3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 916019-0001 

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

Type of Claimant: OSRO 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $71,562.98 

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: On January 20, 2014, a spill of approximately 30 barrels of crude oil 

in a marsh area located near Lake Long, Bourg, LA, which is identified as a tributary to 

the Intracoastal Waterway, a navigable waterway of the United States. The incident was 

reported to the National Response Center via report # 1071673.1 The Claimant, 

Environmental Safety & Health Consulting Services, Inc. (ES&H), presented the 

responsible party (RP), S2 Energy, with an invoice dated 5/12/2014 in the amount of 

$100,242.70 which is identified as ES&H Invoice 1-33985. The Claimant was 

unsuccessful in collecting full payment for the services rendered on this invoice. ES&H 

did however collect a partial payment in the amount of $28,679.76 which left an 

outstanding balance of $71,562.98. ES&H was successfully paid for five (5) previous 

invoices that were presented to S2 Energy in the total amount of $1,488,925.11.2

While no Federal On-Scene Coordinator (FOSC) monitored this incident, the Louisiana 

State Police did respond to the NRC notification and filed a report (#14-00343) dated 

January 20, 2014.3

 Louisianna Department of Environmental Quality (LADEQ) 

responded to this incident in its entirety and it has confirmed the USCG Marine Safety 

Unit (MSU) Morgan City, LA was notified of the incident via NRC but did not actually 

respond on site. The USCG FOSC stated that the unit passed the case onto LADEQ for 

action. Verified in MISLE case report 669766. Response actions were necessary to 

mitigate further environmental damages.4

2. Description of removal actions performed: On January 20, 2014, S2 Energy 1, LP 

retained the response services of ES&H to conduct cleanup and response activities. 

Under the direction of S2 Energy’s, Mr. , ES&H was provided 

oversight during the cleanup operations for the entire spill duration. ES&H, personnel 

began removing the contaminated water. ES&H also mobilized roll-off boxes, absorbent 

boom, and various other pieces of equipment. Additionally, hard boom and absorbent 

boom were placed in the water for containment of the product. 

 

1 See, NRC Report # 1071673, dated 1/20/2014

2 See, ES&H Claim Submission received on December 29, 2015.

3 See, LSP/DEQ Incident report dated January 20, 2014.

4 See, Coast Guard MISLE Case # 669766.
4

Removal and containerization of visually impacted debris and oily water continued 

throughout the response efforts. Contaminated debris, oil, and oily water was transported 

to Port Marine Vac Services, BFI Colonial Waste, and Republic Services for proper 

disposal. No sampling was performed.5

3. The Claim: On 29 December 2015, ES&H presented a removal cost claim to the 

National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), for reimbursement of their uncompensated 

removal costs in the total amount of $71,562.98 for the services provided from 

approximately March 24, 2014 through April 25. 2014. A copy of the vendor rate 

schedule is included with this claim. 

This claim consists of copies of the following: NRC Report # 1071673; a cover letter 

dated October 29, 2015; invoice number 1-33985 for this incident dates of March 24, 

2014 through April 25 2014; and supporting receipts of sub-contractors paid by ES&H 

for this incident; disposal invoices for this incident; LA State Police # 14-00343, dated 

January 20, 2014.; disposal manifests for this incident; pictures of the spill and cleanup 

activities; and internal email correspondence.6

In addition to the above enclosed documents provided by ES&H, additional information 

was obtained before making a final determination. Those additional documents are 

identified as five (5) ES&H invoices and along with all proper supporting documentation 

and proof of payment by the RP to the Claimant.

APPLICABLE LAW: 

Under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA 90), at 33 USC § 2702(a), each responsible 

party for a vessel or facility from which oil is discharged, or which poses the substantial 

threat of a discharge of oil, into or upon the navigable waters or adjoining shorelines or 

the exclusive economic zone is liable for removal costs and damages resulting from the 

incident, 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 at 33 USC § 2701(31) as “the costs 

of removal that are incurred after a discharge of oil has occurred or, in any case in which 

 5 See, ES&H claim submission received on December 29, 2015.

6 See, ES&H claim submission received on December 29, 2015.
5

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]. 

Under 33 USC §2713(a), all claims for removal costs or damages must (with certain 

exceptions not applicable here) be presented first to the responsible party or guarantor of 

the designated source of the incident. Then 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;

(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. Overview:

1. 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 
6

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 report of a discharge and substantial threat of discharge of “oil” 

as defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. § 2701(23), to navigable waters.

3. The claim was submitted within the six year statute of limitations. 33 U.S.C. § 

2712(h)(1);

4. A Responsible Party was determined for this incident. 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32);

5. In accordance with 33 CFR § 136.105(e)(12), the claimant has certified no suit has been 

filed in court for the claimed uncompensated removal costs;

6. The NPFC Claims Manager has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with 

the claim and determined that the majority of the removal costs presented were for 

actions in accordance with the NCP, and if the costs for these actions were indeed 

reasonable and allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205.

B. Analysis:

NPFC CA reviewed the actual cost invoices and dailies to confirm that the claimant had 

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 (e.g., 

actions to prevent, minimize, mitigate the effects of the incident); (2) whether the costs were 

incurred as a result of these actions; (3) whether the actions taken were determined by the 

FOSC to be consistent with the NCP or directed by the FOSC, and (4) whether the costs were 

adequately documented and reasonable. 

Upon review of the claim submission, the NPFC has determined that the costs presented and 

incurred were billed in accordance with the rate schedule in place at the time services were 

rendered. The NPFC also determined that the actions taken by the Claimant and its 

subcontractor were reasonable and necessary in order to mitigate the discharge and 

continuing threat of discharge to the environment and were performed under the direct 

supervision of LADEQ and an RP Representative. Proper disposal has been performed and 

documented.

C. Determined Amount: $71,515,98

The Claims Manager hereby determines that the Claimant did in fact incur $71,515.98 of 

removal costs and that that amount is payable by the OSLTF as full compensation for the 

reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and presented to the NPFC under claim 

#916019-0001. The Claimant states that all costs claimed are for uncompensated removal 

costs incurred by the Claimant for this incident from approximately March 24, 2014 through 

April 25, 2014. The Claimant represents that all costs paid/incurred by the Claimant are 

compensable removal costs, payable by the OSLTF as presented by the Claimant.

Denied costs: $47.00. NPFC denied $35.00 for charges in excess of the number of people on 

scene. All denied costs in this category are unsupported by the record. Additionally, NPFC 
7

denies the $12.00 requested from Tommy’s Stop –N-Go, Inc, dated March 3, 2014 for a roll 

of quarters ($10.00) and the associated 20% surcharge ($2.00).7

AMOUNT: $71,515.98

 

 

Claim Supervisor: 

 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 5/23/16 

Supervisor Action: Approved