CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 9/30/2010 

Claim Number : 910128-001

Claimant : Enterprise Marine Company, Inc. 

Type of Claimant : Corporate 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager :

Amount Requested : $19,860.00

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: The United States Coast Guard Sector San Francisco Case # 5045721

reports that on June 10, 2010, a heavy sheen was reported coming from a submerged 

crane barge in the Fulton Shipyard of the San Joaquin River, a navigable waterway of the 

US. The incident was reported to the National Response Center (NRC) on June 13, 2010 

at approximately 22:48 p.m. P.S.T. via report # 944071.2

 It was observed that 

approximately 10 gallons of fuel were observed in the water with the potential of over 

1000 gallons of various fuel oils. Representatives from USCG Sector San Francisco, 

California Fish and Game and the CA Office of Spill Prevention and Response (OSPR) 

were on-scene, as well as Mr. ATOP TRC, Inc., the Responsible Party (RP). 

The RP contracted with the claimant, Enterprise Marine Company, Inc. (EMC), as well 

as two other contractors (NRC and IMD), for cleaning and removal of the pollutants, as 

well as for salvage of the dredge. 

The RP was issued both a Notice of Federal Interest and a Notice of Violation by the 

USCG Sector San Francisco.3

2. Description of removal actions performed: The claimant, EMC, arrived on-scene June 

10, 2010, and conducted an initial site assessment. It was initially determined that EMC 

would assist NRC Environmental Services (NRCES), with the bulk of its work in 

pumping the water out of the dredge in order to re-float it. EMC began work the next 

day, June 11, 2010, by deploying 160 feet of boom and replacing saturated absorbents in 

the water with fresh ones. A dive team was deployed, and it was discovered that the 

forward hatches were closed but left unsecure. After these hatches were secured, EMC 

began the dewatering process by assisting NRCES in skimming oil form the main engine 

room. Approximately 1000 gallons of oil was pumped.4

 

On June 12, 2010, dewatering activities continued. Two fabricated hatches were also 

installed and two 3-inch pumps were deployed to dewater the submerged compartments. 

It was at this point that the USCG and local authorities recommended abandoning savage 

efforts and to begin focusing on oil mitigation.5

 

1

See Sector San Francisco’s Case Report # 504572, opened on 6/10/2010

2

 See NRC Report # 944071, opened 6/13/2010 

3

 See NOFI issued by MST2 , dated 6/10/2010 and NOV issued by MST1 on 

6/10/2010 

4

 See Witness Statement, written by MST2 on 7/27/2010 and the EMC Incident Report, submitted 

with the claim by EMC on 9/22/2010 

5

 See EMC Incident Report, submitted with the claim by EMC on 9/22/2010 
EMC continued to maintain pumps and water levels on June 13 and 14, 2010, removing 

and replacing soaked absorbents in the water. The recommended Baker Tanks were also 

installed. By the end of the day on June 14, 2010, approximately 464 gallons of oil had 

been pumped into the NRCES tanker and an additional 167 gallons of oil were pumped 

into the Baker Tank. 

EMC and NRCES began demobilizing from the scene on June 15, 2010 by removing all 

remaining soft oil boom and soaked absorbants. The Dredge was inspected by PO 

, USCG, and OSPR Captain . It was deemed safe, thus 

allowing EMC to conclude its activities pertaining to this incident.6

As of this date, the dredge has not been removed from the Fulton Shipyard.7

3. The Claim: On September 22, 2010, EMC submitted a removal cost claim to the 

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

amount of $19,860.00 for the services provided June 10 through June 15, 2010. This 

claim is for removal costs based on the rate schedule in place at the time services were 

provided. A copy of the signed and notarized general service agreement between EMC 

and the RP is provided in the claim submission.8

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

Sector San Francisco Case Report # 504572, a copy of NRC Report # 944071, a copy of 

the Witness Statement written by MST2 , a copy of the NOFI issued by 

MST2 , a copy of the EMC Incident Report, a copy of the signed EMC 

Start Work Authorization form, copies of online news articles, 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”.

 

6

 See EMC Incident Report, submitted with the claim by EMC on 9/22/2010 

7

 See email correspondence between Ms. , NPFC, and MST1 , date 9/29/2010 

8

 See General Agreement between Mr and EMC, submitted via email by the claimant on 9/29/2010 
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 FOSC coordination has been established via USCG Case # 504572.9

 

9

See USCG Sector San Francisco’s Case # 504572, opened 6/10/2010, and email from MST1 to 

Ms. , NPFC, dated 9/29/2010 
2. The incident involved the report of a 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 on time. 

5. Presentment of costs to the RP was made by the claimant, prior to the submission of the 

claim. The NPFC also made presentment of costs to the RP and to date the NPFC has 

received no response. 

6. 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: 

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 confirmed that the claimant did in fact perform a site assessment with 

USCG Sector San Francisco on June 10, 2010. The Claims Manager validated the costs 

incurred and determined they were reasonable and necessary and performed in accordance 

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). 

On that basis, the Claims Manager hereby determines that the claimant did in fact incur 

$19,860.00 of uncompensated removal costs and that that amount is properly payable by the 

OSLTF as full compensation for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the claimant and 

submitted to the NPFC under claim #910128-001. The claimant states that all costs claimed 

are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by the claimant for this incident from June 10 

through June 15, 2010. The claimant represents that all costs paid by the claimant are 

compensable removal costs, payable by the OSLTF as presented by the claimant. 

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $19,860.00 as full compensation for 

the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under 

claim 910128-001. All costs claimed are for charges paid for by the Claimant for removal 

actions as that term is defined in OPA and, are compensable removal costs, payable by the 

OSLTF as presented by the Claimant. 

AMOUNT: $19,860.00

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 

Supervisor Action: 

Supervisor’s Comments: