3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 916052-0001 

Claimant: Oil Mop, LLC 

Type of Claimant: OSRO

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $21,819.17 

FACTS: 

Oil Spill Incident

On October 25, 2015, Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit (MSU) Houma received notification1 that 

a truck-rig had overturned on a barge in Terrebonne Bay, Cocodrie, Louisiana, that resulted in a 

diesel and hydraulic oil spill incident into the Houma Navigation Channel. The MSU contacted 

the owner of the barge and truck, Suard Companies, to verify whether an oil spill responder had 

been hired for response. The Suard Company verified with the MSU that they hired Oil Mop 

LLC. (OMI). The MSU confirmed with OMI that they were hired to respond.2 

Responsible Party

Suard Company is the Responsible Party (RP). As stated above, the RP hired OMI for response 

and cleanup of the oil spill incident. When OMI attempted to collect payment via their invoices, 

the Suard Company told OMI that they were waiting for their insurance company to pay the 

claim. OMI attempted for several months to collect payment from the Suard Company before 

submitting their claim to the Fund.

Description of Removal Actions Performed

OMI arrived on-scene October 26, 20153

 with response equipment to conduct cleanup 

operations. OMI brought personnel, vessel assets, absorbent pads, and 5” sorbent boom as 

needed to perform cleanup. OMI immediately deployed a 26 foot fast response vessel, sorbent 

boom, and began removing contaminated liquids and debris from the water. According to the 

OMI statement, 10-gallons of hydraulic oil reached the water. Approximately 50-gallons of 

diesel and engine oil, as well as the hydraulic oil were spilled on to the barge. 

Final response work was conducted by OMI on November 03, 2015. 

The Claimant and Claim

On May 23, 2016, OMI submitted a removal cost claim associated with the cleanup of the Suard 

Company oil spill to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF or the Fund), asserting that the 

 

1 NRC Report # 1131700.

2 Pictures of incident provided by the MSU FOSCR on 2016 06 10.

3 See invoice dated October 26, 2015 as evidence of the first day on scene.
4

Suard Company failed to pay them for their uncompensated removal costs totaling, $21,819.17 

as described and itemized in invoice # N1512-093.

Upon receipt of this claim submission, the NPFC sent an RP Notification letter to the RP dated, 

May 24, 2016.4

 To date, the NPFC has not heard from the RP regarding this claim. 

 

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. 

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;

 4 Certified Mail Receipt # 7013 1090 0000 3302 0054.
5

(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 Fact: 

1. MST2 of Marine Safety Unit Houma provided partial coordination for this 

claim in his capacity as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator’s Representative (FOSCR) for 

this incident. He provided an email, to the Fund, regarding the incident as well as 

pictures.5 The NPFC has determined that the actions undertaken by the Claimant are 

deemed consistent with the NCP. This determination is made in accordance with the 

Delegation of Authority for Determination of Consistency with the NCP for the payment 

of uncompensated removal cost claims and is consistent with the provisions of sections 

1002(b)(1)(B) and 1012(a)(4) of OPA, 33 U.S.C. §§ 2702(b)(1)(B) and 2712(a)(4). 

2. The incident involved the discharge of “oil” as defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. §2701 to 

“navigable waters.”

3. The claim was submitted to the Fund within the six year period of limitations for removal 

costs claims. 33 U.S.C. §2712(h)(1). 

4. The NPFC Claims Manager thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the 

claim and determined which of the costs claimed were associated with OPA compensable 

removal actions in accordance with the NCP and that costs for these actions were 

reasonable and allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205. 

B. NPFC Analysis

The NPFC reviewed the actual cost invoices and dailies to confirm that the claimant has 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 136.203; (2) the actions 

taken were to prevent, minimize, and mitigate the effects of the incident; (3) whether the actions 

taken were determined by the FOSC to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan or 

directed by the FOSC, and (4) whether the costs were adequately documented and reasonable.

The NPFC reviewed the OMI rate schedule that was in place at the time the services were 

provided; the NPFC based its adjudication of these costs on the rate schedule, the OMI invoices, 

and disposal manifests. The Claimant performed cleanup utilizing personnel, boat assets, drum 

skimmer, sorbent boom, and pads as needed to remove the oil associated with this incident and 

ensured disposal was properly performed and documented.6

 Based on its review, the NPFC 

 

5 2016 06 10 Email from FOSC with pictures.

6 See disposal manifests in file folder.
6

determined that most of the claimed costs are reimbursable from the Fund, were actions taken to 

minimize and mitigate the effects of the incident, and were reasonable and necessary.

Upon review of the information provided by the Claimant, the NPFC has determined that the 

payable costs were billed in accordance with the rate schedule and/or contractual agreements in 

place at the time the services were rendered.

The NPFC denied a total of $258.00 in requested costs. Descriptions of the denied costs are as 

follows: 

1. November 03, 2015 – Total denied $220.00 

The Claimant’s invoice provides that OMI sold a 275 gallon poly tote tank to the RP in the 

amount of $400. However, OMI has no documentation to support the sale of the tank therefore, 

the NPFC allowed the OMI daily rate of $30, per day/ multiplied by the six days of response that 

OMI was on scene which equates to $180.00 for the sale of the tote tank.7

2. November 03, 2015 – Total denied $38.00 

The Claimant billed $38.00, in tax based on the sale of the tote tank. However, the NPFC 

allowed the OMI daily rate schedule of $30 per day. Taxes are not applied to the OMI daily 

rate, therefore the tax is denied.

Based on the foregoing, the NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will offer $21,561.17 as 

full compensation for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by OMI and submitted to the 

NPFC under claim # 916052-0001. All reimbursable costs are for charges paid by the claimant 

for removal actions as that term is defined in OPA and are compensable removal costs by the 

OSLTF as presented by the claimant.

Determined Amount: $21,561.17 

 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 6/16/16 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

 

7 See 2016 06 13 Email between OMI and NPFC in regards to the lack of documentation that supports the sale of the 

tote tank.