CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 10/15/2010 

Claim Number : 910119-001

Claimant : Metropolitan Marine Solutions 

Type of Claimant : Corporate 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $36,610.00 

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On the evening of December 7, 2009 at approximately 9:45pm, 

Metropolitan Marine Solutions (MMS) was notified by Security Officer at Lake 

Mohave Resort reporting a house boat that was sinking. MMS responded to make an 

initial assessment. MMS discovered a 46 foot houseboat that was actively sinking at the 

time of assessment. MMS reported that the smell of gasoline was very strong and surface 

sheen was observed. The Assistant General Manager of the Mohave Resort, Mr. 

, tried to secure the boat to the dock in order to slow the sinking. 

MMS secured the vessel the best they could during initial assessment and then spoke with 

a neighbor who reported that they had seen someone in the boat at about 8:00pm. After 

speaking with the neighbor for only a few moments, MMS advised Mr. that 

they would return first thing in the morning to at least deploy containment boom. MMS 

then went to the mooring office in order to obtain owner information since each vessel 

typically has insurance and a slip contract with the marina. MMS received the 

information on the vessel owner and after they left the office, Mr. called the vessel 

owner and left a message. After an unsuccessful attempt at reaching the vessel owner, 

Mr. called the insurance company to advise of the vessel’s current situation. 

MMS felt confident that the vessel had insurance therefore they returned to their office 

and prepared to dispatch a response crew the following morning. 

Description of removal actions performed: The claimant, MMS, arrived on-site on 

December 8, 2009. MMS called the vessel owner again at 630am on December 8, 2009 

prior to their arrival at the incident scene and Mr. advised MMS that he 

was a school teacher and could not be on scene until later that day. Mr. 

informed MMS that he had insurance with Progressive. Upon arrival, MMS discovered 

that the vessel sank further and had rolled to its port side. MMS reported that fuel and oil 

products were everywhere in the water so MMS immediately deployed 24” boom. 

Divers began gearing up for an underwater assessment while Mr. tried contacting 

Progressive Insurance. 

Upon initial notification to Progressive Insurance, MMS was told by the claims 

department that “nothing is authorized at this time”. MMS began to remove underwater 

ropes, snags, and diver safety hazards in preparation of stabilizing the vessel. MMS 

called the NRC to report the incident and received report # 925553. Later in the day, 

Progressive Insurance’s adjuster called Mr and advised there was no coverage on 

the vessel due to the fact that Mr. did not buy the policy until after the vessel 

had sunk at 8-9pm the previous evening. Progressive advised that the policy was 

purchased online at about 11pm the previous evening. 
Upon MMS’ receipt of this information regarding insurance coverage, Mr. called 

Mr. who advised he could not pay for the response. MMS reported that while 

speaking to Mr. he admitted to being on the vessel the night before. MMS then 

contacted United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Region 9 at 415-

947-8000. MMS spoke with who referred them to the Arizona Department 

of Environmental Quality. Later in the day, Law Enforcement Rangers came back to the 

scene to check on the progress of the response. MMS advised of the payment scenario so 

the Rangers advised that they would issue an “Order to Remove” in the morning and 

since MMS had stabilized the vessel, they departed the scene for the evening. 

By the morning of December 9, 2009 when MMS arrived back to the scene, they found 

the vessel had absorbed water up the walls, in the carpets, drywall, and insulation and had 

over weighted the stabilizer bags MMS set the previous day. By midday, the MMS crew 

was making headway as the vessel was steady and no product had been released from the 

vessel. MMS then reports they heard a loud noise and the vessel began to list as one of 

the steel airbag clips gave way. MMS rigged the vessel again and added several more lift 

bags and the vessel was again stable. By mid to late day, MMS was able to tow the 

vessel with boom over to a preplanned removal area where the vessel was moved onto a 

concrete ramp. 

With the vessel sitting right next to the dock, MMS could see fuel spilling out of the fuel 

tank on the rear of the vessel. MMS called Park Service Dispatch and requested a Ranger 

to respond. Officer arrived and MMS pointed out the fuel that was leaking 

out the tank. Contact was made with Mr. n who later agreed to pay the bill 

despite his insurance dilemma. MMS departed the scene for the evening. 

On December 10, 2009, the Resort General Manager Mr. brought down a 

transport trailer and a fork lift. The process of moving the flooded vessel onto dry land 

was burdensome but completed. The vessel was rusty and broken and fell into pieces as 

it was being removed from the water. The resort crew raised the vessel, cribbed it and 

got it on a trailer. The vessel was moved to a storage area where it presently sits. 

MMS’ crew performed cleanup after the vessel was gone. MMS reported that the 

containment area was choked down and product was picked up with absorbent booms. 

 The Claim: On June 22, 2010, MMS submitted a removal cost claim to the National 

Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), for reimbursement of removal costs in the amount of 

$36,610.00 for the services provided from December 7 – 10, 2009. This claim is for 

removal costs based on the rate schedule in place at the time services were provided. A 

copy of the vendor rate schedule is provided in the claim submission. 

This claim consists of copies of the invoicing and associated dailies, a copy of revised 

invoices and dailies, a copy of NRC Report # 925553, a detailed description of activities 

performed, field notes, a copy of the insurance letters and documents, photographs and 

internal email correspondence. 

The review of the actual cost invoicing and dailies 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 consistent with the NCP or directed by the FOSC, and (4) whether the costs were 

adequately documented. 
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 incident involved the report of a discharge of “oil” as defined in OPA 90, 33 

U.S.C. § 2701(23), to navigable waters. 

2. 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. 

3. The claim was submitted within the 6 year statute of limitations for removal costs. 

4. The claimant has presented costs to the Responsible Party which to date have not 

been paid. 

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

the claim and determined that some 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 as set forth below. 

B. 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. 

The Claims Manager has reviewed the documentation submitted with the initial claim and 

the additional information submitted later by the Claimant. It is important to note that the 

Claimant originally requested $36,610.00 but when he submitted additional information in 

support of his claim, the invoice and associated daily costs were revised which the Claimant 

has failed to establish whether the increased costs and revised invoices were ever properly 

presented to the RP as required by 33 CFR § 136.103(c)(2). Since the Claimant has failed to 

establish that the revised invoices were properly presented to the RP, the NPFC is 

adjudicating this claim based on the original invoiced amounts. 

On July 20, 2010, Ms. of the NPFC had a phone conversation with Mr. 

 of MMS (Claimant) whereby Mr. stated that his personnel have not been paid 

for the services they have provided. He informed the NPFC that he has an agreement with 

his workers that they get paid when he gets paid therefore without proof of payment from 

Mr. for the personnel he has invoiced, payment is denied as an unsupported 

uncompensated removal cost although the daily labor charge for Mr. is approved as he 
is the owner of the business and has billed his time in accordance with the rate schedule 

provided. 

Daily breakdown of costs: 

12/7/09 

Mr labor charge on 12/7/09 approved is $243.75 and Mr. s labor charge for 

12/7/09 is denied as no proof of payment for his services has been provided therefore 

$243.75 for Mr. is denied. 

12/8/09 

Mr labor charge on 12/8/09 in the amount of $997.50 per the original invoice 

presented to the RP is approved and the labor charge for Mr. as master diver in the 

amount of $997.50 and the labor charge for Mr. as technician in the amount of 

$682.50 are denied as no proof of payment for their services has been provided. 

The NPFC has determined that the claimant has properly billed and itemized the cost of the 

utility truck and trailer in the amount of $472.50. The claimant has bulk billed the following 

items on 12/8/09 which are not properly documented when compared to the description of 

activities provided by the claimant therefore these costs are denied: (1) environmental spill 

response billed at 46 ft times $165.00 hr = $7,590.00; (2) environmental recovery/source 

removal billed at 46 ft times $175.00 = $8,050.00 for a total denied of $15,640.00; the 

recovery vessel run time billed at 10.5 hrs @ $185.00 hr = $1,942.50; and the tow vessel run 

time at 10.5 hrs @ $185.00 = $1,942.50 are approved. 

12/9/09 

Mr. ’s labor charge on 12/9/09 in the amount of $950.00 per the original invoice 

presented to the RP is approved and the labor charges for as master diver in the 

amount of $950.00 is denied for no proof of payment; the labor charge for as 

support diver in the amount of $950.00 is denied for no proof of payment; and the labor 

charge for as technician in the amount of $650.00 is denied for no proof of payment 

therefore the total labor denied is $2,550.00. 

The NPFC has determined that the charges for the recovery vessel run time at 10 hrs @ 

$185.00 hr = $ 1,850.00 and the tow vessel run time @ 10 hrs @ $185.00 hr = $1,850.00 are 

billed in accordance with the rate schedule on a portal to portal basis and approved for the 

total amount of $3,700.00. 

12/10/09 

Mr. ’s labor charge of $712.50 per the original invoice presented to the RP is approved 

and the labor charges for as master diver in the amount of $712.50 is denied for no 

proof of payment; the labor charge for as support diver is denied for no proof of 

payment; and the labor charge for as technician in the amount of $487.50 is also 

denied as no proof of payment. The total denied in labor charges = $1,912.50.

The NPFC has determined that the charges for the recovery vessel run time at 7.5 hrs @ 

$185.00 hr = $ 1,387.50 and the tow vessel run time @ 7.5 hrs @ $185.00 hr = $1,387.50 are 

billed in accordance with the rate schedule on a portal to portal basis and approved. The 
utility truck and boom trailer are properly documented and billed in accordance with the rate 

schedule therefore the charge of $337.50 is approved. The charges for dive equipment 

cleaning in the total amount of $510.00 is denied as there is no documentation to support the 

charge and the charge is not listed as part of the rate schedule.

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC determines that the OSLTF will pay $14,073.75 as full compensation for the OPA 

compensable reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the 

NPFC under Claim Number 910119-001. 

AMOUNT: $14,073.75

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 

Supervisor Action: 

Supervisor’s Comments: