2

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1 

Claim Number: UCGP923008-URC001 

Claimant: State of Louisiana 

Type of Claimant: State 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $1,355.01 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $1,355.01

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

 

 On March 24, 2021, the National Response Center (NRC) received a report from the St. 

Tammany Parish Fire Department that there was a half-mile rainbow sheen on Bayou Bonfouca, 

a navigable waterway of the United States.2 The United States Coast Guard (USCG) Sector New 

Orleans, as the Federal On Scene Coordinators (FOSC) alerted the Louisiana Department of 

Public Safety about the spill. 

Staff from the Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s Office (LOSCO) and from the Louisiana 

Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), as the State On Scene Coordinators (SOSC) 

responded to the scene on March 25, 2021. The SOSCs were unable to find the source of the 

sheen or a responsible party.3

 

The state of Louisiana submitted its uncompensated removal cost claim to the National 

Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) in the amount of $1,355.01 on March 30, 2023. The NPFC has 

thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the claim, analyzed the applicable laws 

and regulations, and after careful consideration has determined that $1,355.01 is compensable 

and offers this amount as full and final compensation of this claim.

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

On March 24, 2021, at 16:35 local time, a boater saw a sheen on Bayou Bonfouca, a 

navigable waterway of the United States. The local fire department called the incident into the 

1 This determination is written for the sole purpose of adjudicating a claim against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 

(OSLTF). This determination adjudicates whether the claimant is entitled to OSLTF reimbursement of claimed 

removal costs or damages under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This determination does not adjudicate any rights or 

defenses any Responsible Party or Guarantor may have or may otherwise be able to raise in any future litigation or 

administrative actions, to include a lawsuit or other action initiated by the United States to recover the costs 

associated this incident. After a claim has been paid, the OSLTF becomes subrogated to all of the claimant’s rights 

under 33 U.S.C. § 2715. When seeking to recover from a Responsible Party or a Guarantor any amounts paid to 

reimburse a claim, the OSLTF relies on the claimant’s rights to establish liability. If a Responsible Party or 

Guarantor has any right to a defense to liability, those rights can be asserted against the OSLTF. Thus, this 

determination does not affect any rights held by a Responsible Party or a Guarantor.

2 NRC Report #1301186 dated March 24, 2021 3 See, State of Louisiana OSLTF Claim Form, question 6, dated April 24, 2023

(b) (6)
3

National Response Center (NRC) at 17:46 local time.4 The United States Coast Guard (USCG) 

Sector New Orleans, serving as the Federal On Scene Coordinators (FOSC), alerted the 

Louisiana State Police about the incident.5

 Staff from the Louisiana Oil Spill Coordinator’s 

Office (LOSCO) and the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ), serving as 

State On Scene Coordinators (SOSCs), arrived on scene the following day to assess the spill and 

search for the Responsible Party (RP).

6

 

Responsible Party

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the owner/operator of the source which 

caused the oil spill is the Responsible Party (RP) for the incident.7 The source of the spill could 

not be identified by LOSCO, LDEQ, or USCG Sector New Orleans.

8

Recovery Operations 

On March 25, 2021, staff from LOSCO and LDEQ arrived on scene at Bayou Bonfouca. 

They noted a rainbow sheen near the Bayou Liberty Road Bridge, after searching the Bayou 

further north, they confirmed that the sheen was confined to the vicinity near the bridge. They 

searched for a potential RP and took photos of the incident.9 No recovery operations were 

required as they determined that the sheen would dissipate naturally. 

II. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

The Claimant submitted their claim on March 30, 2023. The submission included the 

OSTLF form, NRC Report Number 1301186, LSP Incident Report # 21-01192, photos of the 

spill, and cost documentation from both LOSCO and LDEQ accounting for staff time and 

equipment costs related to the spill response.10 

As a state claiming removal costs, the state of Louisiana may first present its claim to the 

OSLTF without first presenting it to an RP. In this case, there is no RP, so presentment is also 

not an issue 

III. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).11 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.

4 NRC Report #1301186 dated March 24, 2021 5 See, Louisiana State Police email dated March 25, 2021, with LSP Hazardous Material Incident Report # 21-

01192. 6 Original Claim Submission dated March 30, 2023 7 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32).

8 See, USCG SITREP dated August 11, 2023. 9 Original Claim Submission dated March 30, 2023

10 Original Claim Submission dated March 30, 2023 11 33 CFR Part 136.
4

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

or conclusions reached by other entities.13 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. 

IV. DISCUSSION: 

 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.”14 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.”15 

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).16 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

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

claims.17 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.18

 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.19

12 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)). 13 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). 14 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 15 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 16 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 17 33 CFR Part 136. 18 33 CFR 136.105. 19 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205.