4

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number : 916001-0001 

Claimant : National Response Corporation 

Type of Claimant : Corporate 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $332,729.60 

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: On March 20, 2015, at approx 0215, the United States Coast Guard 

(USCG) Sector Los Angeles/Long Beach, Marine Environmental Response Branch (MER) 

received a notification of a discharge of heavy fuel oil at Long Beach Anchorage B-4. The 

discharge occurred when the M/V MARBELLA CARRIER had a burp in its starboard fuel 

oil tank 43 (STBD FO TK43) during a transfer of bunker fuel, causing oil to discharge out of 

a “gooseneck” vent, onto the vessel’s deck and over the containment area. Approximately 

100 Liters of product ran down the starboard side of the vessel, into Long Beach Harbor, 

oiling the M/V MARBELLA CARRIER and servicing barge LILY BLAIR, creating sheen,

and moving toward the jetty rip-rap on the south side of the Long Beach Naval Base. Long 

Beach Harbor is a navigable waterway of the US.1

Witt O’Brien’s (WOB) was contracted by the M/V MARBELLA CARRIER’s operator, 

Norbulk Shipping (UK) Ltd., to serve as the Incident Management Team (IMT) Qualified 

Individual (QI). WOB in turn hired National Response Corporation Environmental Services 

(NRC) on March 21, 2015, as its Oil Spill Response Organization (OSRO) for oil recovery 

operations.2 

Oil removal operations were initiated by NRC on March 21, 2015. MER worked with the 

Responsible Party and WOB to approve a removal action plan, including safely separating 

the barge and vessel so that clean up could be completed and both the vessel and barge could 

be decontaminated. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CAL-F&W) and 

NOAA National Marine Fisheries Representative were also present.3

The USCG issued a Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) to Giralda Shipping Corp., the owner 

of the M/V MARBELLA CARRIER, as the Responsible Party (RP).

4

 This incident was 

reported to the National Response Center via Report # 1111337 on March 21, 2015. 

 

1 See, Email dated December 22, 2015 from Lt of Sector Los Angeles/Long Beach; Statement of 

, MST3, USCG; MISLE Activity Id: 5087830 - reporting that the spill was caused by “an automatic stop 

valve failure”. 2 See, NRC Authorization to Proceed (ATP) dated 21 March 2015. National Response Corporation Environmental 

Services is a wholly owned subsidiary of the claimant, National Response Corporation. The two entities are jointly 

referred to herein as “NRC”.

3 See, ICS 201-CG 4 See, NOFI, issued March 21, 2015, to Giralda Shipping Co. Email dated December 22, 2015 from Lt 

of Sector Los Angeles/Long Beach.
5

2. Description of removal actions performed, as reported by the Claimant: The Claimant, 

NRC, has asserted the following facts in support of its claim. On March 21, 2015, NRC 

arrived at the site of the incident, meeting the USCG Federal On-Scene Coordinator’s 

representative (FOSCR) on-board the M/V MARBELLA CARRIER. NRC was directed by 

the USCG to place boom along the Navy Mole rip-rap, as it was observed that fuel was

heading that direction. In response, NRC placed 1800’ of boom, and an additional 800’ of 

boom was placed to complete booming to the east end of the rip-rap. NRC small boats were 

also used to tow “U” sweeps with absorbent boom to collect the free-floating oil. 

Additionally, snare boom was placed inside of the hard boom as passive collection while 

NRC collected the free-floating oil around open water. NRC personnel and Jon-boats arrived 

to clean the hull of the barge. A night crew was arranged by NRC to continue operations in 

order to expedite the cleanup. 

On day two, March 22, 2015, NRC completed the vessel and barge hull/oil stain cleaning and 

the M/V MARBELLA CARRIER and barge LILY BLAIR were both released. On day 

three, March 23, 2015, NRC recovered the snare boom inside of the harbor boom, and, once 

that was completed, NRC removed the harbor boom. According to the Claimant’s 

documentation, the decon station was set up at the Long Beach Marine yard, and decon of all 

harbor boom, boats and hand tools was conducted from days 4-10 to complete the project.5 

According to the claim, NRC continued to provide services through May 15, 2015.6

3. Description of removal actions performed, as reported by the FOSC representative:

The following is the description of the removal actions, as reported by the Federal On-Scene 

Coordinator’s representative (FOSCR), LT , to the National Pollution Funds 

Center (NPFC).7

"On March 20, 2015: At approx 0215, MER received a notification of a discharge 

of Heavy Fuel Oil from a gooseneck during a bunker transfer at Long Beach 

Anchorage B-4. The M/V MARBELLA CARRIER had a burp in its STBD FO 

TK43 causing oil to discharge out the gooseneck and over the containment area. 

Approx 33 Gallons (100 Liters) of product ran down the STBD side of the vessel 

into the Long Beach Harbor, creating a sheen. Boom was laid out in an attempt to 

contain the discharge. Witt O' Brien's was contracted on behalf of the RP and 

hired National Response Corporation Environmental Services (NRC) as its OSRO 

for oil recovery operations. Most of the discharge was contained onboard the 

vessel and barge LILY BLAIR as well as along the jetty Riprap on the south side 

of the Naval Base. Recovery operations were conducted. MER worked with the 

Responsible Party and Witt O’Brien’s to approve a plan that would safely 

separate the barge and vessel so that clean up could be completed and both the 

 

5 See, Email dated August 18, 2015 from ; NRC Case # 15-0338 Emergency Response log; NRC invoice 

# 624040 dated June 19, 2015; NRC invoice details sheets that accompanied the NRC invoice (29 pages); NRC 

Daily Work Report sheets for each day billed; third party invoices; and disposal manifests.

6 See, NRC Invoice # 624040; and NRC invoice details sheets which indicate work performed and were signed by 

WOB on May 11, 2015.

7 See, Email dated December 22, 2015 from Lt of Sector Los Angeles/Long Beach, including

attachments with amplifying information. See also, Email dated December 21, 2015 from FOSCR to the NPFC.
6

vessel and barge could be decontaminated. A NOFI was issued to the M/V 

MARBELLA CARRIER.

On March 21, 2015: MER continued to monitor the response and oversee a plan 

that would safely separate the barge and vessel so that clean up could be 

completed and both the vessel and barge could be decontaminated. A Unified 

Command was set up with California Fish & Wildlife (CAL F & W) who 

operated in its capacity as the State On-Scene Coordinator (SOSC), USCG 

FOSCR and an RP Representative. The command post was at the Navy MOL and 

the staging area was the NRC berth. NRC contractors maintained presence of 

waterside cleanup (vessels) while Patriot Environmental removed the soiled kelp 

near the riprap at the Navy MOL.

On March 22, 2015: MER personnel followed up on the M/V MARBELLA 

CARRIER. In the morning at approximately 0900, the barge LILY BLAIR was 

deemed successfully decontaminated and allowed to depart. Patriot 

Environmental was subcontracted to clean the impacted kelp and shoreline 

adjacent to the sea launch facility. Just before nightfall, the M/V MARBELLA 

CARRIER was deemed successfully decontaminated and the Captain of the Port 

Order (COTP) order was lifted and the vessel was allowed to depart. MER 

scheduled a meeting with Cal F&W at 0700 the next morning to further discuss 

the following morning’s shoreline clean up operations. 

On March 23, 2015: MER personnel conducted follow-up with the M/V 

MARBELLA CARRIER. MER personnel attended the daily brief with members 

from CAL F & W, NRC, Patriot, and Harbor Department, as well as Witt 

O'Brien’s to discuss the shoreline clean up. The shoreline hard boom was to 

remain in place until clean up was verified complete. MER would follow up later 

in the day. 

According to MER personnel involved, at this point remaining cleanup of 

shoreline was overseen by CAL F&W. From the FOSCR’s perspective, the ship 

was decontaminated and cleared, the enforcement action had been completed, 

cleanup actions were appropriate, and CAL F&W was overseeing the final 

shoreline cleanup. After the Coast Guard unit communicated with the CAL F&W 

Warden (as the State On Scene Coordinator (SOSC)) that was on the case, they 

signed off on the final beach cleanup on 24MAR15.”8, 9

4. Presentment to the Responsible Party: 

As noted above, Giralda Shipping Corp. and Norbulk Shipping (UK) Ltd. (Norbulk), 

respectively the owner and operator of the M/V MARBELLA CARRIER, are the 

 

8 See, Email dated December 22, 2015 from LT to NPFC. 9 See, Email dated December 22, 2015 from CAL F & W to FOSCR confirming end date of the Federal response. 

Additional response activities may have followed at the request of CAL F & W. See Email dated August 18, 2015, 

from .
7

Responsible Parties for the incident.10 On June 19, 2015, the Claimant, NRC, presented all 

invoices and documentation associated with this claim to the RP via NRC Invoice # 624040 

in the amount of $517,663.44. On July 5, 2015, WOB recommended to Norbulk that NRC be 

paid $511,424.69. 

On August 19, 2015, following negotiations and audits on both sides, Norbulk paid NRC 

$200,000 “under protest” in a good faith effort to try to resolve the dispute. On September 

28, 2014, NRC sent Norbulk NRC Invoice # 624040REV dated September 24, 2015, in the 

total amount due of $332,729.60. The revised NRC invoice was sent to the RP via a cover 

explanatory letter dated September 28, 2015 stating that the revised invoice reflected the 

$200,000 good faith payment and late payment interest of $18,731.45.11

NRC’s claim against the Fund was presented to the NPFC by the Credit and Collections 

Manager of NRC, Mr. , and was received by NPFC on October 6, 2015. 

Following receipt of this claim submission, the NPFC sent an RP Notification Letter to the 

RP dated October 7, 2015. On October 20, 2015, the RP, through its legal representative, 

Mr. of McKasson & Klein LLP, acknowledged receipt of the NPFC’s notification 

and claim information and requested an extension of time to respond. The NPFC granted an 

extension, giving the RP until November 30, 2015 to respond with any information it wished 

the NPFC consider.12 On December 7, 2015, the RP sent four (4) emails with attachments to 

NPFC in response to the NPFC’s RP Notification Letter. The RP also provided the NPFC 

with an Expert Report titled “Analysis of Response Costs: Marbella Carrier 21 March 2015 

Spill in Long Beach, CA”, prepared by Dr. on behalf of the RP 

counsel. In the report, Dr. analyzed the NRC documentation and data, conducted an 

independent investigation of factors that may have influenced the costs of the response, and 

performed statistical analyses and projections. Dr. also compared NRC’s spill response 

cleanup costs to those of similar spills in California and elsewhere.13 Dr. concluded 

that the claimed costs were “about 10 times the estimated costs and about five times the cost 

estimate that included extenuating circumstances.”

THE CLAIMANT AND THE CLAIM:

On October 6, 2015, NRC submitted a claim for its uncompensated removal costs associated 

with cleanup of the M/V MARBELLA CARRIER oil spill incident to the Oil Spill Liability 

Trust Fund (OSLTF or the Fund). NRC’s claim asserts that the RP failed to pay NRC in full, 

and that it has incurred uncompensated removal costs in the total remaining sum certain 

amount of $332,729.60 for services NRC provided from March 21, 2015 through May 11, 

2015.14 (As noted above, the RP did make a partial “good faith” payment to the Claimant in 

 

10 See, NOFI, issued March 21, 2015, to Giralda Shipping Co.; Email dated December 22, 2015 from Lt 

 of Sector Los Angeles/Long Beach. 11 See, Letter dated September 28, 2015, from NRC Senior Vice President, ; Letter dated December 7, 

2015, from RP counsel . 12 See, October 20, 2015 email from NPFC to RP Counsel granting ext. to produce information. 13 See, November 16, 2015, Expert Report “Analysis of Response Costs: Marbella Carrier 21 March 2015 Spill in 

Long Beach, CA” by Dr. 14 See, NRC Invoice Daily Logs and Invoice Detail sheets which accompanied NRC invoice # 624040. Last day 

worked documented by a Daily Work Report was May 11, 2015.
8

the amount of $200,000.00, which was received by NRC on August 19, 2015.)15 NRC 

included a copy of its vendor rate schedule, in the claim submission.

APPLICABLE LAW: 

Under OPA 90, 33 USC § 2702(a), each responsible party for a vessel or facility from which 

oil is discharged, or which poses the substantial threat of a discharge of oil, into or upon the 

navigable waters or adjoining shorelines is liable for the removal costs and damages 

described in 33 USC § 2702(b) that result from the incident. The responsible party’s liability 

includes the “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, at 33 USC § 2701(31), 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 such 

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]. 

Under 33 USC §2713(a), all claims for removal costs or damages must (with certain 

exceptions not applicable here) be presented first to the responsible party or guarantor of the 

designated source of the incident. Then, as provided in 33 U.S.C. §2713(d), “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. 

 15 See, September 28, 2015 letter from NRC to Norbulk Shipping (UK) Ltd.
9

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 Director, 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.” 

In addition, 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. FOSC coordination was established for the project via USCG Sector Los Angeles/Long 

Beach for services provided through March 24, 2015,16 in accordance with 33 U.S.C. § 

1321(d)(2) and the National Contingency Plan; 

2. The incident involved a discharge of “oil” as defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. § 2701(23), 

to navigable water; 

3. The incident, however, did not pose a substantial threat to the public health and welfare, 

so a responsible party response action was appropriate (see 40 CFR 300.305(d)); 

4. A Responsible Party was identified and subsequently notified by the FOSC. 33 U.S.C. § 

2701(32); 

5. The claim was submitted timely, within the six year statute of limitations in 33 U.S.C. § 

2712(h)(1) 

6. In accordance with 33 CFR § 136.105(e)(12), the Claimant has certified that no suit has 

been filed in court for the claimed uncompensated removal costs;

7. The claimant presented the claimed removal costs to the RP beginning in June, 2015, 

prior to submitting the claim to NPFC. The NPFC also notified the RP about the claim, 

and the RP’s counsel, , Esq., has provided additional information respecting 

the claim. 

8. The NPFC Claims Manager has reviewed all documentation submitted by the Claimant 

with the claim, all documentation submitted on behalf of the RP, and further 

 

16 See USCG Sector Los Angeles/Long Beach Case Report # 719909, opened 3/21/2015 and email dated December 

22, 2015 from SOSC to the FOSC confirming end date of response as March 24, 2015.
10

documentation provided by USCG Sector Los Angeles/Long Beach, and has determined 

which of the removal costs were incurred for removal actions in accordance with the 

National Contingency Plan (NCP) and whether the costs for these actions were 

reasonable and allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205. 

B. Analysis:

The NPFC Claims Division (CA) reviewed the actual cost invoices and dailies to determine

whether the Claimant had incurred all costs claimed. The review focused on: (1) whether the 

actions taken were compensable “removal actions” under OPA 90 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 directed by the FOSC, or determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the NCP, and 

(4) whether the costs were adequately documented and reasonable. The Claims Manager 

validated the costs incurred and determined what were reasonable and necessary and 

performed in accordance with the NCP.

The NPFC reviewed the contract between the Claimant, NRC, and the RP, including the 

NRC rate schedule that was in place at the time the services were provided. The NPFC based 

its adjudication of the costs claimed on provisions from the NRC contract and rate schedule, 

the NRC invoicing, the daily field logs, associated supporting documentation, the WOB Spill 

Management Team audit of the NRC invoicing and third party invoicing, along with the 

associated receipts and proof of payment for those actions performed. 

WOB was retained by the RP, as mentioned earlier, was charged with hiring NRC as the 

response contractor on behalf of the RP, and monitored NRC’s removal actions on behalf of 

the RP as part of the Unified Command structure for this incident. WOB then performed an 

audit of the NRC’s charges to the RP and made a determination on behalf of the RP for what 

charges it deemed appropriate.17 

The NPFC also considered all evidence presented by the RP including, but not limited to, 

Norbulk’s response letter to the NPFC dated December 7, 2015, including all of its 

associated attachments, as well as an email from the RP to the NPFC dated January 6, 2016 

with a supplemental Expert Report prepared by Dr. , PhD, regarding 

weather during the incident and response. 

The Claimant performed cleanup utilizing personnel, boat assets, vehicles, containment 

boom and pads, various response supplies, equipment, and roll off bins. In addition, the 

Claimant performed disposal. 

Upon receipt of this claim submission, the NPFC sent an RP Notification Letter to Norbulk 

Shipping (UK) Ltd.18 Norbulk responded to the NPFC’s notification on December 7, 2015 

via its legal representative, Mr. of McKasson & Klein LLP. Mr. response 

 

17 See, WOB letter dated July 5, 2015, whereby WOB reports its audit findings and recommends the amount to be 

approved and paid by the RP as $511,424.69. 18 See RP Notification Letter dated October 7, 2015.
11

consisted of a cover letter and eleven (11) exhibits. In summary, the RP states that it believes 

NRC’s request for in excess of $300,000.00, which is over and above the $200,000.00 good 

faith payment the RP made in August of 2015, is a violation of any notion of reasonableness. 

As such, Norbulk has urged the NPFC to either reduce the amount allowed to NRC to below 

the $200,000.00 payment already paid by Norbulk; or deny any further payment to NRC.19

Based on the concerns raised by Norbulk via its legal representative, the NPFC performed an 

independent investigation into the response, the actions performed by NRC and by WOB’s 

Response Management in its capacity as the Spill Management Team (SMT) for Norbulk, the 

level of effort used in responding to this incident, as well as the actual end date of the OPA 

90 removal action as reported by the FOSC/USCG Sector Los Angeles/Long Beach, Marine 

Environmental Response Branch (MER). NPFC considered the RP's expert report, but did 

not find it persuasive in light of the FOSC’s report, WOB’s audit, and the NPFC's prior 

experience adjudicating removal cost claims by NRC in the same geographic area for other 

vessel incidents. 

In particular, the NPFC found NRC’s charges for this incident to be in a similar range, and 

under similar circumstances and pricing metrics, to other NRC incident responses in the same 

geographic area. The NPFC obtained written documentation from LT of 

Sector LA/LB in his capacity as the FOSCR.20 The NPFC also received a written statement 

from MST3 who was the initial pollution responder on behalf of the FOSC.21 

Finally, the FOSCR provided the NPFC with an email from of California 

Fish & Wildlife, who was the State On-Scene Coordinator (SOSC) for this incident, stating 

when the actual end date of the OPA 90 response was.22

Based on a review of all information provided and obtained, and except as found further 

below, the NPFC finds that the majority of the claimed costs are reasonable removal costs 

and reimbursable from the Fund. The costs are for actions taken by NRC to minimize and 

mitigate the effects of the incident, and were taken at the direction of the FOSC. The NPFC 

has further determined that these costs were billed in accordance with the rate schedule and 

contractual agreements in place at the time the services were rendered, and were determined 

by the FOSCR to be consistent with the NCP. NRC demonstrated that the actions it 

performed mitigated the effects of the oil that was released from the vessel and discharged 

into the waterway. Additionally, USCG Sector Los Angeles/Long Beach confirmed the 

actions that were undertaken by the Claimant. 

The NPFC has determined, however, that some of the costs invoiced to Norbulk were 

excessive in nature for what would be considered reasonable. According to the invoicing 

provided, NRC had both equipment and personnel on-scene through May 15, 2015. 

However, documentation provided by the FOSCR23 states that, by March 23, 2015, the 

vessel was decontaminated and cleared, the enforcement action had been completed, cleanup 

 

19 See RP response to NPFC dated December 7, 2015 with all associated exhibits. 20 See email statement from LT to of NPFC dated December 22, 2015. 21 See Statement of MST , Initial Pollution Investigator on scene and identified as attachment to the CG 

MISLE Case # 719909. 22 See email from to MST2 of Sector LA/LB dated December 22, 2015. 23 See email from LT , USCG, to , NPFC, dated December 22, 2015.
12

actions were appropriate, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (SOSC) was 

overseeing the final shoreline cleanup. 

Further, the SOSC signed off on the final beach cleanup the next day, and confirmed that, 

“March 24th was the last day of cleanup and all remaining booms [were] removed by the 

contractor,”24 The FOSC confirmed this date when it provided the information to the NPFC 

as the end date of the response. Additionally, NRC, in its own claim submission,25

acknowledged that demobilization of its equipment was over a three-day period at any given 

time. It is unclear why the Claimant performed demobilization of this incident over such a 

long time period, and as such, it appears that doing so was more of a business decision rather 

than a necessity. The NPFC therefore, finds it reasonable to allow two consecutive days after 

the FOSC determined the cleanup was completed (24 March, 2015). Therefore March 25-26, 

2015, is granted as reasonable time for demobilization of NRC’s equipment. 

As part of the NPFC’s investigation into the incident, the NPFC looked at claims that had 

been presented to the NPFC by NRC for other vessel oil spill incidents it responded to within 

the State of California. Two incidents in particular were taken into consideration when the 

NPFC determined how many days are appropriate for demobilization. NPFC claim # 

909076-001 was a claim from NRC for a vessel spill response to approximately 42 gals of 

heavy fuel oil discharged at Los Angeles Pier 49. NRC took a total of two days for 

demobilization for that response. In NPFC claim # A10005-001 NRC responded to a vessel 

spill of 400-800 gallons of oil. It took a total of five days for demobilization for that 

incident. Therefore, based on a preponderance of the credible evidence, the NPFC finds that 

two days of demobilization for this incident is fair and reasonable. 

Based on the foregoing and the fact that the costs themselves were signed for, audited and 

approved by the RP’s Spill Management Team, WOB, the NPFC determines that all OPA

90-compensable removal costs related to personnel, materials and equipment incurred from 

March 21-26, 2015 are reasonable, and that the claimed costs for that period are payable by 

the OSLTF. The remainder of the claimed personnel and materials/equipment costs are 

denied. Should NRC seek reconsideration of the denied costs, it would need to provide an 

explanation and supporting documentation demonstrating why such costs were reasonable, 

and why they were necessary above and beyond when the FOSC deemed the removal action 

complete. 

The NPFC hereby determines that the Claimant incurred $217,361.21 in uncompensated 

removal costs; and that amount is payable by the OSLTF as full compensation for the 

reimbursable removal costs incurred by NRC and submitted to the NPFC under claim 

#916001-0001. The NPFC denies $115,368.39 in costs that are either (1) for activities after 

March 26, 2015, (2) not supported by the record, or (3) for costs the NPFC determined were 

not OPA 90-compensable removal costs. See the NPFC Summary of Costs spreadsheet for an 

itemization of all costs approved and denied. 

 

24 See emails between Lt. , CA DFW, and PO , USCG, dated December 17 and 22, 

2015. 25 See email from Mr. , NRC, to Mr. , NRC, dated August 18, 2015, and submitted with the 

claim by the Claimant on October 6, 2015.
13

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $217,361.21 as full compensation for 

the claimed removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim 

916001-0001. 

AMOUNT: $217,361.21 

 

Claim Supervisor:

Date of Supervisor’s review: 3/29/16 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: