3

CLAIM DETERMINATION 

Claim Number: E17607-0005 

Claimant: Treo Staffing, LLC

Type of Claimant: Corporate 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $3,891.52 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $2,237.33

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: 

A 400-barrel above ground storage tank (AST) discharged oil into a wetland which connects 

with the Intracoastal Waterway. Metairie Energy Company (“Metairie” or “RP”) who owned and 

operated both the field of discharge and the AST is the responsible party (RP) as defined by the 

Oil Pollution Act of 1990.1 A&M Associates, Inc. was hired by the RP as the Spill Manager for 

the incident. A & M hired Treo Staffing, LLC (“Treo” or “claimant”), as a subcontractor who 

provided temporary employees that assisted with oil spill removal and response. Treo presented 

its uncompensated removal costs to the RP. Having not received payment from the RP after 

ninety days,2 Treo, presented its uncompensated removal cost claim to the National Pollution 

Funds Center (NPFC) for $3,747.65.3 On December 20, 2018, Treo Staffing sent an email to the 

NPFC amending its sum certain to $3,891.52.4 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all 

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

careful consideration, the NPFC has determined that $2,237.33 of the requested $3,891.52 is 

compensable under the Oil Pollution Act and the remaining $1,654.19 is not compensable 

because $391.10 in costs were not supported by the existing service agreement or supporting 

documentation; $357.20 in costs claimed as part of Treo invoice # 32617-73 were previously 

paid by A&M to Treo via A&M check # 005270 therefore this amount is denied as not 

uncompensated; and the remaining $905.89 in legal fees are denied as a non-OPA compensable 

removal cost. NPFC offers $2,237.33 to Treo Staffing, LLC., as complete compensation for its 

claim. 

 

I. INCIDENT, RESPONSIBLE PARTY AND RECOVERY OPERATIONS: 

Incident 

On January 26, 2017, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) received 

a report from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (LDEQ) of a discharge from a 

400-barrel above ground storage tank (AST) that was lacking secondary containment. The 

discharge migrated into a wetland connected to the Port Allen Lock, which connects with the 

Intracoastal Waterway, a navigable water of the United States. The 400-barrel AST, identified 

 

1 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32). 

2 33 CFR 136.103(c). 3 Treo Staffing OSLTF claim form dated November 5, 2018.

4 December 20, 2018 email from Treo to NPFC changing sum certain from $3,747.65 to $3,891.52.

5

with spill response activities.

12 Some of the labor costs billed to A&M for project duties 

performed by Treo employees in the capacity of contract labor, remained unpaid by the A&M to 

Treo. A&M notified the NPFC that all costs unpaid to Treo were a result of the RP ceasing 

payment to A&M which resulted in its inability to pay the remaining costs to Treo Staffing, 

LLC.13

On March 13, 2018, the NPFC issued a letter to Treo Staffing, LLC notifying them that the 

RP has ceased paying A&M, and that all unpaid costs incurred by Treo associated with Metairie 

Energy oil spill incident should be presented to Metairie Energy Corporation.14 The NPFC 

informed Treo Staffing, LLC that it could submit its costs to the NPFC if the RP did not respond 

within 90 days from the date the RP received Treo’s request for payment, or if the RP denied the 

claim.15

II. CLAIMANT AND RP:

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

1990 (OPA)16 require all claims for removal costs or damages must be presented to the 

responsible party before seeking compensation from the NPFC.17

Treo presented a letter to the RP itemizing the final amount requested for $3,891.5218 This

submission was inclusive of all costs for Treo’s labor, legal fees and included time invoices, all 

Daily Job Calculation Worksheets, Echols & Associates, LLC invoices and a copy of the 

certified mail sent by legal counsel requesting payment of debt from the RP. The RP has not 

settled the claim.19

III. CLAIMANT AND NPFC:

When an RP has not settled a claim after 90 days of receipt, a claimant may elect to present 

its claim to the NPFC.20 On November 15, 2018, the NPFC received a claim for uncompensated 

removal costs from Treo dated November 5, 2018. The costs presented to the NPFC in the 

amount of $3,747.65 did not match those submitted to the RP and could not be substantiated

using the information submitted with the claim. On December 20, 2018, Treo withdrew the costs 

and resubmitted their claim for $3,891.52.21 The revised sum certain to the NPFC on December 

20, 2018, now matched the amount requested of the RP via a Treo letter dated April 19, 2018, 

that indicated the costs claimed were for Treo labor costs totaling $2,985.53, and costs accrued 

from attorney fees in the amount of $905.99. The total amount claimed is $3,891.52.

22

 12 Treo Staffing, LLC and A&M Associates, Inc. service agreement document dated February 4, 2017. 13 See NPFC claim # E17607-003 dated November 9, 2017 by A&M Associates, Inc. 14 Treo Staffing, LLC notification letter dated March 13, 2018. 15 Id. 16 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. 17 33 CFR 136.103. 18 Treo request for compensation letter to Metairie Energy dated April 19, 2018. 19 Treo claim submission dated November 5, 2018. 20 33 CFR 136.103. 21 December 20, 2018 email from Treo to NPFC amending sum certain to $3,891.52. 22 December 20, 2018 email from Treo to NPFC amending sum certain to $3,891.52. 
6

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).

23 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.24 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.

25 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: 

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.26 A 

responsible party’s liability is strict, joint, and several.27 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.”28 OPA was intended to cure these 

deficiencies in the law.

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.”29 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.”30

 23 33 CFR Part 136. 24 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). 25 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). 26 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 27 See, H.R. Rep. No. 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 28 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.). 29 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 30 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 
7

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

with the National Contingency Plan.

31 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of 

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

claims.

32 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.

33 

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.34

The NPFC analyzed each of these factors and determined the majority of the contract labor 

costs incurred by Treo and submitted herein are compensable removal costs based on the 

supporting documentation provided. The NPFC has determined that the OPA compensable 

approved costs were billed in accordance with the contracted rates between the parties. All costs 

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

approved costs were supported by adequate documentation which included invoices and proofs 

of payment.

35

The amount of compensable costs is $2,237.33 while $1,654.19 is deemed non OPA 

compensable for the following reasons: 36

1. The costs related to Treo’s 1.5% monthly service charge for overdue costs is 

denied as these costs are not for spill response and are not OPA compensable

removal costs. Total monthly service charges denied are $231.18;

2. The costs related to Treo personnel gas allowances is denied because the service 

agreement failed to identify gas allowances as an agreed upon reimbursement and 

the daily records did not provide adequate support for the hours and costs 

specified and as such, are deemed unsubstantiated. Total gas allowance denied 

costs are $160.00;

3. A&M made payment to Treo in the amount of $1,000.00 on November 29, 2017 

via check 005270. Treo cites distributing $642.98 towards Invoice 31217-73, and 

distributing the additional $357.02 towards Invoice 32617-73. The NPFC cannot 

 31 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a)(4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 32 33 CFR Part 136. 33 33 CFR 136.105. 34 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 35 See A&M Associates claim # E17607-0003 for incident specific information that is relevant to this claimant as a 

subcontractor of A & M Associates, LLC.

36 Enclosure 3 to this determination provides a detailed analysis of these costs.