3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: A18009-0001 

Claimant: Pelican Harbour 

Type of Claimant: Corporate 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $612.25

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident: On December 16, 2017, a 45’ motor vessel sank into the Richardson Bay, a 

shallow, ecologically rich arm of the San Francisco Bay, a navigable waterway of the United 

States.

1

 The vessel contained over 170 gallons of diesel fuel and was actively discharging the 

fuel into Richardson Bay after coming in contact with a piling. The California Department of 

Fish and Wildlife were first on site, followed by the USCG Sector San Francisco, who responded 

to the incident as the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC). The vessel’s owner and operator, 

Mr. is cited as the Responsible Party (RP).2

Oil Spill Cleanup’s Influence on Claimant: The Claimant, Pelican Harbour, was notified of the 

incident by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, in its capacity as the State on Scene 

Coordinator (SOSC) authorizing them to serve as first responder for the spill. Pelican Harbour 

arrived on site and deployed a 160’ absorbent boom around the submerged vessel. The cleanup 

of the spill and the disposal of waste from the incident was monitored by the FOSC.3

 

The Claim: On January 23, 2018, Pelican Harbour submitted a claim to the National Pollution 

Funds Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of their uncompensated removal costs for equipment 

costs in the amount of $612.25. 

On January 23, 2018, NPFC notified Pelican Harbour that the RP would have to be invoiced for 

all costs claimed and provided the required 90 day time period to respond before the NPFC could 

properly adjudicate the claim. Pelican Harbour made presentment of their claim to the RP on 

January 23, 2018. On March 21, 2018, the Claimant states that she received a signed certified 

card for the invoice that she sent to the RP.4

 Upon examination of the signed certified card

receipt, the NPFC determined that it cannot verify that the signature on the card is that of 

, the Resposible Party, as the signature does not match the RP’s signature. 

Additionally, the invoicing from the Claimant was mailed to a General Delivery site for the 

homeless. Based on the fact that the address is not the RP’s residence since he is homeless but 

the only viable address available, the NPFC has determined presentment made to the last known 

adderess on January 23, 2018. The 90 day time period from the date of the invoicing was April 

23, 2018. Based on the failure to demonstrate the RP actually signed for the certified mail, the 

NPFC will move forward with the adjudication of the claim.5

 

1 See NRC Case Number 1199864 dated December 16, 2017.

2 See reimbursement request dated January 23, 2018. 3 See Email from MST1 to Claims Manager dated March 19, 2018. 4 See Certified green card signed by unknown party dated March 21, 2018.

5 See Claim 918021-0001 RP Notification Letter dated January 23, 2018.
4

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 -
5

(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. MST1 of USCG Sector San Francisco, as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator’s 

Represetnative (FOSCR) for this incident, determined that the actions undertaken by Pelican 

Harbour 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)6

; 

2. The Claimant provided information supporting this 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 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 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. 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 to be consistent with the NCP in accordance with the 

NPFC delegation of authority for determination of consistency, and (4) whether the costs were 

adequately documented and reasonable. 

The NPFC has determined that the costs incurred by the Claimant for the purchase of 4 cases of 

5”x10’ sorbent booms were reasonable and necessary to mitigate the effects of the incident and in 

accordance with the SOSC’s direction advising the Claimant to respond to the incident. Upon review 

of the information provided by the Claimant, the NPFC has determined that the payable costs were 

 

6 See Email from MST1 to Claim Manager dated March 19, 2018.