4

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

On July 26, 2021, a homeowner from the Tchefuncte Harbor Homeowner’s Association 

called the NRC and reported an unknown sheen in the Tchefuncte Marina, located on the 

Tchefuncte River, a navigable waterway of the United States.6 The caller reported that the sheen 

smelled of diesel fuel.7

The USCG Sector New Orleans, as the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) for the 

incident, contacted the reporting party to gather additional information. On July 28, 2021, 

LDEQ and LOSCO, as the SOSC, arrived at the Tchefuncte Harbor to assess the incident site 

and look for a responsible party (RP). They noted a slight sheen on the surface water of the 

Tchefuncte Harbor Marina. 8

Recovery Operations

On July 26, 2021, the SOSCs arrived at the Tchefuncte Harbor Marina. They took photos of 

a faint sheen in the marina and looked to see if it migrated to the Tchefunche River.9

 Since the 

sheen was not reaching the Tchefunche River and seemed to be dissipating naturally, no further 

action was taken.

II. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

The State of Louisiana submitted their claim to the NPFC on July 24, 2023. Included in the 

submittal was the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSTLF) claim form; the NRC report; the 

LDEQ incident report; hourly staff and incidental rates; equipment usage and rate 

documentation; and photos of the incident.10 

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.

 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, 

6 National Response Center (NRC) Incident Report #1311806 dated July 26, 2021 7 NRC Incident Report #1311806 dated July 26, 2021

8 State of Louisiana claim submission dated and received on July 24, 2023. 

9 Id. 10 State of Louisiana claim submission dated and received on July 24, 2023. 11 33 CFR Part 136. 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)).
5

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:

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).14 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

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

claims.15 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.16

 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.17

The NPFC analyzed each of these factors and determined all the costs incurred and submitted

by the State of Louisiana are compensable removal costs based on the supporting documentation 

provided. All costs approved for payment were verified as being invoiced at the appropriate 

personnel labor rates, equipment rates, and agency indirect costs. 

VI. CONCLUSION:

 Based on a comprehensive review of the record, the applicable law and regulations, and for 

the reasons outlined above, the State of Louisiana’s request for uncompensated removal costs is 

approved in the amount of $1,133.43. 

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 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 15 33 CFR Part 136. 16 33 CFR 136.105. 17 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205.