervisor’s Review: 3/31/11 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: