CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 12/4/2008 

Claim Number : N07072-001

Claimant : Environmental Safety and Health Consulting Services Inc 

Type of Claimant : OSRO 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $245,204.85

FACTS: 

 1. Incident #1: On 30 September 2007 at approximately 1830, MSU Baton Rouge 

received a report from the State Police of an unknown amount of black oil spilled in 

Bayou Sorrel in the vicinity of Bayou Sorrel Oil, LLC. The incident was reported to the 

National Response Center via report # 850423 on 1 October 2007. The MSU Pollution 

Investigation Team responded to the incident and discovered approximately 30 bbls of 

crude oil that had collected near the facility. The Pollution Investigation Team was 

unable to locate the responsible party during the initial response and assessment. The 

Coast Guard Federal On Scene Coordinator Rep (FOSCR) opened a Federal Project with 

the National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) and hired Oil Mop, LLC to conduct cleanup 

operations. Oil Mop, LLC deployed 500 feet of hard boom along the shore to contain the 

oil. The Coast Guard requested an overflight at first light from Air Station New Orleans 

in order to assess the extent of the damages. On 1 October 2007, the CG overflight found 

pockets of recoverable oil in multiple places in the vicinity of Bayou Sorrel. 

The CG conducted a meeting with personnel from Bayou Sorrel, LLC and Oil Mop, 

LLC. Bayou Sorrel, LLC requests to take over responsibility for the cleanup but does not 

officially take over responsibility for the spill. From 2 October 2007 through 15 October 

2007, MSU Baton Rouge monitored the cleanup operations conducted by Bayou Sorrel 

Oil, LLC and their contractor, Environmental Safety & Health (ES&H). ES&H made 

repairs to a crack in a transfer pipe near the spill area. Bayou Sorrel Oil, LLC pressure 

tested all systems and found that piping meets required test guidelines. Bayou Sorrel Oil, 

LLC will bring all wells back up to pressure, one well at a time in order to monitor each 

individually. The wells are estimated to take approximately two days each to come up to 

full pressure. 

The CG collected twenty-eight (28) samples for evidence and analysis by the Marine 

Safety Lab. Bayou Sorrel Oil, LLC has still not taken responsibility for the spill but has 

accepted financial responsibility for all cleanup operations. 

 Incident #2: On May 15, 2008, at approximately 1832, Bayou Sorrel Oil, LLC notified 

the National Response Center (NRC) via report # 871065 that a release of approximately 

1.5 barrels of crude oil was discharged into a navigable waterway as a result of the high 

level safety monitor associated with the facility sump system had failed allowing the 

sump to overflow. The release was contained by boom which was deployed prior to this 

incident. The Responsible Party, Bayou Sorrel Oil, LLC contacted their clean up 

contractor, ES&H, to mobilize to the incident location to handle response actions. ES&H 

had a 3 man crew respond to the incident location on the morning of May 16, 2008. All 

response work was completed by the close of business on May 16, 2008. 
 Incident #3: On July 4, 2008, at approximately 0948, Bayou Sorrel Oil, LLC notified 

the National Response Center (NRC) via report # 876233 that a release of approximately 

2 gallons of crude oil was discharged into a navigable waterway as a result of a well that 

was in the process of being taken out of service and had started bubbling and producing a 

sheen approximately 300 yards x 70 yards and the spill was described as being a very 

light silver in color. The Responsible Party, Bayou Sorrel Oil, LLC contacted their clean 

up contractor, ES&H, to mobilize to the incident location to handle response actions. 

 Incident #4: On July 8, 2008, at approximately 1437, the National Response Center 

(NRC) was notified via report # 876630 that a release of approximately 3 barrels of an 

unknown oil was discharged into navigable waters and suspected to be from an out of 

service flow line. Bayou Sorrel Oil, LLC notified their contractor, ES&H to respond to 

the incident. Bayou Sorrel Oil, LLC reported that a flow line associated with their #8 

well developed a leak allowing crude oil to release into the adjacent inundated floodplain. 

ES&H and representatives of the Coast Guard from MSU Baton Rouge responded on site 

and performed a visual assessment of the impacted area. The amount of spilled oil is 

estimated at approximately 3 barrels. 

2. Description of removal actions for incident #1: On 1 October 2007, Mr.

of ES&H Consulting & Training Group, was contacted by Bayou Sorrel Oil, LLC and 

requested to assist them with investigating a crude oil release that was noted by the 

USCG on 30 September 2007 and located in the Bayou Sorrel Oil & Gas Field in the 

vicinity of the Bayou Sorrel Oil, LLC field production facility. The claimant met with 

Bayou Sorrel Oil employees and five members of the USCG. Visual assessment of the 

areas impacted by the crude oil and produced water. Three 

engineering personnel arrived on site to evaluate the facility’s flow lines to see if any of 

the flow lines may have been the source of the crude release. After conducting the visual 

assessment, Bayou Sorrel Oil, LLC took a proactive measure in assuming the role of the 

responsible party for the crude oil release. ES&H was mobilized as the contractor for 

Bayou Sorrel Oil, LLC. Bayou Sorrel Oil, LLC personnel began to shut-in all wells 

associated with the facility. Fourteen ES&H personnel arrived on scene and began 

response actions on the impacted areas. 

Thirty contractor personnel continued active response between October 2, 2007 and 

October 6, 2007. At the conclusion of the response on October 6, 2007, active response 

was then moved into a passive maintenance phase. A 13 man response crew returned to 

the incident location to conduct passive maintenance on October 8, 2007. As f October 8, 

2007, the source of the release was still undetermined. 

Description of removal actions for incident #2: On May 16, 2008, ES&H mobilized a 

crew to perform response actions. The oil recovered via a drum skimmer was pumped 

back into the compressor sump. All contaminated absorbents were loaded into DOT 

drums for proper disposal.

Description of removal actions for incident #3: On July 4, 2008, ES&H mobilized a 2 

man crew to the incident location. Bayou Sorrel Oil, LLC personnel boomed the canal 

and surrounded the well with absorbent boom. Any wells in the area were shut-in and 

bled down to zero pressure. A work boat in the area was rerouted to the #8 well in order 

to pump cement down the well. ES&H responded to deploy containment boom for 

secondary precautions. The responsible party requested to rent 100’ of 10’ containment 

boom which was wrapped around the subject wellhead from ES&H therefore the boom 

rental lasted from 7/4/08 through 8/20/08. 
Description of removal actions for incident #4: On July 8, 2008, ES&H mobilized an 

initial 4 man crew to the incident location. A small ongoing leak was found and secured 

by July 11, 2008. The incident was then placed in a passive maintenance phase which 

consisted of the ongoing deployment of absorbent and containment boom to remove any 

residual oil. The crude oil was recovered via absorbent pads and nets. Additionally, 

vegetation was removed. All contaminated absorbents and vegetation were placed into 

pollution bags and loaded into roll off boxes for proper disposal. See claimant 

submission for photographs and the Incident Action Plan (IAP) generated for the 

incident.

3. The Claim: On November 18, 2008, ES&H submitted a removal cost claim to the 

National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), for reimbursement of their uncompensated 

removal costs in the amount of $245,204.85 for the services provided to Bayou Sorrel 

Oil, LLC on October 1, 2007; May 16, 2008; July 4, 2008; and July 8, 2008. This claim 

is for removal costs based on the contracted rate schedule in place with Bayou Sorrel Oil, 

LLC at the time services were provided to Bayou Sorrel Oil, LLC.

The invoices, which are the subject of this claim, were sent by the claimant to Bayou 

Sorrel Oil, LLC. The certified invoices were accepted and signed for.

This claim consists of proof of presentment, copies of the invoicing and associated 

dailies, disposal manifests, contracted rate schedule, NRC reports, and Incident Action 

Plan associated with the July 8, 2008 incident. The review of the actual cost invoicing 

and dailies focused on: (1) whether the actions taken were compensable “removal 

actions” under OPA and the claims regulations at 33 CFR 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 consistent with the NCP or 

directed by the FOSC, and (4) whether the costs were adequately documented. 

APPLICABLE LAW: 

Under OPA 90, at 33 USC § 2702(a), responsible parties are liable for removal costs and 

damages resulting from the discharge of oil into navigable waters and adjoining 

shorelines, as described in Section 2702(b) of OPA 90. A responsible party’s liability 

will include “removal costs incurred by any person for acts taken by the person which are 

consistent with the National Contingency Plan”. 33 USC § 2702(b)(1)(B).

"Oil" is defined in relevant part, at 33 USC § 2701(23), to mean “oil of any kind or in any 

form, including petroleum, fuel oil, sludge, oil refuse, and oil mixed with wastes other 

than dredged spoil”.

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 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]. 

DETERMINATION OF LOSS: 

A. Overview:

1. The FOSC has provided FOSC coordination. Sector New Orleans opened a Federal project 

for the incident dated September 30, 2007 for the October 1, 2007 response by the claimant. 

MISLE Case # 376719 was also opened for the May 2008 incident and see also Activity # 

3094158.

2. The incident involved the 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 although the Responsible Party 
associated with these oil pollution incidents has filed a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy that has now 

been converted to a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy. See Case # 08-51164 United States Bankruptcy 

Court for the Western District of Louisiana. 

4. The claim was submitted on time. 

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

claim and determined that the 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. 

B. Analysis: 

NPFC CA 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 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. 

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

$245,204.85 of uncompensated removal costs and that that 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# N07072-001. The claimant states that all costs claimed 

are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by the claimant for this incident for the time 

period of, October 1, 2007; May 16, 2008; July 4, 2008; and July 8, 2008. The claimant 

represents that all costs paid by the claimant are compensable removal costs, payable by the 

OSLTF as presented by the claimant. 

C. Determined Amount: 

The NPFC hereby determines that the OSLTF will pay $245,204.85 as full compensation for 

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

claim # N07072-001. 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 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. 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. 

AMOUNT: $245,204.85

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 

Supervisor Action: