3

CLAIM DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: 918040-0001 

Claimant: Environmental Safety and Health Consulting Services, Inc. 

Type of Claimant: OSRO

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $123,880.76 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $114,692.69 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

On June 2, 2016, Apollo Energy, LLC (Apollo or RP) notified the National Response Center 

of a discharge of approximately 20 barrels of crude oil from a storage tank located at its Happy 

Town Oil Field A-1 Facility in St. Martin, Louisiana which substantially threatened the 

Atchafalaya River System, a navigable waterway of the United States. Apollo identified 

Forefront Emergency Management, LP (Forefront) as the contracted Qualified Individual (QI).

1

Forefront made notifications to the Louisiana State Police HAZMAT Division, Louisiana 

Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USF&W).2 LDEQ was the State On-Scene Coordinator (SOSC). The RP hired Environmental 

Safety and Health Consulting Services, Inc. (ES&H or Claimant) to perform the cleanup and 

response operations. ES&H commenced operations on June 2, 2016.3 

In September 2016 and January 2017, ES&H presented its uncompensated removal costs to 

the RP. In April, 2017, ES&H submitted another letter to the RP seeking payment for its 

uncompensated removal costs. Having not received payment from the RP,4 ES&H presented its 

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

$123,880.76 on August 27, 2018.5 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all documentation 

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

consideration has determined that $114,692.69 of the requested $123,880.76 is compensable and 

offers this amount as full and final compensation of this claim.6 

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY, AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS: 

Incident 

On June 2, 2016, the United States Coast Guard National Response Center (NRC) received 

notification that an oil tank overflowed, discharging approximately 20 barrels of crude oil into a 

dyked area at the Happy Town Oil Field A-1 Facility in St. Martin, Louisiana, which 

 

1 Undated Forefront Spill Response Notification Form, Reporting Party section.

2 Forefront EM ICS-214 Activity Log for Mr. , RPIC, dated June 2, 2016. 3 Undated Forefront Spill Response Notification Form, Incident Description section; Email from LDEQ to NPFC 

dated September 6, 2018; Forefront ICS-214 Activity Log for Mr. , RPIC, dated June 2, 2016. 4 A claimant must first present a claim for uncompensated removal costs to the RP. After ninety day, if the RP has 

not settled the claim, the claimant may present it claim to the NPFC. 33 CFR 136.103(c). 5 ES&H claim submission..

6 33 CFR 136.115.
4

substantially threatened the Atchafalaya River System, a navigable waterway of the United 

States.

7

 

Responsible Party 

 Apollo Energy is the owner of the Happy Town Oil Field A-1 Facility. The State of 

Louisiana identified Apollo Energy as the RP on June 2, 2016.8 In 2018, the NPFC issued a 

Responsible Party Notification Letter to Apollo Energy.9 The NPFC did not receive a response 

from the RP. 

Recovery Operations

On June 2, 2016, the RP hired Environmental Safety and Health Consulting Services, Inc. 

(ES&H or Claimant) to perform response and cleanup operations.10 ES&H, the other relevant 

parties, and the SOSC agreed to a plan in which ES&H would recover all liquids within the 

containment berm, to excavate three to six inches of contaminated soil and remove the excavated 

material via roll off boxes, and transfer the roll off boxes to a facility in Mermentau, LA for 

disposal.11 Response and cleanup operations were deemed complete by the SOSC on June 17, 

2016.12 

II. CLAIMANT AND RP: 

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

1990 (OPA)13 require all claims for removal costs or damages must be presented to the 

responsible party before seeking compensation from the NPFC.14 

ES&H stated it submitted its request for compensation to the RP for $123,880.76 via two 

separate invoices.

15 ES&H also sent a final demand for payment letter to the RP dated April 17, 

2017 outlining the ES&H invoices subject of the response they performed.16 The ES&H 

invoices were created in accordance with ES&H’s Master Service Agreement with Apollo 

Energy Operating Company, LP dated June 9, 2011 and signed by both parties on August 1, 

2011 and August 3, 2011, respectively.17 The RP has not settled the claim.

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

 

7 National Response Center Report #1149482. 8

 State of Louisiana Department of Natural Resources Office of Conservation Lease Facility Inspection Report dated 

June 2, 2016.

9 NPFC RP Notification Letter to Apollo Energy, LLC dated August 28, 2018. 10 Undated Forefront Emergency Management Spill Response Notification Form. 11 Apollo Energy Incident Action Pan for Operational Period 1 prepared by Forefront dated June 2, 2016. 12 Email from Mr. (SOSC) to the NPFC dated September 6, 2018. 13 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. 14 33 CFR 136.103. 15 ES&H Invoice #1-43847 dated September 29, 2016 for $118,852.69; ES&H Invoice #1-45007 dated 1January 4, 

2017 for $5,028.07.

16 ES&H demand letter to Apollo Energy, LLC dated April 17, 2017. 17 ES&H/Apollo Energy Master Service Agreement dated June 9, 2011.
5

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

present its claim to the NPFC.18 On August 27, 2018, the NPFC received a claim for 

uncompensated removal costs from ES&H. The claim included ES&H invoices for its labor, 

equipment and third party costs totaling $123,880.76.19

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).

20 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.21 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.

22 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: 

On August 28, 2018, ES&H submitted a claim to the National Pollution Funds Center 

(NPFC) for reimbursement of its uncompensated removal costs for personnel, equipment and 

associated expenses for $123,880.76.

23 

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.24 A 

responsible party’s liability is strict, joint, and several.25 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.”26 OPA was intended to cure these 

deficiencies in the law.

 18 33 CFR 136.103. 19 Original claim submission. 20 33 CFR Part 136. 21 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). 22 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). 23 Original claim submission. 24 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 25 See, H.R. Rep. No. 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 26 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).
6

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.”27 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.”28

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

with the National Contingency Plan.

29 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of 

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

claims.

30 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.

31 

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.32

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.33

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

by ES&H and submitted herein are compensable removal costs based on the supporting 

documentation provided. The NPFC determined that the costs invoiced were billed in accordance 

with the contracted rates between the parties, including all third party services.

34 All costs 

approved for payment were verified as being invoiced at the appropriate rate sheet pricing, 

including but not limited to, all third party expenses. All approved costs were supported by

adequate documentation which included invoices and proofs of payment.

The amount of compensable costs is $114,692.69 while $9,188.07 was deemed noncompensable for the following reasons:

 27 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 28 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 29 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a)(4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 30 33 CFR Part 136. 31 33 CFR 136.105. 32 There was not a FOSC assigned to this incident.To ensure that ES&H met its burden with respect to this factor, 

the NPFC coordinated with the regional office of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency which would have been 

the FOSC for this incident if one were assigned. After analyzing the spill and the actions taken by ES&H, the EPA 

opined that the actions taken were consistent with the National Contigency Plan. We agree. 33 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 34 ES&H Emergency Response Rate Schedule, January 1, 2016.