Claim Number: 

Claimant: 

Type of Claim: 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: 

BACKGROUND 

CLAIM SUMMARY I DETERMINATION 

N12062-0002 

Michael and Deana Chiasson 

R~al or Personal Property 

$44,500.00 

On August 29, 2012, Hurricane Isaac made landfall over various states, including Louisiana, for 

over 60 hours causing substantial flooding and multiple waterway closures. Sector New Orleans 

opened FPN N12062. Initial assessments discovered over 90 actual and potential pollution and 

hazardous material incidents. 

On September 2, 2012, Sector New Orleans stood up a Unified Command with EPA, LOSCO, 

and LDEQ, focusing on pollution and hazardous material incidents. In collaboration with Oil 

Spill Responders (OSROs) and partners from the Unified Command, the operations section 

responded and mitigated several incidents, while assessing potential and /or actual p.ollution 

incidents .. Operations were conducted on a daily basis. 

The Unified Command with the assistance of the NOAA SSC continuously assessed the impact 

of pollution on the Louisiana shoreline. 1 

CLAIM 

On September 25, 2012, Michael and Deana Chiasson (Claimant) submitted documentation to 

the NPFC requesting reimbursement for their removal costs ($7,500.00)~ and real or personal 

property damage costs in ($37,000.00) for a total sum certain of $44,500.00 All of these losses 

are claimed to have resulted from oil spilled during Hurricane Isaac. 

have a home in Louisiana. The claimant indicates that the facility 

responsible for the claimed damages was Edward Oil Company. The United States Coast Guard 

Marine Safety Laboratory Oil Sample Analysis Report, dated September 14, 2012, concludes 

that the samples talcen from the scene "are not derived from [MC252 Deepwater Horizon] 

DWH" oil, and additionally they "do not contain enough petroleum oil for conclusive 

comparison to the source sample" obtained from Edward Oil Company.2 

Claimant has not communicated with the RP nor has the Claimant submitted their claim to the 

RP.3 

1 FPN Nl2062, SITREP-POL ONE, ACTUAL, HURRJCANE ISAAC RESPONSE 2 See, Oil Spill Analysis Report, Sector New Orleans, Case/Activity Number 4438391, Marine Safety Laboratory 

Case Number 12-237, dated September 14, 2012: 

3 See, Optional OSLTF Claim Fonn, line item# 4- 5. 

-·- --- --- ------ -~--- ---- ------ - --·-- - -- ---- ------ -- ---------- -------------- - - ---------- ---------- --------~---- ----------------------- - ------------------ -------- ------- ---------- ---- -------

2 
Claimant's sum certain of $44,500.00 is based on the following alleged losses from Hurricane 

Isaac and the subsequent alleged contamination by Edward Oil Company. A summary of 

Claimant's sum certain is as follows4

: 

Description Costs Comments 

2 loads of rocks and labor to spread and 

Driveway $3,200.00 discard the contaminated rocks 

Pressure Washer $2,800.00 Includes the cost of paying someone to help 

Claimant states that he cannot put a price on 

Front and Back Yard this line item. 

Plants and Trees $12,000.00 Plants+ labor 

2 Doors on Shed and 

Walls $2,000.00 Materials+ labor 

Riding.Lawn Mower $2,700.00 Replacement 

Deck $5,400.00 Wood Deck Replacement 

Pool Deck $2,500.00 Replacement 

Hot Tub $6,400.00 Replacement 

$12.00 an hour (Contractor name not 

Removal $7,500.00 provided) 

Total Loss $44,500.00 Alleged Loss 

Total Claimed $44,500.00 

APPLICABLE LAW: 

Under OP A 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 OP A 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)(l)(B). 

"Oil'' is defined in relevant part, at 33 USC§ 2701(23), to mean "oil of any kind or in any fonn, 

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". 

4 See, Claimant's Narrative 

- --- -------- -- _____ ___:__ _____ --- ____________________ :___._ ------ -----------~- ---- -------------- ---------- ----~- -------

3 
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 "Ifa 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.lOS(b) each claim must be in writing, for a sum certain for each category of 

uncompensated damages or removal costs resulting from an incident. Ii::t 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. 

Removal 

Under 33 CFR 136.203, "a claimant must establish -

(a) That the actions taken were necessary to prevent, minll:nize, 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 detennined 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]. 

Real or Personal Property 

Under 33 CFR 136.213(a) a claim for injury to, or economic losses resulting from the destruction 

of, real or personal property may be presented only by a claimant either owning or leasing the 

property. 

Under 33 CFR 136.215(a) In addition to the requirements of Subparts A and B of this pa.rt, a 

claimant must establishJ--- -~ --- - ------- 4 

1 
(1) An ovmership or leasehold interest in the property; 

(2) That the property was injured or destroyed; 

(3) The cost ofrepaii or replacement; and 

( 4) The value of the property both before and after injury occurred. 

Under 33 CFR 136.217(a) the amount of compensation allowable for damaged property is the 

lesser of-

(1) Actual or estimated net cost of repairs necessary to restore the property to substantially 

· the same condition which existed immediately before the damage; 

(2) The difference between value ofthe property before and after the damage; or 

(3) The replacement value. 

DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

Analysis 

The documentation that was provided by the Claimant failed to demonstrate Claimant's loss in 

respect to the alleged damages. Therefore, on March 26, 2013, the NPFC reached out to Mr. 

by telephone and explained to him what was needed in order to support his claim and 

advised that the NPFC would follow up with a letter. The NPFC sent a 

letter requesting additional information, via certified mail, 5 and articulated that certain 

requirements had to be met in order to support their claim. The letter also provided the Claimant 

with the NPFC Claims Adjudication website. 6 

As of April29, 2013, the NPFC had not heard from the Claimant and sent an email to 

, asking for the supporting documentation that was requested in the previous 

March 26, 2013, letter, so that the Fund could move forward with the adjudication process. In 

the email, the NPFC asked ifthe Claimant had any questions or concerns. To date, the NPFC 

has not heard from the Claimant. 

After several attempts to acquire the necessary documentation the NPFC had no choice but to 

move forward with the adjudication of this claim on its ovm merits. 

The administrative record provides no evidence that this claim has been properly presented to the 

RP (Edwards Oil Company). OP A provides that except under certain circumstances, a claim for 

removal costs or damages must be first presented to the responsible party or guarantor. 33 

U.S.C. § 2713(a). . 

For a claim to be OPA compensable it must show that the damages are directly caused by the oil 

in the water. The documentation that was provided to the Fund lacks that evidence. "Oil" is 

defined at 33 U.S.C. § 2701(23), to mean "oil of any kind or in any form, including but not 

limited to, petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other than dredged 

5 The NPFC received the signed certified mail receipt on April 14, 2013. 6 See, letter to Claimant from the NPFC, dated March 26; 2013. 

5 
I 

I 

l 

I 

spoil, but does not include petroleum, including crude oil or any fraction thereof, which is 

specifically listed or designated as a hazardous substance under subparagraphs (A) through (F) of 

section 101 (14) of the Comprehensive Enviromnental Response Compensation, and Liability 

Act (42 USC 960 1) and which is subject to the provisions of the Act." 

Removal 

This claim lacks substantial documentation to support their removal claim as required by 0 PA. 7 

Also, Claim.ant's documentation fails to provide the name of the contractors used to remove the 

oil as well as invoices and proof of payment to support the $7,500.00 in removal costs. The Oil 

Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF), which is admjnistered by the NPFC, is available, pursuant to 

33 USC§§ 2712(a)(4) and 2713 and the claims regulations at 33 CFR Part 136, to pay claims for 

uncompensated removal costs that are determined to be consistent with the National Contingency 

Plan an~ uncompensated damages. 

Real or Personal Property 

The Claimant established that the property was damaged by providing pictures; however, it is 

difficult for the NPFC to ascertain whether .the damage to the property was caused by the flood 

waters, oil, or mixed substances. Additionally, the claimant has not established an ownership or 

leasehold interest in the property, the cost of repair or replacement or the value of the property 

both before and after the. injury occurred8

. · 

Conclusion 

The Claimant bears the burden of providing all evidence, information, and documentation 

·deemed necessary by the Director, NPFC, to support the claim. 33 CFR 136.105(a)and 

136.105(e)(6). Claimant has failed to provide additional information required by the NPFC. 

Additionally, the Claimant has failed to demonstrate their alleged uncompensated removal costs 

and damages. Claimant also failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that the 

damages were caused solely by oil, as defined by OP A. Finally, Claimant has not responded to 

the NPFC's correspendence nor have they provided the documentation to support their claim. 

Therefore, this c . .. . ... 

Claim Supervis

Date of Supervisor's review: 5/23/201 ~ 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor's Comments: 

7 Per the National Contingency Plan, the Claimant must evidence that the oil was removed by HAZWOPER trained 

technicians and then disposed of properly by providing the disposal facility's invoice and proof of payment 

8 33CFR136§215 . 

---- ··---- ---------.------------6