2

 CLAIM DETERMINATION

Claim Number: E17607-0007 

Claimant: Oil Mop, LLC 

Type of Claimant: OSRO

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $12,932.10 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $12,932.10

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

A 400-barrel above ground storage tank (AST) discharged oil into a wetland which connects with the 

Intracoastal Waterway. Metairie Energy Company (“Metairie” or “RP”) who owned and operated both 

the field of discharge and the AST is the responsible party (RP) as defined by the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990.1

 Oil Mop, LLC (“OMI” or “claimant”), was hired by the RP as the Oil Spill Response 

Organization for the incident. Having not received payment from the RP after ninety days,2 OMI, 

presented its uncompensated removal cost claim to the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for 

$1,079,398.17,3

 later denied by the NFPC.4 In response to the NPFC’s denial, OMI reviewed multiple 

sample analysis documents of products discharged by the spill, and submitted all findings with its 

reconsideration of the claim, later deemed OPA compensable and subsequently adjudicated by the 

NPFC.5 Having not received payment from the RP after ninety days6

 for costs incurred to review the 

sample analysis documents, OMI, presented its uncompensated removal cost claim to the National 

Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for $12,932.10.7

 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all documentation 

submitted with the claim, analyzed the applicable law and regulations, and after careful consideration has 

determined that the requested $12,932.10 is compensable and offers this amount as full and final 

compensation of this claim.8

 

 

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS: 

Incident 

On January 26, 2017, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) received a report 

from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) of a discharge from a 400-barrel above 

ground storage tank (AST) that was lacking secondary containment. The discharge migrated into a 

wetland connected to the Port Allen Lock, which connects with the Intracoastal Waterway, a navigable 

water of the United States. The 400-barrel AST, identified as Tank #2, is associated with oil well Gay 

Union Corporation #37, serial number 75284 in the Bayou Choctaw Oil and Gas Field.9 The discharge 

volume was approximately 200-400 barrels. 

The discharge occurred five (5) months prior to the USEPA Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) 

becoming aware of the spill and by January 2017, the incident had not been removed adequately. 

Approximately 10 acres of wetlands have been impacted by the oil spill and the primary known impact is 

 

1 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32). 

2 33 CFR 136.103(c). 3 Oil Mop, LLC claim submission dated May 22, 2017.

4 Signed Determination for Claim E17607-0001 dated November 28, 2017. 5 Signed Determination for Claim E17607-0001 dated March 2, 2018. 6 33 CFR 136.103(c). 7 Oil Mop, LLC claim submission dated February 18, 2019.

8 33 CFR 136.115.

9 USEPA Metaire Energy PolRep #1dated February 02, 2017, section 1.1.2 “Site Description”.

4

moved forward with adjudication of the claim and on March 2, 2018, issued an approval of 

$1,079,132.88.20

II. CLAIMANT AND RP:

Absent limited circumstances, the federal regulations implementing the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 

(OPA)21 require all claims for removal costs or damages must be presented to the responsible party before 

seeking compensation from the NPFC.22 OMI presented its invoice to the RP for $12,932.10 on May 23, 

2018.23 The RP has not settled the claim.

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

When an RP has not settled a claim after 90 days of receipt, a claimant may elect to present its claim 

to the NPFC.24 On February 18, 2019, the NPFC received a claim for uncompensated removal costs from 

OMI dated February 18, 2019. The costs presented to the NPFC in the amount of $12,932.10 matched 

those submitted to the RP on May 23, 2018, and the claim included $10,776.75 in costs associated with 

sample analysis review and a 20% mark-up cost for $2,155.35, totaling $12,932.10. The total amount 

claimed is $12,932.10.25

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Fund (OSLTF).26 As a result, 5 U.S.C. § 555 (e) requires the NPFC to provide a brief statement 

explaining its determinations. This determination is issued to satisfy that requirement for the Claimant’s 

claim against the OSLTF.

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.27

The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, or conclusions reached by other 

entities.28 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 finds facts and makes its determination based 

on the preponderance of the credible evidence.

V. DISCUSSION: 

A responsible party 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.29 A responsible party’s 

 20 Signed Determination for Claim E17607-0001 dated March 2, 2018. 21 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. 22 33 CFR 136.103. 23 OMI claim submission and Invoice #N1805-500 dated May 23, 2018. 24 33 CFR 136.103. 25 OMI claim submission dated February 18, 2019 for GHD Invoice # 909104 dated May 23, 2018. 26 33 CFR Part 136. 27 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). 28 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). 29 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 
5

liability is strict, joint, and several.30 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.”31 OPA was intended to cure these deficiencies in the law.

OPA provides a mechanism for compensating parties who have incurred removal cost 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.”32 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.”33

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

National Contingency Plan.34 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of regulations governing 

the presentment, filing, processing, settling, and adjudicating such claims.35 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.36 

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.37

The NPFC analyzed each of these factors and determined the costs incurred by Oil Mop, LLC for 

sample analysis review and submitted herein are compensable removal costs based on the supporting 

documentation provided when combined with the corroborating documentation and facts documented in 

Oil Mop’s NPFC claim # E17607-0001 that substantiates the need for review of sample analysis 

following the removal of above ground storage tanks and petroleum contaminated soils.38 The NPFC has 

determined that the costs invoiced were billed in accordance with the contracted rates between the parties. 

All costs approved for payment were verified as being invoiced at the appropriate rate sheet pricing. All 

approved costs were supported by adequate documentation which included invoices and proofs of 

payment.

VI. CONCLUSION:

 30 See, H.R. Rep. No. 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 31 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.). 32 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 33 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 34 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a)(4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 35 33 CFR Part 136. 36 33 CFR 136.105. 37 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 38 USEPA Polrep #3 dated July 11, 2017.