CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 9/9/2009 

Claim Number : 909106-001

Claimant : Environmental Safety and Health Services, Inc. 

Type of Claimant : Corporate 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $8,517.35 

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: The United States Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Morgan City Case 

# 402731,1reports that on May 8, 2008, at 1600, Cedyco Corporation discharged 

approximately 15-gallons of crude oil from one of their onshore facilities. The incident 

occurred due to a cason failure from corroded equipment. The crude oil discharged into 

Boston Bayou which is a tributary of the Gulf Intercoastal Waterway, a navigable 

waterway of the US. The discharge created a sheen of oil on the water’s surface.

The incident was reported to the National Response Center (NRC) on May 9, 2008 at 

approximately 12:33 pm EST via report # 870375 by Mr. of Cedyco 

Corporation, the potential responsible party (PRP). The report described the incident as a 

15-gallon discharge of crude oil from an oil well due to a broken pipe.2

 The Coast Guard 

case’s Incident Brief states that a cason failed as a result of corrosion. The Coast Guard 

case further stated that the source was being secured by depressurizing, plugging and 

abandoning the well. Cedyco Corporation stated to the United States Coast Guard 

(USCG) that they were going to plug and abandon the well to prevent a reoccurrence. 

On May 10, 2008, Marine Safety Unit Morgan City issued a Notice of Federal Interest 

(NOFI) to Mr of Cedyco Corporation. According to the claimant, 

ES&H’s Spill Report dated May 9, 2008; the incident was also reported to the State 

Police on May 9, 2008 and assigned Incident # 08-02676. Upon receipt of the claim, the 

National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC) Claims Manager sent an RP Notification letter 

to the potential responsible party, Cedyco Corporation on August 12, 2009 and to date no 

response has been received. 

2. Description of removal actions performed: The claimant, ES&H, arrived on site on May 

9, 2008. They followed Coast Guard members from Marine Safety Unit Morgan City to 

the spill location and they also called the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) 

who advised ES&H that they would arrive at the site the following day. The claimant 

had responders on site performing cleanup and containment from approximately 11:00 

am until 20:00 pm on May 9, 2008. Responders returned the following day, May 10, 

2008, and worked from approximately 06:00 am until 13:00 pm at which time active 

cleanup was completed and performed to the satisfaction of the USCG, DEQ, and Mr. 

 of Cedyco Corporation (PRP). Although disposal for the sorbent pads and 

6” absorbent boom was manifested, it was not charged to CEDYCO due to an oversight 

 

1

See, Marine Safety Unit Morgan City’s Coast Guard Case # 402731 opened 5/12/08

2

 See, NRC report # 870375 dated May 9, 2008 
on ES&H’s part, and is, therefore, not included in this claim.3

 The claimant was 

instructed to leave approximately 100 feet of containment boom at the site from May 11, 

2008 until approximately June 9, 2008 per Mr. request.4

 

3. The Claim: On July 21, 2009, Environmental Safety & Health Consulting Services, Inc. 

(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 $8,517.35 for 

the services provided from May 9, 2008 until June 9, 2008. This claim is for removal 

costs based on the rate schedule in place at the time services were provided. A copy of 

the vendor rate schedule is provided in the claim submission. 

This claim consists of copies of the invoicing and associated dailies, contracted rate 

schedule, NRC report, ES&H Spill Report, internal email correspondence, photographs 

as taken by the claimant, third party receipts, ES&H Supervisor’s written log, a copy of 

the USCG Case # 402731, and the Notice of Federal Interest (NOFI) as issued by the 

USCG. 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]. 

 

3

 See, Email dated September 9, 2009 from , NPFC 

4

 See, Email dated September 9, 2009 from , NPFC 
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 coordination has been established via USCG Case # 402731 along with email sent 

to Ms. , NPFC Claims Manager, from MST3 dated August 26, 

2009.5

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. 

4. The claim was submitted on time. 

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

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

received no response. 

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

claim and determined that 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. 

 

5

 See, Email dated August 26, 2009 from MST3 to Ms , NPFC 
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. 

The Claims Manager confirmed that response activities performed by the claimant were 

overseen by the USCG, DEQ, and the PRP representative, Mr. . The NPFC 

confirmed that Mr. signed the ES&H dailies during the active removal 

response between 5/9/08 and 5/10/08. 

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

$8,517.35 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# 909106-001. The claimant states that all costs claimed 

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

period of, May 9, 2008 through June 9, 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 $8,517.35 as full compensation for 

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

claim # 909106-001. 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: $8,517.35

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 9/10/09

Supervisor Action: Approved 

Supervisor’s Comments: