CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM

Claim Number : 915091-0001 

Claimant : BP Exploration & Production, Inc. 

Type of Claimant : Corporate 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs

Claim Manager :

Amount Requested : $1,033.76 

FACTS: 

A. Oil Spill Incident: 

On April 9, 2014, the Coast Guard (CG) National Response Center (NRC) received

notification of a large amount of surface residual tar balls (SRBs) washed up on the beach in 

Grand Isle Beach, Jefferson Parish, LA, located on the Gulf of Mexico, a navigable waterway 

of the United States. 1 The CG Gulf Coast Incident Management Team (CG GCIMT) was

notified and responded on April 10, 2014. Upon arrival, CG personnel found SRBs spread 

throughout Segments LAJF01-010-15, LAJF01-010-10, LAJF01-011-10 and LAJF01-016-10 

/ Zones GI 8a-14a. As the SRBs were in a quantity that exceeded the CG’s capacity to 

mitigate, an email directive was issued to BP Exploration & Production (BP) to activate an 

oil spill response organization (OSRO) to respond for cleanup operations on Grand Isle 

Beach as directed.2 

B. Description of removal actions performed: 

On April 10, 2014, Danos & Curole Marine Contractors (BP’s Oil Spill Response 

Organization (OSRO)), Mr. of NextSource, Inc., the Shoreline Cleanup 

Assessment Team (SCAT) operations liaison, responded to the CG’s directive of response 

and met with a CG active duty personnel on-scene. Cleanup of what appeared to be SRBs of 

MC252 origin began and extended through Zones GI 8a-14a on the beach. Approximately 

6.28 pounds of SRBs were recovered and properly disposed of at River Birch Landfill, 

Avondale, LA. During the cleanup operations, BP representatives suspected that a small 

percentage of the SRBs were not MC-252 oil and those SRBs were segregated out and 

weighted separately. From the SRBs suspected not to be MC-252, CG personnel sampled a 

total of six (6) SRBs which had been recovered in segments LAJF01-010-010, LAJF01-011-

010 and LAJF01-016-010. CG personnel split all six (6) samples with BP personnel and 

submitted the samples to the CG Marine Safety Lab (CG MSL) for analysis.

3

 

C. Sample Analysis: The samples collected by CG personnel were forwarded to the Coast 

Guard Marine Safety Laboratory (MSL) on June 12, 2014 (MSL Case #14-177). In an Oil 

Sample Analysis Report dated November 3, 2014, the MSL determined that sample 14-177-

1, 14-177-2, 14-177-3, 14-177-4 and 14-177-6 contained heavy petroleum oil with 

characteristics different from those samples of MC 252 oil. Specifically, those samples were

1 See NRC Report # 1079284 dated April 9, 2014.

2 See email directive to BP dated April 9, 2014.

3 See NPFC Optional OSLTF Form submitted by BP dated May 18, 2015.

2 

 
determined not to be derived from MC 252 oil. However, sample 14-177-5 contained heavy 

petroleum oil with characteristics similar to MC 252 oil. Specifically, sample 14-177-5 was 

determined to be derived from a common source of MC 252 oil.4

D. The Claim: On May 18, 2015, BP submitted a removal cost claim to the National Pollution 

Funds Center (NPFC), asserting that the majority of oil collected was not Deepwater Horizon 

oil. Claimant seeks a prorated portion of reimbursement5 of its uncompensated removal 

costs associated with the removal of the non MC 252 oil in the amount of $1,033.76 for 

services provided on April 10, 2014, which include personnel and vehicle use. The claimed 

removal costs are based on the rate schedule in place at the time services were provided. A 

copy of the vendor rate schedule is provided in the claim file.6

APPLICABLE LAW: 

"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”.

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”. 33 USC § 2701(31). 

Removal costs include any 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).

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. 

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 See MSL Case # 14-177 dated November 3, 2014. 5 Claimant calculated and was able to document that 3.25 hours of personnel and equipment time were committed by 

BP’s OSRO in the collection of non MC 252 oil. See NPFC Optional OSLTF Form submitted by BP dated May 18, 

2014 for detail.

6 See NPFC Optional OSLTF Form submitted by BP dated May 18, 2015.

3

 
(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. CG GCIMT as the Federal On-Scene Coordinator Representative (FOSCR) for this 

incident, oversaw the removal actions and determined that the actions undertaken by BP’s 

contracted OSRO were consistent with the NCP as reported in NRC Report # 1079284; 33 

U.S.C. §§ 2702(b)(1)(B) and 2712(a)(4);7

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

“navigable waters;”

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

in court for the claimed costs;

4. The claim was submitted within the six year period of limitations for claims. 33 

U.S.C.§2712(h)(1);

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

and determined the costs presented were for actions in accordance with the NCP and that the 

costs for these actions were reasonable and allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205.

B. Analysis:

As a result of the CG MSL analysis report #14-177 concluding that samples 14-177-1, 14-

177-2, 14-177-3, 14-177-4 and 14-177-6 were not derived from MC 252 oil, BP seeks a 

prorated portion of reimbursement of their removal costs. The Claimant states and has 

properly documented that 3.25 hours of personnel and equipment costs claimed were for 

uncompensated removal costs incurred for the incident on April 10, 2014.8

 BP represents 

that these prorated costs paid by it are compensable removal costs, payable by the OSLTF as 

presented by the Claimant.

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. 

7 See NPFC Optional OSLTF Form submitted by BP dated May 18, 2015.

8 Id.

4

 
As a result of the MSL analysis that the SRBs samples 14-177-1, 14-177-2, 14-177-3, 14-

177-4 and 14-177-6 were not derived from MC 252 oil and the Claimant was able to provide 

documentation supporting their uncompensated removal costs associated within the 

Segments these samples were collected from, this portion of the incident has been determined 

a mystery spill for which BP seeks reimbursement of its removal costs. The Claimant states 

that the costs claimed are for uncompensated removal costs incurred for this incident on 

April 10, 2014. BP represents that the costs paid by it are compensable removal costs, 

payable by the OSLTF as presented by the Claimant.

Upon review of the claim submission, the NPFC has determined that the documentation 

presented to support the actions were reasonable, necessary, and performed in accordance 

with the response objectives as determined by the CG GCIMT and that the actions were also 

monitored by CG personnel. Additionally, CG MSL analysis confirms that the response was 

not associated with the MC252 oil spill. 

C. Determined Amount: $1,003.76

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will offer to pay $1,003.76 as full 

compensation for the claimed removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the 

NPFC under claim 915091-0001. All costs claimed are for charges paid for by the Claimant

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

payable by the OSLTF as presented by the Claimant. 

 

 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 6/15/15 

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: 

5