3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 915105-0001 

Claimant: Global Diving & Salvage, Inc. 

Type of Claimant: Corporate 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $15,577.74 

FACTS: 

Incident:

On November 28, 2014 a 40-foot wood, trawler took on water and sank at its berth in Glen Cove 

Marina in Vallejo, California discharging an oil sheen into harbor waters. Glen Cove Marina 

flows into the Carquinez Strait that flows into San Pablo Bay, a navigable waterway of the U.S. 

Responsible Party:

The Responsible Party (RP) for the oil spill is of , 

CA 94590. was identified by the USCG Federal On-Scene Coordinator’s 

Representative (FOSC-R) as the owner of the 40-foot trawler (hillside CF 1466 BL) that 

discharged oil into Glenn Cove Marina. Mr. hired Global Diving and Salvage to 

remediate the oil spill on November 28, 2013.

Claimant and Claim:

On September 2, 2015 the NPFC received an Optional OSLTF Claim Form for Global Diving 

and Salvage’s (Global) uncompensated removal costs claim in the amount of $15,577.74. 

Claimant submitted a copy of its notification letter addressed to Mr. dated April 20, 

2015. The letter informed Mr. that he was the RP and as such, he has financial 

liability under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 for removal costs. Claimant included a copy of a 

US Postal Service certified mail receipt signed and stamped April 23, 2015. Mr. 

failed to pay the invoice or respond to the Claimant within the 90-day period provided under the 

OPA90 for the RP to respond therefore Global presented its claim to the Oil Spill Liability Trust 

Fund (Fund). 

Federal On-Scene Coordination:

The Federal On-Scene Coordinator – Representative (FOSC-R) was LT. , of Coast 

Guard Sector San Francisco. 

Scope of Removal Activities:

 

1 See Global Diving and Salvage Project Agreement signed by Mr. on December 1, 2014 
4

Claimant deployed up to five Hazmat response personnel, a response truck and trailer to the 

incident location. Claimant’s personnel deployed containment boom around the vessel and used 

absorbent pads and boom to clean up the oil. Fresh absorbents were exchanged during the five 

days from November 28, 29, 30 and, 31, 2014. Claimant’s personnel monitored the vessel 

during this time and recovered oily debris prior to the commencement of salvage operations. The 

Claimant defueled the fuel tanks after the vessel was raised.

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.
5

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 Facts

1. Coast Guard Sector San Fransisco in its capacity as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator 

(FOSC) for this incident, oversaw the removal actions and determined that the actions 

undertaken by Global Diving were consistent with the NCP. 33 U.S.C. §§ 

2702(b)(1)(B) and 2712(a)(4);

2. The incident involved a substantial threat of a discharge of “oil” as defined in OPA 90,33 

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

3. The claim was properly presented to the responsible party, who denied the claim;

4. 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;

5. The claim was submitted within the six year period of limitations for removal costs 

claims. 33 U.S.C.§2712(h)(1);;

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

the claim and determined that the majority of removal costs presented were for actions in 

accordance with the NCP and that costs for these actions were indeed reasonable and 

allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205 as set forth below.

B. Analysis

The NPFC Claims Manager 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 
6

costs were incurred as a result of these actions; (3) whether the costs were adequately 

documented and reasonable.

FOSC Coordination:

The NPFC Claims Manager contacted the acting FOSC-R who was on Permanent Change of 

Station from Sector San Francisco. Additionally, the Claims Manager followed up in an 

email with the MST3 who was on-scene. When the Claims Manager asked about the scope 

of the removal activities, the MST3 deferred to the acting FOSC-R.2 On September 24, 

2015, the acting FOSC-R emailed the Claims Manager stating that he approved all activities 

to remove the oil and threat of further contamination and specifically stated that he did not 

authorize towing or removing the vessel from the water.3

Late Fees:

After the RP failed to pay Claimant’s invoices, the Claimant submitted its claim to the NPFC 

for uncompensated removal costs seeking $15,577.74. Claimant submitted two invoices. 

The first # 12544 for $6,801.15 and the second is for $7,500.00 for a total of $14,301.15. 

Because the RP failed to pay Claimant’s invoice timely, the Claimant then added $1,276.59 

in late fees which increased the RP’s reimbursement request to $15,577.74 ($14,301.15 + 

$1,276.59 = $15,577.74).4

 Finance charges or interest added to an invoice are not OPA 

compensable because these charges are not in response to an oil spill or deemed OPA 

compensable; therefore, the NPFC denies $1,276.59 in late fees as a non-OPA compensable 

expense.

Claimant’s Invoices:

The Claims Manager created a spreadsheet of Claimant’s invoice #125414 to compare 

invoice to Claimant’s published rates and with its daily activity logs (dailies). Invoice 

#125414 dated November 28, 2014 through December 1, 2015 for $6,801.15 represented five 

days of labor, equipment and material. All rates charged on invoice match with Global’s 

published rates. Claimant submitted daily activity logs (dailies) showing labor, equipment 

and materials deployed each day. 

Global charged two employees, four hours at its Premium Time rate of $78 per hour for a 

total of $624. Claimant’s rate sheet explains, “Once a worker has accrued four hours of 

overtime during a Monday through Friday shift, Premium Time will be charged for each 

additional hour worked outside of 0700 and 1530 hours.”5 Review of Claimant’s dailies 

show that the two employees clocked in at 1630 hours and worked till 2030 hours, which is 

within the time period specified on Claimant’s rate sheet.

Daily entries match with Claimant’s labor, material and items as charged on invoice #125414 

with the exception of three items that the Claims Manager could not identify on the rate 

 2 See email from MST3 dated September 4, 2015

3 See FOSC-R Additional Information received email dated September 24, 2015 4 See Claimant’s rate sheet finance costs 

5 See Claimant’s rate sheet under “Notes” 
7

sheet.6 The NPFC denies three items totaling $290 therefore see the itemized spreadsheet for 

details pertaining to these line items. 

Additionally, the Claims Manager requested a copy of Global’s 2014 published rates and 

evidence that Claimant paid the waste disposal invoice. Claimant provided a copy of its 

published rates and a copy of its cancelled check from Fremouw Environmental Services.7 

Claimant noted on its invoice a waste disposal fee of 1.11% for a total of $117.15. 

Invoice #125414 includes labor and equipment costs relating to towing the vessel and 

hauling it from the water on December 1, 2014. Claimant charged for three Environmental 

Techs at its overtime rate of $60 per hour for 1.5 hours of overtime for a total of $270 (1.5 x 

$60 = $90 x 3 = $270). Additionally, Claimant charged one supervisor overtime at $86 per 

hour for 1.5 hours for a total of $129. All overtime charges on December 1, 2014 total $399. 

The FOSC-R specifically did not approve the towing and hauling of the vessel from the 

water since the fuel had been removed.8

 Therefore, the NPFC denies $399 in overtime. 

Claimant informed us that its second invoice #125294 totaling $7,500 relates to daily 

activities on December 1, 2014. The Claims Manager could not identify $7,500 of removal 

activities on Claimant’s daily for December 1, 2014. Claimant related in a follow-up phone 

conversation with the Claims Manager that the second invoice was for salvage costs.9

 The 

Claims Manager finds that invoice #125294 was for salvage costs and is not considered as 

compensable removal costs as defined under OPA and its guiding regulations. Additionally, 

the FOSC-R did not approve of towing and hauling the vessel form the water. The NPFC 

denies payment of Claimant’s invoice #12529 for $7,500. 

C. Determined Amount:

The NPFC determines that the OSLTF will pay $6,112.15 as full compensation for the 

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

915105-0001. All costs claimed are for charges incurred 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 Claimant.

 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 10/23/15 

Supervisor Action: Approved

Supervisor’s Comments: 

 

6 See NPFC Cost Summary spreadsheet attached

7 See Claimant’s emails dated September 4 and September 14, 2015 and September 30, 2015 replying to Additional 

Information requested 

8 See FOSC-R Additional Information received email dated September 24, 2015 9 See Claimant’s email dated September 30, 2015