2

 CLAIM DETERMINATION

Claim Number: E17607-0006 

Claimant: Tanner Services, LLC

Type of Claimant: Corporate 

Type of Claim: Removal Costs 

Claim Manager: 

Amount Requested: $1,980.00 

Action Taken: Offer in the amount of $1,980.00

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 Tanner Services, LLC (“Tanner” or “claimant”), as a subcontractor to 

provide materials for use during the response and cleanup. Tanner presented its uncompensated 

removal costs to the RP. Having not received payment from the RP after ninety days,2 Tanner, 

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

for $1,980.00.3 The NPFC has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the claim, 

analyzed the applicable law and regulations, and after careful consideration has determined that

the requested $1,980.00 is compensable and offers this amount as full and final compensation of 

this claim.

4

 

 

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 

as Tank #2, is associated with oil well Gay Union Corporation #37, serial number 75284 in the 

Bayou Choctaw Oil and Gas Field.5 The discharge volume was approximately 200-400 barrels. 

The discharge occurred five (5) months prior to the USEPA Federal On Scene Coordinator 

(FOSC) becoming aware of the spill and by January 2017, the incident had not been removed 

adequately. Approximately 10 acres of wetlands have been impacted by the oil spill and the 

primary known impact is to wildlife resources in and around the wetlands.6 LDEQ indicated that 

the spill occurred as early as August 2016, but went unreported to the National Response Center 

 

1 33 U.S.C. § 2701(32). 

2 33 CFR 136.103(c). 3 Tanner Services claim submission dated December 10, 2018. 4 33 CFR 136.115.

5 USEPA Metaire Energy PolRep #1dated February 02, 2017, section 1.1.2 “Site Description”. 6 USEPA Metaire Energy PolRep #1dated February 02, 2017, section 1.1.2.2 “Description of Threat”.

4

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

NPFC informed TannerServices, 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 its 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 Tanner presented its invoice to 

the RP for $1,980.0018 on June 6, 2018.19 The RP has not settled the claim.

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 January 18, 2019, the NPFC received a claim for uncompensated 

removal costs from Tanner dated December 10, 2018. The costs presented to the NPFC in the 

amount of $1,980.00 matched those submitted to the RP on June 6, 2018, and the claim included 

Tanner’s delivery and supply costs totaling $1,980.00. The total amount claimed is $1,980.00.

21

IV. DETERMINATION PROCESS:

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

Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF).

22 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.23 The NPFC may rely upon, is not bound by the findings of fact, opinions, 

or conclusions reached by other entities.

24 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.

 14 Tanner Services, LLC notification letter dated March 13, 2018. 15 Id. 16 33 U.S.C. § 2701 et seq. 17 33 CFR 136.103. 18 Tanner letter dated June 5, 2018. 19 Tanner claim submission dated December 10, 2018.. 20 33 CFR 136.103. 21 Tanner claim submission dated December 10, 2018 for Tanner Invoice # E19908A dated March 21, 2017. 22 33 CFR Part 136. 23 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). 24 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).
5

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.25 A 

responsible party’s liability is strict, joint, and several.26 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.”27 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.”28 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.”29

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

with the National Contingency Plan.

30 The NPFC has promulgated a comprehensive set of 

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

claims.

31 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.

32 

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.33

 25 33 U.S.C. § 2702(a). 26 See, H.R. Rep. No. 101-653, at 102 (1990), reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 779, 780. 27 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.). 28 33 U.S.C. § 2701(31). 29 33 U.S.C. § 2701(30). 30 See generally, 33 U.S.C. § 2712 (a)(4); 33 U.S.C. § 2713; and 33 CFR Part 136. 31 33 CFR Part 136. 32 33 CFR 136.105. 33 33 CFR 136.203; 33 CFR 136.205. 
6

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

Tanner Services, LLC and submitted herein are compensable removal costs based on the 

supporting documentation provided when combined with the corroborating facts documented in 

A & M Associates’s NPFC claim # E17607-0003 that substantiates the need for sand 

replacement following the removal of above ground storage tanks and petroleum contaminated 

soils.

34 The NPFC has determined that the costs invoiced 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. 

VI. CONCLUSION:

Based on a comprehensive review of the record, the applicable law and regulations, and for 

the reasons outlined above, Tanner’s request for uncompensated removal costs in the amount of 

$1,980.00 is approved. 

Because this determination is a settlement offer35, the claimant has 60 days in which to 

accept; the failure to do so automatically voids the offer.36 The NPFC reserves the right to 

revoke a settlement offer at any time prior to acceptance.37 Moreover, this settlement offer is 

based upon the unique facts giving rise to this claim and is not precedential. 

 

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 2/13/19 

Supervisor Action: Approved

 

34 USEPA Polrep #3 dated July 11, 2017. 35 Payment in full, or acceptance by the claimant of an offer of settlement by the Fund, is final and conclusive for all 

purposes and, upon payment, constitutes a release of the Fund for the claim. In addition, acceptance of any 

compensation from the Fund precludes the claimant from filing any subsequent action against any person to recover 

costs or damages which are the subject of the compensated claim. Acceptance of any compensation also constitutes 

an agreement by the claimant to assign to the Fund any rights, claims, and causes of action the claimant has against 

any person for the costs and damages which are the subject of the compensated claims and to cooperate reasonably 

with the Fund in any claim or action by the Fund against any person to recover the amounts paid by the Fund. The 

cooperation shall include, but is not limited to, immediately reimbursing the Fund for any compensation received 

from any other source for the same costs and damages and providing any documentation, evidence, testimony, and 

other support, as may be necessary for the Fund to recover from any person. 33 CFR §136.115(a). 36 33 CFR §136.115(b). 37 Id.