CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 12/09/2009 

Claim Number : N08057-010

Claimant : Oil Mop, LLC 

Type of Claimant : OSRO 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $875,822.91 

I. Facts

On the morning of July 23, 2008, the tank barge DM 932 sank as a result of a collision and 

discharged oil into the Mississippi River, a navigable waterway of the United States. 

II. Responsible Party

American Commercial Lines LLC (ACL) owned the barge at the time of the incident and is a 

responsible party (RP) under the Oil Pollution Act (OPA). 

III. The Claimant and the Claim

As a result of the incident, Oil Mop, LLC (Oil Mop or OMI) provided response services under 

contract with ACL.1

 On February 23, 2009, OMI submitted a removal cost claim to the National 

Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) for reimbursement of their response services in the original 

amount of $875,822.91 for various dates during the time period of August 18, 2008 through 

August 30, 20082

.

The NPFC sent the Responsible Party (RP) notification letter, dated March 4, 2009 to Ms. 

, ACL – General Counsel and Mr of Nicoletti, Horning & Sweeney, 

ACL – External Counsel.3

 The invoices which are the subject of this claim were presented to the 

responsible party for payment on or about August 28, 2008 and September 20, 2008, 

respectively.4

 ACL has made payments to OMI in the amount of $2,241,977.98 dated September 

9, 2008 and $1,261,313.69 dated October 3, 2008.5

 ACL has acknowledged receipt of the two 

invoices that are subject of this claim by way of ACL’s audit. (See Enclosure (2) – ACL audit). 

OMI has confirmed to the NPFC that all subcontractors have been paid for the services provided 

which are inclusive in OMI’s invoices # N0808-187 and N0809-039.

IV. The Audits

The Claimant provided response resources and services under its contract with ACL during this 

incident. The services provided by the Claimant were acknowledged by ACL as designated 

Zone Managers, who acted as the Qualified Individual(s) (QI) representatives for ACL in various 

zones on given dates. Specifically, the Claimant submitted daily sheets to the respective Zone 

 

1

 See OMI Master Service Agreement dated July 23, 2002. 

2

 See Optional OSLTF Claim Form, signed by Mr. , Accounting Manager for OMI on 2/23/09. 

3

See, NPFC letter to ACL, dated March 4, 2009. 

4

See, Enclosure (1) “Status of OMI Invoice Payments and Disputed Amounts” for OMI Invoices N0808-187, 

 August 28, 2008 and Invoice N0809-036, September 20, 2008. 

5

See, supra note 4 
Manager(s) which listed the labor and materials/equipment provided by the Claimant for each 

day of the response in a specific zone location. The Zone Manager(s) approved the 

materials/equipment and labor identified on each daily by signing the document. Beneath each 

signature, the Zone Manager made the notation “subject to audit.”

During this incident, a process was established between ACL and OMI for paying Oil Mop’s 

invoices. Initially, Oil Mop submitted its invoices to ACL and in accordance with the Master 

Service Agreement (MSA) that was in place between Oil Mop and ACL.6 The MSA stated that 

all invoices are due fifteen (15) days from the date of the invoice, and in the event ACL disputes 

one or more items in an invoice, ACL shall, within ten (10) days of receipt of such invoice, 

notify Oil Mop in writing of the item or items under dispute and the reasons. The MSA stated 

that undisputed amounts will be paid within fifteen (15) days of ACL’s receipt. (Emphasis 

added).

Having reviewed the invoices, the NPFC found that this process was not followed in accordance 

with the written agreement. We determined that ACL and its auditors made initial payments on 

some invoices, denied amounts on some invoices, failed to provide in some instances, any 

detailed audit information to OMI for denied costs and also approved payment amounts on some 

invoices, which to date, have still not been paid to Oil Mop by ACL as agreed to in the MSA.7 It 

is important to note that the NPFC received this summary sheet when the auditor for ACL 

responded to the NPFC’s RP notification letter(s) by way of submitting their audit results and 

accompanying documentation.

For the audit, the NPFC found that ACL auditors focused on whether the paperwork was 

complete as determined by their standards, whether the costs were properly supported in 

accordance with their standards, and whether the costs were operationally reasonable and 

necessary according to their standards. During the response, ACL held negotiation discussions 

with the response contractors including the Claimant OMI and requested special pricing 

reductions in exchange for a prompt payment. OMI initially agreed to certain price reductions in 

exchange for prompt payment that ACL did not honor which resulted in the Claimant presenting 

its claim to the NPFC. As a result of ACL not paying and/or resolving non-payment issues 

promptly, OMI revised its billing so that it was in accordance with the original MSA pricing 

schedule between OMI and ACL. All invoices reflecting the original pricing schedule were 

presented to ACL as required by 33 CFR § 136.103 and 33 USC § 2713(a).

During the audit of OMI’s invoices, ACL denied OMI’s costs with little or no explanation, 

reason, or standard in support of the denied costs. The NPFC requested clarification of certain 

denial categories to understand the rationale used by ACL auditors, but ACL did not respond.

V. Applicable Law 

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 (NCP) 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 such an incident.” 33 USC § 2701(31).

 

6

See, supra note 1.

7

See, supra note 4.
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 Part 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 [Federal On-Scene Coordinator] 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. Overview:

1. The FOSC coordination has been established under the Federal Project by way of Incident 

Action Plans (IAP) and United States Coast Guard (USCG) Pollution Reports.

2. The incident involved the discharge and continuing substantial threat of discharge of “oil” as 

defined in OPA 90, 33 U.S.C. § 2701(23), 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 uncompensated removal costs.

4. The claim was submitted on time.

5. Presentment of costs to the RP was made by the Claimant OMI, prior to the submission of 

the claim. The NPFC also made presentment of costs to the RP and the RP has provided a 

complete copy of their Audit of some of the response costs presented.

6. The NPFC Claims Manager has thoroughly reviewed all documentation submitted with the 

claim and determined that the majority of all removal costs presented were for actions in 

accordance with the NCP and that the costs for these actions were indeed reasonable and 

allowable under OPA and 33 CFR § 136.205 with the exception of denied costs itemized in 

the attached Summary of Vendors spreadsheet.8.

B. Analysis:

The NPFC 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 Part 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.

 

8

See, Enclosure (2) – ACL audit which incorporates NPFC audit.

associated with some of the costs requested in this claim. The itemized breakdown of denied 

costs which is addressed in the attached ACL audit is identified as Enclosure (2). 

The NPFC incorporated columns within the ACL audit so that a line-by-line comparison and 

determination could be made and easily identified. The overall denial summary from 

Column 2 is as follows: 

OMI Invoice # N0808-187 – 8/18/08 – denied amount of $6,008.00

OMI Invoice # N0808-187 – 8/19/08 – denied amount of $8,941.25

OMI Invoice # N0808-187 – 8/20/08 – denied amount of $8,587.50

OMI Invoice # N0808-187 – 8/21/08 – denied amount of $9,975.00

OMI Invoice # N0808-187 – 8/22/08 – denied amount of $7,676.44

OMI Invoice # N0808-187 – 8/23/08 – denied amount of $600.00

OMI Invoice # N0808-187 – 8/24/08 – denied amount of $1,050.63

Unidentified charge $1,854.37

Total amount: $44,693.19

OMI Invoice # N0809-039 –8/25/08 – denied amount of $1,210.00

OMI Invoice # N0809-039 –8/26/08 – denied amount of $816.00

OMI Invoice # N0809-039 –8/27/08 – denied amount of $684.00

OMI Invoice # N0809-039 –8/28/08 – denied amount of $0.00

OMI Invoice # N0809-039 –8/29/08 – denied amount of $0.00

OMI Invoice # N0809-039 –8/30/08 – denied amount of $0.00

ACL discrepancies – denied amount of $379.97

Total amount: $3,089.97

Accordingly, the Claimant OMI’s sum certain of $ 875,822.91 minus the total amount the 

NPFC denied (Column 2 - $47,783.16) equals the total uncompensated removal costs 

(Column 1 $828,039.75) which is due to the Claimant OMI. 

On this basis, the Claims Manager hereby determines that the Claimant did in fact incur 

$828,039.75 of uncompensated removal costs and that this amount is properly payable by the 

OSLTF as full compensation for the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant 

and submitted to the NPFC under claim# N08057-010.

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $828,039.75 as full compensation for 

the reimbursable removal costs incurred by the Claimant and submitted to the NPFC under 

claim # N08057-010. 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: 2/25/10

Supervisor Action: Approved