CLAIM SUMMARY / DETERMINATION FORM 

Date : 11/17/2009 

Claim Number : 910031-01 

Claimant : Oil Mop, LLC 

Type of Claimant : Corporate 

Type of Claim : Removal Costs 

Claim Manager : 

Amount Requested : $13.105.58 

FACTS: 

1. Oil Spill Incident: The United States Coast Guard Sector New Orleans Case # 402731,1

reports that on September 29, 2008, Barataria Production Services (Barataria) discharged 

approximately 5 gallons of crude oil from a sump on an anchored barge, creating a visible 

sheen. The discharged oil entered Bayou Perot, a navigable waterway of the US. 

The incident was reported to the National Response Center (NRC) on September 29, 

2008 at approximately 12:33 pm EST via report # 885685 by Mr. of 

Barataria, the responsible party (RP).2

 The report described the incident as a 5-gallon 

discharge of crude oil from a sump on an anchored barge due to Hurricane Ike.3

 Mr. 

 contacted Oil Mop, LLC (OMI) for the cleanup and removal of the oil. 

The USCG Sector New Orleans did issue a Notice of Federal Interest to Mr. 

confirming that Barataria was the RP.4 OMI did try and retrieve costs from the RP before 

submitting their claim; however, Barataria informed OMI that they could not pay the 

invoices for the spill cleanup. Barataria is currently in litigation regarding well 

operations they shut down due to the non-payment of their well partners.5

Description of removal actions performed: On September 30, 2008, the OMI response 

team of one foreman and three workers arrived with both a response boat and response 

truck.6

They began cleanup operations by placing 200 feet of hard boom around the 

barge. They then cleaned the oil off of the water, placing absorbent pads around the 

cracked fitting. The USCG had ordered OMI to keep the hard boom in the water until the 

tank fitting was fixed7

3. The Claim: On October 22, 2009, Oil Mop, LLC submitted a removal cost claim to the 

National Pollution Funds Center (NPFC), for reimbursement of removal costs in the 

amount of $13.105.58 for the services provided September 29 and 30, 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. 

 

1

See, Sector New Orleans’s Coast Guard Case # 427573 opened 9/30/08

2

 See, NRC report # 885685 dated September 29, 2008 

3

 See, NRC report # 885685 dated September 29, 2008 

4

 See, email from MST2 , NPFC, dated 11/13/2009 

5

 See, conversation notes written by Mr. of OMI, submitted with the claim on October 22,2009. 

6

 See, email from MST2 , dated 11/05/2009 

7

See, OMI Supervisor’s log, submitted with the claim on 10/22/2009 
This claim consists of copies of the invoicing and associated dailies, a copy of MISLE 

Case # 427573, a copy of NRC Report # 885685, a copy of OMI Daily Supervisor’s Log, 

a copy of OMI Response Information Sheet, copies of the Disposal of Non-Hazardous 

Waste Manifests, photographs and internal email correspondence. 

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 coordination has been established via Sector New Orleans’s Case Report # 

427573.8

2. The incident involved the report of a 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. 

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 the claimant did in fact perform a site assessment with 

USCG Sector New Orleans on September 30, 2008. The Claims Manager validated the costs 

 

8

See, See, Sector New Orleans’s Coast Guard Case # 427573 opened 9/30/08 and email from MST2 

to Ms. , NPFC, dated 11/05/2009 
incurred and determined they were reasonable and necessary and performed in accordance 

with the National Contingency Plan (NCP). 

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

$13.105.58 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 #910031-01. The claimant states that all costs claimed 

are for uncompensated removal costs incurred by the claimant for this incident on September 

29 and 30, 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 $13.105.58 as full compensation for 

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

claim 910031-01. 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: $13.105.58

Claim Supervisor: 

Date of Supervisor’s review: 

Supervisor Action: 

Supervisor’s Comments: