3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 918028-0001

Claimant: Rhode Island Dept of Environmental Management

Type of Claimant: STATE

Type of Claim: Removal Costs

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $16,868.32

FACTS: 

A. Oil Spill Incident: On May 27, 2017, the State of Rhode Island Department of Environmental 

Management (DEM) was notified of an incident involving the Tiger Jo, a 49 ft. wooden fishing 

boat, illegally tied to the University of Rhode Island (“URI”) Marine Research dock in Allen’s 

Harbor, located near North Kingstown, Rhode Island. Allen’s Harbor connects directly to the 

Atlantic Ocean by way of the Narragansett Bay, a navigable waterway of the United States. The 

Tiger Jo began to take on water and sink, resulting in the release of diesel oil into Allen’s 

Harbor.1 

The identified responsible party (RP), owner of the fishing vessel Tiger Jo, is Mr. as 

stated on the NRC Report and as described in the RI DEM’s Emergency Report. That report is 

dated October 22, 2017 and states that while Mr. is the current owner of the FV 

Tiger Jo, Rhode Island DEM also reports that the vessel was still registered to the previous vessel 

owner, .

2

On May 27, 2017, Rhode Island DEM responder reported the active discharge of oil 

into the waterway to the USCG National Response Center (NRC).3 The FOSCR from USCG 

Sector Southeastern New England, MSTC , reported that Rhode Island DEM’s 

response to the oil spill incident was performed in accordance with the National Contingency 

Plan (NCP).4

B. Description of removal actions performed: Rhode Island DEM responders, and 

, provided oversight for the incident and hired the oil spill removal organization Newton 

B. Washburn to conduct pollution removal activities including the removal of oil. From May 27, 

2017, through June 13, 2017, removal activities involved placing and removing containment 

boom, pumping the vessel’s bilge, and the removal and disposal of all nonhazardous waste.5 

CLAIM:

This claim for uncompensated removal costs was presented to the National Pollution Funds Center 

(NPFC) on April 13, 2018, by Mr. , on behalf of the State of Rhode Island DEM. The 

Claimant specifically seeks uncompensated removal costs in the amount $16,868.32 for both State 

 

1 See, State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Department of Environmental Management Emergency 

Response Report dated October 22, 2017.

2 See, Rhode Island DEM Emergency Response Report dated October 22, 2017

3 See, NRC Incident Report # 1179497 dated May 27, 2017. 

4 See, email from MSTC to , Rhode Island DEM, dated July 14, 2017.

5 See, State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations Department of Environmental Management Emergency 

Response Report dated October 22, 2017.
4

personnel and equipment costs and the cost of removal activities associated with Newton B. 

Washburn’s response to the oil spill incident.6 

By email dated April 19, 2018, the NPFC informed the Claimant of deficiencies with its claim and 

offered it the opportunity to submit additional documentation to establish that all costs associated 

with its response to the oil spill incident are compensable.7 Subsequent to numerous requests for 

additional information and clarification concerning new information provided to the NPFC, by email 

dated May 24, 2018, the Claimant requested the NPFC’s amendment of the claim to show a decrease 

in the amount claimed for Rhode Island DEM personnel costs.8 In response, the NPFC decreased the 

amount requested from the original $16,868.32 to $16,850.03.

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.” 

 

6 See, Rhode Island DEM letter to CG National Pollution Funds Center (Claims) dated April 3, 2018.

7 Subsequent to this request for additional information, the NPFC submitted several additional requests, including a 

request for clarification concerning the sum certain.

8 See, email from Ms. , Rhode Island DEM, to Mr. , NPFC, dated May 24, 

2018.
5

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. Findings of Fact:

1. MSTC of Coast Guard Sector Southeastern New England provided after the 

fact FOSC coordination 33 U.S.C. § 2702(b)(1)(B) and 2712 (a)(4);

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 within the six year statute of limitations. 33 U.S.C. § 2712(h)(1);

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

and determined that 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. NPFC Analysis:

NPFC CA 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, to be consistent with 

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

reasonable. 

Based on its review, the NPFC determined that most of the claimed costs are reimbursable from 

the Fund, were actions taken to minimize and mitigate the effects of the incident, and were