CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 921005-0001 

Claimant: Environmental Safety and Health Consulting Services, Inc. (ES&H) 

Type of Claimant: OSRO

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $36,330.75 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $36,330.75

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

At approximately 0659 local time on February 19, 2020 a discharge of an unknown amount 

of crude oil was discovered and suspected of coming from an unmanned platform at Main Pass 

Block 4.1 United States Coast Guard (USCG) Sector New Orleans was the Federal On-Scene 

Coordinator Representative (FOSCR) for the incident and received notification from 

of Forefront Emergency Management, LP (Forefront), in its capacity as the Facility’s 

Qualified Individual (QI).2 The FOSC was provided updates on the response actions and 

situation. 3 Upon inspection, it was determined that the incident occurred due to a flange failure 

on the heater treater4 and that an estimated fifteen (15) of crude oil discharged into the Gulf of 

Mexico, a navigable waterway of the United States.5

 In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, Yuma Exploration & Production Company 

(“Yuma” or “RP”) was identified as the responsible party (RP) 6 for the incident that occurred at 

its Main Pass Block 4 facility located near Hopedale, LA, St. Bernard Parish. 7 Yuma proceeded 

to shut the facility’s affected line in. 8 Environmental Safety and Health Consulting Services, Inc. 

(ES&H or claimant) was hired by Yuma personnel and performed pollution response activities. 9

After performing its pollution response activities, ES&H presented its uncompensated removal 

costs to the RP on March 20, 2020. 10 

Having not received payment from the RP, ES&H presented its uncompensated removal cost 

claim to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for $36,330.75.

11 In its claim submission, 

ES&H stated that the RP filed Chapter 11 bankruptcy after the incident occurred.12 On 

November 17, 2020, the NPFC made contact with Ms. of Forshey & Prostok, 

LLP, as the Bankruptcy Trustee for case -41456-mxm7 and requested a status of the Yuma 

Exploration & Production Company status through the United States Bankruptcy Court for the 

 

1 Forefront EM Spill Response Notification Form.

2 Forefront EM letter to Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality dated February 24, 2020, 

3 United States Coast Guard Sector New Orleans SITREP dated November 4, 2020.

4 Forefront EM Spill Notification Form. 5 MISLE Case #1209603 dated February 19, 2020.

6 33 U.S.C. § 2701.

7 Forefront EM Spill Notification Form.

8 United States Coast Guard Sector New Orleans SITREP dated November 4, 2020.

9 ES&H Master Service Agreement with Yuma Exploration & Production Company dated November 30, 2018.

10 NPFC Optional OSLTF claim form, question #5 dated October 23,2020; ES&H invoice # 1-55928 dated March 

20, 2020.

11 33 CFR 136.103(c)(2).; Optional OSLTF Claim Form signed by dated October 23, 2020. 12 NPFC Optional Claim Form, question #6 dated October 23, 2020. 

(b), (b) (6) (b), (b), (b) 

(b) (6)

(b), (b) (6) (b), (b) (6)

services for the Yuma Exploration & Production Company Main Pass Block 4. Response 

services were performed from February 19, 2020 through February 23, 2020.23 

II. CLAIMANT AND RP: 

Absent limited circumstances, the Federal Regulations implementing the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990 (OPA)24 require all claims for removal costs or damages must be presented to the RP 

before seeking compensation from the NPFC.25

The claimant presented its claim to Yuma on March 20, 2020.26 The claimant also stated that 

the RP filed for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy after the incident occurred.27

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC: 

When an RP has not settled a claim after ninety days of receipt, a claimant may elect to 

present its claim to the NPFC.28 On November 3, 2020, the NPFC received a claim for 

uncompensated removal costs from ES&H. The claim included ES&H invoice #1-55928 totaling 

$36,330.75, ES&H 2020 Rate Schedule, Photos, Signed daily work tickets, ES&H Supervisor 

log, and Master Service Agreement with Yuma.29

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS: 

The NPFC utilizes an informal process when adjudicating claims against the Oil Spill 

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).30 As a result, 5 U.S.C. § 555(e) requires the NPFC to provide a 

brief statement explaining its decision. This determination is issued to satisfy that requirement.

When adjudicating claims against the OSLTF, the NPFC acts as the finder of fact. In this 

role, the NPFC considers all relevant evidence, including evidence provided by claimants and 

evidence obtained independently by the NPFC, and weighs its probative value when determining 

the facts of the claim.31 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.32 If there is conflicting evidence in the record, the 

NPFC makes a determination as to what evidence is more credible or deserves greater weight, 

and makes its determination based on the preponderance of the credible evidence.

 

23 ES&H invoice and supporting documentation. 24 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. 25 33 CFR 136.103. 26 ES&H Invoice #1-55928 dated March 20, 2020; Optional OSLTF Claim Form, Page 1, Section 6, signed by 

 dated October 23, 2020. 27 Optional OSLTF Claim Form, Page 1, Section 6, signed by dated October 23, 2020. 28 33 CFR 136.103. 29 ES&H claim submission. 30 33 CFR Part 136. 31 See, e.g., Boquet Oyster House, Inc. v. United States, 74 ERC 2004, 2011 WL 5187292, (E.D. La. 2011), “[T]he 

Fifth Circuit specifically recognized that an agency has discretion to credit one expert's report over another when 

experts express conflicting views.” (Citing, Medina County v. Surface Transp. Bd., 602 F.3d 687, 699 (5th Cir. 

2010)). 32 See, e.g., Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds Center, 71 Fed. Reg. 

60553 (October 13, 2006) and Use of Reports of Marine Casualty in Claims Process by National Pollution Funds 

Center 72 Fed. Reg. 17574 (concluding that NPFC may consider marine casualty reports but is not bound by them).

(b), (b), (b) 

(b) (6)

(b), (b) (6)
V. DISCUSSION: 

An RP is liable for all removal costs and damages resulting from either an oil discharge or a 

substantial threat of oil discharge into a navigable water of the United States.33 An RP’s liability 

is strict, joint, and several. 34 When enacting OPA, Congress “explicitly recognized that the 

existing federal and states laws provided inadequate cleanup and damage remedies, required 

large taxpayer subsidies for costly cleanup activities and presented substantial burdens to 

victim’s recoveries such as legal defenses, corporate forms, and burdens of proof unfairly 

favoring those responsible for the spills.”35 OPA was intended to cure these deficiencies in the 

law. 

OPA provides a mechanism for compensating parties who have incurred removal costs where 

the responsible party has failed to do so. 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.”36 The term “remove” or “removal” means “containment and removal of oil [...] from 

water and shorelines or the taking of other actions as may be necessary to minimize or mitigate 

damage to the public health or welfare, including, but not limited to fish, shellfish, wildlife, and 

public and private property, shorelines, and beaches.”37 

The NPFC is authorized to pay claims for uncompensated removal costs that are consistent 

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).38 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

of regulations governing the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such 

claims.39 The claimant bears the burden of providing all evidence, information, and 

documentation deemed relevant and necessary by the Director of the NPFC, to support and 

properly process the claim.40

Before reimbursement can be authorized for uncompensated removal costs, the claimant 

must demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence:

(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 directed by the FOSC or determined by the FOSC to be 

consistent with the National Contingency Plan.

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.41

Upon review and adjudicatiion of the claim submission, the NPFC made requests for 

additional information to ES&H, the United States Bankruptcy Trustee in the Yuma case, 

andState of Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LADEQ). 

 

33 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 34 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 35 Apex Oil Co., Inc. v United States, 208 F. Supp. 2d 642, 651-52 (E.D. La. 2002) (citing S. Rep. No. 101-94 

(1989), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 722). 36 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 37 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 38 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712(a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 39 33 CFR Part 136. 40 33 CFR 136.105. 41 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205.
In summary, the NPFC requested information from the following entities in order to perform 

a complete adjudication of the claim and received the following additional information for 

consideration: 

 1. Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSCR): 

a. Pollution Responder statement from MST1 dated January 28, 

2021. The statement provides details regarding the incident; and 

b. MISLE Case #1209603 opened on February 20, 2019. 

 2. State On-Scene Coordinator (SOSC): 

a. Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LADEQ) Incident Report # 

195625 updated April 08, 2020; 

b. NRC Report #1271546 dated February 20, 2020; and 

c. Forefront EM written notification letter dated November 24, 2020. 

3. Assistant United States Bankruptcy Trustee – of Forshey & Prostok, 

LLP, for the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort 

Worth Division.

a. Notice of Chapter 11 Bankruptcy Case – Official Form 201, United States 

Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas – Fort Worth Division – 

Case #20-41456-11, date filed April 15, 2020; 

b. Notice of Chapter 7 Bankruptcy for Yuma Energy and its associated 

Companies – Offical Form 309C; date case converted to Chapter 7 is October 

19, 2020; Case # 20-41455-mxmt filed on October 21,2020;

c. Order to Dismiss Case for Yuma Exploration & Production Company - United 

States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of Texas – Fort Woth 

Division – Case #20-41456-mxm7, date filed October 30, 2020;

d. Email from Ms. , Bankuptcy Trustee, dated December 1, 

2020 advising Yuma Exploration & Production Company is no longer in 

Bankruptcy although the NPFC should seek Counsel on whether or not 

recovery can be asserted against Yuma Energy in its capacity as the parent 

Company. Trustee advised Yuma Energy in Chapter 7 but may have liquid 

assets in the future.

4. ES&H

a. ES&H Invoice # 1-55928; 

b. Signed OSLTF Claim Form; 

c. Forefront EM Spill Response Notification Form;

d. Photographs; 

e. ES&H invoice supporting documentation totaling $36,951.64 however only 

claimed $36,330.75; and

(b), (b) (6) (b), (b) (6) (b), (b) (6)