3

CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION1 

Claim Number: UCGPN21003-URC001 

Claimant: State of Louisiana

Type of Claimant: Government 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $3,188.31

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $3,182.42

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:: 

On September 27, 2020, at approximately 1900 hours CST, the National Response Center 

(NRC) received notification from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) 

of a possible oil anomaly observed by satellite imagery.2

 The NRC notified Coast Guard Sector 

New Orleans (CG SEC NOLA), the Federal On Scene Coordinator (FOSC) for the incident. An 

auxiliary overflight of the area determined the image was a sheen of crude oil in the Gulf of 

Mexico; a navigable waterway of the United States.3 CG SEC NOLA identified the source as the 

Yuma Energy Main Pass #2 facility4

; owned and operated by Yuma Energy, Inc.(Yuma). CG 

SEC NOLA determined Yuma was the responsible party (RP) for the incident as defined by the 

Oil Pollution Act of 1990.

5

 On September 27, 2020, the FOSC contacted Yuma to investigate the 

cause of discharge and initiate response actions.6

Yuma filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on April 15, 2020, then converted to Chapter 7 

liquidation on October 19, 2020.7

 On October 19, 2020, the FOSC federalized the clean up under 

FPN N21003.8 CG SEC NOLA contracted Forefront Emergency Management (Forefront) to 

manage the incident cleanup and hired Environmental Safety & Health Consulting Services 

(ES&H) to perform all essential cleanup and disposal duties as the Oil Spill Recovery 

Organization (OSRO).

9 The FOSC contacted the State of Louisiana, who deployed multiple 

agencies (Department of Pubic Safety (LOSCO), Department of Environmental Quality (LA 

1 This determination is written for the sole purpose of adjudicating a claim against the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund 

(OSLTF). This determination adjudicates whether the claimant is entitled to OSLTF reimbursement of claimed 

removal costs or damages under the Oil Pollution Act of 1990. This determination does not adjudicate any rights or 

defenses any Responsible Party or Guarantor may have or may otherwise be able to raise in any future litigation or 

administrative actions, to include a lawsuit or other action initiated by the United States to recover the costs 

associated with this incident. After a claim has been paid, the OSLTF becomes subrogated to all of the claimant’s 

rights under 33 U.S.C. § 2715. When seeking to recover from a Responsible Party or a Guarantor any amounts paid 

to reimburse a claim, the OSLTF relies on the claimant’s rights to establish liability. If a Responsible Party or 

Guarantor has any right to a defense to liability, those rights can be asserted against the OSLTF. Thus, this 

determination does not affect any rights held by a Responsible Party or a Guarantor. 2 National Response Center Report# 1288387. 3 SITREP-POL 2, dated January 6, 2021. 4 In some documents this facility is noted as Breton Sound #2; but they are the same platform/facility. 5 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32). 6 MISLE Case Id: 1237410. 7 The State of Louisiana claim submission received on February 9, 2023, page 86 of 86: U.S. Bankruptcy Court

Petition #20-41455-mxm7. 8 MISLE Case Id: 1237410.

9 MISLE Case Id: 1237410.

(b) (6)
4

DEQ) and the State of Lousiana Department of Wildlife & Fisheries (LA DWF)), who arrived on 

scene to coordinate with the Federal On Scene Coordinator Representative (FOSCR)10 and were 

part of the Unified Command to oversee the cleanup process. 

On October 19, 2020, ES&H began deploying absorbent boom around the facility and 

reconfiguring a containment boom left by Yuma. Between October 19, 2020 and December 11, 

2020, the OSRO continuously traveled to and from the scene of the spill, deploying a total of 

1,400 feet of containment boom, 124 bales of absorbent boom, 9 bales of absorbent pads and 

recovering/disposing of a total of 129 pollution bags.11 Approximately 4,950 barrels of an 

oil/water mixture were recovered from the production equipment, and from hatches and tanks on 

the facility between December 1, 2020 and December 11, 2020.12 The incident cleanup ended on 

December 12, 2020.13 LOSCO submitted all incident costs on behalf of the State of Louisiana 

(LA State) to Yuma on December 1, 2021.14 Their claim was returned by the postal service, 

citing Yuma had been liquidated.15

On February 8, 2023, the State of Lousiana presented all incident costs to the National 

Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for $3,188.31.16 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all 

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

careful consideration has determined that $3,182.42 of the requested amount is compensable and 

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

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS:

Incident

On September 27, 2020, at appoximately 7:00 p.m., the NRC received notification from 

NOAA of satellite imagery of a possible oil slick extending 4.8 nautical miles from an oil 

facility, located approximately 0.8 nautical miles South-Southwest of St. Bernard Parish, 

Louisiana.17 The NRC notified CG SEC NOLA, who identified the source as the Yuma Energy 

Main Pass #2 facility; owned and operated by Yuma Energy, Inc. CG SEC NOLA contacted 

Yuma, and advised them to investigate the cause of discharge and initiate response actions.18

On September 27, 2020, Yuma sent a crew to investigate the spill but were unable to identify 

the source. On September 28, 2020, they sent out a second crew and notified CG SEC NOLA the 

potential source could be a knocked over 10 gallon hydraulic tank which Yuma had corrected 

10 The State of Louisiana claim submission recieved February 9, 2023, page 2 of 86. 11 The State of Louisiana claim submission received on February 9, 2023, pages 58 of 86: CG NOLA Incident 

Breifing ICS-201-2AP. 12 The State of Louisiana claim submission received on February 9, 2023, page 61 of 86: CG NOLA Incident 

Breifing ICS-201-2AS. 13 The State of Louisiana claim submission received on February 9, 2023, page 60 of 86: CG NOLA Incident 

Breifing ICS-201-2AR. 14 The State of Louisiana claim submission received on February 9, 2023, page 62 of 86: LOSCO Letter to Yuma 

Energy, Inc., dated December 1, 2021.

15 The State of Louisiana claim submission received on February 9, 2023, page 86 of 86: U.S. Bankruptcy Court 

Petition #20-41455-mxm7. 16 The State of Louisiana claim submission recieved February 9, 2023. 17 NRC Report #1288387. 18 MISLE Case Id: 1237410.
5

and secured.

19 Yuma hired Forefront to manage the incident cleanup and hired ES&H to serve as

the OSRO, but due to the RP’s questionable financial status both contractor’s awaited funds to be 

transferred upfront prior to mobilization. On September 29, 2020, Yuma notified the FOSC their

facility had been shut down since May, 2020 since the company filed bankruptcy on April 15, 

2020, and Yuma noted the facility was in the process of sale.

On September 30, 2020, the Federal On Scene Coordinator Representative (FOSCR) arrived 

at the incident location and conducted an initial assessment of the area.20 The FOSCR spotted a 

rainbow-colored sheen on the Northwest side of Yuma’s facility, and noted the sheen’s direction 

of movement was heading Southeast in the Gulf of Mexico. The FOSCR discovered a hole in a 

concrete storage barge at the bottom level of the platform, that appeared to have been struck by 

an unknown object and identified the breach as the source of discharge.21 The FOSCR also noted 

the platform had several thousand barrels of oil & oil/water mixture in its tanks.

22

Responsible Party 

In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the owner/operator of the source which 

caused the oil spill is the Responsible Party (RP) for the incident.23 The FOSC tracked the source 

of the spill to the Yuma Energy Main Pass #2 Facility; an oil facility located approximately 0.8 

natuical miles South-Southwest of St. Bernard Parish, Louisiana.24 Yuma Energy, Inc. was the 

owner and operator of the facility at the time of the spill incident.

Yuma was identifed as the responsible party (RP), as defined by the Oil Pollution Act of 

1990.25 Claimant submitted the claimed costs to the RP on December 1, 2021,26 but the claim 

was returned by the United States Postal Service. Further investigation by the claimant 

confirmed theRP had filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy on April 15, 2020., and converted to 

Chapter 7 liquidation on October 19, 2020.27

Recovery Operations

On September 30, 2020, Yuma placed containment boom around the facility.28 On October 

16, 2020, after acknowledging the RP had filed bankruptcy and had not initiated further response 

19 MISLE Case Id: 1237410. 20 The State of Louisiana claim submission received on February 9, 2023, page 17 of 86: CG NOLA Incident 

Breifing ICS-201-2A. 21 SITREP-POL 2, dated January 6, 2021. 22 The State of Louisiana claim submission received on February 9, 2023, page 70 of 86: Lousiana Department of 

Environmental Quality Incident Report #198952, dated March 2, 2021.

23 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32). 24 NRC Report# 1288387. 25 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32). 26 The State of Louisiana claim submission received on February 9, 2023, page 62 of 86: LOSCO Letter to Yuma 

Energy, Inc., dated December 1, 2021.

27 The State of Louisiana claim submission received on February 9, 2023, page 86 of 86: U.S. Bankruptcy Court 

Petition #20-41455-mxm7. 28 The State of Louisiana claim submission received on February 9, 2023, page 17 of 86: CG NOLA Incident 

Breifing ICS-201-2A.
6

actions, the FOSCR took command of the incident cleanup operation. CG SEC NOLA

federalized the clean up under FPN N21003 on October, 19, 2020.29 The FOSCR contracted 

Forefront to manage the operation and hired ES&H to serve as the OSRO.30 CG SEC NOLA

contacted the Louisiana Department of Pubic Safety (LOSCO), who arrived on scene to 

coordinate with the FOSCR. Together, the FOSCR and LOSCO oversaw all operations 

performed by Forefront and ES&H.3132

On October 19, 2020, ES&H began deploying absorbent boom around the facility and 

reconfiguring the containment boom left behind by Yuma. Between October 19, 2020 and 

December 11, 2020, the OSRO continuously traveled to and from the scene of the spill, 

deploying a total of 1,400 feet of containment boom, 124 bales of absorbent boom, 9 bales of 

absorbent pads and recovering/disposing of a total of 129 pollution bags.33 Response operations 

were completed on December 12, 2020.34

II. NPFC AND RP: 

The NPFC issued a RP Notification letter to Yuma Energy, Inc. dated February 16, 2023.

35

The NPFC has not receiveda response. 

A RP Notification letter notifies the RP that a claim was presented to the NPFC that is 

seeking reimbursement of uncompensated removal costs or damages incurred as a result of the 

incident in which the recipient is the identified or suspected RP.36 

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

On February 9, 2023, the NPFC received a claim for $3,188.31 from the State of Louisiana.

37

Claimant provided the NPFC with the National Response Center Report# 1288387, the U.S.

Coast Guard Spill Summary relative to the Yuma Energy, Inc. Main Pass #2 facility response, 

the U.S. Coast Guard Operational Summary relative to the response, the U.S. Bankruptcy Court 

Petition #20-41455-mxm7, the request for payment mailed to Yuma Energy, Inc. on December 

1, 2021, work reports specific to LOSCO, LA DEQ and LA DWF, labor and equipment records 

associated with all costs claimed and the invoice/requests for reimbursement associated with the 

costs claimed.38

29 MISLE Case Id: 1237410. 30 MISLE Case Id: 1237410. 31 FOSCR email to the NPFC dated March 3, 2023. 32 The State of Louisiana claim submission received on February 9, 2023. 33 The State of Louisiana claim submission received on February 9, 2023, page 58 of 86: CG NOLA Incident 

Breifing ICS-201-2AP. 34 The State of Louisiana claim submission received on February 9, 2023, page 60 of 86: CG NOLA Incident 

Breifing ICS-201-2AR. 35 NPFC letter to Yuma Energy, Inc. dated February 16, 2023. 36 See, RP Notification Letter dated February 16, 2023. 37 State of Louisiana Claim Submission received February 9, 2023. 38 The State of Louisiana claim submission received on February 9, 2023. 
7

On February 23, 2023, the NPFC requested additional information from the State of 

Louisiana.39 On February 28, 2023, Claimant submitted lists of all drums and tote tanks present 

at the time of incident cleanup, a map of the facility with drums and tote tanks specified, a list of 

equipment usage rates established by Lousiana Department of Public Safety (DPS) and two emails with attachments from CG SEC NOLA and ES&H that stated oil was spilled from the 

barge and not from drums or tote tanks, and that any other hazardous materials were contained in 

drums and tote tanks on the platform.40 Claimant specified that LA State’s claim is solely related 

to cleanup of the active oil spill event from the barge and monitoring the removal of the 

drums/totes that contained oil products.41

To verify the State of Louisiana’s claim, the NPFC contacted the FOSCR on-site during 

incident cleanup, who agreed that hazardous materials had not mixed with any oil spilled and 

verified that State of Louisiana personnel were present on the dates claimed and had acted in 

accordance with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).42

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).43 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.44 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.45 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.

V. DISCUSSION: 

 An RP 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.46 An RP’s liability 

is strict, joint, and several.47 When enacting OPA, Congress “explicitly recognized that the 

existing federal and states laws provided inadequate cleanup and damage remedies, required 

39 NPFC email to LOSCO dated February 23, 2023. 40 The State of Louisiana attachment package received by NPFC on February 28, 2023. 41 LOSCO email to NPFC dated February 28, 2023. 42 FOSCR email to NPFC dated March 3, 2023. 43 33 CFR Part 136. 44 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)). 45 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). 46 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 47 See, H.R. Rep. No 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780.
8

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.”48 OPA was intended to cure these deficiencies in the 

law.

OPA provides a mechanism for compensating parties who have incurred removal costs 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.”49 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.”50

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

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP).51 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set 

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

claims.52 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.53

 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.54

(d) That the removal costs were uncompensated and reasonable.55

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

and submitted by the State of Louisiana herein are compensable removal costs based on the 

supporting documentation provided. All costs approved for payment were verified as being 

invoiced at the appropriate rate sheet pricing, FEMA rates and/or State agency pay rates. All 

approved costs were supported by adequate documentation which included invoices and/or proof 

of payment where applicable.

48 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). 49 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 50 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 51 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a) (4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 52 33 CFR Part 136. 53 33 CFR 136.105. 54 FOSCR email to NPFC dated March 3, 2023. 55 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205.
9

The FOSCR confirmed that the claimed State agencies were present during the days and 

times itemized in this claim.56 All approved costs were supported by adequate documentation 

and were determined by the FOSCR to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan 

(NCP).57

Upon adjudication of the costs, the NPFC has determined that the amount of compensable 

removal costs is $3,182.42 while $5.89 are deemed non-compensable for the following 

reasons:58 

1. NPFC submitted a request for additional information related to Invoice 

LA2020_0927_1111_1, which consisted of equipment costs specific to a 2018 Dodge 

Ram 1500 used by LOSCO personnel on October 19, 2020.59 In response to the NPFC’s 

request for a rate schedule to support equipment costs cited in the claim, Claimant 

provided a list of equipment usage rates established by DPS60, and explained how DPS 

and DEQ had each established a mileage rate based on the FEMA rate.61 The 

transportation vehicle was claimed for 290 miles of use at a rate of $0.56 per mile; 

totaling $162.40. The 2019-2020 equipment rates established by FEMA support an 

automobile for transport up to $0.54 per mile.62 As such, costs were approved for 290 

miles of use at a rate of $0.54 per mile; totaling $156.60. The additional $5.80 are denied.

2. An unidentified amount of $.09 is denied as unsupported by the record.63

Overall Denied Costs: $5.89 

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 $3,182.42. 

56 FOSCR email to the NPFC dated March 3, 2023.

57 FOSCR email to NPFC dated March 3, 2023. 58 Enclosure 3 to this determination provides a detailed analysis of the amounts approved and denied by the NPFC. 59 The State of Louisiana claim submission received on February 9, 2023, page 63 of 86: The State of Louisiana 

Invoice LA2020_0927_1111_1, dated December 1, 2021.

60 DPS Equipment List. 61 LOSCO email to NPFC dated February 28, 2023. 62 FEMA Schedule of Equipment Rates 2019, page 1 of 11. 63 NPFC’s Summary of Costs Spreadsheet, Enclosure 3.