National Pollution Funds Center Determination

Summary of the Incident and Claim 

On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon mobile offshore drilling unit exploded and 

sank, discharging an estimated 3.191 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico until 

the well was capped on July 15, 2010. Responders to the discharge used approximately 

1.84 million gallons of dispersants2 to keep, or delay, the oil from reaching sensitive 

shorelines. The U.S. Coast Guard designated the source of the spill as an offshore facility 

located on an area leased by BP Exploration & Production, Inc. (BP). BP accepted the 

designation and advertised its claims process pursuant to the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). 

Upon notification of the spill, the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and 

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), along with the Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Service (FWS), Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Department of 

Agriculture (USDA)3, and five Gulf Coast states4, acting as natural resource trustees 

designated under OPA and appropriate state laws, initiated an assessment of natural 

resource damages resulting from the discharges and response to discharges of oil. By 

September of 2010, the trustees observed over 950 miles of oiled shoreline habitat, 400 

oiled sea turtles, and over 1,500 oiled birds5. Numerous other natural resources at risk 

including fish, marine mammals, oysters, and associated habitats were identified. The

trustees continue to work together to develop and implement assessment plans to 

determine the nature and extent of these losses. 

On June 11, 2015, the EPA presented the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) with a 

claim for costs to implement their 2015 assessment and restoration planning activities. 

The claim totaled $2,056,000, represented as the costs with respect to EPA’s 2015 Partial, 

Interim Claim for Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration Planning (the 

Plan). EPA’s Plan includes two separate activities: Activity 1 describes EPA’s costs to 

 

1

 In re Deepwater Horizon, MDL 2179 (ED La., January 15, 2015) 2

 1.07 million gallons on the surface and 771,000 gallons sub-sea. “The Ongoing Administration-Wide 

Response to the Deepwater BP Oil Spill.” Deepwater Horizon Incident Joint Information Center,

September 9, 2010. 3

 On September 10, 2012, through Executive Order 13626, the President designated the EPA and USDA

as additional natural resource trustees specifically for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. Federal 

Register, Vol. 77, No. 178, Pgs. 56749-56752, September 13, 2012. 4

 The state trustees are Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, and Texas. 5

 Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 190, Pgs. 60800-60802, October 1, 2010 

Claim Number and Name: N10036-EP32, 2015 Deepwater Horizon Assessment Costs

Claimant: Environmental Protection Agency 

Claim Type: NRDA, Past and Upfront Assessment Costs 

Amount Requested: $2,056,000 

Offer Amount: $2,056,000 

Determination Date: August 3, 2015 

NPFC Claim Manager: 

 
Page 2 of 8

conduct restoration planning activities necessary to develop a draft Damage Assessment 

Restoration Plan (DARP), and Activity 2 describes EPA’s cost to implement a study to 

assess the toxicity of oil burned during the response on marine mammals. 

This determination presents the NPFC’s findings with respect to claimed costs for both of 

the assessment activities presented in the claim. 

Jurisdictional Information

The NPFC first considered whether the claimed damages arose from an incident as 

defined by OPA. 33 U.S.C. §2701 et seq. To be covered, the incident must involve a 

discharge, or a substantial threat of discharge, of oil from a vessel or facility into 

navigable waters of the United States after August 18, 1990. Based on the information 

summarized above, the NPFC has determined that the activities included and approved in 

this determination are for natural resource damages resulting from an OPA incident.

Claimant Eligibility

Federal natural resource trustees are designated by the President, pursuant to OPA (33 

U.S.C. §2706 (b)(2)), with responsibility to assess damages to natural resources under 

their trusteeship and develop and implement plans for the restoration, rehabilitation, 

replacement, or acquisition of the equivalent of those injured natural resources. 33 U.S.C. 

§§2706(c)(1)(A) and (C). Pursuant to 33 C.F.R. §136.207, natural resource trustees may 

present claims to the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF or the Fund) for 

uncompensated natural resource damages, which include the reasonable cost of assessing 

those damages. 33 U.S.C. §2706(d)(1)(C).

This claim for NRDA costs was submitted by EPA. EPA is an appropriate federal natural 

resource trustee for the Deepwater Horizon oil spill pursuant to the President’s 

designation under Executive Order 13626 (77 Fed. Reg. 56749, September 13, 2012), and

Subpart G of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan (40 

C.F.R. §300.600) as revised by EPA6 .

General Claim Presentment Requirements

Claims to the Fund must be presented in writing to the Director, NPFC, within three 

years after the date on which the injury and its connection with the incident in question 

were reasonably discoverable with the exercise of due care, or within three years from the 

date of completion of the NRDA under OPA (33 U.S.C. §2706(e)), whichever is later. 33 

U.S.C. §2712(h)(2), 33 C.F.R. §136.101(a)(1)(ii). This claim is for costs to assess the 

nature and extent of damages to natural resources resulting from the incident. The 

assessment was not complete when the claim was received on June 11, 2015; therefore, 

the claim was received within the period of limitations for claims.

 6

 Federal Register, Vol. 79, No. 124, Pgs. 36429-36431, June 27, 2014
Page 3 of 8

In accordance with OPA, the OSLTF is available to pay claims for uncompensated 

damages. 33 USC §2712(a)(4). Covered damages include natural resource damages. 33 

U.S.C. §2702(b)(2)(A), which are for injury to, destruction of, loss of, or loss of use of 

natural resources, including the reasonable costs to assess those damages. 33 U.S.C. 

§2706(c)(1)(A). Costs are determined with respect to plans adopted under 33 U.S.C. 

§2706(d)(2) that are developed and implemented after adequate public notice, 

opportunity for a hearing, and consideration of all public comment. 33 U.S. §2706(c)(5). 

EPA states that the Plan that forms the basis of this claim was published on EPA’s 

website on January 7, 20157

. EPA states that they have not received any comments on 

their plan. 

Claim Presentment to the Responsible Party

With certain exceptions, claims to the NPFC for damages must be presented first to the 

responsible party (RP). 33 U.S.C. §2713(a). If a claim is presented in accordance with 

§2713(a) and is not settled by payment by any person within 90 days after the date upon 

which the claim was presented, the claimant may elect to commence an action in court or 

present the claim to the OSLTF. 33 U.S.C. §2713(c)(2).

EPA first presented its Plan and claim for implementation costs to BP on December 30, 

20148. The Plan identified EPA’s estimated future costs to implement two assessment 

activities. For both activities, EPA’s Plan describes the assessment or restoration 

planning activity, need for the activity and how it connects to the NRDA process, 

deliverables to be produced, level of effort, timeline, and cost estimates for contractors, 

EPA personnel, and laboratory expenses. The cost to implement the two assessment 

activities, as presented to BP, was $2,056,000. EPA verified that all costs included in 

their plan are separate and distinct from any and all previous funding requests and claims 

to both BP and the NPFC9. On February 27, 2015, EPA10 provided BP with additional 

clarifying information to facilitate BP’s review, including more detailed budgets and

general claim information. 

EPA indicates that, to date, BP has not responded to EPA’s claim11. More than 90 days 

after presenting its claim to BP for $2,056,000 to implement its Plan, EPA presented this 

claim to the NPFC12. The NPFC notified BP on June 16, 2015, that this claim had been 

received13. 

Based on the above facts, the NPFC finds that EPA’s claim to the NPFC for 2015 

assessment costs was presented to the RP in accordance with OPA.

 7

 July 28, 2015 Email from EPA to NPFC 8

 December 30, 2014 Letter from EPA to BP transmitting their Partial, Interim Claim for Assessment 

Costs 9

 Claim Executive Summary, page 7 10 February 27, 2015 Letter from EPA to BP transmitting their Reformatted Partial, Interim Claim 11 Claim Cover Letter, page 1 12 June 11, 2015 Email from EPA to NPFC 13 June 16, 2015 RP notification letter from NPFC to BP
Page 4 of 8

Claimant's Burden of Proof 

Under OPA, trustees bear the burden of proving their entitlement to the amount claimed 

for

compensation of natural resource damages. 33 C.F.R. §136.105(a). To satisfy this

requirement the claimant must submit their plan, which forms the basis of their claim, 

along

with other supporting information so the NPFC can determine that work and associated 

costs

are reasonable and appropriate. After reviewing the claim, Plan, and supporting 

information,

the NPFC has determined that EPA has proven entitlement to all of the

$2,056,000 claimed. 33 U.S.C. §2706(e)(2).

NPFC Review of Claim Activities and Associated Costs

Restoration Planning and Injury Assessment Management and Administration 

As noted above the President appointed EPA a natural resource trustee for the Deepwater 

Horizon oil spill to provide “scientific and policy expertise14” toward completion of the 

NRDA and restoration efforts. Executive Order 13626 further mandates that “All Federal 

trustees are directed to consult, coordinate, and cooperate with each other in carrying out 

all of their trustee duties and responsibilities.” Consistent with this directive, in its 

capacity as a co-trustee, EPA participates in various injury assessment Technical 

Working Groups15, the Restoration Subcommittee, and the Restoration Planning Teams 

formed by the cotrustees. Notably, EPA also began serving as Vice Chair of the 

Executive Committee of the Trustee Council in October of 2014. 

EPA claims $1,032,000 ($860,000 as agency salary costs, $32,000 as travel costs, and 

$140,000 as indirect costs) to assist with completing a draft DARP for public review. 

These costs will fund EPA’s efforts to provide scientific and technical expertise in the 

development, evaluation, and selection of restoration alternatives, as well as EPA’s 

contributions to finalize injury determinations that will be presented in the draft DARP. 

This activity also includes EPA's management and administration costs necessary to 

complete the draft DARP, including budget planning, oversight, legal support, financial 

management, public communications, compiling documents for the Administrative 

Record, and travel to attend Trustee Council and public meetings. 

The NPFC has previously provided NOAA funding in the amount of $16,412,700 for 

their restoration planning efforts needed to complete a draft DARP16. While NOAA is 

the lead trustee with respect to the completion of the draft DARP, NOAA acknowledged 

that the efforts of other trustees would be necessary to complete the activities described 

 14 Executive Order 13626 (77 Fed. Reg. 56749, September 13, 2012) 15 Water Column, Shorelines, Human Use, Nearshore, Toxicity, and Oysters 16 NPFC Claim Number: N10036-OC30 
Page 5 of 8

within their own claim, expecting that an additional $23 million would be incurred by cotrustees to support NOAA’s claimed activities17. 

After reviewing EPA’s 2015 Assessment Plan, the NPFC finds that the: (1) Restoration 

Planning and Injury Assessment Management and Administration assessment activity 

described above is appropriate and supports EPA’s efforts to quantify injury and plan 

appropriate restoration, and (2) based on the NOAA estimate of co-trustee costs to 

support NOAA’s claimed activities, the EPA costs claimed for these activities are 

reasonable for the proposed level of effort given the complexity of the incident relating 

the nature and extent of oiling, geographic extent of exposure of natural resources to oil, 

and magnitude of potential injury. Therefore, claimed costs of $1,032,000 for the 

Restoration Planning assessment activity are compensable from the Fund. 33 U.S.C. 

§2706 (d)(1)(C), 33 C.F.R. §136.211, and 15 C.F.R. §§990.53 and 990.55. 

Assessment of Burned Oil Air Emission and Toxicity 

EPA claims $1,024,000 to conduct a toxicity study that will provide assessment 

information on injuries to marine mammals18 caused by the inhalation of emissions from 

oil burned during the response to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. During the response to 

the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, the USCG conducted approximately 410 in-situ burns to 

remove oil from the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. While NOAA and EPA conducted 

air-monitoring activities during the time period that the burns occurred, these efforts were 

limited in scope and were directed more towards protection of humans, both response 

workers near the spill site and the onshore population. NOAA has previously conducted 

assessment activities with respect to injury to marine mammals from unburned oil, but 

the affects of the emissions from burned oil on marine mammals in the Gulf has not been 

studied by any trustee to date19. 

The study consists of two main components. First, EPA will conduct oil burnings at the 

U.S. Army’s Aberdeen Test Center for a period of six days. They will burn oil similar to 

the oil released in the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, both with and without the same type 

of dispersants used during the response. From the burnings, EPA will collect and analyze 

the resulting constituents, measuring both the type and amount of pollutants created by 

the burned oil. 

EPA will then take extracts from the pollutants collected during the burnings and, via invitro testing, introduce those pollutants to both human pulmonary cells and bacterial cells 

to determine the amount of oxidative stress experienced by the cells. EPA will use the 

human pulmonary cell20 testing to determine the potency of the metal and salt 

components of the emissions by monitoring the cells for known biomarkers of oxidative 

stress. EPA will use the bacterial cell testing to assess the genetic damage resulting from 

 17 June 8, 2015 Email from NOAA to NPFC 18 EPA stated that the results of this study could potentially be used to inform the assessment of injury to 

reptiles and habitat as well.

19 July 9, 2015 Email from NOAA to NPFC 20 Pulmonary cells are the primary targets of inhaled emissions. 
Page 6 of 8

the organic extracts21 of the emissions by measuring the amount of mutations in the cells 

that occur. EPA will then compare the potencies of these extracts against other more 

well-studied emissions to understand the level of oxidative stress placed on the cells by 

the oil emissions. 

By determining the toxicity of the emissions from oil burned during the response, the 

trustees will be able to more fully understand and quantify injuries to marine mammals. 

On July 9, 2015, NOAA, who is the lead trustee for the quantification of marine 

mammals, confirmed that they would be considering the results of EPA’s study during 

final injury analysis of marine mammals

22. 

EPA claims $1,024,000 ($636,000 for component one and $388,000 for component two)

to complete the study as described above. Costs for component one are agency salary 

and travel expenses ($201,000), contractor expenses ($157,000), laboratory expenses23

($185,000), and indirect costs ($93,000). Costs for component two are for agency salary 

and travel expenses ($90,000), contractor expenses ($160,000), laboratory expenses

($81,000), and indirect costs ($57,000). 

On July 15, 201524, the NPFC requested that EPA describe specifically how the results of 

the burned oil study would be used to quantify injury for marine mammals. On August 3, 

2015, EPA responded that studies of dolphins in areas affected by the Deepwater Horizon 

oil spill have been observed with lung lesions and elevated levels of inflammatory 

proteins in their blood. Oxidative stress is a known cause of these types of injuries and 

determining the level of oxidative stress caused by the burned oil emissions will directly 

inform the scope of potential injuries experienced by marine mammals25. 

After reviewing EPA’s 2015 Assessment Plan and additional claim information provided 

by EPA, the NPFC finds that the: (1) Assessment of Burned Oil Air Emissions and 

Toxicity activity described above is appropriate and supports EPA’s efforts to quantify 

injury and plan appropriate restoration, and (2) costs claimed for these activities are 

reasonable for the proposed level of effort given the complexity of the incident relating 

the nature and extent of oiling, geographic extent of exposure of natural resources to oil, 

and magnitude of potential injury. Therefore, claimed costs of $1,024,000 for the Burned 

Oil Air Emissions and Toxicity assessment activity are compensable from the Fund. 33 

U.S.C. §2706 (d)(1)(C), 33 C.F.R. §136.211, and 15 C.F.R. §§ 990.27, 990.53 and 

990.55. 

Summary

The NPFC has reviewed the claim submitted by EPA for costs to implement its Plan for 

the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in accordance with OPA (33 U.S.C. §2701 et seq.) and 

 21 The organics include polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, nitroarenes, and aromatic amines. 22 July 9, 2015 Email from NOAA to NPFC 23 Costs include use of the Army test facility; purchase, transportation, and disposal of oil; and test 

equipment and supplies. 24 July 15, 2015 Email from NPFC to EPA 25 August 3, 2015 Email from EPA to NPFC 
Page 7 of 8

associated regulations (15 C.F.R. Part 990 and 33 C.F.R. Part 136). Through this 

determination, the NPFC offers $2,056,000 to implement approved activities detailed in 

EPA’s Plan. 

This offer constitutes full and final payment for the activities addressed in this 

determination.

Revolving Trust Fund and Return of Unused Funds to the OSLTF 

As established by OPA (33 U.S.C. §2706(f)) and the NRDA regulations (15 C.F.R. 

§990.65), sums recovered by trustees for natural resource damages must be retained in a 

non-appropriated revolving trust account for use only to implement the nine activities 

addressed in this determination in accordance with EPA’s Plan. For this claim, the NPFC 

will deposit $2,056,000 into EPA’s Damage Assessment and Restoration Revolving Fund 

Account, which EPA has demonstrated26 to be a non-appropriated, revolving trust fund. 

EPA shall reimburse the Fund for any amounts received from the Fund in excess of that 

amount required to accomplish the activities for which the claim was paid. 33 CFR 

136.211(b).

Cost Documentation, Progress Reporting, and Final Report

As the claimant, EPA shall ensure that all expenditures of OSLTF funds are documented 

appropriately and spent according to the Plan for the activities approved in this 

determination. Any funds not spent or appropriately documented shall be returned to the 

Fund. 33 U.S.C. §2706(f).

One year from the date of this determination, and annually thereafter, EPA shall provide 

the NPFC with a report on the status of implementation and expenditures. These annual 

progress reports should include:

1. Certification by EPA that all assessment activities approved in this determination 

have been conducted in accordance with the Plan; 

2. A progress report that includes a description of work accomplished, timeline for 

future activities, and any unexpected problems incurred during implementation; 

3. A summary of expenditures by category (i.e., labor, consultant/contractors, and 

travel); and

4. A narrative description of the work accomplished by each individual and how that 

work fits into the overall progress of the work for the year. Enough detail should be 

included to determine reasonableness of costs for each employee when cost 

documentation is received with the final report.

EPA shall submit a final progress report within 120 days from the date an approved 

activity is complete. This report should include:

 26 March 12, 2015 Email from EPA to NPFC 
Page 8 of 8

1. Certification by EPA that all expenditures of OSLTF funds were in accordance with 

the plan as approved by the NPFC; 

2. A summary of findings;

3. Copies of final reports and/or studies;

4. Documentation of OSLTF funds remaining in the Revolving Trust Fund for this 

claim, including account balance and interest earned; and

5. Documentation of all expenditures as follows:

a. Labor: For each employee –

i. A narrative description of the work accomplished by each individual and how 

that work fit into the plan. Enough detail should be included to determine 

reasonableness of costs; and

ii. The number of hours worked, labor rate, and indirect rate. An explanation of 

indirect rate expenditures, if any, will be necessary; 

b. Travel: Paid travel reimbursement vouchers and receipts;

c. Contract: Activities undertaken, lists of deliverables, and contract invoices and 

receipts;

d. Purchases/Expendables: Invoices and receipts, along with an explanation of 

costs; and 

e. Government Equipment: Documentation of costs, including the rate (i.e., hourly, 

weekly) and time for all equipment used for which costs were incurred. 

With the final report(s), the NPFC will reconcile costs and all remaining funds and/or 

inadequately documented costs will be returned to the OSLTF.

The NPFC has prepared standardized templates with instructions to facilitate final cost 

reporting (enclosed).