costs that are determined to be consistent with the National Contingency Plan and 

uncompensated damages. 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”.

Under 33 USC §2713(b)(2) and 33 CFR 136.103(d) no claim against the OSLTF may be 

approved or certified for payment during the pendency of an action by the claimant in 

court to recover the same costs that are the subject of the claim. See also, 33 USC 

§2713(c) and 33 CFR 136.103(c)(2) [claimant election]. 

33 U.S.C. §2713(d) provides that “If a claim is presented in accordance with this section, 

including a claim for interim, short-term damages representing less than the full amount 

of damages to which the claimant ultimately may be entitled, and full and adequate 

compensation is unavailable, a claim for the uncompensated damages and removal costs 

may be presented to the Fund.” 

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;

(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]. 

V. DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

A. Causation:

The Barge DM 932 oil spill did in fact release significant amounts of oil into and causing 

damage and injury to the Mississippi River, a natural resource of the United States. The

USCG provided POLREPS to substantiate this fact.
B. Analysis: 

 claim for its client, Mr. ., is very problematic. First, was 

asked for supporting documents by the NPFC to specify for what this claim sought 

compensation.2 The law office did not provide this very simple answer. The claim form lists, 

“Fear and Fright,” “Exposure to toxic substances,” but did not confirm that the claim was for 

Personal/Bodily injury, which are not costs/damages covered under OPA. 

Also, did not follow OPA requirements to first submit the claim to the named 

Responsible Party, giving it 90 days to settle the claim before coming into the NPFC for 

uncompensated damages. The claims manager provided a link to the NPFC website 

that contained the OPA regulations and general claims requirements. Adding to this, 

was asked to provide a written statement from the claimant (either in an affidavit or in a written 

letter) that it had a right to represent Mr. in the first place.3

 

Lastly, was asked to provide proof by its client from where the claim of “$10,000.00” 

came. submitted no documentation either with the claim or when requested.4 The 

“Optional OSLTF Claim Form” submitted by simply states that all documentation is 

“to be supplemented.”5 This did not happen, even after was given an extension of 10 

days to provide documentation.6

 

Since the claimant has not proven, based on the preponderance of the evidence, that he suffered 

any damage or uncompensated costs, this claim has been denied. 

C. Determination: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $0.00 as full compensation for the 

claimed removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under claim 

VI. DETERMINED AMOUNT: $0.00

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 

Supervisor Action: 

Supervisor’s Comments: 

 

2

See email from Ms. , NPFC, to Mr. dated 8/03/2010

3

See email from Ms , NPFC, to Mr. . dated 8/03/2010

4

 See email from Ms. , NPFC, to Mr . dated 8/03/2010

5

 See claim submission, dated 7/30/2010 

6

See email from Ms. , NPFC, to Mr. . dated 8/18/2010